Nominal Apposition in Indo-European: Its Forms and Functions, and its Evolution in Latin-Romance 9783110461756, 9783110460162, 9783110460209

Citation preview

Brigitte L. M. Bauer Nominal Apposition in Indo-European

Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs

Editor Volker Gast Editorial Board Walter Bisang Jan Terje Faarlund Hans Henrich Hock Natalia Levshina Heiko Narrog Matthias Schlesewsky Amir Zeldes Niina Ning Zhang Editor responsible for this volume Hans Henrich Hock

Volume 303

Brigitte L. M. Bauer

Nominal Apposition in Indo-European Its Forms and Functions, and its Evolution in Latin-Romance

MOUTON

ISBN 978-3-11-046016-2 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-046175-6 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-046020-9 ISSN 1861-4302 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at: http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: jürgen ullrich typosatz, Nördlingen Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Dedicated to Paul L. C. Winkes

Table of Contents Preface

XIII

Abbreviations, Languages

XVII

Abbreviations, Linguistic Terms

XIX

Chapter 1 Introduction Defining nominal apposition and motivating its study 1 1.1 Defining the topic: what does nominal apposition in Indo-European entail? 5 1.2 Nominal apposition and hierarchy 17 1.3 Appositive accusatives and scelus viri ‘a scoundrel of a man’ 26 1.4 Organization of this study 29 Chapter 2 Nominal apposition and noun classification 34 2.1 Classification of nouns 35 2.1.1 Class systems: noun-class languages and gender languages 39 2.1.2 Classifier systems: classifier languages 42 2.1.3 Languages with measure and class terms 46 2.1.4 Classifier languages as opposed to languages with measure/class terms 47 2.2 Noun classification and semantic function 47 2.3 Noun classification and language system 52 2.4 Noun classification in the languages of the world: preliminary conclusions 54 2.5 Noun classification in Indo-European 55 2.5.1 Noun classification: gender 55 2.5.2 Noun classification: classificatory verbs 57 2.6 Conclusions: how does nominal apposition relate to noun classification? 59 Chapter 3 Earliest instances of nominal apposition in Indo-European 62 3.1 Language, culture, archaeology, and writing 63 3.2 Classifying nouns and early (Indo-European) writing systems 3.2.1 Script determinatives in Sumerian writing 67

65

VIII

3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.3

Table of Contents

Script determinatives and the Hittite writing system 74 Script determinatives and Linear B 80 Script determinatives in Sumerian, Hittite, and Mycenaean Script determinatives and nominal apposition in early IndoEuropean 88

Chapter 4 Nominal apposition in early Indo-European Functions and forms 90 4.1 Nominal apposition in Hittite 91 4.1.1 Appositive Noun + Noun combinations 92 4.1.2 Script determinatives in combination with a nominal element 97 4.1.2.1 Script determinatives in combination with a common noun 97 4.1.2.2 Script determinatives in combination with a nominalised adjective 98 4.1.3 Concluding remarks about Hittite 99 4.2 Nominal apposition in Sanskrit 99 4.2.1 Proper Noun + Common Noun 99 4.2.2 Common Noun + Common Noun 102 4.2.3 Proper Noun + Proper Noun & Common Noun + Common Noun 104 4.2.4 Quantitative expressions 105 4.2.5 Concluding remarks about Sanskrit 106 4.3 Nominal apposition in Greek 106 4.3.1 Mycenaean Greek 107 4.3.2 Post-Mycenaean Greek 109 4.3.2.1 Nominal apposition: Proper Noun + Common Noun 110 4.3.2.2 Nominal apposition: Common Noun + Common Noun 118 4.3.2.3 Quantitative expressions 123 4.3.2.4 Alternatives to nominal apposition 124 4.3.3 Concluding remarks about Greek 126 4.4 Nominal apposition in Germanic 127 4.4.1 Gothic 127 4.4.2 Old Norse 130 4.4.3 Old and Middle English 135 4.4.4 Old Saxon 138 4.4.5 Old High German 139 4.4.6 Concluding remarks about Germanic 144

86

Table of Contents

4.5 4.5.1 4.5.2 4.5.2.1 4.5.2.2 4.5.2.3 4.5.3 4.6 4.7 4.7.1 4.7.2 4.7.3 4.7.4

Nominal apposition in early Italic 145 Oscan and Umbrian 145 Early Latin 148 Early Latin: Plautus 149 Early Latin: Terence 154 Early Latin: Cato 157 Concluding remarks about Italic 159 Structural patterns in nominal apposition in Indo-European Conclusions: types of nominal apposition in Indo-European 166 Overview of results and findings 167 Characteristics of nominal apposition in early IndoEuropean 168 Nominal apposition, script determinatives, and noun classification 170 A diachronic perspective 171

IX

160

Chapter 5 Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance 174 5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance 175 5.1.1 Individual authors: Classical Latin 175 5.1.2 Individual authors: Vulgar and Late Latin 189 5.1.3 Individual authors: Old French 213 5.1.4 Occurrence of nominal apposition: a diachronic perspective 217 5.1.4.1 Occurrence, semantics fields, lexical and pragmatic motivation 217 5.1.4.2 Nominal apposition in Romance today 219 5.2 Nominal apposition and the semantic field of [RELIGION] 223 5.2.1 Etymology of Iupiter 224 5.2.2 Proper Noun + Proper Noun 226 5.2.3 Proper Noun + Common Noun 226 5.2.4 Common Noun + Common Noun 231 5.2.5 Christian times and concluding remarks 232 5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance 233 5.3.1 External agreement in nominal apposition 234 5.3.2 Internal agreement in nominal apposition 238 5.3.2.1 Genitive instead of nominal apposition 239 5.3.2.2 Spread of the nominative and phonetic identity 265 5.3.3 Nominal apposition and word order change 269 5.3.4 Nominal apposition and other changes 273

X

5.3.5 5.4

Table of Contents

Grammatical context in Latin-Romance: a diachronic perspective 281 Conclusions: the evolution of nominal apposition at phrase level 285

Chapter 6 Nominal apposition and word formation 288 6.1 Composition in Indo-European 291 6.1.1 Determinative compounds 294 6.1.1.1 Structural classification: dependent vs. descriptive determinatives 294 6.1.1.2 Referential differences: endocentric vs. exocentric compounds 300 6.1.2 Copulative compounds 301 6.1.3 Numerals 302 6.1.4 A third type of compound? Compounds based on apposition 304 6.2 Appositive compounds in Sanskrit 307 6.2.1 Dvandvas and “dvandvas” in Sanskrit 308 6.2.2 Other types of appositive compound in Sanskrit 313 6.3 Appositive compounds in Hittite 314 6.3.1 Dvandvas and additional compounds in Hittite 315 6.3.2 Type-of compounds in Hittite 318 6.3.3 Appositive compounds including script determinatives in Hittite 318 6.3.4 Conclusions: appositive compounds in Hittite 323 6.4 Appositive compounds in Greek 323 6.4.1 Dvandvas, additional compounds, and hybrids in Greek 323 6.4.2 Other appositive compounds in Greek 327 6.4.3 Conclusions: appositive compounds in Greek 328 6.5 Appositive compounds in Germanic 328 6.5.1 Dvandvas and hybrids in Germanic 329 6.5.2 Type-of compounds in Germanic 332 6.5.2.1 Type-of compounds specifying [AGE] and [SEX] 332 6.5.2.2 Type-of compounds conveying generic specification 334 6.5.2.3 Other type-of compounds 337 6.5.3 Conclusions: appositive compounds in Germanic 337 6.6 Appositive compounds in other Indo-European languages 338 6.6.1 Appositive compounds in Avestan, Old Persian, Slavic, Classical Armenian, and Albanian 338

Table of Contents

6.6.2 6.7 6.7.1 6.7.2 6.7.2.1 6.7.2.2 6.7.2.3 6.7.3 6.7.3.1 6.7.3.2 6.7.4 6.8

XI

Conclusions: appositive compounds in other Indo-European languages 341 Word formation on the basis of apposition in Latin-Romance 341 Compounding in Latin-Romance: general background 341 Appositive word formation in Latin 344 Elliptic plurals 345 Appositive compound word groups 347 Appositive compounds 353 Word formation processes based on apposition: Romance 356 Appositive compounds in Romance: hybrids and type-of compounds 356 Recent [Noun + Noun] combinations in Romance 364 Conclusions: appositive compounds in Latin-Romance 367 Conclusions: nominal apposition and word formation 368

Chapter 7 Conclusions The changing system of nominal apposition in Indo-European 372 7.1 Nominal apposition and noun classification 375 7.2 Nominal apposition and script determinatives 376 7.3 Nominal apposition in Indo-European and proper nouns 377 7.4 The evolution of nominal apposition in Indo-European 378 7.5 Nominal apposition, genitives, and adjectives 380 References Appendix Subject Index

382 397 401

Preface I first started investigating nominal apposition—the asyndetic combining of two equivalent nouns—when I was preparing a lecture that I was going to deliver at the University of Paris-Sorbonne. I then noticed that little research had been done on the topic both in Latin and in other Indo-European languages and that the identification and analysis of nominal apposition presented substantial lacunae, offering opportunities for further research. I also found that the phenomenon had such ramification that it warranted long-term comprehensive research resulting in a book rather than a few articles. Both from a synchronic and diachronic perspective nominal apposition indeed is an intriguing phenomenon in Indo-European, where it is an exceptional construction. The dearth of interest in the topic among scholars to date has obscured the richness of a structure that is manifest both in syntax and morphology and that shares structural and functional characteristics with noun classification systems elsewhere and with script determinatives in certain writing systems. Moreover, nominal apposition in Indo-European is closely intertwined with its culture, as amply illustrated in Roman religious terminology, for example. The structure and its underlying principles therefore are much more pervasive than may appear at first glance. This book presents a historical comparative analysis of nominal apposition, identifying its occurrence, functions, and grammatical characteristics in early Indo-European and tracing its historical development in Latin-Romance. This phylum of Indo-European provides a rather unique perspective on language evolution. On the one hand Latin is one of the best documented of early IndoEuropean languages, both in terms of types of text and spread in time. Combined with the (early) attestations of the Romance languages, these documents provide a rich source of data covering a exceptionally long period of time. On the other hand, that period of time also abounds in language change: while Latin grammar has many archaic features, the grammar of the Romance languages in many respects is remarkably modern. I wish to thank those who have helped me in one way or another to write this book. First I have had the privilege to hold a number of prestigious fellowships and grants that allowed me to carry out full-time research, among them several generous grants from the Salus Mundi Foundation (Tucson, AZ) as well as a number of research assignments and grants from the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Texas Graduate School. I finished the first version of this book just before leaving for a Visiting Fellowship at All Souls College Oxford, where I started a new research project. I am most obliged to the Warden and the Fellows of All Souls College for offering me an

DOI 10.1515/9783110461756-203

XIV

Preface

exceptional and enriching academic entourage, with its almost monastic rhythm of concentrated research, collective meals, and fascinating conversations. My Visiting Fellowship at All Souls allowed me to further reflect on my book and to talk about my findings with a number of experts who generously shared their ideas with me. I am indebted to many colleagues who offered their expertise when I consulted them, who sent me off-prints and references of relevant publications, or who invited me to their university to give a paper on my research. These scholars are James N. Adams (All Souls College, Oxford), David Birdsong (Univ. of Texas at Austin), Vit Bubenik (Memorial Univ. of Newfoundland), Gualtiero Calboli (Univ. of Bologna), Michèle Fruyt (Univ. de Paris-Sorbonne), John Hewson (Memorial Univ. of Newfoundland), Joanna Hitchcock (Univ. of Texas at Austin), Father Jo Janssen (Bergen, LB), Dieter Kastovsky (Univ. of Vienna), Sara Kimbal (Univ. of Texas at Austin), Adam Ledgeway (Univ. of Cambridge), Martin Maiden (Univ. of Oxford), Stelios Panayatakis (Univ. of Crete), Jaan Puhvel (UCLA), Denise Schmandt-Besserat (Univ. of Texas at Austin), Gunter Senft (Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen), Pieter Seuren (Max Planck for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen), Mehrak Shariat (Univ. of Texas at Austin), John Charles Smith (Univ. of Oxford), Karen Thomson (Outer Hebrides, SCT), Nigel Vincent (Univ. of Manchester), Martin West (All Souls College, Oxford), and my colleagues at the Linguistics Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin, especially Hans Boas and Todd Krause. I am also grateful to Mouton’s series Editor Hans Henrich Hock and the anonymous reviewers who read the entire manuscript and provided me with helpful and acute comments and suggestions. My gratitude also goes to the staff at Mouton de Gruyter, who have been—as always—very professional and most pleasant to work with. Finally, I wish to thank my husband Paul L.C. Winkes for his “all-inclusive” support. Linguistics is one of those academic fields that the “world at large” has some trouble identifying with. This topic warrants further discussion which I leave for another occasion, except for saying that it is always an enjoyment to meet non-linguists who have a natural understanding of the relevance of language and the science that studies it. One of those people is my husband. With his legal background he knows as no other the crucial role of language in the interpretation of law with all its intricacies. It is to him that I dedicate this book. BLMB, Summer 2015 The University of Texas at Austin

Preface

XV

While I am finalizing this manuscript for publication, I am enjoying the hospitality of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen: as a Research Fellow I have the pleasure of carrying out my research in a distinctly stimulating and co-operative academic environment. BLMB, Spring 2016 The University of Texas at Austin/ Max Planck Institut für Psycholinguistik, Nijmegen

Abbreviations, Languages Akk. Alb. Av. Be. Cat. Cher. Cl. Arm. Du. Engl. Fa. Flem. Fr. Gaul. Gk Gm. Gmc Go. Hi. Icel. It. La. LLa. Lith. MDu. ME MF MGk MHG MIcel. MoFr. Myc. NHG OCS OE OF OHG OLG ON OS Osc. Po. Prv. Roma. Ru.

Akkadian Albanian Avestan Bengali Catalan Cherokee Classical Armenian Dutch English Farsi Flemish French Gaulish Greek German Germanic Gothic Hittite Icelandic Italian Latin Late Latin Lithuanian Middle Dutch Middle English Middle French Modern Greek Middle High German Middle Icelandic Modern French Mycenaean New High German Old Church Slavonic Old English Old French Old High German Old Low German Old Norse Old Saxon Oscan Portuguese Provençal Romance Russian

DOI 10.1515/9783110461756-204

XVIII

Abbreviations, Languages

Rum. Skt Sp. Sum. Toch. A Toch. B Tosc. Umbr. VLa.

Rumanian Sanskrit Spanish Sumerian Tocharian A Tocharian B Toscan Umbrian Vulgar Latin

Abbreviations, Linguistic Terms 1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL ABL ACC ADJ ADV ANIM AOR ART CLF CN COMP DAT DECL DEF DEF.ART DIR.OBJ DU ENCL F GEN IMPER IMPF INAM INDECL INF INS LOC M N NE NOM NP OBJ OBL PART PF PF.PART PL PLUPF

first person singular second person singular third person singular first person plural second person plural third person plural ablative accusative adjective adverb animate aorist article classifier common noun comparative dative declension definite definite article direct object dual enclitic feminine genitive imperative imperfective inanimate indeclinable/undeclined infinitive instrumental locative masculine noun neuter nominative noun phrase object oblique participle perfective perfective participle plural pluperfect

DOI 10.1515/9783110461756-205

XX

PN PP P.PART P. PRON PREF PREP PRES PRES.PART PRET PRON PRT PST SG SUBJ SUBJU SUP V VOC VP

Abbreviations, Linguistic Terms

proper noun prepositional phrase past participle personal pronoun prefix preposition present present participle preterite pronoun particle past tense singular subject subjunctive superlative verb vocative verbal phrase

Chapter 1 Introduction Defining nominal apposition and motivating its study “Für eine eingehendere Vergleichung fehlen freilich genügende einzelsprachliche Behandlungen der Apposition. So mag genauere Untersuchung noch mehr zutage bringen als das wenige das hier folgt” (Schwyzer 1983 [1939]: 151)1 “Though apparently simple, apposition has not been satisfactorily handled in grammars or in grammatical theory” (Lehmann 1974: 86)

This book presents a comparative and diachronic analysis of nominal apposition in Indo-European, examining its occurrence and functions in the early daughter languages and its evolution in Latin-Romance. It will be shown that nominal apposition was a widespread construction that in origin combined two equivalent nouns on the basis of agreement (e. g. La. Galliam provinciam [Caes., B.G. 1.35.4]2 ‘Gaul [ACC] province [ACC]’ > ‘the province of Gaul’) and with time often came to develop into a structure with a clear hierarchy, featuring a genitive or prepositional phrase, cf. for example La. Galliae provinciam ‘Gaul (GEN) province (ACC)’ or Fr. la province de Gaule ‘the province of Gaul (GEN/PP)’. Grammars refer to this last type of structure as “appositive genitives”. In this book original nominal apposition in Indo-European will be analyzed as well as structures that in certain contexts came to replace it, such as appositive genitives. Moreover from early times, the combining of two equivalent nouns is attested at the level of word formation as well, in certain types of compounds (e. g. Skt mātárāpitárā ‘mothersDU – fathers-DU’ > ‘parents’). These formations also underwent a substantial development paralleling the evolution of nominal apposition in syntax. Nominal apposition therefore is a phenomenon manifest in both syntax and morphology and accordingly analysis in this book will focus on syntactic as well as morphological structures. Moreover, it will be shown that while in early times nominal  

 

1 Translation: “In the absence of sufficiently detailed language-specific analyses of apposition a more thorough comparison is not possible. A more detailed investigation may reveal more data than the limited evidence that follows here”. 2 The abbreviations used in reference to Latin authors and their works follow Lewis and Short’s Latin Dictionary rather than the Oxford Latin Dictionary, which covers a shorter period of time.

DOI 10.1515/9783110461756-001

2

Chapter 1: Introduction – Defining nominal apposition and motivating its study

apposition predominantly manifested itself at the syntactic level, it has increasingly become a morphological phenomenon. Since nominal apposition at its core is based on agreement of two equivalent nouns, it is an exceptional construction within Indo-European grammar, where structures—syntactic as well as morphological—typically are hierarchical: the verb governs its direct object, the preposition governs its noun, the head noun the genitive, and in inflected forms there is a hierarchical relation between the ending and the lexical element. In nominal apposition, by contrast, two nouns are grammatically equivalent and refer to the same person, object, or phenomenon. The construction in origin typically is asyndetic and there is no overt marker expressing the co-dependence of the nouns. There is, however, formal case agreement between the two components, cf. Galliam provinciam (Caes., B. G. 1.35.4) ‘the province (ACC) Gaul (ACC)’ > ‘the province of Gaul’. While case agreement is a distinctive grammatical characteristic of nominal apposition, number agreement is inherently common as well, but it is not mandatory, as the following example illustrates: urbem Syracusas acciperet (Cic., Verr. 2.5.26.6; also: e. g. 2.2.4.5; Livy 26.32.8.4) ‘(that) he accepted the town (ACC-SG) of Syracuse (ACC-PL)’. In this study I will demonstrate that nominal apposition shows important parallels with classification phenomena in certain non-Indo-European languages and with script determinatives3 in early writing systems. Subsequently, comparative analysis of data from the daughter languages will determine the functions and structural parallels of nominal apposition as manifest in early Indo-European syntax and word formation processes, whereas diachronic analysis of LatinRomance evidence will show not only that appositive syntactic and morphological structures changed dramatically over time, but that the evolution of nominal apposition is at a cross-roads of major linguistic changes as well, such as case loss, word order change, and others. Since nominal apposition so far has never been studied in depth within or outside Indo-European (see more below), we do not know how widespread a phenomenon it is, nor what its characteristics are elsewhere. Hopefully one of the outcomes of this book will be an increased interest in this topic among specialists in languages other than Indo-European. Despite scanty research we know, however, that nominal apposition is not exclusive nor specific to the Indo-European language family. The development of nominal apposition in Indo-European, however, fits the evolution of Indo-European grammar as will become clear in this book.  

 

3 Script determinatives are elements used in certain writing systems (e. g. Hittite and Mycenaean) to classify the nouns with which they combine (see also Chapter 3). Chapter 6 will discuss their functioning in certain word formation processes.  

Chapter 1: Introduction – Defining nominal apposition and motivating its study

3

Study of nominal apposition is motivated by a series of observations: (1) the widespread occurrence of the structure in (early) Indo-European—at two distinct linguistic levels, syntax and morphology; (2) its exceptional character, combining two equivalent nouns within a language system that is based on structural hierarchy; (3) its classifying function; (4) its structural parallels with classifying systems elsewhere; (5) its extended and well-documented development; and (6) the dearth of linguistic analysis. Nominal apposition traditionally has received little attention, which is reflected in the existing literature on the topic: there are no comprehensive analyses of the underlying structure, of types of nominal apposition across the individual languages within and outside the Indo-European language family, let alone its diachronic development. The topic has been touched upon in isolated articles by major linguists, who did not fail to stress that further extensive research into the phenomenon was called for. Schwyzer for example, whose 1939 article “Zur Apposition” continues to be the leading publication to date, argues that “für eine eingehendere Vergleichung fehlen freilich genügende einzelsprachliche Behandlungen der Apposition. So mag genauere Untersuchung noch mehr zutage bringen als das wenige das hier folgt” (Schwyzer 1983 [1939]: 151). Yet so far nominal apposition has been neglected for reasons that remain unclear. It is obvious, however, that the topic is rather elusive, partly because the definition and identification of nominal apposition traditionally have not been properly addressed and therefore the phenomena that it is said to cover may in fact be rather diverse. Many studies fail to make the fundamental distinction, for example, between nominal and group apposition (see below), which directly affects the analysis. Another complicating factor in the analysis of nominal apposition is the availability of data, which need to be unearthed in the various languages—often with some perseverance—where for other topics a mere glance at grammars or handbooks would already be instructive. The lack of readily available data is acknowledged by Greenberg in the early 1960s in his brief overview of the phenomenon: “my data here are incomplete because grammars often make no statement on the subject” (1963: 70). Lehmann’s observation therefore in essence cuts to the core: “though apparently simple, apposition has not been satisfactorily handled in grammars or in grammatical theory” (Lehmann 1974: 86). Other factors at play may be the complexity of the development that the construction underwent or the fact that nominal apposition turns out to be at a cross-roads not only of syntax, morphology, and linguistic evolution, but also of linguistics and religion or cultural studies. Moreover, studies that have been carried out typically focus on the synchronic formal characteristics of nominal apposition (e. g. Haugen 1953; Hocket 1955;  

4

Chapter 1: Introduction – Defining nominal apposition and motivating its study

Dessaintes 1966 to mention a few). An exception to this trend is the recent study by Hackstein (2010), which after a brief overview of syntactic examples in IndoEuropean, focuses on one aspect of its historical development as manifest in certain Eastern Indo-European languages, i. e. the shift of certain “appositional syntagms into true classifier systems . . .[in] all Modern Indo-Aryan languages such as Bengali and particularly Assamese” (2010: 9; see more below). Until now studies have been short with Schwyzer’s (1983 [1939]) article e. g. counting 13 pages or Hackstein’s (2010) analysis not exceeding 70 pages, but they set the stage for further research. Schwyzer (1983) discusses nominal and group apposition and within nominal apposition concentrates on titles, geographic indications and partitive apposition referring to quantity, providing examples from a variety of early Indo-European languages. Not uncommon in early publications, Schwyzer’s analysis subsequently focuses on how to account for apposition, referring to processes of deletion and parenthesis and establishing a link with early Indo-European poetry, in which “Wiederaufnahme” (repetition) played a major role. While these “reconstructions” are rather speculative, the link Schwyzer establishes between nominal apposition and cultural history is more convincing, in reference e. g. to the usage of titles, which is determined by a complex set of rules rooted in the history of the related civilization (Schwyzer 1983: 151–153). The aim of Hackstein’s (2010) analysis—tracing the origin of classifiers in a number of Indo-Aryan languages—defines its scope. First, he focuses exclusively on one type of nominal apposition, i. e. syntactic structures including a specific and a “generic” noun, which he identifies as the origin of classifiers in IndoAryan. Second, Hackstein’s attempt at reconstructing the development of said classifiers determines his choice of instances—from a variety of Indo-European languages—but also his analysis of their structure both in terms of word order and underlying linguistic structure. Schwyzer’s and Hackstein’s publications are distinctive in that they present an analysis of (nominal) apposition that zeroes in on Indo-European. The brief summary of their studies above shows that while discussing “nominal apposition”, Schwyzer (1939 [1983]) and Hackstein (2010) in fact present studies that are rather limited in scope as dictated by their aims. Yet from a broader perspective both studies also open a topic of investigation, providing a background to further research and helping to identify lacunae and additional alleys of investigation. What is missing indeed needs to be addressed: examination of nominal apposition as a process in its own right, systematic (comparative) analysis of types of nominal apposition as manifest in both syntax and morphology (compounds), and detailed investigation into their diachronic development, with focus on occurrence, semantics, grammatical characteristics, and alternative structures.  

 

 

 

 

 

5

1.1 Defining the topic: what does nominal apposition in Indo-European entail?

Addressing the lack of consistent and comprehensive analysis, this book aims to examine nominal apposition in Indo-European from a synchronic, comparative, and diachronic perspective, including the two levels of grammar where it is manifest, and assessing function and form. On the basis of a large corpus of comparative and historical data, the book will establish the classifying function of nominal apposition in Indo-European, its parallels with classifying systems and script determinatives, patterns in occurrence and functions, and its historical development in Latin-Romance. Questions that will be addressed include, for example: in what way is nominal apposition different from other structures in Indo-European? What are its characteristics in the early daughter languages? What functions did it have? How did nominal apposition develop in Latin-Romance? Are there parallels elsewhere? How do the changes in syntax and morphology relate? And how does the evolution of nominal apposition tie in with other linguistic changes? Since there is substantial terminological confusion in the literature, I will first define the topic of nominal apposition, providing a brief overview of the types of structure involved—both in syntax and morphology—and pointing out parallels with other phenomena (Section 1.1). Subsequently I will discuss the relation between the two composing elements of nominal apposition, addressing questions such as: “are appositive constructions hierarchical?” and “if so, what is the head?” (Section 1.2). In Section 1.3, I will briefly discuss two types of structure that are often identified as nominal apposition, but in fact are rather different and therefore are not part of this study. Finally, the last section of this chapter will present the organization of the book (Section 1.4).

1.1 Defining the topic: what does nominal apposition in Indo-European entail? Earlier (2008) I have referred to nominal apposition in a working definition as the combining in one noun phrase of two nouns “that are each other’s syntactic equivalent and that refer to the same person, object, or phenomenon. There are no formal markers expressing their dependency and therefore these constructions typically are asyndetic. Yet the elements in question are in formal agreement, . . .” (Bauer 2008: 43). In the first section of this chapter, I will provide a more precise definition on the basis of the examples of apposition found in the various languages. In the handbooks, grammars, and linguistic analyses the term apposition covers a wide scope of diverse phenomena. In line with its etymology (< La. apponere [< ad + ponere] ‘place next to’), apposition refers to a phenomenon whereby an element is placed close or in juxtaposition to an equivalent element, cf.  

 

Chapter 1: Introduction – Defining nominal apposition and motivating its study

6

(1)

a. b. c. d. e.

Engl. Engl. Gm. Gm. Gm.

the lion, king of the jungle . . . Lord Mountbatten Kaiser Wilhelm I ein Glas Wein die Stadt Wien  

 

In these instances king of the jungle, Mountbatten, Wilhelm I, Wein, and Wien have been added to the lion, Lord, Kaiser, ein Glas, and die Stadt respectively. In the literature there is no consensus as to what apposition is. Some consider all nouns that agree with each other instances of apposition (Lawrenz 1993: 8; Zemb 1968). For Duden (1995: 637) agreement and the absence of a binding element are prevailing criteria. Brugmann (1925) speaks of nominal apposition when there is case agreement: “die Substantiven [stehen] in gleichen Kasus” (1925: 97). For Grevisse apposition—in the broad sense—is the combining of two nouns, one of which has a relation with the other “qu’a un attribut avec son sujet, mais sans copule” (Grevisse 1993: 516). Certain attempts at defining appositive structures reflect a tendency to adopt a broad definition of apposition: in fact, a single definition is being sought for what I consider a variety of structures (e. g. Sopher 1971; Helbig 1973). Others refer to apposition in terms of a heterogeneous phenomenon (e. g. Lawrenz 1993; Bogacki 1973). There are grosso modo two types of apposition, so-called “explicative” or “group apposition” and “nominal apposition” (also called “close apposition”), which is the topic of this book. Whereas “nominal apposition” involves two nouns, “explicative” or “group apposition” refers to the combining of two segments in a sentence that have the same grammatical function and refer to the same referent. The two segments may differ in grammatical category and one of the two segments is separated from the rest of the clause by a phonological pause or may be marked by word order variation. The appositive element may be a noun, a pronoun, an infinitive, or a noun phrase, as the following examples from French illustrate:  

 

(2)

(3)

[GROUP APPOSITION: APPOSITIVE ELEMENT IS A NOUN PHRASE] a. travailler, grand devoir, est aussi une joie ‘work, an important duty, is also a source of joy’ b. le lion, le tueur des forêts ‘the lion, the killer of the forest’ c. moi, le chef de la tribu ‘I, the leader of the clan’ [GROUP APPOSITION: APPOSITIVE ELEMENT IS A PRONOUN] le chef de la tribu, moi, est parti ‘I, the leader of the clan, have left’

1.1 Defining the topic: what does nominal apposition in Indo-European entail?

(4)

(5)

7

[GROUP APPOSITION: APPOSITIVE ELEMENT IS AN INFINITIVE] il ne désire qu’une chose, dormir’ ‘he has only one wish, to sleep’ [GROUP APPOSITION: APPOSITIVE ELEMENT IS A CLAUSE] je n’ai qu’un désir: que vous soyez heureux ‘I have only one wish: that you be happy’ (Examples from Grevisse 1993: 515–525)

In contrast to group apposition, nominal (or attributive) apposition involves only two nouns, which inherently are of the same grammatical category. The two nouns —in principle—are one another’s grammatical equivalents in that they feature the same case: they have the same syntactic function in a given context. This however does not mean that between them they are one another’s precise equivalent as will become clear below. The two nouns together refer to one person, object, or phenomenon. One cannot say that the nouns are characterized by “reference identity” (e. g. Lawrenz 1993: 6), because if the two nouns in the noun phrase President Washington e. g. refer to one and the same person, president could refer to any president whereas Washington could refer to any member of that family. Both elements in President Washington could refer individually to ‘President Washington’, president as well as Washington. Brugmann (1925: 97–107) for whom apposition primarily has clarifying function, defines both types of apposition as “attributive” vs. “explicative”. Explicative apposition in his view explains or specifies the status of the noun in question (similar to an explicative relative clause), whereas an attributive appositive element qualifies and identifies. It is important to note another criterion in his analysis: apposition does not bring up a new topic (1925: 97), which is in line with its explaining or qualifying function. Some linguists argue that there is a third—distinct—type of apposition, socalled partitive apposition, as in La. farinam libras iiii ‘four pounds (ACC) of flour (ACC)’, which features nominal apposition, or Engl. a pound of sugar, which features a genitive that takes the form of a prepositional phrase. This construction therefore often is discussed in the section about “the genitive” rather than “apposition” (e. g. Ernout and Thomas 1964 [1951]: 46-48). In instances of this type, a quantity noun combines with a noun referring to a product or a material, etc. Yet there are reasons to include this type of structure in the study of nominal apposition, and it will become clear how these structures relate to instances of nominal apposition. The function of the appositive element—whether in group or nominal apposition—is to specify or identify a quality in a person, object, or phenomenon, or to reinforce the noun in question. The noun in apposition functions as an epithet.  

 

 

Chapter 1: Introduction – Defining nominal apposition and motivating its study

8

Group and nominal apposition tend to be discussed in the same section in the grammars or handbooks, suggesting that they are similar. They definitely are not, however, and it is important to underscore their differences. While there is a phonological pause between the appositive element and the rest of the clause in group apposition, there is no such pause in nominal apposition. This characteristic of group apposition shows the relative independency of the appositive element in these constructions as opposed to what is found in nominal apposition. The relative autonomy may also account for the variety in the grammatical category of elements involved in group apposition (nouns, pronouns, noun phrases, clauses, and so forth). This book exclusively examines nominal apposition in Indo-European and its development in Latin-Romance, forgoing group apposition. Focus will therefore be on combinations of two equivalent nouns, conveying one person, object, or phenomenon. Other distinctive features are absence of a binding element and where relevant case agreement (cf. Brugmann 1925). These combinations are found both in syntax—in noun phrases—and morphology—in compounds. In syntax the following instances are attested, for example: Table I: Examples of Nominal Apposition. [SYNTAX] Gk La. Skt La. Gm. La. La. OS

Ἀπόλλωνι ἄνακτι Mars pater, Iupiter(4) díyauṣ pítaḥ urbs Roma die Stadt Wien mensis November Garumna flumine an Jordana strôme (Hel. 12.965)

‘to the ruler (DAT) Apollo (DAT)’ ‘father (NOM) Mars (NOM)’, ‘Iupiter’ ‘Sky (VOC) father (VOC)’ > ‘father Sky’ ‘the city (NOM) of Rome (NOM)’ ‘the city (NOM) of Vienna (NOM)’ ‘month (NOM) of November (NOM)’ ‘the river (ABL) Garonne (ABL)’ ‘on Jordan (DAT) river (DAT)’

(For more examples, see Chapters 4 and 5, with textual references)

In these instances the two nouns are in asyndetic juxtaposition and in inflected languages they have the same grammatical case form. Similarly structures of quantification may feature asyndetic juxtaposition and case agreement as well:

4 Iupiter, lit. ‘sky father’, is the result of the combining of iov- ‘sky’+ pater ‘father’. See Sections 4.2.1, 4.5.1, and 5.2.1 for further analysis.

1.1 Defining the topic: what does nominal apposition in Indo-European entail?

9

Table Ia: Examples of Nominal Apposition. [SYNTAX – QUANTIFICATION] La. Gm.

‘four pounds (ACC) of flour (ACC)’ ‘a glass (NOM) of beer (NOM)’

farinam libras iiii ein Glas Bier

(For more examples, see Chapters 4 and 5, with textual references)

In addition to syntactic structures, nominal apposition—the combining of two equivalent nouns—also underlies certain word formation processes, as the following instances of compounding illustrate: Table II: Examples of Nominal Apposition. [MORPHOLOGY] Hi.

hannas-huhhas

Skt Gm. Gk La. OHG OE Du. Du. Engl. Fr. Fr. Gm. It. Fr.

mātárāpitárā Dichter-Komponist νυχτὴμερον ususfructus kerseberi werewulf muildier koebeest girlfriend animaux-plantes chef-lieu Apfelbaum guerra lampo train-éclair

‘grandmothers-GEN-grandfathers-GEN’ > ‘ancestors’ ‘mothers-DU.fathers-DU’5 > ‘parents’ ‘poet-composer’ > ‘poet-composer’ ‘night-day’ > ‘period of 24h.’ ‘use-fruit’ > ‘usufruct’ ‘cherry-berry’ > ‘cherry’ ‘man-wolf’ > ‘werewolf’ ‘mule-animal’ > ‘mule’ ‘cow-animal’ > ‘cow’ ‘animals-plants’ > ‘plant-like animals’ ‘head-town’ > ‘capital’ ‘apple-tree’ > ‘apple tree‘ ‘war-lightning’ > ‘lightning war/very short war’ ‘train-lightning’ > ‘bullet train’

(See Chapter 6 for more examples)

Instances in Table II, like those in Table I include two nouns and convey one referent, identifying two aspects in that referent. The precise relation between the two nouns may vary, from defining (La. urbs Roma) and partitive (La. farinam libras iiii ‘four pounds of flour’) to metonymic (Du. koebeest ‘cow[-animal]’),

5 The status of this form will be discussed in detail in Section 6.2.1. For reasons of convenience the compound will be glossed as ‘mothers-fathers’.

Chapter 1: Introduction – Defining nominal apposition and motivating its study

10

metaphoric (Fr. train-éclair ‘bullet train’), and others. Since the compounds presented above are characterized by the combining of two nouns in apposition, I call them appositive compounds. Although there are no external markers, these formations as well have changed dramatically over time. While detailed analysis will follow in Chapter 6, the next few compounds need further clarification at this stage already, underscoring the necessity of an analysis in terms of nominal apposition, cf. (6)

a.

Hi.

b.

Skt

c.

MHG

hannas-huhhas (KUB VII 10 I 9–10) grandmothers-GEN – grandfathers-GEN ‘of grandparents/ancestors’ mātárāpitárā (RV 4.6.7b)6 mother-DU – father-DU ‘parents’ walfisch whale-fish ‘whale’

Each of these three instances combines two nouns that are closely connected, the structures are asyndetic and show agreement (for details, see Chapter 6). Yet, despite being appositive, all structures under (6) are not identical. One may argue that the last example (6c) MHG walfisch is different from the instances under (6a) and (6b). The two nouns ‘whale’ and ‘fish’ convey one, unique, referent: a whale is a type of fish. In that respect Walfisch, in which fisch specifies wal, parallels syntactic examples such as Queen Elisabeth. For the so-called dvandva compounds in examples (6a) and (6b) one may submit on the one hand that the composing elements—even if they agree in case —each refer to a distinct referent. Yet it is important to emphasize that the two notions together convey one (new) concept, that of ‘parents’ and ‘grandparents’ or ‘ancestors’ respectively and that the inherent semantic value of each element plays a decisive role in the underlying process, as will become clear in greater detail in Chapter 6. These formations referring to a distinct entity therefore are not merely asyndetic combinations. Compounds of the type Skt mātárāpitárā convey characteristics that show a strong connection similar to those found in dvandvas that include names of deities, such as Skt mitrváruṇā (RV 1.35.1b) ‘Mitra-DUVaruṇa-DU’ > ‘Mitra (and) Varuṇa’. As I will show in the relevant chapters, in these instances as well the referents form a closely connected entity which is further emphasized by the dual (Chapters 4 and 6). These special characteristics of dvandvas, the agreement in case, and their development—which parallels that

6 Examples from the Rig Veda follow the edition of Nooten and Holland (1994).

1.1 Defining the topic: what does nominal apposition in Indo-European entail?

11

of syntactic phrases—warrant their inclusion in this study. It should be noted from the outset, however, that the term dvandva is rather loosely used in the grammars and handbooks, including a variety of distinct appositive compounds that will be further discussed in Chapter 6. I will use the term dvandva in the restricted meaning. In this context it is important to acknowledge the (potential) difference between formations such as Skt mātárāpitárā (RV 4.6.7b; which Delbrück on the basis of numerical reference qualifies as “juxtaposition”) and formations such as Du. koebeest ‘cow(-animal)’, MHG walfisch ‘whale(-fish)’, and La. Garumna flumine (which Delbrück qualifies as “apposition” [1900: 181–182]) respectively. Yet it will become increasingly clear in this study that both types of construction not only are characterized by agreement, but that they share strong structural and historical parallels as well. Taken at face value, quantitative expressions seem to hold a special position among instances of nominal apposition: one may argue that the two components in Gm. ein Glas Wein e. g. refer to two distinct referents. It differs from Queen Beatrix, for example, where queen and Beatrix convey the same referent. Yet to be more precise, one should say that queen and Beatrix refer to two aspects of the same referent. Similarly, Gm. ein Glas Wein as well refers to a referent specifying two aspects of it: the quantity and the produce. In a way similar to queen specifying the proper noun, Glas specifies the noun Wein. Wein also refers to the wine that exists outside the glass, hence the term partitive apposition that some scholars prefer to use. Similarly, people other than the queen of the Netherlands are called Beatrix as well. Consequently expressions of [QUANTIFICATION] are not merely instances of “juxtaposition” (“zwei . . . Dinge [werden] vorgestellt”; Delbrück 1900: 181), but rather of “apposition”: “nur ein Ding [wird] vorgestellt welches durch ein Substantiv benannt, durch ein anderes oder andere aber näher bestimmt wird” (Delbrück 1900: 181). Quantitative expressions may differ from other instances of nominal apposition, however, in that they may include an adjective. While adjectives combine with nominal apposition in its entirety, a quantitative expression may include an adjective that specifies part of it, cf.  

 

Engl. Engl.

 

(7)

a. b.

the intelligent Queen Beatrix *Queen intelligent Beatrix

(8)

Gm. Eine Tasse schwarzer Kaffee wird dir gut tun (Duden 1995: 717) ‘a (NOM) cup of black (NOM) coffee will do you good’

But:

Chapter 1: Introduction – Defining nominal apposition and motivating its study

12

It is especially with adjectives that the appositive character of expressions such as ein Glas Wein in today’s German becomes manifest, cf. the following examples from Duden (1995: 717), in which the two nouns—one conveying quantity and the other referring to the product—feature case agreement: (9)

a.

[NOMINATIVE] Gm. Eine Tasse schwarzer Kaffee wird dir gut tun ‘a (NOM) cup (NOM) of black (NOM) coffee will do you good’ b. [GENITIVE] Gm. Der Genuß einer Tasse schwarzen Kaffees macht dich … ‘the pleasure (NOM) of a (GEN) cup of black (GEN) coffee (GEN) makes you …’ c. [DATIVE] Gm. Mit einer Tasse schwarzem Kaffee wird dir bald … ‘with a (DAT) cup of black (DAT) coffee you will soon …’ d. [ACCUSATIVE] Gm. Ich schenke dir eine Tasse schwarzen Kaffee ein ‘I pour you a (ACC) cup of black (ACC) coffee’ (Examples from Duden 1995: 717)

In the plural there is some variation, with the nominative or genitive prevailing over case agreement (see more in Chapter 5). The structural similarities between quantitative expressions and nominal apposition in combination with their parallel evolution—as will become clear—further underscore the importance of including these structures in this study. Comparative analysis of nominal apposition in the early daughter languages will demonstrate that the structure at the syntactic level typically occurs in certain contexts in Indo-European: (1) most prominently in constructions in which a proper noun combines with a common noun: the common noun then specifies the semantic characteristics of the proper noun. Preliminary research has shown (Bauer 2008, 2012a) that nominal apposition typically occurs in the fields of [RELIGION], [KINSHIP], [SOCIAL STATUS], [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE], [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], and [OTHER, TIME]; (2) in contexts of quantification in which a noun of quantity combines with a noun conveying a product or material; and (3) in a few other contexts. Nominal apposition in Indo-European at its core therefore had classifying function and is an integrating part of noun classification. Consequently in a typological overview in Chapter 2, I will relate nominal apposition to noun classification in general, discussing the different types of classification that are found in language in general and the position of IndoEuropean. While on the one hand nominal apposition in Indo-European shows strong semantic and structural similarities with phenomena of noun classification in

1.1 Defining the topic: what does nominal apposition in Indo-European entail?

13

other languages, on the other hand, certain phenomena of noun classification in Indo-European are conveyed by nominal apposition, as the formation of female occupational terminology in certain modern Indo-European languages illustrates: equivalent nouns are in apposition, as in It. la donna medico or Fr. la femme médecin ‘the-F woman-F doctor-M’ > ‘woman doctor’, and so forth. Moreover, the widespread pattern [Proper Noun + Common Noun] (see the examples in Table I) parallels a phenomenon that strictly speaking is perhaps not linguistic, but language-related: script determinatives. The earliest documented Indo-European languages—Hittite and Mycenaean—come to us in a script that includes so-called script determinatives. Script determinatives originally were ideograms used in pictographic scripts to disambiguate ambivalent pictographs, specifying their semantic class. In Sumerian, for example, the same sign could mean ‘plough’ and ‘ploughman’. The combining of the ideogram with the script determinative [WOOD] would refer to ‘plough’, whereas the combination of that same ideogram with the script determinative [MAN] would convey ‘ploughman’ (Jestin 1994). In line with their historical origin, script determinatives in Hittite and Mycenaean texts specify the semantic class of the noun to which they are placed in juxtaposition, cf. (10)

(11)

Ha-as-su-wa (Procl. 9/16)7 [TOWN]-Hassuwas ‘town of Hassuwas’ Myc. me-re-ti-ri-ja WOMAN corn.grinder-NOM-PL-F [WOMAN] ‘seven woman corn-grinders’ Hi.

URU

7 (Aa 01) seven

In these examples URU and WOMAN render script determinatives that convey ‘town’ (hence [TOWN] in the gloss) and ‘woman’ ([WOMAN] in the gloss) respectively. Analysis of the use and functions of script determinatives in Hittite and Mycenaean will reveal parallels with nominal apposition in Indo-European, showing that the principles underlying nominal apposition were more widespread than traditionally has been assumed. The discussion in this book about the functional and structural characteristics of nominal apposition in early Indo-European is based on comparative analysis and internal reconstruction involving several early daughter languages. The analysis of the diachronic development of nominal apposition on the other hand, focuses on Latin-Romance. In order to provide a general idea about the evolution that took place, Table III shows that instances of nominal apposition

7 In transcription script determinatives are rendered in capitals, in superscript.

14

Chapter 1: Introduction – Defining nominal apposition and motivating its study

may have a modern counterpart that, for example, is not (or no longer) based on grammatical equivalence, is no longer asyndetic, or features a different ordering pattern (hence the use of ‘vs.’). Evidence presented in this book will demonstrate that the instances on the left are early, whereas the constructions on the right are much later and are the result of change. Table III: Diachronic Change in Nominal Apposition. (1) Gk La.

La. La.

Gm. La. La. OS Gm. Gm. La.

(2) Ἀπόλλωνι ἄνακτι Apollo-DAT ruler-DAT Mars pater ‘father Mars’ Mars-NOM father-NOM Iupiter urbs Roma city-NOM Rome-NOM urbs Patavium town-NOM Padua-NOM

die Stadt Wien the town-NOM Vienna-NOM mensis November month-NOM November-NOM Garumna flumine Garonne-ABL river-ABL an Jordana strôme on Jordan-DAT river-DAT Maasstraße Adenauerallee farinam libras iiii ‘4 pounds-ACC flour-ACC’

vs.

Eng. to the ruler Apollo

vs.

Eng. God the Father

vs. vs.

Eng. mother Nature It. la città di Roma ‘city of Rome’ VLa. urbem Patavii town-ACC Padua-GEN Fr. la ville de Padoue ‘town of Padua‘ Fr. la ville de Vienne Engl. the city of London Fr. le mois de novembre Engl. month of November Fr. le fleuve de Somme Fr. le fleuve Congo Fr. le fleuve du Rhône

vs.

vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs.

La.. Hi.

vs. oleum ... cocliar oil-NOM spoon-NOM. haz(z)ilas memal vs. double.fistful-NOM flour-NOM  

Fr. rue de la Marne It. passeggiata Adenauer Fr. rue Louis Pasteur VLa. piperis grana L. ‘50 grains of pepper’ Fr. une livre de viande ‘a pound of meat’ Fr. un verre de vin Engl. a glass of wine Engl. double fistful of flour

From a diachronic perspective instances like (a) La. Patavium urbs or urbs Roma vs. It. la città di Roma, (b) La. Garumna flumen vs. Fr. le fleuve (du) Rhône (Grevisse 1993: 518; Grevisse and Goosse 2008), or (c) Engl. lake Austin vs. the city of London reflect different stages of development. The examples urbs Patavium, urbs Patavii,

1.1 Defining the topic: what does nominal apposition in Indo-European entail?

15

and Fr. la ville de Padoue reflect an essential evolution by which nominal apposition (urbs Patavium) came to be replaced by a genitive construction (urbs Patavii) —the appositive genitive—which in Romance eventually takes the form of a prepositional phrase (Fr. la ville de Padoue). One may argue that these structures all are appositive, yet it is important to emphasise that they are not structurally identical: urbs Patavium is an example of nominal apposition, whereas urbs Patavii is an appositive genitive, which may take the form of a prepositional phrase (e. g. Fr. la ville de Padoue). The historical, even genetic, relation between these structures calls for their inclusion in this study. Note that several of the English examples feature the element of, which has no equivalent in the German constructions: Engl. the city of London vs. Gm. die Stadt Wien. In these instances of is a connecting element, empty of meaning and by some considered to be expletive, having no value of its own. Its characteristics and those of its equivalents in Romance (e. g. Fr. de, It. di) will be discussed in greater detail (see below and Chapters 5 and 7). Data from Latin-Romance will show that the actual absence or presence of linking elements (as in: Fr. rue Louis Pasteur vs. Fr. rue de la Marne) represents different historical layers. In addition, the examples in Table III show that where the asyndetic structure survives today, it may feature a different ordering (Gm. Adernauerallee vs. Fr. rue Louis Pasteur) or the insertion of a definite article (e. g. La. Mars pater vs. Engl. God the Father). These few comments already show that the development of nominal apposition ties in with major language changes in Indo-European: case loss, change of word order, emergence of definite articles, and spreading of hypotaxis or dependency. These aspects will be examined in detail in the evolution in Latin-Romance (Chapter 5). On the basis of the examples provided in the preceding paragraphs, the working definition of nominal apposition put forth at the beginning of this chapter needs further refining, taking into account the diachronic development that affected this type of structure. Nominal apposition in Indo-European entails the combining of two nouns that refer to (two aspects of) the same person, object, or phenomenon. The nouns in origin are each other’s grammatical equivalent and there are no markers expressing their co-dependence. The elements in question are in formal agreement of case (and inherently number). In later times the two nouns continue to convey a unique referent, but a dependency relation may develop. While many structures typically remain asyndetic, several may come to include a connector, which may take the form of a genitive case, a preposition, and/or an empty element, cf. La. Patavium urbs > VLa. urbem Patavii > Fr. la ville de Padoue. Latin grammars generally refer to this usage of the genitive in terms of “appositive genitive”, “genitive of specification”, or “explicative genitive”, in which the genitive is said to specify “the contents of the generic noun instead of  

 

 

Chapter 1: Introduction – Defining nominal apposition and motivating its study

16

Apposition in the same case” (Gildersleeve and Lodge 1997 [1895]: 231). As indicated, I use the term “appositive genitive”. The genitive later came to be replaced in many instances by a prepositional phrase featuring de, as the examples above illustrate. In short, evidence shows an evolution from nominal apposition (e. g. La. urbs Patavium) to appositive genitive (La. urbs Patavii), which eventually takes the form of a prepositional phrase (Fr. la ville de Padoue), in which de may become expletive. With time, the original case agreement therefore gave way to genitive constructions, but in early times already the two nouns were not always one another’s full equivalents as will become clear in this study. So far de in quantitative structures like Fr. un verre de vin ‘a glass of wine’ or une livre de viande ‘a pound of meat’ in Table III above have not been discussed. The examples convey a quantity of a produce and structurally parallel instances like Fr. la ville de Paris or Engl. city of London. They are slightly different, however, because de in this context (un verre de vin) has grammatical function, marking the whole from which a part is taken or the whole to which the part belongs. This use is referred to in terms of “partitive”. Historically the prepositional structure was preceded by a genitive in Latin, commonly referred to as a “partitive genitive”. Early instances in Latin show that this partitive genitive in its turn replaced nominal apposition: cf. farinam facito libras iiii (Cato, R. R. 109) ‘make four pounds (ACC) of flour (ACC)’ (see more Sections 4.5.2; 5.3.2.1). Accordingly, instances such as Engl. a pound of meat and Hi. haz(z)ilas memal ‘a double fistful (NOM) of flour (NOM)’ can also be put in diachronic perspective, each representing a different stage. The development of a dependency relation observed for syntax also took place in morphology. Yet while the syntactic evolution is relatively transparent, as marked e. g. by the emerging genitive, the parallel shift in morphology is less obvious and calls for detailed analysis. The classification of appositive compounds cuts through the traditional divisions advocated by the handbooks, which distinguish “copulatives” and “determinatives”. Moreover, appositive compounds, which do not fit this dichotomy, in fact include a variety of formations, which I identify as dvandvas (combining two equivalent complementary nouns e. g. Skt mātárāpitárā ‘mothers-fathers’ > ‘parents’), additional compounds (the composing nouns together form an entity, e. g. Gk χορτάρακος ‘grass (and) Arakos’ > ‘fodder’), hybrids (the composing nouns refer to two characteristics of the referent, e. g. Gk ἰατρόμαντις ‘physician-seer’), and type-of compounds (in which one of the composing nouns specifies the other, conveying ‘a type of xxx’, e. g. Engl. girlfriend or Fr. bateau-mouche ‘tourist boat’). While dvandvas primarily are found in early texts and are not widespread, additional compounds and hybrids are frequently attested in all daughter languages. Moreover, hybrids and type-of compounds increased with time and they are predominant in today’s Germanic and Romance, for instance. In type-of  

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.2 Nominal apposition and hierarchy

17

compounds one element has semantic or grammatical predominance. These types of compound and their development will be extensively analyzed and discussed in Chapter 6. Being at a cross-roads of syntax and morphology on the one hand and major linguistic developments on the other, nominal apposition should not have been a neglected topic in linguistics at large. Its pervasiveness alone calls for extensive comparative and diachronic analysis of nominal apposition at both grammatical levels, defining its underlying structure, identifying parallels with similar (linguistic) phenomena elsewhere, and tracing its functions and characteristics in Indo-European as well as its subsequent diachronic development. This onesentence summary basically defines the aims of this study. Finally, it will become clear that nominal apposition is not an exclusively linguistic phenomenon, but entails other fields as well, such as religion and culture.

1.2 Nominal apposition and hierarchy The internal structure of nominal apposition is a complex topic. This complexity is reflected in the literature, where some scholars—as Grevisse (1993) pointed out —identify the second element as appositive, while others as easily identify the first element as appositive (1993: 517). The identification of the “appositive element” in French for example, is then exclusively based on the criterion of location, cf. (12) a. b. c. d. e.

Appositive element – Element la ville de Paris le mois de mai le capitaine Dreyfus un verre de vin rue Louis Pasteur

Element – la ville le mois le capitaine un verre rue

Appositive element de Paris de mai Dreyfus de vin Louis Pasteur

Grevisse himself follows the second approach arguing: “cette dernière position semble plausible si du moins on estime que Paris, mai, Dreyfus [in exampless (12a) through (12c)], … sont là les éléments essentiels” (1993: 517). The interesting question that comes to mind, but remains unanswered, is: what does the wording “éléments essentiels” precisely mean? It does not necessarily imply that these elements function as “grammatical head”. Moreover, for reasons that remain unclear Grevisse presents different readings of “appositive element” in the structures le roi Soleil ‘the Sun king’ and l’abbé Prévost ‘abbott Prévost’, providing different grammatical interpretations for structures that—in my view—are identical: le roi Soleil (“l’apposition suit”) on the one

18

Chapter 1: Introduction – Defining nominal apposition and motivating its study

hand and l’abbé Prévost or la note do ‘the note Do’ on the other (“l’apposition précède”; Grevisse 1993: 517). As will be shown below, the elements l’abbé, la note, and le roi have the same grammatical status. Another approach considers the appositional element not as appositional, but rather as a “complément déterminatif d’identification” (Grevisse 1993: 517– 518). Accordingly, Paris, mai, Dreyfus in the examples provided above are identified as the main elements and ville, mois, capitaine are elements that refer to the species; they therefore are considered merely completive. This approach is also found in the publications by Arrivé (1964), Wagner and Pichon (1962: 73–75), Dessaintes (1966), and Eskénazi (1967; Grevisse 1993: 518). The discussion about the underlying structure of nominal apposition addresses at its core two questions: (1) is the structure hierarchical; and (2) if so, what element is the head? As to the first question, there is no consensus: some argue that an apposition is a noun phrase without a head, because no element has grammatical or semantic prevalence (e. g. Hollenbach 1983). Others argue the opposite, saying that appositions are noun phrases with two heads, each of which can be deleted and interchanged (e. g. Meyer 1989). A last group, finally, identifies appositions as noun phrases with one head (e. g. Lee 1952; Haugen 1953; Molitor 1979; Lawrenz 1993). It is relevant to note, however, that several of these interpretations (no head, one head, two heads) focus on the entire group of instances, including nominal as well a group apposition. Seiler (1960) moreover, presents an analysis in terms of “Nukleus und Satellit”, applying it not only to apposition, but to adjectival constructions as well (e. g. böse Hunde ‘angry dogs’). In other words, not only do the identifying criteria presented in the literature vary to a great extent, but also the types of structure taken into consideration, as well as the terminology used. That diversity makes it impossible and futile to discuss in detail the various interpretations that have been presented in the literature. Moreover, criteria used to identify the head in these constructions not only vary, their actual nature differs from scholar to scholar as well: with some semantic criteria prevail (e. g. Lee 1952), others prefer syntactic criteria (Haugen 1953), often without explicitly saying so. Seiler (1960) refers to apposition not as a formal, but rather as a semantic phenomenon; Zemb (1968) identifies the head of the apposition as the element whose presence or absence does not affect the truth value of the utterance. Dessaintes (1966, 1971), Regula (1968), Helbig (1973), and Bogacki (1973), finally, seek structural arguments to identify the head of the structures in question, referring e. g. to co-referentiality, possibility of deletion, substitution, case agreement, and so forth. Finally, combining syntax and semantics, Hackstein (2010) provides an analysis of the “internal dependency structure” of instances of nominal apposition that combine a specific and a generic noun. Preferring a consistently syntactic analysis myself (see below for details), I merely refer the interested reader to his discussion,  

 

 

 

 

 

1.2 Nominal apposition and hierarchy

19

which relates the syntactic concepts of “head final” and “branching” to semantic analysis in terms of “semantic subordination” (Hackstein 2010: 29–39). A number of studies diversify their analysis along with the type of structure. For appositive constructions that convey botanical items, Grevisse for example explicitly identifies the “subordinate” element purely on the basis of analogy and without generalizing the identification to other instances of apposition: in airelle myrtille ‘blueberry’,8 for example, myrtille is interpreted as the appositive and subordinate element in analogy with airelle ponctuée (Noun + Adjective) and airelle du Mont Ida (Noun + Prepositional Phrase; ‘whortleberry’ and ‘lingonberry’ respectively). These parallel forms “montrent bien que le second élément est subordonné” (Grevisse 1993: 518), which is a somewhat ad hoc interpretation based on analogy rather than independently motivated criteria. Analytic consistency is also at stake in studies that identify the second element in instances of nominal apposition in French automatically as the complement on the basis of ordering and agreement patterns (see above and Grevisse 1993: 517, 654–655; Grevisse and Goosse 2008). Formations like une bouc-chèvre ‘a-F billy.goat-M goat-F’ then form a problem because the alleged head (bouc) does not determine the gender of the compound, which is feminine (for a discussion of this type of compound, see Chapter 6). In sum, the rather limited literature about apposition leads to the conclusion that there is no consensus about the hierarchical or non-hierarchical nature of nominal apposition, let alone about the identification of the head of the construction. Yet it is my contention that nominal apposition may have a grammatical head and that there are grammatical criteria of identification. One consideration in support of this hypothesis is the diachronic link between structures such as La. urbs Roma and Fr. la ville de Rome, which represent successive and attested stages of development: La. urbs Roma ‘town-NOM RomeNOM’ > La. urbs Romae ‘town-NOM Rome-GEN’ > Fr. la ville de Rome ‘town RomePP’. The same consistent pattern is attested in the following structures, and many more as will become clear, cf. (13)

a.

La. La. Fr.

mensis month-NOM mensis month-NOM (le) mois (the) month

November > November-NOM Novembris > November-GEN de novembre of November (PP)

8 Botanically myrtille is a type of airelle (‘berry’) that grows in the woods.

20

Chapter 1: Introduction – Defining nominal apposition and motivating its study

b.

La. La. Fr.

c.

La. La. Fr.

Galliam provinciam > Gaul-ACC province-ACC Galliae provinciam > Gaul-GEN province-ACC (la) province de Gaule (the) province of Gaul (PP) Farina libras iiii vs. ‘four pounds (ACC) of flour (ACC)’ piperis grana L. vs. ’50 pounds of pepper (GEN)’ une livre de poivre ‘a pound of pepper (PP)’

The examples in Table III in Section 1.1 above further showed that the shift to analycity in other languages is consistent with this pattern. As a rule of thumb, I therefore posit that in Common Noun + Proper Noun combinations it is the Proper Noun that becomes analytic. That is a consistent trend. Consequently in later constructions the common noun overtly is the head and the proper noun its complement, as is marked by the genitive or the prepositional phrase, cf. La. Galliam provinciam > Galliae provinciam / Fr. province de Gaule and the other examples under (13) above. Mutatis mutandis, in expressions of quantification it is the noun conveying the produce that with time takes the form of a genitive, cf. piper grana L.> piperis grana L. Challenging this reasoning one may argue that later developments should not determine our interpretation of synchronic grammatical relations. The fact that ‘have’ in It. ho cantato (have-1SG sing-P.PART), for example, is an auxiliary does not justify the claim that habeo in Latin had auxiliary characteristics. In Latin habeo indeed was a lexical verb denoting possession and not an auxiliary, not even in the context of a perfective participle as Adams again has convincingly shown (2013: 615–651). Consequently relying exclusively on a diachronic pattern —even a pervasive and consistent one—may be hazardous, also in a structural analysis of nominal apposition. For that reason synchronic phenomena, i. c. patterns of external agreement, are relevant—and they support my diachronic findings: below I will demonstrate that external agreement confirms my observation that nominal apposition—also in its original asyndetic form—may feature a grammatical head. Another consideration in support of nominal apposition being a hierarchical structure is the finding hat the diachronic evolution of appositive word formation processes as well is characterized by the increasing importance of hierarchy. At an early stage of Indo-European these formations included compounds based on a relation of parataxis and co-dependence—with all its implications—rather than a dependency relation (Chapter 6).  

1.2 Nominal apposition and hierarchy

21

In addition to diachronic considerations, there are indeed also formal phenomena that suggest that there is a hierarchy between the elements that together form an instance of nominal apposition. As said, the distinctive grammatical characteristic of apposition in origin is agreement: the two nouns agree in case (and generally number). Moreover, depending on the context there may be agreement with other elements in the clause, such as the verb or personal and relative pronouns. This is a constant feature. In the following pages I will discuss the various agreement patterns, pointing out criteria to identify the head of appositive structures. External agreement patterns clarify the underlying hierarchical structure of nominal apposition. In the following paragraphs, I will refer primarily to examples from German and French: nominal apposition typically manifests specific external agreement patterns. Later in this study I will return to external agreement in Latin and its development (Section 5.3.1) In French and German agreement patterns involve (in)definite articles and adjectives as well as relative and personal pronouns, finite verb forms, and passive constructions, cf. [AGREEMENT, ADJECTIVAL ELEMENT] (14)

(15)

Fr. le paquebot France, plein de passagers, est the-M ship-M France-F full-M of passengers be-3SG arrivé arrived-P.PART-M ‘the ocean liner “France”, full of passengers, has arrived’ Fr. le substantif femme a été attesté … the-M noun-M woman-F be-PF-3SG attest-P.PART-M pour la première fois dans . . . for the first time in ‘the noun “femme” has been attested for the first time in …’ Fr. la rue Louis Pasteur a été the-F street-F Louis Pasteur-M be-PF-3SG renouvelée remodel-P.PART-F ‘Louis Pasteur street has been remodeled’ Fr. le médecin femme a été accueilli the-M doctor-M woman-F be-PF-3SG greet-P.PART-M par le chef-de-clinique by the senior registrar ‘the woman doctor has been greeted by the senior registrar’ Fr Paris situé au centre du pays est … Paris-M located-M in.the center of.the country be-3SG ‘Paris located in the center of the country is . . .’  

(16)

(17)

(18)

 

 

 

Chapter 1: Introduction – Defining nominal apposition and motivating its study

22

(19)

Fr. la ville de Paris située au centre du pays … the-F city-F of Paris-M located-F in.the center of.the country ‘the city of Paris located in the center of the country . . .’ Gm. ein neues Wort Krieg a-M/NE new-NE word-NE war-M ‘a new word “Krieg”’ Gm. er kam zurück in ein neues Wien he came back to a-NE new-NE Vienna-NE ‘he returned to a new Vienna’ Gm. er kam zurück in eine neue Stadt Wien he come-PST-3SG back to a-F new-F city-F Vienna-NE ‘he returned to a new city of Vienna’  

(20)

(21)

(22)

 

[AGREEMENT, RELATIVE PRONOUN] (23)

Gm. Dallas, das in Texas liegt . . . Dallas REL-NE in Texas be.located-3SG ‘Dallas, which is located in Texas . . .’ Gm. die Stadt Dallas, die in Texas liegt, … the-F city-F Dallas-NE REL-F in Texas be.located-3SG . . . ‘the city of Dallas, which is located in Texas . . .’ Gm. die Regierung Schmidt, die damals . . . the-F administration-F Schmidt-M, REL-F at that time. . . ‘the Schmidt administration, which at that time . . .’ Gm. *die Regierung Schmidt, der . . . the-F administration-F Schmidt-M, REL-M … ‘*the Schmidt administration, who . . .’  

 

(24)

 

 

 

 

(25)

 

 

 

 

(26)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This last example shows that the physical closeness to the relative pronoun does not affect the agreement pattern. [AGREEMENT, PERSONAL PRONOUN] (27)

Gm. die Regierung Schmidt . . .; sie the-F administration-F Schmidt-M …; PRON-3SG-SUBJ-F hatte ... have-PRET-3SG . . . ‘the Schmidt administration . . .; it had. . .’ Fr. le mot France remonte au moyen âge . . .. the-SG-M word-M France-F trace.back-3SG to the Middle Ages Il a été attesté dans . . . PRON-3SG-SUBJ-M be-PF-3SG attest-P.PART-M in . . . ‘the word “France” traces back to the Middle Ages. It has been attested in . . .’ . Sie hat . . . Gm. die Stadt Wien . . . the-SG-F city-F Vienna-NE … PRON-3SG-SUBJ-F have-3SG. . . . ‘the city of Vienna . . . It has . . .’  

 

 

 

 

 

(28)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(29)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.2 Nominal apposition and hierarchy

(30)

Gm. Wien ist eine alte Stadt. Vienna be-3SG a-F old-F city-F ‘Vienna is an old town. It has . . .’  

Es/Sie (?) PRON-3SG-SUBJ-NE/F

23

hat have-3SG

 

[AGREEMENT, FINITE VERB] (31)

Fr.

le mot beaux-arts remonte au . . . the-SG-M word-SG-M art-PL-M trace.back-3SG to . . . ‘the word “fine arts” traces back to . . .’ Gm. das Wort schöne Künste hat schon . . . the-SG-NE word-SG-NE art-PL-M have-3SG already . . . ‘the word “fine arts” already has . . .’ Engl. Senators Kennedy and McCain have dinner . . . Senators-PL Kennedy-SG and McCain-SG have-3PL dinner . . .  

 

 

(32)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(33)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AGREEMENT, PASSIVE] (34)

Gm.

der Korb Äpfel wird the basket-NOM apples-NOM be-3SG ‘the basket of apples is being transported’

transportiert transport-P.PART

The appositive examples above, combining nouns that differ in terms of gender or number, show that one of them determines the grammatical value of the entity and establishes the link with the context (the adjective, relative pronoun, finite verb, . . .), dictating its grammatical features. This element consistently is the same, whether the construction is adjectival, pronominal, active, or passive. On the basis of systematic agreement patterns presented in examples (14) through (34), I argue that the two composing elements of nominal apposition at some point in time may no longer be one another’s equivalent and that the element that determines the external agreement patterns—as expressed in case and number marking—is the head of the construction. Accordingly, in the examples presented above—die Stadt (Wien), Senators (Kennedy [and] McCain), le mot (beaux-arts), die Regierung (Schmidt) —die Stadt, Senators, le mot, and die Regierung are grammatical heads. This patterning is further consistent and in line with the diachronic development because it is the complement that consistently undergoes a potential shift to a genitive or a prepositional phrase, cf. La. Galliam provinciam (both ACC) > La. Galliae provinciam (GEN and ACC) > Fr. la province de Gaule (PP) (for more details, see Chapters 4 and 5). Having pinpointed external agreement as a criterion to identify the head of an appositive construction, I have to underscore that certain early instances of nominal apposition truly are constructions based on co-dependence, including two equivalent nouns and featuring the dual (or its embryonic variety), for  

 

Chapter 1: Introduction – Defining nominal apposition and motivating its study

24

example, which in the case of nominatives may correspond to a dual finite verb form as well (cf. Chapter 6). I note further that these constructions were among the earliest attestations of nominal apposition and that the examples provided above from German and French all represent evolved versions of these original constructions. Whatever the later internal developments, agreement is at the core of the original nominal apposition and it continued to be so for a very long time. With the identification of an hierarchical structure, which with time became increasingly prominent, I can now take the grammatical analysis of nominal apposition to the next level, that of defining the head of nominal apposition. In an earlier publication (Bauer 1995) I presented an extensive analysis and discussion of the identification and definition of “head” in grammatical structures, syntactic as well as morphological. I then found (1) that the literature failed to provide a definition of head; (2) that syntactic and semantic criteria and definitions were being used but that their nature generally was not explicitly identified; and (3) that semantic criteria easily slipped into syntactic analyses (Bauer 1995: 18–45). I subsequently presented an extensive analysis of branching and of the definition of head. The grammatical notion of branching accounts for the linear order of elements that are in an hierarchical relationship. In a prepositional phrase, for example, the preposition determines the case of the noun, cf. (35)

a.

La.

b.

La.

honoris tui causa (Pl., Poen. 638) honor-GEN POSS-2SG-GEN because.of ‘for the sake of your honor/well.being’ cum dignitate with dignity-ABL ‘with dignity’

Similarly, in a verb phrase the verb governs its complement, the direct object, as in: (36)

La.

exercitum duxit army-ACC lead-PF-3SG ‘he led the army’

Other phrases illustrate the same phenomenon, be they noun phrases, adjectival phrases, or comparative constructions: (37)

La.

(38)

La.

leniter ridere kindly smile-INF ‘smile kindly’ deorum munus gods-GEN present ‘present of the gods’

1.2 Nominal apposition and hierarchy

(39)

La.

(40)

La.

25

pecuniae avidus money-GEN greedy ‘greedy for money’ Paulo grandior Paul-ABL big-COMP ‘bigger than Paul’

In the early Indo-European languages, among them (Early) Latin, the noun or the verb typically follows its complement as the examples illustrate. With time this pattern has shifted—as is well illustrated in the history of Latin—and in Romance as in many modern Indo-European languages the order tends to be the reverse. Consequently in the history of many Indo-European languages one observes the systematic reversal of the order of elements that are in a hierarchical relationship: the phrases in question shifted from left to right branching (for an extensive analysis, see Bauer 1995; for timing and chronology, see Bauer 1995: 165–167, 2009a: 271–274). In addition, I have also argued that branching was not restricted to syntactic phrases, but also underlies morphological structures. Accordingly these as well underwent the change in branching, cf. (41)

La.

(42)

La.

(43)

La.

grand-ior big-COMP ‘bigger’ leg-ibus law-DAT/ABL-PL ‘with laws’ laudav-erat praise-PLUPF-3SG ‘he had praised’

>

Fr.

plus more

grand big

>

Fr.

avec with

des lois laws

>

Fr.

il avait loué he had praised

Although the empirical evidence supports the observation and the analogy is clear, I also provided an independently motivated definition of head, which is necessary in order to avoid any type of circular reasoning. The notion of branching originally comes from generative grammar, but in my (1995) discussion of the phenomenon, I demonstrated that generative studies do not provide a definition of head, despite the pervasive use of the term. Moreover the concept of head in these discussions primarily is associated with syntactic phrases and the few scholars who address the issue for morphological structures, do not relate their findings to syntax. The definition I provided after detailed analysis, identifies a head at both grammatical levels (phrases as well as morphological structures), thereby focusing on the structural parallel between syntactic and morphological constructions, and identifying their binary structure.

26

Chapter 1: Introduction – Defining nominal apposition and motivating its study

Finding a common definition, however, was not self-evident. VPs and NPs, for example, both have grammatical heads, and verbal complementation and adjectival qualification both are syntactic functions, but they convey different relations: the direct object is a verbal complement, whereas the adjective indicates quality. The situation becomes even more complex when morphological structures are included. The more so since morphological endings may express external as well as internal grammatical values. Case endings, for example, express the grammatical function of the nominal element, which is defined by an external element (e. g. the verb in case of an object). The finite verb form may express aspect, which is an internal grammatical category, but also person, an external grammatical category, depending on the subject of the clause. Consequently the hierarchical relation, which seems to be rather obvious for syntactic phrases has subtle parallels in morphological structures. Yet even if perhaps less obvious, the hierarchical relation in morphological entities is real. In other words, in syntactic phrases and morphological structures alike “there is a hierarchical relation between the head and the complement, but the actual realization of this grammatical relation varies” (Bauer 1995: 44). Finding the characteristic shared by verbal complementation, the epithet, and morphological ending helped to identify the head: in these structures there is an element that relates the phrase or the morphological structure to the rest of the clause, determining, indicating, and expressing its grammatical value. That element is the head of the structure. For morphological structures this means that endings in Indo-European declensions and conjugations are the grammatical head and that the lexical element (root or stem) is the complement (for an extensive discussion, see Bauer 1995: 18–46). I use this definition also in the identification of the head in nominal apposition when it presents itself as a hierarchical structure. The head of the nominal apposition then is the element that determines, indicates, or expresses the grammatical value of its complement. Since agreement is prominently present as a grammatical feature in nominal apposition, the noun with which the other element aligns clearly is grammatical head. Nominal apposition therefore is an ambivalent structure: it entails two equivalent nouns. Yet external agreement patterns at some point may reveal that one noun predominates. This book will examine whether other phenomena followed.  

1.3 Appositive accusatives and scelus viri ‘a scoundrel of a man’ Because of the loose usage of the term “apposition” in the literature, there are two phenomena that often are referred to in the handbooks as instances of “(nominal)

1.3 Appositive accusatives and scelus viri ‘a scoundrel of a man’

27

apposition” even if they feature a different structure. In the context of this study a brief discussion is therefore necessary showing why further inclusion here is not required. The structures in question are the scelus viri-construction (‘a scoundrel of a man’) and so-called appositive accusatives.

Scelus viri Constructions like La. scelus viri ‘scoundrel of a man’, Fr. ce fripon de valet ‘mischievous valet’, une drôle d’histoire ‘strange story’, or It. quell’asino di barcajuolo are often included in sections about apposition (e. g. Diez 1882 [1853]; Lombard 1931; Tuţescu 1969): not without reason because the two nouns convey the same referent. As Diez and others after him correctly pointed out, the Romance constructions can be traced back to the Latin structure provided here, scelus viri, lit. ‘scoundrel-NOM man-GEN’ (Diez 1882: 867–868; Meyer-Lübke 1899: 268; Bourciez 1956: 362; Väänänen 1981 [1963]: 157). Yet analyses by Diez and others are confusing. If indeed the Romance structures are connected to Latin constructions of the type scelus viri, the question remains whether they are therefore comparable to structures such as urbs Romae. Instances like It. città di Napoli are correctly traced back by Diez to structures of the type oppidum Antiochiae, which he subsequently qualifies (not with complete impartiality): “aber lieber gleichgesetzt urbs Roma, terra Italia …” (Diez 1882: 867). In fact, detailed reading of the linguistic literature reveals that no chronological relation is established between scelus viri and urbs Romae. Consequently the precise interpretation of scelus viri by these scholars remains elusive. Is scelus viri similar to urbs Romae and therefore secondary, replacing an earlier *scelus vir? Or was there no earlier stage featuring *scelus vir? In other words, while the structure ce fripon de valet parallels that of ville de Paris, it does not necessarily originate in nominal apposition—?scelus vir, combining two equivalent nouns. A glance at the patterns of attestation is called for. Genitive constructions of the type scelus viri typically are attested in Latin in “locutions affectives de la langue familière” and are said to be common in Late Latin (Ernout and Thomas 1964: 46). This observation is confirmed by the occurrence of the structure in most Romance languages, which indeed suggests an inherited feature. Yet long before that, the structure is rather often attested in authors such as Plautus, who in addition to scelus viri (Pl., Curc. 614, passim) uses, for example, flagitium hominis (Pl., As. 473) ‘a monstrous man’, deliciae pueri (Pl., Pers. 204) ‘a delightful boy’, scitum filum mulieris (Pl., Merc. 755) ‘a beautiful woman’. In Cicero’s letters scelus viri (Cic., Att. 11.9.2) is attested as well as the plural, cf. pestes hominum (Cic. Fam. 5.8.2) ‘social pests’, which is less frequent (examples from e. g. Väänänen 1981: 157).  

 

Chapter 1: Introduction – Defining nominal apposition and motivating its study

28

While these structures are commonly attested in the spoken language and the informal registers of Latin, I have found no instances including the same nouns in nominal apposition: e. g. *scelus vir, *monstrum homo, *flagitium homo, and so forth. Absence of those data suggests that scelus viri is not secondary. The question then is: was there perhaps an early stage in which the noun phrase included an adjective, as in scelestus vir? This scenario is rather unusal and presupposes complex and uncommon shifts.9 There is no doubt that from a structural perspective scelus viri indeed shows certain parallels with nominal apposition or rather appositive genitives: the combining of two nouns that convey the same referent, and one noun specifying or categorizing the other. Yet in scelus viri or un drôle d’enfant there is a dependency structure expressed by the genitive or the prepositional phrase and the specification in fact is a qualification, of a man, of a child, of a woman, and so forth. Also it is the common noun that takes the form of a genitive, not the specifying noun: it is scelus viri, not *vir sceleris, vs. urbs Romae. There is therefore no categorization of the type normally found in nominal apposition. For that reason further analysis will not be pursued here.  

Appostive or partitive accusatives Appositive or partitive accusatives are structures in which the verb governs two accusatives, one of which refers to the whole, whereas the other refers to a part of that whole, as in: (44)

hunc senem … dedolabo … viscera (Pl. Men. 858–859) this-ACC old.man-ACC hew-FUT-1SG internal.organs-ACC ‘I will hew this old man, his internal organs’

In examples of this type, the two accusatives semantically convey one referent, with one of the nouns referring to the full entity (senem) and the other noun to a part of it, either a smaller entity or a body part (i. c. viscera ‘internal organs’). Structures of this type are attested in Early Latin—in Cato or Plautus’ plays—they include verbs such as ‘hitting’, ‘beating’, ‘wounding’, and the nouns typically refer to the person and the body part affected. Interestingly, although grammars talk about the “appositive accusative”, the phenomenon is attested—to varying degrees—for all cases, including the nominative, cf.  

9 The scenario presupposes a shift from adjective to noun (scelestus > scelus) and a reversal from head to complement noun featuring a genitive (vir > viri; for more on these structures, see e. g. Bourciez 1956: 362).  

1.4 Organization of this study

(45)

29

hic requiesci in pace corpus clarissima here rest-3SG in peace body-NOM-NE honorable-SUP-NOM-SG-F femina woman-NOM-F ‘here rests the body of the most honorable woman’ (CIL 8.19914; Löfstedt 1911: 326)

As indicated by Löfstedt corpus in this instance is a “parataktische appositive zu femina” (1911: 326; see also Hahn [1953] and [1954] for other instances). The structure is also attested in Hittite, Sanskrit, and (Homeric) Greek, where it typically features accusatives. Occasional datives and genitives are found as well, but their precise syntactic structure often remains elusive because of possible interference with the genitive of possession and the dative of interest (for an extensive discussion, see Hahn 1953; Hoffner and Melchert 2008). Taken at face value these structures show parallels with nominal apposition. Yet there is a fundamental difference in that they reflect verbal syntax and typically involve the structure of the clause, rather than the (internal) structure of noun phrases. That the phenomenon plays at a different syntactic level becomes manifest when the context includes a passive or a perfective participle: Hittite and Greek data show that the noun referring to the person (the “whole”) takes the form of a nominative with the body part appearing in the accusative, the so-called accusative of respect (Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 248). Since this book examines the grammatical characteristics of nominal apposition, hence noun phrases, appositive accusatives will not be further discussed here. Considering the prevalence of body parts in these structures in Latin and the other early languages, analysis of appositive accusatives should also concern the dative of interest, further underscoring the fact that appositive accusatives are a clausal rather than a phrasal phenomenon (Bauer In Prep. A).

1.4 Organization of this study Having defined the topic of this study and its theoretical bases and having identified the main characteristics of nominal apposition, including the grammatical relation between its composing elements, in the next five chapters I will set out to examine three aspects of nominal apposition. First I provide a typological overview of noun classification in the world’s languages, establishing parallels with nominal apposition. Second, I present a comparative analysis of nominal apposition in early Indo-European languages examining the different types of syntactic context in which it occurs—including the practice of script determinatives—and providing a commented overview of compounds based on nominal

30

Chapter 1: Introduction – Defining nominal apposition and motivating its study

apposition in the various early languages. Third, I provide a diachronic analysis of the development of nominal apposition in syntax and morphology, focusing on the Latin-Romance branch. In Chapter 2, I discuss Nominal apposition and noun classification. “Noun classification” refers to the way a given language groups (some of) its nouns. Against the background of the classifying function of nominal apposition in (early) Indo-European, this chapter discusses noun classification in the languages of the world and the position of Indo-European. The chapter presents an overview of the systems of noun classification according to their type of marking (grammatical vs. lexical). It discusses the linguistic and geographic correlates and the semantic functions of classification. It is demonstrated that Proto-Indo-European while identified as a gender language, also shows parallels with so-called classifier languages in that appositive elements, like classifiers, provide information about the inherent, ontological properties of the referent. In phrases of the type La. Patavium urbs, for example, the common noun urbs provides ontological classification. Similarly, in La. olea arbor, nominal apposition has classifying function because the common noun (arbor) classifies the referent: olea in isolation refers to both the fruit and the tree. That the typology of classifier languages is profoundly different from that of Indo-European, should be no reason to ignore the parallels observed. Moreover, certain phenomena of noun classification (i. e. gender) in IndoEuropean take the form of nominal apposition, cf. It. la donna medico (lit.: ‘the-F woman-F doctor-M’ > ‘woman doctor’). Finally, Indo-European includes formations with “class terms” (e. g. Engl. strawberyy, gooseberry, raspberry, etc.) as well as “measure terms” such as French une pincée de sel ‘a pinch of salt’. These parallels call for an evaluation of the characteristics of class languages (i. e. gender languages and noun-class languages), classifier languages, and languages with measure and class terms, addressing the question how nominal apposition may fit the picture that we have so far. Subsequently, Chapter 3 examines Earliest instances of nominal apposition in Indo-European. Attested in the earliest instances of writing already, nominal apposition is among the first syntactic structures at large. Moreover, nominal apposition in function and form strongly parallels a phenomenon that may appear at first glance not to be purely linguistic, but that is language related: the occurrence of so-called script determinatives in writing systems. Hittite and Mycenaean Greek come to us in a writing system that includes these elements. I trace the origins of script determinatives in Hittite—symbols that provide generic specification of the nouns with which they combine, demonstrating that script determinatives create entities in Hittite and Mycenaean very similar to examples of nominal apposition. The strong parallel between Hi. URUKarpan, for example,  

 

 

31

1.4 Organization of this study

and La. urbs Roma and equivalents elsewhere further indicates that both the Hittite script determinative URU—having lost its original disambiguating function —and Latin urbs have specifying function. The usage of script determinatives therefore parallels that of common nouns in nominal apposition both in terms of structure and meaning. Many categories covered by script determinatives in Hittite and Mycenaean parallel those of the common noun in nominal apposition in early Indo-European. These patterns and their consistency show that script determinatives were not merely graphic signs, but part of language as will become increasingly clear in Chapters 4 and 6. From a broader perspective, the parallels with script determinatives also show that the concept of classification was much more present in early Indo-European than one might assume at first glance on the basis of purely linguistic data. Chapter 4—Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms— presents a comparative analysis of syntactic data from several early Indo-European languages or language groups: Hittite, Sanskrit, Greek, Germanic, and early Italic. Usage and functions of nominal apposition are evaluated, showing that the phenomenon (a) is widespread in early Indo-European; (b) conveys similar functions across the individual languages; (c) shows consistent syntactic patterns (e. g. in terms of agreement or word order); and (d) is closely connected to cultural aspects of society. Evidence shows that nominal apposition in Indo-European involves both proper and common nouns and is widely attested in the early daughter languages in well-defined semantic categories, even if preference for certain semantic fields may vary according to language, genre, or type of text. The semantic fields are, for example, [RELIGION], [SOCIAL STATUS], [KINSHIP], [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], [OTHER, TIME], [QUANTIFICATION], and others. While the combining of Proper Noun + Common Noun is found to be the predominant pattern, other combinations are attested as well. Another topic of investigation is the predominant internal word order pattern: left branching is revealed to be quasi-exclusive in early languages such as Hittite and Mycenaean, but variation is attested in later documents. The section on Italic, which closes this chapter, anticipates the subsequent chapter, discussing the diachronic development of nominal apposition. In Chapter 5—Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance—analysis of the diachronic development of nominal apposition focuses on the Latin-Romance branch, which is one of the best documented language groups within IndoEuropean, both in terms of types of text, register, and spreading in time. These documents provide information about the development of occurrences and their characteristics. The different types of nominal apposition are analyzed, as well as the semantic fields involved, showing that the nature of the text may affect the type of apposition attested. One section of the chapter is devoted to nominal apposition within the field of [RELIGION], investigating the link with religious  

32

Chapter 1: Introduction – Defining nominal apposition and motivating its study

phenomena in Roman society. Diachronic structural analysis subsequently focuses on the changing patterns of agreement—external as well as internal—the increasing prominence of alternative constructions, namely genitives and adjectives. In the history of nominal apposition the loss of agreement parallels the spread of hierarchical structures and nominatives, and the shift in ordering patterns. Where appropriate, the correlation with other important changes that mark the shift from Latin to Romance, will be established, such as case loss, change in word order, the emergence of definite articles, and the pervasive spread of hierarchical structures. One of the important findings in this chapter is the diversification of change. For the evolution of agreement, for example, it is necessary to make a distinction between external and internal agreement patterns because their historical developments differ, both in terms of type and rate. Results also reveal differences in change between the various types of nominal apposition (resulting e. g. Fr. rue Pasteur vs. rue de la Marne or Fr. fleuve Marne / It. fiume Arno ‘river Marne/Arno’ vs. Fr. fleuve de Somme / It. fiume d’Arno vs. Fr. fleuve du Rhône) or between quantitative apposition and titles, and so forth. This chapter therefore not only shows that the development of nominal apposition in Indo-European is at a crossroads of major linguistic evolution: findings will also offer new perspectives on the intrinsic relation between nominal apposition, adjectives, and genitives. Finally, another important conclusion in this chapter is that the evolution that is observed often materializes along lexically motivated lines: a given Latin author may use the sequence Proper Noun + Common Noun as predominant sequence in titles, but prefer the innovative reverse order Common Noun + Proper Noun for all instances including rex, for example. As noted earlier, nominal apposition at the level of morphology materializes in compounds and Chapter 6—Nominal apposition and word formation—presents an analysis of appositive compounds and their development. Classification of the different types of composition in Indo-European is not without complications and appositive compounds are no exception: they are at odds with the standard classification of the handbooks. Analysis of the different types of appositive compound across the various Indo-European languages, representing different time periods, allows however to evaluate their underlying relation and put them in historical perspective, showing for example, that dvandvas, which are prominent in linguistic analyses, in fact represent a relatively specific group of early compounds, inherently limited in productivity and spread, as will become clear. In terms of diachronic evolution I found grosso modo a shift from a system with dvandvas, additional compounds, and hybrids in early times to a system with two types of appositive compound: additional compounds and hybrids on the one hand and type-of compounds, which are hypotactic, on the other.  

1.4 Organization of this study

33

Drawing from a large number of historical and comparative data, I therefore show in Chapter 6 that long-term changes in word formation parallel those in syntax, including loss of agreement, change in ordering patterns, and the increasing prominence of hierarchy. Both chapters 5 and 6 demonstrate that nominal apposition, prominent in early Indo-European syntax as well as morphology, gradually changed over time, and that these developments on the whole paralleled one another. Yet it will also become clear that the individual languages eventually present their own specific variation of this development. In syntax, for example, the evolution from La. farinam libras iiii to Fr. quatre livres de farine ‘four pounds of flour’ is consistent, but the development in German seems to be more complex, with MHG ein glas biers including a genitive as opposed to today’s nominal apposition (Gm. ein Glas Bier). Similarly the result of the changes in word formation processes may vary in the individual languages, as reflected, for example in the high occurrence of typeof compounds in Romance as opposed to the strong incidence of hybrids in Germanic. The final chapter (Chapter 7—Conclusions. The changing system of nominal apposition in Indo-European) discusses the results of the study and the picture that emerges: occurrence and functions of nominal apposition in early IndoEuropean, its role in noun classification, its correspondences to script determinatives in certain early writing systems, and the functional and structural parallels between syntax and morphology. Diachronic analysis focussing on the development in Latin-Romance further shows the loss of agreement, the spread of hypotactic constructions at the expense of grammatical equivalence and asyndetism, and the emergence of certain types of word order. On the basis of my data a chronology can be determined in the changes that took place: patterns of external agreement were affected before those of internal agreement for example. Moreover, the evolution of word formation processes not only parallels syntactic changes, but also highlights the increasing importance of nominal apposition as a morphological phenomenon and its decline in syntax, where genitives, prepositional, and adjectival structures have come to take over. Comparative and diachronic analysis of nominal apposition eventually raises a number of fundamental linguistic questions that need to be addressed: how do syntax and morphology relate, what is the connection between nominal apposition on the one hand and genitive and adjectival constructions on the other, and how do shifts in major grammatical categories interact?

Chapter 2 Nominal apposition and noun classification “. . ., it is difficult to determine the difference between languages that have a true system of noun classifiers and those in which generic nouns may precede a more specific noun” (Sands 1995: 270).  

 

As indicated in Section 1.1 above, preliminary research (Bauer 2008, 2012a) has demonstrated that instances of nominal apposition in Indo-European typically occur in the context of religion, kinship, social status, geographic location, and a few others, specifying the inherent characteristics of the referents involved. The cross-linguistic consistency of these patterns suggests that nominal apposition had classifying function. Yet the discussion about noun classification in IndoEuropean focuses almost exclusively on gender. In this chapter I will demonstrate that nominal apposition in Indo-European shows important formal and semantic parallels with certain classifying phenomena in other languages. In addition to semantic parallels, it shares agreement with class systems and the systematic juxtaposition of nouns with classifier languages. The following pages will discuss classification systems, showing how nominal apposition relates to noun classification and to what extent it indeed is a type of noun classification. Nominal apposition is linked in various ways to the notion of noun classification. First, it shows strong syntactic, and even morphological similarities with phenomena of noun classification, as this chapter will demonstrate. Second, nominal apposition has classifying function when the common noun specifies the (type of) referent, cf. La. olea vs. arbor olea: the fruit (‘olive’) as opposed to the tree (‘olive tree’) or La. Garumna flumen (Caes., B. G. 1.1.2) ‘the river Garonne’. Similarly, Fr. le fleuve Congo ‘the river Congo’, is different from le Congo or le pays du Congo, the country. Here as well there are similarities with certain phenomena of noun classification. Third, gender—the most prominent type of noun classification Indo-European—may be conveyed by nominal apposition. A well-known example that was mentioned above already, is the formation of female occupational titles in certain daughter languages today, cf. Fr. la femme médecin (lit.: the-F woman-F doctor-M), It. la donna medico (lit. the-F woman-F doctor-M) or il medico donna (lit. the-M doctor-M woman-F), Rum. femeie-medic ‘woman doctor’, and so forth (see also below). This chapter will provide an overview of the classification systems in the languages of the world, revealing trends in terms of marking (grammatical vs. lexical at both extremes), occurrence, semantic function, geographical distribution, and typological correlates. The discussion will offer a background to the analysis of nominal apposition in Indo-European and help to identify its classify 

DOI 10.1515/9783110461756-002

2.1 Classification of nouns

35

ing function and the strong parallels with certain classification systems both in terms of structure and meaning. Moreover, the overview will contribute to the assessment of the evolution of nominal apposition in Western Indo-European languages as opposed to certain developments attested in Indo-Aryan languages. In the wake of results in Australian linguistics (e. g. Aikhenvald 2000), Hackstein submits that the origin of classifiers in certain Indo-Aryan languages traces back to nominal apposition. Stating in his Conclusion a “continuity between apposed generic nouns … and classifiers” (2010: 64), Hackstein inherently and exclusively focuses on that type of noun classification (2010: 7–9). His analysis may therefore give the wrong impression that nominal apposition shows certain similarities with classifier systems only. Analysis and discussion in this chapter instead will clearly reveal strong parallels at a wider scope, at various levels and with different types of noun classification. A comprehensive assessment of noun classification in the world’s languages therefore is called for, with focus primarily on these systems in their own right and on parallels with nominal apposition, and relating my observations to the role of noun classification in Indo-European. It will become clear that noun classification is more pervasive than may be assumed at first glance. I will therefore first provide an overview of types of noun classification in the various languages of the world (Section 2.1). Having discussed their main characteristics, I will then examine their semantic function and how the different types of classification relate to language systems (Sections 2.2 and 2.3). After evaluating my findings (Section 2.4), I will subsequently discuss noun classification in IndoEuropean (Section 2.5). Finally I will return to the starting point of this chapter: how does nominal apposition relate to noun classification (Section 2.6)?  

2.1 Classification of nouns The primacy of classification in man’s thinking is crucial to the classifying function of nominal apposition. In certain sources naming has been identified as man’s first intellectual activity: “and [Jahweh] brought [the beasts] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof” (Genesis 2.19; Senft 2000a). If not perhaps man’s first activity, classification certainly is a primordial ongoing intellectual occupation, involving the ordering of the world: “Human beings classify consciously, unconsciously, and even subconsciously in all situations. When we confront a scientific problem we try to solve it by first classifying the various parts of the problem. Therefore, the history of all branches of science is also a history of how these sciences have classified their research subject” (Senft 2000a: 11). A case in point is the history of comparative linguistics: the early handbooks by the Neogrammarians were compendia (Gm.

36

Chapter 2: Nominal apposition and noun classification

Grundrisse) that systematically put forth the phonological and morphological characteristics of the daughter languages, hence the protolanguage, without interpreting them e. g. in terms of diachronic layers (see Lehmann 1993: 48–49; e. g. Brugmann and Delbrück’s Grundriss [1886–1900]). Similarly Bopp’s (1816) comparison of the conjugational systems of Sanskrit, Latin, Greek, Persian, and Germanic presents a classification of verb forms following methods developed in biology and anatomy (e. g. by Linnaeus [1735 and later editions] and Cuvier [1812]). In domains other than research, however, classification is essential as well. The basic character of classification becomes further apparent in first-language acquisition by children. Erbaugh’s (1986) report on the acquisition of classifiers in Chinese, for instance, shows that young Chinese children in early stages classify nouns, even if the patterns that they establish at first do not follow those that are found in their mother tongue. In early use children choose “prototypes which are the most representative family members” (Erbaugh 1986: 417, 417–420). Closer to home, the phenomenon of early word overextension in children learning their mother tongue shows that they classify at a young age already. In studies on early word extensions children are found to overextend a word, using it for concepts that share certain (semantic) characteristics: the word referring to ‘horse’, for example, is used referring to horses, but also to cows, dogs, cats, and other four-legged animals. Around 40% of early words in children are affected by this phenomenon, which is manifest especially between ages 1;6 and 2;6 (Clark 2003: 88). Two hypotheses have been put forth to account for overextension: (1) children may not be able to distinguish the various animals involved; or (2) children may be able to distinguish the various mammals, but do not yet master the different words for them. Overextension is then motivated by communicative reasons (Clark 2003: 88). Comprehension tests have shown that children—when confronted with the correct term in an identification exercise—are able to accurately identify the various animals to which they refer with an overextended term in production (Clark 2003: 88–89), which supports the second hypothesis according to which comprehension prevails at that stage. Overextension is based on identification of certain common features in a series of referents, which are then put in the same category:  

 

 

(46)

a.

[FOUR-LEGGED ANIMAL] (e. g. ‘horse’ > ‘cow’ > ‘dog’ > ‘cat’) [THREE-DIMENSIONAL ROUNDNESS] (e. g. ‘apple’ > ‘grape’ > ‘egg’ > ‘squash‘ > ‘bell clapper’ > ‘anything round’)

> class of horse

 

b.

 

> class of ball

2.1 Classification of nouns

c.

[TWO-DIMENSIONAL ROUNDNESS] (e. g. ‘cakes’ > ‘round markers on window’ > ‘writing on window’ > ‘letter O’) (See overview Clark 2003: 90–91)

37

> class of moon

 

Most instances of overextension tend “to be based on some similarity of shape between the adult referent for the term overextended and the child target on a particular occasion” (Clark 2003: 88). Other common features include movement, sound, size, texture, or a combination of characteristics. Principles underlying early word overextension in children parallel those of noun classification in language, identifying similarities between referents. In an earlier study, Clark has found parallels between noun classification in certain classifier languages (see below) and early word overextension (Clark 1977). That early word overextension is not random either, further becomes clear when children successively acquire the proper terms conveying the different referents: once the word for ‘dog’, for example, is acquired in production, they simultaneously stop using horse when referring to dogs. The phenomena observed in early word overextension indicate that at an early stage already children have a strong tendency to categorize the objects and living beings that surround them, further underscoring the importance of categorization in humans in general. “Noun classification” in linguistics refers to the way a given language groups (some of) its nouns or their referents into categories. In Romance languages all nouns have either masculine or feminine gender: they are categorized as either masculine or feminine. Ancient Greek and Latin divided their nouns into three groups, masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. Swahili, a Bantu language, may specify on the noun (and other elements, see below) that it refers, for example, to a liquid. In several Asian languages numerical expressions require an element that specifies some characteristic of the noun, e. g. Burmese nwâ θôun káun, literally ‘cow three animal’ > ‘three cows’ (example from Allan 1977: 293). Moreover there are phenomena like Engl. milkman vs. policeman, or a glass of water, a loaf of bread, a gust of wind, a gaggle of geese, and so forth. But not: *a hurdle of geese. In these examples the choice of quantity noun e. g. closely relates to semantic characteristics of the noun conveying the product or animal (see more below). These are instances of noun classification, even if the processes involved are quite distinct and require further identification. Before examining the different types of noun classification in greater detail, two preliminary remarks are in order. First, the different studies of noun classification tend to have a rather inconsistent use of terminology or definitions. Allan (1977) for example includes so-called class languages in his overview of classifier systems (1977: 286–287), despite major differences (see below). Moreover in  

 

38

Chapter 2: Nominal apposition and noun classification

several studies the notion “classifier” has been used rather generously, referring to linguistic phenomena in the verb e. g. that may classify nouns, but that do not qualify as “classifier” (see more in Section 2.1.2). Second, I do not follow Allan’s (1977) commonly used classification because it rather loosely applies criteria of different type: syntactic context (numeral classifiers), syntactic phenomena (e. g. agreement: concordial classifiers), or locus of marking (e. g. predicative classifiers). As a result, linguistically diverse phenomena are put into one category, that of “classifier”, where diversification is required. In my assessment of classifying systems I will therefore rather follow the more recent distinctions made by Grinevald (2000) because they correspond better to findings from various languages: I will focus on grammatical characteristics of the markers used and on the parts of speech with which these markers specifically combine. Subsequently, semantic characteristics will be taken into account. While most studies distinguish between two types of noun classification— noun classes and noun classifiers (e. g. Dixon 1968; Allan 1977; Dixon 1982a/b, 1986; Löbel 2000)—Grinevald (2000) on the basis of morpho-syntactic characteristics proposes a threefold distinction, establishing a scale from “grammatical” to “lexical”: (a) class languages, (b) classifier languages, and (c) languages that include “measure” and “class terms”. Class languages include so-called gender languages as well as noun-class languages and they classify in grammatical terms (cf. below). Languages at the other extreme, feature “measure” and “class terms, which are purely lexical. Between these extremes, classifier languages according to Grinevald present “grammatical systems of noun classification in the intermediate range between lexical [i. e. measure and class terms] and morpho-syntactic [i. e. class systems] extremes” (2000: 61), cf. Table IV:  

 

 

 

 

 

Table IV: Systems of Noun Classification in the World’s Languages. GRAMMATICAL END

↔

LEXICAL END

CLASS SYSTEM (Class languages)

CLASSIFIER SYSTEM (Classifier languages)

LEXICAL SYSTEM (Lgs with measure/class terms)

Class languages – Noun-Class Languages – Gender Languages

Classifier languages – Languageswith numeral classifiers sortal classifiers / mensural classifiers – Languages with noun classifiers – Languages with genitive classifiers – Languages with verbal classifiers

Languages with measure/class terms – Languages with measure terms – Languages with class terms

2.1 Classification of nouns

39

I leave it to specialists in the relevant languages to decide whether this qualification of classifiers is fully acceptable for the individual languages (see also below), but for the time being I follow these distinctions made by Grinevald (2000) because they are helpful in categorizing and evaluating the various phenomena of noun classification found in Indo-European languages. In the next sections I will briefly present the basics of Grinevald’s schematic distinctions with illustrative examples. I will first present the main characteristics of class languages (Section 2.1.1), classifier languages (Section 2.1.2), and languages with class and measure terms (Section 2.1.3) and then discuss the differences between classifier languages and languages that include measure and class terms (Section 2.1.4). It is important to point out that languages may feature more than one type of classification, as Royen already observed (Royen 1929: 266; Senft 2000b: 17).

2.1.1 Class systems: noun-class languages and gender languages (Proto)-Indo-European is a gender language and therefore a class-system or class language. The main characteristics of class systems will be discussed in these pages and I will evaluate how this classifying system relates to others and to nominal apposition. The main difference between a class system and a classifier system is that a class system is a fully grammatical phenomenon, whereas a classifier system partly has lexical characteristics. In class systems all nouns are member of a class and the number of classes is limited (see also below). Class marking is compulsory, to be used in all styles and contexts; the class markers are morphological elements (affixes) that generally cannot be separated from the nominal root. There are grosso modo two types of class system: noun-class languages and gender languages. Gender languages generally have two or three genders; nounclass languages may have several more classes. That class is a grammatical phenomenon further shows in agreement, which is its distinctive characteristic: the class of the noun—even if it is not marked on the noun itself—is expressed in agreement patterns with other grammatically related elements in the sentence (e. g. Greenberg 1978: 53–54). In Swahili, for instance, all nouns may have a prefix expressing class and the verb, adjectives, pronouns, and other elements that combine with this noun also carry that same prefix. In other words, agreement patterns may go beyond the noun phrase proper, as the following example illustrates, in which the prefix vi- marks plural inanimates:  

40

Chapter 2: Nominal apposition and noun classification

(47)

[SWAHILI] vikombo vidogo viwili PREF[INAN]-cups PREF[INAN]-small PREF[INAN]-two vimevunjika PREF[INAN]-be-broken ‘two small cups are broken’ (Dixon 1968: 106)

Class therefore is a morphological as well as syntactic phenomenon. Its syntactic character is further manifest in its limitation in some languages to certain syntactic categories. The Swahili example above, for instance, would have no agreement on the verb if the noun did not have a subject or object relation to it. Similarly in Dyirbal, nouns only combine with a class marker in the nominative, ergative, dative or genitive; they will not do so in the ablative, allative, or locative (Dixon 1968: 107). A gender language is a type of class language in which the extra-linguistic distinction of sex is transposed into the linguistic system. The basic distinctive model between male and female animates in the real world is transferred to all nouns. Animate nouns are divided in two groups grosso modo on the basis of natural gender (1) and inanimate nouns either form a separate, neuter group and/ or divide into the same two groups that exist for animates, even if there is no (longer) extra-linguistic motivation for it. Moreover the semantic motivation of classification may not always be obvious to linguists (see also Section 2.5). Because of the connection with the extra-linguistic distinction of sex, gender systems will have a maximum of three classes (six if number is marked as well), whereas the number of classes in noun-class languages may be up to twenty (which may double with distinct forms for number; e. g. Hurskainen 2000: 679). The distinctive grammatical feature of gender languages—like noun-class languages—is agreement. Elements that are grammatically associated with the noun formally agree with that noun. The grammatical nature of the category of gender is further manifest in patterns of its decline, which materializes along syntactic categories: gender marking is rarely found on nouns in French, but generally expressed in articles (e. g. le and la, but not l’), and in agreement marking on adjectives, and most past participles. In Spanish there is gender marking on the noun and agreement patterns affect articles and adjectives, but no longer include past participles that combine with the auxiliary haber.  

 

1 In Indo-European with the exception of well-known instances, such as La. nauta ‘sailor-F’ or Gm. Waise ‘orphan-F’, which are collectives.

2.1 Classification of nouns

41

Despite similarities, there are also differences between gender and nounclass languages, because, as Hurskainen points out, several languages feature both a gender system and a noun-class system (2000: 665). Moreover, certain language families include either system as a distinctive feature, e. g. Niger-Kordofanian languages typically are noun-class languages, whereas Indo-European languages predominantly are gender languages. Since many grammars of non-Indo-European languages were based on the well-known grammars of Latin, class phenomena have often been described in terms of “gender”, even if there was no sex-based motivation for the distinctions at all. Noun-class languages in fact are based on criteria other than natural gender, as in Swahili, about which Dixon reports a variety of classes: a class including nouns referring to [– animates] (prefix ki-), a class including nouns for [+ animate, – human] (prefix m[i]-), a class including nouns conveying [+ animate, + human] (prefix m-/wa-), a class including nouns referring to objects [– animate] that occur in quantities (prefix ji-/ma-), and so forth (Dixon 1968: 105). I note that this categorization is not sex based (for more details, see Loogman 1965: 17–45). Class and gender and their agreement patterns are expressed with a closed set of morphological markers, such as prefixes (e. g. Bantu vi- [plural inanimates]), suffixes, or other grammatical elements, such as definite articles or pronouns in French and German, and so forth, cf.  

 

(48)

(49)

[FRENCH] la dame, elle a été DEF.ART-SG-F lady PRON-3SG-NOM-F be-PF-3SG invitée invite-P.PART-SG-F ‘the lady has been invited’ [GERMAN] die Dame freuht sich; sie ist DEF.ART-SG-F lady be.happy-3SG PRON-3SG-NOM-F be-3SG eingeladen worden invite-P.PART be-P.PART ‘the lady is happy; she has been invited

Class systems tend to be opaque both in terms of morphological marking and in terms of categorization. Yet the degree of opaqueness may vary. Hurskainen reports that in class languages in Africa “nouns are classified into distinct marked groups, often with semantic motivation”. In earlier times semantic motivation in all likelihood was much stronger (Hurskainen 2000: 683, 667). In Indo-European languages it is not always clear—and this is an understatement—why a given noun is masculine, feminine, or neuter. If the early distinction in Proto-Indo-European, [+ animate] vs. [– animate], was motivated in line with the feature [α animate], and

42

Chapter 2: Nominal apposition and noun classification

if in many early Indo-European daughter languages gender of certain nouns can be explained in semantic terms (cf. Meillet 1926, 1938, 1948), the semantic motivation of gender in Latin often is not conclusive nor transparent. Moreover, its motivation in the Romance languages generally is completely opaque as familyinternal variation further shows, cf. Fr. la mer ‘the-F sea-F’ but Sp. il mar ‘the-M sea-M’ (< La. neuter mare). Yet in many languages, classes are semantically motivated and cultural and anthropological information may account for the class distinctions that are being made. For that reason, it is important to examine the classes from the perspective of the entire semantic system, as Dixon convincingly has shown for Dyirbal in his “semantics-prior” approach (1968: 118–124; see also Section 2.3). Morphological opaqueness of class distinctions will primarily be found in inflectional languages, which inherently have opaque morphology. Moreover, class may be “conflated” with other grammatical categories, e. g. tense as found in many languages (Dixon 1968: 112), which may also contribute to morphological opaqueness of the system. Finally, while noun-class phenomena in non-Indo-European languages often have been identified in the past as “gender”, the same has happened to IndoEuropean. One of the first to identify gender was Protagoras, who in the 5th century B. C. discussed the three genders of Greek, masculine, feminine, and neuter. The grammatical notion of gender was strongly encroached in linguistic terminology, when it became established much later (Meillet 1948; Schmidt 1977; Meid 1979) that the Proto-Indo-European three-gender system traces back to a noun-class distinction animate vs. inanimate, which came to be called “gender” as well.  

 

2.1.2 Classifier systems: classifier languages Classifier systems or classifier languages owe their name to so-called classifiers: lexical elements that combine with another noun specifying certain of its characteristics. Classifiers are not compulsory, not all nouns have classifiers, and the number of classifiers by far exceeds the number of classes in noun-class or gender languages: languages may have twenty classifiers, one hundred is common and four hundred have been attested (Dixon 1986: 106). Since the use of classifiers is not compulsory, it may be style or register related: formal varieties tend to have more classifiers than informal varieties. Agreement is not part of a classifier system. In classifier languages classifiers form an open class of lexical elements that often also function as lexical elements in the language in question, cf.

2.1 Classification of nouns

(50)

(51)

(52)

43

[VIETNAMESE] cai cây CLF[THING] plant ‘plant’ cây rau CLF[PLANT] vegetable plant ‘vegetable plant’ rau cân CLF[VEGETABLE PLANT] celery ‘celery plant’ (Examples from Löbel 2000: 271)

In the last instance cân seems to refer to a rather broad notion of ‘celery’; the classifier narrows down the interpretation, as the following examples show: (53)

(54)

(55)

(56)

[VIETNAMESE] rau cân CLF[VEGETABLE PLANT] celery ‘celery plant’ cây cân CLF[STICK] celery ‘celery stick’ lá cân CLF[LEAF] celery ‘celery leaf’ cú cân CLF[BULB] celery ‘celery bulb’ (Examples Löbel 2000: 314)

In these instances the classifier functions as a generic noun (see more below). On the basis of evidence from a variety of classifier languages Grinevald (2000) distinguishes four types of classifier: (a) numeral classifiers, (b) noun classifiers, (c) genitive classifiers, and (d) verbal classifiers: (a) Numeral classifiers typically occur in quantifying contexts, cf. [Quantifying element + CLF + Noun] [VIETNAMESE] (57) [CONTEXT: NUMERAL] hai cái bao two CLF[THING] bag ‘two bags’

In addition to quantifying contexts, these classifiers may also occur in the context of demonstratives, cf.

44

Chapter 2: Nominal apposition and noun classification

(58)

[VIETNAMESE] [CONTEXT: DEMONSTRATIVE] con mèo này CLF[+ ANIMATE, – HUMAN] cat this ‘this cat’ (Examples from Löbel 2000: 270, 311; for examples with both a numeral and demonstrative, see Erbaugh 1986: 402)

Numeral classifiers are attested in all languages of mainland South East Asia (Thai, Burmese, …), languages in East Asia (Japanese, Chinese), and in languages in the Americas and Oceania (Grinevald 2000: 63–64). In addition to classifiers that convey sort (“sortal classifiers”), there are socalled mensural classifiers in contexts of quantification as well. Whereas sortal classifiers “denote a property which is inherent to the meaning of the classified noun” (Löbel 2000: 261), mensural classifiers refer to a temporary state or quality, cf. the following Vietnamese examples:

(59)

[VIETNAMESE] mót cân cá one CLF[POUND] fish ‘a pound of fish’

[MENSURAL CLASSIFIER]

vs. (60)

mót con cá one CLF[ANIMAL] fish ‘a fish’ (Löbel 2000: 261)

[SORTAL CLASSIFIER]

(b) Noun classifiers are less commonly attested and have been relatively ignored. They typically combine with nouns in any grammatical context, cf. the following example from Jakaltek:

(61)

[JAKALTEK] xil naj xuwan na7 saw CLF[MAN] John CLF[ANIMAL] ‘John saw the snake’ (Example from Grinevald 2000: 65)

lab’a snake

Noun classifiers typically are attested in languages of Meso-America, where they may function as determiners (Grinevald 2000: 64–65). It may not always be clear why the relevant element is a classifier and not just a class term (see Section 2.1.3). Although there may be a language-internal motivation, this uncertainty may also in part be accounted for by the limited attention paid to the phenomenon so far.

2.1 Classification of nouns

45

(c) Genitive classifiers, attested in many languages of Oceania and in several American Indian languages, typically are found in possessive constructions, marking the possessive element but classifying the noun in possession, cf. the following example from Ponapean:

(62)

(63)

[PONAPEAN] kene-i mwenge CLF[EDIBLE]-GEN-I food ‘my food’ were-i pwoht CLF[TRANSPORT]-GEN-I boat ‘my boat’ (Examples from Grinevald 2000: 66)

In the literature genitive classifiers are also called “attributive”, “possessive”, or “relational” classifiers. (d) Verbal classifiers, finally, appear on the verb, but classify—yet again—the noun that combines with the verb. They are found in American Indian and Australian languages, as the example from Cayuga (Iroquoian) and Caddo illustrate, cf.

(64)

(65)

(66)

[CAYUGA] so:wa:s akh-nahskw-ae’ dog I-CLF[DOMESTIC ANIMAL]-have ‘I have a (pet) dog’ (Example from Mithun 1986: 387) [CADDO] kapí: kan-čâ:ni’ah. coffee CLF[LIQUID]-buy-PST ‘he bought liquid coffee’ kapí: dân:čâ:ni’ah. coffee CLF[POWDER]-buy-PST ‘he bought ground coffee’ (Mithun 1986: 386 )2

In these languages the verb stem typically does not change as examples (65) and (66) above illustrate; the classifiers vary along with the characteristics of the object and are added to the verb stem, cf. 2 This type of noun classification may trace back to the incorporation of generic nouns in the predicate: a verbal compound including a noun and a verb (e. g. ‘water’ + ‘drink’) comes to govern a direct object; the incorporated noun then becomes a generic noun (‘water’ > ‘liquid’) and turns into a classifier (for this evolution in several languages, see Mithun 1986).  

46

Chapter 2: Nominal apposition and noun classification

(67)

(68)

[CAYUGA] skitú ake’-treht-ae’ car I-CLF[VEHICLE]-have ‘I have a car’ so:wá:s akh-náhskw-ae’ dog I-CLF[DOMESTIC ANIMAL]-have ‘I have a (pet) dog’ (Examples from Mithun 1986: 387–388; Grinevald 2000: 67)

In the literature on classifiers, the phenomenon involving this type of classifier often is referred to with the term “classificatory verbs”. This terminology is rather confusing because elsewhere in the literature the term “classificatory verb” specifically refers to the phenomenon by which languages have a variety of distinct verbs conveying the same type of action, e. g. ‘give’ or ‘put’. The choice of verb root depends on the qualities of its arguments, as in German ein Buch auf den Tisch legen ‘to put a book on the table’ (the book is an object that lies), but eine Flasche auf den Tisch stellen ‘to put a bottle on the table’ (the bottle is an object that stands): Gm. legen and stellen are classificatory verbs. In these instances the verbs typically differ: German legen is not cognate to stellen, and so forth (see also Section 2.5).  

