Universal Grammar in the Reconstruction of Ancient Languages 9783110902228, 9783110185508

Citation preview

Universal Grammar in the Reconstruction of Ancient Languages

W G DE

Studies in Generative Grammar 83

Editors

Henk van Riemsdijk Jan Köster Harry van der Hulst

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Universal Grammar in the Reconstruction of Ancient Languages

edited by r

Katalin E. Kiss

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter G m b H & Co. KG, Berlin.

The series Studies in Generative Grammar was formerly published by Foris Publications Holland.

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

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

Universal grammar in the reconstruction of ancient languages / edited by Katalin E. Kiss. p. cm. — (Studies in generative grammar ; 83) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-3-11-018550-8 (cloth) ISBN-10: 3-11-018550-4 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Grammar, Comparative and general. 2. Extinct languages. I. Kiss, Katalin Ε. II. Series. P151.U55 2005 415—dc22 2005025876

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche

Bibliothek

Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at .

ISBN-13: 978-3-11-018550-8 ISBN-10: 3-11-018550-4 © Copyright 2005 by Walter de Gruyter G m b H & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

Contents

Introduction Katalin E. Kiss The correlation between word order alternations, grammatical agreement and event semantics in Older Egyptian Chris H. Reintges

1

31

The nominal cleft construction in Coptic Egyptian Chris H. Reintges, Aniko Liptak and Lisa Lai Shen Cheng

105

Genitive constructions in Coptic Barbara Egedi

137

Left-dislocated possessors in Sumerian Gäbor Zölyomi

161

Complex predicate structure and pluralised events in Akkadian Christian Huber

189

VSO and left-conjunct agreement: Biblical Hebrew vs. Modern Hebrew Edit Dor on

239

IE *weid- as a root with dual subcategorization features in the Homeric poems Annamaria Bartolotta

265

The syntax of Classical Greek infinitive Vassilios Spyropoulos

295

Latin object and subject infinitive clauses Lucio Melazzo

339

vi

Contents

Latin word order in generative perspective: An explanatory proposal within the sentence domain Chiara Polo Some firm points on Latin word order: The left periphery Giampaolo Salvi

373

429

Classical Sanskrit, "wild trees", and the properties of free word order languages Brendan Gillon and Benjamin Shaer

457

A particular coordination structure of Indo-European flavour

495

Emanuele Lanzetta and Lucio

Melazzo

Index

519

List of contributors

525

Introduction Katalin Ε. Kiss

1. Goals and methods Generative linguistics aims to describe the linguistic faculty of human individuals. The generative grammar of a language models the internal grammar of a native speaker, i.e., his/her ability to construct and understand every possible sentence of the given language, to judge the grammaticality of utterances, and to formulate intuitions about their structures. Generative linguistic theory also formulates hypotheses about how the internal grammar of human individuals is attained. Language faculty is seen as a genetically given endowment of the human species. The initial state of language faculty, called Universal Grammar, determines the class of possible languages. In the Principles and Parameters approach, Universal Grammar is a set of universal principles and a finite array of options as to how they apply. Language differences derive from particular choices of values of parameters. In the course of language acquisition, values of parameters are set on the basis of exposure to utterances of the given language. The construction of the generative grammar of a language is a deductive process, in the course of which hypotheses are formulated concerning the structures of the language and the procedures of generating them, and the predictions of the hypotheses are compared with the actual linguistic data produced by native speakers. The non-occurrence of a predicted construction can always be an accidental gap - therefore, when testing a hypothesis, it is crucial to check with native informants if every possible construction derivable from, or allowed by, the given hypothesis is accepted by them, and every construction excluded by the given hypothesis is rejected. Starred, i.e., rejected, examples represent an indispensable element of the deductive analysis. The deductive method, involving recurring cycles of constructing a model, testing it by examining its positive and negative predictions, and then refining it, lead to a much higher degree of descriptive adequacy than can be attained by traditional grammars compiled inductively.

2

Katalin Ε. Kiss

Ancient languages apparently resist a generative description. If the goal of generative language description is the modelling of an individual's internal grammar, then it might, indeed, seem questionable if this goal can be meaningfully pursued in the case of individuals deceased thousands of years ago. It is not immediately obvious, either, that what we have to describe in the case of an ancient language is an infinite set of sentences; in fact, we have a finite set of written data at our disposal, which seem to be managable by an inductive analysis. The lack of informants, i.e., the impossibility of obtaining grammaticality judgments and rejected examples, also suggests that a deductive approach would be not only unnecessary but also impossible. The inductive analysis of closed corpora has been the methodology adopted in traditional analyses of ancient languages. This methodology, however, has its limitations. What it can achieve is basically the listing and interpretation of the morphemes of a language. Thus it has been successful in identifying grammatical categories, in compiling morphological paradigms of verb conjugations and noun declinations, in distinguishing tenses, moods, cases, and agreement markers. It has also been able to establish grammatical relations, i.e., to link heads with complements, and to distinguish complements of different grammatical functions. However, there are also problems which cannot be tackled by the traditional method. An obvious difficulty is the problem of gaps, possible mistakes, and idiosyncracies in the data available. For an inductive analysis, it is often impossible to decide whether a construction unattested is an accidental gap or something excluded by the grammar. Similarly, it may be impossible to tell if an unusual piece of data is a mistake of an ancient scribe, an idiosyncracy elicited by the restrictions of versification, or a rare but perfectly grammatical construction. The greatest problem for the grammarian of a dead language is the fact that the data - whether scarce or abundant - always underdetermine grammar. This problem is particularly severe in the case of dead languages like Sumerian or Akkadian, which had to be deciphered again completely - in contrast to ancient languages which have been sustained by cultic and scholarly traditions, or which have in some sense survived in their descendant languages. The difficulties of reconstructing the grammar of an ancient language resemble the difficulties that a child experiences when reconstructing the grammar of its mother tongue. A child acquiring its mother tongue, too, has access only to a limited - and sometimes defective - set of positive evidence (the correction of the child's mistakes by adults is by no means a necessary element of language acquisiton). If the two processes are similar,

Introduction

3

then the methodology adopted in the reconstruction of the grammar of an ancient language must also be similar to that employed by a child in the course of language acquisition. What the child does is interpret the data it has access to on the basis of the genetically coded Universal Grammar that it possesses. This is what the linguist setting out to reconstruct the grammar of a dead language must do, as well; he or she must interpret the data available as indications of how the open parameters of Universal Grammar are to be set. Naturally, a linguist is in a more difficult situation than a child because what the linguist can work with is not Universal Grammar itself but only a model of it whose correspondence to the implicit knowledge of a child is an open question. Nevertheless, hypotheses concerning Universal Grammar seem to be well-established enough to make such a project a worthwhile experiment. The studies of this volume aim to demonstrate that descriptive problems which proved to be unsolvable for the traditional, inductive approach to ancient languages can be reduced to the interaction of regular operations and constraints of the hypothetical Universal Grammar. The proposed analyses of ancient languages as instantiations of Universal Grammar also bear on linguistic theory. In addition to confirming or refuting certain specific hypotheses, they provide clear empirical evidence of the perhaps most basic tenet of generative theory, according to which Universal Grammar is part of the genetic endowment of the human species - that is, human languages do not "develop" parallel with the development of human civilization. The languages examined in this volume were spoken several thousand years ago. The Egyptian and Sumerian texts to be analyzed can be as much as 5000 years old, and the first Akkadian records are also only slightly younger. As will become clear from the studies of this volume, the grammars of these languages do not differ in any relevant respect from the grammars of languages spoken today.

2. Predecessors The view that ancient languages can be modelled successfully in the generative framework despite the lack of native speakers has been shared by a number of linguists ever since the ninteen sixties. Some scholars assumed that the lack of native speakers can be made up for by a corpus of adequate size and variation (Ehlich 1981), while others claimed that they had developed a native-like intuition in the language studied by them (Pillinger 1980).

4

Katalin Ε. Kiss

It has been mainly Latin whose grammatical phenomena have been subjected to generative analyses. The first major generative study of Latin syntax was Robin L a k o f f s book on Latin complementation (1968), discussing various types of finite and non-finite complement clauses, and the licensing of various moods. In the seventies and early eighties, the period of the emergence of Government and Binding Theory, problems of Latin infinitival phrases aroused interest, which has persisted up until today. Pepicello (1977) analyzed accusative with infinitive as Subject-to-Object Raising, and his views elicited alternative proposals by Bolkenstein (1979), Pillinger (1980), and Wales (1982). Questions of accusative with infinitive constructions, for example, the source of the accusative case, kept recurring also in the proceedings of a series of International Colloquia on Latin Linguistics, edited by Pinkster (1983), Touratier (1985), Calboli (1989), and Herman (1994). Maraldi (1983), for example, identifyied Acl as Exceptional Case Marking, licensed by S' deletion; however, she also noticed instances of Acl occurring in the context of a passive matrix verb. The same problem was also addressed by Calboli (1983, 1989), and recently by Cecchetto and Oniga (2002). Areas of Latin syntax examined in the generative framework include the case system - see Binkert (1970) and Murru (1977). Maurel (1983, 1989) discussed problems of Latin relativization. Bertocchi and Casadio (1983), and Bertocchi (1989) dealt with questions of binding, particularly with the Latin se and suus, which are anaphors that can be bound not only locally but also at a long distance. Salvi (1996) and Giusti (2001) examined the Latin pronominal system from a historical perspective, as the predecessor of the Romance systems of strong, weak, and clitic pronouns and the Romance article. Basic questions of Latin syntax concerning sentence structure, word order variation, its derivation, and its discourse functions were addressed by Ostafin (1986), Salvi (1999/forthcoming), and Polo (2003). Benucci (1996) analyzed Umber, a close relative of Latin. Recently issues of Latin morphosyntax have gained significance, particularly in the framework of Distributed Morphology - see Embick's derivation of the synthetic and analytic forms of the perfect (2000), and Embick and Halle's analysis of the Latin conjugation (1999). Oniga (2004) provides a generative analysis of the major morphological and syntactic structures of Latin. Studies of Ancient Greek in the generative literature had been sporadic up until recently. The analysis of agreeing predicative adjectives in non-finite clauses by Andrews (1971) provided important evidence for the presence of a covert subject in infinitives, and contributed to the shaping of control and

Introduction

5

raising theory. Lightfoot (1975) devoted a whole book to the analysis of Classical Greek complementation and the Greek mood system. Interest in Classical Greek has become more intensive since Modern Greek syntax has been subjected to thorough analyses in the generative framework. The first major result of the renewed interest in Classical Greek was Morrell (1989). Taylor (1990, 1996) analyzed sentence structure, DP-structure, and clitic position in Ancient Greek, whereas Taylor (1994) dealt with the change of Ancient Greek word order from OV to VO. Philippaki-Warburton and Catsimali (1997), and Tantalou (2003) focus on problems of infinitival phrases, among them the case assigned to the subject of infinitives. The dissertation of Garret (1990) examined various syntactic problems of Anatolian (Hittite), particularly those concerning pronominal clitics. Kiparsky (1995) called Pänini's grammar of Sanskrit "the most complete generative grammar of any language yet written". No wonder few Indologists felt the need of adopting the methodology and terminology of contemporary generative grammar. The best-known exceptions are the dissertations of Hale (1987) and Schäufele (1990). In addition to basic questions of sentence structure, word order, and discourse functions, clitic placement has been examined in a number of papers (see Hale 1990, 1991, 1993, 1996; and Schäufele 1993, 1996). The way of influence between IndoIranian philology and generative theory has been bidirectional; Pänini's grammar has also enriched generative theory - primarily through a series of studies by Kiparsky (Kiparsky and Staal 1969; Kiparsky 1979-80, 1982, 1995). Apart from two papers on Sumerian by Gragg, discussing the Sumerian copula (Gragg 1968), and some basic issues of Sumerian constituent structure as well as general questions of traditional philology and transformational grammar (Gragg 1973), and apart from a book on Akkadian syntax and morphology by Groneberg (1987), the only generative syntactic studies of Sumerian and Akkadian are the papers of Christian Huber (1989-90; 1996; and forthcoming) and Gabor Zolyomi (1996), whose work is also represented in the present volume. The best-known example of the analysis of a syntactic phenomenon of Biblical Hebrew in the generative framework is Doron (2000), a paper also reprinted in this volume. Other major sources of the generative analysis of Biblical Hebrew syntax are the dissertation of Vincent de Caen (1995), examining the structural position and interpretation of the verb, and the dissertation of Robert Holmstedt (2002), a Minimalist study of relativization.

6

Katalin Ε. Kiss

In Egyptology, it is Chris Reintges, also an author of the present volume, who has adopted the methodology of generative linguistics - see Reintges (1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, etc.).

3. The problems addressed The studies in this volume analyze syntactic and morphosyntactic phenomena from various areas of grammar. Many of these phenomena represent old problems, inexplicable idiosyncracies for the philologies of ancient languages; others (e.g. word order variation) have not even been acknowledged as questions to be accounted for in the course of grammatical description. The analyses of these problems as instantiations of options provided by Universal Grammar shed light on previously unrecognized structures, operations, and constraints of the languages in question. The proposed analyses also provide valuable new data and new insights for the set of hypotheses constituting Universal Grammar. The linguistic facts discussed, taken from Sumerian, an isolated language, Akkadian, an East Semitic language, Biblical Hebrew, a Northwest Semitic language, Older Egyptian and Coptic Egyptian, which represent two stages of a separate branch of the Afro-Asiatic family, and the Indo-European Sanskrit, Classical Greek, and Latin, most of which have been inaccessible to generative theory before, contribute to the understanding of basic questions of syntactic theory such as the licensing of structural case, the motivation of movement operations, the structure of coordinated phrases, the role of event structure in syntax, etc. The studies of the volume also set forth interesting problems for further research, in addition to the issues addressed in detail. For example, the extended Sumerian verb projection, also harboring a great number of clitics at various places, seems to be more complex than any other verbal projection studied in the generative framework. Here is a brief overview of the main empirical and theoretical problems that the chapters of this book discuss, and the kind of analyses that they propose.

Introduction

7

3.1. Accusative with infinitive without ECM and without object control In generative syntactic theory, in which nominative case is licensed - assigned or checked - by finite inflection, a non-finite verb can only have an overt, case-marked subject if the subject bears accusative case licensed by a prepositional complementizer or by the matrix verb. A condition of caselicensing by the matrix verb is that the infinitival phrase project no CP. As Chomsky (1981: 140) observes in a footnote, however, "the case of accusative subjects of infinitives in Greek or Latin remains more problematic". Two papers of this volume, The syntax of Classical Greek infinitive by Vassilios Spyropoulos, and Latin object and subject infinitive clauses by Lucio Melazzo, are devoted to the theoretical and descriptive problems caused by Classical Greek and Latin accusative with infinitive constructions. As they demonstrate, both Classical Greek and Latin infinitives can have an accusative subject also in constructions in which neither of the two conditions of accusative licensing by the matrix verb is satisfied: the matrix verb is intransitive, or the infinitive phrase is in subject or adjunct position, and furthermore, there is evidence of the infinitival clause also projecting a CP - even if no visible complementizer is present. The possibility of object control, i.e., the accusative noun phrase complementing the matrix verb, and controlling a PRO subject, can also be excluded; the accusative noun phrase clearly occupies the subject position of the infinitival clause. In Classical Greek, an accusative subject can even appear in the infinitival subject position of so-called genitive with infinitive and dative with infinitive constructions, in addition to the genitive or dative matrix argument normally understood to represent the subject of the infinitive. For example: (1)

deomai hymo.n [pro beg-I you-GEN.PL pro-ACC Ί beg you to become a doctor.'

iastrous doctor-ACC.PL

genesthai] become

Classical Greek being a pro-drop language, the pronominal subject of the infinitive is phonologically empty, but its accusative case is clearly indicated by the accusative of the predicate complement, which always agrees in case with the subject of its clause. For the traditional approach, the appearance of the accusative case e.g. on the predicate complement in (1), categorized as a 'genitive with infinitive', is inexplicable. For the generative approach, the question is what licences a case-marked subject in the embedded CP in (1), and what is the source of

8

Katalin Ε. Kiss

its accusative case. A further theoretical problem is the apparently optional alternation between an accusative subject and a controlled PRO in Greek infinitival clauses. Latin infinitival clauses sometimes even display a nominative subject/accusative subject alternation - as illustrated by (2a,b): (2)

a. Dicitur eo tempore matrem Pausaniae vixisse is.said that time mother-ACC of.Pausanias to-have-lived 'Pausanias' mother(-ACC) is said to have lived in that period.' b. quem quidem... per sequi Caesar dicitur whom in.truth to-pursue Caesar-NOM is.said 'whom Caesar(-NOM) is said to pursue'

Spyropoulos and Melazzo seek answers to the problems raised by Ancient Greek and Latin accusative with infinitive constructions along similar lines; they identify a head in the complementizer domain of the infinitival clause as a case licenser. As Spyropoulos convincingly argues, the source of the accusative case of the infinitival subject in ancient Greek is the infinitival complementizer, Cfin. Greek infinitives are marked for tense, hence Cf,n, agreeing with the infinitival inflection, also carries a [+Tense] feature. The [+Tense] feature of Cfin can also have a parasitic [Agr] feature bundle associated with it. If the overt DP or pro subject of the infinitive cannot establish a checking relation either with Inflection (because it is [+Tense] but [-Agr]), or with a matrix controller (e.g. because of an intervening CP projection), it is the [Agr] feature bundle of Cfj„ that is at hand to licence an accusative case on it. In Latin, the infinitive phrase is often coindexed with a 3rd person singular pronoun, which leads Melazzo to the hypothesis that the infinitival CP (similar to an object i/zai-clause) is base-generated in the complement position of a DP, with the pronoun (or an empty pro) occupying the specifier of DP. The case assigner of the infinitival subject is the FIN head of the CP-domain (the same head that is called Cfin by Spyropoulos). Melazzo claims that the bundle of features substantiating FIN includes a specification for case, which is activated when the case of the subject cannot be licensed in the IP-layer. Interestingly, the subject of the infinitive is in the nominative in the case of root infinitives, or those introduced by a temporal adjunct. This is accounted for by the assumption that the case-feature of FIN is [+Accusative] only if FIN is characterized as [+complement] (representing a complement to D); it is [+Nominative] otherwise.

Introduction

9

Subject infinitive clauses complementing a D are also predicted to have an accusative subject, as in (2a) above. (2b), involving a subject infinitive clause with a nominative subject, is analyzed as a kind of subject raising. In such structures, the specifier of the DP harboring the infinitive clause is claimed to be generated empty, and to serve as a landing site for the subject of the infinitive, which thereby picks up the nominative case of the matrix subject.

3.2. The structure and the motivation of possessive constructions with an external possessor The fact that the possessor can appear either as a determiner of the possession, or as an extracted complement, or an adjunct external to the projection of the possession is well-known from a number of languages. Since the case-ending or the preposition of an external possessor is often different from that of an internal one, the recognition of an external possession construction can be a very difficult descriptive problem. External possessors also raise theoretical questions such as what triggers the external ization of a possessor, and how an external possessor construction is derived. Two papers of the volume are devoted to problems of the possessive construction. Gabor Zolyomi's paper paper entitled Left-dislocated possessors in Sumerian discusses two different Sumerian constructions with a topicalized external possessor. In one of them, called the anticipatory genitive construction, the left-dislocated possessor bears the genitive case, and is coindexed with a possessive pronoun internal to the projection of the possession. The possessor and the possessive pronoun coindexed with it need not be subjacent; for instance, in one of the examples discussed, the possessor in the left periphery of the matrix clause is coindexed with a possessive pronoun in a relative clause. The lack of subjacency and the resumptive pronoun strategy are interpreted as evidence that the anticipatory genitive construction is a base-generated construction, involving no movement. In the other possessive construction with a left-dislocated possessor, the so-called external possession construction, the left-dislocated possessor, though copied by a possessive pronoun in the projection of the possession, is not in the genitive case but bears the same syntactic case as the possession itself. This construction can be used in the case of an inalienable possession. Interestingly, the verb agrees with the external possessor instead of the head of the possessive construction.

10

Katalin Ε. Kiss

The external possession construction is often masked by various surface phenomena. On the one hand, the identical syntactic cases of the possessor and the possessum can be realized by different morphological cases - given that some adverbial cases may be supplemented by the dative case on noun phrases with a human referent. On the other hand, when the external possessor is identical with the topic of the previous sentence, it is phonologically empty, in which case it can only be reconstructed from a verbal prefix agreeing with it. Thus, discovering the underlying syntactic structure of sentences of this type also solves philological, interpretational problems of Sumerian. Zolyomi derives the properties observed of the external possession construction as follows: The possessor bears the same case as the possession because they represent the same argument of the verb, forming a kind of an appositive construction. The external possession construction is restricted to cases of inalienable possession because the condition of such an appositive construction is the referential non-distinctness of its members. Barbara Egedi's paper entitled Genitive constructions in Coptic compares two possessive constructions of Coptic, examining how they are structured, and in what way their structures determine their distributions. As Egedi demonstrates, both possessive constructions involve a 'possession, genitive marker, possessor' string; however, in pattern A, the genitive marker of the possessor is a genitive case-ending, while in pattern Β it is a preposition; furthermore, in pattern A the adjacency of the possession and the possessor is obligatory, while in pattern B, it is optional.The choice between pattern A and pattern Β depends on the syntactic properties of the possession. The case-marked possessor of pattern A is used if the possession has a mere definite article. If the possession is indefinite, or if it has a demonstrative definite determiner, or is modified by an adjective, the prepositional possessor of pattern Β must be used. So as to derive the attested properties of pattern A, Egedi generates the genitive-marked possessor in the specifier of the possession NP, as an alternative to the indefinite article. The NP is claimed to be subsumed by a PossP, with the Ν raised to Poss, and then to Num, and with the possessor raised to Spec,PossP. The possessor has a weak [+def] feature, which triggers no overt possessor movement to the DP domain, but ensures that the D head be realized as a default definite determiner - thereby also excluding the possibility of a demonstrative determiner in D. That is:

Introduction

11

(3)

def. art. possessor] t, possessiorij In pattern B, on the other hand, the possessor is generated as a PP adjunct right-adjoined to the possession noun phrase, where it can also be subjected to extraposition. As an adjunct, it does not interact with the [+/-definitene] feature of the possession; so it is predicted to be compatible with any type of determiner.

3.3. Word order variation Word order variation has been interpreted by traditional philology of Classical Greek and Latin roots as a freedom of word order, that is, a phenomenon of language which is not regulated by rules, hence falls outside the realm of grammar. The Päninian approach to Classical Sanskrit - though essentially generative in its spirit - also shares this assumption of traditional philology; it does not have anything to say about the word order of the Sanskrit sentence. Generative theory, on the other hand, has always had doubts about the existence of genuinely free word order languages. Evidence of subject-object asymmetries in English led to the hypothesis that the subject is universally more prominent than the constituent subsuming the verb and the object, hence it is always realized external to the V+O or O+V complex. The apparent freedom of word order in a language is the result of reordering rules. Brendan Gillon and Benjamins Shaer's paper entitled Classical Sanskrit, 'wild trees', and the properties of free word order languages argues

12

Katalin Ε. Kiss

that the underlying constituent order in the Classical Sanskrit sentence is genuinely free; at the same time, subconstituents displaced to the left and right periphery also provide evidence of movement. That is, Gillon and Shaer challenge both Sanskrit philologists and generative syntacticians. They show to Sanskritologists that the generation of word order, that is, the linearization of the verb and its complements, is a grammatical question no matter how flexible the linearization rules be. Furthermore, Sanskrit sentences with discontinuous constituents clearly display patterns of movement licensed by Universal Grammar, constrained by Subjacency, to landing sites on the left and right periphery of the sentence. Constituents affected by m o v e m e n t to the peripheries appear to be associated with particular discourse functions, however, in Gillon and Shaer's view, the syntactic and the information-packaging systems of grammar are autonomous, hence it is legitimate to examine the former with no regard to the latter. The basic new claim that Gillon and Shaer confront generative syntacticians with is the assumption of a genuinely free underlying order of major constituents in the Sanskrit sentence. Reviving and modifying the so-called 'wild tree' theory of Staal (1967), they claim that the Classical Sanskrit clause is generated in one step, with all the major constituents merged into an unordered flat tree. They raise the possibility that this unordered flat tree might represent a universal underlying structure. In this view, articulating constituents in a binary branching hierarchy is a further step licensed - but not enforced - by Universal Grammar, which English does, and Sanskrit does not, adopt. Structures in which the verb and all its complements are sisters to each other have also been argued for before - see e.g. Bresnan (1982), Hale (1983), E. Kiss (1987), etc. The Gillon-Shaer theory is more radical than previous proposals in that it does not even assume a fixed position for the head in the initial tree. In current main-stream generative theory, word order variation that is not elicited by morphological or scope requirements is seen to be motivated by discourse considerations. The two main clues of identifying discourse functions are prosody, which cannot be investigated in the case of dead languages at all, and semantic interpretation, which cannot be reconstructed with full certainty, either. Chiara Polo and Giampaolo Salvi focus on the methodological questions of discovering discourse-motivated reordering operations in a dead language, and also prove that surface variation in Latin word order can be reduced to an invariant underlying order, and to topicalization and focussing rules also known from other languages.

Introduction

13

In her paper entitled Latin word order in generative perspective: An explanatory proposal within the sentence domain, Chiara Polo introduces an ingenious method of reconstructing the missing semantic and prosodic judgments of Latin native speakers. She chooses a Latin text, Cena Trimalchionis by Petronius, which describes an event involving characters, situations, and happenings that are also familiar to the modern reader, and she identifies discourse functions in its sentences on the basis of the Italian translation. Polo's hypothesis is that the Italian translator has interpreted the series of events described in the Latin text the same way as the ancient author and the ancient readers did, and has formulated the corresponding sentences of the Italian translation so as to convey the same discourse functions, by means of the same discourse-motivated reordering rules. As a first step of the comparison of Latin and Italian, Polo establishes the unmarked word orders of the two languages. 70% of the 823 Latin sentences examined are SOV, and 77% of the corresponding Italian sentences are SVO. The statistical analysis is supplemented with a qualitative examination of the sentences, which shows that neutral imports are mapped into an (S)OV structure in 90% of the cases in Latin, while they are mapped invariably into an (S)VO structure in Italian - so these prevailing patterns are assumed to represent the basic word orders. It is the 30% of Latin sentences with a word order other than SOV which - or a subset of which - are expected to be derived by reordering rules targeting constituents specified as [+contrastive focus], [+emphasis], [+topic], or [+heavy]. The carriers of these features are recognized on the basis of the context, and on the basis of the Italian translations. Polo hypothesizes that constituents in non-basic positions marked for these features occupy the same peripheral positions that are licensed by Universal Grammar in present-day Italian. The reordering rules identified include right- and left-dislocation, lefthand and righthand focalization, and heavy-NP shift, in addition to various types of V-fronting, e.g. V-to-Foc and V-to-C movement. Giampaolo Salvi's paper entitled 'Some firm points on Latin word order: the left periphery' aims to identify the left-peripheral structural positions that serve as landing sites of the movement rules described in Polo's paper. Salvi relies on a very complex array of distributional evidence, which he interprets and evaluates on the basis of assumptions of Universal Grammar. Salvi demonstrates the methodology of identifying left-peripheral structural positions on material from Medieval Romance, a descendant of the Latin language. In Medieval Romance two preverbal slots with different properties can be distinguished: a clause-initial PI position, and an imme-

14

Katalin Ε. Kiss

diately preverbal P2 slot. A direct object in PI does, a direct object in P2 does not, trigger clitic doubling. If the preverbal constituent occupies PI, the clitics are adjoined to the V. If, on the other hand, the preverbal constituent is in P2, the clitics are adjoined to the constituent in P2. PI is typically interpreted as a topic or a frame adverbial, whereas P2 is usually a wh-phrase or a focus, even if it can also be a topic. (Salvi raises the possibility that P2 in fact corresponds to two positions, a topic slot and a focus slot, which can be filled alternatively.) Some facts of Latin suggest that Latin sentence structure instantiates a version of the sentence structure that can be reconstructed for Medieval Romance. That is, it appears that the Latin sentence contains a focus projection (FP) and a topic projection (TopP) on top of IP. The filler of Spec,TopP/Pl can be doubled by a clause-internal pronoun, and cannot support a clitic. The position of the clitics (the Wackernagel position) is to be found after the constituent in Spec,FP/P2, or if no FP is projected, after the first constituent of IP. At the same time, not all Latin sentences seem to observe the distributional restrictions and correlations described above. For example, the left-peripheral constituent in the following example both has a pronominal double, like a constituent in Spec,TopP/Pl, and is immediately followed by the pronominal double, like a constituent in Spec,FP/P2. (4) sed urbana plebes, ea vero praeceps erat de multis causis but urban populace it in.truth precipitate was for many.ABL reasons 'But the city populace in particular acted with desperation for many reasons' Salvi, attempting to assimilate the structure in (4) to the general pattern, takes a closer look at the pronoun in it. As is well-known from the comparative analyses of pronominals, e.g. from Cardinaletti and Starke (1995), pronouns occur in two or three versions in a language: they can be strong, or weak, and some languages also have clitic pronouns. Whether or not strong and weak pronouns differ in form, they have different distributions and different syntactic properties. Strong pronouns function as contrastive topics, new topics, or foci. Only anaphoric pronouns are weak. In various Romance languages descending from Latin, strong and weak pronouns have different forms. This difference must have had its origin in Latin. That is, both universal considerations and historical facts suggest that Latin must also have distinguished strong and weak pronouns, even if they appeared identical in the written language. Thus a pronoun like ea could, in principle,

Introduction

15

represent either a weak or a strong form. The ea in (4) must be strong, because it supports the enclitic vero. In view of these, the structure in (4) does not contradict the hypothesized sentence structure any more; the pronoun doubling the topic constituent is a strong pronoun occupying Spec,IP, hence it is not subject to the constraints on weak pronoun placement. The left periphery of embedded clauses is somewhat more complex than the [ΤΟΡΡ· · · [ F P - · · [IP [VP··· structure identified in main sentences; an embedded clause also contains a clause-initial relative WH-element, or a pre- or post-topic complementizer. In order to provide place for these constituents, Salvi supplements his left periphery-model along the lines proposed by Rizzi (1997). In Rizzi's theory, the complementizer domain of the sentence has three layers, to be occupied by a relative WH-element, a topic, and a focus, respectively. The complementizer can appear in the head position of any of these projections. (In fact, in Latin it has to be ensured that the complementizer precede the filler of Spec,FP, i.e., it occupy the head of the projection harboring the relative WH-phrase or that harboring the topic.) In embedded clauses the complementizer also provides an additional target for weak pronoun placement. Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng, Aniko Liptäk, and Chris Reintges's paper entitled The nominal cleft construction in Coptic Egyptian analyzes a focussing device of Coptic which is also known from many present-day languages of the world. Its discourse function being clear, the investigation aims to establish how the parameters involved in the formation of the construction are to be set so that the restrictions attested fall out. These are the following : (i) The cleft constituent is a DP in the left periphery of the sentence, (ii) The backgrounded proposition is represented by a relative clause whose relative pronominal element is coindexed with the cleft constituent. In subject relatives the relative pronoun is empty, otherwise it is a resumptive pronoun in situ, (iii) The element linking the cleft constituent and the backgrounded proposition is a deictic pronoun agreeing in number and gender with the cleft constituent. The authors claim that the Coptic nominal cleft construction is to be derived from a small clause, with the cleft constituent functioning as its subject, and the relative clause functioning as its predicate. This explains why the cleft constituent cannot be anything but a DP. The relative clause has a relative operator in situ, represented by a resumptive pronoun. The authors adopt an analysis in which the pronominal operator undergoes movement to Spec,CP in narrow syntax; at PF, however, the lower copy of

16

Katalin Ε. Kiss

the operator-variable chain is spelled out. Subject relatives, on the other hand, need not move since they are local to the C position also when left in situ. They can remain empty because the adjacent relative complementizer in C allows them to remain empty - as is also attested in many other languages. The deictic element copying the number and gender features of the cleft constituent is generated in the head position of the small clause (AgrP) in which the cleft construction originates. It functions there as an agreement clitic that overtly marks the subject-predicate relation between the clefted NP and the relative clause. The focus interpretation of the cleft constituent is a consequence of the fact that the small clause constituted by the cleft constituent, the deictic copula, and the relative clause is embedded under a focus projection. The head of the focus phrase has an uninterpretable focus feature, which attracts the subject of the small clause to Spec,FocP.

3.4. Morphosyntactically motivated word order variation Two papers of the volume, The correlation between word order alternations, grammatical agreement and event semantics in Older Egyptian by Chris H. Reintges, and VSO and Left-conjunct Agreement: Biblical Hebrew versus Modern Hebrew by Edit Doron, deal with VSO-SVO word order variations. Both of the studies derive the variation from a lexical idiosyncracy: the lack or presence of an EPP feature on a functional category extending the verb phrase. Both of them also relate the variation to subjectverb agreement, linking VSO to the lack of agreement, and SOV to the presence of it. However, whereas in Reintges's theory, it is agreement that determines SVO order (SVO being a consequence of the EPP feature of Agreement), in Doron's approach it is the other way round; it is the SVO order (triggered by an optional EPP feature of Tense) that elicits agreement. Reintges argues that in Older Egyptian, the VSO-SVO word order variation is not random but is linked to the type of the eventuality; sentences describing an event have a VSO word order, whereas those expressing a state are SVO. This distribution of preverbal and postverbal subjects might recall a theory elaborated by Kratzer (1995), Maleczki (1999), and others, according to which sentences with an event variable can have a spatiotemporal expression (whether spelled out or unarticulated) in their external argument position, which allows the subject to remain in the VP. Sentences describing a state, which lack an event variable, on the other hand, can only have

Introduction

17

their subject externalized. This explanation, however, would not exclude the possibility of an SVO order in eventive sentences, which is not attested in Older Egyptian. Furthermore, the subject in VSO sentences is shown by Reintges to occupy Spec,IP, the position of the external argument. The explanation to be proposed must also account for further curious correlations. Namely, in stative, SVO sentences, the verb bears a personal inflection, which is underspecified in some cases, but is always spelled out. In eventive, VSO sentences, on the other hand, the V is supplied with an agreement element which is always specified for person, number, and gender when present, but is missing if the subject is represented by a lexical noun phrase. In Older Egyptian, the eventive or stative nature of a sentence is determined by the choice of the verbal paradigm; it is not a consequence of the lexical meaning of verbs. No matter if their primary meaning is eventive or stative, verbs can appear both in the eventive and in the stative paradigm, expressing slightly different eventualities in the two cases. Superficially, the two paradigms display inflectional systems of a similar kind. As Reintges shows, however, the apparent agreement markers of the eventive paradigm are enclitic pronouns; that is why they are not spelled out in the presence of a lexical subject. In the stative paradigm, on the other hand, the verb is truly inflected; its agreement suffix (often underspecified) is spelled out in the presence of either a pronominal or a lexical subject. With these issues clarified, the scene is set for the explanation of the VSO-SVO variation. Reintges derives both word orders from a canonical vP. The VSO order of eventive sentences can arise either as a result of V-to-T movement, or as a a result of (V+T) movement to a functional head in the complementizer domain. (5)

a. [Tp V+T [vp SU [ V '...(V)...DO...]]] b. [ f p V + T [ T P S U

[r(V+T)[vP(SU)[v..V...DO...]]]]

In structure (5a), sentential adverbs, negation, and shifted objects precede the subject; in (5b), on the other hand, they follow it. (5a) represents the unmarked word order; (5b) arises by V movement to a functional head with information structure (topic or focus) content. In stative SVO sentences both the V and the subject precede TP, but they do not reach the CP domain. In fact, no CP is projected - as is clear from the fact that stative sentences can occur in Exceptional Case Marking constructions. The SVO order of stative sentences is the result of V-to-Agr

18

Katalin Ε. Kiss

movement, and subject movement to Spec,AgrSP. That is, the word order difference between eventive and stative sentences is eventually reduced to the presence of an AgrP projection with an EPP feature in the latter. Edit Doron demonstrates in her paper that the seemingly identical VSO sentences of Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew represent different structures; Biblical Hebrew sentences have the structure in (5a), whereas Modern Hebrew sentences display the structure in (5b). This difference is derived from the assumption that in Biblical Hebrew, the Tense head does not have an intrinsic EPP feature (although it can be supplied with an EPP feature optionally, which yields an SVO sentence). In Modern Hebrew, on the other hand, EPP is a lexical property of Tense. In Biblical Hebrew, the lack of the attraction of the subject to Spec,TP also affects the Agree relation between the subject and the verb. This becomes evident in the case of a conjoined subject of the following type:

If Τ has an EPP feature (as is always the case in Modern Hebrew and can also happen in Biblical Hebrew), it is the whole conjoined noun phrase (the highlighted DP) that is subjected to movement to Spec,TP and agreement with V+T - owing to constraints on movement. If, on the other hand, Τ does not have an EPP feature (as is usually the case in Biblical Hebrew), Τ can agree with the minimal D constituent closest to it which allows the derivation to converge. That is, the VSO sentences of Biblical Hebrew display left-conjunct agreement; for example, in the equivalent of 'And lifted David and the people with him their voice', the verb is in the singular. In a few V S O sentences of the Bible, we attest full agreement between the verb and a conjoined subject noun phrase following it. As Doron demonstrates, these sentences all represent structure (5b); the verb has been raised to a functional projection above TP, while the postverbal subject still occupies Spec,TP.

Introduction

19

3.5. The structure of coordinated phrases Emanuele Lanzetta and Lucio Melazzo's paper entitled A particular coordination structure of Indo-European flavor aims to account for the various, often unexpected positions of the conjunction in coordinated constructions of ancient Indo-European languages, among them Hittite, Ancient Greek, Latin, and Vedic Sanskrit. As is well-known, the conjunction in Latin coordinated phrases consisting of two conjuncts is cliticized to the second conjunct (terra marique 'by.land by.sea-and'), or to both conjuncts (remque prolemque 'wealth-ACC-and issue-ACC-and'). However, the two conjunctions of a coordinated expression can also appear side by side, between the two coordinated nominals, as in the following Ancient Greek example: (7)

αρό kratos te ka δτηδη from head-GEN-and and shoulders-GEN 'from (his) head and shoulders'

Surprisingly, the conjunction may also appear cliticized after the first conjunct - e.g. in the following Vedic Sanskrit example: (8)

devebhyas ca pitribhya Gods-DAT-and fathers-DAT 'to the gods and the fathers'

This example seemingly contradicts not only the Latin examples cited above, but also what we attest in present-day Indo-European languages. A conjunction cliticized to the first conjunct is sharply ungrammatical - as illustrated by the English example *He left and. He didn't even say good-bye (cf. Munn 1992). On the basis of this seemingly contradictory array of facts, a traditional, inductive description cannot but conclude that anything goes; the conjunction^) can stand anywhere in the coordinated phrase except in initial position - which is not true. (For example, no 'XP and XP XP' order is attested.) If, on the other hand, the binary branching conjunction theory following from the principles of Universal Grammar, formulated in somewhat different versions by Munn (1992) and Kayne (1994), is used as the framework of the analysis, all the facts attested can be derived, and no unattested possibilities are predicted. In this framework, coordinated phrases are assigned the following universal structure:

20

Katalin Ε. Kiss

(9)

&P

&

YP Y

If & is an enclitic, Y, the nominal constituting the second conjunct is leftadjoined to it via head movement. This is the underlying structure of coordinated phrases containing two conjunctions according to Lanzetta and Melazzo - with &1P occupying the specifier of &2P. (10)

&2P

&1

XP X

&2

YP Y

In this structure both X and Y undergo head movement to &1 and &2, respectively - unless e.g. &2 is not enclitic, as happens in (7). In this framework, the source of the seemingly idiosyncratic example in (8) is a version of structure (10), in which the 2nd conjunction (&2) is phonetically null. The benefits of deriving the coordination possibilities of ancient IndoEuropean languages from the binary branching hypotheses of Universal Grammar are mutual: not only seemingly idiosyncratic facts of a number of languages receive a principled explanation, but also a speculative hypothesis of Universal Grammar receives empirical support; ancient IndoEuropean languages realize possibilities that are derivable from the MunnKayne theory but have not been attested so far.

3.6. The function of the D-stem of the Semitic verb In his paper entitled Complex predicate structure and pluralized events in Akkadian, Christian Huber examines the seemingly contradictory functions

Introduction

21

associated with a particular verb-stem, and manages to reduce the apparent idiosyncracy to the interaction of argument structure, event structure, and quantification. The Akkadian verb has a triconsonantal root, which participates in various fixed morphological templates called stems. One of these stems, the so-called D-stem, seems to have different functions depending on whether the verb is unaccusative, transitive, or unergative. In the case of unaccusative verbs, the D-stem derives a transitive verb from the basic G-stem; thus the D-stem of the Akkadian equivalent of ' g r o w ' means ' m a k e bigger'. In the case of transitive and unergative verbs, on the other hand, the D-stem adds no argument; thus the D-stems of the Akkadian equivalents of the transitive ' o p e n ' or the unergative 'whisper' also mean ' o p e n ' and ' w h i s p e r ' , respectively. Huber aims to clarify in what respect the D-stem of a transitive or an unergative verb is different from the G-stem of the same verb, and whether or not the D-stems of unaccusatives and transitives/unergatives are derived in the same way. As for the former question, Huber observes that the use of the D-stem is often triggered by the presence of a plural argument or adjunct. Thus whereas in the Akkadian equivalent of Ί opened a canal' the V occurs in the G-stem, in the the equivalent of Ί opened canals' the D-stem is used. In some sentences, e.g. in the eqivalent of Ί enlarged the garden of the palace'; or, The wall which R(oyal) N ( a m e ) l , RN2, RN3, RN4, and RN5 had built...', the use of the D-stem is somehow related to the extended nature of the process described. Assuming the theoretical framework of Pustejovsky (1991), in which events fall into states, processes, and transitions, Huber claims that all these sentences express a plurality of transitions. The multiplicity of transitions can mean a series of independent transitions, as in the case of Ί opened canals'. In another type, the plurality of transitions is a recursive series, with the output of one transition serving as input for the next transition. Sentences such as Ί enlarged the garden of the palace' belong to this type. Finally, the plural event can consist of proto-events (proto-transitions) which constitute a single transition in their totality, yielding a mass-noun-like interpretation of the count noun. This type is represented by sentences like ' T h e wall which R(oyal) N ( a m e ) l , RN2, RN3, RN4, and R N 5 had built...' Huber concludes that the D-stem supplies the verb phrase with a functional projection, a N u m P , whose head serves to pluralize events. The reason why the D-stem also adds an external argument to unaccusative verbs; more precisely, why it extends the unaccusative V P into a vP projection,

22

Katalin Ε. Kiss

must be that the N u m head involved in D-stems can only merge with a vP. Thus the interpretation of the D-stem of the Akkadian verb as a N u m P projection subsuming a vP accounts for both the seemingly idiosyncratic effect of the D-stem on argument structure, and the sometimes delicate difference between the interpretations of the G-stem and D-stem of one and the same transitive or unergative verb. Huber's analyses can also be extended to similar facts of related languages. For example, the corresponding stems of Arabic and Hebrew verbs can have an 'intensive' interpretation. Huber analyzes such sentences (meaning, for example, 'x bit y (fiercely or repeatedly)') as expressing cumulative affectedness, with either a series of transitions predicated of the same entity, or the output of one transition serving as input for the next transition.

4. New insights gained from a historical perspective Most studies in this volume intend to provide a synchronic analysis of a particular stage of the language examined - however, the stages they analyze typically represent an intermediate state of the given language with not only its previous state but also its subsequent states documented. This fact makes it possible from time to time for the reader to catch a glimpse of the triggers and the process of language change. For example, when Chiara Polo finds in her analysis of Latin word order that only 9 0 % of the unmarked, neutral sentences of the Latin text examined have an SOV word order; 10% of them are SVO, it is clear in view of the later development of Latin that the neutral SVO sentences forecast the basic SVO word order of its daughter languages. As Polo observes, the postverbal objects in these sentences are non-prototypical objects, ranked high in the animacy, humanity and definiteness scale. Such objects were presumably targets of rightward Topicalization, rightward Focalization, or Heavy NP-shift performed on an SOV base - but the discourse motivation for their movement was weak, therefore they could be interpreted as arguments in situ when attested by a new generation of speakers acquiring their mother tongue. Annamaria Bartolotta's paper, entitled IE *weid- as a root with dual subcategorization features in the Homeric poems: A Minimalist approach, calls attention to a shift in the history of Greek, identified as a shift from the active-stative language type to the nominative-accusative type.

