The Syntax of Old Romanian (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics) 9780198712350, 0198712359
This book provides the first comprehensive overview of the syntax of old Romanian written in English and targeted at a n
127 75 5MB
English Pages 528 [727] Year 2016
Cover
The Syntax of Old Romanian
Copyright
Dedication
Contents
Detailed contents and author attributions
Series preface
Preface
Contents and readership
Corpus
Methods and objectives
The structure of the book
Final remarks
Abbreviations and conventions
The contributors
1: Introduction
1.1 Presenting the corpus: typologizing, dating, and locating the texts
1.1.1 The period under study
1.1.2 Types of texts
1.1.3 Dating the texts
1.1.4 Provenance of the texts
1.1.5 Editions used
1.1.6 Problems of interpretation
1.2 Phonological features of old Romanian
1.3 Brief outline of the morphological system of old Romanian
2: The verb and its arguments: the root clause
2.1 The syntax of moods and tenses
2.1.1 The subjunctive
2.1.1.1 Origin and status
2.1.1.2 Simple and periphrastic forms
2.1.1.3 Syntactic contexts: the independent and the subordinate subjunctive
2.1.1.4 Epistemic and evidential values of the subordinate subjunctive
2.1.2 The conditional
2.1.2.1 Aș-conditional periphrases
2.1.2.2 Vrea-conditional periphrases
2.1.2.3 Uses and values of the conditional
2.1.2.4 The synthetic conditional (or synthetic future)
2.1.3 The imperative
2.1.4 Tense and aspect forms
2.1.4.1 The simple and compound past
2.1.4.2 The pluperfect and double compound perfect
2.1.4.3 Future periphrases
2.1.4.4 Aspectual values of simple and periphrastic forms
2.1.4.5 Auxiliary encliticization
2.1.4.6 The sequence of tenses (SOT) parameter
2.1.5 Final remarks
2.2 Pronominal clitics: clitic ordering, clitic clusters
2.2.1 Preliminary remarks
2.2.2 The position of clitics in the clause
2.2.2.1 Position relative to the verb
2.2.2.2 Clitics in first, second, and third position
2.2.2.3 Coordinating conjunctions and clitic placement
2.2.3 Finite moods
2.2.3.1 The indicative
2.2.3.2 The subjunctive
2.2.3.3 The conditional
2.2.2.4 The imperative
2.2.3.5 Double auxiliary structures
2.2.3.6 Clitic climbing structures
2.2.3.7 The position of the clitic o
2.2.3.8 The position of clitics relative to the weak adverbs mai ‘more’, și ‘also’, prea‘too’
2.2.3.9 The position of clitics relative to the sentential negator nu
2.2.4 Non-finite verb forms
2.2.5 Coordination
2.2.6 Adjacency vs. scrambling
2.2.7 Doubly realized clitics on the same verbal head
2.2.8 Clitic double realization on distinct verbal heads
2.2.9 Morphophonological changes: proclisis and î- prothesis; -u deletion
2.2.10 Mesoclisis
2.2.11 Clitic clusters
2.2.12 Final remarks
2.3 The syntactic frame of verbs and syntactic variation
2.3.1 Types of syntactic organization of the verb
2.3.2 Variations of the argumental configurations of the verb
2.3.2.1 Preliminary remarks
2.3.2.2 Variant arguments
2.3.3 (Non-argumental) variation between reflexive and non-reflexive verbs
2.3.4 Variation in the selection of the preposition
2.3.5 General characteristics of variations
2.3.5.1 Characteristics in common with MR
2.3.5.2 Differences from MR
2.3.5.3 Possible explanations of variations
2.4 Argument structure
2.4.1 The subject
2.4.1.1 Preliminary remarks
2.4.1.2 Realized vs. unrealized pronominal subject
2.4.1.3 The subject and impersonality
2.4.1.3.1 Type A impersonal verbs
2.4.1.3.2 Type B impersonal verbs
2.4.1.3.3 Impersonal se
2.4.1.3.4 Expletive pronominal subject
2.4.1.4 Special values and realizations
2.4.1.4.1 The subject realized as a bare noun
2.4.1.4.2 The human non-definite (generic) subject
2.4.1.4.3 The internal subject
2.4.1.4.4 The partitive prepositional subject
2.4.1.4.5 The genitival/possessive subject
2.4.1.4.6 The relative dative/genitive subject or the relative prepositional subject
2.4.1.4.7 The subject can be realized as different types of pronominal
2.4.1.4.8 The multiple subject
2.4.1.5 The subject and non-finite forms
2.4.1.5.1 The subject of non-finite forms
2.4.1.5.2 The subject realized as a non-finite clause
2.4.1.6 Subject word order
2.4.1.7 Emphasis and focalization discourse mechanisms
2.4.1.7.1 Subject doubling
2.4.1.7.2 Topicalization, left dislocation, and ‘hanging topic’
2.4.1.7.3 Rhematization
2.4.1.8 Final remarks
2.4.2 The direct object
2.4.2.1 Preliminary remarks
2.4.2.2 Selecting verbs
2.4.2.3 Realizations
2.4.2.4 P(r)e as a differential object marker
2.4.2.4.1 Variation with p(r)e-marking
2.4.2.4.2 The direct object with generic reading
2.4.2.5 Direct object clitic doubling
2.4.2.6 Raising constructions
2.4.2.7 Direct object word order
2.4.2.8 Final remarks
2.4.3 The secondary direct object
2.4.3.1 Preliminary remarks
2.4.3.2 Selecting verbs
2.4.3.3 Realizations
2.4.3.4 The characteristics of the structure
2.4.3.5 Final remarks
2.4.4 The indirect object
2.4.4.1 Preliminary remarks
2.4.4.2 Selecting verbs
2.4.4.3 Lexical features
2.4.4.4 Realizations
2.4.4.5 Clitic doubling
2.4.4.6 Word order
2.4.4.7 Final remarks
2.4.5 The prepositional object
2.4.5.1 Selecting heads
2.4.5.2 The ambiguity of the prepositions (s)pre, la, cătră
2.4.5.3 Realizations
2.4.5.4 Word order
2.4.5.5 Final remarks
2.5 Property-denoting complements
2.5.1 The subject(ive) predicative complement
2.5.1.1 The copula fi ‘be’
2.5.1.2 Other copula verbs
2.5.1.3 Realizations
2.5.1.4 Word order
2.5.2 The object(ive) predicative complement
2.5.2.1 Preliminary remarks
2.5.2.2 The subclass of naming verbs
2.5.2.2.1 Inventory
2.5.2.2.2 Syntactic variants of the construction
2.5.2.2.3 Pragmaticalization phenomena
2.5.2.2.4 Realizations of the OPC with naming verbs
2.5.2.3 The subclass of verbs of appointment
2.5.2.3.1 Inventory
2.2.2.3.2 Realizations of the OPC with verbs of appointment
2.6 Constructions involving overall clausal structure
2.6.1 Passive constructions
2.6.1.1 Preliminary remarks
2.6..2 Be-passive
2.6.1.3 Se-passive
2.6.1.4 Be-passive vs. se-passive
2.6.1.5 The Agent-phrase
2.6.1.6 Final remarks
2.6.2 Middle reflexives and anaphoric reflexives
2.6.2.1 Preliminary remarks
2.6.2.2 Middle reflexives
2.6.2.3 Anaphoric reflexives
2.6.2.4 Final remarks
2.6.3 Reciprocal constructions
2.6.3.1 Preliminary remarks
2.6.3.2 Implicit/inherent reciprocals
2.6.3.3 Bipropositional reciprocal structures
2.6.3.4 Reciprocal structures with accusative and dative anaphors
2.6.3.5 Reciprocal structures with indefinite substitutes
2.6.3.6 PP reciprocal structures
2.6.3.7 Split reciprocals
2.6.3.8 Noun repetition strategy
2.6.3.9 Double marked reciprocal structures
2.6.3.10 Final remarks
2.6.4 Adverbal possessive dative clitics
2.6.4.1 Preliminary remarks
2.6.4.2 The typology of adverbal possessive clitic structures
2.6.4.3 Differences from modern Romanian
2.6.4.4 Final remarks
3: Non-finite verb forms and non-finiteconstructions
3.1 The infinitive and the infinitival construction
3.1.1 Preliminary remarks
3.1.2 Short and long infinitive
3.1.3 A-infinitive and bare infinitive
3.1.3.1 The status of a
3.1.3.2 Conditions for the (non-)realization of a
3.1.4 The infinitive as a tense and mood formative
3.1.5 The temporal value of the infinitive
3.1.6 The temporal value of the infinitive
3.1.6.1 Complements
3.1.6.2 The subject
3.1.7 The contexts of occurrence of the infinitive. Infinitive–subjunctivecompetition in shared contexts
3.1.7.1 The infinitive subordinated to a verb
3.1.7.2 The infinitive subordinated to a noun
3.1.7.3 The infinitive subordinated to an adjective
3.1.7.4 The infinitive in the context of prepositions
3.1.7.5 The infinitive in relative clauses
3.1.8 The infinitive functioning as a predicate
3.1.9 Final remarks
3.2 The supine and the supine construction
3.2.1 Preliminary remarks
3.2.2 The nominal supine, the underspecified supine, and the verbal supine
3.2.2.1 The nominal supine
3.2.2.2 The underspecified supine
3.2.2.3 The verbal supine
3.2.3 Competition between the supine and other verb forms
3.3 The past participle and the participial clause
3.3.1 Preliminary remarks
3.3.2 The past participle as a tense and mood formative
3.3.3 The adjectival past participle
3.3.4 The past participle ending -ă
3.3.5 Final remarks
3.4 The gerund and the gerundial construction
3.4.1 Preliminary remarks
3.4.2 The syntactic characteristics of the OR gerund
3.4.2.1 Internal arguments and the subjective predicative complement
3.4.2.2 The subject
3.4.2.3 Voice
3.4.2.4 Aspect
3.4.2.5 Negation
3.4.2.6 Pronominal clitics
3.4.2.7 The perfect gerund
3.4.2.8 The tense of the gerund
3.4.2.9 Adverbs
3.4.2.10 Conjunctions and complementizers
3.4.3 Complex tenses formed with the gerund
3.4.4 The gerund in raising structures
3.4.4.1 Object raising
3.4.4.2 Subject raising
3.4.5 The gerund in control structures
3.4.5.1 Subject control structures
3.4.6 Syntactic positions occupied by the gerund
3.4.6.1 The gerund in adjunct position
3.4.6.2 Subject(ive) predicative complement position
3.4.6.3 The gerund in predicate position
3.4.6.4 The gerund in modifier position
3.4.7 Adverbs and prepositions originating in gerunds
3.4.8 Final remarks
4: The nominal phrase
4.1 The article and other determiners
4.1.1 Preliminary remarks
4.1.2 The definite article
4.1.2.1 The forms of the enclitic definite article
4.1.2.2 The functions of the definite article
4.1.2.3 Configurations of enclisis
4.1.2.4 Oscillations in the usage of the definite article. Bare nominal phrases
4.1.3 The indefinite article
4.1.3.1 The forms of the proclitic indefinite article
4.1.3.2 Syntactic particularities of the proclitic indefinite article
4.1.4 Demonstratives
4.1.5 The determiner cel
4.1.6 Alternative and identity determiners
4.1.7 Final remarks
4.2 Polydefinite structures
4.2.1 Preliminary remarks
4.2.2 The three-/four-determiner nominal phrase
4.2.3 The two-determiner nominal phrase
4.2.4 Final remarks
4.3 The genitive. Between analyticity and syntheticity
4.3.1 Preliminary remarks
4.3.2 Synthetic marking
4.3.2.1 Inflectional endings
4.3.2.2 The genitive-dative form of the definite article
4.3.3 Analytic marking
4.3.3.1 The proclitic morpheme lui
4.3.3.2 The functional element al
4.3.3.3 The prepositions a, de, la
4.3.4 Genitive marking by the inflected prenominal determiners
4.3.5 Case concord
4.3.6 The non-marking of the genitive
4.3.7 Final remarks
4.4 The partitive phrase
4.4.1 Preliminary remarks
4.4.2 The element in first position of the construction
4.4.3 Partitive prepositions
4.4.4 Special constructions
4.4.4.1 The partitive phrase incorporating a genitive/possessive DP
4.4.4.2 The incorporated relative clause
4.4.4.3 The partitive phrase with a null quantifier
4.4.4.4 The behaviour of mass and abstract nouns
4.4.5 Final remarks
4.5 Pronominal possession
4.5.1 Preliminary remarks
4.5.2 The possessive adjective
4.5.2.1 Inventory
4.5.2.2 Distribution
4.5.2.3 3rd person possessive adjectives vs. genitival personal pronouns
4.5.3 The possessive affix
4.5.3.1 Inventory
4.5.3.2 Distribution
4.5.4 The adnominal possessive clitic
4.5.4.1 Inventory
4.5.4.2 Configurations of cliticization
4.5.5 Possessor deletion by the definite article
4.5.6 The ratio of the different types of pronominal possession
4.5.7 Relation to definiteness
4.5.8 Final remarks
4.6 (Numerical and non-numerical) quantifiers; quantifying approximators
4.6.1 Preliminary remarks
4.6.2 Numerical quantifiers
4.6.2.1 Cardinal numerals
4.6.2.2 Ordinal numerals
4.6.2.3 Distributive, collective, multiplicative, and fractional numerical expressions
4.6.3 Pronominal quantifiers
4.6.3.1 Universal quantifiers
4.6.3.2 Indefinite quantifiers
4.6.3.3 Interrogative quantifiers
4.6.3.4 Negative quantifiers
4.6.4 Noun quantifiers
4.6.5 Null quantifiers
4.6.6 Final remarks
4.7 (Restrictive and non-restrictive) modifiers
4.7.1 Preliminary remarks
4.7.2 Restrictive modifiers
4.7.2.1 Adjectival modifiers
4.7.2.2 Prepositional modifiers
4.7.2.3 Wh-modifiers
4.7.3 Non-restrictive modifiers
4.7.3.1 Adjectival modifiers
4.7.3.2 Prepositional modifiers
4.7.3.3 Adverbial modifiers
4.7.3.4 Gerundial modifiers
4.7.3.5 Wh-modifiers
4.7.3.6 Clausal modifiers introduced by conjunctions
4.7.4 Final remarks
4.8 Apposition and nominal classifiers
4.8.1 The structure of appositive syntagms
4.8.2 Appositive markers
4.8.3 Syntactic features
4.8.4 Classifiers and proper names
4.8.5 Final remarks
4.9 The complements of the noun (nominalizations)
4.9.1 Preliminary remarks
4.9.2 Types of deverbal and deadjectival nouns
4.9.3 The nominalization of the long infinitive
4.9.4 Argument realization in nominalized structures
4.9.4.1 The arguments of deverbal nouns
4.9.4.2 The arguments of deadjectival nouns
4.9.5 Final remarks
4.10 Nominal ellipsis
4.10.1 Numerals as licensers
4.10.2 Nominal ellipsis headed by al
4.10.3 Demonstratives as licensers
4.10.4 Alalt (‘the other’) as a licenser
4.10.5 Ellipsis licensed by the definite article: OR vs. MR
4.11 Nominal intensifiers
4.11.1 Preliminary remarks
4.11.2 The descendant of the Latin IPSE: îns(u)
4.11.3 The bound enclitic intensifier -și
4.11.4 The lexical intensifier însuși
4.11.5 Other intensifiers
4.11.6 Intensifier clusters
4.11.7 Final remarks
5: Adjectives and adjectival phrases
5.1 Preliminary remarks
5.2 Noun–adjective agreement
5.3 Adjectival complementation
5.3.1 Adjective + direct object
5.3.2 Adjective + indirect object
5.3.3 Adjective + genitival complement
5.3.4 Adjective + prepositional object
5.4 The word order of adjectival modifiers
5.4.1 The word order of qualifying adjectives
5.4.2 The word order of relational adjectives
5.4.3 The serialization of adjectives
5.5 Adjectives in predicative position
5.6 Degree and intensity marking
5.6.1 The comparative
5.6.2 Elative structures
5.6.3 The superlative
5.7 Special adjectival constructions
5.8 Final remarks
6: Adverbs and adverbial phrases
6.1 Preliminary remarks
6.2 The structure of the adverbial phrase (AdvP)
6.2.1 AdvP-internal modifiers
6.2.2 Complements of the adverbial head
6.2.2.1 Adverbs taking a comparative complement
6.2.2.2 Adverbs taking an indirect object and a prepositional object
6.2.2.3 Adverbs combining with pronominal clitics
6.2.3 Adjuncts of the adverbial head
6.3 The external syntax of the AdvP
6.4 Adverbial (and verbal) grading
6.4.1 Mai and camai
6.4.2 Foarte, mult, prea, tare, vârtos
6.5 Focusing adverbs
6.6 Adverbs dislocating complex verb forms
6.7 Final remarks
7: Prepositions and prepositional phrases
7.1 Preliminary remarks
7.2 Inventory of prepositions
7.3 The structure of the prepositional phrase
7.3.1 Complements selected by prepositions and formal restrictions imposed on them
7.3.1.1 Realizations of complements selected by prepositions
7.3.1.2 Restrictions imposed on nominal complements
7.3.2 Modifiers of the prepositional phrase
7.4 Specific features of lexical prepositions
7.4.1 Semantic relations expressed by lexical prepositions
7.4.2 Competition between lexical prepositions
7.4.3 The repetition of prepositions in coordinated and explicative structures
7.5 Specific features of functional prepositions
7.6 Specific features of subcategorized prepositions
7.7 Final remarks
8: Coordination and coordinatingconjunctions
8.1 Preliminary remarks
8.2 Conjunctive coordination
8.2.1 Coordinators
8.3 Disjunctive coordination
8.3.1 Disjunctive coordinators
8.3.2 Correlative disjunctive coordination
8.4 Adversative coordination
8.4.1 Coordinators
8.4.2 Correlative adversative coordination
8.5 Conclusive coordination (‘therefore’)
8.6 Alternative coordination
8.7 Repetition of conjunctions vs. juxtaposition
8.8 The asymmetry of the conjuncts
8.8.1 Asymmetry in the marking of syntactic relations
8.8.2 Asymmetry of clitic placement
8.8.3 Asymmetry in the verbal form
8.8.4 Chiasmus
8.9 Agreement
8.10 Between coordination and subordination
8.10.1 De
8.10.2 Coordination inside a complex predicate
8.10.3 Anacoluthon
8.11 Sentence connectors
8.12 Final remarks
9: The complex clause
9.1 Complementizers and complement clauses
9.1.1 Preliminary remarks
9.1.2 Inventory of complementizers
9.1.2.1 Că (< QUOD)
9.1.2.2 Cum (< QUOMODO)
9.1.2.3 Să (< SE < *se < SI)
9.1.2.4 De
9.1.3 Final remarks
9.2 Relative clauses
9.2.1 Preliminary remarks
9.2.2 The wh-words
9.2.2.1 Wh-pronouns (and adjectives)
9.2.2.2 Adverbial wh-words
9.2.3 Special types of relative clauses
9.2.3.1 Infinitival relatives and modal existential constructions
9.2.3.2 Multiple relatives
9.2.3.3 (Pseudo-)cleft constructions
9.2.4 Final remarks
9.3 Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts
9.3.1 Temporal and location clauses
9.3.1.1 Temporal clause
9.3.1.2 Location clause
9.3.2 Manner clauses
9.3.2.1 Types of manner clauses: manner and comparison
9.3.2.2Main syntactic properties
9.3.3 Causal adjuncts/disjuncts
9.3.4 Purpose and result clauses
9.3.4.1 Purpose adjuncts: main patterns and connectives
9.3.4.2 Other syntactic properties of purpose clauses
9.3.4.3 Main patterns and connectives of result clauses
9.3.4.4 Final remarks
9.3.3.1 Inventory of subordinators introducing causal adjuncts and disjuncts
9.3.3.2 Semantic-pragmatic types of causal adjunct/disjunct
9.3.3.3 Distributional properties
9.3.3.4 Causal adjuncts in original vs. translated texts
9.3.3.5 Causality in the seventeenth–eighteenth centuries
9.3.3.6 Final remarks
9.3.4 Purpose and result clauses
9.3.4.1 Purpose adjuncts: main patterns and connectives
9.3.4.2 Other syntactic properties of purpose clauses
9.3.4.3 Main patterns and connectives of result clauses
9.3.4.4 Final remarks
9.3.5 Conditionals and concessives
9.3.5.1 Semantic and syntactic types of conditional clause
9.3.5.2 Conditional subordinators
9.3.5.3 Moods and tenses in the conditional construction
9.3.5.4 Other syntactic properties of conditional clauses
9.3.5.5 Semantic and syntactic types of concessive clauses
9.3.5.6 Concessive connectives: inventory and grammaticalization stages
9.3.5.7 Other syntactic properties of concessive constructions
9.3.5.8 Final remarks
9.3.6 Other adjunct clauses
9.3.6.1 Exceptive constructions
9.3.6.2 Addition clauses
9.3.6.3 Comitative and instrumental adjuncts
9.3.6.4 Substitutive adjuncts
9.4 Comparative constructions
9.4.1 Scalar comparative constructions
9.4.1.1 Degree markers in the comparison of inequality
9.4.1.2 Competing comparators: de and decât ‘than’
9.4.1.3 Variation in not-yet-grammaticalized superlative relative constructions
9.4.1.4 Comparison of equality (equative)
9.4.2 Non-scalar comparative constructions
9.4.2.1 Non-scalar comparator ca ‘as’
9.4.2.2 Non-scalar comparator cum ‘as’
9.4.2.3 Other comparators
9.4.2.4 Comparators specialized for unreal comparisons
9.4.3 Final remarks
10: Word order and configurationality
10.1 Preliminary remarks
10.2 The nominal and adjectival domain
10.2.1 Definiteness checking
10.2.2 Non-specialized demonstratives
10.2.3 The ambiguous grammar of the determiner cel
10.2.4 Adjacent genitives
10.2.5 The prenominal domain. Head-final structures
10.3 The verbal and clausal domain
10.3.1 The position of the verb on the clausal spine
10.3.2 Verb–clitic–auxiliary inversion
10.3.3 Scrambling
10.4 Discontinuous structures
10.5 Final remarks
11: Clausal organization anddiscourse phenomena
11.1 Polar and wh-interrogatives. Indirect interrogatives. Exclamatory constructions
11.1.2 Interrogative sentences
11.1.2.1 Organization and distribution of types
11.1.2.2 Polar interrogatives
11.1.2.3 Wh-interrogatives
11.1.2.4 Indirect interrogatives
11.1.2.5 Multiple indirect questions
11.1.3 Exclamatory constructions
11.1.4 Final remarks
11.2 Negators and negative constructions
11.2.1 Preliminary remarks
11.2.2 N-words
11.2.2.1 Absolute negators
11.2.2.2 Affixal negators
11.2.3 Simple negation, double (multiple) negation, and negative concord
11.2.3.1 Simple negation: non strict negative concord
11.2.3.2 Double and multiple negation: strict negative concord
11.2.4 Sentential negation
11.2.4.1 Primary analytic negation
11.2.4.2 Primary synthetic negation
11.2.5 Constituent negation
11.2.6 The negative pro-sentence
11.2.7 Additional negation
11.2.7.1 Binary negative structures with nici
11.2.7.2 Cumulative nici in negative structures
11.2.8 Increased specificity of negation
11.2.9 Expletive negation and negation raising
11.2.9.1 Expletive negation
11.2.9.2 Negation raising
11.2.10 Final remarks
11.3 Presentative constructions
11.4 Cognate objects and other pleonastic constructions
11.4.1 Preliminary remarks
11.4.2 Internal realizations of subject / object / adjuncts
11.4.3 Relative pleonastic constructions
11.4.4 Verbs of saying in pleonastic constructions
11.4.5 Final remarks
11.5 Feminine singular pronouns with neutral value
11.5.1 Preliminary remarks
11.5.2 The inventory of feminine pronominals with a neutral value
11.5.2.1 The demonstratives aceasta ‘this’, aceea ‘that’
11.5.2.2 The indefinites una ‘one thing’, alta ‘another thing’
11.5.2.3 Ordinal numerals
11.5.2.4 The compound relative pronoun ceea ce ‘what; which’
11.5.2.5 The personal clitic o
11.5.3 Final remarks
11.6 Appellation and forms of address
11.6.1 Preliminary remarks
11.6.2 The structure of appellative phrases with a vocative head
11.6.3 Pragmatic–syntactic relations between vocative and other sentence constituents
11.6.4 The system of allocutive elements
11.6.4.1 Terms of address
11.6.4.2 Pronominal address
11.6.4.3 Romanian honorifics
11.6.5 Final remarks
12: Conclusions
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Key phenomena
12.2.1 The verbal domain
12.2.2 The clausal domain
12.2.3 The nominal and adjectival domains
12.2.4 Subordinating and coordinating connectors
12.2.5 Word order
12.2.6 Reduction of redundancy
12.3 Conclusions
Appendix 1: Corpus
Appendix 2: Map
References
Index
Recommend Papers
![Verb Movement and Clause Structure in Old Romanian (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics) [Illustrated]
9780198736509, 0198736509](https://ebin.pub/img/200x200/verb-movement-and-clause-structure-in-old-romanian-oxford-studies-in-diachronic-and-historical-linguistics-illustrated-9780198736509-0198736509.jpg)
![Micro-change and Macro-change in Diachronic Syntax (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics) [1 ed.]
9780198747840, 0198747845](https://ebin.pub/img/200x200/micro-change-and-macro-change-in-diachronic-syntax-oxford-studies-in-diachronic-and-historical-linguistics-1nbsped-9780198747840-0198747845.jpg)
![The Evolution of Functional Left Peripheries in Hungarian Syntax (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics) [Illustrated]
9780198709855, 0198709854](https://ebin.pub/img/200x200/the-evolution-of-functional-left-peripheries-in-hungarian-syntax-oxford-studies-in-diachronic-and-historical-linguistics-illustrated-9780198709855-0198709854.jpg)
![Syntax over Time: Lexical, Morphological, and Information-Structural Interactions (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics) [Illustrated]
9780199687923, 0199687927](https://ebin.pub/img/200x200/syntax-over-time-lexical-morphological-and-information-structural-interactions-oxford-studies-in-diachronic-and-historical-linguistics-illustrated-9780199687923-0199687927.jpg)
![Syllable and Segment in Latin (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics) [Illustrated]
9780199660186, 0199660182](https://ebin.pub/img/200x200/syllable-and-segment-in-latin-oxford-studies-in-diachronic-and-historical-linguistics-illustrated-9780199660186-0199660182.jpg)
- Author / Uploaded
- Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (editor)
File loading please wait...
Citation preview
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The Syntax of Old Romanian
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2016, SPi
OXFORD STUDIES IN DIACHRONIC AND HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS GENERAL EDITORS:
Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge
ADVISORY EDITORS:
Cynthia Allen, Australian National University; Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, University of Manchester; Theresa Biberauer, University of Cambridge; Charlotte Galves, University of Campinas; Geoff Horrocks, University of Cambridge; Paul Kiparsky, Stanford University; Anthony Kroch, University of Pennsylvania; David Lightfoot, Georgetown University; Giuseppe Longobardi, University of York; David Willis, University of Cambridge RECENTLY PUBLISHED IN THE SERIES
Syntactic Reconstruction and Proto-Germanic George Walkden The History of Low German Negation Anne Breitbarth Arabic Indefinites, Interrogatives, and Negators A Linguistic History of Western Dialects David Wilmsen Syntax over Time Lexical, Morphological, and Information-Structural Interactions Edited by Theresa Biberauer and George Walkden Syllable and Segment in Latin Ranjan Sen Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit The Syntax and Semantics of Adjectival Verb Forms John J. Lowe Verb Movement and Clause Structure in Old Romanian Virginia Hill and Gabriela Alboiu The Syntax of Old Romanian Edited by Gabriela Pană Dindelegan For a complete list of titles published and in preparation for the series, see pp. –
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The Syntax of Old Romanian Edited by G A B R I EL A P A N Ă D I N D E L E G A N Consultant Editor MA RT I N MAIDE N
1
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries. © editorial matter and organization Gabriela Pană Dindelegan © individual chapters their various authors The moral rights of the authors have been asserted. First Edition published in Impression: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press Madison Avenue, New York, NY , United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: ISBN –––– Printed in Great Britain by Clays Ltd, St Ives plc Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Dedicated to the Romanian Academy on the occasion of its th anniversary
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Contents Detailed contents and author attributions Series preface Preface Abbreviations and conventions The contributors Introduction The verb and its arguments: the root clause
viii xxii xxiii xxvi xxx
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions
The nominal phrase
Adjectives and adjectival phrases
Adverbs and adverbial phrases
Prepositions and prepositional phrases
Coordination and coordinating conjunctions
The complex clause
Word order and configurationality
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena
Conclusions
Appendix : Corpus Appendix : Map. Regional distribution of the main old Romanian texts References Index
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Detailed contents and author attributions Series preface Preface Abbreviations and conventions The contributors Introduction . Presenting the corpus: typologizing, dating, and locating the texts (Emanuela Timotin) .. The period under study .. Types of texts .. Dating the texts .. Provenance of the texts .. Editions used .. Problems of interpretation . Phonological features of old Romanian (Camelia Stan) . Brief outline of the morphological system of old Romanian (Martin Maiden) The verb and its arguments: the root clause . The syntax of moods and tenses (Rodica Zafiu) .. The subjunctive ... Origin and status of să ... Simple and periphrastic forms ... Syntactic contexts: the independent and the subordinate subjunctive ... Epistemic and evidential values of the subordinate subjunctive .. The conditional ... Aș-conditional periphrases ... Vrea-conditional periphrases ... Uses and values of the conditional ... The synthetic conditional (or synthetic future) .. The imperative .. Tense and aspect forms ... The simple and compound past ... The pluperfect and double compound perfect ... Future periphrases ... Aspectual values of simple and periphrastic forms
xxii xxiii xxvi xxx
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Detailed contents and author attributions ... Auxiliary encliticization ... The sequence of tenses (SOT) parameter .. Final remarks . Pronominal clitics: clitic ordering, clitic clusters (Alexandru Nicolae, Dana Niculescu) .. Preliminary remarks .. The position of clitics in the clause ... Position relative to the verb ... Clitics in first, second, and third position ... Coordinating conjunctions and clitic placement .. Finite moods ... The indicative ... The subjunctive ... The conditional ... The imperative ... Double auxiliary structures ... Clitic climbing structures ... The position of the clitic o ... The position of clitics relative to the weak adverbs mai ‘more’, și ‘also’, prea ‘too’ ... The position of clitics relative to the sentential negator nu .. Non-finite verb forms .. Coordination .. Adjacency vs. scrambling .. Doubly realized clitics on the same verbal head .. Clitic double realization on distinct verbal heads .. Morphophonological changes: proclisis and îprothesis; -u deletion .. Mesoclisis .. Clitic clusters .. Final remarks . The syntactic frame of verbs and syntactic variation (Gabriela Pană Dindelegan) .. Types of syntactic organization of the verb .. Variations of the argumental configurations of the verb ... Preliminary remarks ... Variant arguments .. (Non-argumental) variation between reflexive and non-reflexive verbs .. Variation in the selection of the preposition .. General characteristics of variations ... Characteristics in common with MR ... Differences from MR ... Possible explanations of variations
ix
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
x
Detailed contents and author attributions . Argument structure .. The subject (Gabriela Pană Dindelegan) ... Preliminary remarks ... Realized vs. unrealized pronominal subject ... The subject and impersonality ... Special values and realizations ... The subject and non-finite forms ... Subject word order ... Emphasis and focalization discourse mechanisms ... Final remarks .. The direct object (Irina Nicula Paraschiv) ... Preliminary remarks ... Selecting verbs ... Realizations ... P(r)e as a differential object marker ... Direct object clitic doubling ... Raising constructions ... Direct object word order ... Final remarks .. The secondary direct object (Gabriela Pană Dindelegan) ... Preliminary remarks ... Selecting verbs ... Realizations ... The characteristics of the structure ... Final remarks .. The indirect object (Irina Nicula Paraschiv, Gabriela Pană Dindelegan) ... Preliminary remarks ... Selecting verbs ... Lexical features ... Realizations ... Clitic doubling ... Word order ... Final remarks .. The prepositional object (Gabriela Pană Dindelegan) ... Selecting heads ... The ambiguity of the prepositions (s)pre, la, cătră ... Realizations ... Word order ... Final remarks . Property-denoting complements .. The subject(ive) predicative complement (Adina Dragomirescu) ... The copula fi ‘be’ ... Other copula verbs
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Detailed contents and author attributions
xi
... Realizations ... Word order ... Final remarks .. The object(ive) predicative complement (Gabriela Pană Dindelegan) ... Preliminary remarks ... The subclass of naming verbs ... The subclass of verbs of appointment ... Final remarks . Constructions involving overall clausal structure .. Passive constructions (Andra Vasilescu) ... Preliminary remarks ... Be-passive ... Se-passive ... Be-passive vs. se-passive ... The Agent-phrase ... Final remarks .. Middle reflexives and anaphoric reflexives (Andra Vasilescu) ... Preliminary remarks ... Middle reflexives ... Anaphoric reflexives ... Final remarks .. Reciprocal constructions (Andra Vasilescu) ... Preliminary remarks ... Implicit/inherent reciprocals ... Bipropositional reciprocal structures ... Reciprocal structures with accusative and dative anaphors ... Reciprocal structures with indefinite substitutes ... PP reciprocal structures ... Split reciprocals ... Noun repetition strategy ... Double marked reciprocal structures ... Final remarks .. Adverbal possessive dative clitics (Gabriela Pană Dindelegan) ... Preliminary remarks ... The typology of adverbal possessive clitic structures ... Differences from modern Romanian ... Final remarks
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions . The infinitive and the infinitival construction (Isabela Nedelcu) .. Preliminary remarks .. Short and long infinitive .. A-infinitive and bare infinitive
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
xii
Detailed contents and author attributions ... The status of a ... Conditions for the (non-)realization of a .. The infinitive as a tense and mood formative .. The temporal value of the infinitive .. The infinitival clause ... Complements ... The subject .. The contexts of occurrence of the infinitive. Infinitive– subjunctive competition in shared contexts ... The infinitive subordinated to a verb ... The infinitive subordinated to a noun ... The infinitive subordinated to an adjective ... The infinitive in the context of prepositions ... The infinitive in relative clauses .. The infinitive functioning as a predicate .. Final remarks . The supine and the supine construction (Adina Dragomirescu) .. Preliminary remarks .. The nominal supine, the underspecified supine, and the verbal supine ... The nominal supine ... The underspecified supine ... The verbal supine .. Competition between the supine and other verb forms .. Final remarks . The past participle and the participial clause (Adina Dragomirescu) .. Preliminary remarks .. The past participle as a tense and mood formative .. The adjectival past participle .. The past participle ending -ă .. Final remarks . The gerund and the gerundial construction (Dana Niculescu) .. Preliminary remarks ... The syntactic characteristics of the OR gerund ... Internal arguments and the subjective predicative complement ... The subject ... Voice ... Aspect ... Negation ... Pronominal clitics ... The perfect gerund ... The tense of the gerund ... Adverbs ... Conjunctions and complementizers
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Detailed contents and author attributions .. Complex tenses formed with the gerund ... The gerund in raising structures ... Object raising ... Subject raising .. The gerund in control structures ... Subject control structures ... Object control structures .. Syntactic positions occupied by the gerund ... The gerund in adjunct position ... Subject(ive) predicative complement position ... The gerund in predicate position ... The gerund in modifier position .. Adverbs and prepositions originating in gerunds .. Final remarks The nominal phrase . The article and other determiners (Camelia Stan) .. Preliminary remarks .. The definite article ... The forms of the enclitic definite article ... The functions of the definite article ... Configurations of enclisis ... Oscillations in the usage of the definite article. Bare nominal phrases .. The indefinite article ... The forms of the proclitic indefinite article ... Syntactic particularities of the proclitic indefinite article .. Demonstratives .. The determiner cel .. Alternative and identity determiners .. Final remarks . Polydefinite structures (Camelia Stan) .. Preliminary remarks .. The three-/four-determiner nominal phrase .. The two-determiner nominal phrase .. Final remarks . The genitive. Between analyticity and syntheticity (Camelia Stan) .. Preliminary remarks .. Synthetic marking ... Inflectional endings ... The genitive-dative form of the definite article .. Analytic marking ... The proclitic morpheme lui ... The functional element al ... The prepositions a, de, la
xiii
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
xiv
Detailed contents and author attributions .. Genitive marking by the inflected prenominal determiners .. Case concord .. The non-marking of the genitive .. Final remarks . The partitive phrase (Gabriela Pană Dindelegan) .. Preliminary remarks .. The element in first position of the construction .. Partitive prepositions .. Special constructions ... The partitive phrase incorporating a genitive/ possessive DP ... The incorporated relative clause ... The partitive phrase with a null quantifier ... The behaviour of mass and abstract nouns .. Final remarks . Pronominal possession (Alexandru Nicolae) .. Preliminary remarks .. The possessive adjective ... Inventory ... Distribution ... rd person possessive adjectives vs. genitival personal pronouns .. The possessive affix ... Inventory ... Distribution .. The adnominal possessive clitic ... Inventory ... Configurations of cliticization .. Possessor deletion by the definite article .. The ratio of the different types of pronominal possession .. Relation to definiteness .. Final remarks . (Numerical and non-numerical) quantifiers; quantifying approximators (Camelia Stan) .. Preliminary remarks .. Numerical quantifiers ... Cardinal numerals ... Ordinal numerals ... Distributive, collective, multiplicative, and fractional numerical expressions .. Pronominal quantifiers ... Universal quantifiers ... Indefinite quantifiers ... Interrogative quantifiers ... Negative quantifiers
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Detailed contents and author attributions .. Noun quantifiers .. Null quantifiers .. Final remarks . (Restrictive and non-restrictive) modifiers (Camelia Stan) .. Preliminary remarks .. Restrictive modifiers ... Adjectival modifiers ... Prepositional modifiers ... Wh-modifiers .. Non-restrictive modifiers ... Adjectival modifiers ... Prepositional modifiers ... Adverbial modifiers ... Gerundial modifiers ... Wh-modifiers ... Clausal modifiers introduced by conjunctions .. Final remarks . Apposition and nominal classifiers (Raluca Brăescu) .. The structure of appositive syntagms .. Appositive markers .. Syntactic features .. Classifiers and proper names .. Final remarks . The complements of the noun (nominalizations) (Camelia Stan) .. Preliminary remarks .. Types of deverbal and deadjectival nouns .. The nominalization of the long infinitive .. Argument realization in nominalized structures ... The arguments of deverbal nouns ... The arguments of deadjectival nouns .. Final remarks . Nominal ellipsis (Alexandru Nicolae) .. Numerals as licensers .. Nominal ellipsis headed by al .. Demonstratives as licensers .. Alalt (‘the other’) as a licenser .. Ellipsis licensed by the definite article: OR vs. MR . Nominal intensifiers (Andra Vasilescu) .. Preliminary remarks .. The descendant of the Latin IPSE: îns(u) .. The bound enclitic intensifier -și .. The lexical intensifier însuși .. Other intensifiers .. Intensifier clusters .. Final remarks
xv
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2016, SPi
xvi
Detailed contents and author attributions
Adjectives and adjectival phrases (Raluca Brăescu) . Preliminary remarks . Noun-adjective agreement . Adjectival complementation .. Adjective + direct object .. Adjective + indirect object .. Adjective + genitival complement .. Adjective + prepositional object . The word order of adjectival modifiers .. The word order of qualifying adjectives .. The word order of relational adjectives .. The serialization of adjectives . Adjectives in predicative position . Degree and intensity marking .. The comparative .. Elative structures .. The superlative . Special adjectival constructions . Final remarks Adverbs and adverbial phrases (Carmen Mîrzea Vasile) . Preliminary remarks . The structure of the adverbial phrase (AdvP) .. AdvP-internal modifiers .. Complements of the adverbial head ... Adverbs taking a comparative complement ... Adverbs taking an indirect object and a prepositional object ... Adverbs combining with pronominal clitics .. Adjuncts of the adverbial head . The external syntax of the AdvP . Adverbial (and verbal) grading .. Mai and camai .. Foarte, mult, prea, tare, vârtos . Focusing adverbs . Adverbs dislocating complex verb forms . Final remarks Prepositions and prepositional phrases (Isabela Nedelcu) . Preliminary remarks . Inventory of prepositions . The structure of the prepositional phrase .. Complements selected by prepositions and formal restrictions imposed on them ... Realizations of complements selected by prepositions ... Restrictions imposed on nominal complements
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2016, SPi
Detailed contents and author attributions
xvii
.. Modifiers of the prepositional phrase . Specific features of lexical prepositions .. Semantic relations expressed by lexical prepositions .. Competition between lexical prepositions .. The repetition of prepositions in coordinated and explicative structures . Specific features of functional prepositions . Specific features of subcategorized prepositions . Final remarks
Coordination and coordinating conjunctions (Blanca Croitor) . Preliminary remarks . Conjunctive coordination .. Coordinators .. Correlative conjunctive coordination .. Split coordination . Disjunctive coordination .. Disjunctive coordinators .. Correlative disjunctive coordination . Adversative coordination .. Coordinators .. Correlative adversative coordination . Conclusive coordination (‘therefore’) . Alternative coordination . Repetition of conjunctions vs. juxtaposition . The asymmetry of the conjuncts .. Asymmetry in the marking of syntactic relations .. Asymmetry of clitic placement .. Asymmetry in the verbal form .. Chiasmus . Agreement . Between coordination and subordination .. De .. Coordination inside a complex predicate .. Anacoluthon . Sentence connectors . Final remarks
The complex clause
. Complementizers and complement clauses (Mihaela Gheorghe) .. Preliminary remarks .. Inventory of complementizers ... Că (< QUOD) ... Cum (< QUOMODO)
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
xviii
Detailed contents and author attributions ... Să (< SE < *se < SI) ... De .. Final remarks . Relative clauses (Mihaela Gheorghe) .. Preliminary remarks .. The wh-words ... Wh-pronouns (and adjectives) ... Adverbial wh-words .. Special types of relative clauses ... Infinitival relatives and modal existential constructions ... Multiple relatives ... (Pseudo-)cleft constructions .. Final remarks . Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts .. Temporal and location clauses (Andreea Dinică) ... Temporal clause ... Location clause .. Manner clauses (Rodica Zafiu) ... Types of manner clauses: manner and comparison ... Main syntactic properties .. Causal adjuncts/disjuncts (Oana Uță Bărbulescu) ... Inventory of subordinators introducing causal adjuncts and disjuncts ... Semantic-pragmatic types of causal adjunct/disjunct ... Distributional properties ... Causal adjuncts in original vs. translated texts ... Causality in the seventeenth–eighteenth centuries ... Final remarks .. Purpose and result clauses (Rodica Zafiu) ... Purpose adjuncts: main patterns and connectives ... Other syntactic properties of purpose clauses ... Main patterns and connectives of result clauses ... Final remarks .. Conditionals and concessives (Rodica Zafiu) ... Semantic and syntactic types of conditional clause ... Conditional subordinators ... Moods and tenses in the conditional construction ... Other syntactic properties of conditional clauses ... Semantic and syntactic types of concessive clauses ... Concessive connectives: inventory and grammaticalization stages ... Other syntactic properties of concessive constructions ... Final remarks
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Detailed contents and author attributions .. Other adjunct clauses ... Exceptive constructions (Andreea Dinică) ... Addition clauses (Andreea Dinică) ... Comitative and instrumental adjuncts (Oana Uţă Bărbulescu) ... Substitutive adjuncts (Oana Uţă Bărbulescu) . Comparative constructions (Rodica Zafiu) .. Scalar comparative constructions ... Degree markers in the comparison of inequality ... Competing comparators: de and decât ‘than’ ... Variation in not-yet-grammaticalized superlative relative constructions ... Comparison of equality (equative) .. Non-scalar comparative constructions ... Non-scalar comparator ca ‘as’ ... Non-scalar comparator cum ‘as’ ... Other comparators ... Comparators specialized for unreal comparisons .. Final remarks Word order and configurationality (Alexandru Nicolae) . Preliminary remarks . The nominal and adjectival domain .. Definiteness checking .. Non-specialized demonstratives .. The ambiguous grammar of the determiner cel .. Adjacent genitives .. The prenominal domain. Head-final structures . The verbal and clausal domain .. The position of the verb on the clausal spine .. Verb–clitic–auxiliary inversion .. Scrambling . Discontinuous structures . Final remarks Clausal organization and discourse phenomena . Polar and wh-interrogatives. Indirect interrogatives. Exclamatory constructions (Mihaela Gheorghe) .. Preliminary remarks .. Interrogative sentences ... Organization and distribution of types ... Polar interrogatives ... Wh-interrogatives ... Indirect interrogatives ... Multiple indirect questions
xix
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
xx
Detailed contents and author attributions
.
. .
.
.. Exclamatory constructions .. Final remarks Negators and negative constructions (Dana Manea) .. Preliminary remarks .. N-words ... Absolute negators ... Affixal negators .. Simple negation, double (multiple) negation, and negative concord ... Simple negation: non strict negative concord ... Double and multiple negation: strict negative concord .. Sentential negation ... Primary analytic negation ... Primary synthetic negation .. Constituent negation .. The negative pro-sentence .. Additional negation ... Binary negative structures with nici ... Cumulative nici in negative structures .. Increased specificity of negation .. Expletive negation and negation raising ... Expletive negation ... Negation raising .. Final remarks Presentative constructions (Rodica Zafiu) Cognate objects and other pleonastic constructions (Irina Nicula Paraschiv, Dana Niculescu) .. Preliminary remarks .. Internal realizations of subject / object / adjuncts .. Relative pleonastic constructions .. Verbs of saying in pleonastic constructions .. Final remarks Feminine singular pronouns with neutral value (Gabriela Pană Dindelagan) .. Preliminary remarks .. The inventory of feminine pronominals with a neutral value ... The demonstratives aceasta ‘this’, aceea ‘that’ ... The indefinites una ‘one thing’, alta ‘another thing’ ... Ordinal numerals ... The compound relative pronoun ceea ce ‘what; which’ ... The personal clitic o .. Final remarks
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Detailed contents and author attributions
xxi
. Appellation and forms of address (Margareta Manu Magda) .. Preliminary remarks .. The structure of appellative phrases with a vocative head .. Pragmatic–syntactic relations between vocative and other sentence constituents .. The system of allocutive elements ... Terms of addressing ... Pronominal address ... Romanian honorifics .. Final remarks
Conclusions (Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Adina Dragomirescu) . Introduction . Key phenomena .. The verbal domain .. The clausal domain .. The nominal and adjectival domains .. Subordinating and coordinating connectors .. Word order .. Reduction of redundancy . Conclusions Appendix : Corpus (Emanuela Timotin) Appendix : Map. Regional distribution of the main old Romanian texts References Index (Adina Dragomirescu, Irina Nicula-Paraschiv)
An online Appendix (www.lingv.ro ! The Syntax of Old Romanian) provides a variety of supplementary material to accompany The Syntax of Old Romanian, including numerous examples that support the descriptions and conclusions contained in the volume.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Series preface Modern diachronic linguistics has important contacts with other subdisciplines, notably first-language acquisition, learnability theory, computational linguistics, sociolinguistics, and the traditional philological study of texts. It is now recognized in the wider field that diachronic linguistics can make a novel contribution to linguistic theory, to historical linguistics, and arguably to cognitive science more widely. This series provides a forum for work in both diachronic and historical linguistics, including work on change in grammar, sound, and meaning within and across languages; synchronic studies of languages in the past; and descriptive histories of one or more languages. It is intended to reflect and encourage the links between these subjects and fields such as those mentioned above. The goal of the series is to publish high-quality monographs and collections of papers in diachronic linguistics generally, i.e. studies focussing on change in linguistic structure, and/or change in grammars, which are also intended to make a contribution to linguistic theory, by developing and adopting a current theoretical model, by raising wider questions concerning the nature of language change, or by developing theoretical connections with other areas of linguistics and cognitive science as listed above. There is no bias towards a particular language or language family, or towards a particular theoretical framework; work in all theoretical frameworks, and work based on the descriptive tradition of language typology, as well as quantitatively based work using theoretical ideas, also feature in the series. Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts University of Cambridge
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Preface Contents and readership The Syntax of Old Romanian offers a comprehensive description of the syntax of old Romanian (the period between the beginning of the sixteenth century, the date of the earliest attested Romanian texts, and the end of the eighteenth century, more exactly , conventionally considered to be the beginning of modern Romanian). Following the currently accepted periodization of the Romanian language (GR: –), we have made a distinction between a first period of old Romanian (–), the period of the earliest known texts, and a second period (–), with an increased number of more stylistically diversified texts and more stable norms (for the difference between the two periods, see }..). The Syntax of Old Romanian is a continuation of The Grammar of Romanian (OUP, ), which dealt with the grammatical description of standard modern Romanian. This new book presents a change of perspective and of the time frame examined: the diachronic investigation of the syntax of old Romanian. The book is addressed to scholars specializing in Romance and general linguistics, and interested in diachronic syntax and especially in the syntactic history of Romance languages. The framework for discussion is modern, both theoretically and terminologically, and does not pose problems of accessibility. For Romance linguistics, the present work offers numerous facts that are new to Romance scholars, some of them also present in previous stages of other Romance languages; such phenomena throw new light on the evolution from Latin to Romance, as well as facilitating comparison with earlier stages of the Romance languages. For linguistic theory, the book offers the possibility of analysing the conditions under which the grammaticalization of different phenomena took place. In the special situation of translated texts, it also offers the possibility of investigating different phenomena of language contact and the way in which they can influence the syntax of a given language. The present book does not presuppose knowledge of Romanian or its history. Its aim is an overall description of the syntax of old Romanian, with a special focus on the features considered specific to this period. Hence, the book itself is self-sufficient for readers not acquainted with the grammatical system of modern Romanian. Corpus The book is the result of recent research based on the excerption and analysis of a very large corpus of old texts. The texts from first period of old Romanian (–) have been exhaustively analysed; for the second period (–), we have selected representative and stylistically diverse texts. Corpus analysis is the sole possibility for an older stage of a language which is not directly accessible to researchers. We have adopted this method with all its advantages and disadvantages. To begin with, all the examples used have been carefully selected. The comments on usage or pragmatic values (emphasis, stylistic intention,
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
xxiv
Preface
etc.), as well as on instances of syntactic synonymy and ambiguity have been formulated with caution. The dating of certain phenomena is uncertain, because there is always the possibility that older texts may come to light; furthermore, many texts have been preserved without precise indications of their dating and localization (see }}..; ..). For many other difficulties and interpretative pitfalls, see }... In order to mitigate as much as possible the shortcomings of a study based on corpus research, we have tried: (i) to employ a rich and diversified corpus, made up of different types of texts (original texts and translations; religious and non-religious texts; narrative and administrative texts; codes of law and bills of sale, etc.) from different areas of the Romanian-speaking territory (for the characteristics of the period in relation to the typology of the texts, see }..; for the geographical origin of each text, see the indications for each text in the corpus and also the indications given by the map which accompanies the corpus); (ii) to bring frequently to the fore quantitative observations which may testify to the frequency and extension of a given phenomenon at a stage of the investigated interval, as well as to its dynamics; we hope to have weeded out accidental occurrences. Despite all these precautions, certain observations are frequently accompanied by qualifiers such as ‘probably’ or ‘possibly’. Methods and objectives The perspective of analysis is both synchronic and diachronic: synchronic in the sense that, in a given period with precise boundaries, we have aimed to give a quasiexhaustive corpus analysis; diachronic in the sense that the two periods of old Romanian (– and –) are compared with each other, and the global results are subsequently set against the features of modern Romanian. With respect to the old language, we track down the behaviour of syntax in Romanian: the elimination or retreat of certain facts or generalization of others, total or partial grammaticalization of certain phenomena, competition between structures, and, implicitly, cases of syntactic variation, etc. We also examine the degree to which certain archaic phenomena, now jettisoned from standard Romanian, have been preserved in the non-standard varieties. We also preserve the typological and comparative perspective of The Grammar of Romanian, focusing on those phenomena that are considered specific to Romanian (either in Romance or in the Balkan area). Beyond mere description, we also strive to give answers to a few more general problems of diachronic research: the strength of foreign influences on the syntax of old Romanian, given the fact that countless texts are translations (especially from Slavonic, but also from Hungarian, Greek, and Latin). In this respect, we systematically compare translations and original documents, as well as texts with a freer syntax (narrative texts) with texts with a more rigid syntax (codes of law). We are convinced that a foreign phenomenon may penetrate a given language and extend to a considerable degree only if the structural elements of that language allow this.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Preface
xxv
The structure of the book In order to facilitate comparison with the present-day language, The Syntax of Old Romanian is organized along similar lines to The Grammar of Romanian (as regards structure, syntactic theory, terminology, and chapter titles). The Introduction comprises three subsections: the first (}.) is devoted to the presentation of the corpus from the point of view of the typology, dating, and localization of texts, and the following ones (}}.; .) present in a highly synthetic manner the general phonological and morphological characteristics of old Romanian. Each of the following chapters (–) presents the description of a phenomenon, and carefully examines the differences between old and modern Romanian. We also examine the differences (when present) between the two periods of old Romanian (– and –), as well as the possible regional differences. The quantitative tables and observations serve to make up for the impossibility of including examples from texts of all types, and from the entire period examined. In order to supplement and diversify the examples, the book is accompanied by an online appendix, hosted at www.lingv.ro ! The Syntax of Old Romanian. Each chapter ends with chapter conclusions, especially oriented towards the facts specific to old Romanian for the phenomenon considered. The book also presents general conclusions (Ch. ), which synthesize the main phenomena characteristic of old Romanian. Final remarks The present book is a collective work, written by nineteen researchers, most of them working in the Department of Grammar of the ‘Iorgu Iordan–Alexandru Rosetti’ Institute of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy – the same team that worked on the OUP Grammar of Romanian (). The introductory section on the morphological structure of old Romanian (}.) was graciously contributed by Professor Martin Maiden. The contribution of each author is specified in the detailed contents. An important role has been played by Adina Dragomirescu and Irina Nicula Paraschiv, who ensured that the book is uniform and consistently edited. Our special gratitude goes to Julia Steer, whose professionalism, understanding, and sympathy have been with us throughout our collaboration, and to Professors Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, the coordinators of the series Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics, for their constant support and interest in the study of Romanian. We have the deepest appreciation for and gratitude towards Professor Martin Maiden, who has generously and professionally offered us his unconditional support for the technical and linguistic oversight of the entire book; through his passion, enthusiasm, and interest in Romanian, he was the real initiator and mentor of this project. Responsibility for any remaining inaccuracies, errors, or inconsistencies is, of course, solely ours. April
Gabriela Pană Dindelegan
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Abbreviations and conventions
st person
nd person
rd person
a.o.
among others
1 ACC
accusative
ADJ
adjective
ADV
adverb(ial)
AdvP
adverbial phrase
Alb.
Albanian
ANTE
anteriority
AP
adjectival phrase
arb
arbitrary interpretation
Arom.
Aromanian
ART
article
AUX
auxiliary verb
c.
century
C
constituent
Card
Cardinal
Cat.
Catalan
CL
clitic
COMP
complementizer
COND
conditional
ConjP
conjunction phrase (coordinated phrase)
CP
complementizer phrase
D
determiner
DAT
dative
DEF
definite
DO
direct object
DOM
differential object marker/marking
DP
determiner phrase
Engl.
English
1,2 In glosses, ACC and NOM abbreviations have also received a syntactic explanation, distinguishing the direct object position from the subject position.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Abbreviations and conventions EXPL
expletive
F
feminine
Fin
finiteness
Fr.
French
FUT
future
GEN
genitive
GER
gerund/gerundive
Gr.
Greek
IMANTE
immediate anteriority
IMP
imperative
IMPERF
imperfect
IMPERS
impersonal
IND
indicative
INDEF
indefinite
INF
infinitive
INT
interrogative marker
INTERJ
interjection
INV
invariable
IO
indirect object
IP
inflection(al) phrase
Irom.
Istro-Romanian
It.
Italian
Lat.
Latin
Lit
literary
M
masculine
MEC
modal existential construction
MR
modern Romanian
Mrom
Megleno-Romanian
N
noun
NEG
negative, negation
Neo-Lat
Neo-Latin
NEUT
neuter
Ngr.
Neo-Greek
2 NOM
nominative
NP
noun phrase
O
object
Occ.
Occitan
OFr.
Old French
OPC
object(ive) predicative complement
xxvii
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
xxviii Abbreviations and conventions OR
old Romanian
P
preposition
PASS
passive
PERF
perfect
PL
plural
PLUPERF
pluperfect
PO
prepositional object
POL
polite
POSS
possessive
POST
posteriority
PP
prepositional phrase
PPLE
participle
PRES
present (tense)
PRO
null controlled subject of non-finite forms
pro
null subject pronoun
PS
simple past/preterite (Fr. passé simple)
Ptg.
Portuguese
REFL
reflexive
Rom.
Romanian
S
subject
s.v.
sub voce
SA
the subject of agentive verbs
SecO
secondary direct object
SG
singular
SIDUR
duration
SIOVER
simultaneity overlap
Sl.
Slavic
So
the subject of non-agentive verbs, occurring in postverbal position
SOT
sequence of tenses
SOV
Subject-Object-Verb word order
Sp.
Spanish
SPC
subject(ive) predicative complement
SUBJ
subjunctive
SUP
supine
SVO
Subject-Verb-Object word order
TAM
Tense-Aspect-Mood
TAQUO
Terminus a quo
V
verb
VOC
vocative
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Abbreviations and conventions VOS
xxix
Verb-Object-Subject word order
VP
verb phrase
VSO
Verb-Subject-Object word order
wh-
interrogative (word)
Functional/freestanding morphemes/words specific to Romanian A
functional preposition
AINF
infinitive marker
AL
freestanding syntactic marker of the genitive
CĂTRĂ
functional preposition
CEL
freestanding definite determiner
DE
functional preposition
DESUP
supine marker
ÎNS
direct descendant of the Latin intensifier
LA
functional preposition
LUI/LU
freestanding proclitic morpheme of genitive and dative
-RE
‘long’ infinitive suffix
SĂ/ȘISUBJ
freestanding subjunctive marker
-Ș(I)
bound enclitic intensifier
Glossing conventions; symbols used in examples -
separates morphs and the corresponding glosses (used in morph-by-morph segmentation)
.
separates multiple glosses of a single morph or word form (used when morphby-morph segmentation is not necessary); separates syllables
in examples, the segments reconstituted by editors
=
separates a clitic from its host
equivalent; marks syncretism (nomacc indicates that the nominative form is syncretic with the accusative form)
6¼
different
/
choice/optionality
//
ambiguous interpretation; variation
__
(marks the) ellipsis of the copula in subject(ive) predicative constructions
√
(marks a) null constituent
Ø
null argument; zero inflectional ending; the negative term of an alternation
[e]
empty position
t
trace (of movement)
*
unattested or ungrammatical example
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The contributors R ALUCA B RĂESCU is a Researcher at the Iorgu Iordan–Alexandru Rosetti Institute of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy and Lecturer in Romanian Language and Linguistics at the University of Bucharest, Faculty of Letters. B LANCA C ROITOR is a Researcher at the Iorgu Iordan–Alexandru Rosetti Institute of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy. A NDREEA D INICĂ is a Researcher at the Iorgu Iordan–Alexandru Rosetti Institute of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy. A DINA D RAGOMIRESCU is a Researcher at the Iorgu Iordan–Alexandru Rosetti Institute of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy and Lecturer in Linguistics at the University of Bucharest, Faculty of Letters. M IHAELA G HEORGHE is Professor of Linguistics at the Transilvania University of Brașov and a Researcher at the Iorgu Iordan–Alexandru Rosetti Institute of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy. M ARTIN M AIDEN is Professor of Romance Languages, Chair of the Faculty Board of Linguistics, Philology, and Phonetics, and Director of the Research Centre for Romance Linguistics at the University of Oxford. He is also a Fellow of the British Academy. D ANA M ANEA is a Senior Researcher at the Iorgu Iordan–Alexandru Rosetti Institute of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy. M ARGARETA M ANU M AGDA is a Researcher at the Iorgu Iordan—Alexandru Rosetti Institute of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy. C ARMEN M ÎRZEA V ASILE is a Researcher at the Iorgu Iordan–Alexandru Rosetti Institute of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy and Teaching Assistant in Romanian Language and Linguistics at the University of Bucharest, Faculty of Letters. I SABELA N EDELCU is Associate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Bucharest, Faculty of Letters and a Researcher at the Iorgu Iordan–Alexandru Rosetti Institute of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy. A LEXANDRU N ICOLAE is a Researcher at the Iorgu Iordan–Alexandru Rosetti Institute of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy and Teaching Assistant in Linguistics at the University of Bucharest, Faculty of Letters. I RINA N ICULA P ARASCHIV is a Researcher at the Iorgu Iordan–Alexandru Rosetti Institute of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy and Teaching Assistant in Romanian Language and Linguistics at the University of Bucharest, Faculty of Letters. D ANA N ICULESCU is Lecturer in Romanian Language and Linguistics at the University of Amsterdam.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The contributors
xxxi
G ABRIELA P ANĂ D INDELEGAN is Emeritus Professor of Linguistics at the University of Bucharest, Faculty of Letters and a Senior Researcher at the Iorgu Iordan–Alexandru Rosetti Institute of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy. She is a Corresponding Member of the Romanian Academy. C AMELIA S TAN is Professor of Linguistics at the University of Bucharest, Faculty of Letters and a Senior Researcher at the Iorgu Iordan–Alexandru Rosetti Institute of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy. E MANUELA T IMOTIN is a Researcher at the Iorgu Iordan–Alexandru Rosetti Institute of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy. O ANA U ŢĂ BĂRBULESCU is Lecturer in Romanian Language and Linguistics at the University of Oxford and at the University of Bucharest. A NDRA V ASILESCU (Ș ERBĂNESCU ) is Professor of Linguistics and Communication at the University of Bucharest, Faculty of Letters and a Senior Researcher at the Iorgu Iordan– Alexandru Rosetti Institute of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy. R ODICA Z AFIU is Professor of Linguistics at the University of Bucharest, Faculty of Letters and a Senior Researcher at the Iorgu Iordan–Alexandru Rosetti Institute of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy. TRANSLATORS: Alexandru Nicolae (Preface, ., ., .., .., .., , , ); Irina Nicula Paraschiv (., ...., .., ., .); Dana Niculescu (., .., ., ., ., , .); Blanca Croitor (, ., .); Adina Dragomirescu (.., ., ., ); Andreea Dinică (.., ..., ...); Mihaela Gheorghe (., ., .); Martin Maiden (.); Emanuela Timotin (., ); Oana Uță Bărbulescu (.., ..., ...); Andra Vasilescu (...., .); Rodica Zafiu (., .., .., .., ., .).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
1 Introduction . Presenting the corpus: typologizing, dating, and locating the texts .. The period under study This book covers a period ranging from the early sixteenth to the late eighteenth centuries, more specifically to the year ; i.e. the period of the language known as old Romanian (OR) (ILRL: –; GR: –). The first texts in Romanian to have survived date from the sixteenth century. By Romanian we refer to the Romance variety spoken north of the Danube—also called Daco-Romanian so as to differentiate it from Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, or Istro-Romanian—which became the sole official Romance language spoken in Eastern Europe in the modern age. Romanian texts appeared at a later date because Slavonic was the official language in use in Moldova and Wallachia, the two Romanian states founded in the fourteenth century. Slavonic was used by both the church and the Princely Chancery, for administrative and cultural purposes. Latin and Hungarian were the official languages spoken in territories inhabited by the Romanian-speaking population living in the western part of the Carpathians. Various terms (common words, anthroponyms, toponyms) preserved in Slavonic and Latin documents (DERS; GTRL), as well as a few allusions to the use of writing in Romanian (Gheţie and Mareș a) are attested prior to the sixteenth century. These data, along with the analysis of the graphemes, have revealed that the writing of Romanian in the Cyrillic alphabet was established in the latter half of the fifteenth century (ILRL: –). The first original (or non-translated) text available in Romanian dates from . It is a letter in which Neacșu, a merchant from Câmpulung (Wallachia), informs the mayor of Brașov about the military manoeuvres plotted by the Ottoman troops (DÎ.: I). This letter has long been considered to be the oldest text written in Romanian. However, efforts made over the past decades to date OR texts by means of watermarks (Gheţie and Mareș a: –; Mareș ) have shown that a manuscript psalter preserved in the Romanian Academy Library known as The Hurmuzaki Psalter was copied around the year (Mareș ). In the first part of the period studied, the texts (particularly religious) mirror the tight relationship between Romanian and Slavic culture, the latter being influenced by Byzantine culture (ILRL: ). A historical work (MC.), a novel (A.) and moralizing writings (FD.–) also translated from Slavonic, and other documents supplement the religious texts. The dialectal variants of Romanian (in The Syntax of Old Romanian. First edition. Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.) This chapter © Emanuela Timotin, Camelia Stan, and Martin Maiden . First published by Oxford University Press.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Introduction
Wallachia, northern Moldova, Banat-Hunedoara, and northern Transylvania) took shape in this period, gradually developing and influencing one another. Their initial unification on the basis of the Wallachian subdialect occurred around (ILRL: –). S. Micu and G. Șincai’s grammar Elementa linguæ daco-romanæ sive valachicæ, published in , marked the end of the period here studied. An interest in grammar had been discernible since the seventeenth century, when Staico from Târgoviște translated fragments from a Slavonic grammar, around (Strungaru ). The interest in grammar peaked in the latter half of the eighteenth century. In , Dimitrie Eustatievici from Brașov used Slavonic, Greek, and Latin sources to write a grammar (EG.); in , a (still manuscript) grammar was translated by a monk belonging to the famous school of translators and copyists founded by Païsios Veličkovski at Neamț Monastery (Tachiaos ; Ursu ). The grammar by S. Micu and G. Șincai differs from the preceding grammars in that it lays down prescriptive rules which were later observed in MR (Costinescu : ; ILRL: ). .. Types of texts The corpus reflects the variety of Romanian writings produced in this period. The texts under scrutiny include both translations and original texts (see also Niculescu : ). During the first part of the period, most texts were translated from Slav(on)ic. There were also other texts translated from Hungarian (e.g. the translation of the Old Testament from Hungarian and Latin at the end of the sixteenth century [PO.; DVT.–]), Modern Greek (e.g. chronographs [Cron.], John Chrisostom’s Sermons [Mărg.]), Italian (e.g. astrological calendars [FN.–], a cookery book [CBuc.]), and German (e.g. a Universal History [BIU.]). Among original texts we find short writings (Princely or Episcopal Chancery documents, bills of sale, wills, letters, notes, prefaces, epilogues, etc.) drafted by skilled people according to relatively standardized models, particularly when applied to chancery documents and bills of sale (Chivu : –, –). The same category of original texts includes longer writings produced by well-trained scholars familiar with contemporary literature, who wrote historical texts (Gr. Ureche [ULM. ~], M. Costin [CNM.–, CLM.–], Constantin Cantacuzino [CIst.–]), religious texts (Antim Ivireanul [ACT.; AD.– etc.]), literary texts (Cantemir [CII.~]), and more. The distinction between original texts and translations is relevant because researchers particularly interested in the oldest Romanian texts have explained the syntactic particularities of some translations by highlighting the influence of the source-language. Nevertheless, such opinions have a high degree of generality, as translations and their sources have rarely been thoroughly examined. This is because there are many cases in which the sources of Romanian writings have not been accurately determined. Other studies have explored the morphological and syntactic relationship between source and translation in texts translated from Slavonic (e.g. Ștefănescu ; Zdrenghea , ; Teodorescu and Gheție : –, –), Hungarian (Gafton ), Latin (Uţă Bărbulescu ), and Italian (Timotin and Nedelcu ).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
1.1 Presenting the corpus: typologizing, dating, and locating the texts
The present work focuses on both printed and manuscript texts. Fragments of printing were occasionally copied in manuscripts. For instance, three texts written in the first two decades of the seventeenth century in a miscellany (CSII.–; CSXII.; CSXIV.–) draw on writings printed by Deacon Coresi in Brașov around (Chivu : ); some writings circulating as manuscripts in the first half of the seventeenth century have the same source (MI.~). Other writings came to be printed after they had been transmitted as manuscripts. One such example is the Alexander Romance, whose first Romanian version is preserved in a manuscript dating from (A.) and which was first printed in the late eighteenth century (Cartojan : ). Certain texts (apocryphal writings, chronicles, charms, prescriptions) circulated only as manuscripts. They were distributed to a lower degree than printed texts, yet some of them had a wide circulation because they were frequently copied and translated. Such was the case of apocryphal writings like The Letter of Christ Fallen from the Sky or The Apocalypse of the Virgin Mary. In the period investigated, both of these circulated in the form of eight translations, in over twenty and thirty manuscripts respectively (Timotin : –; Dima : –). The texts, especially the manuscripts, are divided into source-texts and copies because, in many cases, the first version of a written text—be it a translation or an original work—has been lost. Though copies are neater, they are sometimes liable to disseminate errors, which could give rise to unusual constructions. The texts analysed are either in prose or in verse. Prose texts were pervasive. Verse writings had a religious character, particularly at the beginning of the period, as testified by the songs that appeared in Cluj between and (FT.–) or the psalters translated by Archbishop Dosoftei or Teodor Corbea (DPV.; CPV. ~). Apart from these texts, we may also mention occasional verses which could appear in the prefaces of printed texts, and versified fragments inserted in novels (CII.~) or in writings intended for oral use (charms [TD], prayers). Versified writings or fragments are subject to metrical constraints which might have an effect on their syntax. As for content, the corpus includes various religious writings, which make up the largest part of literature of the time. Most of these are canonical writings: translations of the Bible, possibly intended to be read out loud in churches (The Apostle [CPr., CV.–]; The Bible [BB.]; The New Testament [NT.]; The Psalter [CP., CP1., CPV.~, DPV., PB., PH.–, PS.–, PV.–]; The Old Testament [PO., DVT.–]), liturgical texts (The Missal [CL.]; The Euchologion [CM.]; The Prophetologion [DPar.]), texts on Christian doctrine (The Catechism [CCat.]; The Response against Calvinist Catechism [VRC.]; Seven Mysteries of the Christian Church [ȘT.]), sermons (CC1.; CC2.; Ev.; CazV.; AD.–; SA.; Mărg.), and religious juridical writings (CPrav.–; Prav.). Apart from canonical writings, which circulated both in manuscript and in printed form, a rich apocryphal literature circulated exclusively in manuscript. This includes legends about the Old Testament (The Death of Abraham [CSIX.–]; Paleea historica [PI.~]) or the New Testament (The Rod of the Cross [LC.~]; The Dispute between Christ and Satan
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Introduction
[DIS.–]; The Letter of Christ Fallen from the Sky [LD]), apocalyptic writings (The Apocalypse of Paul [CSIII.–]; The Apocalypse of the Virgin Mary [AMD]; Twelve Dreams Explained by Mamer [VM]; The Life of St Basil the Younger [VN.–]), (quasi-)hagiographic texts (Alexios, the Man of God [AOD.–]; The Legend of St Sisinios [CSVI.–]; The Legend of St Paraskevi [CSXI.–]; Barlaam and Josaphat [SVI.~]; The Life of St Basil the Younger [VN.–]), and didactic and moralizing songs (CLRV.–.). Historical writings flourish in this period. Some of them are translations: the chronograph translated by monk Mihail Moxa at Cozia Monastery in [MC.]; a chronograph translated from Greek [Cron.]; a Universal History and a version of Scanderbeg’s Life translated from German and Italian respectively, in [BVS., BIU.]. Moreover, there are original works written by scholars such as Grigore Ureche [ULM.~], Miron Costin [CNM.–; CLM.–], Nicolae Costin [NCL], Ion Neculce [NL.~–], and Constantin Cantacuzino [CIst.–]. The corpus also displays a wide range of juridical writings (CPrav.–; Prav.; Prav.; Prav.; Prav.), some traditional medicine texts (prescriptions [CLRV.–.], charms [TD]), and lexicons (Latin–Romanian [CDicţ.]). It includes furthermore, both translations of moralizing novels that were widely diffused at the time (Alexander Romance [A.]; The Story of Ahikar [AA.]; Bertoldo [Bert.]; Fiore di virtù [FD.–]; The Life of Aesop [VE.]), the first Romanian novel, Istoria ieroglifică written by Dimitrie Cantemir (CII.~), and writings which although less circulated nevertheless reflect, the Romanian readership’s interests during that age: astrological calendars (FN.–), cookery books (CBuc.), and grammars (EG.). The documents included in anthologies (e.g. CLRV; DÎ; Doc.Athos1; Doc.Athos2; DRH.A/B; ITM) are extremely varied in terms of content. Among them one encounters Chancery documents, episcopal decrees, letters, marriage contracts, wills, personal notes, comments on cataclysms or unusual natural disasters, and so on. Particular aspects of the content of the texts are relevant to syntactic analysis if corroborated with the aforementioned distinctions. For example, historical, apocryphal, traditional medicinal or moralizing writings, novels, and dictionaries are scarcely revised at all because of their circulation as manuscripts. This might have syntactic implications. Translated texts, original texts issued by institutions (Princely or Episcopal Chancery), or standard documents (purchase agreements) may contain specific constructions that imitate an original or may preserve patterns typical of a specific type of document (Chivu ). Personal notes written on book covers and manuscripts may reveal their authors’ level of education. .. Dating the texts The texts cover the entire period under study. The sixteenth-century writings have been quasi-exhaustively analysed (see also }..). A large number of representative texts written in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries have been studied, in order to bring out the conservative particularities of OR, as well as its innovative features.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
1.1 Presenting the corpus: typologizing, dating, and locating the texts
The examples cited are accompanied by abbreviations and information on the year when the text was printed/written. Manuscripts whose year of production is not specified are annotated with time intervals established particularly on the basis of results revealed by the study of watermarks. The authors have thus agreed that filigranology—rather than the analysis of the writing system or linguistic particularities—is the safest procedure for dating OR texts (Gheţie and Mareș a: –). Recent dating carried out on the basis of the study of watermarks has been assumed without specific comment. If a work is preserved as a copy, the information provided relates to the production date of the copy, not of the source (e.g. Grigore Ureche’s text is dated, according to the date of the edited manuscript, from around , though the original unpreserved text most likely dates from the fifth decade of the seventeenth century). .. Provenance of the texts The texts originate from all the regions where Romanian was spoken (see Appendix ). However, they are not evenly distributed throughout the period examined, as their dissemination is often linked with the most important printing houses and cultural centres. Printing houses which published writings in Romanian were found in almost all the areas inhabited by Romanians (Alba Iulia, Brașov, Bucharest, Buzău, Câmpulung, Cluj, Govora, Iași, Râmnic, Sebeș, Sibiu, Snagov, Târgoviște, etc.), but they did not operate simultaneously. They did not print the same quantities of books, nor did they operate throughout the period. For instance, in the sixteenth century, Deacon Coresi’s printing house in Brașov published more Romanian books than any other contemporary printing house; the printing house in Alba Iulia became functional in the sixteenth century (), but it was shut down in (Pavel ). The printing of books in Romanian was suspended or considerably reduced in certain areas for a long time: thus, the Code of Laws printed at Govora in came out only after the printing of books in Romanian had been suspended five decades earlier; books in Romanian were printed between and particularly in Wallachia (Șchiau : ). Books in Romanian were occasionally printed outside the regions inhabited by Romanians. The Psalter versified by Archbishop Dosoftei of Moldova (DPV.) and published at Uniev (Ukraine) is a case in point. Printed writings or manuscripts produced by Romanians abroad reveal the dialect spoken by their authors: Wallachian, in the case of the Gospels printed by Coresi (CT.–) and copied on the island of Rhodes by Radu from the village of Mănicești (south-western Wallachia), or in the case of the translations from Italian and German (BVS.; BIU.) made in Milan by Vlad Boţulescu from the village of Mălăiești (Prahova); Moldovan, in the case of Dosoftei’s Psalter published at Uniev (DPV.), for example. The provenance of the writings used here is often clearly marked. Documents and manuscripts are a special case because the provenance often coincides with the place of origin of the scribe whose linguistic particularities are reflected in the text. The dialect used by a scribe seldom differs from the dialect used in the region where the
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Introduction
text was written (Rosetti : ; for examples showing scribes’ mobility, see Gheţie a: –). This remark also applies to printing houses, whose productions usually reveal the language spoken in the region where the texts were printed. Sometimes, however, the printers spoke a dialect which was different from that spoken in the area where the printing house was located. This is why the language used in printing could mirror features that differed from the local dialect. Thus the Moldovan particularities of a sixteenth-century Gospel printed in Sibiu (TS.–) can be explained by the fact that the text translated in Banat-Hunedoara was revised and printed by a printer from Moldova (Gheţie a; Mareș ; Gheţie ). On the other hand, the involvement of some printers in the activity of many printing houses located in different regions, as well as the practice of printing from a model book in printing houses situated in different areas, contributed substantially towards the standardization of literary Romanian towards the end of the period studied (Gheţie ; Pavel ). Some writings, particularly manuscripts, reveal no information about the region in which they were produced. Their place of origin has been determined first by dating them on the basis of the watermarks (}..), and then according to the linguistic particularities of the dialects spoken during that period (Gheţie a). Many writings included in the corpus have been located according to such a principle (e.g. CS, DVT.–; FD.–). For instance, such an investigation has shown that texts which present the transformation of the inter-vowel n into (n)r in words inherited from Latin (CV.–; PH.–; PS.–; PV.–)— and which were said to have originated from Maramureș (e.g. Candrea : LXXXVII–XCIII; Rosetti : –)—were actually copied in Moldova on the basis of an original from Banat-Hunedoara (Gheție ; Costinescu : –; Gheție and Teodorescu : –). The provenance of the texts is mentioned in this book only when the authors wish to point out regional phenomena. If a text is preserved as a copy, the details regarding provenance are strictly related to the copy, not to its original. .. Editions used The corpus comprises only edited texts. We have selected mainly recent editions that reflect the progress made by Romanian philology with respect to the transcription of the OR texts (e.g. Avram ). We have also made use of older editions of some sixteenth- and seventeenth-century texts, either because there are no new editions available (e.g. CC2.; CTd.) or because the new editions do not comply with the demands of contemporary philology. The corpus includes not only texts that were written in the Cyrillic alphabet but also several writings in the Latin alphabet (e.g. FT.–). The editions used transcribe texts written in the Cyrillic alphabet by means of interpretive transcription; the interpretation of Cyrillic letters having more than one value is usually described and argued for in the editor’s note. Thus, editing texts written in the Cyrillic alphabet by means of interpretive transcription is deemed the most appropriate method of editing OR texts. Arguments for this have recently been advanced by I. Gheţie (, ) in a scholarly polemic with J. Krammer (). For the sake
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
1.2 Phonological features of old Romanian
of unity, we have tacitly interpreted the Cyrillic letters as they are preserved in the editions in which the texts have been transliterated (CT.–; CazV.; SB). .. Problems of interpretation Constructions that have rarely been identified in the translated texts may be difficult to interpret, as they can be considered language-specific creations, accidental forms, or calques. Given the variability of the writing system within the period under consideration, difficulties have been encountered in segmenting certain words, in describing compound words, in interpreting final u (}...), and past participle agreement, because certain final letters have more than one value in the text or are rendered in superscript characters.
. Phonological features of old Romanian In OR, the inventory of phonemes and the diatopic distribution of their allophones display some particularities, showing differences from one subperiod to the other (Gheţie and Mareș a: ; Vasiliu and Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu : ; Sala [] : ; Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu ). As a rule, the phonological system of OR comprised seven vowels and twenty-nine consonants. Most texts were written with the Romanian variant of the Cyrillic alphabet (}.), adapted to represent sounds specific to Romanian (nasal /ɨ̃̃/, in word-initial position; /ʤ, o̯a, wa, r ̄/; ILRL: ). Certain letters had different graphic variants and multiple sound values. For the representation of the phonemes with the Latin alphabet in modern editions of the corpus analysed, see Table .. Note that stress was not indicated graphically, and that the position of stress within the word was then, as today, largely unpredictable. The main phonological particularities of OR are the following: (i) the phoneme /z/, which appeared before the sixteenth century, is attested in Wallachian and south-east Transylvanian varieties; in the other varieties of Daco-Romanian, [z] was an allophone of the phoneme /ʣ/ (the [ʣ] / [z] variation manifested itself from the time of Common Romanian); the two sounds are marked by different graphemes (z [z], dz / d¸ [ʣ]) or by the same grapheme (z); (ii) the palatal sonorants /ʎ/ (written as li), /ɲ/ (written as ni) restricted their diatopic distribution; /ʎ/ is attested in Banat starting with the sixteenth century; /ɲ/ has been preserved to the present-day in Banat-Hunedoara and in some places in Oltenia; (iii) the devoicing of the asyllabic final sound [u] after consonants (omu, omŭ [omu] ‘man’) was not a generalized Daco-Romanian phenomenon in the sixteenth century; the letter -u, in word-final position, does not always have a phonological value; the pronunciation with a final [u] has been preserved to the present-day in conservative varieties in Transylvania and Moldova, and also in large areas of Wallachia (ILRL: ).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
T . The phonemes of OR and their corresponding graphemes in modern editions
VOWELS
CONSONANTS
PHONEME
GRAPHEME
EXAMPLE
a
a
an [an] ‘year’
ə
ă
să [sə] SĂSUBJ
e
e
de ‘of ’
i
i
și [ʃi] ‘and’
ɨ
î/â
în [ɨn] ‘in’, până [ˈpɨnə] ‘until’
o
o
loc [lok] ‘place’
u
u
unu [ˈunu] ‘one’
b
b
bun [bun] ‘goodM.SG’
k
c
cal [kal] ‘horse’
ʧ
c + e, i
ceas [ʧas] ‘hour’
c
c + h + e, i
unchi [unc] ‘uncle’
d
d
când [kɨnd] ‘when’
f
f
fiu [fiw] ‘son’
g
g
grec [grek] ‘GreekM.SG’
ʤ
g + e, i
geană [ˈʤanə] ‘eyelash’
ɟ
g + h + e, i
unghie [ˈunɟie] ‘nail’
h
h
duh [duh] ‘spirit’
j
i
iad [jad] ‘hell’
ʒ
j
jale [ˈʒale] ‘grief ’
l
l
baltă [ˈbaltə] ‘swamp’
ʎ
l+i
caliei [ˈkaʎej] (PO.: ) ‘pathF.SG.GENDAT’
m
m
om [om] ‘human’
n
n
inimă [ˈinimə] ‘heart’
ɲ
n+i
întâniu [ɨnˈtɨɲu] (PO.: ) ‘firstly’
n (intense*)
n
p
p
nătare [nəˈtare] (PO.: ) vs. netare [neˈtare] ‘feeble’ preot [ˈpreot] ‘priest’
r
r
cringu [ˈkringu] ‘grove’
r ̄ (intense*)
r
s
s
răpausă [r ̄əˈpausə] (CV.–: v) vs. repausă [reˈpausə] ‘he rests’ ispită [isˈpitə] ‘temptation’
ʃ
ș
șarpe [ˈʃarpe] ‘snake’
t
t
putere [puˈtere] ‘power’
ʦ
ţ
preţ [preʦ] ‘price’
v
v
vecin [veˈʧin] ‘neighbour’
w
u
râu [rɨw] ‘river’
z/ʣ
z / dz (d¸)
zeace [ˈzḙaʧe], dzeace (d¸eace) [ˈʣḙaʧe] ‘ten’
* After consonants characterized as ‘intense’, the front vowels /e, i/ undergo velarization.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
1.3 Brief outline of the morphological system of old Romanian
At the end of the eighteenth century, Romanian had a phonological system which almost perfectly resembled that of the present day (Avram and Sala : ; GR: ).
. Brief outline of the morphological system of old Romanian OR (like the modern language) inflects nouns (codru (SG) – codri (PL) ‘forest(s)’, casă (SG) – case (PL) ‘house(s)’, drum(u) (SG) – drumure (PL) ‘road(s)’), adjectives (negru (M.SG) – neagră (F.SG) – negri (M.PL) – neagre (F.PL) ‘black’), pronouns (acestu (M.SG.NOMACC) – acestui (M.SG.GENDAT) – acești (M.PL.NOMACC) – acestor (MF.PL.GENDAT) ‘this’, etc.), and verbs (șez(u) (PRES.SG) – șezi (PRES.SG) – ș(e)ade (PRES.SG) . . . , șăzu (PS.SG), șădzumu (PS.PL) . . . , șădea (IMPERF.SGPL) . . . , șadză (SUBJ.SGPL) . . . , șă(d)zând / șă(d)zind (GER) . . . , ‘sit’, etc.). The typical pattern for an inflected word form involves a lexical root followed by inflectional desinences which mark the grammatical category. As in MR, there are some quite complex patterns of allomorphy in inflectional paradigms, particularly affecting the lexical root. The reader should not be surprised to see the root of one and the same verb (văz(u) (PRES.SG) – vede (PRES.SG) – vază (SUBJ.SGPL) ‘see’), noun (floare (SG) – flori (PL) ‘flower(s)’) or adjective (frumos (M.SG) – frumoși (M.PL) – frumoasă (F.SG) – frumoase (F.PL) ‘beautiful’) appearing in sometimes very different forms according to grammatical category. Such allomorphy is usually the result of often complex historical phonological processes, which will not be discussed here. It is in fact unusual for a noun, adjective, pronoun, or verb to display no root allomorphy. Alternations are principally vocalic (/a/ ~ /e/: masă (SG) – mese (PL) ‘table(s)’), or consonantal (/t/ ~ /ts/: frate (SG) – fraţi (PL) ‘brother(s)’), and are often multiple (especially in verbs): e.g., /a/ ~ /ə/ and /t/ ~ /ts/ in parte (SG) – părţi (PL) ‘part(s)’) or /o/ ~ /oa/ ~ /u/ and /ʧ/ ~ /t/ ~ /ts/ in poci(u) (PRES.SG) – poate (PRES.SG) – poţi (PRES.SG) – putea (IMPERF.SGPL) ‘can’). Certain instances of variation have either disappeared from standard present-day Romanian or been phonologically altered, but the phenomenon continues to be pervasive (for MR, see GR: –). OR nouns and adjectives distinguish two grammatical numbers, singular and plural (boală greaØ (SG) – boale grele (PL) ‘tough illness(es)’). Selection of plural desinences depends on the inherent gender of the noun: masculines select -i (codri ‘forests’, părinţi ‘parents’, farisei ‘Pharisees’); feminines select -e (rude ‘relatives’, credinţe ‘beliefs’), -i (pâni / pâini ‘breads’, rugăciuni ‘prayers’) or -le (steale ‘stars’, zile ‘days’); a third class of nouns, traditionally called ‘neuter’, ‘ambigeneric’, or ‘heterogeneous’, select plural -e (cuvente ‘words’) or -ure (> MR -uri: chinure > MR chinuri ‘torments’); dialectally and under particular phonological conditions, -e has the realization -ă (izvoară ‘springs’, hotară ‘borders’); see Gheţie and Mareș (b: ). There are a few situations where plural desinence selection is morphologically or phonologically predictable: feminines which select -e in the singular obligatorily take -i in the plural (lume (SG) – lumi (PL) ‘world(s)’, pute(a)re (SG) – puteri (PL) ‘force(s)’), feminines which select -i(i)e in the singular take -ii in the plural (împărăţi(i)e (SG) –
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Introduction
împărăţii (PL) ‘empire(s)’), and feminines with a vocalic stem which bear stress on the final vowel select -le (steale ‘stars’, zile ‘days’). In other circumstances, however, there is a high degree of unpredictability of plural endings: under the same phonological and morphological conditions, feminines select in the plural either -e or -i (inemă (SG) – inemi (PL) ‘heart(s)’, but grădină (SG) – grădine (PL) ‘garden(s)’); ‘neuter’ nouns select, under identical phonological and morphological circumstances, either -e (veșmântØ (SG) – veșminte (PL) ‘vestment(s)’; CT.–: v) or -ure > -uri (pământ(u) (SG) – pământure // pământuri (PL) ‘land(s)’; CT.–: r). There is also, from the time of the earliest texts, variation between plural desinences: lacrăme (CC2.: , ) and lacrămi (CC2.: , ) ‘tears’; morminte (Ev.: ) and mormânturi (Ev.: ) ‘graves’ (see Densusianu II: –; Costinescu : ). There is a fairly simple binary case system distinguishing a ‘nominative-accusative’ case-form from a ‘dative-genitive’ (casă bună (F.SG.NOMACC) vs. case bune (F.SG. GENDAT) ‘good house’; acesta (M.SG.NOMACC) vs. acestuia (M.SG.GENDAT) ‘this’; dumneata (SG.NOMACC) vs. dumitale (SG.GENDAT) ‘you (polite)’; toţi (M.PL.NOMACC) vs. tuturor (MF.PL.GENDAT) ‘all’). Case is normally marked only on determiners, not on nouns and adjectives (preutul (M.SG.DEF.NOMACC) vs. preutului (M.SG.DEF.GENDAT) ‘the priest’, niște (INDEF.PL.NOMACC) vs. unor (INDEF.PL.GENDAT) preuți (M.PL.NOMACCGENDAT) ‘some priests’). However, singular feminine nouns and adjectives distinguish case morphologically—by means of a desinence (o (F.SG.NOMACC) casă bună (F.SG. NOMACC) vs. unei (F.SG.GENDAT) case bune (F.SG.GENDAT) ‘a good house’); for the form, position, and role of the article in inflection, see }}..; ... In contrast to nouns, adjectives, and most pronouns, personal stressed pronouns may distinguish nominative, accusative, and dative case (eu (SG.NOM) – mie (SG.DAT) – mine (SG.ACC) ‘I’; tu (SG.NOM) – ţie (SG.DAT) – tine (SG.ACC) ‘you’). Clitic personal pronouns have distinct forms for dative and accusative (îmi or mi (SG.DAT) 6¼ mă (SG.ACC); îţi or ţi (SG.DAT) 6¼ te (SG.ACC)). Most verbs belong to one of four conjugation classes, principally distinguished in the infinitive (cânta ‘sing’, vedea ‘see’, merge ‘go’, veni ‘come’). The classes with infinitives in -a and -i each have two subclasses: one in which a formative called an ‘augment’ appeared between the lexical root and the inflectional desinences in the singular and rd person plural forms of the present indicative, subjunctive, and imperative, and another in which it is absent (căuta ‘search.INF ’: caut-Ø-ă (PRES.SG) vs. lucra ‘work.INF ’: lucr-eaz-ă (PRES.SG); dormi ‘sleep.INF ’: doarm-Ø-e (PRES.SG) vs. priimi ‘receive.INF’: priim-eșt-e (PRES.SG)). Membership in one or the other of these subclasses is unpredictable, but the majority of verbs with infinitive in -i behaves this way (for MR, see GR: –). Finite verbs agree with their subject (overt or null) and distinguish three persons and two numbers: rog (SG), rogi (SG), roagă (SG), rugămu (PL), rugaţi (PL), roagă (PL) ‘ask’. There is quite often syncretism, which largely has historical phonological causes, but may also be due to morphological analogy. For example, the rd person singular
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
1.3 Brief outline of the morphological system of old Romanian
and plural forms of the subjunctive are always syncretic ((să) cânte ‘sing.SGPL. SUBJ’, (să) vad(z)ă ‘see.SGPL.SUBJ’, (să) lucre(a)dze ‘work.SGPL.SUBJ’); all verbs, irrespective of inflectional class, have the syncretism PL.INDPL.SUBJ (cântăm(să) cântăm ‘we (should) sing’) and PL.INDPL.SUBJ (cântaţi(să) cântaţi ‘you (should) sing’); all verbs also have syncretism between indicative and subjunctive in the st and nd persons singular; present tense verbs of the first conjugation display the syncretism SGPL.IND (el, ei roagă ‘he, they ask’, el, ei lucrea(d)ză ‘he, they work’), as do imperfect tense verbs (el, ei vărsa ‘he / they were spilling’), etc. As in MR, the verb paradigm features both synthetic and analytic forms. OR has seven synthetic tense or mood forms: present indicative (mearge ‘(s)he goes’); imperative (meargeţi ‘go!’, nu meargereţi ‘don’t go!’); subjunctive ((să) meargă ‘(s)he should go’); imperfect (mergea ‘(s)he was going’); simple past/preterite (mearse ‘(s)he went’); pluperfect (mersease ‘(s)he had gone’); conditional (mersere ‘(s)he would go’). Their functions are discussed in }.. In the sixteenth century two competing synthetic forms of the simple perfect of the verbs in the second and third conjugation were current: an ancient form, with stress on the root, preserved from Latin (feci(u) < FECI ‘I did’, merș(u) < MERSI ‘I went’), and an analogical form, with stress on the inflectional ending (făcui ‘I did’, mersei ‘I went’). The latter type ultimately prevailed (Teodorescu : –). A special situation is presented by the pluperfect (a,a’), imperfect (b,b’), and conditional (c,c’), which are used in the sixteenth century in two forms, one synthetic (with desinences) and one analytic (with auxiliaries). There are differences of usage and frequency between these forms; there are also many formal variants for the same value (for details, see }.; see also Frâncu : –, –, –; Zamfir : –, –, –). ()
a.
mersease (CC2.: ) go.PLUPERF.SG
vs. a’. au
fost mers(u) (DÎ.: XCIII) be.PPLE go.PPLE ‘(s)he/they had gone’ merrgea (CV.–: v) go.IMPERF.SGPL AUX.PERF.SGPL
b.
vs. b’. era mărrgându (CV.–: v) be.IMPERF.SGPL going.GER ‘(s)he/they was/were going’ c. mersere (CP1.: r) go.COND.SGPL vs. c’. ară
mearge (CT.–: r) AUX.COND.SGPL go.INF ‘(s)he/they would go’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Introduction
Other forms of the verb (the compound past (a), the future (b,c), the perfect subjunctive (d), the perfect conditional (e,f )) exist only as analytic structures comprising auxiliaries plus non-finite forms (these are discussed in }.). Numerous other periphrastic variant forms are in use in OR (}.; see also Zamfir : –, –, –). ()
a. au
AUX.PERF.SGPL
mersu (CC2.: ) go.PPLE
‘(s)he/they went’ b. va mearge (CT.–: r) AUX.FUT.SG go.INF ‘(s)he will go’
c. n-are a mearge (CC2.: ) not=AUX.FUT.SG AINF go.INF ‘(s)he won’t go’ d. să-lu fie auzitu (PO.: ) SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.SG be.SUBJ.SGPL hear.PPLE ‘(s)he/they would have heard’ e. ară fi mers (PO.: ) AUX. COND.SGPL be.INF go.PPLE ‘(s)he/they would have heard’ f. vrea fi mersu (CC2.: ) AUX. COND.SGPL be.INF go.PPLE ‘(s)he/they would have gone’ Romanian verbs also have the following non-finite forms: infinitive ((a,b), short and long forms (a mearge vs. (de)-a meargere(a) ‘go’; for the relation between them, see }..), gerund (c), past participle (d), supine (e). For their functions, distinctions, and the kind of constructions in which they are involved, see particularly }}.; .; .; .. ()
a. gata vomu putea fi de-a meargerea (CC2.: ) ready AUX.FUT.PL can.INF be.INF DE=AINF go-RE.DEF ‘we will be able and ready to go’ b. nu lasă spre alu său folosu a mearge oamenii (CC2.: ) not lets toward AL their benefit AINF go.INF people.DEF.NOM ‘he does not let people pursue their own advantage’ c. mergându voi în cetate (CT.–: r) go.GER you.PL in fortress ‘while you were going into the fortress’ d. de vrea fi mersu muerile (CC2.: ) if AUX. COND.PL be.INF go.PPLE women.DEF.NOM ‘if the women had gone’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
1.3 Brief outline of the morphological system of old Romanian
e. loc de dat mâncare găinilor (CDicţ.–: ) place DESUP give.SUP food.ACC hens.DEF.DAT ‘place to feed the hens’ Although the formal variation was greater than in the present-day language, the morphological system of modern Romanian was already established in its essential structure by the sixteenth century.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
2 The verb and its arguments: the root clause . The syntax of moods and tenses In sixteenth–eighteenth-century Romanian, the TAM system displays several areas of instability: in the distribution of moods and mood values (the competition between the subjunctive and, respectively, the indicative, the conditional, and the imperative) and in the proliferation of numerous tense and aspect periphrases, most of which gradually decrease, and have been eliminated in MR. Their degree of grammaticalization is often difficult to establish, because of the high flexibility of OR with respect to dislocations and inversions. The system of moods is partially inherited from Latin, but it is characterized by many innovations: some are common to the majority of Romance languages, others are interpretable as ‘Balkan features’ or are characteristic just of Romanian. The indicative, the subjunctive, and the imperative partially continue Latin paradigms, with important modifications in the inventory of tense forms, especially through the loss of simple forms and the emergence of certain periphrases. In sixteenth-century Romanian, the subjunctive is defined by an already fixed marker, să (which preserves its syntactic functions as a subordinator) and tends to extend its use by replacing the infinitive in several contexts. A fully grammaticalized periphrastic conditional takes over several values of the Latin subjunctive, including the optative function; but the old texts also display numerous other less grammaticalized conditional periphrases, which are gradually eliminated. Several forms associate their tense and aspect values with a modal (epistemic) meaning and with evidential values: however, the process of grammaticalization of a distinct mood (the ‘presumptive’, in MR) is only incipient.In what follows, the indicative will be presented only through its relation with the subjunctive (}...) and through the description of tense and aspect forms (}..). .. The subjunctive The OR subjunctive is already characterized, in the earliest preserved texts, by its mixed structure (GR: ) consisting in the coexistence of two marking devices: a subjunctive marker, also serving as a specific complementizer (să), different from that of indicative clauses (că), and—in the subjunctive forms inherited from Latin— the endings of the rd person, generally different from the present indicative endings.
The Syntax of Old Romanian. First edition. Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.) This chapter © Rodica Zafiu, Alexandru Nicolae, Dana Niculescu, Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Irina Nicula Paraschiv, Adina Dragomirescu, and Andra Vasilescu . First published by Oxford University Press.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntax of moods and tenses
Modern Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, and Istro-Romanian subjunctives use the same marker (s-/se/si/sâ) (Capidan : ; TDR: , , , etc.), whose association with the present subjunctive is therefore traceable back to Common Romanian (ILR II: ). The particle să is partially grammaticalized as a mood marker in the sixteenth century, although in independent clauses it can be omitted in the rd person (}...); the ‘bare subjunctive’ (without să) will appear in the same morphosyntactic contexts in MR, but with a lower frequency. During the sixteenth–eighteenth centuries, the subjunctive gradually extends its uses, competing in many contexts with the a-infinitive and also with the indicative (subjunctive să-clauses vs. indicative de-clauses). Besides the synthetic form of the present, there are also various periphrastic forms of the subjunctive. ... Origin and status of să It is generally admitted that the particle să (also in the form se) originates in the conjunction *se < SI; yet, it is not easy to explain the semantic change of a conditional conjunction (as the ‘original’ SE is often thought to be: Frâncu , : ; Hill ) into a complementizer and then a mood marker (Meyer-Lübke : suggests that the starting point of the functional change should be sought in incomplete conditional phrases or in optatives). In fact, it seems more likely that OR had preserved not only the conditional value of SE, but also its older purposive value (see OLD, s.v. se; Ernout and Meillet : ). Both values were derived in Latin from the adverbial use of SE/SI(C) ‘so’, which is also preserved in Romanian by the additive focalizer și and the homonymous additive conjunction (see Iliescu and Manoliu ). The purposive să followed a typical grammaticalization path in becoming a complementizer (Haspelmath ); see }... In the sixteenth century, the subjunctive marker and complementizer SĂSUBJ coexists with the conditional conjunction să ‘if ’; the two units appear in completely different syntactic contexts: the first (să) is used in independent clauses (as in ()) or in purposive or argumental clauses, while să (cf. also ()) introduces the protasis of a conditional construction, whose verb is in the indicative or conditional, but not in the subjunctive. fără usârdie, să fimu () Și să sântemu and if be.PRES.PL without diligence SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.PL cu usârdie (CC2.: ) with diligence ‘And if we lack diligence, let’s have diligence’ The gradual elimination of să, replaced by the conditional conjunctions de and dacă (}..), has cancelled out the homonymy. In modern Aromanian, MeglenoRomanian, and Istro-Romanian, the conditional să persists in conditional clauses (in structures that are often described as a conditional mood, Nevaci : –). By its evolution, să is similar to the Greek particle na, initially a purposive connector, which becomes a complementizer and a subjunctive marker (Sandfeld : ; for the various syntactic interpretations, see Roussou ) and to the Old Slavic da, a demonstrative adverb which becomes a purposive connector, an
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
exhortative marker, a conditional conjunction, and a subjunctive marker (Meillet : ‒; Drăganu : ). The obligatory presence of să before the subjunctive verb form in all contexts stands as strong evidence for its complete grammaticalization as a subjunctive marker. In fact, there are cases of bare subjunctive in the sixteenth century, as also in MR, but they are always limited to the rd person (marked by specific endings). A certain directionality of the process is indicated by the fact that rd person bare subjunctives are more numerous in OR than in MR. In a typical prescriptive text like CL., the occurrences of the rd person subjunctive forms in independent clauses (or at most ambiguous between coordination and purpose) are distributed as follows: % are să-forms, % are bare subjunctives. The bare subjunctive frequently appears in independent clauses with an injunctive, prescriptive, or augural meaning (); the variation between the presence and absence of să is often manifested in the same sentence (as in b). ()
a. După aceaia grăiască diaconul (CL.: r) after that speak.SUBJ.SG deacon.DEF.NOM ‘Then, let the deacon speak’ b. sfinţească-se numele tău, să vie hallow.SUBJ.SG=CL.REFL.ACC.SG name.DEF.NOM your SĂSUBJ come.SUBJ.SG împărăţie ta, fie voia ta (CCat.: v) kingdom.NOM your be.SUBJ.SG will.DEF.NOM your ‘hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be (done)’
The absence of să is sporadically recorded in epistemic closed interrogatives. () Au om sfârșit și destoinic tot acela fie INT man.NOM perfect and capable ever that be.SUBJ.SG carele face așa? (CC1.: r) who.DEF.NOM does like.this ‘Could he who does this be a perfect and capable man?’ The bare subjunctive does not occur in subordinate clauses, which proves the persistence of the connective properties of să. The few exceptions are only apparent, arising in de-connected clauses, that hesitate between coordination and result readings (a), or in concessive clauses introduced by măcar (Frâncu : ; see }...) (b). ()
a. Giudecă loru, Dzăule, de cadză den judge.IMP them.DAT God.DEF.VOC so.that fall.SUBJ.PL by cugetele sale (PH.–: v‒r) their thoughts.DEF.ACC ‘Declare them guilty, O God! Let their intrigues be their downfall’ b. N-oi părăsî nicedânăoară a mă-nchina ( . . . ) AINF CL.REFL.ACC.SG=worship.INF not=AUX.FUT.SG stop.INF never macară nu vă placă voauă (DVS.–: r) even.if not CL.DAT.PL please.SUBJ.SG you.PL.DAT.PL ‘I will never stop worshipping ( . . . ), even if you don’t like this’ In (a), de functions as an equivalent of să.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntax of moods and tenses
There are controversies about the existence of a subjunctive marker și, homophonous with the additive focalizer and the coordination conjunction și ‘and’. A șisubjunctive was noted by Hasdeu ([] : ); cf. Chivu (: ), and accepted as such by Gheţie (, , ), Strungaru (), and others; its existence was rejected by other authors, who interpreted the texts in a different manner: Rosetti (); Todoran (); Ivănescu (: ‒), for instance. Arvinte (: L) considers that the many debatable examples in BB. are only replicated structures (loan translations) from Gr. και ‘and’ + imperative, in reported speech. Therefore, the și-subjunctive present in regional MR, in the north-west of Transylvania, was interpreted either as a survival phenomenon (Gheţie ), or as an innovation (Rosetti ). When followed by bare subjunctives, și may be interpreted either as a subjunctive marker, or as an additive connector. ()
a. grăi fiiului său, lui Isacu: Și say.PS.SG son.DEF.DAT his LUI.DAT Isaac ȘISUBJ/and ieșimu (CSIX.‒: r) get.out.SUBJ.PL ‘he said to his son, Isaac: let’s go out’ b. ei meargă și-și adune they.NOM go.SUBJ.PL ȘISUBJ/and=CL.REFL.DAT.PL gather.SUBJ.PL lor paiele (BB.: ) them.DAT straws.DEF.ACC ‘let them go and gather their own straw’
The use of și as an alternative to să is not anomalous, if their common origin in as well as a possible variation in an early period are considered; both the subjunctive marker and the additive connector seem to originate in the resultative connector (see Drăganu : ). Clitics (}.) and negation (}.), focusing adverbs (as in MR), but also more complex topicalized constituents can intervene between the always preverbal să and the verb. SI(C),
ne prentru eale ispăsim (CCat.: r) SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.PASS.PL through them.ACC save.SUBJ.PL ‘to be saved through them’
() să
Scrambling phenomena (gradually decreasing after the sixteenth century: Zamfir : ‒) have been considered evidence for the so far partially grammaticalized status of the verb forms (Moldovanu ‒) or as a particularity of OR (Dragomirescu c), but also as loan translations from Greek (Arvinte : L, in BB.) or as features of a literary, Mannerism-like style (Gheţie and Zgraon ). Negative subjunctives favour dislocation, especially by the insertion of the adverb (cumva ‘perhaps’) (b,c); generally, the topicalized constituent (cumva included)
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
appears after the negation marker (however, there are exceptions, as in (c)) and entails the optional resumption of să (a). ()
nu preamâncăriei și beţiei not excessive.eating.DEF.DAT and drinking.DEF.DAT să ne bucurămu (CC2.: ) SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.PL enjoy.SUBJ.PL ‘let’s not enjoy excessive eating and drinking’
a. Să
SĂSUBJ
b. să
nu cumva îndrăznească a eși den not perhaps dare.SUBJ.SG AINF get.out.INF from hotarul său (Prav.: ) his.POSS border.DEF.ACC ‘lest he goes beyond his borders’ SĂSUBJ
cumva nu murim (PO.: ) perhaps not die.SUBJ.PL ‘lest we die’
c. să
SĂSUBJ
The structure să nu cumva să (described by Zamfir : ‒ as a southern preference, spreading gradually) was to become practically fixed in MR. ... Simple and periphrastic forms The present subjunctive is an inherited form, continuing the endings of the Latin present subjunctive in the rd person (identical for singular and plural) and in the entire paradigm of a fi (ILR II: ‒; Frâncu : ‒). The st and nd persons are identical to those of the present indicative. Besides this synthetic form, OR has several periphrastic constructions, made up of the present subjunctive of a fi and (a) the participle, (b) the gerund, (c) a fi-participle and the participle of the lexical verb. The first would be completely integrated in a binary tense system, as the perfect of the subjunctive; the second would be preserved by becoming specialized for epistemic uses, but is rare in MR (GR: ); the latter would then disappear. The perfect subjunctive is a periphrasis made up of the present subjunctive of a fi and the participle form of the verb. It is absent in South-Danubian idioms (which have different types of past subjunctive forms); while relatively rare in the sixteenth century, it constantly increases its frequency afterwards (Frâncu , : ‒). The periphrasis has been interpreted either as a result of contact with Old Slavic and Old Church Slavonic (Sandfeld : ; Manoliu , etc.), or as an internal creation (Frâncu : ‒). The forms of the auxiliary vary in number and person in the sixteenth–seventeenth centuries (); its invariability is sporadically attested in the seventeenth–eighteenth centuries, especially in original documents, but becomes more frequent in the nineteenth century and is adopted as the MR official norm very late (Arvinte : LI; Frâncu : , : ‒; SILR: ). Today, in standard Romanian, the auxiliary from a fi has been reduced to a single invariable form (fi), a fact which has been explained as a pure phonetic change (Lombard –: ‒; Zamfir : ) or by functional reasons, in order to be differentiated from the passive periphrasis or by analogy with the perfect conditional (Frâncu : ‒).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntax of moods and tenses
() necum să fim noi iubit pre Dumnezeu (CC1.: r) SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.PL we love.PPLE DOM God.ACC not ‘not that we loved God’ The periphrasis made up of the present subjunctive of a fi and the gerund form of the verb is not attested before the seventeenth century (Zamfir : ‒; Niculescu a: ); the form is used in the same context as the present subjunctive. nu fie bărbatul foarte vrăjmaș și să nu not be.SUBJ.PRES.SG man.DEF.NOM very hostile and SĂSUBJ not fie având andesine urâciune (Prav.: ) be.SUBJ.PRES.PL have.GER between.them hate.ACC ‘the man should not be very hostile and they should not hate each other’
() să
SĂSUBJ
Its meaning seems to be close to that of a qualifying predicate. The variable forms of a fi become invariable very late, in the nineteenth century (as in the case of the perfect subjunctive). The double compound form—a periphrasis made up of the perfect subjunctive of a fi (variable present subjunctive + the participle fost) and the participle form of the verb—is attested in the seventeenth century, first in documents, and becomes more frequent in the eighteenth century. ()
dzicu călugării să fie fost făcut say.PRES.PL monks.DEF.NOM SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG be.PPLE make.PPLE și sfeșnicile cele mari (NL.~–: ) also candlesticks.DEF.ACC CEL.F.PL big.PL ‘the monks say that he had made the big candlesticks too’
The form (surcomposé subjunctive in Zamfir : ; pluperfect subjunctive for Frâncu : ‒, : ‒) will not survive in MR. ... Syntactic contexts: the independent and the subordinate subjunctive The subjunctive mood is employed in non-assertive main clauses, in relative clauses, or directly subordinated to a main verb, in purpose and result clauses or in argument clauses. It can also be headed by various conjunctions and adverbs. In OR, the independent subjunctive already has the functions it would later have in MR: it is used in non-assertive mandatory or optative sentences, with imperative (see ), exhortative (a) and cohortative () values, sometimes supplementarily marked by an injunctive particle. ()
Iani să spunem de Nil (MC.: r) let SĂSUBJ say.SUBJ.PL about Nile.ACC ‘Let’s talk about the Nile’
The perfect with an optative function () is very rare and seems to be an artificial creation. However, it is subsequently attested in regional variants of MR (Frâncu : ).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause fiu aflat har întru ochii tăi, be.SUBJ.SG find.PPLE gift.ACC into eyes.DEF.ACC your doamne! (BB.: ) lord.DEF.VOC ‘May I continue to find favour in your eyes, my lord’
() Să
SĂSUBJ
The mandatory subjunctive is in competition with the imperative (}..), while the optative subjunctive is equivalent with the optative usage of the conditional mood. The subjunctive is also employed in open or closed interrogatives, conveying values of deontic or epistemic possibility. ()
care dar să fie cel mai mare și mai and more which gift.NOM SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG CEL.M.SG more big ales ( . . . )? (AD.–: v) special ‘Which gift can be the biggest and the most special?’
The subordinate subjunctive is in competition with the indicative or with the infinitive. The partial replacement of the infinitive by the subjunctive (in the following, constructions i–iii) is an important change, whose dynamics are visible in OR texts; it is generally explained as a Balkan phenomenon (Sandfeld : –) and has been investigated by many authors (Frâncu , ; Diaconescu ; Schulte ; Jordan ; Hill ; Spătaru-Pralea ; Nedelcu , etc.). (i) The direct subordination appears in purpose clauses (a) (in competition with a-infinitives and de-indicatives; }...) or in argument clauses (headed by modal, aspectual, causative verbs) (b), in competition with a-infinitives. () a. duseră-se în besearecă să se go.PS.PL=CL.REFL.ACC.PL in church.ACC SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.PL roage (CC2.: ) pray.SUBJ.PL ‘they went to the church to pray’ b. vrumu se luomu Pavelu (CV.‒: r) want.PS.PL SĂSUBJ take.SUBJ.PL Paul.ACC ‘we intended to take Paul aboard’ The subjunctive is employed in obviation structures as well as when the subjects of the two verbs show referential identity (as in ). (ii) The subjunctive is headed by purposive connectives (de, ca, cum, derept, pentru ‘for; in order to’; see }..) (). ()
a. tremease-i în toată lumea, de să send.PS.SG=CL.ACC.M.PL in entire world.DEF.ACC for SĂSUBJ spuie Evanghelia (CCat.: r) gospel.DEF.ACC say.SUBJ.PL ‘he has sent them into all the world to preach the Gospel’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntax of moods and tenses
b. mergeam ca să aduc (BB. : ) go.IMPERF.SG in.order SĂSUBJ bring.SUBJ.SG ‘I went there in order to bring’ (iii) The complementizers de, ca, cum, and precum (}..) introduce argument clauses in which the subjunctive is allowed. ()
mai bine-ţi iaste ca să piiae that SĂSUBJ perish.SUBJ.SG more well=CL.DAT.SG is unul din mădularele tale (NT.: r) one.NOM of members.DEF.ACC your ‘it is better for you to lose one part of your body’
The construction with de and the subjunctive will be soon abandoned, but ca (no longer constructed with the indicative after the sixteenth century) will become a topicalization marker in MR. (iv) In non-referential relatives, the subjunctive can appear even in the absence of the wh-element (see also }...). ()
n-am om să mă ducă în not=have.PRES.SG man.ACC SĂSUBJ CL.ACC.SG put.SUBJ.SG in apă (CC1.: v) water.ACC ‘there is no one to take me to the water’
(v) In reported speech, the subjunctive can correspond to an injunctive sentence () (in mixed form, even in a clause introduced by că) or to an interrogative (after de or dacă). ()
ziseră lor afară den gloată să iasă (CPr.: ) say.PS.PL them.DAT out of crowd.ACC SĂSUBJ go.out.SUBJ.PL ‘they had commanded them to leave the council’
The subjunctive is also encountered as a component of several types of the periphrastic future (}...), and of other modal and aspectual non-grammaticalized constructions. ... Epistemic and evidential values of the subordinate subjunctive When subordinated to certain verbs of saying and cognition, which accept both complementizers că and să, the subjunctive has specific values, well represented in OR, but partially lost in MR. Some cognitive verbs allow both the indicative and the subjunctive (in clauses introduced by că, (pre)cum că vs. să, (pre)cum să), even if they express certainty (a socoti ‘consider’, a cunoaște ‘know’, a ști ‘know’, a afla ‘find out’, a gândi ‘think’) rather than doubt (a crede ‘believe’, a se părea ‘seem’). ()
lui (CC2.: ) a. aceștea socotiia că sântu ai these.NOM consider.IMPERF.SG that be.PRES.PL AL.M.PL his ‘he considered that these are his’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause b. așa socotiră flosofii să fie acești so consider.PS.PL philosophers.DEF.NOM SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.PL these oameni Adam și Eva (A.: v) Adam and Eve persons.NOM ‘so, philosophers considered that these persons were Adam and Eve’ c. precum că ești bogat știindu-te (CD.: v) as that be.PRES.SG rich know.GER=CL.ACC.SG ‘knowing that you are rich’ d. precum minciunoase să fie le știu (CD.: v) as misleading.F.PL SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.PL CL.ACC.F.PL know.PRES.SG ‘I know them as misleading’
In MR all of them prefer the indicative, except for some negative constructions (GR: ). The most striking particularity of the subjunctive’s use in OR is its evidential (reportative, quotational) value (Frâncu : ; Sava ), in clauses headed by a verb of saying, in direct subordination (through să) or introduced by cum, precum, and cum că. ()
a. de niamul său dzic să fie by origin.DEF.ACC his say.PRES.PL SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG fost din ostrovul Critului (CII.~: XI) be.PPLE from island.DEF.ACC Crete.DEF.GEN ‘it is said that his origin was in the island of Crete’ b. cum că amăgitoare și minciunoasă să fiu, SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG as that deceptive and misleading dzici? (CD.: v) say.PRES.SG ‘Do you say that I am deceptive and misleading?’
Evidential verbs such as a se arăta ‘be shown, be manifest’, a se adeveri ‘be confirmed’, a dovedi ‘prove’, etc. also prefer the subjunctive in OR (in MR, they will select the a-infinitive, a predicative complement, or a că-clause). () a. arată-se să fie toţi înșișu show.PRES.SG=CL.REFL.PASS.SG SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.PL all.NOM themselves volnici (CC2.: ) free ‘it seems that all of them are free’ b. să adeverează să fie murit CL.REFL.PASS.SG confirm.PRES.SG SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG die.PPLE Adam (ACT.: v) Adam.NOM ‘it is confirmed that Adam died’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntax of moods and tenses
These constructions are attested from the sixteenth century and become frequent in the seventeenth–eighteenth centuries. In MR, the reportative subjunctive will be replaced by the reportative conditional. .. The conditional There are several conditional periphrases in OR; one of them (indicated hereafter by the formula aș-conditional, from the use of the st person singular form of the auxiliary) is fully grammaticalized and widespread in the sixteenth century; the competing periphrases (the vrea-conditionals) are available in several morphosyntactic combinations; very frequent in the earliest OR period, they were gradually to be lost. The sixteenth-century texts also preserve a synthetic form, employed in the protasis of conditional constructions, commonly interpreted as a present conditional, but similar to a future. Conditional forms employ a volitional auxiliary and associate the conditional meaning with an optative value, covering thus zones of the irrealis semantic domain that other Romance languages express by the means of subjunctive forms. All these features are specific to the Balkan area and mark out old and modern Romanian among Romance languages (GR: ; cf. Coene and Tasmowski ; Becker ). ... Aș-conditional periphrases The aș-periphrases are frequent in OR; the main pattern is aș + INF (aș face ‘I would do’, the simple present conditional); the other forms are: aș + fi.INF + GER (aș fi făcând, probably a continuous present conditional, at least in some uses, ‘I would be doing’); aș + fi.INF + PPLE (aș fi făcut, ‘I would have done’, the perfect conditional); double compound (double auxiliary) forms are very rare and unstable (see below). The main patterns have been preserved in MR: the present and the perfect as the regular forms, and the continuous present as a specialized means for epistemic uses (GR: ). The present conditional is a grammaticalized periphrasis, whose auxiliary is a specific and non-transparent form, presumably due to a process of phonetic reduction: aș (sg), ai (sg), ară/are (sgpl; ar in the second OR period), am (pl), aţ(i) (pl). The origin of the auxiliary is debated. Certain authors (Tiktin ; Rosetti : ; Titova ; Bugeanu b; Dimitrescu (ed.) : , ; Elson ; Zamfir ) have stated that the starting point of this grammaticalization was the verb a avea (‘have’), their main arguments being (a) the formal similarity with the auxiliary ‘have’ of the compound past; (b) the analogy with the western Romance languages, where the ending of the conditional originates in an auxiliary ‘have’. Other scholars (Weigand ; Philippide : ‒; MeyerLübke ; Arvinte : LI; Frâncu : ; Coene and Tasmowski ) interpreted the auxiliary as a reduction of the verb a vrea (‘want’), in the imperfect: *cantare-reare (< CANTARE VOLEBAT) > cănta-are > are cânta > ar cânta (Arvinte : LI); see also Lombard (: ‒). The origin of the st person singular final consonant remains unclear, despite various proposals (an emphatic SIC, for Philippide (: ) and Weigand (); a subjunctive form of HABERE, for Bugeanu (a), etc.).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
There are many arguments in favour of the vrea (‘want’) hypothesis: it illustrates the typological and semantic relation between the future (the pattern vrea in the present + infinitive being already grammaticalized) and the conditional. The emergence of the conditional as a ‘future in the past’, by using the past form of the future auxiliary, would then be the same in western and eastern Romance languages, the sole difference being that this auxiliary was ‘have’ in the west and ‘want’ in the east. An important clue, often mentioned, is offered by the pattern still conserved in IstroRomanian (ręš/ręi/rę/ręm/ręţ/rę + infinitive, TDR: ) and in the regional variant of Banat (reaș/reai/rea/ream/reaţi/rea + infinitive, TDR: ). Finally, the numerous periphrases with vrea in OR (}...) can be taken as evidence for persistent variation. Moreover, some specific values of the Romanian conditional (optative, desiderative) are better explained by the vrea hypothesis. The present conditional is characterized by a high degree of stability and cohesion; pronominal clitics and the negator precede the verbal complex (a); intercalations are possible (b), save mainly for adverbial particles: amu (c), mai (CC1.: r), și (frequent in concessives, }..) and clusters of such particles (e.g. și mai, Zamfir : ). () a. nu te-ară ruga (CC1.: v) not CL.ACC.SG=AUX.COND.SG ask.INF ‘he would not ask you’ b. să ară cineva den morţi învie (CC1.: v) if AUX.COND.SG someone.NOM from deads.ACC resurrect.INF ‘if someone resurrected from the dead’ c. ară amu fi (CT.–: v) AUX.COND.SG then be.INF ‘he would be then’ The preferred order is auxiliary–infinitive. However, affirmative forms allow preposition of the infinitive. Depending on the etymological theory adopted, these forms can be interpreted as preserving (in the absence of clitics) the archaic ‘long’ infinitive (in -re: Densusianu II: ; Rosetti : ; Dimitrescu (ed.) : ), or an older form of the auxiliary, with aphaeresis of the initial v- (-reaș, -reai, etc.). The texts written in Cyrillic do not generally separate pronominal clitics or enclitic auxiliary forms, and the transcriptions follow one etymological hypothesis or the other. Clitics are placed between the infinitive and the enclitic auxiliary. ()
a. avea-reaţi/aveare-aţi (CC2.: ) have.INF=AUX.COND.PL ‘you would have’ b. căde-vă-se-ară (CC2.: ) ought.to.INF=CL.DAT.PL=CL.REFL.IMPERS.SG=AUX.COND.SG ‘you would ought to’
The periphrasis made up of the auxiliary + the infinitive of fi ‘be’ + participle (a) has the value of the perfect conditional, and is well represented in OR (in the
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntax of moods and tenses
sixteenth century, in CC2., Prav., PO., DÎ (Zamfir : –), CC1., CT.–, etc.). The construction allows intercalations between the rest of the verbal complex and the participle (b) and auxiliary-infinitive–inversions, which omit the participle (c). ()
a. de la ei ară fi cerșutu despuitoriulu from them.ACC AUX.COND.SG be.INF ask.PPLE lord.DEF.NOM datoriia (CC2.: ) debt.DEF.ACC ‘the lord would have asked the debt from them’ b. De n-ară fi Domnul Savaot lăsat noao if not=AUX.COND.SG be.INF Lord.DEF.NOM Sabaoth let.PPLE us.DAT sămânţă (CPr.: ) seed.ACC ‘If the Lord of Sabaoth had not left us offspring’ c. fi-reaș [or: fire-aș] luat al mieu cu be.INF=AUX.COND.SG take.PPLE AL.M.SG mine.ACC with dobândă (NT.: v; BB.: ) interest.ACC ‘I should have received what was my own with interest’
The periphrasis composed of the auxiliary + the infinitive of fi ‘be’ + gerund has the value of a present tense (Zamfir : – speculates that it might also have the value of a perfect, but this seems to be rather a contextual effect of simultaneity with another event). ()
De-aţi fi orbi fiind, n-aţi fi având if=AUX.COND.PL be.INF blind be.GER not=AUX.COND.PL be.INF have.GER păcate (CT.–: r) sins.ACC ‘If you were blind, you would have no guilt’
The gerund is not always adjacent to the rest of the structure, but allows intercalations (as in ), and it remains outside the inversion (). ()
fi-rară lăcuind/fir-ară lăcuind (CPr.: ) be.INF=AUX.COND.PL live.GER ‘if he would be living’
Like the other similar gerund periphrases, the conditional periphrasis could probably have been a qualifying predicate or could express continuous aspect. It occurs with evidential (reportive) uses especially in the eighteenth century (Niculescu a: ), but the specialization for the epistemic use is a phenomenon of late MR (GR: ). Double auxiliary periphrases, amplifying the main patterns, in the continuous vs. perfect versions, are attested sporadically: auxiliary + fi-infinitive + fi-participle + gerund (a) (Zamfir : ); auxiliary + fi-infinitive + fi-participle + participle (b) (Zamfir : , ).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
()
a. De-ară fi amu fost fiind pre pământ (CPr.: ) if=AUX.COND.SG be.INF then be.PPLE be.GER on earth.ACC ‘If he had been on earth’ b. de n-are hi fost el dobândit if not=AUX.COND.SG be.INF be.PPLE he obtain.PPLE domniia (CazV.: r) reign.DEF.ACC ‘if he had not obtained the throne’
... Vrea-conditional periphrases There are four main periphrases that combine the imperfect or the compound past of the auxiliary vrea (‘want’) with the infinitive or the infinitive of fi ‘be’ plus the participle: (a) vrea (imperfect) + infinitive: vrea face ‘I would do’ or ‘I would have done’; (b) am vrut (compound past) + infinitive: am vrut face ‘I would have done’; (c) vrea (imperfect) + infinitive of fi + participle = vrea fi făcut ‘I would have done’; (d) am vrut (compound past) + infinitive of fi + participle = am vrut fi făcut ‘I would have done’. The pattern featuring a gerund instead the participle (e.g. vrea fi făcând) is extremely rare. Vrea-periphrases seem to repeat (or preserve) the pattern of the grammaticalized aș-conditional. The verbal complex hesitates between a tense value (the original one, assigned by the tense of the auxiliary) and the modal value. Therefore, some scholars (e.g. Zamfir : –) have assumed that all the forms were mere variants of the perfect conditional. The periphrasis formed by vrea (imperfect) + infinitive is frequent in the sixteenth century (e.g. in CC2.), but its occurrences gradually decrease, although the form is still attested regionally in MR, in Banat (TDR: ). In OR, the forms of the auxiliary are vrea (sg, sgpl), vreai (sg), vream (pl), vreaţi (pl) (Densusianu II: ). The periphrasis is sometimes employed with its original value, as a future in the past (a), but is generally the equivalent of a present conditional (b). The periphrasis with the gerund (c) is another variant of the present conditional. ()
a. până vrea întra a grăi cătră dânsul (BB.: ) until want.IMPERF.SG enter.INF AINF speak.INF towards him.ACC ‘until he would have entered to speak with him’ b. de-ară fi meseretatea răotatea, if=AUX.COND.SG be.INF poverty.DEF.NOM malice.DEF.NOM cădea-se-vrea tuturoru carii who.PL.NOM ought.to.INF=CL.REFL.IMPERS.SG=want.IMPERF.SG all.DAT sântu în meserătate răi a fi (CC2.: ) be.PRES.PL in poverty.ACC malicious.PL.NOM AINF be.INF ‘if poverty were malice, all poor people ought to be malicious’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntax of moods and tenses
c. de n-aţi avea urâciune, if not=AUX.COND.PL have.INF hate.ACC fi-vreaţi știindu ( . . . ) (CC2.: ) be.INF=want.IMPERF.PL know.GER ‘if you did not have hate, you would know ( . . . )’ The periphrasis made up of the compound past of vrea (sgpl am vrut, sg ai vrut, pl aţi vrut, sgpl au vrut) + infinitive (a), the periphrasis made up with the imperfect of vrea + fi-infinitive + participle (b), and that formed with the compound past of vrea + infinitive of fi + participle (c) are always equivalent to the perfect conditional with aș. ()
a. nu i se-au vrutu părea, nici not CL. DAT.SG CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG want.PPLE seem.INF nor ară fi căutatu să pipăiască (CC2.: ) AUX.COND.SG be.INF try.PPLE SĂSUBJ touch.SUBJ.SG ‘it would not have seemed to him, nor would he have tried to touch’ b. de-aţi fi crezutu lu Moysi, if=AUX.COND.PL be.INF believe.PPLE lui.DAT Moses fi-vreaţi crezutu și mie (CC2.: ) be.INF=want.IMPERF.PL believe.PPLE too me.DAT ‘if you had believed in Moses, you would have believed in me too’ vrut fi fost din noi (NT.: r) AUX.PC.PL want.PPLE be.INF be.PPLE of us.ACC ‘they would have been some of our people’
c. au
Inversions can show a higher or a lower degree of semantic solidarity and formal cohesion: they involve the auxiliary as a single unit (a) or appear inside the form of the auxiliary, leaving aside the participle (b). ()
a. cădea-ţi-s-au be.obligatory.INF=CL.DAT.SG =CL.REFL.IMPERS.SG =AUX.PERF.SG vrut (NT.: v) want.PPLE ‘it would have been obligatory for you’ b. fi-ţi-lu-vreai datu (CC2.: ) be.INF=CL. DAT. POSS.SG=CL. ACC.SG=want.IMPERF.SG give.PPLE ‘you would have done (your . . . )’
... Uses and values of the conditional Conditional periphrases are mainly employed in conditional (and conditional-concessive) constructions (a), in (most frequently, Zamfir : ) comparative constructions (b), in independent clauses (c,d), and in other dependent clauses (e).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
() a. de n-au vrut fi auzit ( . . . ), nu not if not=AUX.PERF.PL want.PPLE be.INF hear.PPLE s-ară fi pocăit (SA.: r) CL.REFL.ACC.PL=AUX.COND.PL be.INF repent.PPLE ‘if they had not heard ( . . . ), they would not have repented’ b. va fi cu poporu-ș cum AUX.FUT.SG be.INF with people.DEF.ACC=CL.REFL. DAT.POSS.SG as ară purta orb pre alt orb (CPrav.‒: r) AUX.COND.SG lead.INF blind.NOM DOM another blind.ACC ‘he will be for his people as if a blind man led another blind man’ c. Dumnezeu ară vrea pre toţi a ispăsi (CC1.: r) AUX.COND.SG want.INF DOM all.ACC AINF save.INF God.NOM ‘God would like to save all the people’ d. Doară ară afla într-înși? (PO.: ) maybe AUX.COND.SG find.INF forty among=them ‘What if only forty are found there?’ e. auzind Iacov că ară fi în Eghipet hear.GER Jacob.NOM that AUX.COND.SG be.INF in Egypt hrană (NT.: r) food.NOM ‘when Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt’ Conditional periods allow several combinations, symmetrical or not, between all the types of present and perfect conditional, with the auxiliary aș or vrea: (a) the present conditional both in the protasis and apodosis; (b) the present conditional in the protasis, the indicative present or future in the apodosis; (c) the perfect conditional in the protasis, the present conditional in the apodosis; (d) the perfect conditional in both clauses (}..). In the conditional period, the perfect conditional is always counterfactual; the present conditional can have only context-dependent counterfactual interpretations. In comparative constructions, the present conditional is counterfactual as well. The conditional strengthens its presence in conditional constructions, gradually replacing the future tense. A special temporal value of the conditional (systematically used as a past tense form) appears in only one sixteenth-century text (PO.) and has been explained as a translation error (Densusianu II: ). In main clauses, the conditional can have potential or desiderative meaning (c) or an epistemic value of doubt (d). Since the seventeenth century the conditional has spread in epistemic contexts, replacing the subjunctive (}...) headed by verbs of cognition, perception, and saying. The reportative conditional (in embedded clauses (e)) has a wide range of attestations in the eighteenth century (Niculescu a: ; see also Popescu ).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntax of moods and tenses
... The synthetic conditional (or synthetic future) The so-called synthetic present conditional (Rosetti : ; Densusianu II: ; Morariu ; ILR II: ‒; Dimitrescu (ed.) : ‒; Popescu ; Frâncu : ; Zamfir : ; Becker : ) is rather a synthetic future (Philippide : ; : –), similar to the future subjunctive in the Ibero-Romance languages (Meyer-Lübke : ; Company Company (ed.) : ‒, ) and deriving from the same Latin source. Its forms (the perfect root followed by the suffix -re and the endings Ø (–sg and pl), -m(u) (pl) and -t(u) (pl)) continue the Latin perfect subjunctive fused with the future perfect of late Latin (Morariu : –; Rosetti : –; ILR II: ‒, cf. Lombard : ; Frâncu : ; according to Densusianu II: , only the perfect subjunctive). The form is preserved, with some variation, in Aromanian (Capidan : ‒; Maiden ) and in Istro-Romanian (especially in temporal clauses, expressing anteriority, TDR: ). In many descriptions of the Aromanian mood and tense system, the form is considered a conditional, having the conditional conjunction să as a specific marker (Nevaci : ). In the sixteenth century, the synthetic form is more frequent in northern texts, i.e. in a more conservative area (Zamfir : ‒) and it seems to be an archaism, preferred in literary use; it is eliminated in the following centuries. Its specific context is the protasis of the conditional sentence (always introduced by se/să), when the apodosis contains a verb in the present indicative (a) or future (b), rarely in the imperative or subjunctive. ()
a. Se nu Domnul străjuire cetatea, în if not Lord.DEF.NOM watch.COND.PRES.SG city.DEF.ACC in deșert preveghe strătoriul (PH.–: r) watchman.DEF.NOM vain stay.awake.PRES.SG ‘Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain’ b. Să amu fure ochiul tău prost, tot if then be.COND.PRES.SG eye.DEF.NOM your pure all trupul tău luminat va fi (CC1.: v) body.DEF.NOM your lighted AUX.FUT.SG be.INF ‘When your eye is healthy, your whole body is full of light’
The synthetic form does not appear in correlation with a true conditional; it will be translated with the future in the subsequent versions of the religious texts. The form can be often interpreted as a future perfect, whose realization must precede the realization of the future in the apodosis. The synthetic form gives rise to two quite rare periphrases: with the gerund (a) and with the participle (b; see Zamfir : ): ()
a. să fure întru voi lăcuind you.PL.ACC abide.GER if be.COND.PRES.SG in ce-aţi auzit den ceput (CPr.: ) what=AUX.PERF.PL hear.PPLE from beginning ‘if what you heard from the beginning abides in you’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause b. se fure faptu păcatu (CV.–: v) if be.COND.PRES.SG do.PPLE sin.ACC ‘if he has committed sin’
.. The imperative The Romanian imperative is mostly inherited from Latin, but it has undergone a series of analogical changes and particular developments (for the origin of many anomalous forms, see Maiden ). The main morphological system of the OR imperative (a paradigm limited to the nd person singular and plural) persists in MR, with one exception: by the loss of a specific variant for the negative nd person plural, MR limits the distinction between affirmative and negative forms to singular imperatives. In the first period of OR, two variants of the nd person plural negative imperative are in use: one is identical to the ‘long’ infinitive (in -re) followed by the ending -ţi, the other is identical to the present indicative. () a. nu vă bucurareţi (CT.‒: v) not CL.REFL.ACC.PL rejoice.IMP.PL ‘do not rejoice’ b. nu vă teameţi (CT.‒: r) not CL.REFL.ACC.PL be.afraid.IMP.PL ‘do not be afraid’ The ‘long’ imperative is probably the older form, for which the preferred historical explanation is that it preserves the inherited ‘long’ infinitive, to which an analogical inflectional ending was added (Philippide : ; Byck : –); for Morariu (: ), it originates in the Latin imperfect subjunctive. This form is frequent in the first part of OR, especially in northern and north-western regional varieties (Gheţie : , , , ; Frâncu : ) and it is preserved in MR in the same area; see }.... The imperative is employed in main clauses (a), in the apodosis of a conditional sentence (}..), in purposive clauses which can be interpreted as coordinate main clauses as well (b, a construction preserved in spoken MR, see GR: ), and in nonrestrictive relatives (as in Latin, cf. Pompei : ; }...) (c). In hybrid reported speech constructions (i.e. in contaminations between direct and indirect speech), the imperative can exceptionally appear in a clause headed by a complementizer (d). ()
milostivește, împărate, și be.merciful.IMP.SG emperor.VOC and ne slobozește (A.: r) CL.ACC.PL release.IMP.SG ‘be merciful, emperor, and release us’
a. te
CL.REFL.ACC.SG
b. Vino de sfinţeaște noi (CL.: r) come.IMP.SG to/and sanctify.IMP.SG us.ACC ‘come to/and sanctify us’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntax of moods and tenses
c. mila lu Dumnezeu, carea tu, Doamne, which.DEF.ACC you.SG.VOC Lord.VOC mercy.DEF LUI.GEN God.GEN dă-ne întru împărăţia ta! (CC1.: v‒r) kingdom.DEF.ACC your give.IMP.SG=us.DAT in ‘God’s mercy, that thou, Lord, givest us in thy kingdom’ d. nu zise sutașulu că “vino, Doamne, not say.PS.SG centurion.DEF.NOM that come.IMP.SG Lord.VOC curându” (CC2.: ) soon ‘the centurion did not say “come soon, Lord” ’ Clitics are usually placed after the verb (as in c, which illustrates the dominant order in MR), but they may also precede it (as in a); see }.. The imperative competes with the nd person of the subjunctive, which is often employed with an injunctive value. In OR the two forms display a certain difference, probably comparable with the functional difference between the present imperative and the future imperative in Latin. The OR imperative seems to be preferred (like the present imperative in Latin, Haverling : , ) in order to indicate an immediate realization of the action, while the prescriptive subjunctive indicates (like the future imperative in Latin) an accomplishment which is subsequent and conditioned. This can be reflected in the preferred order of the two forms: when coordinated, the imperative usually precedes the subjunctive. ()
Eșu dentr-însulu și de acmu să nu come.out.IMP.SG from=him.ACC and from now SĂSUBJ not întri întru elu (CC2.: ) enter.SUBJ.SG in him.ACC ‘Come out of him and never enter him again’
This partial equivalence and specialization may explain the extraordinary extension of the nd person subjunctive with an injunctive function in OR (Frâncu : ). The partial equivalence of the two forms (of which the subjunctive is more regular and available for all verbs, independently of their meaning) is preserved in MR, and the difference between them is generally explained in pragmatic terms (GR: ). .. Tense and aspect forms OR has a tense and aspect system similar to those of the other Romance languages and different from that of Latin: the main oppositions are temporal (present/past/ future), and only secondarily aspectual (perfective/imperfective). Besides the synthetic forms inherited from Latin (the present indicative, the present subjunctive, the simple past, the pluperfect, the imperfect), there are a large number of periphrases, in the case of which the highest degree of grammaticalization is displayed by the compound past and the future comprising the auxiliary vrea ‘want’ and the infinitive. An important phenomenon is the competition between simple forms and periphrases or between different periphrases with similar functions.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
The most specific series of periphrases, but also the most vacillating, include a tensed form of the auxiliary (either simple or periphrastic) plus the participle (}.) or the gerund (}.) of the lexical verb; this pattern is used to build periphrastic forms of the indicative, the subjunctive, and the conditional (Frâncu –; ; }}..; ..). ()
a. era mers / era mergând be.IMPERF.SG go.GER be.IMPERF.SG go.PPLE ‘(he) had gone’ / ‘he was going’ b. a(u) fost mers / a(u) fost mergând AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE go.PPLE AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE go.GER ‘(he) had gone’ ‘he was going’ c. fusese mers / fusese mergând be.PLUPERF.SG go.PPLE be.PLUPERF.SG go.GER ‘(he) had been gone’ / ‘had been going’ d. va fi mers / va fi mergând AUX.FUT.SG be.INF go.PPLE AUX.FUT.SG be.INF go.GER ‘(he) will have gone’ / ‘he will have been going’ e. să fi(e) mers / să fi(e) mergând SĂSUBJ be.INF go.PPLE SĂSUBJ be.INF go.GER ‘(to) have gone’ / ‘(to) have been going’ fi mers / ar fi mergând be.INF go.PPLE AUX.COND.SG be.INF go.GER ‘(he) would have gone’ / ‘(he) would have been going’
f. ar
AUX.COND.SG
These forms represent the basis for recursive double compound periphrases (e.g. va fi fost mers AUX.FUT + be.INF + be.PPLE + go.PPLE ‘(he) will have gone’/va fi fost mergând AUX.FUT + be.INF + be.PPLE + go.GER ‘(he) will have been going’), just occasionally found in use. The list may include other, extremely rare possibilities (fu mers be.PS + go.PPLE ‘(he) was gone’/ fu mergând be.PS + go.GER ‘(he) was going’). The domain of the past is characterized by a certain asymmetry: the auxiliary of the compound past involves forms of the verb avea ‘have’, but all the other periphrases employ the auxiliary fi ‘be’. Most of these periphrases disappeared by the end of the eighteenth century, but the future, subjunctive, and conditional periphrasis with the participle have become the regular paradigms of the perfect for each form, extending the same opposition to the infinitive (}.). As a result of these disappearances and specializations, MR is characterized by a specialization that was absent in OR: two different auxiliaries, avea for the domain of realis, and fi for irrealis (Avram and Hill ; Ledgeway a). Some tense forms have modal interpretations as well: future periphrases are frequently used with epistemic and evidential values. Periphrastic forms, even those which display a high degree of grammaticalization, allow intercalations, variations in the placement of the pronominal clitics (}.) and especially auxiliary encliticization, particularly frequent in the first OR period (}...).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntax of moods and tenses
Synthetic tense forms of the indicative—the present, the simple past (preterite), the pluperfect, and the imperfect—have in OR the main uses and values they would later have in MR (GR: –). The differences with respect to MR are mainly of a morphological nature (changes of the inflectional classes; variation in the presence/ absence of the suffixes -esc and -ez, i.e. in the weak/strong present; analogical changes of the simple past forms—replacement of the strong forms by the weak forms: scriș/ scrisei; changes of the inflectional endings). There are syntactic differences as well, which affect word order, especially in the clitic placement before or after the simple form (}.). ... The simple and compound past OR displays a competition between the simple past (or preterite), a synthetic form continuing the Latin perfect indicative, and the compound past, a periphrasis made up of an auxiliary and the participle. The simple past shows extensive morphological variation, due to analogical regularizations, i.e. change of strong into weak forms (Densusianu II: –; Zamfir : ‒). The compound past employs only the auxiliary avea ‘have’, in a simplified form that indicates an advanced phase of the grammaticalization process: several forms are identical to those of the lexical verb avea (sg am, sg ai, pl au), but other forms are different: sg au (vs. are), pl am (vs. avem), pl aţi (vs. aveţi). The sg would become differentiated from pl only in MR (SILR: ; several detailed descriptions of the very slow propagation of the regional innovation a for sg are given in Gheţie ; Zamfir : ‒; see also Frâncu : ‒). The possibility of a compound past with the auxiliary fi ‘be’ is excluded; in OR as in MR, fi allows only certain resultative periphrases with a limited class of resultative verbs (Dragomirescu and Nicolae b). The OR simple past has (as in Latin, see Haverling : –) both a temporal value (preterite) and an aspectual one (perfect). When in competition with the compound past, it specializes as a preterite. The compound past starts by being an aspectual periphrasis (expressing the perfect, Ledgeway : ‒), but gradually assumes the preterite value, tending to compete with the simple past and eventually to replace it. In the first OR period, the compound past (made up of a single auxiliary and an invariable participle) is employed with all types of verbs, irrespective of their semantic properties, and has a high frequency (Zamfir : , ). Its behaviour proves that the grammaticalization process was considerably advanced, leaving behind the I phase (according to the path described by Harris ), that of the resultative periphrasis. It was a true perfect, expressing a past action with current relevance (Lindstedt : ‒), but not yet a preterite (see the process described in Squartini and Bertinetto ). The resultative origin and the relevance for the present are visible in: (a) the coordination of verbs in the compound past with verbs in the present (a); (b) the compatibility of the compound past with deictic adverbials referring to the present (acum ‘now’, până acum ‘until now’, astăzi ‘today’, etc.; see Călărașu : ‒) (b); (c) the occurrences of the compound past in the dialogue, contrasting with the use of the simple past in the narrative, frame (c).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
() a. scris-am și mărturisesc cu acesta al meu AL.M.SG my write.PPLE=AUX.PERF.SG and testify.PRES.SG with that zapis (DRH.B.: ) document.ACC ‘I have written and I testify with this my document’ b. deci, când au fostu acum, eu o then when AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE now I CL.ACC.F.SG am vândut (DRH.B.: ) AUX.SG sell.PPLE ‘so, at this moment, I have sold it’ c. Ioan mărtorisi de elu ( . . . ): ‘Acela era John.NOM testify.PS.SG about him.ACC that.NOM be.IMPERF.SG ce-amu dzisu ( . . . )’ (CC1: : r) say.PPLE which=AUX.PERF.SG ‘John testified about him, “He was what I said . . . ”’ Examples (a,b) are conservative juridical formulae, very frequent in legal documents. In the first OR period, the simple past is not yet reduced to the function of a mere preterite. It still appears in ‘current relevance’ situations, in original texts, in prefaces (a), or in legal formulae (b), exactly as the compound past (compare (b) with (a)). () a. scoasem sfânta Evanghelie ( . . . ), să SĂSUBJ publish.PS.PL holy.F.SG.DEF.ACC Gospel.F.SG.ACC înţeleagă toţi oamenii (CCat.: v) all.PL man.PL.DEF.NOM understand.SUBJ.PL ‘we have published the holy Gospel ( . . . ) so that all people will understand’ b. Scriș eu, călugăriţa Mariia (DÎ.‒: VIII) write.PS.SG I nun.DEF.NOM Maria.NOM ‘I, nun Maria, have written’ Its distribution is not syntactically limited; it may appear in embedded clauses, subordinated to verbs of saying (i.e. a context generally avoided in MR, see GR: ). () Grăescu voao că deștinse acesta tell.PRES.SG you.PL.DAT that go.down.PS.SG this.N.SG.NOM dereptatu în casa lui (CC2.: ) justified.M.SG in house.DEF.ACC his.GEN ‘I tell you that this man went down to his house justified’ OR begins to develop the specialization which is common—according to Benveniste () and Weinrich ()—to many modern Romance languages: namely, that between the compound past as a tense of the ‘discourse’ or ‘commentary’, and the simple past as a tense of the impersonal ‘narration’, not related to the deictic axis of the communicative time. Therefore, the simple past is prevalent in many religious
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntax of moods and tenses
translations (containing numerous narrative parts), while the compound past is the tense preferred by the original documents, which present the facts from the point of view of their moment of ‘now’. The high frequency of the simple past in the oldest translations was explained by some authors (Rosetti : ) as an imitation of Slavonic source texts (where the simple past corresponded to the Slavonic aorist, and the compound past to the Slavonic perfect); however, it was shown that in particular cases there was not a systematic correspondence between tenses in the source and tenses in the translations (Rizescu : –). Generally, the gradual substitution of the simple past by the compound past is visible in the successive translations of the same text. For example, BB. frequently allows an alternation of the two forms in the same sentence, in contexts where previous translations preferred the simple past. ()
În lume era, și lumea pren el him.ACC in world.ACC be.IMPERF.SG and world.DEF.NOM by s-au făcut(T1), și lumea pre CL.REFL.PASS=AUX.PERF.SG make.PPLE and world.DEF.NOM DOM el nu cunoscu(T2) (BB.: ) him.ACC not know.PS.SG ‘He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world did not know him’
In CT.: r, T1 is the simple past and T2 the imperfect; in CC1.: v and NT.: r, both T1 and T2 are the simple past. In the second OR period, the specialization of the two tenses for the opposition fictional narrative/commentary is more obvious, as is the spreading of a multifunctional compound past. In the historical and/or memorial books of Costin (CLM.‒) or Cantacuzino (CIst.‒), and even in such fictional texts as Sindipa (Sind.) or Bertoldo (Bert.), the compound past is almost exclusive; however, another fictional and rhetorical text, the Hieroglyphic History by D. Cantemir (CII.~) constantly uses the simple past. Surprisingly, there are no clear signs of regional differentiation in the use of the two forms: the complete elimination of the simple past in the Moldovan dialect and the frequency of the same tense, with the special value of a hodiernal past (Brâncuș ) in the south-east, are not foreshadowed by the distribution of these forms in OR texts (Zamfir : ). ... The pluperfect and double compound perfect There are at least two competing forms of pluperfect in OR: one (the type făcuse ‘had done’) is synthetic, inherited form Latin, and is dominant and persistent; the other (imperfect of ‘be’ + participle: era făcut ‘had done’) is analytic and relatively frequent only in the sixteenth century; subsequently, it becomes rare and finally disappears. In fact some further periphrases may also be considered pluperfect forms (synthetic pluperfect of ‘be’ + participle: fusese făcut) (Densusianu II: ; Frâncu : ), even if they are rather isolated (Zamfir : , ‒) and not fully grammaticalized. The only significantly
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
frequent form (especially in the second OR period) is the double compound perfect (a fost făcut), which was taken as another form of pluperfect (by Densusianu II: ; Frâncu : ), or as a specific type of perfect, whose values are rather difficult to capture (Zamfir : ‒). The synthetic pluperfect continues the Latin pluperfect subjunctive; it is derived from the perfect theme, with a thematic suffix (-a-, u, -i / -â, -se-), the specific suffix -se-, and the inflectional endings: Ø (sg, sgpl), -m (pl), -și (sg), -t (pl). The form is frequently used in relative clauses (its most specific context in the sixteenth century), often in the context of such adverbials as mainte ‘before’ (), odinioară ‘once’, etc.; also in temporal clauses introduced by mainte până (nu) ‘before’, după ce ‘after’. la () Așa vine și Nicodim, care venise so come.PS.SG also Nicodemus.NOM who come.PLUPERF.SG to Iisus mainte (CC1.: v) before Jesus.ACC ‘So came Nicodemus, who had come to Jesus before’ The synthetic pluperfect is typically associated with the simple past (but also with the compound past) and the imperfect, in narrative sequences. In the second period, especially in narrative texts, the pluperfect may appear in independent clauses (expressing retrospection with respect to an implicit reference point). The frequency of pluperfect forms varies depending on the type of text (Zamfir : ): this tense is widely used in narrative episodes, but very seldom in legal documents, which accounts for its rare occurrence in the original texts of the sixteenth century (only three occurrences in DÎ, for example). The absence of this tense in certain texts derives from the popular vs. learned character of the register and is easily explained by the possibility of expressing anteriority in the past through other forms: compound past or imperfect, in the presence of such adverbials as mainte, odinioară, or by contextual information. () Aș-au întrebat toţi oamenii carei so=AUX.PERF.PL ask.PPLE all man.PL.DEF.NOM who.PL.NOM au fost mainte de noi (CC1.: v) AUX.PERF.PL be.PPLE before of us.ACC ‘This is what all men who were before us asked’ There are several perfect periphrases that have most uses in common with the synthetic pluperfect. They employ the auxiliary fi ‘be’ in the perfect or imperfect tenses plus the participle of the main verb, which is part of the more general pattern which uses the verb fi in every mood or tense (see Conditional, Subjunctive, Future) and the participle. Their value is perfective, due to the past participle, even if the auxiliary is in the imperfect tense. The selection of fi is specific and parallel to periphrases with the gerund (}...). These periphrases are similar to pluperfect forms in other Romance languages, except as regards the auxiliary, which is fi ‘be’. The presence of the ‘fi’-auxiliary may be accounted for as an internal change, but
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntax of moods and tenses
the Slavonic and Greek influences have been invoked as well (Philippide [–] : ). The perfect periphrasis corresponds to Slavonic pluperfect (auxiliary ‘be’ in imperfect or aorist, see Gardiner : ; Nandriș : ‒; Lunt : ‒). A periphrasis with a pluperfect value (Densusianu II: ; Zamfir : –) is made up of the imperfect of the verb fi and the participle of the main verb. ()
varvarii ( . . . ) nu era necedinioară pre Pavel DOM Paul.ACC barbarian.PL.DEF.NOM not be.IMPERF.PL never văzut (CC1.: v) see.PPLE ‘barbarians ( . . . ) had never seen Paul’
This periphrasis is considered a late innovation, different from the pluperfect of the south-Danubian idioms, which employ the auxiliary avea ‘to have’ (cf. Nevaci and Todi ), and from the Romance pattern, where the auxiliary is ‘have’ as well, or a complementary distribution of avea and fi. The auxiliary ‘be’ of the OR pluperfect is different from the compound past auxiliary ‘have’, while in the other Romance languages there is a correspondence between the structures of these two tenses. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the periphrasis occurs almost exclusively in religious texts (translations and adaptations), but not in original documents (Zamfir : ), which may indicate its artificial nature, as a bookish pattern influenced by the original texts; nevertheless, its frequency in OR and especially the traces of it in regional MR (in the west and north, see TDR: , ; Marin ) confirm its authenticity. This periphrasis allows intercalations () and variation in participle agreement/ invariable form (a vs. b; see }...). ()
a. acești oameni orbi era auziţi these man.M.PL.NOM blind.M.PL be.IMPERF.PL hear.PPLE.M.PL de veastea lu Iisus (CC1.: v‒r) Jesus of news.DEF.ACC LUI.GEN ‘these blind people had heard the news about Jesus’ b. se
era svătuit fariseii be.IMPERF.PL deliberate.PPLE Pharisee.PL.DEF.NOM ca ( . . . ) acela să fie gonit (Ev.: –) banish.PPLE that that SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG ‘the Pharisees had deliberated to banish that man’ CL.REFL.ACC.PL
Competition between the synthetic and the periphrastic pluperfect (with the imperfect of fi) is discernible in the sixteenth century, when the relative frequency of these two tenses is close in certain texts: the synthetic pluperfect is better represented in CC2., the periphrasis in PO. (Zamfir : ), CV.– (Costinescu : ), etc. In the seventeenth century, the periphrasis becomes rarer (Zamfir : ), occurring especially in religious texts, regardless of the region, possibly as an effect of the reproduction or imitation of previous versions of the translations (NT.; BB.).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
The periphrasis with the fi-auxiliary in the pluperfect is very rare (Densusianu II: ; Zamfir : –; Frâncu : ) and it seems to be a mere equivalent of the synthetic pluperfect. ()
salce-l fusese vădzut (CSVI.–: v) willow.DEF.NOM=CL. ACC.SG.M be.PLUPERF.SG see.PPLE ‘the willow had seen him’
The double compound perfect (DCP) is made up of the auxiliary fi in the compound perfect and the participle of the main verb. Similar forms (except for the auxiliary, which is not a generalized ‘be’) exists in other Romance idioms: in standard and regional French (Foulet ; Ayres-Bennett and Carruthers ; Carruthers ; Apothéloz , and others), Neapolitan (Ledgeway ‒; : –), Friulian (Benincà ), etc. This tense has been considered (by Densusianu II: ; Frâncu , and others) a variant of the pluperfect, because it frequently expresses (in temporal, relative, or causal clauses) an event anterior to another past event. Călărașu (: –) notices the multiple values of this tense (past, perfect, and anteriority); Manoliu Manea (: –) describes it as a means of indicating narrative prominence; Zamfir (: –) considers that the double compound perfect and the pluperfect are in free variation. The DCP is very frequent in original documents (sixteenth–seventeenth centuries) and memorial narratives (in the eighteenth century); therefore, it is considered a rather vernacular form (Călărașu : ). It often alternates with the compound past (a); but its co-occurrence with simple past is also possible (b). ()
a. Scris-am eu, Negre ( . . . ), pentru să Negre for SĂSUBJ write.PPLE=AUX.PERF.SG I se știe că m-au fost CL.REFL.PASS.SG know.SUBJ.SG that CL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.PL be.PPLE robitu tătarâi (DÎ.–: XIV) Tatars.DEF.NOM enslave.PPLE ‘I Negre have written to let you know that Tatars enslaved me’ b. mearse iarăș la feredeu după cuvântul acelui go.PS.SG again to pool.DEF.ACC after advice.DEF.ACC that.GEN om cum i-au fost dzis (ȘT.: ) man.GEN how CL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE say.PPLE ‘he went again to the pool following the advice of that man who told him to’
In fact, the DCP seems to be a true past-in-the-past, opposed to both the synthetic and the analytic pluperfect (}...), which are forms of perfect-in-the-past (for the difference, see Squartini ). The DCP does not need a reference point in the past, but may function in a past temporal frame, as in (), indicating a remote event, an event that occured in a past period, etc. (being therefore interpreted as an ‘absolute’, i.e. deictic, tense). DCP forms may collocate with certain adverbials, such as (mai) demult, mai dinainte ‘long ago; formerly’ (Călărașu : ), which do not
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntax of moods and tenses
indicate a reference point (as for the the pluperfect), but the event time (Squartini : ). The DCP may be employed in reported speech, in order to indicate anteriority. ()
care moșie zicea că li o au which land.ACC say.IMPERF.PL that CL.DAT.PL CL.ACC.F.SG AUX.PERF.SG fost dat o rudă a lor (DRH.B.: ) be.PPLE give.PPLE a relative.NOM AL.F.SG their ‘which land they said that a relative of theirs had given them’
The DCP is widely diffused in OR (Călărașu : –); subsequently, it is employed in the literary language of the nineteenth century and described in many grammars (SILR: ); it is preserved in the standard language until the middle of the twentieth century (Pană Dindelegan : ; SILR: ) and in northern and western varieties of MR (Marin ). OR is characterized by the use of specialized forms of perfect-in-the-past (the pluperfects) and past-in-the past (the DCP). The pluperfects preserve their aspectual and relative value even when the DCP disappears from standard MR and the value of the past-in-the past is taken over by the compound past. ... Future periphrases In OR there are several future periphrases, composed with the auxiliaries vrea ‘will/want’ and avea ‘have’, which display different degrees of grammaticalization. They originate from modal expressions of volition (vrea) and necessity (avea): these patterns of grammaticalization are common to many languages (Bybee and Pagliuca ), but also specific to the Balkan area (Sandfeld : ; Mišeska Tomić ), where they have been attested since the earliest periods, including Old Church Slavonic (Andersen ). The competing forms seem to be equivalent, and do not display different types of future value: they often appear in similar contexts, or are coordinated. The prevalent form which displays the highest degree of grammaticalization is the periphrasis with the auxiliary vrea plus the bare infinitive (Berea-Găgeanu ; Zamfir : ; Frâncu : ); the other patterns employ the auxiliary vrea and the subjunctive, the auxiliary avea and the a-infinitive, or avea and the subjunctive (Guţu Romalo b; Berea-Găgeanu ; ; b, etc.). Other periphrases are specialized for the perfect value (‘will’ + bare infinitive of fi + the perfect of the main verb; }...) and for the progressive value (‘will’ + bare infinitive of fi + gerund of the main verb; }...). Periphrases made up of vrea and the bare infinitive are frequent in all types of texts; in some texts, they are the sole form of future. In the first OR period, the auxiliary paradigm is not yet differentiated from that of the lexical verb vrea (Densusianu II: ; Zamfir : ). There are formal variations, especially due to phonetic reduction (pl: vom / văm / vem / vrem; pl: veţi / vreţi), but the free variants do not indicate any difference between the auxiliary (a) and the lexical verb (b).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
() a. de vomu suspina, elu ne va if AUX.FUT.PL sigh.INF he CL.ACC.PL AUX.FUT.SG veseli (CC2.: ) rejoice.INF ‘if we sigh, he will make us glad’ b. cumu vomu și noi aceia cătră noi să as want.PRES.PL too us.NOM these.NOM towards us.ACC SĂSUBJ fie (CC2.: ) be.SUBJ.PL ‘as we want these to treat us’ The auxiliary status of vrea requires obligatory coreferentiality of the two verbs (as in (a) vs. (b)), and the construction with the bare infinitive (in CC2, there is a unique occurrence of vrea with the a-infinitive; here vrea is a lexical verb). Encliticization of the auxiliary (a) is very frequent (}...) and has no impact on the grammaticalization process; intercalations (b) are specific to OR (Moldovanu –; Dragomirescu c; }.). () a. înșela-vor și se vor deceive.INF=AUX.FUT.PL and CL.REFL.PASS.PL AUX.FUT.PL înșela (CPr.: ) deceive.INF ‘they will deceive, and will be deceived’ b. nu vreţi cu moarte muri (PO.: ) not AUX.FUT.PL with death.ACC die.INF ‘you shall not surely die’ The form of the auxiliary gradually becomes specialized, during the second OR period: sg voi, sg vei, sg va, pl vom, pl veţi, while the paradigm of the lexical verb is analogically rebuilt: sg vreau, sg vrei, sg vrea, pl vrem, pl vreţi; only the pl form remains common to the auxiliary and the lexical verb (vor) (Berea-Găgeanu ; b: –; GR: ). The late sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries feature aphaeretic forms of the auxiliary (without initial v-), first in the Moldovan texts (Guţu Romalo b: ; Berea-Găgeanu ; Frâncu : –). () de n-iţ vrea, nice m-eţi if not=AUX.FUT.PL want.INF nor CL.ACC.SG=AUX.FUT.PL asculta-mă (DPar.: II.r) listen.INF= CL.ACC.SG ‘if you do not want, nor listen to me’ These would later be restricted to non-standard varieties and preferred for epistemic uses in MR (GR: –). The ‘will’-future is an absolute tense, which develops from the very beginning a modal meaning: as an epistemic future (Squartini ), used to express suppositions about the present reference time (as a marker of inferential evidentiality). This value is
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntax of moods and tenses
attested in the sixteenth century (Niculescu ; a: ) and has been preserved in MR, being interpreted as a part of a suppositive mood (‘presumptive’, contested by Iliescu ; see Zafiu ; Popescu ): ()
nu știu, au voiu fi eu pădzitoriu not know.PRES.SG maybe AUX.FUT.SG be.INF I keeper fratelui mieu? (PO.: ) brother.DEF.DAT my ‘I know not: am I really my brother’s keeper?’
The epistemic value of the future is the result of a semantic development common to many Romance languages (Squartini ): it concerns the ‘will’-future, the future perfect, the gerund future periphrasis (}...), and, incidentally, other forms of the future. The va fi sequence (a trace of the old type of infinitive-future) becomes an adverbial of doubt in Aromanian (vahĭ, Capidan : ), showing the same epistemic development. The future periphrasis made up of the same auxiliary vrea and the să-subjunctive is an expected result of the replacement of the infinitive by the subjunctive (}..). In the first OR period this pattern (a,b) is not very frequent, and the prevalent form uses the sg auxiliary form (a). ()
a. împărăţiia lu Dumnezeu va să se AUX.FUT.SG SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.SG kingdom.DEF.NOM LUI.GEN God ivească (CT.–: v) appear.SUBJ.SG ‘the kingdom of God shall appear’ b. ale veaciloru ce voru să fie (CC2.: ) AL.F.PL centuries.DEF.GEN which AUX.FUT.PL SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.PL ‘of the ages to come’
The special frequency of the sg form in OR seems to confirm Lombard’s (; : ) hypothesis, to the effect that va (a unique sg impersonal form) is the origin of the invariable particle o in the pattern o + să-subjunctive, characteristic of spoken MR (GR: ) and similar to the Aromanian future (va s-pot ‘I will be able to’). This explanation is reinforced by a parallelism with other Balkan languages (Bulgarian, Greek, Albanian, etc.), which have derived an invariable future marker from a reduced form of the ‘want’-auxiliary (Mišeska Tomić : –; Andersen : ). BereaGăgeanu () considers that the invariable particle o was derived from the entire paradigm of the auxiliary, merged into a unique form. In any case, the form o (instead of a, the aphaeresis of va) is a late innovation in the southern dialects, which collocates with verbs in st, nd, and pl person only in the nineteenth century. Another etymological hypothesis (Pușcariu ) suggests that va may derive from the verb VADERE ‘go’: in that case, Romanian would have a different type of grammaticalization of the future, from the metaphor of spatial displacement (‘going to’). A rd person singular va is preserved in some collocations in Romanian
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
(e.g. mai va ‘it is a long way to’); but this cannot account for the volitive meaning of the form va (< VOLET) in compound indefinites (cineva ‘somebody’, undeva ‘somewhere’, etc.). The subjunctive periphrasis had an epistemic meaning in the first OR period (Niculescu ), but lost it in the passage to MR. The type avea ‘have’ plus the a-infinitive (Densusianu II: ; BereaGăgeanu a; Bugeanu ; Ţâra ) has developed a future meaning starting from a modal (deontic) construction, expressing an objective necessity or obligation. ()
nici știmu ce are a fi până nor know.PRES.PL what have.PRES.SG AINF be.INF until demâneaţă! (CC2.: ) morning ‘nor can we know what will happen until the morning’
Relatively marginal in the first OR period, it becomes even less frequent subsequently (Călărașu : ; Zamfir : –). The type avea ‘have’ plus the să-subjunctive results from the substitution of the infinitive by the subjunctive. It is not attested in the sixteenth century and remains rare in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Berea-Găgeanu ; Călărașu : ; Zamfir : –). In legal texts, this periphrasis preserves its original modal meaning (deontic necessity), even in the context of other types of future. ()
de la stânile ce vor fi pe moșie, from sheepfolds.DEF.ACC which AUX.FUT.PL be.INF on estate.ACC are să ia stăpânul moșiii ( . . . ) have.PRES.SG SĂSUBJ take.SUBJ.SG owner.DEF.NOM estate.DEF.GEN brânză sau bani (Prav.: ) cheese.ACC or money.ACC ‘the owner of the estate shall take cheese or money from the sheepfolds which will be on his estate’
A similar construction, with the verb fi ‘be’ having a modal deontic necessity meaning plus the subjunctive, is attested in the sixteenth century and becomes less frequent in the subsequent period, without advancing along the path of grammaticalization. () Tu ești cela ce e să vie, au you.SG.NOM be.PRES.SG that who is SĂSUBJ come.SUBJ.SG or altulu aștepta-vremu? (CC2.: ) another.ACC wait.INF=AUX.FUT.PL ‘Are you the Coming One, or should we wait for someone else?’ The similar pattern which employs the infinitive instead of the subjunctive is almost exclusively modal (Zamfir : –). The periphrasis made up of the verb fi ‘be’ in the most grammaticalized type of future (‘will’ + infinitive) and the participle of the main verb is a future perfect. It is already stable in the sixteenth century, without becoming very frequent. The
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntax of moods and tenses
periphrasis is included in the regular series of aspectual opposition (be plus participle vs. gerund, see }...) and was explained as a result of Slavonic influence (Pușcariu : ; Seidel : ). The Old Slavonic future perfect was a periphrasis associating the verb ‘be’ in the perfective present (with a future reference meaning) and the participle (Nandriș : ; Vrabie : –; Gasparov : ; Lunt : ; Migdalski : ; Andersen ). South-Danubian varieties do not have this form, using instead periphrases with the invariant particle va and the să-subjunctive in forms identical to several past tenses of the indicative (Saramandu ). Even if the perfect future is not very frequent in the sixteenth century, its vitality is proved by its presence in original texts (letters and documents) (Călărașu : –; Zamfir : –). It is systematically employed in legal texts (Prav.; Prav.; Prav., etc.) The form of the participle is not always invariable in the first OR period, and allows optional agreement with the subject (}..). ()
să aleage ( . . . ) să va văduoa widow.F.SG.DEF.NOM CL.REFL.PASS.SG choose.PRES.SG if AUX.FUT.SG fi crescută feciori (NT.: r) be.INF bring.up.PPLE.F.SG children.ACC ‘the widow is chosen ( . . . ) if she shall have brought up children’
Intercalations (a) and inversions (b) are rare; only the auxiliary, generally followed by the participle, is inverted. ()
a. cându va fi unchiul mainte luoat when AUX.FUT.SG be.INF uncle.DEF.NOM before take.PPLE nepoata (Prav.: r) niece.DEF.ACC ‘when the uncle will have first married the niece’ b. se păcatu fi-va faptu (CB.–: ) if sin.ACC be.INF=AUX.FUT.SG do.PPLE ‘if he shall have committed a sin’
The aspectual (i.e. perfective) value of the future perfect is associated with a temporal meaning: it is an anaphoric (relative) tense, expressing anteriority with respect to a future reference point (often in the context of a prescriptive future). In addition, it is used with a modal value, as an epistemic future of supposition. The future perfect often expresses perfectivity and anteriority in the future in conditional or concessive protases (, a,b, a) or in temporal clauses introduced by (ainte) până (nu) ‘before; until’ (a) and in relative clauses (b). ()
a. de nu veri fi auzitu, așteaptă până veri if not AUX.FUT.SG be.INF hear.PPLE wait.IMP.SG until AUX.FUT.SG fi auzitu (CC2.: ) hear.PPLE be.INF ‘if you have not heard, wait until you have heard’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause b. ţie va da ţara și muiere you.SG.DAT AUX.FUT.SG give.INF country.DEF.NOM too woman.ACC și tot ce-ţi vor fi luat (A.: v) AUX.FUT.PL be.INF take.PPLE and all that=CL.DAT.SG ‘the country will give you both a woman and all they shall have taken from you’
The epistemic value (supposition about past events) is attested in the sixteenth century and becomes prevalent in original documents and in the literary texts from the seventeenth–eighteenth centuries (CLM.–; CIst.–; AD.‒). () de va fi făcut vro răotate încă if AUX.FUT.SG be.INF do.PPLE any evil.act.ACC also să fie perit cu judecată (DÎ.–: XXV) SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG execute.PPLE with trial.ACC ‘if he possibly did any evil act, he must be tried and executed’ The double compound future perfect (cf. Zamfir : –) is made up of the future perfect of fi (‘will’ auxiliary + fi + fost) and the participle of the main verb. The periphrasis (allowing intercalations, as in ()), is rare, being attested only in some texts in the seventeenth–eighteenth centuries (e.g. Prav.; CIst.–); it generally co-occurs with a regular future perfect. () de va fi și fost cinevași scris și if AUX.FUT.SG be.INF also be.PPLE somebody write.PPLE and va fi lăsat, ca și noi ( . . . ) să știm, AUX.FUT.SG be.INF leave.PPLE so too us.NOM SĂSUBJ know.SUBJ.PL iată nicicum nu să află (CIst.–: r) behold by.no.means not CL.REFL.PASS.SG discovers ‘even if someone shall have written and shall have indicated so that we know, certainly this cannot be discovered’ This form may express perfectivity and anteriority, but also supposition, conjecture (as in ()). Other periphrases (less grammaticalized) use the auxiliary that involves forms of the verb avea or fi in different future or past tenses; the auxiliary vrea in past forms already encoded conditional meaning (}...). For instance, the type ‘have’ + a-infinitive may use the auxiliary in the ‘will’-future (Teodorescu and Gheţie : –), which is ambiguous between a modal (deontic) and a temporal value (expressing futurity) (a); the type fi + să-subjunctive may have the auxiliary in the imperfect, hesitating between an aspectual and a temporal value (prospective aspect or future in the past) (b). () a. voiu ave a lasa pre voi here AUX.FUT.SG have.INF AINF send.INF over you.PL.ACC beasts.ACC venenoase (MI.~: v) venomous ‘I will send venomous beasts over you’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntax of moods and tenses
b. cei ce cu ia era să those that with her.ACC be.IMPERF.SG SĂSUBJ călătorească (CÎC.–: r) travel.SUBJ.PL ‘those who had to travel by it’ ... Aspectual values of simple and periphrastic forms The main aspectual opposition—perfective/imperfective—is expressed in the past tenses, as in many other Romance languages, by the opposition between perfect (simple past) and imperfect forms. The compound past (}...) gradually loses its initial resultative and perfective meaning, becoming a prevalent tense form—i.e. a past/preterite, which expresses the anteriority respect to the speech time. The imperfect is a synthetic form, inherited from Latin (with the endings Ø for sg, sg and pl; sg -i, pl -m, pl -ţi, in OR). The values of the OR imperfect—a tense value (anteriority in relation to the speech time, and simultaneity with a reference point in the past) and several aspectual values (imperfectivity, durativity, or iterativity)—have been preserved in MR. The most striking characteristic of OR is the presence of the numerous aspectual (imperfective, continuous, progressive) periphrases which include the auxiliary fi and a gerund form. These are systematically derived from all the other tense and mood forms, but most of them disappear in the passage to MR. The origin of the periphrases is the subject of controversy: they have been considered either literary calques or independent constructions, continuing, or not, a Latin pattern. They are attested in late Latin (Haverling : –, –), perhaps as an effect of biblical translations from the Greek, but also probably reflecting a more general tendency of the vernacular. The OR constructions may continue the Latin pattern; they have also been explained as modelled on the Greek texts, directly or through the Slavonic intermediary (Arvinte , : xli–xlii; Gafton : –), even if there is no perfect correspondence between forms in originals and in translations (Rădulescu ). Their presence is not restricted to translations; few of them are attested in MR, even in regional varieties (Niculescu a: ). The degree of grammaticalization of the periphrases is not very high (see Zamfir : ); they admit intercalations (a) and may often be analysed as predicative constructions, especially when the gerund can be coordinated with an adjective (b). ()
a. Luară piatra unde era mortulu stone.DEF.ACC where be.IMPERF.SG dead.DEF.NOM take.PS.PL zăcându (CC2.: ) lie.GER ‘they took away the stone from the place where the dead man was lying’ b. iară alţii mulţi era goli și and others many be.IMPERF.PL naked.M.PL and degerându de geru (CC2.: ) from frost.ACC freeze.GER ‘and many others were naked and freezing in the frost’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
Clitic raising (a) does not always occur, especially in the first OR period and for intransitive verbs accompanied by a reflexive clitic (b); see }.. () a. Și arcul l-au fost trăgând cu and bow.DEF.ACC CL.ACC.SG =AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE draw.GER with vârtej (NL.~‒: ) speed.ACC ‘and he was drawing the bow rapidly’ b. până în acest ceas era postindu-mă (CPr.: ) until in this hour be.IMPERF.SG fast.GER=CL.REFL.ACC.SG ‘I was fasting until this hour’ The aspectual value of the periphrases depends on the lexical meaning of the verb and on the mood and tense form of the auxiliary. The imperfective value is consistent with existential and state verbs; the progressive value is actualized by dynamic verbs. (i) A very frequent form in the first OR period—interpreted as an ‘analytic imperfect’ by Zamfir (: –)—uses the auxiliary in the imperfect tense (Costinescu : ). The continuous and progressive value of the construction is doubly marked by convergent means (the aspectual form of the auxiliary and the gerund); it stresses the imperfective meaning and eliminates potential ambiguities of the imperfect (see, for Latin, Haverling : ). Coordination with the imperfect suggests the equivalence of the two forms, but also a possible selection on the basis of the semantic properties of each verb. ()
[Cain] era suspinându și tremura pre and tremble.IMPERF.SG on Cain be.IMPERF.SG sigh.GER pământu (CC2.: ) earth.ACC ‘[Cain] was sighing and trembling on the earth’
The form became rare in the second OR period (Călărașu : ). (ii) The periphrasis with the auxiliary in the compound past is very frequent, in all regional areas and in both periods (Călărașu : –, ). At first sight, it associates contradictory aspectual information (the auxiliary in a perfective form and the gerund with a typical imperfective value); in fact, this merely demonstrates that the main value of the compound past is not aspect, but tense. ()
a. de patru dzile s-au fost from four days.ACC CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE postind (VRC.: ) fast.GER ‘he was fasting for four days’ b. au
întrebat ask.PPLE Dionisie Dyonisios
AUX.PERF.SG
chemat call.PPLE
un călugăr a monk.NOM pre un DOM a
de l-au that CL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntax of moods and tenses
mitropolit de Crit de l-au fost metropolitan.ACC of Crete that CL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE chemând Ilie (ȘT.: ) Elia call.GER ‘a monk who was named Dyonosios asked a metropolitan of Crete who was named Elia’ The label periphrastic perfect (employed by Densusianu II: ; Arvinte : XLVII; Zamfir : ‒) is not very adequate, because the prevalent effect of the combination is imperfectivity (progressive aspect) in the past (Călărașu : –). Just like the synthetic imperfect and the periphrasis in (i), the gerund periphrastic past is a relative tense. It has been conserved regionally in MR, in Transylvania and Wallachia (Călărașu : ). (iii) The periphrases with the auxiliary in the simple past (a) and in the pluperfect (b) are rare, found mostly in sixteenth century (Densusianu II: ; Zamfir : , ) and in subsequent religious texts, especially translations. ()
a. fu auzind sluga lui Avraam cuvintele be.PS.SG hear.GER servant.DEF.NOM LUI.GEN Abraham words.DEF.ACC lor (BB.: ) their ‘Abraham’s servant heard their words’ b. patr-înși-lu fusease purtându (CC2.: ) four=men.NOM=CL.ACC.SG be.PLUPERF.PL carry.GER ‘four men had been carrying him’
The reason for the scarcity of such examples may be the incompatibility between the imperfective value of the gerund and the perfective value of the pluperfect, and correspondingly the affinity with the perfective of the simple past. The construction admits clitic raising (b). (iv) The present form of the auxiliary is compatible with the imperfective (continuous or progressive) reading of the gerund periphrasis. Nevertheless, it is not very frequent, reflecting a more general absence of markers for the aspectual distinction in the present reference time. ()
La divanul lui Chesariu stând sânt (BB.: ) stand.GER be.PRES.SG at court.ACC LUI.GEN Caesar ‘I am now standing before Caesar’s court’
(v) The periphrasis with the auxiliary in the future (mainly the fully grammaticalized ‘will’-future) is frequent (Călărașu : –; Arvinte : xlviii–xlix; Zamfir : –), due to the indifference of the future to the imperfective / perfective distinction and therefore its compatibility with the progressive value of the gerund. These are the sole periphrases in the indicative that have been preserved in MR, due to their specialization for expressing the epistemic (evidential) value of supposition (Iliescu ; Zafiu ; Niculescu , a: –; GR: ).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
In the first OR period, the future gerund periphrases are attested only with a temporal value. They seem to be instances of a relative tense (a sort of imperfect in the future), indicating the simultaneity with a future reference point. This tense frequently appears in the protasis of a conditional construction (expressing a conditioned possibility in the future), or in a temporal or a relative clause, sometimes in the presence of a future perfect (a). The epistemic value (b) is attested only in the seventeenth century, when it is in no way exclusive (alterning with true temporal uses). The specialization of the gerund periphrases for the epistemic value is not confirmed. ()
a. popa cela ce-i va hi cununat, priest.DEF.ACC that who=CL.ACC.PL AUX.FUT.SG be.INF marry.PPLE și-i va fi știind, se-l and=CL.ACC.PL AUX.FUT.SG be.INF know.GER SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.SG leapede (Prav.: r) discard.SUBJ.SG ‘they should shun the priest who married them knowing [this]’ b. De mult or fi dvorindu ei (NL.~‒: ) from long.time AUX.FUT.PL be.INF serve.GER they.NOM ‘They have probably been serving for a long time’
The epistemic value is attested later, with respect to other forms of future (simple or perfect), but has become the unique value of the form in MR (GR: ). (vi) Periphrases with the auxiliary in the subjunctive and conditional forms are also very frequent (}}...; ...). ... Auxiliary encliticization Variations in auxiliary placement (before or after the main verb) are a striking feature of OR, as is the order of pronominal clitics (}}...; ...) and other types of discontinuity (phenomena seen by Dragomirescu c as strongly correlated). This phenomenon has been interpreted as the preservation of a Latin particularity (Meyer-Lübke : ), given its attestation in early stages of many other Romance languages, but also as a result of language contact (Sandfeld : –). In Slavic in general and in Old Church Slavonic in particular, auxiliary postposition was very well represented (Vrabie : ; Lunt : ; Migdalski : –; Pancheva ). The most frequent inversions (encliticizations of the auxiliary) appear with the compound past and the ‘will’-future; the auxiliary of the conditional is rarely enclitic, even in the sixteenth century (Zamfir : –), and the auxiliaries of the other periphrases are inverted to an even smaller degree. Variation reaches its peak in the sixteenth century, and subsequently gradually falls into decline (with ‘residual’ inversions in some MR formulae). But even in the period of major spread, the preferred order is auxiliary–participle/infinitive, both in original texts and in translations: the frequency of the reversed order has been exaggerated (Densusianu II: ; Rosetti : ), recent statistical data showing that generally it is about a rate of % (Dragomirescu c: –).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntax of moods and tenses
Auxiliary encliticization has been described as a type of stylistic inversion, often in the form of a chiasmus (Drăganu : –; ILRL: ), or as a manifestation of Wackernagel’s law (Wackernagel ) and of the Romance preference captured by the Tobler–Mussafia law (Tobler ; Mussafia ), which consisted in avoiding clitic placement in the sentence-initial position (Frâncu : , ) (see also }..). Alboiu and Hill () state that inversion is essentially a focalization strategy. In sixteenth-century Romanian, the auxiliary can be (i) obligatorily encliticized, (ii) obligatorily pre-verbal, or (iii) in free variation (Zafiu a). (i) The only situation in which the auxiliary is obligatorily encliticized is when the verb occupies the first position in the sentence. ()
a. Adusu-o-au Stoica (DÎ.: XXXVI) bring.PPLE=CL.ACC.F.SG=AUX.PERF.SG Stoica.NOM ‘Stoica brought her’ b. “Aduna-voiu”, zise, “acolo grâulu store.INF=AUX.FUT.SG say.PS.SG there grain.DEF.ACC mieu” (CC2.: ) my ‘There I will store my grain”, he said’
The rule is strictly applied (only the lexical versions of the verbs ‘will’ and ‘have’ can appear in clause-initial position), but it cannot explain the vast majority of the auxiliary encliticizations that occur in other different contexts. (ii) Auxiliary postposition is generally blocked by negation (Avram : ; cf. Rivero ). The presence of some exceptions in CB.– may be explained (Zafiu a) by the fact that this text is a mere literal translation, imitating the Slavonic word order (described by Pancheva : ; Willis : ‒, etc.). (iii) ‘Free variation’ of auxiliary placement generally occurs in main clauses; in subordinate clauses auxiliary encliticization is very rare. The auxiliary is frequently encliticized in main clauses, when the first position is occupied by another constituent as an effect of topicalization or focalization (Alboiu and Hill ). ()
Aceasta moșia vândut-am noi (DÎ.–: XIII) this land.DEF.ACC sell.PPLE=AUX.PERF.PL we ‘We sold this land’
However, the inversion is not compulsory in this type of context (or it is not always certain that there is topicalization) (Zafiu a). In coordinated main clauses, auxiliary postposition is very frequent, especially in the first clause (where the verb is often placed clause-initially, or, as in (), it follows a topicalized constituent); coordination between a first clause with auxilary– participle/infinitive order and a second clause with participle/infinitive–auxiliary order is extremely rare (cf. }.).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
()
The verb and its arguments: the root clause iară ale meale năravure urâtu-le-aţi și bad.habits.ACC hated=CL.ACC.PL=AUX.PERF.PL and and AL.F.PL my le-aţi lepădat (CSXIV.‒: r) CL.ACC.PL=AUX.PERF.PL condemn.PPLE ‘and you hated my bad habits and you rejected them’
This pattern has been described as an ‘asymmetrical coordination’, due to several factors: a secondary phase of the Tobler–Mussafia law, a focalization strategy, and stylistic reasons (chiasmus) (Croitor ; }..). Auxiliary encliticization is a phenomenon characteristic of root clauses (Rivero ); it may also appear in embedded clauses (predominantly in ‘weak’ subordination), but these situations are very rare. In general, the auxiliary is not encliticized in relative clauses (a), in conditional (b) and concessive clauses, in temporal clauses, etc. ()
a. carei voru căuta afla-voru ( . . . ), și cine ce who AUX.FUT.PL seek.INF find.INF=AUX.FUT.PL and who what va ceare da-i-se-va (CC2.: ) AUX.FUT.SG ask.INF give.INF=CL.DAT.SG=CL.REFL.PASS.SG=AUX.FUT.SG ‘they who will seek will find ( . . . ) and who will ask will receive what they ask for’ b. de veri creade, vedea-veri slava lu if AUX.FUT.SG believe.INF see.INF=AUX.FUT.SG glory.DEF.ACC LUI.GEN Dumnezeu (CC2.: ) God ‘if you believe, you will see the glory of God’
The syntactic pattern of the inversion changed its primary function (probably in accordance with the Tobler–Mussafia law), becoming a means of focalization, but also a supplementary marker of coordination or subordination. ... The sequence of tenses (SOT) parameter Unlike Latin and the other Romance languages, OR is characterized by the absence of the SOT parameter (see Timoc Bardy ). This characteristic, common to the Slavic languages and preserved in MR (GR: –), manifests itself in embedded clauses whose head is an attitude verb (of cognition, or speech). The absolute (deictic) tenses in the subordinate clause are employed in a relative (anaphoric) way, i.e. they receive their temporal interpretation in relation to the tense of the head (without marking this by a special tense selection). The most complex situations appear in the complement clauses using the indicative mood, which display a wide variety of tense forms. (i) When the verb in the main clause is in a past tense (simple past, compound past, or imperfect), the embedded clause uses the present for simultaneity (a), the simple past (b), or the compound past (c) for anteriority, and the future for posteriority (d).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntax of moods and tenses ()
a. Înţeleaseră că iudeaininu easte (CV.‒: r) is realize.PS.PL that Jew.NOM ‘they realized he was a Jew’ b. Auzi Iisus că scoaseră el afară (CC1.: v) hear.PS.SG Jesus.NOM that put.PS.PL him.ACC out ‘Jesus heard that they had put him out’ c. am
auzit eu că împăratul au hear.PPLE I that emperor.DEF.NOM AUX.PERF.SG ieșit den Sofiia (DÎ.: I) go.out.PPLE from Sofia ‘I heard that the emperor had gone out from Sofia’ AUX.PERF.SG
d. păru-le pre voia sa că vor seem.PS.SG=CL.DAT.PL on will.DEF.ACC their.POSS that AUX.FUT.PL nemeri (CPr.: ) succeed.INF ‘it seemed to them that their plan would work’ The embedded clause contains the same tense forms, independently of the tense (present vs. past) in the main clause; there is no ‘tense agreement’ (as in the other Romance languages), but only implicit rules for the relative interpretation. When the main verb is in a past tense, the imperfect may also appear in the embedded clause in order to indicate simultaneity (as a ‘present in the past’). The selection of the imperfect is the marked option, because it indicates only the simultaneity in the past (without implying continuity at the speech time) (a). The present (b) does not imply a double access reading, as in other Romance languages (Giorgi : ); i.e. it is not necessarily valid for the speech moment, but it allows, contextually, a deictic interpretation as well. ()
a. văzură că răsturnată era piiatra (CC1.: r) see.PS.PL that rolled.away be.IMPERF.SG. stone.DEF.NOM ‘they saw that the stone had been rolled away’ b. știai-mă că rău sânt (CC1.: v) know.IMPERF.SG=CL.ACC.SG that bad be.PRES.SG ‘you knew that I was a bad man’
In some translations (e.g. PO.), the embedded clause also uses the simple perfect instead of the present or the imperfect (Vasiliu b); this option is probably influenced by the original text and was abandoned subsequently. Anteriority may also occasionally be expressed by the pluperfect. (ii) If the verb of the main clause is in a future tense, simultaneity and posteriority are indistinctly indicated through the present in the embedded clause (a), and anteriority through a perfect (b) (as in SOT-languages). ()
a. vămu vedea pre elu că se AUX.FUT.PL see.INF DOM him.ACC that CL.REFL.SG mânie pre noi (CC2.: ) becomes.angry on us.ACC ‘we will see that he becomes angry on us’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause b. spune-voiu loru că nici dinioară say.INF=AUX.FUT.SG them.DAT that not once cunoscut-amu voi (CC2.: ) know.PPLE=AUX.PERF.SG you.PL.ACC ‘I will tell them that I have never known you’
The SOT parameter is absent in subjunctive embedded clauses as well. The main verb may be in the present, past, or future, and tense selection in the subordinate clause expresses simultaneity or posteriority through the regular subjunctive, and anteriority through the subjunctive perfect. .. Final remarks The TAM system of OR is characterized by the presence of numerous periphrases: some of them are more grammaticalized and have been preserved in MR, others have been lost. The systematic emergence of temporal and aspectual periphrases with the auxiliary be and the participle or the gerund (often double compound forms) gradually diminishes and most of the forms disappear at the end of the period. The surviving gerund periphrases specialize for an epistemic value. The future and the conditional display a large number of competing forms; in MR, only the future would preserve several of these. In the competition between inherited synthetic forms and new paraphrases, sometimes the old forms disappear (the synthetic conditional/future), while other times the new ones are jettisoned (the analytic pluperfect). The bare subjunctive becomes rarer. The simple past loses ground in favour of the compound past. The compound past loses its perfect value, becoming a past; the same development characterizes the double compound past, which has not been retained by standard Romanian. Auxiliary encliticization diminishes drastically, as do the possibilities of dislocation in the verbal periphrases. The subjunctive loses some of its epistemic uses in favour of the conditional and of the future. Some future periphrases constantly manifest an epistemic use, even if for the sixteenth–eighteenth centuries it has not been possible to identify a stable form– function correlation which might be called a ‘presumptive mood’.