2.1.3 Languages with measure and class terms In addition to class and classifier languages, there are also languages that feature “measure terms” and “class terms”. In fact, class systems and classifier systems may include measure and class terms as well. Indo-European, for example, is a gender language, but also features measure and class terms. “Class terms” are lexical elements that combine with a specific noun, functioning “like derivational or compounding morphology at word level” (Grinevald 2000: 58). They are commonly found in word formation processes, as in the following compounds: Engl. strawberry, raspberry, blackberry, gooseberry, …; apple tree, banana tree, olive tree, … These instances will be further discussed in Chapter 6. “Measure terms” often are analytic noun phrases that express quantities, cf. the following French examples: (69)

[MEASURE TERMS] a. une pincée a pinch b. une pile a stack

de of de of

sel salt livres books

47

2.2 Noun classification and semantic function

c.

un a

tas heap

de of

foin / de sable / hay / of sand /

de pierres / de charbon, . . . of stones / of coal, . . .  

 

 

 

They typically appear in quantifications of mass nouns or count nouns. In instances including count nouns, measure terms may define the arrangement, cf. une pile de livres ‘a stack of books’ vs. un tas de livres ‘a heap of books’. Or a gaggle of geese as opposed to a skein of geese: the first example refers to a group on the ground, the second to a group of geese that is flying (example from Grinevald 2000: 58). In contexts featuring mass nouns, measure terms help to make out countable entities or identify units, e. g. Engl. bread vs. two loaves of bread, wine vs. a carafe of wine, or happiness vs. a gust of happiness ‘a sudden and strong (positive) emotion’. As will become clear in this monograph, these structures in Indo-European typically involve nominal apposition or its later replacements as examples here illustrate.  

2.1.4 Classifier languages as opposed to languages with measure/class terms From Grinevald’s perspective, measure and class terms are lexical phenomena as illustrated by the examples under (69) and contribute to the extension of a language’s lexicon (2000: 58–61). Yet in classifier languages lexical characteristics are also prevalent: in studies of classifier phenomena in the various languages their lexical character is a recurring characteristic (e. g. Dixon 1982a/b, 1986). Classifiers are part of an open system because they either are elements that are used as nouns as well as classifiers, or they have a recognizable lexical origin. Moreover they do not occur with all nouns, nor are they compulsory. These characteristics put them in the same league as class terms and here things potentially may become rather hazy, as my comments about noun classifiers already showed (Section 2.1.2). Yet the main difference between classifiers and class/measure terms may be the context in which they occur: classifiers tend to appear in given morpho-syntactic contexts as defined by Grinevald (2000). In this book I will analyze how these regularities relate to patterns of nominal apposition in Indo-European.  

2.2 Noun classification and semantic function Having discussed formal parallels and differences between classifying systems, I will now focus on their primary semantic function. I hereby keep in mind that nominal apposition has classifying function and typically occurs within a number of the semantic fields.

48

Chapter 2: Nominal apposition and noun classification

The various devices of noun classification mentioned in this chapter all share the same semantic function: they classify the referent conveyed by the noun. They therefore have “essentially the same semantic task”: to “provide the means for categorisation of an object in terms of relevant parameters of world-view” and to “indicate the speakers’ attitude to the things around them” (Dixon 1982b: 230, 1986: 108). They “provide information about physical design (size, shape, animacy, etc.), function or use (edible, habitable, etc.), cognitive categories in a given culture” (Dixon 1986: 108). Understanding a classification system may therefore “require knowledge of the relevant cosmology and social organisation and beliefs” as Dixon shows in his semantics-prior approach of Dyirbal and his discussion of religious classifiers in Burmese (1968: 118–124, 1982b: 229–230). In terms of ontogenetic development the acquisition of classifiers by children therefore “involves a large amount of cultural extra-linguistic knowledge” (Aikhenvald 2000: 421), which accounts for its slow pace. The acquisition of classifiers by children is also relevant to analysis of noun classification in general in that it shows the close link with what is relevant to the speaker. The early stages in the acquisition of classifiers, for example, show a focus on “material features” of objects that does not match the mother tongue, but underscores the relevance to children: it involves, for instance, something as fundamental—to a child—as “breakability” (see Aikhenvald 2000: 421). It is important to underline the difference between the intellectual ability to classify—to which I referred earlier and which is pervasive and early as Clark’s (1977, 2003) data clearly show—and the acquisition of classifiers—a linguistic feature—by children, which is relatively late and “slow” (Aikhenvald 2000: 417–423). The following paragraphs will focus on what characteristics nominal classification may mark. In general terms, noun classification provides information about (inherent) properties of the referent. The question to address then is what properties are being highlighted? This question has philosophical implications as well. In his 1689 Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke (1894 [1689]) made a distinction between “primary and secondary qualities of bodies” and defined as “primary qualities” those that can be perceived by more than one sense: solidity (‘consistency’), extension (‘shape and size’), motion vs. rest (‘material’), number (‘quanta’), and figure (‘shape’). Secondary qualities are perceived by one sense only: color, taste, smell, and sound. The distinction has linguistic relevance because secondary qualities reportedly never represent a category of classification (Allen 1977: 298). Linguists indeed have identified noun classification based on material (e. g. animacy, abstractness, material), consistency (e. g. flexible, non-discrete, etc.), size, shape (e. g. length, dimensions), location (e. g. inherent, contingent), arrangement (e. g. specific positions of object), and quantity (see Allen 1977: 297–  

 

 

 

 

49

2.2 Noun classification and semantic function

306 [with a discussion of co-occurrence and values of what he calls classifiers]; Dixon 1968, 1986; Grinevald 2000). Allen (1977) points out that classification in terms of “arrangement” and “quantity” also is attested in non-classifier languages: e. g. English, a non-classifier language features examples like two loops of rope (arrangement) or a bunch of flowers (quantity). The observation is correct, but does not necessarily imply that the devices found in English qualify as ‘classifiers’. Grinevald’s distinction between the various morpho-syntactic types of classification therefore is crucial to our understanding of these systems and the explicit category that she establishes for “class and measure terms” is pivotal. It assigns the examples of the type above, two loops of rope, a bunch of flowers their appropriate position within the system (Section 2.1.3). Others have attempted to relate semantic types of classification to grammatical marking or to language type. Dixon, for example, found overall that the feature [SHAPE] is common among classifiers, but rare in class languages; [GENDER] is common in class languages, but rare in classifier languages, and [FUNCTION] is not found in class languages (Dixon 1982b: 229; for the relation between morpho-syntactic characteristics of classifiers and semantic domains, see Olness [1991] and Grinevald [2000: 72–74]). In more general terms of semantic function, Broschart argues that there is a distinction between classifiers that unitize (“unitizing classifiers”) and those that unify (“non-unitizing classifiers”). Following the principle of “isolation”, unitizing classifiers “define units of different kinds” (2000: 262). By contrast, nonunitizing classifiers unify isolates, providing “information about the standard identity of the referent in question” and by doing so “unify the referent with the class or propositional schema it naturally belongs to” (Broschart 2000: 263), e. g.:  

 

(70)

[PONAPEAN] xil naj xuwan na7 lab’a saw CLF[MAN] John CLF[ANIMAL] snake ‘John saw the snake’ (Example from Grinevald 2000: 65)

In this example the name John is being linked to the class [MAN] and the elements that class contains: there is a unifying process. In the next example ‘bag’ by contrast is being unitized:

(71)

[VIETNAMESE] hai cái bao two CLF[THING] bag ‘two bags’ (Example from Löbel 2000: 270)

50

Chapter 2: Nominal apposition and noun classification

The unitizing function is especially clear when a noun combines with several classifiers as in the following examples: the noun cân refers to the general concept ‘celery’; classifiers specify the unit, cf.

(72)

(73)

(74)

(75)

[VIETNAMESE] rau cân CLF[VEGETABLE PLANT] celery ‘celery plant’ cây cân CLF[STICK] celery ‘celery stick’ lá cân CLF[LEAF] celery ‘celery leaf’ cú cân CLF[BULB] celery ‘celery bulb’ (Examples from Löbel 2000: 314; Emeneau 1951: 110–113, see examples [53] through [56] above)

Similarly one may argue that measure terms as found in English, for example, also have unitizing function when combined with mass nouns, as in:

(76)

[ENGLISH] a pinch of salt

Broschart’s distinction is rather useful, even if a general division of classifiers in terms of “unitizing” vs. “non-unitizing” may not capture all types of classifier in the various languages. The notions provide a useful tool in evaluating the function of classifying devices: not just classifiers, but also class systems and languages with measure and class terms. In the following paragraphs it becomes clear whether this implication holds for Indo-European. The notions unitizing vs. non-unitizing functions bring up the discussion about the function and nature of nouns, especially in classifier languages. According to some linguists, nouns convey “mass” whereas classifiers unitize (Ritchie 1971); others argue that classifiers measure rather than unitize, with nouns merely referring to mass (Sharvy 1978); for Greenberg the distinction noun vs. classifier refers rather to the opposition collectivity vs. unit (1977). In this discussion, it is important first to underscore that classifiers are part of a linguistic system that is very different from that found in Indo-European, for example (for further discussion, see Section 2.3 below). Instances such as the ones above show that “the classifier constitutes a syntactic function for particu-

51

2.2 Noun classification and semantic function

larizing nouns denoting structured concepts and/or categorizing objects conceptualised as being structured” (Löbel 2000: 315). Nouns in Vietnamese seem to behave differently from those in Indo-European. Cân, for example, does not refer to a specific item, but rather to a general notion: to a general concept of “celery-ness”. Nouns in Indo-European refer to discrete specific items. Whereas for Indo-Europeans the English bag refers to a ‘bag’, in Vietnamese, bao seems to refer to a concept ‘bagness’, rather than the concrete and discrete object ‘bag’. Nouns in Vietnamese indeed are either “entity denoting nouns” (e. g. ‘cow’) or “mass-denoting nouns” (e. g. ‘meat’, ‘paper’) (Löbel 2000: 267, also for further discussion of implications). Emeneau talks about “classified nouns”, nouns that may combine with classifiers (1951: 84). Classified nouns need a classifier in quantitative expressions; non-classified nouns combine directly with numerals, they are “directly numerable” (Emeneau 1951: 94; for further discussion of the phenomenon, see Emeneau 1951: 94–95). Other languages as well may have nouns similar to entity-denoting nouns and mass-denoting nouns, but that characteristic is not grammatically marked, e. g. English, where the distinction “mass” vs. “entity” is not grammatically marked. Instead, where relevant, mass nouns will be accompanied by a lexical element to denote an entity, not by a grammatical element, cf. e. g. sand vs. a heap of sand, wine vs. a glass of wine, and so forth.3 By contrast, the situation is different in Vietnamese. In quantitative constructions, Vietnamese bao combines with a classifier [THING], referring—in unitizing function—to a number of individual bags, cf.  

 

 

 

(77)

hai two

cái bao CLF[THING] bag

‘two bags’

The importance of classifiers is further underscored by the fact that bao not only functions as a noun and classifier, but also as a verb meaning ‘to cover all around’ (see Emeneau’s list 1951: 80–83). As noted before, in isolating languages—such as Vietnamese—there are no grammatical markers to convey the lexical class of the

3 To clarify this observation. a brief excursion into active languages may be helpful. In active languages transitivity is not grammatically marked. This does not mean that they have no transitive verbs. Active languages do feature transitive verbs, but they are treated like other active verbs such as ’run’ and they combine with active nouns. A verb like ‘kill’ e. g. behaves like the verb ‘run’ and it differs in syntax and morphology from inactive verbs, such as ‘be’ or ‘sleep’. In contrast to nominative languages, transitivity in active languages is not a grammatical feature (see Bauer 2000: 57–90).  

52

Chapter 2: Nominal apposition and noun classification

elements involved (e. g. Löbel 2000: 263). Similarly, gói functions as a verb (‘to wrap up’), as a noun (‘package’), and as a classifier. The element nắ m serves as a verb (‘to close [hand] tightly’, as a noun (‘fist’), and as a classifier (‘fistful’); examples from Löbel 2000: 267). In languages with numeral classifiers, the classifying specification provided by classifiers unitizes the referent. This interpretation also accounts for the fact that in many languages numeral classifiers also appear in contexts with demonstratives. Demonstratives as well unitize and individualize nouns.  

2.3 Noun classification and language system A final question to address is whether there is a correlation between types of noun classification and language typology or geographical distribution. The question is justified because the link between noun classification and language system plays at various levels. Class and classifier systems, for example, typically do not occur in Creoles, which is one of the reasons why they are assumed to be rather late in terms of phylogenetic language development. Conversely, when a language is dying, noun classification is among the first features to weaken (e. g. Dixon 1986: 110–111). Moreover classifiers are acquired late by L-1 children (Mithun 1986: 394–395; Erbaugh 1986). And finally, there are examples of classifier systems being borrowed into languages that have the ‘right’ typology (see below), even if these languages are part of a language family that features a class system: several Indo-Aryan languages, for example, having developed agglutinative characteristics came to include classifiers as well (Masica 1991: 250). In Section 2.1, I already noted that different types of classifier language seem to have areal correlates: they tend to occur in certain areas of the world (see also Dixon 1986: 109). The best examples of numeral classification, for example, are found in East and South East Asia; genitive classifiers and verbal classifiers feature in the languages of Oceania and North America respectively; noun classifiers typically are attested in languages of Meso-America (Grinevald 2000: 80–81, passim). Yet on the whole, classifier languages are not limited to a certain geographic area or family. They are attested in “the Malayo-Polynesian, the Austro-Asiatic, the Sino-Tibetan, the Altaic, the Dravidian, and the Indo-Aryan languages” (Senft 2000b: 21). Class languages “are a typological feature of Africa as a linguistic area” (Dixon 1986: 109), with noun-class languages being the most widespread type and a “central feature of Niger-Kordofanian” (Hurskainen 2000: 683). Gender is attested in “all major language families, but it is not characteristic of any of them, with the exception of Afro-Asiatic languages [e. g. Semitic, Cushitic, Chadic,  

 

2.3 Noun classification and language system

53

Berber, Egyptian, . . . , where it is as common as noun-class systems in NigerKordofanian” (Hurskainen 2000: 684, 679). In addition to geographical correspondence, there are clear-cut typological correlates as well. Classifier systems typically are found in isolating languages (Dixon 1982b: 218–219, 1986: 109; Löbel 2000: 259): in South East and East Asia classifiers occur in isolating or mildly agglutinating languages (Dixon 1982b: 218). The regional distribution therefore seems to be linguistically motivated. In other words, classifiers may not be an isolated contact phenomenon, but involve more general linguistic characteristics. Class systems typically are found in agglutinative and inflectional languages. In Indo-European gender indeed co-occurs with strong inflection, whereas languages in Africa are agglutinative or partly inflectional (for more details, see Dixon 1982b: 218–219). Inflectional and agglutinative languages make a rather clear distinction between the various parts of speech: nouns, verbs, adjectives, and so forth. By contrast, in isolating languages many lexical items function as verbs, nouns, and classifiers (see for example Emeneau 1951: 84–113). Consequently, as briefly mentioned in Section 2.2, lexical elements may refer to a general concept, rather than a specific well-defined object or person (see also Section 2.3). Moreover in the absence of morphological markers there is no formal identification of isolating lexical classes. This characteristic may explain why classifier languages often are numeral classifier languages: classifiers exclusively occur in combination with numerals and demonstratives because these elements can only combine with unitized concepts. The lexical character of classifier systems is further underscored by the observation that isolating languages have no morphological elements: classifiers therefore primarily are lexical—and only in their classifying function they are grammatical. Finally, studies as by Rijkhoff (2000) show that the presence of (numeral) classifiers may be related to other linguistic characteristics, in Rijkhoff’s study the absence of adjectives. Rijkhoff found that adjectives occur as an independent category only in languages where numerals combine directly with nouns without the “intervention” of a certain type of classifier. The geographical distribution of the different types of classification systems has typological correlates, further supporting the hypothesis that noun classification has typological correlates as well. Since Indo-European typologically was and is very different from classifier languages, the parallels between nominal apposition and constructions with classifiers are just that, parallels. In other words, despite similarities, the common noun in nominal apposition is not a classifier. Yet this caveat is by no means reason to down play the observed structural and semantic parallels. The parallels identified underscore the classifying function of nominal apposition in Indo-European. The typological correlates,  

 

54

Chapter 2: Nominal apposition and noun classification

finally will be once more at play in the discussion about the evolution of nominal apposition in certain Eastern Indo-European languages (Chapter 7).

2.4 Noun classification in the languages of the world: preliminary conclusions In preliminary conclusion, the commented overview of the types of noun classification in languages of the world in the preceding sections reveals that: – there is a clear distinction between systems that feature morpho-syntactic devices (as in noun-class and gender languages) and lexical devices (in languages with measure and class words) at both extremes, with in between systems featuring open-class classifiers (classifier languages). Classifiers continue to function as lexical autonomous elements—(divergence); – the different types of noun classification tend to be attested in certain geographic areas and to co-occur with certain typological characteristics (isolating, inflectional, and agglutinative languages). Geographical and typological characteristics are connected; – classifier systems and lexical systems featuring class and measure nouns share a number of characteristics that distinguish them both from class systems. These characteristics are: (a) non-obligatory occurrence, (b) variability of occurrence, (c) lexical nature of elements (measure/class nouns) or the lexical origin of classifiers and their rather common divergence; – classifiers occur in certain morpho-syntactic contexts: numerals and demonstratives, genitives, nouns, or verbs. In that respect classifier languages differ fundamentally from class languages and languages with class and measure nouns; – the different types of classifier tend to correspond to certain types of semantic characteristic; – noun classification in all systems provides information about inherent properties of the referent. For class languages, however, the distinctions are between genders (three maximum) or a limited number of intrinsic characteristics (e. g. [α animate], [α human], [α . . .], and so forth); – class systems explicitly and exclusively are a morphological and syntactic phenomenon, with morphological markers and external agreement patterns: the elements with which the noun in question combines, are affected as well; – agreement is no feature of classifier languages; – even if increasingly less prominent in most daughter languages today, noun classification is a characteristic feature of Indo-European, because of the category of gender, so-called classificatory verbs, and class and measure  

 

 

2.5 Noun classification in Indo-European

55

nouns. And because of nominal apposition. Gender and classificatory verbs will be discussed in the next section.

2.5 Noun classification in Indo-European The following pages evaluate two types of noun classification found in IndoEuropean. I will first provide a state-of-the-art overview of gender and its development in Indo-European (Section 2.5.1). Subsequently I will briefly examine classificatory verbs as they are attested in various Indo-European languages, evaluating how they affect classification of nouns (Section 2.5.2).

2.5.1 Noun classification: gender As said, in terms of language type, (Proto-)Indo-European is a class language: gender is a grammatical feature and typically is expressed in agreement patterns with other nominal parts of speech, such as adjectives, pronouns, and participles. In the early days of Indo-European linguistics, it was tacitly assumed that Sanskrit as the then earliest attested language with its sophisticated characteristics was closest to the protolanguage. Its three-way gender system was therefore reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European, distinguishing masculine, feminine, and neuter (e. g. Brugmann 1911: 82–109). Since all then-known early Indo-European languages feature these three genders, this reconstruction seemed perfectly legitimate. Yet there were several grammatical characteristics in early Indo-European that remained unexplained. The oldest category of adjectives (DECL III), for example, typically distinguishes between what has always been interpreted as a masculine/feminine form as opposed to a neuter form (e. g. La. grandis ‘big-M/F vs. grande ‘big-NE’). That pattern did not parallel the reconstructed three-gender system. Adjectives that distinguish three genders—the so-called thematic adjectives (DECL I/II)—were much later and therefore secondary: e. g. La. bonus ‘goodM’, bona ‘good-F’, bonum ‘good-NE’. Along similar lines, the lack of case distinction in the third declension nouns pater ‘father’ and mater ‘mother’ was one of the reasons for Meillet to argue at an early time already that the original distinction in the protolanguage was animate vs. inanimate (Meillet 1926: 211–212). Subsequently, the prominent position of Sanskrit in the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European changed dramatically when Hittite was discovered during the first quarter of the 20th century and identified as an Indo-European language. Not only did we now have texts that were older than the earliest documents in  

 

 

56

Chapter 2: Nominal apposition and noun classification

Sanskrit, we had a language that included many archaic features (e. g. correlative constructions, the opposition middle vs. active, no future tense). The recognition that Hittite did not have three but two genders (common vs. neuter) then led to extensive discussions addressing the question whether Hittite had lost one gender or whether it never had had a third gender. The debate put Meillet’s (1926) interpretation prominently at the core of language reconstruction. Since the 1990s there is general consensus that the gender system of Hittite is an archaism rather than an innovation and that Hittite had split off from the protolanguage before a three-gender system had developed. While consensus was reached in the 1990s, publications settling this question were much earlier, e. g. Schmidt (1977), Meid (1979: 165–167), and so forth. Consequently early ProtoIndo-European is now reconstructed with a two-gender system (common vs. neuter), which traces back to an earlier distinction animate vs. inanimate. The original animate vs. inanimate distinction technically was not a gender distinction, but rather a class distinction (see Section 2.1.1) and it had strong semantic motivation. Moreover it points to an early, active stage of Proto-Indo-European, in which transitivity was not a grammatical feature. Instead the grammatical system was based on the distinction active vs. stative. In this system animate typically is in line with [+ active], whereas inanimate is in line with [– active] (for an extensive analysis, cf. Lehmann 1989; Bauer 2000). With the opposition [+/– animate] established as the original system for Proto-Indo-European, the discussion in the field has now shifted to the origin of the feminine gender, with varying degrees of success, focusing on the original semantic motivation, the origin of its morphological marking, its nominal vs. pronominal origin, emergence of agreement patterns, or spread (e. g. Stempel 1994; Ledo-Lemos 2000; Schwink 2004; Matasović 2004; Luraghi 2009). It is clear that the earlier the language stage, the stronger the semantic motivation of gender (Meillet 1938: 24). The emergence of the feminine gender e. g. was semantically motivated (e. g. Stempel 1994). In addition it is possible to find in the various early Indo-European daughter languages a semantic motivation of gender for certain groups of noun: concepts that are considered “overwhelming”, to such an extent that even gods are unable to resist, are assigned masculine gender (e. g. somnus sleep-M), stars and planets are masculine or feminine; products, fruits, and young animals typically are neuter (e. g. La. somnum ‘dream-NE’, the product of sleep; pirum ‘pear-NE’); internal organs, which one cannot see move or function are neuter (e. g. La. iecur ‘liver-NE; Gk κῆρ ‘heart-NE’), whereas limbs—which are active—are either masculine or feminine. While the hand, a “receiver”, is feminine (e. g. La. manus ‘hand-F’), the foot is masculine (e. g. La. pes ‘foot-M’), and so forth (see Meillet 1926: 211–229, 1938: 24, 1948). Notions such as “control”, “active agent”, “ability of procreation”, and  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.5 Noun classification in Indo-European

57

others may be underlying factors in this type of gender assignment. In later languages gender assignment more and more became formally motivated or arbitrary. In other words, the classification of the noun system gradually lost its semantic motivation and became predominantly grammatical or formal. In the later daughter languages, the motivation of gender assignment not only has changed or “faded”, certain gender distinctions may have disappeared as well: in several languages a reduction took place (“eine Vereinfachung des alten Dreigenussytems” [Brugmann 1911: 85]). While the survival of the three genders or the loss of neuter (in combination with the survival of feminine and masculine) is common (e. g. the Romance languages, Lithuanian, or Latvian), the merger of masculine and feminine is rare (creating an opposition masculine/ feminine vs. neuter, as in Modern Dutch). Equally rare is the almost complete loss of gender (e. g. English). Several Indo-European languages today no longer have gender, which according to some may be accounted for as an areal feature, possibly due to substrate influence (Armenian, Modern Persian, several Western Iranian languages; see Matasović [2004: 44–45, 61–62]). With the disappearance of the semantic motivation of gender came the eventual loss of agreement as well. Historically there are therefore grosso modo two movements: (a) the fading of (the prominence of) gender, and (b) the loss of agreement between the noun and the respective elements with which it combines: adjectives, participles, pronouns, demonstratives, and so forth (for patterns, see Smith 1993). The long-term history of gender in Indo-European shows therefore a shift from noun-class to gender language and subsequently a gradual loss of the grammatical category.  

 

2.5.2 Noun classification: classificatory verbs Several Indo-European languages feature a number of verbs expressing what one would render in English with one unique verb, put for example. A point in case is German, where the physical qualities of the direct object and the subject determine the choice of certain verbs: the subject of Gm. liegen and stehen are respectively flat and upright objects. Similarly, the direct object of Gm. legen and stellen ‘put’ (Du. leggen and zetten) are flat and upright elements as well, hence: (78)

a. b.

Gm. ein Buch auf den Tisch legen / Du. een boek op tafel leggen Gm. eine Flasche auf den Tisch stellen / Du. een fles op tafel zetten ‘to put a book/a bottle on the table’

58

Chapter 2: Nominal apposition and noun classification

The distinction between verbs on the basis of characteristics of the subject and direct object primarily pertains to a limited number of verbs only, such as ‘putting’ and ‘standing’. These verbs are called position verbs or classificatory verbs and since the semantic characteristics of the subject or the object determine the choice of verb they convey noun classification. In addition, several languages make a distinction between ‘bring’ [+ animate & self-moving direct object] and ‘bring’ [– animate & non-self-moving object], as the following French examples show: (79)

a. b.

Fr. il apporte ses livres Fr. il ammène son chien

‘he brings his book’ ‘he brings his dog’

Conversely, the German examples under (78) above translate in French as unspecified placer/mettre un livre/une bouteille sur la table ‘put a book/bottle on the table’ Moreover, languages may vary to the extent in which they feature classificatory verbs: in some contexts they will use a classificatory verb, in others they rather use a verb of the type ‘to be’. English for example, typically distinguishes between the progressive and the regular finite verb form: (80)

Engl. the vase is on the table / there is a vase on the table

but it also features: (81)

Engl. the vase is standing on the table

Since French does not allow this last structure, it seems that of the four languages, German and Dutch have the strongest preference for classificatory verbs, whereas English allows position constructions for progressive forms and French seems to have no trace of them. The legitimate question here is: are classificatory verbs an archaic feature that traces back to the protolanguage or is it a phenomenon that came up in certain daughter languages? It is clear that languages that feature them, used to have more in the past. Yet for the time being, limited diachronic or comparative analysis does not bring up a pattern that suggests that these structures were inherited. Data that are available at this point, rather indicate that classificatory verbs are a phenomenon that emerged in certain languages but not in others. Why certain languages did develop them while others did not, needs further investigation. In the context of this book, it is noteworthy that languages that feature classificatory verbs, in the choice of verb highlight certain characteristics of the subject or object that typically pertain to shape or mobility.

2.6 Conclusions: how does nominal apposition relate to noun classification?

59

2.6 Conclusions: how does nominal apposition relate to noun classification? While Proto-Indo-European typically was a gender—hence class—language, today’s daughter languages vary in the degree to which they still are. At the beginning of this chapter I pointed out that certain strategies of gender marking involve nominal apposition, such as female professional terminology: Fr. la femme médecin, It. il medico donna, or Engl. woman doctor. It is interesting to note that if these formations indeed are lexical, their occurrence in French and Italian is grammatical as well because of the related agreement patterns. In English, a quasi genderless languages, the process almost exclusively is lexical. I argue in this book that the classifying role of nominal apposition goes beyond these examples, which are in addition relatively recent. Nominal apposition as attested in Indo-European shows important formal and semantic similarities with certain phenomena of noun classification in other languages. Preliminary research into types of nominal apposition in early Indo-European, with a focus on Latin revealed the prominent role of common nouns (Bauer 2008, 2012a). As further analysis in Chapters 4 and 5 will show, they pertain to semantic fields such as [RELIGION], [SOCIAL STATUS, SEX], [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION], [SOCIAL STATUS, AGE], [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE], and several others. In short, the overview led to the conclusion that nominal apposition in early Indo-European had important classifying function, conveying the inherent nature of the referent (e. g. [SOCIAL STATUS, SEX/AGE, RELIGION, GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION]) or its social status more in general e. g. [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION/TITLE] (see more below). This observation alone warrants an excursus into the typology of noun classification in order to better understand its underlying patterns. Typological analyses of classifying systems in the world as discussed here bring up a number of important observations that further support my findings and reveal parallels between nominal apposition in Indo-European and classifying systems elsewhere. First, from a formal cross-linguistic perspective many processes of noun classification involve the combining of a noun with another noun or a particle that etymologically traces back to a noun. This nominal origin plays at different levels, as pointed out before, and it is therefore not always easy to tell the difference between certain types of classification, such as noun classifiers and class terms. Moreover, numeral classifiers in classifier languages, for example, often continue to function as ‘plain’ lexical nouns as well. In a similar way a common noun in nominal apposition functions as an autonomous noun in another context, e. g. urbs in urbs Roma ‘the city of Rome’ occurs as an isolated lexical item ‘town’ elsewhere. Finally, certain (predicate)  

 

 

60

Chapter 2: Nominal apposition and noun classification

classifiers commonly trace back to nouns that generalized their meaning (‘water’ > ‘liquid’) before fully grammaticalizing into particles. Finally, both nominal apposition and noun classification (historically) typically involve juxtaposition of nouns. In spite of formal differences, all noun classification processes convey the same semantic function, that of classifying: nouns are distributed over various classes. Chapters 4 and 5 will show in greater detail that nominal apposition is classificatory in Indo-European as well. With class systems—noun-class and gender languages—nominal apposition shares the prevalence of (external) agreement, a characteristic not found in systems that typically feature Noun – Noun or Noun – Nominoid Particle combinations. Consequently, the formal parallels between classifier languages and languages with measure terms and class terms seem to be stronger than the parallels between each of them and class systems. At this point one of the main distinctive features of classifiers is their occurrence in given syntactic contexts: classifiers typically are context bound (e. g. quantifier expressions, genitives, predicates). This is not the case in class languages, in languages with measure and class terms nor in nominal apposition. Nominal apposition shares however an important feature with classifier languages: the actual combining in certain of these languages of a generic classifier with a noun that represents a subclass, bears strong resemblance to nominal apposition in Indo-European. Consequently nominal apposition in Indo-European and classifying systems elsewhere have a number of characteristics in common: with classifier languages nominal apposition shares the combining of two nouns—with the prominence of the common noun—and with class languages it shares the prominence of (external) agreement. Accordingly, nominal apposition has certain lexical characteristics in common with classifier languages, and certain grammatical characteristics with class languages. In addition to the well-established fact that Indo-European—especially in its early attested varieties—is a gender language, the parallels between nominal apposition and classifying systems observed in this chapter strongly suggest that classification was more prominent a feature in Indo-European and its history than so far has been assumed. It is also more pervasive than a phenomenon such as classificatory verbs. While evidently a form of noun classification, classificatory verbs in Indo-European were too limited in scope—both in terms of occurrence and distribution across the various daughter languages—too late, and too shortlived to be a fundamental feature of the language system. These findings and observations provide the background to the extensive analysis of nominal apposition in Indo-European in this book. In the following chapter, I will start with a phenomenon observed in Indo-European that so far has  

2.6 Conclusions: how does nominal apposition relate to noun classification?

61

been ignored as a phenomenon of noun classification and that taken at face value may appear not to be linguistic in the strict sense. Yet script determinatives in the writing systems of Hittite and Mycenaean played a linguistic role relevant to the topic of this book.

Chapter 3 Earliest instances of nominal apposition in Indo-European “It is of interest to theoreticians that semantic determinatives have arisen quite independently in the writing systems of certain languages. Sumerologists might consider the general literature on the subject of noun classification systems, and linguists need to include semantic determinatives in their studies of the same” (Rude 1986: 136)

Nominal apposition is not only attested in the earliest Indo-European languages, but also in the earliest non-Indo-European (narrative) texts as found on archaeological objects (see below). Moreover, there is an early phenomenon that taken at face value may not be linguistic, but that shows strong similarities to nominal apposition, warranting further analysis into possible linguistic correlates. I refer to so-called script determinatives that feature in the writing systems of a few early Indo-European languages. Script determinatives are signs—sometimes borrowed with the writing system—indicating the class of the noun with which they combine, in a way similar to common or generic nouns specifying a proper noun in nominal apposition, cf. e. g. Hi. URUKu-us-sa-ra, lit. ‘[TOWN]-Kussara vs. urbs Roma, lit. ‘town Rome’. In this chapter further examination of their precise characteristics will determine parallels with nominal apposition and illuminate whether they reflect certain linguistic phenomena or whether they merely are inherent to the writing system that was used. First I will review the reconstruction of the origins of writing and assess what the earliest attestations in writing in the Middle East tell us about nominal apposition in general (Section 3.1). Subsequently I will examine the use of script determinatives in early (Indo-European) writing, showing the strong parallels with nominal apposition both in form and function (Section 3.2). I will discuss script determinatives in Sumerian, before focusing more specifically on Hittite and Mycenaean. Section 3.2 will therefore open with a discussion about script determinatives in the Sumerian writing system, which was adopted by the Hittites. Inventories of script determinatives will be provided, their function and the connection with the linguistic system will be analyzed. Finally, script determinatives will be examined in relation to nominal apposition (Section 3.3).  

DOI 10.1515/9783110461756-003

3.1 Language, culture, archaeology, and writing

63

3.1 Language, culture, archaeology, and writing From the outset Indo-European linguistics has been a multidisciplinary field aiming not only to establish linguistic affiliation or to reconstruct Proto-IndoEuropean, but also to relate the Indo-European languages and the protolanguage to their speakers. A case in point is the talk that reportedly marked the beginning of the discipline, establishing the linguistic relation between several early IndoEuropean languages and a protolanguage, which was delivered by Sir William Jones in the Asiatic Society of Calcutta in 1786. The aim of the Society was “the describing of Indian history, people, and culture in an interdisciplinary design” (Cannon 1990: 203). If Jones’s role as initiator of comparative linguistics may perhaps be less prominent than often is suggested in the handbooks (see Campbell and Posner [2008] on this issue, especially pp. 32–47), it does not undermine the observation that the early works in the field as well as the goals of the Asiatic Society, where Jones delivered his talk, were strongly multidisciplinary. Many early works in Indo-European linguistics indeed combine linguistic and cultural evidence, such as Kuhn’s (1845) Zur ältesten Geschichte der indogermanischen Völker, which on the basis of e. g. kinship terminology and terminology pertaining to domestic animals attempts to reconstruct Indo-European society before the split-up. In approaches of this type—often referred to as “linguistic palaeontology”—linguistic phenomena are accounted for with cultural evidence and linguistic data are used to reconstruct culture. Similarly, in his influential Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, Grimm (1848) brings together linguistic evidence and data from early texts and traditions. These approaches further extended when archaeology developed into a field with a scientific and systematic methodology including stratification and seriation. Archaeological evidence and methods came to be used in linguistic studies, resulting, for example, in Specht’s (1944) identification of “strata” (chronological layers) in the Indo-European lexicon with its implications for the reconstruction of cultural history. The notion that linguistic evidence could represent various chronological layers was already pertinent in phonology of course, with Saussure’s (1879) reconstruction of the canonical root for Proto-Indo-European and the related vowel system and the growing insights in ablaut developments (Hirt 1900, 1921–1937). More recently, studies dealing with the homeland of the Indo-Europeans have come from archaeologists, such a Gimbutas (1970), whose conclusions—despite some of its extreme interpretations—tend to agree with many linguistic findings but leave out several that do not fit, Renfrew (1987), whose archaeological reconstruction has little linguistic support, and Anthony (2007). Conversely, studies such as Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995 [1984]), include archaeological evidence in their linguistic reconstruction of the Indo-European homeland (for an  

64

Chapter 3: Earliest instances of nominal apposition in Indo-European

extensive overview of the relation between linguistics and archaeology, see Lehmann 1993). For the topic under discussion, archaeology is yet again of importance: recently the earliest narrative texts in the Middle East have been traced and their position from the perspective of the development of writing has been evaluated (Schmandt-Besserat 2007). In them, nominal apposition is found to be prominently present as will become clear below. In earlier publications Schmandt-Besserat (e. g. 1992) has demonstrated that writing in the Middle-East originated in accounting. When people started to keep track of agricultural productivity (7500–3500 B. C.), they used tokens, small elements in the shape of little balls, cones, and so forth. These objects traditionally had been found in great numbers across the Middle East, but their function was not understood. Schmandt-Besserat argues that each token represented a certain quantity of a given agricultural product, such as grain, oil, sheep, and so forth. The shape of the token reminded one of the produce it represented. Subsequently, with the development of city-states and the emergence of a more organized economy and tax system, authorities wanted to keep track of their revenues and tokens became more complex, representing manufactured products as well. From 3700 B. C. on a system developed in which an accountant or archivist for taxes kept the tokens in clay boxes. These “envelopes” were closed and non-transparent. Archivists eventually marked on the outside of the box what was inside, often impressing the token in the damp clay. This system, developed between 3700 and 2600 B. C., made it possible to know what was inside the box without having to break hence destroy it. These impressions eventually became two-dimensional signs. As part of this evolution, tablets with token signs started to appear between 3500 and 3100 B. C. This was the origin of writing, which at first was pictographic (3100– 3000 B. C.; see Schmandt-Besserat 1992). For the topic under discussion in this book it is important to note the double characteristics of tokens: they represent an item and a quantity. They therefore convey in one symbol quantity and referent. Writing soon came to be used in other domains as well. A first step was the appearance of proper nouns in economic texts from 3000 B. C. onward: names were registered of those who had received or contributed economic goods. The immediate consequence of that innovation was the spread of writing to other domains, such as funerary objects as found in the royal Cemetery of Ur (3250– 3000 B. C.). These objects may combine an image with texts that include proper nouns with or without a common noun (Schmandt-Besserat 2007: 68), cf. the following examples that feature a proper noun:  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(82)

a. b.

mes-kalam-dùg (PG 755) é-zi (RT 779)

‘Mes-kalam-dug’ ‘Ezi’

3.2 Classifying nouns and early (Indo-European) writing systems

65

The following examples include a proper and a common noun: (83)

a. mes-kalam-dùg lugal (PG 1054) ‘Mes-kalam-dug king’ b. é-zi dub-sar (PG 861) ‘Ezi scribe’ c. ùg-il rá-GAB (PG 1200) ‘Ug-il messenger’ ‘Adda porter’ d. ad-da ni-du8 (PG 1003) e. nin-TUR nin (PG 755) ‘Nin-TUR1 queen/priestess’ (Examples from Burrows 1934: passim; Roux 2001)

It is important to note that the common noun follows the proper noun in all instances here (and instances not quoted here, but found in Burrows [1934: passim]). These early examples show that nominal apposition is attested in the earliest narrative texts. Moreover the common nouns in these early instances share the semantic domain of [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION] and [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE], which is significant in the light of findings in Chapters 4 and 5.

3.2 Classifying nouns and early (Indo-European) writing systems In addition to early attestations of nominal apposition, early writing is also important to the topic under discussion because of script determinatives: two of the earliest Indo-European languages are recorded in writing systems that use them, Hittite and Mycenaean. Moreover, Script Determinative + Noun combinations typically have a structure that parallels nominal apposition: they both combine a common noun/element with a more specific one or a name, a pattern typically found in instances of nominal apposition in Indo-European (see Chapters 4 and 5), cf. (84)

a.

La.

b.

Hi.

urbs Roma city-NOM Rome-NOM ‘city of Rome’ URU Ku-us-sa-ra (Anitta 1) [TOWN]-Kussara ‘town of Kussara’

Consequently both in terms of meaning and structure the constructions show important similarities.

1 Nin-TUR may be a proper name or an “official name of priestesses in early times”, due to the fact that in early times king’s wives or daughters may have been priestesses as well (Burrows 1934: 312).

66

Chapter 3: Earliest instances of nominal apposition in Indo-European

Several writing systems in the Middle East (e. g. cuneiform) and the Mediterranean area (e. g. Minoan) indeed include “semantic determinatives” (i. e. script determinatives) although the languages that they render do not have “classifier systems”. Yet, as Rude (1986) already pointed out “in many ways [script determinatives] parallel classifier systems observed in spoken languages today. In the case of cuneiform, [script determinatives] functioned exactly like noun classifiers” (Rude 1986: 133). In other words, script determinatives in some writing systems function like classification systems in natural languages. One of the questions to address therefore is whether classification in a writing system is completely independent of the language it renders or whether there indeed is a parallel between the classification conveyed in the writing system with script determinatives and the classification system used in the language. Some argue that script determinatives in a given writing system—i. c. Sumerian—are related to a language system in which nouns are considered members of a given class (a class language; Jestin 1994: 15–16). Empirical data do not support this hypothesis. First, scripts obviously are independent of languages even if speakers who borrow a writing system may adapt it to the needs of their language, as Hittite texts, for example, clearly show. The intrinsic independence between language and writing system explains why a wide-ranging variety of languages have been rendered in cuneiform and why languages that do not have noun classes may have a writing system that includes script determinatives: “[they] appear to have been developed by the Sumerians into cuneiform writing as a noun classification system, even though none existed in the spoken language” (Rude 1986: 135). Although this assumed absence of class in Sumerian is not accurate, on the whole there seems to be no inherent parallel between linguistic classification and classification as reflected in the writing system (see more below). Finally, it is important to note that languages that took over Sumerian writing and adapted it to their system, in general did not do away with script determinatives. As a result, cuneiform with script determinatives was used not only by the Sumerians, who developed it, but also by speakers of a variety of other languages, such as Akkadian, Hittite, Hurrian, Eblaite (for the spreading of cuneiform, see Michalowski 1996). These languages represent different language groups, Semitic (Akkadian and Eblaite), Indo-European (Hittite), and Hurrian, as well as different language types. Hurrian was an ergative and agglutinative language; the early Indo-European daughter languages were nominative and inflectional languages; Indo-European’s earlier syntax was non-nominative, presumably active (Klimov 1974; Schmidt 1979; Lehmann 1989; Bauer 2000). Semitic in early times was nominative and inflectional as well. It will become clear, however, that in the process of transfer from one language to the other, changes were made to the writing system that may be significant.  

 

 

 

3.2 Classifying nouns and early (Indo-European) writing systems

67

3.2.1 Script determinatives in Sumerian writing There is no consensus as to the practical materialization of script determinatives. Most studies agree in saying that script determinatives were not pronounced, not even when the text was read out loud: “Remember, the signs were not pronounced when they functioned as semantic determinatives, no matter what language was being written” (Rude 1986: 136). Others are less categorical: according to Hayes script determinatives “probably” were not pronounced (Hayes 2000: 18) and even if script determinatives “can be proven not to have been pronounced (. . . doubt may exist in specific instances)” (Edzard 2003: 9). There is a remarkable lack of motivation of why script determinatives allegedly were not pronounced or —conversely—why that assumption may be doubtful. If there is no agreement as to the phonetic materialization of script determinatives, grammars agree in saying that they have semantic function: they “indicate the general semantic class to which a following noun belongs” (Hayes 2000: 18). Moreover, they “precede or follow words or names in order to specify them as belonging to semantic groups” (Edzard 2003: 9). As will become clear in the following paragraphs, they are an integrated part of the cuneiform writing system. The history of writing, especially of cuneiform, and its early characteristics are crucial to understanding script determinatives. Writing systems in general tend to develop from purely pictographic (e. g. Egyptian hieroglyphs) into syllabic writing systems and from there into purely phonetic systems. Pictographic systems typically convey meanings and concepts and there is no link with the spoken language. Subsequently, signs may be connected to given words, first concrete words and then increasingly abstract words and grammatical elements. At this point, a relation is established with the (spoken) language and the sign becomes more and more connected to the sound of that word and words with similar sounds (syllabic stage). The signs eventually become purely phonetic (for more details see e. g. Sturtevant and Bechtel 1935: 15–25). As one of the early writing systems, cuneiform was pictographic in origin (see Section 3.1 above). The signs were small images representing concrete objects or beings, which on the whole were recognizable: the sign for head, for example, looked like a head. Grammatical elements were not added at that stage. Subsequently two changes occurred: (a) the pictograms became increasingly abstract, gradually assuming the wedge-like forms that gave the writing system its name ( >

apin engar

‘plough’ ‘ploughman’

This usage may account for the sign and the determinative not being pronounced in Sumerian because it is their combining that is rendered by the relevant Sumerian noun in reading. The structure changed dramatically when script determinatives came to be used in other contexts as well, such as proper nouns, where they no longer primarily are disambiguating devices. Script determinatives indeed came to be used in combination with proper names, such as the names of gods, towns, temples, and so forth, cf. (86)

a.

b.

d

En-ki (WHM 561) [DIVINITY]-Enki ‘god Enki’ (Kang 1972: 63) d Inanna [DIVINITY]-Inanna (WHM 21) ‘the goddess Inanna’ (Kang 1972: 35)

3.2 Classifying nouns and early (Indo-European) writing systems

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

69

d

Nin-a-zu (WHM 21) [DIVINITY]-Ninazu ‘the goddess Ninazu’ (Kang 1972: 35) d Nin-sun (WHM 22) [DIVINITY]-Ninsun ‘the goddess Ninsun’ (Kang 1972: 40) Nibruki (WHM 21) Nippur-[TOWN] ‘the town of Nippur’ (Kang 1972: 35) ù Lu-lubuki (WHM 21) Si-mu-ru-umki Simurum-[TOWN] and Lulubu-[TOWN] ‘the towns of Simurum and Lulbu’ (Kang 1972: 35) ù Ħu-mur-tiki (WHM 28) Ki-maški Kimaš-[TOWN] and Humurti-[TOWN] ‘the towns of Kimaš and Humurti’ (Kang 1972: 39)

Even if grammars and analyses do not seem to make a distinction, the instances under (85) and (86) are not all identical. The script determinatives with common nouns in example (85) have a truly disambiguating function: the sign itself is polysemic. Instances that combine a script determinative with a proper name (under [86]) do not have such strong disambiguating function because the name itself may already refer concisely to the god or the town. Extra-linguistic knowledge may help in the concrete interpretation of the names, but not always. Script determinatives therefore increasingly had specifying rather than disambiguating function, reflecting an essential shift. In order to address the fundamental question of the potential relation between language and the writing system used to convey it, I will briefly discuss a few relevant aspects of Sumerian grammar in the following paragraphs. A language without linguistic affiliates, Sumerian was an agglutinative ergative SOV language (e. g. Thomsen 1984: 51; Edzard 2003: 2) and featured nouns, verbs, adpositions, adverbs, pronouns (e. g. personal pronouns), conjunctions, and numerals. The precise nature of the adjective in Sumerian was not clear (e. g. Thomsen 1984: 49; Edzard 2003: 47–48; Black 2005), which is not exceptional. Sumerian was a class language to the extent that it made a grammatical distinction between “person” and “non-person nouns” (e. g. Edzard 2003: 29).2 Moreover since Sumerian considered animals animate but non-persons (unless personified) and aligned them with inanimates, the main distinction indeed is in  

 

 

 

2 Falkenstein refers to the distinction as “Personen- und Sachklassen” (Edzard 2003: 29) and Thomsen as “animate and inanimate”, whereby “animate are persons. Inanimate are things and animals” (1984: 49). Gods were considered animate and persons (Michalowksi 2004: 35).

70

Chapter 3: Earliest instances of nominal apposition in Indo-European

fact between [+ human] and [– human]. Class is manifest in agreement patterns on nominal elements and verbs. Elements that mark [α human] are personal pronouns, interrogative pronouns, singular possessives, and certain verbal forms (Michalowksi 2004: 47; see also Edzard [2003: 81–91] and Thomsen [1984: 67–79]), cf. (87)

a. lugal-a-ni ‘owner-his’ > ‘his owner’ (e. g. owner of a slave) [+ HUMAN] b. lugal-bi ‘owner-its’ > ‘its owner’ (e. g. owner of a garden, animal) [– HUMAN] (Examples from Edzard 2003: 29)  

 

Class is not manifest on the noun itself (Edzard 2003: 29). Yet certain case endings may vary according to class ([α human]), and paradigms of [+ human] nouns include the dative, but no ablative or locative. Conversely paradigms of [– human] nouns include all cases with the exception of the dative (cf. Edzard 2003: 33–34; Thomsen 1984: 49). Sex/gender distinctions in Sumerian are limited to a few animate nouns, where they are exclusively expressed at the lexical level, cf. ninta ‘male’, munus ‘woman’, ses ‘brother’, nin ‘sister’, anse ‘male donkey’, and so forth (Edzard 2003: 29). Similarly: lu ‘human being, man’; geme ‘woman’, gurus ‘man, young man’, ara(d) ‘male slave’, gėme ‘female slave’, gû(d) ‘bull’, áb ‘cow’ (Poebel 1923: 46). Other nouns referred both to the male and female variant, cf. dingir ‘god, goddess’, dam ‘husband, wife’, ibila ‘writer, M/F’, di-ku ‘judge, M/F’ (Poebel 1923: 46). Consequently, there is an important distinction between [α human] and “gender”, or rather sex distinctions in Sumerian. The feature [α human] is a grammatical category expressed in a number of grammatical elements (e. g. pronouns) and agreement patterns. “Gender”, by contrast, is a lexical category expressed only at the lexical level to the extent that certain words specifically have female referents as opposed to male referents. There are to my knowledge no gender- or sex-based agreement patterns. Data presented here show that Sumerian was a noun-class language, featuring [α human] as a distinguishing category and with natural gender distinctions at the lexical level. The question to address then is whether the grammatical and lexical distinctions as observed for Sumerian nouns parallel the distinctions made in the writing system. Table V below provides an overview of Sumerian script determinatives, showing the distinctions they convey. Only the most important ones are included here and I refer the interested reader to full overviews in the literature, e. g. Rude (1986), Edzard (2003), and Halloran (2006). As indicated in Chapter 1, script determinatives appear in superscript in transcription; as lexical elements they are represented in full. Below I present the Sumerian ideograms in the left column, indicating in the right column their semantic value (e. g. [MAN]), and providing the Sumerian word, its meanings, and its functions as script determinative:  

 

 

3.2 Classifying nouns and early (Indo-European) writing systems

Table V: Sumerian Script Determinatives. LÙ

[MAN] – Sumerian lù – as a noun: ‘man’, ‘many, much’ – as a verb: ‘to be, multiply, grow’ – as script determinative combines with humans in general; combines with nouns referring to professions, names of tribes, people, and so forth

DINGIR

[GOD] – Sumerian dingir or digir – ‘god, deity’ – as script determinative combines with nouns conveying divine beings; combines with names of gods – as script determinative may also take the form d, in superscript

MUNUS [FEMALE PERSON] – Sumerian munus – ‘female, woman’ – as script determinative combines with female personal nouns – as script determinative may also take the form m, in superscript UDU

[OVINE] – Sumerian udu (uds ‘goat’ with reduplication) – ‘sheep, small cattle’, ‘ram, wether’ – as script determinative combines with nouns conveying ovines

MUŠEN [BIRD] – Sumerian mušen (muš ‘reptile’ + an ‘sky’) – ‘bird’ – as script determinative combines with nouns conveying birds GIŠ

[TREE, BUSH] [MATERIAL: WOOD] – Sumerian ĝiš/ğeš – as noun: ‘tree, wood, wooden implement’, ‘scepter, tool weapon’, ‘organ, plough, yoke’, ‘natural phenomenon’ – as adjective: describes animal assigned to the plow, ‘mature, for breeding’ – as script determinative combines with nouns conveying wooden objects and with nouns referring to trees, bushes, etc.

MUL

[STAR] – Sumerian mul – as noun: ‘star, constellation, planet, meteor’ – as verb: ‘to (let) sparkle, shine, glow, radiate’, ‘to spread, branch out’ – as script determinative combines with names of stars

71

72

Chapter 3: Earliest instances of nominal apposition in Indo-European

Table V: (continued) ITI

[MONTH] – Sumerian iti – as noun: ‘moon’, ‘month’, ‘moonlight’ – as script determinative combines with names of months

ID

[RIVER] – Sumerian id – as noun: ‘river’, ‘main canal’, ‘water course’ – as adjective: referring to soil at the canal – as script determinative combines with names of rivers

URU

[TOWN] – Sumerian uru – ‘town, city, village’, ‘district’ – as script determinative combines with names of towns

ŠIM

[MATERIAL: AROMATIC] – Sumerian šim/šem – ‘herb’, ‘aromatic wood’, ‘resin’, ‘spice, extract’, ‘drug’, ‘fragrance, perfume’ – as script determinative combines with nouns conveying aromatic products

NINDA

[MATERIAL: BAKED] – Sumerian ninda – ‘bread, loaf, baking good’, ‘food, one day’s cereal ration’ – as script determinative combines with nouns conveying baked goods

(Data from Rude 1986; Edzard 2003; Halloran 2006)

The overview in Table V above shows that Sumerian script determinatives convey a variety of semantic classes that all relate to day-to-day life in Sumerian society, a society in which agriculture played a prominent role and where people had distinct (official) functions. A large proportion of script determinatives refer to human beings or to humans in their professional capacity, and to different categories of non-humans, which allows for a systematic division of script determinatives into groups. Table VI presents a systematic overview of the semantic classes found in Sumerian determinatives, cf. Table VI: Sumerian Script Determinatives, Overview of Classes. [+ ANIMATE, + HUMAN] LÙ

script determinative for human beings, professionals

[HUMAN, MAN]

MUNUS

script determinative for women

[WOMAN]

3.2 Classifying nouns and early (Indo-European) writing systems

Table VI: (continued) SAG

script determinative for servants

[SERVANT]

DIŠ

script determinative for male personal names

[MAN]

3

[+ ANIMATE, (+ HUMAN), + DIVINE] DINGIR (D)

script determinative for deities

[GOD]

[+ ANIMATE, – HUMAN, + ANIMAL, + DOMESTICATED] GUD

script determinative for bovines

[BOVINE]

UDU

script determinative for ovines

[OVINE]

[+ ANIMATE, – HUMAN, + ANIMAL, – DOMESTICATED] MUŠEN

script determinative for birds

[BIRD]

KUA

script determinative for fish

[FISH]

[+ ANIMATE, – HUMAN, – ANIMAL] Ú

script determinative for plants

[PLANT]

GIŠ

script determinative for trees

[TREE]

[– ANIMATE, + NATURAL] GIŠ

script determinative for wooden objects

[WOOD]

ŠE

script determinative for grains

[GRAIN]

NA,YA,ZA

script determinative for stone objects

[STONE]

GI

script determinative for reed, straw, cane object

[CANE]

KUŠ

script determinative for leather objects

[LEATHER]

[– ANIMATE, + MAN-MADE] TÚG

script determinative for garments and clothes

[CLOTH]

URUDU

script determinative for metal objects

[METAL]

É

script determinative for houses and buildings

[HOUSE]

KUR

script determinative for place names

[PLACE]

IKU

script determinative for surface measures

[SURFACE]

NINDA

script determinative for baked goods

[BAKED]

[VARIOUS] MUL

script determinative for stars

3 Deities were considered animates and persons, see footnote (2) above.

[STAR]

73

74

Chapter 3: Earliest instances of nominal apposition in Indo-European

Table VI: (continued) ITI

script determinative for months

[MONTH]

ID

script determinative for river names

[RIVER]

A few script determinatives refer to nouns of uncertain semantic nature—animate or inanimate—which are qualified as “various” in Table VI above. From our modern Indo-European perspective these referents are [– animate], but in earlier or different cultures they may be or may have been considered [+ animate]. The semantic classes conveyed here are those that are important to Sumerian society and that are important in the context of the texts that incorporate them. Yet the semantic classes into which the writing system divides the nouns has no parallel in the Sumerian language. Bovines, for example, are not a specific noun class in Sumerian, nor are plants or wooden objects. In conclusion, it is important to note that script determinatives in Sumerian cuneiform convey physical qualities of the referents, either material characteristics [WOOD, METAL, …] or ontological characteristics that define them in their essence (SEX, PROFESSION, ANIMAL, RIVER, FOOD). In addition, names and common nouns conveying deities, months, rivers, towns, men, women, servants, animals, and daily objects typically combine with script determinatives. Finally, script determinatives in Sumerian exclusively combine with nouns. This exclusive use is not inherent to the system: in the hieroglyphic writing system of Ancient Egyptian, for example, script determinatives combine not only with nouns (e. g. human beings, animals, etc.), but with basic human activities as well such as eating, sleeping, drinking as opposed to praising, action of the ears, or abstract concepts such as small/bad/weak, backward motion, and so forth (see Rude 1986: 134–135). In sum, script determinatives in Sumerian at first clearly had disambiguating function because several signs in Sumerian cuneiform were polyphonous. An important subsequent development took place when script determinatives came to be used with proper nouns and had specifying rather than disambiguating function. I will further examine that phenomenon in Hittite (see Section 3.2.2).  

3.2.2 Script determinatives and the Hittite writing system The cuneiform writing system was first taken over by the Akkadians when they conquered the Sumerian city states at the beginning of the third millennium B. C.; they adopted it to the specific needs of their language (for details, see Michalowski 1996: 52; Labat 1963). In the early second millennium B. C. the Hittites borrowed  

 

3.2 Classifying nouns and early (Indo-European) writing systems

75

an Akkadian version of cuneiform writing. The Hittite writing system mainly includes syllabograms, which represent the very large majority of signs, logograms (Akkadograms and Sumerograms), and script determinatives. The logograms (or ideograms) refer to entire words or concepts, whereby the Sumerograms—borrowed from Sumerian—were read as Hittite words. In transcription they are rendered by Roman capitals. Ideograms borrowed from Akkadian, socalled Akkadograms, are rendered as italic capitals in transcriptions and pronounced as Akkadian words. Since Hittite was a strongly inflected language, grammatical information needed to be rendered as well and therefore Sumerograms often were combined with syllabic signs functioning as inflectional endings, e. g. LUGAL-us: ‘king-NOM-SG’ > ‘king (nominative)’. Consequently, Hittite writing typically combines not only different writing systems (ideograms, syllabary, and so forth), but also linguistic elements from different languages, including plural marking, cf. ERĺNMEŠ ‘soldier-PL’> ‘soldiers’, in which Sumerian MEŠ marks the plural or BE.LUMEŠ, Akkadian ‘lord’ in combination with the plural marker. The last major group of signs in Hittite cuneiform to be mentioned in this context are script determinatives. These were mainly borrowed from Sumerian and reportedly not pronounced. Here again, however, there is no motivation in the literature—or at least I could not find it—as to why they were not pronounced (see more below). Script determinatives in Hittite specify the class of the nouns with which they combine. They are rendered in transcription by small roman capitals in superscript, as the following examples illustrate, cf.  

(88)

[SCRIPT DETERMINATIVE IN COMBINATION WITH PROPER NOUN] URU Ha-as-su-wa (Procl. 9/16) a. [TOWN]-Hassuwas ‘town of Hassuwas’ URU Ku-us-sa-ra (Anitta 1) b. [TOWN]-Kussara ‘(of the) town of Kussara’ URU Ne-e-sa-an (Anitta 3) c. [TOWN]-Nesa ‘(of the) town of Nesas’ D Telipinu d. [DEITY]-Telepenus ‘Telepenus’ (god of vegetation) D IŠKUR (Anitta 2) e. [DEITY]-Iškur ‘Iškur’ (weather god) ID Marassantas-wa (KUB XXXVI 89 Rs. 12) f. [RIVER]-Marassantas-NOM-SG ‘the Marassantas river’ (Example from Puhvel 1984: 53)

76

Chapter 3: Earliest instances of nominal apposition in Indo-European

(89)

(90)

(91)

[SCRIPT DETERMINATIVE IN COMBINATION WITH HITTITE COMMON NOUN] LÚ anniniiami a. [MAN]-cousin ‘cousin’ MUNUS hāsawas b. [WOMAN]-healer ‘wise woman, female ritual healer’ MUŠEN hāranan (KBo XVII 1 III 3–4) c. [BIRD]-eagle-ACC ‘eagle’ d. 1 hapupinnMUŠEN (Kbo XVII 103 Rs. 22) one owl-ACC-[BIRD] ‘one owl’ GIŠ eyan (KUB XXIX 1 IV 17–20) e. [TREE]-eyan-NOM/ACC-SG ‘eya-tree’4 UDU f. iyanza (KUB IX 4 II 5–6) [OVINE]-sheep-NOM-SG ‘sheep’ (Examples from Puhvel 1984: 91, 253, 347, 1991: 130) [SCRIPT DETERMINATIVE IN COMBINATION WITH SUMEROGRAM] LÚ KÚR a. [MAN]-enemy ‘enemy’ (KÚR renders a Sumerogram, ‘enemy’) GIŠ GIŠ GIŠ HAŠHUR.KUR.]RA ŠENNUR eyan (KUB XII 20.9) b. [TREE]-mountain.apple.tree [TREE]-pear.tree, [TREE]-eya.tree (Example from Puhvel 1984: 253) [SCRIPT DETERMINATIVE IN COMBINATION WITH AKKODOGRAM] MUŠEN HUR-RI [BIRD]-partridge ‘partridge’

The very large majority of script determinatives precede the noun in Hittite, but a few follow or occur in both positions: (92)

a.

b. c.

MUŠEN

haranan (KBo XVII 4 II 14) [BIRD]-eagle-ACC ‘eagle’ hārananMUŠEN (KUB VII 10 I 23–24) URU HalpaKI [TOWN]-Aleppo-[TOWN] ‘the town of Aleppo’ (Examples from Puhvel 1991: 137–138)

4 E(y)a(n) ‘eya, evergreen tree’

3.2 Classifying nouns and early (Indo-European) writing systems

77

Hittite texts were more varied than other documents rendered in cuneiform: the corpus includes literary, historical, legal, and religious documents. Several thousands of tablets from the archives in the capital date from the period 1500–1300 B. C. They all feature script determinatives. Table VII presents an (incomplete) overview of script determinatives in Hittite. The overview is based on Hayes (2000: 421–426) and Sturtevant’s and Bechtel’s “List of Cuneiform signs” (1951: 25–41) that accompanies their presentation of fragments from the following texts: the Apology of Hattusillis, the Ritual of Anniwiyanis, the Instructions for Temple Officials, the Proclamation of Telipinus, and the Code. The data are presented according to semantic characteristics.  

Table VII: Hittite Script Determinatives. [+ANIMATE, + HUMAN] LÚ

[MAN] – Sumerian ideogram: lù – Sumerian, ‘man’ – as script determinative combines with proper nouns, occupational and kinship titles, cf. LÚ anniniiami ‘[MAN]-cousin’ > ‘cousin’

MUNUS

[WOMAN] – Sumerian ideogram: munus – Sumerian, ‘woman, wife’ – as script determinative combines with female names or female occupational titles, cf. MUNUS hāsawas ‘[WOMAN]-healer’ > ‘female ritual healer’

F

[WOMAN] – as script determinative combines with female names and nouns referring to women, cf. F Pu-du-he-pa ‘[WOMAN]-Puduhepa’ (name of a queen)

SAL

[WOMAN] – Sumerian ideogram: sal – Sumerian, ‘woman’ – as script determinative combines with female names or nouns referring to females, cf. SAL hāsauwas (KUB VII 1 IV 5) ‘[WOMAN]-female.magical.operator-NOM’ > ‘woman magical operator’

1

[MAN] – numeral 1 – in transcriptions often rendered as M in superscript – as script determinative combines with male names, cf. M Pithanaas (Anitta 7) ‘[MAN]-Pithanas-GEN-SG’ > ‘of Pithanas’

78

Chapter 3: Earliest instances of nominal apposition in Indo-European

Table VII: (continued) [+ ANIMATE, + HUMAN, + DIVINE] No instances in Hittite [+ ANIMATE, – HUMAN, + DIVINE] DINGIR

[GOD] – Sumerian ideogram: dingir – Sumerian, ‘god’ – as script determinative combines with names of divinities – also used as superscript D, cf. D Telipinu ‘[DEITY]-Telepenus’ > ‘Telepenus’ [+ ANIMATE, – HUMAN, + ANIMAL, + DOMESTICATED] No instances in Hittite [+ ANIMATE, – HUMAN, + ANIMAL, – DOMESTICATED]

MUŠEN

[BIRD] – Sumerian ideogram: mušen – Sumerian, “post-determinative” – as script determinative combines with nouns referring to birds, cf. hāranan MUŠEN (KUB VII 10 I 23–24) ‘eagle-ACC-SG-[BIRD]’> ‘eagle’ [+ ANIMATE, – HUMAN, – ANIMAL]

GIŠ

ŠAR

Ú

[TREE] [MATERIAL: WOOD] – Sumerian ideogram: giš – Sumerian, ‘tree’ – as script determinative combines with nouns referring to trees, wooden objects, cf. GIŠ GU.ZA (Procl. 9/16) ‘[WOOD]-throne’ > ‘(wooden) throne’ [VEGETABLE] – Sumerian ideogram: šar – Sumerian, ‘orchard, garden, vegetable’ – as script determinative “combines with names of vegetables”, following them (Sturtevant and Bechtel 1951: 36) [PLANT] – Sumerian ideogram: ú – Sumerian, ‘grass, plant’ – as script determinative combines with nouns referring to plants, grasses [– ANIMATE, + NATURAL]

KUŠ

[MATERIAL: LEATHER] – Sumerian ideogram: kuš – Sumerian, ‘hide, leather’ – as script determinative combines with nouns referring to leather objects

3.2 Classifying nouns and early (Indo-European) writing systems

Table VII: (continued) SÍG

[MATERIAL: WOOL] – Sumerian ideogram: sig – Sumerian, ‘wool’ – as script determinative combines with nouns referring to wooden objects

ZÁ

[MATERIAL: STONE] – Sumerian ideogram: za – Sumerian, ‘stone’ – as script determinative combines with nouns referring to stone objects [– ANIMATE, + MAN-MADE]

DUG

[POT] – Sumerian ideogram: dug – Sumerian, ‘pot, vessel’ – as script determinative combines with nouns referring to pots and vessels

TÚG

[CLOTH] – Sumerian ideogram: túg – Sumerian, ‘cloth, clothing’ – as script determinative combines with nouns referring to cloth objects

UZU

[MEAT; FLESH] – Sumerian, ‘flesh, meat’ – as script determinative combines with nouns referring to meat or flesh, cf. UZU istamas-kan UZUistamasni (KUB IX 4 I 4–5) ‘[FLESH]-ear-GEN [FLESH]-ear-DAT/LOC’ > ‘ear to ear’ (Example from Puhvel 1984: 459)

NINDA

[BREAD] – Sumerian ideogram: ninda [BAKED GOOD] – Sumerian, ‘bread’ – as script determinative combines with nouns referring to baked goods [VARIOUS]

ÍD

[RIVER] – Sumerian ideogram: id – Sumerian, ‘river’ – as script determinative combines with names of rivers

URU

[TOWN] – Sumerian ideogram: uru – Sumerian, ‘town, city’ – as script determinative combines with names of towns, cf. URU Ku-us-sa-ra (Anitta 1) ‘[TOWN]-Kussara’ > ‘(of the) town of Kussara’

79

80

Chapter 3: Earliest instances of nominal apposition in Indo-European

Comparison of these script determinatives with the ones found for Sumerian (Section 3.2.1) shows first of all that script determinatives in Hittite as in Sumerian, exclusively combine with nouns. Moreover, while most Hittite script determinatives trace back to Sumerian, not all do and not all Sumerian script determinatives are attested in Hittite. In Sumerian the category of agricultural produce and especially produce of husbandry are less specific and less varied. Most remarkable are the differences in the category [VARIOUS]: the instances in Hittite all are in the category [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], while stars and months do not feature as script determinatives in Hittite. Finally the function of script determinatives in Hittite differs from that in Sumerian. In Sumerian the script determinatives [WOOD] and [MAN], for example, in combination with the noun conveying the concept ‘plough’ distinguished the ‘worker’ from the ‘instrument’, reflecting the earliest—disambiguating—usage of script determiners. In Hittite, as details below further show, script determinatives primarily had specifying function. It is important to note that even if their original disambiguating function was no longer relevant, script determinatives continued to be used in Hittite and came to play a different role. Chapter 4 will provide further examples illustrating the parallels with nominal apposition and Chapter 6 will discuss the role of script determinatives in word formation processes

3.2.3 Script determinatives and Linear B Linear B was the writing system used to render Mycenaean Greek in Crete and on the Greek mainland (Mycenae, Pylos, and so forth). It is syllabic and represents the third stage of Minoan writing in Crete, after the pictorial Stage I (2000–1650 B. C.) and the abstracted pictograms (now mere “outlines”) of Linear A (1705– 1450 B. C.). Documents in Linear B are dated around 1400 B. C., coinciding with the destruction of the Minoan palace at that time. The clay tablets with the texts were reportedly baked in the fire that destroyed the palace, partly resulting in the survival of Linear B in Crete. In comparison to Hittite documents Mycenaean texts are less diverse. They typically are administrative documents, reporting the exchange or delivery of (agricultural) goods, livestock, and weapons, the recording of workforces, and offerings to the gods. The words that occur in these documents therefore represent a limited number of semantic fields, mainly pertaining to professional and agricultural occupations in a broad sense. The texts therefore provide a sliver of the language and many more ideograms functioning as script determinatives may have existed, if only we had the texts.  

 

 

3.2 Classifying nouns and early (Indo-European) writing systems

81

The script includes syllabic signs, numerals, and ideograms. Table VIII below provides an overview of the ideograms found in Mycenaean. Among them the number and variety of utensils (i. e. vessels) is remarkable, which shows the importance of these objects in accounting practices because they typically function as containers of agricultural produce.  

Table VIII: Mycenaean Ideograms. IDEOGRAM

WHAT IT CONVEYS

[+ ANIMATE, + HUMAN] [MAN]

Male human being

[WOMAN]

Female human being

[+ ANIMATE, + HUMAN, + DIVINE] No examples [+ ANIMATE, – HUMAN, + DIVINE] No examples [+ ANIMATE, – HUMAN, + ANIMAL, + DOMESTICATED] [HORSE], [HE-ASS], [FOAL], [RAM], [EWE], [SHEEP], [TYPE OF SHEEP], [HE-GOAT], [SHE-GOAT], [BOAR], [SOW], [PIG], [OX, BULL], [COW]

Domesticated animals

[+ ANIMATE, – HUMAN, + ANIMAL, – DOMESTICATED] [DEER]

Deer

[+ ANIMATE, – HUMAN, – ANIMAL] [FIG TREE]

Fig tree

[OLIVE TREE]

Olive tree

[– ANIMATE, + NATURAL] [WHEAT], [BARLEY], [OLIVES], [FIGS], [FLOUR] [CONDIMENT], ...

Agricultural produce, by dry measure

[OLIVE OIL], [WINE], [HONEY], ...

Agricultural produce, by liquid measure

[CHEESE]

Agricultural produce

[BRONZE], [GOLD], [SAFFRON], ...

Natural product, by weight:

[– ANIMATE, + MAN-MADE] [BOILING PAN], [GOBLET], [WINE JAR], [JUG], Utensils [BOWL], [AMPHORA], [JAR], [COOKING BOWL], ...

82

Chapter 3: Earliest instances of nominal apposition in Indo-European

Table VIII: (continued) [SPEAR], [ARROW], [SWORD]

Weapons

[WHEELED CHARIOT], [CHARIOT FRAME], ...

Chariots

[WOOL], [OXHIDE], [SHEEPSKIN], [CLOTH ], [TUNIC], ...

Natural product, by weight or in units

[FOODSTOOL], [TRIPOD], ...

Other

(Data from Ventris and Chadwick 1956: 50–51; Chadwick 1958: 117)

While there are many ideograms in Mycenaean, those that actually function as script determinatives cover a limited number of semantic categories, such as [SEX], [WEAPONS], or [UTENSILS], and a few others. Because of the limited number of categories, common and proper nouns in Mycenaean occur without script determinative, where Hittite would typically feature one, such as the names of gods and place names. The following examples—like all Linear B examples in this chapter—have been found in Ventris and Chadwick (1956: passim): (93)

[NO SCRIPT DETERMINATIVE] a. [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] pa-ro Pi-me-ta … (Cn 04) from Pimeta-DAT ‘from Pimeta’ b. [RELIGION] ko-pe-re-u po-se-da-o-ne do-so-mo (Es 646) Kopreus-NOM Poseidon-DAT gift-NOM/ACC-SG ‘Kopreus (made) a gift to Poseidon’

Hittite and Sumerian in all likelihood would have included script determinatives in the above examples from [RELIGION] and [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], as examples in Section 3.2.2 above illustrate. Conversely, Hittite and Sumerian do not have script determinatives for the category [UTENSILS] as opposed to Mycenaean, cf. the following example (see more below): (94)

[WITH SCRIPT DETERMINATIVE: UTENSILS] a-pi-po-re-we AMPHORA 3 (Uc 160 reverse 2) amphoras-NOM [AMPHORA] three ‘three amphoras’

Similarly at the level of script determinatives the category [SOCIAL STATUS, SEX] is well represented, but the distinction is explicitly made for humans only: the ideograms [MAN] and [WOMAN] exclusively combine with [+ human] nouns, cf.

3.2 Classifying nouns and early (Indo-European) writing systems

(95)

a.

b.

83

me-re-ti-ri-ja WOMAN 7 (Aa 01) corn.grinder-NOM-PL-F [WOMAN] seven ‘seven women corn grinders’ te-ko-to-ne MAN 5 (Am 826) carpenters-NOM [MAN] five ‘five (men) carpenters’

That sex distinction is not attested for [– human] nouns, may be related to the refined distinctions conveyed by the Mycenaean ideograms. For animals, for example, there is sex specification in Linear B within each ideogram for a given species, (96)

Linear B

Ideogram 21 [SHEEP] Ideogram 105 [RAM] Ideogram 106 [EWE]

[HUSBANDRY] ideograms therefore distinguish between the main species (goats, equines, cows, and so forth), between males and females, and to a limited extent between certain types: for equines there are distinct ideograms for horses and asses; for cows there are oxen/bulls and cows, and for pigs a distinction is made between pigs, boars, and sows. These categories all have their own (albeit derived) ideograms. In this context [SEX] therefore is not expressed with an independent script determinative that is added to the ideogram referring to the generic ‘sheep’, for example, cf. (97)

a. b.

*[MALE] + [SHEEP] *[FEMALE] + [SHEEP]

but: but:

[RAM] [EWE]

The distinction therefore seems to be lexical rather than grammatical. Other ideograms as well may have very precise reference. In the field of agricultural products, for example, the distinction between ‘olive’ as ‘olive oil’ and ‘fruit’ is made with the help of distinct ideograms. “Appositive” usage of ideograms similar to that found for Hittite script determinatives is attested not only for categories such as [MAN], [WOMAN], but also for [UTENSILS], [WEAPONS], [CONDIMENTS], and [TRANSPORTATION], as the examples below illustrate. Examples of this use represent a large chunk of all instances, cf. (98)

[UTENSILS] a. a-pi-po-re-we amphoras-NOM ‘three amphoras’

AMPHORA [AMPHORA]

3 (Uc160 reverse 2) three

84

Chapter 3: Earliest instances of nominal apposition in Indo-European

b.

i-po-no COOKING BOWL cooking.bowls-NOM [COOKING BOWL] ‘fourteen cooking bowls’

14 (Uc160 reverse 3) fourteen

[UTENSILS] typically pertain to containers, including cooking equipment. I note that instances of this type often use relatively precise determinatives. In the examples here [AMPHORA] and [COOKING BOWL] are used, rather than the more generic [CONTAINER]. Additional examples below show similar patterns, warranting further research (Bauer In Prep. b). (99)

[CONDIMENT] ko-ri-ja-do-no CONDIMENT koriander-NOM [CONDIMENT] ‘312 l. of koriander seed’

2 T 6 (Ga415) quantity

Script determinatives in combination with common nouns typically occur in the context of quantification: “they occur only in connexion with numbers” (Chadwick 1958: 95), as several previous examples already show, cf. e. g.:  

(100) me-re-ti-ri-ja WOMAN 7 (Aa 01) corn.grinder-NOM-PL-F [WOMAN] seven ‘seven women corn grinders’ (example [95a] above)

In this example the noun typically is written out and followed by the script determinative and the number: Noun + Script Determinative + Number (Ventris and Chadwick 1956: 48). This indeed is the pattern typically attested when groups of people are quantified; the sign [MAN] or [WOMAN] will follow the common noun, cf. (101) a.

b.

c.

d.

[NOUN da-ko-ro temple.attendant-NOM-PL ‘five temple-attendants’ ki-ti-ta settler-NOM-PL ‘46 settlers’ ke-ra-me-we potter-NOM-DU ‘two potters’ a-ke-ti-ra2 nurse-NOM-PL ‘38 nurses’

SCRIPT DETERMINATIVE MAN [MAN]

NUMBER] 5 (An07) five

[MAN] [MAN]

46 (An19) forty-six

MAN [MAN]

2 (An26) two

WOMAN [WOMAN]

38 (Aa815) thirty-eight

3.2 Classifying nouns and early (Indo-European) writing systems

85

In other fields as well the same pattern is attested. In contexts with nouns referring to objects of furniture, for example, the sequence is Common Noun + Script Determinative + Number, cf. (102) pi-a2-ra broiling.pan-NOM-PL ‘three broiling pans’

BOILINGPAN [BOILINGPAN]

3 (Tn996) three

Similarly, nouns referring to military equipment, cf. (103) pa-ka-na a-ra-ru-wo-a sword-NOM-PL (sword.)fitted.with ‘three swords fitted with bindings’

SWORD [SWORD]

3 (Ra1548) 3

Given the topic of this book, it is necessary to underscore the parallels of these structures with the classifying function of nominal apposition and with patterns typically found in languages that feature numeral classifiers (see Section 2.1.2). As early as 1956, Ventris and Chadwick pointed out these similarities, indicating that instances like the ones above are “visual parallels to ‘classifiers’ obligatory in Chinese counting” (Ventris and Chadwick 1956: 48): (104) a.

b.

san ko jên three [PIECE] man ‘three men’ I p´i lü 1 [SINGLE ANIMAL] donkey ‘three donkeys’ (Ventris and Chadwick 1956: 48)

Ventris and Chadwick considered it odd “that words like ‘a small three-handled goblet’ should require further illustration in the symbol [ideogram]” (1956: 49). The phenomenon was too widespread—found on tablets from different sites—to be a mere local idiosyncrasy. In line with Ventris and Chadwick’s comments, it is legitimate as well to ask why the specification of WOMEN is necessary in the example of women corn-grinders, for instance, because the suffix already indicates gender (me-re-ti-ri-ja corn.grinder-NOM-PL-F; example [100] above). Moreover certain jobs typically were carried out by women, while others were carried out by men. Collecting and grinding grain, for example, was women’s work: “corn grinding is one of the tasks commonly undertaken by women” (Ventirs and Chadwick 1956: 158). Moreover “[being a nurse] is plainly a common occupation among women” (Ventris and Chadwick 1956: 158). Yet, other activities were primarily carried out by men (e. g. stitching), but could also be taken care off by women and the other way around (Ventris and Chadwick 1956: 123). Men typically were bakers, and so forth.  

86

Chapter 3: Earliest instances of nominal apposition in Indo-European

In addition to quantitative expressions, script determinatives also combine with proper nouns and may then have disambiguating function. More than 65% of the words recorded in Mycenaean are proper nouns and the interpretation of these nouns often is very difficult: in contrast to common nouns, the context rarely helps. Ways to identify proper nouns are the length of the name, their combining with another word (e. g. attributes referring to professions or identification of women on the basis of the attribute), the case ending, and often the script determinative [MAN] or [WOMAN], which clearly identifies the proper noun as a personal rather than as a place name (Ventris and Chadwick 1956: 92–93). Identification of proper nouns of individuals may also be achieved by appositive occupational terms, especially when the occupations involved are gender bound, cf. ‘Eumedes unguent-boiler’; ‘Brithawon potter’, ‘Thisbaros shepherd’, and so forth (example from Ventris and Chadwick 1956: 133; see also Chapter 4). Conversely, place names may be identified on the basis of the use of derivative ethnic adjectives in -ιος, the particle -δε ‘towards’, or formulaic constructions (names in similar formula are place names elsewhere; Ventris and Chadwick 1956: 139–150). The absence of geographic script determinatives—i. c. [TOWN]— therefore is compensated for by other devices. Yet there are no identifying devices to compensate for the absence of script determinatives in the context of names of gods. The identification of names of gods is therefore very complex if the parallel with the later Greek pantheon is not clear. In the literature there is no mention of script determinatives in this context, nor do the text samples provide instances. As a result, a name such as Dionysos (Xa06) could potentially refer to the god, “but there is no evidence that it is divine” (Ventris and Chadwick 1956: 127). It is important to note that proper nouns are rather ambiguous and that only in the context of personal names script determinatives [MAN] and [WOMAN] may help out. The Dionysos example illustrates that even there their occurrence may not be automatic.  

 

3.2.4 Script determinatives in Sumerian, Hittite, and Mycenaean Two of the earliest Indo-European languages come to us in a writing system that includes script determinatives specifying the class of the nouns with which they combine. Since script determinatives convey nominal concepts, their combining with nouns—be they proper or common nouns—creates structures that are very similar to nominal apposition. If Hittite and Mycenaean both use script determinatives in their writing, the origin of these determinatives differs. In Hittite they trace back to Sumerian and

3.2 Classifying nouns and early (Indo-European) writing systems

87

were taken over with cuneiform writing, but there is no such link for Mycenaean script determinatives. Yet despite their different origins, the script determinatives had the same function. It is important to note that in the Sumerian, Hittite, and Mycenaean writing systems, script determinatives exclusively combine with nouns, both common and proper nouns. That these languages included script determinatives in their writing is striking for two reasons: (1) the system of script determinatives does not reflect distinctions made at the language level—[α person] and gender—and more importantly (2) the system of script determinatives parallels noun classifier systems as found in typologically very different languages. Although script determinatives in Sumerian, Hittite, and Mycenaean classify nouns, the motivation for their use differs. In Sumerian, script determinatives in origin disambiguated polyphonous signs. In Hittite they did not to the same extent as in Sumerian: Hittite script determinatives primarily are specifying elements. In Mycenaean script determinatives in combination with proper nouns have disambiguating function; in combination with common nouns they typically occur in quantitative contexts, specifying the noun with which they combine. In these quantitative expressions Mycenaean script determinatives show strong similarities with numeral classifiers in classifier languages (cf. Section 2.1.2). If indeed script determinatives in combination with proper nouns in Mycenaean may have disambiguating function, there are other disambiguating devices as well and not all names combine with a script determinative. The semantic classes conveyed by script determinatives vary as well. In fact, script determinatives in Hittite show substantial similarities with those in Sumerian; Mycenaean has its own classes. There does not seem to be a parallel between linguistic classification—in grammar or lexicon—and classification in the writing system. Sumerian is a noun-class language, distinguishing between [+ human] and [– human] at grammatical level and making gender distinctions at lexical level. Yet script determinatives in the writing system convey a wide array of distinctions, pertaining to [SEX], [AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE], [PRODUCTS], [MATERIAL], [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], [RELIGION], and the categories [MONTH], [STAR], and so forth. Hittite was a gender language distinguishing genus commune and genus neutrum, while script determinatives in the writing system also convey a wide scope of values, pertaining to [SEX], [AGRICULTURE], [RELIGION], [TOPONOMY], [ANIMALS], [MATERIALS], [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], and so forth. Mycenaean, finally, had a three-gender system, but its script determinatives cover a limited number of categories such as [SEX] for [+ human] nouns only, as well as [WEAPONS], [UTENSILS], and [CONDIMENTS]. Script determinatives in Hittite and Mycenaean therefore are unevenly distributed over the different classes. The limitations in Mycenaean may be related

88

Chapter 3: Earliest instances of nominal apposition in Indo-European

to the type of documents, which predominantly are administrative texts, keeping track of taxation, personnel, and stocks of agricultural produce. Finally script determinatives not only share the same semantic function with other systems of noun classification, they also typically feature the same structure as nominal apposition. Nominal apposition and script determinatives therefore feature the same semantic and syntactic characteristics.

3.3 Script determinatives and nominal apposition in early Indo-European Script determinatives in Hittite and Mycenaean writing systems are relevant to our analysis because of the strong parallels with nouns in apposition, both in terms of structure, function, and meaning. Script determinatives and nominal apposition are based on asyndetic juxtaposition of two nominal elements whereby the script determinative parallels the common noun that is found in certain types of apposition: both specify the class to which the combined noun belongs. The number of classes and subtypes conveyed by script determinatives vary, probably reflecting practical, extra-linguistic needs. This pattern is found in nominal apposition in Indo-European as well (see Chapters 4 and 5). Script determinatives and nominal apposition are also similar in that not all nouns combine with a common noun or script determinative and that nouns that do, may also occur without a determinative or common noun. The patterns that have come to light in this chapter and their consistency underscore that script determinatives were not merely graphic. Moreover, Chapters 4 and 6 will show that script determinatives in Hittite play a role as well in its grammar and word formation—just like nominal apposition—as a brief glance at the following two lexical examples already shows: (105) a.

b.

NINDA

armannis (KUB II 13 I 15) [BREAD]-crescent-NOM ‘croissant’ hapasMUŠEN (KUB LVIII 104 II 24) river-GEN-[BIRD] ‘river bird’ (For further details and discussion, see Chapter 6)

These productive processes raise serious doubts about the assumption—not explicitly motivated—that Hittite script determinatives were not pronounced. Yet I will leave it to the specialists to address that issue in full, but even if script determinatives were not pronounced, they were there in the written language.

3.3 Script determinatives and nominal apposition in early Indo-European

89

That alone makes them relevant to linguistic analysis. Moreover, script determinatives in Hittite seem to be very much integrated in the language system (cf. Chapter 6), as opposed to their equivalents in Mycenaean. The importance of script determinatives in the writing systems of Hittite and Mycenaean resides in parallels with a prominent type of nominal apposition in Indo-European as will become clear in Chapters 4, 5, and 6: the combining of a proper or common noun with a common noun that specifies its semantic features. Principles underlying both patterns of script determinatives and nominal apposition therefore are similar and more pervasive in Indo-European than has been assumed to date. These similarities and the development that script determinatives underwent further support the hypothesis that they were not merely a scribal device, but in fact had pertinence and therefore linguistic function. I am naturally well aware of the distinction between “language” and “writing”. Yet the written language—with its writing system—is a rendering of language just as spoken languages are a variety of “language” as well. Consequently, when similar principles underlie phenomena in both areas, we cannot ignore them. These parallels may well have passed unnoticed in the discussion whether script determinatives are pronounced or not for the simple reason that nominal apposition traditionally has been a neglected topic in historical comparative linguistics. While I was finalizing this manuscript for publication Gunter Senft, an authority on classifier languages, pointed out to me the publication by Goldwasser and Grinevald (2012) on Ancient Egyptian. In it Goldwasser and Grinewald identify the classifying function of script determinatives in the Ancient Egyptian script. Interestingly, script determinatives in the Egyptian script traditionally have been identified as reading aids, allegedly marking the end of words and “compensate[ing] for the absence of vowels” (Goldwasser and Grinevald 2012: 17– 18). Goldwasser and Grinevald show that script determinatives in Ancient Egyptian reflect a rule-governed system: they identify semantic characteristics in the elements with which they combine and may have grammatical and pragmatic function (for a full discussion, see Goldwasser and Grinevald 2012). The findings are important to this study because they show that elsewhere as well script determinatives are not the mere scribal aids they long have been assumed to be. Moreover they are found to play a prominent linguistic role, conveying classifying as well as other linguistic functions, grammatical, pragmatic, or lexical. As indicated above, in the chapters to come script determinatives will be shown to have a wider linguistic function in Indo-European as well.

Chapter 4 Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms “… die vergleichende indogermanische Syntax rechnet auch auf Grund von selbständigen einzelsprachlichen Beispielen die voran- oder nachgestellte Apposition zum Grundbestande syntaktischer Ausdruckmittel des Indogermanischen” (Schwyzer 1983: 149).1

In the preceding chapters I have discussed (a) the types of nominal classification in the languages of the world and (b) script determinatives in Hittite and Mycenaean, which—in a way similar to a generic noun—specify the semantic characteristics of the noun with which they combine. I will now examine the various types of nominal apposition in early Indo-European, focusing on five languages or language branches: Hittite, Sanskrit, (Mycenaean) Greek, Germanic, and early Italic. These languages cover a relatively large geographic area, spanning from today’s India in the East to Western Europe and they represent several of the earliest Indo-European daughter languages, ranging from 1750 B. C. (Hittite), to the 15th century B. C. (Sanskrit and Mycenaean), early Antiquity (Greek and early Italic), and the early Middle Ages (Germanic). As said in Chapter 1, nominal apposition has not been at the core of linguistic analysis, let alone diachronic linguistic research, and therefore the evidence that I present here varies to some extent. I found my data examining a number of relevant primary documents, identifying instances of nominal apposition, their grammatical context, and their semantic category in the authorative editions, such as Ventris and Chadwick (1956) for Mycenaean, Gordon (1957 [1927]) for Old Norse, Nooten and Holland (1994) for Sanskrit, Rix (2002) for Italic, and others. In addition to primary texts, I also found numerous examples in the various publications, extensive grammars and etymological dictionaries, such as Friedrich and Kammenhuber (1975) or Puhvel (1984–2004), and others. On the basis of patterns of occurrence that came up during my preliminary research both in Latin and in the other languages I here present the list of semantic fields that the instances of nominal apposition represent:  

 

1 Translation: “On the basis of autonomous attestations in the individual languages it is generally acknowledged in Indo-European syntax that postposed or anteposed apposition is one of the fundamental syntactic devices of Indo-European”.

DOI 10.1515/9783110461756-004

4.1 Nominal apposition in Hittite

91

[RELIGION], [KINSHIP], [SOCIAL STATUS, AGE], [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION], [SOCIAL STATUS, SEX], [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE], [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], [FAUNA], [FLORA], [OTHER], [OTHER, NAME],2 [OTHER, FEAST] [OTHER, TIME], and [QUANTIFICATION]

I should emphasize that because of the dearth of interest in nominal apposition, the presentation of data in this chapter is not exhaustive. Hopefully this study will result in a growing interest in the topic and stimulate others—specialists in the various individual languages—to fully investigate nominal apposition in documents that so far have not been readily accessible to the linguistic community. The following pages will provide the data per language or language group, starting with Hittite and tracing the line of history (Sections 4.1 through 4.5). An important exception to this chronological order is the discussion of early Italic (Section 4.5), which follows the section on Germanic instead of preceding it. The reason for this scenario is purely practical in that it allows for a smooth transition to the following chapter on the evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance. Having examined the occurrence and functions of nominal apposition in the early Indo-European languages, I will subsequently discuss its structural patterns in Indo-European, bringing together regularities observed in the various daughter languages (Section 4.6). In the following pages the data will be presented according to the different semantic fields, such as [RELIGION], [KINSHIP], [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE], and so forth.

4.1 Nominal apposition in Hittite In this section I will examine the different types of nominal apposition in Hittite, which takes the form of a noun phrase and of a combination of a noun with a script determinative, cf. – Appositive Noun + Noun combinations – Script determinative + Nominal element The basic principles of script determinatives have been discussed already in Chapter 3 and the different categories and functions have been identified. In this chapter I will provide more details about parallels with Noun + Noun combinations. I will first focus on the combining of nouns in appositive constructions as a purely linguistic phenomenon, such as the combining of a common and a proper

2 Also referred to as [OTHER, NOMEN] because the structure typically features the noun nomen in Latin, or its equivalent in the other languages.

92

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

noun (Section 4.1.1). Subsequently I will examine script determinatives in combination with nominal elements (Section 4.1.2).

4.1.1 Appositive Noun + Noun combinations In Hittite, as in the other early Indo-European languages, the name of a god often combines with a common noun ‘father’ or ‘mother’, cf. the following example featuring anna- ‘mother’: (106) annas Tagānzipas (KUB XLIII 30 II 5) mother-NOM Earth-NOM ‘mother Earth’ (Example from Puhvel 1984: 379, 431)

The noun tagānzepa (c.) (ta-ga-an-zi-pa-aš ‘earth-NOM-SG’) conveys both ‘earth’ and the ‘goddess of the earth’. Anna- is found in combination with names of other female divinities as well: (107) annas mother-NOM ‘mother Vine’

GIŠ

GESTIN-as [TREE]-grape-NOM

Just as the formation ‘mother Earth’ is attested in Latin and Greek (La. Terra mater and Gk Γῆ μήτηρ ‘mother Earth’ respectively), ‘mother Vine’ occurred in Greek as well (μήτηρ Ἵπτα) and she may be connected to the “Bacchic folkcults of Western Anatolia and may well represent the deified grapevine as nurse of the wine god” (Puhvel 1984: 379; see Section 4.3.2). The common noun ‘father’ as well occurs in combination with names of gods—attested in Hittite and Luwian—in instances featuring the sun god, for example, cf. D (108) tātis Tiwaz (KUB XXXV 68.16) father-NOM [GOD]-Sun-NOM ‘of father Sun’ (Example from Puhvel 1984: 226; see also examples in Friedrich and Kammenhuber 1975: 545)

Nominal apposition may transgress writing systems, as the following examples show, which include Sumerograms:

4.1 Nominal apposition in Hittite

93

(109) tatinzi DINGIRMEŠ-inzi (KUB IX 31 II 30) fathers-NOM GOD-PL-NOM-PL ‘(the) father gods’ (110) addas DINGIRMEŠ-as (KBo V I II 7, III 3, V2, …) fathers-DAT/LOC GOD-PL-DAT/LOC-PL ‘fathers gods’ > ‘deified fathers’ ‘to the deified fathers’ (Example from Puhvel 1984: 225)

In examples of this type, adda may be “a residual dual referring to the king’s parents” (Puhvel 1984: 225). The semantic field of [RELIGION] includes other instances as well, such as the combining of the common noun ‘lord’ with the name of a deity, cf. (111)

D

UTU-e isha-mi (KUB XXXI 1 27 I 1–2)3 [GOD]-Sun.god-VOC lord-VOC-my-VOC-SG ‘my lord the Sun god’ (Example from Puhvel 1984: 385)

The noun ‘lord’ may take different forms: (112) a.

b.

D

U BE-LÍ-YA (KBo III 413–14) [GOD]-Storm.god lord-my ‘my lord the Storm god’ D IM … BE-LÍ-YA (KUB 10 1) [GOD]-Storm.god … lord-my’ ‘my lord the Storm god’

The construction may include more than two nouns, as in: (113)

D U NIR.GÁL EN-YA (KBo III 4 16) [GOD]-Storm.god the.mighty lord-my ‘my lord the mighty the Storm god’

A female variety is found in: (114) a.

b.

D

IŠTAR GAŠAN-YA (Ap. Hatt. 3) [GOD]-Ishtar lady-my ‘my lady Ishtar’ GAŠAN-YA (Ap. Hatt. 9) DINGIR LUM lady-my god-deity4 ‘my lady goddess’

3 Instances are also found at: KUB XXX 10 Rs. 10, KUB XXXI 128 I 1, KUB XXXI 147 II 17, KUB XXXI 147 II 34). 4 LUM is a Akkadian phonetic element meaning ‘deity’.

94

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

In this category the generic ‘deity’ features as well: (115)

D

Hal-ma-su-i-iz [GOD]-Halmasuitt-NOM-SG ‘my god Halmasuitt’

D

si-i-us-mi-is (Anitta 13) [GOD]-my-NOM-SG

This last instance is of particular interest because the proper noun Hal-ma-su-i-iz combines with a script determinative, which re-occurs with the possessive. I note that in a number of the instances above—especially those featuring Akkadograms —case is not overtly marked. The immediate juxtaposition of the nouns and the consistent case agreement in other instances suggest that these constructions indeed are instances of nominal apposition, but the precise syntax of the construction remains elusive. In the category [KINSHIP] examples include: (116) a.

b.

c.

d.

M

Pi-it-ha-a-na-as at-ta-as-ma-as (Anitta 6) [MAN]-Pithanas-GEN father-GEN-my-GEN-SG ‘of my father Pithanas’ M NIR GAL-in ŠEŠ-YA (Ap. Hatt. 3.4) [MAN]-strength/Muwattallis-ACC-ANIM brother-my ‘my brother Muwattallis’ M Mur-si-li A.BI-YA (Ap. Hatt. 3.4) [MAN]-Mursilis-DAT father-my ‘to my father Mursilis’ M Ha-at-tu-si-li (Treaty of T. 2.3) A-BU-YA father-my [MAN]-Hattusilis-DAT ‘to my father Hattusilis’

In the semantic domain [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE], instances are attested such as: (117) a.

b.

c.

F

Is-ta-pa-ri-ya-as MUNUS.LUGAL (Procl. Telep. ) [WOMAN]-Istapariyas-NOM queen ‘queen Istapariyas’ M Am-mu-na-as DUMU.LUGAL (Procl. Telep.) [MAN]-Ammuna-NOM prince ‘prince Ammuna’ M NIR GAL-is LUGAL-us (Treaty of T. 2.4) [MAN]-strength/Muwattallis-NOM-ANIM king-NOM-ANIM ‘king Muwattallis’

It is important to note that in both semantic fields—[KINSHIP] and [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE]—the proper noun combines with a script determinative conveying [SEX], in addition to a common noun that is sex specific (e. g. ‘father’). This pattern is attested in the following category [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION] as well:  

4.1 Nominal apposition in Hittite

95

M

LÙ Pe-en-ti-ip-sa-ri SANGA (Ap. Hatt. 9.2) [MAN]-Pentipsaris-GEN [MAN]-priest ‘of the priest Pentipsaris’

(118)

Similarly, the Hittite noun for ‘female magical operative’ hasawa combines with a proper noun and a script determinative, as in the following example from Puhvel (1991: 229): SAL

(119)

Susummaniga [WOMAN]-Susummaniga ‘the sorceress Susummaniga’

SAL

hāsauwas (KUB VII 1 IV 5) [WOMAN]-sorceress-NOM-SG

As the lists in Friedrich and Kammenhuber (1975) abundantly show, there are many instances of nominal apposition in the category [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] and especially in combination with names of towns: URU

(120)

Katapan URU-an (KUB V 3 IV 5) [TOWN]-Katapan town-ACC ‘the town of Katapan’

I note that among the 53 or so instances referring to towns given in Friedrich and Kammenhuber (1975) the overwhelming majority (50) favor the sequence [[Proper Noun] Common Noun-town]. Similar instances of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] featuring the name of a river and a common noun are attested as well, albeit less frequently so: (121) a. b.

Ma-a-la-kan ÍD-I (KBo XII 10 Vs 4) Malasa river ha-a-pí-iš Ma-a-la-aš (KUB XXXV 108 IV 22) river Malasa (Examples from Friedrich and Kammenhuber 1975)

Other geographical specifications include: (122)

HUR.SAG Ha-u-wa-a-as (Treaty of T. 3) mountain Hauwas-NOM ‘mount Hauwas’

It is important to note, however, that it is not always possible to tell whether the structure is indeed an instance of nominal apposition because not all nominal elements take case endings. The noun KUR ‘land’, for example, commonly occurs with a stem form, as in:

96

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

(123) a.

b.

KUR Mi-iz-ri (KUB XIV 8 18) land Egypt ‘land of Egypt I-NA KUR Mi-iz-ri (KUB XIV 8 23) into territory Egypt ‘into the land of Egypt’

Other instances as well show that KUR takes no case ending, a pattern found already in a number of examples with other nouns above (e. g. [122], [118]), cf.  

URU (124) KUR Ar-za-u-wa-ya-an us-ke-et (KBo III 4 18B) land [TOWN]-Arzawa-ENCL-ACC see-PST-3SG ‘it (thunderbolt) struck the country of Arzawa’

Yet this example indeed is an instance of nominal apposition as the accusative case ending on Ar-za-u-wa-ya- indicates: the NP functions as a direct object, implying nominal apposition. If not, the noun would have been a genitive. The consistency in case agreement in the examples that feature case marking on both elements, is very important in this light. Similarly, in earlier examples the occurrence of a dative or nominative rather than a genitive points to nominal apposition, cf. (125) HUR.SAG mountain

Ha-u-wa-a-as (Treaty of T. 3; example [122] sbove) Hauwas-NOM

Within the category [OTHER] instances conveying festivals are of special interest. In his etymological dictionary Puhvel provides clarifying examples of the use of Sumerian EZEN ‘festival’ in combination with the noun that specifies the festival, cf. (126) EZEN hameshas-kan (KUB XII 2. II 10) festival spring-GEN ‘festival of spring’

The overview of instances of EZEN + Common Noun in all its case forms and examples from Friedrich and Kammenhuber (1975: 17.501–503) show that the case of the common noun is determined by the context of the NP rather than by EZEN. Had the EZEN combination been a genitive construction—and not an appositive construction—then there would have been no case variation and the “dependent” noun would have taken the genitive case, independently of context. Within the field of [QUANTIFICATION] both nominal apposition and genitive constructions are attested in Hittite, as in the following example featuring harsi ‘bowl, jar’:

4.1 Nominal apposition in Hittite

(127)

97

DUG

harsis marmuan (KUB XXXI 57 I 21 5) [POT]-container-NOM-SG marmuwan-NOM-SG ‘a bowl of marmuwan’ (Example from Puhvel 1991: 198, 2004)

The following example featuring the quantity of a double fistful of flour is characterized by agreement, hence apposition as well, cf. (128) 1 haz(z)ilas memal (KUB XII 4 I 8) one double.fistful-NOM-SG flour-NOM-SG (Example from Puhvel 1991: 281)

Yet the genitive construction is also found in contexts of quantification (see e. g. Yoshida 1987: 83–87), as the following instance illustrates:  

DUG (129) GEŠTIN-a palhi marnuwandaš wine-GEN [POT]-large.object beer-GEN ‘a vessel of wine, a vessel of beer’ (Example from Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 253)

DUG palhi (KBo3.7 i 15–17) [POT]-large.object

4.1.2 Script determinatives in combination with a nominal element In addition to Noun + Noun structures presented above, there are also instances in Hittite of the type Script Determinative + Noun that show strong parallels with “regular” nominal apposition. In Section 3.2.2 of the previous chapter I discussed script determinatives in Hittite writing, identifying the different categories and the functions they convey. It is important to emphasize that several of them typically convey functions that in the absence of script determinatives are expressed by nominal apposition in other early Indo-European languages: they combine a common noun with a proper noun or with a specific common noun. In the following pages I will present a brief overview of additional instances in which script determinatives combine with a common noun (Section 4.1.2.1) and with a nominalised adjective (Section 4.1.2.2) respectively. These structures parallel nominal apposition in other early Indo-European languages.

4.1.2.1 Script determinatives in combination with a common noun Script determinatives in combination with a common noun in Hittite parallel those found in Sumerian and I have already provided a few instances in the previous chapter: the script determinative functions as a generic noun specifying the class of the noun with which it combines (Section 3.2.2 above). In

98

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

addition, there is one type of instance that is especially important because of distinctive parallels found in nominal apposition in other early Indo-European languages: the ones including LÙ ‘[MAN]’ and a common noun, as in: (130) a.

b.

c.

LÚ

apasis (KBo XV 9 III 12) [MAN]-exorcist-NOM ‘exorcist’ LÚ assussanni (KUB I 13 I 12) [MAN]-horse.trainer-NOM ‘horsetrainer’ LÚ auriyalas (KUB XIV I Vs. 23) [MAN]-warder-NOM ‘warder’

Parallels elsewhere include La. homo, as in homo leno ‘man pimp’ > ‘pimp’ (Pl., Poen. 200, Section 4.5.2) or Greek ἀνήρ (as in ἀνδρες στρατηγοί ‘fellow generals’ [X., A. 6.5.9; Section 4.3.2.2]).

4.1.2.2 Script determinatives in combination with a nominalised adjective Script determinatives in combination with a nominalised adjective parallel appositive constructions in Greek and Latin, hence their inclusion here. Adjectives in early Indo-European languages could easily be nominalized, even without overt marking, as in Latin: (131) La. Fortuna fortes adiuvat ‘Fortuna (NOM) helps the strong (ACC)’

In Greek the definite article may have nominalizing function: (132) Gk δίκαιος ‘just’ – ὁ δίκαιος ‘the just man’ – τὸ δίκαιον justice’ πολύς ‘numerous, many’ – οἱ πολλοί ‘the majority, the people’

In Hittite nominalization without overt marking was possible, but there are also instances in which the script determinative seems to convey this function, as in asiwant- ‘poor’, adjective vs. LÚasiwandas, cf. (133)

LÚ

asiwandas (KBo III 7 III 4–5) [MAN]-poor-GEN-SG ‘of a poor man’ (Example from Puhvel 1984: 211)

The sections on Sanskrit (4.2), Greek (4.3), and Latin (4.5.2) will show that these languages feature instances in which the noun for ‘man’ (Gk ἄνθρωπος/ἀνήρ and La. homo) tend to co-occur not only with nouns, but also with (nominalised)

4.2 Nominal apposition in Sanskrit

99

adjectives, or nouns that function both as noun and adjective, cf. La. hominem amicum (Ter., Heaut. 567) ‘friend’.

4.1.3 Concluding remarks about Hittite Examples presented in this section and in Chapter 3 demonstrate that script determinatives in Hittite not only have identifying or categorizing function, specifying the generic quality of the referent as in ‘eagle-[BIRD]’, but may have grammatical function as well in processes of nominalization (e. g. ADJ ‘poor ‘ > N ‘poor man’). These processes, which are consistent and commonly attested, further indicate that script determinatives had linguistic functions. Moreover, nominal apposition is well attested in Hittite in Noun + Noun combinations, which cover a wide range of semantic fields: [RELIGION], [KINSHIP], [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE], [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION], [SOCIAL STATUS, SEX], [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], [OTHER], and [QUANTIFICATION]. Moreover, partitive genitives within the field of [QUANTIFICATION] are attested as well; they can be qualified as early. In Chapter 3, I have pointed out the parallels between Script Determinative + Noun and Noun + Noun combinations. Examples presented here underline further similarities in terms of semantic fields and types of structure.  

4.2 Nominal apposition in Sanskrit In the absence of script determinatives, nominal apposition in Sanskrit is only found in Noun + Noun combinations, cf. – Proper Noun + Common Noun (Section 4.2.1) – Common Noun + Common Noun (Section 4.2.2) – Proper Noun + Proper Noun & Common Noun + Common Noun (Section 4.2.3) – Quantitative expressions (Section 4.2.4)

4.2.1 Proper Noun + Common Noun In the following paragraphs I present several examples of nominal apposition involving Proper Noun + Common Noun from Vedic Sanskrit, which reflect the semantic domains of [RELIGION], [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], [KINSHIP], and [QUANTIFICATION].

100

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

In the semantic domain of [RELIGION] nominal apposition is attested in reference to deities as the following instances illustrate, cf. (134) a.

b.

c.

devásya savitúr (RV 4.53.1a) god-GEN Savitar-GEN ‘of god Savitar’ devó … savit (RV 3.33.6c, 1.35.3c) god-NOM Savitar-NOM ‘god Savitar’ deváṃ savitram (RV 1.35.1d) god-ACC Savitar-ACC ‘god Savitar’

Other instances of devá(ḥ) savit are found throughout the Vedas, in a variety of grammatical cases (cf. RV 7.63.3c, 10.34.8b, and passim). Instances featuring other deities include, e. g.:  

(135) a.

b.

c.

úṣo devi (RV 7.77.5b) Uṣás-VOC goddess-VOC ‘goddess Uṣás’ váruṇaṃ … devám (RV 10.14.7d) Varuṇa-ACC … god-ACC ‘god Varuṇa’ devi adite (RV 8.18.4a) goddess-VOC Aditi-VOC ‘oh goddess Aditi’

Other common nous occur as well in this semantic field, cf. (136) vaiśvānaráḥ … the.universal.one-NOM ‘the universal one Agni’

agníḥ (RV 1.98.2c) Agni-NOM

In addition, gods and goddesses often are referred to with a proper noun in combination with a noun ‘father’ or ‘mother’, a pattern also found in Hittite and various other early languages. In Latin, for example, almost all gods could be called ‘father’ or ‘mother’ (Wissowa 1902: 26; see more below). The best known example in Sanskrit is: (137) díyauṣ pítaḥ (RV 6.51.5a, passim) Sky-VOC father-VOC ‘father Sky’

4.2 Nominal apposition in Sanskrit

101

Díyauṣ pítaḥ, who was not an important god, has of course a prominent equivalent in Gk Ζευς πατήρ and survives in the name of the major Roman god Iupiter.5 Fossilization of this type of structure, with the common noun in second position is found in other early Indo-European languages as well, such as Greek e. g. Δαμάτηρ/Δημήτηρ [< Δα + μάτηρ ‘Da mother, mother Da’; Schwyzer 1983: 150; see Section 4.3). Instances with ‘father’ in contexts other than díyauṣ are found in Sanskrit as well. The fact that these common nouns—‘father’ and ‘mother’— combine with a variety of names of gods shows that they make reference to the god as a fatherly or motherly figure, not to ‘the father of the gods’ (see more in Section 5.2.1). In the semantic domain of [KINSHIP] the following instances are found:  

(138) a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

svásur uṣáso (RV 7.71.1a) sister-ABL Uṣás-ABL ‘sister Dawn’ svásāram … uṣásaṃ (RV 10.127.3a) sister-ACC Uṣás-ACC ‘sister Dawn’ agním bhrtaraṃ (RV 10.7.3b) Agni-ACC brother-ACC ‘brother Agni’ bhrtaraṃ váruṇam (RV 4.1.2a) brother-ACC Varuṇa-ACC ‘to your brother Varuṇa’ díyauṣ pítaḥ pṛ́ thivi sky-VOC father-VOC earth-VOC ágne bhrātar (RV 6.51.5a) Agni-VOC brother-VOC ‘father Sky, mother Earth, brother Agni’

mtar (ádhrug) mother-VOC . . .  

 

The semantic domain of [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE] includes human as well as divine reference, as the following instances illustrate: (139) a.

rjā váruṇo (RV 4.42.2a, 7.49.3a) king-NOM Varuṇa-NOM ‘king Varuņa’

5 The sky + father sequence is probably the most frequently cited instance of nominal apposition in Indo-European—albeit often in repetitive wording—even catching the attention of scholars who were not as such interested in nominal apposition: e. g. Brugmann (1900: 381, 1925: 149), Delbrück (1900: 195), Schwyzer (1983: 149–150), Puhvel (1987: 149), Martinet (1987: 239), Lehmann (1993: 265), Watkins (1995: 8), Meier-Brügger (2000: 279), Hackstein (2010: 12–13); all with a brief indication of its underlying structure and an enumeration of cognate forms in the various relevant daughter languages.  

102

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

b.

sóma rājan (RV 8.48.7c, 8.48.8a) Soma-VOC king-VOC ‘king Soma’

According to Schwyzer the use of rājan- in combination with the names of gods Varuņa, Mitra, Indra, Agni, Soma, and Yama has no parallels in other IndoEuropean languages (1983: 150). The gods typically are referred to in terms of ‘king’ when they are “at the peak of their might; thus King Indra slayed the dragon and King Agní overcame darkness” (Elizarenkova 1995: 12). Conversely, the combining of rājan- with human kings is rare (Schwyzer 1983: 150), but then the number of human kings in the Rigveda, for instance, is not very high, cf. (140) rájānaṃ trasádasyum (RV 4.42.9c) king-ACC Trasadasyu-ACC ‘king Trasadasyu’

Yet this use may also reflect an essential aspect of the concept: that of the king as god, as put forth by Benveniste in his analysis of kingship in Indo-European (Benveniste 1969: 32–33). Finally, the category [OTHER] features instances of the type (141) sákhe viṣṇo (RV 4.18.11d) friend-VOC Viśnu-VOC ‘friend Viśnu’

4.2.2 Common Noun + Common Noun In Common Noun + Common Noun contexts nouns from the semantic fields of [RELIGION] and [KINSHIP] combine with a common rather than a proper noun, cf. (142) a.

b.

déva tvaṣṭar (RV 10.70.9a) god-VOC creator-VOC ‘creator god, god Tvaśṭar’ pit janit (RV 10.82.3a) father-NOM creator-NOM ‘father creator’

Other combinations are attested as well, cf. (143) kṣúddham bhrtvyam hunger enemy [RV/AV] (Delbrück 1888: 61)

‘the enemy hunger’

4.2 Nominal apposition in Sanskrit

103

The question to address is whether the common nouns in this context have become names. This is a pertinent question because the combining of two common nouns in apposition is rather widespread in Sanskrit texts and because Sanskrit includes many deified abstracts, as in the following example: (144) áditiḥ síndhuḥ pṛthivī́ utá Aditi-NOM Sindhu-NOM Earth-NOM and ‘(may) . . . Aditi, Sindhu, Earth, and Heaven . . .’  

 

 

dyaúḥ (RV 1.98.3d) Heaven-NOM

 

This clause includes the following abstract nouns that may also function as deified beings: (145) a. b. c. d.

áditis síndhus pṛthiví díyauṣ

‘freedom + ‘river’ + ‘earth’ + ‘sky, heaven, day’ +

‘Aditi’ ‘Sindhu’ ‘Earth’ ‘Heaven’6

When deified, these abstract nouns may combine with a generic noun of the type [RELIGION] or [KINSHIP], as in: (146) a.

b.

māt pṛthivī́ (RV 5.42.16d) mother-NOM earth-NOM ‘mother Earth’ pṛthivī́ m mātáraṃ (RV 6.72.2d) earth-ACC mother-ACC ‘mother Earth’

Finally, within the semantic field of [OTHER] there are quite a few instances in which a common (generic) noun referring to ‘man’ combines with another common noun. A variety of nouns is attested in this context: (147) íṣumān bearing.arrows-NOM-SG-M

vīró man-NOM

ástā (RV 2.42.2b) hunter-NOM

Taken at face value this instance may be interpreted as an explicative apposition (‘arrows-bearing man, a hunter’) or as nominal apposition (‘an arrows-bearing [hunter-man]’). Since vīra combines with other common nouns as well, the appositive reading prevails. Similar examples include the noun nṛ- (‘man, male’ as opposed to ‘woman’; Buck 1949: 81–83]):

6 Likewise common nouns and personal names of well-known and high-ranked divinities share the same root or they are used both as common noun and name: Agní ‘Agni, god of fire’ + ‘fire’, Mitrá ‘Mitra (god of friendship) + ‘friendship’, Sū́ rya ‘Sūrya’ (solar deity) + ‘orb of the sun’.

