Gender from Latin to Romance: history, geography, typology 0199656541, 9780199656547

Citation preview

Gender from Latin to Romance

Ox f or d St u d i e s i n D iac h ro n ic a n d H i st or ic a l L i n g u i s t ic s general editors: Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge advisory editors: Cynthia Allen, Australian National University; Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, University of Manchester; Theresa Biberauer, University of Cambridge; Charlotte Galves, University of Campinas; Geoff Horrocks, University of Cambridge; Paul Kiparsky, Stanford University; Anthony Kroch, University of Pennsylvania; David Lightfoot, Georgetown University; Giuseppe Longobardi, University of York; George Walkden, University of Konstanz; David Willis, University of Cambridge recently published in the series 20 Grammaticalization and the Rise of Configurationality in Indo-Aryan Uta Reinöhl 21 The Rise and Fall of Ergativity in Aramaic Cycles of Alignment Change Eleanor Coghill 22 Portuguese Relative Clauses in Synchrony and Diachrony Adriana Cardoso 23 Micro-change and Macro-change in Diachronic Syntax Edited by Eric Mathieu and Robert Truswell 24 The Development of Latin Clause Structure A Study of the Extended Verb Phrase Lieven Danckaert 25 Transitive Nouns and Adjectives Evidence from Early Indo-Aryan John. J. Lowe 26 Quantitative Historical Linguistics A Corpus Framework Gard B. Jenset and Barbara McGillivray 27 Gender from Latin to Romance History, Geography, Typology Michele Loporcaro For a complete list of titles published and in preparation for the series, see pp. 387–90

Gender from Latin to Romance History, Geography, Typology

M ic h e l e L oporc a ro

1

3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, ox2 6dp, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Michele Loporcaro 2018 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2018 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2017939061 ISBN 978–0–19–965654–7 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, cr0 4yy Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

per Laura e Lorenzo (anche se lui non lo sa più), e per Chiara, volata via mentre finivo di scrivere

Series preface Modern diachronic linguistics has important contacts with other subdisciplines, notably first-language acquisition, learnability theory, computational linguistics, sociolinguistics and the traditional philological study of texts. It is now recognized in the wider field that diachronic linguistics can make a novel contribution to linguistic theory, to historical linguistics and arguably to cognitive science more widely. This series provides a forum for work in both diachronic and historical linguistics, including work on change in grammar, sound, and meaning within and across languages; synchronic studies of languages in the past; and descriptive histories of one or more languages. It is intended to reflect and encourage the links between these subjects and fields such as those mentioned above. The goal of the series is to publish high-quality monographs and collections of papers in diachronic linguistics generally, i.e. studies focusing on change in linguistic structure, and/or change in grammars, which are also intended to make a contribution to linguistic theory, by developing and adopting a current theoretical model, by raising wider questions concerning the nature of language change or by developing theoretical connections with other areas of linguistics and cognitive science as listed above. There is no bias towards a particular language or language family, or towards a particular theoretical framework; work in all theoretical frameworks, and work based on the descriptive tradition of language typology, as well as quantitatively based work using theoretical ideas, also feature in the series. University of Cambridge

Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts

Preface This monograph illustrates how grammatical gender developed out of Latin, giving rise to a host of grammatical systems in the Romance languages and dialects, diverging remarkably across time and space. As the readers close the book, they will hopefully have been persuaded by some of the analyses presented in its pages. Yet, more open questions than certainties will probably stay with them, which is due to the fact that, in spite of the Latin-Romance continuum being a much investigated domain—with few, if any, parallels among the languages of the world—our knowledge of many important pieces of the puzzle is still fragmentary. Even if not providing all the answers, this book is meant to at least contribute to focusing on the right questions in this area. The answers and questions addressed in this book will concern, as the title announces, grammatical gender in Romance and its development over time. This dictates the main angle of approach to the data to be considered in what follows, viz. the diachronic perspective. I shall put forward a reconstruction of how the gender systems of the Romance languages and dialects came to look as they do nowadays. This will be a unitary account, within which all language-specific developments will find their place, thus departing from what is often found in the literature, which usually treats each system in isolation. Take Romanian, the only modern standard Romance language for which a three-gender analysis is currently proposed, assuming a contrast between masculine, feminine, and neuter. Now, some have claimed that the Romanian neuter is not a successor of the Latin neuter, but rather a Romance innovation, possibly under the influence of Slavic and/or Albanian. Similar claims to discontinuity with respect to the Latin neuter have been put forward for the neuter gender which appears in several descriptions of other Romance varieties (e.g. Sursilvan, and several central-southern Italo-Romance dialects). Of course, similar diachronic ups and downs—reduction of a three-way gender system to a binary one at stage tn, and the reintroduction of a third gender value at time tn+1—are possible in principle, just as it is too that language contact may shape change, in this province of grammar as elsewhere. However, in this specific case, I will argue that Romance comparison provides decisive evidence against this view: both the Romanian neuter and the—quite distinct—gender value that is termed ‘neuter’ in the other Romance varieties just mentioned, are explained most economically as outcomes of the Latin neuter. This answers the basic question to be asked in a book about the development of gender from Latin to Romance, that is, ‘What happened to the Latin neuter?’. The issue is not nominalistic: thus, the so called ‘Asturian neuter’, while inheriting—as elsewhere in Romance— part of its agreement targets from Latin, will turn out to be a full innovation qua inherent specification of noun lexemes. The subtitle of the book—‘history, geography, typology’—links the historical dimension with synchronic variation across space and across conceivable structural options. As already hinted at, the comparative perspective will be instrumental in shaping the

xiv Preface account of the diachrony of Romance gender to be developed here. Yet fine-grained comparison, as the book proceeds, will emerge as an interesting goal per se: the structural diversity which Romance variation holds in store in this field will prove to have been grossly underestimated so far. Thus, one additional purpose of this book is to present the reader not specializing in Romance with, at least, the most striking of Romance gender systems, which turn out to occur in lesser known local dialects: variation on the geographical dimension, then, will be given crucial attention in what follows. Much of the typologically interesting data from Romance dialects are from firsthand fieldwork on Italo-Romance (this is the case whenever dialect data are unreferenced). While there is an abundant body of literature on the relevant structural aspects of these varieties, this literature, known to dialectologists, is underexploited in linguistic-typological studies of gender, and, on the other hand—as will become apparent in what follows—it barely answers all the questions asked by current ­typological research on gender: this opens up a space for further research but with an urgent timing issue. The locus of most of the structural richness analysed in this book is the heavily endangered languages which we call ‘Romance dialects’. Thus, the book also implicitly reads as a manifesto on the loss of valuable sources (not only, quite trivially, for synchronic language typologizing but also for diachronic reconstruction) determined by language endangerment and death. In sum, even if the book primarily targets Romance scholars, its focus on structural diversity and ‘exotic’ gender systems at the heart of Europe is meant to appeal to language typologists. It should be of interest to them to come across typological rarissima such as systems where nouns are at once not only controllers but also targets of gender/number agreement, acquiring contextual gender marking via agreement with the clause subject. An additional interest might be the only case described so far, in Romance and throughout Europe, of a language with two concurrent gender systems—a phenomenon previously only described for sparse languages of the Americas, Australia, or Papua New Guinea. This book will also discuss the first instance known—to me, at least—of a language where overt gender may depend on syntactic context. At the same time, the diachronic account of changes in the gender system— addressing issues such as the rise of typological rara of the kind just mentioned, the loss or increase of gender values over time, the role of ‘inquorate’ genders in transitional stages, and the impact of language contact on change in the gender systems (especially concerning the issue of whether this necessarily must lead to simplification)—is meant to interest not only specialists in Romance, but everyone specializing in historical linguistics and language change. As for synchronic analysis, the book assumes the treatment of grammatical gender that G. G. Corbett has established as a standard over the past three decades: while its focus is not theoretical, the theory of Canonical Typology becomes crucial when it comes to diagnosing the existence of concurrent gender systems. The structure of the monograph is outlined in the final section of Chapter 1. Let me add some practical remarks. Cross-references point by default to numbered examples or footnotes within the same chapter, unless another chapter/section is specified. Linguistic data are provided in traditional orthography for standard languages, while

Preface

xv

IPA transcriptions—somewhat simplified, given that the focus is not on the phonetics—are provided for (non-standardized) Romance dialect data gathered through fieldwork.1 Again, given the non-phonetic focus of the book, dialect data quoted from other sources (except for AIS and ALI ) are not adapted to IPA. Latin forms are reported following different conventions, depending on whether they are cited per se or as the diachronic source to their Romance descendants: in the latter case, they are given in small capitals as customary in Romance linguistics, for nouns and adjectives in the accusative form (e.g. villam, bonum), which ultimately became generalized (with the exception of oblique functions in Romanian); if considered per se, rather than from a Romance angle, Latin words, phrases, and sentences are reported in italics (e.g. uillam), or in italicized small capitals when stemming from inscriptions (e.g. sorores). In glossing, Leipzig-style abbreviations are applied in numbered examples. While glossing single expressions within the main text flow, I take some liberties to avoid redundancy: for instance, I occasionally conflate literal and semantic glosses, as in l-a virtù ‘the-f.sg virtue’ (instead of def-f.sg virtue(f) followed by the translation ‘the virtue’). My gratitude goes to a number of persons and institutions. First and foremost, Grev Corbett, without whose work on gender this book would not stand as it is today, and Vittorio Formentin, whose study of Old Neapolitan persuaded me, years ago, that the whole story was worth retelling. Many other friends and colleagues exchanged views and assisted me with comments and suggestions on many aspects of the present research: Álvaro Arias, Valentina Bambini, Marcello Barbato, Pier Marco Bertinetto, Cristina Bleorţu, Walter Breu, Ana M. Cano González, Chiara Cappellaro, Rosaria Carosella, Claudio Ciociola, Ramón de Andrés, Alessandro De  Angelis, Hans-Olav Enger, Vincenzo Faraoni, Sebastian Fedden, Inés Fernández-Ordóñez, Jürg Fleischer, Xosé Lluis García Arias, Francesco Gardani, Marco Maggiore, Martin Maiden, Giovanni Manzari, Tania Paciaroni, Diego Pescarini, Orla Ralph, Davide Ricca, Giuseppina Silvestri, Fredy Suter, Anna Thornton, Lorenzo Tomasin, Fiorenzo Toso, Carlotta Viti, and Egbert Wilms. In no way, of course, may they be held responsible for any views upheld here (although with some of them I have co-published on the topic), a disclaimer which also holds for three anonymous OUP reviewers who took time to analyse the project, providing constructive criticism. To the editors of the Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden, I owe gratitude for discussing with me the chapter on gender I was invited to contribute to that work: its 8,000 words were a crucial step along the path which led this research up to a book-length result. Alberto Giudici and Luca Pesini helped me with the preparation of the manuscript, the maps, and the indexes. The OUP linguistics editors Julia Steer and Vicki Sunter, as well as the whole OUP staff, must be credited for their competent support and patience. At OUP, John Davey was first to believe in the project, and it is sad to know he will not see it finished. ´) only on non-paroxytonic words, geminates are noted [CC] instead of [Cː], and 1  Stress is marked (as V palatal consonants are transcribed [š ž č ǧ] instead of [ʃ ʒ tʃ dʒ].

xvi Preface I also gratefully acknowledge the feedback received, over recent years, from the audiences to whom I had the opportunity to present parts of this research:2 guest professorships at the Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa (2010, 2014, 2017),3 the University of Oviedo (2017), and the Summer School of the Società Italiana di Glottologia (Lignano/Udine, 2014) helped to advance the project, as did being invited to speak at the 33rd annual conference of the Società Italiana di Glottologia (Palermo, 2008), at the workshop ‘Agreement from a diachronic perspective’ (Marburg, 2012), and at CIDSM X (Leiden, 2015). Presenting the project at the Fellow colloquium at the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin (2014) confronted me with the hard challenge of packaging the subject matter so that it could be of interest for non-linguists, in an interdisciplinary context. The class lectures on gender I gave in the autumn terms 2010 and 2014 at my university gave me a further opportunity to fine-tune the presentation of this intricate topic, also to the benefit of neophytes in the field. From the audiences of those class lectures came some of the students who cooperated, over the years, in the enterprise and enriched the corpus of our knowledge on Romance grammatical gender by writing seminar papers or MA theses on the topic: Federica Breimaier, Maria Caligiuri, Miriam Dettli, Miriam Di Carlo, Sylvina Kämpf, Monica Marotta, Graziella Nolè, Anna Pace, Dafne Pedrazzoli, Adriano Rezzonico, Mario Wild. Thanks are also due to Dumitru Kihai, Ramón de Andrés, Daniela Duca, Maria Ana Gassman, Adilia Gomes, Brinduşa Hantar, Itzíar López Guil, Gabriela Varia, and many other friends and colleagues who shared with me their native intuitions on their respect­ ive languages. A number of other friends did the same for lesser-known non-standard dialects (and in many of the places listed, many more helped me with their expertise, whom I cannot mention individually here): Domenico Meo, Ester Cavarozzi, Stefania Appugliese (Agnone), Lucia Loporcaro, Lillina Ventricelli, Vincenzo Ventricelli (Altamura), Rina Depperu (Calangianus), Luigi Seralessandri, Pierino Santini (Canepina), Antea Mattei (Comano), Floriana Carrino (Frosolone), Francesco and Angela Leone (Gravina di Puglia), Silvano and Kristina Karlović (Jesenovik), Toni Vinzens (Laax), †Piero Depperu (Luras), Pierangelo Carlucci (Miglionico), Antonio Palumbo (Mola di Bari), Arno Lamprecht and Giancarlo Conrad (Müstair), Tonino Romano (Paràbita), Lina Manattini and Saverio Piacentini (Piandelagotti), Silvano Poeta (Poggio San Romualdo), Tommaso De Russis (Polignano a Mare), Luigino Cardarelli and Alfredo Rossi (Ripatransone), Giacomo Orlandi (Roiate), Biagio Mele 2  These opportunities include presentations at a number of conferences and/or colloquia: the triennial conferences of the Société de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes (Innsbruck, 2007; València, 2010; Nancy, 2013; Rome, 2016), two editions of the Cambridge Italian Dialect Syntax Meetings (Pescara, 2008; Cambridge, 2013; Leiden, 2015), the 19th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (Nijmegen, 2009), the 28th Xornaes Internacionales D’Estudiu dell’Academia de la Llingua Asturiana (Oviedo, 2009), the 3rd Transalpine Typology Meeting (Zurich, 2013), the 13th conference of the Società Internazionale di Linguistica e Filologia Italiana (Palermo, 2014), the workshops ‘Non-Standard Average European’ (Freiburg in Breisgau, 2012), ‘Mass and count in Romance and Germanic languages’ (Zurich, 2013), ‘Lingue delle isole, isole linguistiche’ (Corte, 2014), as well as talks given at the Universities of Chieti and Roma La Sapienza (2010), the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin (2014), the Max-Planck-Institut für evolutionäre Anthropologie in Leipzig (2014), the Scuola Superiore di Studi Avanzati Sapienza (Rome, 2014). 3  While giving those classes, I received feedback from many younger colleagues: among them, Francesco Giancane, Laura Ingallinella, Stanislao Zompì, and Emanuele Saiu, whom I thank.

Preface

xvii

(San Giovanni in Fiore), Angelo Magliona and Tonino Rubattu (Sènnori), Lucia Di Iorio (Spinete), Boris Bako and Pep Glavina (Šušnjevica), Antonio Venezia (Tolve), Carli Tomaschett (Trun), Giuseppe Petroselli (Viterbo), Lučjano and Julijana Turković (Žejane), Anna Staschia Bott (Zuoz). Beyond Romance, thanks are due to Hari Sridhar (Tamil) and Fely Glorioso (Tagalog). The Stiftung for Wissenschaftliche Forschung of the University of Zurich funded the neurolinguistic research whose preliminary results are reported in Chapter 7, run at the lab of the Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. The Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Zurich partly funded fieldwork in northern Sardinia (2003, 2016), Emilia (2008), central-northern Corsica (2012), Puglia (2015), and Molise (2007, 2013), during which I collected data on grammatical gender that is utilized in what follows. Focusing on variation in gender assignment and gender agreement marking in the Romance-speaking areas, this book contributes to research in the framework of the UZH Research Priority Programme ‘Language and Space’, which, in cooperation with the project ‘Linguistic morphology in Time and Space’ (LiMiTS, Swiss National Science Foundation CRSII1_160739/1) funded fieldwork on Istro-Romanian (2017). It is also part of the research output of—and benefited from fieldwork funding from—the project ‘The Zurich Database of Agreement in Italo-Romance’ (Swiss National Science Foundation 100012-156530). Thanks are due, last but not least, to the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, which freely granted me a fellowship during the academic year 2013–14, and hosted me in a stimulating and thought-inspiring setting, where the book began to take shape, far away from everyday administrative commitments. The amazingly efficient Library services at WiKo were instrumental in providing food for thought, not only about Romance languages (for which I have been able to use, over the past two decades, the worldwide unrivalled libraries at the UZH, still excellent today in spite of the authorities who strive to dismantle them) but also on, say, Tamil or Wolof, which helped me to explore the Latin/Romance data from a new perspective. Berlin, January 2017

List of maps Map 1 Romance gender systems

60

Map 2 Binary (m/f) convergent gender systems

61

Map 3 The area of the mass neuter and the Neapolitan-type four-gender system in central-southern Italy

156

Map 4 Marking of the neuter (n) vs masculine (m) contrast on the indefinite article

159

Map 5 The subdivision of Asturian (after García Arias 2003b: 499)

194

Map 6 Different ways of marking the m (masculine) vs n (mass neuter) contrast

244

Map 7 More than binary gender systems in central-southern Italy

278

Map 8 Istro-Romanian

293

Map 9 Convergent binary system and contact-induced change in northern Sardinia

296

Abbreviations and notational conventions Grammatical abbreviations are listed here only if not included in the Leipzig Glossing Rules (http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php). Bibliographical abbreviations are included in the final reference list. A adjective a

alternating (gender)

an animate att attributive Cat. Catalan CL Classical Latin D determiner DO

direct object

e early E. English Eng. Engadinian Fr. French Fr.-Pr. Franco-Provençal Germ. Germanic Gk. Greek Hung. Hungarian IC

inflectional class

IE Indo-European impf

imperfect (tense)

inan inanimate Ind. Indian IO

indirect object

IPg. Indo-Portuguese IstRo. Istro-Romanian It. Italian Lat. Latin LEng.

Lower Engadinian

lit. literally Log.

Logudorese (Sardinian)

MGH

Monumenta Germaniae Historica

xxii

Abbreviations and notational conventions

MSRo.

modern standard Romanian

N

northern (in abbreviations like NItRom = Northern Italo-Romance)

N noun nonf

not feminine (i.e. masculine/neuter, underspecified)

nonm

not masculine (i.e. feminine/neuter, underspecified)

NP

noun phrase

O-

Old (as in OInd., ORo. etc.)

Occ. Occitan pers

person marker (in front of person-denoting names/nouns in Tagalog)

Pg. Portuguese PIE Proto-Indo-European PRom Proto-Romance ptp

past participle

RF

Raddoppiamento Fonosintattico

Ro. Romanian S southern Sa. Sardinian scl

subject clitic

Sl. Slavic Sp. Spanish Srs. Sursilvan StIt.

Standard Italian

UEng. Upper Engadinian →

becomes (by synchronic derivation)

←

derives from (synchronically)

>

becomes (diachronically)

<

derives from (diachronically)

*

reconstructed form

**

ungrammatical form/phrase

**(x)

the clause becomes ungrammatical if x is omitted

(**x)

the clause becomes ungrammatical if x is realized

**((x))

%

the clause is ungrammatical, both with and without x grammatical for some speakers only

?



of dubious grammaticality



pragmatically odd

!

Abbreviations used for Latin authors and their works Aen. Vergilius, Aeneis Agr. Cato, De agri cultura Ann. Ennius, Annales Anton. Plac. Antoninus Placentinus Apol. Commodianus, Carmen apologeticum Apul.

Lucius Apuleius

As. Plautus, Asinaria Bac. Plautus, Bacchides B.C. Caesar, De bello civili Cael. Aurel. Caelius Aurelianus Caes.

Gaius Iulius Caesar

Carm. Commodianus, Carmina; Quintus Horatius Flaccus, Carmina Cato

Marcus Porcius Cato (the Elder)

Chron. Caelius Aurelianus, De morbis acutis et chronicis Cic.

Marcus Tullius Cicero

Cist. Plautus, Cistellaria Commodian. Commodianus Cur. Plautus, Curculio Dig.

Sextus Pomponius, Digestum

Ennius

Quintus Ennius

Ep.

Pliny (the Younger), Epistulae

Fin. Cicero, De finibus bonorum et malorum Franc.

Gregorius Turonensis, Historia Francorum

Chron. Fred.

Chronicae q. d. Fredegarii scholastici

Gell. Aulus Gellius Gram.

Grammaticae Romanae fragmenta, edn. Funaioli (1907)

Greg.Tur.

Gregorius Turonensis, Georgius Florentinus Gregorius, bishop of Tours

Hieron.

Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus

Hist. Tacitus, Historiae Hor.

Quintus Horatius Flaccus

Inst. Quintilianus, Institutio oratoria Isid. Isidorus Hispalensis (= Isidore of Seville)

xxiv

Abbreviations used for Latin authors and their works

Itin.

Itinerarium Antonini Placentini

Liv. Titus Livius Lucr. Lucretius, De rerum natura Men. Varro, Saturae Menippeae Met. Apuleius, Metamorphoses Mil. Plautus, Miles Gloriosus Most. Plautus, Mostellaria N.A. Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae N.H.

Pliny (the Elder), Naturalis Historia

Non. Nonius Marcellus Off. Cicero, De officiis Orat. Cato, Orationum reliquiae Orig. Isidorus, Origines sive etymologiae Petr. Petronius Phaedr.

Gaius Iulius Phaedrus

Philippica Cicero, Philippica Pl. Titus Maccius Plautus Plin.

Pliny (the Elder), Pliny (the Younger) (see N.H. vs Ep. respectively)

Pompon.

Sextus Pomponius

Ps.

Psalmi (Book of Psalms)

Quint.

Marcus Fabius Quintilianus

Rust. Varro, Res rusticae Scaen. Ennius, Scaenica Serm. Augustine, Sermones St. Plautus, Stichus Tac.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus

Tusc. Cicero, Tusculanae disputationes Varro

Marcus Terentius Varro

Verg.

Publius Vergilius Maro

Vetus Latina

Vetus Latina or Itala, the oldest Latin translation of the Bible

1 Introduction 1.1  The many facets of ‘gender’ Gender is a popular notion in many respects. If one linguistic category has attracted interest in the broader context of the human and social sciences over the past few decades, this is gender, to the extent that nowadays, even in highly technical papers in linguistics, it is not unusual to come across preliminary clarifications such as the following: The concept of gender has three faces. Natural gender (N-gender, or sex), Social gender (S-gender), which reflects the social implications of being a man or a woman (or perhaps something in between), and Linguistic gender (L-gender). L-gender tends to mirror social and cultural stereotypes of S-gender (Aikhenvald 2012: 33)

The very fact that a linguistic typologist writing on gender today feels compelled to clarify at the outset that gender is a linguistic notion,1 is a sign of the social impact of ‘gender studies’, which led to an incipient resemanticization of the term gender itself, or at least to a shifted relative prominence of its different readings (which is why, at this initial point in the book, ‘gender’ appears in quotation marks).2 English dictionaries until some decades ago would start the entry ‘gender’ with definition 1 (on L-gender), and go on to mention, for example as definition 3 in the OED, ‘Males or females viewed as a group’, whereas the reverse order seems more popular nowadays (see e.g. the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).3 Needless to say, it is L-gender (or grammatical gender) which is in focus in this book. However, even remaining within the province of linguistic studies, S-gender is omnipresent.4 Consider for example the way an often-quoted French reference grammar discusses the gender of mer ‘sea’: 1  More recently, Aikhenvald (2016) develops this discussion on ‘the multi-faceted notion of gender’ into a book-length monograph. 2  In linguistics, to quote just one example, this impact is eloquently shown by the republishing of R.  Lakoff ’s (1975) influential book, with an introduction and extensive commentaries by Bucholtz (Lakoff 2004). 3  In one sense, thus, it is true that the use of gender in gender studies is an extension of ‘the grammatical label “gender” [ . . . ] replacing “sex”’ (Dixon 2010: 155). See Widerberg (1998: 134) for the recognition, from within gender studies, that gender was ‘previously a concept used primarily in grammatical [ . . . ] contexts’. On the other hand, in the European tradition the original semantics of ‘class’ (in any taxonomy), inherited from Lat. genus/Gk. génos, has always persisted in the background, favouring the revival of a broader reading. 4  The ambiguity is often played on deliberately, as is the case e.g. in Vasvári’s (2015) title, as well as in most contributions to Hellinger and Motschenbacher (2015). Gender from Latin to Romance. First edition. Michele Loporcaro © Michele Loporcaro 2018. First published 2018 by Oxford University Press

2 Introduction mer [ . . . ] est passé au féminin dans notre langue, alors qu’il demeurait masculin dans d’autres langues romanes. Et il sembre difficile d’expliquer cette modification autrement que par des besoins métaphoriques conformes à l’esprit national, la mer ayant été conçue par nos ancêtres, de même que par nous, comme quelque chose de féminin. La mer est d’aspect changeant comme une femme, journalière, d’humeur mobile comme une jolie capricieuse, attirante et dangereuse comme une beauté perfide. Le citadin qui lui consacre ses vacances est amoureux d’elle; elle est l’amante et la meurtrière du marin. (Damourette and Pichon 1911–27: 1.371) [(the word) mer ‘sea’ has become feminine in our language, whereas it stayed masculine in other Romance languages. And it seems hard to explain this modification otherwise than through metaphoric needs suiting the national spirit, the sea having been conceived by our ancestors, as well as by ourselves, as something feminine. The sea is of variable appearance, like a woman, whimsical, of mutable mood like a capricious charmer, alluring and dangerous like a perfidious beauty. The city-dweller who devotes his vacations to it/her is in love with it/her; it/ she is the murderous lover of the mariner.]

Here is a blatant manifestation of (S-)gender bias: the ‘spirit of the people’ is equated with a (chauvinist) men’s view on the world, flatly neglecting the contribution to linguistic interaction (and the shaping of linguistic meaning and form within one specific linguistic community) by the other half of the population, definitely a telling example of how even reference works are not immune from such nonsense. Note that such pseudo-explanations are not only preposterous from an S-gender perspective (such that they have been rightly criticized in the feminist-linguistics literature, see Yaguello 1989: 114), but are idle also in purely linguistic terms: (male) tourists and mariners exist in Italy as well, yet It. mare is masculine. The same degree of arbitrariness is found in other kinds of ad hoc referential explanation, such as those appealing to the influence of other nouns: ‘fem. nach terra’ [‘feminine on the model of terra’] (Voretzsch and Rohlfs 1955: 287); ‘Einfluß von terra oder von aqua?’ [‘influence of terra or of aqua?’] (Stotz 1998: 155), terra ‘earth’ and aqua ‘water’ being feminine in Latin. However, the same (alleged) cause was there in Italian as well, with­out this resulting in a change to feminine, unlike mare (n) > Fr. mer (f). Conversely, the same change happened in Romanian Ro. mare (f), though Lat. terra was ousted, in the meaning ‘earth’, by pavimentum (n) > Ro. pământ (n) (while apă ‘water (f)’ was preserved). More appropriately, in recent work on the topic in diachronic morphology, the issue is tackled from the point of view of the relationship between gender and inflectional class, that is, from an autonomously linguistic perspective: The role of inflectional cues in determining the maintenance of gender can be appreciated from the negative perspective of those instances where neither semantic function nor form assists speakers. Third declension inanimate nouns offer neither inflectional nor semantic cues, and their development is correspondingly sometimes erratic, with genders varying from region to region (Maiden 2011: 169).

Gender change in mare belongs in this picture: it is an old phenomenon (see e.g. in qua mare ‘in which.abl.f.sg sea(f).abl.sg’, in the late sixth century Itinerarium Antonini Placentini (Anton. Plac., Itin. Rec. A 10, p. 166.7; ThLL 8.377.76f.) and correspondingly has wide-ranging consequences in Romance, as shown by feminine gender in Ro. mare, OSp., OPg., Cat. mar.



1.1  The many facets of ‘gender’

3

The linguistic-typology literature has now set standards which are incompatible with (and protect its practitioners from) the nonsense exemplified above with the tale of the mariners—or the (male) tourists—and the (feminized) sea. This book will capitalize on this research tradition and, while not directly concerned with gender in the gender-studies sense (S-gender), it has a general contribution to make to gender studies, which focus quite centrally on the linguistic manifestations of grammatical gender.5 This is only natural, since gender, like any other linguistic category, may serve to categorize the world, as eloquently manifested in the title of the bestseller on linguistic categorization, G. Lakoff (1987), where the list ‘women, fire, and dangerous things’ stands for (a portion of) a particular taxonomy of the world, as reflected in (gender II of) the grammatical system of Dyirbal (a Pama-Nyungan language of North Queensland, Dixon  1972). In the gender-studies literature, one can occasionally come across unwarranted assumptions of a direct encoding of referents in language structure, as far as L-gender is concerned;6 however, the directness of this link is called into question by in-depth typological study. As examples, among the data we are going to review while analysing the different outputs of diachronic change, we shall examine Romance varieties in which ‘wives’, ‘sisters’, or ‘virgins’ are feminine only in the singular, but masculine in the plural (see §7.8), and others where, symmetrically, a ‘husband’ is masculine but plural ‘husbands’ are feminine (see §4.5.3). If gender were just about reference and world categorization, one would wonder what sort of categorizational oddity (and what kind of strange society, from the S-gender point of view) these dialects can possibly mirror.7 Indeed, given data such as these, one has to face the reality that society is not always directly reflected in L-gender, and that much about grammatical gender is just about linguistic form, and must be analysed in purely morphosyntactic terms.8 This is the conceptual space in which this book moves. This conceptual space is legitimated not only by linguistic analysis per se but also by the findings of neuro-psycholinguistic research, which attests to a distinction in the neurophysiological substrata to the morphosyntactic and the semantic/referential aspects of grammatical gender, respectively. Thus, dozens of studies on several languages (reviewed in Heim 2008, with the main focus on neuroimaging) provide evidence for the storage of (and access to) gender value information independent of both the noun’s (morphological/phonological) form and of morphosyntactic gender agreement: for example Henaff Gonon et al. (1989) on French; Badecker et al. (1995) on Italian, showing that anomic patients are able to make correct decisions about

5  In a sense, feminist language critique can be viewed as a sort of applied research in this area (i.e. research which pursues practical aims): applied research should build on the results of basic research. 6  This goes for both earlier discussions of the ‘grammatical marking of sex in language’ as well as for the more recent feminist conversation-analytic studies (see Alvanoudi 2015: 4f. for an up-to-date review). 7  Note that, throughout the book, the term dialect recurs in the sense of ‘primary geographic dialect’, as customary in Romance linguistics (‘primary’ is used in the sense of Coseriu 1981). 8  There is no dearth of such cases of unexpected gender assignment in the typological literature: thus, for instance, ‘In some Norwegian dialects, such as older Oslo dialect, the noun mamma ‘mother’ unexpectedly appears to be masculine’ (Enger and Corbett 2012: 287).

4 Introduction gender agreement triggered by noun lexemes they cannot name.9 Caramazza and Miozzo (1997), Miozzo and Caramazza (1997), and Vigliocco et al. (1997) show that access to gender specification must also be posited for non-pathological subjects in a tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) state (i.e. when the word cannot momentarily be accessed in its phonological/morphological form). More generally, several such neuro-/psycholinguistic studies have been carried out on grammatical gender in the Romance languages: see also, for example Miceli et al. (2002), Padovani et al. (2005), on Italian, Hernandez et al. (2004, 2007) on Spanish, Garnham et al. (1995) on Spanish and French, Finocchiaro (2011) comparing Italian, Spanish, and French with English and German; and on grammatical gender in Romance languages spoken by bilingual and/or heritage speakers (see e.g. Liceras et al. 2008; Klassen 2016; Cuza and Pérez-Tattam 2016). Studies have been carried out with different experimental procedures: behavioural texts (several of which have been mentioned in the previous paragraph), event-related brain potentials (ERPs), as well as neuroimaging (fMRI). The results of fMRI studies summarized in Heim’s (2008) metanalysis show that the production and decoding of gender agreement involves activation of the left hemisphere’s Brodman’s area 44 and, more marginally, 45 (i.e. the ‘usual suspects’ for morphosyntax, in Broca’s area), while the lexical storage of gender information is certainly in a distinct brain area, perhaps in the left middle temporal gyrus (BA 21, ‘a potential candidate for lemma selection and retrieval’ (Heim 2008: 62) immediately adjacent to Wernicke’s area). On the other hand, ERP studies on gender/number agreement mismatches (reviewed e.g. in Molinaro et al. 2011; Caffarra et al. 2015: 1021) have shown that gender agreement violations elicit a left anterior negativity (LAN, with an onset around 300 ms.) and a positive peak (P600) at around 600 milliseconds after presentation, which has traditionally been associated with morphosyntactic violations: see Barber and Carreiras (2005) on Spanish; Molinaro et al. (2008) on Italian. However, Molinaro et al.’s results show that phonotactic violations in the selection of the il/lo allomorphs of the m.sg definite article also elicit a P600, which may therefore not be a reaction specific to morphosyntax, unlike as argued in previous studies on gender agreement violations such as, for example, Hagoort and Brown (1999) (on violations in the selection of the gender form of the article in Dutch). More recent literature on P600 effects (see e.g. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky and Schlesewsky 2008; van Petten and Luka 2012; Sassenhagen et al. 2014) also stresses their composite nature, thus challenging the ‘classical’ tenets of this strand of research (see Kutas and Hillyard 1983; Friederici 1995: 276–8 a.o.), according to which semantic vs syntactic violations trigger distinct ERP components, that is, a negative peak in electrical brain activity occurring 400 milliseconds after presentation of the stimulus (N400) vs the P600 effect, respectively. However, on the one hand, most of this more recent research did not point to N400 effects correlating with purely morphosyntactic factors such as agreement mismatches and, on the other hand, both morphosyntactic gender agreement and phenomena like il/ lo selection may be kept together under the heading of syntagmatic non-semantic 9  Similarly, the jargonaphasic patient studied by Macoir and Béland (2004) was able to identify the gender of French nouns above chance level, regardless of whether her spoken naming deficit allowed her to access the phonological form of the noun.



1.2  The method and the basic facts

5

s­electional restrictions, and thus, under this definition, still contrast with the N400 effects triggered by purely semantic violations. Among the standard varieties, Romanian is the least well investigated in the psycholinguistic literature (see e.g. the computational simulations of gender assignment and agreement in Cucerzan and Yarowsky 2003; Nastase and Popescu 2009), whereas work on non-standard dialects is still in its infancy. There is some aphasiological research on Friulian, which concentrates on bilingualism but does not address grammatical gender specifically: see Fabbro and Frau (2001: 257), where (masculine vs feminine) gender agreement on the 3rd singular indicative present form of the verb ‘to be’ (see §8.5) is enumerated in the contrastive description as a characteristic feature of Friulian vs Standard Italian; but none of the errors by aphasic patients reported in the subsequent pages involve that contrast. Thus, while acknowledging that neuroand psycholinguistic research has great potential for the investigation of non-standard dialects, especially for those whose gender system differs significantly from the mainstream standard languages, the present study will have to concentrate mainly on linguistic analysis proper, leaving systematic neurolinguistic enquiry into those more complex gender systems for future research. To give at least a flavour of how promising such an enquiry may be for cross-dialectal comparison and the study of on-going change, I shall briefly report in §7.4.4 on the preliminary results from an ERP study on one dialect from southern Italy.

1.2  The method and the basic facts Throughout Romance, one observes the contrast exemplified in (1)–(2): (1)

(2)

a. b. c. d. e.

uma boa/**bom una buena/**buen una bona/**bon une bonne/**bon una brava/**‑o a:f good:f.sg/m.sg f. o fat-ă a.f girl(f)-sg ‘a good girl’

rapariga chica noia fille ragazza girl(f):sg bun-ă/**bun good-f.sg/[m.sg]

(Pg.) (Sp.) (Cat.) (Fr.) (It.)

a. b. c. d. e.

rapaz chico noi garçon ragazzo boy(m):sg bun/**-ă good[m.sg]/-f.sg

(Pg.) (Sp.) (Cat.) (Fr.) (It.)

um bom/**boa un buen/**‑a un bon/**‑a un bon/**bonne un bravo/**‑a a:m good:m.sg/f.sg f. un băiat a:m boy(m)[sg] ‘a good boy’

(Ro.)

(Ro.)

6 Introduction The nouns occurring in (1)–(2) are traditionally dubbed ‘masculine’ vs ‘feminine’ for reasons which have to do with the world, on the one hand (they denote sexuated beings), and with language, on the other, as they select distinct forms of the article, adjective, etc. (ungrammatical options are shown for the adjective only, but swapping the article forms in (1)–(2) would yield ungrammaticality just as well). Relation to the world is responsible for the traditional labels used to contrast (1) vs (2): ever since their first occurrence, in Aristotle’s Rhetoric 1407b (quoting Protagoras, 490—c. 420 bc), the labels for those two gender classes have been derived from the words for ‘male’ and ‘female’. The Greek terms attested there for the first time are árrena vs thē´lea, both qualifying onómata ‘nouns’, followed by the label of the third gender, skéuē, which originally denotes ‘implements’ and consequently seems to be motivated by inanimacy. The Latin term for the third gender, on the other hand (neuter), etymologically means ‘neither-nor’ and also goes back to the ancient Greek grammatical tradition (translating oudéteron, that occurs for the first time in the Téchnē attributed to Dionysius Thrax, late second century bc, see Uhlig 1883: 24.8; Robins 1951: 31; Kilarski 2013: 60). We shall see (in Chapters 2–3) that there is indeed a genuine relationship—under the form of gender assignment rules—between the linguistic category ‘gender’ in Latin and Romance and the referents’ property of being a male or female. However, this relationship cannot be criterial to the definition of (linguistic) gender, for an ­elementary reason: all languages enable their speakers to talk about males and females, but less than a half of the world’s languages (112 out of the 257 languages in the WALS sample for maps 30–32) have grammatical gender (Corbett 2005a, 2005b, 2005c), if this is defined as follows: (3) Gender (definition): ‘Genders are classes of nouns reflected in the behavior of associated words.’ (Hockett 1958: 231; Corbett 1991: 1) Under this definition, the association with sex of two of the agreement classes is not a valid criterion for deciding whether these are values of the category gender (although it is empirically true that agreement classes with this semantic-­referential correlation are genders), and nor is the overall number of such classes. More restrictive definitions do add both criteria, as seen for instance in Aikhenvald (2000): Here I shall use ‘noun class’ as a cover term for noun class and gender. In agreement with the linguistic tradition, I shall reserve the term gender for small systems of two to three distinctions (always including masculine and feminine), like the ones typically found in Indo-European, Afroasiatic, and Dravidian languages. (Aikhenvald 2000: 18).

Another case in point is Mel’čuk (2013), on gender in Spanish, who sets up a list of properties that gender must satisfy (p. 738): Agreement classes {Ki} of the noun in L are nominal genders if and only if the whole set of Conditions 1–8 is satisfied to a sufficient degree: 1. The number of {Ki} is small: 2 to 4. [ . . . ] 2. Two of {Ki} manifest a direct link with the biological sex of the being denoted by the noun: a noun referring to a male belongs to one class and that referring to a female to another class. [ . . . ] 3. Except for the division by sex, {Ki} do not show a sufficiently visible semantic motivation: in most cases, there is no direct link between the meaning of a noun and its gender.



1.2  The method and the basic facts

7

The list further includes criteria 4–8, which are not essential to our discussion, as Mel’čuk himself makes it clear that the above three are the crucial ones: Note that some properties of nominal gender are ‘more equal’ than others: the positive values of Features 1–3 seem to be (almost) sufficient for dubious agreement classes to be considered as nominal genders. (Mel’čuk 2013: 740)

Under this or similar more restrictive definitions, much fewer than half of the languages of the world have gender: clearly, those rubricated in the WALS map 31 as having ‘non-sex-based gender’ (i.e. the 28 blue dots, Corbett 2005b) have none, nor have those with more than four gender values (Mel’čuk)—or more than just three (under Aikhenvald’s  2000 definition)—marked on the WALS map on ‘Number of genders’ (the 24 black and, possibly, the 12 red dots in Corbett 2005a, map 30). There are a number of problems with this kind of approach to grammatical gender.10 Generally speaking, this, unlike the definition in (3), hinders cross-linguistic comparability presenting non-sex-based systems (e.g. animacy-based, the second largest class in the WALS sample for maps 30–32; see Corbett 2012: 113) as unrelated to (sexbased) gender. Also, these stricter definitions would leave us uncertain whether noun classes of languages such as the Tshukwe subdivision of Khoisan, mentioned by Dixon (1982: 161) (after Westphal 1962: 30–48)—whose first class ‘contains not only nouns with male referent but also those referring to strong, tall or slender objects; the second nouns referring to females, and to weak, short or round objects; the third, “common” gender includes all else’—must be defined as genders or not, since the relation to sex is not exclusive, and other semantic properties play a crucial role in ­gender/ class assignment.11 Furthermore, the varying upper limit of the number of gender values mentioned in the literature (three or four?)—which is kept vague in many of the analyses along these lines (e.g. ‘ “Gender” is used for a small system of noun classes’, Dixon 2010: 156; ‘Gender/noun classes [ . . . ] typically constitute smallish systems’, Kilarski 2013: 11)—is a sign that these more restrictive definitions are not easy to operationalize.12 Indeed, we shall consider four- and five-gender systems which should not be labelled as such at all given Aikhenvald’s (2000: 18) criteria. We shall also consider gender systems in which one gender value is defined in strictly semantic terms, yet has nothing to do with the division by sex and thus would not qualify as gender under Mel’čuk’s (2013: 739) criteria. As Corbett (1991: 30–2) observes, studies on linguistic classification from de la Grasserie (1898) onwards have pointed to a number of semantic properties which may be encoded in gender systems cross-linguistically, including some ‘exoticisms’ 10  There is a long list of authors assuming this or that semantic feature as criterial for gender, sex being in pole-position: see e.g. Chini (1993), Dixon (2010: 156), Grandi (2010), Kilarski (2013: 3), etc. 11  This crucially differs from the typical IE (including Latin-Romance) situation (see §2.3), where classes 1 and 2 centre around a semantic sex-based core, but also include a majority of nouns assigned arbitrarily, with respect to their meaning. 12  Dixon (1982: 165) adds ‘We could replace “smallish” by “delimited”: the important thing is that we should avoid the situation where for every new noun added to the language, a new noun class may also be added’. This is a sound criterion. However, in this context, it is used in order to define ‘noun classes’ (including ‘genders’).

8 Introduction such as [±flesh food], [±weapon], [±insect], and the like. Consequently, building one—and only one—semantic/referential property into the definition of gender would entail the impossibility of such gender systems being recognized as such. Finally, there is a ‘biographic’ proof, as it were, of the superiority of (3) over alternatives, which consists in the fact that authors assuming more restrictive definitions, such as those just quoted, do so only inconsistently, and/or back off from them, as seen in the following passage (to be compared with the quotation from Aikhenvald 2000 adduced above): When Europeans came to study African languages, they discovered larger genderlike systems with eight or more possibilities in languages like Swahili. These often did not include a masculine– feminine distinction. The term ‘noun class’ came to be used for systems of this type; this term and ‘gender’ are also often used interchangeably. To avoid confusion, I use only the term ­‘gender’ here. (Aikhenvald 2012: 78, n. 4)

In this passage, different terminological traditions in the analysis of different language families are identified as the cause for the persistence of diverging terminologies for what can be treated uniformly under (3): this renders the definition in (3) all the more appropriate for the purposes of cross-linguistic comparison, if one agrees that ‘We should continue to attempt to prove cross-linguistic validity of our features’, on which ‘typological work depends’ (Corbett 2010b: 33). Given this definition, grammatical gender is a category relevant for the description of somewhat less than half of the languages of the world (43.58 per cent, i.e. 112/257 in the WALS sample for maps 30–32). Thus, although widespread, this feature is not universal, and it has been argued that it represents a complex and ‘mature’ feature of language, viz. one that ‘presuppose[s] rather long evolutionary chains’ (Dahl 2004: 112).13 In our specific case, the acquisition of this degree of complexity falls into a remote prehistory, and is thus not in focus in the present study (although the topic will be briefly touched upon in Chapter 2). The words associated with nouns, relevant for (3), are those showing agreement, defined in turn as ‘systematic covariance between a semantic or formal property of one element and a formal property of another’ (Steele 1978: 610). The element triggering gender agreement, usually a noun, is termed the ‘agreement controller’, while ­elements showing agreement are dubbed ‘agreement targets’ (Corbett 2006: 4). Targets displaying gender agreement in Romance are articles (indefinite, as in (1)–(2), as well as definite), adjectives (attributive, as in (1)–(2), as well as predicative), pronouns (3rd person, strong, and clitic, as well as possessive and demonstrative),14 and participles. When participles enter perfective periphrastic verb forms, agreement is subject to syntactic conditions which have been the object of a long series of studies (see e.g. Loporcaro 1998, 2010a, 2016a, with further references), whereas gender agreement on 13  See Kilarsky (2013: 225–32); Audring (2014) for recent discussions of gender and linguistic complexity. 14  Pronouns can be at the same time agreement controllers. While 3rd person pronouns are both agreement target and controllers, 1st and 2nd person pronouns are only controllers and do not agree in gender in the Romance languages. A notable exception is compound forms stemming from nos/vos+alteros/‑as, which include the originally adjectival gender inflection: e.g. Sp. nosotros/‑as ‘we.m/f’, vosotros/‑as ‘you.pl.m/f’).



1.2  The method and the basic facts

9

simple finite verb forms occurs rarely across Romance, as does agreement on other targets, briefly addressed in §8.5. All of these targets show cumulative exponence of gender and number, as is usual in fusional languages. At times, this may give rise to uncertainty in the analysis of a given morphological expression whether it is signalling a value of gender or of number: some such controversial cases are discussed in §4.5.4 and Chapter 5. It is important to underscore that while for agreement targets both gender and number are properties expressed in contextual inflection (Booij 1994, 1996), when it comes to nouns, there is a clear difference between the two. Gender—according to (3)—is an inherent morphosyntactic property of the nominal lexeme, which in the relevant literature is viewed from one of the two perspectives labelled as follows by Thornton (2009: 14): (4) a. assign nouns to genders (Genders as containers) b. assign gender to nouns (Genders as feature values) Number, on the contrary, is an inherent property of each word form (Thornton 2005: 105), and thus pertains to Booij’s inherent inflection. Kibort (2010) proposes a more elaborate terminology, contrasting features that are contextual, as is the case for gender on adjectives, with those that are inherent, which are subdivided into inherent and (lexically) fixed (gender on nouns) vs inherent and selected (number on nouns): (5)  Inherent vs contextual features (Kibort 2010: 78)15 features: a. contextual e.g. gender and number on adjectives b. inherent and (lexically) e.g. gender on nouns fixed c. inherent and selected: e.g. number on nouns This is a useful terminological distinction, and will be adopted in what follows. Consider It. virtù ‘virtue(f)’: it can be inferred to be feminine through inspection of either just the singular NP l-a virtù ‘the-f.sg virtue’ or just the plural NP l-e virtù ‘thef.pl virtues’. But this is only so because of an implication which holds in Italian, where virtually all nouns selecting the article form la in the singular take le in the plural.16 If this were not the case, considering just one word form would not suffice: to establish the gender value of a noun, one has to consider the agreement pattern selected by the

15 Kibort’s taxonomy is organized binarily: ‘contextual’ further branches into ‘determined through agreement vs government’, and both ‘fixed’ and ‘selected’ branch into ‘based on formal vs semantic criteria’. 16  There is just one exception: l(a) eco ‘the echo’, plural gli echi ‘the.m.pl echoes’ (note that, while the prevocalic form of the article /l/ does not show gender, selection of /la/ with eco is manifested whenever a consonant-initial adjective—which by the way also shows gender agreement—is interposed: l-a tremend-a ec-o ‘the-f.sg tremendous-f.sg echo-sg’). Similar generalizations hold consistently across Romance: for instance in Romanian, feminine nouns taking ‑a as a singular definiteness marker select le in the plural, with the sole exception of fragă ‘wild strawberry(f)’, pl. fragi(i) (masculine) (Hall 1973: 189), which is reanalysed as a regular masculine by many speakers, creating a new singular frag(ul) (Diaconescu 1974: 15). Much more systematic exceptions—so systematic, actually, that they cease to be ‘exceptions’, in a sense to be made precise in §4.4.1—concern the symmetrical mismatch as found e.g. in Ro. braţ(ul)/braţe(le), It. il braccio/le braccia ‘the arm/-s’ (masculine singular/feminine plural).

10 Introduction lexeme as such (i.e. its entire inflectional paradigm, e.g. la virtù/le virtù), and put it—qua lexeme—into one of the ‘containers’ (under (4a)) available in the grammatical system, or assign it one feature value (under (4b)). This does not apply to number: by definition, (la) virtù has one number value, (le) virtù has another.17 Note that even though gender and number are inherent (in different senses) in the noun, for the diagnosis of their values contextual information is both necessary and sufficient: in addition, nouns are often overtly marked for number (although they may not be, as is the case for uninflected nouns like It. virtù, or for nearly all nouns in spoken French), whereas systematic overt gender marking is much rarer (see §§3.2.2, 4.4.1.3, 5.4.2, 8.6). To conclude, then, one can say that genders are paradigmatic classes of nouns, established on syntagmatic evidence. This makes a crucial difference with respect to another kind of classe, that also proves relevant to the analysis of gender systems, viz. inflectional classes: (6) Inflectional class (definition): ‘An inflectional class is a set of lexemes whose members each select the same set of inflectional realizations’ (Aronoff 1994: 182) Contrary to gender, membership in inflectional classes is established solely on paradigmatic grounds, through inspection of the forms occupying all paradigm cells: these, in the noun morphology of all modern Romance languages except Romanian (see §4.4.1) are two in total, distinguished by number values. Inflectional classes are relevant because (a) they may be predictors of gender assignment (in case of overt gender, Corbett 1991: 62), and (b) their association with productive inflectional classes is an important criterion in order to establish gender values (see Gardani 2013: 424 and §6.2 below). There is still one conceptual distinction which needs to be introduced, to complete the toolbox I am going to work with. This is the the distinction between target and controller gender in Corbett’s (1991: 151) terms (dubbed alternatively ‘inflectional’ vs ‘selective’ gender by Hockett  1958: 230, or ‘contextual’ vs ‘inherent’ gender by Jobin 2011: 319): (7)  target vs controller gender (Corbett 1991: 151): ‘We should [ . . . ] differentiate controller genders, the genders into which nouns are divided, from target genders, the genders which are marked on adjectives, verbs and so on.’ Corbett illustrates the distinction with a Romance language (Romanian), for which most analyses assume three genders, in spite of the fact that there are just two sets of distinct agreeing forms marking gender on all agreement targets, as schematized in (8a) (with the endings of Romanian 1st class adjectives; see §4.4.1.1 for concrete examples):

17  This is a point which we shall bear in mind while discussing the status of the mass/count distinction in Asturian in Ch. 5. Exceptions to the above are limited: e.g. ‘lexical plurals’ (see Acquaviva 2008) such as le acque (di un fiume) ‘the waters (of a river)’, or defective lexemes with just one number value (singularia or pluralia tantum).



1.2  The method and the basic facts

(8) a. Two sets of targets, three sets of controllers -Ø

I

b. Two sets of targets four sets of controllers

-i

-o

-e

-a

III -a˘

II

11

I III

-i

IV II

-e

In (8a), the controller genders outnumber target genders by one, whereas in (8b)— another possible type of gender system, exemplified in (62), §7.8 below—they do so by two. The reverse kind of mismatch is possible, as well: there may be gender agreement targets which remain in use (for certain functions, to be illustrated in §§4.3.3– 4.3.4 with examples such as Sp. l-o rar-o es que ‘the-n strange-m.sg is that . . . ’) after all of their controller nouns have been reallotted to other genders. Using the image introduced in (4a), the latter situation is one in which one of the boxes has been emptied but not destroyed, and it still has a distinct label on it (the agreement targets), differentiating it from the remaining containers. Conversely, (8) corresponds to having more boxes than labels, or, more exactly, in having boxes distinguished through labels that are partially (but not entirely) shared between some of them (i.e. syncretic agreement targets). The distinction in (7), together with the other notions introduced in (3)–(6), will be instrumental for classifying Romance variation. Diachronic change in grammatical gender, it will be shown, can often be effectively described as a transition between two different mappings of (controller) genders onto agreement targets. As usual, such transitions are smooth, so that variation beween two different schemes of the kind seen in (8a–b)—to which several more will be added in due course—will be one of the main tools in our description of change in this area of Romance grammar. A final note on terminology is in order here. While the target vs controller gender distinction is still not universally accepted (see e.g. Giurgea 2014 for an explicit rejection), virtually all studies of gender work with the notion ‘inflectional class’ and often refer explicitly to the definition of gender in (3). Yet, one often finds reference to (3) combined with incompatible statements such as the following: ‘bigender nouns (e.g. assistente, assistant) do not have grammatical gender but instead acquire it from the context in which they occur’ (Cacciari et al. 2011: 416). Of course, production precedes decoding (in context) and, while it is true that in, say, It. l’assistente è arrivata ‘the assistant(f) has arrived.f.sg’, it is contextual information (on the participle) which allows the listener to figure out that a female assistant is meant, speakers have this instruction available for production, by definition (and as shown by the psycholinguistic research on lexical access mentioned at the end of §1.1), when they retrieve assistente(f), as opposed to homophonous assistente(m), from their mental lexicon (Corbett 1991: 7). Note that there is no viable alternative to the assumption of two homophonous lexical items, assistente(f) vs assistente(m), differing only in the specification of the gender feature assigned inherently, not contextually. Another related, but not identical, issue is whether this specification is stored in the lexical entry (and in its mental lexical representation) or can be derived from other lexical information, either formal

12 Introduction or semantic. The latter assumption is often made, in typological studies (see e.g. Kibort 2010: 84), and analyses of particular languages often assume underspecification and assignment rules for one or more of the feature values (see e.g. Halle and Vaux 1998, or Pescarini 2007 on Latin). Not uncommonly, terminological and conceptual inconsistency in the literature on Latin/Romance gender crucially concerns the relationship between inherent features, such as gender and inflectional class, and morpho(phono)logical form. Consider, for example, the following quotation: the gender marker may be idiosyncratically assigned, as in mecen-as, which contains [a] although it is masculine. The plural marker is acquired lexically, because these words are only plural in form since they show singular agreement (Lloret and Viaplana 1997: 179).

Given (3)–(6), since Sp. mecenas triggers masculine singular agreement (el viej-o mece‑ nas ‘the old-m.sg maecenas(m)’), it hardly makes sense to claim that its ‑s is a plural marker, although ‑s marks plural elsewhere, and that its ‑a- is a feminine marker, although this ending occurs on feminine nouns of the productive 1st class (see §3.2.2). In the following chapters, we shall occasionally come across other examples of such inconsistencies, which often correlate with questionable analyses (see e.g. n. 35, Ch. 3; §4.4.1.4; the outset of §7.3; or n. 13, Ch. 8), showing that terminological accuracy is a first, and important, step towards a water-tight account.

1.3  Synchrony and diachrony of Romance gender systems: the basic issues With the descriptive tools now outlined, we are are equipped to set off on our journey across time and space. First of all, this book will show that there is much more to Romance gender than one might suspect based on the selection of data illustrating the binary gender system in the standard Romance languages in (1)–(2). In particular, the decisive evidence to realize this comes from inspection of the data from modern non-standard dialects, as well as from earlier stages of these and of the major languages. This fine-grained inspection will reveal gender systems that are not only interesting per se, but also provide crucial clues to diachronic reconstruction, and in particular, to answering the big overarching question that will accompany us throughout the book: ‘What happened to the Latin neuter?’. Since almost all of the modern major Romance languages have reduced their gender systems to a two-way masculine vs feminine contrast, thus simplifying the inherited three-gender system, many scholars have assumed that this reduction must be projected back into Proto-Romance. This commonplace cuts across different kinds of literature/sources, from reference work on Classical and Late Latin ((9)), to comparative Romance grammars ((10)), to historical grammars of the individual languages ((11)), to monographic studies on the destiny of the Latin neuter ((12)): (9) a. ‘Le neutre n’a pas subsisté dans les langues romanes’ [‘the neuter did not survive into the Romance languages’] (Ernout 1945: 6). b. ‘Wohl erst in den folgenden Jahrhunderten breitete sich die zugrundeliegende Tendenz so stark aus, daß es zu einem allgemeinen Schwund des



1.3  Synchrony and diachrony of Romance gender systems: the basic issues





13

Neutrums, das in den romanischen Sprachen als besonderes Genus beim Substantiv und Adjektiv nicht existiert, kam’ [‘Only in the following centuries [i.e. after the first century ad–M.L.] did the underlying tendency [i.e. the tendency for neuters to be re-assigned to the masculine gender–M.L.] spread so massively, that it led to a general demise of the neuter, which does not exist as a separate gender in the noun and the adjective in the Romance languages’] (Stefenelli 1962: 61). c. ‘the Romance languages have lost the neuter as a morphological category’ (Adams 2013: 415).

(10) a. ‘Das Neutrum fällt mit dem Maskulinum zusammen, vor allem in den II. Deklination’ [‘the neuter merges with the masculine, especially in the 2nd declension’] (Coseriu 2008: 78). b. ‘The neuter diaspora: from three to two genders [ . . . ]. In Popular Latin and Romance the neuter gender as a category was dismantled and its members were relocated in several ways.’ (Alkire and Rosen 2010: 192). (11)



a. ‘Possuía a língua latina três géneros: masculino, feminino e neutro; o romance, porém, guardou apenas os dois primeiros, fundindo geralmente o neutro singular no masculino’ [‘The Latin language possessed three genders—m, f and n—Romance, on the contrary, has only preserved the former two, merging generally the neuter singular with the masculine’] (Nunes 1975: 221). b. ‘La principale innovazione romanza nel dominio dei generi è la scomparsa del neutro come genere funzionante (opposto ad altri)’ [‘The main Romance innovation in the domain of genders is the disappearance of the neuter as a functioning gender (contrasting with others)’] (Tekavčić 1980: 2.66).

(12) a. ‘Es ist eine bekannte Tatsache, daß das Neutrum als grammatisches Genus im späteren Latein und damit auch in den romanischen Sprachen untergegangen ist’ [‘It is a well-known fact that the neuter as a grammatical gender collapsed in late Latin and hence also in the Romance languages’] (Schön 1971: 4). b. ‘processo [ . . . ] panromanzo’, consisting in the ‘redistribuzione degli antichi neutri latini nelle due categorie superstiti’ [‘a pan-Romance process’, ‘the reallocation of the ancient Latin neuters to the two surviving categories’] (Magni 1995: 134). This list of quotations, exemplifying the received opinion, could be multiplied ad libitum. Unsurprisingly, this opinion is referred to matter-of-factly in literature on neighbouring domains, such as Indo-European studies: Several languages have ‘lost’ one gender: in Romance, Modern Celtic and Modern Baltic, the neuter has been assimilated into the other two declensions (Clackson 2007: 91).18

18  As for terminology, the quotation exemplifies a widespresad brachylogy, since gender and inflectional class were tightly connected in Latin (for historical reasons), but they need not be universally so, and are generally not in Romance.

14 Introduction Indeed, there is a fundamental truth to the handbook wisdom exemplified in (9)–(12), as it is true that (a) most Romance varieties nowadays have only two (controller) genders (see (7) above for the definition); and (b) most Latin neuters were reassigned, according to the following scheme (where Romance outcomes are exemplified with Italian forms): (13) Latin

Italian

pl. fogli

a.

sg. folium

> sg. foglio ‘sheet(m) of paper’

b.

pl. folia

> sg. foglia ‘leaf(f)’

‘sheet of paper, leaf ’

pl. foglie

change in gender (> m), not in number change in both gender (> f), and number = reanalysis as feminine singular

This double development of several neuter lexemes is a time-honoured commonplace in Romance historical linguistics (see e.g. Diez  1882: 418; Meyer-Lübke  1883: 125f., 154f.). While (13a) is the majority case, there are many examples of (13b) to be found in Late Latin: in Classical Latin, for instance, folia was the plural to folium ‘leaf, sheet(n)’, but a synonymous folia f.sg—generating a full 1st declension paradigm: foliae nom.pl, foliarum gen.pl, etc.—is documented in Isid., Orig. 17.9.105 (Appel 1883: 60) (see (7), Ch. 4). The early documentation of feminine folia is reflected in its pan-Romance outcomes, from Iberia (Pg. folha, Sp. hoja) to Dacia (Ro. foaie). While all of this is undoubtably true, it does not exhaust the issue of the doom of the Latin neuter, contrary to what is implied by most of the authors mentioned in (9)–(12) and many others, who assumed that with the disappearence of the neuter in Vulgar Latin, former neuter plurals in ‑a (as prāta from prātum, brāchia from brāchium) functioned as feminine singulars in ‑a. The result was a high frequency of doublets with slight difference of meaning: masc. prātum ‘meadow’ beside fem. prāta ‘meadowland’; masc. brāchium ‘arm’ beside fem. brāchia ‘the two arms’. (Kahane and Kahane 1949: 169).

Indeed, occasionally, more cautious statements on this issue are encountered, especially in the literature reviewing textual evidence from the Latin-Romance transition. Thus Väänänen (1967), in a section entitled ‘Déclin et survie du neutre’, says: Si les neutres étaient sujets à passer aux masculins, il n’en est pas moins vrai que le neutre comme partie intégrante du système a persisté jusqu’à la veille de la phase romane et même au-delà (Väänänen 1967: 109) [While neuters were subject to becoming masculine, it is nonetheless true that the neuter as an integral part of the system persisted until the eve of the Romance stage and even beyond].

A number of facts suggest that this caution is appropriate and that the commonly held opinion in (9)–(12) should be questioned. Its revision is one of the principal goals of the present monograph.

1.4  Outline of the book The rest of the book proceeds as follows. Chapter 2 addresses gender in Latin, paying particular attention to aspects relevant to the further development of the gender



1.4  Outline of the book

15

s­ ystem in Romance. Chapter 3 provides a first overview of Romance gender systems in their most widespread and best-known shape, as found in the major standard languages, and, in addition, covers gender assignment rules, although only synthet­ ically. Chapter 4 moves on to considering Romance gender systems in more detail. Specifically, while data from languages other than the major standard ones are mentioned cursorily in Chapter  3 only to exemplify either identity with, say, Italian, Spanish, French, etc., or to illustrate more reduced systems, the scrutiny of dialect variation across space and time in Chapters 4–6 will show that several more complex systems are attested, in living dialects as well as in the past documented stages of Romance. These are capitalized on crucially in Chapter 7 in order to provide a novel comprehensive diachronic reconstruction of the development of grammatical gender from Latin to Romance. Chapter  8, finally, addresses a series of related topics not ­covered in the main bulk of the monograph, such as the issue of internally motivated vs contact-induced change in the gender system, the occurrence of strictly semantic gender values, of gender agreement on ‘unusual’ targets (such as finite verbs or even nouns), and of instances of overt gender marking on nouns which—unusually, again— depend on the syntactic context. The last chapter thus departs from the diachronic perspective which shapes the book, and highlights the interest of data from lesserknown Romance varieties such as those focused on here for linguistic-typological research on grammatical gender.

2 The starting point Gender in Latin This chapter does not aim to produce a comprehensive study of the gender system and gender assignment in Latin. Rather, the goal is to provide a minimum of information on both (§§2.1–2.2), keeping an eye on later Romance developments, selecting the topics which will then be referred back to while analysing Romance gender systems. The chapter also sketches an overview of the Indo-European (IE) prehistory of the Latin system (§2.3), which is instrumental to a better understanding of Latin, but also sets the stage for addressing (§2.4) some typological generalizations which are widely held of Indo-European but that, as I shall show in what follows, do not stand up to closer inspection, as soon as Romance dialect variation is brought into the picture.

2.1  The three genders of Latin Latin had three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter, as exemplified in (1): est pes me-us (1)  a. mot-us moved-nom.m.sg  be.prs.3sg foot(m).nom.sg 1sg-nom.m.sg ‘my foot moved’ (Ps. 93.18) b. ut    man-us     me-a    sit       semper comp hand(f).nom.sg 1sg-nom.f.sg be.prs.sbjv.3sg always   cum e-o with 3sg-abl.m.sg ‘be my hand always with him’ (Ps. 88.2) c. cum [  .  .  .  ] iam   in foro    celebrat-um     me-um as      already in forum celebrated-nom.n.sg 1sg-nom.n.sg nomen esset name(n)-nom.sg be.impf.sbjv.3sg ‘as my name was already celebrated in the forum’ (Cic., Brutus, 90.314.19) Gender agreement on the adjective—where it is displayed cumulatively with number and case—shows a three-way contrast that must be recognized synchronically, given the definition of gender in (3), Chapter  1. Diachronically, the contrast in (1) is the Gender from Latin to Romance. First edition. Michele Loporcaro © Michele Loporcaro 2018. First published 2018 by Oxford University Press



2.1  The three genders of Latin

17

natural link between (late) Proto-Indo-European (PIE), as will be seen in §2.3, and the Latin-Romance outcomes to be addressed in the following chapters. There are several aspects of the Latin gender system that are a matter of debate, concerning gender assignment, on the one hand, and the architecture of the gendermarking system, on the other. The former will be addressed in §2.3; let us now turn to the latter. Several analyses have questioned the assumption of a three-gender system in Latin, with an eye on later Romance developments: for example ‘The Latin neuter was a subdivision of the masculine’ (Hall  1965: 422). They maintain that the neuter was no longer a fully-fledged gender (e.g. Pescarini 2007: 187; Pomino and Stark 2009), and consequently write ‘Latin “neuter” ’ in quotes. Such analyses capitalize on the fact that, in Classical Latin, neuter endings on agreement targets are often homophonous with those selected by other genders. Oblique case endings were shared with the masculine and, even in the nominative/accusative, syncretism was rampant: for example bon-a ‘good-nom/acc.n.pl’ has an ending which is not biuniquely dedicated, as it also occurs in the feminine singular, which boils down in the authors’ view to ‘the absence of specific neuter plural endings in Latin’ (Pomino and Stark 2009: 240). The same applies to bon-um ‘good-nom/acc.n.sg’, whose ending is homophonous with the masculine singular accusative. However, such analyses suffer from shortcomings, both theoretical and empirical. On the theoretical side, first, they rest on a pretheoretical notion of a dedicated (or ‘specific’, in the authors’ terminology) ending: in fact, the homophonous nom.f.sg and nom/acc.n.pl endings ‑a on gender agreement targets (in class one adjectives and participles), while related diachronically through common PIE ancestry (see e.g. Luraghi 2006: 92; Rigobianco 2014: 537), belong to distinct paradigm cells—and so, actually, are an instance of syncretism—in the synchronic analysis of Latin gender/ number/case agreement. Secondly, these analyses mix up gender and inflectional class: if one assumes the definitions in (3) and (5)–(7) in Chapter 1, syncretism in the inflections is not in itself proof of the non-existence of a gender class, all the more so—coming to the empirical flaws of this stance—if distinctive endings turn out to be there, after all. This was indeed the case, since alongside syncretic bon-u-m, bon-a, there were also, in pronominal paradigms, id, quod, quid, istud, illud, hoc, and haec, which were distinctively neuter forms. Some of these even provided the model for analogical innovations, such as istoc (alongside Classical istud), occurring in Pl. Bac. 382 (see Merlo 1917b: 92), formed on the analogy of hoc in Archaic Latin. Later on, a Late Latin *illoc must be assumed on Romance reconstructive evidence, to be displayed in §7.4 below. Noun inflection is less conclusive in this respect, except in the case of overt gender (i.e. the circumstance in which ‘the gender of a noun is evident from its form’, Corbett 1991: 62). Indeed, several noun ICs, and all those hosting neuter nouns, were uniquely associated with gender in Latin:1 1  The account in (2) is not a full one. Thus, within the 3rd declension, that in (2c) is only one of the inflectional microclasses distinguished by Gardani (2013: 103–6). Besides, the exceptional microclass (2b) within the 2nd declension, exemplified there with uulgus,‑i ‘people’ (also including uirus,‑i ‘poison’ and

The starting point: Gender in Latin

18 (2)

a. 2nd decl. (regular) b. 2nd decl. (exceptional) sg.nom/acc dōnum

c. 3rd decl.

d. 4th decl.

uulgus

tempus

cornū

gen

dōnī

uulgī

temporis

cornūs

dat

dōnō

uulgō

temporī

cornū

abl

dōnō

uulgō

tempore

cornū

tempora

cornua cornuum

pl.nom/acc dōna gen

dōnōrum

temporum

dat/abl

dōnīs

temporibus cornibus

Nouns inflecting according to any one of the paradigms in (2) could take no other agreement pattern than the one exemplified in (1c), contrasting with (1a–b): in other words, the neuter gender was marked in Latin noun inflection (an instance of overt gender).2 This situation lasted throughout the documented history of Latin, as witnessed by the rise of new neuter inflections not only on agreement targets (as seen above) but also on nouns. Thus, for instance, a novel plural ending ‑ora was extracted through reanalysis from 3rd declension nouns like tempor-a (in (2c)), and this happened at a time when the unambiguous overt-gender nature of neuter noun inflections was still preserved (see §7.1 below). In fact, the oldest example mentioned in Aebischer’s (1933: 71) study—armora ‘arms’ (instead of CL arma) in the Mulomedicina Chironis (§19, p. 9, l. 25; see ThLL 2.622.25–9)—dates back to the fourth century ad, and a host of later examples of ora-plurals has been gathered in the literature on Late Latin (see E. Löfstedt 1936: 164f.; Väänänen 1981: 105; Stotz 1998: 102–5). For some of them, evidence from several Romance branches, including those where ora-plurals have not become productive, suggest that such plurals must be reconstructed for Late Latin, as is the case for example, for fimus,‑ora ‘manure’, fundus,‑ora ‘estate’ (REW 3311.2, 3585.2: see discussion in Ivănescu 1957: 308). This plural ending occurred in Late Latin texts from all over continental Italy (except Calabria: see Stotz 1998: 4.104), including the north: for instance, the earliest example from Piedmont inventoried by Aebischer (1933: 10) dates from ad 793 (camporas pelagus,‑i ‘sea’), is defective (lacking the plural) and cannot be compared, for numerosity, with (2a). Similarly, the number of well documented 4th declension neuters is just five (Klingenschmitt 1992: 121). Yet, all the inflectional (micro)classes in (2) share the generalization that the nominative and accusative cells are syncretic: this defines neuter nouns throughout the history of Latin, as long as grammatical case was alive and well. 2  This is often denied in the literature, in the context of arguments that use the notion ‘inflectional class’ in a way incompatible with definition (6), Ch. 1. Thus, for instance, Pescarini (2007: 188) claims that in both Latin and Romanian ‘il neutro sembrerebbe essere una distinzione di genere secondaria che non viene mai messa in relazione diretta con alcuna classe flessiva’ [‘neuter seems to be a secondary gender distinction that is never directly related to any inflectional class’]. This is untenable, under the definitions of gender and IC introduced in (3), (6), Ch. 1 since all the classes in (2) are uniquely related to a distinct agreement pattern (1c), contrasting with both masculine and feminine. Note that Pescarini apparently seems to work with definition (6), Ch. 1, since he calls ‘ICs’ Latin noun declensions, which do satisfy that definition.



2.1  The three genders of Latin

19

puplicas ‘public fields’, HPM 1.25), while from the twelfth century onwards, examples are limited to place names. This squares well with the fact that northern Italy preserves ora-ending forms (almost) only in place names (see Salvioni 1904–5: 108), apart from a few lexicalized remnants.3 Contrarily, many central-southern Italian dialects have preserved ora-plurals to this day (see §4.5), as did Romanian (see §4.4.1), which indicates that the medieval attestations of locora, fundora ‘estates’ and the like are not a ‘mode savante, [ . . . ] una sorta di latinorum degli scribi’ [‘an intellectual fashion, a sort of fake-Latin of the scribes’] (Magni 1995: 166),4 but show popular speech ‘percolating’ into written usage, as pointed out for example by Stotz (1998: 4.104). Not only did the neuter gender develop new inflections on both targets and controllers, throughout the history of Latin: it also constantly acquired new members, that is, it attracted new noun lexemes from other genders. This fact is often downplayed in the literature on the diachrony of gender (assignment) in Latin, which focuses on the (admittedly many) instances of reassignment of individual nouns from the neuter to either the masculine or, more rarely, the feminine (see e.g. Appel 1883; Stefenelli 1962: 61; Adams 2013: ch. 19, among many others), as exemplified in (3a–b): (3) a. n > m: dorsus ‘back’ Pl. Mil. 397, lactem ‘milk’ Petr. 71.1, uinus ‘wine’ Petr. 41.12, candelabrus ‘candle-stick’ Petr. 75.10 (ThLL 3.233) b. n > f: (ex) promissa ‘(due to the) promise’ (Commodian., Apol. 983; see Appel 1883: 55), rapa ‘turnip’ Petr. 66.7, (cum magna) spolia ‘(with much) booty’ (Augustine, Serm. 14.6.1), chronica (Greg. Tur., Franc. 1 praef., MGH Script. Rer. Merov. I, p. 33.11: per chronicas uel historias anteriorum annorum ‘through chronicles or histories of the foregoing years’; ThLL 3.1030); arua ‘field’, castra ‘fortified post’ (Adams 1999: 125) This focus is due to the fact that such studies on innovation in Late/Vulgar Latin are conducted retrospectively, ‘im Hinblick auf die romanischen Sprachen’ [‘with a view on the Romance languages’], as the title of Stefenelli (1962) has it. Therefore, they tend to emphasize cases such as (3a) (from neuter to masculine), although the reverse—as shown in (4)—also occurs, even in the very same texts: (4) a. m > n: thesaurum ‘treasure’ Petr. 46.8, libra ‘books’ Petr. 46.7, catilla ‘bowls’ Petr. 50.6, puteum ‘pit’ Pompon., Dig. 19.1.14 (plural putea ‘pits’ as early as in Varro apud Non. p. 217.3, alongside CL putei; Kühner and Holzweissig 1912: 477) b. f > n: palpebrum ‘eye-lid’ Cael. Aurel., Chron. 2.1, 5 (Kühner and Holzweissig 1912: 479), margaritum ‘pearl’ Petr. 55.6, 9,5 and a host of later cases ­discussed 3  Thus, if continuants of locora ‘places’ survive to this day in Northern Italo-Romance, they are reanalysed as singular, be they preserved as appellatives (as in Emilian lògher ‘small estate’), or only as place names (e.g. [ˈløger], in the Emilian dialect investigated by Uguzzoni 1975: 51). 4  A similar, untenable, claim can be found in Aebischer (1933: 14), according to whom the ora-forms occurring in Northern Italian documents of the early Middle Ages ‘appartiennent à un langage non parlé, à un langage figé’ [‘belong to non-spoken, formulaic, language’]. 5 Both margaritum,‑i n and margarita,‑ae f first occur in Varro, Men. (early 1st century bc), but since this is a loanword from Gk. margarís,‑ídos f, it is safe to assume that the 1st declension feminine margarita (derived from the reanalysis of the Greek accusative singular form margarída) is older (see Rovai 2012: 202).

20

The starting point: Gender in Latin

in Stotz (1998: 6–7), like terebrum ‘drill’ since Hieronymus, infamium ‘infamy’ since the Vetus Latina, ignominium ‘ignominy’ since Commodian., Carm. 1.19.1, etc. The ‘retrospective’ reading of this vacillation frequently verges on a teleological interpretation. Thus, comparing (3a)/(4a), Stefenelli (1962: 61) regards the former as harbingers of Romance development, the latter as hypercorrections: ‘Auch in diesen umgekehrten (vielleicht hyperkorrekten) Bildungen kommt das Schwinden des Gefühls für das Neutrum zum Ausdruck’ [‘Also in these back-formations, perhaps hypercorrected, the fading of the sense for the neuter manifests itself ’]. Indeed, in his thorough review of the Late Latin evidence, Stotz (1998: 144) concludes that ‘die Anwendung von Masculina als Neutra’ [‘use of masculines as neuters’] (i.e. (4a)) is rarer than the reverse, which is in keeping with the long-term trend in Romance that eventually led to the binary contrast in examples (1)–(2), Chapter 1, and must reflect on-going linguistic change, since masculines were more numerous from the outset, so that given an even distribution of deviations, cases of m > n ((4a)) would be expected to outnumber the reverse ones (n > m, (3a)). However, whether (4a) was just the product of ephemeral hypercorrections, or also reflected linguistic change, is ultimately an empirical question: should it turn out that the neuter gender—neuter agreement in (1c) and, at the same time, dedicated neuter inflection on nouns—lived on in at least part of Romance, then (4a) could not be dismissed as just haphazard deviations, lacking linguistic motiv­ation. Inspection of the Romance evidence in Chapters 4–6 will cast light on the matter. As for the earlier period, there is abundant evidence for the productivity of the neuter in Archaic Latin. Rovai (2012) recently sifted the relevant evidence, showing that some neuter o-stems were created secondarily from original masculine o-stems or from feminine 1st declension nouns. The chronology of Latin attestation and/or IE comparison shows that nouns like those in (5), which are usually neuter but do also occur as masculine, if more seldom, were originally masculine: (5)  caelum ‘sky’, collum ‘neck’, compitum ‘crossroad’, corium ‘skin/leather’, forum ‘forum’, sagum ‘kind of mantle’, tergum ‘back’ Given original *corius, *caelus—Rovai argues—the earliest instances of corium, caelum, etc., in subject function, which in CL are evidence for a neuter paradigm, can be viewed instead as occurrences of the masculine accusative ‑um as an inactive subject (under active/inactive alignment; in glossing non-passive verb forms, the voice ­specification is omitted for simplicity): (6)

quod periit,       periit: meum corium what  go_lost.pret.3sg go_lost.pret.3sg 1sg.nom.n.sg skin(n).nom.sg cistella with casket(f).abl.sg ‘What is lost is lost—the casket and my cuticle together’ (Pl. Cist. 703)

From this syntactic use, when a more systematic nominative/accusative alignment was established, a novel neuter nominative corium, collum (and the neuter plural



2.1  The three genders of Latin

21

coria, colla, etc.) was abduced (in Andersen’s 1973 terms).6 Another popular explanation for the rise of a-plurals to originally masculine class two stems is that they were ­created to convey collective meaning: see for example Zimmermann (1924) for Latin, as well as Thurneysen (1893: 557) and Eichner (1985: 147) on other Italic languages (Umbrian). This is further assumed to be a remnant of an ePIE stage where *‑eh2 (> *‑ā) was a collective marker, which was later to become the neuter plural ending (see e.g. Balles 2004: 55). However, for Latin at historical stages, this remains highly speculative. For instance, Zimmermann (1924: 224) assumes that acinus,‑i ‘berry’ formed a collective plural acina, only to remark that not even the earliest documentation backs up this assumption, as in Cato, Agr. 112.2 acina clearly means ‘the (individual) berries’: siqua acina corrupta erunt, depurgato ‘if any berries have rotted, clear them out’. For Latin, thus, a morphosyntactic account à la Rovai seems more adequate than a direct projection of the semantics (in terms of [±collective]) onto inflections which signal gender overtly, and this applies to Italic languages too. Take for instance Thurneysen’s (1893) doubt about Umbrian ueiro/uiro ‘man(n).acc.pl’ (Tabulae Iguuinae VI and VII) and its relation to Lat. uir ‘man(m)’: Vielleicht sind wir nun allerdings gezwungen, dieses wort von lat. vir zu trennen. Denn wenn collective plurale wie loca zu locus leicht verständlich sind, geht es doch kaum an, das eminent masculine vir einen neutralen plural bilden zu lassen. (Thurneysen 1893: 557) [we are perhaps forced to disjoin this word from Lat. uir. In fact, while collective plurals like loca to locus ‘place’ are easily understandable, it does not make sense to have the eminently masculine uir ‘man’ form a neuter plural.]

Once the morphosyntactic gender value ‘neuter’ is viewed as in principle independent (though, for many lexemes, still related to) collective meaning, this doubt can be dispelled: as for the specific lexeme ‘man’, supportive evidence comes from the ItaloRomance dialects in which ‘husbands’ are neuter, to be considered in §4.5.3 below. Conclusions similar to those concerning m/n vacillation in (5)–(6) are reached by Rovai (2012: 107–13) from the inspection of the evidence about nouns that, ever since Archaic Latin, occur as either 1st declension feminines or 2nd declension neuters: (7)  arment- ‘cattle’, aru- ‘field’, caement- ‘rough stone’, delici- ‘delight, joy’, exuui‘spoils, booty’, fulment- ‘board’, labi- ‘lip’, lament- ‘moan’, margarit- ‘pearl’, mend‘defect’, ostre- ‘oyster’, prostibul- ‘prostitute’, rament- ‘wood shaving’, rap- ‘turnip’, sert- ‘wreath’, spic- ‘ear’ Here too, feminines are attested earlier, so that a reanalysis (e.g. menda ‘defect’ f.sg → n.pl) must have occurred, whose trigger context may have been impersonal passives. This is one of the possible analyses of (8), which is ambiguous, as it can also be read as a personal passive construction: 6  The textual evidence also lends itself to alternative interpretations. Thus, for instance, as Carlotta Viti pointed out to me, in some cases at least gender modification yielding a rarer variant may calque the Greek model. Greek was the prestige language with which all the authors of archaic Latin texts were familiar: e.g. m caelus may be influenced by (or be an allusion to) the Greek synonym ouranós. While this kind of influence cannot be ruled out, a general morphosynctactic explanation remains more economical.

22 (8)

The starting point: Gender in Latin uidebatur compluribus in extremo uerbo seem.impf.pass.3sg many.dat.m.pl in last.abl.n.sg word(n).abl.sg menda             esse error(f).nom.sg  ⁄ (n).acc.pl be.inf.prs ‘it seemed to many that there was an error in the last word’ (Gell., N.A. 1, 7, 3)

If (8) is an impersonal passive, menda has to be analysed as accusative plural, whereas if it is personal, menda is a 1st declension feminine nominative. There is independent evidence that the impersonal construction expanded progressively, in the history of Latin, which gradually increased the probability of (8) being reanalysed as impersonal. This reanalysis in turn generated a whole neuter paradigm (mendum,‑i), whose nominative/accusative singular form is seen in (9): (9)

in hisce uerbis Ciceronis [ . . . ] neque in dem.abl.n.pl word(n).abl.pl Cicero.gen.sg neither mendum      esse    neque uitium error(n).nom/acc.sg be.inf.prs nor  vice(n).nom/acc.sg ‘in these words of Cicero [ . . . ] there is no error in writing or grammar’ (Gell., N.A. pr. 1, 6)

To conclude, there is abundant evidence that the neuter was an autonomous value of the gender feature in Latin, despite recurrent claims to the contrary. As we have seen, the neuter constantly renewed its agreement paradigm and attracted new members since Archaic Latin (e.g. corium (5) or caementum (7)). This reading of the evidence reverses the usual account, whereby such vacillations are taken as evidence for on-going depletion of the neuter from an early stage, not only for Latin, but also for the other Italic languages (see e.g. Poccetti 2011: 218; Rigobianco 2014: 544). As for late Antiquity, whether or not reassignments to the neuter, as exemplified in (4) above, mirror genuine linguistic development will have to be judged after sifting the Romance evidence in the following chapters.

2.2  The Latin neuter and its functions Neuter agreement has been exemplified in (1c) and discussed so far in the canonical context, with nominal controllers inherently specified as neuters. The Latin neuter, though, had a broader functional domain, and some of its further uses will turn out to be relevant from a Romance perspective. These are addressed in the following subsections. 2.2.1  Resumption/pronominalization of non-canonical controllers The neuter could be used for agreement with non-canonical controllers, such as clauses or nouns occurring not just as plain arguments, as in (1), but in syntactic contexts where they were at the same time used argumentally and predicatively (see Pieroni 2012).



2.2  The Latin neuter and its functions

23

These non-canonical controllers were resumed by means of the same pronoun and adjective forms signalling agreement with singular neuter nouns (see e.g. Touratier 1994: 365): (10) a. dulc-e et    decor-um    est       pro sweet-nom.n.sg  and fitting-nom.n.sg be.prs.3sg for   patri-a       mori fatherland(f)-abl.sg die.inf.prs ‘it’s sweet and fitting to die for your fatherland’ (Hor., Carm. 3.2.13) b. Negat Piso scire se [ . . . ], negat Calenus rem ullam nouam allatam esse; atque id nunc negant, posteaquam [ . . . ] ‘Piso denies he knows anything [ . . . ], Calenus denies that anything new came his way; and they deny it.n now, after [ . . . ]’ (Cic., Philippica 12.3) c. pergrat-um     est    mihi   quod tam diligenter  agreeable-nom.n.sg be.prs.3sg 1:dat.sg that  so    diligently  libr-os        auuncul-i    mei     lectitas book(m)-acc.pl uncle(m)-gen.sg 1:gen.sg peruse.prs.2sg ‘it very much pleases me that you peruse my uncle’s books so diligently’ (Plin., Ep. 3.5.1) This function of neuter agreement is found in all branches of IE which preserve a three-way gender contrast (see §2.3), as exemplified by German and Russian in (11): (11) a. German: seiner Frau geht es schlecht und er kann es/**ihn/**sie kaum ertragen ‘his wife is sick and he cannot stand this(n)/**this(m)/**this(f)’ b. Russian: ego žena bol’na i èto/**ètot/**èta ego bespokoet ‘his wife is sick and this:n.sg/**this:m.sg/**this:f.sg worries him’ This wide occurrence (more examples from Old Indian, Ancient Greek etc. are discussed in Matasović 2004: 160) suggests that the use of the neuter gender for agreement with (or pronominalization of) clausal controllers reconstructs back as a property of (late) PIE. A further function of neuter agreement in Latin is the one which has been dubbed ‘pancake agreement’ (Faarlund 1977; Enger 2004b; Corbett 2006: 150), as exemplified in (12): (12) a. uari-um et mutabil-e semper femin-a variable-nom.n.sg and inconstant-nom.n.sg always woman(f)-nom.sg ‘women are variable and inconstant (beings)’ (Verg., Aen. 4.569f.) b. trist-e        lup-us     stabul-is baleful-nom.n.sg wolf(m)-nom.sg stable-dat.n.pl ‘wolves are a threat for stables’ (Verg., Ecl. 3.80) Studies of Latin grammar (see e.g. Gandiglio 1912: 520–3; Kühner and Stegmann 1971: 32; Orlandini 1994: 173; Touratier 1994: 365; Hofmann and Szantyr 1997: 433–4; Pieroni 2010:

24

The starting point: Gender in Latin

426, etc.) have extensively discussed examples like (12a–b). The traditional interpretation is that such neuter adjectives with non-neuter subjects are substantivized, possibly ‘avec valeur généralisante’ [‘with a generalizing function’] (Ernout and Thomas 1959: 127). According to Pieroni (2012), the selection of neuter agreement targets is a manifest­ ation of lack of agreement,7 due to the fact that the noun that would be eligible as a controller is not just an argument but cumulates a predicative function. This can be assumed straightforwardly for abstract nouns (see Jespersen 1924: 136), since an abstract noun like turpitudo in (13) can be easily interpreted as semantically equivalent to turpis esse: (13)

turpitudo pei-us est quam dolor disgrace(f):nom.sg worse-nom.n.sg be.prs.3sg than pain(m).nom.sg ‘shame is worse than pain’ (Cic., Tusc. 2.31)

The same analysis can be extended to nouns denoting non-abstract entities, so that in (12b) the argument of which triste is predicated is not just the lupus but is instead either the relation between the ‘wolf ’ and the ‘stables’, or the simple fact of there being wolves. The latter can hold of (12a) too, where femina can be taken to denote the ‘fact of being a woman’ (Pieroni 2012: 525). Be that as it may, we shall see in the following chapters that this function of the neuter gender—the pronominalization/resumption of non-canonical controllers—must be taken into account for the description of changes in the gender system from Latin to Romance. 2.2.2  Gender resolution In Latin, resolution of gender agreement with conjoined controller nouns assigns gender to an adjective or a pronoun according to a mix of semantic and morphosyntactic criteria, which are ordered as follows by Corbett (1991: 287) (based on Kühner and Stegmann 1982: 44–52): (14)

a. if all conjuncts are masculine b. if all conjuncts are feminine c. if neither (14a–b) is true, and all conjuncts denote animate  beings d. elsewhere

→ masculine → feminine → masculine → neuter

As seen in (14d), neuter is the default value, a situation that was bound to change, as we shall see in Chapters 3–4, when the gender system was restructured in Romance. Examples such as the following are in keeping with the rules in (14): (15)

a. aquila [ . . . ],   aper [ . . . ]      inedia eagle(f):nom.sg  wild boar(m):nom.sg hunger sunt     consumpt-i be.prs.3pl consumed-nom.m.pl ‘the eagle and the wild boar starved’ (Phaedr. 2.4.23)

7  As for ‘pancake agreement’ contexts, this is closer to Corbett’s (2006: 150, 223) than to Enger’s (2004b) analysis, the latter treating neuter agreement as an instance of semantic agreement, due to the ‘weak individuation’ of the subject nominal.



2.2  The Latin neuter and its functions

25

b. sapientiam,    temperantiam,    fortitudinem wisdom(f):acc.sg restraint(f):acc.sg courage(f):acc.sg copulat-as      esse   docui     cum uoluptate related-acc.f.pl be.inf teach.pret.1sg with pleasure(f):abl.sg  ‘I have shown that wisdom, restraint and courage are related to pleasure.’ (Cic., Fin. 1.50) c. secundae res,    honores,         imperia, successes(f):nom.pl civil_honour(m):nom.pl  military_honours(n):nom.pl uictoriae,       quamquam fortuit-a        sunt, [  .  .  .  ] victory(f):nom.pl, even_if     fortuitous:nom.n.pl be.prs.3pl ‘successes, civil and military honours, victories, even if they are fortuitous, [ . . . ]’ (Cic., Off. 2.20) In (15a), the two nouns of different genders all denote animates, and so masculine agreement is triggered, according to (14c); in (15b), all conjuncts are feminine and the predicate shows feminine plural agreement, according to (14b); in (15c), all conjuncts differ in gender and do not denote animate beings, so neuter is selected according to (14d). However, neuter agreement also occurs in contexts not predicted by (14): (16)

a. stultitiam autem et timiditatem et iniustitiam et intemperantiam cum dicimus esse fugiend-a ‘but stupidity(f), cowardice(f), injustice(f) and haughtiness(f), while I say they must be eschewed-acc.n.pl, [ . . . ]’ (Cic., Fin. 3.39) b. Cum referrent sonum linguae et corporum habitum et nitorem cultior-a quam pastorali-a esse ‘As they reported that accent(m), physical appearence(m) and ornament(m) were too refined-acc.n.pl for shepherds, [ . . . ]’ (Liv. 10.4.10) c. parentes, pueros, fratres uili-a habere ‘to regard parents(m), children(m) and siblings(m) as things-acc.n.pl of negligible value’ (Tac., Hist. 10.4.10)

In (16a–b), neuter agreement is selected in spite of all conjuncts denoting inanimates belonging to the same gender, either feminine ((16a)) or masculine ((16b)); in (16c), on the other hand, the three masculine animates are qualified as uilia (neuter). This shows that selection of the neuter in gender resolution contexts has a wider range of occurrence than is predicted by (14). The extensive philological literature on the topic has shown that there are differences across authors (Gandiglio 1912: 520; Hoffmann and Szantyr 1997: 434). Again, similar to what we have seen in §2.2.1, for resolution too, occurrence of the neuter has been sometimes explained with substantivization of the predicative adjective: for example uilia ‘things of negligible value’ in (16c). However, at least in some authors (Sallust, Livy, Tacitus, etc.), the use of the neuter plural for resolution seems to be possible without substantivization, as seen in (16b) where all conjuncts are masculine, yet cultiora and pastoralia are neuter (see Gandiglio 1912: 520).

26

The starting point: Gender in Latin

Needless to say, since neuter could be used to pronominalize or resume clauses, as seen in (10) above, it also had to occur to pronominalize conjoined clauses: (17)

tu    fortunat-u’s ego miser: 2sg.nom lucky-nom.m.sg=be.prs.2sg 1sg.nom unlucky[nom.m.sg] patiund-a sunt tolerate.ger-nom.n.pl be.prs.3pl ‘you’re lucky, I’m unlucky: these things must be put up with’ (Pl., Most. 49)

The use of neuter agreement for resolution, in Latin, will have to be kept in mind during the discussion of resolution in modern Romance systems with more than binary gender contrasts (§4.4.1.4).

2.3 Gender values and gender assignment from (Proto-) Indo-European to Latin Latin inherited its three-gender system from PIE. Thus, the issue of the rise of the three-way contrast, as well as that of whether or not semantically based gender assignment may have applied at an earlier stage, are issues which transcend the history of Latin and call for comparison within the broader IE perspective. The discovery of Anatolian in the early twentieth century has revealed a binary gender contrast (common vs neuter) for this branch of IE, as exemplified in (18a), to be compared with the ‘Brugmannian’ PIE in (18b): (18) a. Hittite: kās hartaggas ‘this bear/predator’ (common, PIE *h2rtk’o) ≠ kī huitar ‘this (wild) animal’ (neuter, PIE *h2uéid-r), see Kloekhorst (2008: 316, 355f.) b. Late PIE: *só u̯l k̥ wos ‘this wolf ’ ≠ *séh2 h3éwis ‘this sheep’ ≠ *tód pék´u ‘this domesticated animal’ It is now widely agreed that (18a) represents an earlier stage of the proto-language,8 contrary to the alternative view that the Anatolian two-gender system presupposes an earlier three-gender stage: see Zeilfelder (2001: 153–239) for a recapitulation of the debate.9 8  See e.g. Priestly (1983), Ostrowski (1985), Harðarson (1987), (1994), Euler (1991), Tichy (1993), Hajnal (1994, 2004), Melchert (1994, 2011), Stempel (1994), Fritz (1998), Zeilfelder (2001), Meier-Brügger (2002), Balles (2004), Matasović (2004), Litscher (2009), to mention just a few. Recently, Kim (2009) has proposed that Proto-Tocharian also split off from PIE (still) with a two-gender system, the masculine vs feminine contrast being an independent innovation in this IE branch too. 9  A still more ancient genderless pre-PIE stage has also been reconstructed. In this vein, Ostrowski (1985) suggests that the two different inflectional classes reconstructed for PIE neuters, distinguished by (what later became) the nom/acc endings -Ø (as in OInd ásthi ‘bone’, OGk êmar ‘day’) vs -o-m (as in OInd dāna-m ‘gift’, OGk ostéon ‘bone’), must originally have formed one single paradigm, with the two forms occurring in complementary distribution according to the semantic feature [±individuated] (Matasović 2004: 186 follows this view). Thus, for instance, *mēms-Ø/*mēmsó-m ed-mi must have been semantically distinct as, respectively, ‘I eat meat [–individuated]’ vs ‘I eat the/this meat’, and this contrast must have been available, in principle, throughout the lexicon, at a stage when nouns had not yet divided into distinct inflectional classes (of the kind familiar from Brugmann’s reconstruction). Ostrowski (1985: 319–20) compares this reconstructed syntactic marking of individuation with the one at work in south-western Vogul (or Mansi; Ugric, Uralic), where the accusative singular form kūl-mə ‘fish’ is selected in the clause ‘I ate a

2.3  Gender values and gender assignment from (Proto-)Indo-European to Latin

27

Note that the fact that the lexeme for ‘wild animal’ in (18a) is assigned to the neuter, contrasting with the ‘common’ gender, shows that gender assignment in early PIE, as still represented in Anatolian, is not (strictly) semantic. To be sure, semantic rules existed, whereby for example *gwén-h2 ‘woman’, *méh2tr- ‘mother’, *ph2tē´r- ‘father’ were assigned to the common gender, and later split into masculine vs feminine, as they usually do even in languages whose gender system is not fully based on semantics: ‘there will always be semantic assignment rules [ . . . ] since no language has a purely formal assignment system’ (Corbett and Fraser 2000: 297). If reconstructed PIE did not have a strictly semantic system, a lack of semantic motivation must hold true all the more for historical daughter languages like Latin. This is worth stressing because there have been attempts to propose that, at the outset, gender must have been strictly semantic in IE and because this issue links with the reconstruction of the number of genders in the proto-language. Before the discovery of Anatolian, Jakob Grimm maintained that gender assignment to inanimates was determined through metaphorical extension from the assignment to humans (Grimm 1819–37: 3.346). From proper names, via the common nouns indicating the same referents (Grimm 1858: 352), gender was finally extended ‘auf alle und jede gegenstände’ [‘to all and every object’] (1819–37: 3.346) via sexuated personification.10 Recognition that the masculine vs feminine grammatical distinction was not primeval forced proponents of an original semantic motivation to recast this in terms of [±animate], rather than of male vs female, as put forward most influentially by Meillet (1919: 202, 1921: 211). Thus, Meillet and Vendryes (1968) claim that la répartition du genre animé et du genre inanimé [ . . . ] dépend des conceptions de demi-civilisés qui étaient celles des Indo-Européens [ . . . ]; ces conceptions s’étaient d’ailleurs obscurcies avant l’époque des plus anciens textes de chaque langue. (Meillet and Vendryes 1968: 538f) [the distribution of [nouns over] the animate and inanimate genders depends on the conceptions of the half-civilized Indo-Europeans [ . . . ]; these conceptions, on the other hand, were obfuscated before the time of the earliest texts of each language.]11 (specific)/the fish’, whereas in ‘I ate a fish’ (non-individuated) the unmarked form kūl-Ø ‘fish’ occurs. Individual IE languages may have lost such a (semantically motivated) syntactic rule and refunctionalized the original pairs of morphosyntactic forms within one and the same paradigm as distinct lexemes across languages (as in the pairs seen above) or even within the same language: e.g. OInd. mās- vs māṁsá-, both meaning ‘meat’ (occurring in just three passages of the Rig-Veda, always with a specific reading; see Mayrhofer 1996, II: 343–4, 353, who glosses both as synonymous). This supposedly resulted in the rise of the two neuter inflectional classes, and of the common vs neuter gender too, since (what later became) masculine nouns would show ‘die stärkste [ . . . ] innere Individuiertheit’ [‘the stronger inner individuation’] (Ostrowski 1985: 317) and therefore tend to occur with -o-m inflection, which eventually became categorical, yielding the common (later masculine) accusative ending. 10  See e.g. Meyer[-Lübke] (1883: 6) for early criticism of this view; see also Wackernagel (1920–24: 2.39); Lazzeroni (1993: 82): ‘è il genere grammaticale quello che determina il sesso delle personificazioni, non viceversa’ [‘it is grammatical gender that determines the sex of personifications, not the other way round’]. In other words, the semantic import of gender (e.g. of the linguistic categorization of objects as masculine or feminine) is conventional, rather than depending on referential properties: see e.g. Boroditsky et al. (2003); Phillips and Boroditsky (2003). 11  The labels employed are not neutral, as ‘animate vs inanimate gender’, used by Meillet, tends to ­co-occur with claims to an original strictly semantic motivation. Other authors employ labels—see Balles (2004: 45) for a list of the different terminological options used to define the two genders in the ePIE

28

The starting point: Gender in Latin

Some Latin reference grammars adhere to this view (see Hofmann and Szantyr 1997: 8), others reject it as ‘une sorte de vision primitive animiste’ [‘a sort of primitive animist view’] (Touratier 1994: 82). Criticism of the ‘animist’ view of IE gender is to be found in studies in general as well as in IE linguistics (see e.g. Ibrahim 1973: 17, or Villar 1984: 176). In the same vein, Matasović (2004: 186) alludes to Meillet’s (1920) influential study on the IE names of ‘fire’ and ‘water’ without mentioning him: ‘The question why there were two words for ‘fire’, and two words for ‘water’ in PIE is not particularly meaningful’; in Matasović’s view, the co-occurrence of for example masculine *(H)ngnis and neuter *peh2wr both meaning ‘fire’ ‘does not have to imply that the former was viewed as animate and capable of being an agent, while the latter was conceived as essentially passive and inanimate’. While it is uncontroversial that mythologies can play a role in gender assignment systems (see Corbett 1991: 16), for the description of Latin as a historically documented language, reference to the semantics does not offer a general account for gender assignment at any stage. In Latin too, semantic assignment rules occur—as in any language (as noted just above)—accounting for the assignment of masculine or feminine gender to nouns denoting humans and superior animals. As for inanimates, though, masculine and feminine are arbitrary. The neuter, on the other hand, was the only gender value to display a broad correlation with the semantics, since all of its nouns denoted [–animate] referents, apart from class-denoting terms (e.g. animal) and a handful of exceptions: mancipium ‘servant’, prostibulum and scortum both ‘prostitute’, testimonium ‘testimony’ (Adams 2013: 389f.). The fact that the neuter was the only gender in the system to display a semantic correlation will have to be borne in mind while discussing the Romance successors of the Latin gender system (see especially §§4.4–4.5 and Ch. 7). While the reconstruction of (the rise of) gender in the proto-language is still a matter of debate, the later development of gender in the IE languages is to a large extent uncontroversial, as general typological studies on IE gender basically agree on the picture in (19) (based on Priestly 1983; Matasović 2004; Igartua 2006): (19)  Modern developments of the Late-PIE three-gender system:

a. preserved: Greek, (most of) Slavic, (part of) Germanic (German, Icelandic, Faroese), (part of) Indo-Iranian; b. reduction to two genders: i. masculine ≠ feminine: Romance (except Romanian), part of Celtic (Irish, Scottish, Manx, Breton), Albanian, Baltic languages (except Old Prussian), some South Slavic dialects (of Slovenian and Serbo-Croat), several Indo-Iranian languages (Hindi, Kashmiri, Rajasthani, etc.); ii. common ≠ neuter: part of Northern (East Scandinavian: Danish, Swedish) and Western Germanic (Dutch, Frisian);

system (18a)—which can be read as purely grammatical, such as ‘common’ vs ‘neuter’ or Meier-Brügger’s (2002: 190) even more cautious ‘class A’ vs ‘class B’.

2.3  Gender values and gender assignment from (Proto-)Indo-European to Latin

29

c. loss of gender contrasts: Armenian, some Iranian languages (e.g. Modern Iranian, Sarykol, Baluchi, Ossetic), many Indo-Aryan languages (e.g. Nepali, Assamese, Bengali, Oriya), part of Germanic (English, Afrikaans).

Preservation of the late PIE three-gender system is observed in only a minority of languages ((19a)). Elsewhere, there has been a general drift toward reduction, which has uncontroversially resulted in total loss ((19c)) in languages like Armenian or Farsi (Modern Iranian). On the other hand, including languages like English or Afrikaans under (19c) in such lists depends on the fact that what is recognized by others as a (three-way) gender contrast only occurs on pronouns (Afrikaans hy, sy, dit, E. he, she, it), hence the label ‘pronominal gender’ (see e.g. Audring 2009a), or the distinction (e.g. in Dixon 1982: 164) between ‘grammatical gender systems [ . . . ] marked by some or all of: the form of articles and demonstratives; adjectival agreement; and verb agreement’ and ‘[s]emantic gender, as in English’ (Dixon 1982: 169), only marked on pronouns. A more accurate statement of the facts is that English lost its inherited lexical gender system and replaced it by a referential gender system— in the sense of Dahl (2000)—in which only third-person pronouns serve as gender exponents, and which, in addition, is based on two salient conceptual distinctions (animate/inanimate, male/female). (Siemund and Dolberg 2011: 489f.)

Clearly, then, since (19c) also includes languages where gender has been eradicated from pronouns too, such as Armenian or Farsi, it actually lumps together different types of system. A reduction of the gender contrasts which did not result in total loss usually involved the loss of the neuter, with the exception of West and North Germanic ((19b.ii)).12 In these languages, the reduction took place in a kaleidoscope of different transitional systems. In Dutch, for instance, referential gender signalled through agreement on pronouns co-exists with lexical gender (of the inherited IE kind) as seen in DP-internal agreement (see Audring 2009a, 2009b; De Vos and De Vogelaer 2011). There is a drift towards semanticization (or referentialization) of gender agreement, which seems at the present time to be leading Dutch—or, more precisely, its dialects, at different paces—from a German-like to an English-like situation. This may generate a quite systematic vacillation between common and neuter agreement with nouns denoting inanimates (what Semplicini 2016 calls the ‘double gender’ of many such nouns in Dutch). However, as argued in Loporcaro and Ricca (in preparation), one may frame this state of affairs in terms of concurrent gender systems (see §5.4.1 for discussion of this concept). Variation as the system is undergoing reduction has been described for many languages. Consider for example Ebert’s (1998) description of Fering, the variety of Frisian spoken on the island of Föhr. While Frisian is usually reported to have reduced gender to a binary contrast of the (19b.ii) type, Ebert shows that a three-way gender distinction is partially preserved, in that the form a of the definite article is selected categorically with masculine nouns (e.g. a dochter ‘the.m doctor(m)’), the form at with 12  This exception is sometimes overlooked, as is the case for Nichols (2003: 300) (see discussion in Enger 2011: 181).

The starting point: Gender in Latin

30

neuter nouns (at hüs ‘the.n house(n)’), while there is free variation of both with feminines: a/at wüf ‘the.f woman(f)’). While the feminine is undergoing depletion, as many formerly feminine nouns are now consistently either neuter or masculine, nouns like wüf still belong to a third (controller) gender (see (7), Ch. 1). In addition, nineteenth-century descriptions—Ebert shows—still report a three-way (target gender) contrast for the anaphoric article: di maan ‘the.m man(m)’ vs det hüs ‘the.n house(n)’ vs jü wüf ‘the.f woman(f)’), with a distinct form jü for the feminine, nowadays replaced by det. In systems in which the neuter underwent change, it mostly merged with the masculine ((19b.i)). Occasionally, however, the neuter has been preserved as a third distinct gender but redefined semantically, as was the case in Konkani (Indo-Aryan, see Miranda 1975: 209–13). In fact, in the Mangalore Christian dialects and in both the Christian and Hindu Konkani dialects of Goa, the inherited neuter was reanalysed as a ‘younger-feminine’ gender, as shown in the glosses in (20), where the diachronic development of the gender-agreement morphemes from PIE to Konkani is also schematized:13 (20) PIE Old Indo- Konkani Aryan m -os

> -as

f

(-ā,) -ī > (-ā,) -ī

n

-om

> -am

> -ɔ

tɔ ǰɔničɔ dhakṭɔ čεdɔ M ‘he is John’s little boy’

> -i

ti ǰɔniči dhakṭi bhoyṇ F1 ‘she is John’s little sister’

> -ɛ˜ -ĩ -ũ tɛ˜ ǰɔničɛ˜ dhakṭɛ˜ čεdũ F2 ‘she is John’s little girl’

In closely related Marathi, where this change has not taken place, the original masculine vs feminine vs neuter contrast still occurs: ceḍā ‘boy/son(m)’ ≠ ceḍ ‘little girl(f)’ ≠ ceḍũ ‘little child(n)’ (see Turner 1966: 267; Miranda 1975: 209, n. 14). However, as far as the overall architecture of the Konkani gender system is concerned, one can conclude that the change in (20) affected the semantics of the third gender, while leaving the system itself untouched, since this remained tripartite. As will become clear in Chapters 4 and 6, the history of the Romance languages and dialects holds in store more radical reshapings of the gender system than the one seen in (20).

2.4  Latin/Romance gender in typological perspective In current studies on gender, in the fields of both historical Indo-European linguistics and linguistic typology, one often finds the claim that ‘the number of genders was not increased in any branch of IE’ (Matasović 2004: 72), with respect to the three Late-PIE genders, so that no Indo-European language has (or ever had) four grammatical genders: This system is not attested in Indo-European; it is found, however, in Burushaski (isolate), Dyirbal (Pama-Nyungan), as well as in some NE Caucasian languages. (Matasović 2004: 22, n. 6)14 13  The table in (20) reproduces the diachronic derivation provided by Miranda (1975: 209). In the feminine, the Old Indian -ā and -ī endings merged via a morphophonemic change (see Bloch 1934: 136). 14  Some examples of non-IE four-gender systems, including Burushaski, are mentioned in §8.1.



2.4  Latin/Romance gender in typological perspective

31

The typological survey by Corbett (2005a: 127) seems to encourage this view, mentioning three gender systems as the maximum for IE languages: Given a gender system, the most common number of genders is two. [ . . . ] In Indo-European many languages retain three genders (like Icelandic and German), while many others have reduced to two (like French and Spanish); a minority has lost gender altogether (e.g. Eastern Armenian). Four-gender systems are particularly prevalent in Nakh-Daghestanian languages (our sample includes Archi, Lak and Tsez), though they occur elsewhere too, as in the isolate Burushaski. (Corbett 2005a: 127)

There are indeed IE varieties for which four-gender analyses have been proposed, though not uncontroversially. Thus, while for example Schwink (2004: 100–2) adheres to a two-gender analysis of Eastern Scandinavian (common vs neuter), Plank and Schellinger (1997: 54) give the following account of gender in 3rd person personal pronouns in Danish: (21) Gender in 3rd-person pronouns in Danish (subjective case) singular person non-person

masculine

han

feminine

hun

common

den

neuter

det

plural

de

This four-way contrast, also found in Swedish (see also Audring 2014: 9), characterizes only personal pronouns and arose through ‘an encroachment of a demonstrative pronoun [non-neuter den–M.L.] on the territory of 3rd-person pronouns’ (Dahl 2004: 24). This explains why this four-way contrast is not registered as an overall property of the gender system in overviews such as (19) above. Polish also has four genders, under Brown’s (1998) analysis, which recognizes a main gender [masculine personal], distinct from the feminine, neuter, and masculine nonpersonal. This exhausts the list of (types of) analyses which operate in terms comparable with those of the present study. Starting from different premises, other analyses of the same IE languages come up with even more complex systems: for example six genders for Russian, under Zaliznjak’s (1964) analysis, resulting from a combination of the three traditional values (masculine, feminine, and neuter) with the [±animate] contrast (which is analysed in terms of subgenders in Corbett  1988; Comrie and Corbett 1993: 16); or even eleven genders for Polish, under Przepiórkowski’s (2003) analysis, mentioned in Kibort (2010: 73, n. 9). Even for the reconstructed proto-language, Stang (1945) postulated a four-gender system (with collective as a separate gender value in PIE), a proposal that did not find wide acceptance. In Loporcaro and Paciaroni (2011), the above list of more-than-ternary gender contrasts in IE has been enriched with evidence from Italo-Romance: I shall go through this evidence in §4.5, since Romance gender systems of higher complexity than the

32

The starting point: Gender in Latin

better-known ones will turn out to be particularly relevant for the diachronic reconstruction to be worked out in Chapter 7. Outside of Romance, the IE language which provides the closest match to the Romance four-gender systems to be considered in §4.5 is Albanian (see Breu 2011: 54, n. 39). This language, in addition to masculine and feminine, has a neuter which hosts nouns denoting inanimates, both mass (e.g. djathë ‘cheese’) and count (e.g. krye ‘head’), as well as an alternating neuter of the Romanian kind (on which see §4.4.1), to which nouns like vend,-e, ‘place/-s’, mall,-ra ‘ware/-s’ are assigned, which take masculine agreement in the singular and feminine in the plural. Both neuters are productive, the former being fed by conversions (e.g. të ftohët ‘the cold’, të folurit ‘the  [act of] speaking’), the latter by the productive suffix ‑im deriving abstract nouns (e.g. kujt‑im, kujt‑im‑e ‘memory/memories’, from kujtoj ‘to remember’).15 In what follows, I shall review (Chapters 3–4) the different kinds of gender system found in the Romance languages and dialects, so as to pave the way for reconstruction (Chapter  7). Furthermore, as a byproduct, this inventory will reveal data that are interesting from a typological perspective (Chapter 8) and will help to revise commonplaces concerning gender in Romance (and in Standard Average European) such as the one that gender values are maximally three, or, even more spectacularly, the tacit assumption that the co-presence of two concurrent gender systems within one and the same language is (sparingly) observed only in far off areas of the planet but never in Europe. 15  Some of these facts are reported elsewhere in the literature (e.g. Matasović 2004: 70f.; Giurgea 2014: 56–8), with different analyses.

3 Grammatical gender in Romance The mainstream In this chapter, I shall provide an overview of the basics of grammatical gender in Romance, starting from the major modern standard languages (although dialect data will be mentioned too, whenever appropriate, and will be in focus in §§3.1.2–3.1.3 for reasons explained there). This overview is far from exhaustive: it only serves the purpose of laying the ground for Chapters 4–6, in which I shall show that the data observed in (the contemporary synchronic state of) the better-known standard languages grossly under-represent the array of structural variation found across Romance, and on which one can (and indeed must) capitalize for purposes of comparison and reconstruction.1

3.1  Binary gender systems All modern standard Romance languages except Romanian are known to feature two complementary sets of controller nouns, triggering respectively feminine vs masculine gender agreement, as already seen in (1)–(2), Chapter  1 with nouns denoting human beings and further illustrated with inanimates in (1)–(2):2 (1)

a. b. c. d.

a/**o coluna (Pg.) la/**el columna (Sp., Cat.) la/**le colomne (Fr.) la/**il colonna (It.) ‘the.f.sg column(f)’

(2)

a. b. c. d.

o/**a pilar (Pg.) el /**la pilar (Sp., Cat.) le/**la pilier (Fr.) il/**la pilastro (It.) ‘the.m.sg pillar(m)’

1 An hors-d’oeuvre of this variation will be offered in §§3.1.2–3.1.3. However, although different from the mainstream type, the dialects discussed there do not provide crucial evidence to the diachronic reconstruction in Ch. 7. 2 Ro. o coloană ‘a.f column(f)’/un pilastru ‘a.m pillar(m)’ are parallel, but are omitted in (1)–(2) because the overall gender system is different (§4.4.1). Gender from Latin to Romance. First edition. Michele Loporcaro © Michele Loporcaro 2018. First published 2018 by Oxford University Press

Grammatical gender in Romance: The mainstream

34

It is not rare for linguistic studies looking at Romance ‘at low resolution’—that is, in a general typological context—to assume that this represents ‘Romance’, full stop. Although we shall see (starting with §3.1.2 and in the subsequent chapters) that this is an undue oversimplification, it is surely appropriate for us to begin (in §3.1.1) with a succinct illustration of the majority pattern. 3.1.1  The majority type: parallel binary gender systems In all the languages exemplified in (1)–(2), the gender system is parallel, in Corbett’s (1991: 155) sense, in that the masculine vs feminine contrast is marked in the plural just as in the singular, provided that the agreement targets’ inflection displays a fourcell/four-form-paradigm (see Loporcaro 2011d: 331). This is exemplified with definite articles and class one adjectives in (3)–(4): (3)

(4)

a. b. c. d. e.

as las les les le def:f.pl f. fet-e=le girl(f)-pl=def.f.pl ‘the good girls’

boas/**bons buenas/**buenos bones/**bons bonnes/**bons brave/**bravi good:f.pl/m.pl bun-e/**bun-i good-f.pl/m.pl

raparigas chicas noies filles ragazze girl(f):pl

(Pg.) (Sp.) (Cat.) (Fr.) (It.)

a. b. c. d. e.

bons/**boas buenos/**buenas bons/**bones bons/**bonnes bravi/**brave good:m.pl/:f.pl bun-i/**bun-e good-m.pl/-f.pl

rapazes chicos nois garçons ragazzi girl(f):pl

(Pg.) (Sp.) (Cat.) (Fr.) (It.)

os los els les i def.m.pl f. băiaţ-i=i boy(m)-pl=def.m.pl ‘the good boys’

(Ro.)

(Ro.)

Another trait that characterizes all the major standard languages (although for Romanian some further provisos have to be made, see §4.4.1.2) is that, of the two values of the gender category, masculine is the syntactically unmarked one, systematically occurring on agreement targets in default contexts. Different defaults may behave differently in richer systems, but they all converge on the masculine in the binary Romance systems considered here. Take for instance past participle agreement with DO clitics, which still occurs in Catalan, French, and Italian, as exemplified with feminine singular agreement in (5):3 3  In some varieties of spoken French, non-agreeing mis may occur in (5b) (see Loporcaro 2010b: 161f.), while in Catalan there seems to be a morphosyntactic gradient to the effect that feminine singular clitics trigger agreement more consistently than feminine plural ones, and the latter more consistently than masculine plural ones (see Loporcaro 2011d: 356f., with further references).

(5)

3.1  Binary gender systems

35

a. (l-a noi-a no l’=hem vist-a/**vist (Cat.) def.f-sg girl(f)-sg neg DO3f.sg=have.prs.1pl seen-f.sg /seen[m.sg] ‘(the girl) we haven’t seen her’ b. (s-a voiture)    Jean l’=a mise/**mis (Fr.) 3sg-f.sg car(f)    John DO3f.sg=have.prs.3sg put.ptp.f/put.ptp.m   dans le    garage into   def.m.sg  garage(m) ‘(his [lit. the] car) John put it into the garage’ b. (l-a    cas-a)      l’ha          pulit-a/** pulit-o       (It.) def-f.sg house(f)-sg  DO3f.sg=have.prs.3sg clean.ptp-f.sg/clean.ptp.m.sg Gianni John ‘(the flat/house) it’s John who has cleaned it up’

In all these languages, lexical DOs do not (anymore) control agreement, which results in selection of the (unmarked) masculine singular form in this context:4 (6)

a. no hem vist/**vist-a l-a noia (Cat.) neg have.prs.1pl see.ptp.m.sg/ see.ptp-f.sg def-f.sg girl(f)-sg ‘(the girl) we haven’t seen her’ b. Jean a mis/**mise           s-a     voiture  dans John have.prs.3sg put.ptp.m /put.ptp.f    3sg-f.sg  car(f)   into le    garage (Fr.) def.m.sg  garage(m) ‘John put his [lit. the] car into the garage.’ l-a   cas-a (It.) c. Gianni ha     pulit-o/??pulit-a         John    have.prs.3sg  clean.ptp-m.sg/clean.ptp-f.sg  def-f.sg  house(f)-sg ‘John has cleaned up the flat/house.’

The same goes for pronouns, to an extent. Thus, a pronominal clitic resuming a noncanonical controller (typically, a clause), is masculine in Spanish, French, and Italian:5 (7)

a. lo sabía (que ibas a venir) b. je le savais (que tu viendrais) c. lo sapevo (che saresti venuto) ‘I knew you would come.’

(Sp.) (Fr.) (It.)

4  Again, this must be hedged with qualifications, as Balearic Catalan still preserves, at least variably, past participle agreement in this context, as do several dialects of southern Gallo-Romance and centralsouthern Italian, as well as, for Italian, an archaic-sounding variety of the modern standard language (see Loporcaro 1998: 79, 2010a: 228, 2016a: 806f.). 5  Spanish data from Fernández-Soriano (1999: 1260). Portuguese has no clitic here: eu (**o) sabia que vinhas ‘I knew you would come’.

Grammatical gender in Romance: The mainstream

36

Catalan, on the contrary, has a dedicated neutral clitic ho here ((8a), contrasting with the masculine (8b), see Wheeler et al.  1999: 138),6 that will be addressed in §4.2.3 where other dedicated neutral forms for non-clitic 3rd person pronouns will also be reviewed: (8)

a. algú ho=deu     saber somebody DO3n=must.3sg know.inf ‘somebody must know it’ b. algú el/*ho=deu conèixer somebody DO3m.sg/DO3n=must.3sg know.inf ‘somebody must know him’

With adjectives, agreement with non-canonical controllers takes the form of the masculine singular in all the Romance languages except those discussed in §§4.3.3, 4.5.2, 5.3, and 6.3.1 (in the French example, one sees the (3sg) masculine default form for the subject clitic too):7 (9)

a. b. c. d.

é bonit-o andar ao mar (Pg.) es bonit-o ir al mar (Sp.) és bell anar a la mar (Cat.) è bell-o andare al mare (It.) be.prs.3sg nice:m.sg go.inf to-the sea(m) e. il       est    bon    d’aller à la  mer (Fr.) subj.clit.3m.sg be.prs3sg good.m.sg go.inf to-the sea(f) ‘it’s nice/good to go to the seaside’

Selection of the masculine singular also occurs in Italian, French, and Spanish in another default context, when the clitic resumes a (nominal/adjectival) predicate, rather than an argument:8 (10)

a. es guapa. Lo/**La es ‘(She) is beautiful. She is.’

(Sp.)

b. Jeanne est son amie. Elle le/**la sera toujours (Fr.) ‘Jeanne is his friend. She always will be.’ c. Maria è molto alta: lo/**la è sin da bambina (It.) ‘Maria is very tall. She has been since she was a child.’

6  The term ‘neutral’ is used here in Corbett’s (1991: 159) sense (see §4.3.3 below). 7  This goes for Romanian too (see (54), Ch. 4). On the other hand, some of the varieties discussed in Chs. 4–6 have a non-masculine (neuter) form for this function, be it a ‘neutral’ form (as in Srs. bi ‘nice[n]’, (18c), Ch. 4) only occurring in such contexts, or a default one, also selected for agreement with neuter nouns: see (118)–(123), Ch. 4 for Central Marchigiano and (12)–(20), Ch. 5 for Central Asturian. 8  Again, Portuguese has no clitic here: Marilia é formosa. Sempre (**o) foi ‘Marilia is beautiful. She always was.’ On Spanish, see Fernández-Soriano (1999: 1260), Ambadiang (1999: 4907). Romansh has been losing the propredicate clitic over time. This can be omitted today in Sursilvan and is not even an option in contemporary Engadinian, while the old language had it (Linder 1987: 124f.; example from the sixteenthcentury Psalms by Durich Chiampel, ed. Ulrich 1906: 287):



3.1  Binary gender systems

37

As seen in (10), the propredicate clitic is masculine singular even if the agreement controller (and, as a consequence, the predicate) is feminine.9 Catalan, on the other hand (Espinal 2013: 66), displays the neuter clitic form, see in (8a), for pronominalizing nominal predicates regardless of their gender: (11)

en Pau Gasol és alt: ho=és des que P.G. be.prs.3sg tall(m)[sg] 3n=be.prs.3sg since era  una criatura was a  child ‘Pau Gasol is tall: he has been since he was a child.’

(Cat.)

Masculine agreement is also the default option in gender resolution contexts, although here there are language-specific subtleties—including, generally, the possibility for the predicate to agree in gender with the conjunct occurring closer to it in linear order:10 (12)

a. le    rideau    et     la    fenêtre def.m.sg curtain(m).sg and def.f.sg window(f).sg sont ouverts/**ouvertes (Fr.) be.prs.3pl open.m.pl/open.f.pl ‘the curtain and the window are open’ b. a  janel-a  e  o   purtão  estão def:f.sg window(f)-sg and the.m gate(m):sg be.3pl abert-os/**abert-as                    (Pg.) open-m.pl/open-f.pl c. la    finestr-a  e    il  cancell-o sono def:f.sg window(f)-sg and the.m gate(m)-sg be.3pl apert-i/**apert-e                     (It.) open-m.pl/open-f.pl ‘the window and the gate are open’

As shown in (12), the adjective predicated of two singular conjuncts of diverging gender is masculine plural, and the same goes for other agreement targets, in all Romance languages except Romanian (whose resolution rules will be addressed separately in §4.4.1.5):11 (i) Ans dysch, sch’tü’sch Christ […] seis. […] Eug lg sun to.us tell whether you Christ . . .  are.2sg I 3m.sg am ‘Tell us whether you’re the Christ.’ ‘I am’ 9  There are a few regional varieties of North-Western Italian (Spezzino, Parmigiano, Vogherese, and perhaps others) in which the clitic agrees with the (final) subject in this context, probably favoured by its conflation with the (homophonous) subject clitic: e.g. stanca, la è ‘(tired) she is’ (compare StIt. stanca, lo è where the propredicate clitic is invariable). This is an under-researched phenomenon, sometimes ascribed loosely to ‘Northern Italian’ (as in Cardinaletti 2009: 43, n. 17, based on a p.c. by R. D’Alessandro), but in fact limited to (part of) the North-West (see Setti  2013, discussing La Spezia local Italian, and D’Achille 2017: 23). 10  This option was already there in Latin, whereas the selection of default masculine under resolution is a Romance innovation, replacing the neuter (see (14)–(17), Ch. 2). 11  The Spanish example is from Roca (1989: 12).

38 (13)

Grammatical gender in Romance: The mainstream a. l-a       ciudad    y    el        puebl-o         (Sp.) def-f.sg city(f)[sg] and def.m.sg village(m)-sg los/*las=visitamos en autocar DO.3m.pl/f.pl=visit.pret.1pl in   coach b. l-a    città   e     il    paes-e           (It.) def-f.sg city(f)[sg] and  def.m.sg village(m)-sg li/*le=abb-iamo visitat-i/**-e in pullman DO.3m.pl/f.pl=have.prs-1pl visited-m.pl/-f.pl in coach ‘the city and the town, we visited them by coach’

This indicates the default status of the masculine gender value, while feminine plural agreement is specified positively throughout Romance (except in Romanian) and is selected only when both conjuncts are feminine and none denotes a male animate being, since in the latter case a semantic rule triggers masculine agreement, as exemplified with Spanish and Italian in (14) (of course, the judgements reported presuppose that persona in (14a), media naranja in (14b), and sentinella in (14c) all denote males; the judgements would differ if, for example, in (14b–c) homosexual couples were involved): (14)

a. est-a person-a y  su    mujer        (Sp.) dem.prox-f.sg person(f)-sg and his wife(f)[sg] son    muy fe-os/**fe-as be.prs.3pl very ugly-m.pl/-f.pl ‘this person and his wife are very ugly’ b. es-a        tí-a        y  su  medi-a    naranj-a dem.nonprox-f.sg person(f)-sg and his half-f.sg orange(f)-sg están   loc-os/**loc-as be.prs.3pl crazy-m.pl/-f.pl ‘this woman and her lover/partner are crazy’ c. l-a     sentinell-a      e    su-a     mogli-e     (It.) def-f.sg sentinel(f)-sg and poss.3sg-f.sg wife(f)-sg sono    partit-i/*-e be.prs.3pl left-m.pl/f.pl ‘the sentinel and his wife have left’

Summing up on this point, the resolution rules obtaining in most Romance varieties are the following: (15)  Gender resolution in Romance (Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc.): a. if all conjuncts are feminine b. if one conjunct denotes a male animate c. elsewhere

→ feminine plural → masculine plural → masculine plural



3.1  Binary gender systems

39

Viewed diachronically, (15b) is a successor of the analogous rule (14c), Chapter  2, obtaining in Latin, while the default status of the masculine ((15c)) is a Romance innovation with respect to Latin, where neuter used to take up this role (see (14d), Ch. 2). In most dialects whose ‘roofing’ standard languages (Dachsprachen) are the ones exemplified so far, grammatical gender works in exactly the same way as shown for the respective standard varieties. As an example, take Logudorese Sardinian, whose binary gender system is schematized in (16):12 (16) det

Noun

Adj

s-u

ɣa ɖɖ-u ma nn-u

s-u

ɣa n-ε

ma nn-u

s-a

ruɣ-ε

ma nn-a

s-a

ɣra β-a

ma nn-a

class II, pl. -ɔs

masculine

class III, pl. -εs class I, pl. -a s

feminine

‘the.m big-m.sg horse(m)-sg’ ‘the.m big-m.sg dog(m)-sg’ ‘the.f big-f.sg cross(f)-sg’ ‘the.f big-f.sg goat(f)-sg’

This also exemplifies a situation that is widespread in Romance, viz. the lack of a oneto-one correspondence between gender and inflectional class: the three inflectional classes in (16) do not correspond directly to the two gender agreement options highlighted by the boxes around the determiner and the adjective. From the above, it is clear that, on the whole, Romance has no general overt gender marking: this is why the many accounts of the relationship of gender and noun inflection which talk about ‘gender markers’ on nouns—as already exemplified in §1.2, commenting on Lloret and Viaplana (1997: 179)—are generally ­questionable. The Logudorese data in (17)–(19) illustrate the occurrence of masculine agreement in all the default contexts seen above for the major standard languages in (6)–(7), (9), and (12). Thus, masculine singular forms are selected for lack of agreement ((17b)): (17)

a. s-a ðɔːmɔ l=app-ɔ βuliːð-a/**βuliːð-u def-f.sg house(f).sg DO3f.sg=have.prs-1sg clean.ptp-f.sg/clean.ptp-m.sg ‘(the flat/house) I have cleaned it up’ b. app-ɔ  βuliːð-u/**βuliːð-a        z-a    ðɔːmɔ have.prs-1sg clean.ptp-m.sg/clean.ptp-f.sg   def-f.sg house(f).sg ‘I have cleaned up the flat/house’

Likewise, the masculine singular clitic lu is used to pronominalize ((18a)), and masculine singular inflections to signal agreement with ((18b)), clausal controllers:13 12  The data in (16)–(19) stem from the Western Logudorese dialect of Bonorva (province of Sassari). 13  Sardinian, on the other hand, has no propredicate clitic, like Portuguese (n. 8) and contrary to Italian, Spanish, and French: (i) manğɛɖɖa ɛst alt-a mɛːða | fi ggoi ̯ ðaɛ M. be.prs.3sg tall-f.sg very be.impf.3sg so since ‘Mariangela is very tall. She has been since she was a child.’

ɣannɔ vi when be.impf.3sg

ppittsinn-a young-f.sg

40 (18)

Grammatical gender in Romance: The mainstream a. ǧa bbi=lu=naːr-ɔ ɣi nɔ ɛndz-ɔ indeed IO3=DO3m.sg=tell.prs-1sg that neg come.prs-1sg ‘I’ll tell him/her that I’m not coming.’ b. ɛl     bell-u     ann-aːrɛ a=ss-u      maːr-ɛ be.prs.3sg nice-m.sg go-inf    to=def-m.sg sea(m)-sg ‘it’s nice to go to the seaside’

Masculine agreement also occurs, as in the languages seen in (12), in gender ­resolution contexts: (19)

s-u bbalkɔːn-ɛ ei̯ z-a žann-a zun def-m.sg window(m)-sg and def-f.sg door(f)-sg be.prs.3pl abbɛ´lt-ɔzɔ/**abbɛ´lt-aza open-m.pl/open-f.pl ‘the window and the door are open’

Reviewing most other Romance local dialects (and/or ‘minor’ standardized languages) would lead to the same conclusion and bring in no novelty: see for example Trumper’s (2014) account of gender assignment in the Veneto, showing that Venetian, Paduan, etc. have a binary masculine/feminine contrast, masculine default assignment, etc.; or Dubert García’s (2010) discussion of (masculine/feminine) gender assignment in Galician, and so on. Thus, in the following, we shall discuss only the dialects whose gender systems diverge significantly from that of their respective roofing languages. Such cases of divergence sometimes also occur in dialects with a binary gender contrast: for instance, at least one dialect of Apulia (considered in (8)–(11), Ch. 8) has developed a subgender distinction within the masculine (contrasting in turn with the feminine). More often, however, binary systems have undergone reduction rather than complexification, as shown in §3.1.2. 3.1.2  Binary convergent systems While a binary contrast is the minimum for a morphosyntactic feature to be active in a given language, the parallel systems described in §3.1.1 are not the minimal conceivable ones, in terms of the distinctions available. A logically possible option with still fewer distinctions overall is a convergent gender system (in Corbett’s 1991: 155 terms), in which the contrast is found in the singular, but not in the plural (the reverse would be a violation of Greenberg’s 1966: 95 universal 37). This kind of gender system indeed occurs in several Romance varieties, although in none of the standard languages (which is why this section focuses on dialects, unlike the rest of the present chapter). Dwelling a while on them is also justified due to a lack of previous studies on Romance convergent gender systems. Since from now on I will refer to local dialects—even from small villages—maps will be provided, for readers to orient themselves, starting with Map 1, at the end of this chapter, which gives a preliminary overview, to be then made more detailed with the subsequent ones, as discussion proceeds.



3.1  Binary gender systems

41

Among the major languages, French is the one which has come closest to having a convergent system, since most agreement targets which preserve a gender distinction display syncretism in the plural, ultimately due to the effects of sound change: (20) a. def = DO clitic sg m

lə

f

la

b. ‘this’

pl

c. ‘my’

sg

pl

sə

le(z)

sg mõ

se(z)

sεt

pl me(z)

ma

Adjectives and participles mostly do not inflect for gender, but agreement on a handful of (subclasses of) irregular adjectives and participles (see e.g. Bonami and Boyé 2005: 79–81; Kilani-Schoch and Dressler 2005: 145f.) still preserves a masculine vs feminine contrast in the plural:14 (21) a. ‘beautiful’ sg

b. ‘good’

c. ‘taken’

pl

sg

pl

m bo

bo(z)

bõ

bõ(z)

f bεl

bεl(z)

bɔn bɔn(z)

d. ‘opened’

sg

pl

sg

pl

pχi

uvεχ

pχiz

uvεχt

For the purposes of the present discussion it is crucial that a contrast be maintained in at least (one IC of) one part of speech. The issue of uniformity vs non-uniformity in the formal encoding of gender values across different types of target will be addressed in (27), Chapter 5. Still more advanced towards full gender neutralization in the plural are Northern Italian dialects such as Milanese, where all determiners (articles, demonstratives, possessives), personal pronouns, and pronominal clitics, as well as the overwhelming majority of adjective ICs, do not contrast gender in the plural (see Beretta 1980: 62–8, 132–45; Nicoli 1983: 87f., 115–20, 174): (22) a. def sg m el f

la

b. ‘that’ pl i

sg kel kela

c. DO clitic pl ki

sg el la

pl je

d. ‘your’ sg tɔ toa

e. ‘beautiful’ pl tɔ

sg bεl bεla

pl bei

14  As discussed in Loporcaro (2011d: 350), it is open to discussion whether the inflectional paradigm must still be analysed as a four-cell one, given the uncertain status of inflectional number marking, which is overtly preserved only in liaison contexts. In fact, many analyses regard liaison consonants as epenthetic (e.g. Kilani-Schoch and Dressler 2005). Anyway, for an adjective like beau ((21a)) one still has to specify that [z] may occur after some instances of [bo] (plural) but not after some other (singular), which implies positing distinct cells for singular vs plural. An even clearer case is provided by irregular adjectives such as moral ‘moral’, where the m.pl moraux [moʁo] is categorically distinct (independently from liaison) from both the m.sg [moʁal] and the f.sg/pl (morale(s)), homophonous with the m.sg apart from liaison in the plural.

42

Grammatical gender in Romance: The mainstream

Just a few adjectives (Beretta 1980: 66f. mentions only those ending in ‑ǿː and in a nasalized vowel)15 preserve the contrast ((23a–c)) and so—combined with the classes exemplified in (22)—guarantee that we posit a four-cell paradigm for Milanese ­gender/number agreement: (23) a. ‘Spanish’ sg

b. ‘thin’ pl

sg

c. ‘good’

d. ‘two’

pl

sg

pl

f ĩː

bũː

bũː

m spaɲǿː spaɲǿː

f ĩː

f spaɲøla spaɲøl

fina fin

bɔna bɔn

pl

e. ‘three’ pl

dyː

triː

dɔ

trε

As seen in (23d–e), the numerals ‘two’ and ‘three’ also contrast gender (Beretta 1980: 96; Nicoli 1983: 201), although they have inherent plural number and thus no four-cell paradigm. Thus, should the plurals in (23a–b) also become levelled, only the lower numerals would remain, which would in that case display gender overdifferentiation.16 Dia­ chronically, this near-neutralization in the plural is due, as in French, to sound change, which has deleted all final unstressed vowels except ‑a, so that Proto-Romance *bɔːni/‑e ‘good.m.pl/f.pl’ could not be kept distinct, contrary to Tuscan bwɔːni/‑e. As a matter of fact, several dialects from this area failed to establish a convergent system through phonetically irregular reintroduction of plural endings which would have been deleted through regular sound change. This was the case for example in Cremonese, where the same sound change has occurred (e.g. leč ‘read.prs.3sg’ < legit, pel ‘skin’

b. Southern Corsican

sg m -u

pl -i

sg -u

f -a

-ε

-a

pl -i

As a consequence, these convergent systems are stable and do not show variation. The situation exemplified in (26) with Ragusano is different, since there the change



3.1  Binary gender systems

45

was analogical (i.e. morphological), with an earlier feminine plural *bboːni replaced by its metaphonic competitor, homophonous with the masculine plural. While for Ragusano this is described as categorical by Piccitto, for other dialects a transitional stage has been observed. For some varieties of northern Salento, which originally all displayed the pattern in (24b), Mancarella (1970: 120) reports on-going lexical diffusion of the merger in the plural, where the originally masculine form is now variably used for the feminine too. Thus, in the dialect of Sava (province of Taranto), one finds in the feminine plural li ma ni freddi/friddi ‘the cold hands(f)’, li jammi grossi/grwessi ‘the big legs(f)’. Here, the article form li is unmarked for gender, whereas for the adjective, a dedicated feminine form (freddi, grossi) occurs in free variation with the previously masculine—and now unmarked—one (friddi, grwessi).19 Generalization to mark plural of the formerly masculine form is the most widespread pattern in the extreme south area (exemplified for the Northern Salentino dialect of Latiano in (29a)), while extension to mark plural of the formerly f.pl form of the adjective is reported by Urgese (2003: 65, n. 2) for the nearby Northern Salentino dialect of Manduria (29b); both are in the province of Brindisi, where PRom ‑e > ‑i as in Sicilian and Southern Calabrian so that all non-metaphonic agreement targets converge in the plural (e.g. li má skuli/fɛ´mmini ‘the males/females’, Urgese 2003: 50): (29) a. dialect of Latiano (Brindisi)

b. dialect of Manduria (Brindisi)

m.sg

f.sg

pl

m.sg

f.sg

pl

gloss

ciːnu

cεːna

ciːni

ciːnu

cεːna

cεːni

‘full’

friddu

frεdda

friddi

friddu

frεdda

frεddi

‘cold’

frisku

frεska

friski

frisku

frεska

frεski

‘cool’

kurtu

kɔrta

kurti

kurtu

kɔrta

kɔrti

‘short’

ɲɲuːru

ɲɲɔːra

ɲɲuːri

ɲɲuːru

ɲɲɔːra

ɲɲɔːri

‘black’

russu

rɔssa

russi

russu

rɔssa

rɔssi

‘red’

North of the areas where /e/ > /i/ occurred, final vowels merged into /ə/ so that, again, metaphonic alternations and/or other formal distinctions on determiners may avoid gender neutralization in the plural. Occasionally, in this area too, morphological ­paradigm levelling resulted in neutralization, as in the Abruzzian dialects of Teramo and Casalincontrada (province of Chieti, see Map 2), described by De Lollis (1890– 92: 194): see Teramano li kiːnə/fémmənə ‘the.pl dogs(m)/women(f)’, júmmənə/fémmənə bbillə ‘beautiful.pl men(m)/women(f)’ (see discussion in Maiden 1991: 173). This kind of convergent system may be more widespread in the coastal Adriatic area of Abruzzi 19  Apparently, this replacement is favoured by certain syntactic contexts, as the unmarked form is reported as strongly preferred in predicate position: šti fémmini so ggrwessi/lljenti ‘these women are fat/ slow’, li vesti so llweŋgi ‘the dresses are long’ (though see the discussion in Maiden 1991: 172).

Grammatical gender in Romance: The mainstream

46

delimited in Map 3 in Chapter 4 and §4.5 below, an area which is very diversified, the morphosyntax of whose dialects still awaits closer investigation. For instance, the dialects of Castelli (province of Teramo, AIS pt. 618) and Fara San Martino (province of Chieti, AIS pt. 648; see also the VIVALDI archive data), spoken near the two varieties with convergent systems just mentioned, mark the m vs f contrast in articles (li kiːnə ‘the.m.pl dogs(m)’ vs lə kæːsə Castelli/kaːsə Fara ‘the.f.pl houses(f)’) and adjectives with metaphonic alternation (bbuːnə ‘good.m.pl’ vs bbɔːnə ‘good.f.pl’), and thus ­display a binary parallel system like those in §3.1, as shown on Map 2. In central Italo-Romance, where final unstressed mid vs high vowels did not generally merge, there is a—nowadays discontinuous—area stretching from Arcevia (in the province of Ancona), to the north-east, down to Montalto di Castro, Vetralla, and Barbarano Romano (in the province of Viterbo), to the south-west (see Merlo 1920: 234–5; Loporcaro and Paciaroni,  2016: 240 as well as Map 2)—where the reverse change with respect to the raising considered above took place. In some dialects, the merger spares at least some determiners and/or the contrast is rescued by root vowel alternation, historically caused by metaphony, as exemplifed for the dialect of Certopiano di Arcevia (province of Ancona) in (30) (after Crocioni 1906: 31–2, 53):20 (30) a. def sg

b. ‘this’ (only adnominal) c. ‘this’ (also pronominal) d. ‘our(s)’ pl

sg

pl

sg

pl

sg

pl

m l

i

sto

sti

kwisto kwiste

nwostro nwostre

f

le

sta

ste

kwesta kweste

nɔstra

la

nɔstre

As seen in (30c–d), class one affixal inflections are merged, but metaphonic root vowel alternation signals gender in the plural as well, whereas light (adnominal) proximal demonstratives ((30b)) and articles ((30a); see e.g. i cummiente ‘the.m.pl monasteries(m)’ vs le rame ‘the.f.pl branches(f)’, Crocioni  1936: 27), being unstressed, preserve the contrast in the final vowel which is treated as though it were pre-tonic.21 3.1.3  From parallel to convergent and back to a parallel gender system In the area where /i/ > /e/ has occurred, convergent systems arise whenever determiners and pronouns, too, lose the contrast, and metaphony does not apply. This is the case in the part of this area that is west of the Tiber (in Umbria and northern Lazio). In the north-western half of Umbria, the change was undone in many dialects—especially urban ones, such as Perugino—under Tuscan influence (see Ugolini  1970: 477). Conversely, it had not become established in Orvieto by the Middle Ages (see Bianconi  1962: 102), where it penetrated later on (e.g. e nostre maestre ‘def.pl our masters(m)’, e vostre denare ‘def.pl your money(m)’ in an Orvietano text from 1537; 20  This of course does not mean that the contrast is signalled everywhere, but crucially, it is, at least on (some inflectional classes of) some lexical categories. This is what distinguishes syncretism from neutralization (see Baerman et al. 2005: 2, 32), since in the latter no lexical category ever signals the contrast. 21  A similar situation is reported for the Marchigiano dialect of Montelago di Sassoferrato (province of Ancona) by Balducci (1986: 259).



3.1  Binary gender systems

47

see Palermo  1994: 77f., 212). Modern Orvietano has a convergent system, with full identity in plural determiners (le kaːne ‘the dogs(m)’ = le koaːte ‘the clutches(f)’, G. Moretti 1987: 133), adjectives (bɔːno/‑a/‑e ‘good.m.sg/f.sg/pl’, AIS 4.710, pt. 583 and Mattesini and Ugoccioni 1992: 79), and all the other agreement targets.22 Consider (31), from the dialect of Bolsena (province of Viterbo; see Casaccia and Tamburini 2005: 17–19): (31)

a. so iːt‑e ko le kuǧǧiːn-e miː-e be.prs.3pl gone-pl with def:pl cousin(m/f)-pl 1sg-pl ‘they (male or female) went with my cousins (male, female, or mixed)’ b. so staːt-e ess-e be.prs.3pl been-pl 3-pl ‘it’s been them (male, female, or mixed)’

Here the article le, the pronoun esse, the adnominal possessive miːe and the participial agreement (‑e) all signal plural number, not gender. The merger also affects noun inflection, as seen in kuǧǧiːne (contrast Standard Italian cugini m vs cugine f); le mi fijje is either ‘my sons’ or ‘my daughters’, and so on. Within such a convergent system, there is of course no structural room for more than two gender values (unlike in parallel systems, to be discussed in §§4.4–4.5). Consider for instance the following data, from the dialect of Barbarano Romano (province of Viterbo), whose convergent system is exemplified in (32): (32) singular m un bεr f

regattso

na bbεlla regattsa

plural kwi/le bbεlle regattse

‘a beautiful boy’ //‘those/the beautiful boys’ ‘a beautiful girl’ //‘those/the beautiful girls’

In Barbaranese, nouns inflecting like Italian braccio,-a ‘arm,‑s’, which select alternating agreement in the standard, have no choice but to merge with masculines for gender agreement, though maintaining, at least variably, a distinctive a-inflection in the plural, which however is just relevant for IC, not for gender, synchronically: (33)

sg er deːt‑o er vaːk̬‑o ell ɔss‑o loŋg‑o

pl le deːt‑a/-e ‘the finger’ le vaːk̬‑a/-e ‘the grain/fruit/grape’ ell ɔss‑a/-e loŋg-e ‘the long bone’

The same system is observed for other rural Viterbese varieties spoken south, west, and north of Viterbo: see De Montarone (2013: 249) on the dialect of Montefiascone; l gatto/fašɔːlo ‘the cat/bean’, plural le gatte/fašɔːle (see also AIS 4.710, pt. 612, bɔːne ‘good.pl’, m = f); and Blasi (1983: 4) on that of Tarquinia: l mi nɔnno/kaːne ‘my grandfather/dog’, plural le mi nɔnne/kaːne (see also AIS 1.184, pt. 630, grɔsse ‘big.pl’, m = f). 22  Other nearby dialects, although merging final ‑i with ‑e on most targets, still preserve the gender contrast in the definite article: e.g. in rural Perugino (in Magione, Tuoro, etc.), i fjɔːle ‘the.m sons(m)’ ≠ le fjɔːle ‘the.f daughters(m)’ (G. Moretti 1973: 244, 300, 1987: 45).

