Theory and Description in Latin Linguistics: Selected Papers from the XIth International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Amsterdam, June 24-29, 2001 9050633587, 9789050633581

Citation preview

AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY EDITORS

ALBERT RIJKSBARON IRENEJ.F. DEJONG

HARM PINKSTER

VOLUME TEN

PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED

1. A. RlJKSBARON,GrammaticalObmvationson Eun'pidcs'Bacchae.1991. 2. R. RISSELADA, Imperativesand otherDirectiveExpressionsin Latin. A Stutfy in the

Pragmatics o/a Dead I..anguage.1993. 3. G. WAKKER, Conditionsand Conditionals.An InvestigationofAncient Greek. 1994. 4. C. KROON, DiscourseParticlesin LAiin. A Stutfy of nam, enim, autem, vero and at. 1995.

5. H. DTK,Word Orderin Ancient Greek.A PragmaticAccount of Word Order Van·ation in Herodotus.1995. 6. J.E. V.D. VEEN, The Significantand the Insignificant.Five Studies in Herodotus' View o/History.1996. 7. A. RIJKSBAROJ\' (ed.),1'-lewApproachestoGreekParticfes.1997. 8. R. RISSELADA(ed.), Latin in Use. Amsterdam Studies in the Pragmaticsof Latin. 1998. 9. P. CLAES,ConcatenatioCatulliana.A New &ading of the Carmina.2002.

THEORY AND DESCRIPTION IN LATIN LINGUISTICS SELECTED

PAPERS FROM

THE XIth INTERNATIONAL

COLLOQUIUM

ON LATIN LINGUISTICS AMSTERDAM, JUNE 24-29, 2001

EDITED

BY

A.M. BOLKESTEINt C.H.M. KROON H. PINKSTER H.W. REMMELINK R. RISSELADA

Machtelt Bolkestein -Amsterdam, June 2001 (photograph Michel Poirier)

J.C. GIEBEN,

PUBLISHER

AMSTERDAM

2002

Preface

This volume contains a sclcctmn of rcvl~cd of the eleventh biannual International Colloquium on Lann Linguistics, was held in Amsterdam June 24-29, 2001. It reflects the of p1cscnt- ils gardent le silence' On cntrevoit l'arrii:re-plan de ccs remarques: rien moins que le debat, rouvert, en France, dCs le 16Cme siCcle, sur la reaffecration du participe parmi les 'parties du discours', ou 'parties d'oraison', une fois qu'on !'a prive de !'autonomic dont il jouissait clans la tradition heritCe de l'antiquite. A cet egard, Marouzeau ne parait pas, a la reference au temps pri:s, tri:s CloignC d'un Ramus, pour qui le participe etait "un nom derive du verbe qui garde la marque du temps" (cf. Colombat (1999: 182); il rCsiste encore, visiblement, a \'opinion de BeauzCe (Grammaireginirale, 1767), qui allait s'imposer, et qui faisait du participe un pur et simple "mode du verbe" (Colombat (1999: 185))).

3. Du participe present comme mot nominal C'est done, d'abord, du c6tC du nom, avec les propriCtCs formelles qui soot Jes siennes en latin, que l'on cherchera, ici, la c!C du fonctionnement syntacticosCmantique du participe present. Rappelons, pour commencer, certains faits gfoCralement negliges. Le premier est morphologique: c'est presque uniquement clans la declinaison du participe present que !'identification morphologique, au

;e~~;~~~:~\;hl~ch:;;anti~nnd:r~~~~~:d~'?d privikged role in the designated suuation, forming the

a ce.t Cgard, le tra1tement des participes en gi:nCral Jans Hofmann & Szantyr (1965): ils y soot Ctud1CsJans le chapitre comacrC au verbe (: 287ss,), sous la rubri9uc 11erb11m

3. Instructif est, 111jiml1m1.

4. Quarame ans plus card (1954: 3), Marouzeau se montre encore attach!: a cette idl:e, en denon,;:ant,Jans un ouvrage didacrique, l'inco,:porarion, au verbe, du partictpe, "gui est un adject1r', du gCrondif et du supin, "qu1 soot des substanrifs".

62

Paulo de Carvalho

singulier, des cas 'centraux', ou 'nudeaires', mais du nominatif anime, 6 cf. tableau 1:

5

Entre verbe et nom: du participe dit 'present'

se fait au profit, non de l'accusatif,

(2)

Tableau 1

mancfJ)lumlaborans

acc.

servum currentem

mandp,umlaborans

Cette particularice morphologique ne saurait relever de l'arbitraire, et pas davantage le fait que le lexeme verbal representant une 'presence pure et simple', depourvuc de toute mo, qui l'a ultefieutementetenduii l'accusatif."(Montell 1970: 344). Selancet auteur(: 183), un des facteursde cctte "extension"serait"la rarete,au nmninallf-accusatif, de l'emplo1du parllclpeneutre". 7. "If adverbialp:uncipleswere taken into account, the preponderanceof the nommativein periodIII[= 47-43 a.CJwouldbe morestriking."(Laughton(1964: 33)) 6.

63

primo haec pudice uitam parce ac duritet Janaac tela uictum quaeritans(fer. An. 74-75) 'au debut, elle,

oil, poussant devant Jui troupeau, en nageant

~utres excmples: insequensvs. lacessendo(Liv. 34.40.1); suscensentivs. adsentando tndzgnand~que vs. offerens(Liv. 40.23.1);praebendo,!acessendo vs. querentiquerens(Liv. 40.54.8 - ex. (76); adsurgen,vs. populando(Tac. Ann. 15.38.8); nihil metuensan dissimuhndo metu (Tac. Ann. 15.69.8). Bien entendu, si l'on a cru, pour les raisons deja dites, pouvoir, clans le cadre limit~ d'~ne communication, privilegier les occurrences du participe present au nommattf, ~n examen exh~ustif, toutes formes casuelles confondues, cU.t sans doute autorise d~s co_n~lu~1ons,analogues. II suffira, pour !'instant, d'Cvoquer une alternance qm ava1t mtercsse Benveniste (1935: 139), cf (16a-b): (16a) certe hinc Romanos olim floluentib11J annir ~i,~c~or: ducto~es,... (\'er~. A. 1?34-235; VCnusrappelle .'!Jupiter ses promesses) c_etru.tsur: de la des Romams, un JOur,/erannies se diroulant,de !it ils devaient adven1t,pour commander ...' (16b) at pucr Ascanius, ... / .. tnginta magnos 110/nendis mensibusorbis imperio cxp!ebit ... (Verg.A. 1.267-270;rCponsede Jupiter) ~:~::~n::~.'. ,Ascagne,avecle diroulementdes mois, trente amples cycles de son pou-

Scion Renveniste, "ii n'y a pas ici, uo!umdismensibns,une simple circonstance de temps ~~mme dans uoluentibusannis:,clans le cas present, le cours fatal et rCgulier de~ m01s e5,_tla co~dition de _l'accomplissement des trentc ans." Une autre explic~t1on r:aran possible, fonde~ su_ru~e analy~e precise du contexte: dans (16a), s _ilpara1t un peu com:~ cl~ redmre l exp~ess1on uoluentibusannis a une "simple ci:constance de temps , c est pourtant b1en du temps qu'il s'aglt, c'cst mt':me /e dm}J{letJJent du temps, les annees gui passenr, l'une apres l'autre, qui est au coeur d~ p~opos prete a Venus, lasse d'atten~re cc jour !oimain (olim)qui n'en finit pas d arnver. Tout autrcment sonne la reponse de Jupiter, qui justemcnt ne vcut plus enre,ndre parler de la sCric sans ~n des ans. Et s'il evoque, lui aussi, le temps; c esr,_du temps compte, totalise, maitrisC done - une 'quantite de te',:1ps -, qu il me,~ en avan,t, p~ur ras~urer sa divine progeniture; il ne parle meme plus, pour l mstant, d annees, mats de mois, et cc n'est Iii, d'aillcurs dans son propos, qu'unc donnee accessoirc, subordonnec a !'evocation de l'~ction d'un erre determinC,puer Ascanius, qui, Jui, garantie supreme, n'a rien de virtue!.

5. Conclusion U1_1eult1me remarque, pour condure. Elle nous ramenera, en passant par Madnd (De Carvalho (19986)) et Paris (De Carvalho (2001)), ici mCme, oU, iJ y a

Entre verbe et nom: du partidpe dit 'present'

71

vingt ans, Lehmann envisageait !'existence possible, en latin, de traits 'ergatifs' (Lehmann (1983)). Que !'on m'entende bien, cependant: il n'est nullement question, ici, de pretend.re que !'opposition d'un participe d'infectum a un nom en -ndo/,,- (substantivC ou non) serait celle d'un 'ergatif a un 'absolutif, au sens oll ces terrnes sont genetalement entendus. Tout ce qui me parait pouvoir etre avance, avec une rres forte probabilitC, est que !'on decele, en latin, ii divers niveaux - clans la morphosyntaxc, casuelle et verbale -, et notammcnt clans notre affaire, l'empreinte d'une opposition, sans doute archaique, que l'on aurait interet a rapprocher de la problemarique de l'ergatif, 11 et qui est celle de deux images d'un actant, 12 c'est-ll-dirc: - cdle, 'nominative', de ['existencepositived'une 'entire personnelle' vue dCtcrminer et dominer la vision que !'on a d'un certain evenement, a !'image, prototypiquc, de 'moi comme principe determinant et dominant l'Cvenement locutif; - et celle, 'accusative', de la simple presence d'une 'entitC personnelle' conc;:ue comme 'Ctant Ill sans plus', simple 'objet dont il est parle' orientant le regard du locuteur. Et ce serait, en dCfinitivc, une representation 'existcntiellc', correspondant, en son lieu propre, au rang nominallfclans le systeme casuel latin (De Carvalho 1985; 19986), que produirait, a chacun de ses emplois, le participe present, et qu'il imposerait partout: d'abord, en morphologie, a l'accusatif (mancipiumlaborans, cf. ci-dessus), puis, dans la structure syntaxique, a route entitC relevant d'un autre rang casuel - et !'on peut prevoir, ici, des resistances plus ou mains marquees, qu'il restc ii dCcrire plus finement. Enfin, on peut maintenant comprendre pourquoi le verbe essen'a pas de participc prCscnt: il n'est pas vraiment un verbe 'd'existence', et son 'sujet' n'est, en definitive, qu'un 'site'.

11. La conception du s1gnifiC des noms en -11d-presentCe dans De Carvalho (2001) renvoyait cxprcs~Crnent au rappr0Cois never combined with a first person singular or plural; thus, the types *faxo mactaboand *faxo mactemusare absent. 20 There seems to be a constraint against the causer being identical to the causee, but this is not general, as we do have Jae adsisetc. 1Iowever, a causative interpretation is not always possible, compare (9): (9)

(A father is scolding his daughter because she wants to control her husband, who loves a courtesan.) ob istanc mdustriamctiamJaxo amabit amphus. (Pl. Men. 791) 'He will cerlmnfymake loveto her all the more because of your watchfulness.'

Here the causative translation 'I shall bring it about that' would be absurd. A father cannot want his daughter's husband to love a courtesan. The father is not the causer~ he has nothing to do with his son-in-law's love for another woman. In face, the cause 1s his daughter's behaviour. In contexts like this,/axo has been re-analysed and can be translated adverbially as 'certainly'. 21 It has become a marker of certainty. There are two ways in which we can interpret this: the first is that in contexts like these, faxo has been re-analysed syntactically and has become an adverb (in/axo + future) or a 'subordinator' governing the subjunctive (in faxo + subjunctive). The word 'subordinator' is not a very good one, though, because subordinators introduce subordinate clauses that cannot stand on their own, while faxo does not do so. But we can compare faxo to forsitan ('perhaps').2 2 Alternatively,Jaxo could have been re-analysed purely semantically and could have become a parenthetical expression meaning 'I assume'. 23 As parenthetical modal phrases ]jke credoare generally in the present tense, it is hard to sec how the semantically re-analysed faxo could have future meaning. In many cases,Jaxo can be interpreted as either causative or non-causative: if the speaker wants to be seen as the causer, faxo is verbal; otherwise it is a marker of certainty. But in that respect most examples are ambiguous because 20. S1mllarly,/oaom ut + first person 1; ra(e as a causative construction. Pl. Capt. 385-387 (joriom seduki,ut ... id petam) is not really an exceprion because the ut-clause is an explanatory adverbial clause, so that/amzm 11! cannot be taken causatively. Tcr. Hee. 244-245 could be given a causative intcrpretaaon. 21. It seems that the lype/ax,:, eril expresses certainty, whtle the typefaxim ;it (cf. Pl. Tr:n. 221) marks possibility. a particle governing the subjunctive. How22 Krebs & Schmalz (19057: 603) + as early as Luer. 5.104, it could be argued that ever, as there is an instance of _farsitan the subjunctive is independent of forsitan. 23. Both r"a.xtm1s verbal - it can be combined with ego- and means 'l assume', so not problematic in that respect. On the other hand, such parenthetic modalizmg expressions m Latin are normally in the present tense, not ln the cummjimtwo. future. Non-parenthetic modah7.ing verbs normally govern the accusatwus

84

The sigmatic future in Plautus

Wolfgang de Melo

the speaker has a choice. Sometimes one interpretation is more likely than the other, for instance in (10): (10) {t\ soldier is look.mg for a man nicknamed Curcu!io - 'Weevd'.) ubi nunc Curculioncm inucniam? :: in mtico facillume, ud qumgentos curculiones pro uno faxo repen"as. (Pl. Cur. 586-587) 'Where am I now to find Weevil? :: Most easily in the wheat. You will certain/yfind even five-hundred wcevib instead of one.'

In (10), the person who replies can hardly be seen as the causer, so we interpret this as a marker of certainty. Rut (9) and (10) are the only examples where the semantics of faxo is clear in this respect. Sometimes the context can give us hints on how to interpret jaxo, for example in (11), (11) (A doctor is telling Mcnacchmus how he wants to cure him.)

e!!eborumpotabisJaxoaliguos uigincidies. :: al egote pcndemem Jodiamstimulis triginta dies. (Pl. Men. 950-951) 'I will seelo it that you WIii dn"nkhellebore for some twenty days. :: But I Wl/1prod you, while hanging, with goads for thirty days.'

In (11), faxo ought to be taken as causative because Menaechmus replies at ego and thus contrasts himself with the doctor; this can only make sense if the doctor uses faxo not as a marker of certainty, but as a causative verb with himself as the subject. For similar reasons, faxo is probably causative in Pl. As. 132, Pl. Poen. 1228, Pl. Troe. 761 and Ter. Ad. 847; the speakers are emphasizing that they will causesomething. If faxo as a marker of certainty is not verbal any more because it has been reanalysed in some contexts, we can look at syntactic criteria as to where faxo has co be verbal and thus causative: infaxo ut,faxo is verbal because otherwise there could be no subordinator HI. And when there is egofaxo instead of mere faxo, this must be verbal - otherwise it would make no sense to express a subject ego. Egois used eighteen times. Similarly, when/axo is combined with a double accusative it has to be verbal, or the clause would have no verb at all. But if Jaxo as a marker of certainty is verbal, only faxo + double accusative has to be causative from a syntactic point of view. What is the temporal meaning of faxr?. Again, temporal adverbials do not tell us much because most of them arc very general in meaning, and because in a phrase like iam faxo hieaderit (fer. Ph. 308) it is not clear whether iam modifies jaxo or aderit.24

24. The most frequent adverbial is 1am (twenty-five instances), followed by botUt(three instances}. There are only two examples where the adverbial must belong to/=: Pl. futd. BOOand Ter. Hal(. 341. ln both casesjaxogovems a douhl~ accusative rather than a firute verb.

85

We used 'I shall bring it about that' as a provisional translation forjaxo. In subordinate clauses, the typefaxo can always be interpreted as anterior; in main clauses, no such interpretation is possible, cf. (6) above. In this ex~m~le, the soldier simply refers to the future; it is impossible to detect any antenon~. The example can be translated perfectively, but not imperfectively: '1'_11 be 10 ~he process of making her say' does not make any sense. However, this pcrfcc~vc interpretation can simply be the result of the kind of speech act '!'earc dealing with: jaxo is used in promises and threats, and we normally promise or threaten _ .. to do things completely, from beginning to end. We learn more from the tenses with which/axo is co-ordinated. 2~ In (12) It IS rhe simple future: (12) (Argyrippus is angry with a procurcss.) iboego ad trismros uostraguc ibi nomma . Jaxo enmt,capiti' te perdamego et filiam.(Pl. As. 131-132! 'I willgo to the tmuin"and tah carethat your names will bt there, I will destroyyou and your daughter completely.'

Hcrc,faxo is co-ordinated with two simple futures, ibo and p~rdam_.Faxo in_!er. Ad. 847 is co-ordinated with a future perfect uidero, but 111dero ts a foss1hzed idiom that docs not indicate anteriority; bcsidcs,jaxo is parallel to the following Jaciam. In (13) it is not clear if there is any co-ordination bctween/axo andfaciet. (13) (Milph10has to pacify J\delphasium.) egoJaxo, si non irata's, ninnium pro te dabit ac tefacietut sies ciuis Attica atgue libera. (Pl. Pom. 371-372) 'I willtake carethat, if you are not angry, he willpr.ryfor you, little horse, and he will take care/ and that he will take carethat you arc a free Athenian cit.izen.'26

In (13),jaxo andfaciet could be regarded as being co-ordinat~d. Alt~rnatively, it could be dabit andfaciet that are co-ordinated. The sentence 1s ambiguous. In the latter case, there would be a double causative construction:faxojaciet ut, with two causers, the speaker and his master, who is the subject o_ffaciel. In any case Jaxo is clearly a future. The general conclusion is that in mam clauses f~ _has simple future meaning and does not correspond to a furore perfect. This 1s a crucial difference to the sigmatic forms of the subordinate clauses. What about the register of Jaxo in main clauses as compared to that of the forms in subordinate clauses? We can immediately sec that faxo is disproportionately frequent in Plautine spoken verse, which indicates that it is nor mark~d for a particularly high register. This conclusion becomes even more certru.n when we consider that all types of characters use it indiscriminately. The same 25. Only those cases in which jaxo has w he verbal were comidered. 26. For mnm11mcf. Maurach (1988: 100) ad Kie.