. Pronominal clitics: clitic ordering, clitic clusters .. Preliminary remarks From the oldest attestations of Romanian, both weak pronouns and true pronominal clitics (treated hereafter together, under the label ‘clitics’) adjoin to a finite/non-finite verb, which is their syntactic ‘host’ (Cardinaletti and Starke ). Non-syllabic clitics also require a phonological host, which may be the lexical/auxiliary verb, or a different constituent, such as the negator nu, a complementizer, or a DP/AdvP, with which they form one prosodic unit. Clitics virtually always precede or follow their host; only complementizers and the sentential negator nu always precede clitics. Encliticization of unstressed pronouns is evidence of verb raising to the Complementizer domain, while proclisis indicates verb raising only as far as Inflection (i.e. MoodP/TP). In two-verb constructions, clitic climbing is a diagnostic of syntactic restructuring (Rizzi ).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Pronominal clitics: clitic ordering, clitic clusters
.. The position of clitics in the clause ... Position relative to the verb In OR, clitics have a higher degree of freedom in their placement relative to the verb than in MR. From the sixteenth century, pronominal clitics have a (quasi-)fixed position with the following verb forms: the subjunctive and the infinitive, which strongly favour the preverbal position of clitics and, from the seventeenth century, allow only proclitics, the imperative, which prefers enclisis, and the gerund, which almost exclusively displays enclisis. The other verb-forms allow both proclisis and enclisis in different ratios. Taking into account all the verbal forms that show variation in clitic placement (the indicative and the conditional mood), in the sixteenth century there are significant differences between original and translated texts: the overall proportion of proclisis is above % in original texts, and around % in translations. There are remarkable differences within translations (% proclisis in CL., % in Prav., and % in CC2., which is close to the general average). From the beginning of the seventeenth century until the end of OR, the percentage of proclisis reaches around % and gradually rises both for translations and original texts (the preference for enclisis is exceptional and is due either to the text’s formulaic character (TD), or to the author’s use of a non-Romanian word order (CD.)). Some eighteenth-century texts display % proclisis (VMi.~ and ICB.). Enclitics are present in most original and translated texts throughout OR. ... Clitics in first, second, and third position By the end of the ninteenth century, two important generalizations concerning the position of clitics in Indo-European and proto-Romance had been put forward: Wackernagel’s law (Wackernagel ; but cf. Delbrück ) and the Tobler–Mussafia law (Tobler ; Mussafia , ). According to Wackernagel’s law, Latin weak pronouns and, subsequently, old Romance pronominal clitics are preceded by the first constituent of the minimal clause (e.g. a topicalized/focalized constituent, a sentenceinitial verb) (Salvi : ; cf. Ledgeway : –). The Tobler–Mussafia law is the Romance variant of Wackernagel’s law (Ledgeway : ); there is, however, a fundamental distinction between Tobler–Mussafia and Wackernagel clitics, namely that the first are adverbal, while the latter are complementizer-oriented clitics (Rivero ). Putting these generalizations together, we are led to infer that old Romance clitics should occupy the second position in the clause, behind the first stress-bearing constituent, being thus excluded in clause-initial position. In sixteenth-century Romanian, both in translations and in original texts, this principle is followed in around % of matrix clauses (). This situation characterizes both declarative (a) and interrogative (b,c) clauses. In over % of relative () and conjunctional clauses (), the clitic occupies the second position; CP1. is an exception: pronominal clitics occupy the second position in only % of all subordinates. ()
a. Izbăvitu-m-ai, Doamne (CP1.: v) save.PPLE=CL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG God.VOC ‘you saved me, God’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause b. Cine te puse jude sau who CL.ACC.SG put.PS.SG magistrate or judeţu ( . . . )? (CB.–: ) judge ‘Who appointed you as our magistrate or judge?’ c. poţi-le număra? (PO.: ) can.PRES.SG=CL.ACC.F.PL count.INF ‘Can you count them?’
()
ceia ce se tem d-ins (CP1.: v) those who CL.REFL.ACC.SG fear.PRES.PL of=him ‘those who fear it’
()
De ne va aduce vro veaste (DÎ.: CXII) if CL.DAT.PL AUX.FUT.SG bring.INF any news.ACC ‘if he brings us any news’
With the exception of CM. (a), no pronominal clitic in first position is attested in the sixteenth-century translations (PH.–; CB.–; CCat.; CPrav.–; CT.–; FT.–; CP1.; CC2.; Prav.; PO.; CTd.–). On the other hand, in sixteenth-century original texts, pronominal clitics are attested in this position (b): three occurrences in DÎ, and six in ITM (before ) (and six examples in GB.XVI–XVII). In this respect, translations display a different syntax from that of the original texts. () a. (Frate drag, voia ţi-e această fată în leagea lu Dumnezeu să o iai la tine ( . . . )?) (‘Dear brother, is it your will to you take this girl in God’s law?’) – Mi-e. (CM.: r–v) CL.DAT.SG=is ‘It is mine.’ b. Mă rog domniia-voastră (DÎ.–: XXV) CL.REFL.ACC.SG pray Highness-your ‘I pray to Your Highness’ Both in original and in translated texts, clitics occur in third (a), fourth (b), fifth/sixth position (c,d), in matrix and subordinate clauses, thereby not obeying the Tobler–Mussafia law. ()
a. Domnul râde-și (CP1.: r) God laughs=CL.REFL.DAT.SG ‘God is laughing’ b. Cuvântul Domnului ceriul învârtoșe-se (CP1.: r) word.DEF.NOM God.DEF.GEN sky.DEF strengthens=CL.REFL.ACC.SG ‘God’s word strengthens the sky’ c. ca geana ochiul într-acoperemântul arepiloru tale like eyelid.DEF eye.DEF in-cover.DEF wings.DEF.GEN your acoperiși-me (PH.–: v) cover.PS.SG=CL.ACC.SG ‘you covered me in the cover of your wing like the eyelash (covers) the eye’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Pronominal clitics: clitic ordering, clitic clusters
d. Că tu, Doamne, însuţi pre nedeajde that you God.VOC yourself into hope mutatu-me-ai (PH.–: r) move.PPLE=CL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG ‘For you God gave me hope’ In wh-interrogatives, where the word order wh-element–clitic–verb is expected, enclisis is attested (), although less frequently than proclisis (b). ()
întru iadu cinre spovedi-se-va? (PH.–: r) in hell who confess.INF=CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.FUT.SG ‘who will confess in hell?’
In the second OR period, the clitics’ position both relative to the verb and within the clause becomes gradually similar to their MR placement. Proclisis is preferred irrespective of the clitic’s position in the clause (a,b). However, enclisis is still present in most texts (). ()
a. Mă minunez, cu adevărat (AIP.: bis) CL.REFL.ACC.SG marvel.PRES.SG with truth ‘I genuinely marvel’ b. cum s-ari cădea (CLM.–: r) how CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.COND.SG be.fit.INF ‘how it would be fit’
() Lepădași-te de satana? (Mol.: ) renounce.PS.SG=CL.REFL.ACC.SG of Satan.ACC ‘Have you renounced Satan?’ ... Coordinating conjunctions and clitic placement In all the sixteenth-century texts the coordinating conjunctions și ‘and’, ci/ce, însă ‘but’, and au ‘or’ function as clause-initial elements. Clitics occur to their right, in second position (). However, clitics occurring in the second conjunct of coordinated clauses can also occupy the third (a), fourth (b), or fifth position (DÎ.: LXXXIX). There is no attestation of the ordering conjunction–clitic–verb with the conjunctions e ‘and’, iar(ă), and dar (ă) ‘but’, instead, the clitic is always postverbal (b). ()
și mă veselesc (CP1.: v) and CL.REFL.ACC.SG rejoice.PRES.SG ‘and I rejoice’
()
a. și lăuda-se-voru (PH.–: r) and praise.INF=CL.REFL.ACC.PL=AUX.FUT.PL ‘and they will praise themselves’ b. e Domnul priimi-mă (CP1.: r) and Lord receive.PS.SG=CL.ACC.SG ‘and God received me’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
.. Finite moods In OR, all the finite moods are attested both with preverbal and postverbal pronominal clitics. In standard MR, except for the imperative, postverbal clitics can occur only with directive subjunctives and optatives. In the present-day dialects of Romanian, variation in clitic placement is still alive in the indicative mood. ... The indicative The clitic–verb/verb–clitic word orders are attested with all the simple tenses of the indicative: the present (a,b), the simple past (c,d), the imperfect (e,f), and the pluperfect (g,h). The verb–clitic word order is still alive in the Transylvanian varieties, for both declarative and yes–no interrogative clauses (TDR: ). () a. ne aducem aminte (CCat.: v) CL.DAT.PL bring.PRES.PL in.mind ‘we remember’ b. închinu-mă (CP1.: v) make.cross.PRES.SG=CL.REFL.ACC.SG ‘I make the sign of the cross’ c. îm păru (CP.: r) CL.DAT.SG seem.PS.SG ‘it seemed to me’ d. Semnă-se (CP1.: v) impress.PS.SG=CL.REFL.ACC.SG ‘[It] impressed itself ’ e. și-lu topiia (CC2.: ) and=CL.ACC.M.SG melt.IMPERF.SG ‘he was melting it (=his body)’ f. Încungiura-mă (CP1.: v) circle.IMPERF.PL=CL.ACC.SG ‘[Many calves] surrounded me’ lepădase (CC2.: ) CL.REFL.ACC.SG renounce.PLUPERF.SG ‘he had renounced’ h. născuse-se (CC2.: ) be.born.PLUPERF.SG=CL.REFL.ACC.SG ‘he was born’
g. se
The analytic tenses of the indicative display both the clitic–auxiliary–verb and the verb–clitic–auxiliary orders (the compound past (a,b), the voi-infinitival future (c,d)). In the case of the voi-subjunctive future form, the clitic may be preverbal (e) or postverbal (f) within the subjunctival formative. The verb–clitic–auxiliary order is still attested dialectally (TDR : , —Crișana, Maramureș).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Pronominal clitics: clitic ordering, clitic clusters ()
a. mi-au dat (DÎ.: LXVIII) CL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.PL give.PPLE ‘they gave me [a horse]’ b. Spusu-mi-ai (CP1.: r) tell.PPLE=CL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.SG ‘You told me’ c. și nu mă voiu arăta (CC2.: ) and not CL.REFL.ACC.SG AUX.FUT.SG show.INF ‘I will not show myself ’ d. Turna-se-vor (CP1.: r) return.INF=CL.REFL.ACC.PL=AUX.FUT.PL ‘they shall return’ e. va AUX.FUT.SG
o
SĂSUBJ
CL.ACC.F.SG
se
întoarcă-se (CB.–: ) return.SUBJ.SG=CL.REFL.ACC.SG
‘he will receive it’ f. va AUX.FUT.SG
priimească (CC2.: ) receive.SUBJ.SG
să
SĂSUBJ
‘[each] will return’
In the analytic tenses of the indicative, the clitic–auxiliary complex generally cannot be broken (see }... for the position of o). Rarely, with the voi-future and with other analytic forms, the clitic takes the lexical verb as its host, instead of the auxiliary; the result is clitic–verb–auxiliary order () and auxiliary–verb–clitic order (). The auxiliary–verb–clitic order is quite frequent in Moldovan texts (DPar. and in DPV.). ()
și me arreta- (PH.–: v) and CL.REFL.ACC.SG show.INF=AUX.FUT.SG ‘and I will show myself ’
()
de vor mesteca-se (Prav.: r) if AUX.FUT.PL mix.INF=CL.REFL.ACC.PL ‘if they mix (=fornicate)’
... The subjunctive In the sixteenth century, the să–clitic–(aux)–verb order is strongly preferred (around % of the contexts) by the present (), the perfect (in CC2.: ), and gerund (in ACT.: v) subjunctive; the latter forms display an insufficient degree of grammaticalization in the sixteenth century (}...; cf. Zamfir : –). The să–verb–clitic order occurs in around % of contexts, both with a root (a) and an embedded subjunctive (b), with the exception of CB.–, where it occurs in around % of contexts. From the seventeenth century, the să–clitic–(aux)–verb order becomes general. ()
cum să se întoarne (PO.: ) how SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.SG return.SUBJ.SG ‘how to return’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause rușireze-se (PS.–: r) SĂSUBJ be.ashamed.SUBJ.PL=CL.REFL.ACC.PL ‘they should be ashamed’ b. ca să dereptezi-te (CL.: v) so.that SĂSUBJ mend.SUBJ.SG=CL.REFL.ACC.SG ‘so that you mend your ways’
() a. se
When the subjunctive has injunctive value, să can be absent (, ). In such contexts, the preferred order is verb–clitic (). In the sixteenth century, the clitic– verb order occurs only in eleven examples, with the first position occupied by the conjunction și ‘and’ (a), by an adverb (b), or by the negator nu ‘not’ (e.g. PO.: ). ()
Hie-ț, Doamne, mila ta (DPV.: ) be.SUBJ.SG=CL.DAT.SG Lord.VOC mercy.DEF.ACC your ‘May you be merciful, Lord’
()
a. aducă-o afară și o arză (PO.: ) bring.SUBJ.SG=CL.ACC.F.SG out and CL.ACC.F.SG burn.SUBJ.SG ‘he should bring her outside and set her on fire’ b. Așa-mi ajute Tatăl (CM.: v) so=CL.DAT.SG help.SUBJ.SG father.DEF.NOM ‘So help me God’
... The conditional synthetic conditional. ()
Both proclisis (a) and enclisis (b) are available with the
a. Să nu mă învâncure, atunce nevinovat unguilty if not CL.ACC.SG defeat.COND.PRES.SG then voiu fi (CP1.: v) AUX.FUT.SG be.INF ‘If he does not defeat me, then I will be innocent’ b. se nu neștine dereptare-me (CB.–: ) if not nobody guide.COND.PRES=CL.ACC.SG ‘if somebody would not guide me’
With the analytic conditionals, the clitic–auxiliary–verb order is attested in anteposition (a,b) and the verb–clitic–auxiliary order in postposition (c,d). () a. te-aș amistui în cale (PO.: ) CL.ACC.SG=AUX.COND.SG destroy.INF in way ‘I would destroy you on the way’ b. elu se vrea cădea (CC2.: ) he CL.REFL.ACC.SG AUX.COND.SG befit.INF ‘it will befit’ c. ascunde-mî-vrea d-ins (CP1.: v) hide.INF=CL.ACC.SG=AUX.COND.SG of=him ‘he would hide me from him’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Pronominal clitics: clitic ordering, clitic clusters
d. și înaintea lui împunge-se-ară and before him push.INF=CL.REFL.ACC.PL=AUX.COND.PL unii (CC2.: ) some.PL ‘and some people would push towards him’ ... The imperative The affirmative imperative strongly favours enclisis in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (in around % of its occurrences). In the eighteenth century, there is still overall preference for enclisis, but the percentage of proclisis increases (% in AA.; % in AD.–) and it is even higher than % (% in CBuc., % in VS.post). Enclisis is available when the imperative is in clause initial position () and also when another phrasal constituent (e.g., an adverb) precedes the verb (). The verb–clitic word order also occurs when conjunctions (și ‘and’, ci/ce ‘but’, iar(ă) ‘and/but’, au, sau ‘or’) are in first position (DPar.: I.v). Overall, in the context of și ‘and’, the clitic–verb order is as frequent () as the reverse order. The conjunction ci/ce ‘but’ strongly induce proclisis (CL.: r). Proclisis is general after the conjunction de ‘and/in order to’ throughout OR (CC2.: ), with one sixteenthth-century exception (in CB.–: ). ()
Ascundeţi-vă comoara (CC2.: ) hide.IMP.PL=CL.DAT.PL treasure.DEF.ACC ‘Hide your treasure’
()
mai vârtos spală-mă (CL.: v) more hard wash.IMP.SG=CL.ACC.SG ‘wash me harder’
()
și te lasă de ceartă (CC2.: ) and CL.REFL.ACC.SG leave.IMP.SG of quarrel ‘and stop the quarrel’
Starting with the second half of the seventeenth century, proclisis occurs with the imperative when the clitic occupies the first position in the sentence (), but it remains rare throughout the period. ()
Te-ndură (DPV.: ) CL.REFL.ACC.SG=take.pity.IMP.SG ‘have mercy’
In negative imperatives, the word order is usually nu/nici–clitic–imperative (; also in DPar.: II.v). There are four occurrences of the nu–imperative–clitic word order, all in one text, CB.– (). ()
Nu vă spământareţi (CC2.: ) not CL.REFL.ACC.PL get.scared.IMP.PL ‘Do not be afraid’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
()
nu lăudareţi-vă (CB.–: ) not praise.IMP.PL=CL.REFL.ACC.PL ‘do not praise yourselves’
... Double auxiliary structures With periphrastic (analytic) tense forms that contain two auxiliaries (the indicative gerundial future () and the future perfect (Prav.: r), the want-perfect conditional (CC2.: ), the have-gerundial (PO.: ) and perfect conditional (CT.–: r)), the word order in noninverted contexts is clitic–auxiliary–auxiliary–verb; under inversion, which is rare, the ordering is auxiliary–clitic–auxiliary–verb () (also in CC2.: ). ()
și-l va fi dând ție (PO.: ) and=CL.ACC.M.SG AUX.FUT.SG be give.GER you.SG.DAT ‘and he will be giving it to you’
()
fi-l-va bătând (PO.: ) be=CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.FUT.SG beat.GER ‘he will be beating him’
... Clitic climbing structures Clitic climbing in complex verb forms is an indication of restructuring (). In clitic climbing structures, the clitic adjoins either to the left (a; also in PO.: ) or to the right (b; also in PO.: ) of the matrix verb. The phenomenon is already general in the sixteenth century with bare short infinitives. ()
a. nu-l putea număra (PO.: ) not=CL.ACC.M.SG can.IMPERF.SG count.INF ‘he could not count it’ b. știi-l dezlega (PO.: ) know.PRES.SG=CL.ACC.M.SG interpret.INF ‘you know how to interpret it’
In biclausal configurations in which the modal verb a putea ‘can’ takes an ainfinitive or a full subjunctive complement, three distinct situations are attested: as in MR, restructuring does not apply, and the clitic remains inside the complement of a putea ‘can’ (a; also in CC2.: ); however, unlike MR, there is also the option of the clitic adjoining to the modal verb across a clausal boundary (b) (rarely) or the clitic being doubly realized, in the domain of the modal verb and in the infinitive (c)/subjunctive complement (ULM.~: r) (more frequently) (}..). ()
a. să
poată a le cuprinde moșiile can.SUBJ.SG AINF CL.DAT.PL take.in.INF estates.DEF.ACC și ocinele (NL.~–: ) and properties.DEF.ACC ‘to be able to take in their estates and properties’ SĂSUBJ
b. nu o poate să adaugă (CC2.: ) not CL.ACC.F.SG can.PRES.SG SĂSUBJ add.SUBJ.SG ‘he cannot add it’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Pronominal clitics: clitic ordering, clitic clusters
c. Le va putea a le spune (CPV.~: r) CL.ACC.PL AUX.FUT.SG can.INF AINF CL.ACC.PL say.INF ‘He will be able to say them’ Clitic climbing across a clausal boundary is also attested with cognitive verbs (). ()
știu că cu un cuvânt stricatului know.PRES.SG that with a word madman.DEF.DAT stricăciunea-i curăţiș (CC2.: ) madness.DEF.ACC=CL.POSS.SG heal.PS.SG ‘I know that you healed the madness of the madman with one word’
te
CL.ACC.SG
... The position of the clitic o In OR, the feminine singular accusative clitic o is either proclitic () or enclitic () with a number of verb forms (present, compound past, voi-infinitival future and perfect future, analytic pluperfect, conditional, perfect subjunctive, and gerundial periphrases). In MR, o is always enclitic with the compound past tense, the analytic pluperfect (dialectal), the conditional, and gerundial periphrases, and proclitic with the voi infinitival future and with the future perfect. It can be either proclitic or enclitic with the perfect subjunctive. Preverbal o with the compound past is still attested dialectally, in Crișana, Maramureș, Transylvania (TDR : , , ). O predominantly displays proclisis in the first OR period (% in DRH.A.XXXIII, % in DRH.B.XXXI, % in NT., but % in ITM.– for the compound past tense form, % in DRH.A.XXXIII, DRH.B.XXXI, NT. for the voi infinitival future, all the occurrences of the conditional (six occurrences), of the analytic pluperfect (two occurrences) and of the gerundial future (one occurrence)). The occurrence of o as enclitic to the past participle and to the infinitive is found in sixteeenth and early seventeenth century originals and translations (a–b); like other clitics, o may be enclitic to a present indicative (c). ()
de o au făcut vin (CC1.: v) and CL.ACC.F.SG AUX.PERF.SG make.PPLE wine.ACC ‘and he made it wine’
()
a. dac-ar fi dat-o (A.: r) if=AUX.COND.SG be.INF give.PPLE=CL.ACC.F.SG ‘if he would give it’ b. elu datu-o-au (CC2.: ) he give.PPLE=CL.ACC.F.SG=AUX.PERF.SG ‘he gave it’ c. afli-o pustiită (SA.: v–r) find.PRES.SG=CL.ACC.F.SG emptied.F.SG ‘you find it emptied’
The enclisis of o with the compound past gradually becomes more frequent in the second OR period: % in ITM, % in CLM.–, % in NL.~–, % in ITM, but, on the other hand, there is no attestation of enclisis in DPV.,
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
CIst.–, VS.post. The strong preference for proclitic o with the voi-future still manifests itself in the second OR period (% in CÎ., Mărg., % in Prav., but % in NL.~–). The conditional–o combination is rare in the corpus, but the few data available indicate a preference for proclisis of o (with the exception of ITM, where there % of attestations are of postverbal o). The postposition of o is also attested in participle–clitic–auxiliary inverted structures (b, a). However, examples such as (a) are ambiguous, because it is not clear whether the resulting order is the effect of participle raising across the clitic plus auxiliary sequence or of the participle plus clitic across the auxiliary; given the high frequency of verb–auxiliary inversion in OR (Dragomirescu c), contexts of this sort, supported by contexts in which the clitic is doubly realized (b) (see }..), might have triggered the reanalysis of o as a post-verbal clitic in the passage to MR. ()
a. Adusu-o-au Stoica (DÎ.: XXXVI) bring.PPLE=CL.ACC.F.SG=AUX.PERF.SG Stoica.NOM ‘Stoica brought it’ b. o au dat-o (ITM.: ) CL.ACC.F.SG AUX.PERF.SG give.PPLE=CL.ACC.F.SG ‘he gave it’
... The position of clitics relative to the weak adverbs mai ‘more’, și ‘also’, prea ‘too’ The weak adverbials mai ‘more’ (), și ‘also’ (CB.–: ), and prea ‘too’ (CC2.: ) occupy the same position in the verb phrase as in MR, namely between the clitic and the verb. In the context of V–to–C movement and enclisis, the weak adverb mai remains left-adjoined to the verb (). Like in MR, in OR, the clitic adverbial mai ‘more’ adjoins as a head to the lexical verb in the inflectional domain and subsequently moves along with the verb (Nicolae c: –, ). ()
nu se mai lasă (CC2.: ) not CL.REFL.ACC.PL more relent.PRES.PL ‘they do not relent’
()
Mai veselescu-me (PH.–: r) still rejoice.PRES.SG=CL.REFL.ACC.SG ‘I still rejoice’
... The position of clitics relative to the sentential negator nu When the sentential negator nu is present, the order nu–clitic–verb is almost general in the sixteenth century (); the nu–verb–clitic order is attested just occasionally (). The nu–clitic–verb order generalizes in the seventeenth century. ()
nu le va lăsa (DÎ.: XXXVI) not CL.ACC.F.PL AUX.FUT.SG leave.INF ‘he will not leave them’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Pronominal clitics: clitic ordering, clitic clusters ()
ceia ce nu înșalî-se de mine (CT.–: v) those who not deceive.PRES.PL=CL.REFL.PASS by me.ACC ‘those who are not deceived by me’
In all sixteenth-century texts, including translations, which never allow clitics in first position, the preverbal clitic occurs after clause–initial nu (a). Hence, the negator nu closes off the inflectional domain of the clause. However, the negator nu in absolute first position does not always trigger the placement of the clitic to the left of the verb (b). () a. Nu se va muta (PH.–: v) not CL.REFL.ACC.SG AUX.FUT.SG move.INF ‘He will not move’ b. Nu făgădui-se (CB.–: ) not promise.PS.SG=CL.REFL.ACC.SG ‘He did not promise’ In negative interrogatives only the nu–clitic–verb order is attested. ()
Fratele nu-l va brother.DEF.ACC not=CL.ACC.M.SG AUX.FUT.SG izbăvi ( . . . )? (PH.–: r) redeem.INF ‘Will his brother not redeem him ( . . . )?’
.. Non-finite verb forms The two non-finite verb forms that combine with clitics in both old and modern Romanian are the infinitive and the gerund. The clitic is generally placed to the right of the prepositional complementizer a (see }..), yielding the a–clitic–verb order observed with infinitives (). The clitic is placed to the right of the verb () only exceptionally, in two examples. ()
a-l AINF=CL.ACC.M.SG
‘to bring him’
aduce (CPr.: ) bring.INF
() a. fu a descăra-se noao (CB.–: ) be.PS.SG AINF bow.INF=CL.REFL.ACC.SG us.DAT ‘it happened that he bowed to us’ b. nu poate cetate ascunde-se (CT.–: r) not can.PRES.SG fortress.NOM hide.INF=CL.REFL.ACC.SG ‘a fortress cannot be hidden’ Pronominal clitics are positioned at the right hand side of the gerund (a). Just occasionally, proclisis occurs with the gerund (b). Proclisis indicates that, exceptionally, the OR gerund has the option to raise only as far as Inflection, instead of raising further to the Complementizer field (cf. Hill and Alboiu, forthcoming).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
()
a. iubindu-vă (CPr.: ) love.GER=CL.REFL.ACC.PL ‘loving one another’ b. în trupu se ivind (CC1.: v) in flesh CL.REFL.ACC.SG appear.GER ‘appearing in the flesh’
.. Coordination In the sixteenth century, generally, the clitic satisfies the valency of only one head verb. Therefore, the clitic has to be repeated under coordination (). Only rarely does the clitic have scope over two minimal verbal projections (). ()
ne descumpere și să ne CL.ACC.PL redeem.SUBJ.SG and SĂSUBJ CL.ACC.PL izbăvească de toată perirea (CC1.: v) deliver.SUBJ.SG of entire.ACC death.DEF.ACC ‘to redeem us and deliver us from the entire death’
să
SĂSUBJ
()
aceastea toate le auzimu și văzumu (CC2.: ) these.F.PL.ACC all.F.PL CL.ACC.F.PL hear.PS.PL and see.PS.PL ‘we heard and saw all these’
In coordinated structures, both symmetry () and asymmetry (chiasmus) () are attested in clitic placement (see }..). In sixteenth-century Romanian chiasmic structures, the arrangement of the two conjuncts generally has the pattern verb– clitic–și ‘and’–clitic–verb (). Rarely, the clitic–verb–și–verb–clitic pattern is followed (). ()
Mâinile tale feaceră-mă și zidiră-mă (CL.: v) hands.DEF.NOM your make.PS.PL=CL.ACC.SG and build.PS.PL=CL.ACC.SG ‘Your hands made me and built me’
()
Duse-se și se spălă (CC1.: r) go.PS.SG=CL.REFL.ACC.SG and CL.REFL.ACC.SG wash.PS.SG ‘He went and washed himself ’
()
și se îmbrâca în olovire și în firur CL.REFL.ACC.SG dress.IMPERF.SG in purple and in nature and veseliia-se (CTd.–: r) rejoice.IMPERF.SG=CL.REFL.ACC.SG ‘and he dressed in purple and naturally rejoiced’
.. Adjacency vs. scrambling In OR, generally, no independent words intervene between the clitic and the verb or auxiliary, since the verb or auxiliary functions as the clitic’s syntactic host. In the sixteenth-century corpus only contexts were identified in which scrambling (i.e. the alteration of regular word order without change of the core meaning of the sentence; in the situation discussed here, ‘scrambling’ refers to the interposition of
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Pronominal clitics: clitic ordering, clitic clusters
constituents between the clitic and the verbal host) takes place, with one ((), (a), (), ()) or more ((b), ()) constituents interposed between the clitic and the V head. After the sixteenth century, clitic–verb non-adjacency is still attested, being however increasingly rarer, with the exception of CD., where it is more frequently employed as a stylistic device. Scrambling occurs with the present, simple past, compound past, and future tense of the indicative, as well as with the subjunctive. A DP in subject () or in object position () (a direct object, simple or preceded by the differential object marker p(r)e, a), a subcategorized () or adjunct PP (), or an adverbial (, ) may break the clitic–verb complex. The possibility of clitic–verb non-adjacency is attested both in translations and in original texts. cela ce-l Pavel spune (CB.–: ) that that=CL.ACC.M.SG Paul.NOM tells ‘which Paul confesses’
()
() a. și ne pre noi slobozi (FT.–: r) and CL.ACC.PL DOM us.ACC free.PS.SG ‘and he freed us’ b. Și mă, Doamne, ție rog and CL.REFL.ACC.SG Lord.VOC you.SG.DAT pray.PRES.SG cu sete (DPV.: ) with thirst ‘and, God, I pray to you intensely’ ()
și se în sac îmbrăcă (PO.: ) and CL.REFL.ACC.SG in hemp dress.PS.SG ‘and he dressed in hemp’
()
a. așa ne tare pedepseș (FT.–: v) so CL.ACC.PL firmly punish.PRES.SG ‘you punish us so hard’ b. numele nu să nice povestește (CLM.–: v) name.DEF not CL.REFL.PASS.SG even tell.PRES.SG ‘his name is not even told’
()
se
nu se cumva fără socotinţă not CL.REFL.ACC.PL somehow without judgement meastece (Prav.: v) mix.up.SUBJ.PL ‘they should not interfere without judgement’ SĂSUBJ
Several factors might have contributed to the existence of this phenomenon: the reflection of an older stage of the language in which pronouns were not clitic, and therefore did not need a host (Rivero ; de Kok and de Dardel : ); different conditions for verb movement (i.e. low verb movement) in OR (see
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
Nicolae c: –); the existence of scrambling in older stage of Romance (Dragomirescu c). .. Doubly realized clitics on the same verbal head The pronominal clitic can be doubly realized, having one and the same lexical ()/ auxiliary () verb head as its syntactic host (Ușurelu ). This phenomenon is rare, with only eight occurrences in the sixteenth century, but becomes more frequent after , occurring especially with finite analytic forms (the compound past, the voi future, the conditional). With finite forms, it is also attested in present-day Romanian dialects of Banat, Maramureș, Transylvania, and Bucovina (Istrate and Turculeţ ; TDR : , , , ). Doubling may affect only the clitic (), or (very rarely) both the clitic and the auxiliary (). ()
()
a dooa dzi îl gătiră de-l second day CL.ACC.M.SG prepare.PS.PL for/and=CL.ACC.M.SG porni-l (NL.~–: ) start.PS.PL=CL.ACC.M.SG ‘the second day they prepared him to start’ a. ca-l va-l vrea (PH.–: r) because=CL.ACC.M.SG AUX.FUT.SG=CL.ACC.M.SG want.INF ‘because he will want him’ b. l-au ucisu-l (DPar.: II.v) CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.PERF.PL kill.PPLE=CL.ACC.M.SG ‘they killed him’
()
și i-ai mântuitu-i-ai (PH.–: v) and CL.ACC.M.PL=AUX.PERF.SG redeem.PPLE=CL.ACC.M.PL=AUX.PERF.SG ‘and you redeemed them’
.. Clitic double realization on distinct verbal heads This phenomenon is restricted to the modal verbs putea (‘can’), vrea (‘want’), the implicative verb cuteza (‘dare’), the aspectual verb începe (‘start’), and perception verbs like vedea (‘see’), a se arăta (‘appear’). Their complements are infinitives (), subjunctives (), as well as indicative predicates in subordinates headed by the complementizer că (‘that’) (). Contexts like () show that the double realization of the clitic is possible across a finite clausal boundary. ()
cându-i începea a-i tremura when=CL.DAT.SG start.IMPERF.SG AINF=CL.DAT.SG quiver.INF trupulu (CC2.: ) body.DEF.NOM ‘when his body started to quiver’
()
nu-i vei vrea să-i lași (PO.: ) not=CL.ACC.M.PL AUX.FUT.SG want.INF SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.PL leave.SUBJ.SG ‘you shall not want to leave them’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Pronominal clitics: clitic ordering, clitic clusters ()
să
nu se arate că se not CL.REFL.ACC.SG show.SUBJ.SG that CL.REFL.ACC.SG protiveaște legiei (CC2.: ) be.against.PRES.SG law.DEF.DAT ‘to not seem that he disobeys the law’ SĂSUBJ
.. Morphophonological changes: proclisis and î- prothesis; -u deletion Pronominal proclisis was put in relation with the emergence of a prothetic î- in the st, nd, and rd person singular of the dative personal and reflexive pronouns (îmi, îţi, îi, își), as well as in the masculine singular accusative îl, in a period between the thirteenth and the sixteenth century (Frâncu ; ILRL: ). For rd person singular accusative îl, î- prothesis involves prior deletion of -u in lu (), as early as the sixteenth century, which renders the clitic nonsyllabic (l) (). Prothetic î- forms occur sporadically in sixteenth-century translated texts and in original southern, south-western, and north-eastern texts (a), alternating with the non-prothetic forms (which are in the majority) in one and the same text. Non-syllabic clitics need a phonological host. Enclitic non-syllabic mi, ți, i, și, l always have a phonological host to their left (i.e. the verb, b). Proclitic non-syllabic clitics only cliticize onto the auxiliary have placed at their right-hand side, but not onto other auxiliaries or onto lexical verbs. With all the verb forms except for those made up with the auxiliary have, non-syllabic clitics need a host to their left (e.g. the negation, a); therefore they can only occur in proclisis when they do not occupy the first position in the clause. Mi, ți, i, și, l become syllabic by adding prothetic î- and do not need a phonological host any longer (a,b); this allows them to occupy the first position in the clause, independent of the form of their syntactic host (i.e. the verb, b). ()
a. cuvântulu lu Dumnezeu tu-lu ascultă (CC2.: ) you.SG=CL.ACC.M.SG listen.IMP.SG word.DEF.ACC LUI.GEN God ‘listen to God’s word’
b. Duseră-lu elu (CC2.: ) take.PS.PL=CL.ACC.M.SG him.ACC ‘He took him’ () a. și nu-l veri afla (CP1.: r) and not=CL.ACC.M.SG AUX.FUT.SG discover.INF ‘and you won’t discover it’ b. și Domnul auzi-l (CP1.: v) and God hear.PS.SG=CL.ACC.M.SG ‘and God heard him’ () a. Și Iacov ș rupse veșmintele (PO.: ) and Jacob.NOM CL.DAT.POSS.SG break.PS.SG clothes.DEF.ACC ‘and Jacob tore his clothes’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause trimit la Irod (NT.: r) CL.ACC.M.SG send.PRES.PL at Herod ‘They send him to Herod’
b. Îl
The corpus analysis showed that non-prothetic forms mi, ţi, i, și are syllabic at least in some of the sixteenth-century texts and they can be proclitic (). This weakens the connection between the emergence of the prothetic î- clitic forms and the proclitic placement of the clitics mi, ți, i, și. ()
cui i pare (CC2.: ) whom.DAT CL.DAT.SG seems ‘to whom does it seem’
The rise of syllabic clitic variants with the prothetic vowel î- (weak pronouns in Cardinaletti and Starke ) reinforces the OR tripartite personal pronominal system, which has the oppositions: el (strong)/îl (syntactic clitic—weak)/(-)l(-) (phonological clitic). .. Mesoclisis Mesoclisis of the nd person plural reflexive clitic vă, an eighteenth-century innovation, occurs with the nd person plural imperative form of the -e verb class, between the stem and the ending -ţi (Byck ; Frâncu : ). The position of the ending -ți to the right of the clitic is triggered by its role as an allocutive agreement marker (Hill and Alboiu, forthcoming). There are very few attestations in the corpus (). Mesoclisis is not restricted to Romanian; it also occurs in Spanish, Italian, European Portuguese, and Albanian varieties (Brâncuș [] : –; Manzini and Savoia ; Ledgeway : ). It still survives dialectally, in Oltenia, Wallachia, Transylvania, Banat (Byck ; ALR VI: , ; Brâncuș [] : –). ()
a. Duce-vă-ți de la mine, blestemaților (AIP.: ) damned.PL.VOC go=CL.REFL.ACC.PL-IMP.PL from me ‘Go away from me, you damned ones’ b. Duci-vă-ți toate la răul ceas (Bert.: r) go=CL.REFL.ACC.PL-IMP.PL all.F.PL at bad.DEF moment ‘Go to hell all of you!’
Mesoclisis of the st and nd person accusative clitic occurs with iată ‘behold’, between the interjection and the nd person singular ending -i, which is added to this form exceptionally, as an overt person marker (Byck ), in two seventeenth century texts (). In MR, this phenomenon survives in Wallachia. ()
Iată-mă-i, eu și cuconii (DVS.‒: r) behold=CL.ACC.SG-SG I.NOM and sons.DEF.NOM ‘Behold me and my sons!’
.. Clitic clusters In the sixteenth century, the order dative–accusative is general in clitic clusters in both pre- and postposition (). There is only one attestation of the accusative–
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Pronominal clitics: clitic ordering, clitic clusters
dative order, in postposition (). Clitic clusters cannot be broken up, but clitics themselves may break the verbal nexus maximally made up of the subjunctive complementizer să, the negator nu and the lexical verb. There are no occurrences of double realization of the clusters. ()
a. ruga le-o va prayer.DEF.ACC CL.DAT.PL=CL.ACC.F.SG AUX.FUT.SG asculta (Prav.: v) listen.INF ‘he will listen to their prayer’ b. și mi-o au tremisu (CC2.: ) and CL.DAT.SG=CL.ACC.F.SG AUX.PERF.PL send.PPLE ‘and they sent it to me’ c. ispovedeaște-ţi-se (CP1.: r) confesses=CL.DAT.SG=CL.REFL.ACC.SG ‘he is confessing to you’ d. zice-ţi-se-va (CB.–: ) say.INF=CL.DAT.SG=CL.REFL.PASS.SG=AUX.FUT.SG ‘it will be said to you’
()
()
arată-Te-mi mie pre Tine (BB.: ) show.IMP.SG=CL.ACC.SG=CL.DAT.SG me.DAT DOM Thee.SG.ACC ‘show Thyself to me’ să nu bucure-mi-se (CP1.: r) SĂSUBJ not rejoice.SUBJ.SG=CL.DAT.SG=CL.REFL.ACC.SG ‘he should not rejoice for me’
The few attestations of clitic combinations that are no longer allowed in contemporary Romanian are all in translations. Clusters formed from a nd person singular dative and a st person singular/plural accusative or from a rd person reflexive dative and a st person plural accusative occur exclusively in postposition, possibly because in the case of pronominal clitics, word order restrictions are annulled in postverbal position () (Săvescu Ciucivara ). rd or st person singular dative plus nd person plural accusative clitic cluster occurs preverbally (). ()
rugămu-ţi-ne, auzi și pray.PRES.PL=CL.DAT.SG=CL.REFL.ACC.SG hear.IMP.SG and miluiaște noi (CL.: r) us.ACC have.mercy.IMP.SG ‘we pray to you, hear us and have mercy on us’
()
a. Slujmnului cu frică și i serve.IMP.PL God.DAT with fear and CL.DAT.SG vă bucuraţi lui (CP1.: r–v) CL.REFL.ACC.PL rejoice.IMP.PL him.DAT ‘Serve God with fear and rejoice in him’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause b. c-aț veni să mi vă that=AUX.COND.PL come.INF SĂSUBJ CL.DAT.SG CL.REFL.ACC.PL arătaț! (DPar.: II.v) show.SUBJ.PL ‘that you would come to show yourselves to me’
.. Final remarks The following general observations hold for the behaviour of clitic pronouns in OR: (i) The relative ordering of the elements of the verbal complex viz. the position of the pronominal clitic(s) may be one of the following: a. negator – (clitic – auxiliary) – verb – (clitic – auxiliary) b. negator – (clitic – auxiliary) – auxiliary – (clitic – auxiliary) – verb c. să(SUBJ) / a(INF) – negator – (clitic) – auxiliary – verb – (clitic) d. (clitic) – gerund – (clitic) (ii) The negator nu, and the complementizers să and a always precede pronominal clitics, proving that they attach higher in the syntactic derivation than pronominal clitics; adverbal pronominal clitics are thus confined to the inflectional domain of the clause, i.e. they are I-oriented clitics. (iii) One of the most striking differences between old and modern Romanian is the greater extent of pronominal enclisis. In sixteenth-century Romanian the order clitic–verb (proclisis) is slightly more frequent than the order verb– clitic (enclisis) in translations and highly frequent in original texts. Variation in clitic–verb ordering shows that verb movement to C is a much more frequent option in OR, taking place not only in imperatives and optatives, but also in indicative (declarative and interrogative) clauses, in subjunctive clauses, and in conditionals. (iv) Clitics are allowed in absolute first position, and the second position rule is not always observed, which shows that the Tobler-Mussafia law is not (fully) functional in OR. Wackernagel’s law is not in effect in OR (OR clitics are adverbal, i.e. they take the verb as their syntactic host). (v) Adjacency between the pronominal clitic and the verb is not general, and scrambling of constituents in-between the clitic and the verb is possible. (vi) Irrespective of the position of clitics in relation to the verb, Dative > Accusative ordering is strictly observed in clusters.
. The syntactic frame of verbs and syntactic variation .. Types of syntactic organization of the verb Already present in the first Romanian texts, the types of syntactic organization of the verb and, implicitly, the syntactic classes of verbs are the same as in MR. The inventory of each class of verbs changes over time (some verbs are eliminated from use, others emerge later; there are verbs which change their syntactic frame), but the classes and the syntactic typology as such do not change.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntactic frame of verbs and syntactic variation
From the beginning of the period investigated verbs are organized in the following syntactic patterns (Pană Dindelegan ): (i) structures with zero-valent verbs, i.e. without subject and internal arguments (a); (ii) structures with one-argument verbs, which accept a subject, but no internal argument (b); (iii) structures with two-argument verbs, with a subject and a direct object (c); (iv) structures with two-argument verbs, with a subject and an indirect object (d); (v) structures with two-argument verbs, with a subject and a prepositional object (e); (vi) structures with two-argument verbs, with an indirect and a prepositional object, and no subject (f); (vii) structures with three-argument verbs, with a subject, a direct object, and a secondary object (g); (viii) structures with three-argument verbs, i.e. with a subject, a direct object, and an indirect object (h); (ix) structures with three-argument verbs, with a subject, a direct object, and a prepositional object (i); structures with three-argument verbs, i.e. with a subject, an indirect object, and a prepositional object (j). There are also the verbs that select predicative complements: either copula verbs with a subject and a subjective predicative complement (k) or ‘attributive’ verbs with a subject, a direct/indirect object, and an objective predicative complement (l); for the MR syntactic patterns, see GR: –. () a. și nu ploo spre pământ trei anii și șase three years and six and not rain.PS.SG towards earth luni (CPr.: ) months ‘and it hasn’t rained on earth for three years and six months’ b. pasă de te pocăiaște și CL.REFL.ACC.SG repent.IMP.SG and dare.IMP.SG and plângi dereptu păcatele tale (CC2.: ) sins.DEF your cry.IMP.SG for ‘dare and repent and cry for your sins’ c. Adecă eu, Marin o(t) Boldești, scris-am that.is I Marin of Boldești write.PPLE=AUX.PERF.SG acest zapis (DÎ.: VII) this deed.ACC ‘That is, I, Marin of Boldești, have written this deed’ d. nu-i trebuiaște mărturie (CC2.: ) not=CL.DAT.SG must.PRES.SG testimony.NOM ‘he doesn’t need testimony’ e. de noișu mai vârtosu să ne grijimu (CC2.: ) of us.ACC-Ș more strongly SĂSUBJCL.REFL.ACC.PL take.care.SUBJ.PL ‘to take more care of ourselves’ f. mi se-au urât de CL.DAT.SG CL.REFL.IMPERS=AUX.PERF.SG have.enough.PPLE of acealea (FD.–: v) those.F.ACC ‘I had enough of those’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause g. le
trimise împăratul un popî ( . . . ) send.PS.SG emperor.DEF.NOM a priest.ACC să-i înveaţe leagea (CazV.: v) SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.PL teach.SUBJ.SG law.DEF.ACCNOM ‘the emperor sent them a priest to teach them the law’ h. i-au dat împăratul slobozie CL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.SG give.PPLE emperor.DEF.NOM freedom.ACC lu Mahamet-beg (DÎ.: I) LUI.DAT Mohamet-bey ‘and the emperor set Mohamet-Bey free’ i. va izbăvi pre noi de năpăști (CC2.: ) AUX.FUT.SG save.INF DOM us.ACC of disasters.ACC ‘will save us from disasters’ CL.DAT.PL
j. spui domnietale de lucrul lu tell.PRES.SG you.POL.SG.DAT about work.DEF LUI.GEN Mahamet-beg (DÎ.: I) Mohamet-bey ‘I will tell Your Highness about Mohamet-Bey’s work’ știe cum amu fostu eu knows how AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE I Crăciun de Negreni moștean (DÎ.–: II) Crăciun of Negreni successor.NOM ‘To be known how I, Crăciun of Negreni, was a successor’
k. Să
SĂSUBJ
să
CL.REFL.IMPERS
l. Pop Lazar au avut [muere]OPC [pre Doamna Pop Lazar AUX.PERF.SG have.PPLE wife.ACCNOM DOM lady.DEF.ACC Malina]DO (DÎ.: CXIII) Malina ‘Pop Lazar was married to Lady Malina’ .. Variations of the argumental configurations of the verb ... Preliminary remarks What distinguishes OR from MR are not the types of syntactic organization and the syntactic classes of verbs, but variation in the syntactic grid of verbs, which is much richer in OR than in MR. Some verbs with alternative syntactic grids in OR settle for only one syntactic pattern, whereas others, which entered into certain syntactic configurations in the old language, subsequently change their syntactic organization. The variants may be characterized by total synonymy or be so specialized as to create a completely distinct lexical unit (a new verb). Variations based on different meanings will not be investigated in this chapter. Variations such as (copula verb) sosi ‘become’ (a) vs. sosi ‘be enough’ (b) vs. (verb of motion) sosi ‘arrive at the destination’ (c) or (modal) trebui ‘be necessary/possible’ (a) vs. trebui ‘need’ (b) will not be the subject of the current chapter.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntactic frame of verbs and syntactic variation
() a. el sosi pizmeei rob (MC.: v) he become.PS.SG envy.DEF.DAT slave.NOM ‘he became the slave of envy’ b. nu ne soseaște câtu ne-au not CL.DAT.PL is.enough how.much CL.ACC.PL=AUX.PERF.PL robit turcii și tătarii (DÎ.: XVIII) enslave.PPLE Turks.DEF.NOM and Tartars.DEF.NOM ‘we haven’t had enough of Turks’ and Tartars’ enslaving us’ c. cănd era sosit la pământul lui when be.IMPERF.SG arrive.PPLE to territory.DEF.ACC LUI.GEN Canaan (PO.: ) Canaan ‘when he had reached The Land of Canaan’ () a. trebuiaște să-șu răstignească sine și SĂSUBJ=CL.REFL.DAT.SG crucify.SUBJ.SG self.ACC and has.to toate pohtele să le omoară (CC2.: ) all desires.DEF.ACC SĂSUBJ CL.ACC.PL kill.SUBJ.SG ‘he has to crucify himself and restrain all his desires’ b. cărora trebuiaște de ale trupului trebuinţe (CC2.: ) of AL.F.PL body.DEF.GEN needs.NOM whom.PL.DAT needs ‘(the ones) who have bodily needs’ Only cases of free syntactic choice, i.e. structures with different syntactic organization and similar meaning will be investigated. In a description based on corpus data, for a period which is not directly accessible to researchers, synonymy (the lexical equivalence of different constructions) can only be established on the basis of identical and repetitive contexts. Variations are sometimes attested in close proximity within the same text; nominals with different selection properties can occur in coordination, taking part in different syntactic patterns: ()
nu va muri pentru binele și adevărului și good.DEF.ACC and truth.DEF.DAT and not AUX.FUT.SG die.INF for pentru dereptatea (CC2.: ) for justice.DEF.ACC ‘he will not die for the good, the truth, and righteousness’
... Variant arguments Alternative constructions, with which OR abounds, exhibit a great variety. The Dat // PP variation (or, in some cases, the DAT // PP // ACC variation, in which DAT encodes the indirect object, ACC encodes the direct object, and the prepositional object is encoded as a PP) characterizes verbs such as a se apropia ‘come close; approach’, a asculta ‘listen; obey’, a se asemăna ‘resemble’, a se atinge ‘touch’, a(-și) bate gioc/joc ‘mock’, a se bizui ‘rely on’, a se bucura ‘rejoice’, crede ‘believe’, izbândi ‘defeat’, a (se) împăca ‘agree’, a (se) împreuna ‘join; unite’, a se îndulci ‘surrender’, a
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
înţeleage ‘understand’, a se lepi/lipi ‘approach’, muri ‘die’, a (se) nădăjdui ‘hope’, a (-și) râde/ride ‘laugh’, râvni/râmni ‘crave’, a se teme ‘fear’, a se veseli ‘rejoice’; see examples such as (a–h). () a. se
apropie necuraţiloru approaches NEG-clean.PL.DEF.DAT draci (CC .: ) devils.DAT ‘(he) comes close to the filthy devils’ vs. a’. nici se apropie Jidovii de nor CL.REFL.ACC.PL approach.PRES.PL Jewish.PL.DEF.NOM of Samareani (CC2.: ) Samaritan.PL.ACC ‘nor will the Jews approach the Samaritan’ b. cine se asamănă ţie dentre who CL.REFL.ACC.SG resembles you.DAT among domnedzei? (PO.: ) gods ‘Which one of the gods resembles you?’ vs. b’. să ne asămănăm cu ei (BB.: ) SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.PL resemble.SUBJ.PL with them.ACC ‘to resemble them’ CL.REFL.ACC.SG 2
atingă stricatului (CC2.: ) SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.SG touch.SUBJ.SG deprave.DEF.DAT ‘to touch the depraved’ vs.
c. să
se
c’. hicleșugul nu se atinge de el (CPr.: ) cheating.DEF.NOM not CL.REFL.ACC.SG touches of him.ACC ‘he is not touched by cheating’ d. Domnul bătu-și gioc lor (PH.–: v) Lord.DEF.NOM mock.PS.SG=CL.REFL.DAT.SG them.DAT ‘the Lord mocked them’ vs. d’. Și-șu bătea jocu de elu (CC2.: ) and=CL.REFL.DAT.SG mock.IMPERF.SG of him.ACC ‘And he mocked him’ e. Veniţi să ne bucurăm come.IMP.PL SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.PL rejoice.SUBJ.PL Domnului (CL.: v) Lord.DEF.DAT ‘Come to rejoice in the Lord’ vs.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntactic frame of verbs and syntactic variation
e’. Bucură-se sufletul mieu în Domnul (CL.: r) in Lord.DEF.ACC rejoices=CL.REFL.ACC.SG soul.DEF.NOM my ‘My soul shall rejoice in the Lord’ f. Cine crede propoveduitoriului (CC1.: r) who believes preacher.DEF.DAT ‘Who believes the preacher’ vs. f ’. crezu întru elu cu toată voia (CC2.: ) believe.PS.SG in him.ACC with all will.DEF.ACC ‘he believed in him with all his will’ vs. f ’’. Muiare, crede-mă (CC2.: ) woman.VOC believe.IMP.SG=CL.ACC.SG ‘Believe me, woman’ g. Domnul riide-i lui (PH.–: r) Lord.DEF.NOM laughs=CL.DAT.SG him.DAT ‘God laughs at him’ vs. g’. Carele viia în ceriu rride-și de who.M.DEF.NOM live.IMPERF.SG in sky laughs=CL.REFL.DAT.SG of ei (PH.–: v) them.ACC ‘He who lived in the sky laughs at them’ vs. g’’. ce ne răd pre noi că ne but CL.ACC.PL laugh.PRES.PL DOM us.ACC that CL.REFL.ACC.PL închinăm lemnului (CazV.: r) tree.DEF.DAT worship.PRES.PL ‘they are laughing at us because we worship the tree’ h. spre ceia ce se tem lui (CM.: v) towards those who CL.REFL.ACC.PL fear.PRES.PL him.DAT ‘towards those who fear him’ vs. h’. De domni nu să teame (CLRV.: ) of rulers.ACC not CL.REFL.ACC.SG fears ‘He is not afraid of rulers’ vs. h’’. că eu încă tem pre Domnedzeu (PO.: ) because I still fear.PRES.SG DOM God.ACC ‘because I am still afraid of God’ The interjection vai ‘oh, woe’ enters the same type of variation.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
()
Vai lumii de zminteale ( . . . ), însă vai de but woe of woe world.DEF.DAT of madness.PL omul acela ( . . . ) (NT.: v) that.M man.M.DEF.ACC ‘Woe to the mad world ( . . . ) and poor man’
Note that the verbs crede ‘believe’, râde ‘laugh’, a (se) teme ‘fear’ allow three configurations: with the dative, with a prepositional phrase, and with the accusative. Dat // Acc variation (in which ACC encodes the direct object and DAT the indirect object) involves verbs such as: agiuta/ajuta ‘help’, apăra ‘defend’, auzi ‘hear’, bătjocuri ‘mock’, cruţa ‘spare; forgive’, dosădi ‘hurt’, iubi ‘love’, înţeleage ‘understand’, judeca/giudeca ‘judge’, milui ‘take pity’, menţi/minţi ‘lie’, opri ‘stop’, răbda ‘endure’, sluji ‘serve’, stăpâni ‘rule’, (în)vence ‘defeat’; see examples (a–k). gata agiuta lor (DÎ.: LXXXIX) () a. era be.IMPERF.SG ready AINF help.INF them.DAT ‘he was ready to help them’ vs. a’. Domnul ( . . . ) mă va ajuta (CPr.: ) Lord.DEF.NOM CL.ACC.SG AUX.FUT.SG help.INF ‘The Lord will help me’ b. noao nu apără Domnulu (CC2.: ) us.DAT not protects Lord.DEF.NOM ‘the Lord does not protect us’ vs. b’. să fie slobodzit și apărat de SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG free.PPLE.M.SG and protect.PPLE.M.SG by ei (DÎ.: XC) them.ACC ‘to be set free and protected by them’ c. Domnul audzî-va mie (DPar.: II.r) Lord.DEF.NOM hear.INF=AUX.FUT.SG me.DAT ‘The Lord will hear me’ vs. c’. Audză-te Domnul la dzî de grije (DPar.: II.r) hear.SUBJ.SG=CL.ACC.SG Lord.DEF.NOM at day of sorrow ‘May the Lord hear you at day of sorrow’ d. făcu-i ( . . . ) a se bătjocuri lui (CC2.: ) make.PS.SG=CL.ACC.M.PL AINF CL.REFL.ACC.PL mock.INF him.DAT ‘he made them mock him’ vs. d’. și bătjocuri-voru elu (CC2.: ) and mock.INF=AUX.FUT.PL him.ACC ‘and they will mock him’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntactic frame of verbs and syntactic variation
e. că Domnul cruţa lui (PO.: ) that lord.DEF.NOM forgive.IMPERF.SG him.DAT ‘that the Lord forgave him’ vs. e’. de merg pre leage, tu mă cruţă (MC.: v) if follow.PRES.SG on law you.SG CL.ACC.SG forgive.IMP.SG ‘If I walk in your law, forgive me’ f. nu le e lăsatu de la Hristosu să not CL.DAT.PL is leave.PPLE from Christ SĂSUBJ dosădească noao (CC2.: ) us.DAT hurt. SUBJ.PL ‘Jesus did not let them hurt us’ vs. f ’. carii pre ei dosădesc (PO.: ) who.DEF.NOM DOM them.ACC hurt.PRES.PL ‘which hurt them’ g. Nu iubi hicleanilor (PH.–: v) not love.IMP.SG sly.PL.DEF.DAT ‘Do not love the cunning ones’ vs. g’. Domnul iubeaște derepţii (PH.–: r) righteous.PL.DEF.ACC lord.DEF.NOM loves ‘The Lord loves the righteous’ h. voi nu înţeleasetu legei mele și you.NOM not understand.PS.PL law.F.DEF.DAT my.F.DAT and scripturilor mele (MI.~: v) scriptures.F.DEF.DAT my.F.DAT ‘you have not understood my law and my scriptures’ vs. h’. Ce aceastea să înţeleagă arianul (Ev.: ) but these.F.ACC SĂSUBJ understand.SUBJ.SG Arian.DEF.NOM ‘And the Arians shall understand all these’ i.
judecă oamenilor în dereptate (CP1.: v) judges people.DEF.DAT in righteousness.ACC ‘judges people righteously’ vs.
i’. va
veni cu slavă a judeca viii come.INF with glory AINF judge.INF living.PL.DEF.ACC și morţii (CC2.: ) and dead.PL.DEF.ACC ‘will come in glory to judge the living and the dead’ AUX.FUT.SG
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause j. vrăjmașii lui Dumneeu menţiră lie.PS.PL enemies.DEF.NOM LUI.GEN God lui (PH.–: r) him.DAT ‘God’s enemies lied to him’ vs. j’. Fiii streinatici carii mă sons.M.DEF.NOM estranged.M.PL who.PL.DEF.NOM CL.ACC.SG minţâră (DPV.: ) lie.PS.PL ‘The estranged sons who lied to me’ k. sări spre ei ( . . . ) și învâncu loru (CV.–: r) rush.PS.SG towards them.ACC and defeat.PS.SG them.DAT ‘he rushed upon them and defeated them’ vs. k’. prea ai învâncutu ucenicii miei (CC2.: ) too AUX.PERF.SG defeat.PPLE disciples.M.DEF.ACC my.M ‘you defeated my disciples completely’
Acc // PP variation occurs with verbs or verbal collocations such as: a-și aduce aminte ‘remember’, cunoaște ‘know’, dori ‘wish’, gândi ‘think’, lua aminte ‘listen; pay attention’, părăsi ‘leave, abandon’, a (se) tăgădui ‘deny’, a (se) tânji ‘long (for)’; see examples such as (a–f). () a. Adu-ţi aminte numai aceasta (Ev.: ) this.F.SG.ACC remember.IMP.SG=CL.REFL.DAT.SG only ‘Remember only this’ vs. a’. Adu-ţi aminte, o ome, de moartea remember.IMP.SG=CL.REFL.DAT.SG oh man.VOC of death.F.DEF.ACC ta (CC2.: ) your.F ‘Oh, man, remember your death’ b. tu cunoscuși cărările meale (CP1.: v) you know.PS.SG paths.F.DEF.ACC my.F ‘you knew my paths’ vs. b’. cunoscui de mărturiile tale (CP1.: r) know.PS.SG of confessions.F.DEF.ACC your.F ‘I knew your testimonies’ c. Sufletul necuratului doreaște răul (DPar.: III.r) harm.DEF.ACC oul.DEF.NOM NEG-clean.M.DEF.GEN wants ‘The devil’s soul only wants to do harm’ vs.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntactic frame of verbs and syntactic variation
c’. dorind de feciori (CLRV.: ) wish.GER of sons.ACC ‘wanting (to have) sons’ d. ia aminte strigarea mea (PB.: ) listen.IMP.SG yell.DEF.ACC my ‘behold my yell’ vs. d’. ia aminte de ea (Ev.: ) listen.IMP.SG of her.ACC ‘behold her’ vs. d’’. Ia aminte glasului rugii meale (DPar.: II.v) listen.IMP.SG voice.DEF.DAT worship.F.DEF.GEN my.F ‘Behold the voice of my prayer’ e. giumătate de oaste fugisă ( . . . ), părăsisă și half.NOM of army run.PLUPERF.SG leave.PLUPERF.SG also pușcile (CLM.–: r) guns.DEF.ACC ‘half of the army had run and left the guns’ vs. e’. Părăsâţ de vicleșugurile voastre (DPar.: II.r) stop.IMP.PL of cheating.DEF.ACC your ‘Stop your cunning deeds’ f. Tânjiia elu aceasta (CC2.: ) long.IMPERF.SG he.NOM this.F.ACC ‘He was longing for this’ vs. f ’. începură a tânji de Iacov și de Ioan (Ev.: ) begin.PS.PL AINF long.INF of Jacob.ACC and of John.ACC ‘they began to long for Jacob and John’ The transitive // intransitive variation (with a prepositional argument, a dative argument, or without an internal argument) also occurs with the verbs domni, împărăţi ‘rule’ (a,b) and with some motion-locative or stative-locative verbs, such as îmbla ‘walk’, înota ‘swim’, întra ‘enter’, lăcui ‘live’ (c–g). () a. voru pune turcu de va domni AUX.FUT.PL put.INF Turk.ACC and AUX.FUT.SG rule.INF ţeara noastră (DÎ.: XVIII) country.F.DEF.ACC our.F ‘they will appoint a Turk to rule our country’ vs.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause a’. Ștefan vodă domnind în Moldova (ULM.~: v) in Moldova.ACC Stephen voivode rule.GER ‘Stephen the Great ruling Moldova’ b. cela ce împărăţiia răsărita și that.NOM who rule.IMPERF.SG east.DEF.ACC and apusul (FD.–: r) west.DEF.ACC ‘the one who ruled the East and the West’ vs. b’. Ioathan și Ahaz și Ezechie, carii Ioathan.NOM and Achas.NOM and Ezechias.NOM who.DEF împărăţâră Iiudiei (DPar.: II.v) Judah.DAT rule.PS.PL ‘Ioathan, Achas, and Ezechias, who ruled Judah’ vs. b’’. și împărăţi de tot de ai (MC.: v) and rule.PS.SG in all thirty.eight of years ‘and he ruled for years in all’ c. nu veţi îmbla orașele izrailetenești (NT.: r) not AUX.FUT.PL walk.INF cities.DEF.ACC Israeli.PL ‘you will not walk the cities of Israel’ vs. c’. Și îmbla Iisus pren toate orașăle (NT.: r) and walk.IMPERF.SG Jesus.NOM through all.F.PL cities.DEF.ACC ‘And Jesus went through all the cities’ d. câţi au și înotat how.many.M.NOM AUX.PERF.PL also swim.PPLE Prutul (CLM.–: r) Prut.DEF.ACC ‘how many did really swim the Prut’ vs. d’. ceia ce înoată pre mare (CC2.: ) those who swim.PRES.PL on sea.ACC ‘those who are swimming on the sea’ e. nu va putea întra împărăţiia ceriului (ȘT.: ) not AUX.FUT.SG can.INF enter.INF empire.DEF.ACC sky.DEF.GEN ‘he will not able to enter the kingdom of God’ vs. e’. Deaci întraiu întru Damascu (CV.–: v) Damascus.ACC so enter.PS.SG in ‘So I entered Damascus’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntactic frame of verbs and syntactic variation
hananeii atuncea lăcuia pământul (BB.: ) live.IMPERF.PL earth.DEF.ACC Chaldeans.DEF.NOM then ‘then, there were the Chaldeans who lived on earth’ vs. f ’. Avram lăcui în pământul lui Abraham.NOM live.PS.SG in territory.DEF.ACC LUI.GEN Hanaan (BB.: ) Chanaan ‘Abraham lived in the Land of Chanaan’ g. umblă pământul și în lungul walk.IMP.SG earth.DEF.ACC and in long.DEF lui și în lat (BB.: ) and in breadth his.GEN ‘walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it’ vs. g’. care umblă în pădure (CDicţ.–: ) who.NOM walks in forest.ACC ‘who walks in the forest’ f.
There are some other intransitive unlocative verbs (see tăcea ‘keep silent; ignore’) that exhibit the same type of variation: intransitive (non-reflexive (a) or reflexive (a’)) vs. transitive (a’’). () a. porunci să tacă (SVI.~: r) order.PS.SG SĂSUBJ keep.silent.SUBJ.SGPL ‘he ordered him to keep silent’ vs. a’. omul călcătoriu de leage să man.M.DEF disobedient.M.SG of law CL.REFL.ACC.SG va tăcea (DPar.: II.r) AUX.FUT.SG keep.silent.INF ‘the man who breaks the law will keep silent’ vs. a’’. lacrămele meale nu le-ai tears.F.DEF.ACC my.F not CL.ACC.F.PL=AUX.PERF.SG tăcut (SVI.~: r) ignore.PPLE ‘you have not ignored my tears’ The SecO // Dat // PP variation occurs with ditransitive verbs such as învăța ‘teach’ (}...). () a. cărările Tale învaţă-mă (Mol.: ) paths.F.DEF.ACCNOM Your.F teach.IMP.SG=CL.ACC.SG ‘teach me Your paths’ vs.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause a’. cărărilor tale învaţă-mă (CP1.: v) paths.F.DEF.DAT your.F teach.IMP.SG=CL.ACC.SG ‘teach me your ways’ vs. a’’. carei sântu învăţaţi într-aceastea (CC2.: ) teach.PPLE.M.PL in-these.F who.PL.DEF are ‘who are taught these things’
The variation between subjectless verbs and subject-taking verbs occurs in the following types of configuration: (i) psych verbs, with a Dative Experiencer and a prepositional Theme; the last component can be realized alternatively as a nominal subject (). () a. mi se-au CL.DAT.SG CL.REFL.IMPERS=AUX.PERF.SG acealea (FD.–: v) those.F.ACC ‘I have had enough of those’ vs.
urât have.enough.PPLE
de of
a’. să
urâsă turcilor aceaste have.enough.PLUPERF.PL Turks.DAT these.F dodeiale (CLM.–: r) troubles.NOM ‘the Turks had enough of those troubles’ CL.REFL.IMPERS
(ii) verbs of physical sensation/psych verbs, with an accusative Experiencer, a Source/ Cause realized as a PP, and a Locative (encoding the location of the physical sensation); the Locative is sometimes realized as a nominal subject and other times is unrealized (). ()
a. o
durea inema pentru boala hurt.IMPERF.SG heart.DEF.NOM for illness.DEF.ACC featei-șu (CC2.: ) girl.DEF.GEN=CL.REFL.POSS.SG ‘she was suffering so much because of her girl’s illness’ vs. a’. nici-lu doare de elu (CC2.: ) not.even=CL.ACC.M.SG hurts of him.ACC ‘he doesn’t even suffer because of him’ CL.ACC.F.SG
(iii) meteorological verbs, with an empty subject position (a) or, in other constructions, with an Agent Subject (a’) or a (locative) Source Subject (a’’); the constructions that undergo ‘personalization’ are also recorded as transitive (a’); see also }....
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntactic frame of verbs and syntactic variation
() a. Cându va tuna să nu margă when AUX.FUT.SG thunder.INF SĂSUBJ not go.SUBJ.SG sup copaci (CLRV.: ) under trees.ACC ‘When it thunders, one shall not hide under trees’ vs. a’. Iaca voiu ploia mâne în acesta ceas AUX.FUT.SG rain.INF tomorrow in this hour behold grindinea vărtos multă (PO.: ) much.F hail.ACC very ‘Behold, for tomorrow at this time I will send great hail’ a’’. Să tulbură mările și CL.REFL.ACC.PL become.muddy.PRES.PL seas.DEF.NOM and ceriul nuoreadză (NL.~–: ) cloud.over.PRES.SG sky.DEF.NOM ‘The seas are getting muddy and the sky becomes cloudy’ .. (Non-argumental) variation between reflexive and non-reflexive verbs In the old language, the inventory of reflexive verbs (with a non-anaphoric reflexive clitic) which can also function as non-reflexives is very rich: (i) with an accusative reflexive clitic – a (se) apropia ‘approach’, a (se) bătrâni ‘grow old’, a (se) bolnăvi ‘get sick’, (impersonal) a (se) cădea ‘befit’, a (se) crește ‘grow up’, a (se) cugeta ‘meditate’, a (se) cutedza ‘dare’, a (se) domni ‘rule’, a (se) făgădui ‘promise’, a (se) greși ‘err’, a (se) griji ‘take care’, a (se) izbândi ‘defeat’, a (se) îmbogăţi ‘get rich’, a (se) împăca ‘reconcile’, a (se) întuneca ‘get dark’, a (se) mărturisi ‘confess’, a (se) nedejdui ‘hope’, a (se) nevoi ‘endeavour’, a (se) odihni ‘rest’, a (se) posti ‘fast’, a (se) răbda ‘endure’, a (se) sătura ‘become tired (of )’, a (se) sfătui ‘advise’, a (se) supăra ‘become upset’, a (se) tânji ‘long (for)’, a (se) usteni ‘weary’, a (se) veseli ‘rejoice’, a (se) viscoli ‘blow a blizard’, a (se) zăbovi ‘linger’, etc. (ii) with a dative reflexive clitic – a(-și) bate joc ‘mock’, a(-și) dzăcea ‘lie down’, a(-și) gândi ‘think’, a(-și) înceta ‘stop’, a(-și) întreba ‘ask’, a(-și) merge ‘go’, a(-și) râde ‘to laugh’, a(-și) semăna ‘resemble’, a(-și) ști ‘know’, a(-și) umbla/îmbla ‘walk’, a(-și) vrea ‘want’; see examples such as (a–g); a very rich list can be found at Drăganu : and Densusianu II: –; see also }.... () a. cu multă bucurie se apropie la noi (Ev.: ) CL.REFL.ACC.SG approaches to us.ACC with much joy ‘he approaches us with much joy’ vs. a’. iată, dragii miei, al mieu apropie behold, dear.M.PL my.M.PL AL.M.SG my.M approaches cătră mine (Ev.: ) towards me.ACC ‘behold, my dear, mine is coming closer to me’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause b. De aceștia de toţi Domnul îș of these.M of all.M Lord.DEF.NOM CL.REFL.DAT.SG bate joc (Ev.: ) mocks ‘The Lord mocks them all’ vs. b’. și îngerii lui bat joc de tine (Ev.: ) also angels.DEF.NOM his.GEN mock.PRES.PL of you.ACC ‘and his angels mock you’ c. și domnu-miu se-au and husband.DEF-my.M CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG bătrânit (PO.: ) get.old.PPLE ‘and my husband got old’ vs. c’. Avraam bătrâni (PO.: ) Abraham get.old.PS.SG ‘Abraham grew old’ d. cade-le-se să se befits=CL.DAT.PL=CL.REFL.IMPERS SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.PL facă călugări (Prav.: r) monks.NOM become.SUBJ.PL ‘it is appropriate for them to become monks’ vs. d’. nu li cadi să lăcuiască ( . . . ) (DÎ.: CXV) not CL.DAT.PL befits SĂSUBJ live.SUBJ.PL ‘it is not appropriate for them to live . . . ’ e. Cire au postit, cire nu who.NOM AUX.PERF.SG fast.PPLE who.NOM not se-a postit (MI.~: v) CL.REFL.ACC.SG fast.PPLE ‘Who fasted or not’ f. Numai ce-ţ lipsiia să-ţ only that=CL.DAT.SG miss.IMPERF.SG SĂSUBJ=CL.REFL.DAT.SG râzi de mine! (VE.: v) laugh.SUBJ.SG of me.ACC ‘You were on the point of laughing at me!’ vs. f ’. ce vă râdeţ de obrazul why CL.REFL.DATACC.PL laugh.PRES.PL of face.M.DEF.ACC mieu? (VE.: r) ‘Why are you laughing at my face?’ vs.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntactic frame of verbs and syntactic variation
f ’’. și eu de a voastră perire voi also I of AL.F.SG your.F perishing AUX.FUT.SG râde (DPar.: II.v) laugh.INF ‘and I shall laugh at your perishing’ g. ca să-ș dzacă cu in.order SĂSUBJ=CL.REFL.DAT.SG lie.SUBJ.SG with muiarea lui (FD.–: v) wife.DEF.ACC his.GEN ‘in order to sleep with his wife’ vs. g’. Pohtiră ( . . . ) să dzacă cu-nusele (FD.–: v) SĂSUBJ lie.SUBJ.PL with-them.F.ACC wish.PS.PL ‘they wished ( . . . ) that he slept with them’ In some texts the number of verbs with a variant reflexive clitic is striking. In CDicţ.–, accusative clitic verbs are predominant: mă alergu ‘I run’ (, , , ), mă amorţăscu ‘I get benumbed’ (), mă crescu ‘I grow’ (, ), mă deger ‘I freeze to death’(), mă încăruntezu ‘I am turning grey-haired’ (), mă întârziescu ‘I am late’ (), mă latru ‘I bark’ (), mă lâncezăscu ‘I languish’ (, ), mă muţescu ‘I become dumb’ (), mă stau ‘I stay’ (, ), mă turbăzu ‘I go rabid’ (), mă zacu ‘I lie down’(); in other texts, dative variants are more frequent: a-și lăcui ‘live’ (CLM.–: v), a-și merge ‘go’ (Cron.: ; CLM.–: v), a-și umbla ‘walk’ (ULM.~: v), a-și vrea ‘want’ (CLM.–: v), etc. .. Variation in the selection of the preposition Except for some verbs which, as early as the sixteenth century, subcategorize for a certain preposition (a se dezlega de ‘deny’, a se feri de ‘avoid’, a se griji de ‘take care’, izbăvi de ‘save’, a se lăsa de ‘quit’, a se mira de ‘be surprised’, a se plânge de ‘complain’, a se umple de ‘get filled’; see also }...), most verbs, especially those that have a circumstantial role in their grid (Locative, Goal, Path, Source), do not select a unique preposition: a se apropia ‘get close’ de ‘of ’/ cătră ‘towards’/ la ‘at’; a avea parte ‘experience’ de ‘of ’/ cu ‘with’; a se bucura ‘rejoice’ de ‘of ’/ despre ‘about’/ la ‘at’/ dereptu ‘for’/ în ‘in’/ întru ‘in’/ pentru ‘for’; crede ‘believe’ de ‘of ’/ în ‘in’/ întru ‘in’, etc. (}}...; .). .. General characteristics of variations ... Characteristics in common with MR Examining the typology of variations, as well as the numerous exemplifications for each type of variation, the following conclusions emerge: (i) OR and MR are characterized by the same types of variation, but their frequency is different in the two stages of the language.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause (ii) The same syntactic positions exhibit a higher degree of instability, showing a greater propensity towards variation (Dat, SecO, the subject of non-agentive psych verbs and of physical sensation verbs, the locative subject, the nonargumental reflexive). (iii) The two stages of the language have in common not only the types of variation, but also certain verbs which exhibit variations even in the present-day language: – for the Dat // PP variation, see the inherent reciprocal verbs in MR a se asemăna (cuiva // cu cineva) ‘resemble.INF someone.DAT // with someone. ACC’, a se împreuna (cuiva // cu cineva) ‘unite.INF someone.DAT // with someone.ACC’; – for the Dat // Acc alternation, see the verbs ajuta (cuiva // pe cineva) ‘help. INF someone.DAT // DOM someone.ACC’, sluji (cuiva // pe cineva) ‘serve.INF someone.DAT // DOM someone.ACC’; – for the Acc // PP variation, see the verbs a-și aduce aminte (ceva // de ceva) ‘AINF=CL.REFL.DAT.SG remember.INF something.ACC // of something.ACC’, asculta (pe cineva // de cineva) ‘listen.INF DOM somebody.ACC // of somebody.ACC’; – for the SecO // PP variation, see învăţa (pe cineva ceva // pe cineva la ceva) ‘teach.INF DOM somebody.ACC something.NOMACC // DOM somebody.ACC // at something.ACC’; – for non-agentive psych verbs or verbs of physical sensation (S(ubject) // PP), see a-i plăcea (ceva // de ceva) ‘AINF=CL.DAT.SG like.INF something.NOM // of something.ACC’, a-i sta bine (ceva // cu ceva) ‘AINF=CL.DAT.SG go.INF well something.NOM // with something.ACC’; – for the reflexive vs. non-reflexive variation, see verbs such as: a (se) albi (la faţă) ‘AINF (CL.REFL.ACC.SG) get.white.INF (in the face)’, a (se) boci ‘AINF (CL. REFL.ACC.SG) cry.INF ’, a (se) coaliza ‘AINF (CL.REFL.ACC.SG) coalesce.INF ’, a (se) jura ‘AINF (CL.REFL.ACC.SG) swear.INF ’, a (se) lăcomi ‘AINF (CL.REFL.ACC.SG) hanker.INF ’, a (se) oua ‘AINF (CL.REFL.ACC.SG) lay.eggs.INF ’, a (se) rânji ‘AINF (CL.REFL.ACC.SG) grin.INF ’, a (se) roși (la faţă) ‘AINF (CL.REFL.ACC.SG) get.red. INF (in the face)’, a (se/-și) râde ‘AINF (CL.REFL.ACC.SG // CL.REFL.DAT.SG) laugh.INF ’, a (se) scânci ‘AINF (CL.REFL.ACC.SG) whine.INF ’, a i (se) cășuna ‘AINF CL.DAT.SG (CL.REFL.ACC.SG) dawn.upon.INF ’); see also the class of unaccusatives entering variations in MR (Dragomirescu : ). (iv) There are many variant configurations that were eliminated from standard Romanian; however, in certain cases, the second construction is preserved in fixed, clichéd contexts (), or is maintained in dialects (constructions such as: a teme pe cineva ‘AINF fear.INF DOM somebody.ACC’, a dori de ceva // de cineva ‘AINF wish of something.ACC // somebody.ACC’ (DGDS II: ), a tânji ceva ‘AINF long.INF something.ACC’).
()
Nu-și crede ochilor și urechilor not=CL.DAT.REFL.SG believes eyes.DEF.DAT and ears.DEF.DAT ‘He does not believe his eyes and ears’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The syntactic frame of verbs and syntactic variation
(v) For each verb with a variant syntax, one of the configurations was predominant as early as the old period. The quantitative data in Tables .–. show that one construction is numerically inferior or is altogether absent in some texts. In the case of iubi ‘love’, the complete elimination of the dative variant is very clear; in the case of the verbs a se atinge ‘touch’, a se bucura ‘rejoice’, muri ‘die’, quantitative data only indicate a possible elimination of the dative configuration; verbs like opri ‘stop’ and judeca ‘judge’ have not decided yet for a specific evolution; as early as the old language, a verb like cruța ‘forgive’ is encountered with the dative only in one translated text (PO.).
T . Verbs with a variant syntax The verb in the text
+Dat
+PP
a se atinge ‘touch’ (CC2.)
.%
.%
a se bucura ‘rejoice’ (CC .)
%
%
muri ‘die’ (CC2.)
%
%
–
%
2
a se teme ‘fear’ (Ev.) a se veseli ‘rejoice’ (CC2.)
.%
a se veseli ‘rejoice’ (Ev.)
–
.% %
T . Verbs with a variant syntax The verb in the text
+Dat
cruţa ‘forgive’ (PO.)
%
+Acc –
cruţa ‘forgive’ (CC2.)
–
iubi ‘love’ (CC2.)
.%
iubi ‘love’ (PO.)
–
%
judeca ‘judge’ (CC2.)
%
%
sluji ‘serve’ (CC2.)
%
%
% .%
T . Verbs with a variant syntax The verb in the text
+Dat
+Acc
+PP
nădăjdui ‘hope’ (CC .)
.%
.%
%
opri ‘stop’ (CC .)
%
.%
.%
râvni ‘long’ (Ev.)
%
%
2
2
%
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause (vi) Most types of variation are also found in other Romance old languages or idioms (Ledgeway : exemplifies, for Old Neapolitan, inaccusatives with transitive and causative usage, unergatives with transitive usages, etc.).
... Differences from MR What differs between OR and MR is, on the one hand, the higher frequency of variant syntactic configurations in general and the higher frequency of certain types of variations, and, on the other hand, the different inventory of verbs entering the same type of variation. In the old language, from the variant classes of verbs, the following are notably frequent: (i) verbs taking dative arguments (Dat // PP and Dat // Acc and, sometimes, with multiple variation Dat // Acc // PP); (ii) verbs involved in the reflexive variation. Both classes are better represented in OR than in MR. Note that variations first affect unaccusative verbs (from the total number of verbs, only a few agentive verbs occur in these inventories); it should also be noticed that the reflexive variation affects almost exclusively unaccusative verbs (except for dative reflexive clitic variants a(-și) merge ‘AINF (=CL.REFL.DAT.SG) go.INF ’, a(-și) umbla ‘AINF (=CL.REFL.DAT.SG) walk.INF ’, where the dative reflexive has an ‘ethical’ value). ... Possible explanations of variations The explanations for the different types of variation are numerous, some external and some internal to the system of the language. Irrespective of their type, there is only one explanation for the high frequency of variation: syntactic norms were not thoroughly established in the sixteenth century, which caused hesitations and variations in the same text, even in proximity. With regard to translations, this may further explain the ease with which a foreign syntactic pattern may be taken over. (i) For the very numerous variations in which the dative is involved in the old language, Slavic and Hungarian influences—the translator taking over the syntactic pattern in the source language—have been invoked by researchers. Verbs like a se asemăna ‘resemble’, a(-și) bate joc ‘mock’, a se bucura ‘rejoice’, conteni/cuntiri ‘stop’, crede ‘believe’, dodei ‘upset somebody’, judeca ‘judge’, împiedica ‘hinder’, a se învăţa ‘get accustomed’, a se lepi ‘approach’, opri ‘stop’, a se podobi ‘resemble’, a se ruga ‘pray’, a se teme ‘fear’ take a dative argument as in the Slavic original (Candrea : CCVII; Densusianu II: –). The verb a cruţa ‘save’ taking a dative DP is influenced by Hungarian (Densusianu II: ; Gafton and Arvinte : ), but also by Latin (Fischer : ; Avram a: –); this explains the occurrence of the configuration with the dative not only in one text of the sixteenth century (PO.), which is a translation from Hungarian, but also in Cantemir’s texts, where the Latin influence was very strong. However, not all the variations in which the dative is involved can be explained through the influence of the source text. Dative variations are also found in original texts or in texts that are less influenced by the original writings (i.e. in narrative texts); in these texts the dative is encountered in variant constructions, being replaced either by the accusative or by a prepositional structure. The replacement is facilitated by the polyfunctionality of the dative (Source dative, Goal dative, Purpose dative, Path
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
dative, Benefactive dative, Reciprocal dative), for which prepositional structures have the ability to disambiguate the different values covered by the dative: a se asemăna cu ‘resemble’, cere/cerși de la ‘ask/beg from’, crede în/întru ‘believe in’, a se împreuna cu ‘unite with’, a se lipi de ‘get close to’, a se logodi cu ‘become engaged with’, muri pentru ‘die for’, nădăjdui spre/în ‘hope’, etc. In the case of the verb menți ‘lie’, the dative configuration probably has an etymological explanation (it occurs in Latin and other Romance languages); the accusative configuration distinguishes Romanian from other Romance languages. (ii) For reflexive vs. non-reflexive variation, also very well represented in the old language, the Slavic pattern should be invoked, where either the same verb or a reflexive counterpart of the Romanian verb is used. Note that the majority of the Slavic verbs which were subsequently eliminated from use are reflexive: a se blăzni ‘be mistaken’, a se ciudi ‘be surprised’, a se dodei ‘upset’, a se dostoi ‘deserve’, a se gunosi ‘be disgusted with something’, a se milcui ‘ask for pity’, a se milosârdi ‘be forgiving’, a se nădăi ‘hope’, a se obrăzi ‘misbehave’, a se pristăvi ‘die’, a se spodobi ‘deserve’, etc. (for the inventory of reflexive verbs eliminated from use after the sixteenth century, see Densusianu II: –). It will not do to attribute all the reflexive variations to translations and the influence of the source text. It should not be overlooked that reflexive variation is encountered equally in both translated and original texts and is well represented even in the present-day language in dialects (TDR: , ) as well as in the standard language. From a quantitative point of view, in Romanian, the feature of reflexivity practically became a marker of unaccusatitivity, particularly for change of state unaccusatives (Dragomirescu : –). Moreover, especially in the oral, non-standard register, reflexivity (with an accusative or dative clitic) also stands for the speaker’s involvement in the discourse (see }...). There is, then, plenty of reason to consider reflexive variation in the old language as rather more than a matter of loan translation. The latter may account for the variation in individual verbs, but not for the abundance and persistence of the phenomenon.
. Argument structure .. The subject ... Preliminary remarks The characteristics of the subject as used in the present-day language (GR: –) were already established in the sixteenth century: as a pro-drop language, the subject could be left unrealized and, in a way closely related to the pro-drop phenomenon, it allowed inversion with the verb and extraction from the subordinate clause (Rizzi ). Non-finite forms could have their own subject, and there were also instances of unrealized subjects. Romanian did not have an expletive pronominal subject such as Fr. il or Engl. it, nor an existential presentative structure such as Fr. Il y a. There did not exist a non-definite human subject as Fr. on, genericity and impersonality being marked by numerous other means. In the position of the subject, Romanian did not allow pronominal clitics. Romanian already exhibited the features of a V-S-O language.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
After the sixteenth century, the dynamics of the subject involve the use rather than the system of the language: there are phenomena with a higher frequency in the old than in the present-day language, certain structures were subject to a greater variation, and certain configurations employed in the sixteenth century were eliminated from use subsequently. ... Realized vs. unrealized pronominal subject As in MR, the st and nd person singular and plural subject is prototypically unrealized in pragmatically unmarked constructions, being completely recoverable from the verb and/or a reflexive clitic inflection (). Realization of the st and nd person subject occurs in one of the following contexts: when the predicate is missing (such as gapping contexts) (a); when the subject is realized as a politeness pronoun (b); in a focus and/or contrast context (c); or in cases in which the referents are stressed or referred to by supplementary information (d). The emphasis effect is realized additionally by association with other intensifiers (the adverbial și ‘also’ (d) or the (adjectival +) pronominal (singur) însuși alone.M himself.M ‘he himself ’ (e); see }}..; ..). The frequency of the intensifiers însuși and singur in the subject position, especially in translated texts, was interpreted by researchers as a loan translation from Slavonic (Sl. camm meant both însuși ‘himself ’ and singur ‘alone’; Stan a: ). ()
Pusu-ne-am și degetele mai put.PPLE=CL.REFL.DAT.PL=AUX.PERF.PL also fingers.DEF.ACC more jos (DÎ.: V) below ‘We put our fingers below’
()
a. mie lumea se-au răstignitu, me.DAT world.DEF.NOM CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG crucify.PPLE și eu √ lumiei (CC2.: ) and I world.DEF.DAT ‘the people crucified for me and I crucified for the people’ b. Și așa să știţi domnievoastră că ( . . . ) (DÎ.: XVIII) and like.this SĂSUBJ know.SUBJ.PL you.POL.NOM that ‘And you should know that . . . ’ c. Că cumu mă știe părintele, și eu that how CL.ACC.SG knows father.DEF.NOM also I știu părintele (CC2.: ) know.PRES.SG father.DEF.ACC ‘As my father knows me, I also know my father’ d. Și aș fi venit și eu pri la dumniia-voastră, and AUX.COND.SG be come.PPLE also I on to Highness-your iar eu n-am putut (DÎ.–: XXV) but I not=AUX.PERF.SG can.PPLE ‘And I would have come to you, but I couldn’t’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
e. că aceastea ( . . . ) singur însuș el au alone himself he AUX.PERF.SG that these.ACC dobândit (CC1.: r) obtain.PPLE ‘that he obtained all these by himself ’ The frequent realization of the st person subject (eu ‘I’ (a) and noi ‘we’ (b)) is a special feature of official and unofficial documents throughout the old period (Frâncu : ); for example, in DÎ, there are occurrences of the personal subject eu ‘I’, and occurrences of the subject noi ‘we’. () a. Scriș eu, călugăriţa Mariia (DÎ.–: VIII) nun.DEF.NOM Maria.NOM write.PS.SG I ‘I, nun Maria, wrote’ b. noi încă ne-am pus peceţile (DÎ.: LXI) we still CL.REFL.DAT.PL=AUX.PERF.PL put.PPLE stamps.DEF.ACC ‘we still put our seals’ In introductory sentences from the documents, the pronouns eu ‘I’ and noi ‘we’ are frequently associated with the presentative adverbial adecă ‘that is’, followed by a proper name (a) or by the status/position of the one who writes (b), which function together as an authentication formula. In some documents, the sequence adecă eu ‘that is, I’ is replaced by the Slavonic formula Eto a(z) (c) (}..; see also Zafiu a), which indicates the (Slavonic) foreign source of the pattern. Judging by the frequency of occurrence, it can be claimed that the sequences adecă eu/eto az (literally, ‘there is me’) had become a lexical-syntactic cliché of the sixteenth-century administrative documents and letters ( occurrences in DÎ), being a first sign for the formation of the administrative style (Chivu : ). () a. Adecă eu, Marin o(t) Boldești, scris-am acest that.is I Marin of Boldești write.PPLE=AUX.PERF.SG this zapis (DÎ.: VII) deed.ACC ‘That is, I, Marin of Boldești, wrote this deed’ b. Adecă noi, sătenii ot Boldești, scriem și that.is we villagers of Boldești write.PRES.PL and mărturisim (DRH.B.: ) testify.PRES.PL ‘That is, we, the villagers of Boldești, write and testify ( . . . )’ c. Eto a(z) Druţea scriu și mărturisescu that is I Druţea write.PRES.SG and confess.PRES.SG eu (DÎ.: LXI) I ‘That is, I, Druțea, write and confess’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
As early as the first administrative and legislative documents, the subject noi ‘we’ also occurs with a monoreferential usage, first to denote the clerical and administrative authority (DÎ.: XXXI), then, beginning with the seventeenth century, also royal authority (). ()
noi, Radul voievod (; apud Chivu : ) we Radu.DEF voivode ‘we, voivode Radu . . . ’
As in MR, the rd person unrealized subject occurs in the following situations: (i) subjects controlled by matrix control verbs, in non-finite clauses (a); (ii) subjects with a referent entirely retrievable from the context (b); (iii) subjects with an unidentified referent (c), or only vaguely identified (d,e). ()
a. celu ce ( . . . ) nu poate a mearge PROSG pre urma that who not can.PRES.SG AINF on footstep.DEF follow.INF Domnului (CC2.: ) God.DEF.GEN ‘the one who cannot follow God’ b. Moisii ( . . . ) luă o parte a sângelui Moses take.PS.SG a part AL.F.SG blood.DEF.GEN și-l proi băgă în căţân (PO.: ) and=CL.ACC.M.SG introduce.PS.SG in bowl.ACC ‘Moses took some blood and poured it in the bowl’ vechi (FD.–: v) c. ØS spune în cărţile says in books.DEF.ACC old.PL ‘In old books it is said that’ d. precum mai josu va urma ØS (DÎ.: CXIII) as more below AUX.FUT.SG continue.INF ‘as follows below’ e. la toate îi mergiia ØS at all.F.PL CL.DAT.SG go.IMPERF.SG ‘he was lucky everywhere’
cu noroc (ULM.~: r) with luck
For the subject with unidentified referent of dicendi verbs (spune, zice, grăi ‘say’, povesti ‘relate; tell a story’) or of verbs contextually assimilated by the class of dicendi verbs (scrie ‘write’), both the rd person singular (c), (a) and rd person plural forms (b) are used. ()
Povestește într-o carte ( . . . ) că ( . . . ) (Prav.: ) that relates in=a book.ACC ‘And it is written in a book ( . . . ) that ( . . . )’ în scriptura b. Păntru pacili ØS grăiesc speak.PRES.PL in scripture.DEF.ACC for peace.PL.ACC Rimului (FD.–: r) Rome.GEN ‘In the scripture of Rome they talk about peace’
a. ØS
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
Non-realization and lack of specification of the rd person referent is employed even in the present-day language similarly to the old language: the verb is encountered only in the rd person singular form (Spune la radio says at radio ‘They say on the radio’; see GR: ). What is interesting about the dynamics of this structure is the recategorization mechanism undergone by dicendi verbs with unrealized subjects. On the one hand, we witness the transition of the configuration to the pattern of subjectless verbs (îl cheamă CL.ACC.M.SG calls, îi zice CL.DAT.M.SG says ‘he is called’ (() type; see also }...(iv)). On the other hand, we observe pragmaticalization contexts in which the verb zice ‘say’ without subject acquires the function of a quotational, evidential marker. The change of status is verified either by the parenthetic usage of the verb (a) or by the occurrence in the same context of the evidential marker and the proper verb, the latter in a modal form (subjunctive perfect) with an evidential value (b). ()
a. cine va creade, zice, lu who AUX.FUT.SG believe.INF say.PRES.SG LUI.DAT Dumnezeu (CC2.: ) God ‘it is said that he who will believe in God’ b. deaca ( . . . ) s-au văzutu călugăr, CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG see.PPLE monk if zicu să fie zisu că ( . . . ) (ULM.~: r) say.PRES.PL SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG say.PPLE that ‘it is said that when he saw himself a monk he said ( . . . )’
After the eighteenth century, this verb form is replaced by the adverbialized cică (< zice că says that ‘It is said that’, which incorporates the complementizer că), with the same evidential function. ... The subject and impersonality As early as the first texts, the typology of impersonal verbs and constructions is syntactically and semantico-syntactically diversified. As in MR, two large classes can be distinguished: the subjectless class (type A), and the class of verbs with an SO type of subject (Ledgeway : ), which remains in situ and does not undergo externalization (type B). .... Type A impersonal verbs Type A includes: (i) Zero-valent verbs, which denote meteorological phenomena or temporal events (a–c). Note the correspondences between Latin and Romanian as given in CDicț.–, which highlight the preservation of the Latin zero-valent verb pattern in Romanian (b,c). () a. Și va să ploae de dzâle and AUX.FUT.SG SĂSUBJ rain.SUBJ.SG of days și de nopţi (Cron.: ) and of nights ‘And it will rain for days and nights’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause b. fulgurat, fulgeră (CDicţ.–: ) fulgurat lighten.PRES.SG ‘there is lightning’ c. noctescit, înnoptează (CDicţ.–: ) noctescit fall.night.PRES.SG ‘night falls’
(ii) Two-argument verbs/periphrases belonging to the class of psych verbs, with both a dative and a prepositional argument, but none of them in the subject position: ()
a. și ne pare bine de sănătatea and CL.DAT.PL feels well of health.DEF.ACC domilor voastre (SB.–: ) Highness.PL.GEN your.PL.GEN ‘and we are happy for Your Highnesses’ health’ b. și părându-le rău pre ei (PO.: ) and feel.GER=CL.DAT.PL badly on them.ACC ‘and feeling sorry for them’ c. amărâi-mă și mi se sadden.PS.SG=CL.REFL.ACC.SG and CL.DAT.SG CL.REFL.IMPERS dodei cu voi (CC2.: ) be.angry.PS.SG with you.PL.ACC ‘I became sad and got angry with you’ d. și mi se-au urât and CL.DAT.SG CL.REFL.IMPERS=AUX.PERF.SG have.enough.PPLE cu minciunele (FD.–: v) with lies.DEF.ACC ‘and I have had enough of lies’ e. Că i se supărase de that CL.DAT.SG CL.REFL.IMPERS have.enough.PLUPERF.SG of aceia (CC2.: ) those.ACC ‘Because he had enough of those’
(iii) Two-argument verbs, belonging to the class of physical sensation verbs or psych verbs, with both an accusative and a prepositional argument, but none in the subject position. () nici-lu doare de elu (CC2.: ) not.even=CL.ACC.M.SG hurts of him.ACC ‘and he does not suffer for him’ (iv) Naming verbs, taking an accusative (or a dative) argument and an objective predicative complement (}...).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
cheamă împărat (FD.–: v) CL.ACC.SG calls emperor.NOMACC ‘and you are called emperor’ b. și-i dzice în limbă jidovească Nisan (Cron.: ) Nisan.NOMACC and=CL.DAT.SG says in language Jewish ‘and in the Jewish language it is called Nisan’
() a. te
All of these verbs are also registered in constructions in which the subject position is filled; the subjectless pattern is one of the most unstable constructions (}...). Although most verbs preserve the subjectless pattern in MR as well, there are a few differences: a i se supăra de/cu has a different meaning (‘upset’), and a i se dodei ‘to sadden’ is totally eliminated from use. .... Type B impersonal verbs Type B (also named semi-impersonals, Salvi and Renzi (eds) : –) can occur with a nominal subject, but the prototypical realization of the subject is the clausal one, as a finite or a non-finite clause; see }....). As in MR, the preferred word order of the subject with impersonal verbs is postverbal (}..). The selecting constructions can be: (i) impersonal verbs, such as a avea ‘exist’, a-i ajunge ‘suffice; have enough’, a (se) cădea (reflexive and non-reflexive) ‘befit; be appropriate’, a se (cu)veni ‘be appropriate; befit’, a se prileji ‘happen’, a sosi ‘have enough’, a se (în)tâmpla ‘happen’, a trebui ‘must’, a fi ‘be’, a (se) putea ‘can’, etc. () a. ca să n-aibă a i in.order SĂSUBJ not=have.SUBJ.SG AINF CL.DAT.SG se părea cuiva (CC2.: ) CL.REFL.IMPERS feel.INF anyone.DAT ‘in order not to seem to anyone’ b. agiunge de să-i pue numai suffices that SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.PL make.SUBJ.SG only să giure (Prav.: ) SĂSUBJ swear.SUBJ.PL ‘it is enough only to make them swear’ c. cade-le-se să se ought=CL.DAT.PL=CL.REFL.IMPERS SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.PL facă călugări (Prav.: r) make.SUBJ.PL monks.NOM ‘it is appropriate for them to become monks’ d. Deaci cade a fi unchiul AINF be.INF uncle.DEF.NOM therefore ought nepot (Prav.: r) nephew.NOM ‘That’s why it is appropriate for the uncle to be a nephew’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause e. ni
cuvine cu multe scârbe a întra ought with many pains AINF enter.INF în părăţiia ceriului (Prav.: v) in empire.DEF.ACC heaven.DEF.GEN ‘we ought to enter the kingdom of heaven in great pain’ CL.DAT.PL
să
CL.REFL.IMPERS
f. Când să va prileji de va when CL.REFL.IMPERS AUX.FUT.SG happen.INF that AUX.FUT.SG fi un cucon micșor (Prav.: ) be.INF a child.NOM little ‘When it happens that a child is little’ g. Și nu ne soseaște câtu and not CL.DAT.PL suffices how.much ne-au robit turcii (DÎ.: XVIII) CL.ACC.PL=AUX.PERF.PL enslave.PPLE Turks.DEF.NOM ‘And we have not enough of being enslaved by the Turks’ h. Tâmplă-se de se duseră happen.PS.SG=CL.REFL.IMPERS that CL.REFL.ACC.PL go.PS.PL în oaste (MC.: r) in army ‘And it happened that they joined the army’ i. trebuiaște să dăm seama păntru ( . . . ) (DÎ.: XLIV) must.PRES.SG SĂSUBJ give.SUBJ.PL answer for ‘we must answer for . . . ’ The selecting impersonal verbs fi ‘be’ and putea ‘can’ have a special situation. The verb fi with existential or modal meanings occurs either in constructions with an infinitival (a) or a subjunctive (b,c) clausal subject, or in existential configurations with a postverbal nominal subject (); it also occurs in periphrastic constructions with a temporal value, made up of the simple past form fu be.PS.SG ‘was’ + cându ‘when’/deaca ‘when’/după ce ‘after’(a–c), which are frequent in biblical translations, where they have been analysed as reproducing periphrastic temporal constructions in the Greek original text (Arvinte : XLVI). ()
a. la judecată, unde ne iaste noao a us.DAT AINF at judgement where CL.DAT.PL is da seamă (CC1.: r) give.INF answer ‘at judgement, when we must account for . . . ’ b. Iar de vă e să nu periţi (A.: r) and if CL.DAT.PL is SĂSUBJ not die.SUBJ.PL ‘And if it happens that you don’t die’ c. ce iaste să fie, nu se poate treace (MC.: v) SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG not CL.REFL.IMPERS can.SG avoid.INF what is ‘and what must happen cannot be avoided’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
fu foamete mare în Ţrigrad (MC.: r) in Constantinople be.PS.SG famine.NOM big ‘there was a great famine in Constantinople’ () a. Și fu căndu sfrâși Isus cuvântul and be.PS.SG when end.PS.SG Jesus.NOM word.DEF.ACC acesta (CT.–: v) this ‘And it was when Jesus finished speaking’ b. Și fu deaca începură oamenii ( . . . ) (BB.: ) and be.PS.SG when start.PS.PL people.PL.DEF.NOM ‘And it happened when people began . . . ’
()
c. Și fu după ce-au îmbătrânit Isaac (BB.: ) and be.PS.SG after that=AUX.PERF.SG get.old.PPLE Isaac.NOM ‘And it was after Isaac got old . . . ’ The impersonal verb putea with modal (epistemic or deontic) values occurs in various other syntactic contexts. The configuration with the indicative and the complementizer că is particularly related to the archaic modal periphrasis poate (a) fi că maybe AINF be.INF that ‘it might have been that’ (b); in OR, this construction shows clear signs of adverbialization, functioning with a modal epistemic value (Zafiu ). In a very few situations (in the investigated corpus, there is only one attestation for the sixteenth century), the complementizer că occurs as adjacent to the adverbialized poate (c). ()
a. Că nu iaste [ca se se poată [doi that not is that SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.IMPERS can.SUBJ.SG two fraţi de tată, de îmă a se brothers.NOM of father of mother AINF CL.REFL.ACC.PL împreuna]] (Prav.: v) couple.INF ‘For it is not allowed that two brothers become a couple’ b. deaca nu să va găsi alt preot ( . . . ), if not CL.REFL.PASS AUX.FUT.SG find.INF other priest.NOM poate fi că-l va cununa can.PRES.SG be.INF that=CL.ACC.M.SG AUX.FUT.SG marry.INF și el (ȘT.: ) also he.NOM ‘if there is no other priest to do it, maybe he will officiate the marriage ceremony for him’ c. Poate că cu noi vei veni (PO.: ) maybe that with us AUX.FUT.SG come.INF ‘Maybe you will come with us’
Since the end of the seventeenth century, the sequences poate fi ‘it may be’ and poate ‘maybe’ have been used more and more as parenthetic adverbials (a,b); in
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
the same period, the modal adverbial poate ‘maybe’ directly followed by the complementizer că ‘that’ extends its usage (c). ()
a. fiind, poate fi, și om de slujbă (CIst.–: v) be.GER may be.INF also man.NOM of service ‘it may be a man in service’ b. poate s-ar fi hainitu (NL.~–: ) maybe CL.REFL.ACC.PL=AUX.COND.PL be.INF become.wicked.PPLE ‘maybe they have become wicked’ c. Poate că ne-am rătăcitu-ne (DPar.: IV.v) maybe that CL.REFL.ACC.PL=AUX.PERF.PL get.lost.PPLE=CL.REFL.ACC.PL ‘Maybe we got lost’
The impersonal verbs fi and avea ‘be’, both with an existential meaning, have a special situation, as they are used in the entire old period under investigation with infinitival relatives (}...) in the subject position (a,b). ()
a. nu e [cinre a face binre] (PH.–: v) not is who.NOM AINF make.INF good ‘there is nobody to do good’ b. neavând [cine o lega] (CLRV.–: ) NEG-have.GER who.NOM CL.ACC.F.SG tie.INF ‘as there was nobody to bind it’
(ii) impersonal constructions made up of the verb fi ‘be’ + AdvP (a–c), the verb fi ‘be’ + NP (d,e), or the verb fi ‘be’ + SupineP // InfP (f); in certain structures, the copula verb can be omitted (c). ()
a. i-e mai bine boala și durearea CL.DAT.SG=is more well illness.DEF.ACC and pain.DEF.ACC a răbda (CC2.: ) AINF endure.INF ‘it is better for him to endure illness and pain’ b. destulu ți-e că e cu lucrarea enough CL.DAT.SG=is that is with work.DEF.ACC Duhului Svânt (Ev.: ) Spirit.DEF.GEN Holy ‘it is enough that it is the Holy Spirit’s work’ c. Bine că știu șî eu pre adeveratul DOM real.DEF.ACC good that know.PRES.SG also I șî nemincinosul Dumnezeu (SVI.~: r) and NEG-lying.DEF.ACC God.ACC ‘It is good that I know the real and truthful God’ d. opu easte voao fără-vorroave se fiţi (CV.–: v) need is you.PL.DAT.PL without-words SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.PL ‘you should keep silent’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
e. greaţă easte după ei a preimi năravu (CV.–: r) hardness is after them AINF receive.INF bad.habit.ACC ‘it is hard to get used to the bad habits’ f. Nu-i de mirat de-a prinde-să not=is DESUP wonder.SUP DE=AINF catch.INF=CL.REFL.PASS neștine furând (DPar.: II.v) anyone.NOM steal.GER ‘It is no wonder when someone is caught stealing’ The supine construction is rare, and it becomes more used only in the second half of the seventeenth century (Dragomirescu a: ). The impersonal pattern as such is preserved in the language, but certain lexical realizations disappear; see (e) opu ‘it is necessary’ < OPUS ‘need’, which even in the sixteenth century occured only in certain texts (Dimitrescu : ). The construction with the selecting interjection (d)zău (< DEUS) ‘seriously; really’ followed by the complementizer că ‘that’ are assimilated by this type of structure. ()
dzău că sânt ţie toate iertate (CM.: v) really.INTERJ that be.PRES.PL you.DAT all.NOM forgiven.F.PL ‘they all are forgiven for real’
(iii) reflexive-passive verbs such as: se adeverează că ‘it is confirmed that’ (DRH. A.: ), se află că ‘it is found that’ (FD.–: r), să cunoștea că ‘it was known that’ (CIst.–: v), dovedindu-se că ‘proving that’ (DRH.A.: ), se grăiește că ‘it is said that’ (MC.: v), s-au hotărât ca ( . . . ) să ‘it was decided that’ (DRH.A.: ), se înţelege că ‘it is understood that’ (AAM.: v), să să știe cum ‘(it should) be known that’ (DÎ.–: II), se va vedea că ‘it will be seen that’ (Prav.: r), se zice că ‘it is said that’ (CC2.: ); see }.... (iv) the fi ‘be’ periphrastic passive also occurs in impersonal constructions with a postverbal clausal subject in which the verb is in the subjunctive (a), infinitive (b), or indicative (c) (Pană Dindelegan and Mîrzea Vasile ). ()
a. Voao iaste dată să știţi ascunsele give.PPLE.F.SG SĂSUBJ know.SUBJ.PL secret.PL.DEF.ACC you.PL.DAT is împărăţiei (CT.–: r) kingdom.DEF.GEN ‘You are destined to know the secrets of the kingdom’ b. cui va muri muiarea, iertat iaste a who.DAT AUX.FUT.SG die.INF wife.DEF.NOM forgive.PPLE.M.SG is AINF lua o sor a muieriei cumnatu-său (Prav.: v) marry.INF a sister.ACC AL.F.SG wife.DEF.GEN brother-in-law-his ‘he who marries a sister of his brother-in-law’s after his wife died is forgiven’ c. dovedit iaste de toţi ( . . . ) că ( . . . ) (CIst.–: v) by all.M.PL that show.PPLE is ‘it is proven by everybody that’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
.... Impersonal se Impersonal (unergative and unaccusative) intransitives have a special situation. By impersonalization, the verb loses the nominative argument, passing contextually from a monovalent to a zero-valent structure (a). In this respect, the glossing of Latin impersonal (b) is illustrative. Occurrences of this type are very few in OR. ()
a. să
aibî svănta mănăstire cale să have.SUBJ.SG holy.F.DEF monastery.NOM road SĂSUBJ să meargî cu carul la CL.REFL.IMPERS go.SUBJ.SG with chariot.DEF.ACC at moarî (DIR.B.: ) mill.ACC ‘let there be a way in the holy monastery to go by cart to the mill’ SĂSUBJ
b. obstatur împotrivă să stă (CDicț.–: ) against CL.REFL.IMPERS stands ‘there stands against’ .... Expletive pronominal subject The absence of the expletive pronominal subject of the Fr. type il and the Engl. type it has been typical since the earliest Romanian texts. There is however one text (MC.) in which there occurs a different linguistic phenomenon: the impersonal fi ‘be’ (a,b), in a fixed pattern which denotes the number of years, and a few other unaccusatives (c) appear in constructions with a rd person expletive pronominal subject (el ‘it’, rarely ei (PL)). ()
a. Când stătu Mahamet împărat, el era when be.PS.SG Mohammed.NOM emperor.NOM it be.IMPERF.SG numărul ailor (MC.: r) number.DEF.NOM years.DEF.GEN ‘When Mohammed became an emperor, it was in ’ b. când am sosit eu la acest vad, el when AUX.PERF.SG arrive.PPLE I at this ford it au fost numărul ailor (MC.: r) AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE number.DEF.NOM years.DEF.GEN ‘when I came to this ford, it was in ’ c. El venise atunce vreamea troianilor de time.DEF.NOM Trojans.DEF.GEN DESUP it come.PLUPERF.SG then perit (MC.: r) die.SUP ‘And then it was the time for the Trojans to die’ d. elu ne iaste puteare a o dobândi it CL.DAT.PL is strength.NOM AINF CL.ACC.F.SG obtain.INF ea (CC2.: ) her.ACC ‘we are strong enough to have it’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
Although constructions with the expletive el ‘he’ are frequent in MC. (twelve occurrences), they are in competition with constructions without the pronominal expletive (v, v, r, v, for fi ‘be’, and r, v, v, for sta ‘stay’). In other old texts (see d), the expletive el construction is extremely rare (for example, three occurrences in CC2.). For contexts with fi ‘be’, the pattern with an expletive subject is also present in old Italian (Salvi and Renzi (eds) : –). The phenomenon should be distinguished from subject doubling (}....), where, for emphasis and focalization, a nominal subject is doubled in postposition by a rd person pronominal form (). On the contrary, in the case of constructions illustrated by (), the pronoun anticipates the postverbal subject, sometimes without agreement features, and characterizes only intransitive unaccusative verbs. ()
Acești boieri, ei a venit (DÎ.: CXI) these boyars.NOM they AUX.PERF.PL come.PPLE ‘These boyars came’
... Special values and realizations .... The subject realized as a bare noun In Romanian there is the possibility of subject realization as a bare noun, especially when the nominal is in the plural, but also when it is in the singular. In OR, absence of the article is even more frequent than in MR both from a quantitative point of view and from the point of view of the variety of contexts showing this phenomenon (Drăganu : ; Pană Dindelegan b). The occurrence of a bare nominal subject is favoured by several factors: (i) the position of the NP with regard to the verb; (ii) the lexical class of the head noun; (iii) the type of reading associated to the NP; (iv) the semantico-syntactic type of predicate; (v) the type of phrase in which the nominal is incorporated. (i) Quantitative data lead to the conclusion that it is subject postposition that favours the absence of the article: .% of attested bare noun subjects are in postposition (a) and only .% are in anteposition (b,c). ()
a. Era amu înfricoșaţi și fu nuor, be.IMPERF.PL now frightened.M.PL and be.PS.SG cloud.NOM acoperi ei și vine glas den nuor (CT.–: v) cover.PS.SG them.ACC and comes voice.NOM from cloud.ACC ‘And they were afraid and there was a cloud, it covered them and then a voice came from the clouds’ b. Sfară fu întru nărodu (CC2.: ) quarrel.NOM be.PS.SG between people ‘And the people began to fight’ c. striin nu mănânce dentr-însul (PO.: ) foreigner.NOM not eat.SUBJ.SG from=it ‘a foreigner (should) eat from it’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
(ii) As in MR, the largest part of bare nominal subjects belong to the class of abstract nouns (a), mass nouns (b), or collective nouns (c). ()
a. Năvălească pre ei frică și groază (PO.: ) invade.SUBJ.SGPL over them.ACC fear.NOM and fright.NOM ‘Fear and terror invade them’ b. este loc în Ţara Rumânească de iaste aur și is place.NOM in Wallachia where is gold.NOM and argintu (DÎ.: XXXII) silver.NOM ‘there are places in Wallachia where there is gold and silver’ c. se va fi năvălind pre noi oaste (PO.: ) if AUX.FUT.SG be.INF invade.GER over us.ACC army.NOM ‘if an army invades us’
(iii) As in MR, the property/kind reading requires the selection of the bare noun form (a). A special case for the property reading, well represented in the old language, is the one in which the bare nominal subject has a generic reading (b). ()
a. nice va vie bărbat cu nusă (Prav.: v) nor AUX.FUT.SG live.INF man.NOM with her.ACC ‘nor will a man live with her’ b. Mai bine e moartea decât să nu se more well is death.DEF.NOM than SĂSUBJ not CL.REFL.ACC.SG teame om de rușine (FD.–: r) fear.SUBJ.SG man.NOM of shame.ACC ‘Death is better than being shameless’
(iv) In OR, even more frequently than in MR, there is a symmetrical construction [Ni-Preposition-Ni] occuring in the subject position, in which the two bare nouns with generic reading are connected by a preposition; more rarely, it can also involve different nouns connected by a kinship relationship (c). ()
a. N-are a sta cicea piatră pre piatră (CT.–: r) stone.ACC not=has AINF resist.INF here stone.NOM on ‘Here stones cannot hold one another’ b. de se vor giunghea soţ if CL.REFL.ACC.PL AUX.FUT.PL stab.INF companion.NOM cu soţ (LDII.~: r) with companion.ACC ‘if two companions stab each other’ c. nice va agiuta părinte a fecior, not AUX.FUT.SG help.INF father.NOM A.DAT son nice fecior a părinte (LDIII.–: v) A.DAT father not son.NOM ‘neither will father help son nor will son help father’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
There are other bare nominals that can occur in the subject position (), some of them with a proper name reading. ()
Doamne, în sila ta veseleaște-se împărat (CP1.: r) God.VOC in pain your.F.SG rejoices=CL.REFL.ACC.SG emperor.NOM ‘Lord, the emperor rejoices in your pain’
(v) In the corpus investigated, of the verbs which allow bare nominal subjects, the majority (,%) are unaccusative. Of unaccusatives (a–c), the existential fi ‘be’ is the most frequent (a). Agentive verbs, with attestations for transitives (d) and only attestations for unergatives (e), are the least frequent. nu fie svadă și netocmeală not be.SUBJ.SGPL quarrel.NOM and conflict.NOM între noi (DÎ.: LXXXII) between us.ACC ‘let there not be fights and conflicts among us’
() a. se
SĂSUBJ
b. cându-i vine moarte chemă when=CL.DAT.SG comes death.NOM call.PS.SG trei feciori (FD.–: v) three sons.ACC ‘when he was about to die, he called three sons’ c. Căzu fulger (MC.: v) fall.PS.SG lightning.NOM ‘A thunderbolt fell’ d. Și zise om cătră vecinul său (BB.: ) and say.PS.SG man.NOM to neighbour.DEF.ACC his ‘And someone said to his neighbour’ e. nu va chelălăi câine (BB.: ) not AUX.FUT.SG yelp.INF dog.NOM ‘not even a dog will yelp’ In OR bare noun subjects occur in contexts which are no longer possible in MR (for example, in the singular, as postverbal to transitive and unergative agentive verbs). The high frequency of non-realization of the article with nouns in the subject position is similar to older stages of other Romance languages (for old Italian, see Salvi and Renzi (eds) : –). .... The human non-definite (generic) subject OR resorts to the same means as MR for conveying generic value. The most frequent mechanism is the use of the nd person singular subject (a). As in MR, the generic value can also be conveyed by the st person plural subject (b). The impersonal se construction is also often encountered (c).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
()
a. Socotinţa easte ( . . . ) tărie și măsură strength.NOM and measure.NOM moderation.DEF.NOM is derept să faci lucrurele cu măsură such.that SĂSUBJ do.SUBJ.SG things.DEF.ACC with measure.ACC ca să nu ieș afară den măsură și den measure and of in.order SĂSUBJ not go.out.SUBJ.SG out of dereptate (FD. –: v) righteousness ‘Moderation is strength and measure, such that you do things with restraint, you don’t show lack of balance and justice’ b. Încă și răii se cade să-i yet also bad.people.DEF.ACC CL.REFL.IMPERS ought SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.PL iubim (FD.–: v) love.SUBJ.PL ‘We ought to love the wicked too’ c. Aceasta se zice de păcat să scape this.F.NOM CL.REFL.IMPERS says of sin.ACC SĂSUBJ escape.SUBJ.SG ca de un șarpe veninos (Ev.: ) as of a serpent.ACC venomous ‘And it is said to get rid of sin as of a venomous serpent’
With the same value, the noun om ‘human being’ occurs in the generic subject position; frequently (but not obligatorily (b)) it bears the definite article (a) and it can be followed by the floating quantifier tot ‘every’. Other nouns such as poporul ‘the people’ and lumea ‘the people’ (b) are encountered. The same position can also be filled by a pronominal from the universal quantifier class, such as oricare, oarecine ‘anyone’, toţi care/toţi cine ‘all who’ (c). ()
a. nu le poate omulu nici cu inema not CL.ACC.F.PL can.PRES.SG man.DEF.NOM neither with heart.DEF.ACC a gândi, nici cu limba a spune (CC2.: ) AINF think.INF neither with tongue.DEF.ACC AINF say.INF ‘man cannot feel them, nor can he utter them’ b. Pentr-aceea astădzi toată lumea să for-that today all people.DEF.NOM CL.REFL.ACC.SG bucurî și să veseleaște (CazV.: r) gladdens and CL.REFL.ACC.SG rejoices ‘This is why today all the people are glad and rejoice’ c. Oricare fără de vârstă va face vreo AUX.FUT.SG make.INF any anyone.NOM without of age greșeală ( . . . ), atunce giudeţul nu-l va then judge.DEF.NOM not=CL.ACC.M.SG AUX.FUT.SG mistake.ACC certa (Prav.: ) punish.INF ‘If any of the young ones makes a mistake, the judge will not punish him’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
The functional equivalence of the different mechanisms can be seen in structures in which there are more mechanisms at play at the same time (see FD.–: r). .... The internal subject In the old language, in which pleonastic constructions are frequently encountered (}..), the ‘internal’ subject, encoding the externalized Theme, is registered for numerous unaccusative verbs. () a. că înturearecul nu se înturecă that darkness.DEF.NOM not CL.REFL.ACC.SG darkens de tire (CLRV.–: r) of you.SG.ACC ‘for the darkness does not darken because of you’ b. să se pâlcuiesc spre mine pâlcure (CP1.: r) if CL.REFL.ACC.PL cluster.PRES.PL towards me troops.NOM ‘and they come towards me in troops’ .... The partitive prepositional subject A characteristic of partitive structures in OR is the possibility of having the first constituent (the quantified nominal) deleted, which makes the partitive prepositional phrase appear in an argumental position—including the subject position (}...). In the sixteenth-century texts, the most frequent partitive preposition is de ‘of; from’ (); see also }... ()
Și cându se tâmplă omului de cea boală, and when CL.REFL.IMPERS happens man.DEF.DAT of that disease.ACC de cea betejală (CC2.: ) of that illness.ACC ‘And when the man is hit by that disease, by that illness’
A special type of partitive construction with de, very rarely encountered in the first period of OR, is that embedding a genitive phrase (see }...). An example such as () shows the emergence of the subject partitive construction including a genitive form, that was triggered by word order modification and topicalization of the partitive phrase. ()
Și periră acolo de-i lu Por și de-i and perish.PS.PL there of=AL.M.PL LUI.GEN Por and of=AL.M.PL lu Alexandru (A.: r) lui.GEN Alexander ‘And there ( . . . ) of Por’s people and of Alexander’s people have perished’
.... The genitival/possessive subject As MR, OR can have in the subject position a genitive (a) or a possessive phrase (b), preceded by the genitive/ possessive marker al, and optionally preceded by the floating quantifier toți(M.PL)/
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
toate(F.PL) ‘all’ (b). Emerging by head noun deletion (}..), this type of ellipsis, in which the genitive/possessive phrase generally precedes the head noun, is frequently encountered in OR. ()
a. și ai lui pre elu nu priimiră (CC2.: ) and AL.M.PL his.GEN DOM him.ACC not receive.PS.PL ‘and his own people did not receive him’ b. și [toate [ale meale]] ale tale sântu (CC2.: ) and all.F.PL AL.F.PL mine.F.PL AL.F.PL your be.PRES.PL ‘and everything I have is yours’
.... The relative dative/genitive subject or the relative prepositional subject Given the high frequency of relative clauses incorporated in genitive/dative or prepositional positions, the subject realized as a genitive relative (a), dative relative (b), or preceded by a preposition (c) is quite frequent. Oblique case forms are required by the position of the headless relative clauses with regard to the matrix clause (}...). ()
a. unele sântu cuvintele [cărora be.PRES.PL words.DEF.NOM which.GEN some.F.PL se căescu] (CC2.: ) CL.REFL.ACC.PL repent.PRES.PL ‘some words belong to the ones who repent’ b. nu iaste lesne [cui e ţinutu de un focu cu not is easy whom.DAT is catch.PPLE.M.SG of a fire.ACC with boală] a se răposa (CC2.: ) AINF CL.REFL.ACC.SG pass.away.INF illness.ACC ‘it is not easy for the one who suffers from a serious illness to pass away’ c. chemând [pre câţi boiari era lui de DOM how.many boyars.ACC be.IMPERF.PL him.DAT for call.GER sfat] (SVI.~: v) advice.ACC ‘calling all the boyars who were on the council’
.... The subject can be realized as different types of pronominal (i) Politeness pronouns or corresponding politeness formulas with a higher or lower degree of cohesion (reflecting the original sequence < domnia ‘rulership.DEF’ + possessive/personal pronoun in the genitive) occur in the subject position with nd person singular (a), nd person plural (b), rd person singular (c), and st person singular forms (d). Note that the nd person plural can be associated with one or more referents.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
() a. domniia-ta ești înţelept (DÎ.: I) Highness-your be.PRES.SG wise.M.SG ‘Your Highness is wise’ b. Și așa să știţi domnievoastră and like.this SĂSUBJ know.SUBJ.PL you.POL.NOM că ( . . . ) (DÎ.: XVIII) that ‘You should know this’ c. să
milostivească pre noi ( . . . ) have.mercy.SUBJ.SG towards us.ACC oricum va putea domnielui (DÎ.: XVIII) anyway AUX.FUT.SG can.INF he.POL.NOM ‘(he should) have mercy on us whichever way he can’ SĂSUBJ
se
CL.REFL.ACC.SG
d. domnii mea am căutat și Highness my.F.SG AUX.PERF.SG think.for.PPLE and am judecat (DRH.B.: ) AUX.PERF.SG judge.PPLE ‘My Highness thought and judged’ The agreement marking on the nd person and st person verb is a clear sign of the grammaticalization of politeness pronominal forms as early as the beginning of the sixteenth century, when they were frequently used in original letters and documents. The st person politeness formulas, which have been eliminated from present-day usage, are registered until late in the th century (SILR: ). (ii) In OR, the personal pronominal însu (< IPSE, IPSUM; Ciorănescu ), equivalent to el ‘he’ does not occur as a subject (Frâncu : ), although it occurs frequently in prepositional contexts (in CC2., there are thirty-six prepositional occurrences, but none in subject position). On the contrary, the nominal correspondent of însu (> MR ins ‘individual’), accompanied by a cardinal or a global quantifier (a,b), occurs frequently in the nominative. ()
a. un bolnavu de-lu purta patr-înși (CC2.: ) a sick.man which=CL.ACC.M.SG carry.IMPERF.PL four persons.M.NOM ‘a sick man that four people were carrying’ b. Să leage tot însul arma sa (PO.: ) SĂSUBJ take.SUBJ.SG all person.M.SG weapon.DEF.ACC his ‘All the people should take their weapons with them’
Unlike îns(u), its compound counterpart, the intensifier însuși ‘himself ’, occurs frequently in subject position (); for more information, see }... ()
cumu și însușu grăi loru (CC2.: ) as also himself speak.PS.SG them.DAT ‘how he himself talked to them’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
At the beginning of the period under analysis, the pronominal dânsul (< de+îns(ul)), equivalent to the personal pronoun el ‘he’, occurs extremely rarely (Frâncu : ); from the seventeenth century the number of occurrences increases, but the prepositional origin of the sequence, as well as the characteristics of the constituent însu (which was not used in the nominative) block the occurrence of the compound form in the subject position. In seventeenth-century Moldovan texts, certain constructions can be analysed as nominatives (), but the interpretation is not sure. Only in the nineteenth century does it function by itself as a subject (Dimitrescu (ed.) : ). ()
nu știm dinșii ce svârșit vor not know.PRES.PL of.them//them.NOM what end AUX.FUT.PL avea (VRC.: r) have.INF ‘we don’t know what their ending will be’
.... The multiple subject As in MR, the components of the multiple subject are prototypically coordinated by the coordinator și ‘and’ and involve symmetric constituents (a) (see }). Coordination can also involve a DP subject and a relative clause (b). ()
a. Iată eu egumenul și tot săborul de la there.is I father.superior.DEF.NOM and all synod.DEF.NOM from mănăstirea de la Muldoviţă scriem monastery.DEF.ACC from Moldovița write.PRES.PL închinăciune (DÎ.: LXXXII) worship.ACC ‘It is I, the father superior, and the entire synod in Moldovița Monastery, who are writing worship’ b. Iată, [[noi toţi] și [la cine se-au aflat there.is we all.M.PL and at who CL.REFL.ACC=AUX.PERF.SG find.PPLE păharul]]S, robii domnului nostru sem (PO.: ) be.PRES.PL glass.DEF.NOM slaves.DEF.NOM lord.DEF.GEN our ‘It is we and he who stole the cup that are the slaves of our lord’
As in MR, in certain contexts, coordination is also realized by cu ‘with’ in variation with și cu ‘and with’ or (și) împreună cu ‘and together with’ (); see also }... ()
măriia împăratului și cu svatul împăratului Highness.NOM emperor.DEF.GEN and with council.DEF emperor.DEF.GEN și cu cei herţegi și cu alalţi domni creștinești and with CEL.M.PL dukes and with other voivodes Christian.M.PL și împreună cu ţara măriei lui bine să and together with country.DEF Highness his good SĂSUBJ ia amente (DÎ.: XXXIV) pay.SUBJ.PLSG attention ‘His Highness the Emperor, and the emperor’s council, and the seven dukes, and all the other Christian voivodes, and the country of His Highness should pay great attention’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
When the two components are separated by a verb (), the second component (introduced by (împreună) cu ‘together with’) functions as a comitative adjunct (see also }...). ()
și tu veri întra în corabie cu feciorii and you AUX.FUT.SG enter.INF in ark.ACC with sons.DEF.ACC tăi, și cu muiarea ta, și cu muierile your and with wife.DEF.ACC your and with wives.DEF.ACC ficiorilor tăi (PO.: ) sons.DEF.GEN your ‘and you will enter the ark with your sons, and your wife, and your sons’ wives’
In certain constructions, when the two components are adjacent, the agreement with the predicate disambiguates the multiple subject position (a plural form predicate is supplementary evidence for the multiple subject quality). However, note that the agreement of the predicate with the multiple subject is observed only sporadically (a) compared with more numerous cases when is not observed (a). As in MR, the agreement is frequently not observed with a postverbal multiple subject in relation to an unaccusative verb (b). Moreover, there are constructions in which the form of the verb is not self-evident. As such, and as in MR, the criterion of agreement is not sufficient to distinguish multiple subjects from the comitative adjunct. ()
a. Eu, Gavrilcea Polschii, și cu giupâneasa mea I Gavrilcea Polschii and with titled.lady.DEF my.F.SG Grăpina dau știre (DÎ.: XCIV) news.SG Grăpina give.PRES.SG ‘I, Gavrilcea Polschii, and my wife Grăpina announce’ b. și-i cade peanele și piscul and=CL.DAT.SG fall.SG feathers.DEF.NOM and beak.DEF.NOM și unghile (Fiz.: ) and claws.DEF.NOM ‘and his feathers and beak and claws fall down’
... The subject and non-finite forms .... The subject of non-finite forms As in MR, non-finite forms can have a lexical subject, different from the subject of the finite verb. In general, the overt subject is more frequent than in MR. (i) As in MR, the subject of the infinitive is most frequently left unrealized, being controlled by the matrix verb (}...). Constructions with overt subjects are most often encountered with impersonal verbs (a) and more rarely with a personal verb (b). The overt subject of the infinitive is placed either before (a) or after (b) the infinitive.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
()
a. se
cădea [și taina ought.IMPERF.SG and mystery.DEF.NOM sfinteei înviere aiavea ( . . . ) a se AINF CL.REFL.ACC.SG holy.DEF.GEN resurrection really adevăra] (CC2.: ) confirm.INF ‘and the mystery of the holy resurrection ought to be confirmed’ CL.REFL.IMPERS
b. Dumnezeu de multe ori lasă [în boală a cădea God.NOM of many times leaves in illness.ACC AINF fall.INF oamenii] (CC2.: ) people.PL.DEF.NOM ‘God often lets people fall ill’ (ii) Most frequently, the subject of the gerund remains unrealized, but, as in the present-day language, in OR the gerund can also have a lexical subject. The frequency of occurrence of the gerund with a lexical subject is higher than in MR (}...). The gerund can have its own overt subject in main clauses (), when used in coordination with finite forms; this type of construction has not been preserved in the present-day language (}...). ()
iară ei îmblându în cetăţi dereptu sfântu cuvântul tău și in towns for holy word.DEF your and and they go.GER sântu uciși și dzua și noapte (CSIII.–: v) be.PRES.PL kill.PPLE.M.PL and day.DEF and night ‘and they walked the towns for your holy word and they were killed day and night’
As in MR, the subject of the gerund occurs both postverbally (a) and preverbally (b): ()
a. Așa amu [cugetându ucenicii Iacovu și Ioannu], apostles.DEF.NOM Jacob and John like.this now think.GER ei cerșură ( . . . ) (CC2.: ) they ask.PS.PL ‘And as the apostles Jacob and John thought about this, they asked . . . ’ b. și [aceasta văzând că e tăroasă], nemică sânt eu and this.F.NOM see.GER that is pregnant.F nothing am I către ea (PO.: ) for her ‘and as she saw she was pregnant, I am worth nothing for her’
(iii) At a late date, and only sporadically, the participle has a lexical subject in absolute participial constructions (}..).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure ()
Și amu [pănă în Trotuș coborâţi ungurii] and now until in Trotuș descend.PPLE.M.PL Hungarians.DEF.NOM și [oștile muntenești păn la Milcov sosiţi], and armies.DEF.NOM Wallachian.F.PL until at Milcov arrive.PPLE.M.PL au schimbatu Racoţi sfatul AUX.PERF.SG change.PPLE Racoţi.NOM advice.DEF.ACC cu Matei vodă (CLM.–: r) with Matei voivode ‘And now, the Hungarians having come down as far as Trotuș and the Wallachian armies having arrived at Milcov, Racoți sought advice from voivode Matei’
(iv) The supine with a verbal behaviour (which takes a direct object and, rarely, a subject; see }...) emerged late, around the middle of the seventeenth century (Dragomirescu a: ), and occurrences with a lexical subject are very rare and recorded only at the end of the seventeenth century (Pană Dindelegan ). ()
loc [de cinat șase înș], scaun [de șezut place DESUP dine.SUP six persons.NOM chair DESUP sit.SUP șase oameni] (CDicţ.–: ) six persons.NOM ‘place for six persons to dine in’, ‘seat for six persons to sit on’
.... The subject realized as a non-finite clause In OR, infinitival clauses occur frequently in the subject position (a). As in MR, the participial clause cannot occur in the subject position, whereas the gerund clause and the supine clause occur in the subject position only rarely and at a late date (for details, see }}.; .; .). ()
nu mi-o lua muiare]S CL.DAT.SG=CL.ACC.F.SG take.INF wife.ACCNOM not se cade (Prav.: v) CL.REFL.IMPERS ought ‘it is not appropriate for me to marry her’
a. [a
AINF
b. s-au tâmplat [un fecior al CL.REFL.IMPERS=AUX.PERF.SG happen.PPLE a son.NOM AL.M.SG lui învăţându carte aci]S (DH.: ) his.GEN learn.GER book.ACC here ‘And one of his sons happened to study here’ c. Întru cari nu iaste mântuire / [De scos pe DESUP rescue.SUP DOM in which not is salvation neștine din peire]S (CPV.~: r) someone.ACC from death ‘To save someone from death is not a salvation’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
... Subject word order Subject word order is not significantly different in OR from MR, showing great freedom, except for certain well-established situations (see also Rădulescu ). However, subject postposition is more frequent than in MR. Fixed word order characterizes only wh-P constructions (relatives (a) and interrogatives (b)), when the wh-P is placed in the subject position or is incorporated in the subject NP. In these situations, as in MR, the subject is placed preverbally, as required by the characteristics of the wh-P (see }...). ()
miluiaște] lu Dumnezeu dă (CC2.: ) a. Că [cineS gives that who.NOM makes.charity LUI.DAT God ‘For he who makes charity, it is God whom he serves’ b. [Care rob]S poate a doi domni lucra? (CT.–: r) which slave.NOM can.PRES.SG A.DAT two masters work.INF ‘Which slave can serve two masters?’
Except for these constructions and a few others required by the presence of a certain type of complementizer ((viii) below), there is no other syntactic or semantico-syntactic constraint on subject word order. (i) With impersonal expressions (passive and reflexive-passive verbs used as impersonals), clausal or NP subjects can occur both in postposition (a,b) and in anteposition (c), with a preference for the postverbal position (Table .). ()
a. Tâmplă-se [de se duseră happen.PS.SG=CL.REFL.IMPERS that CL.REFL.PL go.PS.PL în oaste]S (MC.: r) in army ‘And it happened that they joined the army’ b. i CL.DAT.SG
se
va
CL.REFL.IMPERS
AUX.FUT.SG
[vro perire]S (PO.: ) any death.NOM ‘any death will happen to him’
tâmpla happen.INF
veselești și să rejoice.SUBJ.SG and SĂSUB te bucuri]S, cade-ţi-se (CC2.: ) CL.REFL.ACC.SG gladden.SUBJ.SG ought=CL.DAT.SG=CL.REFL.IMPERS ‘May you rejoice and be merry’
c. [Să
SĂSUBJ
te
CL.REFL.ACC.SG
T . Subject word order in relation to an impersonal matrix verb Text
Constraint
CC2.
impersonal matrix verb/impersonal construction
Preverbal subject
Postverbal subject
.%
.%
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
T . Subject word order in relation to the inverted auxiliary Text
Constraint
Preverbal subject
Postverbal subject
CC2.
inverted auxiliary
.%
.%
PO.
inverted auxiliary
.%
.%
DÎ
inverted auxiliary
%
%
(ii) In relation to existential verbs (especially fi ‘be’), the subject occurs predominantly in postposition (a), but also in anteposition (b). ()
a. până va fi pământul (PO.: ) until AUX.FUT.SG be.INF earth.DEF.NOM ‘until the earth ends’ b. și frică mare fu spre el (CSXI.–: v) and fear.NOM great be.PS.SG towards him ‘and he feared greatly’
(iii) With inverted auxiliaries and/or clitics, the subject occurs both in anteposition (a) and in postposition (b), in a ratio that does not indicate significant differences (Table .). () a. putearea lu Dumnezeu păzi-te-va (CC2.: ) watch.over.INF=CL.ACC.SG=AUX.FUT.SG power.DEF.NOM LUI.GEN God ‘and God’s power protect you’ b. întru focu tremite-i-va Dumnezeu (CC2.: ) in fire send.INF=CL.ACC.PL=AUX.FUT.SG God.NOM ‘and God send fire upon them’ (iv) In relation to non-finite verb forms (the infinitive and the gerund), the lexical subject occurs both in anteposition and in postposition; see }....; the infinitive behaves differently from MR, where it only allows subject postposition. (v) In polar interrogatives, there is no strict constraint on the subject position, so that, in the same text, at a short distance, the subject can occur both in anteposition and in postposition. ()
Au doară sântu ei toţi apostoli? ( . . . ) Au doară INT perhaps be.PRES.PL they.NOM all apostles.NOM INT perhaps toţi sântu învăţători? (CC2.: ) all.NOM be.PRES.PL teachers.NOM ‘And are they all apostles? Or perhaps they are only teachers?’
(vi) In metadiscourse constructions, with dicendi verbs, the subject occurs both in anteposition (a) and in postposition (b), sometimes in close proximity.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
()
a. Cumu și proroculu Davidu au how also prophet.DEF.NOM David.NOM AUX.PERF.SG grăitu (CC2.: ) speak.PPLE ‘How David the Prophet said’ b. că așa grăiaște și proroculu Davidu (CC2.: ) that like.this speaks also prophet.DEF.NOM David.NOM ‘for it is like this that David the prophet says’
(vii) The subject admits anteposition and postposition both in main and subordinate clauses. As in MR, note the general preference for anteposition in the matrix clause and for postposition in the subordinate (see Table .). The percentage difference from one text to another reflects individual preferences or another type of text. For translated texts (CT.–; CC2.), note a higher percentage for subject postposition even in the main clause (see the two underlined percentages); the explanation lies in imitation of the original Slavonic text (Teodorescu and Gheție : ). (viii) Although the preference for subject postposition is obvious in all types of subordination, certain connectors trigger higher order restrictions than others: complementizers de ‘that’ (a) and de să ‘that’ (b), and the homonymous form of the first, the conditional de ‘if’ (c), require subject postposition (de–V– S pattern; see Table .); with the complementizer de, subject anteposition is possible only under extraction and placement in a topicalized, extrasentential position (S–de– V pattern; (d)).
T . Subject word order in the main and in the subordinate clause Texts CT.–
In the main clause In the subordinate In the main clause In the subordinate S–V S–V V–S V–S %
%
%
%
SB
%
%
%
%
CC2.
.%
.%
.%
.%
Prav.
.%
.%
.%
.%
T . Subject word order in relation to the complementizer de ‘that; whether’ Texts
de–V–S
S–de–V
de–S–V
CT.–
%
%
–
CC2.
%
%
–
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
() a. Fu [de muri mișelul] (CC1.: r) be.PS.SG that die.PS.SG poor.DEF.NOM ‘It happened that the poor man died’ b. și nu vrea [de să-lu știe and not wants that SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.SG know.SUBJ.SG cineva] (CC2.: ) somebody.NOM ‘and he does not want anyone to know’ c. [de ară fi știundu domnul if AUX.COND.SG be.INF know.GER master.DEF.NOM caseei] (CT.–: v) house.DEF.GEN ‘if the master of the house might know’ d. i
s-au
prilejit [un voinic happen.PPLE a brave.man.NOM de o au iubit] (Sind.: v) that CL.ACC.F.SG AUX.PERF.SG love.PPLE ‘it happened that a brave man loved her’ CL.DAT.SG CL.REFL.IMPERS=AUX.PERF.SG
The conditional connector să ‘if ’ allows free subject word order ([să–V–S] (a) and [să–S–V] (b)), whereas its homonymous form, the complementizer să ‘that’, requires subject postposition ([să–V–S] (c)); as in the case of de, subject extraction and placement in a topicalized, extrasentential (preverbal) position is possible with the complementizer să as well ([S–să–V] pattern; (d)). () a. Să ară zice robulu acela ( . . . ) (CT.–: v) if AUX.COND.SG say.INF slave.DEF.NOM that.M ‘If that slave said ( . . . )’ b. e [să lumea voi va urî] (CT.–: v) and if people.DEF.NOM you.PL.ACC AUX.FUT.S hate.INF ‘and if people hate you’ c. Ce ne rugăm [să fie taină but CL.REFL.ACC.PL pray.PRES.PL SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG secret.NOM acest lucru] (CLRV.: ) this thing.NOM ‘But we pray for this thing to remain secret’ d. Rușine are fi [eu să cumpăr SĂSUBJ buy.SUBJ.SG shame.NOM AUX.COND.SG be.INF I robul] (VE.: r) slave.DEF.ACC ‘It would be a shame for me to buy the slave’ The most striking difference between OR and MR is the position of the subject in relation to periphrastic constructions. This characteristic does not necessarily regard the subject: it has to do with the ‘scrambling’ phenomena present in OR
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
(Dragomirescu c; see also }..), which manifest by compound verb form dislocation and having other forms intervening in the make up of periphrastic forms, subject included. In the make-up of periphrastic constructions, the subject can intervene in positions such as: – – – – – – – – –
future auxiliary + S + infinitive (a); perfect auxiliary + S + participle (b); conditional auxiliary + S + infinitive (c); perfect auxiliary + S + gerund (d); future auxiliary + fi(e) auxiliary + S + participle (e)/gerund (f); conditional auxiliary + fi(e) auxiliary + S + participle (g)/gerund (h); SĂSUBJ + (negator) (clitic) + S + subjunctive (i); SĂSUBJ + fi(e) auxiliary + S + participle (j)/gerund (k); reflexive/personal clitic + S + verb (l).
()
și tu domni (DIS.–: r) AUX.FUT.SG also you.SG.NOM rule.INF ‘you too will rule’
a. vei
b. Iară să i-au domnu-său dat lui but if CL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.SG master.NOM-his give.PPLE him.DAT muiare (PO.: ) wife.ACC ‘And if his master had given him a wife’ c. S-ară cineva greși (CC1.: r) if=AUX.COND.SG someone.NOM be.wrong.INF ‘And if someone were wrong’ d. avuțiia ce-au fost el socotind (Prav.: ) fortune.DEF which=AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE he.NOM count.GER ‘and the fortune that he counted’ e. cându va fi unchiul ( . . . ) luoat when AUX.FUT.SG be.INF uncle.DEF.NOM marry.PPLE nepoata (Prav.: r) niece.DEF.ACC ‘when the uncle married his niece’ f. De va neștine fi avându vro fată if AUX.FUT.SG someone.NOM be.INF have.GER any girl.ACC cu altă muiare (Prav.: r) with other woman.ACC ‘If someone happens to give birth to a girl with another woman’ g. de-ai fi Domnia Ta if=AUX.COND.SG be.INF Highness.DEF.NOM Your sârguit (IS.: XX) strive.PPLE ‘if Your Highness had striven’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
h. când ară fi Iosif sosind (PO.: ) when AUX.COND.SG be.INF Joseph.NOM arrive.GER ‘when Joseph was to arrive’ i. Nu iaste om pre pământu ( . . . ) să nu-l eu SĂSUBJ not=CL.ACC.M.SG I not is people.NOM on earth ascultu (CSIV.–: r) listen.SUBJ.SG ‘There is no man on the earth whom I am not listening to’ j. face prepus ( . . . ) cum să fie el furat (Prav.: ) makes supposition.ACC that SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG he.NOM steal.PPLE ‘he makes suppositions about how he would have stolen’ deaie poruncă cum să fi cineva give.SUBJ.SG order.ACC that SĂSUBJ be.INF someone.NOM cerând ceva (DVT.–: r) ask.GER something.ACC ‘let him order for someone asking for something’
k. să
SĂSUBJ
l. cred că ne el hrăneaște (CC1.: v) believe.PRES.SG that CL.ACC.PL he.NOM feeds ‘I believe that he feeds us’ The dislocation position is occupied by different realizations of the subject, sometimes accompanied by intensifiers (și ‘also’ in (a)), which shows that this position is emphatic. The phenomenon is frequent in translated texts, but is also encountered in original texts (see g). Quite frequent in the sixteenth century (Zamfir : –, –, –, –), it decreases in the seventeenth century and becomes extremely rare in the eighteenth (Dragomirescu c). ... Emphasis and focalization discourse mechanisms Given the great word order variation in the old language, it is noteworthy that there are certain regular mechanisms showing emphasis and focalization effects (see also Carabulea a; Pană Dindelegan b). Some were explained by a foreign model, while others were created within Romanian, as strategies characterizing a certain type of text. .... Subject doubling Subject doubling, as a frequent emphasizing strategy, is characteristic of old syntax. The corpus highlights the diversity of doubling types, among which are the following: (i) Long-distance doubling of the relative subject subordinate by the demonstratives acela ‘that’/acesta ‘this’ (a) or the personal pronoun el ‘he’ (b). The pattern is extremely frequent in both religious and non-religious legislative texts. () a. cine să va smenti, acela să who CL.REFL.ACC.SG AUX.FUT.SG change.mind.INF that SĂSUBJ fie proclet (DRH.A.: ) be.SUBJ.SG damned ‘he who changes his mind will be damned’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause b. cela ce nu va veni leapădă-se el that who not AUX.FUT.SG come.INF gives.up=CL.REFL.ACC.SG he de Dumnezeu (CPrav.–: v) of God ‘he who does not come will disavow God’
(ii) Long-distance doubling of the subject NP incorporating a relative modifier by the demonstratives acesta ‘this’/acela ‘that’. ()
Piatra ce nu o săcotiră ziditorii, stone.DEF.NOM which not CL.ACC.F.SG count.PS.PL builders.DEF.NOM aceasta fu în capul unghiului (CV.–: v) this.NOM be.PS.SG in front angle.DEF.GEN ‘The stone that was not counted by the builders was on top of the angle’
(iii) Long- or short-distance doubling of the subject DP by the personal pronoun el ‘he’, with human (a) or non-animate reference (b). This pattern occurs in all types of texts. Example (c), in which the realization of the subject el ‘he’ occurs under control (see the factitive matrix verb puse ‘put’), is a special case. ()
a. Omul cela ce va face ( . . . ) el iaste man.DEF.NOM that who AUX.FUT.SG make.INF he is aseamenea unui pom (Prav.: v) like a.DAT three ‘The man who will do this ( . . . ) is like a tree’ b. Ce darurile tale, iale ne răcoresc but gifts.DEF.NOM your.PL they CL.DAT.POSS.PL refresh.PRES.PL sudorile noastre (MC.: v) sweats.DEF.ACC our ‘But your gifts refresh our pains’ c. și-ii puse de să lăcuiască eii and=CL.ACC.M.PL make.PS.SG that SĂSUBJ live.SUBJ.PL they în Samariia (CC2.: ) in Samaria.ACC ‘and made them live in Samaria’
(iv) Long- or short-distance doubling of the pronominal subject by a lexical nominal. ()
a. iarră ea, nunta, se se desparţă (Prav.: v) and she marriage.DEF.NOM SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC cancel.SUBJ.SG ‘and the marriage should be cancelled’ b. ei sta dracii de departe și and they.NOM wait.IMPERF.PL devil.DEF.NOM of far să tânguiia (CSIII.–: r) CL.REFL.ACC lament.IMPERF.PL ‘they were waiting for the devils from a distance and were weeping’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
(v) Long-distance summarizing doubling. ()
Eu, Potlogar Toader, și cu eu, Burzeu, cu popa și tot I Potlogar Toader and with I Burzeu with pope.DEF and all satul, ( . . . ), noi dăm îraitea Domniilor we give.PRES.PL before Highnesses.DEF.GEN village.DEF voastre (CLRV.: ) your ‘I, Potlogar Toader, and I Burzeu, and the priest, and all the village show to Your Highnesses’
(vi) Long-distance repetition of the (pronominal or NP) subject. ()
a. Dece noi, decă am prinsu de veste, noi am AUX.PERF.PL catch.PPLE of news we AUX.PERF.PL therefore we if sărit dup-ănșii (SB.: ) jump.PPLE after=them.ACC ‘So if we found out, we rushed at them’ b. Iară împăraţii, decă vădzură ( . . . ), luară and emperors.DEF.NOM if see.PS.PL take.PS.PL împăraţii năsilie (AOD.–: r) emperors.DEF.NOM bier.ACC ‘And if the emperors saw ( . . . ) they took a bier’
Quantitative analysis shows that, in general, doubling was extremely frequent in OR. However, there existed a preferential distribution of certain types of doubling according to the stylistic type of the text. Some doubling patterns have been preserved in MR. In OR, subject doubling can be accounted for in many ways. For texts translated from Slavonic, a valid explanation is imitation of an original text (Carabulea a: –), but in Romanian the pattern spreads considerably into texts other than translations (Rizescu : ). Note the specialization of a doubling syntactic stereotype for juridical legislative texts as early as OR (Chivu : ). For numerous constructions, especially in more lengthy sentences, emphasis and disambiguation are likely explanations. For the type of doubling in which the Subject NP is resumed () or anticipated () by a personal pronoun, note the existence of an oral, non-standard preference as early as OR (Frâncu : ); this pattern is preserved in modern non-standard texts. .... Topicalization, left dislocation, and ‘hanging topic’ Left dislocated constructions and those with isolated subjects are diverse (Pană Dindelegan b): (i) There are constructions with topicalization and isolation by (conditional or temporal) subordinate insertion. Some exhibit subject doubling (a), others do not (b).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
()
a. Iară popa de va cânta leturghie și va and priest.DEF.NOM if AUX.FUT.SG sing.INF liturgy.ACC and AUX.FUT.SG uita să potribească, el, a doua zi, să forget.INF SĂSUBJ take.holy.sacraments.SUBJ.SG he second day SĂSUBJ se gătească ca de liturghie (CPrav.–: v) CL.REFL.ACC.SG prepare.SUBJ.SG as of liturgy ‘And if the priest sings the liturgy and forgets to take the holy sacraments, then, the next day, he should prepare as for the liturgy’ b. Diacul de va curvi, popă if AUX.FUT.SG whore.INF priest.NOM clerk.DEF.NOM nu va fi (Prav.: r) not AUX.FUT.SG be.INF ‘If the clerk goes whoring, he shall not become a priest’
In just two pages from Prav. (–), there are fifteen occurrences of a conditional de ‘if ’ preceded by the topicalized subject. This pattern is a hallmark of old legislative texts. (ii) Other topicalized constructions incorporate the interrogative marker. ()
tată-tău care stepenă-ţi iaste? (Prav.: v) father-your which generation=CL.DAT.SG is ‘Which generation is your father?’