104

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

(148) a.

b.

náro víprāḥ men singers ‘singers’ nára uśíjaḥ men priests ‘priests’ (Examples from Schwyzer 1983: 151)

Schwyzer qualifies this usage as Indo-European (1983: 151). Similar patterns indeed are found in other early daughter languages as well (see further below). Moreover a third noun, jána- ‘man’ is attested in this context: (149) a.

b.

jáno yúdhvā man warrior ‘warrior’ ripávo jánāsaḥ impostors men ‘impostors’ (Examples form Schwyzer 1983: 151)

Instances indeed typically include the nouns jána-, nṛ- and vīra-. These nouns all convey the notion of ‘man’, but differ substantially. Skt nṛ- conveys ‘man’ as opposed to ‘woman’, hence refers to the male adult human being (< PIE *ner-; Gk ἀνήρ), The underlying notion ‘strength’ may be at play in its etymology (Buck 1949: 81). Similarly vīra- conveys the male adult as opposed to ‘woman’, the female adult (< PIE *wiro-; La. vir; see e. g. Meillet 1982a). Jána-, finally, refers to man as ‘human being’. Hence its meaning ‘man, mankind’. This type of structure is attested in Greek and Latin as well and will be further analyzed in the relevant sections below (i. c. Section 4.3 [Greek] and 4.5 [Latin]).  

 

4.2.3 Proper Noun + Proper Noun & Common Noun + Common Noun The combining of two proper and two common nouns is a rather widespread phenomenon in Sanskrit, but it typically is part of word formation processes even if their origin is in nominal phrases, as will become clear in Chapter 6. Starting as phrases, these structures developed into dvandva forms with—eventually—a unique accent and with their own internal structure and morphological marking. Because of their phrasal origin I briefly refer to them here (for more details and the role of the dual in these forms, see Chapter 6). The formation includes structures like:

4.2 Nominal apposition in Sanskrit

105

(150) [PROPER NOUN + PROPER NOUN] a. índrāviṣṇū (RV 6.69.1b, 6.69.3a, passim) ‘Indra-Viśnu’ b. mitrāvaruṇā (RV 7.61.3a) ‘Mitra-Varuņa’

Since these formations typically include names of gods, they are also called devatā- or Götter-dvandvas (‘God dvandvas’) in the literature. The combination of two common nouns is illustrated, for example, by instances such as: (151) [COMMON NOUN + COMMON NOUN] a. pitárāmātárā ‘fathers-mothers’ > ‘parents’ b. mātárāpitárā ‘mothers-fathers’ > ‘parents’

Although the nouns individually convey two independent referents, the concepts are strongly complementary and in their complementarity often convey a new unique concept, in which both are mandatory, namely ‘parents’. It is indeed important to note that these combinations—Proper Noun + Proper Noun and Common Noun + Common Noun—are not arbitrary: Indra and Viśnu were warrior gods. Indra of course was the god of heaven who killed the dragon, hence he represents the dragon-killer, the storm god, and the warrior god, whereas Viśnu, a “medium-ranked deity”, also has clear associations with the warrior class and is Indra’s ally and helper (Puhvel 1987: 48–49). Mitra and Varuṇa, by contrast are abstract deities, the chief gods among the Adityas—sons of Aditi—who are not action gods, but rather represent moral values. They are abstract divinities or deified abstractions. In the religious concept Mitra is the god who personifies “contract”, hence his role as “contractor”. He provides security and internal peace, whereas Varuṇa “upholds the cosmic moral norm”, protects against sinful behavior, and watches over oaths (Puhvel 1987: 48–49). According to Dumézil, Mitra and Varuṇa “represented two complementary aspects of the sovereign power, one magical and terrible in character, the other juridical and benign” (Dumézil, quoted by Renou 1953: 21). Similarly, the components “father” and “mother” are complementary in the new formation mātárā-pitárā conveying the new concept “parents” (for further grammatical and semantic analysis, see Chapter 6).

4.2.4 Quantitative expressions In Vedic Sanskrit, quantitative expressions typically feature genitives but nominal apposition, is attested as well, cf.

106

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

(152) a. b.

ṣaṣṭím áśvānām ‘an aggregate of 60 horses (GEN)’ gávāṃ yūthni ‘herds of cows (GEN)’ (Macdonnell 1916: 322)

Nominal apposition is attested with numerals such as śatam, which is a noun, cf. śatam púraḥ ‘hundred citadels’ (Delbrück 1888: 82). It is important to emphasize that while quantitative expressions may feature the genitive—instead of nominal apposition—“genitives of apposition or equivalence (city of Rome), and of characteristic (man of honor), do not occur and hardly that of material” (Whitney 1889 [1879]: 98–99).

4.2.5 Concluding remarks about Sanskrit Nominal apposition in Sanskrit is widespread, both in terms of occurrence and types of structure. It is especially well represented in the semantic fields of [RELIGION], [KINSHIP], and [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE]. The category of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] is not common, at least not in the Rig Veda. Taken at face value, this observation could support Schwyzer’s hypothesis that although nominal apposition is attested for [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] in various early IndoEuropean languages, it may be a secondary development (1983: 158–159). Yet since the phenomenon is well attested in Hittite and a systematic analysis of early Sanskrit to date is lacking, there is no evidence to assume a secondary development. Finally, on the basis of Vedic data it is not possible to determine the preferred internal sequence for nominal apposition at that stage. Independently of the case used, the common noun may come in first or second position. There seems to be a preference for pitar- to occur in second position, but deva- is more frequently attested in first position, both in contexts of address and other contexts. Additional research including all instances is needed to reach a final conclusion in this matter.

4.3 Nominal apposition in Greek In the previous chapter it was demonstrated that in the writing system used for Mycenaean Greek several ideograms function as script determinatives, combining with a noun and specifying its semantic category:

4.3 Nominal apposition in Greek

(153) ko-ri-ja-do-no CONDIMENT coriander-NOM [CONDIMENT] ‘312 l. of coriander seed’

107

2 T 6 (Ga415) QUANTITY

Structures of this type parallel nominal apposition. In the following pages I will discuss the different types of nominal apposition that are found in Greek, including Mycenaean Greek. I found the data that will be presented here in the various primary documents and in studies and overviews (e. g. Chantraine 1953; Ventris and Chadwick 1956; Kühner and Gerth 1963; Schwyzer and Debrunner 1960). Especially Ventris and Chadwick’s (1956) Documents in Mycenaean Greek—readily accessible in numerous libraries—provides a rich collection of more than 300 (transcribed) Mycenaean tablets of various type from Knossos, Pylos, and Mycenae (Ventris and Chadwick 1956: 153). This section starts with an overview of examples of nominal apposition in Mycenaean Greek.  

4.3.1 Mycenaean Greek In addition to script determinatives, nominal apposition in Mycenaean Greek commonly is attested in combinations of nouns as well. It includes both types of structure: [Proper Noun + Common Noun] as well as the instances combining two common nouns. Yet most examples are of the type [Proper Noun + Common Noun] and the components occur in that sequence. The following instances—all found in Ventris and Chadwick’s body of inscriptions (1956)—feature the proper noun followed by the common noun that specifies within the domains of [RELIGION] or [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION]. In the semantic field of [RELIGION]: (154) a-ta-na po-ti-ni-ja (KN 208 [V52]) Athene-DAT mistress-DAT ‘to mistress Athene’

This example recurs in other Mycenaean texts but potnia (Myc. po-ti-ni-ja) occurs in isolation as well—without the proper noun—in “other tablets from both Knossos and Pylos” (Ventris and Chadwick 1956: 126). In Homeric Greek the instance features the reversed order: πότνι’ Ἀθηναίη (Il. 6.305; see more below). Most examples of nominal apposition in Mycenaean Greek are however from the field of [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION] as the following instances illustrate: (155) a. b.

pi-ra-jo Philaios-NOM ke-ro-wo Kerowos-NOM

ai-ki-pa-ta (Ae03) goat.herd-NOM po-me (Ae04) shepherd-NOM

108

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l.

qo-te-ro ai-ki-pa-ta (Ae05) Qeteros-NOM goat.herd-NOM ri-so-wa i-je-re-u (An29) Risowa-NOM priest-NOM we-te-re-u i-e-re-u (En659.4) Westreus-NOM priest-NOM ku-ka-ro pi-ri-je-te (Ra1548) Kukalos-NOM cutler-NOM ka-pa-ti-ja ka-ra-wi-po-ro (Ep704.7) Karpathia-NOM key.bearer-NOM-F e-ri-ta i-je-re-ja (Ep704.3, 704.5) Eritha-NOM priestess-NOM po-me (Eo278) ti-pa2-jo Thisbaios-NOM shepherd-NOM a-tu-ko e-te-do-mo (Eo01) Atukhos-NOM artificer-NOM tu-we-ta a-re-pa-zo (Un08) Thuestas-DAT uguent.boiler-DAT ru-ro mo-ro-pa2 (Sn01; several instances, in that sequence) Luros-NOM land.owner-NOM (Examples found in Ventris and Chadwick 1956: passim)

In this overview I do not include the rather frequent instances characterized by a split structure, which generally are examples of extended apposition, as in: (156) u-wa-mi-ja te-o-jo do-e-ra (Eb30) Huamia-NOM god-GEN maid.servant-NOM ‘Huamia, (the) maid-servant of the god’

Although the instances above (155a) through (155l) indeed refer to professions, several are in fact also titles, such as (ru-ro) mo-ro-pa2 (Sn01) ‘land-owner’, “a high ranking title” (Ventris and Chadwick 1956: 176) or (ka-pa-ti-ja) ka-ra-wi-po-ro (Ep704.7), which includes “a religious title”, that of ‘keybearer, administrator’ (Ventris and Chadwick 1956: 396). I have found no instances of [KINSHIP] or [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] in Ventris and Chadwick’s corpus of documents.7 Evidence for nominal apposition in quantitative expressions—[QUANTIFICATION]—is relatively complex in Mycenaean because many of the relevant agricultural bulk products are rendered by ideograms (e. g. WHEAT, OIL, WOOL, etc.), without case marking. The precise  

7 These domains are currently being examined on the basis of examples from the corpus of inscriptions edited by Chadwick, Killen, and Olivier (2012) and Chadwick, Godart, Killen, Sacconi, and Sakellarakis (1986–1999) (Bauer In Prep. b).

109

4.3 Nominal apposition in Greek

grammatical characteristics—i. c. case use—of a fair number of instances therefore remains obscure, cf.  

(157) mo-ro-qo-ro-jo ko-to-na plot.of.land-NOM-SG Mologuos-GEN IDEOGRAM-WHEAT .... [WHEAT] (. . . .) ‘the private plot of Mologuos 374 l. wheat’  

 

 

 

 

 

ki-ti-me-na private-NOM-SG-F 3 T ٩ 1 (Ea817) QUANTITY

Yet there are many instances that include a quantitative entity in combination with a noun written out fully and referring to agricultural produce: (158) a.

b.

c.

[AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE] + sa-sa-ma sesame-NOM-PL-NE ‘sesame seed 2 l.’ ma-ra-tu-wo fennel-NOM-SG ‘fennel seed 1 l.’ ka-na-ko safflower-NOM-SG-F ‘white safflower 1 kg’ (Ge603)

[QUANTITATIVE ENTITY] + IDEOGRAM-BOWL [BOWL]

[NUMBER] 2 (Ge602) two

IDEOGRAM-BOWL [BOWL]

1 (Ge602) one

re-u-ka IDEOGRAM-DRY MEASURE white-NOM-SG-F [DRY MEASURE]

1 one

 

Because of the ideograms, the underlying case use of the quantitative element is not manifest, but the noun referring to the produce appears in the nominative and not in the genitive, which points to nominal apposition. This assumption is further supported by examples of the type: (159) pa-si te-o-i me-ri all-DAT-PL gods-DAT honey-NOM-SG ‘to all the gods one jar of honey’

AMPHORA [AMPHORA]

1 1

(Gg702)

Instances therefore point to predominant nominal apposition in the field of [QUANTIFICATION] in Mycenaean Greek.

4.3.2 Post-Mycenaean Greek Nominal apposition in post-Mycenaean Greek takes the form both of combinations including two common nouns and those including a common and a proper noun, cf. (160) [COMMON NOUN + COMMON NOUN] ἀνήρ τύραννος ‘tyrant, despot’

110

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

(161) [PROPER NOUN + COMMON NOUN] ὁ Εὐφράτης ποταμός ‘the river Euphrates’

In the next pages I will discuss these types first (Sections 4.3.2.1 and 4.3.2.2) and then proceed to quantative expressions and alternative constructions (Sections 4.3.2.3 and 4.3.2.4 respectively).

4.3.2.1 Nominal apposition: Proper Noun + Common Noun Nominal apposition most commonly includes a proper noun and a generic noun. Proper nouns are typical in Homer (Chantraine 1953: 13) and the usage of nominal apposition varies, from isolated instances to combinations that occur so often that they almost take the form of formulaic expressions, e. g.:  

(162) [OCCASIONAL INSTANCES] ’Аπόλλωνι ἄνακτι (Hom., Il 1.36) Apollo-DAT ruler-DAT ‘to the ruler/lord Apollo’ κοῦρον Ζήθοιο ἄνακτος (Hom., Od. 19.523) son-ACC Zethus-GEN king-GEN ‘the son of king Zethus’ (163) [QUASI-FORMULAIC EXPRESSION] Ποσειδάωνι ἄνακτι (Hom., Od. 3.43, Od. 3.54, Od. 13.185, passim) Poseidon-DAT lord-DAT ‘to the lord Poseidon’

According to Chantraine, appositive phrases are widespread in Homer (“les formules appositionnelles se succèdent souvent”), which can be accounted for by their archaic nature: the epos favored formulaic style (Chantraine 1953: 13). In terms of address Ancient Greek typically used (isolated) proper nouns and nominal apposition was not standard (Dickey 1996: passim). Since the use of names was very important in Greek greetings and conversations, proper names occur both in instances of direct address and in referential uses. If more information was needed, an ethnic noun or patronymic was used, or reference to a distinguishing feature was added, resulting in nominal apposition, as the following instances clearly show, cf. (164) a.

Σωκράτης ὁ Socrates-NOM the-NOM-SG ‘the younger Socrates’

νεώτερος (Pl., Pol. 257a) younger-NOM-SG

4.3 Nominal apposition in Greek

b.

111

Ἀπόλλωνι Παιᾶνι (BCH 1.94) Apollo-DAT Paion8-DAT ‘to Apollo healer’ (Dickey 1996: 44–45)

In these contexts, occupational terms are attested as well as titles, kinship terminology, religious referents, age terminology, and so forth. Within the field of [RELIGION] Christians in their monotheistic prayers address God with a generic term—even if God often is specified (see Chapter 5). The Ancient Greek within their polytheistic system typically specified which god they were addressing. Consequently, while names of gods typically are used in prayers (Dickey 1996: 188–189), these may include a generic noun specifying the addressee: ἄναξ occurs relatively often in these contexts as examples (162) and (163) illustrate, whereas the noun θεός as a rule was avoided. Cf. (165) Ἠφαίστοιο ἄνακτος (Hom., Il. 18.137) Hephaistos-GEN lord-GEN ‘from the lord Hephaistos’

See more details below. In addition, in Greek as well the semantic domain of [RELIGION] includes the typical combination of the name of Zeus with generic ‘father’, which was mentioned earlier for other Indo-European languages: (166) a.

b.

Ζεὺς δὲ πατὴρ (Hom., Il. 8.397) Zeus-NOM PRT father-NOM ‘father Zeus’ Ζεῦ πάτερ (Hom., Il. 1.503, Il. 2.371) Zeus-VOC father-VOC ‘father Zeus’ (Thetis [Il. 1.503] and Agamemnon [Il. 2.371] addressing Zeus)

Πατὴρ combines with the name of other gods as well: (167) εὔχεο πατρί Пοσειδάωνι ἄνακτι (Hom., Od. 9.412) ‘pray to our father (DAT) lord (DAT) Poseidon (DAT)’

The connotation of ‘father’ in these contexts is not genetic, but rather “collective”: reference is made to the father who takes care of those who depend on him, the ‘father’ as the ‘master of’, in the same way as Latin pater familias refers to the master of the household (see more in Sections 4.5 and 5.2). This usage accounts for the following example in which the genetic relation needs explicit specification:

8 Paion was the physician of the gods and a title of Apollo.

112

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

(168) Θοῖβός μοι γενέτωρ Phoebus-NOM I-DAT genitor-NOM ‘Phoebus is my genetic father’ (Example from Chantraine 1946-1947: 248)

πατήρ father-NOM

Reference to gods in terms of ‘father’ has its equivalent in female deities whose name then combines with μήτηρ. I mentioned parallel structures already in Hittite (Section 4.1.1), cf. the following example referring to the deified grapevine: (169) Μητρὶ Ἵπτα καὶ Διεὶ Σα[βαζίω] mother-DAT Vine/Hipta-DAT and God-DAT Sabazios-DAT ‘to mother Vine/Hipta9 and the God Sabasias’ (Inscription from Gjölde; Kretschmer 1926: 76; example provided by Puhvel in a different context [Puhvel 1984: 379], see also Section 4.1.1)

In addition to reference in terms of ‘parents’, gods are also referred to in other roles, such as that of ‘ruler’ as examples (165) and (167) above illustrate, featuring Hephaistos and Poseidon repectively. The example Ἀπόλλωνι ἄνακτι (Hom., Il. 1. 36) ‘to the ruler Apollo’, for example, “addressed . . . Apollo in his oracular function”, directly or indirectly via the Pythia (Dickey 1996: 102). Chantraine (1946–1947) points out that the noun μήτηρ does not combine with Olympian deities, but only with names of Pre-Hellenic divinities surviving in Greek society. Pre-Hellenic Aegean religion was chtonic in nature and expressed special devotion to mother Earth, the goddess of fertility. These early cults survive in a modified form in a goddess like Demeter, whose name etymologically reflects the earth/goddess connection (Chantraine 1946–1947: 238): Demeter protected fertile and cultivated soil. Like Iupiter and Umbrian Iupater, Δημήτηρ is a synthetic form of an earlier appositive construction (Δα + μάτηρ ‘Da’ + ‘mother’, see Section 4.2.1). In these very early formations, the common noun typically comes second. The name of Demeter’s consort, Poseidon, is a fossilized synthetic form as well: Poseidon < vocative *pósei ‘lord’+ don (cf. Puhvel 1987: 131). Even if the etymology of the element don in Poseidon is not quite clear, the formation was part of a fully integrated paradigm (genitive: Poseidonis), in contrast to La. Iupiter, which features oblique cases based on Iov-, without -pitr (see Section 5.2). If Olympian goddesses as a rule do not convey the epitheton μήτηρ, they are often attested in combination with the noun πότνια ‘mistress, queen’, which in a secondary development came to convey religious value, cf.  

 

9 Hipta was a relatively unknown goddess who fostered Dionysus when he emerged out of his father’s thigh. See also Section 4.1.1.

4.3 Nominal apposition in Greek

(170) a. b. c. d.

Πότνια Πότνια Πότνι’ Πότνια

Ἥρη Ἥβη Ἐνυώ Κίρκη

(Hom., Il. 1.551, 19.106) (Hom., Il. 4.2) (Hom., Il. 5.592) (Hom., Od. 8.448)

113

‘mistress Hera’ ‘mistress Hebé’ ‘mistress Enjo’ (goddess of war) ‘mistress Circe’

Goddesses who continue the Aegean religious tradition such as Aphrodite and Earth, came to combine with the noun πότνια as well, reinforcing the religious reading of the noun, which increasingly became a religious term (Chantraine 1946–1947: 222). A third noun that combines with names of goddesses is δέσποινα ‘lady of the house’, the feminine of δεσπότης ‘master’, which occurs occasionally with Artemis (Soph., El. 626), Hecate (Esch., Fr. 3888), or Persephone (Pl., Laws 796b) (Chantraine 1946–1947: 222–223). Another productive process within the field of [RELIGION] involves the occurrence of σωτήρ/σώτειρ ‘savior’, which is “often used as epithet of protective deities” in whose honor sport festivals were organized, generally at their shrine. Zeus especially occurs in these combinations, but many others as well, such as Tucha ‘Luck’, daughter of Zeus (e. g. σώτειρα Τύχα ‘Tucha savior’ [Pind. Olympian 12.2]; Silk 2007: 182). Within the category of [RELIGION] instances of nominal apposition involving deification are attested as well. Apposition occurs, for example, in reference to deified meteorological phenomena, as in:  

(171) ζέφυρος west wind/West wind (deity)

ἄνεμος wind

Taken at face value this phenomenon bears similarities to examples in Hittite in which a script determinative combines with a deified common noun specifying its new semantic character, that of being a god (e. g. DIstamanassas [KUB XX 24 IV 31] ‘god of hearing’ (< istamman- ‘ear’; see Section 3.2.2 and Chapter 6). In the Greek example, however, the deified element is combined with a noun referring to its original nature (Zέφυρος ἄνεμος). Consequently, while both processes are similar, the results are fundamentally different. This might be accounted for by the fact that the concept of wind is more easily conceived as a divine force than, for example, ears. While nominal apposition is a widespread device in the field of [RELIGION], it is less so in the domain of [KINSHIP]. As said, family members were addressed with names or kinship terminology. Also for non-close relationships names tended to be used. Fathers and mothers typically were addressed with πάτερ and μήτερ respectively, in isolation: “neither πάτερ nor μήτερ can be combined with other vocatives, but this rule does not hold when a name needs to be attached to πάτερ in order to make clear who the addressee is” (Dickey 1996: 78). Kinship apposition may have special motivation, as in πάτερ Ερμῆ (Luc., Dial. D. 2.1). The  

114

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

aim of this combination of common noun and name in the given context is said to make the father admit the relationship (Dickey 1996: 214). This motivated use shows the marked character of this type of construction. These observations do not imply that nominal apposition in the field of [KINSHIP] did not exist: it did exist and occurred in non-addressee contexts as well, as in: (172) πατὴρ …Πηλεὺς (Hom., Il. 9.252) ‘your father Peleus’

In addition, πάτερ was also used outside the field of [KINSHIP] and [RELIGION], in the category [OTHER]—in expressions of respect, for example in reference to elderly people—and could then combine with names or common nouns, e. g.: ξεῖνε πάτερ (Hom., Od. 7.28, Od. 7.48 lit. ‘guest-friend father’) as used by Athene in the disguise of a young girl talking to Odysseus (Chantraine 1946–1947: 235). Wives were predominantly—both in terms of quantity and type of occurrence —referred to with the generic γύναι ‘woman, wife’, husbands were addressed with ἄνερ or first name, both in isolation (Dickey 1996: 223–225). It is at the level of children that names play a role: children were addressed with a kinship term, their proper name, or a combination of kinship terminology and a name. Moreover, extended use of παῖς in the category of [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION] is found in comedies, where παῖ with a proper noun commonly was used, typically referring to slaves, as in:  

(173) παῖ Συλλογισμέ (Luc., Pasc. 39; Dickey 1996: 71)

A few nouns “occasionally” occur in apposition (Dickey 1996: 138, 136–137), as in: (174) Μένων ἑταῖρε (Pla., Men. 98a) Meno friend-VOC ‘my friend Meno’

If indeed nominal apposition did not predominate in forms of address in Greek, it was because in those contexts Greek favored the exclusive use of names. If the name was unknown, a generic common noun would be used instead: e. g. the noun ξένε ‘stranger’ (Dickey 1996: 149), precluding by its meaning alone the occurrence of a name. Nominal apposition within the field of [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLES] may include common nouns that were already attested in the field of [RELIGION], cf.  

(175) πόλις Πριάμοιο town-NOM Priamus-GEN ‘the town of the ruler Priamus’

ἄνακτος (Hom., Il. 2.373, Il. 4.290, Il. 4.18) ruler-GEN

4.3 Nominal apposition in Greek

115

The combining of these two nouns occurs seven times in total in the Iliad, in that sequence. Whereas βασιλεῦ (‘king-VOC’) is the most frequent form of address, it typically occurs without the name of the ruler: Ω βασιλεῦ (e. g. Hdt. 3.42.2). If there is specification, it predominantly takes the form of a genitive referring to the ruler’s people, βασιλεῦ Μήδων ‘king of the Medes’ (Hdt. 1.206.1; Dickey 1996: 90–95). Only a limited number of instances of βασιλεὺς occur in nominal apposition (see also Section 4.6), cf.  

(176) βασιλεὺς Πτολεμαῖος βασιλεῖ king-NOM Ptolemeus-NOM king-DAT ‘king Ptolomeus to king Pyrrhus’ (Dickey 1996: 231)

Πύρρῳ (Plut., Pyrrh. 6.7) Pyrrhus-DAT

Reference to [SOCIAL STATUS, AGE] shows patterns different from the ones discussed so far. Reference to people of a given age either took the form of a proper name or an age term, when age indeed was a distinctive feature (e. g. Dickey 1996: 212). An important group of nominal apposition in Greek refers to [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], as the following instances illustrate, which all feature case agreement:  

(177) [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, RIVER] ὁ Εὐφράτης ποταμός the-NOM Euphrates-NOM river-NOM ‘the Euphrates river’ (178) [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, LAKE] ἡ Βόλβη λίμνη (Thuc. 4.103) the-NOM Bolbe-NOM lake-NOM ‘lake Bolbe’ (179) [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, TOWN] πόλιν Τροίην (Hom., Il. 1.129) town-ACC Troy-ACC ‘the town of Troy’

Instances may include a demonstrative/definite article. The proper noun in these instances generally is located between the demonstrative/definite article and the common noun, which comes at the end of the noun phrase, cf. (180) [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, MOUNTAIN] τὸ Πήλιον ὄρος (Hdt. 7.129.1) the-NOM Pelion-NOM mount-NOM ‘mount Pelion’

116

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

(181) [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, ISLAND] a. την Ψυττάλειαν νῆσον (Hdt. 8.95) the-ACC Psyttaleia-ACC island-ACC ‘the island of Psyttaleia ’ b. Τραγίᾳ τῃ νήσῳ (Thuc. 1.116) Tragia-DAT the-DAT island-DAT ‘the island of Tragia’ (182) [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, TOWN] ὑπὸ τὸ Παρθένιον πόλισμα (X., A. 7.8.21) below the-ACC-SG Parthenium-ACC town-ACC ‘below the town of Parthenium’

The sequence of the composing elements may vary to some extent along with the nouns included. For the noun πόλις, for example, Smyth notes that three types of structure are commonly attested (Smyth 1956: 291), in which the relative order of the Proper Noun + Common Noun is consistent, but the occurrence of the definite article varies, cf. (183) a. b. c.

Μένδη πόλις ‘the town of Mende’ ἡ Μένδη ἡ πόλις ‘the town of Mende’ Μένδη ἡ πόλις ‘the town of Mende’

The context of definite articles indeed allows for further variation. For the neuter noun ὄρος ‘mountain’, for example, there are several possibilities in terms of word order as well, cf. the following example, which in addition includes two nouns of different gender: (184) ἐς τὸ ὄρος τὴν to the-ACC mount-ACC the-ACC ‘to mount (ACC) Istone (ACC)’

Ἰστώνην (Thuc. 3.85.3) Istone-ACC

This type of instance featuring [Definite Article + Common Noun + Definite Article + Proper Noun] is more frequent than instances with the reverse sequence [Definite Article + Proper Noun + Definite Article + Common Noun]: (185) ὑπὸ τῇ Αί̉τῃ τῷ at.the.foot the-DAT Aetna-DAT the-DAT ‘at the foot (DAT) of mount Aetna (DAT)’

Compare also:

ὄρει (Thuc. 3.116.1) mount-DAT

4.3 Nominal apposition in Greek

117

(186) [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, VARIOUS] a. τοῦ Πειραιῶς τοῦ λιμένος (Thuc. 2.93.1) ‘of the harbor (GEN) of Piraeus (GEN)’ b. τὸ φρούριον τὸ Λάβδαλον (Thuc. 7.3.4) ‘fort (ACC) Labdalon (ACC)’ (Examples from Smyth 1956: 291)

Whereas μήτηρ typically combines with the names of indigenous Pre-Hellenic Mediterranean goddesses (or their residues, see above) within the semantic field of [RELIGION], the noun also combines with geographic names in a figurative sense (Chantraine 1946–1947: 239), such as countries or islands with which the speaker or author has an emotional connection, cf. [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, ΜH́ ΤΗΡ ‘MOTHER’] (187) μᾶτερ ἐμά … Θήβα (Pind., Isth. 1.1) ‘my mother …Thebe’

Within the category [OTHER] the important so-called ‘name or NOMEN constructions’ typically feature the noun ὄνομα ‘name’ and a proper noun in grammatical agreement (for further discussion, see Section 5.3.2), cf. (188) τῳ δὲ νεωτάτῳ ἐθέμον ὄνομα Καλιστρατον (Dem. 43.74) ‘I gave the youngest (DAT) the name (ACC) Callistratus (ACC)’

Moreover within the category [OTHER] a variety of common nouns in combination with another noun is attested, most commonly a proper noun, as in the following example: (189) γλῶσσαν Ἑλλάδα (Hdt. 4.78.1) language-ACC Greece-ACC ‘the Greek language’

Ἑλλάδα primarily is a noun and its—much less frequent—adjectival uses may have its origin in appositive constructions. Finally, in contexts with proper nouns, ἀνήρ is attested as well, as the following instances illustrate: ἄνδρα Βιήνορα, ποιμενένα λαῶν (Il. 11.92) ‘the man/warrior (ACC) Bienor (ACC), herdsman of the troops’, δῶρον μὲν ἀνδρὸς Ἑκτορος (S., Ai. 817) ‘a gift of (the man) Hector’, or παρ’ ἀνδρός Φανοτέως (S., El. 45; see also Kühner and Stegmann 1963: 272) ‘by (the man) Phanoteus’. Very common within this type are ethnic proper nouns (e. g. ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι ‘men of Athens’). These ‘man constructions’ will be discussed in greater detail in Section 4.3.2.2 below. In terms of preferred word order the evidence from Homer is important because of the parallels I observe in other languages. In combination with Ζεύς,  

118

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

πατὴρ typically occurs in second position (e. g. Ζεῦ πάτερ [Od. 24.351; Il. 5.872]; Διὶ πατρί [Il. 4.23]). A large majority of instances of nominal apposition in Homer, feature the sequence Proper Noun + Common Noun (for further analysis, see Section 4.6).  

4.3.2.2 Nominal apposition: Common Noun + Common Noun Nominal apposition involving two common nouns is frequently found in Greek, especially with (a) nouns referring to “occupation, condition, or age (usually ἀνήρ ‘man’, ἄνθρωπος ‘man, human being’, γυνή ‘woman’)” (Smyth 1956: 267) as well as (b) nouns denoting social status and functions as data from Homer show (Chantraine 1953: 13). The occurrence of ἀνήρ is widespread and remarkable, cf. ἐλαφηβόλος … ἀνὴρ (Hom., Il. 18.319) shooting.deer-NOM man-NOM ‘hunter’ b. ἀνδράσι θηρευτῇσι (Hom., Il. 12.41) men-DAT hunters-DAT ‘at huntsmen’ c. ἰητρὸς γὰρ ἀνὴρ (Hom., Il. 11.514–515) doctor-NOM PRT man-NOM ‘physician’ d. ἀνήρ ρήτωρ (Dem. 18.282) man-NOM public.speaker-NOM ‘public speaker’ e. βασιλῆι γὰρ ἀνδρὶ (Hom., Il. 3.170) king-DAT PRT man-DAT ‘to the king’ f. ἀνήρ ἄρχων ( X., Hier. 8.5) man-NOM commander-NOM ‘commander, ruler’ g. ἀνήρ τύραννος (X., Hier. 11.1) man-NOM tyrant-NOM ‘despot’ h. ἄνδρι στρατηγῷ (Pla., Io 540d) man-DAT general-DAT ‘to the general’ νεανίαν (X., Cyr. 2.2.6) i. ἄνδρα man-ACC young.man-ACC ‘young man’ j. ἀνήρ γέρων (Pla., Lys. 223b) man-NOM old.man-NOM ‘old man’ (Examples also from Chantraine 1953 and Kühner and Gerth 1963: 272)

(190) a.

4.3 Nominal apposition in Greek

119

These instances show (1) that they occur from early times on and in a variety of texts; (2) that they predominantly convey professions or occupations; and (3) that even if several of the nouns with which ἀνήρ combines have adjectival origin, their occurrence as independent noun is common. Moreover, ἀνήρ occurs both in the singular and the plural as the examples below further illustrate. In this respect Greek differs, for example, from Latin, which favors almost exclusively a singular in this usage (see Section 4.5.2), cf. (191) a.

b.

c.

d.

e. f.

αἰπόλοι ἄνδρες (Hom., Il. 2.474) goat.herds-NOM men-NOM ‘goat herds’ τέκτονες ἄνδρες (Hom., Il. 13.390) wood.cutters-NOM men-NOM ‘wood.cutters’ χαλκῆες κάμον ἄνδρες (Hom., Il. 4.187) smiths-NOM work-IMPF-3PL men-NOM ‘the smiths worked’ ἄνδρες τε νομῆες (Hom., Il. 17.65) men-NOM PRT shepherds-NOM ‘shepherds’ ἄνδρες στρατιῶται (X., .A. 1.3.3) ‘fellow (VOC) soldiers (VOC)’ ἄνδρες στρατηγοί (X., A. 6.5.9) ‘fellow (VOC) generals (VOC)’

It is not clear why ἄνδρες occurs in these instances. The incidence of examples of occupational terms in the plural in combination with the common noun ἄνδρες ‘men’ is high, often in direct address, cf. ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί ‘members of the jury’ (Lys. 13.1). While ἀνήρ is attested most frequently in combination with occupational terms, the next largest group features ethnic nouns: ethnic nouns occur with or without ἄνδρες: ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι (Dem. 2.1) ‘men of Athens’ vs. Ἀθηναῖοι (see previous section). Isolated instances of ἄνδρες or isolated instances of occupational titles or ethnic nouns in contexts of address were less formal, according to Dickey, than the combination of both nouns: ἄνδρες + occupational noun/ethnic noun (Dickey 1996: 181). This observation is in accordance with the predominance of ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι in the speeches by Attic orators as opposed to instances referring to other ethnic groups, which feature the generic noun less frequently (e. g. Λακεδαιμόνιοι ‘Spartans’; Dickey 1996: 180). Instances including two common nouns further show that rather than referring to political or military functionaries individually these instances convey collective groups: members of the jury, Senate, army, city, and so forth. The same  

120

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

sense of collectivity is found in Lucian’s (ἄνδρες) θεοί (Iupp. Trag. 15), used in reference to the gods addressed collectively, cf. (192) a. (ἄνδρες) δικασταί ‘members of the jury’ b. (ἄνδρες) βουλευταί ‘members of the council/senate’ c. (ἄνδρες) πολίται ‘citizens’ d. (ἄνδρες) δημόται ‘plebeians’ e. (ἄνδρες) πατέρες ‘senators’ f. (ἄνδρες) σύμμαχοι ‘allies’ g. (ἄνδρες) στρατιῶτα ‘soldiers’ h. (ἄνδρες) ιππεῖς ‘cavalry’ (Examples from Dickey 1996: 180–181)

Kühner and Gerth (1963) relate the occurrence of ἀνήρ to the adjectival origin of many of the nouns with which it combines: the noun that refers to “ein Geschäft oder einen Stand oder ein Alter” is then treated as an adjective (Kühner and Gerth 1963: 271). Even if the nouns that occur in these contexts indeed often have adjectival origin, this interpretation is not very convincing. The more so, since Greek has devices other than ἀνήρ to mark the element’s nominal nature, such as definite articles. Moreover, the elements in question commonly occur as nouns in their own right in other contexts. Finally, in comparison to Sanskrit and more so Latin, nouns of adjectival origin are relatively infrequent in the Greek examples: there are only a few instances that include elements that function both as noun and adjective (e. g. γέρων ‘old man’; ‘old’). More interesting, but not confirmed by others, is the fundamental difference identified exclusively in Greek prose by Kühner and Gerth (1963) between e. g. ἀνήρ μάντις and μάντις:  

 

(193) a. b.

ἀνήρ μάντις: conveying a man who is a seer by profession μάντις: conveying a man who acts as a seer (Kühner and Gerth 1963: 272)

Unfortunately Kühner and Gerth provide no motivation. In order to evaluate their hypothesis, more detailed analysis is called for, comparing instances with and without the generic noun in a large corpus of texts, which would go beyond the aims of this study. In addition to ἀνήρ, ἄνθρωπος ‘man’ occurs in instances of nominal apposition as well: πρεσβΰται ἄνθρωποι ‘old men’, ἄνθρωπος γόης (Aes. 2.153) ‘enchanter fellow’, ἄνθρωπος γεωργός ‘husbandsman’, ἄνθρωπος τοξότης (Pl. Hipp. Min. 375,a) ‘archer, city guard’, ἄνθρωπος ὁδίτης (Hom., Il. 16.263) ‘traveler’, πολι̃ται τοι ἄνθρωποι ‘fellow (NOM) citizens (NOM)’ (X., Cyr 8.7.14) (Examples also from Kühner and Gerth 1963: 272). While ἀνήρ refers to ‘man’ in the meaning of ‘male

4.3 Nominal apposition in Greek

121

adult human being’ (as opposed to ‘woman’), ἄνθρωπος conveys the notion of ‘human being’ (Gm. Mensch). In the combinations above, the addition of ἀνήρ tends to be a “sign of respect”, whereas ἄνθρωπος is said to imply contempt (e. g. Smyth 1956: 267). Although Dickey does not address the phenomenon under investigation here, she argues that. ἀνήρ is always used in reference to a known addressee, whereas ἄνθρωπος occurs with unknown addressees (Dickey 1996: 153). Here as well extensive further analysis is called for. For the time being examples provided above seem to suggest that occupational terms typically combine with ἀνήρ, whereas ἄνθρωπος—less frequent—combines with a variety of other nouns. It it interesting to note that in New Testament Greek ἄνθρωπος typically featurs in this context, not ἀνήρ. In the Gospels of the Vulgata six out of the eight instances of homo + Common Noun trace back to Gk ἄνθρωπος, whereas two have the original Gk ἀνήρ, suggesting a shift in favor of ἄνθρωπος, which indeed is more frequent, cf. ἄνηρ ἁμαρτωλός εἰμι ‘I am a sinner (NOM) (man [NOM])’ (Luc. 15.98). Throughout the history of Greek, instances are found including gender specification for women that bring to mind the ἀνήρ/ἄνθρωπος examples above:  

(194) a.

b.

c.

d.

γυνὴ χερνη̃ τις (Hom., Il. 12.433) woman-NOM spinner-NOM ‘woman who spins for daily hire’ γυνὴ δέσποινα (Hom., Od. 7.347) woman-NOM mistress-NOM ‘lady of the house’ γυνὴ ταμίη (Hom., Il. 6.390) woman-NOM housewife-NOM ‘housekeeper, housewife’ γαμετῆς … γυναικός (Pla., Leg. 841d) wife-GEN woman-GEN ‘of a wife’

In these instances the combined nouns refer to professionals and age groups (see more below). Moreover, nouns other than γυνὴ may be included: (195) ἄλοχος lawful.wife-NOM ‘wife’

δέσποινα (Hom., Od. 3.403) lady-NOM

The noun ἄλοχος refers to the rightful wife: Clytemnestra (Hom., Il. 1.114), Hera (Hom., Il. 1.546), Andromache (Hom., Il. 6.366), Penelope (Hom., Od. 5.210; Chantraine 1946–1947: 223). In contrast to ἄνδρες, plural γυνναῖκες—although quite

122

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

rare—tends to appear alone and only occasionally in combination with an occupational common noun (cf. Men., Dysk. 660; Ar., Thes. 384, 455, 466, 533, etc.; examples from Dickey 1996: 182). Finally feminine πότνια may combine with μήτηρ (Chantraine 1946–1947: 222), cf. (196) πότνια μήτηρ (Hom., Il. 6.429) ‘queenly mother’ (Example from Chantraine 1946–1947: 226; see also [Hom., Il. 1.357], referring to Thetis)

This formation is very frequent in Homer, with 21 and 13 instances in the Iliad and the Odyssey respectively. These occurrences reflect various cases and all appear in the sequence found in example (196) above. The evidence provided in the preceding paragraphs leads to the following observations: – Greek of all periods has a remarkable number of instances of nominal apposition involving common nouns, one of which specifies [SOCIAL SATUS, SEX]; – among the nouns specifying [SOCIAL SATUS, SEX] ἀνήρ ‘man’ and γυνή ‘woman’ are by far most frequent; – ἀνήρ is much more common than γυνή and any other noun; – other nouns in this context include: ἄνθρωπος, πότνια, and a few others; – the nouns with which ἀνήρ etc. combines, typically convey professions, age, marital status. Overall, however, instances conveying professions strongly prevail; – in the plural the combination typically conveys collectivity and has generic value; – in combination with proper nouns these elements (professions, age, etc.) would function as generic nouns, e. g. Πηνελόπεια γαμετή (lit.: PenelopeNOM wife-NOM) as opposed to γυνὴ γαμετή. They then represent the semantic field of [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION], [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE], [SOCIAL STATUS, AGE], and so forth; – for certain instances, it is legitimate to ask which element in Common Noun + Common Noun combinations functions as the generic noun, e. g. πότνια μήτηρ (Hom., Il. 6.429; example [196] above). Frequency of occurrence may then be a decisive factor.  

 

The reason why common nouns are combined with ἀνήρ or its equivalent remains elusive. The more so since many of the nouns refer to explicitly male or female professionals and many nouns carry explicit feminine or masculine gender marking. In this respect the phenomenon is reminiscent of the instances in Mycenaean

4.3 Nominal apposition in Greek

123

where nouns conveying male and female professions and featuring explicit gender marking combined with script determinatives conveying [SOCIAL STATUS, SEX], cf. e. g. a-ke-ti-ra2 [WOMAN] 38 [Aa815]) (‘nurses-NOM-F [WOMAN] 38’ > ‘38 nurses’; Section 3.2.3). Other common nouns occur in nominal apposition as well, as the following instance in the categories [RELIGION] illustrates:  

(197) νόμιος θεός shepherd god ‘the shepherd god, Apollo’

Finally, instances of nominal apposition involving two common nouns may include a variety of nouns, one of which may have adjectival origin as in: (198) παρὰ πατρὶ γέροντι (Hom., Il. 1.358) next.to father-DAT old.man-DAT ‘next to her old gentleman father ’

In instances of this type, it may not always be clear whether the phrase is adjectival or nominal. In the following instance, the adjectival reading prevails because the first element is an inanimate noun (contra Kühner and Stegman, who interpret this example as an instance of nominal apposition [1963: 273]): (199) σάκος … γέρον (Hom., Od. 22.184) ‘old shield’

But with nominalized adjectives: (200) λόχους ‘reserve (ACC)

φύλακας (X., An. 6.5.9) companies (ACC)’

Kühner and Gerth qualify this use in Homer as “gewöhnlich” and further stipulate that poets, especially tragedians tend to use other constructions (1963: 273). This observation is in accordance with the use of genitive alternatives, which is qualified as poetic (see below).

4.3.2.3 Quantitative expressions In constructions referring to [QUANTIFICATION], nominal apposition commonly is found (Kühner and Gerth 1963: 265), as in: (201) ἐπὶ μισθῷ τριήκοντα ταλάνοισι (Hdt. 8.4) ‘with a bribe (DAT) of thirty talents (DAT)’

Similarly:

124

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

(202) a. b. c.

δέκα μναῖ εἰσφορά (X., Vect. 3.9) ‘a tax (NOM) of 10 mnai (NOM)’ πρόσοδος ἑξήκοντα τάλαντα (X., Vect . 4.23) ‘an income (NOM) of sixty talents (NOM)’ πεντήκοντα μυριάδας στρατιάν (Ps., Lys. 2.21) ‘a host (ACC) of fifty myriads (ACC)’

Yet, it will become clear in the following section that alternative constructions with a genitive referring to quantities and measures are widespread.

4.3.2.4 Alternatives to nominal apposition From Homer onwards several of the appositive constructions mentioned in the preceding paragraphs also occur as a common noun in combination with a genitive, cf. (203) [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, TOWN] a. Ἄργους πóλις (Aesch. etc.) Argos-GEN town-NOM ‘the town of Argos’ b. Δίου τ’αἰπὺ πτολίεθρον (Hom., Il. 2.538) Dion-GEN steep-ACC-SG citadel-ACC ’the steep citadel of Dion’

Similarly: Ἰλίου ἐξαλάπαξε πόλιν (Hom., Il. 5.642) ‘he sacked the town (ACC) of Ilios (GEN)’ b. Πύλου αἰπὺ πτολίεθρον (Hom., Od. 3.485) ’the steep citadel (ACC) of Pylos (GEN)’ c. Θήβης ἕδος (Hom., Il. 4.406) ‘the seat (ACC) of Thebes (GEN)’ d. εἰς ἄστυ Ζελείης (Hom., Il. 4.103) ‘to the town (ACC) of Zeleia (GEN)’ (205) [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, COUNTRY/LAND] Λήμνου γαῖαν ἱκέσθαι (Hom., Od. 8. 301) ‘he reached the land (ACC) of Lemnos (GEN)’ (206) [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, MOUNTAIN] ὑπὸ Κυλλήνης ὄρος (Hom., Il. 2.603) beneath Cyllene-GEN mountain-ACC ‘beneath Mt. Cyllene’ (204) a.

The genitive construction is “chiefly poetic” (Smyth 1956: 317), which is confirmed by Kühner and Gerth, who also stipulate that the genitive construction is rare in prose (1963: 264), cf.

4.3 Nominal apposition in Greek

125

(207) Κάνης ὄρος ἔχων ἐν ἀριστερῇ (Hdt. 7.42) ‘keeping the mountain (ACC) of Cane (GEN) on the left’

Of special interest are examples within the category of [OTHER] involving the noun ὄνομα ‘name’, cf. (208) a.

b.

πηγῆς ὄνομα (Pla., Crat. 402C) source-GEN name ‘the name source’ τῆς Τηθύος … ὄνομα (Pla., Crat. 402C) the-GEN Tethys-GEN name-NOM ‘the name Tethys’

As opposed to: (209) a.

b.

εἰ αὐτῷ Κρατύλος ὄνομα (Pla., Crat. 383B) whether he-DAT Kratylos-NOM name-NOM ‘whether his name is Kratylos’ σοί γε ὄνομα Ἑρμογένης (Pla., Crat. 383B) you-DAT PRT name-NOM Hermogenes-NOM ‘your name is (not) Hermogenes’

In contexts that express [QUANTIFICATION] in terms of space, time, and degree genitives may be found as well, cf. (210) a.

b.

πέντε ἡμερῶν σιτία (Thuc. 7.43.2) five days-GEN provisions-ACC ‘provisions for five days’ ἐθεάσαντο σωροὺς νεκρῶν (X., Hell. 4.4.12) see-AOR-3PL heaps-ACC bodies-GEN ‘they saw heaps of dead bodies’

Similarly: (211) a. b. c.

ὀκτώ σταδιίων … τεῖχος (Thuc. 7.2.4) ‘a wall (NOM) of eight feet (GEN)’ πρῶτον μεν τῶν τειχῶν καθελεῖν (X. Hell. . 4.4.12) ‘to tear down a portion (ACC) of the walls (GEN)’ δελφίνων τεμάχη (X., A. 5.4.28) ‘slices (ACC) of dolphin(s) (GEN)’

These constructions differ fundamentally from the instances of nominal apposition found for [QUANTIFICATION] in Mycenaean.

126

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

4.3.3 Concluding remarks about Greek Nominal apposition in Greek of all periods is a productive and common phenomenon, involving both Proper Noun + Common Noun as well as Common Noun + Common Noun combinations. In comparison to Hittite and Sanskrit, Common Noun + Common Noun combinations are remarkably well represented in postMycenaean Greek, because of the high incidence of ἀνήρ in these contexts. While in Mycenaean most instances feature Proper Noun + Common Noun and represent primarily the field of [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION], the relative occurrence of [RELIGION] and [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION] is more in balance in later stages of Greek. Yet, it is typical that the majority of instances of [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION] in later stages in fact involve Common Noun + Common Noun combinations, including primarily ἀνήρ, but also its less frequent equivalents (e. g. γυνή, ἄνθρωπος). Moreover, it is important to underscore the structural parallel in Mycenaean, where common nouns conveying professions frequently combine with a script determinative [MAN] or [WOMAN], as was shown in the previous chapter, Section 3.2.3. Analysis of word formation in Greek will demonstrate that at the morphological level as well, ἀνήρ is a recurring component (see Section 6.4.2). The most common types of nominal apposition involving Proper Noun + Common Noun convey the field of [RELIGION] and [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION]. [KINSHIP] is represented to a limited extent because of the quasi-exclusive use of proper nouns or ‘father’/‘mother’ in addressing family members. Combinations with common nouns were motivated and therefore not the rule. Instances referring to the field of [OTHER] inherently are limited in scope and number. Finally, the early instances of nominal apposition in the field of [QUANTIFICATION] in Mycenaean seem to gradually give way to genitive constructions in post-Mycenaean Greek, which co-exist with nominal apposition. Moreover the genitive constructions are well attested for certain other semantic fields as well: [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] and [OTHER], especially NOMEN constructions. In terms of word order there is a marked predominance of the sequence Proper Noun + Common Noun in Mycenaean. While in Homeric Greek certain common nouns typically and consistently follow the proper noun, several of them tend to occur in initial position. The earlier consistent left-branching pattern therefore seems to be broken in the context of certain individual nouns, a pattern that will ermerge elsewhere as well.  

4.4 Nominal apposition in Germanic

127

4.4 Nominal apposition in Germanic In this section I will discuss data from Gothic, Old Norse, Old and Middle English, Old High German, and Old Saxon. The texts in question are more recent than those discussed so far. Moreover, several of them are translations from Greek or Latin. Despite their source, they offer pertinent data, as the following pages will demonstrate.

4.4.1 Gothic The 4th century Gothic Bible translation (Streitberg 1960) features numerous examples of nominal apposition. Below I provide an overview of instances, including the original Greek text. In the category [RELIGION], the following types of example are attested, which tend to feature a proper and a common noun: (212) a.

b.

c.

Xristus frauja (Luc. 2.11) Christ-NOM lord-NOM-SG ‘the Lord Christ’ (Gk Χριστὸς κύριος,10 lit.: ’Christ lord’) ni fraisais fraujan guþ þeinana not tempt-SUBJU-2SG lord-ACC God-ACC your-ACC-M ‘you shall not tempt your God the Lord’ (Luc. 4.12) (Gk κύριον τὸν θεόν σου, lit.: ‘lord-ACC the-ACC God-ACC you-GEN’) fraujan guþ þeinana inweitais (Luc. 4.8) lord-ACC God-ACC your-ACC-SG-M worship-SUBJU-2SG ‘you shall worship God your Lord’ (Gk κύριον τὸν θεόν σου, lit.: ‘lord-ACC the-ACC God-ACC you-GEN’)

The following example includes the typical use in Gothic of a demonstrative/ definite article: (213) [PROPER NOUN + DEMONSTRATIVE/DEFINITE ARTICLE + NOUN] Iesus sa magus (Luc. 2.43) Jesus-NOM the-NOM-SG-M child-NOM (Gk Ἰησοῦς ὁ παῖς, lit.: ‘Jesus-NOM the-NOM child-NOM’)

Sa functioned both as a demonstrative and definite article. Originally a demonstrative, it was used in the Bible translation to render both the Greek definite

10 In the context of the Gothic Bible, I use the edition of the Greek version of the Bible as provided by Streitberg (1960).

128

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

article and the Greek demonstrative, which suggests that it had not completely lost is deictic value in Gothic (Braune and Ebbinghais 1961 [1880]: 91; Wright 1954: 124). Examples under (212) above show that occurrence of these elements in Greek does not automatically trigger their use in the Gothic translation. In the semantic field of [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE] instances include, for example: (214) kaisara Agustau (Luc. 2.1) emperor-DAT Augustus-DAT ‘from emperor Augustus’ (Gk Καίσαρος Αὐγούστου, lit.: ‘emperor-GEN Augustus-GEN’)

Within the category of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] appositive instances include: (215) us baurg Nazaraiþ, . . . (Luc. 2.4) out.of town-DAT Nazareth-INDECL . . . ‘out of the town of Nazareth . . .’ (Gk ἐκ πόλεως Ναζαρὲθ, lit.: ‘out.of town-GEN Nazareth’)  

 

 

 

 

 

Because of indeclinable Nazaraiþ, the precise syntax of this example remains opaque. In the absence of a common noun, there typically is no apposition in the following instances: (216) [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, RIVER] fram Iaurdanau (Luc. 4.1) from Jordan-DAT ‘from the river Jordan’ (Gk ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, lit.: ‘from the-GEN Jordan-GEN’) (217) [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, REGION] faurbigaggiþ izwis in Galeilaian (Marc. 16.7) go.before-3SG you-DAT-PL into Galilee-ACC-SG ‘he goes before you into Galilee’ (Gk εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν, lit.: ‘to the-ACC Galilee-ACC’)

I note that the Gothic here again does not follow the Greek original in its use of definite articles. In the semantic field of [OTHER, FEAST] and [OTHER, TIME] instances of nominal juxtaposition may not always be conclusive, as in the following example with indeclinable paska, cf. (218) in Iairusalem at dulþ paska (Luc. 2.41) to Jerusalem-INDECL at feast-DAT Passover-INDECL ‘to Jerusalem at the feast of Passover’ (Gk τῇ ἑορτῇ τοῦ πάσχα, lit.: ‘the-DAT feast-DAT the-GEN Passover-INDECL’)

4.4 Nominal apposition in Germanic

129

The next instance is not conclusive either because the context dictates the genitive in terms of an absolute construction: (219) inwisandins sabbate be.present-PRES.PART-GEN-SG Sabbath-GEN ‘when the Sabbath was nearing’ (Gk τοῦ σαββάτου, lt.: ‘the-GEN Sabbath-GEN’)‘

dagis (Marc. 16.1) day-GEN

Interestingly while the Greek with its absolute genitive (διαγενομένου σαββάτου) as well as the Latin text use single σαββάτου ‘Sabbath-GEN’ and sabbatum (‘Sabbath-NOM’) respectivly, the Gothic has a compound form including the noun ‘day’. In expressions of [QUANTIFICATION] the following structures e. g. feature a genitive:  

(220) a.

b.

managei harjis himinakundis (Luc. 2.13) multitude-NOM host-GEN heavenly-GEN-SG ‘a multitude of heavenly host’ (Gk πλῆθος στρατιᾶς οὐρανίου, lit. ‘multitude-NOM host-GEN heavenly-GEN-SG’) qemun dagis wig (Luc. 2.44) come-PRET-3PL day-GEN journey-ACC ‘they went a day’s journey’ (Gk ἡμέρας ὁδὸν, lit.: ‘day-GEN journey-ACC’)

These instances show that the Gothic version follows the original text respecting the instances of nominal apposition or genitive construction, both in terms of occurrence and structure. In that light, patterns in the occurrence of the demonstrative/definite article in the Gothic text are notable. Gothic does not follow, for example, the Greek model, which combines the definite article with a possessive (examples [212b] and [212c]) or with a Proper Noun or certain Common Nouns (examples [216] through [218]). Consequently, the use of demonstratives/definite articles in Gothic is not merely a calque of the Greek. Moreover, it is important to note the use of a nominal compound construction or collocation—albeit a potential genitive one—in the instance of non-compound σαββάτου being rendered as sabbate dagis (Marc. 16.1; example [219]). These observations further suggest that the grammatical structures—including nominal apposition—attested in the Gothic translation were not merely calques, but structures in their own right and that they reflect the state of nominal apposition at that stage.

130

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

4.4.2 Old Norse Old Norse texts include written documents and runes (from A. D. 2nd century). Most runes were found in Denmark and Sweden and present a very early version of Old Norse. The written documents are later and the majority come from Iceland, including literature (e. g. Edda), historical texts, and sagas. A well-known historian is Ari Thorgilsson (1067–1148), who wrote a history of the settlement of Iceland. A later version of this historical document survives and is known under the name Libellus Islandorum (Lib. Isl.) or ĺslendingabok ‘Book of Icelanders’. The sagas report in prose the deeds of the Viking settlers and the Norwegian kings. An extensive analysis of the occurrence and usage of nominal apposition is needed in order to provide a complete picture of the phenomenon in Old Norse. Yet several observations may be made at this stage already on the basis of a limited number of text instances. The following examples from the Brennu-Njáls saga (A. D. 1250–1275) illustrate the rather frequent occurrence of nominal apposition in the field of [KINSHIP] and [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE]:  

 

 

(221) [KINSHIP] Þá hljóp upp Asbrandr bróðir hans then leap-PST-3SG up Asbrand-NOM brother-NOM he-GEN ‘then his brother Asbrand leaped up’ (Brennu Njáls 77; Gordon 1957: 91)

Similarly in direct address, as in the Hervarar Saga ok Heiðreks (The Saga of Hervar and Heidrek; 13th c.): (222) Hervǫr dóttir, … (H. s. ok Heiðreks konungs 55) Hervor-NOM daughter-NOM ‘(my) daughter Hervor, …’ (223) [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE] (Hvar er) Tósti iarl (Battle of Stamford Bridge 14, passim) where be-3SG Tosti-NOM earl-NOM ‘where is Earl Tosti?’ (Gordon 1957: 158, 157–161)

Instances of the type Tósti iarl and Haraldr konungr, including a title, recur commonly in all texts, in the various cases, cf. the following examples from the Hrólfs saga (late 14th c.) and Egils Saga (probably first half of the 13th c.): (224) a.

b.

fyrir Hrólf konung to Hrolf-ACC king-ACC ‘to king Hrolf’ (Hrólfs saga 49, passim; Gordon 1957: 29, 27–32) Hrólfr konungr sagði (Hrólfs saga 54–55; Gordon 1957: 29) Hrolf-NOM king-NOM say-PST-3SG ‘king Hrolf said …’

4.4 Nominal apposition in Germanic

c.

d.

Eiríki Erik-DAT ‘to king Erik’ Eiríkr Erik-NOM ‘king Erik’

131

konungi (Egils saga 147; Gordon 1957: 111, 107–115) king-DAT konungr (Egils saga passim; Gordon 1957: 110, 107–115) king-NOM

A few instances feature more than two nouns, such as: (225) [TITLE] / [KINSHIP] Haraldr konongr bróðer yðar Harald-NOM king-NOM brother-NOM your-NOM ‘(that) your brother king Harald would send …’ (B. of Stamford B. 17; Gordon 1957: 158)

sændi send-SUBJU-3SG

Within this type family names are especially common, cf. (226) [TITLE] / [FAMILY NAME] ok Þóríðar Snorradóttur and Thoris-GEN daughter.of.Snorri-GEN ‘and of Thoris daughter-of-Snorri the chief’11 (Thorgilsson, Lib. Isl. 12; Gordon 1957: 34)

Goða chief-GEN

In this example Snorradóttur, written as one word (Gordon 1957: 34), is the genitive of a patronymic Snorradóttir, including the name of the father, Snorra— genitive of Snorri—and dóttir ‘daughter’. See also today’s formations such as Kristina Nilsdóttir ‘Kristina Niels-daughter’, and so forth. The formation is similar to structures such as Leif Eiríksson and many others in -son, cf. the following instance from the Battle of Stamford Bridge (A. D. 1066):  

(227) [TITLE] / [FAMILY NAME] mǽlti Haraldr konongr Sighurðarsun say-PST-3SG Harald-NOM king-NOM Sigurðarson-NOM ‘said king Harald Sigurðarson’ (recurring example) (B. of Stamford B. 35, passim; Gordon 1957: 158, 157–161)

In a formation parallel to Snorradóttir (example [226]), the patronymic Sighurðarsun in this example traces back to a genitive Sighurðar (< nominative Sigurðr) in combination with a truncated noun sun (< sunr). Its fusion into one form and the

11 At the death of her husband Thoris became chief until her father Snorri Sturluson forced her to give up the chieftaincy (Sigurðardóttir 2002: 286).

132

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

truncation mark the emergence of -sun as a patronymic suffix, which later became -son as “second element in a compound” (Gordon 1957: 271). Similarly: (228) Hálfdanarsonar (< Hálfdanar [Halfan-GEN] + sonar [son-GEN-SG]) Hálfdanarson-GEN-SG (Thorgilson, Lib. Isl. 9; Gordon 1957: 34)

Instances of this type illustrate that family names (last names) in -son, which are very common in later Germanic as well, originally occurred in apposition to the given name. Family names commonly occur in two-element constructions, cf. (229) Haraldr Harald-NOM

Goðvinasun (B. of Stamford B. 85; Gordon 1957: 160) Goðvinason-NOM

I note that the family name does not always occur in immediate juxtaposition, as example (227) above shows, in which the common noun ‘king’ follows the first name, ‘king Harald’: (230) mǽlti say-PST-3SG

Haraldr Harald-NOM

konongr king-NOM

Sighurðarsun Sigurðarson-NOM

Instances presented in the preceding pages show that where today a given name and a family name are examples of nominal apposition, in origin these were instances of explicative apposition. Nominal apposition is attested in the field of [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION] as well: (231) Sæmundi presti (Thorgilson, Lib. Isl.; Gordon 1957: 34) Saemund-DAT priest-DAT ‘to the priest Saemund’ (232) [SOCIAL STATUS, ETHNICITY] Þorgrímr austmaðr (Brennu-Njáls 31; Gordon 1957: 88) Thorgrim-NOM Norwegian-NOM ‘the Norwegian Thorgrim’

It is of interest to note that names of deities do not automatically include common nouns, as in: (233) en Viðrir sá and Odin-NOM see-PST-3SG ‘and Odin saw where …’

hvar … where …

(Egils saga 182; Gordon 1957: 112)

A few instances in Old Norse include a definite article in combination with a nominalized adjective. Compare:

4.4 Nominal apposition in Germanic

(234) a.

b.

133

Hákonar ins góða (Egils Saga 50.7) Hákon-GEN the-GEN-SG-M good-GEN-SG-M/NE ‘of Hákon the good’ Ása in illráða (Hkr I.72.13; Faarlund 2004: 64) Asa-NOM the-NOM-SG-F wicked ‘Asa the wicked’

Despite the distinct prominence of nominal apposition in Old Norse, there are in addition many instances that do not feature agreement but a genitive instead, predominantly in quantitative, but also in non-quantitative constructions, such as: (235) [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, COUNTRY] rÍki Englanz (B. of Stamford B. 23; Gordon 1957: 158) kingdom-NOM/DAT/ACC England-GEN ‘the kingdom of England’

The genitive is also attested in constructions referring to a people, as in the following example from the Gamal norsk homiliebok [Indrebø 1931]): (236) upp mun maðr rísa ór up will-3SG man-NOM rise-INF from ‘a man will rise from the people of the Jews’ (Hóm. 62.29; example from Faarlund 2004: 263)

gyðinga Jews-GEN

fólki people-DAT

Moreover, [NOMEN] constructions typically feature a genitive, as in the following example from Heimskringla ([Hkr]; Jónsson 1893–1901): (237) gáfu … honum Ǫnundar give-PST-3PL he-DAT Onund-GEN ‘they gave him the name of Onund’

nafn (Hkr II.194.14) name-ACC

In the semantic field of [QUANTIFICATION], Old Norse features several types of structure. In contexts of numerals and numbers, the observed pattern is that of direct juxtaposition: the numeral or quantative noun occurs in initial position. If the quantity is referred to with a numeral, the noun with which it combines, takes the form dictated by the grammatical context of the clause, as in: (238) [QUANTITATIVE EXPRESSION, NUMBER/NUMERAL] ríða fram xx riddarar ride-3PL out 20 horsemen-NOM ‘twenty horsemen ride out’ (B. of Stamford B. 13; Gordon 1957: 158)

Especially with non-decads this trend is strong, as the following instance from Snorri Sturluson’s (1179–1241) Edda illustrates:

134

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

(239) lifðu átta live-PST-3PL eight ‘eight men lived’

men (Snorri, Edda , Prologue) men-NOM

Numerals conveying decads, hundreds, and thousands are in fact nouns—in accordance with Indo-European tradition—and they combine with genetives in Old Norse, e. g.  

(240) a.

níu tigu manna (Eg. 44.10) nine tens-ACC men-GEN ‘ninety men’ b. halft annat hundrað skipa (Hkr I.329.4) half second hundred-ACC ships-GEN ‘(they had) 18012 ships’ (Examples from Faarlund 2004: 61)

The genitive also appears in combination with nouns that convey quantity as in: (241) Þá flock fiándmanna the body.of.men-ACC enemies-GEN ‘the number of enemies’ (B. of Stamford B. 32–33; Gordon 1957: 158)

Similar constructions are found when nouns indirectly refer to a quantity (e. g. ‘four months of grain’), cf. the following example in which vetra ‘winters’ is used in reference to a ‘year’:  

(242) Þriggja vetra bjǫrg three-GEN winters-GEN means-of-substance-NOM-SG ‘means of substance for three years’ (Example from Gordon 1957: 310)

Similarly: (243) a.

gaf honum tvá aura give-PST-3SG he-DAT two ounces-ACC ‘gave him two ounces of silver’ (Example from Faarlund 2004: 61) b. tveggja daga vist (Hkr III.449.15) two-GEN days-GEN food ‘two days of food’ (Example from Faarlund 2004: 61)

silfrs (HKr II.256.9) silver-GEN

It is impossible at this stage to present an exhaustive overview of nominal apposition in Old Norse. Yet the instances attested so far show that nominal

12 Hundrað in this context refers to the so-called ‘long hundred’, which is the equivalent of 120.

4.4 Nominal apposition in Germanic

135

apposition is especially frequent in the context of [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE] and [KINSHIP], but that certain constructions typically seem to feature a genitive: [NOMEN] constructions and [QUANTIFICATION]. Moreover I note that appositive constructions have a very strong tendency to favor the sequence Proper Noun + Generic Noun (e. g. ON Haraldr konongr ‘king Harald’). Only one instance with the reverse sequence was attested: in it the proper noun is an extended structure, including two proper nouns in juxtaposition:  

(244) biskupum várum Þorláki ok Katli bishops-DAT our-DAT-PL-M Thorlak-DAT and Ketil-DAT ‘for our bishops Thorlak and Ketil’ (Thorgilsson, Lib. Isl. 1; Gordon 1957: 34)

My earlier work on word order has shown that length of elements easily may be a factor accounting for a structure in which—contrary to the usual patterns—the complement follows its head: Þorláki ok Katli being the longer segment follows the common noun (see Bauer 1995).

4.4.3 Old and Middle English Nominal apposition in Old English is manifest in the various semantic fields that I have already identified in the other languages above: (245) [RELIGION] a. wealdend-got ‘lord – god’ > ‘the Lord God’ b. selfa drihten scyppend (Genesis, 1356–91) himself-NOM lord-NOM-SG Creator-NOM ‘the Lord Creator himself’ c. Godes Scyppendes (Genesis, 1356–91) God-GEN Creator-GEN ‘of God the Creator’ (246) [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE] a. Ælfred kyning … Wǣrferð biscep (King Alfred, State of learning 1) ‘king Alfred … bishop Waerferd’ b. hēt Ælfred cyng order-PRET-3SG Alfred-NOM king-NOM ‘king Alfred ordered’ (Chronicle of King Alfred 896; Sweet 1967: 40) c. Ælfrede cyninge (Voyages of Ohthere and Wulfstan 1; Sweet 1967: 17)13 ‘king Alfred’

13 The Voyages of Ohthere and Wulfstan is a 9th c. translation and rendering of a 5th c. Latin text.

136

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

d.

e.

on Herodes dagum cynunges during Herod-GEN days-DAT king-GEN ‘during the days of King Herod’ (Ælfric, Homily nativity 7–8; Sweet 1967: 70) aldormon Ōsrīc earl-NOM Osric-NOM ‘earl Osric’ (Bede, Hist. 41–9)

In these combinations the generic noun tends to follow the proper noun, as numerous examples in the various documents show, such as Ælfric’s Homelies (Thorpe 1846: passim): Dauid se sealm-wyrhta ‘David the psalmist’ (Thorpe 1846: 14) or Iohannes se Fulluhtere ‘John the Baptist’ (Thorpe 1846: 10). Yet, the reverse sequence is by no means excluded, as example (246e) above illustrates, and instances in the Homelies, such as (se) apostol Paulus ‘apostle Paul’ and cyninge Æþelbrihte ‘king Æthelbyrht’ (Thorpe 1846: 34, 130). In her overview of Old English syntax, Fischer notes that “in the case of personal names accompanied by a noun denoting rank or title . . . in Old English the most common order was proper noun + rank” (1992: 217). As examples here show, the definite article is attested in Old English and is widespread in Middle English, creating a sequence including [Definite Article + Title + Proper Noun], as in Þe king Stephe, Þe king Alfred, Þe biscop Roger, and so forth (examples from Mossé 1983: 96). I note that in the earlier instances (see above) the sequence is different, with the common noun coming last: [Proper Noun + Definite Article + Common Noun]. In the field of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] nominal apposition is found in examples such as:  

(247) a.

b.

 

byrig Hierusalēm (Ælfric, Homily nativity 9; Sweet 1967: 70) town Hierusalem ‘town of Hierusalem’ Lundunburh (example from Bosworth and Northcote Toller 1898: 648) London-burg ‘London’

Moreover, in Ælfric’s Homilies geographic reference often includes instances of the type Preposition + Proper Noun[people] + lande: in it lande ‘land, country’ combines with reference to the people who inhabit it, as in on Iudea lande ‘in the land (DAT) of the Jews (GEN)’. In these constructions the common noun land features the correct case as dictated by the context; the name of the people consistently features the genitive suffix -a, as in: (248) a.

b.

flēoh tō Ēgypta lande flee-IMP-2SG to Egyptians-GEN land-DAT ‘flee to Egypt’ (Ælfric, Homily nativity 36, 39; Sweet 1967: 70–71) of Ǣgypta londe (Bede, Cædmon 77; Sweet 1967: 48)

137

4.4 Nominal apposition in Germanic

In fact, example (248b) above is ambivalent as the proper noun may refer to the people who inhabit a land as well as the land itself. Similarly, (249) on Ēgypta lande in Egyptians/Egypt-GEN land-DAT ‘in the land of Egypt/the Egyptians’ (Ælfric, Hom. Nat. of Inn., 185; Sweet 1967: 75)

Similarly in Norðhymbra lande (Thorpe 1846: passim), Norðhymbra is the genitive of the noun conveying the land of Northumbria as well as its inhabitants. Since the concept of ‘country’ was late in Indo-European, this type of noun in all likelihood originally referred to the people and only later to the land (e.g. in the land of the Egyptians vs. in the land/country of Egypt). For the topic under investigation the main observation, however, is the combining of lande with a proper noun in the genitive: the construction therefore is not an instance of nominal apposition. Special uses are found in combinations of nouns referring to ‘peoples’—such as léode ‘persons, people’—and their actual names, which often take the form of a genitive: (250) [SOCIAL STATUS, NATIONALITY] a. geworhton ðā Wedra léode achieve-PRET-3PL the-NOM-PL Weder-GEN-PL people-NOM-PL ‘the people of the Weders achieved . . .’ (Beowulf 3156–82) b. begnornodon Gēata léode hlāfordes hryre mourn-PRET-3PL Geat-GEN-PL people-NOM lord-GEN death-ACC ‘thus the people of the Geat mourned the death of the Lord’ (Beowulf 3156–82)  

 

These examples bring to mind similar instances in Old Norse above (e. g. examples in Section 4.4.2), among them ór gyðinga fólki ‘from the people of the Jews’ (example 236 above). In Old English expressions of [QUANTIFICATION], the genitive was widespread, as in:  

(251) lȳt hafað lēofra geholena small.number-ACC have-3SG dear-GEN-PL friends-GEN ‘he has a small number of dear friends’ (Wanderer 31; Sweet 1967: 161)

Similarly, the noun hund ‘hundred’ combined with a genitive (for the etymology of OE hund, see Lehmann 1986: 194–195), cf. (252) mænig hund mīla many-NOM hundred miles-GEN (Voyages of Ohthere and Wulfstan 92; Sweet 1967: 20)

138

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

For other instances of numerals in combination with genitives in Old English, see Mossé (1983: 51, 297). In the shift to Middle English the genitive increasingly came to be replaced by analytic of-constructions (Fischer 1992: 228–229).

4.4.4 Old Saxon In the 9th century Old Saxon Heliand (Hel.; Behagel 1965 [1882]; Cathey 2002; see also Murphy 1992) nominal apposition is attested, for example, in the context of names of rivers, towns, and countries, as in: Galilealand (Hel. 4.250) ‘Galilea’, Nîlstrôm (Hel. 9.759) ‘river Nile’, Nazarethburg (Hel. 4.257), or an Jordana strôme (Hel. 12.965) ‘on Jordan (DAT) river (DAT)’. For other examples, see Behaghel (1897: 111). It is important to note that the handbooks not uncommonly identify Noun + Noun combinations as instances of nominal apposition even in the absence of case agreement, such as Judeo liudi (Hel. 48.5780) ‘Jews (NOM)’, Rômanoliudeon (Hel. 1.54; ‘Romans (DAT)’; see e. g. Lessen [1928: 26]). In fact, these are genitive constructions: Judeo and Rômano are genitive plurals (liudi and liudeon are nominative and dative respectively). Similarly Rûmu in Rûmuburg (Hel. 5.339; Lessen [1928: 26]) ‘hill fort Rome’ is a genitive singular. The following examples are not instances of nominal apposition either, but instead genitive constructions in which the proper noun takes the form of a genitive:  

(253) a. b.

an Jordanes strôme (Hel. 1159 C, 14.1159) ‘on Jordan (GEN) river (DAT)’ Jordanes strôm (Hel. 3957 M) ‘Jordan (GEN) river’

According to certain scholars, such as Lessen, common nouns occur in these contexts because the names of the towns, countries, etc. in question are potentially unknown to the reader (Lessen 1928: 26). Yet since common nouns also combine with proper nouns that in all likelyhood were generally known and since combinations recur repetivitely, unfamiliarity with the Gospels or the names in question does not seem to account for the occurrence of specifying common nouns. The phenomenon was more general than that. Instances of nominal apposition other than [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] in the Heliand include: (254) [RELIGION] god fader (Hel. 4779)

‘God the Father’

4.4 Nominal apposition in Germanic

139

According to Behaghel *God sun ‘God the son’ does not occur (Behaghel 1897: 112), but there may be a theological rather than linguistic reason for that. Instead drohtin ‘lord’ is rather frequent, cf. (255) a. b.

drohtin Krist (Hel. 3763, 3865, . . .) ‘Lord Christ’ drohtin god (Hel. 53, 1670, . . .) ‘Lord God’  

 

 

 

Finally, within the category of [SOCIAL STATUS] there are different types of example: (256) [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE] cuning Erodes (Hel. 5270) ‘king Herod’ (257) [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION] Abraham aldfader (Hel. 3396) ‘patriarch Abraham’

In this category fits also the non-parental use of ‘father’, cf. (258) fader Abraham (Hel. 3365) ‘father Abraham’

4.4.5 Old High German In the 9th century Old High German Tatian (Tat.), a translation text of a Latin narrative that combines the four Gospels, nominal apposition is frequently attested. It is important to note that the Old High German rather strictly follows the Latin text, but not always. I will provide several examples, both in the Old High German and Latin version. The edition used here is that by Sievers (1892). In the semantic domain of [RELIGION] examples include: (259) a.

truhtin lord-NOM

got (Tat., 4.14) God-NOM (La. dominus deus [Luc. 1.68])

b.

c.

‘Lord God’ cunnes house-GEN

Heilantes Savior-GEN

Christes (Tat., 5.1) Christ-GEN (La. generationis Ihesu Christi [Matt. 1.1]) ‘of the lineage of Christ Savior‘ zi truhtine gote (Tat., 2.6) to lord-DAT God-DAT (La. ad dominum deum [Luc. 1.16]) ‘to the Lord God’

140

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

d.

e.

g.

thuruh through

Heilant Savior-ACC

Christ (Tat., 13.9) Christ-ACC (La. per Ihesum Christum [Joan. 1.17]) ni costos truhtin got thinan (Tat., 15.4) not tempt-2SG lord-ACC God-ACC your-ACC-SG-M (La. non temptabis dominum deum tuum [Matt. 4.7]) ‘you will not tempt your Lord God’ truhtin got (Tat., 14.5) lord-ACC God-ACC (La. dominum deum [Matt. 4.10])

The following examples convey the category of [KINSHIP]: (260) a.

thin your-NOM-SG

quena wife-NOM

Elysabeth (Tat., 2.5) Elisabeth (La. uxor tua Elisabeth [Luc. 1.13])

b.

‘your wife Elisabeth’ Elisabeth sin Elisabeth his-NOM-SG-F

c.

‘his wife Elisabeth’ Zacharias sȋn Zachary his-NOM-SG-M

d.

‘his father Zachary’ after Herode sinemo after Herod14 his-DAT-SG-M

quena (Tat., 2.11) wife-NOM (La. Elisabeth uxor eius [Luc. 1.24]) fater (Tat., 4.14) father-NOM (La. Zacharias pater eius [Luc. 1.67]) fater (Tat., 11.3) father-DAT (La. pro Herode patre suo [Matt. 2.22])

‘after his father Herod’

The pattern that emerges is that in Old High German the predominant combination is Possessive + Common Noun: thin quena, sin quena, sin fater, and sinemo fater in the examples above. In this respect the Old High German rendering does not follow the Latin example. By contrast, it follows the Latin model when it comes to the relative sequence of the nouns included: cf. La. Proper Noun + Common Noun (+ Possessive) is rendered by Proper Noun + (Possessive +) Common Noun in the Old High German. The category [TITLE] is represented in the following instances: (261) a.

Herodes ther Herod the-NOM-SG-M

cuning (Tat., 8.2) king-NOM (La. Herodes rex [Matt. 2.3])

14 I note that in several of these instances the proper noun in the Old High German text takes the form of the Latin.

4.4 Nominal apposition in Germanic

b.

rihtuomes reign-GEN

Tiberii Tiberius-GEN

141

thes keisores (Tat., 13.1) the-GEN-SG-M emperor-GEN (La. imperii Tiberii Caesaris [Luc. 3.1])

‘the reign of emperor Tiberius’

The occurrence of the demonstrative/definite article is remarkable; it is attested in other semantic fields in Old High German as well, such as [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION], cf. (262) thuruh through

Hieremiam Hieremia(-ACC)

then uuȋzagon (Tat., 10.2) the-ACC-SG-M prophet-ACC (La. per Hieremiam prophetam [Matt. 2.17])

These instances are important because they have no equivalent in the Latin original, suggesting that the occurrence of the element ther is not merely the result of imitation. The sequence Demonstrative/Definite Article + Common Noun reflects the patterns observed for possessives above. Originally a demonstrative, ther was used as definite article as well in Old High German. Its importantce here resides also in its parallel occurrence elsewhere in early Germanic: in Gothic, where a demonstrative/definite article may occur as well in combination with a proper and a common noun (e. g. Iesus sa magus ‘Jesus the child’ [Luc. 2.43; example (213) above]), in Old Norse, where the definite article occasionally is attested in combination with nominalised adjectives (‘Ása the Wicked’; example [234b] above), in Old English in combination with nouns (Iohannes se Fulluhtere ‘John the Baptist’ [Section 4.4.3]), and in Latin and Romance (see Section 5.3.4). The precise nature of the demonstrative/definite article in early Germanic traditionally has been a bone of contention (see, for example, Streitberg 1960 [1910], Behaghel 1953: 38, Sauvageot1929: 53). Sauvageot emphasizes the “caractère autochtone” of Gothic structures in which the article is placed in front of the adjective (Noun + Def. Art. + Adj): a pattern found in the Scandinvaian and German versions of the Gospels, according to Sauvageot (1929: 53). In Latin-Romance the structure offers a potential background and concrete context to the emergence of the definite article. The examples in Gothic, Old English, and Old High German presented here include two nouns, where Old Norse, Latin, and Romance also allow for nominalised adjectives to appear in this context. Other instances of nominal apposition—with or without definite article—in the Tatian include:  

142

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

(263) a.

b.

c.

kneht boy-NOM

uuizago (Tat., 4.17) prophet-NOM

(La. puer propheta [Luc. 1.76]) uuizagon (Tat., 13.3) prophet-ACC (La. per Esaiam prophetam [Luc. 3.3]) then buoh thés uuizagen Esaies the-ACC-SG book-ACC the-GEN-SG-M prophet-GEN Essaia-GEN (La. liber prophetae Esaiae [Luc. 4.17]) ‘the book of the prophet Essaia’ (Tat., 18.1) thuruh through

Esaiam Essaia(-ACC)

Examples within the category [SOCIAL STATUS] include for [AGE]: (264) a.

b.

thaz the-NOM/ACC-NE ‘the child Jesus’ ther the-NOM-SG-M

kind child- NOM/ACC

kneht child-NOM

Heilant (Tat., 7.5) Heliand- NOM/ACC (La. puerum Ihesum [Luc. 2.27])

Heilant (Tat., 12.2) Heliand-NOM (La. puer Ihesus [Luc. 2.43])

‘the child Jesus’

The semantic field of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] is represented in: (265) a.

b.

in in

ira POSS-3SG-F

burg town-ACC

Nazareth (Tat., 7.11) Nazareth (La. in civitatem suam Nazareth [Luc. 2.39])

‘in her town Nazareth’ inti forlazanero and leave-PST.PART-GEN-SG-F

burg Nazareth (Tat., 21.11) town-GEN Nazareth (La. et relicta civitate Nazareth [Matt. 4.13]) ‘and Nazareth being left …/after having left N.’

In both instances case marking is absent on the (foreign) proper noun and therefore the grammatical construction remains unclear. Similarly: (266) in to

erda land-ACC

Israhel (Tat., 11.1) Israel (La. in terram Israhel [Matt. 2.20])

‘to the land of Israel’

Nominal apposition is avoided in the following instance, where a relative clause is found instead. This type of structure is commonly attested, cf. (267) fon from

thero burgi the town-DAT

thiu hiez Nazareth (Tat., 5.12) that-NOM-SG-F be.called-3SG Nazareth (La. de civitate Nazareth in Iudaeam civitatem [Luc.2.4]) ‘from the town that is called Nazareth’

4.4 Nominal apposition in Germanic

143

In the following instances nominal apposition in the original text has been rendered by a genitive construction in Old High German, cf. (268) a.

Iudeno Jews-GEN

erda (Tat., 8.3) land-NOM/ACC (La. terra Iuda [Matt. 2.6])

b.

‘to the land of the Jews’ in Iudeno quam . . . come-PST-3SG to Jews-GEN  

 

erda (Tat., 21.1) land-ACC (La. venit . . . in Iudeam terram [Joan. 3.22])  

 

‘he came to the land of the Jews’

The example below illustrates how Old High German may follow the Latin construction without apposition: (269) farames go-1PL

zi to

Bethleem (Tat., 6.4) Bethlehem (La. transeamus usque in Bethleem [Luc. 2.15])

‘we go to Bethleem’

Similarly: (270) in in

Iordane (Tat., 14.1) Jordan-DAT (La. in Jordanen [Matt. 3.13])

‘in the river Jordan’

In the category [OTHER, FEAST] a variety of structures is attested: (271) in in

itmalemo holy-DAT-SG-M

tage day-DAT

ôstrono (Tat., 12.1) Easter-GEN-PL (La. in die solenni pasche [Luc. 2.41])

‘during the holy day of Easter’

Despite the existence of OHG ôstertag, the translation here favors an analytic construction with a genitive. Conversely, in the category [OTHER, TIME] I found a compound formation, but featuring the reverse sequence as well as the synthetic form already: (272) in on

sambaztág (Tat., 18.1) Sabbath-GEN-day-ACC (La. die sabbati [Luc. 4.16])

‘on Sabbath’

144

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

The following instances within the category [OTHER, NOMEN] present two interesting phenomena. First the pattern of agreement is not quite clear because the case marking is not conclusive, cf. (273) biscof bishop-NOM

namen name-DAT

Zacharias (Tat., 2.1) Zacharias(-NOM) (La. sacerdos nomine Zacharias [Luc. 1.5]) ‘a bishop with the name Zacharias’

The second phenomenon is illustrated by the following example in which the appositive construction is completely avoided and a relative clause occurs instead, as in: (274) man .., thie Matheus uuas man-ACC who-NOM-SG-M Mathew-NOM be-IMPF-3SG giheizan (Tat., 20.1) call-PST.PART (La. vidit hominem sedentem . . . Matheum nomine [Matt. 9.9]) ‘(he saw) a man who was called Mathew’  

 

In sum, Tatian has a relatively low incidence of appositive constructions involving the names of rivers, countries, or regions. It is also clear that the Old High German text follows the Latin original faithfully in terms of nominal apposition. There are however several instances of “deviant usage” whereby the genitive is used instead of nominal apposition or nominal apposition is avoided in favor of a relative clause. In terms of word order the Germanic text follows the Latin example. Yet it is important to emphasize that in most instances in which the common noun follows the proper noun I also found a definite article, which is an important difference from the Latin original.

4.4.6 Concluding remarks about Germanic The patterns observed for early Germanic basically correspond to those found in the other early Indo-European languages: nominal apposition consistently occurs in contexts of [RELIGION], [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE], and [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] and typically combines a generic and a proper noun. Moreover, I also found the co-occurrence of both types of structure: nominal apposition characterized by agreement as well as the dependent construction featuring a genitive. While one may point out the high incidence of translation texts within the corpus of Germanic documents, the examples provided here show an important feature that distinguishes nominal apposition in this branch of Indo-European:

4.5 Nominal apposition in early Italic

145

the occurrence of the demonstrative/definite article in Gothic, Old English, Old Norse, and Old High German. The element is attested in anteposition to the common noun or—in Old Norse—the adjective and the combination either precedes or—more commonly—follows the proper noun. The construction is similar to Gk Μένδη ἡ πόλις ‘the town of Mende’ (Section 4.3.2). Instead of the demonstrative/definite article, possessive pronouns may occur as well in this context in Old High German. Similarly, data from Old High German are especially interesting because two alternative structures in the field of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] are found: the genitive construction as well as the relative clause (a town that is called Nazareth vs. town Nazareth; example [267] above]). Finally the genitive replaces nominal apposition in contexts of [QUANTIFICATION] already in Gothic. In Old Norse [NOMEN] construction as well feature genitives.

4.5 Nominal apposition in early Italic In the following pages I will examine instances of nominal apposition in early Italic, focusing on Oscan and Umbrian (Section 4.5.1), and on Early Latin authors (Section 4.5.2).

4.5.1 Oscan and Umbrian15 Despite the relatively low number and limited variety of texts there are several instances of nominal apposition in Oscan and Umbrian reflecting various semantic fields attested elsewhere in early Indo-European. In the field of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], for example, several instances of nominal apposition are found in Umbrian: (275) tuta tařinate: (Ig. I b 16) town-ACC Tadinate-ACC ‘the town of Tadinate’

Yet instances in Umbrian may feature an adjective rather than nominal apposition as the following examples illustrate:

15 For the Umbrian examples I use the editions by Rix (2002) and Poultney (1959); for the Oscan examples I follow the edition by Rix (2002), providing the more readily available Buck (1904) reference as well.

146

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

(276) a.

b.

tote. iovine. (Ig. VI a 36, passim, in all cases) town-LOC of.Iguvium-ADJ-LOC-SG ‘in the town of Iguvium’ ocrer. fisie. (Ig. VI b 10) mount-GEN Fisian-ADJ-GEN-SG ‘of the Fisian mount’

In Oscan many instances of nominal apposition are found within the domain of [RELIGION], which may be related to the greater variety of types of text as compared to Umbrian. The combining of a proper and a common noun is frequently attested: (277) a.

b.

anagtiai. diíviiai. (Sa 22; Buck 1904: 257) Angitia-DAT deity-DAT ‘to the goddess Angitia’ evklúí. patereí. (Sa 1A25; Agn. 25; Buck 1904: 254) Euclo-DAT father-DAT ‘to father Euclo’

In Umbrian several instances combine the proper noun Iove and the common noun ‘father’: next to the vocative iupater (Ig. II b 24), the dative noun phrase iuve patre (Ig. II b 7) is also attested as a fusioned form: iuvepatre (Ig. III 22) and as an abbreviated form, iuvip. (Ig. II a 11). Case marking (e. g. Umbr. iupater vs. iuvepatre) within the compound form is remarkable, for two reasons: case marking— hence case variation—within a compound inherently is rare and the occurrence of pater in instances other than nominative and vocative is not attested in Latin (Iupiter but not e. g. *Iovispatris). In both Oscan and Umbrian, there are many examples in which two proper names of gods are combined ([Proper noun + Proper Noun]), especially Iupiter cooccurs with another proper noun, detailing his function in the given context (see also Section 5.2), as in:  

 

[OSCAN] (278) a. iúveís. lúvfereís (Fr 5; Buck 1904: 258) Iupiter-GEN Liber-GEN ‘of Iupiter Liber’ b. diúveí. verehasiúí. (Sa 1A11; Agn. 11; Buck 1904: 254) Iupiter-DAT Versor-DAT ‘to Iupiter Versor’

Similarly: [UMBRIAN] (279) marte: huřie: (Ig. I b 2) Mars-DAT Hodius-DAT ‘to Mars Hodius’

4.5 Nominal apposition in early Italic

147

I have also found several instances of adjectival constructions, as the following Umbrian example illustrates: (280) śerfer. Cerrus-GEN

martier. (Ig. VII a 10) of.Mars-ADJ-GEN-SG

In the domain of [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE] the combining of a proper and a common noun is predominant, as in the following Oscan examples: (281) a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

mutíl. embratur (nPg 6a/6b; Buck 1904: 259) Mutilus-NOM leader-NOM ‘leader Mutilus’ minateís. ner(eís). (Cp 25; Iov. Ded. 25; Buck 1904: 248) Minutus-GEN chief-GEN ‘of chief Minutus’ mr. atiniís mr. kvaíssţur. (Po 4; Buck 1904: 240) Maras-NOM Atinius-NOM Mr queastor-NOM ‘quaestor Maras Atinius Mr’ v. sadiriis. v. aídil. (Po 11; Buck 1904: 242) V. satirius-NOM V. magistrate-NOM ‘magistrate Satirius’ v. púpidiis. v. med. túv. (Po 5; Buck 1904: 241) V. Popidius-NOM V. curator-NOM public-NOM-SG ‘the public curator Popidius’ medíkeís. púmpaiianeís serevkid. (Po 1; Buck 1904: 239) curator-GEN Pumpeianus-GEN guidance-ABL ‘under the guidance of curator Pumpeianus’

In expressions of [QUANTIFICATION] the genitive may be found in Umbrian instead of nominal apposition: (282) mestru: karu: fratru: major-NOM part-NOM brothers-GEN ‘the major part of the Atiedian brothers’

atiieřiu: (Ig. V a 24–25) Atiedian-GEN-PL

Finally the nomen-construction is relatively common, especially in Umbrian: (283) naharkum: numem: (Ig. I b 17) Narcus-ACC-SG name-ACC ‘the name of Narcus’

The patterns attested in the two sister languages of Latin show similarities to those found in other early Indo-European languages. It is important to note, however, the differences between Oscan and Umbrian both in terms of frequency and type of structure. The nature of Umbrian texts may account for the relatively infrequent occurrence of nominal apposition; it does not ac-

148

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

count however for alternative structures attested as well that include adjectives rather than nominal apposition. In the next section and chapter I will provide a more detailed picture of occurrence and function of nominal apposition in (early) Italic because the Latin data are much more numerous and diverse.

4.5.2 Early Latin This inventory of nominal apposition in early Indo-European closes with an analysis of works by Cato, Plautus, and Terence, who represent what generally is referred to as “Early Latin”. The distinction between Early, Classical, Vulgar, and Late Latin refers to the different varieties of the language, in terms of periods as well as sociolects. I use the terminology here mainly for practical reasons because it may help the reader to situate the writers whose work is being discussed. And I note that the terminology is relative, now that it has been demonstrated by Adams that characteristics that traditionally have been identified as “typical” of “Vulgar Latin”, for example, are found in Classical authors as well (Adams 2013; see more in Section 5.1.1). In this Section I will focus on Early Latin and I will return to the other varieties in greater detail in the next chapter. “Early Latin” is the language found in documents and inscriptions until roughly 100 B. C. (Bennett 1914: iii). Early Latin documents include, for example, early law texts, texts by Cato (234–149 B. C.) such as his treatise about agriculture, as well as the plays by Plautus (254–184 B. C.) and Terence (195–159 B. C.), which are close to the spoken variety at that time. Since Varro’s Re Rustica discusses the same topic as Cato’s Re Rustica, the two texts are often treated under the same heading, even if Varro (116–27 B. C.) is much later than Cato. In this book, Varro will be included in the section about Classical Latin in the next chapter (Section 5.1.1). In the following pages I will analyse the data that I gathered from the plays by both Plautus and Terence, and Cato’s handbook on agriculture. For my analysis of Latin texts I have drawn a list of more than seventy nouns representing the following semantic domains: [RELIGION] (e. g. deus ‘god’), [KINSHIP] (e. g. filius ‘son’), [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE] (e. g. rex ‘king’), [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION] (e. g. poeta ‘poet’, meretrix ‘courtesan’), [SOCIAL STATUS, AGE] (e. g. senex ‘old man’, adolescens ‘youngster’), [SOCIAL STATUS, SEX] (e. g. mulier ‘woman’), [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], [FAUNA], [FLORA], [OTHER, TIME] (e. g. mensis ‘month’), [OTHER, FEAST] (e. g. ludus ‘game’), [OTHER, HOMO], [OTHER, NOMEN], [OTHER]. The choice of categories is based on patterns of recurrence, both in Latin and other languages. The nouns, which are presented in  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.5 Nominal apposition in early Italic

149

the Appendix, were checked for all cases and both numbers. Where appropriate, additional instances were included as well. One of the few to address the topic of nominal apposition in Early Latin, Bennett (1914) reported that apposition at that stage occurs in three types of context: (I) in contexts combining a proper name with a noun, referring to “social status or other status” (1914: 6). Without further specification Bennett observed that this type of structure is “extremely frequent, occurring on almost every page” (1914: 6). (II) in certain “expressions” (1914: 5), which are “frequent”, such as: adulescens homo (Pl., Bacch. 65) ‘youngster-NOM man-NOM’ > ‘youngster’; filiam adulescentulam (Ter., Heaut. 602) ‘girl (ACC) little.youngster-ACC’ > ‘little girl’; hominem servom (Pl., As. 470) ‘man-ACC slave-ACC’ > ‘slave’. (III) in quantitative expressions, cf. for example: (284) a. b.

farinam facito libras iiii (Cato, R. R. 109) ‘make four pounds (ACC) of flour (ACC)’ polentam grandem dimidium acetabuli indito (Cato, R. R. 108) ‘place half (ACC) an acetabulum of large pearl barley (ACC)’ (Bennett 1914: 6–7).  

 

Although Bennett‘s observations are accurate, his treatment of the data is rather peculiar: without specifying “other status” under (a) or “expressions” under (b), he gives a rather impressionistic account of the phenomenon. As I noted in Chapter 1, wording of this type is not uncommon in studies concerned with nominal apposition. In the following sections I will present my own data, found in texts representing the Early Latin period: Cato’s De Re Rustica and all plays by Plautus and Terence.

4.5.2.1 Early Latin: Plautus I discuss Plautus and Terence in two separate sections despite similarities in genre and topic, because there are differences between the two playwrights, also in relation to nominal apposition. First, the structure is more frequent in Plautus than in Terence (132 vs. 33 instances). Moreover, Plautus’s use of nominal apposition is more diversified with more semantic categories and with both types of instance—Common Noun + Common Noun and Proper Noun + Common Noun— well represented. The 132 instances of apposition found in Plautus include various semantic fields. The semantic domain of [KINSHIP] is represented in 29 examples, which typically (20/29) include proper names, as in:

150

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

(285) a. b.

Argyrippus filius (Pl., As. 74) ‘son (NOM) Argyrippus (NOM)’ fratrem Pamphillipum (Pl., Stich. 525) ‘his brother (ACC) Pamphillipus (ACC)’

In nine instances two common nouns combine, cf. (286) a. b. c. d.

virginem gnatam (Pl., Trin. 113) ‘his girl (ACC) daughter (ACC)’ puerum filiolum (Pl., Capt. 876) ‘your little (boy [ACC]) son (ACC)’ geminos pueros filios (Pl., Amph. 1070) ‘twin (ACC-PL) (boys [ACC]) sons (ACC)’ geminis fratribus (Pl., Men. 48) ‘for the twin (DAT) brothers (DAT)’

The semantic domain of [SOCIAL STATUS] is found in 71 instances, specifying age, sex, title, or profession of the characters involved. They typically combine a generic and a proper noun, cf. (287) [SOCIAL STATUS, GENERAL] a. ab hospite Archidemide (Pl., Bacch. 250) ‘from my friend (ABL) Archidemidis (ABL)’ b. Calidoro amatori (Pl., Ps. 51) ‘her lover (DAT) Calidorus (DAT)’ (288) [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION] a. meretrici Melaenidi (Pl., Cist. 171) ‘courtesan (DAT) Melaenis (DAT)’ b. servos Sosio (Pl., Amph. 148) ‘slave (NOM) Sosio (NOM)’ c. servom Stichom (Pl., Stich. 371) ‘slave (ACC) Stichus (ACC)’ d. Stalagmum servom (Pl., Capt. 875) ‘your slave (ACC) Stalagmus (ACC)’ e. nostro Olympioni vilico (Pl., Cas. 762) ‘our bailiff (DAT) Olympio (DAT)’ f. Bromia ancilla (Pl., Amph. 1078) ‘the maid (NOM) Bromia (NOM)’ (289) [SOCIAL STATUS, AGE] a. Hegionis senis (Pl., Capt. 96) Hegio-GEN old.man-GEN ‘of the old gentleman Hegio’ b. Euclioni seni (Pl., Aul. 822) Euclio-DAT old.man-DAT ‘the old gentleman Euclio’

4.5 Nominal apposition in early Italic

151

(290) [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE] rex Agathocles (Pl., Men. 409) ‘king (NOM) Agathocles (NOM)’

Among the various generic nouns the most frequent ones—by far—are servus (21; [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION]) and rex (17; [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE]), cf. e. g. rex Creo (Pl., Amph. 251) ‘king (NOM) Creo (NOM)’, regis Philippi (Pl., Pers. 339) ‘of king (GEN) Philippus (GEN)’, servom Stichum (Pl., Stich. 656) ‘slave (ACC) Stichus (ACC)’. In addition, in 19 instances within the category of [SOCIAL STATUS] (19/71) two common nouns combine, as in:  

(291) [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION] a. mulier meretrix (Pl., Merc. 685) woman-NOM courtesan-NOM ‘courtesan’ b. meretrices mulieres (Pl., Men. 261) courtesans-NOM women-NOM ‘courtesans’ c. puellae… servolae (Pl., Poen. 1094) girls-NOM little.slaves-NOM-F ‘girl slaves’ (292) [SOCIAL STATUS, AGE] meretricem adulescentulam (Pl., Mil. 789) ‘prostitute-ACC little.girl-ACC ‘very young courtesan’ (293) [SOCIAL STATUS, SEX] victor vir (Pl., Amph. 647) conqueror-NOM man-NOM ‘conqueror’

In categories other than [SOCIAL STATUS], I found four instances of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], e. g. Aetna mons (Pl., Mil. 1065) ‘mount (NOM) Aetna (NOM)’, in Cecropia insula (Pl., Trin. 928) ‘(lit.) on the isle (ABL) Cecropia (ABL), patriam Pergamum (Pl., Bacch. 925) ‘his hometown (ACC) Pergamum (ACC)’, and Massici montis (Pl., Ps. 1303) ‘of mount (GEN) Massico (GEN)’. There is one instance in the category of [FAUNA]: femina … canis (Pl., Men. 836) ‘female (NOM) dog (NOM)’. Despite its clear adjectival origin, femina is commonly used as an independent full-fledged noun in Plautus. The construction in question therefore may be considered an instance of nominal apposition (cf. more below). A limited number of instances represent the semantic domain of [RELIGION], combining two common nouns as well as a common and a proper noun, cf.  

152

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

(294) a. b.

deus impulsor (Pl., Aul. 737) Iuno regina (Pl., Cist. 513)

‘a god (NOM) instigator (NOM)’ ‘queen (NOM) Iuno (NOM)’

There are several instances of Diespiter (e. g. Diespiter [Pl., Capt. 909; Pl., Poen. 739, 869, passim]). In the category [OTHER] the generic noun homo is commonly attested (25 instances) and in very large majority (19/25) it combines with a common noun, such as amicus ‘friend’, (7/25), servus ‘slave’ (5/25), adolescens ‘youngster’ (2/25), nemo ‘nobody’ (2/25), peregrinus ‘foreigner’ (2/25), cf.  

(295) [OTHER, HOMO] a. servom hominem (Pl., Ep. 328) ‘slave (ACC) (man [ACC])’ b. hominem servom (Pl., As. 470) ‘(man [ACC]) slave (ACC)’ c. amico homini (Pl., Bacch.1156) ‘friend (DAT) (man [DAT])’ d. hominem peregrinum (Pl., Poen. 1031) ‘(man [ACC]) foreigner (ACC)’

As indicated, a few examples include a proper noun as well, creating a sequence of three nouns, as in: (296) homo leno man-NOM pimp-NOM ‘this pimp Lycus’

Lycus (Pl., Poen. 200) Lycus-NOM

It is important to underscore that although many of the common nouns in the examples above, such as femina, have adjectival origin, they function as fully autonomous nouns in other contexts, in Plautus’ texts and elsewhere, cf. servus (Pl., Cas. 256), leno (Pl., Poen. passim), peregrinus (Pl., Poen. 600; As. 464). In other words, these homo expressions are instances of nominal apposition, including two common nouns, Common Noun + Common Noun. Within the category [OTHER] there are many examples (22) including nomen ‘name’. All feature the dative construction:16 Nomen + mihi est + Proper Noun in the dative. Consequently, agreement is with the possessor, not with nomen, which means that the syntax in these instances is not that of nominal apposition, cf.

16 Name constructions including patronymics such as Gaius Julius Caesar will be discussed in Chapter 5. With the exception of inscriptions, the corpora of Early Latin texts analyzed here feature rare examples of patronymics, if any.

4.5 Nominal apposition in early Italic

(297) a.

b.

153

mihi Auxilio est nomen (Pl., Cist. 154) I-DAT Auxilius-DAT be-3SG name-NOM ‘my name is Auxilius’ ego urbi Gripo indam nomen I-NOM town-DAT Gripus-DAT give-FUT-1SG name-ACC ‘I will call the town Gripus’ (Pl., Rud. 934)

These constructions are attested in Terence as well as later texts. They will be further examined in Section 5.3.2.1. Finally, expressions of [QUANTIFICATION] in Plautus may take the form of both nominal apposition or a genitive construction, cf. (298) [GENITIVE] sine classe sineque exercitu et tanto numero militum (Pl., Bacch. 930) ‘without a fleet (ABL) and without an army (ABL) and all that host (ABL) of soldiers (GEN)’

This overview is not exhaustive: numerous additional instances of apposition may be found in Plautus as indeed even casual reading will reveal. Many of these include two common nouns one of which is generic. Moreover, these formations often are hapaxes, cf (299) navim + cercurum (Pl., Merc. 87) vesseACC + light.vessel-ACC ‘(a type of) light vessel’

In this example generic navim specifies the ontological character of cercurum, which is a light vessel “peculiar to the Cyprians” (Lewis and Short 1879: 318). Because of parallels with formations such as Gm. Walfisch (lit. ‘whale-fish’) or Du. koebeest (lit. ‘cow-animal’ > ‘cow’), some may argue that navim cercurum is a compound rather than a noun phrase. The potential discussion shows to what extent nominal apposition is both a syntactic and morphological phenomenon. It is my contention that navim cercurum is a noun phrase rather than a compound because the combination does not refer to a defined semantic entity (see Chapter 6). Instances may also include more than two nouns, as in: (300) a.

b.

pedisqua nutrice anu (Pl., Aul. 807) servant-ABL wet.nurse-ABL old.woman-ABL ‘old long-standing servant’ costus ianitrix (Pl., Curc. 77) anus . . . old.woman-NOM guard-NOM portress-NOM ‘an old woman guard porter’  

 

154

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

In the next example nominal apposition is part of an enumeration, cf. (301) meus socius, compar, . . . my-NOM ally-NOM comrade-NOM commaritus vilicus (Pl., Cas. 797) fellow.bridegroom-NOM bailiff-NOM ‘my ally, comrade, fellow-bridegroom (of a) bailiff’  

 

It is important to note that many nouns that occur in these contexts as well have adjectival origin. Yet they also all occur in Plautus’ texts as full-fledged autonomous nouns.

4.5.2.2 Early Latin: Terence On the basis of my list of fifty nouns, I found a total of thirty-three instances of nominal apposition in Terence. They include the following semantic fields: [KINSHIP], [SOCIAL STATUS], [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], and [OTHER, HOMO], which were represented by the following nouns: [KINSHIP] filia, filius, frater ‘brother’, uxor ‘wife’, [SOCIAL STATUS, AGE] senex, virgo, puer ‘boy’, [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION] meretrix ‘courtesan’, miles ‘soldier’; [SOCIAL STATUS, SEX] mulier ‘woman’ (5), vir; [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] insula (1); and [OTHER, HOMO] homo (10). The semantic field of [KINSHIP] is represented in nine examples, predominantly including filius/filia (6) and proper as well as common nouns, cf. (302) a. b. c. d. e.

filiam virginem (Ter., Ad. 466) ‘his daughter (ACC) girl (ACC)’ filius … Aeschinus (Ter., Ad. 462) ‘your son (NOM) Aeschinus (NOM)’ fratrem Chaeream (Ter., Eun. 713) ‘my brother (ACC) Chaerea (ACC)’ filiam adulescentulam (Ter., Heaut. 602) ‘her daughter (ACC) a small thin girl (ACC)’ uxorem Philumenam (Ter., Hec. 320) ‘your wife (ACC) Philumena (ACC)’

The nouns conveying [SOCIAL STATUS]—13 in total—typically specify [SEX], [AGE], or [PROFESSION], cf. (303) [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION] a. ad meretricem Thaidem (Ter., Eun. 352) ‘to courtesan (ACC) Thais (ACC)’ b. miles Thraso (Ter., Eun. 353) ‘soldier (NOM) Thraso (NOM)’

4.5 Nominal apposition in early Italic

c.

155

mulier. . . meretrix (Ter., And. 756) ‘(woman [NOM]) courtesan (NOM)’ (304) [SOCIAL STATUS, AGE] a. puer. . . Mida (Ter., Phorm. 862) ‘the boy (NOM) Mida (NOM)’ b. senex Mercator (Ter., And. 221) ‘an old gentleman (NOM) merchant (NOM)’ (305) [SOCIAL STATUS, SEX] a. virginem vitiare civem (Ter., Eun. 857) ‘to violate a girl (ACC) citizen (ACC)’ b. mulier. . . meretrix (Ter., And. 756) ‘(woman [NOM]) courtesan (NOM)’ c. viduae mulieri (Ter., Heaut. 953) ‘widow (DAT) woman (DAT)’ d. vir Dore (Ter., Eun. 850) ‘master (VOC) Dorus (VOC)’  

 

 

 

 

 

While there is variation as to the occurrence of proper or common nouns, the noun most commonly used in this context is mulier (5). It occurs always in combination with a common noun that may have adjectival origins, cf. (306) a.

b.

adulescens mulier (Ter., Phorm. 794; Hec. 661) young.person-NOM woman-NOM ‘young woman’ senem mulierem (Ter., Eun. 357) old.person-ACC woman-ACC ‘old woman’

But meretrix in the following example is a full-fledged noun, a derivative from the verb mereo ‘earn’, cf. (307) mulier woman-NOM ‘courtesan’

meretrix (Ter., And. 756) courtesan-NOM

Although geographic names are not rare in Terence, they typically do not combine with generic nouns. Accordingly I found only one instance of nominal apposition within the category [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION]: (308) apud Andrum at Andros-ACC ‘at the isle of Andros’

insulam (Ter., And. 222) isle-ACC

Almost one in three instances of nominal apposition (10/33) in Terence includes the noun homo: all combine with a common noun and they convey a variety of grammatical cases, cf.

156

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

(309) a. b. c. d. e. f.

hominem amicum (Ter., Heaut. 567) ‘your friend’ (both ACC)’ homini adulescentulo (Ter., And. 828) ‘a young man’ (both DAT) homines adulescentulos (Ter., And. 910) ‘youngsters’ (both ACC) servom hominem (Ter., Phorm. 292) ‘a slave’ (both ACC) hominem senem (Ter., Ad. 562) ‘an old fellow’ (both ACC) homo adulescens (Ter., Phorm. 1041) ‘young man‘ (both NOM)

While several of these nouns have adjectival origin, they are commonly attested as independent full-fledged nouns in Terence, cf. (310) nolo videat senex (Ter., And. 819) ‘I do not want the old man (NOM) to see . . .’  

 

Three instances include the noun nemo, which is a syncopated form of *ne + *hemo (homo), cf. (311) a. b.

c.

homo nemo (Ter., Eun. 1082) ‘no human being’ (both NOM) fratrem homini nemini esse (Ter., Ad. 259) brother-ACC man-DAT nobody-DAT be-INF ‘(that) there is no man with a brother‘ hominem callioderem vidi neminem (Ter., Phorm. 591) man-ACC sharper-ACC see-PF-1SG nobody-ACC ‘I have never seen a sharper fellow’

Some argue that nemo is used as an adjective in combination with certain nouns (e. g. vir nemo [Cic., De Or. 1.28.129]; Lewis and Short 1879: 1199). This interpretation—which re-acknowledges the nominal nature of nemo—in my view reflects the lack of interest in nominal apposition rather than thorough linguistic analysis. In the category [OTHER] two instances of Noun + Noun combination are attested in Terence featuring genus ‘kind, class’. Yet instead of nominal apposition, genus favors a genitive in both instances, cf.  

(312) a. b.

hominum genus (Ter., Eun. 248) ‘a class (NOM) of men (GEN)’ pessumum hominum genus (Ter., And. 629) ‘the class (NOM) of worst (GEN) men (GEN)’ > ‘the worst class of men’

4.5 Nominal apposition in early Italic

157

In sum, the predominating semantic domains of nominal apposition in Terence are those of [SOCIAL STATUS] and [KINSHIP]. While these categories both are conveyed by nominal apposition, they differ in that nominal apposition within the field of [SOCIAL STATUS] is of the type Common Noun + Common Noun. The field of [KINSHIP] predominantly favors Proper Noun + Common Noun. There typically are no instances of nominal apposition of the type [RELIGION] and no instances including [NOMEN].

4.5.2.3 Early Latin: Cato Although Cato and Varro both write about agriculture (see also the next chapter), they use nominal apposition differently. On the basis of my systematic list, I found over sixteen instances of nominal apposition in Cato’s De Agri Cultura or Re Rustica. They represent the following categories: [RELIGION] (7): pater (6), double proper noun (1), [FAUNA] (7): porcus ‘pig’ (7), and [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] (2): ager ‘land’ and fundus ‘piece of land’. The seven instances representing the semantic field of [RELIGION] are: (313) a. b.

Mars pater (Cato, R.R. 141.2, 141.3, 141.4 [twice]) ‘father (VOC) Mars (VOC)’ Iane pater (Cato, R. R. 134.2, 134.3) ‘father (VOC) Ianus (VOC)’  

In addition, in one instance two proper nouns are combined, cf. (314) Marti Silvano (Cato, R. R. 83.1) ‘Mars (DAT) Silvanus (DAT)’  

Silvanus in this construction is the name of the Latin god of forests and wild fields and protector of cattle and herds, from whom Mars has adopted certain functions, i. c. the care of cattle. Formations of this type will be discussed in further detail in Section 5.2. The semantic field of [FAUNA] is attested in:  

(315) a.

b.

c.

porco piaculo (Cato, R.R. 139.1, 141.4) pig-ABL(-M) sin.offering.sacrifice-ABL(-NE) ‘a sacrificial pig, pig to be sacrificed’ porco femina (Cato, R. R. 134.1) pig-ABL(-M) female.animal-ABL(-F) ‘a sow’ priusquam porcum feminam before pig-ACC(-M) female.animal-ACC(-F) ‘before you offer a sow’ (Cato, R. R. 134.1)  

 

inmolatis offer-2SG

158

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

Two instances are from the field [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION]: (316) a. b.

in fundo Venafro (Cato, R. R. 146) ‘on the estate (ABL) (at) Venafrum (ABL)’ agro … Venafro (Cato, R.R. 136) ‘in the district (ABL) of Venafrum (ABL)’  

Although this evidence taken at face value suggests that nominal apposition was common, closer examination reveals rather limited variation. First, with the exception of the [FAUNA] examples, all instances include proper nouns, as the examples (313), (314), and (316) above illustrate. More importantly, the two instances identified for [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] are almost identical and six out of the seven examples from the field of [RELIGION] are vocatives, Iane pater (2) and Mars pater (4). Similarly, the instances turn out to be rather repetitive: the seven [FAUNA] examples in fact include two constructions, porcus femina (2) ‘a female swine’ and porcus piaculum (5), cf. (317) porco piaculo facito (Cato, R. R. 139–140) ‘to make a sacrifice of a pig/to sacrifice a pig’  

The [FAUNA] examples in Cato are important, however, because they show that nouns of adjectival origin function as full-fledged nouns in appositive juxtaposition, featuring case—not gender—agreement: (318) porco femina (Cato, R. R. 133.1; porcum feminam [R.R. 133.1]) swine-ABL(-M) female-ABL(-F) ‘sow’ (examples [315b] and [315c] above)  

Porcus is a masculine noun; had femina been an adjective in this context, then rules of agreement would have dictated femino. The variety of instances of nominal apposition including [HOMO] found in Plautus and Terence is not attested in Cato’s Re Rustica. The few instances in Cato’s work typically feature the noun nemo (nemo homo [Cato, Hist. 95.b.6] ‘nobody’). In the category [OTHER] there are no instances of genus in nominal apposition, because genus in Cato’s text governs a genitive, a pattern observed for Terence as well, cf. (319) hoc genus oleae (Cato, R. R. 6.1.1) ‘this type/variety (ACC) of olive (GEN)’  

In expressions of [QUANTIFICATION] both nominal apposition and genitive constructions are attested in Cato, cf.