86

Wolfgang de Melo

The sigmatic future in Plautus

can be said about Terence's usage, where faxo is found in ordinary as well as stylistically marked passages.

With regard to the productivity of sigmatic forms in main clauses, we have already said that the only form to be found is faxo. There are some recurrent formulae in Plautus: among the 48 tokens of faxo + simple future, a form of esse occurs 11 times, a form of scire9 times, and a form of adesse4 times. Similarly, direreis found three times in the future and three times in the subjunctive. However, 24 verbs are found in the simple future and 11 in the present subjunctive, so we arc not dealing with fixed expressions. The same is true of Terence; there are far fewer tokens, but the only form to occur twice is aderit. There arc seventy tokens of fllXo in main clauses in Plautus, but only 9 in Terence. Given that the Plautine text corpus is about three and a half times larger, we can sec that Terence uses faxo only half as often as Plautus. Can we therefore conclude thatfa..:ois dying out just like the other sigmatic forms? The answer is probably no. We have to take alternative causative constructions into accounl as well. For present purposes it is sufficient to look at the futurefaciam (first person singular). Here are the relevant data: Table 4

The frequencies of causativefaaam in Plaucus and Terence

causative construction author Plautus Terence

faoam(u(J + subjunctive27 40

faoam+ double accusativelll

26

Clearly, causative constructions in general arc far more frequent in Plautus in Terence, but the ratio of faciam ui to jaxo is the same for the two authors. means that what seems to be a diachronic change in the use of jaxo in clauses is in reality nothing but a stylistic difference between Plautus Terence.

than This maln and

3. A rationale for the distribution of the sigmatic indicative forms? We may now summarize some of our factual findings before trying to answer the questions asked at the beginning. In main clauses only the form Jaxo appears. It is relatively frequent and shows no signs of decline in Terence. By way of contrast, we find that a number of verbs have si!:,>maticindicative forms in Plautus's subordinate dauses. They arc moderately frequent in conditional

27. We include 1hetypes nonfadam q111n(Pl. M1L 283) and 11n11m horfada111111; these al! have object clauses. We exclude the adverbial 11t•clauses1n PL Per. 662 and Pl. Capt. 385-386. 28. We include the type fad an, ft proindt ac mtriflls ts, but we exclude the type f,mam t.x le littemm hn.~am.

87

clauses, rare in temporal and relative clauses, and non-existent elsewhere. In T erencc there is only one token of these forms in a conditional clause. Two questions arise immediately: first, why are there a variety of forms in subordinate clauses, bur not in main clauses? And second, why do we only find Jaxo in main clauses, that is, a first person smgular indicative, and neither first persons of other verbs nor other persons of the same verb? We need not be too surprised to find a difference belween subordinate and main clauses. Typologically, it is well known that these two types of clauses can obey different constraints. Quite often there arc prosodic and syntactic diffc.rcnccs: in Vcdic the verb is accented in subordinate clauses, but unaccented m ma.lo clauses, and in German and Dutch the word order is not the same in the two clause types. But it has to be admitted that these are differences of syntax rather than of morphology and register as in the Latin case. And why do these archaic, high-re!:,rister forms in subordinate clauses occur mainly in conditional protascs? The reason is not entirely clear, but it may we~! be that old an~ solemn legal phrases such as si nox Jurtum faxil ('if h~ comm~ts lar~eny. at ntgh~? arc partly responsible. After all, legal language 1s especially nch m condmonal clauses. The survival of Jaxo in main clauses is only understandable if faxo + future or subjunctive has a special idiomatic status, either as a causative construction or as a marker of certalnty (be it verbal or not). As some uses of faxo arc clearly verbal, we must ask why we have no evidence for /axis or other persons of this verb in main clauses. Here there may be a series of concomitant reasons. The form appears mainly in promises and threats, and speech aces like these naturally call for first person verbs. Equally important is perhaps the fact that the type Jae or jacito + subjunctive ifac habeantetc.) is very frequent in Plaurus; its function would partly overlap with that of a causative second person /axis + sub)unctivc, so that the latter construction is superfluous.

4. Conclusions We asked initially what the function of the sigmatic indicative forms was and whether they indicated tense or aspect. The forms do mark futurity, but there seems to be a clear split between the forms used in subordinate and main clauses. The ones in subordinate clauses alternate with the future perfect tense and indicate future anteriority; on the other hand, the isolated faxo in main clauses cannot indicate antcriority as the future perfects do, and seems much closet to the simple future tense. The examples can all be interpreted as being perfective, but synchronically this aspecrual fearurc docs n~it seem to be _their maln characteristic. The difference in usage between mam and subordmatc clauses naturally raises the question of how the split may have occurred and what the tokens in main and subordinate clauses have in common. The isolated Jaxo is more likely to have preserved the original value, and therefore the ante-

88

Wolfgang de Melo

rior meaning of the other forms seems to be secondary. Two factors may have caused them to take on the anteriority meaning of the future perfects: (a) the preponderance of anterior statements in some types of subordinate clauses in general and in the protascs of conditionals in particular, and (b) the fact that the sigmatic indicatives are restricted to relic verbs, and that the forms can always be interpreted as perfective. As we have seen, the productivity of the sigmatic forms is limited. In conditional clauses, they are still a real presence in Plautus, but almost entirely absent f~om Ter~nce. Aft~r that they only survive as archaisms. This is not surprising since t?eir scmanac content docs not differ from that of the future perfect, which 1s much better integrated into the regular Latin tense system. To judge from Terence,/axo in main clauses had a longer life, partly because its idiomatic us~s guarant~ed its survival. However, as a causative its role was taken over by faaam ut, while there were other contenders for its function as a marker of certainty._Morphologically,/axo was isolated, and that furthered its disappearance. With regard to the question of why the forms die out in the way they do, it seems that the lack of integration into a paradigm combined with the lack of a special meaning is one reason. Moreover, it is the forms in subordinate clauses that die out first, presumably because they are stylistically marked. . There remains the question of the historical origin of the forms,m but that will have to be discussed in the context on the one hand of the results mentioned here, and on the other hand of the sigmatic subjunctives (jaximetc.). Wolfgang de Melo Corpus Christi College, Menon Street, UK-OX1 4JF Oxford, United Kingdom e-mail: [email protected]

Appendix: The sigmatic indicative forms Except for the first person singular, the indicative and subjunctive forms look the same. Metre can in some instances help us to disambiguate the fonns, but for the most pan we have to rely on syntactic and semantic criteria.

The sigmatic future in Plaurus

89

888),ll intra11iJ(Men. 416), invit011itiJ(Rlld. 811), irrita11iJ(Am. 454; Per. 828; St. 345), Jibtr0110(Mo1. 223), muka11itiJ(Mil 163), occep10 (Am. 673; Ca1. 1001), occep1it(A1. 794).' occepta11it (Rlld. 776), oempa1Jil(.A1, 818), ora11iJ(Epid. 728), pecca110 (Rlld. 1348), puea11t1 (Rlld. 1150; St. 727), ncondlia110 (Capt. 576), mpe.01 (.Aul. 58; Rnd. 679), 1etva110 (Mo1.228); - relative clauses: demut,:JJJil (St. 725),Jaxil (Ca1.1016); - temporal clauses: ama110(Ca1.1002), iniexil (Per.70),peccami (Ca1.825); main clauses:/axo (Am. 355; 589; 972; 997; As. 132; 749; 876; 897; Aul 578; Bae. 506; 715; 831; 864; C.dpt.801; 1010; Cas. 484; Cur. 587; F.pid. 156; 469; 656; 712; Men. 113; 326; 468; 521; 539-540; 562; 644; 661; 791; 950; 956; Mil 463; 1367; Mo1.68;1133; Per. 161; 195; 439; 446; Poen.162; 173; 346; 371; 460; 908; 910; 1154; 1191; 1227; 1228; Pi. 49; 387; 393; 766; 949; 1039; 1043; 1328; Rlld. 365; 578; 800; 1351; Trin. 60; 62; 882;

Tmc. 118; 428; 643; 761). (b)Terence: - condiuonal clause:/axis (An. 753); _ main dauses:/axo (Ad. 209; 847;An. 854; Bu. 285; 663; HON.341; Pb. 308; 1028; 1055).

Bibliographic references Gaffiot, F. 1933. 'Le futur anti:ricur dans les propositions mdi:pcndantes et principales'. Revuede Philologie59, 165-184 . Dichtmpraehe.Berlin: Weidmann. lfaffter, H. 1934. UntmuehungenZ}traltlateiniJchen Happ, H. 1967. 'Die lateinische Umgangssprache und die Kunstsprache des Plautus'.

Ciotta 45, 60-104. Oxford: Oxford University Kauer, R. & W.M. Lindsay 1957. P. TerentiAjri Co111oediae. Press. Krebs, J.P. &

J.H.Schmalz 1905 7 • Antibarbanu dtr lateinilehenSprac~e.Ne~JI einem_':':.rz!II Abri11 der Guchichteder lateiniJehenSpraeheund Vorbtmer/eungenUbermne Lattmtat. 2.

Basel: Schwabe. l..illl· ,md Forrnenlehre. Mi.inchen: Beck. Leumann, M. 1977. LJlteiniJche Oxford: Oxford Universit}' Press. Lindsay, W.M. 1991. T Mam Pla11tiC0111oediae. R.udens:Text HIidKo111mentar. Amsterdam: Hakkert. Marx, F. 1959. Pk111tu1 Maurach, G. 1988. Der Poenulu1du Plautm. Heidelberg: Winter. Meiser, G. 1998. / li!tori1cheLaut- und Forrnenkhndtr lateini1ehen Spraehe.Darmstadt: W1sscnschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Pinkster, H. 1983. 'Tempos, aspect and Akcionsart in Latin (recent trends 1961-1981)'. In: II. Temporini & W. Haase (eds), A,ifstieg1111d Niedt'l,angder l'OmiJehm Welt 11.29.1.

The following sigmatic forms arc in the indicative: (a) Plautus: (Epid. 363), ama110(Ca1.1001), - con~rional clauses: aceurauiJ(Per.393; P1. 939a), ade111p11i aJjJex,t(A1. 77~), eap~o(Bat. 712), eap1im111 (Rnd. 304), an011il(St. 192), rommo111tram (Epid. 441), rompar0111t (Ep,d. 12.2), dero/M11il (Ca.r. 307), efftxi1(Gu. 708-712; Poen.428), enie,.mo (Mo1. 212; 223), txoCPlamtiJ(Rlld. 731),faxo (Bae. 848; Men. 157; Fn:tu111).JaxiJ (Ar. 612; Capt. 124; Capt. 695; Men. 113; Mil 1417;30 P1. 533; Rlld. 1118; St. 610), indita1so (Poen.

Berlin: De Gruyter, p. 270-320. Risselada, R. 2000. 'The end of time: a perfect future in Latin?' In: C.1l.M. Kroon & D. den Hengst (eds), Ultima Aeta1: Time, tenseand Jran1ience in the andenl world.St11die1 in ho11011r efJan denBoeft.Amsterdam: VJ; University Press, 25-39.

29. Sjbgren (1906: 1) betiev_esth~t.thcy go back co aorists. bu1 more recently Meiser (1998: 182183) has suggested desideranve ongm. 3_0.'This form has also been classifiedas a subjunctive for metncal reasons. I count it as an indicative. Metre does noc really help us because the final syllabicis ,waps (there is a change of speaker).

31. This form occun. in a modifying 11isi-dauscthat i~ semantically on a par with the prccedmg main clause. It docs not mdicatc anterioricy and is presumably an innovation. However, it would probably not be possible to use a non-anterior 1ndtcat1\'eform other than/= in a proper main clause.

90

Wolfgang de Melo

SjOg~~:h:dl:i~~- Zum Gebrauchdes r'Utumms im Altlateinischen.Uppsala etc.: Akademiska Wessner, P. 1902-1908. Aeli DonaH quodfertur Commentum Terenh, acredrmtE«graphi Commentumet ScholiaBembma.Leipzig: Teubner.

Latin inflection classes

1

Wolfgang U. Dressler U niversitat Wien

Summary This paper intends to show that progress can still be made in the description, classification and explanation of Latin inflection classes. After brief introductions to problems of inflection classes in general(§ 1) and to theoretical research on Latin inflection classes in particular (§ 2), the specific perspective of the framework of Natural Morphology is sketched (§ 3). The emphasis in this paper is on dynamic morphology (as opposed to

overlappmg static morphology), which is centered on grammatical productivity (§ 4). This paper explains and describes which microclassesof Latin noun and verb inflection are productive, and to what degree (§ 5). This is followed by a presentation and justification of the class hierarchyof Latin declension (§ 6) and conjugation (§ 7). The paper ends with brief typologicaland cliachronicconclusions(§ 8).

1. Inflection classes Even a brief sketch of relevant parts of the history of theoretical research on inflection classes must start with the discomforting statement that the terms 'inflectional paradigm' and 'inflection class' are often used indiscriminately (the most recent example is Stump (2001)). In contrast, a clear distinction is made here between a paradigm as the set of all inflectional forms of one lemma, be it regular or irregular (e.g. suppletive) and an inflection class as a set of paradigms. Generally no distinction is made whether a class consists of morphologically identical paradigms (our microdass, see § 4) or just of similar ones. Both Priscianus, and based on him, Matthews (1972) have no explicit notions of inflectional class other than the sort of traditional five declensions and four conjugations of Latin, cf. also Plank (19916) and Carstairs' (1987) loose use of declension-types and conjugation-types and of macroparadigm. What has interested Carstairs(-McCarthy) most, has been his search for principles that limit the variability of how paradigms may be constituted, i.e. principles of paradigm economy (cf. Carstairs-McCarthy (1994)). In this endeavor Carstairs has come close to what earlier Wurzel (1984) has established within the framework of Natural Morphology, namely the build up of paradigms by implicational paradigm structure conditions of the type: If a Latin i-stem noun has an accusative in -im,then this noun has also an ablative in -,; but not vice versa (cf. critique and further elaboration in Carstairs-McCarthy 1. for bibliographical help I am mdebted to Martin Peters (Vit:nna) and to the late Machtelt Bolkestein, to whom I dedicate this conrribution.

92

Wolfgang Dressler

Latin inflection classes

(1991: 215-221, 224-231)). Furthermore Wurzel distinguishes inflectional classes and partial classes as sets of paradigms, but without defining a hierarchy among classes and partial classes. Aronoff (1994: 64), who greatly strengthened, within Generative Grammar, the school of thought that views morphology as an autonomous component or module, gives the following definition of inflection class: "An inflectionalclassis a set of lexemes whose members each select the same set of inflectional realizations" (cf. also Stump (2001: 43)), but later on he waters down the homogeneity and non-phonologicity of his inflectional classes (e.g., p. 79ff. for Latin).

(2) On how many stems are Latin verbs based? In elaborating on Priscianus and Matthews (1972), Aronoff (1994: 31-59) has opted, within his lexeme-based morphology, for three stems: the stems of the infectum, of the perfectum, and of the past participle (on which the supina, the future participle and some derivations are based). (3) How are paradigms constituted? Wurzel's (1984) proposal has been: by implicational paradigm structure conditions (later modified by Carstairs (1991)). Wurzel (1984: 119-121) has given wrong implications for Latin consonant and istems, whereas Dressler (1985) (cf. Carstairs (1984), Plank has followed Risch's (1977) general implications: If acc.sg. -im, then acc.pl. if acc.pl. -i:s, then abl.sg. -i; if abl.sg. -i, then gen.pl. -iutJt.At least this is the general trend (morein§6). (4) In his last mo L. masc. ac(h)o:r,-is 'scab', but more frequent fem. acbora.But note the maintenance of consonantal declension in G. masc. mdrt]r> Lat. marryr,martur. Verbs: Greek verba contracta in -:io: evidently are integrated into the Lat. microclass in -are, as in dapinare< dapan-iin(cf. Biville (1990: 155); Leumann (1977, 552)). Only two athematic Greek verbs have been taken over into the third conjugation (cf. Leumann (1977: 552); Steinbauer (1989: 112)): deps-ere'knead' (since Plautus), psa/1-ere'play on the cithara' (since Sallustius). Maybe both loans go back into a time when there was still more productivity within the 3rd conjugation. (3) Inflection of conversions: Conversions (sometimes called zero-derivations, cf. Nadjo (1996)) cannot predetermine by a derivational suffix into which class the output of a conversion will go. Therefore they offer evidence for a certain amount of productivity, although less so than the adaptation of loanwords, because the output of a conversion is in no ways foreign to the indigenous morphological system. The output of a conversion may be either athematic or it must be assigned one of several possible thematic vowels. Thus the output of a conversion rule which maintains the thematic vowel of the input of the rule or its athematic character gives less evidence for productivity. For example, the default microclass in -ire forms new verbs (since Early Latin), such as denominal fin-ire-.but since it derives from the i-stem ftmS, it is

I ..atin inflection classes

99

less relevant than pun-ire derived from poena (both since Cicero and Lucretius), fabr-ire'fabricate' (Venantius Fortunatus), l!Jmn-ire'to sing hymns' (Prudentius), dcadjectival fociu-ire(since Cicero), uesanire(Catullus), proteru-ire'to be impudent' (hala) (cf. Mignot (1969: 20-22, 34, 50-53)). The type frequency of new verbs in -ireis not high, neither in the Classical period nor in the Late Latin Christian texts (Mignot, ibid.), but this does not diminish the relevance for the productivity of this microclass. Of similar type frequency are new denominal and deadjectival verbs of the default microclass in -ere, which are converted from athematic bases or from stems which do not end in -e: but whereas such new dcnominal verbs are few and do not emerge in the Classical period (e.g. jlor-erein Plautus, frond-erein Cato), new dcadjectival verbs are much more frequent and also still emerge in Classical Latin, e.g. alb-ere'to be white'(Caesar) and its near-synonym can-ere (Vergilius) (Mignot (1969: 82-83, 113-114)). Later nco-formations are few, and 1\1.ignot's(1969: 142) investigation has resulted in doubts about their productivity in Late Larin. For athematic verbs of the 3rd conjugation, 1\1.ignot(1969: 232) found only five new verbs, all of them of the same microclass: acu-ere,metu-ere,Jla/ti·tre,tribuere (pre-Classic neofonnations) and gm-ere(since Sueton). The rarity of such novel creations, their concentration in Early Latin, and their derivation from denominal u-stems, which have no counterpart in -u in verb-stem formation, demonstrates minimal and only early productivity. These three cases of productive conversion are in great contrast to the abundant productivity of conversions into -areverbs (Mignot (1969)). Thus our third criterion supports the evidence based on the two previous criteria. (4) Class shift from one microclass to another microclass is a still weaker criterion for productivity, because first of all it is a relative criterion: one would expect that the class shift goes from a less productive pattern to a more productive pattern. But this is not necessary, as in the participle lact-ens(since Cato), which according to Alfred Ernout is a refection from fact-ans(but see the discussion in Mignot (1969: 82, 121)). Thus this 4th criterion (as for other lanb,uagcs) can only show an, at least, minimal degree of productivity, in our case, for the microclass of tim-erein the pre-Classical period. Another instance is the total shift of access-ere / accers-ere, laceu-erefrom the microclass with perfect i-stem (lams-i-u1)to i-stems also in the infcctum (since Caesar and Livius respectively), cf. cupiret(Lucretius) and Meiser (1998: 188). In Old Latin, the third conjugation gives very little signs of productivity even here, as demonstrated by the shift of the prefixations of the verb darefrom the first to the third conjugation, e.g. abdere,condere.Bue in Classical Latin all the microclasses of the 3rd conjugation have become totally unproductive. Note the triumph of the 1st over the 3rd conjugation in the Old Latin variation between lauareand lauere,boareand 3rd pl. bo-1111/.