(iii) As in MR, OR impersonal constructions allow NP subject extraction from the subordinate, followed by topicalization and placement in front of the impersonal matrix verb. Any impersonal construction with postverbal clausal subject allows extraction and left dislocation, either in the case of impersonal verbs (a,b) and constructions with a copula verb and an adverb (d) or with impersonal reflexivepassive constructions (c). ()
să a. Dereptu aceaia [noi]i trebuiaște SĂSUBJ for that we must.SG iertămu ti (CC2.: ) forgive.SUBJ.PL ‘That is why we have to forgive’ b. [Liubovul]i se cuvine să fie ti love.DEF.NOM CL.REFL.IMPERS ought.PRES.SG SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG așa (FD.–: r) like.this ‘Love ought to be like this’ s-au adevărat c. Iară [altă ţigancă]i and other gipsy.F.NOM CL.REFL.PASS=AUX.PERF.SG prove.PPLE c-au fost a ei ti (CLRV.: ) that=AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE AL.F.SG her.GEN ‘And it was proven that another gipsy woman was hers’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
d. [rana lui]i nu e lesne a se wound.DEF.NOM his.GEN not is easy AINF CL.REFL.ACC.SG vindeca ti (Ev.: ) heal.INF ‘it is not easy for his wound to heal’ NP subject left dislocation and extrasentential placement can trigger agreement by attraction; see examples (a,b) with agreeing forms. ()
a. Câte lucrure trebuiesc să fie how.many things.NOM must.PL SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.PL în rugăciune? (CSXII.: r) in prayer ‘Which are the things that the prayer is made of?’ b. unii dintr-înșii nu domni sau oameni să one.PL of=them.ACC not lords.NOM or people.PL.NOM CL.REFL.IMPERS par că au fost, ci mai răi (CIst.–: v) seem.PRES.PL that AUX.PERF.PL be.PPLE but more bad.M.PL ‘some of them do not seem to have been lords or human beings, but more wicked’
Another effect of subject topicalization is anacoluthon; the syntactic pattern changes along the way: the nominative is resumed by a dative, and the nominative subject remains isolated and hanging (hanging topic; GR: ). Frequent causes of anacoluthon are the oral character of most old texts and the writer’s difficulty in controlling the whole construction. ()
a. Iar Balotă, decă au văzut așa, AUX.PERF.SG see.PPLE like.this and Balotă.NOM if lui i-au părut rău (DÎ.–: II) him.DAT CL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.SG feel.PPLE sorry ‘And if Balotă saw this, he felt sorry’ b. Că năemniculu tâmplă-i-se de that employee.DEF.NOM happens=CL.DAT.M.SG=CL.REFL.IMPERS that nu cunoaște oile (CC2.: ) not knows sheep.DEF.ACC ‘And the man on duty happens to not know the sheep’
Anacoluthon also characterizes the subject realized as a relative clause, introduced by the relative cine ‘who’ (a) or by the sequence demonstrative + relative (b). ()
a. cine ne greșaște, să who.NOM CL.DAT.PL make.mistake.PRES.SG SĂSUBJ ertămu noi greșalele loru (CC2.: ) forgive.SUBJ.PL we.NOM mistakes.DEF.ACC their.GEN ‘let us forgive him who makes mistakes’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause b. cei ce iubescu reale-pohte mai bine să lă these who love.PRES.PL bad-desires.ACC more well SĂSUBJ CL.DAT.PL dzică lor orbi (FD.–: v) call.SUBJ.SGPL them.DAT blind.M.PL ‘it is better to call the people who have wicked desires blind’
.... Rhematization Cleft relative constructions. The existence of cleft relative constructions (}...; see also Gheorghe ), which identify and highlight the unique entity, are a special strategy of emphasis and rhematization; in (a– c), the clefting mechanism regards the subject and is realized by demonstrative + copula verb + relative subordinate. Any pronominal relative can occur in cleft constructions. ()
a. acela iaste carele vendecă neputinţele troubles.F.DEF.ACC that is which.DEF cures oamenești (Ev.: ) human.F.PL ‘he is the one who heals human illnesses’ b. Isus Hristos iaste cine l-au Jesus Christ is who CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.PERF.SG tămăduit (CazV.: r) cure.PPLE ‘Jesus Christ is the one who healed him’ c. eu sâmt astăzi cela ce fugi de leul (A.: v) I am today that.NOM who run.PS.SG from lion.DEF.ACC ‘I am today the one who ran from the lion’
... Final remarks Some patterns, although present both in OR and MR, have a higher frequency in OR (see the bare nominal subject; the lexical subject of non-finite forms; the impersonal subject realized as an infinitival clause; the subject realized as a partitive PP; the doubled subject). There are phenomena, such as subject word order, which show greater variation in OR than in MR, such that subject placement does not observe any major syntacticsemantic restriction; constraints related to the wh-phrase position and those related to the complementizer să, de, de să are exceptions. Some subjectless and semi-impersonal verbs are eliminated from use, whereas others emerge later. A very few contexts were eliminated: constructions with an expletive pronominal subject have completely disappeared. Some configurations have not been abandoned but restricted (see the non-realized indefinite human subject restricted only for the rd person singular form), whereas others are related only tangentially to the subject (such as the subject participating in ‘scrambling’, eliminated from the language at the end of the eighteenth century). Interesting for the dynamics of the subject are recategorization, grammaticalization, and pragmaticalization depending on the type of text. Thus, the null subject
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
allowed the elimination of the subject position for certain constructions; i.e. recategorization as subjectless constructions (îi zice CL.DAT.SG says, îl cheamă CL.ACC.SG calls ‘he is called’) or the specialization of subjectless constructions as quotation markers (the parentheticals zice or cică ‘it is said that’), or as appositive markers (the sequence ce se zice CL.REFL.IMPERS says ‘which is called’), or as epistemic heads (poate (fi) ‘may be’). On the other hand, the realization of the personal subject (st person singular and plural: adecă eu/noi ‘that is I/we’), as well as the possibility of subject doubling, attested as early as the sixteenth century, opened the way towards the creation of some syntactic-stylistic clichés specialized for administrative and private letters or for legislative texts. In the case of translated texts, compared to original texts, a higher percentage of subject postposition in main clauses can be accounted for by imitation of the original. .. The direct object ... Preliminary remarks The OR direct object generally exhibits the same characteristics as in MR. The main phenomena which show differences and variations are: the differential object marking by p(r)e, clitic doubling, structures with object raising, and word order with respect to the head verb. ... Selecting verbs As in MR, in OR the direct object is selected by: a verb or an idiomatic collocation (a lua amente ‘pay attention; know’) in a finite () or nonfinite form – a-infinitive (a), gerund (b) –, or the predicative interjection iată ‘behold’ () (for classes of verbs behaving, alternatively, as transitive and intransitive, see also }...; Stan a: –). Domnul Domnedzeu făcu pre om () a. Și make.PS.SG DOM man.ACC and Lord.DEF.NOM God.NOM den bulgăr de pământ (PO.: ) from ball of dust ‘Then the Lord God formed man of the dust from the ground’ b. Ia amente rrugăciunrea a mea (PH.–:r) listen.IMP.SG prayer.DEF.ACC AL.F.SG my.F.SG ‘Listen to my prayer’ ()
a. den aceale una trebuiește a o ținea AINF CL.ACC.F.SG hold.INF from those.F one.F.ACC must cu mare grijă (PO.: ) with big care ‘you must keep one of those with great care’ b. vădzu preasfânta nește oameni see.PS.SG too.saint.F.SG.DEF.NOM some people.PL.ACC mâncându-i nește feri (CSIV.–: r) eat.GER=CL.ACC.M.PL some wild.beasts.NOM ‘the Holy Virgin saw some people being eaten by some wild beasts’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
()
Iată-ți muiarea ta (PO.: ) there.is=CL.DAT.SG wife.DEF.ACC your ‘Behold your wife’
In contrast to MR, in OR, the direct object was also selected by long infinitives (a,b), transitive postverbal adjectives (a,b), and substantivized postverbal adjectives (). The direct object selected by the supine is recorded sporadically in the first part of the old language (a) (see also }..), but is much more frequently after the mid-seventeenth century (b). Exceptionally, the direct object is selected by a active participle (see also }.. (a)). ()
a. apă de-a spălarea picioarele aceluia (PO.: ) water DE=AINF wash.INF-RE.DEF feet.DEF.ACC that.M.GEN ‘water to wash that one’s feet’ cunoașterea legea (DPar.: II.r) AINF know.INF-RE.DEF law.DEF.ACC ‘to know the law’
b. a
()
()
()
a. Cest om mâncătoriu e și vin bâutoriu this man.NOM glutton.M.SG is and wine.ACC drinker.M.SG e (CT.–: v) is ‘Behold a man that is a glutton and a wine drinker’ b. oglindă văzătoare pe Dumnezeu (Ev.: ) mirror.F seeing(ADJ)F.SG DOM God.ACC ‘a mirror in which God can be seen’ veri piiarde toți grăitorii menciunra (PH.–: v) AUX.FUT.SG lose.INF all.M.PL speaker.M.PL.DEF lie.DEF.ACC ‘you will kill those who tell lies’ a. pom de preceput ce iaste bine good tree DESUP understand.SUP what is și rău (MC.: r) and bad ‘a tree that makes one understand what is good and what is bad’ b. loc de făcut bani (CDicț.–: ) place DESUP make.SUP money.ACC ‘a place to make money’
... Realizations The realizations of the direct object are in general the same as in MR: (i) DPs with an accusative head noun (a,b); (ii) clitic or strong personal pronouns, with dedicated forms (c–e); (iii) politeness pronouns, reflexives, demonstratives, indefinites, and relative–interrogatives (f–k), etc.; for all these realizations, the direct object is preceded (a,d, f–h,k) or not (b,c,e,i,j) by the
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
marker p(r)e; (iv) non-finite forms: a-infinitive (a), gerund (b), supine (c). ()
a. cela ce ocăriia ( . . . ) pre Dumnezeu (MC.: r) that which insult.IMPERF.SG DOM God.ACC ‘he who offended God’ proslăviț Hristos (MI.~: v) SĂSUBJ praise.SUBJ.PL Christ.ACC ‘Praise Christ’ c. nevăzuţii draci piiarde-i și-i NEG-seen.M.PL.DEF devils.M.ACC loses=CL.ACC.M.PL and=CL.ACC.M.PL potopeaște (CC2.: ) drowns ‘he destroys and drowns the invisible devils’ d. nu lăsare pre ei (CSIII.–: r) not leave.PS.PL DOM them.ACC ‘you did not allow them’ b. Să
e. putearnic Domnedzeu, rugăm tine (PO.: ) mighty God.VOC ask.PRES.PL you.SG.ACC ‘God almighty, we ask you’ f. alta rog pre domneta (DÎ.: XXXII) other.F ask.PRES.SG DOM you.POL.SG.ACC ‘I ask you another thing’ g. ca să poată hrăni pre sine și SĂSUBJ can.SUBJ.SG feed.INF DOM self.ACC and in.order oamenii lui (DÎ.: XCV) people.PL.ACC his.GEN ‘in order to be able to feed himself and his people’ h. pre acela cheamă (CC2.: ) DOM that.ACC calls ‘that is the one whom he calls’ i. Acesta dentâiu-l cheamă Serbie (MC.: v) Serbie.NOMACC this.M.ACC first.M=CL.ACC.M.SG calls ‘The first one is named Serbie’ j. acea piiatră care-am pus pre semn (PO.: ) that stone which.ACC=AUX.PERF.SG put.PPLE as sign ‘that rock which I laid as a cornerstone’ k. Pre cine voi trimite și cine DOM whom.ACC AUX.FUT.SG send.INF and who.NOM va mearge la poporul acesta? (DPar.: II.r) AUX.FUT.SG go.INF to people.DEF this ‘Whom will I send and who will go to this people?’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
()
a. Să
nu îndrăznească neștine [a ținea muiare not dare.SUBJ.SG anyone.NOM AINF keep.INF woman.ACC fără cununie] (ȘT.: ) without wedding ‘Nobody should dare to live with a woman without being married’ SĂSUBJ
b. am
văzut noi [făcându-se atâta see.PPLE we.NOM do.GER=CL.REFL.PASS such răotate] (DRH.B.–:) wickedness.NOM ‘we saw so many misdeeds being done’ c. le dau de mâncat (CDicț.–: ) CL.DAT.PL give.PRES.SG DESUP eat.SUP ‘I give them to eat’ AUX.PERF.PL
The patterns in which the DO is realized as [+human] nominal (b) or a strong personal/reflexive pronominal (e) and is not p(r)e-marked have disappeared from MR; those with an infinitive DO (a) have been preserved in the current language in some dialects (TDR: ; ; for the infinitive constructions used in the nineteenth century under the Latin/Romance influence, see SILR: ; Frâncu : ). More extensively than in the current standard language, the direct object is realized as a bare singular noun (see Niculescu : – for a similar observation). The phenomenon is frequent both with abstract (a) and concrete (b) nouns. ()
nu ţinemu pizmă (CC2.: ) SĂSUBJ not hold.SUBJ.PL envy.ACC ‘not to hold a grudge’
a. să
b. răsădi vie (DPar.: II.v) plant.PS.SG vineyard.ACC ‘he planted a vineyard’ The direct object clause is introduced by different complementizers: că, să, cum, precum, cum că, ca să, de, de să ‘that’ (a–g). Of these, precum was eliminated from MR, and de, de să, ca să have been preserved only in dialects (Vulpe : ) and in non-standard language. Indirect polar interrogatives are introduced by the complementizers se/să ‘whether’ (h,i) and, sporadically, also by deaca and de ‘whether’ (j,k); see also }.... The inventory of connectors for indirect wh-interrogatives is, to a great extent, in common with MR; certain forms have not been maintained in MR: derepce/derept ce, căce ‘why’, etc. (l); see also }.... In OR, the direct object subordinate is realized as a headless relative (a), frequently in anteposition to the matrix verb, or, as in MR, as an infinitival relative with the personal verb avea ‘have’ (b). ()
a. Știu amu Hristos [că lui Ioannu botezătoriulu know.PS.SG now Christ.NOM that LUI.DAT John baptizer.DEF tăiatu-i fu capulu] (CC2.: ) cut.PPLE=CL.DAT.M.SG be.PS.SG head.NOM ‘And now Christ knew that John the Baptist had his head cut off ’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
b. de la mine ceri [să beai] (CC1.: r) from me.ACC ask.PRES.SG SĂSUBJ drink.SUBJ.SG ‘you ask me to give you to drink’ c. văzu [cum șapte spice de grâu creștea see.PS.SG that seven ears.NOM of wheat grow.IMPERF.PL sus dentr-un fir] (PO. : ) high from=a stalk ‘he saw seven heads of grain growing on a single stalk’ d. uzind ( . . . ) [precum au zis să omoară like.that AUX.PERF.SG say.PPLE SĂSUBJ kill.SUBJ.SG hear.GER pre fiiu-său] (Sind.: v–r) DOM son.ACC-his ‘Hearing ( . . . ) that he said they would kill his son’ e. Și deaca Avraam audzi [cum că fratele său and if Abraham.NOM hear.PS.SG how that brother.ACC his.POSS au prins] (PO.: ) AUX.PERF.PL catch.PPLE ‘And if Abraham heard that they caught his brother’ f. Hristosu vru [ca să mângâe pre Christ.NOM want.PS.SG that SĂSUBJ comfort.SUBJ.SG DOM cela] (CC2.: ) that.ACC ‘Christ wanted to comfort that one’ g. multu auru vrea de să adune (CC2.: ) much gold.ACC wants that SĂSUBJ gather.SUBJ.SG ‘he wants to gather much gold’ h. Spunre-mi [se rrimleanu ești] (CV.–: v) tell.IMP.SG=CL.DAT.SG if Roman.NOM be.PRES.SG ‘Tell me if you are a Roman’ i. Caută [să e acesta veșmântul feciorului see.IMP.SG if is this.NOM garment.NOM son.DEF.GEN tău] (PO.: ) your ‘See if this is the garment of your son’ j. vedea-voiu [deaca toate au făcut după strigatul all AUX.PERF.PL do.PPLE after yell.DEF see.INF=AUX.FUT.SG if care înaintea mea au venit] (PO.: ) my.F AUX.PERF.SG come.PPLE which.NOM before ‘I will see if they did what I ordered them to do’ k. [De iaste păcătos] nu știu (CC1.: r) if is sinful.NOM not know.PRES.SG ‘I do not know if he is sinful’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause l. Spune-ne noao evanghilest [derepce tell.IMP.SG=CL.DAT.PL us.DAT evangelist.VOC why au născut ș-au vinitu AUX.PERF.SG be.born.PPLE and=AUX.PERF.SG come.PPLE în lume Hristos] (CC1.: r) in world Christ.NOM ‘Evangelist, tell us why Christ was born and came to the world’
()
a. [cine va veni cătră mine cu who.NOM AUX.FUT.SG come.INF towards me.ACC with voia lui], nu-lu voi scoate will.DEF his.GEN not=CL.ACC.M.SG AUX.FUT.SG throw.INF afară (CC2.: ) out ‘he who follows me from his own will, I will not drive him away’ b. Ci acumu leafă n-are [de unde da but now payment.ACC not=has of where give.INF oștii] (DÎ.: XVIII) army.DEF.DAT ‘But now he doesn’t have money to pay the army’
In OR, the direct object has internal realizations, similarly to other syntactic positions (see }}..; ....; ...). Unlike MR, in OR the phenomenon is not limited to transitive verbs (a), but it is also encountered with unaccusative intransitives (b) and, more rarely, with unergatives (c) and intransitives with an Experiencer subject (d). ()
a. Veț
jârtvui acolo jârtvă a sacrifice.INF there sacrifice.ACC AL.F.SG direptății (BB.: ) justice.DEF.GEN ‘There you will sacrifice the justice’ AUX.FUT.PL
vie viiaţă îngerască (A.: v) AUX.COND.SG live.INF life.ACC angelic ‘I would live an angel’s life’ c. Un călătoriu ce îmblă și călătoreaște cale way.ACC a traveller.NOM which walks and travels multă (CazV.: v) long ‘A traveller who walks a long way’ d. Și cugetară cuget reu (A.: v) and think.PS.PL thought.ACC wicked ‘And they had a wicked thought’
b. aș
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
... P(r)e as a differential object marker As in MR, in OR p(r)e functions as a differential direct object marker, distinguishing the subject position from the object position (see also Drăganu : ). ()
Foc ține pre alt foc (FD.–: r) fire.NOM holds DOM other fire.ACC ‘One fire keeps another fire alight’
P(r)e as a differential object marker developed from the lexical pre, used in OR with directional or Goal verbs (a), sometimes in competition with the synonym spre ‘towards’ (b), even in clitic doubled constructions (c) (see also }...; Pușcariu –: –; Onu : –; Guruianu : –; Stan a: , ). () a. înțeleptulu soare ( . . . ) toți-i veade, ce mai vârtosu all.ACC=CL.ACC.M.PL sees but more especially wise sun.NOM pre carii prevescu pre elu (CC2.: ) DOM which.M.PL.ACC look.PRES.PL towards him.ACC ‘the wise sun sees everyone, especially the ones who look at it’ b. Spre cine voiu căuta? Numai pre towards whom.ACC AUX.FUT.SG search.INF only towards cel blând și spre cel tăcut și that.M.ACC mild.M and towards that.M.ACC silent.M and spre cel ce se cutremură de of towards that.M.ACC which CL.REFL.ACC.SG trembles cuvintele meale (Ev.: ) words.DEF my ‘Whom will I look at? Only (at) the one who is humble, submissive, and trembles at my word’ c. Și-i scopescu spre ei (CTd.–: v) and=CL.ACC.M.PL castrate towards them.ACC ‘And they castrate them’ .... Variation with p(r)e-marking Unlike MR, where there are contexts when the DO marker pe is obligatory, as well as contexts when it is excluded, depending on the lexical-semantic characteristics of the referent in the DO position (see also Tigău : –; GR: ), in OR there are no strict rules for differential object marking: the same construction can occur alternatively with and without p(r)e even in the same text, at close proximity. OR differential object marking is represented differently in translated texts from original texts (note that even in translated texts there are preferences for using/ omitting the marker p(r)e), and also depends on the lexical-semantic features of the referent of the direct object.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
(i) In original texts, p(r)e-marking is almost generalized, as early as the th century, with [+human/+personal, +individualized] direct objects realized as proper names (a), strong personal (b) and reflexive pronouns (c), or politeness pronouns (d); see also Tigău : –; Stan a: –. ()
a. Eu am avut nepot pre Nen și pre I.NOM AUX.PERF.SG have.PPLE nephew DOM Nen.ACC and DOM Lăpădat (DÎ.–: II) Lăpădat.ACC ‘Nen and Lăpădat were my nephews’ b. pre noi să ne smerim (CCat.: v) DOM us.ACC SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.PL become.humble.SUBJ.PL ‘we should humble ourselves’ c. ca să poată hrăni pre sine (DÎ.: XCV) in.order SĂSUBJ can.SUBJ.SG feed.INF DOM self.ACC ‘in order to be able to feed himself ’ d. Derept-acea rugăm pre domniavoastră (DÎ.: LXXXII) for=that ask.PRES.PL DOM you.PL.POL.ACC ‘That is why we are asking you’
For these realizations, unmarked constructions are sporadic: in PE, the DO realized as a strong personal pronoun is p(r)e-marked everywhere except for two contexts (a,b), and the DO realized as a reflexive pronoun is p(r)e-marked in all the occurrences. ()
a. nu boscorodiţi, că va bate voi not grumble.IMP.PL because AUX.FUT.SG punish.INF you.PL.ACC Domnul (CM.: r, in PE) Lord.DEF.NOM ‘do not grumble, for the Lord will punish you’ b. rugăm tine ca drag părintele nostru (PO.: v, in PE) ask.PRES.PL you.SG.ACC as dear father.DEF our ‘we are asking you, as our dear father’
Demonstratives and indefinites with a human referent occur either in p(r)emarked contexts (a,c) or without p(r)e-marking (b,d) until the end of the period investigated. ()
a. și să pomenească ( . . . ) și pre acești (DÎ.–: LIX) and SĂSUBJ mention.SUBJ.SG also DOM these.M.ACC ‘and to mention these ones too’ afla și acela la rândul find.INF also that.M.ACC at turn.DEF său (CLM.–: v) his.POSS ‘You will find that one too when the time comes’
b. Vei
AUX.FUT.SG
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
c. pre
alţi i-eu fost others.M.ACC CL.ACC.M.PL=AUX.PERF.PL be.PPLE vătămat (DÎ.: CXI) injure.PPLE ‘they had injured others’ d. să aibă domnealui voie să puie SĂSUBJ have.SUBJ.SG he.POL.M.NOM permission SĂSUBJ appoint.SUBJ.SG altul (DÎ.: XLVIII) other.M.ACC ‘he should be allowed to appoint another one’ DOM
In general, relative pronouns in the DO position are not DOM-ed (a); in DÎ, there are only three occurrences of p(r)e-marked relative DOs (b). () a. ci să umblaţi ( . . . ) și pre la toţi cine veţi but SĂSUBJ walk.SUBJ.PL also on to all.M.PL who.ACC AUX.FUT.PL ști (DÎ.: XVIII) know.INF ‘but pass by all those whom you know’ b. să poată da și milui pre cine SĂSUBJ can.SUBJ.SG give.INF and take.pity.INF DOM whom.ACC va vrea cu ocine (DÎ.: XLVIII) AUX.FUT.SG want.INF with properties ‘for he can give properties and take pity on anyone he wants’ (ii) OR translated texts show great variation with respect to the p(r)e-marking of the direct object. Absence of, or hesitation in using p(r)e as a DO marker in translated texts was seen as an effect of the ‘novelty’ of the phenomenon; p(r)e as a DO marker dates back to the immediately preceding period of the earliest texts and it is only afterwards that it becomes stable in the language (Dimitrescu : ; for other arguments related to the absence of p(r)e as a DO marker in translated texts, see also Drăganu : –; Rosetti : –). In translations, p(r)e-marking rules become more restrictive only at the end of the th century. In the first part of OR, there are translations in which the DO is never pre-marked (), and in some contexts spre is used with the value of p(r)e (Costinescu :). ()
aștepta noi întru Troada (CV.–: r) AINF wait.INF us.ACC in Troad ‘to wait for us in Troad’ b. cumu se ia soțu spre soțu (CV.–: r) how CL.REFL.ACC.SG takes spouse.NOM DOM spouse.ACC ‘how spouses choose each other’
a. a
In CT.–, the DO p(r)e-marking is sporadic as well (six occurrences in the entire text, none with a strong personal/reflexive pronoun).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
()
a. orb pre orb duce (CT.–: v) blind.NOM DOM blind.ACC holds ‘a blind man leads another blind man’ b. bâgî pre Pâtru (CT.–: r) let.enter.PS.SG DOM Peter.ACC ‘sneaked Peter in’
In some translations (PO.; CC2.) there is variation between direct connection to the verb (a–c) and p(r)e-marking (d–f), without any clear preference, when the DO is realized as a proper name (a,d), a personal pronoun (b,e), or a demonstrative pronoun with a human referent (c,f); see also Table .. ()
cinsti Domnedzeu (PO. : ) honour.INF God.ACC ‘to honour God’
a. a
AINF
vindeca noi (CC2.: ) AUX.FUT.SG heal.INF us.ACC ‘he will heal us’ c. de să știe tine unulu adeveritu that SĂSUBJ know.SUBJ.PL you.SG.ACC one.M confirmed.M Dumnezeu și acela ce-ai and that.M.NOM which.ACC=AUX.PERF.SG God.NOM tremesu, Isusu Hristosu (CC2.: ) send.PPLE Jesus Christ ‘so that they acknowledge you as the only true God and the one you have sent, Jesus Christ’ b. va
d. rugați pre Dumnezeu (PO. : ) ask.IMP.PL DOM God.ACC ‘ask God’ e. surpa-l-va pre elu (CC2.: ) destroy.INF=CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.FUT.SG DOM him.ACC ‘he will destroy him’ f. pre
acela rușina-lu-va that.M.ACC put.to.shame.INF=CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.FUT.SG Dumnezeu (CC2.: ) God.NOM ‘God will put that one to shame’ DOM
T . P(r)e-marking of the personal DO Text
Form
PO.
mine ‘me.ACC’
CC2.
tine ‘you.SG.ACC’
+pre
–pre
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
In certain translated texts some realizations of the DO are p(r)e-marked, whereas others are not; note that in MI.~, indefinite pronouns are never DOM-ed (a), whereas personal pronouns and proper names are p(r)e-marked in almost all occurrences (b,c) (compare fifteen occurrences of DOM-ed personal and reflexive pronouns to only one unmarked occurrence; proper names with a human referent have four p(r)e-marked occurrences and one unmarked occurrence). In other texts from the same period, such as MC., p(r)e becomes generalized with all direct objects having the semantic features [+human/+personal, +individualized] (). () a. și moarte călcă și toți învise-i (MI.~: v) and death.ACC defeat.PS.SG and all.M.ACC defeat.PS.SG=CL.ACC.M.PL ‘and he defeated death and conquered all’ b. curățim pre noi (MI.~: v–r) clean.PRES.PL DOM us.ACC ‘we purify ourselves’ c. feciu om, pre Adam (MI.~: r) make.PS.SG man.ACC DOM Adam.ACC ‘I created man, Adam’ In translated texts, p(r)e is sometimes encountered with abstract common nouns, unlike MR. Narrative texts contain more numerous contexts of this type (a), but the phenomenon is present in other types of text as well (b). ()
a. Iară mâniosul nu veade pre DOM but angry.man.DEF.NOM not sees dreptatea (FD.–: v) righteousness.DEF.ACC ‘But the angry man does not see what is right’ b. Deci biruise răul pre bine (MC.: v) so defeat.PLUPERF.SG bad.DEF.NOM DOM good.ACC ‘So wickedness conquered goodness’
(iii) In the first half of the seventeenth century, the direct object marker p(r)e becomes general in the following contexts, similarly to MR (GR: ): with [+human] common and proper nouns (a), personal (b) and politeness pronouns (c), strong reflexive forms (d), demonstratives (e), indefinites (f), and relative-interrogatives (g). Hesitations can be noticed with relative DOs, which can occur either p(r)e-marked (a) or without p(r)e-marking (b) until the end of the period investigated. ()
a. foarte au mâniiat pre Dumnezău (Ev.: ) very AUX.PERF.PL make.angry.PPLE DOM God.ACC ‘they made God very angry’ b. fără minte socotesc pre ei a fi (Ev.: ) without brains consider.PRES.SG DOM them.ACC AINF be.INF ‘I consider them stupid’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause strânsu boiari și oameni buni ( . . . ): gather.PPLE boyars.ACC and people.PL.ACC good.PL pre dumnealui Costantin Stârcea (DRH.A.–: ) DOM him.POL.ACC Costantin Stârcea ‘I have gathered boyars and good people ( . . . ): him, Costantin Stârcea’ d. acel bărbat ( . . . ) să smeri pre sine (Ev.: ) CL.REFL.ACC.SG humble.PS.SG DOM self.ACC that man.NOM ‘that man became humble’ e. pre aceștia încă-i va priimi DOM these.ACC still=CL.ACC.M.PL AUX.FUT.SG receive.INF Dumnedzău (ȘT.: ) God.NOM ‘God will accept these ones’ c. am
AUX.PERF.SG
amăgească pre toți (Prav.: ) deceive.SUBJ.SG DOM all.M.ACC ‘to deceive everyone’
f. să
SĂSUBJ
g. voi
cruța pre cine voi spare.INF DOM whom.ACC AUX.FUT.SG cruța (DPar.: III.v) spare.INF ‘I will spare whom I will spare’ AUX.FUT.SG
()
carele l-au și which.DEF.ACC CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.PERF.SG immediately ales oastea în locul lui choose.PPLE army.DEF.NOM in place.DEF LUI.GEN Hotchevici (CLM.–: r) Hotchevici ‘whom the army immediately chose instead of Hotchievici’
a. pre
DOM
b. acesta leatopiseț, carea ți this.DEF chronicle.ACC which.DEF.ACC CL.DAT.SG l-am scris noi (CLM.–: r) CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.PERF.PL write.PPLE we.NOM ‘this chronicle, which we wrote for you’ .... The direct object with generic reading In OR, the direct object with generic reading has variant realizations: it is recorded either as a p(r)e-marked bare singular noun (a,b) or as a case-unmarked singular noun bearing the definite article (c,d). ()
a. Cuvântul cel de sudalmă mai rău întărâtă pre DOM word.DEF.NOM CEL of offence more bad stirs om decât cându l-ai bate (Prav.: ) man.ACC than when CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.COND.SG beat.INF ‘An offensive word stirs any man more than if you beat him’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
b. ceia ce ucig pre fur când îl kill.PRES.PL DOM thief.ACC when CL.ACC.M.SG those.NOM which vor prinde furând (Prav.: ) AUX.FUT.PL catch.INF steal.GER ‘those who kill the thief when they catch him stealing’ c. Feace Dumnezeu omulu (CC2.: ) man.DEF.ACC makes God.NOM ‘God created man’ d. Nu poate nimeni să ucigă furul not can.PRES.SG nobody.NOM SĂSUBJ kill.SUBJ.SG thief.ACC când ( . . . ) (Prav.: ) when ‘No one can kill a thief when ( . . . )’ Less frequently, there are contexts in which the generic DO is realized as a p(r)emarked definite nominal. () a. Călugărul ce va fura pre monk.DEF.NOM which.NOM AUX.FUT.SG steal.INF DOM egumenul, nu va avea certare (Prav.: ) father.superior.DEF.ACC not AUX.FUT.SG have.INF scolding.ACC ‘A monk who steals from a Father Superior will not be punished’ b. Și feace Dumnădzău pre omul (DPar.: II.v) DOM man.DEF.ACC and makes God.NOM ‘And God creates man’ Sporadically, p(r)e is encountered in the context of a specific DO, realized as a definite noun. () a. Și era atunce sâmbătă într-acea zi, când vendecă Saturday in-that day when heal.PS.SG and be.IMPERF.SG then Domnul pre slăbitul (Ev.: ) Lord.DEF.NOM DOM weak.SG.DEF.ACC ‘And it was on a Saturday when the Lord healed the paralytic’ b. Și trimisă pre corbul să vadză oare and send.PS.SG DOM raven.DEF.ACC SĂSUBJ see.SUBJ.SG INT îndărăptat-au apa (DPar.: II.r) dry.PPLE=AUX.PERF.SG water.DEF.NOM ‘And he released the raven to see whether the water had dried up’ ... Direct object clitic doubling In OR, direct object clitic doubling (by clitic resumption or anticipation) occurs independently of p(r)e-marking, being initially used to distinguish the subject position from the direct object position, when p(r)e was missing (see also Pușcariu –: ).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
()
acela nu-l va giudeca that.M.ACC not=CL.ACC.M.SG AUX.FUT.SG judge.INF Hristos (CSV.–: v) Christ.NOM ‘Christ will not judge that one’
Unlike MR, where the rules for clitic doubling are strict (GR: –), in OR there were no proper rules of clitic doubling, as shown by the contexts with or without resumption (() vs. ()) and those with or without anticipation (() vs. ()); see also Asan : –, –; for the characteristics of the phenomenon within the Romance and Balkan area, see Mišeska Tomić : –. As early as the beginning of the sixteenth century, clitic resumption of the nominal DO occurs in the same syntactic-semantic conditions as in MR: with proper names (a), [+human] / [–animate] common nouns (b,c), strong personal pronouns (d), demonstratives (e), indefinites (f), and relatives (g). ()
a. Iară pre Tit, fiiu-său, -l lăsă în and DOM Tit.ACC son-his CL.ACC.M.SG leave.PS.SG in Ierslim cu oști (MC.: r) Jerusalem with armies ‘And he left his son Tit in Jerusalem, with the armies’ b. flămândzii săturați-i (CSI.–post: v) hungry.PL.DEF.ACC feed.IMP.PL=CL.ACC.M.PL ‘feed the hungry’ c. iară svântul botedzul nu-l and holy.DEF christening.M.DEF.ACC not=CL.ACC.M.SG păzescu (CSIII.–: v) observe.PRES.PL ‘and they do not observe the holy baptism’ d. foamea pe ei prinde-i (CC2.: ) hunger.NOM DOM them.ACC catches=CL.ACC.M.PL ‘they start feeling hungry’ e. pre acela-lu dosădeaște (CC2.: ) DOM that=CL.ACC.M.SG upsets ‘and he scolds that one’ toți-i vindecă Domnulu (CC2.: ) DOM all.M.PL.ACC=CL.ACC.M.PL heals Lord.DEF.NOM ‘the Lord heals all of them’
f. pre
g. pre cine-l fereaște Dumnezeu, în deșert DOM whom.ACC=CL.ACC.M.SG protects God.NOM in vain cugetă rău mintea omenească (MC.: v) thinks bad mind.DEF.NOM human ‘he who is protected by God is in vain plotted against by the human mind’ For all of the above realizations given, there are contexts without clitic resumption.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
() a. Bolnavii vindecați ( . . . ) Dracii goniți (CT.–: v) devils.DEF.ACC drive.away.IMP.PL sick.PL.DEF.ACC heal.IMP.PL ‘Heal the sick. Drive away the devils’ b. nece cuvântul îngerului meu n-ați neither word.DEF.ACC angel.DEF.GEN my not=AUX.PERF.PL ascultatu (CSI.–post: v) obey.PPLE ‘neither did you obey what my angel said’ tine vădzuiu (DPar.: II.v) DOM you.SG.ACC see.PS.SG ‘I saw you’
c. pre
aceștia mai vârtos laud (Ev.: ) these.ACC more strongly praise.PRES.SG ‘I praise these ones even more’ e. într-o uniciune pre toţ chemă (DPar.: III.r) DOM all.M.PL.ACC call.PS.SG in-a union ‘he called for everyone to unite’
d. Pre
DOM
carii blăstemară aceia (Ev.: ) which.M.PL.ACC curse.PS.PL those.NOM ‘which those ones cursed’
f. pre
DOM
The resumption of the feminine demonstrative with a neutral value is very rarely encountered, at least in the first part of the period investigated. ()
Aceasta toți bire să o this.F.SG.ACC all.M.NOM well SĂSUBJ CL.ACC.F.SG înțeleagem (MI.~: v) understand.SUBJ.PL ‘We all should understand this well’
In the first part of OR, there is a special phenomenon of emphatic resumption that occurs mostly in translations, i.e. the resumption of the direct object clause introduced by a relative pronoun (a) or by the sequence demonstrative + relative (b) by a personal/demonstrative pronoun and a clitic (see also }}...; ....). Most frequently, the relative direct object clause is resumed in the matrix clause only by a pronominal clitic (). ()
a. Că [cine-lu iubeaște Domnulu], Lord.DEF.NOM because whom.ACC=CL.ACC.M.SG loves pre acela-lu dosădeaște (CC2.: –) DOM that.ACC=CL.ACC.M.SG upsets ‘For God scolds the one he loves’ b. [cela ce cearcă reale], l-or that.NOM which tries wicked.things.ACC CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.FUT.PL împresura pre însul (DPar.: II.v) surround.INF DOM him.ACC ‘he who does wicked things will be surrounded by them’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
()
[pre cine cruță Dumnezeu] ( . . . ) păgânii-l DOM whom.ACC spares God.NOM pagans.DEF.NOM=CL.ACC.M.SG cinstesc (MC.: v) honour.PRES.PL ‘the one spared by God ( . . . ) will be honoured by pagans’
The anticipation of the nominal DO occurs as early as the sixteenth century with p(r)e-marked proper names (a), p(r)e-marked strong personal pronouns (b), demonstrative pronouns with a human referent (c), etc. Unlike MR, p(r)e-marking is also encountered with non-animate definite common nouns (d). ()
a. cea fiară rea sălbatecă ( . . . ) cu de-adevăr that beast bad wild with of-truth l-au rupt pre Iosif (PO.: ) CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.PERF.SG tear.PPLE DOM Joseph.ACC ‘That wild beast tore Joseph indeed’ b. să
o
SĂSUBJ CL.ACC.F.SG
iau pre ea mie muiare (PO.: ) take.SUBJ.SG DOM her.ACC me.DAT wife.NOMACC
‘to marry her’ c. păcătoșiloru ( . . . ) iaste ajutoriu ( . . . ) și-i îmbărbătează is help and=CL.ACC.M.PL encourages sinful.PL.DEF.DAT aceștea (CC2.: ) those.ACC ‘he is helpful with the sinful and encourages them’ d. acela preut ce o va scrie that priest.NOM which CL.ACC.F.SG AUX.FUT.SG write.INF aceasta scriptura (MI.~: r) scripture.F.DEF.ACC this.F ‘that priest who will write this scripture’
For the above realizations, there are contexts without anticipation throughout the entire period investigated. ()
a. ocărăscu pre ceia ce greșescu (CC2.: ) accuse.PRES.PL DOM those.ACC which wrong.PRES.PL ‘they accuse the ones who make mistakes’ b. Învață și pre mine ceva (FD.–: r) teach.IMP.SG also DOM me.ACC something ‘Teach me something’ c. să
lași pe Gligorie-Vodă să facă let.SUBJ.SG DOM Gligorie-Voivode.ACC SĂSUBJ do.SUBJ.SG el ce știe (NL.~–: ) he.NOM what knows ‘let Gligorie-Voivode do what he knows’ SĂSUBJ
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
The anticipation of the relative DO clause (a,b) vs. non-anticipation (c,d) occurs very rarely. ()
a. scoţi-l [carele nedejdi pre save.IMP.SG=CL.ACC.M.SG which rely.PS.SG towards tinre] (PH.–: v) you.SG.ACC ‘save the one who has relied on you’ b. tremeate-l [pre cine ţi-e send.IMP.SG=CL.ACC.M.SG DOM whom.ACC CL.DAT.SG=is voia să-l tremeţi] (PO.: ) will.DEF.NOM SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.SG send.SUBJ.SG ‘send the one whom you want to send’ c. Nu îndrăgi [carele sârguiește pre cale sa on way his.POSS not come.to.love.INF which.M.DEF strives omului celui ce face legi-călcare] (PH.–: r) man.DEF.DAT that.DAT which does laws-infringement ‘Do not love the one who stands by the one who does not obey the laws’ d. să așadză [pre cine va socoti SĂSUBJ appoint.SUBJ.SG DOM whom.ACC AUX.FUT.SG consider.INF el] la domnie (CLM.–: r) he.NOM at rulership ‘let him appoint the one he wants as a ruler’
Although the doubling rules were not completely established at the end of the eighteenth century, the following observations emerge: (i) clitic doubling is more frequent with preverbal than with postverbal direct objects, irrespective of the period, the type of text, or the realization of the DO (see Table .); (ii) clitic doubling rules become stronger in the second part of OR; personal pronouns, strong reflexives, demonstratives, and indefinites are generally clitic doubled irrespective of their position relative to the head verb; (iii) there is not a correlation between clitic doubling and p(r)e-marking, in the sense that clitic doubled constituents are not obligatorily p(r)e-marked.
T . DO clitic doubling in OR Texts
postverbal DO
preverbal DO
+anticipation
–anticipation
PH.–
%
%
MC.
.%
.%
+resumption
–resumption
%
%
%
–
DPar.
%
%
%
%
CLM.–
%
%
%
%
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
... Raising constructions As in MR, in OR, certain transitive verbs— perception, cognitive, judgement, discovery, or factitive verbs such as auzi ‘hear’, vedea ‘see’, cunoaște, ști ‘know’, socoti ‘consider’, afla ‘find out’, prinde ‘catch’, face ‘make’, grăbi ‘hurry’, lăsa ‘let’, nevoi ‘force’, etc. enter syntactic structures with a nonfinite form or a subordinate introduced by the complementizers că, de, să ‘that’, taking part in the subject-to-object raising phenomenon ()–(). ()
ca și-l făcură de torcea and=CL.ACC.M.SG make.PS.PL that spin.IMPERF.SG like muierile (FD.–: v) woman.PL.DEF ‘they made him spin as well as women’
These verbs are characterized by syntactic variation; some patterns illustrating the phenomenon were eliminated from MR ((i)–(iii)), others have been preserved in the current language ((iv)). (i) constructions in which the subject of the subordinate verb does not raise to the matrix verb: ()
a. Dumnezeu ( . . . ) lasă [în boală a cădea oamenii] (CC2.: ) lets in sickness AINF fall.INF people.PL.NOM God.NOM ‘God lets people fall sick’ b. multe bezaconii văzu [pre lume făcând many foolish.things.ACC see.PS.SG on world do.GER oamenii] (A.: r) people.PL.NOM ‘he saw people doing a lot of foolish things’
(ii) the postverbal subject of the subjunctive form is realized as a clitic in the matrix clause: ()
și-ii puse de să lăcuiască eii în and=CL.ACC.M.PL put.PS.SG that SĂSUBJ live.SUBJ they.NOM in Samariia (CC2.: ) Samaria ‘and put them to live in the cities of Samaria’
(iii) ambiguous constructions from the point of view of case marking; in contexts in which there is no p(r)e-marking or clitic doubling, the nominal preceding the subordinate verb can be interpreted either as the subject of the subordinate verb or as the object of the main verb: ()
veade alalți luptându-se (FD.–: v) sees others.NOMACC fight.GER=CL.REFL.ACC.PL ‘he can see the others fighting’
(iv) the subject of the non-finite verb form of the subordinate clause raises to the matrix verb and is realized as a pronominal clitic (a), or an NP marked by p(r)e (b) and/or clitic doubled (c):
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
() a. Vădzuiu-l în mare afundându-se (CSVI.–: v) sink.GER=CL.REFL.ACC.SG see.PS.SG=CL.ACC.M.SG in sea ‘I saw him sinking in the sea’ b. că diavolul socotiia pre Hristos because devil.DEF.NOM consider.IMPERF.SG DOM Christ.ACC afi om prost (Ev.: ) AINF be.INF man.NOM dumb ‘because Satan thought that Christ was a dumb man’ c. nu-l lasă pre omul să vie not=CL.ACC.M.SG lets DOM man.DEF.ACC SĂSUBJ come.SUBJ.SG spre pocaanie (Ev.: ) towards repentance ‘and he doesn’t let the man repent’ ... Direct object word order Unlike MR, where in general the direct object comes after the verb, in OR the DP/NP direct object is much more frequently encountered in preverbal position. ()
a. Tină puse mie la ochi (CC1.: r) dust.ACC put.PS.SG me.DAT to eyes ‘He put dust into my eyes’ b. nu grăbi cu mâniia pre nimenea a not hurry.up.IMP.SG with anger DOM nobody.ACC AINF lovi (MC.: v) hit.INF ‘don’t hurry to hit someone when you are angry’
As an effect of the free word order, there are contexts in which the direct object of the subordinate verb raises to the matrix verb (see also }...). ()
acmu caută tine cu pietri să te now search.PRES.PL you.SG.ACC with stones SĂSUBJ CL.ACC.SG ucigă Iudeii (CC2.: ) kill.SUBJ.PL Jews.NOM ‘now the Jews want to kill you with stones’
With two coordinated transitive verbs generally in the imperative (b), but also in the indicative (a), the DO clitic is frequently placed postverbally to the first verb and preverbally to the second (see also }..). ()
a. previră-me și mă părrăsiră (PH.–: v) look.PS.PL=CL.ACC.SG and CL.ACC.SG leave.PS.PL ‘they looked at me, then they left me’ b. toate nevoile ( . . . ) potoleaște-le și le all needs.F.DEF.ACC appease.IMP.SG=CL.ACC.F.PL and CL.ACC.F.PL stinge (CC2.: ) kill.IMP.SG ‘appease all your desires, then kill them’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
In the case of ditransitive verbs, the DP direct object frequently comes after the indirect object (a), but it also occurs before it (b); see also }.... ()
a. după ce dă noaoIO bună dulceațăDO (CC2.: ) after what gives us.DAT good sweetness.ACC ‘after he gives us great sweetness’ b. când ară pune o leageDO fecioriloruIO when AUX.COND.SG put.INF a law.ACC sons.DEF.DAT beseareciei (CC2.: ) church.DEF.GEN ‘when he sets a law for the sons of the church’
As in MR, in two-clitic (a dative and an accusative) chains, the accusative clitic comes after the dative clitic; there are very few contexts in which the accusative clitic precedes the dative (see }...). ()
dulamă ce ți-o a furred.mantle.F.ACC that CL.DAT.SG=CL.ACC.F.SG AUX.PERF.SG vândut (Sind.: r) sell.PPLE ‘the mantle he had sold to you’
The direct object word order is influenced by different syntactic phenomena: accusative pronominals are involved in the ‘scrambling’ phenomenon: they intervene within compound verb forms (). The phenomenon was preserved dialectally, in the area of Banat and Maramures (TDR: ; ); see also }}..; .... ()
a. că ne va pre noi asculta (CCat.: v–r) that CL.ACC.PL AUX.FUT.SG DOM us.ACC listen.INF ‘he will listen to us’ b. până Domnedzeu va și alalte tipări și AUX.FUT.SG also others.F.ACC print.INF and until God.NOM scoate (PO.: ) publish.INF ‘until God prints and publishes the other ones as well’ c. eu încă am pre el botezat (CM.: r) I.NOM still AUX.PERF.SG DOM him.ACC baptize.PPLE ‘and I have baptized him’
In OR, there are frequent contexts with topicalized relative direct object clauses (}...). ()
a. [Cum acmu veade] nu știm sau [cine how now sees not know.PRES.PL or who.NOM i-au deșchis lui ochii] CL.DAT.M.SG=AUX.PERF.SG open.PPLE him.DAT eyes.DEF.ACC nu știm (CC1.: v) not know.PRES.PL ‘We do not know how he can see now or who made him see’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
b. [De iaste păcătos] nu știu (CC1.: r) whether is sinful not know.PRES.SG ‘I do not know if he is sinful’ ... Final remarks Differential object marking is faltering, especially in translated texts, until the mid-seventeenth century, when the rules for p(r)e-marking are established. Certain usages of the marker p(r)e are characteristic of the old language, being eliminated afterwards: (i) constructions with p(r)e + [–animate] nouns; (ii) constructions with a generic human DO realized as a p(r)e-marked definite noun; (iii) constructions with an individualized human DO realized as a p(r)e-marked definite noun. Direct object clitic doubling is recorded as early as the sixteenth century, independently of p(r)e-marking and without observing any strict rule. It is more frequent with preverbal DOs than with postverbal, irrespective of the formal realizations of the DO. Beginning in the mid-seventeenth century, the rules for DO clitic doubling become more strict. DO word order is much freer in the old language than in MR. The patterns with strong and clitic pronominals intervening in compound verb forms are characteristic of the old language and are eliminated in MR. .. The secondary direct object ... Preliminary remarks The secondary object is selected by a small class of verbs with two internal arguments, of which one is syntactically encoded as a direct object with the feature [+Animate], frequently realized as an accusative pronominal clitic (DO), and the other as a [–Animate] object, frequently realized as an unmarked NP (GR: –). ()
va învăţa [doao bunătăţ]SECO Acela teDO that CL.ACC.SG AUX.FUT.SG teach.INF two goodness.PL.ACCNOM folositoare de suflet (Ev.: ) useful.F.PL of soul ‘That one will teach you two things that are good and useful for your soul’
The V + DO + SecO configuration, preserved from Latin (Ernout and Thomas : ), differentiates Romanian from the other Romance languages. ... Selecting verbs As in MR, in OR the secondary object is selected by ditransitive verbs such as învăţa ‘teach’, întreba ‘ask’, pohti ‘invite’, povăţui ‘advise’, ruga ‘ask’, sfătui ‘advise’, trece ‘cross’, etc. (Pană Dindelegan b), which belong to two sub-classes: verbs of reported speech (înștiinţa ‘inform’, întreba ‘ask’, etc.) and causative verbs (a învăţa ‘make someone learn’, a trece ‘make someone cross’). () a. [frica Domnului]SECO învăţa-văDO-voiu (CP1.: r) teach.INF=CL.ACC.PL=AUX.FUT.SG fear.DEF.ACCNOM God.DEF.GEN ‘I shall teach you to fear God’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause b. [Trei întrebări]SECO întrebară Iudeii three questions.ACCNOM ask.PS.PL Jews.DEF.NOM [părinţii orbului]DO (CC2.: ) parents.DEF.ACC blind.man.DEF.GEN ‘The Jews asked the parents of the blind man three questions’ c. Și [alte multe ca aceste]SECO îlDO and other many.ACCNOM like these CL.ACC.M.SG pârâsă ciocoii (NL.~–: ) denounce.PLUPERF.PL boyars.DEF.NOM ‘And the boyars had said many other things like these against him’ [pe dumneata]DO (IS.: LXX) d. [Aceasta ]SECO poftesc this.F.ACCNOM invite.PRES.SG DOM you.POL.ACC ‘I am inviting you to do this’ e. nu-iDO povăţui [pre dânșii]DO Dumnezău not=CL.ACC.PL advise.PS.SG DOM them.ACC God.NOM [calea pământului filistiim]SECO (BB.: –) way.DEF.ACCNOM land.DEF.GEN Philistine ‘God did not tell them the way to the land of the Philistines’ f. și-iDO trecu [Marea Roșie]SECO (MC.: r) and=CL.ACC.M.PL cross.PS.SG sea.ACCNOM red ‘he will make them cross the Red Sea’
... Realizations
The realizations of the secondary object are the same as in MR
(i) a DP with a nominal head: ()
bună înţelepţie [calea a. Învaţă [pre noi]DO cu teaches DOM us.ACC with good wisdom way.DEF.ACCNOM spăseniei]SECO (CC2.: ) repentance.DEF.GEN ‘He teaches us very wisely how to repent’ b. [elu-l]DO învăţa soru-sa him.ACC=CL.ACC.M.SG teach.IMPERF.SG sister.NOM-his Polhiriia [toată înțelepciunea]SecO (MC.: r) Polhiria.NOM all.F.SG wisdom.DEF.ACCNOM ‘his sister Polhiria was teaching him all wisdom’
(ii) a determinerless NP: ()
a. cătră Timotei scrie de-lDO învaţă [așea to Timothy writes and=CL.ACC.M.SG teaches such credincios cuvânt]SECO (VRC.: v) faithful word.ACCNOM ‘he also writes this to Timothy and teaches him words of faith’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
b. să
înveaţe [pre ei]DO în limba haldeilor teach.SUBJ.SG DOM them.ACC in language.DEF Chaldeans.DEF.GEN [carte]SECO (DVT.–: r) book.ACCNOM ‘to teach them in the language of the Chaldeans’ SĂSUBJ
(iii) a pronominal from the class of indefinite quantifiers (a,b) or a pro-sentence feminine demonstrative with neutral value (c), which can be accompanied by a universal quantifier (d): nu învaţă [pre noi]DO () a. [nemică altă]SECO nothing other.ACCNOM not teaches DOM us.ACC Domnulu (CC2.: ) God.NOM ‘God teaches us nothing else’ b. Învaţă și [pre mine]DO [ceva]SECO (FD.–: r) teach.IMP.SG also DOM me.ACC something.ACCNOM ‘He also teaches me something’ c. Și [aceasta]SECO învaţă [pre noi]DO Dumnezeu, să and this.F.ACCNOM teaches DOM us.ACC God. NOM SĂSUBJ nu ţinem Pizmă (CC2.: ) nu hold.SUBJ.PL envy.ACC ‘And this is what God teaches us, not to envy others’ d. [Toate aceastea]SECO den dumnezeeștile scripturi să scriptures SĂSUBJ all these.F.PL.ACCNOM from divine.DEF neDO învăţămu (CC2.: ) CL.REFL.ACC.PL learn.SUBJ.PL ‘Let us learn all these from the Holy Scriptures’ (iv) a finite (a–d) or non-finite infinitival clause (e), introduced by complementizers specific to the old language (}..): (ca) să, (cum) că, (precum) că ‘that’, de, the last one with two values: interrogative de ‘whether’ in indirect speech (c) vs. non-interrogative de ‘that’ (d). ()
a. Cela ce va sfătui [pre muiare]DO [să that who AUX.FUT.SG advise.INF DOM woman.ACC SĂSUBJ fure de la bărbat]SECO steal.SUBJ.SG from man (Prav.: ) ‘The one that will advise women to steal from their husbands’ pârâea la Poartă [că sânt b. și-iDO and=CL.ACC.M.PL denounce.IMPERF at Empire that be.PRES.PL haini]SECO (NL.~–: ) malicious ‘and he denounced them to the Ottomans that they were malicious’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause c. întrebară Iudeii [părinţii orbului]DO ask.PS.PL Jews.DEF.NOM parents.DEF.ACC blind.man.DEF.GEN [de iaste feciorulu loru]SECO (CC2.: ) whether is son.DEF.NOM their ‘the Jews asked the parents of the blind man whether he was their son’ d. Și-l învăţă [de-șu aruncă and=CL.ACC.M.SG teach.PS.SG that=CL.REFL.DAT.SG throw.PS.SG toiagul înaintea lui Faraon]SECO (CazV.: r) LUI.GEN Pharaoh staff.DEF.ACC before ‘And taught him to throw his staff before Pharaoh’ e. de învăţă și [pre noi]DO [a nu priimi that teach.PS.SG also DOM us.ACC AINF not receive.INF lauda]SECO (CC2.: ) praise.ACC ‘that teaches us not to receive praise’
As verbs of indirect speech (except for trece ‘cross’), they can also introduce direct speech (note the absence of the complementizer) or clauses between direct and indirect speech. ()
eu l-am întrebat denaintea a omeni buni A.GEN people good I CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.PERF.SG ask.PPLE before [furatu-i-au au năpast(ă) or slander steal.PPLE=CL.ACC.PL=AUX.PERF.SG iaste] (DRH.A.: ) is ‘I asked him in front of good people whether he had stolen from them or he was wrongly accused’
(v) a relative clause headed by pronominal (a) or adverbial relatives (b): ()
[ce vei a. și voui învăța [pre tine]DO and AUX.FUT.SG teach.INF DOM you.SG.ACC what AUX.FUT.SG grăi]SECO (PO.: ) speak.INF ‘and I shall teach you what to say’ b. ș-au învăţatu [pre noi]DO [cumu să us.ACC how SĂSUBJ and=AUX.PERF.SG teach.PPLE DOM lăsămu noi greșalele fraţilor we mistakes.DEF.ACC brothers.DEF.GEN forgive.SUBJ.PL noștri]SECO (CC2.: ) our ‘and he taught us how to forgive the mistakes of our brothers’
... The characteristics of the structure The secondary object is not affected by reflexivization (a) or passivization (b).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
() a. [desfârșită închinăciune]SECO învăţămu-ne (CC2.: ) complete worship.ACCNOM teach.PRES.PL=CL.REFL.ACC.PL ‘and we learn how to worship deeply’ b. de la dânsul sfătuit fu [un sfat rrău from him.ACC advised be.PS.SG a bad advice.ACCNOM păgubos]SECO (SVI.~: v) prejudicial ‘he was advised badly and unwisely by him’
și and
Except for the cases when it is realized as a relative, in which case the word order constraint is required by the relative, not by the secondary object (}.), the word order of the secondary object is completely free: it can follow (b) or precede the verb (a) or the direct object (a). As in MR, the secondary object construction shows syntactic variation (see also }...). There are attested synonymous structures in which a prepositional object (a) or a dative indirect object (b) corresponds to the secondary object; more rarely, an indirect object occurs in the place of the direct object (c). In the special case of the verb trece ‘cross’, in which context the secondary object encodes the Path, there are attested alternative structures with the prepositions preste/prespre ‘over; across’ (d). învăţămu spre mai bună () a. să-iDO SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.PL teach.SUBJ.PL towards more good viaţă (CC2.: ) life ‘to teach them to lead a better life’ b. și cărărilor tale învaţă-măDO (CP1.: v) and ways.DEF.DAT your teach.IMP.PL=CL.ACC.SG ‘and teach me your ways’ c. Dumnezeu amu [tuturoru oameniloru]IO învaţă [să now all.DAT people.PL.DEF.DAT teaches SĂSUBJ God.NOM se iubească] (CC2.: ) CL.REFL.ACC.PL love.SUBJ.PL ‘Now God teaches all the people to love one another’ d. cumu iDO-au trecut prespre Marea how CL.ACC.PL=AUX.PERF.SG cross.PPLE across sea.DEF Mohorâtă în pustie (PO.: ) dark in desert.ACC ‘how he helped them cross the Red Sea and arrive in the desert’ The secondary object is attested in all types of old texts, original and translated. No significant differences occur between the two stages of OR (– and –). In the transition from OR to MR, there are only a few changes in the inventory of verbs selecting a SecO: two neologisms enter this class (a anunţa pe cineva ceva
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
‘announce something to someone’, a examina pe cineva ceva ‘examine someone in something’) and a few other verbs are eliminated, due to semantic changes (a tocmi ‘(contextually) teach, show’ (a)) or to changes in the syntactic grid (the case of a mărturisi ‘confess, state’, which is no longer reflexive (b)). ()
a. cert pre fieștecarele și tocmesc [pre scold.PRES.SG DOM each.one.ACC and teach.PRES.SG DOM ei]DO [poruncile lui Dumnezeu și and them.ACC commandments.DEF.ACCNOM LUI.GEN God leagea lui]SECO (BB.: ) his.GEN law.DEF.ACCNOM ‘I scold each one and I teach them God’s commandments and his law’ b. însămi [pri mene]DO mărturescu cu cest zapis myself.F DOM me.ACC confess.PRES.SG with this document al miu, [că mi-amu vâdut a AL.M.SG my that CL.REFL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.SG sell.PPLE AL.F.SG mea deraptă parte de ocină ]SECO (DÎ.: LXVIII) my rightful part of property ‘with this document I myself state that I have sold that part of the land which was rightfully mine’
In OR, the most striking feature is related to another characteristic of the old language: the frequency of occurrence of cognate objects (}..). Verbs that are generally used as transitives with a human direct object, encoding the Recipient (blagoslovi pe cineva ‘bless someone’, căzni pe cineva ‘torture someone’, chinui pe cineva ‘make someone suffer’, pârî pe cineva ‘denounce someone’, plânge pe cineva ‘mourn for someone’, săruta pe cineva ‘kiss someone’, etc.) or the Beneficiary (păgubi pe cineva ‘cause someone to lose something’) can lexicalize the Theme/Content as a cognate object, a fact which considerably extends the class of verbs occurring in configurations with a SecO. ()
a. Sărutaţi-mă sărutare de apoi (CSV.–: r) of after kiss.IMP.PL=CL.ACC.SG kiss ‘Give me one last kiss’ b. și plânseră pre el plângere mare și tare great and intense and cry.PS.PL DOM him.ACC cry foarte (BB.: ) very ‘and they shed many tears for him’
Some of the cognate secondary object constructions are embedded under a repetitive pattern with headed relative clauses (, see also }..). ()
a. pentru pâra ce-l for denouncement.DEF.ACC that=CL.ACC.M.SG pârâse (NL.~–: ) denounce.PLUPERF.SG ‘for the fact that he had denounced him’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
b. le-u părut rău de păgubirea CL.DAT.PL=AUX.PERF.SG seem.PPLE badly of loss.DEF ce-au păgubit ţara (NL.~–: ) that=AUX.PERF.PL cause.PPLE country.DEF ‘they felt sorry for the losses they had caused to the country’ The pattern with a cognate secondary object is attested throughout the period under investigation and occurs in texts belonging to different regions. It is encountered predominantly in the language of biblical translations, where it reproduces a Greek model, which, in its turn, reproduces the Hebrew text (Arvinte ). However, note that the contexts with the cognate secondary object also occur in texts other than religious: in narrative texts (FD), and in chronicles (CIst.–, ULM. ~, NL.~–), which indicates an internal propensity of the language for using this pattern. The structure continues to occur in the modern regional language, although rarely. ... Final remarks The construction with SecO is present throughout the old language and in all types of texts. As in MR, in OR the most numerous realizations are indefinite pronominals, feminine demonstratives with neutral value, as well as clausal realizations. The syntactic instability of the construction characterizes both old and modern Romanian. The cognate secondary object construction is more frequent in OR than in MR and has a wider stylistic distribution. .. The indirect object ... Preliminary remarks In OR, the indirect object generally exhibits the same characteristics as in MR. There are a few differences which regard: (a) the class of selecting verbs, which is more numerous than in the present-day language; (b) the lexical features of the indirect object, which are more extensive than in MR; (c) uses that are obsolete or less frequent in the present-day language; (d) the frequency of certain syntactic patterns, which is much more reduced in MR than in OR; (e) clitic doubling rules, which are more restrictive in MR than in OR. ... Selecting verbs Verbs which select a dative object or display more syntactic frames, of which one with the dative (Dat // PP variation, Dat // Acc variation; see }...), were much more numerous in OR. To a large extent, the phenomenon has been attributed to the Old Slavonic source text, where the verbs took dative objects (Candrea : ccxvii; Densusianu II: , among others) and, in the special case of the verbs cruţa ‘spare; forgive’, to the influence of the Hungarian source text (Densusianu II: ; Gafton and Arvinte : ); for crede ‘believe’, the Latin model has also been invoked (Fischer : ; Avram a: ; Stan a: ). The list of verbs which take an indirect object is very long, but some examples are given after (). ()
a. nici să se atingă stricatului (CC2.: ) neither SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.SG touch.SUBJ.SG sinful.DEF.DAT ‘neither should he touch the depraved’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause b. avuţiei să nu se blăznească (CC2.: ) wealth.DEF.DAT SĂSUBJ not CL.REFL.ACC.SG tempt.SUBJ.SG ‘he should not fall into the temptation of wealth’ c. Cine se bucură răului who CL.REFL.ACC.SG enjoys misfortune.DEF.DAT altuia (FD.–: v) other.GEN ‘He who takes pleasure in others’ misfortunes’ d. că Domnul cruţa lui (PO.: ) that God.DEF.NOM forgive.IMPERF.SG him.DAT ‘that God forgave him’ e. Cum voi nu înţeleasetu legei mele și scripturilor as you not understand.PS.PL law.DEF.DAT my and scriptures.DEF.DAT mele (MI.~: v) my ‘As you did not understand my law and my scriptures’
In the sixteenth century, numerous verbs of Slavic origin (Densusianu II: –), which were subsequently eliminated from use, took dative arguments: blăzni ‘tempt’, a (se) dodei ‘upset’, dosădi ‘insult’, dostoi ‘ought’, a se milcui ‘beg’, a se nădăi ‘trust’, ogodi ‘consent’, prilăsti ‘cheat’, etc. The dative pattern continued in the second part of the old period for verbs which abandoned it afterwards. ()
apropiem ( . . . ) lui Hristos (Mol.: ) get.close.SUBJ.PL LUI.DAT Christ ‘Let us come closer to Christ’
a. Să
ne
SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.PL
b. Și să bizuia ei toţi ţării and CL.REFL.ACC.PL trust.IMPERF.PL they.NOM all country.DEF.DAT lor (Cron.: ) their ‘And they all trusted their country’ c. M-am răstignit ţie CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG crucify.PPLE you.SG.DAT ieri (DPar.: III.r) yesterday ‘Yesterday I was crucified for you’ d. uitându-să Avram ceriului și look.GER=CL.REFL.ACC.SG Abraham.NOM sky.DEF.DAT and stelelor (Cron.: ) stars.DEF.DAT ‘as Abraham was looking at the sky and stars’ The very high frequency of the dative in OR also manifests itself through other facts:
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
(i) the occurrence, in predicative positions, of a construction with an articleless relational head noun followed by an adnominal dative ((a,b); see also }...); this is the so-called esse-dative configuration, which continues a Latin pattern (Frâncu : ). The adnominal dative is very frequent throughout the old period, but it will be eliminated from standard MR, in favour of a genitive construction. () a. Și Han iaste tată lui Hanaan (PO.: ) and Han is father.NOM LUI.DAT Hannan ‘And Han is the father of Hannan’ b. Cumu-i bărbatul cap muierei așea și Hristos as=is man.DEF.NOM head.NOM woman.DEF.DAT so also Christ.NOM iaste cap besearecei (VRC.: v) is head.NOM church.DEF.DAT ‘For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church’ (ii) the occurrence, in predicative positions, of a construction with a postverbal adjectival head derived by the suffix -tor(iu) and a DP dative complement ((a,b); see also }..); the construction is frequent throughout the old period and continues into the nineteenth century (SILR: –); in the present-day language, the pattern with the complement realized as a genitive or as a prepositional phrase has extended its usage (curăţitoriu al lucrurilor purifier.M.SG AL.M.SG things.DEF.GEN, curăţitoriu de lucruri purifier.M.SG of things.ACC). () a. că curăţitoriu iaste tuturoru sufleteloru (CC2.: ) because purifier.M.SG is all.DAT souls.DEF.DAT ‘for he purifies all the souls’ b. Dumnezeu, ce fu făcătoriu desăvârșit lumiei(MC.: r) complete world.DEF.DAT God who be.PS.SG doer ‘God, who completed the world’ ... Lexical features Compared to MR, where the indirect object predominantly has the feature [+Human], in OR there are many indirect objects with the feature [–Animate] (b,c,e), (b,d). ... Realizations In OR, the indirect object generally has the same realizations as in MR: (i) DPs with a dative head noun, with inflectional or analytical manifestations (a–c); (ii) clitic and strong pronominals, realized by dative dedicated forms (d,e); (iii) other pronominals with a dative form: politeness, demonstrative, possessive, relative-interrogative, indefinite (f–j); (iv) relative clauses in a dative position, introduced by dative relative elements (k). ()
a. Și zise Domnul lui Avram (PO.: ) and say.PS.SG Lord.DEF.NOM LUI.DAT Abraham ‘And the Lord said to Abraham’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause b. Zise Domnul Domnezeu șarpelui (PO.: ) serpent.DEF.DAT say.PS.SG Lord.DEF.NOM God ‘And God said to the serpent’ c. slujiră a dumnezeii păgânești (SVI.~: v) serve.PS.PL A.DAT gods.DEF.ACC pagan.M.PL ‘and they served the pagan gods’ d. tu nu-mi trebuiești (CC2.: ) you not=CL.DAT.SG need.PRES.SG ‘I don’t need you’ e. doară va cruţa mie (PO.: ) only AUX.FUT.SG forgive.INF me.DAT ‘if only he forgave me’ f. dau știre dumitale (DÎ.: CXV) give.PRES.SG announcement you.POL.DAT ‘I will let you know’ g. aceluia se găteaște mai mare muncă (CC2.: ) that.DAT CL.REFL.PASS prepares more big work.NOM ‘that one will endure more pain’ h. au căutatu și alor noștri a AUX.PERF.PL require.PPLE also AL.M.PL.DAT our.M.PL AINF merge (CLM.–: v) go.INF ‘they also asked our people to go’ i. cărora Domnul mândrie și înţelepciune who.PL.DAT God.DEF.NOM pride.ACC and wisdom.ACC dedease (PO.: ) give.PLUPERF.SG ‘to whom God gave pride and wisdom’ j. De să va fi prilejit if CL.REFL.IMPERS AUX.FUT.SG be.INF occasion.PPLE nescui ( . . . ) (Prav.: ) someone.DAT ‘If it happened to someone ( . . . )’ k. Voi vă închinaţi [căruia nu știţi]IO; you.PL CL.REFL.ACC.PL worship.PRES.PL whom.DAT not know.PRES.PL noi ne închinăm [căruia știm]IO (CazV.: r) we CL.REFL.ACC.PL worship.PRES.PL whom.DAT know.PRES.PL ‘You worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know’
Of the inventoried realizations, the following disappear from MR: type (c), with an analytical dative preceded by the marker a; type (e), with a non-doubled strong pronominal, is preserved in dialects (TDR: , ) and in non-standard
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
language. Realizations with the prepositions a, la, and cătră in analytical constructions equivalent to the dative have a special situation (see also Vieru : –). As a completely grammaticalized marker for the dative relationship, the preposition a occurs in NPs including quantifiers invariable to case marking (a–d), but not necessarily (e). The equivalence to the dative is realized by the coordination with an inflectional dative form (b), or the resumption by a dedicated dative clitic form (d), or by mixed constructions, with an invariable quantifier preceded by a, followed by a dative form (c). ()
a. nu se poate a doi fraţi not CL.REFL.IMPERS ought.PRES.SG A.DAT two brothers să ( . . . ) (Prav.: v) SĂSUBJ
‘two brothers should not ( . . . )’ b. scriu închinăciune și multă sănătate priiatiniloru write.PRES.SG prayer.ACC and much health.ACC friends.DEF.DAT noștri ( . . . ) și a doisprădzeace pârgari a our.M.PL and A.DAT twelve administrative.heads AL.INV domitale și pârcălabului (DÎ.: CIII) you.POL.GEN and chief.magistrate.DEF.DAT ‘I’m writing a prayer of health to our friends and to twelve of your administrative heads and to the chief magistrate’ c. Grăiţi a toată adunăriei feciorilor lu speak.IMP.PL A.DAT all.F.SG crowd.DEF.DAT sons.DEF.GEN LUI.GEN Izdrail (PO.: ) Israel ‘Speak to the whole congregation of the sons of Israel’ d. Și a mulți lă e întrebarea ce and A.DAT many CL.DAT.PL is question.DEF.NOM what vor (FD.–: r) want.PRES.PL ‘And many wonder what they want’ e. nice va agiuta părinte a fecior, nice neither AUX.FUT.SG help.INF father.NOM A.DAT son nor fecior a părinte (LDIII.–: v) son.NOM A.DAT father ‘neither the father will help his son, nor the son will help his father’ The indirect object preceded by a is preserved after throughout the old period (a,b). It will be eliminated from use in MR, where the analytical construction of the indirect object is realized only with the preposition la. ()
a. nu atâta pacoste face a tot nărodul (SVI.~: v) not such misfortune makes A.DAT all people.DEF ‘it’s not only this misfortune he causes to all the people’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause b. tot stricăciuni făcea ( . . . ) a fete fecioare și a fămei still debaucheries do.IMPERF.SG A.DAT girls virgins and A.DAT women înțelepte (NL.~–: ) wise.F.PL ‘he used to mock virgins and wise women’
La also shows signs of grammaticalization, manifested by: (i) occurrence in coordination with an inflectional dative or with an unambiguously marked dative (a,b); (ii) occurrence in constructions with clitic doubling by a dative form (c); (iii) the governors being verbs which select a Goal (zice ‘say’, scrie ‘write’, trimite ‘spend’, da ‘give’ (d)), which, in other contexts, select a dative. La-selection with verbs other than those in this class is possible, but rare (e,f). ()
a. Scriem închinăciune și multă sănătate ( . . . ) and much health.ACC write.PRES.PL prayer.ACC pârgarilor și pârcălabului și administrative.heads.DEF.DAT and chief.magistrate.DEF.DAT and la tot svatul domnitale (DÎ.: CII) LA.DAT all assembly.DEF you.SG.POL.GEN ‘We’re writing a prayer of health to the administrative heads and the chief magistrate and to all your assembly’ b. ei ( . . . ) au fost grăit și la Marif și they AUX.PERF.PL be.PPLE talk.PPLE also LA.DAT Maarif and lu Piri (DÎ.: XCIII) LUI.DAT Piri ‘they had also talked to Maarif and Piri’ c. cuvente bune și frumoase ce ne-ai words good and beautiful that CL.DAT.PL=AUX.PERF.SG scris dumneata la noi (SB.–: ) write.PPLE you.POL.SG.NOM LA.DAT us ‘good and sweet words that you’ve written us’ d. Zise șarpele la muiare (PO.: ) say.PS.SG serpent.DEF.NOM LA.DAT woman ‘And the serpent said to the woman’ e. și fu la toţi frică (CT.–: v) and be.PS.SG LA.DAT all.M.PL fear.NOM ‘and all were afraid’ f. să adocă negoţu de care treboiește SĂSUBJ bring.SUBJ.SG trade of which must.PRES.SG la noi (SB.–: ) LA.DAT us ‘bring us the trade we need’
The la-construction continues to be used throughout the period investigated () and becomes a general feature of modern non-standard language; it is used in all dialect areas (TDR: , , , , ).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure ()
a. Scris-am răvașul nostru la voi write.PPLE=AUX.PERF.PL letter.DEF.ACC our.M.SG LA.DAT you.PL Bolduregeștilor (DRH.B.: ) Bolduregești.PL.DAT ‘We wrote our letter to you, the Bolduregești’ b. La trei copii săraci ( . . . ) să li să LA.DAT three children poor SĂSUBJ CL.DAT.PL CL.REFL.PASS dea câte șase bani (AAM.: r) give.SUBJ.PL each six coins.NOM ‘Let three poor children be given six coins each’
The preposition cătră/către has a more reduced degree of grammaticalization: it occurs sporadically in clitic doubling constructions (a) and is completely absent from constructions with an Experiencer dative. Generally, the governers are dicendi verbs ((d)zice, grăi ‘say’, striga ‘yell’, da răspuns ‘answer’). As in the case of la, the constructions with cătră are equal to inflectional datives in coordinated (b) or appositional structures (c). aceștia și sfânta evanghelie grăiaște-le (CC2.: ) CĂTRĂ.DAT these also holy.DEF book.NOM says=CL.DAT.PL ‘and the holy Bible talks to them’ b. grăiaște cătră ai săi ucenici și apostoliloru (CC2.: ) CĂTRĂ.DAT AL.M.PL his disciples and apostles.DEF.DAT says ‘talks to his disciples and apostles’
() a. cătră
c. dzise cătră muiarea sa, Sarăei (PO.: ) say.PS.SG CĂTRĂ.DAT wife.DEF his Sara.DAT ‘he said to his wife, Sara’ The indirect object with cătră is also encountered in the second part of the period investigated, sometimes in clitic doubling constructions (). In MR, it is preserved with this use only in western and north-western dialects (TDR: , , , ). ()
au
început a-i spunerea cătră begin.PPLE AINF=CL.DAT.SG tell.INF-RE.DEF CĂTRĂ.DAT filosof (Sind.: v) philosopher ‘and he began to say to the philosopher’ AUX.PERF.SG
... Clitic doubling The clitic doubling of the IO has occurred ever since the sixteenth century either as clitic resumption (a,b) or as clitic anticipation (a,b). () a. amândurora acestora împărţitu-le-au (CC2.: ) these.DAT share.PPLE=CL.DAT.PL=AUX.PERF.SG both.DAT ‘he shared with both of them’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
b. mie iară așa-m me.DAT and so=CL.DAT.SG ‘and I must be like this’ () a. fi-ne-va be.INF=CL.DAT.PL=AUX.FUT.SG ‘and we will rest’
trebuiaște să fiu (PO.: ) must.PRES.SG SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG noao răpausu (CC2.: ) us.DAT rest.NOM
fie deraptă ocină și moșie, be.SUBJ.SG right inheritance.NOM and estate.NOM și lui, și feciorilor lui (DÎ.: LXVIII) also him.DAT and sons.DEF.DAT his.GEN ‘to serve him, his sons ( . . . ) as inheritance’
b. să-i
SĂSUBJ=CL.DAT.SG
The clitic-resumed indirect object with clausal realization is introduced by a dative relative pronominal (a), but this occurs only rarely. Especially in codes of law, clitic doubled constructions resuming the pronominal phrase comprising demonstrative + relative (celuia ce that.DAT who ‘to the one who’) are frequently encountered (b). Sometimes, a relative clause unmarked for the dative is resumed by a dative clitic (c). ()
a. și, [cui va da de moșie], să-i and whom.DAT AUX.FUT.SG give.INF of property SĂSUBJ=CL.DAT.SG fie moșie (DÎ.: XLVIII) be.SUBJ.SG property.NOM ‘and he who receives a property from him owns it’ b. [celuia ce iubeaște pre Dumnedzău], toate i DOM God.ACC all.F.PL.NOM CL.DAT.SG that.DAT who loves se schimbă spre bine (Prav.: r) CL.REFL.ACC.PL change.PRES.PL towards good.ACC ‘everything will turn out good for the one who loves God’ c. [cine va sluji la ceastă casă] ( . . . ) să SĂSUBJ who AUX.FUT.SG serve.INF at this house nu i să oprească simbriia (AAM.: v) not CL.DAT.SG CL.REFL.PASS stop.SUBJ.SG wages.DEF.NOM ‘who will work in this house ( . . . ) will not have his wages stopped’
A special type of doubling, which creates an effect of insistence, is the resumption of the indirect object relative clause by a demonstrative or a strong pronominal form (). ()
Și cui veţi lăsa păcatele, lăsate voru and whom.DAT AUX.FUT.PL leave.INF sins.DEF.ACC leave.PPLE.F.PL AUX.FUT.PL fi lor (CC2.: ) be.INF them.DAT ‘If you retain the sins of any, they are retained’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
T . IO doubling Text
Preverbal IO Clitic-resumed
Postverbal IO
Not resumed
Clitic anticipated
Not anticipated
CC2.
%
%
%*
%
PO.
.%
.%
%*
%
FD.–
%
%
%*
%
MC.
%
%
%**
%
CS.–
%
%
%**
%
Ev.
%
%
%**
%
DÎ.XVI
%
%
%**
%
* indicates that, in the relevant text, only pronominals (i . . . lui ‘to him’, le . . . lor ‘to them’, vă . . . voao ‘to you’, mi . . . mie ‘to me’), not DPs with a head noun, are clitic-doubled. ** indicates that both pronominals (mi . . . mie ‘to me’, ne . . . nouo ‘to us’ type) and DPs (i . . . sfentei mănăstiri ‘to the holy church’) are involved in clitic doubling.
Examination of the indirect object clitic doubling for the first part of the period investigated yields the quantitative data in Table .. Unlike standard MR, in OR clitic doubling is not compulsory in any syntacticsemantic condition, as the variation in both clitic resumption ((a) vs. (b)) and clitic anticipation ((c) vs. (d)) show for the whole of the period investigated. () a. Că aceluia se cuvine toată putearea și because that.DAT CL.REFL.IMPERS ought all.F.SG strength.DEF.NOM and slava (CC2.: ) [–resumption] glory.DEF.NOM ‘For he is worthy of all the might and glory’ vs. b. Și aceluia slava și cinstea și închinăciune and that.DAT glory.DEF.ACC and respect.DEF.ACC and worship.ACC să-i tremitem (CC2.: ) [+resumption] SĂSUBJ=CL.DAT.SG send.SUBJ.PL ‘To show all the praise and glory and worship to that one’ c. adună șie vistiariu de răutate (DPar.: II.v) [–anticipation] collects self.DAT treasure.ACC of wickedness ‘he lays up a treasure of wickedness within himself ’ vs. d. Înțălepciunea ș-au zidit șie wisdom.DEF.NOM CL.REFL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.SG build.PPLE self.DAT casă (DPar.: II.r) [+anticipation] house.ACC ‘Wisdom has built a house’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
The following observations emerge from the material investigated: (i) In the entire old period there were no rules of compulsory clitic doubling. (ii) In OR, the strong (personal or reflexive) pronominal without doubling is encountered frequently even after (a) and is sporadically encountered also in the nineteenthth century (SILR: ); it is eliminated in the twentieth century. (iii) As early as the sixteenth century, clitic doubling is more frequent with IO in anteposition than with IOs in postposition (see Table ., where resumption reaches, in one of the texts (MC.), %); the higher frequency of clitic doubling when the IO is in anteposition continues in the ninteenth century (SILR: ) and becomes compulsory in the modern language. (iv) In OR, reflexive clitic doubling is much more frequent than in MR; it occurs either in an anaphoric chain with a strong reflexive pronoun (b) or a strong personal pronoun (c), or with pronominals with different casemarking (e) or disjoint person (d) (see also }...); in MR, constructions such as (d,e) have been completely eliminated from use. ()
a. Cela ce dojeneaște răii dobândeaște șie wicked.PL.DEF.ACC obtains self.DAT that.NOM which rebukes necinste (DPar.: II.r) dishonesty.ACC ‘Whoever rebukes the wicked incurs injury’ b. Și-și luă partea sa sieși (ȘT.: ) and=CL.REFL.DAT.SG take.PS.SG part.DEF.ACC his self.DAT ‘He took his part for himself ’ c. ș-au luat luiș CL.REFL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.SG take.PPLE him-Ș.DAT doamnă (ULM.~: r) wife ‘he got married’ d. Și să ne facem șie turnuri (DPar.: II.v) and SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.DAT.PL do.SUBJ.PL self.DAT.SG towers.ACC ‘Let’s build towers for ourselves’ e. trebuiaște să-șu răstignească sine must.SG SĂSUBJ=CL.REFL.DAT.SG crucify.SUBJ.SG self.ACC.SG și toate pohtele să le omoară (CC2.: ) and all.F.PL desires.DEF.ACC SĂSUBJ CL.ACC.PL kill.SUBJ.SG ‘he has to crucify himself and kill all his desires’
A frequent phenomenon in OR, different from standard MR, is the resumption of a NomAcc NP or an invariable relative pronoun by a dative pronominal clitic. The phenomenon is generally registered in the context of impersonal verbs taking dative complements (a,b), but it can also occur with personal verbs (c). In the
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
modern language, it is registered in the dialectal varieties (TDR: ; Vulpe [] : ). () a. Cine i-e frică de Dumnezeu ( . . . ) (CC2.: ) who.NOMACC CL.DAT.SG=is fear.NOM of God ‘Who is afraid of God’ b. năemniculu tâmplă-i-se de that farm.labourer.DEF.NOM happens=CL.DAT.SG=CL.REFL.IMPERS cunoaște oile (CC2.: ) knows sheep.PL.DEF.ACC ‘it might happen that the labourer does not know the sheep’
nu not
c. Și un bărrbatu ce-i era numele and a man what.NOMACC=CL.DAT.SG be.IMPERF.SG name.DEF.NOM Anania (CV.–: v) Ananias ‘A man named Ananias’ ... Word order In OR, as in MR, the indirect object has free word order, except for the relative realization: it can be either postverbal (a) or preverbal (b); in the case of ditransitive verbs, the IO may follow the direct object (c) or precede it (d), or it may precede both the direct object and the subject (e). ()
a. Deade-o muiare barbatului său (PO.: ) husband.DEF.DAT her.POSS give.PS.SG=CL.ACC.F.SG wife ‘And gave her to her husband as his wife’ b. și duhului sfântu și slaveei ceriului and spirit.DEF.DAT holy and glory.DEF.DAT sky.DEF.GEN părtașu va fi (CC2.: ) witness.NOM AUX.FUT.SG be.INF ‘and he will face the Holy Spirit and the glory of the sky’ c. Pace dat-au apostoliloru și peace.ACC give.PPLE=AUX.PERF.SG apostles.DEF.DAT and uceniciloru săi (CC2.: ) disciples.DEF.DAT his ‘And he gave peace to his apostles and disciples’ d. Nu numai uceniciloru săi, apostoliloru, dragoste și not only disciples.DEF.DAT his apostles.DEF.DAT love.ACC and pace dat-au Dumnezeu (CC2.: ) peace.ACC give.PPLE=AUX.PERF.SG God.NOM ‘God gave love and peace not only to his disciples and apostles’ e. arătă lui îngerul lemnul (LC.~: r) show.PS.SG him.DAT angel.DEF.NOM tree.DEF.ACC ‘the angel showed him the tree’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
With impersonal and modal matrix verbs, the indirect object may raise from the finite or non-finite subordinate to the main clause, irrespective of the complementizer type. ()
cade a mulţămi ti (VRC.: v) a. [lui Dumnezeu]i să LUI.DAT God CL.REFL.IMPERS ought.SG AINF thank.INF ‘we ought to thank God’ de-ii dă b. când voiaște omul [gândului]i when wants man.DEF.NOM thought.DEF.DAT that=CL.DAT.SG makes loc ti (VRC.: v) place ‘when one wants to make room for thoughts’
Word order constraints, even though there are only a few in OR, are not strictly related to the indirect object, but to other features, namely: (i) the possibility of clitic postposition with respect to certain verb forms and the dative clitic preceding the accusative clitic (a), both of which occur in MR as well; (ii) scrambling phenomena with compound verb forms (b) and clitic reduplication (c), which have been abandoned in MR. ()
a. Aduceţi-mi-lu elu acicea! (CC2.: ) bring.IMP.PL=CL.DAT.SG=CL.ACC.M.SG him.ACC here ‘Bring him to me here!’ b. Dumnezeu care se-au ţie who CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG you.SG.DAT God.NOM arătat (PO.: ) show.PPLE ‘God, who appeared to you’ c. mi-au datu-mi (DPar.: II.v) CL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.PL give.PPLE=CL.DAT.SG ‘they gave to me’
... Final remarks Verbs taking an IO were much more numerous in OR. The [–animate] indirect object was much more frequent than in the present-day language. The analytical construction of the indirect object was much more often encountered than in standard MR and was not limited to NPs containing invariable quantifiers; after the period investigated, a would be eliminated, la would specialize for non-standard use, being often used, and către would be preserved only in certain dialectal varieties. The structures with an indirect object and a copula verb were frequently encountered in OR. Clitic doubling of the IO, present in texts as early as the sixteenth century, was less frequent than in MR and did not follow any strict rule. Strong pronominals without doubling were frequent both in anteposition and in postposition to the verb. Clitic resumption of the IO was more frequent than clitic anticipation. The IO word order was subject to great freedom in OR; word order constraints affected not the indirect object, but the positional characteristics of whwords and pronominal clitics.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
.. The prepositional object In OR, the prepositional object already has the characteristics that it retains in MR. The most important differences concern: (i) the inventory of verbs selecting a preposition; (ii) the much greater variation in preposition selection; (iii) the ambiguity of prepositional structures with p(r)e, la, cătră/către, in certain contexts. ... Selecting heads As in MR, the inventory of selecting heads includes verbs whose sole internal argument is prepositional (a), and verbs that select a prepositional internal argument and a second argument, be it a direct (b) or an indirect object (c). () a. teamemu-ne [de tine]PO (CP1.: v) be.afraid.PRES.PL=CL.REFL.ACC.PL of you.SG.ACC ‘we are afraid of you’ b. să-lDO oprești [de liturghie]PO (Prav.: ) SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.SG stop.SUBJ.SG of liturgy.ACC ‘to stop him from delivering the liturgy’ se supărase c. că iIO that CL.DAT.SG CL.REFL.IMPERS get.upset.PLUPERF.SG [de aceia]PO (CC2.: ) of those.ACC ‘and he felt sorry for those’ A large class of verb heads was already stable in their preposition selection in the sixteenth century. (i) Most of these are verbs and verbal collocations that selected the preposition de ‘of ’ (such as a–d): a se atinge de ‘touch’, a-și bate joc de ‘mock’, a căuta de ‘take care’, a se ciudi de ‘be surprised’, a se curăţi de ‘cleanse’, a se delunga de ‘give up’, a se domiri de ‘come to understand’, a se feri de ‘avoid’, a se griji de ‘take care’, a izbăvi pe cineva de ‘save’, a se (ne)îndura de ‘(not) take pity’, a îngădui de ‘allow’, a se lepăda de ‘forswear’, a se milostivi de ‘take pity’, a se mira de ‘be surprised’, a se mântui de ‘be redeemed’, a se opri de ‘stop’, a se părăsi de ‘quit’, a se plânge de ‘complain’, a(-și) râde de ‘laugh at’, a se rușina de ‘be ashamed’, a se scârbi de ‘be disgusted’, a se slobozi de ‘free oneself ’, a se spământa de ‘get scared’, a se stâmpăra de ‘stop’, a se teme de ‘be afraid’, a se urgisi de ‘get angry’, etc.; certain verbs (a asculta de, a se atinge de) can be explained through their Slavic counterparts (Copceag [] : ). Verbs of saying that take a de ‘of ’ prepositional complement are also included (e): a da (de) știre de ‘inform’, a grăi de ‘talk’, a se jelui de ‘lament’, a mărturisi de ‘confess’, a face mărturie de ‘testify’, a proroci de ‘make a prophecy’, a da răspuns de ‘answer’, a spune de ‘tell’, a vorovi de ‘talk’, etc. Subjectless psych verbs are also part of this group ((f); see }}...; ...); they select a dative DP and the preposition de ‘of ’: a-i părea bine/rău de ‘be happy/ sorry’, a i se supăra de ‘feel sorry’, a i se urî de ‘get tired of ’, etc.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
The interjection vai(de) ‘oh, me!’, frequently selecting de ‘of ’, is also part of this group (g). ()
a. să
ciudea de tăcearea ( . . . ) ce be.surprised.IMPERF.SG of silence.DEF.ACC that sta coconul (Sind.: v) stay.IMPERF.SG child.DEF.NOM ‘he marvelled at the child’s silence’ CL.REFL.ACC.SG
delungă de dulcele (CC2.: ) CL.REFL.ACC.SG give.up.PS.SG of sweet.DEF.ACC ‘he gave up meat’
b. se
c. începură a nu îngădui de Iacov și start.PS.PL AINF not allow.INF of Jacob and de Ioan (CazV.: v) of John ‘they did not tolerate Jacob and John any longer’ părăsi de acea vorbă (SVI.~: r) CL.REFL.ACC.SG stop.PS.SG of that talk ‘he stopped talking’ e. proroceaște David de lucruri (PB.: ) makes.prophecy David.NOM of things ‘three prophecies are made by David’ d. să
f. și-i pare rău de boala oiloru (CC2.: ) and=CL.DAT.SG seems badly of illness.DEF.ACC sheep.PL.DEF.GEN ‘and he is sorry that the sheep are ill’ g. Vaide de toţi păcătoșii (CC2.: ) oh.me of all.M.PL sinners.DEF.ACC ‘Oh me, how bad for all the sinners’ Some of the above mentioned verbs and verbal collocations also alternatively select a dative (a se atinge ‘touch’, a-și bate joc ‘mock’, a râde ‘laugh’, a se teme ‘be afraid’; see }...), but their prepositional object constantly involves de ‘of ’. For some verbs of saying the Slavic preposition za ‘of ’, which quickly becomes obsolete, occasionally occurs instead of de ‘of ’ (dau știre za ‘I inform of ’ (DÎ.: I)). Except for some verbs that disappear in the passage from OR to MR (a se ciudi ‘be surprised’, a se delunga ‘give up’, a se urgisi de ‘get angry’, a vorovi ‘talk’), and some that change their subcategorization frame (a căuta de ‘take care’, a nu îngădui de ‘not allow’, a se părăsi de ‘stop’), most verbs select the same prepositional structure as in MR. (ii) Another class, of inherently reciprocal verbs, is associated with the subcategorized preposition cu ‘with’: a se ajunge cu ‘reach an agreement’, a se amesteca cu ‘mix’, a avea prieteșug cu ‘be friends’, a se bate cu ‘fight’, a se certa cu ‘quarrel’, a se hotărî cu ‘border’, a se împreuna cu ‘get together’, a se încumetri cu ‘become related’, a se înfrăţi cu ‘become brothers’, a se (în)rudi cu ‘be related to’, a se
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
însura cu ‘marry’, a se (în)tâmpina cu ‘to meet’, a se lua cu ‘marry’, a se prici cu ‘quarrel’, a se rămăși cu ‘bet’, a(-și) semăna cu ‘resemble’, a (nu) se suferi cu ‘not stand’, a se tocmi cu ‘reach an agreement’, a se voi cu ‘come to an understanding’, etc. ((); see also }...). ()
a. s-au ajuns cu Racoţi (IS.: XLIV) CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG reach.PPLE with Racoţi ‘he reached Racoţi’ b. nu-ș semăna la nărav cu not=CL.REFL.DAT.SG resemble.IMPERF.SG at character with father.ACC-his tată-său (MC.: v) ‘he didn’t resemble his father in character’ c. Ne-am tocmit cu căzacul (DÎ.: XCIV) CL.REFL.ACC.PL=AUX.PERF.PL agree.PPLE with Cossack.DEF.ACC ‘We have come to an agreement with the Cossack’
In OR, some reciprocal verbs also select a dative complement (see }...), but the usual construction is the one with the preposition cu ‘with’. A homogeneous class of verbs, while not selecting a unique preposition, selects a limited number of prepositions that correspond to the semantic role of Goal, assigned by these verbs (a–c); the prepositions are: pre ‘towards’, spre ‘towards’, întru ‘in’, împrotiva ‘against’, asupra ‘over’, în aleanul ‘against’, sometimes as free variants, especially in the case of pre and spre ‘towards’, sometimes with a preference for one of them: a aţâţa pre ‘provoke’, a cârti pre/în aleanul ‘criticize’, a cugeta rău pre ‘think ill of someone’, a se hăini pre ‘betray’, a întărâta pre cineva pre/asupra ‘provoke against’, a se mânia pre/spre ‘get angry on’, a se milostivi pre ‘take pity on’, a murgui împrotivă ‘protest against’, a (se) nădăjd(u)i pre/spre/întru ‘hope’, a se năpusti pre ‘attack’, a năvăli pre ‘attack’, a oști împrotivă ‘make war against’, a să rădica spre/pre/în aleanul ‘rise against’, a se scârbi pre ‘get angry’, a scorni pre ‘come upon’, a (se) scula pre ‘rise against’, a se supăra pre ‘get angry with’, etc. () a. cârtiră oamenii pre el (CC1.: r) criticize.PS.PL people.NOM towards him.ACC ‘people criticized him’ b. Că mânie-se spr-înse because get.angry.PS.SG=CL.REFL.ACC.SG towards=them.ACC Dumnezeu (CP1.: r) God.NOM ‘Because God got angry on them’ c. pre tine nedejdiiu (PH.–: v) towards you.SG.ACC hope.PS.SG ‘I put my hopes in you’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
A large class of verbs subcategorized for a preposition were still unstable, selecting a number of different prepositions: a se apropia ‘get close’ de ‘of ’/ cătră ‘towards’/ la ‘at’, a avea parte ‘have’ de ‘of ’ / cu ‘with’, a se bucura ‘rejoice’ de ‘of ’/ despre ‘about’/ la ‘at’/ dereptu ‘for’/ în ‘in’, întru ‘in’/ pentru ‘for’, a crede ‘believe’ de ‘of ’/ în ‘in’/ întru ‘in’, a dori ‘wish’ de ‘of ’/ după ‘after’/ pentru ‘for’, a fugi ‘run’ de ‘of ’/ den ‘from’/ dentru ‘from’, a se încrede ‘believe’ în ‘in’/ spre ‘towards’, a se însetoșa ‘get thirsty’ de ‘of ’/ cătră ‘towards’, a se înstrăina ‘become estranged’ de ‘of ’/ de cătră ‘from’, a se rădzăma ‘rely’ p(r)e ‘on’/ întru ‘in’, a se veseli ‘rejoice’ de ‘of ’/ în ‘in’/ întru ‘in’/ derept ‘for’/ de la ‘from’, etc. (see also }..). Often, this variation occurs within the same sentence. ()
Și să nu fugimu dentru năpăști, și den nevoi disasters.ACC and from needs.ACC and SĂSUBJ not run.SUBJ.PL from și de griji și de scârbe (CC2.: ) and of worries.ACC and of anger.PL.ACC ‘And let’s not run from disasters and needs and worries and anger’
In most cases, a certain preposition is predominant (in CC2., in the case of a se bucura ‘to rejoice’, there are twenty-six occurrences of de ‘of ’ and only four of other prepositions; in the case of a (se) nădăjdui ‘to hope’, there are twenty-one occurrences of spre ‘towards’ and only one construction with întru ‘in’; in the case of a se apropia ‘to get close’, besides the dative structure, the preposition cătră ‘towards’ is predominant, with forty-two occurrences, followed by de ‘of ’, with eighteen occurrences, întru ‘in’, with three occurrences, la ‘at’, and până la ‘until’, with one occurrence each). The fact that each preposition receives an additional meaning explains the possibility for a verb to select two uncoordinated prepositional objects, usually an obligatory and an optional one. ()
M-am înfrăţit cu Drăghici și cu CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG become.brother.PPLE with Drăghici and with Giurgi pre toate moșiile și pre ţigani (DÎ.–: VIII) Giurgi on all.F.PL lands.DEF.ACC and on gipsies.ACC ‘I have joined my land and gipsies with Drăghici and Giurgi’
Depending on the verb’s meaning, different lexical prepositions may appear. ()
a. au
dat ( . . . ) Pătru dereptu sufletul give.PPLE Pătru.NOM for soul.DEF.ACC tătine-său (DÎ.: LXXII) father.GEN-his ‘Pătru gave [this] for his father’s soul’ b. să-și dea soru-sa după SĂSUBJ=CL.REFL.DAT.SG give.SUBJ.SG sister.ACC-his after frate-mieu (DÎ.: XXXII) brother-my.ACC ‘to marry his sister with my brother’ AUX.PERF.SG
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
Within the [V+PO] syntactic pattern there are only minor changes between OR and MR: (i) certain preposition-selecting heads disappear from the language altogether or from the standard variant (a se acolisi de ‘cling to someone’, a se ciudi de ‘be surprised’, a se hăini pre ‘betray’, a se hotărî cu ‘border’, a se nădăi spre ‘trust’); (ii) some verbs change their subcategorization frame or, in the case of variant structures (see }...), only one becomes fixed, either abandoning the selection of a preposition (a cunoaște de ‘know of ’, a dori de ‘wish of ’, a îngădui de ‘allow of ’, a înţelege de ‘understand of ’, a gusta de ‘taste of ’), or preserving only the preposition selection (a se apropia de ‘get close of ’, a se atinge de ‘touch of ’, a se bucura de ‘rejoice of ’, a (se) încrede în ‘trust in’); (iii) some prepositions restrict their use (spre ‘towards’, întru ‘in’); (iv) some rare prepositional structures are abandoned; those copied from Hungarian (FT.–: se adevereadză pre ‘get confirmed on’, poartă grijă pre ‘take care on’, pleacă-ţi urechile pre ‘listen on’; see Gheţie a: ); (v) the verbal collocation în aleanul ‘against’ becomes obsolete (}..). ... The ambiguity of the prepositions (s)pre, la, cătră The ambiguity of prepositions (s)pre, la, cătră is greater in OR than in MR. Besides introducing adjuncts of place (}..), they oscillate, from one context to the other, between their role as selected prepositions, and the role of direct and indirect object markers, respectively (see also }}...; ...). Prepositional phrases with the preposition pre ‘on//DOM’ without doubling (therefore lacking an associated accusative clitic form), with verbs such as birui ‘defeat’, domni ‘rule’, nedejdui ‘hope’, pohti ‘want’, etc., can be interpreted either as direct objects or as prepositional objects. () a. biruise răul pre bine (MC.: v) defeat.PLUPERF.SG bad.DEF.NOM on//DOM good.ACC ‘the bad had defeated the good’ b. Lor au lăsat Dumnezeu aicea să here SĂSUBJ they.DAT AUX.PERF.SG leave.PPLE God.NOM domnească pre noi (CC1.: r) rule.SUBJ.PL on//DOM us.ACC ‘God left them here to rule us’ There are a number of causes of this ambiguity in OR: (i) all these verbs are used both as transitives and as intransitives; (ii) in OR inanimate direct objects preceded by pre are also attested, which makes it possible to interpret the prepositional phrase in (a) as a direct object; (iii) there are many occurrences of pre synonymous with spre ‘towards’ (}...). The verb tremete ‘send’, when constructed with the preposition pre without doubling, allows for the prepositional phrase to be interpreted as an instrumental adjunct.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
()
Ce veri vrea să trimeţ la împărăţie what AUX.FUT.SG want.INF SĂSUBJ send.SUBJ.SG at kingdom.ACC mea nu trimeate pre streini, ce-mi scrie my not send.IMP.SG through strangers.ACC but=CL.DAT.SG write.IMP.SG cu mâna domnetale (DÎ.: XXXII) with hand.DEF you.POL.GEN ‘Don’t entrust strangers with the things that you want to transmit to my kingdom, but write them yourself ’
The ambiguity arises from the fact that the preposition pre can also introduce instrumental adjuncts realized as personal DPs//NPs (). ()
Că această carte o u tremesu patriarhul that this letter.ACC CL.ACC.F.SG AUX.PERF.SG send.PPLE patriarch.DEF.NOM de la Irusalim pre un călugăr (CSI.–: v) from Jerusalem through a monk.ACC ‘that the patriarch of Jerusalem sent this letter through a monk’
In the absence of doubling through a dative clitic form or of the possibility to contextually equate the prepositional phrase with a dative (}...), the interpretation of the phrase introduced by la ‘to’ is ambiguous, especially when the nominal is personal and the verb selects a dative complement in other contexts. ()
a. de-amu tremes atunce o carte la a letter.ACC to//LA.DAT so-that=AUX.PERF.SG send.PPLE then domnul (DÎ.: XVIII) lord.DEF.ACC ‘so that I sent a letter to the lord then’ b. ce m-am jeluit la but CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG complain.PPLE to//LA.DAT megiașii de pre împrejurul locului (DÎ.–: II) neighours.DEF.ACC of on around.DEF place.DEF.GEN ‘but I complained to my neighbours from around the place’
Similar observations regard the interpretation of the cătră ‘towards’ prepositional phrase, which, in the absence of disambiguating contexts (clitic doubling, coordination with/apposition of a dative form), is opaque. Any of these verbs also selects the dative (}...). ()
a. Aceia se apropiară cătră those CL.REFL.ACC.PL get.close.PS.PL towards//CĂTRĂ.DAT vlădici (CPr.: ) rulers.ACC ‘those got close to the rulers’ b. Greșiră cătră Hristosu (CC2.: ) mistake.PS.PL towards//CĂTRĂ.DAT Christ ‘They wronged Christ’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Argument structure
... Realizations The realizations of the prepositional object in OR do not differ essentially from MR. As in MR, clausal realizations are also attested, besides its realization as a prepositional DP/NP: (i) finite relative clauses (a,b); (ii) finite conjunctional clauses (a,b); (iii) non-finite infinitival clauses, with all their OR realizations ((a,b); see }...); (iv) a supine non-finite clause (a,b), which is rare in the earliest texts (only two attestations until ; see }...). () a. Adu-ţi aminte [câte biserici how.many churches.NOM bring.IMP.SG=CL.REFL.DAT.SG in.mind sunt făcute de moșii voștri]PO (IS.: XX) are make.PPLE by ancestors.DEF.ACC your ‘Remember how many churches were built by your ancestors’ b. dăm știre [PP de [ce știm]]PO (SB.: ) what know.PRES.PL give.PRES.PL news of ‘we inform you of what we know’ () a. mă fricoșezu [că ne vămu CL.REFL.ACC.SG get.afraid.PRES.SG that CL.REFL.ACC.PL AUX.FUT.PL păgubi]PO (CC2.: ) lose.INF ‘I am fearful that we shall suffer a loss’ b. se
temea fariseii [să nu be.afraid.IMPERF.PL Pharisees.NOM SĂSUBJ not cumva crează toţi în Hristosu]PO (CC2.: ) somehow believe.SUBJ.PL all.M.PL.NOM in Christ ‘the Pharisees were afraid that they might all believe in Christ’ CL.REFL.ACC.PL
() a. nu se temea [apostolii a not CL.REFL.ACC.PL be.afraid.IMPERF.PL apostles.DEF.NOM AINF învăţa]PO (CC2.: ) teach.INF ‘The apostles were not afraid to teach them’ b. se
lepăda [de-a se forswear.IMPERF.SG of=AINF CL.REFL.ACC.SG apropiiarea lu Hristosu] (CC2.: ) get.close.INF-RE.DEF LUI.DAT Christ ‘he forswore to come near Christ’ CL.REFL.ACC.SG
() a. Opreaște-te de plânsu (CC2.: ) stop.IMP.SG=CL.REFL.ACC.SG of cry.SUP ‘Stop crying’ și tăcut de strănutat (NL.~–: ) immediately get.silent.PPLE of sneeze.SUP ‘he immediately stopped sneezing’
b. au
AUX.PERF.SG
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
In (b), the prepositional form is preserved in the presence of the relative clause, leading to the unambiguous interpretation of the clause as a realization of the prepositional object. Conversely, in (a), the interpretation of the relative clause is opaque, because the verbal head can be either transitive or intransitive (selecting a preposition). In conjunctional subordinates () and in infinitival () and supine () clauses, the interpretation of the subordinate is opaque, as there is no formal marker to distinguish between the prepositional and the direct object positions. ... Word order As in MR, the word order of the prepositional object is free, its preverbal position also being frequent (a,b), although its postverbal position is predominant. ()
a. de toate păcatele să ne ferimu (CC2.: ) of all.F.PL sins.DEF.ACC SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.PL avoid.SUBJ.PL ‘let’s avoid all the sins’ b. carii de blagosloveniia voastră foarte se which of blessing.DEF.ACC your much CL.REFL.ACC.PL vor bucura (Ev.: ) AUX.FUT.PL rejoice.INF ‘who will be very happy with your blessing’
... Final remarks In the passage from OR to MR, the inventory of verbs subcategorized for a preposition partly changes: some verbs disappear altogether or remain alive only in the non-standard variant and in the language of the church; others enter the language during the wave of Romance loans (at the end of the eighteenth and throughout the nineteenth century), importing preposition selection from the source language (a abuza de ‘abuse of ’, a beneficia de ‘benefit from’, a se debarasa de ‘get rid of ’, a depinde de ‘depend on’, a priva de ‘deprive of ’, etc.; see SILR: ). At the end of the OR period, the syntactic variation in preposition choice diminishes, many verbs being limited to the selection of one preposition alone. Once the DO and IO doubling rules become fixed, situations of ambiguity in constructions with p(r)e, la, and cătră are fewer.
. Property-denoting complements .. The subject(ive) predicative complement The OR subjective predicative complement (SPC) differs from the SPC in MR in the following respects: the uses of the copula fi ‘be’, the inventory of copula verbs, special realizations and the frequency of these realizations, and the word order of the SPC in relation to the copula and the subject. ... The copula fi ‘be’ As in present-day Romanian, in OR the most employed copula verb is fi ‘be’. In structures containing fi, the SPC has slightly different semantic values () (GR: ).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Property-denoting complements ()
a. moartea noastră somn iaste (CC1.: v) sleep.NOM is death.DEF.NOM our ‘our death is sleep’ b. Moșu-miu iaste tată tătâne-miu (Prav.: r) grandfather.NOM-my is father.NOM father-my ‘My grandfather is the father of my father’
There are numerous situations in which the copula fi ‘be’ is elided. The ellipsis of fi (a) or, more rarely, of other copulas (b), is more frequent than in the presentday language; in the literature concerning the translation of biblical or canonical texts, this phenomenon has been explained as an influence of the Old Church Slavonic texts (also possibly influenced by Greek texts) (Mareș : ; Chivu : ; ILRL: ). In certain texts showing a freer syntax, such as FD.–, ellipsis of copula fi is very rare, in contrast with texts translated from Old Church Slavonic (Roman Moraru : ). The copula fi is absent in two situations: (i) similarly to MR, the copula is elided in coordinated structures containing two SPCs (a) or in larger coordinated structures in which the copula appears only in the first conjunct and not in the second one (b); (ii) the copula is simply missing, without being expressed before (); the constructions illustrated in () are no longer possible in MR. ()
a. eu measeru-su și__ mișel (PH.–: v) I poor.M.SG.NOM=am and weak.M.SG.NOM ‘I am poor and weak’ b. Fariseii să chema direpții, Pharisees.M.DEF.NOM CL.REFL.ACC.PL call.IMPERF.PL just.M.PL.DEF.NOM iară vameșii__ păcătoș (Ev.: ) and publicans.M.DEF.NOM sinner.M.PL.NOM ‘The Pharisees were called the just and the publicans were called the sinners’
()
a. Domnul __ ajutoriu mie și __ scut God.DEF.NOM help.NOM me.DAT and shield.NOM mie (CP1.: v) me.DAT ‘God is help and shield for me’ b. Chiamă pre muiarea a cui __ această casă call.IMP.SG DOM woman.DEF.ACC AL.F.SG whose.GEN this house.NOM aicea la mine! (DVT.–: r) here at me ‘Call the woman to whom this house belongs here at me!’
As in MR, the copula fi is often employed in impersonal structures of different types: with modal subjective adverbs (a), with tough-adverbs (b), and with infinitives (c) (in the present-day language, a supine form would be employed in this context: e de zis is DESUP say.SUP).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
()
fi mai bine, ce va naște be.INF more well who.ACC AUX.FUT.SG give.birth.INF să-l arunci în foc (MC.: v) SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.SG throw.SUBJ.SG in fire ‘it would be better if you threw in fire the new-born’ b. nu e lesne a se pocăi (Ev.: ) not is easy AINF CL.REFL.ACC repent.INF ‘it is not easy to repent’ a. ară
AUX.COND.SG
c. ce e de-a gicerea (Prav.: r) what is DE=AINF say.INF ‘what is to say’ Either fi ‘be’ or avea ‘have’ can be employed, in MR, in structures expressing age (GR: ). This phenomenon is considered by Sandfeld (: ) and Feuillet (: ) a Balkan feature. In the corpus surveyed, only the structures with fi and a SPC introduced by de are attested for expressing age (). The have-construction is available with constituents not denoting age (). ()
a. când fu el de doisprăzeace ani, duseră-se ei years go.PS.PL=CL.REFL.ACC.PL they when be.PS.SG he of twelve în Ierusalim (CC1.: r) in Jerusalem ‘when he was twelve years old, they went to Jerusalem’ b. era Noe de de ani (BB.: ) was Noe.NOM of of years ‘Noe was years old’
()
Era un om acolo, treizeci și opt de ani avea întru was a man there thirty and eight of years have.IMPERF.SG in boala sa (CC1.: v) his disease.DEF.ACC ‘There was a man there, and he has had this disease for thirty eight years’
The structure with fi ‘be’ plus a SPC is also preferred in OR quantitative constructions (). ()
a. Birul a fost (DÎ.: IX) tribute.DEF.NOM AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE ‘The tribute was ’ b. de lung să fie trei sute de coţi (PO.: ) as long SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG three hundred of ells ‘it should be three hundred ells long’
... Other copula verbs Besides fi, other copulas are used in OR (for MR, see GBLR: –). The most frequently used are naming verbs in the reflexive form (a se chema, a se zice, a se grăi, a se numi ‘be called; be named’), incorporating a
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Property-denoting complements
metalinguistic value; of the first three equivalent verbs meaning ‘be called’ (a–c), only a se chema has been preserved as a copula in MR. The MR verb zice takes an objective predicative complement (see Pană Dindelegan b; }...). The construction with the verb a se numi ‘be named’ is very rare, being attested from the seventeenth century in certain original documents from Moldova (d). ()
a. în cetate ce se chemî Nazaret (CT.–: r) Nazareth.NOM in town which CL.REFL.ACC.SG calls ‘in the town named Nazareth’ b. măgura ce zice-se Eleon (CB.–: ) hill.DEF which says=CL.REFL.ACC.SG Mount.of.Olives.NOM ‘the hill which is called Mount of Olives’ c. Iisus ce se grăiaște Hristos (CC1.: r) Jesus who CL.REFL.ACC.SG speaks Christ.NOM ‘Jesus, who is called Christ’ d. ce să numește parte Mânzăleștilor (DRH.A.: ) which CL.REFL.ACC.SG names part.NOM Mânzălești.GEN ‘which is called the part of the Mânzălești’
Another class of copulas is represented by verbs of location (a se afla ‘be placed’, rămâne ‘remain’, sta ‘stay’, etc. ()) and motion verbs (ajunge ‘arrive’, intra ‘enter’, ieși ‘exit’, a se prinde ‘catch’, purcede ‘proceed’, a se ridica ‘raise’, sosi ‘arrive’, a se ține ‘hold’, veni ‘come’, etc. ()), (semi-)grammaticalized as copula verbs (see Van Peteghem : ). Of these verbs, only ajunge and rămâne have been preserved as copulas in the present-day standard language; ieși, a se prinde, veni, and a se ţine have also survived in the spoken language. nu se și aceștia afle not CL.REFL.ACC.PL also these be.placed.SUBJ.PL cumnați (Prav.: r) brothers-in-law.NOM ‘these ones do not have to be brothers-in-law’
() a. se
SĂSUBJ
b. sătulul rămase flămând (MC.: v) full.DEF.NOM remain.PS.SG hungry.NOM ‘the full remained hungry’ c. acea tocmală ca să stea întreagă (Prav.: ) that agreement in.order SĂSUBJ stay.SUBJ.SG entire.F.SG ‘that agreement should be respected’ () a. au
ajuns pre pământ înger (BB.: XXIX) arrive.PPLE on earth angel.NOM ‘he became an angel on earth’ AUX.PERF.SG
b. cine va ieși vinovat (DÎ.: XLVIII) who AUX.FUT.SG exit.INF guilty.NOM ‘who will be found guilty’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause c. căci întră chezaș (FD.–: r) because enter.PS.SG guarantor.NOM ‘because he became a guarantor’ d. Ce se prinde Constantin lui Teodor but CL.REFL.ACC.SG catches Constantin LUI.DAT Teodor și cuscru și cumnat (Prav.: v) and father.of.a.son-in-law.NOM and brother-in-law.NOM ‘But Constantin becomes the father of the son-in-law and the brother-inlow of Teodor’ e. purcezând grea, născu pre Cáin (DPar.: II.v) proceed.GER pregnant.NOM give.birth.PS.SG DOM Cain.ACC ‘becoming pregnant, she gave birth to Cain’ f. Daniil să rădică domn (DVT.–: v) Daniel.NOM CL.REFL.ACC.SG raise.PS.SG voivode.NOM ‘Daniel became a voivode’ g. el sosi pizmeei rob (MC.: v) he arrive.PS.SG envy.DEF.DAT slave.NOM ‘he became the slave of envy’ h. Și tu te ţini tină, iar zile and you CL.REFL.ACC.SG hold.PRES.SG young.NOM and days.NOM să vor împuţina și tu veri CL.REFL.ACC.PL AUX.FUT.PL diminish.INF and you.SG.NOM AUX.FUT.SG muri (A.: v) die.INF ‘And you hold yourself young, but the days will diminish and you will die’ i. după ce au venit samoderjeții after what AUX.PERF.PL come.PPLE autocrats.DEF.NOM emperors.NOM împăraț (CIst.–: r) ‘after the autocrats became emperors’
Some of these verbs with an original locative or motion meaning are also employed with passive past participles, replacing the regular passive auxiliary fi ‘be’ (}...). ()
a. Cându să va afla neștine ucis în when CL.REFL.ACC.SG AUX.FUT.SG find.INF someone.NOM killed in casă la muiare-ș (Prav.: ) house at wife=CL.REFL.POSS ‘When someone will be found killed in his wife’s house’ b. cuvântul acela ce stă scris (CC1.: v) word.DEF that which stays written ‘that word which is written’
The other copula verbs identified in the OR corpus express different semantic (aspectual, modal, etc.) values: a dynamic value—change of state (a (se) face ‘become’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Property-denoting complements
(a), ‘pretend’ (b), ‘transform’ (c), and ‘value’ (d)) or a modal nonfactive value (a părea ‘seem’, a se arăta ‘show onself ’, a se închipui ‘imagine onself ’ ()). All these verbs—except a se închipui—are preserved in MR. It is worth mentioning that in its first occurrences, părea is more frequent as an impersonal verb, and its copulative usage (with a reflexive or non-reflexive form) seems to be a secondary one, which has developed since the seventeenth century. ()
a. Cine să va face ispravnic (Prav.: ) who CL.REFL.ACC.SG AUX.FUT.SG become.INF subprefect.NOM ‘Who will become a subprefect’ b. să feace nebun, de scăpă CL.REFL.ACC.SG pretend.PS.SG insane.NOM and escape.PS.SG de moarte (MC.: v) of death.ACC ‘he pretended to be insane and escaped the death’ c. Și întrând fata în peșteră s-au and enter.GER girl.DEF.NOM in cave.ACC CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG făcut zmăoaică (Sind.: r) transform.PPLE dragon.F.NOM ‘Entering the cave, the girl turned into a dragon’ d. aspri, carii fac twelve Turkish.coins which value.PRES.PL two potronici de argint (Prav.: ) Polish.coins.NOM of silver ‘twelve Turkish coins which are worth two silver Polish coins’
()
a. Face-veri dumneata acest lucru, noa this thing us.DAT make.INF=AUX.FUT.SG you.POL părea-va foarte drag (DÎ.: XCV) seem.INF=AUX.FUT.SG very dear.M.SG.NOM ‘If you make this thing, it will seem very dear to us’ b. Și foarte greu se păru cuvântul and very severe CL.REFL.ACC.SG seem.PS.SG word.DEF.NOM înaintea lui Avraam (BB.: ) before LUI.GEN Abraham ‘and this word seemed very severe to Abraham’ c. mică ( . . . ) țară multora au părut small.F.SG.NOM country.NOM many.DAT AUX.PERF.SG seem.PPLE că iaste (CIst.–: r) that is ‘for many people, it seemed to be a small country’ d. de ver să te arăți tuturor if want.PRES.SG SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.SG show.PRES.SG all.DAT dulce (FD.–: v) sweet.NOM ‘if you want to put in a sweet appearance’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause e. leul să închipuiaște a împăratu (Cron.: ) as emperor.NOM lion.DEF.NOM CL.REFL.ACC.SG imagines ‘the lion imagines himself as an emperor’
The copula a (în)semna ‘mean’, expressing equivalence, is attested from the seventeenth century and is preserved in MR. ()
ce-are însămna mie acel vis (DVT.–: r) what=AUX.COND.SG mean.INF me.DAT that dream.NOM ‘what that dream would mean to me’
... Realizations The SPC has multiple realizations in the old language; many of them are shared with present-day Romanian (the genitive, the prepositional phrase, the adjective, etc.) (see GR: –). Attention will be paid only to the realizations that have a different frequency in the old language (i) and to those which are no longer possible in the present-day language (ii). (i) In contrast to MR, in OR, the SPC is more frequently expressed by relational nouns taking a dative object (). ()
a. el este frate acelui fecior (DÎ.–: XXV) he is brother.NOM that.DAT boy ‘he is the brother of that boy’ b. carile-i acolo acelui pământ domn (PO.: ) who=is there that.DAT land master.NOM ‘who is the master of that land’ c. măcar de-au și fost ispravnic lui (Prav.: ) even if=AUX.PERF.SG also be.PPLE subprefect him.DAT ‘even if he was his subprefect’
The copula fi ‘be’ allows different types of raised dative phrases or clitics projected as complements to the noun (a,b) or to the adjective (c), either doubled or not; these constructions are preserved in the present-day spoken language. ()
a. ți-e ție sor (PO.: ) CL.DAT.SG=is you.SG.DAT sister.NOM ‘she is your sister’ b. ne sântem fraţi (PO.: ) CL.DAT.PL be.PRES.PL brothers.NOM ‘we are brothers (to each other)’ c. ei mie n-au fost destoinici (DVT.–: v) they me.DAT not=AUX.PERF.PL be.PPLE worthy.M.PL.NOM ‘they were not worthy of me’
Constructions in which the noun occupying the SPC position takes both a genitive complement and a raised dative clitic hosted by the copula are also possible; this type of construction is, most probably, the result of the overlapping of two constructions: a SPC with a genitive complement and a SPC with a dative complement (that could
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Property-denoting complements
be realized as a clitic) (). Such structures are also available in the present-day spoken language. ()
lui nepoată hiindu-i (Prav.: v) AL.F.SG his niece be.GER=CL.DAT.M.SG ‘being his niece’ a
The structure AL + genitive phrase or possessive adjective, specific to Romanian, is frequent since the first surviving texts. () a. de va naște fecior, al său if AUX.FUT.SG give.birth.INF son.ACC AL.M.SG his.POSS se chiamă (Prav.: v) CL.REFL.ACC.SG calls ‘if she gives birth to a son, he is called her son’ b. sântem ai Lui (BB.: XXIII) be.PRES.PL AL.M.PL his.GEN ‘we are his’ The SPC is more frequently realized by a relational adjective (}..) than in MR, without the syntactic constraints specific to the modern language (GR: ). In the corpus surveyed, the SPC is however very rare (see Brăescu and Dragomirescu ). ()
a. împărăţia lui iaste sufletească (CC1.: v) spiritual.F.SG.NOM kingdom.F.DEF.NOM his is ‘his kingdom is spiritual’ b. care învățături sânt dumnedzăiești și which advice.F.PL be.PRES.PL divine.F.PL.NOM and apostolești (ȘT.: ) apostolic.F.PL.NOM ‘which advice is divine and apostolic’ c. Casa aceaia ( . . . ) să fie domnească (Prav.: ) SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG princely.F.SG.NOM house.F.DEF.NOM that.F ‘That house should be princely (belong to the voivode)’
Active past participles with an adjectival value are more frequent in the old language than in present-day Romanian () (see }..): ()
a. multu nemâncați fumu (CV.–: v) very NEG-eat.PPLE.M.PL.NOM be.PS.PL ‘we were very famished’ fi mai destoinic și puţin be.INF more worthy.M.SG.NOM and more less greșit (CC .: r) be.wrong.PPLE.M.SG.NOM ‘he would be worthier and less wrong’
b. ară
AUX.COND.SG 1
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause c. toți oamenii aflămu-ne ca întru o corabie all people.PL.DEF find.PRES.PL=CL.REFL.ACC.PL like in a ship întrați (CC2.: ) enter.PPLE.M.PL.NOM ‘we are all as if inside a ship’
The copula fi ‘be’ could take SPC introduced by prepositions of quality (see Pană Dindelegan ) (); in MR, prepositions of quality are no longer used in the beconstruction, however they are still in use with other copulas (trece drept ‘pass as’, arăta a ‘look like’, a se ţine de ‘consider’, a se prinde de ‘become’). ()
sâmt lor de fecior vitregu (Prav.: r) CL.DAT.PL be.PRES.PL them.DAT as son.ACC step.M.SG.ACC ‘they are step brothers to them’ b. să-m fie de mărturie că eu am săpat SĂSUBJ=CL.DAT.SG be.SUBJ.SG as proof that I AUX.PERF.SG dig.PPLE această fântână (BB.: ) this fountain.ACC ‘to be the proof that I have dug this fountain’
a. le
In contrast to MR, the intensifier însumi ‘myself ’ could occasionally appear as SPC (see }.). ()
Eu iară rămaș însumi și văzuiu această văzătură vision.ACC I but remain.PS.SG myself and see.PS.SG this mare (DVT.–: v) big.F.SG.ACC ‘I remained alone and I saw this great vision’
The most salient characteristic of the propositional realization of the SPC in OR is the fact that the main verb and the embedded verb are either both copulas (a,b) or a copula and a transitive verb taking an objective predicative complement (c). ()
a. ceia ce încă n-au ajunsu [feciori să that who yet not=AUX.PERF.PL arrive.PPLE sons.NOM SĂSUBJ fie] (CC2.: ) be.SUBJ.PL ‘those who are not yet sons’ b. întăiu se arată [cum ară fi CL.REFL.ACC.SG shows how AUX.COND.SG be.INF first dulce] (Ev.: ) sweet.M.SG.NOM ‘first he puts in a sweet appearance’ c. sora ei era, [de o chema sister.NOM her be.IMPERF.SG that CL.ACC.F.SG call.IMPERF.SG Maria] (CC1.: r) Maria.NOM ‘her sister was called Maria’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Property-denoting complements
Both că () and să () can introduce the subordinate clause; să is rare în the first period and it introduces mostly relatives without a relative pronoun (a) (see }...). ()
a. cine va găsi acealea lucruri, nu să things.ACC not CL.REFL.ACC.SG who AUX.FUT.SG find.INF those va chema [c-au găsit AUX.FUT.SG call.INF that=AUX.PERF.SG find.PPLE comoară] (Prav.: ) treasure.ACC ‘he who will find those things will not be considered to have found a treasure’ b. aceaea însamnă [că iaste ţara that is country.F.DEF.NOM that.F means Nemţască] (DVT.–: v) German.F.SG.NOM ‘it means that that is Germany’
()
a. Nece un om iaste [să grăiască așa ca SĂSUBJ speak.SUBJ.SG like.this like no one man is acest om] (CC1.: v) this man ‘There is no one who could speak like this man’ b. Mila iaste [să ierți pre cela SĂSUBJ forgive.SUBJ.SG DOM that.ACC compassion.DEF.NOM is ce greșaște] (FD.–: r) who sins ‘Compassion is to forgive the one who sins’
In OR, de can be interpreted either as a complementizer or a relative pronoun (see Pană Dindelegan : ; ; a; Sava a). It appears as frequently as the other complementizers and without dialectal restrictions (cf. ILRL: ) (}}...; ...). ()
a. acesta iaste [de mă iubeaște] (CC2.: ) this is that CL.ACC.SG loves ‘this is the one who loves me’ b. Hristos iaste [de stă deasupra ta] (ȘT.: ) that stays above your Christ.NOM is ‘Christ is the one who stays above you’
(ii) Certain realizations of the SPC are no longer possible in MR: the partitive structures with de () (}..), the adjectives in -tor and with a verbal origin taking a direct object () (}..), and the gerunds () (}...). Examples such as (b) are ambiguous: the verb fi ‘be’ can be interpreted either as an auxiliary, the gerund being the tense formative, or as a copula verb, the gerund being a SPC.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
()
cel ce era de cei șapte (CV.–: v) that who be.IMPERF.SG of CEL.M.PL seven ‘the one who was of the seven’
()
nu e făcătoriu bine (CP1.: r) not is making(ADJ).M.SG.NOM good ‘he is not a person who does good’
()
a. era iuți și mânioși și neaducându-șu were furious.M.PL and angry.M.PL and NEG-remember.GER=CL.REFL.DAT.PL aminte de dumnezeesculu daru (CC2.: ) in.mind of divine gift.ACC ‘they were furious and angry and oblivious to God’s gift’ b. fii împăcându-te cu pârâșul be.IMP.SG make.it.up.GER=CL.REFL.ACC.SG with claimant.DEF.ACC tău (CT.–: r) your ‘make it up with your claimant’
... Word order In the present-day language the unmarked word order is (subject +) copula + SPC (Stati : ; GALR II: –); by contrast, in OR, the word order of the SPC shows significant variation, without an explicit discourse and pragmatic implication. Gheţie and Teodorescu (: ) attribute the final position occupied by the copula in the clause to the influence of the Old Slavonic model on the Romanian translation. However, the word order variation cannot be accounted for by Slavonic influence alone; certain pragmatic and discourse factors could have also played an important part (Teodorescu and Gheție : ). Differences between texts are important in this discussion. The quantitative analysis presented in Table . shows that, in the first period of OR, two patterns were greatly preferred: the pattern (S–)V–SPC (also prominent in the present-day language) and the pattern SPC–V(–S) (), rarely employed in the present-day language, and only when the SPC is focused (see GALR II: ) or in religious texts. The (S–)V–SPC pattern is preferred in the original texts, in which the order SPC–V(–S) is rare; however, there are also translations in which the pattern (S–)V–SPC is the most frequent one (Prav.). The order SPC–V(–S) is very frequent in the earliest surviving Romanian text (PH.–). ()
a. sângur sânt eu (CM.: v) alone.M.SG.NOM am I ‘I am alone’ ta iaste tăriia (CL.: v) AL.F.SG your is force.DEF.NOM ‘the force is yours’
b. a
The least represented patterns are: V–SPC–S (a), V–S–SPC (b), S–SPC–V (c), SPC–S–V (d); the last pattern is not attested in original documents from the sixteenth century and it seems to disappear from translations as well by the end of the same century.
.% .% .% .%
.%
.%
.%
.%
DVT.–
CIst.–
.%
.%
Prav.
.%
.%
CM.
CL.
MI. ~
.% .%
.%
.%
DÎ
PH.–
S–V–SPC
V–SPC
T . SPC word order
.%
.%
.%
.%
–
.%
.%
.%
V–SPC–S
.%
.%
–
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
V–S–SPC
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
SPC–V
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
S–SPC–V
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
SPC–V–S
.%
%
%
%
.%
.%
.%
%
SPC–S–V
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
()
a. au
fostu egumen Anastasie (DÎ.: LXXII) be.PPLE father.superior.NOM Anastasie.NOM ‘Anastasie was father superior’ AUX.PERF.SG
fi Domnul agiutoriu mișelului (PH.–: v) AUX.FUT.SG be.INF God.NOM help.NOM weak.DEF.DAT ‘God will be the help of weak people’
b. va
c. înrima loru deșarta e (PH.–: v) heart(F).DEF.NOM their empty.F.SG.NOM is ‘their heart is empty’ d. curați noi să fim (CM.: r) immaculate.M.PL.NOM we SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.PL ‘we have to be immaculate’ Different constituents may intervene between the V and the SPC in the V–SPC/ SPC–V patterns (for a similar situation, see periphrastic verb forms and other types of complex predicate, and the be-passive construction). ()
a. că-și simt, în loc de frați, cumnați (Prav.: v) that=CL.DAT.PL be.PRES.PL instead of brothers brothers-in-law.NOM ‘instead of being brothers, they are brothers-in-law’ b. giudețu eu acelora nu voiu se fiu (CV.–: r) judge.NOM I those.DAT not want.PRES.SG SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG ‘I don’t want to be the judge of these ones’
In coordinated structures, the two conjuncts need not be symmetrical with respect to the internal ordering of their constituents. Example (b) shows that the copula may intervene between the two coordinated SPCs. ()
a. că domnul de sus înfricatu e [S–SPC–V] și and that God.DEF.NOM of above frightening.M.SG.NOM is e împărat [V–SPC] pespre tot pămintul (MI.~: r) over all earth.DEF.ACC is emperor.NOM ‘that God is frightening and is emperor over all the earth’ b. Ieri întru suspin eram [SPC–V] și în plângeri, yesterday in sigh.ACC be.IMPERF.SG and in tears.ACC iară astădzi săm întru veselie [V–SPC] și and today am in cheerfulness.ACC and în bucurie (MI.~: v) in joy.ACC ‘Yesterday I was sighing and now I am glad and joyful’
... Final remarks OR SPCs and copula verbs are characterized by: frequency of the ellipsis of the verb fi, sometimes explained as an influence of Old Church Slavonic; a specific inventory of copula verbs, of which certain naming verbs
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Property-denoting complements
and verbs of motion have been eliminated from the present-day standard language; specific realizations, that either increased or decreased in frequency, or disappeared in the next period; a significant word order variation and the preference for two opposite patterns: (S–)V–SPC (also) preferred in the present-day language, and SPC– V(–S), specific to OR. .. The object(ive) predicative complement ... Preliminary remarks The object predicative complement (OPC) is selected by a small class of ditransitive verbs which enter configurations with a referential direct object (DO), marked with the accusative case (a,b) and, rarely, as a dative IO (c), and an unmarked object, denoting a property of the DO/IO nominal. The configuration V+DO+OPC is preserved from Latin and also occurs in other Romance languages (GR: –, –). The class of verbs taking OPCs (the so-called ‘attributive’ verbs) resemble copula verbs (}..; see also Pană Dindelegan b), but, unlike copula verbs, the property refers to the object, not to the subject. ()
a. Domnedzeu au pus mineDO [domn]OPC (PO.: ) AUX.PERF.SG appoint.PPLE me.ACC voivode.NOMACC God.NOM ‘God anointed me voivode’ chema b. Thoma, ce-luDO Thomas which=CL.ACC.M.SG call.IMPERF.SG [geamănulu]OPC (CC2.: ) twin.DEF.NOMACC ‘Thomas, who was called the Twin’ c. leIO zicea loruIO [Samareani]OPC (CC2.: ) CL.DAT.PL say.IMPERF.SGPL them.DAT Samaritan.PL.NOMACC ‘they were called Samaritans’
Attributive verbs include two important semantic sub-classes of verbs (GR: ): naming verbs (b,c) and appoint verbs (a). Compared to MR, OR has few differences which regard the inventory of verbs entering this construction, special uses of the structures, and the realization of the OPC. ... The subclass of naming verbs .... Inventory. From the earliest texts, naming verbs inherited from Latin, chema ‘be called’ (< CLAMARE), zice ‘call’ (< DICERE), are frequently used (Stan b); the pattern is enriched with other dicendi verbs such as grăi, spune ‘say’, and periphrastic constructions including a dicendi verb, such as a zice numele, lit. ‘say the name’, recategorized as naming verbs. These verbs are encountered in: (i) personal constructions, with a realized (a) or unrealized subject, retrievable from verbal inflection (b,c); (ii) in constructions with a rd person verb and no subject (d).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
()
a. Că [mătușe-mare și unchiu-mare]OPC mulţi that aunt-big.NOMACC and uncle-big.NOMACC many.NOM cheamă anume [sora moșu-mieu și call.PRES.PL exactly sister.DEF.ACC grandfather.GEN-my and fratele]DO (Prav.: v) brother.DEF.ACC ‘As many people call great-aunt and great-uncle my grandfather’s sister and brother’ b. Fratele îlDO chemăm și-lDO brother.DEF.ACC CL.ACC.M.SG call.PRES.PL and=CL.ACC.M.SG grăim [cel sufletescu]OPC (Prav.: v) say.PRES.PL that spiritual.M.SG ‘We call and say brother to a spiritual person’ c. fecior veri naște și-iOI veri dzice son.ACC AUX.FUT.SG give.birth.INF and=CL.DAT.SG AUX.FUT.SG say.INF numele [Izmail]CPO (PO.: ) name.DEF Izmail.NOMACC ‘you will give birth to a boy whom you’ll name Ismail’ cheamă [împărat]OPC (FD.–: v) d. Pentru aceaea teDO CL.ACC.SG calls emperor.NOMACC for that ‘For that you are called an emperor’
In the second half of the period investigated, apart from already existing verbs (a,b), the class of naming verbs was enriched with new units and periphrastic structures (c–f), such as: numi ‘give a name’, porecli, zice poreclă ‘nickname’, boteza ‘give a Christian name’, sometimes cuvânta ‘utter’. Personal constructions with a realized (a) or unrealized subject (b–e) continue to be used. The construction with a personal verb and a generic rd person plural subject is frequent ((d); see also }....). ()
a. Pentr-aceea și Hristos [moartea lui Lazar]DO for-that and Christ.NOM death.DEF.ACC LUI.GEN Lazarus grăi [adormire]OPC (CazV.: v) oDO CL.ACC.F.SG say.PS.SG falling.asleep.NOMACC ‘That is why even Christ called Lazarus’ death falling asleep’ b. carile are nume în ţară, de-iIO dzicu who has name in country that=CL.DAT.SG say.PRES.PL [Radul vodă cel Mare]OPC (CLM.–: r) Radu.DEF.NOMACC voivode CEL.M.SG Great.M.SG ‘who has a local name, they call him Prince Radu the Great’ c. Și numi [pre el]DO ( . . . ) [Ierovaal]CPO (BB.: ) Jerubaal.NOMACC and name.PS.SG DOM him.ACC ‘And named him Jerubaal’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Property-denoting complements
d. pentru aceaia lDO-au poreclit de CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.PERF.PL nickname.PPLE and for that zis [Lăcustă]OPC (ULM.~: r) iIO-au CL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.PL say.PPLE Locust.NOMACC ‘that is why they nicknamed him Locust’ dzicea poreclă e. un Bahti-Gherii, ce-iIO a Bahti-Gherii who=CL.DAT.SG say.IMPERF.SG nickname [Delii soltan]CPO (NL.~–: ) Delii sultan.NOMACC ‘a Gheri-bashi, who was nicknamed Sultan Deli’ f. singurimea cuvântului sintaxis, în rumânescul dialect singular.DEF.NOM word.DEF.GEN sintaxis in Romanian.DEF dialect se cuvântează [încheiere]OPC (EG.: r) CL.REFL.PASS utters ending.NOMACC ‘the singular of the word sintaxis in Romanian is called încheiere ‘ending’’ Examples such as (d,e) highlight the relationship between the dicendi verb (zice ‘say’) and the naming verbs (porecli ‘nickname’). In the case of the synonymy zice – porecli ‘call’, it also highlights the selecting characteristics of the verb (IO vs. DO). .... Syntactic variants of the construction Like other classes of verbs, naming verbs occur in constructions with a cognate object (); this type of construction is frequent in BB., where it has been explained by a Greek model, which, ultimately, reflects a Hebrew model (Arvinte : XLIII). ()
Și numi Adam numele muierii lui and name.PS.SG Adam.NOM name.DEF.ACC wife.DEF.GEN his.GEN “Viaţă” (BB.: ) Life.NOMACC ‘And Adam called his wife Life’
The syntactic patterns [V+DO / IO+OPC] also include constructions resulting from reflexivization, with an accusative (a) or a dative (b) clitic, or from impersonalization (c); in these patterns, as an effect of the coreferentiality DO—S, the objective predicative complement contextually acquires the characteristics of a subjective complement (for the OPC—SPC relationship, see GR: ; see also }..). ()
a. Omulu acela să grâi pre sine man.DEF.NOM that CL.REFL.ACC.SG speak.PS.SG DOM self.ACC Dumnedzău (CazV.: v) God.NOMACC ‘That man named himself God’ b. lăcuitorii ţărâi își zicu inhabitants.DEF.NOM country.DEF.GEN CL.REFL.DAT.PL say.PRES.PL ardeleni (ULM.~: v) Transylvanians.NOMACC ‘the inhabitants of the country call themselves Transylvanians’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause c. care boală [podagra și hirarga] which disease.NOM gout.DEF.NOMACC and gout.DEF.NOMACC să dzice (CLM.–: r) CL.REFL.IMPERS says ‘which disease is called gout’
.... Pragmaticalization phenomena In Coresi’s texts, naming verbs undergo a semantic-syntactic shift towards the meaning ‘signify; have the meaning of ’. Reflexive-impersonal constructions derived from naming verbs come to function as reformulation markers (equal to adecă ‘that is’) and are used as recurrent glossing strategies. Their functioning is multiple: they are used for introducing the meanings of biblical symbols, but also for introducing and glossing neologisms (Gafton : –). The construction ce se zice/se grăiește ‘that is to say’, exhibiting an explanatory or reformulation value, is very frequently used— occurrences in CC2. (a,b). ()
a. ranele tale curându se voru CL.REFL.ACC.PL AUX.FUT.PL wounds.DEF.NOM your.F.PL soon vindeca (ce se zice, păcatele cure.INF what CL.REFL.IMPERS says sins.DEF.NOM ierta-ţi-se-voru) (CC2.: ) forgive.INF=CL.DAT.SG=CL.REFL.PASS=AUX.FUT.PL ‘your wounds will soon be healed (that is to say, your sins will be forgiven)’ b. Cine va sluji mie, după mine să meargă! who AUX.FUT.SG serve.INF me.DAT after me.ACC SĂSUBJ go.SUBJ.SG Meargerea grăiește-se viaţă cu frică going.DEF.NOM speaks=CL.REFL.PASS life.NOMACC with fear.ACC și cu cinste (CC2.: ) and with honesty.ACC ‘He who will serve me, follow me! His following means a fearful and honest life’
.... Realizations of the OPC with naming verbs The constituent most frequently encountered in the position of the OPC is a proper name (a) or a common noun recategorized as a proper name (b). Both belong to metalanguage and function as names expressing a naming property of the object (Pană Dindelegan c), not as prototypical (self-referential) proper names. ()
o chema că a. [Magdalina]OPC Magdalena.NOMACC CL.ACC.F.SG call.IMPERF.SG because era dintr-un sat ce-l be.IMPERF.SG from=a village.ACC which=CL.ACC.M.SG chema [Magdalu]OPC (CazV.: v) call.IMPERF.SG Magdal.NOMACC ‘Her name was Magdalena, as she was coming from a village called Magdal’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Property-denoting complements
b. numi Dumnezău lumina [zio]OPC și întunearecul name.PS.SG God.NOM light.DEF.ACC day.NOMACC and darkness.DEF.ACC numi [noapte]OPC (BB.: ) call.PS.SG night.NOMACC ‘and God named the light day and the darkness night’ In quoted direct speech, any element can occur in the OPC position: a nominal phrase (a), a substantivized adjective (b), or elements belonging to other languages (c), which, as metalinguistic components, do not have referential content. ()
a. Această zi “una den Sâmbătă” cheamă-o calls=CL.ACC.F.SG this day.ACC one of Saturdays evanghelistulu (CC2.: ) evangelist.DEF.NOM ‘The evangelist calls this day the first day of the week’ b. Ce Mă grăiești bun? (NT.: v) but CL.ACC.SG say.PRES.SG good.NOMACC ‘Why are you calling me good?’ c. care letenește o chiiamă malculum (CDicţ.–: ) malculum which Latin(ADV) CL.ACC.F.SG calls ‘which in Latin is called malculum’
The interpretation as a predicative complement also accounts for the (finite or infinitival non-finite) realization organized around the copula verb fi ‘be’. ()
numit [a fi leDO-au CL.ACC.PL=AUX.PERF.PL call.PPLE AINF be.INF dumnezăoaie]OPC (CDicţ.–: ) goddesses.NOM ‘they named them (to be) goddesses’
... The subclass of verbs of appointment .... Inventory Verbs such as alege ‘elect’, așeza ‘appoint’, avea ‘have’, da ‘give’, lua ‘take’, pune ‘appoint, designate’, rădica ‘raise’ belong to the class of verbs of appointment; they can enter both weak transitive constructions, with a bare NP direct object exhibiting kind denotation (a), and strong transitive constructions, with a [+definite] referential DO (b). () a. și muiare încă să nu iai dentre featele girls.DEF.ACC and wife.ACC yet SĂSUBJ not take.SUBJ.SG of lor feciorului tău (PO.: ) their son.DEF.DAT your.POSS ‘and don’t choose one of their girls as a wife for your son yet’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause b. că-l alease sfatul și that=CL.ACC.M.SG elect.PS.PL council.DEF.NOM and oștile pentru că era înţelept (MC.: v) be.IMPERF.SG wise.NOM armies.DEF.NOM because ‘because the council and the armies elected him because he was wise’
This availability allows them to be used in constructions with two complements, where the verb takes both a referential direct object and a non-referential (predicative) complement. ()
a. Întră lăutru la muiarea frăţini-tău,and at wife.DEF.ACC brother.GEN-your enter.IMP.SG inside ia [muiare]OPC (PO.: ) și ţi-oDO and CL.DAT.SG=CL.ACC.F.SG take.IMP.SG wife.NOMACC ‘Go to your brother’s wife and marry her’ b. Și eu tineDO voi pune and I you.ACC AUX.FUT.SG appoint.INF [om mare]OPC (PO.: ) man.NOMACC big.M.SG ‘And I will appoint you to be an important man’ [doamnă și c. face-teDO-voiu make.INF=CL.ACC.SG=AUX.FUT.SG wife.NOMACC and mele (CSXI.–: v) împărăteasă]OPC spre toate casele queen.NOMACC over all.F.PL houses.F.DEF.ACC my ‘I will make you queen over all my possessions’ [pre un fecior a d. să rădice [împărat]OPC SĂSUBJ raise.SUBJ.SG emperor.NOMACC DOM a son.ACC AL.INV lu Amantie]DO (MC.: v) LUI.GEN Amyntas ‘to raise one of Amyntas’ sons emperor’
Other verbs that function as verbs of appointment emerge after : coroni ‘crown’, cununa ‘crown’, hirotoni ‘ordain’, orândui ‘appoint’, primi ‘accept, allow’, propovedui ‘preach’, rândui ‘appoint’, scoate ‘promote; employ’, tocmi ‘engage, employ’, etc. ()
a. Și să coronească și [pe hatmanul Sobeţchi]DO and SĂSUBJ crown.SUBJ.PL and DOM hetman.ACC Sobieski [să le fie craiu]OPC (NL.~–: ) SĂSUBJ CL.DAT.PL be.SUBJ.SG king.NOMACC ‘And to crown hetman Sobieski to be their king’ cunună [împărat]OPC (MC.: v) b. atunce-lDO then=CL.ACC.M.SG crown.PS.SG king.NOMACC ‘then he appointed him (as a) king’ c. Priimesc [pre dinșii]DO [cumetri]OPC (Prav.: ) allow.PRES.PL DOM them.ACC godparents.NOMACC ‘They accept them as godparents’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Property-denoting complements
d. alţii îlDO propoveduiesc [împărat]OPC (AD.–: r) others him.ACC preach.PRES.PL emperor.NOMACC ‘some others predict he will be an emperor’ e. scos-au [ceaușu împărătescu]OPC promote.PPLE=AUX.PERF.SG courier.NOMACC royal.M.SG [pre un turc mare]DO (ULM.~: r) DOM a Turk.ACC big.SG.ACC ‘and they appointed a great Turk to the position of courier’ Passivization (a) and reflexivization (b) do not affect the OPC position. () a. Eu pus sânt [împărat]OPC de el I appoint.PPLE am emperor.NOMACC by him.ACC spre Sion (CM.: r) over Sion ‘He appointed me (as an) emperor over Sion’ b. adecă să se hirotonească [arhiereu]OPC (Prav.: ) that.is SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.SG ordain.SUBJ.SG bishop.NOMACC ‘that is, to be ordained bishop’ .... Realizations of the OPC with verbs of appointment The most frequent realizations are bare nouns (b–d); the nouns are sometimes followed by modifiers (e). The OPC can also be realized as a substantivized adjective, alone or in a coordinated sequence (). ()
pusă [mai mare preste toate-lDO over all.F.PL=CL.ACC.M.SG appoint.PS.SG more great.NOMACC și împărat]OPC (CLRV.: ) and emperor.NOMACC ‘they appointed him (as a) ruler and emperor over all’
Among the realizations of the OPC emerges the prepositional phrase headed by a preposition of quality—de ‘as’ and, more rarely, ca ‘as’ (Pană Dindelegan b; Stan : ). These prepositions introduce nominals with a property denotation. ()
ales [de înţelepţi și a. Domiia Mea vDO-am Highness my CL.ACC.PL=AUX.PERF.SG choose.PPLE as wise.M.PL.ACC and de înţelegători]OPC (DRH.A.: ) as gentle.M.PL.ACC ‘My Highness chose you as wise and gentle’ va ţinea Dumnezău b. așea-iDO like.this=CL.ACC.M.PL AUX.FUT.SG keep.INF God.NOM [de păgâni]OPC (DVT.–: v) as pagans.ACC ‘this is how God will judge them as pagan’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
The construction with two bare NPs with kind denotation is rare: ()
Și-ș alesă [doamnă]OPC [fată and=CL.DAT.REFL.SG choose.PS.SG wife.NOMACC girl.ACC de boier de ţara noastră]DO (NL.~–: ) of boyar.ACC of country.DEF.ACC our ‘And he chose to marry a local boyar’s daughter’
A feature related to the predicative semantics of this complement is the realization as a clause organized around the copula verb fi ‘be’, in the subjunctive (a, b) or infinitive (a,c). ()
a. de va lua [pre o sor a mea]DO if AUX.FUT.SG take.INF DOM a sister.ACC AL.F.SG my.F.SG [a-i fi muiare]OPC (Prav.: r) AINF=CL.DAT.SG be.INF wife.NOM ‘if he take a sister of mine to be his wife’ fie b. de pune [un fecior al meu]DO [să and appoints a son.ACC AL.M.SG my.M.SG SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG chesar]OPC (MC.: r) emperor.NOM ‘and he appoints (as an) emperor one of my sons’ c. Sânt aleși și orânduiți [a fi stăpânitori be.PRES.PL elect.PPLE.M.PL and designate.PPLE.M.PL AINF be.INF rulers.NOM de țară]OPC (Doc.Athos2.: ) of country ‘They are elected and appointed (as) rulers of the country’
... Final remarks In OR the syntactic pattern [V + DO / IO + OPC], inherited from Latin, was well represented both for naming verbs and verbs of appointment. The subclass of OR naming verbs was much richer than in standard MR. The most frequent dicendi verbs (zice, grăi, spune ‘say’, cuvânta ‘utter’) also entered the construction with the OPC, being recategorized as naming verbs. In old, especially religious, texts, impersonal-reflexive constructions of naming verbs (se zice/ce se zice ‘that is to say’ pattern) occurred contextually with a different value, functioning as reformulation markers (equal to adecă ‘that is to say’) and as recurrent glossing strategies. In OR, the inventory of verbs of appointment was richer than in the present-day language, some of them being eliminated from use, while others limited their usage to dialectal or non-standard varieties.
. Constructions involving overall clausal structure .. Passive constructions ... Preliminary remarks Passive constructions share a large number of syntactic (Comrie ; Haiman ; Keenan ; Haspelmath ; Kemmer ;
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Constructions involving overall clausal structure
Dixon ), semantic (Foley and Van Valin ; Van Valin and La Polla ; Shibatani ), discourse (Halliday , ; Givón ; Ariel ), and pragmatic (Givón ) features in Germanic, Slavic, Finno-Ugric, and Romance languages, Romanian included. For a presentation of passive constructions in contemporary Romanian see Dobrovie Sorin (); GALR II: ; GR: . OR inherited two analytic passive constructions from Latin (Ernout and Thomas : ; Rosetti : –, ILR I: –; Densusianu : ): (i) be-passive (< ESSE + participle) and (ii) se-passive (which emerged in vulgar Latin during the classical period and extended to other registers during late Latin). The Latin synthetic -r passive was not preserved. Nevertheless, it seems that the aspectual opposition perfective/imperfective in Latin between the analytic passive and the synthetic passive was transferred over the be-passive/se-passive structures, and refined as durative, dynamic/resultative, static in OR. Later, in MR, as the grammaticalized aspect weakened, the opposition developed into personal passive (be-structures)/ impersonal presentative passive (se-structures). The usage of the two structures varied in time: in OR, under the strong influence of (church) Slavonic, se-passive was the preferred option in various written registers, while in MR, under the influence of western Romance languages, be-passive became ever more frequent in standard written Romanian, especially for communicating science and in journalism (GALR II: ), while se-passive continued to be largely used in spoken Romanian. The Agent-phrase (by-phrase) in OR displayed the same features as in Latin: the accusative Agent-phrase was quasi-general, marked by several inherited prepositions with locative semantics, while the dative Agent-phrase semantically expressed the origin, and was preserved in the sixteenth century with few attestations under the influence of Slavonic originals. After the seventeenth century Romanian eliminated the dative Agent-phrase and restricted the range of prepositions to de and de către. While in Latin the Agent-phrase was rarely expressed, in OR it often surfaced both in se-passives and in be-passives, with slight changes in MR. ... Be-passive Be-passive constructions are formally the direct descendants of their Latin equivalents, although in OR they partly differed in use from classical Latin, where they were licensed only by the perfective forms of the verb (Timotin : ). There are few attestations of be-passives in southern Danubian dialects (Pușcariu : ; Berea-Găgeanu ). In OR be-passive constructions displayed the same morphosyntactic features as they have in MR. They were attested both in original texts () and in translations () from various linguistic areas: Wallachia and the south-east of Transylvania (a), Moldova (d–g), Banat-Hunedoara (b) and northern Transylvania (c). They occurred in ecclesiastical (a–d), historical (e–g), colloquial (b), and administrative texts (a). ()
a. tabla de galbeni de la Cluj iaste mould.F.SG.DEF.NOM DE gold.coins.ACC from at Cluj.ACC is vândută lu Muratoș Ianăș (DÎ.: XIX) sell.PPLE.F.SG LUI.DAT Muratoș Ianăș ‘the coin-mould in Cluj is sold to Muratoș Ianăș’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause fostu îngerul lu Dumnezeu și de be.PPLE angel.M.SG.DEF.NOM LUI.DAT God and by Dumnezeu trimis (FD.–: r) send.PPLE.M.SG God.ACC ‘he was God’s angel and by him he was sent’
b. au
AUX.PERF.SG
()
a. întrebatu fu Isus ask.PPLE.M.SG be.PS.SG Jesus.NOM ‘Jesus was asked by the Pharisees’ b. plătit va fi pay.PPLE.M.SG AUX.FUT.SG be.INF ‘he will be paid by Cain’
de farisei (CT.–: v) by Pharisees.ACC de Cain (PO.: ) by Cain.ACC
c. Lăsate-i vor fi lui și allow.PPLE.F.PL= CL.DAT.SG AUX.FUT..PL be.INF him.DAT and iertate vor fi lui (MI.~: r) forgive.PPLE.F.PL AUX.FUT.PL be.INF him.DAT ‘They will be allowed and forgiven him’ d. Fiind îndemnat și √ rugat de priiatinii lui be.GER urge.PPLE.M.SG and ask.PPLE.M.SG by friends.DEF.ACC LUI.GEN Arie (CazV.: v) Arie ‘Being urged and asked by Arie’s friends e. de unde este părăsitu de Ureache vornicul (CLM.–: r) from where is left.PPLE.M.SG by Ureche governor.DEF ‘from where it is abandoned by Ureche, the governor’ f. era zidită de dânsul (ULM.~: v) be.IMPERF.SG build.PPLE.F.SG by him.ACC ‘it was built by him’ g. fiind rugat de dânsul (GIst.~: ) be.GER ask.PPLE.M.SG by him.M.SG.ACC ‘being asked by him’ As in MR the verb be occurred in the passive in all moods and tenses, except for the supine, the past participle (inherently passive), and the imperative. The finite forms agreed with the passive subject in person and number. Several lexical variants of the verb be, with different frequency rates, occurred in the sixteenth century, and were gradually eliminated in MR (Frâncu : ). Like other Romance languages (Italian, old French, Spanish), Romanian sometimes replaced be with various lexical verbs: a se afla ‘be situated’, a se găsi ‘be found’, a ajunge ‘get’, a rămâne ‘remain’, a sta ‘stay, sit, stand’, a veni ‘come’ (Philippide [–] ; Iordan ; Manoliu-Manea , ; Posner : ; Iliescu : ; Timotin ; Pană Dindelegan : ; Dragomirescu and Nicolae ), exemplified in (). The structures seemed to be on the borderline with the complex structures including a lexical verb + predicative, and, due to the inherent semantics of the verb, they
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Constructions involving overall clausal structure
induced supplementary semantic oppositions: static/dynamic, modal/neutral, aspectual/neutral. ()
a. unii vinu închiși în temniţă, some.M.PL.NOM come.PRES.PL imprison.PPLE.M.PL in jail.ACC alţii vin tăiaţ (FN.–: ) others.M. NOM come.PRES.PL cut.PPLE.M.PL ‘some of them are to be imprisoned, others are to be killed/beheaded’ b. s-au găsit scris (PIst.~: ) CL.REFL.PASS=AUX.PERF.SG find.PPLE write.PPLE.M.SG ‘it was found written’ c. Nicio isturie nu să află no.F.SG chronicle.F.SG.NOM not CL.REFL.IMPERS finds scrisă de cinevași (PIst.~: ) write.PPLE.F.SG by somebody-ȘI.ACC ‘There is no written history by anyone at all’ d. Rămăsese neluată de tată-său (PIst.~: ) remain.PLUPERF.SG untake.PPLE.F.SG by father.ACC-his ‘It remained untaken by his/her father’
The passive participle agreed in gender and number with the passive subject, following the pattern of four-ending adjectives (see }}.; ..) and allowed gradation morphemes (e). The ellipsis of the verb be (d) was attested. The word order within the passive structure was free: most often be was adjacent to the participle and preceded it (a), but be–participle inversion was allowed (b), as well as dislocation of the passive form by the passive subject (c) or by the Agent-phrase (d). Depending on the information structure of the sentence, the Agent-phrase could be fronted, and the passive subject could be moved postverbally. () a. ce easte scrisă de sfinţii which is write.PPLE.F.SG by holy.M.PL.DEF.ACC evangheliști (CCat.: v) evangelists.M.ACC ‘which is written by the holy evangelists’ b. dată i-au fost √ (DÎ.: LXXXIX) give.PPLE.F.SG CL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE ‘it was given to him’ c. este mănăstirea Solca obârșită is monastery.F.SG.DEF Solca found.PPLE.F.SG de dânsul (CLM.–: ) by him ‘the Solca monastery is founded by him’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause d. În mănăstirea sa, Slatina, ce iaste de dânsul by him in monastery.F.SG.DEF his.F.SG Slatina which is zidită (ULM.~: r) build.PPLE.F.SG ‘in his monastery, Slatina, which is built by him’ e. Iaste foarte lăudat pentru slujbă cu work.ACC with is very praise.PPLE.M.SG for credinţă (DÎ.: XXXVI) loyalty.ACC ‘He is much praised for his loyal work’
The passive subject was a DP, a pro-form, a pro, a quantifier, an infinitive, or a sentence. Extraposition of the sentential subject did not trigger dummy subject insertion, null expletive subjects being the option in MR too. Although the Agentphrase was most often actualized, null Agent-phrases also occurred (a, c) and produced indefinite passives, as in MR. When Agent-phrases referring to God (a) were left null, the effect was an impersonal, non-agentive structure (Pană Dindelegan and Mîrzea Vasile ) as illustrated in (b–e). Such structures are clichés in MR. ()
a. multu ţi-e dat de Dumnezău să SĂSUBJ much CL.DAT.SG=is give.PPLE.M.SG by God.ACC vezi (A.: r) see.SUBJ.SG ‘you were given a lot to see by God’ b. cui nu iaste dată de sus (MC.: r) give.PPLE.F.SG from above who.DAT not is ‘to whom it is not given from Above’ c. putearea ( . . . ) ne e dată noao de la power.F.SG.DEF.NOM CL. DAT.PL. is give.PPLE.F.SG. us.DAT from at Domnul nostru (Ev.: ) Lord.DEF.ACC our ‘power is given to us from/by our Lord’ d. Nu iaste voo dat a înţeleage not is you.DAT.PL give.PPLE.M.SG AINF understand.INF vreamea (CPr.: ) time.DEF.ACC ‘It is not given to you to understand times’ e. așa iaste scris (CM.: v) so is write.PPLE.M.SG ‘this is how it is written’
A feminine form of the participle in impersonal passive constructions has been reported for OR (Pană Dindelegan and Mîrzea Vasile ). For some structures agreement with the pro-subject having a feminine noun as antecedent (a) can be
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Constructions involving overall clausal structure
invoked, for others agreement with the elliptical pro-sentence neutral demonstrative asta (b). The feminine participle (dată ‘give.PPLE.F’, zisă ‘say.PPLE.F’, iertată ‘forgive.PPLE.F’, faptă.F ‘do.PPLE.F’) was also interpreted as a postparticipial feminine noun (‘gift’, ‘utterance’, ‘forgiven thing’, ‘deed’) (DA s.v.). It is worth noticing that a feminine form for the past participle is generally used in some Romanian dialects and in Aromanian (see also }..). () a. Ţie da-voi (...) slava lor că you.DAT.SG give.INF=AUX.FUT.SG glory.DEF.ACC their.GEN because mie datî iaste (CT.–: r) me.DAT give.PPLE.F.SG is ‘I will give you their glory, because to me it is given’ b. atunce ertată fu să mâncămu (CC2.: ) then forgive.PPLE.F.SG be.PS.SG SĂSUBJ eat.SUBJ.PL ‘then our act of eating was forgiven/we were forgiven for eating’ In OR be-passive constructions were syncretic with the periphrastic pluperfect and the double compound past (}}...; ..). Several means of disambiguation were available: a [–transitive] inherent feature of the verb (a), co-occurrence of the direct object (b), sequence of events (c), lack of agreement of the past participle (d), and time adverbials (d). In MR, when the periphrastic past tenses were eliminated (SILR: ), the syncretisms partly disappeared too. ()
a. dzise cătră soţie ce era say.PS.SG towards wife.ACC that be.IMPERF.SG merrși (CV.–: r) go.PPLE.M.PL ‘he said to his wife who had left’ b. Domnul era blagoslovit pre el în God.DEF.NOM be.IMPERF.SG bless.PPLE.M.SG DOM him.ACC in toate (PO.: ) all.F.PL ‘God had blessed him in everything’ c. din coasta ce era scos from rib.F.SG.DEF.ACC that be.IMPERF.SG extract.PPLE.M.SG dentru Adam făcu muiare (PO.: ) from.inside Adam.ACC make.PS.SG woman.ACC ‘from the rib he had taken from Adam he made a woman’ d. iarba câmpului, ce mainte nu era grass.F.SG.DEF plain.DEF.GEN that before not be.IMPERF.SG crescut (PO.: ) grow.PPLE.M.SG ‘the grass in the plains which had not grown before’
The syncretism between be-passive and be-copular constructions, shared with many other Romance and Germanic languages (Langacker : ; Haspelmath
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
: ; Bresnan : –), was inherited in OR from Latin (Tiktin : ; Densusianu : ; Frâncu : –) and transmitted to MR. There were a large number of ambiguous structures in OR (Delcă ). The tense of the verb be (Sandfeld and Olsen : –) and the inherent aspectual feature of the participial verb (Berea-Găgeanu : ) were considered to correlate with one or another reading. Accordingly, the passive reading would correlate with the preterite, compound past and the future tense of the verb be, while the adjectival reading would correlate with the present tense, showing a state of events that resulted from a completed action for the perfective verbs, and a permanent state for the imperfective verbs. While the participle of durative verbs would have a non-ambiguous passive reading, the participle of momentary verbs would be ambiguous between a passive and an adjectival reading. Nevertheless, several systemic features of OR make the interpretation difficult: the absence of a dedicated preposition for the Agent-phrase, which does not allow one to distinguish between Agent, Source, Causer, Instrument, Experiencer (}...); ellipsis of the verb be, which allowed the participle to be adjacent to the noun; free word order, which allowed the participle to be anteposed to the noun followed by article raising; selection of gradation markers by both verbs and adjectives; adjunction of the prefixal negation both to nouns and to verbs; nominalizations of the past participle and a large number of active participles (}}..; ...). The examples at () illustrate some problematic ambiguities. ()
a. de vântu-s smintite și vânturate (CPr.: ) by wind.ACC=be.PRES.PL agitate.PPLE.F.PL and winnow.PPLE.F.PL ‘they are agitated and winnowed by the wind’ b. așa iaste scrisu de proroci (CC2.: ) so is write.PPLE.M.SG by prophets.ACC ‘so it is written by the prophets’ c. veniţi, blagosloviţii de părintele mieu (CC2.: ) come.IMP.PL blessed.M.PL.DEF.VOC by father.DEF.ACC my ‘come, you, those blessed by my Father’ d. lucru negândit și niciodată crezut (GIst.~: ) believe.PPLE.M.SG thing.M.SG NEG-think.PPLE.M.SG and never ‘a thing never thought of and never believed’
It is possible that in OR these structures had a predicative-resultative reading, and the passive value was a contextual meaning effect (Manoliu-Manea : –). In the vein of Frajzyngier (: ), one could claim that in OR, since both structures were attested in the oldest available texts, there was no (sharp) distinction between be-passives (be + morphologically derived participial predicate) and copular be + adjectival predicate. It was only later, with the emergence of a dedicated preposition for the Agent-phrase, that the be-passive construction advanced on the grammaticalization scale and extended under the influence of western Romance languages.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Constructions involving overall clausal structure
... Se-passive Se grammaticalized as a passive marker in late Latin (Cennamo ) and was transmitted to all Romance languages. For example, in old Italian in % of the occurrences in a text, si constructions displayed the syntactic and functional features of passive constructions (Giacalone Ramat and Sansò : ). The se-passive was also attested in Danubian Latin (Coteanu : ; Timotin : ) and in south Danubian dialects (Pușcariu : ; Berea-Găgeanu : ). Nevertheless, its position in OR was enhanced under Slavonic models, which deeply influenced translations (Philippide [–] : ). For example, whenever a reflexive passive occurred in the Slavonic originals, it was translated as a se-passive in Romanian texts (Berea-Găgeanu : ). The se-passive occurred in translations from various regions: Wallachia and south-eastern Transylvania (a,d,g,i,j), northern Moldova (b,d,h,k,l,m), Banat-Hunedoara (c), northern Transylvania (e, f), but also in original texts, as exemplified under (e). Sepassive occurred in ecclesiastical (a,c,f,h), historical (j–m), colloquial (d,g), legal (b), and administrative (e) texts. multe inimi descoapere den reveal.SUBJ.PL from.in many hearts.ACC cugetele (CT.–: v) spirits.DEF.NOM ‘spirits from many hearts to be revealed’ b. se va aduce și altă faţă (Prav.: r-v) CL.REFL.PASS AUX.FUT.SG bring.INF and other face.NOM ‘another face/person will be brought (too)
() a. să
SĂSUBJ
se
CL.REFL.PASS
c. tipăritu-se-au ceastea print.PPLE=CL.REFL.PASS=AUX.PERF.PL these.F.NOM ‘these two books have been/were printed’
doo cărţi (PO.: ) two books.F.NOM
d. aceasta se face de cinci firi ale this.NOM CL.REFL.PASS do.PRES.SG by five senses AL.F.PL trupului (FD.–: v) body.DEF.GEN ‘this is done by the five senses of the body’ știe venitul (DÎ.–: XXIX) know.SUBJ.SG income.DEF.NOM ‘The income to be known’ f. se se blagoslovascî de al său SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.PASS bless.SUBJ.SG by AL.M.SG his fâcâtor (CTd.–: v) creator.ACC ‘to be blessed by his Creator’ g. să se aleagă altă gloată (VN.–: v) SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.PASS choose.SUBJ.SG another group.NOM ‘another group to be chosen’ e. Să
SĂSUBJ
se
CL.REFL.PASS
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause săvârșeaște Dumnedzăiasca Liturghie (ȘT.: ) accomplishes Divine.F.NOM Liturgy.NOM ‘the Divine Liturgy is performed’ i. s-au pârjolit de Domnul (BB.: ) CL.REFL.PASS=AUX.PERF.PL burn.PPLE by God.DEF.ACC ‘have been/were burnt by God’ h. să
CL.REFL.PASS
j. Decheval biruindu-se, au fugit (CIst.–: r) Decebal.NOM defeat.GER=CL.REFL.PASS AUX.PERF.SG run.away.PPLE ‘being defeated, Decebal ran away’ k. cu ce măsură măsuri, with what measure measure.PRES.SG măsura-ţi-să-va (CLM.–: ) measure.INF=CL.DAT.SG=CL.REFL.PASS=AUX.FUT.SG ‘with what measure you measure, it shall be measured to you’ l. să nu să știe ce s-au SĂSUBJ not CL.REFL.PASS know.SUBJ.SG what CL.REFL.PASS=AUX.PERF.SG lucrat (ULM.~: r) work.PPLE ‘not to be known what has been done’ m. cu adevăr s-au scris (NL.~–: ) with truth CL.REFL.PASS=AUX.PERF.SG write.PPLE ‘truly has been written’ Se-passive constructions were most often formed with the rd person reflexive accusative clitic (se) followed by the active form of the lexical verb inflected for mood, tense, and overtly marking the agreement with the passive subject in number (singular/plural), as illustrated in (–) above. Nevertheless, forms of the reflexive clitic for other persons were also attested sporadically: st person singular (a), nd person singular (b), nd person plural (c). ()
a. de tine a mă boteza (CC2.: ) by you.SG.ACC AINF CL.REFL.PASS.SG baptize.INF ‘to be baptized by you’ b. dintr-altele te vei from.among-others CL.REFL.PASS.SG AUX.FUT.SG cunoaște (CNM.–: v) remark.INF ‘you will be remarked from among others’ c. cu ce judecată veţi judeca, with what judgement AUX.FUT.PL judge.INF judeca-vă-veţ (BB.: ) judge.INF=CL.REFL.PASS.PL=AUX.FUT.PL ‘with the judgement you will judge, will you be judged’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Constructions involving overall clausal structure
The personal paradigm of the reflexive passive (st and nd persons of the reflexive clitic) was considered an influence of the Greek originals (Cipariu [] : ; Philippide [–] : , ). It persisted in MR until the first half of the nineteenth century, when the personal forms were deemed correct in some grammars (Heliade Rădulescu [] : ), but incorrect in others (Cipariu [] : ). Relics of st and nd person se-passives are marginally preserved in substandard MR (Iordan : ; Pană Dindelegan : ). The reflexive passive clitic had several morphophonetic variants, se (a), să (e), s- (i), which occurred as pro- (a), en- (j) or mesoclitics (c). For the position of clitics in the VP see }... The lexical verb was a finite form marked for various tenses, or a non-finite form, i.e. infinitive or gerund, as can be observed in ()–(). The subject of se-passive constructions was a nominal or a pro with the semantic features [+/–human, +/–specific], with a property/entity reading, or a sentence both in Daco-Romanian and in the southern dialects (Berea-Găgeanu : ). The nominal subject was either pre- or postposed to the passive verb, as illustrated in () and (). The formal subject agreed with the passive predicate in person and number. For the Agent-phrase see }.... Progressively, during the nineteenth– twentieth centuries, the selectional constraints of the se-passive changed to Subject [–human] or [+human,–specific], with the pragmatically unmarked subject postposed, and the Agent-phrase left covert. In MR se-passives are disallowed with personal pronouns and proper names (SILR: –). The diachronic change has been explained as the grammaticalization of some effects of the animacy hierarchy for nouns which lack a property denotation feature (Cornilescu and Nicolae a: –). These evolutions changed the position of the structure in the system of Romanian from a passive construction to an impersonal-presentative construction introducing a topical event, comparable with the similar structures in western Romance. The passive to impersonal evolution of Romanian se-passives is consistent with Frajzyingier’s hypothesis (: –). As in MR, in OR the reflexive clitic was affected by the syncretism between passive se (}..), impersonal se (}..), anaphoric se (}...), middle se (}...), and reciprocal se (}..). Consequently, some se-structures are subject to multiple interpretations since the context does not provide enough disambiguation cues, as in (). ()
a. de ai lor încă s-au rănit of AL.M.PL theirs also CL.REFL.PASS=AUX.PERF.PL wound.PPLE câţiva (CLM.–: ) a few.M.PL.NOM ‘a few of theirs (their warriors) have been wounded’ b. cine va crede și se va boteza who AUX.FUT.SG believe.INF and CL.REFL.PASS AUX.FUT.SG baptize.INF iertat va fi (CCat.: r) forgive.PPLE AUX.FUT.SG be.INF ‘he who will believe and be baptized will be forgiven’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
... Be-passive vs. se-passive The existence of two passive constructions in OR raised the question of the relationship between them: some linguists considered sestructures to be the prototypical passive (Diaconovici-Loga [] : ), others interpreted be-structures as prototypical (Cipariu [] : ), while others did not comment on their relationship (EG.; Heliade Rădulescu [] ). NonRomanian linguists such as Bourciez () and Posner () considered the sestructure as the prototypical passive in OR, under the strong influence of (church) Slavonic models, and the be-structure as a late borrowing from western Romance languages, which became productive by the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century. Our investigation seems to reveal that the two structures gradually changed their distribution and suffered functional specialization. Although both structures were inherited from Latin they functioned differently in various time periods. The be-passive in OR frequently occurred in curses and metalinguistic sentences (Timotin : , –; Frâncu : ), while in MR it is the preferred option in high registers (GALR II: ), in scientific and newspaper texts (Berea-Găgeanu : ), and in translations (Dimitrescu (ed.) : , –, ). The se-passive was frequent in legal texts during – (Rosetti, Cazacu, and Onu : ; Timotin : –), then it became ever more frequent in all types of texts between – (ILRL: ), in colloquial texts in the nineteenth century (Berea-Găgeanu : ), and on a par with be-structures in the legal and administrative register in the twentieth century (GALR II: ). Until the end of the nineteenth century the be-passive contrasted with the sepassive for aspect: static vs. dynamic (Timotin : ), result vs. process (Tiktin : ; Manoliu-Manea : –), perfective vs. imperfective (Iordan [] : ), less active actant topicalization vs. event topicalization (Sandfeld and Olsen : ). In MR the be-passive tends to occur in sentences with [+/–personal, +specific, +topical, +entity] subjects, while the se-passive tends to occur in sentences with [–personal] or [+personal, –specific, –topical, +property] formal subjects (GALR II: –), specifically with [generic/mass/type denoting] subjects (GR: ). Accordingly, unlike in OR, in present-day Romanian personal pronouns and proper names are excluded from se-passive constructions. It has been also noted that the se-passive and not the be-passive is selected by dicendi verbs (i s-a spus ‘he was told’), generic and modal uses (bluza se spală cu apă rece ‘the blouse is to be washed with cold water’) and the presentative value (s-a făcut un anunţ important ‘an important announcement was made’) (Manoliu-Manea : –). The two passive structures also differed in point of frequency: in OR the se-passive was more frequent than the be-passive, but at the end of the nineteenth century the frequency of the be-passive increased (Pușcariu : ; Berea-Găgeanu : , ; Guruianu : ; Delcă ; SILR: ). Tables . and . present the results of two quantitative studies. A qualitative analysis would show structural ambiguities allowing two or more readings for some be-passives in the corpora under investigation (}...). Although the data seem to indicate se-passives as the preferred option in OR, one might notice variations across the corpus depending on the translator’s/author’s
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Constructions involving overall clausal structure
T . A quantitative analysis of the se-passive – be-passive relationship: Berea-Găgeanu (: –) TEXT
Se-passive
Be-passive
PH.–
.%
.%
PV.–
%
%
PO.
.%
.%
Prav.
.%
.%
T . A quantitative analysis of the se-passive – be-passive relationship: Delcă (, ) TEXT DÎ
Se-passive
Be-passive
.%
.%
CT.–
.%
.%
CC2.
.%
.%
BB.
.%
.%
CLM.–
.%
.%
ULM.~
.%
.%
NL.~–
%
%
preferences, which sometimes differed from one text to another. At the same time, in a study of Prav., Rizescu (: ) noticed that certain verbs were used exclusively with the se-passive (e.g. sparge ‘break’, opri ‘stop’), others with the bepassive ( / ) slightly more frequently (e.g. apăra ‘defend’), and others with the sepassive and the be-passive with the same frequency (e.g. lepăda ‘reject/throw/drop/ cast’). In CS, Chivu (: ) found that the se-passive was quite frequent and never competed with the be-passive. ... The Agent-phrase OR displayed long passive structures, i.e. with an overt Agent-phrase, and short passive structures, i.e. with a covert Agent-phrase. The two types occurred both with be-passives (e.g. (a–d) vs. (e,g)) and with se-passives (e.g. (b,e) vs. (c,d)). In be-passive constructions the Agent-phrase was often expressed in texts between and , but the number of short structures seemed to increase between and (Todi : ). In the ninteenth century long structures were preferred in legal and administrative texts, while short structures were favoured in the colloquial language (SILR: ). In se-passive constructions the Agent-phrase was more rarely expressed than in be-passives; long structures were more frequent in texts from Moldova, Transylvania, and Banat (Frâncu : , , ). In MR
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
T . The Agent-phrase in be-passives and se-passives: Delcă (, ) Text
be-passive
se-passive
DÎ
.%
.%
CT.–
%
%
CP .
%
%
CC2.
.%
BB.
%
1
ULM.~
.% %
%
–
CLM.–
.%
.%
NL.~–
.%
.%
long se-passives are marginal, and seem to adjoin the inferred Agent-phrase to the short syntactic structure as a kind of afterthought. Table . compares the realizations of the Agent-phrase in be-passives and in se-passives. The Agent-phrase was actualized as a PP headed by various prepositions and their complement. The most frequent head prepositions were de, de la, din/den, de către, pentru, la (), which partly preserved their inherent semantics and reflected the agent—force—instrumental—place—source syncretisms in Slavonic. ()
a. Sânt zidite de vecinica lui Dumnezeu înţelepciune wisdom.ACC be.PRES.PL build.PPLE.F.PL by eternal.F.SG.DEF LUI.GEN God și putere (GIst.~: ) and power.ACC ‘They are built by God’s eternal wisdom and power’ b. Avându ierbi împotriva otravei date de la have.GER herbs.F.PL against poison.DEF.GEN give.PPLE.F.SG from at un doftor priiatin (CLM.–: v) a doctor friend ‘Having herbs against poison, which he was given by a doctor friend’ c. den proroci și den apostoli propoveduită (NT.: v) from prophets.ACC and from apostles spread.PPLE.F.SG ‘spread by the prophets and the apostles’ d. Leșii să mântuie de cătră Poles.DEF.NOM CL.REFL.PASS save.PRES.PL by Vasilie-vodă (NL.~–: ) Vasilie-voivode ‘The Poles are saved by Vasilie-voivode’ e. Baiazit fu biruit pentru mulţimea multitude.DEF Baiazid be.PS.SG defeat.PPLE.M.SG for tătarălor (ULM.~: v) Tartars.DEF.GEN ‘Baiazid was defeated by the large number of Tartars’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Constructions involving overall clausal structure
f. nu să asculta la cei mari stăpâni (GIst.~: ) not CL.REFL.PASS listen.IMPERF.SG at CEL.M.PL great masters.ACC ‘the great masters were not listened to’ In the sixteenth century de and de la were the most frequent prepositions which headed accusative Agent-phrases. Gradually, de became the dedicated preposition for Agent-phrases (Frâncu : ). De către as a head of an Agent-phrase was first attested in the seventeenth century, but it was rarely used (Diaconescu ; Frâncu : ). Its frequency increased in the eighteenth century, when it became the emphatic marker of [+human, +specific] Agent-phrases. Rarely, dative Agent-phrases on the borderline with indirect objects were attested in the sixteenth century (). () tatălui priimiţi sântu (CC2.: ) Father.DAT embrace.PPLE.M.PL be.PRES.PL ‘they are embraced by Father’ Although the dative Agent-phrase occurred in Latin (Ernout and Thomas : ), it was considered an influence of church Slavonic in Romanian translations (Ciobanu : ). It was eliminated in the first decades of the seventeenth century (Diaconescu ; Frâncu : ). Both in be-passives and in se-passives the Agent-phrase was realized as a DP (a,b), a proform (c,d), or a negative pronoun (e). Propositional Agentphrases were rare in OR (Stan a: ) as in MR, when relative cine clauses headed by de/de către might stand for Agent-phrases. ()
a. easte scrisă de sfinții evanghelisti (CCat.: r) is write.PPLE.F.SG by holy.M.PL.DEF evangelists.ACC ‘it is written by the holy evangelists’ b. dă ţarul să trimisese (GIst.~: ) by tsar.DEF.ACC CL.REFL.PASS send.PLUPERF.SG ‘he had been sent by the Tsar’ c. care a fost văzut de noi (IS.: ) which AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE.SG see.PPLE.M.SG by us ‘which was seen by us’ d. de ai noștri s-au făcut (GIst.~: ) by AL.M.PL ours CL.REFL.PASS=AUX.PERF.SG do.PPLE ‘it was done by our people’ e. nece de unulu să se vindece (CC2.: ) no by one.DEF SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.PASS heal.SUBJ.SG ‘let him be healed by no one’
The position of the Agent-phrase in relation to the verb was free; regularly, it was postposed in neutral sentences and preposed for contrastive focus (Frâncu : –).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
... Final remarks Romanian inherited from vulgar Latin (}...) two passive structures: the be-passive (}...) and the se-passive (}...). A comparison of the two structures reveals formal similarities, but functional dissimilarities (}...). The Agent-phrase (}...) gradually became marked by a specialized preposition. The two structures do not display major formal differences between OR and MR. Be-passives had the same morphosyntactic properties in OR as in MR; nevertheless, unlike in OR in MR inversion and scrambling are limited. Se-passives developed from a personal structure with forms for all the grammatical persons into a structure with forms only for the rd person in standard MR, inversion and scrambling being reduced. The passive subject and the Agent-phrase had the same actualizations in OR as in MR. Their position correlated with the informational structure of the sentence: contrastive focus triggered inversion in OR, while a change in the intonation pattern is preferred in MR. In se-passives the selectional restrictions of the subject changed from [+/–animate] into [–animate] / [+animate, –specific, referential] reading, and personal pronouns or proper names are excluded. The number of syncretisms considerably decreased. Both structures had a long form with the Agent-phrase expressed as a nominal category and a short form with the Agent-phrase deleted (}...). In this respect, the be-passive did not change, but the se-passive generally suppresses the Agent-phrase in present-day Romanian. The dative Agent-phrase, which was attested in a fossilized form in the sixteenth century, was eliminated during the seventeenth century. Accusative Agent-phrases were headed by several prepositions in OR, which shared the semantic fields of agent— place—instrumental—force—source. After the eighteenth century only two prepositions were specialized for the Agent-phrase: de către and de, with de către as the emphatic marker for the specific reading of the human agent. Functionally, the be-passive and the se-passive had different evolutions that might be (partly) accounted for in terms of external influences: in OR, the position of the se-passive in the system was enhanced by translations from church Slavonic, while in MR, the position of the be-passive was enhanced by the influence of western Romance languages, as the statistical data seem to indicate. While in OR the two structures participated in aspectual oppositions (imperfective vs. perfective; dynamic vs. static; process vs. result), which continued the Latin model, influenced by the grammatical system of Slavic languages, in MR the opposition developed into a personal, affected actant focalization vs. an impersonal, presentative, topicalized event. Register changes and clichéization processes have also been observed (}...). .. Middle reflexives and anaphoric reflexives ... Preliminary remarks On the continuum which has one-participant events at one end (intransitive verbs, i.e. unaccusative and unergative), and two-participant events, at the other (transitive verbs), there are two intermediate zones: the middle domain and the anaphoric reflexive domain. Semantically, middle reflexives are events (i) with one participant who is the initiator and the affected/endpoint entity and (ii) a low degree of elaboration (Lyons : ; Kemmer : ; Ledgeway : ). Anaphoric reflexives feature self-directed events, which are otheroriented by default (Haiman ; Faltz ; Langacker ; Kemmer , ; Givón ; Lakoff ; Cornilescu ; Frajzyngier and Curl (eds) ).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Constructions involving overall clausal structure
In Romanian the overt markers for both semantic middles and anaphoric reflexives are the reflexive clitics, and, in certain syntactic contexts, the strong reflexive. Romanian inherited the reflexive pronoun from Latin but enriched its values and uses. Romanian preserved from Latin the accusative/dative opposition and developed two pronominal series, clitic and strong, which are assumed to have been functional as early as proto-Romanian (Niculescu : ; ILR II: , ). At the same time, Romanian inherited from Latin the reflexive possessive suus, which contextually alternates with the genitive of the personal pronoun/possessive adjective său, sa, săi, sale / lui, ei, lor (‘his / her(s) / their(s)’) (}...). As in other Romance languages, the Romanian reflexive is polyfunctional and displays various values: (a) anaphoric, marking the referential identity between the subject and the direct/indirect/possessive object (}...); (b) reciprocal anaphoric (}..); (c) middle constructions marker (}...); (d) valency reduction marker in se-passive constructions (}...); (e) valency reduction marker in impersonal constructions (}...). Compared to other Romance languages, which inherited a reduced category of reflexives from late Latin (Dimitrescu (ed.) : ), Romanian enhanced and developed it under the influence of Slavic languages and of church Slavonic in religious texts in the sixteenth–seventeenth centuries. On the one hand, the reflexive in OR shared all its semantic values with Slavic reflexives (Rosetti : –). On the other hand, the reflexive marker had a high frequency rank (e.g. rank in CPrav. –, i.e. occurrences; apud ILRL: ). Internal evolutions contributed to extended uses of the reflexive in MR. As in Spanish, Portuguese, and some southern Italian varieties, Romanian does not show specialized auxiliary selection (i.e. esse vs. habere) for reflexives in periphrastic tense-forms (Densusianu : ; ManoliuManea ; GR: ). There are no major structural and/or functional differences in the reflexive domain between OR and MR. Lexically specific selections influenced by linguistic contacts, register and stylistic preferences, as well as frequency variations characterize the development of the category from the sixteenth century to the present. The forms of the reflexive clitics and strong pronouns are the same in OR and MR (Dimitrescu : –; ILRL: , ; GALR I: ; GR: ; RGR: ). For persons sg, sg, pl, pl they are syncretic with the personal clitics and pronouns. For person , reflexives have dedicated forms, as presented in (a,b); some morphophonological variants in OR (presented under (a’,b’)) were eliminated from standard Romanian during the nineteenth century, but preserved in dialectal and some colloquial usages. For an account of the evolution of variants see Frâncu (: –); Gheţie and Mareș (: ). ()
Acc: clitic: se, (-)se(-) (< SĒ) strong: sine (< sē + ne, by analogy with *mene, *tene ) b. Dat: clitic: și, (-)și(-) (< SIBI); își (Proto-Romanian th–th century) strong: sie (< SIBI), sieși (Proto-Romanian sie + -și) a’. Acc: clitic: (-)s(-), (-)ș(-), să strong: sâne, sire, sinre, sineș(i), sinele(ș), sineleș(e) b’. Dat: clitic: șu(-), (-)ș(-) strong: șie(și) a.
For the position of clitic and strong reflexives in VP, DP, AdvP and PP, see }..
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
... Middle reflexives Both OR and MR middles are marked by the accusative or dative reflexive clitic, syncretic with anaphoric reflexive clitics. An extensive list of reflexive verbs is to be found in Densusianu : –. As in MR, in OR most middles were marked by the accusative reflexive clitic (a), and fewer by the dative clitic (b). ()
a. a se aveni ‘ferment’, a se (îm)bătrâni ‘get old’, a se bolnăvi ‘get sick/ill’, a se cuteza ‘dare’, a se domni ‘reign’, a se făgădui ‘commit to’, a se (în) flămânzi ‘go hungry, starve’, a se glumi ‘joke’, a se ispovedi ‘confess one’s sins’, a se îmbogăţi ‘become rich’, a se începe ‘begin’, a se închina ‘worship’, a se îngheţa ‘freeze’, a se însetoșa ‘go thirsty’, a se întoarce ‘return’, a se întrista ‘sadden’, a se întuneca ‘get dark’, a se învăţa ‘study, learn, get used to’, a se lăcrăma ‘weep’, a se luneca ‘slip’, a se naște ‘be born’, a se nebuni ‘go crazy’, a se nedejdui ‘hope’, a se nevoi ‘be in need’, a se plânge ‘cry, weep’, a se porni ‘start’, a se posti ‘fast’, a se putredzi ‘rot’, a se răposa ‘die’, a se ruga ‘beg’, a se scula ‘rise’, a se șopti ‘whisper’, a se sui ‘climb’, a se tremura ‘shiver, quiver’, a se trudi ‘strive’, a se turba ‘rage’, a se usteni ‘get tired/exhausted’, etc. b. a-și aminti ‘remember, recollect’, a-și bate joc/gioc ‘mock’, a-și/se lua amente/aminte ‘remember, mind, pay attention to’, a-și aduce aminte/ amente ‘remember, bring to memory’, a-și ști ‘know’, a-și socoti ‘consider’, a-și sta ‘stay, sit, stop’, a-și cugeta ‘ponder, cogitate’, a-și da sufletul ‘breathe one’s last’, a-și râde ‘laugh, mock’, a-și lua seama ‘take into account, pay attention to’, a-și da seama ‘realize’, a-și înceta ‘stop’, etc.
Semantically, middles fall into two classes: ‘grooming’ verbs/naturally reflexive verbs, and intensive verbs showing strong involvement of a non-agentive actant (Experiencer or Theme) in the process/event. As in MR, grooming verbs were generally marked by the accusative reflexive clitic (a–c) and, as in other Romance languages, had resultative copular structures as counterparts (Ledgeway : ) (a’–c’). They were particularly marked by the possessive dative reflexive clitic () when they featured the body part–whole relationship (}..). Some grooming verbs allowed both a dative reflexive (a,b) and an accusative reflexive (a’; see also }...). ()
a. dușu-mî de mă spălai (CT.–: v) go.PS.SG=CL.REFL.ACC.SG and CL.REFL.ACC.SG wash.PS.SG ‘I went and washed/to wash myself ’ a’. cela ce e îmbrăcatu (CC2.: ) that.one.M.SG that is dress.PPLE.M.SG ‘he who is dressed’ b. s-au îmbrăcat (DPar.: IV. r) CL.REFL.ACC.PL=AUX.PERF.PL dress.PPLE ‘they got dressed’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Constructions involving overall clausal structure
b’. aceluia ce-i spălat (NT.: r) that.one.DAT.M.SG that=is wash.PPLE.M.SG ‘to him who is washed’ c. m-am îmbrăcat (Bert.: r) CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG dress.PPLE ‘I dressed (myself )’ c’. toţ ( . . . ) sânt îmbrăcaţ cu ( . . . ) all.M.PL be.PRES.PL dress.PPLE.M.PL with veșminte (DPar.: III. r) clothes ‘they are all dressed in clothes’ () a. spălară-și mânule și picioarele (PO.: ) wash.PS.PL=CL.REFL.DAT.PL hands.DEF.ACC and legs.DEF.ACC ‘they washed their hands and feet’ spălă pre obraz (DPar.: III.r) CL.REFL.ACC.SG wash.PS.SG DOM cheek ‘he washed his face’ b. Elu-ș tunse părul (MC.: v) he=CL.REFL.DAT.SG cut.PS.SG hair.DEF.ACC ‘He cut his hair’
a’. să
Reflexive intensive middles were marked by the dative or the accusative reflexive clitic and pertained to several semantic classes (see also Densusianu : –; Sandfeld and Olsen : –, ; ILR I: –; Ernout and Thomas : –): (a) motion verbs: a se apropia ‘get close(r)’, a se duce ‘go’, a se părăsi ‘move/stand apart’, a se purta ‘go away, leave’, a se deștinde ‘get down, descend’, a se întoarce ‘return’, a se rătăci ‘lose one’s way’, a se urca ‘get on, mount’, a se opri ‘stop’, a se porni ‘start’, a se mișca ‘move’, etc. (b) momentary event verbs: a se oua ‘lay an egg’, a se răposa ‘die’, a se făgădui ‘promise’, a se giura ‘swear’, a se trezi ‘wake up’, a se rupe ‘break’, a se lepi ‘stick’, a se greși ‘err, make a mistake’, a se închina ‘worship, pray’, etc. (c) locative verbs: a se sălăș(l)ui ‘stay, live’, a se muta ‘move in/out’, a se așeza ‘sit’, a se afla ‘be found’, etc. (d) communication verbs: a se grăi ‘speak in public, speak out’, a se mărturisi ‘confess’, a se ispovedi ‘confess, shrive’, etc. (e) cognitive verbs: a-și aduce aminte ‘remember’, a se gândi ‘think’, a-și lua seama ‘take into account’, a se mira ‘be surprised’, a se încrede ‘trust’, etc. (f) emotion verbs: a se speria ‘startle’, a se bucura ‘enjoy, be happy’, a se teme ‘fear’, a se căi ‘repent’, a se turba ‘fly into a rage’, a se nădăjdui ‘hope’, a se chinui ‘torment’, a se plânge ‘complain’, a se veseli ‘be cheerful/merry’, a se spăimânta ‘be frightened/afraid’, etc. (g) change of state verbs: a se aveni ‘ferment’, a se îngrășa ‘gain weight’, a se vesteji ‘wither’, a se urâţi ‘become ugly’, a se înroși ‘redden’, a se bolnăvi ‘get sick’, a se
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
umfla ‘swell up’, a se sărăci ‘become poor’, a se logodi ‘get engaged’, a se sătura ‘be satisfied, have enough’, a se bătrâni ‘get old’, a se întrista ‘sadden’, a se înfrumușa ‘beautify, embellish’, etc. (h) inchoative verbs: a se apuca de ‘settle down to’, a se începe ‘start, begin’, a se rădica ‘rise’, a se arăta ‘appear’, a se pristăvi ‘die’, etc. (i) process verbs: a se lăcrăma ‘weep’, a se luneca ‘slip’, a se sui ‘climb’, a se topi ‘melt’, a se griji ‘take care of ’, a se posti ‘fast’, a se tremura ‘tremble’, a se chinui ‘be tortured/tormented’, a se îmbogăţi ‘get rich’, a se însetoșa ‘get thirsty’, a se șopti ‘whisper’, etc. (j) copular verbs: a se face ‘become’, a se chema ‘be called/named’, etc. Middles pertained to various subclasses: inherent obligatory reflexives (as in ); formed non-reflexive–reflexive pairs, with the reflexive clitic functioning as a grammatical marker for lexical differentiation between more or less distant meanings (as in ); formed accusative–unaccusative pairs with se functioning as an intranzitivizer (as in ); optionally selected se especially in translations from Latin, Greek, Slavic, and Hungarian (as in ) (Graur : ; ILRL: ; Frâncu : –). ()
a se milosârdi ‘sympathize’, a se scârbi ‘be sick of ’, a se blânzi ‘become affectionate’, a se ciumăra ‘become angry’, a se milcui ‘implore’, a se obrăzi ‘behave badly’, a se tângui ‘wail’, etc.
()
a spodobi ‘consider sb. worthy’ / a se spodobi ‘be credible’, pricestui ‘make sb. experience sth.’ / a se pricestui ‘acquire’, a câștiga ‘make a fortune’ / a se câștiga ‘fuss, wag, bustle’, a ciudi ‘make sth. shine’ / a se ciudi ‘be surprised’, a cunteni ‘stop, prevent sb. from doing sth.’ / a se cunteni ‘stop doing sth.’, a derege ‘lead, guide’ / a se derege ‘follow the right track’, etc.
()
a învăţa ‘learn’ / a se învăţa ‘get used to’, a ridica ‘raise’ / a se ridica ‘rise’, a întrista ‘sadden sb.’ / a se întrista ‘become sad’, a scula ‘wake sb. up’ / a se scula ‘wake up’, a tămădui ‘heal sb.’ / a se tămădui ‘heal oneself ’, etc.
()
a (se) teme ‘fear’, a (se) ivi ‘arise’, a (se) chinui ‘torment, agonize’, a (se) cutedza ‘dare’, a (se) domni ‘reign’, a (se) usteni ‘strive, bother’, a (se) făgădui ‘promise’, a (se) glumi ‘joke’, etc.
Compared to OR, in MR the number of inherent reflexives has increased (GALR II: ), while free variation has decreased. Some lexemes moved across classes: former reflexives became non-reflexives (as in ) (Rosetti : ; Stan a: ), the optional reflexive clitic became obligatory (as in ) (Stan a: ), and the reflexive/non-reflexive opposition (as in ) systemically correlates with the transitive vs. intransitive opposition (Dragomirescu : –). Some lexemes have changed their meanings (as in ) or have been eliminated from standard Romanian (as in ), although some of them persist as dialectal varieties (as in ’). The reflexive marker still differentiates among meanings (as in ). With some lexemes the reflexive marker features a standard vs. colloquial or slang opposition (as in ), standard vs. dialectal (as in ), or the common use vs. terminology
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Constructions involving overall clausal structure
opposition (as in ). Complex semantic and combinatory evolutions changed the status of some lexical verbs of Latin origin, so that MR displays reflexive verbs which are not reflexives in other Romance languages, despite the common etymon of the lexemes (as in ). () a se înviia > a înviia ‘revive, be resurrected’, a se încăpea > a încăpea ‘comprise, accommodate’, a se domni > a domni ‘reign’, a se cuteza > a cuteza ‘dare’, a se răposa > a răposa ‘die, pass away’, a se tăcea > a tăcea ‘keep silent’, a se conteni > a conteni ‘cease’, a se cugeta > a cugeta ‘think, meditate’, a se posti > a posti ‘fast’, a se tremura > a tremura ‘tremble’, etc. ()
a se teme ‘to fear, be afraid of ’, a se căi ‘repent’, a se veseli ‘enjoy’, etc.
()
a atinge ceva ‘touch sth.’ / a se atinge de ceva ‘to touch sth. with one’s body’, a muta ceva ‘move sth.’ / a se muta ‘move, change one’s location’, a înroși ceva ‘to redden sth.’ / a se înroși ‘turn red’, a ridica ceva ‘raise’ / a se ridica ‘rise’, etc.
()
a (se) năduși ‘choke’ > a năduși ‘sweat’, a se lăuda ‘threaten’ > a se lăuda ‘boast’, etc.
()
a se aldovăni ‘to sacrifice oneself ’, a se zidui ‘become stronger’, a se zdrăvui ‘behave kindly’, etc.
(’)
a se câștiga ‘take care’, in modern Banat, Crișana, Transylvania; a-și închina ‘worship’, in modern Banat; a se petrece ‘to party’, in modern Banat; a-și uita ‘forget’, in modern southern varieties. See TDR: ; Vulpe : –; Marin .
()
a plânge ‘cry’/ a se plânge de ‘complain’, a duce ‘carry’ / a se duce ‘go’, a aștepta ‘wait’ / a se aștepta la ‘expect’, etc.
()
a putrezi / a se putrezi ‘rot’, a sui / a se sui ‘climb, ascend’, a trudi / a se trudi ‘strive, toil, labour’, a osteni / a se osteni ‘weary, tire’, a turba / a se turba ‘rage’, a risca / a se risca ‘risk’, etc.
()
a călări / a se călări ‘ride a horse’, a voma / a se voma ‘vomit, puke’ (Banat) (TDR: ), a glumi / a se glumi ‘joke’, a chinui / a se chinui ‘torment, torture’ (Banat) (Vulpe : –); a uita / a-și uita (Mehedinţi, Dolj, Oltenia, etc.) (DGDS ), etc.
() a se coagula / a coagula ‘coagulate’, a se sedimenta / a sedimenta ‘to sediment’, etc. () a se juca, cf. Fr. jouer, It. giocare, Sp. jugar, Ptg. jogar ‘play’; a se jura, cf. Fr. jurer, It. giurare, Sp. jurar, Ptg. jurar ‘swear’; a se naște cf. Fr. naître, It. nascere, Sp. nacer, Ptg. nascer ‘be born’; a se teme cf. It. temere, Sp. temer, Ptg. temer ‘to fear’, etc. Middle reflexives in OR were etymologically heterogeneous: inherited from Latin (exemplified in ), borrowed via linguistic contacts from Slavic languages (exemplified in ), loan structures from church Slavonic applied to lexemes of Latin or
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
other origin (exemplified in ), and middle reflexives resulted from the internal evolution of verbs that were non-reflexives in the languages of origin (Latin, Slavic, Hungarian, Greek) (exemplified in ). ()
a se aveni ‘yeast, ferment’, a se blânzi ‘become affectionate’, a se cumpli ‘finish, achieve’, a se despune ‘order, achieve’, etc.