48

Grammatical gender in Romance: The mainstream

Data for Acquapendente are available from AIS pt. 603 (1.184, bɔːne ‘good.pl’, m = f), data for Blera from Petroselli (2010: 319, 354, 403): e.g. le su fijje maskje ‘def.pl his male.pl sons(m)’, le ɲɲɔkke iŋkɔtte (literally) ‘def.pl burnt.pl dumplings(m)’, a kind of gnocchi, sg. l ɲɔkko ‘the.m.sg dumpling(m)’, etc. These dialects are very close to the (Florentine-based) standard language, with which they co-exist in the verbal repertoire, and, into the bargain, are exposed to the influence of Romanesco, too, which is also very similar to Florentine (having been tuscanized from the fifteenth century on) and has today a binary parallel system like Standard Italian (see (1)–(4)).23 Thus, in the local verbal repertoire, there is a smooth transition, rather than a sharp contrast, between the local dialect and the (Tuscanbased) standard language, which results in increasing convergence with Romanesco through on-going contact-induced change, including in the gender system. Consider modern urban Viterbese. Some grammars describe a parallel system for the contemporary dialect (e.g. Urbani 1999: 11–9): (34)

sg pl l fijj‑o/prɛːt-e li fijj‑e (miːi)/prɛːt-e ‘the/my.m son(m)/priest(m)-sg/pl’ la fijj‑a/dɔnn-a le fijj‑e (miːe)/dɔnn-e ‘the/my.f daughter(f)/woman(f)-sg/pl’

As seen in (34), the effects of the sound change /i/ > /e/ appear on masculine plural nouns, but not on determiners, so that gender agreement marking is unaffected. Other sources, though, report the masculine plural article le, rather than li, homophonous with the feminine: e.g. le kaːne ‘the.pl dogs(m)’ in Galeotti and Nappo (2005: 45). This indicates a convergent gender system, which indeed gradually got established in Viterbo during the late Middle Ages. In fact, while according to Bianconi (1962: 102) the change is not observed in the medieval corpus he analysed, some examples do occur in the fourteenth century texts edited by Sgrilli (2003: 16) and analysed by Di Carlo (2015): (The examples in (35) are drawn from the Statuti della confraternita dei disciplinati di San Lorenzo, ad 1345.) (35)

a. p(er) tutt-i l’eretici e scismatici, ke Dio l-e traia d’on(n)e e(r)ore e reduca=l-e al nome della s(an)c(t)a matre Ecclesia   ‘for all heretics(m) and schismatics(m), may God take them-pl out of all error(s) and bring them-pl back to the name of the Holy Mother Church’ b. tutt-i l-i iudei, che l-e traga d’onne errore   ‘all-m.pl the-m.pl Jews(m), may God take them-pl out of all error(s)’ c. tutt-i l-i pagani, che Dio l-e traga d’on(n)e errore   ‘all-m.pl the-m.pl pagans(m), may God take them-pl out of all error(s)’ d. tutte q(ue)lle anime […] conduca=l-e a vita eterna   ‘all those-f.pl souls(f), may God bring them-pl to eternal life’

23  The gender system of Old Romanesco was more complex, featuring two alternating genders until the sixteenth century (see (77)–(79), Ch. 7). Ever since the Middle Ages, before being tuscanized, Romanesco has influenced Viterbese (see e.g. Ernst 1970: 51; Stussi 2003: 536), since Viterbo was for centuries under the temporal rule of the Papacy, and Rome was the centre of prestige. The influence has continued till today (see e.g. Trifone 1992: 46–9, 81; D’Achille 2002: 530).



3.1  Binary gender systems

49

Example (35d) exemplifies feminine plural agreement, which is stable on both the determiner (quelle) and the pronominal clitic (le). However, in glossing the latter, the gender specification has been put in angled brackets (to signal optionality); this is in comparison with (35a–c), where clitics resuming masculine plural nouns are nondistinct from feminine le, while agreement targets within the noun phrase still show an i-ending masculine plural form, distinct from the feminine. An in-depth analysis is needed, although from these preliminary results it seems as if the neutralization seen today in (31)–(33) may have started in the pronominal system, and then spread so as to make gender agreement fully convergent. Today’s urban Viterbese is sometimes reported not to show this neutralization (as seen in (34)), but there are varieties of the urban dialect that do. In particular, there is one part of town, viz. Pianoscarano, which, by the unanimous judgement of the locals, today preserves the most typical and conservative dialect. The dictionary by Petroselli (2009: 289), based on data collected with a farmer from Pianoscarano born in 1900, reports free variation between parallel and convergent gender agreement, as exemplified from one and the same entry (fijjo ‘son, child’) in (36), where distinctively masculine (‑i) and convergent plural agreeing forms (‑e) vary freely with masculine controllers: (36) a. le tu fijje, i tuoi figli, le tue figlie | le su fijje, m. e f. | fijje mie!, figli miei! | salute e ffijje màschje! (espr. di augurio a chi starnuta) […] fijje ciuche guae ciuche, fijje granne guae granne […] sémo tutte fijje de Ddio [‘your sons = your daughters | his/her sons = his/her daughters, m and f | my children! | blessing and may you have male children (i.e. bless you, addressing one who sneezes) […] small children small problems, big children big problems […] we are all God’s children’]; b. mórti fijji pòrtono pruvidènza […] co li fijji ce vò amóre e ttimóre | fijji e ppólli spòrcano casa | li fijji sò ccóme li fióri: prèsto s’ammalano, prèsto ripìjjano [‘many children are an insurance […] with children you need love and fear | children and chicken untidy your home | children are like flowers: they soon get ill and soon recover’]. Viterbese is now part of an area which, as shown in (31)–(32), has a categorically convergent system: the dialects of Barbarano Romano, Blera, Tarquinia, Acquapendente, Grotte di Castro, S. Lorenzo Nuovo, Montefiascone, and Bolsena (mentioned above) form an arc south, west, and north of Viterbo (see Map 2). The convergent system for this area is already documented in the AIS data with three data points, reflecting the competence of informants born around the middle of the nineteenth century: the informant for Acquapendente (pt. 603) was born in 1844, the informant for Tarquinia (pt. 630) in 1851, Montefiascone (pt. 612) in 1870 (Jaberg and Jud 1928: 139–42). Given this areal distribution, it seems a priori probable that, among the agreement options in free variation in (36), le (convergent) is the conservative one, and li (masculine plural) is an innovation. This is confirmed by the (admittedly few) data provided by Papanti’s (1875: 406) one-page translations of Boccaccio’s Decameron 1.9), whose Viterbese version displays no instances of distinct masculine vs feminine plural agreement: certe malféreente [sic] ‘some.pl bandits(m)’, le tuorte dill’altre ‘the.pl

50

Grammatical gender in Romance: The mainstream

wrongs(m) of [= done to] other people’, le tuorte aricieute, chi mò suò fatte ‘the.pl wrongs(m) received.pl, which now are done.pl’ (see sg. qualche tuorto ariciûto ‘some wrong received.m.sg’), indistinct from le nuoce ‘the.pl nuts(f)’. The other versions collected by Papanti (1875: 387–96) for the nearby villages of Acquapendente, Grotte di Castro, and San Lorenzo Nuovo (in the province of Viterbo) show the same situation. Therefore, nothing speaks against the assumption that urban Viterbese in the mid-nineteenth century displayed a convergent system like the surrounding dialects,24 which have kept it unmodified until now ((31)–(33)), while in Viterbese free variation is reported for the dialect of the generation born around 1900 (see (36)). I carried out fieldwork in Pianoscarano in November 2014 with three informants (born between 1945 and 1970), whose answers are synthesized in (37) (glosses on controllers and agreement targets in (37a–b) are omitted, for reasons to be explained directly): (37)

a. b. c. d. e.

le/ste fašɔːle/fɔːke sti/*ste bbɔːi/*‑e sɔ bbɔːni/*‑e sti/*ste fijji/*‑e sɔ ččuːki/*‑e ste/*sti fijje/*‑i sɔ ččuːke/*‑i le/ste sarčičče sɔ bbɔːne/*‑i

‘the/these beans/fireworks’ ‘these oxen are good’ ‘these children(m)/sons(m) are small.m.pl’ ‘these daughters(f) are small.f.pl’ ‘the/these.f.pl sausages(f) are good.f.pl’

Comparison with (36) is revealing. Pianoscaranese (like all of urban Viterbese) must have had a fully convergent system at an earlier stage, which became variable in the competence of informants born around 1900 (see (36)) when masculine plural agreement (‑i) was reintroduced due to contact pressure from Romanesco and the standard language. From (contact-induced) variation in (36), a functional contrast has developed, as exhibited in the competence of my informants, who retain plural endings which are not distinct from the feminine only on and with masculine nouns denoting inanimates ((37a)) like fašɔːle or fɔːke, whereas ‑i for animates like l bɔː(v)o/ fijjo ‘the.m ox(m)/son(m)’ in (37b–c) has become categorical.25 For animals and humans, thus, there is a sharp, sex-related, contrast, as exemplified by (37c) vs (37d). The human feminine occurring in the latter example takes feminine plural agreement, in the usual way, just like an inanimate such as la sarčičča ‘the.f sausage(f)’ in (37e). Thus, the [±animacy] contrast has served as an attractor, polarizing previous free variation and giving rise to a partially semantic system. In fact, the whole gender system has been reshaped, as illustrated in (38) with agreement exponents from the definite article and class one adjectives:

24  No information is available on the age of the data provider for that area, but Giovanni Papanti himself was born in 1830, which affords a chronological anchoring point for his correspondents. 25  Of course, this does not exclude that there may be still more conservative speakers preserving the earlier systems exemplified in (36). During a fieldwork session in Pianoscarano in April 2015, Miriam Di Carlo, whom I thank, was able to record the son of the informant whose competence is reflected in (36): apparently, that speaker still regards le with human masculine plurals as acceptable.



3.1  Binary gender systems

51

(38) a. rural Viterbese/earlier Pianoscaranese > b. today’s Pianoscaranese sg pl sg pl I m l/-o l/-o li/-i I III le/-e II la/-a la/-a f le/-e II When le fijje for ‘the sons’, still optionally available for the two-generation older Pianoscaranese in (36), ceased to be grammatical, the convergent system (still occurring, in the rural Viterbese of Barbarano, Montefiascone, etc., see (32)) has definitively become, again, a parallel system where a feminine (target and controller) gender (II) of the usual, non-semantically motivated, Romance (and Indo-European) type contrasts with a masculine gender (I). However, this masculine gender is strictly motivated semantically (as in, say, Tamil, Burushaski, or English), in a way unusual for Romance, since it exclusively hosts nouns denoting animate males.26 The rest of the noun lexemes which belonged to the masculine and the neuter in Proto‑(Italo-) Romance (diachronically) and denote inanimate entities (synchronically) are now assigned to an alternating gender (III), which did not exist at the stage illustrated in (38a). This is a gender signalled on agreement targets by markers which are all syncretic with some other gender value—in this case, widely occurring across Romance (see (31b), (53b), (79b) etc., Ch. 4), with masculine in the singular and feminine in the plural.27 This provides a nice example of how contact-induced morphological and morphosyntactic change, affecting in this case both noun inflection and gender agreement, may cause complexification, not only simplification of the grammar. The latter is indeed more often the case cross-linguistically, as can also be observed in other instances of contact-induced change in the Romance gender system reviewed in §8.3 below. Enger (2011: 171) hedges this with qualifications based on inspection of contactinduced change in Scandinavian dialects, concluding that reduction is indeed found on the paradigmatic axis, although adding the caveat that ‘The idea of gender reduction in contact should be restricted to lexical gender’ and that, with respect to gender values in the system, ‘ “Numerical reduction” and “simplification” are not necessarily synonymous’. In Viterbese, as we have seen, paradigmatic complexity has also increased, as there has been an increase in the net number of gender values. Paradoxically enough, the earlier binary convergent system (38a) has become more complex, developing into the three-gender system (38b), due to contact pressure from another binary system, that of Standard Italian/Romanesco. This shows that the contrast between a parallel 26  On the semantic system of Tamil see Corbett (1991: 8–10, 202f., 269f.), (7), Ch. 8; on Burushaski see (4)–(6), Ch. 8. 27  This situation has been labelled variously in the literature, as one in which the number of controller genders exceeds that of target genders (Corbett’s 1991: 150–2), or as one in which the system includes a ‘dependent target gender’ (Corbett 1991: 164), the latter also labelled a ‘non-autonomous gender value’ (in Corbett 2011: 459–60).

52

Grammatical gender in Romance: The mainstream

and a convergent system matters, as the mismatches in assignment between the two can lead to interference in bidialectal speakers and, eventually, to contact-induced change. To conclude, it is clear from the above that the systems reviewed here are further developments of the parallel type described in §3.1.1. Hence, while interesting per se as an instance of a synchronically different structural option and of change along somewhat unusual paths, they will be of little help for the diachronic reconstruction of the Latin-Romance transition to be proposed in Chapter 7.28

3.2  Gender assignment rules To round off this introduction to (the mainstream type of) Romance gender systems, some remarks on gender assignment are in order here. Following Corbett (1991), this will be done by addressing semantic rules (§3.2.1), on the one hand, and formal rules (§3.2.2), on the other. 3.2.1  Semantic rules In most Romance languages, nouns are assigned to either of the two genders exemplified in (1)–(2) above (and in (1)–(2), Chapter 1 for, respectively, inanimate and human referents). Such a binary system is trivially not semantically based, as shown by the fact that nouns denoting inanimate objects are distributed idiosyncratically over masculine and feminine, as illustrated in (1)–(2) above with the near-synonymous Pg. coluna/pilar and their counterparts in other languages. This is a general property of Indo-European languages, insofar as they have preserved gender distinctions ever since PIE (see Matasović 2004: 200; Luraghi 2006: 105, and §2.3 above). The sole robust semantic regularity—as in all languages featuring a masculine/feminine contrast—is that nouns denoting male vs female humans tend to be respectively masculine vs feminine (see (1)–(2)), as do nouns denoting ‘familiar’ and/or domestic animals (mostly mammals), and many birds.29 Thus, all Romance languages have a masculine/feminine pair corresponding functionally to Lat. equus/ equa ‘horse/mare’ (Pg. cavalo/égua, Sp. caballo/yegua, Cat. cavall/euga, Fr. cheval/ jument, It. cavallo/cavalla, Ro. cal/iapă) and this is true for several other animals, but exceptions and variation are rampant, even in this core domain of semantic assignment. For instance, the word for ‘fox’ has one fixed gender, feminine in Italian (la volpe), Portuguese (a raposa), Catalan (la guineu/guilla/rabosa) but masculine in French (le renard/goupil), whereas two words of different gender are available in Spanish (el zorro ‘fox’/la zorra ‘vixen’, but also ‘slut’) and Romanian, where the masculine vulpoi(ul) ‘(the.m) male fox’ is derived from feminine vulpe(a). This is idiosyncratic, and may 28  This explains, by the way, why I must renounce a full account of the Romance evidence for convergent systems. Northern Romance, from the Carrara-Fano line north- and westwards, where all final unstressed vowels except ‑a were deleted, is liable to hold further similar systems in store, although in many such varieties the gender contrast has been preserved or restored on at least some agreement targets. 29  Grammars provide extensive information on these facts: see e.g. Wheeler et al. (1999: 3–29), Perini (2002: 85–96), Ambadiang (1999: 4845–84), Grevisse and Goosse (1993: 705–75), Brăescu et al. (2008: 65–9), Nedelcu (2013c: 255–8), Serianni (2006: 111–31).



3.2  Gender assignment rules

53

change over time, as was the case in Italian where OIt. la gatta ‘the cat(f)’ denoting animals of both sexes has changed to modern il gatto (m) (Serianni 2006: 129). For humans too, one comes across cases such as the word for ‘witness’, which has either gender, depending on the sex of the referent in Spanish (el/la testigo), Catalan (el/la testimoni), Italian (il/la testimone), but is just masculine in Romanian (martor(ul)) and feminine in Portuguese (a testemunha).30 Sex-based assignment becomes exceptionlessly regular with proper names. An asymmetry observed in all Romance languages is that the terms in (2) are used generically, to denote mixed sets of (1)–(2), as seen with a Spanish example in (39a) (Roca 1989: 17): (39)

a. sólo tuvo un hijo, y le salió niña ‘she only had one child(m), and it was a girl(f)’ b. !sólo tuvo una hija, y le salió niño ‘she only had one daughter(f), and it was a boy(m)’

The non-acceptability of (39b) shows that hija cannot be used generically, which is the same for many terms denoting humans and sex-differentiable animals across Romance:31 Sp. (40) a. Antonio y Pilar son hermanos/**hermanas ‘Antonio(m) and Pilar(f) are brothers [=siblings]/sisters’ b. Mihai şi Liana sunt fraţi/**surori Ro. ‘Mike(m) and Liana(f)are brothers [=siblings]/sisters’ This is not general, however: for instance Sp. brujos ‘sorcerers’ cannot refer generically to a mixed set of brujas (‘witches’) y brujos (see Ambadiang 1999: 4862); likewise, It. stregoni cannot stand for streghe e stregoni.32 Although the predicative use of a masculine or feminine noun is not an instance of gender agreement (unlike the cross-linguistic examples of nouns as agreement targets reviewed in Corbett 2006: 47–9, or the Romance ones discussed here in (19), Ch. 5 and (50), Ch. 8)—and so, in the case that the arguments are conjuncts of different gender, as in (40), should not be confused with gender resolution—there are gender constraints on nouns used predicatively (or adpositionally) that are somewhat ­reminiscent of those on agreement. Consider the Italian phrases in (41): (41)

a. due popoli fratelli/**sorelle ‘two brother peoples(m)’ b. due nazioni sorelle/**fratelli ‘two sister nations(f)’

It.

30  ‘Epicene’ is the label used in the Graeco-Latin tradition (see Priscian, GL 2.141, Aliffi 2006) for nouns with one fixed grammatical gender, independent of the referent’s sex. 31  See e.g. Lopes (1971: 67f.), Villalva (2000: 228f.) on the non-markedness of the masculine in comparable pairs in Portuguese. 32  Generic use of the masculine (for both lexical denotation and agreement: see (12)–(13) on gender resolution) has been targeted by feminist critique and by official recommendations for non-sexist language usage: see e.g., for French, Yaguello (1989, 1992); Baider and Yaguello (2007); for Italian, A. Sabatini (1987) (discussed in Lepschy 1987, 1988; Lepschy et al. 2001), as well as Robustelli (2000, 2013), Sapegno (2010) etc. A parallel discussion for Spanish is found in Roca (2009). But even a plain list of references on this heated topic would challenge the space limitation, even for a monograph such as the present one.

54

Grammatical gender in Romance: The mainstream

The noun fratello, which must be selected in (41a), is masculine, as would be an adjective agreeing with the same subject noun popolo, and the same goes for feminine sorella in (41b), which, unlike fratello, can be predicated of (feminine) nazione. Nouns with alternating gender—on which see below, §4.3.5—also induce gender restrictions on nouns predicated of them, or used appositionally with them: (42)

a. il braccio fratello/**sorella It. ‘the brother arm’ b. delle braccia sorelle/**fratelli (see Morselli 1919: 134) ‘brother arms’

As remarked by Maiden (2016b: 136), the same occurs in Romanian, where the class of gender-alternating nouns, traditionally termed ‘neuter’ (see §4.4.1), is large and productive: (43)

a. un popor frate/**soră ‘a brother people’ b. două popoare surori/**frați ‘two sister peoples’

Ro.

Maiden takes this as evidence against the recognition of a neuter gender in Romanian, to which popor belongs: ‘If genus alternans nouns constituted a third gender which is neither masculine nor feminine, these restrictions on metaphorical matching of sex and grammatical gender would be inexplicable; but they make perfect sense if we accept that these are simply nouns whose singulars are masculine, and whose plurals are feminine’ [emphasis in the original—M.L.]. As the emphasis suggests, this objection capitalizes on the etymological value of ‘neuter’ (i.e. neither–nor). However, the only legitimate reading of ‘neuter’ in the context of synchronic analysis is as a label for a gender value, which—according to definition (7), Chapter 1—can be a purely syncretic (controller) gender value, including one which is defined by masculine agreement in the singular and feminine agreement in the plural, as argued for the Romanian neuter in §4.4.1. The fact that such a value is non-autonomous (see Corbett  2011: 459–60) implies that it inherits all properties from its components (m.sg and f.pl in our case), including the restriction on the gender of nouns in personifications such as in (41)–(43). As for inanimates, grammars contain lists of semantic rules of the form ‘category x,y’ → ‘gender α, β’. For example, ‘city names are feminine’ in Portuguese (Perini 2002: 94: a linda Ouro Preto ‘the beautiful OP’), or in Italian (e.g. la vecchia Milano ‘old.f Milan’). However, such ‘rules’ are hedged with qualifications, listing synchronic exceptions (Pg. o Porto ‘Oporto’, including the m form of the article) and/or pointing to variation, synchronic (natives of Recife usually say o Recife é lind-o ‘R. is beautiful-m’, whereas Brazilians of other provenance say Recife é lind-a f) and diachronic: Thornton (2003: 475) shows that Italian city names were still subject to a formal gender assignment rule in the nineteenth century (mezzo Milano ‘half.f Milan’), of the kind observed in Spanish (la Córdoba antigua vs el Madrid antiguo ‘old.f/m Córdoba/Madrid’, depending on the ending of the city’s name). More generally, Thornton (2003) concludes that most



3.2  Gender assignment rules

55

g­ rammars’ semantic rules, except for sex-congruency, are not psychologically real in Italian, and that it might be that, should they exist, such rules may only assign feminine, masculine being assigned by default. Thornton (2009: 31) adds that another widespread type of semantic rule, referring to the gender of the hyperonym, may be valid if restricted to hyperonyms which are Basic Level terms (Rosch et al. 1976). Even if devoid of psychological reality, and thus not qualifiable as semantic assignment rules stricto sensu, some semantic correlations for specific areas of the lexicon are observed, many of which have an historical explanation. One of the better described ones is that accounting for pairs of related fruit and tree names. These were neuter vs feminine in Latin, respectively (Touratier 1994: 82; Wilkinson 1985–91: 74), with tree-names mostly belonging to second declension (pirus,‑i vs pirum,‑i). This generally led to an ‘unsurprising reanalysis of tree names as masculines’ (Maiden 2011: 172), while fruit names mostly became feminine (via reanalysis of the npl ending ‑a): for example Ro. păr(ul)/peri(i) ‘(the) pear tree/-s’ vs par(ă/-a)/pere(le) ‘(the) pear/-s’, It. il pero/i peri vs la pera/le pere: derivational suffixation (Fr. le poirier, vs la poire) yields feminine tree-labels in Pg. a pereira (vs. a pera) and Cat. la perera (vs. la pera) (see Roché 2000). Romansh departs from the rest of Romance in displaying two series of co-existing lexemes for fruit names, masculine count (e.g. Srs. il pér/ils pérs) and feminine collective (Srs. la péra ‘the pears’, Lausberg 1976: 25). Romanian, on the other hand, still preserves neuter măr(ul), pl. mere(le) ‘apple/-s’ (see §4.4.1 below for discussion of the Romanian gender system and its alternating neuter gender), contrasting with the masculine tree name măr(ul), pl. meri(i) (in fact, all tree names are masculine in Romanian: see Perkowski and Vrabie 1986: 58, who also list a series of other minor semantic gender assignment rules). However, feminine fruit names are in the majority: prună ‘plum(f)’, cireaşă ‘cherry(f)’, etc. Centralsouthern Italian dialects are most conservative here, as at least some of them contrast masculine vs neuter systematically in this area. For instance the dialect of Agnone (province of Isernia: Meo 2003)—whose gender system is analysed in §4.5.3–4.5.4, see (129)—contrasts systematically plant vs fruit names, the former masculine, the latter neuter (Agnonese too has an alternating neuter like Romanian): (44)

a. ru/rə moi̯lə/poi̯r̯ ə/suo̯rvə ‘the.m.sg/m.pl apple/pear/rowan tree’ b. ru moi̯lə/poi̯rə/suo̯rvə ‘the.m.sg apple/pear/rowan’ c. lə ma i̯l̯ ɐ/pa i̯r̯ ɐ/sɔrvɐ ‘the.f.pl apples/pears/rowans’

An intermediate situation between this kind of central-southern dialect and Standard Italian is found in varieties of northern Lazio like that of Barbarano Romano (province of Viterbo, seen in (32)). Here, plant names are masculine, while the corresponding fruit names are feminine: (45) singular m er

peːro/mello

la

peːra /mella

f

plural le

peːre/melle

‘the pear/apple tree(m)’

peːre/-a //melle/-a

‘the pear/apple(f)’

56

Grammatical gender in Romance: The mainstream

Gender marking is convergent and the ‑/i/ > ‑/e/ change (seen in (30)–(37)) has applied, so that plural le may be the successor of either a masculine li or a feminine le, but an indication that the latter must be the case comes from noun inflection. In fact, peːra, mella (as well as other fruit/berry names: for example le pornella /-e ‘the.pl plums(f)’, le krɔ´ɲɲela/-e ‘the.pl cornelian cherry(f)’, etc.), unlike most feminine nouns ending in ‑a (from Latin first declension) such as la kɔsta ‘the.f rib(f)’ (plural le kɔste/*‑a), admit variably either an a- or an e-plural. The latter is the product of analogical levelling on first declension feminines, the former a leftover of the Latin neuter paradigm pirum/‑a. However, in the synchronic system of this dialect, this only concerns morphology, not morphosyntax, as the nouns peːre and mella in (45) are feminine just as kɔsta, so that if the a-ending is finally lost, as for example in the nearby dialect of Montefiascone, nothing changes for the gender system.33 The logically intermediate step between (44) and (45) is found in several other dialects of central Italy, such as that of Norcia (l-a/l-e meːla ‘the-f.sg/-f.pl apple(f)/-s’, l-a/l-e sɔrba ‘thef.sg/-f.pl rowan(f)/-s’, see G. Moretti 1987: 121) or that of Paliano (province of Frosinone, see Navone 1922: 93): (46) 

singular

plural

m jo

piːro/miːlo

i

la

peːra /meːla

le peːra /meːla

f

piːri/miːli

‘the pear/apple tree(m)’ ‘the pear/apple(f)’

To conclude, for inanimates at best local generalizations can be spotted, never general semantic assignment rules. This is also the case for the clearest correlation observed in Romance, viz. that of neuter and masshood in central-southern Italian dialects (see §4.5.4). The Romanian neuter, too (§4.4.1), only hosts inanimates, apart from classdenoting terms like animal,‑e ‘animal,-s’, dobitoc, dobitoace ‘domestic animal,‑s’, and a handful of exceptions, like manechin,‑e ‘model,‑s’, star,‑uri ‘star,‑s’, tist,‑uri ‘officer,‑s’, obsolete in MSRo. but still alive in the regional use of Transylvania (DEX 1094). This observation, however, does not equal a semantic assignment rule, because many inanimates are masculine (e.g. papuc ‘slipper’) or feminine (e.g. apă ‘water’): it does not even correspond to a majority trend, since—according to Bujor’s (1955: 60) counts on a sample of 1000 nouns—62.92 per cent of inanimates are feminine, as against only 28.78 per cent neuters and 8.3 per cent masculines. As Maiden (2016b: 132) observes, this determines an overwhelming imbalance in gender agreement in the plural, where more than 90 per cent of all inanimates take feminine agreement. 3.2.2  Formal rules While no Romance language has general phonologically-based gender assignment (unlike, say, Godié, Kru, Ivory coast, Corbett 1991: 53–5), several studies have pinned down phonological cues allowing speakers to predict gender assignment: see for 33  Montefiasconese, too, has a convergent system, with identical plurals for fruit and tree names: le peːre, meːle ‘the.pl pears/apples(f) = pear/apple tree(m)’, although some a‑plurals persist in some masculine nouns (l kɔrno ‘the.m horn(m)’, pl. le kɔrna) and was even extended to new ones (l bɔːo ‘the.m ox(m)’, pl. le bɔːa; see De Montarone 2013: 249).



3.2  Gender assignment rules

57

example Mel’čuk (1974), Tucker et al. (1977), Taft and Meunier (1998), etc. on French, Bull (1965: 108f), Natalicio (1983: 52f.), Teschner and Russell (1984), Clegg (2010) on Spanish. For French, the cues, of which ‘the native speaker lacks explicit knowledge’ (Tucker et al. 1977: 61), concern the word-final segment: for instance, nouns ending in /ʒ/ /ɛ/ /i/ /z/ are respectively, 94.2 per cent, 90 per cent, 24.6 per cent, 5.8 per cent masculine according to Tucker et al.’s (1977: 37) counts. Spanish /l/-ending nouns are 96.6 per cent masculine according to Bull (1965: 109). More generally, Spanish is an example of a language in which sound change did not sweep away the inherited affixal inflections so massively as in French: under such circumstances, there are even more reliable phonological cues to gender, although in this case when phonological segments on the right word edge coincide with inflections (e.g. ‑/a/ or ‑/o/ in the singular of nouns like casa ‘house’ or trozo ‘piece’), discrimination between phonological and morphological cues is trickier than one may expect. In principle (Corbett 1991: 33), assignment is morphological when a word’s inflectional paradigm is the predictor, as in the Italian example (47a), and phonological if just one word form is referred to, as in (47b): (47) a. if a noun belongs to class 2 (in D’Achille and Thornton’s 2003 listing: rosa,‑e ‘rose,‑s’), it is feminine b. if a noun ends in -a, it is feminine Rule (47a) yields 100 per cent correct results, yet, paradoxically, it is considered by Thornton (2003: 469) not to be psychologically real for Italian speakers, contrary to the phonological rule (47b) which—though displaying exceptions (e.g. masculine papa,‑i ‘pope,‑s’ or uninflected lama ‘Tibetan monk(s)’)—helps speakers to decide gender assignment upon adopting loanwords, which carry neither gender nor IC specifications. On the other hand, for Spanish, Portuguese, or Catalan, discriminating between (47a–b) is arduous, since all nouns ending in ‑a belong to one inflectional class, regardless of gender:34 Sp., Pg. rosa,‑as ‘rose,‑s’, papa,‑as ‘pope,-s’ = Cat. rosa,‑es, papa,‑es.35 This class is the heir of Latin first declension, which—in Ibero-Romance just as in Latin—hosts a majority of feminine nouns with a sizeable minority of ­masculines (integrated with migrants from other classes: e.g. Sp./Pg. drama,‑as Cat. ‑es ‘drama,‑s’).36 Symmetrically, the Spanish and Portuguese ‑o/‑os class, the successor of Latin second declension, largely correlates with masculine (99.7 per cent in Spanish according to Bull 1965: 109), with a minority of feminines fed by migration from Latin fourth declension and neoclassical clippings (Sp., Pg. mano,‑s ‘hand’, moto,‑s ‘motorcycle’, 34  The choice between the two kinds of rule (47a–b) bears some resemblance to the alternative between a lexical and a non-lexical (noun form-based) route for access to grammatical gender as explored in the psycholinguistic research (see Gollan and Frost 2001, as well as Caffarra et al. 2014 for a recent discussion of such studies on the Romance languages). 35  This suggests that gender and inflectional class, though related, should be kept distinct, as e.g. in Harris’s (1991: 28) treatment of Spanish, and that one should not call ‑a in Spanish nouns a ‘gender suffix’ (Roca 1989: 23) or ‘gender marker’ (Mel’čuk 2013: 742). 36  The same is true of Sardinian, whose class one, exemplified with kraːβa,‑as ‘goat(f),-s’ in (16), also hosts a minority of (learnèd) masculine nouns such as su βɔɛ´tta/sɔs pɔɛ´ttas ‘the:m poet(m)/-s’ (see also §8.3.2).

58

Grammatical gender in Romance: The mainstream

foto,‑s ‘photo’). This IC-to-gender correlation is near to complete in the corresponding class of Italian, where mano,‑i ‘hand(f)’ < manus,‑us is the only exception, while neoclassical clippings are uninflected (moto, foto, etc.). Continuants of Latin third declension, which from the outset had no prevailing gender association, show a fifty–fifty distribution in Italian (cane,‑i ‘dog(m)’/volpe,‑i ‘fox(f)’, see D’Achille and Thornton 2003: 212; Caffarra et al. 2015: 1020), while in other languages more skewed distributions may occurr (89.2 per cent masculine nouns in Spanish e-ending nouns, like coche ‘car(m)’, Bull 1965: 109). This weaker correlation squares well with the fact, mentioned in §1.1, that Romance cognates stemming from the same third declension nouns often have diverging genders (Maiden 2011: 169): for example Pg., Sp. flor ‘flower(f)’ vs It. fiore ‘flower(m)’; Pg. sal, Fr. sel, It. sale ‘salt(m)’ vs Sp. sal ‘salt(f)’. Dialect differentiation, needless to say, is not coextensive with the standard Dachsprachen: for example la sal in Turin (AIS 6.1009 pt. 155)37 vs el sal in Somiedo, Asturias (Cano González  2009: 95), where also el miel ‘honey(m)’, l’ubre ‘udder(m)’ are masculine unlike in standard Spanish. Given this situation, third declension nouns are particularly prone to reassignment to the two other gender-associated ICs: this may concern only nouns denoting sexuated referents or also inanimates in some dialects, to the extent that the outcome of Latin third declension dissolves as an IC, as happened in the dialect of Catanzaro (see Caligiuri 1995–96: 29–35), where final ‑/e/ raised to ‑/i/ via regular sound change, as seen for example in class one plurals, for both nouns (kɔːsa,-i ‘thing(f),-s’) and adjectives (bbɔːna,-i ‘good.f.sg/pl’).38 Given this change, one would expect third declension singulars to display the same change, which is, however, not the case, since most such nouns were reshaped so as to merge with class one (regardless of gender): for  example karna,‑i ‘meat(f), pl’, frunta,‑i ‘forehead(f),-s’, sɛrpa,‑i ‘snake(f),-s’ = vɛrma,‑i ‘worm(m),-s’, paːna,‑i ‘bread(m), pl’, miːsa,‑i ‘month(m),‑s’. This also concerned humans: for example nipuːta,‑i ‘nephew,‑s’ = ‘niece,‑s’. Rohlfs (1966–69: 2.182f.) gives an overview of similar cases from the dialects of Emilia and Lunigiana/Garfagnana: for example in the dialect of Gorfigliano (province of Lucca, see Bonin 1952: 80–5) PRom ‑/e/ has been totally eliminated, as in Catanzaro, but unlike in Catanzarese nouns have been all reassigned to either of the two gender-associated ICs: for example caːwa ‘key(f)’, nɔu̯tʃa ‘walnut(f)’ vs apriːlo ‘April(m)’, nəpɔu̯to ‘nephew(f)’ (compare Standard Italian chiave, noce, aprile, nipote). In both Catanzaro and Gorfigliano, gender-agreement targets followed the same pattern of change, so that class two adjectives remained unmarked for gender in Catanzarese, although their ending was reshaped analogically on a par with third declension nouns (e.g. hɔrt-a ‘strong‑m=f. sg’), while they acquired a gender contrast in Gorfiglianese (e.g. fɔrt-o vs fɔrt‑a ‘strong‑m≠f.sg’). Even in the absence of such a radical reshaping, Romance varieties diverge as to whether and to what extent they tolerate exceptions to otherwise prevailing formal gen37  This is widespread in Northern Italy (see Rohlfs 1966–69: 2.61): e.g. lɐ/**ɐl fɛl/lym/mɛl/saːl ‘def.f/m galley/oil lamp/honey/salt’ in the dialect of Casale Corte Cerro (province of Verbania, Weber Wetzel 2002: 110). 38  This change, combined with the absence of metaphony, has made Catanzarese a fully convergent binary system of the type illustrated in (24a).



3.2  Gender assignment rules

59

der assignment rules. Italian, as said, preserved mano,‑i ‘hand(f)’ as the only feminine in the ‑o/‑i class, into which it migrated with the disappearence of Latin fourth declension. On the other hand, nurus,-ūs ‘daughter-in-law(f)’ and socrus,-ūs ‘mother-­inlaw(f)’ were attracted into the productive ‑a/‑e class, associated exclusively with feminine (> nuora,‑e, suocera,‑e), and the same happened to soror,‑ores ‘sister’, that became suora,‑e ‘nun’ (for ‘sister’, an original diminutive was lexicalized, also in the same class: sorella,‑e). Romanian stands out among the Romance languages for showing the highest degree of transparency in the inflectional-class-to-gender relation, so that it is not inappropriate to talk about ‘overt gender’ for many ICs (see §4.4.1.3). The language tolerated the lack of correspondence between IC and gender to the least extent, so that not only does one find in MSRo. soră, surori ‘sister’ and noră, nurori ‘daughter-inlaw(f)’, but also manus,‑ūs has been reshaped as mână, mâine. Symmetrically, Romanian largely disposed of first declension masculines, which survive elsewhere. Thus, where Spanish has poeta,‑as ‘poet(m),‑s’, inflected like vaca,‑as ‘cow(f),‑s’, and Italian has poeta and collega ‘colleague(m)’, identical to class one feminines in the singular, Romanian contrasts poet, poeţi ‘poet(m),‑s’, coleg, colegi ‘colleague(m),‑s’ inflected like urş, urşi ‘bear(m),‑s’ (stemming from second declension ursum,‑ī) and poetă,‑e (f), colegă,‑e (f), etc. The language systematically also took this option to distinguish third declension person nouns such as student, studenţi ‘student(m),‑s’ vs studentă,‑e (f), an area where the other languages behaved rather erratically (see e.g. the distinction in Fr. étudiant,‑e vs gender-indistinct Sp. el/la estudiante). A detailed review of gender assignment rules in the Romance languages and dialects would exceed the scope of the present discussion. Rather, in this section I have introduced a few selected facts on gender assignment to which reference will be made in the following, while reviewing Romance gender systems, for instance, whenever discussing instances of semantically-defined gender values in Romance (see §§7.7, 8.2), or analyses which propose that noun morphology strictly determines gender assignment and agreement (see §4.4.1.4 on Romanian). Occasionally, such issues about assignment do intersect with the analysis of the overall architecture of the gender system, to which we now return in order to extend the database beyond the province of the binary gender system, most common across Romance.

Seville

Madrid

Valencia

Barcelona

Marseille

Logudorese

Sassarese

Palermo

Campidanese

Gallurese

Catania

Messina

Taranto

Siracusa

Reggio Calabria

Catanzaro

Bari Matera Cosenza

L’Aquila

Gaeta Naples

Rome

Macerata

Florence

Genoa

Milan

0

0

200

300 miles 400 km

Timisoara ¸ Bucharest

Brasov ¸

¸ Iasi Iaşi Cluj-Napoca

200

100

The map indicates the places where varieties are spoken that are mentioned in the book, with the exception of central-southern Italo-Romance, which is covered more analytically in subsequent maps.

Map 1  Romance gender systems

Lisbon

Santiago de Compostela

Daco-Romanian

Galician

Rhaeto-Romance

Sardinian

Italo-Romance

Provençal

Ancona

Extension of the four-gender system of the Neapolitan type in central-southern Italy

Occitan

Bordeaux

More complex gender systems

French

Sursilvan

Binary (M/F) Parallel + non-lexical N

Portuguese

Paris

Binary (M/F) convergent

Catalan

Francoprovençal

Binary (M/F) parallel

Spanish

60 Grammatical gender in Romance: The mainstream



3.2  Gender assignment rules

0

Acquapendente

100 miles

0

San Lorenzo Nuovo Bolsena

Grotte di Castro

100 km

61

Montefiascone Viterbo Montalto di Castro Venice

Milan Turin

Tarquinia

Cremona Genoa

not at same scale

Vetralla Blera

Barbarano Romano

Bologna Florence Certopiano di Arcevia

Teramo Casalincontrada

Castelli Fara San Martino Sartèna Porto Torres

Gallurese Tempio Pausania

Sassarese Logudorese Bonorva

Castrovillari

Campidanese

Catanzaro

Reggio Calabria Mistretta

Ragusa

Binary (M/F) parallel Binary (M/F) convergent, arisen via -e > -i

Latiano e

Binary (M/F) convergent, arisen via -i = -e > -

Francavilla Fontana

Binary (M/F) convergent, arisen via -i > -e Binary (M/F) parallel/convergent (variation) Three genders

Sava

Manduria not at same scale

Map 2  Binary (m/f) convergent gender systems The map shows the gender systems mentioned in Ch. 3 which neutralize masculine and feminine in the plural in different ways (distinguished using the symbols ⊖, ⦶, and ⊕).

4 Romance gender systems The fuller picture Chapter 3 addressed the better-known face of Romance gender—the binary contrast involving two classes of controller nouns in Spanish, Catalan, French, etc.—and touched upon dialect variation outside the standard languages only to show that the cited dialects either do not provide any new information (see (16)–(19) on Sardinian), or display simpler systems (§3.1.2). This chapter and the following two will look deeper into the wealth of data that can be gained from inspection of variation across time and space in Romance: they will consider evidence from all documented stages of both the major standard languages and non-standard varieties. It will soon become apparent that this variation reveals gender systems of higher complexity than those just featuring a straight binary contrast, as seen so far (symbolized by a square on Map 1 at the end of Chapter 3). The final outputs of the inspection of ‘minor’ gender systems will be the more detailed maps at the end of this chapter and of Chapter 7, including also more complex systems. Since these are particularly interesting for the study of diachrony, their analysis paves the way for the reconstruction to be presented in Chapter 7. As announced from the outset (§1.3), this quest for more-than-binary Romance gender systems will start from one value of the gender feature, viz. the neuter, which is going to be addressed from §4.2 onwards, after a brief premise on method (§4.1).

4.1  The data from Romance morphosyntactic variation across time and space The potentially interesting Romance data for a study of gender are by no means restricted to those from the major standard languages considered in Chapter  3. Widening the perspective, one can mention briefly Romance-based creoles, only to remark that they do not provide crucial data. From a synchronic-typological point of view, as is well known, creole languages tend to encode no gender at all, to the extent that lack of gender is sometimes enumerated among the defining traits of creoles (see McWhorter 2001: 163, 2005: 40). Romance-based creoles are no exception (see e.g. Neumann-Holzschuh 2006). Thus, for instance, in Portuguese-based Angolar (São Tomé) ‘Le substantif est invariable et ne connaît pas de distinction de genre’ [‘the noun is invariable and has no gender distinction’] (Maurer 1995: 39), as seen in ome/ Gender from Latin to Romance. First edition. Michele Loporcaro © Michele Loporcaro 2018. First published 2018 by Oxford University Press



4.2  ‘Remnants of the neuter’: a loose label

63

mengai dhe ‘this man/woman’. Thus, creoles generally lack even pronominal gender, including on 3rd person pronouns: for example i ‘s/he’, son ‘his/her’ in Seselwa (French-­ based, Seychelles; Michaelis 1994: 35). Vacillation of gender agreement, even with 3rd person singular personal pronouns, is reported for attrited contact varieties such as Canadian Métis French, where one can find Ton garçon, elle . . . ‘your ladi, shei …’ in free variation with il ‘he’ (Papen 1998: 154). Exceptions are reported for some Indo-Portuguese creoles by Maurer and Bollée (2016): Diu IPg. el ‘he’ vs ɛl ‘she’ (Cardoso 2013: 93), Sri Lanka IPg. eli ‘he’ vs ɛla ‘she’ (I.R. Smith 2013: 114), the latter also contrasting gender in the plural (elis 3m.pl vs ɛlas 3f.pl), contrary to Diu IPg. (e(l)z 3pl).1 On the other hand, gender agreement is found to different degrees in creoles which have been in closer contact with their lexifiers, such as Louisiana French, that had no gender at all in the nineteenth century but now shows ‘at least some gender agreement’ (APiCS online: en gro neg ‘a big.m black man(m)’ vs en gros fom ‘a big.f woman(f)’, Neumann  1985: 138); or in postcreole continua such as Afro-Bolivian Spanish, for which Sessarego and GutiérrezRexach (2011: 474) describe variation in gender agreement within the NP: una/un curva ancha ‘a.f/m wide.f curve’ vs una/**un curva ancho ‘a.f/m wide.m curve’. All this is of interest per se, from a synchronic-typological angle, but when considering diachrony, it is of little relevance for the purpose of reconstructing how the gender system changed in Late Latin. As valid reconstructive evidence to this purpose, we are left with primary dialects from the Romània antiqua, whereas creoles— as well as other developments of the Romance languages in the Romània nova—can hardly be of any help to us. However, even restricting the scope of our enquiry in this way, we are left with an extremely rich dataset, as the following pages will show.

4.2  ‘Remnants of the neuter’: a loose label ‘No Romance language has a morphologically separate neuter, though most have remnants of old neuter morphology that has taken on new roles’. This quote from Adams (2011: 271) aptly exemplifies the received opinion (introduced in (9)–(12), Chapter 1) that the gender system must have shrunk to a binary contrast by the time of Late Latin, modulo the reassignments exemplified in (13), Chapter  1 and (3), Chapter 2. Originally neuter forms—the topos goes on—did remain in use, but with new functions. This opens the hunt for ‘remnants’ of the neuter, which are often listed in historical grammars and to which a host of detailed studies have been devoted, both from a comparative (e.g. Wilkinson 1985–91; Lüdtke 2009: 247–71) and from a language-specific perspective (e.g. Wunderli  1993 on Romansh; Sornicola  2010 on Southern Italo-Romance, etc.). In the present section, I shall sift the evidence showing which kind of ‘remnants’ of the neuter are not relevant for the reconstruction to be worked out here. This is necessary because such evidence constantly intrudes into the literature, as a sort of ground noise, in discussion on the diachronic development of the (morphosyntax of) gender system from Latin to Romance. 1  Note that these IPg. creoles show several highly untypical features, such as e.g. the occurrence of affixal tense/mood marking and inflectional class distinctions on the verb (see e.g. Luís 2011 on Daman and Korlai IPg.), and the like.

64

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

4.2.1  Pronoun and adjective inflection The quotation from Ernout (1945: 6) in (9a), Chapter 1, continues as follows: ‘Le neutre n’a pas subsisté dans les langues romanes, sauf dans les pronoms, où il avait une valeur bien définie: lat. quī > fr. qui, lat. quid > fr. quoi’ [‘the neuter did not survive into the Romance languages, except in pronouns, where it had a well-defined value’]. While the contrast between those French pronouns (and the same goes for their counterparts in the other Romance languages) is indeed one of gender (masculine vs neuter) etymologically, this is not the case any more, synchronically, as both qui and quoi can be linked anaphorically to NPs headed by nouns of either gender: (1)

a. tu as vu qui? Marie / Jean 2sg have.pres.2sg see.ptp who? Mary(f) / John(m) ‘Whom did you see? Mary/John’ b. tu as fait quoi? 2sg have.pres.2sg do.ptp what? une    bêtise        /un     malheur indf.f foolish-action(f)  indf.m dreadful-action(m) ‘What did you do? A foolish/dreadful action’

The contrast is more appropriately characterized in terms of [±human] (or [±personal]), a semantic property which may play a cross-linguistic role for gender (or sub-gender)—as mentioned in §2.4 with reference to the Slavic languages—including some Romance varieties where this may participate in gender assignment rules and/ or in the semantic definition of some of the gender values in the system (see §§7.6f.). However, this need not be the case, as shown by the fact that a contrast between two distinct forms of the interrogative pronoun, correlating with the semantic distinction [±human] as in (1a–b), occurs in many languages that lack grammatical gender: Basque nor? ‘who?’ vs zer? ‘what?’, or their counterparts in Finnish (kuka? vs mikä?), Turkish (kim? vs ne?), Georgian (vin? vs ra?) etc. (see Manzelli 2006: 80). In sum, [±human] in French qui vs quoi has nothing to do with gender, synchronically. Along similar lines, forms like French moins, mieux, etc. (as opposed to mineur, meilleur), Italian meglio, meno (as opposed to minore, migliore), etc., are often characterized as ‘neuters’ in grammars: ‘Certaines formes synthétiques neutres, adverbes, peuvent être employées en fonction d’adjectifs’ [‘certain neuter synthetic forms, which are adverbs, may be used in adjective function’] (Buridant 2000: 219). This is then exemplified with data such as the following (OFr. Li romans de Carité 5):2 (2)

mains mau-s est et men-re perte lesser evil(m)-nom.sg be.pres.3sg and lesser-nom.sg loss(f).sg ‘it is a lesser evil and a lesser loss’

What happens here is that mains ‘less’ < minus, normally an adverb, replaces (for metrical reasons) menre, menor ‘lesser-nom/obl.sg’ in the function of a comparative attribute. Again, the contrast between Lat. minus and minor,‑ōris used to be one of gender, which is no longer the case for their Romance outcomes. 2  Glosses here are syntactic, not morphological (in the sense of Baerman et al. 2005: 11–12).



4.2  ‘Remnants of the neuter’: a loose label

65

In the literature on Romance gender, one can find justified criticism levelled at this kind of terminology—that is, at the choice of calling ‘neuter’ pronouns such as those in (1a)—but also overreactions. Both are represented in Wunderli (1993: 134–5), who lists seven (alleged, in his opinion) ‘remnants of the neuter’ from the literature on Sursilvan. The last two items on his list concern ‘6. Das Interrogativum tgei ‘was’. 7. Gewisse Indefinita wie entzatgei ‘etwas’, nuot ‘nichts’, etc.’ [‘interrogative tgei ‘what’, […] Some indefinites like entzatgei ‘something’, nuot ‘nothing’, etc.’] (Wunderli 1993: 135). He concludes (p. 158): ‘Es gibt somit kein Neutrum im Surselvischen; dieser Topos der rätoromanischen Grammatikographie ist eine Irrlehre. […] Requiescat in pace’ [‘there is hence no neuter in Sursilvan; this commonplace of Rhaeto-Romance grammaticography is false doctrine. […] Rest in peace’]. However, Wunderli thereby throws out the baby with the bathwater, in that he rejects the label ‘neuter’ altogether, and therefore at the same time a treatment in terms of grammatical gender for the Sursilvan facts to be considered below in §§4.3.2–4.3.3 which, as will be shown there, fully deserve it. 4.2.2  Noun inflection Perhaps the most frequently mentioned kind of ‘remnant’ is the occurrence of a-endings in Romance word forms which stem from Latin neuter plurals. Consider the ­following quotation by one of the founding fathers of the discipline, commenting on It. la legna ‘the.f.sg firewood(f)’: Nella qual combinazione singolare feminile riman […] intatta la forma del doppio antico ­plural neutro, e ne è ancora ben sentita l’idea. […]. In altri termini, l’italiano la legna (allato a le legna) non ha ancora smarrito la coscienza del suo contenuto plurale, come ha fatto, a cagion d’esempio, l’italiano la pecora (Ascoli (1880–83: 440)) [In which feminine singular phrase the form of the old double neuter plural stays intact, and its semantics is still well perceived. In other words, It. la legna (alongside le legna) has not yet lost the conscience of its plural content, unlike happened e.g. in It. la pecora ‘the.sg sheep’]

It is true that both la and legna ultimately stem from neuter plurals (illa and ligna, respectively), and that la legna is a collective, not an atomic, noun.3 However, it would be wrong to conclude that the signifiant/signifié relationship between the ‑a ending of Lat. ligna and its function (neuter plural, being a case of overt gender) was preserved in modern Italian: in no sense is la legna a neuter, synchronically, nor has it the plural value of the category number. In most cases, morphosyntactic change along similar lines also affected forms which remained plural in Romance. Many dialects of central-southern Italy and Corsica preserve a host of plurals derived from Latin neuter a-plurals, or even productively expand this plural formation, far beyond the set of lexemes which displayed it in Latin, as exemplified for Southern Corsican in (3) (Sartenese, drawn from Paganelli 1976: 33, 39f.): 3  For instance, it can occur as the object of predicates like radunare ‘gather.inf’, which require either an atomic plural or a (singular) collective (Flaux 1999: 472): It. raduna la legna/l’esercito/**il tavolo/**la scatola ‘gather.imp.2sg the.f.sg firewood(f).sg/the.m.sg army(m).sg/the.m.sg table(m).sg/the.f.sg box(f).sg’. Flaux’s use of ‘collective’ covers three (viz. set, non-additive, and generic) of the four values inventoried in Gil (1996: 66).

66 (3)

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture singular a. u labbru u filu b. u pani u pedi c. u cavaddu biancu d. u preti u pueta

plural i labbra i fila i pana i peda i cavadda bianchi i preta i pueta

‘the lip/the lips’ ‘the thread/the threads’ ‘def bread/the loaves of bread’ ‘the foot/the feet’ ‘the white horse/the white horses’ ‘the priest/the priests’ ‘the poet/the poets’

In addition to the inherited a-plurals ((3a)), this kind of plural formation now occurs with nouns denoting inanimates originally belonging to other inflectional classes ((3b)), and even with nouns denoting animates or humans ((3c–d); although for the latter case one might entertain the alternative view that a-ending masculines like pueta have become uninflected). Inspection of the gender system of Southern Corsican, seen in (28b), Chapter 3 shows that, synchronically, these plurals are masculine (see the agreeing adjective in (3c)), within a binary convergent system.4 In many such cases, what used to be a contrast of inflectional class and gender (say, that between Lat. tempor-a ‘time(n)-nom/acc.pl.n’ and lup-i ‘wolf(m)-nom.pl.m’) reduced to just an inflectional contrast, without any gender implications. This is true, today, of Southern Corsican u paghju/i paghja ‘the pair/-s’ vs u fogliu/i fogli ‘the sheet/-s’, which were once both neuters in the same inflectional class. Or consider the Sicilian dialect of Mistretta, analysed by Sornicola (2010), where one finds not only ossa/wóssira ‘kernels’, from neuter ossum (pl. ossa), but also e.g. anɛːʈʂa ‘rings’, fúrnira ‘ovens’ (< *anella, *furnora), in free variation with anjɛːʈʂi, furni stemming from masculine anelli, furni etc.5 Sornicola’s study focuses exclusively on noun inflections (and so do the other studies mentioned in n. 5), saying nothing about the agreement targets selected by the relevant nouns, and concludes that ‘resti di un Genere neutro, cristallizzati nella flessione del Plurale sono presenti nella varietà indagata in maniera cospicua’ [‘remnants of a neuter gender, crystallized in plural inflection, are conspicuously present in the investigated variety’] (Sornicola 2010: 561f.). While these plurals do attest to a spread of the CL ‑a ending (or of the newly formed ‑ora ending), which were once associated unambiguously with neuter gender (see (2), Chapter 2), they are not relevant for a discussion of gender, synchronically, given that Sicilian has a two-gender conver4 On Corsican a-plurals see also Falcucci (1875: 579); Marcellesi (1970); Chiorboli (1985: 14–26); Dalbera-Stefanaggi (1978: 75–9; 1991: 508f., n. 409); Durand (2003: 189f.). Often, the literature on the topic still assumes a special semantics for a-plurals: ‘le varietà corse presentano una flessione di classe nominale di plurale maschile ‑a associato a nomi che denotano insiemi, come i peða ‘i piedi’, i muntɔna ‘i montoni’’ [‘Corsican varieties display a m.pl noun class inflection ‑a associated with set-denoting nouns like i peða ‘the feet’, i muntɔna ‘the rams’’] (Manzini and Savoia 2005: 3.584). However, the data reported by Manzini and Savoia on pages 587f. (from the Southern Corsican dialect of Zonza, 40 km NE of Sartèna) are at odds with this generalization, since no semantic difference (in terms of [±set denoting]) can be spotted between i frateɖɖa ‘the brothers’ and i nipoti ‘the nephews’, both masculine nouns which select different plurals because they belong to different ICs. 5  The productiveness of a-plurals in Sicilian and Corsican in particular is registered as early as MeyerLübke (1890: 195). See Retaro (2013) for a more recent study on a- and ora-plurals in Central Sicilian.



4.2  ‘Remnants of the neuter’: a loose label

67

gent system, as seen in (26), Chapter 3, for Ragusano and schematized here with class one adjective endings: (4) 

sg m. -u f.

-a

pl

Sicilian

-i

Articles and attributes selected by nouns like furnu, fúrnira ‘oven, ‑s’ take the same plural agreement forms (in ‑i) as all other nouns, both masculine (e.g. u/i kani ‘the dog,‑s’) and feminine (e.g. a fímmina, i fímmini ‘the woman, the women’), and the same applies to all adjectives (as seen in (26), Chapter 3: e.g. rwossi ‘big.pl’). In a system like (4), consequently, there is no structural room even for a third controller, let alone a third target, gender. 4.2.3 Lexicalization A further item on the list of ‘remnants of the neuter’ which does not really bear on our issue is the fact that several neuter plural forms, as exemplified in (5i.b–d), preserved a non-atomic meaning and/or some other kind of meaning in some way related to the original plural meaning/function of Latin ‑a: (5)

i. feminine singular    ii. masculine singular (< Latin neuter plural)  (< Latin neuter singular) a. foglia ‘leaf ’ foglio ‘sheet (of paper)’ Italian b. feuille ‘leaf, foliage’ feuil ‘leaf, foliage’ Old French (Buridant 2000: 61) c. hueva ‘roe (of fish)’ huevo ‘egg’ Castilian (Penny 2002: 122) d. di(d)a ‘big toe’ di(d)u ‘finger’ Asturian (Wartburg 1921: 53, n. 1)

The double outcome in (5a.i–ii) has been already considered in (13), Chapter 1, without discussing meaning. Now, in modern Standard Italian (5a), foglio and foglia just denote two different (atomic) referents, with none of the semantic differences/relationships exemplified in (5b–d). OFr. feuille < folia, however ((5b)), still denoted either an individual/atomic ‘leaf ’ or collective ‘foliage’, a duality in meaning that was extended in that language to feuil < folium, too. Contemporary French la feuille, on the other hand, like its counterparts in the other Romance languages (It. foglia, Sp. hoja, Pg. folha), only denotes atomic objects, so that all Romance languages must have undergone the same semantic shift, as reported for Cat. fulla (originally also synonymous with el fullatge) in DECLLC 4.223. The collective meaning persists in one dialect or another: for example in the Aragonese variety of Vall de Gistau ir a kort´a r foʎa ‘to go cut the foliage/prune’ (DECLLC 4.225). In the Alps, the AIS map 3.562 ‘la foglia’ still reports the meaning ‘foliage’ for some Rhaeto-Romance points (pt. 17 Scherans, pt. 29 Santa Maria Val Müstair, pt. 305 S. Vigilio di Marebbe), as well as for one dialect of Tessin (pt. 93 Ligornetto). But this duality in meaning is in fact more widespread than the AIS chart shows, as in the Lombard dialects of Tessin føja still generally means both ‘leaf ’ and ‘foliage’ (especially of certain trees: beech, chestnut, mulberry, see LSI 3.496), as seen in the following example (dialect of Comano, near Lugano):

68 (6)

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture ra føj-a, tíra=la žo in kwall def.f.sg leaf/foliage(f)-sg pull.imp.2sg=DO3f.sg down into that.m.sg krøi̯s    ̌   išé ty   fa       meno fadig-a    a   carɟɛ´=la hole(m).sg  so  2sg  do.prs.2sg  less   effort(f)-sg  to  carry.inf=DO3f.sg ‘the foliage/the leaves, pull it/them down into that hole, so that it’ll be easier for you to (gather and) carry it/them’

At the other extreme of Northern Italo-Romance, the collective meaning is attested for the AIS pts. 193 (Borgomaro, province of Imperia, Liguria) and 420 (Coli, province of Piacenza, Emilia) and it generally survives on the Emilian Apennine, where fojˑa/føjˑa in Fiumalbo (province of Modena), and føjˑa in Frassinoro (Piacentini 1998: 374) have both meanings (E. Saiu p.c., February 2015). In the plains of EmiliaRomagna, the meaning ‘foliage’ persists in some dialects only in fixed expressions: Bolognese fèr fójja (Lepri and Vitali 2009: 120), Modenese fer la fôia ‘to collect leaves’ (Neri 1973: 85), Faentino fè dla fóia ‘to prune a tree’ (Morri 1840: 337), etc. A great many other lexemes show similar changes in meaning, in the history of Romance languages and dialects. For example Fr.–Pr. (Gruyère) lõd‑a ‘(sorts of) legumes(f)-sg’ < lĕgūmĭna (FEW 5.246, Pfister 1973: 322); or a labbjə (< Lat. labia), which in the dialect of Ischia (province of Naples) still designates ‘the lips(f).sg’, yet has become a feminine (singular) noun (Freund 1933: 69). The same goes for OIt. labbia ‘lips, face’, which may take either feminine singular or feminine or masculine plural agreement. This vacillation is well represented in Dante’s Commedia, Inf. 7.7, where the editors print Poi si rivolse a quella ’nfiata labia ‘then he turned to that:f.sg inflated:f.sg face(f):sg’ (by synecdoche, for ‘that raging figure’), whereas the Pisan commentator Francesco da Buti (late fourteenth century) has si rivolse a quelle en­fiate labbia ‘he turned to those:f.pl inflated:f.pl lips(f):pl’ (i.e. ‘face’, ‘figure’; see Giannini 1858–62: 201.28). A semantic link with plurality, originally expressed by neuter ‑a in Latin,6 has also been seen in the augmentative meaning of some a-forms, contrasting with nouns derived from the same root but inflected otherwise (see Wartburg 1921; Kahane and Kahane 1949; Lüdtke 2009: 249): this is exemplified in (5c–d), where ‘roe’ is a series of eggs (Sp. hueva (de salmón) ‘salmon roe’, collective), and a ‘toe’ is thicker than a ‘finger’ (Asturian di(d)a/deda, which comes from neuter plural digita but is today a singular (countable) feminine; see e.g. Rodríguez Castellano 1954: 113). Whether collective or augmentative, the crucial fact is that, synchronically, all the nouns in (5i) are feminine (singular), as witnessed by their selecting 3rd person singular verb forms and feminine singular agreement on determiners, adjectives, etc. Examples could be multiplied, but this would be pointless: it is neither possible, nor necessary, to follow all semantic developments of all Romance lexemes whose singular form derives from a Latin neuter plural. In fact, from the examples discussed, a conclusion clearly emerges: for a study of how the gender system evolved from Latin to Romance, not all the changes in function/meaning undergone by (the outcomes 6  Reconstructing further back , the original meaning of the PIE suffix *‑eh2 > *-ā was as a collective, from which the Latin plural neuter endings derive (see §2.1).



4.2  ‘Remnants of the neuter’: a loose label

69

of) Latin neuter inflections will be relevant. Many of these changes, at a Romance stage, only concern the semantics, but no longer the morphosyntax.7 On the contrary, the evidence for (functional) remnants of the neuter which is relevant for our reconstruction, in keeping with the definition (3), Chapter 1, is morphosyntactic, agreement-based, evidence. Note that a much closer link between the semantics and the morphosyntax of folia and similar lexemes (or, earlier, word forms) than assumed here has been often proposed in the relevant literature. One such proposal is J.C. Smith’s (2011: 300), who follows Acquaviva (2004, 2008) in tracing back the collective meaning of folia to the ‘weakly individuated’ nature of the plural collection denoted. From the ambiguity in lexical meaning seen in, for example, OFr. feuille (5b), Smith derives a structural conclusion and posits an intermediate stage ‘in which the number of a form such as folia is essentially vague or ambiguous’, following Niedermann (1943–44: 108), who claims this with reference to the eighth-century glossae Ansileubi: ‘Du fait que folia comme sujet est souvent construit avec le verbe au singulier, il ne serait pas légitime d’inférer qu’il était déjà devenu un singulier féminin; ce n’est encore qu’une espèce de σχῆμα κατὰ σύνεσιν, l’accord étant déterminé par le sens collectif “feuillage”. Il s’agit donc d’un état transitoire.’ [‘From the fact that folia as a subject is often constructed with the verb in the singular, it would not be legitimate to infer that it has already become a feminine singular; it is not yet anything but a kind of constructio ad sensum, where agreement is determined by the collective meaning “foliage”. It is hence a transitory stage.’] In Smith’s view, thus, folia, as late as the eighth century ad, ‘could still be a plural collective noun triggering singular semantic agreement’, as a converse of English ­‘corporate nouns’ like committee. These, however, admit either singular or plural agreement—the former syntactic, the latter semantic—only outside the noun phrase, whereas syntactic agreement is the only option within the NP: this/ **these committee are . . . (Corbett 2000: 189). Crucially, this is not what is observed in Late Latin occurrences of folia like those mentioned in Chapter 1 while commenting on (13) (English translations from Barney et al. 2006: 355, 338, 346 respectively): (7)

a. Filix     a      singularitat-e    foli-i       dicta. fern(f).nom.sg from singleness(f)-abl.sg leaf(n)-gen.sg said-nom.f.sg Denique ex  un-a      virgul-a       altitudin-e In_fact  from  one-abl.f.sg  stalk(f)-abl.sg  height(f)-abl.sg cubital-i       un-a       sciss-a    foli-a of_one_cubit-abl.f.sg one-nom.f.sg split-nom.f.sg leaf(f)-nom.sg gign-itur      bear-pass.prs.3sg ‘A fern (filix) is so called from the singleness of its leaf (folium, see filum ‘a strand’), for from one stalk a cubit high grows one divided leaf.’ (Isid., Orig. 17.9.105)

7  Since the very beginning of modern scientific studies on gender (and especially the neuter) in the Latin-Romance continuum, lexical-semantic and inflectional issues have been so much in focus that, in

70

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture b. Stipulae      sunt    foli-ae       seu vagin-ae  blade(f).nom.sg  be.prs.3pl  leaf(f)-nom.pl  or   sheath(f)-nom.pl ‘Blades are the leaves or sheaths.’ (Isid., Orig. 17.3.18) c. Platanus       a   latitudin-e    foli-arum  dicta  plane_tree(f).nom.sg from breadth(f)-abl.sg leaf(f)-gen.pl said-nom.f.sg ‘The plane tree (platanus) is so called from the breadth of its leaves.’ (Isid., Orig. 17.7.37)

In his treatise, Isidore of Seville (c. 560–636 ad) uses CL folium,‑i n alongside the Late Latin innovation folia,‑ae f. Both occur in (7a), the latter with feminine singular modifiers (una scissa folia) that cannot be explained away as due to semantic agreement but guarantee the morphosyntactic feature specification of the agreement controller. As also seen from the plural forms in (7b–c), folia,‑ae was firmly established as a feminine noun, at the latest, by the early seventh century ad. This is one more proof that it is difficult to pin down a transitional stage with morphosyntactic indeterminacy, in order to account for the semantic ambiguity of lexemes like OFr. feuille.

4.3  A closer look at two-gender systems Morphosyntactic agreement-based evidence for remnants of the neuter is still indeed to be found, in different forms, in modern Romance languages which today display the binary system described in §3.1.1. Let us now review the relevant facts. 4.3.1 Sardinian Let us start this review with Sardinian, whose two-gender system has been already exemplified (for Logudorese) in (13)–(17), Chapter 3. This is perhaps the Romance branch in which the kind of evidence we are seeking is at its rarest. Even the purely morphological traces of neuter noun inflection (as discussed for Sicilian in §4.2.2) had vanished completely by the earliest medieval texts: see for instance III pecos ‘three sheep’ (CSP 346, see Wagner 1938–39: 102–3), instead of the original plural pecora, showing that the Latin plural ending ‑a was ousted by ‑os in (Old) Sardinian noun inflection, without residue. Whenever ‑a or ‑ora remain, the corresponding word form has been reanalysed as a feminine singular, like OSd. fructora ‘orchard’ (CSP 420), pumora ‘apple orchard’ (CdL 41) or modern laːra ‘lip(f)-sg’ < labra (see Meyer-Lübke 1902: 37; Salvioni 1909: 816).8 The only ‑ora (feminine) plural surviving into modern Sardinian is a Latin learnèd religious term, sas battɔs tɛ´mpɔra(za) ‘the.f. pl Ember Days(f)’ (reported in DES 737 only in the f.pl variant tɛ´mpɔras, regarded as concluding his seminal study on the Romance destiny of the Latin neuter, Meyer[-Lübke] (1883: 176) could write as a final sentence: ‘Die syntax des neutrums, wobei adj. und pron. hauptsächlich in betracht kommen, ist ein kapitel für sich’ [‘The syntax of the neuter, where adjective and pronoun must be considered primarily, is a chapter apart’]. 8  Such lexicalizations, obviously, abound in Sardinian too: e.g. Log. fɔddz-a ‘leaf(f)-sg’ < Lat. foli-a ‘leaf(n)-nom/acc.pl.n’; see Salvioni (1909: 752–3) for a discussion of more Sardinian feminine nouns deriving from neuter plurals.



4.3  A closer look at two-gender systems

71

a Spanish loanword, which cannot hold for the older a-form tɛ´mpɔra, recorded by Spano (1851: 421), and attested also elsewhere in Italo-Romance: e.g. f.pl lə kwattrə tɛ´mpəra in Veroli, province of Frosinone, see Vignoli (1925: 45)). In addition, Sardinian preserves the neuter ending ‑a in the numeral ‘two’ (see neuter dua, instead of CL duo, see ThLL 5/1.2241–2) only within the compound numeral Log. dua middza/Camp. dua milla ‘two thousand’. This form of ‘two’ contrasts with the gender-agreeing forms (stemming from Lat. duōs vs duās respectively; see ThLL 5/1.2243), regularly selected with masculine and feminine nouns: Log. du-ɔs káːnɛze ‘two-m dogs(m)’, du-as kráːβaza ‘two-f goats(f)’. Note that, within the numeral system, Log. du-a middza is still synchronically related to millɛ ‘thousand’ < Lat. mille (although with root allomorphy) and preserves a plural agreement pattern which was regular at a stage in which, for ‘two fingers’, one would have dua/duo digita, as distinct from duōs canēs and duās caprās. The neuter agreeing form du-a also occurs, apart from the compound numeral ‘two thousand’, in one fixed expression, (8a), that I have recorded so far only in the Northern Logudorese dialect of Luras: (8) a. dua ðiːða (literally ‘two fingers’ =) ‘a sip’ (quantifier phrase) b. su ðiːðu/sal díːðɔzɔ ‘the finger(m)/-s’, dual díːðɔzɔ ‘two-pl fingers(m)’9 This expression, exclusively used to quantify the liquid poured into a vessel (e.g. pɔ´nnɛmi dua ðiːða (e iːnu) ‘pour me a sip (of wine)’ (Depperu 2006: 207), is the only context to host the form dua, that contrasts with regular dúaza in (8b) (where /s/ → /l/ is due to a sandhi morphonological rule), and a similarly irregular plural form of ‘finger’ (compare the regular plural in (8b)). In this case too, we are facing nothing more than a fixed expression, hosting a residual form of a neuter agreement target (along with an otherwise non-occurring plural form of the noun) that has elsewhere disappeared, like all other traces of a third gender. 4.3.2  Gender-overdifferentiated agreement targets in Romansh Other Romance branches offer richer evidence than Sardinian here, as in RhaetoRomance: both Sursilvan and Engadinian preserve triplets in nominal paradigms, especially (but not exclusively) of lexemes denoting body parts, fruits, etc., as exemplified for Sursilvan in (9) (see Lausberg 1976: 2.25; Spescha 1989: 254; Ebneter 1994: 859–63): (9)

a. singular (count) b. plural c. mass/collective il gnierv il-s gnarv-s la gnarv-a ‘the nerve’ ‘the nerves’ ‘the nerves’ igl ies il-s oss l’oss-a ‘the bone’ ‘the bones’ ‘the bones’ il fegl il-s fegl-s la fegli-a ‘the leaf ’ ‘the leaves’ ‘the leafage’ il pér il-s pér-s la pér-a ‘the pear’ ‘the pears’ ‘the pears’ 9  Lurese neutralizes gender in the plural: see §8.3.2.

72

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

Note that the a-forms in (9c), whose semantics is mass/collective rather than atomic, trigger 3sg verb agreement. All determiners and adjectives in (10) and (11c–d) are feminine singular as well (see also Srs. cun bratscha avíarta ‘with open.f.sg arms’, A. Decurtins 2012: 110):10 (10)

a. la péra ei/*ein grossa    Srs. ‘the pears are big’ (when occurring in a bunch, e.g. in a basket, for sale) b. mia detta fa/*fan mal ‘my fingers hurt’

(11)

a. ɔts a m fɔ/*fɛm meːl il brač ‘today, my arm hurts me’ b. ɔts a m fɛm/*fɔ meːl ilz bračs c. ɔts a m fɔ/*fɛm meːl la brača ‘today, my arms hurt me’ d. mja bratɕa ma fa/*fau̯n wai ̯ e. ils bratɕs ma fau̯n/*fa wai ̯ ‘my arms hurt me’

UEng. (Zuoz) fɔ ‘make.prs.3sg’ fɛm ‘make.prs.3pl’

LEng. (Müstair) fa ‘make.prs.3sg’

Thus, synchronically, labels such as ‘collective plurals’ (Spescha 1989: 254) or ‘les pluriels neutres (ăl mail, plur. la maila […])’ [‘the neuter plurals’] (Pult 1897: 145) are misleading. Indeed, (9c), (10), and (11c) do not differ significantly from (5i), except for the fact that Sursilvan feglia, unlike Italian foglia or French feuille, does not inflect for number, and that alongside the a-collective (feminine singular), count masculines from the same root also occur, which regularly inflect for number and mostly denote the same referents. The match with Italian is even closer if one takes lexemes such as the following into account (Sursilvan data from Spescha 1989: 254; the Italian data are discussed in §4.3.4): (12)

Srs. a. il bratsch il member b. ils bratschs (d’ina crusch, d’in flum) ils members (d’ina societad) c. la bratscha (dil carstgaun) la membra (dil tgierp)

It. il braccio il membro i bracci (di una croce, di un fiume) i membri (di una società) le braccia (dell’uomo) le membra (del corpo)

‘the arm(m)’ ‘the member(m)’ ‘the arms (of a cross, of a river)’ ‘the members (of a society)’ ‘the arms (of a human)’ ‘the members (of the body)’

The similarities have a straightforward diachronic explanation in common origin, as (12b) stem from innovative masculine plurals, while (12c) from inherited Latin neuter plurals. Yet the Sursilvan forms in (12c) have become singular, while their Italian counterparts remained plural. However, in Romansh too, a leftover of the original 10  On 3sg agreement with Romansh a-collectives see e.g. Gartner (1910: 204); Lausberg (1976: 2.25), Wunderli (1993: 139); Ebneter (1994: 859).



4.3  A closer look at two-gender systems

73

morphosyntactic plurality of a-collectives—and, hence, of the gender distinction between neuter (plural) and feminine (singular)—is still found in the selection of a dedicated form of the lower numerals ‘two’ and ‘three’ with some such nouns. Consider the Romansh paradigms in (13) (see Candinas 1982: 110f. and Spescha 1989: 312f. on Sursilvan; Ganzoni  1977: 56f. on Upper and Ganzoni  1983: 56f. on Lower Engadinian; both Srs. treis and Eng. duos, trais are m/f and are glossed syntactically here: see n. 2): (13) a. Srs.: du-s/trei-s mattatschs du-as/trei-s mattatschas du-a/trei pèra b. Eng.: du-os/trai-s mats du-os/trai-s mattas du-a/trai-a pêra ‘two-m/three-m boys(m)’ ‘two-f/three-f girls(f)’ ‘two-n/three:n pairs(?)’ Sursilvan has three distinct forms for ‘two’ (du-a n vs du-s m vs du-as f), whereas for ‘three’ the neuter form trei contrasts with trei-s m=f. In Engadinian, the forms duos/ trais are selected by masculine or feminine plurals, contrasting with neuter dua/traia. The latter, like Sursilvan dua/trei, occur today regularly within compound numerals ((14a)) and with a very few nouns, as exemplified in (14b) (see Spescha 1989: 313 and A. Decurtins 2012: 337 on Sursilvan; Ganzoni 1977: 56, 1983: 57 and Peer 1962: 522 on Engadinian): (14) a. Srs. duatchien ‘two hundred’, trei melli ‘three thousand’ UEng. duatchient traiamilli b. Srs. dua pèra calzers ‘two pairs of shoes’, trei detta gries ‘three-finger-thick’, dua stera ‘two steres’ (unit of volume for wood, equal to one cubic metre) Eng. dua/traia pêra/daunta (UEng.; dainta LEng.) ‘two/three pairs/fingers’ In (14b), the numeral and the a-collectives are part of periphrastic quantifiers. Persistence of the neuter numeral forms in both compound numerals and quantificational expressions is reminiscent of the Sardinian data seen in §4.2.1 (see (8)). However, contrary to Sardinian, Romansh still offers synchronic evidence—from change in apparent time—of a previously less constrained occurrence of neuter lower numerals with a-nouns, which once could occur in typical plural count environments. Consider the phrase dua bratscha: for most Sursilvan speakers who use this expression, as well as for all dictionaries (see e.g. A. Decurtins 2012: 110), this nowadays means ‘two ells’. For some speakers, however, this reading is not exclusive: (15)

a. Tgi che ha duas combas e dua bratscha duei gie buca selubir da simular e mulestar il miedi (Candinas  2009: 91; Theo Candinas, born in SurreinSumvitg in 1929) ‘that who has two legs and two arms should not dare to simulate and disturb the doctor’ b. duːz bračs/dɛts rots ‘two broken arms/fingers’ (informant from Trun, la/?dua brača/dɛta rota ‘the/two broken arms/ born about 1955) fingers’ c. ilz/duːz bračs ‘the/two arms’ (informant from Laax, ? la/**dua brača ‘the/two arms’ born in 1992)

74

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

For the younger informant ((15c)), not only dua bratscha but the a-noun itself has fallen out of use (although la bratscha is still recognized as part of the elderly dialect, whereas dua bratscha is deemed ungrammatical). On the other hand, la bratscha is still used by the between-aged Sursilvan speaker ((15b)), except that its combination with a numeral sounds odd for him if bratscha is used in its literal, anatomical, sense. The passage from the novel in (15a), whose author is a Sursilvan speaker born in 1929, shows that dua bratscha still has the literal, anatomical (i.e. non-quantificational), meaning in his dialect.11 Romansh varieties did not proceed with this replacement at the same pace, but the trend is general. Thus, all the Engadinian speakers I consulted categorically reject dua with a-nouns in contexts such as (16a) (examples from the Jauer variety of Müstair): (16)

a. tɔt-s duɐi ̯ brač-s// **duɐ/**duɐi ̯/**duɐz brač-ɐ all-m.pl two.m arm(m)-pl two.n/two.m/two.f arms(f)-sg ‘both arms’ b. tɔtt-ɐz duɐz jɔmm-ɐs/don-ɐs all-m.pl two.f leg(f)-pl/woman(f)-pl’ ‘both legs/women’12

In spoken Engadinian, while a-nouns are still in use (e.g. tuot la dɛnt-a m fɔ meːl ‘all my fingers(f)-sg hurt me’ in the UEng. variety of Zuoz), they do not co-occur with numerals (including the a-forms of ‘two’ and ‘three’) except within periphrastic quantifiers, and s-plurals occur with numerals instead: see e.g. dúɐz dɛnts ruo̯ts ‘two.m broken.m.pl fingers(m)’ (Zuoz). Synchronically, in a variety of Sursilvan (nowadays close to disappearing) such as the one in (15a), a-marking on lower numerals with nouns like bratscha is still a case of gender overdifferentiation of the type exemplified by Corbett (1991: 168f.) with lower numerals in the central Dravidian languages Kolami-Naiki and Parji-Ollari. In these languages, the numerals ‘two’, ‘three’, and ‘four’ have dedicated agreement forms for female human nouns, in addition to those for male human vs other, which are generally found on all other agreement targets. These numerals thus match the def­ inition of ‘overdifferentiated targets’, which requires that ‘a specific gender agreement distinction must be restricted to a particular word-class, and even within this wordclass it must be restricted to certain lexical items.’ (Corbett 1991: 169). Diachronically, Central Dravidian differs from Romansh: although there are diverging views, the prevailing one (see Emeneau 1955: 148f.; Krishnamurti 1975) has it that Proto-Dravidian had a binary gender contrast—either male vs rest throughout, as in Central Dravidian, or with number-related asymmetry (male vs rest in the singular, human vs nonhuman in the plural) as found in Kuṛux (North Dravidian) and Telugu (Central11  Kämpf (2015: 20) shows that dedicated neuter agreement in dua is more resistent than that in trei/tria. More generally, her study (based on answers to a questionnaire by 39 Sursilvan and 16 UEng. speakers) confirms that, on the whole, younger speakers tend to use s-plurals where the conservative varieties still described in current grammars have a-forms. 12  As seen in (16), Jauer, at the south-easternmost fringe of the Romansh-speaking area (Val Müstair is a geographical appendix of Lower Engadine), preserves a masculine vs feminine contrast in the numeral ‘two’, unlike (the rest of) Engadinian (see (13b)).



4.3  A closer look at two-gender systems

75

Southern)—and that the three-way contrast, masculine/feminine/neuter, as found in Tamil, for example, is a Proto-Southern-Dravidian innovation. The fact that gender overdifferentiation on lower numerals is fading away in Romansh—as shown in (15a–c) and as seen in the increasing restriction of dua and trei/traia to compound numerals and quantificational expressions (see (14))—is readily understood in view of the isolation of this instance of overdifferentiated gender marking within the system, as well as of the conflict in number between the plurality expressed by the numerals dua, trei, and singular agreement. This situation is symmetrical to the occurrence of Latin unus with pluralia tantum: (17)

adeo    ut  un-a     castr-a       iam    fact-a to_the_point that one-nom.pl.n camp(n)-nom.pl already  become-nom.pl.n ex   bin-is    vid-ere-ntur out_of two-abl.pl seem-sbjv.impf.3pl:pass ‘so that the two camps seemed to have become just a single one’ (Caes., B.C. 1.74)

While Latin tolerated this mismatch, the Romance languages mostly did away with it so that, today, pluralia tantum like It. forbici ‘scissors(f)’ or occhiali ‘spectacles(m)’ cannot combine with attributive uno,‑a ‘one.m/f’ (which has no plural in Italian: **une/-a forbici, **uni/-o occhiali), but require a periphrastic individualizer: un paio di forbici/occhiali ‘a pair of scissors/spectacles’ (though not without exceptions: e.g. the Istrioto dialect of Sissano (Croatia) has un-e fɔ́rfež-e ‘one-f.pl scissors(f)-pl’, calqued on Croatian jedn-e škar-e ‘id.’; see Giudici 2017). The on-going change now observable in apparent time in (15a–c) lends plausibility to Lausberg’s (1976: 2.166) observation that ‘Dal punto di vista semantico, non si tratta di plurali collettivi, perché anzi c’è un’enumerazione […], bensì di residui arcaici di antiche consecuzioni al neutro plurale’ [‘From a semantic point of view, we are not dealing with collective plurals, because there is an enumeration, but rather with archaic residues of old neuter plural sequences’]. This is tantamount to an analysis in terms of overdifferentiation of the kind proposed here, and it will be shown in §6.4 that the data from Old Romansh fit in well with this picture. All this suggests that Wilkinson’s (1985–91: 41f.) objections to Lausberg’s conclusion, just mentioned, are beside the point. Wilkinson takes issue with Lausberg and claims that Srs. dua bra­ tscha is not a plural because it denotes just ‘a single collective unit consisting of two ells’ (Wilkinson 1985–91: 42), to be further compared with German ‘collective nouns beginning with Ge-’ such as Gebein ‘bones’ (neuter singular). However, first of all, the semantics is not crucial here: as argued in §4.2, it is the morphosyntactic (agreementbased) evidence that allows us to recognize gender values, or their remnants in a synchronic stage where a given value is disappearing. Secondly, numerals other than ‘one’ are by definition plural, and they still combine with undoubtedly plural a-ending nouns in modern Romansh where dua, trei (Srs.)/traja (Eng.), for some of the speakers tested by Kämpf (2015: 13–14), do not only survive within complex quantifiers (e.g. Srs. dua pèra calzers ‘two pairs of shoes’) but also as true numerals, especially with pèra used as ‘couples’: LEng. traja pêra han fat üna visita all’ustaria ‘three couples have popped into the pub’. Thirdly, as for Wilkinson’s parallel with German, zwei Gebeine does not actually correspond in usage to dua bratscha in that it does not mean ‘a single

76

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

collective unit consisting of two bones’, but rather ‘two (distinct) sets of bones’, as shown in the following example: 1671 bekommt der Pfarrer von Schübelbach aus dem Schatz von Einsiedeln zwei Gebeine der Heiligen Cölestin und Lucidus (‘Wie Gebeine aus den Katakomben Roms an den Obersee kamen’, Zürcher Unterländer, 25.1.2012, https://www.kath.ch/medienspiegel/wie-gebeine-ausden-katakomben-roms-an-den-obersee-kamen-1/, accessed 21 November 2012). [In 1671, the priest of the parish Schübelbach receives from the Einsiedeln treasure the (two sets of) bones of the saints Celestine and Lucidus]

Wilkinson’s is not the only voice to have questioned the value of dua bratscha as residual evidence for a (neuter) gender value. Wunderli (1993: 134–5) concurs with Lausberg in the analysis of dua bratscha as plural, yet takes into account only its reading as a  complex quantifier (‘two ells’) and concludes that ‘Die “Neutrum-verdächtige” Formen auf ‑a verdienen eine derartige Klassifikation nur aus diachroner Sicht’ [‘The a-ending forms, suspected of being “neuters”, deserve such a classification only from a diachronic point of view’]. While there is no doubt about the diachrony, the residual persistence of target overdifferentiation in (15a) shows that this is also synchronically a remnant of neuter plural agreement, as distinct from both masculine and feminine, occurring only on a few overdifferentiated targets. 4.3.3  Neuter agreement targets and default in Romansh Sursilvan stands out among the modern Romance languages in that it displays a mismatch between target and controller gender in predicative adjectives and participles. This is exemplified with adjectives in (18), where the three forms bial-s, bial-a, and bi contrast: (18)

a. il cudesch ei bial-s/**bi/**bial-a the.m book(m)[sg] is nice-m/[n]/-f b. l’ aur-a ei bial-a/**bi/**bial-s the.f weather(f)-sg is nice-f/[n]/-m ‘the book/weather is nice’ c. igl/**el/**ella ei bi/**bial-a/**bial-s (dad ir  ord casa) it/he/she     is nice[n]/-f/-m   (to  go out home) ‘it’s nice [weather] (to go out)’

Nouns divide into the usual two classes, masculine vs feminine, not unlike in the languages addressed in §3.1.1, which is reflected in the selection of bial-s vs bial-a in (18a–b), as well as in the article forms: il cudesch/bap ‘the book/father(m)’ vs la casa/giuvna ‘the house/girl(f)’. Yet, there is a third form of the predicative adjective (bi in (18c)), as well as a third one of the definite article, which only occur in the absence of nominal controllers, for instance with nominalizations of other parts of speech: igl ir cun skis ei bi ‘to go skiing is nice’, igl auter ‘the other (thing/-s)’ (vs l’auter m, l’autra f). There is an extensive literature on this three-way contrast on Sursilvan adjectives (see e.g. Stimm 1976: 41–52; Haiman and Benincà 1992: 206–18; Wunderli 1993: 144–8), although the terminology and analysis are far from uniform. For instance, Tekavčić



4.3  A closer look at two-gender systems

77

(1972–74: 11f.) assumes two genders (masculine vs feminine) and labels the contrast between car and car-s one between ‘attributive’ and ‘predicative’ forms of the masculine. This is due to the fact that a form identical to the predicative neuter ones seen in (18c), (19c) is selected, when used attributively, by masculine nouns: in bi/**bials curtgin ‘a beautiful garden(m)’ (Spescha 1989: 268), in bien/**buns carstgaun ‘a good person(m)’ (Liver 2010: 135). However, this homophony obviously does not justify Tekavčić’s label ‘masculine attributive’ for bi in (18c), where the adjective is not attributive, but predicative, and—in the present analysis—not masculine, since the form at issue is never selected by masculine controllers in that same syntactic context (contrast (18a)). The contrast between the three forms of the Sursilvan predicative adjective seen in (18) goes back straightforwardly to the Latin forms of the nominative adjective of the three genders: (19)

a. il paun ei car-s/**car/**car-a < the.m bread(m) is expensive-m/[n]/-f b. la carn ei car-a/**car/**car-s < the.f meat(f) is expensive-f/[n]/-m c. tut ei car/**car/**car-a < all  is expensive[n]/-m/-f ‘bread/meat/everything is expensive’

carus cara(m) caru(m)

In addition to clauses with non-lexical controllers ((18c), (19c)), neuter forms of the adjectives are selected with proper nouns whose gender assignment may pose difficulties (like place names, (20)), as well as in other contexts which are reported to select neuter agreement cross-linguistically, like so-called ‘pancake agreement’ constructions ((21)); see Corbett 1991: 216, 2006: 150, 223; data from Wunderli 1993: 148; Haiman and Benincà 1992: 217): (20)

(21)

a. Cuera ei Chur be.prs.3sg ‘Chur is nice’ b. Falera ei Falera be.prs.3sg ‘Falera is old’

simpatic nice[n] vegl old[n]

a. caschiel ei bien cheese(m) be.prs.3sg good[n] ‘cheese is good’ nuscheivel b. cigaretta-s     ei        cigarette(f)-pl be.prs.3sg harmful[n] ‘(smoking) cigarettes is harmful’

The same three-way contrast also occurs on subject pronouns: bap vs giuvna would be pronominalized with el and ella respectively, neither of which can be selected, as an expletive, in the absence of a nominal subject, as shown in (18c), (19c). This third form is termed ‘neutral’ by Corbett (1991: 159); one may also call it ‘non-lexical neuter’ (Loporcaro 2011d: 335).

78

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

Symmetrically, a neuter subject pronoun selects a predicative form of the adjective that contrasts with the one selected by the masculine pronoun (Haiman and Benincà 1992: 144f.): (22)

a. el ei bun-s 3m.sg be.prs.3sg good-m.sg ‘he is good’ b. igl ei     bien 3n be.prs.3sg good[n] ‘it is good’

Srs.

A neuter subject pronoun, occurring as an expletive, is found in Engadinian too (LEng. (i)d:, UEng. (a)d; =a, when inverted), where it contrasts with ɛl m and ɛla f (see Haiman and Benincà 1992: 133f.): (23)

a. ad eːz ɲia trais persuːna-s (Zuoz, UEng.) 3n be.prs.3sg come.ptp.m.sg three.f person(f)-pl ‘three people have come’ b. eːz=a     s̆toː      bğeːr  traffic ?  be.prs.3sg=3n be.ptp.m.sg much traffic(m).sg ‘has there been much traffic?’

The same neutral form seen in (18c), (19c), and (20)–(21) is also selected to signal lack of agreement, for instance on past participles in compound tenses (24) or in impersonal constructions (25a–b), to be compared with the agreeing masculine participle occurring in the personal counterpart in (25c) (data from Vieli and Decurtins 1962: 782; Spescha 1989: 209; Haiman 1974: 131; Haiman and Benincà 1992: 211): (24)

a. la malsogna ha caschunau biar-a-s unfrenda-s def:f.sg disease(f):sg have.prs.3sg cause.ptp[n] many-f-pl victim(f)-pl ‘the disease has been responsible for many victims’ b. Gion e Geri han     surpriu      quell-a  lavur G. and G.    have.prs.3pl accept.ptp[n] that-f.sg job(f).sg ‘Gion and Geri have accepted that job’

(25)

a. alla radunonza ei vegniu     in   giuvnatsch to=def.f.sg meeting(f).sg be.prs.3sg come.ptp.n  indf.m boy(m)[sg] b. igl ei      vegniu     in   giuvnatsch alla     radunonza 3n  be.prs.3sg  come.ptp.n  indf.m  boy(m)[sg]  to=def.f.sg  meeting(f).sg c. in     giuvnatsch  ei      vegniu-s    alla    radunonza indf.m boy(m)[sg]  be.prs.3sg  come.ptp-m.sg  to=def.f.sg  meeting(f).sg ‘a boy came to the meeting’

Like the others just reviewed in (18c), (19c), (22b), this function too is fulfilled by the (lexical) neuter in systems which have preserved it (§4.5.2). Availability of a dedicated form for signalling agreement with non-nominal controllers, or lack of gender agreement, constitutes a mismatch between target and controller genders (see (7), Chapter 1), of the kind which is liable to pop up when one



4.3  A closer look at two-gender systems

79

gender value previously fulfilling syntactic default functions is lost or depleted for controller nouns. This happened in Sursilvan, where neuter nouns were generally reassigned to the masculine and now take masculine agreement, as seen in (9a) above with the selection of the masculine singular article with nouns such as ies ‘bone’ < ossum, fegl ‘leaf ’ < folium, and further exemplified in (26) with temps < tempus, aur < aurum (Stimm 1976: 42): (26)

a. il temps def.m.sg time(m) ‘time is up’

ei be.3sg

cumpleniu-s/**cumpleniu come.to.its.end-m.sg/come.to.its.end[n]

b. igl aur def.m.sg gold(m) ‘gold is heavy’

ei be.3sg

grev-s/**grev heavy-m.sg/heavy[n]

The functions now reviewed pertained to the neuter in Latin, as seen in (10) and (12), Chapter  2. Thus, the fact that the non-lexical neuter of Romansh still fulfils those functions is easily explained as due to inheritance: the neuter preserved just those functions, after all controller nouns were reassigned to the other genders.13 4.3.4  Neuter pronouns and default across Romance The occurrence of a neutral agreement form of the adjective and the participle for agreement with non-nominal controllers singles out Sursilvan among contemporary Romance varieties with a binary gender contrast (see §6.3.1 for the same phenomenon in medieval Gallo-Romance). The availability of dedicated forms of the pronouns for this function is much more common, meanwhile, occurring in all Romance languages with a binary gender system except Sardinian, which uses masculine forms, as shown by the comparison between Logudorese (27a) on the one hand, and Italian (27b) (which has the option of using either the—more colloquial—masculine form or the dedicated neutral form ciò) and the dialects of Altamura (province of Bari) and Velletri (province of Rome), on the other ((27c–d)). These are both spoken near the border separating them from dialects with a lexical neuter (marked on articles and determiners accompanying the noun), but they have only neutral pronominal forms, and no lexical ­ neuter. Altamurano’s demonstrative neutral pronoun kɛss(ə) is ­homophonous with its feminine and distinct from its masculine counterpart kwʊss(ə), but is resumed by a masculine singular clitic ʊ (not by feminine la), and the same goes for the dialect of Lariano (province of Rome, see Lorenzetti 1995: 170) or nearby Velletrano (Zaccagnini 1992: 89), where the neutral pronoun kešto (distal kello) contrasts with masculine kišto (distal killo), while the contrast does not occur on any other agreement targets:14

13  The forms of the relevant targets, too, stem from the Latin neuter, as indicated for the adjective in (19c). Likewise, the different etyma proposed for the neuter pronouns also go back to a Latin neuter form, be that CL illud (DRG 1.57) or Late Latin neuter illum (DRG 5.574; Widmer 1959: 72) > Srs./Old UEng. igl, Eng. (a)d/(i)d (the latter with the influence of the Romansh outcome of et ‘and’). 14  Adnominal demonstratives only encode a binary m vs f contrast in Altamurano (see (80a)) and Larianese/Velletrano. The case of Turinese (analysed in Ricca 2017) is particular, since this dialect has a third form, which can optionally be used to refer vaguely to an argument, as an alternative to the masculine

80

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

nɔ ll=app-ɔ ɣumpreːz-u (27) a. kust-u dem.prox-m.sg neg 3m.sg=have.prs-1sg understand.ptp-m.sg b. quest-o/ciò non l=ho capit-o dem.prox-m.sg/.n neg 3m.sg=have.prs-1sg understand.ptp-m.sg c. kɛssə       nan  ʊ=sɔ         kkapɪ´ˑi̯t        dem.prox.n  neg  3m.sg=be.prs-1sg understand.ptp ‘this, I did not understand’ d. kešto     no   l-o=sačč-o               dem.prox.n  neg 3-m.sg=know.prs-1sg ‘this, I do not know’

Log. Sa. It. Altamurano

Larianese

Spanish, on the other hand, has no choice here but to use a dedicated form of the pronoun (see Corbett 1991: 214; Fernández-Ordóñez 2006–07: 2.55), as seen in (28a), to be contrasted with (28b–c) where a masculine/feminine antecedent is resumed: (28) a. antes me gustaba ir al cine pero eso/**el/**ella ya no me interesa b. antes me gustaba Maria pero ella/**eso ya no me interesa c. antes me gustaba Pedro pero el/**eso ya no me interesa ‘earlier I used to like going to the movies/Mary/Peter, but it.n/she.f/he.m does not interest me anymore’ Catalan and Portuguese have similar triplets: Ca. això/eixa/eixe ‘that near’, Pg. isso/essa/ esse.15 While the most common pattern is for the demonstrative to preserve an extra agreement target (formerly neuter, synchronically neutral, in Corbett’s 1991: 159 terms), in some systems other agreement targets do as well. Spanish has, in addition, a dedicated neutral form of the article for nominalizations (lo bueno/mejor ‘the good/best (thing)’), whereas Portuguese and Catalan, like other Romance languages (except those in §§4.3.3, 4.5, and Chapter 5) use masculine by default in this context (e.g. Pg. o melhor, Perini 2002: 343, Cat. el millor ‘the best (thing)’). Another case in point is the dialect of Campobasso (Upper Southern Italo-Romance), that now has an f vs m lexical contrast (e.g. la pruna ‘the.f plum’ vs u mesə/twottsə ‘the.m month/loaf (of bread)’), where the same masculine article is selected by mass nouns such as u panə/pepə/saŋgə ‘def.m bread/pepper/blood’ (see Brunale 2001: 379, 250, 296, 2003: 34) which are neuter in many surrounding dialects, described in §4.5.1. The latter dialects are evidently more conservative, and a trace of the earlier stage is retained in Campobassano on the other hand in the three-way contrast in demonstrative pronouns (including a neutral form (pia (d)ko sɔn/kust ‘take also this.n/this.m.sg’), but has to be selected categorically with non-nominal controllers, unlike in Italian, where the pronoun ciò ‘this.n’ is never obligatory and can be replaced by questo ‘this:m.sg’ in all functions (see (27b)). Another special case is Romanian, as shown in (54) in §4.4.1.2, since the pronominal forms used in default contexts coincide with feminine, not masculine ones. 15  This applies to all degrees of proximality/distality: Pg. este, ‑a, isto dem.prox, esse, ‑a, isso dem, aquele, ‑a, aquilo dem.dist (Hundertmark-Santos Martins 2014: 64, 96–7). Portuguese also has a neuter form for ‘all’, viz. tudo (contrasting with masculine todo). Occurrence of a three-way distinction on pronominal demonstratives concerns the whole Iberian peninsula, from Galician to Catalan, as recapitulated in De Andrés Díaz (2015: 347).



4.3  A closer look at two-gender systems

81

form  (29c) not occurring adnominally; see D’Ovidio  1878: 152), as in the dialects in (27c–d): (29)

a. kwištə/kwissə/kwillə m.prox/near_hearer/dist b. kešta/kessa/kella f.prox/near_hearer/dist c. keštə/kessə/kellə n.prox/near_hearer/dist

On the other hand, Campobassano still has a neutral DO clitic lə, used for pronomi­ nalization of non-nominal controllers ((30a)) and contrasting with m.sg u (see Vignuzzi and Avolio 1994: 649), earlier lu (see Merlo 1906–07: 439, who reports for Campobassano tu nnə lu kunuššə while for the speakers I consulted this sentence has the form given in (30a)): (30)

a. u sendə ‘I hear him’; tu nnə lu kunušsə̌ ‘you do not know him’ b. lə sačcə̌ ‘I know it’; tu nnə lə sa ‘you do not know it’

Again, all of these forms do not only share their function, but also the fact that they all stem from a Latin neuter etymon (Pg. isso < ipsum, aquilo < eccu-illud, Williams 1962: 157; Cat. ho < hoc, això < *ipsu-hoc Moll 1952: 191–5).16 Thus, these agreement targets show continuity in both form and (part of their) function, a continuity which is obscured by calling ‑o, for instance in the synchronic analysis of Spanish demonstrative and articles (esto, lo bueno, etc.), a ‘masculine ending’ (Roca 1989: 14). Alternatively, much of the literature that does call lo, esto, etc. ‘neuters’ overemphasizes the discontinuity: ‘Las formas neutras del español actual y su uso tienen poco en común con las propriedades del neutro en latín’ [‘The neuter forms of contemporary Spanish and their usage have little in common with the properties of the Latin neuter’] (Schroten 2011: 157). This is hard to maintain, since the use of lo with non-lexical controllers continues, as just said, one of the functions of the Latin neuter. 4.3.5  Alternating gender agreement in modern Standard Italian Standard Italian has been already mentioned in §3.1.1 since, in spite of scattered claims to the contrary (see (32a)), it is widely held to possess a binary gender contrast. The reason why some have maintained a three-gender analysis, claiming that Italian still possesses a neuter gender alongside masculine (31a) and feminine (31c), is the agreement pattern in (31b):17

16  This is true, whatever the specific etymon preferred, and even if the fine points of the etymological derivation remain doubtful, as for Pg. aquilo and isto: ‘Não estão ainda bem esclarecidos os motivos que trouxeram a substituição de aquelo por aquilo’ (DELA 1.286); for instance Coromines (1931: 22–3) maintains that (‑)o in Catalan neuter pronouns stems from *illúd, with stress-shift (but see §7.4.1 for a more parsimonious hypothesis on the origin of this kind of neuter agreement targets, and REW 4158 for an inventory of Romance outcomes of hoc: It. ciò < ecce-hoc etc.). 17  Following a suggestion by Greville Corbett, I use ‘x’ for the nouns taking alternating agreement in contemporary Standard Italian, so as not to bias the analysis with respect to the options in (32).

82

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

(31) singular a. il nas-o è lung-o def.m.sg nose(m)-sg is long-m.sg b. il bracci-o è lung-o def.m.sg arm(x)-sg is long-m.sg è lung-a c. l-a gamb-a def-f.sg leg(f)-sg is long-f.sg ‘the nose/arm/leg is long’

plural i nas-i sono lungh-i def.m.pl nose(m)-pl are long-m.pl l-e bracci-a sono lungh-e def-f.pl arm(x)-pl are long-f.pl l-e gamb-e sono lungh-e def-f.pl leg(f)-pl are long-f.pl ‘the noses/arms/legs are long’

m m/f f

The alternating agreement selected by nouns like braccio formally satisfies the def­ inition of a controller gender ((7), Chapter 1) and was indeed interpreted as such by some scholars, mentioned in (32a), which is just one among the several alternative analyses summarized in (32): (32) a. gender: Merlo (1952), Bonfante (1961, 1964, 1977): ‘Ci troviamo di fronte a un vero neutro.’ [‘What we have here is a real neuter’, i.e. (31b)] (Bonfante 1961: 165) b. inquorate gender: Posner (1996: 63–4); Igartua (2006: 60); Iacobini and Thornton (2016: 193) c. number: Togeby (1953: 122): ‘un troisième nombre, […] un collectif ’ [‘a third number, […] a collective’]; Hall (1956: 140); a ‘failed dual’, with ‘dual meaning’; Magni (1995): ‘dual’, though referring to ‘la categoria cognitiva della doppiezza più che quella linguistica del duale’ [‘the cognitive category of doubleness rather than the linguistic one of the dual’] (Thornton 2013: 444) d. inflectional class: Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1994); Dressler and Thornton (1996); D’Achille and Thornton (2003); Thornton (2013): ‘Traditionally, phonological shape is the primary classifying criterion of nouns. This gives the following classes (or, often, microclasses): […] v. gender-combined: masc. il bracci-o—pl. femm. le bracci-a ‘arm’.’ (Dressler and Thornton 1996: 5) e. derivation: Ojeda (1995); Acquaviva (2002, 2008): ‘I will argue instead that plurals in ‑a do not belong to the inflectional system at all. […] My proposal is that they are lexical plurals […] related to the base noun by a word-formation process’ (Acquaviva 2008: 159). One crucial reason why most analyses today do not consider (31b) a separate gender is that just a couple of dozen nouns display that agreement pattern, which seems to justify, if at all, the qualification of inquorate gender ((32b)), in Corbett’s (1991: 170–5) terms: inquorate genders are those ‘which comprise a small number of nouns, and whose agreements can be readily specified as an unusual combination of forms available for agreement with nouns with the normal gender values’ (Corbett 2012: 84). Since all those nouns inflect the same way, another analytical option, taken by the scholars in (32d), treats them as one inflectional class, which behaves irregularly with



4.3  A closer look at two-gender systems

83

respect to gender agreement:18 this inflectional class, furthermore, has been on the retreat for centuries (see §6.2). According to (32e), finally, irregular braccia is not an inflected form of braccio at all, but rather a distinct lexeme formed with a derivational suffix ‑a. The literature on this quirk of Italian morphology is huge, and I cannot cover it exhaustively here.19 Rather, the following notes pick out some aspects of the (debate on) Italian a-plurals which will be capitalized on in the following comparative and diachronic discussion. A few such nouns have only a-plurals (33a), and there are some a-ending pluralia tantum (33b): (33) a. centinaio/centinaia ‘hundred/-s’, migliaio/migliaia ‘thousand/-s’, miglio/miglia ‘mile/‑s’, paio/paia ‘pair/-s’, riso/risa ‘laughter/-s’, strido/strida ‘shriek/-s’, uovo/uova ‘egg/-s’ (**centinai, **migliai, **migli, **pai, **risi, **stridi); b. interiora ‘entrails’, gesta ‘feats’, vestigia ‘remnants, traces’ (vestigio m.sg is rare) For most nouns like braccia, however, alternative masculine plural forms are available, many of which are commonly reported, in grammars and dictionaries, to differ semantically (e.g. Rohlfs 1966–69: 2.36): (34) braccio budello ciglio corno dito labbro fondamento lenzuolo membro muro osso staio

‘arm’ ‘gut, alley’ ‘eyelash, edge’ ‘horn’ ‘finger’ ‘lip’ ‘basis’ ‘bedsheet’ ‘member, limb’ ‘wall’ ‘bone’ ‘bushel’

braccia budella ciglia corna dita labbra fondamenta lenzuola membra mura ossa staia

‘arms’ ‘guts’ ‘eyelashes’ ‘horns’ ‘fingers’ ‘lips’ ‘foundations’ ‘bedsheets’ ‘limbs’ ‘walls’ (perimeter) ‘bones’ (of a skeleton) ‘bushels’ (measure)

bracci budelli cigli corni diti labbri fondamenti lenzuoli membri muri ossi stai

‘arms’ (of objects) ‘alleys’ ‘edges’ ‘horns’ ‘fingers’ ‘edges (of wound)’ ‘bases’ ‘bedsheets’ ‘members’20 ‘walls’ (count) ‘bones’ (individual) ‘bushels’ (objects)

18  Actually, there are a few nouns belonging to other ICs which also select alternating agreement: il carcere/le carceri ‘jail’, il gregge/le greggi ‘flock’. In addition, some nouns which for some speakers/varieties have two doublets, one feminine and one masculine, like arancia/arancio ‘orange’, orecchia/orecchio ‘ear’, tend to merge—if at all—into one lexeme with alternating gender as l’arancio/le arance, l’orecchio/le orecchie. This shows that the alternating agreement pattern (31b) still has some residual force of attraction, but, as argued in Loporcaro et al. (2014: 5, n. 4), hardly changes the overall picture since none of the lexemes now mentioned belongs to productive ICs. Rather, in all cases the ‘new’ paradigm emerges through reshuffling from pre-existing lexemes, which may even be homophonous. One such interesting case, as pointed out to me by Davide Ricca, is the two asse,-i which in Standard Italian mean respectively ‘axis’ (m) vs ‘plank, board’ (f), while in many speakers’ (including DR) dialect the latter has switched to selecting masculine agreement only in the singular. Old Italian displayed a completely different picture, since not only the braccio/-a IC but also other ICs associated with alternating agreement were productive at that stage (see §6.2). 19  See e.g. Brunet (1978: 30); Lepschy and Lepschy (1977: 104); Maiden and Robustelli (2000: 25–8); Acquaviva (2002, 2008: 125–61); Serianni (2006: 141, 143–7); Schwarze (2009: 44–5) (but the relevant references go back to the Renaissance: see the discussion of Pietro Bembo’s account in (7b), Ch. 6). 20  Also as a body part, specialized to denote the (plural of) membrum uirile.

84

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

Such semantic differences—which Acquaviva (2008: 126–7) uses as supporting argument for his derivational account (32e)—surely hold of some sort of ‘average’ standard language, in such a way that, for many such nouns, the a-plural is perceived as pertaining to the basic meaning of the lexeme (e.g. the anatomical one, for braccio, ciglio, labbro, membro, osso) whereas i-plurals are mostly prescribed as appropriate for secondary meanings which have arisen via semantic changes such as metaphoric extension or specialization/shrinking (both observable in i membri, see n. 20).21 However, the recent corpus-based study by Thornton (2013) has called into question the existence of a neat semantic contrast for several of the plurals in (34), showing that in actual use, free variation—possibly conditioned sociolinguistically—is common: for example (le) dita medie and (i) diti medi, both for ‘the (middle) fingers’, balance each other out, in her corpus, with 28,300 vs 29,500 occurrences (Thornton 2013: 437). Free variation is the only option for nouns whose a-/i-plurals never contrast semantically: (35)

il ginocchio il grido il sopracciglio il moggio l’urlo

‘knee’ ‘scream’ ‘eyebrow’ ‘grain measure (= 5 bushels)’ ‘scream’

pl. le ginocchia/i ginocchi pl. le grida/i gridi pl. le sopracciglia/i sopraccigli pl. le moggia/i moggi pl. le urla/gli urli

Another widespread kind of distribution is the one illustrated in (36): (36)

calcagno/‑i ‘heel/‑s’

but calcagna in stare alle calcagna ‘to be hot   on the heels of ’ cervello/‑i ‘brain/‑s’ cervella bruciare le cervella ‘to blow   someone’s brains out’ cuoio/cuoi ‘leather/hides, cuoia tirare le cuoia ‘to kick the leather sorts’  bucket’ filo/‑i ‘thread/‑s’ fila tirare le fila ‘to pull the strings’ fuso/‑i ‘spindle/‑s’ fusa far le fusa ‘to purr’

For these nouns, the only regular plural today ends in ‑i, whereas the a‑form occurs in fixed collocations, with a special semantics. As will be shown in §6.2 and §7.1, the semantic shrinking of a-plurals evidenced in (36) is relatively recent, while variation between a-/i-plural forms has been there for nearly two millennia.22 So, the dia21  A related semantic argument by Paolo Acquaviva is that a-plurals denote sets of ‘weakly individualized referents’ (Acquaviva 2004: 262), as ‘the parts making up the denotation [of a-plurals–M.L.] are conceptualized as undifferentiated, in different ways according to the lexical semantics of the noun’ (Acquaviva 2008: 153). 22 In fact, one can follow this semantic shrinking by consulting older Italian grammars: thus, e.g. Fornaciari (1881: 17f.) still reports fila in the sense of ‘fili che entrano a comporre un tutto’ [‘threads that compose a whole’], exemplified with vestimenta di fila sottilissime ‘cloths of very thin threads’ (from Benedetto Varchi’s 1551 translation of Boethius, §1.1). He also reports the plurals anella ‘rings’, coltella ‘knives’, etc., with a special semantics, which today are obsolete. Needless to say, what is reported in this section only concerns the standard language. Conversely, in many Italo-Romance dialects a-plurals have stayed productive and even expanded, as stated in §4.2.2: thus, i fila is still the only grammatical plural to u filu ‘the thread’ in Southern Corsican (see Paganelli 1976: 33).



4.3  A closer look at two-gender systems

85

chronic evidence points to a gradual retreat of the alternating agreement pattern in (31b)—together with the only IC which is associated with that agreement today. There is also syntactic evidence pointing to a special status of (31b) in the modern standard language. This evidence comes from gender resolution (37a), as well as from distributive l’uno ‘each’ (37b) and reciprocal l’un l’altro ‘each other’ (37c) with plural NPs like le uova ‘the eggs’: (37)

a. il    dit-o    e  il    bracci-o  sono def.m.sg finger(x)-sg and def.m.sg arm(x)-sg be.prs.3pl stat-i amputat-i    / **stat-e   **amputat-e be:ptp-m.pl amputate:ptp-m.pl / be:ptp-f.pl amputate:ptp-f.pl ‘the arm and the finger have been amputated’ b. l-e      uov-a     costa-no      venti  centesim-i def-f.pl egg(x)-pl cost.prs-3pl twenty cent(m)-pl l’    un-a    / **l’    un-o def one-f.sg/  def one-m.sg ‘eggs cost twenty cents each’ c. l-e    bracci-a  di Ugo sono    un-a    più  lung-a def-f.pl arm(x)-pl  of  U.     be.prs.3pl one-f.sg more long-f.sg de-ll’ altr-a   /**un-o  più  lung-o     de-ll’  altr-o of-def  one-f.sg /one-m.sg more long-m.sg of-def other-m.sg ‘one of Ugo’s arms is longer than the other’

In (37a) it is shown that two coordinated NPs like il dito and il braccio select m.pl, rather than the f.pl agreement required by the respective plurals le dita and le braccia (as well as by two conjuncts which are both feminine singular, given the resolution rule (15a), Chapter 3). Symmetrically, (37b–c) show that agreement of the distributive and reciprocal pronouns with plural NPs like le uova ‘the eggs’, le braccia ‘the arms’ is in the feminine singular, while the nouns themselves, when occurring in the singular, trigger masculine agreement. Thus, switching the number value causes a deviation from the alternating agreement in (31b). These facts, long observed in descriptive grammars of Italian (see e.g. Lepschy and Lepschy 1977: 104; Brunet 1978: 95; Maiden and Robustelli 2000: 28), have been capitalized on by Acquaviva (2008: 148) in order to argue that uova, braccia, etc. are ‘lexical plurals’, rather than morphosyntactic inflectional plurals: If the feminine of certain nouns were just the automatically triggered consequence of their being plural, the distributive status of a morphologically singular pronoun should be irrelevant, and all mismatches in number between antecedent and pronouns should be equally acceptable or unacceptable. The observed crucial role of distributivity follows instead from the assumption that both the gender and the number value in uova are lexeme-inherent specifications.

As for the argument from resolution, note that it is not decisive, since even samegender conjoints may require the application of gender resolution rules, as Corbett

86

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

(2006: 238–9) shows based on evidence from Slovenian, where two neuter coordinated nouns require agreement in the masculine dual (see Paciaroni et al.  2013: 114f. for discussion of the relevance of this argument to the analysis of the Italo-Romance alternating ­neuter).23 Thus, even in view of the evidence in (37a), one could maintain the alternative analysis (32b) and take this evidence to indicate that what is now at best an inquorate gender has been losing consistency in its syntactic manifestations. This loss is gradual, and does not concern all regional varieties of Italian, as discussed in Loporcaro and Paciaroni (2011: 407, n. 16), since, for example, speakers from the Marche find masculine agreement acceptable in (37b–c), and at least with distributive l’uno this also holds for Italian speakers from Calabria and Campania. This indicates persistence of different grammars across different subvarieties of Italian, depending on substratum influence from the local dialects (in the cases quoted, dialects with a richer gender system, to be discussed in §4.5).24 Even in the standard language, evidence from alteration analysed in Paciaroni et al. (2013: 122–4) points to residual ­productivity of the alternating agreement pattern (31b). Alteration processes in Italian generally have as output forms whose gender and inflection are fully determined by the productive suffix employed (see Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi  1994: 94–5; Merlini Barbaresi 2004: 272–3). Thus, from donna ‘woman’ one may form either of the diminutives in (38a–b) and either of the augmentatives in (38c–d):25 (38) a. donn(-a) + ‑in-a → l-a donnin-a ‘the-f little woman(f)-sg’, pl. le donnin-e b. donn(-a) + ‑in-o → il donnin-o ‘the.m little woman(m)-sg’, pl. i donnin-i c. donn(-a) + ‑on-a → l-a donnon-a ‘the-f big woman(f)-sg’, pl. le donnon-e d. donn(-a) + ‑on-e → il donnon-e ‘the.m big woman(m)-sg’, pl. i donnon-i e. donn(-a) + ‑acci-a → l-a donnacci-a ‘the-f bad woman(f)-sg’, pl. le donnacc-e f. donn(-a) + ‑acci-o → **il donnacci-o Crucially, once the suffix (and the gender associated with it, say, masculine for ‑ino and ‑one) is selected in the singular, the plural (and its gender) follows automatically. Now, when nouns with alternating gender agreement undergo alteration, this expectation is complied with in a majority of cases, as shown for the diminutives from the five lexemes in (39):

23  Thanks to Davide Ricca for bringing to my attention the relevance of this cross-linguistic comparison for the analysis of Italian. 24  This persistence answers Acquaviva’s (2000: 268) question whether linguistic standardization through­ out the peninsula may by now have resulted in a single uniform syntactic competence, with Italo-Romance (primary) dialects preserving residual differences only in phonology, morphology, and the lexicon: while standardization is progressing swiftly, on a par with language shift, this is not yet an accomplished process, so that genuine syntactic differences can still be observed. 25  These altered nouns are subject to different degrees of lexicalization, which affects both meaning and availability: thus, for the pejorative, only donnaccia is available (while masculine **donnaccio is not), which may mean either ‘bad woman’ or ‘slut’.



4.3  A closer look at two-gender systems

87

(39) The gender of Italian diminutives from gender-alternating nouns (data from Google-search, in Rezzonico 2003): base

diminutive singular

plural

m. labbro -ino (3) uovo -etto (ca. 200) braccio -ino (ca. 600) ginocchio -ino (8) dito -ino (ca. 1000)

f. 0 -etta (2) 0 0 0

m. -ini (3) -etti (ca. 1200) -ini (ca. 50) -ini (5) -ini (ca. 200)

f. in -e -ine (5) -ette (ca. 100) -ine (ca. 600) -ine (2) -ine (ca. 150)

f. in -a -ina (2) 0 -ina (25) 0 -ina (ca. 200)

Total:

2

1458

857

227

1011

Assignment to the masculine is almost without exception in the singular, and it prevails in the plural, too. However, feminine plural is far from being unattested, with a total of 1,084 occurrences in the corpus (as opposed to 1,458 masculine plurals, an approximate ratio of 2:3). This indicates a residual productivity of alternating gender and is at odds with claims to a purely lexical/derivational status of a-plurals in modern Standard Italian, all the more so since even a-plural inflections show up under alteration (227 occurrences—or 6.38%—in the corpus in (39)).26 Summing up, while modern Standard Italian has a binary gender system of the mainstream Romance kind seen in §3.1.1, the alternating agreement in (31b) with the few nouns in (33)–(36) is the remnant of a third gender value, an alternating gender which is now at best inquorate but has left traces in diminutive formation ((39)), for example. In §§6.2 and 7.1 I shall consider the diachronic antecedents of this system, which call for a straight three-gender analysis. 4.3.6  The fading of the alternating gender in Northern Italo-Romance As one moves towards the north of Italy, the kind of alternating gender agreement seen in (31b) for Tuscan-based Standard Italian tends to evaporate. In this area of the grammar, the difference between Tuscany and northern Italy has been clear ever since the earliest Romance attestations (see §6.3.2) and even earlier, in the Latin-Romance transition (see §7.3). The most conservative dialects, in this respect, are those spoken immediately over the Appenines in Emilia-Romagna (see Rohlfs 1966–69: 2.36), where, for instance, Bolognese has preserved alternating gender agreement with the local counterparts of some of the a-plurals of today’s Standard Italian ((33)–(36)), as seen in (40a) (Gaudenzi 1889: 69) (as a diagnostic of gender agreement, the forms of the definite article are reported in (40), whose paradigm is al m.sg, la f.sg, i m.pl, el f.pl—or eʎ f.pl prevocalically):

26  Italian grammars do not cover these data homogeneously: thus, e.g. Brunet (1978: 97) reports exclusively feminine plural alterates in ‑e (le braccine ‘the small arms’, le labbrone ‘the big lips’) while Serianni (2006: 146) registers also le ditina ‘the small fingers’.

88 (40)

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture singular a. al braːs̪̪ al diːd al s̪ejj al s̪intunɛ´ːr al mjɛːr b. al kaːr c. l oːs al oːv al koːren

plural el braːs̪a el diːda el s̪ejja el s̪intunɛːra el mjɛːra el kaːra eʎ oːs eʎ oːv el koːren

‘arm’ ‘finger’ ‘eyelash’ ‘about a hundred’ ‘about a thousand’ ‘chariot’ ‘bone’ ‘egg’ ‘horn’

In (40b) one feminine a-plural is preserved, unlike in the standard language (carra < carra, with the specialized meaning of ‘cartloads’—see Serianni 2006: 146—is found in Old Tuscan, and corresponding forms occur in Old Gallo-Romance and medieval varieties of northern Italy: see §6.3), while the nouns in (40c) have kept alternating agreement even though their inflection has been reshaped on the analogy of class one feminines (e.g. oːs < osse, replacing CL ossa, also an old and widespread phenomenon in northern Italy; see Rohlfs 1966–69: 2.38). On the other hand, one way in which Northern ItaloRomance is, on the whole, more conservative than Tuscan is the preservation of gender marking—in most dialects except those of parts of the Veneto, eastern Lombard, and Ladin—on the numeral ‘two’ (from which, by analogy, the m vs f contrast was extended to ‘three’, which did not mark it in Latin), as exemplified in (41) (see AIS 1.47f.—respectively ‘two men’ vs ‘two women’—B. Moretti 1996: 162–6, and Dal Negro 2013: 142–5): (41)

dy om ≠ do dɔn doi̯ ɔːmi ≠ dɔ fémene dʊ ɔːmɐn ≠ dɑu̯ dɔːn

Milano (AIS, pt. 261) Belluno (AIS, pt. 335) Bologna (AIS, pt. 456)

Consequently, these numerals can also serve as diagnostics of gender agreement, as exemplified for the dialect of Piandelagotti (province of Modena, on the Apennine) in (42):27 ‘the.m.pl/.f.pl/two.m/.f/three.m/.f men’ (42) m j/**øʎ/dyː/**duː/triː/**trɛ ummjə i//**øl/dyː/**duː/triː/**trɛ ra ga čcə̌ //peː ‘the.m.pl/.f.pl/two.m/.f/three.m/.f boys//feet’ f øl//**i/duː/**dyː/trɛ/**triː ca ːvə//fjøːlə//surɛllə//gwa rtsøttjə ‘the.f.pl/.m.pl/two.f/.m/three.f/.m keys//daughters//sisters//girls’ Now, in this dialect all a-plurals were reshaped, with final ‑ə (< *‑e) ousting the original ending, but some have retained categorical feminine plural agreement:28 (43) singular l øːvə al diː e kɔːrnə

plural (ø)ʎ øːvə ‘egg’ øl diːdə ‘finger’ øl kɔːrnə ‘horn’

27  Data from my own fieldnotes (June 2008) and from Dettli (2013). The corresponding singular forms are m e/al/u (according to the initial consonant, see Malagoli 1910–13), f la, both replaced by l prevocalically. 28  The gender contrast, in the plural, is also manifested in other determiners (šcə ‘these.m’ vs štjə ‘these.f’) and a few irregular adjectives (e.g. bɛjjə ‘beautiful.m.pl’ vs bɛʎʎə ‘beautiful.f.pl’).

(44)

4.3  A closer look at two-gender systems

89

u=s=ɛ tajá trɛ/**triː diːdə scl.3m.sg =refl=be.prs.3sg cut three.f/.m finger(x).pl ‘he chopped off three of his fingers’

Others admit both feminine and masculine plural agreement, as exemplified for e bračcə̌ ‘the.m.sg arm’, e pummə ‘the.m.sg apple’, and u žnɔccə ‘the.m.sg knee’: (45)

a. duː bračcə̌ bɛllj-ə fɔːrtə / dyː bračcə̌ bɛjjə fɔːrtə two.f arm(x).pl nice\f.pl strong / two.m arm(x).pl nice\m.pl strong ‘two very strong arms’ b. duː/dyː     pummə ‘two.f/two.m apples’ c. tuttjə   duː     lø      žnɔccə     /   tuccə      dyː  i     žnɔccə all\f.pl  two.f  def.f.pl  knee(x).pl  /  all\f.pl  two.m  def.m.pl  knee(x).pl ‘both knees’

Not unexpectedly, the syntax of these gender-alternating nouns is as in Standard Italian (see (37) above), as exemplified in (46) with the feminine singular agreement of the distributive pronoun l ỹː/l ynna ‘each.m/f’: (46)

øʎ øːv øl kustnə deːžə čəntɛːzmə l def.f.pl egg(x)-pl scl.3f.pl cost.prs-3pl ten cents def ynn-a /** l    ỹː one-f.sg/     def  one[m.sg] ‘eggs cost ten cents each’

Like Emilian, Ligurian is also closest to Tuscan not only geographically but also in that it shows a relatively better preservation of alternating gender agreement than elsewhere in northern Italy. Genoese displays an intermediate picture between Bolognese and Piandelagottese as to the morphology of (original) a-plurals, which are preserved only on a few paranumerals (see Toso 1997: 54f.): (47)

singular u paː u seŋtanáː u miǧáː

plural e pwɛ´ːa ‘pair’ e seŋtanɛ´ːa ‘(about) a hundred’ e miǧɛ´ːa ‘(about) a thousand’

These correspond to their Standard Italian counterparts in (33a) as far as gender agreement is concerned, as shown by the selection of the feminine form of the plural definite article. The gender system of Genoese is schematized in (48): (48) Gender agreement on det and class one adjectives in Genoese (Toso  1997: 59–73): sg pl singular plural u kaŋ veːgˇu i kεːŋ veːgˇi m -u -i ‘old dog’ f -a

-e

a kaːza veːgˇa

e kaːze veːgˇe

‘old house’

90

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

Besides the paranumerals in (47), a few nouns (denoting some body parts, plus ‘egg’)— again, a subset of the a-plurals of today’s Standard Italian—have preserved alternating agreement although their inflection, not unlike in the Emilian examples above, has been reshaped on the analogy of the class one feminine nouns exemplified in (49): (49)

singular u diːu u brasu u karkaɲu u lɛrfu l øːvu u zenuǧu

plural e diːe e brase e karkaɲe e lɛrfe e øːve e zenuǧe

‘finger’ ‘arm’ ‘heel’ ‘lip’ ‘egg’ ‘knee’

As in Italian, one finds in addition a few nouns with semantically distinct plurals, so that one actually has to posit two lexemes, one alternating and one masculine, with a homophonous singular: (50)

singular u kɔrnu ‘horn’ u leɲu ‘wood’ l ɔsu ‘bone’

plural1 e kɔrne ‘horns (of an animal)’ e leɲe ‘firewood’ e ɔse ‘bones (of a body)’

plural2 i kɔrni ‘horns (as individual objects)’ i leɲi ‘bits of wood’ i ɔsi ‘bones (as individual objects)’

Again as in modern Standard Italian (see (37) above), in Genoese too nouns with alternating gender agreement deviate from the alternating agreement pattern whenever the number value is switched in contexts involving gender resolution, as well as distributive and reciprocal pronouns (F. Toso, p.c.): (51)

a. u       diː-u    e  u       brasu def.m.sg finger(x)-sg and def.m.sg arm(x)-pl suŋ  stɛːt-i  taǧɛ´ː   /**stɛːte     taǧɛ´ː be.prs.3pl been-m.pl cut-pl  been-f.pl cut-pl ‘the arm and the finger have been cut’ b. e      øːv-e   veːɲ-an    šyšaŋta čiti  l yŋ-a/     **l yŋ def.f.pl egg(x)-pl come.prs-3pl sixty    cents  def one-f.sg/def one[m.sg] ‘eggs cost sixty cents each’ c. e      bras-e   d-u      ǧwaŋ   suŋ   yŋ-a  čy   luŋg-a def.f.pl arm(x)-pl of- def.m.sg  John     be.prs.3pl one-f.sg more long-f.sg de   l    aːtr-a  / **yŋ    čy    luŋg-u  de   l  aːtr-u than  def  other-f.sg/   one[m.sg]  more  long-m.sg  than  def  other-m.sg ‘one of John’s arms is longer than the other’

Not unlike in Italian, (51a) falls under the general rule for agreement under gender resolution, which requires masculine plural agreement: in ɔmu e na dɔna ordenáːi ‘a coarse man and woman’ (Toso 1997: 73). A similar generalization of originally feminine plural endings as in (49), with the preservation of alternating agreement, is observed in other dialects of Liguria such as Cairese (spoken in Cairo Montenotte, province of Savona, see Parry 2005: 125f.),



4.3  A closer look at two-gender systems

91

where feminine plural agreement, seen in the selection of the definite article ɛɹ/**i,29 is found in ɛɹ brɑts/ɛɹ brɑtsæ ‘the arm/‑s’ (compare feminine ɹa dona/ɛɹ donæ ‘the woman/women’ vs masculine ɛɹ pe/i pei̯ ‘the foot/feet’), u lɒvr/ɛɹ lɒvræ ‘the lip/‑s’, u žnuǧ/ɛɹ žnuǧæ ‘the knee/‑s’, ɛɹ korn/ɛɹ kornæ ‘the horn/-s’, u di/ɛɹ diæ ‘the finger/‑s’. As one leaves Emilia and Liguria to proceed further north, it is more frequent for these nouns to have been reduced to plain masculines, as in Milanese where, according to Salvioni (1884: 98), the plural forms bratsa and dida only survive within quantificational expressions like trɛ dida ‘three:f fingers (measure)’ (with f trɛ contrasting with m triː), tante bratsa (de rɔba) ‘so many ells (of cloth)’, which have become lexically distinct from masculine el/i diːd ‘the finger/‑s’, el/i braš ‘the arm/‑s’. Note that some other a-plurals survive (variably), but with masculine agreement, according to Beretta’s (1980: 55) description, although this is not seen on the plural article (see (22a), Chapter 3): for example el para ‘the.m pair’, pl. i para; el šteː ‘the.m bushel’, pl. i šteː/štera.30 So, the only remnants of alternating gender agreement with an a-plural occurs ‘trapped’ in the compound numerals domila ‘two.f thousand’ and tremila ‘three.f thousand’ (compare m dyː and triː, Beretta 1980: 97f.). Similarly, in the rural Lombard dialect of Cavergno (Val Maggia, Canton Tessin), the only a-plural left is dɛda ‘fingers’, the others, if they preserve final ‑a, having all been reanalysed as feminine singular (e.g. pɛra ‘pair’, bratsa ‘ell’; see Salvioni 1936: 451). Perhaps the most extreme instance of eradication of the original alternating gender (and the originally related a-plural morphology) is Piedmontese (D. Ricca, p.c., January 2017): in Turinese, all those nouns behave morphologically as masculines (i.e. are uninflected, except if ending in ‑l) and take masculine agreement: əl bras ‘the.m arm’, pl. i bras, əl dil ‘the.m finger’, pl. i dij (note that Turinese contrasts gender in the plural definite article: compare le røze ‘the.f roses’, Berruto 1974: 19). As in Milanese, ‘pair’ has become an uninflected masculine (ən pajra ‘a.m pair’, dui pajra ‘two.m pairs’), while ‑a remains in dui mila ‘two thousand’ which again shows the masculine form of ‘two’ (unlike in Milanese, see above). In a border region, at the western fringe of Lombard, neighbouring Piedmontese, an intermediate situation is described for the dialect of Casale Corte Cerro (province of Verbania) by Weber Wetzel (2002: 162, 184, 229, 265). Again, here too, braš ‘arm’, diːg ‘finger’, øs ‘bone’, znyč ‘knee’ are just (uninflected) masculines. In this dialect gender agreement in the plural is still signalled on possessives, lower numerals, and some irregular adjectives, not on regular ones, nor on articles, adnominal demonstratives, etc. (Weber Wetzel 2002: 101–15), and the distinction on numerals allows one to observe variation between conservative dɔːu̯ milɐ (as in Milanese) and innovatory dyːi ̯ milɐ (as in Turinese) ‘two.f/m thousand’ respectively. The examples could be multiplied, showing that Northern Italo-Romance has, on the whole, fully reached the binary-gender system stage seen in Chapter 3 (see e.g. Trumper 2014: 249–56 on the binary gender system of Venetan). 29  Since the prevocalic article does not manifest gender, for l øv/j øvæ ‘the egg/-s’ and l os/j osæ ‘the bone/‑s’ one has to take adjective agreement into account, in order to assess feminine plural agreement (e.g. bui̯nɛ vs buɲi ‘good.f.pl/m.pl’, see Parry 2005: 133). 30  Note that the former noun has become invariable, through extension of the a-form to the singular, as discussed for Old Gallo-Romance in n. 9, Ch. 6.

92

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

4.4  Three-gender systems For some modern Romance varieties, analyses have been proposed which posit more than two genders, although not uncontroversially. These varieties must be dealt with more analytically here, since their higher complexity provides important evidence for diachronic reconstruction, to be exploited in Chapter 7. 4.4.1  Three controller genders in Romanian Romanian is unique in many respects: it is the only major standard Romance language for which the architecture of the gender system is itself debated (§4.4.1.1), and has peculiarities in default gender marking on agreement targets (§4.4.1.2). Also, it is the Romance language where overt gender plays the largest role (§4.4.1.3) which, in turn, conditions the diverging views on its gender system (§4.4.1.4); and it departs from the rest of Romance for its gender resolution rules (§4.4.1.5). These aspects are treated in detail in the following subsections, since the analysis of Romanian has wide implications for the broader Romance picture, as well as providing a test case in method, for the analysis of grammatical gender. 4.4.1.1  Two or three genders?  On most analyses ((52a))—including that endorsed by prescriptive and school grammar—Romanian has three genders, while for others it only has two ((52b)): (52) a. Three genders: Graur (1928), Graur et al. (1963: 1.57), Bonfante (1964, 1977), Diaconescu (1964a–b, 1969), Jakobson (1971: 187–9), Windisch (1973: 202), Corbett (1991: 150–3), Chitoran (1992), Carstairs-McCarthy (1994: 750–2), Aikhenvald (2000: 45–6), Acquaviva (2008: 135–40), Livescu (2008: 2647), Kibort (2010: 73), Nedelcu (2013c), among many others. b. Two genders: Bazell (1952, 1953), Bujor (1955: 59), Hořejši (1957), Hall (1965), Vrabie (1989: 400), Kopecký (2005), Bateman and Polinsky (2010), Croitor and Giurgea (2009), Giurgea (2010, 2014), Dinu et al. (2012), Maiden (2011: 701, n. 36, 2013, 2015, 2016b). The issue is largely definitional: under the definitions in (3) and (7), Chapter 1, Romanian has three controller genders—that is, it divides nouns into the three containers in (53a–c)—although by means of just two sets of distinct targets (indeed, the target vs controller gender distinction is itself illustrated with Romanian by Corbett 1991: 151), as exemplified in (53) with the definite article and class one adjectives: (53) singular pantof-ul e bun m shoe(m)-def.m.sg is good[m.sg] b. creion-ul e bun n pencil(n)-def.m.sg is good[m.sg] c. băutur-a e bun-ă f drink(f)-def.f.sg is good-f.sg ‘the shoe/pencil/drink is good’ a.

plural Romanian pantofi-i sunt bun-i shoe(m)-def.m.pl are good-m.pl creioane-le sunt bun-e pencil(n)-def.f.pl are good-f.pl băuturi-le sunt bun-e drink(f)-def.f.pl are good-f.pl ‘the shoes/pencils/drinks are good’



4.4  Three-gender systems

93

The mismatch is reversed here, with respect to those seen in §4.3.3–4.3.4: there are more sets of controllers than of targets. The third set, whose recognition is disputed, is that of neuter nouns like creion (53b), which select agreement targets identical to masculine nouns in the singular and to feminine nouns in the plural. This kind of ‘non-autonomous’ gender value (so termed by Corbett  2011: 459–60, following Zaliznjak  1973), whose exponents are fully syncretic, is traditionally called a genus alternans in Indo-European studies (Igartua 2006: 58). Understanding the nature of this third gender is the goal of the present discussion. A number of morphological issues must be discussed in this connection, the most complicated of which concern controllers. But let me first comment briefly words on gender agreement targets. 4.4.1.2  Gender agreement targets in Romanian  In (53) and most of the following examples, I use class one adjectives (and/or participles, that inflect in the same way), since they are the most reliable indicators of gender agreement.31 Definite articles also show gender agreement (see (53)). However, they display allomorphy which, in a few marginal cases, blurs gender agreement cutting across gender values. This is the case for several masculine nouns denoting humans and ending in ‑ă, an ending otherwise overwhelmingly associated with feminine.32 Masculines in ‑ă behave in one of two ways (see Giurgea 2013: 842), in their selection of the definite article: tată ‘dad’ takes the default allomorph ‑l (tatăl), although with a phonological peculiarity, since [l] cannot be phonetically deleted here, unlike in (53a), where it can in informal speech. This may have to do with the fact that, in some conservative dialects, the enclitic article for this noun is still ‑le: tatăle (see Neagoe 2012: 35; Papahagi 1925: LXVI, on the varieties of Maramureş). Other masculine nouns in ‑ă such as papă,‑i ‘pope’, popă,‑i ‘priest’ or paşă ‘pasha’ not only inflect like ă-feminines (e.g. lună,‑i ‘moon; month’), but also select the same form of the enclitic article (papa/**papăl) with­ out this resulting in selection of feminine forms of the adjective (noul/noului papă ‘new=def.m.sg.nom.acc//gen/dat pope’) or other non-enclitic determiners (un/**o papă ‘a.m pope’).33 (Throughout this section, for simplicity, I give the singular and plural direct case forms, followed by a singular gloss.) Consequently, one must posit an ‑a-allomorph of the masculine article (not listed in Romanian grammars, which usually call ‑a in tata ‘forma feminină a articolului’ [‘the feminine form of the article’], Brăescu et al. 2008: 90), occurring just with nouns of this class, which adds to the other allomorphs ‑ul and ‑le (lup-ul ‘wolf-def.m’, fratele ‘brother-def.m’). Giurgea (2013: 842), on the other hand, does list ‘‑l or ‑a after ‑ă’ 31  Other adjective ICs present various syncretisms: see e.g. Giurgea (2013: 831–3). Gender agreement is also marked on demonstratives and other determiners, as well as on the numerals ‘one’ and ‘two’. 32  This is even more so in Romanian than it is for the etymologically corresponding ending in other Romance languages (‑a in Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, or Catalan), since Romanian, as said in §3.2.2, has eliminated a-masculines from the Latin first declension, so that now this inflection concerns just a handful of cases including, in addition to the simplex nouns mentioned directly in the text, nouns with male referent formed through diminutive ‑lă or ‑ă (Maiden  2016b: 115): e.g. neică, respectful epithet for an elder brother, or other older person. 33  The two subclasses of ă-masculines do not inflect in exactly the same way: for the latter group, the definite gen.-dat. is papii, popii and, for some speakers, also papei, popei; compare tată, definite gen.-dat. tatei/**tatii (whose inflection in Old Romanian was even more distinct, also featuring the alternative definite gen.-dat. form tătânelui; see Stan 2013: 263, 266).

94

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

among the variants of the masculine singular article, yet classifies this ‑a on the next page among the ‘forms of the feminine inflection’, which cannot be legitimately said for ‑a in papa, popa, etc. Similarly, the masculine e-ending nouns (in rural varieties) bade, nene ‘elder brother/ person’, take the ‑a article like e-ending feminines (see (57e, g, k) below)—and unlike regular masculines like frat-e(le)—although they select unambiguously masculine agreement forms on other targets: badea/nenea meu ‘my elder brother’. These cases are truly marginal: yet, they will have to be kept in mind for the further discussion. As for the remaining agreement targets, gender marking in Romanian departs from what has been shown for most Romance languages in (7), Chapter 3, in that the pronominal form used to resume non-nominal controllers coincides with the feminine, not with the masculine, as shown in (54a–b) (see Corbett and Fraser 2000: 72f.; Pană Dindelegan 2012: 249 for previous references): (54)

a. e evident/**evident-ă că a venit şi be.prs.3sg evident[m.sg]/-f.sg comp have.prs.3sg come:m.sg and asta/**ăsta  o/**îl    ştie     toat-ă   lume-a this:f/m   3f.sg/3m.sg know.prs:3sg all-f.sg world(f)-def.f.sg ‘it is evident that s/he came and everyone knows this’ b. a      admis    că    a        venit,     ceea ce/**cel ce have.prs.3sg  admitted  comp  have.prs.3sg  come:m.sg  rel.f.sg/rel.m.sg nu   e       surprinzător/**surprinzătoar-e neg be.prs.3sg surprising:m[m.sg]/surprising:f-f.sg ‘s/he admitted that s/he came, which is not surprising’

As is readily apparent, on the other hand, the default agreement form on predicative adjectives is masculine singular.34 Thus, if o, asta, and ceea are considered as feminine, this introduces a mismatch, which has been analysed by assuming that these forms actually lack gender (see Cornilescu 2000; Giurgea 2014). Similarly, Corbett (1991: 214) considers these pronominal forms, though morphologically feminine, as neutral on the evidence of their selecting masculine singular adjectival agreement. 4.4.1.3 (Overt) gender and noun inflectional classes  Moving on to controllers, Romanian displays high predictability of gender from nominal inflection, as already stressed in §3.2.2 above. Consider the partial schemas of noun inflection in (55)–(57), where the capital letters A≠B signal non-phonologically conditioned allomorphy, while A=A indicates lack thereof.35 The latter notation is adopted in the presence of

34  The masculine singular is also used with pronouns, adjectives, and participles agreeing with a neuter singular nominal controller (see e.g. Giurgea 2014: 51): l=am       pus pe birou (i) caiet-ul notebook(n)[sg]-def.sg 3m.sg=have.prs-1sg put.ptp[m.sg] on desk ‘(the notebook), I’ve put it on the desk’ 35  The data stem from several sources: Graur et al. (1963: 1.55–74); Diaconescu (1964a–b); Guțu Romalo (1967, 1968); Vrabie (1989, 2000); Bejan (2001: 37f.); Brăescu et al. (2008: 81f.); Giurgea (2013); Nedelcu (2013b: 277).



4.4  Three-gender systems

95

purely phonological alternations, such as the ones regularly affecting stem final consonants before plural ‑i (e.g. urs, urşi ‘bear(m)’ and frate, fraţi ‘brother(m)’ fall in the same ICs (55a, c) as pom, pomi ‘tree(m) and vierme, viermi ‘worm(m)’, respectively), while the change a → ă seen in (57i) leads to classification as A-ă/B-i because it concerns all i-plural feminines, but no masculine nouns under the same phonological conditions (compare (55d)). All non-phonological alternations are lumped together under the A/B notation: thus, e.g. păr, peri ‘pear tree(m)’ falls under (55e) just like baiat, băieţi in spite of the phonological difference in the singular allomorph, as both lexemes (like many others) display a non-regular/phonological stem vowel alternation. The same applies to all genders: for example vână, vine ‘vein(f)’ falls under (57h) in spite of displaying a different alternation with respect to fată, fete, and mână, mâini ‘hand(f)’ falls under (57i) despite its being an isolated paradigm, while a → ă occurs in all i-plural feminines with stressed a in the singular:36 (55) 

(56) 

Romanian masculine nouns studenţ-i(i) a. student(ul)

IC A-Ø/A-i

gloss ‘student’ (male)

b. maestr-u(l)

maeștr-i(i)

A-u/A-i

‘master’

c. frat-e(le)

fraţ-i(i)

A-e/A-i

‘brother’

d. tat-ă(l)

taţ-i(i)

A-ă/A-i

‘dad’

e. băiat(ul)

băieţ-i(i)

A-Ø/B-i

‘boy’

f. șarp-e(le)

șerp-i(i)

A-e/B-i

‘serpent’ gloss ‘fruit’

Romanian neuter nouns a. fruct(ul)

fruct-e(le)

IC A-Ø/A-e

b. vin(ul)

vin-uri(le)

A-Ø/A-uri ‘wine’

c. teatr-u(l) d. râ-u(l)

teatr-e(le)

A-u/A-e

‘theatre’

râ-uri(le)

A-u/A-uri

‘river’

e. fotoli-u(l)

fotoli-i(le)

A-u/A-i

‘armchair’

f. nume(le)

nume(le)

A-e/A-e

‘name/noun’

g. război(ul)

războai-e(le)

A-Ø/B-e

‘war’

h. mucar(ul)

mucăr-i(le)

A-Ø/B-i

‘candle snuffer’

36  The enclitic article is bracketed if it adds to the singular form, whereas the notation ‘x /y’ indicates that the article (y) cannot be segmentally distinguished from the noun’s ending (x).