100

Wolfgang Dressler

Latin inflection classes

A special case is the integration of a suppletive noun into a productive class, e.g., the shift from the unproductive fifth declension nominative into the pro-

cupirel(Lucretius) (cf. also Davis & Napoli (1995), who focus excessively on the infinitive form).

101

ductive first declension in matenes, gen. materiae > materia (cf. Krisch (1992: 169)). If a microdass shows no positive sign of productivity but looses members to other microdasses, as is the case with neuter u-nouns (e.g. gelu > ge/us,cf. Suarez Martinez (1996: 97)), or if a member becomes indcclinable (cf. vaananen (1983)), then this is a symptom of unproductiviry. (5) Inflection of indigenous suffixations comes last and least: this criterion docs not show anything about inflectional productivity, but only evidences wordformation productivity. What it shows about inflection classes is their stability, which means that they are, at least partially, not recessive or decaying. Again there are many neoformations with productive derivacional suffixes of the default microclass in -are, such as frequentative-intensive -(i)t-are, but also less frequent -iss-are/ -iz-are,-(i)fic-are/ i, and stil1 rarer -ic-are,-ig-are,-cin-are/ i (Mignot (1969)). The only derivationally productive suffixes of another inflectional microdass are two: First, the desiderative suffix -111ire of the microclass of finire (4th conjugation) is moderately productive, as evidenced by neologisms such as cant-111ire (since Petronius), camt-urire(since Martialis), possible occasionalisms, such as empt-urire0f arro), sullat-urit'he wants to play Sulla' (Cicero), cenat-urit(M:artialis). Second, much more productive is the suffix -sc-ereof the 3rd conjugation (Mignot (1969: 164-228); Keller (1992); Haverling (2000)). In Late Latin it has become even more productive, both in type frequency of neoformations, but also in the generality of applicauon, i.e. in the loss of its predominant linking to prefixed verbs and in semantic generalization. This important finding of Haverling indicates that the semantic difference between simplex and sea-derivation was dimmished, especially with verbs in -escm, derived from verbs of the third conjugauon. In combination with the general tendency of Romance languages to replace Latin shorter simplex verbs with denved verbs (e.g. frequentatives, cf. Iliescu (1990: 165)) this explains the replacement of simplex verbs by sea-derivatives in the infectum. In the perfcctum most 3rd conjugation simplex bases of sco-verbs had the same perfect in -ui as the sea-derivation. This explains why the sco-enlargement passed from the starus of a very productive derivation to an allomorphic section of a new inflectional microclass (cf. Iliescu (1990)). But why did these verbs of the 3rd conjugation shift into the Romance descendants of the Latin 4th conjugation, the -ireclass, microclass of It. fim'sco,finire,Fr. finir, ils finissent?This, I suggest, should be linked to the Late Latin and Proto-Romance class shift of -ereverbs of the 2nd conjugation (cf. Zamboni (1983: 9394)) and of so-called mixed verbs of the 3rd conjugation into the 4th conjugation, such as floriunt (Itala), fagire (Augustinus), capire,linire (since Vitruvius),

6. Noun-inflection classes The hierarchical class systems of dynamic morphology can be built top-down from the macroclasses downwards or, inversely, bottom-up, from the microclasses upwards. This second way is easier to present, and I will use the tree format, well-known in linguistics and computer linguistics. Within declension, the a-stems clearly form a unique productive microclass. But also all of the other non-isolated nominal paradigms constirute larger or smaller, productive or unproductive microclasses of the same type. Among unproductive microclasscs we find the following marginal ones: (a) monoradical microclasses, such as uideo,inuideo,promdeo,etc. These verb paradigms cannot be classified as one isolated paradigm, because the meanings of inuideoand prouideoare too opaque for making them compositional derivatives of the simplex uideo.All of these verbs must be separately stored, as psycholinguistic evidence from today's living languages shows. Only if derivanves of a simplex are morphosemantically transparent, i.e. compositional, they can be accounted for by the simplex and thus be reduced to a single stored verb that might constitute an isolated paradigm. (b) Some monoradical microclasses may be bound-root microclasses at the same time, e.g. consto,constare,constitiplus instare,obstare,praes/are,etc., as opposed to the isolated paradigm stare,steti. (c) mini-microclasses, which consist just of two-member or three-member microclasses: e.g. caueo,Jaueo on the one hand,faueo, moueo,uoueoon the other. Let us start with the class hierarchies of declension in the traditional order (cf. fig. 1): whereas a-stems form a single productive microclass, with femine gender as the default, a-stems consist of several microclasses, the microclass of horlus, which is masculine by default, but includes the well-known, semantically defined feminine groups of tree names, etc., and very few neuters, such as uolgus.Separate productive microclasses are the types of masc. ftlius and of neuter donum. Nouns in -er (plus uirJ form two phonologically complementary productive microclasses: liber,librivs. puer,puen'. Thus the class of o-stems, as seen in the tree, is best subdivided into two subclasses, one with nominatives in -er,the other with nominatives in (subsubclass) masc. / fem. -us, (subsubclass) neuter in -um (this is at the same time a microclass). Finally the subsubclass in -uJ 1s subdivided into the two microclasses of bortusvs. ftlius.

Wolfgang Dressler

102

Latin inflection classes

Figure 1 I. Macroclass -a / -o

class-a

- -

~ subclass-er

(fem./masc.)

subclass-o masc./ fem.

neuter

~

-um

/ e / constant puer

/ e / mobile liber

-ius

[gen.sg. & pl. -i (-ae) &-rum, dat.-abl.pl. -i:s, default nom.pl. -i (-ae)]

What justifies these hierarchical subdivisions? First they follow the principle

of default inheritance, as explicitly formulated and demonstrated by Corbett & Fraser (1993) for Russian. Each subordinated node inherits from the superordinate one its properties, the branchings are, as usual in grammar, preferably binary, and m each branching there is usually one default, i.e. the normal case.

Thus the node of the a-stem class has the default of masculine gender coupled to the default nom.sg. in -uJ. The first default is inherited by the right node of the subclass in nom. -er, whereas the default nom. -us is evidently cancelled. The left node first represents the default subclass which inherits the default masc. -us. Among the two subordinated subsubclasses, the neuters represent the non-default, the nouns with obligatory -us in the nom. the default. Finally, within the subordinated microclasses, hortus illustrates the default,ji/ius the nondcfault. The history of J ,atm is full of diachronic developments which lead to the loss of non-default properties in favour of default properties. Thus the microclass .ftliusloses its distinctive gen.sg. fili in long -i, in favour of filii, much later the neuters were merged into the masculines, and the subclass in -erlost its autonomy. According to Natural Morphology, the properties of each node can be formulated in paradigm strucrure conditions (PSCs). The PSCs of the a-class are (in abridged form): if the reference form dat.-abl.sg. in -o, then the pl. in -is & the acc.sg. in -mn & the gen.sg. in -i & the gen.pi. in -orum & the default nom.sg. in -us (pl. -i & ace.pi. -os) & default gender masc. How arc the a-stems related to the a-stems? Do they form t\.VOdifferent macroclasses, as do their descendants in Italian (cf. Dressler & Thornton (1996))? Or are they two classes of the same macroclass (cf. Carstairs-McCarthy

103

(1994: 751))? The main principles for establishing a macroclass are in our model: (1) The common properties of the internal classes of the macroclass-candidate (expressed in PSC:s) should outweigh the properties shared by one of its classes with other macroclasses: the forms of gcn.sg., gen.pl., dat.-abl.pl. and default nom.pL set the o- and a-stem classes well apart from the other macroclasses. The parallel reference forms (in the sense of Carstairs-MacCarthy (1991)) of abl.sg. are the lengthened stems in / o:, a: / . Moreover the most productive adjective class (in -us / -a / -um) varies according to this macrodass. (2) A prototypical macroclass should include at least one productive microclass. This is not decisive here. Rather it is unusual that all the microclasses of a class (here the o-stems) are productive. (3) A prototypical macroclass should contain at least two microclasses, i.e. it should be branching. This would not be the case if a-stems formed a macroclass of their own. As a result, the assumption of a first macroclass which subsumes the two classes of a- and a-stems, appears to be justified. When we come to the third declension, then our concept of discrete microclasses seems to collapse. There is so much complexity and variation, that the paradigm often really seems to be "un ensemble flou", as Fruyt (1992) had called the Latin verb parad1gm. But at a closer look this first impression of chaos is largely restricted to the old 1-stems and to their variation between gen.pi. -ium / -um, less so ace.pi. -i:s / -e:s (also nom.pl., cf. Nyman (1990)) and abl.sg. -i / -e. Thus this seeming chaos cannot simply be due to a social and diatopic variety of vertical and horizontal population strata, as Peiiiz (1996: 522ff.) has put forward. Nor can I follow him when he makes grammarians responsible for not insisting on explicit norms (i.e. prescriptive norms). Rather I propose to use here, as announced at the beginning of section 4, Coseriu's differentiation between the potential system of grammar (which is the main object of my model) and the impltcit (sociolinguistic) norms (cf., for Polish, Dressler et al (1997)).

In this spirit, I assume (cf. fig. 2) for the potential system of Latin inflection a second macroclass for all consonantal and i-stcms (cf. Janson (1971), Carstairs (1984), Nyman (1988), who comes closest to our views). PSCs predict the gen.sg. -is, the dat.sg. -i, the dat.-abl.pl. -(i)bus (with -i- as default, but cf. the isolated paradigm bu-bus),and for fcmmines and masculines an ace.pi. in -s, preceded by a long palatal vowel, a gen.pi. in default -um and non-default -ium, and an abl.sg. default -e, non-default -i. The nom.sg. is, for masculines and feminines in -s as a default (but not natio, uer, etc.), the pl. in default long -e:s. For neuters, the nom.sg. ends tn the final root-consonant (so-called zero-nominative) or in -e. Furthermore there ate the previously mentioned PSCs on the distribution of i-forms in the acc.sg. and pl., the gen.pi. and abl.sg. For neuters, we

104

Wolfgang Dressler

Latin inflection classes

Figure 2 Il. Macroclass cons. & -i

~ ~ A ~ * (\ (\ A A

classes:

pure cons.

nom. = obl.

pure-i

mixed

nom. obl.

-es

-is

-s

s1tis

mare uectigal(e)

(gen.sg. -is, dat.sg. -i, dat.-abl.-pl. -(i)bus; default ace.pi. -e: / -i:s; gen.pi. -{i)um, abl.sg. -e / -i; default nom.sg. -s, nom.pl. -e:s)

have nothing on accusatives, but the PSCs include the nom.-acc.pl. default -a, non-default -ia. This macroclass is divided into three classes, the biggest and most complex class is the one without i-forms, the smallest class contains pure i-stems with the productive microclass of s1flJ, tunis and the unproductive microclass of neuter mare,sedi/e,uectigal(potential vectigale, as Quint. Inst. 1.6.19 tells us, cf. Penaz (1996: 523), Neuc & Wagener (1902: 1.287)). Inbetween comes the third class of all the other old i-stems (including the microclasses of pars and nuhes),which have preserved, I claim, the potentiality of having i-forms in the acc.pl., gen.pi. and abl.sg. The probability of actual occurrence is regulated by the contrast between default- and non-default forms and by the implicational PSCs, as pioneered by Risch (1977), cf. § 2. The only discrete differentiating distinctions of this class are that it cannot have an acc. in im, and that the first, purely consonantal class can have no i-forms.This presupposes that we classify al-;o messis,sementisas pure i-stems, and the rare and / or late consonantal acc.sg. and abl.sg. forms as being influenced by the macroclass default forms at the time of the decay of the macroclass. As to the class of old i-stems with potential variability between i-forms and non-i-forms, most Launists have been taught in high-school complex explicit norms which prescribe discretely the presence vs. absence of such i-forms. And students of classical philology are still today flunked when they make errors. However, the reality of acrual variation, which implies still stronger potential variation, is well attested m mscnpt1ons, by grammarians and even in the manuscripts, as the meticulous srudy of Reichler-Beguelin (1986) on old ti-stems of the type me:nsdocuments, although even she tries to get rid of "excessive" varia-

105

tion (e.g. p. 19, 23-26). Compare also Gaebel (1982) on the variation of acc.pl. -es / -isin manuscripts ofVergilius. For reasons of restrictions of space, I just want to mention that the u-stems form a rather weak macroclass, insofar as they contain just two microclasscs, the unproductive neuters (type genu) and the very slightly productive microclass of non-neuters (type senatus),with the masculine as default gender (cf. Lancroni (2000)). As to the neuters, the forms attested allow no decision whether a noun such as gelu is idiosyncratically defective in the singular (defectiveness in the plural is semantically predtctible) or whether a full singular declension can be considered to be potential. Finally, thee-stems arc problematic, insofar as they cannot be lumped into any other macroclass, but instead form a still weaker macroclass than the ustems. Here the feminine is the default gender. The only productivity is wordformation productivity of the deadjectival nouns in -ities. But the documented distribution of forms is so scarce and ambiguous that I am not sure whether to assume just one microdass or postulate a second one for the type materies,with its preference for a gen. maieriae(cf. Sommer (1948: 396-400), Meiser (1998: 147-148), Krisch (1992: 196), Neue & Wagener (1902: 1.561ff.)). In summary, we see two strong macroclasses, the first of which (in -o / -a) contains only few but all productive microclasses. The second is very complex and contains both productive and unproductive microclasses. The two other macroclasses are weak and nearly unproductive. No macroclass is determined by gender. Only the two weak and unproductive macroclasses have a default gender. The change towards Romance languages, here exemplified with Italian, involves the decay and, finally, collapse of the category of case and the reduction of genders to two. This leads to a massive reduction in the number of microclasses (i.e. of most productive and of all unproductive ones) and to a binary opposition between the two genders, with a corresponding reallignmcnt of macroclasses (cf. Igarrua (2000)). The two weak macroclasses are swallowed up by their two stronger rivals, and the first macroclass is split into two macroclasses according to gender (c£ Dressler & Thornton (1996)). In the Italian eclass, the generally less marked masculine gender (type ii ponte, ii bakone(a Germanic loan), ii potere (a converted, i.e. nominalised infinitive)) has had more productivity than the more marked feminine gender (type la dam).

7. Verb-inflection classes After having demonstrated the principles for constructing a hierarchical system of noun-inflection classes, we will only briefly illustrate the class hierarchies of verbs. The first macroclass of -areverbs (cf. fig. 3) contains the fully productive and most transparent default class of amare,plus a second class which consists of the

106

Wolfgang Dressler

Latin inflection classes

I. Macroclass-a:re

past participle, similar to modem Italian, implies the default subclass of a sigmatic perfect. The non-default branch of asigmatic PP splits into a reduplicative and a lengthening subsubclass. A similar historical conflation as in the case of the second nominal macroclass (section 6) occurred in verbs and resulted in formation of a third macroclass of athematic verbs, i-stems and the so-called 'mixed' class.