()
a se posti ‘fast’, a se căi ‘repent’, a se griji ‘take care’, a se glumi ‘make a joke’, a se milosârdi ‘sympathize’, a se nădăi ‘to hope’, a se obrăzi ‘misbehave, ‘hurt someone’s feelings’, etc.
()
a se mira ‘wonder’, a se ruga ‘pray’, a se gândi ‘think, meditate’, a se învăţa ‘learn, instruct oneself, get used to’, etc.
()
a se încări ‘to warm, heat’, a se ciumăra ‘be mad, become angry, take offence’, a se pregăti ‘prepare for, get ready for’, a se umnoji ‘multiply’, a se dosădi ‘be disturbed’, a se aldovăni ‘sacrifice oneself ’, a se cebălui ‘be confused’, a se izecleni ‘look insensitive, tough’, etc.
A detailed list of reflexives classified according to the origin of the lexeme is in Densusianu (: ). Middle reflexives entered into several syntactic patterns shared by OR and MR. Nevertheless, lexical migrations across patterns occurred and present-day usage reflects some register preferences. For the syntactic frame of verbs and syntactic variation see }.. The patterns were the following: loan structures from Slavic with a dative indirect object (); prepositional object structures (); monovalent verb structures with an obligatory or an optional adjunct (); copular verb structures (); tautological structures (); inner process/state verbs recurrently combined with the PP întru sine ‘in self ’ transmitted to MR as în sinea lui ‘to/for himself ’ (). ()
()
a. bucuraţi-vă lui enjoy.IMP.PL=CL.REFL.ACC.PL LUI.DAT ‘enjoy yourselves in the name of God’ b. se închina CL.REFL.ACC.SG bow.down.IMPERF.SG ‘he bowed down to the Sun’ a. se
va
CL.REFL.ACC.SG
AUX.FUT.SG ‘he will get rid of me’
Dumnedzeu (PH.–: r) God soarelui (MC.: r) sun.DEF.DAT
lepăda de mine (CC2.: ) get.rid.INF of me.ACC
b. toţi să temea de el (NT.: r) all.M.PL CL.REFL.ACC.SG fear.IMPERF.PL of him ‘they were all afraid of him / they all feared him’ ()
a. să
se
SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.SG
‘to turn to God’
întoarcă cătră Dumnezeu (CCat.: v–r) turn.SUBJ.SG towards God.ACC
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Constructions involving overall clausal structure b. să
se
CL.REFL.ACC.SG ‘to dwell in Heaven’
SĂSUBJ
sălășluiască în Eden (MC.: r) dwell.SUBJ.SG in Eden
() a. ce se cheamă păgânii (CC1.: v) that CL.REFL.ACC.SG call.PRES.PL pagans.DEF.NOM ‘who are called pagans / whose name is pagans’ b. curvă se cheamă aceea (Prav.: ) whore.NOM CL.REFL.ACC.SG call.PRES.SG that.one.NOM ‘that one is called a whore’ c. somnul să numește frate cu sleep.DEF.NOM CL.REFL.ACC.SG call.PRES.SG brother.NOM with moartea (Bert.: v) death.DEF.ACC ‘sleep is called sister to death’ () a. bucurați-vă bucurieei (CPr.: ) enjoy.IMP.PL=CL.REFL.ACC.PL joy.DEF.DAT ‘enjoy!’ b. Asămânarea ( . . . ) să asămânează (AD.–: r) resemblance.DEF.NOM CL.REFL.ACC.SG resembles ‘They resemble’ () a. se CL.REFL.ACC.SG
mira întru sine (CPr.–: ) wonder.IMPERF.SG in self.ACC
‘he wondered’ b. socotindu întru sine (Bert.: r) self consider.GER in ‘considering’
... Anaphoric reflexives Anaphoric reflexives occurred in argumental positions under strict binding (syntactic anaphors as defined in Chomsky ), as discourse anaphors (as defined in Reinhart and Reuland ) in PP or AdvP, and as logophors across sentences. Reflexive anaphors in direct object position were morphologically marked for the accusative (), while in indirect object position they were morphologically marked for the dative (). Both accusative and dative forms displayed clitic (a–d, a,b) and strong forms (e–h, c–e). The clitic forms were placed preverbally (a,b, a) or postverbally (c,d, b), according to morphophonological and discourse rules (see }..). The strong forms were placed preverbally (e,f, d) and postverbally (g,h, d,e). The differential object marker (DOM) of accusative strong reflexives—p(r)e—although absent in older stages (e’, g’), gradually became obligatory during the seventeenth century (see }...). () a. mă laudu (CC2.: ) CL.REFL.ACC.SG praise.PRES.SG ‘I boast’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause b. să
mă omor eu cu mânile CL.REFL.ACC.SG kill.SUBJ.SG I with hands.DEF.ACC meale (Sind.: v) my.F.PL.ACC ‘to kill myself with my own hands’ c. păzeaște-te de Cantida (FD.–: r) guard.IMP.SG=CL.REFL.ACC.SG of Cantida ‘beware of Cantida’ d. apărându-se câteva ceasuri (CLM.–: r) hours defend.GER=CL.REFL.ACC.SG few ‘defending themselves for a few hours’ SĂSUBJ
sineșu va mântui (CC2.: ) DOM self.ACC-ȘI AUX.FUT.SG save.INF ‘he will save himself ’ e’. sine să arate (CC2.: ) self.ACC SĂSUBJ reveal.SUBJ.SG ‘to reveal himself ’
e. pre
sine să apăra (ULM.~: r) DOM self.ACC CL.REFL.ACC.SG defend.IMPERF.SG ‘he defended himself ’
f. pre
g. dat-au Hristosu pre sine pentru noi (CC2.: ) us give.PPLE=AUX.PERF.SG Christ DOM self.ACC for ‘Christ gave himself for us’ g’. Iisus Hristos arată sine (CT.–: v) Jesus Christ reveal.PRES.SG self.ACC ‘Jesus Christ reveals himself ’ h. ureaște pe sine (DPar.: III.v) hates DOM self.ACC ‘he hates himself ’ ()
a. și-șu gătesc comoară în ceriu (CC2.: ) and=CL.REFL.DAT.PL prepare.PRES.PL treasure.ACC in sky ‘and they prepare treasures for themselves in heaven’ b. luo-și a doa muiare (Prav.: r) take.PS.SG=CL.REFL.DAT.SG second.F wife.ACC ‘he took a second wife’ c. sie ei luară piște (CV.–: r) self.DAT they take.PS.PL food.ACC ‘they took food for themselves’ ia șie muiare (Prav.: ) take.SUBJ.SG self.DAT wife.NOMACC ‘to take her as his wedded wife’
d. să
SĂSUBJ
o
CL.ACC.F.SG
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Constructions involving overall clausal structure
agonesască șie nume bun (CLM.–: r) SĂSUBJ gather.SUBJ.SG self.DAT name.ACC good ‘to make a good name for himself ’
e. să
Accusative and dative reflexive clitic reduplication occurred in OR and persists dialectally in MR (}...). () a. se
întărească-se strengthen.SUBJ.SG=CL.REFL.ACC.SG înrima (PH.–: v) heart.NOM ‘may his heart be strengthened’ b. ș-au luatu-ș fire CL.REFL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.PL take.PPLE=CL.REFL.DAT.SG nature.ACC omenească (DPar.: III.v) human ‘he took the appearance of a human’ CL.REFL.ACC.SG
Accusative thematic chains had been manifest both as [clitic . . . (pre) strong reflexive] (a,b), and [(pre) strong reflexive . . . clitic] (c,d) since the oldest Romanian texts and were transmitted to MR, where the DOM pe became obligatory. () a. să CL.REFL.ACC.SG
‘he put himself ’
pusă pre sine (CPr.: ) put.PS.SG DOM self.ACC
ne curăţimu sineșu (CC2.: ) SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.PL clean.SUBJ.PL self.ACC-Ș ‘to clean ourselves’
b. să
c. pre
sineșu socotiia-se ca un self.ACC-Ș consider.IMPERF.SG=CL.REFL.ACC.SG as a om (CC2.: ) man ‘he considered himself a man’ DOM
d. sine arăta-se-voru (CC2.: ) self.ACC reveal.INF=CL.REFL.ACC.PL=AUX.FUT.PL ‘they will reveal themselves’ e. pre elu se va piiarde (CT.–: r) DOM him.ACC CL.REFL.ACC.SG AUX.FUT.SG lose.INF ‘he will lose himself ’ Dative thematic chains did not occur in the sixteenth century (Ciobanu : ), but are attested for the seventeenth (a,b). For example, five occurrences in CazV., one occurrence in ȘT., seven occurrences in NT. have been counted.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
()
a. și-și luă partea sa șieși (ȘT.: ) and=CL.REFL.DAT.SG take.PS.SG share.DEF.ACC his self.DAT ‘and he took his share for himself ’ b. șie adeverindu-și (CII.~: ) himself.DAT confirm.GER=CL.REFL.DAT.SG ‘confiming to himself ’ c. și-și făcură lor încingeri (BB.: –) and=CL.REFL.DAT.SG make.PS.PL them.DAT.PL fences.ACC ‘and they made fences for themselves’
For the bound enclitic intensifier -ș(i) in (c) and (a) see }.. Both in accusative and in dative thematic chains strong personal pronouns were allowed instead of the strong reflexive (e, c). The clitic and the pronoun in the chain were generally marked for the same person and the same case, as in MR. Nevertheless, person and case mismatches were attested, always including a rd person clitic/strong reflexive, probably under the influence of the Slavonic originals, where the reflexive was not marked for person and number oppositions. Person mismatches () have been explained as the influence of the Slavonic original on translations, provided that the reflexive pronoun in Slavic was not overtly marked for the three grammatical persons, singular, and plural (Densusianu : ; Rosetti, Cazacu, and Onu : ; ILRL: ). Case mismatches () might have been the result of the dative/accusative free variation in the selection of the reflexive marker with some verbs. ()
veţi pune pre sinei robi (VRC.: r) a. văi CL.REFL.ACC.PL AUX.FUT.PL put.INF DOM self.ACC slaves.NOMACC ‘you will make yourselves slaves’ facem șiei turnuri (DPar.: II.v) b. nei CL.REFL.DAT.PL make.PRES.PL self.DAT towers.ACC ‘we build towers for ourselves’
()
și-șii deaderă pre sinei (CC2.: ) and=CL.REFL.DAT.PL give.PS.PL DOM self.ACC ‘and they gave themselves to . . . ’
The sixteenth-century texts also indicate a partial overlap between reflexives and intensifiers (), which has been totally eliminated in MR. See also }.. ()
pomenească pre însăși (PO.: ) mention.SUBJ.SG DOM herself.ACC ‘that she mentioned herself ’
a. să
SĂSUBJ
se
CL.REFL.ACC.SG
b. însuși sine ( . . . ) să stea înaintea lu himself.NOM self.ACC SĂSUBJ stand.SUBJ.SG before LUI.GEN Avgus Chesar (CPr.: –) Augustus Caesar ‘he himself to stand in front of Augustus Caesar’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Constructions involving overall clausal structure
During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries sine had strong nominal features: it allowed the definite article (a), entered a possessive dative structure and allowed pronominal substitutions (b), displayed both a feminine form (a,b) and a masculine form (c) with nominal features, i.e. definiteness, genitive marker, determiner (Vasilescu a). () a. să vă veghiiaret cineși sinea (CPr.: ) if CL.REFL.DAT.PL watch.COND.PL who-Ș self.F.DEF ‘if each of you takes care of himself ’ b. arătă-șu sineașu și oi show.PS.SG=CL.REFL.DAT.SG self.F.DEF-Ș and CL.ACC.F.SG descoperi (CC2.: ) unfold.PS.SG ‘he showed his nature and unfold it’ c. partea cea mai aleasă al sinelui tău (AD.–: ) part.DEF CEL.F.SG most beautiful AL.M.SG self.M.DEF.GEN your.M ‘the most beautiful part of your inner self ’ Both OR and MR display reflexive adverbal () and adnominal () possessives. Reflexive possessive reduplication () was allowed, and still occurs to this day in Daco-Romanian varieties. See }}..; ... ()
ș-au spart hainele (Sind.: v) CL.REFL.DAT.PL=AUX.PERF.PL tear.PPLE clothes.DEF.ACC ‘they tore their clothes’
()
a. avuţiia-șu (CC2.: IV) fortune.DEF=CL.REFL.POSS.SG ‘his fortune’ b. la casă-ș (NL.~–: ) at house=CL.REFL.POSS.SG ‘at his house/home’
()
ș-au vestitu-ș CL.REFL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.SG announce.PPLE=CL.REFL.DAT.SG cinstea (DPar.: I.v) honesty.DEF.ACC ‘he was notorious for his honesty’
Possessive chains including two reflexives () or a reflexive and a personal strong pronoun () were frequent both with alienable and inalienable possession, but they have become colloquial, emphatic, and limited to alienable possession in MR. See }... ()
a. ce-și deade Dumnezeu ( . . . ) cuvintele words.DEF.ACC that=CL.REFL.DAT.SG give.PS.SG God.NOM sale afară (CCat.: r) his out ‘God spelled out his words’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause b. să
nu-și întine mâinile not=CL.REFL.DAT.SG taint.SUBJ.SG hands.DEF.ACC sale (Prav.: ) his ‘not to taint his hands’ SĂSUBJ
()
a. și-șu strămuta faţa and=CL.REFL.DAT.PL move.away.IMPERF.PL face.DEF.ACC lor (CC2.: ) their.GEN ‘and they turned away their faces’ b. ș-au păzit locurile CL.REFL.DAT.PL=AUX.PERF.PL watch.PPLE places.DEF.ACC lor (Bert.: r) their.GEN ‘they watched over their places’
In OR, as in MR, the anaphoric relation also held between the sentence subject and a prepositional object (a) or an adjunct (b). Long distance anaphoric relations were frequently marked by a reflexive form (c). ()
dereptează de sineșu (CC2.: ) CL.REFL.ACC.SG move.away.PRES.SG from self.ACC-Ș ‘they were estranged from themselves / strangers to themselves’ b. îi întorsease spre sine (ULM.~: v) CL.ACC.M.PL turn.PLUPERF.SG towards self.ACC ‘he turned them towards himself ’
a. se
c. văzu pre el Isusi [viind cătră sinei] (Ev.: ) see.PS.SG DOM him.ACC Jesus come.GER towards self.ACC ‘Jesusi saw him coming towards himselfi’ A special type of logophor, the Dative of interest, also called affected/experiental dative, could be adjoined to the sentence node in a non-argumental position, as illustrated in (). The dative is exterior to the subcategorization frame of the verb (ști ‘know’, fi ‘be’) and evokes the pro subject of the sentence as the experiencer of the event. It is a type of non-argumental dative among other extended datives (Jouitteau and Rezac ), which was transmitted to Romanian and other Romance languages from Latin. These structures probably existed in proto-Romanian, developed in northern varieties of Daco-Romanian and extended to Istro-Romanian and Megleno-Romanian (Ivănescu : ). The phenomenon persists in present-day varieties of Romanian (Banat, Crișana) and in colloquial Romanian. ()
a. nu-ș știia derep ce au what AUX.PERF.SG not=CL.REFL.DAT.SG know.IMPERF.SG for veritu (CV.–: r) come.PPLE ‘he didn’t know why he had come’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Constructions involving overall clausal structure
b. cumu-și sântu ei gata (ULM.~: v) how=CL.REFL.DAT.PL be.PRES.PL they ready ‘as they are ready/prepared to’ ... Final remarks Reflexive syntactic structures were inherited by Romanian from Latin, but acquired extensive uses in OR under church Slavonic influence. The long-term evolution of reflexive structures in Romanian produced a rich inventory of reflexive verbs which share semantic values with both Romance and Slavic languages. Consequently, the class of Romanian reflexives is more complex than it is in other Romance languages. The reflexive domain did not change much over time: both OR and MR display middles and anaphoric reflexives, morphologically marked for the accusative and the dative. Middles are overtly marked by reflexive clitics, while anaphoric reflexives may be clitic or strong (the latter an innovation of Romanian with respect to Latin), selected according to strict syntactic rules (}...). Middles (}...) in MR basically include the same semantic classes as OR, although the inventory of lexemes in each class which select the reflexive marker changed over time. The persistence of former middles in contemporary varieties of Romanian and the selection of the reflexive marker with lexical neological terms show continuity rather than discontinuity in the reflexive marking process of middles. Three subclasses of middles emerged: inherent reflexives (which lack a non-reflexive counterpart), reflexive–non-reflexive pairs (which display semantic differences between terms), and grooming verbs (obligatorily marked as reflexive in MR). Free variation in the selection of the reflexive marker has been considerably reduced. Anaphoric reflexives (}...) with accusative or dative forms occurred as syntactic and discourse anaphors, the latter less frequent in MR, compared to OR. Thematic chains may be marked both for the accusative and the dative; it seems that the latter emerged later in the history of language, after the sixteenth century. The pronominal strong form for the rd person may replace the strong reflexive. Person, number, and case mismatches in OR were eliminated in standard MR. The optional differential object marker p(r)e, still frequent in the sixteenth century, became obligatory for strong accusative reflexives in later centuries. Possessive chains with two markers (the reflexive clitic and the reflexive possessive) were gradually eliminated from standard Romanian. Reflexive discourse anaphors (PPs and Adjuncts) and logophors across sentence boundaries became less used in favour of the personal pronouns. The propositional dative of interest was preserved only in colloquial usage and in dialectal varieties. Reflexive–intensifier overlaps disappeared, and the co-occurrence of the two developed towards a grammaticalized marker for confirming an unexpected coreferentiality. The reflexive domain in Romanian shows as a coherent system with internal evolution, rather than being the result of a loan process. Consequently, it includes lexemes which were non-reflexive in their language of origin, but were included in reflexive patterns according to the Romanian grammatical system.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
.. Reciprocal constructions ... Preliminary remarks In many European languages, Romanian included, symmetrical verbal, nominal, adjectival, adverbial, and prepositional predications are projected in syntax as reciprocal constructions. Subject and object oriented reciprocity may be implicit or overtly marked via pronominal or adverbial strategies (Kemmer ; Lichtenberk ; Everaert ; Heine ; König and Siemund ; König and Kokutany ; Nedjalkov ; Heine and Miyashita ; König and Gast (eds) ; Maslova and Nedjalkov ). Latin displayed several reciprocal strategies: (i) plural subject + reflexive + ipse; (ii) plural subject + inter nos/uos/se; (iii) repeated indefinite substitutes, alter . . . alter, alius . . . alius, uterque . . . uterque, replaced during the Imperial Age by unus altero; (iv) adverbial adjuncts inuicem (‘in turn’), mutua (‘mutually’), alterutrum/alterutro (‘reciprocally’); (v) noun reduplication (Väänänen : ; Guentchéva and Rivière ). They were all transmitted to OR and preserved in MR. Their frequency and variety in OR and their repartition across texts of various types and from various regions and authors indicate early grammaticalization. Both subject-oriented and object-oriented implicit reciprocals occurred, the former being the more frequent. A partial overlap between the domains of reflexivity—reciprocity—intensification reflected a tendency manifested in vulgar Latin (Ernout and Thomas : –). In the domain of reciprocity there are no significant structural differences between Romanian and other Romance languages. Little attention, if any, has been paid to reciprocal constructions in OR. The present investigation indicates that there are no structural differences between OR and MR (GALR II: –; GR: –; RGR: –), only superficially different lexical choices and a few semantic-discursive constraints on usage. Some constructions are inherently reciprocal (i.e. they convey the reciprocal meaning in all the contexts in which they occur) while others are contextual reciprocals (i.e. they acquire the reciprocal meaning in some contexts, while in others they display a non-reciprocal meaning). Both types are attested in the oldest Romanian texts. ... Implicit/inherent reciprocals Implicit/inherent reciprocals occurred in the earliest preserved texts. Subject-oriented reciprocals had a plural subject and were zero marked (a) or marked by an obligatory reflexive clitic (b). Redundant structures, with the inherent reciprocal reinforced by a reciprocal anaphor, also occurred (c). Object-oriented reciprocals are exemplified in (). ()
a. cui săntu de semânî? (CT.–: r) who.GEN be.PRES.PL so.that resemble.PRES.PL ‘whose are they because they look alike’ b. să
împreuna cu Baștea unite with Baștea Giurgiu (CLM.–: v) Giurgiu ‘(he) will reunite with Baștea Giurgiu’
CL.REFL.ACC.SG
va
AUX.FUT.SG
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Constructions involving overall clausal structure c. se CL.REFL.ACC.PL
‘they reunite’
()
împreuneadză dempreună (FD.–: v) unite.PRES.PL together
a. Dumnezeu ( . . . ) i-au într-una CL.ACC.PL.M=AUX.PERF.SG in-one God împreunat (CM.: v) unite.PPLE ‘God united them’ c. vă voru despărţi (CT.–: v) CL.ACC.PL AUX.FUT.PL separate.INF ‘they will separate you’
... Bipropositional reciprocal structures Bipropositional reciprocal structures with repetition focusing the predication were possible, both in syntactically symmetrical (a) and asymmetrical structures (b), but were not the preferred option. ()
a. Cu care măsură veţi măsura altora, cu with which measure AUX.FUT.PL measure.INF others.DAT with aceaia măsura-vor alalţi voao (CC1.: v) that measure.INF=AUX.FUT.PL others you.PL.DAT ‘With the same measure you measure others they will measure you’ b. de faci tu bine altuia, el încă if do.PRES.SG you.SG.NOM good another.one.M.SG.DAT he also să facă bine cu tine (CC1.: v) SĂSUBJ do.SUBJ.SG good with you.SG.ACC ‘if you do good to someone, he will also do something good to you’
... Reciprocal structures with accusative and dative anaphors As in MR, accusative and dative reflexive clitics marked reflexive anaphors and middles (}..), passives (}..), impersonals (}..), and reciprocal structures. Reciprocal structures with a plural subject and an accusative (a) or a dative reflexive clitic (b) were attested in the sixteenth century and became ever more frequent in MR. () a. să
nu ne SĂSUBJ not CL.REFL.ACC.PL ‘to not envy each other’
pizmimu (CC2.: ) envy.SUBJ.PL
b. el gice că-și sânt sânge (DÎ.: CXV) he says that=CL.REFL.DAT.PL be.PRES.PL blood.NOM ‘he says they are related to each other’ Accusative reciprocal anaphors were not widely used, due to their ambiguity between a reciprocal and a purely anaphoric (}..) reading. ... Reciprocal structures with indefinite substitutes The indefinite substitutes unul . . . altul/celălalt (or their lexical and phonological variants) combined in a
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
complex phrase which overtly marked reciprocity in sentences with a plural subject. The form of the indefinite pronouns reflected the gender (m./f.) and number (sg./pl.) of the nominals they referred to. The indefinite pronoun which referred to the subject position was marked for the nominative, while the indefinite pronoun which referred to the object position was marked for the dative (a,c,d), the accusative (b), or by preposition (e,f), reflecting the syntactic restrictions of the verb. They freely occurred preverbally (a) or, most often, postverbally (b–f). The terms of the syntagm were frequently adjacent, but split structures (e) also occurred. ()
a. altul altuia grăind (CB.–: ) another.M.SG.NOM another.M.SG.DAT speak.GER ‘speaking to each other’ b. iubiţi urul alaltu (CV.–: r) love.IMP.PL one.M.SG.NOM another.M.SG.ACC ‘love one another’ c. sem un trup unul altui (CPr.: ) be.PRES.PL a body one. M.SG.NOM another.M.SG.DAT ‘we are one single body’ d. poate folosi unul altuia (CC1.: v) can.PRES.SG use.INF one.M.SG.NOM another.M.SG.DAT ‘can be useful to each other’ e. încheotoră cu cârligeale unul pocrov fix.PS.PL with hooks.DEF.ACC one.M.SG.NOM cloth cătră alalt (PO.: ) over another.M.SG.ACC ‘they fixed the cloths one over the other with hooks’ rușinară unul de alt (MC.: r) CL.REFL.ACC.PL be.ashamed.PS.PL one.M.SG.NOM of other.M.SG.ACC ‘they were ashamed of each other’
f. se
A few other lexemes functioned as equivalents of the indefinite pronouns: the distributive substitutes fiecare . . . fiecare (‘each one’) or their lexical equivalents (a) and the definite quantifier amândouă (‘both’) (b). ()
a. se botezaţi-vă cineșicu de if baptize.PRES.PL=CL.REFL.ACC.PL each.NOM-ȘI-with by voiși (CB.–: ) you.PL.ACC-ȘI ‘each of you get baptized from among yourselves’ b. să lovesc amândouo în capete (DÎ.–: VI) CL.REFL.ACC.PL bump.PRES..PL both.F in ends ‘they bump their ends’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Constructions involving overall clausal structure
T . A quantitative distribution of various reciprocal strategies Text
Total number of reciprocal constructions
Indefinite strategy
Reflexive anaphor strategy
PP strategy
%
%
CT.–
%
CV.–
%
–
–
PO.
%
–
–
Compared with other reciprocity strategies, the indefinite substitute strategy seemed to be the preferred option in the sixteenth century (see Table .). OR like MR did not allow overtly marked reciprocal genitives in DPs of the each other’s house type (*casa unuia altuia house.DEF one.GEN other.GEN). Other reciprocal strategies under VP were used instead: the indefinite substitutes strategy (a), the split indefinite reciprocals strategy (b), the double marked (reflexive + indefinite) reciprocal structure (c). () a. unul altue a spăla one.M.SG.NOM other.M.SG. DAT AINF wash.INF picioarele (CB.–: ) feet.DEF.ACC ‘to wash each other’s feet’ b. nu poate dereage unul lucrul not can.PRES.SG repair.INF one.M.SG.NOM work.DEF.ACC altuia (CC1.: v) other.M.SG.GENDAT ‘they cannot correct each other’s work’ c. să-și SĂSUBJ=CL.REFL.DAT.SG
facă voia unul do.SUBJ.PL will.SG.DEF.ACC one.M.SG.NOM
altuia (NT.: r) other.M.SG.GENDAT ‘to do each other’s will / to indulge each other’
In (b,c) the second indefinite substitute in the structure is ambiguous between a dative reading under VP and a genitive reading under DP, which might be correlated to the adverbal possessive dative structures (}...) common to both OR and MR. ... PP reciprocal structures In PP reciprocal structures the predication is limited to the group of actants designated by the plural PP (a). The PP was headed by one of the following prepositions: între (< INTER), înde (< în + de), ande (< a + (î)nde), adins (< AD IPSUM / AD ID IPSUM / AD DE IPSUM) ‘among, between’, which was often repeated in front of each of the coordinated terms (as in b,c). The complements of the prepositions were nouns (b), pronouns (e), mixed nominals (c), reflexive anaphors (d), and the universal quantifier toţi ‘all’ (a).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
()
a. ardea-le între toţi (CB.–: ) burn.IMPERF.PL=CL.ACC.F.PL among all.M.PL.ACC ‘burned them [the books] among themselves’ nu fie sfadă ( . . . ) între păstorii not be.SUBJ.SG quarrel.NOM among shepherd.M.PL.DEF.ACC miei și între păstorii tăi (PO.: ) my and between shepherd.M.PL.DEF.ACC your ‘for my shepherds and your shepherds not to quarrel’
b. să
SĂSUBJ
c. se
semăna între măriia lui spread.INF between Highness.ACC his.GEN și între noi (DÎ.: XLIV) and among us ‘(it) will be spread between his Highness and us’ CL.REFL.PASS
va
AUX.FUT.SG
d. Fac vro tocmalî ande sine (CazV.: v) make.PRES.PL some deal.ACC between self.ACC ‘They make a deal between them’ e. ei înde ei tocmindu-să (CII.~: ) they among them bargain.GER=CL.REFL.ACC.PL ‘they (were) bargaining’ ... Split reciprocals Split reciprocals occurred in discontinuous structures with a verbal symmetrical predication (b,c) or an adverbial symmetrical predication (a,d) with a subject (actualized as a nominal or a pro) and a comitative headed by the preposition cu. ()
fim toţi depreună cu be.SUBJ.PL all.M.PL together with Dumnezeu (CC1.: r) God.ACC ‘to be all together with God’ b. se prinde Constantin lui Teodor și CL.REFL.ACC.SG become.PRES.SG Constantin.NOM LUI.DAT Theodor and cuscru și cumnat (Prav.: v) father.of.a.son-in-law.NOM and brother-in-law.NOM ‘Constantin became for Theodor both father of a son-in-law and brotherin-law’ c. beu cu curvele (MC.: r) drink.PRES.PL with whores.DEF.ACC ‘they drink with whores’ d. șezi împreună cu mine (Bert.: v) with me.ACC stay.IMP.SG together ‘stay with me’
a. să
SĂSUBJ
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Constructions involving overall clausal structure
... Noun repetition strategy This is a non-grammaticalized strategy with a rhetorical function attested as early as the sixteenth century. ()
purta orb pre orbu (Prav.: v) AUX.FUT.SG lead.INF blind.M.SG.NOM DOM blind.M.SG.ACC ‘the blind will lead the blind’ b. Foc ţine pre alt foc (FD.–: r) fire feeds DOM another fire ‘a fire feeds another fire’ a. va
In MR it is fossilized in proverbs and clichés. ... Double marked reciprocal structures Double marked (redundant) reciprocal structures occurred in three situations: (i) with verbs subcategorized for an obligatory (reciprocal) object (a); (ii) when the reciprocal phrase disambiguated among other possible readings of the reflexive clitic in the structure (b–g); (iii) for emphasis (f). The co-occurring markers were the reflexive anaphor (se/își) and the indefinite compound phrase (unul altul/unul altuia ‘each other’) or the PP (între NP ‘among . . . ’). The inherent reciprocal noun occasionally co-occurred in empathetic copular constructions with a dative reflexive anaphor in a sentential dative possessive position (f). () a. se
călca unul la step.IMPERF.SGPL one.M.SG.NOM at alaltu (CT.–: r) other.M.SG.ACC ‘they stepped on each other’s feet’ CL.REFL.ACC.SG
b. să
ne giurăm unul cu CL.REFL.ACC.PL swear.SUBJ.PL one.MASC.SG.NOM with alalt (PO.: ) another.M.SG.ACC ‘to swear to each other’ SĂSUBJ
c. pârâia-se unul cătră accuse.IMPERF.SGPL=CL.REFL.ACC.SG one.M.SG.NOM towards alalt (CPr.: ) another.M.SG.ACC ‘they accused each other’ d. se nu se mai vadză un cu SĂSUBJ not CL.REFL.ACC.SG more see.SUBJ.SG one.M.SG.NOM with alaltu (Prav.: v) another.M.SG.ACC ‘to not see each other again’ e. să vă iubiţi și voi SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.PL love.SUBJ.PL and you.PL.NOM ande voi (ȘT.: ) between you.PL.ACC ‘to love each other’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause f. și-s fraţi (Prav.: v) CL.REFL.DAT.PL=are.PRES.PL brothers.NOM ‘they are brothers’
... Final remarks There are few differences between reciprocal constructions in OR and MR. All the strategies in OR were inherited from Latin and persisted into MR, although preferences changed over time and the contrast among structures was refined with semantic and discursive features involving power, control, initiation, and degree of implication. Romanian displays the same reciprocal patterns as other Romance languages (}...). While in OR the preferred strategy was based on the periphrastic expression involving indefinite pro-forms (}...), MR favours contextually disambiguated reflexive clitic anaphors (}...). At the beginning of the twentieth century the lexical option for the indefinite reciprocal pattern restricted to unul altul/celălalt, while all other lexical and phonological variants became peripheral. In OR unul altul seemed to be the quasi-general option; unul celălalt, rarely attested in OR, developed during the nineteenth century to mark redundantly the distinct entities involved in the reciprocal relationship. While in OR the unul altul syntagm could be split by various sentence constituents, it has become frozen in present-day Romanian. The inventory of inherent reciprocals (}...) partly changed via two processes. Some inherent reciprocals in OR (like a se hotărî cu ‘agree with’, a se voi cu ‘consent’) were eliminated in MR. Lexemes borrowed from Romance languages (like separa < Fr. séparer, ‘separate, segregate, disunite’) and prefixes (like co-, con-, inter-) enriched the inventory: coabita (< Fr. cohabiter, Lat. COHABITARE ‘live together’), conlucra (< CON + Rom. lucra ‘work together, cooperate, collaborate), interacţiune (< Fr. interaction ‘interaction’), etc.; a neologistic borrowing, reciproc (‘reciprocally’), was introduced as an adverbial strategy. Bipropositional (iconic structures) (}...) are still the non-grammaticalized option to foreground the elaboration of event. In PP reciprocal structures (}...) the preposition între + plural NP was generalized during the nineteenth century: repetition of the preposition was restricted to local varieties, and the strong reflexive sine in the PP was eliminated. While redundancy in the double-marked reciprocal structures (}...) seemed to have rather a disambiguation function in OR, in present-day Romanian it seems to be tolerated in colloquial speech to emphasize the symmetrical relationship, but is rejected as pleonastic by normative prescriptions; the dative reciprocal with the verb be became substandard. Structures with a repeated nominal (}...), frequent in OR probably because of their rhetorical function, are nowadays fossilized. In OR the constant use of the whole variety of reciprocal structures seems to indicate a tendency towards the specialization of the reflexive clitics/strong pronouns for non-reciprocal uses and the reduction of ambiguities via explicit, lexical, marking of reciprocal structures. On the contrary, MR has opted for contextually disambiguated grammaticalized reciprocal anaphors and positioned the other reciprocal patterns as marked options with added semantic values.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Constructions involving overall clausal structure
.. Adverbal possessive dative clitics ... Preliminary remarks Romanian belongs to the group of languages which simultaneously employ adjectival and pronominal clitics marking possession (GR: –). Possessive clitics may adjoin to verbs (a) and nouns (b), and may also be simultaneously doubly attached, to a verbal and a nominal host (c) (see }.). Most constructions include a dative personal (d) or reflexive (e) clitic, which has the same form irrespective of whether it is attached to a verb or to a noun; interjections like iată (‘look’) are assimilated to verbs (f). ()
a. Împleţi-vă mănule cu cenușe (PO.: ) fill.IMP.PL=CL.REFL.DAT.PL hands.DEF.ACC with ashes.ACC ‘Fill your hands with ashes’ b. chemară soţiia-și (CC2.: ) call.PS.PL companion.F.SG.DEF=CL.REFL.POSS.SG ‘they called the companions’ c. și-șu lăsa casele și and=CL.REFL.DAT.SG leave.IMPERF.SG houses.DEF.ACC and avuţiia-șu (CC2.: ) wealth.DEF.ACC=CL.REFL.POSS.SG ‘and he will leave his houses and wealth’ d. ne iau muierile și featele (DÎ.: XVIII) CL.DAT.PL take.PRES.PL wives.DEF.ACC and daughters.DEF.ACC ‘they take our wives and daughters’ e. că-ș posomorăsc feaţele because=CL.REFL.DAT.PL make.gloomy.PRES.PL face.PL.DEF.ACC sale (CazV.: v) their ‘because their faces become gloomy’ f. iată-ţi muiarea ta (PO.: ) look=CL.DAT.SG wife.DEF.ACC your.POSS ‘here’s your wife’
A special type of synonymy characterizing inalienable possession relations, specific to (old and modern) Romanian in Romance, is that between a construction with a possessive dative clitic and a DO (a) and a construction with an accusative clitic and a preposition (b). ()
a. îș CL.REFL.DAT.PL
vor AUX.FUT.PL
spăla [mânile și picioarele] wash.INF hands.DEF.ACC and legs.DEF.ACC
cu apă (BB.: ) with water.ACC ‘they will wash their hands and legs with water’
b. și spălându-se [PP pe [NP obraz]] (BB.: ) and wash.GER=CL.REFL.ACC.SG on cheek.ACC ‘washing his cheeks’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
... The typology of adverbal possessive clitic structures The full inventory of adverbal possessive clitics of MR is also available in OR; the structures have been well attested since the earliest texts. (i) In OR, as in the MR, we encounter a variety of semantic relations, given by the distinctions ‘alienable’ (a) vs. ‘inalienable’ (b–f) and by the range of inalienable possession relations: ‘part of the body’ (b), ‘kinship’ (c), ‘clothing’ (d), ‘behavioural/physical features of the possessor’ (e), ‘component’ (f). As in MR, the possessive dative combines with verbs which do not subcategorize for a dative argument (g,h). ()
a. și-ș va slobodzi dobitocul and=CL.REFL.DAT.SG AUX.FUT.SG release.INF animal.DEF.ACC său (PO.: ) his.POSS ‘and he will release his animal’ b. Deaciia leage-ș amândoauo mâinile from.here tie.SUBJ.SG=CL.REFL.DAT.SG both.F hands.DEF.ACC sale (CL.: r) his.POSS ‘from hereon, he should tie his hands together’ c. să-ș SĂSUBJ=CL.REFL.DAT.SG
hrănească feciorii-ș (ȘT.: ) feed.SUBJ.SG sons.DEF.ACC=CL.REFL.POSS.SG
‘to feed his sons’ d. elu-și spurcă veșmentele (Prav.: r) he=CL.REFL.DAT.SG desecrate.PS.SG vestment.PL.DEF.ACC ‘he desecrates his vestment’ nevoi să no vă fie have.to.INF SĂSUBJ not CL.DAT.PL be.SUBJ.SG frămtă voia (SB.: ) break.PPLE.F.SG will.DEF.NOM ‘Your will will have not to be broken’
e. Va
AUX.FUT.SG
f. vor
înceape a li să lua start.INF AINF CL.DAT.PL CL.REFL.PASS strip.away.INF coaja (CBuc.: ) peel.DEF.NOM ‘their peel starts to strip away’ AUX.FUT.PL
g. să-și SĂSUBJ=CL.REFL.DAT.SG
plângă păcatele sale (Prav.: v) cry.SUBJ.SG sins.DEF.ACC his.POSS
‘to regret his sins’ h. Că-ș știe Svinţia sa knows holiness.NOM his.POSS that=CL.REFL.DAT.SG fiinţa (DPar.: III.v) essence.DEF.ACC ‘His holiness knows his own essence’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Constructions involving overall clausal structure
(ii) The dative adverbal possessive clitic occurs in a great variety of syntactic structures, given by the syntactic position occupied by the nominal phrase which denotes the possessee. Possessee-denoting nominal phrases frequently occur as direct objects (a) and subject (b); more rarely, they are prepositional objects or adjuncts (c,d), as well as indirect objects (e). Just occasionally, the possessee is a genitive phrase (f), situated at a considerable distance from the verb. ()
a. La moartea sa ș-au lăsat at death.DEF.ACC his.POSS CL.REFL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.SG leave.PPLE [casa, muiarea și feciorii săi]DO (DÎ.: LXXXIX) house.DEF.ACC wife.DEF.ACC and sons.DEF.ACC his.POSS ‘Upon his death, he left his house, wife, and children’ b. [tot trupul]S îm tremură (CDicţ.–: ) all body.DEF.NOM CL.DAT.SG shakes ‘my body is shaking all over’ c. toiagulu-ţi carele ţi-e [PP a [mână]] (PO.: ) wand.DEF=CL.POSS.SG which CL.DAT.SG=is in hand.ACC ‘the wand you are holding in your hand’ d. ţe-au tăiat [PP den CL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.PL cut.PPLE from [viaţă]] ani (MC.: v) life.ACC years ‘they cut fifteen years from your life’ e. Muiarea ce-ș va agiuta wife.DEF who=CL.REFL.DAT.SG AUX.FUT.SG help.INF [bărbatului]IO (Prav.: ) husband.DEF.DAT ‘The wife who will help her husband’ f. După aceea-i vindecă [DP slăbiia after that=CL.DAT.SG healed.PS.SG weakness.DEF.ACC [DP trupului]] (CC2.: ) body.DEF.GEN ‘After that he healed the weakness of his/her body’
The constructions in which the possession relation, obligatorily inalienable, is established with a PP possessee constitute the origin of numerous verbal idioms, whose presence has been attested since the earliest writings. ()
a. Elu-șu vine [PP în [mente]] (CC2.: ) he=CL.REFL.DAT.SG comes in mind ‘He is coming to his senses’ b. Ce-și veni [PP în [fire]] (Ev.: ) but=CL.REFL.DAT.SG come.PS.SG in senses ‘But he came to his senses’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
(iii) The dative adverbal clitic is associated with a few other syntactic phenomena (some of which are present only in OR), namely: (a) it participates in clitic climbing, in structures with the modal putea (‘can, be able to’) plus the bare short infinitive (a); (b) it participates in clitic or clitic plus auxiliary inversion and displacement (b); (c) it may appear in the vicinity of an infinitive, either in relation with a long infinitive preceded by the infinitival complementizer a (which, in turn, may or may not be preceded by de) and the enclitic particle -a (c); (d) it may co-occur with a second argumental dative (d). ()
a. nu-șu poate scumpăra sufletulu lui (CC2.: ) redeem.INF soul.DEF.ACC his.GEN not=CL.REFL.DAT.SG can ‘he cannot redeem his soul’ b. învârtoșe-i-se inima strengthen.PS.SG=CL.DAT.SG=CL.REFL.ACC.SG heart.DEF.NOM lui (PO.: ) his.GEN ‘his heart is strengthening’ c. are vreme de-a-și răscumpărarea strâmbătatea has time DE=AINF=CL.REFL.DAT.SG redeem.INF-RE.DEF wrong.DEF.ACC sa (ULM.~: r) his.POSS ‘he has the time to redeem his wrong’ d. muierile ( . . . ) ș-au necat și women.DEF.NOM CL.REFL.DAT.PL=AUX.PERF.PL drown.PPLE and ș-au lepădat feciorii CL.REFL.DAT.PL=AUX.PERF.PL abandon.PPLE sons.DEF.ACC cânilor (CSIV.–: r) dogs.DEF.DAT ‘the women ( . . . ) drowned their children and abandoned them to the dogs’
(iv) The dative possessive clitic constructions refer to a definite possessee, as in MR. The possessive clitic is generally available when the possessee has a definite reading, which is ensured by the presence of the definite article (a) or of another definite determiner (b). In old (and modern) Romanian, the distinction between a possessive dative and a non-possessive dative (i.e. an indirect object) is often ensured by the presence vs. the absence of the definite determiner ((c) vs. (d)). ()
a. Amaru celuia ce-șu înmulţeaște bitterness that.DAT who=CL.REFL.DAT.SG enriches avuţiia cu nedereptate (CC2.: ) wealth.DEF.ACC with wrongness.ACC ‘The bitterness of the one who enriches his wealth by wrong means’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Constructions involving overall clausal structure
b. pri mai mare mărtorie ne-am pus CL.REFL.DAT.PL=AUX.PERF.PL put.PPLE for more big proof aste peceţi (DÎ.: LXVI) these seals.ACC ‘for further proof, we put our seals’ c. văzu alţi doi fraţi ( . . . ) deregându-șu see.PS.SG other.PL two brothers.ACC arranging.GER=CL.REFL.DAT.PL mreaja sa (CC2.: ) net.F.SG.DEF.ACC their.POSS ‘he saw two other brothers arranging their net’ d. Și era săraci câtu nu-șu and be.IMPERF.PL poor.M.PL such not=CL.REFL.DAT.PL putea cumpăra mreaje noao (CC2.: ) can.IMPERF.PL buy.INF net.F.PL.ACC new.F.PL ‘And they were poor such that they could not buy a new net’ An exception to the definite reading rule are the less frequent constructions in which the possessee is expressed by a nominal phrase headed by an indefinite article (a) or another indefinite quantifier (b). ()
a. elu-ș ucise un frate (MC.: r) he=CL.REFL.DAT.SG kill.PS.SG a brother.ACC ‘he killed one of his brothers’ b. să-ș
îndzestreadze vreo fată sau vreo dower.SUBJ.SG any girl.ACC or any nepoată (ȘT.: ) granddaughter.ACC ‘to dower one of his girls or granddaughters’ SĂSUBJ=CL.REFL.DAT.SG
Furthermore, as in MR, another exception to the definiteness rule is represented by constructions in which the (more often than not, inalienable) possession relation involves a relational noun in a predicative position, i.e. a subjective predicative complement (a) or an objective predicative complement (b). () a. să
dea să ne give.SUBJ.SG SĂSUBJ CL.DAT.PL fie [domnu]SPC (DÎ.: XVIII) be.SUBJ.SG prince.NOM ‘to give him to us to be our prince’ SĂSUBJ
ni-l
CL.DAT.PL=CL.ACC.M.SG
b. Ceia ce și-l ia these who CL.REFL.DAT.PL=CL.ACC.M.SG take.PRES.PL [fecioru]OPC (Prav.: r) godson.NOMACC ‘The ones who take him as a godson’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
... Differences from modern Romanian The differences between old and modern Romanian are very few, and concern mostly usage, i.e. the frequency or proportion of a phenomenon (Pană Dindelegan a). (i) In OR, where there are many oscillations with respect to the use of the differential object marker p(re) (see also }...), it is possible for an adverbal possessive clitic to co-occur with a DOM-ed direct object (a,b), a distribution no longer available. ()
a. să-ș SĂSUBJ=CL.REFL.DAT.PL
cinstească feciorii pre părinţii honour.SUBJ.PL sons.DEF.NOM DOM parents.DEF.ACC
săi (PB.: ) their.POSS ‘for children to honour their parents’ b. să-și SĂSUBJ=CL.REFL.DAT.SG
‘to accuse his bishop’
pârască pre arhiereul (Prav.: ) accuse.SUBJ.SG DOM bishop.DEF.ACC
(ii) Doubly marked possessor (i.e. ‘pleonastic’) structures, in which the possessor is expressed both by adverbal and adnominal marking, are more numerous in OR than in MR (Candrea : CCXII; Densusianu II: ; Stanciu-Istrate : ). In OR, the pleonastic marking of the possessor appears in structures with possessive adjectives (a), with personal genitives (b), or with personal or reflexive adnominal clitics (c) (see }.). In the special case of kinship nouns, nominal possession is marked by a possessive affix (d). In certain constructions, it is possible to have a triple marking of the possessor, through an adverbal clitic, an adnominal possessive, and a relative clause with the possessive verb a avea (‘have’) (e). In some Moldovan texts, a redundant marking of possession also appears in constructions in which the possessor is expressed by the very same adverbal clitic, repeated as a proclitic and as an enclitic to the verb, and, simultaneously, by adnominal marking (f). ()
a. desculţă-ţi încălţămintele tale den take.off.IMP.SG=CL.REFL.DAT.SG shoes.DEF.ACC your.POSS of piciorele tale (PO.: ) feet.DEF.ACC your.POSS ‘take off your shoes from your feet’ b. cu mânile lor să-ș mănânce with hands.DEF.ACC their.GEN SĂSUBJ=CL.REFL.DAT.PL eat.SUBJ.PL sudorile lor (CC1.: r) sweats.DEF.ACC their.GEN ‘with their hands to eat the fruits of their labour’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Constructions involving overall clausal structure c. să
ducă să-și aducă go.SUBJ.SG SĂSUBJ=CL.REFL.DAT.SG bring.SUBJ.SG jupâneasa-ș de la Lugoj (DÎ.: XLI) lady=CL.REFL.POSS.SG from Lugoj.ACC ‘to go and bring his lady from Lugoj’ d. elu-ș părăsi maică-sa (MC.: r) he=CL.REFL.DAT.SG left.PS.SG mother.ACC-his ‘he abandoned his mother’ e. arată-ș ale sale rane ce shows=CL.REFL.DAT.SG AL.F.PL his.POSS wounds.ACC which avea (CC2.: ) have.IMPERF.SG ‘he is showing his wounds that he had’ SĂSUBJ
se
CL.REFL.ACC.SG
f. și ș-au pusu-ș mâna and CL.REFL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.SG put.PPLE=CL.REFL.DAT.SG hand.DEF.ACC sa preste dânșii (DPar.: II.r) his.POSS over them.ACC ‘and he put his hand over them’ In contrast to MR, where the double marking (adverbal and adnominal) of the possessor has an emphatic role (GALR II: ) and appears especially in the case of alienable possession, in OR the redundant marking of the possessor is available irrespective of the type of possessive relation encoded and of the type of text, and through its very frequent usage it appears to be a current construction of OR. (iii) A quantitative examination of the relation between simple adverbal possession and doubly expressed possession (Table .) shows that there are differences between the texts examined. There are translated religious texts in which adverbal possession is very restricted (in CP1., there are two occurrences in a hundred pages) and adjectival possession is predominant. In general, doubly marked possessor structures are rarer than the simple adverbal possessive structures. One exception is DPar. (underlined in Table .), where doubly expressed possession far surpasses the other texts (this situation is to be correlated with the preference in this text for doubly expressed, preverbal and postverbal, possessive clitics). (iv) In parallel with the double (and sometimes triple) marking of possession, there also exist constructions in which, unlike present-day usage, adverbal possession is lacking; the possessor is expressed by adnominal means (see }.). () a. și √ au lăsat în locul său soţiia and AUX.PERF.SG leave.PPLE in place.DEF.ACC his.POSS companion.DEF.ACC sa (DÎ.: LXXXIX) his.POSS ‘and he left his companion in his place’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
The verb and its arguments: the root clause
T . Simple adverbal possession vs. double possession Text
Simple possession (dative adverbal clitic)
Doubly expressed possessor
DÎ.–
%
%
CC1.
%
%
1
CP . FD.–
occurrences %
occurrences %
CC .
%
%
Prav.
.%
.%
2
SVI.~
%
%
AOD.–
%
%
DPar.
%
%
CIst.–
%
%
VE.
.%
.%
Sind.
%
%
CLM.–
.%
.%
NL.~–
.%
.%
b. Și √ luo sus marha sa și dobitoacele and take.PS.SG up merchandise.DEF.ACC his.POSS and animals.DEF.ACC sale (PO.: ) his.POSS ‘And he took up his merchandise and his animals’ (v) In some translated religious texts there appears a Slavic loan translation (Seidel : ), by which possession is expressed through a fi (‘be’) plus a PP headed by la (‘to, at’). This possessive construction with a fi ‘be’ + prepositional locative la does not appear in standard MR. ()
a. Și la Lot ( . . . ), era oi, și boi, be.IMPERF.PL sheep.PL.NOM and oxen.NOM and at Lot.ACC și dobitoace (BB.: ) and animals.NOM ‘And Lot had sheep, oxen, and animals’ b. și va fi la Sarra fecior (BB.: ) and AUX.FUT.SG be.INF at Sara.ACC son.NOM ‘and Sara will have a son’
... Final remarks In the passage from old to modern Romanian, adverbal clitic possession has not undergone significant structural changes. Unlike French, in the passage from old to present-day Romanian, we do not have a ‘historical retreat’ of the
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Constructions involving overall clausal structure
adverbal possessive clitic construction in favour of the adnominal construction in which the possessor is expressed by a possessive adjective (Lamiroy : –); on the contrary, the adverbal clitic possessive structure has expanded. In OR, the doubly expressed possessor structure (adverbal and adnominal) appears in all types of texts and for all types of possessive relations (including inalienable possession), and was a current construction. OR also features constructions in which adverbal marking is absent and the possessor is expressed by adnominal means; the MR counterparts employ adverbal possessive clitics in these structures.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
3 Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions . The infinitive and the infinitival construction .. Preliminary remarks In OR, the infinitive has two forms, as in MR: short and long, preceded or not by the particle a. The most remarkable features of the OR infinitive compared with MR are: the verbal use of the long infinitive, the status and the conditions of realization of the particle a, the possibility of anteposition of the realized subject of the infinitive, and the high frequency of the infinitive in contexts in which, in MR, the subjunctive or other verbal forms occur. .. Short and long infinitive The long infinitive is inherited from Latin (a), while the short form is the result of apocope of -re ((b); cf. Byck [] : –). In OR, the long infinitive had both verbal and nominal uses, and the short infinitive was used only as a verb, as in MR (the short infinitive also occurs in Istro-Romanian; traces of the short infinitive exist in Megleno-Romanian; Atanasov : ). ()
a. sosiră pre cel pământ în carele a arrive.PS.PL on that land.ACC in which.DEF AINF lăcuire era (PO.: ) live.INF-RE be.IMPERF.SG ‘they arrived in the land in which they had to live’ b. venit-am a lăcui pre come.PPLE=AUX.PERF.PL AINF live.INF on tău (PO.: ) your ‘we came to live in your land’
pământul land.DEF.ACC
The verbal long infinitive has two variants, one with the final vowel -a, interpreted as a sign of a mixed category (Pană Dindelegan a: –) (), the other one, without -a (a) (the two variants are in free variation, with no syntactic or semantic differences; Diaconescu : –; Nedelcu : –). The verbal long infinitive
The Syntax of Old Romanian. First edition. Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.) This chapter © Isabela Nedelcu, Adina Dragomirescu, and Dana Niculescu, . First published by Oxford University Press.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The infinitive and the infinitival construction
occurs mostly in sixteenth-century texts, but less frequently than the short infinitive. For instance, without taking into account verbal moods and tenses formed with the infinitive, .% of the occurrences of the short infinitive and .% of the occurrences of the long infinitive are attested in DÎ; .% of the occurrences of the short and .% of the occurrences of the long infinitive are attested in Prav.. From the first half of the seventeenth century, in most texts, the verbal long infinitive greatly restricts its use (five occurrences in MC.; five, in Ev.; one in ȘT.). There are exceptions, e.g. the legal texts (Prav.). In the eighteenth century, the verbal long infinitive becomes ever more infrequent (no occurrence in CIst.–, or BVS.; three occurrences in NL.~–). In MR, the verbal long infinitive still survives in certain points in Oaș and Bihor (Mării : –). () Nu se cade ( . . . ) a sfărâmarea not CL.REFL.IMPERS ought.PRES AINF destroy.INF-RE.DEF capiștile lor (Prav.: ) temples.DEF.ACC their ‘They ought not to destroy their temples’ The verbal long infinitive (preceded by a) generally occurs in the same contexts as the short infinitive (see }}..; ..). Unlike the short infinitive, it does not occur in infinitival relative clauses (}...) and has certain preferences (for example, the association with de; }...). The bare nominal long infinitive is an abstract noun with nominal features (gender, number, case, determination), as well as verbal features (}...). In some contexts, the bare nominal long infinitive preserves stronger verbal features, such as accusative case assignment, with or without p(r)e; the pattern [long infinitive + direct object] disappears from MR. () ascultarea pre Hristos (NT.: r) listen.INF-RE.DEF DOM Christ.ACC ‘the act of obeying Christ’ .. A-infinitive and bare infinitive The preposed particle a (< AD) is more grammaticalized in some contexts than in others (having more or less clear prepositional features). This difference was correlated with a different status: complementizer vs. inflectional head (Jordan : –). However, with both uses, the distribution of a has the same restrictions: it occurs to the left of negation and to the left of pronominal or adverbial clitics (), (b), which led to its interpretation as a complementizer in all contexts (Dobrovie-Sorin ([] : –); Nicolae : –). ... The status of a The less grammaticalized a, with prepositional behaviour, is attested in contexts in which the a-infinitive occupies the position of a final adjunct, especially with verbs of movement (b), but also with other verbs (a), and in contexts with infinitival hanging topic (b). ()
a. va AUX.FUT.SG
chema call.INF
cerul de sus de sky.ACC.DEF of up from
pre on
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions pământu a împăţi oamenri săi (PH.–: r) earth.ACC AINF choose.INF people.DEF.ACC his ‘from earth he will call to the Heavens to choose his people’ b. Că a zice ei că ‘nu sântemu greșiţi’, because AINF say.INF they that not be.PRES.PL sinful.M.PL nu putea să zică (CC2.: ) not can.IMPERF.PL SĂSUBJ say.SUBJ.PL ‘Because as for saying that we were not sinful, they could not say it’
In most contexts, a preceding the infinitive is more grammaticalized. There are arguments for the grammaticalization of a from the earliest texts (for MR, see Guţu Romalo a: –; Jordan : –; GR: –): (i) the lack of meaning, which leads to the complete equivalence between the a (a) and the bare infinitive (b) ()
a. poate a plăti datoriia (SVI.~: r) can.PRES.SG AINF pay.INF debt.DEF.ACC ‘he can pay the debt’ b. poate mântui (SVI.~: v) can.PRES.SG save.INF ‘he can save them’
(ii) the attachment of another preposition (de, pentru, or spre ‘for’), besides a, for final adjuncts (see also (d,e)) () să
meargă de a să așeza go.SUBJ.PL for AINF CL.REFL.ACC.PL settle.INF pentr-alte locuri (CIst.–: r) through-other places.ACC ‘(for them) to go to settle in other places’ SĂSUBJ
(iii) its occurrence with an infinitive in subject (a) and direct object position (b) ()
a. Mai binre e a nedejdi pre Domnulu (PH.–: r) more good is AINF hope.INF towards God.DEF.ACC ‘It is better to put my hope in God’ b. îngăduiși a face rău (CSXIV.–: v) allow.PS.SG AINF make.INF bad.ACC ‘you allowed [me] to do some harm’
(iv) strict adjacency between a and the infinitive: only pronominal and/or adverbial clitics can occur between them (a); scrambling is completely isolated (b) ()
a. să
nu mai aibă a să mai not more have.SUBJ.PL AINF CL.REFL.ACC.PL more mesteca (DÎ.: LXXXIII) interfere.INF ‘they should not interfere any longer’ SĂSUBJ
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The infinitive and the infinitival construction b.
așa fu a se toţi mântui (CV.–: r) so be.PS.SG AINF CL.REFL.ACC.PL all.M.PL.NOM save.INF ‘this way they all found salvation’
... Conditions for the (non-)realization of a As in MR, the infinitive is either preceded by a (the usual situation), or it is bare. In OR, there are some contexts in which the realization or non-realization of a follows patterns that are different from those of MR. In OR, the a-infinitive can occur in constructions in which the bare infinitive occurs in MR. The particle a sometimes occurs after the modal putea ‘can’, even when pronominal clitics, not raised, are absent (a); if the clitic does not raise to the matrix verb, a is obligatory ((); compare this example with ()). The a-infinitive after putea ‘can’ is attested up to the nineteenth century, and in MR it is still used in the Moldovan dialect (TDR: –). () nu poci a me însura cu nusa (Prav.: v) not can.PRES.SG AINF CL.REFL.ACC.SG marry.INF with her.ACC ‘I cannot marry her’ In OR, the a-infinitive is also attested in the infinitival relative (a). In MR only the bare infinitive occurs in infinitival relatives. The OR bare infinitive shares some contexts with the MR a-infinitive. Verbs like putea ‘can’ (b), ști ‘know’ (a), cuteza ‘dare’ (), vrea ‘want’ (a), căuta ‘try’ (b) often select a bare infinitive in OR, a sign that these configurations have a high degree of cohesion and can be seen as complex predicates (for other arguments, see }...). Among these, only putea ‘can’ still selects a bare infinitive in standard MR, and, dialectally, also ști ‘know’, vrea ‘want’, cuteza ‘dare’: in Transylvanian dialects, all the three verbs (Diaconescu : ), in the Maramureș dialect, the verbs vrea ‘want’ and ști ‘know’ (TDR: ). ()
vrut purceade (NT.: v) AUX.PERF.PL want.PPLE set.out.INF ‘we wanted to set out’
a. am
b. lui i caută asculta (DÎ.: CII) him.DAT CL.DAT.SG searches obey.INF ‘he tries to obey him’ When the infinitive is not adjacent to the head verb, a is more frequently realized. () cine știe bine a posti (CC1.: r) who knows well AINF fast.INF ‘who knows well how to fast’ The high degree of cohesion of the structures with these head verbs is shown by the fact that the infinitive is bare even when the raised pronominal clitic is postposed to the finite verb (). This phenomenon is attested until the eighteenth century.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions
() numără stealele: poţi-le număra? (PO.: ) count.IMP.SG stars.DEF.ACC can.PRES.SG=CL.ACC.F.PL count.INF ‘count the stars: can you count them?’ In OR, it is even possible for a to be absent in structures in which the infinitive is preceded by adverbial clitics (); in MR, the a-infinitive is obligatory in this context. () nu putea mai ajunge (CIst.–: r) not can.IMPERF.PL more arrive.INF ‘they could no longer arrive’ In coordinated structures, a can be realized on the second conjunct (a), even when the first conjunct, the complement of an auxiliary, is bare (b). ()
a. nu pot strica și a face rău not can.PRES.PL destroy.INF and AINF do.INF bad.ACC creștinilor (CC1.: r) Christians.DEF.DAT ‘they cannot destroy and harm the Christians’ b. nu să vor scula sau a învia (CC1.: r) not CL.REFL.ACC.PL AUX.FUT.PL rise.INF or AINF resurrect.INF ‘they will not rise or resurrect’
The structures in (), which can be analysed as complex predicates, show that the second conjunct is sometimes less bound to the finite verb and, as a consequence, it regains the particle a (for the coordination of infinitive with the subjunctive see (b) and }..). Structures in which the second conjunct is also a bare infinitive are, however, attested (a), as in the structures with an auxiliary (b). () a. n-au știut căuta și aștepta de la Iisus not=AUX.PERF.PL know.PPLE search.INF and wait.INF from Jesus.ACC mântuire (CC1.: r) salvation.ACC ‘(they) did not know to search and to wait for Jesus’ salvation’ b. cu ce ne văm spăsi sau dobândi with what CL.REFL.ACC.PL AUX.FUT.PL redeem.INF or get.INF viaţa de vecie ( . . . )? (CC1.: v) life.DEF.ACC of eternity ‘with what shall we be redeemed or get eternal life ( . . . )?’ The particle a usually occurs with the long infinitive, pointing to its verbal nature (a), (). The non-realization of a when the verbal infinitive has a long form is extremely rare: in the structure of compound tenses (a) or after a verb that also selects a bare short infinitive (b).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The infinitive and the infinitival construction ()
a. ne vom îngrupare (FT.–: r) CL.REFL.ACC.PL AUX.FUT.PL bury.INF-RE ‘we shall be buried’ nu ne putea lepădarea (CC2.: ) AINF not CL.REFL.ACC.PL can.INF deny.INF-RE.DEF ‘to not be able to deny him’
b. a
.. The infinitive as a tense and mood formative As in MR, the bare infinitive, especially the short form, is a formative of analytic moods and tenses, being selected by the auxiliary vrea ‘want’ or avea ‘have’: the future tense (a) and the present conditional (b). Contrary to MR, in OR the infinitive is also part of the perfect conditional with the auxiliary vrea ‘want’ in the imperfect (c) or compound past tense (d) (Zamfir : –, –). ()
a. nu-l va izbăvi (PH.–: r) not=CL.ACC.M.SG AUX.FUT.SG save.INF ‘he will not save him’ b. l-ară vedea (PO.: ) CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.COND.PL see.INF ‘they would see him’ c. de nu vrea fi tăriia cea multă a if not want.IMPERF.SG be.INF strength.DEF.NOM CEL.F.SG much.F.SG AL.F.SG lu Hristosu ( . . . ) cum ară fi crezutu LUI.GEN Christ how AUX.COND.PL be.INF believe.PPLE oamenii? (CC2.: ) people.DEF.NOM ‘if Christ had not been so powerful, how would people have believed in him?’ d. ne ţinu așa ca când am vrut fi CL.ACC.PL consider.PS.SG so as if AUX.PERF.PL want.PPLE be.INF iscoade (PO.: ) spies.NOM ‘he considered us to be spies’
In OR, besides the above mentioned moods and tenses, the a-infinitive is a formative of avea ‘have’ (a,b) and fi ‘be’ constructions with future value (c,d) (Zamfir : –, –, , –; see also }.). ()
a. amu a mă întoarce (CC2.: ) have.PRES.SG AINF CL.REFL.ACC.SG return.INF ‘I shall return’ b. avea Hristos a împărăţi în veaci (CÎ.: v) have.IMPERF.SG Christ.NOM AINF rule.INF in eternity ‘Christ will rule forever’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions c. cumu-i a fi, focul îl va how=is AINF be.INF fire.DEF.NOM CL.ACC.M.SG AUX.FUT.SG ispiti (NT.: r) lure.INF ‘however it will be, the fire will lure him’ d. acesta era a-L vinde pre this.NOM be.IMPERF.SG AINF=CL.ACC.M.SG sell.INF DOM El (NT.: r) him.ACC ‘he was going to betray Him’
The OR structures with the present indicative form of avea ‘have’ followed by an infinitive do not always have a clear future meaning as in (a); in some contexts, these structures can be ambiguous between a temporal (future) and a modal use () (see Zamfir : –). () Putea-veţi bea păharulu ce eu amu can.INF=AUX.FUT.PL drink.INF glass.DEF.ACC which I have.PRES.SG a bea ( . . . )? (CC2.: ) AINF drink.INF ‘Will you be able to drink the glass that I have to drink/that I shall drink ( . . . )?’ The structures formed with an auxiliary and a bare infinitive () show the clearest signs of cohesion and can be analysed as complex predicates (for MR, see GR: –): pronominal clitic raising and the attachment of the negation to the auxiliary (for other structures, with modal or aspectual verbs and an infinitive, which can also be analysed as complex predicates with different degrees of cohesion, see }}...; ...). Contrary to MR, where in the conditional structure the clitic o is postinfinitival, in OR, this clitic could be placed to the left of the auxiliary (), like other clitics (b). amu păzi (CC2.: ) CL.ACC.F.SG AUX.COND.PL guard.INF ‘we would guard it’
() o
Unlike MR, the OR infinitival structures expressing moods and tenses allow two phenomena: (i) non-adjacency of the auxiliary and the infinitive, due to intervening adjuncts, objects, and subjects, up to the eighteenth century (a); and (ii) auxiliary inversion (b), also triggering clitic inversion (c) (Zamfir : –, –). The auxiliary inversion is still present in MR only in imprecations with the conditional. aceasta noao dzice (PO.: ) this.F.ACC us.DAT say.INF ‘he will say this to us’
() a. va
AUX.FUT.SG
b. fire-aș ca o aramă răsunătoare (Mol.: ) be.INF-RE=AUX.COND.SG like a brass.ACC resounding.F.SG ‘I would be like a resounding brass’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The infinitive and the infinitival construction
c. Păharul, amu, ce eu am a bea glass.DEF.ACC now what I have.PRES.SG AINF drink.INF bea-l-veți (CC1.: r) drink.INF=CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.FUT.PL ‘You will drink the glass that I shall drink/that I have to drink’ .. The temporal value of the infinitive As in MR, the temporal value of the infinitive is usually dependent on that of the head verb (a–c) (GALR I: ). This is related to exhaustive (and not partial) control, which is representative for Romanian (see Landau : –; Miller : –; Jordan : – for the relationship between the type of control and the temporal value of the verb). However, in the context of some verbs, which could enter partial control structures, the infinitive can have an independent temporal value, different from that of the head verb. In this case, the infinitive encodes an event that is posterior to the event expressed by the head verb (a,b). ()
a. nu îndrăznesc a mă lăuda (Ev.: ) not dare.PRES.SG AINF CL.REFL.ACC.SG boast.INF ‘I do not dare to boast’ b. nu se putea nice într-o parte not CL.REFL.ACC.SG can.IMPERF.SG no in-a part mișca (FD.–: r) move.INF ‘he could not move in any direction’ c. va
începe a să sui oastea lui begin.INF AINF CL.REFL.ACC.SG climb.INF army.DEF.NOM LUI.GEN Constantin vodă (CLM.–: v) Constantin voivode ‘the army of voivode Constantin will start climbing’ AUX.FUT.SG
()
a. nădăjduit-ai bogăţie putredă a hope.PPLE=AUX.PERF.SG fortune.ACC rotten.F.SG AINF aduna (CC2.: ) gather.INF ‘you hoped to gather a rotten fortune’ b. au hotărât el a le da AUX.PERF.SG decide.PPLE he AINF CL.DAT.PL give.INF tot ajutoriul (BVS.: r) all help.DEF.ACC ‘he decided to give them all his help’
The perfect infinitive, formed with the auxiliary fi ‘be’ (a), expressing anteriority to the event time, is as late as the eighteenth century and extremely rarely attested (it has only one occurrence in CIst.–, three occurrences in AD.–, and one in EG.). The development of this infinitival form must be seen in relation to the
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions
parallel perfect subjunctive form (b) with which it is in competition (ILRL: ); in CIst.– and in AD.–, the perfect subjunctive is more frequent, and each form occurs once in EG.. In the nineteenth century, the perfect infinitive is more frequent and is specific for the high register (SILR: ). ()
a. potu-se fi lunecat cei ce can.PL=CL.REFL.ACC.PL be.INF lure.PPLE those.M.NOM who i-au zis așa (CIst.–: r) CL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.PL say.PPLE so ‘those who named it like this may have been lured’ b. Alții zic cum el însuș să-ș others.M.NOM say.PRES.PL how he himself SĂSUBJ=CL.REFL.DAT.SG fie făcut moarte (CIst.–: r) be.SUBJ.SG make.PPLE death.ACC ‘Others say that he may have killed himself ’
.. The infinitival clause ... Complements Similarly to finite verbs, the OR verbal short and long infinitive can select direct (a), secondary (b), indirect (c), and prepositional objects (d), as well as subjective (e) and objective predicative complements (f), as in MR. ()
aceaea a o lua (Prav.: v) DOM that.F.SG.ACC AINF CL.ACC.F.SG take.INF ‘to marry that one’
a. pre
b. începu a învăța pre ei multe (NT.: v) begin.PS.SG AINF teach.INF DOM them.ACC many.F.PL ‘he started teaching them many things’ c. a se închinarea icoanelor (MC.: r) AINF CL.REFL.ACC.SG pray.INF-RE.DEF icons.DEF.DAT ‘to pray to the icons’ d. a
se
CL.REFL.ACC.SG ‘to forswear himself ’
AINF
lepăda de sine (CC2.: ) forswear.INF of self
e. nu poate fi preot (ȘT.: ) not can.PRES.SG be.INF priest ‘he cannot be a priest’ f. a mi-o lua muiare (Prav.: r) AINF CL.DAT.SG=CL.ACC.F.SG take.INF wife ‘to marry her’ In OR, objects (sometimes with clitic form, see below) and predicative complements can be either postposed (more frequently, as in MR) (b–f), or preposed (a).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The infinitive and the infinitival construction
... The subject As in MR, the subject of the infinitive can be: obligatorily (a) or non-obligatorily (b) controlled, raised (c), or overtly realized (d); see also }.... (for the reinterpretation of obligatory control as subject raising in Romanian, see Alboiu ; Nicolae : –). ()
a. Ealei nu pot vâna PROi (FD.–: r) they.F not can.PRES.PL hunt.INF ‘They cannot hunt’ b. așteptămu a veni [el] în numele wait.PRES.PL AINF come.INF [he] in name.DEF.ACC Domnului (CC2.: ) God.DEF.GEN ‘we are waiting for him to come in the name of God’ c. Totu gintuli cade-se a all people.DEF.NOM ought.PRES=CL.REFL.IMPERS AINF se-adura ti (CV.–: v) CL.REFL.ACC.SG=assemble.INF ‘all the people ought to gather’ d. vreame e a înceape giudeţul (CV.–: r) time is AINF begin.INF judgement.DEF.NOM ‘it is time for the judgement to begin’
In structures with non-obligatory control, the null subject can be arbitrary, which explains the more frequent selection of the infinitive than of the subjunctive in certain texts (Nedelcu : –): () den aceale una trebuiaște a o ţinea PROarb cu of those.F.ACC one.ACC must.PRES AINF CL.ACC.F.SG keep.INF with mare grije (PO.: ) great care.ACC ‘we must obey one of these with great care’ One specific OR feature is the possibility of placing the overt subject of the infinitive in preverbal position (). The possibility for the subject of the infinitive to be placed preverbally also occurs in old Italian and in old and Classical Spanish, whereas, in present-day use, both Italian and Spanish (with few exceptions) are characterized by the postverbal realization of the subject of the infinitive (Mensching : –, –), similarly to MR. () Bărbaţii mireani a mânca cu niscare mueri ( . . . ), men.DEF.NOM lay.M.PL AINF eat.INF with some women.ACC fără de vină lucru iaste (Prav.: ) without of fault.ACC thing.NOM is ‘It is no sin for lay men to eat with women’ As the position of the subject is free, it can generally be post- or preposed in the same syntactic conditions. However, in structures with the complementizer de
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions
(which also has the role of delimiting the main clause from the infinitival clause), the postverbal position of the subject is obligatory. () nu mai părăsiia de-a să arătarea not more cease.IMPERF.SG of=AINF CL.REFL.ACC.PL appear.INF-RE.DEF adease arătări dumnedzăiești (CazV.: v) frequent.F.PL visions.NOM divine.F.PL ‘frequent divine visions continued to appear’ Similarly, the complementizer de triggers the postposition of the subject of the subjunctive (}...). () nu vrea de să-lu știe not wants that SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.SG know.SUBJ.SG cineva (CC2.: ) somebody.NOM ‘he does not want anybody to know him’ .. The contexts of occurrence of the infinitive. Infinitive–subjunctive competition in shared contexts When it is subordinated to a head, the infinitival clause occurs in various contexts and it is part of different syntactic configurations, including wh-relative clauses. In the sixteenth century, the infinitive is in frequent competition with the subjunctive, as well as with the supine, the gerund, and the indicative, in shared contexts. From the seventeenth century, the frequency of the infinitive decreases; some contexts favour its replacement with other verb forms (for infinitive–subjunctive competition, see below and Spătaru-Pralea ; for its competition with the supine and with the gerund, see }}..; ..; ..). The partial loss of the infinitive, leading to its complete disappearance in some contexts, has been explained either as a phenomenon originating in Greek (Sandfeld : ; Rosetti : –) or as an internal development of Romanian (Barić ; Frâncu ). The loss of the infinitive is a feature which places Romanian within the Balkan ‘Sprachbund’, where this phenomenon is present to different degrees (Joseph ). Use of the infinitive rather than the subjunctive is better preserved in Maramureș and in northern Crișana (Vulpe [] : ), which has been attributed to the greater (geographical) distance from Greek. ... The infinitive subordinated to a verb The infinitive is attested with different verb classes and occupies different syntactic positions: direct (b) and prepositional object (), subject (a), and adjunct (b, a). () și-i fu milă a-l and=CL.DAT.SG be.PS.SG pity.NOM AINF=CL.ACC.M.SG piiarderea (MC.: v) kill.INF-RE.DEF ‘and he was sorry to kill him’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The infinitive and the infinitival construction
The infinitive enters obligatory (a) and non-obligatory (b) subject control structures. In OR, it occurs more frequently in obligatory control structures, because this type of control does not lead to ambiguities in identifying the subject of the infinitive (Frâncu : , ; Nedelcu : –). This also explains the higher frequency of the infinitive over the subjunctive in these structures. For instance, after aspectual verbs, which are obligatory control verbs (c, b), the infinitive is preferred in the sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth century (the infinitive is generally used after aspectuals in Prav., in FD.–, in CSI-XV.– post, in MC., and in ȘT.), as well as in the second OR period (see SVI.~, CIst.–, CBuc., and BVS.). On the other hand, in structures with non-obligatory control verbs, the infinitive is often replaced with the subjunctive. For instance, the verb vrea ‘want’ takes a subjunctive more often than an infinitive in the sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth century, and later selects the subjunctive almost exclusively. ()
a. Cine va vrea a se ispăsi (CC1.: v) who AUX.FUT.SG want.INF AINF CL.REFL.ACC.SG save.INF ‘Who will want to be saved’ b. de veri vrea Mihaiu voievod să fac if AUX.FUT.SG want.INF Mihai voivode SĂSUBJ make.SUBJ.SG pre fiiu-tău craiu (DÎ.: XXXII) DOM son.ACC-your king ‘if you, voivode Mihai, want me to put your son on the throne’
Structures with obligatory control, such as those with the modal putea ‘can’ (a) or with certain aspectuals (b), may be analysed as complex predicates. Besides obligatory control, they also show other signs of cohesion (GR: –; Nedelcu : –, –). In the case of the structure with putea ‘can’, the signs of cohesion are: clitic raising, attaching the negation to the head verb, and the absence of the infinitival particle a (a), as in the fully grammaticalized moods and tenses formed with the infinitive (a–d). With some aspectual verbs, an important sign of cohesion is the absence of the complementizer de (which is frequently present after verbs like înceta, a se opri, părăsi, răzbuna ‘stop’) and the clear preference of the aspectual verb for the infinitive (b). ()
a. nu le putea folosi (MC.: r) not CL.DAT.PL can.IMPERF.SG use.INF ‘he could not be useful to them’ b. prinseră a fugi (MC.: r) start.PS.PL AINF run.INF ‘they started to run’
The infinitive occurs in object and subject raising structures. In structures with verbs such as putea ‘can’ (a) and ști ‘know’ () followed by the infinitive, the argument clitic raises when the infinitive is bare (Jordan : ).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions
() nime nu le știu dezlega (PO.: ) nobody not CL.ACC.F.PL know.PS.SG interpret.INF ‘nobody could interpret these’ If clitic raising still takes place in MR with the verb putea ‘can’ (a), this phenomenon is specific to OR as far as the structures with the verb ști ‘know’ () and cuteza ‘dare’ and an infinitive with an inherent reflexive are concerned (). Clitic raising, correlated with the non-realization of a, are signs of the cohesion of these three verb + infinitive structures. () nu se cutezară apropiia (PO.: ) not CL.REFL.ACC.PL dare.PS.PL approach.INF ‘they did not dare come closer’ Contrary to the constructions with a personal head verb as in () and (), in structures with an impersonal verb like in (), object raising does not lead to the non-realization of a. () Pre
aceștia acmu se cade cu amar these.M.ACC now CL.REFL.IMPERS ought.PRES with grief a plânge (Ev.: ) AINF mourn.INF ‘We ought to mourn them with grief ’ DOM
Subject raising can take place in structures with impersonal verbs (c). Subject raising can lead to the personalization of the impersonal verb (it agrees with its subject) () (see also }....). () Eui trebuescu de tine a mă boteza ti (CC2.: ) I have.to.PRES.SG by you AINF CL.ACC.SG baptize.INF ‘I have to be baptized by you’ Among impersonal verbs, trebui ‘be necessary’ lost infinitive selection almost completely in MR, selecting a subjunctive instead (the selection of the infinitive is preserved in the dialect of Maramureș; TDR: ). The configuration with a causative head verb is a special construction, which can be analysed as a subject raising construction. () nei face a urî ti (CC2.: ) CL.ACC.PL makes AINF hate.INF ‘it makes us hate’ In causative structures, the infinitive was not resistant; therefore, the subjunctive became ever more frequent. () aceastea măi fac să îndrăznesc ti (Ev.: ) these.F.NOM CL.ACC.SG make.PRES.PL SĂSUBJ dare.SUBJ.SG ‘these make me dare’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The infinitive and the infinitival construction
As in MR, OR causative verbs frequently select the indicative with the complementizer de (for the use of de see also }...): făcu de mâncă (FD.–: v) CL.ACC.F.SG make.PS.SG that eat.PS.SG ‘he made her eat’
() o
... The infinitive subordinated to a noun The a-infinitive (in complement or modifier position depending on the type of head noun: postverbal vs. prototypical) can be headed (), (a), () or not by the preposition de (a). In the sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth century, the infinitive, not the subjunctive (b), is the most frequently attested verbal form which is subordinated to the noun. Even later, the infinitive is quite frequently attested after nouns, as in MR (see also }}...; ...). ()
a. n-avură puteare și slobozie a întra not=have.PS.PL power.ACC and permission.ACC AINF enter.INF în porci (CC1.: v) in pigs.ACC ‘they did not have the power and the permission to get into the pigs’ b. n-au puterea să ucigă (Prav.: ) not=have.PRES.PL power.DEF.ACC SĂSUBJ kill.SUBJ.PL ‘they do not have the power to kill’
... The infinitive subordinated to an adjective As an adjectival complement, the OR infinitive is more frequent than the subjunctive (b). Both the a (a) and the de a infinitive are attested (b). ()
a. sâmtu dători a plăti (DÎ.: LXXXVIII) be.PRES.PL obliged.M.PL AINF pay.INF ‘they have to pay’ b. Nu sânt destoinic să mă chiem not am worthy.M.SG SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.SG call.SUBJ.SG apostol (Ev.: ) apostle.NOM ‘I am not worthy to be called an apostle’
... The infinitive in the context of prepositions In the sixteenth century, the infinitive, preceded by a, is the complement of only a few prepositions (de ‘of, for’, în loc (de) ‘instead of ’, până ‘until’). In the following centuries, the inventory of prepositions that select an infinitive grows. Under French influence, in the ninteenth century, the infinitive occurs frequently after prepositions, and this is still the situation in contemporary Romanian (Schulte : –; Spătaru-Pralea : –).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
()
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions a. în locu de a sparge (CC2.: ) instead AINF break.INF ‘instead of breaking’ b. până a se împlea de oi (DÎ.: LXXXVIII) until AINF CL.REFL.PASS fill.INF DE sheep.PL ‘until one arrives at sheep’ c. pentru a grăirea dirept sau minciuni (Cron.: r) for AINF speak.INF-RE.DEF honestly or lies.ACC ‘to speak the truth or lies’ d. pentru a treace el (BVS.: v) for AINF pass.INF he.NOM ‘in order for him to pass’ e. spre a afla adevărul (Prav.: ) towards AINF find.INF truth.DEF.ACC ‘in order to find the truth’
Contrary to the short infinitive, which may be selected by different prepositions, the verbal long infinitive is usually introduced by the preposition de (extremely rarely it is the complement of another preposition; see (c)). () o cale de-a alergare (NT.: v) a road of=AINF run.INF-RE ‘a road for running’ Exceptionally, the verbal long infinitive introduced by de is bare (Stan a: ). () stătu nărodul de aducere darure (PO.: ) stop.PS.SG people.DEF.NOM of bring.INF-RE gifts.ACC ‘the people stopped bringing gifts’ The preposition (complementizer) de generally occurs in structures similar to those of MR, after an abstract noun (a), an adjective (b), a verb (c), or an adverb (d). De is often optional ((a), (a)), except in the context of an adverb, where it is obligatory (d). ()
a. puteare de-a spunerea (CC2.: ) power of=AINF say.INF-RE.DEF ‘the power to say’ b. destoinici de-a să creaderea (Prav.: ) worthy.M.PL of=AINF CL.REFL.PASS believe.INF-RE.DEF ‘worthy to be believed’ c. va
înceta de a ocărârea pre stop.INF DE AINF insult.INF-RE.DEF DOM oameni (Ev.: ) people.ACC ‘he will stop insulting people’ AUX.FUT.SG
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The infinitive and the infinitival construction
d. mai nainte de a veni tu (BB.: ) more before of AINF come.INF you.SG.NOM ‘before you come’ One specific feature of the make-up of early OR nominal phrases is that a concrete head noun can be modified by de-a + long infinitive (). In this configuration, the infinitive was completely replaced by the supine (for a discussion, see Brâncuș [] : – and }..). Nowadays, the infinitive occurs only with postverbal head nouns. () apă de-a bearea (PO.: ) water of=AINF drink.INF-RE.DEF ‘drinking water’ In OR, the de a + infinitive structure can occupy the direct object (a), subject (b), and subjective predicative complement position (c), especially in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This is a sign of the grammaticalization of de a—it functions as a complex complementizer (the possibility of the de infinitive occupying the subject position is also attested in French, from the sixteenth century; Lardon and Thomine : ). ()
poruncit de a nu piarde vreame (BVS.: r) AUX.PERF.SG order.PPLE DE AINF not lose.INF time.ACC ‘he ordered that no time should be lost’
a. au
b. Căce de a-i creade și de nu because DE AINF=CL.ACC.M.PL believe.INF and DE not a-i creade nu iaste mare greșală (CIst.–: v) AINF=CL.ACC.M.PL believe.INF not is big mistake.NOM ‘Because it is not a big mistake to believe them or not’ c. de să va afla lucrul că nu-i if CL.REFL.PASS AUX.FUT.SG find.out.INF thing.DEF.NOM that not=is de-a creaderea (Prav.: ) DE=AINF believe.INF-RE.DEF ‘if it becomes known that this is not to be believed’ ... The infinitive in relative clauses In OR, the infinitival relative clause occurs only with the short infinitive (a,b) (more frequently a bare short infinitive, as in MR), not with the long form. In this context, the competition between the infinitive and the subjunctive (c) is already attested in the sixteenth century, but in favour of the infinitive (see also }...). ()
a. nu e cinre a face binre (PH.–: v) not is who AINF do.INF good.ACC ‘there is no one to do good’ b. noi nu avăm ce grăi (Prav.: v) we not have.PRES.PL what speak.INF ‘we have nothing to say’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions c. nu e cenre se se ascundză (PH.–: v) not is who SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.SG hide.SUBJ.SG ‘there is nobody to hide’
.. The infinitive functioning as a predicate Besides its usual status of subordinate clause in various contexts, the OR infinitive may also form an autonomous clause, like finite verbs do (a). As a predicate, it can also occur in coordinated structures in which one of the conjuncts is a personal verb (b,c). In imperative sentences, the infinitive, not coordinated with the subjunctive, can also occur as an autonomous clause in MR. ()
a. Clavdie Lisia, ( . . . ) a se bucura (CV.–: v) Clavdie Lisia AINF CL.REFL.ACC.SG rejoice.INF ‘Claudius Lisia, rejoice!’ b. pre el nici întru un chip să nu vătămăm ( . . . ), DOM him.ACC nor in a manner SĂSUBJ not harm.SUBJ.PL ce a păzi grija lui (CC1.: v) but AINF guard.INF care.DEF.ACC his.GEN ‘we should not harm him in any way, but we should guard what he cares for’ c. cu mare nevoe e a răbda bolnavulu cându-lu with great difficulty.ACC is AINF endure.INF sick.DEF.NOM when=CL.ACC.M.SG duci dentru un locu într-altulu, sau a-lu take.PRES.SG from a place.ACC in-another.ACC or AINF=CL.ACC.M.SG scoate den casa lui (CC2.: ) get.out.INF from house.DEF.ACC his.GEN ‘it is very difficult for a sick person when you bring him to different places or when you take him out of his house’
.. Final remarks The short and the long infinitive generally had the same distribution in OR, although with some differences. The long infinitive is attested, with differences of frequency, throughout the OR period. A preceding the infinitive has more clearly prepositional features in some contexts, and in others it is highly grammaticalized. The conditions of occurrence of the bare vs. the a-infinitive are not strict; preferences can, however, be detected. In OR, the infinitive is a formative of more moods and tenses than in MR. The perfect infinitive appears late, in the eighteenth century, and it is extremely rare, being in competition with the perfect subjunctive. The frequency of the infinitive diminished in time. The preference for the subjunctive or for other verbal forms have received both extralinguistic (historical and geographical) and linguistic explanations (see the types of contexts in which the infinitive occurs). De subordinates the infinitive to different heads (a verb, a noun, an adjective, an adverb), being often optional, and in some contexts (when it is in direct object,
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The supine and the supine construction
subject, or subjective predicative complement position) it forms a complex complementizer with a. The infinitive could form an autonomous clause (occurring in an independent sentence); as a predicate, it could also be coordinated with a finite verb.
. The supine and the supine construction .. Preliminary remarks The Romanian supine is characterized by formal identity with the masculine/neuter singular form of the past participle, by the presence of the complementizer de originating in a preposition (or of other prepositions: la ‘at’, pentru ‘for’, din ‘from’, etc.), and by both nominal and verbal behaviour: purely nominal, combining with the definite article and taking genitive complements (a), ambiguous/underspecified (b) and verbal, taking a direct object (c). ()
a. sculatul morților (CCat.: r) resurrect.SUP.DEF dead.PL.DEF.GEN ‘the resurrection of the dead’ b. carte de cununat (DÎ.: LXXVII) act DESUP marry.SUP ‘marriage certificate’ c. pom de preceput ce iaste bine și rău (MC.: r) tree DESUP understand.SUP what is good and bad ‘a tree of the knowledge of good and evil’
The MR supine occurs in a variety of patterns (see GR: –), of which only some are attested since the sixteenth century. The patterns diversify progressively up to the end of the OR period, when all the modern patterns are attested, except for the tough-construction (a) and the supine with an imperative value (b). ()
a. Minciunile sunt greu de acceptat lies.DEF.NOM are hard.ADVADJ.M.SG DESUP accept.SUP ‘Lies are hard to accept’ b. De
citit romanul până mâine! read.SUP novel.DEF.ACC until tomorrow ‘The novel should be read until tomorrow’
DESUP
The origin of the Romanian supine is controversial and there are three principal points of view: (i) it is inherited from Latin (Grandgent : ; Ernout and Thomas : ; ILR I: ; Diaconescu : , ; Lombard : ; Joseph : , ; Bauer : ); (ii) it emerged in Romanian, in compensation for the progressive loss of the infinitive (Densusianu II: ; Caragiu-Marioțeanu , : ; Dimitrescu (ed.) : ; Brâncuș [] : ; Fischer : ; Vasiliu and Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu : ; Creția : ); (iii) the nominal supine was inherited from Latin, while the underspecified and the verbal supine emerged in Romanian (Dragomirescu a,b).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions
Although the supine form existed in Latin (in two different patterns, (i) the accusative supine, expressing purpose after verbs of motion (a,b) or destination, in fixed expressions (c), and (ii) the ablative supine, used as complement to certain adjectives (d): Allen and Greenough [] : ; Palmer [] : ; Pinkster : –), the supine is characteristic only of (Daco-)Romanian in Romance, and it is very rarely attested in Megleno-Romanian (Atanasov : ) and, possibly (Maiden , fn. ), in Aromanian. The supine is also attested in Slavic languages (proto-Slavic and Old Church Slavonic, Czech, Slovene, and Lower Sorbian) to a very limited extent, expressing purpose after verbs of motion (Meillet [] : ; Joseph : –). A secondary infinitive form similar to the Romanian supine exists in Albanian (Brâncuș [] : –). ()
a. venit spectatum ‘he came to see’
(in Allen and Greenough [] : )
b. legatos ad Caesarem mittunt auxilium rogatum (in Ernout and Thomas : ) ‘they sent ambassadors to Caesar to ask for help’ c. dare nuptum (in Ernout and Thomas : ) ‘to give in marriage’ d. facile factu ‘easy to do’
(in Woodcock : )
.. The nominal supine, the underspecified supine, and the verbal supine The three types of supine have a different syntactic behaviour and a different frequency in OR. ... The nominal supine In the earliest attested Romanian texts, the nominal supine was very frequent, compared to the underspecified and verbal supine, but less frequent than the nominal infinitive (the corpus survey shows that the nominal infinitive is about twice as frequent as the nominal supine). Later, from the seventeenth century, the loss of the verbal value of the long infinitive correlates with the increase in frequency of the nominal infinitive. The nominal supine, generally with a masculine-neuter singular form, is syncretic with the past participial nominalization. The very few attestations of the plural take the inflectional ending -uri (c), (), specific to neuter (and, rarely, feminine) nouns. From the earliest surviving Romanian texts, the supine nominal (uncountable, abstract, resultative) () and the past participle nominalization (countable, concrete) () gave rise to different types of nouns (Diaconescu ; Dragomirescu a: –). The past participial nominalization with the suffixal definite article was replaced with the CEL-construction (}}..; ..), from the seventeenth century. ()
a. după dusul mieu (CV.–: r) after go.SUP.DEF my.POSS.M ‘after I will be gone’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The supine and the supine construction
b. ieșitul Israililor den Eghiptu (PH.–: r) come.out.SUP.DEF Jews.DEF.GEN from Egypt.ACC ‘the exodus of Jews out of Egypt’ c. la porțâle putearnicilor șeade și la întraturi at doors.DEF.ACC strong.PL.DEF.GEN stays and at enter.SUP.PL iaste lăudată (DPar.: II.v) is praise.PPLE.F.SG ‘she stays at the doors of the strong people and she is praised when someone enters’ ()
a. mai marele întru născuţi din muieri (CC1.: v) more great.DEF of born.PPLE.M.PL from women.ACC ‘the greatest born from women’ b. Prevește greșitul dereptulu și cere a-l looks mistake.PPLE.M.SG.DEF.NOM just.M.SG.ACC and asks AINF=CL.ACC.M.SG omorri elu (PH. : r) kill.INF him.ACC ‘The guilty one looks at the just man and he asks for this one to be killed’
A characteristic of the sixteenth century is the existence of the feminine forms of the nominal supine () and past participle () (Diaconescu : ), a fact claimed to be a feature common to Romanian and Albanian (Brâncuș [] : ). The feminine forms of the supine are attested only in certain texts, mainly translations, and their frequency decreases after the sixteenth century. They are less frequent than the usual masculine-neuter forms. The most frequent feminine supine forms are: biruită ‘victory’ (PO.), făgăduită ‘promise’ (CCat.; CC1.; CC2.; MI.~), jurată ‘oath’ (CM.), începută ‘beginning’ (CC2.), lăcuită ‘habitation’ (CC2.; PO.), mulțămită ‘gratitude’ (VRC.; DPV.), născută ‘birth’ (CT.–; CC1.; CC2.), răsărită ‘sunrise’ (CC1.; DPar.; PO.; ULM.~), venrită ‘coming’ (CSXV.). The feminine forms of the nominal supine are preserved in the present-day language only in frozen words/expressions, such as Lăsata Secului ‘Shrovetide’. ()
a. orb den născută (CC1.: v) blind from birth.SUP.F.SG ‘blind from birth’ b. den începuta veacului (CC2.: ) since beginning.SUP.F.SG.DEF century.DEF.GEN ‘since the beginning of the world’
()
a. nici dinioară zisa ta călcai (CC1.: v) never word.PPLE.F.SG.DEF.ACC your.F fail.PS.SG ‘I have never failed your word’ b. Și ascunsa acelora a tuturora and secret.PPLE.F.DEF.NOM those.PL.GEN al.F.SG all.PL.GEN
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions descoperi-se-va (CC2.: ) detect.INF=CL.REFL.PASS=AUX.FUT.SG ‘And the secret of all of them will be detected’
The nominal supine in OR differs from the nominal supine of the present-day language in the following respects: (i) it shows gender distinctions (masculine-neuter vs. feminine, as shown in () and ()); (ii) it shows number distinctions (), (c), preserved in MR only for a few supine forms (răsărituri ‘sunrises’, apusuri ‘sunsets’, plânsuri ‘crying.PL’). () la răsărituri de soare (DPar.: II.r) at rise.SUP.PL of sun.ACC ‘at sunrises’ Other typically nominal syntactic features characterize the nominal supine in OR (Dragomirescu a: –): it can take adjectival modifiers (a), possessive adjectives (b), it can appear in the genitive case (c), it can occupy the subject position (d) or the direct object position (e), etc. These features are preserved in MR. () a. făcură plâns mare și amar (PO.: ) make.PS.PL cry.SUP.ACC big.M.SG and bitter.M.SG ‘they cried hard and bitterly’ b. de certatul tău fugi-vor (CM.: r) of blame.SUP.DEF.ACC your.M run.INF=AUX.FUT.PL ‘they will run away because you blame them’ c. Și înaintea născutului lu Hristos, și după nașterea and before birth.SUP.DEF.GEN LUI.GEN Christ and after birth.DEF.ACC (CC1.: v) his.GEN ‘Both before and after Christ’s birth’ d. iară auzitul iaste pren cuvântul lu and hear.SUP.DEF.NOM is through word.DEF.ACC LUI.GEN Dumnezeu (CC1.: v) God ‘hearing happens through God’s word’ e. și soarele cunoscu apusul and sun.DEF.NOM know.PS.SG go.down.SUP.DEF.ACC său (PH. : r) his ‘and the sun knew its setting’ ... The underspecified supine This type of supine, occurring in contexts without a definite article or a genitive (as indicators of its nominal nature) or an accusative direct object (as an indicator of its verbal nature), is less frequent than the nominal supine in the sixteenth to early seventeenth century. It occurs in the following patterns (with no dialectal differences): the adjunct supine dependent on a
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The supine and the supine construction
verb () or an adjective (), the noun-modifier supine (), the supine in predicative position, dependent on a copula verb (), and, very rarely in this period, the supine dependent on a verb taking a prepositional object (). ()
a. au
scos ( . . . ) picioarele meale den draw.PPLE legs.DEF.ACC my of lunrecat (PH. : r) slip.SUP ‘he didn’t let my legs slip’ AUX.PERF.SG
b. Iară ale păcătoșilor suflete, după ieșit așa and AL.M.PL sinful.DEF.GEN souls.NOM after go.out.SUP like.this se și duc (CC1.: r) CL.REFL.ACC.PL already leave.PRES.PL ‘After they get out (of the body), the sinners’ souls leave’ c. cinci cuvinte a grăi cu înțeles (CM.: v) five words.ACC AINF say.INF with meaning.SUP ‘to say five words intelligibly’ duseră la vânat (MC.: v) CL.REFL.ACC.PL go.PS.PL at hunt.SUP ‘they went hunting’
d. se
()
a. cine era măiestru la cioplit, la țesut și who was expert.M.SG.NOM at carve.SUP at weave.SUP and la cusut (PO.: ) at sew.SUP ‘who was an expert in carving, weaving and sewing’ b. frumos pre căutat (PO.: ) beautiful.M.SG at look.SUP ‘beautiful to look at’
()
a. oameni cu cărți de iertat (DÎ.: LXXVIII) people.PL with letters.ACC DESUP forgive.SUP ‘ people with letters of pardon’ b. Și după ce ară fi trecând dzilele and after AUX.COND.PL be.INF pass.GER days.DEF.NOM de plâns (PO.: ) DESUP cry.SUP ‘And after the unhappy day would pass’ c. veșminte sfinte de îmbrăcat (PO.: ) garments holy.PL DESUP put.on.SUP ‘holy garments to put on’ d. și băgă apă într-însă de spălat (PO.: ) and put.PS.SG water.ACC in=it DESUP wash.SUP ‘and he put in it water to wash’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions e. lucru de furat (Prav.: ) thing DESUP steal.SUP ‘a stolen thing’
()
a. Credința iaste dentru auzit (CC1.: v) faith.DEF is from hear.SUP ‘Faith is from hearing’ b. fu de râs această beseadă (PO.: ) be.PS.SG DESUP laugh.SUP this conversation.NOM ‘this conversation was amusing’ săturară de jefuit și de get.sick.PS.PL DESUP rob.SUP and DESUP tăiat (MC.: v) slaughter.SUP ‘they got sick of robbing and slaughtering’
() se
CL.REFL.ACC.PL
In almost all the examples above, the underspecified supine has an active value. The supine is passive only in (b) and (a,e). These examples reflect the true proportions of active and passive values of the supine, both in OR and MR; for the past participle, the proportion is the reverse, the passive value being much more frequent than the active (}..). As one can see in examples (c,d), in this period there is no ordering or adjacency requirement for noun and supine modifier. From the second half of the seventeenth century, the supine occurring in the nominal phrase, previously attested with a modal (deontic, potential) value and temporally oriented towards the present, the past, or the future (see ()), appears with several values—with a purpose value (a), denoting subjective qualities (b), limiting the predication (c), or denoting destination (d). Examples (e,f) illustrate the first attestation of the supine as complement to an abstract, verbal noun. (g) proves that, as in the previous period, at least at the end of the seventeenth century, the constraint that the supine modifier should be adjacent to the head noun was not yet completely operative; this adjacency constraint is generally observed in the later period. ()
a. cale de scăpat (DPV.: ) way DESUP escape.SUP ‘escape route’ b. omu de miratu (CLM. : v) man DESUP wonder.SUP ‘a surprising man’ c. soț de jucat (CDicț. : ) comrade DESUP play.SUP ‘a comrade at playing’ d. un iepure viu de vândut (Bert.: r) a rabbit live DESUP sell.SUP ‘a live rabbit to be sold’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The supine and the supine construction
e. mare pohta de mâncat (CDicț. : ) big appetite.DEF DESUP eat.SUP ‘a great desire to eat’ f. fără teamă de perit (CPV.~: r) without fear DESUP die.SUP ‘without fear of dying’ g. loc slobod de supt ceri de primblat (CDicț. : ) place free of under sky DESUP walk.SUP ‘a free place to walk under the sky’ The copular structures, previously attested only with the verb fi ‘be’ and with a personal value, are attested after with other copula verbs, such as rămâne ‘remain’ (a), a se face ‘become’ (CPV.~: r); (b) illustrates the new deontic value of the copula fi ‘be’ and its impersonal construction. ()
a. care vacurilor de miratu au which centuries.DEF.DAT DESUP wonder.SUP AUX.PERF.SG rămas (CLM. : v) remain.PPLE ‘which remained surprising over time’ b. unde-i de plătit (CPV.~: v) where=is DESUP pay.SUP ‘where one should pay’
In this period, new supine patterns are attested: (i) the supine as complement to an adjective (); (ii) the supine depending on an aspectual verb () or on a transitive non-aspectual verb (da ‘give’, duce ‘bring’, face ‘make’) (); (iii) the ‘hanging theme’ supine (). (b) illustrates clitic climbing: -l CL.ACC.M.SG is the direct object of the supine, but since the supine is incompatible with hosting clitics, -l raises in front of the aspectual verb; this complex predicate construction becomes more frequent in MR and extends to the modal verb a avea ‘have’ (o are de citit CL.ACC.F.SG has DESUP read.SUP ‘(s)he has to read it’; see GR: –, ). The examples in () show that the hanging theme supine was not a stable pattern in OR, as it is MR (Pană Dindelegan : –; GR: ): in contrast with MR, it could contain the feminine form of the supine (a) and it could not be placed in topic position (b). It is worth mentioning that in this period a new adjunct supine pattern, with a negative form, emerges—the result one (); the latter specializes as one of the superlative markers in MR (see }..). ()
a. bun de lucrat (CDicț. : ) good DESUP work.SUP ‘good to be used’ b. ceale mai vreadnice de știut lucruri (BIU.: ) CEL.F.PL more worthy.F.PL DESUP know.SUP things ‘the things more likely to be known’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions
()
a. stau de hiertu (CDicț. : ) stop.PRES.PL DESUP boil.SUP ‘they stop boiling’ b. și-l sfârșaște de fiert (CBuc.: v) and=CL.ACC.M.SG ends DESUP boil.SUP ‘and he stops boiling it’
()
a. dau de mâncat (CDicț. : ) give.PRES.PL DESUP eat.SUP ‘they give (them) to eat’ b. cându-i ducea de mâncat (NL.~ : ) when=CL.DAT.SG bring.IMPERF.SG DESUP eat.SUP ‘when he brings him/her (something) to eat’ c. Adu-m vânat și-m fă bring.IMP.SG=CL.DAT.SG game and=CL.DAT.SG make.IMP.SG de mâncat (BB.: ) DESUP eat.SUP ‘Bring me the (hunting) game and prepare it for me to eat’
()
a. Iară de lăcuită, eu lăcuiesc în pustiile and DESUP live.SUP.F I live.PRES.SG in wilderness.PL.ACC pământului Senaridului (SVI.~: r) land.DEF.GEN Senarid.DEF.GEN ‘And as for living, I live in the wilderness of the Senarid land’ b. acela iaste carele crezuse amu, de crezut, dară that is who believe.PLUPERF.SG now DESUP believe.SUP but cugetului cu reale lucrure o haina thinking.DEF.GEN with bad.PL things.ACC CL.ACC.F.SG raiment.DEF spurcase (SVI.~: r) make.profane.PLUPERF.SG ‘that one is the one who, as for believing, he had believed, but still he had profaned the raiment of thinking with bad things’ c. iară de băut să să bea ca și alte and DESUP drink.SUP SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.PASS drink.SUBJ.SG like other.PL vinuri noao (CBuc.: v) wines new.PL ‘as for drinking, this is to be drunk like other new wines’
() lucruri aspre, greale, de neputut (CII.~: IX) things hard.PL difficult.PL DESUP NEG-can.SUP ‘hard, difficult things, impossible to do’ > ‘very hard, very difficult’ ... The verbal supine The verbal supine taking a direct object is attested only once in the first period of OR (see (c)) (cf. also Stan : –). From the end of the seventeenth century, the verbal supine taking a direct object () becomes more
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The supine and the supine construction
frequent, but it is still limited to certain texts (such as CDicț.–—most of the attestations; DPar.; CII.~; NL.~–). (b) illustrates the possibility of the supine taking a direct and an indirect object at the same time. ()
a. barcă de țânut peștii (CDicț. : ) boat DESUP keep.SUP fish.PL.DEF.ACC ‘a boat in which to keep the fish’ b. loc de dat mâncare găinilor (CDicț. : ) place DESUP give.SUP food.ACC hens.DEF.DAT ‘a place for feeding the hens’ c. când pentru făcut folosul de obște cineva when for do.SUP profit.DEF.ACC of society someone.NOM să fericeaște (CII.~: ) CL.REFL.ACC.SG feels.happy ‘when someone feels happy making a profit for society’ d. iară din lemnul de cunoscut binele și but from tree.DEF.ACC DESUP know.SUP good.DEF.ACC and răul să nu mâncaţ (DPar.: II.r) evil.DEF.ACC SĂSUBJ not eat.SUBJ.PL ‘but don’t eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil’
In this period, the lexical subject of the supine is attested () (Pană Dindelegan ). The only examples illustrating the supine with a lexical subject in the corpus are those in (), taken from two texts, CDicț.– and NL.~–. However, (b,c) are ambiguous: if the supine has an active value, then caii ‘horses’ and oștile ‘troups’ are direct objects; if the supine has a passive value, then caii and oștile should be interpreted as subjects. ()
a. loc de cinat șase înș, scaun place DESUP dine.SUP six persons.NOM chair de șezut șase oameni (CDicț. : ) DESUP sit.SUP six persons.NOM ‘a place for six persons to dine in, a chair for six persons to sit on’ b. loc de alergat caii (CDicț. : ) place DESUP run.SUP horses.DEF.NOMACC ‘a place for horses to run/a place where one rides horses’ c. locuri de iernat oștile (CDicț. : ) places DESUP hibernate.SUP troops.DEF.NOMACC ‘places for the troops to hibernate/to make the troops hibernate in’ d. și avea și vreme de vinit and have.IMPEF.SG also time DESUP come.SUP mojâcii (NL.~ : ) peasants.DEF.NOM ‘and the peasants also had the time to come’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions
.. Competition between the supine and other verb forms As seen, the verbal supine was used to a very limited extent in the first period of OR and it extended its uses largely from the seventeenth century. This phenomenon correlates with the loss of the verbal value of the long infinitive (}..) and with the extension of the subjunctive verbal form, characteristic of the Balkan area. The verbal supine replaced the infinitive in several contexts. An important observation concerns the fact that the Latin supine patterns had, in the earliest attested Romanian texts, infinitival correspondents (see () for the adjunct purpose supine after verbs of motion and () for the supine as a complement to an adjective; compare () to (d), and () to ()); this suggests that the Romanian verbal supine was not inherited from Latin. () a. Și iară veni-va cu slavă a judeca and again come.INF=AUX.FUT.SG with glory.ACC AINF judge.INF viii și morții (CCat.: v) living.PL.DEF.ACC and dead.PL.DEF.ACC ‘And he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead’ b. featele acestor orășanilor vin daughters.DEF these.GEN citizens.DEF.GEN come.PRES.PL afară a scoate apă (PO.: ) out AINF drain.INF water.ACC ‘citizen’s daughters come out to drain water’ ()
a. pomulu e bun de mâncare (PO.: ) tree.DEF.NOM is good of eat.INF-RE ‘this tree is good to eat’ b. era gata agiuta lor (DÎ.: LXXXIX) be.IMPERF.SG ready AINF help.INF them.DAT ‘he was ready to help them’
Another key point is that the competition between the infinitive and the supine existed even for those patterns in which the supine is attested since the sixteenth century (compare (a) to (), and (b) to ()) (see also }...). ()
a. n-avea nărodul apă de-a not=have.IMPERF.SG people.DEF.NOM water.ACC DE=AINF bearea (PO.: ) drink.INF-RE.DEF ‘the people did not have drinking water’ b. Dumnedzeu e de-a fălosirea (PH. : v) God is DE=AINF revenge.INF-RE.DEF ‘God is vengeful’
Moreover, there are contexts in which the supine completely replaced the infinitive in MR. This happened with transitive transfer verbs, such as da ‘give’, aduce
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The past participle and the participial clause
‘bring’, etc. (compare (a) to ()), in impersonal constructions (compare (b) to (b)), in the hanging theme construction (compare (c) to (); see Nedelcu ). ()
a. și deade lui a bea (PO.:) and give.PS.SG him.DAT AINF drink.INF ‘and he gave him (something) to drink’ b. Nici iaste a să mira, că scriitorii noștri nor is AINF CL.REFL.ACC.SG surprise.INF that writers.DEF our.PL n-au avut de unde strânge cărți (ULM.~: v r) not=AUX.PERF.PL have.PPLE from where gather.INF books.ACC ‘It is not surprising that our writers did not have where to gather books from’ c. Iară a o cheltui nu o cheltuiră and AINF CL.ACC.F.SG spend.INF not CL.ACC.F.SG spend.PS.PL amăndoi într-un chip (CazV.: v) both in-one way ‘They did not spend it in the same way’
The variation between the supine, the infinitive, and the subjunctive is thus a very important feature of OR (see also }..), and this marks out Romanian from other Balkan languages where this competition is two-fold (only between the infinitive and the subjunctive). .. Final remarks In OR, three values of the supine are attested: the nominal, the underspecified, and the verbal. In the sixteenth century and at the beginning of the seventeenth century, the nominal supine is frequent, the underspecified is rare, while the verbal is very rare. Afterwards, the supine patterns become increasingly diversified in all types of texts (original texts or translations) and in all the regions of the Romanian speaking area. In this period, almost all the modern syntactic patterns are attested, except for the supine with an imperative value (in (b); see GR: ). Moreover, the rule for the tough-construction with the supine stabilizes after (in (a); see GR: ). The MR competition between the supine, the infinitive, and the subjunctive was already operating in the sixteenth century and it is still in progress in the present-day language.
. The past participle and the participial clause .. Preliminary remarks The Romanian past participle is inherited from Latin. Initially used only with an adjectival value, independent of voice values and having a temporally neutral reference, the Latin perfect participle was employed in late Latin in the construction of periphrastic moods and tenses and in passive structures (Allen and Greenough [] : ; Grandgent : ; Palmer [] : , ; Fischer : –; Creția : –).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions
In Romanian, the main values of the past participle (see Pană Dindelegan : –; GALR I: –; GR: –) have been attested since the sixteenth century: (i) the participle as a tense and mood formative and as a passive formative and (ii) the adjectival past participle, occurring in different constructions. .. The past participle as a tense and mood formative In OR, the past participle is used as a mood and tense formative in different types of structure involving the auxiliary fi ‘be’ (for a full description, see }..): (i) the pluperfect (see Densusianu II: ; ILRL: –; Zamfir : –) () and the double compound perfect () () era văzut; era viiat (CC1.: r) be.IMPERF.SG see.PPLE be.IMPERF.SG live.PPLE ‘he had seen; he had lived’ () amu fostu cugetatu (CC2.: ) AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE think.PPLE ‘I thought’ (ii) the perfect conditional made up of the auxiliary aș + the auxiliary fi + past participle () (see Densusianu II: ; ILRL: ) ()
fi venit (DÎ. : XXV) be.INF come.PPLE ‘I would have come’ b. ară fi venit (PO.: ) AUX.COND.PL be.INF come.PPLE ‘they would have come’ a. aș
AUX.COND.SG
(iii) the perfect subjunctive (note that, in contrast to MR, the auxiliary fi is inflected for person) ()
fii până acmu venit (DÎ.: XCIII) be.SUBJ.SG until now come.PPLE ‘(you) to have come until now’
a. să
SĂSUBJ
fim noi iubit pre Dumnezeu (CC1.: r) SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.PL we love.PPLE DOM God.ACC ‘(we) to have loved God’
b. să
(iv) the past participial future; this structure is very rare in the sixteenth century, occurring mainly in legal texts and documents (see Zamfir : –) fi făcut (DÎ. : XXV) be.INF do.PPLE ‘he will have done’
() a. va
AUX.FUT.SG
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The past participle and the participial clause
b. cându va fi unchiul mainte luoat when AUX.FUT.SG be.INF uncle.DEF.NOM before take.PPLE nepoata (Prav.: r) niece.DEF.ACC ‘when the uncle would have taken the niece’ (v) structures similar to the compound past, in which the auxiliary fi ‘be’ is used instead of the regular auxiliary avea ‘have’, with obligatory agreement between the past participle and the subject (Ledgeway a; Dragomirescu and Nicolae b) occur in all types of texts; while the have-structure is perfective, the be-structure expresses a resultative state with relevance in the present (see also Harris ) ()
a. carei sânt fugiți den războiu, de-s which be.PRES.PL run.away.PPLE.M.PL from war if=be.PRES.PL fugiți, aceia să se iarte (DÎ.: XXXVI) escape.PPLE.M.PL those SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.PASS forgive.SUBJ.SG ‘the ones who have run away from the war, if they escaped, they should be forgiven’ b. ești născut și viiat în păcate (CM.: v) be.PRES.SG be.born.PPLE and live.PPLE in sins.ACC ‘you were born and you have been living in sin’ c. ceia ce-su lăcuiți mai de nainte (CC2.: ) those which=be.PRES.PL live.PPLE.M.PL more of before ‘the ones which have been living (here) before’
(vi) the perfect infinitive (a fi venit AINF be.INF come.PPLE ‘to have come’) is very rarely attested, and only from the second half of the eighteenth century (}..). In contrast to MR, where the order past participle–auxiliary is strongly constrained (GR: –), in OR the past participle can be placed either before or after the auxiliary, with fewer restrictions (Zafiu ; }...). As illustrated in (a,b, b), the past participle and the auxiliary were not strictly adjacent, indicating that these analytic forms were not yet completely grammaticalized. Similarly to MR, in OR the past participle which combines with the auxiliary avea ‘have’ is invariable, while the past participle in passive constructions agrees with the subject in gender and number. By contrast, for structures containing the auxiliary fi ‘be’ and a past participle, the rules of agreement were not completely established in the sixteenth century: the participle is often invariable (as in MR), with significant variation between different texts. There are also situations in which the past participle agrees with the subject (Dragomirescu ). However, the morphological marking of agreement, especially for masculine plural (ending in i) is not always easy to detect, because of the Cyrillic alphabet. The modern rules for agreement were settled in the seventeenth century. As mentioned, in passive structures the past participle agrees with the subject.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
()
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions a. ocina aceasta care iaste scrisă land.F.SG.DEF this which is write.PPLE.F.SG mai sus (DÎ. : XII) more above ‘this piece of land, which is mentioned above’ b. fură îngropați toți într-un loc (MC.: r) be.PS.PL bury.PPLE.M.PL all.M.PL in-one place ‘they were buried all in one place’
In (), the structures era pus, era adus, even if they look like passive forms (‘was put’, ‘was brought’), are actually analytic pluperfects, for which the lack of agreement is expected. ()
a. acea piiatră carea supt cap era pus (PO.: ) that stone.F.SG which under head be.IMPERF.SG put.PPLE.M.SG ‘that stone, which he had put under his head’ b. hrana carele era adus food.F.SG.DEF which be.IMPERF.SGPL bring.PPLE.M.SG den Eghipet (PO.: ) from Egypt ‘the food that they had brought from Egypt’
Like other old Romance varieties, but unlike MR, in OR past participial agreement in analytic structures with the auxiliary fi ‘be’ is attested (Densusianu II: ; Uritescu : ). Agreement is dialectally preserved in Banat and Transylvania (Uritescu : ). In the sixteenth century, gender and number agreement of the past participle with the subject is frequent with the analytic pluperfect and double compound perfect (), the perfect conditional (), and the perfect future () (Zamfir : –, , ). ()
a. lucrurile lor ce au fost thing.FNEUT.PL.DEF their which AUX.PERF.PL be.PPLE făcuți sau petrecuț (DÎ.: LXXXIX) do.PPLE.M.PL or happen.PPLE.M.PL ‘the things that they did or that happened to them’ b. acești oameni orbi era auziți these people.M.PL blind.M.PL be.IMPERF.PL hear.PPLE.M.PL de veastea (CC1.: v) of news.DEF.ACC ‘these blind people had heard the news’
()
fi veniți oamenii (CC2.: ) AUX.COND.PL be.INF come.PPLE.M.PL people.M.PL.DEF.NOM ‘people would have come’
ară
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The past participle and the participial clause
() ceia ce vor hi făcuți aceasta (Prav.: r) that.M.PL who AUX.FUT.PL be.INF do.PPLE.M.PL that.F.SG.ACC ‘those who will have done that thing’ Depending on the type of the verb, agreement is preferred (i) with transitive verbs, in structures having the same form as the passive structures, but which are unambiguously interpretable as active (a,b), or (ii) with unaccusative verbs expressing a (change of) state (, ). The unaccusative verbs often occurring in structures with agreement are: cădea ‘fall’, fugi ‘run’, ieși ‘go out, exit’, a se ivi ‘appear’, muri ‘die’, a se naște ‘be born’, pieri ‘disappear’, sosi ‘arrive’, trece ‘pass’, veni ‘come’. In the case of the analytic structures with transitive verbs, structurally identical to the passive structures, the lack of agreement becomes a clear indication of the active interpretation (). In contrast to the active structures in (), the passive structures would have obligatory featured agreement (veți fi făcuți AUX.FUT.PL be.INF make.PPLE.M.PL ‘you will be made’, era scriși be.IMPERF.PL write.PPLE.M.PL ‘they were written’). ()
a. veți fi făcut voi vreo AUX.FUT.PL be.INF done.PPLE you.PL.NOM any tocmeală (DÎ.: XXXI) deal.ACC ‘you would have done any deal’ b. ce era ei scris (CC1.: v) which be.IMPERF.PL they write.PPLE ‘which they had written’
Sporadically, in two examples (), the agreement of the past participle with the pronominal direct object is attested (see Zamfir : ). This type of agreement is current in French (Lois : ) and it is attested in old Italian and certain modern Italian dialects (Maiden : –; Bentley and Ledgeway ), and in Medieval Spanish (Company Company (ed.) : ). The main difference between OR and the other Romance varieties is that in the Romanian constructions the auxiliary is fi ‘be’, while in the other Romance varieties it is ‘have’. ()
a. oamenii săi, pre care-i era people.PL.DEF his DOM whom.ACC=CL.ACC.M.PL be.IMPERF.PL făcuți pre obrazul său (CC1.: r) create.PPLE.M.PL on face.DEF.ACC his ‘his people, whom he had created after his own image’ b. se o are fi și luată (Prav.: r) if CL.ACC.F.SG AUX.COND.SG be.INF already take.PPLE.F.SG ‘if he already took her’
As for the ratio of the structures with and without agreement for the analytic forms containing the auxiliary fi ‘be’, several observations are to be made: (i) agreement oscillations are attested only in the sixteenth century and they are absent from the corpus in the next period; (ii) in the majority of sixteenth-century texts, the
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions
frequency of the masculine singular form of the past participle (identical to the unmarked participle) is high and, consequently, for all these structures, it is impossible to say whether the agreement is present or not—more than a half of the structures compatible with past participial agreement have a masculine singular subject, agreement being thus invisible (% of the forms in CC1., % of the forms in DÎ, and % of the forms in PO.); (iii) putting aside masculine singular forms and bearing in mind the significant differences between the texts, the conclusion is that the analytic forms with agreement and those without agreement have an approximately equal frequency. .. The adjectival past participle The past participle can appear as modifier of nouns or as predicative complement. The active value of the adjectival past participle is more frequent in OR than in the present-day language, where only a few active past participles are preserved (om mâncat man eat.PPLE, băut drink.PPLE, avut have.PPLE, învățat learn.PPLE ‘a man who has eaten, drunk, who is rich, who has learned’; Pană Dindelegan : , : ; GALR I: ). The active past participle is inherited from Latin (Palmer [] : ; Stati : ; Fischer : ; Creția : ): PRANSUS ‘having had lunch’, IURATUS ‘having sworn’, CENATUS ‘having had dinner’, POTUS ‘having drunk’, EMERSUS ‘having emerged’. In OR, the active past participles originate in intransitive verbs, either unaccusative or unergative. After the verb fi ‘be’, the past participles of unaccusative verbs occur in ambiguous structures, which can be interpreted as mood/tense formatives or as subjective predicative complements (); when occurring in predicative positions after other verbs than fi ‘be’ () or when they are noun modifiers (), the adjectival status and the active value of the participles originating in unaccusative verbs (adormi ‘fall asleep’, cădea ‘fall’, intra ‘enter’, muri ‘die’, veni ‘come’) are unambiguous. ()
a. află ei adurmiţi (CC1.: v) find.PS.SG them.ACC fall.asleep.PPLE.M.PL ‘he found them asleep’ cine văd căzut în nevoie (CC1.: r) DOM whom.ACC see.PRES.PL fall.PPLE in need ‘whom they see (fallen) in need’
b. pre
() a. tu ești om venit (PO.: ) you.SG be.PRES.SG man.NOM come.PPLE.M.SG ‘you are a foreigner’ b. mulți coconi, născuți cu bucurie și muriți many children be.born.PPLE.M.PL with joy.ACC and die.PPLE.M.PL cu scârbă (MC.: r) with grief.ACC ‘many children who were born with joy and who died with grief ’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The past participle and the participial clause
c. fămei rămase de ei (SA.: r) women remain.PPLE.F.PL of them.ACC ‘women who survived them’ The past participles of intransitive or of transitive verbs the direct object of which is omitted (such as greși ‘err’, învăța ‘learn, habituate’, munci ‘work’, crede ‘believe’, a se sfădi ‘quarrel’, a se teme ‘fear’, ști ‘know’, etc.) are unambiguously active, having an adjectival value either in predicative or in modifier position (); the adjectival value is sometimes highlighted by degree markers (). ()
a. Omu ce e învăţatu dulceţiei man who is accustom.PPLE.M.SG sweetness.DEF.DAT ceștii vieţi (CC2.: ) this.F.SG.GEN life.F.SG.GEN ‘The man who is accustomed to the sweetness of this life’ b. noi mișeei greșiți și păcătoși (PO.: ) we weak.M.PL be.wrong.PPLE.M.PL and sinners ‘we, weak people, debtors and sinners’
()
fi mai destoinic și be.INF more worthy.M.SG and more puţin greșit (CC1.: r) less wrong.M.SG ‘he would be worthier and less wrong’
a. ară
AUX.COND.SG
b. dascali știuți foarte den limba teachers know.PPLE.M.PL very of language.DEF.ACC elinească (BB.: XXIII) Greek ‘teachers who know Greek very well’ Negative past participles may have an active value when originating in transitive verbs whose direct object is omitted (mânca ‘eat’) or in intransitive verbs (grăi ‘speak’, a se găti ‘prepare’, a se naște ‘be born’, prânzi ‘have lunch’, etc.) ()
a. pre
ei va afla moartea them.ACC AUX.FUT.SG find.INF death.DEF.NOM negătiţi (CC1.: r) NEG-prepare.PPLE.M.PL ‘death will find them unprepared’ DOM
b. multu nemâncați fumu (CV. : v) much NEG-eat.PPLE.M.PL be.PS.PL ‘we were very hungry’ c. Negrăiţi era urul cătră alaltu (CV. : r) NEG-speak.PPLE.M.PL be.IMPERF.PL one to other ‘They had not spoken to each other’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions
However, as in the modern language, passive past participles originating in transitive verbs have a higher frequency than active ones, when occurring in predicative positions () or as nominal modifiers (). ()
a. toate slujbele câte trebuie scoase all.F.PL services.DEF how.many must perform.PPLE.F.PL la moarte omului (DÎ. : LV) at death.ACC man.DEF.GEN ‘all the services which must be performed at someone’s death’ moară nebotezat (CPrav. : r) SĂSUBJ die.SUBJ.SG NEG-christen.PPLE.M.SG ‘to die unchristened’
b. să
() a. viţelulu hrănitu (CC2.: ) calf.DEF feed.PPLE.M.SG ‘the fed calf ’ b. oameni botezaţi (CSIII. : v) people.M.PL christen.PPLE.M.PL ‘christened people’ The adjectival passive past participle may occasionally take a direct object, but only if the participle has a negative form. () a. De va fi vreunul dintre ei If AUX.FUT.SG be.INF one.NOM of them.ACC neavut altă cununie (Mol.: ) NEG-have.PPLE other marriage.ACC ‘If one of them was not married before’ b. un lucru nevăzut și neputut sămălui (Cron.: ) a thing NEG-see.PPLE and NEG-can.PPLE compare.INF ‘an invisible and incomparable thing’ In a cookery book from , the adjectival past participle is often attested in resultative constructions, followed by a noun (a), an adjective (b), or an adverb (c). These constructions are preserved in the modern language, in the same type of text. ()
a. o ceapă tăiată fălii (CBuc.: ) a onion.F cut.PPLE.F.SG slices ‘a sliced onion’ b. bureți tocați mărișori (CBuc.: ) mushrooms.M slice.PPLE.M.PL big.M.PL ‘mushrooms sliced big’ c. ceapă tocată mărunțel (CBuc.: ) onion.F.SG slice.PPLE.F.SG small(ADV) ‘onion sliced small’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The past participle and the participial clause
The adjectival passive past participles may take Agent-phrases, like the corresponding verbs (). The Agent-phrase may be placed before the past participle (c), more often than in the modern language. ()
a. besearecă făcută de mâini (CC1.: v) church.F.SG made.PPLE.F.SG by hands.ACC ‘a church made by (human) hands’ b. rugăciunea grăită de la preutul (CL.: r) prayer.F.SG.DEF say.PPLE.F.SG by priest.DEF.ACC ‘the prayer said by the priest’ c. de Dumnezeu păziți împărații noștri (CL.: r) by God.ACC protect.PPLE.M.PL emperors.M.DEF our ‘our emperors protected by God’
The prenominal modifier adjectival past participle can host the definite article, in polydefinite constructions, in which the article is also suffixed on lower constituents (}.). () blagoslovita casa aceasta (CL.: r) bless.PPLE.F.SG.DEF house.F.SG.DEF this.F.SG ‘this blessed house’ As in MR, in OR the typical temporal value of the past participle is past. However, past participles with an atemporal value, often with negative form, are attested: începuți begin.PPLE.M.PL (Mol.: ), neadurmiţi NEG-fall.asleep.PPLE.M.PL (CC2.: ), neajuns NEG-match.PPLE.M.SG (CL.: v–r), negrăit NEG-speak.PPLE.M.SG (CL.: v–r), nestinsu NEG-extinguish.PPLE.M.SG (CC2.: ), neștiut NEG-know.PPLE.M.SG (CL.: v–r), nevăzut NEG-see.PPLE.M.SG (CL.: v–r; DPar.: II.v), netăcută NEG-cease.PPLE.F.SG (TDI.–: ), netocmit NEG-arrange.PPLE.M.SG (DPar.: II.v), spurcați profane.PPLE.M.PL (Mol.: ); this atemporal value is also attested in the present-day language (Stati : ). A special use of the adjectival past participle is represented by its occurrence as an extrasentential adjunct (see GR: ). This construction is attested in the corpus from the eighteenth century and it seems to be an imitation of Latin patterns (Frâncu : ). () a. Gașparu vodă ( . . . ), părăsit și de oșteanii săi, Gașparu voivode.NOM abandon.PPLE.M.SG and by soldiers.DEF.ACC his au purcesu și elu noaptea (CLM.–: ) AUX.PERF.SG depart.PPLE and he night ‘Abandoned even by his soldiers, Gașparu voivode departed during the night’ b. dez-dimeneață, gătiți turcii de războiu, morning prepare.PPLE.M.PL Turks.DEF.NOM for war.ACC căzacii era descălecaţi cu tabăra Cossacks.DEF.NOM be.IMPERF.PL settle.PPLE.M.PL with camp.DEF.ACC lor (CLM.–: ) their ‘early in the morning, when the Turks were prepared for war, the Cossacks were settled with their camp’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions
T . Nominal ellipsis with adjectival past participles Text
Nominal ellipsis with suffixal definite article + past participle
Nominal ellipsis with CEL + past participle
CM.
%
%
Ev.
%
%
AD.
%
%
In the first period of OR, the demonstrative CEL was not yet grammaticalized as a definite article, being a bona fide demonstrative in most contexts (}}...; ..; see also GR: –). In OR, as in other Romance varieties, for past participles and other classes of adjectives, the suffixal definite article licensed ellipsis ()–() (}.). This device was replaced by the nominal ellipsis with the determiner CEL, which is specific to Romanian (GR: ; Nicolae ; Dragomirescu and Nicolae ). Table . illustrates the decreasing frequency of the suffixal definite article and the increasing frequency of the determiner CEL for nominal ellipsis, in texts belonging to the same register. In contrast with the supine nouns, which usually have a masculine-neuter singular form, lack plurals, and are abstract nouns (}...), the nouns originating in past participles are either masculine or feminine, countable and concrete ()–() (Diaconescu : ; Dragomirescu a: , –). Past participle nouns with the suffixal definite article have either an active value, when they originate in intransitive verbs (adormi ‘fall asleep’, a se apropia ‘come near’, cădea ‘fall’, crede în cineva ‘believe in someone’, flămânzi ‘starve’, a se frânge ‘break’, greși ‘be wrong, sin’, a se împreuna ‘couple’, a se îngreuna ‘become heavy’, lipsi ‘lack’, a se logodi ‘become engaged’, munci ‘work’, a se naște ‘be born’, osteni ‘get tired’, pieri ‘perish’, a (se) pleca ‘bend’, a se pocăi ‘repent’, a se pricepe ‘be skilled’, rămâne ‘remain’, a se rătăci ‘lose way’, a se nevoi ‘endeavour’, a se sfădi ‘quarrel’, slăbi ‘lose weight’, a se strica ‘go crazy’, a se teme ‘fear’, turba ‘become rabid’, veni ‘come’— ()), or a passive value, when they originate in transitive verbs (acoperi ‘cover’, agonisi ‘acquire’, alege ‘choose’, ascunde ‘hide’, avea ‘have’, blagoslovi ‘bless’, boteza ‘christen’, chema ‘call’, crede pe cineva ‘believe someone’, făta ‘give birth’, fereca ‘lock’, găti ‘prepare’, goni ‘chase’, iubi ‘love’, munci ‘slave’, naște ‘give birth’, omorî ‘kill’, porunci ‘order’, prăda ‘rob’, răstigni ‘crucify’, scrie ‘write’, spune ‘tell’, urî ‘hate’, urzi ‘warp’, vedea ‘see’, vindeca ‘cure’, zdrobi ‘crush’, zice ‘say’—()). ()
a. sângele greșitului (PH. : v) blood.DEF be.wrong.PPLE.M.SG.DEF.GEN ‘the blood of the debtor’ b. Credzuții miei, întrați luntru (FT. : r) believe.PPLE.M.PL.DEF.VOC my enter.IMP.PL inside ‘Those who believe in me, enter within’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The past participle and the participial clause
c. spre temuții lui (CP1.: v) towards fear.PPLE.M.PL.DEF.ACC his ‘towards those who fear him’ d. logodita lui Iosif (TDVIII. : ) become.engaged.PPLE.F.SG.DEF LUI.GEN Joseph ‘she who is engaged to Joseph’ ()
a. Hristos zise vindecatului (CC1.: v) Christ.NOM say.PS.SG cure.PPLE.M.SG.DEF.DAT ‘Christ said to him who has been cured’ b. ascunsele toate descoperi-se-voru (CC2.: ) hide.PPLE.F.PL.DEF.NOM all.F.PL reveal.INF=CL.REFL.PASS=AUX.FUT.PL ‘all the hidden things will be revealed’ c. aleșii mei învișu (CSIV. : r) choose.PPLE.M.PL.DEF.ACC my defeat.PS.SG ‘I defeated those who were chosen by me’
Similar to the adjectival past participles, the nominal past participles preserve the capacity of taking Agent-phrases, which are placed either before (a) or after the participle (b). ()
a. izbăviți de Dumnedzău (PH. : v) save.PPLE.M.PL.DEF by God.ACC ‘those who have been saved by God’ b. cealea de Pavelu grăitele (CV. : v) those by Paul.ACC speak.PPLE.F.PL.DEF ‘those things spoken by Paul’
.. The past participle ending -ă OR features yet another invariable participle, which ends with -ă and is identical with the feminine one. This invariable form occurs in passive impersonal structures ((); see also Costinescu : ; Pană Dindelegan and Mîrzea Vasile ) or as a formative of the analytic verb forms containing the auxiliary fi ‘be’ (). ()
a. nu iaste auzită că cine deșchise ochii not is heard.PPLE.F.SG that who open.PS.SG eyes.DEF.ACC orbului den născută (CC1.: r) blind.DEF.GEN from birth.ACC ‘it is not heard that he who had opened the eyes of the one blind from birth’ b. cui nu iaste dată de sus, în deșertu whom.DAT not is give.PPLE.F.SG from above in vain se ispitește (MC.: r) CL.REFL.PASS tempts ‘the one for whom it is not given from above is in vain tempted’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions c. carile dzisă ți-e se faci (CV. : v) which tell.PPLE.F.SG CL.DAT.SG=is SĂSUBJ do.SUBJ.SG ‘all the things which you were told to do’
() ce s-au fost tâmplată (DVT. : r) what CL.REFL.IMPERS=AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE happen.PPLE.F.SG ‘what happened’ The -ă past participle has been preserved in MR in the areas of Crișana, Maramureș, Oaș, Banat, the west of Transylvania, and Bihor, in structures such as aș fi cântată AUX.COND.SG be.INF sing.PPLE.F.SG ‘I would have sung’, aș fi foastă AUX.COND.SG be.INF be.PPLE.F.SG ‘I would have been’ (Uritescu ). In these varieties, the past participle combining with the auxiliary fi ‘be’ generally ends in -ă, while the past participle with avea ‘have’ combines with the unmarked masculine-neuter singular form. By way of exception, Densusianu ( II: ) mentions the -ă past participle as a formative of the compound past with the auxiliary avea ‘have’ (au mearsă AUX.PERF.SG walk.PPLE.F.SG), but he specifies that this could be only a slip of the pen. In the corpus investigated, these structures are indeed very rare. () cuvinte care au zisă Domnul (DVT. : r) words which AUX.PERF.SG say.PPLE.F.SG God.DEF.NOM ‘words which God said’ The structures with the -ă past participle plus the auxiliary avea ‘have’ (am vădzută ‘I saw’, am vinită ‘I came’) are attested in present-day varieties spoken in Banat, Maramureș (Uritescu : ), Wallachia, and Dobrogea (Marin : –). A similar situation is found in Aromanian, where the compound past with avea ‘have’ also contains the past participle with a ‘feminine’ form (Arom. amu cântatî AUX.PERF.SG sing.PPLE.F.SG, ‘I sang’—Caragiu-Marioţeanu : ). .. Final remarks In OR, the inventory of verb forms containing a past participle formative is larger than in the present-day language. The past participle combining with the auxiliary avea ‘have’ is invariable from the first attested Romanian texts, while that combining with the auxiliary fi ‘be’ shows agreement variation in the sixteenth century. For passive participles, the modern agreement rule was already established in the first attested Romanian texts. In the sixteenth century, leaving aside ambiguous forms, the past participle combining with fi ‘be’ agrees with the subject in number and gender in approximately % of cases. Agreement with the pronominal object is very rare (two examples) and occurs with the auxiliary avea ‘have’. The most important features of the adjectival past participle are: the higher frequency of the active value, preserved only to a limited extent in the present-day language, and the suffixal definite article as a device for nominal ellipsis with participial remnants, replaced since the seventeenth century by the free-standing article CEL. Beside the regular unmarked form (identical to the masculine-neuter singular form), the OR past participle also has a default form ending in -ă (identical to the feminine singular form), preserved only dialectally in MR.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The gerund and the gerundial construction
. The gerund and the gerundial construction .. Preliminary remarks The Romanian gerund continues the Latin ablative gerund (CANTANDO > cântând ‘singing’), and has a gerundial morpheme with two variants according to conjugation class: -ând and -ind. It cumulates the functions of the Latin gerund and present participle; the latter was not continued into Romanian (Edelstein : –; Fischer : ; Salvi : ; Adams : ). In OR, the gerund typically occurs as an adjunct and as the complement of a direct perception verb, as in MR. It occupies some syntactic positions that are no longer available to it in MR; it forms a greater variety of modal and temporal verbal periphrases than in MR; it is the complement of the verb in a range of raising and control structures no longer in use in the present-day language. ... The syntactic characteristics of the OR gerund ... Internal arguments and the subjective predicative complement In OR, as in MR, the gerund preserves the internal arguments of its verbal base: the direct (a,b), the indirect (c), and the prepositional object (d); it also takes a subject predicative complement (e). The complements of the gerund usually occur at its right (a,c–e), however, they can also occur at its left, as a result of fronting (b). () a. iubind numele tău (CP1.: v) love.GER name.DEF.ACC your ‘loving your name’ b. Știutu iaste Domnul giudeţu know.PPLE is Lord.DEF.NOM judegment.ACC făcând (PS.–: v) make.GER ‘The Lord is known to judge us’ c. dând sfânta câinilor și mărgăritariul give.GER holy.DEF dogs.DEF.DAT and pearl.DEF.ACC porcilor (CM.: r) pigs.DEF.DAT ‘giving what is holy to the dogs and pearls to swine’ d. crezându în Hristosu (CC2.: ) believe.GER in Christ.ACC ‘believing in Christ’ e. fiind el fiiul lui Dumnezeu (CC1.: v) be.GER he son.DEF.NOM LUI.GEN God ‘as he was the son of God’ ... The subject Generally, the subject of the gerund is realized when it is non-coreferential with the subject of the finite verb (a). The subject of the gerund
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions
can be a full DP (a) or a pronominal form (e, b), placed before (a,b) or after the non-finite verb (e), as in MR. The postgerundial pronominal subject has the most occurrences in the OR corpus, while the preverbal pronominal subject has the fewest attestations. A specific feature of OR translated and original texts is the realization of the gerund’s subject when it is coreferential with the finite verb’s realized subject. This results in the repetition of the subject, an oral feature (b). ()
a. E Pavel vruindu se între întru gloată, and Paul.NOM want.GER SĂSUBJ enter.SUBJ.SG in crowd nu-l lăsară elu (CV. : v) not=CL.ACC.M.SG let.PS.PL him.ACC ‘And when Paul wanted to go into the crowd, they did not let him’ b. și eii mergând, eii se and they.NOM go.GER they CL.REFL.ACC.PL curăţiră (CC1.: v) cleanse.PS.PL ‘and as they were walking, they were cleansing themselves’
... Voice In OR, as in MR, in both translated and original texts, the gerund is generally attested in the active voice (a–e). It also occurs in the se- (a,b) and fi-passive voice (c). The gerund’s passive is infrequently used, both in OR and in MR. Only twenty-two contexts were identified in the first OR period, with either form, of which sixteen occurrences with the se-passive and six with the fi-passive. The by-phrase is realized in three contexts (b,c, and CC2.: ). In structures with a verb of perception (b), only the se-gerundial passive is attested (Niculescu a: ; b). In OR, the impersonal se-passive is predominant (a); however, both in translated and in original texts, the personal se-passive is also attested (b). ()
a. trupulu să omorâmu și, omorându-se, body.DEF.ACC SĂSUBJ kill.SUBJ.PL and kill.GER=CL.REFL.PASS în loculu cela bunulu veseli-ne-vămu (CC2.: ) in place.DEF.ACC CEL.M.SG good.DEF rejoice=CL.REFL.ACC.PL=AUX.FUT.PL ‘we should kill the body and killing it, we shall rejoice in the good place’ b. Că și mii ca aceastea văzură, nu numai de because and thousands like these see.PS.PL not only by Hristosu, ce și de ucenicii lui ciude Christ but also by apprentices.DEF.ACC his.GEN wonders.NOM făcându-se (CC2.: ) make.GER=CL.REFL.PASS ‘Because they saw of thousands of wonders like these, being performed not only by Christ, but also by his apprentices’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The gerund and the gerundial construction
c. Fiind cumpărată această sfântă ps și dată be.GER buy.PPLE.F.SG this.F.SG holy.F.SG Psalter.NOM and give.PPLE.F.SG pomeană besearecei den , de un vornic (DÎ. : LIX) charity church.DEF.DAT from Galaţi by a dvornic ‘This Psalter being bought and donated to the church in Galaţi by a dvornic’ ... Aspect The OR gerund usually encodes imperfective aspectual value (b), however, it can also have perfective value, signalled by the aspectual adverbs (mai) denainte ‘before’ (a) and abi(i)a ‘hardly’ (b) (Hill and Alboiu, forthcoming). This situation still holds in MR. A specialized perfective gerund form is attested in the second OR period (}...). ()
a. Poate-fi că nici ei neaflând mai denainte de can=be.INF that neither they.NOM NEG-find.out.GER more before by cinevași istorite, mai bine au tăcut (CIst. : r) somebody tell.PPLE.F.PL more well AUX.PERF.PL keep.silent.PPLE ‘It can be that because they also hadn’t found [these] told by anybody, they preferred keeping silent’ b. Și abiia trecând pre lângă ia, venim la un and hardly pass.GER on near her.ACC come.PRES.PL at a loc ce-l chiamă Vad (NT.: v) place that=CL.ACC.M.SG calls Vad ‘And hardly had we passed it when we arrived at a place called Vad’
The aspectual clitic adverb mai ‘more’ is attested from the beginning of the seventeenth century with the gerund (a). From the second half of the seventeenth century, mai also occurs in combination with the affixal negation ne- (b). Another aspectual clitic adverb in anteposition is tot ‘continuously’ (c). () a. mai înblând el (DH.: ) more walk.GER he ‘as he walked some more’ b. nemaiputând Dumnedzău suferi vărsăturile (Cron.: ) NEG-more.can.GER God.NOM stand.INF bloodshed.PL.DEF.ACC ‘God not being able to stand the bloodshed any more’ c. tot dând laudă lui Dumnezeu (VN.–: ) still give.GER praise.ACC LUI.DAT God ‘keeping on praising God’ ... Negation Two gerundial sentential negations are attested in the first OR period, both in original and in translated texts: the prefixal negation ne- (a) and the negative adverb nu ‘not’ (b). The ne- negation allows the gerund to raise to the complementizer domain, while nu does not, and thus proves that the OR gerund had the option of raising only as far as the highest inflectional head. The prefixal negator ne- generalizes in MR, while the negative adverb + gerund combination becomes
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions
obsolete at the end of the OR period. In the first OR period, in around % of its occurrences, the negative gerund takes the negation nu (b). All but one are found in translations. In the second OR period, the nu negation is even less frequent, with five attestations, out of which three in original texts (NT.: r, BB.: , CLM.–: , , CIst.–: v). The gerund can be negated with nu when it is in adjunct or in DP modifier position, but it only takes the ne- negation when it is the predicate of the clause. While, on the whole, the nu negation is far less frequent than the ne- negation, the two have more occurrences than the average in CB.– (eight occurrences of the nu negation out of eighteen negative gerundial phrases) and in CC1. (three occurrences of nu of the total of ten negative gerunds). ()
a. neci o slavă a lui Dumnedzeu nu vei not a glory AL.F.SG LUI.GEN God not AUX.FUT.SG ști necitind acolo (PO.: ) know.INF NEG-read.GER there ‘you will not know God’s glory if you do not read that’ b. Thoma ce-lu chema geamănulu, nu fiindu Thomas that=CL.ACC.M.SG call.IMPERF.SG twin.DEF not be.GER acolo, nici crezu (CC2.:) there neither believe.PS.SG ‘Thomas who was called ‘the Twin’, not being present, did not believe it’
The negative polarity items nici ‘neither’ () and nemica ‘not at all’ (CC2.: ) may function (but only rarely) as the only sentential negator in the gerundial verb phrase (see }...). ()
nici lor înșiș dedestul fiindu-le (CC2.: ) not them.DAT themselves enough be.GER=CL.DAT.PL ‘not having enough even for themselves’
... Pronominal clitics The gerund can combine both with personal (a) and reflexive pronominal clitics (b,c), the latter with all its MR values. Generally, pronominal clitics are placed at the right of the gerund, like in MR (for exceptions, }..). The postgerundial position of the clitics is explained by the gerund’s raising to the Complementizer domain (to ‘Fin’: see Hill and Alboiu, forthcoming). ()
a. dându-mi rreu dereptu binre (PH. : r) give.GER=CL.DAT.SG bad.ACC instead.of good ‘giving me wickedness instead of goodness’ b. făcându-se acolo negoţitori (DÎ.: LXXXIX) make.GER=CL.REFL.ACC.PL there merchants.NOM ‘becoming merchants there’ c. întâmplându-ni-să noă (DRH.B: : ) happen.GER=CL.DAT.PL=CL.REFL.IMPERS us.DAT ‘happening to us’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The gerund and the gerundial construction
... The perfect gerund From the beginning of the seventeenth century, the perfect gerund is attested (), a structure whose form is parallel to the analytic past perfect. This complex eventive gerund is formed from the gerund of the auxiliary fi ‘to be’. Its function is to encode the anteriority of the event time in relation to reference time (Giorgi and Pianesi ). The perfect gerund () is extremely rare throughout OR and becomes obsolete at the end of the ninteenth century. ()
i-a vândut parte me dă moșie totă dă CL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.SG sell.PPLE part.ACC my of land all from Boteni [ . . . ] păntru findu cuparatu dumnelui mai nainte dă la Boteni for be.GER buy.PPLE he.POL more before from aţi moșteni dă Boteni (DRH.B.: –) other.PL landowners from Boteni ‘I sold him all my land in Boteni, because he had bought [land] before from other landowners in Boteni’
... The tense of the gerund From the sixteenth century, the Romanian gerund (in adjunct and predicate position) has an independent tense value (see Hill and Alboiu, forthcoming). In () the gerund has present tense value and the matrix verb is in the past tense. The gerund’s present (), past (), or future temporal value (a) is established contextually (Caragiu ; Edelstein : ). ()
Iar deaca se-au petrecut feciorii unchiu-mieu, and if CL.REFL.ACC.PL=AUX.PERF.PL die.PPLE sons.DEF.NOM uncle.GEN-my Pârvului logofăt, și fiindu-i eu nepoată de soră, Pârvu.GEN nobleman and be.GER=CL.DAT.SG I niece of sister rămas-au aceaste moșii pre seama remain.PPLE=AUX.PERF.PL these lands.NOM on care.DEF.ACC mea (DRH.B.: ) my ‘And because the sons of my uncle, nobleman Pârvu, died, and because I am his niece, these lands remained in my care’
... Adverbs Locative, manner, aspectual, and temporal adverbs occur either on the right of the gerund (a,b), or on its left, when focalized (c). The occurrence of the gerund on the left of present tense adverbs (amu ‘now’) (analysed by Cinque (: ) as higher sentence AdvPs) is proof that this non-finite form raises high in the inflectional phrase (a). ()
a. auzind amu c-ai venit (CPr.: ) hear.GER now that=AUX.PERF.SG come.PPLE ‘hearing now that you came’ b. îl văzură slugile alergând CL.ACC.M.SG see.PS.PL servants.DEF.NOM run.GER înainte (VE.: ) in.front ‘the servants saw him running in front of them’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions c. așa vieţuindu (CC2.: ) so live.GER ‘living like this’
... Conjunctions and complementizers Some of the C elements that typically occur with a gerundial VP in MR are already attested in the sixteenth-century texts: the concessive și ‘even’ (a), nici ‘not even’ (b). The concessive măcar și ‘even’ occurs from the eighteenth century (c). There is no occurrence of concessive chiar ‘even’ + gerund in OR. ()
a. iară aceia și ciudese văzându nu crezură and those.NOM even miracles.ACC see.GER not believe.PS.PL lui (CC2.: ) him.DAT ‘and those, even seeing his miracles did not believe in him’ b. Nici morţii văzându sculaţi not.even dead.M.PL.DEF.ACC see.GER rise.M.PL.PPLE nu crezură (CC2.: ) not believe.PS.PL ‘They didn’t believe even when they saw the dead risen’ c. măcar și petrecând cu dânșii (EG.: r) even and celebrate.GER with them.ACC ‘even celebrating with them’
The selection of the gerund by finite C heads in clauses in which this verbal form occupies the predicate position is characteristic for OR; however, it is rarely attested. Conjunctions such as dacă ‘if ’ (a) and că ‘because’ (b), and the complementizer că ‘that’ (c) select a gerund in OR. ()
a. Deac-au văzut că nu putem ţinea și if=AUX.PERF.SG see.PPLE that not can.PRES.PL keep.INF and împlea și [deaca neavând noi puteare a ţinea fulfil.INF and if NEG-have.GER we.NOM power AINF hold.INF și pren iale a ne ispăsi], leagea și and through them.ACC AINF CL.ACC.PL redeem.INF law.DEF.ACC and porâncile ne-au dat Dumnezeu commandments.DEF.ACC CL.DAT.PL=AUX.PERF.SG give.PPLE God.NOM prentru aceaste lucrure (CC1.: r) for these matters.ACC ‘And because he saw that we cannot keep [our word] and fulfil [our promise] and because we did not have the power to hold on to our word and to redeem ourselves this way, for this reason God gave us the law and the commandments’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The gerund and the gerundial construction
b. Cu dumnezeiia amu și mai den nainte împlea, with holiness.DEF now and more from before fill.IMPERF.SG [că pretutindinea fiindu], și [toate because everywhere be.GER and all.F.PL.ACC împlundu-le] (CC2.: ) fill.GER=CL.ACC.F.PL ‘He filled it with holiness then and before, because he was everywhere and filled everything’ c. Văzu amu Petru [că de fără-de-numărulu see.PS.SG now Peter.NOM that of without=of=number.DEF peaștelui mrejile spărgându-se] și [corăbiile fish.DEF.GEN nets.DEF.NOM break.GER=CL.REFL.ACCPL and ships.DEF.NOM afundându-se] (CC2.: ) sink.GER=CL.REFL.ACC.PL ‘Peter saw then that because of the multitude of fish the nets were breaking and the ships were sinking’ The complementizer ca ‘as if ’ introducing a hypothetical comparison can select a gerundial structure (Edelstein : ). This construction is extremely rare and it is attested only in the first OR period. ()
Ca vecenrului, ca frate nostru așea îngăduiiu, as.if neighbour.DEF.DAT as.if brother our so allow.PS.SG ca plângâdu și mhnitu așea me as.if cry.GER and sad so CL.REFL.ACC.SG smeriiu (PH.–: r) abase.PS.SG ‘I behaved with him as if he were a neighbour or a brother, I abased myself so, as if I were crying and sad’
.. Complex tenses formed with the gerund In the first OR period, there is a great variety of complex tenses formed with the inflected auxiliary fi in the present (a), compound (b) and simple past (c), imperfect (d), pluperfect (e), voi future (f) and the present conditional (g), and the gerund, as well as a conditional double auxiliary gerundial form (h); see also }.. From the second half of the seventeenth century, the gerundial present subjunctive is attested, formed with one (i) or two auxiliaries (j). Clitic climbing (b,d–g) and the sentential negation attached to the fi auxiliary (g) are tests for monoclausality. The postgerundial position of the clitic () signals that no complex tense formation has taken place. In structures that lack clitics and the nu negation (attached to the auxiliary) there is no positive evidence of monoclausality (a,c,h–j). The present and pluperfect indicative periphrastic structures are very rare and become obsolete at the end of the seventeenth century. The rarely attested indicative simple past periphrasis and the double auxiliary gerundial structures become obsolete at the end of the OR period. The compound past and the imperfect
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions
gerundial verb forms exit the standard variant at the end of the nineteenth century, but survive in western, northern, and southern dialects (Iordan ; TDR: , , , , ). Three gerundial periphrastic forms survive from OR to MR: the gerundial future, conditional, and subjunctive. From the seventeenth century, and in the case of the gerundial present conditional as early as the sixteenth century, besides their original tense and mood values, these three structures acquire epistemically modalized and evidential (hearsay) uses, which become ever more prominent. In present-day Romanian, the gerundial future and subjunctive occur (almost) exclusively with these uses. ()
a. sântu stându (CV. : r) be.PRES.SG stand.GER ‘I am standing’ b. l-au CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.PERF.PL ‘they loved him’ c. până la aceasta ceas until at this hour ‘I fasted until this hour’
fost iubind (Ev.: ) be.PPLE love.GER fuiu ajunându (CB. : ) be.PS.SG fast.GER
d. le
era căutând ochii spre be.IMPERF.PL search.GER eyes.DEF.NOM towards El (NT.: r) Him.ACC ‘their eyes were searching for Him’ CL.DAT.PL
e. patr-înși-lu fusease purtându (CC2.: ) four=people=CL.ACC.M.SG be.PLUPERF.PL carry.GER ‘four people had carried him’ f. eu-ţi voiu fi arătând (PO.: ) I=CL.DAT.SG AUX.FUT.SG be.INF show.GER ‘I shall show you’ g. nu l-ară fi not CL.ACC.SG=AUX.COND.SG be.INF ‘he would not find him’ h. de-amu fi fostu de if=AUX.COND.PL be.INF be.PPLE of ‘if we had been enough’
aflând (PO.: ) find.GER destulu fiindu (CC2.: ) enough be.GER
fie furând (Prav.: ) be.SUBJ.SG steal.GER ‘to be stealing’
i. să
SĂSUBJ
j. să
hie fostu covârșindu pre Vasilie be.SUBJ.SG be.PPLE defeat.GER DOM Vasile vodă (CLM. : r) prince.ACC ‘to have been defeating prince Vasile’ SĂSUBJ
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The gerund and the gerundial construction
... The gerund in raising structures ... Object raising The gerund is often employed as the complement of a direct (a–c) or indirect () perception verb. In both old and modern Romanian, the gerund in perception structures can have only an imperfective aspectual value (Niculescu a: ). The direct/indirect perception verb is usually in the active voice (a), but it can also be a passive (b) (one occurrence in the first OR period). The gerund in perception structures can combine with a reflexive (b,c), which, exceptionally, can have passive value (c; see also CC2.: ). () a. văzându pre Isusu ciude făcându (CC2.: ) see.GER DOM Jesus.ACC miracles.ACC make.GER ‘seeing Jesus making miracles’ b. cine va vrea să fie who AUX.FUT.SG want.INF SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG auzitu rugându-se (CC2.: ) hear.PPLE pray.GER=CL.REFL.ACC.SG ‘who will want to be heard praying’ c. vădu o vită necuvântătoare see.PRES.SG an animal.ACC NEG-speaking.F.SG junghindu-se (Mărg.: v) kill.GER=CL.REFL.PASS.SG ‘when I see a beast being killed’ ()
veade alţii sufleteștile darure sees others.ACC spiritual.F.PL.DEF gifts.ACC priimindu (CC2.: ) receive.GER ‘he sees others receiving the spiritual gifts’
Object raising in perception structures is attested from the earliest Romanian texts, being marked by the functional preposition p(r)e for [+animate], [+specific] nominals (a). However, in the first OR period, p(r)e is present in less than a quarter of the occurrences (around %), in those configurations in which it is required in MR (a vs. ). This does not exclude the possibility of raising, since, in the sixteenth–seventeenth centuries, differential object marking was not yet fully grammaticalized (ILRL: ; see also }....). In the absence of the preposition p(r)e, the subject’s position at the left of the non-finite form, as in (), can be seen as evidence of raising (see also }...). On the other hand, the postgerundial position of the subject might indicate that no subject-to-object raising takes place () (GR : ; see also }....); however, see (e), with raising, but with the subject of the gerund placed at its right.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions
()
vădzu mâncându-i vermii see.PS.SG eat.GER=CL.ACC.M.PL worms.M.DEF.NOM neadurmiţi (CSIV. : r) NEG-sleep.PPLE.M.PL ‘he saw the relentless worms eating them’
Sixteenth and seventeenth-century translated texts occasionally (in nine contexts) display verbs of direct perception that select the gerund of a stative verb which cannot be perceived, all with episodic reading ((a) for the copular and (b) for the locative be). This suggests that in the first OR period the direct perception structure does not have the lexical aspectual restriction displayed by later stages of the language (an alternative explanation is that the original texts are translated literally). ()
a. văzându draci plină fiindu cetatea (CB. : ) see.GER devils.ACC full be.GER city.DEF.NOM ‘seeing the city filled with devils’ b. te-am văzut supt smochin fiind (Ev.: ) CL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG see.PPLE under fig be.GER ‘I saw you under the fig’
Verbs of discovery that combine with a gerund in OR () survive in the present-day standard language (găsi ‘find’, prinde ‘catch’, apuca ‘know’) or in dialects (afla/oblici ‘find’). In OR, afla ‘find’ is the verb of discovery that selects a gerund most frequently. ()
a. să
nu ne afle pre noi mirele not CL.ACC.PL find.SUBJ.SG DOM us.ACC groom.DEF.NOM adurmiţi și lenindu-ne (CC2.: ) asleep.M.PL and idle.GER=CL.REFL.ACC.PL ‘for the groom not to find us asleep and idling’ SĂSUBJ
b. de-l găsiră durmind (MC.: r) that=CL.ACC.M.SG find.PS.PL sleep.GER ‘that they found him sleeping’ c. de-l vor prinde furând (Prav.: ) if=CL.ACC.M.SG AUX.FUT.PL catch.INF steal.GER ‘if they catch them stealing’ d. au
apucatu pe tată-său know.PPLE DOM father-his stepenidu (DÎ.: LXXXV) own.GER ‘he has known his father as the owner’ AUX.PERF.SG
e. așa-lu amu Hristosu oblici fiindu so=CL.ACC.M.SG now Christ.NOM find.PS.SG be.GER elu (CC2.: ) he ‘this is how Christ found him to be’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The gerund and the gerundial construction
The OR gerund is the complement of lăsa ‘leave’, a verb that still takes a gerundial complement in MR (a). Exceptionally, cognitive verbs (ști ‘know’, cunoaște ‘know’, socoti ‘consider’, arăta ‘show’) select a gerund, instead of the expected finite or infinitival clause (b–e). Cognitive verbs select a participle in Old Church Slavonic, so that the Romanian structures could be copying the original (Comrie and Corbett (eds) : ); however, the selection of the gerund by cognitive verbs is also attested in original texts (b), suggesting that this structure was present in OR. ()
a. l-au lăsat trecând CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.PERF.PL leave.PPLE cross.GER Prutulu (NL.~–: ) Prut.DEF.ACC ‘they left him crossing the Prut’ b. știin Ardealului și Ţărâi Rumânești avându cărări know.GER Transylvania.DAT and Wallachia.DAT have.GER roads.ACC largi (DÎ.: XXXVI) wide ‘knowing that Transylvania and Wallachia have wide roads’ c. cunoscu pre el fiind Domnul (Ev.: ) know.PS.SG DOM him.ACC be.GER Lord.DEF.NOM ‘he knew that he was the Lord’ d. sânru oarecarele socotiia aibându shore some believe.IMPERF.SG have.GER ariră (CV. : r) sand.ACC ‘he believed that a shore had sand’ e. arată amu pre ei oameni răsipiţi show.PRES.SG now DOM them.ACC people.NOM scattered fiindu (CC2.: ) be.GER ‘he shows them to be all scattered’
... Subject raising The impersonal verbs părea ‘seem’ (a) and a se (în) tâmpla ‘happen’ (b; see also CazV.: r) occasionally select a gerund in subject raising structures, instead of the infinitive/subjunctive. The configuration with părea ‘seem’ is limited to translated texts from the first OR period. ()
a. unii ce le părea chipuri some.NOMACC that CL.DAT.PL seem.IMPERF.SG miracles.ACC făcând (CPr.: ) make.GER ‘it seemed to them that he was making miracles’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions b. s-au tâmplat un fecior al lui CL.REFL.IMPERS=AUX.PERF.SG happen.PPLE a son AL.M.SG his învăţându carte (DH.: ) learn.GER book.ACC ‘a son of his happened to study’
.. The gerund in control structures ... Subject control structures As in other Romance languages, the OR gerund can occur as the complement of the verbs sta ‘stay’, umbla ‘walk’, and a se afla ‘be situated’ in obligatory subject control structures (Niculescu ). The sta ‘stay’ and umbla ‘walk’ structures are attested from the sixteenth century, but are more frequent in the second OR period; the se afla ‘be situated’ structure is attested from the second OR period till the end of the nineteenth century. The three matrix verbs have imperfective value, being lexical aspectuals (there is no evidence of restructuring, although they do change their argument structure, not requiring locative adverbs any longer). ()
a. E bărbaţii ceia ( . . . ), sta and men.DEF.NOM those stay.IMPERF.PL ciudindu-se (CPr.: ) wonder.GER=CL.REFL.ACC.PL ‘And those men were staying wondering’ nu mai îmble amestecând (NL.~-: ) not more walk.SUBJ.SG get.involved.GER ‘to not get involved any longer’ c. să afla toţ dormindu (Bert.: ) CL.REFL.ACCPL find.IMPERF.PL all.M.PL.NOM sleep.GER ‘they were all sleeping’
b. să
SĂSUBJ
A number of aspectual verbs, comprising the negative form of the verbs înceta, opri (CPr.: ), părăsi (Mărg.: v), sta (CB.–: ) ‘keep on’, a se sătura ‘have enough’, with continuative value, and the terminative înceta (CT.–: r), a se părăsi (CII.~: r), a (se) sfârși (CT.–: r) ‘finish’, select a gerundial complement in sixteenth and seventeenth century OR. A se sătura ‘have enough’ still selects a gerund in MR. The a nu înceta ‘keep on’ + gerund structure is no longer in use after the nineteenth century; in the sixteenth century, this aspectual prefers a gerundial over an infinitival complement (seven occurrences of a gerundial and one of an infinitival complement). A nu opri, a nu sta, a nu răposa ‘keep on’, and înceta ‘finish’ + gerund each have one occurrence in the sixteenth century, while a (se) sfârși ‘finish’ + gerund has two sixteenth-century occurrences. ()
a. nu mai înceată turburându pre noi (CC2.: ) not more stops trouble.GER DOM us.ACC ‘he keeps on troubling us’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The gerund and the gerundial construction
b. Nu mă poci sătura sărutând și not CL.REFL.ACC.SG can.PRES.SG have.enough.INF kiss.GER and drăgăluind aceastea mâni (DVS. : r) caress.GER these hands.ACC ‘I cannot have enough of kissing and caressing these hands’ The evidential verbs a se arăta, a se ivi ‘appear’ take gerundial complements in the first OR period in subject control structures (). In MR, the structure a se arăta + ca ‘as’ + gerund, copying a Romance model, revitalizes the OR construction. nu se arate lăudându-se (CC2.: ) SĂSUBJ not CL.REFL.ACC.SG show.SUBJ.SG boast.GER=CL.REFL.ACC.SG ‘to not appear as boasting’
() să
... Object control structures In OR, the possessive verb avea ‘have’ is rare in object control structures (two occurrences in the sixteenth century) ((); CC2.: ); it disappears after the OR period. () pre
Dumnezeu avămu sălășluindu întru God have.PRES.PL live.GER in inimile noastre (CC2.: ) hearts.DEF our ‘we have God living in our hearts’ DOM
.. Syntactic positions occupied by the gerund ... The gerund in adjunct position Very frequently, the gerund is attested in adjunct position, as in MR. In OR, the gerund can occupy the position of a secondary predicate (sentential adjunct; see also }...) (a), and of a temporal (b), reason (c), conditional (d), manner (e), instrumental (f), concessive (g), and result adverbial (h) (}}...; ...; ...; ...; ...). The first three values are the most frequent. The position of the gerund relative to the finite verb is free: it is generally preverbal (c), but it may also be postverbal (a). () a. lăcuiia în Moldova ( . . . ), iară live.IMPERF.SG in Moldova again lăudându-se (DÎ.: LXXXIX) boast.GER=CL.REFL.SG ‘he lived in Moldova, boasting again’ b. grăiască și acestea frângând (CL.: v) say.SUBJ.SG and these.ACC break.GER ‘he should also say these things while breaking [it]’ c. vindecând pre el Hristos, să proslăvească heal.GER DOM him.ACC Christ.NOM SĂSUBJ honour.SUBJ.SG cinstea Fiiului lu Dumnezeu (CC1.: v) glory.DEF.ACC son.DEF.GEN LUI.GEN God ‘being healed by Christ, he should honour the glory of the Son of God’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions d. nu e lesne nădăindu-se pre bogăţie în not is easy yearn.GER=CL.REFL.ACC.SG towards wealth.ACC in împărăţia lu Dumnezeu să între (CC1.: v) kingdom.DEF LUI.GEN God SĂSUBJ enter.SUBJ.SG ‘it is not easy to enter God’s kingdom if you yearn for wealth’ e. mâncaţi grăbind (PO.: ) eat.IMP.PL hurry.GER ‘eat quickly’ Domnul ispitise aceasta dzicând (PO.: ) Lord.DEF.ACC tempt.PLUPERF.SG this.ACC say.GER ‘he had tempted God by saying this’ g. și nevăzându pre elu, să-i mulţemimu and NEG-see.GER DOM him.ACC SĂSUBJ=CL.DAT.M.SG thank.SUBJ.PL de toate (CC2.: ) of all ‘and even not being able to see him, let’s thank him for all’ f. pre
DOM
h. heruvimii arepile-și sus să le cherubims.DEF.NOM wings.DEF.ACC=CL.POSS.PL up SĂSUBJ CL.ACC.F.PL întindză acoperind cu arepile sale scaunul stretch.SUBJ.PL cover.GER with wings.DEF.ACC their seat.DEF.ACC milosteei (PO.: ) mercy.DEF.GEN ‘the cherubims should stretch their wings covering the seat of mercy with them’ Specifically for OR, the negative gerund occurs relatively frequently in the position of a conditional adverbial, both in original (d) and in translated texts (Edelstein : ). A number of OR gerunds occur as manner adverbials in structures that are no longer attested in MR (e) or in (quasi-)redundant configurations (see }..). ... Subject(ive) predicative complement position The gerund in subject predicative complement position is attested from the sixteenth up to the nineteenth century (Edelstein ; Niculescu ). In present-day Romanian it can no longer occupy this position (see also }...). The gerund in predicative position is characterized by: postgerundial position of pronominal clitics, coordination with an adjective, prefixal ne- negation taking scope over the gerundial TP, but not over the finite verb fi ‘be’ (). ()
era iuţi și mânioși și be.IMPERF.PL quick.M.PL and angry.M.PL and neaducându-șu aminte de dumnezeesculu NEG-bring.GER=CL.REFL.DAT.PL in.mind of divine.DEF daru (CC2.: ) gift.ACC ‘they were quick and angry and did not remember the divine gift’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The gerund and the gerundial construction
... The gerund in predicate position In OR, the gerund can occupy the predicate position in main (a) and subordinate clauses (b, a–c), usually coordinated (a, a–c), while sometimes not coordinated with finite verbs (b). The gerund in predicate position can combine with complementizers that select a finite inflection (a–c); alternatively, a wh-phrase can occur in Spec,CP (b). It is mainly attested in translations (b), but it also occurs in original texts (a). In both translated and original texts it has the same frequency, ranging from % to % of the total gerunds in the first OR period, but its frequency decreases to –% in the second OR period. In MR, the gerund is no longer attested in predicate position. () a. dându în mâna noastră ceaste cărţi, cetind give.GER in hand.DEF our these books.ACC read.GER și ne plăcură și le-am scris and CL.DAT.PL like.PS.PL and CL.ACC.PL=AUX.PERF.PL write.PPLE voo fraţilor români (PO.Introduction.: ) you.DAT brothers.DEF.DATVOC Romanian.PL ‘they gave us these books, we read them and we liked them and we translated them for you, our Romanian brothers’ b. Cum amu putea prăznui, [cându ceștii slave how AUX.COND.PL can.INF celebrate.INF when this.DAT glory.DAT deșarte și trufei și preaînălţimeei vain and pride.DEF.DAT and conceit.DEF.DAT slujindu?] (CC2.: ) serve.GER ‘How could we celebrate, when we are mastered by this vain glory and by pride and conceit?’ A number of studies interpret this phenomenon as the omission of the auxiliary/ copula fi and attribute it to the literal translation of Slavonic sources. In Old Church Slavonic the verb be could be omitted in be + participle constructions (ILRL: ; Migdalski : ); moreover, coordination of the gerund with a finite verb, which is either part of a subordinate or of a main clause, occurs in Slavonic (Olteanu : , ). The fact that throughout the OR period the gerund occurs as the predicate of the sentence in original texts (a) shows that this phenomenon is, at least partly, not due to the influence of the Slavonic original text. The OR gerund was actually able to function as the predicate of the clause, because it had independent Tense, and in spite of lacking Agreement morphology. ... The gerund in modifier position From the earliest Romanian texts, the verbal gerund occurs in modifier position in the DP (see also }...), both with a restrictive (a) and a non-restrictive, appositive use (b). In OR, as well as in MR, the gerund occupies this position infrequently. The gerund in modifier position preserves all the syntactic characteristics of its verbal base (such as its internal
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions
argument projection, (a)). The subject of the gerund is co-indexed with the head noun. As far as word order is concerned, the modifying gerund is always postnominal. The adjectivization of the gerund is not attested in OR. The early seventeenth century verbal gerund in modifying position can be the complement of the adjectival determiner/demonstrative pronoun cel, in structures headed by proper nouns (c), as well as in elliptic structures, headed by pronominal cel (d) (see }.). ()
a. un om întru un vas apă purtând (CT. : r) a man in a jug water.ACC carry.GER ‘a man carrying water in a jug’ b. Cumu tu, Jidovu fiindu, de la how you.SG.NOM Jew.NOM be.GER from mine ceri să beai [ . . . ]? (CC2.: ) me.ACC ask.PRES.SG SĂSUBJ drink.SUBJ.SG ‘How can you ask me for water, since you are a Jew [ . . . ]?’ c. lumină a Fiiului lui [Dumnezeu light.ACC AL.F.SG son.DEF.GEN LUI.GEN God [cel fiind de pururea]] (Ev.: ) CEL.M.SG be.GER of forever ‘the light of the Son of our eternal God’ d. s-ai îndrăznit a te atinge de mine, if=AUX.PERF.SG dare.PPLE AINF CL.REFL.ACC.SG touch.INF of me.ACC cel [dirept și fără păcate și nemică al CEL.M.SG right and without sins and nothing AL.M.SG tău având întru mine] (Ev.: ) your have.GER in me.ACC ‘if you dared touch me, while I am fair and impeccable and have nothing of you in me’
.. Adverbs and prepositions originating in gerunds Configurations in which the gerund curând of the verb cure ‘run, flow’ is a manner adverbial (attested, for example, in PO.: ) set the ground for the grammaticalization of this form into a manner (CC2.: ) and, subsequently, a temporal adverb (CC1.: v) (Dinică ). In the sixteenth century, the gerunds alegând and trecând ‘except for’ had already grammaticalized into prepositions (ILRL: ; see }}.; ...), while the gerund fiind becomes part of the causal conjunction fiindcă ‘because’ around the middle of the seventeenth century (see }..). .. Final remarks The OR gerund shares many characteristics with the MR gerund: it occurs most frequently in adjunct position, and has no restrictions as to internal and external arguments, voice, aspect/tense or negation. The OR gerund displays a number of syntactic features which suggest that its verbal character is stronger than that of the MR gerund: it can be the predicate of the
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The gerund and the gerundial construction
clause, and in this position it combines with complementizers that select the finite inflection. In the OR period, the gerund usually raises to the Complementizer position, as in present-day Romanian. Unlike the modern language, however, it may raise (albeit highly infrequently) only as far as Mood, as proved by preverbal clitic placement and by the possibility of combining with the sentential negation nu. The OR gerund occurs in subject predicative complement position, a construction which is now obsolete. The inventory of complex tenses formed with the gerund is greater than in the present-day (non-)standard language. The OR gerund occurs in complement position in more configurations than in MR, with a wider variety of head verbs, such as verbs of knowledge, evidential verbs, and certain impersonal verbs, among others. The consequence of its more frequent occurrence in raising and control structures is that it shares a larger number of contexts with the infinitive, the subjunctive, and the supine, than does the MR gerund.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
4 The nominal phrase . The article and other determiners .. Preliminary remarks Like MR (GR: –), OR has two principal types of article: the enclitic definite article and the proclitic indefinite article. The OR articles had distinctive inflectional and distributional properties. .. The definite article In sixteenth-century Romanian, the definite article was already a fully grammaticalized functional element. The syntax of the OR enclitic article raises two notable problems: the configuration in which enclisis takes place and the syntactic conditions of non-articulation. ... The forms of the enclitic definite article The Romanian definite article continues the syntactically unstressed forms of the late Latin demonstrative ĬLLE ‘that’ (ĭllus, -a, -um; apud Densusianu : –), used in nominal phrases (ILR II: –; Coteanu : ; Ivănescu [] : ; Rosetti : –; cf. Renzi : ). In OR (as in the present-day language), the enclitic article showed gender, number, and case inflection (Table .). Neuter nouns select the masculine form of the article in the singular, and the feminine form in the plural. ()
a. fiiu-lu (CSIV.–: v); son.M.SG-DEF.NOM
trupu-l (CLRV.–: ) body.NEUT.SG-DEF.M.NOM
b. șarpe-le (CSXV.: v) snake.M.SG-DEF.ACC c. fot-a (DERS.–: ) skirt-DEF.F.SG.NOM d. case-ei (PS.–: ); house.F.SG.GEN-DEF.F.SG.GEN
case-i (PS.–: ) house.F.SG.GEN-DEF.F.SG.GEN
e. oameni-i (CC2.: ) men.M-DEF.PL.NOM f. pasări-le (TS.–: v); bird.F.PL-DEF.NOM
sate-le (CB.–: ) village.NEUT.PL-DEF.F.PL.ACC
The Syntax of Old Romanian. First edition. Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.) This chapter © Camelia Stan, Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Alexandru Nicolae, Raluca Brăescu, and Andra Vasilescu . First published by Oxford University Press
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The article and other determiners
T . The forms of the enclitic definite article
SG.
NOMACC GENDAT
PL.