96

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

(57)  a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m.

Romanian feminine nouns student-ă/-a student-e(le) băutur-ă/-a băutur-i(le) lips-ă/-a lips-uri(le) librări-e/-a librări-i(le) vrem-e(a ) vrem-uri(le) zi(ua) zi-le(le) cut-e(a) cut-e(le) fat-ă/-a fet-e(le) sal-ă/-a săl-i(le) brânz-ă/-a brânzet-uri(le) floar-e(a) flor-i(le) sar-e(a) săr-uri(le) stea(ua) ste-le(le)

IC A-ă/A-e A-ă/A-i A-ă/A-uri A-e/A-i A-e/A-uri A-Ø/A-le A-e/A-e A-ă/B-e A-ă/B-i A-ă/B-uri A-e/B-i A-e/B-uri A-Ø/B-le

gloss ‘student’ (female) ‘drink’ ‘defect, absence’ ‘bookshop’ ‘time, weather’ ‘day’ ‘whetstone’ ‘girl’ ‘room, hall’ ‘cheese’ ‘flower’ ‘salt’ ‘star’

These schemas are simplified in several respects: they list only the forms of the direct case, omitting the oblique, and are merely qualitative inventories, that do not take productivity/ numerosity into account.37 Thus, for instance, (55e–f) include a few exceptional paradigms (e.g. iepure,-i ‘hare,-s’), (55d) a restricted class of ă-ending masculines (see §4.4.1.2), while (55a–c) are much more numerous. Among the ICs listed for the neuter, in (56h) mucar, mucăr‑i is the only lexeme inflecting categorically in the way it does (as stressed by Maiden 2016b: 126), although also seminar, seminari-i may display the same schema A-Ø/B-i (Guțu Romalo 1967: 21). True, an alternative singular seminariu is also reported by Diaconescu (1969: 31), which then inflects according to the regular IC (56e), but in contemporary Romanian seminariu is much rarer than seminar (Google search on 21 July 2015; on the inflection of this word see Iordan 1956: 286f.). Another noun belonging to (56h) is laborator, laboratorii ‘lab’, which has the e-plural laboratoare alternatively, and in this case inflects like (56g) (see Iordan 1956: 286f.; Graur et al. 1963: 1.71). Also, in terms of the (type-)frequency of endings, one has to say that uri-plurals are legion (and productive) for neuters, whereas the feminine ICs in (57c, j, l) only feature a handful of nouns such as cerneală, cerneluri ‘ink(s)’, treabă, treburi ‘affair(s)’ (in (57j)). At the same time, the schemas are more elaborate than those usually found in the literature, partly because most current accounts do not register as separate ICs those distinguished by stem alternations arising from non-phonologically conditioned allomorphy (e.g. Giurgea 2013: 839–41, in spite of his thorough presentation of regular vs irregular allomorphy). Thus, for the neuter, Diaconescu (1969: 31) lists only the five classes (56a–e), and reduces for instance both ou, ouă ‘egg’ < ovum, ‑a and hârdău, hârdaie ‘tub’ to (56a), calling ‑ă a ‘phonetic allomorph’ of ‑e,38 whereas other accounts 37  A more detailed synopsis, in both these respects, is to be found in, e.g., Giurgea (2013: 836), where the oblique form is given in addition, and major vs minor types are distinguished. 38  Likewise, Vrabie (1989: 400) also considers ‑i, like ‑ă, as an allomorph of plural ‑e, ‘taken only by diand polysyllabic neuters with unstressed ‑iu in the singular’ [emphasis added—M.L.]. This is overwhelmingly true, but there are exceptions, such as burghiu ‘drill’ and sicriu ‘coffin’, whose stem ends in a stressed, rather than unstressed, ‑í and which, according to normative grammar, have ‑e plurals, alongside which, however, burghii and sicrii also occur. Thus, a full reduction to complementary distribution of these plural endings is not really possible.



4.4  Three-gender systems

97

consider such a morphonological relation not to hold synchronically any longer (Giurgea 2013: 841).39 Also ‑ie neuter plurals are sometimes inventoried as a separate subtype (a ‘minor type IIIc’ in Giurgea 2013: 836)).40 Among these, again, one could distinguish A-u, A-ie (e.g. brâu, brâie ‘belt, girdle’, frâu, frâie ‘rein’) vs A-u, B-ie (e.g. pârâu, pâraie ‘brook’, fierăstrău, fierăstraie ‘saw’). And still other microclasses could be added, depending on the segmentation adopted: Guțu Romalo (1967: 17, 1968: 90) includes among the plural endings associated with the neuter ‑ete and ‑ale, the former occurring in cap, capete ‘head’ and râs, râsete ‘laughter’,41 and the latter appearing in the French loans atu, atale ‘ace’, caro, carale ‘diamond (at cards)’, manto, mantale ‘coat’ (< Fr. atout, carreau, manteaux). For both, an alternative view (Diaconescu 1969: 27–9) assumes stem allomorphy instead (justified etymologically by capit-a > capet‑e) and a plural ending ‑e. Substitution of the above plural forms through atuuri, carouri, mantouri, that nowadays prevail, can be accommodated under either analysis, as replacement of the irregular ending or as suppression of allomorphy.42 These irregular nouns have a bearing on the issue of whether the neuter is to be recognized as a third (controller) gender value, since proponents of a three-gender analysis occasionally mention these neuter paradigms, analysed as containing irregular endings, as arguments for the existence of neuter plural noun inflections, distinct from the feminine (see Diaconescu 1974: 41). The same analytical choice is available for feminine and masculine nouns stemming from Latin third class imparisyllables like om, oameni ‘man/men’ and soră, surori ‘sister’ (or noră, nurori ‘daughter-in-law’, formed by analogy ). Here, stem allomorphy is the most parsimonious assumption. For ‑(a)le neuter plurals, although, positing an irregular ending is supported by the occurrence of ‑le plurals in the

39  The ending ‑ă, preserved only in the noun plural ouă, as well as in the numeral două ‘two.f’ in MSRo., may be the phonologically regular outcome of ‑a (as in casă ‘house’ < casam), though it may also be the contextually conditioned outcome of ‑e after /w/ (e.g. pluit > *plowe > plouă ‘rain.prs:3sg’, nouem/nobis > *nowe > nouă ‘nine/1pl.dat’). The same goes for the other lexemes with ă-plurals in Old Romanian (e.g. hotarăloru, plural oblique of hotar ‘border(n)’, see Rosetti 1978: 548) and in the dialects of the north-west: e.g. stau ‘stable’ < stabulum, pl. stauă, and scânteie ‘sparkle’ < scintillam, pl. scântiauă in Chiniz, ALR pt. 325 in the Oradea region [vol. 1, p. 128] (see Arvinte 1959: 225f.). For modern Romanian, ‑ă is reported as a ‘regional variant’ of ‑e for neuter nouns whose stem ends in ‑r or ‑ţ (see Iordan 1938: 8; Graur et al. 1963: 1.70): car, cară ‘chariot,‑s’, izvor, izvoară ‘source,‑s’, braţ, braţă ‘arm,‑s’. Note that the change first applied after /rr/ ‘neutralizing final ‑ă (/ə/) vs ‑e (/e/)’ and then ‘analogically extended’ (Maiden 2016b: 136, n. 39), so that one cannot exclude survival of the original neuter ending ‑a. 40  Giurgea (2013: 836), on the other hand, lumps together (56a, c) and (56b, d) (his types IIa and III, respectively). But note that ‑u in the singular is obligatorily there in some phonological contexts (after C + R clusters: teatru, teatre ‘theatre,‑s’, lucru, lucruri ‘thing,‑s’), but in nouns whose stem ends in a vowel ‑u may be optional (degrade(u) ‘gradation’) while in others it is obligatory (muzeu, muzee ‘museum’, birou, birouri ‘office’, tablou, tablouri ‘painting’): the latter contrast minimally with class (56b) nouns ending in a stressed vowel like ozene, ozeneuri ‘U.F.O.’, rondo, rondouri ‘rondo’. 41  At least for the speakers whose competence is reflected in, e.g., Guțu Romalo (1967: 17, n. 12) and Moldovan et al. (2001: 266), since, alternatively, one finds a distinction between râs, râsuri ‘laughter’ and râset, râsete ‘burst of laughter’ (see e.g. Wilkinson 1985–91: 142). 42  Regularization can also go in the opposite direction, changing the singular (and gender): manta̱ ‘mantel, coat(f)’ (DEX s. u.), rebuilt upon pl. mantale.

98

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

feminine too: baclava, baclavale ‘bakhlava’ (57f), cafea, cafele ‘coffee’ (57m)). For such feminines, the assumption of a distinct le-ending is widespread in the literature: see Iordan (1938: 3, 15); Nandriş (1961: 50); Bateman and Polinsky (2010: 54); or Nedelcu (2013a: 259, 2013b: 275), who lists only ‑e and ‑uri for the neuter, but ‑e, ‑le, ‑i, and ‑uri for the feminine.43 Anyway, even if stem allomorphy were assumed uniformly in all controversial cases, all neuters concerned—as well as all those showing minor alternations: for example cuvânt/cuvinte ‘word’—would fall under (56g), which cannot be reduced further to the regular IC (56a), because none of the allomorphies observed is phonologically automatic, not even that which arises from diphthongization (o/oa, e/ea), which once was, but is now no longer, regular: contrast avion, avioane ‘aeroplane’—where the diphthongization was extended to the stressed o of the loanword in the plural, when preceding ‑e, on the model of inherited popor, popoare ‘people’—with fermoar, fermoare ‘zip’ (with oa in the singular) or mijloc, mijloace ‘means’ (with oa not under stress) that do not respect the traditional distribution, which is therefore opacized.44 On the whole, two lessons can be drawn from the above. First, there is a strong correlation between ICs and gender, as shown by the very fact that it is possible to classify noun ICs into the three gender-based groups in (55)–(57) and that for many of them there is no overlapping: nouns inflecting like (55a) or (55d–e) can only be masculine, those inflecting like (56a–d) or (56g) can only be neuter, and those inflecting like (57a), (57c–f), or (57h–m) can only be feminine. In other words, all these are cases of overt gender. Secondly, however, the correlation between IC and gender is not perfect. For instance, there are both neuter and feminine nouns ending in ‑e in both the singular and the plural (see e.g. Iordan 1938: 46, Vrabie 2000: 539): (58) a. neuter ‑e/‑e: nume ‘noun’, foarfece ‘scissors’, indice ‘index’, codice ‘codex’, ­laringe ‘larynx’, torace ‘thorax’; b. feminine ‑e/‑e: cobe ‘pip’ (a chicken disease), leghe ‘league’, luntre ‘boat’, ­streche ‘ox-fly’, dragoste ‘love’, pacoste ‘calamity’.45 Synchronically, these are small classes: feminine simplex nouns inflecting like (58b) are in all fifteen in the DEX (see Vrabie 2000: 539), including nouns ending in non-diminutive ‑ice and in ‑ace (cerbice ‘nape’, carapace ‘turtle shell’). Diachronically, these classes are a mixed bunch, containing many loanwords (as remarked by Maiden 2016b: 124); some of them are the result of levelling (nume had a plural numere < Lat. nomina in Old Romanian; see Nedelcu 2013c: 260), while others are unstable (alongside foarfece < Lat. forficem, there is also feminine foarfecă, foarfeci; see Iordan et al. 1967: 93, DEX s.u.).46 Yet, the fact remains that the form of neuter or feminine nouns like these 43  For Giurgea (2013: 835), ‑le is a variant of ‑e, on a par with ‑ie. 44  The latter word has a regular variant mijloc, mijloace (see DEX s.u.). 45  For some speakers, nouns like dragoste and pacoste are singularia tantum, but the DEX ss. uu. reports homophonous plurals as indicated in (58b). 46 ORo. genuche/genuche ‘knee(n)’ belonged to this class, but changed to MSRo. genunchi/genunchi ‘knee(m)’ (Diaconescu 1974: 38).



4.4  Three-gender systems

99

does not predict their gender, and the same goes for mucar and seminar (56h).47 Although admittedly coming from the outer fringes of a system whose gender is largely overt, examples such as these falsify claims to the strict predictability of gender from noun morphology, as made in the context of two-gender analyses. Since the controversial gender value is the neuter, it is important to stress that the agreement class (53b) is a large and open one, associated, as seen in (56), with several ICs, two of which are fully productive, that is (56a–b). Both the ‑Ø,‑e class and the ‑Ø,‑uri class have attracted neologisms, loanwords, and conversions throughout the history of Romanian. For instance, pai-e ‘straw’, from an earlier feminine *paiă < Lat. paleam, has become a neuter of class (56a). Such metaplasms also occurred between the two main productive ICs associated with the neuter: vin,‑uri ‘wine’ < Lat. vinum,‑a and, in the opposite direction, pachet,‑uri ‘parcel’ (AD 1833, see Iordan 1938: 21) > pachet,‑e. Class (56b) hosts conversions like de-infinitival nouns (e.g. abuz/-uri ‘abuse’, from a abuza ‘to abuse’) or substantivized supines: tuns-uri ‘(hair) cutting’, mers-uri ‘(way of) walking’, from a tunde and a merge, respectively (see Vrabie 1989: 403, Iordăchioaia and Soare 2008: 198f.).48 Both classes host recent loans such as walkman,‑e (**walkmanuri), weekend,‑uri (Nedelcu 2013b: 256, 2013c: 276), provided that they denote inanimates.49 This happened throughout the history of Romanian, as exemplified in (59): (59)

a. praf, prafuri dulap, dulapuri chimono, chimonouri cartel, carteluri b. folos, foloase pahar, pahare bilet, bilete tramvai, tramvaie

‘dust’ ‘cupboard’ ‘kimono’ ‘cartel/pool’ ‘use, advantage’ ‘drinking glass’ ‘ticket’ ‘tram’

< Sl. prachŭ < Turkish dolab < Japanese kimono < Fr. cartel < Byzantine Gk. (o)phelós < Hung. pohár/Serbo-Croat pehar < Fr. billet < Fr. < E. tramway

Clearly, in view of this evidence, one cannot adopt any of the analyses reviewed in (32b–e) that have been upheld for Italian il braccio/le braccia in order to deny the status of a separate gender value to the nouns selecting the third agreement pattern in 47  The semantics does not help either, unlike for feminines with the agentive suffix ‑toare, which inflect like (58b)/(57g) when denoting humans: see invăţătoare ‘female teacher,‑s’ vs scobitoare, scobitori ‘toothpick,‑s’ (57k). For the same reason (semantic predictability of gender), one need not bother about the above mentioned masculines bade and nene in this connection. Derivative morphology is also a cue for gender in the case of the feminizing or augmentative suffix ‑oaie: vulturoaie ‘female vulture’ (← vultur ‘vulture, eagle(m)’), căsoaie ‘big house’ (← casă ‘house’; see Vrabie 2000: 539f.). 48 Diachronically, uri-plurals stem from the late Latin innovation mentioned in §2.1 (reanalysis in tempor-a > temp-ora). In their modern form, they show analogical reshaping on i-plurals, whereas in Old Romanian they ended in ‑e (see §6.1). 49  This is not a biunique correspondence, as e.g. ‘(computer) mouse’ can be adapted either as maus, mausuri (n) or as maus, mauşi (m). Diverging views have been offered as to which one of the two kinds of adaptation predominates: Graur (1928: 258) says that neuters prevail in recent loanwords, while Graur et al. (1963: 57) say that there is a tendency for new loanwords denoting inanimates to be adopted as masculines: e.g. elemenţi (de calorifer) ‘(heating) elements’ vs element,-e ‘element’. Of course, recent loans denoting inanimates can be hosted by the feminine too: e.g. dischetă,-e ‘floppy disk’ (Giurgea 2013: 838).

100

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

(31b). Thus, by definition (3), Chapter 1, (53b) qualifies as a third gender value. The reason why this continues to be controversial is ultimately definitional: supporters of two-gender analyses underscore that neuters ‘nu au semne distinte proprii numai lor’ [‘have no distinct and exclusive signs’, i.e. no dedicated agreement markers] (Pătruţ 1956: 133), which boils down to rejecting the notion ‘controller gender’ (or, more generally, that of a ‘non-canonical’—in this case, qua non-autonomous—feature value: Corbett 2012: 156, 170).50 Conversely, supporters of the three-gender analysis adopt a Saussurean view, according to which ‘ce qui importe dans les langues c’est l’opposition, et l’opposition seule’ [‘what matters in language is contrast, and contrast only’, i.e. contrast between lexemes of the agreement classes (53a–c)] (Graur 1937: 6). Furthermore, proponents of two-gender analyses (in particular, Bateman and Polinsky 2010; Maiden 2013, 2015, 2016b) capitalize on the morphological predictability of gender in Romanian, although in a way that differs from what has been said up to now: they focus on phonological rules for gender assignment, that is, rules concerning only one word form (see (47b), §3.2.2), and then compute gender assignment over individual word forms, rather than the paradigm of the entire lexeme. As Bateman and Polinsky (2010) put it: We propose that there are two noun classes in the singular, […] class A and class B. Class A includes traditional feminine nouns, and class B includes traditional masculine and neuter nouns. […] We propose that there are two noun classes in the plural: class C and class D. Class C includes traditional masculine nouns, and class D includes traditional feminine and neuter nouns. (Bateman and Polinsky 2010: 52–4)

Under this view, thus, ‘ “neuter” analyses […] are misguided’ (Maiden 2016b: 113f.) and ‘[t]he term “neuter” […] is a superfluous misnomer for a set of nouns whose alternating masculine and feminine gender is a consequence of their morphology’ (Maiden 2016a: 102): all that there is to say about, for example, creion=ul, creioan-e=le ‘pencil,‑s’ is that it is masculine singular and feminine plural, not the member of a separate gender-class, that is, ‘not a class defined by the agreement behaviour of associated words, but a class the agreement behaviour of whose associated words is dictated by inflexional morphology’ (Maiden 2016b: 119). Since the most accurate and empirically rich recent treatment of Romanian gender dubs Bateman and Polinsky (2010) as the ‘most significant intervention’ in the field (Maiden 2016b: 111f.), in the next subsection, I shall consider Bateman and Polinsky’s (2010) influential two-gender analysis in more detail, showing that its conclusions follow from premises which are incompatible with the ones assumed here and, into the bargain, that their analysis is internally inconsistent. 4.4.1.4 ‘Gender’ and ‘class’ in a two-gender analysis of Romanian  Bateman and Polinsky’s (2010) definitional working tools are listed in (60a–c): (60) a. gender (Bateman and Polinsky 2010: 41): ‘Following Charles Hockett (1958: 231), “Genders are classes of nouns [systematically] reflected in the behavior 50  Occasionally, proponents of two-gender analyses accept the validity of a three-way distinction under a different label: thus, Giurgea (2014: 59) recognizes that Romanian nouns fall into three agreement classes, that he dubs ‘masculine, feminine and unmarked for gender’.







4.4  Three-gender systems

101

of associated words.” This “behavior” is manifested in agreement, which we define as covariation between the form of the trigger (noun) and the form of the target (such as adjectives and articles).’ [emphasis added—M.L.] b. noun class (Bateman and Polinsky 2010: 52): ‘We propose that Romanian has two noun classes in the singular and in the plural, and that this categorization is not lexically specified. The division of nouns into classes in the singular is different from their division into classes in the plural.’ c. noun class and gender (Bateman and Polinsky 2010: 74, n. 2): ‘Noun class and gender are different terms denoting the same concept (Corbett 1991: 1); class and gender are used interchangeably in this chapter.’

As argued in Loporcaro and Paciaroni (2011: 398, n. 10), definition (60a) is inaccurate, due to its reference to the controller’s form—lacking, and with good reason, from the definition in (3), Chapter  1 (recalled in (60a), without noting the contradiction). Bateman and Polinsky’s more restrictive definition may serve to characterize overt gender, not gender per se. In fact, adopting Bateman and Polinsky’s definition would render impossible an account of, say, Latin bonus agricola ‘good farmer(m)’ and bonus homo ‘good man(m)’ as belonging to one and the same gender, while contrasting with bona puella ‘good girl(f)’, in spite of the identity in inflection between agricola and puella. What this definition could generate is not Cicero’s Latin, but rather the faulty Latin of estate agents who entitle their agencies Domus Bonus or Novus Domus, where adjective agreement is fully driven by form, unlike in Latin domus bona/nova ‘good/ new home’ (with feminine fourth declension domus).51 Reducing Latin to this is clearly undesirable. Conversely, under definition (3), Chapter 1, agricola and homo have the same gender value because they select the same form of agreement targets (e.g. bonus ‘good:nom.m.sg’), irrespective of their belonging to different ICs. In addition, Bateman and Polinsky’s definition of ‘(noun) class’ is problematic. The authors follow Hall’s (1965: 427) two-gender analysis quoting (2010: 51) his definition of heteroclites (the terms Hall uses, instead of neuter), whose ‘chief characteristic is that they always belong […] to different inflectional classes in the plural as opposed to the singular’ (Hall 1965: 427). This statement is in line with the standard definition of IC ((6), Ch.  1): under this view, a noun like punct=ul, punct-e=le ‘dot,‑s’ is not regarded as belonging to an IC (i.e. (56a)) associated with the neuter gender, but is treated as inflecting like (55a) in the singular and like (57a) in the plural.52 On the other hand, Bateman and Polinsky use (in (60b)) ‘(noun) class’ in a way that is incompatible with the standard definition of IC. Since the latter involves the whole lexeme, whereas in (60b) the authors are talking about individual word forms, they mean something else.53 Thus, it follows from the above discussion of (60a–b) that Bateman and Polinsky (2010) are not really talking about the gender-to-IC mapping—the fun51  These two are estate agents (US: realtors) from Croatia (Istria) and Germany, respectively: see http:// www.istra.hr/en/accommodation/domus-bonus/domus-bonus and https://www.immowelt.de/adressen/ makler/detail.aspx?agid=91691EA60DA04EE1AF9AD855AE828CC1, accessed on 1 August 2016. 52  Hall’s terminology is not without its problems either: heteroclisis is a form of irregularity, and is legitimately used to characterize isolated, or small sets of, lexemes. However, given the hundreds of nouns inflecting as shown in (56a–e), it makes little sense to qualify them as ‘exceptional’ in any respect. 53  As it happens, they use ‘(noun) class’ in the same sense as it is used in many studies in African linguistics (see discussion in Babou and Loporcaro 2016: 4–6).

102

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

damental issue, in order to pin down the Romanian gender system—but rather about the relationship of overt gender with individual endings. Even so, the authors are forced to resort to ‘adjustments’ of the primary data, whenever these do not fit. It is problematic, for instance, given their tenet that gender agreement must follow from inflectional morphology, to have homophonous endings (e.g. plural ‑i) with nouns of different genders in the same number: the solution is an abstract ­analysis, that is, the assumption of two distinct plural markers, -i1 and -i2 (for (55) vs (56e/h)/(57b/d/i/k), respectively). The terminological inconsistency reaches its peak with the definition of the relationship of noun class and gender provided at the start of this subsection and reported in (60c). This is inaccurate in many respects: first, while other authors do use noun class and gender interchangeably (e.g. Plank and Schellinger 1997: 89; Aikhenvald 2000: 18; Grinevald 2000; Seifart 2010: 720), Corbett (1991), quoted in that context, does not.54 Secondly, the statement that noun ‘class and gender are […] used interchangeably’ requires that a different definition of gender be provided, which Bateman and Polinsky never do. In the meantime, if the two ‘are used interchangeably’, as the authors state (see (60c)), the claim that noun class (however defined) is a predictor of gender (however defined) boils down to a tautology. Maiden (2016b: 115) takes a further step. Not only does he capitalize on the fact that gender in Romanian is largely predictable from the noun’s morphology, but he also makes the explicit claim that the category ‘gender’ in Romanian requires a different definition from elsewhere: ‘Romanian […] is actually a language in which gender is predominantly a property not of lexemes, but of the morphology of their component word-forms.’ This is in line with—and elaborates on—Bateman and Polinsky’s tenet that ‘Noun class and gender are different terms denoting the same concept’ (see (60c), Bateman and Polinsky 2010: 74, n. 2). But since Bateman and Polinsky’s noun classes are four, not two (Classes A and B in the singular, Classes C and D in the plural), both Bateman and Polinsky and Maiden seem to overlook that what they are arguing for is not ‘an […] approach allowing only two genders’ (Maiden 2016b: 114) but rather a four-gender analysis of Romanian. Or, more precisely, an analysis which conflates the features gender and number into one single four-valued feature that one could label ‘NumGen’, following Fedden and Corbett’s (2017: 8) discussion of Italian (Romanian examples are added in (61b)): (61)

NumGen

value 1 [m.sg] value 2 [f.sg] value 3 [m.pl]

value 4 [f.pl]

a. Italian

buon-o

b. Romanian bun

buon-a

buon-i

buon-e

bun-ă

bun-i

bun-e

While this move can be legitimate in principle, if the evidence supports it (see discussion in §5.4.1), in the case of Italian Fedden and Corbett advocate for an alternative analysis keeping the two features gender and number separate, as shown in (62a) (again, Romanian is added in (62b)): 54  Corbett (1991: 43–9, 173) analyses Bantu NC systems as a particular kind of gender system, such that a ‘gender’ in that kind of system is equivalent not to a ‘noun class’ but to a pairing of noun classes (singular/ plural) as manifested on agreement targets.



4.4  Three-gender systems

(62)  a. Italian

gender masculine feminine

b. Romanian

gender masculine neuter feminine

number singular

plural

buon-o

buon-i

buon-a

buon-e

number singular bun bun-ă

103

plural bun-i bun-e

Here are the arguments Fedden and Corbett (2017: 9) mention, in favour of (62): The first, and most important, is that the two proposed features are orthogonal to each other (they cross-cut). Items which take masculine agreement can be singular or plural, as can those which take feminine agreement. Equally, if we gather the nouns which take singular agreement they can be masculine or feminine, as equally for the plurals. Connected to this orthogonality is the point that generalizations may refer to a feature independently: thus synthetic verbs in Italian agree in number but not in gender.

The same applies to Romanian: the system (62b) is fully orthogonal (a concept to which we shall return while commenting on (28b) and (37), Ch. 5), and choosing (61) would lead to a considerable complication in the rules mentioning number agreement. In addition, another strong argument against conflated ‘NumGen’ (61) comes from cases of ‘gender agreement via derivative morphology’ (see Ricca 2003: 195–7, 2005: 207f.; thanks are due to D. Ricca for bringing up this point). All Romance languages possess adjectives which result from conversion of deverbal nouns formed with the (outcomes of the) agent suffix ‑tor: for example Pg. um cataclisma arrasador ‘a[m.sg] devastating[m.sg] cataclysm(m)’ vs um-a destruição arrasador-a ‘a-f.sg devastating-f. sg destruction(f)’. Contrary to Ibero-Romance, elsewhere these, originally only derivative, suffixes have come to also encode gender, which is a contextual inflectional feature for adjectives. This is exemplified by Romanian, Italian, and French in (63)–(65): (63)

a. exametr-u=l urmă-tor hexameter(m)-sg=def.m.sg follow-V→A.m[m.sg] ‘the following hexameter’ b. duminic-a     urmă-toar-e Sunday(f)-def.f.sg follow-V→A.f-f.sg ‘the following Sunday’

(64)

a. un sorris-o rivela-tor-e a[m.sg] smile(m)-sg reveal-V→A.m-m.sg ‘a revealing smile’ b. un-a   rispost-a   rivela-tric-e a-f.sg answer(f)-sg reveal-V→A.f-f.sg ‘a revealing answer’

104 (65)

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture a. un commentaire flatt-eur a.m.sg commentary(m).sg flatter-V→A.m ‘a flattering commentary’ b. une     réponse   flatt-euse a.f.sg answer(f).sg flatter-V→A.f ‘a flattering answer’

Unlike in the paradigms in (62), however, and in most of the agreement targets considered throughout this book, the marking of gender on these formerly derivative suffixes is uncoupled from that of number: ‑tor in Romanian and Italian and ‑eur in French mark exclusively masculine, not masculine singular or masculine plural. Obviously, this cannot be accounted for under (61). 4.4.1.5  The evidence from gender resolution (and then morphology, again) Having made explicit the conceptual problems that lurk behind so-called two-gender analyses, I will now return to the empirical evidence. There is a syntactic context in which ‘neuter singular nouns show a behaviour different than that of masculine singular nouns, and therefore cannot be taken to be indistinguishable from these’ (Sadler 2011: 394). The context Sadler is referring to is that of gender resolution with singular conjuncts, and it has been invoked as an argument in favour of three-gender analyses (see Graur 1937: 11; Diaconescu 1964a: 191–3, 1970: 75; Windisch 1973: 39–41; Mallinson 1984: 445–9; etc.). In this area, Romanian differs from the other Romance languages, where two coordinated singular or plural conjuncts select feminine plural agreement only if they are both feminine and neither denotes a male human, and select masculine agreement elsewhere (e.g. Sp. los pueblos y las ciudades turísticos/**-as ‘tourist villages and cities’, see (12)–(13), Ch. 3).55 The Romanian data are much more intricate, and empirical studies report extensive variation (Mallinson 1984: 449; Croitor 2009; Croitor and Giurgea 2009: 30–3) instead of the neat rules listed in grammars (see Graur et al. 1963: 2.109f.). Consider Corbett’s (1991: 289) synthesis of gender resolution rules: (66)  Gender resolution in Romanian: a. if one conjunct denotes a male animate b. if all conjuncts are masculine c. elsewhere

→ masculine → masculine → feminine

Uncontroversially, a semantic rule (66a) takes precedence over the others to the effect that, as elsewhere in Romance, masculine agreement is triggered when one conjunct denotes a male. This is proved by the following examples, where masculine plural is selected even if the two singular conjuncts are either both feminine (as in (67a)) or both neuter (as in (67b)), provided that at least one denotes a male human, while (67c–d) show that male animals pattern like humans (see Croitor 2009: 414; Bateman and Polinsky 2010: 64): 55  I am disregarding here complications related to linear order of the conjuncts and the agreement target.

(67)

4.4  Three-gender systems

105

a. ordonanţ-a şi soţi-a sa au fost batman(f)-def.f.sg and wife(f)-def.f.sg 3f.sg have.prs.3pl been uciş-i/**ucis-e killed-m.pl/-f.pl ‘the batman and his wife have been killed’ b. manechin-ul      român     şi    star-ul        american model(n)-def.m.sg  Romanian[m.sg]  and  star(n)-def.m.sg  American[m.sg] au       fost  văzuţ-i   ieri      într-un restaurant  have.prs.3pl been seen-m.pl  yesterday  in a restaurant ‘the Romanain model and the American star were seen yesterday at a restaurant’ [at least one is a male] c. leu-l        şi    câine-le     sunt     bolnav-i /**bolnav-e lion(m)-def.m.sg and dog(m)-def.m.sg be.prs.3pl sick-m.pl/-f.pl ‘the lion and the dog are sick’ d. pisica     şi  câine-le     sunt     uz-i /**ud-e cat(f).def.f.sg and dog(m)-def.m.sg be.prs.3pl wet-m.pl/-f.pl ‘the cat and the dog are wet’

It is also uncontroversial in the literature on Romanian that feminine is the default ((66c)), unlike in the rest of Romance. However, even here the actual data are more complicated: Mallinson (1984: 449) reports use of the masculine as default for one of his subjects, and the same is true of a few among the twenty-seven informants from Moldova who kindly answered a questionnaire of mine in Autumn 2014 (administered by G. Varia). These speakers are going to be neglected in what follows, but their behaviour makes perfect sense as the vanguard in an on-going change: in fact, diachronically the elsewhere condition (66c) in Romanian is more conservative than in the rest of Romance, being a direct successor of the elsewhere condition holding in Latin ((14d), Ch. 2), which selected the neuter. As will become clear in the discussion in Chapter 7, the feminine plural agreement of Romanian results from neutralization of prior feminine and neuter: through this neutralization, (14d), Chapter 2, became (66c). Thus, Romanian speakers who choose the masculine as default are moving forward, along the path of the common Romance drift which resulted in the resolution rules dealt with in (12)–(15), Chapter 3. Coming back to majority use in MSRo., (66b) has a more controversial status, and is crucial for our present discussion, since two-gender analyses claim that neuter nouns, in the singular, are indistinguishable from masculines. Now, all singular neuter nouns occurring as conjuncts in such contexts behave as shown in (68a), that is, they trigger feminine agreement categorically, while at least some inanimate masculines categorically select masculine agreement, as shown in (68b): (68)

a. nas-ul şi deget-ul sunt sănătoas-e/**sănătoş-i nose(n)-def.m.sg and finger(n)-def.m.sg be.prs.3pl healthy-f.pl/-m.pl ‘the nose and the finger are healthy’ b. pom-ul       şi  copac-ul       sunt       arş-i/**ars-e fruit tree (m)-def.m.sg and tree(m)-def.m.sg be.prs.3pl burnt-m.pl/-f.pl ‘the fruit tree and the tree are burnt’

106

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

Other masculine inanimate nouns, on the contrary, behave variably in this context (see e.g. Graur 1937: 11; Croitor and Giurgea 2009: 32): şi      obraz-ul       sunt    neatinş-i/neatins-e (69) a. ochi-ul      eye(m)-def.m.sg and cheek(m)-def.m.sg be.prs.3pl intact-m.pl/-f.pl ‘the eye and the cheek are intact’ b. morcov-ul şi ardei-ul sunt gustoş-i/gustoas-e carrot(m)-def.m.sg and pepper(m)-def.m.sg be.prs.3pl tasty-m.pl/-f.pl ‘the carrot and pepper are tasty’ c. papuc-ul şi pantof-ul sunt rupţ-i/rupt-e slipper(m)-def.m.sg and shoe(m)-def.m.sg be.prs.3pl torn-m.pl/-f.pl ‘the slipper and the shoe are torn’ As recognized as early as Graur (1937), this means that a semantic rule is gaining ground for inanimate nouns, too, to the detriment of the syntactic rule (66b): even when two masculine nouns are involved, if they denote inanimate entities, feminine (i.e. the default) becomes an option. That the semantics is at play here is confirmed by the fact that feminine agreement is banned with names of trees ((68b)), which are all masculine in Romanian (see Perkowski and Vrabie 1986: 58), that is, whose gender is assigned by a semantic rule (see §3.2.1). In conclusion, in spite of the huge variation, the following fact stands: no conjunction of singular neuters ever triggers masculine agreement, whereas this is compulsory for tree names and optionally possible for other masculine inanimate conjuncts. This difference in syntactic behaviour is at odds with the assumption— crucial for two-gender analyses—that singular neuters are undistinguishable from singular ­masculines. Proponents of two-gender analyses meet this challenge with different strategies. Bateman and Polinsky (2010: 64) postpone discussion (‘agreement with conjoined NPs […] needs to be explored from the perspective of a two-gender system’), while Croitor and Giurgea (2009) resort to an article of (theoretical) faith: The problem with this formulation is theoretical: in all the formal theories of agreement developed in the generative tradition, in minimalism as well as in HPSG, it is assumed that the feature has the same value on the target and on the controller. (Croitor and Giurgea 2009: 26)

Unlike Croitor and Giurgea, Maiden (2013: 10) develops a sound, qua falsifiable, empirical argument, claiming that ‘coordination facts’ do not ‘undermine the status of both kinds of singular [i.e. (68a) vs (68b)—M.L.] as “masculine”. Rather, they reflect the simple fact that speakers know the plural forms as well as the singulars. […] They are a direct function of the inflexional morphology of the nouns involved’. In other words, knowledge of the inflectional paradigms nas-uri and deget-e is what drives selection of sănătoase in (68a), since the plurals would imply the same agreement (nasuri/degete sănătoase). As argued in Loporcaro (2016b), this account faces a problem, since neuter singularia tantum (see e.g. Brăescu et al. 2008: 65; Nedelcu 2013b: 277) still select the same  agreement pattern when conjoined, as already pointed out in Diaconescu (1964a: 192). Since most mass nouns can be pluralized, with an effect of ‘sorting’ and/or



4.4  Three-gender systems

107

‘packaging’ (e.g. vin,-uri ‘wine/[sorts of] wine[s]’, ulei,-uri ‘oil/[sorts of] oil’), this must be tested with nouns that resist pluralization, like lapte ‘milk’, unt ‘butter’, or sânge ‘blood’ (or, beyond mass nouns, curaj ‘courage’, fotbal ‘football’):56 şi  lapte-le       sunt    proaspet-e/**proaspeţ-i (70) a. unt-ul butter(n)-def.m.sg and milk(n)-def.m.sg be.prs.3pl fresh-f.pl/-m.pl ‘butter and milk are fresh’ b. sânge-le negru   şi  sânge-le      ros-u blood(n)-def.m.sg black-m.sg and blood(n)-def.m.sg red-m.sg sunt    lichid-e/??lichiz-i be.prs.3pl liquid-f.pl/-m.pl ‘venous and arterial blood are liquid’ c. curaj-ul        şi  fotbal-ul      sunt    legat-e/**legaț-i courage(n)-def.m.sg  and  football(n)-def.m.sg  be.prs.3pl  related-f.pl/-m.pl ‘courage and football are related’ In this case, speakers cannot resort to knowledge of (non-existent) plural inflection to determine agreement. Indeed, for those nouns, they are manifestly uncomfortable with finding a plural. Conceivable plurals like **unt-e or **unt-uri, formed according to the productive ICs (56a–b), are rejected by my informants. One of them argued that **unt-uri sounds odd because of near homophony with the plural of untură ‘fat, grease(f)’ (unturi), which is an ex-post rationalization of the informants’ unease, and interesting as such. As for lapte, the uneasiness of Romanian speakers with its pluralization is eloquently manifested in the following blog-quote (diacritics are missing in the original, as often on the web): alfy a intrebat pe 13.09.2011 in categoria Gramatica: Cum e corect: un fruct sau o fructa? sau ambele?:)) Raspunsuri: Iris_Gabriela_99 a raspuns pe 13.09.2011: “un fruct! Nu exista cuvantul fructa:)) Din cate stiu eu nu s-a inventat nici fructa, nici un lapte doua lapti :))” [Alfy asked […] how is it correct: un fruct ‘a [piece of] fruit’ or o fructa? or both?:)). Answers: Iris_Gabriela_99 answered […]: “un fruct! The word **fructa does not exist:)). As far as I know, neither **fructa, nor **un lapte doua lapti [lit. ‘a/one milk, two milks’] have been invented :))” (http://www.clopotel.ro/intrebari-si-raspunsuri/gramatica-24/cum-e-corect-un-fruct-sau-ofructa-20201/pagina-2, accessed 25 May 2017)

None of the other plural forms which could theoretically be built from lapte (e.g. **lapte-le sunt …, according to class (57g)) is deemed acceptable—not even in ‘restaurant talk’ (Wiese 2012: 69f.): **(două) lapte/lapţi ‘two milks’—and some are already other-

56  The question marks in (70b) are due to the fact that among the 27 speakers of (Moldova’s) Romanian who compiled the above-mentioned questionnaire containing this item, the score was 19:7 (i.e. about onethird of them used masculine agreement as default). On ‘sorting’ and ‘packaging’ with mass nouns see (146) in §4.5.4.

108

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

wise ‘occupied’: see lapţi ‘soft roe’, a homophonous plurale tantum (Brăescu et al. 2008: 65), and lăpturi, a derivative meaning ‘milkings’.57 This evidence shows that even singularia tantum can be reliably judged to be neuter, rather than masculine, pace Brăescu et al. (2008: 64), where nouns such as sânge ‘blood’ are classified as belonging to an arhigen ‘archigender’, that is, as indeter­ minate (m/n).58 Maiden (2016b) objects that proaspete in (70a) is selected by default: these nouns are exactly what they appear to be: masculines which happen to lack a plural, not neuters. It is precisely their lack of a morphological plural which makes anything other than feminine plural agreement actually impossible, because in Romanian feminine agreement is the default for conjoined inanimate (more accurately, non-mortal) nouns. (Maiden 2016b: 132)

However, this does not explain why masculine plural agreement in resolution contexts is completely excluded with just these ‘masculine’ nouns (as well as with all other neuters, as seen in (68a)), whereas it is at least an option with all other masculines ((68b), (69)). Even more problematic are cases such as burghiu ‘drill’ or sicriu ‘coffin’. According to normative grammar, these belong to the IC (56c), unambiguously associated with the neuter. However, the alternative plural forms burghii ‘drill’ or sicrii (IC (56e)) also occur, without any difference in agreement: toate sicriele/sicriile ‘all the coffins’, diverse burghie/burghii ‘several drills’ (masculine agreement **diverşi, **toţi is ungrammatical). Crucially, those neuter nouns too are incompatible with masculine agreement under coordination: (71)

burghi-ul şi sicri-ul sunt scump-e/**scump-i drill(n)-def.m.sg and coffin(n)-def.m.sg be.prs.3pl inexpensive-n.pl/-m.pl ‘the drill and the coffin are inexpensive’

Since ‑ii plurals also occur with feminine (cutie,‑ii ‘box/‑es’) as well as with masculine nouns (fiu,‑ii ‘son’, copil,‑ii ‘child/children’), speakers producing the phrase burghiul şi sicriul are not—contrary to Maiden’s (2013: 3) claim—using nouns ‘whose plurals have unambiguously feminine morphology’. Hence, to derive the correct agreement (scumpe/**‑i), they cannot be relying on nominal inflection. This is all the more so for nouns (mostly loanwords) such as the following: (72)

singular torent robinet nucleu

plural 1 (n) torente robinete nuclee

plural 2 (m) torenţi robineţi nuclei

gloss ‘stream’ ‘tap’ ‘nucleus’

57  Diverging views have been expressed at times: e.g. Iordan et al. (1967: 92) report ‘pl. lăpturi “diverse calităţi de lapte” ’. Among the quoted non-pluralizable mass-nouns, the only exception I have ever come across (două sânge ‘two [glasses of] blood’) is an instance of ‘restaurant talk’, and occurs, into the bargain, in a vampire joke: at a bar, two vampires ask for un pahar de sânge ‘a glass of blood’, the third one for un pahar de plasmă, and the bar tender recapitulates: ‘Două sânge şi un sânge light?’ [liter. ‘two bloods and one blood light’] (http://www.funkydonkey.ro/tag/vampiri/2; accessed on 23 March 2016). 58  On the contrary, genuine indeterminacy must be recognized for f/n pluralia tantum such as icre ‘caviar’ (see e.g. Diaconescu 1964a: 177).



4.4  Three-gender systems

109

Confirming the pervasive correlation between IC and gender, these nouns may inflect either as (55a), in which case they trigger masculine plural agreement, or as (56a) and trigger feminine plural agreement (see Brăescu et al. 2008: 65). With these nouns too, where there is coordination of two singular conjuncts, the categorical selection of non-masculine agreement cannot be imputed to the morphology, given their overabundant plural inflection: şi torent-ul (73) robinet-ul tap(m/n)-def.m.sg and stream(m/n)-def.m.sg asemănă-toar-e/**asemănă-tor-i similar-drv.f-f.pl/-drv.m-m.pl ‘the tap and the stream are similar’

sunt be.prs.3pl

If speakers indeed computed gender agreement on strictly morphological bases, masculine agreement shoud be an option here. Maiden (2016b) does not provide a counterargument to this evidence, while the one he produces for (71) requires excluding masculine f ii ‘sons’, copii ‘children’ qua denoting humans, thus leaving the province of pure morphology. 4.4.1.6  Conclusion: the productivity of the Romanian neuter  More generally, Maiden (2015, 2016b) must be credited for his intellectual honesty, since he does not sweep under the mat, but rather addresses explicitly—the first to do so, to the best of my knowledge—decisive evidence in support of the view he is opposing. This evidence comes from the morphology of neologisms such as non-integrated loanwords and compounds. In fact, uninflected loanwords denoting animates such as mango, kiwi, cappuccino, or tiramisu take alternating agreement, that is, they are assigned to the neuter, on a par with morphologically integrated loanwords discussed in (59): un mango ‘one.m mango’, două mango ‘two.f mangoes’. The same holds for V+N compounds (a wordformation type which is more rare in Romanian than in other Romance languages; see Grossmann 2012: 155f.), even if their inflection does not fit any of the ICs traditionally associated with the neuter: (74) împinge-tavă ‘self-service restaurant’ (literally ‘push-tray’): un î. m.sg/două î. f.pl portchei ‘keyring’ (port- < Fr. port(er) ‘carry’): un p. m.sg/două p. f.pl parascântei ‘spark-guard’ (< Fr. para- ← parer ‘stop, prevent’): un p. m.sg/două p. f.pl Maiden (2016b: 111) minimizes the import of this evidence, taking it to merely show that ‘a third gender […] might be latent in Romanian’. In my opinion, this seems to have farther-reaching implications and proves the productivity of the agreement class (53b)—that is, of the Romanian neuter gender value—per se, independently from the inflectional morphology which has become associated (admittedly very tightly, as said above) with this gender value during the history of the language. This conclusion, reached on the basis of synchronic analysis, is strengthened by diachronic and comparative evidence, to be addressed in Chapters 6 and 7.

110

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

4.4.2  Further systems with three controller genders Most Italian dialects are usually described in terms of the standard language. Yet, as we shall see, there are dialects whose gender system is somewhat more complex. One possibility is for a third gender similar to the Romanian neuter to occur alongside masculine and feminine. While there are no modern Italo-Romance dialects described with exactly this kind of system in their present stage, some offer more evidence in this direction than Standard Italian (and so have stayed, in a sense, half-way between this and Old Tuscan, to be considered in §6.2). Take, for instance, the dialect of Canepina (province of Viterbo): (75) 

singular a.

e m def.m.sg b. e a def.m.sg c. a f def.f.sg

bbotts-o pit(m)-sg bboddz-o wrist(a)-sg nɔtt-e night(f)-sg

plural e def.m.pl e def.f.pl e def.f.pl

bbotts-i pit(m)-pl poddz-a wrist(a)-pl nɔtt-i night(f)-pl

‘pit’ ‘wrist’ ‘night’

Note that the plural forms of the definite article contrast two (target) genders through the occurrence (masculine) vs non-occurrence (feminine) of RF which, for the masculine article, is combined with voicing, not only in the plural but also in the singular. Thus, the word for ‘pit’ is phonologically /ˈpottso/ (so realized in isolation; and see tre ppottsi ‘three pits’, identical to Standard Italian, with RF and no voicing), but preposing the masculine article results in e bbottso, as shown in (75a). The word for ‘wrist’ behaves in the same way in the singular, but not in the plural, where **e bboddza is unacceptable. This means that the plural article is the same form occurring in (75c) with feminine nouns. In other words, there is alternating gender agreement in (75b), as confirmed by categorical selection of the feminine plural forms of the adjectives with such nouns (class one adjectives inflect as in Standard Italian: stjort-o,-i,-a,-e ‘twisted-m.sg/m.pl/f.sg/f.pl): (76) singular a.

b.

plural

e bbotts-o ε ffonn-o e bbotts-i sɔ ffonn-i m def.m.sg pit(m)-sg be.prs.3sg deep-m.sg def.m.pl pit(m)-pl be.prs.3pl deep-m.pl ‘the pit is deep’ ‘the pits are deep’

inɔcc-o stjort-o un a indf.m.sg knee(a)-sg twisted-m.sg ‘a twisted knee’ c. a stjort-a caːv-e f def.f.sg key(f)-sg twisted-f.sg ‘a twisted key’

ell inɔcc-a stjort-e def.pl knee(a).pl twisted-f.pl ‘the twisted knees’ e caːv-i stjort-e def.f.pl key(f)-pl twisted-f.pl ‘the twisted keys’



4.4  Three-gender systems

111

The set of nouns displaying alternating agreement is somewhat larger than in the standard language: for instance, while ‘knee’ (76b) also selects alternating agreement in Standard Italian, ‘wrist’ (75b) does not. Here are a few more examples:59 (77)

singular a. st-o lindzjoːl-o un-o staːr-o ell ɔːʋ-o bbjaŋg-o b. e ǧǧilabbr-o ell eːt-o stjort-o c. e ddzorvjastrɛll-o um maːg-o

plural e lindzjoːl-a tre staːr-a ell ɔːʋ-a/-e bbjaŋg-e e šilabbr-a ell eːt-a stjort-e e sorvjastrɛll-a do ʋaːg-a

‘this bedsheet/the bedsheets’ ‘one bushels/three bushels’ ‘the white egg/the white eggs’ ‘the lip/the lips’ ‘the twisted finger/the twisted fingers’ ‘the sorb/the sorbs’ ‘one fruit/two fruits’

While the nouns corresponding to (77a–b) also select alternating agreement in Standard Italian, fruit names never do, unlike the lexemes in (77c). Evidence that this class had more members in a previous stage is provided by the many fruit names which have become feminine but (optionally) retained an a-plural, which indicates that they must have gone through a stage like (77c): a mell-a//e mell-a/-e ‘the apple/‑s’, a peːr-a/e peːr-a ‘the pear/‑s’, a pjértsik-a/e pjértsik-a ‘the peach/‑es’, a pornell-a/e ­pornell-a ‘the plum/‑s’, ell oliːʋ-a/ell oliːʋ-a ‘the olive/‑s’, etc. This also applies to other nouns like a leːn-a/e leːn-a ‘the bit/‑s of firewood’. In other nearby dialects, some of these nouns still display alternating gender, as is the case in Fabrica di Roma, for whose dialect Monfeli (1993) reports o mell-o//e mella/-e ‘the apple/‑s’, o per-o/e per-a ‘the pear/‑s’, o prungo/e prunga ‘the plum/‑s’, o pèrziko/e pèrzika ‘the plum/‑s’ (along with e.g. o pórzo/e pórza ‘the wrist/-s’, ll anèllo/ ll anèlla ‘the ring/-s’, etc.). There are no text or dictionary counts illustrating how numerous the agreement class (75b) is in the lexicon of these dialects, at the present time or in the past, but a further non-quantitative indication that this class is still somewhat more robust than in modern Standard Italian comes from the kind of syntactic tests considered in (37b–c), §4.3.4 (examples from Canepinese): (78)

a. ell ɔːʋ-a kɔ´stono šiŋgwe šendɛ´ːsimi l uːn-o def.f.pl egg(a)-pl cost.prs.3pl five cents each-m.sg ‘eggs cost five cents each’ b. e vračc-̌ a de  ʋinǧɛndzo sɔ       uːn-a/**uːn-o def.f.pl arm(a)-pl of  Vincenzo  be.prs.3pl one-f.sg/-m.sg pju lluŋg-a dell addr-a more long-f.sg than other-f.sg ‘one of Vincenzo’s arms is longer than the other’

The tests give contradictory results: (78a) is still compatible with an alternating-gender analysis (see §4.4.1), while feminine agreement in (78b) is as in modern Standard Italian (see (37c) above). This inconsistency points to an on-going transition from an 59  These are drawn partly from my own fieldwork (November 2014, January 2015) and partly from Cimarra and Petroselli (2014).

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

112

older to a new system, and there is indeed abundant evidence for the older system, not only from past documented stages (§§6.2, 6.5) but also from modern ItaloRomance dialects spoken further east and south, to be reviewed in §4.5. A prima facie example of a variety where a third controller gender is alive and well, having even increased in productivity, is the Apulian dialect of Altamura (province of Bari), as described in Loporcaro (1988: 237–40). In this dialect, one finds the by now familiar (see (31), (53)) three agreement patterns, as exemplified in (79): (79) Altamura (Bari) singular a. m b. a c.

f

ʊ skwarpεˑrə wʊrattsə ʊ kwavaddə waɲɲedda la jamma

plural kwʊrt kwʊrt kɔrt

i

skarpεˑrə vrattsə kavarrə waɲɲeddə jammə

kwʊrt kɔrt

‘the short shoemaker’ ‘the short arm’ ‘the short horse’

kɔrt

‘the short girl’ ‘the short leg’

Gender agreement, in this dialect, is seen exclusively on class one adjectives showing metaphonic root vowel alternation: for example tert/tørt ‘crooked.m/f’, ɲɲʊˑu̯r/ɲɲaˑu̯r ‘black.m/f’, rʏss/rɔss ‘red.m/f’. Note that number contrasts are not signalled in these paradigms, but number contrasts are encoded on other agreement targets which, in turn, do not mark gender in the plural, resulting in converging gender agreement: (80)  Altamurano (province of Bari; Loporcaro 1988) a. definite article and other determiners: sg ʊ/nʊ/ˈkʊssʊ ˈnεˑis̯

‘the/a/this nose’

pl I/ˈkIssə ˈnεˑis//ˈkεˑis ̯ ̯

la /na/ˈkεssa ˈkεˑis

‘the/a/this house’

‘the/these noses/houses’

b. possessives: sg

ʊ kʊmˈbwaɲɲə mIi̯ ‘my friend’

pl I kʊmˈbwaɲɲə/ˈmεˑnə ˈmaˑi ̯

la ˈmεˑna ˈma i̯

‘my hand’

‘my friends/hands’

c. direct object clitics: sg

ʊ ˈpwIȷȷ

‘I take it.m’

pl I ˈpIȷȷ

la ˈpIȷȷ

‘I take it:f’

‘I take them’



4.4  Three-gender systems

113

Masculine vs feminine agreement is selected uniformly across numbers in the two agreement classes in (79a) and (79c): nouns corresponding to a subset—denoting male humans—of the nouns which are generally masculine in Italo-Romance take masculine agreement while nouns corresponding to Standard Italian feminines take feminine agreement, respectively. In addition, alternating agreement, exemplified in (79b), is selected not just by the handful of nouns like vratːsə ‘arm’ whose Italian counterparts belong to the two dozen or so nouns still selecting the agreement pattern (31b), but rather by all nouns stemming from Proto-Italo-Romance masculine or neuter (diachronically) and not denoting male humans (synchronically). Thus, for example, ʊ pwetə (leɲɲ)/ɪ pɪˑə̯t (løɲɲ) ‘the (long) foot/feet’ selects the same alternating agreement as, say, ʊ šənʏccə/ɪ šənǿccərə ‘the knee/-s’ or ‘arm’ in (79b), contrary to Standard Italian, where piede ‘foot’ is masculine and contrasts in plural agreement (i piedi) with braccio, ginocchio, etc. (le braccia/ginocchia). Clearly, this dialect exhibits a three(‑controller)-gender system, in which a strictly semantic definition of one of the gender values—to which we shall revert in §7.7—with ensuing reshuffling of the gender assignment, has encroached on the same inherited agreement pattern seen above for Italian and Romanian. The schema in (79) refers to a conservative variety of the dialect, described in that monograph based on work with informants born 1905–50 and still observed today in some speakers in Loporcaro (in press)—based on fieldwork in 2015—where, however, it is shown that other speakers have a different system, either (at least in part) calqued on the standard language (with the m.pl form also for agreement with ɪ kavárr/vratts ‘the horses/arms’) or simplified to a fully convergent system, with the (formerly) f.pl form also generalized to male humans: for example ɪ waɲɲʊˑnə/waɲɲeddə ɲɲaˑu̯r ‘the black.pl boys/girls’ (contrasting with conservative ɪ waɲɲʊˑnə ɲɲʊˑu̯r ‘the black.m.pl boys’ vs ɪ waɲɲeddə ɲɲaˑu̯r ‘the black.f.pl girls’) (see (52b–c), Ch. 7). 4.4.3  Three target genders in present-day Romance From the definition introduced in (7), Chapter 1, as well as from the discussion in the foregoing sections (§§4.4.1–4.4.2), it is clear that contrasts between controller genders are less prominent than those between target genders, both in re, as they lack overt dedicated marking, and post rem, since several scholars—with different degrees of explicitness: see Pătruţ (1956: 133); Wunderli (1993: 158); Giurgea (2014)—do not regard contrasts between classes of controllers as valid evidence for establishing gender contrasts. Given this, being able to point to Romance systems with three target genders is all the more important in order to refute views of Romance gender such as those exemplified in (9)– (12), Chapter 1, which posit a reduction to a binary system in Proto-Romance, as well as their synchronic counterparts, viz. analyses which tend not to recognize Romance systems of higher complexity than the (nowadays admittedly prevalent) binary one. One such system has recently been described by Loporcaro and Silvestri (2015) for Verbicarese, a northern Calabrian dialect spoken in Verbicaro (province of Cosenza). In Verbicarese neither definite articles—see (81)—nor other determiners (kwɪɖɖə, ‑a, ‑ə ‘this.m.sg, f.sg, these’), nor personal pronouns (ʝɪɖɖə, ‑a, ‑ə ‘he, she, they’), nor nonmetaphonic adjectives (nʊ bbwɛllʊ kwaːnə ‘a.m beautiful.m.sg dog(m)’, na bbɛlla kaːsa ‘a.f beautiful.f.sg house(f)’, čɛrtə bbɛllə kaːnə/kaːsə ‘(some) beautiful.pl houses/

114

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

dogs’) display any gender contrast in the plural. Metaphonic adjectives, on the other hand, do:60 (81) singular

plural

a.

piə̯ð-ə ɣruɵ̯ss-ə/**ɣrɔss-a ʊ m def.m.sg foot(m) m\big-m.sg/f.sg

I piə̯ð-ə ɣruɵ̯ssə/**ɣrɔss-ə/**-a def.pl foot(m) m\big.m.pl/nonm\big-f.pl/-n.pl

b.

ʊ lwabbr-ə ɣruɵss-ə/**ɣrɔss-a ̑ n def.m.sg lip(n) m\big-m.sg/f.sg

I labbr-a ɣrɔss-a/-ə/**ɣruɵ̯ssə def.pl lip(n) nonm\big-n.pl/f.pl/m\big-m.pl

c.

I a maːn-a ɣrɔss-a/**ɣruɵss-ə maːn-ə ɣrɔss-ə/**-a/**ɣruɵ̯ssə ̑ def.pl hand(f) nonm\big-f.pl/-n.pl/m\big-m.pl f def.f.sg hand(f) nonm\big-f.sg/m.sg ‘the big foot/lip/hand’

‘the big feet/lips/hands’

While the singular shows the usual binary contrast, in the plural, the adjective has three distinct forms: in addition to m.pl ɣruɵ̯ssə and f.pl ɣrɔssə, there is an a-ending form that is formally the outcome of the Latin neuter plural (grossa > ɣrɔssa, bona > bbɔːna) and is also functionally neuter, synchronically, since it is never selected by masculine or feminine nouns, as shown in (81a, c), but only occurs with the ‘usual suspects’, that is, nouns with a-plural stemming from the Latin second declension, mostly designating body parts, fruits, or entities such as ‘walls’ etc. A few among these nouns preserved the a-plural and neuter agreement as the only option while for several a masculine plural exists alongside, either in free variation ((82b)), or with semantic specialization ((82c); similar data are discussed for Standard Italian in (35) and (34), respectively): (82) a. only n.pl: ʊ lwa bbrə niət̯ tə/ɪ la bbra nɛtta ‘the clean lip/‑s’; ɖɖ uɵ̯ və kuɵ̯ ttə /ɖɖ ɔːva kɔtta ‘the boiled egg/‑s’; b. free variation n./m.pl: ʊ mʊːrə stuɵ̯rtə//ɪ mʊrə stuɵ̯ rtə/ɪ mʊːra stɔrtə ‘the crooked wall/-s’ (but not **ɪ mʊːra stuɵ̯ rtə); nʊ čərasə kuɵ̯ ttə ‘a boiled cherry’, pl. ɪ čəraːsə kuɵ̯ ttə//ɪ čəraːsa kuɵ̯ ttə/kɔttə; c. doublets with complementary distribution n./m.pl: ɖɖ uɵ̯ ssə stuɵ̯ rtə ‘the crooked bones’ (separate) vs ɖɖ ɔssa stɔrtə ‘the crooked bones’ (e.g. of a leg); ɪ jɪ´ːðəta/jɪðətɛɖɖa sʊ llɔŋŋa/-ə/**lluɵ̯ ŋŋə ‘the fingers/small fingers (of a hand) are long:n’ vs dʊjə jɪ´ːðətə luɵ̯ ŋŋə ‘two (specific) long.m fingers’ (e.g. the middle finger and the thumb). In this dialect too, as elsewhere, this agreement class is on its way to depletion, and this depletion leaves behind a purely morphological residue in noun inflection. In fact, several nouns stemming from Latin second declension neuters still keep the a-plural, in free variation with the alternative ending ‑ə (< ‑i), but exclusively select masculine plural agreement (as in (81a)) and have thereby been reassigned to the masculine ((83a)), on a par with other a-plurals whose etyma are not second declension neuters ((83b)), and thus attest to the productivity of this IC (on which see §4.2.2): 60  Thanks are due to Giuseppina Silvestri for spotting this peculiarity of Verbicarese and for eliciting the data presented here, part of which has been discussed in Loporcaro and Silvestri (2015). In the last example, čɛrtə, borrowed from Italian certi,‑e ‘some.m.pl/f.pl’, marks indefiniteness on plural NPs.



4.4  Three-gender systems

115

(83) only m.pl a. from Latin 2nd declension neuter nouns: ʊ mʊlwɪːnə//ɪ mʊlwɪːnə/-a ‘the mill/-s’, ʊ pərkɔːkə//ɪ pərkɔːkə/-a ‘the apricot/-s’, ʊ vʊ´vətə//ɪ vʊ´vətə/-a ‘the elbow/‑s’; b. from other genders and ICs: ʊ pʊrmʊːnə//ɪ pʊrmʊːnə/-a ‘the lung/-s’, ʊ cʊːrə//ɪ cʊːrə/-a ‘the flower/-s’; ʊ mədʊɖɖə//ɪ mədʊɖɖə/-a ‘the brain/-s’. In passing, this mismatch foreshadows the path along which a system can reach the synchronic state described in (26)f., Chapter 3, for Sicilian and Corsican. In spite of this on-going depletion, the Verbicarese neuter still tests positively for the morphosyntactic and morphological diagnostics discussed in (37) and (39). Thus, the a‑plurals in (82) regularly co-occur with masculine singular forms of the reciprocal, indefinite, and distributive pronouns: (84)

a. d ɪ dʊj  ɔːv-a   ɣʊːn-ə/  **ɣʊːn-a  jɛːr-a of def.pl two egg(n)-pl one-m.sg/ one-f.sg be.impf-3sg ccu ggrwannə ɪ  kuddwaːtrə   more big of the_other.m.sg  ‘of the two eggs, one was bigger than the other’61 b. ɖɖ ɔːv-a kʊ´stə-nə dɛːčə čəndɛːsəmə ɖɖ ʊːn-ə def.pl egg(n)-pl cost.prs-3pl ten cents def one-m.sg /**ɖɖ ʊːn-a /  def one-f.sg ‘eggs cost ten cents each’

In the same vein, a‑plurals apply regularly to diminutives: (85)

a. ɪ jɪðətɛɖɖa sʊ llɔŋŋa/-ə/**lluɵ̯ŋŋə (diminutive of jɪːðəta) ‘the small fingers are long’ b. ɖɖ ɔssəčɛɖɖa stɔrtə/**stuɵ̯rtə (diminutive of ɔssa) ‘the twisted little bones’

Neuter plural also has a distinct expression in past participle agreement: (86)

a. ɖɖ ɔss-a aa def.pl bone(n)-pl do.pl=have.prs-3sg ‘the bones, s/he has picked them up’ b. ɪ jɪ´ːðət-a aað def.pl finger(n)-pl do.pl=have.prs-3sg ‘the fingers, s/he has untied them’

kkɔːt-a/-ə/**kkuɵ̯tə picked-n.pl/f.pl/m.pl assɔːt-a/-ə/**assuɵ̯tə untie-n.pl/f.pl/m.pl

These Verbicarese data are of paramount importance. Since a-agreeing forms on adjectives and participles cannot be selected by feminine nouns, such data are at odds with a recurring generalization in Romance historical linguistics, according to which ‘What is common to all remnants of neuter plural ‑a (and ‑ora), is that they were 61  For reasons illustrated in Silvestri (2008–09: 35–44), the ungrammaticality of such a feminine form in non-prepausal position can be tested only if this is in focus.

116

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

reanalysed as feminine’ (Maiden 2011: 172). Such a reanalysis, here, never took place. These data, consequently, are an important tile for the reconstructive mosaic (see Chapter 7): in reading §§6.3–6.5, it will become clear that this is the only variety known so far to preserve the gender agreement conditions once common in the Middle Ages, which have survived much longer in Southern than in Central and Northern ItaloRomance. However, this last remnant is doomed to obsolescence, since a-plural agreement, while still recognized as grammatical by all members of the linguistic community, nowadays occurs only in the production of speakers over seventy-five years old at the time of fieldwork in 2010.62 Elsewhere in southern Italy, the traces are much fainter. Thus, in the dialect of Altamura (see §4.4.2 and §7.7 below), la naˑu̯š ‘the.f.sg walnut(f)’ has a regular plural ɪnʊˑu̯š. In addition, to designate the whole harvest collectively, one can say (Loporcaro 1988: 236): (87)

la nʊˑu̯š ɔnnə/**e def.x walnut(f).pl be.prs.3pl/be.prs.3sg ‘walnuts have been good this year’

stɛːtə bboːn awánn been good.f.pl this_year

In synchronic terms, this is exceptional, as la is otherwise a feminine singular form, while nʊˑu̯š is a plural. Plural agreement on the verb leaves no other choice but to consider la an outcome of neuter plural illa, not surviving elsewhere but just fixed in this kind of context, as well as in the place name itself jàltamʊ´u̯r (It. Altamura) < alta mura ‘high (city) walls’ (including the plural of murum, a Late Latin neuter competitor of CL masculine murus; see (1), Ch. 7). Inspection of the older stages of the Romance languages in Chapter 6 will show that these are the last remnants of a once regular agreement pattern.

4.5  Four-gender systems Central-southern Italian dialects are well known to display a richer contrast on singular determiners than the rest of Romance, with three distinct forms of the definite article occurring with three distinct sets of controller nouns, as exemplified for two dialects in (88): (88)

i. a. n b. m c. f

Rieti l-o def.n.sg l-u def.m.sg l-a def.f.sg

kaːču cheese(n) paːdre father(m) maːni hand(f)

ii. Sora lə def.n.sg ʎə def.m.sg la def:f.sg

kaːčə cheese(n) paːtrə father(m) maːnə hand(f)

‘def cheese’ ‘the father’ ‘the hand’

62  This was confirmed during a fieldwork session in March 2016, in which the speakers interviewed at the very best remembered a-plural agreement as a feature characteristic for the speech of the previous generation.



4.5  Four-gender systems

117

These dialects stand for the two sub-areas—viz. the ‘area mediana’ and the Upper South (in terms of Pellegrini’s 1977 standard classification)—straddled by what seems to be a prima facie example of a three-way (target) gender contrast (although, as we shall see in §4.5.4, this is debated), and was indeed analysed as such in a sizeable body of literature in Italian dialectology, starting with Campanelli (1896: 35f.) (on Reatino, (88i)) and Merlo (1906–07: 438, 1920) (on Sorano (88ii), with reference to the whole area). Before them, Schuchardt (1874: 25) observed the contrast in literary Neapolitan between the masculine and the neuter definite articles and direct object clitics, although he exemplified the neuter article exclusively with nominalizations (e.g. lo bero lit. ‘def true’, i.e. ‘the truth’) and so picking up only one use of the neuter which Neapolitan shares with Spanish. Similarly, D’Ovidio (1878: 152) noticed the occurrence of three distinct series of demonstrative pronouns in Campobassano (see discussion on (29) above), but we have seen in §4.3.4 that neutral pronominal forms occur much more widely in Romance than neuter controller nouns. The observation on the contrast in demonstratives was then reiterated by Parodi (1893: 302, n. 1 on Arpinate), but Campanelli (1896: 35f.) was the first to describe gender assignment to three different classes of nouns (for Reatino). Salvioni (1900: 581), on the other hand, first pointed to the occurrence of distinctively neuter forms of the article in a medieval variety. The list of further studies addressing the central-southern Italian neuter includes, among many others, Merlo (1917b, c), Camilli (1929), Contini (1961–62), Lüdtke (1965, 1979), Parrino (1967a, b), Vignuzzi (1975–76, 1988, 1994), Marcantonio (1978), Baldelli (1983: 204f.), Vignuzzi and Avolio (1991), Lorenzetti (1995), Avolio (1996), and Schirru (2008). Indeed, this literature has mostly labelled the examples in (88a) as ‘neuter’, although with further specifications which are either meant to describe synchronic properties of this gender or its diachrony. In terms of synchronic properties, some labels refer to  geographical distribution, as for instance ‘neutro centro-meridionale’ (e.g. Russo 2002), while other labels refer to the semantics (on which see especially §4.5.4), for instance ‘neutro di materia’ (e.g. Vignuzzi and Avolio 1991: 649) and ‘mass neuter’ (Harmon 1999), since this gender only includes uncountables. Labels referring to ­diachrony, on the other hand, include neoneuter (e.g. Vignuzzi 1995: 158), or ‘Romance neuter’ (Merlo 1917c: 108), which stress the alleged discontinuity between this gender value and the Latin neuter (to be discussed in §7.3). While the northern border of this kind of system coincides with the bundle of isoglosses (the Roma–Ancona line) delimiting the area mediana, the southern limit cuts across the Upper South in central Lucania and Puglia (see §4.5.1). Abruzzo lies within these borders, but only its Apennine part (with the whole province of L’Aquila and part of the others) displays the mass neuter vs masculine contrast (see Map 3): for example in Sulmona (province of L’Aquila) l-ə paːnə ‘def-n bread(n)’ vs l-u kaːnə ‘the-m.sg dog(m)’ (Marcantonio 1978: 84); in Popoli (province of Pescara) i vɔi̯də ‘s/he sees him.m’ vs lə vɔid̯ ə ‘s/he sees it.n’ (Manzini and Savoia 2005: 2.154). From Popoli to the Adriatic coast, the rest of the Pescara province (see the identity of the definite article and do clitic in the dialect of San Valentino in Abruzzo Citeriore: e.g. lu pɐnə = libbrə ‘def bread = book’; Benincà and Pescarini 2014) and all of the coastal Abruzzese dialects assign to the masculine, like StIt., all nouns that are mass neuters in the rest of this larger area (see Giammarco 1979: 88, 131): for example in Ortona (province of

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

118

Chieti) l-u pæːnə/kæːnə, in Civitella del Tronto (province of Chieti) l-u pa/ka ‘def-m bread(m)/dog(m)’. In addition to the three-way contrast shown in (88), however, the dialects of this area also display a fourth agreement choice, which, as first argued in Loporcaro and Paciaroni (2011), must be regarded as a fourth gender. Consider for instance the dialect of Molfetta (province of Bari, as described by Merlo 1917b):63 (89) singular a.

n

b.

m

c. d.

a f

plural

Molfettese

rə

ttueskə

u

nəpɔətə

lə

nəpautə

‘the nephew/-s’

u

nεutə

rə

nnɔˊdərə

‘the knot/-s’

rə

ssieddə

‘the straddle/-es’

la

sseddə

Ø

‘the poison’

Not only does the system, like those shown in (88), feature a third target gender (including nouns denoting substances/uncountables and abstract concepts) in addition to masculine and feminine, but it also displays a substantial number of lexemes which show alternating agreement of the kind seen in §4.4.1 for Romanian and the varieties in §§4.4.2–4.4.3. Both agreement options define gender values, which we shall call, respectively, the ‘mass neuter’ and the ‘alternating neuter’ (a in (89c) stands for ‘alternating’). Note that the term ‘alternating neuter’, already employed for Romanian in §4.4.1, is motivated in part synchronically (alternating) and in part diachronically (neuter), in ways to be made precise in Chapter 7. Since in systems such as (89) this co-occurs with another gender also dubbed ‘neuter’, it is essential to clarify that, synchronically, these labels are arbitrary: in fact, one might just as well want to label the four gender values in (89) numerically (I through IV). It is crucial, in particular, that the two neuters not be mistaken for complementary subgenders of the sort occurring in, for example, Slavic languages like Russian (see §2.4).64 As argued in Loporcaro and Paciaroni (2011: 422), the reason why these Italo-Romance dialects must be analysed as featuring a more complex gender system is the lesser overall complexity of Romance, as opposed to Slavic, nominal inflection. In Russian, noun inflection is a strong predictor of gender (Corbett 1982: 215–27, 1991: 34–43), and several inflectional regularities are shared by all and only [±animate] masculine nouns which therefore satisfy the definition of an inflectional class in (6), Chapter 1 (and since the language has by and large overt gender, this also carries over to gender, as reflected in agreement on targets). In fact, [±animate] inflection in both nouns and agreeing words part ways only in the accusative ending, which implies that subgender is 63  Gender agreement is manifested not only on definite articles but also on other determiners, demonstratives, adjectives, participles, and personal pronouns, although not all targets display the three-way contrast seen in (88)–(89): this is not found on adjectives and participles (which only contrast m vs f forms, as exemplified below for another dialect in (111), §4.5.1), but it does occur on DO clitics: rə ssaččə ‘I know it.n’ vs u/la vɛ´tənə ‘they see him/her’ (Manzini and Savoia 2005: 2.325). 64  See §8.2 below for a Romance system whose masculine can possibly be analysed as featuring two semantically defined subgenders ([±human]).



4.5  Four-gender systems

119

intimately connected with case, because the presence of case features means that it occurs only in a minimal subset of the paradigm. (Brown 1998: 220)

This connection is missing in the less rich inflection of Romance which does not provide, as it were, enough morphological room for a layered structuring of gender/ subgender distinctions: thus, for example in (89) there is just a binary contrast between u nəpɔətə ‘the.m nephew(m)’ and rə ttueskə ‘def.n poison(n)’. The following subsections will show that in many central-southern Italo-Romance dialects, the agreement classes exemplified in (89) qualify as genders not only numerically—since they (still) encompass substantial numbers of lexemes—but also on other criteria, as they display a distinctive and regular syntactic behaviour and/or are (or have been) associated with productive ICs. This provides an indication for reconstruction, to be capitalized on in Chapter 7. On the other hand, both of these gender values have been on the retreat during most of the documented history of the dialects at issue—as will be shown by adducing quantifications for selected case studies in §§4.5.2–4.5.3 and qualitative data from older stages of the same dialects in §6.5. This too provides a clue for reconstructing a previous stage with a more complex gender system in which the two neuters were better entrenched than they are today. This is confirmed by the geographic distribution of such systems across central-southern Italy, which will also be addressed in what follows. Obviously, since we can look back to a long tradition of research on these dialects, many of the facts to be reviewed here stem from descriptions provided over the past century or so. However, also obviously, there are aspects that appear relevant—or even crucial—in the light of today’s research on gender, but were not addressed in earlier studies: these include for example syntactic behaviour (especially that of neuter nouns, including e.g. behaviour under resolution), lexical and syntactic productivity and, relatedly, the quantification of gender classes. On many of these aspects, research is still in the early stages, and the following review is only tentative. 4.5.1  Campania, Northern Puglia, North-Eastern Lucania, Abruzzo Reconsider (89). Both the mass neuter and the alternating neuter include a sizeable number of lexemes, as is clear from Merlo’s (1917b) description, in spite of the fact that this does not provide any quantification, and that no counts are available for today’s Molfettese. In the context of describing the forms of the definite article, Merlo lists no less than forty-nine lexemes for the mass neuter, and ninety-one for the alternating neuter (albeit not using this label). Thus, although ‘[t]here can be no simple answer’ (Corbett  1991: 172) to the question of which number should count as the upper limit demarcating an inquorate gender from a full-blown one, it is clear that these figures are way beyond the threshold.65 Consequently, very much as in Romanian, this agreement class cannot be analysed as an inquorate gender, unlike the il braccio/ le braccia type in StIt. (31b). Among the other analyses reviewed in (32) for StIt., (32d) will not do either. Merlo’s (1917b: 78–83) data, in fact, show that nouns with alternating 65  The examples of inquorate genders adduced by Corbett (1991: 170–5), from e.g. Tsova-Tush, SerboCroat or Noni (a Grassfields Bantu language of Cameroon), range from one to about fifteen lexemes.

120

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

agreement inflect in several different ways (A≠B indicates root allomorphy, as explained when introducing (55)–(57)):66 (90) singular a. u failə

ˈV alternation

rə ffεələ

‘the thread/-s’

ai

εə

u vítərə

rə vvέtərə

‘the (window) glass/-es’

i

ε

u čiȷȷə

rə ččeȷȷə

‘the eyelash/-es’

i

e

u gúmətə

rə ggɔ́mətə

‘the elbow/-s’

u

ɔ

u ɲɲúemərə rə ɲɲɔ́mmərə ‘the ball/-s of thread’

ue

ɔ

l uevə

ue

oe

rədd oevə

‘the egg/-s’

rə trávərə

‘the lintel/-s’

u raimə

rə rrέmərə

‘the oar/-s’

ai

ε

u fausə

rə ffɔ́sərə

‘the spindle/-s’

au

ɔ

rə pparέtərə ‘the wall/-s’

εə

ε

rə ttέttərə

‘the roof/-s’

i

ε

rə ttémbərə

‘the time/-s’

ie

e

rə nnɔ́ttsərə ‘the kernel/-s’

u

ɔ

rə ttrɔ́nərə

ue

ɔ

b. u travə c.

plural

u

parεətə

u tittə u

tiembə

u nuttsə u

truenə

‘the thunder/-s’

sg pl A

B

A

A-rə

A

B-rə

Obviously, there can be no question of analysing all the nouns in (90)—each of which stands for a set of lexemes inflecting the same way—as belonging to just one IC: rather, these are the Molfettese outcomes of the ICs defined by ‑a ((90a)) vs ‑ora ((90b)) plurals in (Late) Latin (see §2.1). In addition, metaphony gave rise to different sorts of stressed vowel alternation which, once final unstressed vowels were merged into ‑ə, became allomorphic, thus defining different inflection subclasses.67 Nor can one claim that all of the plurals of the nouns in (90) can be interpreted as derivative, on the blueprint of Acquaviva’s (2008: 159) analysis of StIt. a-plurals as ‘lexical plurals’ ((32e)), as the semantic argument invoked for Italian (see n. 21 above) does not hold. In fact, while some of these plurals do denote entities with ‘weakly individualized 66  The different forms of the definite article displayed in (90) do not contrast, but are allomorphs: in the masculine singular (hence also in the singular of alternating neuters), u is selected before consonants and before non-back vowels, l before u and o; in the feminine plural (hence also in the pural of alternating neuters), rə before consonants, r before unstressed vowels, and rədd before stressed vowels. As seen in (92), the same phonologically driven allomorphy as in the feminine plural appears in the mass neuter (see Merlo 1917b, as well as Merlo 1962: 273 for a comparison of this kind of allomorphy in two further dialects). 67 On the morphologization of Italo-Romance metaphony see Tuttle (1985); Maiden (1989,  1991); Loporcaro (2011a).



4.5  Four-gender systems

121

referents’ (Acquaviva 2004: 262)—like body parts (91a)—many others denote instead countable objects (91b) and even animate referents (91c): (91)

singular a. u vrattsə u dí sə̌ tə l ueccə l uessə b. u kərtieddə u liettə u trajainə u vardieddə c. u gardieddə u gattuddə u pərčainə u čǔ čc ə̌

plural rə vvráttsərə rə ddɛ´šətrə rədd óccərə rədd óssərə rə kkərteddərə rə lléttərə rə ttrajɛ´nərə rə vvardéddərə rə ggardéddərə rə ggattɔ´ddərə rə ppərčɛ´nərə rə čc ɔ´̌ čc ə̌ rə

‘the arm/-s’ ‘the finger/-s’ ‘the eye/-s’ ‘the bone/-s’ ‘the knife/knives’ ‘the bed/-s’ ‘the cart/-s’ ‘the pack-saddle/-s’ ‘the cock/-s’ ‘the kitten/-s’ ‘the chick/-s’ ‘the donkey/-s’

Given this evidence, one must conclude that the agreement class in (89c) corresponds to a gender value. As for the other agreement class in (89a), this does not host any countable nouns, as exemplified in (92) (from Merlo 1917b: 91f.): (92)  rədd ueɟɟə/ueršə/oerə ‘def oil/barley/gold’; r abbrundzə/ača itə/arǧiendə/attsarə ‘def bronze/vinegar/silver/steel’; rə ccummə/ggranə/ggra ssə/llardə/mmustə/ppænə/ppɛəpə/rrasə/rræmə/ssalə/ ssapɔənə ‘def lead/wheat/fat/lard/(wine) must/bread/pepper/satin/copper/salt/soap’ Note however that this correlation with masshood is not biunique, as many nouns denoting unbounded substances belong to other genders, including the alternating neuter (Merlo 1917b: 91f.): (93) a. m u sədɔərə ‘sweat’ (pl. lə sədaurə) b. f la karnə ‘meat’ (pl. rə kkarnə), la pɔlvə ‘dust’ (pl. rə ppɔlvə) c. a u farrə ‘spelt’ (pl. rə ffarrə), u feelə ‘galley’ (pl. rə ffeelə), u fienə ‘hay’ (pl. rə ffienə) The plurals in (93c) are sometimes accompanied by comments like ‘not really used’ (Merlo 1917b: 72), and deservedly so, as these are all cases in which the (otherwise rather awkward) plural of a mass noun receives either a sortal or a ‘portion’ reading (see §4.5.4), instead of the canonical reading available only for countables. In Molfettese as in all dialects of this area (Merlo 1906–07: 438f., 1917b: 91), it is also possible to recategorize at least some mass neuter nouns so as to make them denote a countable object in the singular. In this case, these neuters take masculine agreement: (94) a. Mass neuter b. Masculine rə ffierrə ‘iron’ u fierrə e rə ffu kə ‘fire’ u fuekə e rə nǧi ssə ‘chalk’ u nǧiessə e rə vve lə ‘smth. that veils’ u veelə

‘the flat-iron’ ‘the hearth’ ‘the piece of chalk (for writing)’ ‘the voile’

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

122

Dialects diverge widely as to how liberal they are, in allowing for such a recategorization, ranging from varieties in which this is restricted to just a few lexemes, to those where probably most mass neuters allow it.68 Dialects vary also as to productivity, although information is often missing in (especially older) descriptions. Thus, in Molfettese (Merlo 1917b: 91) mass neuter is consistently assigned to nominalizations of other parts of speech: (95) a. pronouns: rə mmæ jə/ttawə ‘my/your belongings’ (lit. ‘def.n mine/yours’) b. adjectives: rə kkaldə/ffriddə/bbjæ ŋgə/nnegrə ‘the.n heat/cold/white/black’ For Sorano (seen in (88ii)), Merlo (1906–07: 439, n. 1) reports selection of the neuter with nominalized pronouns and adjectives—lə me/te as in (95a), lə werdə/bbellə ‘the green/beautiful (thing)’ as in (95b))—adding however that masculine, rather than neuter, is selected with ‘recently imported beverages’ such as ʎə kaffɛ´/spirdə ‘def.m coffee/alcoholic drink’. This means that in Sorano the mass neuter was no longer lexically productive at that time. Neapolitan, probably the best known dialect with such a gender system (described in detail in Ledgeway 2009: 140–66, although with a different analysis, on which see §4.5.4), still displays a productive mass neuter (in addition to Ledgeway’s grammar, the Neapolitan data are also drawn from Merlo 1917c: 105–11; De Blasi and Imperatore 2000: 68–73; N. De Blasi 2006: 34–41; Iandolo 2001: 190, 199): (96) singular

Neapolitan

plural

a.

n

o

ffjerrə

b.

m

o

fjerrə

e

fjerrə

‘the iron/-s’ (count)

c.

a

o

vraččə

e

bbraččə

‘the arm/-s’

d.

f

a

faččə

e

ffaččə

‘the face/-es’

Ø

‘def iron’ (mass)

Mass neuter nouns select determiner forms which are segmentally identical with the masculine singular ones but contrast with the latter in that they trigger Raddoppiamento Fonosintattico (RF) (the same contrast [±RF] is observed in feminine vs masculine plural):69 this phonological distinction guarantees that there is a third distinct target gender ((96a)), in addition to masculine and feminine, viz. the mass neuter. This not only hosts inherited mass nouns (e.g. o ppeːpə/mmɛːlə ‘def pepper/honey’) but also the output of conversions (o ppəkké/ppəndzá ‘def.n why/thinking’; stu pparlá nun mə pjačə ‘I don’t like this:n way of speaking(n)’), and is still assigned to recent loan­ words denoting abstracts (e.g. o rrɛppə/rrɔkkə/ffɔlkə ‘def rap/rock/folk music’) or substances (e.g. o ttɛ ‘def tea’): these data (see N. De Blasi 2002: 151, 2006: 40f.; Ledgeway 68  The areal distribution of these different types of systems still awaits thorough investigation (see the discussion on (117) in §4.5.2). 69  The same contrast, exemplified with definite articles in (96), is marked on demonstratives (stu ‘this’), whereas in DO clitics RF has been extended to the m.pl form, thus resulting in convergent gender marking: e bbeːkə ‘I see them.m=f’ (e.g. e fjerrə ‘the iron implements(m)’ = e ffa ččə ‘the faces(f)’).



4.5  Four-gender systems

123

2009: 152f.) show continued lexical and syntactic productivity.70 Also syntactically, the Neapolitan mass neuter is alive and well, having preserved the function of signalling agreement with non-nominal controllers (see Merlo 1917c: 110f.). This is exemplified with DO clitics in (97): (97)

a. a def.f.sg b. o def.m.sg

kaːsə house(f) kaːnə dog(m)

a DO.3f.sg o DO.3m.sg

veːkə see.prs.1sg veːkə see.prs.1sg

c. o ppaːnə o bbeːkə def.n bread(n) DO.3n see.prs.1sg d. ka      si       ššɛːmə o    bbeːkə that be.prs.2sg stupid  DO.3n see.prs.1sg ‘the house/the dog/def bread/that you’re stupid, I see it’ As seen in (97c), the neuter clitic form (which has the same shape as the definite article, and the same behaviour with respect to RF) is used to resume mass neuter nouns (thus contrasting with masculine and feminine, (97a–b)), but it also resumes clauses ((97d)), as was the case for the neuter in Latin (§2.2.1).71 In Neapolitan too, (mass) neuter-to-masculine recategorization is grammatical with some lexemes (see Avolio 1996: 325), although it remains a relatively rare phenomenon (Ledgeway 2009: 153): (98)

a. Mass neuter b. Masculine o bbiːnə ‘wine’ o viːnə o ffjerrə ‘iron’ o fie̯rrə o kkafɛ´ ‘coffee’ o kafɛ´ o lliɲɲə ‘wood’ o liɲɲə o ppaːnə ‘bread’ o paːnə

‘the sort of wine’ ‘the flat-iron’ ‘the cup of coffee’ ‘the piece of wood’ ‘the loaf of bread’

Sources diverge as to the details. While Ledgeway (2009: 153) reports neuter o bbiːnə, according to N. De Blasi (2006: 40) the article does not induce RF on this lexeme which, however, co-occurs with the neuter demonstrative and clitic: (99)

a. kesto ɛ o viːnə ‘this.n (vs m kisto) is def wine’ b. o viːnə m o ddannə ‘def wine, they give it.n to me’

This lexical item may well have been reanalysed as masculine (see n. 74), and selection of the n pronoun is in line with what has been described by several authors for most 70 This is not compatible with Ledgeway’s (2009: 151) statement that mass neuters, in present-day Neapolitan, ‘formano una classe lessicalmente chiusa’ [‘form a lexically closed class’]. 71  This is the case in many of the dialects discussed in this section (see (139a)), although at the fringes, where the mass neuter is fading, the n vs m contrast is preserved only on determiners and is lost on (clitic) pronouns which generalize the masculine form (see the data on Molese and Gravinese discussed later in this section).

124

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

dialects of Campania, including Neapolitan (see e.g. De Blasi and Imperatore 2000: 72f.; N. De Blasi  2002: 152, 2006: 38–40; Maturi  2002: 236; Ledgeway  2009: 153f.), showing that even feminine mass nouns may be anaphorically taken up through a neuter pronoun, while preserving feminine agreement on articles and determiners: (100)

a. a karnə nišs ̌uːnə o bbɔ def.f.sg meat(f).sg nobody DO.3n want.prs.3sg ‘the meat, nobody wants it’ b. a      muttsarɛllə     o   kkattə     tu def.f.sg mozzarella(f).sg DO.3n buy.prs.2sg 2sg ‘the mozzarella, you buy it’ c. piʎʎə       a      rrɔbbə   e  o     ɟɟɛttə take.prs.1sg  def.f.sg stuff(f).sg and DO.3n throw.prs.2sg ‘I take the.f stuff(f) and throw it.n away’ d. a lutammə     o     mməttévənə… def.f.sg manure(f).sg DO.3n put.impf.2sg ‘the manure, they used to put it …’ (Cascone 2014: 226)

Here, the semantic feature [–count] overrides the gender specification of feminine (mass) nouns in determining agreement of the neuter object clitic. Obeying the agreement hierarchy (Corbett  2006: 206, 2012: 95; see (134) below), this semantic agreement does not extend to determiners and attributes within the NP, so that the nouns still select the feminine article. If the latter is also affected, than recategorization ensues, as reported for example in Rohlfs (1972: 366); Avolio (1996: 313) for several dialects of Campania (such as those of Cetara, Ravello, and Scala, in the province of Salerno), where some originally feminine nouns, either count (a nɔttə ‘the night’) or mass (a laːnə ‘the wool’), can be recategorized as mass neuters, with or without semantic modification: (101)

a. Mass neuter b. Feminine c. Latin etymon a nɔttə ‘the night’ noctem (f) o nnɔttə ‘the darkness’ o llaːnə ‘def wool’ a laːnə ‘def wool’ lanam (f) o kka rtə ‘def paper’ a kartə ‘the card’ chartam (f) o ttɛrrə ‘def ground/soil’ † terram (f)

As seen in (101c), all of these nouns were feminine originally—as they still are in most of Romance—but the feminine gender has totally disappeared for some of them in these dialects (as seen for tɛrrə). The same phenomenon—if not necessarily with the same lexemes—is also found in (rural) Neapolitan: see o vvitaminə ‘the.n vitamin’, lemmatized as neuter in Cascone’s (2014: 408) lexicon of the areas of Soccavo and Pianura, for which, on the other hand, she also reports examples like (100d). As in Molfettese, the Neapolitan system (96) features a fourth gender (viz. the alternating neuter, (96c)), a controller gender with no dedicated agreement targets that still includes a fair number of lexemes, although these have decreased over time, as shown by Ledgeway (2009: 148f.). The list includes many words whose StIt. counterparts are feminine (e.g. o karittsə ‘the caress’, pl. e kkarettsə; o pjértsəkə ‘the peach’,



4.5  Four-gender systems

125

pl. e ppɛ´rtsəkə, the latter standing for a series of fruit names which preserve the original neuter agreement in many dialects of the centre-south, see (44b–c), §3.2.1), or masculine (e.g. o tammurrə ‘the drum’, pl. e ttammorrə; o turtsə ‘the (apple) core/(cabbage) stump’, pl. e ttortsə; o graːrə ‘the step’, pl. e ggraːrə). Often this alternating agreement perpetuates (Late) Latin neuter: see e.g. grada (CIL 12.1753, ThLL 6.2142.58ff.) instead of CL gradūs ‘steps’. It is not possible to give here a full account of the ways in which the individual dialects showing this kind of four-gender system differ across this area. Campania, for instance, is almost entirely included within it, with the sole exception of a small area near its northern border straddling the provinces of Caserta and Benevento (see Map  3),72 so that its dialects coincide in morphosyntactic architecture with (96) although diverging in aspects of the phonology, morphology, and lexicon (see e.g. discussion on (100) above). Consider for instance the dialect of Sala Consilina, at the southern fringe of the region (province of Salerno): (102) a.

n

lʊ

singular ssaːlI

plural Ø

b.

m

lʊ

pεːrI

lI

pie̯rI

‘the foot/feet’ (count)

c. d.

a f

lʊ la

pIːrʊ vʊːčI

lI lI

ppIːra bbʊːčI

‘the pear/-s’ ‘the voice/-s’

‘def salt

Salese

Salese differs quite distinctly from Neapolitan in terms of phonology—it displays the effects of the change -ll‑ > [ɖɖ] > [dd] (spadda ‘shoulder’, stɪdda ‘star’), which southeastern Campanian varieties have in common with Lucanian dialects (see Barbato  2002: 34f.), and has a stressed vowel system of the Sicilian kind (see Avolio 1995: 60; Cangemi 2011: 48–61)—and morphology, as it preserves ora-plurals which are long lost in Neapolitan (l uo̯ssʊ ‘the bone’, pl. l ɔ´ssʊra; l aːkʊ ‘the needle’, pl. l áːkʊra).73 However, it has both the mass and the alternating neuter, the former contrasting with the masculine, as in Neapolitan, through the occurrence of RF after the definite article:

72  The map in N. De Blasi (2006: 35) reports a lack of the mass neuter for the whole territory north of the lower reaches of the Volturno, but while a part of the province of Benevento north of the local capital does lack the neuter (Rèino, ALI pt. 815; Ginestra degli Schiavoni, ALI pt. 816), further north, approaching the border with Molise, Colle Sannita (AIS pt. 714) does contrast lo viːno ‘def.n wine(n)’ vs ro piːlə ‘the.m hair(m)’. A neuter vs masculine contrast also occurs in Montefalcone in Val Fortore, Cerreto Sannita, Amorosi (Maturi  2002: 138), Guardia Sanframondi (Garofano  2008), and Pago Veiano (Guarente et al. undated: 16f.), all north of the Volturno. Still further north, the last Beneventano comune, Castelvetere in Val Fortore lacks the neuter today, but has remnants thereof, suggesting that this gender value has been lost not too long ago (see Tambascia 1998: 33, discussed in §7.4.3.2 below). 73  In southern Campania, ora-plurals occur more widely in more rural and peripheral dialects. Thus, in the nearby small mountain village of Rofrano (Salerno), the dialect often gives the option, for alternating neuters, between an a- and an ora-plural: e.g. l uo̯rtʊ ‘the kitchen garden’, pl. l ɔ´rta(ra); l uo̯ssʊ ‘the bone’, pl. l ɔ´ssa(ra); lɪ ggʊnʊ´cca(ra) ‘the knees’ (vs ʊ jíːrɪtʊ ‘the finger’, pl. lɪ ɟɟɪ´ːrɪta(**‑ra)).

126

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

(103)  a. lʊ kkafɛ´/ggraːnʊ/llattɪ/llɪɲɲʊ/ppaːnɪ/ppɪːpɪ ‘def.n coffee/wheat/milk/wood/ bread/ pepper’, etc.; b.  lʊ mɪːlʊ ‘the apple(a)’, pl. lɪ mmɪːla; lʊ vrattsʊ ‘the arm(a)’, pl. lɪ bbrattsa; lʊ jíːrɪtʊ ‘the finger(a)’, pl. lɪ jÍːrɪta; lʊ ʊ´ːvɪtʊ ‘the elbow(a)’, pl. lɪ ggʊ´ːvɪta; l úo̯vʊ ‘the egg(a)’, pl. l ɔːva. Salese also allows for recategorization between mass neuter and masculine: for example lʊ ffɪːlʊ ‘def.n thread(n)’ vs lʊ fɪːlʊ (dɪ lʊ tɛlɛ´ːfanʊ) ‘the.m phone wire(m)’. A way in which cross-dialectal differences may come to affect the architecture of the gender system itself is through variation in assignment between the masculine and the mass neuter, a kind of variation which can easily encroach upon the (synchronic) recategorization option just exemplified (and seen above in (94)). In Salese, for instance, lʊ frɪddʊ ‘the cold’ and lʊ vɪːnʊ ‘the wine’ are masculine—and the same goes for all the dialects in this part of southern Campania: for example u viːno/**ru bbiːno (like u maːri ‘the sea’ and unlike ru ppeːpe ‘the pepper’) in San Pietro al Tanagro—whereas they are neuter in the dialects of Molise and ‘wine’ is neuter in northern Puglia (see §4.5.4).74 This variation points to the path through which the mass neuter may become gradually depleted and eventually dissolve (§7.4.2). This has probably happened south of what is today the southern border of this four-gender system, which cuts across central Puglia and Lucania. In central Puglia, it reaches as far as Bari and the coastal strip south-east of Bari up to Mola di Bari and Polignano a Mare.75 Heading inland, the mass neuter vs masculine contrast is not found in the whole southern strip of the province of Bari (from the east: Alberobello, Noci, Gioia del Colle, Santeramo in Colle),76 as exemplified for Altamurano in (104): ‘def wine/salt/milk’ Altamura (104) a. ʊ miˑər, ʊ sɛi̯l, ʊ latt b. ʊ kwɛi̯n, ʊ saˑu̯l, ʊ pwiˑət ‘def dog/sun/foot’ Immediately west of Altamura, the mass neuter reappears in Gravina di Puglia, to then continue north-westwards (see e.g. ALI pts. 842 Poggiorsini, 828 Corato, AIS pts. 727 Spinazzola, 718 Ruvo, 717 Canosa di Puglia). For Gravinese, in a fieldwork session in 2015 I recorded ʊ ffrɪddə/kkallə/ppʷɜːnə/ssɜːlə gruo̯ss ‘def.n cold/heat/bread/ 74 The AIS map 7.1346 ‘def wine’ reports neuter agreement in Molise and central Apulia, as well as in the area mediana, as opposed to masculine in Campania and western Lucania. On gender agreement with this lexeme in Neapolitan, see discussion on (98) above. Formentin (1994a: 51f.) comments on the variable (m/n) gender assignment for ‘wine’, ‘fire’, ‘blood’, etc. in different parts of southern Italy, based on the AIS data. Another lexeme displaying much variation is ‘galley’ (see AIS 1.140): taking e.g. the Abruzzian points from the province of L’Aquila in the VIVALDI archive, one finds neuter assigned to it in Avezzano (lə fɛːlə ‘the.n galley(n)’ vs jə kaːnə ‘the.m dog(m)’), Trasacco (lə fɛːlə n vs i kaːnə m, AIS pt. 646), Tagliacozzo (lo fɛːle n vs jo kaːne m, AIS pt. 645), and Sassa (lo fɛːle n vs jo kaːne m, AIS pt. 625), while the same word is masculine in Scanno (ju fɛːlə = ju kaːnə m, AIS pt. 656), Ofena, and Capestrano (ju fjɛːlə = ju kaːnə m, the latter AIS pt. 637). 75  Further south-east on the Adriatic coast, the dialect of Monopoli has the same masculine agreement for e.g. u chène ‘the dog’ and for all mass nouns such as u mire/chèse/sèle ‘def wine/cheese/salt’ etc. (see Reho 2008: ss. uu.). 76  For several points of the area, also AFP data are available, which are however used only as a last resort, and preferably when independent confirmation is available (on their imperfect reliability see n. 36, Ch. 7).



4.5  Four-gender systems

127

cooking salt(n)’ (where [+RF] signals neuter agreement) while most other mass nouns which are invariably neuter in the dialects to the north were treated as masculine, like ʊ pɜːtə ‘the.m foot(m)’, by my informants: ʊ fiər̯ rə/kafé i̯/marmə/miːrə/saŋgə ‘the.m iron/coffee/marble/wine/blood/(m)’. Note that ‘wine’ was still neuter (ʊ mmiːrə) for the informants I had consulted in Gravina in 1986 (elderly people, both then and in 2015). Not only is this gender value retreating lexically in Gravinese, which of course implies that lexical productivity was lost some time ago: it has also lost ground with respect to its syntactic manifestation, that is preserved, with the few nouns just mentioned, only in agreement within the DP, but not in the resumption with pronominal clitics: in m ʊ mánǧəkə ‘I eat it.m’, masculine ʊ can resume either ʊ ppʷɜːnə ‘def.n bread’ or l arrust ‘the.m roast’. Likewise, the syntactic function of hosting nominalizations has been lost, as the masculine is used here as well: ʊ ma i̯/tau̯ ‘my/your property’ (lit. ‘def.m mine/yours’). The geolinguistic scenario also suggests that the gender system has been changing quite recently, as Gravina is part of a bottleneck (as seen on Map 3) including dialects with the mass neuter, which is wedged between two areas without this gender value, thus making Gravinese a candidate for loss. This loss is favoured in dialects such as Gravinese where the n vs m contrast is signalled exclusively by RF, while the segmental shape of the definite article is identical. This can be compared with loss of the ‑u vs ‑o contrast in the area mediana (see §§4.5.2, 7.4.2) and contrasted with cases such as that of Scanno (province of L’Aquila, AIS pt. 656). This dialect is spoken in the Apenninic part of Abruzzo, which preserves the mass neuter contrary to the plains (see §4.5). Unlike in nearby Sulmonese (to the north) and Sorano (to the south-west), in Scannese the neuter article triggers RF, as in the dialects of Campania, northern Puglia, and western Lucania (lə ppaːjəp̯ ə/ssaŋgə/vvoi̯nə/ffjerrə/mmuštə ‘def.n pepper/ blood/wine/iron/wine must’, AIS 5.1010, 1.88, 7.1340, 2.403, 7.1337), although some maps show vacillation (6.1157 lə mɛːlə/mmɛːlə ‘def.n honey’) or lack of RF (7.1445 lə graːnə ‘wheat’). However, even after the loss of RF, neuter determiners still remain segmentally distinct from the masculine: compare for example ju feːu̯sə ‘the.m spindle’ (8.1501). One more path leading to the demise of the neuter vs masculine contrast is through the lexicalization of the initial geminate induced by rule by the neuter determiner. Thus, in Molese (see (27)–(29), §7.7), on the south-eastern border of the four-gender area, conservative speakers contrast ʊ ppɜːnə ‘def.n bread’ vs a məddɛ´kələ də pɜːnə ‘the soft part of loaf ’, whereas others generalize gemination (də ppɜːnə ‘of bread/ loaf ’) which thus ceases to mark the neuter. The lexical depletion of the neuter converges with the loss of syntactic productivity, as the neuter is no longer used for conversion (ʊ manǧə´ ‘the.m food’, lit. ‘the eating’) nor for the pronominalization of non-canonical controllers: nan ʊ sačcə̌ ‘I do not know it.n=him.m’ can pronominalize not only an NP headed by either a masculine (e.g. ǧǧʊwannə ‘John’) or a neuter noun, but also a clausal controller such as či a rrəvɜːtə ‘whether s/he has arrived’. Moving south-west from Gravina di Puglia into Lucania, in the dialect of the closest town, Irsina, there is no mass neuter: in Irsinese, all mass nouns like ʊ pɔːnə/ meːlə/miːrə ‘def.m bread/honey/wine’ select the same masculine singular form of the determiner as ʊ waddə/peːtə ‘the.m cock/foot’. The mass neuter is also lacking

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

128

in the Lucanian dialects spoken further south and south-west, up to the isogloss shown on Map 3, and it occurs again, in north-eastern Lucania, only in Matera and Miglionico (province of Matera), south-south-east of Gravina; see Loporcaro (2011b: 192f.):77 (105) singular

plural

tuostə

n

lʊ

ppwaːnə

b. m

lʊ

kwavaddə bbuonə

lə

kavaddə bbuonə ‘the good horse/-s’

c.

a

lʊ

twittə

bbuonə

lə

tettə

d. f

la

jamma

tɔrtə

lə

jammə

a.

Ø

‘def.n hard bread’

Miglionico

bboːnə ‘the good roof/-s’ tɔrtə ‘the crooked leg/-s’

Note that Miglionico lies immediately south of the isogloss drawn by Lüdtke (1979: 96), on the basis of data from AFL 151–4, as the southern limit of the mass neuter in Lucania. With this correction, registered on Map 3, the isogloss enters eastern Lucania in Matera, then rises northwards leaving to the south Irsina, S. Chirico Nuovo, and Brindisi Montagna, while the neuter is found again in Tolve, Anzi, San Martino d’Agri, and Lagonegro. Not only is the mass neuter retreating in this area but so also is the alternating ­neuter. Thus, in Miglionico—where feminine vs masculine plural agreement is visible in the inflection of metaphonic adjectives or in the numeral ‘two’, while there is syncretism in the article (see lʊ fwiərrə stuortə ‘the crooked iron implement(m)’, pl. lə fjerrə stuortə vs la jamma tɔrtə ‘the crooked leg(f)’, pl. lə jammə tɔrtə)—alternating agreement is seen on some nouns ((106a)). For other nouns, masculine and feminine plural agreement vary freely ((106b)), and for still others (that are still alternating neuter in other nearby dialects) masculine plural has become categorical ((106c)): (106) a. l uossə rʊttə/**rɔttə ‘the broken leg’, pl. l ɔ ́ssərə rɔttə/**rʊttə lʊ šənʊccə tuortə/**tortə ‘the crooked knee’, pl. lə šənɔccə tortə/**tuortə st uːovə nann e bbuonə ‘this egg is not good’, pl. st oːvə nan dzo bboːnə/**bbuonə lʊ dwɪštə rʊttə ‘the broken finger’, pl. lə dɛštrə rɔttə/**rʊttə l uovə ‘the egg’, do/**du joːvə ‘two.f/.m eggs’, b. lʊ jʊːtə rʊttə/ɲɲʊːrə ‘the broken/black elbow’, pl. lə jɔ´ːtərə rʊttə/ɲɲʊːrə or lə jɔ´ːtərə rɔttə/ɲɲɔːrə; luoccə ɲɲʊːrə ‘the black eye’, pl. l óccərə ɲɲɔu̯rə or ɲɲʊːrə; lʊ wrwa ttsə luoɲɲə/rʊttə ‘the long/broken arm’, pl. lə vra ttsə/ vrá ttsərə loɲɲə/rɔttə (alongside luoɲɲə/rʊttə, for some speakers); c. l órtərə so bbuonə/**bboːnə ‘the kitchen gardens are good’ (sg. l uortə bbuonə).78 77  In Materano (Festa 1917), ʊ ppwɛːnə/mmwɪːrə ‘def.n bread/wine(n)’ etc. contrast with ʊ kʊmbaɲɲə/ fʊɟɟə ‘the.m friend/son(m)’. 78  ora-plurals, which were originally associated exclusively with the (alternating) neuter, also include today nouns that have become masculine (see (106c)) as well as feminine nouns, like l ɔɲɲə (tortə/ɲɲɔːrə) ‘the (crooked/black) fingernail’, pl. l ɔ´ɲɲərə (tortə/ɲɲɔːrə).



4.5  Four-gender systems

129

The same applies to the dialects on both sides of the above isogloss. Thus in the abovementioned dialect of Irsina, alternating agreement is preserved with just a few lexemes ((107a)), while most of the a- and ora-plural nouns that formerly took alternating agreement are now consistently masculine ((107b)): (107) a. l ussə luŋgə/**lɔŋgə ‘the long bone’, pl. l ɔ´ssə(rə) lɔŋgə/**luŋgə; l uːvə jɪ ttust ‘the egg is hard-boiled’, pl. l oːvə sɔ ttɔst; b. ʊ/ɪ vra ttsə luŋgə/**lɔŋgə ‘the long arm/‑s’; ʊ/ɪ ɣœ´ːmətə sturt ‘the crooked elbow/‑s’; ʊ deštə tust ‘the hard finger’, pl. ɪ deštərə tust/**tɔst. Crossing the mass neuter isogloss westwards, the dialect of nearby Tolve preserves the mass neuter (ʊ mmiːrə/ppaːnə/mmeːlə ‘def.n wine/bread/honey(n)’) and still has  alternating agreement with some nouns. However, for many (formerly) such nouns, the current dialect has masculine agreement throughout ((108a–b)), while feminine plural ((108c)) is only found (in 2010) in the speech of some elderly speakers (and is remembered as the older option): (108) a. ʊ rɪštə nɪu̯rə/tuortə ‘the.m black\m/crooked\m finger’; ʊ šənʊccə/truːnə ‘the.m knee/thunder’ b. dui̯ rɪštə nɪu̯rə/tuortə ‘two:m black\m/crooked\m fingers’; ɪ šənʊccə/truːnə ‘the.m knees/thunders’ c. ɪ ddɛštrə/vvrattsə nɛu̯rə/tɔrtə ‘the.f black\f/crooked\f finger’; ɪ ǧǧənɔ´ccərə/ ttrɔ´nərə ‘the.f knees/thunders’ For only very few such nouns do all speakers still have alternating agreement, categorically ((109a)) or only variably ((109b)), while a host of nouns that take alternating agreement in other dialects of Lucania are masculine for all of my Tolvese informants ((109c)):79 (109) a. l ussə (s)turtə ‘the crooked\m bone’, pl. l ɔ´ssə(rə) (s)tɔrtə ‘the crooked\f bones’; l oːvə ‘the egg’, pl. l oːvə nɛu̯rə/**nɪu̯rə ‘the black\f/m eggs’; b. ʊ vra ttsə nɪu̯rə/luŋgə ‘the black\m/long\m arm’, pl. ɪ vvra ttsə nɛu̯rə/lɔŋgə ‘the black\f/long\f arms’ or ɪ vra ttsə nɪu̯rə/luŋgə ‘the black\m/long\m arms’; c. ʊ vóːvətə nɪu̯rə ‘the black\m elbow’, pl. dui̯ vóːvətə nɪu̯rə/**nɛu̯rə; l uortə ‘the vegetable garden’, m.pl. dui ̯/**doi̯ uortə; l uccə (s)turtə/**(s)tɔrtə ‘the crooked\m eye’, m.pl. dui ̯/**doi ̯ uccə (s)turtə. Before fading away, however, the alternating gender must have expanded (e.g. dɛštrə (108c) goes back to Late Latin digita, reshaped as *digit-ora, not CL digiti) into a  group encompassing several ICs, of which one still sees the traces today, as the examples in (108)–(109) include both a- and ora-plurals. Thus, as long as the alternating gender was still productive, there were four productive agreement classes, as 79  Further evidence for the fading of alternating agreement in Tolvese comes from the reassignment to the feminine of la niddə (jɛ nɛu̯rə/*nɪu̯rə) ‘the:f ring (is black\f)’, pl. doi̯/*dui̯ niddə nɛu̯rə ‘two.f/m black\f rings’, a change that was triggered by the reanalysis of the formerly initial a- (Lat. anellum) as the determiner ending.

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

130

schematized in (110), where parallel data from the dialect of Anzi are added (Ruggieri and Batinti 1992: 38f.): (110) singular

plural

Tolve Anzi a. b.

n

ʊ

m ʊ

Tolve Anzi

mmeːlə

mmeːlə

peːrə

peːdə

c.

a

ʊ

truonə

d.

f

a

fεmmənə ˊ

‘def.n honey’ i

piːərə

piːdə

‘the foot/feet’

trɔˊːnətə

‘the thunder/-s’80

ffεmmənə ˊ

‘the woman/women’

truːnə

i

†trɔ ˊːnərə

fεmmənə ˊ

i

ffεmmənə ˊ

In Anzi too, nouns selecting alternating agreement belong to different ICs: u trunə/i ttrɔ´nətə ‘the thunder/‑s’ vs l ussə, l ɔ´ssərə ‘the bone/‑s’. The same can be repeated for all Lucanian dialects for which sufficiently detailed descriptions are available: in Calvello (Gioscio 1985: 54–8), lu vrattsə ‘the arm’, pl. lə bbrattsə, l wovə ‘the egg’, pl. l ɔ´və, lu jírətə ‘the finger’ pl. lə ɟɟérətə, l wossə ‘the bone’, pl. l ɔ´ssərə ‘the bone’, etc. belong to different inflectional (sub)classes and, as for gender agreement, contrast with masculine lu/li kanə ‘the.m dog(m)/‑s’, feminine la manə/lə mmanə ‘the.f hand(f)/‑s’, and mass neuter lu llattə/mmɛlə/ppanə/ssalə ‘def.n milk/honey/bread/ salt(n). One dialect of Lucania whose gender system has been investigated in depth is that of Avigliano (Potenza; see Nolè  2004–05):81 in Loporcaro and Paciaroni (2011); Paciaroni et al. (2013), one finds in particular a detailed account of aspects of noun syntax relevant to the analysis of gender. Aviglianese has the by now familiar four-way (controller) gender contrast:82 singular

(111)  a. n

ru

plural

ppwaːnə ɣruə̯ssə

Aviglianese ‘def big bread/loaf’

Ø

b. m lu

kwaːnə

ɣruə̯ssə (ʎʎ)i kaːnə

ɣruə̯ssə ‘the big dog/-s’

c. a

lu

pwiːrə

ɣruə̯ssə rə

ppeːrə

ɣrɔssə

‘the big pear/-s’

d. f

la

maːnə

ɣrɔssə

mmaːnə ɣrɔssə

‘the big hand/-s’

rə

Again, the agreement pattern seen on the definite article in (111c) cannot be reduced to one irregular IC, as it is selected by nouns belonging to different ICs: 80  In Tolvese, most of my informants today treat ʊ/ɪ truonə as masculine, as in (108b). 81  Avigliano is originally a Gallo-Italic colony (see Rohlfs 1931: 24, n. 29, 27, 30), which however, in the morphosyntactic aspects relevant to the present investigation, has fully assimilated to the surrounding Lucanian varieties. 82  As in all dialects dealt with in this section (see n. 63), the m vs n contrast is neutralized on adjectives and participles, while it is marked on pronouns (stressed and clitics) and demonstratives.



4.5  Four-gender systems

131

(112) ˈV alternation sg

singular plural

none

a.

lu wrattsə rə bbrattsə

‘the arm/-s’

b.i

lu ɣúːvətə rə ggóːvətə

‘the elbow/-s’

u

o

‘the pear/-s’

i

e

‘the ring/-s’

iə̯

ε

ɖɖʐ ɔssə

‘the bone/-s’

uə̯

ɔ

rə ttrɔ́nətə

‘the thunder/-s’

uə̯

ɔ

ii u pwiːrə

rə ppeːrə

iii l aniə̯ɖɖʐə r anεɖɖʐə iv l uə̯ssə c.

lu truə̯nə

pl

A

A

A

B

A

B-tə

While for two conjoined singular masculine or feminine nouns the same rules hold as in Italian, two conjoined alternating neuters in Aviglianese can select either masculine or feminine plural agreement: wrattsə  a   l-u      rwištə      so        llɔŋgə/lluə̯ŋgə (113) a. l-u      def-m.sg  arm(a)  and  def-m.sg  finger(a)\sg  be.prs.3pl  long\f/long\m ‘the arm and the finger are long’ b. l-u      rwištə      a  l       aniə̯ɖɖʐə     r   aǧǧ def-m.sg finger(a)\sg and def.m.sg ring(a)\sg  DO have.prs.1sg akkúə̯vətə /   akkɔ´ːvətə pick:ptp\m  pick:ptp\f ‘the finger and the ring, I have picked them’ c. l-u wrattsə a l-u ɣúːvətə so rruttə/rrottə def-m.sg finger(a)\sg and def-m.sg elbow(a)\sg be.prs.3pl break:ptp\m/f ‘the arm and the elbow are broken’ Since m.pl corresponds to the StIt. option, while the counterparts of f.pl lɔŋgə/akkɔ´ːvətə/rottə are ungrammatical in StIt., the latter must represent the autochthonous agreement option. This, in turn, by Acquaviva’s argument discussed in relation to (37) above, implies that neuters with alternating agreement, contrary to their Italian counterparts, can behave in this dialect as plain inflectional plurals, and that the consistent agreement pattern shared by the different inflectional classes in (112) must be analysed as the manifestation of a controller gender. The  same can be concluded from the behaviour of the gender-agreeing numeral ‘two’ in (114):83

83  The other relevant test from Acquaviva’s (2008) list—the one with reciprocals—gives less clear results for this dialect (discussed in Paciaroni et al. 2013: 120), pointing to an incipient vacillation (see also §7.4.3.1). On the other hand, diminutive formation (Paciaroni et al.  2013: 125) still behaves as expected under an alternating gender anaysis: e.g. lu wratts-iccə ‘the:m.sg arm-dim’/rə bbratts-eccə ‘the:f.pl arms-dim’.

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

132

(114) a. vulia rombə roi/**rui ɔːvə a n=aǧgə̌ want.impf.1sg break.inf two\f/two\m egg(a)pl and of_them=have.prs.1sg rottə/ruttə unə break:ptp\f/m one ‘I wanted to break two eggs and I broke one.’ b. vulia rombə n  uə̯və    a  n=aǧgə̌ want.impf.1sg break.inf an egg(a)sg and of_them=have.prs.1sg rottə      roi   /**ruttə   rui break:ptp\f two\f break:ptp\m two\m ‘I wanted to break one egg and I broke two.’ 4.5.2  Central Italy (Lazio, Umbria, Marche) The dialects of the area mediana (central Italy except Tuscany) display a gender system whose overall architecture is like that of the dialects discussed in §4.5.1. One morphological aspect in which they differ is the fact that neuter vs masculine marking on determiners is much more homogeneous morphologically: it never consists in [±RF] but relies consistently on the contrast between final unstressed ‑o vs ‑u, whose preservation is the defining isogloss of the area. This was shown with Reatino in (88i) above and is further illustrated with the dialect of Subiaco (province of Rome, see Lindsstrom 1907: 262) in (115): (115) singular

plural

a.

n

lo

pa

b.

m

ju

wɔːe

ji

voi

‘the ox/oxen’

c. d.

a f

ju la

jóːweto reːte

le le

jɔˊːweta riːti

‘the elbow/-s’ ‘the network/-s’

Ø

‘def.n bread’

Subiaco

Whenever the contrast on the determiner is not expressed in this way, this is due to later modification of an original lo vs lu contrast: in Subiaco, for instance, the neuter article is realized as lu before a high vowel (lu škuru ‘the darkness’), and contextfree reshapings of the determiner forms occur, in one direction or the other, in many dialects. So, in Norma (province of Latina, see Onorati 2007: 45f., 83–90) (116i), ‑o was raised in the neuter article form (*lo), while in Paliano (province of Frosinone, see Navone 1922: 91) (116ii), ‑u was lowered in the masculine form (*lu); yet, the contrast can be reconstructed here too as in the rest of the area, since l-palatalization has applied only before *‑u (e.g. in Minturno ʎʎu kappeʎʎu ‘the:m hat(m)’ vs lo raːnu ‘def:n wheat(n)’, see Schanzer 1989: 173; in Paliano jo kavaʎʎo ‘the:m horse(m)’, Navone 1922: 86; or in Subiaco ju juːpu ‘the:m wolf(m)’), a ­widespread phenomenon in south-eastern Lazio (see Merlo 1917a: 18–20; Capotosto 2011: 279).



4.5  Four-gender systems

(116)

i. Norma (province of Latina) singular

ii. Paliano (province of Frosinone)

plural

a. n lu kaːso

Ø

b. m ju libbro

i

libbri

c. a ju puddzo

le poddza

133

singular

plural

‘def.n cheese’ lo paːne

Ø

‘def.n bread’

‘the book/-s’

jo pɔnte i

ponti ‘the bridge/-s’

‘the pit/-s’

j

ɔˊrtera ‘the kitchen garden/-s’

d. f la femmena ́ le femmene ‘the woman/ ́ women’

orto

la teːla

l

le teːle

‘the cloth/-s’

A syntactic difference resides in the larger space available for recategorization than in most of the varieties dealt with in §4.5.1. While in that area this option is basically limited to a handful of matter-denoting lexemes,84 dialects of the area mediana, which also allow for this (e.g. lo leɲɲo ‘def.n wood/timber’ vs jo leɲɲo ‘def.m carriage’ in Paliano), have been reported to be much more liberal, as shown for Paliano in (117) (Navone 1922: 92): (117)

a. masculine jo ǧǧorno ke sso nnaːto ‘the.m.sg day(m) when I was born’ kjaːma jo feraːro ‘fetch the.m.sg blacksmith(m)’

b. mass neuter lo ǧǧorno e lla nɔtte ‘day and night’ (lit. ‘the.n day(n)’) fíʎʎemo fa lo feraːro ‘my son is a blacksmith’ (lit. ‘does the.n blacksmith(n)’)

Contrary to (94) or (98), in (117) the recategorization affects nouns denoting masculine countables (even profession labels, for humans), in a way that has been described for dialects of the whole area mediana: for example in Reatino—the dialect for which such a situation was first reported (see Campanelli 1896: 35f.)—lu paːdre/prɛːte/stúːpidu ‘the father/priest/silly one’ can be recategorized as lo paːdre/prɛːte/stúːpidu ‘the condition of being father/priest/stupid’.85 Since the n vs m contrast is signalled by the final vowel contrast, in the dialects of central Umbria where this contrast is on its way to being lost (and, unlike in the dialects in (22i–iii), Ch. 7, no other change rescues the distinction between the lexical pairs involved), the n merges with the m. The gradual spread of this merger during the central half of the twentieth century has been reported for the dialect of Gualdo Cattaneo (in the territory of Foligno) by Ugolini (1977: 293f.), where ‘lu è scomparso’ [‘(the masculine form of the article) lu has disappeared’], first replaced by generalized lo (merging neuter and masculine) via regular sound change (as final unstressed ‑u lowered, except in a few lexical items with the diminutive suffix ‑ittu: e.g. karrittu 84  See, however, (99)–(101) on the use of neuter pronouns with non-neuter mass nouns in Campania and, possibly, the recategorization of the latter as neuters. 85  Avolio (1996: 325) claims that data on this phenomenon are missing for the ‘Marche maceratesi ed ascolane’. But see lu latro ‘the.m thief ’ vs lo latro ‘the.m thievery’ in Camilli’s (1929: 226) description of Serviglianese (province of Fermo, half-way between Ascoli Piceno and Macerata).

134

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

‘small wagon’), then replaced by er, imported from Romanesco. Gualdo Cattaneo lies 17 km west-south-west of Foligno (Map 3), the two centres being separated by Pellegrini’s (1977) isogloss 18 (‑/o/ ≠ ‑/u/ to the south and east vs merger into ‑/o/ to the north and west). In Foligno itself, the n vs m contrast was stable until recently, but Bosi (2012: 207) reports its persistence only in the town’s rural outlying parts (e.g. lo pane ‘def:n bread’ vs lu sfilatino ‘def:m kind of bread’), while contemporary urban Folignate merges them, generalizing lu for the definite article (see §7.4.3.2 below). Preservation of the n vs m contrast in rural Folignate is guaranteed by the fact that speakers have clear intuitions as to the ‑/o/ vs ‑/u/ phonemic contrast (as reflected in the transcriptions of Folignate words in Bruschi 1980: xxix: e.g., pɔrto ‘bring.prs:1sg’ vs voːnu ‘good:m.sg’), although there is some vacillation in the phonetic realization of the outcomes of Lat. ‑u, which resulted in lexical diffusion of phonemic ‑/o/ to the detriment of ‑/u/: e.g. ummro ‘Umbrian:m.sg’ (G. Moretti 1987: 107–9). Vacillation in the phonetic realization was already occurring in Folignate popular spelling (‑o/‑u) in the early twentieth century (Ugolini 1977: 296) and, to a lesser extent, in fourteenthcentury texts (Mattesini 1990: 178). North and west of the Folignate area, the rest of Umbria (beyond the abovementioned isogloss) does not feature a mass neuter, while this is preserved in its south-eastern corner (with Foligno, Spoleto, Norcia, Terni), whose northern limit is at Spello. However, the neuter is also losing ground here, as shown for example by the dialect of Campello sul Clitunno (lying half-way between Foligno and Spoleto), which has generalized the definite article form lu (Ugolini 1977: 294) thus losing the lu vs lo contrast. This part of Umbria has the same system as exemplified in (88i) with Reatino, which also occurs in most dialects of the central Marche. Here, the dialect of Macerata and some surrounding villages displays an innovation that has an impact on gender assignment and gender agreement,86 the latter illustrated schematically in (118) with the definite article and a class one adjective for the dialect of Treia:87 (118) singular

plural

a. n

o pa def.n.sg bread(n)

ggross-o big\nonf-n.sg

b. m

u ka def.m.sg dog(m)

i ggross-u ka big\nonf-m.sg def.m.pl dog(m)

ggross-i big\nonf-m.pl

c. a

u vračč-u def.m.sg arm(a)-sg

ɣross-u e big\nonf-m.sg def.f.pl

vračč-a arm(a)-pl

ɣrɔss-e big\f-f.pl

d. f

a ma def.f.sg hand(f)

ggrɔss-a big\f-f.sg

ma hand(f)

ggrɔss-e big\f-f.pl

‘the big (loaf of) bread/dog/arm/hand’

Ø

e def.f.pl

‘the big dogs/arms/hands’

86  The impact on gender assignment is due to the extension of the o-ending to noun inflection as well (see (126)). 87  The data come from Paciaroni et al. (2013: 107) (Treia is the AIS pt. 558). In adjectives, variation in the initial consonant is contextually determined.



4.5  Four-gender systems

135

Neuter agreement, seen in (118a), has a dedicated exponent on past participles as well, where it contrasts with masculine (as shown in (119a–b)) as well as with feminine: (119)

a. o pa      l=aɟɟ-o      rutt-o def.n.sg bread(n) DO.3=have.prs-1sg break:ptp\nonf-n.sg ‘the (loaf of) bread, I’ve broken it’ b. u vaːs-u l=aɟɟ-o rutt-u def.m.sg vase(m)-m.sg DO.3=have.prs-1sg break:ptp\nonf-m.sg ‘the vase, I’ve broken it’

In these dialects, as in those considered in §4.5.1, the mass neuter also serves the function of marking agreement with non-canonical controllers (urban Maceratese, T. Paciaroni, p.c.):88 (120)

a. a  ɟɟi a l-u maːr-e m=ɛ ssɛmpre to go.inf to def-m.sg sea(m)-sg IO.1sg=be.prs.3sg always pjačuːt-o /**-u please:ptp-n/-m.sg ‘I have always liked going to the sea’ b. (kwešt-o)     babbu  no   l-o   fa      appɔšta dem.prox\nonm-n father   neg  DO.3-n do.prs.3sg  on_purpose ‘(this) father does not do it on purpose’

In addition, contrary to the dialects seen in §4.5.1, the availability of a dedicated neuter ending on participles is capitalized on in order to mark lack of agreement in perfective periphrastics, as seen for urban Maceratese in (121) (Paciaroni and ­ Loporcaro 2010: 500): (121)

(122)

a. l-u βardašš-u def-m.sg boy(m)-m.sg ‘the boy has run’ b. iss-u a 3\m-m.sg have.prs.3sg ‘he has lost his keys’

a      kurts-o/**-u have.prs.3sg run:ptp\nonf-n/-m.sg pers-o/**-u lose:ptp\nonf-n/-m.sg

a. l-o kaːš-o s=ɛ def-n.sg cheese(n)-n refl=be.prs.3sg ‘the cheese has melted’ b. l-u kappj-u s=ɛ def-m.sg noose(m)-m.sg refl=be.prs.3sg ‘the noose has been undone’

l-e caːv-i def-f.pl key(f)-pl

ššord-o/**-u melt:ptp\nonf-n/-m.sg ššord-u/**-o undo:ptp\nonf-m.sg/-n

88  The demonstrative and pronominal clitic forms in (120b) are the same as those selected by neuter controller nouns (see (ia), contrasting with the masculine counterparts in (ib)): (i)

a. kwešt-o         pa    l-o   piʝʝ-o      io dem.prox\nonm-n bread(n)  DO.3-n take.prs-1sg 1sg ‘(this bread) I take it’ b. kwišt-u prušutt-u l-u piʝʝ-o io dem.prox\m-m.sg ham(m)-sg DO.3-m.sg take.prs-1sg 1sg ‘(this ham) I take it’

136

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

This situation occurs widely across the central Marche, reaching the provinces of Ancona, to the north (l-o in-o kwel-o rošš-o ‘def-n wine(n), the red-n one’ vs lu rušš-u ‘the red-m.sg one’ [= male person] in Cerreto d’Esi, see Franceschi 1979: 1931), and Ascoli Piceno, to the south, as exemplified by the dialect of Servigliano in (123) (data from Camilli 1929: 230–2; see Loporcaro 1998: 103–7 on past participle agreement in Serviglianese): (123)

a.

sɔ staːt-u vist-u da luiːšu be.prs.1sg be.ptp-m.sg see.ptp-m.sg by Lewis ‘I have been seen by Lewis’

b. m      a        vist-o     luiːšu DO.1m.sg have.prs.3sg see.ptp-n Lewis ‘Lewis saw me/it’s Lewis who saw me’ c. iss-u a    maɲɲaːt-o 3\m-m.sg have.prs.3sg eat:ptp-n ‘he has eaten’ d. iss-u ɛ vvinuːt-u 3\m-m.sg be.prs.3sg come:ptp-m.sg ‘he has come’ Availability of the n vs m contrast makes Central Marchigiano similar to Sursilvan (see (24)/(25a–b) vs (25c) above) in that both systems, unlike those reviewed in Chapter 3, mark masculine agreement with a dedicated form (see (122b), (123a/d)), contrasting with the one signalling non-agreement ((121), (123b–c)). However, Sursilvan differs in lacking a class of nominal controllers which select neuter agreement, whereas this is still there in Marchigiano: in other words, while in Central Marchigiano non-agreement in (121), (123b–c) is an instance of the use in a default context of one gender value that is ‘drafted in for this extra duty’ (Corbett 2006: 96), the non-lexical neuter (Loporcaro 2011d: 335) of Sursilvan, as said in §4.3.3 above, is an instance of dedicated neutral gender agreement (Corbett 1991: 159). As seen on the noun endings in (121)f., Maceratese—and the same applies to Serviglianese: amiːku ‘friend(m)’, porku ‘pig(m)’ vs ačiːto ‘vinegar(n)’, luːto ‘mud(n)’ (see Camilli 1929: 224f.)—has extended the ‑u vs ‑o contrast to noun morphology as well, which creates a systematic signalling of overt gender through the two distinct inflectional classes that arose from Latin second declension: ferr-o ‘iron(n)’ vs ferr-u ‘iron implement(m)’ (Paciaroni and Loporcaro 2010: 500; Paciaroni 2012: 239, 245, 2017: §5.3.3.7). This is why nouns such as vaːs-u in (119b) or kaːš-o in (122a) are glossed ‘vase(m)m.sg’ and ‘cheese(n)-n’, respectively, with the gender value indicated on the ending too. Further dialects of the area mediana that behave like Central Marchigiano have been described for central Lazio (e.g. o viːno/kaːšo ‘def.n wine/cheese’ vs u libbru ‘def.m.sg book’ in Genzano, Lanuvio, Marino, and Grottaferrata, in the province of Rome; see Lorenzetti 1995: 27f., 171–3)89 as well as for Umbria (lo fɛːro ‘def:n iron’ vs 89  In all these dialects of Castelli Romani, the n vs m contrast is marked on adjectives as well: Genzanese o viːn-o bbjank-o ‘def.n white-n wine(n)-n’ vs u muːr-u bbjank-u ‘def.m.sg white-m.sg wall(m)-m.sg’. As for participle agreement, the n vs m contrast is marked in Genzano and Lanuvio (ɛ kkaskaːt-u fráːtimu ‘my brother has fallen-m.sg’ vs ɛ ffiniːt-o o tsúkkero ‘def.n sugar has finished-n’, not in Marino and Grottaferrata, where ‑u is generalized (Lorenzetti 1995: 173).



4.5  Four-gender systems

137

ru kaːru ‘def:m.sg cart’ in Norcia, AIS pt. 576/ALI pt. 576; see G. Moretti 1987: 120).90 The dialect of Spello (see Ugoccioni 1993: xx and passim) is a case in point. Here, one finds the usual m vs n contrast ((124a–b)),91 with minimal pairs due to recategorization ((124c–d)), which—whenever second class neuters are concerned—are also contrasted by the noun’s final vowel and hence, inflection class, resulting in overt gender (see Ugoccioni 1993: xx, n. 18f.): (124)

a. b. c. d.

lo kaːčo/fjeːno/graːno/latte/mɛːle lu lettu/martellu/spekkju/surgu lo piommo/ferro lu piummu/ferru filaːtu

‘def:n cheese/hay/wheat/milk/honey(n)’ ‘def:m.sg bed/hammer/mirror/mouse(m)’ ‘def:n lead/iron(n)’ ‘def:m.sg plumb line/iron wire(m)’

Much as in Maceratese or Serviglianese, the marking of the m vs n contrast extends to adjectives and participles too, where ‑u vs ‑o signal agreement with masculine vs neuter nouns, respectively ((125a–b)), and ‑o is also used for agreement with non lexical controllers ((125c)) and for non-agreement ((125d); examples from Ugoccioni 1993: 6, 9):92 (125)

a.

te=sì arbiuːt-u la kjae de lu čurvellu refl.2sg=be.prs.2sg drunk_again-m.sg the key of the brain ‘you went nuts’ b. l-o     graːn-o     s=ɛ         ttutt-o arbiuːt-o def-n wheat(n)-n  refl=be.prs.3sg all-n  drunk_again-n ‘wheat has parched completely’ c. st-a primavɛːr-a    n  a      pjuuːt-o  mae this-f.sg spring(f)-sg  neg have.prs.3sg rained-n never ‘it has never rained this spring’ d.       eːmo        arrimpiːt-o l-a      tripp-a  have.prs.1pl filled-n     def-f.sg belly(f)-sg ‘we’ve filled our belly’

Such data from central Italy are sometimes invoked as supportive evidence for the claim that the o-endings found in the mass neuter here, on a par with the homologous (at first sight) endings of Central Asturian (Chapter 5), are old and go back to the same Latin source (the ablative or the dative second declension case ending, according to Hall 1968: 480f., Ojeda 1992: 264, or Penny 1994: 276, respectively): Es necesario darse cuenta […] de cuán parecidos son los casos en que en Lena y en esta zona italiana se conserva -o: en el adjetivo como abstracto substantivado: Camerino (Marcas) lo bòno, Lena lo bono’ (Alonso 1962: 179f.) 90  Some of them, like Spoletino, have overt m vs n marking on the noun while the contrast is not manifested on adjectives: lo viːno/paːne ‘def:n wine/bread’ vs lu trokku/viːnu ‘def:m.sg drinking trough/(sort of) wine’, but lo viːno št anno ɛ kkaːru ŋgwaštiːtu ‘def:n wine is terribly expensive this year’ (see G. Moretti 1987: 93–5). 91  Here too, the neuter is productive and hosts the output of conversion such as nominalized infinitives: lo marfá/pjaɲɲe/ride ‘def:n (= the fact of) acting badly/laughing/crying’ (Ugoccioni 1993: xx, n. 19). 92  The examples in (125) represent the majority option, as documented in the phraseology in Ugoccioni’s lexicon, although some vacillation occurs: e.g. jj ɛ bbastaːt-u ‘it was enough for him’ (Ugoccioni 1993: 99), with m.sg ‑u where one would rather expect bbastaːt-o ‘sufficed-n’.

138

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

[One has to realize how similar the two cases are in which, in Lena (Central Asturias) as well as in this area [the Marche—M.L.], ‑o is preserved: in the adjective as well as in the substantivized abstract: Camerino (Marche) lo bòno, Lena lo bono ‘the good thing’]

However, as hinted in Paciaroni and Loporcaro (2010: 504) (see also §7.5 below), this comparative argument for the reconstruction of a common Latin origin fails, since the extension of o-ending and the n vs m contrast to adjectival and participial ­morphology seen in (118)–(123) is demonstrably a later development in just a few dialects of central Italy, which took place through steps that can be reconstructed comparing the different distributions observed: (126) The -u vs -o contrast in inflectional morphology in some dialects of area mediana: a. def. article b. demonstrative c. DO clitic d. participle e. adjective f. noun i. Macerata ii. San Severino iii. Matélica iv. Rieti

-/u/ ≠ -/o/

vowel harmony

[u/o]

free variation

[u ʊ o]

categorical realization [u]

Reatino (126iv), which stands for all the dialects of Sabina (north-eastern Lazio: see e.g. Fanti 1939: 131 on the dialect of Ascrea), displays the most conservative distribution: the ‑o vs ‑u contrast is inherited in (126a–c) (see §7.4.1 for the etyma of the determiner and pronominal clitic forms involved), whereas it is missing in (126d–f), where the only inherited ending is ‑u (< Lat. ‑um), occurring on both masculine and neuter nouns stemming from the Latin second declension or inserted later into the ensuing Romance IC: for example Reatino l-o spíritu ‘the-n alcohol(n)’ vs l-u spíritu ‘the-m spirit/soul(m)’. At the other end, (126i), Maceratese stands for the dialects of the Marche seen so far, which have extended the contrast to (126d–f), a change driven by the analogy with the corresponding determiners and pronouns ((126a–c); see Lüdtke 1965: 494). Near Macerata, there are villages whose dialect shows the same distribution, such as Treia (see (118)), but also villages whose dialects still preserve intermediate steps along the path which led from (126iv) to (126i), such as those in (126ii–iii), considered in Paciaroni and Loporcaro (2010). In all of them there is a neat contrast in determiners and pronouns (126a–c), while this is not the case in nominal inflection: here, Matélica has free variation [u ʊ o] (documented in the acoustic study by Paciaroni 2009) for the ending which the speakers still perceive—witness popular spelling (see Paciaroni and Loporcaro 2010: 503, n. 16)—as phonemic ‑/u/,93 whereas the dialect of San Severino has established a vowel harmony alternation whereby ‑u > ‑o only after stressed mid vowels (e.g. βoːno ‘good’, vecco ‘old’ vs trištu ‘bad’, duːru ‘hard’, all m.sg).94 Thus, below phonetic variation, Matelicese has phonologically the 93  As schematized in (126iii.a–c), on the other hand, ‑[o] vs ‑[u] are unambiguously kept distinct in the endings of determiners and pronouns. 94  Both kinds of systems are documented for several areas of central Italy, as intermediate steps between the 5-vowel final unstressed vowel system typical for the area mediana and the Tuscan-type 4-vowel system, merging ‑/u/ into ‑/o/, which has several outposts within the area mediana itself: on free variation in



4.5  Four-gender systems

139

same system as Reatino (with e.g. (l-)u kambu ‘the-m field(m)’ vs (l-)o ka ːšu ‘the-n cheese(n)’ contrasting only in agreement, not in inflection, except for the latter lacking a plural): since Matélica is a small village, the sociolinguistic dynamics of the area confirm that the urban Maceratese option (126i) is an innovation radiating from the prestige centre. This is further confirmed by the fact that, in Maceratese as in many other nearby dialects (e.g. in Treia, AIS pt. 558), the stressed high mid vowel in neuter nouns like ferr-o shows that the (nowadays unambiguously neuter) o-ending has been extended secondarily to these lexemes, since original ‑o (from Lat. ‑o) did not bring about metaphonic raising of the stressed vowel (contrast the regular outcomes of PRom low mid /ɛ ɔ/ before Lat. ‑o in e.g. [ˈɔtto] ‘eight’, [dorˈmɛnno] ‘sleeping’).95 The preceding stage is still observed in more conservative rural dialects of the area mediana: for  example in Cantalice u feːru (m, count) vs o feːru (n, mass), and in Ascrea u ferru vs o ferru (both in the province of Rieti, see Paiella 1973: 435 and Fanti 1939: 132, respect­ively), etc.96 A final, and decisive, confirmation comes from Paciaroni’s (2017: §5.5) diachronic study on the Maceratese IC system, showing that the neuter o-class is not met with in medieval texts.97 Obviously, this is therefore a later innovation, a fact which buries the comparative argument for Asturian mentioned above. Paciaroni (2012: 237, 2017: §5.8.2) also provides a quantification of the distribution of nouns over the gender values for urban Maceratese:

m

f

a

n

Total

Number of lexical types

312

264

47

3

626

%

49.8

42.1

7.5

0.47

100

(127) 

This is an important aspect for the study of gender systems on which there is still only scant evidence to date. The figures in (127) eloquently show that, in the admittedly quite small corpus investigated there (626 lexical types, out of 1,051 occurrences), masculine and feminine are much more robust than the alternating gender and the mass the outcomes of final ‑um > [u ʊ o] see Franceschi (1979: 1930); Lorenzetti (1995: 27); Paciaroni (2009); on vowel harmony as a transitional stage see Loporcaro and Paciaroni (2016: 232) and the references cited there, in particular Merlo (1920: 234), who first recognized—for the dialect of Cervara di Roma—that this kind of vowel harmony presupposes a preceding stage like (126iv). 95  The same is the case in Serviglianese: e.g. lo ferro/vello/voːno ‘def.n iron/beauty/good thing(n)’ (Camilli 1929: 225). 96  In other dialects, on the other hand, the stressed vowel of o-ending neuters was readjusted: e.g. in Leonessa (province of Rieti), AIS pt. 615 lo fɛːro ‘def:n iron’ vs ru pjettu ‘the:m breast’, and the same in Norcia (province of Perugia), as seen above (see Rohlfs 1966–69: 185; Maiden 1989: 182, 1991: 160–2, 177–9; Lorenzetti 1995: 187f.). 97  On the contrary, the neuter gender itself is firmly established in Old Maceratese: e.g. in the early fourteenth century Pianto delle Marie (edn. Salvioni 1900) with lo ferru ‘def:n iron’ 256, no lo sane ‘they do not know it:n’ 5, lo disse ‘he said it:n’ 12 vs lu me core ‘def:m my heart’ 272, lu enganaua ‘he was deceiving him’ 13. This is the same as the situation that obtains in medieval texts from other locations in the area mediana: see e.g. the thirteenth-century Ritmo cassinese (edn. Formentin 2007): lo bollo . . . mustrare ‘I want to show it’ 19, vs addemandaulu ‘he asked him’ 38 (with final ‑u in all 2nd class nouns and class one adjectives: e.g. quistu mundu ‘this world’ 25, lo bostru audire ‘def:n your listening’ 2).

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

140

neuter. While this points to an important trend, seen at work all over central-southern Italy where there is evidence—reviewed above—that several dialects have lost or are now in the process of losing either or even both gender values, for Maceratese one can argue that the mass neuter is still productive, since it is used for the syntactic function of agreement with non-lexical controllers (as seen in (120)), and, in addition, it hosts loanwords (with mass semantics) and the output of conversions (see Paciaroni 2017: §5.10.5.1, as well as Loporcaro and Paciaroni 2011: 412 on nearby Treiese): (128)

a. adaptation of recent loanwords: e.g. lo šsǎ mbo ‘the shampoo’; b. nominalization (by conversion): lo maɲɲá ‘the eating’ (V → N); lo štúbbeto ‘the stupidity’ (A → N); lo prešto ‘the soon-ness, earliness’ (Adv → N); kampa su lo sua ‘s/he lives on what her/his smallholding can produce’, lit. ‘s/he lives on her/his (smallholding)’ (Pron → N)

It also behaves in a regular way with respect to most of the syntactic tests seen in (37), as shown in Loporcaro and Paciaroni (2011: 409), Paciaroni et al. (2013: 114–17) (see (40), Ch. 6; see however (25), Ch. 7, on resolution with the alternating neuter). 4.5.3  The feminine husbands of Agnonese, or the conventionalization of the alternating neuter Another dialect that has been studied in considerable detail, as far as grammatical gender is concerned, is Agnonese (spoken in Agnone, province of Isernia, Meo 2003: 20–3; Loporcaro and Pedrazzoli 2016; Loporcaro and Meo, in preparation). This is also the last modern variety to be reviewed in some detail in this chapter, so as to complete the database to be used for reconstruction in Chapter 7. The dialect shows the by now familiar four-gender system, with three target genders marked on articles (and demonstratives: e.g. šta kɛæ̯sə ‘this:f house’ vs štu vewə ‘this:m ox’ vs štə lattə ‘this:n milk’) plus a fourth controller gender: (129) singular sεælə ̯

plural

vuo̯nə

Agnonese

a.

n

lə

b.

m

ru dεndə

vuo̯nə

rə

die̯ndə

vuo̯nə

‘the good tooth/teeth’

c.

a

ru ləndzuo̯rə

vuo̯nə

lə

ləndzeu̯rɐ

veu̯nə

‘the good bed sheet/-s’

d.

f

la

veu̯nɐ

lə

reccə

veu̯nə

‘the good ear/-s’

reccɐ

‘good salt’

Ø

As is usual in the examples provided so far, gender agreement is exemplified with the definite article and class one adjectives. It is definite articles which show gender contrasts more richly, at least in the most conservative variety of Agnonese. This small settlement of about 5,000 inhabitants has an internally differentiated dialect, the main divide in the linguistic community being that between the rural variety, spoken by farmers living in the outlying parts of the town, and the urban dialect, spoken by craftsmen living in town (respectively, dialetto cafone vs civile in Ziccardi’s 1910: 405 terms). The two subdialects are still recognizable today, even if most of the local



4.5  Four-gender systems

141

population is now concentrated in the town, as mobility has dramatically increased. Within these subvarieties, further differences are observable across generations, to be addressed whenever relevant in §§4.5.4, 7.4.3.1, 7.4.3.2, and 7.4.4.98 All subvarieties show the gender contrast in a maximally differentiated way on the definite article, while on other targets the n vs m contrast is signalled less pervasively, either for all speakers (this is the case for qualifying adjectives, which, as shown in (129), only display a binary f vs m=n contrast) or for some subset of them (see (149) for a first example). The fourth agreement class in (129c)—the alternating neuter—includes nouns whose inflection, although ultimately stemming from the Latin neuter (a- and oraplurals), is synchronically quite differentiated:99 (130)

a.  a-plural

píːtətə anie̯llə vrɔčcə̌ moil̯ ə puo̯rə prəkuo̯kə uo̯ssə b.  ərɐ-plural fɔšsə̌ kutoi̯nə kurniccə kundie̯llə kaviu̯tə prəsuttə kanduo̯ttsə c.  V´rrə-plural makkatiu̯rə d.  V´rrərɐ-plural bballatiu̯rə

péːtətɐ anɛllɐ vračcɐ̌ mai̯lɐ pɛæ̯ rɐ prəkeu̯kɐ ɔssɐ fášsə̌ rɐ kutéːnərɐ kurnéccərɐ kundɛ´llərɐ kavóːtərɐ prəsóttərɐ kandɔ´ttsərɐ makkatorrɐ bballatórrərɐ

‘fart’ ‘ring’ ‘arm’ ‘apple’ ‘pair’ ‘peach’ ‘bone’ ‘bundle’ ‘pond’ ‘corner’ ‘knife’ ‘hole’ ‘ham’ ‘crust (of bread)’ ‘handkerchief ’ ‘gallery’

This excludes analyses of the alternating gender in terms of just one IC (with irregular gender agreement, on the blueprint of StIt. (32d)), although gender and IC are deeply intertwined in this dialect, as shown in (131): (131) a. ru prɛ´jətə ‘the.m priest’, pl. rə príe̯jətə, ru skarpɛæ̯ rə ‘the.m shoemaker’, pl. rə skarpie̯rə b. ru/rə ma roi ̯tə ‘the.m husband/-s’, ru/rə fa rfiu̯sə ‘the.m toddler/toddlers’ (lit. ‘snotty’) c. ru ma roi t̯ ə/lə ma réːtərɐ ‘the.m husband/the.f husbands’, ru fa rfiu̯sə/lə fa rfóːsərɐ ‘the.m toddler/the.f toddlers’ (lit. ‘snotty’) 98  One of these concerns gender marking on definite articles: the one in (129) is the system observable today in the production and judgements of my most conservative rural informants (and corresponds to that described by Ziccardi 1910: 428). 99  This is due to sound change, mostly metaphony, induced in Agnonese by Lat. ‑ī ‑ŭ on Proto-Romance stressed mid vowels and only by ‑ī on stressed ‑a‑. Only ‑ŭ comes into play in (130), since no ‑ī ending occurred with neuters. In addition, several other diphthongization and/or colouring processes applied to stressed vowels (see Ziccardi 1910).