159

4.5 Nominal apposition in early Italic

(320) [QUANTITY, WEIGHT] [NOMINAL APPOSITION] a. de ervo farinam facito libras iiii … (Cato, R. R. 109) ‘make four pounds (ACC) of flour (ACC) from vetch’ [GENITIVE] b. olei puri P. VIIII (Cato, R. R. 144.5) ‘nine pounds of pure oil (GEN)’ [GENITIVE] c. et vini cyatos IIII conspirgato sapa (Cato, R. R. 109) ‘and mix four cyati (ACC) of wine (GEN) with boiled milk’ (321) [QUANTIFICATION, MEASURE] a. vineae iugera C instruere oporteat (Cato, R.R. 11.1) [GENITIVE] ‘(how) one ought to build 100 iugera (ACC) of vineyard (GEN)’ b. iugera agri centum (Cato, R.R. 1.7) [GENITIVE] ‘hundred iugera (ACC) of land (GEN)’  

 

 

The pattern that typically emerges for expressions of quantification is the following, cf. (322) [NOUN-(GENITIVE) NOUN-(QUANTIFICATION) vini cyato olei puri P. (Examples [320b] and [321c] respectively)

NUMBER] IIII VIIII

(Cato, R. R. 109) (Cato, R. R. 144.5)  

 

This type of structure will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5 Despite the apparent rich use of nominal apposition in Cato the phenomenon in fact is rather repetitive, but it is important to underscore that the semantic fields are varied, including [RELIGION], [FAUNA], [LOCATION], and [QUANTIFICATION].

4.5.3 Concluding remarks about Italic The early Italic languages overall present the same pattern of nominal apposition as found in Hittite, Sanskrit, Greek, and early Germanic. The predominant construction by far is the combining of a proper noun and a common noun specifying the referent’s semantic characteristics. Instances of Proper Noun + Proper Noun within the field of [RELIGION] are notable. Moreover, there is structural variation in the field of [QUANTIFICATION], where both nominal apposition and genitives are attested. This observation parallels the early variation in [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] in Umbrian, where in addition the adjectival construction is a rather common alternative. Early Latin data more in particular parallel the patterns found in the other early Indo-European languages: in the three early sources examined nominal apposition is attested in the semantic fields of [RELIGION], [SOCIAL STATUS], [QUANTIFICATION], and [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION]. Among them [GEOGRAPHIC

160

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

LOCATION] and [RELIGION] are least common, while nominal apposition specifying social status is widespread in the plays by Plautus and Terence. The genre of the texts therefore seems to determine the type of apposition that predominates, which is an important observation because in other Indo-European languages as well the nature and the topic of any given text may affect the occurrence and type of apposition used (see Section 4.6). Nominal apposition in Early Latin also follows the patterns observed for the other early Indo-European languages in that the combining of a common and a proper noun distinctly predominates. Yet Plautus and Terence include many instances combining two common nouns as well (e. g. mulier meretix [Ter., And. 756] ‘woman courtesan’), especially in contexts involving homo (amico homini [Pl., Bacch.1156] ‘friend’; see Chapter 5 for more discussion). In terms of [QUANTIFICATION], Early Latin provides solid examples of nominal apposition, without however excluding the alternative genitive constructions, a trend I observed in several other early languages as well:  

(323) a. b.

de ervo farinam facito libras iiii … (Cato, R. R. 109) ‘make four pounds (ACC) of flour (ACC) from vetch’ olei puri P. VIIII (Cato, R. R. 144.5) ‘nine pounds of pure oil (GEN)’  

 

[NOMINAL APPOSITION] [GENITIVE]

Finally, instances within the category [OTHER] are of interest in that examples featuring genus tend to favor the genitive rather than nominal apposition. Moreover, early instances with nomen show already agreement patterns that do not fit those of nominal apposition (see also Section 5.3.2.1). In sum, while nominal apposition is well-represented in Italic, certain alternatives are manifest from early times onward. As I will show more in detail in the next chapter, data from Latin—involving a wide variety of documents and texts as well as registers and language stages— allow to further specify the trends in usage and diachronic development.

4.6 Structural patterns in nominal apposition in Indo-European Having focused so far on occurrence and function, I will examine in the following pages the structural characteristics of nominal apposition in early Indo-European. My data show that in early times nominal apposition in Indo-European may take three forms: Proper Noun + Proper Noun, Common Noun + Common Noun, and Proper Noun + Common Noun. Although all three are attested, the typical form is Proper Noun + Common Noun. Most often the common noun is a (generic) noun specifying the semantic characteristics of the referent. The combining of two proper

4.6 Structural patterns in nominal apposition in Indo-European

161

nouns (Proper Noun + Proper Noun) in nominal apposition is rare, but shows a number of distinctive features. The combination typically includes two proper nouns that are closely connected and complementary, as instances such as Skt índrāviṣṇū ‘Indra (and) Viśnu’ clearly illustrate. These formations therefore are not arbitrary, but strongly motivated in their underlying complementarity. Consequently, although the two nouns convey two different referents—in contrast to “regular” apposition—these are so closely connected that they convey as it were one concept, or rather two aspects of one concept. In Italic as well, the combining of Proper Noun + Proper Noun typically is attested in the field of [RELIGION], with one of the proper nouns specifying the function of the deity in the given context, e. g. Osc. iúveís. lúvfereís ‘of Iupiter Liber’ (Fr 5; Buck 1904: 258; example [278] above). Combinations of this type refer to two qualities in one deity—Iupiter—i. c. his qualities as Iupiter and those of Liber, whose role he has absorbed.17 Consequently, while Skt índrāviṣṇū and Osc. iúveís. lúvfereís both combine proper nouns in nominal apposition and refer to two aspects in one referent, both structures are not identical, as will become clear in the next chapters. The combining of two common nouns (Common Noun + Common Noun) in close apposition is much less common than Proper Noun + Common Noun combinations. The earliest instances found especially in Sanskrit include nouns that refer to deities, as in Skt déva tvaṣṭar (RV 10.70.9a) ‘god-creator’ or pitá janitá (RV 10.82.3a) ‘father creator’. A widespread variety attested in Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin includes the use of a noun ‘man’ in combination with another common, more specific, noun. While Sanskrit allows variation at the lexical quasi-synonymous level (nṛ-, vīra-, and jána- are found), Greek shows variation between ἀνήρ and—to a much lesser extent—ἄνθρωπος ‘human being’, and γυνή ‘woman’. Latin almost exclusively features homo (with an occasional instance of vir). This phenomenon of appositive [HOMO] constructions is most widely attested in Greek, both in terms of types of structure and occurrence (numerical incidence, consistent use over time, and spread over the different genres). Most instances in Greek, however, combine with professional nouns. In Latin, where this type of apposition is less widespread, I found that homo combines with a variety of social concepts (professions, but also amicus ‘friend’, peregrinus ‘foreigner’, and so forth). Because the occurrence in Latin primarily is limited to Plautus and Terence possible interference from Greek may not a priori be excluded. The occurrence in Sanskrit suggests, however, that it was not an exclusively Greek phenomenon. This observation is further underscored by the parallel instances in Mycenaean and Hittite that include script determinatives.  

 

17 These widespread formations in Latin will be discussed in greater detail in Section 5.2.

162

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

Proper Noun + Common Noun combinations show strong parallels with the phenomenon of script determinatives in the writing systems of Hittite and Mycenaean. Both nominal apposition and constructions with script determinatives are based on the juxtaposition of a (proper) noun and a common element, which conveys a number of semantic categories. In Mycenaean the occurrence of Common Noun with a script determinative is stronger than in Hittite, where Proper Nouns in this context are better represented. Moreover, in Hittite script determinatives also explicitly have grammatical function—changing and expressing grammatical categories—as well as lexical function in word formation processes. This double function of script determinatives further underscores the parallels with nominal apposition, which is also prominent in word formation (see also Chapter 6). The parallel between nominal apposition and noun classification in other languages is prominently manifest in the classifying function of nominal apposition in instances that include a common noun, that is Proper Noun + Common Noun and Common Noun + Common Noun combinations. The often generic element then conveys ontological characteristics of the other noun, in a way reminiscent of classifiers in classifier languages. With class languages, nominal apposition shares the prominent feature of agreement (see more below). In terms of word order nominal apposition presents a complex but not inconsistent picture in early Indo-European. Despite acknowledging a general lack of data, Greenberg in his well-known article on the “order of meaningful elements” (1963) claims a correlation between appositive and genitive constructions, cf. his Universal 23: “if in apposition the proper noun usually precedes the common noun, then the language is one in which the governing noun precedes the genitive. With much better than chance frequency, if the common noun usually precedes the proper noun, the dependent genitive precedes its governing noun” (Greenberg 1963: 89).

This proclaimed correlation is surprising because it assumes the co-occurrence in one language of a right-branching genitive (e. g. Fr. la maison du père ‘the father’s house’) and the sequence Proper Noun + Common Noun (e. g. Fr. *Pasteur [le] docteur). This is the more surprising since noun phrases including a genitive tend to be quite consistent in terms of word order, both synchronically and diachronically. From a historical perspective, for example, there is a consistent shift to [Noun [Genitive]] constructions, as the history of Latin-Romance clearly illustrates. They therefore are a rather reliable indicator of typological preferences of a language (see Bauer 1995, 2009a). Apart from typological patterning, the correlation that Greenberg puts forth does not hold upon factual scrutiny, as becomes clear when languages are taken  

 

4.6 Structural patterns in nominal apposition in Indo-European

163

into consideration that are strictly OV, such as Japanese or Turkish. In these languages the common noun typically comes second (e. g. Hackstein 2003: 132– 134; Bauer 2008: 43) cf.  

[JAPANESE] (324) a. Harupo-Márukusu san lit. ‘Harpo Marx Mr’ > ‘Mr Harpo Marx’ b. Kúbota soosyoo lit. ‘Kubota master’ > ‘master Kubota’ (Examples from Martin 1975: 1055–1059) [TURKISH] (325) a. Cem Sultan lit. ‘Jem prince’ > ‘prince Jem’ b. Zenbili Ali Efendi lit. ‘Zenbeli Ali Mr‘ > ‘Mr Ali Zenbeli’ (Examples from Lewis 1967: 252–253)

Conversely in a rather consistent VO language such as French, the common noun typically precedes the name in a way similar to the head noun that precedes the dependent genitive: le docteur Pasteur, la ville de Paris, la voiture du père, and so forth. For a brief overview of Genitive-Noun patterns in the languages on which Greenberg based his Universal 23, see Hackstein (2010: 25), who correctly concludes that “Universal 23 is not clearly supported” by those data (2010: 25). In fact, evidence in Chapter 5 further shows that Greenberg’s Universal 23 is inaccurate. It will also demonstrate however, that the picture—especially the historical picture—is rather complicated because in later times the position of the common noun seems to be lexically motivated, which in addition may vary from author to author (see Chapter 5). Early instances of nominal apposition in Indo-European presented here suggest that the sequence [[Proper Noun] Common Noun] prevailed: in line with the other word order patterns, this sequence is abundantly found in the early documents. The very large majority (two thirds) of instances of nominal apposition in Hittite presented in this chapter (Noun + Noun combinations) indeed feature the sequence [[Proper Noun] Common Noun]. Although this observation is not based on exhaustive data analysis for the reasons I have indicated, it is supported by data from, for example, Friedrich and Kammenhuber (1975): in 50 of the 53 instances or so featuring Proper Noun + Noun ‘town’, the common noun comes second. Overall there therefore seem to be strong indications that left branching was the preferred sequence in nominal apposition in Hittite, which is in accordance with its overall left-branching typology (see Bauer 1995, 2009a, with extensive bibiography).

164

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

As indicated in Section 4.2, it is not possible to determine the preferred sequence of appositive constructions in Sanskrit. In the Vedic data both left- and right-branching patterns are found, but there seems to be a preference for certain individual common nouns to appear in second (pitar-) or first (deva-) position. This observation is important in the light of (diachronic) findings in other early daughter languages, as details in the next chapter will demonstrate. In Mycenaean Greek, I found the absolute predominance of left branching. Proper Noun + Common Noun is found in all instances representing the semantic field of [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION]. While Schwyzer and Debrunner argue that for the Common Noun “normal ist die Nachtstellung” in post-Mycenaean Greek (1960: 618), data from Homer are of special interest. In Homeric Greek there are in total 75 instances of Ζευς πάτηρ in the various grammatical cases (32 vocative; 24 dative; 12 nominative; 7 genitive; see Concordance Tables by Tebben 1994– 1998): ten out of these 75 examples feature the sequence πάτηρ Ζευς (7 genitive; 3 nominative). All vocatives feature the reverse order: Ζευ πάτερ (32 instances) and additional Ζευ τε πάτερ (9 instances). This sequence is in line with creations such as the Latin nominative Iupiter, which functions as vocative as well. This pattern is further confirmed by examples including ἄναξ ‘lord, master’, which in Homer is used as a title for men “of all rank and note” (Liddell and Scott 1991 [1889]: 59): the examples present a solid pattern as well, both in a variety of cases and proper nouns. All 27 instances in Homer are left-branching, cf. Πριάμοιο ἄνακτος (Hom., Od. 3.107) ‘of king (GEN) Priamos (GEN)’, Ποσειδάωνι ἄνακτι (Hom., Il. 15.158) ‘to the ruler (DAT) Poseidon (DAT)’. While there are not many instances (around 15) of nominal apposition involving βασιλεύς ‘king’, they show the same Proper Noun + βασιλεύς sequence (e. g. Ἀκίνοον βασιλῆα [Hom., Od. 8.469] ‘king-ACC Alcinuos-ACC’). By contrast, πότνια ‘mistress, queen’ presents a different picture. In the Iliad 25 examples including a proper noun feature right branching: πότνια Ἥρη ‘Lady Hera’, as do the four instances of πότνια Κίρκη (Hom., Od. 10.549) in the Odyssey. With common nouns, πότνια occurs in first position as well: πότνια μήτηρ ‘his Lady mother’ (e. g. Hom., Il. 11.795; 21 instances in the Iliad and 13 instances in the Odyssey; with one exception all are nominatives). With other nouns (θεα, νύμφη) the same pattern appears. I note that it is not always easy to determine for these instances which noun is the generic noun: both potentially are generic nouns. Μήτηρ occurs occasionally in Homer, in varying sequences:  

 

(326) a. b.

Θέτις μήτηρ (Hom., Il. 16.34) ‘mother (NOM) Thetis (NOM)’ (wife of Peleus) μητέρα Τηθύν (Hom., Il. 14.302) ‘mother (ACC) Tethis (ACC)’ (wife of Oceanus)

4.6 Structural patterns in nominal apposition in Indo-European

165

In sum, the pattern that emerges is that of left branching predominating in Homer, with limited and lexically-motivated variation. Tocharian is attested much later, but its evidence is relevant because of its strict OV typology: it is verb-final, has postpositions, the standard precedes the comparative, and genitives, adjectives, and relative clauses precede the head noun (Hackstein 2003: 134–135). Hackstein states that nouns conveying titles, social status, kinship, divinities follow the proper noun, as the examples he provides illustrate (Hackstein 2003: 136–137): [TOCHARIAN A] (327) a. Siṃhe wäl (A 256a5) b. ārśi nu käntwā (A 236b1) [TOCHARIAN B] (328) a. Uttari mñcuṣkeṃtse (B 89b4) b. yāmor ñīkte (B 496.5)

‘Siṃhe king’ > ‘king Siṃhe’ ‘Ārśi language’ > ‘the language Ārśi’ ‘Uttar prince’ ‘Karma god’

> ‘prince Utarri’ > ‘god Karma’

In Early Latin various patterns in terms of word order are attested. Among the seven instances that combine a proper and a common noun in Cato, five feature the common noun in second position (Mars pater [Cato, R. R. 141.2, 141.3, 141.4] and Iane pater [Cato, R. R. 134]). These are all vocatives and occur in prayers. The remaining two instances feature the reverse sequence (e. g. in fundo Venafro [Cato, R.R. 146] ‘in the estate near Venafrum’). The instances including two common nouns have identical sequences porco + piaculo (4 instances; Cato, R. R. 139) and porcum/o feminam/a (two instances; Cato, R.R. 134). In Plautus, instances featuring rex and servus favor right branching, in a variety of cases (13/17 for rex; 17/20 for servus). Other instances involving a variety of nouns are split between left and right branching (12 and 13/25 respectively). Yet it is remarkable that the preference is noun related: Argyrippus filius [Pl., As. 74], but fratre Epignomo [Pl., St. 582]). There are too few instances from the semantic field of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] to find a pattern. In Terence I observe a prevalence of Common Noun + Proper Noun combinations and in that sequence. Moreover eight out of the ten instances including homo, for example, feature the sequence homo + Common Noun; mulier precedes the noun meretrix, but follows the nominalized adjective (2 instances), cf. mulier meretrix (Ter., And. 756) vs. senem mulierem (Ter., Eun. 357). In sum, there is a correspondence between the incidence of left-branching apposition in a given language and its general left-branching nature: a strongly left-branching language will have a high incidence of left-branching apposition. Yet, I observe in the early Indo-European documents already a gradual shift away from a previous absolute predominance of left-branching structures to a situation that allows for some variation. It is typical however, that these early instances of  

 

 

 

166

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

variation often are lexically motivated, as the findings in Homer, for example, clearly show: πατὴρ vs. μήτηρ or πότνια vs. πατὴρ. Chapter 5 will demonstrate that this is a recurring pattern. The picture of nominal apposition in Indo-European that emerges here, based on a large corpus of data from a variety of languages and documents, is more complex than that put forth by Hackstein (2010). On the basis of a number of selected instances Hackstein has suggested a strong connection between OV/VO, the branching of noun phrases, and the sequence of what he qualifies as Generic Noun + Specific Noun in nominal appositive constructions (e. g. Hackstein 2010: 17, 26, 28, 32, 36). Although right-branching and left-branching languages may show certain trends in the relative order in nominal apposition, the correlation clearly is not always consistent in Indo-European as I demonstrated in the preceding pages. This is not an isolated phenomenon. In earlier publications I found that all phrases do not undergo the shift in word order with equal consistency (for Latin, cf. Bauer 1995, 2009a, 2012b, with an explanation). I here find that nominal apposition turns out to be among the less consistent ones, reminiscent of adjectives. As a rule of thumb, non-complex relatively short complements show more variation in terms in word order and word order change than complex complements. Comparative constructions, for example, which are complex structures, show a consistent shift form left to right branching. By contrast, the shift from Adjective + Noun to Noun + Adjective in Latin and elsewhere is long-standing, complicated, and to date not completed (e. g. Bauer 2001, 2002, 2009a). In that light Hackstein’s reconstruction of the development of classifiers in Indo-Aryan languages is hazardous, when he relies heavily on the relative place of the adjective (in Latin) and its correlation to word order patterns in nominal apposition (2010: 62–63). Considering the adjective’s notoriously inconsistent and complex development in terms of word order, reliance on its ordering patterns (e. g. Hackstein 2010: 48) therefore remains highly speculative and without solid factual foundation.  

 

 

4.7 Conclusions: types of nominal apposition in Indo-European Data for the analysis carried out in this chapter mainly come from three languages and two language groups: Hittite, Sanskrit, Mycenaean and post-Mycenaean Greek, Germanic, and Italic. Evidence therefore covers a widespread area, both in geographical and historical terms. Moreover, the data trace back to a variety of sources. The handbooks of Indo-European and the grammars of the individual languages were important sources, but by far most data were found in extensive presentations and editions of primary documents, such as e. g. Nooten and Hol 

4.7 Conclusions: types of nominal apposition in Indo-European

167

land (1994) for Sanskrit or Ventris and Chadwick (1956) for Mycenaean18, as well as elaborated dictionaries (e. g. Puhvel [1984–2004]; Friedrich and Kammenhuber [1975]) for Hittite. Because nominal apposition has been a neglected topic in linguistic description and analysis, the evidence presented here is not exhaustive, and it is my hope that this book will stimulate specialists in the respective daughter languages to examine this phenomenon in greater detail. Yet even if the data are not exhaustive, they allow to capture the characteristics of nominal apposition in early Indo-European. In the following pages, I will first present a schematic overview of findings and then summarize the characteristics of nominal apposition in Indo-European both in terms of function and form (Sections 4.7.1 and 4.7.2). Subsequently, I will examine correlates with script determinatives and noun classification (Section 4.7.3), and the evolutionary perspective (Section 4.7.4).  

4.7.1 Overview of results and findings Comparative analysis of five important languages and branches of Indo-European has revealed that: – nominal apposition is commonly attested in early Indo-European; – the most widespread type involves Proper Noun + Common Noun, in which the Common Noun typically specifies the semantic characteristics of the Proper Noun or referent. Nominal apposition then has classifying function; – nominal apposition in Indo-European also includes Common Noun + Common Noun as well as Proper Noun + Proper Noun combinations. These last noun phrases may feature a limited number of exclusively complementary nouns; – Common Noun + Common Noun combinations typically are attested in word formation processes (see Chapter 6). Yet as a syntactic phenomenon, Common Noun + Common Noun occurs in certain noun phrases including the notion ‘man’ (La. homo, for example), which specifies the other common noun; – instances of nominal apposition—all types—cover a number of well-defined semantic fields; – in nominal apposition the generic common noun in form and function parallels script determinatives as found in the writing systems of Hittite and Mycenaean;

18 Or Rix (2002) for Oscan and Umbrian and Gordon (1957) for Old Norse, and so forth.

168

–

–

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

nominal apposition shows strong parallels with certain systems of noun classification, among them the classifier system and the system of class terms. Yet grammatical agreement between the nouns distinguishes nominal apposition from both these systems; data from early Indo-European provide evidence of diachronic change.

4.7.2 Characteristics of nominal apposition in early Indo-European Nominal apposition in early Indo-European typically includes a Proper Noun + Common Noun, but instances including Common Noun + Common Noun and even Proper Noun + Proper Noun are attested as well. The combining of these nouns is never arbitrary: in Proper Noun + Common Noun combinations the common noun specifies the semantic category of the proper noun, while in Common Noun + Common Noun combinations, one of the common nouns may have a similar function. There is therefore a semantic connection between the two combined nouns. In Proper Noun + Proper Noun combinations the two nouns are either inherently complementary and therefore their co-occurence is not arbitrary either (e. g. Skt índrāviṣṇū); alternatively one proper noun specifies the other, as the example from Latin illustrates: Iupiter Liber. The classifying function of the common noun covers the following semantic fields: [RELIGION], [KINSHIP], [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE], [SOCIAL STATUS, AGE], [SOCIAL STATUS, SEX], [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION], [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], [QUANTIFICATION], and [OTHER, TIME], [OTHER, NAME], and [OTHER]. These semantic domains typically are represented in nominal apposition in early Indo-European. In the individual daughter languages certain fields are more prominent than others: in Mycenaean Greek, for example [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION] is commonly attested as well as [QUANTIFICATION], but other categories are rare or non-existent. I also found that the genre of the text in question may be at play in the occurrence of the various semantic fields: in the early plays by Plautus and Terence, for example, the field of [SOCIAL STATUS] is strongly represented, while [RELIGION] features in only a few instances in contrast to our findings in Homer, for example. This implies that low incidence of nominal apposition in any given semantic field does not automatically mean that the structure did not occur in the language at that time, but that the topic of the texts may not allow for it to occur. Proper Noun + Common Noun is by far the most widespread type of nominal apposition in early Indo-European—in terms of occurrence, semantic value, and structure—but the combining of two common nouns is relatively well attested in a number of languages. While Chapter 6 will demonstrate that the combination  

4.7 Conclusions: types of nominal apposition in Indo-European

169

Common Noun + Common Noun is especially important in word formation, the instances discussed here represent an important type of syntactic formation. I am referring to the frequent combining of a common noun with nouns such as homo and equivalents in Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin, e. g. Skt náro víprāḥ ‘men singers’ (Schwyzer 1983: 151), Gk βασιλῆι γαρ ἀνδρὶ (Hom., Il. 3.170) ‘king-DAT man-DAT’ > ‘to the king’, αἰπόλοι ἄνδρες (Hom., Il. 2.474) ‘goat.herds-NOM men-NOM’ > ‘goat herds’, and La. homo leno (Pl., Poen. 200) ‘man-NOM pimp-NOM’ > ‘pimp’. While these combinations bring to mind similar structures including script determinatives in Mycenaean (e. g. po-me-ne [MAN] 30 ‘shepherd-NOM-PL [MAN] 30’ > ’30 shepherds’), they also show other parallels because they typically combine with occupational terms. In the plural they have collective value and they often combine with elements that function both as nouns and adjectives or with nouns that in origin were adjectives. Yet it is important to underscore that these nominalized elements also occur as autonomous full-fledged nouns in the given texts. Consequently, the MAN-element is not merely a nominalizing device as has been assumed in the past. While in Latin these structures exclusively feature homo (with the exception of a few instances of vir ‘man’), there is some lexical variation in Sanskrit and Greek. In terms of word order, there is a clear trend from the earliest languages, where left branching is almost exclusive to later languages, with more variation. In Hittite and Mycenaean the sequence Proper Noun + Common Noun is predominant if not exclusive. This predominance gives way to limited variation in Homer, for example, where for certain nouns left branching is indeed almost exclusive (e. g. πατήρ), but where for others I commonly found right-branching structures (e. g. πότνια). I therefore observe a gradual shift from exclusive left branching to limited variation, which in addition is lexically motivated. This is a recurring pattern, as will become clear in Chapter 5. Data from all languages show that nominal apposition may alternate—to varying limited degrees—with genitive constructions for certain semantic fields. Moreover, in Greek and Germanic, the occurrence of demonstratives/definite articles, adds to formal variation: combinations of the type [Proper Noun + Definite Article + Common Noun] are found, cf. Go. Iesus sa magus (Luc. 2.43) ’the child Jesus’ or Μένδη ἡ πόλις ‘the town of Mende’. In Greek, word order varies greatly in these instances, while in Germanic the component [Definite Article + Common Noun] either precedes or follows the Proper Noun (see also Section 5.3.4 for further details). On the basis of my analysis I conclude that nominal apposition in early IndoEuropean syntax involves the combining of two nouns in juxtaposition and that the most widespread combination involves one proper noun. The combining is not arbitrary and one noun (e. g. the common noun in Proper Noun + Common  

 

 

 

 

170

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

Noun combinations) typically specifies the semantic nature of the other. In these combinations this noun in origin typically comes second and the structure therefore is left-branching.

4.7.3 Nominal apposition, script determinatives, and noun classification Nominal apposition parallels combinations of nouns and script determinatives as found in Hittite (and Sumerian) and Mycenaean writing. Script determinatives exclusively combine with nouns, both proper and common nouns. In Hittite they primarily combine with proper nouns, but occasionally with common nouns as well; in Mycenaean script determinatives as a rule combine with common nouns. Moreover, in Mycenaean instances of the type Common Noun-[PROFESSION] + SCRIPT DETERMINATIVE-[MAN]/[WOMAN] parallel later Greek Common Noun[PROFESSION] + ἀνήρ/γυνή in function and structure—even if the structure in Mycenaean Greek also features a number, which is absent in later Greek. While script determinatives in Mycenaean typically combine with common nouns, nominal apposition typically features proper nouns. From a functional perspective, script determinatives specify the semantic class of the referent in the same way the common noun specifies the proper noun in nominal apposition, cf. La. urbs Roma, which parallels Hi. URUKatapan. Finally, script determinatives and nominal apposition overall cover the same semantic fields, in Hittite more so than in Mycenaean. The main difference between script determinatives and nominal apposition is of course the absence of agreement: while the two nouns in nominal apposition agree in case, the nature of script determinatives inherently precludes agreement with the noun. In addition to parallels with script determinatives, there are also parallels with classifying systems other than the shared classifying function. Agreement as a distinctive feature of nominal apposition, for example, brings to mind class languages, in which classification is a grammatical feature and agreement between the noun and connected elements is mandatory. Yet while agreement in class languages may affect elements outside the noun phrase (see Section 2.1.1), agreement in nominal apposition primarily is internal—pertaining to the two equivalent nouns involved—and external to a limited extent only (see Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2). Moreover, the common noun in nominal apposition has close formal parallels with classifiers: both are (originally) lexical elements that are added to the noun that they specify. Their main difference is the absence (classifiers) or presence (nominal apposition) of agreement. Also, common nouns in Indo-European nominal apposition typically combine with proper nouns, whereas classifiers combine

4.7 Conclusions: types of nominal apposition in Indo-European

171

primarily with common nouns, and occasionally with proper nouns. In neither system the common noun or classifier are mandatory. While the occurrence of classifiers is related to certain grammatical contexts (e. g. numerals or demonstratives, genitives, and so forth), however, the occurrence of common nouns in specifying function in nominal apposition is not. Finally, while the number of classifiers may be very high (see Section 2.1.2), the number of semantic fields involved in nominal apposition overall is limited in Indo-European and may vary along with language, period, author, and type of text. Comparison of nominal apposition and the phenomenon of class and measure terms at the lexical end of noun classification, reveals several similarities as well. Some linguists argue that Fr. une femme médecin is an example of class term and forego any grammatical implications. Earlier, in Chapters 1 and 2, I have identified that example as a gender phenomenon featuring nominal apposition— on the basis of juxtaposition and agreement of two nouns. Other examples of class terms that recur in the literature are Engl. strawberry, raspberry, and so forth. These again are instances of nominal apposition featuring at the lexical level and they will be discussed at length in Chapter 6. My findings in this chapter and the above considerations lead to the conclusion that nominal apposition in early Indo-European was a widespread syntactic phenomenon involving two nouns in juxtaposition between which there was case agreement. Since the predominating pattern was Proper Noun + Common Noun and the common noun in all instances specifies the semantic class of the proper noun, nominal apposition in early Indo-European was a phenomenon of noun classification. Moreover, it was demonstrated that nominal apposition in IndoEuropean shares certain characteristics with classification systems in other languages and that it is limited to well-defined semantic fields, which are closely intertwined with certain cultural phenomena as I will show in greater detail in the following chapter.  

4.7.4 A diachronic perspective On the basis of diachronic and comparative evidence I submit that nominal apposition within [RELIGION] is one of the oldest—if not the oldest—attested type in Indo-European, consistently occurring in all early languages, and that [KINSHIP], [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE], and [QUANTIFICATION] are early as well. Moreover the instances often became more complex, parallel to the increasing complexity of society. These patterns emerge from the five languages (groups) analyzed in this chapter, which are documented in a wide variety of texts.

172

Chapter 4: Nominal apposition in early Indo-European. Functions and forms

Yet considering the observed possible link between type of text and the type of nominal apposition it features, some caution as to this possible chronology is called for. The predominance of surviving religious texts could explain the high incidence of examples of nominal apposition of the type [RELIGION]. This assumption leaves open the possibility that had we had texts on different topics, other semantic fields might have been better represented and the outcome of my analysis would have been different. Yet the prevalence of instances from the field of [RELIGION] may be put in yet another light if indeed the texts in question come from a cultural background in which the domains of religion and non-religion are not clearly separated. To complicate the picture both scenarios may be at play at the same time. Since evidence at this stage is not conclusive, it is important to specify that [RELIGION] may very well be the oldest as yet attested type of nominal apposition, with emphasis on “attested”. In the discussion about the structural characteristics of nominal apposition I have already pointed out that in earliest times the structure was left-branching and featured close juxtaposition. And that later languages feature more variation in that respect. In other respects as well, variation emerges—anticipating change —which moreover is lexically driven. The bedrock of nominal apposition is the combining of two nouns that feature case agreement. Examining nominal apposition from a diachronic perspective I find that with time alternatives gradually emerge and that they do so in certain contexts. The common denominator of these alternatives is the absence of agreement: case agreement between two equivalent nouns comes to alternate with genitive constructions, adjectives, or even relative clauses. Among them, the most frequently attested alternative to nominal apposition is, however, the genitive construction. Data presented in this chapter demonstrate that the genitive in the early daughter languages typically emerges in contexts of [QUANTIFICATION], only later followed by contexts including nouns such as genus ‘a type of’, and in NOMEN constructions. Instead of agreement, La. nomen, for example, typically features cases that fit the context rather than the internal syntax of the noun phrase (see more Chapter 5). Focusing on [QUANTIFICATION] I found that in Hittite and Mycenaean nominal apposition is widespread if not almost exclusive, that in Early Latin both constructions are attested, but that in Sanskrit and Umbrian the genitive construction predominates, as in post-Mycenaean Greek and early Germanic. The further syntactic development of [QUANTIFICATION] may have been affected by the syntax of numerals: comparative evidence suggests that certain numerals behaved as nouns whereas others were adjectival (e. g. Brugmann 1911: 1–50, esp. 5–6). While numerals ‘one’ through ‘four’ in Indo-European were distinctly adjectival, for example, showing grammatical agreement, the situation for numerals  

4.7 Conclusions: types of nominal apposition in Indo-European

173

five through ten is less clear-cut, because of limited case marking and the absence of gender marking. Consequently their grammar is “adjectival” to a limited extent only (for more details, see e. g. Delbrück 1888: 81–82). The decads 20 through 90 formally are nouns, but the elements in Sanskrit for example show limited patterns in terms of agreement (e. g. Delbrück 1888: 81). For Delbrück the place of the numeral, preceding the noun, is reason to reject the possibility of these constructions being instances of nominal apposition (1888: 81–82). Considering the fact that appositive word order patterns for Sanskrit are not rigid—as this chapter showed—the relative sequence of elements in my view is not a convincing argument against the interpretation of nominal apposition and in this respect the broader comparative perspective may be helpful. The comparative data presented here show that in the context of [QUANTIFICATION] nominal apposition is predominant if not almost exclusive in the earliest stage (as reflected in Hittite and especially Mycenaean) and that subsequently a pattern of variation emerges, alternating between nominal apposition and genitive constructions. This variation is attested for nouns conveying quantity and also for certain numerals, which does not come as a surprise since these numerals (decads, hundreds, and thousands) were nouns in Indo-European. Consequently, what in handbooks has been identified as “adjectival” constructions in fact may very well be instances of nominal apposition, which have genitive alternatives. Evidence presented in this chapter therefore suggests that in the context of [QUANTIFICATION] the alternation is not between “adjectival” vs. genitive, but rather between nominal apposition vs. genitive, in line with the nominal character of numerals and with the nouns that feature in quantitative structures. This hypothesis is supported by data presented in these pages and the pages to come. Another field that is affected by the spread of alternative structures—but to a very limited extent in the early daughter languages—is e. g. [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], as the Greek genitives and data from several Germanic texts convincingly show. Adjectival alternatives were found especially in Germanic, in addition to relative clauses. In the next chapter it will be shown that adjectives came to play a role in Latin as well: I will examine in detail the diachronic development of nominal apposition both in terms of function and structure in one specific language, Latin.  

 

Chapter 5 Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance “Banni de la prose classique, [le génitif de définition] prend pied dans les textes approchant du langage populaire, notamment à basse époque” (Väänänen 1987: 30)1

Having identified the semantic fields of nominal apposition and its characteristics in early Indo-European including early Italic, I will investigate in this chapter the evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance. Although my approach so far has been primarily comparative, I have found evidence that in relatively early times already nominal apposition underwent changes. In certain documents—but rarely or not in Hittite and Mycenaean—nominal apposition in a number of semantic fields co-exited with alternative constructions, especially the genitive. Moreover, in terms of word order I observed a shift from left branching to a situation characterized by more variation. These findings are based on data stretching over a period from Hittite to early Germanic. This chapter will first focus on the occurrence of nominal apposition in the various stages and registers of Latin (Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2) and in Old French (Section 5.1.3). In Section 5.2, I will analyze nominal apposition within the semantic field of [RELIGION], pointing out how the different types of nominal apposition render religious belief and its evolution. Subsequently, the grammatical context of nominal apposition and the changes it underwent in the shift from Latin to Romance will be examined (Section 5.3). Topics include agreement and loss of agreement (Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2), word order change (Section 5.3.3), and other grammatical changes that affected the noun in apposition (Section 5.3.4). The set up of this chapter focussing on one language (group) therefore is wider than that of the previous chapter in that the grammatical context and its evolution will be examined in more detail. It will become clear that the evolution of nominal apposition involves several fundamental changes that the selective treatment of the topic in the literature has failed to identify. According to the rather limited picture that emerges from the handbooks, instances of nominal apposition gave way to genitive constructions in the transition from Latin to Romance. The well-known Latin example arbor sicomori (Per. 8.3) is often quoted to illustrate this shift (e. g. Ernout and Thomas 1964: 43; Väänänen 1987: 30). Similar instances occasionally are quoted mutatis mutandis  

1 Translation: “Banned from Classical prose, [the genitive of definition] gains a foothold in texts close to the language of the people, especially in later periods”

DOI 10.1515/9783110461756-005

5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance

175

in the handbooks of other early Indo-European languages (e. g. Delbrück 1900). Hackstein goes beyond these standard observations, pointing out—as indicated earlier—that in certain languages in the Indo-Aryan branch generic nouns in nominal apposition eventually became classifiers (2010). The shift from class term to classifier has been observed before for a number of non-Indo-European languages: not only have the nominal origins of classifiers been identified, the actual shift from noun to classifier has been attested as well (Aikhenvald 2000: 352–412; see Chapter 2). In the following pages I will examine how my findings relate to those and similar hypotheses and observations.  

5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance This section is divided in three parts, each dealing with specific varieties of LatinRomance. I will examine the occurrence and use of nominal apposition in the different stages and registers of Latin, and in Old French. First I will present an inventory of the different uses and functions of nominal apposition in Latin, examining a number of individual Latin authors, classical authors as well as those representing Vulgar and Late Latin. Subsequently I will provide authorrelated data from Old French (Section 5.1.3).

5.1.1 Individual authors: Classical Latin The data will be presented by semantic category and where possible by type (e. g. Proper Noun + Common Noun, Common Noun + Common Noun, etc.). The research presented here includes a variety of authors who are identified below and who represent different periods, genres, and linguistic registers. For Classical Latin the authors in question are: Varro (De Re Rustica), Caesar (De Bello Gallico), and Phaedrus, Fabulae. For Vulgar and Late Latin six authors have been selected, who will be presented in greater detail below (Section 5.1.2). For my analysis I referred to the list of Latin nouns representing the various semantic fields that I used in the previous chapter as well (Section 4.5.2; see the Appendix). In the previous chapter I already referred to “Early Latin”, which is the variety of Latin found in texts and inscriptions predating 100 B. C. For reasons of convenience I here provide a brief characterization of notions used in reference to the varieties of Latin and refer the interested reader to the extensive literature on the topic (e. g. Herman 1970; Väänänen 1981; Pocetti, Poli, and Santini 1999; and Adams 2013, who presents the most comprehensive and refined discussion to date). The notion “Classical Latin”—like Early Latin—refers to the Latin used in a  

 

 

176

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

given period. The Classical authors lived grosso modo between the 1st century B. C. and the 3rd century A. D. Classical Latin is, however, not merely a chronological variety of Latin, it is also a certain type of Latin: as a rule it is grammatically correct and to greater or lesser extent it may aim at stylistic effects. “Late Latin” is the language found in documents from the early 4th century onward until the Medieval period, which had its own variety of Latin. “Medieval Latin” is the language used by people for whom Latin clearly was a secondary language; it generally is found in documents dated later than the 6th century. In addition to these varieties, there also was a sociolect, the (primarily) spoken language used during all periods mentioned here, with the exception of the Middle Ages. This spoken or conversational language is called “Vulgar Latin”: the language spoken by the common people, but also the language spoken in their day-to-day conversations by those who had education. Consequently, it is the language of every-day (also written) usage. “Vulgar Latin” therefore does not merely refer to a low-register variety of Latin. Since Vulgar Latin primarily refers to the spoken language, our knowledge of it is often based on indirect evidence: plays written for the people (e. g. by Plautus and Terence), the spoken fragments in Petronius’ Satyricon (especially the Cena Trimalchionis), various other documents, inscriptions such as the mural inscriptions in Pompeii, and the letters by the Roman soldier Claudius Terentianus. Vulgar Latin differs in phonology and grammar from the other varieties and many of these differences eventually penetrate in the Late Latin documents. I draw attention to the fact that the distinctions that I make here are rather schematic, that the different varieties of Latin were not distinct languages, that neither Classical Latin nor any other variety of Latin was monolithic, and that change was not exclusive to Vulgar Latin (for an extensive discussion, see e. g. Adams 2013). While Late Latin authors often no longer knew the Classical model (Adams 2013: 19) and had adopted—albeit unconsciously—vulgar characteristics in their language, the Classical authors pursued a certain stylistic and literary norm. That explains why poets on the whole are not used in linguistic data research2 at large and why certain Classical prose authors are better sources for language evolution than others. Caesar with his rather dry style and factual rendering of historic  

 

 

 

2 Language change as a rule does not initiate in poetry. An important exception to this rule of thumb is the emergence and development of -mente adverbs in Romance, which trace back to adjective + mente combinations in Latin. Recent research has shown that in frequency and use (adverbial value) this phenomenon of grammaticalization originated and developed in poetry before it spread in prose (Bauer 2001, 2003, 2010). For other changes that originated in Classical rather than spoken Latin, see Adams (2013) and the next paragraph.

177

5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance

events, for instance, is a better source of data for the investigation of language change than e. g. Tacitus. As said, the varieties of Latin were neither distinct nor isolated languages and the language of the Classical authors was not immune to change either. Not only do the written (Classical) documents show that word order patterns e. g. evolved (see Kroll 1918; Linde 1923; Adams 1977a; Bauer 1995, 2009a), changes affecting other constructions or the emergence of new structures are attested in Classical texts as well, such as the use of complex verbal forms (habere + perfective participle) found in Cicero (e. g. Thielmann 1885; Bauer 2006; Adams 2013: 615– 651, who discusses several changes of this type [passim]). On the basis of extensive research Adams (2013) recently has shown that spoken Latin indeed did not have the primacy of linguistic innovation. It is also important to underline that the spoken language as the conversational variety and written Latin as the cultivated language are varieties of one and the same language and that both varieties of Latin, the written and the spoken language, developed in the same direction. In this process the written variety overall developed at a slower pace than the spoken language. As Mohrmann put it, they represent:  

 

 

“deux formes d’une seule langue revêtant, essentiellement, une même structure, mais évoluant selon un rythme très différent: la langue cultivée étant fixée par un normativisme rigoureux, la langue courante évoluant plus librement” (1962: 94).3

I note that this statement does not refer to or proclude innovation in either variety. In the following pages I provide an overview of the data found in each of the authors, specifying the semantic fields represented.

Classical Latin: Varro, Re Rustica Treating the same topic as Cato’s Re Rustica, Varro’s Re Rustica is often discussed in the same section in any given study. Yet even if Varro is an early representative of the classical period, he is substantially later (116–27 B. C.) than Cato (234–149 B. C.). In Varro I found 27 instances of nominal apposition, which cover the following seven semantic fields: [RELIGION], [KINSHIP], [SOCIAL STATUS, PRO 

 

3 Translation: ‘[they represent] two forms of one and the same language, each in essence having the same structure, but evolving at very different rates: the cultivated language being set by rigorous normative rules, the everyday language developing more freely’.

178

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

FESSION] (3 instances),4 [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE] (5 instances), [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] (9 instances), [FLORA], [OTHER, HOMO], and [OTHER, FEAST]. The field of [RELIGION] is referred to in two instances, cf. (329) a. b.

(appellatur,) Tellus terra mater (Varr, R.R. 1.1.5) ‘Tellus (NOM) is called mother (NOM) Earth (NOM)’ Libero patri (Varr., R. R. 1.2.19) ‘to father (DAT) Liberus/Bacchus (DAT)’  

The Roman god Liber(us) pater, the god of planting and fructification, formed a pair with his female counterpart Libera, protecting the harvest. At an early time already, Liberus was identified with the Greek Dionysus (or Bacchus, as he was known to the Romans). There is one instance of [KINSHIP], which is rather special because it combines the noun frater with the name of a family. This type of formation, common in many Indo-European languages today (e. g. Engl. the brothers Grimm, Fr. les frères Goncourt), was not widespread in Latin, cf.  

(330) fratres Veianios (Varr., R. R. 3.16.10) ‘the Veianius (ACC) brothers (ACC)’  

Eight instances are from the field of [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE] and [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION], cf. for example: (331) [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE] a. Romulus rex (Varr., R. R. 3.1.2) ‘king (NOM) Romulus (NOM)’ b. rex Ogygos (Varr., R.R. 3.1.2) ‘king (NOM) Ogygos (NOM)’ c. Saturni regis (Varr., R.R. 3.1.5) ‘of king (GEN) Saturnus (GEN)’ d. Quintus Lucienus senator (Varr., R. R. 2.5.1) ‘Senator (NOM) Quintus (NOM) Lucienus (NOM)’ (332) [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION] a. Democritus physicus (Varr., R.R. 1.1.8) ‘the naturalist (NOM) Democritus (NOM)’ b. auctore doctissimo homine Dicaearcho (Varr., R.R. 1.2.16) ‘that most learned (ABL) author (ABL) (man [ABL]) Dicaearchus (ABL)’  

 

4 In terms of statistical data the example including auctor homo is counted under [OTHER, HOMO], but it is given under [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION] as well. The example is discussed in both categories.

179

5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance

Nine instances convey the semantic field of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], e. g.:  

(333) a. b. c. d. e. f.

oppidum Olisipo (Varr., R. R. 2.1.19) ‘the town (NOM) of Olisipo (NOM)’ sub urbe Roma (Varr., R. R. 1.50.2) ‘near the city (ABL) of Rome (ABL)’ monte Tagro (Varr., R. R. 2.1.19) ‘on mount (ABL) Tagrus (ABL)’ oppidum Albam (Varr., R.R. 2.4.8) ‘the town (ACC) of Alba (ACC)’ in insula Pandateria (Varr., R. R. 1.8.6) ‘on the isle (ABL) of Pandateria (ABL)’ sub oppido Casino (Varr., R.R. 3.5.9) ‘near the town (ABL) of Casinum (ABL)’  

 

 

 

This last example contrasts with sub Casino (R.R. 3.5.8) ‘near Casinum’ in the preceding line, which features no common noun. There are two instances from the field of [FLORA], featuring the same nouns but different cases, cf. (334) a.

b.

arbor olea (Varr., R.R. 1.2.20) tree-NOM olive/olive.tree-NOM ‘olive tree’ ex arbore olea (Varr., R.R. 3.16.24) from tree-ABL olive/olive.tree-ABL

The next example is ambiguous because alni may be a nominative plural or a genitive singular: (335) arbores trees-NOM ‘alder trees’

alni (Varr., R.R. 1.7.7) alders-NOM/alder-GEN

There are two instances of [HOMO]. Both combine with common nouns: hominibus servis (Varr., R.R. 1.17.2) ‘slaves’ and auctore doctissimo homine Dicaearcho (Varr., R.R. 1.2.16, example [332b] above) ‘that most learned author Dicaearchus’. This last example combines two common nouns with one proper noun. In the category [OTHER] there are two instances of nominal apposition that qualify as [FEAST], cf. (336) a. b.

feriae Robigalia (Varr., R. R. 1.1.6) ‘festival of Robigus’ ludi Floralia (Varr., R. R. 1.1.6) ‘festival of Flora’  

 

180

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

In the first example La. Robigalia is a neuter plural noun referring to the yearly festival held in honor of Robigus (April 25); La. feriae is a feminine noun with the meaning ‘day of rest, festival’. Ludus in the second example is a masculine noun, referring to public games organized in the honor of gods; the noun Floralia—with the same nominal suffix -alia as in Robigalia, (example [336a] above)—refers to the festival of Flora, the goddess of flowers (Meyer-Lükbe 1894: 482). The ludi Floralia took place between April 28 and May 3. I note that from early times feasts and rituals often were referred to in Latin with a noun in the plural, as the example illustrates (Bastiaensen 1962: 125). In the absence of nomen in Varro’s text, there are no instances of appositive [OTHER, NOMEN]. By contrast, there are many instances of genus, featuring all cases: 223 examples, ten of which are nominatives singular. These ten instances exclusively govern a genitive, cf. for example: genus vineae (Varr., R. R. 1.8.1) ‘the kind of vineyard’, genus sationis (Varr., R. R. 1.18.1) ‘the type of crop’, genus terrae (Varr., R. R. 1.44.1) ‘the type of soil’, alterum genus colombarum (Varr., R. R. 3.7.2.) ‘the other species of pigeon’, or genus ornithonis (Varr., R. R. 3.5.8) ‘a kind of bird’. In Varro the genitive construction therefore clearly predominates in the context of genus. Finally, the limited number of quantitative expressions does not allow to find any patterns in that category. Although Cato’s and Varro’s use of nominal apposition does not substantially differ in terms of frequency, it differs in terms of function: Varro’s use is more varied and not repetitive. Unlike Cato, he strongly prefers Proper Noun + Common Noun combinations: the only instances that include two common nouns are the examples in the field of [FAUNA]. Finally, it is relevant to note that alternative structures manifestly emerge. While most examples of oppidum occur in apposition, a noun like ager ‘land, district’ exclusively combines with adjectives (18 instances), cf.  

 

 

 

 

(337) a. b.

in agro Romano (Varr., R.R. 1.10.3) ‘ín the district of Rome (ADJ)’ in agro Reatino (Varr., R. R. 2.6.2) ‘in the area of Reate (ADJ)’  

Consequently, words from certain semantic categories, such as ager, do occur in the texts analyzed, but they favor genitive or adjectival constructions rather than nominal apposition, cf. (338) [ADJECTIVAL CONSTRUCTION] a. Campo Martio (Varr., R. R. 3.2.5) ‘on campus Martius’  

181

5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance

b.

ex agro Falisco (Varr., R.R. 3.16.10) ‘from the district near Falerii’ c. in mari Tusco (Varr., R.R. 3.9.17) ‘in the Etruscan sea’5 (339) [GENITIVE CONSTRUCTION] ad lacum Veleni (Varr., R.R. 3.23) ‘to lake (ACC) Velinus (GEN)’

Finally several examples that are not part of the list, fall within the category [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE] and [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION] and are instances of nominal apposition: (340) a. b.

Nerva praetor (Varr., R.R. 2.4.2) ‘praetor (NOM) Nerva (NOM)’ Appium Claudium augurem sedentem invenimus (Varr., R.R. 3.2.2) ‘there we find the augur (ACC) Appius (ACC) Claudius (ACC) sitting . . .’  

 

Classical Latin: Caesar Caesar’s De Bello Gallico has been included here for a variety of reasons: the length of the text, its sober style, and the diversity of topics involved: military exploits, customs of different peoples, seasons, and so forth. In that respect Caesar’s text is very different from Varro’s and Cato’s treatises on agriculture as well as from Plautus’ and Terence’s plays, in which social relations are pivotal. In De Bello Gallico I identified more then 80 instances of nominal apposition featuring words from my list. These represent the following semantic fields: [RELIGION] (1 instance), [KINSHIP] (5 instances), [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE] (14 instances), [SOCIAL STATUS, SEX] (1 instance), [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] (56 instances), and a few others, I found only one instance representing the field of [RELIGION], cf. (341) ab Dite patre (Caes., B. G. 6.18.1) ‘from father (ABL) Dis (DAT)’  

There are five instances of [KINSHIP], among them: (342) Diviciaco fratri (Caes., B. G. 1.20.6, 1.18.8) ‘his brother (DAT) Diviciacus (DAT)’  

5 ADJ Martius < N Mars; ADJ Faliscus < N Faleris; ADJ Tuscus < N Tusci ‘Etruscans’.

182

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

The one instance of [SOCIAL STATUS, SEX] includes generic vir, cf. (343) vir man-NOM

fortissimus gallant-NOM-SG-M

Piso Piso-NOM

Aquitanus (Caes., B. G. 4.12.4) of.Aquitania-NOM-SG-M  

The thirteen instances of [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE] include among others: (344) a. b. c. d.

L. Cassium consulem (Caes., B. G. 1.12.2) ‘consul (ACC) L. Cassius (ACC)’ Galbae regis (Caes., B. G. 2.13.1) ‘of king (GEN) Galba (GEN)’ M. Crassum quaestorem (Caes., B. G. 5.24.5) ‘quaestor (ACC) M. Crassus (ACC)’ Q. T. Sabinum et L. A. Cottam legatos (Caes., B. G. 5.24.5) ‘lieutenants-generals (ACC) Q. T. Sabinus (ACC) and L. A. Cotta (ACC)’ Gnaeo Pompeio Marco Crasso consulibus (Caes., B. G. 4.1.1) ‘under consuls (ABL) Gnaeus Pompeius (ABL) and Marcus Crassus (ABL)’  

 

 

 

 

 

 

e.

 

 

The semantic field of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] with 56 instances is best represented, cf. for example: (345) a. b.

Galliam provinciam (Caes., B. G. 1.35.4.) ‘the Province (ACC) of Gaul (ACC)’ ex monte Vosego6 (Caes., B. G. 4.10.1.) ‘from the Vosges (ABL) range (ABL)’ mons Cevenna (Caes., B. G. 7.8.1, 7.56.2) ‘the mountain range (NOM) of the Cevennes (NOM)’ montem Iuram7 (Caes., B. G. 1.6.1) ‘the Jura (ACC) range (ACC)’ oppidum Gergoviam (Caes., B. G. 7.34.2, 7.4.2) ‘the town (ACC) of Gergovia (ACC)’ ex oppido Alesia (Caes., B. G. 7.79, 7.69) ‘from the town (ABL) of Alesia (ABL)’ in silvam Arduennam8 (Caes., B. G. 5.3.4, 6.29.4, 6.31.2) ’the forest (ACC) of Ardennes (ACC)’ lacu Lemanno (Caes., B. G. 1.2.3, 1.8.1) ‘lake (ABL) Lemannus (ABL)’9 flumen Ararim (Caes., B. G. 1.12.2) ‘river (ACC) Arar (Saône) (ACC)’ flumen Dubis (Caes., B. G. 1.38.4) ‘river (NOM) Doubs (NOM)’  

 

 

 

c. d. e. f. g. h.

6 7 8 9

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vosegus : (M), ‘a chain of mountains in Gaul’. Iura: (F), ‘chain of mountains in Gaul’. Arduenna : (F), ‘forest-covered mountains in Gaul’. ‘Lake Geneva’.

5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance

i. j. k.

183

ad flumen Tamesin (Caes., B. G. 5.18.1) ‘up to the river (ACC) Thames (ACC)’ Garumna flumine (Caes., B. G. 1.1.5) ‘by the river (ABL) Garonne (ABL)’ a flumine Rhodano (Caes., B. G. 1.1.5, 1.2.3, 1.6.1, 3.1.1) ‘from the river (ABL) Rhone (ABL)’  

 

 

The following example is of particular interest: (346) flumine Rheno ‘the river (ABL) Rhine (ABL)’ (Caes., B. G. 1.1.5, 1.1.6, 1.2.3, 1.53.1, 2.29.4, 3.11.2, 4.1, 5.3.4)  

Its interest resides in the fact that despite the high occurrence of Rhenus, the common noun is used in many instances. In this context it is important to note that the first time the Rhine is mentioned, it occurs without common noun, nor is there one in the preceding or following clauses. It therefore is no instance of gapping, cf. (347) qui trans Rhenum incolunt (Caes., B. G. 1.1.3) ‘who live across the Rhine (ACC)’  

The first two pages of De Bello Gallico present eight instances of apposition including flumen and the names of four rivers. In introductory pages, specification of proper nouns may therefore have clarifying function. Yet the Rhine example above shows that initial use does not automatically prompt the occurrence of nominal apposition. Moreover, the following example, from the beginning of De Bello Gallico, is telling because among the rivers that are mentioned for the first time, only one—the first one—combines with a common noun, cf. (348) Gallos ab Aquitanis Garumna flumen, a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit (Caes., B. G. 1.1.2) ‘the river (NOM) Garumna (NOM) separates the Gauls from the Aquitans, the Marne (NOM) and Seine (NOM) separate them from the Belgians’  

This instance can be considered an example of gapping: the second clause features proper names of the same semantic category and conveying the same case and grammatical function as Garumna flumen. Moreover, the direct object exceptionally is in initial position and there is only one finite verb, which agrees with the subject mentioned first, Garumna flumen, and Matrona and Sequana respectively. This instance of gapping does not affect the conclusion reached in these pages that the first occurrence of a proper name does not automatically entail its combining with a common noun (see more in Section 5.1.4). The following examples are relevant as well, as they show a motivated use of the common nouns that provide a technical description of a geographical area.

184

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

The occurrence of the common noun therefore may often be accounted for, but first appearance definitely is not a prevailing or conclusive factor (see more in Section 5.1.4), cf. montem Iuram (Caes., B. G. 1.6.1) ‘the Jura (ACC) range (ACC)’, flumine Rheno (Caes., B. G. 1.1.6), ‘the river (ABL) Rhine (ABL)’, or the recurring Garumna flumine (Caes., B. G. 1.1.5) ‘the river (ABL) Garonne (ABL)’. Within the field of [OTHER] there are a few instances of nomen in Caesar, with agreement, cf.  

 

 

(349) nomine Vertico (Caes., B. G. 5.45.2) ‘with the name Verticus’  

The occurrence of homo in Caesar to a large extent is limited to non-appositive use, predominantly in the plural and often in quantitative expressions, as in: (350) hominum milia decem (Caes., B. G. 1.4.2) ‘ten thousand men’  

Similarly, a small group of instances include singular homo, which then refers to a specific human being, as in: (351) homini … nobilissimo ac potentissimo (Caes., B. G. 1.18.6) ‘to the most noble and powerful man’  

There are a few instances in which homo combines with another element, which then most commonly is an adjective (i. c. ferus, barbarus, imperitus), cf.  

(352) a.

b.

c.

d.

homines feri ac barbari (Caes., B. G. 1.31.5) men-NOM fierce-NOM and barbarian-NOM ‘fierce barbarians’ hominem esse barbarum (Caes., B. G. 1.31.13) man-ACC be-INF barbarian-ACC ‘(to be) a barbarian’ homines feros ac barbaros (Caes., B. G. 1.33.4) men-ACC fierce-ACC and barbarian-ACC ‘fiecre barbarians’ contra homines barbaros atque imperitos (Caes., B. G. 1.40.9; see also 4.22.1 and 6.10.2) ‘against unskilled (ACC) (men [ACC]) barbarians (ACC)’  

 

 

 

A distinguishing characteristic of these recurring examples is the occurrence of two conjoined adjectives (with et, ac, or atque). Moreover, barbarus typically combines with imperitus or ferus, which raises questions as to the status of these structures. It is important to note that barbarus is frequently used as a noun— without homo—to such extent that a secondary adjective was formed in derivation, barbaricus (Ernout and Meillet 1959: 66). In other words, in spite of its adjectival

5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance

185

origin the combining of barbarus with homo could technically result in full-fledged nominal apposition. Yet the additional combining in the examples above of barbarus with adjectives imperitus and ferus points to adjectival constructions rather than instances of nominal apposition of the type [OTHER, HOMO]. Finally in [QUANTIFICATION] constructions, the genitive predominates in Caesar, both in measurements of distance and indications of quantity, cf. (353) a. b. c. d.

multitudinem Germanorum (Caes., B. G. 1.44) ‘a host (ACC) of Germans (GEN)’ milia passuum (Caes., B. G. 1.53.1, passim) ‘a thousand (ACC) paces (GEN)’ milia passuum decem novem murum … perduvit (Caes., B. G. 1.8)10 ‘he built a wall (ACC) of nineteen thousand (ACC) paces (GEN) (nineteen miles)’ equitum milia erant sex (Caes., B. G. 1.48.5) ‘there were six thousand (NOM) horsemen (GEN)’  

 

 

 

In sum, the preponderance of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] in Caesar contrasts with the single example of [RELIGION]. In addition to frequency of occurrence, the instances of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] show variation as well: there are many different nouns and—as in the other authors—they present a strong variety in grammatical case (and prepositional groups, with accusatives [21] and ablatives [10]). Moreover, the predominance of Common Noun + Proper Noun combinations (as opposed to Common Noun + Common Noun) observed elsewhere is also found in Caesar. Similarly the choice of structure—nominal apposition or an alternative— seems to be dictated by the lexical element involved, a pattern I found to some extent in Early Latin as well: a given noun typically occurs in a given construction. While there are nine instances of oppidum + appositive noun in Caesar, for example, there are many more instances of oppidum + genitive plural, referring to a given people, cf. (354) a. b.

oppidum Biturigum (Caes., B. G. 7.12.2) (< Bituriges, people) oppidum Senonum (Caes., B. G. 7.58.1) (< Senones, people) ‘the town (ACC) of the Bituriges/Senones (GEN-PL)’  

 

With other nouns as well the same pattern is found. The common noun civitas e. g. combines with a noun in apposition, a genitive, or an adjective. The adjectival construction is rather common, cf.  

(355) omnis civitas Helvetia (Caes., B. G. 1.12.4) ‘the entire state of Helvetia (ADJ)’  

10 For the underlying structure of numerals, see Chapter 6, Section 6.1.3.

186

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

Lexical motivation is manifest in the contexts of proper nouns as well. Analysis of the names of rivers that commonly occur in Caesar’s text, shows that eight out of 63 instances of Rhenus, combine with a common noun (flumen) as do five out of 12 instances of Rhodanus. Moreover, the three instances of Garumna combine with a common noun (3/3), but all seven instances of Mosa occur as independent proper nouns. On the basis of the distribution of river names there therefore does not seem to be any system in the occurrence of nominal apposition in terms of “known” or “unknown” rivers, nor in terms of frequency. Consequently, lexical motivation seems to be the predominant feature as will become further manifest in the discussion of the diachronic development of the structure.

Classical Latin: Phaedrus In Phaedrus’ Fabulae there barely are any instances that are included in the list of keywords. Other nouns—nine in total—however were found in nominal apposition. The examples are distributed over the following semantic fields: [RELIGION], [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE/PROFESSION], [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], and [OTHER]. The semantic field of [RELIGION] is represented in one instance only, but an important one because it is used as a fixed expression elsewhere, Manes deos (Phaedr., 1.27.4, see more in Section 5.2.4). The names of Iupiter, Phoebe, Venus, Cybel, Fortuna, Iuno, Pallas, Mercurius, and a score of other deities occur in the text, but they do not appear in nominal apposition. The semantic field [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE/PROFESSION] occurs four times. These instances are different from the ones found in Caesar: while Caesar included full-fledged patronymics, Phaedrus in a rather straight-forward way just combines a proper noun with a common noun, indicating the function of the person involved, cf. (356) a. b. c.

Menander scriptor (Phaedr., 5.1.17) lector Cato (Phaedr, 4.2.22) Aesopus auctor (Phaedr., 1.1.1)

‘writer Menander’ ‘reader Cato’ ‘author Aesopus’

This last instance is interesting because it marks the very first mention of Aesopus —in the very first line of the book—out of a total of twenty-two instances (e. g. Phaedr., 4.7.5, 4.18.2, 4.22.4, A.7.1, and so forth). Only the first occurrence has the common noun. I here mention also the combination of a cognomen (later title) and praenomen, as in:  

5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance

(357) Caesar Caesar/ruler-COGN

187

Tiberius (Phaedr. 2.5.7) Tiberius-PRAEN11

Examples of this type will be analyzed in greater detail in my discussion of patronymics (Section 5.3.4). Two instances in Phaedrus qualify as [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], cf. (358) a. b.

in Nilo flumine (Phaedr., 1.25.3) ‘in/on the river Nile’ in Cia insula (Phaedr., 4.22.8) ‘on the isle of Cia’

In the category [OTHER] two instances—both including proper nouns—specify ethnic origin, cf. Phryx Aesopus (Phaedr., 2 ep. 28) and Anacharsis Scythes (Phaedr., 2 ep. 28). Moreover, there are two types of example that are of special interest because of later developments. The first type includes the element sanctus, which at this point in time primarily is an adjective ‘venerated’, cf. (359) a. b. c.

sancta . . . Veritas (Phaedr., A.4.8) ‘the venerated (NOM) Truth (NOM)’ sancti Herculi (Phaedr., 5.4.1) ‘of the venerated (GEN) Hercules (GEN)’ sancta Mnemosyne (Phaedr., 3.pr.18) ‘the venerated (ABL) Mnemosyne (ABL)’  

 

Names of (semi-)gods often combined with sanctus in pagan Antiquity. In later times a process of nominalization will take place (see Sections 5.1.2, 5.1.3, and 5.2.5). Similarly, the occurrence of magnus in combination with proper nouns is important because it foretells later widespread expressions: magni Pompeii (Phaedr., A.8.1), magnus . . . Iupiter (Phaedr., A.8.8), magni Iovis (Phaedr., A.4.4), lit. ‘Iupiter/Pompeius (NOM/GEN) magnificent (NOM/GEN)’. These are early forerunners of later instances that include a demonstrative/definite article, such as Cato ille maior (Veg., Mil. 2.3) or civitas illa magna (Vulg., Gen. 10.12; see Section 5.3.4). Despite the relatively few examples in Phaedrus, there is variety in semantic fields and an almost exclusive use of proper nouns. Yet out of a total of approximately 89 proper nouns in Phaedrus only a limited number appear in appositive constructions.  

 

11 COGN and PRAEN refer to cognomen an praenomen respectively, two types of names in Latin patronymics, see Section 5.3.4.

188

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

Classical Latin: conclusions Occurrence of nominal apposition in the authors whose works are discussed here shows that the phenomenon is well attested in Classical Latin both in terms of incidence and distribution over the various semantic fields. Its presence is as strong and prominent as in the other early Indo-European languages. Overall nominal apposition is especially widespread in [RELIGION], [GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION], and [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION], and [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE]. For the other fields as well there are enough data to find patterns, but their incidence is not as high. In comparison to Early Latin there is a remarkable decline in instances of nominal apposition in the field of [OTHER, HOMO], which are common in Plautus and Terence as was shown earlier, but are rarely attested in the later texts examined here. In Caesar, homo mainly functions as an “élément de support”, often combining with two recurring adjectives. Later texts as well feature few instances of appositive homo (see below). A factor may be the development of homo into an indefinite personal pronoun, which was in its early stages (see Bauer 2014, 2015). The Latin data also show that the occurrence of nominal apposition as opposed to nouns in isolation (e. g. flumine Rheno [Caes., B. G. 1.1.5]) vs. Rhenum [Caes., B. G. 1.1.1) does not seem to be related to first-time occurrence, even if the first pages of De Bello Gallico contain many instances of nominal apposition. My analysis has also revealed that with time alternatives became more important: genitive constructions and—to a lesser extent and less consistently—adjectival constructions replace nominal apposition. Another pattern that emerges is the personal preference of the individual writers: an author may favor a certain structure with a given lexical element, but prefer a different one for another noun. In sum, the main observation here is that in comparison to earlier times there is substantially more variation (nominal apposition vs. genitives vs. adjectives). Variation therefore is part of the chronological development, ultimately reflecting a stage in which new structures are not yet subject to “fixed rules”, but rather determined by the author’s personal preference. Finally, although nominal apposition is widely attested in a high variety of semantic fields, the genre of the text may affect the proficiency of certain types. This was a picture that clearly emerged from Plautus’ and Terence’s data (Sections 4.5.2.1. and 4.5.2.2) and it does so as well—albeit to a lesser extent—in Phaedrus and Caesar.  

 

 

189

5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance

5.1.2 Individual authors: Vulgar and Late Latin In this section I investigate the occurrence and functions of nominal apposition in Vulgar and Late Latin, using materials from Petronius’ Satyricon (ca. 60 A. D.), the letters by Claudius Terentianus (first quarter 2nd c. A. D.), the cookbooks by Apicius (De Re Coquinaria, 1st/4th c. A. D.) and Anthimus (De Observatione Ciborum, early 6th c. A. D.), and the itineraries by Aetheria (Peregrinatio Aetheriae, late 4th c. A. D.) and Antoninus Placentinus (Itinerarium, late 6th c. A.D.). In Section 5.3, which discusses grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance, other Vulgar and Late Latin sources will be included as well, such as inscriptions from North Africa, the Historia Francorum by Gregory of Tours, the Mulomedicina, and others.  

 

 

 

 

Vulgar Latin: Petronius Petronius’ Satyricon (Mueller 1995) includes narrative fragments as well as parts that reflect the spoken language. Especially the well-known sections that render the conversation between the guests and their host Trimalchio at the Cena Trimalchionis (cap. 26–78) are a rich source of information about spoken Latin, i. c. lower registers, such as the non-standard Latin of freedmen. The data anticipate major linguistic changes: abnormalities in the use of gender (Adams 2013: 419–424), confusion of indicative and subjunctive verb forms in indirecct questions (see Adams 2013: 126, 762–766), and so forth. Yet other fragments as well reflect spoken Latin. First of all, I note that despite the length of this document, there are only ten reliable instances of nominal apposition and two potential instances. The majority of examples are of the type Common Noun + Proper Noun and they represent the fields of [RELIGION]—Ditis pater (Petr. 120.76) ‘father (NOM) Dis (NOM)’12 and terra mater (Petr. 39.15) ‘mother (NOM) Earth (NOM)’—[KINSHIP]—cum fratre ephebo (Petr. 140.4) ‘with her youth (ABL) brother (ABL)’—[SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION], and [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE], cf.  

(360) [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION] a. victorque miles utrumque persuasit (Petr. 112.2) conqueror-NOM-and soldier-NOM both-ACC convince-PF-3SG ‘the soldier conqueror convinced (her) on both accounts’

12 Ditis is a nominative sg. in Petronius.

190

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

b.

Mithridates servus in crucem actus Mithridates-NOM slave-NOM to cross-ACC lead-PF.PART-NOM-SG est (Petr. 53.3) be-3SG ‘the slave Mithridates was led to the cross/be crucified’ c. Menelaus etiam antescholanus (Petr. 81.1) ‘the assistant tutor (NOM) Menelaus (NOM)’ (361) [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE] domino Trimalchione deformior (Petr. 28.4) ‘uglier than their master (ABL) Trimalchio (ABL)’

Considering the number of instances of nominal apposition in the Satyricon, there is in terms of usage much width, but not much depth. Moreover, noun combinations in the field of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] and [QUANTIFICATION] feature genitive constructions, cf. (362) Hesperiae campos (Petr. 122.153) ‘the fields (ACC) of Hesperia (GEN)’

Similarly, in terms of [QUANTIFICATION] the quantitative nouns govern a genitive: (363) a. b.

greges servorum ostrumque (Petr. 119.28) ‘hordes (ACC) of slaves (GEN) and purple clothes (GEN)’ quisquis … multa pecora habet, multum lanae (Petr. 39.5) ‘whoever … has many flocks (ACC) and plenty (ACC) of wool (GEN)’

There are several [NOMEN] constructions, which seem to go both ways, whereas [GENUS] favors genitive syntax. The ten instances featuring the noun genus with one exception combine with a genitive (e. g. genus exercitationis [Petr. 2.6] ‘this type [ACC] of training [GEN]’). Constructions including the noun nomen do not substantially differ from what is found elsewhere in Latin with one exception: there are no dative constructions. The examples either are “undecided” or feature a genitive or a nominative—in grammatical agreement with the one who bears the name, cf.  

(364) [GENITIVE CONSTRUCTION] ne puella quidem tristis expaverat nuptiarum nomen (Petr. 26.3) ‘(that) the girl was not worried at the name (ACC) of matrimony (GEN)’ (365) [UNDECIDED] a. matrona inter primas honesta, Philomela nomine … (Petr. 140.1) ‘a very venerable matron (NOM), with the name (ABL) Philomela (NOM/ABL)’ b. Graeculio, Serapa nomine (Petr. 76.10) ‘a little Greek (NOM) with the name (ABL) Serapa (NOM/ABL)’

5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance

191

(366) [NOMINATIVE] a. puer … aberravit, … , nomine Giton (Petr. 97.2) ‘a boy (NOM) disappeared … with the name (ABL) Giton (NOM)’ b. is qui … , Hesus nomine, subito proclamat:… (Petr. 104.5) ‘the man (NOM) who… , with the name (ABL) Hesus (NOM) suddenly shouted: …’

The regularity of the above examples underscores the pattern observed earlier: the dative that originally is found in this context in Latin, reflects agreement with the bearer of the name (Section 4.5.2; see below Section 5.3.2.1); the nominative in examples (366a) and (366b) functions in a similar way: the proper noun Giton, for example, does not agree with the grammatically correct nomine, but with the subject of the clause puer, who is also the bearer of the name. Finally, only one out of a total of 80 instances of homo potentially combines with another noun (hominem peregrinum [Petr. 127.3] ‘a stranger’), which is a pattern quite different from what was found for Terence and even more so Plautus. By contrast, noun phrases that include both homo and an adjective are relatively common: e. g. homo negotians (Petr. 43.6) ‘a business man’ or homo prudentissimus (Petr. 69.9) ‘a very intelligent man’. In that light peregrinus in the above example may also be an adjective. This interpretation is supported by the absence of isolated instances of nominal peregrinus in Petronius. In sum, nominal apposition is not widespread in Petronius. But if there are not many instances of nominal apposition, this does not mean that there are not many proper nouns in this text. In fact, there are numerous names, but they typically do not combine with common nouns: e. g. Troiam (Petr. 89.27), Tantalus infelix (Petr. 82.5), Romam (Petr. 76.4), ex Asia (Petr. 75.10), Homeros (Petr. 59.4), Agamemnon (Petr. 59.4), and so forth. Similarly, olea is attested in the meaning of olive tree (ramum oleae ‘olive branch’; Petr. 108.13), without the noun arbor.  

 

Vulgar Latin: Claudius Terentianus Claudius Terentianus was a soldier in the Roman army in the first quarter of the 2nd century A. D., who left a number of letters to members of his family (P. Mich. VIII; e. g. Youtie and Winter 1951). Probably the son of a mixed marriage, he was fully bilingual in Greek and Latin and wrote his letters in those two languages (see Adams 1977b: 3). In the Latin letters I found a relatively high incidence of nominal apposition Most of them are from the field of [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION] and [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE], cf. Ararium centurionem (VIII.468.49–50) ‘centurion (ACC) Ararius (ACC)’, Saturninum scriba (VIII.468.51) ‘clerk (ACC) Saturnus (ACC)’, Cassium optionem (VIII.268.52) ‘adjudant (ACC) Cassius (ACC)’, [S]em[pro]nius  

 

192

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

Clemen[s] frument[ar]ius (VIII.472.15–6) ‘victualler (NOM) Sempronius Clemens (NOM)’, and so forth. There are seven instances that include a possessive, which then follows the Proper Noun + Common Noun combination, cf. Ptolemaeus pater meus (VIII. 467.32) ‘my father (NOM) Ptolemaeus (NOM)’, or Claud[i]o Tiberi[ano pa]tri suo (VIII.468.1) ‘his father (DAT) Claudius Tiberianus (DAT)’. Examples of [QUANTIFICATION] typically feature a genitive, as Adams already pointed out: “Terentianus makes constant use of this [partitive] construction” (Adams 1977b: 42), cf. (367) [m]isi tibi . . . amphoras II olivarum (VIII.467.27) ‘I sent you … 2 amphoras (ACC) of olives (GEN)  

 

Data from Terentianus’ letters show a common use of nominal apposition, which is limited however to a special field—[SOCIAL STATUS]—closely related to the life of the author. The structures of [QUANTIFICATION] reflect the regular spread of the genitive as attested elsewhere.

Late Latin: Apicius Evidence in the following subsections does not only pertain to the keywords from my list, but also other nouns for certain semantic categories. Moreover, within the category of [QUANTIFICATION] all instances are presented here. M. Gavius Apicius was a well-known and very wealthy gourmand under Emperor Tiberius(A. D. 14–37) and regularly invented extravagant dishes. The text that is known as Apicius’ De Re Coquinaria (DRC; André 1974) is a collection of, inter alia, recipes and medical culinary advices. Because of the language and cultural references it has been determined that this document dates from the 3rd or 4th century A. D. and that Apicius was not its author (André 1974: x–xi, xii). De Re Coquinaria has a few instances of apposition in the semantic domain of [FLORA], cf.  

 

(368) a.

b.

mala apples-NOM ‘pomegranates’ mala apples-NOM ‘quinces’

granata (Apic., DRC 1.12.2) pomegranates-NOM cidonia (Apic., DRC 1.12.3) quinces-NOM

The precise nature of quinces—apple or pear—is not quite clear and cidonia often are identified in Latin as mala in nominal apposition. Malum originally referred to any fruit with seeds or stones (Ernout and Meillet 1959: 380).

5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance

193

Apicius’ text differs from the others discussed so far in that his use of nominal apposition almost exclusively pertains to [QUANTIFICATION], as in: (369) costum modicum (Apic., DRC 1.16.2) ‘a bit (ACC) of costmary (ACC)’

Technically speaking, modicum in this context could be interpreted as an adjective. Yet the combining of neuter modicum with a feminine noun in other instances shows its nominal character, such as: (370) rutam modicum (Apic., DRC 3.4.1) ‘a bit (ACC) of rue (ACC)’

The nominal character of modicum is further emphasized in the high incidence of genitives, as in: modicum rutae (Apic., DRC 4.2.12) ‘a bit (ACC) of rue (GEN)’, mellis modicum (Apic., DRC 2.7) ‘a bit of honey (GEN)’ or olei modicum (Apic., DRC 4.2.2) ‘a bit (ACC) of oil (GEN)’. The preceding examples already show that in quantitative expressions Apicius uses both nominal apposition and genitive constructions, cf. (371) a.

b.

piperis scripulos sex (Apic., DRC 4.2.5) ‘six scruples (ACC) of pepper (GEN)’ vs. piper scripulos VI (Apic., DRC 4.2.4) ‘6 scruples (ACC) of pepper (ACC)’ pugnum salis (Apic., DRC 3.10.1) ‘a handful (ACC) of salt (GEN)’ vs. sales communes lib. I, sales ammonicos frictos lib. II (Apic., DRC 1.13) ‘a pound of common salt (ACC-PL), two pounds of ammoniac (ACC-PL) salt (ACC-PL)’

While for certain nouns there is variation, for others the genitive predominates, as for cyathus: e. g. vini ciatum (Apic., DRC 4.2.4, 4.2.9) ‘a ladle/cyathus of wine’. On the whole, the genitive in Apicius’ text is more frequent than nominal apposition. The distribution of the genitive as opposed to nominal apposition in Noun + Noun combinations will be discussed in greater detail in Section 5.3.2.1.  

Late Latin: Anthimus Of Byzantine origin, Anthimus lived in Italy at the beginning of the 6th century A. D. He was a physician and author of a short dietary cookbook written for Theodoric, king of the Franks. Anthimus’ De Observatione Ciborum (DOC; Liechtenthan 1928) provides 16 examples of appositive Noun + Noun combinations.  

194

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

The semantic fields are distributed as follows: [RELIGION], [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE], [FLORA], and [QUANTIFICATION]. There is one example in the category [RELIGION], which is also the only instance including a proper noun, cf. domini nostri Iesu Christi (Ant., DOC 4.2) ‘of our Lord (GEN) Jesus (OBL) Christ (GEN)’. The only example found referring to [SOCIAL STATUS] reads: (372) uiri inlustris comitis (Ant., DOC 1.2) ‘of a distinguished (GEN) gentleman (GEN) (man[GEN])’

This instance marks a relatively late occurrence of vir, which ultimately will be superseded by homo, as is well known. One example conveys the category [FLORA], e. g. cicutam herbam (Ant., DOC 14.9) ‘hemlock’ (lit. hemlock-ACC weed-ACC). In it herbam specifies the ontological nature of cicutam. De Observatione Ciborum presents 20 instances of N[Quantity] + Noun, characterized by nominal apposition or a genitive construction, such as:  

(373) [APPOSITION] a. mel modicum (Ant., DOC 28.5) ‘a bit (NOM) of honey (NOM)’ b. oleum … cocliar bonum plenum, … (Ant., DOC 25.9–10) ‘a full spoon (ACC) of . . . oil (ACC)’ (374) [GENITIVE] …, parum cariofili et gingiber (Ant., DOC 8.6) ‘(made with) a little (ACC) clove (GEN) and ginger (ACC)’  

 

This instance is especially interesting in that it combines in one construction nominal apposition and a genitive: gingiber (zingiber) ‘ginger’ is a neuter noun (gen. gingiberis) Examples from Anthimus also show that genitive constructions may be analytic, then featuring the preposition de, as in: (375) [GENITIVE/PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE] a. …, ut duas partes de mel et una pars de aceto adhibeatur (Ant., DOC 7.11–12) ‘that one part (NOM) of vinegar (PP) be added to two parts (ACC) of honey (PP)’ b. … , et modicum de sale pro sapore faciendum (Ant., DOC 25.11–12) ‘and a pinch (ACC) of salt (PP) for seasoning’ c. de ipsa re cocliar plenum et sic admixtum bene bibatur paulatim, … ‘a level spoon (NOM) of this concoction (PP) mixed carefully in this way should be drunk gradually’ (Ant., DOC 24.3–4) d. … mittendum …, nisi unum fasciculum de coriandro (Ant., DOC 14.17) ‘although a bunch (ACC) of coriander (PP) can be cooked with them’

5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance

195

These examples show that instances of de + Noun typically occur in the context of recipes (e. g. ‘mix/take a spoon of . . .’), in which the original local or separative value of de is prominent. Recently Adams has shown the importance of the separative value of the preposition in the early stages of de replacing genitive constructions (see Adams 2013: 270–272). In sum, the very large majority of appositive constructions in Anthimus’ text are instances of [QUANTIFICATION]. Yet not all quantitative structures are instances of nominal apposition. They feature both apposition and genitives, with a slight preference for apposition (11/20), cf.  

 

 

(376) [GENITIVE/PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE] a. quantum medietatem de aceto … (Ant., DOC 5.6) ‘half the quantity (ACC) of vinegar (PP)’ b. pulueris … quantum cocliar plenum et spargat (Ant., DOC 25.7) ‘sprinkle a spoon(ful) (ACC) of this spice (GEN)’ (377) [APPOSITION] a. . . . , mel modicum et piper mittat in ipso iuscello (Ant., DOC 13.3) ‘you can add a little (ACC) honey (ACC) and pepper (ACC) to the sauce’ b. trita bene … addito uino modico (Ant., DOC 5.10–11) ‘grind … with the addition of a little (ABL) wine (ABL)’  

 

Technically modicum in these instances (and in example [373a] could be an adjective. I made a similar observation for Apicius above and here again many instances of modicum govern a genitive or a prepositional phrase, showing its nominal characteristics as the following instance illustrates: (378) modicum de sale pro sapore faciendum (Anth., DOC 25.11–12) ‘(and add) a pinch of salt for seasoning’

For further discussion, see Section 5.3.2.1. Finally, the genitive construction is also attested in [TIME] indications and in [OTHER] constructions featuring genus, cf. (379) a. b.

omne . . . genus piscium comedatur (Anth., DOC 20.1) ‘every sort of fish can be eaten’ hiemis tempore (Ant., DOC 20.14) ‘in time (ABL) of winter (GEN)’  

 

Hiemis tempore co-exists with adjectival hiuerno tempore (Ant., DOC 12.4). Adjectival hiuernus could also be used as a noun, and is attested as such in Anthimus’ et stiuo et hiberno (Ant., DOC 20.14) ‘in both summer and winter’. There are no instances of homo or nomen in nominal apposition in De observatione ciborum.

196

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

Late Latin: Antoninus Placentinus’ Itinerarium In Antoninus Placentinus’ account of his pilgrimage to the Holy Land (Milani 1977)—written around A. D. 560–570—nominal apposition pertains to a variety of semantic domains: several instances convey the fields of [KINSHIP], [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE], and [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION], and many examples cover the fields of [RELIGION] and [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], with 52 and 31 instances respectively. Geographic nouns include civitas ‘town’ (31 instances of nominal apposition out of a total of 67 instances of civitas), mons ‘mountain’ (five instances out of a total of 13), fluvius ‘river’, insola ‘island’, petra ‘rock’, campus ‘land’, vallis ‘valley’, mare ‘sea’, favilla ‘town’, and others. I note that especially in the field of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] there is structural variation: nominal apposition alternates with genitives, cf.  

(380) [NOMINAL APPOSITION] a. in Triarim civitatem (Plac., Pr.Sg. 2.3)13 ‘in the town (ACC) of Triaris (ACC)’ b. in Carmello monte (Plac., Pr.Sg. 3.2) ‘on mount (ABL) Carmel (ABL)’

Other instances either feature a genitive, have no inflection, or are ambiguous, because the grammatical form may convey more than one case, cf. (381) [GENITIVE] (382) [NO INFLECTION]

(383) [AMBIGUOUS]

in montem Oliveti (Plac., Pr.Sg. 16.2) ‘to the Mt. (ACC) of Olives (GEN)/Mt. (ACC) Olivet (GEN)’ civitas Hiericho (Plac., Pr.Sg. 15.1) ‘town (NOM) of Jericho’ in montem Sion (Plac., Pr.Sg. 9.6) ‘on mount (ACC) Sion’ (venimus) in civitate Constancia (Plac., Pr.Sg. 1.2)14 ‘we arrived in the town (ABL) of Constanctia(NOM/ABL)’

This variation will be discussed in further detail below. The semantic field of [RELIGION] is well-represented in nominal apposition because instances featuring sanctus have been included as well. Although sanctus obviously has adjectival (or rather participial) origin, I include its instances in this particular corpus because the element came to function as a title in combination with a proper noun and came to occur as an independent noun (‘saint’) as well. The phenomenon of sainthood was well-established in Placentinus’ time 13 Pr.Sg. refers to the Itinerarium’s Sangallensis manuscript of the Recensio Prior. The Rhenaugiensis manuscript is referred to with the abbreviation Pr.Rh. 14 The Recensio Altera (R.A), a more sophisticated version of the Itinerarium (Milani 1977: 33), reads (venimus) . . . in civitatem Constantiam.  

 

5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance

197

(for further details, see the section about the Peregrinatio). In the following example ibi .. requiescit sanctus Athanasius, sanctus Faustus, sanctus Epimidius, sanctus Antonius, sanctus Marcus (Plac., Pr.Sg. 45.5), the repetition of sanctus reveals its function as a title rather than as an adjective. Earlier I mentioned instances of (adjectival) sanctus in Phaedrus. It is important to note that from those early times onward the sequence in large majority is sanctus + Proper Noun. The history of sanctus will be dicussed in greater detail below. I do not include beatus ‘blessed’ in this discussion: while the use of sanctus in the context of proper nouns is consistent in my corpus of texts, that of beatus is not. Beatus occurs both with the names of individuals who elsewhere are referred to as sanctus (e. g. Maria beata [Plac., Pr.Sg. 44.1]) and with other names. Moreover, beatus—which often is attested as a superlative—typically does not occur as a nominalized adjective and did not become a title. Forty-four out of the 46 instances of sanctus in the Itinerarium have fullfledged agreement, whereas two instances have either no case or no recognizable case, cf.  

(384) a. b.

ad sanctum David (Plac., Pr.Sg. 29.3) ad sanctum Mennate (Plac., Pr.Sg. 45.1)

Examples in Placentinus’ text commonly include double apposition: sancti Johannis Baptistae (Plac., R.A. 46.7), where sanctus may function as adjective or noun. A few other examples include three nouns as well, cf. –

with sanctus (at least 15 instances): (385) a. b. c. d.

–

sanctus Victor martyr (Plac., Pr.Sg. 33.4) sanctus pater Hilario (Plac., Pr.Sg. 33.6) sancta martyra Theodote (Plac., Pr.Sg. 22.12) sanctus Gregorius martyr (Plac., Pr.Sg. 25.4)

with elements other than sanctus: (386) a. b.

domino Paterio patricio (Plac., Pr.Sg. 14.2) lord-DAT Paterius-DAT patrician-DAT Domini Iesu Christi (Plac., Pr.Sg. 18.2) ‘of our Lord (GEN) Jesus (OBL) Christ (GEN)’

These instances with a few exceptions typically include a proper and a common noun: martyr (4 instances), pater (2), or patricius (1). There is only one instance conveying [KINSHIP], which is comparable to Varro’s example under (330), cf.

198

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

(387) fratres Machabei (Plac., Pr.Sg. 47.1) ‘brothers (NOM-PL) Maccabeus (NOM-PL)’ > ‘the Maccabee brothers’

Within the semantic field [SOCIAL STATUS], there are a few instances of [TITLE] and [PROFESSION], cf. (388) [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE] a. Iustiniani imperatoris (Plac., Pr.Sg. 1.3) ‘of emperor (GEN) Iustinianus (GEN)’ b. Tragianus imperator (Plac., Pr.Sg. 35.4) ‘emperor (NOM) Tragianus (NOM)’ (389) [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION] a. Hieronimus presbiter (Plac., Pr.Sg. 29.1) ‘the priest (NOM) Jerome (NOM)’ b. ubi est capud Iohannis Baptistae (Plac., Pr.Sg. 46.7) ‘where the head of John (GEN) the Baptist (GEN) remains’ c. Heliseus propheta (Plac., Pr.Sg. 8.2) ‘the prophet (NOM) Heliseus (NOM)’

It is important to note that the more sophisticated manuscripts (Recensio Prior Rhenaugiensis and Recensio Altera, mentioned above) of this text feature a higher incidence of nominal apposition, cf. (390) a, vs.

b.

(391) a. vs. b.

in quas missus est Hieremias propheta (Plac., R. A. 24.2) ‘where the prophet (NOM) Jeremiah (NOM) was sent’ ubi missus est Hieremias (Plac., Pr.Sg. 24.2) ‘where Jeremiah (NOM) was sent’ sanctum Zachariam (Plac., Pr.Rh. & A. 32.4) Zachariam (Plac., Pr.Sg. 32.4)  

As in many other texts, nominal apposition in Placentinus as well typically includes a common noun and a proper noun and the constructions are relatively straight-forward. In terms of nominal apposition, the semantic field of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] is also well represented. Yet, there is a discrepancy between the total number of instances including a common noun and a proper noun (67) and the instances of nominal apposition (31), cf. (392) [APPOSITION] a. in Triarim civitatem (Plac., Pr.Sg. 1.4) ‘to the town (ACC) of Triaris (ACC)’ b. fluvius Asclepius (Plac., Pr.Sg. 2.1) ‘the river (NOM) Asclepius (NOM)’

5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance

c. d.

199

de petra Golgotha (Plac., Pr.Sg.18.4) ‘from the rock (ABL) Golgotha (ABL)’ subtus monte Carmello (Plac., Pr.Sg. 3.2) ‘below mount (ABL) Carmel (ABL)’

These instances are numerous and varied. Yet there are also many instances (19) in which it is not clear whether there is agreement or not: the proper noun—often of exotic origin—does not feature overt case marking, as in: (393) [UNDECIDED STRUCTURES] a. in civitatem Nazareth (Plac., Pr.Sg. 5.1) ‘to the town (ACC) of Nazareth’ b. civitatis Sararafia (Plac., Pr.Sg. 33.2) ‘of the town (GEN) of Sararafia’ c. in Tabor monte (Plac., Pr.Sg. 6.1) ‘on top of mount (ABL) Tabor’ d. fluvius Eufraten (Plac., Pr.Sg. 47.4) ‘Euphrates river (NOM)’ e. fluvius Euphrata (Plac., Pr.Sg. 47.4) ‘Euphrates river (NOM)’

Another 10 examples include a genitive construction instead of nominal apposition, as in: (394) in favillas Sodomae et Gomorrae (Plac., Pr.Sg. 15.2) ‘to the towns (ACC) of Sodom (GEN-SG) and Gomorrah (GEN-SG)’

Moreover, for several common nouns I found the three types of structure: nominal apposition, genitive, and “undecided”, see for example, mons: (395) a. b. c.

subtus monte Carmello (Plac., Pr.Sg. 3.2) in monte Oliveti (Plac., Pr.Sg. 14.4) in Tabor monte (Plac., Pr.Sg. 6.1)

[APPOSITION] [GENITIVE CONSTRUCTION] [UNDECIDED]

Like examples from other semantic fields, the trend here seems to be that case is overtly marked when the name ends in -a or -us, even if this may lead to apparently conflicting gender endings, as in sanctum Zachariam (Plac., Pr. Rh. 32.3). It is important to note that when case is expressed, there is a preference for nominal apposition. There is no instance of nominal apposition in the category [FAUNA] and [FLORA], but there is one instance of nominal juxtaposition, which features genitive syntax, cf. (396) arborem peperis (Plac., Pr.Sg. 41.3) (Plac., Pr. Rh.: piperis) ‘pepper (GEN) tree (ACC)’

200

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

A few instances are attested within the category [OTHER], which do not all favor apposition. In one instance the case of the proper noun is ambiguous and the structure therefore is “undecided” as well (see also Section 5.3.2.1), cf. (397) [OTHER, NOMEN] puella nomine Maria (Plac., Pr.Sg. 34.1) ‘a girl (NOM) with the name (ABL) Maria (NOM/ABL)’

[UNDECIDED]

In this last construction the noun Maria can be an ablative (resulting in nominal apposition) or a nominative, which would point to a different yet common construction (see Section 5.3.2.1). There are a few instances conveying the category [OTHER, FEAST]. Expressions of the type dies festus do not qualify as nominal apposition because they feature an adjective (e. g. Plac., Pr.Sg. 39.4), even if, ad diem festum (Plac., Pr.Sg. 38.4) technically speaking could be an instance of nominal apposition, combining feminine dies with the neuter noun festum. This interpretation is supported by the consistent occurrence of dies dominica, in which dies is feminine. Yet more information is needed about the gender of dies in Placentinus, especially in the light of gender fluctuations of dies in the different varieties of Latin (for a recent brief overview, see Adams 2013: 393). The example in die pentecosten (Plac., Pr.Sg. 14.4) appears to be an instance of nominal apposition, yet the two other manuscripts in Milani (1977) read inde pentecosten (Pr.Sg. & A 14.4), suggesting that the data are not conclusive. There are several instances within the semantic field of [QUANTIFICATION], which include the noun multitudo and favor the genitive construction, cf.  

(398) multitudo monachorum (Plac., Pr.Sg. 37.2) ‘the mass (NOM) of monks (GEN)’

There are very few instances of nominal apposition in the Itinerarium that combine two common nouns, among them: (399) tres fratres martyres (Plac., Pr.Sg. 33.2) ‘the three martyr brothers’

Finally, it is of interest to note that an important number of proper nouns occur in Placentinus’ text without a common noun specifying their ontogenetic characteristics, cf. (400) Iordanis (Plac., Pr.Sg. 11.4, 11.6, 12.1, etc.), ad Golgotha (Plac., Pr.Sg. 19.1), in Baorin (Plac., Pr.Sg. 16.1), Alexandrini (Plac., Pr. Sg. 11.5), Christiani (Plac., Pr.Sg. 30.2), Iudaei (Plac., Pr.Sg. 30.2), in Bethania (Plac., Pr.Sg. 16.1), in Ascensionem (Plac., Pr.Sg. 14.4), Melchisedech (Plac., Pr.Sg. 19.2), Pilatus (Plac., Pr.Sg. 23.3), in Silua (Plac., Pr.

5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance

201

Sg. 19.5), Dei (Plac., Pr.Sg. 32.2), Mariae (Plac., Pr.Sg. 34.6; unique instance), de Egypto (Plac., Pr.Sg. 41.6), and so forth.

In total, I found 22 instances of this type within the field of [RELIGION] and an additional 57 instances of proper nouns referring to persons [SOCIAL STATUS], e. g. well-known historical figures. Moreover, other categories represented are: [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], such as countries or regions (13 instances), peoples (9 instances), towns (40 instances), rivers (10), sources (8), mountains (5), and one instance within the category of [FEAST].  

Late Latin: Peregrinatio Aetheriae This section finishes with a text from the late 4th century relating a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in the early A. D. 380s, the Peregrinatio Aetheriae (Pétré 1948). The text was written by the person who undertook the pelgrimage, the nun Aetheria— probably of Galician origin (Pétré 1948: 9–13). For this text a slightly different approach has been adopted. I systematically analyzed all instances of nominal juxtaposition—nominal apposition and genitive constructions—and examined all occurrences of proper nouns, with or without common noun (approximately 463 instances), in addition to 24 examples that combine two common nouns.  

Proper nouns combined with a common noun The highest number of instances of proper names in the Peregrinatio that combine with a common noun (125 instances) are from the semantic field of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] and [RELIGION] (60 and 45 instances respectively). Other semantic fields include [KINSHIP], [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION], [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE], [FLORA], [OTHER], and [QUANTIFICATION]. Not all feature nominal apposition. The statistical data of the main categories are presented in Table IX: Table IX: Noun + Noun in the Peregrinatio Aetheriae. CATEGORY / WORD

TOTAL

APPOSITION GENITIVE

[RELIGION]

45

sanctus

35

35

deus

9

9

dominus

1

1

[KINSHIP]

4

4

UNDECIDED

202

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

Table IX: (continued) filius, pater, uxor [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION]

10

10

cursor

4

4

prophetessa

1

1

soror

5

5

[SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE]

11

11

rex

11

11

[FLORA]

5

2

arbor

2

2

dendros

1

1

hortus

2

2

[GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION]

60

21

civitas

14

9

terra

16

flumen

5

4

1

fluvius

3

2

1

mons

20

4

provincia

1

1

regio

1

1

3

12

27 5

5

7

11

9

Occurences on the basis of selected keywords, Appendix

Within the semantic field of [RELIGION] the following common nouns, for example, appear in nominal apposition: (401) deus (402) sanctus

(9):

Deus noster Iesus (Per. 10.2); Christo Deo nostro (Per. 23.5) in nomine Christi Dei nostri (Per. 18.1) (35): ad martytium sancti Thomae (Per. 19.2); martyrium sanctae Teclae (Per. 22.2) ‘(to) the martyrium of St. Thomas/St. Tecla’15

15 St. Thecla was a disciple of St. Paul.

5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance

(403) other:

203

domine Iesu (Per. 19.9) ‘Lord Jesus’

Several examples have double apposition: (404) a. b.

sancti Iohannis baptistae (Per. 15.6) ‘of St John the Baptist’ sancti Thomae apostoli (Per. 17.1) ‘of St. Thomas the Apostle’

As said, instances featuring sanctus have been included here as well. Yet a distinction needs to be made between sanctus + the name of a pre-Christian figure (20 instances) and sanctus + the name of a Christian figure (15 instances). In the Peregrinatio—more so than in Antoninus Placentinus—several well-known Old Testament figures indeed are referred to as “sanctus”. Originally an adjective, sanctus became a title in Christian times. In early Christianity—during the persecutions—sainthood was limited to martyrs. From the 4th century when the persecutions came to an end, the number of martyrs dropped substantially and those who lived—rather than died—in accordance with Christ’s teachings became eligible for sainthood as well, among them bishops and ascetics. Consequently sanctus as a title predominantly combines with names of martyrs, bishops, and so forth. Sanctification originally was a process of election by the people or approval by bishops, and it was not before the 13th century that a process of canonization came into being within the Church of Rome, with well-defined criteria and procedures (see Delahaye 1909: passim; Réau 1955: 305–476). Technically speaking, figures such as Abraham are not saints, because sainthood inherently is dated after Christ. Sanctus in combination with the name of an Old Testament figure (e. g. sanctum Abraam [Per. 14.2]) therefore tends to be the equivalent of venerandus ‘venerable’, qualifying “une virtue surhumaine”, which according to Benveniste is a saint’s distinguishing quality (Benveniste 1969: 191). Yet there seems to be more to it, because the Old Testament figures who are identified as sanctus often are prophets and patriarchs who were part of the Revelation before Christ’s birth (see e. g. Delahaye 1909: passim). Semantically the value of sanctus came to be affected by the meaning of sacer, which is relevant to the phenomenon at hand. Where sanctus in origin refers to the result of an operation or activity (hence the perfective participle), sacer refers to a natural state. Thus mons sacer and dies sacra, but murus sanctus and lex sancta. The original value of sacer gradually transferred to sanctus and sanctus then becomes the person “[qui] se trouve investi de la faveur divine et reçoit de ce fait une qualité qui l’élève au dessus des humains; son pouvoir fait de lui un être intemédiaire entre l’homme et la divinité” (Benveniste 1969:  

 

204

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

191)16. This semantic shift accounts not only for the occurrence of sanctus with the names of Old Testament figures who had qualities that surpassed plain humans,17 but also for the eventual use of sanctus as a title in combination with the names of saints. Saints are considered intermediaries between God and human beings, especially in their common role as intervenors when they are invoked in prayers. A more detailed analysis of occurrence, usage, and especially the theological context is required to evaluate in full the precise function of sanctus in the Peregrinatio, in Placentinus, and elsewhere. Yet several facts account for the complexity of the usage of sanctus noted here, among them the transition from paganism to Christianity and the fact that archaic features linger on, at a time when sanctus gradually is developing into a title within the setting of a church that had not yet defined canonization. For the topic under consideration here, however, a nominal reading in many instances is decisively not excluded. Hence the inclusion of sanctus in this section. In that light it is important that sanctus is also attested in the Peregrinatio as a full-fledged independent noun, often in combination with a demonstrative/definite article or relative clause, especially referring to human beings who are alive and venerable.18 In the vast majority they are monks and priests (Delahaye 1909: 168–169; Bastiaensen 1962). Sanctus is also found in combinations with animate common nouns (e. g. sanctos monachos [Per. 17.1] ‘the venerable monks’). Similarly it is attested in combination with nouns referring to buildings and objects, then obviously functioning as an adjective (e. g. sancta ecclesia [Per. 21.1], locis sanctis [Per. 17.1] ‘the holy church/places’). There are a few instances of nominal apposition conveying the semantic field of [KINSHIP], as in:  

 

(405) a. b.

cum patre Thara et Sarra uxore (Per. 20.9) ‘with his father (ABL) Terah (ABL) and his wife (ABL) Sarah (ABL)’ filio suo Magno (e. g. Per. 19.15, 19.6) ‘for his son (DAT) Magnus (DAT)’  

Within the category of [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE] rex ‘king’ predominates, cf. (406) ad palatium Aggari regis (Per. 19.6) ‘to the palace of king (GEN) Abgar (GEN)’

16 Translation: “upon whom divine favors are bestowed; he therefore he gets a quality that puts him above human beings: his powers make him an intermediary between mankind and divinity”. 17 E. g.: Mozes, who communicated with Jahweh. 18 Saints are not necessarily dead. Someone may be considered a Saint—in the technical sense— during their life time. In art they then are depicted with a square instead of a round halo, cf. Pope Pascha I (817–824) in the Santa Prassede, Rome.  

5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance

205

Not all instances are clear-cut, because the proper noun may lack overt inflection: (407) a. b.

de palatio regis Melchisedech (Per. 14.2) ‘from the palace of king (GEN) Melchizedek’ Achab regis (Per. 4.2) ‘of king (GEN) Ahab’

The semantic field [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION] is represented by a variety of nouns that are less frequent than rex mentioned above, cf. (408) a. b.

Anna prophetissa (Per. 26.1) ‘the prophet (NOM) Anna (NOM)’ per Ananiam cursorem (Per. 17.1, 19.8) ‘by the messenger (ACC) Ananias (ACC)’

Whereas instances above from [RELIGION], [KINSHIP] and [SOCIAL STATUS] most often feature nominal apposition, in the other semantic fields both nominal apposition and genitive constructions are commonly attested, as the following examples from the field of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] show: (409) [APPOSITION] a. sub monte Tauro (Per. 23.6) ‘beneath Mt. (ABL) Taurus (ABL)’ b. c.

vs. vs.

[GENITIVE] mons Oliveti (Per. 25.11) ‘Mt. (NOM) Olivet (GEN)’ in terra Egypti (Per. 5.9) ‘in the land (ABL) of Egypt (GEN)’ terra Arabiae (Per. 7.1) ‘the land (NOM) of Arabia (GEN)’

(410) [APPOSITION] a. Pithona . . . civitas (Per. 7.7) ‘the town (NOM) of Pithon (NOM)’ b. fluvius Rhodanus (Per. 18.2) ‘the river (NOM) Rhone (NOM)’ c. fluvium Iordanem (Per. 14.3) ‘the river (ACC) Jordan (ACC)’ d. regionem Ausitidem (Per. 13.1) ‘the land (ACC) of Ausis (ACC)’  

 

Twenty-seven out of the 60 Noun + Noun instances conveying [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] are not conclusive because there is no overt case marking on the proper noun, cf. (411) a. b. c.

terra Maab (Per. 10.1) Ramessen civitas (Per. 8.1), ad montem sanctum Syna (Per. 9.6)

206

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

Among the common nouns used, flumen most consistently favors nominal apposition (4/5), followed by civitas (9/14). The pattern that emerges from the Peregrinatio is that certain nouns within certain semantic fields feature structural variation: they occur in nominal apposition, genitive constructions, and “undecided” structures. In these last instances the syntactic nature generally cannot be identified because there is no case marking or it is ambiguous. The following examples illustrate this trend. For [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], for example, the noun terra is attested either in genitive (5) or “undecided” (11) constructions, as in: (412) [GENITIVE]

(413) [UNDECIDED]

de terra Egypti (Per. 5.9) ‘Egypt’ terra Arabiae (Per. 7.1) ‘Arabia’ terram Chanaan (Per. 10.1) ‘land (ACC) of Canaan’

The regularity of these patterns suggests that terra favors the genitive and accordingly that the uninflected proper nouns that combine with it—if they had case—in all likelihood would feature the genitive. Yet this hypothesis is based on data in absentia, and therefore cannot be verified. Within the same semantic field, the noun mons features nominal apposition (4), and genitive (7) and undecided (9) constructions, cf. (414) [APPOSITION]

(415) [GENITIVE]

sub monte Tauro (Per. 23.6); under mount-ABL Taurus-ABL ‘under/to mount Taurus’ in monte on mount-ABL ‘on Mt. Olivet’

(416) [UNDECIDED] montem Nabau (Per. 10.8); mount-ACC Nebo-INDECL ‘to/of mount Nebo’

montis mount-GEN

montem Taurum (Per. 23.7) mount-ACC Taurus-ACC Oliveti (Per. 25.11, 30.3, 31.1) Olives-GEN

Nabau (Per. 11.4) Nebo-INDECL

It is important to note that this variation is not arbitrary: six out of nine instances of the “undecided structure” include the exotic name Nabau ‘Nebo’. Moreover, all instances of the genitive construction feature Olivetum and the four instances of nominal apposition include proper nouns in -us and -a. The semantic field of [FLORA] in the Peregrinatio includes both nominal apposition and genitive constructions, cf. the genitive construction as found in arbor sicomori (Per. 8.3, 8.5) or dendros alethiae (Per. 8.4; La. dendros < Gk [το] δένδρον ‘tree’). The noun phrase arbor sicomori (Per. 8.3, 8.5) ‘sycomore’ com-

207

5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance

monly is quoted in the literature as the example illustrating the shift from nominal apposition to genitive constructions in the history of Latin (e. g. Ernout and Thomas 1964: 43). Nominal apposition within this category is attested in (in . . .) horto pomario (Per. 15.6) and ad hortum pomarium (Per. 15.2). Pomarium ‘fruit garden, orchard’ is a neuter nominal derivative from pomum ‘fruit’ and masculine hortus ‘garden’ is an appositive common noun. The Peregrinatio has one instance in which pomarium is used as an independent noun, showing that it is a fullfledged noun in this text, just as it is elsewhere, cf. de pomario sancti . . . (Per. 15.6) ‘from the orchard of saint . . .’. In expressions of [QUANTIFICATION] numerals, genitives, and occasionally nominal apposition are attested in the Peregrinatio, as the following examples with a numeral and mille respectively illustrate:  

 

 

 

 

(417) a. b.

 

 

per mansiones octo (Per. 13.2) ‘via eight stages’ mille passus (Per. passim) ‘1000 paces’

Mille and milia are frequently attested in the Peregrinatio. In dictionaries and certain handbooks mille as in mille passus above often is identified as a “numerical adjective”. Yet Ernout and Meillet categorized mille as a noun, or more precisely an ancient neuter noun that still occurs in the ablative in Early Latin authors (Ernout and Meillet 1959: 403). I therefore submit that mille in contexts such as mille passus, is not a numerical adjective but rather a noun and that the structure is an instance of nominal apposition. Simlarly the plural noun milia combines with passus in nominal apposition as well, cf. (418) a. b.

mille passus (Per. passim) ‘1000 paces’ quattuor milia passus (Per. 8.1) ‘4000 (NOM) paces (NOM)’

[APPOSITION] [APPOSITION]

The structures differ fundamentally from the ones found in Caesar that I provided under example (353) above, cf. (419) a. b. c.

milia passuum (Caes., B. G. 1.53.1, passim) ‘a thousand (ACC) paces (GEN)’ milia passuum decem novem murum … perduvit (Caes., B. G. 1.8) ‘he built a wall (ACC) of nineteen thousand (ACC) paces (GEN) (nineteen miles)’ equitum milia erant sex (Caes., B. G. 1.48.5) ‘there were six thousand (NOM) horsemen (GEN)’  

 

 

208

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

To return to the Peregrinatio: a prepositional construction with genitive value is found in the following example, in which the noun phrase conveys quantity and the prepositional phrase refers to the product, cf. (420) sorbitione modica broth-ABL a.bit-ABL ‘a bit of broth of flour’

de farina (Per. 28.4) of flour-ABL

[GENITIVE/PP]

I note that here again in expressions of [QUANTIFICATION] nominal apposition is an option whereas in Caesar, for example, there was no real variation and the structures were primarily genitival. A similar pattern emerged in the analysis of the cookbooks above. Within the semantic field of [OTHER, TIME] structures including hora, dies, or feria take the form of nominal apposition as well as genitive and adjectival constructions. Especially dies allows for variation: (421) [APPOSITION] excepta die sabbato (Per. 44.1) excepted-ABL-F day-ABL-F Sabbath-ABL-NE ‘with the exception of Saturday’ (422) [GENITIVE] a. hora lucernae (Per. 39.4) ‘the hour of lucernary’ b. dies paschae (Per. 47.1) ‘days of Easter‘ c. extra diem paschae (Per. 20.6) outside day-ACC Easter-GEN ‘with the exception of Easter Sunday‘ d. in diebus quadrigesimarum (Per. 27.4) ‘during the days (ABL) of Lent (GEN-PL)‘ e. excepta una die sabbati (Per. 27.1) excepted-ABL-SG-F one-ABL day-ABL Sabbath-GEN ‘with the exception of one Saturday’ (423) [ADJECTIVE] a. secunda feria (Per. 27.4) second-F day-F ‘Monday’ b. dominica die (Per. 24.8) of.the.lord-ADJ-ABL-SG-F day-ABL ‘Sunday’ c. diebus paschalibus (Per. 39.3) days-ABL Easter-ADJ-ABL-PL ‘during the Easter period’

Sabbata (gen. sabbatorum) and sabbatum (gen. sabbati) both are nouns. These instances will be further examined in Section 5.3.2.1.

5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance

209

Within the category of [OTHER] there are several instances including nomen in which the syntax is not clear: e. g. nomine Helpidi (Per. 20.26) ‘with the name (ABL) Helpidius’ or nomine Marthana (Per. 23.3) ‘with the name (ABL) Marthana (NOM/ABL)’. Liber ‘book’ seems to go either way, but favors the genitive construction, cf.  

(424) [APPOSITION] (425) [UNDECIDED]

(426) [GENITIVE]

in libro Iesu Nave (Per. 9.3)19 ‘in the book (ABL) Jesus Nave (ABL)’ in libro Genesis (Per. 7.7) ‘in the book (ABL) of Genesis’ in libris Paralipomenon (Per. 48.2) ‘in the books (ABL) of Paralipomenon’ in libro Deuteronomii (Per. 10.6) ‘in the book (ABL) Deuteronomy (GEN)’

This book of the Old Testament is also referred to as Deutronomium, without common noun (Per. 10.7). Finally, the category [OTHER, FEAST] typically includes adjectival and genitive constructions: (427) [ADJECTIVE] a. Vigiliae paschales (Per. 38.1) ‘Easter Vigils’ b. dies paschales (Per. 39.1) ‘Easter period’ (428) [GENITIVE] a. octavis paschae (Per. 40.1) ‘in the Octave (ABL-PL) of Easter (GEN)’ b. dies dominica paschae (Per. 40.2) ‘Easter (GEN) Sunday (NOM)’

Note the contrast with Varro, where apposition was found (feriae Robigalia and ludi Floralia [R.R. 1.1.6]; see section 5.1.1). For further discussion of this type of structure, see Section 5.3.2.1. In sum, Noun + Noun combinations in the Peregrinatio present a wide variety of semantic fields and syntactic structures. Among examples of nominal apposition the semantic fields of [RELIGION] and [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] strongly predominate. Another characteristic feature of this text is the high incidence of instances that cannot be identified as examples of nominal apposition or genitive constructions, because the exotic names have no case ending. Yet regularity in patterns suggests that certain nouns typically feature a certain type of structure.

19 In the writing of the Church Fathers the Book of Joshua is often called (book of) Jesus Nave.

210

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

In terms of word order, the Peregrinatio clearly tends to have the proper name follow the common noun, for example, in instances of nominal apposition and when the structure takes the form of a genitive, cf. (429) de terra Egypti (Per. 5.9); terra Arabiae (Per. 7.1) ‘land (ABL/NOM) of Egypt (GEN)/Arabia (GEN)’

Similarly, in instances of nominal apposition: (430) fluvius Rhodanus (Per. 18.2); civitas Tathnis (Per. 9.5)

When the noun is not inflected the same pattern emerges, cf. (431) a. b. c.

montem Nabau (Per. 10.1) ad fluvium Eufraten (Per. 18.2) terra Chanaan (Per. 10.1)

Yet, here as well the individual common nouns favour certain sequences: terra e. g. precedes the proper noun in all instances, but the pattern is not clear with civitas or rex, which go both ways, cf.  

(432) a.

rex Aggarus (Per. 19.6) ‘king Abgar’

vs. b.