NOMACC
M
F
-l, -lu, -lŭ [l(w)], -le -lui [lui]̯ -i [i]̯
-a -ei [ei]̯ > -i [i]̯ -le
GENDAT
-lor, -loru, -lorŭ [lor(w)]
g. vinovaţi-loru (CSXV.: v); bunătăţi-loru (CC2.: ) culprit.M-DEF.DAT good.things.F-DEF.GEN In the masculine singular, nominative-accusative, and in the masculine-feminine plural, genitive-dative, the final -u/-ŭ in the form of the -lu/-lŭ was a diacritic devoid of phonological value, but which had been phonologically relevant in a past stage (Rosetti : –). The article -l is sometimes dropped with common nouns, as in spoken MR or in the situation of MR toponyms. ()
veac-u nostru (PH.–: r) century-NEUT.SG our.M.SG ‘our century’
In the feminine singular, genitive-dative, the enclitic article attached to the desinences -e and -i. In the sixteenth century, the ancient forms, -e-ei (a), -(i)-ei (b,c) and sometimes -ii-ei (d), were in competition with the novel ones, -e-i and -i-i. In the original documents from the DÎ corpus, the -ei form of the enclitic article occurs in .% of instances, while the form -i accounts for .% of total occurrences with feminine common nouns. This ratio indicates the preference for the novel forms as early as the sixteenth-century original documents. ()
a. ap-e-ei water-F.SG.GEN-DEF.F.SG.GEN
(PH.–: r)
b. cetăţ-i-ei fortress-F.SG.GEN-DEF.F.SG.GEN
([iei]̯ ; DÎ.: XXV)
c. feme-ei woman.F.SG.DAT-DEF.F.SG.DAT d. cetăţ-ii-ei fortress-F.SG.GEN-DEF.F.SG.GEN
([ei]̯ ; DÎ.: LX) ([iie̯ i]̯ ; DÎ.: XXV)
In feminine nouns with the desinences -eSG.NOMACC, -i [i]̯ SG.GENDATPL.NOMACCGENDAT, the final segment is -e-i, -i-i (desinence + article) (a,b). Throughout the old period, there were passages of feminine nouns from the inflectional type -e-iSG.GENDATPL. NOMACCGENDAT to the -i-iSG.GENDATPL.NOMACCGENDAT type and vice versa. Another tendency was to attach the article -ei, -i to an invariable nominative-accusative basis of feminine nouns ((c), in contrast with the regular old form (d)) and, by extension, to masculine nouns with the singular inflection -ă (e).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
()
The nominal phrase a. împărăţi-e-i ([iei];̯ DÎ.: XXXII) kingdom-F.SG.GEN-DEF.F.SG.GEN b. împărăţi-i-i ([ii]; DÎ.: XXXI) kingdom-F.SG.GEN-DEF.F.SG.GEN c. mărir-e-ei (DÎ.: LXXXII) Highness-F.SG.GEN-DEF.F.SG.GEN d. maic-i-ei (DÎ.: CXIV) mother-F.SG.DAT-DEF.F.SG.DAT e. (popă popi) popei (DÎ.: V) priest.M.SG.NOMACC priest.M.PL.NOMACC priest.M.SG.DEF.F.SG.GEN
Proper names (masculine or feminine) with the unstressed final vowel -a had a genitive-dative form analogous to that of article-bearing common nouns. ()
a. MoldovaF.NOMACC (DÎ.: XVIII); MoldoveiF.GENDAT (ib.); MoldoveeiF.GENDAT (DÎ.: LXXXVIII) b. (CostandaF.NOMACC)
CostandeeiF.GENDAT (DÎ.: CXIV)
c. DimaM.NOMACC (DÎ.–: VIII); DimeiM.GENDAT (ib.) In the masculine plural, nominative-accusative, the article -i attaches to the desinence -i; from the perspective of the present-day speaker, it is hard to establish whether the graphical sequence -ii represents a diphthong [ii̯] or the vowel [i]: (e) oamenii. ... The functions of the definite article As early as the sixteenth century, the enclitic article was an affix (GR: ) with a definite determiner function (associating a referential definite reading to the nominal phrase) and an inflectional marker function. The relative weight of the two functions underwent changes by the end of the eighteenth century. The sixteenth century also shows proclitic inflectional affixes etymologically related to the enclitic article (}....v). (i) In most cases, the enclitic determiner definite article also marks case. ()
lucrul turcilor (DÎ.~: I) action.DEF.ACC Turks.DEF.GEN ‘the action of the Turks’
The grammaticalization of the definite article is tied to its inflectional function. The enclisis of the definite article compensated for the loss of the nominal case desinences, and strengthened the Latin pattern, characterized by the postposition of the case markers (see, i.a., Fischer : ; Guţu Romalo : ; Iliescu b: and references therein). Unlike MR, OR employs redundant articles (on nouns and pre- or post nominal adjectives) which correlate with the case marking function of the enclitic article. Thus, case is marked on all the constituents of the nominal phrase through the inflection of the enclitic article (co-occurring or not with proclitic and other inflectional case markers). This role of the article is clearer in the genitive-dative ();
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The article and other determiners
in (b), the genitive is also marked by al, by the form of the determiner cel, and by the genitive-dative inflections distinct from the nominative-accusative inflections in the singular. () a. sufletul răposatului jupânului (DÎ.: LVI) soul.DEF late.M.SG.DEF.GEN master.M.SG.DEF.GEN ‘the soul of the late master’ rrebdar-ie-ei ceiia lung-i-ei (CV.–: r) AL.M.SG patience-F.SG-DEF.GEN CEL.F.SG.GEN long-F.SG.GEN-DEF.F.SG.GEN ‘of the long patience’
b. al
The pattern of multiple genitive-dative case marking by enclitic articles (on nouns and on pre- and postnominal adjectival modifiers) was more extended in OR than in MR. Pattern () was weakly represented in the original texts, including for the sixteenth century: the DÎ corpus attests this construction in the southern dialectal area (a); the northern documents in DÎ do not contain it. Pattern (b) is present in some northern translations (four occurrences in CV.–; the structure is absent in Prav.). Characteristic of sixteenth-century religious translations are structures such as (b), with redundant marking (by desinences and by the enclitic article; see }..). The reduced presence of pattern () in those original documents which resemble more closely the spoken language of the period suggests that multiple case marking by enclitic articles was not very frequent in usage. After the sixteenth century, pattern () was in continual regress. In post-sixteenth-century non-translated documents, the structures with multiple genitive-dative marking are especially found in the masculine singular and plural, where case is exclusively marked by the inflection of the definite article. Multiple definiteness was preserved for a longer period in those contexts in which the article was the sole case marker, and was eliminated where the article marked case in a redundant manner. The redundant structures generally become fixed as honorific formulae. ()
cinstitului și preaosfinţitului părintelui nostru honoured.M.SG.DEF.DAT and most.sacred.M.SG.DEF.DAT father.DEF.DAT our arhiepiscop (DRH.B.: ) archbishop ‘to our honoured and most sacred archbishop’
The removal of multiple definiteness and multiple case marking are two distinct phenomena, with common features in the contexts of case marking by the definite article. Both phenomena are subject to the more general tendency of Romanian to eliminate redundancy. The old language, especially that of non-translated documents, highlights the development of the Romanian nominal phrase in departing from the Latin type (characterized by multiple case marking) and growing closer to the Romance type (with a single case-marker). In translations, multiple case marking was maintained for a longer period, a fact which sometimes follows from the syntactic features of the foreign source-text, the main foreign influence being
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase
Slavonic (for the inflectional case marking of nouns and subordinated adjectives in Slavonic, see Olteanu : ; Gardiner : ; Gamanovich : –, – ; Gasparov : –). (ii) The article -l represents the final segment of some masculine anthroponyms before the sixteenth century: Danchul (GTRL.: ); in their modern form, these anthroponyms surface without -l: Radul > Radu. These anthroponyms could display final case inflection with -lui: RadulNOMAC—RaduluiGENDAT or with -lu: RaduluGENDAT (ILR II: ). Enclitic case marking has become restricted in the passage to MR in favour of proclitic marking by lui (}....v). In these contexts, the article functions exclusively as a case-marker. Toponyms also sometimes bore the definite article in atypical syntactic positions, e.g. as predicates. ()
ce-l cheamă Taborul (CazV.: r) which=CL.ACC.M.SG name.PRES.SG Tabor.DEF ‘which they call Tabor’
(iii) The definite article is the main licenser of nominal ellipsis (}..) in the sixteenth century. ()
greșiţilor (CCat.: v; CM.: r; CL.: r; CC2.: ) mistaken.PL.DEF.DAT ‘to those who make mistakes’
The article was in competition with the determiner cel (}..) in these structures. Cel presented the advantage over the enclitic article of preserving the desinence of the adnominal adjective (}.): bună (good.F.SG.NOMACC), cea bună (CEL.F.SG.NOMACC good.F.SG.NOMACC ‘the good one’), buna (good.F.SG.DEF.NOMACC ‘the good one’). ()
nooa (CT.–: v) / new.F.SG.DEF.NOMACC ‘the new one’
cel CEL.M.SG.NOMACC
‘the new one’
nou (BB.: ) new.M.SG.NOMACC
The widespread extension of enclitic articles as licensers of nominal ellipsis in the sixteenth century shows that cel was still largely ungrammaticalized. Many instances of nominal ellipsis licensed by the enclitic article have been subsequently eliminated from the usage. ()
apoii (CT.–: v) final.M.PL.DEF.NOMACC ‘the final ones’
(iv) The article is an inflectional formative in the structure of certain pronouns: unul ‘one’ (and the compounds based on it—niciunul ‘none’, vreunul ‘somebody, anybody’), altul ‘another’, in the genitival and possessive marker AL, and in the structure of certain numerals: al patrulea ‘the fourth’ and the old forms of the type al patrul ‘the fourth’ (ILR II: ; Rosetti : ), etc.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The article and other determiners
With pronouns, the article marks gender and number: unulM.SG, unaF.SG, uniiM.PL, uneleF.PL ‘one(s)’. The genitive and the dative are marked by the desinences specific to pronominal inflection -uiM.SG, -eiF.SG, -orMF.PL: unui(a), unei(a), unor(a) (with the final particle -a, absent from the adjectival usage of indefinites—un ‘one’, alt ‘other’). It is possible that, in this combination, the article does not function as a definite article, but as an inflectional marker, being thus compatible even with an indefinite basis (see, for a different interpretation, Cornilescu and Nicolae c). Similarly, in the old forms of the relative pronoun care ‘which’, the definite article marks gender and number (unlike MR which has invariant care): careleM.SG, cariiM.PL; careaF.SG, careleF.PL (}.; for a Romance perspective, see Salvi : ). The article has been preserved as a gender marker in the structure of AL compound numerals (}...): al doile(a)M, a douaF ‘the second’. The article has been preserved as marker of gender and of number and, in the plural, of case (only in combination with the possessive adjective) with the marker AL: alM.SG, aF.SG, aiM.PL, aleF.PL, alorMF.PL.GENDAT; the forms aluiM.SG.GENDAT, aleiF.SG.GENDAT were available dialectally, only in combination with the possessive adjective (alui nostru AL.M.SG.GENDAT our ‘to/of ours’, DH.XV.: , DRH.A.: ); these forms have been preserved in modern dialects (DA s.v. al). In the structure of the element AL and in the structure of numerals, the article still has the feature [+definite]. (v) Proclitic forms etymologically related to the definite article, luM.SG, luiM.SG, eiF.SG and ii (< ei), with the graphical variant i, îi (featuring the prothetic î-), are attested in the sixteenth century as case markers. Lu either originates in Lat. ĬLLO (Meyer-Lübke : ; ILR II: ; Rosetti : ; Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu ) or in Rom. lui, in ‘phonosyntactic contexts’ (Densusianu : ). Lui has been considered to be a reflex of Lat. ĬLLUI (Rosetti : ) which emerged before the finalization of the merger of the enclitic article -lui with the preceding noun (Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu ). Other scholars have considered that lui originates in the OR lu (ILR II: –; Coteanu : ). Proclitic ei has the same etymon as the enclitic article -ei. The proclisis has been explained in terms of a need to keep the form of proper names unchanged in inflection (Coteanu : – ), or as reflecting a very early stage in the emergence of the article where, as elsewhere in Romance, it was proclitic (Densusianu : ). Initially, proclitic lu and lui most probably combined only with anthroponyms. Combination with intrinsically referential and definite expressions might have triggered the loss of the determiner function of the proclitic article (Diaconescu : ). In the sixteenth–seventeenth century, lu and lui were competing markers of the genitive-dative. Proclisis occurs with masculine anthroponyms with a final segment other than -a, which cannot bear the definite article (a). Proclisis then extended to the other masculine anthroponyms (Diaconescu : ). In the situation of article-bearing (i.e. -ul) masculine anthroponyms, the proclitically marked forms were in variation with those enclitically marked by -lui (}....ii) (b); in the original documents of the sixteenth century (DÎ), the frequency of the two types of form is
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase
relatively balanced, namely .% for the enclitic pattern and .% for the proclitic pattern. In the situation of the masculine anthroponyms whose final segment is -a, the forms proclitically marked by lu/lui were in variation with those enclitically marked on the model of the definite feminine declension (c); in DÎ, the enclitic marking is preferred: .% for enclitic structures, and .% for proclitic structures. Proclitic marking with lui became generalized with masculine anthroponyms after the eighteenth century (SILR: ). Proclitic case marking is also recorded for some masculine common nouns, employed as definite referential expressions, resembling proper names; in these cases the noun might (d; the hand is unclear, the article -l being probably omitted—}...) or might not (e) bear the enclitic article. ()
Nicoară și lu Ștefan (DÎ.: LXIX) Nicoară and LU.DAT Ștefan ‘to Nicoară and to Ștefan’
a. lui
LUI.DAT
b. lui
Arbanaș ( . . . ), Arbanașului (DÎ.–: XIII) Arbanaș Arbanaș.DEF.DAT ‘to Arbănaș ( . . . ), to Arbănaș’ c. lu(i) Zaharia (PS.–: , ), Zahariei (PS.–: ) LU(I).GEN Zachariah Zachariah.DEF.GEN ‘of Zachariah’ ‘to Zachariah’ d. lu împăratu (CV.–: v) LU.DAT emperor.DEF ‘to the emperor’ LUI.DAT
e. lu
voievod (DÎ.–: XXIX) voivode ‘of the voivode’
LU.GEN
Proclisis of the feminine affixes ei (ii, i, îi) may be accounted for by analogy with the masculine forms marked by lu/lui. This pattern is attested in the sixteenth– seventeenth century, but also later (Gheție and Mareș : –). ()
fetei ii Marie (DÎ.: CXIII) girl.DEF.DAT ii.DAT Maria ‘to the girl, Maria’
The loss of the masculine gender feature and its extension in combination with feminine nouns indicate the full grammaticalization of the proclitic lu(i) as a genitive-dative marker (Diaconescu : ). Its attestations with feminines are old, from sixteenth-century original documents ( occurrences in DÎ). ()
a. lu
Neaga (DÎ.–: LV) Neaga ‘of Neaga’ b. a lu muierii lu Apafi (DÎ.–: XXVIII) AL.F.SG LU.GEN woman.DEF.GEN LU.GEN Apafi ‘of Apafi’s woman’ LU.GEN
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The article and other determiners
... Configurations of enclisis (i) In N + A noun phrases, the definite article was frequently affixed to the first constituent. These structures were attested in the earliest writings (originals and translations), and extended to MR as a rule of enclitic articulation. Customarily, the first constituent is a noun. () împăratul sârbăsc (DÎ.–: LXXI) emperor.DEF.NOMACC Serbian ‘the Serbian emperor’ The suffixation of the definite article on prenominal adjectives was frequent (}}...; ...; see Cornilescu and Nicolae a: – for a generative interpretation). ()
sfintei mănăstiri (DÎ.: IV) holy.F.SG.DEF.DAT monastery.F.SG.DAT ‘to the holy monastery’
Some terminological phrases became fixed in this word order. ()
marele ban (DÎ.: XXII) great.M.SG.DEF.NOMACC ban ‘the grand ban’
With adjectives which precede proper names, there was hesitation between the definite (a) and non-definite form, preferred in coordinated structures (b). Pattern (a) survived in the modern language. ()
a. dereptul Lotu (CV.–: v) honest.M.SG.DEF.NOMACC Lot ‘(the) honest Lot’ b. bunulu creștinu și dulce good.M.SG.DEF.NOMACC Christian și kind.M.SG.NOMACC Mihnea Voivodă (CC2.: ) Mihnea Voivode ‘the good Christian and kind Mihnea Voivode’
There are also noun phrases in which the enclitic article is not placed on the prenominal adjective, but on the following noun ((); Cornilescu and Nicolae a: –). This syntactic pattern has not survived. The enclisis of the article onto a lower noun generally licenses a postnominal genitive or possessive adjective. The structures are characteristic of a solemn style, being employed in the religious texts throughout the entire old period and in the original secular texts of scholars. The original documents of the sixteenth century (DÎ) contain only three occurrences of this structure, in reverence formulae (b). ()
a. drag părintele nostru (PO.: ) kind.M.SG.NOMACC parent.M.SG.DEF.NOMACC our ‘our kind parent’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase b. cinstită cartea mării honoured.F.SG.NOMACC letter.F.SG.DEF.NOMACC Highness.F.SG.DEF.GEN tale (DÎ.: CVI; occurrences) your ‘your Highness’s honoured letter’
Enclisis of the article on the postnominal adjective is attested in the sixteenth century in certain translations (), and is absent from the original documents (DÎ). In structures with postnominal kind-level adjectives, the final article indicates a high degree of (syntactic and denotational) cohesion of the noun phrase, which behaves like a compound noun. ()
leage noa (PO.: ) law new.DEF ‘the new law’
(ii) The presence of the definite article on the noun after the quantifier tot (‘all, entire’) is attested in the sixteenth century, in original (a) and translated (b) texts, is well represented in the seventeenth–eighteenth centuries, and has become a syntactic rule specific to MR (Meyer-Lübke : ). The adjective întreg (‘whole, entire’), placed prenominally, is attested in the same two syntactic patterns of the present-day language (GR: ): the pattern in which the definite article is suffixed on the post-adjectival noun (d), similar to the structures which contain the quantifier tot (a–c), and the pattern in which întreg itself combines with the definite article ((e); }....i). ()
a. tot all.M.SG.NOMACC ‘the whole place’ b. tot ( . . . ) all.M.SG.NOMACC ‘every tree’
locul (DÎ.–: II) place.NEUT.SG.DEF.NOMACC lemnul (CT.–: v) tree.NEUT.SG.DEF.NOMACC
c. de toate of all.F.PL.ACC ‘in all the joints’
încheieturile (CLRV.: ) joints.F.DEF.ACC
d. întreg entire.M.SG.NOMACC ‘the entire body’ e. întreaga entire.F.SG.DEF.NOMACC ‘the entire love’
trupul (CazV.: v) body.NEUT.SG.DEF.NOMACC dragoste (DPar.: IV.r) love.F.SG.NOMACC
In the sixteenth–seventeenth centuries (in contrast to MR), the definite structures were in variation with non-definites () (Densusianu : –; Frâncu : –; Rosetti : ):
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The article and other determiners ()
toată zi (CL.: v) all.F.SG.NOMACC day.F.SG.NOMACC ‘all day’
Variation in the definiteness of the noun appears especially in the genitive (Pană Dindelegan : –). In (), the article suffixed on the noun marks case, and tot is postnominal and displays analytic marking. Pattern () has not survived. () viitoriu lumiei a toată (CM.: C*r) future.NEUT.SG.DEF.NOMACC world.F.SG.DEF.GEN A.GEN all.F.SG.ACC ‘the future of the entire world’ In phrases which include, in prenominal position, the now-extinct collective numeral îmbiM, -eF ‘both’, the article attaches enclitically to the noun (a). This pattern was not stable; structures with bare NPs are also attested (b). The attestations are from sixteenth-century and later texts. ()
a. îmbe cuscriile (Prav.: r) both.F intermarriages.F.DEF.NOMACC ‘both intermarriages’ b. de îmbe laturi (PH.–: r) on both.F sides.F.ACC ‘on both sides’
Sometimes there appear article-bearing nouns preceded by possessive adjectives (a) or by cardinal numerals (b) (Cornilescu and Nicolae a). The patterns in () have not survived. In pattern (b), the definite article did not suffix on the cardinal numeral; the definite article has been replaced by the demonstrative determiner cel; occasionally, the two determiners alternated in context, the cel-structure being a deictic reinforcer of the article-bearing structure; in the seventeenth century, cel became the dominant definite determiner of noun phrases in which definiteness cannot be otherwise expressed (}..). The article-bearing cardinal numerals were followed, as in the modern language (GR: ), by the [DE [NP]] structure (}....i) (c). ()
a. de [a] mea bunăvoia (DÎ.: VII) of AL.F.SG my good.will.F.SG.DEF.ACC ‘of my goodwill’ b. zeace cuvintele ( . . . ) ceale zeace ten commandments.NEUT.DEF.NOMACC CEL.F.PL ten cuvinte (CCat.: r–v) commandments.NEUT.NOMACC ‘the ten commandments’ c. sutele de ai (CIst.–: r) hundreds.DEF DE years.ACC ‘the hundreds of years’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase
... Oscillations in the usage of the definite article. Bare nominal phrases The definiteness constraints were not fixed in the OR nominal phrase (}}..; ..; ..). (i) Special problems are raised by the presence of the definite article after prepositions. Contrary to the constraints which have generalized (}...), the noun could be suffixed by the definite article after accusative-assigning prepositions even in the absence of adnominal dependents (a), or could be bare after a preposition even in the presence of an adnominal dependent (b). ()
a. pentru untul (DÎ.: IX) for butter.DEF.ACC ‘for the butter’ b. în dzi când făcu Domnedzeu ceriul și in day.F.SG.ACC when make.PS.SG God.NOM sky.DEF.ACC and pământul (PO.: ) earth.DEF.ACC ‘in the day when God made the heavens and the earth’
(ii) A phenomenon specific to old texts is the variation between an article-bearing form and a bare form. In (a), the article -l is absent in the form arhanghel (‘archangel’), used as a proper name. In other situations, the -l appears in position in which it has not been preserved in MR—for example, before possessive clitics (b). ()
a. arhanghel dzisă tuturoru și cădzu (CSIV.–: r) archangel say.PS.SG all.M.PL.DAT and fall.PS.SG ‘the archangel said this to everyone and fell’ b. rostulu-mi (PS.–: ) mouth.M.SG.DEF.NOMACC=CL.POSS.SG ‘my mouth’
.. The indefinite article In sixteenth-century Romanian, the proclitic indefinite article was already—as today—a fully grammaticalized functional element only in its singular forms. ... The forms of the proclitic indefinite article As in the other Romance languages, the Romanian indefinite article continues the forms of the Latin cardinal numeral UNUS, UNA ‘one’ (Bourciez [] : ). In old and modern Romanian (GR: –), the indefinite article has a suppletive inflectional paradigm (Table .). The singular forms display gender and case inflection. The genitive-dative singular forms appeared early, on the model of pronominal declension (ILR II: ); their plurals encode only case, but not gender, distinctions. The syncretic nominative-accusative plural is expressed by the suppletive form niște (< NESCIO QUID; Meyer-Lübke : ) or by zero.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The article and other determiners
T . The forms of the proclitic indefinite article
SG.
NOMACC GENDAT
PL.
M
F
un, u unui
o unei, unii
NOMACC GENDAT
niște, nește unor
In the plural, there was a tendency to regularize inflection, by the extension of the form niște in the genitive-dative, associated with analytic markers or with the desinence -or: niștor, nistor (DLR s.v.). ... Syntactic particularities of the proclitic indefinite article (i) In old and modern Romanian (GR: –), niște has a weak referential function and may be omitted in contexts like (a); the [-definite] DP status of niște-referential phrases is clear in contexts in which they are part of anaphoric chains (b). Niște may take as a complement a phrase headed by a plural countable noun (a,b) or a singular mass uncountable noun (c); in the singular, niște has a quantifying function (}....iv). ()
a. alţi feri am trimis other.M.PL.ACC boys.M.ACC AUX.PERF.SG send.PPLE unealte (DÎ.: L) vs. cu unealte tools.ACC with tools.ACC ‘we sent other boys with (some) tools’
cu with
nește INDEF.PL.ACC
b. au
venit nește boiari (...). Acești come.PPLE INDEF.PL.NOM boyars.M.NOM these.M.NOM boieri, ei a venit cu carte (DÎ.: CXI) boyars.M.NOM they.M AUX.PERF.PL come.PPLE with letter.ACC ‘some boyars came. These boyars came with a letter’ AUX.PERF.PL
c. nește iarbă (DP.: r) some grass.F.SG.NOMACC ‘some grass’ (ii) A few sixteenth-century constructions testify to the use of the indefinite pronoun form as an indefinite article unul, una (‘one’). () urul graiu (CV.–: r) one.M.DEF.NOMACC word.NEUT.SG.NOMACC ‘one word’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase
.. Demonstratives The proximal and distal demonstratives (GR: –) could be prefixed by the particle a- or not; the final particle -a could be absent independently of the presence of the initial particle a-: acest(a), cest(a) ‘this’; acel(a), cel(a) ‘that’ ()–() (}..). Demonstrative adjectives are attested (throughout the period, from the earliest texts) with the specific function of definite determiners. ()
a. acești these.M.NOMACC ‘these neighbours’
megiiaș (DÎ.–: II) neighbours.NOMACC
b. cest this.M.NOMACC ‘this year’ c. acel that.M.NOMACC ‘that emperor’
anu (DÎ.: XIX) year.M.NOMACC împărat (CSXI.–: r) emperor.M.NOMACC
The language of the original documents (a,b) indicates, as early as the sixteenth century, the tendency of the forms without the final particle -a to specialize for the prenominal position and of the -a-bearing forms for the postnominal position (cf. Bateman and Polinsky : ). At the beginning of the seventeenth century, there was still hesitation between the two types of forms, sometimes in the same text, in close proximity (c). () a. acel bir (DÎ.: IX) that.M.NOMACC impost.NEUT.NOMACC ‘that impost’ b. această ocină ( . . . ) ocina this.F.NOMACC property.F.NOMACC property.F.DEF.NOMACC aceasta (DÎ.–: XII) this.F.NOMACC ‘this property’ c. ac(e)sta zapis ( . . . ) ac(e)astă this.M.NOMACC deed.NEUT.NOMACC this.F.NOMACC moșie (Doc.Athos2.: ) property.F.NOMACC ‘this deed ( . . . ) this property’ .. The determiner cel Cel is the aphaeretic form of the demonstrative acel ‘that’ (CDDE: ). Acel < *acu (< ECCUM), *acce (< ECCE- ‘here is’), atke /aʧe/ (< ATQUE ‘and’) + ILLU(M) ‘that’ (DELR s.v., and references therein; see, more recently, Iliescu b: ; Renzi : ). Cel was employed in different types of structures.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The article and other determiners
What is specific to OR is the prenominal placement of the determiner cel (in the position of the form acel), preceding a bare noun (a); cel sometimes precedes a prenominal adjective (b). The determiner cel may be placed postnominally, in between a definite noun and another DP-internal constituent, appearing thus in polydefinite constructions, with two or three determiners (c,d; }.). ()
a. cel grâu (DÎ.: IX) that.M.NOMACC wheat.NEUT.NOMACC ‘that wheat’ b. cea bună nădejde (FT.–: v) that.F.NOMACC good.F.SG.NOMACC hope.F.SG.NOMACC ‘that good hope’ c. movila cea mare (ULM.~: M.r) knoll.F.SG.DEF.NOMACC CEL.F.SG.NOMACC big.F.SG.NOMACC ‘the big/grand knoll’ d. loculu cela place.NEUT.SG.DEF.NOMACC CEL.M.SG.NOMACC frumosulu (CTd.–: v) place.M.SG.DEF.NOMACC ‘the beautiful place’DP
Cel is sometimes a superfluous element, devoid of the determiner function, placed in between a bare noun and a wh-modifier (Densusianu : ); the nominal phrase is non-referential (i.e., an NP). ()
scula-se-voru bărrbaţi cei ce rise.INF=CL.REFL.ACC.PL=AUX.FUT.PL men.NOM CEL.M.PL.NOM which voru grăi rrăzvretitu (CV.–: v) AUX.FUT.PL speak.INF rebelliously ‘men will rise up, who will speak in a rebellious manner’
Cel generalized as a definite (pronominal) determiner in noun phrases with null-heads in which definiteness cannot be otherwise expressed (}}...; ...; (a,b)). In the context of numerals, cel generalized in the second part of the old period; previously, in the sixteenth century, the determiner cel was in competition with the enclitic definite article in these configurations ((b); cf. Nicolae a): zeace cuvintele/ceale zeace cuvinte (ten commandments.DEF/CEL.F.PL ten commandments). ()
a. cele di Crivina (DÎ.–: VI) CEL.F.PL.NOMACC from Crivina ‘the ones from Crivina’ b. cei CEL.M.PL.NOMACC ‘the three ones’
trei (CSIX.–: r) three
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase
The aphaeretic demonstrative cel(a) deviates from its original form, the demonstrative acela (‘that’). As early as the sixteenth century, cel(a) developed idiosyncratic morphemic and distributional features, which have been preserved to the present day. (i) In null-head structures, cela, used as a pronoun, lost the final particle -a. Cel is always semi-independent from a syntactic point of view, being accompanied by quantifiers (b) or modifiers (a). Cel displays a higher degree of grammaticalization than acela. (ii) In polydefinite structures in which cel is postnominal (omul cel bun man.DEF CEL good ‘the good man’), the form with the final particle -a was frequent until mid seventeenth century (d), a phenomenon which correlates with the tendency of the form acela to extend in postnominal position (omul acela bun man.DEF that good ‘that good man’). After the mid seventeenth century the generalization of the form cel in postnominal position corresponds to a new stage in its grammaticalization: a) in comparison with (a)cela, cel is morphemically distinct by the loss of the final particle -a, and of the semantic feature [+deictic-spatial], which is perhaps etymologically explicable: -a < ILLAC ‘there’ (DELR s.v. acel and references therein); b) in comparison to acel (which has the same morphemic structure), cel is distributionally distinct—cel is postnominal, while acel is prenominal. In those polydefinite constructions in which it cannot be omitted (fratele cel mic brother.DEF CEL little ‘the little/youngest brother’; }..), cel is a semilexical, incompletely grammaticalized, element (Tasmowski : –)—a demonstrative-deictic determiner. This feature is etymologically explicable, incorporating as it does the presentative formative ECCE ‘lo’ (DELR s.v. acel). The grammaticalization of the demonstrative cel in structures of the type omul cel bun (man.DEF CEL good ‘the good man’) is considered an innovation of Romanian among Romance/Balkan languages (see, among others, Meyer-Lübke : –; Sandfeld and Olsen : –; Niculescu : –; Coteanu : –; Lombard : –; Feuillet : ; Gauger : ; Campos and Stavrou : , ; Sala [] : –; Iliescu [] a: –; for the interpretation of cel as a determiner, see Cornilescu ; Cornilescu and Nicolae b; Posner : ; Ledgeway : –; : , –).
.. Alternative and identity determiners The inventory of alternative and identity determiners in the sixteenth century includes forms which have been preserved (GR: –): același (‘the same one’) (a compound based on the distal demonstrative acela ‘that’; DELR s.v. acel), and alt (‘(an)other’), as well as forms like acestași (‘this same one’) (a compound based on the proximal demonstrative, which has been preserved as a bookish element in MR), and alalt (‘the other one’) (a compound based on alt (‘(an)other’); it is also attested dialectally after the old period) (DA s.v. acestași, alalt; DELR s.v. acesta, alt), etc.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The article and other determiners ()
a. acelaș obraz (DÎ.: LXXII) the.same.M.SG.NOMACC design.NEUT.SG.NOMACC ‘the same design’ b. altă ţară (DÎ.: XXXIII) other.F.SG.NOMACC country.F.SG.NOMACC ‘another country’ c. acestuiașu însușu, fiiului lu this.same.M.SG.DAT himself.M.SG son.SG.DEF.DAT LU.DAT Dumnezeu (CC2.: ) Dumnezeu ‘to this same son of God himself ’ d. urul alăltui supuindu-se (CV.–: r) one.M.SG.DEF.NOMACC the.other.M.SG.DAT submit.GER=CL.REFL.ACC.SGPL ‘one submitting to the other’
At the beginning of the old period, the constraints on the distribution of the definite/non-definite forms of the determiner alt(ul) were not fixed (}...). Thus, in structures with overt nominal heads, there appear not only article-less forms, which generalized as adjectives (b), but also definite forms (a), which specialized as pronouns; in the structures in which the determiner is used pronominally, the adjectival (i.e. article-less) form is also available (b). This behaviour also characterizes the compound alalt(ul) (‘the other (one)’); in (c), the determiner has a pronominal usage and has an ambiguous form: adjectival (non-definite) or pronominal (with the article -l, not marked graphically). ()
a. altul oarecarele giurământu other.M.SG.DEF.NOMACC certain.M.SG.NOMACC oath.NEUT.SG.NOMACC (CV.–: v) ‘another certain oath’ b. va
face curvie una cu make.INF fornication.F.SG.ACC one.F.SG.DEF.NOM with altă (Prav.: v–r) other.F.SG.ACC ‘one (a man) will commit fornication with another (a woman)’ AUX.FUT.SG
însura u cu alaltu (Prav.: v) AINF CL.REFL.ACC.SG marry.INF one.M.SG.NOM with the.other.M.SG.ACC ‘to get married one with the other’
c. a
se
.. Final remarks With respect to the syntax of determiners, the most important features of OR concern the multiple expression of the enclitic definite article, the multiple marking of case by the enclitic article, and the proclisis of the feminine markers ei (ii, i, îi), increasingly limited after the seventeenth century.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase
From the point of view of language change, the most important processes are: the restriction of multiple definiteness and of multiple case marking, and the tendency of the Romanian nominal phrase to get closer to the Romance type, characterized by a sole determiner, which also marks case; the stabilization of the rules of encliticization, in different types of structures; the increase of the degree of grammaticalization of the demonstrative cel; the limitation of the usage of the definite article as a marker of nominal ellipsis after the sixteenth century, concomitantly with the extension of the usage of the determiner cel in null-head nominal phrases; the grammaticalization of the proclitic morpheme lu(i) and its extension to feminine nouns (a process which began in the sixteenth century); the tendency to stabilize the usage of the forms of the demonstrative (the forms with the final particle -a—postnominal; the forms without -a—prenominal).
. Polydefinite structures .. Preliminary remarks As in MR (GR: –), in OR typical DPs include a sole determiner: the enclitic definite article (a), a demonstrative adjective (b), etc. () a. cămărașul (ITM.~: ) chamberlain.DEF.NOMACC ‘the chamberlain’ b. acestu semnu (CLRV.: ) this.M.SG.NOMACC sign.NEUT.SG.NOMACC ‘this sign’ A feature specific to OR is polydefiniteness, or the co-occurrence of definite determiners (definite articles, demonstrative determiners) within the same nominal phrase (Densusianu : , –; Vasiliu a: –; Frâncu : ; cf. Niculescu [] : ; see a generative interpretation in Cornilescu and Nicolae a, b; GR: –; Nicolae a). Polydefiniteness became restricted after the eighteenth century. Twenty-eight patterns and variants of polydefinite DPs have been identified in OR (Stan b). The structures present in all types of texts are the double definites: the enclitic definite article co-occurs with a postnominal demonstrative—(a)cesta (‘this’)/(a)cela (‘that’) ()—or with cel followed by an adjective (). ()
a. alegădașul acesta (DÎ.: CXIII) allotment.NEUT.DEF.NOMACC this.M.SG.NOMACC ‘this allotment’ b. îngerii ceia (AMDII.–: r) angels.M.DEF.NOMACC those.M.PL.NOMACC ‘those angels’
()
fraţii cei mici (CC2.: ) brothers.DEF.NOMACC CEL.M.PL.NOMACC little.M.PL.NOMACC ‘the little brothers’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Polydefinite structures
The syntactic patterns in () and () are the sole ones to have been preserved beyond the old period. In old translations and learnèd original texts, the double definite constructions were more varied than in short original writings (}..). There are also attestations of structures featuring three and, rarely, four determiners. Most of these structures had an artificial nature, being created under the influence of (direct or indirect) foreign syntactic models, or having the function of producing information-structuring effects (thematization, focalization, etc.) in learnèd registers. .. The three-/four-determiner nominal phrase The structures with three determiners feature a doubly realized definite article. One of the definite articles enclitically attaches to the noun (or to a prenominal adjectival modifier), and the other to a postnominal adjectival modifier. The third determiner is a demonstrative which precedes the postnominal adjective. The structures with four determiners feature a triple definite article, the third article being suffixed onto a prenominal constituent. (i) Pattern () contains three determiners: ()
omul cela bunul man.DEF.NOMACC CEL.M.SG.NOMACC good.M.SG.DEF.NOMACC ‘the good man’
The DP in () includes the demonstrative determiner cela with the deictic final particle -a (}..). This pattern represents a syntactic characteristic of sixteenth-century translations (Densusianu : , –). In the sixteenth-century prefaces and epilogues (PE), which also include original fragments, pattern () has only three occurrences, all of them in CC2. (a), in fragments translated or written in Romanian on a Slavonic model (Buză and Zgraon : ). In the DÎ corpus of original documents there is only one occurrence (b). Under the accepted assumption that the language of the documents was closer to the spoken language than translations, we may presume that the incidence of pattern () was limited in the current language of the sixteenth century. Between the first article and cela, we may find focused genitives or possessive adjectives (c). ()
a. calea ceaea way.F.SG.DEF.NOMACC CEL.F.SG.NOMACC adeverita (CC2., in PE: ; cf. ) right.F.SG.DEF.NOMACC ‘the right way’ b. locul cela strimtul (DÎ.~: I) place.NEUT.SG.DEF.NOMACC CEL.M.SG.NOMACC narrow.M.SG.DEF.NOMACC ‘the narrow place’ c. fraţii miei ceia dragii (CV.–: r) brothers.DEF.VOC my.M.PL.VOC CEL.M.PL.VOC dear.M.PL.DEF.VOC ‘my dear brothers’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase
Structure () was in regress at the beginning of the seventeenth century. ()
durearea ceea nevindicata (MI.~: v) pain.F.SG.DEF.NOMACC CEL.F.SG.NOMACC unhealed.F.SG.DEF.NOMACC ‘the unhealed pain’
In some structures with conjoined adjectives, only the first bears the definite article. ()
slugile cealia bunele și servants.F.DEF.NOMACC CEL.F.PL.NOMACC good.F.PL.DEF.NOMACC and înţelepte (CTd.–: r) wise.F.PL.NOMACC ‘the good and wise servants’
(ii) In the sixteenth century, pattern () had several variants. In structure (), the first article is suffixed onto the prenominal adjective. ()
marele giudeţu cela great.M.SG.DEF.NOMACC judge.M.SG.NOMACC CEL.M.SG.NOMACC înfricatul (CTd.–: v) frightening.M.SG.DEF.NOMACC ‘that frightening great judge’
In (), the phrase cela înfricatul may also be interpreted as an apposition. The noun giudeţu is ambiguous: either non-definite or with omitted definite article, giudeţu(l). In this latter interpretation, the dropped article is the fourth determiner, and hence the DP in () includes three definite articles and cela. Structure () has only two attestations, both from the first stage of OR (Densusianu : ). Structure () is a DP with four determiners. ()
unulu omulu cela one/sole.M.SG.DEF.NOMACC man.DEF.NOMACC CEL.M.SG.NOMACC noulu (CC2.: ) new.M.SG.DEF.NOMACC ‘a/the new man’
Structure () is from the sixteenth century. This construction is most probably the result of the accidental contamination of two different patterns: pattern (), omul cela noul, and the pattern with the indefinite article un, in the form of the indefinite pronominal adjective unul (unul omul ‘a man’; Densusianu : ) or in the form of the numeral adjective unul (‘the sole’), with an enclitic definite article. The oscillation between un and unul also appears in other old texts (}...). In structure (), the determiner has the form cel, being devoid of the deictic particle -a. ()
Domnul cel tarele (PH.–: r) God.DEF.NOMACC CEL.M.SG.NOMACC strong.M.SG.DEF.NOMACC ‘the strong God’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Polydefinite structures
(iii) A realization of pattern () is structure (), which contains the demonstrative determiners acela (‘that’), acesta (‘this’). () locul acesta sfântul (CV.–: r) place.NEUT.SG.DEF.NOMACC this.M.NOMACC sacred.M.SG.DEF.NOMACC ‘this sacred place’ (iv) The only three-determiner pattern preserved in present-day Romanian contains the distal demonstrative ăla () and is used in some regional varieties (Densusianu : ). () geru(l) ăla vânătu(l) frost.NEUT.DEF.NOMACC that.M.NOMACC terrible.M.SG.DEF.NOMACC ‘that terrible frosty weather’ .. The two-determiner nominal phrase In OR, the double definiteness of DPs consisted either in the co-occurrence of the definite article with a demonstrative or in the double realization of the definite article. (i) The postnominal demonstrative structures () have, in the old language, certain variants which have not been preserved. In ()–(), the article is suffixed onto the prenominal adjective (Cornilescu and Nicolae a: –), and in () the demonstrative features the form devoid of the deictic final particle -a. () sfântul loc acesta (BB.: ) sacred.M.SG.DEF.NOMACC place.NEUT.SG.NOMACC this.M.NOMACC ‘this sacred place’ () nenorocitele acestea vremi (GIst.~: ) unfortunate.F.PL.DEF.NOMACC these.F.NOMACC times.F.PL.NOMACC ‘these unfortunate times’ () copilul acel (GCond.: v) child.DEF.NOMACC that.M.NOMACC ‘that child’ The prenominal demonstrative may or may not have the final particle -a (}..). The definiteness of the post-demonstrative noun has semantic reasons (the uniqueness of the referent ()) or syntactic requirements (the need to license a genitive (b)). In other situations, definiteness may be the result of hesitation due to an intercalated phrase (c). () acelu înfricoșatulu judeţu (CC2.: ) that.M.NOMACC frightening.M.SG.DEF.NOMACC judgement.NEUT.NOMACC ‘that frightening judgement’ ()
a. aceasta moșiia văndut-am (DÎ.–: XIII) this.F.ACC property.F.DEF.ACC sell.PPLE=AUX.PERF.SG ‘I sold this property’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase b. acela domnul voroavei that.M.NOMACC lord.DEF.NOMACC speech.F.DEF.GEN râmlenești (NCLI.~: ) Roman.F.SG.GEN ‘that lord of Roman elocution’ c. acest adevărat al nostru this.M.NOMACC true.M.SG.NOMACC AL.M.SG our.M.SG.NOMACC credincios și cinstit faithful.M.SG.NOMACC and honoured.M.SG.NOMACC boieriul (Doc.Athos1.: ) boyar.M.DEF.NOMACC ‘this true faithful and honoured boyar of ours’
The double definite patterns ()–() which contain a prenominal demonstrative have been abandoned. In MR, the prenominal demonstrative is used as a unique determiner, with the form devoid of the final particle -a (cf. (b)). (ii) The double definite pattern in (), in which the article-bearing noun is followed by cel (devoid of the particle -a) and by a non-definite adjective is analogous to structure (), omul cela bunul. () omul cel bun man.DEF.NOMACC CEL.M.SG.NOMACC good.M.SG.NOMACC ‘the good man’ Pattern () is present in the sixteenth century and extends afterwards to the detriment of pattern (), generalizing until the end of the eighteenth century. ()
a. cugetul lui cel thought.NEUT.DEF.NOMACC his.GEN CEL.M.SG.NOMACC rău (DÎ.: XLIV; with an intercalation) bad.M.SG.NOMACC ‘his mean thought’ b. oamenii cei învăţaţi (NCLI.~: ) men.DEF.NOMACC CEL.M.PL.NOMACC learned.M.PL.NOMACC ‘the learned people’
The adjectives preceded by cel were more varied in OR than in MR: relational/ classifying adjectives (a,b), qualifying (c), or quantifying (d) adjectives: ()
a. mânra cea dereaptă a hand.F.DEF.NOMACC CEL.F.SG.NOMACC right.F.SG.NOMACC AL.F.SG mea (PH.–: r) my ‘my right hand’ b. cartea cea writing.F.DEF.NOMACC CEL.F.SG.NOMACC sârbească (Doc.Athos1.–: ) Serbian.F.SG.NOMACC ‘the Serbian writing’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Polydefinite structures
c. fiiul mieu cel son.DEF.NOMACC my.M.SG.NOMACC CEL.M.SG.NOMACC iubit (CazV.: v) beloved.M.SG.NOMACC ‘my beloved son’ d. avuţiia lui cea his.GEN CEL.F.SG.NOMACC wealth.F.SG.DEF.NOMACC multă (NÎnv.~: v) much.F.SG.NOMACC ‘his great wealth ’ After the old period, cel became fixed in certain combinations, e.g. with kinship nouns. () fiul cel mare son.DEF.NOMACC CEL.M.SG.NOMACC old.M.SG.NOMACC ‘his eldest son’ Cel was optionally preserved in most contexts: (c) fiul meu (cel) iubit, and was excluded from DPs with relational adjectives: (a), mâna (*cea) dreaptă, or ethnic adjectives: (b), cartea (*cea) sârbească. At the end of the old period, pattern () was stable, and represented the basis for the syntactic loan translation of many syntagms in the earliest stages of the grammar of Romanian. () căderea cea născătoare (EG.: r) case.F.SG.DEF.NOMACC CEL.F.SG.NOMACC generating.F.SG.NOMACC ‘the genitive case’ Old variants of pattern () are the structures (), with a prenominal demonstrative followed by an adjective (the attestations are from the sixteenth century); (), with modifying PPs (the pattern is relatively frequent in OR); (), with the demonstrative (a)cest (‘this’), devoid of the particle -a; (), with the demonstrative (a)cel (‘thats’), devoid of the particle -a. () cel CEL.M.SG.NOMACC
‘the great God’
mare domnul (FT.–: r) great.M.SG.NOMACC God.DEF.NOMACC
() prahul cel de pușcă (MC.: v) dust.NEUT.SG.DEF.NOMACC CEL.M.SG.NOMACC of gun.F.SG.ACC ‘the gunpowder’ () leatopiseţul cestu chronicle.NEUT.SG.DEF.NOMACC this.M.SG.NOMACC moldovenescu (ULM.~: ) Moldovan.M.SG.NOMACC ‘this Moldovan chronicle’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase
() bucinul acel îngeresc (CazV.: v) bugle.NEUT.SG.NOMACC that.M.SG.NOMACC angelic.M.SG.NOMACC ‘that angelic bugle’ (iii) Some double definite DPs contain the demonstrative cela and are variants of the three-determiner pattern (). In ()–(), the syntactic host of the third determiner is absent, either because in the position of the definite head-noun there is a proper name (), or because the head-noun is null (and cela is used as a pronoun) (), or because the modifier cannot bear the definite article (a PP in ()); in (), the noun is non-definite after the demonstrative determiner and the definite adjective. () Vasile cela Marele (CL.: v) Basil CEL.M.SG.NOMACC great.M.SG.DEF.NOMACC ‘Basil the Great’ () cealea omeneștile (CT.–: v) CEL.F.PL.NOMACC human.F.PL.DEF.NOMACC ‘the human ones’ () celora de demultu părinţiloru (CC2.: ) CEL.M.PL.DAT of long.ago parents.M.DEF.DAT ‘to the ancient ancestors’ () întru cela nesfârșitulu și veaciniculu in CEL.M.SG.ACC NEG-ending.M.SG.DEF.ACC and eternal.M.SG.DEF.ACC veacu (CC2.: ) century.NEUT.SG.ACC ‘in that unending and eternal century’ The examples in (), with a non-definite adjective, document the passage from the three-determiner pattern omul cela bunul to the two-determiner pattern omul cela bun, in the sixteenth century and the beginning of the seventeenth century. ()
a. feciorul lui cela mai mare (CC2.: ) son.M.SG.DEF.NOMACC his CEL.M.SG.NOMACC more old.M.SG.NOMACC ‘his oldest son’ b. lucrurile cealea reale (MI.~: v) things.NEUT.DEF.NOMACC CEL.F.PL.NOMACC bad.F.PL.NOMACC ‘those bad things’
(iv) The structures with a doubly realized definite article are of two types. The predominant pattern is the one with an enclitic article on both the noun and the adjective. The adjective is hardly ever definite when postnominal, postnominal position being normal in Romanian, including the old stage (). Most examples are from the sixteenth century (Densusianu : –; Vasiliu a: ); the structure is also found later (Croitor ). The prenominal adjective is usually definite in Romanian (}....i); the structures with a doubly realized article in which the adjective is prenominal are well represented in OR (); these adjectives are mainly qualifying (a), and more rarely relational (b).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Polydefinite structures ()
a. cetatea efeseiasca (CV.–: v) fortress.F.DEF.NOMACC Ephesian.F.DEF.NOMACC ‘the Ephesian fortress’ b. doamna roditoarea (AMDI.–: r) lady.F.DEF.NOMACC fertile.F.DEF.NOMACC ‘the fertile lady’
()
a. noua viaţa (CC2., in PE: ) new.F.DEF.NOMACC life.F.DEF.NOMACC ‘the new life’ b. veachea și nooa leagea (CC2.: ) old.F.DEF.NOMACC and new.F.DEF.NOMACC law.F.DEF.NOMACC ‘the old and the new law’
The sixteenth-century translations contain a few exceptional structures. In (), the definite article is suffixed to the prenominal ordinal numeral (on the model of the adjectival definite declension) and onto the noun. The enclitic article also marks the genitive case on the two constituents of the nominal phrase. () a șapteasprădzeace dzi al șeptei luniei (PO.: ) seventeenth day AL.M.SG seven.DEF.F.SG.GEN month.F.SG.DEF.GEN ‘the seventeenth day of the seventh month’ (v) Between the two definite phrases there are focus positions which may accommodate genitives or possessive adjectives. () cusătura ei noa (CT.–: r) sewing.F.SG.DEF.NOMACC her.GEN new.F.SG.DEF.NOMACC ‘her new sewing’ (vi) For the earliest structures, we are not certain that formal multiple expression of definiteness was semantically associated with polydefiniteness. In many contexts, redundant articles were merely a means of multiple case marking (}....i). Demonstrative determiners also accumulate a case marking function. Thus, in multiple definite structures, case could be marked in the form of each determiner (), (). The tendency to restrict case marking on the first determiner manifested itself as early as the sixteenth century (), and subsequently extended. This phenomenon is still active in present-day Romanian, in structures with postnominal demonstratives preceded by definite nouns (GR: ). ()
a. gloateei sevastiiasca (CV.–: r) cohort.F.SG.DEF.DAT imperial.F.SG.NOMACC ‘to the Augusta cohort’ b. mâncăriei acea porcească (CC2.: ) food.F.SG.DAT.DEF.DAT that.F.SG.NOMACC swinish.F.SG.NOMACC ‘to that swinish food’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase
.. Final remarks The most important processes involving polydefinite structures in OR are: disappearance of the four-determiner and three-determiner structures (with the exception of the structure featuring two definite articles and the demonstrative ăla (‘that’), preserved in some regional varieties); elimination of double definite patterns containing two enclitic articles; stabilization of the syntactic constraints on the co-occurrence of the definite article with a demonstrative determiner within the same DP; reduction of the variety of constructions in which the postnominal determiner cel is employed. A characteristic of OR is its permissiveness with respect to artificial patterns; this follows from the vacillating nature of the syntax of the nominal phrase, but also from the freedom of linguistic choice exercised by scholars. The tendency to stabilize the syntax of the Romanian nominal phrase, in the form it still has today, manifests itself from the beginning of the seventeenth century.
. The genitive. Between analyticity and syntheticity .. Preliminary remarks With respect to the synthetic–analytic divide (Ledgeway : – and references therein), Romanian is a language in which case is marked analytically and/or synthetically (Guţu Romalo : –; Iliescu : –, ). Analytic making is a feature Romanian has in common with the rest of Romance; the synthetic marking is partially due to Latin inheritance and partly due to convergence with other Balkan languages (cf. Manoliu : and references therein). Romanian has a two-case (‘bicasual’) nominal system in the feminine singular, based on the opposition of the syncretic nominative-accusative with the genitive-dative (casăNOMACC – caseGENDAT ‘house’). This feature has been explained as an element of continuity from Latin (see, among many, Meyer-Lübke : ; Coteanu : – and references therein; Fischer : –; Iliescu b: and references therein; Dragomirescu and Nicolae ); but this explanation is not unanimously accepted (see Philippide [–] : ; Papahagi [] : –; Maiden : –). The genitive-dative syncretism has also been explained as a Balkan Sprachbund phenomenon (Sandfeld : –; Feuillet : –; Mišeska Tomić : –; for a different interpretation, see Catasso : –, ). This syncretic declension has probably been consolidated by contact with the Balkan languages (Bourciez [] : –). By comparison with Albanian (considered a descendant of the Thracian language, and invoked by Hasdeu in the nineteenth century), it has been claimed that this syncretism of Latin origin has generalized under the influence of the Thracian/ Dacian substratum (Brâncuș : , ). The bicasual nominative-accusative ~ genitive-dative system has extended to all nouns (masculine and neuter singular/plural; feminine plural), in the inflectional paradigm of the determiners (for the enclisis of the definite article, see }.).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The genitive. Between analyticity and syntheticity
The earliest attested writings dating from the sixteenth century show, on the one hand, the genitive-dative syncretism in the feminine singular, and, on the other hand, the fact that the genitive, in the relevant structures, was synthetically (}..) and/or analytically (}..) marked, or marked by the inflection of prenominal determiners (}..). Romanian is characterized by an accumulation of case markers. This phenomenon was more extensive in the old language than in the modern one. Specific to the old language are structures with certain types of redundancies in the marking of the genitive (}..), as well as unmarked genitives (}..). .. Synthetic marking The synthetic genitive was marked by: inflectional endings, and the genitive-dative form of the definite article. ... Inflectional endings In the feminine singular, the noun’s inflection often co-occurs with the enclitic definite article (a), and/or a syntactic marker (b) or with synthetic genitive form of a prenominal determiner (c). ()
a. oamenii mănăstir-i-i (DÎ.: IV) men.DEF monastery-GEN-DEF ‘the men of the monastery’ b. al dereptaţ-i-ei spuietoriu (CV.–: r) AL.M.SG righteousness-GEN-DEF.GEN teller ‘the teller of the truth’ c. de rândul aceii muier-i (DÎ.: LXXXIX) of turn.DEF that.GEN woman-GEN ‘about that woman’
A characteristic of the feminine declension of Romanian, already attested in the old language, is the syncretism of the genitive-dative singular with the nominative-accusative-genitive-dative plural form. ()
a. muiar-e (DÎ.: XC) woman-SG.NOMACC b. muier-i (see c) woman-SG.GENDAT/PL.NOMACCGENDAT
In the sixteenth century, many feminine nouns displayed variation between the form which employed the inflectional ending -e, corresponding to the old -e plural, and the new forms, with the inflection -i, corresponding to the -i plural (Densusianu : –; for the origin of the feminine inflections -e, -i, see the discussion in Maiden : –; : ). The desinence -e was preserved for a longer period with the genitive-dative singular, so that the -e forms, followed by the enclitic article -ei (-eei > -ei), coexisted with the -i (-iei > -ii) forms (see }... for the form of the definite article and for the condition observed in the merger with inflections in OR).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase
() scriptur-e-ei (CL.: v–r) / scriptur-i-ei (CL.: v) scripture-GEN-DEF.GEN scripture-GEN-DEF.GEN In noun phrases that comprise a singular feminine noun and an agreeing (prenominal or postnominal) adjective, case is typically marked by inflectional endings on both constituents. This characteristic of Romanian—the effect of the Latin inheritance—is recorded throughout the period; see (), where the phrase-initial constituent (a noun or an adjective) is case-marked by the enclitic article as well (for the enclisis of the article on the first constituent, see }....i). ()
a. ţăr-â-ei ungureșt-i country-GEN-DEF.GEN Hungarian-GEN ‘of the Hungarian Country’ (CCat.: v; inflectional -i > -â, after /r /̄ , see Densusianu : –) b. cinstit-e-i cruc-i (Ev.: ) honoured-GEN-DEF.GEN cross-GEN ‘of the honoured cross’ c. parte a famili-i-i saxoneșt-i (CH.–: ) part AL.F.SG family-GEN-DEF.GEN Saxon-GEN ‘part of the Saxon family’
There is a degree of instability of genitive-dative nominal phrases in the old texts. In certain nominal phrases whose head is a feminine noun in the singular, the genitive is marked only on the prenominal adjective; thus, the noun has a nonmarked form, syncretic with the nominative-accusative one (a). In other structures, the genitive is marked only on nouns, while postnominal adjectives do not undergo case agreement, and exhibit a non-marked form, syncretic with the nominative-accusative one (b). ()
a. mai dennaintea sfint-e-i înnălţare (CL.: r) more before sacred-GEN-DEF.GEN ascension.NOMACC ‘before the sacred ascension’ b. întrămătura besearec-e-ei sfântă (PO.: ) consolidation.DEF church-GEN-DEF.GEN sacred.NOMACC ‘the consolidation of the sacred church’
The nominal phrases in which case is marked on the determiner diverge from the Latin nominal pattern. From a diachronic perspective, the tendency to mark case only on the phrase-initial constituent has not impinged upon the typological specificity of Romanian, namely the syncretic nominative-accusative vs. genitive-dative opposition in the inflection of nouns (and adjectives). The patterns in () have not survived; their frequency diminished after the mid-seventeenth century in favour of pattern (). ... The genitive-dative form of the definite article (i) In the definite declension of the singular/plural masculine and neuter and of the plural feminine, genitive-dative is marked by the inflectional form of the article.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The genitive. Between analyticity and syntheticity
() Walya Kazy-lor (= Valea Caselor, toponym; GTRL.: ) valley.DEF houses-DEF.GEN ‘the valley of the houses’ (ii) Masculine anthroponyms ending with -(u)l used to have genitive forms marked by -lui, on the model of masculine common nouns (a), and those ending with -a had forms marked by the inflections -e(e)i, -ii, -i, on the model of feminine anthroponyms and of feminine common nouns bearing the enclitic article (b) (}....ii). ()
a. Radului (DÎ.–: XVI) Radu.GENDAT b. Savei (CCat.: v) Sava.GENDAT
.. Analytic marking The analytic genitive was marked by: (i) the proclitic morpheme lui; (ii) the functional element al; (iii) the prepositions a, de, la. ... The proclitic morpheme lui The genitive of masculine anthroponyms was marked proclitically, by lui, lu (a) (}....v). In the old language, common nouns denoting ranks behave contextually like proper names, their genitive being marked by lui, lu (b). At the same time, names of months are attested with genitive forms marked by lui, lu, as early as the sixteenth century. (c). ()
a. liturghie lui Ioan (CPrav.–: v) liturgy LUI.GEN John ‘John’s liturgy’ b. cu știrea măriei lu crai (CCat.: v) with approval majesty LU.GEN prince ‘with the approval of his majesty’s, the prince’ c. luna lu mai ( . . . ) luna lu ghenarie (CT.–: r) month LU.GEN May ( . . . ) month LU.GEN January ‘month of May ( . . . ) month of January’
... The functional element al Al is a specialized marker of the genitive. In the sixteenth century, al was already a grammaticalized functional element. Al is an innovation of Romanian. Its origin is controversial; the main hypotheses formulated in the literature are the following: a) al < Rom. preposition a (see iii below) + the definite article (see, among many, Meyer-Lübke : ; DA s.v.; Rosetti : –; Sala [] : ); b) al < Rom. demonstrative al (ăl) (Coteanu : ), strong definite article (Giurgea : –). (i) In the old language, al possessed inflected forms (alM.SG, aiM.PL, aF.SG, aleF.PL) and an invariable form (i.e. a). The inflecting forms display gender and number concord with the governing DP of the genitive. The invariable form had a wide diatopic distribution (a, d); the inflected forms were specific to the southern dialectal area (b). The distribution areas were not very well delimited; texts from different regions testify to the variation between the two types of forms (a–d; Gheţie and Mareș : –). Al co-occurs with other genitival markers.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
()
The nominal phrase a. meșterul mare [AL-phrase a tipare-lor] (PO.: ) craftsman.DEF great AL.INV typography-DEF.GEN ‘the great master printer’ b. celor zeace cuvinte [AL-phrase ale lu Dumnezeu] (CCat.: r) CEL.GEN ten commandments AL.F.PL LU.GEN God ‘of God’s ten commandments’ c. cărţi [AL-phrase ale lui Moisi] (PO.: ) five books AL.F.PL LUI.GEN Moses ‘ books of Moses’ d. mișel [AL-phrase a lu Hristos] (CPrav.–: r) poor AL.INV LU.GEN Christ ‘poor (man) of Christ’
(ii) The syntactic distribution rules of the al-genitive were not established in the old language. In many old structures, the distribution of the al-genitive is not based on the constraint of adjacency to the governing DP’s definite article. However, there are numerous situations where the constraint is not observed. This type of variation is attested in both periods of OR. Al is non-adjacent to the definite article in the following types of context: after an indefinite noun (a); after a noun with a proclitic article or with another type of prenominal determiner (b); after a proper name (c); postnominally, with different constituents intervening between the genitive phrase and the governing DP (d); when the genitive is prenominal ((e); for the behaviour of this pattern in OR, see Cornilescu and Nicolae d). ()
a. apostol [AL-phrase a lu Isus Hristos] (CV.–: v) apostle AL.INV LU.GEN Jesus Christ ‘apostle of Jesus Christ’ b. u cal [AL-phrase al Bălosului] (DÎ.–: II) a horse AL.M.SG Bălosu.GEN ‘a horse of Bălosu’s’ c. fata lu Filip [AL-phrase al lu Vlad [AL-phrase al daughter LU.GEN Philip AL.M.SG LU.GEN Vlad AL.M.SG Bangicăi]] (DÎ.–: VI) Bangica.GEN ‘the daughter of Philip of Vlad of Bangica’ d. dascălul de dăscălie [AL-phrase a teacher.M.SG.DEF of teaching.F.SG.ACC AL.INV Sebeșului] (PO.: ) Sebeș.GEN ‘the teacher for psalm readers of Sebeș’s church’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The genitive. Between analyticity and syntheticity e. [AL-phrase
mai marilor lor] more big.ones.PL.DEF.GEN their(GEN) învăţătură (CIst.–: r) teaching ‘the teachings of their superiors’ a
AL.F.SG
Al superfluously occurs in adjacency to the governing DP’s enclitic article. The structures are old, present in numerous texts of the sixteenth century. (Densusianu : –), but are also employed in the following period, including the eighteenth century. ()
a. urdzirea [AL-phrase a lumiei] (PH.–: r) foundation.DEF AL.F.SG world.DEF.GEN ‘the foundation of the world’ b. procatorul [AL-phrase al cinstitului Sfatu] (ISN.: LXVI) lawyer.DEF AL.M.SG honoured.DEF.GEN council ‘the lawyer of the honoured Council’
Al is absent from some constructions of type () in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (). The absence of al is favoured by the prenominal position of the ordinal numeral (b). ()
a. în a șapteasprădzeace dzi luniei (instead of a luniei; PO.: ) in seventeenth day month.DEF.GEN ‘in the seventeenth day of the month’ b. acea zi a doa venirei a lu Hristosu (CC2.: ) that day second.F coming.DEF.GEN AL.F.SG LU.GEN Christ ‘that day of Christ’s second arrival’
(iii) When used pronominally, AL generally occurs with marked genitives. () numele unui filosof și [AL-phrase a unui izvor] (CDicţ.–: ) name.DEF a.GEN philosopher and AL.INV a.GEN spring ‘the name of a philosopher and of a spring’ The original documents of the sixteenth century (DÎ) throw into prominence the larger extension of al-phrases in the southern area: there are forty-three occurrences in Wallachia, twenty in Moldova, and three in Transylvania. ... The prepositions a, de, la In OR, the genitive could be analytically introduced by the prepositions a, de, la. (i) In the old language, prepositional a had attained a high degree of grammaticalization, becoming a functional element specialized as a grammatical marker of the genitive. The Romanian preposition a originates in Lat. AD, generalized as a marker of the Romance dative (see, among many, Gaeng : and references therein; Iliescu [] a: ).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase
Throughout the old period, a was systematically employed to mark the genitive of noun phrases whose initial position is occupied by quantifiers devoid of case inflection: cardinals (a); tot (toată) ‘all’, in the singular (b), the indefinite quantifier o seamă ‘a lot’ (c), etc. The structure was stable in all regional varieties of Romanian. ()
a. mânile [A-phrase a doo hands.DEF A.GEN two ‘the hands of two girls’ b. părintele [A-phrase a tot father.DEF A.GEN all ‘the father of the entire land’
feate] (BB.: ) girls ţinutul] (CSXI.–: r) land.DEF
c. pofta [A-phrase a o seamă de moldoveani] (ULM.~: ) desire.DEF A.GEN a lot of Moldovans ‘the desire of a lot of Moldovans’ In the sixteenth century, the a-genitive occurs in some northern texts in collocations like (a), whose correspondent in the southern texts is a synthetic genitive (see (b), where the synthetic genitive is also analytically marked, by AL). ()
a. trestie [A-phrase a cărtulariu] (PS.–: ) quill A.GEN scholar b. trestie [AL-phrase a cărtulariului] (CP1.: r) quill AL.F.SG scholar.DEF.GEN ‘the quill of the scholar’
However, the original documents of the sixteenth century (DÎ) testify to a broader extension of the a-genitive in the southern area (%) than in the northern (%). At the same time, the DÎ corpus underscores the reduced ratio of the a-genitive in comparison to the al-genitive (}...), in all dialect areas (Table .).
T . A-genitive. Al-genitive Wallachia
a-genitive al-genitive
Moldova
Transylvania
occurrences
percentage
occurrences
percentage
occurrences
percentage
% %
% %
–
– %
The quantifier toţi (toate) ‘all’ (in the plural) occurs in variation, in structures with a or with a synthetic genitive (tuturor ‘all.GEN’); the two realizations sometimes alternate within the same text, especially in the southern area (a, b); the tuturor genitive is preferred in some northern texts (c).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The genitive. Between analyticity and syntheticity ()
a. rădăcina [A-phrase a toate bunătăţile] (CC2.: ) root.DEF A.GEN all good.things.DEF b. rădăcina tuturoru bunătăţiloru (CC2.: ) root.DEF all.GEN good.things.DEF.GEN ‘the root of all good things’ c. cu ruga preacurateei sale maici și [AL-phrase a with prayer.DEF too.pure.DEF.GEN his mother and AL.F.SG tuturor sfinţilor] (Prav.: v) all.GEN saints.DEF.GEN ‘with the prayer of his pure Virgin mother and of all saints’
In regionally varied sixteenth-century texts, including original texts, one encounters mixed constructions, in which prepositional a is followed by a quantifier and a noun enclitically inflected for the genitive. The examples gradually disappear (the structure is also attested just occasionally in the nineteenth century; SILR: ). However, the existence of these structures indicates that the syntactic use of the a-genitive was not completely stable at the time (co-occurring with the AL-genitive a tuturor fraţilor, in ()). () cu știre [A-phrase a toţ megiiașilor] și a with knowledge A.GEN all neighbours.DEF.GEN and AL.F.SG tuturor fraţilor de ocină (DÎ.: VIIIb) all.GEN brothers.DEF.GEN of property ‘with the knowledge of all the neighbours and of all brothers of property’ After mid seventeenth century, the a-genitive continues to occur before plural quantifiers. ()
a. moștii [A-phrase a mulţi sfinţi întregi] (CLM.–: r) relics A.GEN many saints complete ‘relics of many complete saints’ b. în adâncul [A-phrase a toate fealiurile de nevoi] (SA.: v) in depth.DEF A.GEN all types.DEF of needs ‘in the depth of all types of needs’
Prepositional a was employed in ancient structures for the analytic realization of the syntactic genitive relation, in contexts where the nominal phrase is bare and non-referential (i.e. a NP; cf. Delfitto and Paradisi : ). With this role, a competes with de, which eliminated a from this type of contexts ((); cf. (a) and the corresponding structure from PH.–: r: trestie de cărtulariu ‘scholar’s quill’, with a kind-denoting de-phrase; }...). () pentru luptarea [A-phrase a for fighting.DEF A.GEN dobitoace] (Prav.: ; cf. MR: lupta de dobitoace) beasts ‘about the fighting of beasts’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase
(ii) Prepositional de, employed in possessive constructions, was a grammaticalized functional element. Rom. de originates in Lat. DE. OR preserved traces of the periphrastic DE-genitive from vulgar Latin (Bourciez [] : ; Densusianu : –). The preposition de could combine with a NP, following the general rule for prepositions in Romanian (a). Structures of type (a) correspond to an ancient Romance pattern, consolidated in Romanian, probably under Balkan influence (Sandfeld : ). Prepositional de could also combine with a DP: a proper name (a); a definite common noun followed by a subordinate, conforming to the general rule of rendering definite the head of a DP followed by modifiers (b, a). De-phrases were in variation with the non-prepositional [+ definite] genitive, in corresponding passages from other texts ((b); Densusianu : –). ()
a. calea [DE-phrase de cetate] (PS.–: ) road.DEF DE.GEN fortress ‘the path of the fortress’ b. calea [cetaţiei] (PH.–: v) road.DEF fortress.DEF.GEN ‘the path of the fortress’
()
a. casa [DE-phrase de Domnulu] (PS.–: ) house.DEF DE.GEN Lord.DEF ‘God’s house’ b. în dzua [DE-phrase de rreulu mieu] (= răului) in day.DEF DE.GEN misfortune.DEF my misfortune.DEF.GEN (PH.–: v) ‘in the day of my misfortune’
In many contexts, the de-genitive occurred after the prepositional collocations pre (pren, în) mijloc (‘in the middle of ’). Collocations of this type were not fully frozen, so that sometimes the possessive relation between the noun mijloc ‘middle’ and the genitive is obvious ((); Densusianu : –). ()
a. pre mijlocu [DE-phrase de casa me] (PS.–: ) through middle DE.GEN house.DEF my ‘in the middle of my house’ b. în mijloculu [caseei meale] (PH.–: v) in middle.DEF house.F.SG.DEF.GEN my.F.SG.GEN ‘in the middle of my house’
The de-genitive sometimes corresponds to o(t) (‘from’), from the Church Slavonic source of the translation. () [DE-phrase de Iovu] bunră-rrebdare (CV.–: v) DE.GEN Job good-patience ‘Job’s good patience’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The genitive. Between analyticity and syntheticity
Formulae that include names of titles and toponyms () also probably have a Slavonic model, with the preposition ot(ŭ) (‘from’) (Densusianu : ). However, this pattern also existed in late Latin, being interpreted as an analytic genitive as well (Gaeng : –, ). In (a), the post-prepositional non-articulation constraint (}....i) affects the toponym Bistriţa, which incorporates the feminine definite article -a; in MR, toponyms tend not to be subject to this constraint (MR de Bistrița). ()
a. birăul [DE-phrase de Bistriţă] (DÎ.: CII) mayor.DEF DE.GEN Bistriţa ‘the mayor of Bistriţa’ b. birăul [DE-phrase de cetatea Bistiţeei] (DÎ.: CII) mayor.DEF DE.GEN fortress.DEF Bistriţa.GEN ‘the mayor of the fortress of Bistriţa’
Examples of type () are more numerous in the sixteenth-century documents, but they also appear in later texts. () domnâi mazâli [DE-phrase de Moldova] (NL.–: ) princes.PL.DEF dismissed.PL [DE-phrase DE.GEN Moldova] ‘the dismissed princes of Moldova’ The de-genitive was a syntactic archaism in OR. Its absence from (original) documents suggests that it was not employed in the spoken language of the sixteenth century. Relics of this pattern are preserved in a few (probably bookish) constructions, from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In contrast with the old structures (a, , a, –), in Teodor Corbea’s dictionary (CDicţ.) and in Dimitrie Eustatievici’s grammar (EG), the de-genitive occurs as a complement of certain deverbal adjectives, bearing the suffix -tor (a); certain adjectives are contextually substantivized (b). ()
a. cel ce împlinitori este [DE-phrase de poruncile that which obeyer is DE.GEN commandments.DEF dumnezeiești] (EG.: r) divine.PL ‘the one who obeys God’s commandments (lit. the one who is an obeyer of God’s commandments)’ b. găsitoriul [DE-phrase de învăţătura umblărei finder.DEF DE.GEN teaching.DEF rotation.DEF.GEN lunei] (CDicţ.–: ) moon.DEF.GEN ‘the one who interprets the teachings of the moon’s rotation’
(iii) The preposition la ‘at/to’ is attested only rarely in structures which are quasi-equivalent to the genitive (). Rom. la originates in Lat. ILLAC AD (Iliescu b: ).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase
()
cându tremease Domnul arhanghel Mihail cătră Avram și cu when send.PS.SG God archangel Michael to Abraham and with bucurie să ia sufletul iubitoriului [la-phrase la oaspeţi] joy SĂSUBJ take.SUBJ.SG soul.DEF lover.DEF.GEN la guests Avram Abraham (= de oaspeţi, al oaspeţilor or the analytic dative, marked by la ‘to/at’, cf. a iubi la ‘to love to/at’; CSIX.–: r) ‘when God sent archangel Michael to Abraham in order to take the soul of the guest-lover Abraham’
.. Genitive marking by the inflected prenominal determiners The genitive was proclitically marked, by the inflection of prenominal determiners (the indefinite article or another prenominal determiner). ()
a. pintru rândul unui fecior al mieu (DÎ.–: XXV) for turn.DEF a.GEN son AL.M.SG my ‘about a son of mine’ b. rugăciunea celor boiari (DÎ.: CXI) prayer.DEF those.GEN boyars ‘the prayer of those boyars’
.. Case concord (i) An archaic type of case concord is the marking of proper names both by proclisis (by lui) and by enclisis, with inflection of the final segment. ()
Cartea [AL-phrase a lu Eremiei] prorocul (PO.: ) book.DEF AL.F.SG LU.GEN Jeremiah.GEN prophet.DEF ‘the book of Jeremiah the prophet’
(ii) In genitival phrases with multiple occurrences of the article (both on the noun and on the adjective), structures which can be accounted for in the split-DP theory (Giusti ), case is marked enclitically on all the constituents of the nominal phrase, by the form of the definite article (}....i). ()
preasfint-e-i (...) fecioar-e-i (AD.–: v) pure-GEN-DEF.GEN virgin-GEN-DEF.GEN ‘of the pure virgin’
.. The non-marking of the genitive Genitives syncretic with the nominative-accusative occur in two types of constructions. (i) Nouns not bearing genitive marking in genitival position are present only in certain texts from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. ()
măna biereul de cetate hand.DEF mayor.DEF.NOMACC DE.GEN fortress Bistriţei (= bireului; SB.~: ) Bistriţa.GEN ‘the hand of the mayor of the fortress of Bistriţa’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The partitive phrase
(ii) Phrases made up of a non-definite relational noun and a possessive affix sometimes occur as a whole in a genitival syntactic position, without inflectional endings. These structures are attested throughout the old period. ()
mânrule doamnă-sa (PH.–: v) hands.DEF lady-his/her.POSS.NOMACC ‘the hands of his lady’
The absence of case marking was sometimes compensated for by redundant co-occurrence of the possessive affix with a marked genitive phrase. ()
păcatul mânre-sa lui (PH.–: r) sin.DEF mother-his/her.POSS.NOMACC his.GEN ‘the sin of his mother’
.. Final remarks In OR, the genitive has the following particular features: – the genitive(-dative) could be synthetically marked only on the first constituent of the feminine singular nominal phrase; this pattern did not survive; – the genitive(-dative) of masculine anthroponyms could be marked enclitically (by -lui, -ei, -ii); these synthetic forms were gradually replaced by (lui) proclitic marking; the synthetic forms have been preserved in folk writings or in idioms; – the syntactic rules of the usage of the al-genitive were not stable; – the preposition a grammaticalized as an analytic marker of the genitive in OR; – in the sixteenth century, the prepositional a-genitive had a lower frequency than the al-genitive; – the a-genitive pattern was not fully stable in the old language; the preposition a could co-occur with other enclitic markers of the genitive; this type of contamination was in regress; however, it is still attested in the nineteenth century; – the structures in which the preposition a marks the genitive of a non-referential nominal expression (i.e. an NP) are limited to the old period; – the grammaticalized preposition de marks the genitive of referential definite phrases (i.e. DPs); these structures perpetuate a Latin pattern and correspond to the Romance genitive; in OR, these structures were already a syntactic archaism; the de-genitive constructions of the seventeenth–eighteenth centuries have a bookish nature; – the doubly marked genitives (proclitically by lui, and enclitically by the inflection of the final segment) are limited to the old period; – the non-marked genitives are specific to OR.
. The partitive phrase .. Preliminary remarks The partitive phrase is a special type of nominal phrase, reflecting the ‘part’–‘whole’ semantic-syntactic relationship. Prototypically, in the full partitive phrase, the element denoting the ‘part’, typically realized as a quantifier (indefinite or numeric), is in
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase
first position and a prepositional phrase headed by a partitive preposition, with a DP complement, denoting the ‘whole’, is in second position (a,b) (Nedelcu : –). ()
a. lucrulu fieșu-cărui de noi (CC2.: ) thing.DEF each.GEN of us.ACC ‘the deeds of each of us’ b. luo acea slugă cămile dintre cămilele took.PS.SG that servant.NOM camels.ACC of camels.DEF.ACC domnu-său (PO.: ) master-his ‘that servant took ten of his master’s camels’
Generally, the partitive prepositional phrase immediately follows the quantifier (a,b). Since the partitive preposition has lexical meaning, it is rather autonomous, and can thus be isolated from the quantifier by interposing another phrase (a) or by moving it to prenominal position (b); its head can be elliptic, and, consequently, the partitive prepositional phrase occupies an argumental position (c). ()
a. nime treabă ă nu aibă den neamul nobody.NOM business.ACC SĂSUBJ not have.SUBJ.SG of kin.DEF.ACC acestor oameni (DÎ.: V) these men.GEN ‘none of these men’s relatives should interfere’ b. aleseși dintru acești doi unul (CB.–: ) choose.PS.SG of these two.ACC one.ACC ‘you had chosen one of these two’ c. căinii mânâncî de fărâmele feciorilor (CT.–: v) dogs.DEF.NOM eat.PRES.PL of crumbs.DEF.ACC lads.DEF.GEN ‘dogs eat some of the lads’ crumbs’
Romanian, like Spanish and Portuguese, but unlike French and Italian, lacks a partitive article (GR: ). From the first Romanian texts, mass and abstract nouns encode their partitive value either through a bare noun structure (a), or through nouns with indefinite quantifiers ((b); see }...). ()
a. Cerșu elu să bea apă (CC2.: ) ask.PS.SG he SĂSUBJ drink.SUBJ.SG water.ACC ‘He asked to drink water’ b. câte puţinea miiare și zahar gusta (Ev.: ) how.much little honey.ACC and sugar.ACC taste.IMPERF.SG ‘he tasted a little honey and sugar’
The partitive phrase is well represented in all OR texts (Pană Dindelegan c), with a rich inventory of indefinite pronouns occupying the first position in the construction. A feature of OR is the occurrence of competing partitive prepositions.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The partitive phrase
From the first OR texts, special partitive constructions are attested: constructions with an empty head, structures incorporating either relative clauses or genitive/ possessive DPs (}..). .. The element in first position of the construction (i) Indefinite and negative pronouns attested in the OR period occur most frequently in first position: unul ‘one’, altul ‘another’, cine(șu) ‘who’, altcineva ‘someone else’, carele ‘which’, oricarele ‘whoever’, oarecine ‘whoever’, oarecâţi ‘a few’, fie(șu)care/fietecarele ‘each’, cât/câţi ‘how many’, câţiva ‘a few’, cineva ‘someone’, ceva ‘something’, neștine ‘somebody’, vr(e)unul ‘anybody’, neceunul ‘no one’, nime(a)/neminele ‘nobody’, nemică ‘nothing’, mulţi ‘many’, puţinei ‘few’, atâţi ‘so many’, etc. () a. neștine den cărtulari (CT.–: v) somebody of scholars.ACC ‘one of the scholars’ b. unul de voi (CC1.: v) one of you.PL.ACC ‘one of you’ c. carele amu de acei trei vecini (CC2.: ) which.DEF now of those three neighbours.ACC ‘now which of the three neighbours’ d. fieșucare de ei (CC2.: ) each of them ‘each of them’ e. nimini de rudele meale (DÎ.–: VIII) nobody of relatives.F.DEF.ACC my.F.PL ‘none of my relatives’ (ii) Cardinal and ordinal numerals also occur in first position in the phrase. () a. doi den ucenicii săi (CC2.: ) two of apprentices.DEF.ACC his.POSS ‘two of his apostles’ b. a cincea den grâu (PO.: ) fifth.FEM of grain.ACC ‘the fifth part of the grain’ (iii) NPs with an indefinite article (a) or with an indefinite quantifier (b), as well as quantified collective nouns, occur in first position (c). ()
a. un eghiptean bate un jidov dentre fraţii an Egyptian.NOM beats a Jew.ACC of brothers.DEF.ACC săi (PO.: ) his.POSS ‘an Egyptian beats one of the Jews among his brothers’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase b. bătând pre oarecare ovreaiu den fraţii beat.GER DOM some Jew.ACC of brothers.DEF.ACC lui (BB.: ) his.GEN ‘beating some Jew among his brothers’ c. Înţeleaseră nărod mult den iudei (CC1.: v) understand.PS.PL people.NOM much of Jews.ACC ‘Many of the Jews had understood’
(iv) Phrases headed by nouns lexically denoting the ‘part’, followed by partitive de + noun denoting the ‘whole’, sometimes seen as a locative (ocină, moșie ‘land’, loc ‘piece of land’, sat ‘village’, vale ‘valley’, etc.), are frequent. ()
a. parte de moșie a tătini-meu (DÎ.–: LV) part of land.ACC AL.F.SG father.GEN-my ‘part of my father’s land’ b. jumătate de toată avuţiia (Ev.: ) half of all wealth.DEF.ACC ‘half of all his wealth’
(v) The relative superlative phrase has a special status, because its degree of grammaticalization is uncertain in OR (}..). Its [+Def] feature differentiates it from prototypical partitive structures (). ()
cel mai mic dentre noi (PO.: ) CEL more little.M.SG of us ‘the youngest of us’
(vi) With copular or attributive verbs, the partitive PP is occasionally incorporated into an NP with predicative interpretation (este soţ de-ai noștri ‘he is one of our companions’, ia muiare dentre noi ‘he chooses his wife from among us’). The consequence is that a bare noun with a ‘kind’ reading can occur in first position (). ()
Iesau luo muiare dentre featele Cananeilor pre Esau take.PS.SG wife.ACC of girls.DEF.ACC Canaanites.DEF.GEN DOM Ada (PO.: ) Ada.ACC ‘Esau married Ada from among the Canaanite girls’
The partitive structure has the same definiteness features as in MR: prototypically, the noun denoting the ‘part’ is indefinite. However, as in MR, in special relative superlative constructions, the phrase has the feature [+Def] (cel mai mic dentre ‘the smallest of ’), and in special predicative positions bare nouns with a ‘kind’ reading can occur (este soţ de-al ‘he is the companion of ’).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The partitive phrase
.. Partitive prepositions (i) The most frequent sixteenth-century preposition is de ‘of ’ (< DE; Ernout and Thomas : ); it occurs with countable plurals (a), with collective or mass nouns (b), as well as with special structures with genitive partitive complements ((c); }...). ()
a. nece unulu de acei bărbaţi (CC2.: ) not one of those men.ACC ‘none of those men’ b. jumătate de avuţiia loru (CC2.: ) half of wealth.DEF.ACC their ‘half of their wealth’ c. nemica de ale vieţiei (CC2.: ) nothing of AL.F.PL life.DEF.GEN ‘anything worldly’
The frequency of partitive de decreases over time, being much lower in the eighteenth century. After the eighteenth century, partitive de becomes obsolete, except for: (i) partitive structures with incorporated genitive/possessive DPs (unul de-ai lor ‘one of theirs’/de-ai noștri ‘one of ours’); (ii) fixed structures (are/mănâncă de toate ‘he has/eats anything’); (iii) structures whose head noun lexically denotes the ‘part’ (o parte de ‘a part of ’, jumătate de ‘half of ’), constructions that are still alive in MR. In the nineteenth century, partitive de structures are revived in rare cases, possibly based on a French model (SILR: ). (ii) The preposition den/din ‘of ’ (< de+în) is quite frequent from the sixteenth century. Throughout the OR period, den/din ‘of ’ takes complements in the form of collective (a), as well as countable nouns (or substitutes thereof) with plural form (b). ()
a. nime din ruda mea (DÎ.: CVII) nobody of relative.DEF.ACC my ‘none of my relatives’ b. unele den albini (FD.–: r) some of bees.ACC ‘some of the bees’
(iii) The preposition dentr(u)/dintr(u) ‘of ’, with partitive value (< de+întru; some forms are still transparent for the way they were composed (a)), occurs from the sixteenth century, with high differences in frequency among texts (no occurrence in DÎ, forty-two occurrences in CC2.). Dentru/dintru ‘of ’ takes partitive complements from the class of countable nouns (or substitutes thereof) with plural form (a,b), as well as from the class of mass nouns (c).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase
()
a. carele de într-amândoi (Prav.: ) which of in-both.ACC ‘which of the two’ b. unii dentru chemaţi (CC1.: r) some of call.PPLE.M.PL ‘some of those called’ bea dentru această apă (CC2.: ) AUX.FUT.SG drink.INF of this water.ACC ‘he will drink from this water’
c. va
(iv) The preposition dentre/dintre ‘of, from among’ (< de+între) is not clearly differentiated from dentr(u)/dintr(u) ‘of ’ in OR. Although dintre, with this form, occurs from the sixteenth century, it generally has a low frequency (one occurrence in CC2., no occurrence in DÎ and in CC1.); an exception is PO., with forty-six occurrences. From its first occurrences, dintre shows signs of number specialization, selecting plural complements (a); rarely, it also takes singular collective nouns as complements (b). ()
a. o doică dentre muierile evreianelor (PO.: ) a nanny of women.DEF.ACC Jew.F.PL.DEF.GEN ‘a nanny from among the Jewish women’ b. oarecâţi dentre nărod (PO.: ) some of people.ACC ‘some of the people’
(v) The compound preposition de la ‘from’ is occasionally attested ((); Stan : ). ()
nimenre ( . . . ) de la oameri (CV.–: v) nobody from people.PL.ACC ‘none of the people’
While in the sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth century partitive de is the most frequent preposition (in CazV., the ratio in favour of de is significant), starting with the middle of the seventeenth century, the ratio starts to change in favour of the other partitive prepositions (Table .). In texts in which de is still frequent (CIst.–; CLM.–), usually these are genitive de structures. .. Special constructions ... The partitive phrase incorporating a genitive/possessive DP From the beginning of the OR period, a genitive (a,c)/possessive DP (b) can occur with partitive de, obligatorily with the genitive marker al/a [PP [AL-phrase DP]]. ()
a. ca unui învăţătoriu de ai ovreailoru (CC2.: ) like a.DAT teacher.DAT of AL.M.PL Jews.DEF.GEN ‘like a Jewish teacher’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The partitive phrase
T . Frequency of partitive prepositions in the second OR period
CazV. NT. SVI.~ AIB. AAM. CIst.– CLM.– NL.~–
de ‘of ’
den/din ‘of ’
dentr-/dentre ‘of ’
.% .% .% .% .% .% (% with Gen/Pos) .% (% with Gen/Pos) %
% .% .% .% .% .% .% %
.% .% % .% .% % .% %
b. nece o dzisă de-ale meale (CSI.–post: v) not a word of=AL.F.PL my ‘none of my words’ c. nimica de ale ceștii lumi (SVI.~: v) nothing of AL.F.PL this.GEN world.GEN ‘nothing of this world’ In OR texts, examples like (a,b) suggest how the genitive de‒structures were obtained, through the ellipsis of the noun in postposition to the genitive/possessive DP, since in OR the genitive/possessive DP’s prenominal position is frequent (}}.; .). ()
a. ieșindu și de ai noștri muldoveni exit.GER also of AL.M.PL our Moldovans la harţu (CLM.–: v) at fight ‘some of ours/our Moldovans coming out to fight’ b. unul dintr-ai lui oameni (CIst.–: r) one of=AL.M.PL his.GEN people ‘some of his (people)’
The genitive marker a has variable form, copying the gender form of its referential source + plural information (învăţătoriuM de aiM+PL ovreailoru ‘Jewish teacher’, o zisăF de aleF+PL meale ‘a word of my words’). From the seventeenth century, there occur constructions in which the genitive marker has singular form (de-ai/ale > de-al/a; see Frâncu b). At first, the singular structure occurs with mass (a) and collective nouns (b); then it expands to prototypical nouns (c); in the eighteenth century, the frequency of singular forms increases; this construction is present in several dialects (Frâncu b: ; Giurgea : ).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase
()
a. au
rămas vin de-al mătușii remain.PPLE wine.NOM of=AL.M.SG aunt.DEF.GEN Mariei (, apud Frâncu ) Maria.GEN ‘some of aunt Maria’s wine’ b. lăsându-i oaste de a sa leave.GER=CL.DAT.SG army.ACC of AL.F.SG his.POSS pe lângă dânsul (CLM.–: v) on near him.ACC ‘leaving some of his army with him’ c. fiece lucru de-a besearecii (ȘT.: ) each thing of=AL.INV church.DEF.GEN ‘each church possession’ AUX.PERF.SG
Although there is no clear indication regarding seventeenth‒eighteenth-century speakers’ perception, one can deduce that replacing the plural with the singular is sometimes associated with the loss of de’s partitive meaning and, implicitly, with a change in interpretation: from the ‘partitive’ (‘one of more’) to the ‘comparative-qualifying’ reading (‘of their kind’). Both structures (with the singular and with the plural) and both readings are attested nowadays (Nedelcu : –). The invariable form a can also be interpreted as an exclusively morphological dialectal phenomenon, with no relation to the construction’s semantic interpretation. In eighteenth-century Moldovan texts where the marker a is usually invariable, parallel variable a-structures coexist ((a) vs. (b)). ()
a. unui mârzac de-ai lor (CLM.–: v) a.DAT Tartar-chief.DAT of=AL.M.PL their ‘to one of their Tartar chiefs’ b. un aprod de-a acelui domnișor (CLM.–: v) a page of=AL.INV that young-master.GEN ‘one of those young master’s pages’
... The incorporated relative clause The incorporated relative clause occurs in two types of structures: it can be the complement of the partitive preposition (a) or it can occupy the position of the partitive genitive DP (b). ()
a. vreuna de ce-i plăcea (FD.–: r) any of what=CL.DAT.SG like.IMPERF.SG ‘any of the ones he liked’ b. Și cai de-a cui găsea ( . . . ) (NL.~–: ) and horses of=AL.INV whose.GEN find.IMPERF.SG ‘And whoever’s horse he found’
... The partitive phrase with a null quantifier Constructions with null quantifier head (with zero phonological realization) are frequent throughout OR. The partitive PP is attested both in direct object and in subject position. Any partitive preposition, de, den/din, dentru/dintru ‘of ’, occurs in phrases with empty heads.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The partitive phrase
(i) in DO position ()
a. cine va mânca de pâinea aceasta (CT.–: v) who AUX.FUT.SG eat.INF of bread.DEF.ACC this ‘whoever eats of this bread’ b. să însoare pre Pătrașco-vodă și să-i SĂSUBJ marry.SUBJ.SG DOM Pătrașco.prince.ACC and SĂSUBJ=CL.DAT.SG dea din ruda împăratului (DÎ.: XXXII) give.SUBJ.SG from relative.DEF.ACC emperor.DEF.GEN ‘(He decided) to marry prince Pătrașco and to give him the hand of one of the emperor’s relatives’
(ii) in Subject position ()
a. după potopu au fostu de toate bucatele (CC2.: ) after flood AUX.PERF.PL be.PPLE of all.F.PL foods.F.PL.ACC ‘after the flood there was a little of all foods’ b. trebuiaște-vă de acealea (CC2.: ) need.PRES.SG=CL.DAT.PL of those.ACC ‘you need some of those’
These constructions were interpreted as ‘inherited from Latin’ (Candrea : CCXXI; Ménard : –). They resemble archaic Romance structures such as those in old French (Lardon and Thomine : ), old Italian (Salvi and Renzi (eds) : ), and in old Neapolitan (Ledgeway : –), languages that, subsequently, created a partitive article. ... The behaviour of mass and abstract nouns From the sixteenth century, mass and abstract nouns in argumental positions are also attested in partitive prepositional (a) and non-prepositional constructions (a); the latter are more frequent than the former. In the absence of partitive prepositions, mass and abstract nouns occur either as bare nouns (a), or with specialized partitive quantifiers (b,c). ()
a. nece pâine mânca, nece vinu bea (CT.–: v) nor bread.ACC eat.IMPERF.SG nor wine.ACC drink.IMPERF.SG ‘neither did he eat bread, nor did he drink wine’ b. cela ce gustă nește pelinu amaru (CC2.: ) that which tastes some wormwood.ACC bitter ‘the one that tastes like some bitter wormwood’ c. are ceva pizmă fratele tău spre tine (CC2.: ) has some envy.ACC brother.DEF.NOM your towards you.SG.ACC ‘your brother rather envies you’
.. Final remarks From the sixteenth to the end of the eighteenth century, the use of partitive de progressively diminished, so that, at the end of OR it reached its lowest frequency.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase
The polysemy and polyfunctionality of de certainly played an important role in this development. Among the partitive prepositions de, den/din, dentr-/dentru ‘of ’, no specialization regarding NP selection was noticed, as they all accept any lexical noun type (countable plurals, collective nouns, mass nouns) throughout the old period; dintre ‘of ’ is an exception, because, from the beginning, leaving aside a few occurrences with singular collectives, it selects complements with plural form. Partitive de structures with an empty head (mănâncă de pâine/de legume ‘he eats bread/ vegetables’) occur throughout the OR period, but they are more frequent in the first period. Genitive/Possessive de-partitive constructions are attested from the sixteenth century. Towards the end of the seventeenth century, the first occurrences of the singular genitive marker (al/a) are attested, sometimes associated with loss of the partitive meaning. Both structures (with the plural and with the singular) and both readings are still attested nowadays.
. Pronominal possession .. Preliminary remarks This section investigates pronominal means of marking nominal phrase-internal possession (for genitival possession, see }.; for clausal possession encoded by adverbal possessive clitics, see }..). Nominal phrase-internal possession is expressed by the following means: possessive adjectives and the rd person personal pronouns in the genitive case lui (‘his’), ei (‘her’), and lor (‘their’) (}..); possessive affixes (}..); adnominal possessive clitics (}..); and the definite article (}..). As in MR, in OR pronominal possession is represented at all three morphosyntactic levels: full words, clitics, and affixes. A special issue is the ratio of the different types of pronominal possession and their specializations: while possessive adjectives, genitival personal pronouns, and adnominal possessive clitics are non-specialized, combining with all types of possessed objects, possessive affixes and possession marked by the definite article show a clear specialization for specific types of possessive relations (combination with kinship nouns and inalienable possession). The multiple expression of the same possessor, to be discussed in the conclusions, sets off OR from MR. .. The possessive adjective ... Inventory OR features forms for all person and number combinations (). Furthermore, in contrast to MR, the OR rd person possessive său/sa/săi/ sale could be used to denote both single and multiple possessors, i.e. these forms also had multiple possessor reference ()—a feature inherited from Latin but lost in the passage to MR (Densusianu II: ). Possessive adjectives are mixed categories with pronominal and adjectival features (Cornilescu and Nicolae e; DobrovieSorin and Giurgea ); they encode the person and the number of the possessor(s) (i.e. their referent) and the number, gender, and case obtained via agreement with a governing possessee; hence, in the glosses, the grammatical information preceding the slash marks their pronominal features, while the post-slash glossing indicates the features obtained via adjectival agreement.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Pronominal possession ()
SG acesta easte trupul mieu (CCat.: v) this is body.DEF.NOM my.SG/M.SG.NOM ‘this is my body’ SG ceasul a morției tale (FT.–: r) time.DEF.ACC AL.INV death.DEF.GEN your.SG/F.SG.GEN ‘the time of your death’ SG Arătă Hristosu uceniciloru săi mânile show.PS.SG Christ.NOM apostles.DEF.DAT his.SG/M.PL.DAT hands.DEF.ACC și coastele sale (CC2.: ) and ribs.DEF.ACC his.SG/F.PL.ACC ‘Christ showed his hand and ribs to his apostles’ PL păcatele noastre să le putem sins.DEF.ACC our.PL/F.PL.ACC SĂSUBJ CL.ACC.F.PL can.PRES.PL cunoaște (CCat.: v) know.INF ‘(how) can we know our sins’ PL ați trimes omul vostru (DÎ.: CXII) AUX.PERF.PL send.PPLE man.DEF.ACC your.PL/M.SG.ACC ‘you sent your man’ PL bărbaţii datori sânt să iubească muierile man.DEF.NOM obliged.PL be.PRES.PL SĂSUBJ love.SUBJ.PL women.DEF.ACC sale ca trupurile sale (CM.: v) their.PL/F.PL.ACC as bodies.DEF.ACC their.PL/F.PL.ACC ‘men are obliged to love their women as their bodies’
() a. săturară-să fiii și lăsară get.tired.PS.PL=CL.REFL.PL sons.DEF.NOM and leave.PS.PL rămășiţele loru tânărilor săi (CM.: v) remainings.DEF.ACC their.GEN offspring.DEF.DAT their.PL/M.PL.DAT ‘their sons got tired and left their remainders to their offspring’ b. ceia ce se ispovedesc derept de toate păcatele those who CL.REFL.ACC.PL confess.PRES.PL for of all.F.PL sins.DEF.ACC sale (Prav.: v–r) their.PL/F.PL.ACC ‘those who rightly confess their sins’ c. vameșii au a lua câte aspri de o oaie publicans.DEF.NOM AUX.FUT.PL AINF take.INF each coins for a sheep de la neguţători, în partea sa (DÎ.: LXXXVIII) from merchants in part.DEF.ACC their.PL/F.SG.ACC ‘the publicans will take silver coins for each sheep from the merchants, in their part (=for themselves)’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase
CPrav.1560–1
CC1.1567 (40 p.)
CM.1567
FT.1571–5
Prav.1581
său / sa / 23 săi / sale (21 from – unique Moldova) possessor său / sa / 2 (both săi / sale – multiple from possessor Moldova)
CCat.1560
DÎ
Text
T . Său/sa/săi/sale: singular vs. plural reference of the possessive adjective
6
10
22
37
10
31
2
–
−
9
–
3
d. Aice au scris singuru cu mănule sale here AUX.PERF.PL write.PPLE alone with hands.DEF.ACC their.PL/M.PL.ACC Frențău Mihai, Frenățu Samoilă (ITM.~: ) Frențău Mihai.NOM Frenățu Samoilă.NOM ‘Frențău Mihai, Frențău Samoilă wrote here by themselves with their own hands’ e. toate lucrurile au vreamea sa (SA.: v) all things.DEF.NOM have.PRES.PL time.F.DEF.ACC their.PL/F.SG.ACC ‘all things have their time’ In the passage to MR, the rd person possessives with plural reference have been replaced by the genitival personal pronoun lor. This change had been underway since OR: note in Table . the significant difference between său/sa/săi/sale with unique and multiple reference. Possessive adjectives may take scope over two possessed objects. ()
a. arătă lor [mânule show.PS.SG them.DAT hands.DEF.ACC sale (CC1.: r) his.SG/F.PL.ACC ‘he showed them his hands and ribs’
și and
coastele] ribs.DEF.ACC
avut Dumnezeu [oamenii și have.PPLE God.NOM people.DEF.ACC and aleșii] săi (CC1.: v) chosen.M.PL.DEF.ACC his.SG/M.PL.ACC ‘God had some men and chosen people of himself ’
b. au
AUX.PERF.SG
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Pronominal possession
c. iartă-ne toate [păcatele și greșalele] forgive.IMP.SG=CL.DAT.PL all.F.PL sins.DEF.ACC and mistakes.DEF.ACC noastre (CM.: r) our.PL/F.PL.ACC ‘forgive us our sins and mistakes’ ... Distribution DP-internally, the possessive adjective may be either postnominal (a,c,d) or prenominal (b). When it is postnominal, the possessive adjective is either bare (inserted without the mediation of the marker al), adjacent to the definite head of the phrase and preceding other subordinates of the head (a), or adjacent to a non-definite head and hence introduced by the marker al (c). Postnominal possessives may also be displaced by other constituents from the head (d). ()
a. frații miei dragi (CC1.: r) brothers.VOC my.SG/M.PL.VOC dear.PL.VOC ‘my dear brothers’ meu frati (ITM.after : ) my.SG/M.SG brother ‘my own brother’ c. acei părinţi ai noștri (DÎ.: XXX) those parents AL.M.PL our.PL/M.PL ‘those parents of ours’ d. păcatele toate ale noastre (CC1.: r) sins.DEF all.F.PL AL.F.PL our.PL/F.PL ‘all our sins’
b. al
AL.M.SG
Prenominally, the possessive adjective may occupy the DP-initial and function as a definite determiner (a), or may have a non-determiner function (Cornilescu and Nicolae d) and be preceded by other constituents, more often demonstrative determiners (b) and more rarely prenominal adjectives bearing the definite article (c). Accidentally, it may happen that the possessive adjective precedes a definite noun without being introduced by the marker al (d). ()
a. mulţemim domniilor-voastre ca alor noștri iubiţ thank.PRES.PL Highnesses.your.F.PL.DAT like AL.M.PL our.PL/M.PL beloved.PL priiatini (DÎ.: LXXXII) friends ‘we thank Your Highnesses as our beloved friends’ b. cesta meu zapis (DÎ.: CIX) this my.SG/M.SG document ‘this document of mine’ c. cu dumnedzăiasca a ta tărie (CM.: v) with godly.F.SG AL.F.SG your.SG/F.SG strength.F.ACC ‘with your godly strength’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase d. vă s-or deșchide voștri CL.DAT.PL CL.REFL.ACC.PL=AUX.FUT.PL open.INF your.PL/M.PL ochii (DPar.: II.v) eyes.DEF.NOM ‘your eyes will open’
Possessive adjectives may occur in simple () and polydefinite () constructions featuring a non-DP-initial (so-called ‘low’) definite article (see also }..). The ‘low’ realization of the definite article ensures the direct insertion of the possessive adjective (i.e. the marker al is not required) (Cornilescu and Nicolae a). ()
tu tinde cu milă cătră noi [svântă mâna you.SG stretch.out.IMP.SG with mercy towards us holy.F hand.F.DEF.ACC ta] (FT.–: v) your.SG/F.SG.ACC ‘stretch out with mercy your holy hand towards us’
()
[aceasta învățătura noastră] scrie elu (CC1.: v) this teaching.F.DEF.ACC our.PL/F.SG writes he.NOM ‘he wrote this teaching of ours’
In relation to demonstratives, note that possessive adjectives may cause violations of the adjacency constraint of postnominal demonstratives to a definite noun to their left by being placed between the noun and the demonstrative (). The adjacency constraint has been historically strengthened, being obligatory in MR. ()
ce-au fost dară prinsura noastră what=AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE then capturing.F.DEF.NOM our.PL/F.SG.NOM aceia? (CC1.: r) that.F.SG ‘what was then that capturing of ours?’
The marker al (see also }...; Cornilescu and Nicolae ). As in the case of the nominal and pronominal genitives, possessive adjectives inserted without the mediation of the marker al are typically right-adjacent to the definite article (a); the absence of the definite article triggers the insertion of the marker al (b). However, there are rare situations in which bare possessive adjectives may adjoin to non-definite bases without the mediation of the marker al (a), this being an instance of the possessive affix construction (}..), and, quite surprisingly, there are cases in which al-insertion takes place, despite the adjacency of the possessive adjective to a definite head (b). ()
a. acesta easte singele mieu (CCat.: v) this is blood.DEF.NOM my.SG/M.SG.NOM ‘this is my blood’ b. ceasta a noastră scriptură (DÎ.: XXX) this AL.F.SG our.PL/F.SG scripture ‘this scripture of ours’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Pronominal possession ()
a. pre
răposatul frate nostru Pătru (DÎ.: XXXIX) late.DEF.ACC brother our.PL/M.SG.ACC Pătru ‘our late brother Pătru’ b. cuventele lui Dumnedzău și a sfinților ai words.DEF LUI.GEN God and AL.INV holy.M.PL.DEF.GEN AL.M.PL săi proroci (Prav.: v) his.SG/M.PL prophets ‘the words of God and of his holy prophets’ DOM
Another rare but interesting quirk of OR is the possibility of the possessive marker al displaying genitive (a) or dative (b) case morphology when the possessive phrase is DP-initial, an option eliminated in the passage to MR. ()
a. dzâsa alui mieu rost (DPar.: II.r-v) word.F.DEF AL.F.SG.GEN my.SG/M.SG mouth ‘the words of my mouth’ b. Fiiule, alor meale cuvinte ia son.DEF.VOC AL.F.PL.DAT my.SG/M.PL words take.IMP.SG aminte (DPar.: II.v) in.mind ‘Son, mind my words and listen to my sayings’
In predicative position, possessive adjectives are typically accompanied by the marker al. ()
elu iaste al tău (CM.: v) he is AL.M.SG your.SG/M.SG.NOM ‘he is yours’
The possessive adjective may just occasionally be displaced from within the phrase to which it belongs, giving rise to discontinuous structures (i.e. hyperbaton). ()
pre [cestu om tal nostru] ce l-am trimes al DOM this man who CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.PERF.PL send.PPLE AL.M.SG nostru (DÎ.: XLIV) our.PL/M.SG ‘this man of ours whom we sent’
... 3rd person possessive adjectives vs. genitival personal pronouns The possessive adjectives tend to be subject anaphors (a), true to their Latin etymology, while the rd person personal pronouns tend not to be (b) (Table .; see also Berea ). ()
a. Bărbatul cela ce-ș va spurca man.DEF.NOM that who=CL.DAT.POSS.SG AUX.FUT.SG profane.INF muiarea sa cu carne (CPrav.–: r) wife.DEF.ACC his.SG/F.SG.ACC with meat.ACC ‘the man who will profane his own wife with meat’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase b. (să
nu poftești vecinului tău) nece not covet.SUBJ.SG neighbour.DEF.DAT your.SG/M.SG.DAT not muiare-i, nece fata-i ( . . . ) nece nemica ce easte al wife=CL.SG not daughter=CL.SG not nothing which is AL.M.SG lui (CCat.: r) his.GEN ‘do not covet your neighbour’s wife, nor his daughter ( . . . ), nothing which is his’ SĂSUBJ
This division of labour is not watertight, as shown by the following facts. First of all, the possessive adjectives său/sa/săi/sale may occur in contexts in which they are not subject anaphors (a), while the genitival personal pronouns lui/ei/lor may occur in contexts in which they are subject anaphors (b). Secondly, lui/ei/ lor and său/sa/săi/sale may just occasionally share a context, denoting the same possessor (c), which confirms (together with the points made above) that we are dealing merely with a strong tendency towards specialization of function. ()
a. eu o am vândut lui Dumitru Teahni I CL.ACC.F.SG AUX.PERF.SG sell.PPLE LUI.DAT Dumitru Tehni și femeei sale, Teclei (DÎ.: LX) and wife.DEF.DAT his.SG/F.SG.DAT Tecla.DAT ‘I sold it to Dumitru Teahni and his wife, Tecla’ b. domnul mânie-se spr-ins cu a God get.angry.PS.SG=CL.REFL.ACC.SG towards-him with AL.F.SG lui mânie (CPrav.–: v) his.GEN anger.ACC ‘God became angry at him with his anger’ c. cu trupul său și cu sângele with body.DEF.ACC his.SG/M.SG and with blood.DEF.ACC lui (CM.: r) his.GEN ‘with his body and his soul’
This more clear-cut difference between possessive adjectives and genitival personal pronouns has been lost in the passage to MR. The problems that remain unclear at this point are (i) the degree to which the choice of lui or său is dependent on the source of the translations (cf. Rizescu ), and (ii) whether there are differences between northern (rhotacized) texts and the other texts (Ivănescu ). In any case, the original documents of the sixteenth century (DÎ) indicate that there is a difference between Moldova and the other areas: of the twenty-five occurrences of său/sa/săi/sale, twenty-three are from Moldovan texts; the lui–său competition seems to be influenced by the dialectal distribution of the lexical items themselves.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Pronominal possession
.. The possessive affix Weak forms of the possessive adjective may be suffixed to the bare stem (not bearing the definite article) of kinship and social relation nouns. From a morphosyntactic perspective, in this construction the possessive adjective is an affix (Niculescu ; GR: ), and syntactically it is a definite determiner (Cornilescu ; GR: ). The morphosyntactic and syntactic properties of the possessive affix have remained constant in the passage from old to MR. ... Inventory Possessive affixation is generally restricted to the singular paradigm of possessive adjectives (); possessive affixation is present both in original documents and in translations. ()
SG mumă-mea (DÎ.–: VIII) mother-my ‘my mother’ soru-mea (GB.XVI–XVII: r) sister-my ‘my sister’ SG fiiu-tău (DÎ.: XXXII) son-your ‘your son’ tată-tău și mumă-ta (CCat.: v) father-your and mother-your ‘your father and mother’ SG frăţini-său (DÎ.: XLIV) brother-his ‘his brother’ cumătră-sa (CPrav.–: r) child.godmother-his ‘his child’s godmother’
In contrast to MR, OR plural possessive adjectives may also appear in the possessive affix construction; this situation is, however, rare. ()
sănătatea domnu-nostru, Niculei vodă (DÎ.–: XXV) health.DEF prince-our Nicula.GEN voivode ‘the health of our prince, Nicula the voivode’
Both the possessive affix and the noun which serves as a basis for affixation display rich morphophonological variation, the nominal basis being affected by internal sandhi phenomena (Avram ). These are similar to those of MR (GR: ). ... Distribution The possessive affix construction may occur both in nominative-accusative configurations (a) and genitive-dative configurations (b,c). A particularity of OR is the occurrence of the phrase that comprises the
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase
possessive affix in genitive-dative configurations without any specific case inflection ((); see also }..)). ()
a. Scris-am eu, Ion, și frate-miu, write.PPLE=AUX.PERF.SG I Ion and brother.NOM-my Stan (DÎ.: VIIIb) Stan ‘I, Ion, and my brother, Stan, wrote’ b. feciori ai surori-me Melintiei (CSVI.–: r) six sons AL.M.PL sister.GEN-my Melintia.GEN ‘six sons of my sister, Melintia’ c. fata frăține-mieu sau a soro-mea (Prav.: r) daughter.DEF brother-my or AL.F.SG sister.GEN-my ‘the daughter of my brother or my sister’
()
a. sora cumătră-sa (CPrav.–: r) sister child.godmother.NOMACC-his ‘the sister of his child’s godmother’ b. vară premare soacră-sa (Prav.: r) cousin first mother-in-law.NOMACC-her ‘first cousin of her mother-in-law’
In certain genitive configurations, the etymological genitive forms (mă)mâne (< MAMANIS ‘mother’), tătâne (< TATANIS ‘father’) and their variants (e.g. mumânre, mumânrei, mumânri, mumânriei PH.–: v, v, r, r) are the sole markers of the oblique case (a,b); this pattern also extended to the form frățâne (‘brother’) (c), created analogically on the model of mumâne, tătâne (see also Șovar ; these forms have been preserved dialectally; Floarea ). Note also that these nouns may also (pleonastically) receive genitive desinences, while preserving their etymological genitive form; in this context, possessive affixation is blocked (). ()
a. sufletul tătine-său (DÎ.: LXXII) soul.DEF father(GEN)-his ‘the soul of you father’ b. pântecele mâne-sa (CC1.: r) womb.DEF.ACC mother(GEN)-his ‘his mother’s womb’ c. la mâna frăţine-miu Nedei (DÎ. –: XIV) at hand.DEF.ACC brother(GEN)-my Nedea.GEN ‘in the hand of my brother Nedea’
()
feciorul mumânrei sale (PH.–: v) son.DEF mother(GEN).DEF.GEN his.SG/M.SG ‘the son of his mother’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Pronominal possession
.. The adnominal possessive clitic In OR, nominal phrase-internal possession is also marked by adnominal possessive clitics whose case is still a matter of controversy: some authors consider that they are in the dative (GLR I: –; Avram : ; GALR I: ), while others consider them genitival clitics (Manoliu ; Grosu ; Cornilescu ; Avram and Coene , ). Like possessive adjectives, adnominal clitics are not specialized with regard to the type of possession expressed (alienable, inalienable); however, in contrast to possessive adjectives, adnominal clitics are not used as arguments in nominalizations. The adnominal possessive clitic has been viewed an element of Modern Greek influence on Romanian (Niculescu : –), a hypothesis weakened by the attestation of adnominal possessive clitics in the earliest writings of the sixteenth century. ... Inventory There are considerable disparities between OR and MR with respect to adnominal possessive clitics. First, OR possessed a full inventory (for all number and person combinations) of adnominal clitics () (Densusianu II: ), the plural paradigm (d–e) (with a lower frequency in OR) having been lost in the passage to MR. () a. SG cuvinte-mi (CM.: Pv) words=CL.POSS.SG ‘my words’ b. SG fer[i]tură-ți (FT.–: r) cover=CL.POSS.SG ‘your cover’ c’. SG poamel-i (FT.–: r) fruits.DEF=CL.POSS.SG ‘its fruits’ c”. SG ţara-ș (DÎ.: XXXIII) country.DEF=CL.REFL.POSS.SG ‘his own country’ d. PL părinţiloru-ne (Prav.: v) parents=CL.POSS.PL ‘our parents’ e. PL un frate-vă (PO.: ) a brother=CL.POSS.PL ‘a brother of yours’ f. PL părințiloru-le (Prav.: v) parents.DEF.GEN=CL.POSS.PL ‘their parents’ Secondly, in the rd person singular, both the non-reflexive clitic -i (c’) and the reflexive clitic -și (c’’) are richly attested; in the passage to MR, the rd person reflexive (c’’) has been eliminated.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase
... Configurations of cliticization In this respect, OR and MR differ considerably. First, in OR cliticization is possible both on nominative-accusative bases () (more frequent), and on genitive-dative bases () (rarer). In the passage to MR, adnominal cliticization on genitive-dative bases has been eliminated. ()
a. în cuvinte-mi in words=CL.POSS.SG ‘in my words’ b. în gânduri-mi (CM.: Pv) in thoughts=CL.POSS.SG ‘in my thoughts ’
()
încheieturilor făpturiei-și (Prav.: v) AL.F.SG joints.DEF.GEN being.DEF.GEN=CL.REFL.POSS.SG ‘of the joints of his being’
a. a
b. cearemu rău vrăjmașiloru-ne (CC2.: ) ask.PRES.PL bad enemies.DEF.DAT=CL.POSS.PL ‘we ask for bad things for our enemies’ Second, MR adnominal cliticization is subject to a definiteness requirement: the adnominal clitic is a DP-internal second-position (Wackernagel) clitic which strictly adjoins to a definite noun which is placed in the D-position (GR: –). In OR, the definiteness requirement is not yet functional: adnominal cliticization targets both definite () and indefinite () bases. Furthermore, adnominal clitics are allowed both in DPs accompanied by indefinite determiners () and definite determiners other than the definite article (). Cliticization onto postnominal adjectives, albeit rare, is not excluded (). ()
a. poporulu-și (Prav.: v) people.DEF=CL.REFL.POSS.SG ‘his people’ b. fata-i (CCat.: r) daughter.DEF=CL.POSS.SG ‘his daughter’
()
a. într-inimi-ne (FT.–: v) in-hearts=CL.POSS.PL ‘in our hearts’ b. pe urmă-mi (CC1.: r) on trace=CL.POSS.SG ‘on my trace’
()
a. un frate-vă (PO.: ) a brother=CL.POSS.PL ‘a brother of yours’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Pronominal possession
b. vrunui frate-mi (Prav.: v) a.DAT brother=CL.POSS.SG ‘to a brother of mine’ () a. cest frate-ne (FT.–: r) this brother=CL.POSS.PL ‘this brother of us’ b. viața-ne cea nesvârșită (FT.–: r) life.DEF=CL.POSS.PL CEL.F.SG unending.F.SG ‘our unending life’ ()
feciorul a veareei premare-mi (Prav.: r) son.DEF AL.INV cousin.F first.F=CL.POSS.SG ‘the son of my first cousin’
Most notably, as in MR (GR: –), adnominal cliticization exclusively affects vocalic hosts; in the case of definite masculine-neuter nouns, the final consonant representing the definite article is deleted upon cliticization, and the definite singular vocalic desinence -u- takes over the function of the definite article (). ()
cu poporu-ș (CPrav.–: r) with people=CL.REFL.POSS.SG ‘with his people’
.. Possessor deletion by the definite article Of MR it has been remarked that the definite article has a high degree of deicticity (Șerbănescu : ), which allows the deletion and contextual identification of the possessor (Sandfeld and Olsen : –; GR: –), a situation richly attested in OR as well. ()
ș-au arătat lor and=AUX.PERF.SG show.PPLE them.DAT coastele (CC1.: r) ribs.DEF.ACC ‘he showed to them his hands and ribs’
mânule hands.DEF.ACC
și and
.. The ratio of the different types of pronominal possession Table 4.6 presents the ratio of the different means of marking possession. Most of the changes and developments which take place in the passage from OR to MR are foreshadowed as early as the first period of OR: (i) the possessive adjective său/sa/săi/sale denotes a singular possessor considerably more often than it denotes a plural possessor; (ii) the plural forms of the adnominal possessive clitic (-ne, -vă, -le) (not singled out in the Table) have lower frequency than the singular forms (-mi, -ți, -i/-și), and cliticization on genitive-dative forms is considerably rarer than cliticization on
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase
DÎ
CCat.1560
CPrav.1560–1
CC1.1567 (40 p.)
CM.1567
FT.1571–5
Prav.1581
T . The global distribution of possessive markers
subject anaphor
18
2
1
28
7
2
2
non-subject anaphor
33
3
3
37
38
18
6
subject anaphor
−
–
1
7
−
–
1
non-subject anaphor
1
–
–
4
−
–
6
subject anaphor
17
6
8
21
33
9
24
non-subject anaphor
6
–
2
1
4
1
7
subject anaphor
7
–
–
2
1
–
–
non-subject anaphor
28
–
–
8
15
1
7
său / sa / săi / sale
subject anaphor
2
2
–
−
7
–
3
(pl. reference)
non-subject anaphor
−
–
–
−
2
–
–
Possessive adjectives (except 3rd person său, sa, săi, sale)
212
15
2
68
344
31
34
Adnominal clitics
2
1
3
−
9
9
20
Possessive affixes
27
1
6
3
2
1
68
Possessive doubling
6
–
1
9
5
2
2
Text Type of possessor
lui
ei
său / sa / săi / sale (sg. reference)
lor
nominative-accusative bases; however, the rd person singular reflexive form -și, later jettisoned, is relatively frequent in OR; (iii) in the adnominal clitic construction, the definiteness requirement is not yet enforced in OR, but situations when the dative clitic appears in a DP accompanied by indefinite determiners are less frequent than those in which the host is suffixed by the definite article.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Pronominal possession
A specific feature of OR is the multiple expression of the same possessor by distinct means (}2.6.4.3). The same possessor may be denoted by: (i) an adverbal clitic, reflexive or non-reflexive, and a DP-internal possessive adjective (160a)/DPinternal 3rd person personal pronoun (160b); (ii) an adverbal clitic and a possessive affix (160c); (iii) an adverbal and an adnominal clitic (160d). ()
a. Pleacă-ți, Domnezeu, urechile tale (FT.–: r) incline.IMP.SG=CL.DAT.SG Lord.VOC ears.DEF.ACC your.SG/F.PL.ACC ‘God, incline your ears (to me)’ b. cunoscându-ș vina lui (DÎ.: XXXVI) know.GER=CL.REFL.DAT.SG fault.DEF.ACC his.GEN ‘knowing his own fault’ c. tot feciorul să-ș iubască pre tată-său și every son.DEF.NOM SĂSUBJ=CL.REFL.DAT.SG love.SUBJ.SG DOM father-his and pre îmă-sa (ȘT.: ) DOM mother-his ‘every son should love his father and mother’ d. până-mi va trece mânia-mi (FT.–: r) until=CL.DAT.SG AUX.FUT.SG pass.INF anger.DEF=CL.POSS.SG ‘until my anger shall pass’
It is important to note that possessive markers are not specialized. This is shown by the variation in the marking of pronominal possession in the same text with the same head (161a,b) or by the presence of distinct possessive markers in coordinated structures (161c). ()
a. fratele muieriei meale (Prav.: v) brother.DEF wife.DEF.GEN my.SG/F.SG.GEN ‘the brother of my wife’ b. nepoții muieriei-mi (Prav.: r) nephews.DEF wife.DEF.GEN=CL.POSS.SG ‘my wife’s nephews’ c. eu Mihnea cu frate-mieu Dragoi și cu nepotul I Mihnea with brother-my.ACC Dragoi and with nephew.DEF.ACC mieu Radul (DÎ.–: XIII) my.SG/M.SG.ACC Radu ‘I Mihnea with my brother Dragoi and with my nephew Radu’
.. Relation to definiteness The contrast between OR and MR concerns several aspects: (i) In OR, unlike MR, the functional element al introducing possessive adjectives may superfluously appear to the right of the definite article.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase
(ii) In contrast to nineteenth-century Romanian (SILR: –) and present-day Romanian (GR: ), where prenominal possessive adjectives and genitives preceded by the marker al are definite determiners, in OR the prenominal possessive adjective may co-occur with other definite determiners, thus having an attributive interpretation. (iii) In MR, adnominal cliticization is subject to a definiteness requirement (GR: –). By contrast, in OR, adnominal clitics are compatible with indefinite bases and, furthermore, they occur in DPs with an indefinite article, presumably having a partitive interpretation; in the latter situation, they adjoin to the noun and do not occupy the DP second position, contrasting again in this respect with MR. .. Final remarks The domain of nominal phrase-internal possession witnessed inventory, distributional, and syntactic changes, manifested in the passage from OR to nineteenth century and then modern Romanian, but also within the two temporal divisions of OR itself.
. (Numerical and non-numerical) quantifiers; quantifying approximators .. Preliminary remarks OR featured numerical, pronominal and noun quantifiers, and structures with null quantifiers. .. Numerical quantifiers OR nominal phrases could be quantified by cardinal and ordinal numerals, and by distributive, collective, multiplicative, and fractional numerical expressions. ... Cardinal numerals (i) The two types of cardinal numeral structures existent in MR—adjectival cardinal numerals and numerals with quantified NP structure (GR: )—are attested since the sixteenth century. The adjectival cardinal numeral directly attaches to the noun, in prenominal position (a); this syntactic behaviour characterizes simple cardinal numerals (the series unu ‘’ – zece ‘’), compounds with numeral phrase structure of the type Card(inal) + P(reposition) (spre ‘upon’) + Card(inal) (zece ‘’) (the series unsprezece one-upon-ten ‘’ – nouăsprezece nine-upon-ten ‘’), and the compounds which included in final position a simple cardinal or a compound with a numeral phrase structure (o mie trei one thousand and three ‘’; o sută unsprezece one thousand and eleven ‘’). The syntactic behaviour of the numerals with quantified NP structure of the type Card(inal) + NP (douăzeci two-tens ‘’) is based on the nominal adjunction rule, i.e. the syntactic material subordinated to the numeral is introduced by the functional preposition DE (~ ‘of ’) (b,c).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Quantifiers; quantifying approximators ()
a. dzeace strune (PH.–: r) ten strings b. de oamini (DÎ.~: I) DE men.ACC ‘ men’ c. de zile (ACP.: v) DE days.ACC ‘ days’
The DE-pattern was generalized for the entire series on cardinals with quantified NP structure. This construction is general throughout the entire old period (and down to the present day). The DE-pattern with cardinals is largely specific to Romanian. In other Romance varieties, this pattern is limited to a few numerals and/or has a partitive interpretation (Jones : ; Buridant : ). The archaic numeral întunerec ‘ten thousand’ also took the preposition DE (a) (întunerec is an old loanword on the model of Sl. tĭma ‘darkness; a large number of; .’; see also Densusianu : ). The DE-less structure represents a type of reduction in writing frequent in administrative texts. This variant is attested from the sixteenth century (b) until the present day. ()
a. untunearec de cuvinte (CM.: v) . DE words.ACC ‘. words’ b. bani (DÎ.–: VI) pennies ‘ pennies’
The numerals from eleven to nineteen and the expression of decades are already stable compounds in the sixteenth century. In the second half of the old period, there emerged some new forms (Frâncu ), whose internal structure is partially opaque because of phonological changes (b): paisprezece ‘’ < patrusprezece < patru ‘’ + spre ‘upon’ + zece ‘’; șaisprezece ‘’< șasesprezece < șase ‘’ + spre ‘upon’ + zece ‘’, șaizeci ‘’< șasezeci < șase ‘’ + zeci ‘tenPL’. The presence of the newer form in the earliest grammar of Romanian (a) testifies to the tendency to enforce the change in the literary language in the second half of the eighteenth century. The non-modified forms are still in use. () a. șaisprezece (EG.: r) sixteen b. șasespredzeace suflete (PO.: ) sixteen souls (ii) In Ev., the feminine numeral exhibits the variants o/una.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase
()
a. o faţă (Ev.: ) one.F face.F b. una faţă (Ev.: ) one.F face.F
(iii) The expression of approximation or imprecision was realized (as in MR) through lexical or syntactic means: pre-numeral adverbial markers—aproape (‘almost’), ca (la) (‘approximately, about’; currently preserved in the popular language), vr(e)o (‘about’) (a,b)—and numerals paratactically or disjunctively associated (c,d). ()
a. mâncători era ca cinci mie eaters be.IMPERF.PL about five thousand de bărbaţi (CC2.: ) of men ‘there were about five thousand men, table companions’ b. bărbaţi ca la cinci mii (CazV.: v) men about five thousands ‘approximately five thousand men’ c. doauă-trei luni (DÎ.: LXXXVIII) two three months ‘two-three months’ d. zile sau (NÎnv.~: v) two days or three ‘two or three days’
... Ordinal numerals The ordinal numeral system of OR included the two formal types existent in MR (GR: –): simple numerals of the type întâi ‘the first’, prim ‘the first’, and the al-compounds (al doile(a) ‘the second’). (i) The numeral întâi could attach postnominally to the noun with the use of the preposition de, free (a) or merged with the numeral (b). This structure represents a particularity of Romanian (Meyer-Lübke : –). The numeral întâi and the compound dentâi(u), dintâi(u) were used in structures with non-marked agreement or with inflectionally marked agreement. The numerals had an invariable form (), and, when used together with the enclitic article, expressed gender, number, and case distinction through the inflection of the article (), as in present-day Romanian (GR: ). The non-articled forms of the numeral which were marked in the feminine by the inflection -e are limited to certain old texts întă(ni)eF.SGPL (PH.–: r; PS.–: , , ). The postnominal forms with the particle -a are attested in the sixteenth century, at the beginning only in a few texts ((); Frâncu ). ()
a. parte paliei de întâi (PO.: ) part.F.SG.DEF Old Testament.DEF.GEN DE first ‘the first part of the Old Testament’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Quantifiers; quantifying approximators
b. osânda loru dintâiu (CV.–: r) sanction.F.SG.DEF their.GEN first ‘their initial sanction’ ()
fădelegile noastre întăile (PH.–: v) ill-deeds.F.PL.DEF our.F.PL first.F.PL.DEF ‘our first ill-deeds’
()
cuscria dintăia (Prav.: v) joining-in-affinity.F.SG.DEF first.F.SG ‘first degree affinity’
(ii) The phrases de(-a) prima (‘of the first’), de(n) primă (‘from the first’), which include the invariable feminine form primă (‘first’) descending from the Latin adjective PRIMA(M) (Densusianu : ), are characteristic of the Banat-Hunedoara area. ()
cartea de prima (PO.: ) book.F.SG.DEF DE first.F.SG ‘the first book’
(iii) In the sixteenth century, the al-compounds were not fully merged. In the masculine, there existed forms with the ending -l(u) or -le. The forms ending in -l(u) were general at the beginning of the old period: al optul ‘the eighth’ (CV.–: r; CP., two occurrences; CP1., one occurrence; CC2., two occurrences; PO., one occurrence); al patrul ‘the fourth’ is the only variant both present in DÎ, and it is also attested in translations (CT., three occurrences; CPr., one occurrence; CC1., four occurrences; PO., four occurrences; MC., two occurrences). In the mid-seventeenth century, the -l(u) forms, the only ones present in certain texts (al optul: CazV., one occurrence; al patrul: CazV., four occurrences; ȘT., three occurrences) were in competition with the -le, -li forms (al patruli: Prav., two occurrences). The masculine forms featuring the final particle -a (al noaolea ‘the ninth’, CT.–: v) are rarer in the sixteenth century than the forms without -a (al noaole: CT.–, five occurrences; al treile ‘the third’: CV.–, two occurrences). In DÎ, the proportion is in favour of the novel forms which feature the final particle -a: five items with the -lea ending, one item with the -le ending. The -lea forms initially emerged in the southern and south-western area, including the varieties which constitute the basis of literary Romanian (Frâncu : ). At times, variation was at play in the very same text. ()
al patrul anu ( . . . ) fourth year ‘the fourth year’
// vama negoţului al doozecilea (DÎ.: XIX) custom.DEF trade.DEF.GEN twentieth ‘the custom duties for the twentieth trade’
Certain less stable feminine forms contain the particle -a after the first component of the numeral: a patrasprădzeace ‘the fourteenth’ (CV.–: v; Prav.: ), a șapteasprădzeace ‘the seventeenth’ (PO.: , ).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The nominal phrase
The DE-prepositional structures, specific to Romanian (}....i), are also attested with al-compound ordinal numerals. ()
săborului dentâi și de-al doilea (Prav.: ) synod.NEUT.SG.DEF.GEN first and DE second ‘of the first and second synod’
al
AL.M.SG
Al-ordinal numerals did not always show gender agreement with the noun. ()
a treia folos (CCat.: v) third.F folos.NEUT.SG ‘the third use’
In some Banat-Hunedoara, Moldova, and northern Transylvania forms, the plural was marked on the pre-numeral particle al (aiPL patrul ‘the ones who follow in the fourth line, the fourth ones’, CazV.: v) and simultaneously at the end of the numeral by a discrete inflection (aiPL doiiPL‘the second ones’, CSVII.–: r). In old south-Transylvanian and Wallachian forms, the plural is marked on the particle al (aiPL treilea ‘the third ones’, CC2.: ). Plural marking on the particle al is attested until the eighteenth century; the doubly marked plural was used until the mid-seventeenth century (Frâncu : ). ... Distributive, collective, multiplicative, and fractional numerical expressions (i) Distributive quantifiers have been attested since the sixteenth century () and were also recorded in the first Romanian grammar (EG.:r). The ordinal numeral system of OR included the two formal types existent in MR (GR: –): simple numerals of the type întâi ‘the first’, prim ‘the first’, and the al-compounds (al doile(a) ‘the second’). ()
câte aspri (DÎ.: LXXXVIII) each coins ‘three silver coins each’
The distributive expressions had a low degree of boundedness, such that it was possible to interpose a preposition in the structure. ()
câte cu patru canafi (DÎ.: LXXII) each with four tassels ‘with four tassels each’
In the sixteenth century, the invariant distributive adverbial câte (‘each’) was analogically extended to ordinal numerals or to indefinite adjectives. ()
a. câte de al doilea florint (DÎ.: XIX) each DE second florin ‘for every other florin’ b. câte vreun areate (CC1.: v) each any ram ‘each and any ram’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Quantifiers; quantifying approximators
(ii) Collective quantifiers were formally varied. The structure which contains the universal quantifier toţi (F toate) (‘all’) and a cardinal numeral was current since the sixteenth century. Also attested are: constructions with the ancient formative tus ( ca leul (PH.–: v) barks like lion.DEF.ACC ‘He roars like a lion’ b. mai mari de albinile (FD.–: v) more big.M.PL than bees.DEF.ACC ‘bigger than bees’
As in MR, the choice between a determined () or a non-determined () nominal complement of cu ‘with’ depends on the semantic-referential characteristics of the noun, on the degree of specificity of its referent, on its generic or non-generic use (as in the other Romance languages; see Iliescu [] : –).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Prepositions and prepositional phrases
() cal să aibă cu frâu ferecat cu horse.ACC SĂSUBJ have.SUBJ.SG with rein.ACC plated with aur (Ev.: ) gold.ACC ‘he should have a horse whose rein is gold-plated’ As in MR, other prepositions (a ‘like’, ca, de ‘as’) take a NP that has a property reading. ()
a. seamănă a fată (FD.–: v) resembles like girl ‘she looks like a girl’ b. iaste a lor de moșie (CIst.–: r) is AL.F.SG their.GEN as property ‘it is their property’
The non-fixed character of the restrictions on whether the noun bears the determiner is specific to OR. Two situations are different from MR: (a) in both original and translated texts, the complement may be determined despite not being followed (as would be necessary in MR) by a modifier/possessor/complement (a,b); (b) the complement lacks a determiner although the noun is modified by a subordinate constituent (), whereas in MR the determiner would be necessary in this context. ()
a. pentru credinţa mi-am pus mai for belief.DEF.ACC CL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.SG put.PPLE more jos iscălitura (DÎ.: X) below signature.DEF.ACC ‘I signed below as proof of veracity’ b. s-au întors la dânsul CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG return.PPLE at him.ACC în corabiia (DPar.: II.r) in ship.DEF.ACC ‘it returned to his ship’
() sosiră la loc care Dumnezeu zise lui (PO.: ) arrive.PS.PL at place.ACC which God.NOM say.PS.SG him.DAT ‘they arrived at the place that God had indicated to him’ Definite determination may be related to the features [+personal], [+unique] (a, b) of the noun (Pană Dindelegan a: –). In some texts, such as MC., the nominal complement of the preposition designating a unique person generally bears the determiner. ()
a. de florinţi pentru mortul (DÎ.: CXI) DE coins for dead.M.SG.DEF.ACC ‘sixty coins for the dead one’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The structure of the prepositional phrase
b. tremease la împăratul (MC.: v) send.PS.SG to emperor.DEF.ACC ‘he sent to the emperor’ On the other hand, non-determination of the nominal complement may be correlated with a [–personal] feature. () pentru vamă, ei dau talere (DÎ.: XIX) for customs they give.PRES.PL thalers.ACC ‘they give thalers for the customs’ Under identical conditions, different prepositions (la ‘at, to’, spre ‘towards’, d(e)rept, pentru ‘for’, p(r)e ‘on, DOM’, in ‘in’, etc.) select either a determined or an non-determined noun. meargă la împăratul și la domn (Prav.: ) go.SUBJ.SG at emperor.DEF.ACC and at prince.ACC ‘to go to the emperor and to the prince’
() să
SĂSUBJ
One of the prepositions that frequently oscillates between a determined and a non-determined nominal complement is pentru ‘for’ (a, a, ). In the case of the nominal complement of pentru ‘for’ that does not have an own subordinate constituent, quantitative results show that its determination is not (always) triggered by the semantic feature [+personal] and that the rules of determination were not fixed in the first OR period. Towards the end of the seventeenth and throughout the eighteenth century, in the same syntactic and semantic conditions as in the previous period, the complement of pentru ‘for’ is more often non-determined. Note that the quantitative results in Table . are approximate, due to the unsystematic rendering in writing of the final sequence of the noun. Some prepositions have a different behaviour with regard to number restrictions in OR from their behaviour in MR. For instance, the preposition între ‘between’ can select a singular noun, in coordinated structures, when it is repeated; this behaviour is attested up to the nineteenth century. () între mine și între tot trupul (PO.: ) between me.ACC and between all people.DEF.ACC ‘between myself and all people’ Între ‘in front, before’ (< ANTE), not preserved in MR, homonymous to între ‘in the place between’ (< INTER), also selects a singular noun. () punre-voiu între faţa ta păcatele put.INF=AUX.FUT.SG before face.DEF.ACC your.POSS sins.DEF.ACC tale (PH.–: v) your.POSS ‘I shall put your sins in front of you’ Partitive prepositions, such as dintre ‘of ’, select frequently the plural, but can also select a singular collective noun (see }..).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Prepositions and prepositional phrases
T . Pentru ‘for’ + determined/non-determined nouns in relation to the [personal] feature Text
DÎ
pentru ‘for’ + determined noun
pentru ‘for’ + non-determined noun
[+personal]
[–personal]
[+personal]
[–personal]
.%
.%
–
.%
CC .
–
.%
.%
.%
CC2.
.%
.%
.%
.%
1
%
%
%
Ev.
%
%
%
%
ȘT.
.%
.%
.%
.%
SVI.~
.%
.%
.%
.%
FD.–
–
–
.%
.%
.%
AD.–
.%
.%
.%
.%
BVS.
.%
.%
.%
%
Prav.
.%
.%
.%
.%
CDicţ.–
.. Modifiers of the prepositional phrase Modifiers such as pe ‘on’, and ca ‘around’ (the latter only in quantitative structures) can occur at the left of the prepositional phrase from the sixteenth century, to indicate approximation or imprecision. ()
a. pi la moara lu Dobrin (DÎ.: V) on at mill.DEF.ACC LUI.GEN Dobrin ‘at Dobrin’s mill’ b. ca la șase (CC2.: ) around at six ‘around six o’clock’
. Specific features of lexical prepositions OR lexical prepositions have a number of semantic and distributional features that differ from MR. .. Semantic relations expressed by lexical prepositions Characteristic of OR polysemantic lexical prepositions is that they have some meanings that are lost in MR. The following prepositions are illustrative for polysemy, special meanings, and particular semantic developments from the sixteenth century. (i) Spre (< SUPER) indicates direction (a)—a meaning developed exclusively in Romanian (Niculescu : )—the goal (b), or purpose (c); it also means
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Specific features of lexical prepositions
‘against’ (d). In OR, the preposition spre also had a locative meaning, ‘on’, inherited from Latin (e), a meaning also present in despre/de spre ‘from’ (f). ()
a. cură spre Asiriia (PO.: ) flows to Assyria.ACC ‘it flows to Assyria’ b. Spre tine, Doamne, nedejdiuiiu (DPar.: II.v) towards you.ACC God.VOC hope.PS.SG ‘I put my hope in you, God’ c. un riu iase den locul dulceţiei a river.NOM comes.out from place.DEF.ACC sweetness.DEF.GEN spre udarea raiului (PO.: ) for watering.DEF.ACC heaven.DEF.GEN ‘a river comes out from the sweet place to water the heaven’ d. rădicară oaste spre Bera (PO.: ) raise.PS.PL army against Bera.ACC ‘they sent an army against Bera’ e. să șază spre iarbă (CC1.: v) SĂSUBJ sit.SUBJ.PL on grass.ACC ‘to sit on the grass’ f. prahul cela ce-l mătură vântul despre dust.DEF that that=CL.ACC.M.SG sweeps wind.DEF.NOM from faţa pământului (PH.–: r) face.DEF.ACC earth.DEF.GEN ‘that dust that the wind blows from the face of the earth’
The preposition despre, a compound of spre, also has other meanings: ‘about’ (a) (like de), ‘from’ (b). ()
a. despre Iosif nemică nu știia (PO.: ) about Joseph.ACC nothing not know.IMPERF.SG ‘he knew nothing about Joseph’ b. au luat multe ţări despre AUX.PERF.PL take.PPLE many.F.PL countries.ACC from răsărit (MC.: r) east.ACC ‘they conquered many eastern lands’
(ii) De has a locative source meaning, ‘from’. In OR, locative de may combine either directly with the noun (a) or it may be accompanied by a second preposition: p(r)e ‘on’ (g), la ‘at’ (b), către ‘towards’ (c), în ‘in’ (d). The locative prepositional sequences de către ‘from’ (in use until the nineteenth century and, nowadays, in the dialect of Banat; see TDR: ) and de în ‘from’ were not preserved in literary MR.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
()
Prepositions and prepositional phrases a. Scoate-me den rrostul leului și de take.out.IMP.SG=CL.ACC.SG from mouth.DEF.ACC lion.DEF.GEN and from cornulu inorogului (PH.–: v) horn.DEF.ACC unicorn.DEF.GEN ‘Take me from the lion’s mouth and the unicorn’s horn’ b. nu delunga agiutoriul tău de la not remove.INF help.DEF.ACC your.POSS.M from menre (PH.–: v) me.ACC ‘do not stop helping me’ c. puse nainte raiului vieţii heruvimi de cătră put.PS.SG before heaven.DEF.GEN life.DEF.GEN cherubs.ACC from răsărită (PO.: ) east.ACC ‘he put cherubs from the east before the heaven of life’ d. căpitanul de în Hăstu (DÎ.–: XXVIII) captain.DEF from Hăstu ‘the captain from Hăstu’
The prepositional sequence de către, initially only with locative meaning, ‘from’ (c), comes to introduce Agent-phrases, like de (), from the seventeenth century (Diaconescu : ; }...). () să
nu rămâie vizirul rușinat de cătră not remain.SUBJ.SG vizier.DEF.NOM put.to.shame by împăratul (NL.~–: ) emperor.DEF.ACC ‘for the vizier not to be put to shame by the emperor’ SĂSUBJ
In OR, de may also indicate: temporal source (a), causal meaning (b), restrictive meaning (c). ()
a. cum au fost de veac (DÎ.: XXXIII) like AUX.PERF.PL be.PPLE from century.ACC ‘as they have been for centuries’ b. răneaște-se de frica ta peliţa injures=CL.REFL.ACC.SG because fear.DEF.ACC your.POSS body.DEF.NOM mea (CC2.: ) my ‘I injure myself because of your fear’ c. pomulu e (...) de vedeare dulce (PO.: ) tree.DEF.NOM is as to view.ACC sweet.M.SG ‘the tree is sweet to the eye’
(iii) P(r)e has a locative (a), temporal (b), purpose (c), and manner meaning (d).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Specific features of lexical prepositions ()
a. pe capetele lor (CM.: v) on heads.DEF.ACC their.GEN ‘on their heads’ b. pre toată vreamea (DPar.: II.v) on all.F.SG time.DEF.ACC ‘all the time’ c. despică leamne pre giunghearea de ardere (PO.: ) chop.PS.SG woods.ACC for sacrifice.DEF.ACC of burning.ACC ‘he chopped wood for the sacrifice by fire’ d. făcu feciori pre chip și asămănătura make.PS.SG sons.ACC after image.ACC and likeness.DEF.ACC lui (PO.: ) his.GEN ‘he created his sons after his image and likeness’
In OR, with personal nouns, p(r)e can encode the Goal (a) or the Instrument (b). ()
a. pre tire nedejdiiu (PH.–: v) towards you.ACC hope.PS.SG ‘I put my hopes in you’ b. această carte o u tremesu patriarhul this.F.SG letter.ACC CL.ACC.F.SG AUX.PERF.SG send.PPLE patriarch.DEF.NOM de la Irusalim pre un călugăru (CSI.–post: v) from Jerusalem through a monk.ACC ‘the patriarch of Jerusalem sent this letter through a monk’
(iv) D(e)rept has a purpose (a) and causal (b) meaning; it may be synonymous with ‘instead of ’ (c), ‘in front of ’ (d) (Densusianu II: ); the locative meaning ‘in front of ’ is in use until the nineteenth century, and, in non-literary MR, it is still attested in Banat (TDR: ). ()
a. strigară oamenii cătră Faraon, derept pâine (PO.: ) shout.PS.PL people.DEF.NOM to Pharaoh for bread.ACC ‘the people shouted to Pharaoh for bread’ b. Periră derept fărălegile sale (CC1.: r) die.PS.PL because without.law.F.PL.DEF.ACC their.POSS.F ‘They died because of their crimes’ c. luo una den coastele lui și împlu take.PS.SG one.F.ACC of ribs.F.DEF.ACC his.GEN and fill.PS.SG cu carne derept ea (PO.: ) with flesh instead it.F.ACC ‘he took one of his ribs and put flesh instead’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Prepositions and prepositional phrases d. sta-voru picioarele lui spre codrulu stay.INF=AUX.FUT.PL feet.DEF.NOM his towards forest.DEF.ACC Ilionului, derept Ierusalimu (CTd.~ : r) Mount.of.Olives.DEF.GEN in.front.of Jerusalem.ACC ‘he will stand in the forest of the Mount of Olives, in front of Jerusalem’
(v) Întru has locative—‘in’ (a), as well as purpose (b) meaning—‘for’, the latter still present in MR (rarely, in special contexts). () a. ieși se mearrgă întru Machiedonia (CV.–: v) go.out.PS.SG SĂSUBJ go.SUBJ.SG in Macedonia.ACC ‘he went out to leave for Macedonia’ b. aceasta să o faceţi întru pomenirea this.F.ACC SĂSUBJ CL.ACC.F.SG make.SUBJ.PL for memorial.DEF.ACC mea (ȘT.: ) my.POSS ‘do this in memory of me’ In the sixteenth century, but also later on, întru is used instead of între ‘among’ (), because of the confusion between the two prepositions and under the influence of Slavonic (Densusianu II: ). () Cine va vrea să fie mare întru who AUX.FUT.SG want.INF SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG great among voi (CC1.: r) you.PL.ACC ‘Who will want to be great among you’ (vi) In OR, a as a lexical preposition may have a locative meaning (), now lost, and it may also express resemblance (a), a use which it preserved in MR, in rare partly fixed constructions. () oamenii o țin a mână (CSIV.–: v) people.DEF.NOM CL.ACC.F.SG keep.PRES.PL at hand.ACC ‘people hold her by the hand’ MR relics of the use of lexical a are locative and manner compounds such as acasă ‘at home’, alături ‘next to’, anevoie ‘slowly’, alene ‘slowly’ (}.). .. Competition between lexical prepositions As in MR, competition between OR prepositions occurs because of similarities in meaning or form. In some cases it no longer occurs in MR. There is competition between prepositions with complements that are names of towns or countries. In OR, locative prepositions în and la are in competition when selecting the name of a town (a,b) or of a country (c,d) as their complements. Such names may also be selected by the preposition întru ‘in’ (a).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Specific features of lexical prepositions ()
mearrge în Rusalim (CV.–: r) AINF go.INF in Jerusalem.ACC ‘to go to Jerusalem’
a. a
b. sosesc la Sodoma (PO.: ) arrive.PRES.PL at Sodom.ACC ‘they arrive in Sodom’ c. trimițindu-i părinții lor în Elada (CIst.–: v) send.GER=CL.ACC.M.PL parents.DEF.NOM their.GEN in Ellada.ACC ‘their parents sending them to Ellada’ d. să afla la Eghipet (CIst.–: r) CL.REFL.ACC.PL find.IMPERF.PL at Egypt.ACC ‘they were in Egypt’ Din/dintru/de la ‘from’ and the Slavic preposition ot ‘from’ are used to encode the Origin/Source expressed by the name of a town/country. ()
a. pomenirea eșitului den Eghipetu (CC2.: ) commemoration.DEF going.out.DEF.GEN from Egypt.ACC ‘the commemoration of leaving Egypt’ b. ieși currundu dintru Ierusalim (CV.–: v) go.out.IMP.SG soon from Jerusalem.ACC ‘leave Jerusalem soon’ c. câţ sânt de la Cartaghen (FD.–: r) how.many be.PRES.PL from Cartagena.ACC ‘how many are from Cartagena’ d. diiacon Coresi ot Târgoviște (CT.–: r) deacon Coresi from Târgoviște.ACC ‘the deacon Coresi of Târgoviște’
Some of these prepositions (such as întru ‘in’, dintru ‘from’, ot ‘from’) are no longer in use in MR before the name of a town or country, and competition between locative prepositions that select such names is not possible in all contexts (for example, names of countries are not selected by la ‘at’; see GALR I: ). The similar form of certain prepositions can explain two types of competition. (i) The compound preposition fără de ‘without’, in competition with fără, was frequent in OR (Table .). Competition between fără and fără de also manifests in structures that show signs of cohesion (they are analysed as compounds), such as in (). () lucrul fără de credinţă mort iaste, așea și credinţa deed.DEF.NOM without of faith.ACC dead is such also faith.DEF.NOM fără lucrure moartă e (Prav.: r) without deeds.ACC dead.F.SG is ‘deeds lacking faith are dead, and so, faith without deeds is dead’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
()
Prepositions and prepositional phrases a. lucruri fără de leage (MC.: r) deeds without of law.ACC ‘crimes’ b. fărădeleagea mea eu știu (PH.–: r) without.of.law.DEF.ACC my.POSS I know.PRES.SG ‘I know my crime’ c. mai mare fărăleagea mea (PO.: ) more big without.law.DEF my.POSS ‘my crime [is] greater’
In OR, weak adverbs such as nici ‘nor’ () or numai ‘only’ (a) may intervene between the components of the compound preposition fără de ‘without’ (the sequence fără numai de ‘only without’ is in competition with fără (numai) (b) and fără de in the exceptive constructions; see }...): ()
fără nice de o vină (GB.XVI–XVII: v) without no of a fault.ACC ‘faultless’
() a. fără numai de nepotu-miu (DÎ.: X) without only of nephew-my ‘except for my nephew’ b. fră numai Stănilă vornic și frate-său (DÎ.: V) without only Stănilă.ACC dvornic and brother.ACC-his ‘except for dvornic Stănilă and his brother’ Attested until the nineteenth century, the compound preposition fără de ‘without’ is no longer in use in literary MR except for the compound fărădelege ‘crime’. (ii) In OR, prepositions în and întru ‘in’ (), din/den and dintru/dentru ‘from’, prin/ pren and printru/prentru ‘through’ can be used in identical conditions. Differently from MR, întru ‘in’, dentru ‘from’, and printru ‘through’ were much more frequent in OR (for their limited use in MR, see }.). ()
a. ca oile în iadu (PH.–: v) like sheep.PL.DEF.ACC in hell.ACC ‘like sheep in hell’ b. întoarce-se-vor greașnicii întru return.INF=CL.REFL.ACC.PL=AUX.FUT.PL sinners.DEF.NOM in iad (PH.–: r) hell.ACC ‘sinners will return to hell’ c. zise într-înimă (PO.: ) say.PS.SG in-heart.ACC ‘he said in his heart’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Specific features of lexical prepositions
T . The competition between fără – fără de ‘without’ fără ‘without’
fără de ‘without’
DÎ
.%
.%
CC1.
.%
.%
FD.–
.%
.%
MC.
.%
.%
ȘT.
.%
.%
DPar.
.%
.%
AD.–
.%
.%
BVS.
.%
.%
Text
d. într-o zi (PO.: ) in-a day.ACC ‘one day’ e. întru o tufă (PO.: ) in a bush.ACC ‘in a bush’ .. The repetition of prepositions in coordinated and explicative structures In OR the preposition is optionally repeated in coordinated structures, as in MR (like the situation in French until the end of the seventeenth century; see Lardon and Thomine : ; Buridant : ). ()
a. lui măsură întru mărime și întru tărie him.DAT measure.NOM for glory.ACC and for power.ACC nu iaste (Ev.: ) not is ‘there is no match for his glory and power’ b. pentru leanea și nesocotinţa because idleness.DEF.ACC and recklessness.DEF.ACC părinţilor (ȘT.: ) parents.DEF.GEN ‘because of the parents’ idleness and recklessness’
Unlike literary MR, the preposition între ‘between/among’ is repeated before each conjunct, a phenomenon attested until the end of the nineteenth century () (Pană Dindelegan a: –; SILR: –). In OR, the preposition may also be repeated before the second constituent of a nominal phrase containing a pronominal adjective (a) and in the appositive construction (b) (Densusianu II: –; see }..).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
()
Prepositions and prepositional phrases a. Despre aceastea despre toate scris-au (CM.: r) about these.F.ACC about all.F.PL.ACC write.PPLE=AUX.PERF.PL ‘They wrote about all these’ b. den sat den Tomșani (DÎ.: XLII) from village.ACC from Tomșani.ACC ‘from the village of Tomșani’
. Specific features of functional prepositions In OR, functional prepositions are the same as in MR (de, a, la, pe), but their use is partially different. The frequent use of de, a, and la in OR as case markers brings Romanian closer to the other Romance languages, which, in their development from Latin, extended the analytic marking of the genitive and dative cases (Salvi : –). (i) De is more widely used in the determiner phrase in OR than in MR. In OR, it is used for the analytic realization of the genitive (a) (}...), but also for marking the partitive relation (b) (}..). ()
a. o cosiță de iarea despletită (CSI.–post: r) a braid DE woman.DEF.ACC unplaited.F.SG ‘a braid of an unplaited woman’ b. Cine de voi (CC1.: v) who of you.PL.ACC ‘Which of you’
De also occurs in the structure of cardinal numerals above nineteen, as in MR (a) (}...) and in inverse predication structures (b). () a. de aspri (DÎ.–: II) DE coins ‘ coins’ b. ceastă săracă de ţeară (DÎ.: XVIII) this poor.F.SG DE country.ACC ‘this poor country’ In verb phrases, de introduces the Agent-phrase, as in MR. () fură robiţi de șcheai (MC.: v) be.PS.PL enslave.PPLE.M.PL by Bulgarians.ACC ‘they were enslaved by the Bulgarians’ (ii) A is used for analytic genitive marking, in quantifier structures (as in MR), but also in other configurations (}...). () tatăl a mulţi oameni (PO.: ) father.DEF A.GEN many.M.PL people.ACC ‘the father of many people’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Specific features of subcategorized prepositions
A is used as a dative marker both in constructions with (a) or without quantifier (b), but more frequently when the quantifier is present (}...). ()
a. pot a doi domni sluji (CC1.: v) can.PRES.PL A.DAT two kings serve.INF ‘they can serve two kings’ judece a sărac (CP1.: v) SĂSUBJ judge.SUBJ.SG A.DAT poor.man ‘to judge a poor man’
b. Să
(iii) La is widely used as a dative marker, irrespective of the lexical and syntactic features of the DP (}...). () amu tremes atunce o carte la domnul (DÎ.: XVIII) AUX.PERF.PL send.PPLE then a letter.ACC LA.DAT king.DEF.ACC ‘then we sent a letter to the king’ Cătră/către are alo used to express the dative relation () (}...); it still occurs dialectally in MR (in Maramureș, Crișana, Banat, partly in Transylvania and Oltenia; TDR: , , , ). () dzise Domnul Domnezeu cătră muiare (PO.: ) say.PS.SG Lord.DEF.NOM God to woman.ACC ‘God said to the woman’ La starts to be used as a genitive marker later than as a dative marker, in seventeenth and eighteenth-century texts (see Pană Dindelegan a: ). () feciorii la doi frați (CDicţ.–: ) sons.DEF LA.GEN two brothers.ACC ‘the sons of two brothers’ (iv) P(r)e is a direct object marker; its realization is not strictly conditioned by the features [+specific] or [+animate] of the noun it selects, contrary to MR (}....). ()
a. Rahila pre idolii tătâni-său furase (PO.: ) Rachel.NOM DOM idols.DEF.ACC father-her steal.PLUPERF.SG ‘Rachel had stolen her father’s idols’ b. Cine iubeaște pre adevărul (FD.–: r) who loves DOM truth.DEF.ACC ‘Who loves the truth’
. Specific features of subcategorized prepositions Many lexical heads (verbs, interjections, adjectives, adverbs) selected one preposition, fixed by use, as early as the sixteenth century (see }}..; ... for a list of verbs constructed with a subcategorized preposition).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
()
Prepositions and prepositional phrases a. se CL.REFL.ACC.PL
‘they fear you’
tem de tinre (PH.–: r) fear.PRES.PL of you.SG.ACC
b. vai de voi (CC2.: ) oh of you.PL.ACC ‘poor you’ c. vrednici de ocrotirea Măriei Tale (IS.: ) worthy.M.PL of protection.DEF.ACC Highness.DEF.GEN Your ‘worthy of Your Highness’s protection’ d. mainte de venirea lu Hristosu (CC2.: ) before of coming.DEF LUI.GEN Christ ‘before the coming of Christ’ In OR the status of the subcategorized preposition was not always clear (}...), because of oscillations in the selection of prepositions by the lexical head. One example is the verb a se încrede ‘to trust’, which may select either în ‘in’ or spre ‘towards’ (in MR, it selects only în ‘in’) or the dative. () a. nu se încredea spre vindecarea not CL.REFL.ACC.PL trust.IMPERF.PL towards healing.DEF.ACC drăcitului (CC2.: ) the.one.possessed.by.the.devil.GEN ‘they did not trust that the one possessed by the devil would heal’ b. nu ne încreadem în trup (NT.: r) not CL.REFL.ACC.PL trust.PRES.PL in body.ACC ‘we do not trust our bodies’ c. acestui sau acelui Givei s-au this.M.DAT or that.M.DAT Giva.DAT CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG încredzut (DÎ.: LXXXIX) trust.PPLE ‘he trusted this or that Giva’
. Final remarks In the first OR period, the inventory of prepositions contained elements (both inherited and borrowed) that later became obsolete or restricted in their use. The restrictions on the nominal complements of prepositions were not fully fixed; there were oscillations in case assignment and in the definiteness constraints of the nominal complement. Formal restrictions start becoming fixed especially from the second half of the seventeenth century. In the first OR period, most polysemantic lexical prepositions had meanings that were later lost.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Final remarks
Functional prepositions had a broader use in OR than in MR, and had fewer syntactic-semantic restrictions. In many cases, the status of the subcategorized preposition was not fixed, especially in the first OR period: one lexical head could select different prepositions, where later it would select only one. In OR, many prepositions were in competition with each other, either because their use was not fixed yet, or because of similarities of form.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
8 Coordination and coordinating conjunctions . Preliminary remarks In OR, all types of coordination are well represented. Coordination is realized through conjunctions, complex coordinators, adverbs, or by juxtaposition. Some conjunctions are specific to a certain type of coordination, while others have several values (e.g. e—conjunctive and adversative, dară—adversative and conclusive). Usually, the conjuncts are of the same type, but coordination of different types is also possible. Some conjunctions are used to coordinate sentences, especially in narrative texts or with a stylistic effect. Conjunctive coordinative structures may be split, especially for stylistic reasons. Asymmetry of the conjuncts, which involves verbal moods or the order of the elements in the verbal complex, is found with conjunctive, adversative, and disjunctive coordination. Quite frequently, especially at the beginning of the period or in religious texts, conjunctions are preferred to juxtaposition, which leads to the extensive repetition of the conjunction. Coordinators are often used as sentence transition words.
. Conjunctive coordination The conjunctive coordinators of OR are: și, e, i (‘and’), și cu (‘and with’), and nici (‘neither’). .. Coordinators The most frequent conjunctive coordinator throughout the period is the conjunction și (< SIC). The conjunction i is rare, and e is used mostly as a sentence connector (see }.). The conjunction și can coordinate phrases of the same type or phrases of different types, as in (–). (i) AP + PP (frequently): () învăţătură dumnezeiască și cu folosu sufletului teaching divine and with use soul.DAT ‘divine teaching, and useful to the soul’
(CC2.: )
The Syntax of Old Romanian. First edition. Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.) This chapter © Blanca Croitor . First published by Oxford University Press.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Conjunctive coordination
(ii) DP + AP: săborului și apostoleasca besearecă (CC2.: ) AL.F.SG synod.DEF.GEN and apostle.ADJ.DEF church ‘The church of the synod and of the apostles’
() A
(iii) DPVoc+ gerund: () curvarilor și urându-vă cu cumotrii-vă și sinners.VOC and hate.GER=CL.REFL.ACC.PL with relatives=CL.POSS.PL and frate la frate purtându menciuni ( . . . )? (MI.~: v–r) brother to brother take.GER lies ‘you sinners who hate your relatives and lie to your brothers ( . . . )’ (iv) AP + gerund: () iuo era mulţi adunaţi și where be.IMPERF.PL many.M.PL.NOM gathered.M.PL and rugându-se (CB.–: ) pray.GER=CL.REFL.ACC.PL ‘where many people were gathered and they were praying’ (v) PP + AvP: () în tot locul și pururea iaste dator a avea grije in every place and always is dutiful AINF have.INF care de acea (Prav.: r) of that ‘everywhere and always we must take care of that’ (vi) AP + IP: () bărbatu direptu și teame-se de man just and scares=CL.REFL.ACC.SG of Dumnezeu (CB.–: –) God ‘a just man and who is afraid of God’ The conjunction e (< ET) is less frequent than și in the sixteenth century and in the seventeenth century. In the sixteenth century, e is more frequent in religious texts. It may coordinate phrases (a) or, more frequently, simple clauses (b). ()
a. partea mea e ţinreare mie iaste (PH.–: r) part.DEF.NOM my and property.NOM me.DAT is ‘now it is my part and my property’ b. Avraam lăcuiia în pământul lui Canaan e Lot Abraham.NOM live.IMPERF.SG in land.DEF LUI.GEN Canaan and Lot.NOM lăcui în oraș ce era lângă Iordan (PO.: ) Jordan live.PS.SG in town that be.IMPERF.SG near ‘Abraham lived in the land of Canaan and Lot lived in a town near Jordan’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Coordination and coordinating conjunctions
The conjunction i (< old Slavic i) is rare. According to Ciorănescu , it is merely a literary borrowing used under the influence of Slavic, and not really used in actual language. In some texts of the sixteenth century, it is either unattested or very rarely attested, which shows that it was not very frequent from the beginning of the period analysed. In some texts it tends to be a little more frequent (e.g. the administrative texts and letters from DÎ, in the sixteenth century) especially in the introductory and final fragments, which have a formulaic character. Often, these fragments contain other Slavic words (see pak, za in ()). () I pa(k) dau știre domnietale za and again give.PRES.SG news you.POL.DAT about turcilor (DÎ.: I) Turks.DEF.GEN ‘And again I inform you of the activity of the Turks’
lucrul activity.DEF
The conjunction i is at best occasionally attested throughout the period. It is still attested in administrative texts from the first half of the nineteenth century (SILR: ). () Altă mâncare de păstrăv i lostoţă (CBuc.: ) other food of trout and salmon ‘Another food made of trout and salmon’ The conjunctive coordinators can alternate in the same sentence. ()
a. Și mărturie Brătian și Ion și Pătru Stan i and witness Brătian and Ion and Pătru Stan and Drăgoi (DÎ.: V) Drăgoi ‘And as witnesses stand Brătian and Ion and Pătru Stan and Drăgoi’ b. E voi rodiţi-vă și vă and you.PL fructify.IMP.PL=CL.REFL.ACC.PL and CL.REFL.ACC.PL înmulţiţi și viiaţi pre pământ (PO.: –) multiply.IMP.PL and live.IMP.PL on earth ‘And you be fruitful and multiply and live on the earth’
The conjunctive coordinator și cu (‘and with’), containing the comitative preposition cu, is found in NP or DP coordination, usually in subject position (}....). () se-au sculatu Danu și cu Micul CL.REFL.PL=AUX.PERF.PL rise.PPLE Danu.NOM and with Micul și au împresurat locurele noastre (DÎ.–: XII) and AUX.PERF.PL surround.PPLE places.DEF.ACC ours ‘Danu and Micul rose and surrounded our places’ In some contexts, only the comitative preposition is employed. () spureţi miiașului cu zborrului (CV.–: v) tell.IMP.PL commandant.DEF.DAT with council.DEF.DAT ‘tell the commandant and the council . . . ’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Conjunctive coordination
The coordinator adverb nici (nece, nice, neci) (< NEQUE), frequent since the earliest attested texts, is specialized for negative coordination. () nu voru învie necuraţii la giudeţu, nece not AUX.FUT.PL resurrect.INF sinner.PL.DEF.NOM to judgement neither greașnicii în svatul pravednicilor (PH.–: r) vicious.PL.DEF.NOM in council.DEF.ACC just.PL.DEF.GEN ‘therefore the sinners will not resurrect at the judgement, neither will the vicious at the council of the just ones’ If the first conjunct is negative, the conjunct introduced by nici can be followed by a negative or an affirmative verb. The use of the negative or the affirmative verbal form varies diachronically or from one text to another, as the negative coordinator nici could have the role of clausal negator as well, as in (a) (see }.). ()
a. Ascundeţi-vă comoara în ceriu, io hide.IMP.PL=CL.DAT.PL treasure.DEF.ACC in heaven where viermii nu o răzbescu, nece worms.DEF.NOM not CL.ACC.F.SG reach.PRES.PL neither putredeaște (CC2.: ) rots ‘Hide your treasure in heaven, where the worms cannot reach it, neither does it rot’ b. nu vor creade ţie, nice cuvântul tău not AUX.FUT.PL believe.INF you.SG.DAT neither word.DEF.ACC your nu vor asculta (PO.: ) not AUX.FUT.PL listen.INF ‘they will not believe you, neither will they listen to what you say’
Nici can be accompanied by a conjunctive or an adversative conjunction (see also }..). ()
a. leafă n-are de unde da oștii și nice aspri salary not=has from where give.INF army.DEF.DAT and neither money nice dentr-o parte nu-i vine (DÎ.: XVIII) no from=a part not=CL.DAT.SG come.PRES.PL ‘he doesn’t have (any) where to pay salaries to his army from, neither does he receive money from anywhere’ b. nu ș-am fost grăitoriu frumos, ce nice but neither not CL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE speaker nicely den aceaia vreame de când grăiești cu sluga from that time since when speak.PRES.SG with servant.DEF ta (PO.: ) your ‘I have not spoken to you nicely at the beginning, nor since you talked to your servant’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Coordination and coordinating conjunctions
.. Correlative conjunctive coordination In correlative structures, the conjuncts are introduced by the same coordinator: și . . . și . . . ‘both . . . and’ or nici . . . nici . . . ‘neither . . . nor’; the phenomenon was frequent throughout OR and has been preserved in MR. ()
a. Rrugare-ași Dumnedzeu și în puţinelu și întru and in little and in pray.INF=AUX.COND.SG God.ACC multu (CV.–: r) much ‘I would pray God both for little and for much’ b. nice îngerii, nice ceriul, nice nemică n-au neither angels.DEF neither sky.DEF neither nothing not=AUX.PERF.SG fost când au fost Hristos (CC1.: r) be.PPLE when AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE Christ.NOM ‘Christ existed when neither the angels nor the sky nor anything else existed’
.. Split coordination Split coordination is more frequent in the first period (for the same phenomenon in Old English, see Sielanko ; Pérez Lorido ). It may involve NPs, DPs, or IPs. ()
a. Aceastea amu toate au nu pământu sântu și INT not earth are and these.NOM now all lutu? (CC2.: ) clay ‘Aren’t all these earth and clay?’ nu audzu bocirea voastră și not hear.SUBJ.SG wail.DEF.ACC your and plângerea (MI.~: r) crying.DEF.ACC ‘that I not hear your wailing and crying’
b. să
SĂSUBJ
. Disjunctive coordination The disjunctive coordinators employed in OR are sau, ori (oare, vare, veri), au (‘or’) and the correlatives săva . . . săva . . . , fie . . . fie . . . (‘either . . . or . . . ’). .. Disjunctive coordinators The most frequent disjunctive conjunction is sau (< the complementizer să + the conjunction au ‘or’, cf. DLR), which may coordinate phrases of the same type (a) or different (b). ()
a. spre craiul leșescu sau spre ţeara lui (DÎ.: XLIV) country.DEF his.GEN to ruler.DEF Polish or to ‘against the Polish ruler or against his country’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Disjunctive coordination
b. sta-voiu băsău sau în alean (PO.: ) [NP + PP] stay.INF=AUX.FUT.SG revenge or in sufferance ‘I will take revenge or suffer’ The conjunction au (< AUT) is frequent during the first period of OR but becomes rarer towards the end of the period. In literary MR, au is preserved in the interrogative structure au ba ‘or not’ (}...). () spre apus au spre ameadzădzi (CSIV.–: r) to sunset or to south ‘to the sunset or to the south’ The conjunction ori is attested only in correlative structures during the first period (see }..), while in the late period it becomes frequent as a single coordinator. () dzicându-le Abdúla și Salom, ori Perselem (ICP.~: v) say.GER=CL.DAT.PL Abdúla and Salom or Perselem ‘calling them Abdula and Salom, or Perselem’ .. Correlative disjunctive coordination The coordinators specialized for correlative disjunctive structures are: ori (oare, vare, veri) . . . ori (oare, vare, veri), săva . . . săva, fie . . . fie and, more rarely, macar . . . macar. In addition, simple conjunctions can also be used in correlative structures, in alternation with the same conjunctions or with other disjunctive conjunctions. Oare (< VOLET, cf. Alb. vallë—DLR, s.v. oare) is not attested in all texts in the sixteenth century, nor is it very frequent in the following centuries (see also Rizescu b). () toţi sfinţi părinţi, oare vlădici, oare episcopi, oare popi (CCat.: r) all saint fathers or lords or bishops or priests ‘all the saint fathers, whether lords, or bishops, or priests’ Ori (probably related to ver(i) < *velis from *volere—DLR, s.v. ori) is attested only in some texts in the sixteenth century, becoming frequent in the following centuries (cf. It. vuoi . . . vuoi ‘or . . . or’). () noi am lasat domniia nosturu ori de or from we AUX.PERF.PL leave.PPLE kingship.DEF.ACC our nevoia, ori de bunivoia (DÎ.: C) obligation or from will ‘we left our reign either by force or willingly’ Săva (seva, săvai) (< the complementizer să + va ‘want’) is not very frequent in the sixteenth century. After the seventeenth century, it is no longer attested. Its basic meaning was concessive (}...), and the disjunctive value is derived from the concessive (from contexts in which the concessive structure expresses two possibilities, two alternatives).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Coordination and coordinating conjunctions
() să-l SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.SG
săgeate, săva dobitoc fie, săva shoot.SUBJ.SG or animal be.SUBJ.SG or
om (PO.: ) man ‘[he] should shoot him, be it animal or human’
The coordinator fie (< FIAT directly or through the Romanian subjunctive form fie, from the paradigm of a fi ‘be’) is very rarely attested for the sixteenth century. Its frequency increases in the next centuries (see also Rizescu b). In (), fie could be interpreted as a verb or a coordinator. () cum s-ară afla vre unii pre cale, fie bărbaţi how CL.REFL.PL=AUX.COND.PL be.INF some.PL.NOM on way or men fie muieri, legaţi să-i aducă (CPr.: ) or women tied.PPLE.PL SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.PL bring.SUBJ.PL ‘if other people are in their way, either men or women, they should bring them tied up’ The coordinator măcar (also used as an adverb, ‘at least’) adds a concessive meaning to the structure (}...). fi blagoslovit cu bine o nuntă ca aceasta be.INF bless.PPLE with well a wedding like this macar cu scriptură, macar fără scriptură (Prav.: r) either with scripture or without scripture ‘[he] blessed a wedding like this, with or without scripture’
() a
AINF
Correlative structures involve repetition of the same coordinator (see the contexts above) or the alternation of different coordinators. () de-ar fi ei uciși au de dânsul, sau de or by if=AUX.COND.PL be.INF they.NOM killed or by him oastea lui (BVS.: v) army.DEF his.GEN ‘if they were killed either by him or by his army’
. Adversative coordination The adversative coordinators found during the first period of OR are: ci/ce, însă, dar(ă) (‘but’), iar(ă) (‘and/but’), e (‘and/but’), ce însă (‘but’), and the correlative nu numai . . . ci (ce) (și/încă) (‘not only . . . but (also)’). .. Coordinators The conjunction ci/ce (< Rom. pron. ce ‘what’< QUID) occurred in binary structures, in which the first conjunct could be positive or negative (unlike MR, where the first conjunct must be negative).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Adversative coordination
() Mulţi oameni sânt blânzi, ce puţini sânt many people.NOM be.PRES.PL gentle.PL but few.PL be.PRES.PL credincioși (FD.–: v) faithful.PL ‘Many people are gentle, but few are faithful’ Ce, frequent since the sixteenth century, could coordinate simple or complex sentences. Some structures with DPs or PPs involve ellipsis and clausal coordination, as in (a). ()
a. nu întru smerenie, ci întru trufie priciia lui not in humility but in pride conflict.IMPERF.SG LUI.DAT Dumnezău (Ev.: ) God ‘[he] was in a conflict with God not for his humility, but for his pride’ b. Nu venii să osândescu lumea, ce să not come.PS.SG SĂSUBJ condemn.SUBJ.SG world.DEF.ACC but SĂSUBJ spăsescu lumea (CC2.: VI) save.SUBJ.SG world.DEF.ACC ‘I did not come to condemn the world, but to save it’
The conjunction însă (< IPSA) has been frequent since the sixteenth century. () Dumnezeu dereptu den Dumnezeu dereptu, născutu însă nu God just from God just born.PPLE but not făcutu (CC2.: ) made.PPLE ‘Just God from just God, born, but not made’ Some authors use redundant pairs of adversative coordinators: ce însă (PO, CC2), ci dar (CIst.–); others combine însă with the conjunctive coordinator și (CC2). The adversative dar(ă) (whose origin is controversial, see DER) is not very present during the first period of OR, but its frequency increases in the late period. In most contexts dară is used in the first period as a conclusive adverb (‘therefore’). () Zise iară Isav: să-ţi las dară câţiva say.PS.SG again Esau.NOM SĂSUBJ=CL.DAT.SG let.SUBJ.SG therefore some dintre acei oameni cari-s cu mine (PO.: –) of those people who=be.PRES.PL with me.ACC ‘Esau said again: let me leave you, therefore, some of those men who are with me’ The interpretation of dară is sometimes ambiguous between conclusive and adversative. () cela ce nu iubeaște ai lui, dară pre alalţii AL.M.PL his.GEN but DOM others that who not loves cum va iubi? (FD.–: r) how AUX.FUT.SG love.INF ‘he who does not love his own, how will he love others?’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Coordination and coordinating conjunctions
The conjunction iar(ă) (the etymon of which is an unattested vulgar Latin *era, according to DLR and Ciorănescu ; cf. Romansch eir) is frequently attested since the sixteenth century. In most contexts, it has a weak adversative value (a), while in others it marks a clear opposition between the conjuncts (b). ()
a. s-au dus să cumpere de aceale pâini, CL.REFL.PL=AUX.PERF.PL go.PPLE SĂSUBJ buy.SUBJ.PL of that bread.PL.ACC și n-au găsit, iar neguţătoriul and not=AUX.PERF.PL find.PPLE and merchant.DEF.NOM ș-au făcut voia rea și CL.REFL.SG=AUX.PERF.SG make.PPLE wish.DEF.ACC bad and au zis slugei ( . . . ) (Sind.: v) AUX.PERF.SG say.PPLE servant.DEF.DAT ‘they went to buy that kind of bread and didn’t find any, and the merchant got angry and said to the servant ( . . . )’ b. grăindu ei pace cu vecinrii săi, iară rreu speak.GER they peace with neighbours.DEF.ACC their and bad într-înrimile lor (PH.–: v) in.hearts.DEF.ACC their.GEN ‘they spoke to their neighbours peacefully, but with evil in their hearts’
The conjunction e may have a conjunctive value (}..) or a weak adversative value. This interpretation of e arises from the meaning of the conjuncts rather than from the conjunction itself. () Învăţătura doarme la inemă, e nu întru cărţi books education.DEF.NOM sleeps at heart.ACC and not in zace (FD.–: v) lies ‘The knowledge sleeps at the heart, it does not lie in books’ Since the seventeenth century, the preposition fără (‘without’) has acquired the value of an adversative coordinator; the first conjunct was negative. () nu iaste luminî, ( . . . ) nice bucurie sau veselie, fâră neither gladness.NOM or joy.NOM without not is light.NOM numai plăngere și scărșcare de dinţi (CazV.: r) only wailing and gnashing of teeth ‘there is no light, no joy or happiness, but only wailing and gnashing of teeth’ The adversative conjunction ce could be reinforced by the restrictive adverb numai, forming a complex coordinator. () De toate să vă îndulciţi cu saţiu, numai ce from all SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.PL sweeten.SUBJ.PL with satiation only but vă feriţi de pomul preceputului (MC.: r-v) CL.REFL.ACC.PL beware of tree.DEF.ACC knowledge.DEF.GEN ‘Feast on everything, but beware of the tree of knowledge’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Adversative coordination
When the second conjunct from an adversative coordination phrase enters an adversative relation with a third conjunct, the coordination between them can be marked by the same conjunction, ci, or by a different one (însă). ()
a. De la Thoma nu avea ajutor, ce vrea from Thomas not have.IMPERF.SG help.ACC but want.IMPERF.SG să-i fie nădeajdea pre striini, ce nu SĂSUBJ=CL.DAT.SG be.SUBJ.SG hope.DEF.NOM by strangers but not putu (MC.: v) can.PS.SG ‘He did not have help from Thomas, but put his hope in the strangers, but he could not’ b. Vrut-am și mai face, ce n-am want.PPLE=AUX.PERF.SG also more make.INF but not=AUX.PERF.SG știut alte pâri ce mai pâreaște, însă know.PPLE other denunciation.PL.ACC what more denounces but amu făcut și de muiare mărturie ( . . . ) (DÎ.: XC) AUX.PERF.SG make.PPLE also about woman witness ‘I wanted to do more, but I didn’t know what other denunciation he would make, but I made my wife testify ( . . . )’
.. Correlative adversative coordination The coordinator for this type of conjunction is nu numai . . . ci/ce (și/încă) . . . ‘not only . . . but (also)’, attested since the sixteenth century and frequent throughout the period. The conjuncts it relates to are simple clauses, sometimes with ellipsis of the verb. () Postulu adeveritu iaste, nu numai să topimu is not only SĂSUBJ melt.SUBJ.PL fasting.DEF.NOM true trupulu, ce de ce mâncămu noi să împărţimu body.DEF.ACC but from what eat.PRES.PL we SĂSUBJ share.SUBJ.PL și altora (CC2.: ) also others.DAT ‘True fasting is not only to melt the body, but also to share with others what we eat’ The use of the adverbs încă or și (‘also’) after the adversative conjunction ce adds a cumulative meaning to the sentence. () nu numai trupul, ce și sufletul not only body.DEF.ACC but also soul.DEF.ACC da-l-voiu spre muncă (CSXI.–: r) work give.INF=CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.FUT.SG to ‘not only my body, but also my soul I will put to labour’ In some texts from the sixteenth century, the first term of the correlative coordinator was discontinuous.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Coordination and coordinating conjunctions
() nu de pită numai viu va fi omulu, ce de not by bread only alive AUX.FUT.SG be.INF man.DEF.NOM but by totu cuvântulu ce iase den rostulu lu Dumnezeu (CC2.: ) all word.DEF what comes from mouth.DEF LUI.GEN God ‘not only by bread shall a man live, but by all the words which come from God’s mouth’ Each of the two conjuncts of the correlative adversative coordination can be extended by coordination. () a. și vraciulu, nu numai cându scoate elu cu erbile sau cu florile nevoile, nici numai cându întru bae și în scăldătura apei aduce vindecare, [ . . . ] ce și cându fără de bucate învaţă să lăcuiască omulu (CC2.: ) ‘and the magician, not only when he relieves pains with herbs or flowers, and when he heals in the bath and in water, but also when without food he learns how to heal a man’ b. Încă nu numai se cade numai răbdarea și hrăboria ce iaste de Hristosu să arătămu la nevoe, ce și înţelepţie și blândeaţe a avea, și toate învăţăturile a face. (CC2.: ) ‘Still it is appropriate to show not only the patience and the courage which is from Christ when it is needed, but also to have wisdom and kindness and to practise everything we have learned’ (For more on the development of adversative connectors, see Zafiu .)
. Conclusive coordination (‘therefore’) The conclusive coordinators of this period are deci, dară, drept aceea, and drept însă. The last two function as sentence connectors (see }.). The coordinator deci (/dici/dece/deaci) (< de ‘of/from’+ aci ‘here’) is attested since the sixteenth century. () că mă obidescu, deci mă for CL.REFL.ACC.SG grieve.PRES.SG therefore CL.REFL.ACC.SG întristezu (CC2.: ) sadden.PRES.SG ‘for I grieve, therefore I become sad’ In the early period, deci retains its etymological locative meaning (‘from here’). () plecă-se giurele de somnu și cădzu din lean.PS.SG=CL.REFL.SG judge.DEF.NOM for sleep and fall.PS.SG from comarrnicu dinr-al treile podu giosu, deaci luară elu hut from=third attic down from.here take.PS.PL him.ACC morrtu (CV.–: v) dead ‘The judge keeled over with sleep and fell from the hut from the third attic, (and) from here they took him dead’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Alternative coordination
At the same time, deci developed a temporal meaning (derived from the locative sense), ‘then’. () Și aceastea dzise, deaci lăsă beseareca. ( . . . ) chiemă call.PS.SG and these say.PS.SG then leave.PS.SG church.DEF Pavelu ucenicii și-i sărută, deaci Paul.NOM apprentice.PL.DEF.ACC and=CL.ACC.PL kiss.PS.SG then ieși se mearrgă întru Machiedonia (CV.–: r-v) exit.PS.SG SĂSUBJ go.SUBJ.SG to Macedonia ‘And he said these, then he left the church. Paul called the apprentices and kissed them, then he went out to go to Macedonia’ The conclusive meaning is derived from the temporal, from contexts where the second conjunct could be interpreted as having a conclusive value. () Parie văzu pre Elena, muiarea lui Menelai, Paris.NOM see.PS.SG DOM Elena.ACC wife.DEF LUI.GEN Menelos preafrumoasă și albă. Deci o preaîndrăgi very-beautiful and white therefore/then CL.ACC.F.SG like.PS.SG și puse ochii hitleani spr-insa (MC.: r) and put.PS.SG eyes.DEF.NOM wicked.PL on-her ‘Paris saw Helen, Menelaus’ wife, very beautiful and white. Then/therefore he liked her and laid his wicked eyes on her’ The coordinator dară has been very frequently attested with a conclusive function since the sixteenth century. It may also have an adversative value in the same context (see () in }..). In MR, the conclusive value is preserved in dialectal varieties (cf. DLR, s.v. dar).
. Alternative coordination There were several coordinators specialized for alternative coordination: aorea . . . aorea . . . (< prep. a ‘to/at’ + oare < HORAE + -a, the adverbial particle), când . . . când . . . , tând . . . tând . . . / tănd . . . tănd . . . (< *tando), all of them meaning ‘sometimes . . . sometimes . . . ’, and, more rarely, aci(i)aș . . . aci(i)aș . . . (< aci ‘here’ + -și, the adverbial particle) ‘as soon as . . . ’ or ni . . . ni (< Sl. ni), attested since the eighteenth century (see }...). ()
a. aorea biruia grecii pre troiani, sometimes defeat.IMPERF.PL Greeks.DEF.NOM DOM Trojans.ACC aorea troianii pre greci (MC.: r) sometimes Trojans.DEF.NOM DOM Greeks.ACC ‘Sometimes the Greeks defeated the Trojans, sometimes the Trojans defeated the Greeks’ b. zburând când cicea, când colo (FD.–: r) when here when there fly.GER ‘flying sometimes hither, sometimes thither’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Coordination and coordinating conjunctions c. pune măna tăndu într-un umăru, tăndu într-altu, shoulder when in-other put.PRES.SG hand.DEF.ACC when in-a tăndu în frunte, tăndu în pieptu (CazV.: r) when in forehead when in chest ‘[He] puts his hand sometimes on a shoulder, sometimes on another, sometimes on his forehead, sometimes on his chest’ d. alţii aciiașu facu păcatulu, aciiași-i make.PRES.PL sin.DEF.ACC now=CL.ACC.M.PL others.NOM now ajunge și osânda (CC2.: ) get.PRES.SG also punishment.DEF.NOM ‘others as soon as they commit the sin, the punishment gets to them’ e. trimite ni pre unul, ni pre send.PRES.SG sometimes DOM one.ACC sometimes DOM altul înaintea lui (NL.~–: ) his.GEN other.ACC before ‘[He] sends before him one or another, in turn’
In the following centuries, aorea . . . aorea and tând . . . tând became rarer, being replaced by când . . . când (the sole expression preserved in literary MR). Tând . . . tând was preserved in dialectal varieties (cf. DLR).