142

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

Several masculine nouns, mostly stemming from Latin second declension, have homophonous singular and plural forms ((131a)).100 Given their etyma, nouns such as ‘husband’ in (131b) are also expected to inflect in the same way, as they actually do. However, in this variety, ‘husband’ can alternatively inflect as shown in (131c) (= (130b)), and if it does, then it takes alternating agreement (with f.pl lə), while **rə maréːtərɐ ‘the.m husbands’, inflecting as (130b) but with m.pl agreement, is ungrammatical.101 This is interesting in several other respects, as it shows that grammatical gender can become fully conventionalized—and, thus, not reflect society (or S-gender, see §1.1) at all, where all husbands are males—and that, more specifically, this alternating gender, rooted diachronically in an alternating neuter, has fully divorced from its original semantics (already mentioned in n. 21, and to be addressed in §7.6). The alternating gender, in Agnonese, can host inanimates of the kind constituting its original kernel (body part names, etc.: see (132a)), but also nouns denoting inanimate countables ((132b)), animals ((132c)), and humans ((132d)): (132)  Agnonese nouns assigned to the alternating neuter a. ru vrɔččə/lə vraččɐ ‘the arm/-s’, ru lɔbbrə/lə labbrɐ ‘the lip/-s’, ru moi̯lə/lə mai̯lɐ ‘the apple/-s’, ru prəkúo̯kə/lə prəkéu̯kɐ ‘the peach/-es’, ru ləndzúo̯rə/lə ləndzéu̯rɐ ‘the bedsheet/-s’, l uo̯və/l ewwɐ ‘the egg/-s’ b. ru lie̯ttə/lə lɛ´ttərɐ ‘the bed/-s’, ru kundie̯llə//lə kundɛllɐ/kundɛ´llərɐ ‘the ­knife/-ves’ c. ru líu̯pə/lə lóːpərɐ ‘the wolf/-ves’, l urtsə/l órtsərɐ ‘the bear/-s’ d. ru ma rói̯tə/lə maréːtərɐ ‘the husband/-s’, ru farfíu̯sə/lə farfóːsərɐ ‘the toddler/-s’ Selection of f.pl agreement is categorical within the NP: lə ma rétərɐ veu̯nə/**vúo̯nə ‘the.f good.f.pl/good.m.pl husbands’. But note that a demonstrative pronoun resuming such NPs is usually masculine, as required by the semantics: (133) a. davéndr alla kɛæ̯ sɐ lə    marét-ərɐ   na vɔldɐ éːvɐnə in    the   house def.f.pl husband(a)-pl once   were kóir̯ ə/**kellə          kə   kummannáːvɐnə dem.dist.m.pl/dem.dist.f.pl  rel command:impf:3pl ‘once at home husbands used to be those who ruled’ b. mméːsə arr anəmie̯lə  lə     lóp-ərɐ    so   kkói r̯ ə/**kkellə among    the animals    def.f.pl  wolf(a)-pl  are  dem.dist.m.pl/dem.dist.f.pl kə     mmə   pjέːːčənə    kkju    ppikkɐ rel  IO-1sg please.prs:3pl more less ‘among animals, wolves are those I like least’ In other words, we are concerned with hybrid nouns, which trigger inconsistent agreement depending on agreement targets, in a way that has been shown to be constrained cross-linguistically by the agreement hierarchy (see Corbett 2006: 206–37, 2015): 100  This IC accounts for the relative majority of the nouns in Loporcaro and Pedrazzoli’s (2016) dictionary counts, i.e. 811 on a total of 2,431 lexemes from Meo’s (2003) dictionary. 101  The same interdependency of gender and IC seems to hold in other nearby dialects: see e.g. in Villa San Michele (province of Isernia) rə súakkə ‘the sack(m)’, with either f.pl lə sákkwərə or m.pl rə síakkə (Iannacito Provenzano 2006: 58).



4.5  Four-gender systems

(134)  The agreement hierarchy attributive > predicative

>

relative pronoun >

143

personal pronoun

With hybrid nouns, semantic agreement (as opposed to syntactic agreement) becomes more likely the more one proceeds rightwards on the hierarchy. For our Agnonese nouns in (131c)/(132c–d), syntactic agreement is in the feminine plural, included with adnominal demonstratives, as illustrated in (135a) (contrast (135b), where categorical masculine agreement is selected, also within the NP, whenever the same nouns are used as masculine, choosing the option seen in (131b)): (135)

a. kellə/**kói̯rə dem.dist.f.pl/dem.dist.m.pl b. kóir̯ ə/**kellə dem.dist.m.pl/dem.dist.f.pl ‘those husbands’

maréːt-ərɐ husband(a)-pl marói t̯ ə husband(m)-pl

Thus, the fact that the predicative demonstrative pronoun is masculine in (133) indicates semantic agreement and shows that we are facing the agreement inconsistency across targets typical for hybrid nouns.102 Since inconsistent agreement is found only in the plural, these Agnonese nouns are split hybrids, like Serbo-Croat gazda ‘boss, landlord’, which belongs to an IC which normally hosts feminines but, since it denotes a male, takes categorical m.sg agreement in the modern language, while in the plural both masculine and feminine agreement are possible except in the last context in (134), since gazde ‘bosses’ is resumed obligatorily with on-i ‘they-m.pl’, never with **on-e ‘they-f.pl’ (Corbett 2015: 203). While the assignment to the alternating gender of the animate-denoting nouns in (132c–d), given its origin (see §§7.4.1, 7.6), shows that this gender value has enjoyed productivity, this is no longer the case today, as no loanwords (whether denoting humans, animals, or objects) can be assigned to this gender (and, at the same time, to either of the ICs in (130a–b): (136)

a. ru/rə mau̯ssə ‘the computer mouse,-s’, pl. **lə máu̯ssərɐ/móssərɐ b. ru/rə kaŋguːrə ‘the kangaroo,‑s’, pl. **lə kaŋgúːrərɐ/kaŋguːrɐ c. ru/rə spiːker ‘the anchorman,‑men’, pl. **lə spíːkərərɐ/spikéːrərɐ

This means that, contrary to Romanian, both the alternating gender and the ICs associated with it are closed classes in Agnonese. This lack of productivity has an impact on the distribution of nouns over genders:

102  For Agnonese, relative (seen in (133)) and stressed personal pronouns (leu̯rə ‘they’) do not provide a relevant test, since they do not agree by (number, for the relative, and) gender. DO pronominal clitics, on the other hand, do, as shown in (157)–(158) below, but the result of the test is not in line with the predictions following from the agreement hierarchy. In fact, pronouns should be the agreement targets where semantic agreement is most likely, while the same Agnonese informants who delivered the grammaticality judgements in (133), with categorical semantic agreement, find both options acceptable with DO clitics: (i)

lə maréːt-ərɐ lə/rə       vaid̯ ə arroi̯t alla kɛæ̯ sɐ def-f.pl husband(a)-pl DO.3f.pl/DO.3m.pl see.prs.1sg behind to-the house ‘the husbands, I see them behind the house’

144

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

(137) 

m

a or m a

f

n

n or m Total

725

32

4

Number of lexical types

1493 181

10

%

61.16 7.82

0.41 29.70 1.31 0.27

2260 100

In addition, as seen in (137), most nouns that can be inflected as in (130a–c) and thus be assigned to the alternating gender can, alternatively, be masculine (and, if so, inflect as shown in (131a–b). There are only very few lexemes (ten in all), such as l  uo̯və/l ewwɐ ‘the egg/‑s’, which can exclusively belong to the alternating gender. Since among the alternatives (131b) vs (131c) the latter is favoured by older and more conservative speakers, a possible scenario is that eventually all lexemes nowadays admitting of both options will end up being consistently masculine. As soon as this is the case, the fourth (controller) gender of Agnonese will have shrunk to an inquorate gender, the same way as it did in Tuscan (see §4.3.5). The quantification in (137) further shows that, not unlike in Maceratese ((127)), the mass neuter also cannot compete for numerosity with m and f. There are further signs of non-productiveness, including the fact that this gender cannot host loanwords of fitting semantics (e.g. denoting unbounded substances, liquids, abstracts, etc.: see §4.5.4) which are assigned to the masculine instead: ru sakɛ´ ‘the.m sake’, ru wiski, ‘the.m whisky’. Furthermore, as shown in (138b), this dialect—unlike Maceratese, (128a)—is very parsimonious in allowing for the recategorization of a neuter (mass) noun as count masculine: (138)

a. mass lə cummə lə fie̯rrə

b. count ru/rə cummə ‘def.m plumb line,-s’ ru/rə fie̯rrə ‘def.m iron implement/cloth iron,-s’ lə bbrundzə ‘def.n iron’ ru/rə bbrundzə ‘def.m bronze object/ statue,-s’ lə marmə ‘def.n marble’ ru marmə ‘def.m marble table’, m.pl rə mɛrmə lə pešsə̌ ‘def.n fish’ ru pešsə̌ ‘def.m fish’ (count), m/f.pl rə/lə pešsə̌ ‘def.n lead’ ‘def.n iron’

This possibility is given with just these few nouns—all having an alternative masculine form, as shown in (138) through the definite article choice (only ‘fish’ is an alternating neuter for some speakers, as seen by its taking f.pl lə optionally)—while for most lexemes gender is fixed, and in order to change from mass to count, one has to choose a different lexeme: for instance lə pɛæ̯ nə ‘def.n bread’ cannot take the masculine article and mean ‘the loaf of bread’. But, on the other hand, mass neuter pronouns of Agnonese still retain the syntactic function of pronominalizing non-nominal controllers ((139a–b)) and the neuter gender still hosts the output of conversions from other parts of speech ((139c)): (139) a. la moʎʎə šta mmalamɛndə e kkeštə/**kkwištə/**kkweštə issə nnə llə/ **rrə/**lla suppɔrtɐ ‘his wife is sick and he cannot stand this.n/**this.m/**this.f’



4.5  Four-gender systems

145

b. (a p)pɛrdə a kkartə nnə llə/**rrə/**lla suppɔrtə ‘losing at cards, I cannot stand it.n/**this.m/**this.f’ c. conversion → neuter: lə/**ru šoi̯nə e lə/**ru nau̯nə ‘the aye and nay’, lə/**ru pɛrdə/venǧ ə/vəštojjə ‘the (fact of) losing/winning/dressing’ Clearly, the (im)productivity of gender values is a complex matter, resulting from the convergence of several factors, which provides for scalarity: the mass neuter of Agnonese, therefore, is less productive than that of Neapolitan or Maceratese, but is  still much better off than its counterpart in southern Apulian dialects such as Gravinese or Molese. Also, from a qualitative point of view, the mass neuter of Agnonese provides an interesting piece of evidence to settle the hotly debated issue of the role of mass/countness in (Italo-)Romance gender systems, to be considered in the next section. 4.5.4  Mass/countness in the gender system: central-southern Italo-Romance Mass/countness comes on stage at this point, since several scholars have argued that what has been analysed as a (mass) neuter vs masculine contrast in §4.5.1–3 is indeed not a contrast between two distinct values of the (morphosyntactic) feature gender, but rather a purely semantic subdivision within one and the same gender value, viz. the masculine. This position, incompatible with the line of argument pursued here, is refuted in this section. After this, in Chapter  5 I discuss another Romance system which is similar in that the mass/count distinction plays a role in the grammar, but differs crucially in that this property is grammaticized autonomously (§5.4) from the grammatical gender feature we have been talking about in this chapter. Inasmuch as linguistic typologists have so far taken notice of the central-southern Italian facts reviewed up to now in §4.5, they have claimed that there has been a significant change with respect to Latin and, in particular, that the n vs m contrast has been transformed. Consider the Neapolitan facts again: (140)

a. o ppaːnə b. o kaːnə c. a maːnə def.n bread(n) def.m.sg dog(m) def.f.sg hand(f) ‘the bread’ (mass) ‘the dog’ (count) ‘the hand’

Commenting on these data, Comrie (2002) says: In these examples distinguishing masculine from neuter, the absence versus presence of raddoppiamento derives directly from the Latin masculine (vowel-final) and neuter (consonantfinal) forms, even if masculine and neuter have been reinterpreted semantically in southern Italian dialects as expressions of the count/mass distinction. (Comrie 2002: 83)

Airing a similar view, Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2004) mentions that traditional descriptions of these dialects treat (140a–b) as a contrast in gender: A similar distinction (interpreted in the literature as a gender and not a number one) [the author has been discussing central Asturian, see Ch. 5—M.L.] exists in many Italian dialects. Its manifestations differ considerably across dialects and include different endings for mass nouns, different agreement forms for articles and demonstratives, and a lengthening of the initial consonant of a mass noun when it is preceded by a determiner (see Apulian u ˈpaːne ‘the loaf ’ vs. u pˈpaːne ‘bread’, Maiden 1995: 248). (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2004: 1069)

146

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

The Apulian evidence mentioned comes from the province of Bari, and the reference given is representative for a number of studies in Romance linguistics which deny gender status to the mass neuter: (141) a. Hall (1968: 480): ‘This category is not a neuter in the traditional sense of the term, but represents a grammatical category hitherto unrecognized in Romance, the mass-noun’ b. Penny (1994: 273): ‘The term “mass neuter” indicates the morphological marking of the contrast between mass-nouns and count-nouns.’ c. Maiden (1997: 73-4): ‘Inflectional distinction between so-called ‘neuter’ or ‘mass’ nouns (having abstract or generic referents), and ‘count’ (having ‘countable’ referents) is characteristic of S. Marche and S. Umbria, Lazio to the south of the Tiber, W. Abruzzo, N. Puglia, N.E. Basilicata and N. Campania. The association of neuter forms with “mass” reference perhaps reflects the fact that many Latin mass nouns were neuter: e.g. mel ‘honey’; sal ‘salt’; uinum ‘wine’, etc.’ [emphasis added—M.L.] d. Ledgeway (2009: 150): ‘un’opposizione tra un singolare maschile [+num.] e un singolare maschile [–num.] (o collettivo), distinzione tradizionalmente, ma erroneamente, definita “neutro” ’ [‘a contrast between a [+count] and a [–count] (or collective) masculine singular, a distinction traditionally, but erroneously, defined “neuter”.’; emphasis added—M.L.]. Note that the scholars mentioned in (141) acknowledge that the m vs n contrast is rooted, in terms of both form and function, in the Latin gender contrast, in that n agreement ‘probably continues a Latin neuter inflection peculiar to determiners and pronouns’ (Maiden 2011: 170). However, they dub the traditional label ‘neuter’ a misnomer for (140a), as seen in (141d), claiming—like Comrie—that the contrast has been reanalysed as a merely semantic (i.e. not morphosyntactic) subdivision of the masculine: Another possible remnant of a neuter inflection occurs in dialects of central and southern Italy (southern Marche and southern Umbria, Lazio south of the Tiber, western Abruzzo, northern Puglia, north-eastern Basilicata and northern Campania). Here masculine nouns are subdivided into two semantically based subclasses, according as the noun is ‘mass’ (having abstract or generic referents) or ‘count’ (having ‘countable’ referents). [emphasis added— M.L.] (Maiden 2011: 170)

The two alternative analyses can be schematized as follows: (142)  The gender system of central-southern Italian dialects a.

nouns

neuter (140a)

masculine feminine (140b) (140c)

b. GENDER

nouns

masculine mass (140a)

count (140b)

feminine (140c)



4.5  Four-gender systems

147

Under (142b), only the first branching ((140a–b) vs (140c)) mirrors a contrast in gender. This view can be countered with both theoretical and empirical arguments. The most elementary, and evident, theoretical point is that all values of the gender category in the systems in §4.5, including the mass neuter ((140a)), match the definition of gender(s) in (3), Chapter 1, in that the nouns assigned to each of the three classes (140a/b/c) select dedicated agreement targets, contrasting with each other: definite articles, demonstratives, and pronominal clitics (plus other parts of speech, in some dialects: see (126i)). In addition, we have seen that, while recategorization is admissible, to a varying degree, in several dialects (see (94), (98), and (117)), this kind of double gender assignment is by no means a general strategy obtaining across the lexicon to convey the mass/count distinction, unlike as implied for example by Haase (2000): If we define ‘gender’ as a lexical category that is intrinsic to the noun […], it will be difficult to consider the Central Italian neuter as such. The gender determination in the lexicon goes as far as assigning a noun to a lexical class, in Central Italy either feminine or non-feminine gender; then it is a question of semantics whether the non-feminine takes this or that article or pronoun (almost always with the possibility of recategorization). (Haase 2000: 226f.)

At the most, recategorization goes so far as to involve about one-third of the lexemes assigned to the mass neuter, as is the case in Maceratese (see dictionary counts in Paciaroni 2017: §5.11.3), while in many of the other dialects under discussion it just concerns a few lexemes, as seen for Agnonese in (138). This is in keeping with general expectations on the behaviour of the gender feature; see for example Dixon (1982: 166, 1986: 106) or, more recently, Kibort (2010): the inherent assignment of the value is predominantly fixed—that is, typically (even though not necessarily), most nouns in languages that have the feature gender have only one fixed value of gender. (Kibort 2010: 84)

There have been attempts at formalizing the view in (142b) within Minimalist syntax. Even without discussing the technicalities in detail, it is easy to show that such accounts—just as the less formalized ones in (141)—are at odds with the empirical data. Consider Kučerová and Moro’s (2012: 378) analysis, which starts from the correct observation that ‘the three-way gender system is attested only with a subset of nouns, namely, certain mass nouns (MN), and a certain productive class of deverbal nouns’ [emphasis added—M.L.; by ‘deverbal nouns’ the authors mean the output of the conversion of infinitives, see e.g. (139c)]. As their argument proceeds, however, they somehow ‘forget’ the empirical starting observation, and propose an analysis according to which the agreement [i.e. the neuter vs masculine forms of the definite article; emphasis in the following is added—M.L.] reflects differences in semantic types that closely correlate with the size of the syntactic structure necessary for the relevant semantic interpretation to be available (Kučerová and Moro 2012: 383).

This difference in (the size of) syntactic structure is formalized in terms of the presence (in the m) vs absence (in the n) of a D layer: ‘we argue that the nominal projection of mass nouns is structurally deficient in that it lacks a D layer’ (Kučerová and Moro 2012: 384). However, their claim that ‘the empirically most accurate generalization needs to be stated in semantic terms’ and that ‘agreement reflects differences in

148

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

semantic types’ is falsified by the fact that masshood by no means implies unique assignment to the neuter, in any of the central-southern dialects. Consider Agnonese again. As exemplified in (143), it is true that all nouns assigned to the neuter—which is therefore called the mass neuter—denote mass: (143)  lə cummə/fie̯rrə/kɛæ̯ sə̌ /grɛæ̯ nə/lattə/mɔi̯lə/pɛæ̯nə/pɔi̯pə/sɛæ̯ lə/saŋgwə/voi̯nə ‘def.n lead/iron/cheese/wheat/milk/honey/bread/pepper/salt/blood/wine’ etc. Statements such as ‘Sono neutri i sostantivi che indicano sostanze’ [‘Nouns denoting substances are neuter’] (Lüdtke 1979: 68) lend themselves to misunderstanding, since it is not the case that all nouns denoting mass are neuter and that the masculine hosts only countables (a reading suggested by the definite article: ‘i sostantivi’).103 The same applies to the feminine: (144) a. masculine mass nouns: ru fɔi̯lə/kafɔjjə/tie̯mbə/bbreu̯də/šie̯tə ‘def.m.sg gall/coffee/weather/broth/breath’ etc. b. feminine mass nouns: la ɣránərɐ/faroi ̯nɐ/rai̯nɐ/akkwɐ/nɔi̯və/paštɐ ‘def.f.sg hail/flour/sand/water/snow/pasta’ etc. This is the case in all dialects featuring the mass neuter (see Paciaroni and Loporcaro 2013 for discussion):104 clearly the contrast (143) vs (144a) cannot be explained as a syntactic reflex of a semantic distinction which, in the given dataset, is not there at all.105 Agnonese provides yet another strong empirical argument for the gender analysis in (142a) over (142b). This dialect, in fact, has developed a dedicated neuter form of the indefinite article ((145a–b)), today observed in its rural variety:  voin̯ ə   d ačoi t̯ ə (145) a. keštə /**kwištə  e     nə/%nu  dem_prox-n/-m.sg  be.prs.3sg  indf:n/:m.sg wine(n) sour ‘this is sour wine’ b. keštə/**kwištə e nə/%nu mɔi̯lə/lattə/bbrundzə enandrandzé dem_prox-n/-m.sg be.prs.3sg indf:n/:m.sg honey/milk/bronze(n) exceptional ‘this is exceptional honey/milk/bronze’ c. nu/**nə   kuo̯nə/kafé/vrɔččə indf:m.sg/-n dog(m)/coffee(m)/arm(a) ‘a dog/a coffee/an arm’ The form nə occurs variably, in the sense that for no speaker is this categorical, but rather is in free variation with nu before mass neuter nouns. However, for the speakers who use 103  This assumption is a widespread error in the literature, as observed e.g. in Marcantonio (1978: 86), although she maintains—without adducing any evidence—that mass nouns assigned to the masculine are in some way exceptional, a claim for which no proof seems to be at hand. Note that speaking of a ‘distinction between reflexes of count illum and non-count *ilˈlok’ (Ledgeway 2016: 256; see §7.4.1 for this etymon) is not legitimate here (as elsewhere), since it does not describe the articles in (144a) vs (143) accurately. 104 Occasionally, this is acknowledged by supporters of (142b)—e.g. Ledgeway (2009: 152) on Neapolitan—without addressing the contradiction. 105  Note that the Campanian data in (100) above are not an exception to this, because what is found there is (semantic) neuter agreement, admittedly driven by the semantic specification [–count], outside the NP, with mass nouns which keep selecting feminine agreement within the NP and, consequently, are still specified as feminine in the lexicon.



4.5  Four-gender systems

149

it, nə contrasts with the masculine since, as shown in (145c), with m.sg nouns this form is never acceptable. Were the agreement class that I have been calling ‘mass neuter’ defined instead in purely semantic terms as [–count], it would be nonsensical for it to have developed a dedicated form of a determiner that never occurs cross-linguistically with mass nouns (see e.g. Joosten 2003: 167), except if they are forced into sortal or ‘packaging’ readings with a ‘universal-sorter/packager’ effect (see e.g. Pelletier 1975: 456, 2012: 14; Bunt  1985: 11; Koptjevskaja-Tamm  2004: 1065; etc.; this strategy is not universally available, as shown in Babou and Loporcaro’s 2016: 33f. discussion of Wolof mass nouns resisting use in syntactic contexts forcing a non-mass reading). Exemplifying with English, while instances of (146a.i) do occur (a coffee), they are clearly the marked option: (146) i. mass a. a_

**a honey

b. much_ much honey

ii. count a car **much car

marked usage Universal sorter: a (kind of) honey Universal packager: a (unit of) honey Universal grinder:

much car for less money! there was dog all over the place

Thus, it would be surprising for a language to develop a dedicated marker for a context in which mass nouns tend not to occur, and indeed cannot in some languages, as shown with Neapolitan in (147a), where the literal counterpart to StIt. un buon latte (147b) is deemed ungrammatical by my informants:106 (147) a. st-o llattə ɛ llattə bbwoːnə /**nn-u lattə bbwoːnə dem-n milk(n) be.prs.3sg milk(n) good[nonf]/indf-m.sg milk(n) good[nonf] ‘this milk is good milk’ (= a good sort of milk) b. quest-o    è         un      buon        latte dem-m.sg be.prs.3sg  indf[m.sg] good[m.sg] milk(m).sg ‘this is good milk’ Conversely, under the analysis in (142a), the innovation seen in (145) is straightforwardly accounted for as the superimposition on the indefinite article, by analogy with the paradigm of the definite one, of a morphosyntactic contrast which was originally available only on the latter:107

106  This non-prototypical use of the indefinite article may pose difficulties, also for speakers of other dialects. In fact, some of my Agnonese informants always rephrase sentences like (145) as follows: mme vištə (Agnonese) (i) a. lə    grɛæ̯ nə  ɲɲe kkeštə  nnə  lə=so         def.n wheat(n) like dem-n  neg  DO.n=be.prs.1sg ever  seen b. un gran-o come quest-o non l’=ho mai visto (StIt.) indf[m.sg] wheat(m)-sg like dem-m.sg neg DO.3m.sg=have.prs.1sg ever seen ‘a (kind of) wheat like this, I have never seen’ The Italian input sentence ((ib)) contains an indefinite article (the definite article il would be awkward), while the first answer for many Agnonese speakers is (ia), with the definite article lə. 107  The etymon of the indefinite article, accusative unum, did not contrast m vs n, while the (Late) Latin antecedents of the definite article forms did (see §7.4.1).

150

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

(148) a.

n sg lə mɔilə ̯ pl

definite article m f ru miu̯ rə la ɣa lloinɐ ̯ rə miu̯ rə

b.

Agnonese indefinite article n m f nə mɔilə nu miu̯ rə na ɣa lloinɐ ̯ ̯

lə ɣalloinə ̯

‘def honey’ ‘the wall(s)’ ‘the hen(s)’

‘indf honey’ ‘a wall’

‘a hen’

Such an analogical change makes sense at all only if the contrast that is calqued onto the indefinite article paradigm is a morphosyntactic contrast in gender which is, as such, not defined in semantic terms (although some values, as in this case, or even all values of the category, in semantically based systems, may be): and the rarity of this contrast is explained, formally, by the lack of a direct diachronic source, and functionally by the fact that this is a cross-linguistically dispreferred context—as seen in (146a.i), (147a)— for the indefinite article to occur. Given this, it will come as no surprise that even where it occurs, the innovation in (148b) is sometimes unstable as is the case for Agnonese, where (145) portrays the competence of some of my informants (those with a rural background: see the discussion on (129)), whereas other speakers in the community (those whose families have always been in the town centre and who represent the urban variety) only have nu with the neuters in (145). Thus, there are two conflicting grammars, in this respect, within the speech community, as shown in (149b.i–ii): (149) a. definite article n m f sg lə ru la

i. Agnonese 1 (rural) n m f nu na sg nə

lə

rə

pl

b. indefinite article ii. Agnonese 2 (urban) n = m f nu na

Maceratese is another case in point (see Paciaroni 2017: §7.4.1; Paciaroni and Loporcaro 2013): the urban variety has a binary contrast throughout, while a more conservative rural variety contrasts n vs m vs f, but only before /s/ + C initial clusters and other clusters not exhaustively syllabified as onsets (i.e. subject to the phrase allomorphy observed for the m.sg definite article in Standard Italian) ((150b)), while elsewhere a binary contrast n/m vs f obtains:108 (150) indefinite article a. _ #$C(C)-(before onset)

b. #C_ #C$C- (before non-onset)

n

m

f

n

m

f

um pa

uŋ ka

na ma

no špɔrte

nu žgrittsu

na špina

‘a hand’

‘a sport’

‘a drawing’

‘a thorn’

‘indf bread’ ‘a dog’

108  Given what is independently known on the diachrony of the (definite and indefinite) article forms in Central Italy (see Loporcaro 2013: 132), one can surmise that urban Maceratese must also have had the no form (150b) at an earlier stage.



4.5  Four-gender systems

151

There are extremely few dialects, scattered across the upper south and the area mediana (as seen on Map 4), for which a comparable three-way contrast has been described as categorical in the indefinite article. One such case is that of the western Abruzzian dialects spoken west of the line seen on Map 3, where nə viːnə ‘a (type of) wine’ contrasts with nu kavallə ‘a horse’ (Giammarco 1979: 125). Another such case is that of the dialect of Roiate (spoken some 70 km east of Rome; see Orlandi 2000: 109–13):109 (151) n no viːnu (ke mbriáːka) ‘indf.n wine(n) (that makes you drunk)’ m nu ɟóːo/korbo/waːku ‘indf.m nail/blow/grain, grape(m)’ f na rɔːsa/fémmena/kaʎʎiːna ‘indf.f rose/woman/hen(f)’ Here too, the forms of the indefinite article parallel those of the definite one: (152) n lo feːno/la tte/pa /saːle/viːnu ‘def.n hay/milk/bread/salt/wine(n)’ m ju ka ːne/ka ːpu/meːse/soːle/sa ssu ‘def.m dog/head/month/sun/stone(m)’ f la fémmena /ka ːsa /okka /rɔːsa /ka ʎʎiːna ‘indf.f woman/house/mouth/rose/hen(f)’ As seen in (151) and further exemplified in (153), the neuter form of the indefinite article occurs systematically, on a par with the m and f ones, in the kind of ‘universal sorter/packager’ contexts considered above in (145): ɛ      nn-o   latte   frisk-u   / nn-o (153) a. kest-o   this.nonm-n be.prs.3sg  indf-n milk(n).sg fresh-m.sg / indf-n veːtro   fɔrt-e    / nn-o     saːle   kattiːv-u glass(n).sg strong-sg / indf-n salt(n).sg bad-m.sg ‘this is fresh milk/is a resistant (type of) glass/is bad salt’ b. fa n-o     fridd-u do.prs.3sg indf-n cold(n)-sg ‘it’s such a cold!’ A similar system is described for the northern Apulian dialect of Mattinata (province of Foggia) by Granatiero (1987: 22, 38f., 53). The structural parallelism between the two series of forms is illustrated in (154)f.: (154) n (l)u lla ttə/mmeːlə/ppeːnə/sseːlə/wwiːnə ‘def.n milk/honey/bread/salt/wine(n)’ m (l)u fúəkə/ka va ddə/lɛbbrə/pa ːtrə/wɔ´ːmərə ‘def.m fire/horse/hare/father/ploughshare(m)’ f (l)a jeŋgə/keːsə/kučiːnə/meːnə/nuːčə ‘indf.f heifer/house/kitchen/hand/nut(f)’ (155) n m f

nu mmeːlə a kkussí ddóːləčə ‘such indf.n sweet honey(n)’ nu woːvə/pa ɟɟíərə ‘an.m ox(m)’, ‘a.m straw rick(m)’ na ja ddiːnə/ma ssa ríːjə ‘a.f hen/farm(f)’

As in the other dialects of northern Puglia, north-eastern Lucania, and Campania considered in §4.5.1, the n vs m contrast is signalled by RF (the neuter nouns in (154) have a singleton initial consonant, that emerges as such in other contexts: e.g. də

109  Thanks to Tania Paciaroni for pointing this out to me, and to Monsignor Giacomo Orlandi for the judgements in (153).

152

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

la ttə/peːnə ‘of milk/bread’).110 This contrast has spread to the numeral ‘one’ as well, also analogically, as argued in n. 107 (see Granatiero 1987: 39, 53): (156)

n kuss e kkuddə sɔ unu wwiːnə ‘this and that one are the same (lit. ‘one.n’) wine(n)’ m a nnə fa ttə unu fúəkə/**ffúəkə ‘they made (only) one.m/**one.n fire(m)’ f a nnə fa ttə una va mbə ‘they made (only) one.f flame(f)’

Dialects like Roiatese and Mattinatese are exceptional: dedicated n marking on the indefinite article, whenever popping up, is more often unstable, as exemplified with Agnonese and Maceratese, where (a) (in Agnone) the innovation is not shared by the whole community, and (b) (in Macerata) it is also subordinated to phrase allomorphy. Much more dramatic evidence for instability is seen in several other dialects, scattered across the area mediana and the upper south, which show only faint traces of a contrast like (151). This is the case in the dialect of Castelvetere in Val Fortore (province of Benevento), whose synchronic grammar only features a binary (controller) gender contrast, m vs f: u ka ːnə ‘the.m dog’ vs a pa ɟɟə ‘the.f straw’ (Bontempo and Bontempo 1997: 43). However, according to Tambascia (1998: 33), a third form lə has been preserved only in the fixed expression lə stessə ‘the same’, while mass nouns which are neuters in nearby dialects are masculine: u wiːnə/mɛːlə/saːlə ‘def.m wine/ honey/salt’ (Tambascia  1998: 116; Bontempo and Bontempo  1997: 71). By the same token, Avolio (1996: 333) and Tambascia (1998: 33) argue that also nə kkoːnə ‘a bit’ (compare It. boccone ‘mouthful’) preserves an originally neuter form of the indefinite article, contrasting with nu hjoːrə ‘a:m flower’ and na fémmənə ‘a:f woman’. This is plausible, since Castelvetrese is spoken in the northern fringe of the province of Benevento (see n. 72 above and Map 3), where the mass neuter has been lost, while the neighbouring dialects to the south (spoken in Montefalcone in Val Fortore and Colle Sannita) preserve it: before this demise, the three-way contrast must have been extended to the indefinite article as well. There is evidence for a previous stage, intermediate between Roiatese (fully functional neuter gender, marked regularly on the indefinite article) and Castelvetrese: for the dialect of Mola di Bari, in fact, Cox (1982: 68) reports ‘the fixed phrase /nə mɔnnə/, literally “a world” ’, meaning ‘a lot’, while masculine nouns (including [mɔnnə] ‘world’) take nu elsewhere: nu šukə ‘a:m game’ (vs na krəpə ‘a:f goat’). Molese, as shown in (27), §7.4.3.2, has the mass neuter, regularly marked on the definite article, as has the dialect of Spinazzola (AIS pt. 727), spoken some 100 km to the west in the same province of Bari, where the n definite article lə/rə—varying according to registers, the former being more ‘urban’ (rə mmiːrə

110  The occurrence of dedicated forms of the indefinite article in Mattinatese is mentioned in Ledgeway (2016: 256, n. 14): in keeping with the interpretation upheld there (see n. 103 above), this form is called the ‘neuter/mass form’ in spite of the fact that it is only used in contexts where the mass interpretation is overridden. While the neuter hosts the usual suspects, including e.g. substantivized adjectives (e.g. (l)u kká lətə/ffriškə/rrussə ‘def.n heat/fresh air/red(n)’) and the output of conversion from other parts of speech (e.g. (l)u mma nǧé/ppikkə/ssi e u nnɔ ‘the.n eating/few/aye and nay(n)’), one also finds selection of the neuter determiner with (l)u llíəttə ‘the.n bed(n)’ (Granatiero 1987: 39), which is further evidence of the conventionalization of this gender value.



4.5  Four-gender systems

153

‘def.n wine’ 7.1346, lə ppɛːpə ‘def.n pepper’ 5.1010)111—contrasts with m ʊ (e.g. ʊ kʊrtɪddə ‘def.n knife’). Here too, the indefinite article shows a binary contrast (nu vəttaːunə ‘indf:m button’ 8.1546 vs na čəpɔddə ‘indf:f onion’), but the set phrases nə pekkə ‘a bit’ and nə monnə də ‘a lot of ’ (again, quantificational expressions, as in Molese) have an isolated third form which may be a remnant of a neuter indefinite article.112 A similar situation seems to occur in the dialect of Fondi (province of Latina, see Corsi et al. 2014: 43–50) which has the four-gender system with the n vs m contrast regularly expressed on definite articles, demonstratives, and pronominal clitics (e.g. lu viːnə ‘def.n wine(n)’ vs ju mɛ´ːtəkə ‘def.m doctor(m)’). With all these nouns the indefinite article is usually masculine nu (nu bbɛjjə jɔrnə ‘a.m.sg nice day(m)’) except in the complex quantifier nə kkoːnə (də saːlə) ‘a bit (of salt)’, in which what was possibly a distinct neuter form nə is frozen. To conclude, claims that the mass neuter of central-southern Italy is not a value of the category gender, but rather a merely semantic subdivision of the masculine, do not stand closer examination. The only account of the data consistent with the evidence, as well as with the definition of gender in (3), Chapter 1, is the three-target-gender analysis (142a). Once the contrast between the gender values n and m has been defended against recurring objections, we are equipped to observe that the neuter and masculine can be syncretized in certain contexts. As we have seen, this is the case in most dialects in the indefinite article—with the few known exceptions in (148)–(156)—and in the adjective (except in Central Marchigiano). While some dialects escape this syncretism, none does so in a context where autonomous (mass) neuter forms are never available, viz. the plural. The relevant test is provided by gender resolution with conjoined NPs. Consider Agnonese again. Among the agreement targets already introduced in (129), definite articles are not useful to test resolution due to syntactic distribution, while adjectives never contrast n vs m and thus provide only partial information. If one adds that stressed personal pronouns are not used to resume NPs denoting non-humans, it follows that the only agreement target displaying all relevant contrasts is the DO clitic (on pronominal demonstratives in this dialect see (37), Ch. 7), whose inflected forms are exemplified in (157):113 (157)

a. b. c. d. e.

ru kuo̯nə rə vai ̯də la kɛæ̯ sɐ la vai ̯də lə saŋgwə lə vai ̯də rə ɣɛllə rə/**lə vai ̯də lə sie̯rpə lə/**rə vai ̯də

‘the.m.sg dog, I see it:m’ ‘the.f.sg house, I see it:f’ ‘the.n blood, I see it:n’ ‘the.m.pl cockerels, I see them:m’ ‘the.f.pl snakes, I see them:f’

111  Rohlfs’s transcriptions for the AIS do not record RF after (both variants of) the neuter definite article in Spinazzola, which however occurs regularly to this day, and can hardly be a later innovation (thanks to Giovanni Manzari for sharing his audio recordings with me). RF in this context is recorded for Spinazzolese (pt. 4) in AFP, p. 59 (e.g. lə ppänə ‘def.n bread’). 112  Thanks to G. Manzari for pointing this out to me. 113  These data are representative for conservative rural Agnonese: the urban variety (on which see (35), Ch. 7) neutralizes some of the gender contrasts on DO clitics, using lə/rə in free variation. Also in the most conservative variety, free variation of m.pl rə and f.pl lə occurs, as seen in n. 102, (i), with nouns of alternating gender denoting male animates, which behave as split hybrids, allowing for either syntactic (f.pl) or semantic (m.pl) agreement on this specific plural agreement target.

154

Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

When two conjoined singular NPs are resumed by a DO clitic, feminine plural agreement is selected only if both conjuncts are feminine (158a), except if one denotes a male human in spite of being feminine grammatically ((158b)), not unlike in other Romance languages such as Italian, Romanian (see (67a–b)), or Asturian (see (56b), Ch. 5). Elsewhere masculine plural emerges, as seen in (158c–f): (158) a. l-a

sɛǧǧ-ɐ e ll-a tau̯r-ɐ def-f.sg chair(f)-sg and def-f.sg table(f)-sg ‘the chair and the table, I see them’

lə/**rə=vai̯də f + f DO.3f.pl/m.pl=see.prs.1sg

b. l-a wardj-ɐ e ll-a moʎʎə    so    rruddzə/**rroddzə | def-f.sg guard(f)-sg and def-f.sg wife(f).sg  be.prs.3pl  rough\m/rough\f nnə   rr/**ll=ammitə       ccíu̯             f [male] + f neg  DO.3m.pl/f.pl=invite.prs.1sg  anymore ‘the (security) guard and his wife, are rough; I won’t invite them anymore’ c. r-u     doi̯t-ə      e    rr-u     vrɔčc-̌ ə     rə/**lə= tíe̯ŋgə  def-m.sg  finger(a)-sg  and  def-m.sg  finger(a)-sg  DO.3m.pl/f.pl=have.prs.1sg štuo̯rtə/**štɔrtə a+a crooked\m/crooked\f ‘my finger and my arm are crooked’ [lit. ‘I have them crooked’] d. r-u kafé e rr-u sprəššɛæ̯ tə def-m.sg coffee(m).sg and def-m.sg salami(m).sg mə=rə/**lə=so        kkattɛæ̯ tə 1sg=DO.3m.pl/f.pl=be.prs.1sg bought ‘coffee(m) and salami(m), I have bought them:m’

m + m 

e. r-u kafé e ll-a pašt-ɐ def-m.sg coffee(m).sg and def-f.sg pasta(f)-sg mə=rə/**lə=so         kkatťɛæ̯ tə  1sg=DO.3m.pl/f.pl=be.prs.1sg  bought ‘coffee and pasta, I have bought them’

m+f

f. lə   pɛæ̯ nə      e  llə   kɛæ̯ šə     so     bbuo̯nə/**bbeu̯nə def.n bread(n) and def-n cheese(n) be.prs.3pl good\m / good\f mə=rə/**lə=so         mmaɲɲíe̯tə  n+n 1sg=DO.3m.pl/f.pl=be.prs.1sg eaten ‘bread and cheese are good; I have eaten them’

As seen in (158c), the elsewhere case also includes conjoined nouns of alternating gender, even if each one of them takes feminine agreement when pluralized (see (129c)). Likewise, masculine plural is selected when two mass neuters are coordinated, as in (158f) (a kind of syntactic neutralization that we shall keep in mind for the discussion in §§7.4.2f.). This yields the following resolution rules: (159)  Gender resolution in Agnonese: a. if all conjuncts are feminine b. if one conjunct denotes a male animate c. elsewhere

→ feminine plural → masculine plural → masculine plural



4.6  Concluding remarks: the variety of Romance gender systems

155

4.6  Concluding remarks: the variety of Romance gender systems This chapter has shown that the overall picture that emerges from detailed inspection of the data culled from different branches and stages of the Romance languages and dialects is one that brings in much more exciting data than one may have suspected on the basis solely of knowledge of the major standard languages reviewed in Chapter 3. Far from all displaying binary m vs f gender systems, the Romance languages provide a vast array of quite diverse gender systems, ranging from binary convergent to systems with a four-way contrast. As remarked at the outset, this richness must be duly capitalized on for diachronic reconstruction. This will be done in Chapter 7, after reviewing in Chapter 5 the data from what is probably the single most surprising Romance variety described so far, as far as grammatical gender is concerned, and after addressing, in Chapter 6, the older stages of the Romance languages and dialects. These too, as is to be expected, will contribute crucial tiles to the reconstruction mosaic.

Next page: Map 3  The area of the mass neuter and the Neapolitan-type four-gender system in central-southern Italy The isogloss on the map delimits the extension of the dialect area, straddling large portions of the area mediana and the Upper South, where masculine and feminine co-exist with both a mass neuter and an alternating neuter. Points lying in this area are marked with a triangle and numbered alphabetically. A separate numbering is adopted for points outside this area, marked on the map with a white square, whose dialects lack the mass neuter: these numbers are italicized. The map is based on data from dialect Atlases (AIS, ALI, AFP, AFL), available descriptions, and first hand fieldwork. Coverage is not uniform, as the network is denser around the isoglosses than within areas that uniformly display the same gender system. The data from the corresponding varieties are often discussed in the text, but this is not necessarily the case; the references list therefore also includes works only consulted to create this map: e.g. Maggiore and Variano (2015: 90) on Zapponeta, Stehl (1980: 24–6) on Trinitapoli, Valente (1975: 57) on Orsara, Ortanova, and Margherita di Savoia, Zingarelli (1901: 230) on Cerignola, Melillo (1920) on Volturino, Caratù, and Rinaldi (1995) on Manfredonia (all in the province of Foggia, Puglia), De Vincentiis (1872) on Taranto, Cortese (1989) on Vinchiaturo (province of Campobasso, Molise), Avolio (2002a–b) on Cerasuolo and Riccia (Molise) and Monticchio and Castel di Sangro (Abruzzo), Paiella (1973) on Greccio, Contigliano, and Colli sul Velino (province of Rieti), etc.

Rovigo

Grosseto

Siena

Tuscany

Poggio San Romualdo 9

106 86

108 6 120

159

47 223 42

40

4

206

222 31 111

97 103

150 89

107

0

0

Lazio

52

Umbria

62

158

Abruzzo

Molise

77

0

50 100 km

20 miles

100 miles

Puglia

46

3 165

173

33

0 20 km 20 93 27 28 216 107 Mola di Bari 41 26 137 126 141 23 102 44 162 60 207 81 172 2 44

108

50

Binary (M/F) convergent Binary (M/F) parallel/convergent [variation] Three genders (M(SEM) ≠ F ≠ A) Three genders (M ≠ F ≠ N; distinct neuter plural target forms, fading) Four genders (M ≠ F ≠ A ≠ (MASS)N) Four genders (M(SEM) ≠ F ≠ A ≠ (MASS)N) Four genders (M ≠ F ≠ A1 ≠ A2) Four/three genders, variation (M ≠ F ≠ A1 (≠ A2, fading) Five/four genders, variation (M ≠ F ≠ A1 ≠ (MASS)N) (≠ A2, fading) Binary (M/F) parallel with [±human] subgenders in the M

Binary (M/F) parallel, possibly plus A (or remains thereof, as an inquorate gender)

129 56 106 73 114 130 136 190 25 168 43 94 149 52 212 82 175 121 148 33 133 64 99 171 80 140 224 214 25 66 113 123 123 41 83 45 12 5 miles 16 183 0 155 77 142 14 58 115 188 57 116 0 5 km 23 146 131 27 68 201 11 82 29 100 60 79 Campania 53 24 167 54 68 163 32 7 134 192 127 119 164 6 91 202 5 110 34 37 124 55 122 178 87 133 76 129 154 49 118 Viterbo 28 63 57 158 154 53 38 14 87 156 125 141 147 64 176 Sannicandro Garganico 134 67 196 198 138 165 17 220 17 139 125 132 211 12 120 83 47 94 85 180 179 180 8 20 30 101 219 160 128 149 187 166 178 113 65 153 85 135

Arezzo

Rimini

Marche

Ravenna

Venice

SAN M ARI NO

Forlì

EmiliaRomagna

Ferrara

Prato

Florence

Pistoia

Padua

Veneto

Vicenza

Bologna

Modena

Reggio Emilia

Verona

156 Romance gender systems: The fuller picture

105

0

117

0

0

0

7

5

20 miles

51

177

128

43

8

184

181

141

90

62

157 156 88

121

136

182

195

18

45

92

Molise

84

208

124

153

179

55

Sicily

Messina

73

Trebisacce

Reggio Calabria

Novoli

18

Old Leccese

Sava

Crotone

Casabona

Catanzaro

Calabria

San Giovanni in Fiore

Bocchigliero

95

Puglia

4

162

114

151

Altamura

157

Basilicata

Castrovillari

Cosenza

Verbicaro

39 98 96 182 226 68 183 170 95 142 15 172 21 35 132 193 210 131 30 36 9 72 139 63 13 194 51 61 117 35 11 22 90 118 104 102 174 173 24 122 135 189 213 168 16 144 31 152 218 19 39 167 78 185 76 2

Campan ia

110

200 50 54

130 84 34 205 147 100 75 20 km 169 215 3 78 21 150 19 103 26 171 71 145 109 143 116 38 10 66 1 151 146 1 92 126 13 32 50 170 97 74 161 59 164 58 98 81 199 221 10 Basilicata 127 70 101 119 209 112 104 155 80 191 174 Campania 138 56 148 176 109 177 169 144 42 160 29 22 115 159 175 88 40 48 163 93 46 137 65 91 61 69 99 112 37 152 166 36 181 143

10 km

204

L a z i o 161

111 59 225

10 miles

89

Old Romanesco 71 79 96 75

140

49

217 15 186 86 69 105 203 70 Amaseno 74

72 197 48

Parabita

Lecce

Cellino San Marco

4.6  Concluding remarks: the variety of Romance gender systems 157

43 44 45 46 47 48 49

42

40 41

38 39

36 37

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Accettura Adelfia Albano di Lucania Alberobello Amelia Ancona Anzio Apricena Arcevia Armento Ascoli Piceno Assisi Bernalda Bettona Biccari Bojano Bracciano Brindisi Brindisi Montagna Cagnano Varano Calciano Calvera Calvisi Campello sul Clitunno Campobasso Campomaggiore Cannara Caprarola Carbone Carpino Casacalenda Casale Castellana Grotte Castelli, Teramo Castelluccio dei Sauri Castelluccio Inferiore Castelluccio Superiore Castelmezzano Castelnuovo della Daunia Castelsaraceno Castelvetere in Val Fortore Castronuovo di Sant’Andrea Celenza Valfortore Cellamare Cercemaggiore Cersosimo Cerveteri Chiaromonte Chieti

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

Cirigliano Cisterna di Latina Città di Castello Civita Castellana Civitella del Tronto Colli sul Velino Colobraro Contigliano Corleto Perticara Craco Deruta Episcopia Fabriano Fabrica di Roma Fara San Martino Fardella Ferrandina Foggia Formicola Francavilla in Sinni Gallicchio Garaguso Ginestra degli Schiavoni Gioia del Colle Gorgoglione Grassano Greccio Grottammare Grottole Gualdo Cattaneo Gualdo Tadino Guardia Perticara Gubbio Guglionesi Irsina Ischitella Jesi Lanciano Lariano Larino Latina Latronico Laurenzana Lauria Lesina Locorotondo Lucera Lupara Manfredonia Maratea Marsciano Missanello Monopoli Montagano

151 152

150

147 148 149

108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146

106 107

104 105

Montalbano Ionico Monte Porzio Catone Montecarotto Montefalcone nel Sannio Montemarciano Montescaglioso Montesilvano Morrone del Sannio Nemoli Nocera Umbra Noci Nova Siri Oliveto Lucano Omignano Ortona Orvieto Osimo Palestrina Penne Perugia Pescara Peschici Pietrapertosa Pisticci Poggio Imperiale Porto Recanati Recanati Reino Riano Riccia Rignano Flaminio Rignano Garganico Ripalimosani Rivello Roccanova Rodi Garganico Rome Ronciglione Roseto Valfortore Rotonda Rotondella Salandra San Benedetto del Tronto San Chirico Nuovo San Chirico Raparo San Giovanni Rotondo San Martino in Pensilis San Mauro Forte San Severino Lucano 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183

153 154

Abriola Acerenza Acquaviva delle Fonti Agnone Agosta Amatrice Amorosi Anagni Andria Anzi Apollosa Aschi Alto Ascoli Satriano Ascrea Ausonia Avellino Avezzano Avigliano Banzi Bari Barletta

San Severo San Valentino in Abruzzo Citeriore Sant’Arcangelo Sant’Oreste Santeramo in Colle Sassoferrato Senise Serracapriola Stigliano Taranto Teana Teramo Termoli Terranova di Pollino Todi Toro Tricarico Trinitapoli Trivigno Troia Turi Tursi Valsinni Vasto Velletri Veroli Vico del Gargano Vieste Viggianello Volturara Appula Volturino 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 Benevento Binetto Bisaccia Bisceglie Bitetto Bitonto Bitritto Bovara Bovino Calitri Calvello Campodipietra Cancellara Candela Canosa di Puglia Cantalice Capestrano Caposele Capracotta Capurso Carovilli Carpineto Romano Casamassima Caserta Cassano delle Murge Castel di Sangro Castro dei Volsci Ceprano Cerasuolo Cerignola Cerreto d’Esi Cerreto Sannita Cervaro Cetara Cingoli Colfiorito Colle Sannita Colonna Conversano Corato Cori Deliceto Esanatoglia Ferentino Fermo Fiano Romano Foligno Fondi Formia Frascati Frosinone Frosolone Gaeta Genzano Genzano di Lucania 122 123 124 125 126 127

118 119 120 121

116 117

113 114 115

77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112

Giovinazzo Gravina di Puglia Grottaferrata Grumento Grumo Appula Guardia Sanframondi Guardiaregia Ischia Isola del Liri Itri L’Aquila Lagonegro Lanuvio Lavello Leonessa Limatola Loseto Macerata Margherita di Savoia Marino Marsico Nuovo Marsico Vetere Matelica Matera Mattinata Melfi Miglionico Minervino Murge Minturno Miranda Modugno Molfetta Moliterno Mondragone Monte Compatri Monte San Giacomo Monte Sant’Angelo Montecassiano Montefalcone in Val Fortore Montefortino Monteleone di Puglia Montemilone Montemurro Monterotondo Monteverde di Bojano Monticchio Muccia Naples Nerola Noicattaro Norcia 175 176

172 173 174

171

169 170

167 168

136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166

128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 Norma Ofena Oppido Orsara Ortanova Otricoli Pago Veiano Palazzo San Gervasio Paliano Palo del Colle Palombara Sabina Panni Pastena Pietragalla Pietraroja Pignola Poggiorsini Polignano a Mare Polla Popoli Porto San Giorgio Porto Sant’Elpidio Potenza Putignano Rapolla Ravello Rieti Ripatransone Rocca di Papa Rocca Priora Rocca Sinibalda Roccasicura Rofrano Roiate Rutigliano Ruvo Sala Consilina Sammichele di Bari San Donato Val di Comino San Fele San Mango sul Calore San Martino d’Agri San Pietro al Tanagro San Severino Marche Sannicandro di Bari Sant’Agata de’ Goti Sant’Angelo a Cupolo Sant’Elpidio a Mare Sanza

177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 Sarconi Sassa Scala Scanno Segni Serrone Servigliano Sezze Solofra Sonnino Sora Spello Spinazzola Spinete Spinoso Spoleto Stornara Stornarella Subiaco Sulmona Supino Tagliacozzo Teggiano Terelle Terlizzi Terni Terracina Tivoli Tolve Torella del Sannio Toritto Torre del Greco Tramutola Trani Trasacco Treia Trevico Urbisaglia Vaglio Valenzano Vallecorsa Venosa Vico nel Lazio Vicovaro Viggiano Villa Canale Villa San Michele Vinchiaturo Zagarolo Zapponeta

158 Romance gender systems: The fuller picture



4.6  Concluding remarks: the variety of Romance gender systems

159

N vs M marking on the indefinite article Traces of N vs M marking on the indefinite article 0

Marche

0

50 miles 50 km

Macerata

Umbria

Abruzzo Agnone

Roiate

Lazio

Mattinata

Molise Fondi

Castelvetere in Val Fortore Spinazzola

Campania

Mola di Bari

Puglia

Basilicata

Map 4  Marking of the neuter (n) vs masculine (m) contrast on the indefinite article The map shows the very few dialects for which an n vs m contrast (or remnants thereof) has been described so far.

5 Mass/countness and gender in Asturian There are several ways in which the mass/count distinction can be grammaticized in the languages of the world (reviewed e.g. in Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2004): some of them involve the feature gender, as in the examples to be discussed in (2)–(6), Chapter 8, while some do not. It is a matter of debate which one of these several ways applies to (central) Asturian. In this language, there is a direct correlation between countability and agreement, but in a way that we have not encountered so far and that subtly differs, in particular, from the kind of interaction of mass/count and gender seen in §4.5.4. The Asturian data have been analysed in several conflicting ways in the literature. As I will show in §§5.1–5.4, the solution to this puzzle will reveal a typological rarity, unique, so far, in the Latin-Romance linguistic history.

5.1  Central Asturian: the basic facts Consider the data in (1), from the Central Asturian bable (the local label for ‘dialect’) of Lena (Neira Martínez 1955: 70–2, 1978: 260; Map 5, at the end of this chapter, shows the distribution of Asturian dialects and the local varieties mentioned in what follows):1 (1) 

gender

countability

det

N

Adj

Central Asturian (Lena)

a. f

count

la

casa

fri-a

‘def.f.sg cold house’

b.

mass

c. m d.

count

tsiche el

café pie

fri-o fri-u

‘def.f.sg cold milk’ ‘def.m.sg cold coffee’ ‘def.m.sg cold foot’

1  Standard Asturian (see A.Ll.A. 2001) is based on the central bables: as for the morphosyntactic phenomena to be discussed here, there are only small differences (e.g. in overt gender marking on nouns, see n. 2 and the discussion on (42)–(43)) which do not affect the argument developed in what follows. As for the other dialects, Eastern Asturian only contrasts ‑a vs ‑u in postnominal and predicative adjectives, with the ‑u form occurring with all mass nouns (i.e. in the contexts (1b–c)), so that the same agreement mismatch as in (1) is observed (see e.g. Neira Martínez 1991: 446f.; García Arias 2003a: 30, n. 30; and (45)/(47), Ch. 7). Western dialects too lack an ‑o vs ‑u contrast on adjectives but, in addition, also select the feminine form postnominally with mass nouns, with three different contrasting forms only on articles and pronouns, not unlike Standard Spanish (see (28a) and discussion of the lo article in §4.3.4; see e.g. Cano González 2009: 90–4 for a detailed analysis of a western bable). Gender from Latin to Romance. First edition. Michele Loporcaro © Michele Loporcaro 2018. First published 2018 by Oxford University Press



5.1  Central Asturian: the basic facts

161

Not unlike the situation in Spanish (or Portuguese, Catalan, etc.), definite articles display a binary contrast in Asturian, while, contrary to the languages reviewed in §3.1.1, a three-way contrast appears on attributive adjectives following the noun (as well as on predicative adjectives, participles, pronouns, and some agreeing whwords), which is sensitive to mass/countness (as well as to the gender opposition masculine/feminine). On those agreement targets, all mass nouns, masculine or feminine, select a dedicated o-agreement which contrasts with masculine ‑u and fem­ inine ‑a, giving rise to paradigms such as the following:2 buinu/buena/bueno ‘good:m/ f/n’, fundu/fonda/fondo ‘deep:m/f/n’, reúndu/reonda/reondo ‘round.m/f/n’, fíu/fea/feo ‘ugly:m/f/n’, etc.3 Not only the definite articles seen in (1), but also all other determiners, demonstratives, and adjectives preceding the noun within the NP show a binary contrast, with the endings ‑u vs ‑a, while **‑o never occurs (examples from A.Ll.A. 2001: 108, Camblor Portilla and Wood Bowden 2005: 26f.): (2)

a. el otr-u/**-o camín; ‘the other path’; b. el dur-u/**-o carbon; ‘the hard coal’; c. la guap-a/**-o ropa; ‘the pretty clothes’; d. la tercer(-a)/**-o vegada; ‘the third time’;

el nues-u/**-o pueblu ‘our village’ el nues-u/**-o dinero ‘our money’ la vues-a/**-o ropa ‘your clothes’ la vues-a/**-o casa ‘your house’

Thus, an elementary descriptive generalization emerges: anything which occurs prenominally (in what follows, I will use ‘prenominal(ly)’ as a shorthand for ‘preceding the noun within the NP’) has a binary agreement contrast (see the articles and adjectives in (2)), while a three-way contrast is found elsewhere (see the adjectives in (1)).4

2  Much less consistently, the mass/count distinction may be marked on nominal endings too (see (39) in §5.4.2): queso ‘cheese’/quisu ‘piece of cheese’ (Neira Martínez 1978: 259). Only three doublets of noun lexemes with this kind of overt marking are accepted in the normative standard (i.e. fierro ‘iron’/fierru ‘iron implement’, pelo/pelu ‘hair’ mass/count, filo/filu ‘thread’ mass/count, see A.Ll.A. 2001: 93, 323), while several more exist in the Central dialects. The crucial difference, however, is that while without exception the endings on postnominal adjectives correlate with mass/countness (which can then be said to be grammaticized), this may or may not be the case on nouns, where the same contrast can also encode a lot of other differences in lexical meaning, such as dimension and shape: e.g. cestu ‘small basket’ vs cesto ‘big basket’ vs cesta ‘basket with a handle on top’, güertu/-o/-a ‘very small/small/big vegetable garden’ (see García Arias 2003a: 28; the DGLA s.u. güertu reports güerto for Llangréu and Santu Adrianu, while s.u. cestu does not record any dialect variant with ‑o). In brief, outside agreement targets, ‑o vs ‑u (not unlike -u vs -a) is lexically idiosyncratic: see e.g. the difference in part of speech between cabo ‘near’ and cabu ‘head’. 3  Glosses (with m vs n vs f) follow Fernández-Ordóñez (2009: 58f.) but, given the outcome of the present discussion, they will have to be revised in §5.3. 4  To explain these facts, many speculations have been put forward: several proposals within Minimalist syntax are reviewed e.g. in Camblor Portilla and Wood Bowden 2005: 28–40. The fact that prenominal adjectival position is heavily restricted in Asturian is orthogonal to our present concerns.

162

Mass/countness and gender in Asturian

This is further illustrated in (3)–(5) with wh-forms and demonstratives, that can occur adnominally or pronominally. Consider cuál ‘which (one)’:5 (3)

a. prenominal paradigm singular m cuál rapaz? cuál carbón f cuál-a - lleña cuál-a rapaz-a

b. elsewhere plural

cuál-os rapaz-os?

singular cuál(-u)

plural cuál-os

cuál-o cuál-o

cuál-es rapaz-es

‘which boy/coal/wood/girl?’ (sg/pl)

cuál-a

cuál-es

‘which one(s)?’ (intended: question on the same nouns as in (3a))

In (3), mass nouns are taken in their unmarked use (see (146), Ch. 4), in which they cannot pluralize: for example **cinco ropes, **nueve fumos (A.Ll.A. 2001: 75). However, the divide in the plural in (3a) is guaranteed by the fact that, if used in the plural for any of the reasons discussed in (146), Chapter 4, those nouns select the same article and prenominal modifier forms as countables: los/**les papeles ‘the:m papers’, les/**los fueyes ‘the:f leaves’ (compare mass enllenu de fueya seco/papel blanco ‘filled with dried:n leafage/white:n paper’). The elsewhere case (3b) is further illustrated with pronominal reference in (4): (4)

a. ¿cuál/cuál-u ye fí-u d’Olaya? which_one[m.sg]/-m.sg be.prs.3sg son(m)-m.sg of Olaya? ‘Which one (of those boys) is Olaya’s son?’ b. ¿cuál-a       de   les     tos  sobrin-es     estudió         drechu? which_one-f.sg  of  def:f.pl  your  cousin(f)-pl  study.pret:3sg  law? ‘Which one of your cousins studied law?’ c. nun  sabe        cuál-o      ye      meyor, si’l plásticu o’l papel neg  know.prs.3sg  which_one-n  be.prs.3sg  better whether plastic or paper ‘s/he does not know which one is better, whether plastic or paper’

Note that, as already seen with adjectives, whenever a word belonging to the same part of speech is allowed to occur either post- or prenominally, the same mismatch is observed, as illustrated with demonstratives in (5) (A.Ll.A. 2001: 104f.):6

5  The same goes for cuántu ‘how much?’ and úlu ‘where?’ 6  For just one Asturian dialect, that of Quirós (some 30 km north-west of Lena, directly across the border with Western Asturian), a three-way contrast in prenominal position, along partly different lines and concerning only the demonstrative, not the definite article, has been described by Viejo Fernández (2003: 9f.): esti café ‘this:m cup of coffee’ vs esto pan/queiso ‘this:n bread/cheese’ vs esta farina/l.leitse ‘this:f flour/ milk’ (see (63)–(65)). The occurrence of prenominal esto is explicitly excluded, for Central Asturian, by Neira Martínez (1978: 261): esti/**esto maíz ‘this maize’.



5.2  The Asturian neuter: analyses so far

163

(5) Masculine, count a. esti home ‘this.prox man’ b. l’home esti ‘this.prox man’ c. l’home ye esi ‘the man is this.nonprox’ d. esi fala bien

Feminine, count

Feminine, mass

esa muyer

aquella lleña

‘this.nonprox women’

‘that wood’

la muyer esa

la lleña aquello

‘this.nonprox women’

‘that wood’

la muyer yera esa

la lleña paez aquello

‘the women was that.nonprox’ ‘the wood seems to be that’ esa trabaya muncho

aquello nun arde

‘this.nonprox one speaks well’ ‘that.nonprox one works a lot’ ‘that one does not burn’

For agreement with masculine and feminine count nouns linear order does not play a role, but with mass nouns the feminine ending ‑a occurs only on prenominal demonstratives ((5a)).

5.2  The Asturian neuter: analyses so far There is hardly any doubt that the binary contrast observed prenominally is one of gender: by definition (3), Chapter 1, for example la casa/tsiche vs el café/pie belong to two distinct agreement classes and thus establish the very same masculine vs fem­ inine gender contrast observed in Spanish and the other languages reviewed in §3.1.1. As elsewhere in Romance, neither gender value is defined semantically (as they all include inanimates) but both centre around a semantic nucleus, since they host proper and common nouns denoting males and females, respectively, which are assigned gender by a semantic rule (see Junquera Huergo 1869[1991]: 102; D’Andrés 1993: 79). The analytical problem, indeed a vexata quaestio of Ibero-Romance linguistics, arises with the three-way contrast found in the elsewhere case and, more specifically, with the occurrence of the third ending ‑o: the crucial point is that the binary contrast is not a simple reduction of the three-way one (via merger of two forms) but implies a mismatch, as highlighted by the boxes in (1). While forms like frio (contrasting with friu and fria) have been referred to traditionally as el neutro asturiano, the analysis of the paradigm in (3b) in terms of a ‘triple distinción de género’ (García Arias 2003b: 273) within ‘a tri-partite gender system’ (Blaylock  1965: 257) has been disputed. Alongside this position ((6a)), at least two others have been maintained (at times more than one by the same author or even in the same work), viz. that o‑agreement on adjectives and pronouns is the exponent of one value of some semantic category, rather than of the morphosyntactic category ‘gender’ ((6b)), or that it is the exponent of one value of another morphosyntactic category, viz. number ((6c)): (6) a. gender (m ≠ f ≠ n): Junquera Huergo (1869[1991]: 68), Menéndez Pidal (1899), Neira Martínez (1955), Zamora Vicente (1967: 109), Alonso (1958, 1962), García Arias (2003b: 273), etc.;

164



Mass/countness and gender in Asturian b. semantic feature (in a m vs f gender system): ±count (Hall 1968, Ojeda 1984, Hualde  1992, García Arias  2003b: 135), ±continuous (Neira Martínez  1978: 261, Viejo Fernández 1998–99) c. number: Arias Cabal (1998,  1999), Viejo Fernández (1998–99), Corbett (2000: 124–6), Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2004: 1069), Camblor Portilla and Wood Bowden (2005), San Segundo Cachero (2015: 18).

On the latter front, some analyses assume three number values: singular/mass/plural (Arias Cabal 1998: 35), or continuous/discrete/plural (Arias Cabal 2011: 134). Others propose a layered number structure, as seen in (7a–b): (7)  a. Top system

singular

Second system mass b. Number

singular

countable singular

plural

plural

(Corbett 2000: 126)

plural uncountable (Camblor Portilla and uncountable Wood Bowden 2005: 28)

According to Corbett (2000: 124–6), ‘singular mass’ is a (sub)number, contrasting with singular count within a second number system (7a), while it is the singular vs plural contrast which is downgraded to subnumber (though not with this terminology) by Camblor Portilla and Wood Bowden (2005: 28). In what follows, I will first address the evidence that speaks against analyses of the three-way contrast (3b) in terms of (sub)number or some other non-morphosyntactic feature ((6b–c)) and then (§5.4) propose a novel definition of the inflectional category encoded in Asturian paradigms such as buinu/bueno/buena.

5.3  The problem with the Asturian neuter These paradigms signal agreement which, in principle, can involve number, gender, or both, or still other morphosyntactic categories. Let us start from the fact that the o-ending on participles also signals non-agreement. Compound tenses formed with the auxiliary haber ‘have’ are proscribed from the standard language (A.Ll.A. 1990: 74) and mostly non-existent in the dialects (see Cano González 2009: 153 on the bable of Somiedo). However, Neira Martínez (1955: 72) reports some examples from Lena in order to illustrate the categorical occurrence of ‑o ‘en los participios en los tiempos compuestos’ [‘in the participles in compound tenses’] (see also n. 2): (8) a. ha cayí-o ‘has fallen-n’; ha vení-o ‘has come-n’; hubiese salí-o ‘had.sbjv/ind gotten out-n’ b. quando šegó Ramona, hubiese marcha-o pa la güerta ‘when Ramona arrived, I had already left-n for the vegetable garden’ The syntax of past participle agreement is the same here as in Spanish (see Loporcaro 1998: 155–8), where it has disappeared even with unaccusative predicates such as those in (8a). The same applies to standard Asturian and, in both the standard



5.3  The problem with the Asturian neuter

165

language and the bables, can be observed with more ease in the tener perfective periphrasis (D’Andrés 1993: 80):7 (9)  Llinu tenía si-o un bon estudiante ‘Llinu had been-n a good student’ Having disappeared with unaccusatives, a fortiori participle agreement does not occur in periphrases with unergatives ((8b), (10a)) and transitives ((10b)) (see A.Ll.A. 2001: 188, 224): (10) a. tengo fala-o estos díes col abogáu ‘I spoke to the lawyer lately’ b. tengo fech-o les cames ‘I made the beds’ Selection of the endings ‑u or ‑a on the participles in (8b), (9), and (10a) would result in ungrammaticality.8 Conversely, these are obligatory in the passive, whenever the subject is masculine or feminine, and countable (A.Ll.A. 2001: 188, A.Ll.A. 1987: 179):9 (11) a. el neñu ye llavá-u/**llava-o por min ‘the kid is washed-m by me’ b. la denuncia de l’Academia foi siguid-a/**siguí-o/**siguí-u por otres fuercies culturales ‘the denunciation by the Academy was followed-f by other cultural forces’ c. la ropa ye seca-o/**secá-u/**secada por ti ‘the clothes are dried-n by you’ These data parallel their standard Spanish counterparts in that participle agreement persists with the final subject (and initial direct object) of a passive clause, but diverge in that mass nouns select distinct o-agreement, as shown in (11c). Now, past participle agreement in passive clauses is—in Spanish as elsewhere in Romance—agreement in gender and number, and the null hypothesis is that Asturian is not different, as I will argue in §5.4.3. 7  This periphrasis is widespread in Ibero-Romance. In Asturian—as in Portuguese and Galician (see Rojo  1974)—it is a true compound tense (see the arguments in Cano González  2009: 183) denoting repeated/durative events (see the description in A.Ll.A. 2001: 225, and Squartini 1998: 164f. for discussion and further references). 8  With transitive predicates, object agreement is an option (with a different structure and semantics): escribí-u un papel (i) a. to hold.1sg written-m.sg indf[m.sg] paper(m)[sg] b. to escribí-a una carta hold.1sg written-m.sg indf[m.sg] letter(f)[sg] ‘I have written a paper/letter//I have a paper/letter written’ In this context, as seen in (10b), selection of ‑o can occur, so that agreement with (mass) neuter objects cannot be told apart, morphologically, from non-agreement. 9  See Schuchardt (1898: 395f.) for an early discussion of past participle agreement in the masculine singular (elli está entregáu ‘he’s been handed:m.sg over’) as contrasting with non-agreement (lu habia entregáo ‘s/he had handed:n it:m.sg over over’) in Asturian, based on data collected by the prince Luigi Luciano Bonaparte.

166

Mass/countness and gender in Asturian

The fact that the same ending ‑o is selected both by neuter/mass controller nouns ((11c)) and when the participle does not agree ((8)–(10)), is reminiscent of Central Marchigiano ((119)–(123), Ch. 4) which I have analysed, following standard assumptions on agreement, as a system with ‘one of the normal possibilities [i.e. one gender value—M.L.] drafted in for this extra duty’ (Corbett 2006: 96). In this sense, the two groups work the same way, although the Asturian system obviously differs because of the prenominal binary contrast. The coincidence between central Asturias and central-southern Italy extends to the agreement of nominal predicates and past participles with non-canonical controllers, which also requires o-selection on pronouns, adjectives, and participles. This applies to the whole list of the by now familiar cases, including clausal subjects of all sorts ((12)), clauses whose subjects are genderless expressions (pronouns or adverbs) ((13)), and at least some outputs of conversion ((14); a point to be resumed in (40)–(43)) (see D’Andrés 1993: 58, 67, 77; Camblor Portilla and Wood Bowden 2005: 22; A.Ll.A. 379):10 (12) a. l-o mal-u  que  ye’l           neñ-u, def-n bad-m.sg that be.prs.3sg=def[m.sg] boy(m)-sg sáb-e=l-o         l-a     ma know.prs-3sg=DO3-n  def-f.sg mother(f).sg ‘how bad the boy is, his mother knows it’ b. l-o de que tol-os homes son igual-es ye guap-o def-n of  that all-m.pl men be.prs.3pl equal-m.pl be.prs.3sg nice-n ‘the fact of all humans being equal, is nice’ c. (el)       que fumes       peles     mañan-es   ye    mal-o def[m.sg]  that  smoke.sbjv:2sg  for_def:f.pl  morning(f)-pl  be.prs.3sg  bad-n ‘the fact of your smoking every morning is bad’ ta (13) a. güei today be.prs.3sg ‘it’s dark today’ b. est-o ye this-n be.prs.3sg ‘this is delicious’

tapecí-o dark-n ric-o delicious-n

blanc-o/‑u ye emplega-o como símbolu de pureza (14) a. el def[m.sg] white-n/-m.sg be.prs.3sg use:ptp-n as symbol of  purity ‘white is used as a symbol of purity’11 b. l-o    blanc-o   val     más  car-o  def-n white-n cost.prs.3sg more expensive-n ‘white (paint) is more expensive’ 10  The sources quoted contain a detailed review of all cases in which o-agreement is selected, including e.g. with metalinguistic expressions: “teléfano” ta mal dich-o ‘teléfano [instead of teléfono] is ungrammatical-n’, “arrivederci” dícen=l-o los italianos ‘arrivederci, Italians say that-n’ (A.Ll.A. 379f.). 11  This example is given (with -o/‑u variation on the nominalized adjective) by D’Andrés (1993: 66) (see also A.Ll.A. 2001: 327), while Camblor Portilla and Wood Bowden (2005: 22) report lo blanco ye emplegao etc. (with the neuter article and the neuter ending). Free variation between lo and el nominalizing converted adjectives has been discussed recently by Barcia López (2014: 85) for the transitional variety of Asturian-Galician.



5.3  The problem with the Asturian neuter

167

On the other hand, whenever the final subject (and initial direct object) of a nominal predication—with either of the copulas, ser or tar—is an NP headed by a noun, this controls agreement regularly in Asturian (A.Ll.A. 2001: 179), as it does elsewhere in Romance: (15)

a. el neñ-u ta cansá-u def[m.sg] kid(m)-sg stay.prs.3sg tired-m.sg ‘the kid is tired’ b. l-a    to  sobrin-a    no    ta     casad-a def-f.sg 2sg cousin(f)-sg  neg stay.prs.3sg married-f.sg ‘your cousin is not married’ c. l     agu-a    ta     ferví-o def water(f)-sg stay.prs.3sg boiled-f.sg ‘the water is boiled’

Similar examples of three-way agreement contrast in predicative position (as well as in postnominal attributive position) show that all the forms of the paradigm can occur in one and the same syntactic context.12 The data in (15a–c) show that there is indeed a three-way contrast in the same context. Again, the nominal controller in (15c) selects the same agreement as the nonnominal ones in (14). The same occurs with pronominal object clitics, which on the one hand are selected by nominal antecedents, showing the three-way contrast ((16)), and on the other pronominalize non-nominal controllers ((17)) (Neira Martínez 1978: 277f., 1991: 449f.; D’Andrés 1993: 77): (16)

a. el vas-u nuev-u, rompí=l-u def[m.sg] vase(m)-sg new-m.sg break:pret.1sg=DO.3-m.sg ‘the new vase, I broke it’ b. el café negr-o,  bebí=l-o def[m.sg] coffee(m).sg black-n drink:pret.1sg=DO.3-n ‘the black coffee, I drank it’ c. l-a boron-a       cocí-o,    comí=l-o def-f.sg cornbread(f)-sg baked-n eat:pret.1sg=DO.3-n ‘the baked cornbread, I ate it’ d. l-a    manzan-a    maúr-a,     coyí=l-a def-f.sg apple(f)-sg ripe-f.sg pick:pret.1sg=DO.3-f.sg ‘the ripe apple, I picked it’

12  The following statement by Arias Cabal (2011) only seems to contradict this observation: ‘en asturiano no hay ningún sustantivo […] que entre en concordancias con adjetivos de modo que en un mismo contexto se pueda dar una triple oposición del tipo vieyu, ‑a, ‑o’ (Arias Cabal 2011: 137) [‘in Asturian there is no noun that selects agreement with adjectives in such a way that in the same context there may be a threeway contrast of the type vieyu, ‑a, ‑o’; emphasis added—M.L.)]. The reason is that a more restrictive definition of ‘context’ is assumed there, which also includes the lexical morpheme. Indeed, no noun lexeme selects three different agreement options, while many cases occur where recategorizations between mass and count semantics account for a choice between feminine and neuter, or masculine and neuter agreement: e.g. la fueya viey-a ‘the old-f.sg leaf ’ vs la fueya viey-o ‘old-n leafage/leaves’; el fierru viey-u ‘the old-m.sg iron implement’ vs el fierro viey-o ‘old-n iron’.

168 (17)

Mass/countness and gender in Asturian a. ónde atroparon tant-u diner-u nun l-o where find:pret.3pl so_much-m.sg money(m)-sg neg DO.3-n sabe         naide know.prs:3sg  no one ‘where they found so much money, nobody knows’ b. es-o     díxi=te=l-o          yo    y  nun me    this-n tell:pret.3sg=IO.2sg =DO.3-n 1sg and neg  IO.1sg fixisti       casu do:pret.2sg case ‘this, I had told you, but you did not pay attention to me’

The clitic lo also occurs as a propredicate clitic (A.Ll.A. 2001: 371), a further context which, as seen in (10), Chapter 3, is a prerogative of the default gender value across Romance:13 (18)

es-i rapacín ye un degorri-u ; this-m.sg little_boy be.prs.3sg indf[m.sg] devil(m)-sg ye=l-o/**l-u be.prs.3sg=3sg-n/-m.sg ‘this little boy is a devil; yes, he is’

sí, yes

A remarkable peculiarity of Asturian consists in the selection of o-agreement on nouns—even denoting animals or humans in their non-metaphorical use—used as primary ((19a–c)) or secondary ((19d)) predicates (D’Andrés 1993: 72; Viejo Fernández 1998–99: 562): (19)

a. ta perr-o, pero hai       que   tirar      p’alantre is dog-n   but    there_be.prs.3sg that pull.inf forward ‘it’s bad, but one must go on’ b. es-o        ye fi-o  de lo      anterior this.nonprox-n  is   son-n  of def-n preceding ‘this follows from what happened before’ c. es-a tel-a ye herman-o d’ aquell-o otr-o this.nonprox-f.sg cloth(f)-sg is brother-n of that-n other-n ‘this cloth is similar to that other’ d. contestó-y        mui   llob-o answer.pret.3sg-IO3sg very wolf-n  ‘s/he answered to him/her very harshly/cynically’

Lexically, perru, fíu, hermanu, and llobu are masculine (and select ‑u agreement both prenominally and elsewhere: aquel perru, vendió=l-u ‘that dog, s/he sold it-m’, A.Ll.A. 2001: 20), so that their o-ending depends on agreement with either a non-nominal clause 13  Of course, in compound tenses this propredicate clitic co-occurs with the neuter form of the past participle (e.g. sí-o ‘been-n’: cuandu illi yera rexidor, ya tú llo tenís sío ‘when he was alderman, you had already been:n’; Junquera Huergo 1869 [1991]: 137).



5.3  The problem with the Asturian neuter

169

subject (a dummy and a realized pronoun, respectively, in (19a–b)) or with a subject (and initial object) NP whose head is a mass noun ((19c)).14 In (19d), on the other hand, llobo is used adverbially, and therefore takes the o-ending (contrast llobu in (20c)). Again, had we not known that, say, tela in (19c) selects feminine forms of articles, determiners, and prenominal adjectives, we would not hesitate to state that (a) the rule computing gender and agreement on all predicates results in selection of the default value in all contexts where there cannot be agreement with any nominal controller, and that (b) this default value is the neuter, selected on predicates also by certain nouns. The o-ending also occurs in ‘pancake agreement’ contexts (Viejo Fernández 1998– 99, 2003: 8; Fernández-Ordóñez 2006–07: 2.60), with subject (apparently) a countable feminine or masculine (compare ‘ordinary’ m.sg agreement with llobu in (20c)): (20)

a. la biciclet-a ye dur-o def:f.sg bike(f)-sg be.prs.3sg hard-n ‘biking is hard’ b. el llob-u ye problemátic-o def:m.sg wolf(m)-sg be.prs.3sg problematic-n ‘wolves are a problem/there are problems with wolves’ c. el llob-u ye carnívor-u def:m.sg wolf(m)-sg be.prs.3sg carnivorous-m.sg ‘wolves are carnivorous’

This kind of agreement, in both Asturian and Northern Castilian (see (21), from Fernández-Ordóñez 2006–07: 2.60, 2009: 59), may also occur with plural arguments: (21)

la-s medicina-s es car-o. L-o compramos en la farmacia def:f.pl medicine(f)-pl is expensive-n it-n buy.prs:1pl in the pharmacy ‘medicines are expensive. We buy them in the pharmacy’

We have seen that in Sursilvan ((20)f., §4.3.3) an extra value of the feature gender, viz. the neutral (whose exponents derive diachronically from Latin neuter morphology but do not occur any more with any controller nouns), is selected in ‘pancake agreement’ contexts, and that the same form also occurs with place-names. In Asturian too, place-names admit o-agreement (see D’Andrés 1993: 54), both in nominal predication contexts compatible with a ‘pancake agreement’ analysis ((22a–b)) and elsewhere ((22c–d)): (22)

a. Lluanco ye turístic-o/-u/**-a Ll. is touristic-n/-m.sg/-f.sg ‘Lluanco is a tourist place’ b. Asturies ye mui guap-o/-a/**-u Ll. is very beautiful-n/-f.sg/-m.sg ‘Asturias is very beautiful’

14  I assume Perlmutter’s (1983) analysis of impersonal constructions and, more generally, the analysis of unaccusative predications as involving an initial object relation, as put forward by Perlmutter (1978, 1989).

170

Mass/countness and gender in Asturian

c. los militares      dexaron      L’Arxentina  to-o   fastidia-o/     to-a    fastidiad-a the militaries  leave:pret.3pl  Argentina   all-n  disgusted-n/  all-f.sg  disgusted- f.sg ‘the military (junta) left Argentina completely disgusted’ d. L-a   Costa del Sol   atopé=l-o     mui   desfech-o/atopé=l-a def-f.sg C. d. S.    find:pret.1sg=it-n very ruined-n/find:pret.1sg=it-f.sg mui  desfech-a very ruined-f.sg ‘the Costa del Sol, I found it quite ruined’ Note that variation is always between ‑o/‑u or ‑o/‑a, but there are never three options. Moreover, place-names whose form is plural require ‑o categorically: (23)

a. Les Arriondes   ye   bien  afayadí-o/**son bien  afayadic-es    pa vivir def:f.pl A.  is very pleasant-n/are very  pleasant-f.pl  to live ‘Les Arriondes is a very pleasant place to live.’ b. Las Palmas ye l-o más guap-o/**son l-as más def:f:pl P. is def-n most beautiful-n/are def-f:pl most guap-es      de Canaries beautiful-f.sg of Canarias ‘Las Palmas is the most beautiful in the Canaries.’

In Sursilvan, neutral agreement occurs not only with place-names and in ‘pancake agreement’ contexts but also in the same contexts now scrutinized for Asturian in (12)–(13). Again, the reason why an analysis in terms of a neutral (extra) value of the category ‘gender’ is not viable for Asturian is that the same agreement is selected systematically by nominal controllers too, that is, nouns like la maéra ‘the:f.sg timber(f)’ or el arroz ‘the:m.sg rice(m)’ (and the place-names in (23)): so, we cannot term o-agreement ‘neutral’. But since these nouns diverge in gender, as shown by the article, one cannot say, either, that they both select ‘neuter’ agreement, period (as I did for Central Marchigiano), which would boil down to adopting a plain three-gender analysis as schematized in (6a). Such an analysis is rightly criticized in recent studies on  the topic, adducing the binary gender contrast manifested prenominally (see e.g. San Segundo Cachero  2015: 16–8, who upholds a number analysis, or FernándezOrdóñez 2006–07: 2.56, for whom it is neither number nor gender; see directly below). The alternative analyses in (6b–c), however, fare even worse. Under analyses of type (6b)—claiming that the ‑o vs ‑u vs ‑a contrast is neither one of number nor one of gender, but rather something else—one should complicate syntactic rules and claim that, say, past participle agreement in the passive is by gender and number with the two classes of nouns in (11a–b), but not in (11c)—in spite of the syntactic contexts being the same—where what emerges is instead a value [–count] or [+continuous], pertaining to a separate category. Likewise, [–count] or [+continuous] would specify non-agreeing participle forms.15 15  As we will see in §5.4.3, (6b), assuming that o-agreement corresponds to a value of the category (sub)number, is also not entirely satisfactory.



5.3  The problem with the Asturian neuter

171

Analyses of this sort are incompatible with one of the principles of Canonical Typology stated in Corbett (2010a: 258): (24)  Principle II (syntactic): The use of canonical morphosyntactic features and their values is determined by simple syntactic rules. This principle, referred to synthetically as ‘simple syntax’, suggests that excessive complication in the syntax may indicate that some assumptions about the morphosyntax of the language are in need of revision, and thus ‘prevents us from shipping out our difficult examples into the syntax’ (Corbett  2011: 458), when establishing the ­relevant morphosyntactic features and their values. In our present case, I think the solution to the long-standing conundrum of the Asturian neuter is at hand, and results from the combination of insights from dialectological studies on Asturian and recent research into morphosyntactic features within Canonical Typology, the strand of research from which the last two quotations are drawn. In one of his studies on the topic, Neira Martínez (1991) observes: Todos los sustantivos, sin perder su carácter de masculinos o femeninos, se reclasifican en continuos o discontinuos. (Neira Martínez 1991: 449) [All nouns, without losing their character as masculines or feminines, are reclassified into mass or count.]

This is exactly what we need (and we have to take notice of the verb reclassify): we need to say that maéra ‘timber’ is at the same time feminine, witness prenominal agreement, and neuter, witness agreement in the elsewhere context (3b) (combined with the evidence from default agreement and lack of agreement now reviewed). This conclusion is the opposite to that reached in the best typologically-informed study of the Asturian (and Northern Castilian) neuter by Fernández-Ordóñez (2006–07: 2.56), who asks the question whether ‑o expresses agreement by gender or by number and answers that it does neither: ‘Parece expresar, pues, [–número] [–género], al igual que los pronombres neutros en las lenguas románicas’ [‘It seems to express, then, [–number] [–gender], not unlike the neuter pronouns in the Romance languages’]. The reason for rejecting a gender analysis like (6a), as already argued by many, is the one I have spelled out earlier: there already is a gender contrast (m vs f), and nouns selecting ‑o are already assigned either value of that feature. This is why the Asturian neuter ‘no se inscribe […] en el tipo de concordancias morfológicas que provoca la categoría del género léxico’ [‘cannot be inscribed in the type of morphological agreement triggered by the category “lexical gender” ’] (Fernández-Ordóñez 2006–07: 2.62). I have argued that the facts, although observed correctly, do not warrant such a conclusion, since this results in statements of the agreement rules of the language that are incompatible with simple syntax. Neira’s idea of a ‘reclassification’ points in another direction, although he did not dare to take this step but rather contented himself with stating that o-agreement cumulates two distinct functions, calling ‘neuter’ the agreement with non-lexical controllers (es-o ta fri-o ‘this-n is cold-n’), and ‘continuous’ that with mass nouns (agua

172

Mass/countness and gender in Asturian

fri-o ‘cold-n water’; Neira Martínez 1991: 444). While this dichotomy mirrors ­diachrony (see §7.5), for synchronic analysis it would complicate the agreement rules even more. Conversely, it is desirable to state a rule for participle agreement in verbal periphrastics and/or for the agreement of adjectival predicates which (a) covers also the default cases and (b) does so by referring to a unitary set of features across contexts which are the same syntactically and only differ in the feature specification of the agreement controller involved, if any.16

5.4  A novel proposal: the ‘second gender’ feature of Asturian In this section, I will explore the idea that Asturian has two concurrent gender systems, and that each noun of the language is specified in the lexicon for two distinct gender features: (25)  The two concurrent gender systems of Central Asturian:17 System 1: two values masc. el

pie/café

System 2: three values masc. count pie

def.m.sg foot(m,mc)/coffee(m,n) neuter

fri-u

foot(m,mc)

cold-mc

tsiche/café

fri-o

milk(f,n)/coffee(m,n) cold-n fem.

l-a

casa/tsiche

def-f.sg house(f,fc)/milk(f,n) Domain: [__N]np

fem. count

casa

fri-a

house(f,fc)

cold-fc

Domain: elsewhere

Thus, for instance, as made explicit by the gloss ‘milk(f,n)’, the lexeme tsiche carries two features not unlike any noun of Mian, an Ok language of Papua New Guinea, such as am=o ‘a/the=n2 house(n2,f)’ (see Fedden 2007: 186, 2011: 170f.), which—as argued by Fedden and Corbett (2017), see (34)f. below—is specified at the same time for the two noun classification systems of the language, as ‘neuter2’, on the one hand (marked on the enclitic article), and as ‘feminine’, on the other (marked on verb classifiers, for which am=o takes the same form as, say, unáng=o ‘woman(f,f)’). Just as in Mian, the two different systems of Asturian are relevant for agreement on different

16  See Loporcaro (1998: 234–7) for a discussion whether Spanish and Portuguese require just one rule for past participle agreement in perfective periphrastics and in adjectival predications. On any account, all of those rules are invariably formulated as shown in (46)–(48) in §5.4.3: ‘a predicate p agrees in gender and number iff ’ etc. What varies parametrically are the conditions following the ‘iff ’. 17  As said in n. 1, the standardized variety of Asturian (see A.Ll.A. 2001) has the same syntax, with respect to the properties focused on here, as the central bables: merely phonetic differences are disregarded here (thus, for instance in (25) tsiche is from the bable of Lena, while standard Asturian has lleche). From now on, a noun’s gender is specified for both systems as ‘noun(System 1, System 2)’. The values of the two features are abbreviated as shown in (25).



5.4  A novel proposal: the ‘second gender’ feature of Asturian

173

targets and/or in different domains. It goes without saying that the pre­requisite to posit the two systems in (25) is that both the prenominal system 1 and the ‘elsewhere’ system 2 satisfy the definition of gender in (3), Chapter 1: Asturian lexemes divide into two classes by the prenominal contrast, while they are classified into three classes—not coextensive, obviously, nor reducible to the prenominal two via neutralization—by the ‘elsewhere’ system (seen in (25) on the postnominal adjective). An analysis in terms of two concurrent gender systems is unheard of for Romance and requires thorough motivation, as well as discussion of its typological embedding. As soon as this is laid out, it will be clear that the proposal is not at all as outlandish as it may seem from a Romance perspective such as that taken by Arias Cabal (2011: 137) who entitles a section ¿Sustantivos con doble género? [‘Nouns with double gender?’], answering that ‘la contradicción es evidente’ [‘the contradiction is evident’]. The ­contradiction vanishes as one takes notice of Corbett (1991: 184–8) and of the further literature (see directly) pointing to languages of the world with two concurrent systems. 5.4.1  Asturian in a typological perspective The typological embedding needed here is provided by recent work in Canonical Typology (Corbett  2010b; Corbett and Fedden  2016; Fedden and Corbett  2017), which addresses several issues that are crucial to our present concern, in the context of developing a canonical typology of morphosyntactic features. Within this framework, Fedden and Corbett (2017) pursue a quest, started in Corbett (1991: 184–8), for languages that have been reported to possess two concurrent gender systems.18 The authors start by considering, in this connection, languages that have been claimed to display gender and classifiers at the same time, since ‘the traditional division between gender and classifiers as fulfilling similar functions in languages of different types is ever harder to maintain’ (Fedden and Corbett 2017: 1). As they show, languages with two concurrent systems (either gender 1/gender 2 or gender/classifiers) have been described from Australia, Papua New Guinea, and the Americas (see also Fedden 2013). In this quest, up to now, the closest one gets to Romance is Michif, a mixed language which had arisen by the early nineteenth century in Ontario through the intermarriage of local Cree-speaking women with French fur traders (see Corbett 2012: 176; Fedden and Corbett 2017: 27 for discussion and references). The language combines French grammatical gender (gender 1) marked on articles (m.sg lɪ, f.sg la, pl li) and prenominal adjectives with Algonquian gender (gender 2), contrasting [±animate] on verb agreement and demonstratives, so that both gender systems co-occur within the noun phrase, where indeed ‘whenever a Cree demonstrative is used, it must be accompanied by a form of the French definite article or by a possessive’ (Bakker 1997: 109). Both agree in number with the head noun, but the demonstrative agrees with it in gender 2, the article in gender 1: 18  The example discussed there is Mba, which possesses a Bantu-type noun class system alongside a second system, with [male personal], [animate], and [inanimate] marked on pronouns. Note however that Corbett (2012: 176) concludes that the two have to be integrated into one and the same feature (with eleven values in all).

Mass/countness and gender in Asturian

174 (26)

a. ana          lɪ   nur that.intermediate.an  def.m.sg bear(m,an) ‘that bear’ b. anɪma la mæ̃zũ that.intermediate.inan def.f.sg house(f,inan) ‘that house’ c. la         fæm       ana def.f.sg woman(f,an) that.intermediate.an ‘that woman’

These examples (from Bakker 1997: 109, cited in Corbett 2006: 270) show that mæ ˜ zũ and fæm are identical in gender 1 while contrasting in gender 2 and that, conversely, nur and fæm are identical in gender 2 (both an) while contrasting in gender 1. Apart from the Romance component of Michif,19 no Romance language has ever been claimed to be involved in a similar situation with concurrent gender systems, and for good reason. It may be useful to compare Asturian with a well-behaved Romance language like French. French has a good deal of variation and asymmetries (much more than, say, Portuguese or Spanish) in the forms which assure the marking of gender values on different targets, as seen in (20)–(21), Chapter 3. Yet, ‘surely no one would want to claim that French had two concurrent gender systems, one realized on the definite article and one realized on the adjective’ (Fedden and Corbett 2017: 26) because, in spite of the differences in form, ‘they realize the same gender values’. Indeed, the decision to assume two concurrent systems cannot be based on form only; rather, in the canonical case, two distinct features/systems can—and indeed must—be assumed if these are, at the same time, distinct in the grammatical meanings they express as well as in the forms conveying such meanings. Thus, there cannot be any question of assuming two distinct systems if both form and meaning are the same across all agreement targets. In Romance, Logudorese Sardinian (see (16)–(19), Ch. 3) comes close to this ideal: (27) a.

def sg

b. dem.prox pl

sg

c. 3rd pers.pron. pl

sg

d. 3rd pers. DO clitic

pl

sg

pl

m s-u s-ɔs

kust-u kust-ɔs

iss-u/-ε iss-ɔs

l-u

l-ɔs

f s-a s-as

kust-a kust-as

iss-a

l-a

l-as

e. past participle (‘sung’) sg

pl

m kantaːð-u kantaːð-ɔs f kantaːð-a kantaːð-as

iss-as

f. class one adj. (‘short’)

g. class two adj. (‘green’)

sg

pl

sg

pl

kurts-u

kurts-ɔs

bird-ε

kurts-a

kurts-as

bird-εs

19  Not in Romance, but still in the Mediterranean basin (and within IE), a comparable state of affairs— with two concurrent gender systems found side by side because of language contact—has been described for Koine (Hellenistic) Greek as spoken in Egypt which, as argued in Schirru (2016), became so through



5.4  A novel proposal: the ‘second gender’ feature of Asturian

175

If it were not for free variation in the m.sg cell of the personal pronoun ((27c), not found in all dialects) and for second class adjectives (27g), which do not signal gender, the system would express gender/number in a completely uniform way. Fedden and Corbett (2017) consider several languages in which different analyses, either in terms of one or of two features, could in principle be—or have indeed been— maintained, and establish criteria useful to settle the analytical issue, which was already touched upon in (61)–(62), Chapter 4 while discussing gender and number in Romanian. These depend on the relation between form (of the exponents of morphosyntactic categories) and (grammatical) meaning: (28) a. predictability (the degree to which the values of one putative feature are predictable from those of the other); b. degree of orthogonality (the degree to which the cells of a binary matrix with x = feature 1 and y = feature 2 are filled). Full predictability, leading to the conclusion that just one feature is sufficient, is exemplified with Mali (Baining family, Papuan), described by Stebbins (2005, 2011) as possessing two concurrent systems: (29)

a. gender (three values): masculine, feminine, neuter b. noun classification (nine values): masculine, feminine, count neutral, diminutive, reduced, flat, excised, long, extended

For instance, the word ‘piglets’ in (30a), itself overtly marked as ‘reduced’, controls ‘reduced’ agreement on the numeral and neuter agreement on the pronoun serving as copula; the latter also occurs with the same neuter marking in (30b), where it is selected by the word ‘paper’, which is in turn overtly marked as ‘flat’ (Stebbins 2005: 78, 2011: 65): (30)

a. kama vlēmvap ma aduguavap ngē ve mēt art pig.rcd.pl lnk three.rcd.pl 3n.prs there in ichethaki enclosure.f.sg ‘there are three piglets inside the enclosure’ b. kama pepavēs       ma   asēgēvēs       ngē     pe art     paper.flat.sg  lnk one.flat.sg 3n.prs there ‘there is a piece of paper there’

kama art

Given these correspondences, it is always the case that ‘one candidate system reduces perfectly to the other’ as shown in (31), which leads Fedden and Corbett (2017: 25) to conclude that Mali ‘clearly matches the extended definition of one system’:

contact with Coptic. The latter, in turn, having inherited an Afro-Asiatic m/f binary contrast from Old Egyptian, had added a second gender system [±human] ‘visibile esclusivamente [ . . . ] negli aggettivi di imprestito greco appartenenti alla classe flessionale in ‑os’ [‘only visible on loan adjectives from Greek of the os-IC’] (Milizia 2012: 484), where the Greek neuter had been reanalysed as [–human].

176

Mass/countness and gender in Asturian

(31)  Relationship between Mali genders and noun classes (Fedden and Corbett 2017: 24) Genders

Noun classes

Masculine

Masculine

Feminine

Feminine

Neuter

Count neutral Diminutive Reduced Flat Excised Long Extended

The same cannot be argued for Asturian, as schematized in (32): (32) System 1 (two values) masculine

System 2 (three values) masculine count neuter

feminine Generalizations: a. b. c. d. e.

feminine count

mc entails m fc entails f a m noun can be either mc or n (depending on its semantics) a f noun can be either fc or n (depending on its semantics) a n noun can be either m or f (unpredictably)

While there is some predictability (see (32a–b), and the arrows on the schema), there is no unambiguous mapping for the rest ((32c–e)). In fact, several nouns taking neuter agreement inflect in a way that makes their gender (in system 1) largely



5.4  A novel proposal: the ‘second gender’ feature of Asturian

177

predictable: ganáu ‘cattle(m,n)’, vinu ‘wine(m,n)’, maéra ‘timber(f,n)’, etc. But this is by no means general. Thus, the gender (in system 1) for el carbon ‘the.m coal(m,n)’ or la calor ‘the.f heat(f,n)’, for example, cannot be predicted, neither from the value n in gender 2, nor from their forms, and the same goes for neuter nouns ending in ‑e, ‑l, etc.: sede ‘thirst(f,n)’, xente ‘people(f,n)’, fame ‘hunger(f,n)’. Given, say, aceite ‘oil(m,n)’ vs carne ‘meat(f,n)’, or fiel ‘galley(f,n)’ vs papel ‘paper(m,n), one has to know their gender specifications in both systems, none predictable from the other, in order to correctly derive their syntactic behaviour (see A.Ll.A. 2001: 334, 376):20 (33)

a. el       mesm-u   poc-u  aceite  / el       poc-u    def[m.sg] same-m.sg little-m.sg oil(m,n) / def[m.sg] little-m.sg aceite  mesm-o oil(m,n) same-n ‘that same little oil’ b. l-a carne qued-ó bien asa-o def-f.sg meat(f,n) remain.pret-3sg well roast-n ‘meat was well done’

For these nouns, assignment in system two is semantic (see (52) below), and cannot rely on form. Several such nouns with similar formal indeterminacy indeed vacillate between m and f (in system 1) without any semantic difference: el/la lleche ‘def.m/f milk’, el/la sangre ‘def.m/f blood’, el/la sal ‘def.m/f salt’, el/la calor ‘def.m/f heat’ (see A.Ll.A. 2001: 85 and DGLA ss. uu.: doublets are sometimes admitted in the standard language, sometimes found only in the spoken dialects). In sum, this lack of complete predictability speaks in favour of a two-system ­analysis. The relevance of orthogonality ((28b)) is illustrated by Fedden and Corbett (2017: 17f.) with Mian, which contrasts four genders (displayed horizontally in (34); see (2)– (3), Ch. 8 for examples), whose values are specified in the lexical entry of each noun and marked on agreement targets within the NP (articles and determiners; see (2)f., Ch. 8 for examples) and outside (pronominal affixes on the verb). On the other hand, some thirty-five verbal roots require the selection of a classificatory prefix (from a series listed vertically in (34)), that agrees with the absolutive argument (as seen in (35)) and ‘create[s] classes of nouns which are not coextensive with the classes established by the gender system’ (Fedden 2011: 185):

20  This is at odds with Hualde’s (1992: 109) claim ‘that mass forms have a more complex feature specification than the corresponding countable forms’.

178

Mass/countness and gender in Asturian

(34)  Mian gender and classifiers (Fedden and Corbett 2017: 16) masculine M-classifier man, boy, boar

feminine – woman, girl, sow

neuter1 sleeping bag, plate, mosquito net –

neuter2 – house, steel axe, money (kina note)

F-classifier

–

Long

–

–

tobacco, eating implement, bush knife

–

Bundle

–

–

string bag (large), tobacco pouch, plastic bag

–

Covering

–

–

blanket, band-aid

–

Residue

–

tortoise, scorpion

cassowary egg, plane, hat

–

Thus, for instance am=o ‘a/the=n2 house(n2,f)’, mentioned above, whenever it occurs in the plural in the appropriate syntactic context, triggers the same prefix d(ol)- as nouns denoting female animates, such as unáng=o ‘a/the=f woman(n2,f)’ (Fedden 2011: 190f.), although their gender differ (as shown in (35) by the agreement of the enclitic article; in the plural, feminine neutralizes with masculine in an(imate)): (35)

a. am=o     dol-halin-b-i=be house(n2,f)=n2  pl.f_ cl.o-be_concerned.ipfv-ipfv-1sg.sbj=decl ‘I am concerned about the houses’ b. unáng=i dl-؈-Ø-i=be woman(f,f)=pl.an pl.f_cl.o-take.pfv-real-1sg.sbj=decl ‘I took wives’

As seen in (34), not all conceivable combinations occur, and this asymmetry is exploited by Fedden and Corbett (2017) to measure orthogonality as follows: A way of ‘scoring’ the system of Mian would be to say that there are nine cells filled, from which we deduct the theoretical minimum (six) and divide by the theoretically possible maximum minus the minimum. (Fedden and Corbett 2017: 17f.)

Since full orthogonality implies that the two systems are distinct, the closer the score is to 1, the more likely an analysis in terms of two systems becomes (whereas 0 means ‘canonically one system’; Fedden and Corbett  2017: 18). Against this background, reconsider now Asturian, whose gender systems can be displayed likewise, with gender 1 on the vertical and gender 2 on the horizontal axis (agreement targets are added in brackets for clarity):



5.4  A novel proposal: the ‘second gender’ feature of Asturian

179

(36)

masculine (el A-u N) feminine (la A-a N)

masculine count (N A-u)

feminine count (N A-a)

neuter (mass) (N A-o)

pie ‘foot’

—

arroz ‘rice’

—

casa ‘house’

maéra ‘timber’

Here too, as in Mian, ‘the semantics (grammatical meanings) of the two possible systems overlap, but they do not coincide’ (Fedden and Corbett 2017: 17): system 1 is the familiar Romance system, with a sex-based nucleus for each value and a vast majority of nouns assigned in a semantically arbitrary way, partly via formal rules (such as (38) below); system 2 superposes the semantic distinction [±count] (or [±discrete]; see e.g. Viejo Fernández 2002) to the same morphosyntactic contrast found in system 1 to yield the three-way contrast n, mc, fc.21 In addition, there is a partial overlap in form, too, as both the ‑u and the ‑a endings on agreement targets are shared. This is the most problematic case in Fedden and Corbett’s taxonomy, where instead of a clear-cut answer to the question ‘one system or two?’, we are left with a question mark. The measure of orthogonality, applied to Asturian, yields the following result: (37)

Degree of orthogonality (Asturian): (cells filled – minimum cells filled) (possible cells – minimum cells filled)

=

(4 – 3) (6 – 3)

=

1 = .33 3

This score is higher than that for Mian, and identical to the one the authors give for Burmeso (western New Guinea; see Donohue 2001), their example of a system with partial overlap in both form and meaning: in such cases, one cannot decide on the number of systems without adducing further evidence from other areas of the language. For Asturian, as already said in §5.3, there is indeed such evidence, which I shall now comment on briefly after summing up the results of the present typological discussion for our Romance descriptive purposes.

21  As has been remarked, this semantically based assignment is largely open to recategorization. As each inherently discrete noun may be recategorized as mass/continuous (via a ‘universal grinder’ effect, see (146), Ch. 4)—i.e. muyer ‘wife’ (ia) can be treated as verdura ‘vegetables’ (ib), while the reverse is often impossible (ic) (Viejo Fernández 1998–99: 557, 2002: 36)): muyer cocí-o/**-u puede come=se (i) a. l-a def-f.sg wife(f,n)[sg] cooked-n/-m.sg can.prs:3sg eat.inf=refl ‘cooked wife is edible’ b. l-a verdura      cocí-o/**-u      puede    come=se def-f.sg vegetables(f,n)[sg] cooked-n/-m.sg can.prs:3sg eat.inf=refl ‘cooked vegetables can be eaten’ c. l-a lleche blanc-o/**-a def-f.sg milk(f,n)[sg] white-n/-f.sg ‘white milk’

180

Mass/countness and gender in Asturian

First of all, there should be no doubt by now that the possibility of a language possessing two distinct and concurrent gender systems, as hypothesized in (25), cannot be discarded in principle, as has been done occasionally (see Arias Cabal’s 2011: 137 dismissal, seen at the end of §5.3). Measured with the criteria of Fedden and Corbett’s Canonical Typology of concurrent systems ((28)), Asturian displays a lack of (full) predictability (from gender 1 to gender 2 and vice versa) as well as a degree of orthogonality (.33) which is higher than in a language like Mian ((34)–(35)), which clearly has two systems: both point to two concurrent systems. On the other hand, the partial overlap in both form and meaning between the two proposed systems makes Asturian a challenging and controversial case. However, there is hardly any plausible alternative: I have suggested in §5.3 that competing analyses of the three-way contrast involving the ‘Asturian neuter’ ‑o in terms of number and/or a feature [–count] or [+continuous], distinct from both number and gender, are untenable because they are incompatible with simple syntax (see the principle in (24)), as they would render impossible an economic statement of the agreement rules of the language. Before demonstrating this, coming back to syntax in §5.4.3, I shall next adduce further evidence from gender assignment rules, corroborating this conclusion. 5.4.2  Gender assignment in a language with concurrent systems Consider for instance the following formal rule, stated traditionally (at least as early as Junquera Huergo 1869[1991]: 105): (38) form nouns ending in -u

gender value (gender 1) → masculine (except manu ‘hand(f,fc)’)

This rule, with just a handful of exceptions,22 recurs—for diachronic reasons, given the confluence of fourth declension nouns in the Romance IC derived from Latin second declension—in many Romance languages (see manu in Sardinian, mano in Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese), and in Asturian it must be stated with reference to gender 1, because in gender 2 a u-ending does not imply assignment of mc, as many neuters have the same ending: for example dineru ‘money(m,n)’, fumu ‘smoke(m,n)’, vinu ‘wine(m,n)’, etc. However, there are also gender assignment rules whose statement must refer to the second gender system:23 (39) form

gender value (gender 2) → nouns ending in-o and lacking a plural neuter 22  In addition to inherited manu, shortenings of learned compounds such as la fotu ‘the photo’ are also feminine though inflecting in this way. 23  The only nominal lexemes which do not fall under the scope of rules (38)–(39) are proper names, which present either free variation (Alfonso/-u, Llorienzo/-u, Rosario/-u), or generalized ‑u (Xuacu, Xicu), or ‑o (Armando, Fernando) (A.Ll.A. 2001: 33). This is not unexpected, as semantic sex-based rules apply strictly to proper names across Romance (see §3.2.1), while formal rules play no role (so, Rosario is a female name).



5.4  A novel proposal: the ‘second gender’ feature of Asturian

181

This rule accounts for overt gender 2 in el filo/fierro/pelo in standard Asturian (contrasting with count el filu/fierru/pelu, see n. 2) and in many other lexemes in the central bables: for instance queso ‘cheese(m,n)’ vs quisu ‘cheese(m,mc)’ in Lena (Neira Martínez 1978: 259); narbaso ‘maize reed(m,n)’ vs narbesu ‘maize reed(m,mc)’, paño ‘cloth(m,n)’ vs pañu ‘type of cloth(m,mc)’, in Ayer (García Arias 2003a: 28), and fierro/ fuego/fumo/vino ‘iron/fire/smoke/wine(m,n)’ contrasting with, for example, castiellu ‘castle(m,mc)’ in Quirós (Viejo Fernández 2001: 110f.). Thus, the members of these (and similar, see n. 2) minimal pairs both have overt gender, although via rules that concern a different gender system from each other. While rule (38) is uncontroversial given any account of the neutro asturiano, the formal assignment rule (39)—also a  genuine generalization—makes sense only if we posit a category ‘gender 2’ with ‘neuter’ as one of its values: under any other analyisis in (6b–c), this rule could not possibly be a generalization about gender assignment but rather, oddly enough, about the assignment of a (sub)number value or of the value for mass/countness or ­‘continuousness’. Note that parallel assignment rules, assigning either mc or n to lexemes from the same root, are rampant in Asturian. We have seen an example of nominalization requiring o-agreement in (14). This is not universally the case, though, as seen in the following contrast (data from D’Andrés  1993: 57 and Camblor Portilla and Wood Bowden 2005: 22f.): (40)

a. (el) fumar      ye       mal-o def[m.sg] smoke.inf be.prs.3sg bad-n ‘smoking is bad’ b. **((los)) fumar-es son mal-os def:m.pl smoke.inf-pl be.prs.3pl bad-m.pl

(41)

a. **(l’=)andar         de Xuacu ye       revira-u/**-o def=going(m, mc)[sg] of   Jack  be.prs.3pl disordered-m.sg/-n ‘Jack’s way of going is disordered’ b. el     de Fala, el     de Xandra y  el      de Llara def[m.sg] of F.,    def[m.sg] of X.    and def[m.sg]  of Ll. son tres andar-es distint-os be.prs.3pl three going(m, mc)-pl different-m.pl ‘those of F., X., and Ll. are three distinct ways of going’

As seen in (40a), an infinitive occurring as the syntactic subject requires neuter agreement (in system 2, shown on the predicative adjective), but the optional definite article shows masculine agreement (system 1). This kind of infinitive is not pluralizable (as seen in (40b)), contrary to fully lexicalized nominalized infinitives in (41), which are assigned m (system 1) and mc (system 2), as witnessed by agreement, since they always take the article form el and postnominal attributive/predicative agreement ‑u/**‑o. Note that it would be wrong to infer from (40) and (41) that neuter agreement is found only when conversion does not give rise to a new lexeme. This is disconfirmed by the syntactic behaviour of participles nominalized into generic action nouns, such as el calzáu ‘the footwear’, el ganáu ‘the cattle’, which regularly select

182

Mass/countness and gender in Asturian

­ euter agreement in standard Asturian as well as in the central dialects (see A.Ll.A. n 2001: 376f.): (42)

a. el     ganá-u ta metí-o na corte def[m.sg] cattle(m,n)-sg is put-n in_the court ‘the cattle are in the court’ b. bien car-o       ta’l       calzá-u very expensive-n is def[m.sg] footwear(m,n)-sg ‘footwear is very expensive’

In some dialects, gender 2 assignment also affects the inflection of the nominalized participle. Consider the minimal pairs el cosío ‘the sewing’ vs un cosíu ‘an act of sewing’ reported by García Arias (2003a: 28) from the central bable of Llangréu: (43)

a. él     ye       l’=encargá-u        del        cosí-o 3m.sg be.prs.3sg  def=responsible(m)-sg of_def[m.sg] stitching(m,n) y  el     llava-o       de l-a      rop-a and  def[m.sg] washing(m,n) of   def-f.sg clothes(f,n)-sg ‘he is in charge of sewing and washing clothes’ b. voi da=y un cosí-u a esa camisa go.prs.1sg give.inf=IO3sg indf[m.sg] stitching(m,mc)-sg to that shirt ‘I’m going to re-stitch that shirt’

Although the author does not provide (postnominal/predicative) agreement targets in that context, occurrence with the indefinite article in (43b) guarantees that cosíu is count, and hence specified as (m,mc). Clearly, both deverbal nouns in (43a–b) are stable derivatives, corresponding to stable pairs in other Romance languages: compare Italian la cucitura ‘the stitching’ vs (dare) una cucita ‘to re-stitch’. Thus, they have to be assigned gender, in both systems. The contrast can be derived by assuming the following steps. First, this deverbal nominalization, unlike the Italian one just mentioned, is not assigned feminine but rather masculine gender (in the PanRomance system 1): given that participles inflect like class one adjectives (whether they are weak—as in (42)–(43)—or strong: e.g. fechu, ‑a, ‑o ‘done’) this excludes ‑a and leaves the choice between ‑o and ‑u (for this dialect and others: e.g. ganao bono ‘good cattle’, in Quirosán; see Viejo Fernández 2001: 74), while in standard Asturian ‑u occurs even if the converted participle is a mass noun, as seen in (42).24 The choice between the two options is then driven by the semantics, which determines gender 2 assignment:25 24  See A.Ll.A. (2001: 187) on the nominalization of participles, which results generally in masculine nouns (system 1) in Asturian, although some feminine derivatives also occur: e.g. l’atapecida ‘the sunset’ (lit. ‘the growing dark’), la mullida ‘the pillow (to be put under the yoke)’. This has to be specified lexically anyway: compare e.g. Italian zero deverbals, where gender and IC assignment in, say, la verifica/**il verifico ‘the check’ (← verificare ‘to check’) vs il conteggio/**la conteggia ‘the count’ (← conteggiare ‘to count’) cannot be predicted. As for inflection, the weak paradigms are the following: sg ‑áu, ‑ada, ‑ao, pl ‑aos, ‑aes (first conjugation) and sg ‑íu, ‑ida, ‑ío, pl ‑íos ‑íes (second and third conjugation). 25  Rule (45) is a particular instantiation of a more general semantic rule, seen below in (52).



5.4  A novel proposal: the ‘second gender’ feature of Asturian

183

(44) semantics past participle converted into semelfactive action noun

gender value (gender 2) → masculine count (hence u-inflection)

(45) semantics past participle converted into generic action noun

gender value (gender 2) → neuter (hence o-inflection)

What is special about the dialect of Llangréu, as described by García Arias (2003a: 28), is that nominalized participles fall under the rules responsible for overt gender (gender 2) assignment ((38)f.)—which operate redundantly here—while in the standard, where ‑o on mass nouns is exceptional, as remarked in n. 2, this is not the case. Clearly, in this dialect, the rules assigning gender to nominalized participles must refer to both gender 1 and gender 2. In addition to (42)–(43), another nominalization option exists for past participles, viz. l-o cosío/llaváo ‘what has been sewn/washed’ (literally ‘the-n sewn/washed’, with a use of the neuter article identical to Spanish, see §4.3.4): in this case, conversion of the participle does not result in a lexeme (unlike in (42)–(43)), so that gender is not assigned lexically and agreement is computed by default: for example l-o llavao pónes=l-o güei ‘the-n washed (clothing), put it-n on today’ (A.Ll.A. 2001: 187). 5.4.3  Simple syntactic rules for gender/number agreement in Asturian This brings us back to syntax. Given the two concurrent gender systems assumed in (25), it will now be possible to maintain for Asturian the general statement of the agreement rules accounting for agreement in gender and number across Romance. Consider the format of La Fauci’s (1994: 72) parametric rule in (46) (with modifications): (46)  Past participle agreement in Romance Given a clause a, the predicate p agrees in gender and number iff: i. a contains a legal agreement controller b; and ii. b is [… different conditions specified for each individual language] Otherwise, p appears with the default gender/number specification. The default gender value selected in the elsewhere case is the masculine in most modern Romance systems (see §3.1.1), with the neuter being selected in those dealt with in §4.5, whereas a dedicated neutral form, also conceivable as a ‘non-lexical’ neuter, occurs on participle and predicative adjectives in Sursilvan and Old GalloRomance (see §§4.3.3 and 6.3.1). Against this background, the rule for past participle agreement in Asturian, accounting for the data in (8)–(11), can be stated as follows:

184

Mass/countness and gender in Asturian

(47)  Past participle agreement in Asturian Given a clause a, the past participle p agrees in gender and number iff: i. a contains a legal agreement controller b; and ii. b is: a. the P-initial 2 of p; b. of a transitive stratum; c. not multiattached; and d. the final 1 Otherwise, p appears with the default gender/number specification. The formulation of the conditions in (47ii)—stated within the framework of Relational Grammar and motivated in Loporcaro (1998: 155–8, 2010a: 229–31) with reference to Spanish, which works like Asturian in this respect—need not detain us here, since what matters to our present discussion is exclusively the first and the last line. The same is true of rule (48), which accounts for nominal predicate agreement, in Asturian—as seen above in (12)–(15)—as well as in all Romance languages (see Loporcaro 1998: 237): (48)  Nominal predicate agreement in Asturian Given a clause a, the nominal predicate p agrees in gender and number iff: i. a contains a legal agreement controller b; and ii. a. b is a 2 in a; b.  the predicate sector of p is finally intransitive. Otherwise, p appears with the default gender/number specification. Reconsider for concreteness the following examples, repeated from (15), (13a), and (19a): (49)

a. el     neñ-u       ta     cansá-u def[m.sg]  kid(m, mc)-sg stay.prs.3sg tired-m.sg ‘the kid is tired’ b. l-a to sobrin-a no ta casad-a def-f.sg 2sg cousin(f, fc)-sg neg stay.prs.3sg married-f.sg ‘your cousin is not married’ c. l     agu-a      ta     ferví-o  def water(f, n)-sg stay.prs.3sg boiled-n ‘the water is boiled’ d. güei  ta     tapecí-o today be.prs.3sg dark-n ‘it’s dark today’ e. ta perr-o, pero hai       que   tirar  p’alantre is  dog-n   but    there_be.prs.3sg that pull.inf forward ‘it’s bad, but one must go on’



5.4  A novel proposal: the ‘second gender’ feature of Asturian

185

As a preliminary remark, consider that rule (48) refers to nominal predicates in the traditional hyperonymic sense, including nouns and adjectives, since the former also show (default) agreement (see (49e)). Rule (48) triggers agreement in gender and number in (49a–c), while the default value emerges in (49d–e). Note that the first line of the rule can be stated as it stands only if it refers to gender 2—that is, to the threevalued system in (25), including the neuter. Consider now how the rule should be restated, under the hypothesis that the ‘Asturian neuter’, expressed by the o-ending on non-prenominal targets, were not a value of a gender category but rather the exponent of some other category value (let us call them category x, value y), as foreseen in (6b): (50)  Nominal predicate agreement in Asturian (under analysis (6b)) Given a clause a, the nominal predicate p agrees in gender and number iff: i. a contains a legal agreement controller b; and ii. a. b is a 2 in a; b.  the predicate sector of p is finally intransitive; and iii. b is either a masculine or a feminine count noun. If (iii) is not met, then the nominal predicate p agrees in category x with b iff: iv. b is a mass noun. Otherwise, p takes the form specified (for x) as y (e.g. [mass], or [continuous]). Rule (48) is preferable, and the same exercise can be repeated for past participle agreement, where a rule as complicated as (51) should replace (47), if Asturian were analysed as featuring only one gender system: (51)  Past participle agreement in Asturian (under analysis (6b)) Given a clause a, the past participle p agrees in gender and number iff: i. a contains a legal agreement controller b; and ii. b is : a.  the P-initial 2 of p; b.  of a transitive stratum; c.  not multiattached; and d.  the final 1 iii. b is either a masculine or a feminine count noun. If (iii) in not met, then the past participle p agrees in category x with b iff: iv. b is a mass noun. Otherwise, p takes the form specified (for x) as y (e.g. [mass], or [continuous]). Rules (47)–(48), which can be kept simple under the concurrent-gender analysis proposed here, mention agreement by gender and number, as do all comparable rules across Romance. As for number, this works just as in the rest of Romance: that is, under the concurrent-gender hypothesis, there is no need to assume for Asturian a more complicated structuring of number as seen in (7a–b). Although the neuter in system 2 only occurs in the singular, this follows from the fact that nouns are assigned to it via a categorical semantic rule:

186

Mass/countness and gender in Asturian

(52) semantics

gender value (gender 2) → neuter

[–count]

Being all mass, none of these nouns has a plural, and so no dedicated plural agreement targets occur either. The other functions fulfilled by this gender value—signalling nonagreement and agreement with non-canonical controllers—are generally fulfilled by the singular number of the default gender value across Romance (and Indo-European): in most of Romance, this is the masculine (§3.1.1), while in Latin or Russian it is the neuter singular form, selected from a paradigm which includes plural target forms (occurring for agreement with plural lexical controllers). On the other hand, in the Central-Southern Italo-Romance dialects addressed in §4.5, the default gender value is a neuter from a paradigm which lacks plural forms, because the controllers selecting neuter agreement are all mass nouns, just as in Asturian. Finally, the gender value selected in default contexts is a neutral form lacking altogether lexical controllers in Sursilvan (§4.3.3). Note that for Central-Southern Italian I had to explicitly reject the possibility of writing a categorical semantic rule like (52) because while all neuter nouns are mass, not all mass nouns are assigned to the neuter but rather there are several which are masculine or feminine. On the contrary, such a rule must be written for Central Asturian, given the biunique relation between masshood and the neuter. In all Romance varieties, with the differences now recapitulated, the gender value selected by default has the property of contrasting with other gender values in the same number, the singular: either with masculine and feminine or, more commonly, with feminine only. This means that, if we adopted the alternative analysis (6b) and regarded ‑o as agreement by (sub)number, rather than by gender (2), we would be introducing an exception into the Romance comparative picture. In fact, given the layering of number in (7a), the inflectional paradigm of gender/number agreement targets showing maximal distinctions (e.g. in the definite article, class one adjectives, participles) would be the following: (53) number singular mass gender

masculine feminine

-o

plural

top system second system

singular -u

-os

-a

-as

Under this view, the agreement target selected by default signals a distinct (sub)number value [sg, mass], while it displays neutralization of the gender contrast, which is possible in principle, but would be unparalleled across Romance. On the contrary, under the concurrent-gender analysis, the number defectiveness of the default gender value [neuter] has many parallels, as seen in §§4.3.3, 4.5, and below in §6.3. Of



5.4  A novel proposal: the ‘second gender’ feature of Asturian

187

course, the concurrent-gender hypothesis also introduces an unprecedented exception for Romance. So, in the final analysis, the choice must be made based on an overall evaluation of the pros and cons in terms of descriptive economy. In this respect, an additional argument from morphology is that the adoption of (6b) would be incompatible with the gender assignment rules described for the two concurrent gender systems in §5.4.2, under the assumption that ‑o exposes a value of the second gender category. Finally, as for descriptive economy, it must be underscored that, under the analysis proposed here, in the agreement rules seen in (47)–(48) it is not necessary to specify— thereby complicating the rules—that the relevant gender is system 2, because this already follows from the domain specification in (25): since gender 1 is restricted to [ __ N]NP , it is only gender 2 that is relevant in the clause domain in which rules ­(47)–(48) apply. That this may happen is foreseen in Fedden and Corbett’s (2017: 34) theory of concurrent systems, where in cases of partial overlap in form the systems may be kept distinct through distribution, so that ‘the form is the same but it occurs in different “settings”. There are various settings which could allow for the same realization to be interpreted differently.’ (Fedden and Corbett 2017: 34). Among the conceivable instantiations of ‘setting’ differences, they list: (54) a. ‘word order ([…] any prenominal element […] would mark one system and postnominal modifiers the other)’ b. ‘syntactic (for instance, attributive adjectives might mark one system and predicative adjectives the other)’ As is clear from the above, the combination of (54a–b) accounts for the distribution of gender agreement according to the two gender systems in (Central) Asturian, thus allowing rules (47)–(48) to be kept simple in this respect. The domain of gender 2 has been defined as ‘elsewhere’ so far, and a word on this is in order here, since some possible alternatives come to mind, especially if one considers pre- vs postnominal adjectives. In fact, as is well known, prenominal qualifying adjectives in Romance tend to be more ‘descriptive’, postnominal ones rather ‘predicative’, along a continuum which may lead eventually to univerbation of the prenominal adjective as the first stem in a compound: for example It. bonomia ‘good-heartedness’ ← buon uomo ‘good-hearted, earnest man’ (vs uomo buono ‘good man’). Thus, in the case of Asturian, one might want to say that ‘predicative’ (rather than ‘elsewhere’) would be the correct characterization of the domain of occurrence of gender 2. There are indeed further constructions, not considered so far, where o-agreement (hence, gender 2) occurs on the clause predicate, viz. participial dependent clauses:26 (55) a. arrama-o l’agua, Pilar púnxose a llorar ‘having spilled-n the water(f,n), Pilar started to cry’ b. bebí-o ’l café, Xuan coló. ‘having drunk-n the coffee(m,n), John left’ 26  I am grateful to Ramón d’Andrés for supplying these examples.

188

Mass/countness and gender in Asturian

However, this semantic/syntactic alternative cannot cover all relevant cases as economically as the ‘elsewhere’ specification: in fact, as seen above in (16)–(18), o-agreement also occurs on pronominal clitics, which are argumental, not predicative. A further source of syntactic evidence of crucial importance for testing the nature of the gender(s) and number features in Asturian, not considered so far, is resolution rules. These are an under-researched topic in the literature so far available for Asturian, in which a full description of resolution illustrating all conceivable combinations of gender—including the neuter—and animacy/humanness values of the conjuncts is still wanting (it is not provided e.g. in A.Ll.A. 2001: 342f., nor in the many studies on the Asturian neuter). Thus, the following discussion relies on examples from class lectures by Ramón de Andrés, who very kindly made them available to me. First, since resolution concerns nominal and participial predicates, as well as pronouns, it follows from the above that we expect the rules to be stated in terms of system 2, until proof to the contrary is forthcoming. In order to test this prediction, the behaviour of neuter nouns is crucial. In fact, resolution with feminine and masculine count nouns could be accounted for in both gender systems, and indeed, if one ­limited oneself to such conjuncts, the situation would be identical to Castilian, as well as to most other Romance languages except Romanian: see (15), Chapter 3 (since the specification in system 2 is predictable for count nouns, it is omitted here): (56) a. l-a ma y l-a fí-a       son   xust-es def-f.sg mother(f).sg and def-f.sg daughter(f)-sg be.prs.3pl righteous-f.pl ‘the mother and the daughter are righteous’ b. l-a     parey-a    de María y  so ma      def-f.sg partner(f)-sg of   Mary  and 3  mother(f)-sg punxéron-se    content-os put.pret.3pl=refl happy-m.pl ‘Maria’s partner and his mother were happy’ c. el      pá       y  el    fí-u    son    xust-os def[m.sg] father(m).sg and def[m.sg] son(m)-sg be.prs.3pl righteous-m.pl ‘the father and the son are righteous’ d. el pá y l-a ma son      xust-os def[m.sg] father(m).sg and def-f.sg mother(f).sg be.prs.3pl  righteous-m.pl ‘the father and the mother are righteous’ If all conjuncts are feminine and none denotes a male animate, feminine plural agreement is selected ((56a)), but whenever either or both conditions are not met—and no neuter noun is involved—masculine plural is selected, as seen in (56b–d). Neuters bring in an interesting novelty. In fact, if gender resolution, contrary to the abovementioned expectation, worked in terms of the first gender system, nouns which are masculine (in system 1) and semantically mass (and hence neuter in system 2) should behave like their count counterparts, and the same should go for feminine mass nouns. This indeed seems to be the case, whenever a neuter (mass) noun is coordinated with a count noun (masculine or feminine):



5.4  A novel proposal: the ‘second gender’ feature of Asturian

vas-u y el (57) a. el def[m.sg] vase(m,mc)-sg and def[m.sg] ‘the vase and the ice are cold’ b. el vas-u y l-a def[m.sg] vase(m,mc)-sg and def-f.sg ‘the vase and the wood are wet’ c. l-a lleñ-a y el def-f.sg wood(f,n)-sg and def[m.sg] ‘the wood and the vase are wet’ d. l-a cas-a y l-a def-f.sg house(f,fc)-sg and def-f.sg ‘the house and the wood are wet’

189

xel-u      son    frí-os ice(m,n)-sg be.prs.3pl cold-m.pl lleñ-a tán moya-os wood(f,n)-sg be.prs.3pl wet-m.pl vas-u tán moya-os vase(m,mc)-sg be.prs.3pl wet-m.pl lleñ-a tán moya-es wood(f,n)-sg be.prs.3pl wet-f.pl

As seen in (57d), two feminine conjuncts select feminine plural, while whenever the conjuncts diverge in gender 1, masculine plural is selected, not unlike in the coordination of two count nouns (56). However, this is not the case, as shown in (58), whenever two neuters are coordinated: fierr-o y el xel-u ta (58) a. el def[m.sg] iron(m,n)-n.sg and def[m.sg] ice(m,n)-sg be.prs.3sg frí-o/     ??tan     frí-os cold-n  be.prs.3pl cold-m.pl ‘iron and ice are cold’ b. l-a mader-a    y  l-a    lleñ-a      ta     def-f.sg timber(f,n)-sg and def-f.sg wood(f,n )-sg be.prs.3sg  sec-o/  ??tan      sequ-es dry-n  be.prs.3pl dry-f.pl ‘timber and wood are dry’ c. el fierr-o y l-a mader-a   ye def[m.sg] iron(m,n)-n.sg and def-f.sg timber(f,n)-sg be.prs.3sg pesa-o/  ??son      pesa-os heavy-n  be.prs.3pl heavy-m.pl ‘iron and timber are heavy’ Given two neuter conjuncts, the only fully grammatical option is neuter agreement. Since this lacks a plural, both the adjective and the finite verb appear in the singular, unlike all the cases seen so far: for example **tan frío/seco etc., with a plural verb form, is not an option, which shows that the neuter, as said above, is singular, while ??tan fríos/seques etc. shows that speakers may marginally have recourse to system 1 as a last resort (which results in dubious grammaticality), in order to signal plurality. The fact that, under resolution, only the neuter requires singular agreement is not without parallels. Although not involving resolution, a comparable rule is that requiring singular verb agreement with neuter plural nouns, which was at work in Ancient

190

Mass/countness and gender in Asturian

Greek—as exemplified in (59)—as well as in other ancient Indo-European languages such as Hittite (and, more generally, Anatolian), Avestan (systematically), and Vedic (sporadically, with just three occurrences; see Schmidt 1889: 1–5, who ascribed this rule to PIE, and Meier-Brügger 2002: 202f., among many others): (59)

t-à phýll-a pípt-ei def-nom.n.pl leaf(n)-nom.n.pl fall.prs-3sg ‘the leaves fall’

In Asturian, since neuters are all mass (contrary to languages such as Ancient Greek), there is no context in which a single neuter noun occurs in the plural, so that resolution contexts are the only ones in which neuter and plural could in principle co-occur paradigmatically on one and the same inflection, viz. that of the predicative adjective. Yet, as seen in (58), the adjective stays in the singular. A closer parallel, involving resolution, is provided by the co-ordination of two (non-lexicalized) infinitives throughout Romance (as shown with Italian examples in (60a)) and beyond (as testified by the English glosses):27 (60)

a. mangiare e  fare il bagno subito    dopo    non è eat:inf  and bathe:inf    straight afterwards neg be.prs.3sg san-o/       **non   sono      san-i healthy-m.sg  neg  be.prs.3pl healthy-m.pl ‘to eat and go for a swim straight afterwards is not healthy’ b. il    mangiare e il bere sono def.m.sg eat:inf and def.m.sg drink:inf be.prs.3pl necessar-i/   è     necessari-o necessary-m.pl  be.prs.3sg necessary-m.sg ‘to eat and to drink are/is necessary’

Comparison with (60b) shows that coordinated nominalized infinitives (with the definite article) may trigger plural agreement in this context even if, taken singularly, neither is pluralizable (**i mangiari, **i beri), in the same way as already shown for Asturian in (40b) above. Asturian is even more restrictive, as definite articles before infinitives in (60b) sound odd, and it is more natural to have bare infinitives (as seen in (61a–b)), while the article becomes more natural ‘cuando se especifica una situación concreta, actualizable y aplicable a un referente (esto es, cuando no es una afirmación genérica)’ [‘when one specifies a concrete situation, applicable to a referent (i.e. when this is not a generic statement)’] (A. Arias Cabal, p.c., January 2017, to whom I am grateful for these examples), as shown in (61c)):

27  Thanks to Grev Corbett for bringing up this point, as well as—more generally—for in-depth discussion of the analysis of Asturian presented here (and of many other aspects of the book).



5.4  A novel proposal: the ‘second gender’ feature of Asturian

191

(61) a. comer  y   baña=se    lluegu  nun  ye  san-o /  eat:inf and bathe:inf=refl  straight after   neg be.prs.3sg healthy-n **nun ye       san-u/    **nun  son    san-os      neg be.prs.3sg healthy-m.sg   neg  be.prs.3pl healthy-m.pl ‘to eat and go for a swim straight afterwards is not healthy’ b. comer   y  beber  ye    mal-o    si   s’=abusa     d’ ell-o eat:inf  and   drink:inf  be.prs.3sg  bad-n  if  one=abuse.prs.3sg  of that-n ‘eating and drinking is not good if one abuses it’ c. el    comer es-i      platu      y  el     beber  es-i def.m.sg eat:inf this-m.sg dish(m,mc)-sg and def.m.sg drink:inf this-m.sg vin-u         depués   nun  foi     buen-o/**buin-u/**buen-os // wine(m,n)-sg  afterwards  neg   be.pret.3sg  good-n/good-m.sg/good-m.pl **nun fueron   buen-o/**buen-os    pal to    cholesterol    neg be.pret.3pl good-n/good-m.pl for 2sg cholesterol ‘eating this dish and drinking this wine was not good for your cholesterol’ At any event, the only agreement option with coordinated infinitives of all sorts is always the neuter with singular verb agreement in Asturian. This requires a more complex statement of the resolution rules, compared with other Romance languages: (62)  Gender (2) resolution in Central Asturian: a. if all conjuncts are neuter b. if all conjuncts are feminine count and none denotes a male animate c. given nominal conjuncts, elsewhere d. elsewhere

→ neuter (singular) → feminine plural → masculine plural → neuter (singular)

In fact, two distinct default rules seems to be necessary: first, (62c), which selects masculine plural, as in Spanish, Italian, or French, whenever coordinated NPs including noun lexemes of diverging gender are involved, as seen in (56d), (57); and secondly, a rule which selects the neuter when the coordination involves non-lexical controllers, as seen in (61), where the other Romance languages just mentioned would have the masculine. This complication, required by the dataset, is not without parallels, as different default genders can be observed in one and the same language (see Corbett and Fraser 2000: 70). Apart from this, the rules in (62) can be stated in such an economical way, comparable with all gender resolution rules on the Latin–Romance continuum (see (14), Ch. 2, (15), Ch. 3, and (66) and (159), Ch. 4), only under the assumption that o-agreement, selected in (58), is a value of the category gender (2). Should we adopt alternative analyses of type (6b) (treating ‑o as the exponent of an extra semantic category x independent from gender), the rules would have to be rewritten so that their output would be a specification for gender and number in (62b–c) but only one of the semantic category x, not of gender, in (62a) and (62d). Another point about (62) is that it does not entail selection of the plural number value in (62a/d), where neuter is selected, but we have seen above in (59) that this can be compared with Schmidt’s (1889) rule for PIE and with the resolution behaviour of

192

Mass/countness and gender in Asturian

non-lexical controllers in other Romance languages ((60)). This behaviour of the Asturian neuter contrasts sharply with that of the mass neuter in Central-Southern Italo-Romance, which—as seen in (158f), Chapter 4—syncretizes with the masculine into the default option. This is one more of the many peculiarities which make the neutro asturiano so challenging.

5.5  On the way to and past the Central Asturian system The system of standard Asturian, as stated above, mirrors the conditions obtaining in central dialects such as that of Lena. This situation is the product of stepwise change, whose preceding stages can be reconstructed through dialect comparison (see Neira Martínez 1991: 452f.; Viejo Fernández 1988–89: 542, 2003: 9f.) and the inspection of the historical record. While the latter will be addressed in §7.5, it is in order here to mention a western dialect, the bable of Quirós that, as already mentioned in n. 6, differs interestingly from standard Asturian, as is apparent from the data and discussion in Viejo Fernández (1988–89: 561–5, 2001: 111, 2003: 9f.). As shown in (63) with mass nouns belonging to the masculine in system 1 in Central Asturian, neuter o-agreement (and with it a three-way target-gender distinction) has extended into the prenominal position, since it also occurs on prenominal demonstratives (63a), where it contrasts with masculine and feminine (see (63b–c)): (63)

a. esto pan/queiso/vino ‘this.n bread/cheese/wine’, aquello pan ‘that.n bread’ b. esti café ‘this.m cup of coffee’ c. esta farina/l.leitse ‘this.f flour/milk’

Consequently, the neuter can be treated as a third value in system 1, and the fact that the article is el with both neuters and masculine count nouns (el carbon/llobu ‘def coal/wolf ’) can be dubbed a syncretism in this system, unlike in standard Asturian and the Lena bable considered above. While the neutral prenominal determiner in (63a) must be an innovation of Quirosán with respect to Central Asturian, Quirosán, which is an immediate neighbour of Central Asturian, is more conservative, as stressed by Viejo, as far as neuter agreement with feminine mass nouns is concerned. With these nouns, in fact, feminine agreement is still grammatical in the elsewhere context (3b) (postnominally and predicatively, as in (64b–c)), where o-agreement, that occurs regularly with masculine nouns (as seen in (64d)), is basically limited to ‘pancake agreement’ contexts ((64e)) with feminines: (64)

a. b. c. d. e.

esta/**-o farina nieve l.limpi-a la patata cocid-a ta ric-a ganao bon-o la nieve ye guap-o

‘this-f.sg flour’ ‘clean-f.sg snow’ ‘the cooked-f.sg potato is delicious-f.sg’ ‘good-n cattle’ ‘(the fact of there being) snow is beautiful-n’

Finally, with pronouns free variation occurs exclusively with feminine mass nouns ((65a)), but never elsewhere, since feminine agreement is triggered obligatorily with feminine count nouns ((65b)), masculine with masculine count ((65c)), and neuter with masculine mass nouns ((65d)):

(65)

5.5  On the way to and past the Central Asturian system a. b. c. d.

la l.leitse van cola=lo/la la caxa escondiéron=la/**lo el l.libru escondiéron=lu/**lo el ganao vi=lo/**lu

193

‘the milk, they will filter it=n/f’ ‘the box, they hid it=f/n’ ‘the book, they hid it=m/n’ ‘the cattle, I saw them=n/m’

This variation is interpreted by Viejo as a sign that the clear-cut contrast (and synchronic generalization) seen in (3a) vs (3b) arose stepwise, through gradual extension of o-agreement to feminine mass nouns as these can still trigger feminine agreement in gender 2 in Quirosán, while the original masculine agreement is no longer available for masculine mass nouns, which must agree in gender 2 as in standard Asturian (see bon-o in (64d), l-o in (65d)). This is definitely not simple syntax: but the complication is justified by the transitional nature of the system and, anyway, no better analysis seems to be in sight, to me at least. There is philological evidence that this happened, along a similar path, not only for Asturian as a whole but also for the neighbouring northern Castilian varieties, as shown by Fernández-Ordóñez’s (2006–07) scrutiny of the historical record (see §7.5). As for synchronic analysis, obviously, the Quirosán facts cannot be derived straightforwardly through a complementary distribution of agreement in gender 1 vs 2 across domains as seen in (25). Yet, evidence for the two concurrent systems is provided by the data in (65), which show the same mismatch between a binary contrast (seen on definite articles) and a three-way contrast (seen on the DO clitic) as in Standard Asturian, except that free variation in pronominal agreement in (65a) shows that the mismatch has not (yet) settled in a clear-cut contrast between stable concurrent systems. Yet another partial exception to the Central and Standard Asturian situation as described and analysed in §§5.1–5.4 is that reported by García Fernández (1996) for the central dialects spoken in the Valle’l Nalón, between Llangréu and Samartín del Rei Aurelio (in Ciañu and L’Entregu). For these dialects, the author describes the use of neuter agreement in clauses referring to or addressing a child, until about the age of eight: (66)

¡prub-iquin-o (ell-o) que tá malin-o!   poor-dim-n 3sg-n that be.prs.3sg ill-n ‘poor child, how ill s/he is!’

As seen in (66), use of the neuter pronoun ello is also possible in this context. However, this does not imply that neuter marking for children occurs in the elsewhere context as defined in §§5.1–5.4, since it cannot be used postnominally (un neñu malín/**malino ‘a sick child(m)’), nor can it occur even as a predicate if the subject is spelled out (rather than pronominalized) in the context: (67)

¡prob-e Raul-ín que tá malín/**malin-o!   poor-m.sg Raul-dim that be.prs.3sg ill[m.sg]/ill-n ‘poor little Raúl, how ill he is!’

Should this become possible, these Central Asturian dialects would be shifting away from the semantic rule (52), assigning neuter to all and only mass nouns, and would

194

Mass/countness and gender in Asturian

be taking some first steps towards assignment of the neuter gender value to infants/ children, a case for which there are cross-linguistic parallels (see Corbett 1991: 228): for example German das Kind ‘the.nom/acc.n.sg child(n)’.

5.6  Concluding remarks Viewed against the overall development of Latin-Romance grammatical gender, the presence of two concurrent systems stands out as a typological quirk in Standard Asturian and the Central dialects on which it is based. Dialect evidence such as that from Quirosán, §5.5, may shed light on the diachronic path which led to the rise of the astonishing system of modern Central Asturian as described in §§5.1–5.4. The resources of dialect comparison will be exploited more systematically in §7.5, so as to pin down the place of the Asturian grammatical system within the broader story of the development of grammatical gender from Latin to Romance. In the meantime, in order to prepare the ground for the comprehensive reconstruction to be presented in Chapter 7, I will first scrutinize the relevant evidence from the earlier stages of the Romance languages, to which we now turn in Chapter 6.

0 0

GalicianAsturian

Central Asturian Santu Adrianu

ied u

Qu s iró

Som

Llangréu

Samartín del Rei Aurelio

20 miles 20 km

Llanes

Eastern Asturian

L·lena

Western Asturian

Map 5  The subdivision of Asturian (after García Arias 2003b: 499) The map highlights the Asturian conceyos (local administrative units) whose dialect is mentioned in this chapter.

6 The older stages of the Romance languages In the preceding sections, reference has repeatedly been made to older stages of the Romance varieties discussed. It is now time to address these older stages more systematically, in order to show to what extent they were different from their respective diachronic successors and to capitalize on these differences for the reconstruction to be provided in Chapter 7.