Figure 3

perfect:

-v-~ PPP: -itcre1rare

-t-

sec-are ---------------

·stare

two tiny unproductive microclasses of crepare, crepui,crepitumand of secare,semi, sectum, plus a third class which just consists of the monoradical root-bound microclass of consto,insto, obsto, etc. All these three tiny unproductive microclasses vanish in the evolution towards the Romance languages. Among the isolated paradigms, the very frequent and largely riming verbs dare and starelive on as isolated paradigms in Romance languages and may even exert some influ-

ence on perfect formation in 'regular' verbs (i.e. of rule-derived major or minor microclasses). The second macroclass of the verbs in -e:re(cf. the tree of fig. 4) fall into two classes: those with sigmatic past participle and those with asigmatic past participles, the default. Among the asigmatic ones, the branch with u-perfect and the subordinate microclass of monere,which is very moderately productive, represent the default, the three microclasses with perfect in -vi the non-default. Sigmatic

Figure 4

II. Macroclass -e:re

8. Typological conclusions Our approach can characterize the richness and complexity of Latin morphology in new ways (cf. Dressler (1999a)). Under richness T understand the productive core of dynamic morphology, while the unproductive remainder adds complexity to this richness. Latin is richer in morphology than all modern IndoEuropean languages, insofar as it has many more productive microclasses, but also more productive morphological categories and rules. The additional complexity is also greater because of the many isolated paradigms and unproductive microclasscs. This can be quannfied by the depth and complexity of inflectionclass tree structure. Indo-Europeanists have found a trend towards 'thematisation' of athematic inflection in the history of many Inda-European languages and tend to see this as a recurrent trend in general, and as due to similarity and ambiguity of inflectional forms in the details (cf. Dunkel (1998)). For Latin, we have found another generalisation, namely class shifts towards productive inflection classes. Thus the question arises why athematic verb and noun classes have become unproductive in Latin, partially in Slavic languages, whereas Germanic languages have lost the thematic classes, and Greek has seen opposite changes in nouns and verbs. Phonological change is one factor, but dearly not the only one. Latin nouns have very many fully productive microclasses, verbs only few productive microclasses, of which only one was fully productive. In the development towards Romance languages, e.g. Italian, the productive nominal microclasses diminished to just three and then just two fully productive ones, whereas in the verb, there remained two productive microclasses for a long time. This shows again that the noun class system and the verb class system are largely independent of each other and that they may follow entirely different diachronic paths.

--------------PPP: -s perfect def. sigmatic

penect, ~

A moneo doceo monui docui monit- doct-

~

sigmatic

-V-

asigmatic

/'-_ flevi

fusion

A

fovea taveo

107

aug~o-deol\ auxi indu/si risi auct- indultum r,sum reduplicative

Wolfgang Dressler Universitilt Wien, Berggasse 11, A-1090 Vienna, Austria e-mail: [email protected] lengthening

morde.:----7 monoradical bound-root

uideo

possidere

108

Wolfgang Dressler

Bibliographic references Andrc.l:,J. 1971. bmpnm/Jtl suffixes nominauxm latin. GenCvc: Droz. Aronoff, M. 1994. Mo,phologyby itself:Stems and i1:flectional clasm. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Bauer, L. 2001. Mo,pbrJ!o§cal prod11C1hity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biville, F. 1981. 'L'intCgration des mots grccs clans Jes declinations latlncs, et lcs prob!Cmcs des mCtaplasmcs'. &/!lit dePhilologie 55, 123~132. Bivillc, F 1989. 'Gree et latin: contacts linguistiques et crfarion lcxicale. Pour une typologic de hC\lfoismes lcxicaux du !atin'. In: M. Lavency & D. Longre!c (eds), Actes Litine. Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut de Linguist19ue, p. du Ve Col!oquede LinguiJtiq11e 29-40. Bivillc, F. 1990, 1995. Lei empmnls {lll latina11grrr.Approrhephonitiq11e, I-II. Louvain etc.: Peeters. Bloomfield, L. 1933. Lwg11age. New York: Holt. of the Carstairs, A. 1984. 'Paradigm economy in the Latin third declension'. Tra11tactions Philological Society82, 117-137. Carstairs, A. 1986. 'Macrodasses and paradigm economy in German nouns'. Zeitschriftfar Phonetik,Sprachu.issenscheft 11ndKomm11nikatirmsfarschung 39, 3-1 L Carstairs, A. t 987. Alhmorpf?yin i'!flexion.London: Croom Helm. Carstairs-McCarthy, A. 1991. 'Inflection classes: Two questions with one answer'. In: F. Plank (ed.), Paradigms: TIMeconomy ofinflection.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, p. 213-253. Carsrairs-McCarthy, A. 1994. 'Inflection classes, gender, and the principle of contrast'. Language70, 737-788. Corbett, G. 1991. Gender.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, G. & N. Fraser 1993. 'Network morphology: a DATR account of Russian inflectional morphology'. JournalofI.inguislia29, 113-142. Davis, S. & J.D. Napoli 1995. 'On root structure and the destiny of the Latin second conjugation'. Folit1linguislicahiston"ca 16, 97-113. Dressler, W.U. 1985. 'Typological aspects of Natural Morphology'. Acta linguisticaHungan"ca35, 51-70. Dressler, W.U. 1997. On productivityand potentialityin inflectionalmorphology.Montreal: CLANET, paper 7. Dressler, W.U. 1999a. 'Ricchezza e complessirit morfologica'. In: L. Vanelli (ed.) Fono/1;gia e mo,fo/l;gia dell'Ilalianoe deidialelfid'/lalia.Roma: Bulzoni, p. 587-597. Dressler, W.U. 1999b. 'What is the core of morphology?' In: J. Niemi, T. Odlin & J. Heikkinen (eds), Lang11age contact,variation,and (hangt.Joensuu: University of Joensuu, p. 15-32. Dressler, W.U. in press. 'Stacie morphology and paradigm families'. In: G.-J. Pinault & B. Bauer (eds), Fut!(hn"ftWernerWinter.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Amsterdam etc.: Benjamins. Dressler, W.U. et al 1987. Uitmotifs in NaturalMorphology. Dressler, W.U., K. Dziubalska-Kolaczyk & M. Fabiszak 1997. 'Polish inflection classes within Natural Morphology'. Bulle/inde la Sonili Po/l;naise deI.ingflittique53, 95-119. Dressler, W.U. & Gagarina, N. 1999. 'Bas.ic questions in establishing the verb classes of contemporary Russian'. In: L. Fleishman et al. (eds), FtstschriflV. V. Ivanov.Essqysin poetics,literaryhi1loryand ling11istics. Moscow: OGI, p. 754-760. Dressler, W.U. & Kilam-Schoch, M. 2001. 'How to classify French verbs?' In: M.R. Wise (ed.) Cedenhchn"ftKennethPike. In press.

Latin inflection classes

109

Dressler, W.U. & Lad:inyi, M. 1998. 'On grammatical productivity of word formation'. Acta /ingflistica Hflngarka47, 703-744. Dressler, W.U., W. Mayerthalcr, 0. Panagl & W.U. Wurzel 1987. Uitmot!fs in Natural Mo,pho/l;g,.Amsterdam: Benjamins. Dressler, W.U. & A.M. Thornton 1991. 'Doppie basi e binarismo nella morfologia italiana'. Rivistad1Un/!pistica3, 3-22. Dressler, W.U. & A.M. Thornton 1996. 'Italian nominal inflection'. Wienerlingui1ti1che GaZflte57-59, 1-26. wlo, eo, and edoand the system Dunkel, G.E. 1998. 'On the 'thcmatisation' of Latin 111m, of endings in the IE subjunctive active'. In: J. Jasanoff, H.C. Melehcrt & L. Oliver (eds), Mfr C11rad. Innsbruck: lnnsbruckcr Beitriige zur Sprachwissenschaft, p. 83-100. fruyt, M. 1992. 'le paradigme verbal: un ensemble flou'. In: C. Moussy & S. Meller (eds), La ,,afiditidu catigon"es attachie1OIi verbt.Paris: Presses de l'Universite de ParisSorbonne, p. 21-36. Gacbcl, R.E. 1982. 'The varied use of -u and -is for the accusative plural of i~stem words in Vergil's Geo,p,icl.Latom11s41,104-131. Gaeng, P.A. 1984. Collapseand reo'l!,anization of the LAiin nominalJleclionOJ reflectedin epigraphic1011rres. Potomac: Scripta Humanistica. I lallc, M. & B. Vaux. 1998. 'Theoretical aspects of Indo-European nominal morphology: the nominal declensions of Latin and Armenian'. In: J. Jasanoff, H.C. Melchen & L. Oliver (eds), Mir C11rad.Innsbruck: lnnsbrucker Beitcige zur Sprachwissenschaft, p. 223-239. 1-!avcrling, G. 2000. 'On rro-verbs, prefixes and semantic functions'. G0teborg. Acta Universirntis Gothoburgensis. Igartua, I. 2000. 'El gCnero gramacical y la evoluci6n de la flexi6n nominal eslava y latina'. Revis/aEspaiola de I.ing1iilt/Ca 30, 103-145. lliescu, M. 1990. 'Les suffixes d'elargissement verbaux'. In: G. Calboli (ed.) Latin vulgairr - lahn tardifII. Ti.ibingen: Niemeyer, p. 159-169. Isebaert, L. 1993. 'La conjugaison 'faible' en latin'. In: L. lsebaert (ed.) Miscellanea linguiJlicaGraeco-Lilina.Louvain: Peeters, p. 167-181. Janson, T. 1971. 'The Latin third declension'. Clot/a 49, 112-142. en -sc-. E.111de morphologique. Bruxelles: Latomus. Keller, M. 1992. Les verbesl,llinra infact11m a la morphologie nature/le.Bern: Lang. Kilam-Schoch, M. 1988. Introd11dion Krisch, T. 1992. 'Analogische Prozesse in der !ateinischen Sprachgeschichte'. In: 0. Panagl & T. Krisch (eds), I Alein und lndogermanisch. Innsbruck: lnnsbrucker Beitrige zurSprachwissenschafr, p. 155-181. l.angslow, D.R. 2000. MedicalLatin in the Romanempin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lazzcroni, R. 2000. 'Generc grammaticale e riorganizzaz1one dci paradigmi: ii caso della IV declinazione latina'. An:h1vio glottologito it,,liano85, 232-237. Leumann, M. 1959. 'Gricchische Verben auf -hyin im Latein'. KleineSchn"jlm.Zi.irich: Artemis, p. 156-170. Leumann, M. 1968. 'Die Einglicderung entlehmer griechischer \'erben ins Latein'. St11di Cla1ice10, 7-12. l..cumann, :-.t.1977. IJ1Uini1d.1e 1Aut- rmd Fom1mlehrr. Mi.inchen: Beck. Manova, S. & W.U. Dressler 2001. 'Gender and declensional class in Bulgarian'. Wttntr lin,.e,uirliJChe Gazelle67-69, 45-81.

110

Wolfgang Dressler

Matthews, P.H. 1972. lnfkctionalmo,phology: A Jheoretical 1111,f:y basedon aspectsefLatin verb co'911gation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. der lateiniHhmSprache.Dannstadt: WisMeiser, G. 1998. HistorischeLaut- HndI-Ormenkhrr scnschafdiche Buchgesellschaft. Mignot, X. 1969. Us tttrbe1dinominahjsen lahn. Paris: Klincksicck. Nadjo, L. 1996. 'Composition nominale er reglc de dCnvation zCro en latin'. In: H. Rosen (ed.), A!petls of Latin. Innsbruck: Institut fur Sprachwisscnschaft der Universitiit Innsbruck, p. 119-125. Neuc, F. & C. Wagener 1902. Formm/ehrederlateinilchen Sprache,I-11. Leipzig: Reisland. Nyman, M. 1988. 'Paradigm economy: a rejoindcr to Carsta1rs'. Journal of l_~nguistics 24, 501-513.

Nyman, M. 1990. 'Latin -is'nom. pl.' as an Inda-European reflex'. Ciotta 68, 216-229. Panagl, 0. 1982. 'Produktivitiit in der Wortbildung von Corpussprachen; MOglichkeiten und Grenzen dcr Heuristik'. FoliaUng,1islica16, 225-239. Pell3.z,P. 1996. 'Norm und Normvcrteilung in antikcn Texten'. In: A. Bammesbcrger & F. Heberlein (eds), Akim des VIII. intemationalen Kolloquiumszur latdnischenI.inguishk Heidelberg: Winter, p. 518-532. Plank, F. (ed.) 1991a. Paradigms: The econ(lfl!J ofinflection.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Plank, F. 1991b. 'Of abundance and scantiness in inflection'. Jn: F. Plank (ed.), Paradigms:The econonry ofi,ifkction.Berlm: Mouton de Gruyter, p. 1-39. Reichler-Beguelin, M.-J.1986. Les nomslatinsdu rypemens. Bruxdles: Latomus. Risch, E. 1977. 'Das System der lateinischen Deklination'. Cahim Ferdinandde Saussurt 31, 229-245. Rosen, H. 1999. Laline loqni. Trends and directionsin tl~ cryslallizah·o!I of ClassicalLatifl, Miinchcn: Fink. Sommer, F. 1948. HandbuchdcrlateinischmLaut. 1111d Fonnmkhre.Heidelberg: Wmter. Steinbauer, D. 1989. ErymohgischeUntmuchnngenZ!' den bti P/a11J11s belegtenVerben drr lateini.rchen mte11Ko1!f11gation. Altendorf: Grabner. Stump, G.T. 2001. Inflectionalmo,pholog;: A theoryofparadigm1tr11d11rt. Cambridge: Cambridge Untvers1tyPress. Touratier, Chr. 1989. 'La 3Cme dCclinaisonlatinc, essai de morphologie synchronigue'. In: M. Lavency & D. Longree (eds), Actes du Ve Col/oqf{e de Ling,uistiqueLatine. Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut de Lingwstique, p. 435-446. Untermann, J. 1992. 'Wurzclnonuna tm Latcinischen'. In: 0. Panagl & T. Krisch (eds), L.AJei'n und Jndagermanisch. Innsbruck: lnnsbrucker Beitragc zur Sprachwissenschaft, p. 137-153. Viiilniinen,V. 1983. 'Les indCclinables nominaux en latin'. In: H. Zehnacker & G. Hentz (eds), Hommages(1 RoberlSchilling.Paris: Belles Lettres, p. 537-544. Wurzel, W.U. 1984. FlexionwJ()Tpholog,1e rmdNatNrlichkeil.Berlin: Srudia Grammatica. Zamboni, A. 1983. 'La morfologia verbale latina in -sc- e la sua evoluztone romanza'. Q11ademiPatavinidi l...ingl(istica 3, 87-138.

Les circonstants de 'temps / lieu' dans la hierarchic des cas latins Huguette Fugier UniversitC Marc Bloch - Strasbourg

Summary The purpose of this article is to describe two Latin constructions in which a temporal noun phrase assumes the function of subject, morphologically coded by the nominative. (1) Terlia dum Latio regnanJem(Aeneam)uiderilaestas... (Vergil). This complex sentence subsumes the clause to the framing expression .The verb phrase 11idere presents grammatical properties (it bears the temporal marker for rhe set of the two verbs )and semantico-logical properties (it entails the truth of the framed clause, which is the only one affected by the negation and the alethic modal adverbs). (2) Nox legionesaduersaepugnaeexemit (facitus). Nox expresses not so much the cause but the condition necessary to the process, which the sentence asserrs as being sufficient also. This noun phrase presents properties and cotexts typ_icallyrelated to the character of'a spontaneous process developing to its natural end' atmbuted to predications. Cognitive semantic notions such as landmark and 'container / contained' make a methodological contribution to the analysis of such sentences. The author concludes from (1) that thanks to the construction [subject + 11idere + participle] Larin obtains an equivalent of the locative or c1rcwnstantial diathesis which languages with multiple diathescs possess; and from (2) that m this way Latin adds to its causative constructions a 'process facilitator'.

1. Les circonstants: des constituants 'sans domicile fixet 1.1. Unc position structuralc commune? Traitant des cas latins dans plusicurs colloques antcticurs, j'ai pris et gardC le parti de raisonner en termes de positions dans le schCma symaxique de phrase le no_minatif Ctant dCfini comme le codage morphologiquc du nom occupant Ja position sujet, etc.; et de dCfinir a leur rout les positions en termcs de relations strucrnrales, en considCrant quc lcs opCfations succcssivcs par lesquelles se constitue la phrase mettent chacune en jeu un sous-ensemble dcterminC de l'cffcctif casuel existanc clans la langue. II suffira de rappclcr les crois operations que le locuteur met en oeuvre pour former unc phrase grammaticale: (1) La predication, qui applique un prCdicac sur le sujet, sollicite le cas morphologique nominatif; et l'accusatif codam le complCmcnt directement gouverne par le vcrbc, par le seul fait de sc distinguer du nominatif installe la phrase sur

Huguette Fugier

Les circonstants de 'temps/ lieu' clans la hifaarchie des cas latins

son fondement, qui est celui d'une relation dissymetrique entre un nom non contraint (le sujet) et un nom soumis a une contrainte de gouvernance Q.ecomplement du verbe). (2) Le noyau phrastique ainsi pose s'accompagne d'un ou plusieurs noms de 'circonstances' - nommons-les desormais circonstants -, se trouve d6sormais rangee sous une ceci que la tertia acstasuiderz't..., comme d'une autte fac;:onla proposiphrase iucluante se ttouve prise clans la restmcturation imposee Et la complexification donne des phrases nouvelles sant autant de sttuctures originales - centr6es sur un 11idcrc qui n'est pas un banal verbe 'voir' et sur un nox cxemit qui n'est pas un 'causateur' quelconque. Le constater nous garde de la tentation d'unifier exagetement la description des phrases latines en oubliant que plusieurs schemas non directement reductibles l'un a l'autre existent simultanement clans le systeme de la langue. 4.2 .... et dans l'espace inter-linguistique Avec des formules syntaxiques telles que (2) et (13), le latin se donne les moyens d'exprimer ce que d'auttes langues font par des procedes diffetents. Comme Jes langues a voix multiples, il iustalle en position de sujet telles 'circonstances' du proces; seulement, faute de paradigmes verbaux mmphologiquement clistincts inconnus des langues indo-europeennes - pour accompagner la 'circonstance' sujet de 'temps' mais aussi de 'lieu', 'instrument', etc., il met en oeuvre d'autres solutions telles que l'emploi de uidere.Et par la structure (13) avec son sujet 'condition suffisante' le latin rejoint, avec ses procedes propres, les langues qui iuscrivent clans leur gtammaire la difffaence entre factitif d' action et facilitatif de processus. Cette breve erude consacree au 'cadre temporel / spatial du proces' pourrait etre etendue aux autres 'circonstances', qui i§:galementcodees par l'ablatif clans le schema courant (sujet + syntagme verbal + syntagme prepositionneD donnent lieu elles aussi a d'intfaessants remaniements syntaxiques sans que les constructions resultantes s'inscrivent d'ailleurs forc6ment clans le prolongement des trois cas morphologiques (ablatif, locatif, instrumental) he.rites de l'indo-europ6en. Le traitement des 'circonstances' est un des domaines les