Introduction

23

The problem that Bartolotta aims to analyze is the following: even though the Greek perfect (w)oida Ί see (with the mind's eye)' and the aorist (w)iidon Ί saw' are verb forms derived from the same root *weid- 'to see', associated with the same theta-grid consisting of an experiencer and a theme, they select different cases for their theme argument. The aorist form takes an accusative object, whereas the perfect form occurs both with an accusative and a genitive object. The genitive appears to be the older variant; in Iliad there are 23 occurrences of it, with only three in Odyssey. Bartolotta wants to answer two questions: why one and the same verb had its theme argument marked with different cases in different tenses at one stage of the language; and why the genitive marking of the theme of the perfect verb form eventually disappeared. As for the first question, Bartolotta demonstrates that the Indo-European *weid- stem underwent a meaning-split; perceptive vision, i.e., simple eyesight, came to be differentiated from intentional vision, i.e., internal acquisition, thinking. The different tense forms were likely to elicit one or the other of the two meanings of the verb; the [-stative] aorist form elicited the 'perceptive sight' interpretation, whereas the [+stative] perfect form evoked the 'intentional vision' meaning. In the early Greek represented by Iliad, the aorist (w)eidon, denoting perception, always takes an accusative object because in that language variant verbs expressing immediate contact with their object take an accusative object. The object of the perfect (w)oida, meaning 'see with the mind', on the other hand, is in the genitive because in that period Greek verbs denoting mediated contact with their object take a genitive object. The process in the course of which the genetive marking of the object of (w)oida 'see with the mind' gradually gave way to accusative marking is claimed by Bartolotta to be a manifestation of Greek developing from the active-stative system of Pre-Indo-European to a nominative-accusative system. This typology, developed in Indo-European linguistics (cf. Lehmann 1993), is recast by Bartolotta in a generative terminology. In her formulation, the change from the active-stative system to the nominative-accusative system brought about the following major changes: The semantic-lexical relationship between the verb and its complements typical of the activestative type, with the N P matching the verb in its [+/-stative] feature, became a structural relationship of the nominative-accusative type. Inherent case assignment coupled by theta-role assignment gave way to structural case assignment with no theta-role assignment involved. In the activestative system, the object is assigned a theta-role and case in situ; in the

24

Katalin Ε. Kiss

nominative-accusative type, on the other hand, it has to move for case. In the active-stative type, aspect-marking plays a major role, whereas nominative-accusative languages are tense-marking languages (with the aspectual system incorporated into the tense system). The different case-marking of objects affected in different ways by the activity denoted by the verb is characteristic of active-stative languages. The loss of the genitive marking of the object of (w)oida is evidence of the loss of the theta-related case system, and the emergence of the structural cases typical of nominativeaccusative languages.

Acknowledgments I am grateful to my former student and present-day colleague Gabor Zolyomi, and to my student Barbara Egedi, whose work first called my attention to the fact that dead languages can be fruitfully studied in the generative framework. Thanks are due to all the authors of the volume - not only for their creative contributions, but also for their participation in an internal reviewing process. We owe thanks also to Tor Äfarli, Maya Arad, Huba Bartos, Aniko Csirmaz, and Michael Streck for their helpful comments. The editorial work was partially supported by Grant TS040705 of OTKA, the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund.

References Andrews, Avery D. 1971 Case agreement of predicate modifiers in Ancient Greek. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 127-151. Benucci, F. 1996 Studi di sintassi umbra. II verbo nelle Tavole Iguvine e nelle iscrizioni minori. Padova: Libraria Padovana. Bertocchi, A. 1989 The role of antecedents of Latin anaphors. In Subordination and Other Topics in Latin, Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 441^462. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bertocchi, A. and C. Casadio 1983 Anaphoric relations, pronouns and Latin complementation. In Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, Harm Pinkster (ed.), 27-40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Introduction

25

Binkert, P. J. 1970 Case and prepositional constructions in a transformational grammar of Classical Latin. [Unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan.] Bolkenstein, Machtelt 1979 Subject-to-object raising in Latin, Lingua 49: 15-34. Bresnan, Joan 1982 Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 343-433. Calboli, Gualtiero 1983 The development of Latin (Cases and infinitive). In Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, Harm Pinkster (ed.), 42-58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Calboli, Gualtiero (ed.) 1989 Subordination and Other Topics in Latin. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cardinaletti, Anna and Michal Starke 1999 The typology of structural deficiency: a case study of three classes of pronouns. In Clitics in the languages of Europe, Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), 145-233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cecchetto, Carlo and Renato Oniga 2002 Consequences of the analysis of Latin infinitival clauses for the theory of case and control. Lingue e linguaggio 1: 151-189. DeCaen, Vincent J. J. 1995 On the placement and interpretation of the verb in standard Biblical Hebrew prose. [Unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto.] Doron, Edit 2000 V S O and left-conjunct agreement: Biblical Hebrew vs. Modern Hebrew. In The syntax of verb-initial languages, Andrew Carnie and Eithne Guilfoyle (eds.), 75-96. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eh 1 ich, Κ. 1981 Native Speaker's heritage. On philology of 'dead' languages. In A Festschrift for Native Speaker, F. Coulmas (ed.), 153-165. The Hague: Mouton. Embick, David 2000 Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 185-230. Embick, David and Morris Halle 1999 The Latin conjugation. [Unpublished Ms., MIT.] Garrett, A. 1990 The Syntax of Anatolian Pronominal Clitics. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.] Giusti, Giuliana 2001 The birth of a functional category: From Latin ILLE to the Romance article and personal pronoun. In Current studies in Italian syntax, Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, Guglielmo Cinque and Giampaolo Salvi (eds.), 157-171. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

26

Katalin Ε. Kiss

Gragg, Gene B. 1968 The syntax of the copula in Sumerian, in: J.W.M. Verhaar (ed.), The verb 'be' and its synonyms, III (Foundations of Language Supplementary Series 8). Dordrecht, 86-196. 1973 Linguistics, method, and extinct languages: The case of Sumerian. Orientalia N.S. 42: 78-96. Groneberg, Brigitte R. Μ. 1987 Syntax, Morphologie und Stil der jungbabylonischen hymnischen Literatur, I—II (Freiburger altorientalische Studien 14. I—II.) Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Hale, Kenneth 1983 Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 5 - 4 7 . Hale, Mark 1987 Studies in the comparative syntax of the oldest Indo-Iranian languages. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.] 1990 Preliminaries to the study of the relationship between syntax and sandhi in Rigvedic Sanskrit. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 51: 77-96. 1991 Some observations on intersentential pronominalization in the language of the Taittirlya Samhitä. In Sense and Syntax in Vedic, J. Brereton and S. Jamison (eds.). Leiden: Brill. 1993 Tmesis and movement in Avestan. Indo-Iranian Journal 36: 29^13. 1996 Clitic placement in the language of the Rigveda. In Approaching Second. Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena, Aaron L. Halpern and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), 165-197. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Herman, Jözsef (ed.) 1994 Linguistic Studies on Latin. Selected papers from the 6th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Budapest, 23-27 March, 1991. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Holmstedt, Robert 2002 The relative clause in Biblical Hebrew. [Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin at Madison. Forthcoming as The relative clause in Biblical Hebrew. Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.] Huber, Christian 1989/90 Ergative Sprachen in der GB-Theorie und einige Überlegungen zum Sumerischen. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 4 5 - 4 6 : 53-78. 1996 Some notes on transitivity. Verb types, and case with pronouns in Sumerian. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 86 (.Festschrift Hirsch)·. 177-189.

Introduction forthc.

27

Some remarks on focus and relative clauses in Sumerian. In Workshop on diachronic and synchronic variations in the phonology, morphology, and syntax of Sumerian, Papers presented at the 6th meeting of the Sumerian Grammar Discussion Group, Oxford, 17th and 18th September 1999, Jeremy Black and Gabor Zolyomi (eds.). (Acta Sumerologica 22.)

Kayne, Richard S. 1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: M I T Press. Kiparsky, Paul 1979/80 Pänini as α Variationist. Cambridge, Mass.: M I T Press, and Poona University Press. 1982 Some theoretical problems in Pänini's grammar. Poona, India: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 1995 Päninian linguistics. In Concise History of the Language Sciences: from the Sumerians to the Cognitivists, E. F. K. Koerner and R. E. Asher (eds.), 59-65. New York: Pergamon Press. Kiparsky, Paul and J. F. Staal 1969 Syntactic and semantic relations in Pänini. Foundations of Language 5:83-117. Kiss, Katalin E. 1987 Configurationality in Hungarian. Dordrecht: Reidel. Kratzer, Angelika 1995 Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In The Generic Book, G. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier (eds.), 125-175. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, Robin 1968 Abstract Syntax and Latin Complementation. Cambridge, Mass.: M I T Press. Lehmann, W. P. 1993 Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics. L o n d o n / N e w York: Routledge. Lightfoot, David 1975 Natural Logic and the Greek Moods. The Hague: Mouton. Maleczki, Märta 1999 Weak subjects in fixed space. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 46: 95-118. Maraldi, Mirka 1983 New approaches to accusative subjects: Case study vs. raising. In Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, Harm Pinkster (ed.), 177196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Maurel, J.-P. 1983 Les relatives en Latin: 'Raising' ou 'matching'? In Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, Harm Pinkster (ed.), 167-176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

28

Katalin Ε. Kiss

Maurel, J.-P. 1989 Subordination seconde du relatif en latin et theorie du 'COMP'. In Subordination and Other Topics in Latin, Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 181-196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Morrell, K. S. 1989 Studies on the phrase structure of early Attic prose. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.] Munn, Alan 1992 A null operator analysis of ATB gaps. The Linguistic Review 9: 1-26. Murru, F. 1977 Studio di un modello semantico-generativo per l'insegnamento del latino. II problemo dei casi. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Torino.] Oniga, Renato 2004 Breve introduzione linguistica. Milano: Franco Angeli. Ostafin, David Mark 1986 Studies in Latin word order: A transformational approach. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut at Storrs.] Pepicello, William 1977 Raising in Latin. Lingua 42: 209-218. Philippaki-Warburton, I. - G. Catsimali 1997 Control in Ancient Greek. Greek linguistics '95. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Greek Linguistics, Salzburg, September 1995, G. Drachman, A. Malikouti-Drachman, J. Fykias and C. Klidi (eds.), 577-588. Graz: W. Neugebauer Verlag. Pillinger, Ο. Stephen 1980 The accusative and infinitive in Latin: A refractory complement clause. Journal of Linguistics 16: 55-83. Pinkster, Harm (ed.) 1983 Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Polo, Chiara 2003 Latin, Italian and Slovene between Morphology and Syntax. [Ph.D. dissertation, University of Padua, to be published by Unipress in 2004.] Pustejovsky, J. 1991 The syntax of event structure. Cognition 41: 47-81. Reintges, Chris H. 1996 Egyptian Root-and-Pattern Morphology. Proceedings of the International Conference on Egyptian Grammar. Crossroads 111, Yale 1994. Lingua Aegyptia 4: 213-244. 1997 Passive voice in Older Egyptian. (HIL Dissertations 28.) The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.

Introduction 1998 2000

2001

2003

Rizzi, Luigi 1997

29

Mapping information structure to syntactic structure: One syntax for Jn. Revue d'egyptologie 49: 195-220. The licensing of gaps and resumptive pronouns in Older Egyptian Relatives. In Research in Afroasiatic Grammar. Papers from the Third Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, Sophia Antipolis, 1996, (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 202), Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm and Ur Shlonsky (eds.), 243-262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Aspects of the morphosyntax of subjects and objects in Coptic Egyptian. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 2001, H. Broekhuis and T. van der Wouden (eds.), 177-188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Syntactic conditions on special inflection in Coptic interrogatives. In Research in Afroasiatic Grammar II. Papers from the Fifth Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, Paris, June 2000, Jacqueline Lecarme (ed.), 363^408. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 241.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281-337. Dordrecht: Reidel. Salvi, Giampaolo 1996 From Latin weak pronouns to Romance clitics. (Linguistica Series C Relationes, 9.) Budapest: Research Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. forthc. La formazione della struttura di frase romanza. Ordine delle parole e clitici dal latino alle lingue romanze antiche. [Habilitation dissertation, 1999] Tübingen: Niemeyer. Schaufele, Steven 1990 Free word-order syntax: The challenge from Vedic Sanskrit to contemporary syntactic theory. [Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.] 1993 The Vedic clause-initial string and Universal Grammar. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 23: 131-161. 1996 Now that we're all here, where do we sit? Phonological ordering in the Vedic clause-initial string. In Approaching Second. Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena, Aaron L. Halpern and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), 447-475. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Tantalou, Niki 2003 Infinitives with overt subjects in Classical Greek. Studies in Greek Linguistics 23: 358-365. Taylor, Ann 1990 Clitics and configurationality in Ancient Greek. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.]

30

Katalin Ε. Kiss

Taylor, Ann The change from OV to VO in Ancient Greek. Language Variation 1994 and Change 6: 1-37. A prosodic account of clitic position in Ancient Greek. In Approach1996 ing Second. Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena, Aaron L. Halpern and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), 477-503. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Touratier, Christian (ed.) 1985 Syntaxe et latin, Actes du lime Congres International deLinguistique Latine, Aix-en-Provence, 28-31 Mars 1983. Aix-en-Provence, Marseille: Universite de Provence/J. Lafitte. Wales, M. L. 1982 Another look at the Latin accusative and infinitive. Lingua 56: 127152. Zolyomi, Gabor 1996 Genitive constructions in Sumerian. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 48: 39^15.

The correlation between word order alternations, grammatical agreement and event semantics in Older Egyptian Chris H. Reintges

1. Introduction In current research on word order typology, the systematic differences between subject and verb-initial languages are derived from a single parameter of variation, viz. the active or inactive status of the 'Extended Projection Principle' (EPP). S V O languages like English have a positive setting for the EPP. As a result, the highest inflectional node projects an extra specifier position into which the subject is merged. By contrast, V S O languages like Modern Irish have a negative setting for the EPP. The highest inflectional node does not project a specifier position for the subject, which is therefore licensed in a lower syntactic position (see Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998 and McCloskey 2001 for representative studies). From a comparative perspective, languages that display both V S O and S V O patterns are of particular interest as they provide us with some insight into the workings of the EPP and subject licensing. Older Egyptian is such a language. 1 On the surface, it meets the syntactic profile of Greenberg's (1966) Sixth Universal, according to which 'all languages with a dominant V S O order have S V O as an alternative' (p. 79). Compare the verb-initial sentence in ( l a ) with the subject-initial sentence in ( l b ) , which both contain the epistemic verb 'to learn (about)'. 2 (1)

a. The dominant V S O clausal pattern

]-'J

Pjpj pn

mwt-f

learn EV Pepi

DEM:SM mother-3SM

η

Pjpj pn

χπι

mwt-f

ßdt

sfp-t

NEG ignore E V Pepi DEM:SM mother-3SM white.crown splendid-SF 'This (King) Pepi will recognize his mother. This (King) Pepi will not ignore his mother, the splendid white crown.' (Pyramid Texts 910a/P)

32

Chris Η. Reintges b. The S V O alternative n-ntt N N pn rx(-w) rn n(j) wßi'-w (...) since N N DEM:SM learn-3MSTAT name LINK(-SM) fowler-PM 'Since this N N (the male deceased) knows (by learning) the names of the fowlers ( . . . ) . ' (Coffin Texts VI 2 2 o / B l B o )

The contrast between verb-initial and subject-initial word order does not reflect discourse-configurationality, where the variable position of the subject is related to its topic or focus role. Rather, V S O and SVO structures are associated with different aspectual viewpoints from which a given situation is presented. The V S O clause in ( l a ) above has an event-related interpretation, describing the acquisition of some knowledge, while the SVO 'alternative' in ( l b ) above has a state-related interpretation, describing the possession of some knowledge through learning. Apart from word order, Older Egyptian employs two morphologically distinct finite verb conjugations, the Eventive and the Stative, to formally distinguish event- and statedenoting verbs that are derived from the same root. The Eventive-Stative alternation that yields minimal pairs like j.r% 'learn about' and rx(-w) 'know (through learning)' is fully productive in various lexical classes of transitive, unergative and unaccusative verbs. Older Egyptian thus represents the typologically marked case of a language where a stative-resultative verb form cannot be derivationally related to a non-stative base form, but where the members of the opposition, stative and eventive, are encoded by different types of inflectional paradigms (Nedjalkov & Jaxontov 1988: 29). The aim of this study is to clarify the complex relation between word order alternations, subject-verb agreement, and event semantics. I will argue that the aspectual properties of verbs are not specified at a lexical, but rather at a syntactic level. To assume an event- or state-related interpretation, the subject and the verb must appear in a particular hierarchical relation with one another. On the other hand, the eventive or the stative interpretation of the main verb has a morphological correlate in the finite verb inflection. I will show that grammatical agreement in the traditional sense is only represented by the Stative verbal paradigm, while the Eventive conjugation lacks agreement proper. In the Stative, the presence of agreement excludes tense- and aspect morphology, while the corresponding Eventive is compatible with the full range of Older Egyptian tense-aspect-mood and voice marking. I will also provide a configurational analysis of Eventive V S O and Stative S V O sentences. What I want to show in particular is that V S O order does not correspond to a single

Word order correlations in Older Egyptian

33

syntactic structure. Rather, there is syntactic variation without morphological variation that has its roots in different subject positions and targets of verb movement. The organisation of the paper is as follows. Section 2 examines the semantic differences between Eventive and Stative sentences. Section 3 addresses the categorial status of the concord-marking ending on Eventive and Stative verb forms. Section 4 discusses the different routes by which verb-initial surface order can be arrived at. The SVO alternative, by contrast, corresponds to a single syntactic derivation which involves verb movement and subject raising to the head and the specifier position of the subject agreement phrase. Section 5 summarises the main findings of this paper.

2.

The aspectual nature of paradigmatic complexity

Finite verb inflection in Older Egyptian has a portmanteau character in that it registers not only a particular constellation of subject and verb, but also provides aspectual information about the type of situation that is described. Before examining the gradual modification of lexical meaning by means of finite verb inflection, I will first provide some background information on situation aspect and verb classification.

2.1. Theoretical background Situation aspect (or Aktionsart) refers to a typology of verbal predicates. A verbal predicate may denote a more dynamic situation that involves some kind of change or alternatively, a more static situation that requires an external agent for change. Predicates of the former type are referred to as 'eventive predicates' or simply 'events' and predicates of the latter type as 'stative predicates' or 'states'. As many researchers have pointed out, the meaning differences between event-describing and state-describing sentences appear to be gradual rather than clear-cut in actual language use (see, among various others, Comrie 1976; Mourelatos 1981; Smith 1991; Rothstein 2004). Nevertheless, it seems possible to distinguish between eventive and stative predicates on the basis of their internal temporal structure. The temporal schema for state sentences is represented in figure 1 below, which formalises the intuition that states do not change for the time they last (e.g. John loves Mary). They have an internal temporal structure and simply consist of an interval in time. The initial and final endpoints (given in

34

Chris Η. Reintges

parentheses) are therefore not part of the internal temporal structure of the state eventuality itself (Smith 1991: 32 (30); Rothstein 2004: 14-6). (I and F represent the initial and final end points of the relevant eventuality.)

(I)

(F)

Figure 1. The homogenous temporal structure of states All non-stative situations constitute a natural class of events. While it requires no special effort to remain in a state, eventive situations can only be maintained if they are subject to 'a continuing input of energy' (Comrie 1976: 49). The occurrence of an event involves some condition when the event begins, is terminated and replaced by another condition. The stage property of events is particularly clear in accomplishment verbs like write (e.g. Mary wrote the letter), which are [+dynamic], [+telic], and include in their semantic description a culmination point. The culmination point makes it possible to distinguish between successive stages in the development of an accomplishment event, viz. a preparatory phase, which designates the event in progress and which reaches but does not include the culmination point, and the resultant state, which designates what the outcome of the event's termination is. The initial and final endpoints are an integral part of the internal temporal structure of accomplishment events. See figure 2 below for further illustration (Smith 1991: 32; Kamp & Reyle 1993: 558 (5.104); Rothstein 2004: 21-2).

PREPARATORY PHASE

(I)

CULMINATION POINT

RESULTANT STATE

(F)

Figure 2. The tripartite structure of accomplishment events In short, events are heterogeneous eventualities that necessarily involve change and thus have internal temporal structure. By contrast, states have no internal dynamism and consist of an undifferentiated period of time without internal structure. In the rich philosophical and linguistic literature on event ontology, more elaborate systems of verb classification have been

Word order correlations in Older Egyptian

35

advocated, although it is generally acknowledged that the contrast between motion and stasis, event and states, marks a core distinction in the aspectual domain (see Bach 1986; Comrie 1976; Mourelatos 1981; Smith 1991; Kamp & Reyle 1993; Rothstein 2004 for representative studies that go back to Vendler's 1967 classic article). 3

2.2. The aspectual and thematic dimension of the Eventive-Stative alternation This section examines the interaction between lexical semantics and aspectual viewpoint in the derivation of verbal meaning. The following description of the Eventive-Stative opposition is based on a simple taxonomy of verbal classes, in which valency information is considered apart from argument meanings. Following Grimshaw (1990) and related research, argument structure itself does not encode thematic roles like AGENT, PATIENT or THEME, since it only represents the argument-licensing capacity of a predicate without further specifying any semantic information about its arguments, except for their relative prominence. The Eventive-Stative alternation in Older Egyptian shows quite clearly that the eventuality of the verbal and the thematic content of its arguments are not part of its lexical-semantic frame, but are primarily determined by the morpho-syntax. The systematic differences in meaning between Eventive-inflected and Stative-inflected verb forms will be examined for different lexical classes of transitiveactive, unergative and unaccusative verbs.

2.2.1. Transitive-active

verbs

As exemplified by the Eventive-Stative pairs in (2)-(3), transitive-active Statives in Older Egyptian can take objects and complement clauses. Stative formation can therefore not be equated with an argument structure changing operation that eliminates the AGENT theta-role and creates an unaccusative verb from a transitive base verb. 4 (2)

DP OBJECTS a. Eventive verb form jw rx-n(-j) fik? nb ft? n(-j) gnw AUX learn-PERF-lS EV magic every secret LINK(-SM) residence Ί learned about every secret magic of the residence.' (Urkunden I 143: 2)

36

Chris Η. Reintges b. Stative verb form jw ij-k(j) Bk?

nb

[CP ?χ

n-f

AUX learn-1S S T at every secret be.glorious(-PTCP:SM) for-3SM

m

grt-ncr

in

necropolis

]

Ί know (by learning) every magic on behalf of which one becomes glorious in the necropolis.' (Urkunden I 263: 14) (3)

CP COMPLEMENTS

a. Eventive verb form j.mr-n(-j) [CP nd5-k

jrt-k

m-ΐ

jr

wish-PERF-1 Sev save-2SM E v eye-2SM f r o m - a r m

r-k

make(-PTCP:SM)

]

against-2SM

Ί have come to wish (that) you save your eye from the one who acts against you.' (Ancient Hymn Da/12) b. Stative verb form j.mr-k(j) [cp nd'-k

jrt-k

m-ΐ

wish-lSsiAT save-2SM E V eye-2SM f r o m - a r m

n-k

jr make(-PTCP:SM)

]

for-2SM

Ί have the wish to save your eye from the one who acts for you.' (Coffin Texts VI 220j/L2Li) The Eventive-Stative alternation is fully productive with verbs of creation like ms(.i) 'to give birth' and verbs of putting into a spatial configuration like qrs 'to bury', as seen in (4) and (5) below. According to Levin & Rappaport-Hovav (1995: 247-8), members of both classes qualify as accomplishment verbs, whose event structure comprises a process and a resultant state component. Associating accomplishment verbs with a given aspectual viewpoint highlights either the process or the resultative meaning of the selected accomplishment verb. Thus, the Perfect viewpoint of the Eventive clause in (4a) asserts the successful completion of the birth-giving event of the deceased pharaoh, while the resultant state (the new-born state) is contextually implied. This contrasts with the Stative viewpoint in (4b), which places the resultant state of some creational act into the center of attention, without further specifying its internal development.

Word order correlations (4)

in Older Egyptian

37

VERBS OF CREATION

a. Eventive verb form ms-n nww Mrjj-n(j)-ri Rr d'rt-f j?bt give.birth-PERFEV ocean Meri-ni-Re on hand-3SM left 'The ocean has born (King) Meri-ni-Re on his left hand.' (Pyramid Texts 1701a/M) b. Stative verb form j(w)r-kw fd(-w) ms-kw pdw conceive-ISstat lower.sky give.birth-lSSTAT upper.sky Ί have conceived the lower. I have born the upper sky.' (Coffin Texts IV 51: e - f / B 3 L ) As noted by Nedjalkov & Jaxontov (1988: 24-25), transitive-active statives may assume a possessive sense, with the subject being interpreted as the possessor and the direct object as the possessed item. An appropriate semantic paraphrase of the Stative VPs j(w)r-kw fd(-w) and ms-kw pdw in ( l i b ) above would therefore be something like Ί am the begetter of the lower sky' and Ί am the mother of the upper sky', respectively. In a similar vein, stativized epistemic and desiderative verbs, such as τχ 'to learn' and mr(.i) 'to wish' convey a possessive interpretation insofar as the result of some intellectual activity is the possession of some kind of knowledge or the maintenance of some psychological state. It generally appears, then, that the Eventive-Stative opposition has a differential function, encoding alternations in the subject's relation to the eventuality denoted by the verbal root. In transitive-active Eventive clauses, the verbal action is construed as principally affecting the referent of a nonsubject argument (typically the direct object), while the subject is interpreted as the AGENT, i.e. the entity that performs some event or activity. In the corresponding Stative, on the other hand, the subject is interpreted nonagentively as the AFFECTEE, i.e. the entity on which the consequences of some previous action has a positive or negative impact. To clarify this point, consider the following Eventive-Stative pair, where the Perfect qrs-n(-j) Ί have buried' in (5a) and the corresponding Stative qrs-k(j) Ί had buried' in (5b) below describe what is objectively the same situation; yet both variants differ with respect to the locus of the action's principal effects. In (5b), the burial of the courtier is presented from the Stative point of view, because it has a lasting effect on the first person singular subject in the impressive rewards allotted to him by the king.

38

Chris Η. Reintges

(5)

VERBS PUTTING INTO A SPATIAL CONFIGURATION

a. Eventive verb form jw qrs-n(-j) jt(-j) pn m jz-f n(j) grt-ncr AUX bun/-PERF-ls E v father-Is DEM:SM in tomb-3SM LINK necropolis [n]-zp qrs-t(j) mj-t(j)-f [nb] m [mj-]t(j)-t-f never

bury-PASS2 EV like-NOM-3SM every with like-NOM-SF-3SM

Ί have buried this father of mine in his tomb of the necropolis. Never was anyone of his rank buried with something alike.' {Urkunden I 139: 1-2) b. Stative verb form qrs-k(j) ζ pn m jz-f m/?(/) N%b bury-lSsTAT man DEM:SM in tomb-3SM north Nekheb rd3-t(j) n(-j) ?fit sc?t 45 m t?-mß(j) fmTw (...) give-PASS2EV to-lS field aroura 45 in Lower.Egypt Upper.Egypt r fiz-t b?k jm to praise-lNF servant there Ί had this man buried in his tomb north of Nekheb (El-Kab). A field of forty-five arouras was given to me in both Lower and Upper Egypt (...) to reward this servant' (Urkunden I 140: 8-11) If a transitive verb inflects in both inflectional paradigms, then the selection of the Stative depends on whether the subject has a referent upon which the principal effects of the action at hands devolve, while the Eventive is selected in the default case of non-affected subject-agents. In a sense, then, the Eventive may be thought of as an 'effective' and the Stative an 'affective' conjugation pattern. 5

2.2.2.

Unergative

verbs

When associated with the Eventive viewpoint, unergative verbs of bodily expression like ßT(.i) 'to cheer' make direct reference to the physical expression of a particular emotion, as in (6a), while the concomitant mental state is denoted by the Stative variant, as in (6b) below. Moreover, an Eventive subject is conceptualised as a volitional AGENT that exerts control over the bodily process that is described. Α Stative subject, on the other hand, denotes the EXPERIENCER of the associated state of mind.

Word order correlations (6)

in Older Egyptian

39

UNERGATIVE VERBS OF BODILY EXPRESSION

a. Eventive verb form βγ-w-f m cheer-PROS-3SM E V a b o u t

xsf-k meet(-INF)-2SM

'He will exult about meeting you.'

(Pyramid Texts 656a/T)

b. Stative verb form Nwt jM-U(j) m Nfr-k?-R Ϋ Xsf Nut cheer-INTENS/REPET-3FSTAT about meet(-INF) Nefer-ka-Re '(The goddess) Nüt is very exited about meeting (King) Nefer-ka-Re.' (Pyramid Texts 1426a/N) The exact classification of verbs like sit, stand and lie has raised some controversy in the literature. Hoekstra & Mulder (1990) include such verbs of spatial configuration in the class of (unaccusative) copular verbs, although members of this class in Dutch appear in constructions displaying unergative syntax. To make sense of the variable unergative-unaccusative behaviour, Levin & Rappaport-Hovav (1995: 126-130) propose to distinguish between three types of non-causative meanings associated with a specific spatial configuration. The first two non-causative meanings are the 'maintain position' and the 'assume position' sense, both of which are agentive. The third meaning is non-agentive and describes the position of the subject with respect to a particular location. In Older Egyptian verbs of spatial configuration, the agentive 'maintain position' and the 'assume position' sense are both encoded by the Eventive conjugation pattern, as shown in (7a), and the non-agentive 'simple position' sense by the corresponding Stative, as shown in (7b) below. (7)

VERBS OF SPATIAL CONFIGURATION

a. Eventive verb form (Agentive 'assume position' sense) ßms Nfr-k?-RΫ jr rmn-k Fir sitEv Nefer-ka-Re at shoulder-2SM Horus '(King) Nefer-ka-Re will sit down besides you, Horus.' (Pyramid Texts 2056a/N) b. Stative verb form (Non-agentive 'simple position' sense) j.fims-t(j) fir nst jt-k Gb m-χηί jtrt sit-2ssTAT on throne father-2SM Geb in-front.of sanctuary 'You are seated on the throne of your father Geb in front of the sanctuary.' (Pyramid Texts 1992b/N)

40

Chris Η. Reintges

The Eventive-Stative opposition also applies to verbs of inherently directed motion like h?(.i) 'to descend' and j j 'to come'. These motion verbs specify an achieved endpoint or attained location and may therefore be classified as achievement verbs (Levin & Rappaport-Hovav 1995: 58; Talmy 1985: 72). Their telic character is particularly clear in motion verbs like h?(.i) 'to descend' that incorporate into their meaning a notion of path. A directional phrase that indicates endpoint inherent to the verb's meaning is obligatorily present in both the Eventive and the Stative variant. (8)

VERBS OF INHERENTLY DIRECTED MOTION

[+PATH]

a. Eventive verb form jj-n(-j) mjn m njwt(-j) c o m e - P E R F - I S H V today from city-LS h?-n-j m sp?t(-j) descend-PERF-1SEV from district-Is Ί have come today from my city, I have descended from my district' (iUrkunden I 121: 11-12) b. Stative verb form jw h?-k(j) r ?bd3w ςτ Rs AUX descend-lSsiAT to Abydos under Res Ί descended to Abydos with Res.' (Stele Metropolitan Museum NY no. 65.107: 4) Verbs of inherently directed motion like j j 'to go' and jw 'to come' incorporate into their semantics a deictic orientation towards the speaker. The location argument does not have to be overt, but can be semantically implied, as seen in (9a-b) below. (9)

VERBS OF INHERENTLY DIRECTED MOTION [+DEITIC

a. Eventive verb form jj-n(-j) Trq(-w) come-PERF-1S E V accomplish-PASSL E v

CENTER]

m-T raising is therefore not feature co-valuation, but rather the need for providing Tense with an uncontroversial lexical root at some point in the derivation (Nash & Rouveret 2003). In Older Egyptian, Tense is morphologically expressed by means of suffixes, which need to be attached to a verbal host. Verb raising is a precondition for combining the functional features of Tense with the lexicalsemantic features of the verbal root. What evidence is there for the subjectin-situ derivation in (36) above? The first argument for the location of DP

66

Chris Η. Reintges

subjects in the specifier position of vP concerns the distribution of adverbial elements. A s illustrated in (37) below, the subject appears following the clause-internal negation w and the emphatic particle js, indicating that it occupies a lower position in the syntactic structure. (37)

a.

V E R B

>

fzp

N E G

W >

w

Rmn

DP

S U

>

DP

D O

jft-f

nb

accept E V NOT Hemen thing-3SM every '(The god) Hemen will not accept any of his property.' (Mo°alla Inscription nr. 8, III.6) b.

V E R B

>

E M P H js

>

DP

S U

>

DP

D 0

d3d-n js N N pn r? [c?w]-w [p]w N E G say- PERFEV E M P H N N D E M : S M spell w i n d - P M D E M : S M [CP Γχ-w rmc-w m-sn ] k n o w ( - P T C P ) - P M people n a m e - 3 P 'This N N (name of the deceased) did not say the spell of the winds whose name people know.' (Coffin Texts VI 2 5 2 d / S q 4 C ) η

This low subject position cannot be identified with a functional projection on top of the vP. The reason for this is that such a functional projection serves as a target for pronominal object shift. Older Egyptian has a productive rule of object shifting that forces direct object pronouns to move out of the vP to the left of the DP subject (see Collins & Thräinsson 1996 and much related research on Icelandic object shift). The sentence pair in ( 3 8 a - b ) below exemplifies the contrast between canonical V S O and the derived V O S order of shifted object pronouns. (38)

OBJECT SHIFT WITH PRONOMINAL DIRECT OBJECTS a.

V E R B

>

DP

S U

>

DP

D 0

>

DP

I 0

wd'-n Nwn Tjtj n- Jtm order-PERFnv N u n Teti to Atum '(The god) N u n has commended (King) Teti to (the god) Atum.' (Pyramid Texts 6 0 4 a / T ) b.

V E R B

>

C L

D O

>

DP

S U

>

DP

I 0

wd3-n sw Pg? n- fw order- PERFev him Open.one to- Shü ' T h e Open One has commended him (the king) to (the god) Shü.' (Pyramid Texts 6 0 4 b / N )

Word order correlations in Older Egyptian

67

Object shift also affects the placement of dative pronoun, as shown in (39a) below. When both objects are pronominal arguments, indirect object precedes the direct object in linear order, as seen in (39b) below. (39)

OBJECT SHIFT WITH PRONOMINAL INDIRECT OBJECTS a.

VERB

> CLI0 > DPSU >

DPD0

fiz w(j) Ν χ η , ίηχ ηί-jj fimn praise EV me Nekhen liveEV for-lS Hemen '(The god) Nekhen praises me, (The god) Hemen lives for me.' (Mo c alla Inscription 12, V ß l ) b. VERB > CL I 0 > C L d o > DP SU jr-n n-f sw Ri ?χ-ί jm-f do- perFEV for-3SM it Re be.glorious-3SM E V in-3SM

'Re has done it for him (the deceased) that he may become glorious there.' (Coffin Texts VI 315j/BlBo) There is good reason to believe that Older Egyptian object shift is a syntactically rather than prosodically driven reordering process. To begin with, it is possible for the negation adverb w and the emphatic particle js to intervene between the verb and the shifted object pronoun, as exemplified by (40a-b) below. It is clear, then, that shifted object pronouns do not form a prosodic constituent with the main verb. (40)

INTERVENING ADVERBIAL PARTICLES

a. VERB > NEG w > CL D 0 > DP SU jwi

w

sw

suceedEV

NOT

him

jwi-f heir

'His heir shall not succeed him.'

(Mo°alla Inscription nr. 8, III.7)

b. VERB > EMPH js > CL D 0 > DP SU η

jr-r

js

sw

N N pn

sbj(-w)

jm-f

do-IMPFEV EMPH it.SM NN DEM:SM rebel-PASSl EV in-3SM 'This NN (name of the deceased) will not do it when one rebels against him.' (Coffin Texts VI 3 1 5 k / B l B o )

NEG

When associated with contrastive focus or emphasis, pronominal objects exhibit some of the distributional freedom of full DPs. The marked word order patterns of such emphatically used pronouns are shown in (41a-c) below. In (41a), the pronominal object form kw 'you (man)' replaces the

68

Chris Η. Reintges

null subject of a Stative clause, appearing in clause-initial position. In (41b), on the other hand, the pronominal clitic wj 'me' is base-generated in the left-peripheral topic position of an embedded Clitic Left-Dislocation construction. Dative pronouns, too, may assume a contrastive reading. When this happens, they are exempt from object shift and appear to the right of the direct object DP in clause-final position, as (41c) exemplifies. (41) THE EMPHATIC USE OF PRONONOMINAL OBJECT FORMS a. CL D O > V E R B > C L I 0 > D P D 0

kw

j.d3d-t(j)

n-f

m-f

pw

n(j)

s/Ϋ

you:SM say-2sSTAT to-3SM name-3SM DEM:SM LINK(-SM) hare ' Y o u should tell him this name of his "hare"!'

(Pyramid Texts 1269b/P) 15 b. C O M P > C L D 0 > V E R B > CL S U > C L D 0

sk

?

wj

ms-n-cn

wj

COMP PCL me give.birth-PERF-2P EV me

'While (concerning) me, indeed, you have given birth to me.' (Coffin Texts III 156c/B2Bo a ) c. V E R B > CL S U > D P D 0 > C L I 0

jm

wn(-w)-k

?-w(j)-k

n-f

NEG:IMP open-PROSP-2SM EV arm-DM-2SM for-3SM

'Do not open your arms for him!'

(Pyramid Texts 1269b/P)

The distribution of pronominal clitics is determined by operations of the syntax rather than by prosodic phrasing. 16 One of these operations is pronominal object shift, which forces direct and indirect object pronouns to move out of the vP domain. The shifted pronominal object occurs to the right of negation or focus particles, and as the subject DP must occur to the right of the raised direct object pronoun, it must be lower in the tree than either of these two. If we assume that the shifted object pronoun targets a functional projection above the vP and below the NEGP as well as the EMPHP, we are left with the vP-internal subject position as the one clausal position in which the subject DP can be licensed. 17 On this analysis, Older Egyptian might provide a potential counterexample to the Subject-in-Situ Generalization, according to which no more than one DP argument can stay in the vP position in which they are merged externally (Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 2001). In canonical VSO sentences of the kind in (38a) above, there is no evidence for phrasal pied-piping of the subject and direct object argument. The possibility of argument

Word order correlations in Older Egyptian

69

crowding within the vP cannot be related to rich agreement inflection, however, since there is no agreement morphology to begin with.

4.2.2.2. Externalisation of the DP subject to Spec, TP Leftward raising of the verb past the vP-internal subject represents one route to the verb-initial surface order in Older Egyptian, but not the only such route. A more complex derivational route by which VSO order can be arrived at involves subject raising to the specifier of TP and verb movement to a functional head F° at the left edge of the inflectional domain. It looks as if the F°-node has information structure content, being involved in the licensing of left-peripheral topic and focus phrases (see Aoun, Benmamoun & Sportiche 1994: 204, fn.8; and Uriagereka 1995: 9 5 - 9 7 for related ideas). Reintges (1997: 127ff) furthermore suggests that auxiliary verbs are merged into this position, since such verbs play a crucial role in the temporal organisation of narrative discourse, introducing foregrounded chains of events. The optional activation of the EPP feature on Tense gives rise to a VSO variant with raised subjects. (42)

VSO CLAUSES WITH RAISED SUBJECT DPS

[ F F7AUX [TP D P s u [ r T° [vP ? su [v. Ü [ VP D P d o [ v ' V°[ROOTPROOT]]]]]]

ΐ

I

The syntactic distribution of negation and information-structuring particles has been used as a diagnostic tool for both verb movement and subject positioning. Granted that adverbial elements have a fixed position in the syntactic structure, the surfacing of both the finite verb and the subject DP to the left of the negation w and the emphatic particle js in examples like (43) below clearly shows that both constituents have vacated the vP. (43)

V E R B > D P S U > N E G w > E M P H js

wnm NN w

js

> CLI0 >

DPdo

fis-w

eat EV N N NOT EMPH faeces-PM

swr

NN

w

js

n-sn

wzft

drink EV N N NOT EMPH for-3P urine ' N N (name of the deceased) will surely not eat faeces, N N will surely not drink urine for them.' (Coffin Texts VII 115: i-j/B4Bo)

70

Chris Η. Reintges

Further support for the vP-external location of the subject DP comes from the stranding of postnominal adjectives. In Older Egyptian, universally quantified subjects must undergo Quantifier Raising in the narrow syntax. This is illustrated in (44) below, in which the subject χί nb 'everything' precedes the object shifted dative pronoun r-f ' f r o m him'. The original position of the raised quantifier is marked by the stranded adjective d3wt 'evil' (Borer 1995: 535). Further note that universal quantifiers are interpreted as free choice items in negative contexts. (44)

STRANDING OF POSTNOMINAL ADJECTIVES

Xw-k

[CP χρτ

χί

nb

r-f

[vP /Su dhv-t

n-

cPtcf't \

prevent-2SM EV happen E v thing every to-3SM evil-SF for eternity ' M a y you prevent that anything evil ever happens to him (the deceased king).' (Pyramid Texts 1654c/N) E C M constructions with Eventive complement clauses display the hallmarks of clitic left-dislocation. As we can see from the contrast between ( 4 5 a - b ) and ( 4 6 a - b ) below, the left-dislocated subject appears in a preverbal position and is connected to the following clause via a co-referential subject pronoun (indicated as CL S u)· Under Rizzi's (1997) left-periphery analysis, the C L L D e d subject D P in ( 4 5 a - b ) below would be located in the specifier position of a lower Topic Phrase whose head is occupied by the fronted verb. (45)

SUBJECT CLITIC LEFT-DISLOCATION

a. Main

clauses

DP S U > V E R B > CL S U > PP wj? Mi s-qd-d-fi m-gnw jgpt barque Re CAUS-row- IMPERF-3smEv in-inside cloudy.sky ' T h e barque of (the sun-god) Re, it sails inside the cloudy sky.' (Coffin Texts IV 1 2 5 c / S l P ) b. Subordinate clauses (reported speech) C O M P > DPsu > V E R B > CL S U dM-n-k n- R? [ CP ntt Nt, say-PERF-2SM E V to R e

jw-S;

]

COMP N e i t h come(-PROS)-3SF E V

' Y o u told (the sun-god) Re that (Queen) Neith would come.' (Pyramid Texts/Neith 4 0 - 4 1 [pi. 7])

Word order correlations in Older Egyptian (46)

71

EC Μ CONSTRUCTIONS WITH EMBEDDED EVENTIVE VPs a. D P S U > V E R B > C L S U >

PP

njj gm-n(-j) [ΐΡ rmc-w nb, fm-sn, m w?-wt n- d3i ] NEG find-PERF-lSEV man-PM every walk-3PEV on road-PF for storm Ί did not find any people walking on the roads because of the storm.' (Urkunden I 182: 15-16) b. C L D O >

V E R B > CLSU >

PP

m?-?-sn [ TP w(j) { iq(-j), m rwt ] see-IMPERF-3PEV me proceed-lS E v from door-gate '(Whenever) they (the people) saw me coming out of the doorgate (...)' (Inscription of Bia, 1. 7 [Edel ZÄS 83 (1958): 8]) In ECM constructions with Eventive clause complements, the CLLDed subject DP subject is accusative-case marked by the matrix verb, witness the presence of the direct object pronoun w(j) 'me' in (46b) above. Unlike embedded CLLD of the kind in (45b) above, subordinating 'THAT'complementizers like ntt appear to be systematically absent. I interpret this to mean that ECM constructions never exceed the domain of a Tense Phrase (TP). The simplest assumption to account for the CLLD properties of the ECM subject is to say that the EPP feature on the Tense head may be activated, projecting a specifier for the raised subject. Further evidence for the optional activation of the EPP feature on Tense in Eventive VSO clauses comes from auxiliary verb constructions. The contrast between vP-internal and vP-external subject DPs is illustrated in (47a-c) below. In (47a), the subject DP Rm(-j) 'My Majesty' is preceded by both the main verb m?-n 'has seen' and the auxiliary verb jw. By contrast, the subject DPs rwd3 'the strong one' and jnb-w-s 'its wall' in (47b) and (47c) appear in a higher subject position to the right of the auxiliary jw and to the left of the main verb. (47)

LOW AND HIGH SUBJECTS IN AUXILIARY VERB CONSTRUCTIONS

a. AUX > VERB > DP SU jw m?-n fim(-j)

md3?t-k

AUX see-PERF E v m a j e s t y - I S letter-2SM

tn

(...)