. Repetition of conjunctions vs. juxtaposition In the early period, juxtaposition was less frequent than in modern language. Repetition of the conjunctive or the disjunctive conjunction was preferred, especially in enumerations. ()
a. cu fraţii lui, Preda șî Jâte șî with brothers.DEF.ACC his.GEN Preda and Jâte and Radul (DÎ.–: VI) Radul ‘with his brothers, Preda and Jâte and Radu’ b. Doamne, căndu te-m vâdzutu flâmăndu, sau însetat, or thirsty lord.VOC when CL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.PL see.PPLE hungry sau nemernicu, sau golu, sau bolnav, sau în temniţâ, or poor or naked or ill or in prison și n-amu slujit ţie? (CazV.: v) and not=AUX.PERF.SG serve.PPLE you.SG.DAT ‘Lord, when have we seen you hungry or thirsty or poor or naked or ill or in prison, and not served you?’
The extensive use of și during the first period of OR indicates that the writers found it difficult to express themselves in writing and preferred to use structures characteristic of spoken (‘familiar’) language (Densusianu : ).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. The asymmetry of the conjuncts
. The asymmetry of the conjuncts Asymmetrical conjuncts display a difference between them which affects their structure or the associated word order (see Johannessen’s : – unbalanced coordination). This difference may be triggered by grammatical or by stylistic factors. .. Asymmetry in the marking of syntactic relations The conjuncts may be ‘asymmetric’ (different) with respect to case marking (inflectional vs. prepositional vs. no case marker). ()
a. ziseră cătră Petru și apostolilor (CB.–: ) Peter and apostles.DEF.DAT say.PS.PL to ‘they said to Peter and to the apostles’ b. Nu ocări săracul, nice laudă pre not scold.INF poor.DEF.ACC neither praise.IMP.SG DOM bogatul (FD.–: r) rich.DEF.ACC ‘Don’t scold the poor and don’t praise the rich’
.. Asymmetry of clitic placement With this type of asymmetry, the order of the elements in the verbal complex is reversed, so that the conjunct introduced by the conjunction și mirrors the previous conjunct(s), without și. In the earlier period the first conjunct frequently has the lexical verb in the first place, followed by the clitics, while the second conjunct has the clitics first and the lexical verb in the last place (see also Croitor ). () toate nevoile ce ne vinu spre noi, us.ACC all need.F.PL.DEF which CL.DAT.PL come.PRES.PL to potoleaște-le și le stinge (CC2.: ) stop.IMP.SG=CL.ACC.F.PL and CL.ACC.F.PL burn.down.IMP.SG ‘appease all your desires, then kill them’ (See also (b). For more details regarding clitic placement in OR, see }.) .. Asymmetry in the verbal form Coordinated verbs may have different verbal forms (moods, tenses, forms with or without inflection). These may be coordinated because they have the same function in the text. The gerund could be coordinated with a finite form (see }. for the ability of the gerund form to function as a predicate despite its lack of inflection). () Petru cugetându de vedere și zise lui Peter.NOM think.GER about vision and tell.PS.SG him.DAT Duhulu: ( . . . ) (CB.–: ) Spirit.DEF.NOM ‘Peter thought about the vision and the Spirit told him: ( . . . )’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Coordination and coordinating conjunctions
The coordination of a subjunctive form with an infinitive is facilitated by their functional equivalence. () au
dat noao Hristos sufleteaște să prăznuim give.PPLE us.DAT Christ.NOM spiritually SĂSUBJ feast.SUBJ.PL și sufleteaște a îmbla (MI.~: r) and spiritually ANF walk.INF ‘Christ let us feast spiritually and walk spiritually . . . ’ AUX.PERF.SG
A verb in the indicative mood, future tense, could be coordinated with a verb in the subjunctive mood, as both express future events. () Se
nu neace mienre vihorrulu cel de apă, nece not drown.SUBJ.SG me.ACC whirlwind.DEF.NOM CEL of water neither înghiţi-va menre genrunrea (PH.–: r) abyss.DEF.NOM swallow.INF=AUX.FUT.SG me.ACC ‘The whirlpool should not drown me, neither will the abyss swallow me’ SĂSUBJ
A verb in the indicative periphrastic past could be coordinated with a verb in the indicative simple past, a fact which may suggest that they were temporally equivalent in some contexts in OR (see also }...). () v-am dat voao grâu și vin și CL.DAT.PL=AUX.PERF.SG give.PPLE you.PL.DAT wheat and wine and unt și vă săturaiu (MI.~: r) butter and CL.ACC.PL satiate.PS.SG ‘I gave you wheat and wine and butter and I satiated you’ Sometimes, an imperative and an infinitive with injunctive value are coordinated. () dzise lu Pavelu Duhul: “Preaîmblă Machiedonia Spirit.DEF.NOM walk.IMP.SG Macedonia say.PS.SG LUI.DAT Paul și Ahaiia și a mearrge în Rusalim” (CV.–: r) in Jerusalem and Achaea and AINF go.INF ‘The Spirit said to Paul: Walk through Macedonia and Achaea and go to Jerusalem’ More rarely, other asymmetries occur: two coordinated verbs may display a difference in the presence of the subjunctive marker să (a) or of the infinitive marker (see }...), the presence of the future tense auxiliary (b) or alternation between a bare infinitive and an infinitive with a (see }...). ia sau da lor (MI.~: v) SĂSUBJ CL.ACC.F.SG take.SUBJ.SG or give.INF them.DAT ‘to take it or to give it to them’
() a. se
o
b. în carii nice vor ara nice in which neither AUX.FUT.PL plough.INF neither secera (PO.: ) harvest.INF ‘during which they will neither plough nor harvest’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Between coordination and subordination
.. Chiasmus For stylistic reasons conjuncts may display a reversed word order (chiasmus). The conjuncts are sometimes antonymic words, or a word from the first conjunct is repeated in the second conjunct. () Aibi liubov cu bucuria, și cu răul have.IMP.SG love.ACC with joy.DEF.ACC and with evil.DEF.ACC aibi vrajbă! (FD.–: r) have.IMP.SG hate.ACC ‘Love joy and hate evil!’
. Agreement In NP coordinated phrases, the adjective usually agrees only with the last conjunct. () numai cu minte și cu inemă curată (FD.–: r) only with mind.F.SG and with heart.F.SG clean.F.SG ‘only with a clean mind and a clean heart’ The finite verb or the predicative adjective may display agreement with the closest conjunct, especially if the subject is postposed. Singular agreement is encountered even in correlative structures (a) (unlike MR). ()
a. iaste dulce și darulu și munca ce dăruiaște is sweet and gift.DEF.NOM and work.DEF.NOM which give.PRES.SG elu noao (CC2.: ) he.NOM us.DAT ‘both the gift and the work which he gives us are sweet’ b. Grea este sarea și năsipul (FD.–: v) salt.F.SG.DEF.NOM and sand.NEUT.SG.DEF.NOM heavy.F.SG is ‘Heavy is the salt and the sand . . . ’
Sometimes, singular agreement is due to an exact translation from the Slavic original text (Costinescu : ).
. Between coordination and subordination .. De The conjunction de, which functions as a subordinator, a complementizer or a relative word in OR, may, in some contexts, have the interpretation of a conjunctive coordinator (see also Niculescu ; Pană Dindelegan ; Sava a; GR: ). () Dumnezeu știu aceastea ( . . . ). Și-i scoase den and=CL.ACC.PL take-out.PS.SG from God.NOM know.PS.SG these raiu, de-i pedepsi (MC.: v) heaven and=CL.ACC.M.PL punish.PS.SG ‘God knew that. And He took them away from heaven and punished them’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Coordination and coordinating conjunctions
The interpretation is sometimes ambiguous between coordination and subordination. () au
venit un om de la Nicopoe de mie come.PPLE a man.NOM from Nicopoe that me.DAT mi-au spus că au văzut cu CL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.SG tell.PPLE that AUX.PERF.SG see.PPLE with ochii lui (DÎ.: I) eyes.DEF.ACC his.GEN ‘There came a man from Nicopole who told me that he saw this with his own eyes’ AUX.PERF.SG
(i) relative clause: ‘a man came from Nicopoe who told me that he saw with his own eyes . . . ’ (ii) coordinated clausal conjuncts: ‘a man came from Nicopoe and told me that he saw with his own eyes . . . ’ () Și se delungă de ei de-și and CL.REFL.ACC.SG depart.PS.SG from them that=CL.REFL.DAT.SG alease ucenicii (CV.–: r)—purpose or coordination choose.PS.SG apprentices.DEF.ACC ‘And he departed from them and he chose/so that he chose his apprentices’ .. Coordination inside a complex predicate The two verbs of a complex predicate could be coordinated in OR (but the contexts without coordination are much more frequent). The aspectual verb is in the indicative mood and the lexical verb in the infinitive. () Că atunce începură și a grăi: ( . . . ) (CC2.: ) that then begin.PS.PL and AINF speak.INF ‘then they began to speak: ( . . . )’ OR also displays contexts with both verbs in the same form, coordinated by de (). A similar structure in found in MR, but with both verbs in the same form (see GR: for Romanian, and Johannessen for other languages). () începu de-i dzise așa (FD.–: r) begin.PS.SG and=CL.DAT.SG say.PS.SG so ‘[he] began to say this to him . . . ’ The structure in () is a combination of the more frequent pattern, without coordination between the two verbs, and the ‘pseudo-coordinated’ structure found in (). .. Anacoluthon In colloquial texts, a discontinuous sentence may begin with a subordinate clause coordinated with a main clause. () Fătul mieu, cine te va lovi de o parte who CL.ACC.SG AUX.FUT.SG strike.INF from a side son.VOC my de faţă, iară tu să întoarci și ceaealalte faţă (AA.: v) face of face and you.SG SĂSUBJ strike.SUBJ.SG and other ‘My son, he who strikes you on one cheek, and you should turn the other cheek’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Sentence connectors
. Sentence connectors Coordinating conjunctions are often used as transition words in OR (see Croitor ). They frequently lack any specific meaning (adversative, conclusive etc.), being mere connective words with only vague semantic content. The conjunctive și and e and the adversative iar have a narrative value, relating fragments of a story. ()
E pământul era pustiiu și în deșert. Și întunearec era spre adânc și duhul Domnului se purta spre apă. Și zise Domnedzeu: fie lumină. Și fu lumină. (PO.: ) ‘And the earth was void and waste. And darkness was upon the face of the deep and the spirit of God moved over the water. And God said: let there be light. And there was light.’
The disjunctive coordinator sau may also function as a discourse marker, especially in rhetorical interrogative contexts. () Doamne, cinre va obicni în viiaţa ta? Sau cinre God.VOC who AUX.FUT.SG live.INF in life.DEF your or who se va muta în cel svântu dealu al tău? (PH.–: r) CL.REFL.ACC.SG AUX.FUT.SG move.INF in CEL holy hill AL.M.SG your ‘God, who will live in thy life? Or who will move onto that holy hill of thine?’ The conjunction ce, specialized for adversative coordination, is frequently used as a transition word with various meanings: conjunctive, conclusive, or weak adversative. () Eu sântu Isus, cela ce tu-l gonești. I be.PRES.SG Jesus that you.SG=CL.ACC.M.SG chase.away.PRES.SG Ce te scoală și stă spre picioarele but CL.REFL.ACC.SG rise.IMP.SG and stand.IMP.SG on feet.DEF tale (CV.–: r) your ‘I am Jesus, the one you chase away. Rise and stand on your feet’ The adversative conjunction însă, conclusive deci, and conclusive/adversative dară are frequently used as transition words. ()
a. Însă ciri va spune tăriile lui Isus, audzite vor fi toate laudele? (MI.~: r) ‘But who will say Jesus’ strength, will they hear all the praises?’ b. Dară noi ce vrem da lui Dumnedzău? (MI.~: v) ‘But what will we give to God?’ c. Deci cene nu va cinsti sfânta veneri și o va lucra el în dzi, să lăcuiască întru focul netrecut (MI.~: r) ‘Therefore he who will not honour Holy Friday and will work that day, let him dwell in unending fire’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Coordination and coordinating conjunctions
Other words may also be used as sentence transition words: the complementizer că, some relative adverbs (unde, înde ‘where’), the phrase drept aceea (‘therefore’, literally ‘for that’), etc. (Croitor ). ()
Și adever nespus iaste, fraţilor, măriia și burătatea aceștii dzi! Că nime nu poate spure darul aceștii taine. Că nu se poate spure cu adevăr mulţimea mariei lui Hristos (MI.~: v) ‘And the greatness and the beauty of this day is an untold truth, brothers! For nobody can speak the gift of this mistery. For Christ’s greatness cannot be told’
Some texts are structured or organized with ordinal numerals at the beginning of a fragment, in the feminine (the unmarked form for headless anaphoric nominals; see }...). () Adoara, ceastă muiare cunoscu pre Mesia (CC1.: v) woman know.PS.SG DOM Mesia.ACC second.F.SG this ‘Secondly, this woman knew Mesia’
. Final remarks The inventory of coordinators has mostly been preserved into modern (standard) Romanian. Among the coordinating connectors that have been lost are: the conjunctives e and i ‘and’, the disjunctives săva, vare, veri, macar (as a coordinator), the alternatives aorea . . . aorea, ni . . . ni. Other coordinators are used nowadays only in restricted contexts: disjunctive au is used in regional varieties of Romanian (DA, s.v. au) or as part of the literary phrase au ba ‘or not’; the alternative tând is used in dialectal varieties. Conjunctive connectors were used quite frequently in OR, especially in the first period; coordinators were repeated in contexts where MR would show juxtaposition. This has been shown to be an influence from the spoken language. Inside a certain semantic type of coordination, the preference for a certain connector varied in time. For instance, dar(ă) was rarely used in the first stages of OR with adversative value, but in MR it is the standard adversative conjunction. The adversative ci (ce) is used only with a negative first conjunct in MR, unlike OR. Fie . . . fie . . . emerged later than other disjunctive correlative connectors, but it generalized in literary MR. Coordinating conjunctions could be used as sentence connectors in literary texts, a property they have in MR as well.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
9 The complex clause . Complementizers and complement clauses .. Preliminary remarks Like many Romance languages, Romanian employs a dual system of complementizers, which are able to exploit the whole C domain (Rizzi ). What is specific to Romanian is the fact that Force and Fin (Finiteness head) positions may be lexicalized simultaneously. In MR, this is achieved only through the complex complementizer ca . . . să, whose first component ca is Force, whereas să lexicalizes the head Fin (GR: ). In OR, there were more instances of the double lexicalization of the C domain (Sava b: –), i.e. more instances of lexicalization of the Force head being associated with subjunctive verbs, in which the head Fin was filled by să (}...), and this explains the larger class of variants, as compared to MR. In non-subjunctive contexts, competition between certain varieties of complementizers and reduplication phenomena (characteristic to the syntax of OR) made possible additional variants which are now either specialized as markers of modality, or have been completely abandoned (}...). In fact, the system of complementizers in OR is not much different from that of MR. .. Inventory of complementizers Besides the prototypical complementizers that are preserved in MR—că (‘that’), să (‘to’) (a,b)—the inventory of OR complementizers also consists of a set of conjunctional connectors employed for argument clauses, which in present-day Romanian have either lost their importance—de (‘whether’) (c); or are specialized as additional modal markers—cum că (‘that’), p(r)ecum că (‘that’), cum de (‘how that’) (d–f ); or are completely abandoned, as is the case with cum (g), which is now employed exclusively as a wh-word. ()
a. Enia înţelease că se vor mulţi Aeneas.NOM understand.PS.SG that CL.REFL.PL AUX.FUT.PL grow.INF pre acolo (MC.: r) by there ‘Aeneas understood that they would grow more numerous there’
The Syntax of Old Romanian. First edition. Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.) This chapter © Mihaela Gheorghe, Andreea Dinică, Rodica Zafiu, and Oana Uță Bărbulescu, . First published by Oxford University Press.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause b. Cest bărbat prinsu e de jidovi și ară this.M man.NOM catch.PPLE.M.SG is by Jews and AUX.COND.PL vrea ei să-l ucigă (CPr.: ) want.INF they SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.SG kill.SUBJ.PL ‘This man is captured by the Jews and they want to kill him’ c. Easte de se tâmplă (GB.XVI–XVII: v) is that CL.REFL.IMPERS happens ‘It happens’ d. veţi vedea voi înșivă cum că e AUX.FUT.PL see.INF you.PL.NOM yourselves.NOM how that is mărgăritariul și comoară ascunsă (CC1.: v) pearl.DEF.NOM and treasure.NOM hidden.F.SG ‘you will see for yourselves that it is a pearl and a hidden treasure’ e. Și am înţeles ( . . . ) precum că multe rugi and AUX.PERF.SG understand.PPLE as.how that many.F.PL prayers.ACC și milostenii și post au făcut and charities.ACC and fast.ACC AUX.PERF.SG do.PPLE maică-sa (Sind.: v) mother.NOM-his ‘And I understood that his mother said many prayers, and did many acts of charity and fasted’ f. Mult mă mir de voi împăraţii și much CL.REFL.ACC.SG amaze.PRES.SG of you.PL.ACC emperors.DEF.NOM and craii, cum de nu vă ţineţi de lords.DEF.ACC how that not CL.REFL.ACC.PL keep.PRES.PL of cuvânt (NL.~–: ) word.ACC ‘I am amazed how you, emperors and lords, do not keep your word’ g. Și mă juraiu cum nicidinăoară să nu merg and CL.REFL.ACC.SG swear.PS.SG that never SĂSUBJ not go.SUBJ.SG acolo (VN.–: v) there ‘And I swore that I would never go there’
In all stages of OR, ca să is employed as an alternative to să. In the religious texts of the sixteenth century, cum să and de să also occur in the contexts of să. ()
a. au
poroncit muierilor ca să-l order.PPLE women.DEF.DAT that SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.SG închiză într-o cămară (Bert.: v) lock.SUBJ.PL in=a closet.ACC ‘he ordered the women to lock him in a closet’ AUX.PERF.SG
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Complementizers and complement clauses
b. vrem cum să auzim toate cealea want.PRES.PL that SĂSUBJ hear.SUBJ.PL all.F those.ACC ce-s zise ţie de la that=be.PASS.PRES.PL tell.PPLE.F.PL you.SG.DAT from Dumnezeu (CPr.: ) God ‘we want to hear all those words that you are told by God’ c. și nu vrea de să-lu știe cineva (CC2.: ) and not wants that SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.SG know.SUBJ.SG someone.NOM ‘and he does not want anyone to know him’ A certain variant of ca să is specialized in MR for complement clauses with topicalized or focalized constituents: ca . . . să (‘that’). It sporadically occurs in OR, too (a), in variation with cum . . . să (b) and (seldom) că . . . să (c). ()
a. Sfătuiră-se mai marii preuţi [ca și agree.PS.PL=CL.REFL.ACC.PL more great.M.PL.DEF priests.NOM that too Lazar să] ucigă (CC1.: v) Lazarus.ACC SĂSUBJ kill.SUBJ.PL ‘The great priests agreed that Lazarus should be killed, too’ b. Nu e bine [cum omul să] fie not is good that man.DEF.NOM SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG singur (CM.: r) alone.M.SG ‘It is not good that man should be alone’ c. Eu aș vrea bucuros [că toţi oamenii I AUX.COND.SG want.INF gladly that all.M people.DEF.NOM să] fie cum sânt eu (CPr.: ) SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.PL how be.PRES.SG I ‘I would be glad that everybody should be as I am’
As a complementizer for indirect polar interrogatives, de (‘whether’) is principally employed (); as a specialized complementizer in MR, dacă (deaca/deca) (‘whether’) is almost absent in OR (}...). In texts of the first period, dacă (‘if ’/‘when’) is almost exclusively employed as a subordinator for adjuncts (}}...; ...). () Cugetaiu ( . . . ) de sânt de la Dumnezeu au meditate.PS.SG whether be.PRES.PL from God.ACC or de la diavolul (VN.–: v) from devil.DEF.ACC ‘I’ve been thinking whether they are from God or from the devil’ As in other Romance languages, in MR complementizers are compulsory. Exceptions are allowed only in coordinated complement clauses (GR: –). Examples of missing complementizers are recorded in OR (a), albeit infrequently. If we accept the idea that să is a complementizer with a special status, i.e. one that occupies only one of the components of the C domain (Sava a: –; }...), occurrences of
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
să without ca . . . / cum . . . may be considered realization of a ‘missing complementizer’ (b). ()
a. Părea-le √că [duh vor seem.IMPERF.SG=CL.DAT.PL √that spirit.ACC AUX.FUT.PL vedea] (CT.–: v) see.INF ‘They thought that they were seeing a ghost’ b. și spuse că se cade √ca unul alalt and say.PS.SG that CL.REFL.IMPERS ought √that each.NOM other.ACC să se iubească (CPr.: ) SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.PL love.SUBJ.PL ‘and he said that they should love each other’/‘and he said that it was appropriate for them to love each other’
... Că (< QUOD) In both OR and MR, argument clauses headed by că (‘that’) usually have the value of an assertion. Complement clauses with că are prototypically selected by factive or non-factive predicates. The results of a frequency test (Table .) conducted on a collection of complement clauses with că from the OR corpus show that the recurrent semantic classes of verbs are cognitive verbs (a), perception verbs, (b), and verba dicendi (c). Other verb classes are employed to a smaller extent (d), as are interjections (e) and nominals (f). ()
a. Și acum iară dăm știre domniilor-voastre că vrem and now again give.out.PRES.PL you.POL.PL.DAT that want.PRES.PL se tremitem oile în munte (DÎ.: LXXXII) SĂSUBJ send.SUBJ.PL sheep.DEF.ACC in mountain ‘And we are informing you now that we want to send the sheep to the mountains’
T . Distribution of governing categories for complement clauses with că Verbs of cognition a ști (‘know’) a da (în) știre (‘give out’) a cunoaște (‘know’) a înțelege (‘understand’) a pricepe (‘grasp’) a crede (‘believe’) a se gândi (‘think’) Interjections iată / iacătă (‘here’) zău (‘honestly’)
16% 3% 5% 3% 2% 1% 2% 3% 0.5%
32%
3.5%
Verbs of perception a vedea (‘see’) a auzi (‘hear’) Verbs of saying a spune (‘tell’) a zice (‘say’) a grăi (‘utter’) a mărturisi (‘confess’) Other classes of verbs Nouns
13% 6% 5% 10% 3% 2%
19%
20%
24.2% 1.3%
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Complementizers and complement clauses
b. Vădzuși că tu lângoare și băsău see.PS.SG that you.SG.NOM sickness.ACC and hatred.ACC previși ( . . . ) (PH.–: r) look.PS.SG ‘You have seen that you regarded sickness and hatred’ c. Grăiesc voao că deștinse acesta ( . . . ) dereptatu în speak.PRES.SG you.PL.DAT that descend.PS.SG this.M straight into casa lui, mai vârtosu de alaltu (CC2.: ) house.DEF his.GEN more strongly than other.ACC ‘And I am telling you that this one descended straight down to his house, faster than the other one’ d. Bucuraţi-vă că numele voastre scrise rejoice.IMP.PL=CL.REFL.ACC.PL that names.DEF.NOM your.F.PL write.PPLE.F.PL sânt la ceriu (CT.–: v) be.PASS.PRES.PL in heaven ‘Rejoice that your names are written in heaven’ e. Zău că ne va asculta în veac (CC1.: r) honestly that CL.ACC.PL AUX.FUT.SG listen.INF for ever ‘I honestly say that he will listen to us forever’ f. Am nădejde pre Dumnedzău că mi-a have.PRES.SG faith.ACC on God that CL.DAT.SG=AUX.FUT.SG da puteare ( . . . ) (Sind.: v) give.INF strength.ACC ‘I have faith in God that he will give me strength’ As far as the syntactic role of the complement clauses with că is concerned (Table .), direct object clauses prevail (see also }}...; ...), followed by subject clauses (}..) and complement of preposition clauses (}} ...; ...). ... Cum (< QUOMODO) In the old language, cum is a polyfunctional connector: it is a wh-adverb (‘how’) (}}.; .), a subordinator for clausal adjuncts (}.), and a complementizer (‘that’). With this latter status (a), it competes with că (‘that’), mainly during the first period of OR. This variation is sometimes encountered even in close proximity, within the same text (b).
T . The syntactic distribution of clausal arguments headed by că Direct object
Subject
Complement of preposition
Predicative positions
Complement of noun
Apposition
.%
.%
%
.%
.%
.%
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
()
The complex clause a. David proroc ( . . . ) zice cum Dumnezeu stă David.NOM prophet.NOM says that God.NOM stays departe de la el sau doarme (CC1.: v) far from him.ACC or sleeps ‘David the prophet says that God is far from him or he sleeps’ b. zice cum sutașului nu i se-au says that centurion.DEF.DAT not CL.DAT.SG CL.REFL.IMPERS=AUX.PERF.SG părut că e destoinic să meargă el însuș la seem.PPLE that is worthy SĂSUBJ go.SUBJ.SG he himself to Iisus (CC1.: v) Iisus ‘he says that the centurion thought that he was not worthy to go to Jesus’
As contextual equivalents, cum and că share the syntactic configurations in which they occur and they are selected by the same verbs. A frequency test conducted on complement clauses headed by cum (Table .) showed that in terms of the syntactic position of the subordinate clause, the occurrence in direct object clauses is more frequent for cum-complement clauses than for că-complement clauses, but the other two significant positions are, as in the case of că, the subject position and the complement of preposition position. Cum and că also appear together, in repeated structures, where cum repositions că as a pivot for the relaunching of the sentence after a digression. () Voi știţi că dentru întâia zi de când veniiu întru you.NOM know.PRES.PL that from first.DEF day of when arrive.PS.SG in Asia cum cu voi în toţi anii fui ( . . . ) (CPr.: ) Asia that with you.PL.ACC in all.M years.DEF.ACC be.PS.SG ‘You know that from the first day I arrived in Asia I have been with you all these years’ Because of its connection with cum (wh-word), some of the subordinates introduced by the complementizer cum have ambiguous readings, between complement clauses and relative clauses (a,b) or, after a verb of perception, pseudo-relative clauses (c) (Manoliu-Manea : ). ()
a. Den ceaste cuvinte putem înţeleage cum mai bine nu from these.F words can.PRES.PL understand.INF that / how more good not putem face trupului mort decât să îngrupăm (CC1.: v) can.PRES.PL do.INF body.DEF.DAT dead than SĂSUBJ bury.SUBJ.PL ‘From these words we can understand that we cannot do anything better for a dead body than bury it’
T . The syntactic distribution of clausal arguments headed by cum Direct object Subject Complement of preposition Secondary object Predicative positions %
%
.%
%
.%
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Complementizers and complement clauses
b. Învăţăm aicea cum trebuiaște a îngrupa morţii learn.PRES.PL here how/that should AINF bury.INF dead.PL.DEF.ACC și ce slujbă putem face lor (CC1.: r) and what service.ACC can.PRES.PL do.INF them.DAT ‘We learn here how we should bury the dead and what kind of religious service we can hold for them’ c. Socotiţi crinul câmpului cum creaște (CC1.: r) look.IMP.PL lily.DEF.ACC field.DEF.GEN how/that grows ‘Consider the lily of the field, how it grows’ The form precum (‘that’) is also recorded (a,b) sporadically, at all stages of OR, with the value of the complementizer cum/că. ()
a. Scriu și mărturisescu write.PRES.SG and confess.PRES.SG precum am vândutu as.how/that AUX.PERF.SG sell.PPLE tătâne-meu (DÎ.: LXXXI) father.GEN-my ‘With this deed I write and confess father’
cu with eu, I
acest zapis al meu this deed.ACC AL.M.SG my.M.SG Ghiorghi parte Ghiorghi, part.ACC
that I, Ghiorghi, sold the land of my
b. Ţiitoarea au înţeles precum mistress.DEF.NOM AUX.PERF.SG understand.PPLE as.how/that s-au întors împăratul (Sind.: r) CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG return.PPLE emperor.DEF.NOM ‘The mistress understood that the emperor returned’ Besides (pre)cum, two other compound complementizers compete with că: cum că (‘that’) (a) and p(r)ecum că (‘that’) (b). Precum că is recorded in texts of the eighteenth century, while cum că occurs in texts of the entire period of OR; they are both selected mostly by verba dicendi and semantically related nouns. Both cum că and precum că are emphatic equivalents of că (they are an instance of redundant lexicalization of the Force head); they are preserved in MR with an additional counterfactual meaning, which has been foreshadowed since the end of the eighteenth century in examples such as (c), (see also Sava : ). ()
a. să
grăiască cum că omul acesta ( . . . ) speak.SUBJ.SG how that man.DEF.NOM this graiure de hulă grăiaște (CB.–: ) sayings.ACC of shame speak.PRES.SG ‘to say that this man is speaking words of shame’ b. au pârât pe veziriul, precum că AUX.PERF.SG denounce.PPLE DOM vizier.DEF.ACC as.how that s-au agiunsu cu moscalii (NL.~–: ) CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG collude.PPLE with Russians.DEF.ACC ‘they denounced the vizier for having colluded with the Russians’ SĂSUBJ
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause c. s-au împlut tot orașul cum că CL.REFL.PASS=AUX.PERF.SG fill.PPLE all city.DEF.NOM how that împărăteasa este într-acel cuptoriu ce era denapoia empress.DEF.NOM is in=that.M oven that be.IMPERF.SG behind zidului cetăţii (Bert.: v) wall.DEF.GEN city.DEF.GEN ‘the rumour spread throughout the city that the empress was in the oven behind the city walls’
The compound complementizer cum de (‘how come that’), occurring in the spoken register of MR, is the result of the adjacency of two connectors—the connector of an elliptic wh-question (‘how √is it possible?’) and the polyfunctional subordinator de (‘that’). It is recorded in a few eighteenth-century narrative writings, with verbs that usually govern indirect interrogatives or exclamatives. ()
l-au întrebat cum de nu sântu CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.PERF.PL ask.PPLE how that not be.PRES.PL oameni pe-cesta loc (NL.~–: ) people.NOM on=this.M place ‘they asked him how it was that there weren’t any people in that place’
... Să (< SE < *se < SI) Given the status of să—complementizer and subjunctive marker (Sava ; }...)—its selection is necessarily correlated with the mood features of the verb in the complement clause. The selection of să is also semantically and syntactically governed: the matrix verb assigns the value of irreality to the clausal argument. In OR, as in MR (GR: , ), să is selected by lexical modal verbs, exercitive verbs (Austin : ) with deontic value (a), volitive modal verbs (b), modalizers of evaluation, aspectual and modal verbs (c), adjectives and nouns (d). Within these classes of verbs, a greater lexical variety is encountered in OR than in the modern language. ()
a. de-aciia-l aromise să poarte from=here=CL.ACC.M.SG fool.PLUPERF.SG SĂSUBJ wear.SUBJ.SG hanger (MC.: r) dagger.ACC ‘and then he had fooled him into secretly carrying a dagger’ b. tot omul carele va vrea să all.M.SG man.DEF.NOM which.M.SG.DEF AUX.FUT.SG want.INF SĂSUBJ aibă parte cu Dumnezeu (CC1.: r) have.SUBJ.SG part.ACC with God ‘every man who wants to be with God’ c. Da se se întoarcă smerit și start.IMPERF.SG SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.SG turn.SUBJ.SG humble and rrușirat measerul (PH.–: v) ashamed poor.DEF.NOM ‘The poor man tried to turn back humble and ashamed’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Complementizers and complement clauses
d. și priimi porâncită ( . . . ) să vie cătră and receive.PS.SG command.ACC SĂSUBJ come.SUBJ.SG towards el (CPr.: ) him.ACC ‘and he was ordered to come to him’ A frequency test on argument clauses, selected from texts written at all stages of OR, shows the preference for a certain class of verbs (Table .) and the prevalence of certain syntactic positions of the complement clause introduced by să (Table .). In the context of an argument clause with a subjunctive verb, and from the earliest surviving texts, old Romanian employed (apart from the complementizer să) the fixed groups ca ( . . . ) să (a), cum ( . . . ) să (b) and de să (c). In similar syntactic environments, in MR only ca . . . să is preserved, as the result of a process at the beginning of the twentieth century by which cum was abandoned as a complementizer and ca . . . să was imposed by the prescriptive rules of the standard language (Graur : ). For the status of de, see }.... In spite of their uneven distribution in the overall corpus of OR, the occurrences of these five variants show that they are all instances of the double lexicalization of Force and Fin heads of the domain C, meaning that they are (free) variants of the same complementizer. They coexisted at a time of struggle to preserve a more accurate form of translated texts and to provide a model for syntax, all the while under the pressure from the spoken language, which had the advantage of greater communicative efficiency.
T . Distribution of governing categories for complement clauses with să %
Volitive modal verbs Exercitive verbs and verbs of saying with deontic value
%
Aspectual and modal verbs
%
Lexical modal verbs or adverbs
%
Other verbs
%
Nouns and adjectives
%
T . The syntactic distribution of clausal arguments headed by să Direct object
Subject
%
%
Complement of preposition %
Predicative positions %
Secondary object %
Complement of noun %
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
()
The complex clause a. Ș-am jurat în mânia Mea ca ei în and=AUX.PERF.SG swear.PPLE in anger.DEF.ACC my.F.SG that they.NOM in răpausul Miu să nu vie (CPr.: ) rest my.M.SG SĂSUBJ not come.SUBJ.PL ‘So I declared on oath in my anger that they shall never enter my rest’ b. căutat-au cu prileju vreame cum seek.PPLE=AUX.PERF.PL with opportunity time.ACC that se-l vânză (CB.–: ) SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.SG sell.SUBJ.PL ‘and they sought an opportunity to betray him’ c. să ne nevoim de să ne SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.PL try.SUBJ.PL that SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.PL delungăm de toate păcatele (CC2.: ) quit.SUBJ.PL of all sins ‘we should try to turn away from sin’
... De The use of the conjunction de as a complementizer is specific to OR. In MR, the complementizer de appears only in non-standard, colloquial Romanian and in regional varieties, where it is however rare (Vulpe : , , , , ). In OR, de is mainly a subordinator for adjunct clauses, a relative word, and a linker, on the borderline between coordination and subordination (}.). A historical link between the complementizer de (a,b), the adjunct subordinator de, mainly with purposive, resultative, and conditional value (}}..; ..), and the relative de (}...) may be assumed. In texts of the sixteenth century, the complementizer de is less employed than the adjunct subordinator; for the results of a frequency test on instances of de (Dimitriu ), see Table .. The syntactic positions occupied by the complement clauses headed by de are in direct object, subject, predicative, and complement of the preposition positions. See Table . for their distribution in the corpus. T . Frequency of polyfunctional de Subordinator Conditional Purposive Resultative Causal Concessive %
%
%
%
%
Relative Complementizer Linker pronoun %
%
%
T . The syntactic distribution of clausal arguments headed by de Direct object
Subject
Complement of preposition
Predicative positions
%
%
%
%
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Relative clauses ()
a. eu am nevoit de-am scris (MC.: v) I AUX.PERF.SG endeavour.PPLE that=AUX.PERF.SG write.PPLE ‘I endeavoured to write’ b. iar cele de necinste vasă sânt de trebuiescu and those.NOM of disgrace vessels be.PRES.PL that need.PRES.PL la lucruri de toată necinstea (Bert.: v) for things of all.F.SG disgrace.DEF ‘and those disgraceful vessels are needed for utterly disgraceful use’
The complementizer de is also the main connector for indirect polar interrogatives, the occurrence of other variants—se (< SI) and dacă—being quite insignificant in the texts from the sixteenth–eighteenth centuries (}...). ()
a. Lasă să vedem de va veni let.IMP.SG SĂSUBJ see.SUBJ.PL whether AUX.FUT.SG come.INF Ilie să mântuiască el (CC1.: r) Ilie.NOM SĂSUBJ save.SUBJ.SG him.ACC ‘Let’s see whether Ilie will come to save him’ b. Și să mira de easte trebuinţă and CL.REFL.ACC.SG wonder.IMPERF.SG whether is need.NOM să margă înaintea împărăteasii au ba (Bert.: v) SĂSUBJ go.SUBJ.SG in.front.of empress.DEF.GEN or not ‘And he wondered whether he had to face the empress or not’
.. Final remarks The complementizer system in OR appears to be richer than that of MR. The inventory of forms employed as heads of argument clauses is larger. However, the main complementizers are: the pair employed for subjunctive (să) vs. non-subjunctive (că), and the complementizer(s) employed for indirect interrogatives, prototypically in OR de (vs. dacă in MR). The other forms are either concurrent variants of the prototypical complementizer (cum/precum vs. că) or, in instances of co-occurrence, emphatic markers of the prototypical complementizer (cum că/precum că). In the special case of să, the co-occurrence with ca/cum/de is a case of full lexicalization of both Force and Fin heads of the CP. As for the complementizer specialized for indirect speech, MR displays alternation between de and dacă (which is almost absent in OR). As far as the syntactic positions of the argument clauses in OR are concerned, the frequency test showed a strong preference for the conjunctional expression of the direct object, and a relatively low frequency of the subject and complement of the preposition positions. The result may be correlated with the extensive use in OR of non-finite clauses (mainly the infinitive) (Stan a: , –, ; Frâncu : ).
. Relative clauses .. Preliminary remarks The relativization mechanism of OR is very similar to that of MR. All major types of relative clauses are recorded in the corpus: headed relative clauses—restrictives (a)
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
and non-restrictives (b)—and headless (free) relative clauses, both as complement (c) and adjunct clauses (d). ()
a. cela ce împărăţia răsărita și that what reign.IMPERF.SG East.DEF.ACC and apusul (FD.–: r) West.DEF.ACC ‘the one who reigned over East and West’ b. bunrătea lu Iacov, carile iubit (PH.–: r) kindness.DEF LUI.GEN Jacob who.M.DEF.ACC love.PS.PL ‘the kindness of Jacob, whom you loved’ c. Cine va veni cătră mine nu-l who.ACC AUX.FUT.SG come.INF towards me.ACC not=CL.ACC.M.SG voi scoate afară (CC2.: VI) AUX.FUT.SG throw.INF out ‘Whoever comes to me will not be thrown out’ d. să
veade mila lui Dumnedzău cea mare când sees mercy.DEF.NOM LUI.GEN God CEL.F.SG great when priimeaște pre păcătos (Mol.: ) welcomes DOM sinner.ACC ‘one may see the great mercy of God when He welcomes the sinner’ CL.REFL.PASS
Infinitival relative clauses (a; }...) and multiple relative clauses (b; }....) have also been recorded since the earliest writings available in the corpus. Their syntax is very much the same as in MR. ()
a. și a zis că n-are ce-m face (DÎ.–: II) and AUX.PERF.SG say.PPLE that not=has what=CL.DAT.SG do.INF ‘and he said he could do nothing for me’ b. și cine ce va ceare and who.NOM what.ACC AUX.FUT.SG ask.INF da-i-se-va (CC2.: V) give.INF=CL.DAT.SG=CL.REFL.PASS=AUX.FUT.SG ‘and whoever asks will receive what he asks for’
The characteristics of wh-relative clauses in OR are not significantly different, overall, from those of MR. The differences mainly regard the inventory of wh-words, their inflections and distributional features, word order inside the relative clause, and certain placement constraints on the subordinate clause as opposed to the matrix clause. .. The wh-words Besides the wh-words that are also employed in MR—pronouns: cine (‘who’), de (‘which’); pronouns/adjectives: care (‘which’), ce (‘what’), cât (‘how many’); adverbs: unde (‘where’), când (‘when’), cum (‘how’), cât (‘how much’)—the peculiarities of OR consist of two wh-adverbs: i(u)o (‘where’) (< HIC UBI), no longer employed in MR, and
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Relative clauses
încotro/încătr(u)o (‘where to’), with limited use in contemporary Romanian, and a set of syntactic clichés that contain a wh-word and that are used in headless relative clauses: ainte de ce (‘before’), în ce obraz (‘how’), în ce chip (‘how’), în dzi ce (‘when’). Indefinites in ori- (broadly corresponding to English forms ending in ‘-ever’) are infrequent in the sixteenth-century texts, and alternate with oare- or vare-, sometimes in the same text. Their frequency increases in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. As a ‘neutral’ wh-pronoun, employed in MR with appositive free relatives, ceea ce (‘which’) is quite rare until the end of the eighteenth century. ... Wh-pronouns (and adjectives) In OR, care (< QUALEM) (‘which’) has a richer set of inflected forms than the MR paradigm. Besides the genitive/dative forms in MR: cărui(a) (which.M.SG), cărei(a) (which.F.SG), căror(a) (which.PL), that are marked for gender only in the singular, in OR, the paradigm of care also includes forms that incorporate a definite marker, and are sensitive to gender opposition in direct cases, too: carea (which.F.SG.DEF.NOMACC), carele/carile (which.M.SG.DEF.NOMACC), cari(i)/ carei (which.M.PL.DEF.NOMACC). ()
a. acia cale pre carea voiu iuvi that way DOM which.F.SG.DEF AUX.FUT.SG show.INF
lui (PH.–: v) AUX.FUT.SG him.DAT ‘that way which I will show to him’ b. fericit ( . . . ) √ carele n-au căzut de la blessed.M.SG which.M.SG.DEF.NOM not=AUX.PERF.SG fall.PPLE from nădeajdea lui (BB.: ) hope.DEF.ACC his.GEN ‘blessed is he who kept his hope’ c. carii vor fi cu vină certați, which.M.PL.DEF.NOM AUX.FUT.PL be.INF with guilt punish.PPLE.M.PL ei se pocăiască (CC1.: v) they SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.PL repent.SUBJ.PL ‘those who are punished let them repent’
The fully inflected forms are not uniformly spread over the territory; their occurrence depends on the region of origin of the text (Gheție b: ). While in the sixteenth century they are quite frequent in texts that originate in Moldova, in the southern region it is the invariable (uninflected) care that prevails. There are also texts in which the invariable care is absent: FD.–, CCat., and CS.–; and there is one text in which inflected and uninflected care are totally absent: CPrav.–. Invariable care occurs in % of the care-relative clauses corpus (both headed and free relatives), and represents % of the general relative clauses corpus. For the distribution of the inflected and uninflected forms of care within the sub-set of headed relative clauses (restrictive and non-restrictive), see Table ..
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
T . The distribution of the forms of care Headed relative clauses
care
carele
carea
carii
carei
carile
căror(a)
cari
cărui(a)
Percent
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
As in MR, care is also employed as an adjective in OR. A certain pattern, quite frequent both in translated religious texts (Avram : –) and in original chancellery documents, is specific to the OR: it involves adjectival care, occurring in a nominal phrase that repeats the head of the relative clause, either by doubling it with the exact word (a), or by replacing it with a substitute (b) or a generic, resumptive noun (c). The occurrence of this pattern is also reported for Latin (Brown, Joseph, and Wallace : ) and Italian (Cinque : –). () a. lumina aceia a măririi, care lumină va light.DEF.NOM that.F AL.F.SG glory.DEF.GEN which.NOM light.NOM AUX.FUT.SG străluci și în trupurile sfinților lui (AD.–: r) shine.INF too in bodies.DEF.ACC saints.DEF.GEN his.GEN ‘that light of glory, which light will also shine in the bodies of his saints’ b. învăţătura ceaea strâmba, care aceaea o au lesson.DEF that.F wicked.DEF which.ACC that.F CL.ACC.F.SG AUX.PERF.SG dat înainte (CPr.: ) give.PPLE before ‘that wicked lesson, which he gave them before’ c. va
apuca de-l va afunda de trei start.INF that=CL.ACC.M.SG AUX.FUT.SG dip.INF by three ori în scăldătoare, care lucru iaste cheaia times in vessel.ACC which.NOM fact.NOM is key.DEF.NOM Tatălui şi a Fiiului şi a Duhului Father.DEF.GEN and AL.F.SG Son.DEF.GEN and AL.F.SG Spirit.GEN.DEF Svânt (ȘT.: ) Holy ‘he will start to dip him three times into the vessel, which is the key of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’ AUX.FUT.SG
The repetition of the antecedent inside the relative clause is part of the mechanism of anaphora resolution. Besides the syntactic constraint that triggers the clitic doubling of the relative word (a), which is a parametric feature of Romanian, in OR, in cases of long distance extraction of the wh-word (b) or when the relative clause is in focal position (c), a resumptive pronoun may occur, filling the gap in the extraction position and disambiguating the anaphoric chain. Resumptive pronouns may also fix certain discontinuities in the syntax of the relative clause, as in the anacoluthon in (d). In OR, the filled trace of the extracted wh-phrase also
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Relative clauses
occurs with other relative connectors (}...), and is still recorded in the informal, spoken register of MR. ()
a. doamneei și feciorilor ei, carii-ii lady.DEF.DAT and sons.DEF.DAT her.GEN which.M.PL.DEF.ACC=CL.ACC.M.PL eu iubescu întru deadevăr (CB.–: ) I love.PRES.SG for indeed ‘to the lady and her sons, which I love indeed’ b. ș-ai mâncat den pom den carelei and=AUX.PERF.SG eat.PPLE from tree of which.M.SG.DEF porâncise eu ţie cum să nu mănânci order.PLUPERF.SG I you.SG.DAT that SĂSUBJ not eat.SUBJ.SG den eli (CM.: r) from it.M.SG ‘and you ate from a tree that I had told you not to eat from’ c. cariii era răi, eii era which.M.PL.DEF.NOM be.IMPERF.PL bad.M.PL they.M be.IMPERF.PL certaţi (MC.: v–r) punish.PPLE.M.PL ‘those who were bad were punished’ d. ochii lui Dumnedzeu pre cariii se eyes.DEF LUI.GEN God DOM which.M.PL.DEF CL.REFL.ACC.SG vor teame de eli (PH.–: r) AUX.FUT.PL fear.INF of him.ACC ‘the eyes of God, whom they will fear’
In free relative clauses, the relative junction is forced to concentrate syntactic information from both the matrix clause and the relative clause. The wh-word should simultaneously observe constraints from its position of extraction and from the governor in the matrix clause. In MR, in situations of divergent case constraints, the relative word usually accommodates to the restrictions imposed by the matrix clause, but this also correlates with the choice of the relative pronoun. For such cases, MR prefers the group cel care, which benefits from the advantage of acting as a ‘split’ anaphor: one for the complement of the matrix clause (cel), and one for the relativized position in the embedded clause (care). As they both have rich morphology, cel can observe the constraints in the matrix clause, while care can be marked for the features of the position of extraction. In OR, in examples such as (), only care is employed, which, in the absence of a disambiguating clitic, makes the resolution of the anaphora quite difficult. ()
voi vă închinaţi căruiai nu știţ you.PL CL.REFL.ACC.PL pray.PRES.PL which.DAT not know.PRES.PL ti (BB.: ) (ACC) ‘you pray to someone you do not know’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
As a genitival modifier of a noun phrase, care is recorded in OR in two kinds of construction, both also available for MR: (i) the relative precedes the nominal head, and (ii) the relative is in postposition. In MR, in type (i) constructions, the genitival determiner (AL) is compulsory: ale căror glasuri (‘whose voices’), while in type (ii) constructions, the deictic particle -a must occur: glasurile cărora (‘the voices of which’). In the sixteenth–eighteenth-century texts, most of the registered examples of type (i) have the deictic particle -a (a); there are also examples of type (i) where both markers are missing (b), or examples in which the relative pronoun is marked twice: with genitival determiner and deictic particle (c). In type (ii) constructions, the deictic particle is missing in earlier texts (d), but occurs in later ones (e). This free distribution shows that the rule was not completely set before the end of the eighteenth century. ()
a. popi în cărora mână va veni aceastea priests in which.M.PL.GEN hand AUX.FUT.PL get.INF these.F cărți creștinești (CCat.: r) books.NOM Christian.F.PL ‘priests into whose hands these Christian books will come’ b. nimea cărui trup ( . . . ) ucenicii săi nobody which.M.SG.GEN body.ACC disciples.DEF.NOM his.POSS nu-l unseră cu mir (CC1.: r) not=CL.ACC.M.SG anoint.PS.PL with myrrh.ACC ‘nobody whose body was not anointed with myrrh by their disciples’ c. Dumnedzău cu a căruia poruncă pământul God with AL.F.SG which.M.SG.GEN will.ACC earth.NOM.DEF spre ape fu întărit (Mol.: ) to waters be.PASS.PS.SG set.PPLE.M.SG ‘God, whose will brought the earth out from the water’ d. cu inima cărui se va lega, with heart.DEF which.M.SG.GEN CL.REFL.ACC.SG AUX.FUT.SG bind.INF acela iaste aceluia Dumnezeu (CC2.: ) that.NOM is that.DAT God.NOM ‘the one whose heart will bind to his, that will be his God’ e. pre capul lui Iosif, și pre creaștetul on head.DEF LUI.GEN Iosif and on head.DEF.ACC cărora au povăţuit fraţii (BB.: ) which.M.PL.GEN AUX.PERF.PL advise.PPLE brothers.DEF.ACC ‘on Joseph’s head and on the heads of those who advised his brothers’
In terms of the antecedent of the restrictive relative clauses, characteristic for OR is the occurrence of the bare noun (), which in MR is allowed only under certain semantic conditions (Gheorghe : –).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Relative clauses ()
au
făcut strigare care ai auzit make.PPLE call.ACC which.ACC AUX.PERF.SG hear.PPLE tu, împărate (Bert.: r) you.SG.NOM emperor.VOC ‘they shouted the words that you heard, your Majesty’ AUX.PERF.PL
Ce (‘what’) (< QUID) is employed both as a pronoun (a) and as an adjective (b). ()
a. trupul mieu ce se deade derept voi (CCat.: v) body.DEF my that CL.REFL.PASS give.PS.SG for you.PL.ACC ‘my body that was given to you’ b. Dumnezeu știe că toate le tocmeaște ( . . . ) spre God.NOM knows that all.F.ACC CL.ACC.F.PL settles for folosul nostru, macară ce boală sau rău benefit.DEF.ACC our.M.SG no.matter what illness.ACC or evil.ACC ce lasă spre noi (CC2.: ) that brings to us ‘God knows that everything is to our benefit, no matter what illness or evil he brings to us’
While in MR ce is mainly a substitute for non-animates, in OR, there are no restrictions: ce can freely be a substitute for both inanimates (a) and animates (b). ()
a. aveare ce-mi era dăruită wealth that=CL.DAT.SG be.IMPERF.SG give.PPLE.F.SG de Dumnezeu (CC2.: VII) by God.ACC ‘the wealth that was given to me by God’ b. priiatinii lui Arie ce era în friends.DEF LUI.GEN Arie which be.IMPERF.PL in curtea lui (CazV.: v) courtyard.DEF his.GEN ‘Arie’s friends who were in his courtyard’
Due to its lack of inflections and freedom of linking to the head of the relative clause, ce is the most frequent of the relative connectors in OR. While in MR the occurrence of headed relative clauses with care is privileged in comparison with ce— % vs. % (Gheorghe : )—a frequency test conducted on the OR corpus shows that the occurrence of care in headed relative clauses is below %, being strongly rivalled by ce: %. See also Iliescu : ; Gheție b: , for the result of a test conducted on a smaller corpus (forewords and epilogues of the sixteenth-century writings): ce occurs forty-three times vs. nineteen occurrences of care, which means a similar ratio: % to %. To disambiguate the anaphoric chain, ce relative clauses also resort to reduplication of the relative word by means of a resumptive pronoun (a), or to clitic doubling (b). An interesting pattern is illustrated in (c), where the covert antecedent of the free relative is lexicalized in the subordinate clause.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
()
The complex clause a. loculi acesta cei întru eli viem (CL.: r) place.DEF this that in it live.PRES.PL ‘this place that we live in’ b. aciia gadinei cei nu lii-i număru (CM.: v) those beasts that not CL.DAT.PL=is number.DEF.NOM ‘those countless beasts’ c. Părinte, dă-mi ei cei mi se father.VOC give.IMP.SG=CL.DAT.SG what CL.DAT.SG CL.REFL.IMPERS cade parteai den avuţie (CC2.: ) ought part.DEF.NOM from fortune ‘Father, give me my due part of the fortune
As in MR, the combination with the quantifier tot (a) is most common. In examples such as (b), where the subordinate clause is topicalized, the correlative tot triggers the quantificational reading of ce (‘whatever’) (see also }...). ()
a. tot ce e den nevăzut văzut ( . . . ) se all that is from unseen.PPLE seen.PPLE CL.REFL.PASS feace (CPr.: ) makes ‘everything which is unseen becomes seen’ b. ce veri pohti de la mine, eu totu-ţi what AUX.FUT.SG wish.INF from me I everything=CL.DAT.SG voiu da domnetale (DÎ.: XXXII) AUX.FUT.SG give.INF you.POL.DAT.SG ‘whatever you ask, I will give it to you’
The partly fused group ce + the short demonstrative cel(a)/cei(a)/ce(a)lea/ce(a)ea (a,b) has the highest number of occurrences in ce-relative clauses, both in OR and in MR. ()
a. iară cel ce vindeca nu avea and that.NOM what heal.IMPERF.SG not have.IMPERF.SG venin (Ev.: ) poison.ACC ‘the one who healed had no bitterness’ b. ceaea ce easte (GB.XVI–XVII: v) that what is ‘that which is’
The rich morphology of the demonstrative component counterbalances the invariability of ce, and allows the relative connector to encode a much larger array of features (case, number, gender). ()
cântaţi lui Dumnedzeu celui ce se duse sing.IMP.PL LUI.DAT God that.M.DAT what CL.REFL.ACC.SG leave.PS.SG în ceriul ceriurelor (PH.–: r) in heaven.DEF.ACC heavens.DEF.GEN ‘sing to God, to him who left for the heaven of heavens, towards the sunrise’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Relative clauses
The partly fused group cel ce is frequently used in MR, too, but in certain contexts, the more natural choices are care (a) or cine (b). Still, in spite of the prevalence of cel ce in OR, the variation is registered from the earliest writings, even within the same sequence (b). ()
a. Eu sâmt Isus pre cela ce tu I be.PRES.SG Isus.NOM DOM that.M.ACC what you.SG.NOM gonești (CazV.: r) banish.PRES.SG ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting’ b. Cela ce fură dobitoc ( . . . ) Cine fură găină ( . . . ) (CPrav.–: r) that.M what steals cattle.ACC who steals poultry.ACC ‘He who steals cattle ( . . . ) He who steals poultry’
Combination of ce with the feminine singular demonstrative ce(a)ea is almost gramaticalized in MR, and it is employed as a specialized neutral relative connector— ceea ce (‘which’), mainly for appositives. Even in non-appositive relative clauses, the demonstrative component has lost its referentiality and is no longer used as an antecedent of the relative clause. In such contexts, in MR, the compound is an emphatic substitute for ce. The beginning of this bleaching process is quite obvious from the earliest texts available (a), while example (b) is very similar to the modern use of ceea ce. ()
a. izbăveaște-mă de ceea ce mă-ncungiurară (CP1.: r) save.IMP.SG=CL.ACC.SG of that what CL.ACC.SG=surround.PS.PL ‘save me from what surrounded me!’ și moară pentru ceea ce va sluji (CazV.: r) SĂSUBJ also die.SUBJ.SG for that what AUX.FUTSG serve.INF ‘to die for what he serves’
b. să
As the most widely used wh-word in OR, ce also covered the values of some other wh-words in MR: care (‘which’) (a), unde (‘where’) (a), and even prepositional phrases (b). ()
a. Nu sta în cetate ce sunt domni not stay.INF in fortress what be.PRES.PL rulers.NOM mulți (FD.–: v) many.M ‘Don’t stay in the fortress where there are many rulers’ b. pune peste dânsul în tigaia ce put.IMP.SG on him.ACC in pan.DEF.ACC what l-ai prăjit nucșoară (CBuc.: r) CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.PERF.SG fry.PPLE nutmeg.ACC ‘in the pan in which you fried it, add some nutmeg’
Compared to the frequency of cel, records of nominal antecedents for ce are not many, but what is characteristic of all the stages of OR is the use of ce with a proper noun antecedent, which is no longer employed in MR.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
()
The complex clause Și botedză și bărbatul ei, pre Prov, ce and baptize.PS.SG also man.DEF.ACC her.GEN DOM Probus what era semenţie împăratului Neron (CazV.: r) be.IMPERF.SG tribe.NOM emperor.DEF.DAT Nero ‘And she also baptized her husband, Probus, who was a relative of Nero, the emperor’
In the sixteenth-century texts, the adjectival antecedents are recorded only once (a), but later writings reveal more examples (b). The adjective is the antecedent of a relative clause which ‘identifies’ that property. () a. Și de scumpă ce easte, pururea e and because.of miserly.F.SG what is always is flămândă ( . . . ) (FD.–: v) hungry.F.SG ‘Miserly as she is, she is always hungry’ b. ca un Dumnezău iubitoriu de oameni și milostiv like a God loving.M.SG of people.ACC and merciful.M.SG ce ești (CazV.: v) what be.PRES.SG ‘like a loving and merciful God which you are’ The same pattern of ‘identifying’ relative clause is recurrent in some sixteenth-century texts (mostly in CC2.) with a nominal antecedent, in adjunct position (). () Derept ciudese ce era de Domnul Hristos for miracles what be.IMPERF.PL of Lord.DEF Hristos.NOM și derept învăţătura lui (CC2.: ) and for wisdom.DEF his.GEN ‘For the miracles that Christ accomplished and for his wisdom’ While in MR cine (‘who’) (< QUE(M)NE *QUENE (QUEM)) occurs exclusively in free relative clauses, in OR it is employed in both types of relative clauses: headless and headed relative clauses. In religious texts with a prescriptive content, the free relative clauses with cine/ci(n)re/cenre are usually topicalized subordinates in subject position, and the wh-word has a quantificational reading (a) (see also }...), but they may occur in postposition, too (b); with nominal antecedents (c), it is employed with the meaning of care (‘which’) (Densusianu II: ). () a. Cine va creade și se va who AUX.FUT.SG believe.INF and CL.REFL.SG AUX.FUT.SG boteza, iertat va fi (CCat.: r) baptize.INF forgive.PPLE AUX.FUT.SG be.INF ‘The one who believes and is baptized will be saved’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Relative clauses
b. Mai tare să-l lăudăm cine more strongly SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.SG praise.SUBJ.PL who.NOM așteptăm sculătura (FT.–: r) wait.PRES.PL resurrection.DEF.ACC ‘Let’s praise him more and wait for resurrection’ c. acela om cine creade (CCat.: r) that man who.NOM believes ‘the one who is a believer’ Cine in oblique cases is unevenly spread in the corpus: in lay texts, only % of occurrences are recorded (), most of the forms being found in religious texts. ()
cui va da de moșie, să-i who.DAT AUX.FUT.SG give.INF of land SĂSUBJ=CL.DAT.SG fie moșie (DÎ.: XLVIII) be.SUBJ.SG land.NOM ‘may the land be in possession of whom it was given to’
Cine in genitival constructions is more frequent than care. Most examples are type (i) non-restrictives, with cine before the nominal head, and with genitival determiner, as in MR (a). In the absence of the genitival marker, the missing features are recovered by a resumptive pronoun (b). ()
a. Dracul hitleanul depărteadză-l de noi, devil.DEF.ACC deceitful.DEF chase.away.IMP.SG=CL.ACC.M.SG from us a cui putere toată ai zdrobitu (FT.–: r) AL.F.SG who.GEN power.ACC all.F.SG AUX.PERF.SG break.PPLE ‘Chase away the evil devil, whose entire power you have broken’ b. numele lu Hristos, cuii numele Luii nu name.DEF LUI.GEN Christ who.GEN name.DEF his.GEN not era cunoscut (CPr.: ) be.IMPERF.SG know.PPLE.M.SG ‘the name of Christ, whose name was not known’
In (), cine is inflected, but also has a redundant analytic oblique case marker. In MR, the phenomenon is reported in the Banat region (Moraru : ). ()
unii oamenii a cui trebuiia some.M.PL people.DEF A.DAT who.DAT need.IMPERF..PL asini (FD.–: v) donkeys.NOM ‘some people who needed donkeys’
De (< DE) is a polyfunctional connector in OR. Apart from its value as invariable relative word, de is also a complementizer (}...), and a subordinator for adjunct clauses (}}..; ..). As a relative word, de is employed as an equivalent of care (‘which’), in headed restrictive (a) or non-restrictive (b) relative clauses, as in MR.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
()
The complex clause a. omul de va vrea viaţă (PH.–: r) man.DEF which.NOM AUX.FUT.SG want.INF life.ACC ‘the man who will want life’ b. mienuni ce-au făcutu Hristos cu apa, miracles that=AUX.PERF.SG accomplish.PPLE Hristos with water.DEF de o au făcut vin (CC1.: v) which.ACC CL.ACC.F.SG AUX.PERF.SG make.PPLE wine.ACC ‘the miracle that Christ accomplished, turning water into wine’
De is more frequent in OR (%) than in MR (.%), where its use is restricted to the spoken language. In OR, it occurs both in original texts, and in translations and it covers the whole territory, including Moldova, where de is no longer recorded in MR (Pană Dindelegan a). As a relative pronoun, de occurs with nominal antecedents, as a substitute for animates (a) and inanimates (a), but it can also occur in appositive constructions like (b), with a resumptive value, like ceea ce (‘which’). () a. crucea de-l munciia (AD.–: ) cross.DEF which.NOM=CL.ACC.M.SG torture.IMPERF.SG ‘the cross that tortured him’ b. Și așa se bolnăveaște den lună, de and so CL.REFL.ACC.SG gets.ill from moon which.NOM se cheamă boală den lună (CC2.: ) CL.REFL.ACC.SG calls illness.NOM from moon.ACC ‘And so he gets ill because of the moon, the suffering being called the moon disease’ Characteristic of de in OR is its occurrence in headless relative clauses. The syntactic pattern is usually an equative construction (). () acela iaste √ de iubeaște mine (CC2.: ) that is which loves me.ACC ‘that is the one who loves me’ Another peculiarity of OR is the use of subjunctive de relative clauses, encountered only until the seventeenth century (Pană Dindelegan a). The subjunctive is selected by a negative, indefinite, or interrogative quantifier. Examples like (a) are very much like the modal existential constructions (}...). In such syntactic configurations, the deletion of the relative word is also possible, which is an exception to the relativization strategy in Romanian. The configuration in (b) is also possible in MR, but only in the spoken register. () a. și nu va fi nimea de să spare and not AUX.FUT.SG be.INF nobody.NOM which SĂSUBJ scare.SUBJ.SG voi (CC2.: ) you.PL.ACC ‘and there will be no one to scare you’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Relative clauses
b. Și aceluia bolnav nu era nimea and that.M.DAT ill.M.SG not be.IMPERF.SG nobody.NOM să-i ajute (CC2.: ) SĂSUBJ=CL.DAT.SG help.SUBJ.SG ‘And there was nobody to help the ill man’ Cât (‘how many’) (< QUANTUM) is a wh-quantifier with quantitative meaning. It is inflected for gender and number and is used both as a pronoun (a), and an adjective (b). For the adverbial value of cât, see }.... ()
a. toţi câţi vieţi pre toată lumea (PH.–: r) all how.many live.PRES.PL on all.F.SG world.DEF.ACC ‘all those who lived in the whole world’ b. vă las a ști câtă nevoinţă CL.ACC.PL let.PRES.SG AINF know.INF how.many.F.ACC need.ACC am pentru voi (CPr.: ) have.PRES.SG for you.PL.ACC ‘and I will let you know how much I need you’
For oblique case-positions, analytic forms are employed. ()
noao a câţi eramu împreună (CB.–: ) us.DAT.PL A.DAT how.many.M.PL be.IMPERF.PL together ‘to us, as many as we were together’
Indefinite wh-words are a heterogeneous class of connectors in OR. Wh-pronouns and adjectives combine with ori-/oare- (‘-ever’) (a) or vare- (‘-ever’) (b) in partly fused groups. More evidence that the group is not completely grammaticalized comes from examples like (c), where the quantificational component vare- takes scope over a prepositional phrase which includes the wh-word. ()
a. oare ce cearem și creadem n-are ever what.ACC ask.PRES.PL and believe.PRES.PL not=has cum să nu asculte Dumnezeu (CC1.: r) how SĂSUBJ not listen.SUBJ.SG God.NOM ‘God cannot fail to hear whatever we ask for, if we believe’ b. Că varece vrem ceare pre voia Lui, that whatever.ACC AUX.FUT.PL ask.INF on will his.GEN asculta-va noi (CPr.: ) listen.INF=AUX.FUT.SG us.ACC ‘that whatever we ask for according to his will, he will hear us’ c. Vare în ce chipu e ever in what way is Domnului nostru lu Lord.GEN our LUI.GEN
beseareca church.DEF.NOM Iisus Hristos, Isus Hristos
sfântă supt holy under în acela chip in that way
ţinutul rule.DEF.ACC fie be.SUBJ.SG
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause și muiarea supt ţinutul bărbatului also woman.DEF.NOM under rule.DEF.ACC husband.GEN.DEF său (CM.: v) her ‘In whatever way the holy church is under the rule of our Lord Jesus Christ, in that way is the woman under the rule of her husband’
In many OR texts, some of the bare relative words have the quantificational value of the indefinites. In the absence of the particle oare-/vare-, the free choice reading is encoded contextually: by placing the relative clause in a specialized rhetorical pattern or by means of correlative words (universal quantifiers, demonstratives) (}...). The choice of the future (a) or the imperative (b) in the matrix clause also implies that in spite of the lack of information regarding the set of entities associated with the variable, the speaker is unconcerned about the extension of the entity, and is determined to act, anyway. ()
a. feciorilor lor și nepoţilor lor, cine sons.DEF.DAT their.GEN and nephews.DEF.DAT their.GEN who.NOM se va aleage d ei (DÎ.–: VIII) CL.REFL.ACC.SG AUX.FUT.SG choose.INF of them.M.ACC ‘to their sons and nephews, whoever will be chosen’ b. până în sfârșenie să-l ţinem, cât de until in end.ACC SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.SG keep.SUBJ.PL how.much of multu (CPr.: ) much ‘keep it till the end, no matter how long’
... Adverbial wh-words Place wh-adverbs: with a place adjunct in the relativized category, unde (‘where’) is employed, in both free (a) and headed relative clauses (b), in syntactic configurations similar to those of MR. Characteristic to OR is the use of the forms încotro/încătruă/încătruo/cătruo (‘where to’), dencătr(u)o (‘where from’) (< IN-CONTRA + UBI), in free relative clauses (c) and i(u)o (‘where’) (< HIC UBI), registered in the sixteenth-century texts (d). ()
a. Că unde va hi visteariul vostru, acolo that where AUX.FUT.SG be.INF treasure.DEF.NOM your there va hi și inima voastră (CazV.: r) AUX.FUT.SG be.INF also heart.DEF.NOM your ‘For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also’ b. duce-l-voi acolo pre acel pământ de unde lead.INF=CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.FUT.SG there on that land from where tu ai ieșit (PO.: ) you.SG.NOM AUX.PERF.SG get.out.PPLE ‘I will lead him there, to the land whence you had come’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Relative clauses
c. Mearse dencătroo au venit la pustie (BB.: ) go.PS.SG from.where AUX.PERF.SG come.PPLE to desert ‘He went back to the desert where he came from’ d. deștinseră în Solun, io era gloatele lodge.PS.PL in Solun where be.IMPERF.PL troops.DEF.NOM iudeilor (CPr.: ) Judaeans.DEF.GEN ‘they arrived in Salonica, where the troops of the Judaeans were stationed’ Time adverbs: the time wh-adverbs of OR are când(u) (‘when’) (a), which is the prototypical connector for time adjuncts in MR. In some texts, unde (‘where’) used as ‘when’ (b) and înde (‘when’) (< INDE ‘from there’) (c) are also recorded. In headless relative clauses, a set phrase with temporal value is also employed (mainly in sixteenth-century texts): în dzi ce/în ce dzi (‘when’) (d). ()
a. în vânt grăiaște popa când nu înţeleage au el, in wind speaks priest.DEF.NOM when not understands or he au oamenii (CM.: v) or people.DEF.NOM ‘in vain speaks the priest, when neither he nor the people understand’ b. Înșiş să voru ucide pre sine unde themselves.M.NOM CL.REFL.PL AUX.FUT.PL kill.INF DOM self.ACC where vor vede slava sfinţiloru (CSIII.–: v) AUX.FUT.PL see.INF glory.DEF.ACC saints.DEF.GEN ‘They will kill themselves when they see the glory of the saints’ c. E-nde sosi întru Dervie și în Listră, and=when arrive.PS.SG in Derbe and in Lystra iacătă-te ucenicu oarecarele (CB.–: ) there=CL.ACC.SG disciple.NOM ordinary.DEF ‘And when he arrived in Derbe and Lystra, there you were, you, an ordinary disciple’ d. în dzi ce va spunre Domnulu Domniia sa ( . . . ) in day what AUX.FUT.SG say.INF Lord.NOM lordship.DEF.NOM his rruga lui Dumnedzeu √ viiaţa request.DEF.NOM LUI.GEN God life.DEF.NOM mea (PH.–: r) my ‘When the Lord will ask me, I’ll give my life at his request’
Manner and quantitative wh-adverbs: manner and comparative adjuncts are relativized as cum (‘how’) (a polyfunctional connector in OR: see also }}...; ..) (a) or precum (‘as’) (b), often resumed by a correlative word. Manner wh-adverbs have also periphrastic set phrase equivalents: în ce chip (‘how’) (c), cu ce obraz (‘how’) (d). The adverbial cât is employed for quantitatives, as in MR (e).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
()
The complex clause vie împărăţia ta, să fie come.SUBJ.SG kingdom.DEF.NOM your SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG voia ta, cum în ceri așa și pre will.DEF.NOM your.M.SG how in heavens so also on pământ (CM.: r) earth.ACC ‘Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven’
a. Să
SĂSUBJ
b. Că precum nu sânt dulci bucatele făr’ de that as.how not be.PRES.PL sweet.PL food.PL.DEF.NOM without of sare, așa nici postul făr’ de rugăciuni (AD.–: r) salt so neither fast.DEF.NOM without of prayers ‘As neither food is tasty without salt, nor fast good without prayers’ c. Doară ucide-mă-veri în ce chip uciseși INT kill.INF=CL.ACC.SG=AUX.FUT.SG as kill.PS.SG asară eghipteanul? (CB.–: ) last.night Egyptian.DEF.ACC ‘Will you kill me as you killed the Egyptian, last night?’ d. Cu ce obraz pohteaște cerbul la izvorul apelor with what face pants deer.DEF.NOM at spring waters.DEF.GEN așa pohteaște sufletul mieu cătră tinre, so pants soul.DEF.NOM my.M.SG towards you.SG.ACC Dzău (PH.–: v) God.VOC ‘As the deer pants for the water brooks, so my soul pants for You, O God’ e. Cât mult mie au slujit la Efes, how much me.DAT AUX.PERF.PL serve.PPLE at Efes aceaea știi tu mai bine (CPr.: ) that know.PRES.SG you.SG more good ‘How much they served me in Efes, you should know better’ Indefinite wh-adverbs: like the indefinite pronouns and adjectives, the indefinite adverbials are a heterogeneous class, too. The ori-/oare-/vare- (‘-ever’) forms, in combination with unde (‘where’), când (‘when’), cum (‘how’), cât (‘how much’), sometimes alternate in the same author or period of time, and are found at different stages of fusing (a–d). The partially frozen phrase de câte ori (‘whenever’) is employed as in MR, from the early writings (e). () a. Și eu voi păzi poruncile tale oriunde and I AUX.FUT.SG obey.INF orders.DEF.ACC your wherever voi fi (DPV.: r) AUX.FUT.SG be.INF ‘And I will obey your orders wherever I am’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Relative clauses
b. Spre Domnul am nădăjduit oricând to Lord.DEF.ACC AUX.PERF.SG hope.PPLE whenever am fost de greu scârbit (DPV.: r) AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE by hardness pain.PPLE ‘Whenever I was pained by the hardness of life, my hope was in the Lord’ c. Varecum era înfrâmţeșat în bogătate și în however be.IMPERF.SG embellish.PPLE in richness and in frâmseaţe, așa era vestit și în beauty so be.IMPERF.SG famous.M.SG also in weakness slăbiciune (NT.: r) ‘However rich and handsome he was, he was also well-known for his weakness’ d. Varecât ai vinde, și dă whatever have.PRES.SG sell.IMP.SG and give.IMP.SG mișeilor (CC1.: r) poor.DEF.DAT ‘Sell whatever you have and give it to the poor’ e. Eu mulţemesc Domnului de câte ori I thank.PRES.SG God.DEF.DAT of how.many times mi-aduc aminte de voi (CPr.: ) CL.REFL.DAT.SG=remember.PRES.SG of you.PL.ACC ‘I thank God whenever I remember you’ .. Special types of relative clauses ... Infinitival relatives and modal existential constructions Since the earliest surviving OR texts, infinitival relative clauses have been recorded both in lay and in religious writings. The pattern is a stereotypical syntactic configuration, with a modal have (a,b) or an impersonal existential be (c) in the matrix clause, and an infinitive in the relative clause. As in MR, (where the pattern is still preserved, mainly in the spoken register; see Gheorghe ), the wh-words employed are ce (‘what’) (a), cine (‘who’) (c), and unde (‘where’) (b). ()
a. n-am avutu cu ce plăti (DÎ.–: XII) not=AUX.PERF.SG have.PPLE with what pay.INF ‘I had nothing to pay (with)’ b. n-am unde aduna rodurile meale (CC2.: ) not=have.PRES.SG where garner.INF crops.DEF.ACC my.F.PL ‘there is no place to store my crops’ c. nu e cinre a face binre (PH.–: v) not is who.NOM AINF do.INF good.ACC ‘there is no one to do what is good’
Modal existential constructions (MEC) are semantically related to infinitival relative clauses (Grosu ; Šimík ): the verb in the subordinate is always a
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
subjunctive, triggered by a modal context in the matrix clause. Since the first texts available, infinitival relative clauses and modal existential constructions freely alternate (a), which proves that the subjunctive was already a natural option for modality. Example (b) shows that MECs occur with connectors other than the infinitival relative clauses, and (c) illustrates a case of relative connector deletion (marginally recorded in spoken MR). ()
a. Doamne, n-ai cu ce să scoţi, Lord.VOC not=have.PRES.SG with what SĂSUBJ draw.SUBJ.SG și puţul iaste adânc (CC1.: r) and well.DEF.NOM is deep.M.SG.NOM ‘Lord, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep’ b. și nu va fi nimea de să and not AUX.FUT.SG be.INF nobody.NOM that/which.ACC SĂSUBJ spare voi (CC2.: ) make.afraid.SUBJ.SG you.PL.ACC ‘and there will be no one to make you afraid’ c. Și aceluia bolnav nu era nimea and that.M.DAT sick not be.IMPERF.SG nobody.NOM √care să-i ajute (CC2.:) √which săSUBJ=CL.DAT.SG help.SUBJ.SG ‘And there was no one to help the sick man’
... Multiple relatives Multiple relativization, on a par with multiple interrogation (}...), consists of simultaneous wh-movements, within the same structure. Multiple relative clauses are recorded in the entire corpus, with no restrictions as far as the connectors are concerned, and in structures with double (a), and even triple extraposition (b). ()
a. deci cine ce face, lui face (MC.: v) so who.NOM what.ACC does him.DAT does ‘so, who does any thing, he does it for himself ’ b. întoarsă de patru ori mai mult cui de la cine restore.PS.SG of four times more much who.DAT from who ce luase ( . . . ) (CazV.: v) what.ACC take.PLUPERF.SG ‘if he had defrauded anyone of anything, he restored it fourfold’
... (Pseudo-)cleft constructions The strategy of clefting in modern Romanian involves only pseudo-clefts, either (i) identifying constructions with headless relative clauses introduced by (ceea) ce, or (ii) relative clauses with a nominal antecedent: the + thing, one, place, time, reason, way (GR: ). While identifying pseudo-clefts of type (i) are absent in OR, type (ii) constructions are widely encountered (a). Surprisingly, the OR corpus also reveals instances of cleft sentences (see also }....), which are no longer employed in MR (b,c).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts ()
a. eu sântu cela [ce căutați]! (CB.–: ) I be.PRES.SG that.M.NOM that look.PRES.PL ‘I am the one you are looking for’/‘It is me you are looking for’ b. tu ești [cinre me-au trasu you.SG.NOM be.PRES.SG who.NOM CL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG pull.PPLE de zgău] (PH.–: r) of belly ‘it is you who who pulled my belly’ c. și Mihea proroc iaste [de-au prorocit and Micah.NOM prophet.NOM is that=AUX.PERF.SG predict.PPLE de aceasta] (CC2.: ) of this.F.ACC ‘it was Micah the prophet who had predicted this’
.. Final remarks The overall structure of relative clauses in OR is not significantly different from that of MR. In terms of the wh-word inventory, the old language is richer than the modern language (see wh-words like i(u)o, the indefinites with vare-/oare- or clichés that are no longer used in MR), and allows a freer selection of relative words within a certain context (for instance, cine with headed relative clauses, ce with a proper noun antecedent). Though some connectors display more inflection markers than in MR, sometimes additional strategies are also used to resolve anaphora (reduplication of the antecedent, resumptive pronouns, redundant case marking). Surprisingly, despite a strong preference for feature marking in OR, the data show that competition between ‘equivalent’ connectors (ce vs. care) tends to favour ce, unlike MR. An explanation for the higher frequency of ce might be its recurrent association with the demonstrative cel, which had a richer paradigm than nowadays. But the data also show that the invariable relative de is more frequent in OR than in MR, as are infinitival relative clauses. These facts may lead to the conclusion that while OR prefers the simplest ‘tools’ for clausal linkage (as is also true of spoken MR), the rich inflectional material is nonetheless present within the subordinate clause.
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts .. Temporal and location clauses ... Temporal clause The characteristic of time structures in Romanian is a very rich inventory of connectives (as compared with MR) that are used to express temporal relations. They are less specialized than those of MR to convey different temporal relations. The inventory includes both markers that are diachronically stable (când ‘when’) and markers that gradually retreated (ca ‘when/while’, dacă ‘when/while’). The patterns of the time clause are based either on time adverbials or on conjunctions that may both occur independently or be inserted into PPs or into fixed collocations.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
The relative adverb când(u) (< QUANDO) is used both in OR and in MR in order to convey the semantic pattern SIOVER (simultaneity overlap) (Kortmann : ). It is used to express ‘general’ simultaneity (general actions, either in the present or in the future) (a) or simultaneity in the past (b). ()
a. Iară când va fi omul puţinu greașitu și and when AUX.FUT.SG be.INF man.DEF.NOM little sinned.PPLE and va fi înţeleptu, să-i dai bură AUX.FUT.SG be.INF wise SĂSUBJ=CL.DAT.SG give.SUBJ.SG good.F.SG învăţătură (Prav.: v) lesson.ACC ‘And should the man have sinned little and should he be wise, give him a good lesson’ b. Cându au venit Pătru Armeanul when AUX.PERF.SG came.PPLE.SG Peter Armenian.DEF.NOM la împăratul, el au cerșut răspunsure lu to emperor.DEF he AUX.PERF.SG ask.PPLE answers.ACC LUI.DAT Mihaiu voevo‹da› (DÎ.: XXXII) Mihai prince ‘When Peter the Armenian came to the emperor, he asked the prince Mihai for ten answers’
In a structure containing the preposition până ‘until’, când marks the semantic type TAQUEM (Kortmann : ) (Terminus ad quem ‘until’) () and with the preposition de ‘from, since’, it marks the type TAQUO (Terminus a quo ‘since’) (). ()
Și se mânie domnul lui, deade el and CL.REFL.ACC.SG become.wrathful.PS.SG master.NOM his give.PS.SG he muncitorilor până când deade tot datoriul torturers.DEF.DAT until when give.PS.SG all debt lui (CC1.: r) his ‘And his master became wrathful and gave him to the torturers [to torture him] until he should pay all his debt’
()
alta ca aceasta n-au vădzut părinţii another.F.SG.ACC like this.F.SG not=AUX.PERF.PL see.PPLE parents.DEF.NOM voștri, ( . . . ), de când au fost ei pre cest your since when AUX.PERF.PL be.PPLE they on this pământ (PO.: ) earth ‘another thing like this one your fathers never saw, since they were born on this earth’
The time marker de(a)ca/deacă/dacă (< de + ca) ‘when/if ’ is specific to OR for conveying the semantic type SIOVER. This change in meaning was fundamental, from temporal to conditional.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts
The semantic value of time is attested during the whole period. ()
a. lăsă Domnul Domnedzeu somn spre Adam și leave.PS.SG lord.DEF.NOM god sleep toward Adam and deaca adurmi, luo una den coastele when fall asleep.PS.SG take.PS.SG one.ACC of ribs.DEF.ACC his lui (PO.: ) ‘the Lord sent a sleep upon Adam and when he fell asleep, God took one of his ribs’ b. Și dacă au însărat, s-au dus and when AUX.PERF.SG get dark.PPLE CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG go.PPLE împăratul la palaturile lui (Bert.: ) emperor.DEF.NOM to palaces.DEF.ACC his ‘And when the evening came, the emperor went to his palaces’
The markers când and de(a)ca/deacă/dacă are usually co-occurrent in the same text, the ratio between them being variable; see Table .. The alternation between time clauses (a) and conditional clauses () is general in OR, and is the starting point for the semantic shift of de(a)ca/deacă/dacă or de, that marks exclusively conditional clauses in MR (compare with ()). ()
Iară de va fi omul prepăcătos și and if AUX.FUT.SG be.INF man.DEF.NOM sinful and va fi cu puţină mente, să-i dai AUX.FUT.SG be.INF with little mind SĂSUBJ=CL.DAT.SG give.SUBJ.SG pocaanie câte puţinel (Prav.: v) penitence.ACC by little ‘And should the man be very sinful and very foolish, give him penitence in little doses’
Ca (< QUOD), sporadically found in the sixteenth century, thereafter completely disappears from the inventory of time markers. It is considered to render the Slavic conjunction jako which may be either an adverb (‘like, alike’) or a conjunction (‘when’) (Costinescu : ; see also }...) marking simultaneity. ()
Și ca fu a nă duce noao, and when be.PS.SG AINF CL.REFL.ACC.PL go.INF us.DAT zmulsemu-nă de la dinși (CV.–: v) pull.out.PS.PL=CL.REFL.ACC.PL from them ‘And when the time came by which we ought to go, we separated from them’
T . The ratio between când and dacă
când de(a)ca / deacă / dacă
Prav.
PO.
CazV.
ȘT.
DPar.
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
Collocations based on the preposition după ‘after’ and a conjunction or a relative pronoun convey the semantic type ANTE (anteriority ‘after’). The specific collocation is după ce (‘after what’), as in MR (a). For short time spans, there are other patterns: după ca (‘after when’) (b), după când (‘after when’) (c), după că (‘after that’) (d). ()
a. i-au amăgit fata lui şi CL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.SG deceive.PPLE daughter.DEF.ACC his and o au ruşinat; şi după ce CL.ACC.F.SG AUX.PERF.SG disgrace.PPLE and after what o au ruşinat, nu puţină avuţie CL.ACC.F.SG AUX.PERF.SG disgrace.PPLE not little wealth i-au luat şi au CL.DAT.F.SG=AUX.PERF.SG take.PPLE and AUX.PERF.SG fugit la Moldova (DÎ.: LXXXIX) run.PPLE to Moldova ‘he deceived the daughter and disgraced her, and after having disgraced her, he took away with him not a small amount of her father’s wealth and ran to Moldova’ b. și custă Enoh după ca născu Mathusalem and live.PS.SG Enoch after when give.birth.PS.SG Mathusalem de ani (PO.: ) of years ‘And after having had Methuselah born, Enoch lived years’ c. după când va face cum e after when AUX.FUT.SG do.INF as is obiceiul ( . . . ) să meargă în besearecă (CL.: r) habit.DEF.NOM SĂSUBJ go.SUBJ.SG into church.ACC ‘after having done according to usage, ( . . . ) let him go into the church’ d. Și după că au datu lor vama and after that AUX.PERF.PL give.PPLE them customs.DEF.ACC Dominecă și Giva în doaă-trei luni, au însoţitu Dominecă and Giva in two-three months AUX.PERF.PL join.PPLE cătră sine pre Manea Grecul (DÎ.: LXXXVIII) towards self.ACC DOM Manea Greek.DEF.ACC ‘And after Dominecă and Giva had held the customs over two or three months, they made Manea the Greek join them as their partner’
Connectors that mark the POST type (posteriority ‘before’) form a set that is equivalent to înainte să (‘before’ SĂSUBJ) in MR. The connectors are complex structures comprising an adverbial element înainte (ainte, mainte, mai nainte, mai înainte, mai denainte) ‘before’ which semantically expresses the idea of posteriority and a relation element—a complementizer (ca să ‘in order to’), conjunction (deca/deaca ‘when’), relative (ce ‘what’, de ce ‘why’, de cât ‘than’), which may be followed, in certain situations, by the negative marker nu ‘no’ (ainte de ce nu/de cât nu).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts ()
a. și Lot rădicând ochii săi văzu ţinutul and Lot raise.GER eyes.DEF.ACC his see.PS.SG land.DEF.ACC Iordanului, că mainte decât nu era Domnul Jordan.DEF.GEN that before than not be.IMPERF.SG God.DEF.NOM pre Sodom, cu apă bogată era tot pierdut over Sodom.ACC with water rich be.IMPERF.SG all destroy.PPLE până la Zoar (PO.: ) up to Zoar ‘and raising his eyes, Lot saw all the country of Jordan, for while God had not yet destroyed Sodom, all this had been richly watered up to Zoar’ b. cei doi feţi ai tăi carii-s născuţi în pământul the two sons AL.M.PL your who=be.PRES.PL bear.PPLE.PL in land.DEF.ACC Egipetului, ainte de ce am venit Egypt.DEF.GEN before of what AUX.PERF.SG come.PPLE.SG aicea la tine, ai miei vor fi (PO.: ) here to you.SG.ACC AL.M.PL mine AUX.FUT.PL be.INF ‘your two sons who have been born in the land of Egypt, before I came here to you, they shall be mine’
The perfect indicative verb in the posteriority pattern (b) is specific to OR, as compared with MR that uses the subjunctive. The connectives până (nu) (‘until (not)’), până ce (‘until what’), până când (nu) (‘until when (not)’) plus a verb with a perfect or future form mark the semantic type TAQUEM (Terminus ad quem ‘until’). ()
a. eu mă bucur de tine că ai I CL.REFL.ACC.SG rejoice.PRES.SG of you.SG.ACC that AUX.PERF.SG făcut voia lui Dumnedzeu până a vis done.PPLE will.DEF.ACC LUI.GEN God until AUX.PERF.SG live.PPLE pre păntu (CSIII.–: v) upon earth.ACC ‘I am glad at you for having obeyed God’s will as long as you lived on this earth’ b. îngerii socotiia și păzie sufletul lui angels.DEF count.IMPERF.PL and watch.IMPERF.PL soul.DEF.ACC his până cându-l luară di trupu (CSIII.–:r) until when=CL.ACC.M.SG take.PS.PL from body ‘the angels attended to his soul and watched over it until they took it from his body’ c. Se giurară sinre nece se mărânce, CL.REFL.ACC.PL swear.PS.PL self neither SĂSUBJ eat.SUBJ.PL nece se bea pânră cându nu voru ucide nor SĂSUBJ drink.SUBJ.PL until when not AUX.FUT.PL kill.INF Pavelu (CV.–: r) Paul.ACC ‘They took an oath to eat nothing, neither drink, until they kill Paul’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
The expletive value of the negator nu in (c) is proved by comparison with parallel texts, where the negation is absent. () Să
nu gustăm nemică până când vrem ucide not taste.SUBJ.PL nothing until when AUX.FUT.PL kill.INF Pavel (CPr.–: ) Paul.ACC ‘That we shall taste nothing until we kill Paul’ SĂSUBJ
The până să pattern, specific to MR, appears at the end of the eighteenth century. The pattern înainte până (când/nu) (‘before until (when/not)’) is specific to OR to express the relation of anteriority in the past. It is frequent in the sixteenth century and it is considered a loan from Slavic (Costinescu :). () și noi ainte pără căndu nu se voru apropia and we before until when not CL.REFL.ACC.PL AUX.FUT.PL close.INF de elu gata semu a-lu ucide of him.ACC ready be.PRES.PL AINF=CL.ACC.M.SG kill.INF elu (CV.–: v–r) him.ACC ‘and we are ready to kill him before they get close to him’ The structure de când (‘since when’) built on this pattern convey the type TAQUO (Terminus a quo ‘since’). ()
Ardealul încă, ce sânt de ani de cându au Transylvania yet that are of years since when AUX.PERF.SG fost lepădat de supt coruna ţărâi ungurești be.PPLE release.PPLE from under crown.DEF land.DEF.GEN Hungarian și au fost închinat turcilor (DÎ.: XXXIII) and AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE give.PPLE Turks.DEF.DAT ‘Also Transylvania, which it is years since it has been released from the Hungarian crown and given to the Turks’
Markers of the semantic type IMANTE (immediate anteriority) are rare. They are made up of the adverb îndată (meaning immediate anteriority) and a relative ce ‘what’, cât ‘how’, cum ‘how’ (a,b). Isolatedly, other combinations can occur (numai cât ‘only how’). () a. îndată ce-or crește ș-or immediately what=AUX.FUT.PL increase.INF and=AUX.FUT.PL dobândi slavă (DPV.: ) gain.INF glory ‘as soon as they will increase and gain glory’ b. îndată cum au băut, au mărmurit immediately how AUX.PERF.PL drink.PPLE AUX.PERF.PL stiff.PPLE toţi de beţi (NL.~–: ) all of drunk.PL ‘as soon as they drank, they all turned stiff from being drunk’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts
Cât ‘how’ can mark immediate anteriority on its own. ()
Cazacii s-au făgăduit că cât le Cossacks CL.REFL.ACC.PL=AUX.PERF.PL promise.PPLE that how CL.DAT.PL va da de știre, vor veni (ULM.~: ) AUX.FUT.SG let.INF of know AUX.FUT.PL come.INF ‘The Cossacks promised they would come as soon as he let them know’
Cum (< QUOMODO) may mark immediate anteriority on its own (a), or in correlative structures (b). ()
a. Iară cum să adună cu noi în Asson, and how CL.REFL.ACC.SG join.PS.SG with us in Assos luându-l pre el, venim în take.GER=CL.ACC.M.SG DOM him come.PRES.PL in Militin (NT.: r) Mitylene ‘And as soon as he joined us in Assos, we came to Mitylene, taking him with us’ b. Cazacii, cum au simțit de leși ( . . . ) cum Cossacks how AUX.PERF.PL perceive.PPLE of Poles how au început a săpa șanțuri (CLM.–: r) AUX.PERF.PL start.PPLE AINF dig.INF trenches.ACC ‘The Cossacks, as soon as they perceived [the presence of] the Poles, began to dig trenches’
The type SIDUR (duration) is marked by collocations with the structure în vreme ce/cându (‘in time what/when’) or până în câtă vreame (‘until in how.F.SG time’) ‘while’. They are infrequent at this period. ()
În vreamea când era Hristos cu trup pre pământ, in time when be.IMPERF.SG Christ.NOM with body upon earth lăcuia în Ierusalim un om anume Lazar (CazV.: r) live.IMPERF.SG in Jerusalem a man.NOM called Lazarus ‘While Christ was embodied upon the earth, there lived in Jerusalem a man called Lazarus’
The set of time markers is very large. The structures are partly fixed, and based on an element with temporal value, forming synonymous series. Many of them are no longer in use in MR. ... Location clause The location clause is the adjunct with the simplest history, that did not change significantly during the period. The specific markers are relative adverbs, independent or incorporated into PPs. While the location clause is not very frequent, the adjunct expressed by an adverb or by a PP display significant diachronic change. In the sixteenth and the early seventeenth centuries, some of the prepositions of the PPs that function as location adjuncts display their etymological meaning (see }.).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
()
The complex clause rădică patul a umăr (CazV.: r) raise.PS bed.DEF on shoulder ‘he raised his bed on his shoulder’
In this period, there are also specific local adverbs that later disappear: decinde ‘close to, on the other side of ’ < DE ECCE-INDE), i(u)o ‘where’ (< UBI) (see }}.; ...). () a. Toți pre decindea de mare trecură (CPr.–: ) all.M.PL on near of sea pass.PS.PL ‘They all came on that side of the sea’ b. dară eu iuo voiu fi? (PO.: ) but I where AUX.FUT.SG be.INF ‘but where will I find myself?’ The locative dative, a structure specific to non-standard Romanian and to other Balkan languages (Brâncuș [] : –; Byck : –) occurs only in the seventeenth century, towards the end of the period. nu vie primejdie pământului (in Frâncu : ) not come.SUBJ.PL danger.NOM earth.DEF.DAT ‘that no danger should come over the earth’
() să
SĂSUBJ
The relative adverb iuo is rare in the sixteenth century. Its frequency is higher in the north, probably because of the more archaic character of the texts. It must have spread generally into Romanian, because it occurs both in southern texts and into the south-Danubian dialects. It occurs as a marker of the location clause both alone (a), inserted into a PP (b), or in relative structures with antecedent (c). ()
a. Domnulu nu chemară, acie temură-se teamere God.DEF.ACC not call.PS.PL here fear.PS.PL=CL.REFL.ACC.PL with fear și iuo nu era teamere (PH.–: r) and where not be.IMPERF.SG fear.NOM ‘They did not call on the Lord, they feared ‹with› fear there where there was no fear’ b. I-au dat împăratul slobozie CL.DAT.M.SG=AUX.PERF.SG give.PPLE emperor.DEF.NOM free.choice.ACC lu Mahamet beg pre io-i va LUI.DAT Mohammed bey on where=CL.DAT.SG AUX.FUT.SG fi voia pren Țeara rumănească iară el să be.INF will.DEF.NOM through Wallachia again he SĂSUBJ treacă (DÎ.: I) pass.SUBJ.SG ‘The emperor granted Mohammed bey free choice of passing through Wallachia where to it would please him’ c. locul iuo au stătut picioarele place.DEF where AUX.PERF.PL stand.PPLE feet.DEF.NOM lui (PH.–: v) his ‘the spot where his feet stood’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts
T . The concurrence iuo–unde PH.– CV.– CC1. CS.–
DÎ
CTd.– CT.– PO.
iuo
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
unde
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
Although it does not occur in the literary language in the following centuries, i(u)o/iuo occurs today in the Romanian spoken in Ukraine (Mărgărit : ), in Crișana county (Teaha : ), and to the south of the Danube, with the variants iu (Arom.) (Capidan : ); iuve (Irom.) (Caragiu-Marioțeanu : ); for the competition between i(u)o and unde ‘where’, see Table .. The adverb unde ‘where’ is the standard marker of the location clause in both OR and MR. It occurs alone (a) or inserted into a PP (b). ()
a. unde veri lăcui gras va fi where AUX.FUT.SG live.INF fertile AUX.FUT.SG be.INF pământul (PO.: ) land.DEF.NOM ‘where you shall abide there will be a fertile land’ b. Până unde suiră, cu voia și cu until where ascend.PS.PL with will.DEF.ACC and with zisa lui Dumnezeu putură sui (CC2.: ) order.DEF.ACC LUI.GEN God could.PS.PL climb.INF ‘So far as they could ascend, it was with God’s will and order they could do it’
Unde may occasionally be followed by să and a conditional form of the verb, in structures marked [free choice]. ()
Merge-voi după tine unde să go.INF=AUX.FUT.SG after you.SG.ACC where if merge (CC2.: ) go.INF ‘I will go after you wherever you will go’
ai AUX.COND.SG
The adverb încătr(u)o ‘whither’ encodes, semantically, the feature [+ direction] (a), formally, it may have another prepositional element agglutinated (den cătruo), or an indefinite marker oare/vare, ori; oarîncătro (b), vareîncătro, oriîncătro, or it may have phonological variants: încătrău. ()
a. ca voi să mă petreceţi încătruo mă that you SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.SG follow.SUBJ.PL where CL.REFL.ACC.SG voi duce (CPr.: ) AUX.FUT.SG go.INF ‘so that you all should follow me where I go’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause b. Și iaca and there voiu AUX.FUT.SG ‘And mind going’
eu cu tine sunt și te I with you.SG.ACC be.PRES.SG and CL.ACC.SG feri oareîncătruo veri mearge (PO.: ) protect.INF wherever AUX.FUT.SG go.INF I am with you and I will protect you wherever you shall be
The relatives unde and încătr(u)o ‘wherever/whereto’ can have an agglutinated indefinite marker, with the free choice meaning (oareunde, vareunde, oriunde). () mărturiseaște oareunde într-alt loc (CPr.: ) confess.PRES.SG wheresoever in-another place ‘he confesses wheresoever in another place’ Oare and vare (specific mainly to south-western Romanian) relatives are general in the sixteenth–seventeenth centuries. Ori- relatives occur only after mid-seventeenth century, gradually replacing the former in the literary language. The free choice meaning may also be conveyed by other conjunctional elements (au, fie, sau, săvai ‘either/or’), not agglutinated to the relative adverbs. () a. Și au unde va întra, ziceți and or where AUX.FUT.SG enter.INF tell.IMP.PL stăpânului casei (NT.: r) lord.DEF.DAT house.DEF.GEN ‘And wherever he should go in, tell the lord of the house’ b. Veni-voiu după tine, săvai unde come.INF=AUX.FUT.SG after you.SG.ACC either where te-i duce (CazV.: r) CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.FUT.SG go.INF ‘I shall follow you wheresoever you should go’ The history of the location markers does not show great change. The range of forms reduced over the centuries, and the compounding elements became agglutinated to relative markers. .. Manner clauses Manner is prototypically expressed at phrasal level. In the sixteenth century, manner clauses, mostly part of comparative constructions, are already characterized by a limited number of types and connectives that have not been significantly changed in the transition to MR. ... Types of manner clauses: manner and comparison One type of manner clause (the most frequent) expresses the standard of an equative qualitative (analogical) comparison (}..). From a semantic point of view, these clauses can foreground either the comparison, when the two terms are explicit, especially in correlative structures (așa ‘so’ . . . cum ‘as’), or the manner, when the standard characterizes the process expressed in the main clause (a), and in elliptical clauses containing modal or epistemic verbs, with abstract and general meaning (b).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts ()
a. să
îmblămu cumu se cade behave.SUBJ.PL as CL.REFL.IMPERS ought.PRES.SG creștiniloru (CC2.: ) Christians.DEF.DAT ‘let’s behave as Christians should’ b. să-l ocărască cum va SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.SG insult.SUBJ.SG how AUX.FUT.SG vrea (FD.–: v) want.INF ‘to insult him as they will want’ SĂSUBJ
From the sixteenth century, the metadiscursive manner clause, introduced by cum, precum, după cum ‘as’, is very frequent, in patterns that remain unchanged in MR. ()
a. Jalea easte răutatea bucuriei, cum grăiaște sorrow.DEF.NOM is negative.DEF.NOM joy.DEF.GEN as speaks și Macropie (FD.–: r) also Macrobio ‘Sorrow is the negative of joy, as says Macrobio too’ b. Precum să veade dară, puţină iaste vreamea (BB.: XXIII) as CL.REFL.IMPERS sees then little.F.SG is time.DEF.NOM ‘As we can see then, there is little time’
The only non-comparative type of manner clause present in OR, as well as in MR, is the gerund construction. ()
voiu vie cu voi în hule reale, AUX.FUT.SG live.INF with you.PL.ACC in insults.F.ACC bad.F.PL rânjindu și împutându (CC2.: ) grin.GER and reproach.GER ‘I will live with you in bad insults, grinning and reproaching’
Another pattern—consisting of the preposition fără (de) ‘without’ followed by an infinitive or a subjunctive—is very late (fără plus subjunctive is attested from the nineteenth century, Avram : ; Stan a: ). In OR, only prepositional phrases including a relative clause are attested. ()
Au mări-se-va săcurea fără de cela ce INT praise.INF=CL.REFL.ACC=AUX.FUT.SG axe.DEF.NOM without of that that taie cu ea? (BB.: ) cuts with her.ACC ‘Does the axe praise itself and not the person that cuts with it?’
... Main syntactic properties The comparative manner clause has the syntactic properties of comparative constructions (}.), which are also common to many types of verbal and nominal adjuncts.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
The head of the manner adjunct can be a verb, an adjective, or an adverb; some OR verbs even required an obligatory manner adverbial or adverbial clause (like a se simţi ‘to feel’, Frâncu : ; Stan a: ). The comparative manner clause is generally introduced by cum ‘as’, sometimes included in prepositional structures, such as după cum, de pe cum, and p(r)e cum > precum ‘as’ (which is on the path towards lexicalization), by ca ‘as’ (in the sixteenth century, see Avram : ; Frâncu : ), ca (și) cum, ca (și) cât, în ce chip; cât (cu cât, după cât) ‘as’. Their correlatives are așa ‘so’, în acela chip ‘in that way’, așișdere(a) ‘the same’; (cu) atât ‘the more’, etc. The comparison can be supplementarily marked by the additive focus particle și ‘also’, placed in the manner clause, in the main clause or in both. The moods employed in the manner clause are the indicative and (in hypothetical / unreal manner clauses) the conditional. The manner reading occurs almost exclusively in postposition (see a–b), while the true comparison prefers anteposition. .. Causal adjuncts/disjuncts ... Inventory of subordinators introducing causal adjuncts and disjuncts The inventory of sixteenth-century causal subordinators is different from the MR inventory with respect firstly, to the dynamics of the means that express causality; and secondly, to the multifunctionality of some simple and quasi-collocational conjunctions, which later acquire specialized functions. Subordinators că and ca: like other Romance languages, Romanian inherited the multifunctional subordinators că (< QUOD; ILR II: ; Rosetti : ; but Herman : , cf. Fagard : –, a.o.) and ca (< QUIA, Grandgent : }; Löfstedt : ; Dardel : ; Rohlfs : ; Ledgeway : –, –; Baños : ). Unlike MR, where the conjunction ca does not have causal use, and că is very frequent, especially in the spoken register (Vulpe : ), in the sixteenth century, both conjunctions are attested as causal subordinators; while că occurs both in translations and in original texts, ca occurs mostly in translations. In OR, că introduces both causal adjuncts (a) and disjuncts (b). The latter use is the origin of its discourse marker function (c; probably influenced by the Slavonic (i)bo, Costinescu : ; cf. Croitor : –; Matos : –). ()
a. ce nu putea bea apa den Maraa, că but not can.IMPERF.PL drink.INF water.DEF.ACC from Maraa because foarte era amară (PO.: ) very be.IMPERF.SG bitter ‘but they could not drink the water of Marah, because it was very bitter’ b. Giudecă loru, Dzăule ( . . . ), că te judge.IMP.SG them.DAT God.VOC for CL.ACC.SG mâniiară (PH.–: v–r) anger.PS.PL ‘Condemn them, God, ( . . . ) for they have angered you’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts
c. Acmu ( . . . ) mestecaţi sântu derepţii cu now mixed be.PRES.PL righteous.DEF.NOM with păcătoșii; iară atunce ( . . . ) despărţiţi fi-voru. Că sinners.DEF.ACC but then separated be.INF=AUX.FUT.PL as oile ( . . . ) cheamă-se sfinţii, dereptu sheep.DEF.PL.NOM call.PRES.PL=CL.REFL.ACC.PL saints.DEF.NOM for blânziia loru (CC2.: ) gentleness.DEF.ACC their ‘Now ( . . . ) the righteous and the sinners are mixed together, but then ( . . . ) they will be separated. As the sheep ( . . . ) are called the blessed ones for their meekness’ Subordinators derep(t) ce and pentru ce: in the sixteenth century, the conjunctional collocations derep(t) ce and pentru ce ‘lit. for what ! because’ have causal meaning. Both collocations are grammaticalized forms of interrogative adverbial phrases (Herman : ). The two interrogative phrases are synonymous (}..). ()
Pentru ce cugetaţi hitlenșugu ( . . . ) farisei ( . . . )? (CC2.: ) for what think.PRES.PL evil.ACC pharisees.VOC ‘Why do you think evil, ( . . . ) pharisees ( . . . )?’
In OR, question–answer pairs in which the same collocation (wh-phrase) occurs in the interrogative clause and in the causal adjunct (as in standard and dialectal Italian, see Benincà : , cf. Schwarze : –). The answer to the derep(t) ce/pentru ce questions may be: (i) a PP (with a DP as its complement): ()
Derep ce noi nu putumu goni elu? ( . . . ) for what we.NOM not can.PS.PL chase.away.INF him.ACC Dereptu necredinţa voastră (CC2.: ) for unfaithfulness.DEF.ACC your.F.SG ‘Why could not we cast him out? ( . . . ) Because of your unfaithfulness’
(ii) or a clause (more probably, loss of pause and of interrogative tone would have been simultaneous with its reanalysis as causal; Kühner and Stegman : –; Kortmann : ; see though Baños : ). ()
Derepce lăsară toate ( . . . )? Derepce zise lor for.what leave.PS.PL. all for.what say.PS.SG them.DAT Hristos (CC1.: v) Christ.NOM ‘Why did they leave everything ( . . . )? Because Christ told them so’
Unlike OR, in MR different collocations (wh-phrases or conjunctional collocations) occur in interrogative clauses and causal adjuncts. In the sixteenth century, the tendency to distinguish the adverbial from the conjunctional collocation is already visible: when they are conjunctional collocations, derep(t) ce and pentru ce co-occur
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
with the complementizer că, creating the quasi-fixed collocations derep(t) ce că and pentru ce că (lit. ‘for what that’; see also the situation in Italian dialects, Benincà : ). The quasi-collocation derep(t) ce amu că (in which the focal particle amu is a double/redundant marking of the causal meaning of the collocation derep(t) ce că) functions as a variant of derep(t) ce că. Subordinators pre(i)n ce and pr(e)in ce că In the sixteenth century, the quasicollocation pre(i)n ce, formed with the preposition pren/prin (‘through’), is attested. It is originally an interrogative wh-phrase (synonymous with de ce ‘why’), functioning as a causal subordinator. Pre(i)n ce că occurs within the same text. ()
Duse ( . . . ) Moisi ( . . . ) oasele lu Iosif carry.PS.SG Moses.NOM bones.DEF.ACC LUI.GEN Joseph prince giurase Iosif (PO.: ) through.what swear.PLUPERF.SG Joseph.NOM ‘Moses ( . . . ) took ( . . . ) the bones of Joseph with him, because Joseph had sworn’
Căce/căci: this represents a complex grammaticalization case. In OR, the sequence că ce has the same distribution as the adverbial collocation de ce ‘why’; it contains the ‘că recitativum’ (i.e. ‘that’ as a complementizer introducing a clause which actually contains direct speech) and the interrogative ce ‘what’ (synonymous with de ce ‘why’) (for ὅτι recitativum, see Aejmelaeus : –). ()
Avimelec dzise: căce ai făcut Abimelech say.PS.SG that.why AUX.PERF.SG do.PPLE aceasta ( . . . )? (PO.: ) this.ACC ‘Abimelech said: why have you done this ( . . . )?’
The next stage of grammaticalization occurs when the interrogative căce (the result of bonding, Brinton and Traugott : –) begins to appear without a verb of saying. ()
Dară tu, căce judeci fratele tău? (CPr.: ) But you, that.why judge.PRES.SG brother.DEF.ACC your.M.SG ‘But you, why do you judge your brother?’
The causal subordinator căce/căci is based on the sequence căcomplementizer + ceinterrogative ! interrogative căce; this explains its occurrences in interrogatives (such as the adverbial collocation de ce ‘why’), and in quasi-collocational phrases derep(t) căce, derep(t) căce că, pentru căce, pentru căce că and căce că ‘because’. Deaca/deca/d(e)acă: in the sixteenth century, the conjunction deaca/deca/d(e)acă has a temporal meaning (‘after; when’), marking anteriority (see }...). When it occurs with a verb in the conditional or in the future tense of the indicative, it has conditional use (see }...). Its causal meaning is derived from its temporal meaning, by metonymy (a temporal circumstance whose realization is previous to/
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts
or simultaneous with the main event can be reinterpreted as the cause: post hoc ergo propter hoc, Kortmann : ). ()
deaca nu văzui de slava luminiei aceiia, de when not see.PS.SG for brighteness.DEF.ACC light.DEF.GEN that.F.SG by mână mă traseră ( . . . ) ceia ce hand.ACC CL.ACC.SG pull.PS.PL those.NOM who era cu mine (CPr.: ) be.IMPERF.PL with me.ACC ‘since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, ( . . . ) those who were with me led me by the hand’
The relative adverbs când, cum, and unde: as in MR, these can function as causal subordinators (with the meaning ‘because’). Their grammaticalization followed different paths. Cum ‘how’ receives a causal reading in contexts in which its manner meaning is attenuated (when the two events do not have characteristics that can be related qualitatively (a), and when they express a semantically indeterminate circumstance (b)). ()
a. dă har lu Dumnezeu ( . . . ), cum pre tine give.IMP.SG grace LUI.DAT God how DOM you.SG.ACC au ferit ( . . . ) de rău (CC1.: r) AUX.PERF.SG protect.PPLE from evil ‘give thanks to God ( . . . ) , for He protected you ( . . . ) from evil’ b. diavolulu cumu e hitleanu, elu știe (CC2.: ) devil.DEF.NOM how is wicked he knows ‘the Devil, for he is wicked, he knows’
As for când ‘when’, its temporal meaning is not excluded, but it is rather contextually enriched with a secondary causal meaning (a) (based on pragmatic inferences). The causal meaning of unde ‘where’ (locative ! temporal, Kortmann : ) is contextual (b). ()
a. când elu se zăboviia prinseră îngerii when he CL.REFL.ACC.SG linger.IMPERF.SG grasp.PS.PL angels.DEF.NOM mâna lui (PO.: ) hand his.GEN ‘because he lingered, the angels seized his hand’ b. durea-l inema rău unde ( . . . ) hurt.IMPERF.SG=CL.ACC.M.SG heart.DEF.NOM badly where au mâniat pre tatăl (CC1.: v) AUX.PERF.SG anger.PPLE DOM father.DEF.ACC ‘he was pained to his very heart, because ( . . . ) he has angered his father’
The collocations de(i)rept că and pentru că: from the sixteenth century there has been a tendency to disambiguate the value of că. In opposition to polyfunctional că, the collocations de(i)rept că and pentru că ‘lit. for that ! because’ exclusively mark
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
the causal relation. These set phrases are marginally used as causal subordinators in the sixteenth century. ()
Rob hitlean, tot datoriul lăsai ţie derept slave wicked all debt.DEF.ACC leave.PS.SG you.SG.DAT for că mă rugași (CC1.: r) that CL.ACC.SG beg.PS.SG ‘You wicked servant, I forgave you all the debt because you begged me to’
... Semantic-pragmatic types of causal adjunct/disjunct From a semanticpragmatic perspective, sixteenth-century causal subordinators introduce adjuncts, expressing the conceptual encoding of causality (Bardzokas : ) and disjuncts, expressing the procedural encoding of causality (Quirk et al. : –; Dik et al. : ; Haegeman : –; Diessel and Hetterle : –; cf., among others, for Italian, Giusti : –; Salvi and Renzi (eds) : –; for French, Buridant : –). As subordinators expressing the conceptual encoding of causality, they convey the causal implication between two communicative processes (the illative value, Traugott : ; Frenguelli : ; : –; see also Sanders : –). ()
Ca mă văzușu, Thomo, crezușu (CC2.: ) because CL.ACC.SG see.PS.SG Thomas.VOC believe.PS.SG ‘Because you have seen me, Thomas, you have believed’
As subordinators expressing the procedural encoding of causality, they introduce disjuncts that: (i) motivate a directive () or expressive speech act (); (ii) offer the argument/ground for an assertion (); (iii) justify the assignation of a name/label (aetiological value) (); (iv) introduce supplementary information, which is considered necessary for the addressee to fully understand the central information of the main story-line (Kroon : ) (). ()
ieși ( . . . ) dintru Ierusalim, derep ce nu-ți get out.IMP.SG from Jerusalem for what not=CL.DAT.SG voru preemi mărrturiia (CV.–: v) AUX.FUT.PL receive.INF testimony.DEF.ACC ‘leave ( . . . ) Jerusalem, for they will not accept your testimony’
() Căce tu ascultaș cuvântul muiereei tale ( . . . ), that.why you listen.PS.SG word.DEF.ACC wife.DEF.GEN your.F.SG blăstemat pământul (CM.: r) curse.PPLE earth.DEF.NOM ‘Since you listened to your wife’s counsel ( . . . ), cursed shall be the ground’ ()
Nemică nu iaste ascuns ce să nothing not is covered that SĂSUBJ Derep ce câte veţi for what how.many AUX.FUT.PL
nu se descoapere ( . . . ). not CL.REFL.PASS discover.SUBJ.SG zice întru întunearec în lumină say.INF in darkness in light
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts
auzi (CT.–: r) CL.REFL.PASS AUX.FUT.PL hear.INF ‘There is nothing covered (up) that will not be revealed ( . . . ). For everything you will say in darkness will be heard in the daylight’ se
vor
()
unuia numele era Peleg, derept ce în vreamea one.DAT name.DEF.NOM be.IMPERF.SG Peleg, for what in time.DEF.ACC lui despărţi-se pământul (PO.: –) his.GEN divide.PS.SG=CL.REFL.PASS earth.DEF.NOM ‘one was named Peleg, for in his time the earth was divided’
()
se
zice ( . . . ) nice să se pleace foarte says nor SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.SG obey. SUBJ.SG very multu ( . . . ): căce ( . . . ) smearenie în multe chipuri much that.what humility in many ways easte (FD.–: r) is ‘it is said ( . . . ) that one should not humble oneself excessively ( . . . ), for humility can be of many kinds’ CL.REFL.PASS
... Distributional properties Causal adjuncts function at the representational level (Dik et al. : ). They are syntactically integrated: they are within the scope of the illocutionary force of the main clause ; they introduce the response to a causal interrogative; they are related anaphorically with correlatives ( Frey : ); they are focalized in different ways. Adjuncts share the illocutionary force of the main clause. ()
să
greșim derep ce nu sântem mistake.SUBJ.PL for what not be.PRES.PL supt leage ( . . . )? (CPr.: ) under law ‘shall we sin because we are not under the law ( . . . )?’ SĂSUBJ
Causal units expressing the conceptual encoding of causality can occur in the answer to why questions, which proves their higher degree of syntactic integration into the main clause (Baños : ). ()
Derep ce ( . . . ) hulnicu arătai-mă voao ( . . . )? for what blasphemous show.PS.SG=CL.REFL.ACC.SG you.PL.DAT Căce lasu păcatele, și căce mă that.why leave.PRES.SG sins.DEF.ACC and that.why CL.REFL.ACC.SG facu tocma lu Dumnezeu? (CC2.: ) make.PRES.SG like LUI.DAT God ‘Why ( . . . ) did you see me as a blasphemer ( . . . )? Because I forgive sins and because I make myself equal to God?’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
Unlike OR, in MR căci ‘because’ cannot occur at the beginning of a sentence which is the answer to a question, and cannot be combined with a coordinating conjunction. Causal subordinators are anticipated or resumed by the correlative adverbial collocations derept aceaia, pentru aceaia, and de aceaia ‘therefore’. Due to the postposition of the causal adjunct in relation to the main clause, cataphoric mechanisms are favoured in the discourse ()
pentru aceaia amu căzutu întru reale, căce for that AUX.PERF.PL fall.PPLE in bad.things.DEF.ACC that.why n-amu avutu știutură (CC2.: ) not=AUX.PERF.PL have.PPLE knowledge.ACC ‘therefore we fell into sin, because we did not know’
There is a preference for the postposition of causal adjuncts, especially for those with the conjunctions căce/căci ‘because’, but, differently from MR, where causals introduced by căci ‘because’ are exclusively postposed, anteposition in relation to the main clause is also attested. Causals introduced by cum ‘because’ are anteposed, but, differently from MR, they can also be postposed to the main clause. Anaphoric mechanisms occur in OR and are associated with placing causal adjuncts in an emphatic position. ()
derep ce că se lepădase, dereptu aceaia nu for what that CL.REFL.ACC.SG deny.PLUPERF.SG for that not se număra elu cu ucenicii (CC2.: ) CL.REFL.ACC.SG count.IMPERF.SG he.NOM with disciples.DEF.ACC ‘because he had renounced his faith, therefore he was not numbered among the disciples’
Unlike MR, in OR causal adjuncts introduced by căce/căci ‘because’ can be integrated into structures with focal negation. When the căce/căci adjunct contains a focal negation, the correction sequence can be an adverbial realized as a prepositional phrase () or a clausal causal adjunct (). ()
și să va aduce ceva lu Dumnezeu, nu and if AUX.FUT.SG bring.INF something LUI.DAT God, not căce că-i iaste lui de treabă, ( . . . ) ce dereptu that.why that=CL.DAT.M.SG is him.DAT for need but for folosulu celuia ce dă, priimeaște elu (CC2.: ) benefit.DEF.ACC that.GEN what gives receives he.NOM ‘and if someone offers something to God, He receives it, not because He needs it, ( . . . ) but for the benefit of the one who offers’
()
Zice aceasta, nu căce că nu știia câtă says this not that.why that not know.IMPERF.SG how.much lipsă ( . . . ) avea apostolii, ce ca zisără lack have.IMPERF.PL disciples.DEF.NOM but because say.PS.PL
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts
aceia că ‘nu avămu’ (CC2.: ) those that not have.PRES.PL ‘He is saying that, not because he did not know his disciples were in need, but because they have said “we do not have”’ Disjuncts can be isolated from the main clause through a break (especially in the case of procedural encoding of causality), making them similar to transphrastic connectors. ()
Derept aceaea, cine-ș pune liubovul spre lumea for that who=CL.REFL.DAT.SG puts love.DEF.ACC to world.DEF.ACC aceasta, de multe ori pate rău. Căce întru lume this of many times happens badly that.why in world easte răul, iară întru Dumnedzău ( . . . ) easte is evil.DEF.NOM and in God.ACC is bucurie (FD.–: v) joy.NOM ‘Thus, whoever puts his love into this world, often suffers, for there is evil in this world, but there is joy in God’s presence ( . . . )’
Căce causal adjuncts can be anticipated or resumed by connective adverbial collocations only when they express the conceptual encoding of causality, because of their high degree of syntactic integration (they have the status of adjuncts or of central adverbial clauses). When they express procedural encoding of causality, the căce causals have a weak syntactic relation with the main clause. In (), the main clause contains the connective adverbial collocation derept aceaea ‘therefore’, which functions as conclusive reformulator, which expresses the result of the event encoded earlier in the discourse. The căce clause, in its turn, conveys a weak causal relationship between the previous assertion and its ground. ... Causal adjuncts in original vs. translated texts As far as the expression of cause in original and translated texts is concerned, there are both similarities (că as the main causal conjunction) and differences in inventory (see Guruianu : –), and in the typology of adjuncts/disjuncts. (i) Că is the most frequent causal conjunction, both for the conceptual encoding of causality, and for procedural encoding. ()
eu las toate moșiile mele ( . . . ) în mâinile I leave.PRES.SG all estates.DEF.ACC my.F.PL in hands.DEF.ACC Dragnei și ale postelcului ( . . . ), că ei Dragna.GEN and AL.F.PL seneshal.DEF.GEN because they m-au căutat (DÎ.–: VIII) CL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.PL look.for.PPLE ‘I leave all my estates ( . . . ) to Dragna and the seneschal ( . . . ), because they took care of me’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
(ii) In the sixteenth-century original texts, căce ‘because’ comes next in frequency. The subordinator căci/căce is postposed to the main clause and marks almost exclusively the conceptual encoding of causality (though the procedural encoding of causality is not excluded). ()
noi amu făcut așa, căce au fost ( . . . ) we AUX.PERF.PL do.PPLE like.this that.why AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE lesne a ceape, căce toți ( . . . ) nevoit easy AINF start.INF that.why all AUX.PERF.PL make.effort.PPL spre domiata, căce văzură că acei oameni towards you.POL that.why see.PS.PL that those people nu sânt ( . . . ) de slujbă (DÎ.: XCIII) not be.PRES.PL of service ‘we did so, because it was ( . . . ) easy to begin, because all ( . . . ) put a lot of effort into helping you, because they saw that those people were ( . . . ) not helpful’
(iii) Pentru că is infrequent in translations, but does occur in original documents for the conceptual encoding of causality (a). Less often, pentru că ‘because’ is used for the procedural encoding of causality (b). ()
a. m-au ajunsu vreame de evoie pentru că CL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG reach.PPLE time.NOM of need for that am furat u cal (DÎ.–: II) AUX.PERF.SG steal.PPLE a horse.ACC ‘trouble came on me, because I stole a horse’ b. neminele din rudile lui să n-aibă nobody from relatives.DEF.ACC his SĂSUBJ not=have.SUBJ.SG treabă a ține partea lui di ocină, pentru că matter AINF keep.INF part.DEF.ACC his.GEN of land for that au fost frații lui ( . . . ) de față (DÎ.: LXIX) AUX.PERF.PL be.PPLE brothers.DEF.NOM his.GEN present ‘none of his relatives shall have anything to do with his part of land, for his brothers ( . . . ) were present’
(iv) Derep(t) ce că ‘because’ occurs rarely in sixteenth-century original texts. Unlike CC2., where derep(t) ce că appears in different contexts, expressing conceptual/ procedural encoding of causality, and has a high number of occurrences ( in total), in the original documents the collocation is less frequent (derept ce că has a single occurrence in a document, which is translated). ()
e derept ce că bine ce-au făcut acest om noauă and for what that good that=AUX.PERF.SG do.PPLE this man.NOM us.DAT și crăireei noastre nu e prost, derep aceasta bucuros and kingdom.DEF.DAT our.F.SG not is worthless for this gladly
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts
dăm tărie să șadză în crăirea give.PRES.PL power SĂSUBJ stay.SUBJ.SG in kingdom.DEF.ACC noastră (DÎ.: XCV) our.F.SG ‘and since the good this man has done for us and for our kingdom is not worthless, thus we gladly grant him the right to stay in our kingdom’ (v) Pentru ce, pentru căce, pentru căce că ‘for’ occur infrequently in sixteenthcentury documents; they usually mark the procedural encoding of causality. ()
cine se va ispiti după moartea me who CL.REFL.ACC.SG AUX.FUT.SG tempt.INF after death my.F.SG să-l pârască, să fie ( . . . ) proclet ( . . . ), SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.SG denounce.SUBJ.SG SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG damned pentru căce că ( . . . ) am întrebatu nepoți ( . . . ) și nime for that.why that AUX.PERF.SG ask.PPLE nephews.ACC and nobody n-au vrut să mă scumpere (DÎ.: CXVII) not=AUX.PERF.SG want.PPLE SĂSUBJ CL.ACC.SG ransom.SUBJ.SG ‘whoever will try to bring him to trial, after my death, shall be ( . . . ) cursed, for ( . . . ) I asked my nephews ( . . . ) and nobody wanted to pay the ransom for me’
... Causality in the seventeenth–eighteenth centuries The following new tendencies occur in marking causality: (i) some subordinators attested (mostly) in translations disappear; (ii) new subordinators appear, evolving from temporal or quantitative elements; (iii) there emerges a tendency to create transparent means of marking causality (causal collocations containing the noun pricină ‘cause’ or a gerund/gerundial construction). This period is characterized by the diversification of semantic types of causal adjuncts. In the seventeenth–eighteenth centuries, ca and dirept ce că, dirept ce, pentru ce că are extremely rarely attested, becoming obsolete at the end of the OR period. In the seventeenth century, the subordinators ca, de(i)rep(t) ce că, and pentru ce că ‘because’ are mostly attested in the northern dialects, which are more conservative. Since the sixteenth century ca had been used infrequently, and in the seventeenth– eighteenth centuries it appeared sporadically in texts. ()
pentru ce să aflară aceale izvoară for what CL.REFL.ACC.PL find.PS.PL those springs.NOM de apă la arătare? Ca fieștece sămânţă din seminţii avea ( . . . ) of water at sight.ACC because each seed from tribes have.IMPERF.SG un izvor dintr-aceale izvoară (PI.~: v) a spring.ACC from=those springs ‘why there were twelve springs? Because each tribe of the twelve had ( . . . ) its own spring’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
De(i)rep(t) ce că and pentru ce că are rare in the documents of the first half of the seventeenth century. ()
i-o am văndut ( . . . ), derep ce CL.DAT.M.SG=CL.ACC.F.SG AUX.PERF.SG sell.PPLE for what c-au ( . . . ) avut Panaet ocină în sat that=AUX.PERF.SG have.PPLE Panaet land.ACC in village în Hotărani (DIR.B.: ) in Hotărani ‘I sold it to him because ( . . . ) Panaet had a piece of land in the village of Hotărani’
These collocations generally occur in translated texts both for the conceptual and for the procedural encoding of causality (like in the sixteenth century). ()
purcedea vitele și roatele să go.IMPERF.PL cattle.DEF.NOM and wheels.DEF.NOM CL.REFL.ACC.PL rădica cu dânsele, derep ce că duh de viaţă era raise.IMPERF.PL with them.ACC for what that spirit of life be.IMPERF.SG în roate (DPar.: III.v) in wheels.ACC ‘the cattle moved and the wheels rose along with them because the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels’
The relative frequency of the synonymous collocations de(i)rep(t) că and pentru că ‘because’ modifies from the first half of the seventeenth century, when the latter is preferred to the former in all types of texts and contexts. Pentru că occurs both in original and translated texts, for the conceptual and the procedural encoding of causality. ()
scris-am aceasta a nostră carte acestui sat ( . . . ), write.PPLE=AUX.PERF.SG this AL.F.SG our document this.DAT village
ăntru c-au avut pără cu satul for that=AUX.PERF.SG have.PPLE accusation with village.DEF Măcreștii (DIR.B.: ) Măcrești ‘I have written this document for this village ( . . . ) because it was brought to trial by the village of Măcrești’
The conjunctional collocation pentru că is preferred to other causal subordinators; this can be seen by comparing successive versions of the same text (in the chapter Exodus of PO., mss. (~–), mss. (~–), and BB., the following numbers of occurrences are attested: respectively, / / / ). De(i)rep(t) că is a peripherally used subordinator; it is a marker of the procedural encoding of causality (in the eighteenth century it only has this function, introducing the motivation for a previous assertion).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts ()
atâta era de învăţaţ, de viteaji, de înţelepţi, so.much be.IMPERF.PL of learned.M.PL of brave.M.PL of wise.M.PL cât nu să putea zice varvar, how.much not CL.REFL.PASS can.IMPERF.SG say.INF barbarian dirept că acela iaste ( . . . ) varvar carele ( . . . ) nici carte știe, for that that is barbarian who nor book.ACC knows nici bărbăţie ( . . . ) are (CIst.–: v–r) nor power.ACC has ‘they were so educated, so brave, so wise, that they could not be called barbarians, for the one who is not educated nor courageous ( . . . ) is ( . . . ) barbarian’
In the seventeenth century, new causal subordinators are attested originating in temporal or quantitative structures. The collocations (originally temporal, indicating simultaneity and terminus a quo) în vre(a)me ce, de vre(a)me ce and de vre(a)me că introduce causal adjuncts; they have a different use and frequency in this period. (i) Contextually, în vre(a)me ce ‘lit. in time what ! as; while’ has causal value, but does not become a specialized causal subordinator (it preserves its temporal value, expressing simultaneity). ()
în vreame ce veţi veadea cartea domnii in.time.what AUX.FUT.PL see.INF document.DEF.ACC Highness.DEF.GEN meale, voi să căutaţ să lăsaţi călugăriţele ( . . . ) my.F.SG you SĂSUBJ seek.SUBJ.PL SĂSUBJ let.SUBJ.PL nuns.DEF.ACC să-ș ia toată partea lor SĂSUBJ=CL.REFL.DAT.PL take.SUBJ.PL all part their de peaște (DIR.B.: ) of fish ‘as/once you (will) see my document, you shall seek to allow the nuns ( . . . ) to take all their share of fish’
(ii) De vre(a)me ce ‘lit. from time that’, attested from the first half of the seventeenth century in translated and original texts, occurs in different contexts: with conditional value (; occurring in the same contexts as de), and with a combined conditional and causal (a), or temporal and causal value (b). In the late seventeenth century, it strengthens its causal value (), and at the end of the eighteenth century, it tends to become a specialized causal subordinator. ()
de vreame ce să va afla că ( . . . ) from.time.that CL.REFL.PASS AUX.FUT.SG find.INF that n-au fost alți oameni ( . . . ) lângă acel vrăjmaș ( . . . ), să not=AUX.PERF.PL be.PPLE other people.NOM near that enemy.ACC SĂSUBJ nu aibă nice o certare ( . . . ); iară de vor fi not have.SUBJ.SG no punishment but if AUX.FUT.PL be.INF
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
fost oameni mulți ( . . . ), atunce să va be.PPLE people.NOM many then CL.REFL.PASS AUX.FUT.SG certa (Prav.: ) punish.INF ‘if ( . . . ) no other people ( . . . ) shall be found helping that offender ( . . . ), he shall not be punished ( . . . ), but if many ( . . . ) shall be found, he shall be sanctioned’ ()
a. De vreame ce pre oamenii ( . . . ) aleși Scriptura numeaște from.time.that DOM people.DEF.ACC chosen Bible.DEF.NOM names Dumnezeu ( . . . ) mai vârtos ( . . . ) voi sânteţi God more strongly you.SG.NOM be.PRES.PL datori a mă chema Dumnezeu (CÎ.: r) indebted AINF CL.ACC.SG call.INF God ‘If/Since the righteous ( . . . ) are called God in the Bible, the more ( . . . ) you ought to call me God’ b. de vreame ce fu soarele cătră apus, pară from.time.that be.PS.SG sun.DEF.NOM to sunset flame să făcu (BB.: ) CL.REFL.ACC.SG make.PS.SG ‘when/since the sun has set, there appeared a flame’
()
De vreame ce în partea mea ești, from.time.that in part.DEF.ACC my.F.SG be.PRES.SG ascultă-mă (BB.: ) listen.IMP.SG=CL.ACC.SG ‘since you are on my side, listen to me’
The causal introduced by this subordinator can be preposed or postposed to the main clause (while in pre-position the clause can be interpreted as a conditional or as a conditional-causal, in postposition it does not have the double reading). In original documents as well, it occurs with combined temporal and causal meaning. ()
de vreame ce veţ vedea cartea domni from.time.that AUX.FUT.PL see.INF document.DEF.ACC Highness.DEF.GEN meale voi să străngeţ oameni my.F.SG you.PL.NOM SĂSUBJ gather.SUBJ.PL people.M.PL.ACC buni (DIR.A.: ) good.M.PL ‘as/since you will see my document, you shall gather trustworthy men’
(iii) De vre(a)me că can have causal, as well as conditional meaning (see though Avram : ). This is an innovation that did not survive as a causal conjunction.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts ()
De vreame că mie nu dedeș sămânţă, casnicul from.time.that me.DAT not give.PS.SG seed.ACC member.of.my.household mieu mă va ocina (DPar.: III.r) my CL.ACC.SG AUX.FUT.SG inherit.INF ‘Since you have not given me a descendant, a servant born in my house will be my heir’
Întru cât ‘(insofar/inasmuch) as’ is also attested among the causal subordinators that are originally quantitative structures (see also cu cât and în cât). Întru cât lit. ‘in how much ! as’ preserves its quantitative meaning in OR, but becomes a quantitative-causal subordinator, first in contexts in which quantification takes place by putting two processes in relation. Compare (a) with (b). ()
a. de se vor sfădi doi bărbaţi și if CL.REFL.ACC.PL AUX.FUT.PL quarrel.INF two men.NOM and vor lovi fămeaia ce are în pântece și va AUX.FUT.PL hit.INF woman.DEF.ACC that has in womb and AUX.FUT.SG ieși copilul ei ( . . . ) să se păgubească, get.out.INF child.DEF.NOM her.GEN SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.SG forfeit.SUBJ.SG întru cât va pune bărbatul muierii (BB.: ) in.how.much AUX.FUT.SG put.INF man.DEF.NOM woman.DEF.GEN ‘if two men are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely ( . . . ), the offender shall be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands’ b. Adevăr grăiescu voao, întru cât aţi făcut truth say.PRES.SG you.DAT in.as.much AUX.PERF.PL do.PPLE unuia ( . . . ), Mie aţi făcut (BB.: ) one.DAT me.DAT AUX.PERF.PL do.PPLE ‘Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as you have done it to one ( . . . ), you have done it to me’
In OR, this subordinator is not a synthetic compound and it is also not completely fixed as a causal conjunction, which is shown by the fact that it preserves its quantitative meaning (a similar grammaticalization took place in Latin, for QUATENUS, Hofmann and Szantyr : –). This conjunction is used for the procedural encoding of causality, introducing the motivation for an assertion (b). In the seventeenth century, free combinations occur, formed with a causal adjunct encoded as a prepositional phrase containing the noun pricină ‘cause’ and a conjunctional modifier (close in meaning to an apposition). ()
pentru acea pricină au luat ( . . . ) Fiul lui for that reason AUX.PERF.SG take.PPLE son.DEF.NOM LUI.GEN Dumnezeu firea omenească ( . . . ) că omul ( . . . ) God nature.DEF.ACC human that man.DEF.NOM s-au stricat (CÎ.: r) CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG break.PPLE ‘the Son of God took on ( . . . ) human appearance ( . . . ) for the reason that mankind was corrupted’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
In the eighteenth century, the set-phrase din pricina, selecting the genitive, is grammaticalized (Ciobanu : ). ()
din pricina sau a neștiinții, sau a by reason or AL.F.SG ignorance.DEF.GEN or AL.F.SG răutății (CII.~: ) malice.DEF.GEN ‘due either to stupidity or malice’
The occurrence of these combinations illustrates the tendency to mark the causal relation through monofunctional connectors, with a transparent structure. The conjunctional collocation din pricină că grammaticalizes in the nineteenth century (Avram : ). In the seventeenth century, the adjunct introduced by de vre(a)me ce occurs as a new semantic-pragmatic type of causal, in which the cause is presented as a fact that is known or presupposed to be part of the doxa (). The new conjunction fiindcă ‘because’ illustrates the same tendency to mark causality with monofunctional subordinators (originally a causal adjunct realized as a gerund and a clausal headed by a complementizer). ()
«Hatmanul» ce să scrie la titulușul minister.of.war that CL.REFL.PASS writes at title lui și Pârcălab Socevii, fiindu că ( . . . ) vorniciia his also commander Suceava.GEN be.GER that government.NOM Socevei este în sama hatmanului (GCond.: v) Suceava.GEN is in care.DEF minister.of.war.DEF.GEN ‘The minister of war who has also the title of commander of Suceava fortress, for ( . . . ) the minister of war is in charge of legal and internal affairs in Suceava’
In the seventeenth century, this subordinator has different forms (graphically one-unit words and graphically analytic sequences). It is in an intermediate stage of grammaticalization, but it can co-occur with a connective adverbial. ()
Fiindcă pururea ( . . . ) grijim pentru răpaosul be.GER.that always take.care.PRES.PL for tranquillity.DEF.ACC săracilor lăcuitori, ( . . . ) pentru aceasta am poor.DEF.GEN inhabitants for that AUX.PERF.SG orânduit ( . . . ) un judecător (Prav.: ) appoint.PPLE a judge.ACC ‘Because we always ( . . . ) are concerned for the poor inhabitants’ tranquillity, ( . . . ) therefore we appointed a judge’
... Final remarks OR has a rich inventory of subordinators; some of them originate in interrogative wh-phrases, in gerundial structures, or in elements with a temporal, instrumental, or quantitative meaning, which are at different stages of grammaticalization.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts
In the sixteenth century, the same subordinators can be used for the conceptual and the procedural encoding of causality, introducing causal adjuncts and disjuncts. As adjunct subordinators, they have distributional properties that are absent when they introduce disjuncts. As a disjunct subordinator, că evolves towards becoming a discourse marker (in OR, it is the only subordinator that became a transphrastic connector; in MR, căci, fiindcă and pentru că ‘because’ also function as transphrastic connectors). In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, two tendencies manifest themselves in the expression of causality: on the one hand, prototypical, monofunctional connectors emerge and are preserved in the language (fiindcă), on the other hand, some conjunctions tend to become specialized for causal disjuncts (de vreme ce, întrucât). .. Purpose and result clauses There are various means of expressing purpose in OR, but only a few fully specialized connectives. Some of the main complementizers (}..) are also the most common conjunctions employed for introducing purpose clauses (a fact which corresponds to a cross-linguistic regularity noted by Schmidtke-Bode : –). Result clauses occur in some specialized patterns, but are however similar in many respects to purpose clauses (from which they differ semantically by the non-intentional nature of the represented event, Cabrillana : ) and to certain quantificational structures. ... Purpose adjuncts: main patterns and connectives OR employs two main patterns for purpose clauses: one related to the specific semantic content of the purpose (denoting an action that is only intended, unreal, placed in the future relative to the reference point in the main clause), the other closer to the real nature of a consequence. The first type uses the subjunctive or the infinitive in unambiguous subordinating structures; the second type (less frequent in all periods, Frâncu : –) preponderantly uses the indicative, headed by the connective de, which is ambiguous between coordination and subordination. Through this peculiarity, OR is similar to languages which encode purpose both by asymmetrical constructions (the deranked type: indicative in the main clause, subjunctive, or infinitive in the final clause) and symmetrical constructions (the balanced type: indicative in both clauses) (see Cristofaro ). The choice between these two possibilities survives in non-standard MR, while standard MR definitely opts for the deranked type. The OR purpose clause can be: (i) ‘directly’ subordinated, i.e. through the infinitive marker a or the subjunctive marker să; (ii) introduced by a ‘modal-comparative’ conjunction, followed by the subjunctive marker (ca ‘as, how, that’ + să, cum ‘as, how’ + să); (iii) introduced by a preposition followed by the subjunctive (d(e)rept ‘for’ + să, pentru ‘for’ + să); or (iv) introduced by the conjunction de ‘so that’, which admits verbs in the indicative and even in the imperative, but also in the subjunctive (de + să). There is a tendency to reinforce the final value by accumulating equivalent markers (e.g. pentru + ca + să). Purpose is also expressed by phrasal adverbials, formed with prepositions (spre ‘to’, cătră ‘towards’, pentru ‘for’) and deverbal or
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
abstract nominals, very rarely with relative clauses (Stan a: ). The pattern pentru/spre + a-infinitive occurs only at the end of the eighteenth century (Diaconescu : –; SILR: –). Purpose clauses can be subordinated to certain verbs only by means of infinitive (a) and subjunctive (b) markers, which shows a high degree of semantic and syntactic integration of purpose adverbials (Cristofaro : –), being similar to volitive/desiderative constructions. ()
a. dată besearicei lui Dumnezeu în toate give.PPLE.F.SG church.DEF.DAT LUI.GEN God in all.F.PL dumineci a se ceti (CC2.: ) Sundays AINF CL.REFL.PASS read.INF ‘given to the church of God, to be read every Sunday’ b. Doi oameni mearsără în besearică să să two men.NOM go.PS.PL in church.ACC SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.PL roage (NT.: v) pray.SUBJ.PL ‘Two men went to the Temple to pray’
The verb in the main clause typically expresses a human-controlled action (a) or, more specifically, a goal-oriented motion (b). The long infinitive may also appear in the a-infinitive construction (Stan a: ; Todi : ; }..). Differences in the relative frequency of the a-infinitive and să-subjunctive in purpose clauses generally reflect the competition between the infinitive and the subjunctive in OR (}...); in any case, the infinitive is relatively frequent in the sixteenth century (Diaconescu : ; Guruianu : ; Ciobanu : ; Stan a: ), but the subjunctive prevails in original documents (fourteen examples in Guruianu : –). The ‘direct’ construction of motion verbs with a subjunctive result clause is preserved in MR, although more explicit constructions (introduced by specific connectives) are also available. The ‘direct’ infinitive construction gradually diminishes, but is nevertheless still in use in the nineteenth century (SILR: ). The context of the motion verbs makes the original lexical meaning of the marker a (< allative preposition AD ‘to’) more visible, confirming the relation between spatial destination and purpose as a typical path of grammaticalization (Haspelmath ; Heine and Kuteva : –; GR: –). This development may also indicate the origin of the subjunctive marker să < SI(C) in a purposive connector (cf. OLD, s.v., Ernout and Meillet : ; }...). The referential identity of the matrix clause subject with the result clause subject prevails over disjoint reference; most motion predicates (which are prototypical for the result construction, see Cristofaro : ) favour subject coreference. A very specific pattern of result clauses associates a ‘modal-comparative’ connector (ca or cum) with the subjunctive marker să. The two elements of the complex connective appear either in immediate vicinity (a,c) or in a discontinuous sequence, disrupted by topicalized constituents (b,d).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts ()
a. mi-am pus mai jos iscălitura, ca CL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.SG put.PPLE more below signature.DEF.ACC that să să crează (DÎ.: X) SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.PASS.SG believe.SUBJ.SG ‘I put my signature below, to be believed’ b. Proslăveaște Fiiul tău, ca și Fiiul să glorify.IMP.SG son.DEF.ACC your that also son.DEF.NOM SĂSUBJ te proslăvească (CC1.: r) CL.ACC.SG glorify.SUBJ.SG ‘Glorify your Son, so that your Son may glorify you’ c. curse la fântână cum să scoaţă apă (PO.: ) run.PS.SG at well.ACC how SĂSUBJ draw.SUBJ.SG water.ACC ‘she ran to the well to draw water’ d. îndrăgiți smereniia, cum și Domnul să love.IMP.PL humility.DEF.ACC how also Lord.DEF.NOM SĂSUBJ vă îndrăgească (Ev.: ) CL.ACC.PL love.SUBJ.SG ‘love humility, so that God may also love you’
The complex connective ca ( . . . ) să, which can be considered a means of reinforcing and disambiguating the purpose value (relative to multifunctional să), is frequent in OR. In the sixteenth century ca ( . . . ) să and cum ( . . . ) să are current means of expressing purpose; their variants with the two elements in adjacency have occurrences in CC1. (ca să: , cum să: ) and no less than in CC2. (ca să: , cum să: ); cum să has numerous occurrences in PO. (Arvinte : ). Very few of these occurrences show an extension of their use to argument (complement) clauses. At a first stage, verbs allowing a ca ( . . . ) să-complement are related to the idea of a future action, intended and caused by a human agent (a ruga ‘to beg’, a învăţa ‘to teach’, a sfătui ‘to advise’, etc.), being therefore ambiguous between direct object and purpose adjunct. The number of ca ( . . . ) să complements grows in the second OR period, but diminishes in (standard) MR (SILR: –, ; }}...; ...). The two complex connectors are equivalent only in the first OR period, when ca can introduce finite verb clauses, exactly like cum (}...). Subsequently, only ca ( . . . ) să is preserved in MR as a typical purposive connector, the purposive cum ( . . . ) să being abandoned. The prepositions derept, pentru ‘for’, întru ‘into’, spre, cătră ‘towards’ may introduce clausal or phrasal purpose adjuncts in several constructions that display diachronic variation. The prepositions derept, pentru, and (rarely) întru combine with să-subjunctive clauses. ()
a. să-i
dai pocaanie câte puţinel give.SUBJ.SG penitence.ACC by little dereptu să nu piară (Prav.: v) for SĂSUBJ not die.SUBJ.SG ‘give him penitence little by little in order not to die’ SĂSUBJ=CL.DAT.M.SG
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause b. învise a treia zi din morţi, pentru să biruiască rise.PS.SG third day from dead.PL for SĂSUBJ win.SUBJ.SG cu viii și cu morţii (VRC.: r) with alive.PL.DEF.ACC and with dead.PL.DEF.ACC ‘and the third day he rose from the dead, that he might be victorious with the quick and with the dead’ c. înfricoșatu-te-am în folos, întru să frighten.PPLE=CL.SG.ACC=AUX.PERF.SG in utility for SĂSUBJ afli tu calea mea (DPar.: III.v) find.SUBJ.SG you.SG.NOM way.DEF.ACC my ‘I frightened you with profit, so that you find my way’
The sequence derept să is more frequent than pentru să in the sixteenth century, but the ratio subsequently changes (Frâncu : ). They are no longer in use in MR. The same prepositions (especially pentru and derept), and also spre and cătră, may introduce phrasal purpose adjuncts, when combining with nouns having a verbal meaning (e.g. nouns deriving from long infinitives). ()
a. tocmită ( . . . ) pentru îndreptarea a greșealelor (Prav.: ) made.F.SG for correction.DEF.ACC AL.F.SG errors.DEF.GEN ‘made for correcting the errors’ c. să aș da trupul mieu spre if AUX.COND.SG give.INF body.DEF.ACC my to ardere (NT.: r) burning ‘if I give my body to be burned’
Purpose adjuncts expressed by the underspecified supine preceded by a preposition (especially la) are rare in the first OR period (}...); the same construction with the verbal supine appears late, in the eighteenth century (Dragomirescu a: , ). The prepositions pentru and spre start to combine with a-infinitives only in the eighteenth century. Pentru ca să, ca pentru să, and cum ca să are complex conjunctions that probably met the need of reinforcing the purpose value, by combining more purpose constructions. ()
a. va
lăsa neștine pojar în pământul său, let.INF someone.NOM fire.ACC in land.DEF.ACC his pentru ca să-l curăţască (Prav.: ) for that SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.SG clean.SUBJ.SG ‘someone will set the land on fire in order to cleanse it’ b. au arătat ( . . . ) calea ( . . . ), cum ca să nu AUX.PERF.PL show.PPLE way.DEF.ACC how that SĂSUBJ not greșască hieștecine (CazV.: IIIr) fail.SUBJ.SG anyone.NOM ‘he has shown the way, so that nobody might fail’ AUX.FUT.SG
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts c. să
zicem sultani, cum zicem acum say.SUBJ.PL sultan.PL how say.PRES.PL now tătarâlor, ca pentru să se înţeleagă Tatars.DEF. DAT that for SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.PASS understand.SUBJ.SG mai bine poveastea (CIst.–: v) better story.DEF.NOM ‘let us call them sultans, as we now call the Tartars, so that the story is better understood’ SĂSUBJ
le
CL.DAT.PL
These forms are attested starting in the seventeenth century (Avram : –; b: , ); pentru ca să is very frequent (e.g. in CazV.), and survives in MR as a typical purpose conjunction (pentru ca ( . . . ) să). The preposition de can express the purpose when followed by a deverbal noun. ()
Această carte, evanghelie, scrisă iaste de învăţătură (CC2.: ) this book.NOM gospel.NOM written is for edification.ACC ‘This book, the Gospel, was written for edification’
The structure with de followed by an a-infinitive and headed by a verb is attested in the sixteenth century (Nedelcu : –), but only in a few contexts (Manoliu : ), which generally do not admit its interpretation as a purpose adjunct. The preposition de plus a deverbal noun and de-a plus the infinitive frequently express the destination in the noun phrase (when headed by a noun), but they are not purpose verbal adjuncts. The purposive conjunction de admits two different constructions: it introduces either a clause whose predicate is in the subjunctive, so that the complex conjunction appears in the form de să, or one that uses another finite verb form (indicative or imperative). The atypical change of the preposition de into a final and result conjunction/complementizer is a controversial issue (Procopovici : –; Sava b): most authors tried to explain it as starting from temporal values (Drăganu ) or from a construction with deverbal nouns (Manoliu ); a few suggest that the influence of Slavonic da (subjunctive marker, purpose conjunction and complementizer) was also involved (Roques ; }...). De is immediately followed by the subjunctive, in a reinforced structure (similar to ca să, pentru să, etc.): ()
să mi-aș da trupul mieu, de să if CL.DAT.SG=AUX.COND.SG give.INF body.DEF.ACC my.M.SG so SĂSUBJ mă arză (CPr.: ) CL.ACC.SG burn.SUBJ.PL ‘if I give my body to be burned’
Frâncu (: ) considers that the complex conjunction de să is produced by interference between the purpose clause directly subordinated through a să-subjunctive and the final value of de which requires an indicative or an imperative. In any case, de să is widely diffused in the sixteenth century, but disappears later. The ‘balanced’ constructions employ the same verbal mood in both clauses: the indicative (a) or the imperative (b).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
()
a. dedu de le tipării (CC2.: ) give.PS.SG so CL.ACC.PL print.PS.SG ‘I gave them to be printed’ b. pasă de te pocăiaște (CC2.: ) go.IMP.SG so CL.REFL.ACC.SG repent.IMP.SG ‘go to repent’
The connective de is sometimes ambiguous (see also }..), interpretable either as a purpose or result subordinator, or as an additive coordinator (Costinescu : ), associating sentences on the temporal or causal axis. Frequently, the main clause (or the first clause in a coordinated pair) contains a verb of motion (a veni ‘come’, a merge ‘go’, etc.), or a causative verb. The modal adverb doară ‘maybe’, frequently used with a desiderative value (see Zamfir and Dinică ), may function as a purposive connective when placed at the beginning of the second clause (a), in a construction drawn closer to coordination than to subordination (Avram : ; b); it may be also part of the complex purposive conjunction ca doară (b). ()
a. Și
ieșimu, doară vrem vedea undeva get.out.SUBJ.PL maybe AUX.FUT.PL see.INF somewhere vru omu să-l aducem (CSIX.–: r) some man.ACC SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.SG bring.SUBJ.PL ‘let’s go out to see if there is somewhere a man we could bring in’ SĂSUBJ/and
b. pre pântece târâindu-să, ca doară armăsariul nu on belly.ACC crawl.GER=CL.REFL.SG that maybe stallion.DEF.NOM not l-ar simţi (CII.~: ) CL.ACC.M.SG.=AUX.COND.SG perceive.INF ‘on the belly crawling, so that the stallion does not notice (feel) him’ The desiderative doară introduces clauses whose verb is in the conditional mood or in the future tense. ... Other syntactic properties of purpose clauses The negative construction of the subjunctive final clause may be similar to the affirmative construction, with the negative particle normally following the subjunctive marker să (as in a), but may also display some particularities (as occurs in the languages that differentiate avertive clauses from affirmative purpose clauses, Schmidtke-Bode : ). The negator may be placed before să (b) and before the insertion of indefinite adverbs expressing uncertainty: cumva ‘somehow; perhaps’, cândva ‘sometimes’, cândai ‘perhaps’, doară ‘maybe’ (Avram b: ). The pattern of the intensified warning privileges the adverb cumva, which may be placed, together with the negator, before să and may trigger the resumption of să (}}...; ..). ()
a. învălui stâlpul cu postav, să nu wrap.up.PS.SG pillar.DEF.ACC with cloth.ACC SĂSUBJ not cetască altul slovele (A.: v) read.SUBJ.SG another.NOM letters.DEF.ACC ‘he wrapped up the pillar with cloth, so that other people do not read the letters’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts
temu a zice ‘Fămeaie-m iaste’, pentru fear.PS.SG AINF say.INF wife.NOM=CL.POSS.SG is for ca nu doară să-l ucigă oamenii that not maybe SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.SG kill.SUBJ.SG men.DEF.NOM locului (BB.: ) place.DEF.GEN ‘he feared to say, “She is my wife”, lest the men of the place should kill him’
b. să
CL.REFL.SG
Correlatives (e.g. derept aceaia ‘for that’) are not frequent, which is probably due to the strong syntactic integration of the purpose adjuncts. ()
dereptu aceaia vine întru lume, ca păcătoșii for that come.PS.SG in world.ACC for sinners.DEF.ACC să spăsească (CC2.: ) SĂSUBJ save.SUBJ.SG ‘to this end came he into the world, to save sinners’
Purpose clauses generally follow main clauses; this position is compulsory for direct subordination through a-infinitives and să-subjunctives (}...) and for the conjunction de (and de să) (}...), and optional for the other connectors, which confer more autonomy to the final clause. ()
ca să spăsească toată lumea de suptu for SĂSUBJ save.SUBJ.SG all world.DEF.ACC from under ceriu, deade-șu sineșu spre moarte heaven.ACC give.PS.SG=CL.REFL.DAT.SG himself.ACC to death.ACC Hristosu (CC2.: ) Christ.NOM ‘in order to save all the world under heaven, Christ gave himself up to death’
The metadiscursive purpose clause is present especially in rhetorical texts form the second OR period. ()
și pentru ca să nu mai lungesc cu vorba, and for that SĂSUBJ not more stretch.SUBJ.SG with speech.DEF.ACC tuturor prorocilor ( . . . ) li s-au zis all.DAT prophets.DEF.DAT CL.DAT.PL CL.REFL.PASS=AUX.PERF.PL tell.PPLE cuvinte de bucurie (AD.–: v) words.NOM of joy.ACC ‘and—in order to keep it short—all prophets were told words of joy’
... Main patterns and connectives of result clauses Result is expressed only by clausal adverbials. The result clause is thereby balanced between true subordination and conclusive coordination. Being less dependent on the main clause predicate and closer to coordination patterns, result clauses are frequently marked by correlatives. Result clauses are either purely resultative (expressing a cause-effect connection), or quantitative (expressing the effect of a large quantity and becoming then an
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
intensity indicator of high degree). The quantitative result clause contains degree adverbs (e.g. mult ‘much’, especially the cataphoric atât ‘so much’, așa ‘so’, destul ‘enough’). The connectives are either common with the final clauses (e.g. de), or specialized for expressing result (invariable cât). The realis/irrealis opposition is generally expressed by the use of the subjunctive (and of specific connectives—cât să—or conjunctions shared with the purpose clause: de să, ca ( . . . ) să, cum ( . . . ) să) vs. the indicative (the conjunction de). The conjunctions taking the indicative for realis clauses may introduce irrealis result clauses as well, when the mood is the conditional. There are no phrasal adverbials expressing result (Stan a: ). Cât ‘as’ is the most specific result connective, used both in purely resultative and in quantitative resultative clauses. It represents the output of the grammaticalization of the relative adverb cât ‘as much’ as a conjunction; therefore, it does not agree with an explicit or implicit quantitative in the main clause. The clause headed by cât is generally in the indicative, being a realis result clause (a). The irrealis result clause uses the subjunctive and is introduced by cât să (b). ()
a. să
adunară mulţi, cât nu mai putea gather.PS.PL many as not more can.IMPERF.PL încăpea (BB.: ) have.room.INF ‘they gathered in such large numbers that there was no room left’ CL.REFL.ACC.PL
b. de să va prilejui ( . . . ) să să if CL.REFL.IMPERS AUX.FUT.SG happen.INF SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.SG mucedzească svântul agneţ cât să be.covered.by.mould.SUBJ.SG holy.DEF bread.NOM so SĂSUBJ nu-l poată potrebi preotul (ȘT.: ) not=CL.ACC.M.SG can.SUBJ.SG sanctify.INF priest.DEF.NOM ‘if it happens that the holy bread be covered by mould, so that the priest cannot sanctify it’ The compound încât (< în + cât) ‘so’ is attested only at the end of the seventeenth century with the value of a result conjunction (Frâncu : ; Stan a: ), sometimes in the construction până încât (Avram ; b: ; Stan a: ); încât subsequently becomes the prototypical result connective of MR. Similar structures use cum ‘as’ or ca ‘as’ followed by the indicative for the realis result clauses (a) and by the să-subjunctive for the irrealis result clauses (b), the latter being very close to final clauses. ()
a. așa zice c-au iubitu pre noi Dumnezeu, so says that=AUX.PERF.SG love.PPLE DOM us.ACC God.NOM cumu și fiiulu său unulu născutu as also son.DEF.ACC his one born datu-l-au izbăvire dereptu give.PPLE=CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.PERF.SG salvation.ACC for
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts
noi (CC2.: ) us.ACC ‘he says God loved the world so much, that he gave his only begotten Son for our salvation’ b. să fie întunearece pre pământul Eghipetului, SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.PL darkness.PL.NOM on land.DEF.ACC Egypt.DEF.GEN atâta dease cum să le poată pipăi (PO.: ) so thick.PL that SĂSUBJ CL.ACC.F.PL can.SUBJ.SG touch.INF ‘let there be darkness over the land of Egypt, so thick as to be touched’ Cum and cum ( . . . ) să are no longer used in result clauses after the first OR period (Avram : ; b: ). De ‘so that’ is a very stable conjunction, generally used with the indicative in OR and preserved in non-standard MR. It introduces real result clauses, often with a quantitative value (a). De ( . . . ) să (b) is very rare in the sixteenth century as a result conjunction (Avram : ; b: ), even though it is currently used in purpose clauses; its frequency subsequently increases. ()
a. cându împle corabiia de treace de when fills.up ship.F.DEF.ACC so.that surpasses of măsură, ea se afundă (Prav.: r) limit she CL.REFL.ACC.SG sinks ‘when they fill up the ship so that it surpasses its limit, it sinks’ b. de-agiuns ai turnat, de să-mplură enough AUX.PERF.SG pour.PPLE so.that CL.REFL.ACC.PL=fill.PS.PL toate de-nţălepciune (DPar.: III.v) all.NOM of=wisdom.ACC ‘you have poured enough for them all to have filled up with wisdom’
The conjunction că ‘that’ clearly differentiates the result clause from the purpose clause; it appears in real result clauses, especially in quantitative constructions, correlated with a degree word in the main clause. ()
cu atâta cinste-l cinsti ( . . . ), că-l with so.much honour.ACC=CL.ACC.M. SG honour.PS.SG that=CL.ACC.M.SG făcu apostol vârhovnic (Ev.: ) do.PS.SG apostle.ACC preeminent ‘with so much honour he honoured him ( . . . ), that he made him preeminent apostle’
The demonstrative correlative așa ‘so’ begins to combine with result conjunctions giving rise to the complex connectives așa că, așa cum, așa cât, așa de ‘so that’. () a. și fu ca un mortu, așa cumu mulţi and be.PS.SG like a dead so that many.NOM grăiră c-au muritu (CC2.: ) say.PS.PL that=AUX.PERF.SG die.PPLE ‘and he was as a dead man; so that many said, He is dead’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause b. luo puteare spre ei, așa cât goli și take.PS.SG power.ACC over they.ACC so that naked.PL and răniţi scăpară den casa aceaia (NT.: v) wounded.PL flee.out.PS.PL from house.DEF.ACC that ‘he overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded’
These forms are already attested in the sixteenth century; așa că is the only one preserved in MR. ... Final remarks The purpose clause preserves the direct construction with the să-subjunctive and privileges the supplementary marker ca, in the ca ( . . . ) să connective, losing the direct construction with the a-infinitive and many other supplementarily marked constructions, very frequent in the sixteenth century (such as derept să, pentru să). The most typical construction (ca ( . . . ) să) extends its use, also becoming a complementizer. The connective de să disappears, while de remains in use in non-standard MR. Result clauses contrast with purpose clauses through the specialization of the connective cât, subsequently replaced by the compound încât, and by the grammaticalization of the sequence așa că. .. Conditionals and concessives Conditional and concessive constructions share important properties, and the main concessive pattern originates in a conditional one. Both constructions differ in many respects in OR from their MR equivalents, especially regarding their inventory of connectors and the distribution of moods and tenses in protasis and apodosis. ... Semantic and syntactic types of conditional clause In OR, different semantic types of conditional construction are characterized by their choice of moods and tenses (}...), but not by the selection of connectors. The traditional typology (used for describing Latin constructions, see Bertocchi and Maraldi ), distinguishing between ‘real’ (a), ‘potential’ (b), and ‘unreal’ conditionals (c), is partially reflected in mood (indicative vs. conditional) and tense selection (present conditional vs. perfect conditional). ()
a. de te veri ruga, păcatele tale if CL.REFL.ACC.SG AUX.FUT.SG pray.INF sins.DEF.NOM your slobozi-ţi-se-voru (CC2.: ) forgive.INF=CL.DAT.SG=CL.REFL.PASS.PL=AUX.FUT.PL ‘if you pray, your sins will be forgiven’ b. De vrea avea muiarea domnie, multu if AUX.COND.SG have.INF woman.DEF.NOM dominance.ACC much rău vrea fi bărbatului (FD.–: r) damage.NOM AUX.COND.SG be.INF man.DEF.DAT ‘If the woman were the master, the man would suffer much damage’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts c.