References bibliographiques Blake, B.1994. Case.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, and fi11g11i.rtic typology.Oxford: Blackwell. Comrie, B. 1983. Lwguage1111iver.ra/.r Comrie, B. 1990. 'Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology'. In: T. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

7-44. Fugier, H. 1998. 'Les cas latins fonctionnent-ils en contte-emploi?' In: B. Garda-Herde/il1giiistica lati11a. Madrid: Ediciones Cl\l.sicas,p. 343-362. nalldez (ed.), Est11dio.r de 'ver'en la /c11g11a /ati11a. EstJtdioestmct!lral, Garcia-Hernilndcz, B. 1976. El camposm1a11tico Salamancn: Universidnd de Salamanca, Gross, G. Guitaud, C.1964.Lesverbe.s.sigllijiant Hau dry, J. 1977. L'emploidescasen vidiq11e. L'Hermes. efcognitive gmJJ1111m; II. Descriptive application.Stanford: Langacker, R.W. 1991. Fo1t11datio11s Stanford Uni;rersity Press. Paris: Presses Uoiversitaires de France. Lazard, G. 1994. L'actance.. Orlandini, A. 1996. '1, 2, 3 :1idco1; berger & F. Heberlein (eds), Aktc11 Li11g!listik. Heidelberg: Winter, p. 415-427. rolesa11d rclatioJJs. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni;rersity Press. Palmer, F, 199R GraJJJJJlaiica/ Shyldkrot, H. Bat-Zeev 1987, 'Les complements de temps et de lieu sont-ils toujours des 21, 229-247. complements citconsranciels?' Folia/i11g11ish'ca Les auteurs latins (PCLrone,Salluste, Tacite, Virgile) sont cites clans le texte de l'Cdition des Uni;rersites de France, Pai·is: Belles-Letttes,

L'interaction epistolaire entre dialogue in absentia et in praesenda chez Ciceron Alessandro

Garcea

Universite de Turin*

Summary Cicero's informal correspondence is chosen as a corpus for analysing the relationship between epistolary communication and face-to-face dialogue, which is assumed to be the prototypical form of dialogue. Taking interactivity and intentionality as lines of research, this comparison shows that the use of written (instead of oral) channels and the physical distance between

communicating

partners

are allowed for by linguistic

strategies which recreate a sort of 'spoken' interaction with conversational turns. Moreover, the absence of extra-linguistic signals intensifies the 'phatic' aspects of language. This study proves that a taxonomy of forms of dialogue should not have recourse to

discrete categories, as usual, but prefer scalar dimensions and prototype models.

Dans le cadre de cette etude, je voudrais enqueter sur certains aspects des letttes de Ciceron, en les comparant aux conversations ordinaires: mon objectif, en partlculier, est de voir clans mesure la communication epistolaire ou en face-?i.-face,et clans quelle s'apparente a la communication mesure elle en cliffere. L'analyse contrastive sera etablie sur la base de deux caractetistiques fondamentales du dialogue: l'interactivite (§ 1) et l'intentionnalite (§ 2), Pour ce faire, j'aurai surtout recours au type de la lettre ordinaire (cf. Kerbrat-Orecchioni (1998: 15)), c'est-8.-d.irecelle qui "an eine sozial gleichstehende, eng befreundete Pers0nlichkeit gerichtet ist und vorzuglich Dinge des Alltagslebens behandelt'' (Hofmann (19513:2-3)).

1. Interactivire 1.1. Situation in praesenda vs. in absentia Le terme 'dialogue' implique clans son sens prototypique une situation communicative en face-il.-face,ce que John Lyons (1977: 2.637) appelle "the canonical

* Je tiens it remercier ceux qui ont >mimCla discussion sur la premi/a;reversion orale de cet article, ft Amsterdam et ensuite it Nice: leurs observations m'ont permis d'amCliorer sur plt1sicurs points la rCdaction dCfinitive. Carla Baz:mnellaa suivi !'elaboration de cette Crude avec une grande sollicitude; ses travaux personnels m'ont souvem servi de modCles. Que mon ami Daniel Vallat trouve egn\ement ici !'expression de ma reconnaissance pour son aide prl:cieuse clans la relecture dute. ...te.

Alessandro Garcea

124

situation of utterance: this involves one-one or one-many, signalling in the phonic medium along the vocal-audito1y channel, with all the participants present in the same actual situation able to see one another and to perceive the associated non-vocal paralinguistic features of their utterances, and each assuming the role of sender and receiver in turn", Cette definition comprend une serie de proprietes, dont nous nous proposons d'analyser les configurations linguistiques. 1

L'interaction epistolaire entre dialogue in absentiaet inpraesentia

Le caractere improvise de l'foondation orale infonnelle ne represente pas une propriete unique du dialogue in praesentia;clans les lettres ordinaires nous pouvons aussi retrouver des declarations prouvant quc le discours est constamment improvise et modifiC par rapport au programme initial; qu'il est produit au fur et a mesure qu'il est coni;:u: (2)

1.1.1. Oral / Ccrit

Les Anciens considetaient l'frhange €pistolaire comme un dialogue entre absents,2 soulignant qu'on s'Ccrit parce est s€pares, clans le but de ere.er !'illusion d'etre ensemble: en particulier, metaphore du dialogue oral en face3.-face (coram)est constamment employee comme schema ideal unifiant (cf. Biville (2002)). Par consequent, comme clans le dialogue prototypique, dans les lettres les plus confidentielles ou encore clans celles ecrites a la volee les signes sont souvent realises avec une presence reduite des traits pertinents: les lexemes, les adjonctions par juxtaposition, les phrases idiomatiques l'emportent sur les distinctions phonico-morphologiques, sur !'architecture recherchee de la periode, sur la selection d'un vocabulaire pertinent, en se revelant comme les elements indispensables de la langue. Laissant de c6te ces aspects, que la correspondance de Ciceron partage avec les textes de Vindolanda, de Gholaia, etc. (cf. Cugusi (1998: 174-185)), nous focaliserons notre attention sur les reverbetations linguistiques de certains traits appartenant a la situation de l'echange oral, mais qui se retrouvent aussi al'ecrit. 1.1.1.1. Plan :flou Dans l'oral en face-i-face, de meme que clans de nombreuses lettres on constate une possibilite limitee d'etablir un plan a l'avance. Dans l'ex. (1), Cic€:ron ecrit a son frere que, meme s'ils n'ont pas un sujet specifique a traiter, leurs lettres doivent reproduire le ton de leurs conversations amicales, en alternant les arguments cliscutes sans ordre: (1)

epistulam hanc conuicio efflagitarnnt codicilli tui. nam res quidem ipsa et is dies quo tu es profectus nihil mlh.i ad scri.bendumargumenti sane dabat. sed quem ad modum coram cum sumus sermo nobis deesse non solet, sic epistulae nostrae debent interdum alucinari(Q.Jr. 2.10 (9).1) 'Je t'ecris cette lettre parce que tes tablettes me l'ont redamee a grand cris. Carles evenements par eux-memes et la date alaquelle tu es parti ne me fournissent vraiment pas matiere a t'ecrire. Ma.isquand nous sommes en presence l'un de l'autre, Jes sujets de conversation ne nous font pas defaut: ii convient de mt'!meque nos Jettres, de temps en temps, d.ivaguentun peu.'

1. Dans l'inttoduct:ion a son oeuvre,Hirzel (1895:1.4) considhe le dialoguecomme "ein Gespriich..., das mit einerEr5rtcrungverbundenist'', Il n'analysepas la correspondance de Ciceron. 2. Cf.CicetonPhil.2,7 etThraede(1970:35-38);Cugusi(1983:32-33).

125

et si intellegis quam meum sit scire et curare quid in re publica fiat - fiat autem? irnmo uero etiam quid futurum sit, perscribe ad me omnia (Att. 5.13.3) 'Si d'autre part tu te rends compte a quel point il m'importe de savoir ce qui se passe clans la vie publique et de pouvoir m'en occuper, - que dis-je? ce qui se passe: bien mieux, ce qui doit se passer aussi- ecris-moi tout en detail.'

Un des phi§nomenes les plus interessants se manifeste quand les changements au cours d'une lettre ne soot pas seulement explicitCs, mais sont aussi mis en relief, pour souligner la constitution progressive de la production Ccrite (cf. Violi

(1985, 165)), (3)

2. si est helium ciuile futurum (quad certe erit si Sexlus in armls permanebit, quern permansurum esse certe scio), quid nobis faciendum sit ignoro ... 4. suscipe nunc ,!TI-Cam deliberationemqua sollicitor ... iam ilia consilia priuata snnt ... 5. redeo nnnc ad epistulam tuam ... 6. sed haec quoque hactenus. redeo enim ad mlseram seu nullam potius rem publicam (Att. 14.13.2et 4-6) '2. S'il doit y avoir la gucrre civile- or cllc aura sfu:emcntlieu si Scxtus Jes armes, comme je suis sfu:qu'il le feta-, je ne sais oU sera notre devoir .. present, penche-toi sur la question qui se pose a moi et qui m'embarrasse ... Et puis, il y a des considfaations d'ordre prive ... 5. Jc reviens a ta lettre ... 6. Mais assez sur ce point aussi.J'cn reviens, en effet, a notrc R6publique defaillante, mleux vaudrait dire inexistante.'

Au paragraphe 2 de ce texte, on remarque aussi le phenomene de parentheses, qui concerne les changements de plan, meme s'il agit a un niveau plus reduit: ce type d'incise se presente toujours avant le foyer principal de l'foonce, et sous cet aspect il peut etre envisage comme une sorte de stratCgie pour mainteoir !'attention (cf. Bolkestein (1998)). 1.1.1.2. Impossibilitl! d'effacement La production orale s'avete irreversible, du moment qu'il n'est pas possible d'effacer ou de modifier un enonce une fois prononce: pour ce motif, ce dernier est souvent soutenu et conditionne par !'application de stratCgies diffetentes d'auto-rCparation, comme des corrections et des paraphrases. De tels ajustements reviennent aussi clans la production ecrite, meme si, normalement, ils disparaissent clans la version finale. En revanche, dans la redaction d'une lettre afin d'eviter une reectlture complete du texte - retours et revirements sont rendus explicites et trouvent au niveau global une section qui leur est consacrCe,

Alessandro Garcea

126

L'interaction epistolaire entre dialogue in absentiaet inprae.sentia

encore post se1iptum(c£ Cugusi (1983: 71-72)). Dans cerest redouble, faisant suite !'exigence d'adjoi.ndre une ou il implique la re-interpretation du texte auquel il

a

162-163)): {4)

(5)

17. cum bane iam cpistulam complicarcm, tabellarii a uobis uenerunt a.cl. XI Kai. septimo uicesimo die ... 19. cum scripsissem haec infima quae sunt mea manu, uenit ad nos Cicero Urns ad cenam, cum Pomponia foris cenaret (Q.fi; 3.1.17 et 19) '17. Jc pliais cette lettre quand soot ll.Iriv6sdes courriers de vous, le 20 septembre, apres jours ... 19. Comme je venais d'6crire ces dernit:res lignes, celle qui sont de ma main, ton Ciceron est venu chez nous pour diner: Pomponia dinait dehors.' 3. subaccusa, quaeso, Vestorium ... 5. Vestorium nil est quad accuses. iam enim obsignal-a hac epistula noctu tabellarius noster uenit et ab eo litteras diligenter scriptas attulit et exernplum tesramenti (Att. 13.46.3 et 5) '3. Adresse, s'il tc plait, un discret reproche a Vestorius ... 5. Tu n'as aucun reproche a faire a Vestorius: j'avais deja cachete cette lettre quand, de nuit, un de mes courriers est arrive, m'apportant une lettte de lui, attentivement redigee, et un exernplaire du testament.'

Une forme rCduite d'auto-reparation consiste en la SatZfPexegese (cf. Havers (1931: 48-49)), par laquelle l'enonciateur precise une pensee exposee clans sa propre perspective, $ans tenir compte du destinataire et de ses connaissances: (6)

a Caesare ualde liberaliter inuitor in legationern illam, sibi ut sim legatus (Att.

2.18.3)

127

(ex. 8) (cf. Wisse (1996)), quand l'orientation vise le moment de l'ecriture, sans attention pour la communication differee. (l)

(8)

nihil habebam quod scriberem; ncque cnim noui quicquam audieram et ad tuas omnis rescripseram pridie (Att. 9.10.1) Je n'ai rien a ecrire: aucune nouvelle ne m'est parvenue, et j'ai repondu hier a toutes tes lettres.' ut scribis ira uideo, non minus incerta in re publica quam in epistula tua (/ltt.

2.15.1) 'Oui, tu dis vrai: la situation politique ne m'apparait pas mains incertaine que ne le marquetalettte.'

De mCme, clans le cas de !'indication des lieux d'oU la lettre est envoyee, Jes a points de vue de l'expr!diteur et du destlnataire alternent. Dans les subscnptlones, la formule de conge succede l'indication du jour et de la localite de l'envoi (cf. Funaioli (1904: 324-327)). L'emploi de l'ablatif sans preposition ou du locatif refere au point de vue de l'expediteur, qui precise sa localisation au moment de l'6criture (reponse a ubi?) (ex, 9); l'emploi de syntagmes du type ah, de, ex+ ablatif dfoote, du point de vue du destinataire, le lieu d'origine d'oU la lettte a ere envoyee (reponse a unde?)(ex. 10). (9) data VIII Id. Apr. Thuci (Att. 3.5) 'Le 10 avril, Thorium.' (10) darn XIIII Ka1. Mai. de Tarentino (Att. 3.6.1) 'Le 17 av.ril,du territoire Tarentin.'

'Cesar me propose trCs airmtblement cette legation-la, c'est-l\-dire d'etre son Iegat.'

1.1.2. Contexte d'6nonciation partage La definition du dialogue en face-a-face par John Lyons citee au§ 1.1 implique que les interlocuteurs partagent le meme contexte d'enonciation: clans les paragraphes suivants, nous essaierons de considerer les aspects linguistiques lies a la disparitlon de ce trait clans les echanges epistolaires. 1.1.2.1. Cadre spatio-temporel A la difference du dialogue le contact entte les interlocuteurs d'un echange epistolaire est indirect, i la sur les plans de l'espace et du temps. Cette distance represente un facteur exttatextuel auquel il est possible de se refeter et qui devient une sorte de strategie pour l'organisation de la lettre. En cffct, gr.ice a l'emploi des pretendus temps epistolaires (ex. 7 et cf. Mellet (1994a; 19946)), dcvient predominante la fonction de co-enonciateur du de~tinataire, qui reformule le discours par rapport i lui-mCme. En revanche, le pomt de vu.e de l'expediteur apparalt clans les citations inttoduites par le citatlvepresent

Les deux points de vue peuvent aussi se superposer (cf, Rauzy (2002)), comme clans l'exemple suivant, oU a l'imparfait epistolaire cogitaba111 s'ajoute l'adverbe num:. (11) quae mihl antea signa misisti, ea nondum uidi; in Formiano sunt, quo ego nunc proficisci cogitabam (Att. 1.4.3) 'Les statues que tn m'as envoyi!es precedemment, je ne [es ai pas encore vues, Elles sont clansma propriere de Formies, pout laquelle je me dispose a partir en ce moment.'

1.1.2.2. Accessibilite perceptive mutuelle Dans le dialogue en face-?i-face, le contexte partage implique aussi la co-presence des interlocuteurs, la communication se deroulant sur les plans phonicoacoustique, optique-visuel, et eventuellement sur celui du contact physique. Ces caracteristiques disparaissent clans l'r!change epistolaire: (12) quod mecum per litteras agis unam ob causam mallem coram egisses; non enim solnm ex oratione, sed etiam ex uullu et oculis et fronte, ut aiunt, meum erga te amorem perspicere potuisses (Att. 14.136.1)

128

Alessandro Garcea

'La question dont tu me parles clans ta lettre, une seule raison me fait regretter que tune m'en aies pas plut6t parle de vive voix: c'est que tu aurais pu percevoir clairement par l'expression de man visage, par mes yeux et, comme on dit, moo front, et non pas seulement mes paroles, man affection pour toi.'

Cependant, clans les lettres, !'absence physique est compensee par des rnoyens qui produisent un effet d'immediatete. Avant tout, il semble important d'observer que les letttes, en tant que telles, peuvent referer a elles-memes et a leur fonction communicative, en dehors du contenu proposicionnel, surtout si ce dernier est insignifiant ou nul. Dans ces cas de propositional rarefaction (cf, Viall (1985: 160)), c'est le fait d'avoir ecrit qui est signi.ficatif, car il maincient un rap~ portvivant entre les correspondants (ex. 13) (cf. Thraede (1970:33~35)): (13) ut ab urbe discessi, nullum adhuc intermisi diem quin aliquid ad te litterarum darem, non quo haberem magno opere quid scriberem sed ut loquerer tecum absens; quo mihi, cum corunid nonlicet, nibil est iucundius (Att. 7.15.1) 'Depuis mon d6patt de Rome, je n'ai pas encore Jaiss6 passer un jour sans remettre une lettre, si breve qu'elle fut, pour toi. Sans que j'eusse quoi t'6ctlre, mais pour bavarder avec toi malgre !'absence: rien ne m'est plus agrfable, quand je ne puis le faire de vive-voix.'

1.1.2.2.1. 'Phatismes' Les lettres emploient fi:equemment la fonct:ion phatique de la langue, pet non-Subj. In table 2, the proportions are presented in which the instances in my sample without a dead end associate with the different semantic and syntactic functions of the Ai-qualifier at last mention before the ablative absolute.