DEM:SF

'My Majesty has seen this letter of yours (...)' {Urkunden I 60: 16)

72

Chris Η. Reintges b. A U X > DPsui > V E R B > CL S U i jw rwd'' j d-n-fl r t? AUX strong.one place-PERF-3SM EV to earth ' T h e strong one has placed (himself) to earth.' (Lepsius, Denkmäler c. A U X > DP S u j > V E R B > VBL j jw jnb-w-sj dm-n AUX wall-PM-3SF

j

scratch-PERF E V

II 104b)

pt sky

'Its (the temple's) walls scratched the sky.'

(Stela Louvre C3: 6)

The raising of the subject displays some of the properties of A'-movement: the subject D P in Spec, TP binds either a resumptive pronoun, as in (47b), or a gap, as in (47c) above. The optional activation of the EPP feature on Tense falls into place if one assumes with Chomsky (2001: 3 3 - 3 5 ) that the EPP position is assigned a special interpretation. In the examples considered so far, raised external DP arguments are non-canonical subjects: they are either universally quantified DPs or sentence foci. It is therefore natural to relate the active status of the EPP to the information structure of the clause. In line with Zubizaretta (1998: 99-11 8), I assume that Older Egyptian Tense may be a syncretic category, encoding not only temporal deixis and mood, but also focus and emphasis (whence the A'-properties of its specifier).

4.2.2.3.

The cliticisation

site of subject

pronouns

In this section, I briefly discuss the syntax of pronominal enclisis. Although I do not deny the importance of morpho-phonological constraints on the distribution of enclitic subject pronouns, I will take a primarily syntactic view on cliticisation, relating the different positions of pronominal clitics to movement operations that apply before spell-out. From this perspective, clauses containing clitics have essentially the same syntax as clauses with moved D P arguments (see Kayne 1989, Uriagereka 1995 and, more recently, Nash & Rouveret 2003). As already pointed out in section 3.2.1, the Complementarity Principle can be directly related to the argument status of subject and object pronouns: as pronominal arguments, they compete with full DPs for the same structural slots in the syntactic representation. Nominal and pronominal arguments differ, however, systematically from one another with respect to their

Word order correlations in Older Egyptian

73

licensing requirements. While full DP subjects and objects can be licensed in-situ in vP-internal argument positions, their pronominal counterparts must always vacate the vP. Thus, weak direct and indirect object pronouns must undergo object shift to left of the vP, appearing in front of the vP-internal subject DP. In a similar vein, subject clitics raise out of the vP to the higher subject position Spec, TP while the verb moves higher up to a functional position F°. Doron (1996, 2000) proposes to analyse pronominal clitics as anaphors bound by discourse operators. Such operators may be left unpronounced, when the identity of the antecedent is recoverable from the preceding discourse. The derivation for V S O clauses with pronominal clitics will therefore be entirely parallel to the one with raised D P subjects. (48)

VSO CLAUSES WITH SUBJECT CLITICS

I

I

I

I

I

0

[fp O p [ F F° [ T P CL S U [ T ' T [ v p ? c l [ v v [Vp D P d o [v V° [ROOTP ROOT ]]]]]]

ΐ

I

The raising analysis of enclitic subject pronouns is empirically well motivated. As shown by the contrast between the a- and the b-examples of ( 4 9 ) (50) below, subject DPs and clitics appear on opposite sites of the clauseinternal negation w and the emphatic particle js. This mirror image pattern follows from their respective vP-internal and vP-external location. (49)

a. V E R B > N E G w > D P S U >

fzp

w

Rmn

jft-f

DPdo

nb

acceptnv NOT Hemen thing-3SM every '(The god) Hemen will not accept any of his property.' (Mo°alla Inscription nr. 8, III.6) (cf. ex. (37a)) b. V E R B > CLsu > N E G w > D P d 0 > PP fi?m-cn w N N pn m j?dt-cn tw catch-2P EV NOT N N DEM:SM with net-2P DEM:SF 'You will not catch this N N (name of the deceased) with this your net.' (Coffin Texts VI 231/B1 Bo)

74

Chris Η. Reintges

(50) a. N E G > V E R B > E M P H js > DP S U η jw-n js Wnjs d3d-f NEG come-PERF EV EMPH Unas self-3SM '(King) Unas has not come by himself.' (Pyramid Texts 333b/W) b. N E G > V E R B > CL S U > E M P H j s η jw-n-f js d?d-f NEG come-PERF-3SM EV EMPH self-3SM ' H e has not come by himself.'

(Pyramid Texts 333b/T)

That subject clitics occupy a high position in the syntactic tree is also evident from their appearance in front of shifted pronominal objects, as shown in (51). (51) V E R B > CL S U > C L I 0 > C L D 0 > PCL jr-f > f f / / - A D V E R B s-rs-j n-k sw jr-f jr- j f s t CAUS-wake-1 SEV for-2SM him PCL-3SM for what? 'For what reason should I wake him up for y o u ? ' (Pyramid Texts/Jbj 5 9 4 - 5 9 5 [pi. 11]) In auxiliary verb constructions, focused subject DPs raise to Spec, TP for feature-checking purposes and appear - as a consequence - to the right of the auxiliary jw and to the left of the main verb. Subject clitics are licensed in exactly the same syntactic positions, as shown in (52) below. It is clear, then, that enclitic subject pronouns have the syntactic profile of pronominal arguments. (52) A U X > DPsu/CLsu > V E R B > CL S U jw-j sc-j jw b?-ji sc-f, AUX-1S beget-1S EV AUX soul-lS beget-3SM EV Ί (usually) beget (and) my soul usually begets.' (Coffin Texts I 3 6 4 b / S l C ) In auxiliary verb constructions with an EPP position, the moved subject is cross-referenced by a clitic double on the main verb. If this clitic double were left behind in the vP-internal subject position, it should be lower in the syntactic structure than shifted object pronouns, but it is not. As we can see from (53) below, clitic doubles always appear preceding pronominal objects, indicating that they no longer reside in the vP domain.

Word order correlations in Older Egyptian (53) A U X > D P S U j > wn ßm-fi AUX majesty-3SM 'His Majesty used everything).'

75

V E R B > C L S U i > CL D O > A D V E R B fiz-f, w(j) wr r χί nb praise-3SM EV me great than thing every to praise me to the highest degree (lit. more than {Urkunden I 194: 10)

To answer the question where the clitic double has been raised to, a comparison between Stative and Eventive complement clauses is instructive. The embedded subject position of Eventive and Stative clauses can be occupied by an enclitic pronoun, which leans on the preceding lexical complementizer. But while there are two instances of the subject clitic in the embedded Eventive clauses in (54a) below, the presence of independent agreement morphology on the finite verb in the Stative counterpart in (54b) automatically excludes such clitic doubling. (54) EMBEDDED EVENTIVE AND STATIVE CLAUSES a. C O M P > CL S U > E V E N T I V E V E R B > CL S U dd'-sn yj ßm-f [CP wnt-i\ db?-f, ] say-3P EV under majesty-3SM COMP-3SM faint-3SM EV 'They reported to His Majesty that he (the physician) had fainted.' (•Urkunden I 42: 11) b. C O M P > CL S U > STATIVE V E R B r nP-t rx-t(j) [CP wnt-k, h?-t(j)t m ßtp to give-INF understand-PASS2 COMP-2SM descend-2s ST AT in peace m Y?m ] from Y a m 'to let it be known that you descended in peace from (the land) Yam' ( U r k u n d e n 1 1 2 8 : 7 - 8 ) (cf. ex. (27a)) This asymmetry is expected when Stative inflections and clitic doubles compete for the same position. At the present state of research, it is not entirely clear whether the clitic moves to Tense independently of the verb, or whether enclisis takes place when the verb resides in a lower functional head and the VERB-CLITIC complex moves to Tense as a unit (see Adger 1997 for an analysis along these lines).

76 4.2.3.

Chris Η. Reintges The Verb Second

Condition

The previous discussion on floating subjects has identified three different routes by which by which verb-initial surface order can be arrived at. The availability of the inflectional subject position Spec, TP could be shown to derive from an optional activation the EPP feature on Tense. When this happens, the finite verb raises out of the TP to a higher functional head F, which relates to the information structure of the clause. Next to V —> Τ and V —> F movement, Eventive-inflected verb forms may also undergo V —> C fronting of the kind attested in productive Verb Second languages. In Older Egyptian, however, the Verb Second Condition is parameterised in the sense that not all finite verb patterns have to cover the entire path leading Τ to C. Verb Second (henceforth V2), as it is known from West Germanic languages like German, concerns the different position of the finite verb in main and subordinate clauses. In tensed clauses without an overt complementizer, the verb must occupy a position immediately following the sentenceinitial constituent, whatever the status of that constituent is. In (55a), for instance, the auxiliary verb hat 'has' appears in the second position of the clause, while the clause-initial position is occupied by the object DP diesen Film 'this movie'. The subject Katja and the remaining sentence constituents follow the finite verb. In embedded clauses with an overt complementizer, by contrast, there is no V2 ordering and the finite verb appears at the end of the clause, as in (55b) below. The combination of V2 ordering with the complementizer daß 'that' yields ungrammatical structures like (55c) below. (55)

VERB SECOND IN STANDARD GERMAN

a. Diesen Film hat Katja schon gesehen. this(-ACC) movie(-ACC) has Katja(-NOM) already seen ' K a t j a has already seen this movie.' b. Chris glaubt, [cp daß Katja diesen Chris(-NOM) believes that Katja(-NOM) this(-ACC) Film schon gesehen habe], movie(-ACC) already seen has:SUBJ 'Chris believes that Katja has already seen this movie.' c. * Chris glaubt, [cp daß Katja habe diesen Chris(-NOM) believes that Katja(-NOM) has:SUBJ this(-ACC) Film schon gesehen ]. movie(-ACC) already seen 'Chris believes that Katja has already seen this movie.'

Word order correlations in Older Egyptian

77

In most generative analyses going back to den Besten's (1983) seminal paper, V2 is derived from verb raising to Comp and an additional requirement that the specifier of the matrix clause be filled by some XP constituent. This analysis accommodates rather naturally the observed complementary distribution of lexical complementizers and fronted finite verbs in embedded contexts (see Vikner 1995 for detailed discussion on the V2 phenomenon). An obvious extension of this approach is to posit a set of VSO languages where the clause-initial position of the finite verb derives from V —> C raising, but where the requirement on filling the specifier of CP is not imposed (see Carnie, Harley & Pyatt 2000: 41). On the face of it, Older Egyptian does not seem to qualify as such a 'weak' V2 language. In embedded clauses without an overt complementizer, the Eventive verb raises to the vacant C°node, as in (56a) below. However, note that embedded VSO clauses are equally well formed, when a subordinating complementizer like wilt 'that' is present, as seen in (56b) below. Recall that in German V2 does not raise when the C°-node is occupied by a complementizer. (56) EMBEDDED VSO CLAUSES

a. With vacant C° sd3m-n-sn [CP d-d Nfr-k?-M m?Tt DP DO order of indirect object pronouns in examples like (65b) below. Recall that the canonical order of nominal object is DP DO > DPI 0 . (65)

OBJECT SHIFT

a. DP SU > STATIVE > CL D 0 sc Pjpj pn rx(-w) COMP P e p i

DEM:SM

cw

learn-3M ST AT you:SM

'while this (King) Pepi knows you' b. S T A T I V E > C L I 0 >

s-h?-k(j)

(Pyramid Texts 329b/P)

DPD0

n- hrw

17

CAUS-descend-lSsTAT for-3SM altar DEM:SM in d a y

n-f

17

wß?(-w)

m

ßt-nbw

quarry-3M S TAT

in

Hatnub

fitp

pn

Ί sent him this altar in 17 days after it had been quarried in Hatnub.' 0Urkunden I 108: 1-2)

Word order correlations in Older Egyptian

83

It is clear then that the preverbal subject and the finite verb of Stative clauses have both raised out of the vP. That Stative subjects are, indeed, located in the Specifier position of AGRSP and not higher up in the syntactic tree is evident from their occurrence as ECM subjects as well as their intermediate position between the auxiliary jw and the main verb, since auxiliary verbs appear in a preclausal functional position F°. (66) A U X > D P S U > S T A T I V E > D P D O

jw

NN

tn

r%-c(j)

fdw

jpw

r

AUX N N DEM:SF learn-3f S T A T four DEM:P name-PM-2P

n-w

jrt

LINK-PM eye

Rr Horus

'This N N (the female deceased) knows these four names of you belonging to the eye of (the god) Horus.' (Coffin Texts III 339f/Sq3C) To conclude, considerations of affix order as well as syntactic placement facts provide empirical support for the synchronisation of independent V —> AGRS0 movement and subject raising to Spec, AGRSP in the derivation of Stative clauses. There is some cross-linguistic evidence for the correlation between the occurrence of finite verb movement to the highest inflectional node and the explicitness of verbal paradigms. It generally seems to be the case that if a language has more verbal inflection, it is more likely to have independent V-to-I movement (Vikner 1995: 163). In Older Egyptian, this correlation is quite straightforward, since only Stative verb forms are inflected for agreement. It may very well be the case that richness of agreement is based on the existence of distinct person inflections in both singular and plural, as suggested by Roberts (1993: 2 6 6 267). The Older Egyptian Stative data seem to be less compatible with Rohrbacher's (1994: 109, 119) view that independent V-to-I movement is contingent on the presence of a complete or full paradigm, meaning that agreement of the first and second person differ from each other as well as from the forms of the third person. This is evidently not the case in the Stative paradigm, where the syncretic ending -t(j) is used for the second person singular as well as the third person feminine singular and plural, with the pro-drop serving as a disambiguating device. I leave a more precise formulation of the relation between inflectional morphology and verb positions for future research.

84 4.3.2.

Chris Η. Reintges EP Ρ-induced

subject

merge

According to Chomsky (2000: 102), EPP features are uninterpretable (nonsemantic), although the configuration they establish has effects for interpretation. Particularly well-studied cases are the additional specifier positions on top of C and little v. In this section, I will show that the merge of the subject into the specifier position of AgrS 0 may display similar surface semantic effects. To be more precise, AgrS 0 is a syncretic category, which is endowed with features of the peripheral system (topic, focus). As a result, the EPP-induced preverbal subject position has mixed A/A'-properties (Zubizaretta 1998: 9 9 - 1 0 8 , Chomsky 2000: 108). From the perspective of information structure, Stative sentences are for the most part backgrounded propositions, in which the subject constitutes the sentence topic about which the Stative V P makes a comment. As sentence topics, Stative subjects correspond to information that is given or available from the preceding discourse and are therefore part of the presupposed portion of the clause. The familiarity condition on Stative subjects is particularly clear in the case of subject pronouns like -f ' h e ' in (67a) below, but sense-ofidentity anaphors like k j j 'other' in (67b) are equally presuppositional in that the identity of their referent can be inferred from the preceding clause. (67)

THE FAMILIARITY CONDITION

a. d3d-cn χΓ R? [Cp wnt-f jj(-w) m tier] say-3P EV to Re COMP-3SM come-3MSTAT as god ' Y o u should announce to (the sun-god) Re that he (the deceased king) has arrived as a god.' (Pyramid Texts 1 8 6 2 a / N ) b. jr-n jt Nfr-k?-R'i jb-f make-PERF EV father Nefer-ka-Re heart-3SM kjj fd-jj n-f g?k-f other remove-3MSTAT for-2SM be.hostile-3SM EV ' T h e father of (King) Nefer-ka-Re (re-)made his heart. The other one is removed from him (when) it became hostile.' (Pyramid Texts 1 1 6 2 a / N ) The familiarity condition does not exclude Stative subjects from being associated with different types of semantic focus (E. Kiss 1998). In (68) below, the interjection m- ' l o o k ' signals new information focus on the adjacent subject. Definite expressions (proper names, personal pronouns) are admissible as presentational foci, since they correspond to discourse-new

Word order correlations in Older Egyptian

85

information, meaning that the relation its referent enters into is novel with respect to the preceding stretch of discourse. (68)

PRESENTATIONAL FOCUS

m-k

Tjtj

pr(-w)

INTERJ-2SM

Teti

come.forth-3MSTAT

m-k

Tjtj

jw-f

INTERJ-2SM T e t i

come-3SMEV

'Look (King) Teti has come forth, look, Teti comes (here).' (Pyramid Texts 333a/T) In (69) below, the sentence negation η takes wide scope over the indefinite N P z? (J)tm 'a son of (Atum)', which therefore receives the semantic interpretation of a downward entailing quantifier (NOT > A SON = NO SON). As non-referential expressions, such quantifiers are excluded as topics, although they do function as subjects (Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998: 5 0 4 511; Alexopoulou, Doron & Heycock 2003: 9-12). (69)

DOWNWARD ENTAILING QP

cz-jj

Ϋβ-w

zm?-jj

mgn-wt

η

tie-IMP:P

rope-PM

make.ready-IMP:P

ferryboat-PF

for son

η

(J)tm

z?

NEG s o n A t u m

z?

(J)tm Atum

jw-jj be.boatless-3M S TAT

'Tie the ropes and make ready the ferryboats for the son of (the god) Atum. No son of Atum is left without a boat.' (Pyramid Texts 1742: b - c / M ) The preverbal subject position hosts not only presentational foci and raised quantifiers, but is equally well suited as a landing-site for w/?-phrases, as seen in (70) below. (70)

WH-IN-SITU SUBJECT QUESTIONS

m

twt(-w)

n-f

who

resemble-3MsTAT

to-3SM

' W h o resembles him?'

(Pyramid Texts 1689b/M)

The dual nature of the preverbal subject position as an A/A'-position has been attested for such diverse languages as Modern Spanish (Zagona 2002), Yiddish (Diesing 1990), and Modern Hebrew (Borer 1995). Older Egyptian

86

Chris Η. Reintges

differs from these languages in that the preverbal subject position is restricted to nominative arguments. It looks as if the EPP position of Stative clauses is targeted as a landing site by various types of operators, indicating that the AgrS 0 conveys some left-peripheral functional features (Topic, Contrast, Focus). This provides an explanation for the absence of topicalisation and clitic-lefit-dislocation structures in Stative clauses.

4.3.3.

A note on the Broad Subject

construction

In this section, I will show that there are Stative clauses that look superficially like CLLDs, but actually instantiate a sentence pattern with two nominative subjects. In the so-called Broad Subject construction, the Aand A'-properties of EPP-induced subject merge are distributed over two specifier positions, as exemplified in (71a-b) below. (71)

THE BROAD SUBJECT CONSTRUCTION

a. psd't jb-sn nd3m-w fir ennead heart-3P be.sweet-3MsTAT about qr-r n(j) stormy-INTENS/REPET(-PTCP:SM)

χην voice nf?-jj

LINK(-SM) e x h a l e - P T C P : S M

' T h e ennead (i.e. a constellation of nine gods), their heart is delighted about the stormy voice of the exhaler.' (Coffin Texts IV 9 3 j / B 5 C ) b. jw

b?kt

tn

n(j)-t

Mrrj

jb-s

ϊηχ('\ν)

AUX m a i d . s e r v a n t DEM:SF LINK-SF M e r e r i h e a r t - 3 S F live-3m S TAT

r-f m??-s wpwty n(j) nb-s PCL-3SM see-3sf E V messenger LINK-SF lord-3SF ' N o w , this maid servant of Mereri, her heart is alive (whenever) she sees a messenger of her lord.' (Pap. Cairo CG 58043: 8 - 9 ) The Broad Subject construction has been extensively studied by Doron (1988), Doron & Heycock (1999), and Alexopoulou, Doron & Heycock (2003). Their research shows that for all intents and purposes the two nonadverbial D P s behave like nominative subjects. In examples ( 7 1 a - b ) above, the lower narrow subject and the Stative V P form a semantic predicate for the clause-initial broad subject, with the open position provided by the resumptive pronominal on the narrow subject. The principal difference between broad and narrow subjects is that the former are merged directly into

Word order correlations in Older Egyptian

87

the higher specifier, while the latter are derived subjects that originate within the vP. Since the broad subject may be either topic or focus, it seems natural to classify the higher specifier as an A'-position and the lower specifier as an Α-position. K u r o d a (1988) draws a connection between the multiple filling of the specifier of IP in Japanese and the impoverishment of agreement. On this account, one would expect, - contrary to the facts - that the multiple subject construction would be another syntactic variant of an Eventive V S O clause that lacks subject-verb agreement altogether. It rather looks that the possibility of filling and licensing multiple subjects depends on the active status of the EPP feature on the relevant inflectional node rather than the richness of subject agreement itself.

5. S u m m a r y and conclusions This study discussed some core phenomena related to the verbalinflectional system of Older Egyptian. In this language, the event- or staterelated interpretation of the verbal predicate is therefore not lexical information preserved in the syntax, but emerges from operations of the syntax: the merger of the verbal complex with inflectional morphology that takes place in the cyclic domain on top of the vP shell. The semantic regularities between Eventive and Stative alternants of a given root in various lexical classes of transitive, unergative and unaccusative verbs follow from the uniformity with which the syntax combines verbal stems with inflectional morphemes, leaving little or no space for lexical idiosyncrasy. Comparative syntactic research on verb movement has disclosed an impressive amount of evidence for the crucial role of inflectional morphology as a trigger for the fronting of the finite verb to a particular syntactic position. The Older Egyptian Eventive conjugation distinguishes uniquely between person, gender and number features, while several paradigmatic cells of the corresponding Stative conjugation share the same morphological exponent. Yet, it could be shown that subject-verb agreement proper is only represented by the Stative paradigm, while the concord-marking personal suffixes on Eventive verb forms are actually enclitic pronouns that correspond to argument positions. In the Stative paradigm, the presence of morphologically discrete agreement marking excludes independent tense and aspect morphology. This contrasts with the Eventive paradigm, where absence of agreement inflection correlates with the combinability with the whole range of tense-aspect-mood markers. Given that the personal inflec-

88

Chris Η. Reintges

tions on Eventive verb forms instantiate fully fledged pronominal arguments, Older Egyptian provides evidence against Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou's (1998: 518) claim that ' V S O languages are also pro-drop languages, because only pro-drop languages have the option to check the EPP feature through the verbal agreement morpheme'. Table 3 summarises the clustering of morpho-syntactic and semantic properties associated with the Stative and the Eventive paradigms. Table 3. Formal parameters of the Eventive-Stative contrast in Older Egyptian

EVENTIVE PARADIGM

TYPE OF

pro-

AGREEMENT

DROP

Pronominal enclisis

No

ASPECT

Events

WORD

SUBJECT

VERB

ORDER

POSITIONS

RAISING

VSO

Spec, vP Spec, TP

V^T V —> F V ^ C

STATIVE PARADIGM

Subject-verb agreement

Yes

States

svo

Spec, AgrsP

V —

AGRS

The V S O clausal pattern exhibits syntactic variation without morphological variation. The availability of more than one clausal position for the licensing of the subject can be related to the optional activation of the EPP. Moreover, Eventive-inflected verbs raise and adjoin to different functional heads in the inflectional and the complementizer domain, including T, F, and C. The absence of syntactic variation in Stative clauses is due to the active status of the EPP, forcing the merging of the subject into the specifier of AGRSP and the absence of attracting functional heads in the left periphery that trigger Verb Second fronting processes. Older Egyptian therefore provides another example of the complexities of word order phenomena in a predominantly verb-initial language.

Word order correlations in Older Egyptian

89

Notes 1.

2.

Older Egyptian represents the earliest stage of the Ancient Egyptian-Coptic language, which is the oldest written language of the Afro-Asiatic phylum; it covers a period of more than six hundred years (ca. 2650-1990 BCE). Despite its internal differentiation into Old and Early Middle Egyptian, there is good reason to believe that Older Egyptian constitutes a linguistic continuum, with only minor structural changes in the course of generation-to-generation transmission of the language. Loprieno (1995) provides an up-to-date overview of Ancient Egyptian language history. The following abbreviations are used in the glosses. (Glosses are given in parentheses for morphemes that have no surface-segmental shape): 1 'first person'; 2 'second person'; 3 'third person'; AUX 'auxiliary verb'; COMP 'subordinating complementizer'; COMPRA;1, 'relative complementizer'; D 'dual'; DEM 'demonstrative article'; EMPH 'emphatic particle'; EV 'Eventive inflection' (in subscript), F 'feminine gender', FM 'focus marker'; GER 'gerund'; LINK 'linkage marker'; IMP 'imperative'; IMPERF 'imperfective aspect'; INF 'infinitive'; INTENS/REPET 'intensive/repetitive stem pattern', Μ 'masculine gender'; NEG 'negative scope marker'; NOM 'nominalizing suffix'; Ρ 'plural'; PASSL 'passive Γ,

3.

PASS2

'passive

2',

PCL

'particle';

PERF

'Perfect';

PROS

'prospective

tense/aspect'; PTCP 'participle'; S 'singular', STAT 'Stative inflection' (in subscript); SUBJ 'subjunctive'; TERM 'Terminative'. Epigraphic conventions: [...] passage is heavily damaged and cannot be reconstructed, ( . . . ) left out for the sake of brevity, < . . . > one or more characters have been erroneously omitted by the ancient scribe. NN stands for the proper name of the owner of a Middle Kingdom coffin. Some of the semantic oppositions advanced in more elaborate taxonomical systems are grammaticalised in the so-called Benoni and the progressive construction. The Benoni construction has an equative format consisting of a nominal or pronominal subject and an active or passive participle functioning as a nominal predicate. In this construction, predicate fronting is obligatory, the result being predicate-initial order. Semantically, the Benoni construction describes individual-level predication, which attributes permanent properties to individuals (Kratzer 1989). (i)

THE BENONI CONSTRUCTION

rx-w(j)

cw

tr

cf'd

learn(-PTCP:SM)-PCL

you:SM

PCL

say(-lNF)

mr-r(-w)-t love-lMPERF-PASSl-PTCP:SF

Izzj r χι nb Izezi than thing every 'How much you understand to say what is beloved by (King) Izezi more than everything!' {Urkunden 11 63: 4)

90

Chris Η. Reintges The progressive is a locative construction formed with an infinitival verb in a small clause configuration and describes dynamic situations that have not reached their culmination at the time of the utterance, (ii)

THE PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION

jw

t?

x?st

fir mwt

AUX DEM:SF f o r e i g n . c o u n t r y at

m-ΐ

die(-iNF) f r o m - a r m

fiqr hunger

'This foreign country is dying from starvation.' (Semnah Dispatches 4 x+10) The progressive and the Benoni construction fall outside the scope of the present study, since they are derived from locative and nominal predication, respectively (see Reintges 1997: 96ff for a more detailed discussion). 4. See Mchombo (1983) and Dubinsky & Simango (1996) for an unaccusative analysis of Chichewa (Bantu) statives. 5. See Klaiman (1991: 69-82) for comparable phenomena in Tamil, which are analysed in terms of active-middle voice alternations. 6. A different stance is taken by Loprieno (1995: 76), who argues that the verbal root itself specifies 'a further temporal dimension, called Aktionsart'. The internal semantic structure of the lexeme is said to 'bear heavily on the spectrum of semantically acceptable combinations for each root, restricting the number of choices by the speaker'. Since there is no clear-cut evidence for lexical restrictions on either the Stative or the Eventive conjugation, we may plausibly assume that the underlying verbal root is unspecified for the event-state dichotomy. This raises an important question as to what extent Vendler's (1967) classical typology is applicable to the Older Egyptian verbal lexicon. 7. The minimal differences between pronouns and grammatical agreement markers may have a diachronic source insofar as agreement systems evolve historically from the incorporation of pronouns into verbal stems (see Givon 1976; Bresnan & Mchombo 1987; Lehmann 1988; and much related research). 8. By 'neutral aspect' I mean the absence of a morphologically marked aspectual category on the verb. In this case, the aspectual interpretation of the verb is determined contextually by means of adverbial modification. See Reintges (1997: 104-109) for some discussion on the ternary distinction between imperfective, perfective, and neutral aspect in Older Egyptian. 9. Since imperfective aspect is expressed by means of reduplicative copying, a number of idiosyncratic factors come into play. Firstly, the verbal lexicon comprises a considerable number of roots that simply lack a reduplicated alternant. Secondly, those roots that undergo partial or full morpheme reduplication appear in three derivational classes, viz. (i) the imperfective (e.g. mr-r 'continue to love, love a lot' < mr(.i) 'to love'), (ii) the intensive-repetitive (e.g. wn-wn 'to hasten to and fro' < wn 'to hurry'), and (iii) the future passive (e.g. jwT-r 'will be conceived' < jwr 'to conceive'). The class membership of a given reduplicant is also not predictable from the morphological properties or

Word order correlations

in Older Egyptian

91

the lexical-semantic template of the underlying root. Thirdly, a given root can appear in only one reduplicative pattern. Reintges (2003) conjectures that the non-cyclicity of reduplicative copying has its basis in some economy principle preventing the generation of strings of two adjacent copies of the root morpheme, which would leave room for too many parsing options. 10. There are some remarkable structural differences in the synthetic paradigms of Older Egyptian and Modern Celtic languages. First, in contradistinction to Modern Irish, separate affixes do exist for every person, gender and number distinction in Older Egyptian verbal paradigms. Second, inflected prepositions in Irish, unlike their Older Egyptian counterparts, exhibit a high degree of morpho-phonological irregularity (McCloskey & Hale 1984: 506). Third, in Breton, it is possible to construe a subject clitic with an analytic verb form, as in (ia), or to attach a subject clitic to a co-referential synthetic verb form, as in (ib). In line with Borsely & Stephens (1989), one might analyse (ia) as an instance of a topicalisation construction in which the analytic form agrees with the trace left behind by subject extraction. In (ib), we seem to be dealing with a special type of clitic-doubling, where the second (clitic) pronoun is added to the synthetic verb form for contrastive purposes. Contrary to what is said in Stump (1984: 333-7), the absence of resumptive pronominalisation in the context of direct object fronting does not provide compelling evidence against the pronoun incorporation analysis of synthetic verbal paradigms, but rather shows that Breton displays the standard subject-object asymmetries. (i)

BRETON SUBJECT-VERB AGREEMENT a. Analytic form + subject clitic (subject topicalisation and agreement with a gap) int a lenn (*lennont) le vrioit they PCL read (read-3p) books 'They read books.' (Stump 1984:291 (2f)) b. Synthetic form + subject clitic (clitic doubling) levrioü a lennan-me (*lenn-me) books PCL read-ls-clitic.lS (*read-clitic.ls) Ί read books.' (Stump 1984: 302 (27))

See sections 2.2.3 and 2.2.4 of the main text for the selection of analytic forms in the context of w/z-subject extraction. The clitic doubling option (ib) is, however, systematically absent in our documentation of Older Egyptian. 11. The reviewer suggests to account for the difference between Eventive- and Stative-inflected verb forms by associating the Eventive and Stative conjugation pattern with distinct ν heads. Under an analysis along these lines, an Eventive ν head would assign an agent theta role, while a Stative ν head could not do so. This analysis would, however, not capture the agreement asymmetries between Eventive and Stative clauses: Stative SVO clauses instantiate a specifier-head configuration with agreement morphology being morphologically

92

Chris Η.

Reintges

realised on the finite verb, whereas Eventive VSO clauses have no agreement at all, but distinct tense and aspect projections. In short, the difference between Eventive and Stative clauses is due to the functional superstructure above the v P domain. 12. For Chamorro (Mariana Island, Western Austronesian), Chung (1998, chapter 4) presents detailed arguments to show that the pragmatically unmarked VSO order cannot be derived from SVO order, but rather derives from VOS order via lowering of the subject and adjunction to the right of the verbal predicate. This generally shows that verb-initial languages are typologically as diverse as subject-initial ones. 13. To account for the agreement mismatches between VSO and SVO clauses in Modern Standard Arabic, Mohammad (1990) and Ouhalla (1994) propose that the postverbal subject of VSO sentences is located in the VP-internal subject position, while the structural subject position [Spec, IP] is occupied by a phonologically null expletive pronoun that induces impoverished agreement inflection. At LF the null expletive is replaced by its associate, the subject DP in the thematic subject position [Spec,VP], As pointed out by Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1998) and Doron (2000, this vol.), the /7ro exp |-VSO analysis is intrinsically problematic, since VSO clauses in Modern Standard Arabic and Modern Hebrew do not show the indefiniteness restriction. This criticism is not entirely justified, however, as defmiteness effects are systematically absent in Arabic VSO structures, even when the expletive pronoun is lexicalised. The spell-out of the expletive pronoun hu 'it' is obligatory in the context of the subordinating finite complementizer ?anna 'that'. (i)

OVERT EXPLETIVE CONSTRUCTIONS WITH DEFINITE DP SUBJECTS

a. öann-a

[CP ?anna-hu wasal-a

think-PERF.3SM

that-ζ'ί

?at-tulaabu

]

arrive-PERF.3SM the-male.student.PM.NOM

b. Sann-a [c? ?anna-hu wasal-at ?at-taalib-aat think-PERF.3SM that-it arrive(-PERF)-3sf the-female.students-PF.NOM 'He thought that the male/female students had arrived.' In ?anna 'that' complement clauses, the finite verb agrees in person and gender with the postverbal DP subject rather than the expletive pronoun singular masculine hu 'it'. This is particularly clear in the context of feminine DPs, as in (ib) above. According to Ouhalla (1994: 70, fn.2), the agreement of the embedded verb with the postverbal subject is only apparent. His main argument is that the third person singular masculine form of the finite verb can also appear before feminine subjects. This agreement pattern is instantiated in Classical Arabic (Fischer 1972: 165, §356), but judgements about its grammaticality status in Modern Standard Arabic vary. Moreover, if gender agreement with the postverbal subject were, indeed, only apparent, it remains to be explained why the selection of the third person singular feminine form of the verb in the context of masculine subjects results in ungrammaticality. See Aoun, Benmamoun &

Word order correlations in Older Egyptian

93

Sportiche (1994) for additional arguments against the Spec-Head Agreement with expletive analysis. 14. It looks as if the negative adverb w was originally part of a syntactically discontinuous negation η ... w, reminiscent to the ne ... pas negation in Standard French. (i)

DISCONTINUOUS NEGATION η ... W

η

Xtm-k

w


VOCATIVE > RELATIVE CLAUSE

pe.k-fatfe pe pa-tfoejs [Cp et tutfo DEF:SM.2SM-word PRON:SM DEF:SM(-1 S)-lord CREL (PRES) save n-won nim ] DO-one every

'(It is) your word, oh Lord, that saves everyone.'

(Sapientia 10: 12)

In this section, we discussed and refuted a free relative clause analysis of the cleft predicate. The main argument concerns the systematic structural differences between nominal clefts and equative copular constructions.

3.2. The categorial restriction on the clefted constituent Clefts in Coptic are more restricted than the English ones in that the clefted constituent cannot be of any other category than a DP. This categorial restriction is illustrated in the data in (19). Notice that Coptic has both argument (subject, direct, indirect and prepositional object) and adjunct clefts, but due to the categorial restriction it is never possible to cleft the entire prepositional or adverbial phrase, only the DP part of it: (19)

ARGUMENT AND ADJUNCT CLEFTS

a. Subject ta-feere

tu-pistis

DEF:SF(-1 S)-daughter DEF:SF(-2SF)-faith

[cp 9nt-a-s-nahme

te PRON:SF

]

REL-PERF-3 SF-save(-2SF)

'My daughter, (it is) your faith that has saved you.' b. Direct Object u-hoß gar [CP e-nanu-f ] INDEF:S-thing PCL

[cp nt-a-f-aa-f

(Luke 8: 48)

pe

REL(-PRES)-be.fair-3sm PRON:SM

]

REL-PERF-3 SM-make-3SM

'(It is) a beautiful thing that he did.'

(AP Chaine no. 17,3: 26)

118

Chris Η. Reintges, Anikö Liptäk and Lisa Lai Shen Cheng c. Prepositional

object

u-mnt-at-noße

tie)

[Cp et-u-fine

INDEF:S-NOM-sinless PRON:SF

C REL -PRES-3P-seek

nso-s for-3SF

n-toot-n ] from-hand-lP '(It is) a sinless (life) which is requested (lit. which they request) from us.' (Testament of Isaac 233: 21) d. Locative

adverb

p-kah

on pe

[CP nt-a-u-kto-u

ero-f ]

DEF:SM-earth PCL PRON:SM REL-PERF-3P-turn-3P to-3SM 'It (is) again the earth that they (i.e. the birds and the fish) turn themselves to.' (Zenobius 202: 15-16) e. Cause/reason

awo nai and

adverb

n-tei-he

mn [DP ne- [CP et

DEM:P of-DEM:SM-kind with

mmo-u ]] n(e) DO-3P

[Cp et

[cp etere

PRON:P

seh

eine

DEF:P-C REL (PRES) resemble

p-Jatfe

REL(-PRES) DEF:SM-word

]

tfo mmo-s etßeet-u

(...)]

CREL (PRES) be.written say DO-3SF because.of-3P '(It is) such kind of people and those who resemble them that the Scripture word (lit. the word that is written down) says about them (...)' (Shenoute III 151: 2 6 - 2 7 ) In these examples the clefted constituent is always a DP, and it is linked either to a subject gap or a resumptive object pronoun inside the relative clause. W e will relate this categorial restriction to the configuration we assign to nominal cleft sentences in section 4.1.

3.3. The agreement behaviour of the deictic copula The deictic pronoun agrees with the clefted DP in number and gender, but not in person. Consider the data in (20) below, all of which involve clefted DPs.

The nominal cleft construction in Coptic Egyptian (20) NP clefts with gender and number agreement of the pronominal

119 copula

a. SINGULAR MASCULINE pe

arcu

p-haqios

perhaps

DEF:SM-holy Apa

A pa Mena Mena

[Cp nt-a-f-kyont

pe PRON:SM

ero-j

etbe p-eret

REL-PERF-3SM-be.wrathful about-lS for

Lcp nt-a-i-eret

mmo-f

na-f

DEF:SM-vow

]]

REL-PERF-1S-VOW DO-3SM for-3SM 'Perhaps (it is) the holy Apa Mena who has become wrathful about me because of the vow that I made to him.' (Mena, Mir. l i b : 25-29) b. SINGULAR FEMININE te

te.k-hmhal

Eudoxia

t[e)_

DEF:SF.2SM-servant Eudoxia

ehun e-pe.k-aspasmos

[Cp et

PRON:SF

wof e-ei

CREL (PRES) want to-go

]

PCL to-DEF:SM-2SM-greeting '(It is) your maid servant Eudoxia who wishes to enter to greet you.' (Eudoxia 56: 1-2) c. PLURAL ne

ftow n-oeik

n(e)

[Cp et

tef

na-n

mmeene]

four of-bread P R O N : P C R E L ( P R E S ) be.portioned for-LP daily '(It is) four (loaves) of bread that are portioned to us daily.' (Budge, Martyrd. 218: 25) Clefted third person pronouns show the same agreement behavior as clefted DPs, as seen in (21): (21)

Third person pronouns clefts with gender and number agreement of the pronominal copula a. SINGULAR MASCULINE pe

ne

ntof mawaa-f

PRET HE

hm p-ma

pe

[cp e-f-anakhorej

alone-3SM PRON:SM

REL(-PRES)-3SM-retreat

etmmau ]

in DEF:SM-place that '(It) was him alone who was living as a hermit in that place.' (AP Chaine no. 181, 43: 21 - 2 2 )

120

Chris Η. Reintges, Anikö Liptäk and Lisa Lai Shen Cheng b. PLURAL ne [DP ne- FCp nt-a-u-mu mn pe-Khristos ]] DEF:P REL-PERF-3P-die with DEF:SM-Christ ntou n(e) [cp et na-onh mn pe-Khristos ] THEY PRON:P CREU FUT-live with DEF:SM-Christ ' ( A s for) those who died with Christ, (it is) them w h o will also live with Christ.' (Shenoute IV 4: 1 8 - 1 9 )

The systematic absence of person agreement is evident in the context of clefted first and second person pronouns, where the deictic pronoun only reproduces the gender and number specification. This is why the third person pronouns p(e) ' h e ' and n(e) 'they' are selected in (22a,b) rather than the clitic counterparts of the clefted pronominal. The unattested examples with full agreement between the clefted pronoun and the deictic copula are given in (22a',b'). W e take the non-occurrence of such examples to stem from a grammaticality restriction. (22) First and second person pronoun clefts with gender not person agreement of the pronominal copula

and number,

but

a. SINGULAR MASCULINE pe ontok pfe) [cpef neu ] YOU(-SM) PRON:SM CREL (PRES) come '(Is it) you w h o will c o m e ? '

(Luke 7: 20)

a.' *antok antak [Cp et neu ] YOU(-SM) PRON:2SM C r e l (PRES) come b. PLURAL n e onto ton nie) [Cp et tmayo ammo-tan YOU(-P) PRON:P CREL (PRES) justify DO-2P '(It is) you that justify themselves.' b.' * an to ton on to ton [Cp et tmayo ammo-ton YOU(-P) PRON:2P C r e l (PRES) justify DO-2P

] (Luke 16: 15) ]

Furthermore, clefted personal pronouns may be construed with an invariant third person singular masculine pronominal pe, which gives rise to agreement mismatches of the following kind.

The nominal cleft construction in Coptic Egyptian

121

(23) Pronoun clefts with invariant pe a. ntos 'SHE' (Mismatch in gender) η tos gar p(e) [CP e-ne-s-moone SHE

PCL PRON:SM

m-pe.s-jot

REL-PRET-3SF-pasture

n-n-esou DO-DEF:P-sheep

]

of-DEF:SM.3SF-father

'Since (it) was her who pastured the sheep of her father' (Genesis 29: 6) b. anon 'WE' (Mismatch in number) anon de mawaa-n p(e) | C p et foop m-pei-ma ] WE P C L alone-LP PRON:SM CREL ( P R E S ) be in-DEM:SM-place '(It is) us alone who reside here.' (Budge, Martyrd. 221: 2-3) Finally, pronoun clefts allow for the deletion of the pronominal copula when the clefted pronoun is the antecedent of a subject relative clause. 8 (24) Pronoun clefts with copula

deletion

a. anok [cp et na-kategori ammo-tan anahram p-jot ] I CREL FUT-accuse DO-2P before DEF:SM-father '(It is) I who will accuse you to the father.' (John 5: 45) b. ntok

rofe ] be.responsible '(It is) you who is responsible.'

YOU:SM

c. er-wof

[Cp et

CREL(PRES)

e-feene

pu-tfaj

(Matthew 27: 4) nsa u

R E L - 2 S M - w a n t t o - g i v e . a w a y DEF:SM:2SF-boat f o r

what

ntof

[cp et saanf mmo ] HE CREL ( P R E S ) keep.alive DO-2SF 'For what (purpose) do you (woman) wish to give away your boat? (It is) it (the boat) that keeps you alive!' (KHML II 17: 1-3) d. me an to tan an [Cp et tso ammo-s Q YOU:Ρ NOT CREU ( P R E S ) say DO 3 S F '(It is) not you that say (...)'