Aggari regis (Per. 19.6) ad Aggarum regem (Per. 17.1) ‘of/to king Abgar’

Conversely cursor exclusively follows the proper noun: (433) Ananias cursor (Per. 17.1, 19.8; see also 19.16, 19.17) ‘messenger Ananias’

Proper nouns without common nouns While focus in this book is on Noun + Noun combinations, it is important to underscore that the majority (appr. 315) of a total of more than 460 instances of proper nouns occurring in the Peregrinatio do not combine with a common noun: these isolated names occur primarily in the field of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] (194 instances). Categories represented are towns, but also rivers (e. g. Iordanis [Per. 12.4]), geographic areas, or countries (e. g. Arabiae [10.1, 10.4]). It is noteworthy that a number of proper nouns exclusively occur without common noun, whereas others do the oppositie. such as Golgotha, which on the whole does not combine with a common noun (e. g. Per. 25.1, 25.6, 30.1, 37.1), in contrast with mons Nabau (e. g. Per. 10.1) or montem Taurum (e. g. Per. 23.7), which exclusively  

 

 

 

 

211

5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance

include a common and a proper noun. Olivetum in Mons Oliveti ‘Mt. Olivet’, also exclusively occurs with the common noun, but the proper noun takes the form of a genitive (e. g. Per. 25.11). In addition, the names of many peoples occur without generic specification (e. g. Persae [Per. 19.9] ‘Persians’), as well as names of individuals: kings, governors, Biblical figures, apostles, and so forth (e. g. Pilato [Per. 37.8]). Of interest in this context is also the consistent occurrence of fluminis Nili (e. g. Per. 7.9, 9.4) including both the common and proper noun (and it that sequence) as opposed to fluvium Iordanem (Per. 14.3) and Iordanis fluminis (Per. 13.2), or more commonly Iordanis without common noun (e. g. Per. 10.3, 12.4, 13.2). Nouns from the field [OTHER, TIME] referring to the days of the week may also appear in isolation, such as sabbatus (e. g. Per. 38.1, 39.2), and the names of certain [FEASTS] (e. g. pascha [e. g. Per. 39.1, 41.1, 45.1, 49.3] ‘Easter’, epiphania (e. g. Per. 39.1, 49.3] ‘Epiphany’, pentecosten [e. g. Per. 41.1] ‘Pentecost’. Similarly, Deus (e. g. Per. 48.1, 48.2) and Dominus (e. g. Per. 43.5, 48.1, 48.2) from the field of [RELIGION] also occur passim in the text without further specification. There does not seem to be a pattern in these occurrences, with the exception of certain proper nouns that tend to consistently occur in isolation, as pointed out above. First appearance of the proper noun does not seem to be at play, as the first appearance of the name Ramesse without common noun illustrates. Ramesse re-appears with a common noun a few lines further down, confirming a pattern observed ealier, cf.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(434) a.

 

de Ramesse (Per. 7.1) . . . quae Ramessen civitas . . . (Per. 8.1) the town of Ramessen . . .’ ‘from Ramessen . . .. regis Melchisedech (Per. 13.4) . . . Melchisedech (Per. 13.4) . . . regis Melchisedech (Per. 14.2) ‘king Melchizedek . . . Melchizedek . . . king Melchizedek’ Common Noun + Common Noun  

 

b.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Common Noun + Common Noun While the very large majority of instances of nominal apposition in the Peregrinatio are of the type Common Noun + Proper Noun, there are approximately 24 instances that combine two common nouns, 15 of which are in nominal apposition. These include the field of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] (civitatem metropolim [Per. 22.1]), the semantic field of [OTHER, TIME], as was already noted (sabbato mane [Per. 27.9], [in] mane sabbato [Per. 29.1, 29.3]), the field [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE] e. g. dominae sorores (Per. 12.7, 20.5, etc.), and the fields [FLORA] and [OTHER], cf. hortus pomarium (Per. 15.2), dominae animae meae [Per. 19.19]. Chapter 6, will show that certain of these formations typically have innovative  

212

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

characteristics. There are nine other nominal combinations (9/24), which include a genitive instead of an appositive noun, e. g. die sabbati (Per. 44.1) or arbor sicomori (Per. 8.2, 8.5; examples discussed above; see also Section 5.3.2.1).  

Findings Peregrinatio Aetheriae In conclusion, roughly one out of three proper nouns in the Peregrinatio combines with a common noun that specifies its ontological nature. Most often the proper nouns in question refer to persons or geographic phenomena and the semantic fields of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] and [RELIGION] are well represented. While proper nouns referring to persons exclusively and inherently feature nominal apposition, other nouns may occur in both apposition or genitive constructions. The relatively high incidence in this text of nouns without overt case marking is related to the high number of exotic names and the general decline of case in the later stages of Latin. It obscures the (underlying) grammar of structures. In addition, data show that certain proper nouns within given semantic fields typically combine with a common noun, whereas others do not (e. g. mons Taurus vs. Golgotha without common noun). Conversely, certain common nouns seem to favor a certain type of syntax. Terra predominantly favors the genitive, whereas feria typically occurs in adjectival constructions and dies goes both ways (see more in Section 5.3.2.1). Combinations of Common Noun + Proper Noun in the Peregrinatio show a strong preference for right branching, whether the construction is an instance of nominal apposition or features a genitive. In all instances sanctus, for example, precedes the proper noun. Similarly, mons always precedes the proper noun whatever its syntactic context may be (4/4 nominal apposition; 7/7 genitive, 9/9 undecided syntax); terra behaves likewise (5/5 genitive; 11/11 undecided). A similar predominance is found for fluvius (3/3), flumen (4/5), and provincia. The preference for right branching is also manifest in the less frequent instances of filius (2/2), pater (1/1), nomen (4/4) (2 nominal apposition; 2 genitive), and liber (7/ 7; 2 nominal apposition; 4 genitive; 1 undecided). The common nouns civitas and rex show a different regularity: both nouns may follow or precede the proper noun. Ten out of the fourteen instances of civitas follow the proper name (3 undecided, 7 nominal apposition) whereas that number for rex is six out of a total of eleven. Finally, all four instances of cursor are left-branching, cf. the following examples that occur at close range, in which cursor comes second:  

(435) a. b.

per Ananiam cursorem (Per. 17.1, 19.8) Ananias cursor (Per. 19.16 and 19.17) ‘the messenger Ananias’

5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance

213

In instances that combine two common nouns—nominal apposition or genitive construction—there is a strong preference for right branching as well.

5.1.3 Individual authors: Old French One of the earliest Old French documents, La cantilène de Ste Eulalie (ca. 880; Eul. in the references; Sampson 1980: 109–110), is a very short twenty-nine-verse text with a liturgical background, aimed at praising the Christian virtues of St. Eulalie, a saint martyr. The document has one interesting example of nominal apposition, in the category [OTHER, NOMEN] and including two common nouns, cf. (436) qued elle fuiet lo that she give.up-SUBJU-3SG the-OBL ‘that she give up the name of Christian’

nom name-OBL

christiien (Eul. 14) Christian-OBL

Technically christiien could also be an adjective, but had it been an adjective, one would expect a possessive structure rather than a definite article (‘her Christian name’). Moreover the appositive reading fits the narration. This construction therefore qualifies as an instance of nominal apposition. In the much longer La vie de Saint Alexis (625 verses; mid-11th century; Al. in the references; Storey 1968), there are many instances (31 in total) of nominal apposition, representing various semantic categories and including Proper Noun + Common Noun. Within the category [KINSHIP] I found six instances: one instance of ‘father’ (at sum pedre Eufemien [Al., 337] ‘to his father Eufemien’) and five instances of filz Alexis (Al., passim) ‘my son Alexis’. These are terms of address used by the father. In the domain of [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE] dam ‘lord’ (< La. domin-) commonly re-occurs (e. g. sur dam Eufemien [(Al. 316] ‘to lord Eufemien’, danz Alexis [Al. 48, passim] ‘lord Alexis’, etc.). Dam is also attested in [RELIGION], as in Damnedeu (Al., 90, passim) ‘the Lord God’. Tracing back to La. domine Deus, this formation may have become synthetic and opaque. Instances with ‘saint’ are omnipresent for obvious reasons. Dam in dam Eufemien and danz Alexis in the examples above may not be identical, because while Alexis was a saint, Eufemien was not. The occurrence dominus in the context of Alexis is a rudiment of an earlier widespread usage: dominus was the title frequently used in combination with the names of martyrs in Antiquity. Like sanctus, this phenomenon had pagan origins: Roman emperors and gods were referred to with dominus as well, cf. Saturno domino (CIL 8.15094; Delahaye 1909: 178). Consequently a structure that taken at face value seems to be from the field of [SOCIAL STATUS] in fact is rooted in [RELIGION]. With time, the phrase dominus + Proper Noun also came to be used for other saints, as  

214

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

instances in Alexis further show. Dominus in this usage is indeed attested in Late Latin texts and in toponymics, e. g. Dammartin or Dampierre, which are alternatives to St Martin and St Pierre (for further details, see Delahaye 1909). Finally the eleven instances within the domain of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] are rather repetitive, because they include two proper nouns (Rome and Alsis) and one common noun, citet. The main innovation in comparison to the Latin examples is, however, the occurrence of the definite article in these contexts, creating sequences such as [Proper Noun + Definite Article + Common Noun]:  

(437) de Rome la citet (Al., 13, passim) ‘of the city of Rome’

The early 12th century Chanson de Roland (CdR in the references; Moignet 1969) offers a wide variety of instances of nominal apposition, both in terms of semantic fields and structural characteristics. The first 1500 verses of the text are illustrative in that respect. The semantic field that is most strongly represented is that of [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE] with more than 100 instances, most of them referring to nobility and royalty (reis ‘king’, emperes ‘emperor’, reine ‘queen’, baron ‘baron’, dux ‘duke’, and so forth). Among them reis ‘king’ and quens ‘count’ are most widespread. Instances also refer to ecclesiastical as well as military hierarchy, cf. l’arcevesque Turpin (CdR 170) ‘archbishop Turpin’ or li amiralz Galafes (CdR 1503) ‘admiral Galafes’. They all feature the sequence Common Noun + Proper Noun, often include a definite article that precedes the common noun, and typically occur in direct address, but also in narrative parts. Within the field of [SOCIAL STATUS] there are several instances of cumpainz ‘comrade’ + Proper Noun as well, both in narrative parts and forms of address, e. g. cumpaign Rollant (CdR 1051) ‘(my) friend Roland’. Given the number of speeches in the Chanson de Roland, terms of address are widespread, such as:  

(438) Seignurs Franceis (CdR 1045, passim) ‘lord Franks’ (lit. ‘lords Franks’)

In the domain of [RELIGION] Damnedeu ‘Lord God’ commonly occurs throughout the text (e. g. CdR 1063). Yet more than in the context of La vie de Saint Alexis, the question here is to what extent it had become an opaque formation. In addition, there are about 20 instances of nominal apposition within the category [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], seven instances of [KINSHIP] and several instances within the field [OTHER]. Kinship-terms mainly convey males, specifying the blood relationship between the various characters, e. g. sun uncle Guinumer (CdR 348) ‘his uncle Guinumer’, sis frères Basant (CdR 330) ‘his brother Basant’, or sun novold Henri (CdR 171) ‘his nephew Henri’. Kinship terminology is also prominently present in contexts other than nominal apposition.  

 

5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance

215

The data from [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] are especially interesting because of their structural variation: both nominal apposition and analytic constructions are attested, cf. (439) Ais le siet (CdR 478) Aix the town ‘the town of Aix’

Similarly: (440) a. b.

a Cordes la citet (CdR 71) ‘in the town of Cordres’ Espaigne le regnet (CdR 694) ‘the kingdom of Spain’

In addition to these examples that typically include a definite article, this text features early instances of the construction that will become widespread in later Romance: (441) a la citet de Galne (CdR 662) at the town of Galne ‘at the town of Galne’

Similarly: (442) a. b.

Reis Almaris del regne de Belferne (CdR 812) ‘king Almaris of the kingdom of Belferne’ la tere d’Espaigne (CdR 910) ‘in the land of Spain’

Examples (437) and (439) through (442) above display an alternation between asyndetic Proper Noun + Definite Article + Common Noun on the one hand and the analytic structure featuring de—in the absence of a definite article—and favoring the reverse sequence, cf. (443) a. b.

Proper Noun + le/la + Common Noun Le/la + Common Noun + de + Proper Noun

The occurrence of the definite article is a distinctive feature in the instances found in the Chanson de Roland. It is attested not only in contexts with two nouns, but also in contexts including a nominalized adjective, cf. the following examples: (444) [NOUN + DEFINITE ARTICLE + ADJECTIVE] a. Charles le Magne (CdR 842) ‘Charles the Great’

216

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

b.

Carles li velz (CdR 929) ‘Charles the old’ c. Guarlan le barbet (CdR 65) ‘Guarlan the bearded’ (445) [NOUN + DEFINITE ARTICLE + NOUN] a. Marsilies li reis (CdR 563) ‘king Marsilie‘ b. Neimes li dux (CdR 673) ‘duke Naimes’ c. Rollant le barun (CdR 766) ‘lord Roland’

But also: (446) [NOUN + DEFINITE ARTICLE + NOUN/ADJECTIVE] Oliver li ber (CdR 672) ‘Oliver the brave’ or ‘baron Oliver’

Forerunners of this construction are found in Phaedrus already, but then of course without definite article (magni Pompeii [Phaedr., A.8.1], cf. Section 5.1 above). In Old French the adjective clearly is nominalized and the structure features in the names of numerous rulers (see Section 5.3.4 for more information about this and related constructions). Finally, in terms of semantic categories, nominal apposition also occurs in relation to horses and swords, which represent two important sides to Medieval French society and to the social class prominently depicted in the Chanson de Roland: (447) a. b.

s’espee Murgleis (CdR 607) ‘his sword Murgleis’ el ceval Sorel (CdR 1379) ‘on the horse Sorel’

Examples so far feature Proper Noun + Common Noun. There is also a substantial number of instances in the Chanson de Roland including two common nouns, cf. for example: (448) a. b. c. d.

bel sire niés (CdR 881) ‘dear lord nephew’ bel sire reis (CdR 88) ‘dear Sire king’ sire parastre (CdR 753) ‘lord step-father’ seignuers barons (CdR 740, passim) ‘lord barons’ (lit. ‘lords barons’)

217

5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance

In sum, data from Old French show that nominal apposition kept its main characteristics: the same semantic fields are found and certain fields are better represented in certain texts than in others. In addition, aspects of society that were prominent at that time are conveyed in nominal apposition: e. g. social hierarchy, kinship relations, and elements of warfare. Moreover, from a structural perspective, trends that had started in late Antiquity continue to evolve in French: the combination of a Proper Noun + nominalized adjective in combination with a definite article is frequently attested and has come to include common nouns as well (e. g. Meimes li dux [CdR 673] ‘duke Naimes’). In addition, the analytic construction in [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] is well established. The archaic asyndetic structure is still attested, but it is important to note the inclusion of a definite article and the left-branching structure (e. g. a Cordes la citet [CdR 71] and Espaigne le regnet [CdR 694]). This sequence in my view does not reflect the unmarked word order, but rather is accounted for by the length of the elements involved (Behaghel’s Gesetz der wachsenden Glieder; see Bauer 1995, 2009a).  

 

 

5.1.4 Occurrence of nominal apposition: a diachronic perspective Analysis of a wide range of texts has shown that nominal apposition in Latin presents a strong variety of semantic fields and that genre to some extent may affect the type of apposition found. While Early Latin comedies, for example, include numerous examples of nominal apposition specifying [SOCIAL STATUS], cookbooks typically feature instances of [QUANTIFICATION]. It has also become clear, however, that semantic domains are not solely determined by genre: Varro, for example, has more variety in semantic fields than Cato. Genre therefore affects functional use or semantic types, without being exclusively decisive. In the following pages the discussion about the diachronic development will focus on occurrence, semantic fields, lexical and pragmatic motivation (Section 5.1.4.1), and on nominal apposition in Romance today (Section 5.1.4.2).

5.1.4.1 Occurrence, semantics fields, lexical and pragmatic motivation Data presented above show the substantial variety of semantic fields conveyed by nominal apposition throughout the history of Latin, covering the fields of [RELIGION], [KINSHIP], [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE], [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION], [SOCIAL STATUS, SEX], [SOCIAL STATUS, AGE], [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], [FLORA], [FAUNA], [OTHER, TIME], [OTHER, FEAST], [OTHER, NOMEN], and [QUANTIFICATION]. In all periods of Latin, nominal apposition typically is

218

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

attested for [RELIGION], [SOCIAL STATUS], and [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION]. Moreover, nominal apposition in Latin usually is of the type [Proper Noun + Common Noun], in line with the clear trend in Indo-European as pointed out in Chapter 4. Instances from [FLORA] and [FAUNA] in both Indo-European and Latin, by contrast, typically combine Common Noun + Common Noun. In the hierarchy of proper nouns the names of persons and places specifically represent ‘core proper nouns’. Consequently, the constant feature in Latin and Indo-European appositive constructions is the combining of a common noun with a ‘core proper noun’. Moreover, throughout history appositive constructions of the type [RELIGION], [TITLE], and [SOCIAL STATUS] inherently and consistently are asyndetic. There is no evidence to suggest that with time nominal apposition in Latin completely disappeared from certain semantic fields, nor that it emerged in new ones. Nominal apposition increasingly comes to be attested however, for certain nouns within certain semantic fields. Moreover, the texts by Anthimus and Apicius—which include numerous instances of [QUANTIFICATION]—show that even if nominal apposition remains strong until quite late, the genitive alternative comes to predominate. The pattern here again is that certain nouns within that field typically combine with a genitive, whereas others allow for both nominal apposition and the genitive construction. In certain other semantic fields as well (e. g. [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION]), the genitive is spreading, and nominal apposition tends to be attested exclusively for certain nouns within the field. This trend is manifest in Varro already, where apposition typically does not occur in the context of ager or mare, but it does in the context of oppidum. From a diachronic perspective, there is therefore a distinct increase of genitive (and adjectival) constructions and a consolidation of nominal apposition in combination with certain nouns. The complete picture of variation therefore points towards a chronological development, not to cyclical or ad hoc movements. Earlier I found a similar pattern of lexical motivation in the structural development of nominal apposition in Latin (Bauer 2008). While the shift in word order —favoring the sequence Common Noun + Proper Noun—is prominent, authors favor the reverse sequence for certain nouns (cf. Bauer 2008; see also Section 5.3.3). Findings in this section show that occurrence of nominal apposition in Latin increasingly came to depend on the semantic field and—even more so—on individual lexical elements within each field. This lexical motivation—manifest both at structural and functional level—may be accounted for by the fact that nominal apposition is at the cross-roads of syntax and morphology. In early Indo-European, the combining of two co-dependent nouns predominantly is a syntactic phenomenon. Yet in the various languages it expands as a morphological device,  

5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance

219

providing a powerful tool in word formation processes today, as analysis in Chapter 6 will demonstrate. The occurrence of common nouns does not seem to be pragmatically motivated because first occurrences of the proper noun do not necessarily coincide with the occurrence of the common noun. In fact, it often seems to be the other way around, as in: (449) … Cenabum Carnutum proficiscitur; … Cenabi tuendi causa, … quod oppidum Cenabum … (Caes., B. G. 7.11.6) ‘he went to Cenabum of the Carnutes, … because of the protection of Cenabum, … the town of Cenabum’  

While the first occurrence is specified by the genitive (Carnutum), the common noun specifying the semantic category only appears in the third instance. The occurrence in Caesar of certain river names exclusively in isolation (e. g. Mosa ‘Meuse’) or in nominal apposition (e. g. Garumna ‘Garonne”, see Section 5.1.1) suggests lexical motivation. Rhodanus, on the other hand, occurs 12 times in De Bello Gallico, in a variety of cases: five times in combination with the common noun flumen and seven times in isolation. The precise location of the occurrences shows a concentration of nominal apposition at the beginning of the work, with the alternation (with/without flumen) starting in section 6 of the first book.20 The river name that occurs most frequently in De Bello Gallico is that of the Rhine—63 instances—which does not come as a surprise considering its strategic importance. Eight times it is attested in combination with the generic flumen, the first three of which occur in sections B. G. 1.1.5, 1.1.6, and 1.2.3. Yet as noted earlier, the very first occurrence of Rhenus has no common noun, cf. trans Rhenum (Caes., B. G. 1.1.3). Consequently, the occurrence of the common noun has no clarifying function nor does it coincide with the first occurrence of the proper noun in the text.  

 

 

 

5.1.4.2 Nominal apposition in Romance today The post-Latin history of nominal apposition shows a narrowing of occurrence: nominal apposition increasingly becomes confined to certain semantic fields and —more importantly—to certain nouns within these fields. It is important to note that across the Romance languages, nominal apposition is attested in the context of [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE], [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION], [SOCIAL STATUS,

20 Occurences with flumen: Caes., B. G. 1.1.5, 1.2.3, 1.6.1, 1.8.1, and 3.1.1; occurrences without flumen: 1.6.2, 1.6.4, 1.8.4, 1.10.5, 1.11.5, 1.33.4, and 7.65.3.  

220

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

SEX], [SOCIAL STATUS, AGE], [RELIGION], [KINSHIP], and [OTHER] whereas the genitive construction (exclusively) prevails in [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], [FAUNA/FLORA], and [QUANTIFICATION], cf. the following examples from French: [NOMINAL APPOSITION] (450) [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE], a. Fr. Madame Dupont ‘Mrs Dupont’ b. Fr. le Révérend Père Dubois ‘the Reverend Father Dubois’ c. Fr. Sa Majesté le roi ‘his Majesty the King’ d. Fr. Sa Majesté le Roi Albert ‘his Majesty King Albert’ (451) [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION], a. Fr. le docteur Pasteur ‘Dr Pasteur’ b. Fr. le professeur Curie ‘Professor Curie’ (452) [RELIGION] a. Fr. Dieu le père ‘God the Father’ b. Fr. St Jean l’évangéliste, St Pierre ‘St John the Evangelist’, ‘St Peter’ c. Fr. la vierge Marie ‘(the) Virgin Mary’ (453) [SOCIAL SATUS, SEX] a. Fr. une girafe mâle/une poule faisane ‘a female giraffe/pheasant’ b. Fr. un professeur femme/une femme médecin ‘a woman professor/doctor’ (454) [KINSHIP] a. Fr. le père Goriot ‘father Goriot’ b. Fr. la mère Germaine ‘mother Germaine’ (455) [SOCIAL STATUS, AGE] Fr. archiducs enfants ‘child archducs’ (456) [OTHER] a. Fr. le mot gueux est familier ‘the word gueux is colloquial’ b. Fr. le nom Jésus ‘the name of Jesus’ c. Fr. l’affaire Dreyfus ‘the Dreyfus affair’

5.1 Occurrence and change in Latin-Romance

221

d.

Fr. la tour Eiffel ‘the Eiffel tower’ (457) [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] a. Fr. place Vendôme b. Fr. rue Marie Curie c. Fr. avenue Foch

But: [GENITIVE/PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE] (458) [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] a. Fr. la ville de Paris ‘the city of Paris’ b. Fr. rue de la Meuse ‘Meusestreet’ c. Fr. la rivière de Bièvre ‘the river Bièvre’ d. Fr. le royaume de Belgique ‘the kingdom of Belgium’ e. Fr. l’île de Chypre ‘the island of Cyprus’ f. Fr. la montagne du Sinaï ‘Mt. Sinai’ (459) [FLORA] Fr. la fleur de lis ‘lily’ (flower) (460) [OTHER, FEAST] Fr. la fȇte de Pâques ‘the feast of Easter’ (461) [OTHER, TIME] Fr. le mois de novembre ‘the month of November’ (462) [QUANTIFICATION] Fr. une livre de fraises ‘a pound of strawberries’, une pincée de sel ‘a pinch of salt’, un tas de livres ‘a heap of books’, … (Examples also from Meyer-Lübke 1894, 1899; Grevisse 1993; Väänänen 1981)

It is important to underscore that the various semantic fields are not all equally frequent, nor is the occurrence of nominal apposition always consistent. For French, Grevisse makes a distinction between examples in which the preposition de is mandatory (e. g. la ville de …, le royaume de …, le mois de …, la fête de …, la vertue de …, …), and those where the use of a preposition is “facultative”, cf. e. g. le mot pratique vs. le mot de pratique ‘the word “practical”’. Yet in these instances the variety without preposition overall is preferred (“d’une façon générale, les emplois sans préposition sont préférés aujourd’hui”; Grevisse [1993: 518]). Further analysis reveals a number of patterns. The most consistent  

 

222

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

category is that of [QUANTIFICATION], which today features a noun conveying quantity or measure, the preposition de, and a noun conveying the object or produce. Also within the field of [OTHER, FEAST] and [OTHER, TIME] the occurrence of the analytic construction (e. g. la fête de Pâques) as a productive device is systematic. Conversely, the categories [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE], [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION], and [SOCIAL STATUS, SEX], [SOCIAL STATUS, AGE], [RELIGION], [KINSHIP] and certain types of [OTHER], consistently feature nominal apposition. I note the prominence in these instances of core proper nouns referring to persons. Variation typically is observed in the domain of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], as the following examples from today’s French illustrate: le mont Athos, Mont Sinaï, place Furstenberg, avenue Foch, le fleuve Sénégal, etc. as opposed to instances under (458) above, la ville de Paris ‘the city of Paris’, rue de la Meuse ‘Meusestreet’, and la rivière de Bièvre ‘the river Bièvre’. Since formal variation is cross-linguistic, historical, and intralinguistic, it is difficult to account for, cf.  

(463) a. b.

Fr. son roman Des Misérables21 vs. son roman Les Misérables ‘the novel ‘Les Misérables’ Fr. le fleuve du Rhône vs. le fleuve Sénégal ‘the river the Rhône’ ‘the river the Senegal’ (Examples from Grevisse 1993: 518)

In addition, asyndetic constructions may typically feature a definite article, which consistently precedes the common noun; that combination precedes or follows the proper noun, conveying different functions: le docteur Pascal vs. Dieu le père. So even if nominal apposition as such survives, it underwent certain changes as well (for more details, see Section 5.3). In terms of incidence, the semantic field of [RELIGION] is relatively confined in today’s languages, whereas the domains of [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE] and [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION] are not; the formations are widespread and productive. The field of [SOCIAL STATUS, SEX] has become rather limited when referring to agricultural contexts. Yet with the influx of women in the job market, the formation has become prominent in professional terminology, as I pointed out earlier (see also Chapter 6). Nominal apposition in the fields of [KINSHIP] and [SOCIAL STATUS, AGE] is not very frequent nor very productive. Since numerous nouns in French referring to animals are age-specific (e. g. Fr. poulain ‘young horse’), this last formation indeed is not frequent either. Within the semantic field  

21 Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve in Mes poisons (post 1862).

223

5.2 Nominal apposition and the semantic field of [RELIGION]

of [QUANTIFICATION], which is very commonly attested, the genitive construction exclusively prevails, which means that there is a slow but consistent historical shift away from nominal apposition, both in terms of structure (other constructions being preferred) and semanctic field. Patterns therefore show that for certain semantic fields there is a strong connection between phenomena in society and grammatical structure (e. g. [SOCIAL STATUS, SEX/AGE]. For others that link is less prominent, but there is a change in structure. In the next section I will examine how nominal apposition systematically renders certain distinctive features of Roman religion.  

5.2 Nominal apposition and the semantic field of [RELIGION] So far, analysis has focused on the occurrence of nominal apposition in various early Indo-European languages, and subsequently on its history in Italic: Oscan and Umbrian, Latin, and Romance, primarily Old French. I have been able to identify the semantic fields of occurrence and the predominant types of construction: Proper Noun + Common Noun and Noun [produce] + Noun [quantity]. In addition, evidence has shown that there is a connection—without being all-decisive—between nominal apposition and the topic of a text: the plays of Plautus and Terence e. g. have numerous examples within the category of [SOCIAL STATUS] and few instances of [FAUNA] or [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], whereas examples of [QUANTIFICATION] are prominently present in recipes. These findings suggest a link with extra-linguistic phenomena. For each semantic field the details may vary, but in order to further examine how this connection materializes, I will explore in the following pages the types of nominal apposition within the field of [RELIGION] in Latin, establishing parallels in other IndoEuropean languages where possible. It will be demonstrated that nominal apposition is not only a productive grammatical process within the field of [RELIGION] throughout the Latin period, but that it is especially well-suited to convey the special characteristics of the Roman pantheon, with a wide range of deities in a great variety of functions. Roman religion is a rich source of nominal apposition. This is manifest in the etymology of certain names (e. g. Iupiter), in combinations including two proper nouns (e. g. Mars Silvanus), in those including a common and a proper noun (e. g. Mars pater), and in formations featuring two common nouns (e. g. dii manes). Finally, three nouns may combine in asyndetic constructions. The complexity of the Roman pantheon is of crucial importance in this respect, which is not only manifest in the great variety of types of god (e. g. principal gods [e. g. Iupiter, Mars], agricultural deities [e. g. Liber pater, Ceres], divinities of the  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

224

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

underworld (e. g. Dis pater], and others),22 but also in the numerous borrowings and the multiple functions of the individual deities. Given these intricacies, nominal apposition fulfils an important function, that of identifying a deity within the Roman pantheon as such or specifying his or her special tasks. Venus Genetrix, for example, refers to Venus in her role as the divine ancestor of the Roman people: Venus the mother (genetrix) of Aeneas, the mythological founder of Rome to whom the gens Iulia allegedly traced back. In the following pages I will discuss various instances of this use of nominal apposition, relating the various types of structure to their cultural background and showing how nominal apposition conveys prominent religious Roman concepts. Section 5.2.1. will focus on the etymology of the name Iupiter, which is based on nominal apposition. Subsequently I will discuss combinations of Proper Noun + Proper Noun (Section 5.2.2), Proper Noun + Common Noun and Common Noun + Common Noun (Sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.4), and finally prevalent formations in Christian times (Section 5.2.5).  

5.2.1 Etymology of Iupiter The etymology of nominative and vocative Iupiter and its parallels with instances of nominal apposition in other Indo-European languages has been examined in Chapter 4: (464) a. b. c.

Gk Skt Umbr.

vocative Ζεῦ πάτερ (Hom., Il. 1.503) vocative díyauṣ pítaḥ (RV 6.51.5a) vocative iupater: (Ig. IIb 24)

It is important to emphasize that the Latin name Iupiter in fact is a fossilized vocative form, which explains why the oblique cases and the accusative do not include the component -piter. Umbrian, in contrast to Latin, also features nominal apposition for cases other than the nominative/vocative (see Section 4.5.1). One of the questions to address is to what extent pater in Iupiter refers to Iupiter as the father of the gods or to Iupiter as the father figure in his relation with mankind. There are several considerations that support this last interpretation: (a) in Italic Iupiter traces back to a vocative/nominative, the case used in prayers, for instance, when individuals address the gods; (b) if pater conveyed the notion ‘father of the gods’, then it would not combine with the name of other

22 Other categories include e. g. gods of the city (e. g. Fortuna), gods of the family (e. g. Penates, Lar), or deified heroes and concepts (e. g. Fides, Vesta, the “deified domestic hearth fire” [Puhvel 1987: 151]).  

 

 

 

5.2 Nominal apposition and the semantic field of [RELIGION]

225

gods, as in La. Mars pater or Iane pater, Osc. evklúí. patereí. (Sa 1A25; Agn. 25; see also Section 4.5.1) ‘father Euclo’, and so forth; and (c) the role of a caring parental-type of god represents an important stage in religious thinking, as Jacobsen (1976) pointed out for the Near Middle East. In initial stages of religion, gods are thought of as indwelling powers in “natural and other phenomena essential for economic survival” (Jacobsen 1976: 21) as well as human survival: these early gods provide for and contribute to the basic economies that are typical of the region (fishing, husbandry, . . .; 4th millennium). When fear of famine gave way to a more general fear of wars and raids—as expressed in strongly defensive architecture and the emergence of kingship—gods came to be thought of as rulers who protect against external enemies (3rd millennium). The third stage, in the 2nd millennium, is based on the metaphor of parenthood: “the individual matters to God, God cares about him personally and deeply” (Jacobsen 1976: 147). The metaphor, which covers notions such as giving birth, providing for, protection, and honor and obedience, first appeared outside Mesapotamia in the Hittite Prayer of Kantuzilis (1350 B. C.; Jacobsen 1976: 152). In other words, this godconcept is attested in early Indo-European and the Indo-European pantheon with its ‘father X’ and ‘mother Y’ further supports this interpretation, even if the usage of ‘father’ as opposed to the earlier ‘mother’ represents a different historical stage. In this context it is important to emphasize that the Indo-European concept of father was not biological, but rather social: “le mot indo-européen désignant un role social, le “père” était le chef d’une maison, et c’est pour cela que le mot a une valeur religieuse”23 (Meillet 1982b: 28; see also 1982c: 241; for further discussion of instances including pater, see Section 5.2.3). From an evolutionary perspective, it is interesting to note that in Homeric Greek the concept “ruler” (Gk ἄναξ ‘lord’) primarily combines with the god Poseidon (11 out of a total of 66 instances of ἄναξ [or other case] in Homer combine with a proper noun). Most other instances include reference to human rulers (e. g. Priamos, relatively frequent in the Iliad [8 instances]). Assuming that the chronology established by Jacobsen parallels grosso modo that of the IndoEuropeans, the formula referring to Poseidon—one of the earliest gods—in terms of “ruler”, may be a residue of an earlier system.  

 

 

 

23 Translation: “with the Indo-European word conveying a social role, the “father” was the head of the house; and for that reason the word has religious value”.

226

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

5.2.2 Proper Noun + Proper Noun The combining of two proper nouns in the field of [RELIGION] often is related to functional specification of a given deity. As a ritualistic religion with IndoEuropean roots and with a long history of exposure to other religions, the Roman pantheon often incorporated foreign elements. The Roman pantheon came in touch with, for instance, Etruscan, Greek, Gaulish, and Germanic religion and borrowed deities or certain of their functions, which were often romanized. In addition, Roman religion evolved of its own account, developing certain features not found elsewhere or only to a lesser extent. Nominal apposition including Proper Noun + Proper Noun reflects these developments. Mars Silvanus, for example, reflects the combining of functions in the god Mars. Silvanus was an indigenous Latin deity, the god of forests (hence his name; < La. silva ‘forest’) and wild fields. In addition, he was a fertility god, protecting herds and cattle, and watched over operations that cleared the land. He was often associated—and confused—with Faunus and the Greek Pan. In Cato he is connected to Mars in Mars Silvanus, who is the god taking care of the cattle on condition of proper offerings, cf. (465) Marti Silvano in silva . . . in capita singula boum votum facito (Cato, R.R. 83.1) ‘make an offering to Mars (DAT) Silvanus (DAT) in the forest . . . for each head of cattle . . .’  

 

 

 

 

 

The role of Mars, the father of Romulus, in the Roman pantheon is accounted for below (Secton 5.2.3). I here provide just one example of Proper Noun + Proper Noun, but there are many more instances in the Roman pantheon. Finally I note that these combinations of Proper Noun + Proper Noun in the field of [RELIGION] are different from the ones in Sanskrit, which are based on complementarity (see Section 4.2.3 and Chapter 6).

5.2.3 Proper Noun + Common Noun While nominal apposition for reasons indicated above indeed is a strong and common device in the formation of names of gods in Latin, it is especially the combining of Proper Noun + Common Noun that is often attested, as in Diana Luna (Cat. 34.13–18). In this context Diana is referred to in her function as the goddess of birth: there is “a widespread connection of the moon with pregnancy” (Puhvel 1984: 157). Diana Luna is “syncretized with both Juno Lucina and Hecate” (Puhvel 1984: 157). Iuno, the wife of the chief god Iupiter, had a rich variety of functions as reflected in her names, which are based on nominal apposition. The deity Iuno

227

5.2 Nominal apposition and the semantic field of [RELIGION]

Lucina goes back to the early days of Rome (probably the 8th century B. C.). Lucina and Lucetia (as in Iunone Locina [CIL 1.2.359], 2nd century B. C.) are among her oldest titles, referring to her main functions as goddess of light, of which Iupiter was the male counterpart. Lucetia traces back to an adjective *lucetus (< *luc-; ‘luminous being’). As such she was not only the goddess of celestial light, but also the moon goddess and the goddess of child birth, which is considered as the bringing into light of the new-born (e. g. Pl., Aul. 692). This last function explains Iuno’s role in marriage and pregnancy, protecting the mother-to-be, strengthening the baby’s bones (Iuno Ossipaga [< N os ‘bone’+ V pango ‘make bone fast’]), and providing support at labor (Iuno Sospita). As a result, Iuno came to embody the notion of Roman matron, who incarnates social and moral quality (matrona Iuno [Hor., Carm. 3.4.59]). The combining of a common noun and a proper noun thus highlights the specific functions of the deity. The array of functions of Iuno is the result of the combining of divine characters from different religions: Iuno combines the borrowing of the Etruscan goddess Uni, the syncretism of Hera, and the absorption of some of Diana’s functions, with “the inherited marks of an Indo-European transfunctional goddess” also found in Old Iranian (Puhvel 1987: 151). In certain formations several functions come together, as in Iuno Sispita Mater Regina (e. g. CIL 1. 2. 1430; Warmington 1979b: 46). Seispes, mater, and regina were common epithets for Iuno (Puhvel 1987: 151). These three noun epithets are said to reflect the tripartition of Indo-European society: religion/law, military, and wealth and fertility (the people): Seispes refers to the savior who preserves and is “immune to attaint”, regina refers to the “warrior-class aspect”; finally mater conveys “the fertility function of the transfunctional goddess” (Puhvel 1987: 151–152). The noun mater occurs with other goddesses as well, as in mater Matuta (Cic., Tusc. 1.12.28) the goddess of dawn (see more below). The combination Diva Angerona conveys Angerona, the goddess (diva) of “Suffering and Silence”, whose festival was celebrated on December 21, the winter solstice. The noun angerona traces back to *angus ‘constriction’ + the augmentative suffix -ona (*angesona > angerona with rhotacism). The image of the goddess (a sealed mouth and a silencing finger to the lips) may be related to the constriction of the source of light at the winter solstice (hence the distress) and the importance of silence in the ritual to make the light return (see Puhvel 1987: 153).24  

 

 

 

 

 

24 Puhvel relates this iconography to the well-known Christmas song “Silent Night”, which celebrates the mystery of that season and the return of the sun (1987: 153), or in Christian terminology the sol invictus ‘the unconquered sun’. The Christian sol invictus (in which the sun is compared to [the resurrected] Christ) had pagan origins. As a pagan belief, it became an official

228

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

Apart from Iupiter where it is part of the etymology, pater occurs in a number of noun phrases referring to other divinities as well, as was pointed out in Section 5.2.1. In the following pages instances including pater in combination with names of other deities will be discussed in greater detail, cf. (466) a. b.

Mars pater (Cato, R. R. 141.3, 141.4; Liv. 9.8.6) ‘father Mars’ Iane pater (Cato, R. R. 143.2, 143.3) ‘father Ianus’  

 

Mars pater and Iane pater are rather common in Cato’s writing (see Section 4.5.2.3), especially in prayers. In these instances the combination functions as a vocative, underscoring my interpretation of pater as father figure. Ianus was an old Italian, especially Roman god. Originally a solar deity, watching over e. g. daybreak, beginnings, and gates (hence La. ianua ‘gate, door’), Ianus was an early god whose history and functions are closely connected to the founding of Rome. Mars as well was closely involved in the founding of Rome if only because he was said to be the father of Romulus. He may be best known as a god of war, but in origin he was the god of agriculture: both functions reflect the essential development of Rome’s history, whereby a farmers’s society turned into a military world power. Since Mars was the god of vegetation and fertility, his festivals were celebrated in the Spring. It is in these agricultural functions that Cato’s prayers and offerings to Mars have to be understood: they were part, for example, of purification festivals such as the suovetaurilia (see Chapter 6). In the accompanying prayers Mars is referred to as Mars pater as the examples under (466) illustrate, Marspiter or Marspater. With time, these functions were increasingly transferred to and/or concentrated in Liber and Ceres, whereas Mars became primarily a god of war. Yet as Puhvel points out, his “agrarian aspect as patron of the husbandman almost outweighs his “martial role”” (Puhvel 1987: 149). Of obscure etymology, Dis (syncopated form of dives ‘rich’) was the God of the dead—and therefore not overwhelmingly popular. Originally Dis referred to the deity in general and to Iupiter (cf. Diovis) more in particular. Dis was also the name used to render Greek Πλοῦτος (< πλοῦτος ‘riches’) ‘Pluto’, the god of the dead, with his ever increasing number of subjects. In this function Dis was referred to with the epithet pater. Caesar identifies one of the Gaulish gods as Dis,  

and rather popular cult in the later Roman Empire (A. D. 274), but was much older than that. In early Christianity, pagan motifs often were adopted and reinterpreted as Christian symbols (see e. g. Gough 1973: 10–48). The song “Silent Night” was late (1818), but may indeed be rooted in early customs and beliefs.  

 

5.2 Nominal apposition and the semantic field of [RELIGION]

229

when he explains the habit of the Gauls to count in nights rather than days by referring to Dis pater, from whom all Gauls descend: (467) Galli se omnes ab Dite patre prognatuos praedicant (Caes., B. G. 6.18.1) ‘the Gauls claim that they all descend from father (ABL) Dis (ABL)’  

Since Dis is the god of the underworld, the dead, and darkness, his descendants— the Gauls—in time indications count the nights, cf. for example Gaul. trinox (lit. ‘three nights’, ‘three night [festival]’), which “probably refers to a three-day period rather than merely three successive evenings” (Koch 2005: 330).25 Liber pater had a long-established cult in Italy as an Roman deity in charge of the fertility of the fields and fecundity in general. His early existence is illustrated in: (468) Romulus et Liber pater (Hor., Ep. 2.1.5) ‘Romulus (NOM) and father (NOM) Liber (NOM)’

He was part of the plebeian divine trias (with his sister/consort Libera and Ceres), which had their own temple in Rome (493 B. C.), as opposed to the Capitoline trias Iupiter, Iuno, and Minerva. When in the early 2nd century B. C. the cult of Dionysos was introduced in Italy, Liber came to be confused and then identified with Dionysos. The cult including its orgiastic rites, rituals, and excesses was immensely popular and a regulated form became an inherent part of Roman popular culture as its wide presence in Roman art clearly illustrates. Yet Liber pater kept his own festival, which was celebrated on March 17, the day on which 16 year old adolescents received their toga virilis, marking the transition to manhood. Finally, at least two other early divinities have their name commonly combined with a common noun: Lar often is found in combination with pater, and Penates in combination with the common deus (Di), cf.  

 

(469) a. b.

c.

Lar pater (Pl., Merc. 834) ‘father (NOM) Lar (NOM)’ apud Penates deos (Liv. 1.1.9) at Penates-ACC deities-ACC ‘at the Penates’ di Penates meum gods-NOM Penates-NOM my-GEN-PL ‘the Penates of my parents’

parentum (Pl., Merc. 834) parents-GEN

25 Similarly, in Welsh pythefnos ‘fortnight’, literally means ‘fifteen night(s)’ (Koch 2005: 330).

230

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

Lar and the Penates were early deities in what is Italy today,26 who first watched over the family (and their domus, e. g. supplies) and subsequently became more and more city gods (then referred to as Lares and Penates). From primarily being private, their cult became increasingly public. Since the name Iupiter etymologically includes the noun pater, this name did not combine with a common noun: I have found no attestations of *Iupiter pater. Not even in later times. Yet the different functions of Iupiter could be specified by nominal apposition, cf. for example:  

(470) a. b.

Iupiter Stator and Iupiter Victor: referring to Iupiter in his function as god of war Iupiter Terminus: referring to Iupiter’s function as the god presiding over boundaries

While pater was commonly used in combination with certain names of gods, mater occurred in these contexts as well, but to a much lesser extent, e. g.  

(471) mater Matuta (Verg., G. 498; Cic., Tusc. 1.12.28), Vesta mater (Sen., Contr. 4.2), Flora mater (Lucr. 5,739), Lua mater, . . .  

 

Matuta was the goddess of dawn—also called Aurora—the calendar opposite of Diva Angerona (see above) and her festival (Matralia), took place on June 11, several days before the summer solstice (Puhvel 1987: 152–153). There seems to be no consistency in the occurrence of names of goddesses with or without mater, but of the instances provided here, Aurora, Vesta and Lua represent ancient goddesses with strong links to the Greek and Indian pantheon (for the individual deities, see Puhvel 1987: 151–154). In conclusion, the combining of a proper noun referring to a deity and a common noun primarily involves the nouns pater and mater in Latin. In addition, examples show that combinations often refer to archaic deities that were well established on Italic soil before other religious entities came into the territory, cf. Liber pater, Lar pater, Lua mater, and so forth. These phrases refer to the deity in their early—if not original—function. On the basis of their occurrence in early prayers and inscriptions, I argue that these are early formations, fossils from ancient religious habits. In this regard it is important to note that it is in his early role as a god of agriculture, that Mars is referred to as Mars pater, rather than in his later role as a god of war. Finally, in Section 5.2.1 it was argued that the concept of the father-figure god represents a stage in the evolution of religion. The appellative function of pater

26 Lar originally was an Etruscan deity and was adopted by the Latins; the Penates were primarily Latin.

231

5.2 Nominal apposition and the semantic field of [RELIGION]

may be at play in these instances, expressing reference to the deity in question. In this light the evidence in Cato is interesting: in a recurring pattern Ianus alternates with Iane pater in the same paragraph. Nominal apposition occurs in direct appellatives, the isolated form in narrative fragments, e. g.:  

(472) Iano vinum dato: Iane pater, . . . (Cato, R. R. 134.3) ‘one should offer wine to Ianus (DAT) saying “father (VOC) Ianus (VOC) . . .”’  

 

 

 

 

The same pattern is found for Iov- and vocative Iupiter in that same section (e. g. Cato, R.R. 134.4). In this context, it is important to keep in mind that a ritual only became a religious offering if the precise wording of the prayer were correct (Risch 1981: 653).  

5.2.4 Common Noun + Common Noun The combination of the two common nouns tellus ‘earth’ (a poetic synonym for terra) and mater ‘mother’ refers to the divinity of fecundity, Tellus mater (also: Terra mater): (473) Iupiter pater appellatur, Tellus terra mater (Varr., R.R. 1.1.5 ; example [329] above) ‘Iupiter is called ‘father’ , Tellus is called ‘mother Earth’’

In her function of deity of fecundity, Tellus mater watched over marriage and procreation as well as fruitfulness of the soil and the successive stages of sown seeds. The dii manes, lit. ‘gods spirits’, played an important role both in Roman private and public religious life. Certain Christian habits today are rooted in their cult, such as meals to mark the anniversary of someone’s death. The noun Manes is derived from the archaic adjective manus ‘good’. Manes had its own adjectival derivative manalis, as in lapis manalis.27 The (Di) Manes were the ghosts or deified souls of the dead. They generally were benevolent (hence the etymology of manes), but had to be kept that way by means of care, prayers, and offerings at the grave’s side (e. g. Dörfler 1913: 1–11). An important aspect of the death cult was the notion that good care of the dead body (or ashes) implied rest and peace for the deceased, hence the importance of proper burial. As a result, reference to the souls of the dead is common on grave inscriptions, typically in abbreviation with the common nouns in apposition as in: D M which stands for Dis Manibus ‘to the  

27 Lapis manalis: a stone that was placed in a round hole when a town was being founded, representing the gate to the Underworld.

232

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

spirits of the dead’. It became a formulaic expression also referring to the soul of one person. Moreover the combining of dii and manes commonly occurred in a precatory formula, cf. (474) dii indigetes … diique gods-NOM heroes-NOM28 gods-NOM-and ‘deified departed heroes … and deified spirits’

manes (Liv. 8.9.6) spirits-NOM

Finally, many prayers and rituals are based on the numerical concept of three, as reflected, for example, in the prayers in Cato addressing Mars: requests are in threefold and the supporting ritual is a threefold offer, the suovetaurilia (Cato, R. R. 141). This formation is a derivation of a possible compound including three nominal elements. Semantically the formation has parallels in Sanskrit, where the structure is different (see further Chapter 6).  

5.2.5 Christian times and concluding remarks In Christian times, Proper Noun + Common Noun combinations disappeared with the pagan deities and accordingly the variety in types of nominal apposition decreased as well. Instead a well-known formation emerged, the common noun God in combination with nominal specification, such as ‘Father’ or ‘Lord’ (La. dominus Deus, Deus pater; Engl. God the Father), resulting in Common Noun + Common Noun. That is, to the extent that God or Deus can be considered common and not proper nouns. Proper Noun + Common Noun combinations are attested as well, as in Iesus Dominus (Per. 19.9) or Deus noster Iesus (Per. passim). The combination also occurs in formations including sanctus and in instances such as Thomas apostolus, propheta Helia, conveying theological figures. While Proper Noun + Proper Noun was very common in Latin, as observed earlier, in Christian times only Jesus Christ seems to survive as a formation. The original adjective Christus—as a calque from the Greek perfective participle—came to be seen as a proper noun in various languages: Iesus Christus. This formation is one of the few of that type left: society no longer adopted foreign gods, integrating them and their functions in its pantheon. Moreover, overall the prevalent Common Noun + Common Noun and—more so—Proper Noun + Common Noun combinations seem to be relatively limited in variation and not open to much innovation in the Christian era. The background

28 Indigetes were heroes who were “elevated to the rank of gods after their death, and regarded as the patron deities of their country” (Lewis and Short 1879: 935).

233

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

of this situation is obvious: a monotheistic religion with at its core the religious concept of Trinity inherently allows for little variation with God the Father, the names Iesus and Christus each in combination with a common noun or with each other, and the Holy Spirit referred to with an adjectival noun phrase (Spiritus sanctus). An important source of expansion is the inclusion of saints: with the pattern sanctus + Proper Noun—which was pervasive from early times on— sanctus came to be used as a title. In sum, the discussion in the preceding pages shows how a semantic field— i. c. that of [RELIGION]—has been a rich source of nominal apposition. Conversely, it also demonstrates that nominal apposition was a productive process within the semantic field of [RELIGION] and as a grammatical device offered ample opportunity to absorb the fluid notions and complexity of the Indo-European and especially the Roman pantheon. Nominal apposition proves to be a rich source of formations in a pantheon including many gods each with numerous functions. Analysis also has demonstrated that many formations reflect early religious phenomena related to the founding of Rome or its agricultural origins (e. g. Mars Silvanus, Liber pater, …). The practice of expanding functions (e. g. Iuno Lucina, matrona Iuno, Iuno regina, …) and adopting divinities or their functions from other cultures is clearly reflected in instances of nominal apposition in which one noun provides semantic specification of the other noun. Analysis therefore clearly reveals that nominal apposition as a syntactic phenomenon closely conveys a prevalent aspect of society: a strong polytheistic religion constantly adapting to new divinities, religious functions, and influences.  

 

 

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance Having discussed the occurrence and semantic fields of nominal apposition in Latin and Old French and having focused on its functioning within the semantic field of [RELIGION], I will now examine the grammatical changes that the construction underwent. I will first analyze phenomena of agreement, both external (5.3.1) and internal (5.3.2). Changes affecting internal agreement resulted in the spread of both genitives and nominatives in given contexts, and of adjectival constructions. Moreover, nominal apposition underwent word order change (5.3.3) and was affected by a number of other changes, such as the development of definite articles (5.3.4).

234

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

5.3.1 External agreement in nominal apposition In this section I will discuss agreement patterns of nominal apposition in relation to their syntactic context, hence the heading “external agreement”. External agreement is manifest in relative clauses, adjectives, demonstratives, and personal pronouns. There are two questions that are of special interest: (1) is there true and accurate agreement? and (2) if two nouns of different gender are involved, which noun determines the patterns of external agreement? In Chapter 1, I have already discussed these patterns for today’s French and German, which contributed to the identification of the head in instances of nominal apposition. Earlier, external agreement as expressed in relative pronouns has been referred to by Heberlein in his (1996) article, which focuses primarily on the internal relation between the composing elements of nominal apposition and related phenomena. Since Heberlein’s analysis aims pragmatic semantic interpretations of nominal apposition and is purely synchronic, without distinguishing diachronic layers as reflected in Latin and today’s German, I do not further discuss it here and I focus on my own data. Data from Cato (Re Rustica), Plautus, Varro (Re Rustica), Caesar, Phaedrus, Placentinus, and the Peregrinatio show—first of all—an increase since Cato of socalled isolated contstructions in lower-register and later texts. In addition, the type of syntactic connection seems to change with time or register, cf. Table X: Table X: Nominal Apposition – External Agreement Patterns. AUTHOR

TOTAL INSTANCES OF N.A.

ISOLATED

PRONOUN, ...

RELATIVE/ADJ

Cato -Re Rustica-

18

8(44 %)

10

0

Plautus

113

86(76 %)

19

8(7 %)

Varro -Re Rustica-

25

18(72 %)

2

5(20 %)

Caesar -De Bello Gallico-

68

37(54 %)

14

17(25,7 %)

Phaedrus

9

5(55 %)

3

1(11 %)

Placentinus -Itinerarium-

7

0(0 %)

1

6(71 %)

Peregrinatio Aetheriae

87

66(71 %)

2

19(29,4 %)

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

235

The term “ISOLATED” in Table X above, refers to instances of nominal appostion that do not feature agreement with any element outside the noun phrase. Instances in the category “PRONOUN” feature agreement with a personal pronoun, an anaphoric element, or a demonstrative in the relative or main clause following the appositive construction, as in: (475) … filiam virginem … . Scio … : hanc esse pauperem (Pl., Aul. 172) ‘(his) daughter …. . I know… that she is poor’

Instances in the category “RELATIVE/ADJECTIVE” involve an appositive construction in combination with a relative clause or—more rarely—an adjective, as in: (476) a. b. c.

ex monte Vosego, qui … (Caes., B. G. 4.10.1.1) ‘from the Vosges (ABL-M) range (ABL-M), which (M) …’ servom Sauriam …, cui (Pl., As. 85) ‘(that) slave Daurea, to whom …’ arbor olea, quae … dicitur ibi nata (Varr., R. R. 1.2.20) ‘the olive (F) tree (F) , which (F) is said to have originated (F)…’  

 

The pattern that emerges is that the determining element in agreement typically is the common rather than the proper noun as examples including nouns of different gender illustrate, cf. (477) a. b. c. d. e. f.

flumen Axonam, quod est… (Caes., B. G. 2.5.4.4) ‘the river (NE) Axona (Aisne) (F), which (NE) is …’ ad flumen Sabim, quod supra nominavimus (Caes., B. G. 2.18.1.2) ‘to the river (NE) Sambre (M), which (NE) we mentioned earlier’ ad flumen Scaldem, quod … (Caes., B. G. 6.33.3.1) ‘to the river (NE) Scheldt (M), which (NE) …’ mons Cevenna, qui … (Caes., B. G. 7.8.2.1 ) ‘the mount (M) of the Cevennes (F), which (M) …’ ad montem Iuram, … qui … (Caes., B. G. 1.8.1.3) ‘to the mount (M) of the Jura (F), which (M) …’ venimus in civitatem … Beritho, in qua … (Plac., R. A. 1a.5) ‘we arrived in the town (F) of Beritos (M), where (F) …’  

 

 

 

 

 

A few instances feature the reverse agreement pattern, in which the proper noun prevails, as in: (478) a. b.

flumine Rhodano, qui … (Ceas., B. G. 1.2.3.6) ‘by the river (N) Rhône (M), which (M) …’ flumine Rheno …, qui (Caes., B. G. 1.2.3.3) ‘by the river (NE) Rhine (M), which (M)’  

 

236

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

These instances are, however, rare. In fact, examples (478a) and (478b) were the only instances in my corpus. Similarly, adjectival agreement shows the same syntactic prevalence of the common noun and the exceptional nature of instances in which the proper noun determines agreement: (479) oppositus mons Cevenna (Caes., B. G. 7.56.2.4) ‘mount (M) Cevennes (F) being.in.the.way (M)’  

But: (480) Priami patriam Pergamum divina moenitum manu (Pl., Bacch. 926) ‘Priam’s paternal city (F) Pergamum (NE) fortified (NE) by a divine hand’

The following example from Varro is of special interest because it includes two proper nouns that are neuter plurals and two common plural nouns, a masculine noun (ludi) and feminine noun (feriae) respectively: (481) Robigo feriae Robigalia, Florae ludi Floralia instituti (Varr., R. R. 1.1.6) ‘in honor of Robigus the festival (NOM-PL-F) of the Robigalia (NOM-PL-NE), and in honor of Flora the Floriala (NOM-PL-NE) games (NOM-PL-M) have been instituted (NOM-PL-M)’  

As indicated earlier, Floralia and Robigalia are neuter plural nominal derivatives of Flora and Robigus respectively, in whose honor festivals were yearly organized (see Section 5.1.1). In contexts of animate nouns of different gender, Latin’s agreement rules favor the masculine, whereas in contexts of inanimate nouns of different gender the neuter plural prevails. Unless the nearest noun determines gender agreement. If the nouns are animate and inanimate, the closest noun will determine the gender of the adjectival element, as in the following example, which combines two animate nouns (funditores and sagittarii) and one inanimate noun (frumentum). Inanimate frumentum is closest and therefore determines agreement with the participle: (482) funditores sagittariique et frumentum traditum consulibus (Liv. 22.37.13) ‘the slingers (PL-M) and archers (PL-M) and the grain (SG-NE) were delivered (SG-NE) to the consuls’ (Example from Oudot 1964: 5).

The example of the Robigalia above (481) features two inanimate concepts to which reference is made in two instances of nominal apposition. Each of these includes a masculine/feminine head noun and a neuter proper noun. Adjectival agreement—i. c. masculine plural—shows that once more the common noun pre 

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

237

vails (and not neuter Floralia) and that therefore instituti agrees with masculine ludi, which is the nearest common noun. The common noun also prevails in instances of gapping, when only one of the two nouns re-occurs in the subordinate or main clause following the instance of nominal apposition. The common noun is then the element that is preserved, cf. (483) a. b.

ex oppido Alesia … . …. ante oppidum … (Caes., B. G. 7.79.3) ‘from the town (ABL) of Alesia (ABL) … . … in front of the town (ACC)’ qui proximi flumine Rheno … . … flumine … (Caes., B. G. 3.11.2.4) ‘which live close to the river (ABL) Rhine (ABL) … . … the river (ABL) … ’  

 

Preservation of the proper noun is relatively rare (e. g. 2 vs. 10 instances in Caesar including flumen or oppidum), cf.  

(484) a. b. c.

quod flumine Arare … subvexerat, … ab Arare … (Caes., B. G. 1.16.3.2 ) ‘which he had transported up the river Arar/Saône … . … from the Saône’ ad Seleucem regem …, … ad Seleucem … (Pl., Mil. 948) ‘to king (ACC) Seleuces (ACC) …, … to Seleuces (ACC)’ venimus in civitatem Tyrum, a Tyro usque Sareptam (Plac., R. A. 2a.3) ‘we went to the town (ACC) of Tyrus (ACC), from Tyrus (ABL) to Sarepta (ACC) …’  

 

In the Peregrinatio a few similar instances (six) are found as well, in addition to the more frequent alternative, cf. for example, (485) locus Belsefon ostensus est nobis, immo in eo loco fuimus (Per. 4.2) ‘we were shown the location (NOM) of Belsefon (NOM) in which location (ABL) we have been before’

The common noun may be repeated in relative clauses as well, underscoring its prominence in agreement patterns: (486) in Tabor monte, qui mons … (Plac., R. P. 6.1) ‘on mount Tabor, which mountain …’  

The following example is also of interest because it features two common nouns one of which recurs in the next sentence, cf. (487) geminos peperit filios. Ain tu, geminos … (Pl., Amph. 1088) ‘she has given birth to twin sons. Really, twins?’

The choice of geminos is determined by the question as to the nature of the blood relation, “not just sons, but twins”. The regularity consistently attested for gapping, relative pronouns, and adjectives is also to be expected for personal pronouns. Yet the evidence is not

238

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

conclusive, because of a lack of data: there are no such instances in Cato and the few examples from Plautus feature nouns of the same gender: (488) a. b.

servos Pseudolus. Hic mihi corrumpit filium (Pl., Ps. 445) ‘that slave (M) Pseudolus (M). He (M) is the one who corrupts my son …’ … filiam virginem … . Scio … : hanc esse pauperem (Pl., Aul. 172) ‘(his) daughter (F) …. . I know… that she (F) is poor’

In this light, I draw attention to an observation made by Hoffman and Szantyr (1965: 441), according to whom a common noun may underly the use of pronouns in contexts that include proper nouns without common noun, as in the following examples: (489) a. b.

Munda, quod … ceperant (Bellum Hispaniense 41.6) ‘Munda (F), which (NE) they took’ Rhenum et Sequanam …, inter id … (Plin., Nat. 4.106) ‘Rhine (M) and Seine (F), between which (NE)’

[sc. oppidum]

[sc. flumen]

There are however not many instances of this type in other authors. Moreover, since they feature nouns of the same gender, they are not instructive. In sum, the data presented here show that the common noun is the element that connects the appositive noun phrase to its grammatical context. These findings concur with the patterns in today’s French and German discussed earlier, where external agreement is determined by the common noun as well and marked on relative and personal pronouns, adjectives, and finite active and passive verbs (Section 1.2, which discusses the implications for the internal hierarchy of nominal apposition). The syntactic predominance of the common noun is manifest in agreement patterns involving a variety of elements: relative and personal pronouns, demonstratives, adjectives, and contexts of nominal reference or deletion. Moreover in the early texts—also in early popular registers—the element that features in agreement patterns typically is the personal pronoun, whereas the relative pronoun becomes increasingly important in later texts. This shift marks the increasing importance of subordation.

5.3.2 Internal agreement in nominal apposition As stated a number of times already, nominal apposition is based on agreement: the two nouns agree in case and (generally) number, as the often-quoted instance from Varro illustrates: arbor olea (Varr., R.R. 1.2.20) ‘tree-NOM olive(.tree)-NOM’. The following pages will elucidate the changes that resulted in the disappearance

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

239

of internal agreement patterns in certain semantic fields. In Section 5.3.2.1 focus will be on genitive alternatives to nominal apposition and in Section 5.3.2.2, I will examine the spread of nominatives and phonetic identity at the expense of nominal apposition.

5.3.2.1 Genitive instead of nominal apposition Evidence in Chapter 4 showed that in several early Indo-European languages already nominal apposition with time came to be partly replaced by a genitive construction. In this section, I will examine this evolution more in detail, tracing it in Latin-Romance. The spread of the genitive replacing an earlier agreement construction—hence nominal apposition—is attested in a number of structures and their developments show striking similarities. Yet while the trend is observed in several structures, it did not affect all. Moreover in certain contexts an adjective emerged as well. In the following pages I will examine these changes as they occurred in (a) geographic indications ([GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION]), (b) names of days and feasts ([OTHER, TIME/FEAST]), (c) structures in the domain of [FLORA] and [FAUNA], (d) [QUANTIFICATION], (e) NOMEN constructions, and (f) other structures.

Geographic indications Many of the geographic indications featuring nominal apposition in early times came to include a genitive instead, as numerous examples in Sections 4.5.2 and 5.1 have already shown: (490) a. b.

urbs Roma

vs.

flumine Rheno29

vs. vs.

c.

montem Iuram30

vs.

urbem Patavii (Verg., Aen. 1.247) ‘town (ACC) of Padua (GEN)’ flumen Himellae (Verg., Aen. 7.714) ‘the river (ACC) Himella (GEN)’ Asturae flumen (Liv. 8.13.5) ‘the river (ACC) Astura (GEN)’ Pachyni promuntorium (Liv. 24.35.3) ‘the promontory (ACC) of Pachynum (GEN)’

In popular registers and later documents this trend became stronger. While the tendency toward genitive constructions is clear, the rate with which this shift occurred varied from author to author. Moreover, analysis of the individual

29 flumine Rheno ‘river (ABL) Rhine (ABL)’ (Caes., B. G. 1.2.3; example [346] above). 30 montem Iuram ‘mount (ACC) Iura (ACC)’ (Caes., B. G. 1.8.1; example [345b] above).  

 

240

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

authors reveals that they have their own preferences, which are lexically motivated: a pattern attested, for example, in Antoninus Placentinus and the Peregrinatio Aetheriae. In Placentinus’ text several nouns exclusively favor the genitive construction, whereas others favor nominal apposition in the majority of instances (e. g. civitas 19 instances of nominal apposition out of a total of 35 Noun + Noun combinations); yet other nouns such as mons feature nominal apposition, the genitive, and “undecided” constructions. A similar pattern is observed for mons in the Peregrinatio, where the choice of structures seem to be determined by the proper noun.  

Names of days and feasts Although names of days strictly speaking are compounds, I include their analysis and that of the names of feasts here rather than in the chapter on word formation (Chapter 6). The reason is that they closely reflect certain patterns of nominal apposition in a semantic field—[OTHER, TIME]—that otherwise increasingly seems to favor genitives. The concept of a seven-day week was introduced by Emperor Augustus, replacing an earlier eight-day system. Moreover the days henceforth were given names, those of the planets and the gods associated with them, following a Greek pattern.31 The week started with Saturni dies (‘Saturday’, first day), followed by Solis dies, Lunae dies, Martis dies, Mercurii dies, Iovis dies, and Veneris dies (for the sequence of planets, the cult and representation of the planetary gods, see Green [1998: 236–253]). The recurring grammatical pattern is [Genitive + dies]. The Romance languages overall continue this pagan tradition, to which Judeo-Christian aspects have been added: the days of the week in Romance primarily refer to the planetary gods with the exception of the names for Sunday and Saturday, which are called “day of the Lord” and “Sabbath” respectively: La. sabbati dies > Fr. samedi, It. sabato ‘Saturday’; La. dies dominica > Fr. dimanche, ‘Sunday’, and so forth. There is variation between the Romance languages in terms of degree of Christian influence manifest from the 4th century A. D. (substantial in Portuguese, for example), ellipsis of the head noun dies (It. sabato vs. Fr. samedi), or the relative order of elements (It. venerdì vs. Cat. divendres, Prov. divendre ‘Friday’). For more details, discussion, and references, see Bauer (2011: 548–549).  

31 The concept of a seven-day week and naming the days was Jewish. In this concept the Sabbath was the turning point and the pivot of the week, with Sunday being the “first day” after the Sabbath, and so forth.

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

241

The consistency with which Latin names of days—with the exception of dies dominica—primarily combined a genitive followed by the noun dies,32 contrasts sharply with the variation found in other [TIME] indications in the Latin documents, for example those referring to festivals or religious holidays. Analysis of the occurrence of nominal apposition in Section 5.1 above showed already that [TIME] indication is neither manifest in all authors nor widely used by all, nor is it structurally consistent. In Varro, for example, the two instances of time reference including feriae and ludi both feature nominal apposition,33 but in the Peregrinatio Aetheriae there are many more, featuring adjectival or genitive constructions, or nominal apposition. Given its rich corpus, focus in the following paragraphs primarily is on the Peregrinatio. Despite variation in occurrence, [OTHER, TIME] indications in the Peregrinatio tend to favor genitive and adjectival constructions, but they may also take the form of nominal apposition, as the following examples illustrate, cf. (491) [APPOSITION] pridie a beatissimo die epiphania (Per. 9.1) ‘the eve of the most blessed day (ABL) of Epiphany (ABL)’ (492) [GENITIVE] die sabbati (Per. 44.1) ‘Saturday’ (493) [ADJECTIVE] dominica die (Per. 44.3 and passim) ‘Sunday’ (494) secunda/tertia/quarta/quinta/sexta feria (Per. passim) ‘Monday through Friday’

In terms of nominal apposition, several constructions in the Peregrinatio are of interest, combing two nouns of different gender: (495) a.

pridie a beatissimo die epiphania (Per. 9.1; example [492] above) ‘the eve of the most holy (ABL-M) day (ABL-M) of Epiphany (ABL-F)’34

32 Data from Old French confirm this observation in that dilun/delun, dimars, dimerce, and dioes featuring originally La. dies + Genitive all are attested from the 13th c., whereas marsdi and mercresdi—reflecting the reverse sequence—are attested earlier: as of 1173 both occur in departmental archives. Juesdi is found in the 12th c. as well (Greimas 1968: passim). The data also show that the formations trace back to a genitive construction. The internal chronology of this formation, however, remains elusive, cf. Baehr (1958: 48–49, 54–56); Rohlfs (1971: 190); Green (1998: 243–253); Bauer (2011). 33 The examples are feriae Robigalia and ludi Floralia (Varro, R. R. 1.1.6) combining nouns of masculine, feminine and neuter gender respectively (see Section 5.1.1). 34 On the mixed gender (M or F) of dies, see Adams (2013: 393).  

242

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

b.

sabbato autem alia die (Per. 38.1) ‘next day (ABL-F) Saturday (ABL-M)’

Moreover, nominal apposition is found in [TIME] indications that specify the segment of the day in question: (496) a. b. c.

nisi sabbato mane (Per. 27.9) ‘except Saturday (ABL) morning (ABL)’ in mane sabbato (Per. 29.1, 29.3) ‘on Saturday (ABL) morning (ABL)’ sabbato mane (Per. 27.9) ‘Saturday (ABL) morning (ABL)’

In contexts other than those of sabbato, combinations of common nouns in apposition are attested as well, providing specified time indication, such as sera ‘evening hour, late hour’, nocte ‘night’, and others: (497) a. b. c.

nocte sera (Per. 33.1) ‘night evening‘ > ‘late at night (ABL)’ sera hora (Per. 39.5) ‘late at night (ABL)’ alia die mane (Per. 27.7) ‘the next day morning (ABL)’

Originally an indeclinable noun, mane came to be used as an adverb as well, often in combination with other time indications (e. g. cras mane [Pl., Phorm. 531] ‘tomorrow morning’). In the Peregrinatio, mane functions as a noun, as the following instances featuring a preposition illustrate: usque in mane (Per. 37.9), usque ad mane (Per. 37.9) ‘until the morning’. It is important to note that these [TIME] indications survived in Romance as instances of nominal apposition (cf. below). Other constructions became adjectival or genitival. While names of feasts featuring dies may be instances of nominal apposition as examples above (e. g. [495a]) illustrate, they predominantly include a genitive, like the names of days, cf.  

 

(498) [GENITIVE] a. dies paschae (Per. 47.1) ‘Easter (GEN) days (NOM)’ b. die dominica paschae (Per. 40.2) ‘on the Sunday (ABL) of Easter (GEN)’ > ‘on Easter Sunday’ c. in diebus quadrigesimarum (Per. 27.4) ‘during the days (ABL) of Lenten (GEN-PL)’

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

d.

243

de hora lucernarii (Per. 27.7) ‘from the hour (ABL) of the lucernarium (GEN)’35

Similarly, with the noun sabbatum referring to the Saturday before Easter, which at that time was a day of religious observance in Jerusalem: (499) excepta una die sabbati (Per. 27.1) leave.out-PF.PART-ABL-SG one-ABL day-ABL Sabbath-GEN ‘(there is no fasting) with the exception of one Saturday’

This last example (499) is part of a construction with additional external agreement in which the common noun prevails: (500) excepta una die sabbati, qua vigiliae paschales sunt (Per. 27.1) ‘with the exception (F) of one (F) Satur(M) day(F), which (F) is the Vigil of Easter’

It is important to note that the Sabbath was referred to with two nouns: the neuter plural sabbata (Gen. sabbatorum) and the singular neutrum sabbatum (Gen. sabbati). In example (499; Per. 27.1) above the genitive singular is used. Genitive sabbati is also attested in the following example in which dies combines with both a genitive and an adjective, highlighting the strong cohesion between die and dominica, cf. (501) excepta die sabbati et excepted day-ABL Sabbath-GEN and ‘with the exception of Saturday and Sunday’

dominica (Per. 44.1) of.lord-ADJ-ABL-F

Moreover the development of the formation quadragesima (lit. ‘fortieth’) illustrates the increasing importance of genitive dies constructions. In early times quadragesima conveyed the period of 40 days as well as the 40th day, referring to the Ascension. In Gregory of Tours Historia Francorum (referred to as: GT, H. F.), the feast is referred to as dies ascensionis (H. F. 10.31), with a genitive (for more details, see Bastiaensen 1962: 141). Time reference in the Peregrinatio may occasionally take the form of a prepositional phrase, which like the genitive is a hypotactic construction, cf.  

 

(502) dominica die per pascha (Per. 39.4) ‘Easter Sunday’

35 The Lucernarium (lit.: lighting of the lamps) is a prayer in the Church of Rome celebrating Christ as the Light. In the 5th century, it came to be included in the Vespers.

244

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

The occurrence of per in this context is not exceptional because per appears frequently in time indications in general, as in per diem ‘during the day’ (vs. per noctem ‘during the night’). Similarly, from early times per often is attested in reference to feasts and festivals, which tend to take several days, explaining its occurrence, cf. per Dionysia (Pl., Cist 89) ‘during the festival of Dionysus’ (see Bastiaensen 1962: 170–172). Among adjectival constructions dominica die is found today in most Romance languages, as a serial compound including the noun dies (e. g. Prov. dimenche, Cat. diumenge, Fr. dimanche) or as an elliptic formation (Sp./Po. domingo; It./ Rum. domenica; for further details, see Baehr 1958: 44; Rohlfs 1971: 95–96). Since dies typically combined with a genitive in reference to the other days of the week, the occurrence of an adjective in dies dominica is remarkable. It may be a residue of an earlier trend to use certain adjectives instead of adnominal genitives, which lingers on in a number of contexts—such as patronymics in Greek—or is limited to a few adjectives in Latin, cf. erilis (erilis filius ‘the master’s son’), hostilis (metus hostilis ‘fear of the enemy’), and dominicus, as in vinum dominicum (Petr. 31) ‘the master's wine’ (for a discussion of this phenomenon, see Meillet and Vendryes 1924: 511–512, 531–532). Another consistent adjectival construction includes feria and an ordinal numeral. In the context of the Church of Rome formations including feria originally referred to the days of Easter week, with special prayers and rituals for each day of the week. The days together (from Easter Sunday until the Sunday after) form the Octave of Easter: the first day being referred to as prima feria or dies dominica ‘Sunday’, the second day as secunda feria ‘Monday’, followed by tertia feria ‘Tuesday’, quarta feria ‘Wednesday’, quinta feria ‘Thursday’, and sexta feria ‘Friday’.36 Today only Christmas Day carries an octave as well, but in the past many more solemnities had octaves. In the Peregrinatio Aetheriae, feria is used in reference to the days of the week during Lent (Per. 27.1) as well as the weeks following Easter (e. g. Per. 41–42). The relatively high incidence of feriae on the liturgical calendar explains the survival of feria-formations in certain Romance languages, such as Portugese, where the weekdays are referred to with segunda(terça-, quarta-, quinta- sexta-) feira, ‘Monday, etc.’, from Latin secunda (tertia, quarta, quinta, … ) feria. Other adjectival formations that are widespread, include dies paschales (Per. 39.1) ‘the feast of Easter’ or vigiliae paschales (Per. 39.1) ‘Easter Vigils’, and so forth.  

 

36 There are at least twenty-two instances of this construction in the Peregrinatio, featuring the various ordinal numbers.

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

245

It is remarkable that [OTHER, TIME] indications involving the noun mensis ‘month’ feature nominal apposition throughout the history of Latin. The construction is attested in Cato’s speeches (mense Octobri [Cato, Orat. 76.1] ‘in the month [ABL] of October [ABL]’), but also in Placentinus (mense Febroario [Plac., Pr.Sg. 13.5]). Names of months also occur without the common noun, which shows that they also functioned as full-fledged nouns despite their adjectival origin. In Gregory of Tours’ Historia Francorum 27 instances of mensis are found in combination with specifying elements. One construction features a genitive (erat enim mensis Septembris (GT, H. F. 5.33) ‘it was the month (NOM) of September (GEN)’. Eight instances have case agreement and may be considered instances of nominal apposition (e. g. mense Septembre [GT, H. F. 6.44]), whereas the remaining examples feature either an adjective (ordinal), a cardinal numeral, or a number (e.g mense sexto; mense septimo; mensis V ‘the sixth/seventh month, month 5’ [GT, H. F. 9.36, 8.42, 10.23]). In terms of chronology as well, time indications are of interest. As said, names of days were relatively late in Latin and featured a genitive from the beginning. It therefore is rather remarkable that in addition to this modern hypotactic structuration, other types of structure emerged equally late or later: several adjectival varieties came up in later Latin. As a result, the genitival innovation of the type dies sabbati co-existed with adjectival tertia feria (Per. 27.5). Similarly the new Christian holidays featured nominal apposition (e. g. die epiphania ‘Epiphany’), genitive constructions (e. g. dies paschae [Per. 47.1]), and adjectival structures (dies paschales [Per. 39.1] ‘the feast of Easter’). Nominal apposition in Christian formations parallels the model of pagan feasts as illustrated in early instances like feriae Robigalia ‘festival of Robigus’ and ludi Floralia ‘festival of Flora’ (Varr., R. R. 1.1.6). Alternatively, the genitive construction (dies paschae ‘Easter [GEN] day [NOM]’) parallels the dies-formations for weekdays and the adjectival construction (dies paschalis) is part of a more general trend to include adjectives where before a noun was found (cf. below). As indicated above, nominal apposition eventually became less prominent in favor of adjective or genitive constructions. The decrease of nominal apposition does not mean that all genitive constructions referring to feasts in the Romance languages originated in nominal apposition: many have been genitive constructions ever since they first emerged in Vulgar or Late Latin, cf. VLa. dies paschae > Fr. jour de Pâques. Nor does it mean that nominal apposition no longer is attested: in today’s French, reference to parts of days continues to feature nominal apposition as found in Latin: Fr. dimanche matin, It. domenica mattina ‘Sunday morning’. Finally, adjectival constructions are limited to certain fixed expressions or opaque formations (Prov. dimenche; Po. segunda feira). By contrast, genitives and nominal apposition both are productive  

 

 

 

 

 

 

246

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

and new formations continue to emerge (e. g. Fr. le jour de l’Armistice ‘Armestice Day’; a national holiday since 1918), albeit that genitive formations on the whole are more productive and show more variation than nominal apposition.  

Fauna and flora In field of [FLORA] and [FAUNA] the predominant pattern is that of Common Noun + Common Noun combinations, often specifying the semantic class of the referent, either its sex, species, or other particulars, cf. (503) [SEX] porcum swine-ACC-M ‘female swine’

feminam (Cato, R. R. 134.1.5 and passim) female37-ACC-F  

The two distinct genders show that the construction includes two nouns, not just a noun and an adjective. Other instances include: (504) rabiosa femina . . . canis (Pl., Men. 837) furious-NOM-F female-NOM-F dog-NOM ‘a rabid bitch’ (505) [SPECIES] a. ex olea arbore (Varr., R. R. 3.16.25.1) out olive-ABL-F tree-ABL-F ‘from an olive tree’ b. in arborem sycomorum (Vulg., Luc. 19.4)38 in tree-ACC sycomore-ACC ‘in a mulberry tree’  

 

 

Although these last two examples are formally very similar, they are not semantically identical. A sycomurus is a tree and arbor further specifies that characteristic. Olea, by contrast, conveys both the fruit and the tree, and the occurrence of arbor determines its semantic class. Olea ‘olive tree’ is also attested without arbor: ut olea et populus alba et salix (Varr., R.R. 1.46.1) ‘as the olive tree, the silver poplar, and the willow’. Other [FAUNA] and [FLORA] instances with species specification include:

37 ‘Female’ in this context is used as a noun, referring to animals that belong to the sex that can have young. 38 Edition used: Nestle and Aland (1961).

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

(506) a.

b.

c.

d.

247

mala granata (Apic., DRC 1.12.2) fruit-NOM-PL granates-NOM ‘pomegranates’ mala cidonia (Apic., DRC 1.12.3) fruit-NOM-PL quinces-NOM ‘quinces’ cicutam herbam (Anth., DOC 14.9) hemlock-ACC weed-ACC ‘hemlock plant, poison hemlock’ porco piaculo (Cato, R.R. 139.1, passim) swine-ABL offering-ABL ‘swine used in offering’

Other attested botanical references detailing species or type include: (507) in ipso horto in the-ABL yard-ABL ‘in the orchard’

pomario (Per. 15.6; also 15.2) orchard-ABL

The instances above are important because they show that apposition was rather common in this type of structure even at a late stage. Yet Vulgar and Late Latin documents provide an ever-increasing number of genitive structures as well: (508) a. b. c. d. e.

arbor sicomori (Per. 8.2, 8.5) ‘tree-NOM sycomore-GEN’ > ‘sycomore, mulberry tree’ abietis arbores (Liv. 24.3.4) ‘silver.fir-GEN trees-ACC’ > ‘silver fir’ lapathi herba (Hor., Sat. 2.4.29) ‘sorrel-GEN plant-NOM > ‘sorrel’ arborem fici (Vulg., Luc. 13.6) ‘tree-ACC fig-GEN’ > ‘fig tree’ arborem peperis (Plac., Pr.Sg. 41.3) ‘tree-ACC pepper-GEN’ (Several examples are from Salonius 1920: 86)

It is important to note that the formal variation within the categories of [FAUNA] and [FLORA] is rather limited, especially in comparison to findings in [OTHER, TIME] indications above. It primarily entails nominal apposition vs. genitive constructions. As a rule, one does not find adjectival constructions at this point in time, at least not in the corpus of texts analyzed here. Yet Romance data indicate that adjectival constructions came up in these phrases at some point in time, as today’s tree names in French, for example, illustrate: Fr. noyer ‘nut.tree’ > ‘nut tree’, which etymologically reflects an adjectival origin. Two scenarios are conceivable: (I) the formation does not reflect an underlying NP with adjective, but rather a nominal derivation involving the La. suffix -arius (Rohlfs 1968: 58). Early

248

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

instances of this derivation are not attested in the corpora examined, which would suggest that this formation is relatively late. Its late occurrence is further supported by the inconsistent spread among the Romance languages (for more details about these developments, see Meyer-Lübke 1894; Rohlfs 1968: 56–59). Alternatively, (II) the structure was a noun phrase including an adjective referring to the fruit, which became an important source of formation for fruit trees in Romance. In French e. g. many names of trees trace back to Latin formations in -aria/-arius, the adjectival suffix (Meyer-Lübke 1894: 470), cf. Fr. noyer ‘nut tree’ from La. *nucarius (< La. nux ‘nut’). The suffix subsequently became productive, cf. amandier ‘almond tree’ (< amande ‘almond’ + -ier), figuier ‘fig tree’ (< figue ‘figue’+ -ier), châtaignier ‘chestnut tree’(< 12th c. chastaignier < chastaigne), and others. In other Romance languages, such as Italian, certain tree names originate in Noun + Adjective combinations as well: e. g. Central It. quercia (F) < arbor quercea and Ven. faśa (F) < arbor fagea. Examples like Lunigiano guercio (M) and Tosc. faggio (M) (Rohlfs 1968: 57) are problematic because they trace back to masculine nouns, namely arbor querceus and arbor fageus respectively. Despite their ending -us, tree names had feminine gender: quercus (F) ‘oak’, fraxinus (F) ‘ash-tree’, ficus (F) ‘fig tree’, and so forth—in accordance with the feminine gender of arbor ‘tree’. In Vulgar and Late Latin tree names in -us increasingly came to be regarded as masculine nouns as their masculine reflexes in the Romance languages show (see also Väänänen (1981: 226). Accordingly, arbor came to be seen as a masculine noun. This is reflected in the standard Romance languages, such as French or Italian. Yet the dialects may display variation as the examples above illustrate. Historically this formation further includes the deletion of the noun and the nominalization of the adjective. The absence of adjectival constructions in my Latin data suggests, however, that the emergence of adjectival constructions was late. Accordingly the formation is not found in all Romance languages and where it is attested, it is neither consistent nor widespread.  

 

Quantification As demonstrated in Chapter 4, [QUANTIFICATION] was predominantly or almost exclusively conveyed by nominal apposition in Hittite and Mycenaean, but showed variation—nominal apposition vs. genitive—to different extents in the other languages. In Latin, [QUANTIFICATION] is rendered both with nominal apposition and genitive constructions from earliest times on. It is striking that, while nominal apposition is found to be relatively rare, it is attested in early as well as late texts, as the examples in Cato already showed for early times (Section 4.5.2.3), cf.

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

249

(509) [APPOSITION] a. farinam facito libras iiii (Cato, R. R. 109) ‘make four pounds (ACC) of flour (ACC)’ b. polentam grandem dimidium acetabuli … indito (Cato, R. R. 108) ‘place half (ACC) an acetabulum of large pearl barley (ACC)’  

 

Numerous examples of nominal apposition are found in later times and in popular registers as well (Section 5.1.2), cf. (510) [APPOSITION] a. da fridam pusillum (CIL 4.1201) ‘give a bit (ACC) of cold water (ACC)’ b. rutam modicum (Apic., DRC 3.4.1) ‘a bit (ACC) of rue (ACC)’

Recently Adams has found evidence of apposition being used in quantitative expressions in the 1st and 2nd century A. D. Latin in Egypt: martium salem ‘a martium (ACC) of salt (ACC)’ (Adams 2006: 1). According to Adams, Greek interference may be at play as word order seems to indicate. Even if nominal apposition is attested, most instances of quantification in Cato, Caesar, and other authors feature the genitive construction, cf. the following instances:  

[GENITIVE] – Examples featuring a common noun referring to a container, such as a ‘cup’ or a ‘small drinking vessel’, cf. (511) culignam vini (Cato, R.R. 132) ‘cup (ACC) of wine (GEN)’

–

Examples featuring a noun referring to a measure, cf. the examples in Cato (Section 4.5.2.3) as well as: (512) a. b. c.

–

casei libram (Cato, R.R. 121.1) ‘a pound (ACC) of cheese (GEN)’ farinae siligineae libram … indito (Cato, R. R. 75.1.2) ‘add a pound (ACC) of wheat flour (GEN)’ medimnum truciti (Cic., Verr. 3.47.112) ‘a Greek bushel (ACC) of wheat (GEN)’  

Examples featuring a quantitative noun, such as mulitudo or numerus, cf. (513) a. b.

multitudinemque hominum … cogerent (Caes., B. G. 1.4, passim) ‘(that) they bring together a mass (ACC) of people (GEN-PL)’ ecce multitudo monachorum et heremitarum (Plac., R. P. 37.2) ‘see, a mass (NOM) of kings (GEN) and hermits (GEN)’  

 

250

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

c. d. e.

f.

–

vidimus multitudinem corquhodrillorum (Plac., R.P. 45.3) ‘we saw a mass (ACC) of crocodiles (GEN)’ magnus numerus equitum (Caes., BC 1.23.2.5) ‘a high number (NOM) of horsemen (GEN)’ maximus vini numerus fuit, permagunum pondus argenti (Cic., Ph. 2.27) ‘there was a large quantity (NOM) of wine (GEN) and an enormous mass (NOM) of silver (GEN)’ pondus auri (Cic., Sest. 93) ‘a mass (ACC) of gold (GEN)’

Examples featuring a general noun indirectly referring to a quantity, cf. (514) a. b.

trium mensum molita cibaria (Caes., B. G. 1.5) ‘three months’ (GEN) provisions of victuals (ACC)’ argenti montes, non massas habet (Pl., Mil 1064) ‘he has mountains (ACC) of silver (GEN), not just masses (ACC)’  

There are other phenomena that suggest that the genitive was relatively well established for [QUANTIFICATION] constructions, such as the almost formulaic pattern that is typically found in contexts of measure and quantity in Cato, for example, cf. (515) [NOUN-GENITIVE NOUN(QUANTITY) NUMBER/NUMERAL] a. olei puri P. VIIII (Cato, R.R. 144.5) ‘nine pounds of pure oil (GEN)’ b. lardi P. IIII S (Cato, R.R. 83) ‘four and a half pounds of bacon (GEN)’ c. vini S. III (Cato, R.R. 83) ‘three pints of wine (GEN)’ d. oleae salsae M V (Cato, R.R. 144.5) ‘five modii of salted olives (GEN)’ e. oliveti iugera CCXL qui coleret (Varr., R.R. 1.22.3) ‘who cultivates 240 iugera (ACC) of olive land (GEN)’ f. vineae iugera C instruere vineyard-GEN iugera-ACC 100 equip-INF (Cato, R.R. 11.1)39 ‘to equip 100 iugera of vineyard’

The consistency of this pattern in Cato is remarkable and indeed suggests a more general and well-established phenomenon, which is also reflected in the occurrence of abbreviations such as P (pondus, measure of weight) or M (modius, measure for wheat). It is clear however that nominal apposition was commonly

39 The variant vineam in this instance is considered “lectio difficilior”.

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

251

attested as well in this context, as examples under (509) and (510) above illustrate. The genitive, however, predominated. The high incidence of the noun milia in combination with a genitive in Caesar’s De Bello Gallico further underscores the predominance of genitive constructions in [QUANTIFICATION]: (516) ad hominum milia decem (Caes., B. G. 1.4) ‘up to the number of 10.000 (ACC) men (GEN)’  

Similarly, Galdi (2004) reports that milia in inscriptions in the Eastern provinces of the Roman Empire “generalmente” is followed by a noun in the genitive plural, even if nominal apposition was not “uncommon” (Galdi 2004: 261). Data from later Latin texts indeed show more structural variation in [QUANTIFICATION] structures: on the one hand the genitive frequently is attested (e. g. duodecim cophinos fragmentorum [Vulg., Jo. 6.13] ‘12 baskets [ACC] with fragments [GEN]’). On the other hand, there is a relatively high incidence of nominal apposition in contexts featuring nouns of quantification, as the examples of mille and milia combining with passus in the Peregrinatio show. From the perspective of variation, the cookbooks by Anthimus and Apicius are revealing as well. As noted earlier, the very large majority of instances of Noun + Noun combinations in both authors are of the category of [QUANTIFICATION] and they take the form of nominal apposition or genitive constructions, cf.  

(517) [APPOSITION] a. mel modicum (Anth., DOC 28.5) ‘a bit (ACC) of honey (ACC)’ b. oleum … cocliar bonum plenum, … (Anth., DOC 25.9–10) ‘a spoon (ACC) of oil (ACC)’ c. adicies piper scripulos VI (Apic., DRC 4.24) ‘add six scruples (ACC) of pepper (ACC)’ d. rutam modicum (Apic., DRC 3.4.1) ‘a bit (ACC) of rue (ACC)’ (518) [GENITIVE] pugnum salis (Apic., DRC 3.10.1) ‘a handful (ACC) of salt (GEN)’

The genitive may take the form of a prepositional phrase: (519) [GENITIVE/PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE] a. duas partes de mel (Anth., DOC 7.11) ‘two (ACC) parts (ACC) of honey (PP)’ b. …, et modicum de sale pro sapore faciendum (Anth., DOC 25.11–12) ‘and a pinch (ACC) of salt (PP) for seasoning’

252

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

c.

…, et de ipsa re cocliar plenum et sic admixtum bene bibatur paulatim, … (Anth., DOC 24.3–4) ‘a level spoon (NOM) of this concoction (PP) mixed carefully in this way should be drunk gradually’

Most instances of analytic genitives with the preposition de in this type of context are from Anthimus (6th c.), with an early example found in the Peregrinatio Aetheriae, cf. (example [420] above): (520) sorbitione modica de farina (Per. 28.4) ‘a bit of broth (ABL) of flour (PP)’

[GENITIVE/PP]

As indicated earlier, the preposition de in these prepositional phrases typically has its original local value conveying separation (for an analysis of de replacing the genitive in general, see Adams 2013: 270–272). Taking into account all twenty instances of [QUANTIFICATION] Noun + Noun combinations in Anthimus and the fifty-seven instances in Apicius (Chapters 1– 4.2), the difference in usage in both authors becomes manifest, with 11/20 instances of nominal apposition in Anthimus as opposed to 18/57 in Apicius. It is important to emphasize that the preference for nominal apposition is attested in the later author. Moreover, the systematic pattern found in Cato above—Noun + N [Quantity] + Number/Numeral—is manifest in Apicius and elsewhere as well: (521) [NOUN-GENITIVE NOUN-(QUANTIFICATION) a. vini ciatum ‘one cyathus/ladle of wine (GEN)’ b. olei unc. ‘three ounces of oil (GEN)’

NUMBER/NUMERAL] unum (Apic., DRC 4.2.31) iii (Apic., DRC 4.2.31)

Compare to example (515c) above: (522) [NOUN-GENITIVE NOUN-(QUANTIFICATION) vini S. ‘three pints of wine (GEN)’

NUMBER/NUMERAL] III (Cato, R.R. 83)

Similarly in other late documents: (523) a. b.

olei viridis ciatos ‘three cyathi/ladles (ACC) of new oil (GEN)’ lexivae ciatos ‘six cyathi/ladles (ACC) of lexive (GEN)’ (Examples from Svennung 1935: 200)

tres (Chir. Med. 821) VI (Chir. Med. 821)

Comparing the occurrence of the genitive and nominal apposition, I found a slight preference in Apicius for the genitive to occur in combination with concrete nouns

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

253

of quantity, such as cyathus ‘cyathus, ladle’ (e. g. vini ciatum [Apic., DRC 4.2.8] ‘a ladle [ACC] of wine [GEN], scripulus (piperis scripulos sex [Apic., DRC 4.2.5] ‘six scruples [ACC] of pepper [GEN]’, uncia (piperis unciam [Apic., DRC 4.2.29] ‘an ounce [ACC] of pepper [GEN]’). The majority of instances of nominal apposition, on the other hand, feature in contexts of modicum, suggesting that here as well the preference seems to be lexically motivated. The data from Anthimus indeed show that only two out of the seven genitive instances feature modicum, whereas modicum occurs in nine out of the 11 instances of nominal apposition. Examples with modicum include:  

(524) [APPOSITION] a. mel modicum et piper mittat (Anth., DOC 13.3) ‘add a little (ACC) honey (ACC) and pepper’ [GENITIVE] b. modicum silfi (Apic., DRC 2.2.7) ‘a little silphium (GEN)’ c. olei modicum (Apic., DRC 4.2.2) ‘a little oil (GEN)’

It is important to underscore that modicum in these contexts is not merely an adjective, but clearly functions as a noun, as the presence of the genitive here and elsewhere proves. Nominal apposition including a noun other than modicum is attested as well, cf. (525) oleum gremiale, . . ., mitti cocliar . . . oil-ACC of.unripe.olives-ACC add-IMP-2SG spoon-ACC ‘add a spoonful of oil from unripe olives’ (Anth., DOC 25.9–10)40  

 

 

 

plenum full-ACC

Patterns here again show a preference for a given construction which seems to be lexically motivated, a trend that was found elsewhere as well. Evidence clearly shows that despite the early emergence of the genitive in contexts of [QUANTIFICATION], nominal apposition survived a long time, “frequently occurring” in Late Latin (Adams 1976: 93) with instances as late as the 6th century, as examples from Anthimus above illustrate, but also those from Anonymus Valesianus: (fecerunt) vinum triginta anforas (An. Val. 73) ‘(they made) 30 amphoras (ACC) of wine (ACC)’ (Adams 1976: 93).

40 Taking into account the distance between the produce (oleum) and the quantative noun in this specific example, which is rather exceptional, the structure may have the characteristics of an additional specification rather than a noun phrase: ‘add oil from unripe olives, a spoonful’.

254

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

Historically two additional developments took place. Nominal apposition gradually disappeared and instead genitive constructions or their structural— prepositional—equivalent came to predominate. In addition, a number of elements underwent a categorial shift: milia, for example, increasingly came to be used as a plain numeral. As a result, the genitive in those contexts gradually disappeared and the case of the noun with which milia combines, from then on comes to be determined by the syntactic context of the clause—not by milia. Old French still features occasonal instances in which milie is being treated as a noun, cf. (526) a. b. c.

mil manguns (CdR 621) ‘a thousand mangons (OBL)’41 .IIII. C. milie armez (CdR 682) ‘four hundred thousand armed men (OBL)’ vint milie Sarrazins (CdR 410) ‘twenty thousand Sarrasins (SUBJ)’

But: (527) .XX. milie de Francs (CdR 561) ‘twenty thousand Francs (PP)’

Finally, a few comments about instances of the type tresviri + Noun, on which Hackstein relies heavily in his reconstruction of the origins of numeral classifiers in Indo-Aryan languages, cf. for example: śromik car jon laborer four CLF[PERSON] ‘four laborers’ (Example from Hackstein 2010: 9)

(528) Be.

Hackstein posits that the classifier jon in this example traces back to the noun ‘person’ in structures of the type [laborers four person]. In this Hackstein assumes a parallel with the Latin tresviri + Noun constructions. Yet Latin tresviri in combination with a noun does not convey a quantitative expression, but instead refers to an office held by three men together or a board with three members. The nature of the activity of the office commonly is specified by a noun in apposition, as in: (529) tresviri epulones (Cic., De Or. 3.19.73) ‘college.of.three.men-NOM dinner.men-NOM ‘a college of three men supervising sacrificial banquets’

41 OF mangun/mangon refers to a medieval golden coin (écu d’or).

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

255

The compound tresviri therefore parallels Latin’s common possessive formations such as trespud ‘tripod’ or bipennis ‘axe with two edges’ or adjectival bimus ‘twoyears old’, bimestris ‘of two months’, and so forth. The assumption that tresviri epulones was historically preceded by the quantitative syntagm tres viri epulones (Hackstein 2010: 54) referring to ‘three men epulones’ > ‘three epulones’ is not substantiated by Latin data, where the combining of Numeral + Generic vir/homo + Noun typically is not attested (see also Chapter 4). Similarly “postulating the adjectival conversion of the apposed noun and appealing to the default pre-head position of adjectives in Latin” (Hackstein 2010: 63, also 50) is not corroborated by data: in Latin the “default” position of the adjective is after the noun (see Bauer 1995: 65–77, 83–84, 2001, 2009a).

NOMEN construction The NOMEN construction in Indo-European presents a fascinating area of investigation involving a wide variety of structures that include nomen ‘name’ or its equivalent in the various daughter languages (cf. Hahn 1969). The “NOMEN construction” in the context of this book, refers to constructions of the type HOMINI NOMEN IULIUS (EST), lit. ‘to the man (DAT) is the name (NOM) Julius (NOM)’, as in Latin: (530) a.

b.

mulier nomen cui est Phronesium (Pl., Truc. 12) woman-NOM name-NOM REL-DAT-SG be-3SG Phronesium-NOM ‘woman to whom is the name Phronessium’ > ‘woman whose name is P.’ Alazon huic nomen est comoediae Alazon-NOM this-DAT name-NOM be-3SG play-DAT ‘this play is called Alazon’ (Pl., Mil. 86)

In these instances there is agreement between nomen and the proper noun, resulting in full-fledged nominal apposition. Included in the discussion are also related constructions such as HOMO NOMINE IULIO ‘a man (NOM) with the name (ABL) Julius (ABL)’, cf. the following example from Latin: (531) Nervius nomine Vertico (Caes., B. G. 5.45.2.2) ‘a Nervian (NOM) with the name (ABL) Verticus (ABL)  

In these constructions as well, the proper noun and nomen (i. c. nomine) are in apposition and in formal agreement. As sections on [OTHER, NOMEN] in the individual languages have shown, examples of the type HOMINI NOMEN IULIUS (EST) are commonly attested in several early Indo-European languages, among them Hittite and Greek, as the  

256

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

Appus story in Hittite and Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey illustrate, cf. the following instance from Hittite: (532) nu-us-si-[is-sa-an HUL-l]u SUM-an e-es-du (Appus 3.10) ‘the name Bad shall be to him’ > ‘he shall be called Bad’ (Hahn 1969: 24)

Hahn argues that a transitive variant with a verb ‘give’ (HOMINI NOMEN IULIUM INDUNT ‘they give the man [DAT] the name [ACC] Julius [ACC]’) is attested as well in Hittite (Hahn 1969: 24–27). This is an important observation because both structures—despite being fundamentally different—feature agreement, hence are instances of nominal apposition. The same pattern is attested in Homer as the well-known example ‘my name is Outis/Nobody’ illustrates (Hahn 1969: 100–101): (533) Οὖτις ἔμοιγ’ Outis-NOM me-DAT ‘Outis is my name’

ὄνομα (Hom., Od. 9.366) name-NOM

Similarly the transitive equivalent with a verb ‘give’ is also found in Homer (HOMINI NOMEN IULIUM INDUNT; Hahn 1969: 101). By contrast, the transitive equivalent with a verb ‘have’ (HOMO IULIUS NOMEN HABET) “is lacking in Hittite and is late and rare in Greek” (Hahn 1969: 51). Considering the fact that possessive mihi est constructions were original in Indo-European as indicated by their consistent and widespread occurrence in the early daughter languages (Benveniste 1966b; Bauer 2000: 151–195), it is not surprising to find NOMEN constructions featuring that structure as well. It is important to underscore the clear prevalence of agreement between NOMEN and the proper noun, in both Hittite and Greek. Sanskrit presents a somewhat different picture. Sanskrit as well featured intransitive possessive constructions with the verb ‘be’, but the case used in this context was the genitive, which is secondary (Bauer 2000: 173–174): the possessor is referred to with the genitive rather than the original dative. Hahn argues that in addition to this genitive construction—which is normal and widespread—possession may also be conveyed in Sanskrit by a transitive NOMEN construction including a verb ‘possess’ (patya-). This structure may be characterized by agreement between NOMEN and the proper noun: HOMO NOMEN IULIUM HABET ‘the man (NOM) has the name (ACC) Julius (ACC)’. More commonly, however, this construction features a different agreement pattern, with the proper name taking the form of a nominative (HOMO NOMEN IULIUS HABET): the agreement is then between the proper noun and the subject of the clause, which refers to the person who bears the name in question (for detailed grammatical interpretations, see

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

257

Hahn 1969: 51–53). Further analysis into the precise interpretation of the relevant examples is called for, but would divert attention from the Latin phenomenon under discussion here. I just mention it here to demonstrate that the phenomena in Latin may have parallels in other languages. In Latin there were two types of NOMEN construction, which both feature the verb ‘be’. The first type parallels possessive mihi est constructions as was pointed out above, with examples under (530), cf. (534) mihi … nomen I-DAT name-NOM ‘my name is Sosia’

Sosia Sosia-NOM

est (Pl., Amph. 332) be-3SG

In this instance there is agreement between nomen/nomine and the proper noun resulting in full-fledged nominal apposition. The second type of NOMEN construction is, however, more widespread— especially in Plautus—and is characterized by a different agreement pattern, cf. (535) est tibi Menaechmo be-3SG you-DAT Menaechmus-DAT ‘you are called Menaechmus’

nomen (Pl., Men. 297) name-NOM

In examples of this type, agreement is not based on nomen, but rather on the element in the dative, which refers to the person who bears the name: HOMINI NOMEN IULIO EST. Similarly: (536) a. b.

mihi Auxilio est nomen (Pl., Cist. 154) ‘to me (DAT) is the name (NOM) Auxilium (DAT)’ nomen Arcturo est mihi (Pl., Rud. 5) ‘to me (DAT) is the name (NOM) Arcturus (DAT)’

In the rare scholarly literature that discusses this phenomenon, it is referred to in terms of “attraction” (e. g. Bennet 1914: 166; Ernout and Thomas 1964: 132–133). I here prefer to use “dative attraction”, for reasons that will be come clear. Although the possessive mihi est construction was very old, it was by no means exceptional in Latin (cf. Bauer 2000: 180–190), and it is remarkable that in many NOMEN constructions the grammatical pattern shows agreement with the possessor rather than nomen. In Plautus, where dative attraction strongly predominates, exceptions are motivated occurring for example when the proper noun is isolated from the rest of the construction and takes the form of a nominative, cf.  

(537) quid est tibi nomen? Harpax (Pl., Ps. 653) ‘what is your name (NOM)? Harpax (NOM)’

258

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

In Plautus and Terence these are in fact the only systematic exceptions to the widespread dative attraction and they often feature a pronominal dative in the first clause. If the dative is a noun, the proper noun following the clause tends to take the form of a dative as well, showing that dative attraction may transgress the clause proper, cf. (538) quid erat nomen nostrae matri? Teuximarchae (Pl., Men. 1131)42 ‘what was our mother’s (DAT) name (NOM)? Teuximarcha (DAT)

In the mihi est structure as found in Latin, agreement is between the possessor and the proper name, which takes the form of the dative. Greek features a few instances of dative attraction (HOMINI NOMEN IULIO), but these are rather isolated. There is no mention of them in Hittite (Hahn 1969: 18–45, 94–114); in Sanskrit the HOMO NOMEN IULIUS HABET construction—if indeed accurate— features agreement with the bearer of the name as well. By contrast, in Latin the preponderance of similar phenomena shows that the HOMINI NOMEN IULIO constructions are not an isolated idiosyncrasy. First, attraction extends to other uses of the dative in similar contexts as well, cf. the following instances including transitive verbs, such as facere ‘make’ and dare ‘give’: (539) a. b.

ei ego urbi Gripo indam nomen (Pl., Rud. 934) ‘I shall give it (DAT) the name (ACC) Gripopolis/Gripusville (DAT)’ iuventus nomen fecit Peniculo mihi (Pl., Men. 77) ‘the youth has given me (DAT) the name (ACC) Peniculus/of Brush (DAT)’

In these instances, as in the intransitive equivalents, the name typically takes the form of a dative, in agreement with the possessor or the beneficiary. That the pattern reflects a more general phenomenon is further supported by its occurrence in structures that do not include HOMINI, but still feature agreement with that element in absentia, cf. (540) nomen est Thensauro (fabulae) (Pl., Trin. 18) ‘(its) name (NOM) is Thesaurus (DAT)’

And in the transitive variety: (541) nomen Trinummo fecit (Pl., Trin. 20) ‘he gave (it [DAT]) the name (ACC) Trinummus (DAT)’

42 This overall is not a strict rule in Terence: Tu tuom nomen dic quid est. Mihi? Phormio (Ter., Phorm. 1048) ‘Tell me your name. Me? Phormio’.

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

259

Finally, while the most common variety of this type of structure features agreement with the dative noun, there are a few instances with a nominative; these are passive constructions: (542) nunc Miccotrogus nomine … vocor (Pl., St. 242) ‘now I am called with the name (ABL) Miccotrogus (NOM)’

In sum, evidence shows that dative attraction was commonly attested in popular registers in Early Latin—it was the rule in Plautus: the proper noun agrees in case with the noun referring to the bearer of the name. While the literature refers to this phenomenon as “ein Kasusangleichung des Eigennamens an mihi” (Hofmann and Szantyr 1965: 90–91), it does not provide an explanation. Moreover, the observation that “le datif fut un moyen de le [sc. proper noun] rattacher à la phrase” (Ernout and Thomas 1964: 133) provides no clarification either. In fact a wider perspective may be called for. Hence a short excursion to Classical Latin. In Classical texts dative attraction appears occasionally, cf. the rare instance in Sallust: (543) duo fratres …, quibus nomen Philaenis erat (Sall., Iug. 79.5.2) ‘two brothers, whose (DAT-PL) name (NOM) was Philaeni (DAT-PL)’

Another variety is the occasional nominative construction, which is important because of its spread in later times, cf. the following example providing indirect evidence: (544) aetas cui fecimus aurea nomen (Ov., M. 15.96) ‘a time period (NOM-F) for which (DAT) we designed the name (ACC-NE) “golden (NOM-F)”’43

The predominant structure in Classical authors such as Cicero and Tacitus, however, is regular nominal apposition (Norberg 1943: 73), cf. (545) [NOMINAL APPOSITION] Troia et huic loco nomen est (Liv. 1.1.5) ‘the name (NOM) of this place (DAT) is Troy (NOM)’

43 In a discussion about the spread of nominatives, Adams accounts for the nominative aurea in this specific example by referring to its “detached” status: “Ovid is commenting on the word aurea, and it is not part of the syntax of the clause but is detached and expressed in its base form” (2013: 222; see more below).

260

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

And in parallel constructions: (546) oppidum Numidarum nomine Vaga (Sall., Iug. 47.1.2) ‘a town of the Numidians with the name (ABL) Vaga (ABL)’44

Yet important data from Livy and Sallust show that attraction in NOMEN constructions is not limited to the dative (HOMINI NOMEN IULIO), but involves several grammatical cases, hence various grammatical functions. It therefore seems to be part of a more comprehensive phenomenon, cf. (547) [DATIVE] a. adulescenti Allucio nomen erat (Liv. 26.50.2) ‘the young man’s (DAT) name (NOM) was Allucius (DAT)’ b. Galae nomen erat (Liv. 29.29.6) ‘Gala (DAT) was his (DAT) name (NOM)’ (548) [ACCUSATIVE] a. ad urbem nomine Amtorgim exercitum habebat (Liv. 25.32.6) ‘he had his army near a town (ACC) with the name (ABL) Amtorgis (ACC)’ b. Salaecam nomine urbem occupauit … (Liv. 29.34.6) ‘when he seized a town (ACC) with the name (ABL) Salaeca (ACC)’ c. urbem magnam … nomine Zamam … oppugnare (Sall., Iug. 56.1.3) ‘to lay siege of a large town (ACC) with the name (ABL) Zama (ACC)’ (549) [NOMINATIVE] filius nomine Hostus castris praeerat (Liv. 23.40.4) ‘his son (NOM) with the name (ABL) Hostus (NOM) was …’

In terms of register, patterns of occurrence above demonstrate that HOMINI NOMEN IULIO indeed was a common variety in lower-register texts (see also Hoffmann-Szantyr 1965: 412; Löfstedt 1956: 108). This finding is further supported by the observation that the only instances of “correct” NOMEN constructions in Plautus are found in his prologues, which are of a higher register (Norberg 1943: 73). Yet it is clear from the instances above that Classical texts as well show a variety of agreement patterns. Moreover, the HOMINI NOMEN IULIO structure is also found in later texts. The dative, for example, is attested in late authors, such as Gregory of Tours, where the proper noun usually occurs in the dative: “la locution mihi nomen est se construit ordinairement avec le datif du nom” (Bonnet 1968: 544): (550) ad villam cui nomen est Victuriaco (GT, H. F. 2, p. 32) ‘to the house whose (DAT) name (NOM) is Victuriacum (DAT)’  

44 Cf. also the example (531) given above: Nervius nomine Vertico (Caes., B. G. 5.45.2.2) ‘a Nervian with the name (ABL) of Verticus (ABL)’.  

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

261

Similarly, other instances of deviant agreement patterns were widespread in Vulgar and Late Latin, especially in parallel constructions, as evidence from the Vulgata shows: (551) [ACCUSATIVE] vidit hominem sedentem . . . Matheum nomine (Vulg., Matt. 9.9) ‘he saw a man (ACC) sitting (ACC) with the name (ABL) Matheus (ACC)’ (Gk: ἄνθρωπον Μαθθαῖον λεγόμενον ‘man [ACC] called [ACC] Matheus [ACC]’45 (552) [NOMINATIVE] inposuit Simoni nomen Petrus (Vulg., Marc. 3.16) ‘he gave Simon (DAT) the name (ACC) Petrus (NOM)’  

 

The Greek version of this last example features an accusative (ὄνομα .. Пέτρον). I note that both examples occur in a translation in which the Latin text grosso modo follows the Greek rather closely. The nominative becomes increasingly common in this context in Vulgar and Late Latin texts. The Vulgata offers many instances of nominative attraction, often in parallel translation to the Greek, but definitely not always, as example (552) already illustrates as well as the following instance where the proper noun does not feature agreement either: (553) ibant … in castellum, …, nomine Emmaus (Vulg., Luc. 24.13) ‘they went to a village (ACC), …, with the name (ABL) Emmaus (NOM)’

In this instance the nominative is independent as the absence of any agreement shows. This usage is not a precise calque of the Greek: even if both texts feature the nominative, the syntactic context may differ (i. c. Gk ᾗ ὄνομα ’Εμμαοῦς ‘to which is the name [NOM] Emmaus [NOM]’, which is an instance of nominal apposition). The nominative is also attested in:  

(554) sacerdos nomine Zacharias (Vulg., Luc. 1.5) ‘a priest (NOM) with the name (ABL) Zachary (NOM)’

Similarly: pauper nomine Lazarus iacebat (Vulg., Luc. 16.20) ‘a pauper (NOM) with the name (ABL) Lazarus (NOM) was lying there’; ecce vir nomine Zacchaeus (Vulg., Luc. 19.2) ‘behold there was a man (NOM) with the name (ABL) Zacchaeus (NOM)’; vir nomine Ioseph (Vulg., Luc. 23.50) ‘a man (NOM) with the name (ABL) Ioseph (NOM)’. These instances, which feature a nominative subject noun with which the proper noun agrees, all trace back to different Greek structures.

45 The edition used is by Nestle and Aland (1961).

262

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

Norberg accounts for the spread of the nominative arguing that the nominative is the most characteristic and most common case form of proper nouns (Norberg 1943: 70). It is important to emphasize, however, that nominal apposition with accurate agreement patterns continued to be used in Vulgar and Late Latin as many instances and parallel structures illustrate. While Adams underscores the variability of naming constructions, also in “educated varieties” of Latin (e. g. 2013: 222, 223), he focuses on the spread of the nominative, which he argues, was “felt to be the true form of the name of a person or an object” (2013: 220). Moreover, as “base form” it typically may occur in grammatical isolation (Adams 2013: 222). These explanations do not account, however, for the other forms of case variation that are observed in NOMEN constructions: while HOMINI NOMEN IULIO was especially widespread in early popular varieties of Latin, instances with nominative, accusative, or genitive cases are found in Classical and Late Latin texts. A number of instances can be accounted for because the noun in question is not part of the syntax of the clause (see also Adams 2013), but the predominant pattern that has emerged in the preceding pages is that of nouns whose case—nominative and others—does not agree with nomen, but rather with another segment of the clause. As a shared feature, the proper noun typically agrees with the noun referring to the bearer of the name. While there is to date no explanation, the phenomenon shows (1) that the appositive connection between nomen and the proper noun was no longer very strong; and (2) that the proper noun consistently is the variable element whereas nomen as generic term takes the form dictated by the context. It therefore was not a fossilized (nor “grammaticalized”) element: even if nomine is widespread, it is not the only case used and its occurrence in any context is grammatically correct. In fact, as head of the construction it establishes the link with the grammatical context and takes the grammatical form dictated by that context. Because of the rudimental case system in Old French it is possible to evaluate the stage of agreement at that point in time. In fact, NOMEN structures may take two distinct forms. They may take the form of nominal apposition—characterized by immediate juxtposition without connecting element—and are attested in numerous texts, such as the Cantilène de Sainte Eulalie, dated in the late 9th century, and others:  

(555) a. b. c.

qued elle fuiet lo nom christiien (Eul. 14) (MoFr. le nom de chrétien) ‘that she abandon the (OBL) name (OBL) of Christian (OBL)’ Li nies Marsilie, il ad a num Aelroth (CdR 1188) ‘the nephew (SUBJ) of M., he has the name (OBL) Aelroth (OBL)’ U est vostre espee, ki Halteclere ad num? (CdR 1363) ‘where is your sword (SUBJ), which has the name (OBL) Halteclere?’