Inferring first-argument participants of passive ablative absolutes

Table 2

313

Semanticand syntacticfunctions of the Ai-qualifier at last mention (N = 114)

semantlc function

syntactic function

Instances (proportion)

Al Al

Subj

,57

non-SubJ

,16

A2

Subj

A2

non-subj

A3

non-Subj

,02

Sat other

non-Subj

,04

non-Subj

,04

yet unknown yet unknown

Subj non-Subj

The data presented in table (2) give rise to a number of considerations. (i) Semantically, the qualifier functions as Al-participant at last mention in the preceding discourse in some 75 percent of the instances. This can be taken as evidence that usually only highly activated candidate-qualifiers qualify for the empty Al-slot of the ablative absolute. (ii) When the qualifier functions as A1participant at last mention in the preceding discourse, the existing semantic perspective on it is maintained in the ablative absolute. In the great majority of instances, then, the ablative absolute brings no change in the semantic involvement of the participant in the narrated world of that moment. (iii) Syntactically, some 70 percent of the qualifiers function as Subj at last mention in the preceding discourse. This can be taken as evidence that usually only highly activated candidate-qualifiers qualify for the empty A1-slot of the ablative absolute, (iv) Given the fact that the qualifier does not function as Subj in the ablative absolute, one could feel tempted to relate (iii) to (ii) to the effect that maintenance of the existing semantic perspective seems much more important than maintenance of its syntactic counterpart. This would, however, be a wrong conclusion. Maintenance of the syntactic perspective [+Subj] for the qualifier in (passive) ablative absolutes, would entail coreferentiality between the Subject of the ablative absolute and some participant in the Qmmediately) preceding discourse. It is exactly this type of coreferentiality which is St1'ictlyprohibited for ablative absolutes in Latin (for an extensive treatment of the rule, see Hoff (1989)).

11. As the data in table 2 show, the1·eis no sense in distinguishing the syntactic functions Object and Indirect Object

(v) Turning to qualifiers functioning as A2- or A3-participants, one observes that these occur almost always in embedded predications. A representative example is found in (9), where the qualifier 'himself of impetratouno functions as A3-participant with defereturin the predication quoquedeftretttrtrabea

Wim Remmelink

Infening first-argument participants of passive ablative absolutes

,o,,s:nJ.rir., which is embedded as a complement-clause in il!o (quodj 'this, the

Further research can be conducted on the interplay of cognitive distance and syntactico-semantic centraltty, on successions of ablative absolutes, on implicit participants other than in Al-function, such as A2-pai:ricipants in active ablative absolutes, which are left implicit quite often as well.

314

remark(th1t)', (9)

illo adiecto, I quod ip1i quoque deferetur trabea consularis. I sed impetrato uno uHpi1cinon potait 1.liud. I '1i.mm, 25.10.16) 'adding this that the con,ular robe would be conferred also on himself. But although one prophecy wu fulfilled, he could not attain the other prediction.'

Note that the qualifier is also involved as Al-participant in the ablative absolute iliaadiecto,qt1od... c01wt!ari.r. The pattern here might well be that it is not so much the A2 or A3 in the embedded predication that functions as the qualifier as it is the Al of the embedding predication. (vi) A closer look at the qualifiers functioning as Sat-participants at last mention in the preceding discourse reveals that they function as such indeed according to the syntactically underpinned definitions of the semantic functions given above, yet play an Ai-like role according to the overall state of affairs obtaining in the narrated world. An en.mple is the qualifier 'a troop of angry soldiers' (ir.ki11m1•au milifllf1f')of qttihlll 11disin (10),which functions as a Sat-participant in the predication with d1'iW conflagratrit 'the city went up in flames' in tl1e way the semantic functions were defined above, but unmistakably plays an Agentlike role in the overall state of affairs 'the city was burned by a troop of angry soldiers' obtainlllg in the narrated world. (10) in hoe ttactu ciuitas ob muros humiles (I) ab incolis ludaeis deserta [ iratorum manu militum conflagrauit. I quibus •cti1 pergebat ulterius imperator [ (Amm. 24.4.1)

'In this tract a city which, because of its low walls, had been abandoned by its Jewish inh•bitant1, was burned by a troop of angry soldiers, This done, the emperor went on futher'

3, Conclusions

In the framework of the discourse-processing

theory expounded in section 1, cognitive distance and syntactico-semantic centrality were examined in section 2 as operationalizations of the activation which qualifiers for an empty A 1-slot of a pi,..uive ablative absolute have at last mention in the preceding discourse. It is ~hown that in the great majority of instances the qualifier occurs at a small cognitive clistance before the ablative ab1olute, and fulfills the semantically central function A1 and the syntactically central function Subj. For the instances not conforming to this pattern, it is shown (i) that a larger cognitive distance is often occasioned by the intervention of a sole large constituent; and (ii) that qualifiers not functionlllg as Ai-participants either occur in embedded predications or pl1y an Al-like role in the overall state of affairs obtaining in the narti..ted world.

315

Wim Remmelink Universiteit van Amsterdam, Oude Turfmarkt 129, NL-1012 GC Amsterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected]

Bibliographic references Chafe, W, 1994. Discourse, c01uciousnm,a11dtime. Theflow and displacement ofco11scio11s expe1illlfl in Jj,l#ldtl(, •11dw,iti¥,, Chic•go etc.: Uninnity of Chicago Preu. Dik, S.C. 1997. Ti,, Theory. Having been condemned, I set free.'

In a different stage of the language (XII Tab., see example (4b) above), one can observe how partial lexical repetition together v,,ith active to passive change maintains cohesion, and at the same time appears to suffice as a means of pinpointing participant roles.

342

Hannah Rosen

Complementarity within the pool of cohesion devices?

(iiDLastly in function (a), tense structuration, This is a rare strategy for referent identification (or has not been sufficiently looked for in this context) and is as that presumably a direct outcome of the very common literary function of tense stlucturation in past narratives, where it is subject to the author's intention even in identical te."{t types and similar subject-matter. I did not find any of this in the texts under scrutiny (see note 6). In the passage Caes. Gal. 7.31-35 Klug (1992: 90-95) claims to detect not only organization by tenses into fore- and background, but also - to say it in my own words - to find within the foreground narrative the presence of tense blocks arranged according to initiative and reaction which are manifested in a division of agents: the perfectum Caesar, the historic present Vercingetorix. This distribution is not entirely consistent, and furthermore it is not the tense shift that ident;Jiesthe participant in question: Caesru: and Vercingetorix are at all instances identified either pronoun. But tense interplay can indeed be a tool that more participants. Although I am sure that in highly stylized texts there passages illustrating that usage, I myself can only turn again to an already much exploited Pliny passage, 11 Plin, Ep.7.27.8-10:

ously this manifold complemen1:arity is restricted to past narrative within the limits of the storyline and is a rare practice. Since explicit referent tracking likewise entails a linkage of the propositions in point, the question arises, whether in the presence of such practice (by pronouns, by repetition etc.) et et sim. become redundant, i.e., whether then~ is more asyndesis under such conditions. Manuals delineate rhetorical and metr1~al effects of asyndesis, underline a facultative nature of connectors (Touratier 1994: 547), or discuss personal-style preferences (Pinkster (1990: 245)), without indicating decisive syntactic conditioning. From 'free' relative clauses even mo.st anaphoric adverbs are naturally excluded; in addition, apart from in sentences 1n which the anaphoric pronouns are reinforced by parenthetic inquam (above, examples 10) and a marked tendency in the case of resumptive nominalizations (above, examples 9), I can at present report such conditioning only with respect to two syntactic environments: (i) A sentence immediately following upon a presentative sentence - as a rule without connector, e.g.

343

(15a) (14) initio, quale ubique, silentium noctis; dein concuci fenum, uincula moucri. illenon tollere oculos, non remittere stilum, sed offirmare animum auribusque praetendere. tum crebrescere fragor, aduentare et irun ut in limine, iam ut intra limen audiri. 0 11idct ag11osdtque narratam sibi cffigiem. 0 stabatimwebatquecligito similis uocanti. ca11lra ut paulum exspectaret manu sig11ijicat rursusque ceris et ii/a scribenciscapicicatenis insonabat.0 mpicit rursus idem quod prius stile i11c11mbit. ibatii/alento gradu quasi grauis uininnuentem, nee moratus to/litlumen et seq11it111: culis. postquam deflexit in aream domus, repente dilapsa deseritcorn.item.desert1ts herbas et folia concerpta signum loco panit. 'At first nothing but the general silence of night; then the clanking of iron and moving of chains. He did not look up nor lay down his pen, but steeled his mind and obstructed \vith it his ears. Then the noise graduallygrew louder, came nearer, and was heard in the doorway, and then beyond the threshold. He looked round, saw and recognized the ghost described to him. It [Latin form not differentiated] stood and beckoned, as if summoning him. He in bis turn made a sign \vith bis hand to wait a little, and again bent over his notes and pen. It stood rattling its chains over his head as he wrote. He looked round again at it beckoning as before, and without further delay he picked up his lamp and followed.It moved slowly,as if weighed down with the chains, and when it turned off into the courtyard of the house it suddenly dissolved and left its companion alone. Having been left alone he picked some plants and leaves and marked the spot.'

in which pronouns (ille,hie,ilia), tense selection (imp£. - perf./praes., with in£. hist. indifferent in this respect) and also lexical repetition (demit- desertus)join forces in unambiguously marking each participant previously mentioned. Obvi11. In Rosen (1980: 43-46), Calboli (1986); cf. now Kroon (2000: 228-229; 2002: 195-196, 198).

fuit olirn quidam senex mercator; 0 nauim is fregit (I'cr.A11.220-221) 'Once upon a time there was an old man, a merchant. He suffered a shi~wre:k.' (15b) est autem C. Herennius quidam tribunus plebis, quern .... 0 is ... traductt (Ctc.Att, 1.18.4) 'There is a certain Tribune by the name of C. Herennius, whom ... I-le is transferring ...'

This is not universal; c( English (15c) On the sea, once upon a time, there was a whale andhe ate fishes. (Kipling)

In Latin, connectors are exceptional in this environment: Ov. Met. 15.60-62 (Vir ortuSan1i11s, sedfirgcrat... odioquc... exul ... emf. isque ..., 'There was a man Samian by birth, but he had fled and had been living in exile. And he ...') . (Rosen (1998)). (ii) A sentence containing (modified) repetition by participle - single or m the catenatype (above) - which relates to a previous nominal constituent, is, as a rule, not introduced by a connector: isolated -queand et do occur, but normally sentences of the catenatype are asyndetic (Kiihner & Stegmann 782, Hofmann & Szantyr 812).

9. Outlook In this short sketch of Latin cohesion, intended merely to summarily bring together some of the ostensibly disparate means of expression, which as a matter of fact show affinity in their effect, we have touched upon compatibilities,

344

Hannah Rosen

exclusions and collocations which have receive·d less attention in recent discussion. . In :01;1clusion,while we were able to outline some complementary distribulJon within each subclass of cohesion and some free variation as well, there is still much to look into in respect of the obligatory or facultatlve nature of the individual tools of cohesion in Latin: concerning asyndesis;12 concerning selection of tenses in order to differentiate and identify participants; correlations and compatibilities could profit from a more synchronic and exhaustive nature of inv:stigatlons !n individual te~t types (of the kind of Chausserie-Lapr6e's (1969) achievements ill the area of discourse marking in Classical historiography). Such dtpmdllements, oriented towards correlations of linguistic phenomena, may eventually bring about a solid diachronic account of these phenomena. Progress in the Achilles' heel of Latin linguistics-word-order research-will also undoubtedly contribute to clarifying the workings of the tools of cohesion. Hannah Rosen The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, IL-91905 J eJ.Usalem,Israel

Bibliographic references Bo~~s;~ ~.M, 1986. 'Zand zonder kalk: cohesie en het proza van Seneca'. LotJJj)as 19, 8 Bolkestcin, A.M. 1987. 'Discourse functions of predications: The background/foreground distinction and tense and voice in Latin main and subordinate clauses'. In: J. Nuyts & G. de Schutter (eds), Gcftli1grme's,vordsinto line.011wordorderand Ftmctional GraJtJmar. Dordrecht: Faris, p. 163-178. Bolkestein, A.M. 2000. 'Discourse organization and anaphora in Latin', In: C. Herring et al, (e?s), Texi11alparmveter.s in olderla1w1ages. Amsterdam etc.: Benjamins, p. 107-137. Bolkeste.1n,A.M. 2002. 'Linguistic reflection of discourse structure in Latin'. In: A.M. Bolkestein, C.H.M. Kroon, H. Pinkster, H.W. Remmelink & R. Risselada (eds), Theoryanddesmptionin Latin lingflistics. Amsterdam: Gieben, p. 13-24. Bolkestein, A.M. & R, Risselada 1987. 'The pragmatic motivation of semantic and synpertacti~ perspective'. In: J. Verschueren & M. Bertuccelli-Papi (eds), Thepragmatic spccltve. Amsterdam: Benjamins, p. 497-512. Bolkestein, A.M. & M. van de Grift 1994. 'Participant tracking in Latin discourse'. In:J. studiesonLatin. Amsterdam etc.: Benjamins, p 283-302. Herman (ed.), Ling11istic Calboli, G. 1986. 'A struggle with a ghost and the contrast between Theme and Rheme'. In: G. Calboli (ed.), Paperson GrammarIII. Bologna: CLUBB, p. 183-197.

12. It is worthwhile.to"repeat ~e words of Hancock (1917: 28), wise despite their resignation, abo~t ~reek asyndesIS:... thet~ 1s.more asyndetonwhere the movement of a passageis rapid and beyond tbis point seems impossible.... This lack [of formal foclmg1s :ense .... A.nyge_neraliza~on and defin,1teconnecnves]1s supphed ... by change in the order of words, by continuation of the construct10n_, fo.nn~lor dlipti~~' by pickingup of word or phrase from the preceding sentence,or by our own 1nst1nct1ve recogrunon of the connection .... "

Complementru:ity within the pool of cohesion devices?

345

Chausserie-Lapree, J .-P. 1969. L'expressio11 nrm'tltivechezJeshistmicnslati11s. Histoired'uns!Jle. Paris:Boccard. Fugier, H. 1991. 'Nominal anaphora, text, argumentation (from Plautus to Cicero)'. In: in Latin hi1g1dstics. Amsterdam etc.: Benjamins, p. 381R. Coleman (ed.), Ne1vs!Hdies 399. Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan. 1976. Cohetio11 in English.London: Longman. in stichomythia. Diss. University of Chicago. Hancock, J.L. 1917. S t11dies F1111ktio11 der Klug, W. 1992. Erziih/stmktm· 11/sKx11stfarm.Stf!dic11Zflr kil11st/edschen illl Lateinischen tmdim Gdechischen, Heidelberg: Manucius. Eiz.iih/tempora Kroon, C.H.M. 1995. Discoumparticlesin Latin. A stu4Jefnam, enim, autem, uero and at. Amsterdam: Gieben. tense, and the structure of Latin narrative Kroon, C.H.M. 1998. 'Discourse i11use.Amsterdamst11dies i11thepragmaticsefLatin. texts'. In: R. Risselada (ed.), Amsterdam: Gieben, p. 37-61. Kroon, C.H.M. 2000. 'Het ene verhaal is het andere niet. Een taalkundige kijk op teksttype (met een toepassing op Plinius Episttda7.27)', LJ1111pas 33, 211-234. Kroon, C.H.M. 2002. 'How to write a ghost story? A linguistic view on narrative modes Sh!diesin in Pliny Ep. 7.27'. In: L. Sawicki & D. Shalev (eds), Donflmgmv1111atimm. Latin and Celtich'11gtlistics i11ho11011r efHam1ahRos/11. Leuven etc.: Peeters, p. 189-200. L6fstedt, B. 1965-1966. 'Die subjektlose 3. Person im Lateinischen'. In; Kung.H11ma11istiska Vetmskaps-Sa111flll!det i Uppsala,Arsbok. Stockholm, p. 80-107. Longacre, R.E. 1976. An anatomyefspeechnotions.Lisse: De Ridder. Panhuis, D.GJ. 1984. 'Topic shift and other discourse functions of passives in Latin narratives'. Ciotta62, 232-240. Pinkster, H. 1983. 'Tempus, aspect and Aktionsart in Latin (recent trends der riimische11 In: H. Temporini & W. Haase (eds), At!fttiegtmdNiedergang Berlin: De Gruyter, p. 270-320. Pinkster, H. 1985. 'The discourse function of the passive'. In: A..l'vL Bolkestein et al (eds), S,)'lltaxandpmgmaticsin F1111ctio11al Gmtmnar.Dordrechti Faris, p. 107-118. Pinkster, H. 1990. Loti11f)'niaxandsemantics. London etc.: Routledge. Risselada, R. 1991. 'Passive, perspective and textual cohesion'. In: R. Coleman (ed,), New st11dies in Latin lit1g!listics. Amsterdam etc.: Benjamins, p. 401-414. Rosen, H. 1980. ''Exposition und Mitteilung' -The imperfect as a thematic tense-form in the letters of Pliny'. In: H. & H.B. Rosen, 011 moodsand tensesefthe LatiH ve:rb. Miinchen: Fink, p. 27-48. Rosen, H. 1981. Sh1diesin thef)'llfaxefthe verbal1101111 in EarfyLatin. MUnchen: Fink. Rosen, H. 1983. 'The mechanisms of Latin nominalizacion and ,o,,cepmsliz,ti.oc in A,ifstieg der historical view'. In: H. Temporini & W, Haase rbi11ische11 We/tII.29.1. Berlin: De Gruyter, p. 'Die Arten der Prolepse im Lateinischen in typologischer Sicht'. Rosen, H. 1992 Indogm11anisch. Innsbruck: Institut for In: O. Krisch (eds), Latein 1111d Sprachwissenschaft, p. 234-262. Rosen, H. 1996. 'Grammatical equivalence and choice in ancient Latin translation'. In: Kolloq111it111s Zf" A. Bammesberger & F. Heberlein (eds), Aktm desVIII. it1tematio11a/e11 lateinischm Li11gt1istik. Heidelberg: Winter, p. 533-550. Rosen, H. 1998, 'Latin presentational sentences'. In: B. Garcia-Hemiindez (ed.), Esh1dios Madrid: Edidones Cl!lsicas, p. 723-742. de/i11giifstic11 lati11a.