6.1  Old Romanian Old Romanian is the simplest case: it is the only major Romance language lacking medieval attestations and, ever since its earliest documentation in the sixteenth century, it has shown the same gender system as already described for the contemporary language in §4.4.1. Take for instance the following examples of gender agreeement from the Book of Genesis in a late sixteenth-century protestant Bible translation known as Palia de la Orăştie, (1581–82; see Arvinte et al. 2005–07): (1)

a. toţi pomii ce au în sine sămînţă (I 29) mpl from pom ‘fruit tree(m)’ ‘every tree that has seed bearing fruit’ b. toate jigăniile pămîntului (I 30) fpl from jiganie ‘beast(f)’ ‘all the beasts of the earth’ c. Şi împlu Domnedzeu în a şaptea zi lucrul său ce făcu; şi odihni în a şaptea dzi de toate lucrure ce era făcut (II 2).    npl from lucru ‘thing, work(n)’ ‘And God completed on the seventh day His work that He did, and He abstained on the seventh day from all His work that He did’

While (1a–b) show masculine vs feminine agreement (in the plural), (1c) illustrates the alternating agreement pattern (singular lucrul său ‘His.m work’/plural toate lucrure ‘all.f the works’. Thus, gender agreement works exactly as in modern Romanian. The only difference observed is one of noun morphology since, as seen in lucrure, the successors of the ‑ora plurals in Old Romanian had their endings modified by analogy on the feminine plural ending ‑e < ‑ae, that was reshaped (‑ure > ‑uri) after the

Gender from Latin to Romance. First edition. Michele Loporcaro © Michele Loporcaro 2018. First published 2018 by Oxford University Press

196

The older stages of the Romance languages

­eighteenth century: piept,-ure > piept,-uri ‘breast,-s’ (see e.g. Spitzer 1941: 339; Rosetti 1978: 547). Yet another fact about the morphology of Old Romanian deserves to be mentioned, in view of the discussion in §4.4.1.3f. The occurrence in Old Romanian of sor (< soru) ‘sister(f)’, noru ‘daughter-in-law(f)’, and manu ‘hand(f)’ (Diaconescu 1974: 11f.), which took feminine agreement in the singular as well as in the plural, shows that the singular endings ‑u and -Ø were not uniquely associated with masculine. On the other hand, the fact that these forms eventually yielded to soră, noră, and mână in the modern standard language (but noru lives on in the dialects of Banat: Diaconescu 1974: 11) confirms that there is a strong tendency in Romanian for gender and IC to converge, so that major inflectional types—as ă-feminines doubtlessly are—powerfully attract (former) exceptions (Maiden 2016b: 123, n. 17). Thus, these (admittedly strong) IC-to-gender-mapping constraints (such as ‑u/‑Ø → masculine) can be shown to have been a matter of tendency and preferences all along: consequently, the morphological argument built by the authors discussed in §4.4.1.4 to reject a three-gender analysis of Romanian, assuming a strict determinacy of gender through inflection, is somewhat weakened. The same holds for neuter nouns. Maiden (2016b: 123) claims that ‘[t]hroughout the attested history of Romanian and other Daco-Romance varieties, genus alternans has been consistently restricted to nouns in final ‑u (subsequently deleted, to varying extents, leaving bare lexical roots)’. Again, this is the majority case, but it is not an absolute constraint (as shown by the—admittedly few—exceptions reviewed in §4.4.1.3), and in Old Romanian further examples occurred, which later fell victim to the majority patterns: for example ORo. genuche, genuche ‘knee(n),-s’, now replaced by genunchi, genunchi ‘knee(m),-s’ (see Diaconescu 1974: 38). Summing up, Old Romanian already had the same gender system as MSRo. and nothing speaks against a three-gender analysis for the older stages of the language too. I have addressed only the basic architecture of the gender system, but there is evidence that the fine points of the syntax of gender (agreement) also remained stable all the way through, as shown, for instance, by Pană Dindelegan (2012) for the use of feminine pronouns in default contexts seen in (54), Chapter 4. Once this basic continuity has been ascertained, an open question remains, concerning the diachronic origin of the third gender: (2)  Given three genders, the Romanian neuter is: a. a successor of the Latin neuter: Togeby (1952), Ivănescu (1957), Bonfante (1964, 1977), Fassel (1969), Windisch (1973: 209), Lüdtke (2009: 251), etc. b. a Romanian innovation i.  due to contact with Slavic and/or Albanian: Rosetti (1959, 1961, 1962); or ii. due to substratum influence, reconstructible through comparison with Albanian: Sandfeld (1930: 132f., 141), in a dubitative form, and then Togeby (1953: 122), Nandriş (1961: 55). The radical discontinuity thesis has it that ‘[l]e neutre roumain ne correspond ni pour la forme, ni pour les détails du sens, au neutre latin.’ [‘The Romanian neuter does not



6.2  Old Italian

197

correspond, neither in form nor in the details of meaning, to the Latin neuter’] (Rosetti 1959: 84); thus, allegedly, it cannot be inherited: ‘le roumain n’a pas hérité le neutre du latin’ [‘Romanian has not inherited the Latin neuter’] (Rosetti 1961: 86). Others have voiced positions intermediate between (2a) and (2b), as was the case for Graur’s (1928: 250) idea of a continuity in form, but change in function: ‘La morphologie historique nous montre […] que le neutre roumain (dont le nom se trouve ainsi pleinement justifié) provient du neutre latin’ [‘Historical morphology shows us […] that the Romanian neuter (whose name is hence fully justified) comes from the Latin neuter’], but on the other hand: ‘Il ne s’agit donc pas d’une survivance latine qui aurait été gardée en roumain par simple conservatisme, mais bien du développement d’une catégorie grammaticale qu’on sentait nécessaire’, that is ‘un genre inanimé’ [‘This is not a remnant of Latin which Romanian has preserved because of simple conservativism, but rather the development of a grammatical category that one felt to be necessary’, i.e. ‘an inanimate gender’] (Graur 1928: 260)—a problematic assumption (taken up again by Cornilescu 2000, for example), given what has been said at the end of §3.2.1 on the imperfect correlation of neuter and inanimacy. Substratist views too come in different shades, some scholars positing a ‘reinvigorating’ influence of the substratum on a fading gender value in the Latin system (Nandriş 1961: 55). The idea of total or partial discontinuity with respect to Latin found support: ‘It is quite possible that the neuter disappeared in early Balkan Romance and was then recreated in Rumanian’ (Mallinson 1984: 442). However, we shall see in §7.1 that there is Late Latin evidence for continuity of dedicated neuter (plural) agreement in the Balkans, as elsewhere. Nor for Balkano-Romance as a whole does the evidence speak against (2a): medieval Dalmatian had a-plurals (e.g. fica ‘figs’, Ragusa/Dubrovnik, ad 1280; see Bartoli 1906: 2.270), and these often go hand in hand with dedicated neuter plural agreement in the older stages of the Romance languages (see §§6.4–6.5). In §7.1, I shall argue in favour of (2a) and show that continuity in the gender system in Balkano-Romance is of key importance for reconstruction on a Romance scale. Also, the issue about contact-based explanations in (2b) will be resumed in §8.3.1, when discussing language contact.

6.2  Old Italian The commonplace of the early disappearance of the Latin neuter ((9)–(12), Ch. 1) is met with in the literature on medieval Italian, too. Thus, discussing the earliest (half-) Vulgar text from northern Italy, the Indovinello Veronese (around ad 800), Renzi and Andreose (2003: 238) comment on the phrase alba pratalia ‘white meadows’: il nome pratalia—come dimostra l’accordo con l’aggettivo alba—è ancora considerato neutro plurale, mentre in tutte le varietà italiane il neutro è scomparso, venendo assimilato alla declinazione maschile (it. i prati) o a quella femminile (it. a. le prata […]) (Renzi and Andreose 2003: 238) [the noun pratalia—as agreement with the adjective alba shows—is still considered a neuter plural, while in all Italian varieties the neuter has disappeared, being assimilated to the masculine (It. i prati) or to the feminine declension (OIt. le prata […])]

The older stages of the Romance languages

198

It is true that OIt.1 le prata shows feminine plural agreement. However, judging by the same standards applied in §4.3.4 in order to ascertain that modern Italian has only two genders, one must necessarily conclude that Old Italian had three (as argued in Faraoni et al. 2013; Loporcaro et al. 2014): masculine, feminine, and in addition, an alternating neuter of the Romanian kind. In fact, the three agreement classes in (3) were all associated with productive ICs: (3) l-o a. m the-m.sg b. l-o n the-m.sg c.

singular giorn-o day(m)-sg lett-o bed(a)-sg

l-a port-a f the-f.sg door(f)-sg ‘the day/bed/door’

l-i the-m.pl l-e the-f.pl

plural giorni day(m)-pl lett-a bed(a)-pl

Old Italian

l-e port-e the.f.pl door(f)-pl ‘the days/beds/doors’

Not only, say, did the IC porta/-e acquire new members in Old Italian—such as loda/-e ‘praise’ < Lat. laudem (Penello et al.  2010: 1391; a form now obsolete, replaced by lode/‑i)—thus attesting to its own productivity, and to that of feminine gender (3c), but so also did the classes associated with the agreement pattern (3b), that is to say, the ancestor of (31b), Chapter 4, which is now restricted to a few nouns of just one IC. There were at least four such inflectional classes (see Gardani 2013: 398): (4) a. b. c. d.

lo castell-o/le castell-a lo prat-o/le prat-ora lo nom-e/le nom-ora lo pom-o/le pom-e

‘the castle/-s’ ‘the lawn/-s’ ‘the name/-s’ ‘the apple/-s’

Of these, (4a–b) were productive all through the Middle Ages, with (4b) fading away in the fifteenth century. On the other hand, a‑plurals continued to be productive even later. Both the ‑ora and the ‑a plural endings spread in Late Latin (see §§2.1 and 7.1, (1)), and new formations (e.g. as the output of conversion), as well as the attraction from pre-existing nouns originally belonging to other classes, attest to continued productivity in Old Italian (see Gardani 2013: 328, 398): (5) grido/‑a (ad 1292)

← gridare ‘to scream’ < *quiritare ‘to call the Quirites’ urlo/‑a (late fourteenth century) ← urlare ‘to scream’ < ululare ‘to howl’ ago/‑ora (ad 1311) < acus, ‑Ūs (alongside ago/aghi ad 1336)

1  The label ‘Old Italian’ refers, by a well-established convention, to the Tuscan dialects—Florentine, in the first place—as documented in the late Middle Ages. While the rise of Florentine to the status of a shared standard language for the entire Italian peninsula is a later phenomenon—accomplished between the fifteenth and the early sixteenth centuries for formal usage, and as late as the twentieth century for everyday spoken use—for the medieval period Old Florentine can be called, retrospectively, Old Italian since it is formally the ancestor of the modern standard language, and a sister language to, say, Old Milanese, Old Venetian (§6.3), or Old Neapolitan (§6.5). The invaluable OVI textual database has been consulted, in order to retrieve Old Italo-Romance data, throughout the book.



6.2  Old Italian

199

Many a-plurals co-existed with masculine i-plurals (Santangelo  1981: 104–23; Serianni 2006: 146; Penello et al. 2010: 1392), which eventually won out: (6)

lo lett-o lo castell-o l’anell-o lo peccat-o lo gomit-o

‘bed’, ‘castle’, ‘ring’, ‘sin’, ‘elbow’,

pl. le lett-a pl. le castell-a pl. le anell-a pl. le peccat-a pl. le gomit-a

or or or or or

i lett-i i castell-i gli anell-i i peccat-i i gomit-i etc.

This competition lasted for centuries: its last remnants are the cell-mates considered in (34)–(35), §4.3.5: few of them still consist of fully interchangeable plural word forms, whereas many have specialized, so that a-plurals (see (36), Ch. 4) often became restricted in terms of domains of usage on their way to disappearing altogether. Recalling now the different analyses proposed for the successor of the agreement class (3b) in modern Standard Italian (see (31b), §4.3.5), the Old Italian evidence shows that an analysis in terms of one irregular IC ((32d)) can be excluded. Likewise, the sheer number of the relevant nouns leads one to dismiss the ‘inquorate gender’ option (32b), and the derivational analysis (32e) does not fare any better, given that the syntactic evidence pointed to by Acquaviva (2008: 148) for modern Italian (see (37), Ch. 4) is totally missing for Old Italian, which in this resembles the modern CentralSouthern Italo-Romance varieties dealt with in §§4.4.2–4.4.3 and 4.5. In Old Italian, in fact, a number mismatch did not cause any problems and resulted in the agreement behaviour expected, under the assumption that (3b) is a regular inflectional paradigm with regularly alternating gender agreement. The first grammarian to point this out was Pietro Bembo, in his seminal Prose della volgar lingua (1525), in the context of discussing words which trigger alternating agreement, that is, those which select ‘l’articolo e il fine di quelle del maschio […] nel numero del meno’ [‘the article and ending of masculine in the singular’], but ‘[i]n quello del più, usano con l’articolo della femina un proprio e particolare loro fine, che è in A sempre, e altramente non giammai’ [‘in the plural, they display, together with the feminine article, a specific ending, i.e. always ‑a’] (Bembo 1966 [1525]: 192–4 (book 3, ch. 6); see D’Achille 2001: 325f.). In this connection, Bembo quotes a passage from Boccaccio’s Decameron (ad 1348–51, (7a)), and adds the comment in (7b): (7) a. Peronella, […] messo il capo per la bocca del doglio, che molto grande non era, e, oltre a quello, l’un-o delle braccia con tutta la spalla (Decameron 7.2.32); ‘Peronella, thrust her head and one-m.sg of her arms, shoulder and all, in at the mouth of the vat, and […]’ b. Bembo: ‘e non disse l’una delle braccia o altramente’ [‘and he did not say **l’un-a dell-e braccia ‘one-f.sg of the-f.pl arms’, or otherwise’] Modern critical editions (see Quondam et al. 2013: 1088) print the passage in (7a) as l’un de’ bracci, with the m.pl form which co-existed with the a-plural along the lines seen in (6), albeit much rarer for this specific lexeme (see Santangelo 1981: 105). This editorial practice is in line with the idea, suggested for example by Meyer-Lübke

200

The older stages of the Romance languages

(1890: 195), that this was the only available option: ‘So sagt Sacchetti 48 [Franco Sacchetti, Trecentonovelle, 1392–97, edn. Pernicone  1946: 108)—M.L.] le letta aber uno di quei letti; ähnlich Boccaccio uno dei diti’ [‘Sacchetti says le letta ‘the:f.pl beds’ but uno di quei letti ‘one:m of those:m beds’; similarly Boccaccio uno dei diti ‘one:m of the:m.pl fingers’]. However, what matters in (7) is (a) Bembo’s grammaticality judgement on the form he read in the manuscript available to him, and (b) the fact that l’uno delle braccia was grammatical for Boccaccio too, as confirmed by its occurring elsewhere: traeva l’uno delle braccia all’altro ‘brought one:m of the:f.pl arms to the other:m.sg’ (Boccaccio, Esposizioni sopra la Comedia di Dante, 1373–74, edn. Padoan 1965: 689). Thus, l’uno delle braccia was grammatical in Old Italian, which contrasts minimally with modern Standard Italian ?l’una/**l’uno delle braccia: if at all acceptable, this phrase today selects the agreement option Bembo deemed ungrammatical. Things have changed since then, producing a two-gender system via the loss of the third alternating gender—the same as found in modern Romanian (§4.4.1)—which was alive and well in Old Italian. Furthermore, Old Italian was more conservative than Romanian in that it still showed some scanty remnants of dedicated neuter plural agreement (underlined in (8)), as recently discussed in Faraoni et al. (2013) and Loporcaro et al. (2014): (8) a. la grave e continua spesa che quella mura richeggiono ‘the heavy and continuous costs that those walls require’ (Lettere volterrane, 1348–53; Della Valle 1982: 201) b. li denti minotetti / di perle son serrati; / lab[b]ra vermiglia, li color’ rosati ‘the small teeth / of pearls are made; / lips vermilion, / the colors like roses’ (Chiaro Davanzati, second half of the thirteenth century, Florentine; Menichetti 1965: 137) c. a guardare le detta castella et cassari ‘to guard the said castles and turrets’ (Statuti Senesi 1309–10 [Gangalandi]; Lisini 1903: 1.219) d. poi che furono entrate nella letta, ciascuna s’infinse di volersi levare a dire certe orazioni ‘after they had got into the beds, all of them pretended that they wanted to stand up and say certain prayers’ (Matteo Corsini, 1373, Florentine; Polidori 1845: 104) e. col suo sacco di grano su le reni […] e scaricarono la sacca. Scaricate che l’ebbono […] ‘with his grain sack on the back […] and they deposited the sacks. Once they had deposited them […]’ (Sacchetti, Trecentonovelle, second half of the fourteenth century; Florentine, Pernicone 1946: 529) The evidence is scant, and the list in (8) is shorter than that produced in the articles quoted, since in the meantime the examples from Iacopo da Varagine’s Leggenda aurea (late fourteenth century Florentine) have turned out to be illusory, as being imputable



6.2  Old Italian

201

to transcription errors by the editor.2 In the quoted papers, we addressed the paucity of attestations and the resulting need for caution. Indeed, while some further attestations on the list come from old editions comparable to Levasti’s, others are from reliable ones. Thus, examples such as quella mura with plural verb agreement in (8a), and resumption of la sacca through the plural (though feminine) participle scaricate in (8e) may still be regarded, until proof to the contrary, as the last scanty leftovers of dedicated neuter plural target agreement in fourteenth century Tuscan. That such leftovers may have been there at that time, after all, is to be expected given the comparative Romance picture and the philological evidence from other branches of medieval Italo-Romance and from Old Romansh discussed in §§6.3–6.5. On the other hand, many other similar examples leave room for uncertainty, whenever plural verbal agreement does not assure the number value. Thus, that the relevant NP in (8b) is a plural can be at best presumed, given that it occurs in a list of plurals. Consider further examples such as the following: (9)  è ben galiardo e dur-a ha l’oss-a ‘he is very strong and has hard bones’ (Matteo Maria Boiardo, Inamoramento de Orlando, I, iv, 5, edn. Tissoni BenvenutiMontagnani 1999) Here, a-adjective agreement with ossa diverges from modern Italian, but one cannot be sure that dura ossa is still a (remnant of the) neuter plural, or else has been reanalysed as a (feminine singular) collective, in the same way as, say, Srs. ossa (tuot l’ossa am fa mal ‘all my bones hurt me’, with 3sg fa) or OFr. mure ‘city walls’ < mura (see §6.3.1), feuille ‘foliage’ < folia (§4.2.3). The list of similar uncertainties could be easily lengthened, from both within and outside Tuscany: (10) a. Della vendigione della pegnora (Old Lucchese, ad 1376; Mancini et al. 1927: 75) ‘about the sale of the pledges’ b. li dnr dela pegnora che sé sulo contrato (Old Venetian, ad 1311; Stussi 1965: 77) ‘the money [denari, abbreviated] of the pledge which is [foreseen] in the contract’ c. doghaniero della pecora (early modern Romanesco, ad 1523; Onofri 2000: 188) ‘cattle customs inspector in chief ’ 2  Giulio Vaccaro kindly checked the two passages on the Riccardiano manuscript in Florence, which indeed read differently from those printed in Levasti’s edition: l-a      borg-ora    di Melano misse      al fuoco (i) a. tutt-a    all-n.pl  def-n.pl boroughs(n)-pl  of Milan   set.pret.3sg  on fire ‘all boroughs of Milan did he set on fire’ (Levasti 1924–26: 3.1580) b. acciò che non ci rovinino l-a bagn-ora addosso lest 1pl.IO crumble.prs.sbjv.3pl def-n.pl bath(n)-pl upon ‘lest the baths should fall upon our heads’ (Levasti 1924–26: 1.119)

Unfortunately, neither of the passages is printed correctly, as the manuscript reads, respectively, tutte le borgora and le bangniora, with the ‘usual’ feminine plural agreement endings ‑e.

202

The older stages of the Romance languages

Pegnora is often found, with feminine plural agreement (le pegnora) in Old Tuscan (e.g. le pegnora che si torrano ‘the:f.pl pledges that will be taken’, Florence, fourteenth century, see Sartini 1953: 285), while the one in (10a) is the only Tuscan occurrence of pegnora in the OVI database with a determiner form la which could in principle be neuter plural. Note that the same text reads elsewhere (p. 28) Della vendigione delle pegnora, where pegnora is unequivocally (feminine) plural and could strengthen the hypothesis of variation between feminine and neuter in plural agreement:3 compare the syntagmatic co-occurrence in (8c) above: l-e dett-a castell-a ‘the-f.pl above-mentionedn.pl castles(an)’.4 However, to prove this conclusively, one would need plural agreement outside the DP (where ‑a on determiners and modifiers is liable to either analysis): since this evidence is missing in (10a) (and in the rest of the text from which it is drawn), it is not possible to decide which of the two analyses dell-a pegn-ora ‘of the-n.pl pledge(an)-pl’ and dell-a pegnor-a ‘of the-f.sg pledge(f)-sg’ is the correct one. As for Old Venetian, the following point is made by Formentin (2004: 108, n. 22), discussing data such as (10b). He remarks that ‘il caso del venez. ant. la pegnora non sarebbe decidibile su base sintattica, stante la collisione locale, nel verbo, di 3a sing. e 3a plur.’ [‘the case of OVen. la pegnora would be undecidable on a syntactic basis, given the merger in Venice between 3sg and 3pl verb inflections’]—as seen in sé ‘be.prs.3’ in (10b)—and concludes: ‘appare […] verosimile che venez. ant. la pegnora […] sia sintatticamente un sing., come il soprasilv la péra’ [‘it seems likely that OVen. la pegnora is syntactically a singular, like Srs. la péra ‘the pears’].5 The same goes for (10c), where it is clear that (del)la pecora does not refer to one single sheep (unlike in modern Romanesco and StIt.), yet no independent morphosyntactic evidence is available to qualify that word form as plural. That the form of the noun could be plural is in itself beyond doubt, since an a-plural for this lexical item is attested in Old Romanesco and lives on in some nearby dialects of Lazio and the rest of area mediana (pɛ́kor-a ‘sheep(f)-sg=pl’ in Ascrea, province of Rieti; see Fanti 1939: 130, or Arcevia, province of Ancona; see Crocioni 1906, 30). For our purposes, though, no conclusive proof of (neuter) plural agreement can be gained from (10c).6 3  The issue is discussed for the identical form la pegnora ‘the pledges’ occurring in Old Venetian by Formentin (2004: 108) who concludes (as mentioned below) in favour of reanalysis as a feminine singular. 4  Note that it would be incorrect to dub such a noun as belonging to an a(lternating) gender because ‑a still is a dedicated (i.e. non-syncretic)—if only residual—neuter inflection on agreement targets (hence the label a(lternating) n(euter), which alludes to this persistence of dedicated neuter targets). 5  Actually, even in a system where finite verb agreement does not distinguish 3sg and 3pl, past participle agreement may still afford discrimination: see e.g. Old Siennese (ca. ad 1303) tutti e ciascuni a cui le pegnora saranno tolte ‘all them to whom pledges will_be:3pl taken:f.pl’ (Banchi 1871: 103). Unfortunately, OVen. la pegnora (and other comparable nouns, like la cegla ‘the eyelashes’) never occur as objects (or passive ­subjects) of perfective periphrastics, so that this diagnostic is also unavailable. 6  The paradigm attested for Old Romanesco is sg peco/pl le pecora: see respectively Questa carne ène de peco ‘this is meat of sheep:sg’ and morivane como le pecora ‘they died like sheep’ (from the fourteenth century Cronica di Anonimo Romano, extant in much later copies, edn. Porta 1979: 182, 117). This stems from Lat. pecus,‑oris ‘(small) cattle, sheep(n)’, whose plural pecora was reanalysed as feminine singular in StIt. Note that the dialect of Castro dei Volsci (southern Lazio, Vignoli 1911: 159) still has two synony­ mous lexemes pɛku̥/pɛ´kurɐ (an) and pɛ´kurɐ/pɛ´kurə (f), and while sg peco is not attested with agreeing words in the Old Romanesco textual corpus, fourteenth-century Old Sabino, a few miles north of Rome, has both genders in free variation for that lexeme, within one and the same sentence: un-u peco co lo co(r)nu, et q(ue)ll-a peco fo . . . ‘one-m.sg sheep(m).sg’, and that-f.sg sheep(f).sg was etc.’ (Aurigemma 1998: 291).



6.3  Medieval Western Romance

203

The same uncertainty now illustrated for the Old Italo-Romance examples in (9)–(10) must have befallen language acquirers in a transitional stage. In other words, cases like these mirror the sort of bridging context in which—in the absence of unambiguous clues from verb agreement—the original neuter plural was reanalysed by the speakers, so as to yield, in many cases (though not in ossa, (9)), feminine singulars like It. pecora, foglia, and the like. While most of the evidence from those areas is of the type seen in (10), some scattered instances of what is arguably a-neuter plural agreement do occur here too. Thus, in a mid fifteenth-century text from Nepi (some 50 km north of Rome, in the province of Viterbo), one reads: (11)  infra l’altra (early modern Nepesino, ad 1459–68; Mattesini 1985: 97, 117) ‘among other things’ This is a substantivized plural form of an adjective showing neuter agreement, and represents Romance usage since—witness the definite article and the form of the adjective—it cannot be a Latinism (compare Latin inter alia).

6.3  Medieval Western Romance In this section, I will concentrate on Western Romance except the Iberian peninsula: evidence from older stages of Ibero-Romance is addressed later in §7.5. 6.3.1  Old Gallo-Romance Ever since their earliest documentation, Old French and Old Occitan seem to have been more advanced than Old Italian or Romanian along the path which led to establishing a binary (controller) gender system, with full reassignment of all previously neuter nouns to the remaining two genders. On the target gender side, by contrast, Old French and Old Occitan parallel Sursilvan (§4.3.2) in preserving a dedicated neutral agreement form (for the usual functions, viz. agreement with non-nominal controllers, lack of agreement) not only for pronouns, but also for adjectives (see Jensen 1990: 76–82; Zink 1992: 49; Buridant 2000: 198–201):7 (12)

a. molt li     est    grief  a    departir very 3.IO.sg be.prs.3sg hard.n to leave:inf ‘leaving is very hard for him’ (Roman d’Eneas 1629) b. que chi fait bel et cler et net that here do.prs.3sg nice.n and clear.n and clean.n ‘how beautiful and bright and clean it is here’ (Adam de la Halle, Feuillée 643)

The forms of the adjective in (12) only occur in predicative position (they cannot be attributive, for want of nominal controllers) and are formally distinct from masculine 7  Neuter (neutral) pronouns for resumption of and agreement with non-nominal controllers are OFr. o, ço, ce ‘this’, (ce) que ‘rel’, tot ‘everything’, rien ‘nothing’ (Gamillscheg 1957: 146–83; Jensen 1990: 76); OOcc. o, so, aissò, acò ‘this’, (so) que ‘rel’, tot ‘everything’, re ‘nothing’ (Romieu and Bianchi 2006: 43–53).

204

The older stages of the Romance languages

and feminine: for example OFr. grief in (12a) contrasts with the nominative masculine griefs and the feminine grieve. The full adjective paradigm was the following: (13) masculine singular

plural

nom

cler-s

cler

obl

cler

cler-s

feminine

neuter

singular

plural

singular

cler-e

cler-es

cler

Old French ‘clear’

Not unlike in Sursilvan ((18c), (19c)), the neuter forms of the adjective in (12)–(13) are regular outcomes of the corresponding Latin forms, just as the masculine and feminine ones regularly continue the Latin masculine and feminine: (14) masculine singular

plural

nom

clarus

clari

acc

clarum

claros

feminine

neuter

singular

plural

singular

clara(m)

claras

clarum

Latin etyma ‘clear’

Medieval Occitan, another language with a two-case declension like (13), is also identical to Old French as far as neutral agreement is concerned, as seen in (15a–b), where the neuter forms comunal and greu occur, not their masculine counterparts comunals and greus (see Jensen 1990: 76): (15) a. so que vas totz es comunal Old Occitan dem.n rel.n for all:m.pl be.prs.3sg common.n ‘what is common to everybody’ (G. de Bornelh 58.6) b. greu m’es […]     car vos   n’anatz hard.n 1sg.IO=be.prs.3sg  that 2pl  go away.prs.2pl ‘it displeases me that you are going away’ (G. de Bornelh 58.57f.) The neuter adjective of Old Gallo-Romance, thus, inherits form and function of the Latin neuter adjective (seen in (10), Ch. 2) in contexts where no nominal controller is involved. Selection of the neuter with non-nominal controllers also occurs with participles. This can be tested in the passive, since—not unlike the adjective—the neuter participle form is distinct from the masculine nominative required in the passive, but identical with the masculine oblique required in active clauses. This is seen in (16), where fait ‘done.n’ is guaranteed by its rhyming with plait ‘agreement.obl.sg’: ce lesser que ainz fo fait Old French (16) et and that.n leave:inf rel.n earlier be.pret.3sg done.n ‘and abandon what had been done earlier’ (Thèbes 8776, edn. Mora-Lebrun 1995: 558) Unlike Old Gallo-Romance, Latin had no controller/target gender mismatch here, given that the pronoun and adjective forms occurring with non-nominal controllers were the same ones signalling agreement with neuter nouns.



6.3  Medieval Western Romance

205

Maintenance of the neuter vs masculine contrast, with this restricted function, was possible in Old Gallo-Romance given the two-case paradigm in (13), and in particular given the sigmatic nominative of the masculine. Obviously, then, adjectival/participial neuter agreement could not outlive the demise of the two-case declension in Middle French (fourteenth century). But the loss of these dedicated neuter forms started even earlier, since in Old French/Occitan it was already optionally possible—indeed, ‘not too uncommon’ (Jensen  1990: 76)—to find masculine (nominative) forms in this function, competing with the neuter:8 (17) a. tot ce li es pleisanz et doltz a reconter (Cligés 4326) ‘all that is pleasing and sweet for her to tell’ b. rien i est aigres n’amers (Cligés 3214) ‘nothing in it is sharp or bitter’

Old French

Old Occitan c. so qe·ll era ditz non era vertatz dem.n rel.n=3msgIO be.impf:3sg said.nom.m.sg neg be.impf:3sg truth(f).nom.sg ‘what had been told to him was not the truth’ (Vidas 38.E.31)

Yet, although only variably used by thistime, these adjective neuter forms were still part of a regular paradigm, as seen in (13), and thus a regular morphosyntactically functioning remnant of the neuter, for ‘neutral’ agreement (see Corbett 2006: 97f.). The rest of the neuter paradigm did not leave any other traces of comparable prominence in Old Gallo-Romance. In the relevant paragraphs, historical grammars (e.g. MeyerLübke 1934: 183–4; Moignet 1988: 18; Jensen 1990: 41–3; Buridant 2000: 61) generally content themselves with listing the kind of lexicalized ‘remnants of the neuter’ discussed in §4.2.3: (a) nouns whose form must be traced back to a Latin ‑a plural, but have turned syntactically singular, such as OFr. mure/OOcc. mura ‘city walls’ < Late Latin mura (seventh century, see ThLL 8.1684.75–78, an innovation with respect to CL m.pl murī), OFr. fueille/ OOcc. folha ‘leafage, leaf’ < folia (e.g. OFr. en toz tens sa fueille li dure ‘its:f.sg foliage lasts in all seasons’, Yvain 384), and other feminine nouns; or, more interestingly, (b) nouns whose plural form goes back to a Latin ‑a plural. These latter plural word forms occur with numerals, that is, in a typical context selecting for plural. These are mostly, but not exclusively, lexemes indicating measures, as exemplified in (18) (see e.g. Bourciez 1946: 234; Rheinfelder 1967: 48; Moignet 1988: 18; Buridant 2000: 61; Tomašpol’skij 2013: 70f.): (18) a. dous deie (Roland 444) ‘two fingers’ (as a measure), trei deie ‘three fingers’ (as a measure) (Gormont 410, edn. Bayot 1931: 28) b. quatre paire (Rose 1660) ‘four pairs’9 c. oue ambe brace (Thèbes 2894, edn. Mora-Lebrun 1995: 214) ‘with both arms’ d. cinquante car(r)e (Roland 33, 131, 186) ‘fifty carts’ e. cent almaille (Lois Guillaume 5, Matzke 1899: 7) ‘one hundred head of horned cattle’ (< animalia) 8 OFr. dolz in (17a) is invariable (masculine = feminine = neuter), but pleisanz m contrasts with pleisant n, and so do aigres and amers in (17b), as well as OOcc. ditz m (vs dit n in (17c)). 9  This noun is invariable for number in Old French (une/deus paire ‘one couple/two couples’), which is explained by assuming generalization of the plural form paria ousting singular par (see REW 6219, Buridant 2000: 61). See §4.3.6 for similar cases in North-Western Italo-Romance.

206

The older stages of the Romance languages

Apart from numerals (and ambe ‘both’ in (18e)), plural nouns like these generally take an s-plural marker on agreement targets, that is, they are either masculine or feminine: (19) a. s’oste ses arme ‘[the king] takes off his weapons’ (Richard de Fornival 2255) b. ses vestimenta ‘their clothes’ (Guilhem Magret 223.5a.6)

Old Fr.      Old Occitan.

Furthermore, there are several cases in which those original a-plurals take non-sigmatic determiners or modifiers (compatible with an etymological ‑a > ‑e, rather than ‑os/‑as), and yet one cannot be sure about their synchronic number value, in the absence of verb agreement: (20) a. Li reis a pris Tierri entre sa brace (Roland 3939) ‘the king took Tierri in his arms’ b. sanglant en ad e l’osberc et brace (Roland 1343) ‘he has bloody armour and arms’ c. sa membre et sa vie à garder (Benoît, Chr. de Norm. 6802) ‘to preserve one’s limbs and life’

Old French

While it is unquestionable that these phrases denote a set (of two arms, of limbs of the body, etc.) and that the noun forms occurring therein go back to neuter plural brachia and membra—possibly preserved within fixed expressions such as membre et vie ‘one’s life’ (lit. ‘limbs and life’; e.g. in Thèbes 9418, edn. Mora-Lebrun 1995: 592)—as stressed by Meyer-Lübke (1883: 134) or Sachs (1886: 7), their conclusion that these must be plurals in (20) (as against e.g. Foerster’s 1877: 153 contention that OFr. sa membre is singular) is unwarranted (although it is clear that such nouns could also be plural, as seen in (19)), given the general Romance trend discussed in §4.2.3 and especially given comparative evidence such as Sursilvan la bratscha, la membra (dil tgierp) in (12), Chapter 4, which are undoubtedly set-denoting terms, yet morphosyntactically singular. More decisive evidence comes from the very rare cases in which a-plurals with non-sigmatic determiners or modifiers trigger plural verb agreement. The earliest discussion of such Old French examples as (21) is found in Tobler (1859: 288) (see also Mussafia 1867; Tobler 1868; Sachs 1886; Formentin 2004: 108, n. 22): (21) sunt semblant a la pesant et a be.prs.3pl similar to def.f.sg heavy and to la      dure  lenge   ki    tardiement ensprendent def.n.pl  hard   wood(n)  rel:subj slowly   catch_fire:3pl ‘are similar to the heavy and hard wood that slowly catches fire’ (Job, edn. Le Roux de Lincy 1841: 514f.) Tobler regarded la dure lenge as plural, although a troubling factor here is the ­coordination of the two adjectives, of which pesant certainly cannot be traced back to a neuter plural form. Note, however, that coordination concerns only the adjectives, whereas there is just one noun involved, legne, which triggers verb plural agreement.



6.3  Medieval Western Romance

207

Be that as it may, several other cases are discussed in Sachs (1886: 6–10), some of which seem to be objection-proof, such as (22a–b): (22) a. furent ces arme faite en vo resné (Aiol 991, edn. Normand and Raynaud 1877: 30) ‘were these weapons made in your kingdom?’ b. arme qu’il ait li ont poi de durée (Gaydon 6922, edn. Subrenat 2007: 438) ‘his armour.pl does not resist (lit. 3pl) for long’ Although the editors correct the manuscript’s reading seen in (22a) into ces armes faites, thus using the same form occurring a few verses later (i.e. furent ces armes faites a vostre guise? ‘were these arms made according to your wish?’, Aiol 1066, edn. Normand and Raynaud 1877: 32), this comparison is no reason to dismiss the survival of the older plural arma (in ces arme faite, to be traced back to *ecce-istas arma facta, as argued by Sachs  1886: 7) alongside the innovative form armes (faites) < armas (factas), if the manuscript has both: in fact, the more recent (Subrenat) edition of the passage in (22b), where arme also triggers plural verb agreement, respects the manuscript’s reading. In other words, these occurrences of OFr. plural arme are rooted in a stage preceding the reanalysis of arma as a feminine singular, and so should be recorded under REW 650.1 arma,‑orum, whereas the only Romance outcomes reported in that entry are the outcomes of feminine arma,‑ae under 650.2 (Fr. arme, It., Sdn., Eng., Occ., Cat., Sp., Pg. arma).10 Summing up, examples like (21)–(22) are a tiny minority in the Old Gallo-Romance corpus, but cannot all be explained away as faulty readings: rather, they attest to the last remnants of neuter plural agreement which in Old Gallo-Romance was preserved with just a few originally neuter plural nouns in free variation with feminine (armes ‘weapons’) or masculine (bratz ‘arms’) agreement. This kind of remnant of the Latin neuter co-existed with—but was distinct from—the neuter singular (see (12)–(16)) which became specialized for agreement with and pronominalization of non-canonical controllers, once all formerly neuter nominal controllers had been reassigned to other genders. The implications of this system for reconstruction will be explored in Chapter 7.

10  This kind of evidence tends to be overlooked in studies on the diachrony of French gender. Thus, no hint at it is to be found in Härmä (2000), while elsewhere one comes across statements such as the following: ‘Neuter plurals are reanalyzed as feminine singular’ in Old French (Polinsky and Van Everbroeck 2003: 363), which is surely true of vigilia > OFr. veille ‘wake’ and a vast majority of such names, but should not be presented as a categorical change, given the residue just reviewed (admittedly scanty). On the other hand, in the same study Polinsky and Van Everbroeck (2003: 364) claim that ‘At the level of individual words, some nouns in Late Latin and in early Old French became or remained neuter before they stabilized as masculines or feminines in Old French of the later period. In early Old French texts, neuters constitute about 4.6% of the nominal vocabulary’. Since the only example they provide is ‘Old Latin gluuten [M] ‘glue’, that ‘becomes gluten [N] in Late Latin and is attested as a neuter in Old French gluz’, it is clear that they are not referring to the residue of the alternating neuter exemplified with pl. arme before, but since they do not adduce any evidence from agreement with nouns of the kind mentioned, it is hard to see what motivates the claim that such nouns were synchronically neuter in early Old French, and how the authors arrive at the quoted figure.

208

The older stages of the Romance languages

6.3.2  Old Northern Italo-Romance Not surprisingly, textual evidence from northern Italy (also part of Western Romance) in the Middle Ages displays a structural picture intermediate between Old French/ Occitan and Old Tuscan, thus mirroring geography. The inflections relevant to pin down gender/number agreement were affected by sound change, with merger and loss of final unstressed non-low vowels radiating from northern France and gradually spreading southwards to reach the Apennines (Loporcaro 2015b: 82, 168). At the relevant medieval stage, Old French contrasted ‑ə < ‑a (that was deleted later on) with ‑Ø as an outcome of final unstressed non-low vowels. Northern Italian dialects, on the other hand, preserve ‑a to this day, and during the late Middle Ages were in the process of merging and deleting non-low vowels. In sum, Northern Italian final ‑a corresponds etymologically to OFr. ‑ə (mostly noted graphically as ). Final ‑a occurred originally in the neuter plural endings, on both controllers and agreement targets, but in northern Italy it was almost completely replaced by ‑e, not only for adjectives but also in noun morphology, via analogical change. This had occurred by the thirteenth century, when sufficient textual evidence becomes available (see e.g. Mussafia  1873: 19; Ascoli  1878: 261; Santangelo  1981: 127). Thus, in Old Milanese, Venetian, etc., one usually finds le brazze ‘the.f.pl arms’: for example braze in Old Genoese (Flechia 1886–88: 158), in Old Ravennate (ad 1361, Sanfilippo 2007: 449f.), in Old Milanese (le braze e le gambe ‘arms and legs’ in Bonvesin da la Riva, De scriptura nigra, edn. Contini 1941: 106), etc.: note that in both Ravenna and Milan unstressed final vowel phonemes were still preserved at that time (see Sanfilippo  2007: 424 and Contini 1935, respectively) while in Genoese they persist to this day (see e.g. the examples in (49)–(50), Chapter 4), so that one can be sure that this replacement was morphological, rather than phonetic, in nature. Remnants of a-plurals are much rarer in Northern Italo-Romance than in Tuscan at this stage (see Mussafia  1873: 19; Meyer-Lübke  1890: 202; Santangelo  1981: 127), and they seem to be confined—as noted, for example, by Bertoletti (2005: 208) for Old Veronese—to units of measure occurring in quantificational expressions with a numeral. In some cases, this numeral could take a dedicated neuter plural form, as exemplified in the following passage from an Old Mantuan text (Vivaldo Belcalzer, about ad 1300, edn. Ghinassi 1965: 128): corn […] in meza la front long per doa braza (23) un indf[m.sg] horn(m)[sg] in mid def:f.sg forehead long for two:n ell(x):pl ‘a horn in its mid-forehead, two ells long’ As the editor remarks (Ghinassi 1965: 80), this instance of braza is accompanied by a form of the numeral ‘two’ (doa) which contrasts with masculine dui and feminine doe (tute doe le orecle ‘both ears’, p. 128). This contrast occurs in medieval texts from the Veneto, Lombardy, Emilia, and Liguria, as exemplified for a late fourteenth-century Venetian text (the Tristano corsiniano) in (24) (edn. Tagliani 2011): (24) a. doa para d’arme (124) ‘two:n pairs of arms/sets of armour’; plu de doa milia (145) ‘more than two:n thousand’; ello v’abaterave se vuj fussi ancora doa tanti (127) ‘he would overthrow you even if you were twice [lit. ‘two:n’] as many’



6.3  Medieval Western Romance

209

b. li dui fradelli (73) ‘the two:m brothers(m)’; li altri dui conpagnon (89) ‘the other two:m companions(m)’; delli dui servi (99) ‘of the two:m servants(m)’; c. tute doe le palme (108) ‘both [lit. ‘all:f two:f’] palms(f)’; a doe mane (108) ‘with both [lit. ‘two:f’] hands(f)’; doe çornade (144) ‘two:f days(f)’. The same holds true of the numeral ‘three’: (25) a. tuo’ trea para d’armadure verde (124) ‘take three sets of green armour’ [lit. ‘three:n pairs(n)’] b. sença dui schuderi over sença tri (110) ‘without two:m equerries or without three:m (of them)’; li altri tri (83) ‘the remaining three:m (of them)’; c. ben trey liegue engelexe (125) ‘no less than three:f English leagues(f)’; tre volte (145) ‘three:f times(f)’. Note that doa/trea occur either within compound numerals, or in the adverbial expression meaning ‘twice (or ‘three times’) as much’, while combination with nouns within a phrase is restricted, as said above, to quantificational expressions in which the noun denoting a unity of measure preserves a-plural, as ‘two pairs’ (in (24a)), ‘two ells’ in (23), or do-a chara/stara ‘two-n carts/bushels’ (Old Paduan, before ad 1369; see Tomasin 2004: 26). In terms of noun morphology, these data parallel the Old French examples seen in (18) and show that NPs containing numerals favoured the maintenance of a-plurals. Looking at the form of the numerals in (24a) and (25a), the data show that medieval Northern Italo-Romance, contrary to Old French or Old Tuscan and like modern Romansh (see (14)–(15), Ch. 4), still preserved overdifferentiated neuter plural agreement forms on lower numerals which, again as in Romansh, were basically restricted to quantificational expressions. This remnant of a once more general dedicated neuter plural agreement has since disappeared, giving way to the binary gender contrast, on lower numerals as on other agreement targets, seen for today’s dialects in (41), Chapter 4. The third form doa seen in (24a) today remains exclusively, in some dialects, as part of the compound numeral ‘two thousand’ (not unlike in Sardinian, considered above in §4.3.1): for example Genoese duamiːa, contrasting with dwí ‘two:m’ and duːe ‘two:f’ (Toso 1997: 81f.). Apart from lower numerals, to date just a handful of cases have been pointed out, in which a-neuter plural agreement may occur: for example lij braza v(er)onesa ‘52 Veronese ells’ (Old Veronese: ad 1381; see Bertoletti  2005: 415), where plurality is guaranteed by the numeral. The only known case of what could be dedicated neuter plural verb agreement in medieval Northern Italo-Romance (discussed in Loporcaro and Tomasin  2016: 57–8) occurs in the following passage (Filippo della Molza, Old Mantuan, late fourteenth century, edn. Borgogno 1980: 70): (26) l-i altr-e chastel-e chi s’=en revelad-a def-f.pl other-f.pl castle(x)-pl rel refl=be.prs.3pl rebelled-n.pl ‘the other castles that have rebelled’ In (26) revelada occurs within a perfect periphrastics whose finite verb form is 3pl: in the textual corpus of Old Northern Italo-Romance this seems to be the only such

210

The older stages of the Romance languages

example, while for other instances of a-determiner/adjective agreement, as already shown in (10b), conclusive evidence from verbal agreement is lacking (as observed by Formentin 2004: 108, n. 22).11 The evidence in (26) can be compared with the scanty, but slightly more conspicuous, traces of neuter plural agreement in Old Tuscan seen above in (8), as well as the much broader evidence for dedicated neuter plural agreement to be reviewed for other areas in §§6.4f.

6.4  Old Romansh Within Western Romance, Old Romansh deserves to be treated separately. The discussion of modern Romansh data above showed that Sursilvan is today unique in preserving a dedicated non-lexical neuter for predicative adjective agreement and agreement with and pronominalization of non-canonical controllers (§4.3.3), in addition to a neuter article, also occurring for the pronominalization of the same controllers, much like Spanish lo. Furthermore, both Sursilvan and Engadinian still show traces of neuter plural agreement on lower numerals, which are synchronically instances of hyperdifferentiation and, possibly for this reason, are in the process of being lost (§4.3.2). These hyperdifferentiated forms occur with collective/mass feminines like Srs. la bratscha ‘the:f.sg arms(f):sg’ in (9), Chapter 4. Logically, at an earlier stage, the agreeing forms of ‘two’ and ‘three’ were not hyperdifferentiated, but just (neuter) plural agreement targets, as were the forms of the article occurring nowadays with feminine singular nouns like bratscha. This stage is indeed attested, in Old Sursilvan and Engadinian, and its traces persisted until much later than for other Romance varieties considered so far (with the only exception of Verbicarese, §4.4.3), which suggests that it is advisable to single out Old Romansh for separate treatment in the present section. Ascoli (1880–83: 439), who first drew attention to the relevant data, rightly said that they represent a ‘vero plurale grammaticale […] col predicato verbale allo stesso numero’ [‘a true grammatical plural […] with the verbal predicate in the same number’], as exemplified with sixteenth- to eighteenth-century occurrences for Engadinian in (27) and Sursilvan in (28) (see Velleman 1915: 115f. for the Engadinian examples):12 (27) a. La vestimainta sun […] cuvertas da la trideza (Martinus and Rauch 1693: 3.114) ‘garments/clothes are […] covers of the ugliness’ b. Ma la mia verva nu vignen à passer via (Bifrun 1560: 171, Marc. 13.31) ‘but my words will not pass away’ 11  In (26), the feminine plural form of the article co-occurs with n.pl ‑a on the participle. This is not surprising, given the widespread vacillation of n.pl/f.pl agreement in the transitional stages, seen already with a modern dialect in (81b), Ch. 4 and discussed for ancient texts from southern Italy in Paciaroni et al. (2013: 131) (see also §6.5 below). 12  This evidence led Ascoli (1880–83: 439), in his seminal study of Romansh morphosyntax, to claim that this ‘è una condizione che non si rinviene se non ne’ Grigioni’ [‘is a situation which is found solely in Graubünden’—i.e. where Romansh is spoken—M.L.], a conclusion which must nowadays be revised, in view of the evidence from Verbicarese seen in §4.4.3, that from Old Tuscan analysed in §6.2, and that from Old Neapolitan discussed in §6.5. Retrieval of the Old Romansh data discussed in this section has been eased by the digitalization of Decurtins (1891–1919), accessible online at http://www.crestomazia.ch/.



6.4  Old Romansh

211



c. E tuotta la nembra nun haun üna proepia houra (Bifrun  1560: 540, Romans 12.4) ‘and not all the members have the same function’ (28) a. Sia detta han pigliau ilg fijs (Alig 1674: 419) ‘Her fingers have taken the spindle’ b. Gual da quei temps vanginen nou navont detta d’ün maun da carstiaun, ca scriveven . . . (Bibla 1718: II, 157, Daniel 5.5) ‘Just in that moment the fingers of a human hand appeared, which wrote …’ c. Vegnen salvada si la Ss. ossa de S. Placi e S. Sigisbert (Cuorta Memoria, in C. Decurtins 1880–83: 215, lines 20f.) ‘The holy bones of St. P. and S. S. are preserved’ d. Salidada seias vus, soingia schanuglia (Alig 1674: 262) ‘All hail to you, holy knees’ Apart from seias in (28d), all the remaining verb forms agreeing with subject NPs in (27)–(28) show 3pl agreement: sun, vignen, haun (27a–c), han, vanginen, scriveven, vegnen (28a–c). As for seias in (28d), while this 2PL verb form is homophonous with the 2sg in this variety (e.g. Salidada seias, ti zun bialla Faccia literally ‘all hail to you, his handsome face’ in the same enumeration in Alig 1674: 261), the 2pl pronoun form vus guarantees that soingia schanuglia is (morphosyntactically) a plural. The innovative construction with agreement in the (feminine) singular could already occur by that time, in variation with the conservative neuter plural form, as shown by the passages from late seventeenth-century texts in (29) and (30a–b, d) and the eighteenth-century text in (30c), exemplifying the same two Romansh varieties as (27)–(28) (respectively Engadinian and Sursilvan): (29) La vestimainta es qui in l’ mond eir per defensiun contra chialur, e fradüra (Martinus and Rauch 1693: 3.115) ‘Clothes are here in the world also as a defence against heat and cold’ (30) a. La schuldada et armada della Claustra e dil Cumin de Muster era cumendada de Gaudenzius Lomberenno (Cuorta Memoria, in C. Decurtins 1880– 83: 221, lines 1f.) ‘The troops and army of the monastery and municipality of Muster were commanded by Gaudenzius Lomberenno’ b. Suenter aver aschia dostau la fom, han la schuldada fatg cussegl . . . (Cuorta Memoria, in C. Decurtins 1880–83: 238, lines 27f.) ‘After having stilled their hunger this way, the soldiers decided …’ c. jl malfitschen, il qual nossa schuldada cun gronda curascha han faig prischunier (La passiun da Somvitg, Decurtins 1891–1919: vol. 1.2–3.431) ‘the outlaw, whom our soldiers have captured with great bravery’ d. Suenter quei ha il schuldau domondau la giufna [. . .] (Cuorta Memoria, in C. Decurtins 1880–83: 238, line 23) ‘After this, the soldier asked the young girl [. . .]’

212

The older stages of the Romance languages

La vestimainta in (29) takes the verb in the 3sg (es), which shows that the definite article is (feminine) singular as well, contrary to (27a), where what seems to be exactly the same NP (la vestimainta) differs morphosyntactically as it triggers plural agreement on the verb (sun): this agreement therefore shows that the determiner la is (neuter) plural in (27a). Likewise, the form schuldada in (30b–c) is constructed as a plural to schuldau ‘soldier’ (compare the corresponding masculine singular in (30d)), as shown by the 3pl verb form han (rather than 3sg ha). On the other hand, the same word form schuldada co-occurs with 3sg era (rather than 3pl eran) in (30a), where it is a collective feminine noun, as confirmed by its coordination with the other feminine singular collective armada ‘army’. The construction in (30a) is the only one to survive in the modern language, where schuldada ‘soldiers’ (e.g. schuldada a cavagl ‘mounted soldiers’) is to be analysed as a derivative from schuldau (see Lausberg 1976: 25 and A. Decurtins 2012: 1013, vs Spescha 1989: 254, who labels it a ‘plural collectiv’). For a more remote stage in the Latin–Romance transition, Romansh also offers the same evidence as seen for Italian in §6.2 for the productivity of what must, at that time, have still been an inflectional class (sg. Ø/pl. ‑a) uniquely associated with the alternating neuter gender. This evidence is provided by innovations such as Srs. in biestg/earv ‘a piece of cattle’/‘a thread/sort of grass’, which are masculine singular today, stem diachronically from Latin feminines (bestiam, herbam), and would not have been created in the first place if the corresponding a-form—nowadays a (feminine singular) collective biestga ‘cattle’, earva ‘grass’ (Ebneter  1994: 859)—had not been equated with original a-plurals like la bratscha < illa brachia. Summing up, the evidence presented here shows that what today is hyperdifferentiated agreement on lower numerals is the remnant of more systematic neuter plural agreement at an earlier stage: this, in turn, together with the neuter singular agreement preserved to this day with non-nominal controllers (§4.3.3), converges with the Gallo-Romance evidence (§6.3) and points to a four-gender system, to be reconstructed in Chapter 7.

6.5  Older stages of Central-Southern Italo-Romance In a sense, I have already spoiled the surprise-effect of the evidence to be presented in this section, when displaying—in the synchronic taxonomy of gender systems—a modern dialect which residually preserves dedicated neuter plural agreement on adjectives (§4.4.3). This is spoken in northern Calabria, and today is isolated, as no other modern variety shows such a consistent three-way gender contrast on plural agreement targets. Climbing back in time to consider the record for Southern Italian dialects in past centuries, it is easy to realize that Verbicarese shows the very last remnant of a system which once spanned most of continental southern Italy. Moving northwards, Lucanian shows neuter plural agreement, in variation with feminine plural, as late as the early sixteenth-century recipe book edited by Süthold (1994: 12, 15):13 13  See the comments on (37) for the motivation of the gender value notation ‘n(euter)1’.



6.5  Older stages of Central-Southern Italo-Romance

213

(31) a. piglia       l-a    cotogni-a     et    spacca=ll-a take:impv.2sg  def-n1.pl quince(n1)-pl and break:impv.2sg=DO3-n1.pl in quattro parte et     monda=l-e         bene   (12.179f.) in four bits      and  clean:impv.2sg=DO3-f.pl well ‘take the quinces and break them in four pieces and clean them well’ b. piglia mel-a che non sia-no bene take:impv.2sg apple(n1)-pl that neg be.prs.sbjv-3pl well fatt-e,    sia-no     uno poco agrest-a     (15.244f.) do:ptp-f.pl be.prs.sbjv-3pl a bit     unripe-n1.pl  ‘take apples which are not fully ripe [but] a bit unripe’ In these passages, free variation in n1/f plural agreement is observed on pronominal clitics (see spacca=ll-a vs monda=l-e in (31a)) and predicative adjectives/participles (see fatt-e vs agrest-a in (31b)). Within the NP, la cotogna shows neuter agreement in (31a), but the feminine article is attested elsewhere (le cotogna 42.912), both plural to m.sg lo cotugno (42.905) (a fruit name; see also plural mela in (31b), (45), §3.2.1 and the discussion on (38) below). This variation converges with plural verb agreement to guarantee that both la and le, agreeing with cotognia, are plural articles/clitics and that, consequently, la cotognia is not reanalysed as f.sg (unlike in (5)–(6), Ch. 4 above). This same variation in plural agreement is attested for other areas of CentralSouthern Italy, as seen in the example in (32), from the Old Aquilano (Abruzzese) Cronaca by Buccio di Ranallo (about 1362, edn. De Bartholomaeis 1907: 260): (32)

l-e nostr-a molin-a se non potea-no guard-are def-f.pl our-n1.pl mill(n1)-pl refl neg can:impf-3pl protect-inf ‘our mills could not be protected’

Traces of this agreement pattern are found even in the extreme south (Old Salentino), as shown in recent work by Maggiore (2013, 2016: 254), which is the source for the following fifteenth-century Salentino examples:14 (33)

a. ma  l-a    genochi-a  li   trema-no  but  def-n.pl knee(n)-pl  IO.3sg tremble:prs-3pl ‘but his knees are trembling’ b. toffòe l-a brati-a nel menzo de l’ plunge:pret:3sg def-n.pl arm(n)-pl in middle of def ‘he plunged his arms into water’

acqua water

Again, the plural verb form in (33a) excludes that la genochia may have been reanalysed as feminine singular. The best-documented variety in which dedicated neuter plural agreement is observed is by far Old Neapolitan, for which Formentin’s (1998: 291–3) seminal study first demonstrated the crucial relevance of a-plurals for gender agreement, pinpointed 14  In Old as well as modern Salentino (see (70)–(76), Ch. 7), there is no mass neuter: hence the gender specification n rather than n1. These data, Maggiore argues, must be taken with a pinch of salt, because it is possible that the manuscript writer copied an Old Neapolitan antigraph and thus was influenced by it.

214

The older stages of the Romance languages

the geographical extension of dedicated neuter plural agreement in the rest of southern Italy (discussing examples such as (31)), and followed its persistence in Neapolitan from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century.15 The oldest extant Neapolitan texts, such as the Bagni di Pozzuoli (around 1300, edn. Pelaez 1928, (34)) and Libro de la destructione de Troya (late fourteenth century, edn. N. De Blasi 1986, (35)) show a still vigorous dedicated neuter plural agreement: (34) a. sol-a chest-a loc-ora ne pote-no sanare alone-n1.pl dem.prox-n1.pl place(n1)-pl us can.prs-3pl cure-inf ‘these places alone can cure us’ (15) b. chest-a     predict-a      omnia  dem.prox-n1.pl aforementioned-n1.pl all-n1.pl ‘all these things said (until now)’ (64) c. chest-a     bagn-ora dem.prox-n1.pl bath(n1)-pl ‘these baths’ (103) d. l-i    homine   trova-no   su-a    disi-a def-m.pl man(m):pl find.prs-3pl their-n1.pl wish-n1.pl ‘people find (satisfaction to) their wishes’ (200) e. dogll-a   face       a   l-a      lat-ora pain(f)-sg make.prs:3sg to def-n1.pl side(n1)-pl ‘it causes pain in the sides’ (248) (35) a. foro 

l-a     fundament-a    de  l-a     mur-a be.pret.3pl  def-n1.pl foundation(n1)-pl of   def-n1.pl wall(n1)-pl de quest-a    citat-e   multo larg-a  of  dem.prox-f.sg city(f)-sg  very  broad-n1.pl  ‘the foundations of the walls of this city were very broad’ (78.31)

b. quell-a     mur-a     da   l-a     part-e    de fore    frabicat-e dem.dist-n1.pl wall(n1)-pl from def-n1.pl part(f)-sg of outside built-f.pl e    copert-a     de marmore   ben   laborat-e and covered-n1.pl of   marble(f)-pl well polish-f.pl ‘those outer walls made and covered by well-polished marble’ (78.33f.) c. sopervenne-ro  l-a    tron-a        spotestat-a  e  fuort-e come.pret-3pl  def-n1.pl thunder(n1)-pl heavy-n1.pl and strong-f.pl  ‘there came heavy and strong thunders’ (121.10) d. a molti  era-no    braz-a     taglyat-a to many  be.impf-3pl arm(n1)-pl cut-n1.pl ‘many of them had got their arms cut’ (173.4)

15  Ledgeway (2009: 149) also collects interesting data illustrating gender agreement (especially plural a-agreement) and its modifications along the history of Neapolitan, but he does so in the context of maintaining a two-gender analysis for Neapolitan at all historical stages, which acknowledges only the binary contrast masculine vs feminine, as schematized in (142b), Ch. 4.



6.5  Older stages of Central-Southern Italo-Romance

215

e. e    l-a       mur-a       de quell-a       camer-a   era-no and  def-n1.pl wall(n1)-pl of   dem.dist-f.sg room(f)-sg be.impf-3pl  fact-a […]  et  embestut-a  de  devers-e   petr-e  precios-e made-n1.pl  and covered-n1.pl of  various-f.pl stone(f)-sg precious-f.pl ‘and the walls of that room were made [. . .] and covered by several precious stones’ (192.13f.)

Note again that 3pl verb agreement in many of the above examples ((34a), (35a, c–e)) guarantees that the a-ending noun forms have not been reanalysed as feminine singular, a reanalysis that occurred widely across Romance (see §4.2.3), included in Old Neapolitan itself (see Ledgeway 2009: 149): so, the a-ending on the accompanying agreement targets is unambiguously neuter plural.16 In addition, free variation with f.pl agreement (also within one and the same phrase, as in (35b–c)) confirms plurality of the ‑a ending, occasionally even in the absence of a plural verb form. Note finally that in these thirteenth- to fourteenth-century texts a-agreement in such contexts is frequent and that, although systematic quantifications assessing the relative percentage of the two agreement options are still a desideratum, it is fair to say that consistent n1.pl agreement is more frequent in earlier texts, while mixing of the two gradually prevails in later texts (see e.g. (36), from Loise De Rosa’s Ricordi, 58v6, fifteenth century; edn. Formentin 1998: 655):17 (36)

se no l-a mur-a non so bell-e, tutt-e l-e if neg def-n1.pl wall(n1)-pl neg be.prs.3pl beautiful-f.pl all-f.pl def-f.pl altr-e   so     mirabbelemente. other-f.pl be.prs.3pl wonderful ‘even if the walls are not beautiful, all other (things) are wonderful’

Given these data, the gender system of Old Neapolitan can be schematized as follows (see Loporcaro and Paciaroni 2011: 423, elaborating on Formentin 1998: 292, n. 844, 304f., 316):18 (37) singular

plural ‘def wealth’

Old Neapolitan

n2

llo

(b)bene

m

lo

nimico

li

nimice

‘the enemy/enemies’

n1 (>a) f

lo

vrazzo donna

vrazza bbrazza (d)donne

‘the arm/arms’

la

la lle lle

‘the lady/ladies’

16  Although the occurrence of a-endings in Old Neapolitan had been known for a long time, much of the literature before Formentin (1998) failed to realize its implication for the gender system, partly due to confusion of gender and IC, as can be observed e.g. in Russo (2002: 117–20, 2007: 251–65, 2009: 31–3, discussed in Loporcaro 2012: 150, n. 57). This literature often mixes the mass neuter and a-plurals under the heading ‘(remnants of the) neuter’ (see also Giuliani 2007: 155–62): they both are such diachronically, but this obscures the synchronic system (37). 17  This has indeed been shown for the long run, comparing Langobardic documents from southern Italy, in Faraoni (2016) (see Figure 7.1 and (12), Ch. 7). 18  While dividing lines, in (37) as elsewhere, denote morphosyntactic contrasts between agreement targets, a dotted line in the plural separates nouns such as vrazzo ‘arm’—whose plural vrazza can take at

216

The older stages of the Romance languages

This system is identical to the one seen for the modern dialect in (93), Chapter 4— featuring, in addition to masculine and feminine, an alternating and a mass neuter— except that the a(lternating) gender was not categorically established in Old Neapolitan given that, as exemplified in (34)–(36), feminine plural agreement was still available in variation with dedicated neuter plural. Thus, as long as neuter plural a-agreement was preserved, the corresponding gender, although syncretic with the masculine in the singular, was not yet a totally syncretic, alternating gender, unlike in modern Neapolitan, and consequently is better not labelled an: this is why—following the convention adopted in Loporcaro and Paciaroni (2011: 419–23)—it is contrasted with the mass neuter by means of the two numerical indexes n1 vs n2. A number of arguments can be adduced in support of the four-gender system (37). For the mass neuter (n2 here), the same arguments hold as put forward in the discussion of (142a), Chapter  4: it is a separate target gender, with dedicated agreement targets like the definite article /lːo/ (triggering RF as in the modern dialect—see n. 18 and (93), Ch. 4—and, in addition, beginning with a geminate consonant, as shown by Formentin 1994a: 85, 92). It remained productive throughout the history of Neapolitan, up to this day (see (97), Ch. 4 and the discussion immediately before it). The assumption of a fourth gender (n1 > a), on the other hand, is assured—as said— by its still being a target gender (due to dedicated plural agreement) that, in addition, correlates with several ICs. Also syntactically, the n1 > a gender in Old Neapolitan shows the expected behaviour with respect to Acquaviva’s tests in (37), §4.3.5. Consider the behaviour of alternating nouns such as ONeap. lo piro/milo/pruno ‘the:m pear/ apple/plum’ (pl. le pera/mela/pruna) discussed in Ledgeway (2009: 164, n. 118), nouns that belong to the class of fruit names which are still assigned to the alternating neuter in many Central-Southern Italo-Romance dialects today (see (43), §3.2.1): (38) a. un-o o doi perlicocch-a amantonat-e one-m or two.f apricot(a)-pl bruised-f.pl ‘one or two bruised apricots’ (Iacopo Sannazzaro, Gliommero 63, Bianchi et al. 1993: 234–9) b. un-o de chest-e   mel-a one-m of dem-f.pl apple(a)-pl ‘one of these apples’ (Pompeo Sarnelli, Posilicheata 1684, edn. Malato 1962: 128) that diachronic stage either a dedicated plural agreement form (la, for the article) or a feminine form (lle) in free variation (as seen in (34)–(36))—from feminine nouns which categorically select the latter. Parenthesized initial consonants in (37) stand for the application of RF, brought about by the neuter2 and the feminine plural articles. RF after these forms of the article was first explained by Merlo (1906–07, 1917c) by assuming the etyma *illoc and illæc respectively (discussed in §7.4 below). Here, none of the conceivable alternatives—CL illæ, illas, or the attested innovation illæs crossing the two, invoked by Rohlfs (1966–69: 2.108)—could possibly account for RF. RF is only desultorily reflected in Old Neapolitan texts, depending on various conditions discussed in Formentin (1994a: 42, n. 1), who collects the relevant examples. These show RF only after the neuter and the feminine plural article forms, never after feminine singular or masculine forms: e.g. le pprete ‘the stones(f)’, lo ppaidare ‘the digestion(n)’ (lit. a substantivized infinitive) in Bagni R (around 1300 ad) vv. 511 and 557 respectively (edn. Pelaez 1928: 117, 119). This written evidence is backed up by the reconstructive argument provided by the correlation between preservation of geminate ll and the application of RF itself (see Formentin 1994a).



6.5  Older stages of Central-Southern Italo-Romance

217

As seen from the co-occurrence of m.sg uno (pronominal) and the feminine plural agreeing forms within the NP, the number mismatch between agreement target and controller does not prevent gender agreement, along the lines espected for an alternating gender, and contrary to what we saw for Standard Italian in (37b–c).19 This is not a peculiarity of Old Neapolitan. Rather, all medieval varieties documented for the Central-Southern Italo-Romance area whose contemporary dialects are scrutinized in §4.5, show the same picture—provided that they have been analysed in sufficient detail, as is the case for Old Maceratese (on which see Paciaroni 2017: §5.15). Thus, for instance the syntactic behaviour illustrated for Neapolitan in (38) is observed in Old Maceratese as well: (39)  Documento maceratese, 1289 (Angeletti 1969–70: 5–10) primo  X  lingn-arum  pro  tict-u   palati-j      qua firstly  ten wood(a)-gen.pl for  roof(m)-sg palace(m)-gen.sg that sit      grand[-e], /  et   long-e   et   basstevel-e, be.prs.sbjv.3 big[-f.pl]    and  long-f.pl and sufficient-f.pl qual-i    siat      ampl-i   et    gros-e […] / rel-m.pl be.prs.sbjv.3 wide-m.pl and large-f.pl […] / L-e     qual-e  cossta     XX     libr-e    un-u def-f.pl  rel-f.pl cost.prs.ind.3 twenty pound(f)-pl one-m.sg ‘first of all, ten wooden crossbeams for the roof of the palace, that be big and long and sufficient, that be wide and large, which cost twenty pounds each’ While the controller noun appears in a Latinate genitive plural form (as the passage is replete with Latin bits and pieces, as seen for example in verb morphology in CL sit), this clearly covers Romance le leɲɲa f.pl (still attested as a plural in the area: see AIS 3.541, pt. 567, Muccia, province of Macerata). Now, the crucial fact for us shows up in the second clause, where the subject relative pronoun is f.pl, as it resumes the above noun form (though in Latin camouflage), but the distributive pronoun unu (= StIt. l’uno) appears in the masculine singular. This syntactic consistency is at least partially preserved, by Maceratese (and Central Marchigiano in general), to this day, as shown in Loporcaro and Paciaroni (2011: 409) and Paciaroni et al. (2013: 114–17), with the syntactic behaviour of the distributive and reciprocal pronouns (examples from the dialect of Treia, in the province of Macerata, on whose system see (118)f., Ch. 4): (40) a. l  ɔ-a/ɔ-e   

kɔšt-a  kwíndiči  čentésim-i  l  un-u   /%l   un-a def  egg(a)-pl  cost.prs-3  fifteen   cent(m)-pl   def  each-m.sg  /def each-f.sg ‘eggs cost fifteen cents each’

b. e vračč-a ðe uɣo  aðɛ́    un-a  piú   lloŋg-a def.f.pl arm(a)-pl of   Hugh be.prs-3 one-f.sg more long\f-f.sg ðe-ll addr-a / un-u piú lluŋg-u ðe-ll addr-u of-def other-f.sg one-m.sg more long\m-m.sg of-def other-m.sg   ‘Hugh’s arms are one longer than the other’ 19  The numeral ‘two’ also marks gender in Old Neapolitan, and doi in (38a) is a feminine form contrasting with masculine dui, with metaphonic raising (see Formentin 1998: 344; Ledgeway 2009: 216f.).

218

The older stages of the Romance languages

While the grammaticality of f.sg l una in (40a) and loŋga in (40b) can be explained as induced by standardizing pressure, in (40a) the preferred option remains m.sg l unu which documents diachronic persistence with respect to (39), while in (40b) m.sg luŋgu is still optionally possible. In medieval and early modern Central-Southern Italo-Romance, the situation exemplified in (38)–(40) must have been the rule, spanning also dialects such as Old Salentino (see (72)–(76), Ch. 7), which had the alternating neuter—as well as remnants of dedicated a-agreement, as seen in (33)—but never the mass neuter. This is shown with examples from the fifteenth-century Northern Salentino Sidrac (edn. Sgrilli 1983: 211) in (41), where the m.sg form of the indefinite pronoun qualunca l’ono ‘any’ resumes l-o granello ‘the-m.sg grain, seed’ (Sgrilli 1983: 273): de quest-e granell-e […] l-u liber-ar-à (41) qualunca l’on-o any def=one-m.sg of this-f.pl grain(a)-pl DO3-m.sg free-fut-3.sg ‘any one of these grains will free him’

6.6  Concluding remarks: complementing dialect comparison with the medieval evidence To sum up, the data from Central-Southern Italo-Romance show that three distinct target genders retained contrasting plural forms well into the sixteenth century. Evidence pointing in the same direction, qualitatively, though much earlier and scantier in quantity, has been reviewed in §6.2 for Tuscan, where such traces of a third distinct target gender faded away very early, and in §6.4 for Rhaeto-Romance, where they lasted for longer. Viewed in this light, the Northern Calabrian data scrutinized in §4.4.3 appear as the last contemporary remnants of a once much more widespread state of affairs. Another important point brought up by the inspection of the older stages is that evidence for two separate and functionally distinct outcomes of the Latin neuter recurs in different branches. Old Gallo-Romance has neuter singular agreement, used just for agreement with non-lexical controllers (see (12)–(16)) and already in the process of merging with the masculine, as seen in (17), as the two-case inflection on which it based was starting to collapse. This neuter singular agreement, in Old French and Old Occitan, can be traced straight back to the Latin neuter singular ending ‑um occurring in Latin with the same function (see (10a/c) and (12a), Ch. 2). Along with it, Old French also displays the very few remnants of (outcomes of) a-plural agreement seen in (21)–(22). The same is true of Rhaeto-Romance, where the above-mentioned a-plural agreement, lasting until the seventeenth century, co-existed at that time with the overdifferentiated neuter forms of the numerals ‘two’ and ‘three’ (§4.3.2), also outcomes of a-plural forms, as well as with the non-lexical singular neuter (§4.3.3, an outcome of the Latin neuter ending ‑um) still employed on predicative adjectives and participles for agreement with non-canonical controllers and for nonagreement (again, all functions inherited from the Latin neuter). Old Neapolitan, in this sense, provides the stronger and more systematic evidence: considered comparatively, its gender system (37) is not an isolated testimony but rather an important piece of evidence for diachronic reconstruction, which Chapter 7 is now finally going to address.

7 Gender from Latin to Romance A reconstruction In this chapter, I shall capitalize on the Romance evidence discussed in Chapters 4–6 and show how this allows us to reconstruct the transition from Latin (Chapter 2) in a way that reveals that the bits and pieces of the puzzle fit together more tightly than commonly assumed in both the comparative Romance literature and that on the individual languages. As announced from the outset, the fate of the Latin neuter will take centre stage (§§7.1–7.5). The final subsections (§§7.6–7.9) will then address further diachronic changes in the gender system that relate to some aspects of the main story. In §2.1, we have seen that, in spite of recurring claims to the contrary, the neuter (as a fullly lexical gender) was productive throughout Archaic and Classical Latin: the set of neuter controllers attracted new members, and neuter agreement targets always possessed dedicated inflections (alongside syncretic ones) and unceasingly created new inflections. This dynamic continues into the Late Latin stage, providing a smooth transition to the earliest documented stages of the Romance languages. We saw that evidence for the persistence of neuter singular agreement targets, diachronically stemming from the nominative/accusative, is diffuse across time and space and that most languages (§4.3.4) preserve dedicated pronominal forms which go back to neuter pronouns and are reduced to signalling agreement with non-canonical controllers in systems with only two gender values for nouns. In addition, the Italo-Romance varieties discussed in §4.5 feature a (mass) neuter gender value that is still associated with nominal controllers: this begs the question whether this gender value can be traced back to Latin in some way, a question to be addressed in §§7.3–7.4. Similarly, Central Asturian has a neuter gender, associated with mass reading which has, therefore, been often compared with the Central-Southern Italo-Romance (henceforth also CSItRom) neuter. However, the very fact that this, under the analysis presented in §5.4, is a gender value of one of two concurrent gender systems in the language shows that the two cases differ radically: we shall see (in §7.5) that they contrast in terms of (dis)continuity with respect to the Latin neuter. Also in the plural, remnants of the neuter are not insignificant, and become more evident as one goes back in time: we shall address these remnants first, in §§7.1–7.2.

Gender from Latin to Romance. First edition. Michele Loporcaro © Michele Loporcaro 2018. First published 2018 by Oxford University Press

220

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

7.1  Grammatical gender in transition: a-plural agreement and the masculine vs neuter contrast We saw in §§6.2–6.5 that at least some of the outcomes of a-ending Latin neuters (mostly from the second declension) were preserved as syntactic plurals, to varying degrees, in Old French, Old Romansh, and also in Italian and Italo-Romance (Ch. 4) and that some evidence, if scant, of their selecting dedicated n.pl agreement is available. Given this Old Romance evidence, it will come as no surprise that in Late Latin, at the same time at which new masculine plurals such as membri ‘limbs’ (= ‘body’) CIL 13.1661 (Albigny-sur-Saône, after ad 300), competing with CL neuter plurals like membra, first occur, novel a-plurals continue to emerge, alongside the CL masculine plurals, as exemplified in (1), and some even ousting them in the Romance outcomes: (1) fusa ‘spindles’ fourth century (ThLL 6.1662), instead of CL fusi mura ‘walls’ fourth century (ThLL 8.1864), instead of CL muri digita ‘fingers’ sixth century (ThLL 5/1.1122), instead of CL digiti The nouns in (1) have Romance outcomes which attest to the survival of the a-ending (e.g. It. muro/‑a ‘wall/‑s’, dito/‑a ‘finger/‑s’ and the others cited while discussing Italian in §§4.3.5, 6.2). These nouns with a-plurals, in the modern Romance varieties considered in §§4.4.2–4.4.3 and 4.5, belong to yet a third (controller, if not also target) gender, distinct from both the masculine and the feminine. In this connection, these are the only ones that matter, showing that productivity of a-plurals and preservation of a third gender went hand in hand for a fair stretch of the history of the Romance ­languages; conversely, productivity of a-plurals in varieties with just two controller genders (such as Southern Corsican or Sicilian, §3.1.2) is not relevant here. Thus, there is an uninterrupted diachronic line which goes from today’s Italo-Romance a-plurals back to Late Latin innovations such as those exemplified in (1): these have kept both morphology and semantics unmodified although the morphosyntax of gender may have changed, as was the case for It. mura, dita, or may have changed meaning, as well as morphosyntax, while their morphology remained stable. For instance, semantic shrinking is observed in Italian fusa, which occurs today only in the collocation far le fusa ‘to purr’ (see (36), Ch. 4), but in Old Tuscan was a regular plural to fuso ‘spindle’: agor’ e fusa ‘needles and spindles’ (Cenne da la Chitarra, early fourteenth century, edn. Vitale 1968: 638, GDLI 6.506). In Classical Latin fusus,‑i was masculine, the neuter plural fusa Parcarum ‘the spindles of the Parcae’ being first documented in ad 369 (Symmachus, Laudatio in Gratianum Augustum 3.9); fusum is also recorded as neuter in a grammatical treatise from late antiquity, the De idiomatibus casuum et generum, within a series of nouns whose gender diverges in Greek and Latin: ‘fusum ἄτρακτος’ GL 4.580.9 (Gk. átraktos ‘spindle(m)’). On the contrary, CL cubita, plural to cubitus,‑i ‘elbow(m)’, was usually specialized in the sense of ‘cubit’, but has survived in the primary sense of (the plural form of) ‘elbow’ in many dialects of southern Italy (e.g. ɣúvətə < cubitum, plur. ɣóvətə < cubita in the dialect of Avigliano, province of Potenza).1 1  While Standard Italian has gomito,‑i < cubitī, this plural co-existed with gomita/govita in Old Tuscan (the latter being rarer; Santangelo 1981: 114): tenendo le gomita sopra guanciali ‘keeping his elbows on some pillows’ (F. Villani, Cronica, edn. Porta 1995: 2.744). Romanian cot, pl. coate also ultimately goes back to cubita (Graur 1928: 254), with the a-ending regularly replaced by ‑e.



7.1  Grammatical gender in transition: a-plural agreement

221

Such examples could be multiplied. Survival of the a-forms in varieties in which this inflection is still tied—as is the case for Agnonese (see §4.5.3)—to a gender value distinct from the masculine (i.e. a morphosyntactic successor of the Latin neuter, not just a morphological remnant of the kind addressed in §4.2.2), makes it implausible that this third gender value may ever have been lost in Late Latin. Persistence into Late Latin of the brachium/‑a IC, originally tied to the neuter gender, is also documented by the attraction into this IC of originally first declension feminine nouns, a reassignment pattern seen at work as early as Archaic Latin ((7), Ch. 2), which must have gone on for a long time. Thus, for instance, It. il midollo/le midolla ‘marrow’ stems from Latin medulla,‑æ, which is nowhere attested as other than a first declension feminine in Latin (see ThLL 8.598ff.). This feminine singular— which today lives on only in Romance as Ro. măduvă ‘marrow(f)’, Fr. moelle (< OFr. meolle), It. midolla, as ‘soft part of bread’ but with Italo-Romance dialects occasionally preserving the original meaning (e.g. a maroddɐ ‘the.f marrow(f)’ in Monte S. Giacomo, province of Salerno; see Marotta  2006: 42)—was reanalysed as a neuter ­plural at a sufficiently early point in time to give rise via abduction to a *medullum preserved in several Romance branches (It. midollo, Sp. meollo ‘marrow’, Pg. miolo ‘soft part of bread’, REW 5463): (2) 

Latin sg. pl.

medulla medullæ

reanalysis >

sg. pl.

midollo abduction midolla Italian

A partially similar development is observed for fossa ‘ditch’ (ThLL 6.1209ff.), whose expected outcome is It., Occ., Cat., Pg. fossa, Sp. huesa, Ro. (dialectal) foasă (all fem­ inines), but also results in near-synonymous It. fosso ‘ditch’. Unlike for medulla, the neuter um-form is attested in Latin (e.g. fossum purgare et extendi ‘to clean up and widen the ditch’, Plin. N.H. 17.159), possibly to be explained as a substantivized participial form of fodio ‘to dig’ (ThLL 6.994.41). But note that It. midollo shows that fosso may have arisen just as well from first declension fossa, once its a-ending word form was reanalysed as a neuter plural, as shown in (2). Thus, arguments for continued prod­ uctivity of this inflectional class, within systems where this is still associated with a third gender, rest partly on evidence from several Romance languages (as for *medullum), partly on evidence from one Romance branch (as seen for the outcome of fossum in Italian or for Srs. biestg/earv ‘a piece of cattle’/‘a thread/sort of grass’ in §6.4). Back to morphosyntax, evidence for retention of the third gender comes from all Romance branches. Let us start from the modern standard language that preserves it best, viz. Romanian. In Chapter 6, the subsection on Old Romanian (§6.1) was succinct given that—apart from earlier isolated fragments—Balkano-Romance is documented extensively only from the sixteenth century onwards, at a stage when gender agreement already worked in the same way as it does today. However, scholars writing on the history of Romanian—of course, only those upholding the continuity of the Romanian neuter with respect to Latin: see (2a), Chapter 6—were keen to emphasize that the (modern) Romanian situation is a natural outcome of a Late Latin stage in which the gender value ‘neuter’ cannot possibly have been lost via complete merger

222

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

with the masculine (contrary to what is often claimed) for the simple reason that regular sound change only brought about neutralization of the relevant markers in the singular, due to loss of final ‑m and ‑s, but not in the plural, where ‑a—occurring in class one adjectives, participles, and pronouns—remained distinct from ‑i and thereby a dedicated plural agreement marker was retained (see Graur 1928: 252; Ivănescu 1957: 302; Fassel 1969: 30, 1977–78: 146; Fischer 1975: 571–3, who underscore that this provides a counterargument to the claim of an early loss of the Latin neuter). While these remarks usually focus on noun inflection—that is on the formal distinction between neuter and masculine agreement controllers (see e.g. Meyer-Lübke 1920: 183 on a general Romance scale)—it is clear that agreement targets also preserved the distinction in the plural, as can be seen in inscriptional data from the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire collected by Fassel (1969: 28–30):2 (3)  Retention of neuter plural agreement: a. svp[e]r dvo cor[p]ora nos[t]ra ‘on our two bodies’ CIL 3.9507 (Salona, Dalmatia, ad 378) b. haec svnt pia dona ‘these are (the) pious gifts’ CIL 3.1537 (Szarmizegetusa/Várhely, Dacia) c. ossa pater[n]a ‘father’s bones’ CIL 3.2628 (Spalatum/Split, Dalmatia) d. ossaq(ve) mea in hac arca bene composita ‘and my bones, well arranged  in  this coffin’ CIL 3.3989 (Colonia Flavia Septima Siscia/Sziszek, Pannonia Sup.) In inscriptions from the same areas, one finds at the same time the innovative feminine plural agreement in (4): (4)  Innovation (Mihăescu 1959: 82, 1960: 122): a. in (feminine plural) agreement: ossa exterae ‘bones that do not belong here’ CIL 3.9450,7 (Salona, Dalmatia) b. in inflection: osse (= ossae) ‘bones’ CIL 3.10144 (Ossero, Dalmatia) As Mihăescu (1959: 82) points out, (4b) corresponds to Ro. oase(le) ‘(the.f) bones’. In  principle, one might suspect that neuter plural agreement in (3) only portrays (learnèd) compliance with the Classical Latin norm, whereas popular speech would be better represented by the innovations attested in (4). On the other hand, since change is never abrupt, variation between (3) (the conservative option) and (4) (the innovative option) might have been assumed for a transitory stage even if it were not directly documented: this suggests that one is better advised to take the evidence from variation in (3)/(4) at face value, as pointing to a transitional stage such as that shown in (5b) (note that this transitional stage displays four lines but just three labels because for gender iii there are two options in free variation; see the discussion following (5)):

2  Fassel focuses on nominal plurals, therefore many of the examples on her list do not include determiners, adjectives, or participles showing agreement.



7.1  Grammatical gender in transition: a-plural agreement

(5)  a. Classical Latin sg pl i m -us -i iii -um -a ii f -a -ae

b. transition sg i m -u > iii ii f -a

pl -i -a -e

c. Romanian sg i m -Ø iii > ii f -ă

223

pl -i -e

Later evidence from different times and places (see §7.2) confirms that both agreement options (f.pl/n.pl) co-existed for a long time. Before eventually yielding to the binary system which prevails nowadays, the three-gender system of Latin changed stepwise, with a first transitional stage ((5b)) displaying a full syncretism of neuter and masculine agreement in the singular, with optional preservation of the contrast in the plural, where dedicated agreement targets persisted alongside the innovative option, that is, feminine plural agreement, already attested in the Latin of the late Roman Empire (see (4)). As a further step, before reduction to the binary system, full syncretism was also established in the plural ((5c)), so that the neuter became an alternating, non-autonomous, gender. At this stage, the system preserved three controller genders, but reduced the three target genders of Latin to just two. This is the path through which the Romanian system (5c) came into being, as indicated by all the sources of evidence which point to a transitional stage (5b): epigraphical Latin evidence (see (3)–(4), and §7.2), comparative evidence from other Romance branches (see §§6.2–6.5), and structural, system-internal, evidence, especially from gender resolution in Romanian (as discussed in §4.4.1.5). In fact, the default status of the feminine (plural) under resolution can be explained as the Romanian outcome of the default status of the neuter in Latin, once the respective agreement targets merged in the plural.3 There is abundant proof that this change (5b) > (5c) progressed at a different pace in the different Romance branches, as will be shown in §7.2.4 The evidence for the persistence of the neuter vs masculine contrast in the nominative/accusative plural (‑a) is clearest in Late Latin—this contrast is seen in terms of agreement as well as of distinctive morphology on neuter nouns (overt gender). However, some scholars have argued for a distinction at an early medieval stage for the singular as well, even outside the pronominal and determiner system. Many studies on texts from Langobardic Italy and Merovingian/early Carolingian France up to 3  Selection of the masculine elsewhere, for this function, goes hand in hand with the fact that nowhere else is this third gender as alive and well as it is in Romanian. 4  For Romanian, at first sight, a potentially relevant piece of evidence could be that mentioned by Cipariu (1855: 19), who reported a three-way gender contrast ‘numai în prea puține adiective și numai în pl.’ [‘only in very few adjectives, and only in the plural’], providing the two examples amar-i ≠ amar-e ≠ amar-ă ‘bitter-m.pl/-f.pl/-n.pl’, and no-i ≠ nou-e ≠ nou-ă ‘new-m.pl/-f.pl/-n.pl’. However, it seems that the author, who was a strenuous supporter of the re-latinization of Romanian, was trying to bend the data so as to make Romanian adjective inflection look more like Latin than it really did: see Pamfil (1992: 468, n. 16), who comments that the alleged f.pl vs n.pl distinction has no foundation in the ancient texts nor in the dialects but ‘[e]ste o distincție artificială, introdusă de autor’ [‘it is an artificial distinction, introduced by the author’] (see also, more recently, Mîrzea Vasile 2015: 84f.; and thanks to M. Maiden for bringing this to my attention). In fact, not unlike in noun inflection (see n. 39, Ch. 4), an ‑ă ending does occur, but only as a dialectal/regional variant of f.pl ‑e, never contrasting with it within one and the same inflectional paradigm.

224

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

the seventh century ad (see Sas 1937: 147f.; Löfstedt 1961: 228–30), have remarked that in the accusative of second declension neuter nouns, ‑o replaces inherited ‑um significantly less often than in class two masculines (see Stotz 1998: 58 for a review of the evidence). Löfstedt (1961) vacillates between an external and an internal explanation for this: Teils infolge des Schulunterricht, teils weil sich im Plural eine Differenzierung von Mask. und Neutr. lange erhielt, hatte man eine recht klare Vorstellung davon, welche Substantive mask., welche neutr. waren. (Löfstedt 1961: 230) [Partly as a consequence of school teaching, partly because a masculine/neuter contrast was long preserved in the plural, one had a very clear idea of which nouns were masculine and which ones were neuter.]

However, in the presence of a paradigmatic contrast, there is no need to appeal additionally to school teaching: since ‑a was kept distinct in the plural, this ensures that a hypothetical paradigm (excluding oblique forms for simplicity) brachio ‘arm’, pl. brachia was kept distinct from lupo ‘wolf ’, pl. lupi/lupos even in illiterates’ native competence. What is crucial, in other words, is that the two paradigms were kept distinct, but exactly how this was done is less important: in particular, one cannot make too much of the exact graphical manifestation of this distinction (especially in the vowel of the final syllable), and interpret it phonologically, as a preservation of a phonological contrast in the singular ending (this is Sas’s 1937: 181 conclusion on the ablative singular, criticized by Löfstedt 1961: 230).5 In a similar vein, evidence for the distinction of masculine and neuter nouns at an earlier stage comes from Latin loanwords into Gothic (Kluge 1893; Brüch 1921; Jellinek 1926: 179–81; Lüdtke 2009: 263):6 Gothic b. Latin Gothic (6) a. Latin m asinus > asilus ‘donkey’ n uinum > wein ‘wine’ assarius > assarjus ‘as’ (coin) acetum > akeit ‘vinegar’ saccus > sakkus ‘sack’ orarium > aúrâli ‘sudarium’ The fact that Latin class two neuters were adapted as Gothic a-stems (< PIE o-stems), while Latin class two masculines were adapted as u-stems (both ICs were productive in Gothic; see Braune and Heidermanns 2004: 92, 100), may indicate that the nominative 5  Note, however, that it is not impossibile in principle for such an inflection contrast to survive into Romance, as shown by Formentin (1994b), who detected the much later persistence—in the fourteenth century Lucanian dialect reflected in the text edited by M.E. Romano (1990)—of an ‑o vs ‑u contrast, signalling a case distinction (locative vs accusative/oblique) on definite articles and personal pronouns, with forms inherited from the Latin ablative (restricted to use with the locative prepositions in, intro) vs accusative, respectively, i.e. in illō/ipsō vs ad/*cum illum/ipsum reflected, respectively, in i(n)nello psalmo 1v48 ‘in the:m:abl psalm’ vs con lu foco 17r50 ‘with def:m:acc fire’ (and, likewise, allu/de lu ‘to/of the:m:acc’), and in esso 16r41 ‘in him:abl’ vs ad isso, con isso 15v9f. ‘to/with him:acc’ (where the metaphonic raising of the reflex of stressed ĭ indicates a final ‑ŭ). 6  That the source is Latin is assumed by the literature quoted, although a word like saccus, ultimately of Semitic origin, is a Graecism in Latin, and may in principle have entered Gothic directly from Greek. The same is the case for Lat. angelus ‘angel’, episcopus ‘bishop’, paracletus ‘Holy Spirit’, the source of Goth. aggilus, aípiskaúpus, paracletus according to the quoted authors, but regarded as direct Graecisms by others (e.g. von der Leyen 1908: 111). Whatever the share of Greek and Latin loans into Gothic, for Lat. asinus and assarius in (6) no such doubt arises.



7.2  The rise of the genus alternans

225

endings ‑um vs ‑us were still distinct in the spoken Latin of the Western Empire: Lüdtke (2009: 263) follows Brüch (1921: 453) in taking (6b) as evidence for a ‘spätlateinische Lautung ‑o der Neutra’ [‘Late Latin realization ‑o in the neuters’] (as seen above for the accusative), contrasting with the ending of masculine nouns of the same declension. For the nominative, preservation of final ‑s in Western Romance (reflected in the ending of second declension cas sujet in Old Gallo-Romance) was instrumental in maintaining this contrast, whereas Zamboni’s (2000: 113) reconstruction of the three-case paradigm for early Romance in Italy admits variable syncretism in connection with s-deletion: nom filio(s) ≠ obl fili(o) ≠ acc filiu. Again, the fact that the contrast continued to be marked in the plural would have been enough for the paradigms as wholes to be treated differently, especially for var­ ieties of Late Latin in which final ‑s was (being) deleted. In sum, in noun morphology, the evidence for the persistence of a distinction between masculine and neuter can rely on the entire paradigm everywhere in Late Latin/Early Romance. As for neuter singular agreement targets, these lived on as markers of neutral agreement not only in pronouns but also in adjectives into Old Gallo-Romance and Romansh (see §§6.3.1, 4.3.3). As agreement targets with controller nouns, on the other hand, they were never preserved as distinct from the masculine within one and the same paradigm as plural ‑a. In addition, pronominal n.sg forms did survive, distinct from the masculine, as mentioned at the beginning of this section, but only as the manifestation of a separate, and fourth, gender value, to which we shall return in §§7.3–7.4.

7.2  The rise of the genus alternans Once it has been demonstrated that a dedicated agreement marker for neuter plural survived into Late Latin/early Romance (and even later, indeed, in at least one dialect— see §4.4.3—until very recently) it is possible to observe that its demise followed the same path everywhere, although at a non-uniform pace in different areas. There were two options: replacement with masculine or with feminine plural agreement. The former option is attested in Sardinian, Spanish, or Portuguese where a-plurals were replaced exhaustively with os-plurals not only on nouns but also on agreement targets (e.g. Log. sɔr ba ltsɔs ‘the:mpl arms(m)’, sɔs kɔrrɔs ‘the:mpl horns(m)’, Sp. los brazos/ cuernos, Pg. os braços/cornos ‘the:mpl arms/eyelashes(m)’, vs StIt. braccia, corna < brachia, corn(u)a). Whenever this happens, all these nouns merge with masculines, the neuter value is erased, and the gender system is simplified. However, other Romance languages and dialects took the alternative option: in these cases, dedicated n.pl agreement was eventually ousted by feminine plural, which resulted in the alternating agreement pattern whose very beginnings we have seen in (4).7 This pattern first arose in Late Imperial Latin and progressively strengthened in the Latin-Romance transition, a fact which is standardly described in reference works on Vulgar Latin. Consider the following quotation from Väänänen’s (1981: 104) reference introduction to Vulgar Latin: 7  Today, the contrast is in terms of Eastern vs Western Romance, but the alternating pattern pops up in older stages of the Western Romance languages too, as well as in Late Latin from the same regions (see §6.3, as well as (8)f. and n. 10 below).

226

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

(7) La flexion hétérogène est bien établie dès le VIe siècle au plus tard. Dans les traductions latines d’Oribase (Italie du Nord, qu’on date d’environ 600), les neutres sont traités de la façon suivante: 1) au singulier, ils sont presque tous devenus masculins; 2) au pluriel, le nom.-acc. est toujours en ‑a; 3) le gén. pl. est au féminin: ovarum (coctarum) 28 fois contre ovorum (sans épithète) 2 fois; 4) l’épithète ou l’attribut se rapportant à un neutre pluriel est presque toujours au féminin: folia virides teneras, folia molles, folia infusas, grana oppressas, ossa consparsas, ova sorbiles […] [‘Heterogene inflection is well established by the sixth century at the latest. In Latin translations of Oribasius (northern Italy, dated about ad 600), neuters are treated in the following way: 1) in the singular, they have almost all become masculine; 2) in the plural, the nom.-acc. is always in ‑a; 3) the gen. pl. is feminine: ovarum (coctarum) 28 times vs ovorum (without attribute) twice; 4) the attribute modifying a plural neuter is almost always feminine’]. Note that this quotation is drawn from the section on gender, but among the points enumerated many actually concern just inflectional class, beginning with the introduction of the very topic as the ‘rise of heterogene inflection’, rather than of the alternating gender (agreement), of the type still preserved in Romanian. Only the fourth point is clearly about gender, while the third mixes the two: ovarum (coctarum), with feminine plural agreement, is evidence for (the rise of alternating) gender, whereas ‘ovorum (sans épithète)’ does not tell us anything about gender, but simply exemplifies the persistence of the etymological inflectional class. The second point (‘au pluriel, le nom.-acc. est toujours en ‑a’) is again about inflection, and would be directly relevant to gender in Classical Latin (and, earlier, in PIE)—where the plural a-inflection was unambiguously associated with neuter gender (overt gender)—not, however, in this transitional stage, where the alternating agreement pattern il braccio/le braccia is becoming established (see the fourth point in (7)). However, when this agreement option arises, the neuter as a value of the gender category does not automatically cease to exist. What (7)—as well as (4) above—does show is that at this point, for the neuter, the automatic implication that is standardly called ‘overt gender’ is redefined. In Archaic and Classical Latin, for a plural noun to end in ‑a (in the nominative/accusative) entailed that it had to select (dedicated) neuter agreement (e.g. bona ‘good’), according to the pattern in (1c), Chapter 2. But once nouns like brachium, brachia start to optionally select feminine agreement on plural targets, knowing the inflection of the plural form on an a-ending noun no longer suffices to predict its gender (agreement). Thus, there are two structural novelties at this stage. First, to establish the gender value of a lexeme, one now has to rely on the entire agreement paradigm, as one single form is no longer sufficient.8 Secondly, what was up to this time a controller and a target gender now shows variation (as schematized above in (5b)). If the dedicated plural agreement ‑a is selected, this is still a non-­syncretic neuter, but when nouns like brachia select feminine plural agreement, 8  This was true, to an extent, even in CL, as inspecting only oblique cases—on both agreement targets and controller nouns—would not resolve the ambiguity between neuter and masculine. Yet, the nomininative singular form and the plural nominative/accusative were word forms that per se indicated gender unambiguously in Classical Latin.



7.2  The rise of the genus alternans

227

then this is a (non-autonomous) controller gender since the contrast has been lost in the singular: this is, in other words, where the alternating gender agreement pattern seen in the modern and older stages of the Romance languages in §§4.4–4.5 and Chapter 6 was born. This alternating agreement is widely attested in Late Latin, especially in Gaul/ France and central-northern Italy.9 For Gaul/France, see the following examples from the Formulae Marculfi ((8a-b), ca. ad 700, Uddholm  1953 65) and the Formulae Andecauenses ((8c):10 (8) a. amba locella excolere debeatis, et post uestrum ambobus discessum […] eas nos […] reuocare debeamus (Form. Marc. II 40, p. 100.10ff.) ‘you have to cultivate both:acc.n.pl farms(n):acc.pl, and after the death of both of you we are going to take them:acc.f.pl back’ b. pignora, quas illuc per eodem direximus (Form. Marc. I 40, p. 68.24ff.) ‘the pledges(n):nom.pl that:acc.f.pl we sent there through him’ c. ipsa animalia aliquas mortas fuerant (Form. Andec. 24) ‘the:nom.n.pl animal(n):nom.pl, some:acc.f.pl (of them) had died:acc.f.pl’ As Spitzer (1941: 347) remarks, (8c) animalia mortas corresponds to OFr. (les) aumaille mortes (see (18e), Ch. 6). In northern Italy, the situation described by Väänänen (1981: 104) in (7) for the Oribasius Latinus (ca. ad 600) is still well documented in the ­subsequent centuries, as illustrated with the following passage from Agnellus of Ravenna (ca. ad 805–50; edn. Mauskopf Deliyannis 2006: 342): (9)  et gaudia dapium in tristitia uersae sunt (Agnellus §163.103f.) ‘and the joy(n)-nom.pl changed [lit. ‘are changed:nom.f.pl’] into sadness’ In assessing such data, one must be aware of two opposing risks. On the one hand, editors occasionally conceal relevant data by restoring ‘correct’ Latin readings: in this case, the cited edition prints uersa, following a conjecture by Bacchinius (1708), although the manuscript has uersae.11 On the other hand, linguists sometimes tend to consider the emergence of (the documentation of) alternating agreement as indicating the establishment of a new categorical rule (possibly limited to Eastern Romània): Un groupe illae grossa membra [which had ousted, in Italia, Rhaetia, and the East, CL illa grossa membra—M.L.] est donc devenu illae grossae membra dans toute la péninsule italique […] et dans la vallée du Pô on a eu aussi pour les substantifs illae membrae, de même qu’en Orient membrae illae […]. Cette création en Italie et en Orient d’une classe de noms hétérogènes (masc. au singulier, et fém. au pluriel) a été un des grands résultats de la disparition du neutre. (Bourciez 1946: 234f.) 9  Earlier examples were already considered above in (4), showing that the same pattern also occurred in other parts of the (former) Roman Empire (see Stotz 1998: 155 for a comprehensive review of the evidence). 10  Further west, the Latin of the Iberian peninsula also provides some such data, reported by González Muñoz (1996: 127) in his study of the language of Álbaro de Córdoba (southern Spain, ninth century): idola colitis, a quarum inmunditia eluti eritis ‘you.pl worship idols(n), from whose:gen.f.pl filth you’ll be purified’ (Epistulae 18.17.5f., edn. Madoz 1947: 259). 11  The editor does not mention this kind of agreement among ‘the grammatical peculiarities that are found in all manuscripts, and that must be considered original’ (Mauskopf Deliyannis 2006: 87).

228

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

[A phrase like illae grossa membra has hence become illae grossae membra in the whole Italian peninsula […] and in the Po valley for nouns too one had illae membrae, as well as in the East membrae illae […]. This creation in Italy and the East of a class of heterogeneous nouns (masc. in the singular, and fem. in the plural) was one of the great results of the disappearance of the neuter.]

Bourciez mentions the Italian and French evidence in (8c)–(9) but, as the quotation shows, infers from this evidence that feminine plural had ousted neuter agreement by that time, establishing alternating gender agreement, (a) only in Italia and Dacia, and (b) as a consequence of the total loss of the neuter gender specification for nouns. Neither inference stands closer scrutiny though, in view of the Late Latin examples from France and Spain (see (8) and n. 10) and the later Romance evidence reviewed in §§4.4.3 and 6.2–6.5, as well as of the results of recent research into the collapse of neuter plural agreement in the Langobardic charts from Italy (seventh–eighth centuries) by Faraoni (2016).12 This inspection confirms that the alternating agreement was already there, but was still competing with the conservative neuter plural, as shown with examples from Tuscany in (10)–(11): (CDL 1.49f., lines 12 and 1) (10) a. ad prenominatas baptisteria13 ‘to the baptisteries(n) already mentioned:acc.f.pl’ b. ipse predicte monasteria (CDL 2.153, line 5) ‘the (same):f.pl monasteries(n) already mentioned:f.pl’ c. ad ipse sanctorum loca (CDL 2.153, line 7) ‘to the:f.pl places(n) of the saints’ (11) a. ista altaria ‘these:n.pl altars(n)’ b. per loca designata ‘through the said:n.pl places(n)’ c. per futura tempora ‘for the times(n) to come:n.pl’

(CDL 1.62, line 19) (CDL 1.102, line 20) (CDL 1.170, line 4)

The ratio of the two types of plural agreement with neuter nouns in a sample of 209 Latin documents from Tuscany (seventh–eighth centuries) is 33 f.pl/68 n.pl (see (12) below).14 Again, as discussed while commenting on (3)–(4), one might want to interpret 12  The problem consists in the fact that Bourciez, although talking about the early medieval Latin evidence, is driven in fact by knowledge of the later Romance outcomes in the respective areas: but these are, as said, later. Thus, it is true that in northern Italy a-nominal plurals were largely (and, in many varieties, even completely) replaced by feminine e-plurals (as seen in §§4.3.6 and 6.3.2), and that the innovative forms crop up early, in the Latin–Romance transition. Yet, this resulted in a long-lasting transitional stage, as schematized in (5b) above and shown in Figure 7.1 below. 13  The form prenominatas counts as an instance of the innovatory feminine plural agreement because the ending ‑as signals feminine plural in the CDL—where ‑as and ‑(a)e freely vary for feminine plural regardless of syntactic function—and because the Italian ending ‑e, realizing feminine plural agreement in class one adjectives (as well as the plural of nouns of the class casa/-e ‘house/-s’, unambiguously associated with the feminine), may result from ‑as via regular sound change according to one widespread view (see e.g. Maiden 1996; Faraoni 2014). 14  This is a convenience sample analysed in Faraoni (2016), Loporcaro et al. (2014: 9) (a more restricted sample was used in Faraoni et al. 2013: 179), encompassing the documents of CDL vols. 1–2, to the exclusion of those which the editor considered not to be authentic. The two agreement options in (10)f. are in free variation, even within a few lines in the same text: see e.g. the document nr. 194 of the CDL 2.183–7, where one finds ipse s(an)c(t)e loca ‘the:f.pl holy:f.pl places(n)’ (2.185, line 21) alongside evangelica praeceptas



7.2  The rise of the genus alternans

229

n.pl a-agreement in (11) as due to mere compliance by the writer with Latin school grammar, rather than as reflecting the spoken language of the time. Note however that (a) this vacillation is found in the so called ‘free parts’ of the documents (i.e. those that the notary public wrote without relying on ready-made juridical formulae), which, in the wake of F. Sabatini (1965: 101–3), are deemed to largely mirror the real spoken usage of the time;15 and, (b) while it is of course true that n.pl a-agreement was backed by its compliance with school grammar, assuming that it had already disappeared completely from spoken usage is at odds with the fact that the innovativeto-conservative agreement ratios has been shown to differ gradually, all through the Middle Ages, across the different areas of Italy, in a way that mirrors what is independently known from later Romance development (see Ch. 6). Consider Figure 7.1, in which Faraoni (2016) summarizes his text counts on f.pl vs n.pl agreement with originally neuter plural noun forms like brachia ‘arms’ and its Romance successor braccia/brazza/vrazza in three different subcorpora (from northern Italy, Tuscany, and southern Italy) at four subsequent stages. As is readily apparent, the innovative f.pl agreement (10) (darker grey in Figure 7.1) grows progressively more frequent overall, but it sets in earlier in the North, while Tuscany and southern Italy still lack it in the fifth–sixth century stage. By the eighth century it accounts for nearly 40 per cent of the occurrences in northern Italy, followed by about 33 per cent in Tuscany, and 6 per cent in the South, as seen in more 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20%

5th-6th cent.

7th-8th cent.

conservative agreement

Tusc.

Cent.-South

12th-13th cent.

North

Cent.-South

Tusc.

North

Cent.-South

Tusc.

North

Cent.-South

Tusc.

0%

North

10%

15th-16th cent.

innovative agreement

Figure 7.1  The gradual retreat of n.pl a-agreement in Italy (Faraoni 2016: 392). ‘Gospel precepts’ (2.184, line 5) where the adjective has the regular n.pl ending, whereas the noun, which is also neuter and is attested in the same text in its classical form (uiuere secundum D(e)i preceptum ‘to live according to God’s precept’, 2.186, r. 2) takes a hypercorrect ending ‑s. 15  On the reliability of the ‘free parts’ as a source of evidence for the prehistory of Italian, see, in addition to F. Sabatini (1965: 101–3), Tekavčić (1975); Larson (1988, 2000).

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

230

detail in (12) (data from northern Italy, Tuscany, and southern Italy, respectively, are drawn from CDL 1–2, 5, and 4.2): (12) 

neuter agreement

feminine agreement

-a

-as

N

%

N

Total

-e %

N

%

N

%

North 39 Tuscany 68

60.2

22

33.7

4

6.1

65

100

67.3

22

21.8

11

10.9

101

100

South

94.0

2

4.0

1

2.0

49

100

46

The ratios for the following two stages in Figure 7.1 mirror the Romance situation seen already in §§6.3.2 (North), 6.2 (Tuscany), and 6.5 (South). Crucially, persistence of a-agreement until the sixteenth century in the Italo-Romance varieties of southern Italy, seen in Figure 7.1 on the right-hand side, cannot possibly be explained away with the Latin norm. Consequently, the fact that the data from the two earlier stages from Late Latin documents are also in line with this overall geographic skewing rules out this persistence of a-plural agreement being attributed to extralinguistic factors, by invoking the influence of the Latin grammatical/orthographic norm. This must indicate the persistence of a third distinct target gender in the underlying spoken varieties.16

7.3  The gradual depletion of the Latin neuter In the preceding sections we focused on gender agreement targets. In order to reconstruct changes in the gender system, however, one has to account for both agreement on targets and the assignment to gender classes of the controller nouns that trigger agreement accordingly. Let us now consider the nouns assigned to the neuter in Latin and their fate in Romance. Everybody agrees that the neuter was lost, in that its controller nouns were exhaustively reassigned, as shown in (13), Chapter 1, in Romance languages like Italian or French, finally resulting in the binary gender contrast illustrated in §3.1. A statement to the contrary seems to be aired by La Fauci (2013: 54), who asks rhetorically: ‘E se il neutro […] si fosse generalizzato?’ [‘what if the neuter had generalized?’], and answers in the positive, adducing a syntactic motivation: Se nessun nome né maschile né femminile aveva più differenze di forma che manifestassero la differenza di funzione tra oggetto diretto e soggetto, che cosa ci stava più a fare il neutro come termine di relazioni oppositive di genere? (La Fauci 2013: 55)

16  While this conclusion contradicts the commonly held view (see (9)–(12), Ch. 1), it is not without precedent. In particular, Kuryłowicz (1964: 212) reconstructed a gender agreement system along the following lines for a preliterary stage of Old Italian: (i)  Gender agreement (in class one adjectives, demonstratives, and the definite article) in preliterary Italian: sg pl

masculine -o -i

feminine -a -e

neuter -o -a



7.3  The gradual depletion of the Latin neuter

231

[If no masculine and feminine noun manifested any longer the functional difference between direct object and subject, what was the use of the neuter as a term of a gender contrast?]

This thought-provoking suggestion is based on a terminological short-circuit though, as the author purports to address ‘neuter’, intended as a value of the category gender (the only relevant reading here: ‘si discute ancora di sopravvivenze di un genere diverso da maschile e femminile qui e là nella Romània’ [‘one still talks about remnants of a gender distinct from masculine and feminine, here and there across Romance’] La Fauci 2013: 53f.), but then assumes that the definitional property of this ‘neuter’ was the syntactic one of not displaying contrasting forms for the grammatical relation subject vs DO, thus calling ‘neuter’ at the same time what is standardly labelled ‘neutral alignment’ or ‘neutral case marking’ in linguistic typology (see e.g. Comrie 1989: 125; Song 2001: 146).17 Of course, while the latter syntactic property did generalize for nouns in modern Romance,18 the neuter value of the morphosyntactic category gender did not, nor was it lost completely before the rise of the Romance languages (pace (9)–(12), Ch. 1). Rather, the neuter was depleted gradually, progressively losing members—mostly to the masculine—in the course of time. Let us tackle this depletion from the vantage point of semantics.19 As seen in §2.3, the neuter had become a partly idiosyncratic gender in Latin, containing a handful of exceptional nouns denoting human beings like scortum ‘prostitute’, synonymous with (feminine) meretrix. But still, for the overwhelming majority, due to (Late) PIE inheritance, it hosted inanimates. Among these, two semantic clusters are recognizable, that Belardi (1950: 208) labelled synthetic vs analytical collective. The former label refers to mass nouns like mel ‘honey’ (13a), the latter to pluralia tantum or, more loosely, plurals denoting sets of weakly differentiated parts (see Acquaviva 2008: 153), as exemplified by pecua, which is morphosyntactically a plural (of pecu ‘domestic animal’) but just means ‘herd, flock’ (13b): (13) Progressive depletion of the Latin neuter (Loporcaro and Paciaroni 2011: 417) a. synthetic collective b. analytical collective c. countable nouns

i. Latin > ii.PRom > iii. CSItRom (mass) neuter illud mel ‘honey’ neuter illa pecua alternating (neuter) ‘the flock’ illud tectum ‘the roof’ to the masculine

In addition, the Latin neuter gender also hosted hundreds of nouns like collum ‘neck’, tectum ‘roof ’, etc., (13c)), which denoted countable objects. In the corpus analysed in Polinsky and Van Everbroeck (2003: 387), including the 500 most frequent words in the late fourth-century Vulgate, neuter nouns total 103 (or 20.6%) and count nouns 17  Contrast e.g. Rigobianco (2014: 545), who discusses gender (including the neuter) using orthodox alignment terminology to refer to ‘[i]l sistema “neutrale” della maggior parte della varietà romanze’ [‘the “neutral” [alignment] system of most Romance varieties’]. 18  Consider also that the causal link established through La Fauci’s claim, repeated more recently in La Fauci (2016: 32), is at odds with a series of empirical facts, ranging from the preservation of two distinct forms for direct object vs subject functions in masculine nouns in Old French and Occitan, with no survival of a separate neuter (controller) gender (see §6.3.1), to the survival of a third controller gender—or, even, the complexification of the gender contrasts—in the Romance systems reviewed in §§4.4, 6.5. 19  This part elaborates on Loporcaro and Paciaroni (2011: 416f.).

232

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

are in the majority (86, or 17.2%), while mass nouns total 14 (= 2.8%) and there are only 5 (= 1%) nouns of the ‘analytical collective’ type (13b). In passing, given this prevalence of countable nouns, it is hard to see how the Latin neuter as such can be contrasted with masculine and feminine (which also hosted both count and mass nouns: see e.g. aqua ‘water(f)’, farina ‘flour(f)’, and CL panis ‘bread(m)’, sal ‘salt(m)’, although both were co-existing with neuter variants: see (14b–c)), by arguing that it was ‘underspecified for a feature [discrete] (vs presence of the feature [discrete] for masculine / feminine)’ (Pomino and Stark 2009: 219). Anyway, while this view cannot be subscribed to for CL, it is a fact that countable nouns like collum were systematically reassigned, mostly to the masculine (see (13), Ch. 1), in the Latin–Romance transition. This fate eventually also befell the two different sets of ‘collectives’ (13a–b) in languages such as Sardinian (see e.g. Log. su mɛːlɛ ‘def:m honey(m)’, su bba ltsu ‘the:m arm(m)’, indistinguishable from su ɣoɖɖu ‘the:m neck(m)’), Spanish, or French. However, the fossilized a-forms in Sardinian itself (remnants of at least one overdifferentiated agreement target, dua ‘two:n’, see §4.3.1), as well as the evidence from earlier stages of Western Romance (§6.3) and the Late Latin of the corresponding areas ((8) and n. 10, §7.2), show that this merger did not happen all at once. In fact, the evidence from central-southern Italy indicates that the merger into the masculine of the gender values which we have labelled the mass vs the alternating neuters in (83)ff., Chapter 4, is still under way at present. Their very existence as separate gender values distinct from inherited masculine and feminine—demonstrated in §4.5— suggests the null hypothesis that the two Romance neuters are direct outcomes of the Latin neuter, which must have been preserved (as schematized in (13ii)) in a transitional stage, as a gender still contrasting with the masculine. From this Proto-Romance neuter, the two distinct neuters of central-southern Italy must have arisen in a further step (13iii). In terms of assignment, each of them inherited one of the two semantic clusters of the Latin neuter:20 the mass neuter inherits the ‘synthetic collective’ semantic value whereas the alternating neuter inherits what Belardi calls the ‘analytical collective’ value. As for the alternating gender, this continuity is evident: both the plural noun ­morphology (the ‑a and ‑ora endings; see §2.1 on the rise of the latter) and agreement marking (dedicated ‑a in the plural, gradually ousted by alternating agreement, as seen in §§7.1–7.2) trace back to the Latin neuter in a straight line. From the point of view of gender assignment, (13b) is the diachronic source of this gender value which must have hosted, at the beginning, those nouns formerly assigned to the Latin neuter, that were captured by the common semantic denominator Acquaviva (2008) proposes for all the different subclasses of modern Standard Italian lexemes (exemplified above in (33)–(36), Ch. 4) which retained the alternating pattern braccio/braccia: the parts making up the denotation [of ‑a plurals—M.L.] are conceptualized as undifferentiated, in different ways according to the lexical semantics of the noun. (Acquaviva 2008: 153)

This description—Acquaviva argues—applies equally well to ‘eggs’ (CL ovum/ova), measure words, collectives like mura ‘walls’ (whose a-plural is a fourth-century innovation, see (1)), cohesive aggregates like body parts (brachium ‘arm’, genu ‘knee’ were 20  See Lorenzetti (1995: 81–117), who applies Belardi’s distinction of synthetic vs analytical collectives to the fate of the Latin neuter in CSItRom dialects.



7.3  The gradual depletion of the Latin neuter

233

neuters), etc. Thus, the circumstance of having a plural that matches the above semantic definition might well have helped the retention of a given lexeme in the alternating neuter gender, when this first arose in early Romance. Evidence for the early date of this rise is provided by the documentation of (at least some instances) of alternating and/or dedicated n.pl agreement, especially with those nouns, in all Romance branches (see e.g. OFr. dous deie ‘two fingers’, ambe brace ‘both arms’ in (18), Ch. 6).21 Later on, the semantic specification of this gender value may have been extended, bleached, or even lost: extension is observed in Romanian, where the alternating neuter only hosts inanimates, and a similar situation must have obtained in Old Tuscan, as shown by plurals such as le letta ‘the beds’ (see (6), Ch. 6); an even broader extension is observed in Altamurano (see (79), Ch. 4 and below, §7.7). On the contrary, total loss of the semantic correlate, and hence full conventionalization of this gender value, is observed in much of the evidence from Central-Southern Italo-Romance dialects (especially that reviewed in §4.5.3, to be taken up again in §7.6). At this point, having said that countable neuters (13c) migrated to the masculine (13ii), and that ‘analytical collectives’ (i.e. nouns with weakly individuated plurals) formed the semantic core of the alternating neuter, we get a natural explanation for a circumstance—the association of the Italo-Romance neuter with masshood—that has prevented many (e.g. Lüdtke 1965: 495) from acknowledging the continuity between the Romance mass neuter and its Latin ancestor, the neuter gender. In fact, it is a widely held tenet that the mass neuter is a ‘re-invention’—hence the very labels ‘Romance neuter’ (Merlo 1917c: 108) or neoneuter (e.g. Vignuzzi 1995: 158)—rather than a carryover of the Latin neuter gender value. According to Vignuzzi and Avolio (1994: 649), for example, the Romance neuter ‘non è la diretta continuazione del neutro latino’ [‘is not the direct continuation of the Latin neuter’; emphasis in the original—M.L.]. Formentin (1998: 304, n. 891) stresses the ‘soluzione di continuità fra la categoria latina e quella romanza’ [‘break between the Latin and the Romance category’]. Merlo (1917c) prominently advocated this view: Il neutro romanzo non dipende dal neutro latino; in altre parole, l’articolo neutrale romanzo non accompagna gli antichi neutri latini, i quali erano resti di condizioni tramontate da tempo immemorabile […]. Il neutro romanzo è una innovazione […]: son neutri i pronomi, gli aggettivi e le altre parti del discorso sostantivati; è neutro tutto ciò che non è concreto o comunque determinato. (Merlo 1917c: 108) [The Romance neuter does not depend upon the Latin one; in other words, the Romance neuter article does not combine with the former Latin neuter nouns, which were the remnants of a situation that had long declined [i.e. the late PIE assignment to inanimates, see §2.3—M.L.]. The Romance neuter is an innovation […]: it hosts pronouns, adjectives and other substantivized parts of speech; anything that is not concrete or otherwise individuated, is neuter.]

Merlo recognizes a formal continuity between the mass neuter agreement targets (articles and demonstratives) and (Late) Latin neuter demonstratives (see discussion on (15)f., §7.4), but as for the assignment of controller nouns, he regards the Central-Southern 21  Even where alternating agreement is not attested in the early Romance texts, as is the case for IberoRomance, it can still be reconstructed combining the lexicalized outcomes seen in (5), Ch. 4 (e.g. Asturian deda ‘toe(f)’) with the examples of alternating agreement in Late Latin from the area (see n. 10).

234

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

ItRom mass neuter as an innovation, arisen after a Proto-Romance stage in which the Latin neuter controller nouns had totally merged with the masculines: this is what he calls ‘the shipwreck of the (Latin) neuter’.22 In his reference grammar, Rohlfs (1966– 69) upholds an alternative view:23 Generalmente, nell’italiano (come pure nelle altre lingue neolatine) la distinzione tra il maschile illu lupu e il neutro illud vinum s’è perduta; ma nell’Italia meridionale una note­ vole area ha conservato l’antica distinzione flessiva. […] Non sono soltanto gli antichi neutri latini (vinum, sale, mel, lac, lardum, serum, ferrum ecc.) che richiedono l’articolo ‘neutro’, ma anche parecchi antichi maschili (panis, caseus, piscis, sanguis) (Rohlfs 1966–69: 2.108f.) [Generally, in Italian (as well as in the other Romance languages) the distinction between masculine illu lupu and neuter illud vinum has been lost; but in southern Italy a remarkable area has preserved the old inflectional distinction. [i.e. on agreement targets—M.L.] […] Not only former Latin neuters (vinum, sale, mel, lac, lardum, serum, ferrum ecc.) require the ‘neuter’ article, but also several former masculines (panis, caseus, piscis, sanguis).]

Although in the minority, some other scholars have argued for ‘la continuazione del neutro e la sua assunzione a nuove funzioni semantiche, mantenendo l’opposizione con gli altri due generi’ [‘the continuation of the neuter and its taking on new semantic functions, while preserving the contrast with the other two genders’] (Giammarco 1979: 121, on the dialects of western Abruzzo). Also Avolio (2002a: 619) mentions ‘la conservazione del neutro latino […] nel quadro di una sostanziale continuità’ [‘the preservation of the Latin neuter […] with substantial continuity’].24 While Rohlfs sticks to the phonetically untenable (see §7.4) CL etymon of the neuter article, for the controller nouns, his view is in line with what has been argued so far: nouns assigned to the mass neuter are a subset that stayed in the neuter ((13a))— which kept selecting the same neuter singular agreement targets all the way through— after (13c) and (13b) had been stripped away. This view straightforwardly explains the association of the neuter with masshood, so that—even if we saw in (144), Chapter 4 that this is not bidirectional—it comes as no surprise that new, formerly masculine, mass nouns were attracted into the mass neuter, as Rohlfs says. However, one need not overemphasize this, nor use it as an argument against the continuity of neuter gender assignment to (mass) neuters in these dialects, as does Lüdtke (1965: 495) quoting the example of caseus ‘cheese(m)’. Rather, one must bear in mind that CL consists in a standardized selection from a range of variants which often feature, in the case of the nouns at issue, instances of neuter gender assignment for a host of nouns. Examples include caseus ‘cheese(m)’, 22  ‘E vengo ai neutri. Il naufragio vi fu; e qual naufragio!’ [‘Moving on to the neuters: there was a shipwreck, and what a shipwreck!’] (Merlo 1906–07: 443). 23  See Avolio (1996: 296–302) for a discussion of Merlo’s vs Rohlfs’s opposite views, which are widely held, in studies in comparative Romance—see e.g. Fernández Ordóñez (2006–07: 2.61), for whom the Central-Southern Italian mass neuter is an innovation, in terms of its controller nouns, just as the neuter (in System 2, according to the analysis advocated in Ch. 5) in Central Asturian—or IE linguistics. (Compare Priestly 1983: 344 who, criticizing Hall’s 1968 etymology for the o-ending neuter agreement targets in central Italy and the Asturias—see §7.5—replies: ‘The survival of such an archaic form [i.e. Archaic Latin abl. *illōd—M.L.] with a semantic shift of this nature would appear to be less likely than the survival of the n vs m opposition with the former restricted to [+mass] nouns’.) 24  On the other hand, the same authors support Merlo’s discontinuity view in Giammarco (1970: 445) and Vignuzzi and Avolio (1994: 649).



7.3  The gradual depletion of the Latin neuter

235

with alternative neuter forms attested from Archaic to Imperial Latin ((14a)); panis ‘bread(m)’—although, admittedly, in a minority of cases—is also attested as neuter pane,‑is in Archaic Latin ((14b)); sal ‘salt(m)’ occurs as nom/acc sal, hence neuter, or in the distinctly neuter nom/acc form sale in Archaic and early classical authors ((14c)); and sanguis,‑inis ‘blood(m)’ occurs as neuter sanguen from Archaic to Imperial Latin ((14d)): (14) a. caseum ‘cheese(n)’: ad cibum […] lacte et caseum adhibitum ‘milk and cheese(n), used:n as food’ (Varro, Rust. 2.1.4), but also earlier, in Cato, Agr. 76.3, and later, e.g. in Apul., Met. 1.5; b. pane ‘bread(n)’: haec sunt ventris stabilimenta, pane et assa bubla ‘these.n are strengtheners for your stomach: bread and roasted beef ’, (Pl., Cur. 367); c. sal ‘salt(n)’ in Varro, Gram. 64; Lucr. 4.1162 sale ‘salt(n)’ in Ennius, Ann. 385; Cato, Agr. 145, 162; d. sanguen,-inis ‘blood(n)’ from Archaic (Ennius, Scaen. 202: lavere sanguen sanguine ‘to wash blood with blood’; Cato, Orat. 203; Varro, Men. 225) to Imperial Latin (Petr. 59.1). Thus, as soon as this kind of variation is duly considered, it turns out that several more of the nouns included in the mass neuter in CSItRom dialects may have carried over a gender feature specification already documented in some variety of Latin, if not in the CL norm, a possibility often not considered in studies on southern Italo-Romance maintaining that mass neuter agreement ‘eventually extended to many masculines with mass interpretations (e.g. panem ‘bread’, sanguinem ‘blood’)’ (Ledgeway 2016: 256). Another positive fall-out of the account provided here is that it naturally explains the fact that the mass neuter hosts a tiny minority of nouns in all Italo-Romance var­ ieties in which it occurs (see the counts in (127) and (137), Ch. 4). Within more-thanbinary systems, as remarked for example by Polinsky and Van Everbroeck (2003: 359), ‘there are often large disparities in type and token frequency […], with much lower type frequencies in one gender’, as was the case in Classical Latin, where, as seen in the discussion immediately following (13) above, the neuter accounted for slightly over 20 per cent of the noun lexemes, with the masculine and the feminine accounting for the rest in roughly equal parts (Polinsky and Van Everbroeck 2003: 362). Once (13b–c) migrated into other genders, Romance mass neuters—the diachronic successors of (13a)—were bound to remain a tiny minority, and the figures found for the mass neuter in modern Italo-Romance (e.g. 1.58% for Agnonese in (137), Ch. 4, including nouns with possibile recategorization n/m) are comparable with the 2.8 per cent share of neuter mass nouns in the Latin corpus mentioned above. More generally, once explained in this way, the rise of the exclusive (though not bidirectional) association of the neuter with masshood in CSItRom appears as a bona fide illustration of the priority of diachronic over synchronic explanation, a longstanding claim in historical linguistics, from Paul (1880: 20f.) to recent work in linguistic typology: see Haspelmath’s (1999: 205) dictum, ‘a linguist who asks “Why?” must be a historian’; or Dahl’s (2004: 103) variation upon the Saussurean chess simile: ‘ “synchronic” generalizations about possible game states are secondary to the “diachronic” rules that regulate the movements of pieces in chess’.

236

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

7.4  Rise and fall of the early Romance four-gender system While considering the semantics of gender assignment, we have seen that the evidence from all historical stages of the Romance languages is compatible with the reconstruction of the fate of the neuter in (13i–iii). In discussing agreement targets, however, I have only mentioned CL illud for all neuters, which obviously does not account for the rise of the four target-gender systems attested for medieval southern Italy (§6.5), as an ancestor to the four controller gender systems in the corresponding modern varieties (§4.5). Likewise, the steps reconstructed in (5) take into account dedicated agreement targets for n.pl, but not the contrast seen in the singular for the Central-Southern mass neuter. Indeed, the two Italo-Romance neuter genders provide evidence for the split inheritance of Latin neuter controller nouns into two genders, whose agreement targets all stem from the Latin neuter. Consider the etyma of the Romance definite articles in (15): (15) Late Latin. Stage 1 singular plural illī locī masculine illu(m) locu(M) feminine illa(m) mensa(m) illÆ/illÆc mensÆ neuter membru(m) illa/illÆc membra illu(d)/*illoc mel

‘the place/-s’ ‘the table/-s’ ‘the limb/-s’ ‘(the) honey’

The schema in (15) is simplified in that case distinctions are neglected. As is well known, Romanian still preserves two cases in both nominal and pronominal inflection (apart from 1sg and 2sg pronouns, which have a richer paradigm), and a different two-case system is attested for Old Gallo-Romance (see §6.3.1). Combined with reconstructive arguments and data from the inspection of Late Latin texts (see e.g. Seidl 1995: 60 on the persistence of a two-case noun inflection in the Latin-Romance of Visigothic Spain; or Zamboni 2000: 113 on a three-case stage for the early preliterary Romance of Italy), this suggests that a reduced case system persisted, even in noun inflection, in all Romance branches in the Middle Ages. This is even more relevant to demonstrative and definite article inflection: thus, Old French li murs nom vs le/lo mur acc ‘the wall(m)’ implies the persistence of a case contrast illī murus vs illum murum.25 Likewise, the Old French feminine plural, which does not contrast case, shows that accusative illas won out over nominative illæ and generalized to all syntactic functions, an account that some scholars (see e.g. Faraoni 2014 and the previous literature cited there) also propose for Central-Southern Italo-Romance, where traditionally survival of the nominative forms (in both the feminine and the masculine, and both pronoun/demonstrative and noun inflection) was assumed (see e.g. Merlo 1955). Be that as it may, none of these case contrasts is relevant to the assessment of changes in the gender system, particularly as far as the maintenance of distinct neuter forms is 25  An analogical form illī, reshaped after quī ‘rel.nom.m.sg’ (see e.g. Roncaglia  1971: 134), is also required by the Italian 3m.sg pronoun egli and is attested in Chron. Fred. 2.37 (see Stotz 1998: 127f.). It is hence a more parsimonious etymon than the assumption of a phonetic modification of unstressed ille (Meyer-Lübke 1934: 201). On the other hand, the CL nominative ille—also contrasting with accusative illum until the late medieval documentation—is required by the Old Asturian m.sg form of the article le (Cano González 1990: 60, 68).



7.4  Rise and fall of the early Romance four-gender system

237

concerned, since the neuter always had from the outset (see Ch. 2) a syncretic nom/ acc form in all inflectional paradigms of all parts of speech. Thus, for our present concerns, the schema (15) is enough, and nothing would change if we added illī in the m.sg and/or illas in the f.pl cell, since the crucial thing is that those cells, however filled and defined (e.g. also in terms of case, which would imply adding a third dimension, i.e. case, to the schema), contrast with the corresponding cells for the neuter. At this stage, which we can call Late Latin 1, the gender system is still the familiar tripartite one, but the agreeing determiner (article) paradigms show overabundance (Thornton  2011) in some cells, partly inherited, partly arising through analogical innovation.26 In the plural, illæc had been competing with illa ever since the Archaic period (Plautus, third century bc), where both competed for the nom/acc.n.pl cell, as shown by several occurrences of illaec (v. ThLL 7.370f.): (16) a. cum illaec sic facit ‘while he makes this’ (lit. ‘those things that way’; Pl., Cist. 290) b. ubi illaec quae dedi ante ‘where are those (referring back to duo talenta ‘two talents(n)’) that I gave before?’ (Pl., As. 196) c. sumne ego mulier misera, quae illaec audio? ‘aren’t I a poor woman, since I have to listen to those things?’ (Pl., As. 196) d. ioculo istaec dicit ‘he says those things as a joke’ (Pl. St. 24) As shown in (16d), the same neuter plural inflection is also attested for iste ‘dem.nonprox’. The same form illaec, though much more sparingly, is attested as a competitor to CL illae for the feminine plural nominative (pace Rohlfs 1966–69: 2.108, who hastily stars *illæc and adduces its purported unattestedness in order to reject the etymon put forward by Merlo (1906–07, 1917b), who pointed to (attested) illæc as the only conceivable diachronic source accounting for the RF triggered by the f.pl article in a large area of Southern Italo-Romance (see (89d), (96d), (102d), (110d), (111d), Ch. 4). (17)  illaec catapultae ad me crebro commeant ‘those catapults often bomb me’ (Pl. Cur. 398) In the neuter singular cell, on the other hand, *illoc is not attested, but must be reconstructed as a competitor to CL illud, as proposed by Merlo (1906–07, 1917b) on the strength of philological evidence from Latin and reconstructive evidence from the Romance outcomes. That an analogical *illoc may have been coined on the model of CL hoc is not at all implausible, given the attested innovation istoc (alongside classical istud), documented in Pl., Bac. 382 (see Merlo 1917b: 92).27 The reconstructive evidence for *illoc is provided by the n forms of the article and the demonstratives in Italia mediana. The application of RF, which singles out the n from the m forms in the Upper South dialects (as exemplified with Sorano in (88ii), Ch. 4 26  In proposing this account in Loporcaro and Paciaroni (2011: 420, n. 29), I coined the term ‘cell-mates’ in order to label couples of inflectional word forms in free variation within one and the same cell of an inflectional paradigm, thus determining ‘overabundance’ (see Thornton 2011, 2012). These were traditionally termed ‘doublets’, but ambiguously so, as pointed out by Thornton, since the same label is also used for non-synonymous lexemes sharing the same etymon. 27  Messing (1972: 258) overlooks this evidence when he qualifies Merlo’s etymon as ‘an ad hoc argument’.

238

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

and further, in §4.5, in several dialects such as Molfettese (89a), Neapolitan (96a) etc.), is compatible with either *illoc or CL illud, since both final ‑d and ‑c became ­assimilated in sandhi. However, the same does not hold for the ‑o vs ‑u distinction in the n vs m forms of the dialects of the area mediana (seen e.g. with Reatino lo vs lu in (88i), Ch. 4; Treiese o vs u in (118a–b), Ch. 4, etc.). In fact, the main defining isogloss of the area mediana (see Loporcaro and Paciaroni 2016: 228) is the preservation of the contrast between final unstressed ‑u vs ‑o, preserved as ‑/u/ vs ‑/o/ respectively: see Reatino naːsu ‘nose’ vs meʎʎo ‘better’ < melio(r) (Campanelli 1896: 34). Now, since short final ‑u in illud should have developed in the same way as in the masculine form illum, these two etyma cannot account for the observed Romance contrast, pace Lüdtke (1965: 489), Rohlfs (1966–69: 2.153), Zamboni (2000: 112), and the many others who assume illud as the etymon for the mass neuter article. Lüdtke (1965) ventured the hypothesis that the distinction was rescued by compensatory lengthening for the loss of final ‑m, whereby the preceding u would have turned to [uː]; but such a change never happened in (Late) Latin, as demonstrated with compelling arguments from loan phonology and Latin metric by Campanile (1973). Had this lengthening applied, second declension Latin loanwords into Celtic would show metaphony, which was triggered by final high long vowels (both ‑ī and ‑ū, the latter in turn resulting also from earlier ‑ō). Thus, the Welsh outcome of Latin latrō ‘thief ’, lleidr, went through the intermediate stages (Brittonic) ladrü ̄ > ladrī where the stressed vowel underwent metaphony, resulting in [ai̯] (spelled ei). On the contrary, Welsh borrowings from Latin words ending in ‑um never show the reflexes of metaphony: for example Welsh coch/**cych ‘red’ < Lat. cocc(in)um ‘red’, Welsh cethr/**cythr ‘spike, large nail’ < Lat. centrum ‘nail’ (in turn from Greek). Moreover, the alleged change ‑um > [uː] is incompatible with the evidence from Latin metric, which banned prevocalic cretic elision in dactylic meters like the hexameter, so that no dactylic foot may ever arise from elision before a short initial vowel of the long final vowel in a word whose prosodic structure corresponds to a cretic foot (  ̄ ̆ ̄ ). Now, accepting Lüdtke’s hypothesis would introduce legions of instances of unparalleled cretic elisions, in words such as Ilium whose final ‑um is regularly elided in Verg., Aen. 1.625: Ilium et ex imo uerti Neptunia Troia. This argument is cogent, since Lüdtke’s hypothesis crucially implies that the putative change [‑um] > [‑uː] applied at a date early enough for the output to be recategorized as a long unstressed vowel phonologically, so as to contrast with the outcome of -u(d) (see Loporcaro 2015b: Ch. 2 on the chronology of the demise of contrastive vowel length in Latin). We know from several Latin sources that the weakening of final /‑m/ in polysyllabic words was already at work in Archaic Latin (see Seelmann 1885: 356–8, 362–4), and that throughout the history of CL /‑m/ was not realized as such in everyday speech before a following initial vowel (Quint., Inst. 9.4.39 exemplifies with multum ille and quantum erat), but would become a nasalized glide [w̃]. Thus, metrical elision practice is rooted in the phonetics of everyday speech: so, if Ilium is regularly elided in verse, this cannot possibly have ended in a long vowel, unlike what is implied by Lüdtke. In sum, CL illum was never pronounced with a final long **/‑uː/, and consequently illud cannot be the source of Reatino n lo since it cannot account for its



7.4  Rise and fall of the early Romance four-gender system

239

distinctness from m lu.28 *illoc therefore remains as the sole plausible etymon, a point that is strengthened by the geolinguistic evidence considered in §7.4.2.29 Free variation in the n.sg cell was resolved in the later step schematized in (18): (18) Late Latin. Stage 2 masculine feminine (alternating) neuter1 (mass) neuter2

singular plural illu(m) locu(m) illī locī illa(m) mensa(m) illæ/illæc mensæ illu(d)/*illoc membru(m) illa/illæc membra illu(d)/*illoc mel

‘the place/-s’ ‘the table/-s’ ‘the limb/-s’ ‘(the) honey’

This is where the four gender system comes into being. 7.4.1  The rise of the four-gender system With the split of the Latin neuter into two distinct genders, addressed from the point of view of the controller noun semantics in (13iii.a–b) above,30 the available n.sg agreement forms give rise to a contrast: *illoc becomes the marker of the mass neuter, whereas illud must have remained as the marker of what was going to become the alternating neuter. The first step towards the establishment of this alternating neuter gender was taken as illud merged with masculine illum, through deletion of the final consonant. This merger, widely attested in Medieval Latin texts (where ‘Si legge […] spesso illum per illud’ [‘One […] often reads illum instead of illud’ ’], Norberg 1974: 33), replicated in the inflection of the definite article the same non-distinctness already found—for the accusative/oblique all over the place and for the nominative in Eastern Romance—in nominal and adjectival inflection. The modern outcome of this diachronic development, as we saw in §4.5, is a fourgender system with, among others, a controller gender of the Romanian type. How­ ever, at stage (18), this is not yet the case, since what was later to become an alternating gender (still) had dedicated plural agreement forms, a situation which persisted well into the documented history of the Romance languages, as observed when considering Old Neapolitan in (37), §6.5, repeated here as (19): (19) n2

llo

singular (b)bene

m n1 (>a) f

lo lo

nimico vrazzo

la

donna

plural li la lle lle

nimice vrazza bbrazza (d)donne

‘def wealth’

Old Neapolitan

‘the enemy/enemies’ ‘the arm/arms’ ‘the lady/ladies’

28  Neither Lüdtke (1979: 67, 2009: 245), who constantly reiterated his proposal, nor any other supporter of the illud etymon for the neuter article, has ever rebutted, to the best of my knowledge, Campanile’s (1973) decisive objections. 29  Note in passing that the rise of analogical forms such as istoc and *illoc, as well as the increased vitality of illaec in late Latin, constitute further evidence against recurrent claims that the neuter was no longer a full-blown gender in Latin (see discussion in §2.1 above). 30  As stressed in §4.5, these are genders on a par with masculine and feminine, not subgenders of the kind familiar from e.g. the Slavic languages.

240

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

In the modern dialect, the feminine plural article is an outcome of illæc, attested in Latin as a rarer variant competing with classic illæc (see (17) above). For the neuter1 plural, on the other hand, the competition was between illa and illæc. The latter was homophonous with the feminine plural non-classical form which eventually won out in Neapolitan (see (96), Ch. 4): Neapolitan (20) e lla vrə < illæc labra ‘the lips(a)’ e kkroːšə, earlier e kkruːčə (Merlo 1917c: 106) < illæc cruces ‘the crosses(f)’ Plural illa, on the other hand, was a dedicated neuter agreement marker, and as long as its outcome la (and the parallel neuter plural agreeing forms seen for Old Neapolitan in (34)–(36), Ch. 6) remained in use, the Central-Southern neuter had not reduced by that point to an alternating (controller) gender, but still remained a target gender that can be labelled, at that stage, as neuter1, to distinguish it from neuter2. That this was indeed the case, at least until the end of the Middle Ages in Central-Southern ItaloRomance, was shown in §6.5. While no other Romance branch shows such clear evidence of a four-target gender system with each set of targets corresponding to distinct sets of controllers, all other branches show at least some evidence that points to a similar system, thus allowing its reconstruction for the transitional stage labelled Late Latin 2 in (18). Thus, the Old Gallo-­ Romance textual evidence, as seen in §6.3.1, preserves some sparse cases of dedicated n.pl agreement (see (21)f., Ch. 6) with plural forms like legne, brace, arme, corresponding to nouns assigned to neuter1 in Old Neapolitan. In addition, a set of neuter singular agreement targets, as seen in (12)–(15) and n.  7, Chapter 6, occurred for agreement with/resumption of non-nominal controllers. This latter function, as well as the fact that the forms stem from Latin n.sg inflections, corresponds to neuter2 in Old Neapolitan, except that Old French and Old Occitan preserve no evidence of controller nouns selecting those agreement targets. One might speculate that no traces are left because the corresponding contrasts dissolved earlier in these languages. A similar situation is observed in Romansh, except that here evidence for dedicated plural agreement of the neuter1 type lasts until the seventeenth century (§6.4), while agreement of the neuter2 type—again, only with non-nominal controllers—lives on until the present day not only for pronouns, as in most of Romance (It. ciò, Cat. aixó) with numbered exceptions (see (27a), Ch. 4), but also with predicative adjectives, as seen in §4.3.3. Here, the reference literature on Romansh seems to offer an interesting hint for reconstructions dating further back in time. In fact, Haiman and Benincà (1992: 144) conclude that the two forms occurring today in Surmiran for the m.sg possessive, viz. mies [miəs] and mia [miə] (as they say, in ‘/iʎ miəs ba b/ ‘my father’ vs /iʎ miə riʃpléj/ ‘my pencil’ ’, not quoting any sources), may preserve the trace of an earlier m vs n contrast: ‘There may once have been a time when this was a gender distinction between masculine and neuter: if so, it is not consistent any longer’ (Haiman and Benincà 1992: 144). However, this rests on misreading their source, since Thöni (1969: 18f., 70f.) shows that Surmiran mies may be realized as mia when pronominal—‘igl mies er igl mia’ [‘igl mies also igl mia’] (p. 70)—while the only masculine adnominal form is mies, as exemplified with igl mies bab ‘my father’ on p. 19. When addressing pronominal usage and reporting variation, on the other hand, Thöni (1969) adds the example **igl mia risplei as ungrammatical, as clear from the context:



7.4  Rise and fall of the early Romance four-gender system

241

igl mies, ties = igl mia, tia, etc. pero mai [emphasis in the original—M.L.] ansemen cun el substantiv: p. ex. igl mia risplei ma la mia tatta (Thöni 1969: 71) [[…] but never together with the noun: e.g. igl mia risplei ‘my pencil’ as opposed to la mia tatta ‘my grandmother’]

Thus, Surmiran only has iʎ miəs ba b/rišpléj ‘my father/pencil’ so that, for Romansh as well as for Old French, we are left with evidence for a fourth target gender (corresponding to Old Neapolitan neuter2) but without nominal controllers. The only Romance branch that provides this further, and decisive, piece of evidence motivating the reconstruction of a stage with four target and controller genders, is CentralSouthern Italo-Romance. In its earliest documentation this branch of Romance displays the vacillation between la/le (and similar n.pl/f.pl agreement markers, see (31)–(33), Ch. 6), indicating incipient reduction of neuter1 to an alternating controller gender (hence the notation ‘n1 (> a)’ in (19)). To sum up, the transitional stage schematized in (5b) for the rise of the alternating neuter, best preserved today in Romanian but whose traces are found in all Romance branches, has to be further articulated, given the Central-Southern Italian evidence. This is what is proposed in Loporcaro and Paciaroni (2011: 424; as usual, lines indicate sg/pl associations—possibly one to two, as for gender III in (21b) due to free variation— while pointing arrows indicate change): (21) a. Latin sg n -um

III

pl -a

m -us

I

-i

f -a

II

-ae

IV

b. Old CSItRom dialects c. Mod. CSItRom dialects sg sg pl pl n2 llo+ IV n lo IV m

III

lo

n1 f

I III

la

II

li

m lu

la

a

III

lle

f la

II

I

li le

With respect to (13iii) above, this schema adds the agreement targets (again, exemplifying with the definite article, whose segmental content is given its Old Neapolitan shape in (21b), with ‘+’ = ‘triggering RF’) which signalled gender contrasts. These agreement targets have been preserved as mutually distinct all the way through, from Late Latin 2 ((18)) to the modern dialects of central-southern Italy, apart from the change seen in (21b) > (21c) (the latter exemplified for clarity with the article forms today found in Italia mediana). The system (21b) eventually simplified into the modern one, with four controller but only three target genders, a change consisting in the loss of dedicated neuter agreement forms on determiners, adjectives, and participles, in the plural. 7.4.2  Marking the n vs m contrast: geolinguistic evidence for reconstruction As we shall see in §7.4.3.2, the noun determiner (generally the definite article and the demonstrative, although with sparse exceptions: see (31) below and (9)–(11), Ch. 8) is the agreement target which has best preserved the n(2) vs m contrast. The review in §4.5 showed that this contrast comes in several different forms, some of which are

242

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

r­ecapitulated in (22) (‘+’ = ‘triggers R(addoppiamento) F(onosintattico)’; ‘(#Cw-)’ = triggers /w/-propagation across the following initial consonant):31 (22)

neuter llo+ o+ lo+ lʊ+ lʊ+

masculine lo o lo (L. De Blasi 1991) lʊ lʊ (#Cw-)

ʊ+ ru+

ʊ u

ru+ ru+ (#Cw-) rə+ lə/rə+ rə+ lə+/– lə lə lo lo lu lə

lu lu (#Cw-) lu u u ju ru rə ro ʎʎu ʎu ʎə (#Cw-)

d. Sora (FR) e. Ceprano (FR) f. Paliano, Vallecorsa (FR) g. Subiaco (RM), L’Aquila h. Norma (LT)

lə lu lu lo lo

ʎə ʎi ju ju jo

iv. a. Rieti, Macerata, Servigliano b. Treia (MC)

lo o

lu u

lə lə u lə

lu lə (#Cw-) i (#Cw-) i

i. a. Old Neapolitan b. Neapolitan c. San Mango sul Calore (AV) d. Sala Consilina, Teggiano (SA) e. Miglionico (MT) f. Tolve, Anzi (PZ) g. San Fele (PZ), S. Pietro al Tanagro (SA) h. Caposele, Trevico (AV) i. Avigliano (PZ) j. Calitri (AV) k. Spinazzola (BA) l. Molfetta (BA) m. Scanno (AV) ii. a. Agnone (IS) b. Roccasicura (IS), Gallo (CE) c. Colle Sannita (BN) iii. a. Minturno b. Itri (LT) c. Cervaro, Terelle (FR)

c. Sulmona (AQ) d. Carovilli (IS) e. Cusano Mutri (BN) f. Trasacco (AQ)

(Lüdtke 1979: 68) V&A, AIS pt. 725 (Merlo 1962)

AIS pts. 666, 712 AIS pt. 714 (La Rocca 2007) (Lorenzetti and Marsella 2013; Schirru 2013) (Schirru 2008) (Capotosto 2013) V&A

(Schirru 2008) V&A V&A

31  A subset of these types is listed in Vignuzzi and Avolio (1994: 649) (‘V&A’ in (22)). When no source is indicated on the right, the relevant dialect has been quoted earlier in the book. Prevocalic allomorphs are omitted for simplicity.