Doamne, de-ai fi fostu cicea, Lord.VOC if=AUX.COND.SG be.INF be.PPLE here n-ară fi muritu fratele mieu! (CC2.: ) not=AUX.COND.SG be.INF die.PPLE brother.DEF.NOM my.M.SG ‘Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died’
The difference between the ‘real’ and the ‘potential’ conditional constructions is actually gradual, because both types belong to the hypothetical domain and the modal attitude can also be conveyed by tenses of the indicative (e.g. by the future), can be lexically expressed (e.g. by verbs like putea ‘can’ or vrea ‘want’) or contextually determined. There is also a significant difference between the predictive type of ‘real’ conditional and the prescriptive type (Dancygier and Sweetser : ): the former associates assertions (a); the latter expresses an injunction (in the apodosis), based on a hypothetical assertion (in the protasis) (). ()
Popa, de va fi beţiv ( . . . ), să priest.DEF.NOM if AUX.FUT.SG be.INF drunkard SĂSUBJ se lase de preuţie (Prav.: r) CL.REFL.ACC.SG quit.SUBJ.SG of priesthood.ACC ‘If the priest is a drunkard ( . . . ), he must quit the priesthood’
The content-type conditional (expressing the condition-consequence relation, in the typology of Sweetser : –) prevails in the old texts; the epistemic type is very rare, but the speech-act type (the metadiscursive conditional clause) is attested from the earliest texts. ()
Grăiescu trei săstave, anume trei feaţe, say.PRES.SG three components.ACC namely three persons, se veri se știi (Prav.: v) if want.PRES.SG SĂSUBJ know.SUBJ.SG ‘I say three components, namely three persons, if you want to know’
Conditional clauses can alternate with free relatives based on their similar meaning (a), as in old Italian (Salvi and Renzi (eds) : ). In the sixteenth century, the relative pronoun or adverb sometimes co-occurs with the conditional subordinator (becoming a ‘free choice’ marker of irrealis, b,c); the construction in (c) shows strong similarities with the Greek original (εἰ . . . τις ‘if . . . anyone’), probably imitated via the Slavonic source of the Romanian translation. () a. Cela ce va fura lumânare sau diacul that that AUX.FUT.SG steal.INF candle.ACC or deacon.DEF.NOM de va lua fără știrea popeei, if AUX.FUT.SG take.INF without knowledge.DEF.ACC priest.DEF.GEN post de dzile (Prav.: r) fast of days.ACC ‘Whoever steals candles, or if the deacon takes them without the knowledge of the priest, [will receive] forty days of fast’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause b. Cine amu să ară vrea sufletulu lui who now if AUX.COND.SG want.INF soul.DEF.ACC his.GEN să-lu mântuiască, piiarde-lu-va SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.SG save.SUBJ.SG lose.INF=CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.FUT.SG elu (CC2.: ) him.ACC ‘Whoever wants to save his soul, will lose it’ c. să cine va iubi Dumnezeu, acesta if who AUX.FUT.SG love.INF God.ACC this cunoaște-se-va de la el (CPr.: ) know.INF=CL.REFL.PASS=AUX.FUT.SG from him.ACC ‘whoever loves God is known by God’
... Conditional subordinators In the sixteenth century, there are two main competing subordinators that introduce the conditional clause (in protasis), namely să (a) and de (b). ()
a. să nu vei ceti, nu poţi ști (PO. : ) if not AUX.FUT.SG read.INF not can.PRES.SG know.INF ‘if you don’t read, you cannot know’ b. de va muri, să nu se îngroape (CPrav.–: r) if AUX.FUT.SG die.INF SĂSUBJ not CL.REFL.PASS bury.SUBJ.SG ‘if he dies, he should not be buried’
Să (with the variant se) continues the Latin conditional connector SI, preserved in all the Romance languages. In the first OR period, the conditional să coexists, in completely different contexts, with another să: the subjunctive marker (}...). The etymology of the conditional connector de is controversial (as is that of the purposive de; see }...); most authors derive it from the preposition de, originating in the Latin DE (Drăganu ; Rosetti , etc.); but Roques () suggested a possible influence of the Slavonic da, which was a temporal connector and an irrealis marker. The sixteenth century is often said to be dominated by the conditional se/să (Densusianu II: ; Avram ); however, there are important differences in frequency according to each particular text; in the more elaborated texts, de is the first option. Several translations prefer se/să (for instance, CV.–, where only se is a true conditional, de being predominantly temporal); in many other texts, de is more frequent. In the original texts of DÎ conditional de is twice more frequent (twenty occurrences) than the conditional să (ten occurrences). In legal texts (CPrav.– and Prav.), de is nearly generalized (in CPrav.–, there are fifty-five conditional constructions introduced by de and none introduced by să; in Prav., of the conditional clauses are introduced by de and only one by se). De dominates in CL. (see Mareș : ), where eight of the nine conditionals are introduced by de and only one by să; in an extensive and complex translated text like CC2., conditional de, with occurrences (%), is clearly preferred to să, with occurrences (%, many in conservative biblical quotations).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts
In the first half of the seventeenth century, să still occurs in northern texts (strongly preferred in one short text, CTd.–; see also MI.~, Teodorescu and Gheţie : ), but also in southern texts (Ev., cf. Gherman : ). Subsequently, it is completely abandoned; conditional clauses constructed with the subjunctive (GR: ) appear much later and do not continue the conditional să, but use the homophonous subjunctive marker. In the second OR period, the dominant de is gradually challenged and finally almost replaced in the standard register by dacă, which becomes the main conditional subordinator in MR. Both de and dacă are initially temporal connectives (pertaining therefore to a class that, cross-linguistically, represents a major source for conditional connectives: see Hopper and Traugott : ; König : ; Heine and Kuteva : ). Iterative subordinators acquire conditional value in the context of potential meanings expressed by verbs in the future tense or in the conditional mood. In the sixteenth century, de is sometimes a temporal connective, introducing clauses with verbs in past tense, but its main value is conditional. On the other hand, deaca (with the variants deca, daca, dacă, deacă, cf. Densusianu II: ) is almost exclusively a temporal connective, with the meaning ‘after, once, when’, introducing a subordinate clause with the verb in the past and often constructed with the correlative îndată ‘soon’ in the main clause. Deaca is most likely a compound form, which may have either existed in Latin (Philippide [–] : < DE + QUA), or, more likely, was formed in Romanian from the preposition de and ca (Lat. QUAM, used as a temporal connective; see Drăganu ; Procopovici ) or from the de and că (DLR, s.v. dacă). The dominant temporal contexts of dacă (a) coexist with the less frequent conditional ones (b). () a. Deaca muri ea, luo-și when die.PS.SG she.NOM take.PS.SG=CL.REFL.DAT.SG a doa muiare (Prav.: r) second.F.SG wife.ACC ‘Once she died, he took a second wife’ b. deac-aș cădea în robie, împăratul și if=AUX.COND.SG fall.INF in captivity.ACC emperor.DEF.NOM and cu toţ domnii creștini să aibă with all.M rulers.M.DEF Christian.M.PL SĂSUBJ have.SUBJ.PL a umbla și să mă scumpere (DÎ.: XXXIII) AINF go.INF and SĂSUBJ CL. ACC.SG ransom.SUBJ.PL ‘if I fell into captivity, the emperor and all the Christian rulers should go and ransom me’ From the seventeenth century, dacă is increasingly used in conditional contexts, but also preserves its temporal value, which disappears as late as MR. The relative adverb când ‘when’ is constantly used in conditional contexts, but it does not become a true conditional subordinator (neither in OR nor in MR). The
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
functional equivalence of the temporal relative (expressing an iterative connection between two facts) with a conditional subordinator is attested cross-linguistically (Harris : ). ()
Cănd amu ochiul tău prost va fi, tot trupul when now eye.DEF.NOM your simple AUX.FUT.SG be.INF all body.DEF.NOM tău luminat va fi (CT.–: v) your.M.SG lighted AUX.FUT.SG be.INF ‘When your eye is healthy, your whole body is full of light’
Other subordinators mentioned in previous research (Avram : –; b: ; Frâncu : , –; Stan a: –) illustrate only isolated uses, in which the conditional value is usually deduced from context. The relative unde ‘where’ (Densusianu II: ) is sporadically used as a conditional subordinator, by virtue of its secondary temporal meaning. Many compound forms are attested only for the sixteenth century (Avram b: : cum să, de să, de unde, de ce, etc.) and are generally the result of the interference between conditional conjunctions and conditional relatives (să unde, de unde, de ce, cum să, etc.), or between two conditional conjunctions (de să). ... Moods and tenses in the conditional construction Romanian differs from Latin and from other Romance languages in the preference, increasing in MR, for identity of moods and tenses in the two components of the conditional construction. The ‘real’ conditional structures (those that express generalizations, iterative correlations between facts and manifest as predictions) typically employ the present (a) or the future (b) in both clauses; some variation appears in the use of various types of future (including the synthetic one, see }...), of not yet grammaticalized periphrases (c), or of other modal constructions. ()
a. de trage unul să se acopere, if pull.PRES.SG one.NOM SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.SG cover.SUBJ.SG el descopere soţului-ș he uncover.PRES.SG companion.DEF.DAT=his genuchele (FD.–: r) knees.DEF.ACC ‘if one pulls [it] to cover himself, he uncovers the knees of his companion’ b. De se va slăvi un nod, if CL.REFL.PASS.SG AUX.FUT.SG honor.INF a part.of.the.body.NOM cunusul bucura-se-vor toate with-it rejoice.INF=CL.REFL.ACC.PL=AUX.FUT.PL all.PL nodurele (CPr.: ) parts.DEF.NOM ‘If one part (of the body) is honoured, every part rejoices’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts
c. de nu va fi mai multă dereptatea if not AUX.FUT.SG be.INF more much righteousness.DEF.NOM voastră ( . . . ), nu aveţi a întra în împărăţiia your not have.PRES.PL AINF enter.INF in kingdom.DEF.ACC ceriului (CC2.: ) heaven.DEF.GEN ‘unless your righteousness surpasses ( . . . ), you will not enter heaven’ In the ‘real’ conditional construction of the prescriptive type (very frequent in legal texts), the protasis contains verbs in present (a) or future (b), and the apodosis, imperative (a), or injunctive subjunctive (b) forms. () a. De veri se cunoști ( . . . ), ascultă if want.PRES.SG SĂSUBJ know.SUBJ.SG listen.IMP.SG și ia aminte (Prav.: r) and take.IMP.SG in.mind ‘If you want to know, listen carefully’ b. de va afla vina ( . . . ), atunce să if AUX.FUT.SG know.INF fault.DEF.ACC then SĂSUBJ nu-l hirotonească (Prav.: ) not=CL.ACC.M.SG ordain.SUBJ.PL ‘if he finds him guilty, he should not ordain him’ Potential conditional constructions have the present conditional in the protasis, and generally the same mood and tense form in the apodosis. ()
de-ară învie cineva den morţi, ei if=AUX.COND.SG rise.INF someone.NOM from dead.PL.ACC they.NOM ară creade (CC2.: ) AUX.COND.PL believe.INF ‘if someone rose from the dead, they would believe’
The vrea-conditional periphrasis (}...) may also be used in potential conditional clauses (see b). In OR, as in MR, present conditional clauses do not trigger the presupposition of non-factuality and thus they do not acquire an unreal interpretation. Unreal conditional constructions use the perfect conditional in both clauses, but, especially in the first OR period, the construction has a high degree of variation because of the various conditional mood periphrases (see }..; ar fi avut, vrea fi avut, au vrut fi avut ‘would have had’). ()
a. De-ară fi amu fost fiind pre pământ, if=AUX.COND.SG be.INF now be.PPLE be.GER on earth.ACC n-ară fi fost preut (CPr.: ) not=AUX.COND.SG be.INF be.PPLE priest.NOM ‘If he had been on earth, he would not have been a priest’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause b. de vrea fi avutu puteare dracii ( . . . ), if AUX.COND.PL be.INF have.PPLE power.ACC devils.DEF.NOM mai mare rău fi-vrea făcutu noao (CC2.: ) more big harm be.INF=AUX.COND.PL do.PPLE us.DAT ‘if devils had had the power ( . . . ), they would have harmed us more’
The use of the imperfect with an unreal value (as in Italo-Romance varieties, cf. Rohlfs : –; Ledgeway : ; for Old French, see Patard and De Mulder ) is only attested at a later date. The past is employed in pseudo-conditional clauses, whose value is, rather, causal (their truth is presupposed); see }.... A statistical investigation of CC2. ( conditional structures, excluding a total of marginal situations and pseudo-conditionals) gives the results shown in Table .. The most important conclusion to be drawn from these statistics concerns the overwhelming presence of the future in the OR conditional construction. This situation is confirmed by other texts (in Prav., the de-conditional clause T . Moods and tenses in conditional structures Protasis Indicative Future
Indicative Present
Conditional Present
Conditional Perfect
Apodosis Indicative Future Indicative Present Imperative Subjunctive Conditional Present Indicative Future Indicative Present Imperative Subjunctive Indicative Future Indicative Present Imperative Subjunctive Conditional Present Conditional Perfect Conditional Present Conditional Perfect
de 99
să 30
Total 129
47
11
58
6 28 2
2 7 –
8 35 2
7
5
12
36
23
59
16 13 1
5 8 12
21 21 13
3
9
12
– 1 27
2 2 3
2 3 30
10
–
10
9
–
9
45
–
45
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts
has a verb in the future in of the cases; a similar ratio is found in the original texts of DÎ). There is also a certain affinity between the selection of moods and tenses, and the selection of the subordinator (e.g. various types of perfect conditionals appear exclusively in de-clauses). ... Other syntactic properties of conditional clauses The conditional clause consisting of a gerundial construction is rare in the first OR period (Ciobanu : –), and its possible status as a conditional remains ambiguous even later; see }.... Conditional constructions allow various types of ellipsis, especially the reduction of the negative conditional clause coordinated with a positive one (de nu ‘if not’; see also ..). The conditional meaning can be expressed by paratactic structures, which, in some translations, mimic the pattern of the original texts (Costinescu : ). Correlatives (de-aci ‘from here; then’, atunci ‘then’) are not very frequent. The protasis generally occupies the first place (manifesting its function also as a means of topicalization), but can also be placed after the apodosis. The compound verb forms do not generally display auxiliary inversion in the protasis; the inversion can occur only in the apodosis and tends to become a supplementary marker of conditional subordination (Zafiu b). ... Semantic and syntactic types of concessive clauses In the first OR period all types of concessive construction exist, although a complete inventory of specialized concessive markers is not yet available: proper or factual concessives, in which both the concessive and the main clause are factual (a); conditional or hypothetical concessives, in which at least the protasis is hypothetical (b); and unconditionals or irrelevance conditionals, containing a ‘free choice’ marker or a positive/negative disjunction and a universally valid apodosis (c). () a. să și credea, cu scârbă lă if even believe.IMPERF.PL with sorrow.ACC CL.DAT.PL era (CC2.: ) be.IMPERF.SG ‘although they believed, they were upset’ b. cine va creade întru mine, s-ară who AUX.FUT.SG believe.INF in me.ACC if=AUX.COND.SG și muri, învie-va (CC1.: v) even die.INF resurrect.INF=AUX.FUT.SG ‘the one who believes in me will live, even if he were to die’ c. oare să veţi vrea, oare să nu veţi whether if AUX.FUT.PL want.INF or if not AUX.FUT.PL vrea, voi să faceţi aceasta (CC2.: ) want.INF, you.PL.NOM SĂSUBJ do.SUBJ.PL this.F.SG.ACC ‘whether you want to or not, you must do this’ Conditional concessives and unconditionals are more frequent than factual concessives in both OR periods.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
... Concessive connectives: inventory and grammaticalization stages In the sixteenth century, the inventory of concessive connectives (concessive markers) displays a high degree of variation (Avram : ‒; ILRL: ; Frâncu : ; Stan a: , etc.); subsequently, the concessive system becomes ever more stable (Avram : –; Frâncu : ), mainly due to the loss of some markers and the full grammaticalization of others. Romanian, like the other Romance languages, lost the Latin concessive markers (the only exception could be măcar ‘even’) and rebuilt new connectives, sometimes using the same pattern. The most productive pattern for new concessive markers is the association of a conditional conjunction with a scalar additive focus particle (Zafiu b). This is considered the most common pattern for the cross-linguistic grammaticalization of the concessive (König a,b; Harris ; Haspelmath and König ; Chen ; Lindschouw : –), and was exemplified in Latin by ETSI (compound of et ‘and’ and si ‘if ’) (Bertocchi and Maraldi : ‒). The main sixteenth-century concessive markers are să ( . . . ) și ‘although’ and de ( . . . ) și ‘although’; the former completely disappears towards the end of the seventeenth century, probably together with the conditional să, and the latter, deși ‘although’, becomes a fully grammaticalized (factual) concessive marker in the eighteenth century (GALR II: ). In MR, many other conditional concessive markers follow the same pattern on their grammaticalization path (chiar de, chiar dacă ‘even if, even though’, etc.). Other OR markers derive from volitive expressions (săva că ‘even if, although’, să ‘if ’, and va ‘wants’) or from phrases containing universal quantifiers: cu toate că ‘although’ (literally ‘with all that’) emerges towards the end of the second OR period. It may be a translation from Greek, occurring in legal texts (Frâncu : ‒). Conditional connectives may occasionally be employed as markers of conditional concession, in the absence of other particles, only when the protasis describes an extreme situation, in which the action in the apodosis is highly improbable (a), or contains a universal quantification (in unconditional concessives) (b). ()
a. nu veri scăpa de nevoe, s-ai not AUX.FUT.SG get.rid.INF of trouble.ACC if=AUX.COND.SG lăcui în turnul Seminreanului (MC.: v) live.INF in tower.DEF.ACC Semiramis.M.DEF.GEN ‘you will not get rid of trouble, (even) if you live in the tower of Semiramis’ b. s-ai dobândi cu trupulu toată lumea, if=AUX.COND.SG gain.INF with body.DEF.ACC all world.DEF.ACC nici un folosu nu-ţi va fi (CC2.: ) no one profit.NOM not=CL.DAT.SG AUX.FUT.SG be.INF ‘if you gain the whole world for your mortal body, it shall be of not profit to you’
The concessive markers să ( . . . ) și and de ( . . . ) și, linking the competing conditional connectives să and de (}...) with the focal additive particle și ‘also; even’, are relatively frequent in the sixteenth century (Avram : ).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts ()
de te și grijești, ome, și să if CL.REFL.ACC.SG even worry.PRES.SG man.VOC and if și socotești, nemică nu veri face (CC2.: ) even think.PRES.SG nothing not AUX.FUT.SG do.INF ‘even if you worry, man, and you think about [it], you won’t obtain anything’
At the first stage, the two components of the concessive marker admit differences of placement and intercalations; their relative position then becomes fixed and they can merge (as is the case with deși). The conjunction generally precedes the focal particle, which precedes a focalized constituent (a). When the particle focalizes the entire clause, and this is verb-initially, the focalizer is placed at the beginning of the clause, immediately after the conjunction (in simple verbal forms not associated with clitics, b: de și), after the auxiliary (in compound forms) or after the clitics (b: de să și). The focal particle follows its own rule of focalizer placement (Ciompec : ‒), but its adjacency with the conjunction tends to be stabilized and results in a single unit. At the end of the seventeenth century de . . . și had not yet merged (b). ()
a. și s-are hi făcut și păcate and if=AUX.COND.SG be.INF make.PPLE even sins.ACC ierta-să-vor lui (VRC.: v) forgive.INF=CL.REFL.PASS=AUX.FUT.PL him.DAT ‘and although he had committed sins, these would have been forgotten’ b. iaste vreadnic ( . . . ) de cununi, de și tace și is worthy of wreaths.ACC although is.silent and de să și defaimă (Mărg.: r) if CL.REFL.ACC.SG even defames ‘he is worthy of laurel wreaths although he is silent and defames himself ’
The opposite order of the elements (și . . . să, și . . . de) is rare and often ambiguous (because of the homonymy between the focal particle and the conjunction and additive connector și). Să ( . . . ) și and de ( . . . ) și are initially employed irrespective of the clause type, for both conditional and factual concessives; the latter becomes a specialized marker for factual concessives in MR. The relative când ‘when’ may have a concessive use which is the counterpart of its conditional use, when associated with a focal particle; this use is already attested for the sixteenth century and persists in MR, without entering into a grammaticalization process. The conditional dacă ‘if ’ has the same status, but tends to form new fixed concessive markers in MR (with the particle chiar ‘even’ placed immediately before the conjunction). Măcar is probably preserved from vulgar Latin (makarie, borrowed from Greek), as in other Romance languages: old Spanish (maguer que), Italian (magari), etc. (see Harris : ‒; Rudolph : ). This form (initially having a desiderative and augural meaning) occurs in several constructions, with various degrees of grammaticalization (măcar să, măcar de, ‘even if ’), and frequently reinforces the association of
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
a conditional connector and a focal particle: măcar să ( . . . ) și, măcar de ( . . . ) și. Măcar (with its variants: macar, macară, etc.) is probably the most stable OR concessive marker (Zafiu b); it is still used in MR (though restricted to the spoken register). Măcar introduces conditional concessives in association with the conditional markers să and de ‘if ’, which allow verbs in the indicative mood (especially the future, as in (a), or the present) and in the conditional mood (b). ()
a. izrailteani sântu, macară și den limbi Jews.NOM be.PRES.PL, even even from people.PL.ACC să voru fi (CC2.: ) if AUX.FUT.PL be.INF ‘they are Jews, even if they are from among Gentiles’ b. acolo, nimenea nu iaste stăpân ( . . . ), măcară de-ar there nobody not is master.NOM even if=AUX.COND.SG fi și sfântu (Mărg.: r) be.INF even saint.NOM ‘no one is master there ( . . . ), even if he is a saint’
In the sixteenth century, măcar can introduce a bare subjunctive (without the marker să) (); this construction sets the scene for the later compound conjunction măcar să, with the verb in the subjunctive mood. ()
Împreură fraţii un cu alalt, spiţe, group.IMP.SG brothers.DEF.ACC one with the-other.ACC lines macar și mai mulţi fie de dzeace (Prav.: r‒v) even even more many be.SUBJ.PL than ten ‘Group the brothers together, two families, even if they are more than ten’
The form măcar că, attested in the first OR period in original documents () becomes one of the main OR concessive markers specialized for factual concessives. ()
măcar c-au înţeles măriia lui ( . . . ), even that=AUX.PERF.SG understand.PPLE Highness.DEF.NOM his.GEN de acum înainte încă cu tot ajutorul va from now forward still with all help.DEF.ACC AUX.FUT.SG fi (DÎ.: XXXVI) be.INF ‘although His Highness understood ( . . . ), from now on he will offer him all his help again’
Generally, the mood is the indicative, but the conditional may also be employed (and, incidentally, the subjunctive, as in BB.: XXIV). Săva(i) derives from a formula containing the conditional să and the rd person singular form of the verb a vrea ‘want’: va (see Ciorănescu ); it may be constructed with a bare subjunctive. Săva(i) că includes the conjunction că; it is
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts
completely grammaticalized in the sixteenth century as a true factual concessive marker and widespread in seventeenth-century texts, but it is abandoned after (ILRL: ). ()
Săvai că și cruce suferi, tu-m although that even cross.ACC endure.PRES.SG you.NOM=CL.DAT.SG ești fiiul (DPar.: III.r) be.PRES.SG son.DEF.NOM ‘Although you endure the crucifixion, you are my son’
Relative and indefinite unconditional (‘free choice’) constructions use only the relative or associate it with a (free or bound) indefinite marker: oare, ori, but also măcar, săva, etc. (; see }...) and optionally with a conditional connective (să, de). ()
unde nu iaste credinţa dereaptă, acolo oare ce bine where not is faith.DEF.NOM right there some what good fac oamenii, lu Dumnezeu nu plac (CC1.: r) do.PRES.PL men.DEF.NOM LUI.DAT God.DAT not like.PRES.PL ‘where there is not a right faith, whatever good people do, God does not like them’
... Other syntactic properties of concessive constructions The moods and tenses in the concessive construction are similar to those in the conditional construction, when the concessive marker contains the conjunctions să or de ‘if ’. Măcar and săva allow the bare subjunctive; măcar că and săvai că prefer the indicative and the conditional. The concessive clause can be a gerund construction (}...), partially disambiguated by the presence of the focal particle. Correlatives of the concessive clause are adverbs like încă, încăși, ‘yet’, tot, totuși ‘nevertheless’ (Frâncu ), or, for the factual concessive, the adversatives însă, ce ‘but, however’. ... Final remarks In OR there are more connectors available than in MR for concessive and conditional clauses; the first OR period is characterized by competition between the conditional markers să and de and the derived concessive markers să ( . . . ) și and de ( . . . ) și, with de and the merged deși emerging the winners. The concessive markers are involved in processes of grammaticalization and specialization. There is a considerable variety of moods and tenses in both members of the conditional and concessive period; OR already displays a preference for the indicative and the conditional in various types of clauses; a peculiarity of the period is the broad use of the future in all the hypothetical contexts. .. Other adjunct clauses ... Exceptive constructions The inventory of exceptive markers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries differs substantially from that of the modern language. Exceptive constructions are attested mainly in juridical texts.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
Fără (without) ‘except’, inherited from Latin (< FORAS) and displaying exceptive value in the other old Romance languages as well (Buridant : –; Salvi : –) is the typical exception marker in OR. It can occur alone (a), accompanied by another preposition (b; see also }...), or by a wh-word (c). ()
a. Nime nu e dulce fără unul Dumnezeu (CT.–: v) nobody not is sweet except one.M.DEF God ‘There is no one else mild save God the One’ b. Cenre e Dumnedzău fără de Domnul? (PH.–: r) who is God.NOM except of God.DEF.ACC ‘Who is a God except the Lord?’ c. caută cum nemică nu grăi lu Iacob fără mind.IMP.SG how nothing not tell.IMP.SG LUI.DAT Jacob except ce e bine (PO.: ) what is good ‘mind you shall tell Jacob nothing except what is good’
The marker specific to MR, afară de/să, is attested for the sixteenth century (a), when it could be split (b). ()
a. de se va sarea împuţi cu ce if CL.REFL.ACC.SG AUX.FUT.SG salt.DEF.NOM spoil.INF with what o veri săra? Nece în pământ nece CL.ACC.F.SG AUX.FUT.SG salt.INF neither into ground nor în gunoi treabnică easte afară să o into. garbage useful is except SĂSUBJ CL.ACC.F.SG vărși (CT.–: r) spill.SUBJ.SG ‘if the salt shall become spoiled, what shall you salt with? Neither on the ground nor into the garbage is it useful, except to spill it’ b. nemică afară nu grăiescu de cealea ce nothing except not speak.PRES.SG for that.F.PL what prorocii dziseră (CV.–: r) prophets.DEF.NOM tell.PS.PL ‘I speak of nothing else except for what was told by the prophets’
The Fără pattern is frequent during the period. Gradually, at the end of the eighteenth century, it is replaced by afară (see Table .). The exceptive meaning of fără is frequently reinforced by the restrictive adverb numai ‘only’. ()
Că e urât naintea lui altă fără numai ce that is loathed.PPLE before him anything.NOM except only what au el tocmit (PO.: ) AUX.PERF.SG he establish.PPLE ‘For before Him anything else besides what He has established is loathed’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts
T . The distribution of exceptive markers in codexes alegând
fără afară
alegând alegând fără (de) alegând numai fără numai fără de numai afară numai din/de afară din afară de
Prav.1581 2 −
Prav.1646 47 1
Prav.1652 − 1
Prav.1780 − −
− − − −
− 152 − −
− − − −
− − − 12
− −
− −
− −
3 1
The restrictive adverb decât, widely used in MR, from the nineteenth century, to mark bound vs. connected exceptives (Hoeksema , ; Von Fintel ; Pérez-Jiménez and Moreno-Quibén ) is attested during the previous centuries only in the context of fără. ()
a. Nu vom putea într-alt chip să ne not AUX.FUT.PL can.INF in another way SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.PL deșteptăm sufletele ( . . . ) fără decât cu cea folositoare wake.PRES.PL souls.ACC except only with that.F.SG useful aducere aminte de porunca lui Hristos (BB.: v) remembrance of will.DEF.ACC LUI.GEN Christ ‘There is no other way to wake our souls, except with the useful remembrance of Christ’s will’ b. Nu este alt lucru, făr’ decât numai Iordache not is other thing.NOM except than only Iordache m-au pârât la pașa (NL.~–: ) CL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG denounce.PPLE before pasha.M.SG.DEF ‘There is no other thing, except that Iordache has denounced me before the pasha’
Other specific markers are alegând(u) ‘save/except’ and trecându ‘save/except’. Alegând(u) is the grammaticalized gerund form of the verb a alege ‘choose’. It can take as a complement a NP () or a CP () and can occur alone (a), or followed by preposition (b,c), conjunction (a), or wh-word (b). ()
a. Cine se spurcă în postul mare cu who CL.REFL.ACC.SG contaminate.PRES.SG in lent.DEF.ACC great with carne sau cu brândză, elu să postească den meat or with cheese he SĂSUBJ fast.SUBJ.SG from
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
Dumineca Tomeei pănă în Rusalii, alegându sâmbătă Sunday.DEF Thomas.GEN till in Whitsuntide except Saturday și dumenecă (Prav.: r) and Sunday ‘He who shall be contaminated with meat or cheese during the Great Lent, shall fast from Thomas’s Sunday till Whitsuntide, save on Saturdays and Sundays’ b. Nu e dumnezeu altu alegăndu de mere (PS.–: r) no is God.NOM other except of me.ACC ‘There is no other God but me’ c. Duhul sfântu din tatăl și fiul nezidit, spirit.DEF holy from father.DEF and son.DEF NEG-build.PPLE nefaptu, nenăscut, alegăndu întru eșit (PS.–: v) NEG-make.PPLE NEG-be.born.PPLE except in proceed.PPLE ‘The Holy Spirit ‹originates› in the Father, unbuilt, uncreated, unborn, except in proceeding’ ()
a. de nemine alt nu se deșerta, alegând să of nobody else not CL.REFL.ACC.SG employ.IMPERF.PL except SĂSUBJ grăiască ceva sau să auză de nou (CPr.: ) tell.SUBJ.SG something or SĂSUBJ hear.SUBJ.SG of new ‘they employed themselves in nothing else but either in telling or in hearing a new thing’ b. Blăstămaţi să fie grumazii aceluia om curse.PPLE.M.PL SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.PL necks.DEF.NOM that.DEF.M man și maţele lui să arză, alegând and bowels.NOM his SĂSUBJ burn.SUBJ.PL except când vor fi zile dezlegate, praznice when AUX.FUT.PL be.INF days.NOM fast.free.PPLE.F.PL feasts.NOM cu blagoslovenie (LDVI.: r) with blessing ‘That man’s neck shall be cursed and his bowels shall burn, save when there are fast-free days, feasts with blessing’
Alegând is widely used throughout the period, mainly in juridical texts and in original documents. Trecându is the grammaticalized gerund of the verb a trece ‘pass’. It occurs sporadically, and only in the sixteenth century. It can take as a complement a DP (a), a PP (b), or a CP (c—the sole occurrence). ()
a. Cire e Zeu trecăndu Domnul? (PS.–: v) who is god except lord.DEF.ACC ‘Who is God except the Lord?’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts
b. Dumnezeu trecându de tire altul nu știmu god except of you.SG.ACC other not know.PRES.PL numele tău (PV.–: v) name.DEF your ‘God, there is no one else besides Thee and Thy name, we know no one else’ c. De ceia ce au credzutu, limbile, și noi of those who AUX.PERF.PL believe.PPLE gentiles and we giudecămu, deaci tremisemu cum nemica acealea se judge.PRES.PL therefore send.PS.PL how nothing those SĂSUBJ veaghie ei, trecându se ferească-și beware.SUBJ.PL they except SĂSUBJ beware.SUBJ.PL=CL.REFL.DAT.PL sinre de cumândari și de sânge și de necătură self.ACC.PL of offers and of blood and of murder și de currvie (CV.–: r) and of fornication ‘Of those who believed, the Gentiles, we also reason, therefore we sent [order] that the ones shall be kept nowise, except that they shall beware against offers and blood and murder and fornication’ Throughout the period one finds that two or three exceptive markers may be combined. ()
Fu prunc mitiutel, ( . . . ) fu om deplin ca be.PS.SG infant little be.PS.G man complete like și noi, alegând numai fără de păcate (CazV.: v) too us except only without of sins.ACC ‘He was a little infant and man like us, save only in being without sin’
The grammaticalized gerunds function as exceptive markers encoding the exceptive meaning of the semantic matrix of the corresponding verbs—alege ‘split, let aside’, trece ‘isolate, pass over’. They are specific to Romanian; the corresponding structures in Slavic are adverbs or fixed collocations with exceptive meaning (Frâncu : ; Costinescu : ). The exceptive patterns are very frequent in codices. This is unremarkable stylistically, given that legal texts mention the general situation as well as the exception. The inventory of exceptive markers is larger in OR (see Table .) than in MR (for MR, GALR II: –; GR: ). Romanian, as well as other Romance languages, grammaticalized specific units to mark the exceptive structure (Fr. sauf, It. salvo, tranne). ... Addition clauses Addition structures are infrequent in the sixteenth century. They become more frequent in the following centuries, when the specific markers are more varied. The specific markers are adverbial or prepositional phrases taking an NP / DP, a conjunctive or a relative clause as complement. Most of the markers are PPs headed by prepositions that imply the idea of addition: (de)asupra ‘above’; fără/afară ‘besides, in addition to’; (pe) lângă ‘besides’;
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
peste ‘above’. These PPs can take as their complement most frequently an NP/DP (a–c), or more rarely, a relative clause (d,e). ()
a. Asupră de aceastea tipăritu-se-au ceastea over of this.F.PL print.PPLE=CL.REFL.PASS=AUX.PERF.PL this.F.PL doo cărți (PO.: ) two books.NOM ‘Besides that there have been printed those two books’ b. Mâncători era ca cinci mie de bărbați eaters.M be.IMPERF.PL about five thousands of men fără mueri și feciori (CT.–: r) without women and children ‘There were five thousand men eating, besides women and children’ c. Pe lângă acestea toate, epitropi aceștea să besides this.F.PL.ACC all.F.PL trustees.NOM this.M.PL SĂSUBJ aibă a ținea doao catastive (Prav.: ) have.SUBJ.PL AINF keep.INF two registers.ACC ‘Besides all this, these trustees will have to keep two registers’ d. Ucigătorul, dennafară de ce-l killer.M.SG.DEF.NOM without of what=CL.ACC.M.SG vor certa cu moarte, iaste datoriu AUX.FUT.PL punish.INF with death is indebted.M.SG încă să plătească rudelor (Prav.: ) still SĂSUBJ pay.SUBJ.SG relative.F.PL.DEF.DAT ‘The killer is moreover, apart from having to be punished with death, bound to pay [his victim’s] relatives’ e. am plătit ( . . . ) de-au săpat ( . . . ) Iară fără AUX.PERF.SG pay.PPLE AUX.PERF.PL dig.PPLE and without ce-am plătit am muncit mult și what=AUX.PERF.SG pay.PPLE AUX.PERF.SG work.PPLE much even cu oamenii mănăstirii ca să fie with people.M.PL.DEF.ACC convent.F.SG.DEF.GEN in.order SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG sfintei mănăstiri de hrană (DÎ.: IV) holy.F.SG.DAT convent.F.SG.DAT for food ‘I paid ( . . . ) to urge them to dig ( . . . ). And besides what I paid, I had the servants of the convent do much work to provide food for the holy convent’
Deasupra and fără PPs occur mainly at the beginning of the period, while afară and pe lângă occur towards the end, being the specific markers in MR. The pattern AvPs + să/că is specific to the additive CP, and does not occur with NPs. These patterns comprise specific adverbs which occur almost exclusively in them: necum (NEG-how) ‘not to add/mention; not only’, netocma(i) (NEG-just) ‘not to add/mention; even more/less’. The structures containing necum are outdated in MR.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts
Necum să is the only conjunctional pattern attested for the sixteenth century (Avram : ). It frequently has a correlative in the main clause—nici ‘neither’ in negative structures (a), ci și/încă in affirmative structures (b). ()
a. Abiia suntem vii, că nu putem de noi nece hardly be.PRES.PL alive.M.PL that not can.PRES.PL about us neither gândi, necum să facem vreun bine fără think NEG-how SĂSUBJ do.SUBJ.PL any good.ACC without ajutoriul lu Dumnezeu (CC1.: v) help.DEF.ACC LUI.GEN God ‘We hardly do keep our lives within us, being not even able to consider what is concerned with us and still less able to do any good without God’s help.’ b. Că zice însuș: necum să bolnăvim, that says himself NEG-how SĂSUBJ get.sick.SUBJ.PL ce și părul capului nostru nu poate but also hair.DEF.NOM head.DEF.GEN our not can.PRES.SG cădea, că sunt număraţi (CC1.: r) fall.INF that be.PRES.PL counted.PPLE.M.PL ‘For here are His own words: no more can we fall ill, but also no single hair can fall from our heads, seeing that all of them are counted [before God]’
It hardly has additive meaning without a correlative. ()
Să faci rău, pierzi plata postului, if do.PRES.SG wrong lose.PRES.SG reward.DEF.ACC fast.DEF.GEN necum să deregi ceva cu el (CC1.: r) NEG-how SĂSUBJ amend.SUBJ.SG something with it ‘In doing wrong, one loses even the reward for one’s fasting, rather than making amends for something by it’
There is a less frequent variant with the conjunction că. ()
Iară noi, necum că nu le dăm nemică, ce, încă, and we NEG-how that not CL.DAT.PL give nothing but still îi batjocurim, și-i mustrăm, CL.ACC.M.PL mock.PRES.PL and=CL.ACC.M.PL scold.PRES.PL și-i gonim (Mărg.: v) and=CL.ACC.M.PL send.away.PRES.PL ‘And not only do we give them nothing, but rather we mock them, we scold them, and we send them away’
Netocma să is very rare in the texts, and disappeared in MR. ()
Avraam pentru Dumnedzău lăsă tot ( . . . ) iară noi Abraham for God give.up.PS.SG everything and we pentru Dumnedzău netocma să lăsăm ceva, for God NEG-just SĂSUBJ give.up.PRES.PL something.ACC
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
ce de nu ne-am giura încai pre but unless not CL.REFL.ACC.PL=AUX.COND.PL swear.INF at least by numele lui (CazV.: r) name.DEF.ACC his ‘For God’s sake, Abraham gave up everything ( . . . ) while us, not only do we give up nothing for God’s sake, but could it be at least that we should not swear by His name’ At the end of the eighteenth century a new marker is attested in documents—lasă că (leave.IMP.SG that ‘let alone’). It is widely used during the nineteenth century and then abandoned in standard MR (GR: ). The range of additive markers is quite large. Many of them are extremely rare and the inventory is in permanent reconfiguration during the period we investigate and afterwards. ... Comitative and instrumental adjuncts Unlike Classical Latin, a C-type language, Romanian is a B-type, in which the PP headed by the preposition cu is the first choice when it comes to encoding comitative and instrumental (for other Romance languages, see Cadiot : –; Fonseca : –; Stolz et al. : , –). The adpositional relator cu ‘with’ (< CUM) is a syncretic marker, which governs the accusative, expressing not only Comitativity and Instrumentality, but also Manner relations (GALR II: –). While the comitative adjunct has proved remarkably stable throughout the period, the instrumental adjunct has had various realizations. In original documents, the most common realization is the PP, but in translations the inflectional dative may be used, as a result of Old Church Slavonic influence (; Rizescu : ). The non-finite gerund clause may also function as an instrumental adjunct, and it is attested both in documents and translations (Avram : ). ()
Se voru împreuna nunteei (Prav.: v) CL.REFL.PL AUX.FUT.PL bond.INF wedding.DEF.DAT ‘He shall cleave unto his wife’
The comitative () and instrumental () adjuncts are expressed by PPs. The complements of the preposition cu can be NP/DP (Densusianu : ; Drăganu : ; Costinescu : ; Chivu : ; ILRL: , ; Todi : ; Guruianu : –) or a free (headless) relative clause (Frâncu : ). ()
()
să
să
SĂSUBJ
CL.REFL.ACC.SG
teamă pământul de Domnul, fear.SUBJ.SG earth.DEF.NOM of Lord.DEF.ACC cu câte se mișcă (DPV.: ) with how.many CL.REFL.ACC.PL move.PRES.PL ‘let all the earth fear the Lord, with all creatures that move’
ne izbăveaște, nu cu carele să spală CL.ACC.PL saves not with what CL.REFL.PASS wash.PRES.PL necurăţiile trupului, ce cu întrebarea (NT.: v) impurities.DEF.NOM body.DEF.GEN but with question.DEF.ACC ‘it saves us, not by removing dirt from the body, but by asking’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts
As in MR, the comitative and instrumental adjuncts attested in OR may cover a wide range of typical functions within the area of Comitativity and Instrumentality. (i) Prototypical Comitativity is assigned to humans, expressing accompaniment (a) and animate confective relations (in (b), oaste denotes a group of minimally individuated human entities). ()
a. el au purces ( . . . ) cu câţ heaccompanee [+human] AUX.PERF.SG go.PPLE[+movement] with how.many boieri s-au tâmplat boyars.ACCcompanion [+human] CL.REFL.IMPERS=AUX.PERF.PL happen.PPLE cu dânsul (NL.~–: ) him.ACC with ‘he went ( . . . ) with all the boyars that happened to be with him’ b. n-a putea el, cu câtă oaste not=AUX.FUT.SG can.INF he.NOM with how.many army.ACC are, să sprijinească (NL.~–: ) has SĂSUBJ support.SUBJ.SG ‘he will not be able, with all his army, to defend’
(ii) Non-prototypical comitative expressions extend to inanimate confective relations (a) and the co-presence of two inanimate entities (b). () a. cu cât au rămas să dea with how.much AUX.PERF.SG remain.PPLE SĂSUBJ give.SUBJ.SG den zapisul hatmanului, from document.DEF.ACC minister.of.war.DEF.GEN, s-au sculat dumnealui ( . . . ) CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG get.up.PPLE he.POL.NOM ș-au datu banii toţi (DRH. A.: ) and=AUX.PERF.SG give.PPLE money.DEF.ACC all ‘with what was left to pay from the the minister of war’s bill, he stepped in ( . . . ) and paid all the money’ b. să-i fie lui acea vie ( . . . ) cu SĂSUBJ=CL.DAT.M.SG be.SUBJ.SG him.DAT that vineyard.NOM with livadea și cu pomii și cu cât orchard.DEF.ACC and with trees.DEF.ACC and with how.much loc se va aleage (DRH.B.: ) place CL.REFL.PASS AUX.FUT.SG choose.INF ‘let him have that vineyard ( . . . ) with the orchard with the trees and with the land he is entitled to’ (iii) Different types of instrumental relation are encoded by PPs, expressing secondary instrument (a), means (b), and abstract instrument ().
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
()
a. eu i-am plătit cu ce am I CL.DAT.M.SG=AUX.PERF.SG pay.PPLE with what AUX.PERF.SG avut (DIR.A.: ) have.PPLE ‘I paid him with what I could’ b. chibzuiiu ( . . . ) cu cât mi-ar fi think.PS.SG with how.much CL.DAT.SG=AUX.COND.SG be.INF putearea priceaperii meale, power.DEF.NOM understanding.DEF.GEN my.F.SG să-l înmulţesc (CÎ.: IIv) SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.SG multiply.SUBJ.SG ‘I have been thinking ( . . . ) to multiply it through all my abilities’
(iv) Cu may occur in OR in some contexts indicating the intermediary (in MR prin is preferred). ()
Cu Silioanu ( . . . ) scrișu (CV.–: v) with Silas write.PS.SG ‘By / Through Silvanus ( . . . ) I wrote’
With regard to structures for comitatives, given their syntactic behaviour, the following can be identified in OR: (a) shows a PP adjoined to the VP, but semantically associated with the subject; (b) is an example of comitative coordination (}....; see Dyła : –; McNally : –; Camacho : –; Progovac : –; Vassilieva : –; Vassilieva and Larson : –); (c) shows a comitative PP in a general adjunct construction (the PP is interpreted with respect to the object, not the subject: see Himmelmann and Schultze-Berndt : ). ()
a. porunca ( . . . ) îi venise ( . . . ) cu câtă command.DEF.NOM CL.DAT.SG come.PLUPERF.SG with how.many oaste va avea să meargă (GIst.~: ) army AUX.FUT.SG have.INF SĂSUBJ go.SUBJ.SG ‘he had been commanded ( . . . ) to proceed ( . . . ) with all his army’ b. Hrizea-vodă ( . . . ) cu câţi era deaderă Hrizea-voivode.NOM with how.many be.IMPERF.PL give.PS.PL război vitejaște (PIst.~: –) war.ACC heroically ‘Hrizea-voivode ( . . . ) and all the men accompanying him have fought heroically’ c. Au trimis pre Ianache ( . . . ) și cu ce vor AUX.PERF.SG send.PPLE DOM Ianache.ACC and with what AUX.FUT.PL putea isprăvi, să trimiţă pre Iorga (GIst.~: ) can.INF finish.INF SĂSUBJ send.SUBJ.SG DOM Iorga.ACC ‘He ordered Ianache ( . . . ) to send Iorga back with all that they would manage to achieve’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts
The reinforcement strategy is effected by means of adverbs/fixed adverbial collocations: (i) împreună, depreună/dimpreună ‘together’, (de) alături ‘along’, de-a valoma ‘jointly’, la un loc ‘as one’ + cu ‘with’, selected when the complement of the preposition is a DP/NP (ILRL: ; Guruianu : –; Ciobanu : –; Stan a: –); (ii) cu tot ‘lit. with all; and everything’, used when the complement of the preposition is a DP/NP or a headless relative clause. The lexicalized PP cu tot occurs only in documents and may precede or follow the adjuncts (originally, cu tot appears when two or more adjuncts are juxtaposed and the last member of the list gives the whole series the character of a fully covered semantic domain). ()
a opri ( . . . ) ocin ( . . . ) cu fănaţe, cu hălășteae, AINF hold.INF land.ACC with hayfields with ponds cu tot cu ce iaste venitul (DIR.A.: ) with all with what is income.DEF.NOM ‘to keep the land ( . . . ) with hayfields, with ponds, together with all the income’
Some of the distributional properties of comitative and instrumental adjuncts are similar to those present in MR (b, ), while others are attested only in OR (). (i) The comitative clausal adjunct can be coordinated with other means for expressing a comitative adjunct (b). (ii) The instrumental clausal adjunct may be focalized in corrective structures (). (iii) A structure attested in OR contains cognate instrumental adjuncts (; see }..). ()
cu ce giudecată veţi giudeca, with what judgement.ACC AUX.FUT.PL judge.INF giudeca-vă-veţi; și cu ce măsură judge.INF=CL.REFL.ACC.PL=AUX.FUT.PL and with what measure.ACC veţi măsura, să va măsura AUX.FUT.PL measure.INF CL.REFL.PASS AUX.FUT.SG measure.INF voao (NT.: r) you.DAT.PL ‘with the judgement you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you’
Comitative adjuncts present in OR the same features as in MR: they are realized as PPs headed by the preposition cu and exhibit a subject-oriented nature. They express not only accompaniment, but also confective relations. Reinforcement by adverbs is attested in early documents and serves to disambiguate the comitative from the
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
instrumental adjuncts (since Romanian is a B-type language). The instrumental dative, which is highly marginal in OR, is lost in MR. MR has a larger inventory of relators for encoding different relations within the area of Instrumentality (human instrument, means, etc.). MR prepositions selecting the dative such as datorită ‘thanks to’, grație ‘owing to’, which point toward a close connection between intermediary and cause, or the near set-phrase prin intermediul ‘by the intermediacy of, via’, are not attested in OR. ... Substitutive adjuncts The difference between the substitutive structures attested in MR (see GALR II: –) and those present in OR is clear from their varying degrees of grammaticalization and from their semantic relatedness to Contrast, Preference, and Concession. In OR, substitution may be expressed by a PP whose complement is a NP/DP, a non-finite infinitive clause, a headless relative clause, or a finite clause with subjunctive head. One pattern attested in OR contains an accusative PP, headed by the set phrase în loc de lit. ‘in place of ! instead of ’ (a), or a genitive PP, headed by the synonymic collocation în locul (b). These two PPs are used both in documents and in translations. ()
a. cei ce mâncară oamei în loc those who eat.PS.PL men.DEF.ACC my.M.PL in place de pânre (PH.–: r) of bread.ACC ‘those who ate up my people instead of bread’ b. luo acel areate și giunghe ( . . . ) în locul feciorului take.PS.SG that ram.ACC and stab.PS.SG in place.DEF son.DEF.GEN său (PO.: ) his.M.SG ‘he took the ram and sacrificed it ( . . . ) instead of his son’
The non-finite infinitive clause may be embedded in the PP headed by în loc de. ()
în loc de a-l iubi ( . . . ) îl înjurăm (AD.–: r) in place of AINF=CL.ACC.M.SG love.INF CL.ACC.M.SG curse.PRES.PL ‘instead of loving him, ( . . . ) we curse him’
In OR the substitutive adjuncts may be expressed by a free relative clause embedded in the PP headed by în loc (de). The patterns do not display a similar distribution in texts, nor do they share the same functional domain. A marginal pattern contains the PP followed by cât (see Avram b: ). ()
în loc de cât bine am nedejduit să in place of how.much good.ACC AUX.PERF.SG hope.PPLE SĂSUBJ aibu ( . . . ), acmu atâta rău ( . . . ) am (CazV.: r) have.SUBJ.SG now so.much bad.ACC have.PRES.SG ‘instead of all the good I hoped for ( . . . ), inasmuch evil ( . . . ) I received’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Subordinating conjunctions and clausal adjuncts
The pattern PP + cum occurs only in glosses introducing a metacommentary (in order to clarify the contextual meaning of a term or a phrase). ()
luo Isusu de zise (luo, în locu cum take.PS.SG Jesus.NOM and say.PS.SG take.PS.SG in place how ai zice că luo cuvântulu) (CC2.: ) AUX.COND.SG say.INF that take.PS.SG word.DEF.ACC ‘Jesus took up and spoke (‘took up’ instead of ‘took the floor’)’
În loc followed by ce is attested in the sixteenth century and may occur in the following contexts: (i) with the periphrasis era + subjunctive standing for future in the past or actio instans in the past (Zamfir : –). ()
în loc ce era să-l omoară, in place that be.IMPERF.SG SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.SG kill.SUBJ.SG cinsti-l (CazV.: r) honour.PS.SG=CL.ACC.M.SG ‘whereas he had been about to kill him, he honoured him’
(ii) with the operator of necessity in the conditional mood followed either by infinitive or subjunctive. ()
în loc ce-ar fi să mă iubiț, in place that=AUX.COND.SG be.INF SĂSUBJ CL.ACC.SG love.SUBJ.PL pre cruce m-aț răstignit (DPar.: III.v) on cross CL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.PL crucify.PPLE ‘whereas you should have loved me, you put me on the Cross’
In examples (–), the adjunct acquires secondary values such as [+preference] [+contrast]; the action in the adjunct is rendered as improbable, whereas the action in the main clause is preferred by the (volitional) subject referents (Kortmann : ). (iii) with the present (a) and the imperfect indicative (b), but these tenses are less frequent in the substitutive clauses. ()
a. tu, împărate, ai făcut o mare greșală ( . . . ) you emperor.VOC AUX.PERF.SG make.PPLE a big mistake.ACC în loc ce ţi să cade să in place that CL.DAT.SG CL.REFL.IMPERS ought SĂSUBJ păzăști veniturile ( . . . ) împărăţiei (Bert.: v) guard.SUBJ.SG income.PL.DEF.ACC empire.DEF.GEN ‘Emperor, you have committed a grave error ( . . . ), whereas you ought to watch the income ( . . . ) of the empire’ b. în loc ce gândia, spre potolirea cuvintelor in place that think.IMPERF.SG towards appeasement.DEF.ACC words.DEF.GEN
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
să
grăiască, cu iarbă pucioasă focul viu vru talk.SUBJ.SG with brimstone fire.DEF.ACC burning want.PS.SG să potoliască (CII.~: ) SĂSUBJ quench.SUBJ.SG ‘although she thought of talking so as to scotch the rumour, she just managed to add fuel to the fire’ SĂSUBJ
In (), a negative expectation is cancelled and a concessive reading is obtained. Since the second half of the seventeenth century (cf. Avram : ), adjuncts with a subjunctive head are embedded in PP as non-finite adjuncts with an infinitival head (as a result of the replacement of the infinitive by subjunctive constructions). In MR the PP may select both forms. ()
În loc să mă iubească, mă pârâia (BB.: ) in place SĂSUBJ CL.ACC.SG love.SUBJ.PL CL.ACC.SG denounce.IMPERF.PL ‘Instead of loving me, they denounced me’
From the seventeenth century until the end of the eighteenth, the relative frequency of these phrases shows that the use of în loc ce is receding while that of în loc să is increasing: CazV. /; BB. /; Mărg. /; CD. /; CII.~ /; PIst.~ /; Bert. /. Like other Romance languages (e.g. French, or Spanish—which has two structures), Romanian has a Substitution marker which was originally a locative PP. The marker was not fully grammaticalized in the sixteenth century, as the noun may bear an article (a), and a postnominal demonstrative determiner may occur (b). ()
a. în locul de bine aţi făcut rău? (PO.: ) in place.DEF.ACC of good.ACC AUX.PERF.PL do.PPLE bad ‘have you done evil instead of good?’ b. În locul cela ce ară fi a grăi voao: in place.DEF.ACC that that AUX.COND be.INF AINF say.INF you.PL.DAT se-ară Domnul vrea ( . . . ) face-vremu ceasta ( . . . ). if=AUX.COND.SG Lord.DEF.NOM want.INF do.INF=AUX.FUT.PL this.ACC Acmu lăudați-vă (CV.–: v) now boast.PRES.PL=CL.REFL.ACC.PL ‘Instead you should say, “If the Lord wants us to ( . . . ), we will do this”, but now you rejoice in your boastings’
In MR, în loc de/în locul preserve their quality of combining with a relative clause, but they are monofunctional markers. Adjuncts with a subjunctive head embedded in PP were already characterized by non-factuality, second order, and presupposition (see Pérez Quintero : ), as they are in MR.
. Comparative constructions In OR, comparative structures are relatively stable. Variation manifests itself in competing comparators (de vs. decât ‘than’, ca vs. cum ‘as’) and in the fact that they can occur in phrasal comparatives vs. clausal comparatives.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Comparative constructions
.. Scalar comparative constructions In OR, the only scalar comparatives that have specialized markers, already grammaticalized in the sixteenth century, are superiority comparatives. Generally, inferiority and equative comparatives are lexically expressed; even in MR they remain rare and unstable (GR: ). ... Degree markers in the comparison of inequality Quantification licensing a comparative complement is exclusively analytical, using the degree marker: mai ‘more’ (see }}..; ..; Stoica ). It continues MAGIS ‘more’, the main marker of Latin analytic comparatives (Tarriño : ), as in Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, and Occitan (cf. Cuzzolin : ; Salvi : ). The marker mai quantifies adjectives and adverbs, as well as prepositional phrases equivalent to them. It has a fixed position—anteposed to its head—and is strictly adjacent to it; other quantifiers are placed to its left. ()
acestu nume este puţin oarece mai de gios decât al that name is little some more of below than AL.M.SG unui craiu (NL.~‒: ) a.GEN.SG emperor.GEN.SG ‘that title is somehow a little inferior to that of an emperor’
The adjectival phrase mai mult ‘more’ is used for the quantification of a nominal head, as in MR; the phrase is composed of mai ‘more’, which licenses the comparator, and mult ‘much’, which agrees with the noun; mai mult has a free position, ante- or postposed (strict adjacency to the head is not obligatory). ()
mai multă cinste le iaste decâtu more much.F.SG honour.NOM.F.SG CL.DAT.PL is than celoru ce au auru mai multu (CC2.: ) those.DAT that have.PRES.PL gold.ACC more much.SG ‘they have more honour than those who have more gold’
Verbs and clauses are quantified by the adverbial mai ‘more’ (a) (Densusianu II: ) and its synonymous mai mult and mai vârtos ‘more’ (b,c, already competing and co-occurring in the earliest OR texts). Mai ‘more’ used alone is frequent in the sixteenth century, but its presence steadily decreases; only mai mult survives in standard MR. ()
a. gadareani nebuni, cărora mai place domnia Gadarenes fool.PL which.DAT more likes dominion.DEF.NOM și cinstea ceștii lumi decât împărăţia lu and honour.DEF.NOM this.GEN world.GEN than kingdom.DEF LUI.GEN Dumnezeu (CC1.: r) God ‘foolish Gadarenes who like the dominion and the honour of this world more than God’s kingdom’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause b. mai mult grăiesc cu limba, more much speak.PRES.SG with tongue.DEF.ACC toţi (CPr.: ) all.M ‘I speak in tongues more than all of you’ c. să iubim pre el mai vârtos SĂSUBJ love.SUBJ.PL DOM him.ACC more strongly toate (CC1.: r) all.F.PL ‘we should love him more than anything’
decât voi than you
de than
The comparison of inferiority is not grammaticalized (see Ciompec : , for the adverbial head); structures containing mai puţin ‘less’ (the comparative of the adverb puţin ‘little’) are used, occasionally, for the quantification of the verb; instances of inferior comparatives of adjectives and adverbs (a relatively fixed construction in MR) are late and isolated, and generally lack an explicit standard of comparison. ()
la cei mai puţin domoliţi neputinţa prinde by those more little quiet.M.PL impossibility.DEF.NOM catches obrazul putinţii (CII.~: ) face.DEF.ACC possibility.DEF.GEN ‘for the less quiet, impossibility overcomes possibility’
... Competing comparators: de and decât ‘than’ In the first OR period, one of the main characteristics of comparison is the competition between two comparators: de (older and used exclusively as a preposition) and decât ‘than’ (conjunction, particle, and preposition, cf. Ciompec ; Frâncu : ). Only for the second OR period is the comparator ca (}...), prototypically encoding the relation of equality, sporadically attested in the inequality construction (Frâncu ; : ). Romanian continues the dual typology of the Latin comparative constructions using partially different forms (Stassen ). The first type was represented by complements in the Ablative or preceded by the prepositions ab and de ‘from’. In the second type (in late Latin, Tarriño : ), QUAM ‘than’ was followed by a constituent copying the case or the preposition of a constituent in the main clause. In Romanian, as in Italian, de ‘than’ < DE, used for fixed-case comparatives, continues Latin DE and follows a widespread cognitive pattern which takes the standard as the starting point for the comparison (Stassen : –; Heine : –; Heine and Kuteva : –; Tarriño : ). Decât ‘than’ is formed with de ‘of ’ and the relative-quantitative adverb cât ‘how much’ (cf. It. di quanto, Salvi : ) and it initially expresses comparatives for which the standard is a clause or a phrase that copies the structures of the main clause. However, this compound form is gradually reanalysed as a preposition (the equivalent of de) when constructed with the former subject of an ellipsis.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Comparative constructions
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the comparators de and decât ‘than’ are in free variation, even in the same sentence, when the standard is a DP or a NP (Frâncu : ; Ciobanu ): ()
Nu zice amu ‘cine nu va iubi mine not says now who not AUX.FUT.SG love.INF me.ACC mai vârtosu decâtu tată-său sau mumă-sa’, ce more strongly than father.ACC-his or mother-his but ‘cine va iubi pre ei mai vârtosu who AUX.FUT.SG love.INF DOM them.ACC more strongly de mine ( . . . )’ (CC2.: ) than me.ACC ‘He doesn’t say “who does not love me more than their father or mother”, but “who loves them more than me ( . . . )” ’
In phrasal comparatives consisting of nouns without modifiers, most nouns are definite (Stan a: ), even though de ‘than’ sometimes selects bare nouns (see }...) OR texts differ in the relative frequency of the comparators (for example, CC2. prefers decât ‘than’, Ciobanu : ). These differences not only reflect the conservatism of certain texts (possibly associated with the dialectal differences between north and south, see ILRL: ), but especially the limited syntactic equivalence of de vs. decât ‘than’. In PH.–, the comparator decât is used sixteen times, and de ten times; three of the sixteen occurrences of decât have contexts that are incompatible with de. De was frequent with complements containing numerals (a), but decât was also able to occur in this construction (b); in MR, de is typically preserved in this structure (cf. GR: ). ()
a. nu-su mai multe dzile de not=be.PL more many.F.PL days.NOM than doaosprădzeace (CV.‒: r-v) twelve ‘there are not more than twelve days’ b. mai mulţi era întru un loc decât cinci more many.M.PL be.IMPERF.PL in a place than five sute de fraţi (CC1.: v) hundred of brothers ‘there were more than five hundred brothers in one place’
The preposition de ‘than’ introduces only Accusative DPs (a), including those that have a possessive anaphoric head (b), and relative clauses (c,d); the quantitative relative construction is the origin of the comparator decât, whose componential meaning is still transparent in some contexts (d).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
()
a. de mine cu mult mai putearnic than me.ACC with much more strong te-ai făcut (PO.: ) CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG become.PPLE ‘you became much stronger than me’ b. nu va fi mai multă dereptatea not AUX.FUT.SG be.INF more much righteousness.DEF.NOM voastră, mai vârtosu de a cărtulariloru și your.F.SG more strongly than AL.F.SG scribes.DEF.GEN and a fariseiloru (CC2.: ) AL.F.SG Pharisees.DEF.GEN ‘your righteousness will not be greater, not more than that of the scribes and Pharisees’ fi și mai tare de cum be.INF even more strong than how au fostu (CC2.: ) AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE ‘he will be even stronger than he was’ d. mai multu de câtu ne trebuiaște (CC2.: ) more much than how.much CL.DAT.SG is.necessary ‘more than we need’ c. va
AUX.FUT.SG
The spelling of decât ‘than’ in the Cyrillic original texts, whether with a space between the component elements, as in (d), or without one, is too inconsistent to allow any conclusions to be drawn about the syntactic status of the variants or the extent of grammaticalization of the structure. The comparator de ‘than’ is not followed by PPs and does not admit the marking of the standard with the differential object marker pe (}...). There are contexts in which, even as early as the sixteenth century, decât ‘than’ has typical prepositional features: in the diagnostic contexts (with pronominal forms that distinguish between the nominative and accusative case), it can assign accusative case (a); in other contexts, it acts as a ‘derived-case’ marker, which preserves the nominative case of the subject in an elliptical construction (b). ()
mai întăriră decât menre (PH.–: r) CL.REFL.ACC.PL more strengthen.PS.PL than me.ACC ‘they became stronger than me’
a. se
b. mai cu năroc sânt dobitoacele fără graiu ( . . . ) more with luck be.PRES.PL animals.DEF.NOM without speech.ACC decât eu (Ev.: ) than I ‘speechless animals are luckier than me’ Decât admits the pe-differential object marking of the standard (a) and also allows for the standard to copy the case or the preposition of the thing compared, even in complex constructions with multiple constituents (b).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Comparative constructions ()
a. să
nu iubimu pre ei mai multu decâtu not love.SUBJ.PL DOM them.ACC more much than pre Hristosu (CC2.: ) DOM Christ.ACC ‘we should not love them more than Christ’ b. Mai bine iaste dereptului cu puţinelu, decâtu more good is righteous.DEF.DAT with little than păcătosului cu avuţie multă (CC2.: ) sinner.DEF.DAT with wealth.ACC much.F.SG ‘The righteous man feels better with few things than the sinner with much wealth’ SĂSUBJ
In clausal comparatives—in fact the origin of the decât phrasal comparatives (d)—decât is a subordinating conjunction. ()
slăbiciunea lu Dumnezeu mai tare e decât weakness.DEF.NOM LUI.GEN God more strong is than iaste a oamenilor (CPr.: ) is AL.F.SG men.DEF.GEN ‘the weakness of God is stronger than that of men is’
The presence of clausal comparatives in the sixteenth century is significant. In DÎ there is one example (see Guruianu : ; : ), but, in CC1., eighteen of the sixty-one occurrences of the comparative decât (i.e. %) introduce clausal comparatives. Decât combines with an infinitive or a subjunctive in pseudo-comparative constructions, also called ‘preference clauses’ (Tarriño ), in which the predication includes the degree expressions mai, mai bine, mai vârtos ‘more’, etc. () a. Mai binre iaste a se nedejdi pre Domnul more good is AINF CL.REFL.ACC.SG hope.INF on Lord.DEF.ACC decâtu a nedejdi pre om (PH.‒: r) than AINF hope.INF on man ‘it is better to trust in God than to trust in men’ b. să
însoare, mai vârtos decât să marry.SUBJ.SG more strongly than SĂSUBJ vieţuiască cu spurcăciune (CPr.: ) live.SUBJ.SG with filth.ACC ‘he must marry rather than live in sin’ SĂSUBJ
se
CL.REFL.ACC.SG
Decât turns early unto an unanalysable grammaticalized conjunction, as shown by the fact that in the first OR period it can already be followed by the relative cât, which is in fact one of its original components. ()
Cu mult mai puţină datorie avu with much more few.F.SG debt.ACC have.PS.SG
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
la soţiia sa decât cât fu el at companion.DEF.ACC his than how.much be.PS.SG he datoriu domnu-său (CazV.: v) endebted lord.DAT-his ‘he was much less indebted to his companions than to his lord’ ... Variation in not-yet-grammaticalized superlative relative constructions OR generally uses a very common cross-linguistic pattern in superlative relative structures (Heine : ), which is also present in Old Church Slavonic (Lunt : ); this pattern, which derives from the comparative, consists in a comparative structure associated with an ‘all’-quantification of the standard of comparison. ()
mai mare de toţi oamenii (CC2.: ) more big than all.PL men.DEF.ACC ‘bigger than all people’
The superlative which individualizes the thing compared by means of a determiner and licenses a partitive complement (introduced by the prepositions dentre, între ‘among’, see }}..; ..; Stoica ) (a), the preferred MR pattern (GR: ), is very rare and generally ambiguous in OR (Ciompec ; Frâncu : ; Stan a). Usually, cel is a purely anaphoric demonstrative; its complement is either not realized, or a comparative involving the quantifier all (b) (a structure that survives up to the nineteenth century, SILR: ). ()
mai mic dentre noi (PO.: ) more young.M.SG among us.ACC ‘the youngest of us’ b. eu, cel mai păcătos decât toată lumea (AIP.: r) I that.M.SG more sinful.M.SG than all people.ACC ‘I, the one more sinful than everybody’
a. cel
CEL.M.SG
These structures are not yet grammaticalized and do not appear in adverbial comparison until late (the only relevant example in Ciompec : dates from the eighteenth century). ... Comparison of equality (equative) In OR, the equative comparison does not have grammaticalized degree markers for common properties (see Ciompec : for the adverbial comparison). The degree markers of the adjectival and adverbial comparison of equality in MR (GR: ‒) emerge in the nineteenth century (possibly influenced by a modern Romance pattern, according to Niculescu ). The prototypical comparator is cât (< QUANTUM), although ca can also have a quantitative interpretation. In OR, as in MR, the comparative phrase frequently has a verbal or a nominal head, and more rarely an adjectival one (as in (a); see GR: for the construction) or an adverbial one (b).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Comparative constructions ()
a. s-are hi cât năsipul mărei de if=AUX.COND.PL be.INF as.many sand.DEF.ACC sea.DEF.GEN DE multe (CazV.: r) many ‘if they were as many as the sand in the sea’ b. departe de acea ascultare, cât e ceriul de far from that obedience.ACC as is sky.DEF.NOM from pământ (AD.–: v) earth.ACC ‘as far from that obedience as the sky is from the earth’`
The correlative construction atât . . . cât ‘as . . . as’ is the main expression of the equative comparison throughout the entire OR period. ()
atâta de rău iaste a păcătui cât iaste nerușinarea so DE bad is AINF sin.INF as is impudence.DEF.NOM după păcat (Mărg.: v) after sin.ACC ‘sinning is as bad as shamelessness after sinning is’
The proportional correlative (or comparative conditional) construction (Den Dikken ), in which the comparative clause is sentence-initial and the correlative items are cât (de) . . . atât (de) . . . ‘the more’; (cu) cât . . . , (cu) atât ‘the more’, is equally old and stable; it corresponds best to the Latin QUANTO . . . TANTO construction. ()
Cu câtu omulu den nafară boleaște ( . . . ), atâta with how.much man.DEF.NOM from outside is.ill so.much elu den lăuntru se înnoiaște (CC2.: ) he.NOM from inside CL.REFL.ACC.SG renews ‘The sicker the man is on the outside ( . . . ), the more he regenerates on the inside’
The patterns that become fixed in MR (GR: ) are cu cât (+ mai) . . . cu atât and pe cât (+ mai) . . . pe atât ‘the more . . . the more’; the former appears in the seventeenth century, the latter in the eighteenth (Avram : –). .. Non-scalar comparative constructions In OR, non-scalar comparatives generally employ the equative comparators ca (< QUAM), cum (< QUOMODO) ‘as’ and the compound with ca and relative items (ca (și) cum, ca (și) când). Ca and cum ‘as’ occur in very similar contexts in the sixteenth century, but, subsequently, they restrict their combinatory possibilities. ... Non-scalar comparator ca ‘as’ Ca ‘as’ is employed in the sixteenth–seventeenth centuries exclusively as an equative and analogical comparator; this use is apparently different from the value of inequality of its Latin etymon QUAM, which was continued by some Romance languages (Portuguese, Sardinian, Italian), in their old stage (Herman : ). However, QUAM (used also in the correlative construction
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
also encoded the equality value (Ernout and Meillet , s.v; Tarriño ). The inequality value of ca is present in Romanian (Frâncu ), but the first attestations of this use are late, and thus they are interpreted, rather than as continuity from the Latin pattern, as a simple use extension. In APs (a) and AdvPs (b), ca ‘as’ can be closer to scalar comparison (especially when the complement is interpreted as expressing a superlative standard); in other contexts (such as in VPs, when ca introduces a circumstantial of manner, as in (c); see }...) the dominant value of the comparison is qualitative (expressing an analogy). TAM . . . QUAM)
()
a. au
fostu veșmintele lui albe ca be.PPLE clothes.DEF.NOM his.GEN white.PL as lumina (CC2.: ) light.DEF.ACC ‘his clothes were as white as the light’ AUX.PERF.PL
b. poţ să ajungi să fii și can.PRES.SG SĂSUBJ become.SUBJ.SG SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG also tu sărac ca și mine (FD.–: r) you.SG.NOM poor as also me.ACC ‘you too can become as poor as me’ c. anul se întoarce ca roata (FD. –: r) year.DEF.NOM CL.REFL.ACC.SG turns as wheel.DEF.NOM ‘the year turns like a wheel’ The comparison is frequently stressed with the focal particle și ‘also’, which precedes the standard and can also appear as a correlative preceding the comparand (b). In the sixteenth century, comparative ca ‘as’ may be a conjunction, subordinating a finite verb clause. ()
nu ca eu voiu, ce ca veri tu (CC1.: v) not as I want.PRES.SG but as want.PRES.SG you.SG.NOM ‘not the way I want [it], but the way you want’
This particularity (subsequently to be lost) has been explained as a Slavonic influence, because Sl. jako was both a comparative adverb and a conjunction (Densusianu II: ; cf. Costinescu : ); nevertheless, in Latin, QUAM was a conjunction (cf. Tarriño ) and the OR use may be viewed as a conservative feature. Ca is very frequently followed by constituents that preserve their case or their prepositional construction (a); the differential object marker pe (}...) is optional (b,c). ()
certa ( . . . ) ca și pre un punish.INF as also DOM a ucigătoriu (Prav.: ) murderer.ACC ‘they will punish him as they would a murderer’
a. îl
CL.ACC.SG
vor
AUX.FUT.PL
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Comparative constructions
b. îndrăgeaște priiatnicul tău, ca tine love.IMP.SG friend.DEF.ACC your as you.SG.ACC singur (CPr.: ) self ‘love your neighbour as you love yourself ’ c. îl vor certa ( . . . ) ca și pre un CL.ACC.SG AUX.FUT.PL punish.INF as also DOM a ucigătoriu (Prav.: ) murderer.ACC ‘they will punish him as they would a murderer’ Like decât ‘than’ (see above), the particle ca ‘as, like’ gradually acquires a prepositional use, assigning the accusative to a constituent that mirrors the comparand subject; in OR and even in MR (GR: ), there is variation as far as its status is concerned. ()
a. de-ai fi tu singur if=AUX.COND.SG be.INF you.SG.NOM yourself like ca mine (FD.–: ) me.ACC ‘if you were like me’ b. te munceaște cu evangheliia, ca CL.REFL.ACC.SG struggle.IMP.SG with gospel.DEF.ACC like eu (CPr.: ) I ‘struggle with the Gospel like me’
... Non-scalar comparator cum ‘as’ In OR, as in MR, the comparator cum is generally a subordinating conjunction for comparative finite clauses; it is frequently employed in the correlative construction cum . . . așa ‘as . . . so’ and co-occurs with the focal particle și ‘also’, which emphasizes the comparison. ()
cumu iaste trupulu fără sufletu mortu, așa și as is body.DEF.NOM without spirit.ACC dead so also credinţa fără de lucru moartă iaste (CC2.: ) faith.DEF.NOM without of work.ACC dead is ‘as the body is dead without spirit, so faith is dead without work’
In the sixteenth century, but also later, in conservative religious texts, cum ‘as’ can be used in an elliptical construction in which it similar to the particle ca ‘as’. ()
datori sântemu de toate a mulţemi lu obligated.PL be.PRES.PL for all AINF thank.INF LUI.DAT Dumnezeu, cumu și Iovu (CC2.: ) God, as also Job ‘we have to thank God for everything, as Job did’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The complex clause
... Other comparators The prepositions de ‘of ’, pe ‘on’, după ‘after’ combine with the relative to produce quite unstable units, which have many variants: după cum (de pe cum), pre cum (pe cum, pă cum) ‘as’ (for detailed descriptions see Avram : –; Stan a: –); in MR, the lexicalized precum ‘as’ is used as a preposition (GR: ). Comparators can generally co-occur with și ‘also’. ()
a. să
domnească după cum domnesc reign.SUBJ.SG after how reign.PRES.PL împăraţii (CC1.: r) emperors.DEF.NOM ‘he must reign as emperors reign’ b. Au nu precum și eu am fost în pântece, maybe not as also I AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE in womb și aceia au fost? (BB.: ) also those AUX.PERF.PL be.PPLE ‘Were not they in the womb, as I was?’ SĂSUBJ
The comparator în ce chip ‘as’ (probably an imitation of the Gr. ὃν τρόπον, directly or through Old Church Slavonic) is extremely frequent in OR (for instance in BB., ICP.~, etc.), but is lost in MR. ()
în ce chipu fu elu cătră mine, așa in what manner be.PS.SG he.NOM towards me.ACC so voiu fi și eu cătră elu (CC2.: ) AUX.FUT.SG be.INF also I towards him.ACC ‘as he behaved with me, so I will behave with him’
... Comparators specialized for unreal comparisons The comparator ca ‘as’ followed by relative clauses introduced by când ‘when’ or cum ‘how’ (and possibly in the presence of focal și ‘also’: ca și cum ‘exactly how’, ca și când ‘as when’) initially expressed a regular non-scalar comparison. ()
a. Acmu amu spăseniia noastră apropie-se, nu now so salvation.DEF.NOM our draws.near=CL.REFL.ACC.SG not ca cându ne săturamu (CC2.: ) as when CL.REFL.ACC.PL have.enough.IMPERF.PL ‘It is now that our salvation is near, not when we had enough to eat’ b. ca și cum Sfântul Pavel au urât as also how saint.DEF Paul AUX.PERF.SG hate.PPLE lumea, așijderea și lumea pre Pavel (Ev.: ) world.DEF.ACC alike also world.DEF.NOM DOM Paul.ACC ‘as Saint Paul hated the world, exactly the same way the world hated Paul’
Unreal comparison is initially expressed by a relative proposition introduced by any of the comparators and contains a verb in the conditional mood; that construction gradually declines (but is still employed in the eighteenth century, (a)), and the compound forms ca (și) când and ca (și) cum become specialized for irrealis,
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Comparative constructions
having the meaning ‘as if ’, still with a verb in the conditional mood (b) (similar forms in southern Italian dialects being reported by Rohlfs (: ): comu quandu, cuomu quannu). () a. cum n-are avea nice o putere, as not=AUX.COND.SG have.INF no a power.ACC să fece om (ICP.~: v) CL.REFL.ACC.SG become.PS.SG man.NOM ‘as if he had no power, he became a man’ b. prin tine îmblând, îmblu ca cum nu through you.SG.ACC walk.GER walk.PRES.SG as how not aș îmbla în tine (CD.: v) AUX.COND.SG walk.INF in you.SG.ACC ‘while walking through you I am walking as if I were not walking through you’ .. Final remarks In OR comparison, expressed exclusively analytically, was restricted to superiority expressions, involving the degree marker mai ‘more’. In the quantification of the verb, the first OR period employs the adverbials mai, mai vârtos, and mai mult ‘more’, of which only the last survives in MR. The compound marker decât ‘than’ (an internal creation already grammaticalized in the sixteenth century) gradually replaces the inherited preposition de ‘than’ in almost all contexts. The equative comparison has cât . . . atât ‘as much . . . as’ as well as ca and cum ‘as’ as main comparators, the first for scalar, the latter for non-scalar comparisons; the sixteenth century is characterized by the use of ca ‘as’ as a subordinating conjunction, as well as by the use of cum ‘as’ as a particle in phrasal comparatives. Decât ‘than’ and ca ‘like, as’ gradually acquire prepositional values, limited to several constructions with a DP.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
10 Word order and configurationality . Preliminary remarks Word order in OR is freer than in MR, both in original texts (documents and chronicles) and in translations (Densusianu II: –). The passage to MR is systematically characterized by: rigidification of word order and strengthening of locality conditions; emergence of novel constructions to compensate for the gradual restriction of movement to the edge of individual phrasal projections; stabilization of the position of the verb on the clausal spine; elimination of residual head-final structures; and, in tight relation with the former phenomenon (see Ledgeway b; Nicolae c), disappearance of discontinuous structures.
. The nominal and adjectival domain .. Definiteness checking In OR the functional element responsible for definiteness checking (the definite article suffixed to a noun (a) or prenominal adjective (b), demonstrative determiners (c), prenominal determiner genitives/possessives (d–e)) generally occupies the initial position of the DP () (}.). omenească (FD.–: r) desire.DEF human ‘the human desire’ b. dereptul județ (CC2.: ) honest.DEF judge ‘the honest judge’
() a. pohta
c. această sfântă ps (DÎ.–: LIX)
this holy psalter ‘this holy psalter’ aceștii ţări lucruri și fapte (CIst.–: r) AL.F.PL this.GEN country.GEN things and facts ‘the things and facts of this country’s’ e. a mea parte de ocină (DÎ.: LXI) AL.F.SG my part of property ‘my share of the inheritance’ d. ale
The Syntax of Old Romanian. First edition. Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.) This chapter © Alexandru Nicolae . First published by Oxford University Press
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The nominal and adjectival domain
However, an alternative pattern is also available in OR. When the bearer of definiteness is the suffixal definite article, it may not be suffixed to the DP-initial constituent. Definiteness checking is hence non-local, and may take place across intervening nominal constituents: a non‑definite complex AP (a) (see Cornilescu and Nicolae a) or a quantifier (b) (Nicolae a). () a. cu [DP svânt sângele lui] (FT.–: v) with holy blood.DEF.ACC his ‘with his holy blood’ b. deade [DP zeace cuvintele sale] (CCat.: v) give.PS.SG ten commandments.DEF.ACC his ‘he gave us his ten commandments’ The availability of non-local definiteness checking also accounts for the contexts in which a definite noun is preceded by a demonstrative (a) (and by the fronted intensifier însuși, see }..) or a prenominal genitive/possessive (b), definite determiners themselves. The constructions in () are also polydefinite, on a par with those discussed in }.. ()
a. însușu acela judecătoriulu dereptu (CC2.: ) himself that judge.DEF honest ‘that honest judge himself ’ b. toată a moșilor limba (PH.–: r) all.F.SG AL.F.SG ancestors.DEF.GEN kinfolk.DEF ‘the entire kinfolk of the ancestors’
In the transition from OR to MR, the locality conditions on definiteness checking became more restrictive, and the structures in () and () were gradually eliminated by the end of the eighteenth century. .. Non-specialized demonstratives The weak/strong morphological distinction on demonstratives, ensured either by the vocalic augment/particle -a (weak/strong: acest/acesta ‘this(F.SG.NOMACC)’) or by word-internal processes (weak/strong: acea [aʧḙa]/aceea [aʧeja] ‘that(F.SG. NOMACC)’), as well as the syntactic specialization of the weak/strong forms characteristic of MR (see GR: –) are not yet established in OR (see also }..). In overt-head constructions, both weak () and strong () demonstratives can occur on both sides of the head-noun (Dimitrescu (ed.) : ; Stan a: –). () a. acel păcat (PI.~: v) that sin ‘that sin’ b. neamul acel (CP1.: r) nation.DEF that ‘that nation’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
()
Word order and configurationality a. acestea cărți creștinești (CCat.: r) these books Christian.PL ‘these Christian books’ b. muiarea ceaea (CPrav.–: v) woman.DEF that ‘that woman’
Adjacency of postnominal strong demonstratives to a definite noun is optional, contrary to MR where it has become obligatory. ()
a. viaţa aceasta a noastră (CC2.: ) life.DEF this AL.F.SG our ‘this life of ours’ b. fratele tău acesta (CC2.: ) brother.DEF your this ‘this brother of yours’
Both the weak (a) and the strong (b) form may license nominal ellipsis (see also }..). ()
a. Aceste zise marele împărat these.ACC say.PS.SG great.DEF.NOM emperor.NOM Alexandru (A.: v) Alexander ‘The great emperor Alexander said these (words)’ b. Acestea ainte mearrseră (CV.–: r) these.F.NOM ahead go.PS.PL ‘These (women) went ahead’
In the passage from OR to MR, the strong/weak distinction was syntactically consolidated (Nicolae b): in overt-head structures, the weak form has specialized for the prenominal determiner position, and the strong form for the postnominal position, with the supplementary condition that the postnominal strong form be strictly adjacent to the definite article (see Cornilescu ), i.e. the postnominal demonstrative construction underwent a process of word order rigidification. Furthermore, the weak forms may no longer license nominal ellipsis, this function being strictly reserved for the strong forms. .. The ambiguous grammar of the determiner cel The adjectival article construction of modern Romanian (GR: –), in which the determiner cel extends the nominal domain (Vasilescu ) by introducing postnominal modifiers with a well delimited information-structure function— i.e. the postnominal modifier preceded by cel denotes an identifying property of the nominal head (Cornilescu and Nicolae )—is not fully grammaticalized in OR. In this period, especially in earlier phases, the determiner cel has a dual grammar (Nicolae b), displaying both demonstrative- and article-like
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The nominal and adjectival domain
behaviour. The source of the adjectival article cel is the weak distal demonstrative (a)cel (‘that’), reinforced or not by the prefixal particle a- (cf. the free distribution of the prefixed/non-prefixed demonstratives in OR, }.., and in (old) Romance, Adam Ledgeway, p.c.), not the strong form (a)cela (‘that’) (Dimitrescu (ed.) : ; Giurgea : –; Nicolae b). The cel-forms have a much wider distribution in OR, some of the contexts being available in MR, while others have been eliminated. The post-cel modifier may be a qualifying (a), a participial (b), or a relational adjective (c), or a relative clause (d); in the passage to MR, option (c) has been eliminated from the distribution of cel. ()
a. tâlcul cel rău a lor (VRC.: IIIr) significance.DEF CEL.M.SG bad AL.INV their ‘their bad significance’ b. fiiu-său cel iubit (CC1.: v) son-his CEL.M.SG love.PPLE ‘his beloved son’ c. birăul cel rumânescu (DÎ.–: XCVII) mayor.DEF CEL.M.SG Romanian ‘the Romanian mayor’ d. aproape de cei ce vindeca (CC2.: ) close of CEL.M.PL who heal.IMPERF.SG ‘close to those who healed’
Cel may directly precede nouns or nominal sequences made up of nouns plus adjectives, this context being specific to demonstratives. () a. cu cel brâu (CM.: r) with CEL.M.SG girdle ‘with that girdle’ b. în cel munte nalt (A.: r) in CEL.M.SG mountain high ‘on the/that high mountain’ Note in particular, examples like (a), in which the [cel–adjective] sequence precedes a definite noun/nominal phrase. In later stages of Romanian, movement of the definite phrase across the [cel–adjective] sequence becomes obligatory (b). ()
a. pentru cel drag fiiul tău Isus (PO.: ) for CEL.M.SG dear son.DEF your Jesus ‘for your dear son Jesus’ b. pentru [fiiul tău]i cel drag ti Isus (MR counterpart)
The contexts in which cel precedes nouns/nominal sequences containing a noun have been eliminated in the passage to MR.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Word order and configurationality
From an interpretative point of view, the form cel may enter a proximity opposition with aphaeretic weak proximal forms of acest (‘that’), especially in the texts from the first OR period; consider the following minimal pair from the same text. ()
a. Și ţine mente cea iarnă ce-au and keep.IMP.SG mind CEL.F.SG winter.F.ACC which=AUX.PERF.SG trecut (FD.–: r) pass.PPLE ‘and remember that winter that passed’ b. ceastă leage, ce-am făcut (FD.–: r) this law which=AUX.PERF.SG make.PPLE ‘this law I made’
Two factors contributed to the emergence of the MR adjectival article construction (Nicolae b): (i) elimination of the aphaeretic proximal demonstratives which ensured that the proximal/distal opposition of aphaeretic forms is no longer active; (ii) specialization and restriction of the DP-internal prenominal domain (i.e. the DP edge/periphery) (}..), as part of the general reduction of pragmatically-driven word order that characterizes the Latin–Romance transition (Ledgeway : –). More specifically, the emergence of this novel construction is a strategy that compensates for the gradual loss of the greater accessibility of the focus and topic positions situated in the DP left edge/ periphery. .. Adjacent genitives Another word-order development that took place in the passage from OR to MR is the stabilization of the rule that determines the insertion of the genitival/possessive marker al (for its general distribution in OR, see }...). In early stages of OR, al-insertion is not sensitive to the immediate presence of the definite article to left of the genitive phrase/possessive adjective: al may () or may not () be overtly realized in this context. The article may be suffixed either on the noun or on a definite adjective, possibly in a polydefinite construction (b,c), (b). ()
a. rranele nedereptaţilor [ale lor] (PH.–: v) wounds.DEF injustices.DEF.GEN AL.F.PL their ‘the wounds of their injustices’ b. codrulu svântulu [a lui] (PH.–: v) forest.DEF holy.DEF AL.INV his ‘his holy forest’ c. sfântulu [alu său] duhu (CC2.: ) holy.DEF AL.M.SG his spirit ‘his holy spirit’
()
a. după moartea lor (DÎ.–: VIII) after death.DEF.ACC their ‘after their death’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The nominal and adjectival domain
b. den dumnezeeștile cuvintele lui (CC2.: ) from godly.DEF words.DEF his ‘from his godly words’ c. la dragul meu suflet (A.: v) at dear.DEF my soul ‘in my dear soul’ The conditions on the insertion of al in strict vicinity to the definite article gradually tightened, al-insertion becoming unavailable when the genitival phrase/ possessive adjective is immediately right-adjacent to the definite article, i.e. the contexts in () have been eliminated. Al-insertion constantly remained compulsory when the genitival phrase/possessive adjective was not right-adjacent to the definite article (a,b) or when the head noun is not definite (c). ()
a. cuvântul sfânt [al său] (CP1.: v) word.DEF holy AL.M.SG his ‘his holy word’ ceriului] împăratul (PH.–: v) AL.INV sky.DEF.GEN emperor.DEF ‘the emperor of the sky’ c. împărat [al Indiei] (A.: r) emperor AL.M.SG India.GEN ‘emperor of India’ b. [a
.. The prenominal domain. Head-final structures The prenominal domain in OR is freer than in MR. Putting aside functional elements (determiners and quantifiers), there is a variety of lexical constituents that may precede the head noun: qualifying adjectives (), relational (classifying and thematic) adjectives () (Brăescu and Dragomirescu ), genitives and possessive adjectives () (Cornilescu and Nicolae d), and nominal arguments (). ()
a. la luminatul craiul leșescu (DÎ.: XVIII) at wise.DEF prince.DEF Polish ‘at the wise Polish prince’ b. la sfintele besearici (AAM.: ) at holy.DEF churches ‘at the holy churches’
()
a. evreiasca limbă (CV.–: v) Jewish.DEF language ‘the Jewish language’ b. dumnezeesculu ajutoriu (CC2.: ) Godly.DEF help ‘the Godly help’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Word order and configurationality c. proroceasca grăire (CC2.: ) prophetic.DEF speaking ‘the prophet's speaking’
() a. ale lui reale fapte (FD.–: r) AL.F.PL his bad deeds ‘his bad deeds’ b. al
meu răvaș (DÎ.: XXXV) my epistle ‘my epistle’
AL.M.SG
() a. de Dumnedzău iubitori (MI..II: r) of God.ACC lovers ‘lovers of God’ b. a lui dumnezeiască vreare (CC1.: ) AL.F.SG his Godly.F.SG wishing.F.SG ‘his Godly wishing’ lui iaste [DP [PP de oameni] iubire] (CC1.: ) AL.F.SG his is of people love ‘his is the loving of people’
c. a
d. [DP [DP Tuturor] sfârșitu] apropie-se (CV.–: v) all.PL.DAT end.DEF.NOM approaches=CL.REFL.ACC.SG ‘the ending of everyone is getting close’ While it is not entirely clear whether the prenominal position is reached via pragmatic edge-fronting (A-bar movement) or due to head-finality/roll-up movement (see Ledgeway : –; b) in all the situations above, there are indications in favour of the existence of residual head-final structures in the grammar of OR: (i) the existence of heavy APs in prenominal position () (see also Todi : , on the Wallachian chronicles), and (ii) the existence of discontinuous structures (see }.), phenomena permitted only under the head-final parametric setting (Ledgeway b). ()
a. cătră [DP [AP făcătoriulu de viaţă] Domnu] (CC2.: ) towards maker.DEF of life God.ACC ‘towards the life-making God’ b. Preacista dela mãnãstirea Goliia și dela Sfânta Vineri, virgin.DEF from monastery Golia and from saint.DEF Friday [DP [AP fãcãtoare de minuni] icoane] (CGond.: ) maker of miracles icons ‘The virgins from Golia Monastery and from Holy Friday Monastery, miracle-making icons’ c. [DP a [AP iubitorilor de Dumnezeu] AL.F.SG loving.DEF.GEN of God episcopi] (PC.: ) bishops ‘of the God-loving bishops’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The verbal and clausal domain
In direct relation to this, note that the internal structure of the adjectival phrase also allows for head-final structures, either with adjectival participles () or with deverbal adjectives (). () la [DP acest [CoordP [AP cinstit] și [AP [PP de Dumnezeu] at this honoured and by God.ACC dăruit]] scaun] (Doc.Athos2.: ) given chair.ACC ‘at this honoured and by God given chair (=throne)’ ()
a. noi credem că-i [AP [DP noauă] roditoriu] (FT.–: v) we believe.PRES.PL that=is us.DAT fruitful ‘we believe that it’s fruitful to us’ b. [AP [PP de-oameni]- iubitoriu] Domnulu (CC2.: ) of-peopleloving God ‘the people-loving God’ c. un om [AP [PP de oști] pururea poftitoriu] (CLM.–: v) a man of armies always desirous ‘a man always desirous of armies’
With the exception of qualifying adjectives (), all the types of constituents discussed in this subsection (relative adjectives (), genitives and possessive adjectives (), nominal arguments ()) were gradually eliminated from the prenominal position; prenominal heavy APs () and head-final APs ()–() have been eliminated as well.
. The verbal and clausal domain .. The position of the verb on the clausal spine In affirmative indicative clauses, the verb can occupy the clause-initial position, the clause-medial position, or the clause-final position; the V-final position is rarer, and is generally specific to translations (Densusianu II: ) or to original texts written by learnèd scholars, tributary to foreign models (Todi : ). ()
a. Scris-am eu, Ion, și frate-miu, Stan, write.PPLE=AUX.PERF.PL I John and brother-my Stan Meleșeștii acesta zapis al nostru (...) (DÎ.: VIIIb) Meleșescu.PL this deed AL.M.PL our ‘I John and my brother Stan the Meleșescu brothers, wrote this deed of ours’ b. Eu spui domnietale (DÎ.: I) I say.PRES.SG you.SG.POL.DAT ‘I say to you’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Word order and configurationality c. Și la acestu fel de scrisoare gându slobod and for this type of letter mind free și fără valuri trebuește (CLM.–: r) and without waves needs ‘And for this type of letter, a free and undisturbed mind is necessary’
For the position of the core arguments on the clausal spine, see }... (the subject), }... (the direct object), }... (the indirect object). .. Verb–clitic–auxiliary inversion Movement of the lexical verb across the auxiliary (a) / the clitic (b) / the clitic plus auxiliary sequence (c) is highly productive in both original texts and translations (}...; Dragomirescu c, b; Zafiu ), with a great deal of variation with respect to the trigger for inversion (Alboiu and Hill ; Alboiu, Hill, and Sitaridou ; Zafiu ), and to the availability of inversion for each analytic form in turn (cf. Todi : –). The displaced verb is either a non-finite formative (a,c) in a periphrastic structure or a synthetic form (b). () a. Înțeles-ați aceastea toate? (CM.: v) understand.PPLE=AUX.PERF.PL these all.F.PL.ACC ‘Did you understand all these things?’ b. Încongiura-mă viţei mulţi (CP1.: ) surround.IMPERF.PL=CL.ACC.SG calves.ACC many ‘Many calves were surrounding me’ c. Pusu-ne-am și degetele mai put.PPLE=CL.REFL.ACC.PL=AUX.PERF.PL and fingers.DEF.ACC more jos (DÎ.: VI) down ‘We have put our fingers below’ While inversion is very productive when the inverted verb occupies the sentence-initial position, inversion is not generally confined to the sentence-initial position (), nor is it a main-clause phenomenon, as shown by its existence in subordinate (completive and relative) clauses (). ()
a. Domnulu Dumnezeu, tot-ţiitoriul, în multe chipuri lord.DEF God all-keeper.DEF in many kinds de scripturi și de învăţături dat-au of scriptures and of teachings give.PPLE=AUX.PERF.SG oameniloru (CC2.: II) people.DEF.DAT ‘Lord God, all-keeper, in many kinds of scriptures and teachings gave to the people’ b. Aceasta moșia vândut-am noi (DÎ.–: XIII) this property.DEF sell.PPLE=AUX.PERF.PL we ‘It is this property that we sold’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. The verbal and clausal domain ()
a. acmu acest om așa gândeaște, că now this man like-this thinks that fi-va foarte bine de rândul lui (DÎ.: XCV) be.INF=AUX.FUT.SG very well of turn.DEF his ‘now this man thinks like this, that it will be very good for him’
b. bune lucrure ce întru noi fost-au (CL.: r) good things which in us be.PPLE=AUX.PERF.PL ‘good things which have been in us’ Under inversion, clitic adverbials are generally pied-piped along with the verb. ()
a. Mai micșurași-l (PH.–: r) still shrink.PS.SG=CL.ACC.M.SG ‘you shrank him’
b. mai scăzut-au au mai adaos-au (DÎ.: XIX) still remove.PPLE=AUX.PERF.SG or still add.PPLE=AUX.PERF.SG ‘he still removed or added’ Importantly, the inverted subjunctive (inversion being diagnosed by pronominal enclisis) replaces the subjunctive particle să, generally analysed as a finiteness head (see Nicolae , c), thus indicating that the inverted verb targets a position in the C-domain, the finiteness projection (Nicolae and Niculescu ). ()
preutul să se pleace, priest.DEF.NOM SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.SG bow.SUBJ.SG roage-se (CL.: r) pray.SUBJ.SG=CL.REFL.ACC.SG ‘the priest should bow and pray’
Therefore, the space comprised between the inverted lexical verb and the left clausal boundary represents the clausal left periphery (Rizzi ), i.e. the clausal edge which accommodates information-structure related projections (different types of focus and topic). Both main clauses () and subordinated clauses () may project a rich left peripheral domain in OR, which accommodates displaced arguments (b) or adjuncts (a), (b). Inversion gradually fell into disuse in the transition to MR, but it has been preserved with imperatives, and imprecatory conditionals and (directive) subjunctives (GR: , , ). .. Scrambling Another phenomenon that affects the verbal nexus is the displacement of the clitic/ auxiliary/clitic plus auxiliary from the lexical verb (}..) through the insertion of phrasal constituents (Densusianu II: ; Dragoș : ; Sala : –; Dragomirescu c; Stan a: ; Nicolae c: –), a phenomenon labelled scrambling. Scrambled constituents may be arguments (direct objects (a), subjects (b), argumental PPs (c)), adjuncts (PPs (a), AdvPs (b)), predicative constituents (), etc.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
()
Word order and configurationality a. când va Domnedzeu căuta pre voi (PO.: ) when AUX.FUT.SG God look.after.INF DOM you.PL.ACC ‘when God will look after you’ b. ne pre noi slobozi (FT.–: r) CL.ACC.PL DOM us.ACC free.PS.SG ‘and he set us free’ c. nu se-au de toate domirit (CC2.: ) not CL.REFL.ACC.PL=AUX.PERF.PL of all.F.PL.ACC understand.PPLE ‘they haven’t understood everything’
()
a. (sângele mieu . . . ), ce se derept mulţi blood.DEF my which CL.REFL.PASS for many varsă (CC1.: v) spill.PRES.SG ‘my blood, which is spilled for many’ b. aceaea care-ară fi înnapoi rămas (DÎ.: XXXVI) that.F.SG who=AUX.COND.SG be.INF behind remain.PPLE ‘the one that would have remained behind’
() de te vei înțălept face (DPar.: II.v) if CL.REFL.ACC.SG AUX.FUT.SG wise make.INF ‘if you will become wise’ Multiple phrasal constituents can undergo scrambling (Dragomirescu c). () deaca nu va omul pre ceastă lume, în viiața sa, purta grije if not AUX.FUT.SG man on this world in life.DEF his take.INF care pre ispăsenia sufletului său (CC1.: r) for redemption.DEF soul.DEF.GEN his ‘if the man won’t take care of the redemption of his soul in this world’ In contrast to inversion (}..), scrambling of the type discussed above was completely eliminated by the end of OR. The only elements which may break the verbal nexus in MR are the clitic aspectual adverbials (}.; Mîrzea Vasile )—as well as other functional verbs/predicates (e.g. multiple auxiliary structures, ar fi mers AUX.COND.SG be.INF go.PPLE ‘(s)he would have gone’). A related, but not identical, type of interposition is represented by the scrambling of constituents between the modal verb putea (‘can, be able to’) and its bare short infinitival complement. ()
a. Creadeți că pociu aceasta face? (CC1.: r) think.PRES.PL that can.PRES.SG this make.INF ‘Do you think that I can make this?’ b. nu poate nimea cu faptele sale dereage not can.PRES.SG nobody with deeds.DEF his redeem.INF păcatul său (CC1.: v) sin.DEF his ‘nobody can redeem his sin with his own deeds’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Discontinuous structures
This second type of dislocation was not altogether eliminated in the passage to MR, but it has been restricted in that, in general, at most one constituent may break the modal verb–infinitive cluster (Nedelcu : –).
. Discontinuous structures Discontinuous structures (i.e. hyperbaton) (see Ledgeway : –, –, and references, on Latin; Moldovanu with particular reference to D. Cantemir) obtain both in original texts and in translations, with a low frequency. Constituents from within the nominal phrase are extracted and displaced from within their phrase, and generally (but not obligatorily) move to the left clausal edge, including superraising out of an embedded clause to the matrix left periphery (cf. d). ()
a. [A duhului svântu]i dă-ne AL.INV spirt.DEF.GEN holy give.IMP.SG=CL.DAT.PL [DP ti darurile] (FT.–: r) gifts.DEF.ACC ‘Give us the gifts of the holy spirit’ b. Iacă, creștine, [ce mare]i avem [DP veselie ti] behold Christian.VOC what big have.PRES.PL joy noi înr Domnezeu (FT.–: r) we in God.ACC ‘Behold, Christian, what big joy we have in God’ dea măriia lui a știrea [PP pre [DP give.SUBJ.SG Highness.DEF his AINF know.INF through cestu om ti]] ce l-am trimes this man who CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.PERF.PL send.PPLE [al nostru]i (DÎ.: XLIV) AL.M.SG our ‘His Highness should let us know through this man of ours whom we sent’ d. iată [trei]i, spre a sufletului dulce gustare, ţi behold three for AL.F.SG soul.DEF.GEN sweet tasting CL.DAT.SG să întind [DP ti meșcioare] (CD.: Vv) CL.REFL.PASS lay.PRES.PL meals ‘Behold, three meals are laid for your soul’s sweet delight’
c. să
ne
SĂSUBJ CL.DAT.PL
Another type of discontinuity is represented by the displacement of the partitive phrase (}..). ()
a. [cinci]i era [ti d-însele] înţeleapte și five be.IMPERF.PL of-them wise and cinci nebune (CC1.: v) five foolish ‘five of them were wise, and five foolish’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Word order and configurationality b. [nimica]i ție să nu arătăm [ti den nothing you.SG.DAT SĂSUBJ not show.SUBJ.PL of lucrurile ceale] (SVI.~: v) things.DEF those ‘we shouldn’t show you any of those things’
OR also allowed the adjunction of scrambled adverbials () or conjunctions () to nominal constituents. () a. [DP Trei amu părți] sântu de nu se there now parts be.PRES.PL which not CL.REFL.ACC.PL sfârșescu (CC2.: ) end.PRES.PL ‘Now there are three parts which do not end’ b. [DP războiul atuncea a tătarâlor cu leșii] war.DEF then AL.M.SG Tartars.DEF.GEN with Poles.DEF.ACC au fostu așea (CLM.–: r) AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE like.this ‘then the war of the Tartars with the Poles was like this’ ()
[DP Aceaste dară doaă stele] (CD.: r) these but two stars ‘But these two stars’
Very rarely, Ross’s (: –) Coordinate Structure Constraint is violated through displacement of the first conjunct of the coordinated structure. ()
nu puteți [lu Dumnezeu]i sluji [ti și lu not can.PRES.PL LUI.DAT God serve.INF and LUI.DAT Mamon] (CC1.: v) Mammon ‘you cannot serve God and Mammon’
The frequency of the discontinuities reviewed here was low in OR; discontinuous structures were gradually eliminated by the end of the period investigated.
. Final remarks The data reviewed in this chapter throw into prominence the fact that OR displayed a freer word order than MR, especially in the nominal and adjectival domain (}.), and allowed non-local feature checking (}..). The passage to MR witnessed the emergence of a rigid word order for certain constructions (the postnominal demonstrative construction, }..), constraints on the insertion of functional elements (the marker al, }..), the grammaticalization of the adjectival article construction (}..) to compensate for the specialization of the prenominal domain (}..), and the stabilization of the position of the verb on the clausal spine (}..) in strict relation to the growing restriction of inversion (}..) and to the disappearance of scrambling (}..). Finally, all OR discontinuous structures (}.) disappeared.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Final remarks
With respect to the nominal and verbal structures in which the nominal and verbal heads are preceded by their complements, it is not entirely clear whether the pre-head position of the complements results from the head-final parametric setting (i.e. roll-up movement, Kayne ) or from information-structure driven movement (A-bar movement) to the left edge of the nominal and verbal extended projections. Only in certain contexts may these two options be distinguished, creating an ambiguity which ultimately gave rise to the reanalysis of roll-up orders as edge fronting, analogous to the general Latin to Romance transition (Ledgeway , b). The genuine existence of head-final structures (albeit residual) is empirically supported by the attested discontinuous structures (}.) and by the heavy APs in prenominal position (}..), structures predicted to be unavailable in harmonic head-initial systems, as well as by the fact that certain synthetic structures have been eliminated by their competing analytic counterparts (e.g. the synthetic conditional/ future, }...) (see Ledgeway b on the relation between the head parameter, discontinuous structures, and the synthetic–analytic divide). From a more general perspective, capitalizing on Ledgeway’s (: –) observation that (non-)configurationality should be regarded as a scalar property, OR represents an intermediate stage in the move-away from Latin (non-)configurational/discourse-driven syntax to configurational syntax of MR.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
11 Clausal organization and discourse phenomena . Polar and wh-interrogatives. Indirect interrogatives. Exclamatory constructions .. Preliminary remarks In terms of their overall structure, the interrogative and exclamatory constructions of OR do not differ from those of modern Romanian. The features that these sentences display in OR are particularly related to word order (freer position of constituents, of adverbial and pronoun clitics, more freedom in placing emphatic or rhetorical markers), to the choices between various types of grouping which at the time were not entirely fused or grammaticalized, and to the inventory of wh-words (in general, the same as that used in relative clauses). .. Interrogative sentences All the major modern types of question can be found in the old language: polar interrogatives (a), wh-interrogatives (b), and alternative interrogatives(c). ()
a. Creștin ești? (CCat.: r) Christian.NOM be.PRES.SG ‘Are you Christian?’ b. Iuo iaste Dumnedzeu tău? (PH.–: v) where is God.DEF your ‘Where is your God?’ c. Soarele ( . . . ) spurcă-se au ba? (CazV.: r) sun.DEF.NOM is.defiled= CL.REFL.PASS or not ‘Is the sun defiled or not?’
... Organization and distribution of types Of interrogatives recorded as a single occurrence or in coordination, % are polar interrogatives, % are wh-interrogatives, and % are coordinated mixed sentences (both polar and wh-interrogatives). ... Polar interrogatives The structure of polar interrogatives in OR is similar to those of most Romance languages, which follow Latin word order. V–S inversion
The Syntax of Old Romanian. First edition. Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.) This chapter © Mihaela Gheorghe, Dana Manea, Rodica Zafiu, Irina Nicula Paraschiv, Dana Niculescu, Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, and Margareta Manu Magda . First published by Oxford University Press
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Polar and wh-interrogatives. Indirect interrogatives
in yes/no questions is optional, probably depending on the topic, as in Latin (Manoliu-Manea : –). Topicalized constituents advance apparently freely in terms of initial position or final destination (see (b), a case of (incomplete) subject topicalization). ()
a. A nu va Dumnedzeu cere aceastea? (PH.–: v) INT not AUX.FUT.SG God.NOM ask.INF these ‘Is it not this that God will ask?’ b. Dumnezeu nărodul Lui l-au God people.DEF.ACC his.GEN CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.PERF.SG urgisit? (CPr.: ) persecute.PPLE ‘Did God persecute His people?’
Without being an exclusive feature of interrogatives (Hill and Alboiu, forthcoming), postposition of the auxiliary and clitics is well represented in OR interrogatives. A frequency test on a corpus sample shows that in % of polar interrogatives with auxiliary verbs, the auxiliaries and clitics are placed after the verb (), as compared to the structures without inversion (). ()
a. Încinde-se ca focul râvnirea inflames=CL.REFL.ACC.SG like fire.DEF.ACC ambition.DEF.NOM ta? (CP1.: r) your.F.SG ‘Will your ambition grow like fire?’ b. Pare-vă-se că galileanii aceia seems=CL.DAT.PL=CL.REFL.IMPERS that Galileans.DEF.NOM those păcătoși mai vârtos de toţi galileanii sinners more strongly than all Galileans.DEF.ACC era ( . . . )? (CT.–: v) be.IMPERF.PL ‘Does it seem to you that those Galileans were far more sinful than all the other Galileans?’
() a. Nu vor cădea amândoi în groapă? (CT.–: v) not AUX.FUT.PL fall.INF both.NOM in pit ‘Won’t they both fall into the pit?’ b. Au doară den Galilei Hristos va INT INT from Galilee Christ.NOM AUX.FUT.SG veni? (CC1.: v) come.INF ‘Will Christ come from Galilee?’ In coordinated sequences, constructions with and without auxiliary inversion may alternate in close proximity. The pattern is usually as in (a,b), where the (Neg)-Cl-Aux cluster is placed symmetrically to the same verb.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
()
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena a. Fratele nu-l va izbăvi, au brother.DEF.NOM not=CL.ACC.M.SG AUX.FUT.SG redeem.INF or izbăvi-l-va omul? (PH.–: r) redeem.INF=CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.FUT.SG man.DEF.NOM ‘Won’t his brother redeem him, or will the man redeem him?’ b. Maica a oare vede-te-va, mother.DEF.NOM your.F.SG INT see.INF=CL.ACC.SG=AUX.FUT.SG au nu te va mai vede? (A.: v) or not CL.ACC.SG AUX.FUT.SG more see.INF ‘Will your mother see you, or won’t she see you anymore?’
Unlike French, which has a polar interrogative particle (est-ce que), Romanian only employs an emphatic marker: oare/vare (‘can it be so?’), au (nu), (au) doară (nu) (‘is(n’t) it possible?’). In MR, only oare and doar nu are preserved, and are used as intensifiers of modality (GR: ). ()
a. Oare poate să fie așea? (AA.: r) INT can.PRES.SG SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG so ‘Can it possibly be so?’ b. Vare gândiţi că va găsi credinţă pre INT believe.PRES.PL that AUX.FUT.SG find.INF faith.ACC on pământ? (CC1.: r) earth ‘Can you possibly think that he will find faith on earth?’ c. Și iarăș, pohtele și dulceţile trupului, au and again lust.DEF and pleasures.DEF flesh.DEF.GEN INT doară nu să întorc ( . . . ) (CazV.: v) INT not CL.REFL.ACC.PL return.PRES.PL ‘And again, the lust and pleasures of the flesh, will they not also return?’
A frequency test for the supplementary interrogative markers shows that while doară is prevalent in the religious texts of the sixteenth century, oare, au nu, and au doară are more frequent in religious and lay texts written after (see Table .). The trend is also observed in eighteenth-century texts: in religious writings and those of Cantemir
CT.1560–1
CPr.1566–7
CC1.1567
CP1.1577
CC2.1581
PO.1582
DÎ
A.1620
%
Ev.1642
Caz.V.1643
NT.1648
Mol.1689
Sind.1703
VS.post1700
oare au nu au doară doară
PH.1500–10
T . The distribution of supplementary interrogative markers
%
0 8
0 3
1 9
0 4
0 0
0 5
0 12
0 2
0 1
6% 30%
8 21
9 5
6 68
1 5
5 2
1 1
94% 70%
1
17
9
3
0
1
2
0
0
23%
45
26
34
5
0
1
77%
4
8
4
0
1
0
6
0
1
72%
2
3
3
1
0
0
28%
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Polar and wh-interrogatives. Indirect interrogatives
there appear au (nu) and au doară, while oare occurs in eighteenth-century letters, in popular writings, and in Neculce’s work (Carabulea b: ). The combination au nu . . . doară is very rare, occurring only once in the corpus. () Și să miră dihania toată, și zise, and say.PS.SG and CL.REFL.ACC.SG wonder.PS.SG beast.DEF.NOM all au nu-i doară acesta fiiul cela a lui INT not=is INT this son.DEF.NOM that AL.INV LUI.GEN D‹a›v‹i›d? (NT.: v) David ‘And the beast wondered and said: Is this not by any chance that son of David’s?’ The marker doară is sometimes combined with adverbs conveying doubt, which highlights the dubitative function of the particle. () Doară cumva spre Dumnezeu luptători INT anyhow towards God worriers afla-vă-vreaţi? (CPr.: ) find.INF=CL.REFL.ACC.PL=AUX.FUT.PL ‘Is it possible to stand as soldiers before God?’ While coordinated series of polar interrogatives are quite frequent (a), the corpus also revealed mixed sequences, in which polar interrogatives combine with interrogatives that suggest an answer. The example (b) shows a sequence of wh- and polar interrogatives, organized in succession, in a rhetorical style characteristic of the religious texts of the time. ()
a. Dară voiu mânca carne de giuncu sau AUX.FUT.SG eat.INF meat.ACC of heifer or but sânge de iedu voiu bea? (PH.–: r) AUX.FUT.SG drink.INF blood.ACC of kid ‘But will I eat heifer or will I drink kid blood?’ b. La ce mearset în pustie să vedeţi? Au trestie de vânt of what go.PS.PL in desert SĂSUBJ see.SUBJ.PL INT reed by wind plecată? Dară la ce mers-aţi să vedeţi? Au bent but of what go.PPLE=AUX.PERF.PL SĂSUBJ see.SUBJ.PL INT om în veșminte moi îmbrăcat? ( . . . ) Dară la ce-aţi but of what=AUX.PERF.PL man in clothes soft dress.PPLE mers să vedeţi? Au prorocul? (CT.–: v–r) go.PPLE SĂSUBJ see.SUBJ.PL or prophet.DEF.ACC ‘What did you go into the desert to see? Is it reed bent by the wind? But what did you go to see? Was it the man dressed in soft clothes? But what did you go to see? Was it the prophet?’
In OR religious texts, direct polar interrogatives are higher in number than indirect, but they are almost absent in the sixteenth and seventeenth-century
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena
documents (less than %). The few examples found in the corpus are either alternative interrogatives (a) or include the interrogative marker au (b). ()
a. liuat-a vezceriuliu Coșomivauliu bani Coșomivauliu.DEF.GEN money take.PPLE=AUX.PERF.SG son.DEF de la Ionașco dentre voe, au ba? (SB.: ) from Ionașco out.of will or not ‘Did Comșulea’s son voluntarily take money from Ionașcu, or not?’ b. au
supărat-ai de cătră cești be.angry.PPLE=AUX.PERF.SG of towards those creștini ( . . . )? (DÎ.: XCIII) Christians ‘Have you possibly been enraged by these Christians?’
INT
... Wh-interrogatives The system of wh-interrogatives was already in place by the sixteenth century, so that from a structural point of view, there are no major differences between OR and the contemporary language. Their characteristic feature is the fronting of an interrogative word, which still applies today. Some other constituents are also fronted, together with the interrogative word, mostly in early religious texts. () Nu zeace se curățiră? Dar noao unde-s? (CC2.: ) CL.REFL.PASS cleanse.PS.PL but nine where=be.PRES.PL not ten ‘Were not all ten cleansed? Where are the other nine?’ The inventory of wh-words in OR includes all the forms used in MR: care (‘which’), ce (‘what’), cât (‘how much’), employed as pronouns or adjectives, the interrogative pronoun cine (‘who’), the adverbials unde (‘where’), când (‘when’), cum (‘how’), cât (‘how much’) and the adverbial phrase de ce (‘why’): ()
a. Întru înviere amu căruia de aceia va fi in resurrection now whose.GEN of those AUX.FUT..SG be.INF muiarea? (CT.–: v) woman.DEF.NOM ‘Then whose wife will she be after resurrection?’ b. Ce e dară credinţa ceaea ce noao trebuiaște să what is then faith.DEF that what us.DAT must SĂSUBJ ne ispăsim? (CCat.: v) CL.REFL.ACC.PL atone.SUBJ.PL ‘What is that faith which we must atone for?’ c. Câte-s zilele șerbului tău? (CP1.: r) how.many=be.PRES.PL days.DEF.NOM servant.DEF.GEN your.M.SG ‘How many are the days of your servant?’ d. Cine amu sântu împrejurulu lui? (CC2.: ) him.GEN who now be.PRES.PL around ‘Who is now around him?’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Polar and wh-interrogatives. Indirect interrogatives
e. Unde e mărul? (MC.: r) where is apple.tree.DEF.NOM ‘Where is the apple tree?’ f. Când moare și piiare numele when dies and perishes name.DEF.NOM ‘When does he die and his name perish?’ g. Cum voiu îndrăzni a deșchide how AUX.FUT..SG dare.INF AINF open.INF ‘How shall I dare open my eyes?’
lui? (CP1.: v) his.GEN ochii? (Mol.: ) eyes.DEF.ACC
h. Câte taine sâmt? (ȘT.: ) how.many mysteries.NOM be.PRES.PL ‘How many mysteries are there?’ i. De ce aţ grăbit de aţi venit for what AUX.PERF.PL hasten.PPLE that AUX.PERF.PL come.PPLE astăzi? (BB.: ) today ‘Why did you hasten to come today?’ The more salient differences regard: (i) the inflected occurrences of the pronoun care (‘which’), which are no longer employed in MR () (see also }..); (ii) some archaic phonological variants of the pronoun cine (‘who’) (); and (iii) the interrogative adverbs i(u)o (‘where’) and dencătruo (‘where from’), which were abandoned in MR (). ()
a. Carele e omul creștin? (CCat.: r) which.M.SG.DEF is man.DEF.NOM Christian.M.SG.NOM ‘Which is the Christian man?’ b. prentru carea mâhnit îmblu ( . . . )? (PH.–: r) walk.PRES.SG and for which.F.SG.DEF sad ‘And why am I sad?’
()
Că cenre e Dumnedzău fără de Domnulu sau cinre without of Lord or who for who is God.NOM e Dumnedzău fără Dm nostru? (PH.–: r) without Lord our is God.NOM ‘For who is God without the Lord or who is the Lord without our God?’
()
a. Io e Hristos să nască? (CC1.: v) where is Christ.NOM SĂSUBJ be.born.SUBJ.SG ‘Where is Christ to be born?’ b. E dencătruo-s războaie și sfare and from.where=be.PRES.PL wars.NOM and arguments.NOM întru voi? (CPr.: ) between you.PL.ACC ‘And where do your wars and arguments come from?’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena
Besides de ce (‘why’), the corpus of OR texts also reveals a great variety of contextually equivalent prepositional phrases, based on the wh-words ce (a–e) and care (f,g), alternating with bare ce (h). Except (a) and (h), which may occur in spoken MR, they are all obsolete. ()
a. pentru ce te lauzi că n-ai for what CL.REFL.ACC.SG boast.PRES.SG that not=AUX.PERF.SG luatu? (CC2.: ) take.PPLE ‘Why are you boasting you have not taken it?’ b. A ce nu te veselești cu alaţi for what not CL.REFL.ACC.SG rejoice.PRES.SG with other băutori? (DVS.: r) drinkers ‘Why do you not rejoice with the other drinkers?’ c. Că ce faci domneata așa? (DÎ.: L) because what do.PRES.SG you.POL.SG so ‘Why are you doing that?’ d. Căce noi nu putum goni el? (CC2.: ) because.what we not can.PS.PL chase.INF him.ACC ‘Why could we not chase him away?’ e. Dară derep ce le-au dat but as what CL.ACC.F.PL=AUX.PERF.PL throw.PPLE afară? (CCat.: v) out ‘But why did they throw him out?’ f. Și pentru carea mâhnit îmblu? ( . . . ) Dereptu walk.PRES.SG As and for which.F.SG.DEF sad carea în bănatu ești, sufletul which.F.SG.DEF in sorrow be.PRES.SG soul.DEF.VOC mieu? (PH.–: r) my.M.SG ‘And why do I have to suffer? Therefore why are you grieving, my soul?’ g. Întru carea șoptiră-se for which.F.SG.DEF whisper.PS.PL=CL.REFL.ACC.PL limbile ( . . . )? (PH.–: v) tongues.DEF.NOM ‘Why did the people whisper?’ h. Ce mă grâiești bun? (CazV.: r) what CL.ACC.SG say.PRES.SG good ‘Why do you call me good?’
A frequent phenomenon in OR, unlike standard MR, is the distribution of certain interrogative words. The interrogative pronoun care (‘which’) is used in contexts in
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Polar and wh-interrogatives. Indirect interrogatives
which the choice in MR is cine (‘who’) (a,b) or ce (‘what’) (c). For the competition between the relative words cine and care in OR, see also }... Mention should be also made of the use of the interrogative pronoun as a direct object without the DOM (pe) (b), which is a common phenomenon of that time (see }..). ()
a. De care me voiu of which CL.REFL.ACC.SG AUX.FUT.SG rrea? (PH.–: r) bad.F.SG ‘Whom shall I fear in bad times?’ b. Carele va mai iubi which.M.DEF AUX.FUT.SG still love.INF ‘Whom will he love?’
teame în dzi fear.INF in day
el? (CT.–: r) him.ACC
c. Carea făloseaște în sângele mieu cându which.F.DEF uses in blood.DEF.ACC my.M.SG when voiu deștinge în putredire? (PH.–: v) AUX.FUT.SG descend.INF in rot ‘Of what use will my blood be when I am dead?’ In OR, the occurrence of quite long sequences of coordinated wh-interrogatives is rather frequent (as is also the case with polar interrogatives). The interrogative word is either repeated (a), or omitted after its first occurrence (b). Wh-interrogatives with a different interrogative element may also be coordinated (c). ()
a. Ni, acmu, boiarilor, cum vom face și cum hey now lordships.VOC how AUX.FUT.PL do.INF and how vom trimite la Faraon să ne slujască AUX.FUT.PL send.INF to Pharaoh SĂSUBJ CL.DAT.PL serve.SUBJ.SG slujba? (AA.: v) job.DEF.ACC ‘Hey, now, your lordships, how will we do it and how will we ask the Pharaoh to serve the job?’ b. Derept ce iubiţi deșert și √ socotiţi as what love.PRES.PL vanity and praise.PRES.PL minciuni? (CP1.: r) lies ‘Why do you love vanity and why do you praise lies?‘ c. Ce auz eu și de unde au what hear.PRES.SG I and from where AUX.PERF.SG venit atâta rădicare de turburare? (Bert.: r) come.PPLE so.much raise.NOM of trouble ‘What do I hear and where did so much trouble come from?’
... Indirect interrogatives The syntactic mechanism of embedded questions has undergone no significant changes since the sixteenth century. A frequency test
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena
nonetheless shows that, as compared with MR, there are differences in terms of the head of the indirect polar interrogatives: dacă (‘whether’), the prototypical complementizer in MR, is almost absent in the sixteenth and seventeenth-century texts, irrespective of the register they belong to (a). Over % of occurrences of d(e)acă/ deaca/deca are subordinators of temporal or conditional clausal adjuncts. The complementizer de (‘if ’) is also employed in OR mainly as a subordinator for clausal adjuncts or as a relative word (see }}.; .), but the corpus shows that its occurrences as a complementizer for indirect polar interrogatives (b) are higher than those of dacă (.%). In a single sixteenth-century text (CV.–), the polyfunctional se is used only twice as a complementizer for polar interrogatives in reported speech (c). () a. Să
grăiască deaca se vor speak.SUBJ.SG whether CL.REFL.PASS AUX.FUT.PL ștearge (GB.XVI–XVII: r) wipe.INF ‘Let them say whether they will be wiped out’ b. Nu l-au întrebat de iaste not CL.ACC.M.SG=AUX.PERF.PL ask.PPLE whether is proroc (AD.–: r) prophet.NOM ‘They did not ask him whether he was a prophet’ SĂSUBJ
c. Spune-mi se rrâmleanu ești (CV.–: v) tell.IMP.SG=CL.DAT.SG whether Roman.NOM be.PRES.SG ‘Tell me whether you are Roman’ In OR, the complementizer of indirect questions can be omitted, but the gap is always filled by an additional interrogative particle (au, doară) (a) or by the marker of direct alternative interrogatives, au ba (‘or not’) (b). ()
a. cugetând √ doară se INT CL.REFL.ACC.PL think.GER oamenii (PO.: ) people.DEF.NOM ‘thinking whether people will repent’
vor AUX.FUT.SG
căi repent.INF
știm √ avea-vrem vro pagubă au know.SUBJ.PL have.INF=AUX.FUT.PL any loss.ACC or ba? (DÎ.: LXXXII) not ‘so that we should know whether there is any damage or not?’
b. se
SĂSUBJ
The verb classes governing the indirect interrogatives in OR are more varied than in the current language: verba dicendi: dzice ‘say’, grăi ‘utter’, murgui ‘object’, spune ‘tell’, scrie ‘write’, semna ‘sign’; verba interrogandi: întreba ‘ask’, ispiti ‘tempt’; informing verbs: afla ‘find’, arăta ‘show’, învăța ‘teach’, da sfat ‘advise’; verbs of perception: auzi ‘hear’, căuta, vedea ‘see’, or verbs of cognition: cunoaște ‘know’, înțelege ‘understand’, aduce aminte ‘remember/remind’, lua aminte ‘pay attention’.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Polar and wh-interrogatives. Indirect interrogatives ()
a. și murguiescu jidovii: √ au nu iaste acesta this and object.PRES.PL Jews.DEF.NOM INT not is Iisus, fiiul lu Iosif? (CC1.: r) LUI.GEN Joseph Jesus.NOM son.DEF ‘and the Jews objected: Is this not Jesus, son of Joseph?’ b. Că arătă câtă răotate și because show.PS.SG how.much wickedness.ACC and dracii spre amărăciune.ACC avut-au bitterness have.PPLE=AUX.PERF.PL devils.DEF.NOM towards oameni (CC2.: ) people.ACC ‘Because it showed how much wickedness and bitterness devils had for people’
A mixed pattern—linked direct speech constructions—whose syntax is clearly heavily influenced by patterns typical of speech, occurs not only in lay popular writings, but even in translated religious texts of the sixteenth century. () Adecă aceia rrăspundu cu rrostul său that.is those answer.PRES.PL with mouth.DEF.ACC his and arme în ustnele lor, că cinre ascultă? (PH.–: r) weapons.ACC in lips.DEF.ACC their.GEN that who listens ‘That is, those reply with their mouths and weapons on their lips, because who is listening, anyway?’ As compared to MR, the pattern in () is also hybrid, given the presence of the governing interrogative verb and, at the same time, the word order characteristic of polar interrogatives (postposing of the copula and the auxiliary). Due to the absence of a further marker, the example is on the borderline between the two syntactic types. () ne-au întrebat ( . . . ) √ avut-au have.PPLE=AUX.PERF.PL us.ACC=AUX.PERF.PL ask.PPLE Tătărașii hotar de ceaea parte de vale? (DÎ.: CVI) side of valley Tartars.DEF.NOM border.ACC of that ‘They asked us whether the Tartars had the border on the other side of the valley’ The constituent introducing reported speech is often a noun phrase, semantically related to verba dicendi or verba interrogandi (see also }.). () Întrebare: în ce chip slujiia Marta și Maria, question in what way serve.IMPERF.PL Martha and Mary și iară ce făcea? (CC1.: v) and again what do.IMPERF.PL ‘Question: In what way were Martha and Mary of service?’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena
... Multiple indirect questions The possibility of multiple wh-fronting in interrogatives is a characteristic of the syntax of interrogatives in Romanian, which individualizes it among the Romance languages (Ledgeway : ), and brings it closer to the Slavonic languages (see Rudin ; Bošković ). In Romanian, however, the sucession of (two or three) wh-words forms an ‘impenetrable’ cluster, which does not allow the insertion of other constituents. This characteristic distinguishes Romanian from Bulgarian (Laenzlinger and Soare ). The mechanism of multiple wh-fronting also exists in OR, as early as the sixteenth century (Stan a; Gheorghe ). The wh-sequence is achieved by means either of linear clustering (a), or of coordination (b). ()
a. Că de cuvinte are a întreba Domnulu și dereptulu that of words has AINF ask.INF Lord.DEF.NOM and unprejudiced judecătoriu, cine cum au lucratu (CC2.: ) judge who how AUX.PERF.PL work.PPLE ‘As for the words, the Lord, the unprejudiced judge, will ask them who and how they worked’ b. nu vă grijireţi cum sau ce veţi not CL.REFL.ACC.PL worry.IMP.PL how or what AUX.FUT.PL grăi (CC1.: v) speak.INF ‘do not worry about how or what you will say’
.. Exclamatory constructions Romanian belongs to that class of languages for which the syntax of exclamatory constructions is close to that of the interrogatives (Zanuttini and Portner ). Exclamations may occur as independent statements (a), having a similar structure to that of direct interrogatives, or as embedded clauses (b), with a structure corresponding to indirect wh-interrogatives. The matrix verb of the embedded exclamatory clauses is selected from the class of verbs that introduce indirect interrogatives (}...), and the word order is that of polar interrogatives, with the subject postposed. The most frequently used wh-word in exclamatory sentences is cât (‘how much’), as an adverb (a,b) but also as an adjective (c). ()
a. Cât iubii porâncile tale și leagea how.much love.PS.SG orders.DEF.ACC your.F.PL and law.DEF.ACC ta, Doamne ( . . . )! (CC2.: ) your.F.SG Lord.VOC ‘How much I have loved your orders and your law, Lord!’ b. Gustaţi și vedeţi cât e dulce Domnul! (CC2.: ) taste.IMP.PL and see.IMP.PL how is sweet Lord.NOM ‘Taste and see how sweet is the Lord!’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Polar and wh-interrogatives. Indirect interrogatives c. O, câtă oh how.much că zise that say.PS.PL ‘Oh, how much father!’
cinste, nezisă și nespusă √, honesty NEG-speak.PPLE.F.SG and NEG-say.PPLE.F.SG blagosloviţii de părintele mieu! (CC2.: ) blessed.DEF.NOM by father.DEF.ACC my.M.SG untold and unsaid respect said the ones blessed by my
The prototypical exclamatory marker in MR, cât de (‘how’), has a more prominent exclamatory value than cât. It combines with adjectives and adverbs, functioning as an intensifying marker of the head. The corpus shows that in OR dislocations of the phrase cât de (which may occur even today, in popular syntax) are widely employed (a). In a context where de is missing, the exclamatory reading of the adverb cât is favoured by maintaining the syntactic pattern, even under circumstances of verbal ellipsis (b). The same effect is obtained in the presence of a negator (c). ()
a. Cât era el de putearnic ( . . . )! (CC2.: ) how be.IMPERF.SG he of strong ‘How strong he was!’ b. Ziceţi Domnului: cât fricoase √ lucrurile say.IMP.PL Lord.DAT.DEF how fearful.F.PL things.DEF.NOM tale! (CP1.: r) your.F.PL ‘Say to God: how fearful your things are!’ c. Și Pavel, câte lacrimi n-au vărsat (AD.–: v) and Paul how tears.ACC not=AUX.PERF.SG shed.PPLE ‘And Paul has shed so many tears’
Though less frequent than cât (‘how much’), other wh-words, which are employed in spoken MR as exclamatory phrases, are also recorded in OR: ce (‘how’) with adverbial or adjectival value (a,b) and cum (‘how’) (b). ()
a. Doamnele, ce se mulţiră Lord.DEF.VOC how CL.REFL.ACC.PL multiply.PS.PL dodeitori-mi! (PH.–: r) cavillers.DEF.NOM=CL.POSS ‘Lord, how numerous my cavillers have become!’ b. Vedeți, dară, ce soții alese are și cum see.IMP.PL then how wives.DEF.ACC distinguished has and how să aseamănă în oarecarele (AD.–: r) CL.REFL.ACC.PL resemble.PRES.PL in everything ‘See, therefore what distinguished wives he has, and how they resemble each other in everything’
.. Final remarks There are no significant differences from the modern language, from a typological and structural point of view. All major types of interrogatives may be found in OR,
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena
including multiple wh-fronting, a distinctive typological feature of Romanian. OR interrogatives are characterized by a higher degree of freedom in terms of placing the constituents, by the presence of certain additional markers for yes/no questions: au (nu), (au) doară (nu), vare, dară, and by the occurrence of certain wh-words, which are now obsolete: interrogative adverbs i(u)o (‘where’) and dencătruo (‘where from’), and phrases with causal value: că ce/căce, a ce, derept/derept ce/carea, derepce (‘why’). Indirect interrogatives display in OR a wider variety of governing verbs and also a certain instability in the mechanism of embedding the clause (either yes/no or wh-question). Mixed patterns—with markers of both direct and indirect speech— occur in all registers. The complementizer of indirect polar interrogatives is often absent, and the interrogative reading is recovered by means of interrogative particles such as au, doară, au ba. The prototypical complementizer of MR— dacă—is missing in most of the texts in the corpus. Indirect polar interrogatives are mainly constructed with de. Romanian exclamative constructions pattern with interrogatives (both polar and wh-). The exclamations found in the OR corpus are very similar to those employed in spoken MR. The exclamatory words most frequently used in OR are cât and cât de. Characteristic of constructions in the corpus is a greater variety in terms of dislocation and ellipsis, as compared with MR.
. Negators and negative constructions .. Preliminary remarks Negators and negative constructions are means of expressing positive (canonical) vs. negative (non-canonical) polarity at various levels: the sentence, constituents, and in the minimal non-analysable sentence (pro-sentence). Autonomous negators belong to various lexical-grammatical classes: pronouns, determiners, space, time or mode adverbs, and subordinators. Non-autonomous negators are verbal intensifiers. In Romanian, there are also affixal (prefixal) negators (GR: ). MR has negative accumulation, ranging from ‘double negatives’ (Pușcariu : ) to multiple negatives (GR: ): the sentential negative marker is obligatory in contexts with n-word(s), irrespective of their place in the sentence. In this respect, Romanian is similar to Balkan languages such as Bulgarian, Serbian, Croatian, Greek, and Albanian (Sandfeld : ; Dominte , : ). MR is similar to contemporary French, but different from other Romance languages such as Italian, Spanish, and European Portuguese in which the marker of sentential negation is obligatory only if the n-word is postverbal (cf. Zanuttini ; Swart ; GR: –). In the first period of OR there are structures without such negative concord (Isac ; Todi : ; Stan a: –; }...). Constructions attested in all periods of Romanian are: negative relative constructions, and those in which the negation is amplified by insertion of the negator nici ‘not/neither’ (}}...; ...), constructions with double negation, and those with expletive negation (Barbu Mititelu and Maftei Ciolăneanu ; GR: –; }...).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Negators and negative constructions
.. N-words In OR negation is expressed by negative markers, which may either be words/groups of negative words per se (}...), or words modified by addition of the negative prefix ne- (}...). ... Absolute negators N-words or n-phrases are independent lexical units, most of them inherited from Latin: nemic / nemica / nemică / nimică ‘nothing’ < NEC MĪCA or NĒMĪCA; nime / nimene / nimenea / nimilea / nimenilea ‘nobody’ < NEMO (the form NEMINEM); nicăierea, nicăiure ‘nowhere’ < NECALIUBI < NEC + *alibi volet; nece / neci / nice / nici ‘not / neither’ < NĚQUE, nu ‘no’ < NON, ni ‘neither’ < Sl. ni. Of n-words/phrases registered in OR, some are preserved in MR with minor phonological changes; others, such as ne(ce)cum ‘no way’, necedinioară ‘never’, neci întru un chip ‘in no way’ are no longer used in the standard language, but are preserved in dialects. The adverbials nu ‘no’ and nici ‘not/neither’ are polyfunctional n-words. As in MR nu is: (i) a marker of clausal negation (GALR II: –; }...); (ii) a marker of constituent negation (GALR II: ; }..); (iii) a pro-sentence (}..). The clausal negator nu has the form n- before avea ‘have’ (or other verbs beginning with a-) or with auxiliary verb ‘have’. ()
ce n-au mente (PS.–: v) CEL.M.PL that not=have.PRES.PL mind.ACC ‘the stupid ones’
a. cei
b. n-am știutu (CV.–: r) not=AUX.PERF..SG know.PPLE ‘I didn’t know’ As in MR, nici ‘not/neither’ is a connector/coordinator of additional negation, a marker of cumulative negation (}..) and an intensifier of negation (}..), but unlike standard MR, in OR nici is also a marker of clausal negation (}...). ... Affixal negators In OR, the only affix specialized for the formation of negative words is ne- ‘un-’ (from Slavic). This prefix was borrowed into Romanian prior to the separation of the dialects, through several morphologically segmentable words: nemilostiv ‘unmerciful’ < Sl. nemilostivŭ, nevinovat ‘not guilty’ < Sl. nevinovatŭ (FCLRV: ; FC II: ). In OR, negative derived forms are mainly adjectives and nouns. Negative verbal forms with this prefix are gerunds (neascultând ‘not obeying’, neiubind ‘not loving’, neplecându-se ‘not obeying’, see }...) and participles, most of them adjectivized (neadurmit ‘not asleep’, nebotezat ‘unbaptised’, nenăscut ‘unborn’, see }..). Verbs in personal forms are rarely derived with ne-: neasculta ‘disobey’ (veţi neasculta ‘you will disobey’, BB.: ), necinsti ‘to dishonour’ (pre bătrâni îi necinstim ‘the elderly ones you do not honour’, AD.–: r). Prefixation with ne- is very productive in OR. Texts in which words formed by the addition of this prefix become especially numerous after the mid-sixteenth century (Table .). The polarity positive vs. negative may be found in one and the same text: necărtularADJ,N vs. cărtular ‘scholar’ (CC1.); negătitPPLE,ADJ vs. gătit ‘cooked’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena
T . N-words with prefix neText n-words derivatives
PH.–
CC1.
Ev.
CazV.
DDL.
DPar.
(CC1.); nefricăN vs. frică ‘fear’; neiubireN vs. iubire ‘love’; netareADJ vs. tare ‘strong’; nelesneADJ,ADV vs. lesne ‘easily’ (Ev.); nepocăitPPLE,ADJ vs. pocăit ‘repentant’; negataADJ vs. gata ‘ready’; negrăitPPLE,ADJ vs. grăit ‘spoken’; neascultareN vs. ascultare ‘obedience’ (CazV.); neharnicADJ,N vs. harnic ‘dutiful’; nerăutateN vs. răutate ‘evilness’; neviclenitPPLE,ADJ vs. viclenit ‘sly’ (DDL.). .. Simple negation, double (multiple) negation, and negative concord ... Simple negation: non strict negative concord In texts from the first period of OR, words or negative phrases form constructions with simple negation, especially if they are placed to the left of the predicate verb: at the end of the sixteenth century and the beginning of the seventeenth century, Romanian does not have strict negative concord. Of all the negative words, nimic ‘nothing’ and nimeni ‘nobody’ occur most frequently in structures with simple negation (Dragomirescu ; see ()) and nici ‘not/neither’ functions as an absolute negative marker throughout OR (Ciompec : ). In texts from the second period of OR, the contexts with simple negation are found mostly in non-finite gerundial clauses (b, }...). () a. nimea amu zice (CC1.: r) nobody.NOM now say.PRES.SG ‘nobody says now’ b. împrumutaţi, nemică de-acolea așteptând (NT.: v) lend.IMP.PL nothing.ACC from there expect.GER ‘you shall lend, not expecting anything from there’ ... Double and multiple negation: strict negative concord Authentic double negation—in the strict sense in which the whole structure has an affirmative meaning—is found in OR only when the verb preceded by the negative sentential marker is followed by an n-word derived with the negative prefix ne-. For a comparison with MR, see GR: –. ()
a. nu e neînţelepciure mie (PH.–: v) not is NEG-wisdom.NOM me.DAT ‘it is not lack of wisdom from my side’ b. nu vei rămânea nepedepsit (AD.–: v) not AUX.FUT.SG remain.INF NEG-punish.PPLE.M.SG ‘you will not remain unpunished’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Negators and negative constructions
Structures like () usually alternate with sentences where two or more negative words are inserted, without a change in meaning (see also ()). ()
a. fură dzile de nu mâncă be.PS.PL days.NOM which not eat.PS.SG nemică (CSIX.–: r) nothing.ACC ‘there were five days during which he did not eat anything’ b. nime nu poate sluji a doi domni (NT.: v) nobody.NOM not can.PRES.SG serve.INF A.DAT two lords.DAT ‘nobody can serve two lords’
In these structures strict negative concord is evidenced by the presence of one or more negative words (postposed or preposed to the predicate) requiring the additional occurrence of the negative clausal marker. .. Sentential negation ... Primary analytic negation As in MR, in OR the negation of finite clauses is expressed by the clausal negator, preposed ([Negfirst]). When preceded by the independent clausal negator, finite verbal forms are not modified. In OR, an exception is the negative imperative which, in the nd person plural, displays two structures: (i) [nu + LONG INFINITIVE + PL-ţi]; (ii) [nu + PRES.PLSUBJ.PL] (Rosetti : ; ILR II: –; Densusianu II: –; Ionescu : –; }..). ()
a. nu vă spământareţi (CC1.: r) not CL.REFL.ACC.PL scare.IMP-RE.PL ‘don’t be scared’ b. nu învârtoșaţi inimile voastre (AD.–: v) not strengthen.IMP.PL hearts.DEF.ACC your ‘don’t strengthen your hearts’
The imperative with -re is not used at all in: PH.–; PO.; Prav.; MC.; MI.~, whereas in CazV. and in DDL. only the imperative with -re is used. In most texts, the two types of imperative alternate. The frequency ratio between the two is summarized in Table .. Table . The two forms of negative imperative Text CC1. CC2. Ev. DPar. AD.– PE DÎ
Type: nu fireți ‘don’t be’ % % .% .% % % %
Type: nu fiți ‘don’t be’ % % .% .% % % %
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena
The plural form of the negative imperative with -re, used in alternation with that without -re, is attested in MR only in dialectal varieties, in eastern and north-eastern Banat (TDR: ) and in Crișana (TDR: ). In some texts from the sixteenth century, the negator ne (f) is occasionally attested in alternation with the more ‘standard’ negator nu (with the variant no), nu being preserved in MR. Ne is a Slavic borrowing found in PH.–, where it has only five occurrences: r, r, , r, r (Rizescu a: ). The negative marker is placed in the first position not only before synthetic verbal forms (f), but also before the auxiliary of analytic verbal forms (a), even when the verbal form is discontinuous (b) or when the IP contains pronominal or adverbial clitics (c,d), as well as before the non-finite verbal forms in structures with inverted components (e). () a. nu vor uita lucrul Dzeului (PH.–: v) not AUX.FUT.PL forget.INF work.DEF.ACC God.GEN ‘they will not forget God’s work’ b. de n-ară fi acesta fiind (CC1.: r) if not=AUX.COND.SG be this be.GER ‘if this is not . . . ’ c. nu-l grăim (Prav.: r) not=CL.ACC.M.SG speak.PRES.PL ‘we do not say it’ d. nu mai caotă (CazV.: r) not more search.PRES.PL ‘they do not search anymore’ e. myrulu acesta nu vândutu să fie (CC2.: ) myrrh.NOM that not sell.PPLE SĂSUBJ be.SUBJ.SG ‘this myrrh should not be sold’ f. în calea greșiţiloru ne stătu (PH.–: r) in path.DEF.ACC sinners.GEN.DEF not stay.PS.SG ‘[he] did not stay in front of the sinners’ As in MR, the clausal negator is placed before the main verb, after the infinitive particle a and the subjunctive particle să, both in translated (a,c) and in original (b,d,e) texts. ()
începe a nu lua camătă și a nu begin.INF AINF not take.INF usury.ACC and AINF not asupri (CC .: ) oppress.INF ‘he will begin to not take usury and not oppress’ b. până a nu muri, eu poftescu un dar de la until AINF not die.INF I want.PRES.SG a gift.ACC from tine (Bert.: v) you.SG.ACC ‘before I die I want a gift from you’ a. va
AUX.FUT.SG 2
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Negators and negative constructions
nu greșescu cu limba mea (PS.–: r) SĂSUBJ not sin.SUBJ.SG with tongue.DEF.ACC my ‘I should not sin by speaking’
c. Se
d. să
nu aibă treabă cu această moșiie (DÎ.: X) not have.SUBJ.SG business with this estate.ACC ‘[he] should not be interested in this estate’ SĂSUBJ
nu mai cunoască urma vânătorii (Fiz.: r) SĂSUBJ not more recognize.SUBJ.PL track.DEF.ACC hunters.DEF.NOM ‘the hunters should not know the track’
e. să
In OR, nici ‘not’ also functions as a clausal negator (see also Todi : ; Rizescu a: ). As an independent negator, nici is used in literary language until the nineteenth century; it was not preserved in standard MR, but it is still present in some dialectal varieties of Romanian: in Maramureș (in a compact area in the north and north-west) and in Transylvania (in the north and north-west) (see TDR: , ). ()
a. nici poate dereage sufletul tău nimea (CC1.: v) not can.SG repair.INF soul.DEF.ACC your.M.SG nobody.NOM ‘and nobody can repair your soul’ b. nu pune mâna ta pre fiiul tău, not put.INF hand.DEF.ACC your.F.SG on son.DEF.ACC your.M.SG nice-i fă lui nemică (DPar.: III.v) not=CL.DAT.M.SG do.IMP.SG him.DAT nothing.ACC ‘do not put your hand on your son and do not harm him’
In all types of text, translated or original, throughout the period, nici has the function of autonomous negation in main clauses (), but especially in negative bi-clausal structures, where the first clause has the negative marker nu (b, a). Between the two sentences, other clauses may be interposed, so that the second clause of the bi-clausal structure, containing the marker nici, is distant from the first clause (with nu) (c). ()
a. [Nu iubi hicleanilor], [nece căota cei ce search.IMP.SG CEL.M.PL who not love.INF sinners.DEF.DAT not fac fărădeleage] (PH.–: v) do.PRES.PL crime.ACC ‘Do not love the sly ones, nor seek the company of evil doers.’ b. [n-au fost tat-său rumân den sat den not=AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE father-his.M.SG serf.SG from village.ACC from Tâncăbești], [nici îl chiamă Nedelco] (DRH.B.: ) Nedelco Tâncăbești, not CL.ACC.M.SG calls ‘his father was not a serf from the village of Tâncăbești, nor is his name Nedelco’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena c. [Atunci răspunzând zisără lui Iisus]: [nu știm] then respond.GER say.PS.PL LUI.DAT Jesus not know.PRES.PL [Și Iisus răspunzând zise lor:] and Jesus.NOM respond.GER say.PS.SG them.DAT [nece Eu voiu spune voao] (NT.: v) not I.NOM AUX.FUT.SG say.INF you.PL.DAT ‘Then they responded to Jesus: we do not know. And Jesus responded to them: nor will I tell you’ T . Structures with autonomous negator nici Text PH.– CC1. CC2. PO. Ev. CazV. DDL. DPar. AD.– ULM.~ NL.~– NCLI.~
Type I:C[nu] + c[nici] % % .% % .% .% % .% .% % .% .%
Type II:C[nu] + ( . . . ) C[nici] % % .% % – .% – .% .% % .% .%
Type IIIC[nici] % % .% % .% .% % .% .% % .% %
The frequency ratio of the three structures with autonomous negation is summarized in Table .. The analysis of these data evidences the tendency to use nici as an autonomous negation, when the preceding linguistic material contains nu (as an antecedent). This pattern is attested until late, into the first half of the nineteenth century (SILR: ), when the structure C[nu] + C[nici nu] becomes more frequent. The negative sequence nici nu ‘(and) not’, the only one found in standard MR, is very rarely attested in OR texts. () a. nice nu are nice un lucru cu neither not have.PRES.SG no a problem.ACC with Pașco Simion (CLRV.: ) Pașco Simion ‘and neither does he have a problem with Pașco Simion’ b. voiu fi cu tine, și nu te voiu AUX.FUT.SG be.INF with you.SG.ACC and not CL.ACC.SG AUX.FUT.SG lăsa, nici nu te voiu treace cu not CL.ACC.SG AUX.FUT.SG pass.INF with leave.INF neither vedearea (BB.: ) sight.DEF.ACC ‘I will support you and I will not leave you and neither will I neglect you’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Negators and negative constructions
Negative relative clauses with infinitive or subjunctive constructions appear in all types of text, throughout the period. These structures have the pattern [Neg + a avea ‘to have’/a fi ‘to be’ + relative]. In the first part of OR, the relative structure may contain: (i) an infinitive with the particle a (a); (ii) an infinitive without a (b–e); (iii) a subjunctive (f). For the second period of OR types (ii) and (iii) are principally attested (see also }...). ()
a. Nu e [cinre a face burătate] (PH.–: r) not is who AINF make.INF good.ACC ‘There is nobody to do the right thing’ b. n-au [cu ce ţinea dobitoacele sale] (PO.: ) not=have.PRES.PL with what keep.INF beast.DEF.ACC his ‘They do not have the wherewithal to keep their animals’ c. Nu vom avea [pre cine ruga] (CLRV.: ) not AUX.FUT.PL have.INF DOM who.ACC ask.INF ‘We will not have anybody to ask’ d. Hristos n-are [unde odihni] (Ev.: ) Chist.NOM not=have.PRES.SG where rest.INF ‘Christ does not have anywhere to rest’ e. n-avea [pre ce-ș cumpăra o picătură de not=have.IMPERF.SG with what=CL.REFL.DAT.SG buy.INF a drop.ACC of apă] (CazV.: v) water.ACC ‘[he] did not have anything [with which] to buy a drop of water’ f. Nu e [cine să facă bine sau dulceaţă] (CC1.: r) not is who SĂSUBJ make.SUBJ.SG good.ACC or kindness.ACC ‘There is nobody to do good or kindness’
... Primary synthetic negation Non-finite clauses may be marked for negation by adding the prefix negator ne- to the verb-form (a), as in MR. In the first part of OR, this type of negative non-finite clause alternates with the type in which negation is marked analytically, by nu (b) or nici (c) (see also }...). ()
a. nevădzând niminea, omorî pre cel eghiptean (PO.: ) NEG-see.GER nobody kill.PS.SG DOM that Egyptian.SG.ACC ‘as he could not see anybody, he killed the Egyptian’ b. luminând mințile noastre, iar nu arzând (Ev.: ) enlighten.GER minds.DEF.ACC our and not burn.GER ‘enlightening our minds, not burning [them]’ c. veni Ioan, neci mâncând, neci band și zic come.PS.SG Ioan not eating.GER not drink.GER and say.PRES.PL că are drac (NT.: v) that have.PRES.SG devil.ACC ‘John came, neither eating nor drinking, and they say he is possessed by the devil’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena
Negative non-finite clauses have the pattern C[ne-] + C[nice]. ()
a. Socotiţi crinul câmpului cum creaște, consider.IMP.PL lily.DEF.ACC field.DEF.GEN how grows neustenindu-se, nece toarce (CC1.: r) NEG-getting-tired.GER=CL.REFL.ACC not spins ‘Consider the lily of the fields, how it grows without getting tired, nor does it spin’ b. vădzând și nenţălegând, nice puind în gând see.GER and NEG-understand.GER not put.GER in thought una ca aceasta (DPar.: IV.v) one.ACC like this.F.SG ‘seeing and not understanding, nor deciding upon something like this’
.. Constituent negation As in MR, constituent negation is expressed analytically, by placing the negative marker—usually nu () but also nici in the pattern C[nu] + C[nici] ()—before the head of the phrase. ()
a. [dereptu aceaea iubeaște pre el, [nu [dereptu for that love.IMP.SG DOM him.ACC not for altceva]] (FD.–: r) something-else ‘love him for this, not for something else’ b. [Nu [acesta post]] au ales Dumnedzău (CazV.: v) not this fast.ACC AUX.PERF.SG choose.PPLE God.NOM ‘This is not the fast that God chose.’ c. [Nu [ce întră în gură spurcă pre om]], not what enters in mouth.ACC spoil.PRES.SG. DOM man.ACC ce ce iase den gură (NT.: r) but what come.out.PRES.SG from mouth.ACC ‘It is not what enters the mouth that spoils a man, but what comes out of his mouth’ d. și-i duce la drumuri [nu and=CL.ACC.M.PL lead.PRES.SG to ways.ACC not [bune]] (DPar.: III.r) right ‘and it takes them on the wrong path’ e. [nu [ucigând pre vrăjmașii săi]], ce pentru ei DOM enemies.DEF.ACC his but for them.ACC not kill.GER însuș murind (Ev.: ) themselves.M die.GER ‘not killing their enemies, but dying for themselves’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Negators and negative constructions ()
a. [Nu [morţii]] laudă-te, Doamne, [nice [toţi not dead.men.DEF.NOM praise.PRES.PL=CL.ACC.SG God.VOC not all.PL.NOM ce deștingu întru iadu]], ce noi (PV.–: v) hell.ACC but we.NOM who descend.PRES.PL into ‘It is not the dead men which praise you, God, nor all those who descend into hell, but we’ b. Veniţi [nu [la lucru]], [nice [la trudă]], ce la come.IMP.PL not to work.SG.ACC not to labor.SG.ACC but to veselii (CazV.: r) joys.DEF.ACC ‘Come not to work, nor to labour, but to joy’
In the context of a negative sentence marked by nu, constituent negation may be realized by the repetition of nici, with a double function: to amplify and to intensify the negation (}}..; ..). Constituent negation can be marked by the addition of the adverbial numai to the negator nu, in the sequence nu numai . . . ce/ci (see }..). .. The negative pro-sentence In texts containing direct speech nu ‘no’ may be used as a pro-sentence only if it is connected to another sequence in a response or as a coordinated pro-sentence (a). Only ba (borrowed from Bulgarian), synonymous with nu, occurs autonomously ((b), see Rizescu a: ). Ba, with the meaning ‘on the contrary’ (DA) may precede nu (c). ()
a. Nu, Doamne, omule a lui Dumnedzău, nu not not God.VOC man.DEF.VOC AL.INV LUI.GEN God minciuna pe șarba ta! (DPar.: III.r) lie.IMP.SG DOM servant.DEF.ACC your.F.SG ‘No, God, man of God, do not lie to your servant’ b. El răspunse și dzise: Ba (FD.–: v) he respond.PS.SG and say.PS.SG not ‘He responded by saying: On the contrary’ c. Ba nu iaste așa (AD.–: r) not not is so ‘It is not so’
The pro-sentence nu can occur, infrequently, in the conditional clausal pattern, preserved in colloquial MR ((); see also: CT.–: r; CC2.: ). () Nu vei proroci pre numele Domnului; iară [de nu], and if not not AUX.FUT.SG profess.INF in name.DEF.ACC God.GEN muri-veri în mânule noastre! (DPar.: III.v) die.INF=AUX.FUT.SG in hands.DEF.ACC our ‘You will not profess in the name of God; and if not [i.e. ‘otherwise’], you will die in our hands’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena
.. Additional negation In syntactic structures of the same rank which express associative and cumulative relationships, the adverbial nici is similar to a coordinator; it can be interpreted as the negative counterpart of the positive coordinator și ‘and’. In texts from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, however, just as in MR, nici sometimes occurs after și, an indication that nici is an adverb rather than a conjunction; the sequence și nici ‘and not/and neither’ indicates a cumulative negation (GALR II: –). ()
a. limbile nici scriptură avea, și scripture.ACC have.IMPERF.PL and peoples.DEF.NOM not/neither nici leage, și nici învăţătură (CC2.: ) not/neither legislation.ACC and not/neither teaching.ACC ‘the peoples had no scripture, and no law, and no teaching’ b. și nice aicea ( . . . ) nu o dobândești (CazV.: v) and not here not CL.ACC.F.SG acquire.PRES.SG ‘and you do not acquire it here either’
... Binary negative structures with nici Binary negative structures nici . . . nici ‘neither . . . nor’, similar to positive structures și . . . și ‘both . . . and’ (see }..), are frequent. In the second period of OR, negative binary structures are mainly non-clausal or non-sentential. The number of occurrences in the texts is: PH.– = five; CC1. = twenty-five; Prav. = six; PO. = fifteen; MC. = eight; Ev. = twenty; CazV. = sixty; DPar. = sixteen; AD.– = thirty; ULM.~ = thirty-five; NL.~– = thirty-five; NCLI.~ = fifteen. () a. Nece e fărădeleagea mea, nece e păcatul mieu, not is misdeed.DEF.NOM my not is sin.DEF.NOM my Doamne (PH.–: r) Lord.VOC ‘It is neither my misdeed nor my sin, Lord’ b. Mâne să te întorci la mine, dar să tomorrow SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.SG come.back.SUBJ.SG to me.ACC but SĂSUBJ nu fii nici gol, nici îmbrăcat (Bert.: r) not be.SUBJ.SG not naked not clothed ‘Tomorrow, you should come back to me, but you must be neither clothed or unclothed’ ... Cumulative nici in negative structures Cumulative nici occurs in structures of the type C[nu] + C[nici] extended (see }..). No differences can be detected between the translated (a) and the original (b) texts.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Negators and negative constructions ()
a. Svântul acela nu socoti // pre dracul, saint.SG.DEF.NOM that not consider.PS.SG DOM devil.DEF.ACC nice-l amână, nice cătră casa lu house.DEF.ACC LUI.GEN not=CL.ACC.M.SG delay.PS.SG not to Dumnezeu ( . . . ) tremese (CSVI.–: r) God send.PS.SG ‘That saint did not think about the devil, nor did he put him off, nor did he send him to God’s house’ b. n-au agonesit cine șie, nice au not=AUX.PERF.SG gather.PPLE somebody himself not AUX.PERF.SG ţinut cineș al său, nice s-au not CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG keep.PPLE somebody AL.M.SG his grijit cineș de sine (CLRV.: ) self care.PPLE somebody of ‘They did not gather much fortune, nor did they keep what was theirs, nor did they take care of themselves’
.. Increased specificity of negation The most frequent negative intensifier in OR is the adverbial nici. As in MR, the reading is sometimes ambiguous between intensifier and marker of cumulative negation (}..). The linear order indicates that the intensifier function is stronger in OR than in MR. In OR, nici is preposed to the nominal (a), as well as to the preposition in the quantifier phrase ((b), }...), the synthetic verbal form (c), and the lexical verb in an analytic verbal form (d,e). ()
a. nece noao nu vor fi iertate neither us.DAT not AUX.FUT.PL be.INF forgive.PPLE.F.PL păcatele noastre (CC1.: v) sins.DEF.NOM our ‘and our sins will not be forgiven’ b. nu lăsă nece pre unul să meargă după not let.PS.SG neither DOM one SĂSUBJ go.SUBJ.SG after Sine (NT.: r) self ‘he did not let anybody follow him’ c. pre
săraci nu nice caotă de sărăciia ( . . . ) poor.M.PL.ACC not neither searches of poverty.DEF.ACC lor (CazV.: v) their.GEN ‘[he] did not ask the poor ones about their poverty’ DOM
cei
CEL.M.PL
d. n-au nece secerat (Ev.: ) not=AUX.PERF.PL neither harvest.PPLE ‘they did not harvest’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena e. căruia numele nu să nice who.GEN name.DEF.NOM not CL.REFL.PASS neither povesteaște (CLM.–: v) narrates ‘whose name is neither told . . . ’
Frequent intensifiers in OR are cumva ‘somehow’ (preserved in MR), necum/ nececum ‘not at all’, and nece într-un chip ‘in no way’ (no longer used in MR). Cumva is placed before the main verb, after the negator nu. The subjunctive particle să may be repeated as in MR (a). There are also contexts in which this particle is not repeated (b); see also }.... nu cumva să vatămi (CC1.: r) SĂSUBJ not somehow SĂSUBJ hurt.SUBJ.SG ‘you should not somehow hurt’ b. să nu cumva vină ucenicii Lui SĂSUBJ not somehow come.SUBJ.PL disciples.DEF.NOM his.GEN noaptea să-L fure pre El (NT.: v) night.DEF SĂSUBJ=CL.ACC.M.SG kidnap.SUBJ.PL DOM him.ACC ‘his disciples should not somehow come at night to kidnap him’
() a. să
c. el nu vru nicecum (FD.–: v) he not wish.PS.SG not.at.all ‘he did not want at all . . . ’ d. nice într-un chip nu-l lăsa în pace not.at.all not=CL.ACC.M.SG let.IMPERF.SG in peace Radul vodă (CLM.–: v) Radu voivode.NOM ‘Radu Voivode would just not leave him alone’ .. Expletive negation and negation raising ... Expletive negation Expletive negation (the occurrence of the negator nu in a clause with affirmative meaning) is attested from the first part of OR; the structures are preserved in MR as well (see Barbu Mititelu and Maftei Ciolăneanu : ; GALR: ; GR: ). In the texts investigated, the most frequent patterns are (i) and (ii) below, used both in translations and in original texts. The patterns (iii)–(vi) are rare, and the contexts are given in (a–d): (i) the temporal adjuncts introduced by subordinator până ‘until’, ‘before’ + nu ‘no’ in structures such as: [nu . . . ]negative matrix clause + [până nu . . . ]clausal adjunct (a); see also }... (ii) the rhetorical interrogative (b) (iii) a se teme ‘to be afraid’ + săSUBJ + nu + verb (the subordinate clauses of the verb a se teme ‘to be afraid/to fear ’), probably after the Latin pattern timeo ne veniat (c) (iv) a opri, a interzice ‘to forbid’ + săSUBJ + nu + verb (d) (v) a împiedica, a feri ‘to stop, to prevent, to fend’ + săSUBJ + nu + verb (e) (vi) the negative relative clause with a subjunctive (f)
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Negators and negative constructions ()
a. n-am a te lăsa, drace, până nu not=have.AUX.FUT.SG AINF CL.ACC.SG let.INF devil.VOC until not te veri giura (CSVI.–: r) CL.REFL.ACC.SG AUX.FUT.SG swear.INF ‘I will not leave you alone, devil, until you do swear’ b. Dumnezeu, pre toț chiemând la sine ( . . . ) DOM all.ACC call.GER at himself.ACC God.NOM ‘Și cine nu va alerga?’ (AD.–: v) And who not AUX.FUT.SG run.INF ‘God calls to himself all. “And who will not run”?’ c. să temea turcii să nu se CL.REFL.ACC.PL fear.IMPERF.PL Turks.DEF.NOM SĂSUBJ not CL.REFL.ACC.SG dea Ţara Moldovei în partea give.SUBJ.SG country Moldova.GEN on part.DEF Leșilor (CLM.–: r) Poles.DEF.GEN ‘the Turks were afraid that Moldova could take the Poles’ side’ d. toţi era opriţi să nu lucreaze cu all be.IMPERF.PL stop.PPLE.M.PL SĂSUBJ. not work.SUBJ.PL with mânile (CC2.: ) hands.DEF.ACC ‘they were all forbidden from working with their hands’ e. te-am ferit, cum ( . . . ) să nu CL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG fend.PPLE because SĂSUBJ not greșești (PO.: ) sin.SUBJ.SG ‘I prevented you from making a mistake’ f. n-are [cum să nu asculte Dumnezeu] (CC1.: r) not=has how SĂSUBJ not listen.SUBJ.SG God.NOM ‘it is impossible for God not to listen’
... Negation raising The structures employed in religious exegetic texts are similar to those described in }..., in which the verb of the main clause is marked for negation, but the content of the entire clause is affirmative, while in the subordinate clause, the form is affirmative but its content is negative. In the context in (), the rhetorical mechanism is essentially overt. () Fiiul omenesc n-au venit, să piarză not=AUX.PERF.SG come.PPLE SĂSUBJ lose.SUBJ.SG son.DEF.NOM human sufletele oamenilor ce să le souls.DEF.ACC people.PL.DEF.GEN but SĂSUBJ CL.ACC.M.PL mântuiască (NT.: r) save.SUBJ.SG ‘The human son did not come to lose the people’s souls, but to save them’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena
.. Final remarks The OR inventory of negators is much the same as in MR. Autonomous negators display some phonological differences from their MR correspondents. Some nonautonomous negative markers are not preserved in MR; only one affixal negative marker is attested in OR, the prefix ne-, attached mainly to adjectives, nouns, gerunds, participles, and, occasionally, adverbs and inflected verbal forms. The OR negative imperative nd plural has two forms, both preceded by the clausal negator: an inflectional form whose stem is the long infinitive (with -re) and a form homophonous with the indicative present and subjunctive. In OR, nici can function as a clausal autonomous negative marker, as well as a marker of constituent negation. In the first period of OR, texts display both strict and non-strict negative concord (similar to MR). Bi- or multi-clausal structures with different markers (nu and nici, of the type [nu Vinflected] + C[nici Vinflected]), frequent in OR, are not preserved in standard C contemporary Romanian. Some negative structures, such as those with strict double negation, with expletive negation, and with negation raising are used only in some of the patterns which exist in MR (see GR: –).
. Presentative constructions OR does not have grammaticalized existential constructions, but it employs several presentative markers (similar to ECCE ‘look! lo! behold!’), of different origins: the most frequent are iată (< Sl. eto) and adecă (probably of Latin origin, despite some controversial explanations: ADDE QUOD, or ID EST QUOD, etc.; see Procopovici ; DA; DELR, etc.); other forms are iaca (or iacă) (from the interjection ia + că ‘that’, or from ECCE, ECCAM, or ECCUM, see Ciorănescu ; Frâncu : ), iacătă (< iată că, or a contamination between iată and iaca). Presentative markers are frequent in religious texts, where they translate Slavonic or Greek markers (se; ιδού), and in legal documents, especially in frozen formulae of self-identification (like the Slavonic se and eto). Presentatives are predicates with an NP/DP or a clausal complement, or parenthetical markers. Parenthetical presentatives may be pragmaticalized as focalizers or discourse connectors. In the sixteenth century (see Manu Magda ), adecă and iată are in competition, since they have very similar functions; adecă is the only presentative marker in CP1. and PS.– and it is the most frequent in PH.–, CB.–, and CV.–; while iată is preferred in CT.–, CC1., and CC2.; in PO, the form iaca prevails (Zafiu a). In the second OR period, adecă (which is less integrated into the syntactic structure from the earliest texts) loses its presentative function (except for some legal formulae) and becomes a prototypical paraphrastic reformulation marker (Zafiu a; Zamfir ; }..). In MR, iată preserves all its functions, while adding new pragmatic values; iaca and iacătă also continue to be presentatives, but they are restricted to the colloquial register.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Presentative constructions
Iată (as well as its equivalent iacătă) expresses its deictic presentative value by functioning as a predicate; its complements are DPs (a), NPs, or pronominal clitics (b) in the accusative; nominative forms (c) are exceptions and they probably represent an ellipsis. ()
a. iată mielulu lu Dumnezeu (CC2.: ) behold lamb.DEF.ACC LUI.GEN God ‘behold the lamb of God’ b. Iată-mă aicea (PO.: ) look=CL.ACC.SG here ‘Here am I’ c. zise: Iată eu (BB.: ) say.PS.SG look I ‘he said: Behold, here I am’
Adecă allows similar nominal complements (a), but it does not accept clitics; the elliptical construction with a pronoun in the nominative is the rule, not the exception (b). ()
a. Adecă corabiia (CPr.: ) behold ship.DEF ‘Behold the ship’ b. E el zise: Adecă eu, Doamne (CPr.: ) Lord.VOC and he say.PS.SG behold I ‘And he said: Behold, I am here, Lord’
Deictic presentatives may be used without explicit complements and do not mark the proximal/distal distinction, which may be indicated by specific locative adverbs. () Iată acicea sau iată acolo (NT.: v) look here or look there ‘Look here; or, look there’ Presentatives also function as predicates with a clausal complement that describes a state or an event (as so-called ‘event deictics’, Bergen and Plauché : ). The argument clause is introduced by the complementizer că ‘that’ or by a wh-phrase. This construction is specific to iată (a) and very rare with adecă (b) (see Zafiu a: –). ()
a. Suflete, iată că ai mult bine! (Ev.: ) soul.VOC behold that have.PRES.SG much good ‘Soul, behold, you have much good!’ b. Și adecă că poartă chipu de robu (CC2.: ) and behold that wears face.ACC of slave.ACC ‘And behold, he has the aspect of a slave’
As parenthetical adverbial markers, presentatives (event deictics and rhematic markers) are prototypically placed sentence-initially.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena
() a. Iată, v-aţi îmbogăţit (CPr.–: ) look CL.REFL.PL=AUX.PERF.PL enrich.PPLE ‘Behold, you have become rich’ b. grăi robiloru săi: “Adecă, nunta gata say.PS.SG servants.DEF.DAT his behold wedding.DEF.NOM ready iaste” (CC2.: ) is ‘he said to his servants, Look, the wedding is ready’ Self-presentation formulae at the beginning of legal documents (imitating Slavonic ones) illustrate the same discourse functions (a,b). ()
a. Iată eu egumenul și tot săborul ( . . . ) behold I prior.DEF.NOM and all assembly.DEF.NOM scriem închinăciune (DÎ.: LXXXII) write.PRES.PL reverence.ACC ‘I, the prior, and all the assembly ( . . . ), write with reverence’ b. Adăcă eu, Marin o(t) Boldești, scris-am acest behold I Marin from Boldești write.PPLE=AUX.PERF.SG this zapis (DÎ.: VII) document.ACC ‘I, Marin from Boldești, wrote this document’
Presentatives also develop the value of narrative connectors, marking discontinuity or surprise (a), especially when following a temporal or conditional construction (Avram : ); adecă functions sometimes as a continuity (conclusive) connector (b). ()
a. Ce cugetând el aceastea, iată îngerul Domnului i but think.GER he these.ACC behold angel.DEF.NOM Lord.DEF.GEN CL.DAT.SG să arătă lui în somn (NT.: v) CL.REFL.SG show.PS.SG him.DAT in sleep ‘But while he thought of these things, behold, the Lord’s angel appeared to him in a dream’ b. Căzu adecă soţul lui, la picioarele lui (NT.: r) fall.PS.SG then companion.DEF.NOM his at feet.DEF.ACC his ‘And his companion fell down at his feet’
In the sixteenth century, two presentatives sometimes co-occur (Densusianu II: ): adecă occupies the first place (resembling more closely a connector), and iată, or its equivalents, the second position (as a focal marker). () Demâneaţa iară adecă iaca Liia (PO.: ) morning.DEF again behold behold Leah.NOM ‘in the morning, behold, it was Leah’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Cognate objects and other pleonastic constructions
Other presentative constructions (see Manu Magda ) are not grammaticalized; they employ lexical verbs in imperative or subjunctive, deictic adverbs, topicalization, etc. The inventory of OR presentative markers is larger than that of standard MR. Their syntactic behaviour as predicates differs from the future mainly through their construction with a nominative NP. Their uses as parenthetical markers are already well diversified, foreshadowing the development of further pragmatic values.
. Cognate objects and other pleonastic constructions .. Preliminary remarks Cognate constructions are encountered frequently in OR. In translations, where they are the most frequent, they copy pleonastic structures occurring in the original Slavonic religious texts, which, in turn, are taken over literally from the Greek and, ultimately, from the Hebrew versions of the Scriptures (Avram : ; Arvinte : XLIII; Gamanovich : ), but they are not altogether absent from non-religious translations, such as literary narrative or legislative writing. They are still present in modern religious translations (Teleoacă ). Most types of redundant structures are also encountered in original texts (}}..–..). The occurrence of cognate structures in original texts has a different explanation from that applying to translations: pleonastic repetition in different forms, such as pleonastic verb + gerund structures or the use of internal objects, is a feature of orality in OR (Pană-Boroianu ) and still occurs in non-standard MR (Mărgărit ). In OR, repetitive structures, externalizing the Theme/Result/Content, are far more varied than in standard MR, which preserves only some of the internal direct object constructions (a dormi somn adânc ‘sleep a deep sleep’). They are made up of two constituents: (i) with the same root; (ii) synonymous; (iii) in a hypo-/hyperonym relationship; they occupy the following syntactic positions: verb + direct object (a); verb + dative indirect object (b); verb + secondary object (c); verb + subject (d); verb + adjuncts (e); noun + modifier (f) (see Dragomirescu and Nicolae a). Repetitive structures also occur at sentential level, involving a relative clause (g); see }... A special type of pleonastic structure, quite frequent in the first OR period and with less occurrences in the second, contains two verbs of saying, either coordinated or having one verb subordinated to the other (Chivu : ); see }... ()
dare după darea lor (CP1.: v) a. Dă-lă give.IMP.SG=CL.DAT.PL gift.ACC after gift.DEF.ACC their ‘Give them as much as they give’ b. Câţi se vor întina how.many.NOM CL.REFL.ACC.PL AUX.FUT.PL taint.INF întinăreei (CC2.: ) tainting.DEF.DAT ‘How many will be tainted’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena c. Sărutaţi-mă sărutare de apoi (CSV.–: r) kiss.IMP.PL=CL.ACC.SG kiss.ACC of then ‘Give me the last kiss’ d. Cei îmblători îmblară (PH.–: v) CEL.M.PL walking.PL.NOM walk.PS.PL ‘Those that could walk walked’ e. Laudu el cu laudă (PH.–: r) praise.PRES.SG him.ACC with praise.ACC ‘I praise him’ începu cuvânt de zicere (PO.: ) start.PS.SG word.NOM of saying ‘the preaching started’
f. se
CL.REFL.PASS
g. poruncile [ce au fost dat și poruncit commands.DEF that AUX.PERF.SG be.PPLE give.PPLE and order.PPLE Domnedzeu] (PO.: ) God.NOM ‘the commandments that God had given’ .. Internal realizations of subject / object / adjuncts Among repetitive structures (a–g), those with an internal direct object are the most frequent, both in translations and in original texts (Guruianu : ). The internal direct object usually occurs with transitive verbs (a–c), frequently taking a modifier (b), and it may (a) or may not (c) have the same root as the verb. ()
plăti ţie plata (PH.–: v) AUX.FUT.SG pay.INF you.SG.DAT payment.DEF.ACC ‘he will pay you’
a. va
b. Cela ce va fura furtușag mare (Prav.: ) that which AUX.FUT.SG steal.INF stealing.ACC great ‘He who will steal something big’ c. Adam chemă numele muierei sale Eva (PO.: ) Adam.NOM call.PS.SG name.DEF.ACC wife.DEF.GEN his.POSS Eve ‘Adam called his wife Eve’ Unlike MR, internal direct objects are also selected by (a) and, occasionally, by unergative verbs of undirected motion (b,c); see also Dragomirescu and Nicolae (a). () a. Mare greșală au greșit noao big mistake.ACC AUX.PERF.PL mistake.PPLE us.DAT vecinii (CC2.: ) neighbours.DEF.NOM ‘The neighbours wronged us greatly’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Cognate objects and other pleonastic constructions
b. Îmblet de trei dzile vom merge în pustie (PO.: ) walk.ACC of three days AUX.FUT.PL walk.INF in desert ‘We shall walk in the desert for three days’ c. ce și în fapte bune sufletească îmblare să but also in deeds good spiritual.F.SG walk.F.ACC SĂSUBJ îmblaţi (CazV.: v) walk.SUBJ.PL ‘but take a spiritual walk by doing good deeds’ Rarely, the internal argument is a dative object, selected by reflexive verbs (b, ), or it occurs inside repetitive relative clauses with a nominal antecedent (see }..). ()
bucuraţi-vă bucurieei negrăită și rejoice.IMP.PL=CL.REFL.ACC.PL joy.F.DEF.DAT NEG-speak.F.SG.PPLE and proslăvită (CPr.: ) glorify.F.SG.PPLE ‘rejoice in a silent and glorious joy’
The internal secondary object, attested in translations, occurs with verbs of saying (a,b), but also with other verbs (c). It is also attested inside repetitive relative clauses with a nominal antecedent (}..; see also }...). ()
a. trei întrebări întrebară Iudeii părinţii three questions.ACC ask.PS.PL Jews.DEF.NOM parents.DEF.ACC orbului (CC2.: ) blind.man.DEF.GEN ‘the Jews asked three questions’ b. prinse a-l lăuda laude start.PS.SG AINF=CL.ACC.M.SG praise.INF praises.ACC mari (FD.–: r) big ‘he started to praise him greatly’
In translated and, less frequently, in original texts, cognate structures with an Agentive (a), Theme (b), and Experiencer (c) internal subject are attested. The internal subject is also attested within repetitive relative clauses (see }}..; ...). ()
a. Prin mine împărațâi împărățăsc (DPar.: II.r) through me.ACC emperors.DEF.NOM reign.PRES.PL ‘Through me emperors reign’ b. înturearecul nu va întureca de la darkness.DEF.NOM not AUX.FUT.SG make.dark.INF from tinre (PH.–: v) you.ACC ‘it will not become dark because of you’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena c. auzitul aude (CT.–: r) hear.PPLE.DEF.NOM hears ‘the one that can hear will hear’
Repetitive structures with prepositional phrases in adjunct position—manner (a), instrumental (b), locative (c), comitative adverbials (d), etc.—are very frequent. () a. bucurarî-se cu bucurie mare (CT.–: r) rejoice.PS.PL=CL.REFL.ACC.PL with joy.ACC great ‘they rejoiced greatly’ b. cu moarte vei muri (PO.: ) with death.ACC AUX.FUT.SG die.INF ‘you will die’ c. Coaperi-mă în coperimântul arepilor cover.IMP.SG=CL.ACC.SG in cover.DEF.ACC wings.DEF.GEN tale (CP1.: v) your ‘Cover me with your wings’ d. Cu întorţii întoarce-te-viri (CP1.: r) with return.PL.PPLE.DEF return.INF=CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.FUT.SG ‘You will return with those that are returning’ Repetitive structures with a verb and an adverb in adjunct position are rare. () și de să împreuneadză dempreună (FD.–: v) and if CL.REFL.ACC.PL get.together.PRES.PL together ‘and if they sleep together’ Constructions with postverbal nouns of saying are frequently attested (see Creţia : ). They are internal realizations of manner/instrumental adjuncts (a), or accusative object DPs (b). Structures with internal instrumental adjuncts are also attested in the Slavonic original texts (Gamanovich : ). () a. cu glas mare strigă (CC2.: ) with voice.ACC great shout.PS.SG ‘he shouted in a loud voice’ b. El răspunse ei cuvânt (CT.–: r) he answer.PS.SG her.DAT word.ACC ‘He answered her’ .. Relative pleonastic constructions Repetitive relative structures are very frequent both in original (a) and in translated texts (b). The wh-phrase introducing the relative clause can be ce ‘what’ or, more rarely, cât ‘how much’ and care ‘which’; its nominal antecedent and the verbal head within the wh-clause have the same root. The wh-phrase occupies the direct (a) or secondary (b) object position in the wh-clause.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Cognate objects and other pleonastic constructions ()
a. cu cumpărătura ce-am cumpărat (DÎ.: X) with purchase.DEF.ACC that=AUX.PERF.SG purchase.PPLE ‘with what I purchased’ b. A treia este darul ce te dăruiaște (FD.–: r) third.F is gift.DEF which CL.ACC.SG offers ‘The third is the gift that is offered to you’
Verbs of saying rarely occur in full (a) and reduced (gerundial) restrictive (b) relatives. In (b) the gerund clause modifies a constituent inside the DP other than the head noun. ()
a. grăitele Isaiei prorocul ce grăia (CT.–: r) words.DEF Isaiah.GEN prophet.DEF which speak.IMPERF.SG ‘the words of prophet Isaiah who was speaking’ b. să
izbândească zicere prorocilor end.SUBJ.SG discourse.NOM prophets.DEF.GEN grăind (CT.–: r) say.GER ‘for the prophets’ discourse to end’ SĂSUBJ
se
CL.REFL.ACC.SG
.. Verbs of saying in pleonastic constructions Frequently, two quasi-synonymous or identical verbs of saying occur in pleonastic structures, mainly in translated religious writings (b,d,f), but also in original texts (c,e,g). They are usually coordinated: two juxtaposed verbs (a,c), verbs coordinated through și ‘and’ (b) or through de ‘~and’ (d,e). One of the two verbs may also be subordinated to the other; the subordinate clause is gerundial (f,g). Often, the verb + gerund and the coordinated structures also occur in the Slavonic originals. What is specific to Romanian is the free variation between the two coordinating conjunctions și ‘and’ and de ‘and’. The shared syntactic characteristics of these structures are: (i) the identical tense of two finite verbs (a–e), and (ii) obligatory subject coreferentiality, with a strong preference for its realization only in the first of the two clauses (a,d,g). The two verbs usually enter a hyponym–hyperonym relationship, with the more general term most frequently occurring second (a,b,d,e,j). The two verbs of saying are quite frequently perfect synonyms (f). Most often, both verbs of saying are coordinated. Alternatively, when a gerund is present in the structure, it may be interpreted as an instrument (g), but usually it is a secondary predication (f). In more than % of cases, the repetitive structure is followed by a colon marking the beginning of direct speech (g). The second verb of saying can, therefore, be analysed as a second, lexical direct speech marker, next to punctuation. When it is followed by a complementizer, it is the marker of indirect speech (b). ()
a. răspunse Iacov, grăi (CB.–: ) answer.PS.SG Jacob.NOM speak.PS.SG ‘Jacob answered, he said’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena grăit ș-au zis că sânt speak.PPLE and=AUX.PERF.PL say.PPLE that be.PRES.PL sufletul acătărui om (CC1.: ) soul.DEF that.GEN man ‘They spoke and said that they are the soul of that man’
b. Au
AUX.PERF.PL
c. povesteaște, tâlcuiaște și zice (CIst.–: r) tells invents and says ‘he tells, invents and says’ d. el i-au răspuns de i-au he CL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.SG answer.PPLE and CL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.SG dzis așea (Prav.: ) say.PPLE so ‘he answered like this’ e. au
răcnit de i-au shout.PPLE and CL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.SG dzis (NL.~–: ) say.PPLE ‘he shouted at him’ f. Aduceţi-vă aminte cum au zis bring.IMP.PL=CL.REFL.DAT.PL in.mind how AUX.PERF.SG say.PPLE voao ( . . . ), zicând ( . . . ) (CC1.: r-v) you.PL.DAT say.GER ‘Remember how he said to you ( . . . ), saying ( . . . )’ g. El au răspuns, ( . . . ) dzicând: ( . . . ) (CD.: r) say.GER he AUX.PERF.SG answer.PPLE ‘He answered ( . . . ), saying ( . . . )’ AUX.PERF.SG
In the first OR period, juxtaposed pleonastic structures are the most frequent (around % of occurrences), followed by structures coordinated through și ‘and’ (around % of occurrences), by the finite verb + gerund configuration (around % of occurrences), and by structures containing two verbs coordinated through de ‘~and’ (around % of occurrences). It is not the case that one and the same pattern is preferred overall: for instance, in CC2. the și-coordinated structure has the most occurrences, in Ev., the verb + gerund construction is the most frequent, while in ȘT. the de-coordinated configuration is employed almost exclusively (in % of pleonastic structures). In the second OR period, the verb + gerund structure has the most attestations, followed by the verbs coordinated through și or de ‘and’, while the structure with juxtaposed verbs is absent. The two verbs of saying are usually not identical (a–e,g). In some contexts the same verb is repeated (f). There are no attestations of identical verbs in de-coordinated structures. Besides verbs of saying, other verbs occur, infrequently, in pleonastic constructions in which one verb is a gerundial adjunct in anteposition to the matrix verb ().
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Feminine singular pronouns with neutral value ()
a. îmblăndu îmbla (PS.–: ) walk.GER walk.IMPERF.SG ‘as for walking, he walked’ b. Așteptând am așteptat pre Domnul (DPar.: II.v) wait.GER AUX.PERF.SG wait.PPLE DOM Lord.DEF.ACC ‘As for waiting, I waited for the Lord’
.. Final remarks In OR there is a greater variety of syntactic positions with internal realization than in MR. The occurrence of the internal direct object with unaccusative verbs in OR is remarkable, as it is no longer attested in standard MR. The gerund progressively evolves towards a supplementary direct and indirect speech marker in pleonastic structures with verbs of saying. Repetitive structures are more frequent in translations than in original texts, while most patterns are generally found in both. All types of repetitive structure are preserved in modern religious translations, showing that this pattern became a characteristic of the religious language. Both in standard and (especially) in dialectal MR, internal direct objects, subjects, and (partially) adjuncts, as well as pleonastic wh-structures, survive.
. Feminine singular pronouns with neutral value .. Preliminary remarks The category of Romanian feminine singular pronouns with neutral value comprises, on the one hand, global anaphors, in the case of which the referential source is a simple or a complex sentence (a), and, on the other hand, certain units which show a very weak connection, if any, to the referential antecedent (b,c) (Lombard : , , ; Sandfeld and Olsen : –; Iliescu : –); Zafiu , ; Pană Dindelegan ). The effect of the loss of the connection to the referential source results either in a vague meaning (b) or in complete bleaching, which gives rise to expletive or ‘dummy’ uses in idiomatic constructions (c). ()
voao, [să vă iubiţi a. [Aceasta]i zic this.F.SG.ACC say.PRES.SG you.PL.DAT SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.PL love.PRES.PL unulu cu alaltu]i (CC2.: ) one.M with other.M ‘This is what I am telling you: to love one another’ b. unul una, altul alta one.M.SG.NOM one.F.ACC other.M.NOM other.F.SG.ACC băsnuiaște (CIst.–: r) makes.up ‘one makes up something, other makes up another thing’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena c. care ( . . . ) au rupt-o de fugă (end of th c., in DLR) AUX.PERF.PL tear.PPLE=it.EXPL.F.SG.ACC of run who ‘who ( . . . ) took to their heels’
The phenomenon of feminine singular pronouns with neutral value has been considered a distinctive trait of Romanian among the Romance languages. In this respect, Romanian resembles idioms such as Aromanian (for the Aromanian examples, see DIARO: , , ) or Albanian, where the phenomenon is available for different classes of pronouns (Sandfeld : –). The corresponding Romance pronouns have masculine singular forms (Reinheimer and Tasmowski : ). Sporadically, some Italian varieties display the same situation as Romanian and Balkan languages (Ferro : ). Espinal () points out, for Catalan, French, Italian, Spanish, and Greek, the existence, in verbal idiomatic constructions, of a pronominal clitic (in the accusative feminine singular or plural, and sporadically in the genitive), similar to the expletive clitic in idiomatic Romanian constructions such as (c). .. The inventory of feminine pronominals with a neutral value The entire MR inventory of feminine pronominals with a neutral value is also present in the sixteenth century, with small differences of usage and frequency. As in MR, the singular forms are the most frequent, but plural forms (a,b) are also registered. Given the F.PLNEUT.PL homonymy, the latter can be interpreted as neuter plural forms. () a. Înţeles-aţi acestea toate? (CM.: v) understand.PPLE=AUX.PERF.PL these.F.ACC all.F.PL ‘Have you understood all these?’ b. au
scris de unele, alţii de write.PPLE of some.F.PL others.M.PL.NOM of altele (MC.: r) others.F.PL.ACC ‘(they) have written about some things, others about other’ AUX.PERF.PL
... The demonstratives aceasta ‘this’, aceea ‘that’ The occurrence of these forms as global anaphors (in argument positions—direct object (a) or secondary object (b)—or complement of preposition (c)) is frequent in OR. ()
a. Aceaea dăm știre (DÎ.: CIII) that.F.SG.ACC give.PRES.PL announcement.ACC ‘We are announcing this’ b. Și [aceasta]i învaţă pre noi Dumnezeu, [să nu SĂSUBJ not and this.F.SG.ACC teaches DOM us.ACC God.NOM ţinem pizmă]i (CC2.: ) hold.SUBJ.PL envy.ACC ‘And this is what God teaches us, not to envy others’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Feminine singular pronouns with neutral value
c. Un filosof care cu [aceaea]i s-au trufit a philosopher who with that.F.SG CL.REFL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG boast.PPLE [cum că el știe toate meșterșugurile]i (CDicţ.–: ) how that he knows all.F.PL crafts.DEF.ACC ‘A philosopher who boasted that he knows all the crafts’ At the same time, the use of certain prepositional phrases expressing reason or purpose (introduced by the prepositions de, derept/dirept, pentru/păntru ‘for’), or temporal values (introduced by the preposition dup(ă) ‘after’) and containing either the proximal or the distal demonstrative in the feminine singular ((a)cesta ‘this’, (a)ceea ‘that’) is frequent. As early as the old period, their frequent occurrence in sentence-initial position points to their stereotypical behaviour as sentence connectors. ()
a. De aceasta rugămu pre for this.F.SG.ACC ask.PRES.PL DOM ‘This is why we are asking you’ b. Direptu aceea mă for that.F.SG.ACC CL.REFL.ACC.SG ‘That is why I am asking you’
dumieavostră (SB.–: ) you.PL.POL.ACC rog dumitale (SB.–: ) ask.PRES.SG you.SG.POL.DAT
c. Pentru aceaea datori sântemu ( . . . ) (CC2.: ) for that.F.SG.ACC indebted.M.PL be.PRES.PL ‘For that we are indebted’ d. Dup’ aceasta dau știre domilor after this.F.SG.ACC give.PRES.SG news.ACC Highness.PL.DAT voastre (SB.–: ) your ‘After this I will let you know’ Both the proximal and the distal demonstrative (aceasta ‘this’ / aceea ‘that’) were frequently used. However, in the first part of the period under scrutiny, the distal demonstrative has a higher frequency in prepositional quasi-fixed constructions ((); see Table .). The proximal demonstrative then extends its usage with this value. Unlike in OR, in MR the ‘simple’ form of the proximal demonstrative asta is used as a deictic and a global anaphor in non-standard and colloquial language, whereas in the modern literary language it is encountered only as a pro-sentence anaphor (Nicula ). T . The relationship between pro-sentences realized as distal vs. proximal demonstratives
CC2. PO. Ev.
dereptu aceaea
dereptu aceasta
pentru aceaea
pentru aceasta
după aceaea
după aceasta
% % %
– % %
% .% .%
% .% .%
.% .% .%
.% .% .%
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena
()
dereptu aceaea grăiaște [aceasta]i: [vinu și untu this.F.SG.ACC wine.ACC and butter.ACC for that.F.SG.ACC says să vearse]i (CC2.: ) SĂSUBJ spill.SUBJ.PL ‘That is why he is saying this: let the wine and the butter spill over’
... The indefinites una ‘one thing’, alta ‘another thing’ In OR, the indefinite pronominals una one.F.SG ‘one thing’, alta other.F.SG ‘another thing’ (also with the archaic form altă) are used as global anaphors from the earliest writings. The feminine form is sometimes accompanied by the pronominal negator nimic(ă) ‘nothing’ (b). () a. Și acum iară de alta vă dămu în and now again of other.F.SG.ACC CL.DAT.PL give.PRES.PL in știre (DÎ.: XVIII) news.ACC ‘And now we let you know another thing’ b. nemică altă nu-i mai trebuiaște (CC2.: ) nothing other.F.SG.NOM not=CL.DAT.SG more needs ‘He does not need anything else’ c. noi unai cearem de la tine, [ca să ne we one.F.SG.ACC ask.PRES.SG from you.SG.ACC that SĂSUBJ CL.ACC.PL miluiești]i (VN.–: ) show.pity.SUBJ.SG ‘We ask you one thing, to take pity on us’ In original letters of the sixteenth and first half of the seventeenth centuries, the indefinite pronominals una ‘one thing’, alta ‘another thing’ function as genuine discourse markers, representing stylistic mechanisms of the internal organization of the text (). With a similar pragmatic-textual function, the indefinite pronominals una, alta occur both in the religious texts of the sixteenth century (a) and in learnèd texts of the following centuries (b). This fact provides evidence that textual stereotypes functioned throughout the history of the old literature. ()
Pohtimu de la milstivul dmndzău bună sănătate și good health.ACC and ask.PRES.PL from forgiving.DEF God.ACC pace dumitale ( . . . ). Alta, ( . . . ). Alta, ( . . . ); alta, ( . . . ); alta, other.F.SG other.F.SG other.F.SG peace.ACC you.SG.POL.DAT other.F.SG pohtim pre dumile vostre să daţi știre ask.PRES.PL DOM Highness.PL.ACC your SĂSUBJ give.SUBJ.PL news negoţitorilor ( . . . ) (SB.–: ) traders.DEF.DAT ‘May God give health and peace to you and the fortress of Bistrița. Another thing ( . . . ); yet another ( . . . ); yet another ( . . . ); yet another ( . . . ), we are asking you again to let the traders know ( . . . )’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Feminine singular pronouns with neutral value ()
a. Una ( . . . ), alta ( . . . ), a treia ( . . . ), a patra (CC2.: ) third.F fourth.F one.F.SG other.F.SG ‘One ( . . . ), another one ( . . . ) the third ( . . . ), the fourth’ b. Pentru aceea, ( . . . ), scris-am asupra acestui catihizmus nou, for that.F.SG.ACC write.PPLE=AUX.PERF.SG about this.GEN catechism new ( . . . ) una, pentru să puteţi sta împrotivă ( . . . ); SĂSUBJ can.SUBJ.PL stand.INF against one.F.SG for alta, pentru ca să vă aflaţi ( . . . ) in.order SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.PL find.SUBJ.PL other.F.SG for întăriţ (VRC.: IIIv) strenghtened.M.PL ‘That is why ( . . . ) I wrote onto this new catechism, first, so that you could stand against it; second, so that you come ( . . . ) strong’
... Ordinal numerals Ordinal numerals display a value close to the indefinite pronouns una ‘one thing; something’, alta ‘another thing; something different’, functioning as textual and argumentative markers. They occur in extensive sequences in which the first member is the invariable numeral întâi ‘first’, and the next (up to eight) members are ordinal numerals in the feminine singular. The pattern is encountered as early as the sixteenth century in different types of text (a). The same textual organization pattern surfaces in the seventeenth century and the first half of the eighteenth century (b), but it disappears from MR. ()
a. În cartea lu Franghel scrie că easte îndrăznirea courage.DEF.NOM in book.DEF LUI.GEN Franghel writes that is în multe chipure: Și întâi iaste când ( . . . ). A doua iaste in many ways: and first is when second.F is când ( . . . ). A treia iaste ( . . . ). A patra iaste ( . . . ). A cincea fourth.F is fifth.F.SG when third.F is iaste ( . . . ). A șasea iaste ( . . . ) (FD.–: v–r) is is sixth.F.SG ‘In Franghel’s book it’s written that there are many types of courage: the first is when ( . . . ), the second is when ( . . . ), the third is ( . . . ), the fourth is ( . . . ), the fifth is ( . . . ). The sixth is ( . . . )’ b. pentru aceasta s-au rânduit aceaste sfinte holy for this.F.SG.ACC CL.REFL=AUX.PERF.PL established these zile: una pentru ca să ne in.order SĂSUBJ CL.REFL.ACC.PL days.NOM one.F.SG for odihnim și noi și dobitoacele noastre ( . . . ); a doua, second.F.SG rest.SUBJ.PL also we and animals.DEF.NOM our pentru ca să mulţemim și să dăm for in.order SĂSUBJ thank.SUBJ.PL and SĂSUBJ give.SUBJ.PL laudă lui Dumnezeu ( . . . ); a treia, să auzim third.F.SG SĂSUBJ hear.SUBJ.PL praise LUI.DAT God cântările și slujbele ( . . . ) (AD.–: v)
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena
songs.DEF.ACC and sermons.DEF.ACC ‘This is way these holy days were made: first, for us and our animals to rest ( . . . ) second, to thank and praise God ( . . . ); third, to listen to songs and sermons ( . . . )’ ... The compound relative pronoun ceea ce ‘what; which’ The process of fixation of the compound ceea ce ‘what; which’, although not complete (}...; see also Stan a: ), had started as early as the sixteenth century (see (a), where the lack of agreement with the antecedents untul ‘butter’, vinul ‘wine’ is a sign of its usage with a neutral value). For the following centuries, there are more numerous attestations (b). In Eustatievici’s Grammar () it occurs both in the actual text (most frequently in definitions (c)) and in grammatical explanations; in the latter case ceea ce ‘what’ is cited as a distinct relative pronominal form in the series care, cel ce, ceea ce (EG.: v). () a. Vărsă untu și vinu, cuvăntulu învăţăturiei: spill.PS.SG butter.ACC and wine.ACC word.DEF wisdom.DEF.GEN untulu amu, ceaea ce cheamă cu dulceaţă și cu with sweetness and with butter.DEF now which.F.SG calls blânzie, iară vinulu, ceaea ce-i mai kindness and wine which.F.SG=CL.ACC.PL still înfricoșază (CC2.: ) terrifies ‘He spilt the butter and the wine, the word of wisdom: the butter, which symbolizes sweetness and kindness, and the wine, which makes them fear’ b. pentru că [ceea ce vor să-m facă] for that what.F.SG.ACC want.PRES.PL SĂSUBJ=CL.DAT.SG do.SUBJ.PL este hotărât și sorocul este aproape (Bert.: v) is decide.PPLE and moment.DEF.NOM is close ‘Because what they want to do me is decided and the moment is close’ c. Ce este împrejur încovăierea? Este ceea ce ( . . . ) (EG.:r) what is around bending.DEF.NOM is what.F.SG ‘What is the circumflex accent? It is what ( . . . )’ ... The personal clitic o The emergence of the neutral pronominal clitic with feminine accusative form (o) originates in the structures in which o replaces or doubles the neutral feminine demonstrative pronominals aceasta ‘this’/aceea ‘that’ (). For the first part of the period investigated, there are few attestations. () A treia easte când spune omul mai mult decât are. when says man.DEF.NOM more much than has third.F.SG is Aceaeai se cheamă neînţelepciune; cine oi that.F.SG.NOM CL.REFL.ACC calls NEG-wisdom who CL.ACC.F.SG face minte n-are (FD.–: v) does brains.ACC not=has ‘The third is when the man says that he has more than he really has. This is called lack of wisdom; who does this does not have brains’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Feminine singular pronouns with neutral value
From the eighteenth century, the frequency of the structure increases, especially in the higher registers, and is often collocated with verbs of saying (o adeverează ‘confirms it’, o dovedește ‘proves it’, o mărturisește ‘confesses it’, o zice ‘says it’ (a)), cognitive or perception verbs (o știu ‘I know it’ (b)), or with the verb a face ‘do’, functioning as a verbal anaphor (c). ()
a. O
zice Isaia la al nouaolea cap ( . . . ). says Isaiah.NOM at ninth.M chapter O adeverează David la psalomul ( . . . ). CL.ACC.F.SG confirms David.NOM at psalm.DEF.ACC O mărturiseaște marele Pavel cătră CL.ACC.F.SG confesses great.DEF Paul.NOM towards corintheani (AD.–: r) Corinthians.ACC ‘Isaiah says it in the ninth chapter. David confirms it in the th psalm. Paul the Great confesses it to the Corinthians’ CL.ACC.F.SG
b. Iar împăratul Arcadie i-au răspuns: and emperor.DEF.NOM Arcadius CL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.SG answer.PPLE o știu eu aceasta de mult (AD.–: r) CL.ACC.F.SG know.PRES.SG I this.F.SG.ACC for long ‘And emperor Arcadius answered him: I have known this for a long time’ c. Iară noi acum, de facem cuiva vreun bine sau and we.NOM now if do.PRES.PL somebody.DAT any good or vreo îndemână ( . . . ), o facem mai mult cu CL.ACC.F.SG do.PRES.PL more much with any favour făţărie (AD.–: r) hypocrisy ‘And now, if we do good or any favour to somebody, we rather do it with hypocrisy’ Throughout nineteenth century, the construction strengthens on the model of its French counterpart (Reinheimer and Tasmowski : ), the only difference being that in French the masculine accusative clitic is used. The expletive (non-argumental) pronominal clitic o, characteristic of colloquial and regional language, very rarely occurs in texts of the period under scrutiny (a). It is frequently encountered in texts from the nineteenth century onward (b). ()
a. Și de acmu să o înainte apucămu (CC2.: ) nd from now SĂSUBJ it.EXPL.F.SG.ACC ahead go.SUBJ.PL ‘And from now let’s go ahead’ b. a o lua la sănătoasa (, in DLR) AINF it.EXPL.F.SG.ACC take.INF to healthy.F.DEF ‘to take to one’s heels’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena
.. Final remarks The inventory of feminine singular pronominal forms with neutral value is, to a great extent, common to OR and MR: these are the proximal and distal demonstratives aceasta, aceaea, the indefinites una, alta, the compound relative ceea ce, and the personal pronominal o. Ordinal numerals with neutral value have disappeared from modern use; the compound relative with neutral value was not fully grammaticalized in the sixteenth century, its grammaticalization being gradually completed in the following centuries. Their function displayed similarities and differences between the two periods. As in MR, OR neutral demonstratives in prepositional contexts functioned as idiomatic phrases, conveying values such as reason, purpose, time (de aceea ‘that is why’, d(e)rept aceea, pentru aceea ‘for that’, după aceea ‘after that’); there are frequency differences among them (d(e)rept aceea ‘for that’ was more frequent in OR). Unlike MR, OR indefinites and ordinal numerals functioned, in different types of text, as pragmatic-discourse text organizers, a value which subsequently became rarer, then fell out of use. The frequency of occurrence of the forms common to OR and MR differs with regard to the personal clitic o: both as a pro-sentence and as an expletive it occured sporadically in OR. As a pro-sentence, it becomes frequently used in the eighteenth century; as an expletive, only from the nineteenth century.