(...)] (John 4: 35)

The main agreement patterns discussed so far are summarized in table 1. As evidenced by clefted first and second person pronouns, the deictic pronoun only express number and gender, but not person agreement with the clefted constituent. In other words, the absence of a morphological representation of grammatical person translates into a default third person form.

122

Chris Η. Reintges, Aniko Liptäk and Lisa Lai Shen Cheng

Table 1. Subject agreement patterns in Sahidic nominal clefts CLEFT CONSTITUENT

NUMBER A N D GENDER AGREEMENT

DEFAULT AGREEMENT

COPULA DELETION

DP

yes

no

no

3 r d PRONOUNS

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

JST/2ND

P

R

O

N

O

U

N

S

The impoverishment of agreement can even be taken further as to assume an invariant third person singular masculine value, which leaves number and gender features unspecified. The deletion of the deictic pronoun represents the most radical case of featural underspecification.

4.

The configurational analysis of Coptic nominal clefts

In this section, we present a configurational analysis that captures the interpretational and syntactic properties of nominal clefts in a straightforward way. We will argue that cleft formation in Coptic involves a two-step derivation, consisting of the merger of a small clause structure, and the subsequent w/z-/focus-movement of its subject into a designated focus projection. We will also provide an explanation for the distribution of the gaps and resumptive pronouns in the relative clause predicate and its interaction with the alternations in the form of the relative complementiser.

4.1. The small clause kernel As was shown in the previous section, Coptic nominal clefts instantiate a subject-predicate relationship, which is mediated by the deictic copula that links the clefted constituent and the relative clause. In structural terms, this means that the clefted element serves as subject to predication by the deictic pronoun + relative clause complex. Neither this complex, nor the relative clause itself is a free relative with a DP-layer. Given that the relative clause never occurs at the sentential level in other contexts beside clefting, we deduce that it by itself cannot function as a predicate. For the relative clause to assume such a predicative function, the deictic copula has to be introduced into the structure. Its role is that of spelling out the head of a

The nominal cleft construction in Coptic Egyptian

123

small clause (SC) structure (see Stowell 1981; Moro 1997 on small clause structures in general, and Rothstein 1995; Doron 1986 on the role of pronominal copulas therein). (25)

SC

{pe, te, n e }

[CP CREL/REL...]

In Coptic, small clauses only license DP subjects, as the following examples of locative and nominal predicates illustrate. (26) a. Locative

predication

ti-hem-pa-jot lS-in-DEF:SM-l S-father Ί am in my father.' b. Identificational

nominal sentences

(John 14: 11) (equatives)

anok pe p-fere m-p-nute I PRON:SM DEF:SM-son of-DEF:SM-god Ί (am) the son of G o d . '

(Abbatön 240: 13)

The categorial restriction on cleftability in Coptic to DPs can be directly related to the small clause structure in (25). In restricting cleft constituents to DPs, Coptic nominal clefts differ from their counterparts in more familiar languages like English and French, which allow for a much broader class of cleftable elements, including adverbial phrases and clausal complements (see, a m o n g various other, Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 1417-1419 and Doetjes, Rebuschi & Rialand 2004, but cf. Heggie 1993 for thematic and discourse restrictions on English clefts). W e hypothesize that this typological variation reflects the fact that Coptic and English clefts are derived from different underlying structures, although they share the basic ingredients of this construction, viz. an initial focus constituent and a relative clause that contains the presupposition against which focusing takes place.

124

Chris Η. Reintges, Aniko Liptäk and Lisa Lai Shen Cheng

4.2. The left-peripheral position of the clefted DP Following E.Kiss's (1998) influential analysis, we present several arguments, based on the order of topics, complementisers and question particles, to show that the cleft constituent does not stay in the subject position of the small clause, but rather moves to the specifier position of a designated focus projection in the left periphery. Consider first the data in (27a-b) below, which show that the clefted DP is not always the first element of the clause, but may be preceded by the finite 'THAT'-complementiser tfe and dedicated question particles like eye. We assume without further discussion that such clause-typing elements are merged into the exposition. This indicates that the cleft constituent is not located in the operator position Spec, CP, but rather in the specifier of a lower functional projection. (27)

COMP »

CLEFTED D P

a. Finite subordinating eßol tfe p-rro PCL C

complementiser tje pe [cpnt-a-f-tamio-f

na-s ].

DEF:SM-king PRON:SM REL-PERF-3SM-furnish-3SM for-3SF

'because (it was) the King who had furnished it (the chamber) for her.' (Eudoxia 50: 8 - 9 ) b. Q-PCL »

CLEFTED W H

eye u p(e) [Cp et na-fope ham p-et-fufu ]? Q what? PRON:SM CREL FUT-happen to DEF:SM-CREU-dry 'What (is) it that will happen to the dried out one (the tree)?' (Luke 23: 31) In (28a-b), we encounter topicalized constituents that precede the clefted DP. Their discourse status is indicated by the topicalizing particle de. This shows that the clefted DP is below higher topics. The clefted DP must therefore be located lower in the left periphery than discourse topics. (28)

DISCOURSE TOPIC »

a. etfn

nai

CLEFTED D P

de

u

p(e)

besides DEM:Ρ PCL what PRON:SM

nkyi p-diaßolos FM

[cp

ete-f-na-aa-f REL-3SM-FUT-do-3SM

]?

DEF:SM-devil

'Besides these (things), what (is it) that the devil will (manage) to do?' (Zenobius 203: 27-28)

The nominal cleft construction b. mmnsa

p-hap

de

t-fote

in Coptic Egyptian

125

m-p-nun

after DEF:SM-law PCL DEF:SF-pit of-DEF:SM-Abyss t(e) [Cp et na-fope na-k m-ma-m-moone ] PRON:SF CREL FUT-become for-2SM a s - d w e l l i n g . p l a c e

'But after the (day of) judgement, (it is) the pit of the Abyss that will become your dwelling place.' (Eudoxia 38: 24-25) However, as we can see in (29) below, topic phrases can also occur to the right of the clefited constituent. This lower topic position hosts various types of elements: left-dislocated personal pronouns (29a), emphatic reflexives (29b), topicalised time adverbials (29c). (29) CLEFTED W H »

LOWER TOPIC

a. u ntjtn pic) [CP ete-tn-wef w h a t YOU:P PRON:SM REL(-PRES)-2P-want nnahm

naj

about

DEM:P

tre-n-aa-f CAUS:INF-lP-do-3SM

]?

'(As for) you, what (is it) that you want us to do about these (things)?' (Cambyses 11:9-10) b. u hoo-n on p(e) [cp eta-n-na-aa-f ]? w h a t self-1Ρ PCL PRON:SM REL-lP-FUT-do-3SM

'What (is it) that we, on our part, shall do?' c. nim

tenu

p(e)

[ C p et

sorm

(Luke 3:14) m-p-meefe

]?

who A D V C O P : S M C R E L ( P R E S ) misguide DO-DEF:SM-crowd 'Who (is it) now that is misleading the crowd?' (Acts of Andrew and Paul 212: 231) We thus propose that the left peripheral position of the cleft constituent is the result of w/z/focus-movement in the overt syntax. See diagram (30) for further illustration. (30)

[CP[τορΡ

[FOCP

DPi

ΐ

[FOC·

[τορΡ [sc ti

[sc· {pe, te, n e }

[ R C ...

]]]]]]]]

I

The proposed focus fronting process is cross-linguistically well attested as a general strategy in languages like Hungarian (E.Kiss 1987), Basque (Ortiz de Urbina 1989), Greek (Tsimpli 1995), and Hausa (Green & Jaggar 2003). Focus fronting is also available as a marked alternative to in-situ focus in Coptic Egyptian (Reintges 2003, 2004a). 9

126

Chris Η. Reintges, Aniko Liptäk and Lisa Lai Shen Cheng

4.3. The representation of the clefted constituent in the relative clause predicate In this final section, we spell out how the cleft constituent is referentially linked to a gap or a resumptive pronoun in the associated relative clause. The broad syntactic distribution of resumptive pronouns in relative clauses is illustrated in (19b-e) above. Coptic resumptive pronouns behave differently from the ones found in English type languages in that they are not restricted to the context of island violations (see, among various others, Demirdache 1991; Tellier 1991; Shlonsky 1992). 10 Following Demirdache (1991, 1997) we analyze resumptive pronominals as in-situ relative operators on a par with w/z-in-situ phrases. The relative operator undergoes w/z-movement to the specifier of CP thereby creating the relevant operator-variable dependency. On this view the resumptive pronoun represents the spell-out of the lower copy of the operator. The movement configuration of resumptive pronominalization is represented in diagram (31). See Browning (1997) for an early account of relative operators as null pronominals (OPPR0N). (31)

C P (RELATIVE CLAUSE)

. . . OPpRoN · · ·

There is only one position where a gap appears instead of a resumptive pronoun, namely the highest subject position of the embedded clause (see Reintges 1998). The obligatory presence of a gap in this position has been attested in a variety of languages (see Borer 1984; McCloskey 1990; Demirdache 1997 for representative views on the "Highest Subject Restriction"). The presence of the gap in the subject position has a morphological correlate in the complementizer allomorph et-. In this case, we contend that the relative operator stays in-situ in the subject position. This raises the question about how the operator-variable dependency is created. We resort to a locality explanation along the lines of Agbayani (2000), who argues that the w/z-subject of English questions is licensed in the Spec,TP position because it is locally adjacent to C°, the clause-typing head just as local as the Spec-CP position is. On this account, the operator binds a variable only after LF-raising. The configuration for Coptic subject relatives with an insitu relative operator would look like (32) below.

The nominal cleft construction in Coptic Egyptian (32)

127

C P (RELATIVE CLAUSE)

That locality is indeed the relevant licensing condition for the in-situ placement of the relative operator is evident from subject relative clauses in which intervening material disrupts the adjacency between the relative complementizer and the subject position. Consider the stacked relative clause in (33), where the possessive auxiliary verb wanta ' H A V E ' appears sandwiched between the complementizer allomorph ete- and the embedded subject position. Notice that in this context a resumptive pronoun appears in the embedded subject position. (33) Stacked relative clause with both subject gap and resumptive

pronoun

pei-rome,

[CP1 et , waaß [CP2 ete-wsnta-f, mmau CREL (PRES) be.holy REL-HAVE-3SM there rn-pei-tncefe n-arete j] DO-DEM:SM-multitude of-virtue 'this holy man who possessed such a multitude of virtues' (Budge, Horn. 2: 1-2)

DEM:SM-man

A full analysis of the distribution of gaps and resumptive pronouns in Coptic relative constructions, which clearly depends on one's theory of locality, falls outside the scope of the present paper. We hope to tackle this issue in future research.

5. Concluding remarks This paper dealt with the syntactic and semantic aspects of the nominal cleft construction in Coptic Egyptian. Nominal clefts in this language were shown to belong to a larger family of focusing constructions, where the fronted cleft constituent corresponds to contrastive (identificational) focus in the majority of cases, although non-contrastive, presentational focus readings are also available. As we have shown, Coptic clefts partake in the grammar of copular constructions. The deictic copula is merged into the

128

Chris Η. Reintges, Aniko Liptäk and Lisa Lai Shen Cheng

head position of a small clause. It links the small clause subject, the clefted NP, to its predicate, the associated relative clause. The clefted DP cannot remain in-situ in the subject position of the small clause, but has to undergo focus fronting to the specifier position of a designated focus phrase in the left periphery. The underlying small clause configurationality of Coptic nominal clefts provides a principled explanation for the categorial restriction on electable elements, which can only be DPs.

Acknowledgements This paper has benefited from detailed comments by Marcel den Dikken, Barbara Egedi and an anonymous reviewer. The work of the first two authors was supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). All remaining errors are ours.

Notes 1.

2.

Since the Arab conquest of Egypt in 641 CE, Coptic was gradually replaced by Arabic for most practical purposes and reduced to a mainly ecclesiastical language, cultivated only by educated members of the Christian minority. The appearance of Coptic grammars, vocabularies, and textual editions written in Arabic in the 13th century CE signal a revived interest in Coptic philology by Egyptian Christian scholars, but also the disappearance of Coptic as a spoken language. Coptic Egyptian is the linguistic outcome of widespread bilingualism within a speech community, with Greek as the politically and culturally predominant language. Greek was not only the language of the literate elite, but also the language of the Holy Scriptures and the new religion and therefore a language of great cultural importance. Although no clear statistics are available at present, it is estimated that approximately forty percent of the Coptic vocabulary consists of Greek loan words. The transfer of Greek lexical material was not confined to lexical items, but also involved a considerable amount of function words, such as sentence conjunctions, discourse markers, manner and time adverbiale, and even some prepositions. Language contact phenomena at all grammatical levels (lexicon, syntax, discourse structure) show that Coptic should be classified as a bilingual language variety with two parent languages, Egyptian and Greek (see Reintges 2004b for a more detailed discussion).

The nominal cleft construction 3.

4.

5.

in Coptic Egyptian

129

The following abbreviations are used in the glosses. (Glosses are given in parentheses for morphemes that have no surface-segmental shape): 1 'first person'; 2 'second person'; 3 'third person'; ADV 'adverb', C 'subordinating complementiser'; CRQ 'relative c o m p l e m e n t e r ' ; CAUS.INF 'causative infinitive'; CONJ 'conjunctive'; DEF 'definite article', DEM 'demonstrative article'; DO 'direct object marker'; F 'feminine'; FM 'focus marker'; FUT 'future'; HAB 'habitual aspect'; INDEF 'indefinite article'; INF 'infinitive'; Μ 'masculine'; NEG 'negative scope marker'; NEG.PERF 'negative perfect'; NOM 'nominalising prefix'; PCL 'particle'; PERF 'perfect'; Ρ 'plural'; PRES 'present tense'; PRET 'preterit'; PRON 'deictic pronoun/pronominal copula'; Q 'question particle'; REL 'relative marker'; s 'singular'; TEMP 'temporal conjugation'. We distinguish relative markers from relative complementizers, since the former but not the latter can also appear in main clauses. See Reintges (2004a) for the text editions used in this article. Note that the pronominal copula in nominal clefts is phonologically reduced (as indicated by the parentheses), but not in nominal sentences. This is because the deictic copula of clefts is a proclitic element that is attached phonologically to the adjacent relative clause, while its counterpart in equatives is a clausesecond enclitic. The phonological reduction of the deictic copula stems from an optional process of vowel elison (cf. (2a,c)): pe, te, ne —> p, t, η / CR|:1 et, ete, e, ere (cf. Polotsky 1962: 414 and Layton 2000: 371, §464). As we can see from the grammaticality contrast between the (a) and the (b) examples of (i) and (ii), there is a definiteness restriction in the corresponding cleft constructions in Morrocan Arabic and Modern Hebrew. (i)

Definite restriction

in Moroccan

Arabic

a. L-WLAD huma lli sarrd-at (-hum) Nadia. the-children PRON.they RM sent-she (-them) Nadia ' It was the CHILDREN that Nadia sent.' (Ouhalla 1999: 341 (5b)) b. *WLAD huma lli sarrd-at (-hum) Nadia. children PRON.they RM sent-she (-them) Nadia *'It was CHILDREN that Nadia sent.' (ii) Definite restriction

in Modern

Hebrew

a. Dani hu Se 'azar le Dina Dani he that helped to Dina ' It is Dani who helped Dina.'

(Doron & Heycock 1999: 77 (21))

b. ??veled hu Se 'azar le Dina boy he that helped to Dina 'It is a boy/one boy who helped Dina.'

(Edit Doron, p.c.)

Ouhalla (1999: 341) hypothesizes that "the restrictive scope of the focus position in Arabic clefts may well have to do with the involvement of the pronominal copula", a plausible assumption given the mismatch in definiteness that would

130

6.

Chris Η. Reintges, Aniko Liptäk and Lisa Lai Shen Cheng arise when an indefinite DP is clefted. Notice, however, that Coptic nominal clefts do not display any defmiteness restrictions, yet employ the same type of pronominal copula to link the focus item to the cleft predicate. In Coptic new information focus can be in-situ as shown by the question-answer pair in (i). (i)

Q: e-tetn-tfi

m-pej-rome

e-ton

REL (-PRES)-2p-bring DO-DEM:SM-man

A: e-n-tfi

mmo-f

?

to-where

e-p-topos

n-Apa

Mena

REL (-PRES)-LP-bring DO-3SM to-DEF:SM-shrine of-Apa Mena

'Where do you bring this (sick) man to? - We bring him to THE SHRINE OF APA MENA'

(Mena, Mire., 24b: 1 - 6 )

Focus-in-situ constructions may also express explicit contrast, for instance, in the "NOT X BUT Y" construction, see (ii). (ii) NEG: ompor pa-fere no

amp-u-tof-ak

gar

DEF:SM:ls-son NEG.PERF-3P-destine-2SM

PCL

e-ti-oikonomia for-DEM:SF-career

AFF: alia ant-a but

pa-1foe is

tof-ak

e-u-solsal

REL-PERF DEF:SM-lord destine-2SM for-lNDEF:s-comfort

on-ne-sneu for-DEF:P-brothers

[CP et

waaß

CR,L(PRES) be.holy

[Cp et

foop ham

CREI (PRES) live in

pa-tfaye ]] DEF:SM-desert

'No, my son! For you have not been destined (lit. they have not destined y o u ) FOR THIS CAREER (as a hermit), but the Lord has appointed y o u AS A

COMFORT for the holy brothers who live in the desert' (Budge, Martyrd 216: 33-217: 1) The availability of identificational and new information focus fronting in insitu constructions has also been observed for Hausa (cf. Green & Reintges 2004 for a comparative analysis). 7.

8.

In an earlier study, Koopman (1982) proposed a similar topicalisation analysis for Haitian cleft sentences, which was later refuted by Lumsden (1990) on the basis of the distribution of tense and negation. Naturally, a monoclausal analysis that involves adjunction of a focus constituent to CP would no longer be feasible in contemporary theory. Coptic dialects display a considerable amount of variation with respect to copula deletion. The language variety represented by Papyrus Bodmer VI permits copula deletion not only in the context of clefted pronouns, but also in the contexts of clefted indefinites DPs, but only if the cleftee is not the subject of the embedded relative clause, as exemplified in (i) (see Polotsky 1962:425, fn. 1 for some discussion).

The nominal cleft construction (i)

u-dororii

gar [Cp e-nanu-f

iNDEFiS-gifit

PCL

in Coptic Egyptian

131

REL(-PRES)-be.beautiftil-3SM

[cp ete-ej-ti mmo-fj

ne-tn ]]

REL(-PRES)- 1 s - g i v e D 0 - 3 S M

to-2P '(It is) a beautiful gift that I give to you.'

(Proverbs 4: 2 [Papyrus Bodmer VI]) Clearly, future research needs to clarify the parametric differences of Coptic language varieties with respect to copular agreement in nominal clefts. 9. In line with recent developments (Chomsky 2001), one could interpret this movement as being motivated by an unvalued operator feature on the attracting Foc°-head. When the cleftee is moved to the Spec, FocP position, the unvalued operator feature of Foc° is valued, i.e. it is interpreted as [+identificational] or [+presentational] focus (see above, section 2 for the different semantic types of focus in Coptic clefts). 10. Naturally, Coptic resumptive pronouns will also occur as last resort devices in islands. This is illustrated by the following example, in which an entire cleft sentence is embedded inside a relative clause. The resumptive pronoun is found in the locative PP mmo-s 'in it' within the relative clause predicate, which is an island. (i)

Resumptive pronominalisation in Islands u-poleiSj (...) [Cp e-hen-soßt fem nie) lNDEF:s-city REL(-PRES)-lNDEF:P-wall small COP:P [CP et _ mmo-s, ]] CK,.:1. (PRES) in-3SF 'a city (about which holds that) (it is) small walls that (there are) in it'

(Shenoute IV 24: 27)

References Adger, David, Susan Pintzuk, Bernadette Plunkett and George Tsoulas (eds.) 1999 Specifiers: Minimalist approaches. New York: Oxford University Press. Agbayani, Brian 2000 if/z-subjects in English and the vacuous movement hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 703-713. Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Henk van Riemsdijk and Frans Zwarts (eds.) 1997 Materials on left-dislocation. Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today 14. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Barbiers, Sjef, Johan Rooryck and Jeroen van de Weijer (eds.) 1998 Small words in the big picture: Squibs for Hans Bennis. HIL Occasional Papers 2, Leiden: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.

132

Chris Η. Reintges, Anikö Liptäk and Lisa Lai Shen Cheng

Borer, Hagit 1984 Restrictive relatives in Modern Hebrew. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 219-260. 1986 The syntax of pronominal clitics. Syntax and Semantics 19: 313-332. Orlando: Academic Press. Browning, Maggie 1987 Null operator constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Byrne, Francis 1990 Toward an account of preclausal focus in some Creole languages. Linguistics 28: 661-688. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen and Norbert Corver (eds.) 2005 Wh-Movement moving on. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam 2001 Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, M. Kenstowicz (ed.), 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Demirdache, Hamida 1991 Resumptive chains in restrictive relatives, appositives and dislocation structures. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1997 Dislocation, resumption and weakest crossover. In Materials on leftdislocation,, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Henk van Riemsdijk and Frans Zwarts (eds.), 193-231. Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today 14. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Doetjes, Jenny, Georges Rebuschi and Annie Rialand 2004 Cleft sentences. In Handbook of French semantics, Henriette de Swart and Francis Corblin (eds.). Stanford: CSLI. Doron, Edit 1986 The pronominal copula as agreement clitic. In The syntax of pronominal clitics, Hagit Borer (ed.), 313-332. Syntax and Semantics 19. Orlando: Academic Press. Doron, Edit and Caroline Heycock 1999 Filling and licensing multiple specifiers. In Specifiers'. Minimalist approaches, David Adger, Susan Pintzuk, Bernadette Plunkett and George Tsoulas (eds.), 69-89. New York: Oxford University Press. Green, Melanie and Philip Jaggar 2003 Ex-situ and in-situ focus in Hausa. In Research in Afroasiatic grammar II, Papers from the fifth conference on Afroasiatic languages (Paris, June 2000), Jacqueline Lecarme (ed.), 189-214. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 241. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Green, Melanie and Chris H. Reintges 2004 Syntactic anchoring in Hausa and Coptic w/?-constructions. In Papers of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, Special Session on Afro-Asiatic Languages, Andrew Simpson (ed.), 61-72. Berkeley: Linguistic Society.

The nominal cleft construction in Coptic Egyptian

133

Heggie, Lorie 1993 The range of null operators. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 45-84. Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum 2002 The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.) 2001 Ken Hale: A life in language. Current Studies in Linguistics 36. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Kiss, Katalin E. 1987 Configurationality in Hungarian. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado. 1998 Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74: 2 4 5 273. Kiss, Katalin E. (ed.) 1995 Discourse configurational languages. New York: Oxford University Press. Koopman, Hilda 1982 Les questions. In Syntaxe de l'Haitien, Claire Lefebvre, Helene Magloire-Holly and Nannie Piou (eds.). Ann Arbor, Michigan: Karoma. Lambrecht, Knud 2001 A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39: 463-516. Layton, Bentley 2000 A Coptic grammar with chrestomathy and glossary. Porta Linguarum Orientalium N.S. 20. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Lecarme, Jacqueline (ed.) 2003 Research in Afroasiatic grammar II. Papers from the fifth conference on Afroasiatic languages (Paris, June 2000). Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 241. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lefebvre, Claire, Helene Magloire-Holly and Nannie Piou (eds.) 1982 Syntaxe de l'Haitien. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Karoma. Lumsden, John S. 1990 The biclausal structure of Haitian clefts. Linguistics 28: 741-759. McCloskey, Jim 1990 Resumptive pronouns, A'-Binding, and levels of representation in Irish. Syntax and Semantics 23. Moro, Andrea 1997 The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ortiz de Urbina, Jon 1989 Parameters in the grammar of Basque. Dordrecht: Foris.

134

Chris Η. Reintges, Aniko Liptäk and Lisa Lai Shen Cheng

Ouhalla, Jamal 1999 Focus and Arabic clefts. In The grammar of focus, Georges Rebuschi and Lauri Tuller (eds.), 335-359. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Polotsky, Hans Jacob 1962 Nominalsatz und Cleft Sentence im Koptischen. Orientalia 3 1 : 4 1 3 430. Rebuschi, Georges and Laurie Tuller (eds.), 1999 The grammar of focus. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Reintges, Chris H. 1998 The 'Highest Subject Restriction' in Coptic relative clauses. In Small words in the big picture: Squibs for Hans Bennis, Sjef Barbiers, Johan Rooryck, and Jeroen van de Weijer (eds), 83-89. HIL Occasional Papers 2, Leiden: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics. 2003 Syntactic conditions on special inflection in Coptic interrogatives. In Research in Afroasiatic grammar II, Papers from the fifth conference on Afroasiatic languages (Paris, June 2000), Jacqueline Lecarme (ed.), 363^108. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 2004a Coptic Egyptian (Sahidic dialect): A learner's grammar. Afrikawissenschaftliche Lehrbücher 15. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. 2004b Coptic Egyptian as a bilingual language variety. In Lenguas en contacto de la Antigüedad a la Edad Media [Languages in contact in Antiquity and the Middle Ages], S. Torallas Tovar (ed.). Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas. Reintges, Chris H., Philip LeSourd and Sandra Chung 2005 Movement, Wh-Agreement, and apparent Wh-m-s\t\i. In Wh-Movement moving on, Lisa Lai Shen Cheng and Norbert Corver (eds.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Rooth, Mats 1992 A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 7 5 116.

Rothstein, Susan 1995 Small clauses and copular constructions. Syntax and semantics 28: Small clauses, 27-48. New York: Academic Press. Shlonsky, Ur 1992 Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 443-468. Simpson, Andrew (ed.) 2004 Proceedings of the twenty-seventh annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, March 22-25, 2001, Special Session on Afroasiatic Languages. Berkeley: Linguistic Society. Stowell, Tim 1981 Origins of phrase structure. Ph.D. dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The nominal cleft construction in Coptic Egyptian

135

de Swart, Henriette and Francis Corblin (eds.) forthc. Handbook of French semantics. Stanford: CSLI. Tellier, Christine 1991 Licensing theory and French parasitic gaps. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Torallas Tovar, S. (ed.) 2004 Lenguas en contacto de la Antigüedad a la Edad Media (Languages in contact in Antiquity and the Middle Ages). Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas. Tsimpli, I. Μ 1995 Focusing in Modern Greek. In Discourse configurational languages, Katalin E. Kiss (ed.), 176-206. New York: Oxford University Press.

Genitive constructions in Coptic Barbara Egedi

1.

Introduction

1.1. Definition of 'Coptic' Coptic is the language of Christian Egypt (4 th to 14th century) written in a specific version of the Greek alphabet. It was gradually superseded by Arabic from the ninth century onward, but it survived to the present time as the liturgical language of the Christian church of Egypt. In this paper I examine only one of its main dialects, the Sahidic Coptic and I use a transcription which simply reflects the Coptic letters irrespectively of phonological details. 1

1.2. UG in the reconstruction of dead languages Natural languages are claimed to have universal properties or principles which constitute what is referred to as Universal Grammar. Accepting certain universal principles and observing the corresponding parameters in Coptic, we can also analyse a language without living native speakers, and explain its structural relations with the help of coherent models. For example, it is considered a universal principle that the projections of lexical heads are extended by one or more functional projections. If we assume that it can be demonstrated in many languages, why could not we suppose the same in the case of Coptic? Indeed, as it will be shown in chapter 4, there are at least two functional projections above the Coptic lexical noun phrase as well. The aim of this paper is to provide an adequate account of the basic structure of the Coptic N P within the theoretical framework of the Minimalist Program (a short summary of which will be found in the following section); at the same time, I intend to find the answer to unsolved questions related to genitive constructions. In fact, in many cases even the appropriate questions have not been posed yet. Coptic has two different genitive con-

138

Barbara Egedi

structions: one with simple definite possessions and one for indefinite, modified or deictically marked head nouns. After establishing the distribution and the use of the two genitive constructions, I will point out the differences between their internal structures. The paper is organised as follows: section 2 expounds the theoretical assumptions regarding the noun phrase research and the minimalist program; section 3 examines the Coptic data, the distributional conditions of noun phrases and the internal structure of the two genitive constructions with particular attention to the nature of linking elements between the possession and the possessor. In the last section, I analyse the derivation of simple NPs and that of genitive constructions in the framework of a modified checking theory.

2.

Theoretical background

2.1. Layered Noun Phrase The research of the noun phrase does not have as old a tradition in generative theories as the research of the verbal constructions and the sentence as a whole. (On the history of this research see Giorgi-Longobardi 1991.) However, since the end of the eighties several suggestions have appeared for an analysis of noun phrases similar to that of sentences, supposing functional categories (whose role is essentially grammatical) above lexical nouns and their phrases. In other words, the noun phrase is actually a DP projected from a Det(erminer), whose complement is an NP. The DP hypothesis traditionally has been ascribed to Abney (1987) but the comparison of NPs with VPs can be traced back to Chomsky's earlier works. 2 Once this analysis was widely accepted, functional heads appeared in a greater number in the noun phrase corresponding to the multiplied number of functional projections in the clause. Bernstein (1991), Ritter (1991) and others suggested that this functional FP between the lexical NP and the functional DP should be a NumP, a projection responsible for number specifications, and this view is going to be adopted in this paper as well. The main motivation for supposing an intermediate FP was the requirement to explain the word order variations within the noun phrase across languages and to provide a landing site for N-movement. As the approach presented here intends to be a minimalist one, the notion of movement needs a more accurately formulated motivation 3 in terms of checking theory. In

Genitive constructions in Coptic

139

the next section I give a short summary of the principles and methodology of the minimalist program.

2.2. The minimalist theory Chomsky's minimalist theory claims that the syntax (the computational system of Human Language) is a minimally complex system, which maps a numeration of elements from the lexicon to a pair of interface representations at PF and LF, respectively. Syntactic derivation consists of two operations: Merge and Move. Through Merge, uninterpretable features like case and agreement can also get into the syntax. Unlike interpretable elements, uninterpretable features must be erased by LF to satisfy Full Interpretation. In order to be erased, these features must be checked, that is, paired with a corresponding feature in an appropriate structural relation (specifier-head relation, adjoined heads). The other operation is Move, which applies exactly in order to create this local checking relation: a certain functional category with uninterpretable features attracts the features of a "lower" category. Movement can be visible, in that case it has to take place before Spell-Out in overt syntax, or it can happen covertly, not affecting phonological representation (Chomsky 1993, 1995; Lasnik 1999). Minimalist feature checking was developed first of all to account for sentence-level agreement, but it can be extended to the N P as well, since concord inside a noun phrase is actually a type of agreement among the cofeatures (number, gender, case) of the noun and the determiners and adjectives modifying it. Carstens (2000) provides a detailed account of minimalist analysis to concord - slightly modifying the original theory of movement - , and I rely on her study in many respects. 4

3.

The Coptic NP

3.1. Noun phrases Traditional grammars (e. g., Till 1986: §§44-122; Lambdin 1986: passim·, Vergote 1950) confine themselves to list exhaustively the possible orders of constituents, the types of articles and other determiners, without trying to explain the relationship between certain phenomena or establishing the

140

Barbara Egedi

basic phrase structure of the NP. Two exceptions to this generalisation are Shisha-Halevy (1986, §5.1.1. and passim) - however, his view is entirely different from my own - and Layton (2000), who is concerned with article phrases and specifier phrases. 5 According to the DP hypothesis, argument noun phrases are DPs, maximal projections of the functional category D (determiner). What is more, the complement of the D is another functional category, an intermediate projection, often associated with the number specification of the lexical NP. However, only necessary functional projections must be built (Grimshaw 1991). This supposition of different NP types (NPs, NumPs, DPs) is not an arbitrary classification, it is also motivated by the syntactic distribution of noun phrases: the various noun phrase projections distribute differently across sentence positions (E. Kiss 2000: 124) as the evidence in 3.2.2 will show it.

3.2.

The Coptic data

3.2.1. Gender and

number

Nouns have masculine or feminine grammatical gender, but in lack of any modifying element, this feature is usually not expressed morphologically. The formal marking of gender is limited to a class of exceptional nouns which have two related forms corresponding to male and female biological sex (son/söne = brother/sister). In most cases it is the article or some other determiner that shows the gender and also the number specification: (1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

röme

söse

man

field

p-röme

t-söse

"n-röme/söse

def:sg.m.-man 'the m a n '

def:sg.f.-field 'the field'

def:pl.-man/field 'the men/fields'

pei-rdme

tei-söse,

nei-röme/söse

dem:sg.m.-man 'this m a n '

denr.sg.f.-field 'this field'

dem:pl.-man/field 'these men/fields'

pef-röme

tef-söse

nef-röme/söse

poss:sg.m.-man 'his m a n '

poss:sg.f.-field 'his field'

poss:pl.-man/field 'his men/fields'

ou-•rome/sose

hen-röme/söse

indef:sg.-man/field 'a man'

indef:pl.-man/field 'men/fields'

Genitive constructions in Coptic

141

The definite article and the demonstrative have three distinct forms: in the singular there is a masculine as well as a feminine form, while in the plural no such morphological distinction can be found. The indefinite article has a singular and a plural variant. The possessive article does not only mark the number and gender of the possessed noun like the article but also the person, the number and - in 2. and 3. sg. - the gender of the possessor. 6

3.2.2.

Distribution

The distribution of definite and indefinite noun phrases is clearly different in three (morpho)-syntactic cases: a.) in the so-called 'first present' type sentences, the subject cannot be indefinite, more precisely, an indefinite subject must be preceded by an existential particle: (6)

p-röme

rime

def:sg.m.-man cry 'the man is crying'

(7a) *ou-röme

rime

(7b) oun

indef:sg.-man cry 'a man is crying'

ou-röme

rime

ex.prt. indef:sg.-man cry 'a man is crying/there is a man crying'

b.) indefinite noun phrases cannot be modified by the relative converters 7 et-/ent-, but by the circumstantial converters only. In other words, if the antecedent of a relative clause is indefinite, a circumstantial verbal form follows: (8)

p-röme

et-rime

def:sg.m.-man conv:rel.ps-0-cry 'the man who is crying'

(9)

ou-röme

e-f-rime

indef :sg.-man con ν: circ.-proN :3 sg. m. -cry 'a man who is crying'

c.) Coptic has two types of genitive constructions, in one of which definiteness is obligatory. In fact, the situation is more complicated, since in this pattern the possessed noun must have a definite article but cannot have any other determiner or modifier.

142

Barbara Egedi

3.2.3. Genitive

constructions

Let us call the two genitive constructions pattern A and pattern B, exemplified in ( 1 0 M 1 3 ) : Pattern A (10) p-sere

e

m-p-röme

def:sg.m.-son o/-def:sg.m.-man 'the man's son'

Pattern Β (11)

ou-sere

e

nte-p-röme

indef:sg.-son o/-def:sg.m.-man 'a son of the man'

(12) p-sere

e

"n-sabe

nte-p-röme

def:sg.m.-son adj.prt.-clever 'the clever son of the man'

(13) pei-sere

o/-def:sg.m.-man

"nte-p-röme

dem:sg.m.-son o/-def:sg.m.-man 'this son of the man'

In both patterns the order of the constituents is: Possessed N P + morpheme expressing genitive relationship, genitive marker + Possessor NP. The difference between the two constructions is that in pattern A the possessed N P is introduced by a definite article, and the possessor expression is marked by a genitive marker "n- Cm-)? while in pattern B, the possessed NP may be indefinite, preceded by a demonstrative, 9 or modified by an adjective, and the possessor expression is introduced by a preposition ente~, enta- 10 Before turning to structural investigation, we have to say a few words about the status and nature of these morphemes marking the possessive expression, and about other controversial aspects present also in traditional Coptic grammars. It is clear that contrary to certain opinions (Lambdin 1986: 6), the enelement in pattern A is not a preposition. It has no prepronominal form (as it is expected from a standard preposition). In fact, pronominal possessors are expressed by what we call the possessive article: (14a) pef-sere poss.art.-son 'his son'

(14b) nef-sere poss.art.-son 'his sons'

(14c)

tek-maay poss.art.-mother 'your mother'

Genitive constructions in Coptic

143

It is somewhat embarrassing that apparently numerous function words have the same form. For example an e n - introduces the direct object 11 as well, and there is also a partitive preposition en~ illustrated in (15), which is a real preposition with two forms. One has to distinguish it from the genitive marker in (16), functioning more like a case marker morpheme: (15a) oua

c

n-nen-eiote

one of(part)-our-fathers ' o n e of our fathers'

(16a) p-nobe

"n-nen-eiote

def:sg.m.-sin of(poss)-our fathers 'our f a t h e r ' s sin'

(15b)owa

e

mmo-ou

one of(part)-them 'one of them'

(16b) *p-nobe

"mmo-ou

(16c) peu-nobe

def:sg.m.-sin of-them *the sin of them

poss.art.-sin 'their sin'

An en- morpheme introduces adjectives, too, as it can be seen in (12): p-sere e n-sabe 'the clever son'. This "n- obviously lacks a prepronominal form, too. Observe the following phrases, 12 the first of which is a genitive, while the second and the third are attributive constructions: (17a) p-höb

e

n-nek-cig

the-work of-your(poss.art)-hand 'the work of your hands'

(17c) pa-höb

(17b) hen-höb

C

n-cig

indef:pl.-work adj.prt.-hand 'handiworks'

e

n-cig

poss.art.-work adj.prt.-hand ' m y handiwork'

What is it that shows us that the in (17b) is not a genitive marker? First, bare nouns have a very restricted use in Coptic, some kind of an article usually appears with them. Adjectives, on the other hand, do not need any article or determiner, apart from this linking element. 13 Loprieno considers it a determinative pronoun, comparing it with that in Hebrew attributive constructions (Loprieno 1995: 56), but let me call the reader's attention to the fact that while after a definite noun there appears another definite article before the adjective in Hebrew (hä- 'is hag-gädöl the-man the-great i.e. 'the great man'), after an indefinite noun the article (or determinative pronoun) is absent before the adjective, too ('is gädöl man great i.e. 'a great man'). In my opinion this phenomenon can be explained as an agreement in definiteness, and it is far from being similar to the Coptic adjective particle, whose appearance is indifferent to the definiteness of its noun, as can be seen in (17b). (17a) would not be grammatical with an indefinite article. (17c) provides a clearer case where the presence of the possessive article evidently excludes the genitive interpretation of the adjective linking particle.

144

Barbara Egedi

Perhaps this ambiguous status is responsible for the fact that some Coptic grammars refer to both en- morphemes with the same rather neutral names as mark of relationship (Layton 2000: §203) or nota relationis (ShishaHalevy 1986: 20). I prefer calling it a genitive particle (cf. Till 1986: §113: "Genitivpartikel") or rather marker, thus indicating that it functions as a case-marker or much alike. It is worth mentioning that the notion of "case" in Coptic does not go without saying. The only obvious structural case is the nominative (for its position see Reintges 2001: 100). The object of the verb can be expressed either by a prepositional phrase or by forming a construct state with the verb. The latter is a procedure, which is not possible in every conjugation type. Apart from these cases all of the relations within the sentence are expressed by prepositions. That is why the case-marker status of the e n morpheme is not self-evident for me. The "nte-, enta- of pattern Β is a better candidate for being a preposition: it has two allomorphs, the first of which was exemplified in (11)-(13). The second form serves for introducing pronominal possessors. (18)

ou-sere

e

nta-f

indef:sg.-son o/proNiB.sg.m. 'a son of his'

This view is shared by many authors (Till 1986: §113; Lambdin 1983). Nevertheless, Layton (2000: §204) finds it questionable, arguing that it never modifies a preceding verb or verbal clause. On the one hand there is no doubt about its prepositional origin (Loprieno 1995: 71), on the other the above criterion does not seem to be relevant in defining the preposition as a category. In the Coptic data, there is a well-observable complementary distribution between the two patterns. Although earlier grammars pointed out the syntactic conditions of this distribution, Layton explains it on semantic grounds. He speaks about a restrictive expansion, a construction of two entity terms such that one restricts the meaning of the other by limiting the number of referents to which it applies (Layton 2000: §146). In his terminology, restrictive expansion has two types: the general (possessive) relationship and the appurtenance construction, but they do not correspond exactly to our pattern A and pattern Β division. Shisha-Halevy argues that the original opposition was essential possession vs. incidental possession or appurtenance but it is usually neutralised and maintained in isolated cases only (Shisha-Halevy 1986: 21). I maintain that the factors determining the

Genitive constructions in Coptic

145

choice between them are purely syntactic: the choice depends on what kind of other N P modifiers are present. In 3.2.3., it has been shown that pattern A is used with simple definite possessions only, while pattern Β appears practically in every other case. As a matter of fact, the distribution seems unusual at first sight, but we find a similar phenomenon in the English preposed/postposed genitive alternation. The preposed possessive construction {John's book, a teacher's work) is always understood as definite. Lyons explains it by the fact that the genitive phrase is in Det position, and the filling of this position forces a definite interpretation (Lyons 1986: 138-140). In the case of an indefinite head noun, another construction has to be used (a friend of mine), typically a PP complement. This PP construction occurs when the head Ν is modified by a demonstrative (this friend of mine). As a general rule, it is available to make possible anything other than a simple definite possessive, which is all the preposed construction can express. 14 The resemblance (of the English constructions) to the distribution of Coptic genitive constructions is striking. Though Coptic has no preposed constructions (except with a pronominal possessor), pattern A implies the same simple definite interpretation. While in English the preposed genitive and the definite article cannot co-occur (*the John's book) - presumably because they occupy the same structural position, 15 the Coptic genitive phrase in pattern A is in a postposed position, and the noun phrase has an overt definite article. I claim that there is a correlation between the English and Coptic data, and in the next section I intend to provide an adequate account of this fact and determine the exact structure of Coptic possessive patterns.

4.

The structure

4.1. A modified checking theory In 2.2. we have asserted that for being checked, formal features must be in some local structural relation and it is this requirement that motivates movement. First, Chomsky (1993) formulated the principle of Greed: Move a applies to an element a only if morphological properties of a itself are not otherwise satisfied. In other words, movement is triggered by the morphological requirements of the moved element. Lasnik (1999) suggests a revision of Greed in terms of Enlightened Self Interest (ESI): The morpho-

146

Barbara Egedi

logical requirement can be either one of the moving element (as with Greed) or one of the position it is moving to. At the same time Chomsky (1995) modifies his principle apparently to the contrary, his "Suicidal Greed" insists that only the target is relevant: Movement happens only when a category with an uninterpretable feature attracts some feature into its checking domain, (cf. The principle Attract: Chomsky 1995: 297) Carstens, giving a version of Lasnik's ESI, replaces Chomsky's Attract with the principle Move (Carstens 2000: 324), which essentially suggests the same: the features of the target have no special status in the motivation of movement; if a category has uninterpretable features, it may either raise itself or "attract" raising for checking purposes. The features may be "strong", requiring immediate checking via overt movement, or "weak", in which case checking takes place only in covert syntax - obeying the economy principle of Procrastinate. This extended version of the checking theory will fit our analysis of genitive constructions, but first of all I intend to show the base structure of the simple noun phrase in Coptic.