7.4  Rise and fall of the early Romance four-gender system

243

The examples in (22i) include dialects where the neuter article triggers RF (among which (22i.g–l) show rhotacism in the neuter form); (22ii) includes those where rhotacism occurs in the masculine; (22iii) those where the masculine shows palatalization (> ʎ(ʎ) > j) of (‑l)l- before PRom‑u; and (22iv) those where none of the above apply. Several types on the list are easily reduced to others via sound change: one which often occurs is the deletion of the initial /l/. This affected DO clitics and articles in many Italo-Romance dialects as one manifestation of phonological reduction. Thus (22i.b), for example, is directly derived from (22i.a) and (22iv.b) from (22iv.a). Likewise, the palatalization of (‑l)l- in the masculine ties together all the dialects in (22iii) and provides evidence for final ‑u even when this has been merged later with other vowels, as does /w/-propagation, usually occurring after the masculine. The exception is Aviglianese ((22i.i)), where propagation also occurs after the neuter (recall from n. 81, Chapter 4, that this is a dialect with a Gallo-Italic substratum: thus, extension of /w/-propagation to the neuter may have occurred in the process of adoption from neighbouring dialects). This is often in complementary distribution with RF (e.g. (22i.e)) though Aviglianese is again an exception, displaying both. RF occurs in the southern part of the four-gender territory, straddling a large portion of Campania, northern Lucania. and central Puglia (marked with a ‘+’ sign on Map 6 overleaf). As already noted in §7.4.1, this is evidence for a final consonant and, combined with the ‑/u/ vs ‑/o/ contrast in the area mediana, it points to illum vs *illoc as the etyma. Evidence for reconstructing the joint occurrence of the two (RF and the ‑/u/ vs ‑/o/ contrast) at a previous stage is provided by the areal distribution of the dialects with RF after the neuter article. This occurs today in the area just mentioned but, more to the north, surfaces again in Scanno (province of L’Aquila, AIS pt. 656: e.g. lə ssa ŋgə ‘def.n blood’), although with vacillations (see §4.5.1). Moreover, dialects in between, displaying no RF, seem to show some lexicalized remnants of an earlier gemination with the neuter article: see, for example, the otherwise difficult-to-explain optional initial geminate in Agnonese lə v(v)ritjə ‘def.n glass’. Since RF, triggered by an idiosyncratic rule feature ever since the final consonant was deleted from the underlying representation (see Loporcaro  1997: 107–9), has been beating a retreat, morpheme by morpheme, all over central-southern Italy, one can reconstruct a common stage such as (23b): (23) 

neuter a. Stage 1 b. Stage 2

*ILLOC *llo+

masculine ILLUM

*lu

Preservation (in the neuter) vs degemination (in the masculine) of geminate /ll/is attested in Old Neapolitan ((21.a)) and can be reconciled with the seemingly contradictory modern evidence provided by the co-existence of dialects displaying /r/ in the neuter vs /l/ (possibly > Ø) in the masculine ((22i.g–l)) with dialects that have /l/ in the neuter but /r/ in the masculine ((22ii)) (see Map 6). In fact, the former type occurs in an eastern area, where geminate ‑ll- changed to ɖɖ > dd and, before stress, was possibly reduced to r: see Barese ja rdiddə ‘cockerel’ < *gallitellum, bberəfa ttə

Sora

Vallecorsa

Itri

Ceprano

Paliano

Subiaco Scanno

Sulmona Agnone

Molise

Colle Sannita

Anzi

Andria

Molfetta

Miglionico

50 km

50 miles

A merely indicative sample of the strategies used to mark the m (masculine) vs n (mass neuter) contrast in the dialects of the Upper South and Area Mediana.

Basilicata

Sala Consilina

Calvello

Rofrano

Teggiano

San Pietro al Tanagro

Campania

Naples

Canosa di Puglia

Puglia

0

0

Contrast in the final vowel (M - u ≠ N -o) Raddoppiamento Fonosintattico after the neuter form = /r/ + Raddoppiamento in the neuter vs /l/ in the masculine = /r/ in the masculine vs /l/ in the neuter = palatalization of /l/ in the masculine form = palatalization of /l/ in the masculine form and contrast in the final vowel (M -u ≠ N -o)

Bari Ruvo di Puglia Mola di Bari Minervino Murge Bitonto Spinazzola Polignano Calitri San Mango a Mare Venosa sul Calore Gravina in Puglia San Fele Cancellara Caposele Matera Avigliano Tolve

Guardia Sanframondi San Leucio del Sannio Trevico

Minturno

Pietraroja

Villa San Michele Roccasicura Torella del Sannio Terelle Miranda Gallo Monteverde di Bojano Cervaro

Avezzano

Abruzzo

L’Aquila

Servigliano

Marche

Macerata

Map 6  Different ways of marking the m (masculine) vs n (mass neuter) contrast

Norma

Lazio

Tivoli

Rieti

Umbria

Foligno

Matelica

Treia



7.4  Rise and fall of the early Romance four-gender system

245

‘handsome’ < *bellu+factum. The latter type, on the other hand, is found in an area more to the west, between Molise and Campania, which does not show this change (so that ‑ll- could remain a lateral consonant to finally be degeminated) but where singleton ‑l- was rhotacized, as shown by sporadic remnants such as, for example, rə kuːrə ‘the.m.sg arse’ (AIS 1.136) in Roccasicura (province of Isernia, pt. 666), Guardia Sanframondi (province of Benevento; see Garofano 2008: 131), Gallo (province of Caserta, pt. 712; see (22ii.b)), etc.32 The effects of this change are observed only ­sporadically today: see n. 32 and Agnonese ((22ii.a)) ru kiu̯rə ‘the.m.sg arse’, la ta u̯rɐ ‘the.f.sg table’ < tabulam alongside ru miu̯lə ‘the.m.sg mule’, la ta i̯lɐ ‘the.f.sg cloth’, but it is not unusual for clitic elements like articles to undergo otherwise sporadic changes. Thus, the change may have applied in the masculine definite article, whose initial /l/ was the output of early degemination (witness the Old Neapolitan evidence, (22i.a)) and would occur intervocalically, whenever it was not initial within the speech chain, in dialects where virtually all words end in a vowel. 7.4.3  The fading of the four-gender system The four-gender system discussed so far will be taken up again in §8.1 in order to adduce cross-linguistic parallels. But before closing this section it will be useful to take stock of the evidence, some of it discussed in part in Chapter 4, pointing to the loss of both the alternating neuter (< neuter1) and the mass neuter (< neuter2) in ItaloRomance. These are both in the process of merging with the masculine, to finally yield a binary gender system (see §3.1), and the evidence for this is manifold: (24) a. historical: dialects which had the n vs m and/or a vs m contrast in the past but have now lost either or both; b. geolinguistic: incipient loss/depletion of the mass neuter on the fringes of  the four-gender area; territorial discontinuities of this area (enclaves, exclaves; see Map 3); earlier demise of the alternating neuter in Tuscany and the extreme south (Salentino); c. sociolinguistic: speakers with (on-going) loss of the n vs m contrast and/or a vs m contrast in linguistic communities whose conservative dialect still has the old system; d. structural: restriction of the n vs m contrast to NP-internal position in some dialects; instability of a with respect to syntactic rules involving a switch in gender and number; syncretism with m of n and/or a under gender resolution. These different sources of evidence will now be reviewed, first—and more succinctly—for the alternating neuter and then, in more detail, for the mass neuter. 7.4.3.1  The fading of the alternating neuter  Comparison of §§4.3.5 and 6.2 has shown that Old Tuscan possessed an alternating neuter of the Romanian kind, that this has 32  In the dialects listed, the masculine article has /r/, contrasting with neuter lə peːpə ‘def.n pepper’ (AIS 5.1010) at both AIS points (and lə mɛːlə ‘def.n honey’ in Guardia Sanframondi; see Garofano 2008: 223), as well as in nearby Colle Sannita (province of Benevento, pt. 714), where, however, rhotacism is not documented in ro kuːlə ‘the.m.sg arse’. In Pietraroja (Benevento), on the other hand, rhotacism applied variably in lexical morphemes (kuːrə/kuːlə), but not in the article (ʎu pɛːrə ‘the.m.sg foot’ vs lu mɛːlu ‘def.n honey’; see Bello 2003: 87, 141, 187).

246

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

since been lost and its debris can at most be considered today to represent an inquorate gender (see (32b), Ch. 4). This provides prima facie historical evidence for the loss of the alternating gender, to be compared with that available for other Romance branches (see §7.4.1), which points to the early disappearence of this gender value at a preliterary stage. For Central-Southern Italo-Romance too—after Daco-Romance, the area in which this gender value has been best preserved—there are indications of incipient, or even advanced, loss, as shown by the quantifications provided for Maceratese and Agnonese in (127) and (137), Chapter 4, respectively. As illustrated while discussing the latter dataset, in addition, variation across generations within the speech community at times shows the reassignment of noun lexemes from the alternating neuter to the masculine, whereby the former tends to dissolve. Thus, in Agnonese, younger speakers tend to prefer m.pl forms such as rə ma roi̯tə over a.pl lə ma rétəra (respectively, the.m/the.f husbands’; see (131b–c), Ch. 4), and should this generalize, the 7.82 per cent of nouns which now show variable gender assignment (a or m) according to the counts in (137), Chapter  4 would be reassigned to the masculine, thus leaving the alternating neuter with a residual 0.41 per cent of noun lexemes. But even within systems where the alternating neuter still accounts for a respectable minority of nouns, such as Central Marchigiano (see the figures in (127), Ch. 4 for Maceratese), structural evidence for its instability is provided by the syntactic tests whose results were reviewed in (37), Chapter  4 for Standard Italian. There, it was shown that modern Standard Italian does not select masculine singular uno in reciprocal and distributive pronouns, nor does it employ feminine plural to resolve agreement with two coordinated nouns such as il dito e il braccio ‘the finger and the arm’. Central-Southern dialects, on the other hand, show the symmetric behaviour, thus documenting the syntactic vitality of the alternating neuter. But this is not (any longer) observed across the board. Thus, in (113)f., Chapter 4 it was shown that the dialect of Avigliano (province of Potenza) allows f.pl agreement under resolution and selection of m.sg unə when f.pl roi oːvə ‘two eggs’ has to be resumed in the singular. However, as mentioned in n.  83, Chapter 4, the test with reciprocals gives unclear results. Similarly, the Central Marchigiano dialect of Treia (see (118)f., Ch. 4) still has the conservative option, attested in Central-Southern Italo-Romance in the Middle Ages, for reciprocal and distributive pronouns, as shown in (39), Chapter 6, but resolution has by now reset on the Standard Italian option, as shown by the ungrammaticality of f.pl agreement in (25) (see Paciaroni et al. 2013: 114): ðit-u e u vračc-̌ u aðɛ´ ffirit-i/**ffirit-e (25) u def.m.sg finger(a)-sg and def.m.sg arm(a)-sg be.3 injured-m.pl/injured-f.pl ‘the finger and the arm are injured’ The morphology has been touched upon in this section while recalling the two competing plural forms of Agnonese (m.pl rə ma roi̯tə/a.pl lə ma rétəra ). The morphology has a role to play in this reduction, since the vitality of the alternating gender crucially depends on the productiveness of the ICs associated with this gender value: thus, the progressive loss of a-plurals, seen in §4.3.6 for the dialects of northern Italy and recurring, at different diachronic stages, in several branches of Romance, is another chapter of this story.



7.4  Rise and fall of the early Romance four-gender system

247

To sum up, the paths through which the alternating neuter fades away are manifold, and concern lexical frequency, morphological richness, and syntactic behaviour. The final result is a binary system such as that of modern Standard Italian. 7.4.3.2  The fading of the mass neuter  For the mass neuter in Central-Southern ItaloRomance, many sources of evidence, parallel to those just reviewed, also point to a long process of reduction, finally resulting in merger with the masculine. In addition, a further source of evidence can be mentioned, since there is recent neurolinguistic research on the topic (to be addressed separately in §7.4.4) showing that gender agreement violations which involve the n vs m contrast trigger weaker brain responses than violations involving other kinds of gender contrast. Historical evidence for the loss of the mass neuter is provided by dialects such as those spoken in the north of the Campanian provinces of Benevento and Caserta, considered in §4.5.4 (see Map 3), that nowadays lack the mass neuter. These dialects must have had a three-way contrast on agreement targets in the past, as attested by the distinct neuter form of the article—corresponding to a fully functional neuter in surrounding dialects—occurring only within fixed expressions: see lə stessə ‘the.n same’, in the dialect of Castelvetere in Val Fortore (province of Benevento), as opposed to u winə/mɛlə ‘def.m wine/honey’ = u ka nə ‘the.m dog’ (and feminine a pa ɟɟə ‘the.f straw’; Bontempo and Bontempo  1997: 43; Tambascia  1998: 33). In principle, one might consider the alternative hypothesis that this lə corresponds to the Sp. article lo, and so that lə stessə parallels Sp. lo mismo ‘the.n same’, an instance of the occurrence of a 3sg (neutral) agreement target only for agreement with non-nominal controllers. However, lo in Spanish is assigned via a regular syntactic mechanism (see 4.3.4), whereas in Castelvetrese lə is restricted to just this phrase. This, combined with areal distribution, strongly suggests the interpretation followed here. This brings us to geolinguistic evidence ((24b)). While a detailed study on the borders/transitions of the four-gender area is still awaited, there are several other clues from the geolinguistic distribution of the n vs m contrast pointing to its retreat. For instance, the dialect just mentioned, Castelvetrese (pt. 41 on Map 3), is spoken in the north-easternmost tip of the Campanian province of Benevento, wedged between southern Molise and the north of the Apulian province of Foggia, all part of the Adriatic area—reaching the coastal plains of Abruzzo and stretching northwards into the southern Marche (Ascoli Piceno and San Benedetto del Tronto)—whose dialects have no mass neuter today (see pts 11 and 146, Map 3). This neuterless area is in turn included in the broader Central-Southern Italo-Romance four-gender area, and a number of clues show that at an earlier stage the neuter must have been present in those dialects too. Thus, today neuterless Castelvetrese has the fixed expression nə kkoːnə ‘a bit’ (see §4.5.3), where one finds a frozen remnant of the highly marked dedicated neuter form of the indefinite article still alive and well today in Mattinata (province of Foggia, pt. 101 on Map 3: see (155), Ch. 4) which, together with nearby Monte S. Angelo (ALI pt. 808; pt. 113 on Map 3), is part of a tiny enclave preserving the mass neuter in southern Gargano, while the whole Gargano peninsula from Lesina down to Manfredonia has no neuter vs masculine contrast. The correspondence

248

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

between Castelvetrese and Mattinatese can hardly be polygenetic and seems to indicate that the area in between must have had the neuter, possibly also marked on the indefinite article, at a previous stage. Both the northern and southern borders of the four-gender area provide further hints. Along the Rome–Ancona line, we have seen in §4.5.2 that the n vs m contrast, as signalled on definite articles, is threatened by the spread of the merger of final ‑/u/ into ‑/o/. The two are kept distinct in the area mediana (see §7.4), south and east of the Rome–Ancona line, but not to the north and west of it, where the local dialects merge ‑/u/ and ‑/o/ into ‑/o/ resulting in the Tuscan unstressed vowel system /‑i ‑e ‑a ‑o/. This isogloss has been moving for centuries, as there is evidence for the ‑/u/ vs ‑/o/ phonemic contrast as far north as the Romagna in the Middle Ages (see Formentin 2007: 146–53). The same is true of the southern border of the ‑/u/ vs ‑/o/ area, which moved northwards—possibly due, at least in part, to the prestige of Naples starting in the late Middle Ages (see Barbato 2008: 280; Loporcaro 2016c: 67–70): on the whole, then, the area mediana is recessive. In north-eastern Umbria, the dialect of Foligno preserved the contrast until recently, although masculine agreement markers could optionally neutralize with the neuter, if ‑u > ‑o applied: for example nu lu vidi ‘you don’t see him:m’, which can be also realized as l lo vidi, homophonous with ‘you don’t see it:n’ (whereas in no lo/l lo sɔ ‘I don’t know’, lit. ‘I don’t know it:n’, **lu is not an option (see G. Moretti 1987: 109)). More recently, Bosi (2012: 207) reports merger, but with generalization of lu for the definite article for contemporary urban Folignate, and persistence of the contrast only in its rural outlying parts: for example lo pane ‘def:n bread’ vs lu sfilatino ‘def:m kind of bread’. On the contrary, 17 km to the south-west, Gualdo Cattaneo lies beyond the isogloss and so has definitively merged the n and m articles into lo (which ousted earlier m *lu) and then replaced it with Romanesco-like er.33 Geolinguistic evidence for the on-going retreat of the n vs m contrast has also been gained from inspection, in §4.5.1, of the south-eastern fringe of the four-gender system. As seen on Map 3, there is a small island with the mass neuter (Matera and Miglionico, in eastern Lucania; see (105) and n. 77, Ch. 4) which is surrounded by dialects without it: in Lucania, Irsina, to the west, and across the Apulian border, Altamura, Santeramo in Colle, Gioia del Colle, to the north. Varieties spoken near this border show several traces of fading. Thus, the dialect of Gravina di Puglia (Bari) has transferred several nouns to the masculine: ʊ mmiːrə ‘def.n wine’ was neuter, like, for example, ʊ ssɜːlə ‘def.n salt(n)’ and contrasting with ʊ pɜːtə ‘the.m foot(m)’, for informants born around the turn of the twentieth century, whom I interviewed there in 1986. However, it no longer shows RF, and has hence turned to masculine, in the dialect of the informant (born in 1928) whom I recorded during fieldwork in 2015. Change in real time is paralleled by change in apparent time (which brings us to the sociolinguistic evidence, (24c)). The latter is found again near the Apulian southern border of the n vs m contrast, in Mola di Bari. On the Adriatic coast south-east of Bari, the border separates Polignano a Mare, which has the mass neuter as shown in (26), from Monopoli, which does not (see n. 75, Ch. 4): 33  Pressure due to the sociolinguistic prestige of Romanesco is at work here, as in the case discussed in §3.1.2, n. 23.

(26)

7.4  Rise and fall of the early Romance four-gender system a. b. c. d.

249

u lla ttə/mmiːrə/ppɛ̝ːnə/ppæ ɪ̯pə/ssɛɪ̯ɣə ‘def.n milk/wine/bread/pepper/salt(n)’ u ɣittə/mɘu̯ɣə/pæ ɪ̯də/sɒu̯ɣə ‘def.m bed/mule/foot/sun(m)’ l uɟɟə   ‘def.n oil(n)’ u uccə ‘def.m eye(m)’

The neuter article ((26a)), as usual in this area, contrasts with the masculine ((26b)) for its triggering of RF on a following initial consonant; much less usual is the occurrence of the contrast on the prevocalic allomorph, as shown in (26c–d). Other lexemes often assigned to the mass neuter in nearby dialects are masculine in Polignanese (u  grɛ̝ːnə ‘def.m wheat(m)’), but the nouns in (26a, c) have a regular and stable behaviour. Thus, for instance, their initial consonant is geminated only after the neuter article (or demonstrantive), but not elsewhere: for example sɛndza sɛɪ̯ɣə ‘without salt’, nu bbəkkiːrə de miːrə ‘a glass of wine’, nu stuttsə də pɛ̝ːnə ‘a loaf of bread’.34 In nearby Molese, whose gender system is schematized in (55) below, application of RF also signals the neuter (as opposed to the masculine), as seen in (27a–b): (27) a. ʊ llɑttə/ppɑˑi̯pə/ppɜːnə/ssɜːlə ‘def.n milk/pepper/bread/salt(n)’ b. ʊ ka va ddə/kɜːnə/pəččənɛnnə/wa ɲɲɑˑunə ‘def.m horse/dog/child/boy(m)’ Here as well the conservative dialect displays initial gemination with neuter nouns like those in (27a), only after the article or the demonstrative ((28a)), but not elsewhere ((28b)): (28) a. stʊ llɑttə /ffuːkə /ssɜːlə ‘this.n milk/fire/salt(n)’ b. na məddɛ´kələ də pɜːnə ‘a crumb of bread’

conservative Molese

However, many Molese speakers generalize the initial geminate consonant with neuter nouns, as seen in (29a):35 (29) a. na məddɛ´kələ də ppɜːnə ‘a crumb of bread’ innovative Molese na ndze də ccɔmmə  ‘a bit of lead’ b. Abatangelo and Palumbo (2001) ss. uu.: llatte ‘milk’, lléine ‘flax/linen’, mmêle ‘honey’, mmire ‘wine’, ppêne ‘bread’, ssêle ‘salt’ c. Abatangelo and Palumbo (2001) ss. uu.: chêse ‘cheese’, chiomme ‘lead’ (but nanzé de cchiomme), marme ‘marble’, séive ‘animal fat’, sire ‘whey’ d. Abatangelo and Palumbo (2001) 211 larde ‘lard’/223 llarde, 180 fredde ‘cold’/ 172 ffredde This is reflected in the dictionary by Abatangelo and Palumbo (2001), whose quotation forms of the lemmas begin with a geminate for many (formerly) neuter mass nouns (see some examples in (29b), reported in their spelling), though not for all (29c), while for some the entries are duplicated (29d).36 34  I am indebted to Giovanni Manzari for the Polignanese data. 35  In some cases, no synchronic evidence points to mass neuter status from the outset: I have recorded ʊ firrə/**ffirrə ‘def.m iron’ in Molese (see also Abatangelo and Palumbo 2001: 173f.) for both substance and ‘iron implement’, two senses contrasted as two distinct lexemes in dialects spoken further north (see e.g. (94), Ch. 4 for Molfettese). 36  While other sources are available for Molese, AFP 59–61 does not transcribe the geminate (Mola is pt. 42) in u pänə = u käne (actually ʊ ppɜːnə ‘def.n bread(m)’ vs ʊ kɜːnə ‘the.m dog(m)’), and Cox (1982:

250

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

Once the geminate is generalized, those nouns do not contrast with masculines any more. They have simply become nouns that begin with a lexical geminate, where the u article does not produce gemination and is, hence, indistinguishable from the masculine: see (29b). Initial lexical geminates in Molese occur even contrastively (as in other dialects of Puglia and, more generally, of Central-Southern Italo-Romance: see Bertinetto and Loporcaro 1991; A. Romano 2003), in nouns of all genders: e.g. m Ddégghie ‘God’, lluche ‘estate’ (pl. llœ´chere), mmuffe ‘sip’ (pl. mmoffe), f nnœ´cche ‘ribbon bow’ (all from Abatangelo and Palumbo 2001 ss. uu., in their spelling). Another kind of evidence pointing to the weaker status of the mass neuter is structural in nature. Ideally, a gender value should be contrasted consistently with other gender values in all contexts which host the gender contrast (e.g. across parts of speech): this is a stronger version of Corbett’s (2012: 162) criterion 3 of Canonical Typology. Now, this is not the case in a uniform way for the mass neuter (and its contrast with masculine), since there is just a tiny minority of dialects that present the canonical situation (Maceratese is an example, in (30i); Serviglianese, also analysed in §4.5.2, is another case in point), while the other dialects in (30) (all mentioned in §4.5) more or less depart from this ideal: (30) The n vs m contrast on agreement targets in some Central-Southern ItRom dialects:

i. Macerata

a. indf b. def c. prenominal d. pronominal e. DO clitic f. ptp g. adj article demonstrative ± + + + + + +

ii. Agnone

±

+

+

±

±

–

–

iii. Rieti

–

+

+

+

+

–

–

iv. Naples

–

+

+

+

+

–

–

v. Mola di B.

–

+

+

–

–

–

–

Legend: + – ±

= = =

n vs m contrast signalled in inflection n = m non-distinct (exponent = m) n vs m contrast signalled variably (across subvarieties)

The inherited nucleus of the distinction, still visible in dialects like (30iii–iv), is (30b–e), all forms that stem from the Latin demonstrative (see §7.4.1), while extension to the indefinite article ((30a)) and to adjectives and participles ((30f–g)) is an innovation as exemplified above in (148) and (125), Chapter. 4. While some dialects have extended the scope of the n vs m contrast, with respect to the kinds of agreement targets involved, in others their range has shrunk. A few other varieties, on the other hand, combine extension (to new targets) with loss (on the original ones, (30b–e)), so as to create highly unusual systems where not even the definite article marks the contrast. The latter can be rescued through some phonological processes such as RF, as seen for several Upper Southern dialects in §4.5.1, or /w/-propagation after the m, not the n, 67)—whose focus is on phonology—reports for the definite article only the masculine vs feminine contrast, not mentioning the neuter.



7.4  Rise and fall of the early Romance four-gender system

251

described in §7.4.2 and exemplified in (31) with the dialect of Carovilli (province of Isernia, pt. 42 on Map 3), where at least in nouns beginning with /Ca/- the contrast is still signalled on the noun (see Schirru 2008: 304): (31) a. lə pa nə ‘def.n bread’ ≠ lə pwonə ‘the.m.sg loaf of bread’ In this dialect, more transparent marking of the contrast is preserved on demonstratives, both adnominal and pronominal ((30c–d); see Schirru 2008: 304): (32) kwištə/kwissə/kwirə ‘dem.prox/near_hearer/dist.m.sg’ kešta/kessa/kela ‘dem.prox/near_hearer/dist.f.sg’ keštə/kessə/kelə ‘dem.prox/near_hearer/dist.n’ The dialect of San Benedetto del Tronto (southern Marche, pt. 146 on Map 3) has completely lost the m vs n contrast on definite articles and other agreement targets, but (still) contrasts masculine vs neuter adjectives only when substantivized, through application of metaphony on the former, not on the latter (see Balducci  2000: 35, quoting Palestini 1993: 42): (33) a. mu vɛ l-u bbɛllə now come.prs.3sg def-m.sg n\beautiful ‘here’s the fun part!’ b. mu vɛ l-u bbillə now come.prs.3sg def-m.sg m\beautiful ‘now the handsome guy is arriving’ This is probably the remnant of a once systematic marking of the n vs m contrast on all the agreement targets (30b–g), but is now just the signalization of non-lexical neuter on substantivized adjectives, occurring in the same context (though not on the same part of speech) as the use of the dedicated lo article with substantivized adjectives in Spanish seen in §4.3.4. Another case in point may be represented by the dialects of Rignano Flaminio and Sant’Oreste (in the province of Rome, some 40 km north of the capital), as suggested, though with caution, by Lorenzetti (1995: 156). These are spoken west of the Tiber and thus belong to the less conservative area perimediana, already exemplified with the Viterbese varieties in §§3.1.2–3.1.3, which has completely lost the mass neuter. Thus although in Rignano Flaminio and Sant’Oreste (pts 134 and 156 on Map 3), as elsewhere in the surroundings, there is no n vs m contrast on the original agreement targets (30b–e), this may surface (astonishingly, if so) on adjectives and even on nouns, with for example vinu ‘this specific/this type of wine’ vs vino ‘wine’ (as in some area mediana dialects south of Rome and some of south-eastern Umbria in (119)–(124), Ch. 4). However, the evidence mentioned by Lorenzetti is judged by the author himself as insufficient, all the more so since the AIS data (Sant’Oreste is pt. 633) and Elwert’s (1958) description do not provide clear evidence for the contrast. An often-encountered pattern of contrast reduction is the one displayed by the dialects of Puglia spoken south of Bari, represented by Molese in (30v). Here the DO clitic— which had the contrast originally since it is etymologically identical to the definite article—does not signal the n vs m contrast any more, either with non-nominal

252

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

c­ ontrollers, as shown for Molese in (34a), or for nominal ones, as exemplified for Gravinese in (34b), contrary to all other dialects in (30) (see the examples in (97d), (120b), and (139a–b), Ch. 4): (34) a. ngɔkkedə´u̯n  ʊ 

dei s̯ ̌/ **ddei s̯ ̌  somebody    DO.3m.sg say.prs.3sg  ‘somebody says that’

Molese

b. (ʊ ppʷɜːnə / l arrustə) m ʊ mánǧəkə / **mmánǧəkə Gravinese def.n bread(n) def.m roast(m) DO.3m.sg eat.prs:1sg ‘(bread/the roast) I eat it’

Loss of the n vs m contrast on clitics, which implies the restriction of the marking of the third gender value to the NP domain, occurs in dialects in which the mass neuter has been shown to have shrunk and/or be unstable in terms of the lexemes assigned to it, and/or in terms of the phonology of its manifestation (see (29)). This is another critical point, which relates to—although is not identical with—productivity. As seen in the discussion on (96a) and in (128a), Chapter 4, the mass neuter is still productive in the dialects of Campania and the central Marche, since it still hosts loanwords of fitting semantic properties, while this is no longer the case for Agnonese (see §4.5.3), for example, where all loanwords with mass or abstract interpretation are today assigned to the masculine. Thus, the Agnonese mass neuter, although qualifying as a target gender, is a non-productive class, much smaller than those corresponding to other gender values. The quantification summarized in (137), Chapter 4 has shown that in a corpus of over 2,000 nominal lexemes, the mass neuter accounts for just 1.31 per cent (32 nouns in all), while the masculine features 1,493, or 61.16 per cent. Also with respect to the range of agreement targets involved, Agnonese is on its way to reducing the signalling of the n vs m contrast (as indicated by ‘±’ in (30a–d)). In fact, as already noted in §4.5.4, the indefinite article marks the n vs m contrast (variably) only in the rural, not in the urban, dialect, whose speakers categorically have nu for both, as shown in (149b.ii), Chapter  4.37 In addition, urban Agnonese neutralizes n vs m in the DO clitic, which is kept distinct in the rural dialect, as already exemplified in (157), Chapter 4:38 ‘the.m.sg young boy, I see him:m’ urban Agnonese (35) a. ru čitrə rə/lə vai̯də b. lə pɛæ̯nə rə/lə maɲɲə ‘def.n.sg bread, I eat it:n’ ‘the.m.sg young boy, I see him:m’ rural Agnonese (36) a. ru čitrə rə/**lə vai̯də b. lə pɛæ̯nə lə/**rə maɲɲə ‘def.n.sg bread, I eat it:n’

37  This may either indicate that the innovation only affected the rural subvariety, or that the urban dialect has lost the n vs m contrast on the indefinite article, as on the DO clitic (see (35)). 38  The picture is actually even more complex, as similar syncretisms are spreading in the system as a whole, starting from the plural, which is however not relevant to the n vs m contrast (and its progressive demise, focused on here), since the mass neuter does not occur in the plural. Note that even for the urban conservative speakers, this is still a syncretism on the DO clitic, since the definite article still encodes the n vs m contrast categorically (the latter is no longer the case for the younger speakers discussed below in (38)).



7.4  Rise and fall of the early Romance four-gender system

253

Demonstratives too show some vacillation of the n vs m contrast across generations. While the contrast is categorical for elderly rural speakers (born up to the 1940s), for younger speakers with a rural background the m.sg demonstrative pronoun may occur in free variation with the neuter form when resuming neuter nouns ((30d)), while within the NP an adnominal demonstrative ((30c)) must take the neuter form with neuter nouns and the masculine one with masculines, for all speakers: (37) a. keštə/%kwištə         ɛ  llə/**rru 

  sɛæ̯lə   gruo̯ss  rural Agnonese dem.prox.n/dem.prox.m.sg is def.n/.m.sg salt(n) coarse(nonf) e    kkellə/%kkwirə         ɛ  kkellə/%kkwirə       foi̯nə and  dem.prox.n/dem.prox.m.sg is dem.prox.n/dem.prox.m.sg thin ‘this is cooking salt and that is table salt’

b. št-ə/**št-u sɛæ̯lə dem.prox-n/dem.prox-m.sg salt(n) ‘this salt’

In sum, the neutralization of the n vs m contrast in Agnonese is sensitive to the agreement hierarchy (Corbett 2006: 206–37; see (134), Ch. 4), as it never affects prenominal determiners within the NP, while it does affect personal (clitic) pronouns and pronominal demonstratives, which occur in predicative position. In other dialects, the mass neuter is even more heavily threatened, as being still less productive: again, in the Apulian dialects south of Bari which preserve the contrast, like Molese, the neuter has lost not only lexical but also syntactic productivity, as it cannot host the output of conversions (e.g. ʊ ma nǧ ɤ´/**mma nǧ ɤ´ ‘def.m.sg food’, lit. ‘the eating’), a function that is preserved, for example, in Agnonese ((139c), Ch. 4). A gender value like the mass neuter, that diverges so sharply from masculine and feminine in terms of productivity and critical mass, is liable not be equally entrenched in the internalized linguistic competence of native speakers throughout the speech community. Foreseeably, such a weaker entrenchment may well be a precondition for loss. Current research in neurolinguistics affords interesting ways to study this in vivo. 7.4.4  Neurolinguistic evidence for impending change in the gender system Such a study requires in-depth knowledge of the grammatical system as well as of the linguistic community in whose repertoire the dialect is included. Thus, the present discussion of the first results of an on-going research project in this field requires some sociolinguistic background. Variation in apparent time across the speech community is known to be one of the axes along which language change progresses: consequently, if the overall trend, in our dialects, is for the mass neuter to merge into the masculine—a long-term drift in these varieties, which has been enhanced, since the twentieth century, by the increasing pressure of Standard Italian—we expect linguistic communities to be observable in which nouns are being reassigned along these lines across generations. This seems to be the case for Agnonese, whose conservative variety was described in §§4.5.3f. As seen in (30ii) and (35)–(37), the n vs m contrast has been neutralized, in some subvarieties, on some agreement targets, eventually persisting on definite articles. Here too, however, younger urban speakers happen to

254

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

produce, for example, ru sa ːlə ‘def.m salt’ where the conservative dialect (both urban and rural) only has lə/**ru sɛæ̯ lə ‘def.n salt’ (see (129), Ch. 4) (or lə saːlə),39 categorically distinct from ru ka fé ‘def.m coffee’. If a speaker does this consistently, s/he reduces her/his target genders to a binary contrast. But even if this reassignment, for such speakers, is still only variable—as our preliminary evidence seems to indicate—the linguistic repertoire of the community includes two subvarieties of the dialect (be they present within one and the same speaker as competing grammars, or rather distributed over individuals), one ((38c)) with the inherited three-way gender contrast, the other ((38b)) with just a binary contrast, corresponding to the one found in the acrolect (Standard Italian, (38a)): (38)

‘def salt’

‘def coffee’

‘def flour’

a. Standard Italian

il sale

m

=

il caffè

m ≠

la farina

f

b. Agnonese, innovative

ru sa ːlə

m

=

ru ka fé

m ≠

la faroin̯ ɐ

f

c. Agnonese, conservative lə sεæ̯ lə n

≠

ru ka fojjə m ≠

la fa roin̯ ɐ

f

Once the repertoire is so composed, the n vs m contrast obviously has a weaker status, which cumulates with lack of productivity of the neuter and its much weaker critical mass compared with the masculine (and the feminine), leading to instability. While, as said in §1.1, psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic research on gender in these (and others) non-standard Italo-Romance dialects is still largely a desideratum, some first results are available. Bambini, Canal et al. (in preparation) have carried out an ERP-study with thirty Agnonese speakers, selected through a specif­ically designed dialect competence test so as to ascertain their proficiency and make sure that they represent the conservative variety (38c), with n vs m vs f, rather than the innovative one (38b), which merges the n into the m. Using an experimental para­digm standardly employed in research on agreement in general (and gender agreement in particular; see references and discussion at the end of §1.1), speakers were presented with violations of the expected agreement patterns consisting in the selection of the ‘wrong’ definite article form, such as the following:40 (39) a. m →f ru dəndištɐ lɔi̯vɐ la dɛndə all ammalɛæ̯tə   correct: ‘the dentist extracts the:f patient’s tooth’ b. f →m ru prɛi̯tə a vištə ru fémmənə nǧiːm allə skie̯lə correct: ‘the priest saw the:m woman on top of the stairs’

ru dɛndə ‘the:m tooth’ la fémmənə ‘the:f woman’

39  Phonetic differences in the stressed vowel, immaterial to our present concerns, depend on the coexistence, in the traditional dialect, of a rural and an urban variety as explained while commenting on (129), Ch. 4. 40  All speakers were presented auditorily with 1,080 randomized sentences of constant syntactic structure, including 270 target sentences (one third displaying agreement, two thirds displaying disagreement, as shown in (39)), repeated three times, intermixed with 90 filler sentences, repeated twice. The EEG was anchored to the word recognition point, and the brain response (as exemplified in Figure 7.2) was averaged on all repetitions of each experimental condition for all thirty subjects.



7.4  Rise and fall of the early Romance four-gender system c. n →f ru kundadoi̯nə vennə la grɛæ̯nə da tanda ɛnnə correct: ‘the farmer has been selling def.f wheat for many years’ d. f →n ru kundadoin̯ ə a ləvaːtə lə grameɲɲɐ dall uo̯rtə correct: ‘the farmer has taken away the.n weed from the field’ e. m →n ru tubbištɐ a rparaːtə lə ggassə də la kučoin̯ ɐ correct: ‘the plumber has fixed the.n stove in the kitchen’ f. n →m la nɔnnɐ mettə ru mɔil̯ ə dendr a ru te correct: ‘the grandma puts def.m honey into the tea’

255

lə grɛæn ̯ ə ‘def.n wheat’ la gra meɲɲɐ ‘the:f weed’ ru gga ssə ‘the:m gas’ lə mɔi̯lə ‘def.n honey’

The results of the EEG measurements, some of which are exemplified in Figure 7.2 (see Bambini, Canal et al., in preparation, for the overall results and discussion), show that all violations trigger a P600 effect (measured on the parietal electrodes, as seen in the image on the right), which indicates that all violations are uniformly categorized as morphosyntactic agreement violations.41 If the n vs m contrast were categorically different from the others (i.e. if it were not a morphosyntactic gender contrast but just a semantic [±count] distinction, as claimed by supporters of position (142b), Ch. 4) this parallelism would be unexpected and violations of type (39e–f) would be predicted to trigger—at least additionally, with respect to (39a–d)—a response indicating a semantic violation.42 Interestingly for our present discussion, Figure 7.2 also shows that the P600 effect triggered by n → m violations ((39f)) is weaker than those triggered by other gender agreement violations (exemplified just with n → f in the figure).43 These results are naturally explained by assuming that, even for speakers of the conservative (38c) var­ iety, hearing others use the m article with n nouns, as in the innovative variety (38b), is not quite as bad as hearing other gender agreement violations. One possible interpretation is that the lowered amplitude of the P600 component is the brain’s response to the weaker status of the n vs m contrast in the grammar. This, in turn, might be due to the fact that the n is the only gender value lacking in the other language in the repertoire (as schematized in (38a));44 or, possibly, it could reflect change in progress 41  In addition, violations on count nouns (which were among the stimuli only for the masculine and feminine, as the neuter encompasses exclusively mass nouns) also triggered a moderate LAN effect. 42  While the prediction that there should be a difference in quality clearly results from the non-gender analysis of the mass neuter, the exact definition of the differences to be expected in the brain reaction is trickier, as previous ERP studies on mass/countness yield contradictory results: Steinhauer et al. (2001) found a left anterior negativity (LAN), independent of the more posterior N400 effects usually observed as reactions to semantic anomaly, and took that as evidence for a primarily syntactic nature of the mass/count distinction; Chiarelli et al. (2011), on the other hand, found both semantic effects (the N400 concreteness effect) as well as LAN and P600, usually related to morphosyntactic violations, suggesting that ‘the brain differentiates between count and mass nouns not only at the syntactic level but also at the semantic level’ (Chiarelli et al. 2011: 1). These different results correspond to the fact that the nature of mass/countness itself, whether semantic or syntactic, is debated (see the papers in Massam 2012, and especially Pelletier 2012, for an overview). 43  The effects are statistically significant, as illustrated in Bambini, Canal et al. (in preparation). 44  An argument against this explanation is provided by Klassen’s (2016) psycholinguistic study on bilinguals whose L1 and L2 have gender systems diverging in terms of the number of gender values. In a picture naming experiment, she found that L1-German/L2-Spanish ‘bilinguals made significantly fewer errors (p=.003) with L2 neuter nouns than incongruent ones’ (i.e. with respect to nouns whose m vs f gender differs between the two languages; see Klassen 2016: 101). In other words, the fact that the neuter value has no

256

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction Parietal electrodes

Left Anterior electrodes

0.5 0

4

–0.5 2

–1 –1.5

0 0

0.5

1

0

NN

FN

0.5

1

MN

MNvsNN 300 to 500 ms FNvsNN 300 to 500 ms MNvsNN 500 to 800 ms FNvsNN 500 to 800 ms

30-jul-2016 time=[0.3 0.5] avg=[–4 4]

30-jul-2016 time=[0.3 0.5] avg=[–4 4] –4

0

4

–4

0

30-jul-2016 time=[0.5 0.8] avg=[–4 4] 4

–4

0

30-jul-2016 time=[0.5 0.8] avg=[–4 4] 4

–4

0

4

Figure 7.2  ERP waveforms (left anterior and parietal electrodes) showing brain response to gender agreement violations with Agnonese neuter nouns (Bambini, Canal, et al., in preparation).

in the gender system, since the neuter is presently merging into the masculine. On the other hand, an explanation appealing to sheer quantitative imbalance (recall that n nouns are a tiny handful, as shown in (137), Ch. 4) would leave unexplained the clear difference in amplitude of the P600 between the fn (feminine article with neuter noun) and nm conditions, since neuter nouns (about thirty in all) are much fewer than both masculines and feminines. Whether the contact-based or the change-in-progress explanation is on the right track has to be established through further research. Obviously, there are interesting prospects here for the investigation of (instability and change in) our gender systems.

7.5  Continuity vs discontinuity in the Latin-Romance neuter(s): Asturian again In §7.4, where I proposed the reconstruction, I did not touch upon the Asturian neuter, as described at length in Chapter 5. This works, synchronically, in a remarkably different way from all other Romance gender values labelled as ‘neuter’ in other systems. The fact itself of being a value within one of two concurrent gender systems correspondence in their L1 does not impinge on the subjects’ accuracy. Note further that in our case, contrary to Klassen’s, the extra gender value, not found in one variety in contact, is part of the subjects’ native competence (since, given the social context, virtually nobody strives to learn the local dialect as an L2).

7.5  Continuity vs discontinuity in the Latin-Romance neuter(s): Asturian again

257

indicates radical discontinuity with respect to Latin. In fact, even if my analysis, in these terms, is new, the Asturian neuter has been used at times as a comparative argument, in order to lay claims of one of the two opposite types in (40a–b): (40) a. the Central-Southern Italo-Romance neuter, like the Asturian one, is inherited, but along lines incompatible with the reconstruction in §7.4; b. the Central-Southern Italo-Romance neuter is not inherited as a lexical gender, on a par with the Asturian one. Let us start from (40a). In §7.4 I have presented an account of how the forms of the n.sg agreement targets arose, and shown that the most economical explanation for the n vs m agreement forms is that they ultimately go back, respectively, to *illoc vs illum, which directly explains the preservation of the formal contrast in the demonstrative as well as in the definite article and the DO clitic, all sharing the same etymon.45 This is obviously also viable—and, actually, preferable—for the Central Asturian definite article and DO-clitic forms lo vs lu, although most diachronic accounts of Asturian stick by CL illud as an etymon of the neuter pronoun/clitic (see e.g. Alarcos Llorach  1958: 69; Lüdtke  1965: 492, 1988: 66; Cano González  1990: 70, 1998; Neira Martínez 1991: 453; García Arias 2003b: 332).46 Under this view, there is no etymological source for such contrasts on the noun and the adjective (and the participle), as observed in Central Asturian and the dialects of the central Marche and part of Umbria, discussed respectively in Chapter 5 and §4.5.2: (41)

a. Lena b. Macerata

m buin-u boːn-u

adjective

n buen-o boːn-o

m fierr-u ferr-u

noun fierr-o ferr-o

n

Thus, under the view in §7.4, however striking the coincidences in (41a–b) may appear at first glance, they must have arisen secondarily via analogy and hence be polygenetic, pace Alonso (1962: 179).47 Thus, the coincidences have no chance of pointing to a common source for the ‑u vs ‑o contrast on nouns and adjectives. Despite this, their origin has been discussed controversially, which affords a first classification of proposals in this field, according to where they locate the origin for the ‑u vs ‑o endings in nouns and adjectives: 45  In Asturian too, CL illud and illum should have converged into one and the same outcome: see §7.4 above for the refutation of claims to the contrary (by Lüdtke and others). 46  The only exception I know of is Ledgeway (2012: 106, n. 32), who assumes *illo(k) for Asturian as well as for Central-Southern Italo-Romance (p. 105). In the latter context, he quotes Merlo (1906–07), so the fact that he mentions Messing (1972: 261), while discussing Asturian, need not imply that he is endorsing the latter’s highly speculative hypothesis of an ablative *illocu which the author believes might have generalized out of a *cu(m) illo-c(u), in turn putatively arising by analogy on cum mecum ‘with me’ (see Sp. conmigo). 47  Note the asymmetry in the application of metaphony in adjectives, and the fact that the contrast on noun inflections is limited to a few nouns in Central Asturian, while it is general for second declension nouns in Central Marchigiano.

258

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

(42)  Where did the ‑u vs ‑o contrast originate? a. in the pronoun, and was then extended analogically to the adjective (and the noun): Lüdtke (1965; 2003), Neira Martínez (1978, 1991), Cano González (1990: 69), Fernández-Ordóñez (2006–07) b. in adjective inflection only: Arias Cabal (1998, 1999) c. in adjective and noun inflection: Lausberg (1951), Alarcos Llorach (1958), Alonso (1962: 183–5), Hall (1968), Penny (1978: 52), Hilty (1991: 145), Ojeda (1992), Viejo Fernández (2001: 110f.) The list is far from complete, but it is clear that only (42a) is compatible with the reconstruction proposed in §7.4, and it is also clear that the diachronic sources for the neuter o-inflection put forward by proponents of (42b–c), synthesized in (43), must face insurmountable problems: (43) a. accusative plural ‑os in masculine class one adjectives: Arias Cabal (1998: 44, 1999: 135), *pela bonos son > *pela bono(s) e > el pelu ye bono ‘def.m.sg hair is good:n’ b. Proto-Romance dative(-genitive) -o < Lat. dative -ō: Penny (1970b: 22; 1994: 276); c. Archaic Latin ablative -ōd: Hall (1968), Penny (1978: 52), Ojeda (1992); d. nominative -um (vs -us): Alarcos Llorach (1958: 69f.) (following Lausberg 1951: 322). The explanations (43a–c) are similar in that they force one to assume a dramatic change in function. Today, the o-ending occurs in both Central Asturian and Central Marchigiano (41a–b) with the function of marking non-agreement or agreement with non-lexical controllers—and, in addition, is used for agreement with neuter lexical controllers too, in the latter—functions which have no link whatsoever with the original ones of the alleged sources in (43a–c). Therefore, against those costly hypotheses, the objection raised by Priestly (1983)—with reference to (43c)—is unimpeachable: The survival of such an archaic form [i.e. *illōd—M.L.] with a semantic shift of this nature would appear to be less likely than the survival of the N vs. M opposition with the former restricted to [+mass] nouns. (Priestly 1983: 344)

As Priestly puts it, the assumption (42a) is the null hypothesis. This objection affects less dramatically Lausberg’s (1951: 322) contention ((43d)) that the source for the contrast was an irregular change that selectively targeted masculine nominative ‑ŭs in order to keep it distinct from accusative plural ‑ōs lest the two should have merged into [‑os]. The teleological wording is Lausberg’s: ‘Um diesen Zusammenfall zu verhidern, sprach man die Endung des nom. sgl. mit geschlossenem ụ als ‑ụs aus’ [‘In order to avoid this merger, the nominative singular ending was pronounced with a closed ụ as ‑ụs’; emphasis original—M.L.]. From this irregular change, a contrast with the neuter ending ‑ŭm > [‑om] would have fallen out. Again, the etyma motivated in §7.4 dispense with such an ad hoc and costly teleological hypothesis. The conclusion that (42a) is preferable to (42b–c) is further corroborated by geolinguistic data from both Central Italo-Romance and Asturian, which show that the

7.5  Continuity vs discontinuity in the Latin-Romance neuter(s): Asturian again

259

occurrence of the ‑o vs ‑u contrast in noun and adjective inflection cannot be old. On the dialects of central Italy, see the discussion on (121), Chapter 4, showing that the Maceratese type (41b) (and (126i), Ch. 4) is a later development with respect to the Reatino type ((126iv), Ch. 4)), where the ‑u vs ‑o contrast occurs only on determiners and personal and demonstrative pronouns, not on adjectives, participles, and nouns. The two are repeated in (44): (44) PRom final -V i. Rieti a. lu (noun infl.) -ŭ b. lo

(noun infl.) -ŭ

c.

(elsewhere) -o

ii. Macerata

Rieti

-u

lu spíːritu lu špíːritu

-o

Macerata ‘the.m soul’

lo spíːritu lo špíːrito

‘def.n alcohol’

trɔːo

‘find.prs.1sg’

trɔːo

An o-inflection from outside noun morphology is added for comparison in (44c), so as to illustrate that both dialects preserve the phonetic distinction of final unstressed ‑u vs ‑o. Both also preserve the lu vs lo contrast on articles and clitics. In addition, final ‑o appears on neuter noun and adjective inflection in urban Maceratese ((44ii)), and there is compelling evidence that Maceratese used to be like Reatino ((44i)) in the Middle Ages: crucially, medieval Maceratese texts, as observed in n. 97, Chapter 4, have the lu vs lo contrast on articles and clitics but do not yet show the (44a–b) contrast in noun inflection, where they have ‑u throughout. Furthermore, the sociolinguistic scenario is one in which the urban Maceratese dialect, which enjoys prestige, has been spreading innovations—including this one— towards its hinterland, as seen with Treiese in (118)f., Chapter 4. However, other rural dialects have resisted, at least in part, as shown for the Maceratese area with data from Matélica and San Severino Marche in (126ii–iii), Chapter 4, as well as for a rural dialect spoken further north, in the province of Ancona, in (81) below. A similar argument emerges from inspection of dialect variation in the Asturias. In fact, eastern and western dialects subtly differ from Central Asturian (and the standard language) whose facts were reviewed in Chapter 5, in ways that cucially affect the analysis of the gender system. Consider the data in (45), from Neira Martínez (1991) and San Segundo Cachero (2015: 16) (where the ‘elsewhere’ context is exemplified with postnominal attributive adjectives, plus the DO clitic for the feminine): (45) a. feminine mass N + A

b. masculine mass N + A c. neuter article + A

i. Eastern

la farina blancu, merquélu

vinu friu

lo buenu

ii. Central

la farina blanco, merquélo

vinu frío

lo bueno

iii. Western la farina blanca, merquéla

vinu friu

lu buenu

‘white flour, I bought it’

‘cold wine’

‘the good (thing)’

As seen in (45iii), Western Asturian does not possess a second gender system concurrent with the inherited one, since the agreement of non-prenominal adjectives and

260

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

DO clitics is not sensitive to the mass/count distinction (compare WAst. casa frí-a ‘cold-f.sg house(f)’) and just shows a feminine vs masculine agreement contrast like the definite article: for example l-a chubia ‘the-f.sg rain(f):sg’, l azeite gord-a ‘def greasy-f.sg oil(f)’ in the Western bable of Somiedo (Cano González 2009: 94f.). We have already seen in §5.5 that Quirosán, a dialect spoken some 30 km west of that of Lena, on the border between Western and Central Asturian (see Map 5), is on the one hand more innovatory, on the other more conservative than Central (and Standard) Asturian. Unlike the latter, it has extended neuter marking to prenominal demonstratives, as seen in (63), Chapter 5, which represents a further step along the scale introduced below in (51) and boils down to the re-establishment of a three-gender contrast within the first (Pan-Romance) gender system. On the other hand, Quirosán is more conservative than Central Asturian for the lack of categorical selection of o-agreement on adjectives and other agreement targets in the elsewhere context with feminine mass nouns, as shown in (64)f., Chapter 5. In this area, Quirosán still shows what can be considered as a transitory stage between (45iii) and (45ii). Indeed, it is now widely held that Western Asturian is the most conservative, with respect to Central and Eastern varieties (see e.g. Neira Martínez 1991: 453; Viejo Fernández 2003: 10), though there are diverging views as to which among Central and Eastern Asturian is more conservative, as schematized in (46): (46) a. Latin >

Western >

Eastern >

Central Neira Martínez (1991: 440, 453)

b. Latin >

Western >

Central >

Eastern García Arias (2003a: 30, n. 30)

According to Neira Martínez (1991: 440, 453), lack of the ‑u vs ‑o contrast on the noun in the Eastern dialects mirrors an earlier situation than in Central Asturian ((46a)), while according to García Arias (2003a: 30, n. 30), Eastern Asturian has lost a formerly more regular contrast in that domain ((46b)). Be that as it may, Eastern Asturian is like Central Asturian in that it shows nonfeminine agreement with feminine (in gender 1) mass nouns, on the non-prenominal adjective ((45i.a)), although this is signalled syncretically with masculine agreement, given the lack of an ‑o vs ‑u contrast in adjective inflection. Examples, from the bable of Llanes, in the north-east, include: l’erba tá ya ensuchu ‘def:f grass(f,n) is already dried:n’, una cuayada más buenu ‘a:f very good:n curd(f,n)’ with the same agreeing form of the adjective as, say, l’hígadu ‘def liver(m,n)’ or el xatu negru ‘the:m black:m calf(m,mc)’, contrasting with feminine count la xata negra ‘the:f black:f heifer(f,fc)’ (Llaca 1979: 34f., 42). This syncretism is schematized in (47iii): (47) Adjective inflection in the elsewhere context (postnominal and predicative) in Asturian:

a. countable b. mass

i. Western m

f

-U

-a

ii. Central m -u -o

f -a

iii. Eastern m -u

f -a

7.5  Continuity vs discontinuity in the Latin-Romance neuter(s): Asturian again

261

Since the Western system (47i) is most conservative,48 just as for Central-Southern Italo-Romance (see (44a.ii)) it is clear that the o-ending of Central Asturian, contrasting with ‑u in adjective inflection, must be an innovation and cannot represent the direct carryover of any Latin phonemic contrast, unlike what is implied by the hypotheses in (42b–c). We are then left with (42a) as the only viable option: the ‑o vs ‑u contrast in adjective inflection in Central Asturian must have been transferred analogically from where it had been preserved throughout, that is, in the inflection of demonstrative pronouns, clitics, and definite articles, the latter featuring lo only in the kind of context exemplified in (45c). In fact, Neira Martínez (1991: 449), Lüdtke (1965: 493, 2003: 12), and Fernández-Ordóñez (2006–07: 2.56f.) agree in claiming that the preservation of the n ‑o vs m ‑u contrast was guaranteed by the forms of the demonstrative pronouns. Consequently, the only function that the neuter had kept in the transitional period that preceded the rise of the Central Asturian concurrent systems—still represented today by Western Asturian as seen in (46)–(47)—must have been that of pronominalizing/resuming non-nominal controllers.49 In other words, the Asturian systems all developed out of an earlier system identical with that of modern Standard Spanish (see §4.3.4). This is confirmed by geolinguistic and philological evidence. In fact, o-agreement with feminine mass nouns is not limited to Asturias, but spans the adjacent dialects of Cantabria and western and central Castile from Palencia and Burgos to Toledo. In this area, one finds examples such as the following (cited by Fernández-Ordóñez 2006–07: 1.89 from the COSER data): (48) a. l-a paja era muy buen-o (Valle de Cerrato) ‘def-f.sg straw was very good-n’ b. harina tostad-a era buenísimo, hija (Villamoronta) ‘toasted-f.sg flour was very good-n, my daughter’ Similar examples also occur in Old Castilian texts:50 (49) a. pidió agua a las manos, / e tiéne=ge=lo delant e diéron=ge=lo privado ‘he asked for water(f) to (wash) his hands, and they brought it:n before him, and quickly gave it:n to him’ (Cid 1049–50; Penny 1970a: 154, n. 4); b. si tomaren pimienta molida. E lo mezclaren con quanto un auellana de manteca e gelo fizieren tragar ‘they took ground:f pepper(f). And they mixed it:n with a nut of butter and they let him swallow it:n’ (Moamyn, Libro de las animalias 54v; Harris Northall 2005: 169f.). 48  In Western Asturian, the outcomes of PRom final ‑o and ‑u merge into one phoneme, with realizations varying between ‑[o] and ‑[u]: hence the notation ‑U in (47i) (after Cano González 2009: 39). 49  As Fernández Ordóñez (2006–07: 2.62) puts it: ‘El punto de partida es, pues, la expansión analógica de un antiguo demostrativo neutro. Pero hay que precisar que el contenido neutro expandido poco tiene que ver ya con la denotación del género léxico neutro del latín’ [‘The starting point is then the analogical expansion of an old neuter demonstrative. But one must specify that the content of the neuter that spreads has little to do with the denotation of the lexical neuter gender of Latin’]. So, during the transition—as still today in Western Asturian—these forms were never selected for agreement with any nominal lexeme. 50  Matute (2004) provides a detailed account of the rise of ‑o agreement with mass nouns—starting first with masculine nouns, later with feminines—in the diachrony of Castilian. On the gradual diffusion of o-agreement with feminine mass nouns in Castile see also, more recently, Gómez Seibane and Vázquez Balonga (2013).

262

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

Needless to say, examples of o-agreement with feminine mass nouns also occur in Old Asturian. However, as emphasized by García Arias (1994: xxvii, 2003b: 353), they still compete at that time, in texts which represent the diachronic antecedent of modern Central Asturian, with inherited feminine a-agreement: (50) a. si uassura echar de sua casa enlas calellas […] tuella lo ende ‘should (anyone) throw litter(f,n) from his house into the streets, let him remove it:n thence’ (thirteenth-century Fueru d’Uvieu 31: see Cano 1995: 19, 35) b. diez fanegas de bona escanda limpio e pisado ‘ten fanegas (a measure: about 60 kg) of good grain(f) clean:n and trod:n’ (fourteenth century: see Neira Martínez 1978: 171, cit. by Hualde 1992: 108) Fernández-Ordóñez (2006–07: 2.66) provides a quantification of her textual evidence that mirrors the geographical and structural steps through which o-agreement with feminine mass nouns was established in Castilian and Cantabrian varieties (reported, with modifications, in (51)): (51) The gradual spread (% of relevant occurrences) of o-agreement with feminine mass nouns: Postnominal Adjective adjective with copula (modifying, ser NP-internal) Central-Eastern Asturias Cantabria Castile

29% 10% –

40.5% 35% 18.5%

Adjective with copula estar 58.7% 55% 51.2%

Postnominal Pronoun predicative adjective 65% 59.3% 53.3%

86.4% 81.5% 76.5%

All this demonstrates that Asturian, having preserved inherited neuter pronominal agreement targets which were originally used only with non-nominal controllers, has gradually extended them to mark agreement with feminine mass nouns. The geographical skewing seen along the vertical dimension in (51) reflects the geographical steps in this spread, while the increasing figures towards the left reflect gradual expansion across syntactic structures, with a peak of o-agreement on qualifying adjectives (e.g. una comida curios-o ‘a:f.sg strange-n food(f)’ [from Muncó], see FernándezOrdóñez 2006–07: 1.74). However, a further inference drawn by the quoted authors is that the same development must have happened in central-southern Italy. This is a type (40b) position, which comes in different flavours. Fernández-Ordóñez (2006– 07: 2.66) considers o-agreement in both Romance areas as a ‘tipo especial de concordáncia semántica’ [‘special type of semantic agreement’], a definition which, strictly speaking, does not seem to suit the synchronic data of modern Central Asturian in which, as we saw in Chapter 5, o-agreement expresses a morphosyntactic feature value in the second gender system. In addition, this feature value is defined semantically in its canonical uses with nominal controllers.51 This is not ‘semantic 51  Remember, however, that ‑o also serves default functions (as seen in rules (47), (48), and (62d), Ch. 5), to which the semantic definition, appropriate for agreement with nouns, does not apply.

7.5  Continuity vs discontinuity in the Latin-Romance neuter(s): Asturian again

263

agreement’, which occurs when the morphosyntactic feature specification of the agreement controller is overridden (see Corbett 2000: 188–91, 2006: 155–60, and the examples in (133), (135), Ch. 4, and (67) below). Fernández-Ordóñez (2006–07: 2.67) goes on to claim that the same is the case for Central Italo-Romance: ‘Los dialectos italianos parecen mostrar el camino por el que podría llegar a crearse un género lexico’ [‘Italian dialects seem to indicate the path through which a lexical gender may become established’]. This view depends on an analysis of the Central(-Southern) Italian mass neuter of type (142b), Chapter 4 (refuted in §4.5.4), such as that by Haase (2000), who claims: It is […] possible that the neuter will become a gender: some areas of the Central Italian dialect continuum (Spello) have developed special neuter endings of nouns and adjectives, and hence show adjectival agreement with neuter nouns. […] the current situation of the neuter as a semantically-based noun class is stable, and it is by no means sure that it will desemanticize into a gender. (Haase 2000: 227)

Indeed Spellano, like Central Marchigiano (see §4.5.2), has developed overt gender marking on class two neuter nouns (e.g. lo piommo ‘def:n lead(n)’ vs lu piummu ‘def:m.sg plumb line(m)’, seen in (124c–d), Ch. 4; see Ugoccioni 1993: xx, n. 18f.), as well as m vs n agreement on adjectives and participles (see (125a–b), Ch. 4). But the establishment of such contrasts presupposes that the neuter is recognized as a gender value, via the usual agreement test, rather than be a precondition, as Haase seems to imply. Lüdtke (1965: 495, 2003: 12), on the other hand, does not deny that the central Italian neuter is a gender (i.e. a morphosyntactic, rather than purely semantic, entity), but he also considers it a Romance innovation, arising from the superposition of the semantic specification [–count] onto the neuter agreement targets which had survived into Romance, at an earlier stage, only for pronominalizing non-lexical controllers: En una segunda etapa, esa nueva categoría gramatical italo-hispánica continúa desarrollándose, pero con rumbos divergentes, a saber, extendiéndose, en Hispania, al femenino: astur. la lleche ta frío, norteño la leche lo compran; pero eso sucede sólo en Hispania mientras en Italia el desarrollo ulterior lleva a la propagación de la desinencia ‑o tanto al sustantivo como al artículo, de manera que se restituye, hasta cierto punto, el sistema de los tres géneros (Lüdtke 2003: 12) [In a second stage, this new Italo-Hispanic grammatical category further develops, though bound for different goals, i.e., spreading to the feminine in Hispania: astur. la lleche ta frío ‘def:f milk(f) is cold:n’, Northern Spanish la leche lo compran ‘def:f milk(f), they buy it:n’; but this happens only in Hispania while in Italy the further development leads to the extension of the ‑o ending to both the noun and the article, so that, to a certain extent, the three-gender system is restored].

As we saw above, an ‘extension of the ‑o ending to both the noun and the article’ never happened, since, while this is correct for noun inflection, there is evidence that the contrast in articles (i.e. on agreement targets within the NP, with nominal controllers) was preserved throughout: see, again, the Old Maceratese textual evidence mentioned in n. 97, Chapter 4. Hence the claim that the Central-Southern Italian neuter, as a lexical gender, is an innovation on a par with the Central Asturian neuter is unwarranted. Rather, central-southern Italy, as argued in §§7.3–7.4.1, shows diachronic continuity of the neuter in both form and function, and both gender assignment and

264

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

gender agreement, and provides no evidence of a discontinuity such as that manifested in the rise, in the Asturias, of the second gender system, the one whose third value is the Asturian neuter.

7.6  The desemanticization of grammatical gender As shown in §§7.3–7.4, the early Romance four-gender system, which still survives into several Italo-Romance dialects, arose through a split of the neuter, which resulted in two semantically motivated genders: the mass neuter (see §4.5.4) and the other neuter, which hosted nouns denoting entities with ‘weakly individuated plurals’ (Acquaviva 2004: 262, cited in n. 21, Ch. 4) and was later to become an alternating gender (see §6.5). Contrary to the mass neuter, which retained its semantic motivation throughout, the alternating gender became conventionalized in most varieties, as seen by the fact that the nouns assigned to it may denote all kinds of entities, as has been illustrated throughout §§4.4–4.5. What unites all nouns which display the alternating agreement pattern in those dialects is not necessarily (any more) a common semantic denominator but simply the fact that they share the common gender agreement pattern they trigger on associated words, and hence satisfy the definition of gender in (3), Chapter  1. That the semantics is non-criterial here is easily demonstrated by the lists of alternating neuter lexemes provided for Molfetta by Merlo (1917b: 81–3) where, as exemplified in (91), Chapter 4, one finds not only body parts or nouns whose plural have a mass interpretation, but also a host of lexemes denoting countable objects whose plurals cannot possibly be conceptualized as denoting sets of ‘weakly individualized referents’ (Acquaviva 2004: 262)—and even nouns denoting animate referents. This could easily be repeated for dialect after dialect, and indeed, as we saw in §4.5.3, the extension of this gender goes so far as to include lexemes denoting human beings in dialects like Agnonese, and the same goes for other dialects of Molise such as those of Isernia (lə nəpótəra/vətélləra ‘the.f nephews/calves’, see De Giovanni 2003: 109f.) or Oratino (province of Campobasso: lə marétəra ‘the.f husbands’, see Chiocchio 2012: 154). The dictionary counts in Loporcaro and Pedrazzoli (2016) (see (137), Ch. 4) show that this fourth gender is on its way to depletion, and that this happens through an intermediate stage in which almost all alternating neuter lexemes can also optionally take masculine agreement (distinct in the plural). Thus, the pairings of morphological form (of the relevant agreement targets) and lexical semantics (of the controller nouns involved) that define the two neuters in Central-Southern ItaloRomance and whose rise was investigated in §§7.3–7.4.1, have a specular destiny: the mass neuter, as it gets depleted, dies with its semantic boots on, since it progressively yields to the masculine, in terms of lexical and syntactic productivity and contexts of use, but keeps its (unidirectional, exclusive) association with masshood until the end. The alternating neuter, on the contrary, first loses its original semantic correlate to then dissolve as its members are progressively reassigned to the masculine.



7.7  The (re)semanticization of grammatical gender

265

7.7  The (re)semanticization of grammatical gender Alongside cases in which grammatical gender becomes conventionalized, the diachrony of Romance gender systems also offers specular cases in which a semantic association/ definition for this or that gender value in the system—though never for the gender system in its entirety—is established, that was not there before. As we saw, the Romanian neuter inherits the semantic definition of the Latin neuter, with its exclusive (though, as stressed many times, not biunique) association with inanimacy. Likewise, masshood correlates with the Central-Southern Italian mass neuter, non-biuniquely, while biuniqueness characterizes mass nouns within the second gender system in Central Asturian, in the sense that not only do neuter nouns all denote mass, but also in that every last nominal lexeme denoting mass is assigned to the neuter. While all the different cases of semantic definition now reviewed concern the neuter(s)—that is the different gender values in different systems, all to be traced back to the Latin neuter (if only for the form of the agreement targets, as in Asturian)— there are also cases reported, albeit much more rarely, in which the masculine, although an outcome of the conventionalized masculine of Latin, becomes a semantic gender via language change. We have seen one such case for modern Viterbese in §3.1.3 and another one for Altamurano in (79), Chapter. 4. For the linguistic history of Latin-Romance, before the present monograph, that is news: so, the fact that the masculine occasionally becomes fully semanticized deserves to be underscored. For the Apulian case, again, the driving force for the masculine becoming strictly semantic was changes originating in the neuter. This is schematized in (52): (52) a. Latin sg m -us n

-um

f

-a

i iii ii

pl -i -a -ae

b. Altamurano I c. Altamurano II sg pl m i [+met] m [+met] [+met] > [–met] > iii [–met] f [–met] f [–met] ii

Legend: [+met] = metaphonic alternant of class one adjectives, e.g. frišk ‘fresh.m’, kwʊrt ‘short.m’, leɲɲ ‘long.m’, ɲɲʊˑur̯ ‘black.m’, ryss ‘red.m’, tert ‘crooked.m [–met] = non-metaphonic alternant of class one adjectives, e.g. frεšk ‘fresh.f’, kɔrt ‘short.f’, løɲɲ ‘long.f’, ɲɲa ˑur̯ ‘black.f’, rɔss ‘red.f’, tørt ‘crooked.f’ As described in §4.4.2, Altamurano has generalized the alternating agreement—born as the diachronic successor of dedicated neuter agreement when the system changed from a three-target to a three-controller gender system ((52a) > (52b))—to all nonfeminine nouns except those denoting male humans. Given the merger of final unstressed vowels, agreement is now manifested in Altamurano only on the internal inflection of adjectives and participles whose stressed vowels underwent metaphony. As synthesized in (53), this leaves us uncertain as to whether the plural markers in alternating agreement are ultimately rooted in stage (21b), and are thus an outcome of

266

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

neuter plural a-ending forms, or represent the later stage (21c), with generalization of  the feminine. Synchronically, they are identical with the f.sg form (e.g. bbou̯n ‘good.f.sg’), which is compatible, in terms of sound change, with both feminine (bonae/-as) or neuter plural (bona): (53)  The rise of Altamurano alternating agreement (gender iii): Lat. unu(m) bonu(m) ovu(m) > Altam. n eːfə bbwei̯n ‘a good.m egg’ ova bona or bonae/-as joːfə bbou̯n ‘good.f eggs’ As a residue of this change, only nouns denoting male humans have remained in the masculine, which brought the strictly semantic gender assignment rule for this gender value into being. While the alternating agreement generalized, some of the noun morphology originally associated with the neuter—that is ‑ora plurals—has also expanded, but thereby losing its association with a morphosyntactic gender value: (54) The divorce between-ora plural and the alternating gender in Altamurano: singular a

ʊ

pweːtə

b. m

l ʊ l

awʊttsə mwarIːtə awʊkεːtə

a.

plural leɲɲ bbweˑin̯

I

pIˑə̯tə

l I l

awɔ́ttsərə marέːtərə awʊkaːtrə

løɲɲ bbweˑin̯

‘the long foot’ ‘the long asphodel’ ‘the good husband’ ‘the good lawyer’

Altamurano a wɔ´ttsərə ‘asphodels’, the plural of albūcium (> a wʊ´tts), presupposes *albūci‑ora, but the same plural morph has also been extended to nouns denoting male humans which nevertheless, in compliance with the gender agreement regularities schematized in (79), Chapter 4, take masculine agreement in the plural, as shown in (54b) by the form of the adjective bbweˑi̯n.52 As said above when commenting on (79), Chapter 4, this system is presently yielding to a convergent system ((52c)), via the generalization of the formerly f.pl form. This is, at stage (52b), the default form for plural agreement, given that f.pl is selected in a more narrowly specified environment: thus, change to the convergent system represents a simplification whose seeds are already in the system at the previous stage. Note finally that the change (52b) > (52c) involves loss of the semantically defined masculine and the restoration of a purely conventional distribution of nouns across genders (with the usual sex-based semantic nuclei for masculine and feminine): this final desemanticization, thus, is the mirror-image of the contact-induced change seen in (38), Chapter 3, which brought the semantic masculine of Pianoscaranese (urban Viterbese) into existence. Among the dialects of Puglia, there is another for which a semanticization of the masculine has been described: it is the dialect of Mola di Bari, whose gender system is schematized in (55), based on Cox’s (1982) description: 52  On the other hand, in other CSItRom dialects the spread of ‑ora plurals goes hand in hand with that of the alternating neuter, as is the case for Agnonese (v. (131c), Ch. 4).



7.7  The (re)semanticization of grammatical gender

267

(55) Mola di Bari: after Cox (1982: 67–70, 78–82) integrated with fieldwork data ʊ

a. b.

n m

c.

a

ʊ

d.

f

a

singular ppɑˑi̯pə rɔssə krəstijɜːnə rɔssə kɜːnə bbuːnə lεbbrə rɔssə peššə bbuːnə soːra bboːnə rossə čəpodda

I

plural Ø krəstijɜːnə kɜːnə lεbbrə pεššə sərəu̯rə čəpoddə

rɔssə bbuːnə rossə bboːnə bboːnə rossə

‘def red pepper’ ‘the red person (m)’ ‘the good (= tame) dog’ ‘the red book’ ‘def good (= delicious) fish’ ‘the good sister’ ‘the red onion’

A difference with respect to Altamurano is that in Molese—where, as in Altamurano, alternating gender is visible only on some adjectives (see Cox 1982 for details)—male animals like ‘dog’ pattern with human males (i.e. they are masculine), but switch to the alternating gender when dead, for example if regarded as food (and the same goes for epicenes like ‘fish’, whose gender is arbitrary): (56) a. ɪ kɜːnə bbuːnə ‘good dogs’ ɪ kənɛggjə bbuːnə ‘good rabbits’ (alive) b. ɪ pɛššə bboːnə ‘good fish’ (plural) ɪ kənɛggjə bboːnə ‘good rabbits’ (as food)

(Molese; Cox 1982: 81f.)

Symmetrically, if an animal, though categorized more often as food (e.g. a fish such as the ‘conger’, (57a)), is conceived of in terms of its behaviour, as in (57b), then m plural agreement becomes an option, while it is barred in (57a): (57)

a. ɪ ruŋgə so bboːnə/**bbuːnə frɛttə (Mola, fieldwork 2015) ‘congers are good fried’ b. ɪ ruŋgə mʊttsəkwéːšənə | na n dzo bbuːnə/bboːnə | so mma ləma ndrə ‘congers bite: they are not good, they are bad’

Thus, in Molese, as in Altamurano, the neuter has spread to become an alternating gender (55c) that spans all non-feminine inanimates (rather than all non-humans), whereas the masculine is assigned to nouns designating animate males (human and not). Not unlike in Altamurano, in Molese the signalling of gender contrasts is much less salient than in Italian: indeed, Cox (1982: 81f.) illustrates the working of plural agreement with [±animate] masculines by means of only two adjectives, ‘good’ and ‘red’, for which his paradigm synopsis on page 79 indicates as masculine plural only bbonə and rossə, identical to the feminine. While reporting the phrases in (56) Cox (1982: 81) adds that the adjectives so inflected (his Class III, here reproduced in (58a)) ‘ “switch” to Class IV [here (58b), M.L.] when the head noun is [+animate]’: (58)

a. Cl. III frɛškə ‘fresh’ m.sg ≠ freškə f.sg, m=f.pl (= bbuːnə, rɔssə, luŋgə ‘long’) b. Cl. IV sɔrdə ‘deaf ’ m ≠ sordə f (= tɛndə ‘bad’, a pirtə ‘open’, etc.)

In fieldwork in 2015 I also observed that the adjectives going back to Latin class one, exemplified in (58), divide into several classes in Molese. Thus, for example tíːnərə

268

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

‘soft/tender’ displays a contrast of type (58b), independently of animacy, for masculines as well as for feminines: (59) singular

plural

m nu spáːrəgə/n ɔːmə tínərə I spáːrəgə/l úːmənə tíːnərə ‘a soft asparagus/a tender man’ ̯ téːnərə f na čəkwaira

I čəkwairə ̯ téːnərə

‘indf soft chicory’

The diverging allomorph distribution shaping the contrast in (58a–b), repeated in (60b–c), is a product of a split in the outcomes of Latin class one. Adding the heirs of class two adjectives such as verdə ‘green’ (Molese Class I, in Cox’s 1982: 79 description), the three options in (60) result. Comparing (60a), which syncretizes all gender values and only contrasts number, it becomes evident that alternating gender is visible only given the existence of adjectives inflected like (60b), the only ones to display the alternation, while syncretism obscures the contrast between m and a in the remaining paradigms:53 (60)

Molese adjective inflection [partial] a. I cl.: m a f

sg

pl

verdə

virdə

‘green’

b. III cl.: sg pl m frεškə a f freškə ‘fresh’

c. IV cl.: m a f

sg

pl tíːnərə

téːnərə ‘tender/soft’

Cox’s (1982: 79) synopsis includes two more classes: invariable adjectives like gra nnə ‘big’, whose stressed vowel did not undergo metaphony, and some adjectives whose stressed vowel was affected by metaphony and that also go back to Latin class one, but with still another allomorph distribution, such as cei̯nə ‘full’ m.sg, m.pl, f.pl ≠ ca i̯nə f.sg. The statement of the Molese facts is further complicated by the existence of two subvarieties, the sailors’ and the farmers’, perceived as distinct lects by the community and indeed diverging in phonetics and morphosyntax. The data on the gender agreement alternation with adjectives inflected as in (58a)/(60b), reported by Cox, ­correspond to what I have observed in speakers of the former subdialect, while in the farmers’ variety only bbuːnə ‘good’ alternates consistently as shown in (55)–(57), while other adjectives like kɔrtə ‘short’, luŋgə ‘long’, rɔssə ‘red’ do not, with the masculine form occurring in the plural irrespective of the animacy of the head noun. Thus, in this case too, as in Altamurano, one has to underscore the frailty of genderagreement in Molese. While a plain binary m vs f contrast of the Standard Italian kind is easier to retain—as seen in all dialects of the upper south (including most dialects of Puglia), after the merger of final vowels, thanks to stressed vowel alternations arising via metaphony—as soon as the agreement options become more complicated the 53  Mass neuter ((55a)) is omitted for simplicity here, as it contrasts with m.sg only on the definite article, never on the adjective.



7.8  The rise of new gender values: or masculine wives and sisters

269

opacity of the system is enhanced and so is the pressure for contrast reduction. In Molese, this affected the alternating gender, whose marking is entrusted, in the sailors’ variety, to just a few adjectives, while the f ≠ m ≠ n contrasts are signalled more robustly, in the singular, on the definite article and adnominal demonstratives. However, in (27)–(29) we can see that the mass neuter is merging with the masculine: thus, the trend for at least parts of the Molese speech community is to reduce the gender system to a binary m vs f contrast.

7.8  The rise of new gender values: or, masculine wives and sisters in southern Italy While the diachronic changes from the different Romance branches reviewed so far generally involved the loss—in various forms and through quite diverse intermediate steps—of one gender value, we have seen one spectacular case in which the inherited gender system has fissioned into two distinct, though interrelated, systems (§5.4). In addition, we have seen one case in which one gender value, the neuter, has split giving rise to two values (see §7.4.1). Another case in point, discovered only recently when the relevant data have been put into the right perspective, involves the feminine gender: the stock of inherited Latin feminine nouns, in fact, was separated into two genders in some varieties of Italo-Romance. This kind of system is exemplified for the Calabrian dialect of Bocchigliero (province of Cosenza; see Cappellaro et al. 2012; Cappellaro 2015):54 (61)

a. b. c. d.

singular u príevite a pupa u tíempu a vutta

plural i príeviti e pupe e tíempure i vutti

Bocchiglierese gender I gender II gender III gender IV

‘priest’ ‘doll’ ‘time’ ‘barrel’

As schematized in (62), the system features a new alternating gender IV (61d), which combines feminine agreement in the singular (compare (61b)) with masculine agreement in the plural (compare (61a)), and is thus symmetrical to the inherited alternating neuter (61c) shared by all dialects of the central-southern Italian area considered so far: (62) 

sing

plur

m -u f -a

-i

i iii

iv ii

-e

54  In (61) and in the following datasets, gender agreement is exemplified with class one adjectives and definite articles. These Calabrian data are given in Italian orthography, because they come either from sources adopting this convention (for Bocchigliero) or from answers to a written questionnaire (San Giovanni in Fiore; Biagio Mele, p.c.).

270

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

Genders III and IV are further exemplified in (63): (63)

sg (f) a. a vutta a sèrpa a rutta l arma

pl (m) i vutti i síerpi i rutti i armi

sg (m) ‘barrel’ b. u gangaríellu ‘snake’ u peccatu ‘cave’ l úovu ‘weapon’ u vette

pl (f) e gangarèlle e peccate l òve e víetture

‘chin’ ‘sin’ ‘egg’ ‘pole’ etc.

Note that in Bocchiglierese even the word for ‘wife’ used to belong in this agreement class, according to Scafoglio (1928–31: 35) (cited in Cappellaro 2015: 223, (63a)), while in the contemporary dialect Cappellaro observes f.pl ((64b)) instead of m.pl agreement: (64) a. sg. a muglière ‘the.f.sg wife’, pl. i muglíeri ‘the.m.pl wives’ (1928) b. ditto e muglière ‘the.f.pl wives’ (2012) The earlier plural agreement pattern justifies Cappellaro et al.’s (2012) humorous title ‘The masculine wives of southern Italy’, and provides—alongside Agnonese ‘feminine husbands’ (see (131c), Ch. 4)—more evidence for the non-universality of a direct mapping of N-/S- onto L-gender (see §1.1). The same is the case for the examples of m.pl ‘sisters’, ‘nieces’, and ‘virgins’ seen below for (Old) Salentino in (71b), (74). The change in (64), on the other hand, is evidence for the trend for such a mapping to be re-established, whenever disrupted by morphologically conditioned change such as that which led to the rise of the fourth gender (see directly below, (69)). In (64), the innovative gender IV assignment was overridden by a semantic assignment rule. This type of system occurs in several dialects of northern Calabria, as further exemplified with that of San Giovanni in Fiore (in the province of Cosenza): (65) dialect of San Giovanni in Fiore (province of Cosenza, Calabria; B. Mele p.c.) sing plur Romance IC Latin IC gloss ‘the new house(f)’ a. a cas-a nòv-a e cas-e nòv-e 1st 1st ‘the new dress(f)’ a vèst-a nòv-a e vèst-e nòv-e ‘the high tower(f)’ a turr-e aut-a e turr-i aut-e 3rd 3rd ‘the short key(iv)’ b. a chiav-e curt-a i chiav-i curt-i ‘the short foot(m)’ c. u pèr-e curt-u i píer-i curt-i ‘the good son(m)’ u figli-u bbúon-u i figl-i bbúon-i 2nd 2nd

In (65), the usual (for Romance) mismatch between gender and IC is highlighted through boxes. The IC schema on the right-hand side indicates changes in IC membership from Latin to Sangiovannese. Some of these have established a tighter correspondence between IC and gender, as seen in the outcomes of Latin class three lexemes. Nouns like turre/‑i (feminine, (65a)) and père/píeri (masculine, (65c)) have preserved the original gender and stayed in the original IC. On the other hand, fem­ inines like Lat. vestem ‘clothes’ were attracted into the 1st IC (vesta/-e), unambiguously associated with feminine gender (as in Italian and unlike in Ibero-Romance or



7.8  The rise of new gender values: or masculine wives and sisters

271

Sardinian) and now inflect like casa/-e.55 Finally, originally feminine class three nouns like chiave/-i, in between, display alternating gender agreement. This set of nouns, representing the fourth gender class indicated as ‘iv’ in the gloss to (65b), is not restricted to just two or three items, unlike in French (where only amour ‘love’, délice ‘delight’, and orgue ‘organ’ take msg/fpl agreement; Corbett  1991: 172). Rather, they are a sizeable group (although precise quantifications are not available), as exemplified in (66): (66) sg (f) a carne a fúorfice a muglière a nòtte a nuce a vuce

pl (m) i carni i fúorfici i muglíeri i nòtti i nuci i vuci

‘meat, flesh’ ‘scissors’ ‘wife’ ‘night’ ‘nut’ ‘voice’  etc.

Sangiovannese

This agreement class, in Sangiovannese (at least for elderly, conservative speakers), still includes muglière ‘wife(iv)’, which consequently has not reverted to the feminine, unlike in Bocchiglierese. Much like Agnonese ‘husbands’ in (133), (135), Chapter 4, Sangiovannese ‘wives’ also shows different agreement options, only in the plural, across targets, thus qualifying as split hybrids (a2 in the glosses stands for the second alternating gender, m.sg/f.pl; judgements by an eighty-year-old informant): (67) a. na vota alla casa 

 i   marit-i   er-u     cchill-i/**cchill-e  once   at  home  def.m.pl husband(m)-pl be.impf-3pl  dem_dist-m.pl/-f.pl chi  cummanáv-uri:  ccur  ill-i/**ill-e    un    se     potí-a  ddiscút-ere rel rule.impf-3pl   with  3-m.pl/3-f.pl  neg refl can.impf-3sg discuss-inf ‘once at home husbands were those who ruled: it was impossible to discuss with them’

b. na vota alla casa   i     muglíer-i   er-u     cchill-e/**cchill-i    once   at  home  def.m.pl wife(a2)-pl be.impf-3pl  dem_dist-f.pl/-m.pl  chi    cummanáv-uri:  ccur  ill-e/**ill-i    un    se     potí-a  ddiscút-ere rel  rule.impf-3pl      with  3-f.pl/3-m.pl  neg  refl can.impf-3sg discuss-inf ‘once at home wives were those who ruled: it was impossible to discuss with them’

As seen in (67b), i muglíeri, while taking m.pl agreement on determiners (and all adnominal agreement targets within the NP), are obligatorily resumed with a f.pl personal pronoun (for instance when used predicatively), as expected given its semantics, while the m.pl—illustrated with ‘husbands’ in (67a)—is ungrammatical.56 On the contrary, gender IV nouns with alternating agreement from the list in (66) 55  Among those displayed, class three is the only one originally hosting both masculine and feminine nouns: in fact, in Sangiovannese class one exclusively contains feminine nouns, since Italian masculine loans in ‑a (poeta, socialista) take ‑i in the plural, while class two has not acquired the exception ‘hand’ found in Italian and elsewhere, since in Sangiovannese a mɜ˜ːnʊ/ɪ mɜ˜ːnʊ ‘the hand/‑s’ has a plural which is a regular outcome of Lat. fourth declension acc.pl manūs, and was not attracted into the ‑ʊ /‑ɪ IC (unlike It. mano/-i). Thus, for Sangiovannese too, one observes the same ‘strong tendency towards systemic alignment of ending and gender’ that Cappellaro (2015: 223) remarks for nearby Bocchiglierese (see (61)). 56  Not unlike in Agnonese (see (133), Ch. 4), relative pronouns do not agree by (number and) gender and thus do not afford a relevant test, and the same is the case for DO pronominal clitics.

272

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

which do not denote female humans, such as ‘key’, select m.pl across agreement targets ((68a)), in the same way as they select f.sg agreement in the singular ((68b)): chiav-i e a casa (68) a. i def.m.pl key(a2)-pl of the home ‘these are the home keys’ b. a chiav-e e a casa def.f.sg key(a2)-sg of the home ‘this is the home key’

su be.prs.3pl

cchiss-i/**-e dem_prox-m.pl/f.pl

e cchiss-a be.prs-3sg dem_prox-f.sg

The change that brought this gender IV into being was first observed and explained by Merlo (1917b: 89): (69) Codesto li che accompagna i soli sostantivi femminili di terza, non può non essere da livellamento analogico sulla desinenza in -īs (-ēs) dei sostantivi stessi [‘This li that accompanies only class three feminine nouns, cannot but stem from analogical levelling onto the -īs (-ēs) ending of the nouns themselves’]. In those varieties inflectional class (a purely morphological category) had an impact on the gender system, and drove the change from previous le croci (feminine) to li croci. The output of this change—if one accepts the target vs controller gender distinction (7), Chapter 1—is that a new controller gender has arisen in these Calabrian dialects. Since this is symmetrical to the Romanian (and early Italo-Romance) alternating neuter, this change, as schematized in (62), created a more symmetrical system, thus exploiting more completely the available morphological resources for gender agreement. Merlo (1917b: 89f.) pointed to traces of the agreement pattern in (66)—and hence, of a fourth alternating gender—in Salentino, with data from Lecce, Maglie, and Presicce, observing himself that these are ‘un prezioso avanzo di condizioni tramontate in età più o meno recente’ [‘a valuable relic of a state of affairs that dissolved at a more or less recent time’] (1917b: 90). Contemporary Leccese still has nouns with alternating gender agreement (the alternating neuter, i.e. gender III in (62); see Morosi 1878: 131; Merlo 1917b: 89; Mancarella 1975: 32, 1998: 147), distributed across different inflectional classes. However, the successor of the one with ora-plural (which was reshaped, after class one feminines, into ‑ure/-uri as in Romanian) is ‘now restricted to a handful of items where it freely alternates with masculine plurals in ‑i’ (Ledgeway 2016: 255): (70) Leccese ICs associated with the alternating neuter IC subclass sg pl example A A (lu) tíšitu (le) tíšite i. (lu) rattsu (le) ra ttse (lu) šenuccu (le) šenucce (w)ε ɔ ii. A B (l) ɔe (lu) (w)εu e ɔ (l) essu (l) ɔsse iii. a. A A-re (lu) nitu (le) níture b. A B-re (lu) fwεku (le) fɔ́ka re iv. A A-te (lu) trɔnu (le) trɔ́nate

gloss ‘finger/-s’ ‘arm/-s’ ‘knee/-s’ ‘egg/-s’ ‘bone/-s’ ‘nest/-s’ ‘fire/-s’ ‘thunder/-s’



7.8  The rise of new gender values: or masculine wives and sisters

273

Unlike the dialects reviewed in §4.5, Leccese has never displayed any trace of mass neuter since its earliest documentation. On the other hand, Leccese and nearby Salentino display the remnants of the fourth alternating gender, which have grown even fainter, as remarked by Merlo (see Formentin and Loporcaro 2012: 261f., n. 81), being now restricted to just a few lexical items, as exemplified for the dialect of Parabita (province of Lecce) in (71) (from A. Romano 2009: 111, 43, 86; and p.c., July 2012): (71) a. a noce ‘the walnut’, m.pl. i noci (vs a chiave/e chiai ‘the key(f)/-s’; a fija/e fije ‘the daughter(f)/-s’); b. a chiave/manu/soru ‘the.f.sg key/hand/sister/-s’, pl. i chiai curti ‘def.m.pl short:m.pl keys’; i mani (russi) ‘def.m.pl red:m.pl hands’, i suluri ‘def.m.pl sisters’; c. a chiave/manu/soru ‘the key/hand/sister(f)/-s’, pl. e chiavi/mani/soru; d. m’hannu mpilati i carni ‘I came out in goosepimples’ (lit. i carni m.pl of a carne ‘def.f.sg flesh/meat(f)’). As seen in (71a), Romano’s dictionary still reports some lexical items selecting this kind of alternating agreement. Moreover, current speakers recall earlier generations who used further items—among them, the plural of soru ‘sister’—which displayed the same agreement behaviour ((71b)) but have reverted to feminine in the contemporary dialect ((71c)). Gender IV agreement still persists in some fixed expressions (see (71d)), and the same is the case in other dialects of central-southern Salento even if they preserve no such remnants of m.pl agreement as (71a–b), such as that of Cellino San Marco (Franco Fanciullo, p.c. July 2012), where the lexeme in (71d) is the only remnant and gave rise to a lexical plural (Acquaviva 2008) li ka rni ‘complexion’ (e.g. pɔrta ɖɖi ka rni bbɛlli twɛsti twɛsti ‘s/he is plump’), and occurs in the idiom me rríttsika nu li ka rni ‘I came out in goosepimples’ (see also li ka rni ‘le pelli’—i.e. presumably ‘goosepimples’—for Novoli in Mancarella 1998: 146). Old Salentino—whose gender system is thoroughly studied in Maggiore (2013: 114–16, 2016: 252–62) based on a corpus that spans the tenth to the sixteenth century— shows the alternating neuter of the Romanian type. (It also features the remnants of dedicated neuter plural agreement already seen in (33), Ch. 6), as exemplified in (72) with the word granello/-a ‘seed, grain/-s’ from the fifteenth century Northern Salentino Sidrac (see Maggiore 2016: 82, and the edn. Sgrilli 1983: 273, 211.): (72) a. quillo granello diventaria arboro et faria fructo (Sidrac §173) ‘that:m.sg seed(a1) would become a tree and bear fruit’

b. Et lo angelo li donao tre granella et disse: porta queste allo tua patre (Sidrac §17) ‘And the angel gave him three grains(a1) and said: bring these:f.pl to your father’

While the mass neuter is unknown to Salentino in all of its stages, medieval and early modern texts show abundant evidence of the other alternating gender (a2), first documented in 1422 (Maggiore 2013: 80) and selected by a host of nouns, most of them (145 lexemes, according to Maggiore 2013: 86; see also Maggiore 2016: 256–61) stemming from Latin third declension, as exemplified in (73) (see Sgrilli 1983: 269) with the

274

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

masculine plurals from l-a condicione ‘the-f.sg condition(a2)’ and l-a gente ‘the-f.sg people(a2)’:57 stat-i et l-i condiciun-i de l-i gient-i (73) l-i def-m.pl state(m)-pl and def-m.pl condition(a2)-pl of def-m.pl people(a2)-pl non so’      ferm-i    né  stabil-i (Sidrac §164) neg be.prs.3pl firm-m.pl nor stable-m.pl ‘the states and conditions of people are neither firm nor stable’ Several of these nouns are not assigned unambiguously to gender IV. This applies for example to some nouns denoting female human beings. Thus, while matre ‘mother(f)’ and mugliere ‘wife(f)’ never show alternating gender IV agreement, this happens variably for soru ‘sister(f/a2)’, virgine ‘virgin(f/a2)’, or nepote ‘niece(f/a2)’, which also occur with feminine plural agreement, alongside the masculine plural exemplified in (74) (examples extracted by Maggiore 2013: 87 from a late fifteenth-century Salentino commentary on Boccaccio’s Teseida): soror-i (74) a. a-ll-i  to-def-m.pl sister(a2)-pl ‘to the sisters’ b. co-ll-i   virgin-i with-def-m.pl virgin(a2)-pl ‘with the virgins’ c. Sì como l-i neput-i de Belo so as def-m.pl niece(a2)-pl of Belo ‘like Belo’s nieces’ That the morphologically driven tendency towards reassignment to the fourth gender may have (variably) overridden semantic assignment to the feminine in this dialect area is confirmed by the modern Salentino remnants seen in (71b) above. However, vacillation in agreement between gender IV and the feminine is not limited to human-­ denoting nouns. As Maggiore (2013: 84f.) reports, the most frequent case is for alternating agreement to occur within the NP, while other agreement targets outside it are in the feminine plural, as exemplified in (75a–b), but the reverse also occurs, as shown in (75c) with data from the 1448 Booklet of the pestilence by the physician Nicolò di Ingegne (edn. Castrignanò 2014: 59, 93, 106): carn-j cald-i [...] l-e alterassi-vo 24v.b.5f. (75) a. l-j def-m.pl meat(a2)-pl hot-m.pl DO-f.pl alter:pst.sbjv-2pl ‘should you alter hot meat’ b. quest-i       febr-j      pestilenciat-i  nell-e  qual-j  38v.b.17f. dem.prox-m.pl fever(a2)-pl pestilent-m.pl in-f.pl rel-pl ‘these pestilential fevers in which […]’ 57  A substantial group of nouns derived with the suffix ‑itiem, stemming from the fifth declension, also select this agreement pattern in the Old Salentino corpus (see Maggiore 2013: 88).



7.8  The rise of new gender values: or masculine wives and sisters

275

c. alcun-e    di  quest-e   urin-e  sonno  tu(r)bulent-i  44r.a.1f. some-f.pl of dem.prox-f.pl urine(f/a2)-pl  are   turbid-m.pl ‘some of this urine is turbid’ In the same text however, mismatches, in both directions, also occur inside the NP (Castrignanò 2014: 58, 103): carn-j salvatich-e (76) a. tuct-i all-m.pl meat(f/a2)-pl wild-f.pl ‘all wild meat’ b. l-e urin-e mal-j def-f.pl urine(f/a2)-pl bad-m.pl ‘the unhealthy urine’

24r.b.26

42v.b.31

Maggiore (2013: 84f.) shows that the same is the case in the further Old Salentino texts in his corpus so that, all in all, the data seem to indicate a general vacillation in gender agreement on different targets and, hence, in gender assignment between gender IV and the feminine (mostly, but not exclusively, restricted to class three feminine nouns). In this situation, it seems unwarranted to single out the nouns in (74) and regard them as hybrids.58 The same kind of four-gender system has been described for Old Romanesco, based on textual evidence from the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries, in Formentin and Loporcaro (2012). Here too, the system, as already schematized in (62) above, features the two alternating genders exemplified in (77): (77) a. gender III sg lo castiello lo tiempo lo nome

pl

gloss

le castella le tempora le nomora

‘castle’ ‘time’ ‘noun, name’

b. gender IV sg l(a) oste l(a) arte la torre

pl

gloss

li uosti li arti li torri

‘army’ ‘art’ ‘tower’

Again, nouns assigned to the fourth gender (about forty in all) mostly stem from ­fem­inine nouns of Latin third declension, but take masculine agreement in the plural, as exemplified in (78) from the fourteenth century Cronica of Anonimo romano (edn. Porta 1979): (78)

sg a. l’oste ‘army’ b. l’arte ‘art, artifice’ c. la torre ‘tower’

pl Spesse voite se battevano questi uosti insiemmora (§9.196) ‘Often did these:m.pl armies fight’ era ingannato dalli suoi arti (§10.74) ‘he was deceived by his:m.pl artifices’ fornito con moiti torri (§26.126) ‘provided with many:m.pl towers’

58  Thanks to Grev Corbett and Marco Maggiore for discussing this point.

276

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction d. la votte ‘barrel’ e. la chiave ‘key’

li votti tutti erano venenati [manuscripts: venuti] (§23.165) ‘the:m.pl barrels were all:m.pl poisoned:m.pl’ colli chiavi (§17.332) ‘with the:m.pl keys’

Note that masculine plural agreement seen on definite articles, adjectives, DO clitics, and other targets contrasts with f.pl agreement seen for example in spesse voite ‘several times’ ((78a)). In addition to the morphological condition for assignment to the fourth gender requiring a paradigm like nave/-i ‘ship sg/pl’ (stemming from Latin third declension), in Old Romanesco a phonological constraint is at work, since change in plural agreement leading to this agreement pattern affected first and foremost bisyllabic nouns such as those in (78), while polysyllabic words underwent the change later and much less pervasively. This confirms the syntagmatic trigger of the change, with agreement on determiners originally influenced by the noun’s ending: the shorter the distance, the more likely the change. Furthermore, the cross-linguistically usual pre­ cedence of semantic gender assignment rules over formal ones prevented nouns denoting female human beings from switching plural agreement to the masculine (Formentin and Loporcaro 2012: 260), in a more effective way than in the Calabrian and Salentino varieties considered in (61)–(74) where at least some of them underwent the change: (79)

l-e matr-i/-e ‘the-f.pl mothers(f)’ (never **l-i matri) l-e soror-i/-e ‘the-f.pl sisters(f)’ (never **li sorori) l-e molgeri/-e ‘the-f.pl wives(f)’ (never **li molgeri)

That this is not an absolute constraint is shown by comparison with (64a) and (74) above, as well as by the fact that in the Old Romanesco textual corpus studied in Formentin and Loporcaro (2012: 248) virgini ‘virgins’ occurs once with masculine plural agreement (con molt-i virgini ‘with many-m.pl virgins’, in the thirteenth century Storie de Troja et de Roma, edn. Monaci 1920: 309.34), as opposed to three occurrences with inherited—and semantically justified—feminine plural).59 Finally, a further semantic constraint is that abstract nouns seem to be more resistant to this change (see Formentin and Loporcaro 2012: 247). Today this agreement pattern, which has been completely eradicated from modern Romanesco, has left traces in some dialects of Lazio (see Formentin and Loporcaro 2012: 241 for details). Thus, in the dialect of Veroli (province of Frosinone) one finds masculine pluralia tantum such as a nčini ‘angina pectoris’, ča mma rukiʎʎi ‘snails’, fa ššini ‘wood bundles’, fíviči ‘ferns’, ja llitti ‘mushrooms’, ka rittsi ‘caresses’, kriɲɲi ‘loins’, ma škri ‘masks’, səminti ‘seeds’ (Vignoli 1925: 44, 46) which go back to feminines of class III or I and thus may attest to an intermediate stage with an alternating fourth gender. For nearby Amaseno, Vignoli (1920: 63) reports not only such pluralia tantum but also some nouns with alternating f.sg/m.pl agreement, so that Amasenese deserves separate treatment (§7.9), as does the dialect of Poggio San Romualdo (in the province of Ancona). Since, as shown in (80) below, the word for ‘potato’ features 59  In that one passage in which virgini takes masculine agreement there are no occurrences of other gender-marking agreement targets (pronouns, etc.), so that there is no evidence to answer the question as to whether this noun may have behaved as a hybrid in Old Romanesco.



7.9  Romance dialects with five gender values?

277

among those lexemes, in the past this gender IV must have been productive, so as to be assigned to this loanword, originally from the Americas. Such productivity must have been there for a long time: in fact, the late fourteenth century Anconetano texts analysed by Romagnoli (2015: 37f.) show this agreement pattern with the lexeme la parte ‘part(f/iv)’, which admits either m.pl li parti or f.pl le parti/-e. With Anconetano our screening has touched the Roma–Ancona line, that is, the upper limit south of which all traces of more than binary systems in modern ItaloRomance dialects are confined. Considering now that a similar system is found in Old Romanesco, Salentino, and some dialects of northern Calabria, a geolinguistic generalization emerges from the above: as shown in Map 7 (overleaf), all dialects— medieval and/or still spoken—where this kind of symmetrized four-gender system arose are at the periphery of the four-gender system with two neuters of the Neapolitan kind. This is of course just a correlation, not an explanation. One may speculate that the impulse for this rearrangement of the system came at the same time as the mass neuter—which these dialects must have shared with the rest of central-southern Italy at a preliterary stage—was dissolved—although we have seen that this does not necessarily happen, since there are dialects which, losing the mass neuter, did not create a fourth alternating gender value such as those in the tiny area of northern Campania (Val Fortore) and in the coastal area of Abruzzo and northern Puglia considered in §4.5. There are possibly even dialects in which the same innovation took place, but the mass neuter was not lost. It is these dialects that we now consider.

7.9  Romance dialects with five gender values? The dialects mentioned in §7.8 have no mass neuter. Obviously, should this gender value also occur within such a gender system, this could potentially generate an even higher degree of overall structural complexity (‘constitutional complexity’ in Rescher’s 1998: 9 terms) than has been considered so far. One case in point is the dialect of Poggio San Romualdo (province of Ancona): (80) a. sg: a pa ta ːta ‘the.f.sg potato’; na pjeːgu ‘a:f.sg sheep’ b. pl: i pa ta ːti ‘the.m.pl potatoes’; i pjeːgu/pɛ´ːgora ‘the.m.pl sheep’ c. pl: e pa ta ːte ‘the.f.pl potatoes’; e pjeːgu/pɛ´ːgora ‘the.f.pl sheep’ As reported in the literature (see Balducci 1993b: 156, 2000: 124f.), the second alternating gender has persisted only with the lexemes ‘sheep(f/iv)’ and ‘potato(f/iv)’ which allow for f.pl agreement alternatively. Both the dialect texts in Poeta (1988) and work with informants by Balducci show that (80b) is now fading away, while f.pl ((80c)) is the preferred option. Yet, this agreement pattern must have been productive in the past, as stated at the end of §7.8. This dialect is spoken at the northern fringe of the mass neuter territory, in the mountains some 20 km east from Fabriano, the main centre of the area, lying in the valley at 325 m above sea level (while Poggio San Romualdo lies at 1,000 m above sea level). Now, while urban Fabrianese has lost the mass neuter (see er fɛːro ‘def.m.sg iron’ = er munɛllo ‘the.m.sg son’, Balducci 1987: 283), the rural Fabrianese variety of Poggio San Romualdo preserves it (Balducci 1993b: 148f.):

0

0

Grosseto

Siena

Viterbo

100 miles

Rome

Terni

Perugia

Ancona

Lazio

Rieti

Pescara

Chieti

Abruzzo

L’ Aquila

Teramo

Ascoli Piceno

Poggio San Macerata Romualdo

Marche

SAN MARINO

Umbria

Arezzo

Old Romanesco

Tuscany

Florence

Prato

100 km

EmiliaRomagn a

50

50

Sannicandro Garganico

Molise

Four genders (M(SEM) ≠ F ≠ A ≠ (MASS)N) Four genders (M ≠ F ≠ A1 ≠ A2) Four/three genders, variation (M ≠ F ≠ A1 (≠ A2, fading) Five/four genders, variation (M ≠ F ≠ A1 ≠ (MASS)N) (≠ A2, fading) Binary (M/F) parallel with [±human] subgenders in the M

Three genders (M ≠ F ≠ N; distinct neuter plural target forms, fading) Four genders (M ≠ F ≠ A ≠ (MASS)N)

Binary (M/F) convergent Binary (M/F) parallel/convergent [variation] Three genders (M(SEM) ≠ F ≠ A)

Binary (M/F) parallel

278 Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

Avellino

Sicily

Naples

Caserta

Matera

Altamura

Miglionico

Reggio Calabria

Crotone

Casabona

Catanzaro

Calabria

San Giovanni in Fiore

Sava

Parabita

Lecce

Cellino San Marco Novoli

Old Leccese

Taranto

Rutigliano

Mola di Bari

Trebisacce

Bocchigliero

Castrovillari

Cosenza

Bari Valenzano

Basilicat a

Grottole

Puglia

Verbicaro

Messina

Foggia

Campan ia

Campobasso

7.9  Romance dialects with five gender values?

Map 7  More than binary gender systems in central-southern Italy

Amaseno

Frosinone

279

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

280

(81) a. u kunijju/liːbru/munnu/puttsu/sikkju ‘the.m.sg rabbit/book/world/pit/bucket’ b. o fje/fjerru/gra /ka fɛ´/la tte/liɲɲu/pa /vi ‘def.n hay/iron/wheat/coffee/milk/ wood/bread/wine’ Here too, the neuter has the usual array of syntactic functions (syntactic default, (82a); nominalization of other lexical categories, (82b–c)), and so does not appear to have gradually shrunk, either syntactically or lexically, contrary to what happened at the south-eastern periphery of the four-gender area (see (29) and (34) above):  sɔ (82) a. kwess-o  no    o  this-n   neg DO.3.n know.prs.1sg ‘this I do not know’ b. o boːn-u de st-o kaːč-u nostr-u the.n good-m.sg of this-n cheese(n)-sg 1pl-m.sg ‘the good quality of this cheese of ours’ c. o  sua//falčá/vaŋgá/mɛʎʎo the.n his/her//mow.inf/spade.inf/better ‘his/her property//the mowing/spading/best’ Of course, the dialect also has a feminine, and at least some nouns triggering m.sg/ f.pl alternating agreement, so that, counting this second alternating (inquorate) gender a2 as well, the number of controller genders would add up to five in all (data from Balducci 1993b: 147–57; Poeta 1988): (83) a.

n

o

singular kaːču

plural Ø

Poggio S. Romualdo ‘def.n cheese’

b.

m

u

munεllu

i

munεlli

c. d. e.

a1 u f a a2 a

pulsu vakka pjeːgu

e e i

pulsa ‘the wrist/-s’ vakke ‘the cow/-s’ pjeːgu / pέːgora ‘the sheep/pl’

‘the kid/-s’

The sources do not provide information as to the numerical strength of a1, and Balducci (2000: 124f.) shows that a2 is definitely moribund, as the f.pl alternative agreement is now more frequent with those few nouns. Nevertheless, both a1 and a2 must have been productive for quite a long time in the past. So, it cannot be excluded that a five-(controller-)gender system should be reconstructed for an earlier stage of the language. Further south there is at least one more dialect whose available description suggests that the mass neuter may have been co-present, in some past stage, with the alternating neuter and the second alternating gender. Unlike the dialect of Veroli (§7.8), that of Amaseno (spoken about 40 km to the south, also in the province of Frosinone; see Vignoli 1920) features a mass neuter among its gender values, making this a candidate for a five-gender system:



7.9  Romance dialects with five gender values?

281

(84) a. n

lu

singular mεːlə

plural Ø

b. m

ʎu

fraːtə

ʎi

fraːtə

‘the brother/-s’

c. a1 ʎu

miːlə

lə

meːla

‘the apple/-s’

d. f la e. a2 la

fiːku ddzanna

lə ʎi

fiːkə ddzanni

‘the fig/-s’ ‘the tooth/teeth’

‘def.n honey’

Amaseno

In addition to masculine and feminine, which are productive as elsewhere, the mass neuter is also productive. It is marked on articles (as seen in (84a)), as well as on demonstratives (n keštə/kessə/kellə vs m kištə/kissə/kiʎʎə prox/medial/distal) and DO clitics (n lu/lə vs m ʎu/ʎi), which all signal agreement with neuter nouns (all mass, as usual: (85a)), agree with (or resume) other parts of speech (see (85b)), and occur with clausal controllers ((86)): (85) a. some mass neuter nouns in Amasenese: lu/lə ka sə/la ttə/pepə/pjummə/prus uttə/ ra mə/tóssəkə/ddzúləfə ‘def.n chease/milk/pepper/lead/ham/copper/ poison/sulphur’ b. lu/lə bbeʎʎə/bbruttə ‘def.n beautiful/ugly (thing)’60 a issə (86) mo lə=diːkə now DO.n= tell.prs.1sg to 3m.sg ‘now I tell him’ As for the alternating neuter (a1 in (84c)), Vignoli (1920: 64) lists about fifty nouns— but that is an open list, ending with ‘…’, in the context of exemplifying plural formation: thirty-one examples with -əra /-əla < -ora, seventeen with ‑a plurals—specifying that several vary between those two inflectional classes, both associated with a1, or just one of them, and an IC associated with masculine: for example lɛ´ttəra or létti ‘beds’, kɔrna or korni ‘horns’, a nɛ´lləra /a nɛlla /a neʎʎi ‘rings’, nɛ´rbəla /nɛrva /nɛ´rbəli ‘nerves’. Finally, for the symmetrical alternating gender (a2 in (84e)), Vignoli’s (1920: 63) grammatical description provides two examples with both singular and plural (l-a bəllettsə ‘the-f.sg beauty’, m.pl ʎʎi bbəllitts-i;61 l-a ddza nna ‘the-f.sg tooth’, m.pl ʎʎi ddzann-i), as well as a list of masculine plurals (ɛ´piti ‘epochs’, ka rittsi ‘caresses’, ddzá ttsəri ‘splashes of mud’, riːni ‘loins’, mmaškri ‘masks = masked persons’). The majority of these plurals correspond to nouns which are feminine in Standard Italian (epoca, carezza, maschera, etc.) whose singular forms are not indicated there. Elsewhere, Vignoli’s (1926: 29, 129) lexicon shows that ɛ´piti ‘epochs’ and ddzá ttsəri ‘splashes of mud’ are pluralia tantum, and Vignoli (1920: 47) reports that m.pl 60  Vignoli (1920: 67) does not offer more examples, but specifies that this goes for ‘gli aggettivi e le altre parti del discorso sostantivate’ [‘the adjectives and the other nominalized parts of speech’]. 61  Note that complex nouns formed with the suffix ‑itiem systematically belong to the second alternating gender in Old Salentino (see Maggiore 2013: 88 and n. 57 above).

282

Gender from Latin to Romance: A reconstruction

mmaškri ‘masks = masked persons’ is connected to two singulars, f mmaškra and m mma škrə. However, at least karittsi has a f.sg karettsa ‘caresse’ (Vignoli 1926: 43). Given the available information on Amasenese, therefore, three nouns show the alternating agreement pattern (84e), a situation not dissimilar from French (mentioned above in §7.8).62 Considering that nearby Old Romanesco had a much larger set of nouns selecting that agreement pattern, it could be speculated that at some past stage the same may have been the case in Amasenese. If so, this dialect, alongside that of Poggio San Romualdo, would be the only Romance varieties so far described for which the evidence indicates a five-gender system in the past, with remnants still surviving today. Anyway, even in their present stage, like all four-gender dialects discussed in §§4.5, 6.5, and 7.4, these dialects also defy approaches to grammatical gender which set a numerical threshold to gender systems, defining them as ‘small systems of two to three distinctions’ (Aikhenvald 2000: 18), and provide evidence in support of the definition of gender endorsed here ((3), Ch. 1).

7.10  Concluding remarks: the diachrony of Latin-Romance gender To conclude, while it is clear that during the early Middle Ages the gender system of the rising Romance varieties was undergoing change, at different paces in the different areas of what was at that time developing into the Romance-speaking world, there can be little doubt that the commonly held view, seen in (9)–(12), Chapter  1 is an oversimplification: nowhere had the system reduced to a binary (controller and target) gender system yet. Therefore, recurrent claims in diachronic studies that ‘in Romance, the transition from Latin to French, Italian, and Spanish involved a complete restructuring (three > two genders)’ (Polinsky and Van Everbroeck 2003: 358, n. 3) must be hedged with qualifications. While there is no doubt that only two controller genders have survived into the modern standard languages, use of the simple past in such statements with reference to the Latin–Romance transition does not do justice to the survival of a third controller gender—with some traces of a dedicated third plural agreement target (§6.2)—in Old Italian, nor to dialect variation across time and space. In fact, in several local varieties, the reduction never took place: the more-than-binary systems reviewed in Chapters 4 and 6, while they all took different paths, all presuppose the survival of the Latin neuter into (early) Romance, possibly through the intermediate stages reconstructed in this chapter based on the convergence of ‘prospective’ evidence from Late Latin and reconstructive evidence from dialect variation. If we accept that the traditional view is oversimplified, the real task for the diachronist becomes that of detailing exactly how the changes have taken place. In fact, a great deal is known on the gradual depletion of the neuter in Late Latin, but the ways in which its Romance successors have lived on, and/or have gradually yielded (or are still yielding today) to the masculine still await closer investigation, of which I have offered some prospects in this chapter, showing that the combination of thorough

62  Vignoli’s text appendix shows that plural agreement vacillates with bəllettsə ‘beauty’: ss-i bbəllitts-i a tern-ə ‘these.nonprox-m.pl aeternal-f.sg beauties’ (Vignoli 1920: 95).



7.10  Concluding remarks: the diachrony of Latin-Romance gender

283

morphosyntactic analysis of gender agreement with a quantitative assessment of gender assignment, ideally complemented with psycho-/neurolinguistic experimental study, may cast further light on this intricate chapter of Romance historical linguistics. As announced at the outset, a byproduct of this research into diachrony is a focus on several lesser known gender systems that deserve attention per se, from a linguistic-typological perspective. Some of them are more obviously tied to the main diachronic story (e.g. the four-gender systems still showing the split of the Latin neuter into two distinct gender values, crucial for the reconstruction in (13iii), (18)), but all of them are connected to that story in some way. Arguably, the rise of a second alternating gender considered in §7.8 was favoured by the survival of the Romance alternating neuter, in turn a direct successor of the Latin neuter; and even the rise of the novel neuter in the second gender system of Asturian (§7.5) capitalized on inherited markers for neuter agreement. This structural variety and its interest for linguistic typology will be the object of the concluding chapter.

8 The typological interest of lesserknown Romance gender systems In a sense, this book might have ended with Chapter 7, where—capitalizing chiefly on detailed inspection of dialect variation—I have presented the reconstruction of the diachronic changes in the gender system from Latin to Romance promised at the outset to replace the commonly held views in (9)–(12), §1.3. However, it will have become clear by now that the scrutiny of Romance dialect variation—in this area of grammar as elsewhere—reveals, as a byproduct, data that are of interest far beyond the province of historical Romance linguistics. This final chapter takes stock of the data—or, rather, some of the data from lesser-known Romance gender systems, many of them already mentioned in Chapters 3–7—which are interesting from a linguistictypological perspective. In addition to addressing the documentation of rara and rarissima in Romance (in the domain of grammatical gender), the chapter will also deal with a topic not addressed per se so far: the impact of language contact on change in the gender system.

8.1  Romance four-gender systems from a typological perspective Although the conclusion that Central-Southern Italo-Romance dialects have four genders may be quite striking within a IE perspective, this is not tantamount to postulating a typological oddity. I have already mentioned the four-gender system of Albanian (see Breu 2011: 54, n. 39) in §2.4. Outside IE, there are several languages with four genders, two of which host non-humans in a similar way to the system reconstructed in (18), Chapter 7. The WALS map 30 (see Corbett 2005a) displays a concentration of such systems (twelve in all, or 10.7 per cent of the languages displaying grammatical gender, and 4.6 per cent of the entire sample) in two areas: the Caucasus and Northern Australia.1 Among Northern Australian languages, the Kunwinjku dialect of Mayali (non-PamaNyungan) analysed in Evans et al. (2002: 116) has four semantically based genders, comprising I masculine, II feminine, III vegetable, and IV neuter. Still within non-PamaNyungan, Worora (north-western Australia; see Love 2000: 15–22; Dixon 2002: 476) 1  On the four-gender systems of Nakh-Daghestanian languages (the wals sample includes Archi, Lak, and Tsez) see Corbett (1991: 24–9, 2005a: 127). Gender from Latin to Romance. First edition. Michele Loporcaro © Michele Loporcaro 2018. First published 2018 by Oxford University Press



8.1  Romance four-gender systems from a typological perspective

285

has a similar system, except that the two neuters are not distinguished semantically (Love 2000: 17). Gender is overtly marked on nouns and gender agreement is marked on verbs, adjectives, and pronouns, exemplified in (1) with the positive vs negative 3sg forms, the former used by native speakers to label the respective gender values: (1) Worora

3sg personal pronoun positive masculine ˈindja

negative ˈkaui

semantics:

feminine

ˈnijina

ˈnjuŋgi

neuter1

ˈwuna

ˈkui

male humans and ‘important’, sex-differentiable, animals (but also ‘moon’, ‘spear’, etc.) female humans and ‘important’, sex-differentiable, animals (but also ‘sun’, ‘whale’, etc.) ‘less important’ animals and inanimate objects

neuter2

ˈma na

ˈmaui

‘less important’ animals and inanimate objects

More precisely, consistent overt gender is to be found on feminine nouns, as they all end in ‑nja or ‑dja (Love 2000: 21). For the remaining three genders there are statistical correlations with the phonological shape of the word (Dixon 2002: 476): about 50 per cent of masculine nouns end in ‑ya or ‑i, about 80 per cent of neuter1 (or wuna) nouns end in ‑b, ‑ba, ‑m, or ‑ma, while about 55 per cent of neuter2 (or mana) nouns end in ‑gu or ‑u. As shown in (1), the masculine and feminine genders have a semantic core, but also a substantial share of lexemes assigned idiosyncratically. The masculine includes several nouns that denote objects which can be in some way associated with manliness (e.g. through the concept of penetration, like tjiˈnælja ‘spear’, ˈadja ‘rain’, ˈkʌnʌmʌri ‘shark’, etc.), as well as the word for ‘moon’ (ˈkunjila), whereas ˈmʌrʌŋunja ‘sun’ is femin­ ine, a polarity widely attested cross-linguistically (see Lazzeroni 1993: 82; Aikhenvald 2000: 23). In the feminine too, there are nouns assigned for reasons which can be rooted in local conceptions/myths, such as ˈmunumbʌnja ‘whale’, ˈŋʌnʌnja ‘a type of cockatoo’. As for the two neuters, no semantic discriminating criterion is discernible (Love 2000: 21) with (nearly) synonymous words denoting non-humans assigned to either of the two genders: for example biˈnalu ‘ash’ is neuter1 whereas pimbiˈnʌlba, also ‘ash’, is neuter2; ˈanu ‘dog tail’ is neuter1 but kurˈmedb ‘tail (of a kangaroo)’ is neuter2, and so on. On the other hand, there is a phonological assignment rule: the nouns assigned to neuter2 end in a labial consonant, possibly followed by ‑a, whereas nouns ending in non-labial consonants (possibly followed by ‑u) are neuter1: ˈkaiug(u) ‘stone’, ˈagu ‘water’, nuˈwonu ‘wood’. Dixon (2002: 476) underscores the parallelism with the phonology of gender agreement, which is realized on most adjectives through inflections whose phonological shape is respectively ma-base-m(a) for neuter1 vs wu-base-(u) for neuter2. The nearby non-Pama-Nyungan language Ungarinjin too (see Rumsey  1982: 31, 39–41) has exponents of gender agreement which are phonologically similar to the Worora ones, although no cues whatsoever of overt gender are found on Ungarinjin nouns, either for the two neuters or elsewhere in the gender system.

The typological interest of lesser-known Romance gender systems

286

Remaining on the same continent, one comes across four-gender systems which are predominantly semantic in nature, though with a sizeable number of exceptions. A case in point is that of Mian (touched upon in (34)f., Ch. 5). The table in (2) schematizes the gender agreement markers, while (3) exemplifies gender assignment, with examples in (3a) all falling under the semantic generalization(s) for each given gender value, while assignment for the masculine and feminine lexemes in (3b) cannot be explained semantically, and thus attests to conventionalization:2 (2)

Gender agreement in Mian: m (humans and animals) f (humans and animals) n1 (inanimate count, liquids, substances) n2 (abstracts, weapons, places, weather phenomena, etc.)

agreement sg pl =e =i =o =e =o =o

examples naka ‘man’ unáng ‘woman’ aful ‘ball’ sók ‘rain’

(3)  Gender assignment in Mian (Fedden 2007: 186, 2011: 171–7) gender a. examples

criteria for  b. examples assignment

criteria for assignment

m

aab ‘brother’ til ‘dog’

[male]

tolim ‘eagle’

f

awók ‘mother’ til ‘bitch’

[female]

kobǒl ‘cassowary’ conventional

n1

was ‘drum’

[+count]

aai ‘water’ as ‘wood’

liquid substance

n2

moni ‘money’

[–count]

am ‘house’ skemdáng ‘knife’

place weapon ecc.

 

conventional

Mian has semantically defined masculine and feminine, which (a) are marked [+animate] rather than [+human], as they also host animal names; (b) allow for crossclassification (Fedden 2011: 177), since many nouns denoting sex differentiables—both animals (e.g. til ‘dog’, éil ‘pig’, kulán ‘game animal’) and humans (e.g. abán ‘orphan’, alá ‘close friend [of the same sex]’, bekeb ‘companion’, mēn ‘child’)—can be either masculine or feminine; and (c) are conventionalized, to an extent, since assignment of tolim ‘eagle’ to the masculine and of kobǒl ‘cassowary’ to the feminine do not depend on the semantics. For the neuters too, there is a semantic polarization, with the neuter1 hosting countables and the neuter2 non-countables (including, e.g., deverbals like fumino ‘the cooking’); however, nouns denoting ‘liquids and substances’ such as aai ‘water’ are assigned to the neuter1, while the neuter2 includes ‘masses’ such as atum ‘smoke’ or dím ‘flesh’ (Fedden 2011: 175f.), so that a strict [±count] distinction for the two neuters does not actually hold. 2  The intertwining between the gender system synthesized in (2)–(3) and what is traditionally called a classifier system (but is analysed as a second, concurrent gender system by Fedden and Corbett (2017)), has been addressed in §5.4.1.



8.1  Romance four-gender systems from a typological perspective

287

Although, as seen, assignment rules suffer many exceptions, a system like that of Mian is more similar to the one reconstructed in (18), Chapter 7 (extrapolating back from the Romance data in Chapter 4 and especially from the living dialects of centralsouthern Italy), than that of Worora or Ungarinjin. In those languages, in fact, there is no semantic criterion for assigning nouns to either of the two neuters, whereas in Central-Southern Italo-Romance a straightforward semantic characterization is available for the mass neuter, and also the alternating neuter must have been characterized, in a first stage, in at least loosely semantic terms (as seen in (13iii), Ch. 7). The existence of a semantic distinction between the two neuters also makes our Romance four-gender systems resemble that of Burushaski, an isolate language spoken in the Karakoram mountains of northern Pakistan. Burushaski displays the gender (agreement) system exemplified in (4) with the absolutive forms of the third singular pronoun (also serving as a definite article), and in (5) with the proximal demonstrative (that shows a four-way distinction, like the pronoun/definite article), as well as with the question word ‘which’ and the numerals ‘one’ and ‘two’, which all show some syncretism (see Lorimer 1935: 14–25; Berger 1998: 81f., 100–2; Grune 1998: 3, 17): (4) ne hir mo gus se haɣór te ɣéndeṣ

‘def.m.abs man(m).abs’ ‘def.f.abs woman(f).abs’ ‘def.n1.abs horse(n1).abs’ ‘def.n2.abs gold(n2).abs’

Burushaski (isolate, Karakoram)

(5) Burushaski

‘this’

m (hm) masculine (human)

‘which?’

‘one’

‘two’

khe-né ámen

hen

altán

f (hf) feminine (human)

kho-mó ámen

hen

altán

n1 (x) neuter1 (animals, countable objects)

gu-sé

ámes

han

altác

n2 (y) neuter2 (uncountable, abstract nouns) gu-té

ámet

han

altó

Burushaski has strictly semantic masculine and feminine, hosting only humans, and two further genders hosting inanimates, traditionally called x and y in studies on the language, while m and f are labelled h(uman)m and h(uman)f respectively. In (4)f. I gloss the four gender values as m, f, n1 and n2. A further similarity with respect to central-southern Italy is the possibility for gender recategorization of some roots/lexemes. For instance, in Burushaski the same root (e.g. bayú ‘salt’, or -úl ‘intestine’) can form nouns of either (non-human) gender: (6) count bayú (neuter1) ‘lump of rock salt’ -úl ‘intestine (neuter1) of living animal’

mass ≠ (neuter2) ‘salt’ ≠ (neuter2) ‘… of dead animal’

A comparable double categorization is to be found with some lexemes (e.g. ‘iron’, see (94), (98), Ch. 4) in Central-Southern Italo-Romance dialects, although in Romance the count option corresponds to masculine, whereas in Burushaski the count counterparts

288

The typological interest of lesser-known Romance gender systems

are assigned to the second neuter gender. This is possible in Italo-Romance because Romance masculine/feminine are semantically largely idiosyncratic, in keeping with the general situation of Indo-European languages. However, this is not the case in Burushaski, whose system is strictly semantic and shows a biunique correspondence on the one hand between nouns denoting humans of either sex and the masculine/ feminine genders respectively, and a (tendentially) biunique correspondence on the other hand between nouns denoting count objects and animals vs mass nouns and the two neuter genders. Some minor idiosyncrasies in gender assignment are found in Burushaski too, since for certain object-denoting nouns the assignment to either of the two neuters is not the one we would predict from the semantics. The handful of exceptions include íran ‘cream’ (neuter1 albeit mass), or ha ‘house’, asqór ‘flower’ (neuter2 though count, at least in our culture; see Grune 1998: 3f.). To conclude, as already shown in Loporcaro and Paciaroni (2011), the Central ItaloRomance data discussed at length in §4.5 add to the bulk of evidence showing that the options attested for modern IE languages are not exhausted by traditional listings such as that reproduced in (19), Chapter 2 (i.e. zero to maximally three gender values). Thus, while the WALS map 30 (on Number of genders) only has red dots (standing for four genders) marking languages far outside western Europe (the nearest ones being in the Caucasus and west sub-Saharian Africa), our survey has suggested that red dots should be integrated at the heart of Europe, with the two different types of four-gender system: the more widespread one with two neuters, discussed in §4.5, and the more sparingly attested one with two alternating genders, discussed in §7.8.

8.2  Strictly semantic gender values and semantic subgenders in Romance As already mentioned in §2.3, semantic gender assignment rules are found universally, as no language has purely formal gender, while many have strictly semantic gender assignment (see Corbett 2005b, c), as exemplified with Tamil in (7) (where gender agreement is manifested with finite verb inflections): (7)  Tamil (Dravidian)

gender feminine ≠ masculine ≠ neuter semantics [human, female] [human, male] [non-human] peṇ pogiraal ̣ ≠ aaṇ pogiraaṇ ≠ maaṭṭu/kudhirai pogiradhu girl go.prs.3f.sg  man  go.prs.3m.sg cow/horse go.prs.3n.sg ‘the girl goes’ ‘the man goes’ ‘the cow/horse goes’

Within Indo-European, semantic systems usually emerge—as is the case for several Germanic languages—as the gender system becomes impoverished morphologically, the extreme case being that of English.3 Coming to Romance, there are no reported English-like cases, with gender agreement fully semanticized and reduced exclusively to pronouns, nor cases comparable with Tamil, where the overall system is semantically based and the gender agreement morphology is pervasive, on several parts of speech. 3  On the semanticization of gender in Germanic languages and dialects see Audring (2009b); Siemund (2008).



8.2  Strictly semantic gender values and semantic subgenders in Romance

289

From discussion in the previous chapters, though, it has become clear that several Romance languages and dialects display semantic gender values, if never an overall semantic gender system. A crucial distinction to be made here regards biuniqueness in the association of the gender values with the semantics. As seen in §4.4.1, the Romanian neuter only hosts nouns denoting inanimates (apart from class-denoting terms), and productively so, since most loanwords denoting inanimates are assigned to the neuter. However, this association between neuter and inanimacy is not biunique, since nouns denoting inanimates are also to be found among masculines and femin­ ines (see the results of Bujor’s 1955 counts, reported in §3.2.1 above). This situation is not radically different from that observed for the Latin neuter (see §2.3). In addition, the mass neuter of central-southern Italy is semantically defined, exclusively hosting nouns denoting unbounded substances, although here again, as shown in (144), Chapter 4, the correlation is not biunique since several nouns denoting unbounded substances are assigned to the masculine and feminine. On the other hand, we have encountered gender values biuniquely associated with semantic properties while discussing (the output of the changes that affected) the masculine in Viterbese ((34)–(38), Ch. 3), Altamurano ((79), Ch. 4), and Molese (§7.7). Since the data have been illustrated there, the present section, through its heading, serves as an eye-catcher for language typologists glimpsing through this book, so that they refer back to those data in order not to overlook the existence of a strictly semantic masculine (of the Tamil or Burushaski kind) in some Romance dialects. In addition to Altamurano and Molese, other dialects of Apulia in which [±human] or [±animate] are relevant to gender (assignment/agreement) have been reported in the literature. Thus, Carosella (2005: 89) and Gioiosa (2000: 91–5) describe for the dialect of Sannicandro Garganico (province of Foggia) a contrast in the adnominal demonstrative between masculine nouns referring to humans, as in (8a), and those referring to inanimate objects, as in (8b) (as well as to animals: see Gioiosa 2000: 92): (8)

a. kwidd-u dem.dist\m_hum-m.sg ‘that man/person’ b. kwedd-u dem.dist\nonm_hum-m.sg ‘that pair of trousers’ c. kwedd-a dem.dist\nonm_hum-f.sg ‘that godmother/cow/shirt’

krəstjaːnə man(m_hum) kavətsoːnə trousers(m_nonhum) kummaːra/vakka/kamiːša godmother/cow/shirt(f)

The contrast, which does not extend even to definite articles (u krəstjaːnə = u kavətsoːnə ‘the man/trousers(m)’ ≠ la furčina ‘the fork(f)’), is signalled through a form of the demonstrative which shares the non-metaphonic base allomorph with the feminine: thus, in glosses, ‘\nonm_hum’ indicates that the allomorph kwedd- occurs in demonstratives agreeing with all nouns that are not masculine human (i.e., its co-occurrence with the endings then generates the masculine [–human] vs femin­ine forms in (8b–c)). As further shown in (8c), for agreement with feminine nouns,

The typological interest of lesser-known Romance gender systems

290

[±human] is not relevant, so that in combining base-allomorphy and affixal inflection a three-way contrast emerges that disappears on plural demonstratives, as shown in (9): (9) singular m hum

plural

u/kwist-u kumbaːrə i/kwist-i

nonhum u/kwest-u parrottsə i/kwist-i f

la/kwest-a kamiːša

gloss

ʹ ˇggˇ uːvənə ‘def/dem_prox godfather/youngsters’ kavaddə

(l)i/kwist-i kamiːšə

‘def/dem_prox black bread/horses’ ‘def/dem_prox shirt/s’

The forms of demonstratives converge in the plural, for all deictic degrees (see (10)), as do qualificative adjectives showing gender inflection (see Gioiosa 2000: 79–81) and the paradigms in Carosella’s (2005) appendix: (10) singular gender a. b.

m

c. f

hum

prox

near_hearer

plural dist

kwist-u kwiss-u

kwidd-u

nonhum kwest-u kwess-i

kwedd-u

kwest-a kwess-a

kwedd-a

prox

near_hearer

kwist-i kwiss-i

dist kwidd-i

It is unclear whether the system as a whole retains a binary f vs m contrast in the plural on the definite article, because sources diverge on this point. In fact, while Gioiosa (2000: 55) reports a categorical contrast between def.m.pl i and def.f.pl li, Carosella’s informants (six Sannicandrese speakers aged between forty and seventy-five at the time of her fieldwork, in 1996–2000) have (l)i in free variation with both f and m nouns: this is why the divide in the plural is dotted in (9), and the lateral in the f.pl (l)i bracketed. Since Gioiosa’s grammar is not the work of a professional linguist, one cannot dismiss the doubt that the contrast he describes picks out existing variants presenting them in a way that calques the prestige model (compare StIt. def.m.pl i vs def.f.pl le, (31a/c), Ch. 4). If this is the case, then the system is indeed fully convergent in the plural. Be that as it may, for the singular sources agree, and evidence lends itself to an analysis in terms of subgenders, with an f vs m contrast and with the latter further analysed as [±human]. Alternatively, one could say that only demonstratives display overdifferentiated gender marking (f vs m vs n, the latter for non-feminine inanimates), which however seems less attractive in view of the regularity of the paradigms in (9)f. While a new alternating subgender [m, –human] has arisen in Sannicandrese, the inherited alternating neuter has dissolved (rather than generalizing to all masculine non-humans, as seen for Altamurano in (52)f., Ch. 7). This is because all nouns with ‑a and ‑ora plurals take masculine plural agreement, according to Gioiosa’s (2000: 74f.) description (this is a fortiori true if no gender contrast persists in the plural article forms):

(11)

8.3  Contact-induced change in the gender system singular u peːlə u deːtə u čeppə u peššə

plural i piːla i deːtra i čippra i piššəra

291

‘the.m hair/-s’ ‘the.m finger/-s’ ‘the.m bit/-s of wood’ ‘the.m fish/-es’

As seen in the examples, just as in Altamurano (see (54), Ch. 7) ‑ora plurals have spread, and at times co-exist with the original plural, as in i piššəra/piššə both ‘def.m.pl fish(m)’. The Sannicandrese gender system, thus, is exhaustively schematized in (10), since this dialect also lacks the mass neuter as shown by the ALI data, pt. 801: u salə ‘def.m.sg salt(m)’ 6.589, u grassə ‘def.m.sg fat/greese(m)’ 6.595 = u pedə ‘def.m.sg foot(m)’ 1.71; u panə ‘def.m.sg bread(m)’ (Gioiosa 2000: 68). This is the case in most of the Gargano peninsula (see Map 3), where the mass neuter is found only on the east coast in Monte S. Angelo (ALI pt. 808: e.g. u ssɛlə ‘def.n salt(n)’ 6.589 ≠ u pɑtə ‘def.m.sg foot(m)’ 1.71) and Mattinata (see (154)f., Ch. 4, and Granatiero 2012: 39). At the antipodes of these instances of semantic (sub)genders are the facts described in §§4.5.3 and 5.8, where masculine wives and feminine (or neuter, depending on whether the target or the controller gender perspective is taken) husbands show a major violation of otherwise cross-linguistically prevailing semantic assignment rules. This is also noteworthy from a linguistic-typological perspective.

8.3  Contact-induced change in the gender system It is a well-known fact that language contact may drive change in the gender system, as in other parts of grammar, a topic particularly well-investigated for Germanic, among the languages of Europe (see e.g. Duke 2009; Enger 2011; Sollid et al. 2014, among others). Romance instances of contact-driven change have been seen above (see §3.1.3), while in some other cases contact as a possible factor has been invoked, although more controversially (see (2b.1), Ch. 6 on Romanian). In this section, I shall address this aspect of diachronic change in Romance gender systems, partly referring back to data discussed in the previous chapters, partly introducing data not discussed up to this point. All of them provide interesting evidence for the relationship of language contact with simplification/complexification of the gender system. On the whole, it is a long-standing generalization that ‘language contact, especially when extensive L2 learning is involved, is a main source of complexity reduction (grammar simplification)’ (Karlsson et al. 2008: viii). Against this background, it is interesting to note that some of the cases described in the previous chapters attest that the opposite may also occur. Thus, the change from a binary convergent to a three (controller) gender system in Viterbese was arguably due to contact (see §3.1.3) and yet boiled down to a net increase in both constitutional and formulaic (i.e. descriptive and generative) complexity in Rescher’s (1998: 9) terms: the former because of the increase in the number of gender values, the latter because of the complexification of the assignment rules (see Audring 2014: 7–13 for a discussion of different kinds of complexity with respect to grammatical gender). In the following, I will discuss some further interesting Romance examples, attesting to paradigmatic complexification,

292

The typological interest of lesser-known Romance gender systems

and even to simultaneous simplification and complexification, in situations of language contact. 8.3.1  Contact-induced change in Daco-Romance Complexification has been postulated by those scholars who hold that Romanian acquired a third gender due to contact (see (2b.i), Ch. 6). However, we have seen in Chapter 7 that this is unlikely in view of the comparative evidence attesting to the diachronic continuity of the three-gender system from Latin to Romanian. A further argument against a contact-induced origin of the Romanian neuter is the fact that Slavic neuter nouns borrowed into Romanian were assigned to the feminine, rather than to the neuter: for example Sl. čudo ‘wonder(n)’ > Ro. ciudă ‘rage/envy(f)’, Sl. oknó ‘window(n)’ > Ro. ocnă ‘salt mine(f)’, Sl. slovo ‘word(n)’ > Ro. slovă ‘writing/ letter(f)’, Sl. stekló ‘glass(n)’ > Ro. sticlă ‘glass(f)’, Sl. vědró ‘bucket(n)’ > Ro. vadră ‘a measure of capacity(n)’ (or ‘bucket(n)’, in Oltenian dialects), Sl. vreme ‘time(n)’ > Ro. vreme ‘time/weather(f)’, etc. (see Mihăilă 1960; Petrovici 1962; Buchi 2006: 75f., Livescu 2008: 2648). Had the Romanian neuter arisen through borrowing of Slavic words like these, such a systematic reassignment would be inexplicable. On the other hand, Slavic influence is clearly responsible for change in the gender system in an obsolescent variety of Daco-Romance, viz. Istro-Romanian, still surviving in the competence of a few speakers (about five dozen, most of them over fifty years old) in north-eastern Istria (see Map 8). Both simplification and complexification in the gender system are described in Petrovici’s (1967) account of gender in two subvarieties, viz. Northern (NIstRo.), as spoken in the village of Žejane (IstRo. Jeiăn), and Southern (SIstRo.), in the village of Šušnjevica (IstRo. Suseni) and some other smaller ones nearby (see map in Filipi 2002: 31). His account can be compared with the earlier and slightly later descriptions by Puşcariu (1926) and Kovačec (1971) respectively. In NIstRo., contact with Croatian has led to the reshaping of agreement with neuter nouns, which now take masculine rather than feminine plural agreement, as exemplified with the numeral ‘two’ in (12a), having thus become indistinguishable from inherited masculines: (12) a. češc-i/**čɒšt-e doj/**do kúvet-e/ kɒ´p-ure ‘these:m/f two:m/f elbows/heads’ b.  lúp-ur=le ‘wolf-pl=def.pl’, díd-ur=le ‘grand parent-pl=def.pl’ As shown in (12b), on the other hand, enclitic definite articles converge in the plural, as the previously feminine form ‑le has generalized, thus becoming unmarked for gender.4 Note that the same is the case for the ‑ure ending which, unlike its counterpart in Daco-Romanian (Ro. ‑uri, ORo. ‑ure, see (1c), Ch. 6), no longer signals gender overtly and occurs not only with inanimates (e.g. čeʎ-i doj və´rhure ‘those-m two:m mountains’) but also with animates/humans (see (12b)). This merger of the alternating neuter into the masculine is described by Petrovici (1967: 1524) as already completed in NIstRo., while it was still observable in real time in SIstRo. By the 1960s, the younger generation had started to variably merge 4  This is not yet the case in the stage of the language described by Puşcariu (1926: 147f.), where f.pl ‑le and m.pl ‑i (e.g. kɑl j-i ‘horses-def.m.pl’) still contrast as in Daco-Romanian.



8.3  Contact-induced change in the gender system 0

I T A LY

293

20 miles

0

20 km

Trieste

SLOVENIA

Žejane

(IstRo. Jeia˘ n)

PrimorjeGorski Kotar

C R O A T I A

Rijeka/ Fiume

Šušnjevica

(IstRo. Suseni)

Istria

Pula

Map 8  Istro-Romanian

neuter with masculine plural agreement, while elderly speakers still consistently preserved the inherited alternating agreement.5 By the same time, however, both Northern and Southern IstRo. had acquired a distinct neuter gender, through borrowing of the dedicated neuter singular inflection ‑o from Croatian. In (13a–b) (after Petrovici 1967: 1525; Kovačec 1971: 85) the relevant adjective paradigms are compared: (13) singular plural a. Croatian m dobar ‘good’

dobri

singular b. IstRo. m bur

f

dobra

dobre

f

n

dobro

dobra

‘good’ n buro

plural buri

bur-a (N)/-æ(S) bure --

5  Apparently, this on-going merger was progressing via lexical diffusion, given that Petrovici (1967: 1524) reports preservation of feminine plural agreement in e.g. do lɒ´peze/šugamɒne ‘two pencils/towels’ as opposed to masculine plural in—formerly equally neuter—doj batune/škartotse ‘two buttons/paper bags’.

294

The typological interest of lesser-known Romance gender systems

As seen in (13b), contrary to the rest of Daco-Romance (see (53), Ch. 4), the adjective has a third distinct form, whose agreement morph ‑o has been extracted from borrowed adjectives such as mlɒd-o ‘young-n.sg’, drɒg-o ‘dear/expensive-n.sg’, ləhk-o ‘easy-n.sg’ and extended to the inherited lexicon: for example pʎir-o ‘full.n.sg’, ɒt-o ‘tall.n.sg’ (see Caragíu Marioțeanu 1975: 199). Syntactically, this form was first used in IstRo. as a marker of neutral agreement with non-nominal controllers, as exemplified in (14), as well as for adverbial use (already described by Puşcariu 1926: 201), which explains why it was borrowed without its plural counterpart (Petrovici 1967: 1525): (14)

a. nu=j čɒsta kosit-o neg neg=be.prs.3sg this\f mown-n  but ‘this is not mown but shorn’ b. če=j de nov-o ? niš  what=be.prs.3sg of  new-n  nothing  ‘Is there anything new? Nothing else’ c. tsa=j ləhk-o this\f=be.prs.3sg easy-n ‘this is easy’

strižit-o shorn-n

NIstRo.

ɒt-o other-n SIstRo.