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

263

In these instances the proper noun takes the form of an oblique case in accordance with num. In Li nums Joiuse l'espee fut dunet (CdR 2508) it is impossible to determine what case is used because the subject and oblique cases of the feminine noun Joiuse are formally identical. Several examples support the assumption of a continued presence of nominatives in this context in early Romance (Norberg 1943: 72), cf. (556) a. b.

Guenes oth num ‘he had the name (OBL) Ganelon (SUBJ)’ (Leod. 175) fu un cuens … qui avoit nom li cuens Girars (Vill., CdC 367)46 ‘there was a count (SUBJ), who had the name (OBL) (the [SUBJ]) count (SUBJ) Girard (SUBJ)’

Another type of NOMEN structure in Old French is important from a diachronic perspective as well, because it typically includes a preposition and the underlying genitive case: (557) Truvee li unt le num de Juliane (CdR 3985) ‘they found her the name (OBL) of Juliana (OBL)’

In sum, the NOMEN construction is important for the analysis of nominal appositon in early Indo-European, because it combines two original and early constructions: the possessive mihi est construction and nominal apposition. It is relevant to note that in transitive NOMEN contructions as well, nominal apposition is attested and that both transitive and non-transitive constructions therefore feature similar agreement patterns. That many instances—especially in Latin, in its popular registers and late documents—present deviant agreement patterns reveals the position of nominal apposition. It shows on the one hand the identification of the name with its bearer and on the other hand the disintegration of nominal apposition in NOMEN constructions, and the emergence of hypotactic structures in this context. In addition, the increasing use of nominatives in NOMEN constructions is found in other agreement patterns as well (see below, section 5.3.2.2). The Romance structure, which includes a preposition (OF le num de Juliane) suggests that the genitive construction was also at play. An occasional early instance of the genitive in this context indeed is attested in the corpus of texts examined here, cf. the following example, which includes a common rather than a proper noun: nuptiarum nomen. (Petr. 26.4.1) ‘the name (ACC) of matrimony (GEN)’ (See Section 5.1.2). Consequently the NOMEN construction in Latin in early times shows a strong prevalence of its own agreement pattern, which expands in Classical Latin and

46 Vill., CdC refers to La Conquête de Constantiople by Villehardouin (early 13th century).

264

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

involves cases other than the dative. In terms of diachronic development I note the spread of nominatives and the emergence of hypotactic constructions—materializing first in the genitive and later in prepositional phrases.

Other In the category [OTHER], nouns such as genus also came to govern a genitive and did so relatively early. In Cato, instances featuring nominal apposition are attested, e. g. coronamenta omne genus (Cato, R.R. 8.2) ‘any type (ACC) of flowers (ACC)’. Yet most of them feature a genitive, as in: hoc genus oleae … conserito (Cato, R.R. 6.1) ‘plant this variety (ACC) of olive (GEN)’ or genus arborum facere poteris (Cato, R.R. 133.3) ‘you can make a variety (ACC) of tree (GEN-PL)’. Caesar shows a preference for genitive genus constructions: omne genus cuniculorum notum … est (Caes., B. G. 7.22.2) ‘any type (NOM-NE) of mine (GEN-PL) is known (NOM-SG-NE)’ or naves … omni genere armorum (Caes., B. G. 3.14.2) ‘ships . . . with any kind (ABL) of equipment (GEN-PL)’. Similarly in Cicero: illud genus vel libidinis vel cupiditatis (Cic., Tusc. 4.44) ‘that type (ACC) of desire (GEN) or passion (GEN)’. The nouns consistently and increasingly combined with a genitive, even if occasionally nominal apposition comes up: ministerium … omne genus (Per. 25.8) ‘any type (NOM) of utensil (NOM-SG)’. In constructions with other nouns as well the genitive increasingly is attested, cf.  

 

 

(558) a. b.

 

 

virtus continentiae (Cic., Mur. 10.23) ‘virtue (NOM) of moderation (GEN) in libro Deuteronomii (Per. 10.6) ‘in the book (ABL) Deuteronomium (GEN)’

But not all instances are unambiguous: (559) in libro Genesis (Per. 7.7) in book-ABL Genesis-INDECL ‘in book Genesis’

The preceding sections have demonstrated that in a number of domains the genitive came to predominate: in the fields of geographic location, names of days, fauna and flora, quantification, and others. In formations referring to feasts, adjective constructions became prominent as well, whereas NOMEN constructions came to include a genitive in line with the development of the other constructions discussed here. Moreover NOMEN typically displays a widespread variety, in which agreement formally patterns with the element referring to the bearer of the name.

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

265

5.3.2.2 Spread of the nominative and phonetic identity The disappearance of the case system is perhaps the best known phenomenon in the linguistic history of Latin-Romance. Recently Adams has carried out an analysis into the initial stages of this development, showing that early instances of prepositional phrases that replace inflected forms were not equivalent to the synthetic case, but had a distinct meaning (2013: 286, 257–326). In the handbooks, focus generally is on the expansion of the accusative—with or without preposition—at the expense of oblique cases, e. g. ad Dominum dixisse (Per. 36.4) ‘have said to the Lord’, instead of Domino dixisse (on the value of either structure, see Adams 2013: 278–287). Yet in Vulgar and Late Latin texts nominatives turn out to be on the increase as well. Closer examination reveals that they typically occur in extended constructions and that their occurrence is grammatically incorrect, cf.  

(560) a. b.

memoria Iuli Felicis qui . . . et Cecilia Mal[i]a qui … (CIL 8.21641) ‘the memory of Iulia Felix (GEN) who … and of Cecilia Malia (NOM) who’ in nomine Victorini et Donata uxor … (CIL 8.17–18) ‘in the name (ABL) of Victorinus (GEN) and his wife (NOM) Donata (NOM)’ (Examples from Poukens 1912: 156; Herman 1990b [1966]: 324)  

 

While the first proper noun in these examples features the correct genitive case, the second combination of nouns instead takes the form of the nominative. The distance to the head noun may be a factor (see also below) as well as the fact that the nouns in question not only are [+ human], but in fact proper nouns (Herman 1990b: 324). More important, the nominative is prominently attested in mistakes pertaining to agreement, especially in instances of nominal apposition. From a grammatical perspective, all elements of nominal apposition should feature case agreement, as in: (561) a.

b.

c.

Iuliae Narciae uxori karissime … (CIL 8.9979) Iulia-DAT Narcia-DAT wife-DAT most.beloved-DAT ‘to (my) most beloved wife Iulia Narcia.’ Cecilia Rogata mater karissima (CIL 8.21800) Cecilia-NOM Rogata-NOM mother-NOM most.beloved-NOM ‘most beloved mother Cecilia Rogata’ Valeria Iulia mater (CIL 8.9983) Valeria-NOM Iulia-NOM mother-NOM ‘mother Valeria Iulia’

The linguistic reality overall is different, however. On the basis of African inscriptions Poukens pointed out the high number of instances of incorrect nominatives in agreement constructions, reflecting a systematic shift from oblique cases to the

266

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

nominative in these contexts (1912: 169); Herman subsequently classified these instances as typical of apposition (1990b: 323), cf. (562) Memoria Aureliae Felicia vixit annos LXX (CIL 8.21543) ‘the memory of Aurelia (GEN) Felicia (NOM), who lived 70 years’

In the early stages case loss manifested itself therefore in a twofold development: (1) the spread of accusatives with or without a preposition and (2) the spread of nominatives. Out of a total of 46 incorrect uses of the nominative found in the African volume of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum 44 involve agreement whereas only two involve a government relation. For the incorrect use of cases other than the nominative the proportion is grosso modo 50% agreement vs. 50% government. Conversely, the nominative predominates by far in instances of incorrect case use in contexts of agreement (44 out of a total of 77 mistakes; Herman 1990b: 323). In other words, the nominative tends to become “une sorte de forme de base, une forme fonctionellement “non marquée” qui peut s’insérer comme membre dans des groupes dont la fonction syntaxique commune est exprimée par un autre membre; cette tendance se manifeste, dans une mesure d’ailleurs nettement moindre, dans l’évolution de l’accusatif également”47 (Herman 1990b: 324). This use of the nominative as unmarked case is an innovation— but in line with other uses as unmarked case—and therefore fundamentally different from the accusative, which primarily encroached on other cases (Herman 1990b: 325). It is my contention that there is more to it. Examining the instances provided by Poukens (1912), Herman (1990b), and Löfstedt (1959) I indeed found certain patterns in incorrect agreement. First, the correct agreement pattern may be disrupted because one of the nouns indeed takes the form of a nominative, as previous examples already illustrated (e. g. example [560]), cf.  

(563) a.

b. c.

Fulvius Quietus … cum fil(iis) Iulia, Vitalis et Iulius Quaetinanus (CIL 8.2913) ‘Fulvius Quietus (NOM) with his children (ABL) Iulia (NOM/ABL), Vitalis (NOM) and Iulius Quaetinanus (NOM)’ … curantibus filiis Saturus et Muthun (CIL 8.15797) ‘by the caring children (ABL) Saturus (NOM) and Muthun (NOM)’ Veneri sancta dea … votum solvit (CIL 8.20574) ‘he fulfilled a vow to the venerated (NOM) goddess (NOM) Venus (DAT)’

47 Translation: “some sort of base form, a form that is functionally “unmarked” and that may be inserted in groups in which the common syntactic function is expressed by another element; this trend is also manifest in the evolution of the accusative, but there it is distinctly less strong”.

267

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

Similar constructions are attested within combinations of proper nouns as well: (564) Imp(eratore) Caesare C. Valerius Diocletianus … (CIL 8.22432) ‘during the reign of emperor Caesar (ABL) C. Valerius (NOM) Diocletianus (NOM)’

Agreement inconsistencies of this type are a widespread phenomenon and typically present the following pattern (see also Poukens 1912: 169): (565) [NOUN-ACC/OBL

NOUN-ACC/OBL

NOUN-NOM]

Instances featuring the reverse order [Noun-ACC/OBL + Noun-NOM + Noun-ACC/ OBL] are rare, suggesting that the length of the construction is at stake here. This assumption is supported by the spread of the phenomenon, which is found (1) in Greek and other Indo-European languages as well (Havers 1911: 105–111) and (2) in enumerations: here the first noun featuring the grammatically correct case typically is followed by nouns in the nominative (Havers 1911: 98–99). The spread of nominatives in extended government constructions (memoria Iuli Felicis . . . et Cecilia Mal[i]a), to which reference was made in the preceding pages, shows the same pattern. Instances including titles that show the reverse pattern, need further analysis cf.  

(566) a. b.

 

regnante dominus Leopardo, … (Cod. Dipl. I, p. 136.1) ‘while lord (NOM) Leopardus (ABL) was in power (ABL)’ ab eodem rex Aystulfo … (Chronicon Salernitanum [MGH Script. 3]) ‘from that (ABL) king (NOM) Aystulfus (ABL)’ (Examples from Löfstedt 1959: 133)

In these rare examples the title and proper noun are “considered and treated as a single expression, and the first half therefore ceases to be declined”48 (Löfstedt 1959: 133). Adams (2013) discusses the spread of the nominative in appositive constructions as well, both in loose and nominal apposition and finds that nouns referring to kinship or title often occur in the nominative with the proper noun in an oblique case. The phenomonen seems to occur often in relatively late texts— dating from the early 8th and the 10th century A. D. respectively, when Latin no longer was a native language. One of them is the Chronicon Salertinanum49 edited and discussed by Westerbergh (1956), who relates the phenomenon to a more general trend: nouns conveying kinship and titles in combination with a proper  

48 What Löfstedt means in all likelihood is that rex Aystulfo in the example given, for example, is considered one entity with case marking exclusively on the last element. 49 The Chronicon Saleritanum is a 10th century historical text; the author is unknown.

268

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

noun in group apposition tend to appear in the nominative conveying any grammatical function (e. g. cum Maraldi filius Riso [Chron. 180.14] ‘with Riso, son of Maraldus’; Westerbergh 1956: 250). Moreover, Adams points out that certain “kinship terms, pater, mater, and frater, are already common as fossilized nominative forms in constructions other than the appositional one (as object of verbs, after prepositions) in the early medieval Edictus Rothari” (2013: 219). The historical importance of these findings resides in the fact that many kinship terms and titles in Romance trace back to the nominative rather than the usual accusative. On the basis of Westerbergh’s and Adams’ findings on the one hand and the patterns of case disagreement that I found for nominal apposition (examples [560], [563], [564] above) I submit that in fact two developments were taking place, (a) one creating patterns of the type filiis Saturus et Mithun in which the proper noun takes the form of the nominative; these were early and typical of nominal apposition; and (b) one creating patterns of the type ab … rex Aystulfo (example [566b], above) that affect the common noun and were later; they reflect the general spread of the nominative, which had started in other syntactic constructions long before that. With the two developments pertaining to the common and the proper noun respectively, the corresponding grammatical effect differs substantially: in filiis Saturus, the syntax of the clause is not affected; in ab … rex Aysulfo it is because the common noun is the link between the noun phrase and its grammatical context. Finally, there is another phenomenon pertaining to nominal apposition, which to date has passed unnoticed: in a rather high number of instances the deviant case is grammatically incorrect, but phonetically identical to case endings found in its context, as in:  

(567) a.

b.

Lucia Petronia fecit Lucia-NOM Petronia-NOM make-PF-3SG Crescenti Silvani militi … (CIL 8.9385) Crescens-DAT Silvanus-GEN soldier-DAT ‘Lucia Petronia made (this) for soldier Crescens Silvanus’ in temporibus Constantini imperatori, … (CIL 8.2389) in times-ABL Constantin-GEN emperor-DAT ‘in the times of emperor Constantin’

The nouns in the instances of nominal apposition (crescenti … and Constantini …) feature an ending -i, but they are of different declensions. As a result, the case endings, while phonetically identical represent a variety of grammatical cases that moreover do not align with the syntactic context. Consequently agreement patterns within nominal apposition show two trends: the spread of the nominative and the use of phonetically identical but grammatically incorrect endings. The spread of the nominative and its emergence

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

269

as a passe-partout case reflects the loss of fine case distinctions. It takes two forms: (1) the common noun takes the nominative case, reflecting a general development that had affected other structures before; or (2) the proper noun takes the nominative case, which may be accounted for by the distance between the elements—which also became a factor in word order patterns in general (cf. Bauer 2009a). The occurrence of phonetically identical case endings (phonetic agreement) is of a different nature because it is motivated by formal identity. Ironically it therefore seems to fit the true nature of nominal apposition, phonetically at least. Yet both changes reflect confusion of case form and function and the loss of grammatical agreement, the most fundamental characteristic of nominal apposition. Apparently, grammatical agreement was no longer considered mandatory in instances of nominal apposition.

5.3.3 Nominal apposition and word order change Evidence in Chapter 4 (Section 4.6) showed that in early Indo-European nominal apposition typically features the sequence [[Proper Noun] Common Noun] and that with time a trend emerged of variation for individual nouns. This pattern recurs in the diachronic development in Latin-Romance, as data presented below will demonstrate. While Cato favors left branching—albeit in a small corpus (5 to 2)—Plautus and Terence present a mixed picture. Moreover, the variety in ordering patterns is lexically motivated: while homo in Terence favors right branching (8/10), mulier presents the reverse pattern (3/5). In Plautus rex and senex occur in majority in right-branching constructions (13/17 and 17/20 respectively), but the other nouns typically vary. Over time there is an increase of constructions featuring right branching, which gradually becomes the predominant sequence. This evolution is especially manifest in low-register documents and is in line with the general shift in word order that took place in the history of Latin: the early inherited left-branching (or head-last) grammatical structures came to be replaced by head-first or rightbranching equivalents, cf. the following examples of a verb phrase (examples [568] and [569]) and a noun phrase (examples [570] and [571]) respectively in which the Latin structure and its equivalent in French with the reverse sequence are placed side by side:

270

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

[DIRECT OBJECT – VERB] (568) La. ab Allobrogibus in Segusiavos [[exercitum] ducit] (Caes., B. G. 1.10.5) vs. (569) Fr. [il conduit [son armée]] de chez les Allobroges chez les Ségusiaves ´he leads his army from the Allobroges to the Segusiavi´ [GENITIVE – NOUN] (570) La. [[senatuos] sententiad] (S. C. de Bacchanalibus 17) Senate (GEN) decision (ABL) vs. (571) Fr. [la decision [du Sénat]] the decision of the Senate ‘(the) decision of the Senate’  

 

This change took place in all phrases, but at different times and rates. For an extensive analysis and relative chronology, see Bauer (1995, 2009a); for the importance of complexity and length of elements, see Bauer (2002). In the following pages I will evaluate word order patterns in nominal apposition in an additional number of selected Latin authors. In Varro word order patterns within nominal apposition are rather varied, not only from a lexical but also from a structural perspective: 13 out of the 23 instances of [Proper Noun + Common Noun] are right-branching (e. g. oppidum Olisipo [Varr., R. R. 2.1.19] ‘the town [NOM] of Olisipo [NOM]’; monte Tagro [R.R. 2.1.19]) ‘mount [ABL] Tagrus [ABL]’. With the exception of oppidum and the nouns referring to feasts (feriae, ludi), which exclusively favor right branching, all other nouns have both left- and right-branching patterns. Yet, over all the majority is right-branching. In Caesar the ordering follows certain patterns. Common nouns referring to titles tend to follow the proper noun: e. g. (pro)consul (8/8), rex (1/1), quaestor (1/ 1). Yet for legatus both sequences occur (1/3 [[Proper Noun] legatus]). For geographic concepts there is a strong preference for Common Noun + Proper Noun for nouns such as mons ‘mountain’ (e. g. montem Iuram [Caes., B. G. 1.6.1] ‘Iura mountain’; 5/5) or oppidum ‘town’ (9/9) for example. The right-branching pattern clearly is prevalent in instances including flumen as well (24 vs. 5). Instances include a variety of proper nouns (e. g. flumine Rhodano [Caes., B. G. 3.1.1] ‘Rhone [ABL] river [ABL]’; flumen Rhenum [Caes., B. G. 4.1.1] ‘Rhine [ACC] river [ACC]’), suggesting that overall right branching is favored in contexts featuring flumen. Yet the situation is the opposite in a limited number of contexts with Garumna, cf. Garumna flumine ([Caes., B. G. 1.1.5] 3/3), whereas Sabim goes both ways (ad flumen Sabim [Caes., B. G. 2.18.1] vs. Sabim flumen [Caes., B. G. 2.16.1] ‘river Sambre’. Finally for provincia and silva there is variation as well, with left-branching structures prevailing: provincia (6/7); silva (2/3). Six out of Phaedrus’ nine instances of nominal apposition feature the combination Proper Noun + Common Noun and mostly in that order—in Nilo flumine  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

271

(Phaedr., 1.25.3; 5 times)—with one exception (lector Cato [Phaedr., 4.7.22]). Nouns specifying ethnicity go both ways (Phryx Aesopus [Phaedr., 2 ep. 28). Word order patterns within the field of geographic locations are rather clear in Placentinus: there is a preference for right branching. Instances featuring civitas in a very large majority favor right branching (in civitatem Tyro [Plac., Pr. Sg. 2.4]). Other nouns are similar: insula favors right branching (e. g. in insulam Antharidus [Plac., Pr.Rh. 1.3] ‘to the island of Antharidus’) as does fluvius (e. g. fluvius Eufraten [Plac., Pr.Rh. 47.4]), but instances with the reverse sequence do occur. A noun like mons, however, goes both ways: de monte Sina (Plac., Pr.Sg. 40.1) vs. in Carmelo monte (Plac., Pr.Sg. 3.3) vs. monte Carmelo (Plac., A.3.3). In complex combinations one remarkable word order pattern predominates in Placentinus, with a few exceptions:  

 

(572) [1st ELEMENT {sanctus } {dominus }

+

PROPER NOUN {…} {…}

+

COMMON NOUN – FUNCTION] {patricius } {martyr }

For example: (573) a. b.

sanctus Victor/Georgius martyr (Plac., Pr.Sg. 33.4, 25.4) sanctus Helias propheta (Plac., Pr.Sg. 4.1)

Numerous instances are also found on epitaphs (see Delahaye 1909: 170–171). The pattern parallels structures featuring a Proper Noun + Common Noun: (574) Hieronimus presbiter [(Plac., Pr.Sg. 29.2)] – tempore Iustiniani imperatoris (Plac., Pr. Sg. 1.3) ‘during the time of emperor Iustinianus’ – Trajanus imperator (Plac., Pr.Rh. 35.4) – Helisius propheta (Plac., Pr.Sg. 1.3) – Iohannis Baptistae (Plac., Pr.Sg. 46.7)

There are a few exceptions to the regularity observed above: sanctus pater Helario (Plac., Pr.Sg. 33.6). It is important to note that variation in instances [sanctus + Proper Noun + Common Noun] exclusively affects the sequence Proper Noun + Common Noun and not sanctus, which most consistently occurs in initial position, as was noted in section 5.2.1. Finally there is passim a relatively high number of isolated instances combining a common noun and a proper noun in right-branching sequence: de petra Golgotha (Plac., Pr.Sg. 18.4), fratres Machabei (Plac., Pr.Sg. 47.1), mense Febroario (Plac., Pr.Sg.13.5). The pattern that emerges from Placentinus’ text is a clear increase of rightbranching constructions. Yet if the number of right-branching instances expands with time, it does so in certain contexts, which confirms the trend observed in Caesar and elsewhere (e. g. Bauer 2008). Moreover, genitive constructions that replace nominal apposition by far favor right branching:  

272

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

(575) a. b.

multitudo monachorum (Plac., Pr.Sg. 37.2) ‘great number (NOM) of monks (GEN)’ in monte Oliveti (Plac., Pr.Sg. 14.4) ‘on Mt. (ABL) Olivet (GEN)’

In the Peregrinatio Aetheriae nominal apposition is under siege despite its high incidence: genitive alternatives are on the increase (cf. previous section [5.3.2.1]). Nominal apposition in the Peregrinatio in very large majority favors right branching, in contexts that feature both proper and common nouns (e. g. hortum pomarium [Per. 15.2]). In genitive constructions, right branching predominates as well (e. g. arbor sicomori [Per. 8.2]). In all instances within the domain of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] that feature mons, the common noun comes first whether it is part of nominal apposition (4/ 4), a genitive (7/7), or an ‘undecided’ (9/9) construction. Similarly, for terra rightbranching is found in nominal apposition (terram Chanaan [Per. 10.1]) and in genitive constructions (terra Egypti [Per. 5.9]). For other common nouns from the domain [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] as well, there is a preference for right branching: fluvius (e. g. fluvium Iordanem [Per. 14.3]), flumen, mons (in monte Elena [Per. 33.1]), and so forth, even if not all instances have inflected forms. It is therefore rather surprising to find a relatively high incidence of civitas featuring left branching (8/14), showing structural ambivalence. In the domain of [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION] the picture is mixed yet again, but left branching and right branching are quasi-evenly distributed: rex Aggarus (Per. 19.18) vs. Aggarus rex (Per. 19.8). All instances featuring cursor are left-branching (per Ananiam cursorem [Per. 17.1]). By contrast, instances featuring dominus/domina almost exclusively are right-branching, in combinations featuring proper and common nouns: Domine Iesu (Per. 19.9), dominae sorores (Per. 20.5, 46.1, 46.4). These patterns often occur in direct address but not exclusively so. An interesting variety is Deus noster Iesus (Per. 10.2), which occurs four times, all in that sequence. In all 35 instances of sanctus the proper noun comes second (e. g. sanctus Athanasius [Per. 45.5]; sancti Abrahae [Per. 20.3]). There are several instances in the Peregrinatio of extended constructions that are quite similar to the ones in Placentinus:  

 

 

 

(576) [SANCTUS + PROPER NOUN + COMMON NOUN] a. sancti Iohannis baptistae (Per. 15.3) ‘of Saint John the Baptist’ b. martyrium sancti Thomae apostoli (Per. 17.1) ‘the memorial of Saint Thomas the Apostle’

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

273

I note that sanctus consistently precedes the proper noun. Moreover there are a few instances of extended combinations in which the noun referring to the profession precedes the proper noun, cf. (577) a. b.

sancti beati apostoli Ioannis (Per. 32.10) sancti prophetae Heliae (Per. 16.1)

Finally there are several isolated instances of nominal apposition that may include [KINSHIP] terms, but also other nouns. These as well tend to favor right branching, cf. (578) filii … Magni (Per. 19.6) ‘of his son (GEN) Magnus (GEN)’ – filio suo Magno (Per. 19.15) ‘for his son (DAT) Magnus (DAT)’

But in one sentence there is stylistic motivation: (579) cum patre Thara et Sara uxore (Per. 20.9) ‘with his father (ABL) Thara (ABL) and his wife (ABL) Sarah (ABL)’

From a diachronic perspective, the trend in word order observed for early IndoEuropean becomes stronger with time. The almost exclusive left branching observed for Hittite and Mycenaean gave way to more variety in Sanskrit, Greek, and Germanic. Moreover it has become clear that variation in all these languages often was lexically driven. This picture is confirmed by detailed analysis of Latin data, which shows that if there is variation, it is lexically related and the trend clearly is towards ever-increasing right branching. So in fact, the basic pattern remains the same, but the number of nouns that favor right branching continues to increase.

5.3.4 Nominal apposition and other changes Today’s European naming system combining a first and a family name (i. c. “surname” or “last name”) is the result of a long-term development that started in the 12th century (Meier-Brügger 2000: 276) and traces back to nominal apposition. The first name was and is used to identify an individual. The family name in origin was a second name that functioned as a nickname. The nickname, which eventually became hereditary, often emphasized a distinguishing characteristic, referring e. g. to a profession, physical feature, or descent (for early instances, see Section 4.4.2). Patronymics as found in Latin complex name constructions with the nomen gentile, praenomen, and cognomen were much older and trace back to the protolanguage (Meier-Brügger 2000: 277). The trans-generational transfer of names—  

 

274

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

the father’s name is passed to the son and then the grandson—is pivotal in this development. Names in Latin provide a rich source of nominal apposition: they specify kinship relations as well as titles and functions. Filius ‘son’ probably is the most frequent noun in this context, featuring in basically all patronymics, e. g. P. Critonius P. f. Pollio (CIL 1. 2. 1295). Female kinship nouns such as uxor ‘wife’ or filia ‘daughter’ typically appear in funerary and dedicatory inscriptions, cf.  

 

 

(580) Teidia (Sex. f.) uxsor (CIL 1. 2. 1378) ‘his wife (NOM) Teidia (NOM) (daughter of Sextus)’  

 

Specification in terms of titles, functions, and professions are commonly found both in texts and inscriptions, cf. (581) a.

C. Hostius (C. l.) Pamphilus medicus (CIL 1. 2. 1319) ‘doctor (NOM) G. Hostius (NOM) (freeman of Gaius) Pamphilus (NOM)’ monumentum Marcei Vergilei Eurysacis pistoris redemptoris (CIL 1. 2. 1204) ‘the memorial of baker (GEN) and contractor (GEN) M. V.E. (GEN)  

b.

 

 

 

 

Finally, there is the widespread type of patronymic that combines nomen, praenomen, and cognomen. These three elements are in apposition. The nomen refers to the gens (e. g. gens Iulia ‘the clan of the Iulii’), the praenomen refers to an individual member of that clan (e. g. Gaius), and the cognomen is the surname of the gens, such as:  

 

(582) a. b. c.

[PRAENOMEN Gaius Marcus Publius

NOMEN Iulius Aemilius Ovidius

COGNOMEN] Caesar Lepidus Naso

In this last example (582c) naso ‘long-nosed’ refers to a distinctive physical feature. In instances of this type nominal apposition is strongly manifest. It is in these contexts that ille typically is found as well. The occurrence of ille makes these constructions especially interesting because the emergence of definite articles is a major change in the transition from Latin to Romance. Definite articles in most Romance languages originate in Latin demonstratives (namely ille ‘that’) and are the result of grammaticalization (for a recent analysis and extensive bibliography, see Bauer 2007, 2009b). The demonstrative lost its deictic value in the process and became exclusively definite. The Latin documents show an increase over time of occurrences of demonstratives and a gradual shift towards article-like use. While it is possible to reconstruct the development of definite usage on the basis of data available, the precise origins of the definite article, however, remain hazy (see Bauer 2007, 2009b). For that reason the patronymic

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

275

constructions and the occurrence of the article-to-be are of great interest. In fact, there is in my view a close interaction between nominal apposition and the increasing use of demonstratives/definite articles. In an earlier publication (Bauer 2008) I presented an analysis of patronymic structures including ille, relating my findings to those of Einar Löfstedt (1956: 365–366), who argued that the emergence of definite articles traces back to constructions of the type ille Hypocrates medicus (Varr., R.R. 1.4.5). In instances of this type ille no longer functions as a demonstrative, but rather as an article. Löfstedt’s hypothesis is important because it offers a concrete context—that is both early and innovative—to a major linguistic change. Moreover the construction shows important structural parallels with others such as the combining of nomen, praenomen and cognomen, with ille, cf. (583) M. Horatius ille Pulvillus (Cic., Dom. 139)

While there are several instances of this type in Terence’s and Plautus’ comedies, there are few—if any—in the Peregrinatio or Placentinus and there is no pattern that emerges. In Cicero, by contrast, there are many examples, which in addition present certain regularities. I here present an overview of them, based on a substantial corpus of instances of patronymic constructions featuring ille in Cicero, cf. Table XI: Table XI: Patronymics Featuring ille in Cicero. [PRAENOMEN – NOMEN – ILLE] L. Cassius ille (Cic., Rosc. Com. 30.84)

public figure

[PRAENOMEN – ILLE – NOMEN] Q. ille Apronius (Cic., Verr. 2.3.22.2)

public figure

[PRAENOMEN – NOMEN – ILLE – COGNOMEN] M. Horatius ille Pulvillus (Cic., Dom. 139)

public figure

[PRAENOMEN – ILLE – COGNOMEN] P. ille Scipio (Cic., Har. Resp. 6.6)

public figure

L. ille Torquatus (Cic., Sull. 34)

public figure, first mentioned within independent statement

[(NOMEN) – COGNOMEN – ILLE – COGNOMEN] -L. Piso ille Frugi (Cic., Verr. 2.3.84.195) (see Bauer 2008: 47)

public figure

276

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

A number of patterns emerge: – ille typically occurs in patronymics conveying public figures who are mentioned for the first time; – these public figures are well-known, including politicians, philosophers, and historical figures; – rather than having demonstrative value, ille, has the meaning of notissimus ‘well-known’; – if the construction features a cognomen, ille typically precedes it. This use parallels that of names in combination with ille, and a noun or an adjective, or both, cf. Table XII: Table XII: [Proper Noun + Noun/Adjective + ille] in Cicero. Scipio quidem ille pontifex maximus (Cic., Tusc. public figure 4.51.7) Q. Scaevola ille augur (Cic., Balb. 45)

public figure

M. Drusus, ille clarissimus vir (Cic., Dom. 120.7) public figure ille dux Leonidas (Cic., Tusc. 1.101.8)

public figure

magnus ille Alexander (Cic., Arch 24.2)

public figure

Cato ille sapiens (Cic. Div. 1.28.5)

public figure

Heraclides ille Temnites (Cic., Flac. 42)

well-known figure

Cymaeus ille Athenagoras (Cic., Flac. 17)

well-known figure

Hippocrates ille Cous (Cic., De Or. 3.33.132)

public figure

Heracleotes ille Dionysius (Cic., Fin. 5.94.1)

public figure

Antipater ille Sidonius (Cic., De Or. 3.1.194)

public figure

Phalereus ille Demetrius (Cic., Brut. 82.285)

public figure

(see Bauer 2008: 47–48)

The examples in Table XII as well typically occur in contexts in which the name is mentioned for the first time and ille tends to precede the specifying noun or cognomen. The persons in question are well-known public figures. In my corpus of examples I came across only one instance in which the person in question had been mentioned before. Its occurrence clearly is contrastive (ille vs. hic): Heraclius ille Syracusanus et hic Bidinus Epicrates (Cic., Verr. 2.2.62.2). While hic refers to someone discussed in one of the previous paragraphs, Heraclius had been last mentioned much earlier. This context accounts for the occurrence of ille.

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

277

It is important to note that this usage exclusively involves ille: other demonstratives or particles in combination with proper nouns are attested, but to a limited extent only. The only regular structure that emerges is non-appositive iste/ipse/hic combining with a Proper Noun, in which iste, ipse, and hic as a rule keep their semantic value (deictic or contrastive; see Bauer 2008: 48–49). In other words, the patterns observed in the patronymic examples above are quasi exclusive to ille. This is an important observation, especially in the light of Löfstedt’s (1956) hypothesis and parallels with [Noun + ille + Adjective] combinations. In 1982 Leena Löfstedt further elaborated Einar Löfstedt’s hypothesis, establishing a link between his ille-Hypocrates-medicus example [ille + Name + Noun] and [Noun + ille + Adjective] constructions, such as Cato ille maior (Veg., Mil. 2.3), for which she observed a dramatic increase over time (L. Löfstedt 1981: 271–272). These structures involving common nouns, ille, and adjectives existed in Classical Latin as well. The sequence of the construction at that time may vary to some extent: while the noun and adjective (or second noun) may move position, ille is the fixed element in the middle, cf. aquilam illam argenteam (Cic.) vs. veterem illam formam (Tacit; Abel 1971: 182). This last type of structure is much more widespread as Abel’s corpus of Classical examples shows (20/38 vs. 9/38; 1971: 182), which does not come as a surprise: the adjective in veterem illam formam has been extracted and fronted for reasons of emphasis (for this phenomenon of adjectival emphasis; see Bauer 2009a). While this last type of structure was more common in Classical texts, it is the first type—[Noun + ille + Adjective]—that spread dramatically with time and survives in Romance (L. Löfstedt 1981: 270–271; Abel 1971: 182). Leena Löfstedt pointed out a potential underlying principle in the later texts: with ille typically occuring second in the sequence, it emphasizes the adjective it qualifies (L. Löfstedt 1981: 270), cf. Noun + ille + Adjective. Since qualifying adjectives may express judgment, Leena Löfstedt argues that the origin of definite articles traces back to emphatic use: ille was used as an emphasizing device to highlight the following adjective. This interpretation is supported by the fact that ille overall survived as a definite article in the Romance languages and that the other demonstrative elements and particles typically do not occur in this type of construction. My data from Cicero discussed above suggest that [Noun + ille + Adjective] in all likelihood may have had a forerunner in patronymics, which were rather formulaic. This interpretation is further supported by the fact that ille typically precedes the cognomen—that is the element conveying a distinguishing feature, the element that qualifies. Numerous instances of [Proper/Common Noun + ille + Adjective] indeed are found in Vulgar and Late Latin and Romance, as in: civitas illa magna (Vulg. Gen. 10.12), lit. ‘town-NOM the-NOM-F big-NOM-F’. In addition, Leena Löfstedt found that in Vegetius (end 4th c. A. D.) hic, by contrast, typically occurs in noun phrases  

278

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

including a noun and a numeral, and that hic systematically came first (1981: 272): his duobus generibus (Veg. 4.22) ‘these-ABL two-ABL types-ABL’. These patterns show that the central position of ille in [Proper/Common Noun + Adjective] sequences is indeed special. Finally, in this context as well it is ille that typically is attested; other demonstratives and elements like ipse are rare, even in Vulgar or Late Latin (L. Löfstedt 1981: 273–276). Vulgar and Late Latin texts also present ille-constructions that are exclusively nominal and therefore are instances of nominal apposition, as in: (584) homines men-NOM

illi that/the-NOM-PL

pastores (Vulg., Luc. 2.15) shepherds-NOM

Early instances include: (585) M. Catonem M. Cato-ACC

illum that/the-ACC-SG

senem (Cic., Arch. 7.15) old.man-ACC

In Romance the structure survives in all languages and predominantly takes the form of [Proper Noun + Article + (Nominalized) Adjective]: It. Bologna la dotta (‘learned’) and Sp. Fernando el Católico (‘catholic’, L. Löfstedt 1981: 271), OF Oliver li ber (‘brave’, CdR 672), Richard li velz (‘old’, CdR 170), Guarlan le barbet (‘bearded’, CdR 65), Carles li velz (‘old’, CdR 929, 970), and so forth. The same Proper Noun may combine with a variety of nominalized adjectives, as in: (586) a. b.

Anseis li fiers (CdR 105, 796) ‘Anseis the proud’ Anseis li veilz (CdR 796) ‘Anseis the old’

Moreover, fixed combinations as well may feature in this construction, cf. e. g. Carlemagnes li ber (CdR 430), showing that the name Carlemagnes was considered an autonomous entity in its own right. This was, however, not an absolute trend: Carles could also be combined with another element (cf. Carles li velz [CdR 929, 970]). In the Chanson de Roland Charlemagne’s name indeed is attested both as one word and as distinct elements. The pattern that emerges marks a clear distinction between the subject forms occurring as nominal apposition featuring distinct forms and corresponding case marking (Charles li magnes [CdR 702, passim]) and the oblique—synthetic—form Charlemagne (CdR 1422, passim). Since Charlemagne is no longer transparent, it is not possible to tell whether the formation traces back to Charle + magne or a Charle + le + magne, with syncope. While the most common construction of this type includes proper nouns referring to human beings, there are also instances with inanimate nouns referring, for example, to towns, as early examples in Old French show: Rome la citet  

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

279

(Al. 13, passim), Alsis la citet (Al. 86, passim), a Cordres la citet (CdR 70) ‘at the town of Cordres’. Moreover, Old French also features varieties that include a common noun and a possessive, cf. cruisiedes ad ses blanches mains[,] les beles (CdR 2250) ‘he had crossed his white hands, the beautiful ones’ (see also L. Löfstedt 1981: 271). Note that this example features two adjectives, one of which occurs in “normal” position (see more below). Instances of this type are rather similar to those discussed by Leena Löfstedt (1981), featuring [Noun + ille + Adjective]. Moreover, the emphatic interpretation that Leena Löfstedt identifies is also at play here, as in li empereres li tent sun guant[,] le destre (CdR 331) ‘the Emperor gives him his glove, the right one’. The Emperor’s gesture has a profound symbolic meaning: as a means of identification, the right glove was a distinguishing feature for messengers in the Middle Ages (see Chaplais 2003). In sum, [Noun + ille + Adjective/Noun]—in that sequence—is abundantly attested in Romance and traces back to Latin: it occurs regularly in Classical Latin, even if these instances feature a variety of ordering patterns that do not survive in later periods. The literature generally ascribes the origin of this structure in Latin to Greek. Lerch e. g. postulates a calque from Greek in which the Greek demonstrative is rendered by a demonstrative in Latin (Lerch 1941: 252). Likewise Hofmann and Szantyr point out that this rather frequent construction followed a similar usage in Greek (Hofmann and Szantyr 1965: 192). Abel observes that when there is a Greek source text, instances of this construction almost always trace back to a Greek definite article, not to a demonstrative (1971: 179). Yet he explicitly states that the structure was frequent in Classical Latin as well: reflecting an “usage classique qui consiste à ne jamais employer d’épithète auprès d’un nom propre sans ajouter un ille . . . en position articulatoire” (1971: 179). Moreover, as said earlier, the function in these instances is not anaphoric. The patronymics—which are typically Latin—further suggest that the construction rather than being borrowed, may very well have developed independently in Latin, even if some influence from Greek may not be excluded, especially in translations if and when there is an explicit parallel between the source text and the actual translation. Similarly, I draw attention to a point made earlier: the construction was also well-known in Germanic. Early Germanic languages such as Gothic and Old High German may include the definite article in nominal apposition as well as (see Chapter 4), cf.  

 

(587) a. b.

Go.

 

Iesus sa magus (Luc. 2.43; example [213] above) ‘Jesus the child/the child Jesus’ OHG Herodes ther cuning (Tat. 8.2; example [261a] above)

280

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

Moreover instances also include adjectives as in: (588) a.

OE

Wulfmǣr se geonga ‘Wulfmǣr the Young’ b. OHG Ludowīg ther snello ‘Ludwig the Brave’ (Examples from Wright 1954: 104)

As mentioned already, the construction is also well attested in Romance. Yet it is notable that the French kings and nobility whose names feature the construction typically have Germanic roots. The names of several rulers in medieval France indeed present this precise pattern: the early Clodion le Chevelu (‘longhaired’, king of the Salian Franks, 428–448), Clotaire le Jeune/le Grand (‘young/great’, Frankish king, late 6th and early 7th century), Clovis II le Fainéant (‘idler’, king of Neustrie and Burgundy 639–657), Childebert III l’Adopté (‘adopted’, king of Austrasie 656–662), Pépin le Bref, ‘short’, king of the Franks, 751–768), Louis I le Pieux (‘devout’, 781–814; 814–840) Charles II le Chauve (‘bold’), Louis II le Bègue (‘the one who stemmers’), Charles le Gros (‘big’), Charles II le Simple, Louis V le Fainéant: all Frankish and/or Carolingian kings until the early 10th century, whose names include a definite article and a nominalized adjective. This pattern sets the stage for many more rulers, such as the Capetians—also a Frankish dynasty (e. g. Philippe le Bel [‘good’, 1285–1314], Louis IX le Juste [‘just’, 1226– 1270], Charles le Bel [1322–1328]—as well as the Valois, representing a branch of the Capetians (e. g. Jean le Bon [‘good’, 1350–1365]). The same pattern is found in the nomenclature of the dukes of Burgundy (e. g. Charles le Téméraire, ‘audacious’, 1433–1477), who were of Germanic descent as well. The emergence of the construction cannot be accounted for without understanding its underlying structure. Most studies focus on the occurrence of ille following the noun (e. g. Lerch 1940; Abel 1971; L. Löfstedt 1981; and others). On the basis of a large corpus of chronological data, I argue however that it is not ille that follows the noun, but rather ille that precedes the nominalized adjective or the noun: so civitas illa magna should be read as [civitas + [illa magna] rather than *[civitas illa] + [magna]. Several considerations support this interpretation. First, these structures in very large majority include a proper noun, which occurs in initial position, and proper nouns in the early stages of Italic typically do not combine with demonstratives/articles. Second, according to this interpretation illa would have nominalizing function, which is in line with Rosén’s assumption based on Latin evidence that “in Latin the marking of nominal categories is the initial phase of the definite article” (1994: 133). In Greek as well, the nominalizing function of the definite article was early but there it was a common phenomenon (Bauer 2007). Finally, the structural interpretation that I propose is in line with  

 

 

 

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

281

the ordering patterns of demonstratives as observed by Fischer (1908; for a discussion of his data, see Bauer 1995: 80–81) and is supported by the use of nominalized ille + adjective elsewhere, which functions as an independent noun phrase: e. g. mela bene matura in arbore . . . bona sunt; nam illa acida non sunt congrua (Anth., DOC 31.2) ‘apples that ripened properly on the tree are good; the sour ones are not healthy’ (emphasis added). One of the implications of this interpretation is that the construction—when including nouns—would be an instance of nominal apposition and may indeed be emphatic. The adjective or second noun underscores a distinctive characteristic of the person or object in question. Hence Oliver li ber (‘brave’, CdR 672) or Guarlan le barbet (‘bearded’, CdR 65), Carles li velz (‘old’, CdR 929, 970). Consequently, once more a major development—the emergence of definite articles—not only affects nominal apposition, but may in fact be rooted in nominal apposition. The construction and its evolution therefore are at the cross-roads of language change.  

 

 

5.3.5 Grammatical context in Latin-Romance: a diachronic perspective The diachronic development of nominal apposition in the well-documented history of Latin and Romance entails a number of changes: (a) the loss of case agreement; (b) the shift from asyndetic to non-asyndetic; (c) the evolution from a structure based on syntactic equivalence (parataxis; case agreement) to a structure based on dependency (hypotaxis; genitive construction); and (d) the shift in word order from prevalent left branching to predominant right branching. On the basis of Latin and Romance data these changes cannot only be identified, but their successive chronological stages can be determined as well. Moreover data presented here show that several other (parallel) structural changes took place or rather were initiated, but did not materialize into a consistent trend. These curtailed changes therefore have no reflexes in Romance: while in the field of [FLORA], for example, the adjectival construction eventually prevails in the tree lexicon, the Vulgar and Late Latin data show the emergence of the genitive (e. g. La. arbor oleae, arbor fici vs. Fr. olivier, figuier). The adjectival variety must have emerged late and must have cut short further development of the genitive alternative. Also certain semantic fields were not affected by the changes identified, or not by all of them. The picture that the Romance languages offer, shows for example that the semantic field [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE] was only partly affected by the trends indicated. Evidence from the various chronological stages of Latin demonstrates morever that if structures in this field indeed underwent word order  

282

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

change and loss of case agreement, they were unaffected by the shift towards hypotaxis. That the outcome in Romance does not always reflect the changes in Latin data is further manifest in the field of [OTHER, TIME]. The ever-increasing formal variety in the Latin texts in the names of days and feasts—reflecting genitive and adjectival constructions, and nominal apposition—basically disappeared with time: in Romance adjectival constructions are opaque and limited to certain fixed expressions (Prov. dimenche), nominal apposition is limited to precise time indications detailing day segments (e. g. Fr. samedi matin), whereas the genitive (now prepositional) construction represents the unmarked structure that allows for new formations (e. g. Fr. le jour de Pâques [La. dies paschae)], but also the more recent le jour de l’an, ‘Newyear’s Day’). While names of days historically show variation, expressions including mensis ‘month’ were consistent, with a distinct predominance of nominal apposition until late in time. Yet the shift to the genitive alternative—only occasionally attested in the Latin documents—was consistent in most of the Romance area (It. mese di luglio ‘month of July’, Sp. mes de septiembre ‘month of September’, and so forth) despite being late. The historical picture that emerges for the field of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] is dominated by the spread of the genitive and its prepositional equivalent. Yet, while the Latin data are unambiguous, it is important to note that the shift has not come to completion for all nouns or in all Romance languages. Flumen and fluvius in Latin commonly continued to occur in nominal apposition, but the picture in Romance is rather mixed (Fr. le fleuve Marne but le fleuve du/de Somme, or It. il fiume Arno vs. il fiume d’Arno [rare], Sp. el río Arno, and so forth). Moreover, today’s French, for example, allows for variation, with—according to Grevisse—a slight preference for the asyndetic structure (Grevisse 1993: 518). At this point there is no convincing explanation. Also it is not clear why language change has resulted in la ville de Paris but also in Rue Louis Pasteur and Rue de Seine. Several linguists suggest that the underlying principle is the following: one can say Paris est une ville (hence la ville de …), but one cannot say *Louis Pasteur est une rue (hence rue Louis …; Dessaintes 1966: 69; Grevisse 1993: 518, 519). This interpretation raises more questions than it solves. First, if indeed it is possible to say Paris est une ville, it is not possible to say *(la) Seine est une rue. Yet there is a clear structural parallel between the above examples la ville de Paris and rue de Seine. Moreover, if this process of identification were the underlying principle, then the structures in the Romance languages would be consistent cross-linguistically and language internally. Since they are not, however, this explanation cannot be conclusive. Further detailed analysis of the early stages of the individual Romance languages is needed to elucidate the individual developments and to clarify this question.  

 

5.3 Grammatical context and change in Latin-Romance

283

In [QUANTIFICATION] structures, there is an ever-increasing use of genitives at the expense of nominal apposition. It is important to emphasize that the quasiexclusive use of nominal apposition in Hittite and Mycenaean gave way to variation between nominal apposition and genitive constructions. This sheds new light on the rather loose identification of adjectival elements (e. g. “numerical adjective”) in contexts of quantification. As the example of mille in mille passus suggests the constructions in question may in fact be instances of nominal apposition (see also Chapter 4). Those structures that did not follow the trend toward genitive constructions, eventually underwent a categorial shift whereby the quantative noun became a numeral. I note that the early occurrence of the genitive instead of nominal apposition in expressions of [QUANTIFICATION] is also attested in other IndoEuropean languages. The continued occurrence of nominal apposition in the context of [QUANTIFICATION] in certain Vulgar and Late Latin texts therefore is remarkable from a comparative perspective. Moreover the strong and consistent trend in Latin-Romance contrasts with the structures of [QUANTIFICATION] in a language like German, where today nominal apposition in this context is compulsory as structures like ein Glas Bier illustrate. While diachronic investigation has demonstrated that the French analytic construction (e. g. un verre de vin ‘a glass of wine’) is an acquired feature, one cannot hypothesize without further analysis that today’s German asyndetic variety (e. g. ein Glas Wein) is a linguistic residue. That such an assumption indeed would be hazardous, if not wrong, is further supported by Havers’ observation that Middle High German in contrast to modern German featured genitive constructions (1931) and by Paul’s statement that nouns in Middle High German referring to produce take the forms of a partitive genitive in expressions of quantification: “bei Stoffbezeichnungen wird der Gen. Part. angewendet, wo im Nhd, das Word flexionslos gebraucht wird” (Paul 1929: 163), cf. ein stücke brôtes (lit. a-NOM piece-NOM bread-GEN), ein trunc wazzers (lit. a-NOM quantity-NOM water-GEN), ein fuoder guotes wînes (lit. a-NOM quantity-NOM good-GEN wineGEN; Paul 1929: 163). Moreover, my own research brought up genitives in [QUANTIFICATION] expressions in several early Germanic languages (Chapter 4). The occurrence of nominal apposition in expressions of [QUANTIFICATION] in the earliest daughter languages such as Hittite and Mycenaean, on the other hand, suggest that nominal apposition in this contect was early if not original. Moreover the parallel increase of genitives in other appositive constructions in Indo-European as well indicates that there was a shift from nominal apposition to genitive constructions. Against this background the occurrence of genitive constructions in early Germanic and the compulsory usage of nominal apposition in today’s German require further analysis. The more so since other Germanic  

 

 

284

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

languagers seem to have undergone a similar change, such as Dutch. In today’s Dutch, nominal apposition is compulsory in expressions of [QUANTIFICATION] (e. g. Du. een glas bier lit. ‘a glas beer’), but in Middle Dutch the genitive or its prepositional equivalent was widespread in this context (Duinhoven 1988: 108– 109). If further investigation involving original data is required, a number of observations seem to be important at this stage already. First, instances of nominal apposition in German are not only widespread and even compulsory in expressions of [QUANTIFCATION], but also in other domains, such as that of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION]. Moreover, in Chapter 1, reference was made to agreement patterns in instances of nominal apposition in today’s German, cf.  

(589) a.

[NOMINATIVE] Gm. Eine Tasse schwarzer Kaffee wird dir gut tun ‘a (NOM) cup (NOM) of black (NOM) coffee will do you good’ b. [GENITIVE] Gm. Der Genuß einer Tasse schwarzen Kaffees macht dich … ‘the pleasure (NOM) of a (GEN) cup of black (GEN) coffee (GEN) makes you …’ c. [DATIVE] Gm. Mit einer Tasse schwarzem Kaffee wird dir bald .. ‘with a (DAT) cup of black (DAT) coffee you will soon …’ d. [ACCUSATIVE] Gm. Ich schenke dir eine Tasse schwarzen Kaffee ein ‘I pour you a (ACC) cup of black (ACC) coffee’ (Examples from Duden 1995: 717)

The distinctive feature of these structures is the comprehensive and consistent case agreement: the nouns in each instance of nominal apposition take the same grammatical form. For plural nouns the situation is different, cf. (590) a.

Gm.

mit einem Korb frische Äpfel ‘with a (DAT) basket of fresh (NOM-PL) apples’ b. Gm. mit einem Korb frischer Äpfel ‘with a (DAT) basket of fresh (GEN-PL) apples’ (Examples from Duden 1995: 717–718)

In these last examples the complement noun either takes the form of a nominative plural (example [a]) or a genitive plural (example [b]), which demonstrates that in the plural nominal apposition is not required. It is important to underscore that case marking in German primarily appears in contexts with modifiers, rather than on the noun. Accordingly when I say—as I did above—that “the nouns” in nominal apposition take the same grammatical form, it is in fact the definite articles and the adjectives on which case is marked.

5.4 Conclusions: the evolution of nominal apposition at phrase level

285

For that reason, more information is required as to case use in extended constructions in Middle High German, addressing a fundamental question: did the spread of genitives in earlier stages of Germanic exclusively affect the noun (hence MHG glas bieres) or did it also affect the extended constructions involving modifiers? And: did it affect semantic fields other than [QUANTIFICATION] and [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION]? To my knowledge there are no analyses that address these questions on the basis of Old High German and Middle High German documents. It may be that the shift to genitive first affected the Noun + Noun construction and only partly affected the extended constructions featuring modifiers. A shift from glas bieres back to glas bier is then imaginable (see more Chapter 7). In addition to the changes discussed so far, the evolution of all appositive constructions in Latin-Romance shows the systematic loss of grammatical agreement—even if this loss translated in different phenomena, such as the spread of the nominative, the emergence of phonetic agreement, or the plain loss of agreement in today’s constructions of the type Fr. (le) docteur Pasteur. The loss of agreement parallels the loss of asyndetism. Since the insertion of demonstratives/ definite articles in instances of nominal apposition may also be interpreted as a shift away from asyndetism, the gradual occurrence and spreading of ille in patronymic constructions in Latin cannot be considered an isolated phenomenon. Finally, many of the changes referred to occurred in certain semantic fields and often materialized along lexical lines. This same lexically motivated spreading of change is found in the shift from left to right branching that affected nominal apposition. From early times in Indo-European word order variation in nominal apposition tends to be lexically driven (see more Bauer 2008). In sum, the development of nominal apposition as reflected in the data from Latin-Romance is highly complex, involving not only different types of structure and change, but also different types of lexical item. To my knowledge the role of lexical motivation in the systematic extension of change has not been observed before: not for the evolution of nominal apposition nor for language change in general.

5.4 Conclusions: the evolution of nominal apposition at phrase level In the Introduction to this book I stated that the topic of nominal apposition is highly complex in terms of attestation, structure, and change. A number of considerations may account for this complexity. First, nominal apposition is a grammatical structure manifest in a variety of semantic fields. The patterns of

286

Chapter 5: Evolution of nominal apposition in Latin-Romance

occurrence show that the type of text and the time period may affect its use. Plautus’ and Terence’s dialogues, which are set in strong social contexts, have many instances in the field of [SOCIAL STATUS], while Caesar’s historical account of his military exploits in unknown territory may explain the high incidence of instances of the type [GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION] in De Bello Gallico. Similarly cookbooks turn out to feature numerous instances of [QUANTIFICATION]. This variety in types across a wide spectrum of texts suggests that nominal apposition was a thriving linguistic device in Latin and its limited occurrence in a certain type of text is related to the nature of the text rather than the fragile status of the construction. In the first section of this chapter it was shown that occurrence of nominal apposition with time has become limited to certain semantic fields, whereas other domains now favor genitive or adjectival constructions. Yet if the occurrence of nominal apposition has gradually declined, this decrease was manifest in certain semantic fields only and often even limited to individual nouns within them. Moreover, analysis of nominal apposition within the field of [RELIGION] has demonstrated that this type of structure is closely intertwined with religious beliefs and practices. Extra-linguistic knowledge of their background and their embedding in society is required to understand and account for the grammatical phenomenon that conveys them. Similarly, in Chapter 2 it was pointed out that knowledge of extra-linguistic phenomena is necessary to understand classifiers (Dixon 1968). Third, it has become clear that—from a grammatical perspective—nominal apposition underwent a comprehensive evolution and is at the cross-roads of major linguistic developments: loss of case, loss of agreement, change of word order, loss of asyndetism. The common denominator of the changes that affected nominal apposition is the emergence of hypotaxis and the loss of co-dependence. The genitive explicitly marks a relation of dependency, hence hypotaxis (see Benveniste [1966a] on the nature of the genitive). These are major changes in the history of Indo-European. Consequently, even if nominal apposition is not exclusively limited to Indo-European—being attested in other languages and language families as well—its development fits the major evolution of Indo-European grammar. The loss of case in the history of nominal apposition does not mean that all changes related to case loss are actually attested in the development of nominal apposition nor that it does not present its own characteristics. In fact, confusion of case in the context of nominal apposition, for example, typically translates in phonetic agreement, a phenomenon that seems to be limited to nominal apposition. By contrast, the spread of nominatives is found in other—albeit limited— contexts as well: it is not uncommon for a nominative to appear instead of an

5.4 Conclusions: the evolution of nominal apposition at phrase level

287

accusative or an oblique case. It is important to note that the spread of nominatives in nominal apposition typically is attested in inscriptions and affects personal names. Animacy may therefore be a factor in the same way it is relevant in the survival of two-case nouns in Romance (Smith 2005). Finally, diachronic analysis did not bring to light any evidence of nominal apposition turning into classifier constructions nor of related incipient numeral constructions, a shift postulated for certain Indo-Aryan languages and comparable to a similar development attested in Australian languages (Hackstein [2010], see more Chapter 7). Having discussed the occurrence, usage, and grammatical evolution of appositive phrases, I will now concentrate on the phenomenon of nominal apposition at the level of word formation. The shift to hypotaxis at the expense of parataxis— primarily manifest in the emergence and spread of genitives (and to a lesser extent adjectives)—in fact led to a substantial loss of nominal apposition at the level of syntax. Data analysis in the next chapter will demonstrate that the same development took place in morphology, but that nominal apposition has remained a widespread and productive morphological phenomenon and has in fact become increasingly prominent.

Chapter 6 Nominal apposition and word formation “. . . alle Kompositionsbildung beruht auf irgend einem engeren Zusammenschluss von zwei oder mehr Wörtern, die ein syntaktisches Gefüge ausmachen” (Brugmann 1900: 361)1  

 

In the preceding chapters I have examined nominal apposition from the perspective of noun classification and script determinatives and identified its occurrence and evolution in syntax. Here focus will be on nominal apposition at the level of morphology, i. c. word formation. Among word formation processes, composition typically reflects the correlation between syntax and (non-inflectional) morphology as illustrated by compounds that trace back to a combination of a genitive and a noun, as in Gm. Landsmann ‘man of the country, provincial’ or La. plebiscitum ‘decree of the people’. In other words, the structure underlying the compound is in fact syntactic: “alle Kompositionsbildung beruht auf irgend einem engeren Zusammenschluss von zwei oder mehr Wörtern, die ein syntaktisches Gefüge ausmachen” (Brugmann 1900: 361). Even if nominal apposition is an exceptional structure within Indo-European grammar, its relevance shows in its occurrence in both syntax and morphology. Moreover, diachronic analysis will (1) elucidate the fundamental change in the basic structure of appositive compounding, which parallels the changes observed at the syntactic level, and (2) show that nominal apposition in its long Indo-European history from being primarily a syntactic phenomenon increasingly has become a morphological process. Establishing an explicit connection between syntax and word formation is not new as Brugmann’s observation above shows. In the 1970s and 1980s determinative compounds,2 especially those including an underlying verb and direct object were related to prevailing word order patterns: it was assumed that the sequences reflected the unmarked word order at the syntactic level (e. g. Lehmann 1969). Examples such as French tournevis ‘turn-screw’ > ‘screwdriver’, tire-bouchon ‘pull-cork’ > ‘corkscrew’ clearly support this hypothesis. Similarly, recent formations in English like pickpocket, scarecrow do likewise. Yet, they are rather  

 

1 Translation: “all compounding is based on some kind of close combining of two or more words that form a syntactic construction”. 2 “Determinative compounds” or “determinatives” in this context refer to a type of compound in which the composing elements are in a hierarchical relation, reflecting an underlying verb + direct object relation for example (e. g. Engl. screwdriver) or a noun + adjective (e. g. Engl. grandparents), and so forth. Further analysis will be provided in the text.  

DOI 10.1515/9783110461756-006

 

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

289

marginal and non-productive in English. Productive formations like screwdriver or taxi driver—featuring the reverse sequence—seem to further complicate the picture and more detailed diachronic analysis is called for. More recently, Lehmann (2002) established a connection between bahuvrihi or possessive compounds (e. g. Bluebeard) and active typology, as postulated for an early stage of Proto-IndoEuropean. In earlier publications he had already pointed out a similar connection with archaic possessive mihi est constructions (Lehmann 1992). Bahuvrihi compounds typically refer to (human) beings that have a distinctive characteristic: the character Bluebeard stands out with his blue beard. The formation reflects an underlying to him (is) a blue beard—in which the predicate be is absent—rather than a ‘have’ construction (he has a blue beard); in contrast to est, has cannot be not deleted. Both mihi est constructions and the absence of finite be were archaic in Indo-European (e. g. Benveniste 1966b; Bauer 2000, with extensive references and discussion of case variation in possessive mihi est constructions). In comparison to other topics, word formation—the formation of new lexemes—has not been a hotbed of systematic linguistic analysis and debate. This relative lack of attention may be accounted for by the interest of some linguistic approaches, such as Transformational Grammar, in the combining of words rather than the structure of their composing individual elements or in units smaller than words as in American structuralism (e. g. Robins 1979 [1967]). Whatever the reason, as of today there is no comprehensive diachronic study of word formation in Indo-European. There are studies of (aspects of) word formation in individual languages, such as Debrunner (1971) on Greek or more recently Pounder (2000) on German. Within the field of word formation, composition especially has been a neglected topic. In Heidermanns’ (2005) bibliography of publications on word formation in Indo-European languages since 1800 just 634 or so out of the 28,000 entries examine composition. Similarly there is no comprehensive study about composition and its history in Indo-European despite a few studies that focus on individual branches (e. g. Carr 1939 on Germanic). This dearth has repeatedly been noticed since the 1940s (Salus 1965: 38). In fact, Salus’s (1965) article is a first attempt at providing an overview of Indo-European composition with some diachronic perspective. Brosch in his 14 page (2008) article provides a short overview of types of Indo-European word formation that contains some historical perspective, but comparison to processes in Esperanto is his main focus. In addition, the definition of compounds in the literature is not unambiguous and their classification continues to be a major challenge as well: the handbooks fail to come up with a unified classification as comparison of Brugmann (1906), Hirt (1928), Carr (1939), and others reveals. In Indo-European linguistics emphasis traditionally has been on inflectional morphology rather than word formation. Moreover, of the two main word formation  

 

 

 

290

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

processes in Indo-European—derivation and composition—derivation has received most attention. This focus is in line with the interest in inflectional morphology, which is suffix-based as well. In addition, whereas derivation generally is considered to be original, there is no consensus about the originality of composition— despite its productivity (e. g. Risch 1974: 165). The preference for derivational word formation becomes blatantly manifest when one simply compares—in the IndoEuropean handbooks—the number of pages discussing the different topics. Brugmann’s handbook on Indo-European morphology, for example, examines “compounds” in 71 pages (1906: 49–120), whereas “noun stems” comprise more than 565 pages (1906: 120–685), including also the formation of color adjectives, diminutives, and spatial adverbs. In Schwyzer’s Greek grammar, “Wortbildung und Flexion” covers 402 pages (1977: 415–817), discussing nominal compounds (1977: 425– 455), nominal suffixes (1977: 455–544), and nominal declensions (1977: 544–586). The remaining pages analyze other parts of speech. Leumann and Hofmann’s Latin “Formenlehre”, finally, discusses the formation of nouns in 203 pages, 20 of which are on nominal compounds (1926: 383–403), nine discuss “Stammbildung”, and the rest examine “Nominalflexion” (1926: 272–282, 404–460). It is remarkable as well that the detailed analysis of Sanskrit word formation by Panini—dating from the 4th century B. C.—predominates the field today. Many studies on word formation processes consciously or unconsciously are based on Panini’s analysis, which explains the prominence of dvandva compounds in their overviews (e. g. Carr 1939). Panini distinguished four major types of compound: dvandvas (copulatives; e. g. Skt mātárāpitárā ‘mothers-fathers’ > ‘parents’), tatpuruṣas (dependent determinatives; e. g. Engl. man-killer, god-given; doghouse), karmadhārayas (descriptive determinatives; e. g. Fr. grands-parents ‘grand-parents’; Skt vṛṣā́ -kapi ‘man-ape’), and bahuvrīhi (possessive compounds; e.g Engl. Bluebeard, skinhead, redneck). Panini’s continuing predominance in this type of analysis may account for the fact that something as straightforward—one would think—as the classification of compounds in Indo-European remains a confusing endeavor. The mistake at the root of this confusion may be that Panini’s model often is applied to word formation processes in Indo-European in general. Yet Panini’s classification was based exclusively on Classical Sanskrit and word formation processes—as will become clear in this chapter—have developed since. Imposing Panini’s model on later Indo-European languages without taking into account these specifications distorts basic classification and data analysis. Salus’s (1965) rather unnoticed account in fact proves my point that Panini’s analysis is not accurate for all dialects, as it excludes various types of compound in a number of daughter languages (1965: 60). In the following pages, I discuss the types of composition in Indo-European, including diachronic data and focussing on compounds based on apposition. In  

 

 

 

 

 

6.1 Composition in Indo-European

291

the first section (6.1) I will present an overview of the various types of compound attested in Indo-European in general: determinative (Section 6.1.1) vs. copulative compounds (Section 6.1.2), and numerals (Section 6.1.3). This overview will help evaluate the distinctive features of compounding in Indo-European and the relative position of appositive compounds (Section 6.1.4). Subsequently, I will focus on word formation processes that are based on apposition, drawing examples from various Indo-European languages with the exception of Italic (Sections 6.2 through 6.6). The inventory is based on the examples and (partial) overviews provided by scholars such as Whitney (1889), Wackernagel (1957 [1896]), Debrunner (1917), Lessen (1928), Risch (1949), Carr (1939), Friedrich (1960), Puhvel (1984–2004), and others. Finally, in Section 6.7 word formation processes based on nominal apposition in Latin-Romance will be examined. Focussing on appositive formations, my analysis will show that within this category the Indo-European languages provide a rich and long-standing variety that strictly speaking cuts through classifications such as determinative and copulative compounds. Binomials will not be discussed in this chapter. Binomials are found in many early and modern Indo-European languages, as examples from Hittite and today’s English (e. g. Aarts 1994) illustrate: e. g. Hi. mallai harrai ‘grinds (and) pounds’ (two milling techniques), māi seszi ‘grows (and) thrives’, Engl. bread and butter, beck and call, shop ‘n save, loud and clear, cut and dried, little by little. Examples may feature phonetic parallels: e. g. Engl. fair and square, bigger and better, saints and sinners, safe and sound, and so forth. Despite being conventional pairs of words of the same category, they include categories other than nouns as well and often are linked together by a connector (‘and’/‘or’) or a preposition. Moreover, the composing elements do not have the same referent nor convey a unique referent, which distinguishes them from those examined in this chapter.  

 

 

6.1 Composition in Indo-European Emphasis on derivation in studies on word formation in Indo-European is not without reason: derivation is the most widespread and productive word formation process in early Indo-European languages. Derivation of nominal bases especially is very productive. In this respect verbs and nouns are each other’s opposites: verbs allow for numerous inflectional processes because of the many grammatical categories they convey (tense, aspect, mood, voice, . . .), but they are not commonly subject to derivation. Inflectional morphology of nouns on the other hand is relatively limited because few grammatical categories are conveyed (case, number, gender). By contrast, nominal word formation and especially derivation are strongly developed.  

 

292

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

The productivity of compounds in early Indo-European varies from language to language: Greek and Sanskrit, for example, feature many instances, both in terms of number and different types, whereas Hittite has “nur sehr wenig Nominalkomposita” (Friedrich 1960: 42). Or so it has been assumed for a long time (see Section 6.3). In order to evaluate the various instances of word formation based on nominal apposition, I will first provide an overview of compounds in general and more specifically determinatives and copulatives. Compounds are the result of combining two or more autonomous lexical elements into one lexeme. This combining is basically limited to two elements. Instances with three or more components do occur, but are rare. The Rig-Veda or the Atharva-Veda, for example, do not feature compounds that include more than three components (Salus 1965: 43). The composing elements may be roots, stems, or full lexemes. Diachronically the characteristics of the first element may vary: technically speaking this element may be a full lexeme, but it may also be an element that does not occur or no longer occurs independently in that form. Latin agricola ‘farmer’, for example, includes as its first component the stem agr- ‘land’ and refers to the one who cultivates (col-) his land (agr-). The -i- is a linking vowel and not part of the stem, breaking up consonant clusters that result from bringing together two components. Obviously the bare stem does not occur as an independent element in Latin. The Greek formation ὁδοιπόρος ‘traveller’ differs from La. agricola in that it is said to include a locative form that no longer exists: the early locative ὁδοι ‘on the road’ did not survive in Ancient Greek, but continued to be used as a linguistic residue in this and similar compounds (for more examples from Greek, see Debrunner 1917: 16). Compounds of this type including a component that does not (or no longer) occur independently in the language are called “echte Komposita” (‘real compounds’). They were early and their origin long precedes the split-up of the Indo-European peoples (e. g. Debrunner 1917: 36). This type of composition therefore is typically Proto-Indo-European and—according to some—reflects a very early stage in which “noch unflektierte Stämme als erstes Glied erscheinen” (Jacobi 1897: 1),3 cf.  

(591) Gk θεό-δοτος

‘god[stem]-given’ > ‘given by god’

Later formations tend to include full lexemes, which are attested in that form in other contexts as well, cf.

3 There seems to be a contradiction in the assumption that components of early compounds are either case forms that no longer occur (the locative in Gk ὁδοιπόρος). and/or uninflected elements (agr- in La. agricola, for example), reflecting the uninflected stage of Proto-Indo-European. This issue is further complicated by the fact that there is no consensus about the number of cases in the earliest stages of Greek.

6.1 Composition in Indo-European

(592) a. b. c.

Gk Διόσδοτος Gk Διόσκουροι Fr. bateau-mouche

293

‘Zeus-GEN + given’ > ‘given by Zeus’ (Διός + δοτος) ‘Zeus-GEN + boys’ > ‘sons of Zeus’ (Διός + κουροι) (Castor and Pollux) ‘boat – fly’ > ‘tourist boat’ (bateau + mouche)

Compounds that combine two or more full lexemes are called “unechte Komposita” (‘improper compounds’) in the German literature, cf. (593) [“UNECHTE KOMPOSITA” ‘improper compounds’] a. Gk διόσδοτος ‘given by Zeus’ b. Fr. bateau-mouche ‘boat – fly’ > ‘tourist boat’ vs. (594) [“ECHTE KOMPOSITA” ‘real compounds’] a. La. agricola ‘farmer’ b. Gk θεό-δοτος ‘god[stem]-given’ > ‘given by god’

“Unechte” compounds diachronically may lead to “echte” compounds, which means that “echte” compounds may have been “unechte” compounds at an earlier stage. The distinction between both types of compound therefore may be chronological, reflecting different stages of development (“zeitlicher Unterschied”, Debrunner 1917: 19). In addition to these morphological differences, a classification of compounds on the basis of the grammatical category of the components is possible as well: verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and so forth may occur in first and second position. Overviews that present these types tend to be rather enumerative and little analytic. A better insight is provided when classification is made on the basis of the grammatical relation between the components involved: (1) copulative compounds, based on the co-ordination of two elements of the same grammatical category and status (e. g. Engl. queen-mother, werewolf; Skt pitárāmātárā ‘fathersmothers’ > ‘parents’), and (2) determinative compounds. In this last group components are in a hierarchical—dependency—relation (e. g. La. agricola ‘farmer’, Engl. redneck4, ladykiller, Fr. tournevis ‘screw driver’; interrègne ‘intereign’; grands-parents ‘grand-parents’, . . ..). Along this line Debrunner distinguishes between “Beiordenende (Kopulative) Komposita” and “Unterordenende Komposita” (Debrunner 1917: 40–41; see further below; for a full overview of compounds in Greek, see Debrunner 1917: 15–83). In the next two sections both determinative (Section 6.1.1) and copulative (Section 6.1.2) compounds will be discussed in more detail. Section 6.1.3 dicusses numerals, which handbooks may define in terms of  

 

 

 

4 Redneck is also a so-called possessive compound (see more Section 6.1.1.2) referring to a person whose “red neck” is a distinctive feature. Grammatically the structure presents the syntax of an Adjective + Noun. Possessive compounds are part of a semantic classification of compounds; determinative compounds feature in a classification based on grammatical structure.

294

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

“copulatives”. Evaluation of the traditional classification is relevant because it will reveal that appositive Noun + Noun combinations—which are the topic of this book—are identified in the handbooks under a number of different categories, which undermines an accurate analysis. For that reason section 6.1.1 will briefly discuss the different types of compound as presented in the handbooks. It will become clear that nominal apposition cuts accross these classifications.

6.1.1 Determinative compounds The grammatical division into copulative vs. determinative compounds is commonly acknowledged in the handbooks. In determinative compounds there is a hierarchical relation between the two composing elements: one is the grammatical head, whereas the other is its complement e. g.:  

(595) Engl. screwdriver (ínstrument that drives [V] a screw [DIR.OBJ]), fishmarket (a market for fish).

Similarly: (596) Engl. snow white, Gm. Vaterland ‘fatherland’, Rottkäppchen ‘Little Red Riding Hood’, Fr. grands-parents ‘grand-parents’, vinaigre ‘vinegar’, tournevis ‘screwdriver’, La. agricola ‘farmer’, plebiscitum ‘decree of the people’, arbor olea ‘olive tree’, It. treno lampo ‘bullet train’, and so forth.

In the following pages discussion will focus on further classification based first on structural (6.1.1.1) and subsequently on semantic criteria (6.1.1.2).

6.1.1.1 Structural classification: dependent vs. descriptive determinatives The formations given above under (595) and (596) all are not identical. It is possible to make a subdivision on the basis of the type of hierarchical relation between the composing elements. In La. agricola (‘land + cultivate’), plebiscitum (‘people-Gen. + decision’) or Engl. ladykiller there is a relation of dependency (or to be more precise a government relation) expressed in the (underlying) case; these instances therefore are referred to in terms of “dependent determinatives”. In formations such as La. arbor olea, Engl. grand-parents Fr. vinaigre, and so forth, there is an agreement relation: either because the components are two nouns in apposition or because the formation involves an adjective and a noun. They are called “descriptive determinatives”. Panini as well made this refined distinction and refers to these groups in terms of tatpuruṣas (dependent determinatives) and karmadhārayas (descriptive determinatives, see above).

6.1 Composition in Indo-European

295

Within the class of DEPENDENT DETERMINATIVES the combining elements may convey a wide variety of relations and functions, especially when a verbal and a nominal form are involved, as the instances in Table XIII below illustrate (examples based on Debrunner 1917; Lessen 1928; Risch 1949; Carr 1939; Wackernagel 1957; Mitchell and Robinson 1992): Table XIII: Dependent Determinatives: Verb + Noun/Adjective. I La. Gk Engl.

NOUN-[OBJECT] + agr-i- ‘land’ πατρ- ‘father’ screwtravel

VERB col- ‘cultivate’ ἀλοιά-‘kill’ driver planner

>

IA Gk

VERB + μεν- ‘withstand’

NOUN-[OBJECT] λαος ‘troops’

>

Fr.

tire- ‘draw’

bouchon ‘cork’

II Eng.

NOUN-[SUBJECT] + VERB crybaby

>

NOUN cry-baby

IIa It.

VERB + trema-‘tremble’

NOUN-[SUBJECT] cuore ‘heart’

>

NOUN tremacuore

‘heart palpations’

III Du. Gm. OE

VERB-[PURPOSE] + werk- ‘work’ lese- ‘read lār- ‘learn’

NOUN tuig ‘object’ buch ‘book’ hūs ‘house’

>

NOUN werktuig Lesebuch lārhūs

‘utensile’ ‘ (reading) book’ ‘school’

IV Du.

VERB + tref- ‘hit

ADJECTIVE zeker ‘precise’

>

NOUN agricola πατραλοίας screwdriver travel planner NOUN Мενέλαος

tire-bouchon

ADJECTIVE trefzeker

‘farmer’ ‘parricide’

‘Menelaos’ (‘withstandingmen’) ‘corkscrew’

‘accurate in aiming’

Dependent determinatives including a verb in combination with an underlying direct object were early (e. g. La. agricola ‘farmer’). These formations are said, for example, to represent 60% of all compounds in Ancient Greek and Vedic Sanskrit (Lehmann 2002: 161). Most other types of compound are later formations. So far the overviews exclusively include compounds with verbal elements. Yet there are also many instances including two nominal elements, cf. Table XIV:  

296

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

Table XIV: Dependent Determinatives: Noun + Noun. V Engl. Fr. Gm. Du. La. Gk Fr.

NOUN + fishtimbreVater- ‘father’ rijst- ‘rice’ plebis- ‘people’ πατρ- ‘father-‘ hôtesse‘hostess’ gen(s)- ‘man’

NOUN market poste ‘mail’ Land ‘land’ water ‘water’ scitum ‘decree’ ἀδελφ- ‘brother’ (de l’) air ‘air’

>

(d’)arme ‘of weapon’

NOUN fish market timbre-poste Vaterland rijstewater plebiscitum πατράδελφος hôtesse de l’air

‘stamp’ ‘fatherland’ ‘rice-water’ ‘people’s decree’ ‘father’s brother’ ‘flight-attendant’

gendarme

‘policeman’

In some languages the dependency relation is formally marked by a case (marker) or a preposition, as in Du. stadsrecht ‘city-GEN right’ or French hôtesse de l’air, but in many Indo-European languages there simply is juxtaposition (e. g. Engl. fish market). The complement noun conveys a variety of underlying grammatical functions (see further below). Table XV presents dependent determinatives including an adjective and a noun:  

Table XV: Dependent Determinatives: Noun + Adjective. VI Engl. Du. Gm.

NOUN + snow water 'water' blut- ‘blood’

ADJECTIVE white vlug ‘swift’ rot ‘red’

Gk

himmel- ‘sky’ ἐγχεσί ‘spear’

hoch ‘high’ μωρός ‘eager’

>

ADJECTIVE snow white watervlug blutrot himmelhoch ἐγχεσίμωρος

‘snow white’ ‘very swift’ ‘red as blood’ ‘very red’ ‘sky high’ ‘eager with a spear’

In these instances—which involve comparison—the noun semantically specifies the adjective: snow white reflects ‘white as snow’. But other grammatical and semantic relations may be expressed as well, as Gk ἐγχεσίμωρος ‘eager with a spear’ illustrates. Formations similar to those under (VI) in Table XV with the reverse—rightbranching—sequence are periphrastic, relatively rare, and do not represent a consistent formation, cf.

6.1 Composition in Indo-European

(597) a. b.

Engl. snow white vs. ‘white as snow’ Gk ἐγχεσίμωρος vs. lit.: ‘with a furious lance’

297

Fr. blanc comme la neige Fr. à la lance furieuse

Note that the non-periphrastic renderings are left-branching: (598) a. b.

Du. Gm.

watervlug blutrot

vs. vs.

Fr. très rapide Fr. rouge sang

Traditionally, DESCRIPTIVE DETERMINATIVES have been described as involving an adjective and a noun, or two nouns, cf. Tables XVI (Noun + Noun) and XVII (Adjective + Noun): Table XVI: Descriptive Determinatives: Noun + Noun. VII OE ON Gm. Fr. It.

NOUN + wīf- ‘woman’ karl- ‘male’ Maul- ‘mule’ bateau ‘boat’ treno ‘train’

NOUN man ‘man’ barn ‘child’ esel ‘ass’ mouche ‘fly’ lampo ‘lightning’

>

NOUN wīfman karlbarn Maulesel bateau-mouche treno-lampo

‘woman’ ‘boy’ ‘mule’ ‘tourist boat’ ‘bullet train’

These Noun + Noun formations will be discussed in more detail in Section 6.1.4. Table XVII provides instances of descriptive determinatives including a noun and an adjective, featuring both sequences: Adjective + Noun as well as Noun + Adjective. The compounds may be nouns (VIIIa) and adjectives (VIIIb), cf. Table XVII: Descriptive Determinatives: Noun + Adjective. VIIIa OE Engl. Fr. Gk Go.

ADJECTIVE + god- ‘good’ freegreengrands- ‘grand’ ἀκρ- ‘high’ ala- ‘all’

NOUN spell ‘message’5 mason house parents ‘parents’ πολις ‘town’ mans ‘men’

Go. MHG Du.

láusa- ‘empty’ hôch- ‘high’ schijn- ‘false’

waúrdi ‘words’ muote‘mood’ heilige ‘saint’

>

NOUN [Type I] godspell freemason greenhouse grands-parents ἀκρόπολις alamans láusawaúrdi hôchmuote schijnheilige

‘good news’

‘grand-parents’ ‘citadel’ ‘all men’ > ‘totality of human beings’ ‘empty talk’ ‘arrogance’ ‘hypocrite’

5 OE godspell is a calque of La. evangelium (< Gk εὐαγγέλιον ‘[the reward of] good tidings [given to the messengers]’.

298

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

Table XVII: (continued) VIIIa Fr. Fr.

NOUN + vin- ‘wine’ coffre- ‘chest’

ADJECTIVE aigre ‘acid’ fort ‘strong’

>

VIIIb Du. Fr.

ADJECTIVE + schijn- ‘false’ pur- ‘pure’

NOUN heilig ‘saint’ sang ‘blood’

>

NOUN [Type I] vinaigre coffre-fort

‘vinegar’ ‘safe’

ADJECTIVE [Type I] schijnheilig ‘hypocritical’ pur-sang ‘true’

The formations in the next Table (XVIII) include an adjective and a noun and are called bahuvrihi or possessive compounds (Type II, see more below, Section 6.1.1.2); the resulting compounds may be nouns or adjectives: Table XVIIIa: Descriptive Determinatives: Noun + Adjective – Bahuvrihi, Nouns. IX Eng. Gm.

ADJECTIVE+ blue red rot ‘red’

NOUN beard neck käppchen ‘hood’

Gm. Gk

Schwarz ‘black’ ἀργι ‘swift’

Hemd ‘shirt’ πους ‘feet’

Hi.

pattar ‘wing’

palḫi ‘wide’

IXa Fr. It.

NOUN + peau ‘skin’ camicie ‘shirts’

ADJECTIVE rouge ‘red’ nere ‘black’

>

NOUN [Type II, Bahuvrihi] Bluebeard redneck Rotkäppchen ‘little Red Riding Hood’ Schwarzhemd ‘Nazi’ ἀργίπους ‘swift feet’ > ‘with swift feet’ (Thetis, horses) patterpalḫi ‘wide-wing’ (bird)

>

NOUN [Type II, Bahuvrihi] Peau-Rouge ‘Amerindian’ Camicie nere ‘Fascists’

Table XVIIIb: Descriptive Determinatives: Noun + Adjective – Bahuvrihi, Adjectives. X

ADJECTIVE +

NOUN

Gm. Gk

bar- ‘bare’ ῥοδο- ‘red’

fuβ ‘foot’ δάκτυλος ‘finger’

La.

magn- ‘great’

animus ‘soul’

Skt

bahu- ‘much’

vrīhi ‘rice’

>

ADJECTIVE [Type II, Bahuvrihi] barfuss ‘barefoot’ ῥοδοδάκτυλος ‘redfingered’ magnanimous ‘greatsouled’ bahuvrīhi ‘having much rice’

6.1 Composition in Indo-European

299

In determinative compounds the two components typically are in a dependency relation: one element is the grammatical head and one element is its complement. Head and complement are in a government or agreement relation. The examples above show that the head element may be a noun, a verb, or an adjective, cf. La. agricola ‘farmer’, Fr. grands-parents ‘grand-parents’, or Du. trefzeker ‘accurate’. When the head element traces back to a verb there generally is an underlying government relation, as in La. agricola or Fr. tire-bouchon. When the head element is a noun, it either governs another noun or it combines with a noun in apposition or an adjective, which agrees in case, number, and/or gender with the noun, as in: (599) a. b. c. d.

La. arbor olea Fr. grands-parents ’great-parents’ Gk Διόσδοτος ‘given by Zeus’ Gk Διόσκουροι ‘sons of Zeus (Castor and Pollux)’

[NOMINAL AGREEMENT] [ADJECTIVAL AGREEMENT] [NOMINAL GOVERNMENT] [NOMINAL GOVERNMENT]

Table XIX below presents an schematic overview of the types of determinatives, cf: Table XIX: Overview of Compounds: Determinatives—According to the Handbooks.

The grammatical relation of government or agreement may not always be formally marked, either because the combination is an “unechtes Kompositum” or because phonetic or grammatical rules for some reason do not apply, as in linguistic residues. A point in case is the French compound grand-mère ‘grand-

300

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

mother’, which taken at face value incorrectly combines a masculine adjective and a feminine noun. Yet the adjective grand traces back to La. grandis, a thirddeclension adjective, which originally distinguished a masculine/feminine (grandis) and a neuter (grande) form. Only in the late Middle Ages did adjectives of this type come to follow the two-gender pattern of the other French adjectives opposing masculine and feminine endings, and did they acquire a feminine form. Yet this was a slow development, especially for grant: feminine grande gradually established itself from the early 15th century onward (for further details, see Marchello-Nizia 1979: 101). By that time, however, the formation grand-mère was already fully lexicalized and remained in the language as a fossil. As the examples show, compounds may reflect a number of underlying grammatical or semantic functions or roles: direct object (e. g. Engl. screwdriver, Gk πατράλοίας ‘parricide’ or La. agricola ‘farmer’), subject (Engl. cry-baby), comparison (Engl. show white Gm. blutrot), possession (Gm. Vaterland ‘land of the father’; Engl. houserule ‘rule of the house’), aim (e. g. Du. werktuig ‘utensil’, Engl. fish market ‘market for fish trading’; timbre-poste ‘stamp for postal services’), location, and so forth. The different underlying roles are mentioned here without the pretension to provide an extensive and well-defined classification. These formations clearly reflect however the grammatical and semantic relations between the various parts of speech of a given language (see more below). And there is a fundamental grammatical distinction between formations that are based on agreement and those based on government.  

 

6.1.1.2 Referential differences: endocentric vs. exocentric compounds In addition to making an inventory of compounds on the basis of structural difference as under 6.1.1.1, one can also make a classification on the basis of referential value. While structures like Fr. grands-parents ‘grand-parents’ and Fr. vinaigre ‘vinager’ on the one hand and Fr. Peau-Rouge ‘skin-red’ > ‘Amerindian’ and Engl. redneck on the other are structurally the same (both types are descriptive determinatives, Adjective + Noun), their reference differs: grands-parents, vinaigre and similar compounds literally refer to parents that are ‘grands’ or wine that is acid, etc. By contrast, Peau-Rouge, redneck, Bluebeard, and similar compounds do not refer to a beard that is blue, a neck or a skin that is red, but rather to a person who has a blue beard or a red neck. These formations— bahuvrihi or possessive compounds—exclusively refer to a third entity not conveyed by one of the components i. c. the person who has a bluebeard. Similarly Engl. egghead does not refer to a head that is an egg, but rather to someone whose head is like an egg, he or she is a ‘knowledgeable academic’ or ‘intellec 

6.1 Composition in Indo-European

301

tual’.6 With the part referring to the whole, these formations are metonymic (see also Brosch 2008: 4), but that is not the way they generally are identified. Because of their external reference bahuvrihi commonly are called “exocentric compounds”. The distinction, which is rather straight forward in the examples given here, becomes more complex once compounds have become opaque. The types of example provided in the previous pages also differ from a diachronic perspective: bahuvrihi compounds had fully developed in the earliest attested period of Indo-European, as instances in all early Indo-European languages illustrate, including Hittite (Tischler 1982: 228). They were especially common in Indo-Iranian, Greek, Armenian, and Germanic. The formation was both nominal and adjectival (see Table XVIII), which underscores its productivity.

6.1.2 Copulative compounds The composing elements of copulatives are of the same grammatical category, are one another’s grammatical equivalent, and have the same grammatical status, cf. Table XX below, which presents examples from the handbooks: Table XX: Copulative Compounds. Gk

ἀνδρόγυνος

‘man-woman’ > ‘hermaphrodite, effiminate man’

Gk

ἰατρόμαντις

‘doctor-seer’, ‘Asclepius’

MGk

ἀνδρόγυνο(ν)

‘man-woman’ > ‘pair’

OS

gesunfader (Hel. 1176)

‘sons-father’ (SS John & Jacob and their father)

Fr.

poète-chanteur

‘poet-singer’

OE

werewulf

‘werewolf’

Engl.

queen-mother

Skt

mātárāpitárā

‘mothers-fathers’ > ‘parents’

Fa. OHG

pedarmādar arzatgot

‘father-mother’ > ‘parents’ ‘doctor-god’ > ‘Asclepius’

Gm.

Gottmensch

‘god-man’

Fr. Gk

sourd-muet γλυκύπικρος

‘deaf-mute’ ‘bitter-sweet’

6 According to the New Oxford Dictionary (1998) the formation is based on an analogy with a bald head (NOD 1998: 59).

302

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

Since copulative compounds primarily are characterized by the juxtaposition of two grammatically equivalent nouns or adjectives, they reflect nominal apposition at morphological level. The fact that the main characteristic of these formations is juxtaposition of equivalent elements, is further illustrated by the exclusive occurrence of [Noun + Noun] or [Adjective + Adjective] combinations. [Adjective + Noun] combinations are inherently excluded. Moreover, these formations are typical in that they combine two nouns or adjectives that refer to two qualities in the referent, Gk ἀνδρόγυνος for example refers to a human being who is at the same time a man and a woman; OE werewulf is at the same time a man and a wolf. Similarly, someone who is sourd-muet is both deaf and mute, and so forth. Yet the handbooks do not point out that all instances above are not identical, even if some of them are referred to as dvandvas ‘pairs’: Skt pitárāmātárā ‘fathersmothers’ > ‘parents’ or Fa. pedarmādar ‘parents’ for example, which are dvandvas (see Section 6.2.1), do not refer to a human being who is at the same time a father and a mother. Instead they refer to two complementary human beings who together form an entity, ‘parents’. This and other differences between the various formations in Table XX above and the similarities with certain descriptive determinatives will be discussed in greater detail in Section 6.1.4, “Compounds based on apposition”.

6.1.3 Numerals In the handbooks, numerals typically are characterized as copulatives (e. g. Debrunner 1917: 40–41) and certain numerals are identified as dvandvas (e. g. Macdonell 1916: 269). Numerals in Indo-European are based on three distinct arithmetical operations: addition, multiplication, and subtraction. Among these, subtraction is least common and is found to a limited extent in a few languages only, such as Latin e. g. duodeviginti ‘two-from-twenty’ > ‘18’, undeviginti ‘onefrom-twenty’ > ‘19’, undetriginta ‘one-from-thirty’ > ‘29’, or OE twā lǣs twentig ‘two less twenty’ > ‘18’ (Coleman 1992: 397), and so forth. The most common arithmetical operation is multiplication, cf. e. g. La. trecenti ‘three (times) hundred’ > ‘300’, triginta ‘three (times) ten’ > ‘30’ and vigesimals such as Fr. quatre-vingts ‘four (times) twenty’ > ‘80’ (see Bauer 2004). Addition is especially attested for the teens, e. g. La. undecim (*oinos-decem) ‘one ten’ > ‘11’, quindecim ‘five ten’ > ‘15’, septemdecim ‘17’ (Pl., Cist. 755), and so forth. This type of formation (digit + decad) is old and original, cf. Gk ἔνδεκα ‘one-ten’ > ‘11’, δώδεκα ‘two-ten’ > ‘12’, Skt caturdaśa ‘four-ten’ > ‘14’, páñcadaśa ‘five-ten’ > ‘15’, ON (Icel.) nitján , OS nigentein, OE negantīene ‘nine-ten’ > ‘19’, Go. taíhun ‘ten’, fidwōrtaíhun ‘four-ten’ >  

 

 

 

 

6.1 Composition in Indo-European

303

‘14’ (Wright 1954: 115). In Sanskrit these formations are early, with the word accent on the first component, cf. e. g. ékādaśa ‘eleven’ and dvdaśa ‘twelve’. With time two major changes in numerals took place in many languages: a reversal of the sequence of the composing elements and the introduction of a connector, e. g. La. septendecim turning into decem septe (CIL 3.2283) ‘ten-seven’ > ‘17’ or quindecim becoming quinque decemque (Mart. 14.192.2) ‘five-ten-and’ > ‘15’. The change in sequence suggests that despite the qualification of numerals as “copulatives”, the hierarchical equivalence between the teen and the digit may not be that straight-forward. Arithmetically the combining in Classical Latin of septemdecim or *decim septem may be the same, ‘17’, linguistically there is a difference. It remains a fact that in Vulgar and Late Latin a shift in sequence took place parallel to the shift from OV to VO (Bauer 2011: 549–553): with the change of word order the relative order of teen and digit was reversed as well, and in some instances a connector was added. The change is well attested in Latin and found in other Indo-European languages as well, cf.  

 

(600) VLa. decem septe (CIL 3.2283) ‘ten-seven’ > ‘17’; decem et septem (Liv. 28.4.6, 33.21, 40.40.11) ‘ten-and-seven’, > ‘17’ decem et una (CIL 3.864.5) ‘ten-and-one’ > ‘11 ’, decem trisque (Manil. 4.452) ‘ten-three-and’ > ‘13’; decem et quinque (CIL 3.3855.6) ‘ten-andfive’ > ‘15’ (Coleman 1992: 397)7 (601) Later Gk δεκατρεῖς ‘ten-three’ > ‘13’, δεκαπέντε ‘ten-five’ > ‘15’

Early instances of a connector are found in Greek already, even if connectors were not the rule. A few of them are attested in Homer, cf. (602) a. b.

Gk Later Gk

δυοκαίδεκα ‘two-and-ten’ τρεικαίδεκα ‘three-and-ten’

> ‘12’ (Homer) > ‘13’

Finally, viginti tres ‘23’ and similar formations above twenty in Latin exclusively occur in that sequence, further showing that order is a pertinent feature. Evidence therefore suggests that numerals are not dvandvas but in fact structurally parallel other formations. So far determinatives, copulatives, and numerals have been discussed; they are presented in a schematic overview in XXI below:

7 Numerals in Romance show that these new formations did not all survive, cf. It. tredici or Fr. treize, which trace back to La. tredecim. Duodeviginti and undeviginti, on the other hand, came to be replaced by structures of the type teen + digit: e. g. It. diciotto ‘18’ or Fr. dix-neuf ‘19’.  

304

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

Table XXI: Compounds in early Indo-European – According to the Handbooks.

In the following section it will become clear that several of the Noun + Noun combinations presented here, share characteristics that warrant the introduction of an additional category in the classification of compounds.

6.1.4 A third type of compound? Compounds based on apposition If most of the attested copulatives combine two qualities of one referent (e. g. Engl. werewolf ‘man-wolf’), one may argue that the same observation can be made for the following examples, which were mentioned in the section on descriptive determinatives:  

(603) a. b.

OE ON

carlkarl-

‘male’ ‘male’

fugol barn

‘bird’ ‘child’

carlfugol karlbarn

‘male bird’ ‘boy’

OE carlfugol combines two qualifications—male and bird—referring to a unique referent. ON karlbarn ‘boy’ refers to a human being who is at the same time a child (barn) and a man (karl). Yet these instances on the whole are not classified as copulatives, but rather as determinatives (e. g. Carr 1939), even if the composing elements taken at face value are not in a relationship of grammatical dependency. Examples in the following overview are generally identified as descriptive determinatives as well, cf. Table XXII:  

305

6.1 Composition in Indo-European

Table XXII: Compounds based on Apposition. OE

wīf-

‘woman’

man

‘man’

>

wīfman

La.

arbor

‘tree’

olea

‘olive’

>

arbor olea ‘olive tree’

OHG

tiger-

‘tiger’

tier

‘animal’

>

tigertier

OHG

agat-

‘agath’

stein

‘stone’

>

agathstein ‘agath’

Engl.

path-

>

pathway

OE

gāt-

‘goat’

bucca

‘male’

>

gātbucca

‘he-goat’

OE

carl-

‘male’

fugol

‘bird’

>

carlfugol

‘male bird’

ON

karl-

‘male’

barn

‘child’

>

karlbarn

‘boy’

Gm.

Maul-

‘mule’

esel

‘donkey’

>

Maulesel

‘mule’

way

‘woman’

‘tiger’

These instances all are based on apposition, combining two identical parts of speech in one formation (Noun + Noun). In several of them there is to some extent a hierarchical relationship, mostly in terms of semantics. This third group of compounds therefore forms a distinct category. In languages that formally mark agreement and in which compounds are not written as one word, the component nouns in appositive compounds feature case agreement and as a rule number agreement, cf. (604) a. b.

[CASE AGREEMENT] arbor olea vs. arborem oleam [NUMBER AGREEMENT] femme médecin vs. femmes médecins bateau-mouche vs. bateaux-mouches

As opposed to (dependent) determinatives, for example: (605) a. b.

hôtesse de l’air (SG) ‘flight attendant’ tire-bouchon (SG) ‘cork screw’ porte-manteau (SG) ‘hat stand’

vs. vs. vs.

hôtesses de l’air (PL) not : *hôtesses des airs tire-bouchon(s) (PL) not: *tires-bouchons’ porte-manteau(x) (PL) not: *portes-manteaux

Consequently the phenomenon examined here—nominal apposition—appears in two types of compound that traditionally have been classified as copulatives and descriptive determinatives, cf.

306

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

(606) a. b. c. d.

e. f. g. h.

i. j. k.

Engl. apeman, pathway, courtyard, owner-occupier, fridge-freezer, … Engl. fig tree, gooseberry, … Skt mātárāpitárā ‘mothers-fathers’ > ‘parents’ Gm. Dichter-Komponist ‘poet-composer’, Maulesel ‘mule’(lit. ‘mule-ass’), Gottmensch (lit. ‘god-man’), Apfelbaum (lit. ‘apple-tree’), Maultier ‘mule’ (lit. ‘mule– animal’) OHG kerseberi ‘cherry ‘(lit. ‘cherry-berry’), gommanbarn ‘boy’(‘man-child’) Du. koebeest ‘cow’ (lit. ‘cow-animal’), hondebeest ‘dog’ (lit. ‘dog-animal’), … Fr. chef-lieu ‘capital’ (lit. ‘head-place’), voiture-restaurant ‘dining car’, cardinalministre, café-restaurant, … Fr. animaux-plantes (‘animals-plants’), animaux-machines (‘animals-machines’ >) ‘robot animals’, femme-médecin ‘woman doctor’, bébé-Peugeot ‘small Peugeot’, bateau-mouche, … It. formato tessera ‘passport-size’, viaggio lampo (‘trip-lightning’ >) ‘quick trip’, treno lampo (‘train-lightning’ > ) ‘bullet train’, … Sp. buque escuela (‘boat-school’ > ) ‘training ship’, … La. arbor olea ‘olive tree’, …

While these formations are based on apposition, all are not identical because the relation between the components varies. This variation, which generally is not pointed out, may explain the lack of consistency in the classification of these elements in the handbooks. In some of the compounds the composing elements are in correlation, in others there is co-ordination, and in yet others there is a hierarchical relation in terms of meaning and grammatical status. In this last group, there is therefore a relation of specification based on hypotaxis or dependency, which will be further defined below. The different types of appositive compounds are illustrated by the following examples, cf. (607) [CORRELATION: DVANDVAS] Skt mātárāpitárā ‘mothers-fathers’ > ‘parents’ (608) [CO-ORDINATION: HYBRIDS] a. Gm. Dichter-Komponist ‘poet-composer’ b. OE werewulf ‘man-wolf’ > ‘werewolf’ (609) [HYPOTAXIS (SPECIFICATION): TYPE-OF COMPOUNDS] a. It. viaggio lampo ‘quick trip’ b. Fr. bateau-mouche ‘boat-fly’ > ‘tourist boat’ c. Gm. Maultier ‘mule-animal’ > ‘mule’ Gm. Apfelbaum ‘apple-tree’ Engl. fig tree, …

6.2 Appositive compounds in Sanskrit

307

Table XXIII: Appositive Formations Indo-European – Provisional Overview.

In the following sections the differences between these appositive compounds will be examined in greater detail. Sections 6.2 through 6.6 discuss word formation processes based on apposition as attested in the various (early) Indo-European languages. It will be noted that certain processes are better represented in some languages than in others, possibly reflecting different diachronic stages. Moreover, the literature is not consistent: the different appositive word formation processes have not been equally well analyzed. This dearth of analysis is the result of the relative lack of attention paid to nominal apposition and composition. For languages that so far have been excluded from that type of analysis altogether, I have to rely on the handbooks, dictionaries and individual primary documents. The findings presented here as a result may not always be as exhaustive as one might wish and further analysis of those individual languages by specialists is called for. In the next sections I will proceed per language, examining for each one first dvandvas and then other types of appositive compound. Having discussed appositive compounds in Sanskrit, Hittite, Greek, and Germanic (Sections 6.2. through 6.5), I will briefly examine several other Indo-European languages (Section 6.6) before proceeding to Latin-Romance in Section 6.7. Because of the prominence of dvandvas in Sanskrit—where they are most common and best studied—I will start my analysis with Sanskrit rather than Hittite.

6.2 Appositive compounds in Sanskrit In this section, I will first discuss the characteristics of dvandvas in general and their occurrence and origin in Sanskrit (Section 6.2.1). Subsequently other types of appositive compound in Sanskrit will be examined as well (Section 6.2.2).

308

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

6.2.1 Dvandvas and “dvandvas” in Sanskrit Among Indo-European copulative compounds, so-called dvandvas ‘pairs’ represent a distinct group because of their origin and their specific characteristics. The term dvandva is used here in the original sense, that of Sanskrit dvandva, as in the following examples from Indo-European in Table XXIV: Table XXIV: Dvandvas in Indo-European. Skt

mātárāpitárā

‘mothers-fathers’ > ‘parents’

Skt

pitárāmātárā

‘fathers-mothers’ > ‘parents’

Fa.

pedarmādar

‘father-mother’ > ‘parents’

Hi.

nahsaraddus weritemus

‘Fears-Frights’ > ‘Fears (and) Frights’

Gk

Άκτορίωνε Μολίονε

‘two sons of Aktor and grandsons of Molos’

Gk

νυχθήμερον

‘night-day’ > ‘(length of) a night and a day’

La.

diem noctem

‘day-night’ > ‘day and night’ (uninterrupted)

Umbr.

u(e)iro pequo

‘man- beast’ > ‘man (and) beast‘

Av.

pasu-vīra

‘beast-man’ > ‘beast (and) man’ (dual dvandva)

Overall dvandvas are best represented in Sanskrit. The distinctive characteristic of these formations—which may reflect different diachronic layers—is that the two composing elements are inherently complementary, cf. Skt pitárāmātárā ‘fathersmothers’ > ‘parents’ and mātárāpitárā ‘mothers-fathers’ > ‘parents’. “Father” exists in complementary relation to “mother” and v. v. in a similar way as “day” exists in relation to “night” in MGk νυχθήμερον ‘night-day’ > ‘(length of) a night and a day’. Moreover, the composing elements are in asyndetic correlation because they are equal counterparts that do not allow deletion or primacy of one element over the other: “[les] eléments sont équipotents . . . le dvandva n’admet pas la réduction de l’un des deux membres à un seul ou la primauté de l’un terme sur l’autre” (Benveniste 1974: 147). Finally, their combining refers to a new concept that is characterized by and based on the close complementary association of the composing elements, hence [parents] < [father – mother]. Since the components refer to two inherently complementary entities (e. g. [father] & [mother]), their combining is not arbitrary. Along the same lines the formations mitrāvaruṇā (e. g. RV 7.61.3a) and índrāvíṣnū (RV 6.69.1b) ‘Mitra (and) Varuṇa’ on the one hand and ‘Indra and Viṣṇu’ on the other not only represent two types of god, but are complementary as well, as I pointed out earlier (Section 4.2.3). The internal sequence of these formations may vary, cf.  

 

 

 

 

6.2 Appositive compounds in Sanskrit

(610) a. b.

pitárāmātárā mātárāpitárā

(RV 4.6.7b)

309

‘fathers-mothers’ > ‘parents’ ‘mothers-fathers’ > ‘parents’

These compounds share another formal characteristic in Vedic Sanskrit: they have two separate word accents and the first component includes a suffix -ā. This suffix has been interpreted by Kiparsky (2010) as “an associative dual morpheme” that is etymologically cognate to the dual case ending (-ā; Kiparsky 2010: 303). In dvandvas the suffix is no case ending because it is a fixed element that does not change with the grammatical context: mitr is always mitr in dvandvas, cf. (611) a. b.

mitrváruṇayor Mitra.Varuṇa-GEN-DU (RV 10.130.5a) mitrváruṇābhyāṃ Mitra.Varuṇa-INST-DU (RV 5.51.9a) (Examples from Kiparsky 2010: 312)

The dual in Sanskrit is an important grammatical category and is often related to the notion of complementarity: accordingly the dual mātárā (mother-NOM-DU), for example—with over 30 occurrences in the Rig Veda (Krause 1922: 109)—means ‘two mothers’ as well as ‘mother – father’ > ‘parents’, whereas matáras (motherNOM-PL) exclusively refers to ‘(two or more) mothers’. Consequently, whereas duals as a rule convey the notion ‘xxx + xxx’, so-called elliptic duals convey the notion ‘xxx + yyy’, whereby ‘xxx’ and ‘yyy’ are closely associated in the speakers’ mind. The presence of -ā- in compounds that convey “xxx and the other” further confirms the associative meaning of the dual in dvandvas. Moreover nouns that occur in dvandva formations in Sanskrit and that are attested as elliptic duals as well (e. g. mātárā ‘mother and father’, mitr ‘Mitra and Varuṇa’, and so forth) further underscore the importance of complementarity in dvandvas. The internal morphological markers and the two separate word accents suggest that these formations are early, which is supported by other phenomena as well. As Kiparsky (2010) has shown in detail, this type of dvandva features characteristics of both phrases and words: they are phrases because of (1) the separate word accents and (2) the associative dual morpheme. Moreover, (3) the composing elements can be separated by words or clitics, and (4) the compound can be placed over a caesura (Kiparsky 2010: 306-307). Conversely Vedic dvandvas behave like words to the extent that (1) they undergo the ruki-rule (a phonological change that typically occurs in certain contexts inside words), and (2) they feature vocative accentuation when in sentence-initial or pāda-initial position (Kiparsky 2010: 307–310). Kiparsky’s conclusion that Vedic dvandvas have double characteristics and are in fact early formations is legitimate for the reasons given above. It is interesting for that matter that the well-established adverbial derivational formations in  

310

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

-mente in Romance show similar characteristics. In today’s Romance languages adverbs in -ment(e) are the result of a derivational process by which the suffix -ment(e) is added to the adjective. The suffix traces back to an earlier Latin feminine noun, mente ‘mind-ABL’. The Romance adverbial derivation in origin therefore was a combination of an adjective and a noun in the ablative, e. g. laeta mente ‘with a happy mind’ > ‘happily’. While Roma. -ment(e) is considered a fullfledged derivational suffix today, its nominal origin is still manifest in the continuing required presence of the feminine form of the adjective (e. g. Fr. doucement ‘softly’ < douce ‘soft-F’ + -ment, not *douxment, ‘soft-M’ + -ment). In addition, the derivation may have two separate word accents in Spanish and may be separated in Spanish, Portuguese, and Old French. These various phenomena reflect early stages of development. Formal variety is least manifest in today’s French, where the formation is more productive and widespread than in Spanish and Portuguese (see Bauer 2001, 2003). This brief summary shows that a morphological process may be productive and grammaticalized, but that early features may linger on. The early dvandvas bring to mind the early correlative constructions of IndoEuropean, in which two clauses are co-dependent, that is one clause cannot exist without the other one and v. v.: they are in a relation of complementarity (for more details on correlatives, see Haudry 1973; Bauer [1995: 159–165], with details on the survival of this structure as a linguistic residue in Latin), cf.  

 

 

(612) quod licet Iovi (id) non what be.allowed-3SG Iupiter-DAT (that) not bovi ox-DAT ‘what is allowed to Iupiter is not allowed to anyone’

licet be.allowed-3SG

Similarly, in the early dvandvas referring to the notion of parents, for example, both the ‘father’ and ‘mother’ are co-dependent. The parallel with correlative clauses shows that dvandvas are not an isolated phenomenon. In later Vedic and more so in Classical Sanskrit there are many more formations that are classified as dvandvas in the handbooks: they refer to categories other than deities, persons, and deified or personified notions. Formally they are different from the Vedic ones in that they have a single word accent, have no internal suffixes, can no longer be split, and may be definite or indefinite cf. (613) a. b. c. d. e.

dadhi-ghṛ́ tam satyānṛté vrīhi-yavāú candrādityāu ajāváyas

‘yoghurt (and) ghee’ (Kiparsky 2010: 309) ‘truth (and) falsehood’ ‘rice (and) barley’ ‘moon (and) sun’ ‘goats (and) sheep’ > ‘small cattle’

6.2 Appositive compounds in Sanskrit

311

f. devâsurs ‘the gods (and) demons/Asuras’ g. ṛksāmé ‘verse (and) chant’ h. hastyāśvāu ‘elephants (and) horses’ (Examples from Whitney 1889: 485; Monier-Williams 1976: 495)

Although these instances—as said—generally are classified as dvandvas in the handbooks and dictionaries, many are additional rather than complementary, such as candrādityāu ‘moon (and) sun’, hastyāśvāu ‘elephants (and) horses’, and so forth. The composing elements together form an entity but they are not complementary. These formations therefore are not dvandvas but rather “additional compounds”. That is the reason why I provisionally referred to them in the heading of this section as “dvandavs”, with quotation marks reflecting their (inaccurate) classification in the handbooks. Both in later Vedic and Classical Sanskrit the formation may include nominalized adjectival elements as well; it then most commonly takes the form of a neuter singular collective, as in: (614) a. kṛtākṛtám ‘the done (and) undone (PF.PART)’ [already in AV] b. bhūtabhavyám ‘past (and) future’ [already in AV] c. cittākūtám ‘thought (and) desire’ [already in AV] d. bhadrapāpám ‘good (and) evil’ [already in AV] (Examples from Whitney 1889: 485–488)

In a limited number of instances these formations remain adjectives, cf. (615) a. śuklakṛṣṇa ‘light (and) dark’ b. vṛttapīna ‘round (and) plump’ c. dakṣíṇasavyá ‘right (and) left’ d. bhadrapāpá ‘good (and) bad’ (Examples from Whitney 1889: 485–488)

Examples show that these formations often involve antonyms (‘done’ vs. ‘undone’, ‘good’ vs. ‘bad’), which, here again, together convey the concept in its entirety.8 In addition to being predominantly accumulative, additional compounds in Sanskrit may have “alternative” and “concessive” value, as in: (616) [ALTERNATIVE/DISJUNCTIVE VALUE] a. jayaparājaya ‘victory (or) defeat’ b. nyūnādhika ‘defective (or) redundant’

8 In Classical Sanskrit formations also include “adverbial copulatives”, such as sāyámprātar ‘at evening (and) in the morning’ (Whithney 1889: 488).

312

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

c. pakṣimṛgatā ‘the condition of being bird or beast’ (Examples from Whitney 1889: 485–488) (617) [CONCESSIVE VALUE] a. priyasatya ‘agreeable (though) true’ b. prārthitadurlabha ‘sought after (but) hard to get’ (Examples from Whitney 1889: 485–488)

In sum, the overview in the preceding paragraphs allows to conclude that early dvandva formations featured specific grammatical and phonological characteristics emphasizing their phrasal origin (see also Kiparsky 2010). They subsequently developed into increasingly lexicalized elements with single-word characteristics. Moreover, the word-formation process not only became more common, it came to include other categories as well (e. g. adjectives). As a result dvandvas in Sanskrit are well-represented, not only to the extent that their development from quasiphrasal entities into true compounds can be traced, but also because of their productivity. This productivity shows in quantitative and qualitative terms. There are not only numerous dvandvas in the various stages of Sanskrit, many dvandvas occur as elliptic duals, further underscoring the complementarity of the components, cf.  

(618) dyaúr pṛthivī́ ‘heaven (and) earth‘

But: (619) dyāvā heaven-DU ‘Heaven (and) Earth’

Moreover, dvandva formations include proper nouns, personifications, and common nouns, as well as adjectival forms. Consequently, dvandvas in Sanskrit represent a long-standing historical and productive process. It is important to underscore, however, that many formations identified in the handbooks as dvandvas are not based on complementarity, but are in fact additional copulatives: they convey an entity or totality. This explains why in many of these additional compounds the relation between the components from a semantic perspective may be accummulative (‘and’), disjunctive (‘or’), and concessive (’though’).

6.2 Appositive compounds in Sanskrit

313

6.2.2 Other types of appositive compound in Sanskrit A few instances of the following type of formation are found in Sanskrit, cf. (620) puruṣa-vyāghra

‘man-tiger’ (with positive connotation, ‘a tiger of a man’) ‘man-tiger’ (with negative connotation, ‘man-devil’ > ‘a devil of a fellow’ [a kind of demon; Macdonell 1916: 274])

Formations of this type are no dvandvas because there is no inherent complementarity between the components. Instead they convey two characterisitcs in the referent. Consequently I classify them as “hybrids” on the basis of the syntactic equivalence of the composing elements: grammatically these compounds are based on co-ordination. Hybrids are found in the other Indo-European languages as well. Vedic Sanskrit also includes appositive formations that can best be qualified as “type of” combinations, as in: (621) puruṣa-mṛgá ‘man-antelope’ > ‘male antelope’ (Example from Macdonell 1916: 274)

These examples show that the distinction between hybrids and type-of compounds may at first glance seem rather fuzzy. Yet since puruṣa-mṛgá conveys a type of antilope, the formation differs from e. g. Skt puruṣa-vyāghra or Engl. queen-mother, who is ‘mother of the reigning monarch’ and at the same time the ‘widowed queen consort’. Because of this difference I refer to examples of the type Skt puruṣa-mṛgá, Engl. girlfriend, or Fr. bateau-mouche in terms of “type-of compounds”: one noun specifies the other, conveying a type of xxx: a girlfriend e. g. is a type of friend. I therefore distinguish four types of appositive compound in Sanskrit and Indo-European in general: true dvandvas, additional compounds, hybrids, and type-of compounds. Consequently, Table XXIII above needs further specification, as presented in Table XXV below:  

 

314

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

Table XXV: Appositive Formations Proto-Indo-European/Sanskrit – Provisional Overview.