4.2. N P without possession The bare noun [ NP [ N röme]] without any determiner is underspecified for number and in cross-reference it can be either plural or singular (Layton 2000: §48). Meanwhile gender must be an intrinsic feature of nouns, testified by adjectives agreeing with it. Adopting the idea that there is a functional projection NumP above the lexical NP, I consider the Num head to be responsible for number specification. As the noun precedes the genitive expression and the adjectives' 6 in the word order, we can assume that Num° has a strong category feature for N°, hence Ν overtly raises and adjoins to it. (20)

(19) NumP Num

Num° NP

[β number]

Ν [a gender]

N°

Num°

[a gender]

[β number]

Genitive constructions in Coptic

147

Overt movement is supported by 'irregular' morphological plural forms, 17 where formal features are visible on nouns (21), hence the morphological requirement of movement is obvious. It is interesting to observe that adjectives, which - in my opinion - normally do not leave the NP projection, may have exceptional plural forms, but these forms occur mainly in nominalized usage (22). (21) en-sney

e

n-saben

def:pl.-brother:pl. wise 'the wise brothers'

(22)

c

n-sabeeye]9

def:pl.-wise.pl. 'the wise ( m e n ) '

The indefinite articles (see the forms in (5)) are merged probably in Spec,NP, but they have to check their uninterpretable number features, hence they raise to the specifier of NumP, where they are in appropriate spec-head checking relation with the N+Num head. The definite articles are heads of the DP determiner phrase or more precisely - adopting Lyons's theory (1999) - of the definiteness phrase. As we could see in (2), the Coptic definite article shows agreement in gender and number features with the noun. As a matter of fact, agreement (i.e. concord) takes place between D°, whose uninterpretable gender and number features motivate raising to check them, and the features of N+Num head. The raising of features takes place in covert syntax as no overt movement can be observed. 20 (23)

DP

148

Barbara Egedi

Demonstratives (see (3)) seem to have a [definite] feature. Identifiability is somehow part of their semantic content, so demonstratives always imply definiteness (Lyons 1999: 18-21). For this reason, they appear in D° like the definite article, and this is why they - demonstratives and definite articles can never co-occur in the same phrase. Demonstratives can check their uninterpretable gender and number features in the same manner as the articles: the corresponding features of the N+Num head are attracted to check them.

4.3. Genitive constructions: pattern A The pattern A exemplified in (10) provides a real challenge for our investigation. We have to face several questions: what happens during the derivation ensuring that the possessed noun always be definite and at the same time excluding any other determiner from the phrase? Where is the genitive phrase base-generated? Derived (deverbal) nouns (especially those expressing a process or an event) inherit the theta-grid of the verb. The arguments of the noun should be generated in the corresponding external/internal argument positions (Ritter 1991; Siloni 1996). For example, the agent argument is assigned nominative case in verbal constructions and genitive case in nominal constructions. The theme argument is assigned accusative case in both constructions. This is the case in Hebrew (26) and in Coptic, as well: 21 (24)

p-ei ebol

e

m-p-israel

hen-keme22

the-come:inf. forth of-the-Israel from-Egypt 'the coming forth of Israel from Egypt'

(25a)

p-koos-t23 the-bury:inf.-l.sg. ' m y burial (the burying-me)'

(26)

axilat dan et ha-tapuax

(25 b)

*pa-köös poss.art.-bury:inf. ' m y burial'

(Hebrew)24

eating Dan acc.the-apple ' D a n ' s eating of the apple'

If we suppose that the base position of the phrase expressing the possessor is in the SpecNP, the combination of a genitive construction with an adjectival modifier (possibly adjoined to NP 2 5 ) would yield the Possession + Adj(s) + Possessor order:

Genitive constructions in Coptic e

(27a) *p-sere

n-cabe

def:sg.m.-son clever 'the man's clever son'

(27b)

149

e

m-p-röme

o/-def:sg.m.-man

*DP

D P-

NumP Num sere.

NP AdjP n-cabe

NP

L

Spec m-p-röme

N'

e

Ν ti However, in Coptic the possession and the possessor require direct adjacency in pattern A, therefore adjectives must follow both of them (which otherwise results in structural ambiguity, since the adjective may be the modifier of either of the nouns): (28) p-sere

e

m-p-r5me

def:sg.m.-son o^defisg.m.-man a) 'the m a n ' s clever son' b) 'the clever m a n ' s son'

e

n-cabe

clever

To ensure the direct adjacency and the licensing of genitive case we have to assume a PossP projection with an abstract possessive morpheme 26 in its head, and with the possessor phrase in its specifier. It would explain the exceptional behaviour of the genitive marker en-, em-, which can be regarded as a case marker on the possessor. But we have not given account of the fact that the head noun in pattern A cannot be indefinite or modified. It seems reasonable to assume that the possessor phrase works as a determinant, it has a [definite] feature. There is a similar assumption for Hungarian caseless possessor phrases, which are claimed to have a [determininer] feature and move to the DP domain to have it checked. 27 In Coptic, the possessor itself does not raise. Its [def] feature is weak, and there is no overt movement - as is attested in Hungarian or English {a boy's book). Nevertheless, the [definite] feature of the possessor has to be raised in order to be checked by the D head. The definite article - as a default

150

Barbara Egedi

determiner - seems to be the phonological realization of the [def] feature in the DP, otherwise lacking lexical content. As a consequence, the presence of the definite article excludes the demonstrative and the possessive article in the same structure. (29)

DP NumP

D def.art. Num

PossP

— Spec Poss' possessor [def] Poss ΝΡ '

^ Ν possession 1

T

The uninterpretable gender and number features of the definite article will be checked as illustrated in (23). Returning to the original assumption that the possessor phrase originates in Spec,NP we could also exclude the appearance of an indefinite possession in pattern A. I supposed earlier that Spec,NP is the starting-point also for the indefinite articles, so the indefinite noun and the possessor of type A mutually exclude each other. However, the possessor merged in Spec,NP has a further [gen] case feature (beside his [def] feature), which can be checked in Spec,PossP. The possessor phrase is raised to the PossP domain overtly, the proof of which is given by the possession-possessor-modifier(s) word order discussed above (see (27) and (28)).

Genitive constructions in Coptic

151

DP

(30) D def.art.

NumP Num

PossP

— Spec possessor [defj

Poss' Poss

NP

AdjP modifier

NP

Spec possessor [gen],[def]

Ν' Ν - possession

The possessive article which encodes the pronominal possessor has an interpretable [definite] feature (see (4) and (14)) and its derivation is parallel in manner with that of demonstratives. They are in the D-head and combine with the N P by merge. However, the definite feature assignment to the possessor is not so selfevident if we take into consideration languages classified as adjectivalgenitive by Lyons (1999). From (31) it can be seen, that in Italian the pronominal possessor can co-occur with a definite/indefinite article. (31 a)

il mio amico the my friend

(31 b) un mio amico a my friend

Two conclusions can be drawn from (31): the pronominal possessor does not occupy the D° position since it seems to be reserved for the definite article il, moreover, the possessiveness itself does not involve defmiteness as a rule. However, this divergence can be due to parametric variation among languages.

152

Barbara Egedi

4.4. Genitive constructions: pattern Β As it was stated earlier, pattern Β constructions appear with indefinites, demonstratives, and other modifiers in the noun phrase, as was exemplified in (11)—(13). The possession-possessor sequence can be interrupted by certain elements in the phrase, but their relative order is retained. An exception to this constraint could be the predication of possession, a special grammaticalised structure in Coptic. Existence or non-existence are predicated by oun "there is" and rnn "there is not", respectively, followed by the subject, indefinite 28 as can be expected. Their combinations with the preposition "nte-, enta- yields the combinations ounte-, ounta-; rnnte-, rnnta- expressing possession and its negation respectively (Till 1986: §§289-294; Lambdin 1983: 90-91; Layton 2000: §§383-390). In these constructions the ente- phrase seems to move out from its postposed position, but the occasional appearance of the object-marker on the possession (32) suggests that the ounte- combination has been reinterpreted as a verb, and the original subject has become the object of the compound verb denoting "have" (Polotsky 1987: §40). So this pattern is no more suitable for a target of our investigation. (32) ounte-p-röme

(n-)ou-shime

have-def:m.sg.-man (obj.)-indef:sg.-wife 'the man has a w i f e '

Returning to genitive constructions, we can state that the cnte- phrase follows the possession, although it can be separated from it even by a short embedded relative clause (33). (33) p-moou

et-onh

def:sg.m.-water rel.conv.-0-alive 'the living water of the light'

e

nte-p-ouoin29

of- def:sg.m.-light

Moreover, it can leave the noun phrase domain: (34) ere hen-enka

calöou

ero-f

e

nte-ou-römei0

foe. indef:pl.-thing entrust:stative to-3.sg.m. of-indef:sg.-man ' s o m e o n e ' s things were entrusted to him'

This mobile character of the possessive in pattern Β and the prepositional nature of W e - discussed in 3.2.3. indicate that this genitive cannot be a structural case. Anyway, it does not have any kind of [defj feature, so it

Genitive constructions in Coptic

153

cannot be generated in the same position as pattern A. The genitive case seems to be an inherent one, licensed by the preposition "nte-. For a similar phenomenon, namely the Hebrew postnominal seZ-phrase (an alternative genitive construction beside the so-called Construct State), Ritter suggested that it should be a base generated adjunct attached to the matrix DP. 3 1 Providing a similar derivation for Coptic, the phrase could adjoin either to N u m P or to D P - or in exceptional cases to CP, as well (34). NumP

(35a) NumP

e

DP

(35b)

PP nte-p-röme

ou-sere

DP e

PP nte-p-röme

pei-sere/ p-sere e n-sabe

An alternative analysis could be that the ente- phrase is directly adjoined to N P , similarly to the adjective-adjunction. However, as we have seen, adjectives modifying the same head noun precede the "nte- possessor in linear order (see (12)). What kind of constraint should be introduced into our syntax to ensure the proper order? 3 2 (36)

NumP

Num sere

NP

e

AdjP n-sabe

NP

PP nte-p-röme

NP

For lack of such a constraint the former adjunction-hypothesis seems more plausible. The last question that remained is that if the cnte- phrase can be adjoined to a D P as well, what prevents it from appearing with the simple definite possession. Provided that the above derivations are right, the preference for pattern A seems to be due to economy conditions only.

154

Barbara Egedi

5. Conclusion In this paper I intended to provide an account of the basic nominal constructions in Coptic with special attention to the two different genitive structures, which I called pattern A and pattern B. The former had restrictions in respect of the definiteness of the head noun, and I suggested an analysis according to which the definite feature of the possessor checked in the covert syntax assures these restrictions to be satisfied. The latter construction is a looser relation between the possession and the possessor, and several facts indicate that basically it has a different structure, probably an adjunction on distinct levels of the noun phrase. Many questions remained open regarding the Coptic noun phrase structure which I have not even attempted to answer for the moment. The systematic investigation of the adjectives and their relative order within the noun phrase may reveal new results not only for Coptic studies but for Universal Grammar, as well. It may also modify the issue of the present paper, and I hope to continue an instructive inquiry - for the linguistics of dead languages, too.

Acknowledgements For helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this paper I owe thanks to Huba Bartos, Katalin E. Kiss and Chris H. Reintges. I am also grateful to Zsuzsa Kertesz for correcting my English. All errors are, of course, my own.

Notes 1. e.g. rules like the pronunciation of the ou sequence that has two values: a consonantal [v] and a vocal [u] depending on its position within a syllable. The transcription is based on Lambdin (1983: χ.) I initiated only one more diacritic sign: e , which corresponds to the Coptic supralinear stroke. It is used to indicate either a syllabic consonant or a short schwa before the letter in question. The abbreviations used for grammatical expressions: acc. = accusative; circ. = circumstantial; conv. = converter; def.= definite; dem. = demonstrative article; foe. = focus-marker; gen. = genitive; indef. = indefinite; poss. = possessive article; proN = pronoun; prt. = particle; ps. = present; rel. = relative.

Genitive constructions in Coptic 2. 3. 4.

5.

6. 7.

8.

9. 10.

11. 12. 13. 14.

15.

15 5

Szabolcsi argues for an INFL node in Hungarian noun phrases as early as in 1981, claiming that NPs have a sentence-like structure with agreement features. "if there is a leading technical idea in Minimalism, it is that movement is a last resort, taking place only when triggered by a driving force" (Lasnik 1999: 2.) As Huba Bartos pointed out to me (pers. comm.) concord is an "internal" correlation between potentially more than two items - sharing in a feature that is a property of the whole category containing them, unlike in the case of sentencelevel agreements, where we always find "external" correlation between two items. So the comparison of concord and agreement raises some theoretical problems. The nucleus of the article phrase is the article itself, expressing grammatical and referential information, the expansion element expresses lexical content. (Layton 2000: §43) He treats indefinite and definite determiners in the same way, without making the obvious distinction, otherwise relevant in syntax, between them. In an earlier study he speaks about "determinator syntagm" (Layton 1990). In the examples below the -f element i n p e f - is a 3. sg. m. marker. Converter is the traditional name for a group of Coptic complementisers. The two converters in (8) and (9) show some syntactic difference: after the circumstantial converter a resumptive pronoun always has to be present in subject position, while in the case of the relative clause - in well definable conditions a null-form can be attested. The variant "m- is the result of a simple phonological rule, namely, that before bilabial stops (p, m) η becomes m, and on certain morpheme boundaries this assimilation was reflected in the spelling. Shisha-Halevy (1986) seems sceptical whether demonstrative-modified nouns fall under this case. Opinions vary in this respect. Prepositions in Coptic have two distinct forms depending on the category (noun vs. clitic-like personal pronoun) of the following complement. This fact will be relevant when arguing that the n- introducing the possessor phrase is not a preposition. But in that case it behaves like a preposition having two forms, one for prenominal and one for prepronominal use. All of them from the same text (The Life of Apa Onnophrios, Till, 1986: 282) Attributive constructions show certain variation, the discussion of which does not concern us here. See Layton (2000, §§96-103) Lyons (1986, 140) introduces a new distinction: languages of the above type are determiner-genitive (DG) languages, while languages like Italian, where genitives can co-occur with the definite and also with the indefinite article (il mio libro, un mio libro) are adjectival-genitive (AG) languages. For further details: Lyons (1986 and 1999, Ch. 8.). More precisely, the genitive is in SpecDP and the article in D°, but only one of the two positions can be filled within the phrase.

156

Barbara

Egedi

16. Adjectives can precede their nouns but its conditions and problems do not concern us here. I suppose for now that the Ν Adj sequence is the unmarked one. 17. About one hundred nouns have a distinct plural form as well (according to Layton to express the category of individual concrete plurality, Layton 2000: § 108b). 18. From son 'brother' in singular 19. From sabe 'wise' in singular (Lambdin 1983: 58) 20. This analysis follows that of the Italian determiner le in Carstens (2000: 329) 21. In reality, Coptic uses the infinitive form of the verb in both constructions. An alternative analysis for DPs supposes an nP "shell" above the core NP - following the VP-shell hypothesis - and its specifier provides the position where the possessor or the agent of derived nouns can be generated (Carstens 2000; Radford 2000). This analysis seems to be redundant for Coptic because of the above-mentioned infinitival character of the nominal constructions. One hardly finds any deverbal derived noun with its full argument structure. 22. Ps 113(114): 1. (Layton 2000: §105) 23. Matt 26:12. (Layton 2000: §105) The personal pronoun is in canonical object position. Its realization is clearly different from that of pronominal possessors of simple nouns lacking arguments. (25b) would be grammatical only with this latter type. 24. Ritter 1991, 39 (2b) 25. There is a general uncertainty concerning the generation of adjectives: are they adjunctions or generated in SpecXP? For the moment I accept the common assumption that they are adjoined to a maximal projection. About this problem and a different point of view: Cinque (1995) 26. Radford (2000); this view is supported by the fact that in Hungarian (and in Turkish) there is a visible agreement inflection on the possessed noun. Cf. E. Kiss (2000) 27. E. Kiss (2000: 134). The Hungarian noun phrase has a relatively complex structure with real agreeing properties in genitive constructions. Its demonstration would need a more detailed analysis than seems relevant to our understanding of Coptic NPs. Beyond a desultory comparison, there seem to be more differences than similarities between the constructions of the two languages. (For references, see: Szabolcsi 1994; E. Kiss 2000, 2002: Ch. 7. among others.) 28. Polotsky (1960: §33) exhaustively enumerates the possible subject types, but these cases are practically all indefinite. 29. From p.Beroliensis 8502, 26, 20. after Till 1986, § 113 30. After Reintges (2002, 350. (9)) 31. And it freely receives a default possessor interpretation (Ritter 1988: 921). In Ritter (1991) she modifies her theory, and supposes two sources of sei: either a realization of case assigned by Ν to an argument inside NP or the head of a DP adjunct. (Ritter 1991: 48) The Coptic "nte-phrase does not seem to appear for expressing an argument of the infinitival nominal constructions.

Genitive constructions in Coptic

1 57

32. In the theory of Cinque (1995) every adjective and attributive modifier in the phrase has its own projection with the adjectives in the specifier position and these projections can be ordered hierarchically. If there were also a so-called c «/e-projection, it could be positioned directly over the NP.

References Abney, Steven 1987 The English noun phrase and its sentential aspect. Ph. D. diss., Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. Bernstein, Judy 1991 DPs in French and Walloon: evidence for parametric variation in nominal head movement. Probus 3(2): 101-126. Carstens, Vicki 2000 Concord in Minimalist Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 31:319-355 Chomsky, Noam 1993 A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The Minimalist Program, 1995, Noam Chomsky, 167-217. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1995 Categories and transformations. In The Minimalist Program, 1995, Noam Chomsky, 219-394. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo 1995 On the evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP. In Italian Syntax and Universal Grammar, Guglielmo Cinque (ed.), 2 8 7 309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. E. Kiss, Katalin 2000 The Hungarian noun phrase is like the English noun phrase. In Papers from the Pics Conference, Approaches to Hungarian 7, Alberti Gabor and Kenesei Istvän (eds.), 121-149. Szeged: JATE Press. 2002 Hungarian Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giorgi, Alessandra and Giuseppe Longobardi 1991 The Syntax of Noun Phrases: Configuration, Prameters, and Empty Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grimshaw, J. 1991 Extended projection. Ms., Brandeis University. Lambdin, Thomas O. 1983 Introduction to Sahidic Coptic. Macon: Mercer University Press. Lasnik, Howard 1999 Minimalist Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. Layton, Bentley 1990 The Coptic Determinator Syntagm and its Constituents. Journal of Coptic Studies 1: 79-97.

158

Barbara Egedi

Layton, Bentley 2000 A Coptic Grammar with Chrestomathy and Glossary. Sahidic Dialect. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Loprieno, Antonio 1995 Ancient Egyptian. A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, Christopher 1986 The syntax of English genitive constructions. Journal of Linguistics 22: 123-143. 1999 Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Polotsky, Hans Jacob 1960 The Coptic conjugation system. Orientalia 29: 392-422. 1987 Grundlagen des koptischen Satzbaus. Erste Hälfte. American Studies in Papyrology 28. Decatur, GA: Scholars Press. Radford, Andrew 2000 NP shells. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 33: 2-20. Reintges, Chris H. 2001 Agreement marking, case assignment and the composition of the Coptic clause. Göttinger Miszellen 180: 97-102. 2002 A configurational approach to Coptic second tenses. Lingua Aegyptia 10: 343-388. Ritter, Elisabeth 1988 A head-movement approach to construct-state noun phrases. Linguistics 26: 909-929. 1991 Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from modern Hebrew. In Perspectives on phrase structure: heads and licensing, Susan Rothstein (ed.), 37-62. (Syntax and semantics 25.) San Diego: Academic Press. Shisha-Halevy, Ariel 1986 Coptic Grammatical Categories. Structural Studies in the Syntax of Shenoutean Sahidic. (Analecta Orientalia 53.) Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Siloni, Tal 1991 Noun raising and the structure of NPs. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 255-270. 1996 Hebrew noun phrases. In Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax, Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi (eds.), 239-267. Oxford University Press.

Genitive constructions in Coptic

159

Szabolcsi, Anna 1981 The possessive construction in Hungarian: a configurational category in a non-configurational language. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 31: 261-289. 1994 The noun phrase. In The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian. Kiefer, Ferenc and E. Kiss Katalin (eds.), 179-274. (Syntax and Semantics 27.) San Diego: Academic Press. Till, Walter C. 1986 Reprint. Koptische Grammatik (Saidischer Dialekt). 2. Aufl. 1961. Leipzig: VEB Enzyklopädie Verlag. Vergote, J. 1950 La phrase nominale en copte. In Coptic Studies in Honor of Walter Ewing Crum, 229-242. (The Bulletin of the Byzantine Institute 2.). Boston: The Byzantine Institute.

Left-dislocated possessors in Sumerian Gabor Zolyomi

1. Introduction Sumerian was spoken in the southern part of ancient Mesopotamia, an area which roughly corresponds to today's Iraq. Sumerian is not related genetically to any known language. It is a mainly agglutinative language, characterized by ergativity with a split according to the semantics of the NP and to the tense and modality of the finite verb. 1 It has a system of grammatical gender based on a distinction between human and non-human referents. It is a verb final language, the word order before the verb is determined by the information structure of the sentence. It is an extinct language, which can be studied today solely from written sources which were recorded using a cuneiform writing which was a mixed logographic-phonographic writing system. 2 The first Sumerian texts which use enough phonographic signs to facilitate linguistic analysis date from around the middle of the 3rd millennium BC. Sumerian was replaced by Semitic Akkadian as a vernacular during the first part of the second millennium BC. After around 1600 BC Sumerian remained to be taught and learnt only for the purposes of the cultic, literary and scholarly tradition. Sumerian texts were continued to be written until the 1st c. AD. 3 The present paper aims to discuss two types of genitive constructions of Sumerian: the anticipatory genitive and the lexical external possession construction. In both constructions the possessor occupies a position before the head of the NP, which is a marked position of the possessor in Sumerian. They differ, however, in the case-marking of the possessor. In the anticipatory genitive construction (henceforth, AGC), the possessor is case-marked with the genitive, while in the lexical external possession construction (henceforth, EPC), the possessor is case-marked with a case governed by the predicate. It will be argued that in both of them the possessor is leftdislocated to topicalize a cognitively accessible but inactive participant. The difference in their case-marker will be connected with a difference in the marking of internal and external possessors in Sumerian.

162

Gabor Zolyomi

Section 2 gives a very short overview of the parts of Sumerian grammar which play a role in the constructions described here. Section 3 describes the structure and the function of the anticipatory genitive construction. Section 4 describes the external possession constructions of Sumerian. The last section analyzes the differences and similarities between AGCs and lexical EPCs. In addition to some structural and functional similarities, the two constructions show some similarities also in the way they are treated in the standard grammatical descriptions of Sumerian. They can be described and explained only with reference to linguistic concepts which are missing from the inventory of traditional descriptions. Consequently they are either misinterpreted or overlooked. The anticipatory genitive is a structurally very visible phenomenon. Its existence has been therefore noted from the very beginning. Its function is, however, either not discussed, 4 or explained as some sort of emphasis. A typical statement is: "we deal here ... with an emphatic way of expression" (Poebel 1923: 60 [§161]). 5 There also exists an explanation which considers the anticipatory genitive as an archaic construction reflecting an earlier word-order of the language. 6 Attinger (1993: 228, 259) was the first connecting the function of the anticipatory genitive with the information structure of the sentence. As regards the Sumerian external possession construction, its most striking property is that a pronominal affix of the predicate agrees in person, gender, and number with the possessor instead of the possessum. Its recognition therefore depends on certain expectations about the structure of the finite verb. The finite verbs are the most controversial part of Sumerian grammar. Many of its traditional descriptions simply lack the analytic tools to recognize the mismatch between the possessum and the pronominal affix of the predicate. 7 EPCs of Type C (see Section 4.3. below) are typically translated with constructions like the following: "As regards your middle (i.e., inside), you are a 'Giant', on your outside, you carry fearsome radiance (Ludwig 1990: 101, 8 a translation of our [21]). Translations like this do justice to the sense of the constructions but the construction itself is left unexplained and has never been connected with the other types of EPCs in Sumerian.

Left-dislocated possessors in Sumerian 2.

163

Sumerian in a nutshell

2.1. The Sumerian noun phrase The Sumerian noun phrase (henceforth, N P ) consists of five structural positions: Table 1. The Sumerian nominal template 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

HEAD

MODIFIER

POSSESSOR

PLURAL-MARKER

CASE-MARKER

This apparently simple structure may produce very complicated constructions, primarily due to the range of structural units that may occur in position 3 (henceforth, P3). This position, the position of the POSSESSOR, may be occupied by two kinds of elements: by a possessive pronominal enclitic, or by a N P in the GENITIVE case. The N P occupying P3 can have elements in all of its five positions, and then there may be five structural units between the HEAD and the CASE-MARKER of the main NP: (1)

piama p 3 [pidumu p2zid=p 3 ani=p4ene=p5ak]=p 5 ra mother son true=POSS.3SG=PL=GEN=DAT.H 'for the mother of his true sons'

The embedded noun in turn may also contain a N P in P3: (2)

P 1 ama

P 3 [ P idumu P2 zid p3 [pilugal=p5ak]=p4ene=p5ak]=p 5 ra mother son true king=GEN=PL=GEN=DAT.H 'for the mother of the k i n g ' s true sons'

As the elements in P4, P5, and the possessive pronominal in P3 are enclitics being attached to the final word-level constituent of the NP, all these elements cumulate at the right end of the phrase in double and triple genitive constructions like (1) and (2). The Sumerian noun phrase projects the same functional projections in the same order as has been attested in various present-day languages, e.g. in Hungarian (cf. Bartos 2000), in such a way that complements preceede their head, while specifiers follow it. The N P in (1) can be represented by the tree in Figure l : 9

164

Gabor

Zolyomi K(ase)P

Κ

PossP

fDATl

Poss' NP

Spec

Poss

Ν

am a mother

zid true

=ani

=ene

=ak

=ra

=3SG.POSS

=PL

=GEN

=DAT.H

Figure 1. The structure of (1)

The N P in (2) can be represented by the tree in Figure 2:

Left-dislocated

possessors in Sumerian

165

K(ase)P

PossP

Κ IDATI

ama dumu mother son

=ak

=ene

=ak

=ra

=GEN

=FL

-GEN

=DAT.H

Figure 2. The structure of (2)

The last surface position of the Sumerian noun phrase accommodates the case-markers. Ten case-markers can be distinguished in Sumerian: -/o/, -/e/, -/'a/, -/ra/, -/ta/, -/da/, -/se/, -/ak/, and -/gin/. The case-markers are enclitics that function to distinguish cases. In Sumerian cases are distinguished, however, not solely by nominal case-markers, the verbal affixes also play an essential role in the identification of cases.10 Three of the nominal casemarkers (-/ra/, -/'a/, and -Id), and one of the verbal affixes (/i/ in S9) are

166

Gabor Zölyomi

used as markers of more than one case. On the basis of correspondences between nominal case-markers and verbal affixes 11 cases can be distinguished in Sumerian: Table 2. Sumerian cases CASE

NOMINAL CASE-MARKER

human

non-human

ERGATIVE

-Id

-Id

ABSOLUTIVE

-lei

-lei

VERBAL AFFIX

final pronominal prefix (S10)11 and pronominal suffix (SI3) final pronominal prefix (S10) and pronominal suffix (SI3)

ADVERBIAL CASES DATIVE

-/ra/

-Id

/a/ (S6)

OBLIQUE-DIRECTIVE

-Ira/

-Id

l\l (S9)

OBLIQUE-LOCATIVE

-/ra/

-/'a/

l\l (S9)

LOCATIVE

—

-/'a/

/ni/ (S9)

TERMINATIVE

-Is e/

-Isd

/si/ (S8)

ABLATIVE

—

-/ta1

/ta/ (S8)

COMITATIVE

-/da/

-/da/

/da/ (S7)

GENITIVE

-/ak/

-/ak/

—

EQUATIVE

-/gin/

-/gin/

—

ADNOMINAL CASES

The eleven cases can be classified into three groups: i) ergative and absolutive, encoders of the subject and the object, the primary syntactic functions; ii) adverbial cases; iii) adnominal cases which relate to no corresponding verbal affixes.

2.2. Sumerian finite verb Finite verbal forms in Sumerian are distinguished by the large number of affixes which can be attached to a verbal stem. These affixes and the verbal stem can be arranged into fourteen structural positions or slots (see Table 3 below). There are ten slots before the stem, which is in slot 11 (henceforth,

Left-dislocated

possessors

in Sumerian

167

S i l ) ; and there are three slots after the stem. Unlike in German or English where among the participants of a verb only the subject is cross-referenced with an affix on the verbal form, Sumerian verbal forms may crossreference up to four participants of the verb. Table 3. Sumerian verbal template Slot 1

MODAL prefixes

Slot 2

COORDINATOR prefix

Slot 3

CISLOCATIVE prefix

Slot 4

MIDDLE prefix or 3NH PRONOMINAL prefix ( s p e c i f y i n g the person, and number of the first in the sequence of adverbial prefixes)

Slot 5

INITIAL PRONOMINAL prefix {specifying the person, gender and number of the first in the sequence of adverbial prefixes)

Slot 6

Adverbial I: DATIVE prefix

Slot 7

Adverbial II: COMITATIVE prefix

Slot 8

A d v e r b i a l III: ABLATIVE or TERMINATIVE prefix

Slot 9

Adverbial

IV:

LOCATIVE, OBLIQUE-LOCATIVE,

or

gender

OBLIQUE-DIRECTIVE

prefix Slot 10

FINAL PRONOMINAL prefix (referring to A or P, depending on the tense)

Slot 11

STEM

Slot 12

PRESENT-FUTURE MARKER (in intransitive

Slot 13

PRONOMINAL suffix (referring A, S, or Ρ depending on the tense)

Slot 14

SUBORDINATOR

verbs)

The Agent, the Subject and the Patient of a verb are cross-referenced with pronominal affixes in S10 and SI 3. The syntactic function of their referents is indicated mainly by their position, so, e.g., in the present-future conjugation the pronominal suffix in S13 cross-references A and S, while the final pronominal prefix in S10 cross-references P. In the case of the other participants, the syntactic function is indicated with one of the prefixes in the ADVERBIAL slots (S6-S9), while the person, number, and gender of the participant may be marked with an initial pronominal prefix in S5. The set of pronominal prefixes in S5 contains no morpheme cross-referencing the 3rd ps. sg. non-human participant. The pronominal prefix referring to 3rd ps. sg. non-human participants developed from the middle-marker in S4. The cislocative prefix in S3 functions as the 1 st ps. sg. pronoun before a dative (see, e.g. [18] below), an oblique-locative, or an oblique-directive-prefix.

16 8

Gabor Zölyom i

If there is more than one adverbial prefix in a verbal form, then the pronominal prefix in S5 or S4 specifies the person, number, and gender of the one which is the nearest to it. The other adverbial prefixes refer to a 3rd.ps.sg. non-human participant by default. The verbal affixes crossreferencing verbal participants function similarly to the pronouns of other languages, so verbal participants introduced earlier into the discourse may be encoded only with the verbal affixes in Sumerian. The string of 14 slots identified by Sumerian philology, represented in Table 3, suggests a left-branching, head-final sentence structure involving a CP, an AgrSp, a TenseP, and a VP projection (and probably many more). 12 The subordination suffix in S14 functions as the head of the CP (see below (8) for an example with this morpheme). The verbal complex is preceded by focus and topic positions, presumably left-adjoined to CP. CP

AgrSP

TenseP

C

AgrS

V Figure 3. The Sumerian sentence structure

3. The anticipatory genitive The possessor (henceforth PR) normally occupies P3 of the NP. Under certain conditions, however, the PR may have a position before the head of the NP, presumably before the projection of the possessed Ν P. Sumerian has two type of genitive constructions with the PR left to the head: (i) anticipatory genitive construction; (ii) external possession construction. This section discusses the structure and the function of AGC, while the EPC will be the subject of the next section.

Left-dislocated possessors in Sumerian

169

In an AGC the PR positioned before the head of the NP is in the genitive case, while P3 is occupied by a pronominal enclitic which is co-indexed and therefore agrees in person, gender, and number with the PR. A simple example is (3) and (4) (the anticipated PR and the co-referent resumptive pronominal enclitics are underlined in the glosses): (3)

Ent. 28 5:12-13 1 3 nam-nurt-da-ki-gar-ra, pi namnundakigara=p s ak

ur2-bi p,ur=p3bi=p50

na4-a na='a

GN=GEN

base=POSS.3NH=ABS

stone=LOC

mu-na-ni-du3 S3 mu- S5 nn- S6 a- S9 ni- S10 n- S , idu- s 130 CISL-3SG-DAT-LOC-A.3SG-build-P.3NH

'He built him the base of the Namnunda-kigara from stone' In (3) the possessive pronominal enlitic -/bi/ agrees in person, gender, and number with the left dislocated non-human PR "Namnunda-kigara", which is marked with the genitive case-marker -/ak/. In (4) the possessive pronominal enlitic -/ani/ agrees in person, gender, and number with the left dislocated human PR "Ur-tukula", which is marked with the genitive casemarker -/ak/. (4)

TCS 1 36: Ur-glstukul-ka, pi urtukulak=p 5 ak

P1gu=p3ani=P50

ga-na-ab-zig3 siga-s 5 nn- s6 a- si() b- sn zig

PN=GEN

OX=POSS.3SG=ABS

MOD-3SG-DAT-P.3NH-issue

gu4-a-ni

Ί want to issue Ur-tukula's ox for him.' The PR and the possessum (henceforth, PM) may be separated by another argument of the verb like in (5) and (6) below. In (7) the PM functions as the possessor of another NP. In (8) the PM is the participant of a relative clause whose head functions as the object of another main clause. The left dislocated PR "Gudea, the ruler of Lagas" precedes the head noun of the relative clause and stands at the beginning of the whole main clause.

170

Gäbor Zölyomi

(5)

GudeaCyl. A 17:11 (2.1.7) e2-a ^en-ki-ke4 gis-hur-be2 p,e=p5ak enkik=e P1gishur=P3bi=p5e temple=GEN DN=ERG plan=3NH.POSS=OD.NH si mu-na-sa2 si=0 s3 mu- s5 nn- sft a- s9 -j- s 1()n-s,, sa- s , 3 0 horn=ABS CISL-3SG-DAT-OD-A.3SG-straighten-P.3NH 'The god Enki put right the design of the temple for him.'

(6)

Bar-Am 366/p 1-3 1 4 Ur-^ul-pa-e3-ka, ensi2-ke4, gu4 apin l-am3 ursulpaek=p ak ensik=e gu apin=ak l=am-0 pi 5 PN=GEN ruler=ERG ox plough=GEN one=COP-S.3NH su-ne 2 ba-an-sum2 pisu=p3ani=p5e S4 b- S6 a- Sio n- S11 sum- S13 0 hand=3SG.POSS=DAT.NH 3NH-DAT-A.3SG-give-P.3NH 'The ruler entrusted (lit.gave to his hand) Ur-Sulpae with one plough-ox'

(7)

GudeaCyl. A 17:11 (2.1.7) d

en-lil2-la2

lu2

Pl enlil- P5 ak

P1lu

sa3-ga-na-kam p3[P1sag-p3ani-p5ak]-P50-am-0 DN-GEN man heart-3SG.POSS-GEN-ABS-COP- S.3SG 'He is a man of Enlil's heart = he is a favourite of Enlil.'

(8)

Gudes Statue Β 8:39-42 gu3-de2-a, ensi2, lagask'-ka, P l gudea P1 ensi [n[pilagas=p^ak]=p^ak PN Ruler GN=GEN=GEN lu2 inim-ni ib-kur2-a sinib-snkur-^ae-s^'a]^^ P1 lu p2[piinim=p3ani=p50 man word=3SG.POSS=ABS P.3NH-change-A.3SG-SUB=ABS 'the man who changes the orders of Gudea, the ruler of Lagas

The Sumerian AGC, the left-dislocation of the PR, is a pragmatically motivated structural device whose primary function is to announce a new topic or to mark a shift from one topic to another by promoting a participant from a cognitively accessible but inactive state to an active state in the discourse.

Left-dislocated possessors in Sumerian

171

Having been promoted, the topical participant will be expressed by a pronominal which is the most preferred topic expression for an active topical participant (see Lambrecht 1994: 172-184). Consider the following example of an A G C : (9)

G u d e a C y l A 29: 1 4 - 1 7 ( 2 . 1 . 7 ) e2-a P1 e= P5 ak house=GEN kalam-ma kalam=' a land=LOC

ni2 P1 ni fear

gal-bi, P2 gal= P3 bi=p 5 0 great=3NH.POSS=ABS

mu-ri, S3 mu- S9 n- S11 ri- S13 0 CISL-LOC-settle-S. 3NH

ka-tar-ra-bi, pi katara= p3 bi=p50 praise=3NH.POSS=ABS

kur-re kur=e highlands=DAT.NH

ba-ti S4 b- S6 a- S11 ti- S13 0 3NH-DAT-reach-S. 3NH

' T h e h o u s e ' s great awesomeness settles upon the Land, its praise reaches to the highlands.' In (9) the first clause contains an A G C introducing the " h o u s e " as the topic. In the following clause the same participant remains the topic, but being cognitively active it is expressed only with a pronominal enclitic on the PM. The announcement of a new topic as the function of the A G C is especially clear in (4) and (6). These examples come f r o m an administrative letter and a legal document respectively, which represent a simpler discourse situation than the royal inscriptions and the literary texts. (4) is the first sentence in the message part of a letter, preceded only by the address formula. The participant functioning as the PR, "Ur-tukula", must be therefore in a cognitively inactive state. The sender of the letter, however, must have assumed that the receiver can identify it, so it should be cognitively accessible. The same applies to (6), the very first sentence of a legal document about Ur-Sulpae. Syntactically, the left-dislocated PR is in one of the topic positions situated at the left periphery of the sentence. 1 5 The fact that the left-dislocated PR is associated with a resumptive pronoun in the projection of the possessor suggests that it is generated in its adjoined position, involving no movement. This assumption is corroborated by (8) above, where the resumptive pronoun is inside a relative clause showing that the topicalized P R does not have to observe subjacency in AGCs.

172

4.

Gabor Zolyomi

External possession constructions

External possession is the grammatical phenomenon that in a semantic possessor-possessum relationship the PR is expressed externally to the constituent that contains the PM, and the PR occurs as a separate clauselevel constituent that is not required by the verb's argument structure. A familiar manifestation of external possession is the following German example: (10)

Die Mutter wusch dem Kind die Haare. 'The mother washed the child's hair'

In (10) the PR ("das Kind") is expressed by an N P external to the PM ("die Haare") and is case-marked with the dative case. 16 The PR is human and the PM is inalienable, both of which are kinds of nouns cross-linguistically most accessible to external possession constructions (henceforth, EPC) (see Payne and Barshi (eds.) 1999 (a): 14). Grammatical research of the last two decades has shown "that there is no geographical area of the world where th[is] phenomenon does not occur, and it is hardly exotic. Its sheer ubiquity suggests it must be a linguistically natural phenomenon, serving some central human communicative need — as equally central as that served by active-passive-antipassive choices, causativization, and a host of other well-documented alternations." (Payne and Barshi (eds.) 1999 (a): 6) The phenomenon shows a large range of typological variation in its actual manifestation across the languages of the world. Languages may differ in the way the external possessor is coded, in the type of accessible possessa in terms of their grammatical function and/or semantics, in the range of predicate types allowing external possession, and in the kind of accessible possessors (see Payne and Barshi (eds.) 1999 (a): 6-14).

4.1. External possession constructions of type A Zolyomi (1999: 231-237) showed that EPCs are also present in Sumerian. Consider the following example (the external PR, the co-indexed resumptive pronominal enclitic, and the cross-referencing verbal pronominal and adverbial prefix are underlined in the glosses):

Left-dislocated possessors in Sumerian

173

(11) Ean. 6 4: 13-15 d

nin-gir2-su-ra, P1 ningirsuk= P 5ra DN=OL.H

a

-~sa&*asag ki ag2-ni, asag kiag=ani=0 field beloved=POSS.3SG=ABS

su-na mu-ni-gi4 n P1 su= p3 ani=p5' a S3 mu- S5 nTi- S9 i- s ιo "s11 gi"s130 hand=POSS.3SG=OL.NH CISL-3SG-OL-A.3SG-return-P.3NH " H e ( = E a n n a t u m ) has returned (lit. 'returned to his h a n d ' ) his beloved field to Ningirsu" In (11) the P R of the word su " h a n d " is the god Ningirsu. The P R is, however, not in P3 of the N P whose head is the word "hand", but in a sentence initial position. P3 is filled with a pronominal enclitic co-indexed and therefore agreeing in gender, person, and number with the PR. The PR is cross-referenced with the verbal prefix l\l of S9 glossed as oblique-locative here. The pronominal prefix preceding the oblique-locative prefix in S5 is co-indexed with the PR, but not with the PM. The PR and the PM are casemarked with the case-markers -/ra/ and -/'a/ respectively which correspond to the human and non-human markers of the oblique-locative case. The same verbal expression is used in (12), but here the word " h a n d " has no possessor. Accordingly the pronominal prefix in S4 agrees in gender, person, and number with the word "hand". (12) A W L 81 5: 1 - 4 en-ig-gal, eniggal PN

nu-banda3, nubanda=e overseer=ERG

su-a su= 5 a hand=OL.NH

e2 e house

zag zag border

iri-ka-ka, iri=ak=ak= > a city=GEN=GEN=LOC

bi2-gi4 s4b-s9i-sion-sngi-si30 3NH-OL-A.3SG-return-P.3NH

'Eniggal, the overseer has delivered (lit. 'returned to h a n d ' ) them (= various sorts of wood) in the house at the border of the city.' Examples (13)—(17) show further examples of EPCs. In all these examples the left-dislocated PR and P M are case-marked with the same case. This can be taken for granted even if the PR is not present overtly (as in [ 1 4 ] [17]) because the verbal prefix cross-referencing the PR confirms its case. Also, in all these examples the verbal pronominal prefix is co-indexed with

174

Gäbor Zolyomi

the PR but not with the PM as is usual. This type of EPC will be referred to as Type A EPC. (13) Ean. 1 4 : 2 4 - 2 6 Min-hur-sag-ra, ninhursag=ra DN=OL.H mu-ni-tus

dug3 dug knee

zid-da-na, zid-a=ani= 'a right-PT=POSS.3SG=OL.NH

s3mu-s5nn-s9i-sion-siitus-si30

CISL-3SG-OL-A3.SG-sit-P.3SG 'She (= Inana) has made him (= Eanatum) sit on the right knee of the goddess Ninhursag.' (14) AWL 183 3: 1 - 4 subur, nu-banda3, gu2-ne-ne-a, subur nubanda=e gu=anene='a PN overseer=ERG neck=POSS.3PL=OL.NH e-ne-gar S5 enne- S9 j,- Sio n- S11 gar- S13 0 3PL-OL-A.3SG-put-P.3NH 'Subur, the overseer, has entered it (= a given amount of silver) as their (= 3 fishermen) debt (literally, "put them on their neck").' (15) En. 129 10: 1 - 2 e2-sag4 ni2-ga2-se3 e.sag ni=gu=ak=se house.heart REFL. 1SG-GEN-TERM mu-se3-gen-na-am6 S3 mu- S5 j- S8 si-Si igen- sl3 0-am-0 CISL-1 SG-TERM-gO-S. 3SG-C0P-S .3SG 'It was the case that he (= the Ummaite) even entered (lit. come to) the innermost part of my (= Ningirsu's) own temple.'