More recently, this adjectival agreement was extended to contexts where the adjective agrees with neuter mass nouns borrowed from Slavic like NIstRo nebo ‘sky’, zlato ‘gold’, srebro ‘silver’ (only srebro in SIstRo.; see also Kovačec 1971: 85): (15)

a. zlɒt-o=j drɒg-o, srebr-o nu=j drɒg-o gold(n)-sg=be.prs.3sg expensive-n silver(n)-sg neg=be.prs.3sg expensive-n b. %zlɒt-o=j drɒg,   srebr-o  nu=j      gold(m)-sg=be.prs.3sg expensive[m.sg] silver(m)  neg=be.prs.3sg drɒg expensive[m.sg] ‘gold is expensive, silver is not’ c. neb-o   je     plɒv-o sky(n)-sg be.prs.3sg blue-n ‘the sky is blue’

Petrovici (1967: 1526) states that some speakers (still) used masculine agrement with these nouns, as shown in (15b), corresponding to the common Daco-Romance option, seen at work with neuters in Daco-Romanian.6 Whether categorically or only optionIn fieldwork in 2017 I could observe the same pattern, as just one more conservative speaker (who left Šušnjevica in 1963) still uses do kúvate/žɒ´žete/lúpurle ‘two[f] elbows/fingers/wolves’ in alternative to m.pl doj kuvats/žɒžets/lup, while the remaining speakers I have interviewed only use m.pl doj with all those nouns, whatever their plural inflection (doj/**do kuvat etc.). 6  Glosses in (15b) specify ‘m(asculine)’ because of the agreement on targets, and in order to underscore the difference with respect to (15a). For o-agreement the situation has slightly changed in 2017: my most conservative SIstRo. informant (see n. 5) has only srebro taking o-agreement (as an alternative to masculine, (15b)), while zlɒta ‘gold(f)’ in his variety is feminine, as are most old loanwords from Slavic o-neuters in Daco-Romance as a whole; other SIstRo. informants, on the other hand, have reshaped it as zlɒto ‘gold(n)’ which takes o-agreement as shown in (15a) for NIstRo. In addition, I could observe a striking—if not unexpected—innovation, with respect to available descriptions, in NIstRo.: that is, the rise of n.pl



8.3  Contact-induced change in the gender system

295

ally used with those borrowed nouns, the o-form of the adjective is never extended to masculine nouns, nor to the alternating neuters preserved as such by more conservative SIstRo. speakers. Thus, the moribund IstRo. varieties in the stage described by Petrovici (1967) display the following gender systems: (16)  a. NIstRo.: two inherited genders, feminine vs masculine (with the former Daco-Romance neuter merged with the masculine), plus an inquorate neuter gender marked with the borrowed ending ‑o, used for agreement with at least three nouns as well as for agreement with non-nominal controllers; b. innovative SIstRo.: as (16a), but neuter agreement only for srebro ‘silver’; c. conservative SIstRo.: three inherited genders, feminine vs masculine vs (alternating) neuter, plus the borrowed o-neuter as in (16b). Note that the few borrowed nouns selecting o-adjectival agreement are all mass nouns, so that, putting aside the scarcity of the neuter (synchronically) and its borrowed origin (diachronically), the system in (16c) resembles the Central-Southern Italian ones seen in §4.5—where the mass neuter also fulfils the function of signalling agreement with non-canonical controllers—while (16a) is similar to Sursilvan (§4.3.3), which has a non-lexical neuter (inherited, rather than borrowed), just for agreement with non-canonical controllers. Summing up, moribund Istro-Romanian provides one more example of paradigmatic complexification through language contact—resulting in a three- or even a four-gender system—and even ((16a)) an example of simultaneous contact-induced simplification (loss of the alternating neuter) and complexification, with the borrowing of the Slavic o-neuter, resemanticized as a mass-neuter to yield synchronically a fourgender system not unlike those of central-southern Italy. 8.3.2  Contact-induced change in Northern Sardinian An example of the often occurring contact-induced simplification in the gender system is observed in the Northern Sardinian dialect of Sènnori (Log. Sènnaru, province of Sassari; see Map 9), whose gender system has become fully convergent, as shown in (17b) with the forms of the definite article (see Campus 1901: 15; Bottiglioni 1920: 31; Wagner 1923: 241; Jäggli 1959: 18; Sanna 1975: 106; Manzini and Savoia 2005: 3.589), while stressed third person pronouns merge (and thus fail to contrast gender) in the singular as well ((17a)): (17) a. 3rd person pronouns b. Det and noun inflection m f

sg

pl

iss-ε

iss-ɔs

dialect of Sènnori

sg

pl

Latin

s(u) attu

sɔ vváttɔzɔ

s(a) akka

sɔ bbákkɔzɔ < vaccam, -as 1st IC

< cattum, -os 2nd IC ‘cat’ ‘cow’

Since the same convergence in the plural is found for all other parts of speech showing gender/number agreement, in the plural there is nothing to discriminate, for a-agreement, limited to a few Slavic loans: for instance diːtsa z bur-a ‘the children (< Chakavian dica) are good-n.pl’ (at proofreading stage, it was too late to incorporate a full account of this innovation: see Loporcaro et al., in preparation a).

296

The typological interest of lesser-known Romance gender systems Binary (M/F) parallel

0

20 miles

Binary (M/F) convergent 0

Gallurese

transition zone

Tempio Pausania

Porto Torres Sorso

Sassarese

Sassari

20 km

Luras Olbia

Sènnori

Logudorese

Campidanese

Map 9  Convergent binary system and contact-induced change in northern Sardinia

example, between ‘sons’ and ‘daughters’, as both the agreement targets they select and their plural inflections have become identical:7 izɛttaí-ɔ | a ffiddz-ɔ mmí-ɔzɔ | Sennorese (18) l-ɔz    do.3-pl wait:impf-1sg to son(m)/daughter(f)-pl 1sg-pl ma iss-ɔ nnɔ ssum     be´nnið-ɔzɔ but 3-pl neg be.prs.3pl come:ptp-pl ‘I was waiting for them, my sons/daughters, but they did not come’ Comparison with common Logudorese—exemplified in (19) with the dialect of Bonorva (see (16)–(19), Ch. 3 and (27), Ch. 5)—shows that the formerly masculine plural ending has ousted the feminine one, and the same replacement (with earlier ‑as 7  Variation in the plural forms in (17)f. (‑ɔs/‑ɔz/‑ɔ + doubling of the following initial consonant) is due to external sandhi and does not impinge on the morphology. The plurals in the system schema in (17) are given in their underlying form ‑/ɔs/ while those in the clause in (18) are transcribed phonetically (hence the ‑[ɔzɔ], which mirrors epithesis in the plural ending).



8.3  Contact-induced change in the gender system

297

ousted by ‑ɔs) has also affected noun inflection, so that now Sennorese class one feminines (like fiddz-a ‘daughter’) are only inflectionally distinct from class two masculines (like fiddz-u ‘son’) in the singular: (19) a. l-ɔz aizɛttaí-ɔ | a ffiddz-ɔl mí-ɔzɔ | DO.3-m.pl wait:impf-1sg to son(m)-pl 1sg-m.pl ma iss-ɔl   nɔ  ssum   be´nnið-ɔzɔ but 3-m.pl  neg be.prs.3pl come:ptp-m.pl ‘I was waiting for them, my sons, but they did not come’ b. l-az aizɛttaí-ɔ | a ffiddz-al    mí-aza   DO.3-f.pl wait:impf-1sg to daughter(f)-pl 1sg-f.pl ma iss-al  nɔ  ssum     be´nnið-aza but 3-f.pl  neg be.prs.3pl come:ptp-f.pl ‘I was waiting for them, my daughters, but they did not come’

Bonorvese

|

The rearrangement of the gender system of Sennorese, as well as that of noun inflection, is due to contact with nearby Sassarese, spoken in Sassari and the surrounding countryside up to Sorso, less than 2 km away from Sènnori. In Sassarese, in fact, the forms in the two plural cells in all agreement targets (including class one adjectives) merged without residue as a consequence of the raising of final unstressed ‑ɛ, formerly the exponent of feminine plural agreement, as seen for Southern Corsican in (27)/(28b), Chapter 3 (see Guarnerio 1898: 191 and Gartmann 1967: 25 on Sorsese): (20) a. 3rd person pronouns b. Det and noun inflection sg pl sg pl m εɖɖ-u lu zóːrigu li zóːrigi εɖɖ-i f εɖɖ-a la liŋga li liŋgi

Sassarese 2nd IC 1st IC

‘rat’ ‘tongue’

Comparing the Sassarese system with that of Logudorese in (21) shows that the latter gave rise to the Sennorese convergent system in (17) through a morphological (i.e. not phonetically motivated) replica of the phonetically motivated convergence of Sassarese: (21) a. 3rd person pronouns b. Det and noun inflection Logudorese sg pl sg pl Latin su ɣaɖɖu sɔs kaɖɖɔs < caballum/-os 2nd IC ‘horse’ m iss-ε/-u iss-ɔs f iss-a

iss-as

sa ɣraβa

sas kraβas < capram/-as

1st IC

‘goat’

Sennorese, as seen in (17a), also lost the manifestation of the gender contrast in the stressed third singular person pronoun (but not in the clitic: lu/la ɣɛldzɔ ‘I want it:m/f’), showing that in contact-induced reshaping of the system, the replica may overshoot its model. Some 65 km north north-east, a more intricate and unusual example of contactinduced change is observed in another Northern Logudorese variety, the dialect of Luras (province of Olbia-Tempio; see Wagner 1923: 241; Bottiglioni 1920: 31; Manzini and Savoia 2005: 2.568, 2.645f.). Here too, gender agreement—expressed cumulatively with number—has become fully convergent while, contrary to Sènnori, noun inflection

298

The typological interest of lesser-known Romance gender systems

remained unaffected so that class one and two nouns still differ inflectionally in the plural as in common Logudorese: (22) a. gender agreement b. noun inflection classes sg -u m f -a

pl -as

sg su ɣaɖɖu

pl sas kaɖɖɔs

dialect of Luras Latin < caballum/-os 2nd IC ‘horse’

sa véːmina sas féːminas < feminam/-as

1st IC

‘woman’

Again, the culprit is the contact dialect—Gallurese, in this case. The convergent system of Gallurese, schematized in (23) (see Guarnerio 1898: 192; Corda 1983: 14f., 20, 23), arose via regular sound change as in Sassarese: (23) a. 3rd person pronouns b. Det and noun inflection Gallurese sg pl sg pl Latin m iɖɖ-u lu jattu li jatti < cattum/-i/-os 2nd IC ‘cat’ iɖɖ-i f iɖɖ-a la akka li akki < vaccam/-ae/-as 1st IC ‘cow’ Gallurese is spoken around and in Luras. Luras and Olbia are bidialectal enclaves in the Gallurese-speaking territory where the original Logudorese dialect—that must have been spoken throughout the north of Sardinia in the Middle Ages—is preserved and to which Gallurese has been added as a further variety to the speakers’ repertoire. Personal pronouns were not displayed in (22) since they show the effect of a more complicated contact-induced change than is observed in Sènnori. Here too, a neutralization in the plural has arisen and has extended to the singular too, but with a rather peculiar output, not only from a Romance perspective. Lurese, in fact, departs from the rest of Sardinian (and of the Romance languages in general) in having a binary gender contrast but three distinct forms, differing for the gender value, in all stressed third person pronouns. This is synthesized in (24):8 (24) 3rd person pronouns in the Logudorese dialect of Luras (Depperu 2006: 389) a. sg pl b. Latin etyma issεs (unmarked for gender) m=f issε ipse --m

issu

issɔs

(masculine, marked)

f

issa

issas

(feminine, marked)


(24a) autonomous morphology has crept into the core of functionally motivated gender agreement. In Lurese, moreover, the system (24a), which arose as an output of the change discussed, seems to require one more colour being added to the WALS map 44 (Siewierska  2005) on gender distinctions in independent personal pronouns. This map, as it stands, lists five different options,12 in addition to lack of a gender contrast, but records no case of a language like Lurese where the gender distinction is signalled in the third person only, in both singular and plural, but only in discourse contexts where gender disambiguation is required. In sum, changes in the gender system in Lurese resulted, again, in simplification on the one side, with a change from parallel to convergent agreement on all agreement targets (see (22)), and a complexification on the other side, since for personal pronouns ((24a)) there are now three distinct forms available for three distinct functions: marking of ungendered third person, and unambiguous marking of either feminine or masculine when gender-disambiguation is contextually required. 8.3.3  Romance gender and its impact on contact languages Romance languages are among the most widely spoken on the planet, owing to colonial expansion. Within the contact scenarios that arose as a consequence, gender also plays a role. Thus, for instance, Tagalog, spoken in the Philippines, originally had no grammatical gender, in the same way as all Austronesian languages, but it has borrowed from Spanish doublets denoting males vs females such as propesor/-a ‘professor (male)/(female)’, tindero/‑a ‘storekeeper(male)/(female)’, which by itself had no impact on grammar.13 However, the same ‑o/‑a alternation occurs on borrowed adjectives too (e.g. komiko/-a ‘funny’, simpatiko/-a ‘pleasing’, tonto/-a ‘stupid’; see Clark 1990: 955), where it does mark gender agreement, which shows that it has become legitimate to specify grammatical gender as an inherent lexical feature of the nouns at issue: (27)

a. nerbyos-o/**-a ba si propesor? nervous-m/-f q pers professor(m) ‘is the (male) professor nervous?’ b. nerbyos-a/**-o ba si propesora? nervous-f/-m q pers professor(f) ‘is the (female) professor nervous?’

12  These are distinctions in: (a) 3rd persons + 1st and/or 2nd person; (b) 3rd person only, but also nonsingular; (c) 3rd person singular only; (d) 1st or 2nd person but not 3rd; (e) 3rd person non-singular only. 13  Language contact studies are not immune to the sort of terminological pitfalls mentioned at the end of §1.2 and in n. 35, Ch. 3, as one quite often finds in the literature such statements as ‘we have also found a few examples of the introduction of gender marking’ (Hekking and Bakker 2007: 444) for languages in which gender agreement is never marked on agreement targets. The authors are referring here to ’beto ‘grandson’/’beta ‘granddaughter’, native Otomi words which have been provided with the ‑o/a endings on the Spanish model (see Sp. nieto/nieta ‘id.’): this is relevant for the linguistic expression of N-gender, not for L-gender (§1.1).



8.3  Contact-induced change in the gender system

301

c. loc-o/**-a ba si tindero? crazy-m/-f q pers storekeeper(m) ‘is the (male) storekeeper crazy?’ d. loc-a/**-o ba si tindera? crazy-f/-m q pers storekeeper(f) ‘is the (female) storekeeper crazy?’ This incipient gender agreement is marginal in the system, as gender-marking did not spread to adjectives not borrowed from Spanish, in spite of formal similarity. This is exemplified in (28), where a putative **matalina is non-existent: (28)

matalino/**matalina ba si    propesora? intelligent q pers professor ‘is the (female) professor intelligent?’

This is how a previously genderless language can acquire ‘contact-induced marginal gender’ (Th. Stolz 2012: 97, to which the reader is referred for a recent world-wide survey of such evidence). The phenomenon is widely attested, especially in contact languages of Spanish from the Americas to the Philippines, as exemplified in (29) (from Aikhenvald 2000: 48, 388): (29) a.  lok-o maqta ‘crazy-m boy’ vs lok-a sipas ‘crazy-f girl’ in Ayacucho Quechua; b. tsismos-o vs tsismos-a ‘gossipy-m vs -f’ < Sp. chismoso/-a in Ilocano (Austronesian); c. lok-o-ng Pinoy ‘crazy-m-att Philippine man’ vs lok-a-ng Pinoy ‘crazy-f-att Philippine woman’ in Tagalog (Austronesian). This acquired gender agreement in otherwise genderless languages usually concerns smallish classes of borrowed adjectives, but in the long run the mechanism may show an increase in productivity, according to some of the literature on Tagalog reviewed in Th. Stolz (2012: 100). On the other hand, mere borrowing of forms that are gender-inflected in the model language is not a sufficient condition for functional replica, as shown by the Mesoamerican examples reviewed by Chamoreau (2012: 82f.), among which are examples from Central Mexicano/Nahuatl (see Hill and Hill 1986: 266), reported in (30): (30)

in no-nān-tzīn poderoso art pos1-mother-dim powerful ‘as for my mother, she is powerful’

Central Mexicano/Nahuatl

In contact between gendered languages, many different scenarios have been investigated, ranging from the acquisition of Romance gender-agreement morphology with its ICs (e.g. on past participles) and the working of gender copy in Maltese (see respectively Mifsud 1995: 131f. and Ch. Stolz 2009), to change in the syntax of gender agreement, as in the case of Mosetén (an American-Indian language of Bolivia) described by Sakel (2007: 568), where under Spanish pressure, for younger speakers, masculine replaces feminine as an unmarked gender (for generic use): compare traditional mö’-ïn ‘3f-pl’ (e.g. resuming ‘mother and father’) with innovatory mi’-ïn ‘3m-pl’. Both the syntax of gender agreement and gender assignment have changed in the Croatian dialects of Molise (spoken in

The typological interest of lesser-known Romance gender systems

302

the villages of Acquaviva Collecroce and Montemitro), where neuter nouns have been reassigned to the masculine or the feminine on phonological grounds (see Breu 2011: 44) while neuter forms of agreement targets have become neutral, retaining the function of pronominalizing and/or signalling agreement with non-nominal antecedents: je lîp-o ‘[this] is sweet-n’ (see Rešetar 1911: 125; see also Breu 2003; Krstic 2013–14: 151). This will come as no surprise, as remarked by Breu (2011: 53f.), if one considers that these colonies are in a part of southern Italy (basso Molise, in the province of Campobasso, near the border with that of Chieti; see Map 3, the nearest points being 107 Montefalcone nel Sannio and 83 Guglionesi) where Romance dialects have lost the neuter, thus departing from the widespread more-than-binary systems found across central-southern Italy (see §4.4–4.5) and so resonated with Standard Italian in providing a two-gender model, putting the inherited Croatian three-gender system under pressure. The extreme case of contact between gendered languages, Michif, with its two concurrent gender systems, one of Romance and the other of Algonquian origin, has been touched upon in (26), Chapter 5.

8.4  Unusual conditions on gender/number agreement Gender/number agreement is usually triggered by the application of rules that are insensitive to morphology proper: ‘we do not expect to find genuine morphological conditions on agreement, because of the principle of “morphology-free” syntax’ (Corbett 2006: 184; see also Corbett 2009). The principle goes as follows: syntax can be sensitive to abstract properties realized in morphology, but not to specific inflectional marks for these properties (to dative case, say, but not to a particular dative case marking, or to a declension class for nouns); and it can be sensitive to syntactic subcategories of lexemes, but not to specific derivational marks for these subcategories (to abstract Ns, say, but not to just those abstract Ns with the derivational suffix ‑ness) (Zwicky 1996: 301).

In Loporcaro (2010b, 2015a), I have described an apparent violation of this well-established principle occurring in some dialects of northern Calabria, that is, those of Castrovillari and Verbicaro (province of Cosenza), where, according to the available sources, past participle (PtP) agreement in just one syntactic context is sensitive to the IC of the ­participle.14 The morphology of the relevant Castrovillarese participle forms is displayed in (31): (31)  Dialect of Castrovillari (province of Cosenza, northern Calabria): a. contextual inflection gender

number

sg pl

m

f

-ʊ

-a -I

b. inherent inflection (weak) akka tta΄ ‘to buy’ m

m

f

sg

kutt-ʊ

kɔtt-a

pl

kutt-I

kɔtt-I

f

sg akkattáː-t-ʊ akkattáː-t-a pl

c. inherent inflection (strong) kɔčI ‘to cook’

akkattáː-t-I

14  Fieldwork on the two dialects was carried out by Anna Pace and Giuseppina Silvestri, respectively (see Pace 1993–94: 65–96, 136–8, and Loporcaro and Silvestri 2011).



8.4  Unusual conditions on gender/number agreement

303

Gender and number are both marked affixally on all participles, strong and weak, just as on all class one adjectives, as seen in (25a), Chapter 3. In addition, gender is also marked on the PtP stem of some strong participles (see (31c)) via a root vowel alternation which arose through metaphony as shown in (32) (at stage (32b). The glide w is in parenthesis since metaphony first applied under the form of raising: see Loporcaro 2011c: 130–5, 2016c): (32)

a. Late Latin msg kɔk-t-u

>

b. Proto CSItRom c. Castrovillarese k(w)ott- -u > kutt-ʊ

mpl kɔk-t-i

k(w)ott- -i

kutt-

-I

fpl kɔk-t-e

kɔtt-

-e

kɔtt-

-I

fsg kɔk-t-a

kɔtt-

-a

kɔtt-

-a

‘cooked’

metaphony

-V raising; wo > u

Thus, in this dialect, a subset of strong PtPs which originally had Proto-Romance stressed mid vowels (other cases in point are e.g. apírt-ʊ/apɛ´rt-a ‘opened-m/f’ and kuːt‑ʊ/kɔːt-a ‘picked-m/f’) display root vowel alternation correlating with gender (by a morphonological rule). Consequently, only in those PtPs does gender have double exponence, being signalled on both the stem and the ending, whereas in all  other subclasses gender has single (affixal) exponence, because the stem is invariable. Since syntax is—usually—morphology-free, we would expect the contrast between the two types of PtPs (31b) vs (31c) to have no impact on the agreement rule, an expect­ ation which is indeed borne out by the vast majority of dialects showing the same morpho(phono)logical conditions:15 PtP agreement in several such dialects was exemplified in Chapter 4 (see the Central Marchigiano data in (119)–(122)), although no examples with metaphonic alternations were given. Consider now the following Maceratese examples (T. Paciaroni, p.c.): (33) a. rɔsa ε rvinuːt-a/**-o jeːri Rose be.prs.3sg come:ptp-f.sg/-n yesterday ‘Rose came yesterday’

unaccusative, weak PtP

b. rɔsa mmɔrt-a/ ε Rose be.prs.3sg f\die:ptp-f.sg/ ‘Rose has died’

unaccusative, strong PtP

**mmort-o n\die:ptp-n

15  For simplicity, in the following I will refer to PtPs of type (31c) as ‘strong’ PtPs, although the term traditionally denotes all root-stressed participles, including those like fatt-ʊ/-a ‘done-m/f’ or mɪːs-ʊ/‑a ‘put-m/f’, which, having a non-metaphonic stressed vowel, show the same agreement paradigm as weak PtPs (31b).

304

The typological interest of lesser-known Romance gender systems

(34) a. (l rɔːsa l=a ú-a) def.f.sg grapes(f)-sg Rose do3f.sg=have.prs.3sg ‘(The grapes) Rose has washed them’

rlaaːt-a/**-o wash:ptp-f.sg/-n DO clitic, weak PtP

b. (l rɔːsa l=a ú-a) def.f.sg grapes(f)-sg Rose do3f.sg=have.prs.3sg ‘(The grapes) Rose has picked them’

rkɔrd-a/ **rkord-o f\pick:ptp-f.sg/ n\pick:ptp-n DO clitic, strong PtP

(35) ú-a grapes(f)-sg lexical DO, weak PtP b. rɔːsa a rkord-o/ **rkɔrd-a l ú-a Rosa have.prs.3sg n\pick:ptp-n.sg/ f\pick:ptp-f.sg def.f.sg grapes(f)-sg ‘Rose has picked the grapes’ lexical DO, strong PtP a. rɔːsa a rlaaːt-o/**-a l Rosa have.prs.3sg wash:ptp-n/-f.sg def.f.sg ‘Rose has washed the grapes’

Contrary to Castrovillarese, Maceratese has parallel gender marking, since vowel raising has not applied and the dialect remained at stage (32b). It also has double exponence of gender on strong PtPs with metaphonic root-vowel alternation (see Loporcaro 2011a: 194–7 for details on the application of metaphony in Castro­ villarese strong PtPs). However, this is irrelevant for the syntax of PtP agreement and in any syntactic construction either agreement ((33)f.) or non-agreement ((35)) occurs uniformly, by syntactic rule, irrespective of whether the PtP is strong or weak. The same is observed in Castrovillarese too, in most syntactic constructions, as exemplified with unaccusative predicates and with direct object clitics in (36)f.: (36)  a. rɔːsa jε vvinʊːt-a/**-ʊ Rose be.prs.3sg come:ptp-f.sg/-m.sg unaccusative, weak PtP ‘Rose has come’

b. rɔːsa jε mmɔrt-a/ **mmurt-ʊ Rose be.prs.3sg f\die:ptp-f.sg/ m\die:ptp-m.sg unaccusative, strong PtP ‘Rose has died’ (37) a. (l rɔːsa a llavaːt-a/**-ʊ áːčin-a) def.f.sg grapes(f)-sg Rose do3f.sg=have.prs.3sg wash:ptp-f.sg/-m.sg DO clitic, weak PtP ‘(The grapes) Rose has washed them’ b. (l áːčin-a) rɔːsa a kkɔːt-a/ **kkuːt-ʊ def.f.sg grapes(f)-sg Rose do3f.sg=have.prs.3sg f\pick.ptp-f.sg/ m\pick.ptp-m.sg ‘(The grapes) Rose has picked them’ DO clitic, strong PtP



8.4  Unusual conditions on gender/number agreement

305

Weak PtPs mark agreement in gender and number on the endings (the (a) cases), while strong metaphonic PtPs mark number agreement affixally and have double exponence of gender on both ending and stem (the (b) cases). As expected, this morphological difference has no impact on the syntax so that PtP agreement occurs in both constructions. In another syntactic construction, however, this expectation is not met. In fact, just in the context where the potential agreement controller is a lexical (i.e. non-clitic) direct object noun phrase, the morphology of the participle does make a difference: (38) a. rɔːsa a llavaːt-ʊ/**-a l áːčin-a Rose have.prs.3sg wash:ptp-m.sg/-f.sg def.f.sg grapes(f)-sg ‘Rose has washed the grapes’ lexical DO, weak PtP b. rɔːsa a kkɔːt-a/ **kkuːt-ʊ l áːčin-a Rose have.prs.3sg f\pick.ptp-f.sg/ m\pick.ptp-m.sg def.f.sg grapes(f)-sg ‘Rose has picked the grapes’ lexical DO, strong PtP With lexical DOs, agreement in gender and number occurs on strong PtPs—where gender has double exponence ((38b))—whereas all other PtPs ((38a)), with simple exponence of gender, do not agree syntactically, even though their morphology would allow them to. The dialect of Verbicaro, also spoken in the northern Calabrian province of Cosenza, some 40 km to the west south-west as the crow flies, also displays, in its most conservative variety already exemplified in (81)–(86), Chapter 4, the same unexpected property in the agreement behaviour of strong metaphonic PtPs ((39c)), contrasting with other ICs ((39a–b)): (39) m f sg a. kantaːt-ə kantaːt-a pl

‘sung’

m b. fatt-ə

f fatt-a

‘done’

m c. kuѳ̯t-ə

f kɔːt-a

Verbicaro, N. Calabria

kɔːt-ə ‘picked’

Compared with Castrovillarese, the paradigms are further reduced owing to the regular merger of all final unstressed non-low vowels into schwa, which applied after metaphony thus rendering it opaque (see Silvestri  2008–09, 2009). Here too, most syntactic constructions do not show any impact of the PtP’s IC on the agreement rule, as exemplified in (40) with plain transitive reflexives:16 16  See Loporcaro and Silvestri (2011: 337–44) for examples illustrating the irrelevance of past participle morphology for object agreement in all the remaining syntactic contexts (intransitive perfective periphrastics, transitive perfective periphrastics with clitic DO, other reflexive clauses, etc.).

306

The typological interest of lesser-known Romance gender systems

(40) a. rɔːsa s a llavaːt-a/**-ə Rose(f) refl have.prs-3sg wash:ptp-f.sg/-m.sg direct reflexive, weak PtP ‘Rose has washed herself’ b. rɔːsa s a kkɔtt-a/**kkuѳ̯tt-ə Rose(f) refl have.prs-3sg f\scald:ptp-f.sg/m\scald:ptp-m.sg kk a past-a vʊddwεnt-a with def.f.sg pasta(f)-sg hot-f.sg direct reflexive, strong PtP ‘Rose has scalded herself with hot pasta’ Again, only in the context where the DO is a full NP does agreement occur on strong PtPs ((41b)) and not on weak ones ((41a)): (41) a. gˇgˇəsεppə a llavaːt-ə/**-a n-a kammIːs-a Joseph(m) have.prs-3sg wash:ptp-m.sg/-f.sg indef-f.sg shirt(f)-sg ‘Joseph has washed a shirt’ lexical DO, weak PtP b. páːtrə=ma a father(m)=1sg have.prs-3sg I n-a kassarɔːl-a indef-f.sg pot(f)-sg of ‘my father has cooked a pot of pasta’

kkɔtt-a/**kkuѳtt-ə ˆ /m\cook:ptp-m.sg f\cook:ptp-f.sg past-a pasta(f)-sg lexical DO, strong PtP

Thus, as argued in Loporcaro (2010b: 170f., 2015a: 122), in the synchronic grammar of these Northern Calabrian dialects, one is witnessing a genuine loop between morph­ ology and syntax of the kind ruled out by Zwicky’s principle:17 (42) Object agreement in Castrovillarese and Verbicarese syntax

controller is a 2

morphology double exponence output

PtP agreement

controller is a non-acting 2 √

no

simple exponence no agreement

17  The terms in (42) refer to the agreement rules as stated, like those seen in (47)f., (50)f. Ch. 5, within the framework of Relational Grammar by Loporcaro (1998: 234f.). The term ‘non-acting 2’ (see Blake 1990: 137) denotes the set of direct object plus the respective ‘chômeur’ (i.e. ‘the relation held by a nominal that has been ousted from term status’, Blake  1990: 2). This theory-internal terminology is immaterial here: however the syntactic rule is stated, the point is that it must refer to morphology.



8.4  Unusual conditions on gender/number agreement

307

First, the syntactic component has to scan the different clause types and establish in which ones the participle has to agree with the DO, as in (36)f. and (40), and in which  ones agreement is barred, because the syntactic conditions are not met. In Castrovillarese, to which the schema in (42) (in Loporcaro  2010b: 171) originally referred, the syntactic requirement to be met is the usual one for Romance PtP agreement, viz. that the clause contain at least one argument with the grammatical relation direct object: this excludes categorically transitive and unergative subjects from controlling agreement. For Verbicarese, things are more complicated since, as described by Ledgeway and Silvestri (2016: 179f.), even unergative clauses may show agreement, depending on the morphology of the participle, which may agree if strong but may not if weak, as exemplified in (43) with two synonymous participial forms: (43)

a. rɔːsa a Rose(f) have.prs-3sg ‘Rose has answered’ b. rɔːsa a Rose(f) have.prs-3sg ‘Rose has answered’

rrəspʊnnʊːt-ə/**-a answer:ptp-m.sg/-f.sg

unergative, weak PtP

rrəspuѳ̯sə/rrəspɔːsa m\answer.ptp-m.sg/f\answer.ptp-f.sg unergative, strong PtP

In view of (43), the syntactic condition stated in (42) requires revision for Verbicarese. Be that as it may, the crucial observation is that in these dialects, for some syntactic contexts syntactic information alone is not sufficient to establish whether PtP agreement will take place. Rather, in (38)/(41) (as well as in (43), for Verbicarese) the agreement rule has to check the IC of the participle, in order to let it agree if it belongs to class (31c)/(39c), and to prevent it from agreeing if this morphological condition is not met. In (42), as well as in describing the data in (36)–(41), I have underscored that exponence of a morphosyntactic, rather than purely morphological, feature is at stake here (see Corbett 2006: 122f. for the distinction). Alternatively, one could have stated that the agreement rule shows inward sensitivity to the participial stem, so that agreement in gender and number with lexical transitive DOs occurs only on PtPs whose stems have two alternants, not on those with non-alternating stems. However, this statement would have obscured the functional motivation behind (33)–(41), which emerges as soon as one puts these data in the broader perspective of (the on-going reduction of) Romance PtP agreement. In fact, the critical context for the syntax/ morphology loop schematized in (42)—agreement with lexical DOs—is the first one in which past participle agreement tends to be lost across Romance. Agreement in this syntactic context is preserved in only a few conservative areas including the ­dialects spoken further north of the Northern Calabrian varieties at issue here, in the Upper South subdivision centring on Naples. While these Upper South dialects are most conservative in this respect, they are more innovative as far as sound change is concerned, since—as evident from the data discussed in §4.5.1—they have merged

308

The typological interest of lesser-known Romance gender systems

final unstressed vowels into schwa, thus largely destroying the affixal carriers of agreement, for PtPs and other agreement targets. Therefore, a conflict arises between a conservative (and maximally permissive) object agreement rule, on the one hand, and an innovative, largely neutralized, morphology, which renders the application vs non-application of the rule empirically indiscernible in all regular paradigms (and thereby in most occurrences). Conversely, in the dialects spoken south of the northern Calabrian area considered in this section, that is, in central-southern Calabria and in Sicily, final unstressed vowels remained distinct and, consequently, so did inflections, on participles and elsewhere. Yet, the PtP agreement rule has become much more restrictive, for purely syntactic reasons, allowing for agreement only in the passive (just as in Spanish/Asturian, see (47), Ch. 5). Consequently, the area in which the exception to morphology-free syntax schematized in (42) came into being is ‘trapped’, as it were, between the two above-mentioned areas with diametrically opposed properties (one centring on Naples, to the north, and the other stretching from Sicily to central Calabria, to the south). This may help to explain why it is precisely in these northern Calabrian dialects that the syntactic change at issue took such an unexpected path (see Loporcaro  2010b: 172; Loporcaro and Silvestri 2011: 348). Apparently, the change consisting in the loss of agreement in precisely this context (but not elsewhere, e.g. not in (36)–(37), (40); see also Ledgeway and Silvestri 2016: 179) is creeping into the system, but this happens unexpectedly in a way that is sensitive to the morphology of the participle: if the participle possesses a paradigm of type (31b)/(39a–b), then object agreement has become ungrammatical, as shown in (38a)/(41a). Here, the participle could in principle agree, since f.sg la va ːt-a is a perfectly grammatical form, yet it never does; while in the same syntactic context, strong participles of type (31c)/(39c), which signal gender agreement with double exponence, do agree. In sum, these northern Calabrian data seem to provide a bona fide instance of a problematic case, which seems to defy any reanalysis that could reconcile it with the expectations stated by the morphology-free syntax principle.

8.5  Gender agreement on unusual targets While introducing targets of gender agreement in §1.2, it was specified that these do not include finite verb forms, on the whole, although with some exceptions. In Mozarabic (or Romandalusí, the variety of Ibero-Romance spoken under Muslim rule until the twelfth century), loss of auxiliaries through replication of the Semitic model resulted in gender-agreeing past tense verb-forms, in the same way as in Russian preterites of participial origin: for example mi-o sidéllo ben-id ‘my Cidiello came.m.sg’ (H 5, Corriente 1997: 309–11; small capitals are used for Romance morphs, lower case for Arabic). The same happens in acquisitional ­varieties of Italian where auxiliaries have not yet emerged (Loporcaro 1998: 220–4). Some Italo-Romance dialects, reviewed in Loporcaro and Vigolo (2002–03), to which the reader is referred for further references,18 have acquired gender marking 18  Compare, more recently, Manzini and Savoia (2005: 1.289–91).



8.5  Gender agreement on unusual targets

309

on the finite verb, often limited to just one cell of the paradigm of just the present indicative of just one verb lexeme. This is the case for ‘have’ in some dialects of the Emilian Apennines, exemplified by that of Grizzana Morandi in (44a)), and is the case for ‘be’ in Central Trentino and Central Friulian (see (44b–c)): (44) a. leː  l=ɛː        vest  / lo   l=a          vest

3f.sg  3f.sg=have.prs.3f.sg seen / 3m.sg 3m.sg=have.prs.3m.sg seen ‘she has seen/he has seen’ (Grizzanese; see Loporcaro 1996)

b. l=ɛi ̯       bɛːl-a  /   l=ɛ        bɛːl 3f.sg=be.prs.3f.sg  beautiful-f.sg/ 3m.sg=be.prs.3m.sg handsome[m.sg] ‘she is beautiful/he is handsome’ (Central Trentino; see Zörner 1989: 257, 261) c. al=e        lui /  e=je       je 3m.sg=be.prs.3m.sg 3m.sg /  3f.sg=be.prs.3f.sg 3f.sg ‘it’s him/her’ (Central Friulian; see Frau 1984: 85, 109; Marchetti 1985 : 266; Rizzolatti et al. 1998: 50)

In the Alpine Lombard dialect of Mesocco, Canton Grigioni, all and only 3pl forms of all verbs agree in gender with the subject (Salvioni 1902: 139): (45)

a.

kel-an    mat-an    la   me     degute-n/**degute dem.dist-f.pl little_girl(f)-pl 3f.pl  DO.1sg annoy.prs-3f.pl/-3m.pl ‘those little girls annoy me’

b. kušt      lavóːr   i   me   degute/    **degute-n dem.prox-m.pl  work(m).pl  3m.pl  DO.1sg  annoy.prs.3m.pl/ annoy.prs-3f.pl ‘these works annoy me’

By far the most spectacular system in this respect is that of the southern Marchigiano dialects spoken between the Tronto and Aso rivers. In Ripatransone (province of Ascoli Piceno) all finite verbs agree in gender with their subject, a peculiarity described in Parrino (1967b: 164), Harder (1988: 191–7), and several other studies (see Paciaroni and Loporcaro 2016 for further references). Consider the paradigm of the present indicative of the verb ‘to eat’ (the masculine forms are given in (46a), the feminine ones in (46b)): (46) Dialect of Ripatransone (province of Ascoli Piceno): a. pron (m) verb form (m) b. pron (f) verb form (f) ‘eat’ pres. ind. person 1 sg i i 2

tu

3

issu

maɲɲ-

-u

tu

maɲɲ-

-e

esse

1 pl nui

maɲɲ-eːm-

nui

maɲɲ-eːm-

2

vui

maɲɲ-eːt- -i

vui

maɲɲ-eːt- -a

3

išši

maɲɲ-

essa

maɲɲ-

310

The typological interest of lesser-known Romance gender systems

The greyed-out cells in (46) are those from which the respective endings originate: m ‑u and f ‑a are compatible etymologically with the first person Latin ending ‑o and third person ‑at respectively, as Ripano final unstressed ‑e corresponds to Latin ‑a. Their extension to the whole singular, thus overriding person contrasts, and the spread of non-etymological m ‑i and f ‑a as plural markers, were backed up by the reshaping of noun inflection (on which see §8.6). Ripano has a three-target-/four-controller-gender system of the type illustrated for a host of Central-Southern Italo-Romance dialects in §4.5. But unlike those dialects, gender agreement is also encoded on finite verb forms which, like other agreement targets, display a three-way contrast, as exemplified with data from Parrino (1967b: 162) in (47): (47) a. b. c.

l-ə    ɣra     krešš-ə def-n wheat(n) grow.prs-3n l-u      frəkí     krešš-u def-m.sg boy(m).sg grow.prs-3m.sg l-e     frəkiːn-e   krešš-e def-f.sg girl(f)-sg  grow.prs-3f.sg ‘wheat/the boy/the girl grows’

This agreement pattern, also reported in Harder (1988: 197), is undergoing change, since the informants consulted by Paciaroni and Loporcaro (2016) extend the previously feminine form krešš-e to agreement with neuter nouns in (47a), while preserving the originally neuter verb form as a neutral agreement marker in clauses lacking a nominal subject ((48a)): (48)

a. neuter sə  veːð-ə kə . . . one see.prs-n

b. masculine c. feminine iss-u   veːð-u ess-e    veːð-e m\3-m.sg see.prs-m.sg f\3-f.sg see.prs-f.sg

‘one sees that . . .’

‘he sees’

‘she sees’

The peculiarities of this dialect include even (optional) gender/number agreement on other parts of speech like manner adverbs, and on non-finite verb forms: (49) a.

nəm pət-eːm-i riːð-i/riːð-a neg can.prs-1pl-m.pl laugh.inf-m.pl/-nonf.sg ‘we (male referents) cannot laugh’ b.     nəm pət-eːm-a     riːð-a/**riːð-i   neg  can.prs-1pl-f.pl laugh.inf-f.pl/-m.pl ‘we (female referents) cannot laugh’

Infinitives (and the same goes for gerunds, not exemplified here) may optionally agree with their subjects, as seen in (49a) where the agreeing m.pl ending ‑i contrasts with default ‑a (glossed as ‘non-feminine-singular’)—which is phonologically identical with the schwa in the neuter verb endings in (47a)/(48a)—while in (49b) the only option is the ‑a inflection, expressing either f.pl agreement or non-agreement (default ‑a).



8.6  Syntactically-dependent overt gender marking

311

In addition, other constituents may also agree in gender with their subjects, including (bare) nouns in object position, especially in constructions with ‘have’-support (see Parrino 1967b: 161–3, 166; Harder 1988: 243–8), a typologically very rare phenomenon, documented for areally and genealogically very distant languages (see Corbett 2006: 47–9): (50)

a. i  sɛnd-u    fredd-u 1sg feel.prs-m.sg cold(n)-m.sg ‘I’m cold’ (male referent) b. i  sɛnd-e    fredd-e 1sg feel.prs-f.sg cold(n)-f.sg ‘I’m cold’ (female referent) c. l-ə/**-u/**-e sɛnd-ə/-e puːre i(a) DO-n/-m.sg/-f.sg feel.prs-n too  1sg.nom ‘I’m (cold) too’ (male or female)

The noun (l-ə) fredd-a ‘def-n cold’ is inherently specified as neuter, as shown by selection of the neuter form of the DO clitic in (50c), a construction which—in passing—demonstrates that this is indeed a noun (i.e. a nominalized adjective with noun syntax), resulting from conversion of the adjective fredd- ‘cold’. Alongside its inherent specification, the noun in (50a–b) takes on contextual gender/number marking by agreement with the clause subject.19 Gender/number agreement used to occur even on subcategorized prepositional phrases, in a rural and, by that time, already obsolescent variety of the dialect reported by Harder (1988: 250): (51)

a. ši    rəmašt-u   a  rroːm-u are.2sg stayed-m.sg in Rome-m.sg ‘you.m stayed in Rome’ b. seːt-i     rəmašt-i   a   rroːm-i are.2pl-m.pl stayed-m.pl in Rome-m.pl ‘you.mpl stayed in Rome’ Nowadays, Paciaroni and Loporcaro’s (2016) informants no longer display gender agreement in this context (where only invariable a rroːm-a has been reintroduced, identical with the Standard Italian form), but they still preserve subject-agreement in gender and number of predicative nouns in clauses such as those in (50a–b).

8.6  Syntactically-dependent overt gender marking A further typological peculiarity of this dialect is that it marks grammatical gender overtly on nouns—provided certain morphosyntactic, morphological, and phonological conditions are met—but this marking depends on syntactic context. 19  Another Romance variety displaying contextual agreement on nouns, viz. Central Asturian, has been discussed in (19), Ch. 5.

312

The typological interest of lesser-known Romance gender systems

Overt gender is defined as follows: Languages in which the gender of a noun is evident from its form are often described as having ‘overt’ gender; those where gender is not shown by the form of the noun have ‘covert’ gender. (Corbett 1991: 62)

Corbett (1991: 62) also observes that ‘the distinction is much less rigid than is often implied. There are many possibilities between the poles of absolutely overt and absolutely covert.’ Indeed, as illustrated in Paciaroni and Loporcaro (2016), while gender marking on agreement targets depends on syntactic context in several languages—a well-known case in point being German adjective inflection; see also verb inflection in Somali and Inari Sami, discussed in Corbett (2006: 93–6)—Ripano seems to be the first language so far described in which overt gender (i.e. gender marking on the controller noun itself) depends on syntactic context. To appreciate this peculiarity, some information on noun inflection is necessary (see Paciaroni and Loporcaro 2016 for a fuller account of Ripano noun ICs). As shown in (52), gender agreement appears, as usual, on the definite article (as exemplified in (52)), as well as on all agreement targets, a set which includes in this variety many unusual word classes, as seen in §8.6: (52)  sg

a. neuter lə saːl-a

pl ‘the salt’

b. masculine c. feminine lu fijj-a le frəkiːn-e li fijj-a

lə frəkiːn-a

‘the son’

‘the girl’

dialect of Ripatransone Noun, weak inflection

When the noun occurs in a phrase containing a determiner, as in (52), the word form selected in that context belongs to the weak inflectional paradigm, in which the ‑a ending (reduced to ‑ə clause-internally) is generalized on all forms but the singular of (class one) feminine nouns. This ‑a (‑ə) ending is the morphological default in noun inflection and it is not by chance that the same ending serves as the default in finite verb inflection too, as shown above in (48a). In the weak paradigm (52), the only inflection to signal gender overtly is the one occurring in the singular of (class one) feminines. Contrast now the schema of strong noun inflection in (53): (53)  sg

a. neuter saːl-a

pl ‘salt’

b. masculine c. feminine frəkiːn-e fijj-u frəkiːn-a fijj-i ‘son’

dialect of Ripatransone Noun, strong inflection

‘girl’

These inflections are selected on nouns whenever these occur within a phrase that does not contain any agreement target preceding the noun itself, as exemplified in (54a), while (54b) exemplifies the context where weak inflection (52), with the default ending on the masculine noun, occurs:



8.7  Concurrent gender systems in Romance

313

(54) a. kə  ttjemb-u/**-a     bbrutt-u what time(m)-m.sg/-nonf.sg bad-m.sg ‘what a bad time/weather!’ b. l-u    bbrutt-ə/**‑u     tjemb-a/**‑u def-m.sg bad-nonf.sg/-m.sg time(m)-nonf.sg/-m.sg ‘the bad weather’ Masculine nouns are the only ones showing context-dependent overt gender marking. In fact, neuter and feminine nouns take the same inflections whatever the syntactic context—as readily apparent by comparison of the weak and strong paradigms in (52) and (53). However, masculine nouns belonging to two ICs (fijj-u/-i ‘son/‑s’ and paːʈʂ-a /-i ‘father/‑s’, the heirs of Latin second and third declensions, respectively—see Harder 1988: 114–21) inflect differently in the context (54b), where the weak paradigm (52) is selected, vs (54a), where the strong paradigm (53) is selected (for nouns inflecting like paːʈʂa, the difference is observed only in the plural). To sum up, a singular u- and a plural i-ending on nouns signal the (masculine) gender of the noun itself, and since these endings appear only in a given syntactic context, this is an instance of a previously undescribed kind of overt gender. Not unlike the dependency of agreement on participle inflection seen in §8.4, the rise of the peculiar gender/number marking of Ripano on nouns, verbs, and elsewhere, can also be better understood if placed in its areal context. In fact, the dialects spoken immediately to the south, like Ascolano, are at the north-eastern border of the Upper South subdivision whose southern fringe was mentioned at the end of §8.4, where final unstressed vowels merged. In Ascolano, merger into ‑/ə/, which spread from Naples, affected all non-low final vowels, while only ‑/a/ remained distinct (Parrino 1967a: 32; Gaspari 1971–72: 158f.; AIS pt. 578). According to the standard reconstruction (Parrino 1967b: 159f.; Lüdtke 1976: 82; Harder 1988: 35–42, 100f.; Loporcaro and Vigolo 2002–03: 9f.), Ripano also went through such a stage: here, in addition, original ‑/a/ changed to ‑/e/ while ‑/ə/, resulting from the merger of non-low vowels, acquired an allophone ‑[a], realized especially in prepausal position. This reduced final-vowel system was then further modified: while ‑/ə/ has remained as the default ending, the other verbal and nominal inflections were reshaped in a functionally-driven way, so as to systematically mark gender and number far beyond the province where this is usual in Romance, as well as under unusual conditions.

8.7  Concurrent gender systems in Romance A review of the highlights from Romance gender systems, in terms of typological interest, cannot be concluded without mentioning Central Asturian again. According to the analysis proposed in Chapter 5, this variety lines up with a small but slowly increasing (as more refined analyses become available) handful of languages in which two distinct—if, at times, partly overlapping in form and/or function—systems for noun classification co-exist side by side. This is the first reported case for Europe and—apart from the French component of Michif (see (26), Ch. 5)—the first involving a Romance language, since the other comparable cases known so far,

314

The typological interest of lesser-known Romance gender systems

reviewed in Fedden and Corbett (2017), come from Australia, Papua New Guinea, or the Americas. As argued in §7.5, in the story of the diachronic development of the Romance gender system(s) out of Latin, this is clearly a chapter of its own, since the Asturian neuter arose when a semantically specified subset of first masculine, and then feminine nouns started to trigger a dedicated agreement on non-prenominal agreement targets, which departed from the m/f agreement inherited from Latin and preserved in NP-internal prenominal position. The link to the broader diachronic story told in this book is provided by the formal continuity of the neuter agreement marker ‑o which ultimately goes back to the Latin neuter, even if its function and the contexts where it occurs were redefined in a surprising way.

8.8  Concluding remarks: enriching the WALS with Romance data Having reached the end of this journey across time and space, through the LatinRomance gender systems, the crucial message is that, as announced from the outset, the current handbook account of this empirical dataset is much too simplified. It is also fair to say that the wealth of relevant data provided by variation across time and space in Romance has been underexploited so far, for purposes of both diachronic reconstruction and synchronic typology. On the latter front, the most concise way of concluding is by suggesting how the content of the book would impact on the ­relevant WALS maps; that is, how they would affect the most systematic overview of linguistic diversity available to date. Of course, this is nothing more than a Gedankenexperiment, but one that raises the much-debated issue of sampling for typological purposes, addressed with respect to Romance dialect data in Loporcaro (2005): The reason why data like (10)–(15) [illustrating the occurrence of vowel harmony in Romance— M.L.] are invisible to large-scale typologising depends on the well-established procedure of sampling. Of course, sampling is necessary for both practical and conceptual reasons. Nevertheless, it is a fact that using this procedure may result in Standard Italian (or French, or Spanish) being considered representative of something like the ‘Romance type’. This procedure can contribute to the erroneous conclusion that ‘Romance does not have V[owel] H[armony]’. Obviously, this is an example of the distorsions sampling can generate. (Loporcaro 2005: 217)

There is no easy solution to this dilemma, since ‘for each Indo-European dot you have to add several non-Indo-European dots to maintain the balance’ (Grev Corbett, p.c., January 2017), but it is important for language typologists to realize what amount of linguistic diversity is smoothed away by sampling, making Europe, in our case, look linguistically much duller than it really is. Thus, taking Map 30 (Number of genders), a first—quite unspectacular—result would be enhanced granularity in the display of rarer options in Europe: orange dots for three-valued systems would appear for Romanian and for several dialects of Italy, and red dots (for four-gender systems, shown now only as further east as the Caucasus) should be added too for Central-Southern Italo-Romance (§4.5) as well as for IstroRomanian (see (16c)), keeping in mind the possibility—suggested in §7.9—that at least two black dots (for five-gender systems) may have appeared at some past stage.



8.8  Concluding remarks: enriching the WALS with Romance data

315

The revision would have an even stronger impact in the case of WALS map 44 (Gender distinctions in independent personal pronouns; Siewierska  2005) where, as suggested in §8.3.2, integrating the Northern Sardinian dialect of Luras would require adding a new colour to the six options (including lack of distinction) displayed on the map: distinction in third person only, also for non-singular and just for disambiguation, as found in Lurese, is a novel structural arrangement to be added to the types inventoried there. Finally, suppose that the analysis of Asturian put forward in Chapter 5 is on the right track. In this case, were a new map on concurrent gender systems to be drawn based on the evidence recently gathered by Fedden and Corbett (2017) from languages of the Americas, Australia, and Papua New Guinea, such a map should include this variety of Northern Ibero-Romance. In fact, this language displays one binary gender system (of the ‘mainstream’ Romance type described in Chapter 3) that has arisen via the demise of the Latin neuter, and simultaneously a concurrent threevalued gender system in which the neuter has re-emerged as a semantically defined lexical target-and-controller gender, from a previous stage in which it must have been reduced to a target non-lexical gender as described in §§4.3.3–4.3.4. In conclusion, it will have become evident by now that dialect variation across Romance is not only a deservedly well-trodden hunting ground for (Romance) historical linguists. Rather, provided it is scrutinized in-depth and through the appropriate typologically-informed spectacles, it also holds surprises for the general linguist interested in what linguistic rara and rarissima can teach us ‘about the capacities and limits of human language’ (Cysouw and Wohlgemuth 2010: 1).

Bibliography Note: In the case of papers later republished in a collected volume as well as in that of translations, reference is made to those works by indicating the original date and the page number of the more recent edition/translation. Note that some of the works listed are not cited but only used as sources for the maps (especially Map 3). Abatangelo, Antonio, and Palumbo, Antonio (2001). Vocabolario etimologico illustrato del dialetto molese. Palo del Colle: Tipolitografia Danisi. Acquaviva, Paolo (2000). La grammatica italiana: il lavoro comincia adesso. Lingua e stile 35: 249–71. Acquaviva, Paolo (2002). Il plurale in -a come derivazione lessicale. Lingue e linguaggio 2: 295– 326. Acquaviva, Paolo (2004). The Morphosemantics of Transnumeral Nouns. In Geert Booij, Emiliano Guevara, Angela Ralli, Salvatore Sgroi, and Sergio Scalise (eds), Morphology and Linguistic Typology. On-line Proceedings of the Fourth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM4) Catania, 21–23 September 2003, 251–63. Available at: https://geertbooij.files. wordpress.com/2014/02/mmm4-proceedings.pdf / [accessed 17 June 2017]. Acquaviva, Paolo (2008). Lexical Plurals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Adams, James N. (1999). The Poets of Bu Njem: Language, Culture and the Centurionate. Journal of Roman Studies 89: 109–34. Adams, James N. (2011). Late Latin. In James Clackson (ed.), A Companion to the Latin Language. Malden, MA/Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 257–81. Adams, James N. (2013). Social Variation and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aebischer, Paul (1933). Les pluriels analogiques en -ora dans les chartes latines de l’Italie, Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi 8: 55–76. AFL = Melillo (1955a). AFP = Melillo (1955b). Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2000). Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2012). Round Women and Long Men: Shape, Size, and the Meanings of Gender in New Guinea and Beyond. Anthropological Linguistics 54(1): 33–86. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2016). How Gender Shapes the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. AIS = Jaberg and Jud (1928–40). Alarcos Llorach, Emilio (1958). Sobre la metafonía asturiana. In Mélanges Emil Petrovici. Cercetări de lingvistică. Cluj (originally in French). Repr. in Spanish translation in Emilio Alarcos Llorach (1980). Cajón de sastre asturiano. 2 vols. Salinas (Asturias): Ayalga, 2.59–74. Aliffi, Maria Lucia (2006). Epiceno e promiscuo: indagine sul significato. In Lucio Melazzo (ed.), Grammatica in prospettiva teorica e storica. Rome: Il Calamo, 7–22.

318

Bibliography

Alig, Balthasar (1674). Epistolas ad Evangelis sin tuttas domeingias, a firaus; a gijs della quareisma, cun la Passiun de N. S. I. Christi. Cuera si Cuort: Barbisch. Alkire, Ti, and Rosen, Carol (2010). Romance Languages. A Historical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. A.Ll.A. (1987) = Academia de la Llingua Asturiana (1987). Informes al XIII Conceyu Internacional de Llingües y Cultures Amenazaes. Uviéu: Academia de la Llingua Asturiana. A.Ll.A. (1990) = Academia de la Llingua Asturiana (1990). Normes ortográfiques y entamos normativos, 3rd edn. Uviéu: Academia de la Llingua Asturiana. A.Ll.A. (2001) = Academia de la Llingua Asturiana (2001). Gramática de la Llingua Asturiana, 3rd edn. Uviéu: Academia de la Llingua Asturiana. ALI = Bartoli et al. (1995–). Alonso, Dámaso (1958). Metafonía y neutro de materia en España. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 74: 1–24. Alonso, Dámaso (1962). Metafonía, neutro de materia y colonización suditaliana en la Península Hispánica. In Manuel Alvar et al. (eds), Enciclopedía lingüística hispánica. Tomo I Suplemento: La fragmentación fonética peninsular. Madrid: C.S.I.C., 104–54. Repr. in Dámaso Alonso (1972). Obras completas, vol. 1. Madrid: Gredos, 147–213. ALR = Petrovici (1940). Alvanoudi, Angeliki (2015). Grammatical Gender in Interaction. Cultural and Cognitive Aspects. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Ambadiang, Théophile (1999). La flexión nominal. Género y número. In Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte (eds), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. 3 vols. Madrid, EspasaCalpe, 3.4843–913. Andersen, Henning (1973). Abductive and Deductive Change. Language 49: 567–93. Andresen, Hugo (ed.) (1877). Maistre Wace’s Roman de Rou et des Ducs de Normandie. Heilbronn: Verlag von Gebr. Henninger. Angeletti, Anna Maria (1969–70). Documenti volgari maceratesi dei secc. XIII, XIV e XV. Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia di Perugia 7: 71–110. APiCS online = Michaelis, Susanne Maria, Maurer, Philippe, Haspelmath, Martin, and Huber, Magnus. The Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures Online. http://apicsonline.info/. Appel, Carl (1883). De genere neutro intereunte in lingua latina. Dissertation. Hildesheim. Arias Cabal, Álvaro (1998). Diacronía del incontable o ‘neutro de materia’ en asturiano. In Giovanni Ruffino (ed.), Atti del XXI Congresso di Linguistica e Filologia Romanza, Palermo, 18–24 settembre 1995, vol. 1. Grammatica storica delle lingue romanze. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 35–49. Arias Cabal, Álvaro (1999). El morfema de ‘neutro de materia’ en asturiano. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad. Arias[-Cachero] Cabal, Álvaro (2011). Un sincretismo de género en la esfera de la cuantificación. Los problemas para analizar el neutro de materia como género en asturiano. In Elisabeth Stark and Natascha Pomino (eds), El sincretismo en la gramática del español. Madrid/ Frankfurt: Iberoamericana/Vervuert, 119–44. Aronoff, Mark (1994). Morphology by Itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Arvinte, Vasile (1959). Terminația de plural -auă a unor substantive neutre. Studii şi cercetări lingvistice 10: 213–39.



Bibliography

319

Arvinte, Vasile, Caproșu, Ioan, Gafton, Alexandru, and Guia, Sorin (eds) (2005–07). Palia de la Orăștie (1582) I. Textul, II. Studii. Iași: Editura Universității ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’. Ascoli, Graziadio Isaia (1878). Annotazioni dialettologiche alla ‘Cronica deli imperadori romani’. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 3: 244–84. Ascoli, Graziadio Isaia (1880–83). Annotazioni sistematiche al Barlaam e Giosafat soprasilvano. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 7: 406–602. Assenza, Elvira, and De Angelis, Alessandro (2013). Monottongazione dei dittonghi metafonetici ed abbassamento delle vocali alte in un’area della Sicilia centrale: per una riconsiderazione del problema. In Emili Casanova Herrero and Cesáreo Calvo Rigual (eds), Actas del XXVI Congreso Internacional de Lingüística y de Filología Románicas (València, 6–11 de septiembre de 2010), vol. 1. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 483–96. Audring, Jenny (2009a). Gender Assignment and Gender Agreement: Evidence from Pronominal Gender Languages. Morphology (2008) 18: 93–116. Audring, Jenny (2009b). Reinventing Pronoun Gender. Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series. Audring, Jenny (2014). Gender as a Complex Feature. In Tania Paciaroni, Anna M. Thornton, and Michele Loporcaro (eds), Exploring Grammatical Gender. Special issue of Language Sciences 43(1): 5–17. Aurigemma, Luisa (ed.) (1998). La ‘Mascalcia’ di Lorenzo Rusio nel volgarizzamento del codice Angelicano V.3.14. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, Avolio, Francesco (1995). Bommèsprə. Profilo linguistico dell’Italia centro-meridionale. San Severo: Gerni. Avolio, Francesco (1996). Il ‘neutro di materia’ nei dialetti centro-meridionali: fonti, dati recenti, problemi aperti. CoFIM 10: 291–337. Avolio, Francesco (2002a). Il Molise. In Manlio Cortelazzo, Carla Marcato, Nicola De Blasi, and Gianrenzo P. Clivio (eds), I dialetti italiani. Storia, struttura, uso. Turin: UTET, 608–27. Avolio, Francesco (2002b). L’ Abruzzo. In Manlio Cortelazzo, Carla Marcato, Nicola De Blasi, and Gianrenzo P. Clivio (eds), I dialetti italiani. Storia, struttura, uso. Turin: UTET, 568–607. Babou, Cheikh Anta, and Loporcaro, Michele (2016). Noun classes and grammatical gender in Wolof. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 37(1): 1–57. Bacchinius, Benedetto (1708). Agnelli, qui et Andreae Abbatis S. Mariae ad Blachernas et S. Bartholomei Rauennae Liber Pontificalis siue uitae Pontificum Rauennatum. Modena: typis Antonii Capponii impressoris episcopalis. Repr. in Ludovico Antonio Muratori (ed.) (1723). Rerum Italicarum Scriptores. 2.1. Milan: ex Typographia Societatis Palatinae in Regia Curia; and Patrologia Latina 106, col. 431–832. Badecker, William, Miozzo, Michele, and Zanuttini, Raffaella (1995). The Two-stage Model of Lexical Retrieval: Evidence from a Case of Anomia with Selective Preservation of Grammatical Gender. Cognition 57: 193–216. Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan, and Corbett, Greville G. (2005). The Syntax–Morphology Interface. A Study of Syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baider, Fabienne, and Yaguello, Marina (2007). Du Sexe des mots. Entretien avec Marina Yaguello. In Parité linguistique, special issue of Nouvelles Questions Féministes 26(3): 102–8. Bakker, Peter (1997). A Language of Our Own. The Genesis of Michif, the Mixed Cree-French Language of the Canadian Métis. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baldelli, Ignazio (1983). Medioevo volgare da Montecassino all’Umbria, 2nd edn. Bari: Adriatica.

320

Bibliography

Balducci, Sanzio (1986). Metafonia e dittongazione nel dialetto di Montelago di Sassoferrato. Quaderni dell’Istituto di linguistica dell’Università di Urbino 4: 249–305. Balducci, Sanzio (1987). I dialetti. In Sergio Anselmi (ed.), La provincia di Ancona. Bari: Laterza, 273–84. Balducci, Sanzio (1993a). I dialetti delle Marche meridionali. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. Balducci, Sanzio (1993b). Note sul dialetti fabrianesi di montagna: Poggio S. Romualdo, Vigne, S. Giovanni e Castelletta, in Sanzio Balducci, I dialetti delle Marche meridionali. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 137–66. Balducci, Sanzio (2000). Marche. Profilo dei dialetti italiani 10. Pisa: Pacini. Balles, Irene (2004). Zur Rekonstruktion des früh-urindogermanischen Nominalklassensystems. In Adam, Hyllested, Anders Richardt Jørgensen, Jenny Helena Larsson, and Thomas Olander (eds), Per aspera ad asteriscos. Studia Indogermanica in honorem Jens Elmegård Rasmussen sexagenarii Idibus Martis anno MMIV. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 43–57. Bambini, Valentina, Canal, Paolo, Breimaier, Federica, Meo, Domenico, Pescarini, Diego, and Loporcaro, Michele (in preparation). A Biomarker for On-going Morphosyntactic Change: Weaker P600 for a Fading Gender Value in a Southern Italo-Romance Dialect. Ms., IUSS (Pavia)/Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa/University of Zurich. Banchi, Luciano (ed.) (1871). Statuti senesi scritti in volgare ne’ secoli XIII e XIV, vol. 2. Bologna: Romagnoli. Barbato, Marcello (2002). La formazione dello spazio linguistico campano. Bollettino linguistico campano 2: 29–64. Barbato, Marcello (2008). Metafonia napoletana e metafonia sabina. In Alessandro De Angelis (ed.), I dialetti italiani meridionali tra arcaismo e interferenza. Palermo: CSFLS, 275–89. Barbato, Marcello (2010). Il principio di dissimilazione e il plurale di I classe (con excursus sul destino di TUUS SUUS e sull’analogia. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 126: 39–70. Barber, Horacio, and Carreiras, Manuel (2005). Grammatical Gender and Number Agreement in Spanish: An ERP Comparison. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 17(1): 137–53. Barcia López, Ramiro Javier (2014). El artículo neutro en gallego-asturiano. Revista de filoloxía asturiana 14: 79–92. Barney, Stephen A., Lewis, W. J., Beach, J. A., and Berghof, Oliver (2006). The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bartoli, Matteo G. (1906). Das Dalmatische. Altromanische Sprachreste von Veglia bis Ragusa und ihre Stellung in der Apennino-Balkanischen Romania. 2 vols. Vienna: Hölder. Bartoli, Matteo Giulio, Vidossi, Giuseppe, Terracini, Benvenuto A., Bonfante, Giuliano, Grassi Corrado, Genre, Arturo, and Massobrio, Lorenzo (1995ff.). Atlante linguistico italiano. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato/Libreria dello Stato. Bateman, Nicoleta, and Polinsky, Maria (2010). Romanian as a Two-gender Language. In Donna Gerdts, John Moore, and Maria Polinsky (eds), Hypothesis A—Hypothesis B. Linguistic Explorations in Honor of David M. Perlmutter. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 41–77. Battaglia, Salvatore [later Bàrberi Squarotti, Giorgio] (1961–2002). Grande dizionario della lingua italiana. 21 vols. Turin: UTET. Bayot, Alphonse (1931). Gormont et Isembart. Fragment de chanson de geste du XIIe siècle. Paris: Champion. Bazell, Charles E. (1952). Has Rumanian a Third Gender? Cahiers Sextil Puşcariu 1(1): 77–85.



Bibliography

321

Bazell, Charles E. (1953). The Rumanian Neuter: A Rejoinder. Cahiers Sextil Puşcariu 2(1): 52–6. Bejan, Dumitru (2001). Gramatica limbii române. Compendiu, 3rd edn. Cluj: Editura Echinox. Belardi, Walter (1950). La questione del numero nominale. Ricerche linguistiche 1: 204–33. Bello, Pierino (2003). Dizionario del dialetto di Pietraroia (alto Sannio beneventano). Naples: P. Bello [http://www.ilc.it/dizionario_pietraroia.pdf]. Bembo, Pietro (1966). Prose della volgar lingua. Repr. in Pietro Bembo, Prose e Rime, ed. Carlo Dionisotti, 2nd edn. Turin: UTET, 71–309. Benincà, Paola, and Pescarini, Diego (2014). Clitic placement in the dialect of S. Valentino in Abruzzo citeriore. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 101: 37–65. Beretta, Claudio (1980). Contributo per una grammatica del milanese contemporaneo. Milan: Virgilio. Berger, Hermann (1998). Die Burushaski-Sprache von Hunza und Nager. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz. Berruto, Gaetano (1974). Piemonte e Valle d’ Aosta. Profilo dei dialetti italiani 5. Pisa: Pacini. Bertinetto, Pier Marco, and Loporcaro, Michele (1999). Geminate distintive in posizione iniziale: Uno studio percettivo sul dialetto di Altamura (Bari). Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, 4th s., 4(2): 305–22. Bertoletti, Nello (2005). Testi veronesi dell’ età scaligera. Edizione, commento linguistico e glossario. Padua: Esedra. Besta, Enrico, and Guarnerio, Pier Enea (eds) (1905). Carta de Logu de Arborea. Testo con Prefazioni illustrative. Sassari: Dessì. Bianchi, Patricia, De Blasi, Nicola, and Librandi, Rita (1993). I’ te vurria parlà. Storia della lingua a Napoli e in Campania. Naples: Tullio Pironti. Bianconi, Sandro (1962). Ricerche sui dialetti d’Orvieto e di Viterbo nel medioevo. Studi linguistici italiani 3: 3–175. Bibla 1718 = La S. Bibla quei ei: Tut la Soinchia Scartira, ner Tuts ils Cudischs d’ilg Veder a Nief Testament, Cun ils Cudischs Apocryphs. Messa giu Ent ilg Languaig Rumonsch de la Ligia Grischa tras Anchins Survients d’ilg Plaid da Deus d’ils Venerands Colloquis Sur-a Sut ilg Guault. Coira: Andrea Pfeffer. Bifrun, Iachiam (ed.) (1560). L’ g Nuof Testamaint da nos Signer Jesu Christi. Basel/Poschiavo: Jacobus Kündig, Stefano Catani, Dolfino Landolfi. Repr. Bern: Schweizerische Landesbibliothek, 2001. Blake, Barry J. (1990). Relational Grammar. London: Routledge. Blasi, Bruno (1983). Il dialetto cornetano. Bollettino della Società Tarquiniese di Arte e Storia 12: 1–67. Blaylock, Curtis (1965). Hispanic metaphony. Romance Philology 18: 253–71. Bloch, Jules (1934). L’ indo-aryen du Veda aux temps modernes. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve. Bonami, Olivier, and Boyé, Gilles (2005). Construire le paradigme d’un adjectif. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 34: 77–98. Bonazzi, Giuliano (ed.) (1900). Il Condaghe di S. Pietro di Silki. Testo logudorese inedito dei secoli XI–XIII. Sassari-Cagliari: Dessì. Bonfante, Giuliano (1961). Esiste il neutro in italiano? Quaderni dell’istituto di glottologia dell’università di Bologna 6: 103–9. Repr. in Giuliano Bonfante (1973). Studii Romeni. Rome: Società Accademica Romena, 161–70. Bonfante, Giuliano (1964). Il neutro italiano, romeno, e albanese. Acta Philologica [Societas Academica Dacoromana] 3: 24–37. Repr. in Giuliano Bonfante (1973). Studii Romeni. Rome: Società Accademica Romena, 173–87.

322

Bibliography

Bonfante, Giuliano (1977). Ancora il neutro italiano e romeno. L’Italia dialettale 40: 287–92. Bonin, Erika (1952). Beiträge zur Mundart und Volkskunde von Gorfigliano (Garfagnana) und Nachbarorte. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Munich. Bontempo, Edda, and Bontempo, Elio (1997). Castelvetere in Val Fortore, Lingua e cultura. Naples: Arte Tipografica. Booij, Geert (1994). Against Split Morphology. In Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 1993. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 27–49. Booij, Geert (1996). Inherent Versus Contextual Inflection and the Split Morphology Hypothesis. In Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1–16. Borgogno, Giovanni Battista (1980). La lingua dei dispacci di Filippo della Molza diplomatico mantovano della seconda metà del secolo XIV. Studi di grammatica italiana 9: 9–171. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, and Schlesewsky, Matthias (2008). An Alternative Perspective on ‘Semantic P600’ Effects in Language Comprehension. Brain Research Reviews 59: 55–73. Boroditsky, Lera, Schmidt, Lauren A., and Phillips, Webb (2003). Sex, Syntax, and Semantics. In Dedre Gentner (ed.), Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 61–79. Bosi, Franco (2012). In dialetto. Parole e frasi dalla parlata di Foligno. Foligno (PG): Centro di ricerche Federico Frezzi. Bottiglioni, Gino (1920). Saggio di fonetica sarda. Studj Romanzi 15: 5–114. Bourciez, Edouard (1946). Éléments de linguistique romane, 4th edn. Paris: Klincksieck. Brăescu, Raluca, Nedelcu, Isabela, Stan, Cornelia, and Tomescu, Domnița (2008). Substantivul. In Valeria Guțu Romalo (ed.), Gramatica limbii române, vol. 1, Cuvântul; vol. 2, Enunțul. Revisited edn. [1st edn. 2005]. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, vol. 1, 61–139. Braune, Wilhelm, and Heidermanns, Frank (2004). Gotische Grammatik. Mit Lesestücken und Wörterverzeichnis. 20. Auflage neu bearbeitet von Frank Heidermanns. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Breu, Walter (2003). Impersonales Neutrum im Moliseslavischen. In Sebastian Kempgen, Ulrich Schweier, and Tilman Berger (eds), Rusistika, Slavistika, Lingvistika. Festschrift für Werner Lehfeldt zum 60. Geburtstag. Munich: Sagner, 57–71. Breu, Walter (2011). La ristrutturazione della categoria del genere grammaticale nello slavomolisano. In Patrizia Del Puente (ed.), Dialetti: per parlare e parlarne. Atti del secondo Convegno Internazionale di Dialettologia—Progetto A.L.Ba. (Potenza-Venosa-Matera, 13–15 maggio 2010). Rionero in Vulture (PZ): Calice Editori, 35–57. Brown, Dunstan (1998). Defining ‘Subgender’: Virile and Devirilized Nouns in Polish. Lingua 104: 187–233. Brüch, Josef (1921). Die Entwicklung von ‑us, -um im Volkslatein. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 41: 429–34. Brunale, Arnaldo (2001). Vocabolario ragionato del dialetto di Campobasso. Ferrazzano: Edizioni Enne. Brunale, Arnaldo (2003). Grammatica e sintassi descrittive del dialetto di Campobasso. Ferrazzano: Edizioni Enne. Brunet, Jacqueline (1978). Grammaire critique de l’italien. 1. Paris: University of Paris VIII— Vincennes. Bruschi, Renzo (1980). Vocabolario del dialetto del territorio di Foligno. Perugia: Università degli Studi.



Bibliography

323

Buchi, Eva (2006). Wieviel Wortbildung, wieviel Morphologie verträgt die etymologische Forschung? Bemerkungen zur Beschreibung rumänischer Slavismen. In Wolfgang Dahmen, Günter Holtus, Johannes Kramer, Michael Metzeltin, Wolfgang Schweickard, and Otto Winkelmann (eds), Lexikalischer Sprachkontakt in Südosteuropa. Romanistisches Kolloquium XII. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 73–90. Bujor, Ion Ionescu (1955). Genul substantivelor în limba română. Limba română 4(6): 51–64. Bull, William (1965). Spanish for Teachers: Applied Linguistics. New York: The Ronald Press Co. Bunt, Harry C. (1985). Mass Terms and Model-theoretic Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buridant, Claude (2000). Nouvelle grammaire de l’ ancien français. Paris: Sedes. Cacciari, Cristina, Corradini, Paola, Padovani, Roberto, and Carreiras, Manuel (2011). Pronoun Resolution in Italian: The Role of Grammatical Gender and Context. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 23(4): 416–34. Caffarra, Sendy, Janssen, Niels, and Barber, Horacio A. (2014). Two Sides of Gender: ERP Evidence for the Presence of Two Routes during Gender Agreement Processing. Neuropsychologia 63: 124–34. Caffarra, Sendy, Siyanova-Chanturia, Anna, Pesciarelli, Francesca, Vespignani, Francesco, and Cacciari, Cristina (2015). Is the Noun Ending a Cue to Grammatical Gender Processing? An ERP Study on Sentences in Italian. Psychophysiology 52: 1019–30. Calabrese, Andrea (1984–85). Metaphony in Salentino. Rivista di grammatica generativa 9–10: 3–140. Caligiuri, Maria (1995–96). Note di morfologia e sintassi sul dialetto catanzarese urbano. Tesi di laurea (degree thesis), University of Calabria. Camblor Portilla, Maite, and Wood Bowden, Harriet (2005). The Mass Neuter Phenomenon in Asturian: Adjectives and Agreement. Revista de filoloxía asturiana 5: 19–40. Camilli, Amerindo (1929). Il dialetto di Servigliano. Archivum Romanicum 13: 220–71. Campanelli, Bernardino (1896). Fonetica del dialetto reatino ora per la prima volta studiata sulla viva voce del popolo. Turin: Loescher. Repr. Rieti: Cassa di Risparmio, 1976. Campanile, Enrico (1973). Sulla quantità della vocale che precede -m in latino. L’ Italia dialettale 36: 1–6. Repr. in Enrico Campanile (2008). Latina et italica. Scritti minori sulle lingue dell’Italia antica, ed. Paolo Poccetti. 2 vols. Pisa/Rome: Fabrizio Serra, 1.401–6. Campus, Giovanni (1901). Fonetica del dialetto logudorese. Turin: Bona. Candinas, Theo (1982). Romontsch sursilvan. Grammatica elementara per emprender igl idiom sursilvan. Cuera: Ligia Romontscha. Candinas, Theo (2009). Ein Elsässer im Ersten Weltkrieg/In schuldau d’ Alsazia en l’Emprema uiara. Frauenfeld: Reinhold Liebig Verlag. Cangemi, Francesco (2011). Vocalismi tonici nel Vallo di Diano. Battipaglia: Laveglia & Carlone. Cano González, Ana María (1990). Algunas observaciones sobre la diacronía del artículo. Filología Románica 7: 57–74. Cano [González], Ana María (1995). Consideraciones llingüístiques sobre ’l Fueru d’Uvieu. In Fueru d’Uvieu. Facsímil del manuscritu del sieglu XIII del Archivu Municipal de la Ciudá d’Uvieu. Uvieu: Academia de la Llingua Asturiana, 13–22. Cano González, Ana María (1998). El demostrativo en asturiano. Estudio histórico. In Giovanni Ruffino (ed.), Atti del XXI Congresso di Linguistica e Filologia Romanza, Palermo, 18–24

324

Bibliography

settembre 1995, vol. 2. Morfologia e sintassi delle lingue romanze. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer: 131–40. Cano González, Ana María (2009). El habla de Somiedo, 2nd edn. Oviedo: Academia de la Llingua Asturiana. Capotosto, Silvia (2011). La palatalizzazione di ‑ll- e -l- nel quadro linguistico mediano. Contributi di Filologia dell’Italia Mediana 25: 275–300. Capotosto, Silvia (2013). Appunti sul dialetto di Vallecorsa (FR): metafonesi e differenziazione vocalica. In Francesco Avolio (ed.), Lingua e dialetto tra l’Italia centrale e l’Italia meridionale. I dialetti della Media Valle del Liri e delle zone limitrofe. Roccasecca: Arte Stampa Editore, 37–44. Cappellaro, Chiara (2015). Plurality and Gender in a Central Calabrian Dialect. The Emergence of an Innovative Type of Romance Genus Alternans in Bocchiglierese. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 102: 208–31. Cappellaro, Chiara, Maiden, Martin, and Smith, John Charles (2012). The Masculine Wives of Southern Italy. Paper given at SLE 2012, University of Stockholm, 29 August–1 September 2012. Caragíu Marioțeanu, Matilda (1975). Compendiu de dialectologie româna (nord- şi suddunăreană). Bucharest: Editura științifică și enciclopedică. Caramazza, Alfonso, and Miozzo, Michele (1997). The Relation between Syntactic and Phonological Knowledge in Lexical Access: Evidence from the ‘Tip-of-the-tongue’ Phenomenon. Cognition 64: 309–43. Caratù, Pasquale, and Rinaldi, Matteo (1995). Proverbi di Manfredonia. Bari: Università degli Studi. Cardinaletti, Anna (2009). Si impersonale e dimostrativi: due casi di influenza dei dialetti sull’italiano? In Anna Cardinaletti and Nicola Munaro (eds), Italiano, italiani regionali e dialetti. Milan: FrancoAngeli, 29–54. Cardoso, Hugo C. (2013). Diu Indo-Portuguese. In Susanne Maria Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath, and Magnus Huber (eds), The Survey of Pidgin and Creole Languages. 4 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2.90–101. Carosella, Maria (2005). Sistemi vocalici tonici nell’area garganica settentrionale fra tensioni diatopiche e dinamiche variazionali. Rome: Nuova cultura. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew (1994). Inflection Classes, Gender, and the Principle of Contrast. Language 70: 737–88. Casaccia, Mauro, and Tamburini, Pietro (2005). Il vernacolo di Bolsena. Fonetica, morfosintassi, glossario. Quaderni del sistema museale Lago di Bolsena 3. Bolsena: Città di Bolsena. Cascone, Adriana (2014). Lessico dell’ agricoltura a Soccavo e Pianura. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. Castrignanò, Vito L. (ed.) (2014). Il Librecto de pestilencia (1448) di Nicolò di Ingegne, cavaliere et medico di Giovanni Antonio Orsini del Balzo. Rome: Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo. CdL = Besta and Guarnerio (1905). CDL = Schiaparelli (1929–33) and Zielinski (1986), (2003). Chamoreau, Claudine (2012). Spanish Diminutive Markers -ito -ita in Mesoamerican Languages: A Challenge for Acceptance of Gender Distinction. In Martine Vanhove, Thomas Stolz, Aina Urdze, and Hitomi Otsuka (eds), Morphologies in Contact. Studia Typologica, STUF Beiheft 10. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 71–90. Chiarelli, Valentina, El Yagoubi, Radouane, Mondini, Sara, Bisiacchi, Patrizia, and Semenza, Carlo. (2011). The Syntactic and Semantic Processing of Mass and Count Nouns: An ERP Study. PLoS ONE 6(10): e25885 [doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025885].



Bibliography

325

Chini, Marina (1993). Aspetti teorico-descrittivi e tipologici della categoria del genere grammaticale. Lingua e stile 28: 455–86. Chiocchio, Nuccio (2012). Pasqua. Quaderni dell’Università del Molise della terza età e del tempo libero 4: 154–55 [www.uniterzaeta-cb.it/images/q4.pdf]. Chiorboli, Jean (1985). La langue corse entre l’usage et le code. Foncionnement linguistique et tendances de l’ évolution. Thèse de doctorat (doctoral thesis) de 3e cycle. University of Rouen. Chitoran, Ioana (1992). Les Langues romanes: Deux ou troix genres? (Le cas du roumain). Les langues néo-latines 4: 71–82. Cimarra, Luigi, and Petroselli, Francesco (2008). Contributo alla conoscenza del dialetto di Canepina. Civita Castellana: Amministrazione Comunale di Canepina/Amministrazione Provinciale di Viterbo. Cimarra, Luigi, and Petroselli, Francesco (2014). Vocabolario del dialetto di Canepina. Viterbo: Union Printing. Cipariu, Timotei (1855). Compendiu de gramateca limbei române. Blaj [5th edn., Sibiu 1876; 7th edn. Blaj 1897; quoted after Pamfil (1992)]. Clackson, James (2007). Indo-European Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clark, Ross (1990). Tagalog. In Bernard Comrie (ed.), The World’s Major Languages. New York/ Oxford: Oxford University Press, 936–58. Clegg, Jens H. (2010). Native Spanish Speaker Intuition in Noun Gender Assignment. Language Design 12: 5–18. Comrie, Bernard (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology, 2nd edn. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Comrie, Bernard (2002). Morphophonological Alternations: Typology and Diachrony. In Sabrina Bendjaballah, Wolfgang U. Dressler, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, and Maria D. Voeikova (eds), Morphology 2000. Selected Papers from the 9th Morphology Meeting, Vienna 24–28 February 2000. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 73–89. Comrie, Bernard, and Corbett, Greville G. (1993). Introduction. In Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett (eds), The Slavonic Languages. London/New York: Routledge, 1–19. Contini, Gianfranco (1935). Per il trattamento delle vocali d’uscita in antico lombardo. L’Italia dialettale 11: 33–60. Contini, Gianfranco (1941). Le opere volgari di Bonvesin da la Riva. Rome: Società filologica romana. Contini, Gianfranco (1961–62). Clemente Merlo e la dialettologia italiana. Atti e Memorie dell’Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere ‘La Colombaria’ 26 (n.s. 12): 325–41. Repr. in Gianfranco Contini (1972). Altri esercizi (1942–1971). Turin: Einaudi, 355–67. Contini-Morava, Ellen (2002). (What) do Noun Class Markers Mean? In Wallis Reid, Ricardo Otheguy, and Nancy Stern (eds), Signal, Meaning, and Message. Perspectives on Sign-based Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 3–64. Corbett, Greville G. (1982). Gender in Russian: An Account of Gender Specification and its Relationship to Declension. Russian Linguistics 6(2): 197–232. Corbett, Greville G. (1988). Gender in Slavonic from the Standpoint of a General Typology of Gender Systems. Slavonic and East European Review 66(1): 1–20. Corbett, Greville G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, Greville G. (2000). Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, Greville G. (2005a). Number of Genders. WALS 30: 126–7.

326

Bibliography

Corbett, Greville G. (2005b). Sex-based and Non-sex-based Gender Systems. WALS 31: 130–3. Corbett, Greville G. (2005c). Systems of Gender Assignment. WALS 32: 134–7. Corbett, Greville G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, Greville G. (2008). Determining Morphosyntactic Feature Values. The Case of Case. In Greville G. Corbettt and Michalel Noonan (eds), Case and Grammatical Relations. Studies in Honor of Bernard Comrie. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–34. Corbett, Greville G. (2009). Morphology-free Syntax: Two Potential Counter-examples from Serbo-Croat. In Steven Franks, Vrinda Chidambaram, and Brian Joseph (eds), A Linguist’s Linguist: Studies in South Slavic Linguistics in Honor of E. Wayles Browne. Bloomington, IN: Slavica, 149–66. Corbett, Greville G. (2010a). Classic Problems at the Syntax–Morphology Interface: Whose are They? In Stefan Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Université Paris Diderot, Paris 7, France. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 255–68. Corbett, Greville G. (2010b). Features: Essential Notions. In Anna Kibort and Greville G. Corbett, Features. Perspectives on a Key Notion in Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 17–36. Corbett, Greville G. (2011). The Penumbra of Morphosyntactic Feature Systems. Morphology 21 (special issue: Jonathan Bobaljik, Uli Sauerland, and Andrew Nevins (eds), Markedness and Underspecification in the Morphology and Semantics of Agreement): 445–80. Corbett, Greville G. (2012). Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, Greville G. (2015). Hybrid Nouns and their Complexity. In Jürg Fleischer, Elisabeth Rieken, and Paul Widmer (eds), Agreement from a Diachronic Perspective. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 191–214. Corbett, Greville G. and Fedden, Sebastian (2016). Canonical Gender. Journal of Linguistics 52: 495–531. Corbett, Greville G., and Fraser, Norman M. (2000). Default Genders. In Barbara Unterbeck, Matti Rissanen, Tertu Nevalainen, and Mirja Saari (eds), Gender in Grammar and Cognition. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 55–97. Corda, Francesco (1983). Saggio di grammatica gallurese. Sassari: 3T. Cornilescu, Alexandra (2000). Notes on the Interpretation of the Prepositional Accusative in Romanian. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 91–106. Coromines, Joan (1931). Notes etimològiques. Butlletí de dialectologia catalana 19: 19–42. Coromines, Joan (1980–91). Diccionari etimològic i complementari de la llengua catalana. 9 vols. Barcelona: Curial Edicions. Corriente, Federico (1997). Poesia dialectal árabe y romance en Alandalús. Madrid: Gredos. Corsi, Anna, Cardinale, Valentina, and Luciani, Vincenzo (2014). Dialetto e poesia nei 33 comuni della provincia di Latina. Rome: Cofine. Cortese, Camilla (1989). Vocabolario dialettale vinchiaturese. Rome: no publisher indicated. COSER = Fernández-Ordóñez (2004–07). Coseriu, Eugenio (1981). Los conceptos de ‘dialecto’, ‘nivel’ y ‘estilo de lengua’ y el sentido propio de la dialectología, Lingüística española actual 3(1): 1–32. Published in German translation as ‘Die Begriffe “Dialekt”, “Niveau” und “Sprachstil” und der eigentliche Sinn der Dialektologie’, in Jörn Albrecht, Harald Thun, and Jens Lüdtke (eds), Energeia und Ergon:



Bibliography

327

sprachliche Variation, Sprachgeschichte, Sprachtypologie: studia in honorem Eugenio Coseriu, vol. 1. Schriften von Eugenio Coseriu (1967–1987). Tübingen: Narr 1988, 15–43. Coseriu, Eugenio (2008). Lateinisch und Romanisch. Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen zum sogenannten Vulgärlatein und zur Entstehung der romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr. Cox, Terry B. (1982). Aspects of the Phonology and Morphology of Molese, an Apulian Dialect of Southeastern Italy. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Victoria [Ottawa, Ont.: National Library of Canada 1984]. Crocioni, Giovanni (1906). Il dialetto di Arcevia (Ancona). Rome: Loescher. Crocioni, Giovanni (1936). La poesia dialettale marchigiana, vol. 2. I poeti dei secoli XIX e XX. Fabriano: Stabilimento di arti grafiche “Gentile”. Croitor, Blanca (2009). Acordul in gen al sintagmelor coordonate. In Nicolae Saramandu (ed.), Lucrările celui de al doilea Simpozion Internaţional de Lingvistică (Bucureşti, 28–29 noiembrie 2008, Institutul de Lingvistică ‘Iorgu Iordan – Al. Rosetti’). Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, 413–25. Croitor, Blanca, and Giurgea, Ion (2009). On the So Called Romanian ‘Neuter’. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 11(2): 21–39. CSP = Bonazzi (1900). Cucerzan, Silviu, and Yarowsky, David. 2003. Minimally Supervised Induction of Grammatical Gender. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technology. Edmonton, May– June 2003. vol. 1, 40–7. Cuza, Alejandro, and Pérez-Tattam, Rocío (2016). Grammatical Gender Selection and Phrasal Word Order in Child Heritage Spanish: A Feature Re-assembly Approach. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19: 50–68. Cysouw, Michael, and Wohlgemuth, Jan (2010). The Other End of Universals: Theory and Typology of rara. In Jan Wohlgemuth and Michael Cysouw (eds), Rethinking Universals. How Rarities Affect Linguistic Theory. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 1–10. D’Achille, Paolo (2001). La morfologia nominale nel III libro delle Prose e in altre grammatiche rinascimentali. In Silvia Morgana, Mario Piotti, and Massimo Prada (eds), Prose della volgar lingua di Pietro Bembo. Gargnano del Garda (4–7 ottobre 2000). Milan: Cisalpino, 321–33. D’ Achille, Paolo (2002). Il Lazio. In Manlio Cortelazzo, Carla Marcato, Nicola De Blasi, and Gianrenzo P. Clivio (eds), I dialetti italiani. Storia, struttura, uso. Turin: UTET, 515–66. D’ Achille, Paolo (2017). Romanesco ce diventera’ vs italiano lo diventerai? In Annette Gerstenberg, Judith Kittler, Luca Lorenzetti, and Giancarlo Schirru (eds), Romanice loqui. Festschrift für Gerald Bernhard zu seinem 60. Geburstag. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 21–9. D’ Achille, Paolo, and Thornton, Anna M. (2003). La flessione del nome dall’italiano antico all’italiano contemporaneo. In Nicoletta Maraschio and Teresa Poggi Salani (eds), Italia linguistica anno Mille, Italia linguistica anno Duemila. Atti del XXXIV Congresso internazionale di studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana, Firenze, 19–21 ottobre 2000. Rome: Bulzoni, 211–30. Dahl, Östen (2000). Animacy and the Notion of Semantic Gender. In Barbara Unterbeck, Matti Rissanen, Tertu Nevalainen, and Mirja Saari (eds), Gender in Grammar and Cognition. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 99–116.

328

Bibliography

Dahl, Östen (2004). The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dalbera-Stefanaggi, Marie-José (1978). Langue corse: une approche linguistique. Paris: Klincksieck. Dalbera-Stefanaggi, Marie-José (1991). Unité et diversité des parlers corses: le plan phonologique. Parenté génétique et affinité. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. Dal Negro, Silvia (2013). Variazione dialettale e tipologia. La flessione dei numerali cardinali nell’Italia settentrionale. Vox Romanica 72: 138–50. D’Amato, Beniamino (1987). Il dialetto di Grumo Appula in Terra di Bari. Comune di Grumo Appula. Damourette, Jacques, and Pichon, Edouard (1911–27). Des mots à la pensée. Essai de grammaire de la langue française. Paris: Editions d’Artrey [quoted after the reprint Paris: Editions d’Artrey 1968]. D’Andrés, Ramón (1993). Emplegu del neutru n’asturianu. Lletres asturianes 49: 49–84. De Andrés Díaz, Ramón (2015). Gramática comparada de las lenguas ibéricas. Gijón: Trea. De Angelis, Alessandro (2014). Dittongazione condizionata e dittongazione libera nel dialetto di Tortorici (ME). In Patrizia Del Puente (ed.), Dialetti: per parlare e parlarne. Atti del terzo Convegno Internazionale di Dialettologia—Progetto A.L.Ba. (Potenza-Grumento Nova-Tito, 8–10 novembre 2012). Potenza: Il Segno, 35–58. De Bartholomaeis, Vincenzo (ed.) (1907). Buccio di Ranallo, Cronaca aquilana rimata di Buccio di Ranallo di Popplito di Aquila. Rome: Istituto Storico Italiano. De Blasi, Luigi (1991). Dizionario dialettale di San Mango sul Calore (Avellino). Milan: Casa editrice Il Salice. De Blasi, Nicola (ed.) (1986). ‘Libro de la destructione de Troya’. Volgarizzamento napoletano trecentesco da Guido delle Colonne. Rome: Bonacci. De Blasi, Nicola (2002). Per la storia contemporanea del dialetto nella città di Napoli. Lingua e stile 37: 123–57. De Blasi, Nicola (2006). Profilo linguistico della Campania. Rome/Bari: Laterza. De Blasi, Nicola, and Imperatore, Luigi (2000). Il napoletano parlato e scritto. Con note di grammatica storica. Nuova edizione. Naples: Libreria Dante & Descartes. DECLLC = Coromines (1980–91). Decurtins, Alexi (2012). Lexicon romontsch cumparativ sursilvan–tudestg. Cuera: Ediziun Societad Retorumantscha. Decurtins, Caspar (1880–83). Quattro testi soprasilvani/Vier sürselvische Texte. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 7: 149–364. Decurtins, Caspar (1891–1919). Rätoromanische Chrestomathie. Fortgeführt von Christian Jos. Caminada et al. Erlangen: Junge [searchable online at http://www.crestomazia.ch]. De Giovanni, Marcello (2003). Molise. Profilo dei dialetti italiani 12. Pisa: Pacini. DELA = Machado, José Pedro (1977). Dicionário etimológico da língua portuguesa. Com a mais antiga documentação escrita e conhecida de muitos dos vocábulos estudados, 3rd edn. 5 vols. Lisbon: Livros Horizonte. Della Valle, Valeria (1982). Le lettere volgari di Filippo Belforti vescovo di Volterra (1348–1353). Studi linguistici italiani 8(2): 155–263. De Lollis, Cesare (1890–92). Dell’influenza dell’‑i o del j postonico sulla vocale accentata in qualche dialetto abruzzese. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 12: 1–23, 187–96.



Bibliography

329

De Montarone, Bruno (2013). Raccolta vernacolare montefiasconese. Castiglione in Teverina (VT): Accademia Barbanera. Depperu, Piero (2006). Vocabbolariu lurisincu. Dizionario logudorese della parlata di Luras. Sassari: Libreria Koinè. DES = Wagner (1960–64). Dettli, Miriam (2013). Le classi flessive nominali nel dialetto di Piandelagotti. Seminar paper, Universiy of Zurich. De Vincentiis, Domenico Ludovico (1872). Vocabolario del dialetto tarantino. Taranto. Repr. Bologna: Forni, 1967. DEX = Academia Română, Institutul de Lingvistică ‘Iorgu Iordan’. Dicționarul explicativ al limbii române. Ediția a II-a. Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic 1998. DGLA = García Arias (2002–04). Diaconescu, Paula (1964a). Le nombre et le genre du substantif roumain (analyse contextuelle). Revue roumaine de linguistique 9: 171–93. Diaconescu, Paula (1964b). Numărul și genul substantivului romînesc (analiză contextuală). Studii și cercetări lingvistice 15: 295–316 [same content as 1964a]. Diaconescu, Paula (1969). Sintagmatic și paradigmatic în structura genului din limba română. Studii și cercetări lingvistice 20: 23–40. Diaconescu, Paula (1970). Structură şi evoluţie în morfologia substantivului românesc. Bucharest: Academiei Republicii Socialiste România. Diaconescu, Paula (1974). Morfosintaxa istorică a limbii române. Bucharest: Centrul de multiplicare al Universităţii din Bucureşti. Di Carlo, Miriam (2015). Il sistema di genere nella Tuscia viterbese: Analisi attraverso un corpus di testi antichi e contemporanei. Talk given at the University of Zurich, 28 April 2015. Diez, Friedrich (1882). Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen, 5th edn. Bonn: Weber. Dinu, Liviu P., Niculae, Vlad, and Șulea, Maria (2012). Dealing with the Grey Sheep of the Romanian Gender System, the Neuter. In Proceedings of COLING 2012: Demonstration Papers, Mumbai, December 2012, 119–24. Dixon, R. M. W. (1972). The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dixon, R. M. W. (1982). Nominal Classification. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Where Have all the Adjectives Gone? and Other Essays in Semantics and Syntax. Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton, 157–233. Dixon, R. M. W. (1986). Noun Classes and Noun Classification in Typological Perspective. In Colette Craig (ed.), Noun Classes and Categorization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 105–12. Dixon, R. M. W. (2002). Australian Languages: Their Nature and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dixon, R. M. W. (2010). Basic Linguistic Theory, vol. 1 Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Donohue, Mark (2001). Animacy, Class and Gender in Burmeso. In Andrew Pawley, Malcolm Ross, and Darrell Tryon (eds), The Boy from Bundaberg: Studies in Melanesian Linguistics in Honour of Tom Dutton. Pacific Linguistics 514. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 97–115. D’Ovidio, Francesco (1878). Fonetica del dialetto di Campobasso. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 4: 145–84. Dressler, Wolfgang U. (2003). Degrees of Grammatical Productivity in Inflectional Morphology. Italian Journal of Linguistics 15(1): 31–62.

330

Bibliography

Dressler, Wolfgang U., and Merlini Barbaresi, Lavinia (1994). Morphopragmatics. Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German and Other Languages. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. Dressler, Wolfgang U., and Thornton, Anna M. (1996). Italian Nominal Inflection. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 57–59: 1–26. DRG = Robert de Planta, Florian Melcher, Chasper Pult, Andrea Schorta, Alexi Decurtins, Felix Giger, and Carli Tomaschett (1939–). Dicziunari rumantsch grischun. Cuoira: Bischofberger & Co., later Institut dal Dicziunari rumantsch grischun. Dubert García, Francisco (2010). Sobre o lugar do xénero na gramática do galego. Estudos de Lingüística Galega 2: 57–74. Duke, Janet (2009). The Development of Gender as a Grammatical Category. Five Case Studies from the Germanic Languages. Heidelberg: Winter. Durand, Olivier (2003). La lingua còrsa. Una lotta per la lingua. Brescia: Paideia Editrice. Ebert, Karen (1998). Genussynkretismus im Nordseeraum: die Resistenz des Fering. In Winfried Boeder, Christoph Schroeder, Karl Heinz Wagner, and Wolfgang Wildgen (eds), Sprache in Raum und Zeit. In memoriam Johannes Bechert. Beiträge zur empirischen Sprachwissenschaft. Tübingen: Narr, 269–98. Ebneter, Theodor (1994). Syntax des gesprochenen Rätoromanischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Eichner, Heiner (1985). Das Problem des Ansatzes eines urindogermanischen Numerus ‘Kollektiv’ (‘Komprehensiv’). In Bernfried Schlerath and Veronica Rittner (eds), Grammatische Kategorien, Funktion und Geschichte. Akten der VII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, 20.–25. Februar 1983. Reichert: Wiesbaden, 134–75. Elwert, Werner Theodor (1958). Die Mundart von S. Oreste. In Romanica. Festschrift für Gerhard Rohlfs. Halle a. S.: Niemeyer, 121–58. Emeneau, Murray Barnson (1955). Kolami: A Dravidian Language. University of California Publications in Linguistics 12. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press. Enger, Hans-Olav (2004a). On the Relation between Gender and Declension. A Diachronic Perspective from Norwegian. Studies in Language 28: 51–82. Enger, Hans-Olav (2004b). Scandinavian Pancake Sentences as Semantic Agreement. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 27(1): 5–34. Enger, Hans-Olav (2011). Gender and Contact: A Natural Morphology Perspective on Scandinavian Examples. In Peter Siemund (ed.), Linguistic Universals and Language Variation. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 231. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 171–203. Enger, Hans-Olav, and Corbett, Greville G. (2012). Definiteness, Gender, and Hybrids: Evidence from Norwegian Dialects. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 24(4): 287–324. Ernout, Alfred (1945). Morphologie historique du latin, 2nd edn. Paris: Klincksieck. Ernout, Alfred, and Thomas, François (1959). Syntaxe latine, 2nd edn. Paris: Klincksieck. Ernst, Gerhard (1970). Die Toskanisierung des römischen Dialekts im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Espinal, Maria Teresa (2013). Bare Nominals, Bare Predicates. Properties and Related Types. In Johannes Kabatek and Albert Wall (eds), New Perspectives on Bare Noun Phrases in Romance and Beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 69–94. Euler, Wolfram (1991). Die Frage nach der Entstehung der indogermanischen Genera im Lichte der relativen Chronologie. Indogermanische Forschungen 96: 36–45. Evans, Nicholas, Brown, Dunstan, and Corbett, Greville G. (2002). The Semantics of Gender in Mayali: Partially Parallel Systems and Formal Implementation. Language 78: 111–55.



Bibliography

331

Faarlund, Jan Terje (1977). Embedded Clause Reduction and Scandinavian Gender Agreement. Journal of Linguistics 13: 239–57. Fabbro, Franco, and Frau, Giovanni (2001). Manifestations of Aphasia in Friulian. Journal of Neurolinguistics 14: 255–79. Falcone, Giuseppe (1976). Calabria. Profilo dei dialetti italiani 18. Pisa: Pacini. Falcucci, Francesco Domenico (1875). Corsica. In Giovanni Papanti (ed.), I parlari italiani in Certaldo alla festa del V centenario di messer Giovanni Boccacci. Omaggio di Giovanni Papanti. Livorno: Vigo, 571–603. Fanti, Renata (1938–40). Note fonetiche e morfologiche sul dialetto di Ascrea (Rieti). L’Italia dialettale 14 [1938]: 201–18; 15 [1939]: 101–35; 16 [1940]: 77–140. Faraoni, Vincenzo (2014). La formazione del plurale italo-romanzo nella documentazione notarile altomedievale. In Piera Molinelli, Pierluigi Cuzzolin, Chiara Fedriani (eds), LATIN VULGAIRE– LATIN TARDIF X. Actes du Xe colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif. Bergamo, 5–9 septembre 2012. 3 vols. Bergamo: Bergamo University Press/Sestante Edizioni, 99–117. Faraoni, Vincenzo (2016). Manifestazioni del neutro italo-romanzo nella documentazione notarile altomedievale. In Éva Buchi, Jean-Paul Chauveau, and Jean-Marie Pierrel (eds), Actes du XXVIIe Congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes (Nancy, 15–20 juillet 2013). 3 vols. Strasbourg: Société de linguistique romane/ÉliPhi, 1.381–95. Faraoni, Vincenzo, and Loporcaro, Michele (2016). Manifestazioni residuali di sistemi trigeneri in còrso settentrionale. In Stella Retali-Medori (ed.), Atti del Workshop Lingue delle isole, isole linguistiche, Corte, 22–23 settembre 2014. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 31–61. Faraoni, Vincenzo, Gardani, Francesco, and Loporcaro, Michele (2013). Manifestazioni del neutro nell’italo-romanzo medievale. In Emili Casanova Herrero and Cesáreo Calvo Rigual (eds), Actas del XXVI Congreso Internacional de Lingüística y de Filología Románicas, València, 6–11 de septiembre de 2010, vol. 2. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 171–82. Fassel, Luminiţă (1969). Modificările de gen la substantivele din latina perioadei imperiale şi medievale. Anuarul de lingvistică şi istorie literară (Iaşi) 20: 19–34. Fassel, Luminiţă (1977–78). Nouvelles remarques sur la continuité du neutre latin. Révalorisations. Etudes romanes (Bulletin de la Société Roumaine de Linguistique Romane) 2: 145–54. Fedden, Sebastian (2007). Women, Houses, and Plural Objects?—Homophony in the Mian Gender System. In Robyn Loughnane, Cara Penry Williams, and Jana Verhoeven (eds), In between Wor(l)ds. Transformation and Translation. School of Languages and Linguistics Postgraduate Research Papers on Language and Literature, vol. 6. Melbourne: University of Melbourne, School of Language and Linguistics, 183–98. Fedden, Sebastian (2011). A Grammar of Mian. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. Fedden, Sebastian (2013). Mian for Typologists. Gabelentz Plenary ALT 10, Leipzig 18 August, 2013. Fedden, Sebastian, and Corbett, Greville G. (2017). Gender and Classifiers in Concurrent Systems: Refining the Typology of Nominal Classification. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 34. 1–47. Fernández-Ordóñez, Inés (2004–07). Corpus Oral y Sonoro del Español Rural. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (http://www.uam.es/coser). Fernández-Ordóñez, Inés (2006–07). Del Cantábrico a Toledo: El ‘neutro de materia’ hispánico en un contexto románico y tipológico. Revista de Historia de la Lengua Española 1 [2006]: 67–118; 2 [2007]: 29–81.1 1  Since the 2007 part is explicitly dubbed ‘continuación’ but has partly overlapping page numbers, page references include the journal volume: e.g. ‘Fernández-Ordóñez (2006–07: 2.69)’.

332

Bibliography

Fernández-Ordóñez, Inés (2009). The Development of Mass/Count Distinctions in IndoEuropean Varieties. In Vit Bubenik, John Hewson, and Sarah Rose (eds), Grammatical Change in Indo-European Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 55–68. Fernández-Soriano, Olga (1999). El pronombre personal: Formas y distribuciones. Pronombres átonos y tónicos. In Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte (eds), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. 3 vols. Madrid, Espasa-Calpe, 1.1209–74. Festa, Giovan Battista (1917). Il dialetto di Matera. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 38: 129–62. FEW = Wartburg (1928–2002). Filipi, Goran (2002). Istrorumunjski Lingvistički Atlas. Atlasul Lingvistic Istroromân. Atlante Linguistico Istrorumeno. Pula: Znanstvena udruga Mediteran. Finocchiaro, Chiara, Alario, François-Xavier, Schiller, Niels O., Costa, Albert, Miozzo, Michele, and Caramazza, Alfonso (2011). Gender Congruency Goes Europe: A Cross-linguistic Study of the Gender Congruency Effect in Several Romance and Germanic Languages. Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica 23(2): 161–98. Fischer, Iancu (1975). Originea latină a neutrului românesc. Studii şi cercetări lingvistice 26: 569–75. Flaux, Nelly (1999). À propos des noms collectifs. Revue de linguistique romane 63: 471–502. Flechia, Giovanni (1886–88). Annotazioni sistematiche alle Antiche Rime Genovesi (Archivio, II, 161–312) e alle Prose Genovesi (Archivio, VIII, 1–97) (Continuazione e fine). Archivio Glottologico Italiano 10: 141–66. Foerster, Wendelin (1877). Review of Andresen (1877). Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 1: 144–59. Formentin, Vittorio (1994a). Dei continuatori del latino ille in antico napoletano. Studi linguistici italiani 20: 40–93, 196–233. Formentin, Vittorio (1994b). Tracce di una flessione accusativo-ablativo e altri arcaismi morfologici in un antico testo meridionale (Cod. Cass. 629). L’Italia dialettale 57: 99–117. Formentin, Vittorio (ed.) (1998). Loise de Rosa, Ricordi. 2 vols. Rome: Salerno. Formentin, Vittorio (2004). Un esercizio ricostruttivo: veneziano antico fondi ‘fondo’, ladi ‘lato’, peti ‘petto’. In Riccardo Drusi, Daria Perocco, and Piermario Vescovo (eds), ‘Le sorte dele parole’. Testi veneti dalle origini all’Ottocento. Edizioni, strumenti, lessicografia. Atti dell’Incontro di studio. Venezia, 27–29 maggio 2002. Padua: Esedra, 99–116. Formentin, Vittorio (2007). Poesia italiana delle origini. Rome: Carocci. Formentin, Vittorio, and Loporcaro, Michele (2012). Sul quarto genere grammaticale del romanesco antico. Lingua e stile 47(2): 221–64. Fornaciari, Raffaello (1881). Sintassi italiana dell’uso moderno. Florence: Sansoni. Franceschi, Temistocle (1979). La Vallesina nel contesto dei dialetti marchigiani. In Sergio Anselmi (ed.), Nelle Marche centrali. Jesi: Cassa di Risparmio di Jesi, 1899–946. Frau, Giovanni (1984). Friuli. Profilo dei dialetti italiani 6. Pisa: Pacini. Freund, Ilse (1933). Beiträge zur Mundart von Ischia. Borna-Leipzig: Noske. Friederici, Angela (1995). The Time-course of Syntactic Activation during Language Processing: A Model Based on Neuropsychological and Neurophysiological Data. Brain & Language 50(3): 259–81. Fritz, Matthias (1998). Die urindogermanischen s-Stämme und die Genese des dritten Genus. In Wolfgang Meid (ed.), Sprache und Kultur der Indogermanen. X. Fachtagung der



Bibliography

333

Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Innsbruck, 22.–28. September 1996. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 255–64. Funaioli, Hyginus (1907). Grammaticae Romanae fragmenta. Leipzig: Teubner. Galeotti, Vittorio, and Nappo, Fiorenzo (2005). Dizionario viterbese–italiano, italiano–viterbese. Viterbo: Sette città. Gamillscheg, Ernst (1957). Historische französische Syntax. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Gandiglio, Adolfo (1912). Osservazioni intorno alla sintassi di concordanza in latino. (Aggiunte e correzioni alle grammatiche). Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica 40: 513–42. Ganzoni, Gian Paul (1977). Grammatica ladina. Grammatica sistematica dal rumantsch d’Engiadin’ Ota per scolars e creschieus da lingua rumauntscha e tudas-cha. Samedan: Lia Rumantscha. Ganzoni, Gian Paul (1983). Grammatica ladina. Grammatica sistematica dal rumantsch d’Engiadina Bassa per scolars e creschüts da lingua rumantscha e francesa. Samedan: Lia Rumantscha. García, Erica C. (1970). Gender Switch in Spanish Derivation (with Special Reference to -a → -ero, -o → -era, -a → -ín, -ón). Romance Philology 24: 39–54. García Arias, Xosé Lluis (1994). El Fueru Xulgu y la so importancia llingüística. In Fueru Xulgu. Llectura fecha acordies col Cod. Hisp. 28 de la Biblioteca del Estáu de Baviera por Montserrat Tuero Morís. Uviéu: Academia de la Llingua Asturiana, ix–xlvii. García Arias, Xosé Lluis (2002–04). Diccionario General de la Lengua Asturiana. Editorial Prensa Asturiana [online version 2016 at http://mas.lne.es/diccionario/]. García Arias, Xosé Lluis (2003a). Aspeutos evolutivos del vocalismu nel dominiu ástur. Lletres asturianes 82: 15–40. García Arias, Xosé Lluis (2003b). Gramática histórica de la lengua asturiana, 2nd edn. Uviéu: Academia de la Llingua Asturiana. García Fernández, Jorge (1996). Más notes sobre’l neutru. Lletres asturianes 58: 31–33. Gardani, Francesco (2013). Dynamics of Morphological Productivity: The Evolution of Noun Classes from Latin to Italian. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Garnham, Alan, Oakhill, Jane, Ehrlich, Marie-France, and Carreiras, Manuel (1995). Representations and Processes in the Interpretation of Pronouns: New Evidence from Spanish and French. Journal of Memory and Language 34: 41–62. Garofano, Enrico (2008). Parole nel tempo. Raccolta di termini dialettali di Guardia Sanframondi (Bn). Cusano Mutri: Tipolitografica Nuova Impronta. Gartmann, Christian (1967). Die Mundart von Sorso (Provinz Sassari, Sardinien). Zurich: Juris-Verlag. Gartner, Theodor (1910). Handbuch der rätoromanischen Sprache und Literatur. Halle a. S.: Niemeyer. Gaspari, Gianluigi (1971–72). Il dialetto di Ascoli Piceno. Tesi di laurea (degree thesis), University of Padua. Gaudenzi, Augusto (1889). I suoni, le forme, le parole dell’odierno dialetto della città di Bologna. Turin: Loescher. GDLI = Battaglia (1961–2002). Ghinassi, Ghino (1965). Nuovi studi sul volgare mantovano di Vivaldo Belcalzer. Studi di filologia italiana 23: 19–172. Repr. in Ghino Ghinassi (2006). Dal Belcalzer al Castiglione. Studi sull’antico volgare di Mantova e sul ‘Cortegiano’, ed. Paolo Bongrani. Florence: Olschki, 3–128.

334

Bibliography

Giammarco, Ernesto (1970). Isoglosse umbre a abruzzesi con particolare riguardo al Cicolano. In I dialetti dell’Italia mediana con particolare riguardo alla regione umbra. Atti del V Convegno di Studi Umbri, Gubbio, 28 maggio–1 giugno 1967. Gubbio: Centro di Studi Umbri presso la Casa di Sant’Ubaldo/Perugia: Università degli Studi, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, 429–47. Giammarco, Ernesto (1979). Abruzzo. Profilo dei dialetti italiani 13. Pisa: Pacini. Giannini, Crescentino (ed.) (1858–62). Commento di Francesco da Buti sopra la ‘Divina Commedia’ di Dante Alighieri. 3 vols. Pisa: Fratelli Nistri. Gil, David (1996). Maltese ‘Collective Nouns’: A Typological Perspective. Rivista di Linguistica 8: 53–87. Gioiosa, Matteo (2000). Grammatica del dialetto sannicandrese. San Nicandro Garganico (FG): Gioiosa. Gioscio, Joseph (1985). Il dialetto lucano di Calvello. Stuttgart: Steiner. Giudici, Alberto (2017). Un mutamento per contatto nel dialetto di Sissano (Istria). Ms., University of Zurich. Giuliani, Mariafrancesca (2007). Saggi di stratigrafia linguistica dell’Italia meridionale. Pisa: PLUS/Pisa University Press. Giurgea, Ion (2010). Romanian Genderless Pronouns and Parasitic Gaps. In Sonia Colina, Antxon Olarrea, and Ana Maria Carvalho (eds), Romance Linguistics 2009. Selected papers from the 39th LSRL. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 231–48. Giurgea, Ion (2013). Nominal inflection. In Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin and Ion Giurgea (eds), A Reference Grammar of Romanian, vol. 1. The Noun Phrase. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 827–56. Giurgea, Ion (2014). Possible Syntactic Implementations of the Controller vs. Target Gender Distinction: The View from Ambigenerics. In Tania Paciaroni, Anna M.Thornton, and Michele Loporcaro (eds), Exploring Grammatical Gender. Special issue of Language Sciences 43(1): 47–61. GL = Keil (1856–80). Gollan, Tamar H., and Frost, Ram (2001). Two Routes to Grammatical Gender: Evidence from Hebrew. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30: 627–51. Gómez Seibane, Sara, and Vázquez Balonga, Delfina (2013). ¿Más huellas del neutro de materia en los Siglos de Oro? Algunos testimonios de la región de Madrid. Revista de filoloxía asturiana 13: 53–71. González Muñoz, Fernando (1996). Latinidad mozárabe. Estudios sobre el latín de Álbaro de Córdoba. Coruña/Cordoba: Universidade da Coruña. Granatiero, Francesco (1987). Grammatica del dialetto di Mattinata. Mattinata: Comune di Mattinata. Granatiero, Francesco (2012). Vocabolario dei dialetti garganici. Foggia: Claudio Grenzi Editore. Grandi, Nicola (2010). Genere. In Raffaele Simone (ed.), Enciclopedia dell’Italiano. Rome: Istituto dell’Enciclopedia italiana. Available at: http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/genere_ (Enciclopedia-dell’Italiano)/. de la Grasserie, Raoul (1898). La catégorie psychologique de la classification révélée par le langage. Revue philosophique de la France et de l’ étranger 45: 594–624. Graur, Alexander (1928). Les substantifs neutres en roumain. Romania 26: 249–60. Graur, Alexandru (1937). Sur le genre neutre en roumain. Bulletin Linguistique 5: 5–11.



Bibliography

335

Graur, Alexandru, Avram, Mioara, and Vasiliu, Laura (1963). Gramatica limbii romîne. Ediția a II-a. [1st edn. 1954]. 2 vols. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romîne. Greenberg, Joseph H. (1966). Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Language, 2nd edn. [1st edn. 1963]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 73–113. Grevisse, Maurice, and Goosse, André (1993). Le bon usage. Grammaire française. 13th edn. Paris/Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck/Duculot. Grimm, Jakob (1819–37). Deutsche Grammatik. 3 vols. Göttingen: Dieterich [edn. by Gustav Rothe and Edward Schröder, Hildesheim: Olms, 1967]. Grimm, Jakob (1858). Von Vertretung männlicher durch weibliche Namensformen. Abhandlungen der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Philosophisch-historische Klasse 2: 33–88. Repr. in Jakob Grimm, Kleinere Schriften, vol. 3. Abhandlungen zur Litteratur und Grammatik. Berlin: F. Dümmler, 1866, 349–413. Grinevald, Colette (2000). A Morphosyntactic Typology of Classifiers. In Gunter Senft (ed.), Systems of Nominal Classification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 50–92. Grossmann, Maria (2012). Romanian Compounds. Probus 24: 147–74. Grune, Dick (1998). Burushaski. An Extraordinary Language in the Karakoram Mountains. Amsterdam: Ms., Vrije Universiteit. Available at: http://www.few.vu.nl/~dick/Summaries/ Languages/Burushaski.pdf. Guarente, Marisa, Zagarese, Emilia, Lepore, Anna, Olivier, Roberto (undated). Iocavamo a mazza e piòzo. Riscopriamo le nostre radici: antichi mestieri, antichi sapori. http://www. istitutocomprensivopietrelcina.it/htdocs/images/GalleriaFotografica/Secondaria/ PagoVeiano/jocavamoMazzePiuzu.pdf [accessed 2 March 2017]. Guarnerio, Pier Enea (1892–94). I dialetti odierni di Sassari, della Gallura e della Corsica. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 13: 125–40. Guarnerio, Pier Enea (1898). I dialetti odierni di Sassari, della Gallura e della Corsica (continuazione). Archivio Glottologico Italiano 14: 131–200, 385–422. Guțu Romalo, Valeria (1967). Substantive Neregulate. Limba Română 16: 15–21. Guțu Romalo, Valeria (1968). Morfologie structurală a limbii române (substantiv, adjectiv, verb). Bucharest: Editura Acadamiei Republicii Socialiste România. Haase, Martin (2000). Reorganization of a Gender System: The Central Italian Neuters. In Barbara Unterbeck, Matti Rissanen, Tertu Nevalainen, and Mirja Saari (eds), Gender in Grammar and Cognition. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 221–36. Hagoort, Peter, and Brown, Colin M. (1999). Gender Electrified: ERP Evidence on the Syntactic Nature of Gender Processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28(6): 715–28. Haiman, John (1974). Targets and Syntactic Change. The Hague: Mouton. Haiman, John, and Benincà, Paola (1992). The Rhaeto-Romance Languages. London/New York: Routledge. Hajnal, Ivo (1994). Die lykischen a-Stämme: Zum Werdegang einer Nominalklasse. In Jens Elmegård Rasmussen and Benedicte Nielsen (eds), In honorem Holger Pedersen. Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 26. bis 28. März 1993 in Kopenhagen. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 135–71. Hajnal, Ivo (2004). Die lykischen a-Stämme. In Adam Hyllested, Anders Richardt Jørgensen, Jenny Helena Larsson, and Thomas Olander (eds), Per aspera ad asteriscos. Studia Indogermanica in honorem Jens Elmegård Rasmussen sexagenarii Idibus Martis anno MMIV. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 187–205.

336

Bibliography

Hall, Robert (1956). Il plurale italiano in ‘-a’: un duale mancato? Italica 33(2): 140–2. Hall, Robert (1965). The ‘Neuter’ in Romance: A Pseudo-problem. Word 21: 421–7. Hall, Robert (1968). ‘Neuters’, Mass-nouns, and the Ablative in Romance. Language 44: 480–6. Hall, Robert (1973). The Semantics of the Rumanian Neuter. Rumanian Studies 2: 189–92. Halle, Morris, and Vaux, Bert (1998). Theoretical Aspects of Indo-European Nominal Morphology: The Nominal Declensions of Latin and Armenian. In Jay Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert, and Lisi Oliver (eds), Mír Curad. Studies in Honor of Calvert Watkins. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, 223–40. Harðarson, Jón Axel (1987). Zum urindogermanischen Kollektivum. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 48: 71–113. Harðarson, Jón Axel (1994). Der Verlust zweier wichtiger Flexionskategorien im Uranatolischen. Historische Sprachforschung 107: 30–41. Harder, Andreas (1988). Laut- und Formenlehre der Mundart von Ripatransone. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kiel. Härmä, Juhani (2000). Gender in French: A Diachronic Perspective. In Barbara Unterbeck, Matti Rissanen, Tertu Nevalainen, and Mirja Saari (eds), Gender in Grammar and Cognition. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 609–19. Harmon, Sarah (2009). The Mass-neuter Article in 12th and 13th Century Italian. MA thesis, University of California, Davis. Harris, James W. (1991). The Exponence of Gender in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 27–62. Harris Northall, Ray (2005). The Count/Non-count Distinction in Castilian: Evidence for its Place and Function in the Medieval Language. In Roger Wright and Peter Ricketts (eds), Studies on Ibero-Romance Linguistics Dedicated to Ralph Penny. Newark, DE: Juan de la Cuesta, 167–85. Haspelmath, Martin (1999). Optimality and Diachronic Adaptation. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 18(2): 180–205. Heim, Stefan (2008). Syntactic Gender Processing in the Human Brain: A Review and a Model. Brain & Language 106: 55–64. Hekking, Ewald, and Bakker, Dik (2007). The Case of Otomi: A Contribution to Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-linguistic Perspective. In Yaron Matras and Jeanette Sakel, Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 435–64. Hellinger, Marlis, and Motschenbacher, Heiko (2015). Gender across Languages. Volume 4. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Henaff Gonon, Marie-Anne, Bruckert, Rémy, and Michel, François (1989). Lexicalization in an Anomic Patient. Neuropsychologia 27(4): 391–407. Hernandez, Arturo E., Kotz, Sonja A., Hofmann, Juliane, Valentin, Vivian V., Dapretto, Mirella, and Bookheimer, Susan Y. (2004). The Neural Correlates of Grammatical Gender Decision in Spanish. Neuroreport 15(5): 863–6. Hernandez, Arturo E., Hofmann, Juliane, and Kotz, Sonja A. (2007). Age of Acquisition Modulates Neural Activity for both Regular and Irregular Syntactic Functions. Neuroimage 36: 912–23. Hill, Jane H., and Hill, Kenneth C. (1986). Speaking Mexicano. Dynamics of Syncretic Language in Central Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Hilty, Gerold (1991). Problemas de metafonía en asturiano. Lletres asturianes 42: 7–15. Repr. in Gerold Hilty (2007). Íva·l con la edat el coraçón creçiendo. Estudios escogidos sobre problemas



Bibliography

337

de lengua y literatura hispánicas. Edición de Itzíar López Guil, Katharina Maier-Troxler, Georg Bossong y Martin-D. Gleßgen. Madrid: Iberoamericana/Frankfurt a. M.: Vervuert 141–51. Hockett, Charles F. (1958). A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan. Hofmann, Johann Baptist and Szantyr, Anton (1997). Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. Repr. of the 1972 edn. Munich: Beck. Hořejši, Vladimir (1957). Problema substantivelor aşa-zise neutre în limba română în lumina legăturilor cu alte limbi. Studii şi cercetări lingvistice 8: 425–6. HPM = Historiae Patriae Monumenta edita iussu Regis Caroli Alberti. Chartarum tomus I. Augusta Taurinorum: e Regio Typographeo 1836. Available at: https://archive.org/details/ HistoriaePatriaeMonumenta1. Hualde, José Ignacio (1992). Metaphony and Count/Mass Morphology in Asturian and Cantabrian Dialects. In Christiane Laeufer and Terrell A. Morgan (eds), Theoretical Analyses in Romance Linguistics (LSRL XIX). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 99–114. Hundertmark-Santos Martins, Maria Teresa (2014). Portugiesische Grammatik. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. Iacobini, Claudio, and Thornton, Anna (2016). Morfologia e formazione delle parole. In Sergio Lubello (ed.), Manuale di linguistica italiana. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 190–221. Iandolo, Antonio (2001). Parlare e scrivere in dialetto napoletano. Naples: Tempolungo. Iannacito Provenzano, Roberta (2006). Il dialetto molisano di Villa San Michele (Isernia): fonologia, morfologia, sintassi e lessico. New York: Legas. Ibrahim, Muhammad Hasan (1973). Grammatical Gender. Its Origin and Development. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. Igartua, Iván (2006). Genus alternans in Indo-European. Indogermanische Forschungen 111: 56–70. Iordăchioaia, Gianina, and Soare, Elena (2008). Two Kinds of Event Plurals: Evidence from Romanian Nominalizations. In Olivier Bonami and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 7, 193–216. Available at: http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr. Iordan, Iorgu (1938). Pluralul substantivelor în limba română actuală. Buletinul Institutului de Filologie română ‘Al. Philippide’ 5: 1–54. Iordan, Iorgu (1956). Limba romînă contemporană. Bucharest: Editura Ministerului Învățămîntului. Iordan, Iorgu, Guţu Romalo, Valeria, and Niculescu, Alexandru (1967). Structura morfologică a limbii române contemporane. Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică. Ivănescu, Gheorghe (1957). Soarta neutrului latin clasic în latina populară şi în limbile romanice. Studii şi cercetări lingvistice 8: 299–313. Jaberg, Karl, and Jud, Jakob (1928). Der Sprachatlas als Forschungsinstrument. Kritische Grundlegung und Einführung in den Sprach- und Sachatlas Italiens und der Südschweiz. Halle a. S.: Niemeyer. [It. translation by Glauco Sanga, AIS, vol. 1. L’atlante linguistico come strumento di ricerca. Fondamenti critici e introduzione. Milan: Unicopli 1987]. Jaberg, Karl, and Jud, Jakob (1928–40). Sprach- und Sachatlas Italiens und der Südschweiz. 8 vols. Zofingen: Ringier. Available at: http://www3.pd.istc.cnr.it/navigais/. Jäggli, Peter (1959). Die Mundart von Sénnori (Provinz Sassari, Sardinien). Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der nordlogudoresischen Mundarten. Zurich: Juris-Verlag. Jakobson, Roman (1971). On the Rumanian Neuter. In Roman Jakobson, Selected Writings, vol. 2. World and Language. The Hague: Mouton, 187–89.

338

Bibliography

Jellinek, Max Hermann (1926). Geschichte der gotischen Sprache. Berlin: de Gruyter. Jensen, Frede (1990). Old French and Comparative Gallo-Romance Syntax. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Jespersen, Otto (1924). The Philosophy of Grammar. London, New York: George Allen & Unwin, H. Holt and Co. Jobin, Bettina (2011). Semantically Driven Change in German(ic) Gender Morphology. In Gunther De Vogelaer and Mark Janse (eds), The Diachrony of Gender Marking. Special issue of Folia Linguistica 45(2). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 317–53. Joosten, Frank (2003). Accounts of the Count–Mass Distinction: A Critical Survey. Linguisticae Investigationes 26: 159–73. Junquera Huergo, Juan (1869[1991]). Gramática asturiana (1869), ed. and notes by Xosé Lluis García Arias, with Sara Gutiérrez y José Suárez Fernández. Uviéu: Academia de la Llingua Asturiana. Kahane, Henry, and Kahane, Renée (1949). The Augmentative Feminine in the Romance Languages. Romance Philology 2: 135–75. Repr. in Henry Kahane and Renée Kahane (1981). Graeca et Romanica Scripta Selecta, vol. 2. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 285–325. Kämpf, Sylvina (2015). Der Kollektiv in der Romania—eine Untersuchung des Bündnerromanischen. Bachelorarbeit (bachelor’s dissertation), University of Zurich. Karlsson, Fred, Miestamo, Matti, and Sinnemäki, Kaius (2008). Introduction: The Problem of Language Complexity. In Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki, and Fred Karlsson (eds), Language Complexity. Typology, Contact, Change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, vii–xiv. Keil, Heinrich (1856–80). Grammatici Latini. 7 vols. Leipzig: Teubner. Repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1981. Kibort, Anna (2010). Towards a Typology of Grammatical Features. In Anna Kibort and Greville G. Corbett, Features. Perspectives on a Key Notion In Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 64–106. Kilani-Schoch, Marianne, and Dressler, Wolfgang U. (2005). Morphologie naturelle et flexion du verbe français. Tübingen: Narr. Kilarski, Marcin (2013). Nominal Classification: A History of its Study from the Classical Period to the Present. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Kim, Ronald I. (2009). The Feminine Gender in Tocharian and Indo-European. In Brent Vine and Kazuhiko Yoshida (eds), East and West: Papers in Indo-European Studies. Bremen: Hempen, 69–87. Klassen, Rachel (2016). Asymmetric Grammatical Gender Systems in the Bilingual Mental Lexicon. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ottawa. Klingenschmitt, Gert (1992). Die lateinische Nominalflexion. In Oswald Panagl and Thomas Krisch (eds), Latein und Indogermanisch. Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Salzburg, 23.–26. September 1986. Innsbruck: Inst. f. Sprachwissenschaft (IBS 64), 89–135. Repr. in Gert Klingenschmitt (2005). Aufsätze zur Indogermanistik, ed. Michael Janda et al. Hamburg: Kovac, 301–51. Kloekhorst, Alwin (2008). Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill. Kluge, Friedrich (1893). Vulgärlateinische Auslaute auf Grund der ältesten lateinischen Lehnworte im Germanischen. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 17: 559–61.



Bibliography

339

Kopecký, Peter (2005). Je čiastocná obsahová a formálna analógia medzi rumunským špecifickým neutrom a slovenskými rodmi len náhodna? Jazykovedný časopis 56: 13–29. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (2004). Mass and Collection. In Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan (eds), Morphology: A Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation, vol. 2. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 1016–31. Kovačec, August (1971). Descrierea istroromânei actuale. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România. Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju (1975). Gender and Number in Proto-Dravidian. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 4: 328–50. Repr. in Bhadriraju Krishnamurti (2001). Comparative Dravidian Linguistics. Current Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 133–53. Krstić, Milena (2013–14). La categoria del genere grammaticale nel croato molisano (con particolare riferimento all’interferenza linguistica). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rome, La Sapienza. Kučerová, Ivona, and Moro, Anna (2012). On the Structural and Typal Differences between Mass and Count Nouns: Evidence from Romance. In Ana Aguilar Guevara, Anna Chernilovskaya, and Rick Nouwen (eds), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 377–88. Kühner, Raphael, and Holzweissig, Friedrich (1912). Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, vol. 1. Elementar-, Formen- und Wortlehre. Neubearbeitet von Dr. Friedrich Holzweissig, 2nd edn. Hanover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung. Kühner, Raphael, and Stegmann, Carl (1982). Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, vol. 2.1. Satzlehre. Repr. of the 2nd edn. 1914 ‘mit den Zusätzen und Berichtigungen zur 3. (1955), 4. (1962) und 5. (1976) Auflage’. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy (1964). The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter. Kutas, Marta, and Steven A. Hillyard (1983). Event-related Brain Potentials to Grammatical Errors and Semantic Anomalies. Memory & Cognition 11(5): 539–50. La Fauci, Nunzio (1994). Objects and Subjects in the Formation of Romance Morphosyntax. Bloomington, IN: IULC. La Fauci, Nunzio (2013). Rimodulazioni morfosintattiche latino-romanze in prospettiva sistematica. In Rosa Bianca Finazzi and Paola Pontani (eds), Dal mondo antico all’universo medievale: Nuove modulazioni di lingue e di culture. Milan: EDUCatt, 39–59. La Fauci, Nunzio (2016). Sul neutro. In Marina Benedetti, Carla Bruno, Paola Dardano, and Liana Tronci (eds), Grammatiche e grammatici. Teorie, testi e contesti. Atti del XXXIX Convegno della Società Italiana di Glottologia. Siena, 23–25 ottobre. Rome: Il Calamo, 9–38. Lakoff, George (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Lakoff, Robin Tolmach (1975). Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and Row. Lakoff, Robin Tolmach (2004). Language and Woman’ s Place. Text and Commentaries, ed. Mary Bucholtz. Oxford: Oxford University Press. La Rocca, Mario (2007). Dizionario del dialetto Itrano. Piccolo studio fono-etimologico. Latina: Sistema bibliotecario sud pontino. Larson, Pär (1988). Gli elementi volgari nelle carte del ‘Codice Diplomatico Longobardo’. Master’s thesis, University of Florence.

340

Bibliography

Larson, Pär (2000). Tra linguistica e fonti diplomatiche: quello che le carte dicono e non dicono. In Jószef Herman and Anna Marinetti (eds), La preistoria dell’italiano. Atti della tavola rotonda di linguistica storica, Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia, 11–13 giugno 1998. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 151–66. Lausberg, Heinrich (1951). Bemerkungen zur italienischen Lautlehre. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 68: 318–32. Lausberg, Heinrich (1976). Linguistica romanza, 2nd edn. 2 vols. Milan: Feltrinelli. Lazzeroni, Romano (1993). Il genere indoeuropeo. Una categoria naturale? In Maurizio Bettini (ed.), Maschile/Femminile. Genere e ruoli nelle culture antiche. Rome/Bari: Laterza: 3–16. Repr. in Tristano Bolelli and Saverio Sani (eds), Scritti scelti di Romano Lazzeroni. Pisa: Pacini, 73–95. Ledgeway, Adam (2009). Grammatica diacronica del napoletano. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Ledgeway, Adam (2012). From Latin to Romance. Morphosyntactic Typology and Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ledgeway, Adam (2016). The Dialects of Southern Italy. In Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 246–69. Ledgeway, Adam, and Silvestri, Giuseppina (2016). L’ accordo degli avverbi aggettivali e del participio passato nei dialetti meridionali. In Patrizia Del Puente (ed.), Dialetti: per parlare e parlarne. Atti del quarto Convegno Internazionale di Dialettologia—Progetto A.L.Ba. (Potenza-Castelmezzano-Lagopesole, 6–8 novembre 2014). Venosa (PZ): Osanna Edizioni, 163–85. Lepri, Luigi, and Vitali, Daniele (2009). Dizionario bolognese–italiano, italiano–bolognese = Dizionèri bulgnaiṡ–itagliàn, itagliàn–bulgnaiṡ. Bologna: Pendragon. Lepschy, Giulio (1987). Sexism and the Italian Language. The Italianist 7: 158–69. Lepschy, Giulio (1988). Lingua e sessismo. L’Italia dialettale 51: 7–37. Repr. in Giulio Lepschy (1989). Nuovi saggi di linguistica italiana. Bologna: Il Mulino, 61–84. Lepschy, Anna Laura, and Lepschy, Giulio (1977). The Italian Language Today. London: Hutchinson & Co. Lepschy, Anna Laura, Lepschy, Giulio, and Samson, Helena (2001). Lingua italiana e femminile. Quaderns d’Italià 6: 9–18. Le Roux de Lincy, Adrien Jean Victor (1841). Les quatre livres des Rois: traduits en français du XIIe siècle suivis d’un fragment de moralités sur Job et d’un choix de sermons de Saint-Bernard. Paris: Imprimerie Royale. Levasti, Arrigo (ed.) (1924–26). Beato Iacopo da Varagine, Leggenda Aurea. Volgarizzamento toscano del Trecento. 3 vols. Florence: Libreria Editrice Fiorentina. von der Leyen, Friedrich (1908). Einführung in das Gotische. Munich: Beck. Liceras, Juana M., Fernández Fuertes, Raquel, Perales, Susana, Pérez-Tattam, Rocío, and Spradlin, Kenton Todd (2008). Gender and Gender Agreement in Bilingual Native and Non-native Grammars: A View from Child and Adult Functional–Lexical Mixings. Lingua 118: 827–51. Linder, Karl Peter (1987). Grammatische Untersuchungen zur Charakteristik des Rätoromanischen in Graubünden. Tübingen: Narr. Lindsstrom, Anton (1907). Il vernacolo di Subiaco. Studj Romanzi 5: 237–300. Lisini, Alessandro (ed.) (1903). Il Costituto del comune di Siena volgarizzato nel MCCCIX– MCCCX. Siena: Tip. e Lit. Sordomuti di L. Lazzeri.



Bibliography

341

Litscher, Roland (2009). Die Genese des dritten Genus: ein neuer Versuch. In Rosemarie Lühr and Sabine Ziegler (eds), Protolanguage and Prehistory. Akten der XII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Krakau, 11.–15.10.2004. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 271–85. Liver, Ricarda (2010). Rätoromanisch. Eine Einführung in das Bündnerromanische, 2nd edn. Tübingen: Narr. Livescu, Maria (2008). Histoire interne du roumain: Morphosyntaxe et syntaxe/Interne Sprachgeschichte des Rumänischen: Morphosyntax und Syntax. In Gerhard Ernst, MartinDietrich Gleßgen, Christian Schmitt, and Wolfgang Schweickard (eds), Romanische Sprachgeschichte/Histoire linguistique de la Romania, vol. 3. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 2646–92. Llaca, Francisco Diego (1979). Asina jabla Llanes. Madrid: Artes Gráficas Minerva. Lloret, Maria-Rosa, and Viaplana, Joaquim (1997). On the Morphological Category of Gender in Catalan and in Spanish. In Wolfgang U. Dressler, Martin Prinzhorn, and John Rennison (eds), Advances in Morphology. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 171–88. Löfstedt, Bengt (1961). Studien über die Sprache der langobardischen Gesetze. Beiträge zur frühmittelalterlichen Latinität. Studia Latina Upsaliensia 1. Stockholm: Almqvist und Wiksell. Löfstedt, Einar (1936). Vermischte Studien zur lateinischen Sprachkunde und Syntax. Lund: Gleerup. Lopes, Oscar (1971). Gramática simbólica do português (um esboço). Lisbon: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian e Ministérios de Ciência e Tecnologia. Loporcaro, Michele (1988). Grammatica storica del dialetto di Altamura. Pisa: Giardini. Loporcaro, Michele (1996). Un caso di coniugazione per genere del verbo finito in alcuni dialetti della montagna modenese e bolognese. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 112: 458–78. Loporcaro, Michele (1997). L’ origine del raddoppiamento fonosintattico. Saggio di fonologia diacronica romanza. Basel/Tübingen: Francke. Loporcaro, Michele (1998). Sintassi comparata dell’accordo participiale romanzo. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier. Loporcaro, Michele (2005). Typological Remarks on Sardinian: 1. Vowel Harmony. 2. Sardinian in a Correlative Typology of the Romance Languages. In Ignazio Putzu (ed.), Sardinian in Typological Perspective. Special issue of STUF—Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 68(2–3): 210–27. Loporcaro, Michele (2006). Contatto e mutamento linguistico in Sardegna settentrionale: il caso di Luras. Revue de linguistique romane 70: 321–49. Loporcaro, Michele (2010a). The Logic of Romance Past Participle Agreement. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Adam Ledgeway, and Ian Roberts (eds), Syntactic Variation. The Dialects of Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 225–43. Loporcaro, Michele (2010b). Variation and Change in Morphology and Syntax. Romance Object Agreement. In Franz Rainer, Wolfgang U. Dressler, Dieter Kastovsky, and Hans Christian Luschützky (eds), Variation and Change in Morphology. Selected papers from the 13th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2008. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 149–75. Loporcaro, Michele (2011a). Morphological Complexity without Abstractness: Italo-Romance Metaphony. Poznan´ Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 47(2): 177–202.

342

Bibliography

Loporcaro, Michele (2011b). Per lo studio della morfosintassi dei dialetti lucani: acquisizioni recenti e nuove prospettive. In Patrizia Del Puente (ed.), Dialetti: per parlare e parlarne. Atti del secondo Convegno Internazionale di Dialettologia—Progetto A.L.Ba. (Potenza-VenosaMatera, 13–15 maggio 2010). Rionero in Vulture (PZ): Calice Editori, 177–98. Loporcaro, Michele (2011c). Phonological Processes. In Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway (eds), The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, vol. 1. Structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 109–54, 689–98. Loporcaro, Michele (2011d). Syncretism and Neutralization in the Marking of Romance Object Agreement. In Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, Maria Goldbach, and Marc-Olivier Hinzelin (eds), Morphological Autonomy: Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 327–57. Loporcaro, Michele (2012a). Contact-induced Change in Personal Pronouns: Some Romance Examples. In Martine Vanhove, Thomas Stolz, Aina Urdze, and Hitomi Otsuka (eds), Morphologies in Contact. Studia Typologica, STUF Beiheft 10. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 207–25. Loporcaro, Michele (2012b). Variazione dialettale e ricostruzione. 1. La degeminazione settentrionale. 2. I due neutri del Centro-Meridione. In Lucio Melazzo (ed.), Usare il presente per spiegare il passato. Teorie linguistiche contemporanee e lingue storiche. Atti del XXXIII Convegno della Società Italiana di Glottologia. Palermo, 16–18 ottobre 2008. Rome: Il Calamo, 111–60. Loporcaro, Michele (2013). Profilo linguistico dei dialetti italiani, 2nd edn. Rome/Bari: Laterza. Loporcaro, Michele (2015a). The Impact of Morphology on Change in Agreement Systems. In Jürg Fleischer, Elisabeth Rieken, and Paul Widmer (eds), Agreement from a Diachronic Perspective. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 104–26. Loporcaro, Michele (2015b). Vowel Length from Latin to Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Loporcaro, Michele (2016a). Auxiliary Selection and Participial Agreement. In Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 802–18. Loporcaro, Michele (2016b). Gender. In Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 924–35. Loporcaro, Michele (2016c). Metaphony and Diphthongization in Southern Italy: Reconstructive Implications for Sound Change in Early Romance. In Francesc Torres-Tamarit, Kathrin Linke, and Marc van Oostendorp (eds), Approaches to Metaphony in the Languages of Italy. Berlin/ New York: De Gruyter, 55–87. Loporcaro, Michele (in press). Semantica e genere grammaticale: i dati italo-romanzi in prospettiva tipologica. In Giuseppe Brincat and Sandro Caruana (eds), Tipologia e ‘dintorni’. Il metodo tipologico alla intersezione di piani d’analisi. Atti del XLIX Congresso internazionale di studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana, Malta, 24–26 settembre 2015. Rome: Bulzoni, 187–207. Loporcaro, Michele, and Meo, Domenico (in preparation). Grammatica agnonese. Ms., University of Zurich. Loporcaro, Michele, and Paciaroni, Tania (2011). Four Gender-systems in Indo-European. In Gunther De Vogelaer and Mark Janse (eds), The Diachrony of Gender Marking. Special issue of Folia Linguistica 45(2). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 389–434. Loporcaro, Michele, and Paciaroni, Tania (2016). The Dialects of Central Italy. In Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 228–45.



Bibliography

343

Loporcaro, Michele, and Pedrazzoli, Dafne (2016). Classi flessive del nome e genere grammaticale nel dialetto di Agnone (Isernia). Revue de linguistique romane 80: 73–100. Loporcaro, Michele, and Ricca, Davide (in preparation). Concurrent Gender Systems in Europe. Ms., University of Zurich/University of Turin. Loporcaro, Michele, and Silvestri, Giuseppina (2011). Vocalismo finale atono e morfosintassi dell’accordo participiale in due varietà generazionali del dialetto di Verbicaro (provincia di Cosenza). Revue de linguistique romane 75: 325–56. Loporcaro, Michele, and Silvestri, Giuseppina (2015). Accordo al neutro plurale nel dialetto di Verbicaro (Cosenza). L’Italia dialettale 76: 63–81. Loporcaro, Michele, and Tomasin, Lorenzo (2016). Marcamento di genere iperdifferenziato come vestigio del neutro nell’italo-romanzo settentrionale antico. Lingua e stile 51: 37–64. Loporcaro, Michele, and Vigolo, Maria Teresa (2002–03). Accordo per genere del verbo finito in italo-romanzo: l’arco alpino orientale. L’ Italia dialettale 63–4: 7–32. Loporcaro, Michele, Faraoni, Vincenzo, and Gardani, Francesco (2014). The Third Gender of Old Italian. Diachronica 31(1): 1–22. Loporcaro, Michele, Gardani, Francesco, and Giudici, Alberto (in preparation a). Un’ innovazione recente nel marcamento del genere grammaticale in istro-romeno settentrionale. Ms., University of Zurich. Loporcaro, Michele, Romagnoli, Serena, and Wild, Mario (in preparation b). Unstable personal pronouns in the Northern Logudorese dialect of Luras. Ms., University of Zurich. Lorenzetti, Luca (1995). Aspetti morfologici e sintattici dei dialetti dei Castelli romani. Tesi di dottorato (doctoral thesis), University of Rome III. Lorenzetti, Luca (2011). Neutro. In Raffaele Simone (ed.), Enciclopedia dell’Italiano. Available at: http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/neutro_(Enciclopedia_dell’Italiano)/. Lorenzetti, Luca, and Marsella, Marilena (2013). Cent’anni dopo. Un confronto con i dati dell’inchiesta di Nunzio Maccarone a Cervaro. In Francesco Avolio (ed.), Lingua e dialetto tra l’Italia centrale e l’Italia meridionale. I dialetti della Media Valle del Liri e delle zone limitrofe. Roccasecca: Arte Stampa Editore, 58–77. Lorimer, David L. R. (1935). The Burushaski Language. 3 vols. Oslo: Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning. Love, James Robert Beattie (2000). The Grammatical Structure of the Worora Language of North-Western Australia. Munich: Lincom Europa. LRL = Günter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin, and Christian Schmitt (eds) (1988–2005). Lexicon der Romanistischen Linguistik. 8 vols. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. LSI = Lurà (2004). Lüdtke, Helmut (1965). Die lateinischen Endungen -um/-im/-unt und ihre romanischen Ergebnisse. In Omagiu lui Alexandru Rosetti la 70 de ani. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 487–99. Lüdtke, Helmut (1976). La declinazione dei verbi in un dialetto di transizione marchigianoabruzzese. Abruzzo 16(3): 79–84. Lüdtke, Helmut (1979). Lucania. Profilo dei dialetti italiani 17. Pisa: Pacini. Lüdtke, Helmut (1988). Metafonía y neutro de materia. In Manuel Ariza, Antonio Salvador, and Antonio Viudas (eds), Actas del I Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española. Cáceres, 30 de marzo-4 de abril de 1987. Madrid: Arco Libros, 61–9.