346

Hannah Rosen

Rosen, H. 1999. Latti1e loqlfl:Trends and direcli'ons zi1the t1ystalliz.ation ef ClassicalLahi1. Miinchen: Fink.

Rosen, H.B. 1994. 'On some types of so-called 'impenontllty' and verbal valency in Inda-European'. In: R Beekes et al (eds), IvJ,111.rJ111J,ti111 n11l1•lll:i., C},tw111J«1i. Innsb_ruck:Institut fur Sprachwisscnschaft, p. 383-390 [::::1994. S,i,tt,J 11fldti1w i11/ingrtistict.Eastm11 West,III. Miinchen; Fink, p. 188-195]. derAbstrakta in danDialoge11 Gregorsdes Grojfen.Leipzig: Seitz,]. 1938. Vberdie Vmve11d1t11g ieubner (diss. Jena),

La concessive en quamquam, quamuis et licet subjonctive ou indicative? Olga Spevak Paris

Toutatier, Chr. 1994. ~11/axe laline. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.

Summary The aim of this study is to present the uses of quamquam,q11amNis and /icetdiachronically from Archaic to Late Latin. The typology of concessive clauses proposed by Martin (1982) seems to bring important precision to the issue of use of verbal mood in these d1.u1e1.We.will examine and classify numerous examples in order to stress the importance of separating more general tendencies from specific uses of these conjunctions. We take into account that not all occurrences of the indicative or subjunctive can be explained as analogi.cal. On the one hand, there is a progressive grammaticalisation of a 'causal' concession through time, while on the other hand, the mood can depend on syntactic properties of concessive clauses.

1. Introduction Nous nous proposons d'etuclier la syntaxe de qHamqHam,qHamuiset /lee!en diachronie a la lumiere de la typologie des concessives, presentee plus loin. Ce point de vue nous permettra de relever quelques emplois speci.fiques qui pourraient contribuer a expliquer leur comportement syntaxique. En effet, les grammaires latines font etat de variations modales qui se produisent clans les concessives chez les auteurs classiques, postclassiques et tardifs. La plupart du temps, ces alternances sont expliquees comme le fruit d'influences reciproques entre ces conjonctions: l'analogie de quamuisappelle le subjonctif apres q1ramq11a111 et l'influence de q•.atq1w11entraine l'indicarif aprCs qttamuis(cf, Ernout & Thomas (19972 : 352); Hofmann & Szantyr (19722: 602-604); Touratier (1994: 688); Mellet,Joffrc & Serbat (1994, 205-206); Blaise (1955, 165-167) et d'autres). En outre, on signale volontiers le moment all survient la premiere occurrence 'incorrecte' (Rrnout & Thomas et Hofmann & Szantyr, ibid,).1 Or il s'agit, a nou·e sens, d'un phenomf:ne ineductible ala simple interpretation analogique.

2. 'I'ypologie de la concession L'analyse linguistique de la concession peut comporter trois approches: semantique, syntaxique et ru:gumentative.2 Du point de vue semantico-logique, la 1. Pour qt1amq11a!II + subjonctif, voir Nep, Att. 13.6; pour q11anmis + indicacif, Luer, 3.403. de 2. La presente analyse n'a pas pour l'objectif de developperl'aspect prngmatico-argumentatif la concession,

348

La concessive en q11atJJquam, quavmiset Jicet.subjonctive ou indicative? 349

Olga Spevak

concession se situe parmi les relations causales, a l'instar de l'hypothese, de la cause et de la consequence. Toutes ces relations reposent sur !'implication matCriellc sip, q, dont le premier element, a11tedde11t, entraine logiquement un autre, le consiquent.Or, clans le cas de la concession, la relation implicative, normalement valable entre deux contenus, ne se realise pas par le jeu de la negation. Dans sa typologie des concessives, Marcin (1982) a propose de d.istinguer trois principaux types sCmantlques. En premier lieu, la concession propositionnelle (bie11 quep, q au q, bienquep), ou simple,3 pose un rapport causal qui est niC clans ses consCquences. Dans ce cas, deux propositions s'opposent d.i.rectement, par exemple: Bien qtt'i! soil 1JJalade, Pien-etravail/ebea11co1tp. Ce type, decrit parfois en termes de cause niee, contra.ciee, au inefficace, peut se realiser comme une proposition au comme la rCduction nominale d'une proposition (q ma!tJi + syntagme nominale). Ensuite, la concession complexe qui recouvre plusieurs soustypes, en particulier la concession hypothetique (p, 111l111esi q ou tTJlme si q,p) et scalaire (qJ1elq11c ... qlfe, Ji ... que ..., par exemple Si travailleursoil-ii,ii !thomra.). Cctte categoric se caracte.cise par l'appartenance de la concessive une classe, un ensemble de propositions: la concessive scalaire (= d'echelle), incluse clans unc classe de propositions formant une it.chelle, reprCsente le cas le plus favorable, la concessive hypothCtique est l'hypothCse Ja mains probable ou favorable. Enfin, Martin dCcrit la concession restrictive, ou rectificative (q, encorequep); dans ce cas, la subordonnee corrige ce qui a Cte precCdemment asserte en apportant des reserves, objections, remarques complCmentaires. La typologie de Martin a le me.cite d'avoir dCcrit les concessives scalaire et restrictive en tant que types concessifs apart entiCre.4

a

a

3. Emploi de quamquam, quamuis et Jicet en diaehronie En fran,;:ais, les conjonctlons typiques de la concession simple soot bienqtte et q11oiq11e pour les structures grammaticales subordonnCes, JJJaigri et en dipit depour les structures prepositionnelles. 11s'agit de moyens grammaticaux, employCs exclusivement pour exprimer une concession. En latin, on pourrait considerer quamquam,quamuiset licetcomme mots introducteurs de la concession simple; tout au mains, des recherches menCes clans le cadre d'une these de doctorat (Spevak (2001)) concernant le latln tardif des IVe et Ve siecles amCnent a cette conclusion. Nous avons observe une large synonymic entre qHammSet licet.En out.re, les auteurs de la pCriode mentionnee emploient ces mots concessifs communCment avec le mode subjonctlf. Quamquam,quant a lui, offre des emplois comparables, mais garde, clans une certaine mesure, des p.ropriCtCs s1ti 3. A la suite de Soutet (1990: 8-11), nous utilisons le terme de 'concession simple'. Les exemples, introduits dans cc paragmphe, sont empruntes au meme auteur. 4. Ici, nous ne prenons pas en compte Jes concessives extcnsiormclle et negative qui ne concernent pas dircctcment notre analyse. En cc qui conccme la concessive simple et hypothCtique, la conception de Martin est, clans scs grnndes lignes, assez proche de celle de K6nig (1985; 1986),

gcnedset ne peut etre entie!ement tenu pour synonyme de q11a1nt1is et licet.Or, si qJta1vqua111, q11amuiset /icet appa.raissent en latin tardif comme de vCritables conjonccions concessives typiques de la concession simple, on sait que ce n'est pas toujours le cas en latin classique. Ces conjonctlons ne bCnCficient pas d'une meme extension dans diffe:J:entespt!riodes du latin. Sans doute, assistons-nous des phCnomenes diachroniques, une evolution, voire une constitution progressive d'un paradigme de moyens concessifs. D'autant plus que le latin classique preff:re souvent de conjonccions telles que si, e11m,tit, qui ne rendent pas explicite la relation concessive. 5

a

a

a

3.1. Quamquam compte parmi les premiers mots concessifs constituCs comme tels. 6 Quamqt1at11

L'Ctude de cette conjonctlon en latin archaique et classique permet de dCgager trois emplois principaux. I1 accompagne un adjectlf ou un adverbe, il introduit une concessive antCposCe a sa rCgissante qui comporte d'ordinaire le con:elatlf tamen,et il sert introduire des gloses ou des remarques prCvenant d'Cventuelles objections. Cet emploi, appelC quamquamcomcti1r111v, correspond la concessive restrictive decrite plus haut. II arrive rarement que quamquamapparaisse sans verbe fini; les propositions elliptiques oU le verbe est restituable a pattir de la proposition principale sont exceptionnelles. Sortent du cadre du latin classique les usages de q11amq11am qui explidtent la valeur d'un participe, d'un ablatif absolu ou des syncagmes. Pour ce qui est de l'emploi du mode verbal, des le latin archiique, qHaJJJquaw apparait clans des contextes factuels face l'indicatif; 7 tel est son usage habituel chez Jes scCniques, puis chez Salluste, Cice:J:on,mais encore Tite-Live. L'emploi de l'indicatif apres q11amq11am se justifie par la nature 'reelle' du contenu foonce. Quamquamest ainsi employe clans la concessive simple, en correlation avec !amen,insete clans la regissante.

a

a

a

(1)

qui quamguam acciti ibant, tamen placuit uerba apud regem habere ... (Sal.Jl(g. 102.3) 13ien quc ce fut le roi qui Jes appelat, ils df.cidC!rentneanmoins de parler Jes premiers ...'8

5, Les conjonctions si, ,11111 et 111ne seront pas conccrnCes par cctte analyse. 11en va de mCme pour elsi et efiamsi, dotCS d'un comportement synraxique diffCrent de q1111mq1111m, q1mnJ11i. et /ire/, parce qu'ils introduiscnt le plus souvent une concessive hypothCtique, et pour lamefsiqui ne prCsente pas d'occurrcnces importantes en dehors du latin classique. 6. Pour la constitution du corpus, nous nous sommes servie essentiellement de CD-Rom Bib!io• them Tt11bmriu110 Lati110(1999) et Cettdof Librory of Chn"1liu11 Lotilt Texts (1998 3). En oub:c, nous utilisons des rt:sult.1ts d'une 6tude statistique (Spevak (2001: 337-353)). 7. Cf. Mcllet, Joffre & Setbat (1994: 66). Le latin classique saisit le procCs concCdC sous \'aspect dela 'rCalitt:objectivc'. 8. Nous utilisons Jes trnductions publiCcs clans la Collection des UniversitCs de France, Paris: Les BellesLcttres,

La concessive en quaJJJq11am, q11amuis et Jicetsubjonctive ou indicative? 351

Olga Spevak

350

Or, mis a part ce type de concession, on peut isoler deux usages. D'abord, conformement a sa valeur d'origine, qua1nquav1 porte souvent sur les adjectifs et adverbes susceptibles d'intensification et apparait clans les concessives de type scalaire. Si quamquamporte sur ces constituants, l'emploi du mode verbal en est indepcndant. (2)

intro abi et, quamquam hoe tibi aegre est, tamen fac accures, (Pl. Ca!. 421) 'Rentte; et malgre que tu en aies, clche de bien faire les chosesl'

Ensuite, Jes propositions introduites par qllav1quav1 font partie des phrases complexes revetant a maintes reprises un caractere 'confrontatif, cree a partir des x £ustitiaet libcraktasclans les oppositions semantiques (expoliturx augetur,1tirtt1s exemples 3 et 4 cites ci-dessous). Deux propositions sont mises en relation concessive, sans que la protase represente forcement une 'cause inefficace'. En pareil cas, nous hesitons cependant a attribuer a quamqt1a111 un statut nettement subordonnant. Certes, rernplit des conditions qui favoriseraient une telle interpretation en debut de proposition, la portee sur toute la predication et non sur un seul constituant); mais du point de vue semantique, le contenu concede ne traduit pas une 'circonstance' du contenu enonce clans la principale. 9 (3)

(4)

sed omnis loquendi elegantia, quamquam expolitur scientia litterarum, tamen augetur legend.isoratoribus et poetis. (Cic. de Oral.3.39) 'Si la propriete constante du langage s'ebauche grace a !'instruction eJementaire, elle se perfectionne par I'etude des orateurs et des poetes.' et quamquam omnis uirtus nos ad se adlicit ..., tamen iustitia et liberalitas id maxi.meefficit. (Ck. Off. 1.56) 'Et bien que toute vertu nous attire a elle ..., c'est cependant la justice et la gefifrosite qui ont eminemment ce pouvoir.'

L'emploi mann & d.iscours voulue (5)

du subjonctif est toutefois loin d'etre exclu (cf. HofSzantyr (19722 : 602-603), et Touratier outre les cas du indirect, le locuteur l'introduit pour attribuer au proces la modalite en }'occurrence, une modalite potentlelle.

nam ui quidem regere patriam aut parentis, quamquamet possis et delicta corrigas, tameninportunum est ... (Sal.]t'!,,3.2) 'Quant a l'emploi de la violencepour gouverner parents et patrie - dUt-onyreussir et corrigerdes abus - il n'est pas non plus sans danger.,.'

Or un changement s'annonce en latin po:stci:,ssi,,ue (cf. Moignet (1959: 1.273) et Mellet, Joffre & Serbat (1994: prosateurs temoignent d'un 9. Cf, Orlandini (1998: 201-202) citant cet exemple, sur l'abscncc argumentacif.

de !'opposition avcc un topo1

emploi parfaitement classique de quamquam- tels Val ere Maxime, Quinte-Curce ou Pline le Jeune-, d'autres le construisent parfois avec le subjonctif, et ce, sans que la difference de sens soit perceptible. Ce phfoomene, presente clans les grammaires comme celui des subjonctifs 'non motives' (Hofmann & Szantyr (19722:602-603)), concerne seneque le Philosophe, Pline l'Ancien, Quintilien, Tacite, Columelle, ainsi que les poetes Ovide et Stace; Lucain utilise peu qttamqJ.tamsubordonnant. En analysant les exemples concrets, on observe que la concessive anteposee a sa regissante favorise le subjonctif, alors que la concessive postposee comporte le plus souvent l'indicatif. L'exemple 6, cite ci-dessous, montre une veritable concessive 'simple' (bienquep, q) qui traduit une circonstance 'reelle' de la regissante, Or, la concessive en postposition (exemple 7) est une concessive restrictive (q encorequep) qui apporte une remarque rectifi.cative. Du point de vue syntaxique, elle ne s'integre pas clans la ptincipale, ce qui peut justifier l'emploi d'un mode independant-l'ind.icatlf en !'occurrence. nam Phraates, quamquam depulisset exercitus ducesque Romanos, cuncta uene~ rantium officia ad Augustumuerterat. (Tac.Ann. 2.1.2) 'Car Phraates, quoiqu'il eUtchasse les arm6esromaines et leurs chefs, a.vaittourne vers Auguste tous Jes hommages du respect.' (7) nee refert de Gracco an de Latino loquar, quamquam Graecum esse priorem placer. (Quint. Inst. 1.4.1) 'Ce que je dis se rapporte indiffeternment au maitre grec ou au maitre la.tin,bien que je prefere donner au grec la priorite.'

(6)

Selan toute apparence, nous assistons a un developpement de la concessive et comportant un subjonctif. De plus, chez les simple introduite par qua111qua111 memeS auteurs, nous constatons une extension considetable de quamqumnportant sur un participe, un ablatif absolu ou un syntagme nominal. De toute evidence, ce phellomene corrobore l'idee d'un changement systematique: quamquam presente non seulement un flottement modal, mais encore un developpement de certains emplois inconnus du latin classique. 3.2. Quamuis Il en va autrement pour quat111ris. Rare chez Plaute et Terence, ainsi que chez les prosateurs Salluste et Cesar, quamuisn'est employe de maniere significative que par Ciceton a l'epoque classique (Hofmann & Szantyr (19722: 603-604); Riemann (19357: 380)). Bien qu'il provienne, a l'instar de quamquam,du groupe des quantificateurs, quamuisse distingue par un signifiant associe a l'idee de la volonte d'auttui, grace a sa composante -uis. A cet egard, la valeur intrinseque de quamttisappelle le subjonctif qui represente un morpheme potentiel autonome. 10 Quamm·sappara1t d'ordinaire clans la concessive scalaire et porte sur un adjectlf 10. Vair Touracier (1994: 688). Cf. 6galement les observations de Lorenzo (1906: 17) concemant Horace. Selon Hofmann & Szantyr (19722: 604), il s'agirait, au conttaire, de 'l'optatif conccssif'.

352

Olga Spevak

ou un adverbe (exemple 8). En outre, il peut coexister me!ne avec un subjonctif imparfait ou plus-que-parfait (exemple 9).11 (8)

nihil agis, dolorl quamuis sis molestus, numquam te esse con.fitebor malum. (Cic.

(9)

Tim.2.61) 'Tu perds ton temps, douleur; si importune que tu puisses etre, tu ne me feras jamais convenir que tu sois un mal.' ilia quamuis ridicula essent, sicut erant, mihi tamen risum non mouerunt, (Cic.

Fam.7.32.3) 'Mais ce que tu me rapportes, tout plaisant qu'il soit (et il l'est), pourtant ne m'a pas faitrire.'