Left-dislocated

possessors

in Sumerian

175

( 1 6 ) En. 1 33 2: 1 3 - 3 : 6 kur-kur

su-ni-se3,

kur~kur=0

su=ani=se

country~PL=ABS

hand-POSS.3SG-TERM

mu-se3-gar-ra-a S3 mu- S 5n- S8 si- S9 n- S 1() gar- s 13 0- s 14 ' a-'

a

CISL-3SG-TERM-A.3SG-put-P.3NH-SUB-LOC ' W h e n h e ( = L u g a l - U R U x K Ä R ) has given all the foreign lands into his ( = Enannatum's) hands.' (17) Luzag. 1 1: 4 4 - 4 5 kur-kur

giri3-na,

kur~kur=0

giri=ani='a

country~PL=ABS

foot-POSS.3SG-OL.H

e-ni-se3-ga-a S5 enn- S9 i- S1() n- S11 seg- S13 0- S i4

a- a

3SG-OL-A.3SG-throw-P.3SG -SUB-LOC ' ( w h e n ) h e ( = Enlil) made all the countries serve him ( = L u g a l z a g e s i ) (lit. threw all the countries to his f e e t ) . '

4.2. External possession constructions o f type Β Examples ( 1 8 ) and ( 1 9 ) b e l o w represent a slightly different type o f EPC. In these e x a m p l e s the PR and the PM are case-marked with different cases: the PR is case-marked with the dative, while the PM is case-marked with the locative. The different cases o f the PR and PM are to be explained with the semantics o f the locative in Sumerian: this case can only be used with non-human nouns, the locative verbal prefix always stands without a pronominal prefix in the verbal prefix-chain. Consequently, the human external possessor cannot be cross-referenced with the locative, it can be marked only with another case. 1 7 External possessors case-marked with the dative are cross-linguistically a c o m m o n type, especially in Europe. 1 8 Haspelmath (1999: 125) pointed out that "the external possessor is semantically related to other typical dative uses, such as the marking o f a beneficially affected participant (benefactive) ...". Only one e x a m p l e with an overt PR is known from this type, (20); and except for (20), all attested PRs are in the 1st or 2nd ps. The German trans-

176

Gäbor Zolyomi

lations are provided with (18)-(19) to demonstrate how easily these examples translate with German EPCs. This type of EPC will be referred to as TypeBEPC.19 (18) Isme-Dagan A (2.5.4.01) 90 c

iitu nig2-si-sa2 inim gen6-na utu=e nigsisa inim gen- 1 a=0 DN=ERG justice word firm-PT=ABS ka-ga2 ha-ma-ni-in-gar ka=gu= 1 a s iha- s3 m- s6 a- s9 ni- s 10 n- s , ,gar- s , 3 0 mouth=POSS. 1 SG=LOC MOD-CISL-DAT-LOC-A.3SG-put-P.3NH 'The god Utu put justice and reliable words in my mouth.' 'Utu legte mir Gerechtigkeit und zuverlässige Worte in den Mund'. (19) Isme-Dagan Q (2.5.4.17) 5 gidru kug su-za gidru kug=0 su=zu= 'a sceptre holy=ABS hand=POSS.2SG=LOC ma-ra-ni-in-ge-en S3 ma- S5 r- S6 a- S9 ni- S 1{)n-s n g e n - s l 3 0 CISL-2SG-DAT-LOC-A.3SG-firmly.put-P.3NH 'He has firmly put the holy sceptre in your hand.' 'Er legte dir das heiligen Zepter fest in die Hand.' (20) Enmerkar and the lord of Aratta (1.8.2.3) 433-434 en-e kig2~gi4-a kur-se3 du-ur2 en=e kiggia kur=se du=ra lord=ERG messenger mountain=TERM go.PF-DAT.H gidru su-na gidru=0 su=ani= 1 a sceptre=ABS hand=POSS.3SG=LOC mu-un-na-ga2-ga2 S3mu-S5nn-S6a-S9n-S1,ga~ga-S13e CISL-3SG-DAT-LOC-put~PF-A. 3SG 'The lord placed the sceptre in the hands of the messenger going to the mountains.'

Left-dislocated possessors in Sumerian

177

Type A and Β EPCs are similar in that their predicate is a verb denoting a motion event with a spatial endpoint. In their literal meaning these verbs imply a physical contact. The PM of these EPCs is marked with one of the adverbial cases whose meaning implies a motion towards an entity.

4.3. External possession constructions of type C Examples (21)—(23) represent yet another type of EPC in Sumerian. They differ from the previous examples in having a non-verbal predicate. The predicate of these examples consists of the copula and a NP or a non-finite verbal form. The subject of these copular clauses is possessed by a 2nd ps. sg. participant expressed by a pronominal enclitic. 20 The copula agrees in gender, person, and number with the PR referred to by the pronominal enclitic and not with 3rd ps. sg. subject as is usual. This type of EPC will be referred to as Type C EPC. (21) Isme-Dagan W (2.5.4.23) A38-40 sag4-zu u!8-ru-me-en, bar-zu, sag=zu=0 uru=me-en bar=zu=0 heart=POSS.2SG=ABS huge=COP=S.2SG outside=POSS.2SG=ABS ni2 gur3-ru-me-en ni gur-ed=me-en fear carry-PF=COP-S.2SG 'Your (= Nibru) interior is enormous, your exterior is imbued with fearsomeness' (22) A 7479 iv:3'^t' 2 1 ur2-zu he2-gal2-la he2-me-en, ur=zu=0 hegal=am=0 he-me=en root-POSS.2SG-ABS abundance-COP-S.3SG pa-zu girizal x (KAxNI)-am 3 he2-me-en pa=zu=0 girizal=am=0 he-me=en branch-POSS.2SG-ABS luxuriance-COP-S.3SG MOD-COP-S.2SG 'It is abundance that your (= a temple) roots indeed are, it is luxuriance that your branches indeed are.' 2 2

178

Gäbor Zolyomi

(23) Iddin-Dagan D (2.5.3.4) 30 igi-zu hus-me-en igi=zu=0 hus=me-en face=POSS.2SG=ABS awesome=S.2SG za-pa-rag2-zul rmah?-me-enl zapag=zu=0 mah=me-en cry=POSS.2SG=ABS majestic=COP-S.2SG 'Your face is awesome, your cry is majestic'.

4.4. External possession constructions of type D A fourth type of EPCs involves verbs of perception or experience. This type of EPC will be referred to as Type D EPC. The predicate in (24) is a verb of perception. In (24), the pronominal prefix in S5 before the terminative prefix /si/ of S9 agrees in person and number with the 2nd ps. sg. PR ("your") and not with the 3rd ps. sg. PM ("word"). 23 (24) Isme-Dagan Q (2.5.4.17) 15 inim kug an-gin7 su inim kug an=gin su=0 word holy sky=EQU hand=ABS nu-te-ge76-zu-se3 nu-teg-ed=zu=se NEG-approach-PF=POSS.2SG=TERM igi-bi su-mu-e-si-gal2 igi=bi=0 S1 su- s3 mu- s5 e- s8 si- si0 b- si , gal- s , 3 0 eye=POSS.3PL=ABS MOD-CISL-2SG-TERM-A.3N-be.at-P.3SG 'They always pay attention to your holy words, which, like the heaven, can never be understood fully.' Type C and D EPCs differ from the Type A and Β EPCs in that their predicate does not imply any tangible affectedness. All occurrences of these two type come from literary texts or incantations in which a deity, a city, a temple, or a deified object is praised and is addressed directly in 2nd ps.

Left-dislocated possessors in Sumerian

179

4.5. The shared features of external possession constructions in Sumerian All four types of EPC are characterized by inalienable possession, which comprises "either inextricable, essential or unchangeable relations between 'possessor' and 'possessed' - that is relations over which possessors exercise little choice or control." (Chappel and McGregor 1996: 4). In the great majority of the attested EPCs the PM is a body part or part of inanimate wholes, which are cross-linguistically the most accessible type of possessa in EPCs. Haspelmath (1999: 119) classifies the EPCs in non-European languages into three broad categories in terms of the grammatical coding of the PM in an EPC: 24 (i) EPCs with PM demotion; (ii) EPCs with PM incorporation; (iii) EPCs with applicative marking on the verb. Type A, C, and D EPCs of Sumerian belong to category (i). In the Sumerian constructions the PM retains its case, but it is not cross-referenced by a bound pronominal on the verbal form or the copula. It is therefore demoted in the sense that it will no longer belong the core participants which should be cross-referenced in the verbal prefix-chain or on the copula. What is common in all types of EPCs, including Type B, is, however, the promotion of the PR: it will be the PR but not PM which is cross-referenced with a pronominal on the predicate. To sum it up, the most important licensing condition of EPCs in Sumerian appears to be the semantics of the PM: external possession is possible only in the case of inalienable possession. The PRs are as a rule human, often in the 1 st or 2nd ps. The case of the PM and the type of the predicate do not seem to play a role. No PM functioning as the agent, the object, or indirect object is, however, attested with external PRs. Without informants or relevant contrasting examples it is difficult to see what exactly influenced the choice between an EPC and an internal possessive construction. Examples like (6) above which involve a body part and yet do not use an EPC may suggest that inalienable possession was only a necessary but not a sufficient condition. It seems likely that the affectedness of the possessor might have also played a role, i.e., the possessor had to be construed as the primarily affected and not his or its part.

5. Lexical external possession constructions and anticipatory genitives A further distinction can be made among the EPCs in terms of the presence or the absence of a left-dislocated lexical PR. EPCs where the external PR is overtly present as a lexical N P will be referred to as lexical EPCs, while

180

Gäbor

Zölyomi

EPCs where the PR is present only as a bound pronominal on the PM and on the verbal form or the predicate will be referred to as pronominal EPCs. Lexical EPCs and AGCs show a number of structural similarities. In both constructions the PR is left-dislocated, and a pronominal enclitic is attached to the PM co-indexed with the PR. Both constructions present a structural configuration in which the PR is no longer behind the PM, but is external to the projection of the possessor occupying a topic position of the sentence. There exist, however, a number of differences. The PR of an AGC is marked with the genitive, while the external PR bears the case of the PM or the dative and is cross-referenced by a pronominal and an adverbial prefix on the verb. Consider Table 4 which summarizes the formal features of the normal and anticipatory genitive construction, and the lexical EPC. Table 4. Types of genitive constructions in terms of structure P R ' S POSITION

P R ' S CASE

VERBAL CROSSREFERENCING

behind the PM

genitive

no

AGC

in topic position

genitive

no

LEXICAL EPC

in topic position

that of PM, or dative (in type B)

yes

NORMAL

What Table 4 shows is that in comparison to a normal genitive construction, the AGC and the lexical EPC differ in the number of the distinguishing formal features. The AGC differs from the normal genitive construction only in the position of the PR, whereas the overt EPC differs in the position and the case of the PR. The left-dislocation of the PR in the AGC has been identified after Lambrecht (1994) as a pragmatically motivated structural device to topicalize an accessible but inactive participant. It seems reasonable to assume that left-dislocation has the same function in the lexical EPC. At the same time lexical EPCs are a sub-type of the external possession constructions which share with the pronominal EPCs the promotion of the PR, and the inalienability of the possession. The formal features of Table 4 may therefore be "translated " into the notional features of Table 5 below:

Left-dislocated possessors in Sumerian

181

Table 5. Types of genitive constructions in terms of notional features TOPICALITY

INTERNAL

EXTERNAL

POSSESSION

POSSESSION

NORMAL

-

+

-

AGC

+

+

-

LEXICAL EPC

+

-

+

Table 5 suggests that the A G C is a topicalized internal PR. Sumerian thus appears to distinguish formally between topicalized internal possessors and lexical external possessors: the former retains its genitive case-marker, while the latter will be case-marked with a case governed by the predicate. One way of explaining that in lexical EPCs of Type A, C, and D the left-dislocated P R bears the same case as the P M is to assume that they represent the same argument of the verb, forming a kind of an appositive construction. 2 5 The members of this construction are not, as expected, juxtaposed, because the topical P R cannot but be located in the sentence initial topic position. The construction is restricted to cases of inalienable possession because the condition of such an appositive construction is the referential non-distinctness of its members. The case-marking of EPCs of Type Β follows from the semantic incompatibility of the locative with human nouns, and from the cross-linguistically, and also in Sumerian attested use of dative to mark a beneficially affected participant. The question of the topicality of the P R in pronominal EPCs still needs to be addressed. As EPCs seem to signal that instead of his or its part, the PR is affected by the predicate, i.e. it signals a shift in the aboutness relation between a participant and the predicate, it is plausible to assume that EPCs in Sumerian always involve the topicality of the PR. A pronominal E P C thus appears to differ from a lexical EPC in the cognitive accessibility of the referent of the external PR. In a lexical EPC the referent of the PR is accessible but inactive, while in a pronominal EPC it is accessible and active. Their difference is therefore similar to the difference between e 2 - a n i 2 g a l - b i "the house, its great awesomeness" and k a - t a r - r a - b i "its praise" in (9).

7. Conclusion The present paper attempted to show that Sumerian has two different constructions with a left-dislocated possessor. In both of them the possessor is positioned before the head of the possessum in one of the topic positions of

182

Gäbor

Zolyomi

the sentence, while in a normal genitive construction the possessor occupies P3 in the N P , a position behind the head noun. They, h o w e v e r , differ in the case-marking of the left-dislocated possessor. In the anticipatory genitive construction the possessor is in the genitive case, while in the other construction its case is governed by the predicate. It w a s shown that their case-marking is different because the former is a preposed internal possessor, while the latter is an external possessor which is case-marked in Sumerian either with the case of the possessum (Type A, C, D) or with the dative (Type B).

Acknowlegements The present paper w a s written while I was the holder of a H u m b o l d t Research F e l l o w s h i p between M a y 2003 and March 2 0 0 4 at the Institute of Assyriologie and Hethitologie in M ü n c h e n . I gratefully a c k n o w l e d g e the support of the A l e x a n d e r von H u m b o l d t Stiftung, and thank the Institute for the excellent research conditions.

Notes 1. 2.

See Michalowski 1980. For the writing system see Krebernik and Nissen 1994, Wilcke 1994, and Coulmas 2002. The writing system used for recording Sumerian does not relate to the spoken language in the same way as the modern alphabetical scripts. For a grammatical description it is necessary to keep separate the language and the medium through which we have access to it. Accordingly, in the examples quoted in this chapter, the first line represents the utterance in standard graphemic transliteration; the second, a segmentation into morphemes which interprets the first line; the third, a morpheme by morpheme glossing; and the fourth, a translation. In the graphemic transliteration subscript numerals distinguish homophonic graphemes; graphemes that constitute a word are linked by hyphens, as are enclitics to their host; superscript graphemes are semantic classifiers. The morphemic glossing follows the conventions of "The Leipzig Glossing Rules" (http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/files/morpheme.html). The sign "=" links enclitics to their hosts, the sign indicates reduplication. Three special characters are used in transliterating Sumerian: g (pronounced as in sing), h (as in loch), s (as in ship).

Left-dislocated possessors in Sumerian

183

Abbreviations used in the morphemic glosses: A = Agent, the subject of a transitive verb (in the glosses represents its marker); ABS = absolutive case-marker; CISL = cislocative prefix; DAT = dative case-marker or prefix; DN = divine name; EQU = equative case-marker; ERG = ergative case-marker; GEN = genitive casemarker; GN = geographical name; Η = human; LOC = locative case-marker or prefix; MIDDLE = middle prefix; MOD = modal prefix; Ρ = patient (in the glosses represents its marker); NH = non-human; OD = oblique-directive casemarker or prefix; OL = oblique-locative case-marker or prefix: PF = presentfuture tense (in the glosses represents its marker); PL = plural marker; PN = personal name; PR = pronominal enclitic; REFL = reflexive pronoun; s = subject of an intransitive verb (in the glosses represents its marker); SUB = subordinator suffix; TN = temple name; LSG = first person singular; 3NH = third person nonhuman; 3SG = third person singular human; 3PL = third person plural human. In the morphemic glosses the initial pronominal prefix is specified according to person and gender (3SG, 3NH etc.) and the final pronominal prefix according to person, gender and syntactical role as agent, subject, or object (A.3SG, 0.3N, etc). 3. 4. 5 6.

7.

8. 9. 10.

11.

12. 13.

See Geller 1997. See Thomsen 1984: 91, Edzard 2003: 39. "Es handelt sich hierbei ... um eine emphatische Ausdrucksweise". See Hayes 1991. There is no evidence supporting Hayes' argument that the anticipatory genitive was "in the process of becoming limited to certain stock expressions" (Hayes 2000: 133). See, however, Krecher 1985: 14832 who in connection with our (13) and (14) and Attinger 1993: 198 (ex. 62) who in connection with our (13) take notice of the phenomenon which is analyzed here as external possession. "Was dein Mitte betrifft (d.h. innen), so bist du ein 'Riese', an deiner Außenseite trägst du furchterregenden Glanz". For the sake of simplicity the structure of noun phrases will continue to be analyzed with reference to the positions of Table 1, and not to the tree diagrams. In the standard grammars of Sumerian (e.g., Thomsen 1984) cases are identified according to their nominal case-markers. The system used in this paper identifies cases on the basis both of their nominal and verbal marking which results in a considerably different system. For a description of the Sumerian cases in these terms see Zolyomi 1999: 224-230 (using slightly different labels) and Zölyomi 2005. Verbal structural positions will be referred to as "slots" (= S) throughout this paper to distinguish them form the structural positions of the noun phrase, referred to as "positions" (= P). The analysis of the preverbal prefix-chain is controversial and will not be discussed here as it bears no relevance to the subject of the present paper. The inscriptions of Ean. (= Eanatum), En. I (= Enanatum), Ent. (= Entemena), and Luzag. (= Lugalzagesi) are numbered here according to Steible 1982. The

184

Gäbor

Zölyomi

administrative texts quoted as A W L + no. are n u m b e r e d according to Bauer 1972. T h e letter-order T C S 1 36 is f r o m Sollberger 1966. Literary texts are quoted after the edition of the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (Black et al. 1 9 9 8 - ) ; the number in square brackets is the c o m p o s i t i o n ' s catalogue n u m b e r in the corpus. 14. The text w a s published in Malul 1989: 146-147. 15. See Zolyomi 1996: 4 5 (exx. 6 2 - 6 3 ) for probable attestations of multiple topics. 16. See H a s p e l m a t h (1999) w h o sees the dative-marked external possessor as a characteristic feature of a European linguistic area. 17. T h e dative functions as a kind of "substitute" case also in another construction of Sumerian involving the locative. The adverbial prefixes cross-referencing the participant in the oblique-locative, the oblique-directive, and the locative occupy the same slot, S9, in the verbal prefix-chain. W h e n a transitive verbal form, which otherwise case-marks one of its participants (= X) with either the oblique-locative or the oblique-directive, also has a participant in the locative, then X will be case-marked with the dative. The participant in the locative thus appears to take precedence over that in the oblique-locative or the obliquedirective to be cross-referenced in S9, and the "ousted" participant will be casem a r k e d with the dative similarly to the PR of type Β EPC. See Attinger 1993: 199 (§129c), 2 3 3 - 2 3 4 (§148), 2 8 1 - 2 8 2 (§182b) and Zolyomi 1999: 2 3 8 - 2 4 2 for these constructions, labelled as "four participant verbal f o r m s " in Zolyomi 1999. 18. See H a p e l m a t h 1999: 125-131. 19. Further examples in literary texts are: "Enki and the world order" (1.1.3), 3 9 1 392, " I s m e - D a g a n A " [2.5.4.01] 7 6 - 7 7 , "Ur-Ninurta C " (2.5.6.3) 3 1 - 3 2 , " E n lil-bani A " (2.5.8.1) 1 4 3 - 1 4 6 and 163-167, " D u m u z i d - I n a n a C " (4.08.26) S e g m e n t B13, " N e r g a l C " (4.15.3) 4, "Ninazu A " (4.17.1) 23, " T h e temple h y m n s " (4.80.1) 1 2 - 1 3 . 20. T h e subject is in the absolutive case which is normal with the copula. T h e only e x a m p l e s w h e r e the case of the P M in a Type C E P C seems to be different f r o m the absolutive c o m e f r o m the literary composition Sulgi R (2.4.2.18), which contains a series of Type C EPCs in 11. 1 0 - 3 9 . Here the possessa are all written as N O U N - z u - u 3 , which is normally a writing for the m o r p h e m e sequence N O U N - z u - e = NOUN-POSS.2SG-ERG or NOUN-POSS.2SG-OD (see Klein 1990: 97 1 7 7 ), where the case-marker contracts with the /u/ of the pron o m i n a l enclitic resulting in a long /u:/. Neither of these cases are expected here, so the lenghtening of the vowel remains to be a problem. 21. T h e Old Babylonian tablet containing incantations is edited in Färber and Färber 2003. The editors read the third sign in 1. 4 ' as s u 6 ( K A x S A ) , but their translation "an deinen Zweigen bist du ein Barf" (italics are the a u t h o r s ' ) is considered odd by the authors themselves. The n u m e r o u s passages in which the w o r d g i r i 17 - ζ a 1 is used in pair with words m e a n i n g " a b u n d a n c e " (e.g., h e 2 - g a l 2 , n a m - h e 2 ) (cf. Sjöberg 1963: 1 - 4 ) m a k e the reading g i r i z a l x ( K A x N I ) almost certain.

Left-dislocated

possessors

in Sumerian

185

22. The enclitic copula after the words h e 2 - g a l 2 and g i r i z a l x are considered to function here as focus marker. The cleft structure of the English translation attempts to render this. 23. Another possible example of this type is Gudea Cyl. A (2.1.7) 8: 2 3 - 9 : 4, which uses the verb ζ u "to know", and the external possessor is marked with the comitative. See Zolyomi 1999 (a): 183 for the interpretation of this passage. 24. He uses in fact the term 'possessor raising'. 25. Constructions similar to Sumerian lexical EPCs are described by Heine (1997: 158-161) as the result of possessor specification involving the Topic Schema. Heine states that these "constructions are occasionally described as instances of possessor-possessee apposition. ... in languages having a system of overt case marking, such constructions are likely to be characterized by case agreement in that the possessee (= the specifier) receives the same case marking as the possessor (= the specified). Such a situation appears to obtain, for example in many Australian languages (cf. Dixon 1980: 293), even if possessor specification of this type tends to be confined to 'inalienable' possession." (Heine 1997: 159)

References Attinger, Pascal 1993 Elements de linguistique sumerienne. La construction de dui/e/di 'dire'. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. Sonderband.) Fribourg, Suisse/ Göttingen: Editions Universitaires/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Bauer, Josef 1972 Altsumerische Wirtschaftstexte aus Lagasch. (Studia Pohl, 9.) Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Bartos, Huba 2000 Az inflexiös jelensegek szintaktikai härtere. In Strukturälis magyar nyelvtan 3: Morfologia [Structural Hungarian Grammar, v. 3: Morphology], Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), 653-762. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado. Black, Jeremy, Graham Cunningham, Jarle Ebeling, Esther Fltickiger-Hawker, Eleanor Robson, Jon Taylor and Gabor Zolyomi 1998The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature. Oxford, (www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk) Chappell, Hilary and William McGregor 1996 Prolegomena to a Theory of Inalienability. In The Grammar of Inalienability. A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-Whole Relation, Hilary Chappel and William McGregor (eds.), 3 - 3 0 . (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 14.) Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

186

Gäbor

Zölyomi

Coulmas, Florian 2002 Writing Systems. An Introduction to Their Lingusitic Analysis. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press. Dixon, R.M.W. 1980 The Languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edzard, Dietz Otto 2003 Sumerian Grammar. (Handbook of Oriental Studies, Sect. I, 71.) Leiden/Boston: Brill. Farber, Gertrud and Walter Färber 2003 Vor einem, der auszog, ein g u d u 4 zu werden. In Sallaberger, Volk, and Zgoll (eds.)2003: 99-114. Geller, Mark 1997 The Last Wedge. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 87: 43-95. Haspelmath, Martin 1999 External Possession in a European Areal Perspective. In Payne and Barshi (eds.) 1999: 109-135. Hayes, John 1991 Some Thoughts on the Sumerian Genitive. Acta Sumerologica 13: 185-194. 2000 A Manual of Sumerian Grammar and Texts. (ARTANES 5.) 2nd revised and expanded ed. Malibu: Undena Publications. Heine, Bernd 1997 Possession. Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 83.) Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press. Klein, Jacob 1990 Sulgi and Ismedagan: Originality and Dependence in Sumerian Royal Hymnology. In Bar-Ilan Studies in Assyriology Dedicated to Pinhas Artzi, Jacob Klein und Aaaron Skaist (eds.), 65-136. (BarIlan Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Culture.) Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. Krebernik, Manfred and Hans J. Nissen 1994 Die sumerisch-akkadische Keilschrift. In Schrift und Schriftlichkeit / Writing and Its Use, 1 (1), H. Günther and O. Ludwig, (eds.), 2 7 4 288. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Krecher, Joachim 1985 Die /m/-Präfixe des sumerischen Verbums. Orientalia NS 54: 133-181. Lambrecht, Knud 1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 71.) Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.

Left-dislocated

possessors in Sumerian

187

Ludwig, Marie-Christine 1990 Untersuchungen zu den Hymnen des läme-Dagan von Isin. (SANTAG, 2) Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. Malul, Meir 1989 An Ur III Legal Document in the Possession of the Museum of the Kibbutz of Bar-Am, Israel. Acta Sumerologica 11: 145-154. McGregor, William 1999 External Possession Constructions in Nyulnyulan Languages. In External Possession, Doris L. Payne and Immanuel Barshi (eds.), 4 2 9 ^ 4 8 . (Typological Studies in Language, 39.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Michalowski, Piotr 1980 Sumerian as an Ergative Language. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 32: 86-103. Payne, Doris L. and Immanuel Barshi (eds.) 1999 External Possession. (Typological Studies in Language, 39.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1999 (a) External Possession. What, Where, How, and Why. In Payne and Barshi (eds.) 1999: 3-29. Poebel, Arno 1923 Grundzüge der sumerischen Grammatik. (Rostocker orientalistische Studien, 1.) Rostock: Selbstverlag des Verfassers. Sallaberger, Walther, Konrad Volk and Anette Zgoll (eds.) 2003 Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien. Festschrift für Claus Wilcke. (Orientalia Biblica et Christiana, 14) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Sjöberg, Äke 1963) giri x (= KA)-zal. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 55: 1-10. Sollberger, Edmond 1966 The Business and Administrative Correpondence under the Kings of Ur. (Texts from Cuneiform Source, 1.) Locust Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin Publisher. Steible, Horst 1982 Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften. 2 vols. (Freiburger altorientalische Studien, 5.) Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. Thomsen, Marie-Louise 1984 The Sumerian Language. An Introduction to Its History and Grammatical Structure. (Mesopotamia, 10.) 3rd ed. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. Wilcke, Claus 1994 Die Keilschriftkulturen des Vorderen Orients. In Schrift und Schriftlichkeit /Writing and Its Use, 1, 1, H. Günther and O. Ludwig, (eds.), 491-503. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.

188

Gabor

Zölyomi

Zolyomi, Gabor 1996 Genitive Constructions in Sumerian. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 48: 39^15. 1999 Directive Infix and Oblique Object in Sumerian: An Account of the History of their Relationship. Orientalia N S 68: 215-253. 1999 (a) Review of D. O. Edzard, Gudea and His Dynasty. Orientalische Literaturzeitung 94: 178-189. 2005 Sumerisch. In Schriften und Sprachen des Alten Orients, Michael Streck (ed.), 11-43. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Complex predicate structure and pluralised events in Akkadian Christian Huber

Introduction Semitic languages are known to employ fixed morphological templates for derivation from abstract, in the standard case triconsonantal, roots. Word forms are built by means of vowel patterns, affixes and special CVpatterns. For verbs, the resulting forms are usually referred to as stems. In this paper I will be concerned with some stems in Akkadian and the syntactic structure underlying them. The Akkadian language with its main dialects Assyrian and Babylonian is a Semitic language of ancient Mesopotamia. It is preserved in a vast number of written documents from the mid-third millenium BC until the first century AD. It is believed, however, that the language ceased to be spoken around the mid-first millenium BC. Akkadian texts are written in cuneiform script, which is a mixed syllabic-logographic writing system. The main writing material was clay, the cuneiform signs were impressed with a stylus. The texts thus recorded on clay tablets encompass genres of all kinds (letters, administrative, legal and business documents, literary compositions, juridical and mathematical works, etc). 1 Contrary to Arabic and Hebrew, the two Semitic languages studied most in the generative literature, Akkadian is an SOV language and has three prefix conjugations (traditionally termed present, preterite, perfect) and one suffix conjugation (traditionally termed stative, a predicative construction that can also be used with nouns). There are four main stems, named after their morphological characteristics, viz. the basic G-stem (cf. German Grundstamm) and the derived D-stem (doubling stem with geminated middle root consonant), S-stem (ί-prefix), and N-stem («-prefix). The G-stem corresponds to Arabic form I and Hebrew Qal, the D-stem corresponds to Arabic form II and Hebrew Pi'el, the S-stem corresponds to Arabic form IV and Hebrew Hif ( il, the N-stem corresponds to Arabic form VII and Hebrew N i f ' a l . There is no "internal" passive. From these four main stems

190

Christian Huber

further byforms could be derived, among them iterative stems which are not found in Arabic, Hebrew, or Ethiopian Semitic. The present paper concentrates on the G-stem, D-stem and S-stem, whose morphological properties are briefly summarised in Table 1, the radicals (i.e. root consonants) are schematically represented by CiC 2 C 3 (final -u in the infinitive forms is the nominative case marker). Table 1. G-stem

D-stem

S-stem

basic form

gemination of middle radical

prefix s

vowel pattern partly de-

specific uniform vowel pattern irrespective of (thematic/

pendent on (thematic/lexical) lexical) 'root vowel' (same in D- and S-stem; also same 'root v o w e l '

CV-template) 2

3.m.sg. pret.: iC 1 C 2 a/i/uC 3

3.m.sg. pret.:

uC|aC 2 C 2 iC3

3.m.sg. pret.:

usaCiC 2 iC 3

(infinitive:

(infinitive:

C|UC 2 C 2 uC 3 -u)

(infinitive:

suC,C 2 uC 3 -u)

C|aC 2 aC 3 -u)

The D-stem displays an erratic behaviour with different verb types which had always made it a troublesome task to assign it a uniform function. For example, it brings about a transitivity or valency asymmetry, illustrated in (1). (1)

G-stem a. Vrbj

rabit 'to g r o w ' (intrans.), 'to become big(ger)'

b. V p t ^

petu 'to o p e n ' (trans.)

D-stem rubbü 'to make big(ger)'

S-stem surbü 'make/let/cause (to) be(come) big(ger)'

puttü

suptü

'to open' (trans.)

'make/let/causey (to) open jc'

In ( l a ) the D-stem derives a transitive verb from an intransitive verb. In ( l b ) , however, the valency of the derived verb remains unchanged. Application of the S-stem, in contrast, is valency-increasing in both ( l a ) and ( l b ) . The asymmetry in (1) raises the question whether the D-stem in ( l a ) is derived in the same way as the D-stem in ( l b ) or whether there are different mechanisms at work in ( l a ) and ( l b ) , for some reason or other still producing morphologically identical surface forms.

Complex predicate structure andpluralised events in Akkadian

191

The fact that from a great number of G-stem verbs (or their roots) a D-stem can be derived systematically according to ( l a ) or ( l b ) (see below footnote 4) suggests that the D-stem does not come about by mere coincidence in these cases but that it is an important derivational tool of the language. Synchronically, thus, it would not seem unreasonable to assume that there are not two distinct morphosyntactic processes at work in ( l a ) and ( l b ) which only happen to share the same morphological guise but that it is the same process that applies in ( l a ) and (lb). In the present paper I will mainly be concerned with the asymmetry in (1) and the properties of predicates that participate in it either in the way of ( l a ) or as in (lb). As I hope to show, general assumptions in generative grammar about the syntactic structure underlying different verb types together with certain assumptions about event structure allow to formulate the properties of the D-stem in a way that accounts for both ( l a ) and ( l b ) while still deriving both ( l a ) and ( l b ) from the same set of properties. In section 1 I present some data that exemplify the basic syntactic behaviour of unaccusative, transitive and unergative verbs in the G-stem, Dstem and S-stem. On the basis of the observations made in section 1 I make a proposal in section 2 as to the structural configurations underlying the Dstem and S-stem and how they differ from each other and from the G-stem. I suggest, in particular, that the D-stem involves a v-VP configuration (Hale & Keyser 1993; Chomsky 1995) together with an additional property, which later will turn out to be verbal plural. Section 3 deals with a number of verbs or verb classes that undergo a G-stem/D-stem transitivity alternation, with particular attention paid to the behaviour of so-called psychological predicates. In section 4 I investigate the properties of D-stem verbs derived from basic transitives that do not undergo a transitivity alternation and illustrate the phenomenon of verbal plural as recognised e.g. by Poebel (1939), Greenberg (1991), and Kouwenberg (1997). Section 5 is concerned with verbal plural and its properties with different types of predicates. I attempt to make the notion of verbal plural more precise and suggest that verbal plural should be analysed as eventual plural. I propose an approach to pluralisation of events inspired by Pustejovsky (1991) that recognises different kinds of event pluralisation and pluralised events and thereby allows us to account for the discussed instances of verbal plural in Akkadian as well as to articulate a difference between verbal plural in the Akkadian D-stem and in the Arabic and Hebrew intensive stems. The D-stem phenomena discussed, among them the transitivity asymmetry sketched in (1), are argued to reduce to the type of event involved, the way of pluralising it and

192

Christian Huber

the fact that the D-stem involves a v-VP configuation. In section 6, finally, I briefly treat some questions pertaining to the morphological make-up of the D- and S-stems. A few remarks need to be added here. The present article is mainly concerned with the G- and D-stem and, to a lesser degree, the S-stem. I will not deal with other stems. Likewise, I will not deal with the corresponding stems in other Semitic languages apart from occasional remarks. It must also be noted that in the stages of the language that are accessible to us through the texts, the D-stem is not a fully productive grammatical category. D-stem forms are sometimes lexicalised to a varying degree and have acquired specialised meanings. 3 From certain verbs apparently no D-stem could be derived at all, whereas a few other verbs seem to be attested only in the D-stem but not in the G-stem. Lexicalised or otherwise exceptional D-stem instances I largely ignore. 4 Nevertheless I can discuss only a limited choice of the relevant data. Due to space limitations data will sometimes be presented only schematically. The present article is thus by no means an exhaustive account of all phenomena relevant in connection with D-stem and S-stem. Another point that should be kept in mind is that working with data from a dead language is always problematic. As native speakers are no longer available to provide judgements or comments and all evidence comes from the surviving (and, discovered, evaluated, and accessible) written texts, a good deal of the finer (or even coarser) grained nuances will almost necessarily escape us and many a question regarding interpretation, productivity, grammaticality or the like will remain open to speculation. Finally, I will not speculate on the historical development of the D- and S-stems.

1. Syntactic effects of D-stem and S-stem with different verb classes In this section I will briefly illustrate some basic syntactic properties of the D- and S-stems when applied to intransitive and transitive G-stem verbs. With intransitives I will make the familiar distinction between unaccusatives and unergatives. Unaccusatives are intransitive verbs whose surface subjects are underlyingly objects. Unergatives are intransitive verbs whose surface subjects are also underlyingly subjects. The D-stem is sensitive to this distinction in that it brings about a transitivity alternation with unaccusatives that is not met with transitives and unergatives.

Complex predicate structure andpluralised

events in Akkadian

193

The adjectival roots in (2) surface in the G-stem prefix conjugations as intransitive predicates denoting the process that leads to, or increases the degree of, the state described by the respective adjective. Both the D-stem and the S-stem render 2-participant forms. The D-stem gives rise to transitive predicates. The S-stem, employing the causative morpheme s, yields causative predicates. (2)

S-stem

D-stem

G-stem

χ

V'bl

'abälu

'be(come) dry'

'ubbulu

'dry

V>rk

'aräku

'be(come)/

'urruku

' l e n g t h e n x'

sübulu

' l e t / c a u s e χ (to)

süruku

Ί./c.

be(come) dry'

Vlbr

labäru

'be(come) old'

χ

(to)

be(come) long'

last l o n g '

lubburu

'make χ old'

sulburu

Ί . / c . χ (to)

sum^udu

Ί . / c . χ (to)

be(come) old'

VmM mädu

'be(come)

5

be(come)

numerous, much'

numerous, much'

Vmrs maräsu

' b e ( c o m e ) ill'

murrusu

' ( m a k e χ ill=)

sumrusu

Ί . / c . χ (to)

surpusu

Ί . / c . JC to b e ( c o m e )

b e ( c o m e ) ill'

o f f e n d x'

Vrps rapäsu

'be(come) wide'

ruppusu

'widen x'

wide'

Vslm salämu

'be(come) dark'

sullumu

'make χ dark'

suslumu

Ί . / c . χ to b e ( c o m e ) dark'

Vshn sahänu

'become warm'

suhhunu

' w a r m , heat x '

Vslm salämu

'be(come) sound,

sullumu

'make χ sound,

( c o m e t o ) b e in a

make χ (come

good condition'

to) be/stay in a

—

good condition'

Vspl

sapälu

'be(come) deep,

suppulu

'deepen, l o w e r * '

suspulu

low'

Vsrh

(sarähu)

(Stative o n l y : be glorious, magnificent)

Ί./c. χ (to) be(come) deep, low'

surruhu

' m a k e χ glorious, magnificent'

susruhu

Ί./c. Λ: (to) be(come) glorious, magnificent'

There is no "ergative" alternation in the basic stem. In order to derive a transitive/causative version from the G-stem unaccusatives in (2), the Dstem or the S-stem has to be applied. (3)

rapäsu salämu etc.

* 'widen x/cause χ to be(come) wide' etc. * 'make χ dark/cause χ to be(come) dark' etc.

194

Christian Huber

From the roots in (4) both the G-stem and the D-stem yield transitive predicates featuring a subject and a direct object, whereas the S-stem yields double-transitive, causative predicates with the causer surfacing as the subject in nominative case and the causee and the object surfacing with accusative case. (4)

D-stem

G-stem

S-stem

buttuqu uddulu 3 uppusu

'cut(off)*' 'lock*' 'do, make*'

süpusu

'let/make/cause y (to) do, make *'

'bind*'

rukkusu

'bind*'

surkusu

Vshp sahäpu

'overwhelm *, lay χ flat'

suhhupu

'overwhelm*, lay * flat'

sushupu

'let/make/causey (to) bind *' 'let/make/causey (to) overwhelm *, lay * flat'

Vsbt

sabätu

'seize*'

subbutu

'seize*'

susbutu

Vsql

saqälu

'weigh, pay x'

suqqulu

'weigh, pay *'

susqulu

Vsbr

seberu

'break*'

subburu

'break*'

•/btq VM1 V'ps Vrks

batäqu edelu 'epesu

'cut (off) *' 'lock *' 'do, make x'

rakäsu

y

}

'let/make/cause y (to) seize*' 'let/m./c. y (to) weigh, pay *'

With these verbs there is no increase of valency in the D-stem. (5)

rukkusu uppusu etc.

}

* 'let/make/cause y (to) bind x' * 'let/make/cause y (to) make x'

However, valency is always increased in the S-stem. (6)

surkusu susbutu etc.

* 'bind*' * 'seize x'

The roots in (7) give rise to verbs denoting body functions or utterances of sound, thus providing good candidates for unergatives. These verbs pattern with transitives in that there is no increase of valency in the D-stem but only in the S-stem. 6

Complex predicate structure andpluralised events in Akkadian (7)

G-stem

Vdmm damamu vV§ Vghb /gnh /hbb

'wail'

—

—

ganähu habäbu

\Aibh Vngg

nabähu nagägu

VsM Vsrt

sa 'älu sarätu

'cough' 'whisper, hiss, ...' 'bark' "cry' "cough' 'fart"

D-stem

S-stem

_

sudmumu

gu'^usu guhhubu gunnuhu hubbubu nubbuhu

'puke' 'cough' 'cough' 'whisper, hiss, ...' 'bark'

195

'let/make/cause^ (to) wail'

—

—

—

suhbubu

Ί./m./causey (to) whisper, hiss, ...'

—

—

su ' 'ulu surrutu

'cough' 'fart'

(St:

'be caused to cough')7

—

Among the unergatives listed in (7) some appear in both the G-stem and the D-stem, whereas others are attested only in one or the other. In those cases where the verb can appear in both stems, however, the D-stem never gives rise to causativised versions of the G-stem, which can only be derived by the S-stem. The comparison of (2) and (4)/(7) shows that the D-stem turns the Gstem unaccusatives into transitives, while it does not extend the valency of unergative verbs or verbs which are already transitive in the G-stem. This sets it apart from the S-stem, which derives causative forms from G-stem unaccusatives as well as G-stem transitives and unergatives. The resulting surface patterns are summarised in Table 2. Table 2. D-stem

G-stem

S-stem

unaccusatives (cf. (1))

intransitive => transitive

causative ('bivalent')

unergatives (cf. (7))

intransitive =>

causative ('bivalent')

transitives (cf. (4))

transitive

intransitive

=> transitive

causative ('trivalent')

196

2.

Christian Huber

Configurations of D-stem and S-stem

Considering the data in section 1 it can be observed that the D-stem is present only with an external argument. Since unaccusatives become transitive in the D-stem whereas the valency of transitives and unergatives is not extended it can be concluded that the D-stem adds something to the structure of unaccusatives which allows the introduction of an external argument and which is already present with basic transitives and unergatives. However, the fact that the D-stem can also be applied to verbs that already have an external argument in their basic form suggests that it provides not only some element that allows for an external argument but that the D-stem has some additional property. In sum this indicates that the D-stem is a complex phenomenon that involves some element which is only present with an external argument but also involves yet another element or feature. I will consider both issues in turn. In the remainder of this section I will discuss the configurational aspects of the D-stem and the S-stem. What sets apart G-stem transitives from their D-stem counterparts will be discussed in section 4.

2.1. Configuration of the D-stem An element that is present only with an external argument is proposed in Chomsky's (1995) version of Hale & Keyser's (1993) approach to Theta theory, namely little ν in a v-VP configuration. Chomsky (1995: 315f) states that "The internal arguments occupy the positions of specifier and complement of V. Accordingly, the external argument cannot be lower than [Spec, v]. If it is [Spec, v], as I will assume, then the v-VP configuration can be taken to express the causative or agentive role of the external argument. It would be natural to extend the same reasoning to transitive verb constructions in general, assigning them a double-VP structure ... If intransitive (unergative) verbs are hidden transitives, as Hale and Keyser suggest, then only unaccusatives lacking agents would be simple VP structures." According to Chomsky there are two basic configurations for verbs, depicted in (8).

Complex predicate structure andpluralised

(8)

events in Akkadian

197

b. transitives, unergatives

a. unaccusatives

vP

VP EXT

VP (internal structure of VP omitted) I will therefore propose that in Akkadian, the D-stem always involves a v-VP configuration. It transfers G-stem unaccusatives into a v-VP configuration, thereby making them into transitives with an external argument. G-stem transitives and unergatives, in contrast, already involve a v-VP configuration and an external argument in their basic form. Therefore their configuration remains unchanged in the D-stem and valency is not increased. (9)

G-stem unaccusative transitive

=> =>

D-stem transitive transitive

The fact that unaccusatives are turned into transitives in the D-stem but the valency of transitives remains unchanged suggests that in the latter case some additional property of the D-stem (to be dealt with in section 4) visibly takes effect, hinting at its complex nature. Configurationally, this complex nature of the D-stem can be captured in two ways: (i) as involving another functional head in addition to little ν that is responsible for some additional property of the D-stem, or (ii) as a little ν with some special feature. There are two options for a v-VP configuration in combination with another head, depending on whether all non-theta-related functional projections are required to be above vP (Chomsky) or whether a non-theta-related functional projection is allowed to intervene between the two portions of a double VP (e.g. Aspect in Baker 1996, among others). In (10a) a functional head F selects a vP complement, whose head ν in turn takes VP as a complement. In (10b) ν selects FP and F selects VP so that F is sandwiched between the upper and the lower portion of the v-VP configuration. However, the approach (10c) would also allow for F to take a VP complement without having been selected by v, resulting in an unaccusative VP that is complement of F. This raises the questions of what the appearance and properties of such a construction would be. The issue will be returned to in section 4.

198

Christian Huber

Alternatively the properties of ν and F could be collapsed in a single head. If ν is allowed to bear semantic content beyond what is needed for its role in Theta theory, the D-stem might involve a little ν that differs from the little ν of the G-stem (to the general effect that there could be different types of little v). Resulting structures are those in (11), with unergatives subsumed under transitives. (11) a. unaccusative

b. transitive with unmarked ν

c. transitive with marked ν (= v D )

vP

vDP

EXT VP

EXT VP

vD vD

VP

In both approaches, crucially, the D-stem involves a v-VP configuration.