. Appellation and forms of address .. Preliminary remarks Addressing is the main function of vocative phrases, whose core components are nominal/pronominal vocatives or ‘vocative’ (appellative) interjections. Even though the vocative is a non-syntactic case, expressing the allocutive pragmatic role, it appears in many syntactic contexts: (i) it may form an unanalysable, syntactically unstructured sentence; (ii) it can accompany another declarative, interrogative, or imperative sentence, without being syntactically linked to it; (iii) it can play the role of an apposition, whose first element (the base) is a nd person pronominal determiner phrase (DP) or a nd person non-lexicalized pronominal subject; (iv) it may appear in classifier structures (see GR: ). As sentence organization is directly related to discourse phenomena, this section presents the main points of intersection between the syntax of allocutive elements and their discourse function. The structure of extended appellative phrases associated with imperatives (e.g. vocative interjection or vocative pronoun + vocative noun) is the same in OR and MR. The differences between OR and MR occur in the concrete realization of phrases, due to: (i) the development of the various grammatical units included (articles, modifiers, compound words); (ii) the development and combinatorial properties of appellative constructions that constitute the inventory of appellative elements (appellative particles, ‘grammaticalized adjectives’ (Hill : ), vocative case endings, and associated forms of politeness pronouns).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Appellation and forms of address
In OR, appellative elements display numerous variations; they develop along with the diversification of the utterance practices and, implicitly, of functional styles specific to the different types of texts from that period (religious, juridical, or belletrist styles). In MR, some of these forms become less frequent, and others disappear completely, being replaced with other structures. .. The structure of appellative phrases with a vocative head Appellative phrases are significantly extended in OR (through the accumulation of nominal insertions), especially in liturgical texts; they comprised multiple successive elements: the head noun may be followed by a genitive or possessive phrase (a), adjectival modifiers (b), quantifiers (c), prepositional phrases (d), and, in particular, numerous relative clauses (e) (}.). ()
a. Dumnezeul lu Avraam și a lu God.DEF.VOC(NOMACC) LUI.GEN Abraham and AL.INV LUI.GEN Isac și a lu Iacov (CM.: v) Isaac and AL.INV LUI.GEN Jacob ‘God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’ b. Bărbați iudeiești (CLRV.: ) men.VOC(NOMACC) Judaean.M.PL ‘Judaean men’ c. Toți criștin ascultați (FT.–: r ) all.M Christians.DEF.VOC(NOMACC) listen.IMP.PL ‘All Christians, listen’ d. Domnul den ceriu, iartă-ne (CLRV.: –) Lord.VOC(NOMACC) from heaven forgive.IMP.SG=CL.ACC.PL ‘Our Lord in Heaven, forgive us’ e. Preadulce fiiu, pre carele mostadored.M.SG.VOC(NOMACC) son.VOC(NOMACC) DOM whom te-am născut cu Evangheliia (SVI.~: r) CL.ACC.SG=AUX.PERF.SG born with Gospel.DEF.ACC ‘My most adored son, to whom I have given birth according to the Gospel’
.. Pragmatic–syntactic relations between vocative and other sentence constituents In late OR, some frequently employed nouns occur with variations (sometimes in the same text) as regards the use of the etymological forms, with special case endings and without the definite article, as in (a–c), or the ‘innovative’ forms, with the definite article (d–g). These formal variations disappear in MR (with some exceptions), where either the form without the definite article (b,c) or that with the definite article (d, f–h) is used (see also Gheție b: –; Frâncu : , –). ()
a. Oame (CC1.: v) man.VOC b. Priiatene (SVI.~: v) friend.VOC
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena c. Doamne (CP.: r) Lord.VOC d. Omule (SVI.~: r) man.DEF.VOC e. O, priiatinule (CD.: v) Oh friend.DEF.VOC f. Craiule Atilo (CIst.–: r) King.DEF.VOC Atila.VOC g. Doamnele (PH.–: r; r) Lord.DEF.VOC h. Dzeule (PH.–: r) God.DEF.VOC
Contextually, the vocative may be associated with other words of address: (i) with imperative forms ((); }..); (ii) with other vocative nouns: all nouns may be morphologically marked for case (a), or only the first (b) or the second (c) noun may be marked (see }.); (iii) with proper adjectives: the adjective may be postposed (a–d) or preposed to the noun (e, f); both words can be marked for case (d), only one of them (b,c,e) or none (a,f) (see also }.). () Pomeneaște, Doamne (CLRV.–: –) forgive.IMP.SG Lord.VOC ‘Lord, forgive’ ()
a. Isuse, învățătoare (CC2.: ) Jesus.VOC teacher.VOC ‘Jesus, Teacher’ b. O, Alexandre-Împărat (A.: v) oh Alexander.VOC-emperor.NOM ‘Oh, Emperor Alexander’ c. Bărbați iudeiești, vietorilor dintru men.VOC(NOMACC) Judaean.M.PL.VOC(NOMACC) living.M.PL.VOC from Ierusalim toți (CLRV.: ) Jerusalem all ‘Judaean men, all of you inhabitants of Jerusalem’
()
a. tu, om păcătos (CC1.: r) you.SG.NOM man.VOC(NOMACC) sinful.M.SG.VOC(NOMACC) ‘you, sinful man’ b. Soro dragă (CM.: v) sister.VOC dear.F.SG.VOC(NOMACC) ‘Dear sister’ c. O, fătul mieu, preapohtite și most-wanted.M.SG.VOC and oh son.DEF.VOC(NOMACC) my preaiubite! (SVI.~: r) most-beloved.M.SG.VOC ‘Oh, my most wanted and most beloved son’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Appellation and forms of address
d. Oame păcătoase (CC1.: v) man.VOC sinful.M.SG.VOC ‘You sinful man’ e. Putearnice, înalt Domn mighty.M.SG.VOC high.M.SG.VOC(NOMACC) Lord.VOC(NOMACC) Dumnezeu (CM.: r) God.VOC(NOMACC) ‘Our high and mighty Lord God’ f. O, dragul meu Filip (A.: v) ohdear.DEF.M.SG.VOC(NOMACC) my Filip.VOC(NOMACC) ‘Oh, my dear Philip’ In this category, there is a class of pragmaticalized adjectives: hypocoristic adjectives such as drag ‘dear’, iubit ‘beloved’, dulce ‘sweet’ (a,b) and certain politeness expressions (c–f); many of these phrases contain modified adjectives, especially compounds with the prefix prea (‘most’) (e–g), some of which are substantivized; they are characteristic of the formal context of communication and pertain to the ceremonious epistolary genre of the period. ()
a. O, dragii mei și oh dear.DEF.M.PL.VOC(NOMACC) my and dulci frați, adored.M.PL.VOC(NOMACC) brothers.VOC(NOMACC) machidonenilor (A.: r) Macedonians.VOC ‘Oh, Macedonians, my dear and adored brothers’ b. Iubite cititoriule (CLM.–: r) beloved.M.SG.VOC reader.VOC ‘Beloved reader’ c. Cinstite și de trudă iubitoriule cetitoriu (CD.: Vr) honest.M.SG.VOC and of work loving.M.SG.VOC reader.VOC(NOMACC) ‘Honest and work loving reader’ d. Milostive și luminate doamne (IS.: ) merciful.M.SG.VOC and enlightened.M.SG.VOC lord.VOC ‘Merciful and enlightened lord’ e. Prealuminate, cinstite, most-enlightened.M.SG.VOC honest.M.SG.VOC iubitul mieu beloved.DEF.M.SG.VOC(NOMACC) my.M.SG.VOC(NOMACC) frate (CD.: IIr) brother.VOC(NOMACC) ‘My most enlightened, honest and beloved brother . . . ’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena f. O, preacinstite întru oameni! (SVI.~:r) oh most-honest.M.SG.VOC among men ‘Oh, most honest one among men!’ g. O, preaînțeleapte! (SVI.~: r) oh most-wise.M.SG.VOC ‘Oh, you very wise man’
The vocative may be associated also with: (iv) various types of vocative particles: rhetorical (a), presentative (b), or appellative interjections (c,d), hortative words (e,f), and appellative and certain hortative interjections (g,h) (see Densusianu II: ) occur in late OR along with the first forms of orality recorded in writing and generally pertain to informal contexts of communication; (v) with performative verbs/phrases (). () a. O, bărrbați, cădea-se se oh men.VOC(NOMACC) ought=CL.REFL.IMPERS SĂSUBJ ascultați (CV.–: v) listen.SUBJ.PL ‘Oh, men, you ought to listen’ b. Părinte, iată câţi ani lucrai father.VOC(NOMACC) look how.many years work.PS.SG ţie (CC2.: ) you.SG.DAT ‘Father, look how many years I worked for you’ c. Bre, hei, om necunoscătoriu (CD.: v) hey hey man.VOC(NOMACC) ungrateful.M.SG.VOC(NOMACC) ‘Hey, you, ungrateful man’ d. Ce ţi-i voia, măi? (NL.~–: ) what CL.DAT.SG=is will.NOM hey ‘You, what do you want?’ e. Mai pasă, fătul meu, nainte (A.: v) ahead more go son.DEF.VOC(NOMACC) my ‘Keep going, my son’ f. Lasă, câine leșe (CLM.–: v) never.mind dog.VOC(NOMACC) Polish.M.SG.VOC(NOMACC) ‘Never mind, Polish dog’ g. Hai, . . . mare prislestiaţă come big.F.SG.VOC(NOMACC) hypocritical.person.VOC(NOMACC) ce ești (CD.: v) that be.PRES.SG ‘Come you, very hypocritical person!’ h. Blăm de-m arată (A.: v) come and=CL.DAT.SG show.IMP.SG ‘Come and show me’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Appellation and forms of address ()
a. Rogu-te, frate (A.: v) pray.PRES.SG=CL.ACC.SG brother.VOC(NOMACC) ‘Please, brother’ b. Domnul den ceriu, Lord.DEF.VOC(NOMACC) from heaven.ACC iartă-ne noi (CLRV.: ) forgive.IMP.SG=CL.ACC.PL we.ACC ‘Our Lord in heaven, forgive us’ c. Părinte, laudă ţie dau (CC2.: ) father.VOC(NOMACC) praise you.SG.DAT give.PRES.SG ‘Father, I praise you’ d. Aferim, slugă bună well.done servant.F.SG.VOC(NOMACC) good.F.SG.VOC(NOMACC) și credincioasă (NL.~–: ) and faithful.F.SG.VOC(NOMACC) ‘Well done, good and faithful servant’
.. The system of allocutive elements The Romanian allocutive elements (comprising the addressing term system, the pronominal system, and interpellations) combine in various forms or formulae which differ from one period to another. ... Terms of address There are different categories of terms of addressing: proper names (religious, lay) or occasional terms of address, and formal (religious vs. lay) generics or familiar generic names; those are usually associated with specific grammatical elements. A. Proper names In this category, there are: (i) religious proper names, such as Isus Hristos ‘Jesus Christ’, which occurs most frequently morphologically marked for the vocative (a), and sometimes followed by an agreeing (b) or non-agreeing apposition (c); (ii) lay proper names, which usually appear in OR marked with a vocative ending (a–c) (including the feminine vocative ending -o for masculine nouns with the nominative in -a (b), a form that disappeared from MR); in MR, vocative forms that are identical to the nominative (d) tend to replace the ones with specific case endings (compare to c, from the same text). ()
a. Hristoase (CLRV.: ) Christ.VOC b. Isuse, fiiule lu Dumnezeu de sus (CC2.: ) from above Jesus.VOC son.VOC LUI.GEN God c. Isuse, fiiul Domnului (CC2.: ) Jesus.VOC son.VOC(NOMACC) God.GEN ‘Jesus, Son of God’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena
() a. Pavle (CV.–: r) Pavel.VOC b. O Thomo (CC2.: ) oh Toma.VOC c. Varlaame (SVI.~: r) Varlaam.VOC d. Varlaam (SVI.~: v) Varlaam.voc(nomacc) B. Generic names These include: (i) religious generics (like nouns addressing the divinity Doamne (‘Lord’; < DǑMĬNE) (a), Dumnezeu/Dumnezeul(e) (‘God’; < DOM(I)NE DEUS) (b), which agree with the nd person singular of the verb; being more conservative, religious language preserves the aforementioned terms even in MR. () a. Doamne, curățeaște-mă (CL.: r) Lord.VOC relieve.IMP.SG=CL.ACC.SG ‘Lord, relieve me’ b. Dumnezeu, cu urechile noastre auzim (CP.: v) hear.PRES.PL God.VOC(NOMACC) with ears.DEF our ‘God, we listen with our ears’ (ii) lay generics, such as designations for heads of state (a): domn (voc. doamne) ‘lord’, împărat(e)‘emperor’, crai ‘king’, vodă/voievod ‘voivode’, or various state or church ranks (b): egumeni și preoţi ‘abbots and priests’; for social offices and positions (a,b): ban ‘governor’, birău ‘mayor’, vistier ‘treasurer’, stolnic ‘seneschal/chef ’, postelnic ‘chamberlain’, and others; reverential forms of address (a– d): domn (voc. domnule) ‘gentleman, sir, mister, landowner, etc.’ (in MR, the generic form for politely addressing men), pan ‘nobleman’ (< Polish), jupan ‘master’ (< Sl.), chir ‘lord, master’ (< Ngr.), etc. Many nouns referring to state officials are obsolete in MR. () a. Doamne împărate (FD.–: r) lord.VOC emperor.VOC b. Și voi, egumeni și preoţi (NÎnv.~: r) and you.PL abbots.VOC(NOMACC) and priests.VOC(NOMACC) ‘And you, abbots and priests’ () a. Bane Mihalcio și tu, governor.VOC Mihalcea.VOC and you.SG.VOC(NOM) vistiiar Stoico (DÎ.: XXXI) treasurer.VOC(NOMACC) Stoica.VOC ‘Governor Mihalcea and you, treasurer Stoica’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Appellation and forms of address
b. Dumneata pârcălabe de Bistriţa și dumneata, you.POL.SG.VOC prefect.VOC of Bistrița and you.POL.SG.VOC birăule (DH: ) mayor.VOC ‘I bow to you, prefect of Bistrița, and you, mayor’ ()
a. Domne birău (DH: ) mister.VOC mayor.VOC ‘Mister mayor’ știi, jupâne (Sind.: r) SĂSUBJ know.SUBJ.SG master.VOC ‘Master, you should know’
b. Să
c. Pan Udrea (DÎ.: CX) master.VOC(NOMACC) Udrea.VOC(NOMACC) ‘Master Udrea’ d. Chir Macarie (NÎnv.~: r) lord.VOC(NOMACC) Macarie.VOC(NOMACC) Some terms of address, like domn (< DǑM(Ĭ)NUS), have different meanings in different contexts: ‘term used in designating and/or addressing the divinity’ (a), ‘term used in designating certain social positions and/or addressing male individuals that occupy those positions’ (a, a). Familiar forms of address indicate one’s belonging to a certain kind of community and consist of one or several terms: kinship names (a): frate ‘brother’, părinte ‘parent’; species nouns (b): om ‘man’, fată ‘girl’; nouns encoding social relations, confession or nationality (c): prieten ‘friend’, creștin ‘Christian’; and profession (d): păstor ‘shepherd’, popă ‘priest’. () a. Frate drag! (CLRV.: ) brother.VOC(NOMACC) dear.M.SG.VOC(NOMACC) b. Ome (CT.–: r) man.VOC c. Creștine (CC1.: r) Christian.VOC d. Popo (CC1.: v) priest.VOC ... Pronominal address Personal verbal deictics are involved in the function of address either as subjects included in the nd person singular of an imperative verb (a), or as an apposition in agreement with a vocative nominal (b) (see }...). ()
a. Șezi de-a dreapta de mene (TS.–: r) sit.IMP.SG of=at right.DEF from me.ACC ‘Sit to my right’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena b. Milosârdu ești tu, Doamne (CC2.: ) merciful be.PRES.SG you.SG.VOC(NOM) Lord.VOC ‘Lord, you are merciful’
In evoking a collective interlocutor (the worshippers), the nd person singular pronoun is used, with a generic value (in homiletic literature) (a); the nd person plural form also evokes a collective interlocutor (b). ()
a. Tu, ( . . . ) unge capulu tău, și faţa you.SG.VOC(NOM) anoint.IMP.SG head.DEF your and face.DEF ta o spală (CC2.: ) your CL.ACC.F.SG wash.IMP.SG ‘Anoint your head and wash your face.’ b. Așa să știţ voi, oameni thus SĂSUBJ know.SUBJ.PL you.PL.VOC(NOM) people.VOC(NOMACC) buni și neguţători (DÎ.–: XVI) kind.M.PL.VOC(NOMACC) and merchant.M.PL.VOC(NOMACC) ‘Know this, kind and merchant people’
In lay texts (which generally illustrate a relationship of average or high formality between collocutors), the nd person singular personal pronoun tu usually appears only as a subject included in the verb morphological form (). ()
știi um mi-am vândut know.SUBJ.SG how CL.DAT.SG=AUX.PERF.SG sell.PPLE eu ( . . . ) moșiia (DÎ.–: II) I estate.DEF.ACC ‘you should know that I sold my estate’ să
SĂSUBJ
Polite address requires the association of the included personal pronouns mentioned above with forms of the politeness pronoun (for the nd person singular and plural dumneata and dumneavoastră), created in the Middle Ages as a result of social stratification and identified in the sixteenth century, first in private documents, and later, in the eighteenth century, in religious texts (GR: ; see also Dimitrescu (ed.) : –; Frâncu : –). Dumneata (sg.) agrees with the nd person singular of the verb. It includes in its structure the nd person possessive ta ‘your’ (< domnia + ta). ()
știi dumneata că tuturoru toate pecetluituri know.SUBJ.SG you.POL.NOM that everyone all seals.DEF dumniii-tale s-au ţinut Highness.GEN=your.SG CL.REFL.PASS.SG=AUX.PERF.PL keep.PPLE în samă (DÎ.–: LXXIX) in consideration ‘you should know that everyone took into consideration all of Your Highness’s decisions’ să
SĂSUBJ
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
. Appellation and forms of address
The politeness pronoun dumneavoastră ‘your lordship’ () (and its variants) is used in association with the nd person plural of the verb. Dumneavoastră served as a basis for new politeness formulae (Domnia Voastră ‘Your Highness’). ()
Și așa să știţi domnievoastră (DÎ.: XVIII) and thus SĂSUBJ know.SUBJ.PL your.Highness.NOM ‘And know this, Your Highness’
Indirect, reverential forms of address are associated with the rd person of the verb (). ()
Dzice: ‘Întru mulţi ani să trăiască împărăteasa says for many.M.PL years SĂSUBJ live.SUBJ.SG empress.DEF Elisavet’ (NL.~–: ) Elisavet ‘He said: “Long live Empress Elizabeth” ’
... Romanian honorifics Romanian honorifics are organized in a closed system of historically created terms that index social or institutional hierarchy (for MR, see Vasileanu ). The system of reverential address in OR comprises frequently unstable lexical and grammatical forms (pronominal expressions; compounds of a noun and a possessive): măria ta ‘your majesty’ (a), sfinția ta ‘your holiness’ (b), boiari dumneavoastră (for the nobles, c). Many of these honorifics disappeared in MR. () a. Așa să ști, Măria ta (DÎ.: XCIII) thus SĂSUBJ know.SUBJ.SG Highness.VOC(NOMACC) your ‘Know this, Your Highness’ b. Părinte, Svinţiia ta (Cron.: ) father.VOC holiness.VOC(NOMVOC) your ‘This I believe, father, Your Holiness’ c. Boiari dumnevoastră și you.POL.VOC(NOMACC) and boyars.VOC(NOMACC) fraţilor (NÎnv.~: v) brothers.VOC ‘Boyars and brothers, old and young, should we err’ .. Final remarks Address phrases in OR display the following peculiarities. The vocative structures are extended (through the accumulation of nominal insertions, especially long series of appositions), under the influence of church language; this configuration is simplified along with the modernization of literary language. The inventory of elements of address and the way in which they combine contextually refer to: (i) the relationship between the vocative and the definite article: OR records some article-free vocative forms (see ome), whereas MR prefers forms with the definite article (omule); (ii) the relationship between the vocative and particles of address: especially in the sixteenth century, OR employs only particles
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
Clausal organization and discourse phenomena
that are specific to written language (rhetorical interjections: O ‘oh’, the literary presentative interjection iată), pragmaticalized adjectives: drag ‘dear’, dulce ‘sweet’, iubit ‘beloved’, and/or substantivized ones: preaînțelepte ‘very wise’, integrated in fixed phrases from administrative or diplomatic letters. Interjectional particles, specific to orality (interjections of address—bre, măi—or hortative ones—hai, replacing the older forms pasă and blăm) are attested at a late point and have a peripheral status. Formulaic structures of address, fixed and ceremonious, evolve in consonance with the sociocultural relationships of the age; some forms (jupân, chir, boier) are restricted to OR. Pronominal address, closely linked to relationships between interlocutors, is associated with polite address (old politeness pronouns and generics of address like măria ta ‘your majesty’, sfinția ta ‘your holiness’).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
12 Conclusions . Introduction This book presents, on the basis of an extensive corpus analysis, an overall description of the syntax of OR—the period from the beginning of the sixteenth century, the date of the earliest attested Romanian texts, to the end of the eighteenth century, more precisely the year , conventionally considered the beginning of the modernization of Romanian. Our book offers the first description of the syntax of OR written in a language other than Romanian and aimed at an international readership. Our work has highlighted the fact that, from the very beginning of the sixteenth century, the syntactic structure of Romanian was already established in its essentials, at least with respect to the verbal and clausal domains. Its main individualizing features, albeit not fully established, were clearly apparent. For example: (i) the presence of all the parametric features of Romanian for the syntax of the subject; (ii) differential marking construction of the direct object with p(r)e; (iii) direct and indirect object clitic doubling rules; (iv) enclitic position of the definite article and its double function, as determiner and inflectional marker; (v) the rich inventory of determiners and the polydefiniteness of the nominal phrase; (vi) the possibility to mark oblique cases both by inflectional means and by analytic-prepositional means; (vii) the variety of strategies employed to express possession; (viii) strict negative concord; (ix) multiple relative/interrogative clauses. Even though they do not affect the system in its essential make-up, the changes that occurred during the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, and from OR to MR, are numerous and significant for the subsequent path of change.
. Key phenomena On the basis of the partial conclusions at the end of each chapter, in what follows we review the most noteworthy phenomena (total or ongoing changes) identified by our The Syntax of Old Romanian. First edition. Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.) This chapter © Gabriela Pană Dindelegan and Adina Dragomirescu . First published by Oxford University Press
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Conclusions
syntactic description. For expository purposes, each phenomenon presented below is associated with the corresponding paragraph discussing it in the previous chapters, which offers supplementary details. .. The verbal domain (i) Restructuring of the Tense Aspect Mood system (}.) – In the situation of competing (quasi-)equivalent synthetic and analytic forms, either the inherited synthetic form (the conditional) or the novel analytic form (the analytic pluperfect) disappears (}}...; ...). – Many periphrases based on fi ‘be’, especially the gerundial and double compound ones, disappear; the remaining ones no longer constitute systematic series (}}...; ...; ...). – The periphrases based on fi ‘be’ in the past tenses of the indicative become completely extinct; hence, fi as an auxiliary is preserved only in the irrealis domain (perfect subjunctive, conditional, and future-in-the-past) (}}...; ...; ...). – Numerous conditional periphrases based on the auxiliary vrea ‘want’ in different tenses of the past disappear in favour of a unique form (the așconditional) (}...). – The bare subjunctive (the main clause rd person subjunctive without să) is employed with a gradually lower frequency, and totally eliminated from subordinate clauses (}...). – The epistemic future does not display clear signs of grammaticalization as a presumptive mood, as appears in modern Romanian (}...). – The future made up of va + the subjunctive tends to become grammaticalized (the o să-type) (}...). – The simple past/preterite loses ground to the compound perfect (}...). (ii) Changes in argument structure – Numerous verbs with vacillating selection features (Dat//PP, Dat//Acc, Acc//PP) gradually stabilize to a unique construction (}...). – Numerous prepositional verbs which select multiple prepositions gradually restrict their selection frame to a single preposition (}..). – The inventory of inherently reflexive and reciprocal verbs becomes more restricted (}}..; ...). (iii) Non-finite forms – The frequency of the infinitive gradually diminishes; in most contexts, it is replaced by the subjunctive or other verb forms (}..). – The gerund and the infinitive can no longer function as main clause predicates (}}..; ...). – The usage of the nominal supine becomes restricted (}...); starting in the seventeenth century, a new form emerges and spreads out: the verbal supine (}...). – The perfect infinitive emerges in the eighteenth century; the infinitive thus becomes the only non-finite form which morphologically marks a temporal value (}..).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Key phenomena
– The (-RE) long infinitive with a verbal value is jettisoned (}..). – The usage rules of the a-infinitive and of the bare infinitive become stable (}..). – The participle from compound verb forms with fi ‘be’ no longer displays agreement (}..). – Adjectival active participles become increasingly rarer (}..). .. The clausal domain (i) Core arguments and other components of the clausal domain – The dative indirect object, extensively used in the sixteenth century, reduces its frequency in favour of prepositional structures and, more rarely, of transitive structures (}}...; ...). – The differential marking rules of the direct object by p(r)e become stable (}...). – The direct and indirect object clitic doubling rules become fixed (}}...; ...). – The ability of long nominalized infinitives and of suffixal deverbal nouns and adjectives to select a direct object disappears (}}..; ..); consequently, the direct object may be selected only by verbs and interjections. – The pronominal expletive subject, very rare in OR, disappears completely (}...). – The occurrence of doubly realized/repeated subjects grows increasingly rarer; this strategy specializes either for emphasis or as a regional construction of the spoken register (}....). – The be-passive constructions and the se-passive constructions develop grammatical, discourse and register specialization (}...). – The prepositions de and de către gradually become specialized for introducing Agent-phrases, which could be expressed by a variety of means (datives, other prepositional constructions) (}...). (ii) Phenomena involving overall clausal structure – Discourse reflexive anaphors and logophores are less frequent in MR; personal pronouns are the preferred option (}...). – The strict negative concord parameter becomes fixed (}..). – Nici ‘not even’ loses the ability to function as a clausal negator; it is only preserved as a copulative coordinator and adverbial clitic (}...). – The inventory of wh-words becomes impoverished, and the distribution of some of these specializes (}...). – Certain additional markers for yes/no-questions (au (nu), (au) doară (nu), vare, dară) gradually restrict their occurrence, finally disappearing from the standard language (}...). – The interrogative/relative locative adverb i(u)o ‘where’ disappears from use (}}...; ..).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Conclusions
.. The nominal and adjectival domains (i) Case marking (}}.; ...) – Compared to OR, in MR the functional preposition a has been eliminated as a marker of the analytic dative; it is preserved only for the analytic genitive, becoming specialized in that it is selected only by genitive phrases with well delimited structural characteristics. – The genitival functional preposition de limits its occurrences and becomes specialized for other values. – The prepositions la and către as markers of the dative become confined to the non-standard variety, and the functional preposition la extends to the genitive in the non-standard language. – Non-marked (i.e. invariable) genitives and datives of kinship nouns disappear from the standard language. – The proclitic marker lui/lu becomes grammaticalized as a marker of the genitive and dative of masculine proper names and invariable nouns. – The proclitic genitive markers of feminine proper names (ei, ii, i, îi) disappear (}...). – Partitive de-structures become very restricted, no longer occurring with mass nouns (}}..; ...). – Agreement rules between the noun and the adjective become more stable. – In the structure ‘classifier + proper name’, the genitive marking of the proper name (mănăstirea TismaneiGEN ‘monastery of Tismana’) switches to nominative marking (mănăstirea TismanaNOM ‘monastery Tismana’) (}..). (ii) Determiners (}.) – The determiner cel grammaticalizes as a freestanding definite article and gradually takes over the position of the suffixal definite article as the main licenser of nominal ellipsis; the enclitic definite article has been preserved as a marker of substantivization (}..). – There is an ongoing propensity for the enclitic definite article to occupy the first position of the nominal phrase (i.e. suffixed on the first noun or adjective of the phrase); the lower definite article structures are gradually eliminated (}...). – The usage of the definite article after prepositions comes to observe strict rules (}...). (iii) Pronominal possession (}}.; ..) – The rd person possessive adjective său/sa/săi/sale, which denotes both a singular possessor and a plural possessor in OR, gradually restricts its denotation of a plural possessor and finally loses it. – The frequency of clitic nominal possession becomes restricted, and the plural forms of adnominal possessive clitics are eliminated. – The adverbal possessive dative clitic structure extends to the detriment of adnominal possession.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Key phenomena
(iv) Pronominal forms/values, intensifiers and presentatives – The direct descendant of the Latin IPSE (OR însu) lost its intensifying value and developed other syntactic and semantic values. A compound intensifier, însuși, emerged instead (}..). – The bound intensifier -și was eliminated (}..). – The pronominal compound dânsul is coined (}....). – The inventory of OR feminine singular pronouns with neutral value is partially different from in MR. Some of the patterns in which they functioned as discourse markers gradually become extinct (}..). – The inventory of OR presentative markers is larger than that of standard MR (}.). (v) Degree marking and comparison (}}.; .) – The inventory of degree markers gradually becomes restricted (vârtos ‘very’, camai ‘more’, prea ‘very’) (}}.; .). – The adverbs mai ‘more’ and foarte ‘very’ grammaticalize as degree markers of adjectives and adverbs (}}.; .). – The superlative pattern cel mai X dintre ‘the most X of ’ begins to grammaticalize, and to challenge the structure based on a universal quantifier mai X decât toţi ‘more X than all’ (}..). – The comparative markers ca and decât ‘than’ acquire, under certain circumstances, a prepositional value (}}...; ...). .. Subordinating and coordinating connectors The inventory of (subordinating and coordinating) connectors undergoes many changes (disappearance from usage and/or changes of value). (i) Subordinating connectors – The grammaticalization of the infinitival complementizer a becomes complete, and the supine complementizer de tends to become specialized (}}...; ..). – The usage of the de-connectors, found in numerous constructions and structures (e.g. in de-a infinitival structures, de-partitive structures, decomparative constructions, de-relative clauses, de-argument structures, de-clausal adjuncts (}}..; ..; ...; ...; ...; ...; ...; ...)), becomes restricted; many usages become restricted to the nonstandard oral register. – Complementizers like de să, cum, precum, precum să disappear (}..). – The conditional conjunction să (with cognates throughout Romance) is abandoned; it is initially in competition with de, and then with dacă, the latter ultimately replacing it; the conditional dacă ‘if ’ acquires another value: it grammaticalizes as a specialized complementizer which introduces indirect interrogative clauses (}...). – The concessive structure să . . . și is replaced by de . . . și, which ultimately grammaticalizes as deși ‘although’; the concessive conjunction săva(i) (că) ‘although’ disappears (}...).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Conclusions
– The comparative complementizer ca (in competition with cum) loses the ability to head finite clauses; the comparative complementizer de and decât ‘than’ are initially in competition, the latter ultimately replacing the former (}...). – The causal connectors which originate in adverbial interrogative phrases (d(i)erep(t) ce, pentru ce, de ce ‘because (of)’, etc.) are gradually eliminated from use starting in the seventeenth century (}...). – The double compound connectors d(i)erep(t) ce că, pentru ce că ‘because (of)’ are replaced by the simpler structures d(i)erep(t) că and pentru că, respectively; of these two, pentru că is finally preserved in the standard modern language (}...). – The complementizer ca să specializes for introducing adjuncts of purpose (}...), but extends its usage to complement clauses (}...), being especially used for the marking of topic/focus position in the subordinate clause. (ii) Coordinating conjunctions (}) – The inventory of coordinating conjunctions becomes restricted; the conjunctives i, e ‘and’, the disjunctives săva, vare, veri, macar ‘or’, and the alternative conjunctions aorea . . . aorea ‘sometimes . . . ’, ni . . . ni ‘neither . . . nor’ disappear; others become restricted to dialectal varieties (e.g. the disjunctive au ‘or’, the alternative conjunction tând ‘when . . . ’). – The adversative conjunction ce/ci, intensively used in OR, restricts its frequency in favour of dar, which specializes as an adversative conjunction. – The correlative disjunctive coordinator fie . . . fie . . . ‘either . . . or’ grammaticalizes later than other correlative disjunctive connectors. – Asymmetric coordination gradually becomes restricted. .. Word order (i) Emerging constraints – The position of the verb on the clausal spine has gradually stabilized (}.). – Auxiliary inversion gradually becomes restricted and constrained (}...). – The position of pronominal clitics becomes fixed, and the doubly realized clitic structures disappear (}}..; ..). – Structures with scrambling are gradually eliminated (}.). – The frequency of main clause postverbal subjects diminishes (}...). – The subject of the infinitive becomes restricted to the postverbal position (}....). – There has been a stabilization in DP-internal word order, and a gradual consolidation of the structures with fixed word order: the postnominal demonstrative construction and the genitival-possessive AL-construction (}.). – The DP-internal word order of adjectives becomes more constrained: relational adjectives gradually become obligatorily postnominal, and the serialization of adjectives gradually becomes more constrained (}.).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Conclusions
– Discontinuous structures and other discourse configurational features of old Romanian have also been gradually eliminated (}). – Pronominal enclisis, very frequent in old Romanian, gradually reduces in favour of pronominal proclisis (}...). (ii) Emerging adjacency constraints – The possibility of displacing compound verb forms restricts, and observes increasingly stricter rules (}}...; .). – The relatively unconstrained grammar of genitival AL becomes increasingly tighter: AL is inserted when the inflectional genitive phrase is not leftadjacent to the definite article, but not otherwise (}}...; .). – Pronominal însuși changed its distribution from a free standing element into an intensifier, obligatorily adjacent to a nominal (}..). .. Reduction of redundancy – Cognate constructions and other pleonastic structures are jettisoned from the standard language; they are currently present only in a few clichés of the regional and ecclesiastical language (}.). – Polydefiniteness becomes very limited; the triple definite structures (definite noun – CEL – enclitic article) disappear from standard MR (}.). – The double expression (simultaneously adverbal and adnominal) of possession becomes very rare, especially in the context of inalienable possession (}}...; ...). – Appositions no longer undergo case-concord with their basis (}..).
. Conclusions Examination of this cluster of phenomena captures the main features and directions in the grammatical changes of the syntactic structure of Romanian. (a) The nominal domain of old Romanian underwent deeper structural changes in the passage to modern Romanian than did other areas of the grammar. For instance, in the verbal and clausal domains there have been systematic choices among competing structures or specializations of variant structures. By contrast, more radical changes affected the grammar of the nominal domain: emergence of new determiners with idiosyncratic distribution (e.g. CEL, }..), stabilization of the grammar of functional elements (e.g. LU(I), AL, }}...; ...), form-distribution specialization (e.g. strong vs. weak demonstratives, each associated with specific distributional features, }}..; .), overall changes in the strategies of marking grammatical categories (e.g. elimination of the universal quantification superlative ‘more X than all’ in favour of the Romance strategy based on the definiteness and partitivity ‘the most of X’, favoured by the grammaticalization of CEL, }..), etc. Hence, the dynamics of change did not have the same rate in all the syntactic domains of Romanian.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Conclusions
(b) The syntactic development of Romanian simultaneously takes various directions: (i) on the one hand, there is a tendency towards the stabilization of syntactic rules, shown by the reduction of syntactic variation and gradual elimination of redundant structures, and a tendency towards simplification, obvious in the reduction of periphrastic and double compound forms; (ii) on the other hand, there is an opposite tendency towards the diversification and specialization of syntactic patterns, apparent in the elimination of multifunctional structures in favour of novel constructions, specialized for unique values; (iii) new areas of variation also emerge, either by the non-finalization of certain directions of change (e.g. the replacement of the infinitive by the subjunctive), or by the grammaticalization of new constructions which compete with older entities. (c) Within the process(es) of change, we find phenomena which took place in other Romance languages, consisting either in the disappearance of some old Romance phenomena, or, on the contrary, in the stabilization of others. Numerous old Romance syntactic phenomena also present in OR disappear in the transition to MR: the genitive and the partitive based on de, the proclitic definite article, auxiliary and pronominal clitic inversion, expletive subjects, etc. The existence of these phenomena throws into prominence the ‘Romance nature’ of the syntax of OR. Foreign influences (especially of translations) occur rather in relation to marginal phenomena. (d) Some of the mutations analysed have an external cause, resulting from the gradual abandonment of loan translations and clichés, such as: the considerable reduction of verbs which select a dative (}...); the reduction of cognate constructions and of other pleonastic structures (}.); the loss of some impersonal structures based on fi ‘be’ (}...); the elimination of the gerund as a main clause predicate (}...); the reduction of polydefiniteness (the loss of three-four determiner structures) (}..)); the abandonment of some clichés employed in the discourse organization of texts (}.), etc. (e) Two stylistic directions of discourse organization in texts appear throughout OR, roughly represented by the opposition ‘translation vs. original texts’. Between these two styles, there are great differences of syntactic organization (laborious sentences with numerous embedded clauses, intercalations and topicalizations, many loan translations and syntactic clichés vs. freer syntax, simpler phrases based on coordination, etc.). Despite all these, it is obvious that the two styles influence each other, so that phenomena that are considered to be of a learnèd origin and imitations of foreign models do occur—albeit with different frequency—both in translations and in original texts, e.g. cognate objects and pleonastic structures, subject doubling, excessive use of the dative, frequent occurrences of the se-passive, phrase-initial DP-internal modifiers and arguments (APs, PPs, genitives, possessive adjectives), cleft relatives, etc. Taking into consideration the extensive presence of these learnèd and ‘foreign’ phenomena in Romanian original texts, we are led to conclude that they actually consolidate structures and constructions present in the
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
. Conclusions
grammar of Romanian, affecting their frequency, rather than resulting from a process of wholesale importation of foreign structures into the grammar. (f) The process of supra-dialectal unification, which characterizes the development of (Daco-)Romanian from the old to the modern period, can be glimpsed to some extent, in old Romanian, by tracking down the circulation of texts, most of them published, but also manuscripts (see }..). Although certain dialectal syntactic phenomena are present as early as the old period—the invariability of the freestanding proclitic genitival marker a, predominant in the northern area and in some areas from Banat–Hunedoara (Gheție and Mareș : –); pronominal clitic repetition (clitics may either attach to the auxiliary and the non-finite form or to the verb proclitically and enclitically) in Moldova; the dialectal repartition of some connectors, etc.—one cannot establish major dialectal differences in the syntactic organization of texts. (g) A notable element is that certain old syntactic phenomena which disappeared from the standard modern language have been preserved dialectally, such as the persistence of certain doubly compound verbal forms, the preservation of the long infinitive with a verbal value, the invariable usage of the proclitic freestanding genitival marker A, clitic repetition, the usage of certain connectors abandoned by the standard language. Indirectly, this highlights the fact that, as early as the old period, the dynamic of a given phenomenon was not necessarily the same in all areas, some regions being more conservative than others.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Appendix 1: Corpus The abbreviation consists of the initial letters of the text title, occasionally preceded by the initial of the author/printer/editor of the text. The abbreviation is followed by the year marking the date of the text. An interval is marked when the dating is not precise. The sign ~/ante/post followed by a year shows the text dates from a period close/anterior/posterior to that year. The abbreviations are not followed by information on the date of a text if they refer to volumes comprising several OR texts from different periods: anthologies, document collections (e.g. CLRV, DÎ, or SB), monographs on certain writings (e.g. AMD, LD, or VM) or on specific miscellanies (e.g. CS); the date of each text from which examples are excerpted is marked within the quotation. The texts are accompanied by information regarding their region of provenance (the places of publication of books; the regions/places where the scribes of manuscripts originate from). This information appears after the data concerning the edition used. Anthologies and document collections are not followed by information regarding the provenance of the texts (e.g. DÎ, IS, or SB). Whenever the date of a text marked here differs from the date specified in the edition of the text, we have indicated the study from which this information has been taken. Each example cited is followed by a reference to the folio (r/v) of manuscript/printed text from which it is excerpted. Where editors do not indicate the folios of the text, reference is made to the page of the edition. A.
Alexandria. Ed. F. Zgraon, Bucharest: Fundaţia Naţională pentru Știinţă și Artă, (Cele mai vechi cărţi populare în literatura română, ). (South Transylvania, Brașov, or Haţeg)
AA.
Archirie și Anadan. Ed. M. Georgescu, Bucharest: Minerva, (Cele mai vechi cărţi populare în literatura română, ), –. (North Transylvania)
AAM.
Antim Ivireanul, Așezământul Mănăstirii Antim. Ed.: Antim Ivireanul, Opere, ed. G. Ștrempel, Bucharest: Minerva, , –. (Wallachia, Bucharest)
ACP.
Antim Ivireanul, Capete de poruncă. Ed.: Antim Ivireanul, Opere, ed. G. Ștrempel, Bucharest: Minerva, , –. (Wallachia, Târgoviște)
ACT.
Antim Ivireanul, Chipurile Vechiului și Noului Testament. Ed.: Antim Ivireanul, Opere, ed. G. Ștrempel, Bucharest: Minerva, , –. (Wallachia, Târgoviște)
AD.–
Antim Ivireanul, Didahii. Ed.: Antim Ivireanul, Opere, ed. G. Ștrempel, Bucharest: Minerva, , –. (Wallachia, Bucharest)
AIB.
Antim Ivireanul, Învăţătură bisericească. Ed.: Antim Ivireanul, Opere, ed. G. Ștrempel, Bucharest: Minerva, , –. (Wallachia, Târgoviște)
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Appendix : Corpus
AIP.
Antim Ivireanul, Învăţătură pentru taina pocăinţii. Ed.: Antim Ivireanul, Opere, ed. G. Ștrempel, Bucharest: Minerva, , –. (Wallachia)
AMD
C. Dima, Apocalipsul Maicii Domnului. Versiuni românești din secolele al XVI-lea—al XIX-lea, Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, . AMDI.–—ms. (= Codex Sturdzanus), –. (North Hunedoara) AMDII.–—ms. BCU Cluj, –. (Sălaj; Mareș : ) AMDIII.—ms. popa Urs, –. (Crișana, Bihor) AMDIV.—ms. , –. (Bucharest) AMDV.–—ms. BAR Cluj, –. (South-East Transylvania) AMDVI.—ms. , –. (Hunedoara) AMDVII.–—ms. , –. (Oltenia, Râmnic) AMDVIII.—ms. , –. (Moldova)
AOD.–
Alexie, omul lui Dumnezeu. Ed. M. Stanciu-Istrate, Bucharest: Fundaţia Naţională pentru Știinţă și Artă, (Cele mai vechi cărţi populare în literatura română, ), –. (North Moldova)
BB.
Biblia. Ed.: Biblia adecă Dumnezeiasca Scriptură a Vechiului și Noului Testament, tipărită întâia oară la în timpul lui Șerban Vodă Cantacuzino, Domnul Ţării Românești, Bucharest: Editura Institutului Biblic, . (Wallachia, Bucharest)
Bert.
Bertoldo. Ed. Magdalena Georgescu, Bucharest: Minerva, (Cele mai vechi cărţi populare în literatura română, ), –. (Moldova)
BIU.
Vlad Boţulescu de Mălăiești, Scrieri III. Istoria universală. Asia, ed. E. Timotin, A. Timotin, Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic Gold, , –. (Wallachia)
BVS.
Vlad Boţulescu de Mălăiești, Scrieri I. Viaţa lui Scanderbeg, ed. E. Timotin, O. Olar, Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic Gold, , –. (Wallachia)
CazV.
Varlaam, Cazania, ed. J. Byck, Bucharest: Fundația Regală pentru Literatură și Artă, , –. (Moldova)
CB.–
Codicele popii Bratul. Ed. Al. Gafton: . (South-East Transylvania or Brașov; Gheție and Mareș : )
CBuc.
Carte întru carea să scriu mâncările. Ed.: O lume într-o carte de bucate. Manuscris din epoca brâncovenească, ed. I. Constantinescu, , Bucharest: Editura Fundației Culturale Române. (Wallachia; Chivu )
CC1.
Coresi, Tâlcul Evangheliilor. Ed.: Coresi, Tâlcul evangheliilor și molitvenic românesc, ed. V. Drimba, Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, , – (Transylvania, Wallachian subdialect; Gheție and Mareș : )
CC2.
Coresi, Evanghelie cu învăţătură. Ed.: Diaconul Coresi, Carte cu învăţătură (), vol. I, Textul, ed. S. Pușcariu, Al. Procopovici, Bucharest: Socec, . (Brașov)
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Appendix : Corpus
CCat.
Coresi, Catehism. Ed. Al. Roman-Moraru, in I. Gheţie (coord.), Texte românești din secolul al XVI-lea. I. Catehismul lui Coresi; II. Pravila lui Coresi; III. Fragmentul Todorescu; IV. Glosele Bogdan; V. Prefeţe și Epiloguri, Bucharest: Editura Acadmiei Române, , –. (Brașov)
CD.
Dimitrie Cantemir, Divanul. Ed.: D. Cantemir, Opere complete, I, Divanul, ed. V. Cândea, Bucharest: Editura Academiei, , –. (Moldova, Iași)
CDicţ.–
Theodor Corbea, Dictiones Latinæ cum Valachica interpretatione. Ed. A.-M. Gherman, vol. I, Cluj-Napoca: Clusium, , –. (Brașov)
CH.–
Dimitrie Cantemir, Hronicul vechimei a romano moldo-vlahilor, ed. S. Toma, Bucharest: Minerva, , – (vol. I), – (vol. II). (Moldova)
CII.~
Dimitrie Cantemir, Istoria ieroglifică. Ed.: D. Cantemir, Opere complete, IV, Istoria ieroglifică, ed. S. Toma, Bucharest: Editura Academiei, , –. (Moldova)
CIst.–
Constantin Cantacuzino, Istoria Ţării Românești. Ed.: Istoria Ţărâi Rumânești atribuită stolnicului Constantin Cantacuzino, ed. O. Dragomir, Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, , –. (Bucharest)
CÎ.
Cheaia înţelesului. Ed. Ioannykij Haleatovskyi, Cheia înţelesului, ed. R. Popescu, Bucharest: Libra, , –. (Bucharest)
CÎC.–
Însemnările de călătorie și de studii la Constantinopol, Veneţia și Padova ale lui C. Cantacuzino. Ed.: F. Dimitrescu, Contribuţii la istoria limbii române vechi, Bucharest: Editura Didactică și Pedagogică, , . (Wallachia)
CL.
Coresi, Liturghier. Ed. Al. Mareș, Bucharest: Editura Academiei, , –. (Brașov, Wallachian subdialect)
CLM.–
Miron Costin, Letopiseţul Ţărâi Moldovei. Ed.: M. Costin, Opere, ed. P. P. Panaitescu, Bucharest: Editura de Stat pentru Literatură și Artă, , –. (Moldova)
CLRV
Al. Mareș, Crestomaţia limbii române vechi, I ( ), Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, .
CM.
Coresi, Molitvenic. Ed.: Coresi, Tâlcul evangheliilor și molitvenic românesc, ed. V. Drimba, Bucharest: Editura Academiei, , –. (Transylvania; Gheție and Mareș : )
CMț.~
Codicele Marțian. Ed.: N. Drăganu, Două manuscripte vechi. Codicele Todorescu și Codicele Marţian, Bucharest Vienna Leipzig, Socec—C. Sfetea— O. Harassowitz, , –. (North Transylvania, Dima : ).
CNM.– Miron Costin, De neamul moldovenilor, din ce țară au ieșit strămoșii lor. Ed.: M. Costin, Opere, ed. P. P. Panaitescu, Bucharest: Editura de Stat pentru Literatură și Artă, , –. (Moldova and Brașov) CP.
Coresi, Psaltire. Ed.: Coresi, Psaltirea slavo-română () în comparaţie cu psaltirile coresiene din și din , ed. S. Toma, Bucharest: Editura Academiei, , –. (Brașov,Wallachian subdialect)
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Appendix : Corpus
CP1.
Coresi, Psaltire slavo-română. Ed.: Coresi, Psaltirea slavo-română () în comparaţie cu psaltirile coresiene din și din , ed. S. Toma, Bucharest: Editura Academiei RSR, , –. (Brașov, Wallachian subdialect)
CPr.
Coresi, Apostol. Ed. I. Bianu, Texte de limbă din secolul XVI, IV, Lucrul apostolesc tipărit de diaconul Coresi la , Bucharest: Cultura Națională, . (Brașov; Gheție and Mareș : )
CPrav.–
Coresi, Pravila. Ed. Gh. Chivu, in I. Gheţie (coord.), Texte românești din secolul al XVI-lea, –. (Brașov)
CPV.~
Theodor Corbea, Psaltirea în versuri. Ed. A.-M. Gherman, Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, , –. (Brașov)
Cron.
Cronograf tradus din grecește de Pătrașco Danovici, ed. G. Ștrempel, vols, Bucharest: Minerva, , – (vol. I); – (vol. II). (Moldova)
CS
Codex Sturdzanus. Ed. Gh. Chivu, Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, , –. CSI.–post—Legenda duminicii. (Alba) CSII.–—Pravila sfinţilor părinţi (În știre să vă fie, oamenilor). (Alba) CSIII.–—Apocalipsul apostolului Pavel. (North Hunedoara) CSIV.–—Apocalipsul Maicii Domnului. (North Hunedoara) CSV.–—Cugetări în ora morţii. (North Hunedoara) CSVI.–—Legenda lui Sisinie. (North Hunedoara) CSVII.–—I. Omilia de Paști (Să neștire buru creștiru). (North Hunedoara) CSVIII.–—Rugăciune de scoatere a dracului. (Alba) CSIX.–—Moartea lui Avram. (Alba) CSX.–—II. Omilia de Paști (Oarecire era un părinte). (North Transylvania) CSXI.–—Legenda Sfintei Vineri. (Alba) CSXII.—Întrebare creștinească. (Alba) CSXIII.–—Fragment liturgic. (Alba) CSXIV.–—Tâlcul evangheliei de la judecată (Zise Domnul). (Alba) CSXV.—Fraţi dragi. (Alba)
CT.–
Coresi, Tetraevanghel. Ed.: Tetraevanghelul tipărit de Coresi. Brașov —, comparat cu Evangheliarul lui Radu de la Mănicești. , ed. F. Dimitrescu, Bucharest: Editura Academiei, . (Wallachian subdialect, Brașov)
CTd.–
Codicele Todorescu. Ed.: N. Drăganu, Două manuscripte vechi. Codicele Todorescu și Codicele Marţian, –. (North Transylvania, ILRL: ).
CV.–
Codicele Voroneţean. Ed. M. Costinescu, Bucharest: Editura Academiei, , –. (Moldova)
DDL.
Dosoftei, Dumnezăiasca liturghie. Ed. N. A. Ursu, Iași: Mitropolia Moldovei și Sucevei, , –. (Moldova, Iași)
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Appendix : Corpus
DH
Documente privitoare la istoria românilor, culese de E. de Hurmuzaki, publicate sub auspiciile Ministerului Cultelor și al Instrucțiunii și ale Academiei Române, vol. XV. Bucharest: Socec, .
DIR.A
Documente privind istoria României, veacul XVII, A. Moldova, Bucharest: Editura Academiei, : IV (–); : V (–). (Moldova)
DIR.B
Documente privind istoria României, veacul XVII, B. Țara Românească, Bucharest: Editura Academiei, : I (–), II (–), : IV (–). (Wallachia)
DIS.–
Disputa lui Isus cu Satana. Ed. L. Agache, Bucharest: Fundaţia Naţională pentru Știinţă și Artă, (Cele mai vechi cărţi populare în literatura română, ), –. (Crișana, Bihor; Dima : )
DÎ
Documente și însemnări românești din secolul al XVI-lea, text stabilit și indice de Gh. Chivu, M. Georgescu, M. Ioniţă, Al. Mareș, Al. Roman-Moraru, Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, .
Doc.Athos1
P. Zahariuc (ed.), De la Iași la Muntele Athos. Studii și documente de istorie a Bisericii, Iași: Editura Universității ‘Al. I. Cuza’, , –, –, –, –, –.
Doc.Athos2
P. Zahariuc, F. Marinescu (ed.), Documente românești din arhiva Mănăstirii Xenofon de la Muntele Athos, Iași: Editura Universității ‘Al. I. Cuza’, , –.
DP.
Dosoftei, Psaltirea de-nţăles, Iași, , ed. M. Cobzaru, Iași: Demiurg, , –. (Moldova, Iași)
DPar.
Dosoftei, Parimiile preste an, , ed. M. Ungureanu, Iași: Editura Universității ‘Al. I. Cuza’, , –. (Moldova, Iași)
DPV.
Dosoftei, Psaltirea în versuri. Ed.: Dosoftei, Opere, , Versuri, ed. N. A. Ursu, Iași: Mitropolia Moldovei și a Sucevei, , –. (Ukraine, Uniev)
DRH.A
Documenta Romaniae Historica. A. Moldova, Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, : XXIII (–); : XXVIII (—). (Moldova)
DRH.B
Documenta Romaniae Historica. B. Țara Românească, Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, : XXI (); : XXIII (–); : XXIV (–); : XXX (); : XXXI (); : XXXIV (); XXXV (); : XXXVII (); : XXXVIII (). (Wallachia)
DVS.–
Dosoftei, Viața și petreacerea svinților, Iași. (Moldova)
DVT.–
C.-I. Dima, O traducere inedită a Vechiului Testament din secolul al XVI-lea, Bucharest: Editura Universității din Bucharest, , –. (Crișana, Bihor)
EG.
Dimitrie Eustatievici Brașoveanul, Gramatica rumânească (). Prima gramatică a limbii române. Ed. N.A. Ursu, Bucharest: Editura Științifică, , –. (Brașov)
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Appendix : Corpus
Ev.
Evanghelie învăţătoare. Ed. A.-M. Gherman, Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, , –. (Oltenia, Govora Monastery)
FD.–
Floarea darurilor. Ed. A. Roman Moraru, Bucharest: Minerva, (Cele mai vechi cărţi populare în literatura română, ), –. (Moldova, Putna Monastery)
Fiz.
Fiziologul. Ed. V. Guruianu, Bucharest: Minerva, (Cele mai vechi cărţi populare în literatura română, ), –. (Brașov)
FN.–
Foletul Novel. Calendarul lui Constantin Vodă Brâncoveanu (–), ed. E. Vârtosu, Bucharest: Monitorul Oficial și Imprimeriile Statului, , –. (Wallachia)
FT.–
Fragmentul Todorescu (Carte de cântece). Ed. I. Gheţie, in I. Gheţie (coord.), Texte românești din secolul al XVI-lea, –. (Transylvania, Cluj; Gheție and Mareș : )
GB.XVI-XVII
Glosele Bogdan. Ed. M. Georgescu in I. Gheţie (coord.), Texte românești din secolul al XVI-lea, –. (North Moldova)
GCond.
Literatura românească de ceremonial. Condica lui Gheorgachi, , ed. D. Simonescu, Bucharest: Fundația Regele Carol I, , –. (Moldova, Iași)
GIst.~
Radu Greceanu, Începătura istoriii vieții luminatului și preacreștinului Domnului Țării Rumânești. Ed. Cronicari munteni, vol. II, ed. M. Gregorian, Bucharest: Editura pentru Literatură, , –. (Wallachia)
ICB.~
Istoria lui Costandin-Vodă Brâncoveanul. Ed.: Cronici și povestiri românești versificate (sec. XVII XVIII), ed. D. Simonescu, Bucharest: Editura Academiei, , –. (Wallachia)
ICP.~
Ioan Cantacuzino, Patru apologii pentru religia creștină și Patru oraţii, traduse în limba română la mijlocul secolului al XVII-lea de Nicolae Spătarul (Milescu), ed. E. Dima, Iași: Editura Universității ‘Al. I. Cuza’, , –. (Moldova)
IS
Nicolae Iorga, Scrisori de boieri. Scrisori de domni, ed. a II-a, Vălenii-deMunte: Datina românească, , –, –, –.
ISN
N. Iorga, Scrisori de negustori, Vălenii de Munte, .
ITM
Însemnări pe de pe manuscrise și cărţi vechi din Ţara Moldovei, ed. I. Caproșu and E. Chiaburu, Iași: Demiurg, , vol. I (–), –; vol. II (–), –.
LC.~
Lemnul crucii. Ed. E. Timotin, Bucharest: Fundaţia Naţională pentru Știinţă și Artă, (Cele mai vechi cărţi populare în literatura română, ), –. (South-West Transylvania)
LD
Legenda duminicii. Ed. E. Timotin, Bucharest: Fundaţia Naţională pentru Știinţă și Artă, (Cele mai vechi cărţi populare în literatura română, ). LDI.–post—ms. = (Codex Sturdzanus), –. LDII.~—ms. = (Manuscrisul de la Ieud), –. (Maramureș) LDIII.–—ms. BCU Cluj, –. (Sălaj; Mareș : )
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Appendix : Corpus
LDIV.–—ms. Șcheii Brașovului, –. (Brașov) LDVa.—ms. , –. (Crișana, Bihor) LDVb.–—ms. , –. (Crișana, Bihor) LDVI.—ms. , –. (Crișana, Bihor) LDVIII.–—ms. , –. (Oltenia, Râmnic) Mărg.
Mărgăritare. Ioan Gură de Aur, Mărgăritare, ed. R. Popescu, Bucharest: Libra, , –. (Wallachia, Bucharest)
MC.
M. Moxa, Cronograf. Ed.: Mihail Moxa, Cronica universală, ed. G. Mihăilă, Bucharest: Minerva, , –. (Wallachia, Cozia Monastery)
MI.~
Manuscrisul de la Ieud. Ed. M. Teodorescu, I. Gheţie, Bucharest: Editura Academiei, , –. (North Transylvania, Maramureș)
Mol.
Molităvnic. Ed. A. Dumitran, A.-M. Gherman, A. Vanca, Alba Iulia: Reîntregirea, , –. (Alba Iulia)
NCL
Nicolae Costin, Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei. Ed.: Nicolae Costin, Opere I, ed. Const. A. Stoide, I. Lăzărescu, Iași: Junimea, . (Moldova) NCLI.~, – NCLII., – (Crăciun—Ilieș : , , )
NÎnv.~
Învățăturile lui Neagoe Basarab către fiul său Teodosie. Ed. F. Moisil, D. Zamfirescu, Bucharest: Minerva, , –. (Wallachia, Bucharest)
NL.~–
Ion Neculce, Letopiseţul. Ed.: Ion Neculce, Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei și O samă de cuvinte, ed. I. Iordan, Bucharest: Editura de Stat pentru Literatură și Artă, ed. a II-a, , –. (Moldova and Wallachia)
NT.
Noul Testament. Ed. Alba Iulia: Reîntregirea, . (Alba Iulia)
PB.
Psaltirea de la Bălgrad. Ed.: Alba Iulia: Reîntregirea, . (Alba Iulia)
PE
Prefețe și epiloguri din secolul al XVI-lea. Ed. E. Buză, F. Zgraon, in I. Gheţie (coord.), Texte românești din secolul al XVI-lea, –.
PH.–
Psaltirea Hurmuzaki, ed. I. Gheţie and M. Teodorescu, Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, . (Moldova)
PI.~
Palia istorică. Ed. A. Roman Moraru, M. Moraru, Bucharest: Fundaţia Naţională pentru Știinţă și Artă, , – (Cele mai vechi cărţi populare în literatura română, ). (South-West Transylvania)
PIst.~
Radu Popescu, Istoriile domnilor Țării Românești. Ed.: Cronicari munteni, I, ed. M. Gregorian, –. (Wallachia)
PO.
Palia de la Orăștie. Ed. V. Pamfil, Bucharest: Editura Academiei, . (Banat-Hunedoara; Gheție and Mareș : )
Prav.
Pravila ritorului Lucaci. Ed. I. Rizescu, Bucharest: Editura Academiei, , –. (Moldova, Putna Monastery)
Prav.
Pravilă, copied by priest Toader from Râpa de Jos (Bistriţa). Ed.: Al. Rosetti, Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie, Copenhagen-Bucharest, Einar Munksgaard-Institutul de Linguistică, , . (North Transylvania, Bistrița)
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Appendix : Corpus
Prav.
Carte românească de învăţătură. Ed.: Carte românească de învăţătură. , ed. Colectivul pentru vechiul drept românesc condus de acad. A. Rădulescu, Bucharest: Editura Academiei, , – (Adunarea izvoarelor vechiului drept românesc scris, ). (Moldova, Iași)
Prav.
Îndreptarea legii. , ed. Colectivul pentru vechiul drept românesc condus de acad. A. Rădulescu, Bucharest: Editura Academiei, (Adunarea izvoarelor vechiului drept românesc scris, ), –. (Wallachia, Târgoviște)
Prav.
Pravilniceasca condică. , ed. Colectivul pentru vechiul drept românesc condus de acad. A. Rădulescu, Bucharest: Editura Academiei, (Adunarea izvoarelor vechiului drept românesc scris, ), –. (Wallachia, Bucharest)
PS.–
Psaltirea Scheiană. Ed.: Psaltirea Scheiană comparată cu celelalte psaltiri din secolele al XVI-lea și al XVII-lea, ed. I-A. Candrea, Bucharest: Socec, ; Psaltirea Scheiană, ed. I. Bianu, Bucharest: Carol Göbl, . (Moldova; Gheție and Mareș : )
PV.–
Psaltire. C. Gălușcă, Slavisch-Rumänisches Psalterbruchstück, Halle: Max Niemeyer, . (Moldova; Gheție and Mareș : )
SA.
Ioan Zoba din Vinţ, Sicriul de aur. Ed. A. Goţia, Bucharest: Minerva, , –. (Sebeș)
SB
Al. Rosetti, Scrisori românești din arhivele Bistriței (–), Bucharest: Casa Școalelor, , –
Sind.
Sindipa. Ed. M. Georgescu, Bucharest: Minerva, (Cele mai vechi cărţi populare în literatura română, ), –. (Brașov)
SVI.~
Varlaam și Ioasaf. Ed.: M. Stanciu Istrate, Reflexe ale medievalităţii europene în cultura română veche: Varlaam și Ioasaf în cea mai veche versiune a traducerii lui Udriște Năsturel, Bucharest: Editura Muzeului Național al Literaturii Române, , –. (Wallachia)
ȘT.
Șeapte taine a besearecii, Iași, . Ed. I. Mazilu, Iași: Editura Universității ‘Al. I. Cuza’, , –. (Moldova, Iași)
TD
E. Timotin, Decântecele manuscrise românești (secolele al XVII-lea—al XIXlea), Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, TDI.–—ms. (= Codex Sturdzanus), . (Alba) TDII.ante—ms. , . (Sălaj) TDIII.ante—ms. , . (Crișana, Bihor) TDIV.—ms. , . (North Dacoromania) TDV.~—ms. , . (Crișana, Bihor) TDVI.—ms. , –. (Arad) TDVII.~—ms. , . (Transylvania) TDVIII.–—ms. , –. (Transylvania)
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Appendix : Corpus
TDXI.post—ms. , . (North Dacoromania) TDXII.–—ms. , . (Wallachia) TDXIII.–—ms. , . (Wallachia) TDXIV.—ms. , . (Oltenia) TDXXIV.–—ms. (= Codex Sturdzanus), . (Alba) TDXXV.–—ms. , . (Wallachia) TDXXXV.—ms. , . (North Dacoromania) TDXXXVI.–—ms. , . (Wallachia) TDXXXVIII.—ms. , . (Wallachia) TDXXXIX.–—ms. , . (Republic of Moldova, Tighina) TDXLVIII.—ms. , . (Oltenia) TDL.–—ms. , . (Wallachia) TDLIII.~—ms. , –. (Crișana, Bihor) TDLIV.—ms. , . (Wallachia) TDLXI.—ms. , . (Wallachia) TDLXIII.~—ms. , . (Crișana, Bihor) TDLXXV.—ms. , . (Wallachia) TDLXXVII.—ms. , . (Wallachia) TDLXXXI.—ms. , . (Oltenia) TDLXXXIV.–—ms. , . (Republic of Moldova, Tighina) TDXCVIII.–—ms. , . (Wallachia) TS.–
Evangheliar. Ed.: Evangheliarul slavo-român de la Sibiu. – (Sibiu), Studiu introductiv filologic de E. Petrovici, studiu introductiv istoric de L. Demény, Bucharest: Editura Academiei, , – (Sibiu).
ULM.~
Grigore Ureche, Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei. Ed. P. P. Panaitescu, Bucharest: Editura de Stat pentru Literatură și Artă, , –. (Wallachia, original from Moldova)
VE.
Viaţa lui Esop. Ed. V. Barbu, Bucharest: Minerva, , –. (Brașov)
VL.post
Sfântul Ierarh Varlaam, Mitropolitul Moldovei, Leastviţa sau Scara raiului de Ioan Scărarul, ed. O. Panaite, Iași: Trinitas, , –. (Moldova)
VM
Cele douăsprezece vise în tâlcuirea lui Mamer. Ed. Al. Mareș, Bucharest: Fundaţia Naţională pentru Știinţă și Artă, (Cele mai vechi cărţi populare în literatura română, ). VMI.~—ms. , –. (Wallachia) VMII.–—ms. , –. (Maramureș) VMIII.–—ms. sl. , –. (Banat or South-West Hunedoara)
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Appendix : Corpus
VN.–
Viaţa Sfântului Vasile cel Nou și Vămile văzduhului. Ed. M. Stanciu-Istrate, Bucharest: Fundaţia Naţională pentru Știinţă și Artă, , – (Cele mai vechi cărţi populare în literatura română, ). (South-East Transylvania)
VRC.
Varlaam, Răspunsul împotriva catihismusului calvinesc. Ed.: Varlaam, Opere, Răspunsul împotriva catihismusului calvinesc, ed. M. Teodorescu, Bucharest: Minerva, , –. (Wallachia, Târgoviște, Dealu Monastery)
VS.post
Vedenia Sofianei. Ed. A. Timotin, E. Timotin, Bucharest: Fundaţia Naţională pentru Știinţă și Artă, (Cele mai vechi cărţi populare în literatura română, ), –. (Oltenia, Râmnic)
Arad
C ed
oa
B
a
n
a
t
Dealu Târgoviste
Brașov
Brașov
W a l l a Bucharest c h i a
Râmnic
Sibiu
Cozia Govora
Sebeș
M. Regional distribution of the main old Romanian texts.
Symbols City Monastery Aa Dialect of Daco-Romanian Broad areas of significant textual production
Alba
Alba Iulia
Iași
v
O l te n i a
ra
Transylvania
s‚ Cluj
o ld o
Hu n
ri
a n a
Putna
Uniev
M
Bihor
M a ra mu re s‚ Sa˘ laj
Appendix 2
0
Tighina
30
60 km
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
a
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References Adams, J.N. (). Social variation and the Latin language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aejmelaeus, A. (). On the trail of the septuagint translators. Collected essays. Leuven: Peeters. Alboiu, G. (). ‘Moving forward with Romanian backward control and raising’, in W.D. Davies and S. Dubinsky (eds), New horizons in the analysis of control and raising. Dordrecht: Springer, –. Alboiu, G., and Hill, V. (). ‘Early Modern Romanian and Wackernagel’s Law’, SKY Journal of Linguistics : –. Alboiu, G., Hill, V., and Sitaridou, I. (). ‘Discourse Driven V-to-C in Early Modern Romanian’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. DOI:./s---. Alkire, T., and Rosen, C. (). Romance languages: a historical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Allen, J.H., and Greenough, J.B. ([, ] ). Allen and Greenough’s New Latin grammar for schools and colleges, founded on comparative grammar. Ed. J.B. Greenough, G.L. Kittredge, A.A. Howard, and B.L. D’Ooge. Newburyport MA: Focus Publishing R. Pullins Company. ALR. Pop, S. (). Atlasul lingvistic român. Ed. by S. Pușcariu. Sibiu—Leipzig. Andersen, H. (). ‘Periphrastic futures in Slavic. Divergence and convergence’, in K. Eksell and T. Vinther (eds), Change in verbal systems. Issues in explanation. Bern: Peter Lang, –. Apothéloz, D. (). ‘Le passé surcomposé et la valeur de parfait existentiel’, Journal of French Language Studies , : –. Ariel, M. (). ‘Referring and accessibility’, Journal of Linguistics , : –. Arvinte, V. (). ‘Construcţii perifrastice în Biblia de la București (), în ms. și ms. ’. Studii și cercetări lingvistice , : – [reprinted in V. Arvinte, Studii de istorie a limbii române, Iași, Editura Universităţii ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’, , –]. Arvinte, V. (). Normele limbii literare în Biblia de la București (). Iași: Editura Universităţii ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’. Arvinte, V. (). ‘Normele limbii literare în Palia de la Orăștie ()’, in A. Gafton and V. Arvinte, Palia de la Orăștie (). II. Studii. Iași: Editura Universităţii ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’, –. Asan, F. (). ‘Reluarea complementului în limba română’, in SG, –. Asher, R.E., and Simpson, J.M.Y. (eds) (). The encyclopedia of language and linguistics. II. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Atanasov, P. (). Meglenoromâna astăzi. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Austin, J.L. (). ‘How to do things with words’. The William James lectures, delivered at Harvard University in . London: Oxford University Press. Avram, A. (). ‘Contribuţii la interpretarea grafiei chirilice a primelor texte românești’, Studii și cercetări lingvistice , : –.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Avram, A. (). ‘Sandhi phenomena in Romanian’, in A. Henning (ed.), Sandhi phenomena in the languages of Europe. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter, –. Avram, L. (). Auxiliaries and the structure of language. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București. Avram, L., and Coene, M. (). ‘Dative/Genitive clitics as last resort’, Balkanistica : –. Avram, L., and Coene, M. (). ‘Romanian possessive clitics revisited’, in L. Tasmowski and D. Kalluli (eds), Clitic doubling in the Balkan languages. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, –. Avram, L., and Hill, V. (). ‘An irrealis BE in Romanian’, in R. Aranovich (ed.), Split auxiliary system. A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, –. Avram, M. (). Evoluţia subordonării circumstanţiale cu elemente conjuncţionale în limba română. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Avram, M. (). ‘Condiţionalul cu valoare de indicativ trecut în texte vechi românești’, Studii și cercetări lingvistice , : –. Avram, M. (). Gramatica pentru toţi. Bucharest: Editura Humanitas. Avram, M. (a). Studii de sintaxă a limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Avram, M. (b). ‘Propoziţiile subordonate’, in M. Avram (ed.), –. Avram, M. (ed.) (). Sintaxa limbii române în secolele al XVI-lea–al XVIII-lea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Avram, M., and Sala, M. (). Faceți cunoștință cu limba română. Cluj: Echinox. Ayres-Bennett, W., and Carruthers, J. (). ‘Une regrettable et fort disgracieuse faute de français?’: The description and analysis of the French surcomposés from to the present day’, Transactions of the Philological Society, , : –. Baldi, P., and Cuzzolin, P. (eds) (). New perspectives on historical Latin syntax. . History of the Latin sentence. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Baldi, P., and Cuzzolin, P. (eds) (). New perspectives on historical Latin syntax. . Constituent syntax: adverbial phrases, adverbs, mood, tense. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Baldi, P., and Cuzzolin, P. (eds) (). New perspectives on historical Latin syntax. . Complex sentences, grammaticalization, typology. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Baños, J. M. (). ‘Causal clauses’, in P. Baldi and P. Cuzzolin (eds), –. Baños Baños, J.M. (ed.) (). Sintaxis del latín clásico. Madrid: Liceus. Barbu Mititelu, V., and Maftei Ciolăneanu, R. (). ‘The main aspects of the grammar of negation in Romanian’, in E. Ionescu (ed.), –. Bardzokas, V. (). Causality and connectives: from Grice to Relevance. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Barić, H. (). ‘La perte de l’infinitif dans les langues balkaniques’. Godišnjak Balkanološki Institut : –. Bateman, N., and Polinsky, M. (). ‘Romanian as a two-gender language’, in D.B. Gerdts, J.C. Moore, and M. Polinsky (eds), Hypothesis A/Hypothesis B. Linguistic explorations in honor of David M. Pelmutter. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, –. Bauer, B. (). Archaic syntax in Indo-European. The spread of transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Bauer, B. L. M. (). ‘Word formation’, in M. Maiden, J. C. Smith, and A. Ledgeway (eds), –. Becker (). ‘Mood in Rumanian’, in B. Rothstein and R. Thieroff (eds), Mood in the languages of Europe. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, –. Benincà, P. (). ‘Conjunctions’, in M. Maiden and M. Parry (eds), –. Benincà, P. (). ‘Friulian linguistics’, in R. Mucignat (ed.), The Friulian language. Identity, migration, culture. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, –. Bentley, D., and Ledgeway, A. (). ‘Manciati siti? Les constructions moyennes avec les participes résultatifs-statifs en italien et dans les variétés italo-romanes méridionales’, Langages , : –. Benveniste, E. (). ‘Les relations de temps dans le verbe français’, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique , : –. Berea, E. (). ‘Din istoria posesivului său-lui în limba română’, Studii și cercetări lingvistice , : –. Berea-Găgeanu, E. (). ‘Observaţii asupra diatezei pasive în limba română’, Studii și cercetări lingvistice , : –. Berea-Găgeanu, E. (). ‘Observaţii privind structura și evoluţia viitorului în limba română’, Limba română , : –. Berea-Găgeanu, E. (). ‘Forme verbale de viitor cu auxiliarul a fi în limba română’, Limba română , : –. Berea-Găgeanu, E. (a). ‘Gruparea a avea + infinitivul in limba română’, Limba română : –. Berea-Găgeanu, E. (b). Viitorul în limba română. Bucharest: Tipografia Universităţii din București. Bergen, B.K., and Plauché, M.C. (). ‘The convergent evolution of radial constructions: French and English deictics and existentials’, Cognitive Linguistics , : –. Bertocchi, A., and Maraldi, M. (). ‘Conditionals and concessives’, in P. Baldi and P. Cuzzolin (eds), –. Blake, B. J., and Burridge, K. (eds) (). Historical linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bolinger, D. (). ‘Adjectives in English: attribution and predication’, Lingua : –. Bošković, Z. (). ‘Multiple wh-fronting and economy of derivation’, in E. Curtis, J. Lyle, and G. Webster (eds), The Proceedings of the Sixteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford University, Center for the Study of Language and Information, –. Bourciez, É. ([] , /). Éléments de linquistique romane. Paris: Librarie C. Klincksieck. Brăescu, R. (). ‘Diachronic remarks on Romanian superlative intensifiers: foarte—a grammaticalized marker’, in G. Pană Dindelegan, A. Dragomirescu, I. Nicula, A. Nicolae, and L. Esher (eds), –. Brăescu, R., and Dragomirescu, A. (). ‘Sintaxa adjectivelor relaţionale în limba română veche’, Limba română , : –. Brâncuș, G. (). ‘Sur la valeur du passé simple en roumain’, in I. Iordan, E. Petrovici, and A. Rosetti (eds), Mélanges linguistiques publiés a l’occasion du VIII Congres International des Linguistes à Oslo, du au août . Bucharest: Éditions de l'Académie, –. Brâncuș, G. (). Introducere în istoria limbii române. I. Bucharest: Editura Fundaţiei ‘România de Mâine’.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Brâncuș, G. (, ). Studii de istorie a limbii române. I, III. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Bresnan, J. (). ‘The passive in lexical theory’, in J. Bresnan (ed.), –. Bresnan, J. (ed.) (). The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Brinton, L.J., and Traugott, E.C. (). Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge / New York: Cambridge University Press. Brown, H.P., Joseph, B.D., and Wallace, R.E. (). ‘Questions and answers’, in P. Baldi and P. Cuzzolin (eds), –. Buchi, É., Chauveau, J.-P., and Pierrel, J-M. (eds) (). Actes du XXVIIe Congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes. Strasbourg: Société de linguistique romane/ ÉliPhi. Bugeanu, D. (a). ‘Viitorul cu habeo în limba română, I. Paradigma habeo cantare’, Studii și cercetări lingvistice , : –. Bugeanu, D. (b). ‘Formarea condiţionalului în limba română’, Studii și cercetări lingvistice , : –. Bugeanu, D. (). ‘Viitorul cu habeo în limba română, II. Etimologia lui va. Construcţiile de tipul o să cânt’, Studii și cercetări lingvistice , : –. Buridant, C. (). Grammaire nouvelle de l’ancien français. Paris: SEDES. Buză, E., and Zgraon, F. (). ‘Studiu filologic’, in I. Gheţie (ed.), –. Bybee, J.L., and Pagliuca, W. (). ‘The evolution of future meaning’, in A. Giacalone Ramat, O. Carruba, and G. Bernini (eds) Papers from the VIIth International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. Byck, J. (). Studii și articole. Bucharest: Editura Știinţifică. Cabrillana, C. (). ‘Purpose and result clauses’, in P. Baldi and P. Cuzzolin (eds) , –. Cadiot, P. (). ‘La préposition avec: grammaire et représentation’, Le Français Moderne : –. Camacho, J. (). ‘Comitative coordination in Spanish’, in C. Parodi, C. Quicoli, M. Saltarelli, and M.L. Zubizarreta (eds), Aspects of Romance linguistics: selected papers from the linguistics symposium on Romance languages . Washington: Georgetown University Press, –. Campos, H., and Stavrou, M. (). ‘Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian’, in O. Mišeska Tomić (ed.), –. Candrea, I.-A. (). Psaltirea scheiană comparată cu celelalte psaltiri din sec. XVI și XVII traduse din slavonește. I. Bucharest: Atelierele Grafice Socec. Capidan, T. (). Aromânii. Dialectul aromân. Bucharest: Imprimeria Națională. Carabulea, E. (a). ‘Subiectul’, in M. Avram (ed.), –. Carabulea, E. (b). ‘Propozițiile interogative’, in M. Avram (ed.), –. Caragiu, M. (). ‘Sintaxa gerunziului românesc’, in SG, –. Caragiu-Marioțeanu, M. (). ‘Moduri nepersonale’, Studii și cercetări lingvistice , : –. Caragiu-Marioţeanu, M. (). Compendiu de dialectologie română. Bucharest: Editura Știinţifică și Enciclopedică. Cardinaletti, A., and Starke, M. (). ‘The typology of structural deficiency. A case study of the three classes of pronouns’, in H. van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, –.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Carruthers, J. (). ‘The passé surcomposé régional: towards a definition of its function in contemporary spoken French’, Journal of French Language Studies , : –. Cartojan, N. (). Cărţile populare în literatura românească, I. Epoca influenţei sud slave. Bucharest: Editura Casei Școalelor. Catasso, N. (). ‘Genitive-Dative syncretism in the Balkan Sprachbund: an invitation to discussion’, SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics , : –. Călărașu, C. (). Timp, mod, aspect în limba română în secolele al XVI-lea—al XVIII-lea. Bucharest: Tipografia Universităţii din București. CDDE. Candrea, I.-A., and Densusianu, O. ([] ). Dicţionarul etimologic al limbii române. Elementele latine. Ed. by G. Brâncuș. Bucharest: Paralela . Cennamo, M. (). ‘Passive and impersonal constructions’, in M. Maiden and M. Parry (eds), –. Cepraga, D.O., Lupu, C., and Renzi L. (eds) (). Études romanes, II, Hommages offerts à Florica Dimitrescu et Alexandru Niculescu. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București. Chen, G. (). ‘The grammaticalization of concessive markers in Early Modern English’, in O. Fischer, A. Rosenbach, and D. Stein (eds), Pathways of change: grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, –. Chivu, G. (). ‘Localizarea și filiaţia textelor din Codicele Sturdzan’, in I. Gheţie (ed.), Cele mai vechi texte românești. Contribuţii filologice și lingvistice. Bucharest: Universitatea din București, –. Chivu, G. (). ‘Prepoziţiile pentru și printru în secolul al XVI-lea’, Limba română : –. Chivu, G. (). ‘Studiu lingvistic’, in G. Chivu (ed.), Codex Sturdzanus. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, –. Chivu, G. (). Limba română de la primele texte până la sfârșitul secolului al XVIII-lea. Variantele stilistice. Bucharest: Editura Univers Enciclopedic. Chivu, G. (), ‘Cartea de bucate. Un manuscris singular în scrisul vechi românesc’, in A. Bogdan, G. Dumitrescu, and L. Kövári (eds), In honorem Gabriel Ștrempel. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean, –. Chivu, G., and Uţă Bărbulescu, O. (eds) (). Studii de limba română. Omagiu profesorului Grigore Brâncuș. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București. Chivu, G., and Uţă Bărbulescu, O. (eds) (). Ion Coteanu—in memoriam. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București. Chomsky, N. (). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Cinque, G. (). Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cinque, G. (). Italian syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cinque, G. (). The syntax of adjectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ciobanu, F. (). ‘Complementul’, in M. Avram (ed.), –. Ciompec, G. (). ‘Observaţii privind sistemul comparaţiei adverbiale în secolul al XVI‐lea’, in Omagiu lui Alexandru Rosetti la de ani. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, –. Ciompec, G. (). Morfosintaxa adverbului românesc. Sincronie și diacronie. Bucharest: Editura Știinţifică și Enciclopedică. Ciompec, G. (). ‘Observaţii asupra exprimării negaţiei în limba română din secolele al XVI-lea—al XVIII-lea’, Studii și cercetări lingvistice : –.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Ciorănescu, A. (). Dicţionarul etimologic al limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Saeculum I.O. Cipariu, T. ([] ). Gramatica limbei române. II. Sintetica. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Coene, M., and Tasmowski, L. (). ‘On the Balkan-Slavic origins of the Romanian conditional’, Revue roumaine de linguistique , : –. Coene, M., and Tasmowski, L. (eds) (). On space and time in language. Cluj-Napoca: Clusium. Company Company, C. (ed.) (). Sintaxis histórica de la lengua española. La frase verbal I. Mexico: FCE, UNAM. Comrie, B. (). ‘In defence of spontaneous demotion’, in P. Cole and J. Sadock (eds), Syntax and semantics. Grammatical relations . New York: Academic Press, –. Comrie, B., and Corbett, G.G. (eds) (). The Slavonic languages. London / New York: Routledge. Copceag, D. (). Tipologia limbilor romanice. Cluj-Napoca: Clusium. Cornilescu, A. (). ‘Remarks on the determiner system of Rumanian’, Probus , : –. Cornilescu, A. (). ‘Rumanian genitive constructions’, in G. Cinque and G. Giusti (eds.), Advances in Roumanian linguistics. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, –. Cornilescu, A. (). ‘Remarks on the syntax and the interpretation of Romanian middle passive SE sentences’, Revue roumaine de linguistique : –. Cornilescu, A. (). ‘Demonstratives and minimality’, Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics, , : –. Cornilescu, A. (). ‘On classifiers and proper names’, Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics , : –. Cornilescu, A., and Nicolae, A. (). ‘Evoluția articolului hotărât și genitivul în româna veche’, in R. Zafiu, G. Stoica, and M.N. Constantinescu (eds), –. Cornilescu, A., and Nicolae, A. (a). ‘On the syntax of Romanian definite phrases: changes in the patterns of definiteness checking’, in P. Sleeman and H. Perridon (eds), The noun phrase in Romance and Germanic. Structure, variation, and change. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, –. Cornilescu, A., and Nicolae, A. (b). ‘Nominal peripheries and phase structure in the Romanian DP’, Revue roumaine de linguistique , : –. Cornilescu, A., and Nicolae, A. (c). ‘On the syntax of the Romanian indefinite pronouns unul and altul’, in R. Zafiu, C. Ușurelu, and H. Bogdan Oprea (eds), –. Cornilescu, A., and Nicolae, A. (d). ‘On the history of Romanian genitives: the prenominal genitive’, Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics : –. Cornilescu, A., and Nicolae, A. (e). ‘Romanian possessives: adjectives or pronouns? A comparative perspective’, in I. Nedelcu, A. Nicolae, A. Toma, and R. Zafiu (eds), Studii de lingvistică. Omagiu doamnei profesoare Angela Bidu-Vrănceanu. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București, –. Cornilescu, A., and Nicolae, A. (). ‘Nominal ellipsis as definiteness and anaphoricity: the case of Romanian’, Lingua , : –. Cornilescu, A., and Nicolae, A. (a). ‘The grammaticalization of a constraint on passive reflexive constructions in Romanian’, in G. Pană Dindelegan, A. Dragomirescu, I. Nicula, A. Nicolae, and L. Esher (eds), –.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Cornilescu, A., and Nicolae, A. (b). ‘Classified proper names in Old Romanian: person and definiteness’, in V. Hill (ed.), –. Costinescu, M. (). Normele limbii literare în gramaticile românești. Bucharest: Editura Didactică și Pedagogică. Costinescu, M. (). ‘Studiu lingvistic’, in M. Costinescu (ed.), Codicele Voroneţean. Bucharest: Editura Minerva, –. Coteanu, I. (). Morfologia numelui în protoromână (româna comună). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Coteanu. I. (). Structura și evoluţia limbii române (de la origini până la ). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Creţia, G. (). Morfologia istorică a verbului latin. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București. Creţia, P. (). ‘Complementul intern’, in SG, –. Cristofaro, S. (). Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cristofaro, S. (). ‘Purpose clauses’, in WALS: –. Croitor, B. (). ‘Aspecte privind acordul în determinare în limba română veche’, in G. Pană Dindelegan (ed.), –. Croitor, B. (). Acordul în limba română. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București. Croitor, B. (). ‘Asymmetric coordination in Old Romanian’, Linguistica Atlantica , : –. Croitor, B. (). ‘Conectorii transfrastici în limba română veche’, in M. Sala, M. StanciuIstrate, and N. Petuhov (eds), –. Cuzzolin, P. (). ‘Comparative and superlative’, in P. Baldi and P. Cuzzolin (eds), –. DA/DLR. Academia Română. Dicţionarul limbii române. (–). Bucharest: Socec, Universul, Monitorul Oficial; (–), serie nouă. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Dahl, Ö. (). Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter. Dancygier, B., and Sweetser, E. (). Mental spaces in grammar. Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dardel, R. de (). Esquisse structurale des subordonnants conjonctionnels en roman commun. Geneva: Droz. Delbrück, B. (). Syntaktische Forschungen. III. Halle: Max Niemeyer. Delcă, D.C. (). ‘O paralelă a structurilor passive—Miron Costin și Ion Neculce’, in L. Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, M. Roibu, and S. Elian (eds), Limbaj și discurs. Cercetări teoretice și aplicative. Iași: Pim, –. Delcă, D.C. (). ‘Ambiguităţi privind identificarea participiului pasiv în româna veche’, in L. Ionescu Ruxăndoiu, M. Roibu, and S. Elian (eds), Limba română din perspectivă sincronică și diacronică. Iași: Pim, –. Delfitto, D., and Paradisi, P. (). ‘Towards a diachronic theory of genitive assignment in Romance’, in P. Crisma and G. Longobardi (eds), Historical syntax and linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. DELR. Sala, M., and Avram, A. (eds) (). Dicţionarul etimologic al limbii române. I. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Densusianu, O. (, ). Histoire de la langue roumaine. I, II. Paris: Ernest Leroux. Rom. edn.: J. Byck (ed.) (). Istoria limbii române. I, II. Bucharest: Editura Știinţifică.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
DERS. Dicţionarul elementelor românești din documentele slavo-române (–). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, . DGDS. Marin, M. (ed.) (, , ). Dicţionarul graiurilor dacoromâne sudice. I–III. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Diaconescu, I. (). ‘Supinul în limba română din secolele al XVI-lea—al XVIII-lea’, Analele Universităţii din București. Limba și literatura română : –. Diaconescu, I. (). Infinitivul în limba română. Bucharest: Editura Știinţifică și Enciclopedică. Diaconescu, P. (). ‘Exprimarea complementului de agent în limba română’, Limba română , : –. Diaconescu, P. (). Structură și evoluţie în morfologia substantivului românesc. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Diaconovici-Loga, C. ([] ). Grammatica românească pentru îndreptarea tinerilor. Timișoara: Facla. DIARO. Caragiu Marioţeanu, M., (). Dicţionar aromân (macedo-vlah), A–D. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică. Diessel, H., and Hetterle, K. (). ‘Causal clauses: a cross-linguistic investigation of their structure, meaning, and use’, in P. Siemund (ed.), Linguistic universals and language variation. Berlin / New York: De Gruyter, –. Dik, S.C., Hengeveld, K., Vester, E., and Vet, C. (). ‘The hierarchical structure of the clause and the typology of adverbial satellites’, in J. Nuyts, A. M. Bolkestein, and C. Vet (eds), Layers and levels of representation in language theory: a functional view. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, –. Dikken, M. den (). ‘Comparative correlatives comparatively’, Linguistic Inquiry , : –. Dima, C.-I. (). ‘Studiu lingvistic’, in C.-I. Dima (ed.), O traducere inedită a Vechiului Testament din secolul al XVI-lea. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București, –. Dima, C.-I. (). ‘Studiu introductiv’, in C.-I. Dima (ed.), Apocalipsul Maicii Domnului. Versiuni românești din secolele al XVI-lea—al XIX-lea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, –. Dimitrescu, F. (). ‘Despre pre la acuzativ în limba textelor traduse din slavă în secolul al XVI-lea’, in F. Dimitrescu (ed.), Contribuţii la istoria limbii române vechi. Bucharest: Editura Didactică și Pedagogică, –. Dimitrescu, F. (). Introducere în morfosintaxa istorică a limbii române. Bucharest: Tipografia Universității din București. Dimitrescu, F. (ed.) (). Istoria limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Didactică și Pedagogică. Dimitriu, C. (). ‘De în Cazania a doua a lui Coresi ()’, Studii și cercetări lingvistice , : –. Dinică, A. (). ‘Curând—adverb independent sau formă a verbului a cure?’, Limba română , : –. Dixon, R. M. W. (). Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. ([] ). The syntax of Romanian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rom. edn: Sintaxa limbii române. Studii de sintaxă comparată a limbilor romanice. Bucharest: Editura Univers. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (). ‘Impersonal se constructions in Romance and the passivization of unergatives’, Linguistic Inquiry , : –.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Dobrovie-Sorin, C., and Giurgea, I. (). ‘Pronominal possessors and feature uniqueness’, Language , : –. Dominte, C. (). ‘Esquisse de caractérisation typologique de la negation roumaine’, Balkan Studies , : –. Dominte, C. (). Negaţia în limba română, Bucharest: Editura Fundaţiei ‘România de Mâine’. Dragomirescu, A. (). ‘Concordanţa negaţiei în limba română veche’, in G. Pană Dindelegan (ed.), –. Dragomirescu, A. (). Ergativitatea. Tipologie, sintaxă, semantică. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București. Dragomirescu, A. (a). Particularităţi tipologice ale limbii române în context romanic. Supinul. Bucharest: Editura Muzeului Naţional al Literaturii Române. Dragomirescu, A. (b). ‘Du latin au roumain. Une nouvelle hypothèse sur l’origine du supin en roumain’, Revue de linguistique romane , –: –. Dragomirescu, A. (c). ‘O schimbare parametrică de la româna veche la româna modernă în sintaxa formelor verbale compuse cu auxiliar’, Limba română , : –. Dragomirescu, A. (). ‘L’accord du participe passé en ancien roumain’, Linguistica Atlantica , : –. Dragomirescu, A. (a). ‘The diachronic relation between de nespus (of unspoken) and nespus de (unspoken of) “very”’, in G. Pană Dindelegan, R. Zafiu, A. Dragomirescu, I. Nicula, A. Nicolae, and L. Esher (eds), –. Dragomirescu, A. (b). ‘Există trăsături slavone în sintaxa limbii române? Două studii de caz’, Diacronia, : DOI:./iAro. Dragomirescu, A., and Nicolae, A. (). ‘Pasivul cu a veni—traducere din italiană sau inovaţie românească?’, Limba română , : –. Dragomirescu, A., and Nicolae, A. (a). ‘L’objet interne en roumain: description, évolution et comparaison entre les langues romanes’, in E. Casanova Herrero and C. Calvo Rigual (eds), Actes del é Congrés de Lingüística i Filologia Romàniques. II. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, –. Dragomirescu, A., and Nicolae, A. (b). ‘Urme ale selecţiei auxiliarului de perfect compus în română’, in D.O. Cepraga, C. Lupu, and L. Renzi (eds), –. Dragomirescu, A., and Nicolae, A. (). ‘L’ellipse nominale avec article défini de l’ancien roumain au roumain moderne: Le cas du participe passé’, in É. Buchi, J.-P. Chauveau, and J-M. Pierrel (eds). Dragomirescu, A., and Nicolae, A. (). ‘Case’, in M. Maiden, and A. Ledgeway (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dragoș, E. (). Elemente de sintaxă istorică românească. Bucharest: Editura Didactică și Pedagogică. Drăganu, N. (). ‘Particularităţi de limbă’, in N. Drăganu (ed.), Două manuscripte vechi. Codicele Todorescu și Codicele Marţian. Bucharest-Vienna-Leipzig: Socec, –. Drăganu, N. (). ‘Conjuncţiile de și dacă (Un capitol de sintaxă românească)’. Dacoromania (): –. Drăganu, N. () ‘Iarăși de și dacă (Răspuns dlui Al. Rosetti)’. Dacoromania (–): –. Drăganu, N. (). Morfemele românești ale complementului în acuzativ și vechimea lor. Bucharest: Institutul de Lingvistică Română. Dyła, S. (). ‘Quasi-comitative coordination in Polish’, Linguistics : –.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Edelstein, F. (). ‘Perifrazele verbale formate din a fi și gerunziul verbului de conjugat în limba română’, Cercetări de lingvistică : –. Edelstein, F. (). Sintaxa gerunziului românesc. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. ELIR. Sala, M. (ed.) (). Enciclopedia limbilor romanice. Bucharest: Editura Știinţifică și Enciclopedică. Elson, M. (). ‘A Latin source for the conditional auxiliary in Romanian’, Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie , –: –. EMR. Hasdeu, B.P. (). Etymologicum Magnum Romaniae, ed. G. Brâncuș, Bucharest: Editura Universitas. Ernout, A., and Meillet, A. (). Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Fourth edn. Paris: Klincksieck. Ernout, A., and Thomas, F. (). Syntaxe latine. Paris: Klincksieck. Ernst, G., Glessgen, M.-D., Schmitt, C., and Schweickard W. (eds) (). Romanische Sprachgeschichte/Histoire linguistique de la Romania. III. Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter. Espinal, T. (). ‘Clitic incorporation and abstract semantic objects in idiomatic constructions’, Linguistics , : –. Everaert, M. (). ‘Types of anaphoric expressions: reflexives and reciprocals’, in Z. Frajzyngier and T.S. Curl (eds), –. Fagard, B. (). ‘Grammaticalisation et renouvellement: conjonctions de cause dans les langues romanes’, Revue roumaine de linguistique : –. Faltz, L. (). Reflexivization: a study in universal syntax. London / New York: Garland. FC. Formarea cuvintelor în limba română. Ciobanu, F., and Hasan, F. (). I. Compunerea. Avram, M., Carabulea, E., Ciobanu, F., Ficșinescu, F., Gherman, C., Hasan, F., PopescuMarin, M., Rădulescu, M., and Rizescu, I. (). II. Prefixele. Vasiliu, L. (). III. Sufixele. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Rădulescu Sala, M. (). IV. Sufixele. . Derivarea nominală și adverbială. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. FCLRV. Popescu-Marin, M. (ed.) (). Formarea cuvintelor în limba română din secolele al XVI-lea—al XVIII-lea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Ferro, T. (). Latino, romeno e romanzo. Studi linguistici. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Dacia. Feuillet, J. (). ‘La linguistique balkanique’, Cahiers balkaniques : –. Fintel, K.Von (). ‘Exceptive constructions’, Natural Language Semantics , : –. Fischer, I. (). Latina dunăreană. Introducere în istoria limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Știinţifică și Enciclopedică. Floarea, C.-I. (). ‘Aria de răspândire și sensurile lui frățâne’, in D. Răuțu, A. Rezeanu, and D.-M. Zamfir (eds), –. Foley, W.A., and Van Valin, R.D. (). Functional syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fonseca, M. do Céu (). ‘Contribution à l´étude de la préposition en portugais: le monème fonctionnel com ‘avec’’, La Linguistique , : –. Foulet, L. (). ‘Le développement des formes surcomposées’, Romania : –. Fox, B., and Hopper, P.J. (eds) (). Voice, form and function. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Frajzyngier, Z. (). ‘An analysis of be-passives’, Lingua , –: –.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Frajzyngier, Z. (). ‘Indefinite agent, impersonal, and passive: a functional approach’, Lingua : –. Frajzyngier, Z., and Curl, T.S. (eds) (). Reflexives: forms and functions. Typological studies in language. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Frâncu, C. (). ‘Cu privire la uniunea lingvistică balcanică. Înlocuirea infinitivului prin construcţii personale în limba română veche’, Anuarul de lingvistică și istorie literară : –. Frâncu, C. (). ‘Conjunctivul perfect românesc. Privire diacronică’, Studii și cercetări lingvistice , : –. Frâncu, C. (). ‘Complementele circumstanţiale de excepţie și cumulativ în limba română din secolul al XVI-lea’, Anuar de lingvistică și istorie literară : –. Frâncu, C. (). ‘Limba Cazaniei lui Varlaam în comparaţie cu limba celorlalte cazanii din secolele al XVII-lea–al XVIII-lea’, in I. Gheţie (ed.), –. Frâncu, C. (). ‘Formarea și evoluţia complementului concesiv în limba română’. Studii și cercetări lingvistice , : –. Frâncu, C. (). ‘Din istoria numeralului românesc: vechimea formelor paisprezece, șaisprezece, șaizeci’, Limba română , : –. Frâncu, C. (). ‘Vechimea și răspândirea comparativului de neegalitate exprimat prin ca’, Limbă și literatură , : –. Frâncu, C. (). ‘Vechimea și răspândirea numeralului articulat în construcţii de tipul partea întâia’, Studii și cercetări lingvistice , : –. Frâncu, C. (–) ‘Geneza și evoluţia timpurilor verbale supracompuse în limba română’, Anuar de lingvistică și istorie literară , –: –. Frâncu, C. (a). ‘Topica lui mai și a altor adverbe (cam, prea, și, tot) în construcţii de tipul (nu) mă mai duc’, Limbă și literatură : –. Frâncu, C. (b). ‘Vechimea și răspândirea construcţiei partitive de tipul un prieten de-al meu’, Limba română , : –. Frâncu, C. (). Conjunctivul românesc și raporturile lui cu alte moduri. Second edn. (). Iași: Casa Editorială ‘Demiurg’. Frâncu, C. (). Gramatica limbii române vechi (-). Iași: Casa Editorială ‘Demiurg’. Frâncu, C. (). ‘Despre unele forme supracompuse’, in G. Chivu and O. Uţă Bărbulescu (eds), –. Frenguelli, G. (). L’espressione della causalità in italiano antico. Rome: Aracne. Frey, W. (). ‘On two types of adverbial clauses allowing root-phenomena’, in L. Aelbrecht, L. Haegeman, and R. Nye (eds), Main clause phenomena. New horizons. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, –. Gaeng, P.A. (). ‘A study of nominal inflection in Latin inscriptions. A morpho-syntactic analysis’, North Carolina Studies in the Romance Languages and Literatures : –. Gafton, A. (). După Luther. Traducerea vechilor texte biblice. Iași: Editura Universităţii ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’. Gafton, A. (). De la traducere la norma literară. Contribuţia traducerii textelor biblice la constituirea vechii norme literare. Iași: Editura Universităţii ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’. Gafton, A., and Arvinte, V. (), Palia de la Orăștie (), II. Studii, Iași: Editura Universităţii ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’. GALR. Guţu Romalo, V. (ed.) ([] ). Gramatica limbii române. I Cuvântul, II Enunţul. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Gamanovich, A. (). Grammar of the Church Slavonic language. Engl. edn., Jordanville NY: Holy Trinity Monastery. Gardiner, S.C. (). Old Church Slavonic. An elementary grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gasparov, B. (). Old Church Slavonic. Munich: Lincom Europa. Gast, V., and Siemund, P. (). ‘Rethinking the relationship between self-intensifiers and reflexives’, Linguistics , : –. Gauger, H.-M. (). ‘Les particularités de la langue roumaine’, in M. Iliescu and S. Sora (eds), –. GBLR. Pană Dindelegan, G. (ed.) (). Gramatica de bază a limbii române. Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic. Gheorghe, M. (). Propoziţia relativă. Pitești: Paralela . Gheorghe, M. (). ‘Infinitival relative clauses’, Revue roumaine de linguistique , : –. Gheorghe, M. (). ‘Parametrul deplasării multiple a elementului WH (interogativ/relativ). Observaţii privind structurile cu grup interogativ/relativ multiplu în limba română veche’, Limba română , : –. Gheorghe, M. (). ‘Construcţii (pseudo)scindate în limba română veche’, in I. Nedelcu and R. Zafiu (eds), Variaţia lingvistică: probleme actuale. I. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București. Gherman, A.-M. (). ‘Studiu introductiv’, in A.-M. Gherman (ed.), Evanghelie învăţătoare (Govora ). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, –. Gheţie, I. (). ‘Și, semn al conjunctivului în graiul crișean’, Limba română , : –. Gheţie, I. (). ‘Din nou despre și, semn al conjunctivului în graiul crișean’, Studii și cercetări lingvistice , : –. Gheţie, I. (a). ‘Consideraţii filologice și lingvistice asupra Evangheliarului de la Petersburg’, Studii și cercetări lingvistice : –. Gheție, I. (b). ‘Vocativul doamnele’, Limba română : –. Gheţie, I. (). ‘Un hapax legomenon în Codicele Sturdzan: și = (să)’, Limba română , : –. Gheţie, I. (). ‘În legătură cu localizarea Evangheliarului din Petersburg’, Limba română : –. Gheţie, I. (). ‘Originea auxiliarului a de la persoana a -a singular a perfectului compus’, Studii și cercetări lingvistice , : –. Gheţie, I. (). Baza dialectală a românei literare. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Gheţie, I. (). ‘Moldova și textele rotacizante’, Limba română : –. Gheţie, I. (a). ‘Studiu lingvistic [la Fragmentul Todorescu]’, in I. Gheţie (ed.), –. Gheție, I. (b). Introducere în studiul limbii române literare. Bucharest: Editura Știinţifică și Enciclopedică. Gheţie, I. (). ‘Filologia românească în viziunea unui savant german’, Limba română , –: –. Gheţie, I. (). ‘Un specialist român la Siegen’, Limba română , –: –. Gheţie, I. (ed.) (, , ). Studii de limbă literară și filologie. I–III. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Gheţie, I. (ed.) (). Texte românești din secolul al XVI-lea, Bucharest: Editura Academiei.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Gheţie, I., and Mareș, A. (a). Introducere în filologia românească. Probleme, metode, interpretări. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică. Gheţie, I., and Mareș, A. (b). Graiurile dacoromâne în secolul al XVI-lea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Gheţie, I., and Mareș, A. (). De când se scrie românește?. Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic. Gheţie, I., and Teodorescu, M. (). ‘Studiu lingvistic’, in I. Gheţie and M. Teodorescu (eds), Psaltirea Hurmuzaki. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, –. Gheţie, I., and Zgraon, F. (). ‘Despre așa-numitele formaţii premorfologice din limba română veche’, Studii și cercetări lingvistice , : –. Giacalone Ramat, A., and Sansò, A. (). ‘From passive to impersonal. A case study from Italian and its implications’, in A. Malchukov and A. Siewierska (eds), Impersonal constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. Giorgi, A. (). ‘A grammar of Italian sequence of tense’, University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics : –. Giorgi, A., and Pianesi, F. (). Tense and aspect. From semantics to morphosyntax. New York / Oxford: Oxford University Press. Giurgea, I. (). ‘The origin of the Romanian “possessive-genitival” article al and the development of the demonstrative system’, Revue roumaine de linguistique , : –. Giurgea, I. (). Originea articolului posesiv-genitival ‘al’ și evoluţia sistemului demonstrativelor în română. Bucharest: Editura Muzeului Naţional al Literaturii. Giusti, G. (). ‘Le frasi causali’, in L. Renzi, G. Salvi, and A. Cardinaletti (eds), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione. II. Bologna: Il Mulino, –. Giusti, G. (). ‘At the left periphery of the Romanian noun phrase’, in M. Coene and L. Tasmowski (eds), –. Givón, T. (). ‘Transitivity, topicality and the Ute impersonal passive’, in P.J. Hopper and S.A. Thompson (eds), Syntax and semantics : studies in transitivity. New York: Academic Press, –. Givón, T. (). Voice and inversion. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. GLR. Academia Română. A. Graur, M. Avram, and L. Vasiliu (eds) ([] ). Gramatica limbii române. I, II. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. GR. Pană Dindelegan, G. (ed.) (). The grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grandgent, C.H. (). An introduction to Vulgar Latin. Boston MA: D.C. Heath & Co. Publishers. Graur, A. (). ‘Les verbes réfléchis en roumain’, Bulletin linguistique : –. Graur, A. (). Tendinţele actuale ale limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Știinţifică. Grosu, A. (). ‘On the distribution of genitive phrases in Romanian’, Linguistics , : –. Grosu, A. (). ‘The syntax-semantics of modal existential Wh-constructions’, in O. Mišeska Tomić (ed.), –. GTRL. Halichias, A.–C. (). Glosar de termeni românești din documente latino-române (Secolele al XIII-lea—al XVI-lea). Bucharest: Editura Universităţii București. Guentchéva, Z., and Rivière, N. (). ‘Reciprocal and reflexive constructions in French’, in V.P. Nedjalkov and Z. Guentcheva (eds), Typology of reciprocal constructions. Typology of verbal categories and constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Guruianu, V. (). Sintaxa textelor românești originale din secolul al XVI-lea. Sintaxa propoziţiei. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București. Guruianu, V. (). Sintaxa textelor românești originale din secolul al XVI-lea. Sintaxa frazei. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București. Guţu Romalo, V. (a). Morfologie structurală a limbii române (Substantiv, adjectiv, verb). Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Guţu Romalo, V. (b). ‘Le futur en roumain aux XVIe–XVIIIe siècles’. Revue roumaine de linguistique , : –. Guţu Romalo, V. (). ‘Le nom roumain—évolution et typologie’, in M. Iliescu and S. Sora (eds), –. Guţu Romalo, V. (). Aspecte ale evoluţiei limbii române. Bucharest: Humanitas Educaţional. Haegeman, L. (). ‘Anchoring to speaker, adverbial clauses and the structure of CP’, in S. Mauck and J. Mittelstaedt (eds), Georgetown University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics. II. Washington: Georgetown University, –. Haiman, J. (). ‘Iconic and economic motivation’, Language : –. Halliday, M.A.K. (). ‘Language structure and language function’, in J. Lyons (ed.), –. Halliday, M.A.K. (). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold. Harris, M. (). ‘The past simple and the present perfect in Romance’, in M. Harris and N. Vincent (eds), Studies in the Romance verb. London: Croon Helm, –. Harris, M. (). ‘Concessive clauses in English and Romance’, in J. Haiman and S.A. Thompson (eds), Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, –. Harris, M.B. (). ‘The historical development of si-clauses in Romance’, in E.C. Traugott, A. ter Meulen, J. Snitzer Reilly, and C.A. Ferguson (eds), –. Hasdeu, B.P. ([] ). Cuvente den bătrâni, II, ed. by G. Mihăilă. Bucharest: Editura Didactică și Pedagogică. Haspelmath, M. (). ‘From purposive to infinitive—a universal path of grammaticisation’, Folia Linguistica Historica , –: –. Haspelmath, M. (). ‘The grammaticalization of passive morphology’, Study of Language , : –. Haspelmath, M. (). ‘Passive participles across languages’, in B. Fox and P.J. Hopper (eds), Voice. Form and function. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, –. Haspelmath, M., and König, E. (). ‘Concessive conditionals in the languages of Europe’, in J. van der Auwera (ed.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter, –. Haverling, G.V.M. (). ‘Actionality, tense, and viewpoint’, in P. Baldi and P. Cuzzolin (eds), –. Heine, B. (). Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press. Heine, B. (). ‘Polysemy involving reflexive and reciprocal markers in African languages’, in B. Frajzyngier and S.T. Curl (eds), –. Heine, B., and Kuteva, T. (). World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heine, B., and Miyashita, H. (). ‘The intersection between reflexives and reciprocals: a grammaticalization perspective’, in E. König and V. Gast (eds), –. Heliade Rădulescu, I. ([] ). Gramatică românească. Bucharest: Editura Eminescu.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Herman, J. (). La formation du système roman des conjonctions de subordination. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Hill, V. (). ‘The emergence of the Romanian subjunctive’, The Linguistic Review , : –. Hill, V. (ed.) (). Formal approaches to DPs in Old Romanian. Boston / Leiden: Brill. Hill, V., and Alboiu, G. (forthcoming). Verb movement and clause structure in Old Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Himmelmann, N.P., and Schultze-Berndt, E. (). ‘Issues in the syntax and semantics of participant-oriented adjuncts: an introduction’, in N.P. Himmelmann and E. SchultzeBerndt (eds), Secondary predication and adverbial modification: the typology of depictives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Hoeksema, J. (). ‘The logic of exception’, in A. Miller and J. Powers (eds), Proceedings of the Fourth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. The Ohio State University: Columbus, –. Hoeksema, J. (). ‘The semantics of exception phrases’, in J. van der Does and J. van Eick (eds), Quantifiers, logic and languages. Stanford: CSLI Publications, –. Hofmann, J.B., and Szantyr, A. (). Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. II. Munich: Beck. Hopper, P.J., and Thompson, S.A. (eds) (). Syntax and semantics in transitivity. New York: Academic Press. Hopper, P.J., and Traugott, E.C. (). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Iliescu, M. (): ‘Concurenţa dintre pronumele relative care și ce’, in SG, I, –. Iliescu, M. (). ‘Grammaticalisation et modalités en roumain: le futur déictique et épistémique’, in M. Coene, W. De Mulder, P. Dendale, and Y. D’Hulst (eds), Traiani Augusti vestigia pressa sequamur: studia linguistica in honorem Lilianae Tasmowski. Padova: Unipress, –. Iliescu, M. (). ‘La typologie des langues romanes. État de la question’, in F. Sánchez Miret (ed.), Actas del XXIII Congreso Internacional de Linguística y Filología Románica. Tübingen: Niemeyer, –. Iliescu, M. (). Româna din perspectivă romanică. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Iliescu, M. (a). Miscellanea Romanica (–). Cluj-Napoca: Clusium / Scriptor. Iliescu, M. (b). ‘Phénomènes de convergence et de divergence dans la Romania: morphosyntaxe et syntaxe’, in G. Ernst, M.-D. Glessgen, C. Schmitt, and W. Schweickard (eds), –. Iliescu, M. (). Varia Romanica. Berlin: Frank & Timme. Iliescu, M., and Manoliu, M. (). ‘Split grammaticalization: Lat. SIC, Rom. ȘI’, Romanistik in Geschichte und Gegenwart , : –. Iliescu, M., and Sora, S. (eds) (). Rumänisch: Typologie, Klassifikation, Sprachcharakteristik. Munich / Würzburg: Wissenschaftlicher A. Lehmann. ILR. Academia Română. Istoria limbii române. I. (). A. Graur (ed.). II. (). I. Coteanu (ed.). Bucharest: Editura Academiei. ILRL. Gheţie, I. (ed.) (). Istoria limbii române literare. Epoca veche (–). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Ionescu, E. (). Limba română. Perspective actuale. Bucharest: Editura Polirom. Ionescu, E. (ed.) (). Understanding Romanian negation. Syntactic and semantic approaches in a declarative perspective. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, L. (). ‘Relaţia dintre encliza și procliza articolului definit în română. O ipoteză’, in G. Chivu and O. Uţă Bărbulescu (eds), –. Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, L. (). ‘Vocalismul dacoromânei comune’, ‘Consonantismul dacoromânei comune’, in Istoria limbii române. I. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Iordan, I. ([] ). Gramatica limbii române. Bucharest: Cartea Românească. Iordan, I. (). Limba română contemporană. Bucharest: Editura Ministerului Învăţământului. Isac, D. (). ‘The syntax of Romanian negative sentences’, Revue roumaine de linguistique , –: –. Istrate, G, and Turculeţ, A. (). ‘Cercetări dialectale în judeţul Bistriţa-Năsăud’. Fonetică și dialectologie : –. Ivănescu, G. ([] ). Probleme capitale ale vechii române literare. Ed. by E. Munteanu, and L.-G. Munteanu. Iași: Editura Universităţii ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’. Ivănescu, G. (). Istoria limbii române, Second edn. (). Iași: Junimea. Johannessen, J.B. (). Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jones, M.A. (). Sardinian syntax. London / New York: Routledge. Jordan, M. (). ‘Loss of infinitival complementation in Romanian diachronic syntax’, PhD dissertation, University of Florida. Joseph, B.D. (). The synchrony and diachrony of the Balkan infinitive. A study in areal, general, and historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jouitteau, M., and Rezac, M. (). ‘The French ethical dative, syntactic tests’, Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics , : –. Kayne, R.S. (). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, R.S. (). ‘Silent years, silent hours’, in Movement and silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Keenan, E.L. (). ‘Passive in the world’s languages’, in T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, –. Kemmer, S. (). The middle voice. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Kemmer, S. (). ‘Middle voice, transitivity and the elaboration of events’, in B. Fox and P.J. Hopper (eds), –. Kemmer, S. (). ‘Emphatic and reflexive self. Expectations, viewpoint and subjectivity’, in D. Stein and S. Wright (eds), –. Kok, A. de, and Dardel, R. de (). La position des pronoms régimes atones, personnels et adverbiaux, en protoroman: avec une considération spéciale des esprolongements en français. Geneva: Droz. König, E. (a). ‘Where do concessives come from? On the development of concessive connectives’, in J. Fisiak (ed.), Historical semantics—historical word formation. Berlin / New York: Mouton, –. König, E. (b). ‘On the history of concessive connectives in English. Diachronic and synchronic evidence’, Lingua : –. König, E. (). ‘Conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives: areas of contrast, overlap and neutralization’, in E.C. Traugott, A. ter Meulen, J. Snitzer Reilly, and C.A. Ferguson (eds), –. König, E. (). The meaning of focus particles: a comparative perspective. London: Routledge. König, E., and Gast, V. (). ‘Reflexive pronouns and other uses of self-forms in English’, in E. König and V. Gast (eds), –.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
König, E., and Gast, V. (eds) (). Reflexives and intensifiers—the use of self-forms in English. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. König, E., and Gast, V. (eds) (). Reciprocals and reflexives: cross-linguistic and theoretical explorations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. König, E., and Kokutani, S. (). ‘Towards a typology of reciprocal constructions: focus on German and Japanese’, Linguistics : –. König, E., and Siemund P. (). ‘Intensifiers and reflexives: a typological perspective’, in Z. Frajzyngier and T.S. Curl (eds), –. Kortmann, B. (). Adverbial subordination. A typology and history of adverbial subordinators based on European languages. Berlin / New York: De Gruyter. Kortmann, B. (). ‘Adverbial subordinators in the languages of Europe’, in J. van der Auwera (ed.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe. Berlin / New York: De Gruyter, –. Krammer, J. (). ‘Asupra principiilor de editare a textelor vechi românești’, Limba română , –: –. Kroon, C. (). Discourse particles in Latin. A study of nam, enim, autem, vero and at. Amsterdam: Gieben. Kühner, R., and Stegmann, C. (). Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache. II: Satzlehre. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung. Laenzlinger, C., and Soare, G. (). ‘Multiple Wh-fronting in Romanian: a cartographic approach’, Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics : –. Lakoff, G. (). ‘Linguistic Gestalts’, Papers from the thirteenth regional meeting. Chicago Linguistic Society: –. Lamiroy, B. (). ‘La construction à possesseur externe’, in L. Tasmowski (ed.), –. Landau, I. (). ‘Elements of control’, PhD dissertation, MIT. Langacker, R. (). Concept, image and symbol. The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, R.W. (). Foundations of cognitive grammar: theoretical prerequisites. I. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Lardon, S., and Thomine, M.-C. (). Grammaire du français de la Renaissance. Étude morphosyntaxique. Paris: Éditions Classiques Garnier. Ledgeway, A. (–). ‘I tempi sovraccomposti nel napoletano antico’, L’Italia dialettale : –. Ledgeway, A. (). Grammatica diacronica del dialetto napoletano. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Ledgeway, A. (). ‘Syntactic and morphosyntactic typology and change’, in M. Maiden, J.C. Smith, and A. Ledgeway (eds), –. Ledgeway, A. (). From Latin to Romance. Morphosyntactic typology and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ledgeway, A. (a). ‘Romance auxiliary selection in light of Romanian evidence’, in G. Pană Dindelegan, R. Zafiu, A. Dragomirescu, I. Nicula, A. Nicolae, and L. Esher (eds), –. Ledgeway, A. (b). ‘From Latin to Romance syntax: The great leap’, in P. Crisma and G. Longobardi (eds), The Oxford handbook of diachronic and historical linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lichtenberk, F. (). ‘Reflexives and reciprocals’, in R.E. Asher and J.M.Y. Simpson (eds), –.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Lindschouw, J. (). Étude des modes dans le système concessif en français du e au e siècle et en espagnol moderne: évolution, assertion et grammaticalisation. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum. Lindstedt, J. (). ‘The perfect—aspectual, temporal and evidential’, in Ö. Dahl (ed.), –. Löfstedt, E. (). Philologischer Kommentar zur Peregrinatio Aetheriae. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der lateinischen Sprache. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Lois, X. (). ‘Auxiliary selection and past participle agreement in Romance’, Probus , : –. Lombard, A. (). ‘Le futur roumain du type “o să cânt” ’, Bulletin linguistique : –. Lombard, A. (–). Le verbe roumain. Étude morphologique, I-II. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup. Lombard, A. (). La langue roumaine. Une présentation. Paris: Klincksieck. Lunt, H.G. (). Old Church Slavonic grammar, seventh revised edn. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Lyons, J. (). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, J. (ed.) (). New horizons in linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. McNally, L. (). ‘Comitative coordination: a case study in group formation’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory : –. Maiden, M. (). A linguistic history of Italian. London: Longman. Maiden, M. (). ‘On the Romance inflectional endings -i and -e’, Romance Philology , : –. Maiden, M. (). ‘Perfect pedigree. The ancestry of the Aromanian conditional’, in R. Ashdowne and T. Finbow (eds), Oxford Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics : –. Maiden, M. (). ‘On Romanian imperatives’. Philologica Jassyensia , : –. Maiden, M. (). ‘Morphological persistence’, in M. Maiden, J.C. Smith, and A. Ledgeway (eds), –. Maiden, M. (). ‘The Latin third stem and its Romance descendants’, Diachronica : –. Maiden, M. (). ‘The plural type cărnuri and the morphological structure of the Romanian feminine noun in diachrony’, in G. Pană Dindelegan, R. Zafiu, A. Dragomirescu, I. Nicula, A. Nicolae, and L. Esher (eds), –. Maiden, M., and Parry, M. (eds) (). The dialects of Italy. London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. Maiden, M., Smith, J.C., and Ledgeway, A. (eds) (). The Cambridge history of the Romance languages. I. Structures. Cambridge / New York: Cambridge University Press. Manoliu, M. (). ‘Une déviation du système de conjugaison romane: temps composés avec a fi “être” à la diathèse active en roumain’, in Recueil d’études romanes publiées à l’occasion du IXe Congrès International de Linguistique Romane à Lisbonne du mars au avril . Bucharest: Editura Academiei, –. Manoliu, M. (). ‘Genitivul pronumelui personal în limba română contemporană’, in I. Coteanu (ed.), Elemente de lingvistică structurală. Bucharest: Editura Știinţifică, –. Manoliu, M.M. (). ‘Innovations within isolation. Regrammation and/or subjectivization: Lat. de in Romanian’, Revue roumaine de linguistique , : –.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Manoliu, M.M. (). ‘Pragmatic and discourse changes’, in M. Maiden, J.C. Smith, and A. Ledgeway (eds), –. Manoliu-Manea, M. (). Gramatica comparată a limbilor romanice. Bucharest: Editura Didactică și Pedagogică. Manoliu-Manea, M. (). Elemente de sintaxă comparată romanică. Tipologie și istorie. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București. Manoliu-Manea, M. (). ‘From conversational to conventional implicature: the Romanian pronouns of identity and their substitutes’, in R.A. Giacalone, O. Carruba, and G. Bernini (eds), Papers from the th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. Manoliu-Manea, M. (). Gramatică, pragmasemantică și discurs. Bucharest: Litera. Manoliu-Manea, M. (). ‘Conventional implicatures and language change. The cyclic evolution of the emphatic pronouns in Romanian’, in B.J. Blake and K. Burridge (eds), –. Manu Magda, M. (). ‘Indices of linguistic presentation in Romanian texts of the sixteenth century’, Linguistica Atlantica , : –. Manzini, R., and Savoia, L. (). ‘Mesoclisis in the imperative: phonology, morphology or syntax?’, in V. Moscati and E. Servidio (eds), Proceedings XXVIII Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Studies in Linguistics on line , Università di Siena, –. Mareș, A. (). ‘Observaţii cu privire la Evangheliarul din Petersburg’, Limba română : –. Mareș, A. (). ‘Studiu de limbă’, in A. Mareș (ed.), Liturghierul lui Coresi. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, –. Mareș, A. (). Filigranele hârtiei întrebuinţate în Ţările Române în secolul al XVI-lea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Mareș, A. (). ‘Consideraţii pe marginea datării Psaltirii Hurmuzaki’, Limba română : –. Mareș, A. (). ‘Studiu de limbă’, in A. Mareș (ed.), Cele douăsprezece vise în tâlcuirea lui Mamer. Învățătură despre vremea de apoi a prorocului Isaia. Bucharest: Fundaţia Naţională pentru Știinţă și Artă. Marin, M. (). ‘Formes verbales periphrastiques de l’indicatif dans les parlers dacoroumains’, Revue roumaine de linguistique , : –. Marin, M. (). ‘Morfologia verbului în graiurile muntenești’, Fonetică și dialectologie : –. Maslova E., and Nedjalkov, V.P. (). ‘Reciprocal construction’, in WALS. Matos, G. (). ‘Coordination de phrases vs. subordination adverbiale—propositions causales en portugais’, Faits de langues : –. Mărgărit, I. (). ‘Inovația, element de creație și distorsiune în textele folclorice’, in N. Saramandu, M. Nevaci, and C. Radu (eds), Lucrările celui de-al treilea Simpozion Internațional de Lingvistică. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, –. Mărgărit, I. (). Românii din afara României și limba lor (Perspectivă dialectologică). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Mării, I. (). Contribuţii la lingvistica limbii române. Cluj-Napoca: Clusium. Meillet, A. ([] ). Le slave commun. Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion. Meillet, A. (). Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Ménard, P. (). Syntaxe de l’ancien français. Bordeaux: Bière. Mensching, G. (). Infinitive constructions with specified subjects. A syntactic analysis of the Romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Meyer-Lübke, W. (, ). Grammaire des langues romanes. II. Morphologie. III. Syntaxe. Paris: H. Welter. Meyer-Lübke, W. (). ‘Rumänisch und romanisch’, Analele Academiei Române, Memoriile Secţiunii literare III, : –. Migdalski, K. (). The syntax of compound tenses in Slavic. Utrecht: LOT. Mihail, A.-M. (). ‘Tiparul sintactic afectiv (Det) Nde N: origine și realizări în limba română veche (amărâtul de om, această ticăloasă de ţară)’, in R. Zafiu, B. Croitor, and A.-M. Mihail (eds), –. Miller, D.G. (). Nonfinite structures in theory and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Milner, J.-C. (). De la syntaxe à l’interprétation. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. Mišeska Tomić, O. (). ‘The Balkan Sprachbund properties’, in O. Mišeska Tomić (ed.), –. Mišeska Tomić, O. (). Balkan Sprachbund morpho-syntactic features. Dordrecht: Springer. Mišeska Tomić, O. (ed.) (). Balkan syntax and semantics. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Mîrzea Vasile, C. (). ‘The position of the Romanian adverbs și, cam, mai, prea, and tot in the verbal cluster: synchronic variation and diachronic observations’, in G. Pană Dindelegan, A. Dragomirescu, I. Nicula, A. Nicolae, and L. Esher (eds), –. Moldovanu, D. (). ‘Influențe ale manierismului greco-latin în sintaxa lui Dimitrie Cantemir: hiperbatul’, in I. Gheție (ed.), Studii de limbă literară și filologie. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, –. Moldovanu, D. (–). ‘Formaţiile premorfologice din limba româna veche’, Anuar de lingvistică și istorie literară : –. Morariu, L. (). ‘Morfologia verbului predicativ român’. I, Codrul Cosminului. Buletinul “Institutului de Istorie și Limbă” (): –. Morariu, L. (). ‘Morfologia verbului predicativ român’. II, Codrul Cosminului. Buletinul “Institutului de Istorie și Limbă” – (–), : –. Mussafia, A. (). ‘Una particolarità sintattica della lingua italiana dei primi secoli’, in G.I. Ascoli et al. (eds), Miscellanea di filologia e linguistica in memoria di Napoleone Caix e Ugo Angelo Canello. Florence: Le Monni, –. Mussafia, A. (). ‘Enclisi o proclisi del pronome personale atono quale oggeto’, Romania : –. Nandriș, G. (). Old Church Slavonic grammar. London: The Athlone Press–University of London. Nedelcu, I. (). Categoria partitivului în limba română. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București. Nedelcu, I. (). ‘Structuri de tematizare cu infinitivul în limba română’, in R. Zafiu, A. Dragomirescu, and A. Nicolae (eds), –. Nedelcu, I. (). Particularităţi sintactice ale limbii române în context romanic. Infinitivul. Bucharest: Editura Muzeului Naţional al Literaturii Române. Nedjalkov, V.P. (). Reciprocal constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Nedjalkov, V.P, and Guentcheva, Z. (eds) (). Typology of reciprocal constructions. Typology of verbal categories and constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nevaci, M. (). Verbul în aromână. Structură și valori. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Nevaci, M., and Todi, A. (). ‘The grammaticalization of perfect auxiliaries in Romanian. Historical and dialectal aspects’, Revue roumaine de linguistique , –: –. Nicolae, A. (). ‘Pe marginea descrierii grupului nominal în Gramatica de bază a limbii române’, in M. Nevaci (ed.), Studia linguistica et philologica. Omagiu Profesorului Nicolae Saramandu. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, –. Nicolae, A. (). ‘Types of ellipsis in Romanian’, PhD dissertation, University of Bucharest and University of Cambridge. Nicolae, A. (a). ‘The parameter of definiteness: diachronic and synchronic evidence’, in V. Hill (ed.), –. Nicolae, A. (b). ‘On the syntactic specialization of Romanian demonstratives and the grammaticalization of the article cel’, Revue roumaine de linguistique : –. Nicolae, A. (c). Ordinea constituenților în limba română: o perspectivă diacronică. Structura propoziției și deplasarea verbului. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București. Nicolae, A., and Niculescu, D. (). ‘Pronominal clitics in Old Romanian: the ToblerMussafia Law’, Revue roumaine de linguistique : –. Nicula, I. (). ‘Dinamica pronumelor și a adjectivelor demonstrative în limba română actuală. Observaţii pe corpusurile de română vorbită’, in G. Pană Dindelegan (ed.), –. Niculescu, A. (, , ). Individualitatea limbii române între limbile romanice I. Bucharest: Editura Știinţifică. III, IV. Cluj-Napoca: Clusium. Niculescu, A. (). Outline history of the Romanian language. Bucharest: Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică. Niculescu, A. (). ‘Structure et évolution de la comparaison en roumain’, in P. Valentin (ed.), La comparaison, Actes du colloque tenu les et novembre par le département de linguistique de l'Université de Paris-Sorbonne, Linguistica Palatina, Colloquia III. Paris: Presses de l'Université de Paris-Sorbonne, – (reprinted in A. Niculescu, , Individualitatea limbii române între limbile romanice. . Noi contribuţii. Cluj-Napoca: Clusium, –). Niculescu, A. (). ‘L’ordine delle parole in rumeno’, in G. Borghello, M. Cortelazzo, and G. Padoan (eds), Saggi di linguistica e di letteratura in memoria di Paolo Zolli. Padova: Antenore, –. Niculescu, D. (). Mijloace lingvistice de exprimare a posesiei în limba română. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București. Niculescu, D. (). ‘The grammaticalization of the future tense forms in th century’, Revue roumaine de linguistique , : –. Niculescu, D. (a). Particularități sintactice ale limbii române din perspectivă tipologică— gerunziul. Bucharest: Editura Muzeului Naţional al Literaturii Române. Niculescu, D. (b). ‘Passive participles as complements of perception verbs’, Revue roumaine de linguistique , : –. Niculescu, D. (). ‘The evolution of Romanian gerundial periphrases with a sta/a se afla/a umbla’, Linguistica Atlantica , : –. OLD. Glare, P.G.W. (ed.). (). Oxford Latin dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Olteanu, P. (). Sintaxa și stilul paleoslavei și slavonei. Bucharest: Editura Știinţifică. Onu, L. (). ‘L’origine de l’accusatif roumain avec p(r)e’, in I. Coteanu, I. Iordan, A. Rosetti, and M. Sala (eds), Recueil d’études romanes. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, –.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Palmer, L.R. ([] ). The Latin language. London: Faber and Faber. Panagiotidis, P. (). ‘Empty nouns’, Natural Languages and Linguistic Theory , : –. Pană Dindelegan, G. (). ‘Regimul sintactic al verbelor în limba româna veche’, Studii și cercetări lingvistice , : –. Pană Dindelegan, G. (). Aspecte ale dinamicii sistemului morfologic verbal (perioada de după ). Bucharest: Tipografia Universităţii din București. Pană Dindelegan, G. (). Elemente de gramatică. Dificultăți, controverse, noi interpretări. Bucharest: Humanitas. Pană Dindelegan, G. (). ‘Din nou despre grupul prepozițional (GPrep). Prepozițiile calității’, in D. Irimia, A.-M. Minuț, and I. Milică (eds), Limba română azi. Iași: Editura Universității ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’, –. Pană Dindelegan, G. (). ‘Tipuri de gramaticalizare. Pe marginea utilizărilor gramaticalizate ale prepoziţiilor de și la’, in G. Pană Dindelegan (ed.), –. Pană Dindelegan, G. (a). ‘Din nou despre dativul posesiv din grupul verbal. Observaţii asupra limbii române vechi’, Limba română , : –. Pană Dindelegan, G. (b). ‘Despre de-ul calităţii’, in R. Zafiu, G. Stoica, and M. Constantinescu (eds), –. Pană Dindelegan, G. (c), ‘Sintagma partitivă în limba veche’, in R. Zafiu, A. Dragomirescu, and A. Nicolae (eds), –. Pană Dindelegan, G. (a). ‘Pe marginea a două norme sintactice ale grupului prepoziţional: prezenţa articolului hotărât în grupul Prepoziţie + Nominal și construcţia prepoziţiei între’, in G. Chivu and O. Uță Bărbulescu (eds), –. Pană Dindelegan, G. (b). ‘Verbele denumirii și relaţia cu alte verbe care primesc două complemente—privire specială la limba veche’, in R. Zafiu, A. Dragomirescu, and A. Nicolae (eds), Bucharest: Editura Universităţii București, –. Pană Dindelegan, G. (). ‘Din istoria supinului românesc’, in R. Zafiu, C. Ușurelu, and H. Bogdan Oprea (eds), –. Pană Dindelegan, G. (). ‘Feminine singular pronouns with neutral value’, Revue roumaine de linguistique , : –. Pană Dindelegan, G. (a). ‘Flexiunea cazuală—între analitic și sintetic. Cardinale și cuantificatori non-numerici în româna veche’, Limba română , : –. Pană Dindelegan, G. (b). ‘Pe marginea subiectului realizat ca nominal nearticulat în româna veche’, in D.O. Cepraga, C. Lupu, and L. Renzi (eds), –. Pană Dindelegan, G. (a). ‘Despre utilizarea lui de relativ în limba română veche’, in G. Chivu and O. Uță Bărbulescu (eds), –. Pană Dindelegan, G. (b). ‘Direct and secondary object ditransitive structures in Old Romanian’, Linguistica Atlantica , : –. Pană Dindelegan, G. (c). ‘O utilizare specială a numelui propriu. Cu referire la limba veche’, in G. Duda (ed.), Cultura limbii. Omagiu doamnei profesor Domnița Tomescu. Ploiești: Editura Universității Petrol-Gaze din Ploiești, –. Pană Dindelegan, G. (a). ‘Does Old Romanian have Mixed Categories?’, in G. Pană Dindelegan, R. Zafiu, A. Dragomirescu, I. Nicula, A. Nicolae, and L. Esher (eds), –. Pană Dindelegan, G. (b). ‘Mecanisme discursive de emfază și focalizare în limba veche. Cu referire specială la subiect’, in M. Sala, M. Stanciu-Istrate, and N. Petuhov (eds), –.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Pană Dindelegan, G. (ed.) (). Limba română. Dinamica limbii, dinamica interpretării. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București. Pană Dindelegan, G. (ed.) (). Dinamica limbii române actuale—aspecte gramaticale și discursive.Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Pană Dindelegan, G., and Mîrzea Vasile, C. (). ‘Pe marginea unei construcţii vechi și populare: (Mi-)a fost dat (să . . . ). Cu referire la limba veche’, in D. Răuţu, A. Rezeanu, and D.-M. Zamfir (eds), –. Pană Dindelegan, G., Zafiu, R., Dragomirescu, A., Nicula, I., Nicolae, A., and Esher, L. (eds) (). Diachronic variation in Romanian. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Pană-Boroianu, R. (). ‘Elemente de oralitate în documente neliterare scrise în secolul al XVI–lea’, Fonetică și dialectologie : –. Pancheva, R. (). ‘Head-directionality of TP in Old Church Slavonic’, in A. Antonenko, J. Bailyn, and C. Bethin (eds), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics : the Stony Brook meeting, . Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, –. Papahagi, T. ([] ). Din epoca de formaţiune a limbei române. Bucharest: Editura Știinţifică și Enciclopedică. Patard, A., and De Mulder, W. (). ‘Aux origines des emplois modaux de l’imperfect. Le cas de l’emploi hypothétique et de l’emploi contrefactuel’, Langages : –. Pavel, E. (). Carte și tipar la Bălgrad (–). Cluj-Napoca: Clusium. Pérez Lorido, R. (). ‘Reconsidering the role of syntactic “heaviness” in Old English split coordination’, Studia Anglica Posnaniensia , : –. Pérez Quintero, M.J. (). Adverbial subordination in English: a functional approach. Amsterdam / New York: Rodopi. Pérez-Jiménez I., and Moreno-Quibén, N. (). ‘On the syntax of exceptions. Evidence from Spanish’, Lingua , : –. Peteghem, M. Van (). Les phrases copulatives dans les langues romanes. Wilhelmsfeld: Gottfried Egert. Philippide, A. ([–] ). Istoria limbii române. Ed. by G. Ivănescu, C.-G. Pamfil, and L. Botoșineanu. Iași: Polirom. Philippide, A. (). Introducere în studiul limbei și literaturei române. Iași: Editura Librăriei Fraţii Șaraga. Philippide, A. (). Originea românilor, II. Iași: Tipografia Viaţa Românească. Pinkster, H. (). Latin syntax and semantics. Transl. by Hotze Mulder. London / New York: Routledge. Pompei, A. (). ‘Relative clauses’, in P. Baldi and P.L. Cuzzolin (eds), –. Popescu, C.–M. (). ‘La grammaticalisation du présomptif en roumain’, Revue roumaine de linguistique , –: –. Popescu, M. (). ‘Pe marginea condiţionalului sintetic din româna veche. Privire diacronică’, Analele Universităţii din Craiova. Seria Știinţe filologice. Limbi străine aplicate , –: –. Popescu, M. (). ‘Sistemul morfo-sintactic al condiţionalului în limba română veche, modernă și contemporană’, Analele Universităţii din Craiova—Seria Lingvistică , : –. Popescu-Marin, M. (). ‘Observaţii asupra topicii atributului adjectival în limba română’, in SG, –.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Posner, R. (). The Romance languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Procopovici, A. (), ‘Adecă (Studiu de istoria limbii și de istoria traducerilor noastre vechi)’, in Omagiu lui Ion I. Nistor, –. Cernăuţi: Glasul Bucovinei, –. Procopovici, A. (). ‘Pe drumurile dicţionarului. Probleme de sintaxă: conjuncţiile și interjecţiile de, ca și că, dacă și dec’, Dacoromania : . Progovac, L. (). ‘Slavic and the structure for coordination’, in M. Lindseth and S. Franks (eds), Annual workshop on formal approaches to Slavic linguistics. The Indiana meeting, . Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, –. Pușcariu, S. (–). ‘Despre pre la acuzativ’, Dacoromania II: –. Pușcariu, S. (). ‘Viitorul cu vadere’. Dacoromania (–): –. Pușcariu, S. (). Limba română. I. Privire generală. Bucharest: Fundaţia pentru Literatură și Artă ‘Regele Carol’. Second edn. (). Bucharest: Editura Minerva. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J. (). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. Rădulescu, M. (). ‘Formele verbale perifrastice a fi + gerunziul în textele românești traduse din secolul al XVI-lea’. Studii și cercetări lingvistice , : –. Rădulescu, M. (). ‘Observaţii asupra topicii subiectului și a predicatului în limba română din secolul al XVI-lea’, Studii și cercetări lingvistice , : –. Răuțu, D., Rezeanu A., and Zamfir, D.-M. (eds) (). ‘Cuvinte potrivite’. Omagiu doamnei Maria Marin la de ani. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Reinhart, T., and Reuland, E. (). ‘Reflexivity’, Linguistic Inquiry : –. Reinheimer, S., and Tasmowski, L. (). Pratique des langues romanes. II. Les pronoms personnels. Paris: L’Harmattan. Renzi, L. (). ‘La flessione casuale nei pronomi dal latino alle lingue romanze’, Revue de linguistique romane , –: –. RGR. Dobrovie-Sorin, C., and Giurgea, I. (eds) (). A reference grammar of Romanian. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Rivero, M.-L. (). ‘Parameters in the typology of clitics in Romance and Old Spanish’. Language , : – Rivero, M.-L. (). ‘Long head movement and negation: Serbo-Croatian vs. Slovak and Czech’, The Linguistic Review , –: –. Rivero, M.-L. (). ‘Clause structure and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory : –. Rivero, M.-L. (). ‘On two locations for complement clitic pronouns: Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian and Old Spanish’, in A. van Kemenade and N. Vincent (eds), Parameters of morphosyntactic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, –. Rizescu, I. (). ‘Studiu de limbă’, in I. Rizescu (ed.), Pravila ritorului Lucaci. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, –. Rizescu, I. (a). ‘Afirmaţia și negaţia’, in M. Avram (ed.), –. Rizescu, I. (b). ‘Propoziţiile coordonate’, in M. Avram (ed.), –. Rizzi, L. () ‘A restructuring rule in Italian syntax’, in S.J. Keyser (ed.), Recent transformational studies in European languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, –. Rizzi, L. (). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Rizzi, L. (). ‘The fine structure of the left periphery’, in L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, –.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Rohlfs, G. (). Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. III. Sintassi e formazione delle parole. Turin: Einaudi. Rohlfs, G. (). ‘Distinzione di due congiunzioni in dialetti d’Italia (nel senso del latino ut e quod o quia)’, in P. Benincà, M. Cortelazzo, A. Prosdocimi, L. Vanelli, and A. Zamboni (eds), Studi in onore di Giovan Battista Pellegrini. Pisa: Pacini, –. Roman Moraru, A. (). ‘Studiu lingvistic’, in A. Roman Moraru (ed.), Cele mai vechi cărți populare în literatura română. I. Floarea darurilor. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, –. Roques, M. (). ‘Recherches sur les conjonctions conditionnelles roumaines să, de, dacă en ancien roumain’. Romanische Forschungen : –. Rosetti, A. (). Recherches sur la phonétique du roumain au XVIe siècle. Paris: Champion. Rosetti, A. (). Limba română în secolele al XIII-lea—al XVI-lea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Rosetti, A. (). ‘Și “să”, dans le nord-ouest de la Transylvanie’, Revue roumaine de linguistique , : –. Rosetti, A. (). Istoria limbii române de la origini până la începutul secolului al XVII-lea. Bucharest: Editura Știinţifică și Enciclopedică. Rosetti, A., Cazacu, B., and Onu, L. (). Istoria limbii române literare, Bucharest: Minerva. Ross, J.R. (). ‘Constraints on variables in syntax’, PhD dissertation, MIT. Roussou, A. (). ‘Selecting complementizers’, Lingua , : –. Rudin, C. (). ‘On multiple questions and multiple Wh-fronting’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory : –. Rudolph, E. (). Contrast. Adversative and concessive relations and their expressions in English, German, Spanish, Portuguese on sentence and text level. Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter. Ruwet, N. (). Grammaire des insultes et autres études. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. Sala, M. ([] ). De la latină la română. Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic. Sala, M., Stanciu-Istrate, M., and Petuhov, N. (eds) (). Actele celui de-al cincilea simpozion internațional de lingvistică. Bucharest: Editura Univers Enciclopedic. Salvi, G. (). ‘Morphosyntactic persistence’, in M. Maiden, J.C. Smith, and A. Ledgeway (eds), –. Salvi, G., and Renzi, L. (eds) (). Grammatica dell'italiano antico. I, II, Bologna: Il Mulino. Sanders, T. (). ‘Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: on the categorization of coherence relations in context’, Discourse Process : –. Sandfeld, K. (). Linguistique balkanique. Problèmes et résultats. Paris: Champion. Sandfeld, K., and Olsen, H. (, , ). Syntaxe roumaine I. Paris: E. Droz. II, III. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Saramandu, N. (). ‘Sistemul formelor verbale compuse în aromână’, Fonetică și Dialectologie : –. Sava, C. (). ‘Substituţia complementizatorilor în copii ale Letopiseţului lui Neculce’, in R. Zafiu, C. Ușurelu, and H. Bogdan Oprea (eds), –. Sava, C. (a). ‘Distribuţia conectorului de în limba română veche’, in L. Ionescu Ruxăndoiu and M. Roibu (eds), Limba română din perspectivă sincronică și diacronică. Iași: Institutul European, –. Sava, C. (b). ‘Complementizatorii în limba română veche’, PhD dissertation, University of Bucharest.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Săvescu Ciucivara, O. (). A syntactic analysis of pronominal clitic clusters in Romance. The view from Romanian. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București. Schmidtke-Bode, K. (). A typology of purpose clauses, Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Schulte, K. (). Prepositional infinitives in Romance. A usage-based approach to syntactic change. Bern: Peter Lang. Schwarze, C. (). Grammatik der Italienischen Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Seidel, E. (). Elemente sintactice slave în limba română. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. SG. Graur, A, and Byck, J. (eds) (, , ). Studii de gramatică, I–III. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Shibatani, M. (). Passive and voice. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Sielanko, E. (). ‘Split coordinated structures in late Old English’, Studia Anglica Posnaniensia : –. SILR. Chivu, G., Pană Dindelegan, G., Dragomirescu, A., Nedelcu, I., and Nicula, I. (eds) (). Studii de istorie a limbii române. Morfosintaxa românei literare în secolele al XIX-lea și al XX-lea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Šimík, R. (). Modal existential Wh-constructions. Utrecht: LOT. Sleeman, P. (). Licensing empty nouns in French. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Spătaru-Pralea, M. (). Concurența infinitiv–conjunctiv în limba română. Bucharest: Editura Universitară. Squartini, M. (). ‘On the semantics of the pluperfect: evidence from Germanic and Romance’, Linguistic Typology : –. Squartini, M. (). ‘L'evidenzialità in rumeno e nelle altre lingue romanze’, Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie , : –. Squartini, M., and Bertinetto, P.M. (). ‘The simple and compound past in Romance languages’, in Ö. Dahl (ed.), –. Stan, C. (). Gramatica numelor de acţiune din limba română. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București. Stan, C. ().‘Elemente de sintaxă diacronică. Adverbul anume în româna veche’, in R. Zafiu, A. Dragomirescu, and A. Nicolae (eds), –. Stan, C. (a). ‘Elemente de sintaxă diacronică: structurile interogative/relative multiple’, in O. Chelaru-Murăruș, M. Cvasnâi Cătănescu, C. Ene, C. Ușurelu, and R. Zafiu (eds), Text și discurs: omagiu Mihaelei Mancaș. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, –. Stan, C. (b). ‘O structură sintactică veche: complementul predicativ al obiectului’, in M. Constantinescu, G. Stoica, O. Uţă Bărbulescu, and R. Zafiu (eds), Modernitate și interdisciplinaritate în cercetarea lingvistică. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București, –. Stan, C. (c). ‘Aspecte diacronice ale sintaxei articolului definit în limba română’, in R. Zafiu, A. Dragomirescu, and A. Nicolae (eds), –. Stan, C. (a). O sintaxă diacronică a limbii române vechi, Bucharest: Editura Universităţi din București. Stan, C. (b). ‘Sulla sintassi dei sintagmi nominali con più determinanti nel rumeno’, in E. Casanova Herrero and C. Calvo Rigual (eds), Actas del XXVI Congreso Internacional de Lingüística y Filologia Románicas (– septiembre , Valencia). II. Berlin: de Gruyter, –.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Stan, C. (c). ‘La nominalizzazione dell’infinito in rumeno—osservazioni diacronicotipologiche’, Revue roumaine de linguistique , : –. Stanciu-Istrate, M. (). ‘Studiu lingvistic’ in M. Stanciu-Istrate (ed.), Alexie, omul lui Dumnezeu’. Bucharest: Fundaţia Naţională pentru Știinţă și Artă, –. Stassen, L. (). Comparison and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Stassen, L. (). ‘Comparative constructions’, in WALS, –. Stati, S. (). ‘Valorile participiului’, Limba română , : –. Stati, S. (). ‘Rumänisch: Syntax’, in G. Holtus, M. Metzeltin, and C. Schmitt (eds), Die einzelnen romanischen Sprachen und Sprachgebiete von der Renaissance bis zur Gegenwart Rumänisch, Dalmatisch/Istroromanisch, Friulisch, Ladinisch. III. Bündnerromanisch, Tübingen: Niemeyer, –. Stein, D., and Wright, S. (eds) (). Subjectivity and subjectivization in language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stoica, G. (). ‘The adjectival category of intensity. From Latin to Proto-Romanian’, in G. Pană Dindelegan, R. Zafiu, A. Dragomirescu, I. Nicula, A. Nicolae, and L. Esher (eds), –. Stolz, T., Stroh, C., and Urdze, A. (). On comitatives and related categories: a typological study with special focus on the languages of Europe. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter. Strungaru, D. (). ‘Gramatica lui Smotriţki și prima gramatică românească’, Romanoslavica : –. Strungaru, D. (). ‘Este atestat și “să” în secolul al XVI-lea?’, Limba română , : –. Swart, H. de (). Expression and interpretation of negation. An OT typology. Dordrecht: Springer. Sweetser, E. (). From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Șchiau, O. (). Cărturari și cărți în spațiul românesc medieval. Cluj: Editura Dacia. Șerbănescu, A. (). ‘Dative possessive revisited’, in L. Tasmowski (ed.), –. Șovar, A.-G. (). ‘Nume de rudenie cu flexiune specială în limba română veche’, in R. Zafiu, A. Dragomirescu, and A. Nicolae (eds), –. Ștefănescu, M. (). ‘Un produs al școalei lui Ion Exarhul la noi: manuscriptul al III-lea din Sbornicul de la Ieud’, Arhiva : –. Tachiaos, A.N. (). O Paisios Velitscofski (–) kai i askitikofilologiki scholi tou. Thessaloniki. Tarriño, E. (), ‘Comparative clauses’, in P. Baldi and P. L. Cuzzolin (eds), –. Tasmowski, L. (). ‘Grammaticalisation et classification: le cas du roumain’, Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, L’évolution grammaticale à travers les langues romanes : –. Tasmowski, L. (ed.) (). The expression of possession in Romance and Germanic languages. Cluj-Napoca: Clusium. TDR. Rusu, V. (ed.) (). Tratat de dialectologie românească. Craiova: Scrisul Românesc. Teaha, T. (). Graiul din Valea Crișului Negru. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Teleoacă, D. (). ‘Structuri poetico-retorice în textul psalmic modern: construcţii intensive și tautologice’, Limba română (Chișinău) : –. Teodorescu, M. (). ‘Morfosintaxa (imperfectul și perfectul indicativului, condiţionalul)’, in F. Dimitrescu (ed.), –; –. Teodorescu, M., and Gheție, I. (). ‘Studiu de limbă’, in M. Teodorescu and I. Gheție (eds), Manuscrisul de la Ieud. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, –.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Tigău, A.M. (). ‘Towards an account of differential object marking in Romanian’, Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics , : –. Tigău, A.M. (). Syntax & semantics of the direct object in Romance and Germanic languages. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București. Tiktin, H. (). Gramatica română. I. Etimologia. Iași: Editura Șaraga. Tiktin, H. (). ‘Die Bildung des Rumänischen Konditionalis’, Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie : –. Timoc-Bardy, R. (). ‘Le roumain: une langue “sans concordance des temps”?’, Langages , : –. Timotin, E. (). ‘Pasivul românesc în epoca veche. Aplicaţie asupra textelor originale din secolul al XVI-lea’, Studii și cercetări lingvistice , : –. Timotin, E. (). ‘Originea pasivului românesc’, Studii și cercetări lingvistice , –: –. Timotin, E. (). Legenda duminicii. Studiu monografic, ediţie și glosar (Cele mai vechi cărţi populare în literatura română, ). Bucharest: Fundaţia Naţională pentru Știinţă și Artă. Timotin, E., and Nedelcu, I. (). ‘Stability and innovation in the use of the infinitive in an th century translation from Italian into Romanian’, in G. Pană Dindelegan, R. Zafiu, A. Dragomirescu, I. Nicula, A. Nicolae, and L. Esher (eds), –. Titova, V.P. (). ‘O problemă litigioasă a morfologiei istorice românești (originea condiţionalului)’. Studii și cercetări lingvistice , : –. Tobler, A. (). Vermischte Beiträge zur französischen Grammatik. Leipzig: S. Hirzel. Todi, A. (). Elemente de sintaxă românească veche. Pitești: Paralela . Todoran, R. (). ‘Despre și “să” în graiurile dacoromâne’, Cercetări de lingvistică , : –. Traugott, E. (). ‘Syntax’, in R.M. Hogg (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. I: the beginnings to . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, –. Traugott, E.C., Meulen, A. ter, Snitzer Reilly, J., and Ferguson, C.A. (eds) (). On conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ţâra, G. B. (), ‘Viitorul perifrastic cu a avea în traducerile textelor sacre’, Text și discurs religios : –. Uritescu, D. (). ‘Dans la perspective de l’Atlas de Crișana (I). Le participe passé dacoroumain en -ă: mithe roumain ou innovation d’une langue romane?’, in S. Reinheimer Rîpeanu and I. Vintilă-Rădulescu (eds), Limba română, limbă romanică. Omagiu acad. Marius Sala la împlinirea a de ani. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, –. Ursu, N.A. (). ‘Școala de traducători români din obștea starețului Paisie de la Mănăstirile Dragomirna, Secu și Neamț’, Teologie și viață : –. Ușurelu, C. (). ‘The grammaticalization of direct and indirect object doubling in Old Romanian’, in G. Pană Dindelegan, R. Zafiu, A. Dragomirescu, I. Nicula, A. Nicolae, and L. Esher (eds), –. Uţă Bărbulescu, O. (). Latinis litteris operam navare. Despre traducerea surselor latine și integrarea lor în Istoria ieroglifică. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București. Väänänen, V. (). Introduction au latin vulgaire. Paris: Klincksieck. Van Valin, R.D., and LaPolla, R.J. (). Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vasileanu, M. (). ‘Locuțiunile pronominale alocutive. Utilizarea în limba română actuală’, in G. Pană Dindelegan (ed.), –.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Vasilescu, A. (). ‘Cel: categorie semilexicală’, in R. Zafiu, B. Croitor, and A.-M. Mihail (eds), –. Vasilescu, A. (a). ‘The Romanian reflexive sine ‘self ’. Grammar and beyond’, in G. Pană Dindelegan, R. Zafiu, A. Dragomirescu, I. Nicula, A. Nicolae, and L. Esher (eds), –. Vasilescu, A. (b). ‘Statutul lui însuși în textele românești din secolul al XVI-lea’, in M. Sala, M. Stanciu Istrate, and N. Petuhov (eds), –. Vasiliu, E., and Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, L. (). Limba română în secolele al XII-lea—al XV-lea (fonetică—fonologie—morfologie). Bucharest: Tipografia Universității din București. Vasiliu, L. (a). ‘Atributul’, in M. Avram (ed.), –. Vasiliu, L. (b). ‘Corespondenţa timpurilor’, in M. Avram (ed.), –. Vassilieva, M. (). ‘On the typology of Russian comitative constructions’, in S. Frank, T.H. King, and M. Yadroff (eds), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The Bloomington Meeting, . Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, –. Vassilieva, M., and Larson, R.K. (). ‘The semantics of the plural pronoun construction’, Natural Language Semantics : –. Vieru, R. (). Studiu lingvistic asupra Paliei de la Orăștie. Iași: Editura Universității ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’. Vrabie, E. (). ‘Verbul’, in P. Olteanu (ed.), Slava veche și slavona românească. Bucharest: Editura Didactică și Pedagogică, –. Vulpe, M. ([] ). ‘Repartiţia geografică a construcţiilor cu infinitivul și cu conjunctivul în limba română’, Opera lingvistică. II. Cluj-Napoca: Clusium, –. Vulpe, M. (). ‘Observații asupra sintaxei graiului din zona Porțile de Fier’, in Graiul din zona ‘Porțile de Fier’. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, –. Vulpe, M. ([] ). Subordonarea în frază în dacoromâna vorbită. Bucharest: Editura Știinţifică și Enciclopedică. Vulpe, M. (). ‘Sur une particularité régionale dans l’emploi des indéfinis’, Revue roumaine de linguistique , : –. Wackernagel, J. (). ‘Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung’, Indogermanische Forschungen : –. WALS. Dryer, M.S., and Haspelmath, M. (eds) ( / ). The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Weigand, G. (). ‘Die Bildung des Imperfecti Futuri—Konditionalis, Optativi—im Rumänischen’, Jahresbericht des Instituts für rumänische Sprache zu Leipzig : –. Weinrich, U. (). Tempus: Besprochene und erzählte Welt. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag. Williams, E. (). ‘Discourse and logical form’, Linguistic Inquiry , : –. Willis, D. (). ‘Verb movement in Slavonic conditionals’, in S. Pintzuk, G. Tsoulas, and A. Warner (eds), Diachronic syntax: models and mechanisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Woodcock, E.C. (). A new Latin syntax. London: Methuen and Co.. Zafiu, R. (). ‘Sur quelques particularités syntaxiques et sémantiques du verbe en roumain familier et argotique’, in M. Iliescu and S. Sora (eds), –. Zafiu, R. (). ‘Observaţii asupra anaforei în limba română actuală’, in G. Pană Dindelegan (ed.), –.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Zafiu, R. (). ‘Observaţii asupra originii și a evoluţiei adverbului modal poate’, in M. Sala (ed.), Studii de gramatică și de formare a cuvintelor. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române: –. Zafiu, R. (). ‘Interpretări gramaticale ale prezumtivului’, in R. Zafiu, B. Croitor, and A.-M. Mihail (eds), –. Zafiu, R. (). ‘L’évolution des connecteurs adversatifs du roumain en perspective romane’, in M. Iliescu, H. Siller-Runggaldier, and P. Danler (eds), Actes du XXVe Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter, –. Zafiu, R. (). ‘Particula -și între intensificare și indefinire’, in R. Zafiu, A. Dragomirescu, and A. Nicolae (eds), –. Zafiu, R. (a). ‘Auxiliary encliticization in th century Romanian: restrictions and regularities’. Linguistica Atlantica , : –. Zafiu, R. (b). ‘Stadii în gramaticalizarea conectorilor concesivi: tiparul conector condiţional + focalizator în româna din secolele al XVI-lea – al XVII-lea’, in R. Zafiu, A. Dragomirescu, and A. Nicolae (eds), Limba română: diacronie și sincronie în studiul limbii române. I. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București, –. Zafiu, R. (a). ‘Presentative markers in Old Romanian: divergent changes in the syntactic and pragmatic uses of adică and iată’, in G. Pană Dindelegan, R. Zafiu, A. Dragomirescu, I. Nicula, A. Nicolae, and L. Esher (eds), –. Zafiu, R. (b). ‘Marcatorul concesiv măcar în diacronie (secolele al XVI-lea—al XVIII-lea)’, in N. Mocanu (ed.), Înspre și dinspre Cluj. Contribuţii lingvistice. Omagiu profesorului G. G. Neamţu la de ani. Cluj-Napoca: Scriptor/Argonaut, –. Zafiu, R., Croitor, B., and Mihail, A.-M. (eds) (), Studii de gramatică. Omagiu doamnei profesoare Valeria Guţu Romalo, Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București. Zafiu, R., Stoica, G., and Constantinescu, M.N. (eds) (). Limba română—teme actuale. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București. Zafiu, R., Dragomirescu, A., and Nicolae, A. (eds) (). Limba română. Controverse, delimitări, noi ipoteze, I. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București. Zafiu, R., Dragomirescu, A., and Nicolae, A. (eds) (). Limba română. Direcții actuale în cercetarea lingvistică, I. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București. Zafiu, R., Ușurelu, C., and Bogdan Oprea, H. (eds) (). Limba română—ipostaze ale variației lingvistice, I. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București. Zamfir, D.-M. (). Morfologia verbului în dacoromâna veche (secolele al XVI-lea—al XVIIlea) [I], Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Zamfir, D.-M. (). Morfologia verbului în dacoromâna veche (secolele al XVI-lea—al XVII-lea). II. Timpurile din sfera trecutului. Viitorul. Condiționalul. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Zamfir, D.-M. (). ‘Adverbul adică în cursul istoriei limbii române. Schimbări semantice și relaţii sinonimice. Modificări fonetice și amplificări expresive’, Caietele Sextil Pușcariu : –. Zamfir, D.-M., and Dinică, A. (). Cercetare istorică asupra evoluţiei sintactice și semantice a adverbului doar(ă)’, in Ș. Colceriu (ed.), Bătrânul înţelept de la Pylos. Volum omagial dedicat lui Andrei Avram la optzeci de ani. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, –.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/2/2016, SPi
References
Zanuttini, R. (). Negation and clausal structure. A comparative study of Romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zanuttini, R., and Portner, P. (). ‘Exclamative clauses: At the syntax-semantics interface’, Language , : –. Zdrenghea, M. (). ‘Slavona Legendei duminicii din Codicele de la Ieud’, Cercetări de lingvistică : –. Zdrenghea, M. (). ‘Legenda duminicii din Codicele de la Ieud (Câteva consideraţii cu privire la traducere)’, Cercetări de lingvistică : –.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Index adjacency , , , , , , adjective, adjectival phrase (AP) , , , –, , , categorizing classifying , , relational , , , , , , , , , , thematic/argumental , , compound deverbal , , , , , ethnic participial , , , , , qualifying , , , , , , , , , quantificational , transitive , adjectivization adjunct , , , , , , , , , , , addition – causal adjunct/disjunct , – comitative , , –, concessive , , , , , , – conditional , , , , –, , , pseudo-conditional conditional-concessive – correlative , , , , , exceptive – extrasentential, see past participle instrumental , , –, , locative/of place , –, manner , –, , means obligatory purpose, purposive value , , , , , , , , –, , , , , quantitative , reason , , result , , , , , – substitutive – temporal , , , , , , , –, , , , adverb(ial) , , , –, , , aspectual
clitic , , , , deictic , , , demonstrative distributive focusing , , , , , formative freestanding , locative , manner , marker modal , , , parenthetical particle presentative restrictive , , time/temporal , tough-adverbs/construction , , weak , , affirmative Agent-phrase/by-phrase , , , , –, , , dative , agreement, concord , , , , , –, , , , case dative formal genitive inflectionally marked non-marked subject agreement , , , verb vocative allocutive – anacoluthon , –, analogy , analytic/periphrastic (forms), analyticity , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , anaphor, anaphoric , , , , accusative bound chain dative discourse ,
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Index
anaphor, anaphoric (cont.) reflexive , , , –, , , split subject , syntactic , antecedent , , , , , , anteriority , , , , , , , , , , , aphaeresis , , , , , apodosis , , , , , , , appellation, address – apposition , –, , , , , attributive appositive/reformulation marker , , –, of equivalence approximation , archaism , argument clause , , , , –, , Aromanian , , , , , , , aspect –, , , –, , continuous , , durative , , dynamic/resultative , , , , imperfective , , , , , , , , , , inchoative iterative momentary , perfective , , , , , , , , , , process , , , progressive , , static , , , , augural auxiliary double for mood and tense , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , inversion/encliticization , , , –, , , , , , , , –, , , , , multiple passive , selection
Balkan feature , , , , , , , , , , , , , , binding case accusative , , , , , , , bicasual system dative , –, , , , , , , , adnominal analytic , esse-dative instrumental locative possessive , ; see also clitic of interest/affected/experiential genitive , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, analytic , –, , , , , , , , denominal non-marked –, , synthetic , –, , , , genitive-dative , , marking –, , , genitive-possessive marker , –, , , , , , , , , , , multiple , proclitic , mismatch nominative , nominative-accusative , , oblique vocative , , , , , , classifier – clitic accusative , , , adnominal adnominal possessive , –, configurations of cliticization – adverbal adverbal possessive dative –, anticipation , , , , clusters –, complementizer-oriented dative , , , , , doubling , , , ,
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Index of the direct object , –, , of the indirect object , , –, , doubly realized/reduplication/ repetition , , , , , , enclisis, encliticization, inversion , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , expletive , feminine accusative clitic , , – genitive mesoclisis , non-syllabic possessive proclisis , , , , , , , , pronominal (personal) , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , raising/climbing , , –, , , , , , , reflexive , , , , , , accusative , , , , argumental , , dative , , , , inherent , possessive , adnominal adverbal resumption , , , , cohortative Common Romanian comparative construction –, , , – clausal , comparators – correlative , non-scalar – phrasal , pseudo-comparative scalar – competing forms, see variation analytic – synthetic pluperfect bare infinitive – a-infinitive double compound perfect – pluperfect genitive – nominative gerund – infinitive complement gerund – infinitive – subjunctive – supine infinitive – indicative
infinitive – subjunctive , , –, , , , infinitive – subjunctive – indicative , relative words cine and care simple forms – periphrases simple past – compound past , suffixal article – determiner cel , supine – infinitive supine – infinitive – subjunctive – complement ; see also object; predicative of adjective , , of adverb – of noun , , –, , of preposition , , , , , , , , , complementizer , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , –, , , , , , , complex , , , , double lexicalization null conceptual , , , , , concord , ; see also agreement conditional , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , double compound/auxiliary , imprecatory perfect , , , , , , , , , , periphrases , –, –, , present , , , , , repor(ta)tive , , synthetic –, , , , configurationality , conjugation class conjunction/connector/connective, see coordination; subordination additive , complex , , , , coordinating , , , , , adversative , , , complex , conclusive , , , conjunctive , , , correlative , –, , , disjunctive , , discourse marker polyfunctional , , ,
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Index
conjunction/connector/connective (cont.) subordinator , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , transition words, transphrastic connector , , , control , , , , – non-obligatory , obligatory , coordination , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, –, , , , , , , , , , adversative –, , alternative – asymmetric(al) , , –, comitative conclusive –, conjunctive disjunctive , juxtaposition , , negative pseudo-coordination split counterfactual Cyrillic alphabet , , , , , deontic , , desiderative determiner/article , adjectival –, alternative – definite , , , –, , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , configurations of enclisis – freestanding , , , , –, , , inflectional formative – inflectional marker , proclitic –, , suffixal/enclitic , , , , , , , definite alternative definiteness demonstrative , , , , , , , , , identity –
indefinite , , , , – suppletive paradigm , dialectal variation –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , differential object marker (DOM) , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , direct speech , , linked discontinuity, see dislocation dislocation/scrambling/intercalation/ discontinuity/displacement/ hyperbaton , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , displacement, see dislocation doxa ellipsis , , , , co-licensing , deletion , gapping nominal , , , , –, , of the copula or auxiliary , , , , , verbal , emphasis , , –, , epistemic , , –, , , , , , , , , , evidential –, , , , , exclamative, exclamatory , – exhortative , factive, non-factive focus, focalization , , , –, , , , , , , , contrastive , genericity , , , , , gerund/present participle, gerund clause , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , ,
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Index , , , , , , , , , , , , , active aspect negative passive perfect periphrases , , , , , , – predicate subject of gerund , – tense voice – grading, degree/intensity (markers) , , , –, , –, , , , comparative –, , , , , complement of equality , –, of inequality –, of inferiority , of superiority , elative , , superlative , , –, , , grammaticalization , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Greek , , , , , , , , Hebrew , Hungarian , , hyperbaton, see dislocation imperative , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , affirmative negative , , –, impersonality, impersonalization , –, , impersonal se , , passive impersonal reflexive-impersonal , indicative , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , compound past/perfect , , –, , , , , , , , , ,
double compound past/perfect –, , double compound periphrases , future , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , double compound future perfect in the past , , , , invariable particle perfect , , , , , , synthetic , , imperfect , , , , , analytic past , , hodiernal past-in-the-past , perfect in the past , perfect periphrastic theme pluperfect , , –, , , analytic , , present , , , , , , , , , , , strong weak simple past (perfect)/preterite , , –, , , , , , indirect speech , , , infinitive, infinitival clause , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , bare , , , , –, , , , formative –, long , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , loss nominal , , , perfect , , , predicate short , , , –, , , , , subject of infinitive , –, temporal value – verbal injunctive , , , , ,
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Index
intensifier , , , , , , , , , bound –, cluster floating invariable nominal – intercalation, see dislocation interjection , , , , , , predicative interrogation, interrogative , , , , , , – alternative , causal closed indirect , –, , polar , , , , , , , marker/particle –, , , multiple , open rhetorical , wh- , inversion, see auxiliary; clitic irrealis , , , , , , Istro-Romanian , , , , kind reading , , , , logophor , mandatory , Megleno-Romanian , , , , , metadiscourse/metalinguistic, metadiscursive , , , , , , , middle reflexive , , , –, mixed category , modifier , , , adjectival , –, –, –, , adverbial clausal conjunctional , gerundial –, – infinitival non-restrictive –, participial , prepositional –, restrictive –, supine , , wh- –, , – morphophonological change –
morphological system – allomorphy alternations variation , movement A-movement/information structure driven roll-up verb movement , V-to-C , wh- necessity , negation, negative , , , , , , , , , –, , , , –, additional binary constituent , – double/multiple , – expletive , , – focal intensifier n-words – prefixal/affixal , , , –, , pro-sentence – raising , sentential/clausal , , , , , , , , –, , simple strict negative concord , , neuter/ambigeneric/heterogeneous nominalization , , , , non-finite verb forms , , , , , , –, , , , subject of non-finite forms – noun, nominal phrase (NP) – abstract , , , , bare , , , , , , , collective , , , concrete deadjectival , , deverbal , , , , , , , , generic , – kinship , , , , , mass , , proper name, anthroponym , , , , , , , , , –, , relational , , uncountable
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Index numeral archaic cardinal , , , –, , – adjectival cardinal collective , compound , distributive , – fractional , invariable , multiplicative , ordinal , , , –, –, , , , , simple object cognate –, , – direct , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , internal , , , raising , –, , – indirect , –, , , , , , , , , , , prepositional , –, , , , , , , , , secondary direct –, , , , , obviation optative , , , , , , partitive , , –, , , , , , , , complement passive – analytic be-passive/personal , , –, –, , , passivization , se-passive (impersonal) , –, , –, , , , synthetic passive past participle, participial clause , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , absolute participial construction/ extrasentential adjunct , active , , , , , , , , , adjectival , , – agreement , , , , –,
feminine , , – formative , –, negative , , nominal origin passive , , , , , remnant resultative subject of participle temporal value person mismatches phonetic reduction phonological features/system – allophone asyllabic final sound consonant grapheme inventory of phonemes palatal sonorant vowel pleonastic/tautological/cognate construction , , , , , –, , polydefinite construction , –, , , , –, , , , possession –, , alienable , , , inalienable , , , , , possessee definite possessive adjective , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , plural reference possessive affix , –, possessive phrase possessor deletion doubly marked , , , multiple single pronominal – posteriority , , , pragmaticalization , , predicate complex , , , , , secondary , , predicative complement , , construction ,
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Index
predicative (cont.) object(ive) predicative complement , , –, , , , position , subject(ive) predicative complement –, , , , , , , , , preposition, prepositional phrase (PP) , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , comitative compound , , , functional , , –, , , , , , , –, , lexical , , , – locative , , of quality , partitive , –, subcategorized , , , –, prescriptive presentative (marker) , , , –, presumptive/suppositive , procedural , , , , , , pro-drop pronoun demonstrative , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , –, – distal , , long/strong , –, proximal , , short/weak , –, , feminine singular with neutral value – indefinite , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , interrogative , negative , of identity personal , , , , , , , clitic, see clitic stressed
strong , , , , , , , , , weak , politeness, honorifics , , , , , , , –, reflexive , , strong , , , , , , , , relative , , , , , , , , , , , relative-interrogative , , property reading , , , , protasis , , , , , , , , , prothesis quantifier, quantification , , , –, , , , collective distributive , , universal floating , fractional indefinite , , , interrogative invariable multiplicative negative noun null , , numerical overt pronominal , –, universal – universal , verb realis , recategorization , , , reciprocal bipropositional construction – contextual dative double marked , – inherent/implicit –, noun repetition , object-oriented PP se split subject-oriented reflexivization , ,
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Index relative clause , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , appositive free , cleft , , correlative , , , equative extraposition free , , , headed , , , , , , non-restrictive , , restrictive , , headless , , , , , , , , infinitival/modal-existential construction , , , –, , , – multiple , , negative , null relative pleonastic construction – pseudo-cleft pseudo-relative reduced relativization , , repetitive reported speech , , restructuring , rhematization scrambling, see dislocation sequence of tenses (SOT) – simultaneity , , , , , , , Slavonic, Slavic (influence) , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , South-Danubian idioms/varieties , , , , , , subject , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , st person plural nd person singular anteposition , doubling , , , ,
expletive pronominal subject , , , , externalization extraction , extraposition genitival-possessive human non-definite/generic – internal , inversion locative multiple – null expletive subject null/unrealized , –, of non-finite forms – partitive prepositional postposition , raising , , , – relative dative-genitive/relative prepositional subjunctive , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , bare , , , , , , directive independent – inverted marker/formative/complementizer , –, , , , , , , , , , perfect , , , , pluperfect reportative subordinate/embedded –, surcomposé subordination , –, , –, , weak substantivization , , , suffix/augment , supine, supine clause , , , , , , , , , , , –, , active nominal , , –, , , feminine , origin – passive predicate subject of supine , underspecified , , –, , verbal , , –, , ,
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Index
syncretism , , , , , , , , , , synthetic/simple forms, syntheticity , , , , , , , , , , TAM system –, tense – absolute/deictic , , , agreement relative , , , Tobler-Mussafia law , , , , topic, topicalization, thematization, fronting , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , edge-fronting , hanging theme , , translations vs. original (texts) , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , variation/alternation , , , , , , , , , –, , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , –, ; see also competing forms argumental configuration –, Acc//PP –, Dat//Acc –, , , Dat//PP –, , , reflexive//non-reflexive –, , , , , SecO//Dat//PP – selection of the preposition subjectless//subject-taking, subject// PP , transitive//intransitive – verb raising semantic classes agentive appoint , –
aspectual verb/periphrasis , , , , , , , , , attitude causative/factitive , , change of state cognitive/of cognition , , , , , , , , discovery , dynamic , evidential exercitive , existential , grooming , implicative informing intensive interrogandi locative meteorological modal , , , , , motion/movement , , , , , , naming –, , , –, , of location of physical sensation of saying/of speech/of communication/ dicendi , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , passive-reflexive perception , , , , , , , , , , physical sensation psych/emotion , , , state transfer syntactic classes attributive , copula , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , ditransitive , , , , impersonal , , , intransitive , –, , , , , , , , , one-argument personal reciprocal , , reflexive –, , , semi-impersonal , subjectless
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Index three-argument transitive –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , two-argument , unaccusative , , , , , , , , , , , , unergative , , , , zero-valent , – volition Wackernagel’s law , , wh-element/word/phrase , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , word order –, – adjective, serialization , , , , –, , –, adjuncts , , , adverb , –, Agent-phrase auxiliary-infinitive , classifiers clitic-auxiliary clitics , , , , –, , ,
definite article – degree markers determiners , , direct object , – gerund head-final , – indirect object – intensifier , inverse predication structure left periphery , modifiers , , passive , polar interrogative possessive adjective prepositional object quantifiers relative , să-verb-clitic secondary direct stylistic inversion/chiasmus , , , subject , –, subject(ive) predicative complement –, supine verb – verb-clitic-auxiliary , – verb-subject inversion
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
OXFORD STUDIES IN DIACHRONIC AND HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS General editors Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge Advisory editors Cynthia Allen, Australian National University; Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, University of Manchester; Theresa Biberauer, University of Cambridge; Charlotte Galves, University of Campinas; Geoff Horrocks, University of Cambridge; Paul Kiparsky, Stanford University; Anthony Kroch, University of Pennsylvania; David Lightfoot, Georgetown University; Giuseppe Longobardi, University of York; David Willis, University of Cambridge PUBLISHED
From Latin to Romance Morphosyntactic Typology and Change Adam Ledgeway Parameter Theory and Linguistic Change Edited by Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, Ruth Lopes, Filomena Sandalo, and Juanito Avelar Case in Semitic Roles, Relations, and Reconstruction Rebecca Hasselbach The Boundaries of Pure Morphology Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives Edited by Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden, and John Charles Smith The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean Volume I: Case Studies Edited by David Willis, Christopher Lucas, and Anne Breitbarth Constructionalization and Constructional Changes Elizabeth Traugott and Graeme Trousdale Word Order in Old Italian Cecilia Poletto Diachrony and Dialects Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy Edited by Paola Benincà, Adam Ledgeway, and Nigel Vincent
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages Edited by Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli Vowel Length from Latin to Romance Michele Loporcaro The Evolution of Functional Left Peripheries in Hungarian Syntax Edited by Katalin É. Kiss Syntactic Reconstruction and Proto-Germanic George Walkden The History of Low German Negation Anne Breitbarth Arabic Indefinites, Interrogatives, and Negators A Linguistic History of Western Dialects David Wilmsen Syntax over Time Lexical, Morphological, and Information-Structural Interactions Edited by Theresa Biberauer and George Walkden Syllable and Segment in Latin Ranjan Sen Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit The Syntax and Semantics of Adjectival Verb Forms John J. Lowe Verb Movement and Clause Structure in Old Romanian Virginia Hill and Gabriela Alboiu The Syntax of Old Romanian Edited by Gabriela Pană Dindelegan IN PREPARATION
Variation and Change in the Syntax of Portuguese Relative Clauses Adriana Cardoso Negation and Nonveridicality in the History of Greek Katerina Chatzopoulou
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2016, SPi
The Rise and Fall of Ergativity in Aramaic Eleanor Coghill Nominal Expressions and Language Change From Early Latin to Modern Romance Giuliana Giusti The Historical Dialectology of Arabic: Linguistic and Sociolinguistic Approaches Edited by Clive Holes A Study in Grammatical Change The Modern Greek Weak Subject Pronoun τος and its Implications for Language Change and Structure Brian D. Joseph Gender from Latin to Romance Michele Loporcaro Reconstructing Pre-Islamic Arabic Dialects Alexander Magidow Quantitative Historical Linguistics Barbara McGillivray and Gard Jenset Grammaticization and Configurationality in Indo-Aryan Ute Reinöhl Syntactic Change and Stability Joel Wallenberg The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean Volume II: Patterns and Processes Edited by David Willis, Christopher Lucas, and Anne Breitbarth