6.3 Appositive compounds in Hittite While nominal compounding is a rich formation process in early Indo-European— and a distinctive typological feature (Tischler 1982: 213)—it has long been thought that Hittite had relatively few compounds (see Kammenhuber 1961). This hypothesis had been put forth in the early days of Hittite research and in essence is still accurate. Sturtevant, for example, reported that he could find “no traces in Hittite of the extensive noun composition that must have existed in Proto-Indo-European” (1951: 67). Yet more recently the picture has changed because our knowledge of Hittite has improved dramatically in the last fifty years. Laroche (1966), for example, found that in contrast to earlier belief, Hittite featured proper nouns on the basis of nominal compounds, including elements meaning ‘gift’ (Hi. piya‘give, gift’), ‘good’ (Hi. -ašu-), ‘strength’ (Hi. muwa), ‘sister’ (Hi. nani-), and so forth. Similarly Hoffner (1966) and Tischler (1982) present overviews showing that nom-

6.3 Appositive compounds in Hittite

315

inal compounds indeed were, if not widespread, at least well represented in Hittite. Finally, reading Puhvel’s Etymological Dictonary of Hittite (1984–2004), one also finds many instances of nominal compounds, including copulatives and others based on apposition. The results will be presented below. First I will discuss dvandvas and additional compounds (6.3.1) followed by type-of compounds (6.3.2). Finally, I examine appositive formations that include a script determinative conveying a linguistic—rather than a purely epigraphic—function (6.3.3).

6.3.1 Dvandvas and additional compounds in Hittite Earlier I pointed out that dvandvas may have been more prominent in IndoEuropean than generally assumed because of a lack of detailed analysis. A case in point is Hittite, which features combinations of the type nahsaraddus weritemus ‘Fear (and) Fright’. Since ‘Fear (and) Fright’ are toasted to, “Fear” and “Fright” are not just abstract concepts, but a “religious and cultic reality” (Puhvel 1977: 398). While Puhvel and Tischler qualify this instance as a dvandva (Tischler 1982: 219; Puhvel 1977: 398), further analysis into its background is needed to evaluate the complementarity of the composing elements. But if indeed the formation turns out to be a dvandva, then it is a so-called devatā-dvandva ‘divinity-dvandva’, which are found in Sanskrit as well (Sections 4.2.3; 6.2.1). Instances of devatā-dvandvas in Hittite go “counter to the prevalent notion that the compositional Mitra-Varuņa is peculiar to Indo-Iranian” (Puhvel 1977: 399). According to Puhvel there are “lingering traces” in Hittite of a formal dual dvandva, e. g. the elliptic adda (KUB XVI 39 II 20) or huhha hannis (KUB XXVII 29 II 6–7) ‘grandfather-grandmothers’ > ‘ancestors’, which has plural marking only on the second element (1977: 399). There is therefore a certain variety in dvandva forms in Hittite, which may reflect different layers of development: huhha hannis ‘grandfather-SG grandmother-NOM-PL’ > ‘grandparents’ with partial pluralization vs. attēs annis ‘father-NOM-PL mother-NOM-PL’ > ‘parents’. The following dvandva formations are attested as well (Tischler 1982; Puhvel 1984–2004):  

(622) hassa hanzassa ‘grandson – greatgrandson’ > ‘all future generations’ (Tischler 1982: 217; Puhvel 1991: 224–225)

And: (623) huhha hannis grandfather grandmothers

attēs fathers

annis (KUB XVII 29 II 6–7; Puhvel 1984: 55) mothers (NOM-PL)

316

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

This last example is characterized according to Puhvel by a “dual dvandva with partial pluralization” (1991: 356). Other instances include: (624) hannas huhhas (KUB VII 10 I 9–10) grandmothers-GEN grandfathers-GEN ‘of grandparents/ancestors’ (625) huhhas hannas (KUB XXXIX 1 III 9) grandfathers-DAT/LOC grandmothers-DAT/LOC ‘to the grandparents/ancestors’ (626) huhhis hannis ekuz[i (KUB XXX 24 II 23) ‘grandfathers-ACC grandmothers-ACC drink-3SG ‘he drinks to (his) grandparents’ (Examples from Puhvel 1991: 85, 356)

These instances show that the sequence of the nouns varied, a pattern observed for Sanskrit as well (see also Rieken 1999). The formation referring to ‘parents’ is commonly attested, as in: (627) annus attus iet (KBo III 22 Vs.9; Puhvel 1984: 56) mothers-ACC fathers-ACC make-PST-3SG ‘he made them mothers and fathers’ > ‘he treated them like parents’

Moreover, dvandva or dvandva-like formations in Hittite may include scribal signs, as the following example shows: (628) izzan GIŠ-ru (KUB XI 6 II 6–7) chaff-ACC [WOOD]-ACC ‘chaff (and) wood’

The combination izzan GIŠ-ru was “also symbolic of or idiomatic for ‘(stored) holdings, (material) goods’” (Puhvel 1984: 321–322). Consequently, the formation clearly had independent semantic meaning. Unless the components are in a relation of complementarity, instances of this type are additional compounds. It is possible that further analysis into the cultural background may provide new information pointing to a relation of complementarity, in which case the formation is a dvandva. I have found no trace of that in the literature. Combinations that have been idenitifed as dvandvas in the handbooks include, for example: (629) karas halkin (KUB XXIV 9 II 44) wheat-ACC barley-ACC ‘wheat (and) barley’ (Puhvel 1991: 36) (630) i]shar ishahru (KBo XII 8 IV 32) blood-NOM/ACC tears-NOM/ACC ‘blood (and) tears’

6.3 Appositive compounds in Hittite

317

ānnis ānnawannis (KBo IX 141 Vs. 18; Puhvel 1984: 65) mother stepmother-NOM ‘mother (and) stepmother’ (632) sahhan luzzi (KUB XXVI 43 Rs. 13) ‘socage-NOM/ACC corvée-NOM/ACC ‘socage (and) corvée’ (631) Lu.

In this last instance luzzi- ‘forced service, public duty’ is “usually coupled with sahhan ‘socage, feudal ground rent’ in the merism sahhan luzzi” (Puhvel 2001: 130). Adjectival formations of this type are found as well: (633) aru(-) suwaru (KBo XIX 155 5) high weighty-NOM-SG ‘high (and) mighty’ (Example from Puhvel 1984: 177) (634) suppa huesu zeyan (KUB XLIV 42 Vs. 11) sacrificial.meat raw-NOM/ACC-SG cooked-NOM/ACC-SG ‘sacrifical meat, raw (and) cooked’ (Example from Puhvel 1991: 335) (635) kisduwantes ganinantes (KUB I 13 III 25) hungry-NOM-PL thirsty-NOM-PL ‘hungry (and) thirsty’ (Example from Puhvel 1997: 47)

The formations above (examples [629] through [635]) typically refer to phenomena that are connected, but not complementary and that together form an entity or concept. They therefore are additional compounds, rather than dvandvas In word groups as well, asyndetic combinations may refer to two phenomena that are additional and to some extent complementary, cf. (636) kasti kaninti (KUB XIV 15 III 45) hunger-DAT thirst-DAT ‘in hunger (and) thirst’ (Example from Puhvel 1997: 47)

The data presented here show that dvandvas are more prominent in Hittite than traditionally has been assumed. Yet several of the compounds that are classified as dvandvas in the handbooks, are in fact compounds based on addition rather than complementarity, e. g. hēus kammarās (KUB XVI 81 Rs. 4) ‘rain (and) mist’, or karas halkin (KUB XXIV 9 II 44) ‘wheat (and) barley’. Rain and mist together—just as wheat and barley—may convey an entity or a totality, but they are not exclusively complementary. The relation of these additional compounds is one of co-ordination rather than correlation. In this respect Hittite shows similarities to Sanskrit.  

318

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

6.3.2 Type-of compounds in Hittite Several ‘type of’ appositive compounds are found in Hittite in which one noun provides a specification of the other noun: (637) annaneka (annanega) mother + sister ‘a sister or daughter from the same mother’ > ‘co-uterine sister’ (Puhvel 1984: 58–59) (638) a. nekuz meḫur evening + time ‘evening’ (Tischler 1982: 219) b. allantaru oak + tree/wood ‘oak’ (Tischler 1982: 214)

[type of sister]

An intriguing phenomenon is provided in the following instance: (639) ippiyan vine-ACC ‘a vine-dish’

marhan (KUB XVII 35 I 8) dish-ACC

[type of dish]

This example is remarkable because ippiya- normally occurs with determinative GIŠ [TREE] or Ú [PLANT]. The instances above are common, asyndetic (Puhvel 2001: 65), and are characterized by agreement.

6.3.3 Appositive compounds including script determinatives9 in Hittite I now turn to a topic partly discussed already in Chapters 3 and 4, the role of script determinatives in Hittite. In this context focus is on their role in word formation processes. As said earlier, it has traditionally been assumed that script determinatives in the Hittite writing system were not pronounced (cf. Chapter 3). Yet systematically examining entries in Puhvel’s Etymological Dictionary (Puhvel 1984–2004), I found phenomena suggesting that script determinatives had linguistic function and I have discussed them in Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3. In addition, I have identified examples in which the combining of a regular noun with a script determinative results in a new (lexical) formation with a specific semantic meaning. Because of

9 I note that “script determinatives” in this context does not refer to a type of compound, but rather to the ideograms used in the Hittite writing system, hence script determinatives (See Chapter 3).

6.3 Appositive compounds in Hittite

319

the juxtaposition of the elements involved, these instances can be classified as appositive compounds. In fact there are several types of formation, as in: (640)

NINDA

armannis (KUB II 13 I 15, passim) [BREAD]-crescent-NOM ‘croissant’

Hittite armanni- refers to the crescent of the moon and is a derivative of Hi. arma ‘moon’ (equivalent of La. lunula < luna ‘moon’). The meaning of armanni- varies: it may be an ornament, but in combination with the determinative NINDA it denotes a croissant (see Puhvel 1984: 151–152). A similar process seems to be at work in the following example: the noun iyatar ‘(vegetal) growth, fertility’ undergoes a shift of meaning in combination with the determinative SIĞ: SIĞiyatar ‘[WOOL]-growth-ACC’ > ‘wool growth, thick wool’ (e. g. SIĞiyatnas [KUB XXX 19 I 5–6; Puhvel 1984: 350]). In this example the script determinative SIĞ further specifies the more general concept of growth, that is growth in relation to [WOOL]. These examples show—once more—that script determinatives are not merely mechanical devices used in a given writing system: in these and similar instances they are an integrated part of word formation processes. In the examples above, the combinations function as type-of compounds, in line with the original function of script determinatives (see Section 3.2). Moreover, other nouns vary in meaning along with the script determinative: the noun ippi(y)a- ‘(grape)vine’, for instance, refers to a tree or a vine according to the determinative:  

(641) a.

b.

GIŠ

ippiyas (KUB II 13 II 21) [TREE]-vine-NOM ‘vine tree’ Ú ippiyan (KUB XXV 32 I 29) [PLANT]-vine-ACC ‘vine plant’ (Examples from Puhvel 1984: 377–378)

A somewhat different process of compounding involving script determinatives is found in instances including the noun hapa ‘river’, for example. The noun is attested in combination with the script determinative MUŠEN [BIRD], conveying ‘riverbird’: hapasMUŠEN (KUB LVIII 104 II 24) ‘river-GEN-[BIRD]’ (example from Puhvel 1991: 114). Similarly instances may even show a fundamental change of meaning resulting in new lexical elements. The Hittite noun kipriti-, for example, has different meanings depending on the script determinative. The process is appositive, cf.

320

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

ki-ip-ri-ti-inMUŠEN (KUB XLVI 48 Rs. 8) ‘ kipriti-ACC-SG-[BIRD]’ > ‘type of bird’ NA 4 ki-ip-ri-ti-in (KBo XXIII 40 II 8) ‘[MINERAL]-kipriti-ACC-SG’ > ‘a mineral’ (possibly sulfur) (Example from Puhvel 1997: 188)

(642) a. b.

Like the examples presented in Chapters 3 and 4, these instances illustrate that the script determinative specifies the generic quality of the noun and with it its precise meaning. The process brings to mind classifiers in Asian languages (Chapter 2). Yet there is an important difference as to the general meaning of the noun. While nouns in classifier languages may convey a broad general concept, that of ‘banana’, for example, the underlying meaning of Hi. ki-ip-ri-ti-in in the example above is different, even if the details are not quite clear. Since the noun is attested in a number of unrelated languages, it may in origin trace to Akk. kibru ‘riverbank’ “with reference to the sulphurous headwaters of the Tigris”. From there “the ornithonymic homophone kipiriti may then denote some kind if shorebird or riverfowl” (Puhvel 1997: 188). In this process script determinatives play a prominent role. Other instances involving script determinatives have semantic implications as well: Hittite hartak(k)a- ‘bear’ in combination with the determinative LÙ conveys the notion of ‘priest, cult official’, cf. LÙhartak(k)a- as in: (643)

LÙ

hartág(g)as (KUB XVII 100 I 9) [MAN]-bear-NOM ‘bear man, priest’ (Example from Puhvel 1991: 201)

Similarly, kuwan- ‘dog, hound’ is found in combination with LÙ, as in LÙkuwan ‘houndsman’. These formations may refer to “thermiomorphic or bestiovestic actors” (Puhvel 1997: 305), like ‘bear-man, wolf-man, lion-man’. This use is different yet again from an earlier example that I provided—LÚauriyalas ‘[MAN]warder’ (Section 4.1.2.1)—in which the script determinative specifies the characteristics of the noun. In the instances presented here the script determinative is an integrated part of word formation. The linguistic use of script determinatives is further attested in formations that convey material. They then specify the meaning of the noun with which they combine, e. g. armizzi ‘bridge’:  

(644) a. b.

GIŠ

armizzi (KUB XXXI 20) ‘wooden bridge’ NA armazzi (KUB XX 2 IV 19) ‘stone bridge’ (Puhvel 1984: 161)

6.3 Appositive compounds in Hittite

321

This use of script determinatives is different from previous uses mentioned: they pertain to qualities of the referent, they do not convey their fundamental being. Script determinatives then are comparable to adjectives, as the following example futher illustrates, including the noun huwasi- ‘pillar’ (wood or stone): (645) a.

NA 4hūwasi

(KBo IV 10 Vs. 20–21) [STONE]-pillar-NOM ‘stone pillar’ b. GIŠhūwasi (KUB XLIV 58 II 7–8) [WOOD]-pillar-ACC ‘wood pillar’ (Examples from Puhvel 1984: 227, 1991: 438–439)

The Hittite noun kursa ‘skin, hide, fleece, bag, talisman’ combines with three determinatives: KUŠ [LEATHER], GIŠ [WOOD], GI [REED], cf. (646) a.

KUŠ

kursas (KUB XVII 10 IV 28)‘ [LEATHER]-skin.bag-NOM ‘skin bag’ b. GIkursin (KBo VII 29 OO 15) [REED]-skin.bag-ACC ‘reed bag’ c. GIŠkursin (KUB XXXIX 71 I 36) [WOOD]-skin.bag-ACC ‘wicker bag’ (Examples from Puhvel 1997: 270–271)

This type of formation is found in theomorphization as well, where the script determinative in combination with a common noun refers to a deity, cf. (647)

D

Ispanza (Bo 2372 III 30) Ispanza (< ispant- ‘night’) [GOD] -night-NOM-SG ‘goddess Night’ (Example from Puhvel 1984: 431) D

In addition, many body parts in Hittite could be deified, as the following instances illustrate: (648) istaman(a), istamina-, istamasma- ‘ear’ ( < istamas[s] ‘hear, listen’) D Istamanassas (KUB XX 24 IV 31) DIstamanassas [GOD] -ear ‘deity of hearing’

322

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

(649) sakuwa‘eye’ D Sakuwassas (KUB XX 24 IV 27) [GOD]-eye ‘deity of seeing’ (650) hazzizzi‘ear’ D Ha-az-zi-iz-zi (KUB LI 79 Rs. 16) [GOD]-ear ‘the deification of hearing’ (Examples from Puhvel 1984: 459, 470, 485, 1991: 284–285)

The following example provides a list of deified soul, eyes, forehead, cf. (651)

D

Istanzassis DSakuwassas DHantassas DIstamanassas DKissarassas DGinuwassas (Bo 2372 III 27–29; see also Puhvel 1991: 90, 1984: 470) ‘deities (deifications) of soul, eye, forehead, hand, and knee’ (Puhvel 1984: 470)

These processes provided a rich source for formations that could fulfil the requirements of a religion adapting itself easily to new religious concepts and situations. The instances presented in the preceding pages further show that script determinatives in Hittite do not only function as generic markers, as was pointed out in Chapter 3. They are productive in word formation as well because they function as a composing element in formation processes, fundamentally changing the meaning or grammatical category of the noun with which they combine. This use is rather widespread and involves various processes, which all share nominal apposition as a common feature. This brings up the fundamental question of the function of script determinatives in Hittite. As said earlier, the general assumption is that script determinatives were not pronounced and that they merely were a writing device. Puhvel has pointed out (p. c. Summer 2011) that script determinatives indeed are different from all other signs in that they merely “are there” and their occurrence is not consistent. They do not change, while the other signs are dynamic as shown, for example, in the combining of Akkadograms with Hittite endings. These differences indeed could account for the fact that they were not pronounced. Yet it is important to note that independently of whether script determinatives are pronounced or not, their occurrence in our sources commonly affects the meaning or the grammatical category of the element with which it combines. This effect points to linguistic function and therefore to linguistic pertinence.  

323

6.4 Appositive compounds in Greek

6.3.4 Conclusions: appositive compounds in Hittite Hittite features several types of appositive word formation. It includes dvandvas, even if they are less productive than in Sanskrit. Yet they are more common than traditionally assumed. Moreover, a number of appositive compounds that are classified as dvandvas in the literature are in fact additional compounds because the components are not inherently complementary. Type-of compounds are well attested and may take the form of lexical elements in combination with script determinatives. Although script determinatives originally are scribal devices, their occurrence in the formations discussed here has semantic or grammatical value. This usage differs from that in the earlier examples in Chapter 4: script determinatives in the examples in this chapter do not convey the semantic characteristics of the noun with which they combine, but instead function as a composing element in a nominal compound. Once more, they therefore have linguistic pertinence.

6.4 Appositive compounds in Greek The imbalance between composition and derivation and between verbal and nominal derivation, which I noted earlier for Proto-Indo-European, may be even stronger in Ancient Greek. Yet while composition is less developed in Ancient Greek than derivation, it nonetheless is a very productive process. There is a lack of balance in compounding between nouns and verbs: verbs “cannot be compounded with any prefix except a preposition, a nominal stem may be compounded with any other nominal stem” (Monro 1891: 117; Brugmann 1913). Moreover, in Homeric Greek many compounds are the result of the “simple placing together of two nominal stems” (Monro 1891: 117; Chantraine 1933), which often trace back to verbal roots: consequently these formations are in fact determinative compounds (e. g. πτολί-πορθος ‘town-sacker’, βουλη-φόρος ‘counsel-bringer’, and so forth; Monro 1891: 117). In the following pages I discuss the various types of appositive compound in Greek.  

6.4.1 Dvandvas, additional compounds, and hybrids in Greek While determinative compounds are common and productive in Greek (e. g. Risch 1949), dvandvas are rare. Dvandva copulatives including two nouns are found, for example, in νυχθήμερον, in which the first element takes the form of a nominal stem. New Testament neuter νυχθήμερον (2 Cor. 11.25) ‘a night (and) a day’ refers  

324

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

to ‘a period of 24 hours’ (Debrunner 1917: 41). More recent formations are e. g. today’s ἀνδρόγυνον ‘man-woman’ > ‘couple’ (Schwyzer 1953: 453). Originally this formation was a hybrid, conveying a hermaphrodite or effeminate man (ἀνρόγυνος ‘man-woman’), a living being with both male and female characteristics; the reverse order is attested as well: γύν-ανδρος (Soph.). It is found in the context of baths, λουτρὰ ἀνδρόγυνα ‘baths for both men and women’ (Schwyzer 1953: 453). It subsequently developed dvandva meaning (Debrunner 1917: 41). Other instances in Ancient Greek are qualified as dvandvas, but are in fact hybrids or additional compounds: e. g. ξιφομάχαιρα ‘sword sabre’ > ‘sword (and) sabre’ or ἀρτόκρεας ‘bread – meat’ > ‘bread (and) meat’ (example from Salus [1965: 53]; see more below). If New Greek features several dvandvas, they are rare in Homeric Greek: “Andere Kompositionstypen fehlen ganz, so die im Altindischen, aber auch im Neugriechischen beliebten Kopulativkomposita (dvandvas)” (Risch 1974: 182). That Greek originally may have had dual dvandvas, however, is suggested by comparative data and the survival of elliptic duals, which typologically tend to co-occur with dual dvandvas as evidence from Sanskrit indicates (Section 6.2.1). In Greek the elliptic dual is attested, for example, in:  

 

(652) Αἴιαντε (Hom., Il. 5.519) Αjax-DU (lit.‘the two Ajax’ >) ‘Ajax and (his brother) Teucron’

According to some, elliptical duals are forerunners of dvandvas (Bader 1967: 342–343); others consider that they are part of the set of dvandva structures without pointing out a given diachronic sequence (Puhvel 1977). The correlation is clear indeed, even if its precise chronological nature is still a matter of discussion. As to other types of composition, Hellenists overall agree in saying that the combining of two nouns or adjectives in a compound was relatively common in later stages of Greek (e. g. Debrunner 1917: 40). The instances generally provided in this context are not specified even if they all are not identical, cf.  

(653) a. b. c.

ἰατρό-μαντις ‘physician-seer’ ξιφο-μάχαιρα ‘sword-dagger’ ἀρτό-κρεας ‘bread-meat’ > ‘bread with meat’

The instance ἰατρόμαντις ‘physician-seer’ in fact is a hybrid, referring to two qualities of the referent in question. Ξιφομάχαιρα ‘sword-dagger’ refers to an instrument that is a sword and a dagger at the same time. Similarly in the

325

6.4 Appositive compounds in Greek

following examples the referents—fantastic animals—incarnate characteristics of two distinct animals denoted by the composing nouns: (654) a. b.

τραγ-έλαφος ‘goat-stag’ ἱππ-αλεκτρυών ‘horse-cock’ > ‘gryphen’

(fantastic animal) (fantastic animal)

These instances show that compounds in Greek may be based on addition rather than complementarity or may refer to two qualities in the same referent: they therefore must be classified as additional compounds or hybrids. Precise classification depends on whether the components refer to two distinct qualities in the referent (hybrids) or whether the two components—which are semantically independent—together form an entity (additional compound), cf. (655) a. b.

κρομμυ-οξῦρεγμία ‘a belch of onions and vinegar’ ἰατρό-μαντις ‘physician-seer’ (Apollo or Asclepius)

[ADDITIONAL COMPOUND] [HYBRID]

In Papyrian Greek dating from the days of the Ptolomaeans (323–30 B. C.) appositive compounds including two equivalent elements are quite common, as evidence presented by Mayser (1935) illustrates, cf. the following examples, which occur as both noun and adjective:  

(656) a. b.

χορτάρακος (N) ‘fodder’ (mix of grass and Arakos) χορτάρακος (ADJ) ‘planted with grass and Arakos’

These examples as well are based on addition rather than complementarity. Within this category there are two main groups: compounds that combine two ethnological terms or two winds and those that combine two substances or products, especially fruits. Mayser (1935) qualifies them as dvandvas, which is inaccurate because there is no relation of complementarity between the composing elements, cf. (657) [ETHNOLOGICAL TERMS] a. Κελτίβηρες ‘Celts + Iberians’ > ‘Iberian Celts’ b. Λιβυφοιξ ‘Liby + Phoenician’> ‘Carthagian’

326

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

(658) [WINDS] a. εὖρονοτος Εὖρο- ‘East wind (E. S.E) + νότος ‘South wind’ > ‘S-SE wind’ (659) [SUBSTANCES-PRODUCE] a. λινόκριθος λιν- ‘flax’ + κριθ- ‘barley’ > ‘mix of flax and barley’ b. λινόπυρος λιν- ‘flax’ + πυρ- ‘wheat’ > ‘mix of flax and wheat’ c. λινφακος λιν- ‘flax’ + φακ- ‘lentil’ > ‘mix of flax and lentil’ d. ὀλυρόκριθος ὀλυρ- ‘spelt‘ + κριθ- ‘barley’ > ‘mix of spelt and barley’ e. χορτάρακος χορτ- ‘grass’ + ρακ- ‘strip of cloth’ > ‘fodder’ f. λινόχορτος λιν- ‘flax’ + χορτ- ‘grass’ > ‘mix of flax and grass’ (Examples from Mayser 1935: 159–160)  

The corresponding base-nouns are: κριθή ‘barley’, λίνον ‘flax’, ὄλυρα ‘spelt‘, πυρός ‘wheat’, ῥάκος ‘strip of cloth’, χόρτος ‘grass’, φακός ‘lentil’. The occurrence of these formations both as nouns and adjectives underlines their productivity. They differ from dvandvas in that—as said before—dvandvas combine elements that are inherently complementary. Although the individual elements referred to by the nouns in the examples above—in combination—form a distinct dish or a group of people, the referents in isolation have no specific connecting characteristic; they are not one another’s inherent complement in a way ‘father’ is complementary to ‘mother’ in the concept “parents”. In other words, even if the composing elements in additional compounds form an entity, they are not semantic complements. The underlying process therefore is addition, rather than complementarity. Ambiguous instances that may be hybrids or type-of compounds, are not uncommon, e. g.:  

(660) χερσό-νησος ‘(main)land-island’ > ‘peninsula’

This instance may be an hybrid, but one may also argue that the compound refers to a “type of island”, rather than to something that is island and mainland at the same time. Greek features adjectival formations as well that are based on the process of addition, even if the elements may be antonymic: (661) γλυκύ-πικρος

‘sweet-bitter > bittersweet’ [ANTONYMIC] ‘both sweet and bitter’ > ‘bitter with certain sweetness’ = ‘bittersweet’ (Schwyzer 1953: 453) (Debrunner 1917: 40; Mayser 1935: 186; Schwyzer 1953: 453)

6.4 Appositive compounds in Greek

327

6.4.2 Other appositive compounds in Greek In Papyrian Greek, type-of compounds are found as well, in which one noun specifies the other, cf. χοιρ- ‘swine’+ δέλφαξ ‘young pig’ [type of pig] b. χυτρόγαυλος χυτρ- ‘pot’+ γαυλος ‘water-bucket’ ‘bucket-like pot’ [type of pot] c. χορτονομή χορτ- ‘grass’ + νομή ‘pasture’ ‘grass pasture’ [type of pasture] d. μητρόπολις μητρ- ‘mother’ + πόλις ‘town’ ‘mother state town’ [type of town] (Examples from Mayser 1935: 156–157)

(662) a.

χοιροδέλφαξ

These formations differ from the previous ones discussed for Greek in that they all refer to a ‘type of” + Noun: a μητρόπολις is a certain type of town (πόλις), a χορτονομή is a certain type of pasture (νομή), and so forth. In other words, in contrast to most examples given so far in this section, one of the components prevails over the other. Among Noun + Noun formations, the compound λινοκαλάμη is different yet again because it combines the noun referring to the produce λιν- ‘flax’, with the generic noun for plant, creating a formation referring to the fruit-producing plant, cf. (663) λινοκαλάμη

λιν- ‘flax’ + καλάμη ‘stalk’ > ‘flax plant’

This formation is comparable to La. olea arbor ‘olive’ + ‘tree’ > ‘olive tree’ (see below). Combinations including ἀνήρ and a common noun have been discussed in Chapter 4 already. Here I just mention that this formation is attested at the morphological level as well, resulting predominantly in type-of compounds, cf. (664) a. ἀνδρο-θέα ‘man-goddess’ b. ἀνδρό-παις ‘man-boy’ c. ἀνδρό-σφιγξ ‘man-sphynx’ (Examples from Risch 1949)

> ‘Athena’10 [type of goddess] > ‘a youth near adulthood’ [type of boy] > ‘sphynx with bust of man’ [type of sphinx]

10 In this example Athena is referred to in her capacity of warrior-goddess.

328

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

6.4.3 Conclusions: appositive compounds in Greek The overview of the preceding pages has shown that appositive compounds are well attested in Greek. With dvandvas being relatively rare, however, most appositive compounds are hybrids, additional compounds, or type-of compounds. In this last category of formation one noun semantically predominates the other component. It will become clear in the following sections that with time type-of compounds, which already form a clearly distinct group of formations in Greek, become increasingly productive.

6.5 Appositive compounds in Germanic In grammars of the earliest attested Germanic language—Gothic—copulative compounds are not really a topic of discussion. In early Germanic in general, only a limited number of compounds is commonly identified as dvandvas in the handbooks, cf. (665) [NOUN + NOUN] a. OS gisunfader (Hel. 1176) ‘brothers – father’ > ‘brothers and their father’ b. OE suhtorfædran (Wid. 46) ‘uncle (and) nephew’ c. OHG sunufatarungo (Hild. 4) ‘son (and) father’ (666) [ADJECTIVE + ADJECTIVE] a. OE wīdbrād ‘wide-broad’ > ‘widespread’ b. ON blâhvîtr ‘blue-white’ > ‘blue (and) white’

Other appositive compounds include: (667) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

OHG OHG OHG OE ON OE MDu.

bîmuoder ‘queen bee’ fîgaphel ‘fig’ fîgboum ‘fig tree’ werewulf ‘werewolf‘ karlbarn ‘boy’ cwenfugol ‘queenbird’ ackerman ‘farmer’

bî ‘bee’ fig ‘fig’ fig ‘fig’ wer ‘ man’ karl ‘male’ cwen ‘female’ acker ‘field’

+ + + + + + +

muoder ‘mother’ aphel ‘apple’ boum ‘tree’ wulf ‘wolf’ barn ‘child’ fugol ‘bird’ man > ‘farmer’

6.5 Appositive compounds in Germanic

329

In modern Germanic appositive compounds comprise: (668) a.

Gm.

Maulesel ‘mule-ass’ > ‘mule’11 b. Gm. Dichter-Komponist ‘poet-composer’ > ‘poet-componer’ c. Gm. Gottmensch ‘god-man’ > ‘God man’ d. Engl. girlfriend, queen-mother, manservant, … e. Engl. airport Dallas-Forth Worth f. Gm. taubstumm ‘deaf-dumb’ > ‘deaf (and) dumb’ g. Gm. rotweissrot ‘red-white-red’ h. MIcel. daufdumblur ‘deaf-dumb’ > ‘deaf (and) dumb’ i. Engl. bittersweet ‘bitter-sweet’ (Examples also from Lessen 1928; Carr 1939)

The classification of these formations as found in the handbooks needs further specification, which will be presented in the following pages.

6.5.1 Dvandvas and hybrids in Germanic With only a few attestations dvandvas were rare in early Germanic as the three examples from three different languages above illustrate: OS gisunfader (Hel. 1176) ‘brothers-father’ > ‘the brothers (and) their father’, OE suhtorfædran (Wid. 46) ‘uncle (and) nephew’, or OHG sunufatarungo (Hild. 4) ‘son (and) father’ (see the example under 665). With the exception of these “relics[,] the type is extinct in early Germanic” (Carr 1939: 41). It is interesting to note that several of these relics are kinship terms, revealing the importance of kindred (father-son) in Germanic and the close link between sons and uncles (linking two kindreds, cf. Tacitus Germ. 20; Green 1998: 49–66). Yet these instances are true dvandvas only if there is a relation of complementarity between the composing elements. Extra-linguistic data are decisive in this matter and I leave it to the specialists of Germanic culture and kinship to make that decision. Hybrids are more common and with time on the increase. These formations, in which —as in hybrids elsewhere—the two components refer to two qualities in the same referent, are commonly attested in West Germanic, at all times, cf.

11 Gm. Maul traces back to La. mulus ‘mule’.

330

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

(669) a. b. c.

OE werewulf OE āgendfrēa OHG arzatgot

referent is both man and wolf referent is both lord and owner referent is both doctor (arzat) and god (got) ( > Asclepius) d. ON manhundr referent is both man (man) and dog (hundr) (Examples from Carr 1939: 329)

In today’s Germanic languages the formation is illustrated by: (670) a. Gm. Dichter-Komponist referent is both a poet and a composer b. Gm. Gottmensch referent is both (a) God and a human being c. Engl. Dallas-Fort Worth reference includes both Dallas and Fort Worth d. Engl. Minneapolis-St. Paul reference includes both Minneapolis and St. Paul e. Gm. Schleswig-Holstein reference includes both Schleswig and Holstein (See also Laurie Bauer 2010; and below)

Since the formation is attested in early Germanic and in other (early) IndoEuropean languages, Carr assumes that hybrids may have existed in ProtoGermanic (Carr 1939: 329). In that light the question why these formations were rare in Old High German or Old Low German, requires further analysis. Within the category of hybrids there is a rather high incidence in Germanic of tautological instances, in which the two composing nouns are basically synonymous or quasi-synonymous, as in: (671) OE dryhtenweard

‘king’


‘lust’ > ‘mind’ > ‘pressing need’ > ‘pressing need’ > ‘people’ > ‘people’ > ‘grief’

Examples such as OE castelburc (‘castle’ + ‘burg’ > ‘castle’) are enlightening, showing that the underlying process may very well be explanatory: castel traces back to Latin castellum ‘castle’, while Germanic burc ‘bourg’ has explanatory function: it clarifies the borrowed noun. Similarly, OE clūsterloc ‘prison’ includes the Latin borrowing claustrum + Germanic loc (OE) / loch (Gm.) ’prison’.

6.5 Appositive compounds in Germanic

331

Numerous tautological compounds indeed are the result of borrowing and include a clarifying translation: OHG phlûmfedera ‘down’ combines the Latin borrowing pluma ‘feather ’with Germanic federa meaning ‘feather’. The process is attested in later stages as well, such as Middle English, where it clarifies French borrowings. At that time the formation has become rare, however: (673) a. b. c.

ME wonder-mervaile ME love-amour ME cite-town

‘miracle’ ‘love’ ‘town’

ME wonder ‘miracle’+ MF mervaile ‘miracle’ ME love + MF amour ‘love’ MF cite ‘town’+ ME town

When tautological compounds include two Germanic components, they may be accounted for by referring to the semantic loss of the simplex form, whereby the simplex either became obsolete or “etymologically isolated” (Carr 1939: 333), cf. (674) OS beniwunda (Hel. 4879) ‘wound’ < benn ‘wound’ + wunda ‘wound‘ (cf. OE benn ‘wound’)

German Lindwurm ‘dragon’ is a telling example as well: the base noun lint ‘dragon’ was already very rare in Old High German and it came to be clarified by wurm, which had the same meaning (Grimm 1885: 1038). Tautological hybrid formations may vary the relative order of their components, which emphasizes their co-ordinate structure: many formations are attested in both the sequence x.y and y.x, cf. (675) a. b. c.

OE cearsorg OE dryhtfolc OE holtwudu

vs. sorgcearu (poetry) vs. folcdryht (poetry) vs. wuduholt (prose)

‘anxiety’ ‘people’ ‘wood’

This phenomenon is especially common in Old English poetry. Yet similar forms with the reverse order are found in the various individual languages as well, cf. (676) a. b. c.

OLG/OS druhtfolk vs. OE folcdruht ‘people’ OHG walaêht vs. OE ǣhtwela ‘possessions, wealth’ OLG/OS mêðomhord vs. OE hordmāðm ‘treasure’ (Examples from Carr 1939: 339)

While tautological compounds no longer are productive nor recognized as such (e. g. Engl. courtyard), hybrids and additional compounds are highly productive in today’s Germanic languages, where they are widespread and show clear patterns as Laurie Bauer has pointed out (2010). Yet the “usage of these patterns” cross-linguistically presents “subtle differences” (Laurie Bauer 2010: 216). Instances such as Schleswig-Holstein are common in German, for example, but rare in English (*Birmingham-Wolverhampton), with the exception of certain names of airports. Laurie Bauer (2010) has identified a number of differences in this type of  

332

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

formation across several Germanic languages, in terms of occurrence, grammatical usage and parsing, and semantic value, e. g. Gm. schwarz-weiß and Engl. black and white as opposed to Gm. blau-grau and Engl. blue-green, which I identify as additional and type-of compounds respectively (see Laurie Bauer [2010] for an extensive discussion, which extends beyond the scope of this book).  

6.5.2 Type-of compounds in Germanic In Germanic there are three major categories of type-of compound based on apposition: (1) those that provide [SEX] or [AGE] specification, (2) those that provide generic specification, and (3) those that combine nouns between which there is no semantic relation (“general specification”), cf. Table XXVI: Type-of Compounds in Germanic.

6.5.2.1 Type-of compounds specifying [AGE] and [SEX] Type-of compounds in Germanic primarily involve compounds in which one noun provides [SEX] and [AGE] specification and typically occurs in combination with a common noun referring to an animal or human being. They are attested in Old High German, Old Low German (e. g. Old English), Old Norse, and English as examples from Carr (1939) amply illustrate in Table XXVII below:  

6.5 Appositive compounds in Germanic

333

Table XXVII: Germanic Type-of Compounds Specifying [Age] and [Sex]. [SEX] OHG

bērswin ‘male pig’

bēr ‘male pig’ + swin ‘pig’

OHG

gommanbarn ‘boy’

gomman ‘man’ + barn ‘child’

OHG

gommanchind ‘boy’

gomman ‘man’ + chind ‘child’

OHG

rêhziga ‘doe’

rêh ‘deer’ + ziga ‘bitch’

MHG

eberswin ‘male pig’

eber ‘male pig’ + swin ‘pig’

ON

karlfugl ‘male bird’

karl ‘male’ + fugl ‘bird’

ON

kvennmaðr ‘woman’

kvenn ‘woman’ + maðr ‘man, person’

OHG

rêhboc ‘roebuck’

rêh ‘deer’ + boc ‘bock’

ON

karlbarn ‘boy’

karl ‘male’ + barn ‘child’

hintkalb ‘fawn’

hind ‘deer’ + kalb ‘young animal’

OHG

gommanbarn ‘boy’

gomman ‘man’ + barn ‘child’

OHG

rêhkalb ‘fawn’

rêh ‘deer’ + kalb ‘young animal’

OHG

rêhkizzi ‘fawn’

rêh ‘deer’ + kizzi ‘young animal’

OE

hindcealf ‘fawn’

hind ‘deer’ + cealf ‘young animal’

OE

lēonhwelp ‘lion cub’

lēon ‘lion’ + hwelp ‘young animal’

OE

oxancealf ‘male calf’

oxan ‘ox’ + cealf ‘young animal’

ON

hinderkalfr ‘fawn’

hinder ‘deer’ + kalfr ‘young animal’

[AGE] OHG

Examples show that two ordering patterns exist in combinations specifying [SEX], whereas in those specifying [AGE] the sequence Common Noun + N[AGE] predominates cross-linguistically. In Old High German and Old Low German Common Noun + N[AGE] even is the “invariable sequence” (Carr 1939: 328), cf. (677) N[species] N[SEX]

+ N[SEX] N[species] + N [species] Ø

+ N[AGE]

This regularity in variation in ordering patterns is clearly attested for example in Old English, as the following instances illustrate: (678) [SEX] OE assmyre ‘she-ass’; gātbucca ‘he-goat’; heortbucc ‘roebuck’; carlfugol ‘male bird’; cnihtcild ‘boy’; mædencild’girl’; cūcealf ‘cow-calf’; cwenfugol ‘female bird’; mægðman ‘maiden’; wīfman ‘woman’; eoforswīn ‘boar’, . . . (679) [AGE] OE hindcealf ‘fawn’; lēonhwelp ‘lion cub’; oxancealf ‘male calf’, . . .  

 

 

 

334

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

Despite the clear tendency observed for [AGE] formations, there are no data on the chronology of the other instances. Without chronological data it is impssible to account for the ordering patterns of these nouns and the variety of patterns within the category of [SEX] formations. Yet these differences in ordering patterns allow —as practical consequence—for [SEX] and [AGE] nouns to combine in one formation, as in mædencild ‘girl’, which includes mæden ([SEX]) as well as cild ([AGE]) Finally, there seems to be a lexically determined preference for certain sequences: cild ‘child’ or man/mann ‘human being’ consistently occur in second position. For Vulgar and Late Latin I have noted similar patterns in relation to instances of nominal apposition combining a given common and a proper noun (Bauer 2008; see also Chapter 5).

6.5.2.2 Type-of compounds conveying generic specification Compounds conveying generic specification are type-of compounds in which the generic class of the entity is specified in a way similar to the instances discussed in the previous section. They typically combine a generic and a non-generic noun and are “very common in Germanic languages of all periods” (Carr 1939: 325), cf. (680) a. b. (681) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k.

OHG OHG OHG OE OE OE OHG OE MHG Gm. Gm. Du. Du.

fîgaphel ‘fig’ [FRUIT] vs. fîgboum ‘fig tree’ pînaphel ‘pineapple’ [FRUIT] vs. pînboum ‘pineapple tree’ cêdirbaum ‘cedar’ palmboum ‘palm tree’ laurbēam, pînbēam ‘laurel/pineapple tree’ laurtrēow, pîntrēow ‘laurel/pineapple tree’ fîcappel ‘fig’ kerseberī ‘cherry’ laurberige ‘laurel berry’, mōrberige ‘mulberry’ walfisch ‘whale’ Maultier ‘mule’ Rentier ‘reindeer’ koebeest ‘cow’ rendier ‘reindeer’

[TREE] [TREE] [TREE] [TREE] [TREE] [FRUIT] [FRUIT] [FRUIT] [ANIMAL] [ANIMAL] [ANIMAL] [ANIMAL] [ANIMAL]

These instances represent in fact two types of formation. Several of the examples provided above combine nouns in hyperonymic relation: a noun referring to the subspecies combines with a generic noun, cf. (682) a. b.

OHG Du.

tigertier ‘tiger’ koebeest ‘cow’

tiger ‘tiger’ koe ‘cow’

+ tier ‘animal’ + beest ‘beast’

6.5 Appositive compounds in Germanic

335

This type of compound may involve borrowings from other languages, in which the generic noun then helps to specify or explain (Carr 1939: 325), as the following nouns illustrate, referring to plants: (683) a. b. c.

drahhenwurz engelwurz scelliwurz

< dracontea + Gmc wurz < angelica + Gmc wurz < chelidonium + Gmc wurz

In these formations Germanic wurz, a generic noun denoting ‘root, plant’, explains or specifies the first component. These structures are similar to the tautological hybrids discussed in the previous section, in which an opaque noun (often a borrowing) is “explained” by an indigenous synonym (e. g. OHG phlûmfedera < La. pluma ‘feather’+ Gmc federa ‘feather’). The difference here is that the supporting noun is not a synonym but a hyperonym. Indigenous nouns may be included in these formations as well: the generic noun may then be added to an earlier simplex, presumably because the simplex had become obsolete or obscure (see Carr 1939: 326). That many of these compounds indeed had simplex forerunners is clear (e. g. Gm. rennt[h]ier replaces a “ältere Bezeichnung rein, . . ., renn” (‘deer’, Grimm 1893: 815; see also Schermaus ‘mole’ [MHG Scher], Walfisch ‘whale’ [earlier OHG wal], and so forth). Yet it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove that these simplex forms had become obsolete. Finally Carr (1939) argues that this type of compound can be accounted for by referring to the fact that several instances include nouns that at one time were homophonous or still are, such as Maul (OHG mûl) (‘mule’ and ‘snout’) in Maultier (lit. ‘mule’ + ‘animal’). Yet, languages often have instances of homophony without there being lexical devices such as these to remedy any—rare—ambiguity. Whatever its precise original motivation, the compound noun often co-existed for some time with the simplex noun and eventually one of the two disappeared: in German Schermaus survived, while MHG scher in the meaning of ‘mole’ disappeared—with the exception of certain dialects (Grimm 1893: 160). By contrast, while wal and walfisch ‘whale’ co-existed in MHG, and wal gradually disappeared in favour of walfisch in NHG, its usage was restored again later (Grimm 1922: 1068, 1221). So far examples such as OHG figaphel ‘fig’ / figboum ‘fig tree’ or OHG pînaphel ‘pineapple’ / pînboum ‘pineapple tree’ have not been examined. These formations include nouns between which there is a non-hyperonymic relation. Yet there is generic specification because a non-generic and a generic noun are combined: if the generic noun does not specify the generic quality of the other noun, it determines the generic quality of the compound, cf.  

 

 

(684) a. b.

OHG OHG

 

figaphel pînaphel

[FRUIT] [FRUIT]

vs vs

figboum [TREE] pînboum [TREE]

336

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

These examples differ therefore from instances such as Gm. Maultier or Walfisch. While the OHG compound figaphel conveys generic specification, the underlying relation between the two composing nouns is not between a species and the genus to which the species belongs as in Gm. Walfisch, for example. Instead, a noun referring to an object (e. g. fig in OHG figaphel) is being specified and identified as belonging to a given semantic class, that of aphel, fruit. In this respect it is important to note that aphel and its cognates in the other Germanic languages in all likelihood originally did not just mean ‘apple’, but in fact referred to roundshaped hanging fruit in general. Grimm made a similar suggestion specifically in relation to German, where Apfel occurs in a number of compounds conveying fruits: “Apfel ist uns im eigentlichen sinne malum, im allgemeinen auch andere rund und voll hängende frucht” (e. g. eichapfel, tannapfel, erdapfel, . . .) (Grimm 1854: 533). The same noun fig, pin, kerse, and so forth, may combine in Germanic with a noun aphel or berrie conveying the fruit, or with the noun boum, denoting the tree or plant. In this context it is important to note the high incidence in early Germanic of a limited number of nouns in this type of formation: the examples provided by Carr (1939) only include five or six nouns even if the process was very productive:  

 

(685) OHG a. -aphel (3) b. -beri (6) c. -boum (20) d. -stein (4) e. -wurz (3)

OE -æppel (1) -berie (3) -bēam/trēow (13) -stān

 

 

‘fruit’ ‘berry’ ‘tree‘ ‘stone’ ‘plant’

In Latin, a similar process is observed: while olea most commonly refers to the fruit ‘olive’, it may convey the tree as well. In combination with arbor, the reference is unambiguous: arbor olea ‘olive tree’. To my knowledge there are no examples in Latin including olea ‘olive’ in combination with a generic noun conveying the ‘[FRUIT] olive’. Yet in Section 5.1.2, I quoted the example mala cidonia (Apic., DRC 1.12.3 ; example [368]) ‘quinces [FRUIT]’, which co-exists with cydonia arbor ‘quince-tree’. The instances above bring to mind classifier languages in which a notion, [banana] for example, combines with concepts such as [FLAT]—banana-[FLAT]— conveying the notion of ‘banana-leaf’, [EDIBLE]—banana-[EDIBLE], referring to the fruit, or [HIGH]—banana-[HIGH] referring to the ‘banana tree’, and so forth (for more details, see Chapter 2).

6.5 Appositive compounds in Germanic

337

6.5.2.3 Other type-of compounds In the last group of type-of compounds in Germanic that I discuss, one noun specifies the other, but there is no semantic connection between the two composing elements, hyperonymic or other. In that respect they differ from the other two categories. They are not only less frequent, they are less consistent as well. In Gothic already they are attested, cf. (686) a. Go. weina-gards ‘wine + yard’ > ‘vineyard’12 b. Go. nahta-mats ‘night + meal’ > ‘supper’ (Examples from Wright 1954: 176)

[type of yard] [type of meal]

In Old English as well instances of type-of compounds other than those conveying [AGE] or [SEX] are found, cf. (687) OE

niht-waco

‘night’ + ‘watch’ > ‘night watch’

[type of watch]

These formations will be discussed in greater detail in Section 6.7.

6.5.3 Conclusions: appositive compounds in Germanic Examples presented here show that compounding based on apposition traditionally has been a rich and productive process in Germanic. More precisely, it has been productive in Germanic from the Middle Ages onward, which shows not only in the number of instances, but also in their variety. While dvandvas indeed are attested, there are many more instances of compound nouns based on co-ordination both in the form of hybrids and additional compounds. Moreover, numerous type-of compound are found, which may be divided into hyperonymic and nonhyperonymic formations and which are based on hypotaxis—the structure is hierarchical, cf. Table XXVIII for a schematic overview: Table XXVIII: Appositive Compounds in Germanic.

12 In Gothic the first component in these compounds ends in a vowel, which often is the thematic vowel; -a also appears in consonantal nouns and nouns in -ô; it then is a connecting vowel (Braune and Ebbinghaus 1961: 62–63, 176). 13 For reasons of space “ADDITIONAL” has been rendered by “ADDAL”

338

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

Several tautological hybrids are related to a borrowing process in which the indigenous generic noun specifies or explains the foreign element. The productivity of this process may be related to the importance of translations or model texts in the earliest attested stages of Germanic. In addition, it is important to underline the plain fact that animal nouns used in Germanic typically are generic and not sex-specific or age-specific. This observation brings up an interesting question: did these specific nouns not exist or where they simply not used in these contexts? The answers to these questions may be found in analysis of farmers’ language: if farmers at that time did not have these specific words, then it is a general characteristic of Germanic; if farmers used a well-defined and well-specified lexicon, it is a sociolinguistic matter.

6.6 Appositive compounds in other Indo-European languages In the following pages I will briefly discuss appositive compounds in several other Indo-European languages. An overview of data from Avestan, Old Persian, Farsi, Slavic, Classical Armenian, and Albanian reveals the same patterns that I observed in the individual branches of Indo-European discussed so far.

6.6.1 Appositive compounds in Avestan, Old Persian, Slavic, Classical Armenian, and Albanian The Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European is rich in compounds and there are many instances not only in Sanskrit (Section 6.2 above), but also in both Avestan and Old Persian. Most of them were not inherited forms—as argued by Bartolomae —but instead the result of developments in the individual languages (1895: 148). In the early languages in general (e. g. Avestan or OCS) instances of dvandvas are attested, but not in great numbers, cf.  

(688) OCS

malь-žena ‘man-woman-DU’ > ‘married couple’

In later—even today’s—languages true dvandvas may be found that in all likelihood go back a long time, as reported by Delbrück in the early 20th century (matĭ-otca, 1900: 188). Also: (689) Lith. výrmoteriai ‘man-woman-NOM-PL’ > ‘married couple’ (Example from Senn 1966: 351)

6.6 Appositive compounds in other Indo-European languages

339

It is remarkable, moreover, that often the same example recurs in the literature: the dvandva for ‘parents’. This repetitive pattern may have to do with the modus operandi of the authors of handbooks and grammars. If the grammarians look for the equivalent of ‘parents’ in any given language, that example may come up frequently. In both early and later languages there are numerous instances of additional compounds: (690) a. Av. pasu.vīra ‘cattle-men’ > ‘cattle (and) men’ ‘water-trees’ > ‘water (and) trees’ b. Av. āpa.urvaire c. Lith. kógalviai ‘feet-heads’ > ‘dish of calves’ feet and head’ d. Lith. plaũčkepeniai ‘lung (and) liver’ > ‘edible viscera’ e. Ru. chlĕbsol’ ‘bread-salt’ > ‘hospitality’ f. Ru. rodŭ-plemja ‘family-lineage’ (Examples from Delbrück 1900: 189; Salus 1965: 46; Senn 1966: 351; Reichelt 1967)

In this last instance (690f) the two nouns refer to two different types of genetic affiliation (Delbrück 1900: 189). The combination is additional and perhaps to some extent complementary in that it combines reference to a direct line of affiliation—blood relationship, parents and brothers—and reference to a more loose type of relationship (cousins, nephews). Depending on the perception of family relations, one might argue that there is complementarity in these two perspectives. Moreover, in several of the later languages under consideration, additional compounds with a connector are found and compounds that include categories other than nouns as well: (691) a.

Alb.

shitëblérje sell-buy ‘commerce, shop’ b. Alb. marrëdhënie take-give ‘commerce, store; relationship’ c. Fa. goft-o-shenood say-PST-3SG-and-hear-PST-3SG ‘conversation’14 (Camaj 1966: 89; Haebler 1961: 112, 116; Orel 2000: 176–177)

While these formations are productive both in Farsi and Albanian, they are also attested in the much earlier Classical Armenian, but less frequently so:

14 Source: Dr Mehrak Shariat (Univ. of Texas at Austin), personal communication 2012.

340

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

(692) a.

Cl. Arm.

b.

Cl. Arm.

c.

ayrewji (1 Macc. 4.28) ayrew ji man and horse ‘cavalry’ tarowber (2 Macc. 14.20) tarowber bring-AOR-IMP. and carry-AOR-IMP ‘bringing and carrying’ > ‘agitation’ ert‛ewek ‘coming (and) going’ (Examples from Olsen 1999: 665; Winter 1998: 325).

Finally it is remarkable that all languages discussed here include type-of compounds: > ‘male captive’ > ‘cedar tree’ > ‘infantry’ > ‘quail’ > ‘capital punishment’ f. Ru. medŭ-vino medŭ ‘mead’ + vino ‘wine‘ > ’honey wine’15 g. Alb. kryeqytet krye ‘head’ + qytet ‘town’ > ‘capital’16 [type of town] h. Alb. gurëzjarm gurë ‘stone’ + zjarm ‘fire’ > ‘firestone’ [type of stone] (Examples from Delbrück 1900: 188–190; Salus 1965; Camaj 1966: 90–92; Lűhr 2008: 395–396; Olsen 1999: 689; Orel 2000: 177)

(693) a. b. c. d. e.

Cl. Arm. mardageri Cl. Arm. ełewnapºayt Cl. Arm. hetewakazōr Cl. Arm. loramarg Ru. smerti-kasnĭ

mard ‘man’ + geri ‘captive’ ełewin ‘cedar’+ pºayt ‘tree’ hetewak ‘footsoldier’+ zōr ‘unit’ lora ‘quail’ + marg ‘bird’ smerti ‘death’ + kasnĭ ‘punishment’

In contrast to the examples under (692a) and (692b) above, these compounds are true appositives in that they are asyndetic.

15 “Honey wine” is a type of wine, produced on the basis of water and honey. In certain areas, however, honey wine conveys “regular” wine made out of grapes to which honey has been added as a sweetener. In this Russian instance the formation probably refers to honey wine based on water and honey. Yet the question is whether medu in this compound conveys just ‘honey’, in which case it is a straight-forward type-of compound (a type of wine) or whether medŭ conveys ‘mead’, in which vino has been attached as a generic element specifying its hyponym (similar to Engl. reindeer; see Section 6.5.2.2). 16 Camaj (1966) indicates—without motivation—that this a calque from German Hauptstadt (1966: 90).

6.7 Word formation on the basis of apposition in Latin-Romance

341

6.6.2 Conclusions: appositive compounds in other Indo-European languages Evidence from four additional language(group)s shows that appositive compounds are attested there as well, but that their concrete form and productivity may vary. This variation may be accounted for by the different time frames involved. Dvandvas based on inherent exclusive complementarity are relatively rare overall and seem to be typically attested in earlier languages or in instances that trace back a long time (dvandvas for ‘parents’). Additional compounds are widespread, attested in all languages, and productive. Finally, in all languages discussed, the incidence of type-of compounds increases with time. Consequently overall the same pattern is observed, even if the individual languages may vary to some extent.

6.7 Word formation on the basis of apposition in Latin-Romance Having examined a variety of (early) Indo-European languages, I will now turn to appositive compounding in Latin-Romance. The continued diachronic perspective that the language phylum offers may reveal a trend and allow to further evaluate the different types of compound attested so far. First I will discuss compounds in general in Latin-Romance (Section 6.7.1), then proceed to examining appositive word formation in Latin (Section 6.7.2), and finally to word formation processes based on apposition in Romance (Section 6.7.3). For the examples given below, which are lexical rather than grammatical, a translation will be given, but—in most instances—no gloss.

6.7.1 Compounding in Latin-Romance: general background While several other early Indo-European languages had numerous compounds, compounding never has been a widespread process in Latin and an increase in productivity is only manifest in Vulgar and Late Latin documents. Yet in early times already compound nouns are attested in Latin as well as compound adjectives, verbs, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, pronouns, and numerals. Among these different formations, there is a chronological relation as will become clear below. At any given point in time, for example, certain types of compounding were formally and semantically opaque and were no longer productive, whereas others represented productive classes, reflecting transparent

342

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

processes. Several other formations were completely opaque even in Early Latin, cf. (694) a. b.

princeps pauper

‘leader’ ‘poor’

(< *primo + caps ‘the one who takes the first place’) (< *pau-per-os ‘who produces little’; pau-cus ‘little’+ par- ‘produce’)

In addition, compounds in Latin were rather archaic, including thematic stems rather than autonomous words, cf. agricola (agr- + col-), magnanimus (magn- + anim-) as opposed to Fr. tournevis ‘screwdriver’ or aigre-doux ‘bitter-sweet’ combining autonomous elements (Darmesteter 1967 [1875]; Meillet and Vendryes 1924: 395). This difference between Latin and French/Romance is related to language change in general: with the loss of case endings morphology overall has become more word based than root- or stem-based. Kastovsky made a similar observation for Modern English, which has word-based inflection as opposed to Old English, which is partly characterized by stem-based inflection (Kastovsky 2008: 9). While a similar observation can be made mutatis mutandis for Latin and French, it is necessary to specify, however, that the notion of “autonomous” depends on the identification of the components, such as that of the verbal element in [V + N] compounds: what is the grammatical status of tourne- in Fr. tournevis or of the finite verb in Fr. un fait-tout ‘cooking-pot’? In the literature the form is interpreted as an imperative, an indicative—hence an autonomous element—or as a verbal element without specification of mood, tense, or person (cf. Meyer-Lübke 1894: 581–583; Darmester 1967: 168-234; Lloyd 1968: 3–10; Klingebiel 1989: 11–26). Even if the precise grammatical category represented in the verb remains elusive, the compounds in question reflect underlying grammatical relations, e. g. the Latin example mentioned earlier (e. g. Section 6.1):  

 

(695) VP [OBJ + V] > N agricola ‘farmer’

agr- ‘land’ + col- ‘cultivate’

(> Fr. agricul-)

While true compounds involving nominal themes in apposition were rare in Latin (see below; for Early Latin see Grenier 1912: 9–42, 141, passim), word groups that are based on underlying grammatical phrases were widespread and they often survive in the Romance languages albeit generally as opaque formations, cf. (696) NP [N + ADJ] > N res publica/respublica (697) PP [PREP + N] > N intervallum interregnum

‘republic’

> It. repubblica; Fr. république

‘interval’ ‘interregnum’

> Fr. interval > Fr. interrègne

6.7 Word formation on the basis of apposition in Latin-Romance

(698) VP [ADV + V] > V maledicere

‘curse’

343

> Fr. maudire

Several of these processes as well survived in the Romance languages, where they are productive, as the following nominal formations illustrate: (699) a. b.

NP [ADJ +N] > N PP [PREP + N] > N

c.

NP [ADV + N] > N

bas-relief, basse-cour ‘farm-yard animals’, ... chez-soi ‘home’, adieu ‘goodbye’, outremer ‘overseas territory’, … arrière-pensée ‘ulterior motive’, avant-bras ‘fore arm’, entrecôte ‘rib steak’, avant-midi ‘morning’ …

With time some formation processes disappeared, others emerged or spread dramatically. Many Romance prepositions, for instance, trace back to a process of compounding that started and spread in Vulgar and Late Latin: the formations survive as lexical relics in the Romance languages, cf. (700) a. b.

LLa. deintro (de + intro) ‘inside’ La. *abante (ab + ante)

> It./Sp./Po. dentro; Prv/Cat. dintre ‘in’ > Fr. avant; It. avanti ‘before’

At a later—Romance—stage prepositions are formed on the basis of [Adverb + Participle], for example, cf. It. nonostante, Sp. no obstante, or Fr. nonobstant ‘despite’. Likewise prepositions including [Preposition + Noun + Preposition] are the result of developments that took place in the individual languages and are therefore relatively late: Fr. au sommet de ‘on top of’; It. in mezzo a; Sp. en medio de ‘amidst’. Similar observations can be made for other compounds as well (cf. Bauer 2011: 542–545). For the majority of processes it is possible to determine their most productive stage: French nominal compounds containing a preposition, for example, were very productive from the 14th and 15th centuries onward. They include primarily the prepositions de and a, but other prepositions as well, cf. (701) NP [N + PREP + N] maistre d’ostel (Ménagier II 67 117), vert de gris, pot de vin ‘bribe’, gendarme, dé a coudre ‘thimble’, sac de vin, poudre a canon ‘gun powder’, arc en ciel ‘rainbow’ (e. g. Marchello-Nizia 1979: 357–358), aide de camp, chemin de fer ‘railway’, hôtesse de l’air ‘flight-attendant’, …  

As the previous examples suggest, compounds also underwent changes in terms of underlying syntactic relation. Compounds including a verb in combination with the underlying subject (e. g. Engl. cry-baby)—already rare in Latin—became even more rare in the Romance languages (e. g. It. tremacuore ‘heart palpation’ < trema il cuore ‘the heart trembles’). Conversely one of the most important changes in Romance word formation is the spread of compounds of the type [Verb + Direct  

 

344

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

Object]. They are attested in all Romance languages and trace back to Latin, with a few substantial changes in terms of frequency, word order, and the emergence of the definite article (e. g. pince-nez vs. trompe-l’oeil). With time they underwent a substantial increase in use and productivity (Bauer 2011). Attested in all Romance languages they first were commonly found in place names and proper names, e. g. Boi l’eaue, Pillepois (Villon; Marchello-Nizia 1979: 357). Today their number continues to increase in the western Romance languages and they refer primarily to objects, e. g. Fr. tire-bouchon ‘cork-screw’, It. apribottiglie ‘bottleopener’, Fr. presse-papiers ‘paper weight’, and so forth. Adjectival formations based on the same underlying process exist as well, but they are relatively uncommon and found especially in Western Romance languages, cf.  

 

 

(702) Sp. una fregata portamísiles ‘guided-missile frigate’

The types of compound mentioned in the preceding pages are characterized by an underlying hierarchical relation: the inherent grammatical relation between the verb and its direct object, the noun and its adjective, the noun and its genitive complement, the preposition and its noun, and so forth. The remaining of this chapter will be devoted to compounds that include nouns in apposition. I will show that these nouns—just like compounds of the type [Verb + Direct Object]—have developed to become one of the most productive word formation processes in Romance.

6.7.2 Appositive word formation in Latin The following pages will discuss the various types of formation in Latin based on apposition. Not all formations are word formations in the strict sense: some indeed result in independent words (e. g. La. ususfructus ‘usufruct’),17 others in word groups rather than words (e. g. La. patres conscripti ‘Senators’). I include them all here and will not dwell on the precise differences in terms of definition. Their main characteristic is the appositive combining of two nouns. Identification and definition of “words” as opposed to “groups” involve the delicate problem of formal and semantic criteria (see e. g. Nadjo 1994), which would draw the attention away from the real issue. The more so since from a diachronic perspective, appositive groups precede true compound words (see also e. g. Section 6.2.1), even if not all appositive groups eventually undergo that shift.  

 

 

 

17 La. ususfructus is also attested as two words, usus fructus.

6.7 Word formation on the basis of apposition in Latin-Romance

345

In addition to appositive compounds and appositve word groups, Latin also features so-called elliptic plurals, instances in which a plural noun—generally a proper noun—refers to two closely related figures (e. g. Castores ‘Castor-NOM-PL’ > ‘Castor and Pollux’). In the following sections the three groups will be discussed successively: elliptic plurals (6.7.2.1), appositive compound word groups (6.7.2.2), and appositive compounds (6.7.2.3).18  

6.7.2.1 Elliptic plurals In the section about dvandvas in Sanskrit (6.2.1) I already discussed so-called elliptic duals: names of single deities in the dual that refer to a given god as well as his or her closely associated partner, e. g. mitr ‘Mitra-DU’ > ‘Mitra (and) Varuṇa’. The formation is also attested for common nouns, as in mātárā ‘motherDU’, which may mean ‘two mothers’, but also ‘mother and father’ (Section 6.2.1). Latin obviously had no morphological dual forms, but a certain number of proper nouns in the plural refer to a deity and his or her closely related companion, such as:  

(703) a.

b.

Castores Castor-NOM-PL ‘Castor and Pollux’ Cereres Ceres-NOM-PL ‘Ceres and Proserpina’

Interestingly in Mycenaean, plural Πότναι (‘Ladies’) is attested, referring to Demeter (La. Ceres) and her daughter Persephone (La. Proserpina; Puhvel 1987: 129). Originally mother and daughter formed one divine entity because Ceres not only was the goddess of earth but also of the interior of the earth. In later times the goddess was split into two deities: Ceres assuming the function of goddess of earth and her daughter Proserpina becoming the goddess of its interior, where she spent part of the year. Consequently Ceres and Proserpina were strongly connected—reflecting two aspects of the original deity—and therefore complementary personalities. Castor and Pollux, commonly referred to as the Dioscuri ‘Zeus’ sons’ were twins of partly divine character because of their split paternity: Pollux was the son of Zeus, whereas Castor was the son of Tyndareus. Because of his divine

18 I will not discuss compounds of the type tresviri: these formations—including a numeral and a noun—are no appositive compounds. For a assessment of their relevance to Hackstein’s reconstruction of incipient classifiers in certain Indo-Aryan languages, see Section 5.3.2.1).

346

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

origin, Pollux could not join his brother in Hades. To soften Pollux’s pain over this separation, Zeus allowed the twin brothers to share their immortality: they continued to live on alternate days. The Twins’ complementarity (divine vs. human origin) reflects the superstition that commonly surrounds twins. Early societies in an attempt to explain their anomaly, often assume that one of the twins is of divine origin. Linguistically their complementarity is interesting from the perspective of dvandvas and related phenomena such as elliptic duals. The connection between Castor and Pollux was so strong in the speakers’ mind that Latin alter Castor (e. g. Stat., S. 4.6.16) referred to Pollux, the other of two (hence the suffix -ter [< PIE *-tero-], etymologically marking ‘one of two’; e. g. Ernout and Meillet 1959: 22). This automatic association may be at the root of elliptic duals or their plural variety. The underlying grammatical process is interesting as well because proper nouns normally do not feature a plural paradigm. They exclusively do so in these contexts. Earlier in this chapter I pointed out that elliptic duals or their plural variants are found in a number of other Indo-European languages as well (such as Sanskrit and Greek), and specifically in languages that do not necessarily feature fullfledged dvandvas. For that reason they are assumed by some linguists to be inherited and are interpreted as forerunners of dvandvas (e. g. Bader 1962: 342– 343). Others relate dvandvas to elliptic duals without taking position as to their originality or their relative chronology (e. g. Krause 1922: 86; see also Sections 6.2.1 and 6.4.1). A related—though fundamentally different—construction combines two proper nouns in the plural:  

 

 

 

(704)

Lugete, mourn-IMP-2PL ‘Mourn, Cupids’

o oh

Veneres Venus-NOM-PL

Cupidinesque (Cat. 3.1) Cupido-NOM-PL-and

The structure may be interpreted as a residue in which the plural is used instead of the—allegedly lost—dual: “le latin a transféré au pluriel l’expression de duel, qu’il a perdu” (Bader 1962: 340). I will not discuss here whether the plural in Latin replaces an earlier dual or whether the plural in Latin simply expresses what languages such as Sanskrit render by a dual.19

19 This question brings up the historical interpretation of the dual: was it an inherited feature or a category that developed to varying degrees in some dialects: non-existent in Hittite, partly existent in Latin, well developed in Sanskrit (for a full discussion see e. g. Shields 2004)? The originality of the category is not relevant to the discussion about dvandvas in the context of this book.  

6.7 Word formation on the basis of apposition in Latin-Romance

347

Bader argues that “le nombre peut être tenu pour un trait de parallélisme entre dvandvas indo-iraniens au duel et groups asyndétiques latins, au pluriel”20 (1962: 340). That there is a parallel is supported by the observation that both types of structure feature non-singular forms of a paradigm that otherwise is exclusively singular: (705) a.

Skt

b.

La.

mítrváṇayor (RV 10.130.5a) Mitra-Varuṇa-GEN-DU Veneres Cupidinesque Venus-NOM-PL Cupido-NOM-PL-and

In fact, Bader argues that these formations represent the second stage in the development of dvandvas: the first stage being represented by the elliptic duals; the second stage by Vedic dvandvas with double word accent (see Section 6.2.1), and the third stage by classical dvandvas with a single word accent (Bader 1962: 342–343). Yet the Latin structure also differs from the Vedic dvandvas in that it includes explicit case and number marking on both nouns, where the structure in Vedic Sanskrit is not quite clear (see Section 6.2.1). Moreover the Latin construction features an overt connector (-que). This absence of asyndetism may in fact be a major problem. Another problem is the precise interpretation of Veneres Cupidinesque, an “unusual phrase”, which may reflect Gk Ἔροτες ‘Loves’ and Χάριτες ‘Graces’ of the Carmina Anacreonta (Krostenko 2007: 222, 230). Quinn establishes a link with the belief in Alexandrian mythology that there was more than one Aphrodite, each with her own Eros (Quinn 1973: 97). The structure therefore seems to be different from the divinity-dvandvas in Sanskrit or the elliptic duals in Latin discussed in this section.

6.7.2.2 Appositive compound word groups Latin has an significant variety of what I refer to as “compound groups”: asyndetic groups that combine two words of the same grammatical category and status. Although the vast majority consists of combinations of nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs may occur in this context as well. For obvious reasons I here focus on nouns. In the following paragraphs various examples will be presented that were found in primary texts and in handbooks and studies (e. g. Delbrück 1900; Ernout  

20 Translation: “number may be considered a parallel characteristic of Indo-Iranian dvandvas featuring the dual and asyndetic groups in Latin, featuring the plural”.

348

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

and Thomas 1964; Bader 1962; Leumann & Hofmann 1977). There are groups that combine nouns and those that combine nominalized adjectives; all feature case agreement: (706) [NOUN + NOUN] a. haec dies noctis canto (Pl., Trin. 287) ‘I sing these day (and) night’ b. diem noctem (Caes., B. G. 5.38.1) ‘day (and) night’  

The following example includes two compound groups: manibus pedibus ‘with hands and feet’ and noctis dies ‘night and day’, cf. (707) conari manibus pedibus noctisque dies (Ter., And. 676) ‘to work hand and foot day and night’

The connector -que in the last example connects the two noun groups (manibus pedibus and noctis dies), not the two nouns (noctis and dies). Other examples include: (708) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

agrum locum sumpsit (Lex Agr. 2) ‘he took land (or/and) place’ patres conscripti ‘fathers-elected’ > ‘members of the Senate’21 loca lautia ‘lodging (and) entertainment’22 usus fructus ‘usufruct’ sine dolo malo ‘without deceit (and) fraud’ ruta caesa ‘(things) dug.up-cut.down’ > ‘mineral and timbers’ ferae pecudes23 ‘wild animal-cattle’ > ‘wild and domesticated animals’

There are also instances that occur once or twice, and which Bader for that reason qualifies as “groupe(s) occasionnel(s)” (Bader 1962: passim):

21 Originally a perfective participle, conscripti in Patres conscripti is a nominalized form, see the explanation below. 22 Loca lautia refers to the lodging (and) entertainment as provided by the Senate to visiting ambassadors. 23 Sine dolo malo, dolus malus, ruta caesa, ferae pecudes all are early formations (Bader 1962).

6.7 Word formation on the basis of apposition in Latin-Romance

(709) a. b. c. d.

349

sarta tecta (Cic. Fam. 13.11) ‘repaired and covered objects’ > ‘good maintenance’ tenebrae latebrae (Pl. Poen. 835) ‘dark (and) hidden places’ opibus viribus (Cic., Tusc. 3.6) ‘with power (and) strength’ equites pedites (Livy 27.13.9) ‘cavalry (and) infantry’

These instances show that although the combinations are not written as one word, they share with Vedic dvandvas the double plural and the double word accent, as the following example illustrates, both in terms of number and stress: (710) patres conscripti (example [708b] above) ‘fathers – elected’ > ‘Senators’

From the early Roman Kingdom, the Senate included two types of member: the leaders of the different gentes (the so-called patres) as well as appointed members (conscripti), for whom the criteria for selection varied over time: “ut in Senatum vocarentur, qui Patres quique Conscripti essent: Conscriptos videlicet in novum senatum appellabant lectos” (Liv. 2.1.11) ‘to call to the Senate the Fathers and the Enrolled; those who were appointed were called conscripti ‘enrolled’, namely in the new Senate’. Patres conscripti therefore refers to both groups of citizen that together formed the Senate. The components are in a relation of addition. One might argue that there is a certain complementarity, but this complementarity is never inherent or mutually exclusive. The other nominal groups as well include nouns that together form a semantic entity. And they too have additional, rather than complementary value in that the two nouns are not inherently one another’s complement. Similarly, sine dolo malo for example, may cover many devious activitities, but not all. Nor does dolus inherently presuppose malus (see more below). They differ therefore from combinations like ‘mothers-fathers’ > ‘parents’ (e. g. Skt mātárāpitárā). In addition to formations including common nouns, there are also compound groups in Latin including proper nouns. Some of them feature common nouns that function as proper nouns. These formations typically convey divinities, cf.  

(711) [PROPER NOUN + PROPER NOUN] a. Anna Peranna old Italian goddess (< annus ‘year’) b. Fors Fortuna goddess of Fate (fors ‘chance’) (e. g. aedis Fortis Fortunae [Liv. 10.46.14] ‘temple to Fortis Fortuna’)  

350

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

(712) [SYNONYM NOUN + SYNONYM NOUN], used as proper noun a. Aius Locutius god who warned the Romans about the arrival of the Gauls (< ai- ‘say’; loqu- ‘speak’) b. Vica Pota goddess of victory (vinco) and power (potior) or goddess of food (Victa) and drinks (Potua)

Both types of formation above may have iterative value: the noun or its synonym is repeated conveying succession in time or repitition: Anna Peranna was the old Italian godess protector of the ever-returning year, while Aius Locutius was the Roman god who expressed an urgent warning against the arrival of the Gauls. Moreover formations include (nominalized) adjectives as well, which typically are antonymic or synonymic: (713) [NOMINALIZED ADJECTIVE + NOMINALIZED ADJECTIVE] a. noti ignoti (Pl., Curc. 280) ‘friends (and) strangers’ b. ioca seria (Cic., Fin. 2.85) ‘the pleasant (and) serious things’ c. bona mala (Ter., Phorm. 556) ‘good (and) bad’ d. laeta tristia (Plin., Ep. 5.9.1) ‘sad (and) joyful events’ e. longinqui propinqui (Cic., Mil. 76) ‘far away (and) close by’ f. iussu iniussu (Liv. 8.34.10) ‘rightful (and) unlawful’ (Several examples come from Bader 1962: 337–338)

Adjectival compound groups with non-nominalized adjectives are well represented: elements on the whole are not typically antonymic, but rather synonymic: (714) [ADJECTIVE + ADJECTIVE] volens propitius (Liv. 1.16.3)

‘willing (and) favorable’

Bader argues that these compound groups have the function (emphasis added) of dvandvas in Indo-Iranian: “la fonction des dvandva est assumée en latin, non pas par des composés, mais par des locutions formées de deux termes (adjectifs ou substantifs) en asyndète” (Bader 1962: 337).24 Yet she argues that only combinations that are constant and common, especially in the language of religion and law, are equivalents of the Sanskrit dvandvas. Others are not, e. g. those combinations that result from personal idiosyncrasy of a given author are not. Similarly,  

24 Translation: “the function of dvandvas is conveyed in Latin by expressions including two asyndetic elements (adjectives or nouns) rather than by compounds”.

6.7 Word formation on the basis of apposition in Latin-Romance

351

combinations that are motivated by stylistics are not equivalent of Sanskrit dvandvas because they are not constant either. From this perspective the exclusive non-occurrence of connectors or conjunctions—in Bader’s view—is vital in the identification of dvandvas because the conjunction et (-que) only appears in temporary word groups: “la copule ne figure jamais dans ces groupes. Au contraire, lorsque l’association de deux substantifs est temporaire, la copule et (-que) peut s’introduire, de la même façon que dans les groupes faits de termes opposés” (Bader 1962: 338). Yet in this light it is important to note that several of the formations given above under (713) occur with connectors as well, also when the composing elements are not antonymic, cf. (715) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

ioco seriove (Liv. 7.41.3) ‘for pleasant things or serious things’ terra marique (Virg., A 3.144) ‘by sea and by land’ ius vitae necisque ‘right to decide on life and death’ belli domique ‘in war and peace’ fas iusque (Liv. 7.31.2) ‘divine and human law’ domi militiaeque ‘in war and peace’ equis virisque (Liv. 5.37.5) ‘with horses and men’ equites peditesque (Sall. J. 97.5) ‘horse(-soldier)s and footmen’

Finally, purus putus, specifically mentioned by Bader as a typical dvandva equivalent—undividable— (Bader 1962: 338) occurs with a connector as well: (716) purus ac putus (Varr. ap. Non.27.28) ‘pure (and) clean, purely’

Separability therefore seems to be a rather complex criterion in the identification of compounds. The more so since instances quoted by Bader as typically occurring with a conjunction are attested without one as well. Perhaps as an asyndetic hapax, but still they occur: (717) equis viris (Cic., Phil. 8.21) ‘with horses (and) men’

352

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

It is important to note that the connectors attested in these examples, -ve and -que, are relatively weak and typically combine elements that are closely related, either because they are semantically close or because they form a pair, cf. (718) a. b. c.

domi bellique ‘in war and peace’ senatus populusque Romanus ‘the Senate and the People of Rome’ plus minusve ‘more or less’

The decisive criterion for the identification of dvandvas or dvandva-function in my view is semantic complementarity. As I noted earlier, Vedic dvandvas typically are characterized by the inherent and exclusive complementarity of their components. Their complementarity exceeds the formation as such because the referents of the components are one another’s complements in the real world as well. In Section 6.2.1, I pointed out that many Vedic formations that the handbooks classify as dvandvas in fact are no dvandvas because the composing elements are additional, rather than complementary. From a diachronic perspective, this means that what has started as a formation based on inherent complementarity has developed into a formation including nouns that in combination may convey the notion of ‘entirety’. In this respect my interpretation differs from that of Bader, who relates dvandvas to certain registers, the language of religion, law, and politics (“les groupes à éléments complémentaires appartiennent aux mêmes vocabulaires que les composés anciens” [Bader 1962: 339]). According to Bader combinations such as dolus malus are therefore complementary hence dvandvas, whereas compounds based on antonyms are not. In my view, however, antonymic compounds represent a later stage in the development of compounds that have undergone a shift from pure complementarity (dvandvas) to addition. ‘Father’ and ‘mother’ in pure complementarity form a dvandva, ‘parents’. Along the same lines one could argue that ‘day’ and ‘night’ are complementary as well, because a complete time span of 24 hours inherently and exclusively includes both a day and a night. Latin’s compound group diem noctem (‘time span of 24h’, ‘day and night uninterrupted’) would therefore qualify as a dvandva. By contrast, as I have already indicated earlier, malus does not presuppose dolus and sine malo dolo does not cover all fraudulous activity. Its components therefore are additional rather than complementary. Similarly, an army consists of horses (and) men (equis viris [Cic., Phil. 8.21]), but also of ‘horses (and) footmen’ (equites pedites Liv. 27.13.9), and others. The fact that the same noun recurs in various compound groups is telling: because it shows that the relation with the other noun is not exclusive. Com-

6.7 Word formation on the basis of apposition in Latin-Romance

353

pounds including antonyms refer to an entity as well, but the composing elements are not inherently complementary (e. g. bona mala). Consequently they are additional compounds rather than dvandvas. The difference between true dvandvas and additional compounds is rather subtle and therefore historical semantic shift should not come as a surprise.  

6.7.2.3 Appositive compounds In addition to appositive word groups, Latin also features several types of appositive compound, but they do not represent very productive formations. A few of them are based on the combining of three instead of two nouns: suovetaurilia (su‘pig’ + ove- ‘ram’ + tauru- ‘bull’ + a suffix -alia) refers to the early sacrifice including the immolation offering of a pig (to Tellus), a ram (to Iupiter), and a bull (to Mars), with Mars as the major recipient in his early agricultural functions (hence Cato’s prayers addressing Mars, see Chapter 4).25 Taken at face value the formation seems to be a dvandva, but it is in fact an adjectival derivation of a nonattested compound noun *suovetaur-. Adjectival derivation of appositive compounds did occur in Latin. In contrast to suovetaurilia, the adjective usufructuarius ‘having use and profit, but not the property’, for example, traces back to an existing compound group usus fructus ‘usufruct’. The very large majority of Latin compounds include two components and most of them are hybrids, such as: (719) [APPOSITIVE COMPOUNDS, HYBRIDS: NOUN + NOUN] a. tunicopallium ‘tunic-pallium’ (piece of clothing with characteristics of both tunica and pallium) b. gerulifigulus (Pl., Bach. 380) ‘doer – potter’ > ‘accessory, abettor’ c. blatto-sericus (blatto serico) ‘garment of purple silk’ (Cod. Iust. 11.8.10) d. promocondus (Prisc. 5.511.26)26 ‘steward – butler’ > ‘butler-steward’

25 In India a similar phenomenon is referred to with a derivative, cf. sautrāmaņī, the offering involving a ram, a bull, and a he-goat. In these sacrifices as well, the ram refers to the god at the highest level, the bull or stallion refers to the god of war, whereas goats, swine and cattle in general refer to the lowest type of deity providing wealth, food, and so forth. The three divinities in fact also reflect the three-class system of Indo-European culture (religion/law, military, common people; see for example Puhvel 1987: 161–162 and passim). 26 The formation occurs as a compound group in Early Latin: condus promus [Pl., Ps. 608]).

354

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

e.

moecho-cinaedus (Lucil. ap. Non. 493.26) ‘aldulterer – sodomite’ > ‘man abandoned to lewdness’

Hybrids typically refer to the various winds and ethnicities, a pattern found in Greek as well (Section 6.4.1): Gallograeci (Gallograecia) or Celtiberi (< Gk Κελτίβηρες). The following examples include eurus ‘(S)E wind’, a borrowing from Greek: (720) a. b. c.

euro-notus (Plin. 2.47.46) euro-aquilo (Vulg., Act. 27.14) euro-borus (Veg., Mil. 4.38)

‘S-SE wind’ ‘N-E wind’ ‘N-E wind’

Hybrids in Latin have an adjectival variety as well, cf. (721) [APPOSITIVE COMPOUNDS, HYBRIDS: ADJECTIVE + ADJECTIVE] a. sacro-sanctus ‘sacred – holy’ > ‘sacrosant’ b. dulc-amarus (Pl., Cist. 70; Ps. 63) ‘sweet – bitter’ > ‘bittersweet’ c. dulc-acidus ‘sweet – sour’ > ‘sourish-sweet’ d. nigrogemmeus ‘black – bright’ > ‘bright (and) somber’ e. rudimaturus (CIL 8.15880.16) ‘unformed/raw – ripe’ > ‘raw’

An example of adjectival derivation tracing back to two nouns in hybrid formation is found in: (722) palmipedalis ‘hand (and) foot wide’ (Examples from Bader 1962: passim; Ernout and Thomas 1964; Leumann and Hofmann 1977)

Many of these compounds are either borrowings from Greek or part of specialized jargon. In them, the first component typically ends in -o (e. g. euro-notus) unless the noun is an i-stem (e. g. rudimaturus ‘raw-ripe’) or the second component starts with a vowel (e. g. dulc-acidus). The examples and the texts from which they were taken show that this type of formation is not widespread, that they occur often in Plautus, but more so in highly specialized texts (e. g. Codex Iustinianus), and that they represent a variety of semantic fields. Moreover, all hybrid formations are not identical from a historical perspective: the names of colors and flavors are late, like the nouns conveying animals (see below for more details). Similarly the names of dishes, which often trace back to Greek borrowings, were not original, cf. coptoplacenta (Petr. 40.4) ( < Gk κοπτοπλακοῦς) ‘cake’ or oxypiper ( < Gk ὀξυπέπερι) ‘vinaigre (and) pepper’. Finally, these formations may not all be hybrids. Several in fact may also be classified as type-of compounds, while for others the situation is not  

 

 

 

6.7 Word formation on the basis of apposition in Latin-Romance

355

clear-cut: in these instances it is extra-linguistics evidence that will clarify their status. In popular and late varieties of Latin, compounds typically refer to daily objects, which often are hapaxes, be they hybrids or type-of compounds: (723) [HYBRIDS] / [TYPE-OF COMPOUNDS] a. anuloculter (Tert. An. 25) ‘knive in form of a ring’ b. calciocaligula ‘shoe that has features of a calceus and a caligula) (calceus ‘shoe, half boot’+ caligula ‘boot’) c. mimofabula mimus ‘play’+ fabula ‘tale’ d. homodeus ‘man-god’

Veterinary, agricultural, or horticultural terminology provide rich specialized jargons with many appositive formations. Plant and tree names tend to be compounds or appositive word groups in Latin and many are hybrids. Yet here again only specialized extra-linguistic knowledge of the plants may allow to decide that a formation is a hybrid rather than a type-of compound or the other way around. Taken at face value nucipruna (Pliny, 15.13.12), for example, may be a fifty-fifty crossing between a nut and a plum, but it may also be a plum that looks like a nut. In fact, it is a “plum grafted on a nut-tree, a nut-plum” (Lewis and Short 1879: 1222). Similarly: (724) [HYBRIDS] / [TYPE-OF COMPOUNDS] a. napo-caulis (Isid. 17.10.9) ‘turnip’ + ‘cole’ b. laurorosa (Ps. Diosc. 4.81) ‘laurel’ + ‘rose’ c. malagranatum (Gl. 2.428.39) ‘apple’ + ‘granate’ > ‘pomegranate’

The formal variety of the compound malagranatum is also manifest in instances in which the formation occurs as nominal apposition: malus granata or mala granata. Speakers evidently had trouble identifying the gender of the components, which always occur in that sequence. As said earlier, compound nouns conveying animals tend to be late in Latin (Bader 1962: 335). They reflect different types, several of which trace back to Greek words or models, cf. the following examples, which include hybrids as well as type-of compounds: (725) a. b.

porcopiscis hercoceruus

‘pig’ + ‘fish’ > ‘dolphin’ ‘buck’ + ‘stag’ > ‘goat-stag’ (calque of Gk τραγέλαφος)

While many horticultural nouns in Latin refer to both the tree and its fruit, nouns of animals often convey more than one animal: bos (bovis) ‘steer, cow’, aries ‘sheep’, sus (suis) ‘pig, sow’, porcus ‘pig’, and caper ‘goat’, for example, all refer to a type of fish as well. Similarly, avis is a ‘bird’ as well as a ‘chicken’, while

356

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

taurus is a ‘bull’ and a ‘wasp’, and so forth. On the whole, however, there is relatively little confusion because the nouns are used in specific clarifying contexts and certain meanings are rare (e. g. taurus rarely conveys ‘wasp’). Specification therefore is not necessary. By contrast, it is with [SEX] specification that nominal apposition is frequently found in Latin, from early times on (see Chapter 4), cf.  

(726) pavo mas

‘pea’ + ‘male’ > ‘peacock’

In sum, data show that appositive compounding in Latin on the whole was not a very systematic nor a common word formation process. Examples are attested in a wide variety of writers but the occurrence in the individual authors varies significantly (e. g. Plautus [several instances] as opposed to Terence [very few examples]), suggesting that the personal preference of the author is at play. Moreover, many instances are attested only once or twice. It is only in certain specialized areas that the formation seems to have prospered, not only in terms of number but also in terms of morphological regularity. Yet often the formation can be traced to Greek. The process seems to have spread to daily objects in Vulgar and Late Latin. It therefore was a late phenomenon.  

6.7.3 Word formation processes based on apposition: Romance Having observed that composition on the basis of nominal apposition in Latin by no means represents a widespread, systematic, or widely productive process, I will now turn to Romance to examine the characteristics and productivity of its various appositive formation processes. For certain phenomena focus will be on French because it is in that language that instances are most prominent.

6.7.3.1 Appositive compounds in Romance: hybrids and type-of compounds [Verb + Complement] nominal compounds as well as nominal compounds based on apposition are among the most productive word formation processes in Romance (e. g. Bauer 2011, with extensive bibliography). Most often the compound takes the form of a noun; yet adjectival instances occur as well, as will become clear. Formations based on the combining of two nouns in apposition are found in all Romance languages. While there are very few—if any—dvandvas or additional compounds, the most widely attested instances are of the following type:  

6.7 Word formation on the basis of apposition in Latin-Romance

(727) a. b. c.

357

It. formato tessara ‘passport size (as in passport-sized photograph), viaggio lampo ‘a quick journey’ Fr. industrie-pilote ‘pilot industry’, Fr. visite-éclair ‘a swift visit’ Sp. buque escuela ‘training ship’

This type of formation became frequent and widespread from the beginning of the 20th century in all Romance languages (see e. g. Darmesteter 1967; Tekavčič 1972: 197–219; Dardano 1978: 14–94; Maiden 1995). They are attested before that time, but at low frequency, as I already noted for Latin, and in Medieval French the process was not common either (see e. g. Greimas 1968). While a few of the instances in Medieval French actually date from the Middle Ages, several more trace back to Latin formations and were opaque, cf.  

 

(728) [OLD OR MIDDLE FRENCH] OF chef-lieu (1257) ‘chief-place’ > ‘main dwelling’ (729) [OLD OR MIDDLE FRENCH FORMATIONS, WITH LATIN ORIGIN] a. OF musaraigne (F) (1552) < La. musaranea ‘shrew’ < La. mus ‘rat’ + aranea ‘spider’ b. OF liépart/liupart ‘leopard’ < La. leo ‘lion’+ pardus ‘panther’ c. OF austruce/autruche (1556) (possibly < It. ostruce) ‘ostrich’ < La. avis ‘bird’ + struthio ‘ostrich’27 d. OF arcbaleste (F) (CdR 2265) ‘arbalest, crossbow’28 < La. arcus + ballista e. OF gare-lou/leu-garoul ‘werewolf’ < La. lupus ‘wolf’+ garulfus (LLa.)29

As a preliminary remark it is important to note that analysis of appositive compounds in Romance is complicated because the combining of two nouns may convey a variety of underlying syntactic relations, as a brief overview from French illustrates: (730) a. b. c. d. e.

terre-noix lundi chèvre-pied vert-pomme timbre-poste

‘earth-nut’ ‘moon-day’ ‘goat-foot’ ‘green-apple’ ‘stamp-post’

> > > > >

‘earth’s nut’ ‘Monday’ ‘goat’s foot’ ‘apple green’ ‘stamp’

27 La. avis struthio is in fact an explanatory loan compound: struthio traces back to Greek στρουθίων; avis then functions as an explanatory noun. 28 An arbalest is a war machine using an arch: it is a large crossbow usually activated by a mechanical device and used to throw (large) stones, arrows, metal balls, etc. 29 LLa. garulfus traces back to Gmc *wariwulf (‘man’ + ‘wolf’). Once this etymology was no longer recognized, lupus was added, hence gare-lou/leu-garoul. At the end of the 12th c. garwulf (< Gmc *wariwulf) is found as well.

358

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

f. g. h. i. j.

pause-café papier toilette papier-chiffon bateau-mouche chef-lieu

‘break-coffee’ > ‘paper-bath.room’> ‘paper-rag’ > ‘boat-fly’ > ‘chief-place’ >

‘coffee break’ ‘bath room tissue’ ‘rag paper’ ‘tourist boat’ ‘capital’

These instances in origin all include nouns in juxtaposition but with different underlying grammatical relations: the underlying syntax may be a Genitive + Noun relation, as in: (731) a. b. c.

terre-noix chèvre-pied lundi

(*terre-GEN noix) ‘earth’s nut’ (*chèvre-GEN pied) ‘goat’s foot’ (< La. lunae diem ‘moon-GEN day-ACC’) ‘Monday’

On the basis of analogy with the names of the other days of the week, it is certain that lundi traces back to a genitive construction: the names of weekdays in Old French in origin formally include a genitive, as was shown in Section 5.3.2.1, cf. (732) a. b.

venresdi/divenres (1180; Rom. d’Alex.) (< Iovis dies) jeusdi (12th century)

(< Veneris dies) ‘Friday’ ‘Thursday’

Compounds including two nouns may also involve an underlying preposition, as in: timbre-poste, which in fact reflects *timbre de poste. Other instances include: (733) a. b. c. d.

vert-pomme (vert [de] pomme) papier toilette (papier [de] toilette) pause-café (pause [pour le] café) pied-coq (pied [de] coq)

‘apple green’ ‘bath room tissue’ ‘coffee break’ ‘pied de coq’ (cloth design)

Finally, a third type of compound includes two nouns in apposition, the topic of my investigation, cf. (734) cardinal-ministre; bateau-mouche ‘tourist boat’; borne-fontaine ‘fountain in the shape of a (km.) marker’; papier-chiffon ‘rag paper’; roman-feuilleton ‘serialized novel’; cafébar; voiture-restaurant ‘dining car’; hotel-restaurant ‘hotel-restaurant’; café-restaurant ‘place where one can have drinks and meals’; ….30

Compounds are often quoted as formations that are (in part) semantically motivated because they are based on the combining of nouns with a given meaning. Yet if many formations are indeed motivated from the perspective of the speaker, their meaning may elude the listener. Listeners/readers without any further knowledge may not know what a bateau-mouche is, even if they know the mean-

30 Fr. borne ‘marker’, chiffon ‘rag’, feuilleton ‘serial’, mouche ‘fly’, voiture ‘carriage’.

6.7 Word formation on the basis of apposition in Latin-Romance

359

ing of the composing elements. Similarly, what is the precise meaning of caféconcert or a bouleau-aune ‘birch-aulne’? It is clear that specialized non-linguistic knowledge is needed here. Yet problems in interpretation may also be related to the plain fact that similar structures have different underlying constructions: is a café-concert a café for concerts, a type of coffee, or a short concert during a coffeebreak? Similarly, is a chèvre-bouc a he-goat rather than a she-goat, or the other way around? The Romance appositive compounds provided above can be divided into two groups: hybrids—which are copulatives—and non-hybrids or type-of formations. Moreover type-of compounds split into two subgroups on the basis of their ordering patterns. The diagram in Table XXIX below illustrates the subdivision in French: Table XXIX: Appositive Compounds in French.

The subgroups are illustrated by the following examples: (735) [HYBRIDS] a. hotel-restaurant b. c. d. e.

‘accommodation offers hotel as well as restaurant services’ café-restaurant ‘accommodation offers restaurant and café services; place where one can have drinks and meals’ cardinal-ministre ‘someone who is minister and cardinal’ médecin-juriste ‘physician-lawyer’ cardinal-évêque, cardinal-prêtre, cardinal-diacre, pianiste-violoniste, …

These hybrids combine two characteristics in the same referent and are truly copulative. They allow changes in sequence, without there being fundamental changes in meaning. A change in the order of components may entail, however, a

360

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

change in emphasis. Someone who practices as a physician, for example, but also has a degree in law, will be called a médecin-juriste, rather than a juriste-médecin. By contrast, someone who practices law, but has a degree in medicine as well, will in all likelihood be referred to as juriste-médecin. Similarly someone who is at the same time a cardinal and a minister, may want to call himself a cardinalministre in ecclesiastical circles, but may refer to himself in terms of ministrecardinal in political circles. These patterns show that although variation is possible, there is to some extent a certain type of reading that predominates. I will come back to this topic in more detail below. Non-hybrid formations are in fact type-of compounds and in French they represent two subgroups on the basis of their ordering pattern: Table XXX: Type-of Compounds, French – Sequence A. chef-lieu (M)

‘capital’ chef (M) ‘head’ + lieu (M) ‘place’

[type of town]

coq faisan (M)

‘male pheasant’ coq (M) ‘cock’ + faisan (M) ‘pheasant’

[type of pheasant]

maître-autel (M)

‘main altar’ maître (M) ‘master’ + autel (M) ‘altar’

[type of altar]

aide-bourreau (M)

‘assistant executioner’ aide (M) ‘help’ + bourreau (M) executioner’

[type of executioner]

bouc-chèvre (F)

‘sterile goat’ bouc (M) ‘he-goat’ + chèvre (F) ‘she-goat’

[type of goat]

maître-clerc (M)

‘head clerk’ maître (M) ‘head’ + clerc (M) ‘clerk’

[type of clerk]

mère-branche (F)

‘head branch’31 mère (F) ‘mother’ + branche (F) ‘branch’

[type of branch]

marche-pallier (M)

‘one-step landing’ marche (F) ‘step’ + pallier (M) ‘landing’

[type of landing]

mère patrie (F)

‘mother country, France’ 32 mère (F) ‘mother’ + patrie (F) ‘father land’

[type of home country]

taupe-grillon (M)

‘mole cricket’ taupe (F) ‘mole’ + grillon (M) ‘cricket’

[type of insect]

31 A mère-branche is branch that originates from the trunk. 32 La mère patrie is the country from which one originates, a country that owns colonies, or the country of one’s parents or ancestors.

6.7 Word formation on the basis of apposition in Latin-Romance

361

Table XXX: (continued) ‘fountain post’ borne (F) ‘stone, marker’ + fontaine (F) ‘fountain’

borne-fontaine (F)

[type of fountain]

These formations typically are not attested in the reverse order: *lieu-chef, *faisan-coq, *autel-maître, although a few of them with time have undergone a change in ordering, e.g. mère-branche becoming branche mère. Before addressing the characteristics of these patterns in greater detail below, I provide examples of the second group of type-of compounds featuring the reverse ordering pattern, cf. Table XXXI: Table XXXI: Type-of Compounds, French – Sequence B. animaux-plantes (M)

‘plant-like animals’ animaux (M) ‘animals’+ plantes (F) ‘plants’

[type of animal]

bateau-mouche (M)

‘tourist boat’ (in the shape of a fly) bateau (M) ‘boat’ + mouche (F) ‘fly’

[type of boat]

roman-feuilleton (M)

‘serialized novel’ roman (M) ‘novel’+ feuilleton (M) ‘serial’

[type of novel]

train-éclair (M)

‘bullet train’ train (M) ‘train’+ éclair (M) ‘lightning’

[type of train]

bien-fonds (M)

‘real estate, landed property’ bien (M) ‘property’ + fonds (M) ‘real estate’

[type of property]

col-châle (M)

‘shawl collar’ col (M) ‘collar’ + châle (M) ‘shawl’

[type of collar]

cardinal-camerlingue

‘cardinal with a special function’ cardinal (M) ‘cardinal’+ camerlingue (M) ‘camerlengo’

[type of cardinal]

The three types of formation presented in Tables XXX and XXXI and example (735) above—hybrids and both types of type-of compounds—combine two nouns of similar syntactic status without there being a hierarchical relation between the nouns in terms e. g. of government and binding. In addition, there typically is no semantic relation—hyperonymic or other—between the two nouns that are combined: there is no intrinsic connection between e. g. a cardinal and a minister (cardinal-ministre) or a café and a restaurant (café-restaurant). Similarly a boat and a fly are not semantically connected (bateau-mouche), neither are a train and lightning (train-éclair), or animals and plants (animaux-plantes). In these specific instances of type-of compounds, the respective referents—boat, train, and  

 

362

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

animals—remind one of a fly, lightning, or plants. There is an underlying metaphoric relation, but no independent or intrinsic semantic connection. In this respect the predominant word formation process in Romance is fundamentally different from the type-of compounding process found in early Germanic, where the nouns in hybrid and type-of compounds often are in a hyperonymic relation (e. g. Gm. Maultier; OE castelburc; OHG agatstein) or where the process results in generic classification (e. g. OE cwenfugol ‘female bird’; OHG gommanbarn ‘boy’, OE wīfman ‘woman’, lēonhwelp ‘young lion’; OE laurberie; OHG pînaphel ‘pineapple’). Germanic type-of compounds are generic and based on metonymy, whereas those in Romance/French are non-generic and based on a metaphoric relation. Despite the absence of an overt syntactic hierarchy in Romance type-of compounds as presented above, one noun determines the gender of the entity. This process becomes clear in instances such as feminine une bouc-chèvre ‘a sterile goat’, including a masculine and a feminine noun. Other instances that include two nouns of different gender show the same pattern:  

 

(736) a. b.

animaux (M) + plantes (F) bateau (M) + mouche (F)

> >

animaux-plamtes (M) bateau-mouche (M)

‘plant-like animal’ ‘tourist boat’

In animaux-plantes and bateau-mouche, the gender is determined by animaux and bateau respectivly, in bouc-chèvre, chèvre is the determining element, cf. (737) bouc (M) + chèvre (F)

>

une bouc-chèvre

‘sterile goat’

In addition, one of the nouns has semantic prevalence: a bateau-mouche is a type of boat, a bouc-chèvre is a type of goat (‘sterile goat’), maître-autel is a type of altar, whereas animaux-plantes are a type of animal, and so forth. The semantic difference between a bateau-mouche, which is a type of boat, and a bouc-chèvre which is a type of goat, shows that the ordering of the components is a pertinent feature. Analysis of a large corpus of appositive compounds reveals an important diachronic trend. Type-of compounds have been highly productive since the early 20th century, but earlier instances are attested as well and diachronic comparison further shows the pertinence of ordering. Instances of the type chef-lieu, maîtreautel, and so forth (type A above), are early and no longer productive: there are no new formations and the pattern is absent in interpretation strategies today (see below). Moreover, while several of these early instances have undergone a change in ordering (mère-branche > branche mère), there are no examples of the reverse change occurring. Formations of the type chef-lieu therefore are archaic. In addition to chef-lieu there are also parallel instances with the same sequence in Middle French, such as chef-manoir (Tobler-Lommatsch 1936: 384), chef-mes (Gamillscheg 1928). These are appositive constructions rather than [Genitive + Noun]

6.7 Word formation on the basis of apposition in Latin-Romance

363

constructions (*chef-GEN + mes ‘the house of the chief’), because of their uses and context: examples refer to the capital and main houses respectively.33 Instances with the reverse order (e. g. bateau-mouche, animaux-plantes, etc.) are more recent and very productive. The underlying structuration determines today’s interpretative strategies as well: when native speakers of French are asked to interpret a formation they do not know (e. g. bateau-mouche), they will identify it as a type of boat, not as a type of fly. The slightly different readings of hybrids like juriste-médecin as opposed médecin-juriste mentioned above, parallel these ordering patterns. Similarly, appositive calques in the Romance languages that trace back to English originals have undergone a systematic change in sequence: Engl. keyword > It. parola chiave, Engl. pilot progam > It. programma pilota, Engl. pilot production > It. produzione pilota, Engl. pilot study > Sp. studio piloto, Engl. training ship > It. nave scuola, Sp. buque escuela, or Gm. Blitzkrieg > It. guerra lampo. Despite being calques these formations feature a sequence different from the original but in accordance with the predominant VO patterning of the target language. Accordingly they are very similar to calque compounds such as It. grattacielo, Fr. gratte-ciel (< Engl. skyscraper), which include an underlying verb and direct object, or It. luna di miele, from Engl. honeymoon, and so forth. In other words, appositive compounds in today’s Romance clearly have a head and in that respect reflect syntactic appositive constructions (nominal apposition and genitive/prepositional structures) in general, as their evolution further underscores, cf.  

 

(738) urbs Roma

vs.

la ville de Paris / city of Rome

That appositive nouns could precede the head noun in type-of compounds in early French is not that surprising. As said, while the position of the genitive in Head-Noun + Genitive sequences was strict from early French on, that of attributive adjectives was rather variable, and still is—within certain circumscribed boundaries (Bauer 1995, 2009a). That an appositive noun in early stages of French preceded the head noun therefore does not come as a surprise.

33 The alternative interpretation of chef-lieu that posits the underlying reverse sequence (*chef + lieu-GEN, lit. ‘leader of the place’, Gm. Ortshaupt) does not fit either the contexts where the compound is attested. Gamilscheg argues that chef-lieu (‘head’ + ‘place’ > ‘main town, capital’) probably is a calque from Flemish (cf. Flem. hoofd-oord, today’s Gm. Hauptort) on the basis of its assumed earliest attestations in the 14th century in Northern France. Yet Spitzer’s parallel examples from various dialects in Southern France and Italy undermine this interpretation (Spitzer 1926: 598) and point to a more widespread phenomenon.

364

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

6.7.3.2 Recent [Noun + Noun] combinations in Romance In addition to the formations mentioned so far, there are three serial formations as well in the Romance languages that are based on apposition. They are especially productive in French—which has relatively little derivation—but are also found in the other Romance languages. First, there are type-of formations in which the same noun recurs in second position: (739) a. b. c. d.

Fr. une classe-pilote; une industrie-pilote ‘pilot class/industry’ [type of class/industry] Fr. un train-éclair ‘high-speed train’; une visite-éclair ‘swift visit’ [type of train/visit] It. un viaggio lampo; una guerra lampo ‘swift trip/war’ [type of war/trip] Sp. un buque escuela ‘training ship’; un hotel escuela ‘hotel school’ [type of boat/hotel]

The recurring noun emphasizes a distinctive characteristic of the head noun, which comes first. These serial compounds convey a specific class, industry, trip, war, and so forth. Within this type, the instance of Fr. auto-école is intriguing.34 This inherently recent compound was attested for the first time in 1906 and conveys an “école de conduite des automobiles, qui prépare les candidats au permis de conduire”35 (Le Petit Robert 1993: 161). Because of this reading, auto-école—taken at face value— seems to convey a type of school. Yet, the formation is based on earlier forms such as ferme-école ‘a farm that functions as a training facility’ (a type of farm) and navire-école a ‘training ship’ (a type of ship). Consequently auto-école in origin is not a type of school, but rather a type of car. It is interesting to note that today’s Belgian French features école-auto next to auto-école. The instance illustrates the extent to which detailed analysis may be necessary in order to accurately interpret individual compounds. Second, with women entering the job market, a new type of word formation has emerged, conveying female professionals. Although gender as a grammatical category has lost much of its robustness in Romance (as compared to Latin), it continues to exist at grammatical and lexical level. Consequently, Romance languages clearly tend toward female professional titles as opposed to American English, for example, which opts for a gender-less solution, e. g. chairman (until  

34 I am grateful to J.C Smith (Univ. of Oxford) for bringing this example to my attention in a question following a paper that I presented on the topic at the Romance Linguistics Seminar, Univ. of Cambridge (Jan. 2014). 35 Translation: “a school for driver’s education that prepares candidates to obtain their driver’s license”.

6.7 Word formation on the basis of apposition in Latin-Romance

365

1980s) > chairperson > chair (since the early 1990s). One of the devices in the formation of female professional titles in Romance is based on apposition, cf. (740) a. b. c.

Fr. une femme médecin, une femme sculpteur, une femme peintre, … ‘woman doctor/sculptor/painter/ …’ It. la donna medico, la dona magistrato, … ‘woman doctor/judge/ …’ Rum. femeie pilot, femeie marinar, femeie medic ‘female pilot/sailor/doctor’

When the noun referring to ‘woman’ comes first the entity has feminine gender and conveys a female referent. By contrast, when the name of the profession comes first, the compound is masculine, cf. It. il medico (M) donna (F) or il giudice (M) donna (F) ‘woman judge’. The first noun determines the gender of the compound (masculine) but not its semantic value, that of a female professional, cf. (741) It. il medico donna è bello (742) Fr. le médecin femme est intelligent the-M physician-M woman-F be-3SG beautiful-M/intelligent-M (743) Fr. la femme médecin est intelligente (744) It. la donna medico è bella the-F woman-F physician-M be-3SG beautiful-F/intelligent-F ‘the woman physician is intelligent/beautiful’

Grevisse (1993) reports that in French the natural gender in these instances occasionally may determine agreement,36 cf. (745) trois professeurs femmes ont été tuées three professors-M women-F have been kill-P.PART-PL-F (Example from Gide Journal 3 mars, 1943; Grevisse 1993: 654)

A third formation process entails analytic diminutives and is found especially in French, which has relatively few inflected diminutives. Instead of suffixes—still highly productive in Italian (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1994), for example— French uses either an adjective (e. g. petit, mini: minibombe [Hasselrot 1972: 9697]) or a noun in apposition referring to something small (see also Bauer 2011). In this context bébé has been rather productive. The noun commonly occurs in combination with nouns conveying animals and more precisely their young, cf.  

36 The same conflict of grammar and semantics appears in structures of the type: Sa majesté le roi a été invité(e) ‘his-F majesty-F the-M king-M has been invited-M/F’. Generally the masculine agreement pattern prevails (Grevisse 1993: 654–655).

366

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

(746) bébé-chien ‘very young dog’, bébé-phoque ‘young seal’, bébé-gorille, bébé-singe, bébé-rat, … (Hasselrot 1972: 91–92)

Among these, bébé-phoque probably is the best known example because of an animal-rights campaign since the 1970s in France—supported by Brigitte Bardot— to save these animals in the arctic regions. The formation includes inanimates as well: in early times often in combination with nouns referring to well-liked objects such as cars, cf. (747) la bébé-Peugeot (1913), bébé-Mustang (1969: Ford Capri 1600 GT; still attested in 2009), bébé-lune (name of a satellite; 1957), bébé-typhon ‘small typhoon’, bébé-piscine ‘small pool’, bébé-beef ‘tender beef of a very young calf’ > ‘tender veal’ (Examples from Hasselrot 1972: 91–92)

English spelling is attested as well, suggesting interference from that language: (748) baby-piscine, baby-beef, …

The prevailing pattern clearly is the combining of bébé (or baby) in first position with a second noun. It is important to note that bébé may function both as a masculine and a feminine noun: le bébé ‘baby boy’ vs. la bébé ‘baby girl’. Diminutive bébé formations differ from the serial formations mentioned above (e. g. It. una guerra lampo, un viaggio lampo) in that the recurring element bébé comes first, whereas the recurring element in guerra lampo comes second. Professional formations (e. g. femme médecin) go both ways: la femme médecin co-exists with le médecin femme (albeit relatively rare in French; It. la donna medico vs. il medico donna ‘woman doctor’). Yet the sequence N[woman] + N [professional] clearly predominates and is spreading: it not only refers to a female referent, it determines the (feminine) gender of the formation as well. The nature of the underlying structures accounts for the differences in sequence in these three types of formation. In a right-branching language—which French is (Bauer 1995)—the noun that functions as an attribute comes second, cf.  

 

(749) Fr. classe-pilote, visite-éclair, and so forth

Formations conveying female occupations and diminutives are not just lexical formations, but in fact are grammatical. One may indeed argue that gender formations and diminutives are grammaticalized devices, including elements that act like grammatical markers. In a right-branching language, the element that functions as a morphological marker comes first. Hence: (750) a. b.

Fr. le bébé-chien Fr. la femme médecin

6.7 Word formation on the basis of apposition in Latin-Romance

367

In this respect these formations parallel elements such as definite articles, comparative markers, prepositions replacing an earlier case ending, auxiliaries, or degree markers, which all come first in French. Earlier I have pointed out that modern type-of formations feature the sequence Noun[Head] + Noun, which is precisely the pattern favored in serial formations and which is in accordance with the right-branching structuration of French. In addition, this modern trend accounts for a formation that has strong emphatic value and that in fact replaces a Noun + Adjective combination, cf. (751) a. un diner monstre ‘dinner – monster’ b. un effet choc ‘effect – shock’ c. des manières peuple ‘manners – people’ d. des mœurs fin de siècle ‘morals – turn of the century’ (Examples from Frei 1929: 243–244)

> ‘monstruous dinner’ > ‘shock effect’ > ‘rude manners’ > ‘fin-de-siècle morals’

These examples are not very recent, as they are attested in documents dating from the First World War, but it is clear that this type of nominal apposition remains very common in today’s French and provides a rich source of advertsing slogans, cf. (752) [high-range winter holiday advertising] hiver chic effet choc ‘fancy (chic) winter – big booster (choc)’

6.7.4 Conclusions: appositive compounds in Latin-Romance In comparison to other early Indo-European languages, Latin features overall relatively few nominal compounds. The picture that emerges is partly that of elliptic plurals (no dvandvas) and other plural formations, which typically refer to closely connected deities (e. g. Cereres). Moreover, Latin includes numerous appositive word groups which involve predominantly common nouns and are based on addition, not on complementarity. In fact, Latin evidence suggests that what started in Sanskrit as a noun-phrase construction based on semantic complementarity and subsequently developed into nouns (e. g. Skt pitárāmātárā ‘fathersmothers’ > ‘parents’), survives in Latin as a noun phrase based on addition (e. g. usus fructus ‘usufruct’; patres conscripti ‘Senators’). In later stages of Latin a dramatic increase of compounds took place, but instead of being systematic, these formations tend to be topic related and frequently trace back to Greek examples. Analysis of more recent evidence and comparison of Germanic and Romance data has brought to light a number of important trends: (1) compounds based on apposition were much earlier in Germanic than in Romance; (2) compounding on  

 

 

368

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

the basis of apposition is an important word formation device in both language groups, even if their functions may be different in the individual languages; (3) there are very few—if any—dvandvas or additional compounds; (4) instead, both branches of Indo-European feature hybrids and type-of compounds; (5) the hybrids include components of equal syntactic status and convey two characteristics in the same referent; (6) the non-hybrids convey one referent as well, but one component has syntactic and semantic prevalence; (7) in Germanic the typeof compounds typically specify [AGE] and [SEX] or provide generic specification; the generic noun specifies either the other noun (Engl. reindeer) or the compound (Engl. apple tree); (8) in Romance, type-of compounds strongly predominate and the components typically are not in a hyperonymic relation. Instead, the choice of nouns is the result of a fully arbitrary selection, which may lead to problems of interpretation; and (9) compounds including two nouns in Romance may be opaque because of misinterpretation: N + N sequences may in fact reflect a variety of underlying grammatical relations. Moreover, while it is true that the choice of nouns in Romance appositive compounds is the result of arbitrary selection, their underlying relation as such is not unsystematic: there is e. g. a metaphoric relation between Fr. bateau and mouche in bateau-mouche ‘tourist boat’. The boat in question reminds the speakers of a fly. By contrast, since the relation between the composing elements in Germanic is hyperonymic, the association typically is metonymic. Finally, both at the level of production and interpretation right branching predominates in French.  