2.2. D-stem vs. S-stem Taking the D-stem to involve a v-VP configuration also accounts for the difference between the D- and S-stems with respect to their causativising effect. Little ν is a theta-relevant head that allows the addition of an external argument. Causation via ν is relevant only in that part of the structure that affects the thematic properties of a predicate. In contrast, causation via the S-stem need not interact with the thematic properties of a predicate. It may thus embed predicates that appear thematically "closed" in the G-stem under a causative event and introduce a causer argument, irrespective of whether or not the embedded predicate contains an external argument. With

Complex predicate structure andpluralised

events in Akkadian

199

transitive and unergative verbs, therefore, the S-stem simply functions as a causative of the respective G-stem verb, whereas with unaccusatives it may also replace the D-stem to render a causativised form. Conversely, however, the D-stem cannot replace the S-stem to render a causativised version of a G-stem transitive or unergative verb. In this respect the S-stem is somewhat reminiscent of causative verbs like English let that take a thematically "closed" predicate as a complement which may be transitive or intransitive (minimally, vP or VP), i.e. have or not have an external argument. 8 Consider (12) and (13): (12) provides examples of a transitive verb (saqälum 'pay, weigh o u t ' ) in the G-stem (12a), D-stem (12b) and S-stem (12c); in (13) examples of an unaccusative verb {rabü 'be(come) big(ger)') in the G-stem (13a), D-stem (13b) and S-stem (13c) are given. (12) a.

(,..)10siqil

kaspam

(...)

10 shekel.(ACC).abs silver.ACC ' ( . . . ) h e will pay 10 shekel of silver.'

b. sa

saqqulim

isaqqal pay(G).3sgm.pres ( K H §209)

usaqqil-ma

R E L pay(D).inf.GEN pay(D).pret.3sgm-MA ' H e paid what (there was) to pay.'

c.

(...JawTlam

kaspam

( O I P 27: 57 2 5 )

lusasqil

man.ACC silver.ACC p a y ( S ) . p r e c . l s g c '(I will t a k e the tablet and) make/have/let the m a n pay the silver!' ( C C T 2 22: 4 6 )

(13) a.

summa

tulJmum

eli

miniäti-su

if

spleen.NOM

on

( n o r m a l ) size.

irabbi be-big(G).pres.3sgm

plf.GEN.cstr-possCL3sgm ' I f t h e spleen is larger than usual, ( . . . ) '

b.

me-sunu

plqäte

spring.pi. ACC.cstr-possCL3plm

narrow.plf.ACC

urabbi-ma m a k e - b i g ( = D ) . p r e t . 1 sgc-MA

Ί enlarged their n a r r o w springs.'

c.

ekallu

ma-hir-ti9

magal

( R A 6 44: 4 3 )

( O I P 2 144 viii 35)

usarbi

palace. ACC earlier.sgf. greatly make-big(=S).pret.lsgc ' T h e earlier p a l a c e I greatly enlarged.'

( O I P II 133, 85)

(12a/b) and (13a/b) illustrate once again the G-stem/D-stem valency asymmetry, (12c) and (13c) show that the predicate embedded under the S-stem causative may be transitive (in (12c)) as well as unaccusative (in (13c)). Unergatives, for which I omit examples here (see (7) above), pattern with the transitives in (12). Since the predicate embedded under the S-stem

200

Christian Huber

causative may be transitive, unergative or unaccusative, i.e. contain an external argument or not, the structure of the S-stem can be approximated as in (14). 10 (14)

sP

In general, the difference in interpretation between D-stem causatives and S-stem causatives might thus have resembled the semantic difference between internal and external causation as in English intransitive vs. transitive sink as opposed to read vs. let read. (15) a. The boat sank. b. John sank the boat. (16) a. Mary read the book. b. John let/had/made Mary read the book. In (15b), John is interpreted as the agent or causer involved in the sinking event. In (16b), John does not directly participate in the reading event but is involved only in the causing event (i.e. in bringing about the reading event). Interpreting John as directly taking part in the reading event is blocked by the intervening agent Mary. From (2) above it can be observed that unaccusatives may have either only a D- or a S-stem, or both. Kouwenberg (1997) argues that in the latter case, unless an instance of dialectal variation, one of the two often is merely a literary, stylistic variant (with deadjectivals, mostly the S-stem), since such variation takes place in similar contexts without evident interpretative differences. For example, S-stem forms of rabü 'be(come) big(ger)' as in (13c) do not seem to occur outside literary compositions. At present it cannot be said what led the scribes to use also the S-stem with verbs for which outside literary texts only the D-stem is attested (or vice versa"), and what factors may have conditioned the choice of forms.' 2 At any rate, it shows that these scribes could (at least to some extent) make productive use of the underlying morphosyntactic means. Crucially, however, even in literary

Complex predicate structure andpluralised

events in Akkadian

201

contexts the D-stem could not be used as a matrix causative for verbs that are transitive in the G-stem, which again indicates that the D-stem is restricted to a thematic configuration with only a V P complement, whereas the S-stem is not restricted to a thematic configuration in that it may also take complements larger than VP, such as vP. The fact that the D- and S-stems seemingly could be interchanged with a number of G-stem unaccusatives (beside the fact that some take only one or the other) also indicates that with unaccusatives, the S-stem apparently did not bar an agentive interpretation of the causer argument and that in such cases a s - V P configuration could be interpreted thematically equivalent to a v-VP configuration, both introducing an agent/causer argument where there is none in the G-stem. With verbs that appear to be ambiguous between a non-agentive and an agentive interpretation in the G-stem such as elü 'rise, go up, be(come) high(er)' in (17), causativisation seems to differentiate between the readings in so far as the agentive version, which arguably contains an external argument in Spec,vP, is targetted by the S-stem and not by the D-stem. To convey causative meanings of the verb in (17a) like ' m a k e someone go up (to a higher location)', ' m a k e a person come forth (as a witness in a law suit)', etc., apparently only the S-stem could be used. D-stem forms as in (17b) rather seem to pattern with D-stems of unaccusative deadjectivals. (17) a.

inanna

4 ammätim

Habur

Ilcim-ma

(...)

now 4 cubit.plf.ACC ( n a m e ) rise(=G).pret.3sgm.vent-MA ' n o w the (river) H a b u r has risen 4 cubits ( . . . ) . ' (Syria 19, 123)

b.

c.

resT-su

lü

ulli

head.ACC.cstr-possCL3sgm Ί raised its (=wall) s u m m i t . '

indeed

raise(=D).pret.lsg ( L I H 57 i 17)

lü

zikara

lü sinnista

ana üri

tuselli-ma

either

man.ACC

or

to

let-go-up(=S).

woman.ACC

roof.GEN

' Y o u m a k e a m a n or a w o m a n g o u p on the roof ( . . . ) . '

(...)

pres.2sgm-MA ( Z A 3 2 , 172: 15)

Interestingly, there seem to be no Akkadian equivalents of English sentences such as (18). (18) a. John let/had/made Mary sink the boat. b. John let/made/had Mary enlarge the springs.

202

Christian Huber

That is, the D-stem version rubbu 'enlarge x' of the G-stem rabü 'be(come) big(ger)', for example, or the D-stem ullü 'raise x' of the G-stem elü 'rise, go up' apparently could not be morphologically further causativised, making it impossible in Akkadian to express something like John had/let/made Mary enlarge the springs or John let/made/had Mary raise the wall's summit by means of verbal morphology. 13 The issue will be returned to in section 6.14

3. G-stem/D-stem transitivity alternations In section 1 it was shown that the D-stem transitivises unaccusative deadjectival verbs. However, G-stem/D-stem transitivity alternations are found also with other verbs. The present section will briefly illustrate such alternations in some other verb classes. As the data in (19) show, G-stem unaccusatives other than apparent deadjectivals become transitives in the D-stem as well: (19) G: belü G: narätu

' g o out (fire, light)' 'shake (intrans.),

D: bullü D: nurrutu

'extinguish x'

D: puhhuru

'gather,

D: tubbü

'sink (trans.)'

'shake x'

undergo shaking'

G: pahäru

'gather, come together'

G: tebü

'sink (intrans.)'

bring together x'

Only few motion predicates appear to have a D-stem. If so, they are turned into transitives with an agent argument. One example is given in ( 2 0 ) . 1 5 (20)

G:

akäsu

'go'

D: ukkusu

'drive away λ '

( S : 'cause x to g o ' )

An interesting case is posed by psychological predicates (c. Belletti & Rizzi 1988) of the fear/frighten type since the Akkadian equivalents of fear and frighten (and comparable pairs) both are derived from the same root. While subject experiencer verbs such as fear surface in the G-stem, the D-stem yields object experiencer verbs such as frighten from the same root. It thus appears as if the D-stem adds, or allows to realise, an agent/causer argument that is not present in the G-stem, to the effect that the experiencer surfaces as the verb's object.

Complex predicate structure andpluralised events in Akkadian (21)

G : galätu

'tremble, be nervous, be afraid o f y (=ACC)' 'be joyful, be glad

G : hadü

D : gullutu

'frighten, scares'

D : huddü

'gladden, delight*'

203

(abouty(=PP, DAT))' G : palähu G : sahatu

'be afraid o f > (=ACC)'

D: pulluhu

'frighten .r

'be afraid ( o f y (=ACC))'

D : suhhutu

'frighten, intimidate x'

However, as in English and other languages, also in Akkadian a causer argument and the target/subject matter of emotion (cf. Pesetsky 1995) seemingly cannot co-occur (see (22)). This shows that the D-stem does not simply just add a (VP-external) agent/causer argument to some possibly complex (VP-internal) structure, suggesting that the analysis of pairs such as those in (21) should not differ substantially from languages like English. As the issue of psych-verbs is still much debated (for some additional discussion see e.g. Pesetsky 1995 and Baker (1997), I will not pursue it further. ( 2 2 ) pulluhu huddü

* 'frighten χ of_y'

(hypothetical meaning: 'make χ fear/be afraid o f y ' )

* 'gladden χ about y'

(hypothetical meaning: 'make χ glad about y')

(etc.) Verbs of knowledge also exhibit a G-stem/D-stem alternation where an agent or causer argument is added in the D-stem. With the dynamic predicate lamädu 'learn' the D-stem adds an agent argument. In contrast to the psychological predicates in (21), however, the original two arguments of the verb may be retained, yielding an agentive predicate with a complex internal domain. (23)

G : lamädu

'learn, come to know, experience χ (=ACC)'

D : lummudu

'inform^ (=ACC) about.ν (=ACC)\ "teach y (=ACC) * (=ACC)'

The stative predicate edü/wadü 'know' does not allow for a double object construction in the D-stem in most dialects. Again the D-stem adds an agentive argument but the resulting verb's internal domain may contain only one of the two arguments found in the G-stem (predominantly the theme). (24) G: edü, wadü D : (w)uddü

'know*' 'informy' (only Middle- and Neo-Assyrian), 'identify/mark/assign x\ 'explain x'

204

Christian Huber

The verb hasäsu 'remember' allows for two different D-stem constructions. One appears to be an extension of the G-stem version, to which an agent/ causer argument is added (see (25 i)). The D-stem verb here takes as its object the entity whose memory is being affected (and occasionally the target of remembering as a second object). The other D-stem construction, (25 ii), still involves an agentive subject but rather denotes a conscious mental activity directed at some target. (25)

G : hasäsu

'remember* (=ACC)'

D: hussusu

(i) (ii)

'remind y ( = A C C ) ( o f * (=ACC))' ' c o n s i d e r * (=ACC)'

In all three cases, lamädu 'learn', edu 'know' and hasäsu 'remember', the G-stem versions are non-agentive verbs whose valency seems increased in the D-stem by addition of an agent/causer argument with the option of retaining the original arguments of the G-stem verbs in at least two cases. This might suggest that in the G-stem versions none of the arguments occupies a VP-external position, be it a bare VP or a v-VP structure lacking an argument in the specifier of vP. The case of edü ' k n o w ' is rather reminiscent of the psych-verbs in (21) in that in the general case only one of the two arguments of the G-stem version may be retained in the D-stem. Questions arise also with respect to the second D-stem construction of hasäsu 'remember' in (25ii). All mentioned cases need closer investigation. Both the psych-verbs in the D-stems and the D-stem versions of the verbs of knowledge, however, clearly come in transitive structures with an agent or causer argument as the subject that is not present in the G-stem. The question of the actual G-stem structure(s) also arises with verbs such as those in (26) that seem to oscillate between a reflexive agentive and a non-agentive or stative reading. In (26) the D-stem targets only the stative/non-agentive reading of the corresponding G-stem verb, to which it adds an agent or causer argument, allowing D-stem forms with a complex internal domain. 1 6 (26) G: sebiι (i)

D: 'be(come) satiated (with y (=ACC))'

(ii) 'satiate oneself ( w i t h y (=ACC))'

G: labäsu (i)

' w e a r y (=ACC)'

(ii) 'put o n y ( = A C C ) \ 'dress oneself ( w i t h y (=ACC))'

subbü 'satiate * (with y (=ACC))' (* ' m a k e * satiate x-self (with y)')

D:

lubbusu 'dress * (=ACC) (with y (=ACC))' (* ' m a k e * put o n / ) (* ' m a k e * dressx-self ( w i t h y ) ' )

Complex predicate structure andpluralised events in Akkadian 4.

205

G-stem transitives vs. D-stem transitives: verbal plural

Let us now return to the question of what sets D-stem transitives like those in (4), partly repeated in (27), apart from their G-stem counterparts. Recall that G-stem transitives such as those in (4)/(27) are not causativised in the D-stem but that their valency remains unchanged. (27) G: batäqu 'cut (off) Λ·' G: 'edelu 'lock x' G: }epesu 'do, make x'

D: buttuqu D: Juddulu D: }uppusu

'cut (off) x' 'lock x' 'do, make x

One label frequently found in treatments of Semitic languages to characterise the function of the corresponding stem (e.g. Arabic stem II, Hebrew Pi'el) is "intensive". Already Poebel (1939: 5 n . l , 65-68) argued that this characterisation be erroneous and that the respective stem express not the idea of intensity but that of plurality. Also Greenberg (1991) argues that the Dstem and its congeners in other Semitic languages have, in addition to other functions, characteristics of verbal plurality similar to those found in other languages that exhibit verbal plural phenomena. 17 Kouwenberg (1997) points out that in Akkadian in cases like (4)/(27) the D-stem never yields an "intensive" reading of the corresponding G-stem but that in these cases the Dstem is predominantly employed when the sentence contains a plural element or when the action itself is pluralic in some sense.

4.1. Verbal plural with the D-stem of transitive verbs Kouwenberg observes that the D-stem is frequently used with plural (or mass-noun) direct objects, but that it occurs also with plural indirect objects or adjuncts, occasionally also with plural subjects or in the case of durative or repeated action. Yet, the use of the D-stem is not obligatory in these cases. The G-stem is free to occur with a plural subject, object or adjunct. However, the D-stem is always used in case of a contrast of singular vs. plural. Kouwenberg gives examples like those in (28) to (34). In (28) the contrast of the use of the G-stem with a singular direct object (28a) and the use of the D-stem with a plural direct object (28b) is illustrated.

206

Christian Huber

(28) a. näram

epte-sum-ma

river.sg.ACC open(G).pret.lsg-CL3sgm.DAT-MA Ί opened a canal for it (= a city) (and called i t . . . (name)).'

b. närätim

(RIME 4, 603: 26f.)

upetti

river.plf.ACC open(D).pret. lsg Ί opened canals.'

(RIME 4, 603: 47f.; Kouwenberg p. 120)

The same contrast is also found under passivisation, where after NPmovement an underlying object NP surfaces as the subject in nominative case. In (29a) the root Vbtq 'cut (off/through)' occurs in the N-stem, which serves as a passive of the G-stem, whereas in (29b) it occurs in the Dt-stem, which serves as a passive of the D-stem. (29) a.

butuqtum

ibbattaq (bb < nb)

sluice channel(?).sg.NOM cut(N).pres.3sgc 'the sluice channel(?) will be cut through' (YOS 10, 16: 5; Kouwenberg p. 123)

b.

butuqätu

ubtattaqä

sluice channel(?).plf.NOM cut(Dt).pres.3plf 'the sluice channels(?) will be cut t h r o u g h " (YOS 10, 26 iii 29; Kouwenberg p. 123)

Also note that the D-stem is not barred by countability. (30)

adi

sibi-su

u 'allat

until 7 th .cstr.GEN-CL3sgm ' H e swallows 7 times.'

(31) a. üma 1 atäna(EME5) today 1 she-ass.ACC

swallow(D).pres.3sgm (BKMB 30: 43, cf. Kouwenberg p. 127)' 8

ätamar

ina qät

see(G).perf.lsg

in

hand.cstr(GEN)

assuräye Assyrian.GEN

assabat seize(G).perf.lsg 'Today I saw one she-ass and caught (G) (her) in the hand of an Assyrian.' (ZA 73, 78: 18, cf. Kouwenberg p. 136)

b. 1 urita(EME5) sa 1 mare.sg.ACC

imeri(ANSE) adi

REL donkey.GEN

ussabbit

ilte-su

seize(D).perf. lsg

with-CL3sgm

besides

3 imeri(ANSE.MES)

(...)

3 donkey.pl.GEN

(...)

'One mare of a donkey together with three donkeys (...) I caught (D) in his possession (lit. 'with h i m ' ) . '

(ZA 73, 77: 6f., cf. Kouwenberg p. 136)

Complex predicate structure andpluralised

events in Akkadian

207

However, the D-stem is not restricted to co-occurence with a plural direct object. Occasionally the use of the D-stem seems to be connected with a plural beneficiary. (32) (...) 2 PI.TA.AM3 ana märe (...)

at 2 PI each

for

son.pl.cstr.GEN

Ninua

pilku

Nineveh.(GEN)

partition.sg.ACC

upallik partition(D).pret. 1 sg ' ( . . . ) at 2 PI each I m a r k e d out a plot of land for the citizens of N i n i v e h . ' (i.e. plots of land at a m e a s u r e of 2 PI each w e r e marked out for the citizens) (Sn 97: 88, cf. K o u w e n b e r g p. 150)

There are only few attestations of the D-stem with a plural subject and a singular direct object, as in (33) (see also (34) below). (33) ina dabäbim in

umahhisü-su-ma

law suit.GEN

beat(D).pret.3plm-CL3sgm-MA

' i n / d u r i n g the trial they beat (pret.) h i m '

( A b B 1 2 , 65:29; cf. K o u w e n b e r g p. 165)

In (34) the D-stem is employed to refer to the wall-building activities by various former kings. When referring to the wall's rebuilding by the present king or by a future king, in contrast, the G-stem is used. (34) durum

sa

wall.sg.NOM

RN, RN2 RN3 RNj RN5

REL R N , R N 2 R N 3 R N 4

abbü-ya

RN5

mär son.cstr

uppisüni

father.plurxstr-possCLlsg

RN6 RN6

enah-ma

make(D).pret.3plm.sub

tire(G).pret.3sgm-MA

(...) epus

(...) rubä^u

urkiu

enüma

(...) make(G).pret.lsg

(...)

later.NOM

when

prince.sg.NOM

durum

set

enuhu-ma

wall.sg.NOM

this.f.NOM

tire(G).pret.3sgm.sub-MA

DNj u

DN2 ikribi-su

eppusu m a k e ( G ) . pres. 3 s g m . sub

isamme 'ü-su

D N ] and D N 2 prayer.cstr-possCL3sgm hear(G).pres.3plm-CL3sgm ' t h e wall w h i c h R ( o y a l ) N ( a m e ) , R N 2 R N 3 R N 4 (and) R N 5 , the son of R N 6 , m y forefathers, had built (D), dilapidated (lit.: w a s b e c o m i n g tired) ( . . . ) and I (re)built (G) (it); (as f o r ) a f u t u r e prince, w h e n that wall has b e c o m e dilapidated and he rebuilds ( G ) (it), D ( i v i n e ) N ( a m e ) i and D N 2 will listen to his prayer(s).' ( R I M A 1, l O l f : 5ff, cf. K o u w e n b e r g p. 148)

Another case of "plural action" is perhaps found in the D-stem of verbs such as natälu 'look at', if e.g. nuttulu 'inspect' can be taken to derive from something like 'look at χ many times'. Apart from that, the D-stem seems to indicate a conscious or wilful action here.

208 (35)

Christian Huber G \ natalu

"look a t * ( = A C C ) '

D:

nuttulu

'inspect*'

No clear contrasts, however, are detectable with unergatives in those cases where a verb is attested in both the G- and the D-stem. On the whole, relevant unergative data are rather scarce. (36) a. summa

kalbu

(...)

if dog.sg.NOM ( . . . ) ' i f a dog (...) barks'

b. kalbu

sa

pahhäri

inabbuh bark(G).pres.3sg ( C T 39, 2: 98)

(...) unambah (
u: increase of valency (causative) ...·•'' transitive/causative encoded in:

tense"-sensitive apoph. vowel: ) i=>a: preterite => present ./'

vowel pattern (more precisely, [u])

(61) S-stem (irrelevant details omitted) Vprs ρ r s / valency-sensitive \ | | | / apophonic vowel: \ CV-CVCCVC 1 a =fu: increase of ].... I l l I \ valency / u ''; s a 'ι (causative) ...·••'' '• causative encoded in:

..·•• .... / "tense"-sensitive ! > apoph. vowel: ) \ . i=>a: preterite => present ../

s + vowel pattern (more precisely, [u])

With regard to the morphological marking of the causative properties of the D- and S-stems we observe the situation sketched in (62): (62) D-stem:

S-stem:

vP-internal causative morphologically simple indication by (transitive): w-vocalisation (apophony) vP-external causative morphologically complex indication by (matrix causative): 5-prefix + «-vocalisation (apophony)

I would like to propose tentatively that the apparent impossibility of interpreting SD-stem forms as causativised D-stem forms (i.e. transitives derived

Complex predicate structure andpluralised

events in Akkadian

227

from G-stem unaccusatives on the one hand and verbal plurals derived from G-stem transitives on the other hand) might have to do with the fact that the causative value of the S-stem is morphologically doubly encoded. Suppose the D-stem requires u of the vowel pattern to be interpreted as internal causative (i.e. transitive), whereas the S-stem requires u of the vowel pattern to be interpreted as one component of the external (i.e. matrix) causative, the other component being the prefix s. Interpreting a SD form as a causativised D-stem form would then require to interpret u at the same time as indicating internal causative (i.e. transitive) as well as external (i.e. matrix) causative. Assuming that the morphological marker u (or the operation of apophony behind it) could not receive such simultaneous double interpretation (i.e. be employed to signal two different derivational operations) would explain for the apparent absence of SD forms being interpreted as a causativised version of the corresponding D-stem form. In addition, it follows that in Akkadian any morphologically indicated causativising operation could be applied only once.

7. Some concluding remarks In this paper I have proposed an analysis of the Akkadian D-stem that allows to account for its effects when applied both to unaccusative and transitive verbs. I suggested that the D-stem represent a transitive (v-VP) configuration with some additional head or feature that pluralises events, other effects following f r o m the type of event involved and how it is pluralised. Mapping transitives onto that configuration therefore does not increase their valency but endows them with the verbal, or rather eventual, plural property as illustrated in section 4. Mapping unaccusatives onto that configuration makes them transitive but the verbal plural property is concealed by the fact that pluralising the event does not result in a multitude of states here that need to be predicated of different entities. As only a limited set of data and relevant questions could be treated here, a wider scope of investigation will certainly yield a richer picture. The issue of verbal plural of the type encountered in Akkadian does not seem to have received much attention in the generative literature and clearly merits further research. In the majority of cases, there obtains a predictable and systematic relationship between a v e r b ' s G- and D-stem. As is the case with the corresponding stems in other Semitic languages, however, also the Akkadian D-stem is not a fully productive category but may be subject to lexicalisation in varying

228

Christian Huber

degrees, beside some dialectal variation. Not all Akkadian verbs may occur in the D-stem, the D-stem may also be restricted to special meanings or usages. One does thus not expect a fully coherent picture. To provide just one example, consider (63), which is a case of a verb that has no G-stem but occurs in the D-stem only and allows for a reading that is neither causative nor displays any verbal plural properties (see (i)). In addition, it allows for a valency alternation without a change of stem. (63) zummü

(i) 'lack χ (=ACC), be deprived of χ (=ACC)' (ii) 'deprive y (=ACC) of χ (=ACC), make y lack x'

Deviations from the regular pattern are also found in the corresponding stems of other Semitic languages, e.g. in Hebrew, where some instances of unaccusative verbs can be found in the corresponding stem (data from Joosten 1998: 223): (64) Biblical Hebrew: Qal (=G-stem)

Pi'el (=D-stem)

kahah

'grow dim, grow faint'

kihhah

'grow faint'

samah

'grow, sprout'

simmeh

'grow abundantly'

qahah

'become blunt'

qehhah

'become blunt'

In modern Arabic dialects some grammaticalisation processes can be observed. Greenberg (1991: 580) mentions that in peninsular Arabian dialects form II, which corresponds to the Akkadian D-stem, replaced form IV, which corresponds to the Akkadian S-stem. Kaye and Rosenhouse (1997: 296) report that modern Arabic dialects often replace stem IX, which builds unaccusative colour predicates, by stem II, which otherwise yields transitive predicates. (65)

Yemenite Arabic (Kaye and Rosenhouse 1997:296): II:

hammar

'turn red'

(< IX

('i)hmcirra)

Whether there is some development in the D-stem discernible in the history of the Akkadian language remains yet to be investigated.

Complex predicate structure andpluralised

events in Akkadian

229

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the people w h o over the years have discussed with me issues related to this paper, notably Henry Davis, Jean L o w e n s t a m m , David Pesetsky, D o m i n i q u e Sportiche, Tim Stowell, and especially Friedrich Neubarth. Parts or versions of this paper w e r e presented at the 35th C o l l o q u i u m of Linguistics (2000, University of Innsbruck); at Ö L T 2000 (University of Graz); at the 2001 Conference on the Syntax and Semantics of Semitic L a n g u a g e s at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles; and at Ö L T 2 0 0 2 (University of Innsbruck). Let m e again express my thanks to the organisers of C S S S L for reimbursing m y travel expenses and providing m e a c c o m m o d a t i o n in Los Angeles. I am also grateful to the two reviewers for their c o m m e n t s and to Gillian R a m c h a n d for additional comments.

Notes 1.

For details on the language see the grammars of Soden (1995), Buccellati (1996), and Huehnergard (1997). (Note however that Buccellati and Huehnergard do not always indicate attestations for the data they present.) I give data in bound transcription, using standard semitistic transliteration symbols. By convention, s = [J], h = [x], 5 = [?]; s and t are emphatics; ä, e, Τ, 0 represent long vowels; ä, e, i, ü represent long vowels resulting from contraction. For some suggestions as to the actual realisation of the corresponding Akkadian graphs see e.g. Diakonoff 1992 and Soden 1995. Further symbols are: d (emphatic), 1 = [Ϊ], h = [h]. As a citation form I use the infinitive, which also was the citation form in ancient Mesopotamian lexical and grammatical works. Abbreviations used in glosses and tables are as follows. V = root; C, V = consonant, vowel; EXT = external argument; DN = devine name, RN = royal name; cases: NOM = nominatve, GEN = genitive, ACC = accusative, ACC.INST = instrumental accusative; DAT = dative, OBL = oblique; PP = preposition phrase; abs = absolute state, cstr = construct state; verb stems: G = G-stem, D = D-stem, S = S-stem, Ν = N-stem; trans. = transitive, intrans. = intransitive; REFL = reflexive; inf = infinitive, sub = subjunctive, prec = precative; gender: f = feminine, m = masculine, c = communis; number: sg = singular, pi = plural (with nouns only plural will be indicated in glosses); CL = clitic(ised pronoun), possCL = possessive pronominal clitic ('your', 'his', etc. case of clitics will be indicated explicitly only with dative clitics); persons: 1, 2, 3 = 1st, 2nd, 3rd person; (thus, 'possCL3sgm' = 'possessive pronominal clitic 3rd person singular masculine'); vent = ventive; tenses: pres = present, pret = preterite, perf = perfect, stat = Stative; NEG = n e g a t i o n , REL = relative particle; MA: t h e enclitic particle

-ma,

230

2.

3.

4.

Christian

Huber

which I will not discuss, is glossed as MA. Although Akkadian data are given in bound trascription, a clitic will be separated from its host by a hyphen in order to make glosses more transparent. In glosses to verb forms, the basic stem meaning is followed by the indications of the stem, tense, and person/number/gender, separated by a hyphen from cliticised pronouns (i.e. pronominal affixes) or other clitics. The form umahhisüsuma 'they beat him' will thus be spelled out as umahhisü-su-ma and glossed as beat(D).pret.3plmCL3sgm-MA, indicating that the verb is a D-stem form in the preterite, 3rd person plural masculine, followed by the 3rd person singular masculine pronominal affix (as its cliticised object), which in turn is followed by the enclitic particle -ma. Example sentences are accompanied by indications of the textual source, given in standard Assyriological abbreviations. For a key to these abbreviations as well as for general quotations of Akkadian vocabulary items outside a context (mainly verbs quoted merely as infinitives) see the dictionaries AHw and CAD. In contrast to Arabic and Hebrew the D-stem template cannot host quadriliteral (or reduplicated biliteral) roots in Akkadian. Quadriliteral roots appear with a prefix η or s instead, e.g. Vblkt N: nabalkutu 'to cross, pass over', S: subalkutu 'to let/make cross, pass over' (*bulkutu). That verbs may acquire special meanings is not uncommon among languages. In some instances relevant here it is also doubtful whether the G-stem and the D-stem belong to the same root. However, the possibility of a D-stem does not depend on the existence of a corresponding G-stem verb, as can be seen from the fact that the D-stem may also be employed in denominal verbs, and that a number of verbs are not found in the G-stem but only in the D-stem (see footnote 4). This might indicate that the D-stem (and perhaps also other stems) could be derived directly from the root. See Kouwenberg (1997) for an excellent survey of actually attested D-stem forms and their distribution among the dialects/language stages and text genres, also in relation to other verb stems. Of course, no exact numbers can be given of attested D-stem forms and their distribution. For mere orientation purposes, the following - approximate figures may be gleaned from Kouwenberg's survey (note, however, that Kouwenberg himself hesitates to give any figures): ca. 165 G-stem verbs (excluding unergatives) do not undergo a valency alternation in the D-stem but display verbal plurality instead. Among these are ca. 9 verbs whose D-stems can be used not only to underline plurality but, in another use, may also express a specialised or somewhat different meaning (in some cases indicating a higher degree of agentivity). In ca. 13 further verbs that do not undergo a valency alternation, the semantic relationship between the G- and D-stems is generally not, or not fully, predictable. The lexicalised forms are usually restricted to a specific dialect. With a handful of G-stem verbs, the D-stem primarily

Complex predicate structure andpluralised

events in Akkadian

231

seems to express a conscious action (perhaps in combination with plural action). For ca. 109 further verbs, the situation is not clear, mainly because they are only poorly attested (in ca. 13 of these, there is no observable difference in the use of the G-stem vs. the D-stem). In ca. 216 verbs (deadjectival, change of state, motion, and psychological predicates) the D-stem brings about a transitive/ causative alternation (in ca. 20 of them, the D-stem is associated with a lexicalised meaning). Finally, ca. 64 verbs occur in the D-stem but apparently have no corresponding G-stem. The D-stem is also used in a number of denominal verbs. Some D-stems appear to occur only in hendiadys or serial verb constructions. It must be stressed again, however, that the above figures are given merely for a coarse orientation and certainly do not represent the actual situation that prevailed in any of the dialects at the times when the language was still spoken. 5. Blank entries in tables indicate that a verb is not attested in the respective stem. 6. As expected, the verbs in (7) differ from the transitives in (4) in that no adjective can be derived from them. That is, while for a verb such as rakäsu 'bind' there is an adjective raksu "bound" denoting the state of some entity (i.e. the verb's object) resulting from the event expressed by the verb, no adjective such as the hypothetical *nabhu 'barked' can be derived from nabähu 'bark'. The unaccusative verbs in (2) naturally come with an adjective, e.g. rapäsu 'be(come) wide(r)' and rapsu 'wide(r)'. 7. Although no S-stem is attested of this verb there is however one attestation of the St-stem (sutas^ulu), i.e. a passivised version of the S-stem meaning 'be caused to cough'. 8. The causative element s could be etymologically related to the possessive verb isu 'have' (lassu 'have-not', Assyrian 'there is/are no', < lä (=Neg.)+m/; cf. also Arabic laysa 'is not', Hebrew yes 'there is', etc.). Historically, thus, the Akkadian S-stem and its cognates in Semitic (and Afroasiatic) may perhaps have originated from a causative /wve-construction like e.g. English John had the students write three papers. 9. I take the spelling ma-hir-ti to be connected to mahritu 'earlier, former (sgf)', as ekallu mahritu 'earlier palace' is also attested elsewhere (see e.g. CAD M,1 p. 110). 10. I leave open the question whether there may be some (more) internal structure also to sP. Also note that the S-stem of transitive verbs often appears without an embedded subject, raising the question of restructuring. Demotion of the embedded subject gives such a construction a passive flavour. The issue cannot be pursued here. (i) summa assat if

awilim

(...) mussa (u.

Complex predicate structure andpluralised

events in Akkadian

235

35. Note, however, that there still seems to be an underlying geminate in the present tense form of the S-stem which cannot surface with sound verbs only for templatic reasons. Evidence for this comes from verbs with a so-called "weak" first radical. Consider e.g. the S-stem forms usähiz (preterite) and usahhaz (present) from the root V 'hz 'take' with the weak first radical ' (= [?]). The weak first radical is deleted, allowing in the preterite form the vowel [a] to spread to the empty position, resulting in a long vowel [aa] (= ä) (usa > hiz => usaahiz). In the present form, however, deletion of the weak first radical allows to restore the underlying geminate. Here, [h] is attracted to the empty slot, resulting in the geminate [hh], and [a] remains short (usa'haz => usahhaz). I assume this hidden geminate to be due to a morphological site in the template of Akkadian verbs originally identified by Guerssel & Lowenstamm (1993) for Arabic which they call "Derivational Syllable". However, issues of Akkadian templatic morphology cannot be discussed here any further.

References Baker, Mark 1996 The Polysynthesis Parameter. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1997 Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Elements of Grammar, L. Haegeman (ed.), 73-137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Belletti, Adriana, and Luigi Rizzi 1988 Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291-352. Brockelmann, Carl 1908 Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. 1. Band: Lautlehre und Formenlehre. Berlin. Buccellati, Giorgio 1996 A Structural Grammar of Babylonian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca 1994 The Evolution of Grammar. University of Chicago Press. Chomsky, Noam 1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 1999 Derivation by Phase. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18. Diakonoff, Igor 1992 Proto-Afrasian and Old Akkadian. A study in historical phonetics. Journal of Afroasiatic Languages 4: 1-133. Doron, Edit 2003 Agency and Voice: The Semantics of the Semitic Templates. Natural Language Semantics 11: 1-67.

236

Christian

Huber

Greenberg, Joseph 1991 The Semitic "Intensive" as Verbal Plurality. In Semitic Studies in honor of Wolf Leslau, Alan S. Kaye (ed.), 576-587. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Guerssel, Mohand and Jean Lowenstamm 1993 Apophony in Classical Arabic. Unpublished manuscript. 1996 Ablaut in Classical Arabic Measure I Active Verbal Forms. In Studies in Afroasiatic Grammar, Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm and Ur Shlonsky (eds.), 123-134. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Hale, Kenneth L. and Samuel J. Keyser 1993 On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. In The View From Building 20; Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.), 5 3 109. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Huehnergard, John 1997 A Grammar of Akkadian. Atlanta, Georgia: Scolars Press. Joosten, Jan 1998 The Functions of the Semitic D-stem: Biblical Hebrew Materials for a Comparative-Historical Approach. Orientalia N.S. 67: 202-230. Kaye, Alan and Judith Rosenhouse 1997 Arabic Dialects and Maltese. In The Semitic Languages, Robert Hetzron (ed.), 263-311. London/New York: Routledge. Kouwenberg, N. J. C. 1997 Gemination in the Akkadian Verb. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum. McCarthy, John 1981 A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 373-418. Pesetsky, David 1994 Zero Syntax. Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Poebel, Arno 1939 Studies in Akkadian Grammar. [Assyriological Studies 9] Chicago, 111.: The University of Chicago Press. Rowton, M.B. 1962 The Use of the Permansive in Classical Babylonian. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 21: 233-303. Pustejovsky, James 1991 The syntax of event structure. Cognition 41: 47-81. Soden, Wolfram v. 1995 Grundriß der akkadischen Grammatik, 3. Auflage. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Complex predicate structure andpluralised

events in Akkadian

237

Streck, Michael 1994 Funktionsanalyse des akkadischen St2-Stamms. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 84: 161-197. Szabolcsi, Anna 1994 The Noun Phrase. In The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian, Syntax and Semantics 27, Katalin E. Kiss and Ferenc Kiefer (eds.), 179274. San Diego and London: Academic Press. Ungnad, Arthur 1949 Grammatik des Akkadischen. 3. Auflage. München: Biederstein Verlag.

Bibliographical abbreviations AHw = Wolfram ν. Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. 1965-1981. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz CAD = A. Leo Oppenheim, Erica Reiner et al., The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 1956-.

VSO and left-conjunct agreement: Biblical Hebrew vs. Modern Hebrew Edit Doron

VSO word order may on principle be the reflection of very different clause structures. This chapter argues that for many languages where VSO order is attested (Semitic, Celtic, Romance, Greek), it reflects a particular clause structure, which I will call a "VSO clause," where the subject does not raise out of the c-command domain of the tense head of the clause:

τ

A ...s ...o...

A VSO clause is derived only if Τ has the following property: (i) Τ does not have the EPP feature. V S O clauses exhibit the pattern of "left-conjunct agreement" observed in Irish by McCloskey (1986), and in Arabic by Aoun, Benmamoun, and Sportiche (1994), where the verb agrees with the leftmost conjunct of a postverbal conjoined subject, rather than with the full conjoined subject. Example (1) shows left-conjunct agreement in Biblical Hebrew 1 : (1)

way-yiqqafi sem wa:-yepet ?et-hassimla: and-tookJMS Shem and-Japheth ACC-the.garment 'And Shem and Japheth took a garment.'

(Genesis 9: 2 3 f

This chapter shows that left-conjunct agreement follows from (i) above, and more precisely from the weaker (ii): (ii)

Τ does not attract DP.

240

Edit Doron

I assume (following Borer 1986 and Chomsky 1998) that what triggers the attraction of DP to Τ is the Agree relation between Τ and DP. Therefore, if Τ attracts DP, then they must be related by Agree. But if Τ has property (ii) i.e., it does not attract DP - then Τ need not be related by Agree to DP. Rather, I propose that the Agree relation be defined to hold between Τ and the minimal D constituent closest to Τ which allows the derivation to converge. In a derivation which requires D to move, the minimal D that does not lead to a violation of the constraints on movement (such as the Coordinate Structure Condition) is the full subject DP. But in a derivation where D is not required to move, the minimal D constituent is a D head. In section 3, I show that in clauses with a conjoined subject, it is the head of the left conjunct that is the D head closest to T. VSO clauses share property (ii) with another very different type of clause, those with an expletive subject. In this type of clause, Τ has the EPP feature - i.e., it does not have property (i). The EPP feature of Τ is satisfied by merging an expletive rather than by attracting the subject; that is, clauses with expletive subjects have property (ii). Yet both VSO clauses (which also have property (i)) and clauses with expletive subjects (which do not have property (i)) exhibit left-conjunct agreement, which shows that this kind of agreement follows from a property weaker than (i). It will be shown in section 3 that left conjunct agreement follows from property (ii) - i.e., from the lack of DP-raising to Τ - either because Τ does not have the EPP feature (property (i)), or because the EPP feature is satisfied by merging an expletive. Left-conjunct agreement is illustrated below for English, in a clause with an expletive subject, and for Modern Hebrew, in a clause with a null expletive: (2)

a. In the school there was a library and a terminal room. b. ??In the school there were a library and a terminal room.

(3)

Modern

Hebrew

a. hayta li sipriya ve-fiadar mafisebim w a s J F S DAT.me library.F and-room.M (of)computers Ί had a library and a terminal room.' b. ??hayu li sipriya ve-fiadar mafisebim w e r e J p DAT.me library.F and-room.M (of)computers Ί had a library and a terminal room.'

VSO and Left-Conjunct Agreement

241

In general, VSO clauses are not expletive constructions, since they do not show the defmiteness effect found in (2) and (3). (1) above, for example, is a VSO clause which is clearly not an expletive construction, since its subject is definite. In addition, not every VSO sequence is a VSO clause. VSO word order is found in Modern Hebrew, but not VSO clauses. First, VSO word order occurs in Modern Hebrew in a null expletive structure such as (3) above. In addition, Modern Hebrew has VSO sequences following any preverbal constituent. 3 But there is no VSO sequence in Modern Hebrew which by itself constitutes a clause. Example (4) below shows that clause initial VSO is ungrammatical in non-expletive constructions, irrespective of the agreement features of the verb. (5) shows that VSO is possible only when some other constituent precedes the verb. The contrast between (5a) and (5b) indicates that left-conjunct agreement is disallowed. These constructions are therefore different in some crucial way from the expletive construction in (3), which allows left-conjunct agreement: (4)

Modern

Hebrew

a. *yiqafi sem ve-yepet ?et-hasimla will-take.iMS Shem and-Japheth ACC-the.garment 'Shem and Japheth will take the garment.' b. *yiqfiu sem ve-yepet ?et-hasimla will-takeJ/» Shem and-Japheth ACC-the.garment 'Shem and Japheth will take the garment.' (5)

a. *mafiar yiqafi sem ve-yepet ?et-hasimla tomorrow will-take J M S Shem and-Japheth ACC-the.garment 'Shem and Japheth will take the garment tomorrow.' b. mafiar yiqfiu sem ve-yepet ?et-hasimla tomorrow will-takeJp Shem and-Japheth ACC-the.garment 'Shem and Japheth will take the garment tomorrow.'

Left-conjunct agreement in non-expletive constructions seems to be attested in languages which, like Biblical Hebrew, have VSO clauses: (6)

a. Standard

Arabic

laiibat maryam wa- zayd fi 1-bayt played.JFS Mariam.F and-Zayd.M in the.house 'Mariam and Zayd played in the house.' (Rana Fahoum, p.c.)

242

Edit Doron b. Modern

Irish

da mbeinn -se agus if be.COND.Is EMPH and

tusa you

'if you and I were there' c.

ann there

(McCloskey and Hale 1984: 31a)

Spanish Estaba abierta

la tienda

y

el mercado

was,3S open.FS

the shop.F and the market.Μ

'The shop and the market were open.' d.

(Rodrigo Gutierrez, p.c.)

Greek Irthe ο Pavlos kai ο Giannis sto parti c a m e J S the Paul and the John to-the party 'Paul and John came to the party.' (Anastasia Giannakidou, p.c.)

1. Word Order in Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew The prevalent word order in Biblical Hebrew is verb initial, as shown again in (7) below. In Modern Hebrew, on the other hand, the prevalent word order is SVO, as shown in (8a), whereas verb initial sentences are in general ungrammatical, as shown again in (8b): (7)

Biblical

Hebrew

(8)

V S O hir?a-ni: yhwh ?o:tka: melek ?al ? a ra:m showed-me God ACC.you king over Syria 'The Lord hath showed me that thou shalt be king over Syria.' (2 Kings 8: 13) Modern Hebrew S V O a. haseret her?a-li ?et-dani menaceafi ba-tafiarut the.movie showed-me ACC-Dani winning in-the.race 'The movie showed me Dani winning the race.' V b. *her?a-li showed-me 'The movie

S haseret the.movie showed me

Ο ?et-dani menaceafi ba-tafiarut ACC-Dani winning in-the.race Dani winning the race.'