344

Bibliography

Lüdtke Helmut (2003). El neutro románico: su origen antiguo y sus avatares posteriores en asturiano, castellano norteño, romanche e italiano dialectal. Lletres asturianes 82: 7–14. Lüdtke Helmut (2009). Der Ursprung der romanischen Sprachen. Eine Geschichte der sprachlichen Kommunikation. Zweite vermehrte und verbesserte Auflage. Kiel: Westensee Verlag. Luís, Ana R. (2011). Morphomic Structure and Loan-Verb Integration: Evidence from Lusophone Creoles. In Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, Maria Goldbach, and Marc-Olivier Hinzelin (eds), Morphological Autonomy: Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 235–54. Lurà, Franco (ed.) (2004). Lessico dialettale della Svizzera italiana. 5 vols. Bellinzona: Centro di dialettologia e di etnografia. Luraghi, Silvia (2006). La nascita del genere femminile in indoeuropeo. In Silvia Luraghi and Anna Olita (eds), Linguaggio e genere. Grammatica e usi. Rome: Carocci, 89–106. Macoir, Jean, and Béland, Renée (2004). Knowing its Gender without Knowing its Name: Differential Access to Lexical Information in a Jargonaphasic Patient. Neurocase 10(6): 471– 82. Madoz, José (ed.) (1947). Albarus Cordubensis, Epistulae. Epistolario de Álbaro de Córdoba. Serie patristica 1. Madrid: Monumenta Hispaniae sacra. Maggiore, Marco (2013). Evidenze del quarto genere grammaticale in salentino antico. Medioevo letterario d’Italia 10: 71–122. Maggiore, Marco (2016). Scripto sopra Theseu re. Il commento salentino al ‘Teseida’ di Boccaccio (Ugento/Nardò, ante 1487). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. Maggiore, Marco, and Variano, Angelo (2015). Differenziazione vocalica per posizione e differenziazione fonetica su base sessuale nella varietà di Zapponeta (FG). L’ Italia dialettale 76: 83–104. Magni, Elisabetta (1995). Il neutro nelle lingue romanze: tra relitti e prototipi. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 35: 127–78. Maiden, Martin (1989). Sulla morfologizzazione della metafonesi nei dialetti italiani meridionali. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 105: 178–92. Maiden, Martin (1991). Interactive Morphonology: Metaphony in Italy. London/New York: Routledge. Maiden, Martin (1995). A Linguistic History of Italian. London/New York: Longman. Maiden, Martin (1996). On the Romance Inflectional Endings -i and -e. Romance Philology 50(2): 147–82. Maiden, Martin (1997). Inflectional Morphology of the Noun and Adjective. In Martin Maiden and Mair Parry (eds), The Dialects of Italy. London/New York: Routledge, 68–74. Maiden, Martin (2011). Morphological Persistence. In Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway (eds), The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, vol. 1. Structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 155–215, 699–706. Maiden, Martin (2013). On the rise of genus alternans. Evidence from Romance Languages. Paper given at the 21st International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Oslo, 2013. Maiden, Martin (2015). Tiramisù and the History of the Romanian ‘Neuter’. Paper given at the 22nd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Naples, 2015. Maiden, Martin (2016a). Romanian, Istro-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian, and Aromanian. In Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 91–125.



Bibliography

345

Maiden, Martin (2016b). The Romanian Alternating Gender in Diachrony and Synchrony. Folia linguistica historica 37: 111–44. Maiden, Martin, and Robustelli, Cecilia (2000). A Reference Grammar of Modern Italian. London: Arnold. Malagoli, Giuseppe (1910–13). L’ articolo maschile singolare nel dialetto di Piandelagotti (Modena). Archivio Glottologico Italiano 17: 250–4. Malato, Enrico (ed.) (1962). Pompeo Sarnelli, Posilicheata. Florence: Sansoni. Mallinson, Graham (1984). Problems, Pseudo-problems and Hard Evidence—Another Look at the Rumanian Neuter. Folia Linguistica 18: 439–51. Mancarella, Giovan Battista (1970). Arcaicità del sistema vocalico salentino. Studi Linguistici Salentini 3: 109–26. Mancarella, Giovan Battista (1975). Salento. Profilo dei dialetti italiani 16. Pisa: Pacini. Mancarella, Giovan Battista (1998). Salento. Monografia regionale della ‘Carta dei Dialetti Italiani’. Lecce: Edizioni del Grifo. Mancini, Augusto, Dorini, Umberto, and Lazzareschi, Eugenio (eds) (1927). Lo Statuto della Corte dei Mercanti in Lucca del 1376. Florence: Olschki. Manzelli, Gianguido (2006). Il genere nelle lingue senza genere. In Silvia Luraghi and Anna Olita (eds), Linguaggio e genere. Grammatica e usi. Rome: Carocci, 72–88. Manzini, Maria Rita, and Savoia, Leonardo M. (2005). I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa. 3 vols. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. Marcantonio, Angela (1978). Una particolarità dei nomi ‘mass’ e dei nomi ‘count’ nel dialetto abruzzese di Sulmona. Lingua e contesto 5: 83–9. Marcellesi, Jean-Baptiste (1970). Le pluriel en ‑a en corse méridional. In Georges Matoré, with Jeanne Cadiot-Cueilleron (eds), Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie romanes (dédiés à la mémoire de Pierre Fouché, 1891–1967). Paris: Klincksieck, 37–44. Marchetti, Giuseppe (1985). Lineamenti di grammatica friulana, 4th edn. Udine: Società Filologica Friulana. Marotta, Monica (2006). Il dialetto di Monte San Giacomo (SA). Studio fonetico, morfologico e lessicale. Master’s thesis, University of Zurich. Martinus, Johannes, and Rauch, Andreas V. (1693). Abyss dal’ aeternitat in 3 cudeschs considerata. Zurich: Simler. Matasović, Ranko (2004). Gender in Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter. Mattesini, Enzo (1985). Il ‘Diario’ in volgare quattrocentesco di Antonio Lotieri de Pisano notaio in Nepi. Contributi di dialettologia umbra 3(5): 318–542. Mattesini, Enzo (1990). Dialetti moderni e antichi volgari in Umbria: il caso del folignate. Appunti linguistici su tre statuti di corporazioni artigiane (secc. XIV–XV). In Luciano Agostiniani, Margherita Castelli, and Domenico Santamaria (eds), L’ Umbria nel quadro linguistico dell’Italia mediana. Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 163–203. Mattesini, Enzo, and Ugoccioni, Nicoletta (1992). Vocabolario del dialetto del territorio orvietano. Perugia: Opera del Vocabolario dialettale umbro. Maturi, Pietro (2002). Dialetti e substandardizzazione nel Sannio Beneventano. Frankfurt a. M. etc.: Peter Lang. Matute, Cristina (2004). Los sistemas pronominales en español antiguo. Problemas y métodos para una reconstrucción histórica. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Available at: http://www.lllf.uam.es/coser/publicaciones/cristina/1_es.pdf.

346

Bibliography

Matzke, John R. (ed.) (1899). Lois de Guillaume le Conquérant en français et en latin. Textes et étude critique publiés par John E. Matzke. Avec une préface historique par Charles Bémont. Paris: Alphonse Picard. Maurer, Philippe (1995). L’ angolar. Un créole afro-portugais parlé à São Tomé. Hamburg: Buske. Maurer, Philippe, and Bollée, Annegret (2016). Creoles. In Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 447–66. Mauskopf Deliyannis, Deborah (ed.) (2006). Agnelli Ravennatis Liber pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis. Turnhout: Brepols. Mayrhofer, Manfred (1996). Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen (EWAia). 2 vols. Heidelberg: Winter. McWhorter, John (2001). The World’s Simplest Grammars Are Creole Grammars. Linguistic Typology 5: 125–66. McWhorter, John (2005). Defining Creole. New York: Oxford University Press. Meier-Brügger, Michael (2002). Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft, 8th edn. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. Meillet, Antoine (1919). Le genre grammatical et l’élimination de la flexion. Scientia. Rivista di scienza 25: 460–70. Repr. in Antoine Meillet (1921). Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion, 199–210. Meillet, Antoine (1920). Les noms du ‘feu’ et de l’‘eau’ et la question du genre. Mémoires de la société de linguistique de Paris 21: 249–56. Re-elaborated as part of Antoine Meillet (1921). Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion, 215–20. Meillet, Antoine (1921). La catégorie du genre et les conceptions indo-européennes. In Antoine Meillet (1921). Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion, 211–29. Meillet, Antoine, and Vendryes, Joseph (1968). Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques, 5th edn. [1st edn. 1924]. Paris: Champion. Mel’čuk, Igor A. (1974). Statistics and the Relationship between the Gender of French Nouns and their Endings. In Victor Jul’evič Rozencvejg (ed.), Essays on Lexical Semantics, vol. 1. Stockholm: Skriptor, 11–42. Mel’čuk, Igor A. (2013). The Notion of Inflection and the Expression of Nominal Gender in Spanish. Studies in Language 37(4): 736–63. Melchert, Harold Craig (1994). The Feminine Gender in Anatolian. In George E. Dunkel, Gisel Meyer, Salvatore Scarlata, and Christian Seidl (eds), Früh-, Mittel-, Spätindogermanisch. Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 5. bis 9. Oktober 1992 in Zürich. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 231–44. Melchert, Harold Craig (2011). The PIE Collective Plural and the ‘tà zôa tréchei rule’. In Thomas Krisch and Thomas Lindner (eds), Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog. Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 27. September 2008 in Salzburg. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 395–400. Melillo, Giacomo (1920). Il dialetto di Volturino (Foggia). Saggio fonetico-morfologico. Perugia: Unione Tipografica Cooperativa. Melillo, Michele (1955a). Atlante Fonetico Lucano. Rome: Arti grafiche S. Marcello. Melillo, Michele (1955b). Atlante Fonetico Pugliese. Parte prima e seconda: Capitanata e Terra di Bari. Rome: Arti grafiche S. Marcello.



Bibliography

347

Menéndez Pidal, Ramón (1899). Notas acerca del bable de Lena. In Octavio Bellmunt and Fermín Canella (eds), Asturias, vol 2. Gijón, 332–40. Repr. in Ramón Menéndez Pidal (1962). El dialecto leonés, ed. Carmen Bobes. Oviedo: IDEA, 119–51. Menichetti, Aldo (ed.) (1965). Chiaro Davanzati, Rime. Bologna: Commissione per i testi di lingua. Meo, Domenico (2003). Vocabolario del dialetto di Agnone. Isernia: Cicchetti. Merlini Barbaresi, Lavinia (2004). Alterazione. In Maria Grossmann and Franz Rainer (eds), La formazione delle parole. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 264–92. Merlo, Clemente (1906–07). Dei continuatori del lat. ille in alcuni dialetti dell’Italia centromeridionale. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 30 [1906]: 11–25, 438–54; 31 [1907]: 157–63. Merlo, Clemente (1917a). Del potere metafonetico palatilizzante di lat. ū -ŭ. Studj Romanzi 13: 5–21. Merlo, Clemente (1917b). L’ articolo determinativo nel dialetto di Molfetta. Studj Romanzi 14: 69–99. Merlo, Clemente (1917c). Proposta di aggiunte ai §§ 336/352, 383/384 della ‘Italienische Grammatik’ di W. Meyer-Lübke. Studj Romanzi 14: 100–12. Merlo, Clemente (1920). Fonologia del dialetto di Sora (Caserta). Annali delle Università Toscane n.s. 4: 117–283. Repr. Bologna: Forni, 1978. Merlo, Clemente (1952). Ital. ‘Le Labbra, Le Braccia’ e sim. Italica 29(4): 229–34. Merlo, Clemente (1955). Di una presunta sostituzione preromanza di -as all’-ae di nominativo plurale dei temi in ‑a. L’Italia dialettale 20: 71–85. Repr. in Clemente Merlo (1959). Saggi linguistici. Pisa: Pacini Mariotti, 283–97. Merlo, Clemente (1962). L’articolo determinativo nel dialetto di Calitri. Bollettino del Centro Studi Filologici e Linguistici Siciliani 7: 271–3. Messing, Gordon M. (1972). The Romance Collective Neuter and the Survival of the Latin Ablative. Glotta 50: 255–62. Meyer[-Lübke], Wilhelm (1883). Die Schicksale des lateinischen Neutrums im Romanischen. Halle a. S.: Druck von E. Karras/Niemeyer. Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm (1890). Italienische Grammatik. Leipzig: Reisland. Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm (1902). Zur Kenntniss des Altlogudoresischen. Sitzungsberichte des kais. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Philosophisch-historische Classe 145(5). Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm (1920). Einführung in das Studium der romanischen Sprachen, 3rd edn. Heidelberg: Winter. Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm (1934). Historische Grammatik der französischen Sprache. Erster Teil. Laut- und Flexionslehre, 5th edn. Heidelberg: Winter. Miceli, Gabriele, Turriziani, Patrizia, Caltagirone, Carlo, Capasso, Rita, Tomaiuolo, Francesco, and Caramazza, Alfonso (2002). The Neural Correlates of Grammatical Gender: An fMRI Investigation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 14(4): 618–28. Michaelis, Susanne (1994). Komplexe Syntax im Seychellen-Kreol. Verknüpfung von Sachverhaltsdarstellungen zwischen Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit. Tübingen: Narr. Mifsud, Manwuel (1995). Loan Verbs in Maltese. A Descriptive and Comparative Study. Leiden etc.: Brill. Mihăescu, Haralambie (1959). Cîteva observaţii asupra limbii latine din provinciile dunărene ale imperiului roman. Studii şi cercetări lingvistice 10: 77–99.

348

Bibliography

Mihăescu, Haralambie (1960). Limba latină în provinciile dunărene ale imperiului roman. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romîne. Mihăilă, Gheorghe (1960). Împrumuturi vechi sud-slave în limba romînă. Studiu lexico-semantic. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii populare romîne. Milizia, Paolo (2012). Contatto e categorie morfologiche: il caso del doppio sistema di genere in copto. Studi italiani di linguistica teorica e applicata 41: 481–95. Miozzo, Michele, and Caramazza, Alfonso (1997). The Retrieval of Lexical-Syntactic Features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 23: 1–14. Miranda, Rocky V. (1975). Indo-European Gender: A Study in Semantic and Syntactic Change. Journal of Indo-European Studies 3: 199–215. Mîrzea Vasile, Carmen (2015). Adjectivul în secolul al XIX-lea. In Gheorghe Chivu, Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Adina Dragomirescu, Isabela Nedelcu, and Irina Nicula (eds), Studii de istorie a limbii române. Morfosintaxa limbii literare în secolele al XIX-lea și al XX-lea. [1st edn. 2012]. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 63–110. Moignet, Gérard (1988). Grammaire de l’ ancien français. Morphologie–Syntaxe, 2nd edn. Paris: Klincksieck. Molinaro, Nicola, Barber, Horacio A., and Carreiras, Manuel (2011). Grammatical Agreement Processing in Reading: ERP Findings and Future Directions. Cortex 47: 908–30. Molinaro, Nicola, Vespignani, Francesco, and Job, Remo (2008). A Deeper Reanalysis of a Superficial Feature: An ERP Study on Agreement Violations. Brain Research 1228: 161–76. Moldovan, Victoria, Pop, Liana, and Uricaru, Lucia (2001). Nivel prag. Pentru învăţarea limbii române ca limbă străină. Strasbourg: Consiliul de Cooperări culturale. Available at: http:// www.ilr.ro/wp-content/uploads/nivel_prag.pdf [accessed 17 June 2017]. Moll, Francisco de B. (1952). Gramática histórica catalana. Madrid: Gredos. Monaci, Ernesto (ed.) (1920). Storie de Troja et de Roma altrimenti dette Liber ystoriarum Romanorum. Testo romanesco del secolo XIII preceduto da un testo latino da cui deriva. Rome: Società Romana di Storia Patria. Monfeli, Paolo (1993). Cento gusti non si possono avere: di essere bella e di saper cantare. Vocabolario del dialetto di Fabrica di Roma. Rome: Abete grafica. Mora-Lebrun, Francine (1995). Le roman de Thèbes. Édition du manuscrit S (Londres, Brit. Libr., Add. 34114). Paris: Librairie Générale Française. Moretti, Bruno (1996). Ai margini del dialetto. Varietà in sviluppo e varietà in via di riduzione in una situazione di ‘inizio di decadimento’. Bellinzona: OLSI. Moretti, Giovanni (1973). Vocabolario del dialetto di Magione (Perugia). Perugia: Università degli Studi. Moretti, Giovanni (1987). Umbria. Profilo dei dialetti italiani 11. Pisa: Pacini. Morosi, Giuseppe (1878). Il vocalismo del dialetto leccese. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 4: 117–44. Morri, Antonio (1840). Vocabolario romagnolo-italiano. Faenza: Conti. Repr. Bologna: Forni, 1969. Morselli, Ercole Luigi (1919). Favole per i Re d’oggi. IIª edizione arricchita di nuove favole e riveduta dall’autore. Florence: Vallecchi Editore. Mussafia, Adolfo (1867). Spuren des lateinischen Neutrum Plurale. Jahrbuch für romanische und englische Litteratur 8: 127–8. Mussafia, Adolfo (1873). Beitrag zur Kunde der norditalienischen Mundarten im XV. Jahrhunderte. Denkschriften der Philosophisch-Historischen Classe der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften 22. Vienna: Gerold.



Bibliography

349

Nandriş, Octave (1961). Le genre, ses réalisations et le genre personnel en roumain. Revue de linguistique romane 25: 47–74. Nastase, Vivi, and Popescu, Marius (2009). What’s in a Name? In some Languages, Grammatical Gender. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Singapore, 6–7 August 2009 (EMNLP), 1368–77. Available at: http://www.aclweb. org/anthology/D09-1142.pdf. Natalicio, Diana (1983). Native Speaker Intuition as a Basis for Determining Noun Gender Rules. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 6(1): 49–55. Navone, Giulio (1922). Il dialetto di Paliano. Studj Romanzi 17: 73–126. Neagoe, Victorela (2012). Morfosintaxa articolului în graiurile dacoromâne actuale. Fonetică și dialectologie 31: 34–62. Nedelcu, Isabela (2013a). Countable and Uncountable Nouns. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.), The Grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 258–61. Nedelcu, Isabela (2013b). Inflectional classes. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.), The Grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 273–8. Nedelcu, Isabela (2013c). Three Genders: Masculine, Feminine, and Neuter. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.), The Grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 255–8. Neira Martínez, Jesús (1955). El habla de Lena. Oviedo: IDEA. Repr. 2005. Neira Martínez, Jesús (1978). La oposición ‘contínuo’/‘discontínuo’ en las hablas asturianas. In Estudios ofrecidos a Emilio Alarcos Llorach, vol 3. Oviedo: Universidad de Oviedo, 255–79. Repr. in Jesús Neira Martínez (1982). Bables y castellano en Asturias. Madrid: Silverio Cañada, 163–86. Neira Martínez, Jesús (1991). Función y origen de la alternancia -u/-o en los bables centrales de Asturias. Boletín de la Real Academia Española 71: 433–54. Neri, Attilio (1973). Vocabolario del dialetto modenese. Bologna: Forni. Neumann, Ingrid (1985). Le créole de Breaux Bridge, Louisiane: Etude morphosyntaxique— textes—vocabulaire. Hamburg: Buske. Neumann-Holzschuh, Ingrid (2006). Gender in French Creoles: The Story of a Loser. In J. Clancy Clements, Thomas A. Klingler, Deborah Piston-Hatlen, and Kevin J. Rottet (eds), History, Society and Variation. In Honor of Albert Valdman. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 251–72. Nichols, Johanna (2003). Diversity and Stability in Language. In Richard Janda and Brian Joseph (eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 283–311. Nicoli, Franco (1983). Grammatica milanese. Busto Arsizio: Bramante. Niedermann, Max (1943–44). Les gloses médicales du Liber glosarum. Emerita 11 [1943]: 257– 96; 12 [1944]: 29–83. Repr. in Recueil Max Niedermann. Neuchâtel: Secrétariat de l’Université, 1954, 65–136. Nolè, Graziella (2004–05). Ricerche sul dialetto di Avigliano. Vocalismo, consonantismo e morfologia nominale. Master’s thesis, University of Zurich. Norberg, Dag (1974). Manuale di latino medievale. Florence: La Nuova Italia. Normand, Jacques, and Raynaud, Gaston (eds) (1877). Aiol. Chanson de geste. Paris: Didot. Nunes, José Joaquim (1975). Compêndio de gramática histórica portuguesa. Fonética e morfologia, 8th edn. Lisbon: Livraria Clássica Editora. Ojeda, Almerindo E. (1984). A Note on the Spanish Neuter. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 171–3.

350

Bibliography

Ojeda, Almerindo E. (1992). The ‘Mass Neuter’ in Hispano-Romance Dialects. Hispanic Linguistics 5: 245–77. Ojeda, Almerindo E. (1995). The Semantics of the Italian Double Plural. Journal of Semantics 12: 213–37. Onofri, Laura (ed.) (2000). Marco Antonio Altieri, Li Baccanali. Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento. Onorati, Giuseppe (2007). La parlata normiciana, vol. 2. La grammatica. Norma: Edizione Domusculta. Orlandi, Giacomo (2000). Il dialetto di Roiate, 3rd edn. Rome: Edilazio. Orlandini, Anna (1994). Le nom chose. Analyse d’un phénomène latin et roman. In Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), Papers on Grammar IV. Bologna: CLUEB, 165–76. Ostrowski, Manfred (1985). Zur Entstehung und Entwicklung des indogermanischen Neutrums. In Bernfried Schlerath and Veronica Rittner (eds), Grammatische Kategorien, Funktion und Geschichte. Akten der VII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, 20.–25. Februar 1983. Reichert: Wiesbaden, 313–23. OVI = The Opera del Vocabolario Italiano (OVI) textual database. http://www.vocabolario.org. Pace, Anna (1993–94). Ricerche di morfosintassi sui dialetti di Trebisacce e Castrovillari. Tesi di laurea (degree thesis), University of Calabria. Paciaroni, Tania (2009). Verso l’armonia vocalica. Diffrazione degli esiti di /-u/nel dialetto di Matelica. In Paola Cotticelli Kurras and Giorgio Graffi (eds), Lingue, ethnos e popolazioni: evidenze linguistiche, biologiche e culturali. Atti del XXXII Convegno della Società Italiana di Glottologia, Verona, 25–27 ottobre 2007. Rome: Il Calamo, 187–93. Paciaroni, Tania (2012). Noun Inflectional Classes in Maceratese. In Sascha Gaglia, and MarcOlivier Hinzelin (eds), Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 231–70. Paciaroni, Tania (2017). I dialetti del Maceratese: fonetica e morfologia. Habilitation thesis, University of Zurich. Paciaroni, Tania, and Loporcaro, Michele (2010). Funzioni morfologiche della distinzione -u/o nei dialetti del Maceratese. In Maria Iliescu, Heidi Siller, and Paul Danler (eds), Actes du XXVe Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes, Innsbruck. 3–8 septembre 2007, vol 2. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 497–506. Paciaroni, Tania, and Loporcaro, Michele (2013). Indefiniteness, Mass and the Neuter Gender: Evidence from Central-Southern Italo-Romance. Paper given at the workshop Mass and Count in Romance and Germanic languages, Zurich, 16–17 December 2013. Paciaroni, Tania, and Loporcaro, Michele (2016). Overt gender marking depending on syntactic context in Ripano. Ms., University of Zurich. To appear in Sebastian Fedden, Jenny Audring, and Greville G. Corbett (eds), Non-canonical Gender Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Paciaroni, Tania, Nolè, Graziella, and Loporcaro, Michele (2013). Persistenza del neutro nell’italo-romanzo centro-meridionale. Vox Romanica 72: 88–137. Padoan, Giorgio (ed.) (1965). Giovanni Boccaccio, Esposizioni sopra la Comedia di Dante [vol. 6. of Vittore Branca (ed.), Tutte le opere di Giovanni Boccaccio]. Milan: Mondadori. Padovani, Roberto, Calandra-Buonaura, Giovanna, Cacciari, Cristina, Benuzzi, Francesca, and Nichelli, Paolo (2005). Grammatical Gender in the Brain: Evidence from an fMRI Study on Italian. Brain Research Bulletin 65(4): 301–8. Paganelli, Joseppu (1976). Elements du parler sartenais, 2nd edn. Sartène: mimeographed.



Bibliography

351

Paiella, Anna Rita (1973). Le parlate del Basso Velino. Rieti 1: 413–43. Palermo, Massimo (1994). Il carteggio Vaianese (1537–39). Un contributo allo studio della lingua d’uso nel Cinquecento. Florence: Accademia della Crusca. Palestini, Giuseppe (1993). Il dialetto sambenedettese. San Benedetto del Tronto: Circolo dei Sambenedettesi. Pamfil, Carmen-Gabriela (ed.) (1992). Timotei Cipariu, Opere II. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela (2012). Feminine Singular Pronouns with Neutral Value. Revue roumaine de linguistique 57(3): 249–61. Papahagi, Tache (1925). Graiul şi folklorul Maramureşului. Bucharest: Cultura naţională. Papanti, Giovanni (ed.) (1875). I parlari italiani in Certaldo alla festa del V centenario di messer Giovanni Boccacci. Omaggio di Giovanni Papanti. Livorno: Vigo. Papen, Robert A. (1998). Le parler français des Métis de l’Ouest canadien. In Patrice Brasseur and Anika Falkert (eds), Français d’ Amérique: approches morphosyntaxiques. Paris: l’Harmattan, 147–61. Parodi, Ernesto Giacomo (1893). Il dialetto d’Arpino. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 13: 299–308. Parrino, Flavio (1967a). Per una carta dei dialetti delle Marche. Bollettino della Carta dei Dialetti Italiani 2: 5–37. Parrino, Flavio (1967b). Su alcune particolarità della coniugazione nel dialetto di Ripatransone. L’Italia dialettale 30: 156–66. Parry, Mair M. (2005). Parluma ’ d Còiri. Sociolinguistica e grammatica del dialetto di Cairo Montenotte. Savona: Editrice Liguria. Pătruţ, Ion (1956). Despre genul ‘neutru’ în limba română. Cercetări de lingvistică 1: 29–40. Revised version, under the title Există gen ‘neutru’ în limba româna? Repr. in Ion Pătruţ (1974). Studii de limba română şi slavistică. Cluj: Editura Dacia, 133–52. Paul, Hermann (1880). Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle a. S.: Niemeyer [5th edn. 1920; Repr. 1968; 8th edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer]. PDI = Profilo dei dialetti italiani. Peer, Oscar (1962). Dicziunari rumantsch ladin–tudais–ch. Cuoira: Lia Rumantscha. Pelaez, Mario (1928). Un nuovo testo dei Bagni di Pozzuoli in volgare napoletano. Studj Romanzi 19: 47–134. Pellegrini, Giovan Battista (1977). Carta dei dialetti d’Italia. Profilo dei dialetti italiani 0. Pisa: Pacini. Pelletier, Francis J. (1975). Non-singular Reference: Some Preliminaries. Philosophia 5: 451–65. Pelletier, Francis J. (2012). Lexical Nouns are Neither Mass nor Count, but they are both Mass and Count. In Diane Massam (ed.), Count and Mass Across Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 9–26. Penello, Nicoletta, Benincà, Paola, Vanelli, Laura, and Maschi, Roberta (2010). Morfologia flessiva. In Giampaolo Salvi and Lorenzo Renzi (eds), Grammatica dell’italiano antico. Bologna: Il Mulino, 1389–491. Penny, Ralph (1970a). El habla pasiega: ensayo de dialectología montañesa. London: Tamesis. Penny, Ralph (1970b). Mass-nouns and Metaphony in the Dialects of North-western Spain. Archivum Linguisticum 1: 21–30. Penny, Ralph (1978). Estudio estructural del habla de Tudanca. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Penny, Ralph (1994). Continuity and Innovation in Romance: Metaphony and Mass-noun Reference in Spain and Italy. The Modern Language Review 89: 273–81.

352

Bibliography

Penny, Ralph (2002). A History of the Spanish Language, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Perini, Mário A. (2002). Modern Portuguese. A Reference Grammar. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Perkowski, Jan, and Vrabie, Emil (1986). Covert Semantic and Morphophonemic Categories in the Romanian Gender System. Slavic and East European Journal 30: 54–67. Perlmutter, David M. (1978). Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Berkeley: University of California, 157–89. Perlmutter, David M. (1983). Personal Versus Impersonal Constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 141–200. Perlmutter, David M. (1989). Multiattachment and the Unaccusative Hypothesis: The Perfect Auxiliary in Italian. Probus 1: 63–119. Pernicone, Vincenzo (ed.) (1946). Franco Sacchetti, Il Trecentonovelle. Florence: Sansoni. Pescarini, Diego (2007). Ne Uter. In Roberta Maschi, Nicoletta Penello, and Piera Rizzolatti (eds), Miscellanea di studi linguistici offerti a Laura Vanelli da amici e allievi padovani. Udine: Editrice Universitaria Udinese, 183–90. Petroselli, Francesco (2009). Il lessico dialettale viterbese nelle testimonianze di Emilio Maggini. Viterbo: Tipolitografia Quatrini. Petroselli, Francesco (2010). Vocabolario del dialetto di Blera. Viterbo: © Francesco Petroselli. Petrovici, Emil (1940). Atlasul lingvistic român, Partea II (= ALR II), vol. 1. Sibiu: Muzeul limbii române/Leipzig: Harrassowitz. Petrovici, Emil (1962). Phonetic Evolution, Substitution of Sounds or Morphological Accommodation? (In Connection with the Treatment of Final ‑o in the Slavonic Elements of Rumanian). Revue roumaine de linguistique 7: 17–20. Petrovici, Émile (1967). Le neutre en istro-roumain. In To Honor Roman Jakobson. Essays on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, 11 October 1966. The Hague/Paris: Mouton, 1523–26. Van Petten, Cyma, and Luka, Barbara J. (2012). Prediction during Language Comprehension: Benefits, Costs, and ERP Components. International Journal of Psychophysiology 83(2): 176– 90. Pfister, Max (1973). Review of Schön (1971). Vox Romanica 32: 321–6. Phillips, Webb, and Boroditsky, Lera (2003). Can Quirks of Grammar Affect the Way you Think? Grammatical Gender and Object Concepts. In Richard Alterman and David Kirsh (eds), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Boston, MA: Cognitive Science Society, 928–33. Piacentini, Marco (1998). Il dialetto di Frassinoro. Frassinoro; no publisher indicated. Piccitto, Giorgio (1941). Fonetica del dialetto di Ragusa. L’Italia dialettale 17: 17–80. Pieroni, Silvia (2010). Deixis and anaphora. In Philip Baldi and Perluigi Cuzzolin (eds), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, vol. 3. Constituent Syntax: Quantification, Numerals, Possession, Anaphora. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 389–501. Pieroni, Silvia (2012). Il grado-zero dell’accordo su alcuni predicati nominali di forma neutra in latino e in altre lingue. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 41: 515–30. Plank, Frans, and Schellinger, Wolfgang (1997). The Uneven Distribution of Genders over Numbers: Greenberg Nos. 37 and 45. Linguistic Typology 1: 53–101. Poccetti, Paolo (2011). Formation et variations dans les systèmes flexionnels des langues sabelliques: entre synchronie et diachronie. In Michèle Fruyt, Michel Mazoyer, and



Bibliography

353

Dennis Pardee (eds), Grammatical Case in the Languages of the Middle East and Europe. Acts of the International Colloquium Variations: Concurrence et evolution des cas dans divers domaines linguistiques. Paris, 2–4 April 2007. Chicago: University of Chicago, 217–34. Poeta, Silvano (1988). Cuntienti [. . .] quanno s’ era poeracci. 60 racconti e dialoghi in dialetto fabrianese-maceratese-piceno. Sassoferrato: Istituto Internazionale di Studi Piceni. Polidori, Filippo-Luigi (ed.) (1845). Rosaio della vita, trattato morale attribuito a Matteo de’ Corsini e composto nel MCCCLXXIII. Florence: Società Poligrafica Italiana. Polinsky, Maria, and Van Everbroeck, Ezra (2003). Development of Gender Classifications: Modeling the Historical Change from Latin to French. Language 79(2): 356–90. Pomino, Natascha, and Stark, Elisabeth (2009). Losing the ‘Neuter’: The Case of the Spanish Demonstratives. Probus 21(2): 217–47. Porta, Giuseppe (ed.) (1979). Anonimo romano, Cronica. Milan: Adelphi. Porta, Giuseppe (ed.) (1995). Matteo Villani, Cronica. Con la continuazione di Filippo Villani. Parma: Fondazione Pietro Bembo/Ugo Guanda Editore. Posner, Rebecca (1996). The Romance Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Priestly, Tom M. S. (1983). On ‘Drift’ in Indo-European Gender System. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11: 339–63. Przepiórkowski, Adam (2003). A Hierarchy of Polish Genders. In Piotr Bański and Adam Przepiórkowski (eds), Generative Linguistics in Poland: Morphosyntactic Investigations. Warsaw: Instytut Podstaw Informatyki PAN, 109–22. Pult, Gaspard (1897). Le parler de Sent (Basse-Engadine). Lausanne: Payot. Puşcariu, Sextil (1926). Studii istroromâne, vol. 2. Introducere, gramatica, caracterizarea dialectului istroromân. Bucharest: Academia Română. Quondam, Amedeo, Fiorilla, Maurizio, and Alfano, Giancarlo (eds) (2013). Giovanni Boccaccio, Decameron. Milan: Rizzoli. Reho, Luigi (2008). Dizionario etimologico del monopolitano: confrontato con numerosi dialetti. Fasano (Brindisi): Schena. Renzi, Lorenzo, and Andreose, Alvise (2003). Manuale di linguistica e filologia romanza. Bologna: Il Mulino. Rescher, Nicholas (1998). Complexity. A Philosophical Overview. New Brunswick/London: Transaction Publishers. Rešetar, Milan (1911). Die serbokroatischen Kolonien Süditaliens. Vienna: Alfred Hölder. Italian translation Le colonie serbocroate nell’Italia Meridionale, ed. Walter Breu e Monica Gardenghi. Ripalimosani (Campobasso): Arti Grafiche La Regione, 1997. Retaro, Valentina (2013). La morfologia del plurale nelle varietà della Sicilia centrale. Bollettino del Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani 24: 179–211. REW = Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm (1935). Romanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, 3rd edn. Heidelberg: Winter. Rezzonico, Adriano (2003). I suffissi alterativi in italiano. Seminar paper, Universiy of Zurich. Rheinfelder, Hans (1967). Altfranzösische Grammatik, vol. 2. Formenlehre. Munich: Max Hueber. Ribezzo, Francesco (1912). Il dialetto apulo-salentino di Francavilla Fontana. Martina Franca. Ricca, Davide (2003). Cumulazione tra flessione e derivazione: un problema per una morfologia modulare. In Antonietta Bisetto, Claudio Iacobini, and Anna M. Thornton (eds), Scritti di

354

Bibliography

morfologia in onore di Sergio Scalise in occasione del suo 60° compleanno. Cesena: Caissa Italia editore, 189–202. Ricca, Davide (2005). Cumulative Exponence Involving Derivation. In Wolfgang U. Dressler, Dieter Kastovsky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, and Franz Rainer (eds), Morphology and its Demarcations. Selected Papers from the 11th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2004. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 197–213. Ricca, Davide (2017). Torinese [sɔn]/[suˈsi], [lɔn]/[luˈli]: un caso peculiare tra i dimostrativi neutrali romanzi. Ms., University of Turin. Rigobianco, Luca (2014). Il neutro plurale nella varietà delle tavole iguvine tra femminile singolare e maschile plurale. In Gli Umbri in età preromana. Atti del XXVII Convegno di Studi Etruschi ed Italici, Perugia-Gubbio-Urbino, 27–31 ottobre 2009. Pisa/Rome: Fabrizio Serra Editore, 535–48. Rizzolatti, Piera, Bais, Maurizio, Benincà, Paola, and Poletto, Cecilia (1998). Un questionario per le varietà friulane. Quaderni della grammatica friulana di riferimento 1: 15–98. Robins, Robert H. (1951). Ancient and Mediaeval Grammatical Theory in Europe, with Particular Reference to Modern Linguistic Doctrine. London: G. Bell & Sons Ltd. Robustelli, Cecilia (2000). Lingua e identità di genere. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 29: 507–27. Robustelli, Cecilia (2013). Il sessismo nella lingua italiana. In http://www.treccani.it/lingua_ italiana/speciali/femminile/Robustelli.html. Roca, Ignacio (1989). The Organization of the Grammatical Gender. Transactions of the Philological Society 87: 1–32. Roca, Ignacio (2009). Todas las vascas son vascos, y muchos vascos también vascas. Género y sexo en el castellano. Boletín de la Real Academia Española 89(299): 77–117. Roché, Michel (2000). Gender Inversion in Romance Derivatives with -arius. In Sabrina Bendjaballah, Wolfgang U. Dressler, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, and Maria D. Voeikova (eds), Morphology 2000. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 283–91. Rodríguez Castellano. Lorenzo (1954). Aspectos del bable occidental. Oviedo: Instituto de Estudios Asturianos del Patronato José Ma Quadrado (C.S.I.C.). Rohlfs, Gerhard (1931). Galloitalienische Sprachkolonien in der Basilikata. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 51: 249–79. Italian translation in Gerhard Rohlfs (1988). Studi linguistici sulla Lucania e sul Cilento. Galatina: Congedo, 7–37. Rohlfs, Gerhard (1966–69). Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. 3 vols. Turin: Einaudi. Rohlfs, Gerhard (1972). Tra Alpi e Sicilia (Le prodigiose varietà della lingua dove il sì suona). In Gerhard Rohlfs (1990). Studi e ricerche su lingua e dialetti d’Italia, 2nd edn. Florence: Sansoni, 364–73. Rojo, Guillermo (1974). Perífrasis verbales en el gallego actual [Verba. Anuario gallego de filología, Supplement nr. 2]. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. Romagnoli, Serena (2015). Il volgare degli Statuti anconitani del mare. 2. CoFIM 29: 31–76. Romano, Antonio (2003). Indici acustici di alcune geminate iniziali salentine. In Giovanna Marotta and Nadia Nocchi (eds), La coarticolazione. Atti delle XIII giornate di studio del Gruppo di Fonetica Sperimentale (AIA), Università di Pisa, 28–30 settembre 2002. Pisa: Edizioni ETS, 233–41. Romano, Antonio (2009). Vocabolario del dialetto di Parabita. Lecce: Edizioni del Grifo.



Bibliography

355

Romano, M. Elisabetta (ed.) (1990). Un volgarizzamento della Regola di San Benedetto del secolo XIV (Cod. Cass. 629). Montecassino: Pubblicazioni cassinesi. Romieu, Maurice, and Bianchi, André (2006). La lenga del trobar. Precís de gramatica d’occitan ancian, 3rd edn. Pessac: Presses universitaires de Bordeaux. Roncaglia, Aurelio (1971). La lingua d’oïl. Avviamento allo studio del francese antico. Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo. Rosch, Eleanor, Mervis, Carolyn B., Gray, Wayne D., Johnson, David M., and Boyes-Braem, Penny (1976). Basic Objects in Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology 8: 382–439. Rosetti, Alexandru (1959). Remarques sur la catégorie du genre en roumain. Studia linguistica 13: 133–6. Repr. in Alexandru Rosetti (1965). Linguistica. The Hague: Mouton, 83–6. Rosetti, Alexandru (1961). Emprunt ou développement propre? Revue de linguistique romane 25: 369–70. Repr. in Alexandru Rosetti (1965). Linguistica. The Hague: Mouton, 87–8. Rosetti, Alexandru (1962). Sur la categorie du neutre, Communication au IXe congrès international des linguistes, Cambridge, MA, 27–31 août 1962. Repr. in Alexandru Rosetti (1965). Linguistica. The Hague: Mouton, 89–92. Rosetti, Alexandru (1978). Istoria limbii române, vol. 1. De la Origini pâna în secolul al XVII-lea, 2nd edn. Bucharest: Editura științifică și enciclopedică. Rosetti, Alexandru (1986). Istoria limbii române, vol. 1. De la Origini pâna la începutul secolului al XVII-lea. Ediție definitivă. Bucharest: Editura științifică și enciclopedică. Rossini, Giorgio (1975). Capitoli di morfologia e sintassi del dialetto cremonese. Florence: La Nuova Italia. Rovai, Francesco (2012). Between Feminine Singular and Neuter Plural: Reanalysis Patterns. Transactions of the Philological Society 110(1): 94–121. Ruggieri, Donato, and Batinti, Antonio (1992). Lingua e dialetto ad Anzi (Potenza). Note sulla situazione linguistica. Potenza/Milan: Il Salice. Rumsey, Alan (1982). An Intra-sentence Grammar of Ungarinjin—North-Western Australia. Pacific Linguistics, s. B, 86. Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Research school of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University. Russo, Michela (2002). La categoria neutrale nella diacronia del napoletano: implicazioni morfologiche, lessicali, semantiche. Vox Romanica 61: 117–50. Russo, Michela (2007). La metafonia napoletana: evoluzione e funzionamento sincronico. Bern etc.: Peter Lang. Russo, Michela (2009). Le origini del femminile plurale italoromanzo e la rideterminazione del neutro: osservazioni in margine alle carte medievali pugliesi. Vox Romanica 68: 23–44. Sabatini, Alma (1987). Il sessismo nella lingua italiana. Rome: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri. Sabatini, Francesco (1965). Esigenze di realismo e dislocazione morfologica in testi preromanzi. Rivista di cultura classica e medioevale 7 (= Studi in onore di A. Schiaffini), 972–88. Repr. in Francesco Sabatini (1996). Italia linguistica delle origini. Saggi editi dal 1956 al 1996, ed. Vittorio Coletti, Rosario Coluccia, Paolo D’Achille, and Nicola De Blasi. Lecce: Argo, 99–131. Sachs, Hermann (1886). Geschlechtswechsel im Französischen: ein Versuch der Erklärung desselben. Frankfurt a. O: K. Hofbuchdr. Trowitzsch u. Sohn. Sadler, Louisa (2011). Indeterminacy, Complex Features and Underspecification. Morphology 21: 379–417.

356

Bibliography

Sakel, Jeanette (2007). Mosetén borrowing from Spanish. In Yaron Matras and Jeanette Sakel (eds), Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 567–80. Salvioni, Carlo (1884). Fonetica del dialetto moderno della città di Milano. Turin: Loescher Repr. Sala Bolognese: Forni, 1979. Salvioni, Carlo (1900). Il pianto delle Marie in antico volgare marchigiano. Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei 8: 577–605. Repr. in Carlo Salvioni (2008). Scritti linguistici, ed. Michele Loporcaro, Lorenza Pescia, Romano Broggini, and Paola Vecchio. 5 vols. Bellinzona: Edizioni dello Stato del Cantone Ticino, 3.768–97. Salvioni, Carlo (1902). Del plurale femminile di 1a declinazione esposto per -a ed -ăn in qualche varietà alpina di Lombardia. Rendiconti dell’Istituto Lombardo, 2nd s., 35: 905–19. Repr. in Carlo Salvioni (2008). Scritti linguistici, ed. Michele Loporcaro, Lorenza Pescia, Romano Broggini, and Paola Vecchio. 5 vols. Bellinzona: Edizioni dello Stato del Cantone Ticino, 1.133–47. Salvioni, Carlo (1904–5). Appunti di latino medievale. Studi Medievali 1: 410–26. Repr. in Carlo Salvioni (2008). Scritti linguistici, ed. Michele Loporcaro, Lorenza Pescia, Romano Broggini, and Paola Vecchio. 5 vols. Bellinzona: Edizioni dello Stato del Cantone Ticino, 1.106–22. Salvioni, Carlo (1909). Note di lingua sarda. Rendiconti dell’Istituto lombardo di scienze e lettere, 2nd s., 42: 667–97, 815–69. Repr. in Carlo Salvioni (2008). Scritti linguistici, ed. Michele Loporcaro, Lorenza Pescia, Romano Broggini, and Paola Vecchio. 5 vols. Bellinzona: Edizioni dello Stato del Cantone Ticino, 4.719–805. Salvioni, Carlo (1936). Illustrazioni dei testi di Cavergno (Valle Maggia), edite, con aggiunte, da C. Merlo. II. Annotazioni morfologiche. L’ Italia dialettale 12: 1–17. Repr. in Carlo Salvioni (2008). Scritti linguistici, ed. Michele Loporcaro, Lorenza Pescia, Romano Broggini, and Paola Vecchio. 5 vols. Bellinzona: Edizioni dello Stato del Cantone Ticino, 1.417–519. Sandfeld, Kristian (1930). Linguistique balkanique. Problèmes et résultats. Paris: Champion. Sanfilippo, Carla Maria (2007). Primi appunti sul volgare di Ravenna nel secondo Trecento. In Paolo Trovato (ed.), Nuove prospettive sulla tradizione della ‘Commedia’: una guida filologicolinguistica al poema dantesco. Florence: Franco Cesati, 411–56. Sanna, Antonio (1975). Il dialetto di Sassari. Cagliari: Edizioni 3T. San Segundo Cachero, Rosabel (2015). El neutro de materia en la morfología nominal del asturiano del concejo de L.lena. Lletres asturianes 112: 11–37. Santangelo, Annamaria (1981). I plurali italiani del tipo ‘le braccia’. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 66: 95–153. Sapegno, Maria Serena (ed.) (2010). Che genere di lingua? Sessismo e potere discriminatorio delle parole. Rome: Carocci. Sartini, Ferdinando (ed.) (1953). Statuti dell’arte degli albergatori della città e contado di Firenze. Florence: Olschki. Sas, Louis Furman (1937). The noun declension system in Merovingian Latin. Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University. Paris: André. Sassenhagen, Jona, Schlesewsky, Matthias, and Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina (2014). The P600as-P3 Hypothesis Revisited: Single-trial Analyses Reveal that the Late EEG Positivity Following Linguistically Deviant Material Is Reaction Time Aligned. Brain & Language 137: 29–39. Scafoglio, Giuseppe (1928–31). Forme del sostantivo calabrese. Rimini: Garattoni.



Bibliography

357

Schanzer, Alvise (1989). Per la conoscenza dei dialetti del Lazio sud-orientale: lo scadimento vocalico alla finale (primi risultati). Contributi di Filologia dell’Italia Mediana 3: 141–87. Schiaparelli, Luigi (ed.) (1929–33). Codice Diplomatico Longobardo, vols. 1–2. Rome: Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medioevo. Schirru, Giancarlo (2008). Assimilazione permansiva e categorie nominali in un dialetto del Molise. In Alessandro De Angelis (ed.), I dialetti italiani meridionali tra arcaismo e interferenza. Palermo: CSFLS, 291–309. Schirru, Giancarlo (2013). La propagginazione in un dialetto della Valle di Comino. In Francesco Avolio (ed.), Lingua e dialetto tra l’Italia centrale e l’Italia meridionale. I dialetti della Media Valle del Liri e delle zone limitrofe. Roccasecca: Arte Stampa Editore, 78–91. Schirru, Giancarlo (2016). Accordo di genere e contatto linguistico nella koiné egiziana. Linguarum varietas 5: 229–39. Schmidt, Johannes (1889). Die Pluralbildungen der indogermanischen Neutra. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau. Schön, Ilse (1971). Neutrum und Kollektivum. Das Morphem -a im Lateinischen und Romanischen. Innsbruck: Institut für vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. Schroten, Jan (2011). El determinante neutro lo y el lo ‘de gradación’: funciones y interpretaciones. In Elisabeth Stark and Natascha Pomino (eds), El sincretismo en la gramática del español. Madrid/Frankfurt: Iberoamericana/Vervuert, 145–61. Schuchardt, Hugo (1874). Phonétique comparée. Romania 3: 1–30. Schuchardt, Hugo (1898). Astur. Cabo? Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 22: 394–7. Schwarze, Christoph (2009). Grammatica della lingua italiana. Edizione italiana interamente riveduta dall’ autore, ed. Adriano Colombo. Rome: Carocci. Schwink, Frederick W. (2004). The Third Gender. Studies in the Origin and History of Germanic Grammatical Gender. Heidelberg: Winter. Seelmann, Emil (1885). Die Aussprache des Latein nach physiologisch-historischen Grundsätzen. Heilbronn: Henninger. Seidl, Christian (1995). Le système acasuel des protoromans ibérique et sarde: dogmes et faits, Vox Romanica 54: 41–73. Seifart, Frank (2010). Nominal Classification. Language and Linguistics Compass 4: 719–36. Semplicini, Chiara (2016). One Word, Two Genders. Oxford etc.: Peter Lang. Serianni, Luca (2006), with Alberto Castelvecchi. Grammatica italiana. Italiano comune e lingua letteraria. Suoni, forme, costrutti. Turin: UTET [new edn., Novara: De Agostini]. Sessarego, Sandro, and Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier (2011). A Minimalist Approach to Gender Agreement in the Afro-Bolivian DP: Variation and the Specification of Uninterpretable Features. In Gunther De Vogelaer and Mark Janse (eds), The Diachrony of Gender Marking. Special issue of Folia Linguistica 45(2). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 465–88. Setti, Raffaella (2013). È una domanda interessante? Sì, lo è (o la è?). Available at: http://www. accademiadellacrusca.it/it/lingua-italiana/consulenza-linguistica/domande-risposte/ domanda-interessante-s [accessed 14 July 2016]. Sgrilli, Paola (1983). Il ‘Libro di Sidrac’ salentino. Pisa: Pacini. Sgrilli, Paola (2003). Testi viterbesi dei secoli XIV, XV e XVI. Viterbo: Sette città. Siemund, Peter (2008). Pronominal Gender in English. A Study of English Varieties from a Crosslinguist Perspective. New York: Routledge.

358

Bibliography

Siemund, Peter, and Dolberg, Florian (2011). From Lexical to Referential Gender: An Analysis of Gender Change in Medieval English Based on Two Historical Documents. In Gunther De Vogelaer and Mark Janse (eds), The Diachrony of Gender Marking. Special issue of Folia Linguistica 45(2). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 317–53. Siewierska, Anna (2005). Gender distinctions in independent personal pronouns. WALS 44: 182–5. Silvestri, Giuseppina (2008–09). Il vocalismo tonico del dialetto di Verbicaro: esiti diacronici e riutilizzazioni sincroniche. Tesi di laurea magistrale (master’s thesis), University of Pisa. Silvestri, Giuseppina (2009). La metafonia nel dialetto di Verbicaro (Cs). L’ Italia dialettale 70: 169–226. Smith, Ian R. (2013). Sri Lanka Portuguese. In Susanne Maria Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath, and Magnus Huber (eds), The Survey of Pidgin and Creole Languages. 4 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2.111–21. Smith, John Charles (2011). Change and Continuity in Form–Function Relationships. In Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway (eds), The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, vol. 1. Structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 268–317, 713–23. Sollid, Hilde, Conzett, Phillip and Johansen, Åse Mette (2014). Gender and Noun Inflection: The Fate of ‘Vulnerable’ Categories in Northern Norwegian. In Kurt Braunmüller, Steffen Höder, and Karoline Kühl (eds), Stability and Divergence in Language Contact. Factors and Mechanisms. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 179–205. Song, Jae Jung (2001). Linguistic Typology. Morphology and Syntax, Harlow etc.: Longman. Sornicola, Rosanna (2010). I dialetti italiani meridionali e la sorte del neutro: alcune riflessioni su una varietà siciliana. In Maria Iliescu, Heidi Siller, and Paul Danler (eds), Actes du XXVe Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes, Innsbruck, 3–8 septembre 2007, vol. 2. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 547–63. Spano, Giovanni (1851). Vocabolario sardo–italiano e italiano–sardo compilato dal canonico Giovanni Spano. Cagliari: Dalla Tipografia Nazionale. Repr. Cagliari: 3T, 1972. Spescha, Arnold (1989). Grammatica sursilvana. Cuera: Casa editura per mieds d’instrucziun. Spitzer, Leo (1941). Feminización del neutro (rumano oasele, italiano le ossa, ant. francés ces brace, español las vísceras). Revista de Filología Hispánica 3: 339–71. Squartini, Mario (1998). Verbal Periphrases in Romance: Aspect, Actionality and Grammaticalization. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. Stan, Camelia (2013). Genitive and Dative Case-marking. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.), The Grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 262–72. Stang, Christian S. (1945). Zum indoeuropäischen Kollektivum. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 13: 282–94. Stebbins, Tonya N. (2005). Nominal Classification in Mali. Anthropological Linguistics 47: 77–121. Stebbins, Tonya N. (2011). Mali (Baining) Grammar. Pacific Linguistics 623. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University. Steele, Susan (1978). Word Order Variation: A Typological Study. In Joseph H. Greenberg et al. (eds), Universals of Human Language, vol. 4. Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 585–623.



Bibliography

359

Stefenelli, Arnulf (1962). Die Volkssprache im Werk des Petron im Hinblick auf die romanischen Sprachen. Vienna: Braumüller. Stehl, Thomas (1980). Die Mundarten Apuliens. Historische und strukturelle Beiträge. Münster Westfalen: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Steinhauer, Karsten, Pancheva, Roumyana, Newman, Aaron J., Gennari, Silvia, and Ullman Michael T. (2001). How the Mass Counts: An Electrophysiological Approach to the Processing of Lexical Features. NeuroReport 12: 999–1005. Stempel, Reinhard (1994). ī-Genitiv, ī-Motion und Femininum: Versuch einer Synthese. In Roland Bielmeier and Reinhard Stempel (eds), Indogermanica et Caucasica. Festschrift für K.H. Schmidt zum 65. Geburtstag. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 197–210. Stimm, Helmut (1976). Zu einigen syntaktischen Eigenheiten des Surselvischen. In W. Theodor Elwert (ed.), Rätoromanisches Colloquium Mainz. Romanica Aenipontana 10. Innsbruck: Institut für Romanische Philologie der Leopold-Franzens-Universität, 31–55. Stolz, Christel (2009). A Different Kind of Gender Problem: Maltese Loanword Gender from a Typological Perspective. In Bernard Comrie, Ray Fabri, Elizabeth Hume, Manwel Mifsud, Thomas Stolz, and Martine Vanhove (eds), Introducing Maltese Linguistics. Selected Papers from the 1st International Conference on Maltese Linguistics, Bremen, 18–20 October, 2007. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 321–53. Stolz, Thomas (2012). Survival in a Niche. On Gender-copy in Chamorro. In Martine Vanhove, Thomas Stolz, Aina Urdze, and Hitomi Otsuka (eds), Morphologies in Contact. Studia Typologica, STUF Beiheft 10. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 93–140. Stotz, Peter (1998). Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters, vol. 4. Formenlehre, Syntax und Stilistik. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 2, 5.4. Munich: Beck. Stussi, Alfredo (ed.) (1965). Testi veneziani del Duecento e dei primi del Trecento. Pisa: Nistri Lischi. Stussi, Alfredo (2003). Per ricordare Paola Sgrilli (Pistoia 1949–Firenze 1999). In Paola Sgrilli, Testi viterbesi dei secoli XIV, XV e XVI. Viterbo: Sette città, 529–38. Subrenat, Jean (ed.) (2007). Gaydon. Chanson de geste du XIIIe siècle présentée, éditée et annotée par Jean Subrenat. Traduite en collaboration avec Andrée Subrenat. Louvain: Peeters. Süthold, Michael (1994). Manoscritto Lucano. Ein unveröffentlichtes Kochbuch aus Süditalien vom Beginn des 16. Jahrhunderts. Geneva: Droz. Taft, Marcus, and Meunier, Fanny (1998). Lexical Representation of Gender: A Quasiregular Domain. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 27: 23–45. Tagliani, Roberto (2011). Il ‘Tristano corsiniano’ Edizione critica. Memorie della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 9th s., 28(1). Rome: Scienze e Lettere. Tambascia, Salvatore (1998). Grammatica e lessico del dialetto castelvetrese. Rome: Il Calamo. Tekavčić, Pavao (1972–74). Abbozzo del sistema morfosintattico del soprasilvano odierno. Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia 33–36 [1972–73]: 359–488; 37 [1974]: 5–134. Tekavčić, Pavao (1975). Agli albori dell’italiano. Linguistica 15: 209–39. Tekavčić, Pavao (1980). Grammatica storica dell’italiano. 2 vols. Bologna: Il Mulino. Teschner, Richard V., and Russell, William M. (1984). The Gender Patterns of Spanish Nouns: An Inverse Dictionary-based Analysis. Hispanic Linguistics 1: 115–32. ThLL = Thesaurus linguae Latinae. Editus auctoritate et consilio academiarum quinque Germanicarum Berolinensis Gottingensis Lipsiensis Monacensis Vindobonensis. Leipzig: Teubner 1900ff.

360

Bibliography

Thöni, Gion Peder (1969). Rumantsch-Surmeir. Grammatica per igl idiom surmiran. Coira: Ligia Romontscha. Thornton, Anna M. (2003). L’ assegnazione del genere in italiano. In Fernando Sánchez Miret (ed.), Actas del XXIII Congreso Internacional de Lingüística y Filología Románica, Salamanca, 24–30 September 2001, vol. 1. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 467–81. Thornton, Anna M. (2005). Morfologia. Rome: Carocci. Thornton, Anna M. (2009). Constraining Gender Assignment Rules. Language Sciences 31: 14–32. Thornton, Anna M. (2011). Overabundance (Multiple Forms Realizing the Same Cell): A NonCanonical Phenomenon in Italian Verb Morphology. In Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, Maria Goldbach, and Marc-Olivier Hinzelin (eds), Morphological Autonomy: Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 358–81. Thornton, Anna M. (2012). Reduction and Maintenance of Overabundance. A Case Study on Italian Verb Paradigms. Word Structure 5(2): 183–207. Thornton, Anna M. (2013). La non canonicità del tipo it. braccio//braccia/bracci: sovrabbondanza, difettività o iperdifferenziazione? Studi di Grammatica Italiana 29–30 [2010–11, actually 2013]: 429–77. Thurneysen, Rudolf (1893). Italisches. 1. Der Plural der Neutra im Umbrischen. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen 32: 554–8. Tichy, Eva (1993). Kollektiva, Genus femininum und relative Chronologie im Indogermanischen. Historische Sprachwissenschaft 106: 1–19. Tissoni Benvenuti, Antonia, and Montagnani, Cristina (eds) (1999). Matteo Maria Boiardo, L’ inamoramento de Orlando. Milan/Naples: Ricciardi. Tobler, Adolf (1859). C’est li dis de la pasque. Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 26: 285–8. Tobler, Adolf (1868). Miscellen I. Jahrbuch für romanische und englische Litteratur 9: 116–17. Togeby, Knud (1952). Le problème du neutre roumain. Cahiers Sextil Puşcariu 1(2): 265–8. Togeby, Knud (1953). Le neutre en roumain et en albanais. Cahiers Sextil Puşcariu 2(2): 121–31. Tomasin, Lorenzo (2004). Testi padovani del Trecento. Edizione e commento linguistico. Padua: Esedra. Tomašpol’skij, Valentin. (2013). Starofrancuzskij jazyk. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Flinta, Nauka. Toso, Fiorenzo (1997). Grammatica del genovese: varietà urbana e di koinè. Recco: Le Mani. Touratier, Christian (1994). Syntaxe latine. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters. Trifone, Pietro (1992). Roma e il Lazio. Turin: UTET. Trumper, John B. (2014). Gender Assignment and Pluralization in Italian and the Veneto. In Adam Ledgeway, Paola Benincà, and Nigel Vincent (eds), Diachrony and Dialects: Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 241–56. Tucker, G. Richard, Lambert, Wallace E., and Rigault, André. A. (1977). The French Speaker’s Skill with Grammatical Gender: An Example of Rule-governed Behavior. The Hague: Mouton. Turner, Robert L. (1966). A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages. London: Oxford University Press. Tuttle, Edward F. (1985). Morphologization as Redundancy in Central Italian Dialects. Romance Philology 39: 35–43. Uddholm, Alf (1953). Formulae Marculfi. Études sur la langue et le style. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksells.



Bibliography

361

Ugoccioni, Nicoletta (ed.) (1993). Dario Pasquini, Vocabolario del dialetto spellano. Opera del Vocabolario dialettale umbro 10. Spello: Associazione Pro Spello. Ugolini, Francesco A. (1970). Rapporto sui dialetti dell’Umbria. In I dialetti dell’Italia mediana con particolare riguardo alla regione umbra. Atti del V Convegno di Studi Umbri, Gubbio, 28 maggio–1 giugno 1967. Gubbio: Centro di Studi Umbri presso la Casa di Sant’Ubaldo/Perugia: Università degli Studi, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, 463–90. Repr. in Francesco A. Ugolini (1985). Scritti minori di storia e filologia italiana. Perugia: Università degli Studi, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, 61–89. Ugolini, Francesco A. (1977). Il ‘Lunariu’ del 1921 e il dialetto di Foligno. In Francesco A. Ugolini (ed.), Arti e mestieri tradizionali in Umbria. Perugia: Università degli Studi, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, 271–307. Uguzzoni, Arianna (1975). Appunti sull’evoluzione del sistema vocalico di un dialetto frignanese, L’Italia dialettale 38: 47–76. Uhlig, Gustav (1883). Grammatici Graeci, vol. 1. Leipzig: Teubner. Repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1965. Ulrich, Jakob (1906). Der engadinische Psalter des Chiampel = Un cudesch da psalms. Dresden: Gesellschaft für Romanische Literatur. Urbani, Ezio (1999). Il vernacolo viterbese. Viterbo: Sette città. Urgese, Tommaso (2003). Grammatica del dialetto del Salento settentrionale. Viaggio nella lingua e nella cultura delle diocesi di Oria e Brindisi. Mesagne: Flash. Väänänen, Veikko (1981). Introduction au latin vulgaire, 3rd edn. Paris: Klincksieck. Valente, Vincenzo (1975). Puglia. Profilo dei dialetti italiani 15. Pisa: Pacini. Vasvári, Louise O. (2015). Gender Trouble in a Grammatically Genderless Language: Hungarian. In Marlis Hellinger and Heiko Motschenbacher (eds), Gender across Languages, vol. 4. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 203–26. Velleman, Antonius (1915). Grammatica teoretica, pratica ed istorica della lingua ladina d’Engiadin’ Ota, vol. 1. Il Substantiv, l’ Artichel, l’ Aggetiv, il Pronom. Zurich: Füssli. Viejo Fernández, Xulio (1998–99). Algunos apuntes pragmáticos sobre el continuo asturiano. Archivum 48–9: 543–72. Viejo Fernández, Xulio (2001). Metafonía y contrametafonía en quirosán: pragmática, determín léxicu y morfosintaxis. Revista de Filología Asturiana 1: 71–114. Viejo Fernández, Xulio (2002). Pragmática, semántica y gramaticalización de estados y procesos. Una aproximaciòn cognitivista a la expresión del continuo en asturiano. Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique 11: 27–45. Viejo Fernández, Xulio (2003). Nuevos datos antiguos y modernos sobre’l neutru continuu asturianu. Lletres asturianes 84: 7–14. Vieli, Ramun, and Decurtins, Alexi (1962). Vocabulari romontsch Surselvan-tudestg. Cuera: Ligia Romontscha. Vigliocco, Gabriella, Antonini, Tiziana, and Garrett, Merrill F. (1997). Grammatical Gender is on the Tip of Italian Tongues. Psychological Science 8: 314–17. Vignoli, Carlo (1911). Il vernacolo di Castro dei Volsci. Studj Romanzi 7: 117–296. Vignoli, Carlo (1920). Vernacolo e canti di Amaseno. I dialetti di Roma e del Lazio 1. Rome: Società Filologica Romana. Vignoli, Carlo (1925). Il vernacolo di Veroli in provincia di Roma. I dialetti di Roma e del Lazio 3. Rome: Società Filologica Romana.

362

Bibliography

Vignoli, Carlo (1926). Lessico del dialetto di Amaseno. Con appendice di saggi dialettali. I dialetti di Roma e del Lazio 4. Rome: Società Filologica Romana. Vignuzzi, Ugo (1975–76). Il volgare degli Statuti di Ascoli Piceno 1377–1496. L’ Italia dialettale 38 [1975]: 90–189; 39 [1976]: 92–338. Vignuzzi, Ugo (1988). Marche, Umbria, Lazio. In Günter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin, and Christian Schmitt (eds) (1988–2005). Lexicon der Romanistischen Linguistik. 8 vols. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer (LRL), 4. Italienisch, Korsisch, Sardisch = Italiano, Corso, Sardo, 606–42. Vignuzzi, Ugo (1994). Il volgare nell’Italia mediana. In Luca Serianni and Pietro Trifone (eds), Storia della lingua italiana, vol. 3. Le altre lingue. Turin: Einaudi, 329–72. Vignuzzi, Ugo (1995). Marche, Umbria, Lazio. In Günter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin, and Christian Schmitt (eds) (1988–2005). Lexicon der Romanistischen Linguistik. 8 vols. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer (LRL), 2.2. Die einzelnen romanischen Sprachen und Sprachgebiete vom Mittelalter bis zur Renaissance = Les différentes langues romanes et leurs régions d'implantation du Moyen Âge à la Renaissance, 151–69. Vignuzzi, Ugo, and Avolio, Francesco (1994). Per un profilo di storia linguistica ‘interna’ dei dialetti del Mezzogiorno d’Italia. In Giuseppe Galasso and Rosario Romeo (eds), Storia del Mezzogiorno, vol. 9. Aspetti e problemi del Medioevo e dell’età moderna. Rome: Editalia, 631– 99 [1st edn. Naples: Edizioni del Sole 1991]. Villalva, Alina (2000). Estruturas morfológicas. Unidades e Hierarquias nas Palavras do Português. Lisbon: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian e Ministérios de Ciência e Tecnologia. Villar, Francisco (1984). Ergativity and Animate/Inanimate Gender in Indo-European. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 97: 167–96. Vitale, Maurizio (ed.) (1968). Rimatori comico-realistici del Due e Trecento. Turin: UTET. VIVALDI = Dieter Kattenbusch, Vivaio Acustico delle Lingue e dei Dialetti d’Italia. Available at: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/Vivaldi. Voretzsch, Karl, and Rohlfs, Gerhard (1955). Einführung in das Studium der altfranzösischen Sprache zum Selbstunterricht für den Anfänger. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Vrabie, Emil (1989). On the Distribution of the Neuter Plural Endings in Modern Standard Romanian (MSR). The Slavic and East European Journal 33: 400–10. Vrabie, Emil (2000). Feminine Noun Plurals in Standard Romanian. The Slavic and East European Journal 44: 537–52. Wackernagel, Jakob (1920–24). Vorlesungen über Syntax mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch. Hrsg. von Philologischen Seminar der Universität Basel. 2 vols. Basel: In Kommissionsverlag von Emil Birkhäuser. Wagner, Max Leopold (1923). Zur Stellung des Galluresisch-Sassaresischen (Aus Anlaß von Bottiglionis ‘Saggio di fonetica sarda’.). Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 145: 239–49; 146: 98–112, 223–8. Wagner, Max Leopold (1938–39). Flessione nominale e verbale del sardo antico e moderno. ID 14 [1938]: 93–170; 15 [1939]: 1–29. Wagner, Max Leopold (1960–64). Dizionario etimologico Sardo. 3 vols. Heidelberg: Winter. New edn., ed. Giulio Paulis. 2 vols. Nuoro: Ilisso, 2008. WALS = Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David, and Comrie, Bernard (eds) (2005). The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.



Bibliography

363

Wartburg, Walther von (1921). Substantifs féminins avec valeur augmentative. Butlletí de dialectología catalana 9: 51–5. Wartburg, Walther von (1928–2002). Französisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Eine Darstellung des galloromanischen Sprachschatzes. 25 vols. Bonn: Klopp, later Bâle: Zbinden Druck und Verlag [ed. Otto Jänicke 1972–78, Margaretha Hoffert 1976, Carl Theodor Gossen 1979–83, Jean-Pierre Chambon 1986–90, Jean-Paul Chauveau 1997–]. Weber Wetzel, Elena (2002). Il dialetto di Casale Corte Cerro. Contributo alla conoscenza delle parlate del Cusio. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. Westphal, Ernst O.J. (1962). On Classifying Bushman and Hottentot Languages. African Language Studies 3: 30–48. Wheeler, Max, Yates, Alan, and Dols, Nicolau (1999). Catalan: A Comprehensive Grammar. London/New York: Routledge. Widerberg, Karin (1998). Translating Gender. NORA: Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 6(2): 133–8. Widmer, Ambros (1959). Das Personalpronomen im Bündnerromanischen in phonetischer und morphologischer Schau. Bern: Francke. Wiese, Heike (2012). Collectives in the Intersection of Mass and Count Nouns: A Crosslinguistic Account. In Diane Massam (ed.), Count and Mass Across Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 54–74. Wilkinson, Hugh (1985–91). The Latin Neuter Plurals in Romance (I–VII). Ronshu 26: 137–50; 27: 157–71; 28: 33–46; 29: 47–61; 30: 109–22; 31: 113–27; 32: 35–50. Quoted from the ‘slightly edited version’ , with continuous page numbering 1–178. Once available at: http://www6. ocn.ne.jp/~wil/lnp.pdf [accessed 28 November 2012]. Williams, Edwin B. (1962). From Latin to Portuguese: Historical Phonology and Morphology of the Portuguese Language, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Windisch, Rudolf (1973). Genusprobleme im Romanischen. Das Neutrum im Rumänischen. Tübingen: Narr. Wunderli, Peter (1993). Requiem für eine heilige Kuh. Das ‘Neutrum’ im Surselvischen. Annalas da la Societad Retorumantscha 106: 134–63. Yaguello, Marina (1989). Le sexe des mots. Paris: Belfond. Yaguello, Marina (1992). Les mots et les femmes. Essai d’approche socio-linguistique de la condition féminine. Paris: Payot. Zaccagnini, Roberto (1992). Il dialetto velletrano—Grammatica ragionata e Vocabolario etimologico. Velletri: Edizioni Scorpius. Zaliznjak, Andrej A. (1964). K voprosu o grammatičeskix kategorijax roda i oduševlennosti v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Voprosy jazykoznanija 4: 25–40. Zaliznjak, Andrej A. (1973). O ponimanii termina ‘podež’ v lingvističeskix opisanijax. In Andrej A. Zaliznjak (ed.), Problemy grammatičeskogo modelirovanija. Moscow: Nauka, 53–87. Repr. in Andrej A. Zaliznjak (2002). Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie: S priloženiem izbrannyx rabot po sovremennomu russkomu jazyku i obščemu jazykoznaniju. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury, 613–47. Zamboni, Alberto (2000). Alle origini dell’italiano. Dinamiche e tipologie della transizione dal latino. Rome: Carocci. Zamora Vicente, Alonso (1967). Dialectología española, 2nd edn. Madrid: Gredos.

364

Bibliography

Zeilfelder, Susanne (2001). Archaismus und Ausgliederung. Studien zur sprachlichen Stellung des Hethitischen. Heidelberg: Winter. Ziccardi, Giovanni (1910). Il dialetto di Agnone. La fonetica e la flessione. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 34: 405–36. Zielinski, Herbert (1986). Codice Diplomatico Longobardo, vol. 5. Rome: Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medioevo. Zielinski, Herbert (2003). Codice Diplomatico Longobardo, vol. 4.2. Rome: Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medioevo. Zimmermann, Herbert (1924). Schwankungen des Nominalgeschlechts im älteren Latein. Glotta 13: 224–41. Zingarelli, Nicola (1901). Il dialetto di Cerignola. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 15: 83–9, 226–35. Zink, Gaston (1992). Morphologie du français médiéval, 2nd edn. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Zörner, Lotte (1989). Il dialetto di Cembra e dei suoi dintorni. Descrizione fonologica, storicofonetica e morfosintattica. Annali di S. Michele 2: 193–298. Zörner, Lotte (1995). Dialettologia e filologia romanza: il plurale femminile nei dialetti altoitaliani. In Emanuele Banfi, Giovanni Bonfadini, Patrizia Cordin, and Maria Iliescu (eds), Italia settentrionale: crocevia di idiomi romanzi. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi, Trento, 21–23 ottobre 1993. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 73–9. Zwicky, Arnold M. (1996). Syntax and Phonology. In Keith Brown and Jim Miller (eds), Concise Encyclopedia of Syntactic Theories. Oxford: Elsevier, 300–5.

Index of languages This index enables the reader to selectively retrieve languages, dialects, and language families referred to in the book. The relevant varieties are identified either with the glossonym (language name, e.g. Lurese = the Logudorese dialect of Luras, north Sardinia) or with the place name (e.g. Mesocco = the Alpine Lombard dialect of Mesocco, Canton Grigioni), especially when the glossonym is not used as widely. Some of the labels in the index have no univocal linguistic denotation (e.g. Papua New Guinea; or Marchigiano, which is meant to ease retrieval of discussions of dialects of the Marche region, even if this does not possess one unitary ‘Marchigiano’ dialect). Some languages are subdivided geographically (e.g., under Latin one finds Latin of Dacia, of Dalmatia etc.), whereas none is subdivided diachronically (thus, Latin encompasses all references to Archaic, Classical, and Late Latin). Abruzzian  45, 117, 119, 126–7, 146, 151, 213, 234, 247, 277 Acquapendente 48–50 Acquaviva Collecroce  302 Afrikaans 29 Afro-Asiatic languages  6, 175 Afro-Bolivian Spanish  63 Agnonese  55, 140–5, 147–54, 221, 235, 242–3, 245–6, 250, 252–4, 264, 270–1 Albanian  28, 32, 196, 284 Alberobello 126 Algonquian  173, 302 Altamurano  79, 80, 112, 116, 126, 233, 248, 265–8, 289–91 Amasenese  276, 280–2 American-Indian languages  173, 277, 301, 314–15 Amorosi 125 Anatolian  26–7, 190 Anconetano  136, 259, 277 Angolar 62 Apulian  40, 112, 117, 126–7, 145–6, 151, 243, 247–8, 250–1, 253, 265–6, 268, 277, 289 Aquilano  117, 126, 213, 242 Aragonese 67 Arceviese  46, 202 Archi (Nakh-Daghestanian)  31, 284 area mediana (dialect subdivision in central Italy)  117, 126–7, 132–3, 136, 138–9, 151–2, 202, 237–8, 241, 243, 248, 251 Armenian  29, 31 Arpinate 117 Ascolano  136, 247, 313 Ascrea  138–9, 202 Assamese 29

Asturian  10, 36, 58, 67–8, 137–9, 145, 154, 160–74, 176, 178–88, 190–4, 219, 233–4, 236, 256–65, 283, 308, 311, 313–15 Central Asturian  36, 137–8, 145, 160–3, 166, 172, 181–2, 186, 191–4, 219, 234, 257–63, 265, 311, 313, Eastern Asturian  160, 260, 262 Western Asturian  160, 162, 192, 259–61 Australian languages  173, 284, 314–15 Austronesian languages  300 Avestan 190 Avezzanese 126 Aviglianese  130–1, 220, 242–3, 246 Ayacucho Quechua  301 Ayer 181 Baltic  13, 28 Baluchi 29 Banat (Romanian dialect area)  196 Bantu  102, 119, 173 Barbaranese  46–7, 49, 51, 55 Barese  126, 243 Basque 64 Bellunese 88 Bengali 29 Blera 48–9 Bocchiglierese 269–71 Bolognese  68, 87–9 Bolsena  47, 49 Bonorvese (Western Logudorese)  39, 296–7 Borgomaro 68 Breton 28 Brindisi Montagna  128 Brittonic 238 Burgos 261

366

Index of languages

Burmeso (western New Guinea)  179 Burushaski (northern Pakistan)  30–1, 51, 287–9 Cairese (Cairo Montenotte)  90 Calabrian  42–5, 86, 113, 212, 218, 269–70, 272, 276–7, 302, 305–8 Calitri 242 Calvello 130 Camerino 137–8 Campanian  86, 124–7, 133, 146, 148, 151, 243, 245, 247, 252, 277 Campello sul Clitunno  134 Campidanese see Sardinian Campobassano  80–1, 117 Canadian Métis French  63 Canepinese 110–1 Canosa di Puglia  126 Cantabrian 261–2 Cantalice 139 Capestrano 126 Caposele 242 Carovilli  242, 251 Casale Corte Cerro  58, 91 Casalincontrada 45 Castelli (Teramo)  46 Castelli Romani  136 Castelvetrese  (Castelvetere in Val Fortore)  125, 152, 247–8 Castilian  67, 188, 261–2 Northern Castilian  169, 171, 193 Castro dei Volsci  202 Castrovillarese  43, 302–7 Catalan  2, 5, 33–7, 52–3, 55, 57, 62, 67, 80–1, 93, 161, 207, 221 240 Balearic Catalan  35 Catanzarese 58 Caucasian languages  30, 284, 288, 314 Cavergno 91 Cellino San Marco  273 Celtic  13, 28, 238 Central Mexicano see Nahuatl Ceprano 242 Cerrato, Valle de  261 Cerreto d’Esi  136 Cerreto Sannita  125 Certopiano di Arcevia  46 Cervara di Roma  139 Cervaro 242 Cetara 124 Chakavian 294 Chiniz (Oradea region)  97 Ciañu 193 Civitella del Tronto  118

Coli (Piacenza)  68 Colle Sannita  125, 152, 242, 245 Comano 67 Coptic 175 Corato 126 Corsican  44, 65–6, 115, 297 Northern Corsican  44 Southern Corsican  44, 65–6, 84, 220, 297 Cree (Algonquian)  173 Cremonese 42 Croatian  75, 292–3, 301–2 Cusano Mutri  242 Daco-Romance  292, 294 Dalmatian 197 Daman Indo-Portuguese  63 Danish  28, 31 Diu Indo-Portuguese  63 Dravidian languages  6, 74–5, 288 Dubrovnik see Ragusèo Dutch  4, 28–9 Dyirbal (Pama-Nyungan)  3, 30 Egyptian 174–5 Emiliano-Romagnolo  19, 42, 58, 68, 87–91, 208, 309 Engadinian  36, 71–5, 78–9, 207, 210–11 Jauer 74 English  1, 4, 29, 51, 69, 99, 288, Extreme South (dialect subdivision in Italy) see Italo-Romance Fabrianese 277 Fabrica di Roma  111 Faentino 68 Fara San Martino  46 Faroese 28 Farsi 29 Fering (Frisian)  29 Finnish 64 Fiumalbo 68 Florentine  48, 198, 200–2 Foggia 247 Folignate  133–4, 248 Fondi 153 Francavillese (Francavilla Fontana)  43 Franco-Provençal 68 Frassinoro 68 French  1–5, 10, 15, 31, 33–9, 41–3, 52–3, 55, 57–9, 62–4, 67, 69, 70, 72, 97, 99, 103–4, 109, 173–4, 191, 201, 203–9, 218, 220–1, 227–8, 230–3, 236, 240–1, 271, 282, 313–14 Frisian 28–9 Friulian  5, 309

Galician  40, 80, 165–6 Gallo  242, 245 Gallo-Italic  130, 243 Gallurese  44, 298 Garfagnana 58 Gargano  247, 291 Genoese  89–90, 208–9 Genzanese 136 Georgian 64 German  4, 23, 28–9, 31, 75, 194, 255, 299, 312 Germanic languages  28–9, 288, 291 Ginestra degli Schiavoni  125 Gioia del Colle  126, 248 Gistau, Vall de  67 Godié (Kru, Ivory Cost)  56 Gorfiglianese 58 Gothic 224 Gravinese  123, 126–8, 145, 248, 252 Greek  1, 6, 19, 21, 23, 26, 28, 53, 99, 174–5, 190, 220, 224, 238 Grizzanese (Grizzana Morandi)  309 Grottaferrata 136 Grotte di Castro  50 Gruyère (Franco-Provençal)  68 Gualdo Cattaneo  133, 248 Guardia Sanframondi  125, 245 Hindi 28 Hittite  26, 190 Hungarian 99 Icelandic  28, 31 Ilocano (Austronesian)  301 Inari Sami  312 Indo-Aryan languages  29–30 Indo-European  6–7, 13, 16–17, 20–1, 23, 26–32, 51–2, 68, 93, 174, 186, 190–1, 224, 226, 231, 233–4, 284, 288, 314 Indo-Iranian 28 Indo-Portuguese creoles  63 Iranian see Farsi Irish 28 Irsinese  127–9, 248 Ischitano 68 Isernino 264 Istrioto 75 Istro-Romanian  292–5, 314 Italian  2–5, 9, 11, 14–15, 33–9, 43, 47–8, 51–5, 57–9, 64–5, 67–9, 72, 79–81, 83–7, 89–90, 93, 99, 102–4, 110–11, 113–14, 117, 119–20, 124, 131, 141, 149–50, 154, 180, 182, 187, 190–1, 197–203, 207, 212, 217, 220–1, 225, 228–30, 232, 234, 236, 240, 246–7, 253–4,

Index of languages

367

267–8, 270–1, 281–2, 290, 299, 302, 308, 311, 314, North-Western regional Italian  37 Italic 21–2 Italo-Romance  21, 31, 51, 71, 84, 86, 110, 112–13, 116, 118, 120, 198, 201, 203, 219–21, 230, 233, 235–6, 243, 245, 254, 264, 269, 272, 277, 288, 308 Central-Southern Italo-Romance  19, 35, 55–6, 65, 80, 116–17, 119, 125, 140, 145–6, 148, 151–3, 159, 166, 186, 192, 199, 212–19, 232–6, 240–1, 243, 246–7, 250, 257, 261–6, 269, 277, 284, 287, 289, 295, 302–3, 310, 314 Extreme South (dialect subdivision in Italy)  45, 213, 245 North-Western Italo-Romance  205 Northern Italo-Romance  19, 37, 41–2, 58, 68, 87–9, 91, 116, 197, 205, 208–9, 228–30, 246 Southern Italo-Romance  5, 43, 63, 116, 126, 145, 210, 212, 214–15, 220, 229–30, 234–6, 302 Upper Southern Italo-Romance  80, 117, 151–2, 237, 250, 268, 307, 313 Itri 242 Japanese 99 Jauer see Engadinian Jeiăn see Žejane Karakoram 287 Kashmiri 28 Khoisan 7 Kolami-Naiki (Dravidian)  74 Konkani (Indo-Aryan)  30 Korlai Indo-Portuguese  63 Kunwinjku 284 Kuṛux (Dravidian)  74 L’ Entregu  193 Laax 73 Ladin 88 Lagonegro 128 Lak (Nakh-Daghestanian)  31, 284 Langobardic  215, 223, 228 Lanuvio 136 Larianese 79–80 Latiano 45 Latin  1–2, 6, 7, 12–28, 30, 37, 39, 52–3, 55–9, 63–72, 75, 77, 79, 81, 87–8, 93, 97–9, 101, 101, 105, 114–17, 120, 123–5, 129, 134, 136–9, 141–2, 145–6, 149, 160, 169, 180, 186, 191, 194, 196–8, 202–5, 207, 212,

368

Index of languages

Latin (cont.) 216–41, 250, 256–8, 260–1, 265–71, 273, 275–6, 282–4, 289, 292, 295, 297–9, 303, 310, 313–15 Latin of Dacia  222, 228 Latin of Dalmatia  222 Latin of Gaul  220, 227 Latin of the Iberian peninsula  227–8, 236 Latin of Italia  227–30 Latin of Pannonia Superior  222 Latin of Piedmont  18 Leccese 272–3 Lena  137–8, 160, 162, 164, 172, 181, 192, 257, 260 Leonessa 139 Lesina 247 Ligornetto 67 Ligurian  68, 89–90, 91, 208 Llanes 260 Llangréu  161, 182–3, 193 Logudorese see Sardinian Lombard  67, 88, 91, 208, 309 Louisiana French  63 Lucanian  117, 119, 125–30, 146, 151, 212, 224, 243, 248 Lucchese 201 Lugano 67 Lunigiana 58 Lurese (Luras, Northern Logudorese)  71, 297–300, 315 Maceratese  134–40, 144–5, 147, 150, 152, 217, 242, 246, 250, 257, 259, 263, 303–4 Magione 47 Maglie 272 Mali (Baining family, Papuan)  175–6 Maltese 301 Manduria 45 Manfredonia 247 Mangalore Christian dialects  30 Mansi (Ugric, Uralic)  26 Mantuan 208–9 Manx 28 Maramureş 93 Marathi 30 Marchigiano  Central Marchigiano  36, 134, 136, 153, 166, 170, 217, 246, 252, 257–8, 263, 303 Southern Marchigiano  146, 247, 251, 309 Marino 136 Matelicese  138–9, 259 Materano  128, 248 Mattinatese  151–2, 247–8, 291

Mayali (Australian, Gunwingguan)  284 Mba (Ubangian, Niger-Congo)  173 Mesocco 309 Mian (Ok, Papua New Guinea)  172, 177–80, 286–7 Michif  173–4, 302, 313 Miglionico  128, 242,, 248 Milanese  41–3, 88, 91, 198, 208 Minturno  132, 242 Mistretta  44, 66 Modenese 68 Molese (Mola di Bari)  123, 126–7, 145, 152–3, 248–53, 266–9, 289 Molfettese  118–22, 124, 238, 242, 249, 264 Molise  125–6, 245, 247, 264, 301–2 Monopoli  126, 248 Montalto di Castro  46 Monte S. Angelo  247, 291 Monte S. Giacomo  221 Montefalcone in Val Fortore  125, 152 Montefiasconese  47, 49, 51, 56 Montelago di Sassoferrato  46 Montemitro 302 Mosetén (American-Indian language of Bolivia) 301 Mozarabic 308 Muccia 217 Muncó 262 Nahuatl 301 Nakh-Daghestanian languages  31, 284 Neapolitan  117, 122–6, 145, 148–9, 198, 210, 213–18, 238–42, 245, 248, 250, 277, 307–8, 313 Nepali 29 Nepesino (Nepi)  203 Noci 126 Noni (Grassfield Bantu, Cameroon)  119 Norcia  56, 134, 137, 139 Norma  132–3, 242 Norwegian 3 Novoli 273 Occitan  203–8, 218, 221, 231, 240 Ofena 126 Olbia 298 Old Egyptian see Egyptian Old High German  299 Old Indian (Vedic)  23, 26, 27, 30, 190 Old Prussian  28 Oltenian 292 Oratino 264 Oriya 29

Ortonese 117 Orvietano 46–7 Oslo Norwegian  3 Ossetic 29 Otomi 300 Paduan  40, 209 Pago Veiano  125 Palencia 261 Paliano  56, 132–3, 242 Pama-Nyungan  3, 30, 284–5 Papua New Guinea  173, 314–15 Parabita 273 Parji-Ollari (Dravidian)  74 Parmigiano regional Italian  37 Perugino 46–7 Pescara 117 Piacenza 68 Piandelagottese 88–9 Pianoscaranese  49–51, 266 Pianura 124 Piedmontese 91 Pietraroja 245 Pisan 68 Poggio San Romualdo  276–7, 280, 282 Poggiorsini 126 Polignanese  126, 248–9 Polish 31 Popoli 117 Portuguese  2, 5, 14, 33–9, 52–5, 57–8, 62–3, 67, 80–1, 93, 103, 161, 165, 172, 174, 180, 207, 221, 225 Brazilian Portuguese  54 Presicce 272 Quechua 301 Quirosán  162, 181–2, 192–4, 260 Ragusa/Dubrovnik see Ragusèo Ragusèo 197 Ragusano (South-Eastern Sicilian)  43–5, 67 Rajasthani 28 Ravello 124 Ravennate 208 Reatino  116–17, 132–4, 138–9, 238, 242, 250, 259 Recife 54 Reggino 43–4 Rèino 125 Rignano Flaminio  251 Ripano (Ripatransone)  309–10, 312–13 Roccasicura  242, 245

Index of languages

369

Rofrano 125 Roiatese 151–2 Romagna 248 Romance  Balkano-Romance  197, 221 Central Italo-Romance  46, 56, 116, 132–40, 147, 150, 234, 258–9, 263, 288, Daco-Romance  196, 246, 292, 294–5 Eastern Romance  225, 227, 239 Gallo-Romance  35, 79, 88, 91, 183, 203–5, 207, 212, 218, 225, 236, 240 Ibero-Romance  14, 57, 80, 103, 163, 165, 203, 233, 270, 308, 315 Northern Romance  52 Proto-Romance  12, 42–3, 45, 51, 58, 113, 139, 141, 231–2, 234, 258–9, 261, 303 Rhaeto-Romance  65, 67, 71, 218 Western Romance  203–10, 225, 232, Romandalusí see Mozarabic Romanesco  48, 50–1, 133, 201–2, 248, 275–7, 282 Romanian  2, 5, 9–10, 14, 18–19, 28, 32–4, 36–8, 52–6, 59, 80, 92–110, 113, 118–19, 143, 154, 175, 188, 195–8, 200, 203, 220–3, 226, 233, 236, 239, 241, 245, 265, 272–3, 289, 291–2, 294–5, 314 Moldova Romanian  105, 107 Romansh  36, 55, 63, 71–6, 79, 201, 209–12, 220, 225, 240–1 Russian  23, 31, 118, 186, 308 Ruvo 126 Sabino  138, 202 Salentino  213, 218, 245, 270, 272–7, 281 Northern Salentino  43, 45, 218, 273 Salese (Sala Consilina)  125–6, 242 Samartín del Rei Aurelio  193 San Benedetto del Tronto  247, 251 San Chirico Nuovo  128 San Fele  242 San Lorenzo Nuovo  50 San Mango sul Calore  242 San Martino d’ Agri  128 San Pietro al Tanagro  126, 242 San Severino Marche  138, 259 San Valentino in Abruzzo Citeriore  117 San Vigilio di Marebbe  67 Sangiovannese (San Giovanni in Fiore)  269–71 Sannicandrese 289–91 Sant’Oreste 251 Santa Maria Val Müstair  67 Santeramo in Colle  126, 248

370

Index of languages

Santu Adrianu  161 São Tomé  62 Sardinian  39, 57, 62, 70–1, 73, 79–80, 174, 180, 207, 209, 225, 232, 271, 295, 298–9, 315 Campidanese 71 Logudorese  39, 70–1, 79–80, 174, 225, 232, 295–9 Sartenese (Southern Corsica)  44, 65–6 Sarykol 29 Sassa 126 Sassarese  39, 44, 295, 297–8 Sava 45 Savona 90 Scala 124 Scandinavian  28, 31, 51 Scannese  126–7, 242–3 Scottish 28 Semitic  224, 308 Sennorese 295–8 Serbo-Croatian  28, 99, 119, 143 Serviglianese  133, 136–7, 139, 242, 250 Seselwa (French-based creole, Seychelles)  63 Sicilian  42–5, 66–7, 70, 115, 125, 220, 308, Siennese 202 Siracusano 43 Sissano 75 Slavic  28, 64, 99, 118, 196, 239, 292, 294–5 Slovenian  28, 86 Soccavo 124 Somali 312 Somiedo  58, 164, 260 Sorano (Sora)  116–17, 122, 127, 237, 242 Sorsese 297 Spanish  2, 4–6, 8, 11–12, 14–15, 31, 33–9, 42, 52–4, 57–9, 62–3, 67–8, 71, 80–1, 93, 104, 117, 160–1, 163–5, 172, 174, 180, 183–4, 191, 207, 210, 221, 225, 232, 247, 251, 255, 257, 261, 263, 282, 300–1, 308, 314 Spellano  134, 137, 263 Spezzino regional Italian  37 Spinazzolese  126, 152–3, 242 Spoletino  134, 137 Sri Lanka Indo-Portuguese  63 Subiaco  132, 242 Sulmonese  117, 127, 242 Surmiran 240–1 Surrein-Sumvitg 73 Sursilvan  36, 55, 65, 71–9, 136, 169–70, 183, 186, 201–4, 206, 210–12, 221, 295 Suseni see Šušnjevica Šušnjevica 292

Swahili 8 Swedish  28, 31 Tagalog (Austronesian)  300–1 Tagliacozzo 126 Tamil (Dravidian)  51, 75, 288–9 Tarquinia  47, 49 Teggiano 242 Telugu (Dravidian)  74 Tempio Pausania  297 Teramano 45–6 Terelle 242 Terni 134 Tessin  67, 91 Tibetan 57 Tocharian 26 Toledo 261 Tolvese  128–30, 242 Trasacco  126, 242 Treiese  134, 138–40, 217, 238, 242, 246, 259 Trentino 309 Trevico 242 Trun 73 Tsez (Nakh-Daghestanian)  31, 284 Tshukwe (Khoisan)  7 Tsova-Tush (Caucasian)  119 Tuoro 47 Turinese  58, 79, 91 Turkish  64, 99 Tuscan  42, 46, 48, 87–9, 110, 132, 138, 144, 198, 201–2, 208–10, 218, 220, 229–30, 233, 245, 248 Ugric 26 Umbrian (Italic)  21 Umbrian (Romance)  46, 133–4, 136, 146, 248, 251, 257 Ungarinjin (Australian, Worrorran)  285, 287 Uralic 26 Val Fortore (northern Campania)  277 Val Maggia  91 Val Müstair  72, 74 Valle’ l Nalón  193 Vallecorsa 242 Velletrano 79 Venetan  40, 88, 91, 198, 208 Venetian  40, 201–2, 208 Verbania  58, 91 Verbicarese  113–15, 210, 212, 302, 305–7 Veroli  71, 276, 280

Veronese  197, 208–9 Vetralla 46 Villa San Michele  142 Villamoronta 261 Viterbese  47–51, 251, 265–6, 289, 291 Voghera regional Italian  37 Vogul 26

Index of languages Welsh 238 Worora (Australian, Worrorran)  284–5, 287 Žejane 292 Zonza (southern Corsica)  66 Zuoz  72, 74, 78

371

Index of names Abatangelo, A.  249–50 Acquaviva, P.  10, 69, 82, 83–6, 92, 120–1, 131, 199, 216, 231–2, 264, 273 Adams, J.  13, 19, 28, 63 Aebischer, P.  18–19 Agnellus of Ravenna  227 Aikhenvald, A.  1, 6–8, 92, 102, 282, 285, 301 Alarcos Llorach, E.  257–8 Alario, F.-X. 4 Álbaro de Córdoba  227 Alfano, G.  199 Aliffi, M. L.  53 Alig, B.  211 Alighieri, D. see Dante Alkire, T.  13 Alonso, D.  137, 163, 257–8 Alvanoudi, A.  3 Ambadiang, T.  36, 52–3 Andersen, H.  21 Andreose, A.  197 Angeletti, A. M.  217 Anonimo romano  202, 275 Antonini, T.  4 Appel, C.  14–19 Apuleius (Lucius Apuleius Madaurensis)  235 Arias Cabal, Á.  164, 167, 173, 180, 190, 258 Aristotle 6 Aronoff, M.  10 Arvinte, V.  97, 195 Ascoli, G. I.  65, 208, 210 Assenza, E.  44 Audring, J.  8, 29, 31, 288, 291 Augustinus, Aurelius Hipponensis (St. Augustine) 19 Aurelianus, Caelius  19 Aurigemma, L.  202 Avolio, F.  81, 117, 123–5, 133, 152, 155, 233–4, 242 Avram, M.  92, 94, 96–7, 99, 104 Bacchinius, B. (Benedetto Bacchini)  227 Badecker, W.  3 Baerman, M.  46, 64 Baider, F.  53 Bais, M.  309 Bakker, P.  173–4, 300 Baldelli, I.  117 Balducci, S.  46, 251, 277, 280 Balles, I.  21, 26–7

Bambini, V.  254–5 Banchi, L.  202 Barbato, M.  42, 125, 248 Barber, H. A.  4, 57 Barcia López, R. J.  166 Barney, S. A.  69 Bartoli, M. G.  197 Bateman, N.  92, 98, 100–2, 104, 106 Batinti, A.  130 Bayot, A.  205 Bazell, C. E.  92 Beach, J. A.  69 Bejan, D.  94 Béland, R.  4 Belardi, W.  231–2 Belcalzer, V.  208 Bello, P.  245 Bembo, P.  83, 199–200 Benincà, P.  76–8, 117, 198–9, 240, 309 Benoit de Sainte-Maure  206 Benuzzi, F.  4 Beretta, C.  41–2, 91 Berger, H.  287 Berghof, O.  69 Berruto, G.  91 Bertinetto, P. M.  250 Bertoletti, N.  208–9 Bianchi, A.  203 Bianchi, P.  216 Bianconi, S.  46–8 Bifrun, I.  210–11 Bisiacchi, P.  255 Blake, B. J.  306 Blasi, B.  47 Blaylock, C.  163 Bloch, J.  30 Boccaccio, G.  49, 199–200, 274 Boethius, Anicius Manlius Torquatus Severinus 84 Boiardo, M. M.  201 Bollée, A.  63 Bonami, O.  41 Bonaparte, L. L.  165 Bonfante, G.  82, 92, 196 Bonin, E.  58 Bontempo, Edda  152, 247 Bontempo, Elio  152, 247 Bonvesin da la Riva  208

Booij, G.  9 Bookheimer, S.  4 Borgogno, G. B.  209 Bornelh, G. de see Giraut de Bornelh Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I.  4 Boroditsky, L.  27 Bosi, F.  134, 248 Bottiglioni, G.  295, 297 Bourciez, E.  205, 227–8 Boyé, G.  41 Boyes-Braem, P.  55 Brăescu, R.  52, 93–4, 106, 108–9 Braune, W.  224 Breimaier, F.  254–5 Breu, W.  32, 284, 302 Broca, P.  4 Brodman, K.  4 Brown, C. M.  4 Brown, D.  31, 46, 64, 119, 284 Brüch, J.  224–5 Bruckert, R.  3 Brugmann, K.  26 Brunale, A.  80 Brunet, J.  83, 85, 87 Bruschi, R.  134 Buccio di Ranallo  213 Buchi, E.  292 Bucholtz, M.  1 Bujor, I. I.  56, 92, 289 Bull, W.  57–8 Bunt, H. C.  149 Buridant, C.  64, 67, 203, 205 Buti, F. da see Francesco da Buti Cacciari, C.  4, 11, 58 Caesar, Gaius Julius  75 Caffarra, S.  4, 57–8 Calabrese, A.  43 Calandra-Buonaura, G.  4 Caligiuri, M.  58 Camblor Portilla, M.  161, 164, 166, 181 Camilli, A.  117, 133, 136, 139 Campanelli, B.  117, 133, 238 Campanile, E.  238–9 Campus, G.  295 Canal, P.  254–5 Candinas, T.  73 Cangemi, F.  125 Cano González, A. M.  58, 160, 164–5, 236, 257–8, 260–2 Capasso, R.  4 Capotosto, S.  132, 242 Cappellaro, C.  269–71 Caproșu, I.  195

Index of names

373

Caragíu Marioțeanu, M.  294 Caramazza, A.  4 Caratù, P.  155 Cardinale, V.  153 Cardinaletti, A.  37 Cardoso, H. C.  63 Carosella, M.  289–90 Carreiras, M.  4, 11 Carstairs-McCarthy, A.  92 Casaccia, M.  47 Cascone, A.  124 Castrignanò, V. L.  274–5 Cato the Elder (Marcus Porcius Cato)  21, 235 Cenne da la Chitarra  220 Chamoreau, C.  301 Chiampel, D.  36 Chiarelli, V.  255 Chini, M.  7 Chiocchio, N.  264 Chiorboli, J.  66 Chitoran, I.  92 Cicero, Marcus Tullius  16, 22–5, 101 Cimarra, L.  111 Cipariu, T.  223 Clackson, J.  13 Clark, R.  300 Clegg, J. H.  57 Commodian 19–20 Comrie, B.  31, 145–6, 231 Contini, G.  117, 208 Conzett, P.  291 Corbett, G. C.  3, 6–8, 10–11, 17, 23–4, 27–8, 31, 34, 36, 40, 46, 51–4, 56–7, 64, 69, 74, 77, 80–2, 85, 92–4, 100–4, 118–19, 119, 124, 136, 142–3, 164, 166, 171–80, 187, 190–1, 194, 205, 250, 253, 263, 271, 275, 284, 286, 288, 302, 307, 311–12, 314, 315 Corda, F.  298 Cornilescu, A.  94, 197 Coromines, J.  81 Corradini, P.  11 Corriente, F.  308 Corsi, A.  153 Corsini, M.  200 Cortese, C.  155 Coseriu, E.  3, 13 Costa, A.  4 Cox, T. B.  152, 249, 266–8 Crocioni, G.  46, 202 Croitor, B.  92, 104, 106 Cucerzan, S.  5 Cuza, A.  4 Cysouw, M.  315

374

Index of names

D’Achille, P.  37, 48, 57–8, 82, 199 D’Alessandro, R.  37 D’Andrés, R. see De Andrés Díaz, R. D’Ovidio, F.  81, 117 Dahl, Ö.  8, 29, 31, 235 Dal Negro, S.  88 Dalbera-Stefanaggi, M. J.  66 Damourette, J.  2 Dante  68, 200 Dapretto, M.  4 Davanzati, C.  200 De Andrés Díaz, R.  80, 163, 165–9, 181, 187, 188 De Angelis, A.  44 De Bartholomaeis, V.  213 De Blasi, L.  242 De Blasi, N.  122–5, 214, 216 De Giovanni, M.  264 De Lollis, C.  45 De Montarone, B.  47, 56 De Vogelaer, G.  29 Decurtins, A.  72–3, 78, 212 Decurtins, C.  210–11 Della Valle, V.  200 Depperu, P.  71, 298 Dettli, M.  88 De Vincentiis, D. L.  155 Di Carlo, M.  48, 50 Diaconescu, P.  9, 92–4, 96–8, 104, 106, 108, 196 Dinu, L. P.  92 Dionysius Thrax  6 Dixon, R. M. W.  1, 3, 7, 29, 147, 284–5 Dolberg, F.  29 Dols, N.  36, 52 Donohue, M.  179 Dorini, U.  201 Dressler, W. U.  41, 82, 86 Dubert García, F.  40 Duke, J.  291 Durand, O.  44, 66 Ebert, K.  29–30 Ebneter, T.  71–2, 212 Ehrlich, M.-F.  4 Eichner, H.  21 El Yagoubi, R.  255 Elwert, W. T.  251 Emeneau, M. B.  74 Enger, H. O.  3, 23–4, 29, 51, 291 Ennius, Quintus  235 Ernout, A.  12, 24, 64 Ernst, G.  48 Espinal, M. T.  37

Euler, W.  26 Evans, N.  284 Faarlund, J. T.  23 Fabbro, F.  5 Falcone, G.  43 Falcucci, F. D.  66 Fanciullo, F.  273 Fanti, R.  138–9, 202 Faraoni, V.  44, 83, 198, 200, 215, 228–9, 236 Fassel, L.  196, 222 Fedden, S.  102–3 172–80, 187, 286, 314–15 Fernández Fuertes, R.  4 Fernández Ordóñez, I.  80, 161, 169–71, 193, 234, 258, 261–3 Fernández Soriano, O.  35, 36 Festa, G. B.  128 Filipi, G.  292 Finocchiaro, C.  4 Fiorilla, M.  199 Fischer, I.  222 Flaux, N.  65 Flechia, G.  208 Fleischer, J.  299 Foerster, W.  206 Formentin, V.  126, 139, 202, 206, 210, 213, 215–17, 224, 233, 248, 273, 275–6 Fornaciari, R.  84 Franceschi, T.  136, 139 Francesco da Buti  68 Fraser, N. M.  27, 94, 191 Frau, G.  5, 309 Fredegarius Scholasticus  236 Freund, I.  68 Friederici, A.  4 Fritz, M.  26 Frost, R.  57 Gafton, A.  195 Galeotti, V.  48 Gamillscheg, E.  203 Gandiglio, A.  23, 25 Ganzoni, G. P.  73 García Arias, X. Ll.  160–1, 163–4, 181–3, 257, 260, 262 García Fernández, J.  193 Gardani, F.  10, 17, 83, 198, 200, 228, 295 Garnham, A.  4 Garofano, E.  125, 245 Garrett, M. F.  4 Gartmann, C.  297 Gartner, T.  72 Gaspari, G.  313 Gaudenzi, A.  87

Gellius, Aulus  22 Gennari, S.  255 Ghinassi, G.  208 Giammarco, E.  117, 151, 234 Giannini, C.  68 Gil, D.  65 Gioiosa, M.  289–91 Gioscio, J.  130 Giraut de Bornelh  204 Giudici, A.  75, 295 Giuliani, M.  215 Giurgea, I.  11, 32, 92–4, 96–100, 104, 106, 113 Gollan, T. H.  57 Gómez Seibane, S.  261 González Muñoz, F.  227 Goosse, A.  52 Granatiero, F.  151–2, 291 Grandi, N.  7 Grasserie, R. de la  7 Graur, A.  92, 94, 96–7, 99, 100, 104, 106, 197, 220, 222 Gray, W. D.  55 Greenberg, J. H.  40 Gregorius Turonensis  19 Grevisse, M.  52 Grimm, J.  27 Grinevald, C.  102 Grossmann, M.  109 Grune, D.  287–8 Guarente, M.  125 Guarnerio, P. E.  297–8 Guia, S.  195 Gutiérrez Rexach, J.  63 Guțu Romalo, V.  94, 96–8, 108 Haase, M.  147, 263 Hagoort, P.  4 Haiman, J.  76–8, 240 Hajnal, I.  26 Hall, R.  9, 17, 82, 92, 101, 137, 146, 164, 234, 258 Halle, Adam de la  203 Halle, M.  12 Harðarson, J. A.  26 Harder, A.  309–11, 313 Härmä, J.  207 Harmon, S.  117 Harris, J. W.  57 Harris Northall, R.  261 Haspelmath, M.  235 Heidermanns, F.  224 Heim, S.  3–4 Hekking, E.  300 Hellinger, M.  1 Henaff Gonon, M. A.  3

Index of names

375

Hernandez, A. E.  4 Hieronymus, Sophronius Eusebius  20 Hill, J. H.  301 Hill, K. C.  301 Hillyard, S. A.  4 Hilty, G.  258 Hockett, C. F.  6, 10, 100 Hoffmann, J. B.  23, 25, 28 Hofmann, J.  4 Holzweissig, F.  19 Horace (Quintus Horatius Flaccus)  23, 92 Hualde, J. I.  164, 177, 262 Hundertmark-Santos Martins, M. T.  80 Iacobini, C.  82 Iacopo da Varagine  200 Iandolo, A.  122 Iannacito Provenzano, R.  142 Ibrahim, M. H.  28 Igartua, I.  28, 82, 93 Ingegne, N. di see Nicolò; di Ingegne Iordăchioaia, G.  99 Iordan, I.  96–9, 108 Isidore of Seville (Isidorus Hispalensis)  14, 69–70 Ivănescu, G.  18, 196, 222 Jaberg, K.  49 Jäggli, P.  295 Jakobson, R.  92 Janssen, N.  57 Jellinek, M. H.  224 Jensen, F.  203–5 Jespersen, O.  24 Job, R.  4 Jobin, B.  10 Johansen, Å. M.  291 Johnson, D. M.  55 Joosten, F.  149 Jud, J.  49 Junquera Huergo, J.  163, 168, 180 Kahane, H.  14, 68 Kahane, R.  14, 68 Kämpf, S.  74–5 Karlsson, F.  291 Kibort, A.  9, 12, 31, 92, 147 Kilani-Schoch, M.  41 Kilarski, M.  6–8 Kim, R. I.  26 Klassen, R.  4, 255–6 Klingenschmitt, G.  18 Kloekhorst, A.  26 Kluge, F.  224

376

Index of names

Kopecký, P.  92 Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M.  145, 149, 160, 164 Kotz, S. A.  4 Kovačec, A.  292–4 Krishnamurti, B.  74 Krstić, M.  302 Kučerová, I.  147 Kühner, R.  19, 23–4 Kuryłowicz, J.  230 Kutas, M.  4 La Fauci, N.  183, 230–1 La Rocca, M.  242 Lakoff, G.  3 Lakoff, R. T.  1 Lambert, W. E.  57 Larson, P.  229 Lausberg, H.  55, 71–2, 75–6, 212, 258 Lazzareschi, E.  201 Lazzeroni, R.  27, 285 Le Roux de Lincy, A. J. V.  206 Ledgeway, A.  122–4, 146, 148, 152, 214–17, 235, 257, 272, 307–8 Lepore, A.  125 Lepri, L.  68 Lepschy, A. L.  53, 83, 85 Lepschy, G.  53, 83, 85 Levasti, A.  201 Lewis, W. J.  69 Leyen, F. von der  224 Librandi, R.  216 Liceras, J. M.  4 Linder, K. P.  36 Lindsstrom, A.  132 Lisini, A.  200 Litscher, R.  26 Liver, R.  77 Livescu, M.  92, 292 Livy (Titus Livius)  25 Llaca, F. D.  260 Lloret, M. R.  12, 39 Löfstedt, B.  224 Löfstedt, E.  18 Loise de Rosa  215 Lopes, O.  53 Loporcaro, M.  8, 29, 31, 34–5, 41, 43–4, 46, 77, 83, 86, 101, 106, 112–14, 116, 118, 120, 128, 130–1, 135–6, 138–40, 142, 148–50, 164, 172, 184, 198, 200, 208–10, 215–17, 228, 231, 237–8, 241, 243, 246, 248, 250, 254–5, 264, 273, 275–6, 288, 295, 298–9, 302–14 Lorenzetti, L.  79, 117, 136, 139, 232, 242, 251 Lorimer, D. L. R.  287

Love, J. R. B.  284–5 Luciani, V.  153 Lucretius (Titus Lucretius Carus)  235 Lüdtke, H.  63, 68, 117, 128, 138, 148, 196, 224–5, 233–4, 238–9, 242, 257–8, 261, 263, 313 Luís, A. R.  63 Luka, B. J.  4 Luraghi, S.  17, 52 Macoir, J.  4 Madoz, J.  227 Maggiore, M.  155, 213, 273–5, 281 Magni, E.  13, 19, 82 Magret, Guilhem  206 Maiden, M.  2, 42–3, 45, 54–6, 58, 83, 85, 92–3, 96–8, 100, 102, 106, 108–9, 116, 120, 139, 145–6, 196, 223, 228, 269–70 Malagoli, G.  88 Malato, E.  216 Mallinson, G.  104–5, 197 Mancarella, G. B.  45, 272–3 Mancini, A.  201 Manzari, G.  153, 249 Manzelli, G.  64 Manzini, M. R.  66, 117–18, 295, 297, 308 Marcantonio, A.  117, 148 Marcellesi, J. B.  66 Marchetti, G.  309 Marotta, M.  221 Marsella, M.  242 Martinus, J.  210–11 Maschi, R.  198–9 Massam, D.  255 Matasović, R.  23, 26, 28, 30, 32, 52 Mattesini, E.  47, 134, 203 Maturi, P.  124–5 Matute, C.  261 Matzke, J. R.  205 Maurer, P.  62–3 Mauskopf Deliyannis, D.  227 Mayrhofer, M.  27 McWhorter, J.  62 Meier-Brügger, M.  26, 28, 190 Meillet, A.  27–8 Mel’čuk, I. A.  6, 7, 57 Melchert, H. C.  26 Mele, B.  269–70 Melillo, G.  155 Menéndez Pidal, R.  163 Menichetti, A.  200 Meo, D.  55, 140, 142, 254–5 Merlini Barbaresi, L.  82, 86

Merlo, C.  17, 46, 81–2, 117–23, 132, 139, 216, 233–4, 236–7, 240, 242, 257, 264, 272–3 Mervis, C. B.  55 Messing, G. M.  237, 257 Meunier, F.  57 Meyer-Lübke, W.  14, 27, 66, 69–70, 199, 205–6, 208, 222, 236 Miceli, G.  4 Michaelis, S.  63 Michel, F.  3 Miestamo, M.  291 Mifsud, M.  301 Mihăescu, H.  222 Mihăilă, G.  292 Milizia, P.  175 Miozzo, M.  3, 4 Miranda, R. V.  30 Mîrzea Vasile, C.  223 Moignet, G.  205 Moldovan, V.  97 Molinaro, N.  4 Moll, F. de B.  81 Molza, Filippo della  209 Monaci, E.  276 Mondini, S.  255 Monfeli, P.  111 Montagnani, C.  201 Mora-Lebrun, F.  204–6 Moretti, B.  88 Moretti, G.  47, 56, 134, 137, 248 Moro, A.  147 Morosi, G.  272 Morri, A.  68 Morselli, E. L.  54 Motschenbacher, H.  1 Mussafia, A.  206, 208 Nandriş, O.  98, 196–7 Nappo, F.  48 Nastase, V.  5 Natalicio, D.  57 Navone, G.  56, 132–3 Neagoe, V.  93 Nedelcu, I.  52, 92–4, 98–9, 106, 108–9 Neira Martínez, J.  160–4, 167, 171–2, 181, 192, 257–62 Neri, A.  68 Neumann-Holzschuh, I.  62–3 Newman, A. J.  255 Nichelli, P.  4 Nichols, J.  29 Nicoli, F.  41–2 Nicolò di Ingegne  274

Index of names

377

Niculae, V.  92 Niculescu, A.  98, 108 Niedermann, M.  69 Nolè, G.  86, 130–1, 134, 140, 210, 217, 246 Norberg, D.  239 Normand, J.  207 Nunes, J. J.  13 Oakhill, J.  4 Ojeda, A. E.  82, 137, 164, 258 Olivier, R.  125 Onofri, L.  201 Onorati, G.  132 Oribasius Latinus  226–7 Orlandi, G.  151 Orlandini, A.  23 Ostrowski, M.  26–7 Pace, A.  43, 302 Paciaroni, T.  31, 46, 86, 101, 118, 130–1, 134–6, 138–40, 147–8, 150–1, 210, 215–17, 231, 237–8, 241, 246, 288, 303, 309–12 Padoan, G.  200 Padovani, R.  4, 11 Paganelli, J.  44, 65, 84 Paiella, A. R.  139, 155 Palermo, M.  47 Palestini, G.  251 Palumbo, A.  249–50 Pamfil, C. G.  223 Pană Dindelegan, G.  94, 196 Pancheva, R.  255 Papahagi, T.  93 Papanti, G.  49–50 Papen, R. A.  63 Parodi, E. G.  117 Parrino, F.  117, 309–11, 313 Parry. M. M.  90–1 Pătruţ, I.  100, 113 Paul, H.  235 Pedrazzoli, D.  140, 142, 264 Peer, O.  73 Pelaez, M.  214, 216 Pellegrini, G. B.  117, 134 Pelletier, F. J.  149, 255 Penello, N.  198–9 Penny, R.  67, 137, 146, 258, 261 Perales, S.  4 Pérez-Tattam, R.  4 Perini, M. A.  52, 54, 80 Perkowski, J.  55, 106 Perlmutter, D. M.  169 Pernicone, V.  200

378

Index of names

Pescarini, D.  12, 17–18, 117, 254–5 Pesciarelli, F.  4, 58 Petronius  19, 235 Petroselli, F.  48–9, 111 Petrovici, E.  292–5 Pfister, M.  68 Phaedrus, Gaius Julius  24 Phillips, W.  27 Piacentini, M.  68 Piccitto, G.  43, 45 Pichon, E.  2 Pieroni, S.  22–4 Placentinus, Antoninus  2 Plank, F.  31, 102 Plautus, Titus Maccius  17, 19, 20, 26, 212, 235, 237 Pliny the Younger (Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus) 23 Pliny the Elder (Gaius Plinius Secundus)  221 Poccetti, P.  22 Poeta, S.  277, 280 Poletto, C.  309 Polidori, F. L.  200 Polinsky, M.  92, 98, 100–2, 104, 106, 207, 231, 235, 282 Pomino, N.  17, 232 Pomponius, Sextus  19 Pop, L.  97 Popescu, M.  5 Porta, G.  202, 220, 275 Posner, R.  82 Priestly, T. M. S.  26, 28, 234, 258 Priscian (Priscianus Caesariensis)  53 Protagoras 6 Przepiórkowski, A.  31 Pult, G.  72 Puşcariu, S.  292, 294 Quintilian (Marcus Fabius Quintilianus)  238 Quondam, A.  199 Rauch, A. V.  210–11 Raynaud, G.  207 Reho, L.  126 Renzi, L.  197 Rescher, N.  277, 291 Rešetar, M.  302 Retaro, V.  66 Rezzonico, A.  87 Rheinfelder, H.  205 Ribezzo, F.  43 Ricca, D.  29, 79, 83–6, 91, 103 Rigault, A. A.  57

Rigobianco, L.  17, 22, 231 Rinaldi, M.  155 Riva, B. da la see Bonvesin da la Riva Rizzolatti, P.  309 Robins, R. H.  6 Robustelli, C.  53, 83–5 Roca, I.  37, 53, 57, 81 Roché, M.  55 Rodríguez Castellano, L.  68 Rohlfs, G.  2, 42, 58, 83, 87–8, 124, 130, 139, 153, 216, 234, 237–8 Rojo, G.  165 Romagnoli S.  277, 299 Romano, A.  250, 273 Romano, M. E.  224 Romieu, M.  203 Roncaglia, A.  236 Rosa, L. de see Loise de Rosa Rosch, E.  55 Rosen, C.  13 Rosetti, A.  97, 196–7 Rossini, G.  42 Rovai, F.  19–21 Ruggieri, D.  130 Rumsey, A.  285 Russell, W. M.  57 Russo, M.  117, 215 Sabatini, A.  53 Sabatini, F.  229 Sacchetti, F.  200 Sachs, H.  206–7 Sadler, L.  104 Sainte-Maure, B. de see Benoit de SainteMaure Saiu, E.  68 Sakel, J.  301 Sallustius (Gaius Sallustius Crispus)  25 Salvioni, C.  19, 70, 91, 117, 139, 309 Samson, H.  53 Sandfeld, K.  196 Sanfilippo, C. M.  208 Sanna, A.  295 Sannazzaro, I.  216 San Segundo Cachero, R.  164, 170, 259 Santangelo, A.  199, 208, 220 Sapegno, M. S.  53 Sarnelli, P.  216 Sartini, F.  202 Sas, L. F.  224 Sassenhagen, J.  4 Savoia, L. M.  66, 117–18, 295, 297, 308 Scafoglio, G.  270 Schanzer, A.  132

Schellinger, W.  31, 102 Schiller, N.  4 Schirru, G.  117, 174, 242, 251 Schlesewsky, M.  4 Schmidt, J.  190–1 Schmidt, L. A.  27 Schön, I.  13 Schroten, J.  81 Schuchardt, H.  117, 165 Schwarze, C.  83 Schwink, F. W.  31 Seelmann, E.  238 Seidl, C.  236 Seifart, F.  102 Semenza, C.  255 Semplicini, C.  29 Serianni, L.  52–3, 83, 87–8, 199 Sessarego, S.  63 Setti, R.  37 Sgrilli, P.  48, 218, 273 Siemund, P.  29, 288 Siewierska, A.  300, 315 Silvestri, G.  113–15, 302, 305, 307–8 Sinnemäki, K.  291 Siyanova-Chanturia, A.  4, 58 Smith, I. R.  63 Smith, J. C.  69, 269–70 Soare, E.  99 Sollid, H.  291 Song, J. J.  231 Sornicola, R.  44, 63, 66, 297 Spano, G.  71 Spescha, A.  71–3, 77–8, 212 Spitzer, L.  196, 227 Spradlin, K. T.  4 Squartini, M.  165 Stan, C.  52, 93–4, 106, 108–9 Stang, C. S.  31 Stark, E.  17, 232 Stebbins, T. N.  175 Steele, S.  8 Stefenelli, A.  13, 19–20 Stegmann, C.  23–4 Stehl, T.  155 Steinhauer, K.  255 Stempel, R.  26 Stimm, H.  76, 79 Stolz, C.  301 Stolz, T.  301 Stotz, P.  2, 18–20, 224, 227, 236 Stussi, A.  48, 201 Subrenat, J.  207 Șulea, M.  92 Süthold, M.  212

Index of names

379

Symmachus, Quintus Aurelius  220 Szantyr, A.  23, 25, 28 Tacitus (Publius Cornelius Tacitus)  25 Taft, M.  57 Tagliani, R.  208 Tambascia, S.  125, 152, 247 Tamburini, P.  47 Tekavčić, P.  13, 76–7, 229 Teschner, R. V.  57 Thomas, F.  24 Thöni, G. P.  240–1 Thornton, A. M.  9, 54–5, 57–8, 82, 84, 237 Thurneysen, R.  21 Tichy, E.  26 Tissoni Benvenuti, A.  201 Tobler, A.  206 Togeby, K.  82, 196 Tomaiuolo, F.  4 Tomasin, L.  209 Tomašpol’skij, V.  205 Tomescu, D.  52, 93–4, 106, 108–9 Toso, F.  89–90, 209 Touratier, C.  23, 28, 55 Trifone, P.  48 Trumper, J. B.  40, 91 Tucker, G. R.  57 Turner, R. L.  30 Turriziani, P.  4 Tuttle, E. F.  120 Uddholm, A.  227 Ugoccioni, N.  47, 137, 263 Ugolini, F. A.  46, 133–4 Uguzzoni, A.  19 Uhlig, G.  6 Ullman, M. T.  255 Ulrich, J.  36 Urbani, E.  48 Urgese, T.  45 Uricaru, L.  97 Väänänen, V.  14, 18, 225, 227 Vaccaro, G.  201 Valente, V.  155 Valentin, V. V.  4 Van Everbroeck, E.  207, 231, 235, 282 Van Petten, C.  4 Vanelli, L.  198–9 Varagine, I. da see Iacopo da Varagine Varchi, B.  84 Varia, G.  105 Variano, A.  155 Varro, Marcus Terentius  19, 235

380

Index of names

Vasiliu, L.  92, 94, 96–7, 99, 104 Vasvári, L. O.  1 Vaux, B.  12 Vázquez Balonga, D.  261 Velleman, A.  210 Vendryes, J.  27 Vergil (Publius Vergilius Maro)  23, 238 Vespignani, F.  4, 58 Viaplana, J.  12, 39 Viejo Fernández, X.  162, 164, 168–9, 179, 181–2, 192–3, 258, 260 Vieli, R.  78 Vigliocco, G.  4 Vignoli, C.  71, 202, 276, 280–2 Vignuzzi, U.  81, 117, 233–4, 242 Vigolo, M. T.  308, 313 Villalva, A.  53 Villani, F.  220 Villar, F.  28 Vitale, M.  220 Vitali, D.  68 Viti, C.  21 Voretzsch, K.  2 Vrabie, E.  55, 92, 94, 96, 98–9, 106 Wackernagel, J.  27 Wagner, M. L.  70, 295, 297, 299 Wartburg, W. von  67–8 Weber Wetzel, E.  58, 91 Wernicke, C.  4

Westphal, E. O. J.  7 Wheeler, M.  36, 52 Widerberg, K.  1 Widmer, A.  79 Wiese, H.  107 Wild, M.  299 Wilkinson, H.  55, 63, 75–6, 97 Williams, E. B.  81 Windisch, R.  92, 104, 196 Wohlgemuth, J.  315 Wood Bowden, H.  161, 164, 166, 181 Wunderli, P.  63, 65, 72, 76–7, 113 Yaguello, M.  2, 53 Yarowsky, D.  5 Yates, A.  36, 52 Zaccagnini, R.  79 Zagarese, E.  125 Zaliznjak, A. A.  31, 93 Zamboni, A.  225, 236, 238 Zamora Vicente, A.  163 Zanuttini, R.  3 Zeilfelder, S.  26 Ziccardi, G.  140–1 Zimmermann, H.  21 Zingarelli, N.  155 Zink, G.  203 Zörner, L.  42, 309 Zwicky, A. M.  302, 306

Index of subjects active (voice)  204 active/inactive alignment  20 adjective  6, 8–10, 13, 16–17, 23–5, 29, 34, 36–7, 39, 41–7, 50, 54, 58, 64, 66–9, 72, 76–9, 88–9, 91–4, 101, 103, 110, 112–15, 118, 122, 128, 130, 134, 136–41, 152–3, 160–3, 166–7, 169, 172–5, 181–3, 185–7, 189–90, 197, 201, 203–6, 208, 210, 212–13, 218, 222–3, 228–30, 233, 239–41, 250–1, 257–63, 265–9, 276, 281, 285, 290, 293–5, 297, 300–1, 303, 311–12 adnominal modifier  demonstrative  8, 29, 31, 41, 43, 46, 79–81, 91, 93, 117–18, 122–3, 130, 135, 138, 140, 142–3, 145, 147, 153, 161–3, 173, 192, 213, 225, 232–3, 236–8, 241, 249–51, 253, 257, 259–62, 264, 269, 281, 287, 289–90, 311 possessive  8, 41, 47, 112, 240 adposition 53 adverb  64, 166, 209, 294, 310 affix, affixation  46, 57, 63, 177, 290, 303, 305, 308 agentive suffix  99 agreement  alternating  47, 81–3, 85–8, 90, 109, 111, 113, 118–19, 125, 128–31, 142, 195, 199, 225–8, 232–3, 264–6, 271, 273–4, 280, 282, 293 controller  8, 11, 19, 22, 22–4, 33, 35–7, 49–50, 62, 70, 76–81, 93–4, 101, 106, 113, 116–17, 123, 127, 135–7, 140, 144, 166–7, 169–72, 183–6, 191–2, 203–4, 207–8, 210, 212, 217–19, 222, 225–6, 230, 233–4, 236, 239–41, 247, 252, 258, 261–4, 294–5, 305–6, 312 exponent  50, 135, 163, 285, 297 mismatch  4, 9, 11, 52, 75–6, 78, 85, 93–4, 115, 160, 162–3, 193, 199, 204, 217, 270, 275 target  8–11, 15, 17–19, 24, 34, 37, 41–5, 47, 49–53, 58, 66, 71, 74, 76, 79–81, 92–4, 101–2, 104, 106, 112, 118, 124, 141–3, 147, 153, 161, 173–4, 177–9, 182, 185–6, 201–2, 206, 208–10, 212, 215–17, 219, 222–3, 225–6, 230, 232–4, 236, 240–1, 247, 250–4, 257, 260–5, 271–2, 274–6, 282, 294, 296–7, 300, 302, 308, 310, 312, 314 violations  4, 247, 254–5 alignment of grammatical relations  20, 231

allomorphy  4, 71, 93–8, 120, 150, 152, 242, 249, 268, 289–90 alternating agreement see agreement alternating gender see gender analogy  17, 45, 56, 58, 88, 90, 97, 99, 138, 149, 150, 152, 195, 208, 236–7, 239, 257–8, 261, 272 animacy  2, 6–7, 24–5, 27–9, 31–3, 38, 50–4, 56, 58, 66, 99, 104–6, 108–9, 118, 121, 142–3, 153–4, 163, 173, 178, 188, 191, 197, 231, 233, 264–5, 267–8, 285–7, 289–90, 292 article  definite  4, 8, 29, 34, 47, 50, 76, 87, 89, 91–3, 110, 112–13, 116, 118–20, 122–3, 125, 127, 130, 134, 140–1, 144, 147, 149–53, 161–2, 173–4, 181, 186, 190, 193, 203, 212, 216, 224, 230, 236, 239, 241, 245, 248, 250–4, 257, 260–1, 268–9, 276, 287, 289–90, 292, 295, 312 indefinite  8, 148–53, 182, 247–8, 250, 252 attributive modifier  8, 75, 77, 143, 161, 167, 181, 187, 203, 259 augmentative  68, 86, 99 bilingualism  4–5, 255 bisyllabic nouns  276 borrowing 114, 238, 292–5, 300–1 (see also loanword) Canonical Typology  171, 173, 180, 250 Carrara–Fano line see La Spezia–Rimini line case  16–8, 31, 93, 96, 119, 137, 204–5, 218, 224–6, 236–7, 302 case marking 231, 302 cell-mates  199, 237, 299 change  contact-induced  15, 42, 48, 50–2, 266, 291–302 sound change  41–4, 48, 57–8, 133, 141, 208, 222, 228, 243, 266, 298, 307 classificatory prefix  177–8 clausal agreement controller see controller clitic  object  34, 41, 81, 112, 118, 122–4, 138, 143, 153–4, 167, 174, 193, 243, 250–2, 257, 259–60, 271, 276, 281, 304–5, 311 subject 36–7

382

Index of subjects

collective  21, 31, 55, 65, 67–9, 71–3, 75–6, 146, 201, 210, 212 analytical 231–3 synthetic 231–2 comparative perspective/reconstruction  63, 138–9, 186, 201, 206, 218–54, 257–63 competence  49–50, 86, 97, 150, 224, 253–4, 256, 292, 298 complementary distribution  26, 33, 96, 114 complexity  8, 15, 31, 40, 48, 51, 62, 92, 110, 113, 118–9, 231, 277, 291–2, 295, 300 compound  109, 180, 187 compound numerals  71, 73, 75, 91, 209 compound pronouns  8 compound tense  78, 164–5, 168 concurrent gender systems  29, 32, 172–5, 180, 183, 185–7, 193–4, 219, 256, 259, 261, 286, 302, 313–14 constraint  phonological 276 semantic  53, 276 contact-induced change see change continuous/discrete  164, 170–1, 179–81, 185, 232 controller see also agreement clausal agreement controller  23, 39, 127, 281 non-canonical agreement controller  22–4, 35–6, 127, 135, 166, 186, 207, 210, 218–19, 295 controller gender  10, 14, 30, 51, 54, 67, 76, 82, 92, 97, 100, 112–13, 124, 130–1, 140, 144, 152, 203–4, 220, 223, 226–7, 231, 236, 239–41, 265, 272, 280, 282, 291, 310, 315 convergent gender system/marking  40–52, 56, 58, 66, 113, 122, 155, 266, 290-1, 295–300 copula  167, 175, 262 countability/countable  68, 117–18, 121, 133, 142, 146, 148, 160, 162, 164–5, 169, 177, 231–3, 260, 264, 286–7 creoles/creolization 62–3 Dachsprache  39–40, 58 declension  1st Latin d.  14, 19–22, 56–7, 59, 93, 221 2nd Latin d.  13, 17, 21, 55, 57, 59, 114–15, 136–8, 142, 180, 220, 224–5, 238, 257, 313 3rd Latin d.  2, 17–18, 58–9, 273, 275–6, 313 4th Latin d.  18, 57, 59, 101, 180, 271 5th Latin d.  274 two-case  204–5, 218, 236 degemination  243, 245 deletion final consonant  93, 225, 239, 243 final unstressed non-low vowel 42, 52, 196, 208

demonstrative see adnominal modifier, pronoun distal  79–80, 281 medial 281 proximal  46, 80, 281, 287 derivation  82, 99, 103, 108, 120, 182, 212 derivational/derivative morphology  55, 83, 99, 103–4, 302 desemanticization (of gender)  263–4 diminutive  59, 86–7, 93, 98, 115, 131, 133, 175–6 diphthongization  43–4, 98, 141 disambiguation  298–300, 315 -e > - i change (in southern Italy, southern Corsica, and northern Sardinia)  42–5, 61, 67, 297–8, 302–3 elsewhere context  154, 162–3, 171, 183, 192–3, 259–60 ERP  4–5, 254–6 expletive subject pronoun  76–8 exponence  9, 307 double  303–6, 308 simple  303, 305–6 formal gender assignment see rule gemination/degemination  127, 216, 243, 245, 249–50 gender  alternating gender  48, 51, 54, 81, 83, 86–7, 89–91, 110–11, 129, 131, 139, 141–4, 153–4, 199–200, 216–17, 226–8, 232, 239–40, 246, 264, 266–9, 271–5, 277, 280–1, 283, 288 inquorate gender 82, 86–7, 119, 144, 156, 199, 246, 280, 295 linguistic gender  1, 6 natural gender  1 overt gender marking  10, 15, 17–18, 39, 59, 65, 92, 94, 98, 101–2, 118, 136–7, 160, 181, 183, 223, 226, 263, 285, 311–13 resolution  24–6, 37–8, 40, 53, 85, 90, 92, 104–5, 108, 119, 140, 153–4, 188–91, 223, 245–6 social gender  1 genderless language(s) 6–7, 26, 64, 301 gender system  binary gender system  12, 26, 29, 33–52, 58–9, 62–3, 66, 70–91, 113–14, 119, 141, 150, 152–3, 155, 161, 163, 166, 170, 175, 193, 203, 209, 214, 223, 230, 245, 247, 254, 268–9, 277, 282, 290–1, 296, 298, 302, 315

four-gender system  30–2, 102, 116–54, 212, 216, 236–56, 264, 275, 277, 280, 282–8, 295, 314 three-gender system  16, 23, 26, 29–30, 75–7, 80, 92–118, 147, 151–2, 161–4, 167, 179–80, 192–3, 212, 223, 247, 254, 290–1, 298, 310 generative grammar  106, 291 genus alternans  54, 93, 196, 225–30 grammar  1, 11–12, 23, 48, 51–2, 54, 63–4, 74, 83–7, 92–3, 96, 104, 108, 122, 145, 150, 152, 199, 205, 234, 254–5, 284, 290–1, 300, 306 homophony/homophonous  11, 17, 37, 41, 45, 48, 77, 79, 83, 90, 98, 102, 107–8, 142, 211, 240, 248 -i > -e change (in Lazio, Umbria, and the Marche)  49–52, 56 impersonal  construction  22, 78, 169 passive 21–2 inactive alignment see active alignment inanimate see animacy infinitive  147, 181, 190–1, 310 nominalized  137, 181, 190, 216 inflection  affixal  46, 57, 63, 290, 303, 305, 308 inflectional class  2, 10–13, 17–18, 26–7, 39, 46, 57, 59, 63, 66, 82–3, 94, 101, 118, 131, 136, 198, 212, 221, 226, 272, 281, 299 inflectional subclass  41, 93, 120, 146, 232, 272, 303 inquorate gender see gender isogloss  117, 128–9, 132, 134, 238, 248 La Spezia–Rimini (Carrara–Fano) line  52 LAN  4, 255 language acquisition  12, 203, 308 Latin grammarians  229 Latin metric see metric Latin orthography  230 Latin prosody  230 Latin–Romance transition  14, 52, 87, 212, 225, 228, 232, 282 lexicalization  19, 59, 67–70, 86, 127, 181, 205, 233, 243 linguistic typology see typology loanword  19, 57, 71, 98–9, 108–9, 122, 140, 143–4, 224, 238, 252, 277, 289, 294 mass nouns  80, 106–8, 122, 124, 126–7, 133, 145–9, 152, 160–3, 165, 171, 183, 186, 188,

Index of subjects

383

192–3, 231–2, 234–5, 249, 255, 258, 260–2, 265, 288, 294–5 mature feature(s)  8 metaphony  43–6, 58, 112–14, 120, 128, 141, 238, 251, 257, 265, 268, 303–5 metaphonic diphthongization  43–4 metaphonic raising  43, 139, 217, 224, 303 metaphoric extension  27, 84 metric 238 metrical elision  238 minimal pair  137, 181–2 model/replica see replica modifier  70, 162, 187, 202, 206 monophthongization 42 mature feature(s)  8 morpheme  30, 167, 243, 245 morphological paradigms  10, 14, 17–18, 20, 22, 26–7, 34, 41–3, 45, 51, 56–7, 71, 73, 83, 87, 95–7, 100, 104, 106, 112, 119, 149–50, 161–4, 167, 182, 186, 190, 199, 202, 204–5, 223–6, 237, 254, 267–8, 267, 290–1, 293, 295, 298, 303, 305, 308–9, 312–13 morphology  2, 10, 42, 56, 59, 63, 83, 86, 89, 91, 99–100, 102, 106, 108–9, 125, 136, 138, 169, 187, 195–6, 208–9, 217, 220, 223, 225, 232, 246, 259, 266, 288, 296, 300–3, 305–8 ‘morphology-free’ syntax principle  302–3, 308 N400  4–5, 254 names  animals  26–8, 50, 52–3, 56, 104, 142–3, 168, 231, 267, 285–9 body parts  71, 90, 114, 121, 233, 264 IE names for ‘fire’ and ‘water’  28 fruit  55–6, 71, 111, 114, 125, 213, 216 place  19, 77, 116, 169–70 proper  27, 53, 180 tree  55–6, 106 natural gender see gender neoneuter  117, 233 neurolinguistic evidence  3–5, 247, 253–6, 283 neuter  depletion of the  22, 114–15, 126–7, 230–6, 245, 264, 282 neutral alignment  231 neutral agreement  79, 170, 203–5, 225, 247, 294, 310 neutral pronominal form  79, 117, 203 neutralization of gender contrast  41–3, 45–6, 49, 71, 105, 130, 153–4, 173, 178, 186, 222, 248, 252–3, 298, 308 non-canonical agreement controller  see controller

384

Index of subjects

noun classification  172, 175 number 4, 9–10, 14, 16–17, 41–2, 47, 65, 69, 72, 74–5, 82, 85, 90, 102–4, 112–13, 143, 145, 163–5, 170–3, 175, 180–1, 183–6, 188, 191, 201, 205, 208, 210, 217, 245, 268, 271, 295, 297, 300, 302–3, 305, 307, 310–11, 313 numeral  compound numeral  71, 73, 75, 91, 209 gender-agreeing numeral ‘two’  42, 71, 73–5, 88, 93, 97, 128, 131, 175, 205, 208–10, 212, 217–18, 287, 292 opacity  98, 305 orthogonality  103, 161, 175, 177–80 orthographic norm  230 overabundance  109, 237 overdifferentiation 42, 71–6, 209, 218, 232, 290 P600  4, 255–6 pancake agreement  23–4, 77, 169–70, 192 parallel gender system/marking  34–43, 48–9, 51–2, 60–1, 156, 278, 296, 300, 304 participle  8, 11, 17, 34–5, 41, 47, 64, 76, 78–9, 93–4, 115, 118, 130, 135–8, 161, 164–6, 168, 170, 172, 174, 181–8, 201–2, 204–5, 210, 213, 218, 221–2, 241, 250, 257, 259, 263, 265, 302–3, 305, 307–8 passive  21–2, 28, 165, 170, 204, 308 perfective periphrastics  8, 135, 172, 202, 209, 305 periphrastic individualizer  75 polysyllabic nouns  96, 238, 276 position prenominal/postnominal  160–3, 166–71, 173, 181–2, 185, 187, 192–3, 250, 253, 259–60, 262, 314 prepausal/non–prepausal  115, 313 word-final 57 possessive  8, 41, 47, 91, 112, 173, 240 predicate  transitive  165, 184–5, 305, 307 unergative  165, 307 predicative  8, 22, 24–5, 53, 76–8, 94, 143, 160–1, 167, 181–3, 187–8, 190, 192, 203, 210, 213, 218, 240, 253, 260, 262, 271, 311 predictability  10, 56–7, 94, 99–100, 102, 118, 143, 175–7, 180, 182, 188, 226, 255, 288 process  13, 82, 86, 140–1, 208, 210, 218, 243, 245, 247 phonological 250 production  4, 11–12, 59, 116, 141 productivity  10, 12, 18, 20, 32, 54, 59, 65–6, 83–4, 86–7, 96, 99, 107, 109, 112, 114, 119,

122–3, 127, 129, 137, 140, 143–5, 147, 198, 212, 216, 219–21, 224, 246, 252–4, 264, 277, 280–1, 289, 301 pronominalization  22–4, 26, 37, 39, 77, 81, 127, 144, 167, 193, 207, 210, 261, 263, 302 pronoun  8, 23–4, 29, 35, 46–7, 64, 69, 77–80, 94, 122–3, 138, 143, 146–7, 160–1, 163, 166, 169, 173, 175, 188, 192, 196, 203–4, 222, 233, 236, 240, 258, 262, 276, 285, 287–8, 299 clitic  8, 41, 130, 253 demonstrative  31, 79–80, 117, 142–3, 253, 259, 261 distributive  85–6, 89–90, 115, 217, 246 indefinite  65, 115, 218 interrogative  64–5, 162 neuter  65, 79–81, 124, 133, 144, 171, 193, 219, 257 personal  8, 29, 31, 36, 41, 63, 113, 118, 143, 153, 175, 211, 224, 236, 253, 271, 287, 295, 297–8, 300, 315 reciprocal  85, 90, 115, 217, 246 relative  143, 217, 271 stressed  8, 130, 143, 153, 295, 297–8 pronunciation  238, 258 prosodic structure  238 prospective perspective  282 proto-language  12, 17, 26–8, 31, 42, 51, 74–5, 113, 141, 232, 234, 258, 303 proximality/distality  46, 79–80, 281, 287 psycholinguistic evidence  3–5 quantification  74–5, 91, 119, 139, 144, 153, 208–9, 215, 246, 252, 262, 271 quantifier  71, 75–6, 153 periphrastic 73–4 raddoppiamento fonosintattico  110, 122–3, 125–7, 132, 145, 151, 153, 216, 237, 241, 243–4, 248–50 recategorization  121–4, 126, 133, 137, 144, 147, 167, 179, 235, 238, 287 reconstruction  12, 15, 26–8, 32–3, 52, 62–3, 69, 92, 119, 138, 140, 155, 194–5, 197, 207, 218–19, 225, 236, 240–1, 256–8, 283–4, 313–14 replica  21, 297, 300–2, 308 representation, lexical  11 retrospective perspective  19–20, 198 RF see raddoppiamento fonosintattico Roma–Ancona line  117, 248, 277 roofing language see Dachsprache rule  6, 12, 15, 38–9, 52, 54, 56–7, 59, 64, 85, 90, 92, 103–5, 127, 131, 154, 169, 171–2, 179–91,



Index of subjects

385

218, 227, 235, 243, 245, 262, 287, 291, 302, 305–8 morphonological  71, 303 phonological gender assignment  57, 100, 285 semantic gender assignment  27–8, 38, 52, 54–6, 104, 106, 163, 182, 185–6, 193, 266, 270, 276, 288, 291 syntactic  27, 106, 170–1, 183–92, 245, 304, 306

synchrony  12, 16–17, 33, 47, 51–2, 54, 56, 62–6, 68, 71–6, 80–1, 97–8, 109, 113–18, 126, 141, 152, 172, 193, 210, 212, 215, 235, 249, 256, 262, 266, 295, 306, 314 syncretism  11, 17–18, 41, 46, 51, 54, 93, 128, 153, 192, 202, 216, 219, 223, 225–6, 237, 245, 252, 260, 268, 287 synonymous  14, 27, 51–2, 67, 202, 221, 231, 237, 285, 307

sandhi  71, 238, 296 semantic gender assignment see rule semantic nucleus (sex–based)  163, 179 semantic shrinking  84, 220 semanticization (of gender)  29, 265–9, 288, 295 ‘simple syntax’  171, 180, 183 simplification  51, 266, 291–2, 295, 300 sociolinguistics  84, 139, 245, 248, 252–3, 259 sound change see change speech community  150, 246, 253, 269 standard language  5, 12, 15, 32–5, 39–40, 43, 47–8, 50–1, 55, 58, 62, 67, 81, 83–90, 92, 110–11, 113–14, 117, 149, 155, 160–1, 164–5, 172, 177, 181–3, 192–4, 196, 198–200, 217–18, 220–1, 232, 234, 246–7, 253–4, 259–61, 268, 281–2, 299, 302, 311, 314 stress  42, 46, 52, 81, 95–8, 120, 125, 130, 132–3, 138–9, 141, 143, 153, 208, 224, 236, 238, 243, 248, 254, 259, 265, 268, 295, 297–8, 303, 305, 308, 310, 313 subnumber  164, 181, 186 substratum  86, 196–7, 243 suffix/suffixation 32, 52, 57, 68, 83, 86, 99, 103, 281 augmentative  86, 99 derivative  55, 83–4, 87, 103–4, 108, 182, 199, 212, 302 diminutive  86, 133 pejorative  55, 83, 103–4, 274, 302 s-vocalization 86

target gender  10–11, 30, 51, 67, 76, 110, 113, 117–18, 122, 140, 192, 203–4, 216, 218, 220, 223, 226, 230, 236, 240–1, 252, 254, 272, 282, 291, 310, 315 transition zone  296 transitional variety  116 transparency 59 tuscanization 48 typology  3, 30–2, 34, 62–3, 145, 160, 171, 173–80, 194, 231, 235, 283–9, 291, 299, 311 underspecification  12, 232 univerbation 187 variation  11, 15, 33, 52, 54, 62, 84, 170, 174, 202, 222, 226, 235, 314 dialect  16, 29, 44, 50, 61–3, 91, 104, 106, 126, 134, 139, 156, 166, 193, 211–12, 240, 253, 259, 278, 282, 284, 296 free  30, 44–5, 49–50, 63, 66, 84, 114, 138, 149, 153, 166, 175, 180, 192–3, 202, 207, 213, 215–16, 222, 228, 237, 239, 241, 253, 290, 299 sociolinguistic  84, 245–6, 252–3 voice  20–2, 28, 165, 170, 204, 308 vowel deletion see deletion vowel harmony  138–9, 314 vowel length  238 wh-forms 162