6.8 Conclusions: nominal apposition and word formation One tends to forget that Panini’s analysis of word formation processes is based on Sanskrit and—moreover—on a synchronic stage of Sanskrit. Yet the handbooks on word formation often are based on the schematic overview offered by Panini, which accounts for the predominance of dvandvas in these analyses. In addition, appositive compounds are distributed over various types of word formation, being classified as descriptive dependents and copulatives, which in fact is a catch-all for a variety of formations. Consequently while appositive formations combine components of the same category—which is a distinctive feature—they are grouped with compounds that typically combine elements of different grammatical category (e. g. Noun + Verb or Adjective + Noun). Conversely the category of appositive compounds includes more variation than the two groups that have been recognized in the handbooks. The traditional overviews therefore obscure the differences and parallels of the word formation processes in question.  

6.8 Conclusions: nominal apposition and word formation

369

Analysis of appositive compounds in this Chapter has shown—in brief—(1) that dvandvas are not as important cross-linguistically as the handbooks may have suggested and (2) that there are various word formation processes based on apposition, which are not static. Further systematic analysis of appositive compounds indeed has revealed a number of trends: – compounds on the basis of nominal apposition are attested in all early and late Indo-European languages; they are more common in some languages than in others and on the whole their occurrence and characteristics evolved with time; – there is a variety of appositive compounds that can be captured in a number of categories on the basis of parallels in the various Indo-European languages, cf. Table XXXII below: Table XXXII: Compounds Based on Nominal Apposition in Indo-European. Dvandvas:

Skt mātárāpitárā ‘mother-father-DU’ > ‘parents’; Gk νυχθήμερον ‘night-day’ > ‘24 hrs ’; Hi. hannas-huhhas ‘grandmothers-grandfathers’ > ‘ancestors’; La. diem noctem ‘day and night’; OCS malь-žena ‘man-woman-DU’ > ‘married couple’; ...

Additional Skt ajāváyas ‘goats (and) sheep’ > ‘small cattle’; Hi. karas halkin‘wheat (and) compounds: barley’; Gk χορτάρακος ‘grass (and) Arakos’ > ‘fodder’; Av. pasu.vīra ‘cattle-men’ > ‘cattle (and) men’; La. patres conscripti ‘fathers-elected’ > ‘members of the Senate’; usus fructus ‘usufruct’; ... Hybrids:

Gk ἰατρομαντις ‘physician-seer’; Κελτίβηρες ‘Celts + Iberians’ > ‘Iberian Celts’; La. euro-aquilo (Vulg., Act. 27.14) ‘N-E wind’; OE werewulf ‘werewolf‘; Gm. Gottmensch; Engl. queen-mother; ...

Type-of Gk μητρόπολις ‘mother-town’ > ‘mother state’; ἀνδροθεα ‘mancompounds: goddess’ > ‘Athena’; ἀνδρόπαις ‘man-boy’ > ‘a youth near adulthood’; La. arbor olea ‘olive tree’; La. pavo mas ‘peacock’; OE cwenfugol ‘queenbird’; ON karlfugl ‘male-bird’ > ‘male bird’; OHG pînaphel ‘pineapple’; pînboum ‘pineapple tree’; MHG walfisch ‘whale-fish’ > ‘whale’; Go. nahta-mats ‘night-meal’ > ‘supper’; Ru. smerti-kasnĭ ‘death-punishment’ > ‘capital punishment’; Fr. industrie-pilote ‘industry-experiment’ > ‘experimental industry’; chef-lieu ‘head-place ‘ > ‘capital’; It. viaggio lampo ‘trip-lightning’ > ‘a quick journey’; ...

–

on the whole, dvandvas typically occur in early languages, but their spread is language specific: especially common in Sanskrit, they are relatively rare in other languages such as Greek, Latin, or Hittite. Yet they were more common in Hittite than traditionally has been assumed. While dvandvas therefore may have been an Indo-European feature, they are unevenly distributed over the daughter languages;

370

–

–

Chapter 6: Nominal apposition and word formation

with time there has been a shift from dvandvas, which trace back to noun phrases and are based on exclusive complementarity (true dvandvas) to compounds based on addition (additional compounds) and hybrids. In the handbooks and analyses, which do not make this important distinction, additional compounds and hybrids often are incorrectly classified as dvandvas; while all compounds under consideration are based on apposition, they represent essentially different underlying grammatical relations: dvandvas correspond to correlative constructions, in which two composing elements are co-dependent. Additional compounds and hybrids are based on co-ordination. Finally, type-of compounds are based on a hypotactic relation because one element is predominatant semantically and to some extent grammatically (e. g. gender marking). the productivity of appositive compounds increased with time, but evidence from Germanic and Romance shows in addition a shift from dvandvas to additional compounds and hybrids on the one hand and type-of compounds on the other; type-of compounds can be divided into two categories: generic and nongeneric compounds. Generic compounds combine a common noun with a generic noun (Gm. Maultier ‘mule[.animal]’ or La. arbor olea ‘olive tree’): there is a generic or hyperonymic qualification. In non-generic compounds, which are especially widespread in Romance, there is no such semantic relation between the individual composing elements or between the generic noun and the compound. In these combinations one noun specifies the other (Fr. animaux-plantes ‘plant-like animals’), but the relation often is metaphoric; on the basis of these differences and similarities the compounds based on nominal apposition in Table XXXII above can be categorized in the following diagram, presented in Table XXXIII:  

–

–

–

Table XXXIII: Compounds Based on Nominal Apposition in Indo-European.37

37 For reasons of space, two abbreviations have been used in this Table: CPS ‘compounds’ and ADDAL ‘additional’.

6.8 Conclusions: nominal apposition and word formation

371

The main finding of my morphological investigation therefore is the general spread of appositive compounds both in terms of occurrence and type. It is clear that dvandvas are early and not very common, which can be accounted for by the plain fact that exclusively complementary elements are inherently limited in number. Detailed analysis of the numerous dvandvas attested in Sanskrit has demonstrated that many of the instances that the handbooks identify as dvandvas in fact are additional compounds (e. g. Skt ajāváyas ‘goats - sheep’ > ‘small cattle’). The shift toward additional compounds and hybrids is not surprising. These types of compound all are characterized by the fact that they refer to two entities, which together incarnate one referent: Skt mātárāpitárā ‘mothersfathers’ > ‘parents’, Skt ajāváyas ‘goats-sheep’ > ‘small cattle’, and OHG arzatgot ‘doctor-god’ > ‘Asclepius’. While additional compounds combine elements that together form one new concept—without being exclusively complementary—hybrids refer to two qualities in one given referent, e. g. the god-doctor Asclepius. Additional compounds grammatically are based on co-ordination. The situation is slightly different with respect to type-of compounds in which there is an underlying hypotactic or dependency relation. They refer to one referent as well but one component specifies the other: the French type-of compound bateau-mouche refers to one object, a boat that reminds one of a fly, whereas the English hybrid painter-poet refers to one person who is both a painter and a poet. It is relevant to note that grammatical hierarchy in type-of compounds translates in gender—that is in external relation—and not in number or case marking, cf. la bouc-chèvre but: les boucs-chèvres (la bouc-chèvre est blanche/les boucs-chèvres sont blanches). This observation is important because in syntactic appositive constructions internal case agreement rather than gender agreement is pertinent. Earlier I pointed out that number agreement may be inherent, but as such not grammatically mandatory or pertinent (See Chapter 1). The characteristics and the development of apposition at the morphological level parallel what we observed for the syntactic phrases featuring nominal apposition as discussed in the preceding chapters. While nominal apposition at the syntactic level in the strict sense—with asyndetic juxtaposition—continues to exist at different degrees in the various languages, there is a strong consistent development in certain phrases that is characterized by a move to dependent structures as the loss of case agreement and the prominence of hypotactic genitives explicitly illustrate. In morphology this movement is paralleled by the increasing prevalence of type-of compounds: in essence their underlying syntax as well is based on hypotaxis or dependency rather than correlation or co-ordination. Finally, comparison of type-of compounds attested in early Germanic and those in modern Romance reveals that Germanic compounds are based on a relation of metonymy whereas the Romance ones are based on metaphoric relations.  

 

Chapter 7 Conclusions The changing system of nominal apposition in Indo-European “Au type d’apposition d’éléments autonomes se substitue peu à peu un type nouveau, caractérisé par la “rection”” (Meillet and Vendryes 1924: 520)1

This book has examined the functions and forms of nominal apposition in IndoEuropean and its development in Latin-Romance. The comparative analysis was based on data from various early daughter languages, Hittite, Sanskrit, Mycenaean and post-Mycenaean Greek, early Germanic, and Italic. The diachronic analysis focused on the Italic branch of Indo-European, but several excursus into other languages were made as well, including and comparing historical evidence. My analysis has demonstrated that (1) nominal apposition in Indo-European is manifest in syntax as well as morphology; (2) both syntactic and morphological nominal apposition underwent a shift from asyndetic parataxis to hypotaxis; (3) the development of nominal apposition is at across-roads of major linguistic changes in Indo-European; (4) nominal apposition shows strong parallels with structures that combine a noun and a script determinative, as found in the writing systems of Hittite and Mycenaean; and (5) there are striking similarities between nominal apposition and certain forms of noun classification. At the syntactic level, nominal apposition is attested in all Indo-European languages: especially in the early dialects the phenomenon is prominently manifest. Yet with time there is a gradual decline in terms of occurrence and type of structure. While nominal apposition is commonly attested in Hittite, Sanskrit, Greek, early Germanic, and early Italic, representing the semantic fields of [RELIGION], [KINSHIP], [GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION], [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE], and so forth, usage in most Western Indo-European languages today primarily and prominently includes [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE], cf. Professor Einstein, Queen Elisabeth, Mrs. Simpson, and so forth. Nominal apposition is being used in a number of other semantic domains as well, but those fields have become smaller. In the field of [RELIGION], for example, the transition to a stable monotheistic concept inherently limits variety in usage. In the domain of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] on the other hand, nominal apposition may be attested for certain nouns, but genitive

1 Translation: “The apposition of autonomous elements gradually gives way to a new type of sentence organization characterized by “rection””.

DOI 10.1515/9783110461756-007

373

Chapter 7: Conclusions—The changing system of nominal apposition

constructions—which may take the form of a prepositional phrase—may be preferred for others. In that respect the Romance languages offer an interesting range of possibilities in a number of semantic fields, as was pointed out in Chapter 5. Cross-linguistic parallels in variation are found e. g. for the following instances, cf.  

[GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] (753) Sp. ciudad de Madrid – It. città di Napoli ‘the city of Madrid/Naples/Paris’ (754) Sp. isla de Chipre – It. isola di Cipro ‘the island of Cyprus’

– Fr. la ville de Paris, … – Fr. l’île de Chypre, …

But: (755) Sp. monte Calpe ‘mount Calpe/Athos’

– It. monte Ato

– Fr. le mont Athos

There is cross-linguistic or even language-internal variation in the following examples: (756) (757) (758) (759) (760)

It. fiume d’Arno vs. Fr. le fleuve Marne Fr. la province d’Anvers vs. Fr. la région Limousin (Grevisse 1993: 519) Fr. rue Louis Pasteur/Avenue Foch vs. Fr. rue de la Marne, rue de Seine, . . . Fr. le fleuve Marne vs. Fr. le fleuve du Rhône vs. Fr. le fleuve de Somme Fr. le fleuve Congo vs. Fr. le pays du Congo ‘river Congo’ ‘Congo (country)’  

 

Similarly within the category [OTHER]: (761) Sp. mes de Mayo – It. il meso di Maggio – Fr. le mois de Mai ‘the month of May’ (762) Sp. nombre de Cervantes – It. nome di Francesco – Fr. le nom de François ‘the name Cervantes/Francesco/François’

But: (763) Fr. le mot Renaissance ‘the word “Renaissance”’ (764) Fr. le nom François ‘the name François’

vs.

Fr.

le mot de Renaissance

vs.

Fr.

le nom de François

I also found that languages may consistently prefer either the genitive or nominal apposition for certain semantic fields. While modern German features nominal apposition for [QUANTIFICATION], French consistently favors the genitive construction in the form of analytic de: cf. Gm. ein Glas Bier vs. Fr. un verre de vin ‘a glass of beer/wine’. In the light of earlier attestations of genitive constructions in Germanic, further investigation is required in order to properly assess nominal

374

Chapter 7: Conclusions—The changing system of nominal apposition

apposition in today’s German. Analysis should be based on text research and results need to be related to the evolution of nominal apposition in the field of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], which also features nominal apposition in today’s German (e. g. die Stadt Wien). Awaiting detailed historical comparative analysis, I refrain from identifying the German data in terms of a simple pendulum movement, from genitive (MHG ein glas weines) back to nominal apposition (Gm. ein Glas Wein). Instead, I do not exclude the possibility that two distinct changes have occurred. First nominal apposition gave way to the genitive construction; subsequently, perhaps with the disappearance of case marking on nouns MHG ein glas weines became ein glas wein again and came to be reanalyzed as an instance of nominal apposition. Crucial to this hypothetical scenario is whether definite articles and adjectives that occurred in extended instances of nominal apposition were affected by the emergence of the genitive in Middle High German as well; and if so, in what chronology. Another important aspect to take into account, is how the loss of weines relates to the surviving genitive suffix -(e)s elsewhere. Although less frequent than the genitive, the adjectival construction is another alternative to nominal apposition in Latin-Romance. Since it is not commonly attested in the Latin data, this development must have been much later. Instances in the field of [OTHER, TIME] and [FAUNA] in Romance today, for example, are adjectival and must have a history in Latin. Yet while I found traces of this development in my Latin data for the field of [OTHER,TIME], I did not so for the field of [FAUNA]. Diachronic analysis grosso modo reveals a pattern in which instances of nominal apposition in today’s languages are residues of a structure that was much more widespread in earlier stages. The replacement primarily by genitives and—to a lesser extent—by adjectival constructions, reflects a shift from paratactic syntax featuring case agreement to hypotactic syntax based on dependency (see more below). I also found that the evolution of nominal apposition at the syntactic level is paralleled by the emergence and increasing prominence of dependency in appositive compounds. In the following pages I will discuss similarities between nominal apposition and noun classification (Section 7.1) and script determinatives (Section 7.2). Subsequently I will assess the role of proper nouns in nominal apposition (Section 7.3) and the diachronic evolution of nominal apposition in syntax and morphology (Section 7.4). Finally I will evaluate nominal apposition and its development in the evolution of Indo-European grammar (Section 7.5).  

7.1 Nominal apposition and noun classification

375

7.1 Nominal apposition and noun classification The predominant pattern of nominal apposition in Indo-European at the syntactic level is the combining of a Proper and a Common Noun. In it the common noun specifies the semantic characteristics of the proper noun. Similarly, in the less widespread Common Noun + Common Noun combinations one of the nouns generally specifies the other. Specifications typically do not convey material characteristics, such as [WOOD], [STONE], [METAL], and so forth, but rather ontological aspects: gender within the category [SOCIAL STATUS, SEX], profession within the category [SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION], species within the fields of [FAUNA] and [FLORA], or towns, rivers, mountains, and so forth within the semantic field of [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], to mention just a few. Nominal apposition in early times therefore had classifying function and for that reason it shares a number of characteristics with noun classification systems. In classifier languages, for example, the classifier as well specifies the noun with which it combines. In addition to semantic parallels, I found also other similarities: the predominant structural pattern (Noun + Generic/Common Element), the open system, or its non-mandatory character. Moreover, classifiers may have nominal origins and (continue to) function as a noun in other contexts (divergence). In contrast to nominal apposition, classifiers are context bound—occurring for example exclusively in contexts of demonstratives or numerals. Moreover, nominal apposition in Indo-European presents similarities with the classifying system of class languages. While nominal apposition typically conveys ontological characteristics, the gender system of Indo-European is ontological as well, with its distinction between masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. Another shared distinctive feature is the role of agreement in class languages and nominal apposition: a gender language typically features gender agreement, nominal apposition typically features case agreement. While gender is not relevant to internal agreement, number agreement in general inherently is attested in nominal apposition, but not grammatically mandatory. Because of the role of agreement—even if its nature differs—and the role of the semantic field of [SOCIAL STATUS, SEX], nominal apposition in Indo-European parallels a number of characteristics of class languages. Since nominal apposition in Indo-European shows parallels with class systems and shares several structural, formal, and semantic similarities with classifiers as attested in other languages, it does not come as a surprise that several Indo-Aryan languages may have developed classifiers out of nominal apposition, as suggested by Hackstein (2010). The more so since the grammaticalization process has been identified for Australian languages which all have “generic nouns, most of them have constructions of the type generic + specific nouns, and

376

Chapter 7: Conclusions—The changing system of nominal apposition

a few appear to have grammaticalized these constructions into noun classifier systems” (Grinevald 2002: 269). In his Conclusion Hackstein relates early “phraseological” instances of apposition to “nominal classifiers … in Modern IndoAryan” (Hackstein 2010: 64), focusing his analysis on Indo-Aryan classifiers and the reconstruction of the historical development including related processes of grammaticalization (e. g. univerbation; Hackstein 2010: 59–61). Hackstein’s (2010) publication therefore differs fundamentally in scope and aim from this book (see more in Section 7.4). Part of Hackstein (2010) deals with the reconstruction of the actual changes, which heavily relies on assumed parallels with developments or phenomena in Latin that are not always accurate (e. g. the role of formations including a numeral). Yet even if the reconstruction of the development is flawed, Hackstein’s hypothesis itself may be valid. After all, in Australian languages the development of classifiers out of nominal apposition has been attested. The hypothesis is of interest to this study in that it supports my interpretation that nominal apposition in Indo-European had classifying function. Although to some extent it may be “difficult to determine the difference between languages that have a true system of noun classifiers and those in which the generic nouns may precede a more specific noun” (Sands 1995: 270), it is obvious that classifiers typically occur in languages with a typology that is fundamentally different from that of Proto-Indo-European. More important perhaps, the concept of noun seems to be different as well: nouns in classifier languages tend to refer to a rather broad semantic concept and the generic classifier then narrows the meaning down (see Chapter 2). A similar process seems to be underlying a certain type of appositive compound in Indo-European (e. g. OHG pînaphel ‘pineapple’ [fruit] vs. pînboum ‘pine tree’ [tree]), but it is not a systematic device and the predominant pattern is different. Finally, the diachronic and—to a lesser extent—the historical comparative evidence presented here does not suggest any shift, partial or other, toward a classifier system. Instead the developments observed in Latin-Romance (and the other languages discussed here) reflect a profound structural evolution and increasing productivity of nominal apposition as a word formation device (see also Section 7.4).  

 

 

7.2 Nominal apposition and script determinatives Two of the earliest attested Indo-European languages—Hittite and Mycenaean— have come to us in a writing system that features script determinatives. Evidence presented in Chapter 3 and then again in Chapters 4 and 6 for Hittite underscores that script determinatives were not merely graphic devices but instead convey

7.3 Nominal apposition in Indo-European and proper nouns

377

linguistic functions. Script determinatives in origin were disambiguating elements that combined with polyphonous signs and they were transferred with the writing system into Hittite, although their disambiguating function no longer was required. Mycenaean had many ideograms, several of which functioned as script determinatives as well. Both Hittite and Mycenaean therefore present numerous instances of a noun in combination with a script determinative, specifying its semantic characteristics. These combinations show strong parallels with nominal apposition, both in structure (asyndetic juxtaposition) and semantics. Moreover, in Hittite there are many instances of combined writing systems (script determinatives combine with Hittite words, Akkadograms, and Sumerograms), but also instances in which the script determinative plays a prominent linguistic role in e. g. word formation processes. Here again there is a parallel with nominal apposition, which is at play in syntactic phrases as well as compounds. The observation that Hittite script determinatives had well-defined linguistic functions may have implications for the general wisdom according to which these elements were merely scribal devices that did not phonetically materialize in Hittite: either this hypothesis needs revision or written Hittite represents a distinct language variety. In Hittite the parallel between script determinatives and nominal apposition is stronger than in Mycenaean, not only because Hittite has many more script determinatives, but also because of the variety of semantic classes, such as [RELIGION], [FLORA], [FAUNA], or [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION]. Script determinatives in both Hittite and Mycenaean share, however, the important characteristic that they convey nominal concepts and exclusively combine with nouns—Common and Proper Nouns—in close juxtaposition. Consequently, at various levels, script determinatives present strong semantic and formal parallels to nominal apposition.  

7.3 Nominal apposition in Indo-European and proper nouns A distinctive feature of nominal apposition in Indo-European syntax is the occurrence of Proper Nouns: in the fields of [RELIGION], [SOCIAL STATUS], and [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION], I typically found Proper Noun + Common Noun combinations. In Chapter 5, I already pointed out that the proper nouns in these contexts typically are core proper nouns (Section 5.1.4). Proper nouns have a special position within the category of nouns as research continues to prove. Different types of memory test involving young and “elderly” subjects, and Alzheimer’s patients repeatedly have shown that “recalling proper names is more difficult throughout life as compared to common nouns” (Semen-

378

Chapter 7: Conclusions—The changing system of nominal apposition

za, Nichelli, and Gamboz 1996). The recalling becomes increasingly difficult in case of language impairment, e. g. in aphasia patients (see also Semenza and Zettin 1988; Crook and West 1990; Semenza 1995). While recognizing faces is not the problem in the relevant tests, remembering the name connected to them is (Crook and West 1990). From a linguistic perspective as well, proper nouns have a special status because they “do not indicate or imply any attributes” (Jespersen 1914: 65), they exclusively denote referents, which may account for the memory difficulties. The denotative value of proper nouns may account for the fact that they typically combine with nouns that identify their ontological characteristics. Especially when these characteristics are of great importance in certain relevant segments of society. This observation may explain why nominal apposition is not a distinctive feature of Indo-European, but is also attested in other languages, as examples from Japanese or Turkish e. g. readily illustrate. Yet only if further research were to establish the predominance of Proper Noun + Common Noun combinations in other languages as well, this hypothesis can be further developed.  

 

7.4 The evolution of nominal apposition in Indo-European The evolution of nominal apposition as found in our data shows a shift from asyndetic parataxis to hypotaxis. This evolution took place both in syntax and word formation processes. Moreover, from being primarily a syntactic process nominal apposition increasingly has become a phenomenon prominently manifest in morphology. Nominal apposition in early Indo-European was a widespread syntactic phenomenon including several types of combination: Proper Noun + Common Noun (classifying function, very frequent), Common Noun + Common Noun (predominantly classifying function; not frequent), and Proper Noun + Proper Noun (non-classifying function; not frequent). With time, the combining of two nouns in asyndetic apposition reflecting case agreement gave way to combinations including a genitive or (less frequently so) an adjective, marking a shift towards grammatical dependency. It is striking that early instances of hypotaxis in fact are reflected in external agreement patterns as was shown in Section 5.3.1, preceding shifts in internal agreement patterns. In those instances where nominal apposition survives today (e. g. [SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE]), the nouns continue to be asyndetic, but they do not convey case: agreement therefore no longer is a distinctive feature. Consequently while asyndetic juxtaposition may survive, the equivalence of the components is no longer grammatically marked. It is important to note in this context that word order  

7.4 The evolution of nominal apposition in Indo-European

379

analyses as well have shown the importance of juxtaposition: with the disappearance of morphological endings, juxtaposition of grammatically connected elements overall has become increasingly prominent in Indo-European. In the history of Latin, for example, discontinuous constituents—depending on the linguistic register—indeed became more rare with time (e. g. Herman 1990a [1985]; Bauer 2009a: 286-293). In early Indo-European morphology, appositive compounds typically take the form of dvandvas, hybrids, and additional compounds—all based on correlation (dvandvas) or co-ordination. With time that situation evolved and now the predominant appositive formations are hybrids, additional compounds, and type-of compounds. As stated before, instances of type-of compounds are attested in the early daughter languages as well, but only in later times did their occurrence increase dramatically, both in terms of incidence and variety. Because of their underlying hypotactic character, they differ from the other types of appositive compound. In fact, type-of compounds are the morphological equivalent to appositive and partitive genitive constructions replacing nominal apposition in syntax. In both syntax and morphology therefore a shift took place from paratactic co-dependence to dependency or hypotaxis. This development is in line with other trends in Indo-European as observed, for example, in the emergence of hypotaxis at the level of sentence syntax: i. c. the emergence of the subordinate clause, which syntactically depends on the main clause. Earlier I pointed out that subordinate clauses trace back for example to correlatives: instead of a relation of dependency the clauses in a correlative construction are co-dependent, in the sense that one cannot exist without the other, and the other way around. In Chapter 6 I established a parallel between dvandvas and correlative constructions, identifying dvandvas as lexical reflexes of correlation. From a broader perspective, the shift from nominal apposition to dependency structures therefore is not an isolated phenomenon in Indo-European, because of parallels at other levels of the language system. That the same change affects both syntax and morphology is not new: I found it in the evolution of word order as well, where syntactic structures were affected before morphological ones (Bauer 1995, 2001, 2012b). In this light it is important to note that in the history of nominal apposition, hypotaxis was first manifest in external agreement—affecting clausal syntax—and only later affected patterns of internal agreement. The emergence of hypotaxis or grammatical dependency is the most fundamental of the changes that affected nominal apposition in Indo-European, not only because it is manifest at both levels of grammar, but also because to a large extent it accounts for other developments that took place as well: the emergence  

 

380

Chapter 7: Conclusions—The changing system of nominal apposition

of the genitive, the shift in word order and the related emergence of prepositional phrases, definite articles, and so forth. Finally, the shift of nominal apposition from a primarily syntactic to a morphological phenomenon seems to be rather exceptional, but not inexplicable. It is significant that the morphological structures in question are compounds, which are known to reflect underlying syntactic relations. As indicated in Section 7.1, my analysis of syntactic or morphological apposition brought up no evidence pointing towards a development of classifiers, as identified by Hackstein (2010) for certain Indo-Aryan languages. It is important to note that Masica (1991) in his brief description of the phenomenon in Indo-Aryan argues that when certain of these languages developed agglutinative characteristics, they also came to include classifiers (Masica 1991: 250). The importance of this observation resides in the correlation that is established between classifiers and the typological system of the language. In Chapter 2, I already noted that classifiers typically occur in isolating or moderately agglutinating languages. This typological correlation may account for the fact that classifiers developed in IndoAryan languages but not in the Indo-European languages discussed in this book. Yet as a word formation device, the common nouns in question indeed are part of a morphological process in the languages discussed here: in contrast to IndoAryan this process has no grammatical but rather lexical function. Consequently, in Western Indo-European nominal apposition primarily underwent a grammatical shift from asyndetic parataxis and correlation to dependency whereas in certain Indo-Aryan languages it underwent a process of grammaticalization.

7.5 Nominal apposition, genitives, and adjectives When discussing the shift in Indo-European from apposition to “rection” Meillet and Vendryes explicitly referred to the syntactic characteristics of early IndoEuropean, where “chaque mot portrait en lui-même la marque du rôle qu’il jouait, les mots de la phrase étaient autonomes et indépendants les uns des autres. Ils ne se gouvernaient pas entre eux. Le procédé dominant de la phrase indo-européenne est l’apposition” (Meillet and Vendryes 1924: 519).2 To illustrate their statement Meillet and Vendryes refer e. g. to adpositions, which in origin were inde 

2 Translation: “each word used to feature the marker of the role it played [in the sentence]; the words were autonomous and independent of one another. They did not govern one another. Apposition was the prevailing device of the sentence in Indo-European”.

7.5 Nominal apposition, genitives, and adjectives

381

pendent of both nouns and verbs and only later came to be associated with these elements (Meillet and Vendryes 1924: 520–524; for a study of the development of adpositions, see Hewson and Bubenik 2007). It is surprising to note that Meillet and Vendryes do not refer to nominal apposition when discussing these phenomena of autonomy. The more so since they do discuss word groups, among them noun phrases and they emphasize the autonomy of the words that are part of it: “il y a des noms qui déterminent d’autres noms …[créant] à l’intérieur de la phrase certains groupements des mots, qui d’ailleurs n’empêchent pas les mots de conserver leur autonomie” (Meillet and Vendyres 1924: 529).3 Here again adjectives and genitives are evaluated, but nominal apposition is not mentioned. Yet it is in nominal apposition that the early syntactic characteristics of Indo-European are prominently manifest. While internal case agreement is an accurate criterion in the identification of nominal apposition, it is in fact the ultimate proof of autonomy: each noun in itself carries the marker of its role in the clause. That the component nouns in nominal apposition agree in case but not in gender or number is of vital importance in that respect. Gender and number agreement presuppose hypotactic dependency and therefore typically are adjectival features. Asyndetism—the absence of connectors—further underscores the semantic coherence and the equivalence of the component nouns, if not their complementarity. The replacement of nominal apposition by genitives and to a lesser extent adjectives—which express nominal government (genitive) and qualification (adjective)—inherently marks the shift away from that original situation of autonomy towards hypotactic dependency. With hierarchy being the bedrock of linguistic structures in Indo-European, nominal apposition, with its juxtaposition of equivalent nouns, seems to be the odd one out. This book has demonstrated, I hope, that nominal apposition even if it has been neglected by those who study language, is at the core of the IndoEuropean language system both from a synchronic and a diachronic perspective: it reflects a fundamental characteristic of the early protolanguage—manifest in both syntax and morphology—and its replacement by structures that are hypotactic in nature parallels grammatical change elsewhere. Consequently, if nominal apposition as such may not be an exclusive or distinctive feature of IndoEuropean, its development is in line with the evolution of Indo-European grammar.

3 Translation: “There are nouns that determine other nouns … [creating] groups inside the sentence, which do not undermine, however, the autonomy of the individual words”.

References Aarts, Bas. 1994. The syntax of binomial noun phrases in English. Dutch working papers in English language and linguistics 30. 1–28. Abel, Fritz. 1971. L’adjectif démonstratif dans la langue de la Bible latine. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 125. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Adams, James N. 1976. The text and language of a Vulgar Latin chronicle (Anonymus Valesianus II). University of London. Institute of Classical Studies. Bulletin supplement 36. Adams, James N. 1977a. A typological approach to Latin word order. Indogermanische Forschungen 81. 70–99. Adams, James N. 1977b. The Vulgar Latin of the letters of Claudius Terentianus (P.Mich. VIII, 476–72). Manchester: Manchester University Press. Adams, James N. 2006. Greek interference in Egyptian Latin: An unusual partitive apposition construction. Oxford University working papers in linguistics, Philology and Phonetics 11. 1–4. Adams, James N. 2013. Social variation and the Latin language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2000. Classifiers. A typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Allen, Keith. 1977. Classifiers. Language 53. 285–311. André, Jacques (ed.). 1974 (1965), Apicius, L’art culinaire (De re coquinaria). 2nd edn. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Anthony, David. 2007. The horse, the wheel, and language: How bronze-age riders from the Eurasian steppes shaped the modern world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Arrivé, Michel. 1964. Attribut et complément d’objet en français moderne. Le français moderne 32. 241–259. Bader, Françoise. 1962. La formation des composés nominaux du latin. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Baehr, Rudolf. 1958. Zu den romanischen Wochentagsnamen. In Heinrich Lausberg & Harald Weinrich (eds), Romanica. Festschrift für Gerhard Rohlfs, 26–56. Halle: Niemeyer. Bartholomae, Christian. 1895. Grundriss der iranischen Philologie. Vol. 1.1.1. Vorgeschichte der iranischen Sprachen. Straßburg: Trübner. Bastiaensen, Antoon. 1970. Observations sur le vocabulaire liturgique dans l’Itinéraire d’Egérie. Latinitas Christianorum primaeva 17. Bauer, Brigitte L.M. 1995. The emergence and development of SVO patterning in Latin and French. Diachronic and psycholinguistic perspectives. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Bauer, Brigitte L.M. 2000. Archaic syntax in Indo-European. The spread of transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bauer, Brigitte L.M. 2001. Syntactic innovation in Latin poetry? The origins of the Romance adverbial formation in -mente. In Marc van der Poel & A. Orbán (eds), Ad Litteras. Latin studies in honour of J.H. Brouwers, 29–43. Nijmegen: Nijmegen University Press. Bauer, Brigitte L.M. 2002. Variability in word order: Adjectives and comparatives in Latin, Romance, and Germanic. Southwest journal of linguistics 20. 19–50. Bauer, Brigitte L.M. 2003. The adverbial formation in mente in Vulgar and Late Latin. A problem in grammaticalization. In Heikki Solin, Martti Leiwo & Hilla Halla- aho (eds), Latin vulgaire – latin tardif VI, 439–457. Hildesheim: Olms Weidman.

DOI 10.1515/9783110461756-008

References

383

Bauer, Brigitte L.M. 2004. Vigesimal numerals in Romance: An Indo-European perspective. In Bridget Drinka (ed.), Indo-European language and culture in historical perspective. Essays in memory of Edgar C. Polomé. General Linguistics 41. 21–46. Bauer, Brigitte L.M. 2007. The definite article in Indo-European: Emergence of a new grammatical category? In Elisabeth Stark, Elisabeth Leiss & Werner Abraham (eds), Nominal determination. typology, context constraints, and historical emergence, 103–139. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. Bauer, Brigitte L.M. 2008. Nominal apposition in Vulgar and Late Latin. At the cross-roads of major linguistic changes. In Roger Wright (ed.), Latin vulgaire & latin tardif VIII, 42–50. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Bauer, Brigitte L.M. 2009a. Word order. In Philip Baldi & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), New perspectives on historical Latin syntax. Vol. 1. Syntax of the sentence, 241- 316. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bauer, Brigitte L.M. 2009b. Strategies of definiteness in Latin: Implications for early IndoEuropean. In Vit Bubenik, John Hewson & Sarah Rose (eds), Grammatical change in IndoEuropean languages, 71–87. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. Bauer, Brigitte L.M. 2010. Forerunners of Romance -mente adverbs in Latin prose and poetry. In Eleanor Dickey & Anna Chahoud (eds), Colloquial and literary Latin, 339–353. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bauer, Brigitte L.M. 2011. Word formation. In Martin Maiden, John C. Smith & Adam Ledgeway (eds), The Cambridge history of the Romance languages. Vol. I. Structures, 532–563. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bauer, Brigitte L.M. 2012a. Functions of nominal apposition in Vulgar and Late Latin: Change in progress? In Frédérique Biville, Marie-Karine Lhommé & Daniel Vallat (eds), Latin vulgaire – latin tardif IX, 207–220. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerrannée. Bauer, Brigitte L.M. 2012b. Chronologie et rythme du changement linguistique : syntaxe vs. morphologie. In Alain Christol & Olga Spevak (eds), Les évolutions du latin, 45–65. Paris: L’Harmattan. Bauer, Brigitte L.M. 2014. Indefinite HOMO in the Gospels of the Vulgata. In Piera Molinelli, Pierluigi Cuzzolin & Chiara Fedriani (eds), Latin vulgaire – latin tardif X, 415–436. Bergamo: Bergamo University Press. Bauer, Brigitte L.M. 2015. Origins of Indefinite HOMO Constructions. In Gerd Haverling (ed.), Latin linguistics in the early 21st century, 542–553. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet. Bauer, Brigitte L.M. In Prep. a. Appositive accusatives in Latin: A diachronic perspective. Bauer, Brigitte L.M. In Prep. b. Nominal apposition in Mycenaean documents. Bauer, Laurie. 2010. Co-compounds in Germanic. Journal of Germanic linguistics 22. 201–219. Behaghel, Otto. 1897. Die Syntax des Heliand. Wien: Tempsky. Behaghel, Otto. 1953. Die deutsche Sprache. Halle: Niemeyer. Behaghel, Otto. 1965 (1882). Heliand und Genesis. 8th edn. Revised by Walther Mitzka. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Bennett, Charles. 1914. Syntax of Early Latin. 2. The cases. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Bennett, Emmett L. 1996. Aegean Scripts. In Peter T. Daniels & William Bright (eds), The World’s writing systems, 125–133. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Benveniste, Emile. 1966a. Pour l’analyse des fonctions casuelles: le génitif latin. Problèmes de linguistique générale. I, 140–148. Paris: Gallimard. Benveniste, Emile. 1966b. « Etre » et « avoir » dans leurs fonctions linguistiques. Problèmes de linguistique générale. I. 187–207. Paris: Gallimard.

384

References

Benveniste, Emile. 1969. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. Vol. 2. Pouvoir, droit, religion. Paris: Editions de Minuit, Benveniste, Emile. 1974. Fondements syntaxiques de la composition nominale. Problèmes de linguistique générale. II, 145–62. Paris: Gallimard. Previously published in Bulletin de la Société de Paris 62. 1967. 15–31. Black, Jeremy. 2005. Some Sumerian adjectives. In Jeremy Black & Gábor Zólyomi (eds), Acta Sumerologica 22. Special volume in honor of Professor Mamoru Yoshikawa, 1. 3–28. Bogacki, Bohdan K. 1973. Types de constructions appositives en français. Wroclaw: Ossolińskich. Bonnet, Max. 1968 (1890). Le latin de Grégoire de Tours. 2nd edn. Hildesheim: Olms. Bopp, Franz. 1816. Uber das Conjugationssystem der Sankritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprachen. Frankfurt am Main: Andreā. Bosworth, Joseph & Thomas Northcote Toller. 1898. An Anglo-Saxon dictionary based on the manuscript collection of Jospeh Bosworth. Oxford: Clarendon. Bourciez, Edouard. 1956. Eléments de linguistique romane. Paris: Klincksieck. Braune, Wilhelm & Ernst Ebbinghaus. 1961 (1880). Gotische Grammatik. 16th edn. Revised by Ernst Ebbinghaus. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Brosch, Cyril. 2008. Komposition und Derivation in altindogermanischen Sprachen und im Esperanto. In Sabine Fiedler (ed.), Eperanto und andere Sprachen im Vergleich. Akten der 18. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Interlinguistik. Berlin. Interlinguistische Informationen, Beiheift 16. 83–98. (also:http://www.academia.edu/326932/Komposition_und_Derivation_in_altindogerm anischen_Sprachen_und_im_Esperantohttps://www.academia.edu/326932/ Kompositio n_und_Derivation_in_altindogermanischen_Sprachen_und_im_Esperanto). Broschart, Jürgen. 2000. Isolation of units and unification of isolates: The Gestalt-functions of classifiers. In Gunter Senft (ed.), Systems of nominal classification, 239- 269. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brugmann, Karl. 1900. Über das Wesen der sogenannten Wortzusammensetzung. Eine sprachpsychologische Studie. Öffentliche Gesammtsitzing vom 14. Oktober 1900. Brugmann, Karl. 1906. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Vol. 2.1. Lehre von den Wortformen und ihrem Gebrauch. Allgemeines – Zusammensetzung (Komposita) – Nominalstämme. 2nd edn. Straßburg: Trübner. Brugmann, Karl. 1911. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen nebst Lehre vom Gebrauch der Wortformen der indogermanischen Sprachen. Vol. 2.2. 2nd edn. Straßburg: Trübner. Brugmann, Karl. 1913. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Vol. 2.3.1. Lehre von den Wortformen und ihrem Gebrauch. Verbum. Straßburg: Trübner. Brugmann, Karl. 1925. Die Syntax des einfachen Satzes im Indogermanischen. Berlin: de Gruyter. Brugmann, Karl & Berthold Delbrück. 1886–1900. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. 5 vols. Straßburg: Trübner. Buck, Carl Darling. 1904. A grammar of Oscan and Umbrian. Boston, MA: Ginn. Buck, Carl Darling. 1949. A dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal Indo-European languages: A contribution to the history of ideas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Burrows, Eric. 1934. Inscribed material. In C. Leonard Woolley (ed.), Ur excavations. Vol. II. The royal cemetery. A report on the predynastic and Sarsonid graves excavated between 1926 and 1931, 311–322. London: The British Museum & The Museum of the University of Pennsylvania to Mesopotamia.

References

385

Camaj, M. 1966. Albanische Wortbildung. Wiesbaden: Harrosowitz. Campbell, Lyle & William J. Posner. 2008. Language classification: history and method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cannon, Garland. 1990. The life and mind of Oriental Jones. Sir William Jones, the father of modern linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carr, Charles T. 1939. Nominal compounding in Germanic. London: Oxford University Press. Cathey, James E. 2002. Hêliand. Text and commentary. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Press. Chadwick, John. 1958. The decipherment of Linear B. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chadwick, John, Louis Godart, John Killen, Anna Sacconi & I.A. Sakellarakis. 1986–1999. Corpus of Mycenaean inscriptions from Knossos. 4 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chadwick, John, John Killen & Jean-Pierre Olivier. 2012 (1971). The Knossos tablets. 4th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chantraine, Pierre. 1933. La formation des noms en grec ancien. Paris: Klincksieck. Chantraine, Pierre. 1946–1947. Les noms du mari et de la femme, du père et de la mère en grec. Revue des études grecques 49–50. 219–250. Chantraine, Pierre. 1953. Grammaire homérique. Tôme II. Syntaxe. Paris: Klincksieck. Chaplais, Pierre. 2003. English diplomatic practice in the Middle Ages. London & New York: Hambledon & London. Clark, Eve. 1977. Universal categories: On the semantics of classifiers and children’s early word meaning. In A. Juilland (ed.), Linguistic studies offered to Joseph Greenberg. IV, 449–462. Saratoga, CA: Alma Libri. Clark, Eve. 2003. First language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coleman, Robert. 1992. Italic. In Jadranka Gvozdanović (ed.), Indo-European numerals, 389–445. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Crook, Thomas & Robin L. West. 1990. Name recall performance across the adult life-span. British journal of psychology 81. 335–349. Cuvier, Georges. 1812. Recherches sur les ossements fossiles de quadrupèdes. Paris: Dufour & d’Ocagne. Dardano, Maurizio. 1978. La formazione delle parole nell’ italiano di oggi. Primi materiali e proposte. Roma: Bulzoni. Darmesteter, Arsène. 1967 [1875]. Traité de la formation des mots composés dans la langue française comparée aux autres langues romanes et au latin. Paris: Champion. Debrunner, Albert. 1917. Griechische Wortbildungslehre. Heidelberg: Winter. Delahaye, Hippolyte. 1909. Sanctus. Analecta bollandiana 28. 145–200. Delbrück, Berthold. 1888. Altindische Syntax. Syntaktische Forschungen von Berthold Delbrück. Halle: Waisenhaus. Delbrück, Berthold. 1900. Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Vol. 3. Straßburg: Trübner. Dessaintes, Maurice. 1966. L’apposition: une fonction ou un mode de construction asyndétique?. In Mélanges de grammaire française offerts à M. Maurice Grevisse pour le trentième anniversaire du Bon Usage, 69–104. Gembloux: Duculot. Dickey, Eleanor. 1996. Greek forms of address. From Herodotus to Lucian. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Diez, Friedrich C. 1882 (1853). Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen. 5th edn. Bonn: Weber. Dixon, Robert M.W. 1968. Noun classes. Lingua 21. 104–125.

386

References

Dixon, Robert M.W. 1982a. Nominal classification. In Robert M. Dixon (ed.), Where have all the adjectives gone? 157–210. Berlin: de Gruyter. Dixon, Robert M.W. 1982b. Noun classifiers and noun classes. In Robert M. Dixon (ed.), Where have all the adjectives gone? 211–233. Berlin: de Gruyter. Dixon, Robert M.W. 1986. Noun classes and noun classification in typological perspective. In Colette Craig (ed.), Noun classes and categorization. Proceedings of a symposium on categorization and noun classification, 105–112. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. Dörfler, Peter. 1913. Die Anfänge der Heiligenverehrung nach den römischen Inschrfiten und Bildwerken. München: Lentner. Dressler, Wolfgang & Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi. 1994. Morphopragmatics. Diminutives and intensifiers in Italian, German, and other languages. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Guyter. Duden. 1995. Duden Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Mannheim: Duden. Duinhoven, A.M. 1988. Middelnederlandse syntaxis. Synchroon en diachroon. 1. De naamwoordgroep. Leiden: Nijhoff. Edzard, Dietz O. 2003. Sumerian grammar. Leiden: Brill. Elizarenkova, Tatyana. 1995. Language and style of the Vedic Ṛṣis. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Emeneau, M.B. 1951. Studies in Vietnames (Annamese) grammar. University of California publications in linguistics 8. Erbaugh, Mary S. 1986. Taking stock: The development of Chinese noun classifiers historically and in young children. In Colette Craig (ed.), Noun classes and categorization. Proceedings of a symposium on categorization and noun classification, 399–436. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. Ernout, Alfred & Antoine Meillet. 1959 (1932). Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. 4th edn. Paris: Klincksieck. Ernout, Alfred & François Thomas. 1964 [1951]. Syntaxe latine. 2nd edn. Paris: Klincksieck. Eskénazi, A. 1967. Quelques remarques sur le type ce fripon de valet et sur certaines fonctions syntaxiques de la préposition DE. Le français moderne 3. 184- 201. Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2004. The syntax of Old Norse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fischer, Anton. 1908. Die Stellung der Demonstrativpronomina bei lateinischen Prosaikern. Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Tübingen. Tübingen: Heckenhauerschen Buchhandlung. Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntax. In Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Vol. 2. 1066–1476, 207–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frei, Henri. 1929. La grammaire des fautes. Paris: Geuthner. Friedrich, Johannes. 1960. Hethitisches Elementarbuch. Teil I. Kurzgefaßte Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter. Friedrich, Johannes & Annelies Kammenhuber. 1975. Hethitisches Wörterbuch. 2nd edn. Heidelberg: Winter. Galdi, Giovanbattista. 2004. Grammatica delle iscrizioni latine dell’empero (province orientali): morfosintassi mominale. Rome: Herder. Gamillscheg, Ernst. 1928. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der französischen Sprache. Heidelberg: Winter. Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. & Vjačeslav Ivanov. 1995 (1984). Indo-European and the Indo- Europeans. [Translation of: Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejcy]. Transl. by Johanna Nichols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

References

387

Gildersleeve, Basil L. & Gonzalez Lodge. 1997 [1895]. Gildersleeve’s Latin grammar. 3rd edn. Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci. Gimbutas, Marija. 1970. Proto-Indo-European culture: The Kurgan culture during the 5th, 4th and 3rd millennia BC. In George Cardona, Henry M. Hoenigswald & Alfred Senn (eds), Indo-European and Indo-Europeans, 155–197. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Glassner, Jean-Jacques. 2000. Ecrire à Sumer. L’invention du cunéiforme. Paris: Seuil. Goldwasser, Orly & Colette Grinevald. 2012. What are “determinatives” good for? In Eitan Grossman, Stéphane Polis & Jean Winand (eds.), Lexical semantics in Ancient Egyptian, 17–53 (Lingua Aegyptia – Studia Monographica 9). Hamburg: Widmaier Verlag. Gordon, Eric. 1957 (1927). An introduction to Old Norse. 2nd edn. Revised by A.R. Taylor. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gough, Michael. 1973. The origins of Christian art. London: Thames & Hudson. Green, D.H. 1998. Language and history in the early Germanic world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Greenberg, Joseph. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Joseph Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language, 56–90. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press. Greenberg, Joseph. 1977. Numeral classifiers and substantival number: Problems in the genesis of a linguistic type. In Adam Makkai, Valerie Becker & Luigi Heilmann (eds), Linguistics at the cross-roads, 276–300. Lake Bluff, IL: Jupiter Press Greenberg, Joseph. 1978. How does a language acquire gender markers? In Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson & Edith A. Moravcsik (eds), Universals of human language. Vol. 3. Word Structure, 47–82. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Greimas, A.J. 1968. Dictionnaire de l’ancien français jusqu’au milieu du XIVe siècle. Paris: Larousse. Grenier, Albert. 1912. Etude sur la formation et l’emploi des composés nominaux dans le latin archaïque. Paris: Berger-Levrault. Grevisse, Maurice. 1993. Le bon usage. Grammaire française. 13th edn, refondue par André Goosse. Paris: Duculot. Grevisse, Maurice & André Goosse. 2008. Le bon usage. Grammaire française. 14th edn. Bruxelles: De Boeck. Grimm, Jacob. 1819; 1822–1837. Deutsche Grammatik. Göttingen: Dietrich & Berlin: Dűmmler; Gűtersloh: Bertelsmann. Grimm, Jacob. 1848. Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. Leipzig: Weidmann. Grimm, Jacob & Wilhelm. 1854. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Hirzel. Grimm, Jacob & Wilhelm. 1885. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Vol. 6. Leipzig: Hirzel. Grimm, Jacob & Wilhelm. 1893. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Vol. 8. Leipzig: Hirzel. Grimm, Jacob & Wilhelm. 1922. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Vol. 13. Leipzig: Hirzel. Grinevald, Colette. 2000. A morphosyntactic typology of classifiers. In Gunter Senft (ed.), Systems of nominal classification, 50–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grinevald, Colette. 2002. Making sense of nominal classification systems. Noun classifiers and the grammaticalization variable. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), New reflections on grammaticalization, 259–275. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hackstein, Olav. 2003. Apposition and word order typology in Indo-European. In Brigitte L.M. Bauer & Georges J. Pinault (eds), Language in time and space. Festschrift for W. Winter on the occasion of his 80th birthday, 131–152. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

388

References

Hackstein, Olav. 2010. Apposition and nominal classification in Indo-European and beyond. Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Sitzungsberichte der phil.-hist. Klasse 798. Veröffentlichungen zur Iranistik 56. Haebler, Claus. 1961. Kopulative Nominalkomposita im Albanischen. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 77. 112–116. Hahn, E. Adelaide. 1953. Vestiges of partitive apposition in Latin syntax. Transactions of the American Philological Association 54. 92–123. Hahn, E. Adelaide. 1954. Partitive apposition in Homer and the Greek accusative. Transactions of the American Philological Association 55. 197–287. Hahn, E. Adelaide. 1969. Naming-constructions in some Indo-European languages. Philological monographs of the American Philological Association 27. Halloran, John A. 2006. Sumerian lexicon. A dictionary guide to the Ancient Sumerian Language. Los Angeles: Logogram. Hasselrot, Bengt. 1972. Etude sur la vitalité de la formation diminutive française au XXe siècle. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells. Haudry, Jean. 1973. Parataxe, hypotaxe et corrélation dans la phrase latine. Bulletin de la société de linguistique 68. 147–186. Haugen, Einar. 1953. On resolving the close apposition. American Speech 28. 165–170. Havers, Wilhelm. 1911. Untersuchungen zur Kasussyntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner. Havers, Wilhelm. 1931. Handbuch der erklärenden Syntax. Ein Versuch zur Erforschung der Bedingungen und Triebkräfte in Syntax und Stylistik. Heidelberg: Winter. Hayes, John L. 2000. A manual of Sumerian grammar and texts. Malibu: Undena. Heberlein, Friedrich. 1996. Über ‘enge’ Apposition. In Hannah Rosén (ed.), Papers from the 7th international conference on Latin linguistics, 343–359. Innsbruck: Innsbrücker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. Heidermanns, Frank. 2005. Bibliographie zur indogermanischen Wortforschung. Wortbildung, Etymologie, Onomasiologie und Lehnwortschichten der alten und modernen indogermanischen Sprachen in systematischen Publikationen ab 1800. Tübingen. Helbig, Gerhard. 1973. Die Funktionen der substantivischen Kasus in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Halle: Niemeyer. Herman, Joszef. 1970. Le latin vulgaire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Herman, Joszef. 1990a (1985). La disparition de la déclinaison latine et l’évolution du syntagme nominal. In Sándor Kiss (ed.), Du latin aux langues romanes. Etudes de linguistique historique, 326–337. Tübingen: Niemeyer. First published in: Syntaxe et latin. Actes du IIe congrès international de linguistique latine, 345–357. Aix-en- Provence. Université de Provence. Herman, Joszef. 1990b (1966). Recherches sur l’évolution grammaticale du latin vulgaire: les emplois “fautifs” du nominatif. In Sándor Kiss (ed.), Du latin aux langues romanes. Etudes de linguistique historique, 321–325. Tübingen: Niemeyer. First published in: Acta classica Univ. Scient. Debreceniensis 2. 109–112. Hewson, John & Vit Bubenik. 2007. From case to adposition. The development of configurational syntax in Indo-European languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hirt, Hermann. 1900. Indogermanischer Ablaut. Strasburg: Trübner. Hirt, Hermann. 1921–1937. Indogermanische Grammatik. 7 vols. Heidelberg: Winter. Hirt, Hermann. 1928. Indogermanische Grammatik. IV. Doppelung, Zusammensetzung, Verbum. Heidelberg: Winter.

References

389

Hocket, Charles. 1955. Attribution and apposition. American Speech 30. 99–102. Hoffner, H.A. 1966. Composite nouns, verbs, and adjectives in Hittite. Orientalia 35. 377–402. Hoffner, Harry & H. Craig Melchert. 2008. A grammar of the Hittite language. Part 1. Reference grammar. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Hofmann, Johann B. & Anton Szantyr. 1965. Lateinische Grammatik. 2. Syntax und Stylistik. Munich: Beck. Hoijer, Harry. 1945. Classificatory verb stems in Apachean languages. International Journal of Anthropological Linguistics 11. 13–23. Hollenbach, B.E. 1983. Apposition and X-Bar rules. In E. Martin-Callejo-Manandise (ed.), Exploring language: Linguistic heresies from the desert, 37–59. Tucson, AR: University Linguistics Circle. Hurskainen, Arvi. 2000. Noun classification in African languages. In Barbara Unterbeck, Matti Rissanen, Terttu Nevalainen & Mirja Saari (eds), Gender in grammar and cognition, 665– 687. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Indrebø, G. Ed. 1931. Gamal norsk Homiliebok. Oslo. Jacobi, Hermann. 1897. Compositum und Nebensatz. Studien über die indogermanische Sprachentwicklung. Bonn: Cohen. Jacobsen, Thorkild. 1976. The treasures of darkness. A history of Mesopotamian religion. New Haven, CT & London: Yale University Press. Jespersen, Otto. 1914. The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen. Jestin, Raymond. 1994. (1951). Abrégé de grammaire sumérienne. 2nd edn. Paris: Geuthner. Jónsson, Finnur (ed.). 1893–1901. Heimskringla. Nóregs konunga sǫgur. Vols I-IV. Copenhagen: Møller. Kammenhuber, Annelies. 1961. Nominalkomposition in den altanatolischen Sprachen des 2. Jahrtausends. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 77. 161–218. Kang, Shin T. 1972. Sumerian economic texts from the Drehem Archive. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Kastovsky, Dieter. 2008. Astronaut, astrology, astrophysics: About combining forms, classical compounds and affixoids. Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Kiparsky, Paul. 2010. Dvandvas, blocking, and the associative. The bumpy ride from phrase to word. Language 83. 302–331. Klimov, Georgij. 1974. On the character of languages of active typology. Linguistics 131. 11–25. Klingebiel, Kathryn. 1989. Noun + Verb compounding in Western Romance. Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Koch, John T. 2005. Celtic culture. A historical encyclopedia. Vol. 1. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Krause, Wolfgang. 1922. Die Wortstellung in den zweigleidrigen Wortverbindungen. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft 50. 74–119. Kretschmer, Paul 1926. Mythische Namen. Glotta 15. 74–78. Kroll, W. 1918. Anfangstellung des Verbums im Lateinischen. Glotta 9. 112–123. Krostenko, Brian A. 2007. Catullus and elite Republican social discourse. In Marilyn Skinner (ed.), A companion to Catullus, 212–232. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kühner, Raphael & Bernard Gerth. 1963. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. II. Satzlehre. Vol. 1. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Kuhn, Adalbert. 1845. Zur ältesten Geschichte der indogermanischen Völker. Berlin: Programme des Berliner Real-Gymnasium. Labat, René. 1963 (1948). Manuel d’épigraphie akkadienne. 4th edn. Paris: Geuthner. Lawrenz, Birgit. 1993. Apposition. Begriffsbestimmung und syntaktischer Status. Tübingen: Narr.

390

References

Ledo-Lemos, Francisco José. 2000. Feminum genus. A study on the origins of the Indo- European feminine grammatical gender. München: Lincolm Europa. Lee, Donald W. 1952. Close apposition: An unresolved problem. American speech 57. 268- 275. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1969. Proto-Indo-European compounds in relation to other Proto- IndoEuropean syntactic patterns. Acta linguistica hafniensia 12. 1–20. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1974. Proto-Indo-European syntax. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1986. A Gothic etymological dictionary. Leiden: Brill. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1989. Problems in Proto-Indo-European grammar: Residues from Pre- IndoEuropean active structure. General linguistics 29. 228–246. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1993. Theoretical bases of Indo-European linguistics. London: Routledge. Lehmann, Winfred P. 2002. Pre-Indo-European. Journal of Indo-European studies monograph 41. Lerch, Eugen. 1940. Gibt es im Vulgärlateinischen oder im Rumänischen eine “Gelenkspartikel“? Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 60. 113–190. Lessen, Jacoba H. van. 1928. Samengestelde naamwoorden in het Nederlandsch. Ph.D Dissertation, University of Groningen, NL. Groningen: Wolters. Leumann, Manu & Johann B. Hofmann. 1926 (1885). Lateinische Grammatik. 1. Laut- und Formenlehre. 5th edn. München: Beck. Leumann, Manu & Johann B. Hofmann. 1977 (1885). Lateinische Grammatik. 1. Laut- und Formenlehre. 9th edn. München: Beck. Lewis, G.L. 1967. Turkish grammar. Oxford: Clarendon. Lewis, Charlton and Charles Short. 1879. A Latin dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon. Liddell, Henry & Robert Scott. 1991 (1889). An intermediate Greek - English lexicon. 7th edn. Oxford: Clarendon. Liechtenthan, Eduard (ed.). 1928. Anthimi De observatione ciborum ad Theodoricum regem francorum epistula. Leizpig: Teubner. Linde, P. 1923. Die Stellung des Verbs in der lateinischen Prosa. Glotta 12. 153–178. Linnaeus, Carl. 1735. Systema naturae. Leiden: Haak. Lloyd, Paul 1968. Verb-Complement compounds in Spanish. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Locke, John. 1894 (1689). An essay concerning human understanding. Collected and annotated by Alexander Campbell Fraser. Oxford: Clarendon. Löbel, Elisabeth. 2000. Classifiers versus genders and noun classes: A case study in Vietnamese. In Barbara Unterbeck, Matti Rissanen, Terttu Nevalainen & Mirja Saari (eds), Gender in grammar and cognition, 259–319. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Löfstedt, Einar. 1911. Philogischer Kommentar zur Peregrinatio Aetheriae. Uppsala: Almquist. Löfstedt, Einar. 1956. Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. II. Lund: Gleerup. Löfstedt, Einar. 1959. Late Latin. Oslo: Aschehoug. Löfstedt, Leena. 1981. À propos des articles et des articloïdes. In Horst Geckeler, Brigitte Schlieben-Lange, Jürgen Trabant & Harald Weydt (eds), Logos Semantikos. Studia linguistica in honorem Eugenio Coseriu. Christian Roher (ed.), IV. Gramática, 269- 279. Madrid: Gredos & Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Lombard, Alf. 1931. Li fel d’anemos, ce fripon de valet, étude sur les expressions de ce type en français et sur certaines expressions semblables dans les langues romanes et germaniques. Studier i modern språkvetenskap. Uppsala. Loogman, Alfons. 1965. Swahili grammar and syntax. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press. Lühr, Rosemarie (ed.). 2008. Nominale Wortbildung des Indogermanischen in Grundzügen. Bd 2. Hethitisch, Altindisch, Altarmenisch. Hamburg: Kovač.

References

391

Luraghi, Silvia. 2009. The origin of the feminine gender in PIE. In Vit bubenik, John Hewson & Sarah Rose (eds), Grammatical change in Indo-European languages. 3–13. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Macdonell, Arthur A. 1916. A Vedic grammar for students. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Marchello-Nizia, Christiane. 1979. Histoire de la langue française aux XIVe et XVe siècles. Paris: Dunod. Martin, Samuel. 1975. A reference grammar of Japanese. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Martinet, André. 1987. Des steppes aux oceans. L’indo-européen et les « Indo-Européens ». Paris: Payot. Masica, Colin P. 1991. The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matasović, Ranko. 2004. Gender in Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter. Mayser, Edwin. 1935. Grammatik der griechischen Parpyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit. Bd 1. Laut- und Wortlehre. 2. Teil. Flexionslehre. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Meid, Wolfgang. 1979. Der Archaismus des Hethitischen. In Erich Neu & Wolgang Meid (eds), Hethitisch und Indogermanisch, 159–176. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft (Innsbrucker Beitrāge zur Linguistik). Meier-Brügger, Michael. 2000. Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 7e, völlig neubearbeitete Auflage der früheren Darstellung von Hans Krahe. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Meillet, Antoine. 1926 (1921). La catégorie du genre et les conceptions indo-européennes. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, 211–229. Paris: Champion. Meillet, Antoine. 1938. Le genre féminin dans les langues indo-européennes. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Vol. 2, 24–28. Paris: Klincksieck. Meillet, Antoine. 1948 (1921). La catégorie du genre et les conceptions indo-européennes. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, 211–229. Paris: Champion. Meillet, Antoine. 1982a. Le nom de l’homme. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, 272–280. Paris: Champion & Genève: Slatkine. Meillet, Antoine. 1982b. Sur la méthode de la grammaire comparée. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, 19–35. Paris: Champion & Genève: Slatkine. Meillet, Antoine & Jean Vendryes. 1924. Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques. Paris: Champion. Meyer, C.F. 1989. Restrictive apposition: An indeterminate category. English Studies 70. 147–166. Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm. 1894. Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen. II. Formenlehre. Leipzig: Reisland. Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm. 1899. Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen. III. Romanische Syntax. Leipzig: Reisland. Michalowski, Piotr. 1996. Mesopotamian Cuneiform. In Peter T. Daniels & William Bright (eds), The world’s writing systems, 33–72. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Michalowski, Piotr. 2004. Sumerian. In Roger D. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge encyclopaedia of the world’s ancient languages, 19–59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Milani, Celestina (ed.). 1977. Itinerarium Antonini Placentini. Un Viaggio in Terra Santa del 560– 570 d.C. Milano: Unversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore. Mitchell, Bruce & Fred Robinson. 1992 (1964). A guide to Old English. 5th edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Mithun, Marianne. 1986. The convergence of noun classification systems. In Colette Craig (ed.), Noun classes and categorization. Proceedings of a symposium on categorization and noun classification, 379–397. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. Mohrmann, Christine. 1962. Le latin prétendu vulgaire et l’origine des langues romanes. Strasbourg: Centre de Philologie Romane.

392

References

Moignet, Gérard (ed.). 1969. La chanson de Roland. Paris: Bordas. Molitor, F. 1979. Zur Apposition im heutigen Deutsch. Eine Vorstudie. Siegen: Höpner. Monier-Williams, Monier. 1976. English-Sanskrit dictionary. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharial Publishers. Monro, D.B. 1891. A grammar of the Homeric dialect. Oxford: Clarendon. Mossé, Fernand. 1983 (1952). A handbook of Middle English. 8th edn. Translation by James Walker of Manuel de l’anglais du moyen-âge des origines au XIVe siècle. Vol 2. Le moyen anglais. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Mueller, Konrad. 1995. Petronii Arbitri Satyricon Reliquiae. 4th edn. Stuttgart & Leipzig: Teubner. Murphy, G. Ronald. 1992. Heliand. The Saxon Gospel. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nadjo, Léon. 1994. Problèmes de composition nominale en latin. In József Herman (ed.), Linguistic studies on Latin. Selected papers from the 6th international conference on Latin linguistics, 393–402. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Naumann, Bernd. 1972. Wortbildung in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Nestle, Eberhard & Kurt Aland. 1961. Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine. 20th edn. Stuttgart: Privilegierte Würtembergische Bibelanstalt. Nooten, Barend A. van & Gary B. Holland (eds.). 1994. Rig Veda: A metrically restored text with an introduction and notes. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press. Norberg, Dag. 1943. Syntaktische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete des Spätlateins und des frühen Mittellateins. Uppsala: Lundequitska Bokhandln & Leipzig: Harassowitz. Olness, G. 1991. Semantic correlates of three morpho-syntactic classifier types: A cross- linguistic survey. Ms, University of Oregon. Olsen, Birigt A. 1999. The noun in Biblical Armenian. Origin and word-formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Orel, Vladimir, 2000. A concise historical grammar of the Albanian language. Reconstruction of Proto-Albanian. Leiden: Brill. Oudot, J (Abbé). 1964. Syntaxe latine. Strasbourg: Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Strasbourg. Paul, Hermann 1929 (1881). Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. 12th edn. Revised by Erich Gierach. Halle: Niemeyer. Pétré, Hélène (ed.). 1948. Ethérie, journal de voyage (Peregrinatio). (Sources chrétiennes 21). Paris: Cerf. Poccetti, Paolo, Diego Poli & Carlo Santini. 1999. Una storia della lingua latina: formazione, usi, comunicazione. Roma: Carocci. Poebel, Arno. 1923. Grundzüge der sumerischen Grammatik. Rostocker Orientalistische Studien. Band 1. Rostock. Poukens, J.B. 1912. Syntaxe des inscriptions latines d’Afrique. Le musée belge 16. 135–179; 241–288. Poultney, James W. 1959. The bronze tables of Iguvium. Oxford: Blackwell. Pounder, Amanda. 2000. Processes and paradigms in word-formation morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Puhvel, Jaan. 1977. Devatā-dvandvas in Hittite, Greek, and Latin. American journal of philology 98. 396–405. Puhvel, Jaan. 1984–2004. Hittite etymological dictionary. Vols. 1–6. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Puhvel, Jaan. 1984. Hittite etymological dictionary. Vol 1. Words beginning with A. Vol. 2. Words beginning with E and I. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Puhvel, Jaan. 1987. Comparative mythology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

References

393

Puhvel, Jaan. 1991. Hittite etymological dictionary. Vol. 3. Words beginning with H. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Puhvel, Jaan.1997. Hittite etymological dictionary. Vol. 4. Words beginning with K. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Puhvel, Jaan. 2001. Hittite etymological dictionary. Vol. 5. Words beginning with L. Indices to Volumes 1–5. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Puhvel, Jaan. 2004. Hittite etymological dictionary. Vol 6. Words beginning with M. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Quinn, Kenneth (ed.). 1973 (1970). Catullus. The poems. 2nd edn. London: Macmillan. Réau, Louis. 1955. Iconographie de l’art chrétien. Tome 1. Introduction générale. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Regula, Moritz. 1968. Wesen, Arten und Formen der Apposition und des Attributs. Zeitschrift für französischen Sprache und Literatur 78. 102–138. Reichelt, Hans. 1967. Awestisches Elementarbuch. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftlische Buchgesellschaft. Reiner, Erica. 1993. How we read Cuneiform. Journal of Cuneiform studies 25. 3–58. Renfrew, Colin. 1987. Archaeology and language. The puzzle of Indo-European origins. London: Cape. Renou, Louis. 1953. Religions of Ancient India. London: Athlone Press. Rieken, Elisabeth. 1999. Untersuchungen zur nominalen Stammbildung des Hethitischen. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Rijkhoff, Jan. 2000. When can a language have adjectives? In Petra M. Vogel & Bernard Comrie (eds), Approaches to the typology of word classes, 217–256. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Risch, Ernst. 1949. Griechische Determinativkomposita. Indogermanische Forschungen 59. 1–61; 246–294. Risch, Ernst. 1974 (1937). Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache. 2nd edn. Berlin: de Gruyter. Risch, Ernst. 1981. Zur altlateinischen Gebetssprache. In Annemarie Etter & Marcel Looser (eds), Kleine Schriften, 633–643. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. First published in: Incontri linguistici 5. 43–53. Ritchie, W.C. 1971. On the analysis of surface nouns. Papers in linguistics 4. 1–16. Rix, Helmut. 2002. Sabellische Texte: die Texte des Oskischen, Umbrischen und Südpikenischen. Heidelberg: Winter. Robert, Paul. 1993 (1967). Le nouveau petit robert. 2nd edn. Paris: Le Robert. Robins, Robert H. 1979 (1967). A short history of linguistics. London: Longman. Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1968 [1949]. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, II. Morfologia. Torino: Einaudi. Translated version of Historische Grammatik der italienischen Sprachen und ihrer Mundarten. II. Formenlehre und Syntax. Bern: Francke. Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1971. Romanische Sprachgeographie. Geschichte und Grundlagen, Aspekte und Probleme mit dem Versuch eines Sprachatlas der romanischen Sprachen. München: Beck. Rose, Valentinus (ed.). 1877. Anthimi de observatione ciborum epistula ad Theudericum regem Francorum. Leipzig: Teubner. Rosén, Hannah. 1994. The definite article in the making, nominal constituent order, and related phenomena. In József Herman (ed.), Linguistic studies on Latin. Selected papers from the 6th international colloquium on Latin linguistics, 129–150. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Roux, Georges. 2001. The great enigma of the cemetery at Ur. In Jean Bottéro (ed.), Everyday life in Ancient Mesopotamia, 24–40. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

394

References

Rude, Noel. 1986. Graphemic classifiers in Egyptian hieroglyphics and Mesopotamian Cuneiform. In Colette Craig (ed.), Noun classes and categorization. Proceedings of a symposium on categorization and noun classification, 133–138. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. Salonius, A.H. 1920. Vitae Patrum. Kritische Untersuchingen über Text, Syntax und Wortschatz der spätlateinischen Vitae Patrum. Lund: Gleerup. Salus, Peter H. 1965. Types of compound of Indo-European. Orbis 14. 40–62. Sampson, Rodney (ed.). 1980. Early Romance texts. An anthology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sands, Kristina. 1995. Nominal classification in Australia. Anthropological Linguistics 37. 247–346. Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1879. Mémoire sur le sytème primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes. Leipzig: Vieweg. Sauvageot, Aurélien. 1929. L’emploi de l’article en gotique. Paris: Champion. Schmandt-Besserat, Denise. 1992. Before writing. From counting to cuneiform. Austin, TX: Texas University Press. Schmandt-Besserat, Denise. 2007. When writing met art. From symbol to story. Austin, TX: Texas University Press. Schmidt, Karl Horst. 1977. Probleme der Ergativkonstruktion. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 36. 97–116. Schmidt, Karl Horst. 1979. Reconstructing active and ergative stages of Pre-Indo- European. In Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity. Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 333–345. London & New York: Academic Press. Schwink, Frederick. 2004. The third gender. Studies in the origin and history of Germanic grammatical gender. Heidelberg: Winter. Schwyzer, Eduard. 1953. Griechische Grammatik auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns Griechischer Grammatik. Bd 1. Allgemeiner Teil, Lautlehre, Wortbildung, Flexion. München: Beck. Schwyzer, Eduard. 1977. Griechische Grammatik. Bd 1. Allgemeiner Teil, Lautlehre, Wortbildung, Flexion. 5th edn. München: Beck. Schwyzer, Eduard. 1983 (1939). Zur Apposition. In Rudiger Schmitt (ed.), Eduard Schwyzer. Kleine Schriften, 149–162. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Schwyzer, Eduard & Albert Debrunner. 1960. Griechische Grammatik. Bd. 2. Syntax und Syntaktische Stylistik. München: Beck. Seiler, Hansjakob. 1960. Relativsatz, Attribut und Apposition. Wiesbaden: Harrossowitz. Semenza, Carlo. 1995. How names are special: Neuropsychological evidence for dissociable impairment and sparing of proper name knowledge in production. In Ruth Campbell & Martin A. Conway (eds), Broken memories. Case studies in memory impairment, 366–378. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Semenza, Carlo & Marina Zettin. 1988. Generating proper names: A case of selective inability. Cognitive neuropsychology 5. 711–721. Semenza, Carlo, Francesca Nichelli & Nadia Gamboz. 1996. The primacy effect in free recall of lists of common and proper names: A study on young, elderly, and Alzheimer’s disease subjects. Brain and language 55. 45–47. Senft, Gunter. 2000a. Introduction. In Gunter Senft (ed.), Systems of nominal classification, 1–10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Senft, Gunter. 2000b. What do we really know about nominal classification systems? In Gunther Senft (ed.), Systems of nominal classification, 11–49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References

395

Senn, Alfred. 1966. Handbuch der litauischen Sprache. Heidelberg: Winter. Sharvy, R. 1978. Maybe English has no count nouns: Notes on Chinese. Studies in language 2. 345–365. Shields, Kenneth. 2004. The emergence of the dual category in Indo-European: A “new image” and typological perspective. Indogermanische Forschungen 109. 21–30. Sievers, Eduard (ed.). 1892. Tatian. Paderborn: Schöningh. Sigurðardóttir, Þórunn. 2002. Saga world and nineteenth-century Iceland. The case of women farmers. In Sarah Anderson (ed.), The cold counsel. Women in Old Norse literature and myth, 281–94. London: Routledge. Silk, Michael. 2007. Pindar’s poetry as poetry: A literary commentary on Olympian 12. In Simon Hornblower & Catherine Morgan (eds), Pindar’s poetry, patrons, and festivals, 117–197. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, John Charles. 1993. The agreement of the past participle conjugated with avoir and a preceding direct object: a brief history of prescriptive attitudes. In Rodney Sampson (ed.), Authority and the French language: papers from a conference at the University of Bristol, 87–125. Münster: Nodus. Smith, John Charles. 2005. Some refunctionalization of the nominative-accusative opposition between Latin and Gallo-Romance. In Bernadette Smelik, Rijcklof Hofman, Camiel Hamans & David Cram (eds), A Companion to linguistics, 269- 285. Nijmegen: De Keltisch Draak. Smyth, Herbert W. 1956 (1920). Greek grammar. 2nd edn. Revised by Gordon Messing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sopher, H. 1971. Apposition. English studies 52. 401–412. Specht, Franz. 1944. Der Ursprung der indogermanischen Deklination. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Spitzer, Leo. 1926. Ein neues französiches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 46. Stempel, Reinhard. 1994. ī-Genetiv, ī-Motion und Femininum: Versuch einer Synthese. In Roland Bielmeier, Reinhard Stempel & René Lanszweert (eds), Indogermanica et Caucasica. Festschrfit für Karl Horst Schmidt, 197–210. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Storey, Christopher (ed.) 1968. La vie de Saint Alexis. Genève: Droz. Streitberg, Wilhelm. 1960 (1910). Die gotische Bibel. 4th edn. Heidelberg: Winter. Sturtevant, Edgar. 1951 (1935). A comparative grammar of the Hittite language. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Sturtevant, Edgar & George Bechtel. 1935. A Hittite chrestomathy. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America. Svennung, Josef von. 1935. Untersuchungen zu Palladius und zur lateinischen Fach- und Volkssprache. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells. Sweet, Henry. 1967 [1876]. Anglo-Saxon reader in prose and verse. 2nd edn. Revised by Dorothy Whitelock. Oxford: Clarendon. Tebben, Joseph R. 1994–1998. Concordantia Homerica. Alpha-Omega Reihe A. Lexika, Konkordanzen zur klassischen Philologie 141. 5 vols. Hildesheim: Olms. Tekavčić, Pavao. 1972. Grammatica storica dell’ italiano. Vol. 3. Lessico. Bologna: Mulino. Thielmann, Philipp. 1885. Habere mit dem Part. Perf. Pass. Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 2. 372–423; 509–549. Thomsen, Marie-Louise. 1984. The Sumerian language. An introduction to its history and grammatical structure. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. Thorpe, Benjamin (ed.). 1846. Homilies of Ælfric. Vol. 2. London: Ælfric Society.

396

References

Tischler, Johann. 1982. Hethitische Nominalkompostion. In Wolfgang Meid, Hermann Ölberg & Hans Schmeja (eds), Sprachwissenschaft in Innsbruck, 213–235. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Tobler, Adolf & Erhard Lommatsch. 1936. Altfranzösisches Wörterbuch. Berlin: Weidmann. Tuţescu, M. 1969. Le type nominal ce fripon de valet. Revue de linguistique romane 33. 299- 316. Väänänen, Veikko. 1981 (1963). Introduction au latin vulgaire. 3rd edn. Paris: Klincksieck. Väänänen, Veikko. 1987. Le journal-épître d’Egérie. Etude linguistique. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Ventris, Michael & John Chadwick. 1956. Documents in Mycenaean Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wackernagel, Jakob. 1957 (1896). Altindische Grammatik. II.1. Einleitung zur Wortlehre. Nominalkomposition. 2nd edn. Gőttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wagner, Robert & J. Pinchon. 1962. Grammaire du français classique et moderne. Paris: Hachette. Walker, C.B.F. 2000. Cuneiform. In J.T. Hooker (ed.), Reading the past, 15–73. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press & London: British Museum. Warmington, Eric H. 1979a. Remains of Old Latin. III. Luculius. The Twelve Tables. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Warmington, Eric H. 1979b. Remains of Old Latin. IV. Archaic inscriptions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Watkins, Calvert. 1995. How to kill a dragon. Aspects of Indo-European poetics. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. Westerbergh, Ulla. 1956. Chronicon Salernitanum: A critical edition with studies on literary and historical sources and on language. Ph.D Dissertation. (Studia latina stockholmiensia 3). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Whitney, William D. 1889 (1879). Sanskrit grammar. 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Winter, Werner. 1998. Cases of cross-over between finite verb forms and nouns in Armenian. In Mark Janse (ed.), Productivity and creativity. Studies in general and desciptive linguistics in honor of E.M. Uhlenbeck, 629–634. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Winter, Werner. 2000. Eyes and ears. In Christiane Dalton-Puffer & Nikolaus Ritt (eds), Words, structure, meaning, function. A Festschrift for Dieter Kastovsky, 323–327. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wright, Joseph. 1954. Grammar of the Gothic language. Oxford: Clarendon. Yoshida, Daisuke. 1987. Die Syntax des althethitischen substantivischen Genetivs. Heidelberg: Winter. Youtie, Herbert C. & John G. Winter. 1951. Papyri and ostraca from Karanis. Second series. Michigan papyri, Vol. VIII. University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series 50. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Zemb, Jean Marie. 1968. Les structures logiques de la proposition allemande. Contribution à l’étude des rapports entre le langage et la pensée. Paris: OCDL. Zubin, David A. & Klaus-Michael Köpcke. 1986. Gender and folk taxonomy: The indexical relation between grammatical and lexical categorization. In Colette Craig (ed.), Noun classes and categorization. Proceedings of a symposium on categorization and noun classification, 139– 180. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Appendix List of Latin Nouns – Occurrence in Nominal Apposition [RELIGION] deus

‘god’

dominus

‘lord’

pater

‘father’

presbyter

‘priest’

sanctus

‘saint’

[KINSHIP] frater

‘brother’

mater

‘mother’

pater

‘father’

soror

‘sister’

uxor

‘wife’

[SOCIAL STATUS, TITLE] consul

‘consul’

imperator

‘emperor’

regina

‘queen’

rex

‘king’

[SOCIAL STATUS, PROFESSION ] ancilla

‘servant’

matrona

‘wife’, ‘matron’, ‘woman of quality’

meretrix

‘prostitute’

miles

‘soldier’

mulier

‘woman’

poeta

‘poet’

servus

‘slave’

[SOCIAL STATUS, AGE] puer

‘slave’, ‘boy’

senex

‘old man’

DOI 10.1515/9783110461756-009

398

Appendix

servolus

‘young slave’, ‘servant-lad’

vir

‘man’

virgo

‘young woman’, ‘girl’, ‘maid’

[SOCIAL STATUS, SEX] femina

‘woman’, ‘female animal’

mulier

‘woman’

vir

‘man’

[GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] ager

‘land’

amnis

‘torrent’

civitas

‘city’, ‘town’

flumen

‘river’, ‘stream’, ‘flood’

fluvius

‘river’

insula

‘island’

mare

‘sea’

mons

‘mountain’

oppidum

‘town’

patria

‘fatherland’, ‘native land’

pons

‘bridge’

portus

‘harbor’

provincia

‘province’

regio

‘region’

ripa

‘riverbank’

silva

‘forest’

urbs

‘town’

via

‘road’

[FAUNA] aper

‘boar’

bestia

‘animal’

femina

‘female animal’

lupus

‘wolf’

male

‘male animal’

Appendix

porcus

‘pig’

vitellus

‘little calf’

[FLORA] arbor

‘tree’

fructus

‘fruit’

hortus

‘garden’

olea

‘olive’

[OTHER] genus

‘sort’

[OTHER, HOMO] homo

‘man’ (‘human being’)

[OTHER, NOMEN] nomen

‘name’

[OTHER, TIME] annus

‘year’

dies

‘day’

gens

‘people’

hiemen

‘winter’

mensis

‘month’

nox

‘night’

tempus

‘time’

vesper

‘evening’

[OTHER, FEAST] feria

‘holiday’

ludus

‘game’

399

Subject Index La. -alia (suffix) 180, 353 La. civitas 10–11, 196, 202, 206, 210, 212, 240, 271–272, 398 La. civitas illa magna 11, 277, 280 La. dies 200, 203, 208, 212, 240–245, 282, 348, 358, 399 La. feria/feriae 179, 180, 208–209, 212, 236, 241, 244–245, 270, 399 La. Floralia 179–180, 209, 236–237, 241, 245 La. flumen 183, 186, 202, 206, 212, 219, 270, 272, 282, 398 La. fluvius 196, 202, 212, 271, 272, 282, 398 La. genus 156, 158, 160, 172, 180, 190, 195, 264, 399 La. habere + perfective-participle 177 La. homo 98, 121, 152, 154–156, 158, 160, 161, 165, 167, 169, 184–185, 188, 191, 194, 269 La. ille 274–281, 285 La. Iupiter IX, 8, 101, 112, 146, 161, 164, 168, 186, 223–225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 353 – parallels in other Indo-European languages 101, 112, 146, 161, 164, 224–225, 228, 353 La. liber 209, 212 La. mater 55, 92, 189, 227, 230, 231, 268, 397 La. mens 176, 310 La. mensis 148, 245, 282, 399 La. mente + adjective 176, 310 La. milia 207, 251, 254 La. mille 207, 251, 283 – vs.milia 207 La. mons 196, 199, 206, 212, 240, 270, 271, 272, 398 La. oppidum 180, 185, 218, 270, 398 La. pater 8, 55, 111, 146, 157, 158, 165, 178, 189, 197, 223, 224–225, 228–231, 232, 233, 397 La. rex 32, 148, 151, 165, 204, 205, 210, 212, 269, 270, 272, 397 La. Robigalia 179–180, 209, 236, 241, 245 La. sacer 203 – vs. sanctus 203

DOI 10.1515/9783110461756-010

La. sanctus 187, 196–197, 203, 204, 212–213, 233, 271–273, 397 La. scelus viri VII, 26–28 La. servus 151, 152, 165, 397 La. terra 206, 210, 212, 272 La. tresviri 254–255, 345 La. urbs 30, 170, 398 La. vir VII, 26, 27, 28, 104, 154, 161, 169, 182, 194, 254, 255, 345, 398 de (preposition, Latin-Romance) – use in Latin 163, 194–195, 251–252 – use in Old and Middle French 215, 262, 263 – use in Modern French 15, 16, 221–222, 282, 343, 358, 373 – use in Romance 282 Skt Mitrā́ -Varuṇa 10, 105, 308, 309, 315, 345, 347 -dóttir formation (Old Norse) 130–131 lande construction (Germanic/Old English) 136–137 -son/-sun formation (Germanic) 131–132 ablative 40, 70, 207, 310 accusative VII, 26–29, 224, 260, 261, 262, 265, 266, 268, 284, 287 active language 51, 56, 66 active typology 56, 66, 289 additional compound X, 16, 32, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315–317, 323–326, 331, 337, 339, 341, 353, 356, 368, 369–371, 379 adjective – instead of nominal apposition 180, 239, 241, 243–244, 245, 247–248, 264, 287, 378, 381 – instead of nominal apposition, [FEAST] 241, 243–245, 264 – instead of nominal apposition, [FLORA] 247–248 – instead of nominal apposition, [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] 180–181

402

Subject Index

– instead of nominal apposition, [TIME] 241, 243, 244, 245 agglutination/agglutinative language 53, 54, 66, 67, 69 agglutinative characteristics 52, 380 agreement 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 20–24, 26, 31, 32, 33, 39, 40, 41, 42, 54, 56, 59, 70, 97, 117, 144, 152, 160, 162, 168, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 233, 294, 299, 300, 304, 305, 318, 375 – case 2, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 21, 94, 152, 158, 160, 170, 171, 172, 191, 238, 255–264, 265–269, 281–285, 305, 348, 374, 375, 378, 381 – external IX, 20–23, 26, 32, 33, 54, 60, 170, 233–238, 378, 379 – gender 158, 236, 237, 365, 371, 375, 381 – internal IX, 32, 33, 170, 233, 238–269, 371, 375, 378–379, 381 – loss of 32, 33, 57, 174, 233, 239, 281, 285–286, 371, 378 – number 2, 21, 238, 305, 371, 375, 381 – phonetic agreement IX, 239, 265–269, 285, 286 Akkadian (Semitic) 66, 75 Akkadogram 75, 322, 377 Albanian (Indo-European, Baltic) X, 338–339 allative 40 Ancient-Egyptian (Afro-Asiatic) 74, 89 animate 40, 41, 42, 54–56, 58, 69, 70–74, 77–79, 81, 204, 236 – vs. inanimate 42, 55, 56, 69, 74 Antoninus Placentinus (6th c. A.D.) 189, 196–201, 203, 204, 234, 240, 245, 271, 275, and passim Apicius (42 B.C.–A.D. 37) 189, 192–193, 195, 218, 251, 252, and passim apposition – and autonomy 380–381 – attributive apposition 7 – explicative apposition 6, 7 – group apposition 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 18, 268 – nominal apposition (vs. group apposition) 3, 4, 6–8 – partitive apposition 4, 7, 11 – study of XIII, 3–5 appositive accusative VII, 26–29

appositive compound X, XI, 10, 11, 16, 32, 288, 291, 305, 306–307, 307–314 (Sanskrit), 314–323 (Hittite), 323–328 (Greek), 328–338 (Germanic), 338–341 (other Indo-European languages), 341, 347–353, 353–356 (Latin), 356–368 (Romance), 369–371, 374, 376, 379 – additional compound X, 16, 32, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315–317, 323–326, 331, 337, 339, 341, 353, 356, 368, 369–371, 379 – dvandva X, 10–11, 16, 32, 104–105, 290, 302–303, 306–307, 308–312, 313, 314, 315–317, 322, 323–326, 328, 329, 337, 338–339, 341, 345–347, 349–353, 356, 367–368, 369–371, 379 – hybrid X, XI, 16, 32, 33, 306, 313, 314, 323–328, 329–331, 335, 337, 353–356, 359, 361, 362, 363, 368, 369–371, 379 – type-of compound X, XI, 16, 32, 306, 313, 314, 318, 319, 323, 326, 327, 328, 332– 337, 340, 341, 355, 356, 359, 360–363, 368–371, 379 – word group 347–353 appositive genitive 1, 15, 16, 28 (see also “genitive”) archaeology VII, 63, 64 Armenian (Indo-European) X, 57, 301, 338, 339, 340 Asiatic Society of Calcutta 63 aspect (grammatical category) 26, 291 Assamese (Indo-European, Indo-Iranian) 4 asyndetic 2, 5, 8, 10, 14, 15, 20, 88, 215, 217, 218, 222–223, 281, 283, 308, 317, 347, 350, 351, 371, 372, 377, 378 (see also “asyndetism”) – vs.-non-asyndetic 281 asyndetic juxtaposition 8, 88, 371, 377, 378 asyndetism 33, 285, 286, 347, 381 – loss of 285, 286 attributive apposition 7 Australian languages 45, 287, 375, 376 auxiliary 20, 40 Avestan (Indo-European, Indo-Iranian) X, 338, 339 bahuvrihi (compound) 289, 290, 298, 300, 301 (see also “compound [classification]”)

Subject Index

Bengali (Indo-European, Indo-Iranian) 4 Berber (Afro-Asiatic) 53 Bopp, Franz (1791–1867) 36 branching 24, 25, 31, 126, 162–165, 169, 170, 172, 174, 212, 213, 217, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 281, 285, 297, 366, 367, 368 (see also “word order”) – change in 25, 165, 166, 169, 170, 172, 174, 269, 273, 281, 285 (see also “word order change”) – left-branching 31, 126, 163, 164, 165, 166, 169, 170, 172, 174, 212, 217, 269, 270, 272, 273, 281, 285, 297 (see also “word order”) – right-branching 162, 164, 165, 166, 169, 174, 212, 213, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 281, 285, 366, 367, 368 (see also “word order”) Burmese (Sino-Tibetan) 37, 44, 48 Caddo (Caddoan) 45 Caesar (100–44 B.C.) 175, 177, 181–186, 188, 207, 208, 219, 228, 229, 234, 249, 251, 264, 270, 271, 286, and passim case (grammatical category) 24, 26, 55, 70, 86, 94, 95, 96, 108, 109, 112, 142, 146, 199, 205, 212, 224, 284, 285, 286, 294, 296 – agreement 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 21, 23, 94, 96, 115, 138, 158, 170, 171, 172, 238–264, 265, 268, 281, 282, 284, 286, 287, 305, 348, 371, 374, 375, 378, 381 – case attraction 257, 258, 259, 260, 261 – case system 262, 265 – case system, Old French 262 – loss of 2, 15, 32, 238–264, 265, 266, 342, 367, 374 Cato (234–149 B.C.) 28, 148, 149, 157–159, 165, 177, 180, 181, 217, 226, 228, 231, 232, 234, 238, 245, 248, 249, 250, 252, 264, 269, 353, and passim Cayuga (Iroquian) 45, 46 Chadic (Afro-Asiatic) 52 Chinese (Sino-Tibetan) 36, 44, 85 (chronological) stratification 63 (chronological) layers (in language) 15, 36, 63, 234, 308, 315

403

Classical Armenian (Indo-European) X, 338, 339, 340 Classical Latin (see “Latin”) classification – of compounds (see “compound [classification]”) – of nouns VII, IX, XI, 12–13, 30, 33, 34–61, 62, 88, 162, 168, 170–171, 288, 372, 375–376 classification system (noun classification) 34–35, 48, 53, 62, 66, 171, 375 classificatory verb VII, 46, 54–55, 57–58, 60 classifier – concordial 38 – genitive 38, 43, 45–46, 52 – mensural 38, 44 – noun 34, 38, 43, 44, 47, 59 – numeral 38, 43–44, 52, 53, 59, 85, 87, 254 – parallels with phenomena in Indo-European 4, 166, 162, 170–171, 175, 254, 287, 320, 375–376, 380 – sortal 38, 44 – verbal 38, 43, 45–46, 52 classifier language VII, 30, 34, 37, 38, 39, 42–46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 59–60, 87, 89, 162, 320, 336, 375, 376 class system VII, 34, 38, 39, 41, 46, 50, 52, 53, 54, 60, 168, 375 (see also “nounclass language” and “gender language”) class term (noun classification) VII, 30, 38, 39, 44, 46–47, 50, 59–60, 168, 171, 175 Claudius Terentianus (2nd c. A.D.) 176, 189, 191–192, and passim close apposition 6, 161 collective 40, 111, 311 comparative linguistics 35, 63, 89 composition (word formation) (see “compound”) compound – grammatical structure (see “compound, – underlying structure”) – productivity 289, 290, 292, 312, 323, 326, 328, 331, 337, 338, 341, 343, 344, 353, 356, 362, 364, 365, 370, 376 – underlying structure 185, 288–289, 294–301, 301–302, 302–303, 305–307 – word order 288–289

404

Subject Index

compound (classification) – additional compound 16, 32, 312, 314, 317, 323, 326 – appositive compound 10, 16, 32, 288, 304–307, 313–314, 368–371 (see also “appositive compound”) – bahuvrihi 289, 290, 298, 300, 301 – copulative X, 16, 290, 291, 293, 294, 301–302, 302–303, 304, 308, 314, 359 – dependent determinative (see also “dependent determinative”) 290, 294–297, 305 – descriptive determinative X, 290, 294–298, 300, 304, 305 (see also “descriptive determinative”) – determinative X, 288, 290, 293, 294–301, 304 – devatā dvandva 105, 315–316 – dvandva X, 10–11, 16, 32, 104–105, 290, 302, 306–307, 308–312, 314, 326, 341, 352, 369–371, 379 – echte Komposita (‘real compounds’) 292–293 – endocentric compound X, 300–301 – exocentric compound X, 300–301 – hybrid 16, 313, 314, 325, 368, 369, 370, 371 – possessive compound 289, 290, 298, 300–301 – type-of compound 16, 32, 313, 314, 319, 323, 368, 369, 370, 371 – unechte-Komposita (‘improper compounds’) 293, 299 compound (word) group 342, 344, 347–353, 367 co-ordination (compound) 293, 306, 313, 314, 317, 337, 370, 371, 379 copulative (compound) – additional compound X, 16, 32, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315–317, 323–326, 331, 337, 339, 341, 353, 356, 368, 369–371, 379 – dvandva X, 10–11, 16, 32, 104–105, 290, 302–303, 306–307, 308–312, 313, 314, 315–317, 322, 323–326, 328, 329, 337, 338–339, 341, 345–347, 349–353, 356, 367–368, 369–371, 379

– hybrid X, XI, 16, 32, 33, 306, 313, 314, 323–328, 329–331, 335, 337, 353–356, 359, 361, 362, 363, 368, 369–371, 379 correlation 306, 308, 314, 317, 371, 379, 380 count noun 47 cuneiform 66, 67, 74–75, 77, 87 Cushitic (Afro-Asiatic) 52 Cuvier, Georges (1769–1832) 36 dative 29, 40, 70, 152, 191, 256–260, 264 – dative attraction 257–259 definite article 15, 21, 32, 41, 98, 116, 120, 128, 233, 274, 275, 277, 281, 284, 367, 374, 380 – and nominal apposition 15, 21, 115, 116, 127, 128, 129, 132, 136, 141, 144, 145, 169, 214–217, 227, 279, 280, 285, 344, 374 – development of 15, 32, 127, 187, 233, 274, 280–281, 284–285, 344, 367, 380 – grammaticalization 274–275, 277, 281, 380 – origins of 127, 274–275, 277, 279–280 demonstrative 43, 44, 52, 53, 54, 57, 127, 128, 141, 234, 235, 238, 274–279, 281, 375 demonstrative/definite article 115, 127, 129, 141, 145, 169, 187, 204, 275, 280, 285 dependent determinative (compound) X, 290, 294–300, 305 – Noun + Adjective 296–297 – Noun + Noun 296, 299–300 – Verb + Noun 288–289, 295, 299–300 – Verb + Noun (Subject) 295, 299–300 derivation 184, 232, 247, 248, 290, 291, 309, 310, 323, 353, 354, 364 – vs. composition 290, 323, 364 – vs. inflection 291 descriptive determinative (compound) X, 290, 294, 297–300, 301 – Adjective + Noun 297, 298, 299, 300–301 – Noun + Adjective 298, 299, 300–301 – Noun + Adjective/ Adjective + Noun (bahuvrihi) 298, 300–301 – Noun + Noun 297, 299–300 devatā compound (divinity dvandva) 105, 315 (see also “compound”)

Subject Index

dual (grammatical category) 10, 23, 24, 93, 104, 309, 312, 315–316, 324, 345, 346, 347 – dvandva 315, 316, 324 – Greek 324 – Indo-European (origins) 346 – Latin 346–347 – Sanskrit 104, 308–309, 312, 315, 345 Dutch (Indo-European, Germanic) 57–58, 284 dvandva, X, 10–11, 16, 32, 104–105, 290, 302–303, 306–307, 308–312, 313, 314, 315–317, 322, 323–326, 328, 329, 337, 338–339, 341, 345–347, 349–353, 356, 367–368, 369–371, 379 (see also “compound”) – and complementarity 105, 161, 309, 310, 312, 315, 316, 317, 325, 326, 329, 341, 346, 349, 352, 367, 370 – diachronic stages 308–312, 345–347 Early Latin (see “Latin”) Eblaite (Afro-Asiatic, Semitic) 66 echte-Komposita (‘real-compounds’) 292–293 (see also “compound”) Egyptian (Afro-Asiatic) 53 elliptic dual 309, 312, 324, 345, 346, 347 elliptic plural XI, 345–347, 367 endocentric compound (see also “compound”) X, 300–301 English (Indo-European, Germanic) 15, 49, 50, 51, 57, 58, 59, 288–289, 291, 331, 342, 363, 364, 366, 371 ergative 40, 66, 69 ergative language 66, 69 exocentric compound X, 300–301 (see also “compound”) explicative apposition 6, 7 extra-linguistic knowledge – (role in linguistic analysis) 42, 48, 69, 329, 351, 355 Farsi (Indo-European, Indo-Iranian) 338, 339 gender (grammatical category) VII, 19, 23, 30, 34, 37, 40, 41, 42, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55–57, 59, 60, 70, 86, 87, 121, 122, 158, 171, 173, 189, 200, 234, 236, 241, 248, 291,

405

299, 300, 355, 362, 364–365, 366, 370, 371, 375, 381 – development of 55–57 – feminine 37, 41, 42, 55, 56, 57, 121, 122, 200, 248, 261, 300, 310, 364–365, 366, 375 – genus commune 56, 87 – genus neutrum 56, 87 – masculine 37, 41, 42, 55, 56, 57, 121, 122, 248, 300, 365, 375 – neuter 40, 41, 42, 55, 56, 57, 236, 375 gender language VII, 30, 38, 39–42, 46, 54, 57, 60, 87, 375 genitive – appositive genitive 1, 15, 16, 28 – explicative genitive 15–16 – instead of nominal apposition [FAUNA] / [FLORA] 246–248, and passim – instead of nominal apposition [GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION] 124–125, 180–181, 239–240, 373, 374, and passim – instead of nominal apposition [QUANTIFICATION] 125, 248–255, 283–285, 373–374, and passim – instead of nominal apposition [TIME] 240–246 – of specification 15–16 – partitive genitive 16, 99, 283, 379 – prepositional genitive 1, 7, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 28, 33, 194–195, 208, 221, 243, 251–252, 254, 264, 282, 284, 363, 372–373 – spread of 285, 287 – vs. de (Latin-Romance) 194–195, 221–222, 251–252 genus commune 56, 87 (see also “gender”) genus neutrum 56, 87 (see also “gender”) German (Indo-European, Germanic) 12, 15, 21–23, 33, 41, 46, 57, 58, 234, 238, 283–284, 331, 373–374 Germanic (Indo-European VIII, X, 16, 31, 33, 36, 90, 91, 127–145, 159, 166, 169, 172, 173, 174, 226, 273, 279, 280, 283, 285, 289, 301, 307, 328–338, 362, 367–368, 370, 371, 372–373 – early Germanic 141, 144, 159, 172, 174, 279, 283, 328, 329–330, 336, 362, 371, 372

406

Subject Index

Gothic (Indo-European, Germanic) VIII, 127–129, 141, 145, 279, 328, 337 grammatical dependency 5, 15, 16, 20, 28, 281, 286, 293, 294, 296, 299, 306, 371, 374, 378–380, 381 grammatical hierarchy VII, 1, 3, 17–26, 33, 238, 362, 371, 381 grammaticalization 176, 274, 366, 375, 376, 380 – classifier 375–376, 380 – definite article 274–275 (see also “definite article”) – La. mente 176, 310 Greek (Indo-European) – Homeric Greek 29, 107, 126, 164, 225, 323, 324 – Mycenaean Greek VII, 30, 80–86, 90, 106, 107–109, 126, 164, 166, 168, 170 – New Testament Greek 121 – Papyrian Greek 325, 327 Gregory of Tours (538–594) 241, 245, 260 Grimm, Jacob (1785–1863) 63 group apposition 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 18, 268 head (grammatical head) 2, 5, 18, 19, 20, 21, 17–26 – criteria of identification 18, 19, 24–26 – definition 24–26 Hirt, Hermann (1865–1936) 63 historical comparative linguistics 63, 64, 89 historical linguistics 89 Hittite (Indo-European) VIII, X, 2, 13, 29, 30, 31, 55–56, 60, 62, 65–66, 74–80, 82, 86–87, 88, 90, 91–99, 106, 112, 113, 126, 159, 161, 163, 167, 169, 170, 172, 173, 174, 225, 248, 255, 256, 258, 273, 283, 291, 292, 301, 314–323, 346, 369, 372, 376–377 homeland (Indo-European linguistics) 63 Homeric Greek (see Greek) 29, 107, 126, 164, 225, 323, 324 HOMO construction 98, 121, 152, 155–156, 161, 169 – Greek 98, 121, 161, 169 – Latin 98, 152, 155–156, 158, 160, 161, 165, 167, 169, 188, 191, 194, 255 – Sanskrit 98, 161, 169

Hurrian (Hurro-Urartian) 66 hybrid (compound) X, XI, 16, 32, 33, 306, 313, 314, 323–328, 329–331, 335, 337, 353–356, 359, 361, 362, 363, 368, 369–371, 379 – tautological 331, 335, 338 – word order 359–360, 363 hyperonymy 334, 335, 337, 361, 362, 368, 370 hypotaxis 15, 281, 282, 286, 287, 306, 314, 337, 371, 372, 378, 379 ideogram 13, 68, 70, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80–82, 83, 85, 106, 108, 377 inanimate 41, 42, 55–56, 236, 278, 366 indefinite article 21 Indo-Aryan (Indo-European, Indo-Iranian) 4, 35, 52, 166, 175, 254, 287, 375, 376, 380 Indo-European – early Indo-European VIII, IX, XIII, 2, 3, 4, 13, 25, 29, 30–31, 33, 42, 55–56, 59, 62, 63, 66, 88–89, 90, 91, 92, 97–98, 101, 106, 144, 145, 147, 148, 159–160, 162, 165, 167, 168–169, 171, 175, 188, 218, 225, 239, 255, 263, 269, 273, 291–292, 301, 304, 307, 314, 330, 341, 367, 378, 380 – grammar 2, 3, 5, 12, 15, 25, 30, 32, 39, 40, 41, 42, 55–58, 60, 286, 288, and passim Indo-European grammar – evolution of 2, 5, 15, 17, 25, 32, 286, 288, 374, 378, 379–380, 381 Indo-European linguistics 55, 63, 64, 289 inflection 53, 75, 342 inflectional language 42, 53, 54, 66 inflectional morphology 289–290, 291 isolating language 51, 53, 54, 380 Italic (Indo-European) IX, 31, 90, 91, 145–160, 161, 166, 174, 223, 291, 372 Iupiter IX, 8, 101, 112, 146, 161, 164, 168, 186, 223, 224–225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 353 Jakaltek (Mayan) 44 Japanese (Japonic) 44, 163, 378

Subject Index

karmadhāraya (compound, descriptive determinative) 290, 294, 299 (see also “compound”) Kuhn, Adalbert (1812–1881) 63 language change 2, 3, 5, 15, 17, 32, 176, 189, 275, 281, 282, 342, 372 (see also “Indo-European grammar – evolution”) language change – and complexity 269–270 – lexically motivated 32, 163, 165, 169, 269, 285 – syntax vs. morphology 1, 5, 16, 25, 33, 218–219, 286, 287, 288, 372, 374, 378, 379, 381 language evolution (see “Indo-European grammar – evolution” and “language change”) Late Latin (see “Latin”) Latin (Indo-European, Italic) – Classical Latin IX, 148, 175–188, 259, 263–264, 277, 279, 303, and passim – Early Latin IX, 25, 28, 145, 148–159, 160, 165, 172, 175, 185, 188, 207, 217, 259, 342, 353, and passim – Late Latin IX, 27, 148, 175–176, 189, 192–213, 214, 245, 247, 248, 253, 261–262, 265, 277, 278, 281, 283, 303, 334, 341, 343, 356, and passim – Medieval Latin 176 – varieties of 148, 175–177 – Vulgar Latin IX, 148, 175, 176, 189–192, 245, 247, 248, 261–262, 265, 277–278, 281, 283, 303, 334, 341, 343, 356, and passim Latin inscriptions 146, 189, 230, 231, 251, 265, 274, 287 Latvian (Indo-European, Baltic) 57 left-branching (see “branching”) Linnaeus, Carl (1707–1778) 63 Lithuanian (Indo-European, Baltic) 57, 338, 339 Linear B (writing system) VIII, 80, 81–86 (see also “Mycenaean”) locative 40, 70, 292 mass noun 47, 51 measure term (noun classification) 30, 38, 39, 46–47, 49, 50, 60, 171 (see also “class term”)

407

Medieval Latin (see “Latin”) -mente adverb (Romance) 176, 309–310 – origins of 176 metonymy/metonymic relation (compound) 9, 301, 362, 368, 371 metaphor/metaphoric relation (compound) 9–10, 362, 368, 370, 371 Middle English (Indo-European, Germanic) VIII, 127, 135–138, 331, and passim Middle French (Indo-European, Romance) 331, 357, 362–363, and passim Middle High German (Indo-European, Germanic) 283, 285, 374, and passim mihi est construction (possession) 152, 256, 257, 258, 263, 289 Modern French (Indo-European, Romance) 6, 19, 21–23, 24, 30, 40, 41, 46, 58, 59, 163, 220–223, 238, 245, 247, 248, 269–270, 282, 283, 288, 296, 299–300, 310, 342, 343, 357, 358–363, 364–367, 368, 371, 372, and passim Modern Persian (Indo-European, Indo-Iranian) 57 (see also “Farsi”) mood (grammatical category) 291 Mycenaean (Indo-European, Greek) VII, 30, 80–86, 90, 106, 107–109, 126, 164, 166, 168, 170 (see also “Linear B”) names of days 239, 240–246 – Latin 239, 240–246, 282 – Romance 240–246, 282 names of feasts 91, 148, 179–180, 200, 209, 211, 217, 221–222, 240–246, 282 names of months 148, 245, 282, 373 Neogrammarians 35 Niger-Kordofanian 41, 52, 53 NOMEN construction 117, 126, 133, 144, 145, 147, 152–153, 184, 190, 200, 255–264 – Old French 262–263 – Greek 117, 126, 255, 256, 258, 261 – Hittite 256, 258 – Latin 152–153, 184, 190, 200 – Sanskrit 256, 258 nominal apposition (see also “apposition”) – and language evolution 2, 3, 5, 32, 372, 374, 378–381

408

Subject Index

– and noun classification 12, 30, 59–61, 162, 168, 170–171, 288, 372, 375–376 – and script determinatives 2, 5, 13, 29, 30–31, 33, 61, 62, 88–89, 97–99, 126, 161, 162, 167, 169, 170–171, 318–323, 372, 376–377 nominative 29, 32, 40, 224, 257, 259, 260, 261–263, 264, 265–269, 287 – spread of IX, 32, 233, 261–263, 264, 265–269, 285, 286–287 nominative language 51, 66 noun classification (see “classification, – of nouns”) noun-class language VII, 30, 38, 39–41, 52, 70 number (grammatical category) 2, 15, 21, 23, 40, 238, 291, 299, 305, 347, 371, 375, 381 numeral X, 43, 51, 53, 54, 106, 133, 134, 171, 172–173, 207, 244, 245, 250, 252, 254, 255, 277–278, 283, 302–304, 341, 375 – Indo-European 172–173 – underlying arithmetical operations 303–304 – vigesimal 303 numeral classifier 38, 43–44, 52, 53, 59, 85, 87, 254 (see also “classifier”) Old English (Indo-European, Germanic) 127, 135–138, 141, 145, 330, 331, 332, 333, 337, 342, and passim Old French (Indo-European, Romance) 213– 217, 241, 254, 262–263, 278–280, 310, 357, 358, and passim Old High German (Indo-European, Germanic) VIII, 127, 139–144, 145, 279, 285, 330, 331, 332, 333, and passim Old Norse (Indo-European, Germanic) VIII, 127, 130–135, 137, 141, 145, and passim Old Persian (Indo-European, Indo-Iranian) X, 338, and passim Old Saxon (Indo-European, Germanic) VIII, 127, 138–139, and passim Oscan (Indo-European, Italic) IX, 141–148, 223, and passim Panini (4th c. B.C.) 290, 294, 368 partitive apposition 4, 7, 11 (see also “apposition”)

partitive genitive 16, 99, 283, 379 (see also “genitive”) patronymic 110, 131–132, 152, 244, 273–277, 279, 285 – Latin 273–277, 279, 285 personal pronoun 21 Petronius (A.D. 27–66) 189–191, and passim Phaedrus (1st c. A.D.) 186–188, 197, 216, 234, 270, and passim pictogram (writing system) 67, 80 pictographic script 13 Plautus (254–184 B.C.) IX, 27, 28, 148, 149–154, 158, 160, 161, 165, 168, 176, 181, 188, 191, 223, 234, 257–260, 269, 275, 286, 354, 356, and passim Ponapean (Micronesian) 45, 49 position verb 57–58 possessive compound (see “bahuvrihi” and “compound”) possessive mihi est construction 152, 256, 257, 258, 263, 289 proper noun – as part of speech 217–218, 377–378 – in nominal apposition 167–170, 170–171, 217–219, 375, 377, 377–378, and passim Proto-Germanic (Indo-European) 330 Proto-Indo-European 30, 41, 42, 55–57, 59, 63, 289, 292, 314, 323, 376 (see also “protolanguage”) – active language 56, 66, 289 protolanguage (Proto-Indo-European) 36, 55–57, 58, 63, 273, 381 (see also “Proto-Indo-European”) quantification (expressions of) 8–9, 12, 20, 31, 44, 47, 84, 91, 96, 99, 108–109, 123–124, 125, 126, 133–134, 159–160, 168, 171, 172, 173, 217–218, 220–222, 239, 248–255, 264, 283–286, 373–374, and passim relative pronoun 21, 22, 23, 234, 237, 238 religion – development of 224–225 – and nominal apposition 223–233 right-branching (see “branching”)

Subject Index

Romance languages (Indo-European, Italic) 15, 16, 25, 27, 32, 33, 37, 42, 57, 141, 174, 176, 215, 217, 219–223, 240, 242, 244, 245, 247–248, 263, 268, 274, 277–283, 287, 303, 310, 341–344, 356–368, 370, 371, 373, 374, and passim Russian (Indo-European, Slavic) 339, 340 Sanskrit (Indo-European, Indo-Iranian) VIII, X, 29, 31, 36, 55–56, 90, 98, 99–106, 120, 126, 159, 161, 164, 166–167, 169, 172– 173, 226, 232, 256, 258, 273, 290, 292, 295, 303, 307–314, 316, 317, 323, 324, 338, 346, 347, 350, 351, 367, 368, 369, 371, 372, and passim Saussure, Ferdinand de (1857–1913) 63 script determinative (writing system) VII, VIII, IX, X, XIII, 2, 5, 13, 30–31, 33, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67–74 (Sumerian), 74–80 (Hittite), 80–86 (Mycenaean), 87, 88–89, 91, 94, 95, 97–99, 106, 113, 126, 167, 169, 170, 288, 315, 318–322 (Hittite), 323, 376–377, and passim – function 31, 62, 68, 69, 74, 80, 86, 87, 97, 99, 106, 315, 318, 320, 322, 377 – function, development of 69, 74, 87 – in word formation 315, 318–322, 323 semantic field (nominal apposition) IX. 31, 47, 59, 90, 99, 106, 126, 159, 167, 168– 169, 170–172, 217–219, 220–223, 223– 233, 281–285, 286–287, 372–373, 375 Semitic 52, 66 Sir William Jones (1746–1794) 63 Slavic (Indo-European) IX, 338, 339, 340 Specht, Franz (1888–1949) 63 Sumerian (language isolate) VII, VIII, 13, 62, 66, 67–74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 86, 87, 96, 97, 170 Sumerogram (writing system) 75, 76, 92, 377 Swahili (Bantu) 37, 39, 40, 41 syllabic writing system/sign 67, 68, 75, 80, 81 tatpuruṣa (compound) 290, 294, 299 tautological hybrid 331, 335, 338 (see also “compound”)

409

tense (grammatical category) 42, 291, 342 Terence (195–259-B.C) IX, 148, 149, 153, 154–157, 158, 160, 161, 165, 168, 176, 181, 188, 191, 223, 258, 269, 275, 286, 356, and passim Thai (Tai-Kadai) 44 token 64 – origin of writing 64 transitivity 51, 56 – as grammatical feature 51, 56 type-of compound X, XI, 16, 32, 306, 313, 314, 318, 319, 323, 326, 327, 328, 332–337, 340, 341, 355, 356, 359, 360–363, 368–371, 379 (see also “compound”) – generic specification 334–336 – sex/age specification 332–334 – word order 360–363 typology 30, 52, 59, 163, 165, 289, 376 – typological correlate 34, 53 Umbrian (Indo-European, Italic) IX, 112, 145–148, 159, 167, 172, 223, 224 unechte Komposita (‘improper compounds’) 293, 299 (see also “compound”) Varro (116–27 B.C.) 148, 157, 175, 177–181, 209, 217, 218, 234, 236, 238, 270, and passim verbal classifier 38, 43, 45–46, 52 Vietnamese (Austroasiatic) 43, 44, 49, 50, 51 voice (grammatical category) 291 Vulgar Latin (see “Latin”) word formation – studies on 288–290, 291, 292–293, 294, 368–369 word order 2, 4, 6, 31, 33, 116, 117, 126, 135, 144, 162, 163, 165, 166, 169, 173, 210, 217, 249, 269, 270, 271, 273, 285, 288, 378, 379 (see also “branching”) – Adjective Noun vs. NA 166, 255 – Adjective Noun vs. NA (Latin) 166, 255 – Adjective Noun vs. NA (Romance) 166

410

Subject Index

word order change IX, 2, 15, 32, 166, 169, 174, 177, 218, 233, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 281, 282, 286, 303, 344, 379, 380 (see also “branching”) word order typology 163, 165 (see also “branching”) writing 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 74, 75, 86 – development of 66, 67, 68, 74, 75, 86 – origins of 62, 64, 66, 68

writing system VII,VIII, XIII, 2, 30, 33, 61, 62–89, 92, 97, 106, 162, 167, 170, 318, 319, 372, 376, 377 – Ancient Egyptian 67, 74 – Hittite 2, 30, 61, 62, 65, 66, 74–80, 86–88, 88–89, 162, 167, 170, 318, 319, 322, 372, 376, 377 – Mycenaean 2, 30, 61, 65, 80–86, 86–88, 89, 106, 167, 170, 372, 376, 377 – Sumerian 62, 66, 67–74, 86–88, 170