La concessive en quamquam,quamui.ret licet:subjonctive ou indicative? 353

(11) porcicus aequali quamuis est denique ductu ... longa tamen parte ab summa cum tota uidetur, paulacim trahlt angusci fastigia coni ... (Luer, 4.426-428) 'V oici un portique, soutenu par des colonnes parall, Episttrlt1mn1 Lati11amm papyiis,tab11/is, ostmcis,sm1atamm.Florence: Cugusi, P, 1992. Co1p11s Conelli. Dangel, J. 1994. 'Synta..'uistcheritier des conceptions logiques de Frege et Russell (cf. Kleiber (1981: 371-376)), voient clans le nom propre un "arrii:re-plan dcscriptif", chforic qui n'explique pas le nom propre metaphorique, puisque la description sclon Searle est exhaustive: si Caton est un 'hommc severe', ii est avant tout un homme politique, orateur stoi"cien, adversaire de CCsar,qui se suicide i l.Jtiquc, etc. La liste est lom d'etre complete, mais pcu imporcc: ces informations ne sauraient s'appliquer au referent rCcl du kctor Cato de PhCdre (ex. 6). Si Searle prend en compte les informauons qm s'attachent au nom propre, ii n'analysc pas les consCquenccs rcfCfentielles des emplois modifies du nom propre. C'est surtout depuis qm:, sous !'impulsion de Kleiber (1981), l'erude du nom propre s'est affranchie des enjeux philosophico-logiques que !'on s'est inte!esse au scaruc refCrentiel et cognitif des informations vChicu!Cespar le nom propre mCtaphorique. De maniCre gCOC!ale,mais paradoxalcment et assez difforemment, les tenants du nom propre refC!entiel sc soot employCs i sousmure ces informations du cadre rifirentiel,puisquc le nom proprc devient alors prCdicat. Ainsi, pour Gary-Prieur (1994: 51), Jes informations transmises par le nom propre font partie du "contenu" du nom propre, et constirucnt une ''connaissance encyclopCdique" qui "se construit en dehors du discours", c'est-i-dirc non linguistiquc. Flaux fait de meme, mais rcconnait toutcfois la "frontierc ma! ddimitl!c entre cc qui re!Cvcdes eonnaissances linguistiques et cc qui re\Cve des connaissances encyclopCdiques" (1991: 44). Quant i Jonasson, clle considCre que le nom

Les noms proprcs ml!taphorigucs: aspects rCfercnticls et sCmantigues 409

proprc mCtaphoriquc met en jeu un "modCle mental" du referent (1994: 220), et done non sCmantique. A l'opposC, Hebert (1995: 116-117), appliquant au nom proprc lcs principes de la semantiquc interpretative de Rastier, separe drastiquement le nom propre de son rcfC!ent, done de l'acte de reffaence. Pour lui, route information attachCc au nom propre est d'ordre sCmique. II opCre la distinction cntrc Jes semes inhCrcnts (traits sCmantiques 111inin1a, tcls que le genre) et les sCmcs affefents qui sont !'expression sCmantiquc de toute information vChieulee par le nom propre. Dans unc optique diffl!rente, mais avec un resultat identique, Wilmet (1995) considCre le nom propre mctaphorique comme un "nom common accidentcl", done sCmantise comme une lexie commune. Ceuc opinion est Cgalement ccilc de Touratier (1994: 88), tandis que d'autres latinistes insistent sur le caractCre particulier et ambigu du nom mecaphorique (cf. Odandini (1995: 163); Biville (2001, 21)). La diffctence des approches acruelles implique done une veritable problematique, loin d'Ctre close, meme si, actuellemcnt, on assiste i une sortc de synrhese reconnaissant Jes diffCrents aspects semantiques et rCfcrcntiels de cct cmploi (cf. Flaux (2000)).

3. Le point d'ancrage referentiel du nom propre mCtaphorique Le principe fondamental de l'cmploi mecaphorique du nom est le phl!nomCnc de double rcfCrence: tandis tCa l'accusatif enferme mut le parcours, comprcnant notamment le point de dCpart et le point d'arrivCc. Et c'cst Iii.sa spCcificitC. Vcnons-en prCsent la duplication. Nous avons rccensi: tous Jes emplois all clle intcrvicnt dans le tableau 6:10

a

de ce tableau, la transitivation apparait comme rC1-,>'llliCrc pour les VP; die constitue meme un critt!rc dCfinitoire de deux sous-groupcs de vcrbes (VP et VPl\1). La confrontation des tableaux 1 et 5 montrc que seulcs deux occurrences de percurrone snnt pas transitives. ll nous apparticndra d'en rcndrc comptc. II nous resce i justifier les qudgues emplois 'transitifs' des VPF, cc qui va nous amener prCciser la specificite de l'accusatif rCgi par Jes VP. En cffet, pour les dcux sous-groupcs de vcrbes, le rept!rc dCnote un lieu. Mais de qucl lieu s'agit-il? Soit l'excmplc suivant, oll un VPF se construic directemcnc avec un accusatif non prepositionnd:

a

7. C'cM un point gCMCTalcmcnr adrrus dans la dc~cnption du fonctionncmrnt de la pri'.·vcrhation; vnir par cllcmplc l~rnout & Thomas (1953~:20-21). 8. DCiilfaudrai1-i! s'cntcndrc sur le~ ralmn~ de ccttc transit1vation. l.'cllphcation la plus comtnunCmcnt prnposCe s'appuic sur l'tdcnri!C de sigrufiam cotre prCposition et prCvcrbc. Le ra1snnnc• mcnt est alon; k suivant: pu1squc la prCpositinn apparcmCc au prCwrbc sc con~tnut avcc l'aclu~atif, le cas du complCmcnt du vcrhc prCvcrbe sera tout naturcllcmcnt l'accusatif. Cet1c po~itinn a C1Cencrgiquemcnt rcfu1Cc,prcu\·cs ii l'appui, par Scrbat (1998: 22S). De fai1, ii scmble diffic1lc d'admcttrc qu'unc prCposmon er un Clement 1mCgrC: au vcrbc pui,scm avoit le mCme fonct1onncmcntsyntaxiquc.

a

a

Tableau 6 'Duplication'

18 69 ----·------··

A la lecture

425

auteur Catulle Lucrece Ovide Properce Tibolle

Virgile

total

p,,cum, total VP

perlfuo pem,,no totalVPF

,,.,.,.,,,. "'"'""' totalVPM

totalgentlral

La duplication peut Ctre qualifiee de phCOomCnc marginal. Rlle ne conccrne quc le seul I ,ucrt:cc et se rcncontre clans les trois sous-groupes de verbes. Essayons de dCcrire plus prCcisemcnt son fonctionnemcnt.

9. J.c fait quc (yprondCsigoc unc ile ICginmcen qudquc sorte ccttc construction. 10. Nous n'avons pris en comptc que lcs c:tcmpb oU le ~rncagmc prCpositionncl inuodui1 par ptr consciruc le seul complCmcnt exprimC du verbe pI'CverbC.l.orsquc le vcrbe pnssCdc Cgalemcn1un complCmcnr ii l'accusatif (Luer. 6.952) ou un complCmcnt prCpositionnel introduit par ml (Luer. 4.940; Ov. Mrl. 8.89), nous avons cons1dcre 9u'il s'agissait d'occu«cnccs de \'Pou de VPF.

Sophie van Laer

Preverbation et 'duplication' en latin: l'exemple de per-

2. La duplication: donnees et description Avant de tenter d'expliquer les occurrences rencontrCcs clans notte corpus, nous voudrions rapidement presenter l'etat de la question d'un point de vue theoriquc, tcl que nous nous sommes efforcee de le rcconstituer.

Admettons que le prevecbe et la prCposition possCdcnt le meme signifiC. PerprCverbe exprime "le parcours d'un bout a l'autrc d'une limite double" (Pottier (1962: 282)), 11faudrait alors admettre que les sons accomplissent un parcours qui s'inscrit dans l'Cpaisseur des murs de pierre, c'est-3.-dire qui ne sort pas de ces murs, ce qui semble difficilement admissible. Les murs de picrre ne constituent pas davantage la borne finale du dCplacement: c'est justement la capacitC des sons extf:rieurs a franchir les murs et a t!tre audibles d'un temoin situC a l'interieur que cherche a souligner LucrCce. La preposition per realise un apport sCmantique: les sons, clans leur parcours, passent 'atravers' Jes murs de pierre. D'un point de vue syntaxique, c'est elle qui ri:git l'accusarif, Quant au prCverbe per•, ii dCnote un parcours orientC de I'emetteur du son au rCcepteur, parcours au cours duquel intervient ce franchissemcnt. Il y a done comp!CmencaritC des informations vChiculees par le prCvecbe et par la preposition, complementaritC qui se manifeste notamment par le fait que le parcours est horizontal, tandis que l'objet franchi est de dimension verticale. On poutrait cenir exactement le memc raisonnement pour pe,.,,,ano. Comment justifier !'absence de syntagme prCpositionnel exprimant le terme du parcours, alors mt!me que permanoest un VPF et que peruolitofonctionnc contextuellcment comme tcl? Si ce syntagmc Ctait exprimC, ii pourrait prendre la En l'occurrence, sa valeur informative est quasi-nulle. Si forme ad aure.r(nostras). franchir lcs murs, il est Cvident que quelqu'un, situC Jes sons parviennent l'intCricur d'une piece, pourra entendrc des sons venus de l'exl:cricur. Dans un souci d'economic et de concision, LucrCce privi!Cgie le complCment le plus chargC de valeuc informative. ExprimC-comme seul complement du verbe, per dis.ra~pta domorumsaxeaproduit l'cffct de sens 'franchlssement' bien rcndu clans la traduction d'Ernout. Nous voudrions soutenir notte propos par deux occurrences, qui ne mettent pas en jeu la duplication mais qui servent d'exemples a contrario.Soulignons d'abord que la 'double comp1Cmcntation' 14 d'un VPF est possible.

426

2.1. Etat de la question La 'duplication' est souvent envisagee clans une perspective diachronique. La question est alors de savoir quelles relations cntretiennent les particules adverbiales, Jes prepositions et les pl'everbes ec quel est leur ordre d'apparition respeccif clans la langue. 11 Dans cette tentative de reconstruction historique, la duplication, qui p!'Csente a la fois unc preposition et un preverbe de memc fonnc, apparait comme une construction hybridc pouvant servir de point de passage, d'Ctape. 12 Nous n'avons pas d'elements nouveaux a apporter ace de~ bat, notre approche Ctant cssentiellement synchromque. Un deuxiCme point concernant la duplication est souvent mis en avant, c'est son eventuel caracterc rcdondant, puisqu'un mt!me signifie scrait cxprimC deux fo1s.13 A cc propos, nous tenons a souligner que les occurrences rencontrCes illustrent sans doute fort ma! lcs hypotheses historiques, puisque la 9ucstion de la rcdondance pour les preverbes en per- dCnotant un dCplacement ne se pose jamais. 2.2. Etudc sur corpus Soic l'occutrence suivante (6) denique per dissaepta domorum saxea uoces peruolicant,pcrmanat odor frigusque uaposquc 1gnis,ciuifcrri guoquc uim pcnctrare suewt. (Luer. 6.951-953) 'Enfin lcs sons travcrsent de leur vol les cloisons en picrre de nos maisons, l'odeur se coule a travers leur massc, comme le froid, la chaleur du feu, qui pfoCtrc mCme le fer malgre toute sa rl:siscance.'

a

(7)

11 II c:st en gfoCral admis quc l'im de langue le plus ancicn nc wnnaissalt 9ue les particules adverbiales, qvi wnt cnsvitc Jcvenucs ~oit prl:positiom, soit pri:vcrbcs, scion qu'elles ont pris place dcvantlc: num ou devant le vcrbc (parc:xemplc Saussurc:(1968:247)).Mais ii a CtCreprochC aceue doctrine d'attrib1.1era l'indo-europi:en des fails observes en grcc homCriquc et qui ne s'averent pas du tout pertincnts pour le vedi9ue (criri9ue de Delbnick reprist: par Dunkel (1979:44) et Pinault (1995:53)).D'autrc pan, ii semble que certains preYerbes ou l'cmploi adnomma! de ccrtains adverbes sont hCritl:set r1::munt1::nt done a l'Ctat indo-europCcn (Pinault (I 995:53-57)). 12. Baldi (1979:57-58)exphquc ains1la naissance et le devdoppt:mem de la prCposition, en supposam un effacement ultCrieur du pri:verbe. Dunkel (1979:73) y voit l'ongme de ce 9u'il appdle 'preverb repetition' et qui consiste a coordonncr des noms en repecam le pri:verbe. 13. Dunkel (1979:64-65)parle de 'pleonastic prevcrb repetion', qu~! oppose aux 'chance collocations' (cuocurrences de caractere forruit), Baldi (I 979: 58) de construction hyper-caractl:risl:e et redondame. La qvescion de la reJondancc est i:g,ilement soulevCe par Lehmann (1983:152)qui prCc1sed'aJllCl1rs9vc !a duplication est rare avec per-.

427

a

fert sccum spolium celeris progressaque porta per medic,shostis (meriti fiducia tanta est) peruenit ad regcm; quern sic affata pauentem esr (Ov. Met. 8.87-89) 'Elle emporte rapidcment avec elle cette depouillc, elle franchit la pone de la ville et, passant au milieu des cnnemis (tant elle a de confiance dans le service qu'cllc \cur rend), cllc parvient auprCs de !cur roi; il est saisi d'horreur lorsqu'il l'entend dire.'

II s'agit de la trahison de Scylla qui livre a Minos un cheveu de pourpre arrachC au front de son pere. Le parcours de la jeune fille est dCcrit clans sa totalitC: la porte de la ville en est la borne initiale et le roi la borne finale. II C-taitimpossible 14. En toute ngucvr, cettc terminologic est 1mpropre, puisque sculad rep relCve de la strucrure actanc1elleduvcrbe.

428

Sophie van J,acr

Prt!verbation et 'duplication' en latin: l'exemple de per-

de faire l'Cconomic du terme du deplaccmcnt: la rcncontre avec le roi aurour de la9ucllc s'articule la suite du rCcit. Le syntagmc prepositionnd per n1edio1/Jostes n'apporte pas vfaitablcmcnt d'information, puisquc le lcctcur sait qu'll partir du moment oll elle quittc la villc de MCgare, elle pt!netre clans le camp cnncmi. II a plut6t unc valcur expressive qui soulignc l'audacc de la jcunc fillc et justifie le commcntaire du poete (111eriti Jiduda tan/a uf). D'autre part, memc lorsqu'il y a franchissemenr au cours du parcours, le complement introduit par perpcut nc pas €:ereexpnme: (8)

inter saepta meant uoccs et clausa domorum transuolitant, riSldum permanat frigus ad ossa, guod, nisi inania sint gua passim corpora guacguc transire, haud ulla ficri ratJonc uidcrcs. (Luer. 1.354"357) 'I .e son franchit Jes murs et vole ii. travers ks cloisons de nos demcures, !a ngueur du froid pCnCtre jusqu'll.nos os: et tous ces faits, sans l'cxistcncc de vidcs gui m1vrcnt un passage ii travcrs ks corps, jamais tune lcs vcrrais s'accomplir.'

Le complement ad ossamontre clairement quc le froid (ni,idumJrigus)s'introduit l'intCrieur du corps humain et rend inutile !'expression d'un syntagme prepositionnel en per.I ,c choix d 'exprimer seulcmcnt le terme du deplaccmcnt, alors mCmc qu'il y a franchisscmcnt, sc justifie selon nous par un souci d'expressivitC. LucrCcc Cvoque une sensation quc tout lecccur a pu eprouver. Sa dCmonstration, prenant appui sur l'cxpCrience humaine, n'cn est quc plus probante.

a

3. Description sCmantico-syntaxique de la preposition

de la cooccurrence

du preverbe et

Cinq autres occurrences pr6sentant unc duplication peuvent ctre expliqu6es de la meme maniere, cc qui nous permet de rendre comptc de sept de nos huic occurrences. (9)

et guamuis subito per colum uina U1demus perfluere; ... (Luer. 2.391-392) 'De mCme nous voyons le vin traverser le filtre en un instant; . (1()) ... at contra tardum cunctatur oliuom aut quia nimirum maioribus est elementis, aut magis hamatis inter se pergue plicatis, atque ideo fit uti non cam dtducta repente inter se possint primordia smgula quacque singula per cuiusque foramina permanare. (Luer. 2.392-397) ' ... au contratre l'huilc paresscuse ne passe qu'avec lcntcur: c'est Cvidemment gu'elle est formCe d'dCments plus grands, ou plus crochus et plus enchevetrCs, s1 bien qu'ils ne peuvcnt sc sCparer assez rapidement pour dCcouler un ii. un et sCparCment par chacun des pores qu'ils rencontrcnt.'

429

(11) quod si forte putas extrmsecus insinuatam permanarc ammam nobis per mcmbra solcre (Luer. 3.698-699) 'Vas-tu t'imagincr gu'introduite du dehors, !'ii.me se coulc cumme un fluide ii. travers nos membrcs?' (12) (simulacra) demde guod usque adeo rextura praedita rara miuuntur, facile ut quasuis penetrare gueant res, et quasi permanare per aeris intcruallum. (Luer. 4.196-198) 'ensuite parcc qu'ils [= ks s1mulacres] som Cmis formCs d'un ussu si liiche qu'1ls peuvcnt a1sCmentpCnCtrcr panour et, pour ainsi dire, sc coulcr dans Jes vides de l'air.' (13) (imago). nam cum mittitur, extemplo protrudtt agitque aera qui inter se cumgue est oculosque locatus, isgue ita per nostras acics perlabitur omnis, et quasi pertergct pup1lla atque transit. (Luer. 4.246-249) 15 'En cffet O'imagc), aussitOt Cmise, poussc et chasse en avant tout \'air interpose entrc cllc et nos yeux; cet air chassC se rCpand Jans nos yeux; son flot baigne nos pupilleset passe.' Rappdons brievcmcnt les C!Cments de notre explication: - la presence d'un syntagme prepositionncl sc justific par le fait quc le pan:uurs, dCOotC par le preverbe per-,comporte un franchisscment; - le synta1,>me prCposidonncl en perprCcisc qudlc est !'entice franchie ou encore le passage pcrmcttant de franchir cettc entitC: (10) et (12); - du point de vuc spatial, lorsque le parcours est horizontal, l'cntitC franchie est de dimension verticale. Inversement, le parcours peut avoir une orientation verticale, nocamment clans le cas d'un liquide, et !'obstacle ll. franchir se presenter horizontalemcnt: (9); - ii n'y a done aucunement redondance, mais comp!CmentaritC 1. par per et !'effacement du terme du mouvcment s'expliquc par la valeur informative ou expressive du premier, qui permet de faire l'Cconomie du second; - !'effacement du terme du deplacement pour un VPF ptoduit l'effet de scns 'franchisscment'. Ii nous reste preciser une derniCre caracreristique. La cooccurrence du preverbe per- et de la preposition de mCme signifiant tellc que nous l'avons