VSO and Left-Conjunct Agreement

243

SVO is also often attested in Biblical Hebrew. Example (9), exactly as is, is a perfect grammatical sentence of both Modern and Biblical Hebrew: (9)

Biblical

Hebrew

S V Ο u-mo:se: ha:ya: ro?s: ?et-so:n yitro: fiotno: and-Moses was.iMS keeping.MS' ACC-sheep (of)Jethro father-in-law.his ' N o w Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father-in-law.' (Exodus 3 : 1 ) In Biblical Hebrew, the only sentences not introduced by an overt complementizer are direct quotations, such as (7) above. Other main clauses are always introduced by the complementizer w- 'and', also realized phonologically as u- , as in (9) above, or as way- in (10): 4 (10) V S O way-yiqqafi mo:se ?et-matte ha:? E lo:hi:m b°- ya:do: and-tookJA/S Moses ACC-rod (of)the.God in-hand.his 'And Moses took the rod of God in his hand.' (Exodus 4: 20) In verb initial sentences such as (10), the complementizer ' a n d ' cliticizes to the verb, yet it does not follow that the verb raises to C in Biblical Hebrew. Rather, the complementizer in both (9) and (10) lowers to cliticize to the left edge of the clause, similar to what is argued by Shlonsky (1988) for the Modern Hebrew complementizer se 'that' and by McCloskey (1996b) for Irish. Indeed, when sentences like (9) and (10) are preceded by adverbial clauses (themselves introduced by complementizers), then the main-clause complementizer follows the adverbial clause, as shown in ( l l a - b ) . Notice that it should not be inferred from the syntax of the corresponding King James translations that the clause following the adverbial clause is an embedded clause. In Biblical Hebrew, unlike English, a clause with an overt complementizer is possible as a main clause. In fact, the complementizer 'and' never introduces an embedded clause (cf. footnote 4): (11) a. wa-yhi: 1- sibTat hayya:mi:m u- me hammabu:l and-was to-seven the.days and-waters (of)the.flood ha:yu: i a l ha:?a:rss were upon the.earth 'And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.' (Genesis 7: 10)

244

Edit

Doron

b. wa-yhi: miq-qes ya:mi:m way-ya:be qayin mip-pri: and-was in-end (of-)days and-brought Cain from-fruit ha:? a da:ma: (ο f)the. ground 'And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground.' (Genesis 4: 3)

2. Conjoined Subjects in Biblical Hebrew As noted in the standard grammars of Biblical Hebrew (e.g., Gesenius 1910, Joüon 1923), the verb agrees fully with a conjoined subject in SV clauses, as in (12), but it agrees with the left conjunct in VS clauses, e.g., (13). I list here more examples of left-conjunct agreement simply because it is more exotic: (12) u-mo:se: ?ah a ro:n w-fiu:r ?a:lu: ro:s h a g g M a : and-Moses Aaron and-Hur climbedJA/P head (of)the.hill 'And Moses, Aaron and Hur went up to the top of the hill.' (Exodus 1 7 : 1 0 ) (13) a. wat-tasar d 3 bo:ra u:-ba:ra:q ben ? a bi:no:?am and-sang.3FS Deborah and-Barak son (of)Abinoam 'Then sang Deborah and Barak the son of Abinoam.' (Judges 5 : 1 ) b. way-ya:mot na:da:b wa-? a bi:hu: lißne ? a bi:hem and-died.3MS Nadab and-Abihu before father.their 'But N a d a b and Abihu died before their father.' (1 Chronicles 24: 2) c. u-ba:ta: ?atta: w-ziqne yisra:?el ?el mslsk and-will.come.2MS' you and-elders (of)Israel to king misrayim wa-? a mart8m ?ela:w (of)Egypt and-will.say.2iW to.him 'And thou shall come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him . . . ' (Exodus 3 : 1 8 ) d. way-yiqafi ?abra:m w 3 -na:fio:r la:hem na:si:m a n d - t o o k J M S Abram and-Nahor DAT.themselves wives 'And Abram and Nahor took them wives.' (Genesis 11: 29)

VSO and Left-Conjunct Agreement

245

e. wat-ta:qa:m ribqa: w"-naS a ro:teyha wat-tirkabna: Tal a n d - r o s e J f S Rebecca and-maids.her a n d - r o d e . i F P on hagg 3 malli:m the. came Is ' A n d Rebeka arose, and her damsels, and they rode upon the camels.' (Genesis 24: 61) f. wat-taYan ra:fiel w n -le?a: wat-to:marna: lo: a n d - a n s w e r e d J F S Rachel and-Leah and-said.JFP to.him ha-9o:d la:nu: fieleq w°-nafi a la: b-bet ?a:bi:nu: Q-yet to.us portion and-inheritance in-house (of)father.our ' A n d Rachel and Leah answered and said unto him, Is there yet any portion or inheritance for us in our father's house?' (Genesis 31: 14) g. way-yissa: da:wid w a -ha:?a:m ? a ssr ?itto: a n d - l i f t e d J M 5 David and-the.people that with.him ?st-qo:la:m way-yibku: ACC-voice.their and-wept.3MP ' T h e n David and the people that were with him lifted up their voice and wept.' (1 Samuel 30: 4) In the examples in (13), the form of the verb is singular, yet the subject is clearly plural. It is implausible to analyze these examples as containing a singular subject combined with a comitative phrase, though this is the interpretation often offered by traditional interpreters of the Bible, such as Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki, 1040-1105), and traditional translations such as the King James Bible (see in particular the translation of 13c and 13e). 5 (13d), for example, contains a plural reflexive dative bound by the subject. (13g) contains the idiom ' X lifted up X ' s voice' which is obligatorily reflexive: There is no lifting up anybody's voice but o n e ' s own. But this entails, since X is marked as plural in the second part of the idiom, that the subject is plural as well. The examples in (13) are, therefore, examples with plural subjects. The contrast between full agreement of the preverbal subject and partial agreement of the postverbal subject is also found in the other languages vith left-conjunct agreement. Postverbal left-conjunct agreement, as in the (a) sentences below, alternates with full preverbal agreement, in the (b) sentences:

246

Edit Doron

(14) Standard

Arabic

a. laYibat maryam wa-zayd fi 1-bayt played J F S M a r i a m . F and-Zayd.Af in the.house 'Mariam and Zayd played in the house.' b. maryam wa-zayd laTiba:/* la?iba/*la?ibat fi 1-bayt Mariam and Zayd played.3MDUAL/*.3MS /*.3FS in the.house 'Mariam and Zayd played in the house.' (15)

Spanish a. Estaba abierta la tienda y el mercado w a s . i S open.FS the shop.F and the market.M 'The shop and the market were open.' b. La tienda y el mercado estaban the shop and the market were.3Ρ abierto/abierta open*FM/*FS 'The shop and the market were open.'

(16)

abiertos/*estaba open.A//V*wasJs

Greek a. Irthe ο Pavlos kai ο Giannis sto parti c a m e J s the Paul and the John to-the party 'Paul and John came to the party.' b. Ο Pavlos kai ο Giannis irthan/*irthe sto parti the Paul and the John c a m e J M P / * c a m e J 5 to-the party 'Paul and John came to the party.'

3. V-Raising and Left-Conjunct Agreement in VSO Clauses First, we must establish that V S O word order in Hebrew is indeed a case of V-raising, similar to Irish (Chung and McCloskey 1987; McCloskey 1991; 1996a, 1996b; Koopman and Sportiche 1991; Duffield 1991, 1995; Guilfoyle 1993; Bobaljik and Carnie 1996) and Arabic (Mohammed 1990; Benmamoun 1992; Fassi Fehri 1993), and unlike other types of V S O languages such as Chamorro (Chung 1990), where the subject lowers to VP rather than V raising.

VSO and Left-Conjunct Agreement

247

It has already been argued extensively that the verb in Modern Hebrew raises out of the VP. 6 First, there is evidence (Shlonsky 1987) that the verb can precede sentential adverbs, like bevaday 'certainly': (17)

Modern

Hebrew

a. hamore bevaday yasbir ?et-hasi?ur the.teacher certainly will.explain ACC-the.lesson ' T h e teacher will certainly explain the lesson.' b. hamore yasbir bevaday ?et-hasiiur the.teacher will.explain certainly ACC-the.lesson ' T h e teacher will certainly explain the lesson.' Second, there is evidence (Shlonsky 1991) that quantifiers are floated from a postverbal position: (18) hayeladim hebinu kulam ?et-hasi?ur the.children understood &W.3MP ACC-the.lesson 'The children have all understood the lesson.' Third, VP-ellipsis strands the verb (Doron 1990, 1999), which shows that the verb has raised out of the VP. The second reading available for (19) shows that VP-ellipsis has applied, stranding the verb in T: (19) ?im misehu if

yedaber

?al

abodato,

gam dani

someone will.speak about work.his, also Dani

yedaber will.speak

a. 'If someone will speak about his work, Dani will speak too.' b. 'If someone will speak about his work, Dani will too.' In Biblical Hebrew, it is possible to show that the verb may be found to the left of sentential adverbs, which indicates that it raises out of VP: (20) Biblical

Hebrew

we-lo: yiqqa:re: *io:d ?6t-simka: ?abra:m and-NEG will.be.called any more ACC-name.yours Abram 'Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram.' (Genesis 17: 5)

248

Edit Doron

In addition, at least for the absolute form (ABS), the verb can be shown to raise out of VP, since ABS precedes not only Τ (i.e., the tensed form of the verb), but negation (NEG) as well, as mentioned by Levin (1971) 7 : (21) a. ra:?o: ra:?i:ti ? s t - ? ° n i : Tammi: ?a§8r b 3 -misra:yim see.ABS saw .Is ACC-affliction (of)people.my that in-Egypt Ί have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt.' (Exodus 3: 7) b. ba:ko: lo tibke: cry.ABS NEG will.cry.2M5 ' T h o u shalt weep no more.'

(Isaiah 30: 19)

The original position of ABS is within VP, as can be seen in untensed clauses. The order ABS -Τ observed in (21) is not found in imperative clauses, which are untensed. Rather, the order found in imperative clauses is T- ABS, as in (22): (22) simiu: samo:?a w-?al ta:bi:nu: hear.lMP.MP hear.ABS and-NEG will.understand.2Λ//> u-r?u: ra:?o: w-?al teda:?u: and see.IMP MP see.ABS and-NEG will.know.2MP ' H e a r ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.' (Isaiah 6: 9) I will therefore assume that V raises in tensed clauses in Biblical Hebrew, and I will attempt to answer the question posed as a consequence: How far does V raise in a V S O clause? The answer that Aoun, B e n m a m o u n and Sportiche (1994) have given for Arabic is that V raises to functional head F beyond T. F is lower than C, since V S O order is possible in embedded clauses introduced by an overt C. The motivation for Aoun, Benmamoun, and Sportiche's answer is theory internal: Subject-verb agreement, according to them, is a relation which holds between T, the head of the clause, and its specifier, as shown in (23) and, exemplified in (24). Therefore, the subject must be in the specifier of TP even when the verb precedes it. Accordingly, the verb must have raised to a functional head F higher than Τ in a V S O clause:

VSO and Left-Conjunct Agreement (23)

249

FP V+T+F

TP SUBJ

TP

agreement tv+r

VP VP tv

OBJ

FP

(24) V+T+F

TP

la'iibat playedJre

S U B J

TP

Mariam

tv+T

VP tsuBJ

VP tv

PP fi 1-bayt in the-house

Yet if agreement is a relation which invariably holds between Τ and its specifier, then there is no structural difference between examples with leftconjunct agreement, such as (14a), and examples with full agreement, such as (14b). Indeed, Aoun, Benmamoun, and Sportiche deny the existence of left-conjunct agreement, and argue that such examples involve sentence conjunction where ellipsis of the verb and Right Node Raising have also taken place:

250

Edit Dor on

FP

(25)

PP

FP FP

FP V+T+F

TP

laiibat playedJra

/

fi 1-bayt in the-house

V+T+F

TP

e

\

SUBJ

T P

χρ

SUBJ

Mariam

Zayd

tv+T

VP

tv+T

tsUBJ

V

tv

VP t

P

PP I tpp

V

S U B J

tv

P

PP I tpp

In (25), the second occurrence of the verb 'play' is ellided, whereas the PP 'in the house' is Right Node Raised (RNR). Yet this account is problematic even for Arabic. It predicts that the RNR constituent should show singular agreement, since this constituent supposedly originates from two singular clauses. This prediction cannot be tested with an RNR constituent such as 'in the house' in (25), which does not exhibit agreement. Yet in examples where the RNR constituent is a predicate with overt agreement, this prediction is systematically falsified. In (26), for example, the RNR constituent yallabaini fi l-bayt 'play.3MD in the house' is obligatorily marked as dual (D), but if it were raised from two singular clauses, it should be marked as singular: (26) Standard

Arabic

ka:nat maryam wa-zayd yal?aba:ni fi 1-bayt was.3FS Mariam and-Zayd play.3MD in the.house 'Mariam and Zayd used to play in the house.' (Rana Fahoum, p.c.) Aoun and Benmamoun (1999) deny the existence of this problem by showing that it is not attested in either Lebanese or Moroccan Arabic. Yet this problem arises for Standard Arabic, as (26) shows, and moreover, it is also found in Irish and Biblical Hebrew. The relevant example from Irish is

VSO and Left-Conjunct

Agreement

251

shown in (27), where the constituent which is Right Node Raised from two singular clauses (according to Aoun, Benmamoun, and Sportiche), 'ndr sui, is nevertheless plural: (27) Irish Bhinn

fein

was IS

EMPH and

agus an seanduine 'när sui. the old-fellow IP

'The old fellow and I used to be sitting.'

sitVN

(McCloskey 1986: ex. 37)

In Biblical Hebrew as well, the putatively RNR constituents contain plural anaphors - e.g., la:hem 'for themselves' in (13d), and qo:la:m 'their voices' in (13g), which is an anaphoric part of the expression 'raise their voices'. The plurality of these anaphors would be completely unexpected if they originated from singular clauses. Since the only argument in Aoun, Benmamoun, and Sportiche for raising V beyond Τ is to afford a unified account of agreement, and since this attempt is not successful, we are left with no reason to assume that V raises beyond Τ in VSO structures. Indeed, in McCloskey (1986, 1996a, 1996b), it is argued with respect to Irish that the verb does not raise beyond T. Rather, the verb is in T, while the subject is in a specifier of a head lower than T. For simplicity's sake, I assume that this lower head is V, though it is argued in Bobaljik and Carnie (1996) and McCloskey (1996b) that this head is actually a functional head below Τ and above temporal adverbs which follow the verb. Agreement in Irish holds between Τ and the lower subject, as shown in (28): (28)

TP V+T

VP

agreement SUBJ

VP

tv

OBJ

Something needs to be said about how the structure in (28) satisfies the EPP. 8 According to Chomsky (1995), the EPP is satisfied by covert raising of the features of the subject to T. Chomsky (1998) argues against covert feature movement, and moreover proposes to view the EPP as a feature not just of Τ but of functional heads in general. This feature is not necessarily a

252

Edit Dor on

lexical property of functional heads, but can be added independently into the derivation. I propose that in a strictly VSO language such as Irish, Τ is not compatible with the EPP feature, neither as part of its lexical specification nor as an addition by the derivation. In Biblical Hebrew, Arabic, Romance, and Greek, on the other hand, an EPP feature may be added to Τ in some derivations, though it is not part of the lexical specification of T. Accordingly, in these languages, a V S O structure such as (28) is derived with a numeration which does not include the EPP feature. An SVO structure such as (29) is the outcome of a different derivation, one which includes an EPP feature but no expletive: (29)

TP SUBJ

TP

V+T

VP

agreement VP tv

OBJ

The two derivations in (28) and (29) have different agreement patterns, based on the same operation Agree: The operation

AGREE (adapted from Chomsky 1998) 9

(a) The relation AGREE holds between the φ-features of Τ and the φfeatures of D which is closest to Τ (in terms of c-command) in T ' s domain (all the nodes dominated by its sister). (b) The values of φ-features are copied to Τ from the D related to it by AGREE.

(c) If Τ has an EPP feature, D is raised to T. In (30), if Τ has an EPP feature not satisfied by the pure merging of an expletive, it enters into the AGREE relation with the highlighted DP, since this is the DP closest to T, and since this is the minimal constituent within the closest DP that may move without violating the constraints on movement:

VSO and Left-Conjunct Agreement

253

(30)

D

NP

CONJ

DP

Yet, if Τ in (30) does not have an EPP feature (or if the EPP feature can be satisfied by a pure merging of an expletive), no movement is forced, and the AGREE relation holds with the closest D head, which is the boldfaced D in (30). Crucially, I assume the asymmetric structure of coordinate structures argued for by Larson (1990). where conjunctions head coordinate structures. I also assume that conjunctions lack any formal features, from which it follows that the category they project is that of the conjuncts themselves. Moreover, the number specification of a conjoined DP is not a morphosyntactic feature of the conjunction head, as argued hy Farkas and Zee (1995).

4. Subject-Verb Agreement in OVS Clauses In section 3, I showed that left-conjunct agreement to postverbal subjects is a motivation for assuming VSO clause structure - i.e., a structure where the subject does not raise beyond T. The question now is whether such a sructure is also motivated in clauses where V is not clause initial, e.g., OVS order. At first sight, it seems reasonable to continue assuming that in OVS clauses as well, the subject does not raise beyond T. OVS clauses are simply VSO clauses with subsequent fronting of the object. By this reasoning, the structure of (31a) should be (31b), which is derived from a structure like (28) by raising OBJ to T: (31) Biblical

Hebrew

a. Ο V S a we-?et-? ma:sa: sa: m ?absa:lomtafiat yo?a:b and-ACC-Amasa appointed Absalom instead (of)Joab ?al hassa:ba: on the.army 'And Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab.' (2 Samuel 17:25)

254 b.

Edit Doron TP

tv

toBJ

OVS sentences like (31a) are also attested in Modern Hebrew. As mentioned in the introduction, Modern Hebrew allows postverbal subjects on condition that some other constituent - e.g., the object - precedes the verb. Indeed, (31b) is proposed by Borer (1995) as the structure of Modern Hebrew OVS sentences. Yet if this is the right structure for OVS sentences in Modern Hebrew, and if left-conjunct agreement is accounted for structurally, then the prediction is that (31 b) should exhibit left-conjunct agreement in Modern Hebrew as well. But this is not the case, as already mentioned. In Modern Hebrew, only full agreement is attested: (32) Modern Hebrew a. *?et-haseper sama dvora ve baraq al hamadap ACC-the.book p u t J F S Deborah and Barak on the.shelf 'Deborah and Barak put the book on the shelf.' b. ?et-haseper samu d°vora ve baraq al hamadap ACC-the.book p u t J P Deborah and Barak on the.shelf 'Deborah and Barak put the book on the shelf.' The lack of left-conjunct agreement in Modern Hebrew is puzzling in view of the fact that it exists in Biblical Hebrew. This leads us to suspect that the structure in (31b) cannot be the right structure for OVS sentences in Modern Hebrew. I claim that neither is it the right structure for Biblical Hebrew. Despite the grammar-book generalization concerning Biblical Hebrew left conjunct agreement, there are conjoined postverbal subjects in Biblical Hebrew where full agreement is attested: (33) Biblical Hebrew w 9 -hanno:tErst mimmenna: yo:klu: ?ah a ro:n u-ba:na:w and-the.remainder from.it will.eatJMP Aaron and- sons.his 'And the remainder thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat.' (Leviticus 6: 9/16)

VSO and Left-Conjunct Agreement

255

(34) way-yhi: ?afiar hadd°bari:m ha:?ell8: fia:t?u: masqe mslsk and-was after things these o f f e n d e d J M P butler (of)king misra:yim w 3 -ha:?o:pe: la-? a do:nehem l-mslek misra:yim (of)Egypt and-the.baker to-lord.their to-king (of)Egypt 'And it came to pass after these things, that the butler of the king of Egypt and his baker had offended their lord the king of Egypt.' (Genesis 40: 1) (35) w 3 -ta:psu: bo: ?a:bi:w w a -?immo: and-will.hold.JjW at.him father.his and-mother.his 'Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him.' (Deuteronomy 21: 19) Full agreement is specially puzzling in examples such as (36a), since in the same chapter, three verses earlier, the same postverbal subject does trigger left-conjunct agreement, as shown in (36b): (36) a. way-yerdu: ?ela:w melek yisra:?el w-i:ho:sa:pa:t and-descendedJA/P to.him king (of)Israel and-Jehoshaphat u- melek ? E do:m and-king (of)Edom ' S o the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat and the king of Edom went down to him.' (2 Kings 3 : 1 2 ) b. way-yelek mslsk yisra:?el u-mslsk y 3 hu:da: u-mslsk and-went.3A/5 king (of)Israel and-king (of)Judah and-king ? E do:m way-ya:so:bbu: dsrsk s M a t ya:mi:m (of)Edom and-circledJA// 1 road seven days ' S o the king of Israel went, and the king of Judah, and the king of Edom; and they fetched a compass of seven days' journey.' (2 Kings 3: 9) We must ask whether there is a structural difference between sentences with full agreement and sentences with left-conjunct agreement. The answer is provided by Moreshet (1967). In a comprehensive study of the complete prose of the Bible (excluding poetry), Moreshet found 235 sentences with a conjoined postverbal subject. In 210 of these sentences, agreement is with the left conjunct, whereas in 25 examples the verb fully agrees with the conjoined postverbal subject. Moreshet was able to discover a descriptive generalization which captures the distribution of full versus left-conjunct

256

Edit Dor on

agreement. His generalization constitutes a necessary condition for full agreement: THE MORESHET GENERALIZATION (adapted from Moreshet 1967) The verb in Biblical Hebrew agrees with the leftmost conjunct of a postverbal conjoined subject, unless either (I) or (II) hold: (I) The verb is preceded in the clause by some constituent. (II) A clitic is attached to the verb. Examples (33) and (34) above fall under clause (I) of this generalization, whereas (35) and (36a) fall under clause (II). 10 The problem is that the two clauses of the Moreshet Generalizaton do not seem to constitute a natural class of syntactic environments. Fortunately, the analysis proposed for clitics in Semitic by Doron (1996) and Doron and Hey cock (1999) makes it possible to subsume condition (II) of the Moreshet Generalization under condition (I). According to this analysis, clitics may be viewed as anaphors bound by preverbal constituents, as in (37): (37) kol habben hayyilo:d hay?o:r-a: tasli:ku:-/iH.· every son born the.river-ALLAT you.will.throw-/w/n 'Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river.' (Exodus 1: 22) (37) is not an example of left-dislocation, as the constituent binding the clitic is the quantifier kol habben hayyilo.d 'every son that is born'. Quantifiers with 'every' do not undergo left-dislocation. Crucially, the constituent binding the clitic is possibly empty, if previously mentioned in the discourse. This is clearly the case in (36a), for example, where the object clitic refers to the prophet Elisha, mentioned earlier in the text. The same is true for (35), where there is previous mention of a rebellious son, to which the clitic is anaphoric. These clitics may therefore be analyzed as bound by a preverbal constituent, just as in (37). The only difference is that the preverbal constituent is overt in (37), but it is null in (35) and (36a). Condition (II) therefore does not characterize any examples that do not already fall under (I). The two necessary conditions can be collapsed to a single one, which coincides with condition (I):

VSO and Left-Conjunct Agreement

257

THE MORESHET GENERALIZATION ( r e v i s e d )

The verb in Biblical Hebrew agrees with the leftmost conjunct of a postverbal conjoined subject, unless the verb is preceded in the clause by some constituent. The reformulation of the Moreshet Generalization is an improvement over the original formulation for yet another reason. It now accounts as well for cases where the anaphoric element which licenses full agreement is not a clitic attached to the verb, but some other anaphor. An example is shown in (38), where the anaphor is part of the conjoined subject itself (additional examples are Exodus 29: 15, Leviticus 8: 19,22, Numbers 20: 10): (38) way-yo:klu: way-yistu: hu: w-ha:? a na: si:m ? a ser ?immo: and-ateJAfP and-drank JA/P he and-the.men that with.him 'And they did eat and drink, he and the men that were with him.' (Genesis 24: 54) The Moreshet Generalization in conjunction with our previous discussion provides a necessary condition for the raising of the verb beyond T. According to the conclusions of section 3, full agreement is the result of the subject raising to specifier of TP. Accordingly, if in a full-agreement structure the subject is found following the verb, then it must be that the verb has raised beyond T. The Moreshet Generalization states a condition on such a movement very similar to the condition on V-raising beyond Τ known from the discussion of Germanic languages (den Besten 1983, Platzak 1986a, and many others). This condition can be formulated as a V2 condition on V-raising beyond T: THE V 2 CONDITION

The verb in Biblical Hebrew does not raise beyond Τ unless preceded by some constituent. In other words, the raising of V to a functional projection F beyond Τ is possible only if some constituent - e.g., the object - occupies the specifier position of FP: 11

258

(39)

Edit Dor on

FP

tv

toBJ

Descriptively, as we have seen, Modern Hebrew differs from Biblical Hebrew in two relevant respects: (i)

The verb is always preceded by some constituent, not necessarily the subject. (ii) There is no left-conjunct agreement when the subject follows the verb, other than in expletive constructions. The difference may be reduced to a single factor if we simply assume that in Modern Hebrew, Τ has the EPP feature as a lexical property. This is why in Modern Hebrew, unlike Biblical Hebrew, there is always some constituent preceding the verb, and there is no left-conjunct agreement. Even where the object precedes the verb, the subject is in the specifier of TP and therefore triggers full agreement. Indeed, (39) is the structure proposed by Shlonsky and Doron (1992) for Modern Hebrew OVS sentences. In that chapter, independent evidence was presented in favor of (39) over (31b) as the structure for OVS sentences in Modern Hebrew. The distribution of left-conjunct agreement in Biblical Hebrew coupled with the lack of leftconjunct agreement in Modern Hebrew, is an additional argument to the same effect. The structure of Modern Hebrew SVO sentences, on the other hand, is argued by Shlonsky and Doron (1992) to be as in (29), the structure proposed here for Biblical Hebrew SVO sentences as well. A similar asymmetry between the position of a preverbal subject and a preverbal object is argued for in Germanic by Zwart (1993a).

VSO and Left-Conjunct

Agreement

259

A d o p t i n g t h e f r a m e w o r k o f C h o m s k y ( 1 9 9 8 ) has m a d e it possible to account f o r t h e d i f f e r e n t distribution o f the E P P feature in the d i f f e r e n t languages. Τ in M o d e r n H e b r e w is assigned the E P P feature lexically (as in English). In Biblical H e b r e w , it is not, but Τ m a y b e e n r i c h e d with an E P P feature as part o f s o m e derivations but not o f others (the s a m e is true of Arabic, G r e e k , and R o m a n c e ) . In Irish, in contrast, Τ is i n c o m p a t i b l e with the E P P feature, w h i c h cannot be added to it either lexically or by the derivation.

Notes 1. 2. 3.

4.

All the Biblical Hebrew translations are from the King James Bible (1611), which is generally more literal than the other translations. I am very grateful to Shraga Assif for the phonetic transcription of the Biblical Hebrew data. The preverbal constituent may be null even when it is not expletive, as is generally assumed for "narrative inversion" and for "all-focus sentences," e.g.: (i) Modem Hebrew hitqaser ?aba selka called father yours 'Your father called.' The main clause complementizer 'and' has an important role for text cohesion (for recent discussion see de Caen 1995 and Hatav 1997). It is in complementary disiribution with other complementizers - e.g., ki: 'for/that', pen 'lest', h a ' Q ' (a yes-no interrogative complementizer) - which only introduce embedded clauses: (i) ?al ti:r?i: ki: sa:ma? ? e lo:hi:m ?el qo:l hannaTar 1 n e g fear,2FS for heard.iMS God to voice (of)the.lad 'fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad.' (Genesis 21: 17) (ii) ki: ?a:mru glisti:m ρεη yaVasu: ha:?ibri:m for said.iMP Philistines lest will.make.3MP the.Hebrews fisrsb ?o: fiani:t sword or spear 'For the Philistines said, lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears.' (1 Samuel 13: 19) (iii) way-yo:msr h a tafiat ? e lohi:m ?a:no:ki: and-said.iMS β. instead God I 'and he said, Am I in God's stead.' (Genesis 30: 2)

260 5.

Edit Doron Genuine comitative phrases in Biblical Hebrew seem to be small clause adjuncts of the form [ S c and DP with him], e.g.: (i) way-ya:bo: no:afi [ S c u-ba:na:w w-?isto: u-nse and-cameJAiS" Noah and-sons.his and-wife.his and-wives ba:na:w ?itto:] ?ε1 hatteba: mippne me hammabbu:l (of)sons.his with.him to the.ark because waters (of)the.flood 'And Noah went in, and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.' (Genesis 7: 7)

6.

Borer (1995) presents arguments that V does not always raise in Modern Hebrew, but the validity of these arguments is disputed in Doron (2000). 7. ABS is the absolute (i.e. non-construct) form of the verbal gerund used to reduplicate the verb for the purpose of strengthening the affirmative force of the utterance. It is usually translated as 'surely' or 'indeed'. 8. One approach to the question of how the structure in (28) satisfies the EPP is that of Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998). According to them, in pro-drop languages, V-raising to Τ itself satisfies the EPP, since V in these languages carries a clitic which has the feature [+D], I will not discuss this proposal in the text, since it makes several wrong predictions. First, it predicts that every pro-drop language has VSO clauses, a prediction clearly falsified by Modern Hebrew. Second, by this approach, the subject cannot raise to the specifier of TP in pro-drop languages. Rather, any preverbal subject is purely merged to the specifier of TP, an A' position, and binds the thematic subject pro situated in the specifier of VP (or some other projection lower than T). Yet it can be shown that the subject does raise to the specifier of Τ in pro-drop languages. Raised subjects differ in many of their syntactic and semantie properties from purely merged constituents, as amply shown for Standard Arabic, Modern Hebrew and Japanese by Doron and Heycock (1999). For a very different view of the EPP in VSO languages, see Massam (2000). 9. Chomsky's definition also includes an additional clause regarding the erasure of the non-interpretable φ-features of an agreeing T. 10. There exist a couple of apparent counterexamples to this generalization, yet it seems that even those can be explained away: (i) wa-ykah a nu: 'MYa:za:r w°-?i:ta:ma:r and-served.iA// 5 Eleazar and-Ithamar 'Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priest's office.' (1 Chronicles 24: 2) The verb in (i) shows full agreement to the postverbal subject, yet neither does it contain an object clitic, nor is it preceded by any constituent. But notice that (i) appears in the context of a detailed list of all the temple officials in King David's administration, at the point where the divisions of high priests, the descendents of Aaron, are listed:

VSO and Left-Conjunct (ii) wMi-bne and-to-sons wa-? a bi:hu: and-Abihu

?ah a ro:n (of)Aaron ?Elia:za:r Eleazar

Agreement

261

mafilqo:ta:m bne ?ah a ro:n na:da:b divisions.their sons (of)Aaron Nadab w s -?i:ta:ma:r and-Ithamar

way-ya:mot na:da:b wa-? a bi:hu: li^ne ? a bi:hsm u-ba:ni:m and-died.iMS Nadab and-Abihu before father.their and-sons lo: ha:yu: la:hsm wa-ykah a nu: 'islTaizair w n -?i:ta:ma:r NEG were to.them and-servedJa/p Eleazar and-Ithamar 'Now these are the divisions of the sons of Aaron. The sons of Aaron; Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. But Nadab and Abihu died before their father, and had no children: therefore Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priest's office.' (1 Chronicles 24: 1-2) The passage in (ii) is an explanation for why there are only two divisions of high priests listed, not four, in spite of the fact that Aaron, the forefather of all high priests, had had four sons (about two centuries prior to David's time). The clause in (i), which is the last clause in (ii), is therefore probably not conjoined to the preceding clause, but rather contains it as an adverbial clause: 'Because Nadab and Abihu had died leaving no children while Aaron was still in office, only Eleazar and Ithamar succeeded him as high priests.' If this is so, then (i) does after all fall under the Moreshet Generalization. 11. In Arabic, Spanish, and Greek, left-conjunct agreement is optional, which may indicate that in those languages, T-raising to F is independent of the fronting of a constituent to the specifier of FP.

References Abraham, Werner (ed.) 1983 On the Formal Syntax of Wesgermania. Adger, David, S. Pintzuk, B. Plunkett and G. Tsoulas (eds.) 1999 Specifiers: Minimalist Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou 1998 Parametrizing AGR: word order, V-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16.3: 491-539. Aoun, Joshep and Elabbas Benmamoun 1999 Gapping, PF merger and patterns of partial agreement. In Fragments: Studies in Ellipsis and Gapping, Elabbas Benmamoun and Shalom Lappin (eds.), 175-192. Oxford: Oxford University Press Aoun, Joshep, Elabbas Benmamoun and Dominique Sportiche 1994 Agreement, word order and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 195-220.

262

Edit Doron

Benmamoun, 1992 Benmamoun, 1999

Elabbas Structural conditions on agreement. Proceedings ofNELS 22: 17-32. Elabbas and Shalom Lappin (eds.) Fragments: Studies in Ellipsis and Gapping. Oxford: Oxford University Press. den Besten, Hans 1983 On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In On the Formal Syntax of Wesgermania, Werner Abraham (ed.), 47-131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bobaljik, Jonathan D. and Andrew Carnie 1996 A minimalist approach to some problems in Irish word order. In The Syntax of the Celtic Languages. Robert Borsley and Ian Roberts (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Borer, Hagit 1986 I-subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 375-416. 1995 The ups and downs of Hebrew verb movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13.3: 527-606. Borsley, Robert and Ian Roberts (eds.) 1996 The Syntax of the Celtic Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carnie, Andrew and Eithne Guiloyle (eds.) 2000 The Syntax of Verb Initial Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, Noam 1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 1998 Minimalist inquiries: the framework. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15. Chung, Sandra 1990 VPs and verb movement in Chamorro. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 559-620. Chung, Sandra and James McCloskey 1987 Government, barriers and small-clauses in Modern Irish. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 173-237. Cinque, Guglielmo and G. Giusti (eds.) 1995 Advances in Roumanian Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DeCaen, Vincent 1995 On the Placement and Interpretation of the Verb in Standard Biblical Hebrew Prose. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto. Doron, Edit 1990 VP-ellipsis in Hebrew. MS., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 1996 The Predicate in Arabic. In Studies in Afroasiatic Grammar, Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm and Ur Shlonsky (eds.), 7 7 87. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.

VSO and Left-Conjunct Agreement 1999

263

V-movement and VP-ellipsis. In Fragments: Studies in Ellipsis and Gapping, Elabbas Benmamoun and Shalom Lappin (eds.), 124-140. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2000 Word order in Hebrew. In Studies in Afroasiatic Grammar, Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm and Ur Shlonsky (eds.), 41-56. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Doron, Edit and Caroline Heycock 1999 Filling and licensing multiple specifiers. In Specifiers: Minimalist Approaches, David Adger, S. Pintzuk, B. Plunkett and G. Tsoulas (eds.), 69-89. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Duffield, Nigel 1991 Particles and Projections. Ph.D. Dissertation, USC. 1995 Particles and Projections. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Eid, Mushira (ed.) 1990 Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader 1993 Issues in the Structure of Arabic Clauses and Words. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Farka§, Donca and Draga Zee 1995 Agreement and pronominal reference. In Advances in Roumanian Linguistics, Guglielmo Cinque and G. Giusti (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gesenius, Friedrich Η. W. 1910 Hebrew Grammar. Edited and enlarged by E. Kautzsch, second English edition revised by A.E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Guilfoyle, Eithne 1993 Nonfinite clauses in Modern Irish and Old English. Proceedings of the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 199-214. Hatav, Galia 1997 The Semantics of Aspect and Modality; Evidence from English and Biblical Hebrew. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Joüon, Paul 1923 Grammaire de l'Hebreu Biblique. Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical. Koopman, Hilda and Dominique Sportiche 1991 On the position of subjects. Lingua 85: 211-258. Larson, Richard 1990 Double objects revisited: reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 589-593. Lecarme, Jacqueline, Jean Lowenstamm and Ur Shlonsky (eds.) 1996 Studies in Afroasiatic Grammar. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Lecarme, Jacqueline, Jean Lowenstamm and Ur Shlonsky (eds.) 2000 Research in Afroasiatic Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

264

Edit Doron

Levin, Saul 1971 The Indo-European Languages. Albany, NY: SUNY University Press. Massam, Diane 2000 VSO and VOS: Aspects of Niuean word order. In The Syntax of Verb Initial Languages, Andrew Carnie and Eithne Guilfoyle (eds.), 97116. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McCloskey, James 1986 Inflection and conjuction in Modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4: 245-281. 1991 Clause structure, ellipsis and proper government in Irish. Lingua 85: 259-302. 1996 a Subjects and subject positions. In The Syntax of the Celtic Languages, Robert Borsley and Ian Roberts (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1996b On the scope of verb movement in Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 47-104. McCloskey, James and Kenneth Hale 1984 On the syntax of person-number inflection in Modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4: 487-533. Mohammad, Mohammad 1990 The problem of subject-verb agreement in Arabic: towards a solution. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics /., Mushira Eid (ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Moreshet, Menachem 1967 Hanasu hakodem lishney nos'im bilshon hamikra. Leshonenu 31: 1-10. Platzak, Christer 1983 Germanic word order and the Comp/Infl parameter. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 2. Trondheim. Shlonsky, Ur 1987 Null and Displaced Subjects. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT. 1988 Complementizer cliticization in Hebrew and the Empty Category Principle. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 191-205. 1991 Quantifiers as functional heads: a study of quantifier float in Hebrew. Lingua 84: 159-180. Shlonsky, Ur and Edit Doron 1992 Verb-second in Hebrew. Proceedings ofWCCFL 10: 431-446. Zwart, Jan Wouter 1993 Dutch Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics 10.

IE *weid- as a root with dual subcategorization features in the Homeric poems Annamaria Bartolotta

This paper is organized as follows: the first section sketches the theoretical background involved in the case study of Old Greek eidon/oida. As is well known, the aorist eidon takes only an accusative DP-object, while the perfect oida can take either a genitive or an accusative DP-object. Sections 2-5 aim to prove that the diachronic development of the root *weid- in early Greek must be take into consideration to explain the synchronic phenomenon of dual subcategorization features. This root proves indeed to be polysemous and is split into two different meanings which are lexicalised by means of different bridging contexts and different morphological developments. In section 6 the peculiar evolution of oida from a genitive/accusative to an accusative syntax is considered from a typological point of view. The genitive/ accusative syntax is held to be a residual trace of a previous active-stative system which had characterised the Proto-Indo-European before it adopted a nominative-accusative system. Section 7 examines the available evidence about the inherent status of genitive and accusative in Homeric Greek. In section 8 the modular conception of grammar is discussed by considering the role played by the morpho-semantic properties of the root when dealing with a THETA-related case system. Sections 9 - 1 0 are concerned with a minimalist representation of the syntactic structure of the early Greek verb. Against the LATE INSERTION principle, a model endowed with three functional heads (TP, AspP, vP) is put forward which requires the root features to be visible in syntactic derivation before Spell-out. Thus, the syntactic object case feature at that stage of the language is taken to have been interpretable in LF (Object-in-situ hypothesis). Section 11 examines the Greek sentence structure after the nominative-accusative type had been stabilized: once case had turned to a purely formal feature, it became uninterpretable; so, the semantic properties of the root were not able to determine the inherent case assignment any longer, and tense tended to incorporate all temporal distinctions related to the verb (including aspect).

266

Annamaria

Bartolotta

1. Greek *weidon / wöida: a case study In the Homeric poems, the Greek perfect (w)oida Ί see with the m i n d ' s eye, I k n o w , ' shows a peculiar behaviour as regards its morphosyntactic structure. Although the aorist (w)eidon Ί saw', derived from the same root *weid- 'to see', is characterized by an identical lexical entry, we can observe a different case mapping between the two verb forms when they are bivalent and select their internal argument (i.e. a nominal direct object). Regardless of the same categorization features [ ] v , the same sub-categorization features [+ N P ] Vp, the same selective restrictions as for the subject N P [+an] , and the same theta-grid structure , the aorist is seen to regularly assign the accusative case, while the syntax of the perfect alternates between an assignment of the accusative and genitive cases in an apparently unpredictable way. 1 Compare, for example, the following passages quoted f r o m the Iliad, where oida sometimes assigns the genitive case, as in Iliad X V , 4 1 1 - 1 2 , 2 (1)

äs rhä te pases eu who-NOM indeed-PRT+CONJ all-GEN.SING well-ADV eide sophies hypothemosynesin Athenes knows-PERF.SUBJ skill-GEN promptings-DAT Athene-GEN ' w h o (viz. a cunning workman) indeed well knows (sees in his mind) the whole skill by the promptings of Athene'

and sometimes the accusative case, as in Iliad VII, 237: (2)

autär egon nay-ADV I-NOM androktasias manslayings-ACC 'nay, I know (see

eu oida mtikhas t' well-ADV know-PERF battles-ACC and-CONJ te and-CONJ in my mind) well battles and slayings of m e n . ' 3

At first glance, this outline may seem very unusual if we refer to the traditional generative thematic theory, according to which properties of verb selection and valence are invariable for all the tenses, moods and persons of the inflected verb. Furthermore, it should be noted that inherent case assignment occurs simultaneously with internal thematic role assignment, which is specified at the lexical entry of the verb itself (Haegeman 1996: 149).

IE *weid- as a root with DS features in the Homeric poems

267

A complicating factor in this study is the apparent unpredictability of this alternation in linking the accusative or the genitive case to the nominal argument selected by the perfect. There is an accusative in most of the occurrences with oida, while the genitive is less and less present in the passage from the Iliad (23 χ) to the Odyssey (3 χ), until it disappears definitively in the Greek Classical age where the finite forms of oida are shown to assign only the accusative. This seems to occur without any apparent reason due to contextual differentiations. Furthermore, the same dual subcategorization is noticeable for many other Greek verbs as well (from akouo Ί h e a r ' to ρίπο Ί drink', from mäiomai Ί seek after' to pynthänomai Ί learn', etc.), but it does not seem possible to ascribe to oida the same account that has been traditionally given for those verbs. Many scholars have indeed described the genitive case selected by verbs of perception as a PARTITIVE GENITIVE which alternates with the accusative. According to this hypothesis, the action expressed by a verb of perception like oida could involve the direct object totally (accusative) or only partially (partitive genitive). 4 If this explanation could probably fit some other verbs of perception, the same cannot be said for oida. In fact, as the analysis of the Homeric verses indicates, the alternation between accusative and genitive does not seem to be connected with the partitive meaning that is usually ascribed to the genitive, since such a partitive meaning is never noticeable in the perfect oida occurrences. 5 I will argue that this phenomenon has to be accounted for by reappraising, on the one hand, the semantic values involved by the original IndoEuropean root, and, on the other, the role of diachronic change also in a synchronic framework.

2. The meaning-split of the IE root *weidThe first step of the differentiation between *weidon and *woida has to be found in the meaning split that the original IE root *weid-, from which both verbs derive, undergoes. The split is motivated by the linguistic sign's POLYSEMOUS nature: originally, the root *weid- 'to see' w a s a lexeme with more than one related sense, denoting a kind of vision that could be both perceptive and intentional. 6 As in most Indo-European languages, also the Greek-derived stem *wid- / *weid- / *woid- bears more than one meaning, with a semantic extension from 'see' to ' k n o w ' . 7 In the Homeric text, the zero-grade stem of the aorist *wid- 'see' meant not only a kind of perception which consisted of simple eyesight, but it also denoted the beginning of an

268

Annamaria

Bartolotta

internal acquisition process after working-out data that had been seen, towards a brief form of thought. This is what the analysis of eidon occurrences in the Homeric poems tells us clearly (see below § 4). Soon, probably already at a Proto-Indo-European stage, as the comparison with the Vedic developments of the same root lets us reconstruct (Bartolotta 2002a: 17-20), this semantic complexity found a lexical counterpart in a new stem-formation which entailed a vowel change (ablaut). Therefore, it is possible to distinguish in Greek the results of such semantic splitting: (i)

the PERCEPTIVE side of sight may be attributed to the zero-grade stem *wid-\ the aorist eidon denotes a punctual action characterized by an Aspect feature [-Stative]. This verb assigns the accusative case to its internal argument, a case which semantically reflected an IMMEDIATE contact with the object of sight;

(ii)

the INTENTIONAL side of perception may be instead attributed to the o-grade stem *woid-: the perfect oida denotes a process characterized by an Aspect feature [+stative] (see below § 4). This verb originally assigns the genitive case to its internal argument, a case which semantically reflected a MEDIATED contact with the object of sight. 8

In the following sections I shall try to examine the way this semantic split will condition the morphosyntactic structure of the verb.

3. Distributional contexts In order to understand the gradual steps of the semantic change which is hidden behind the morphosyntactic structure synchronically sketched, let us first examine the role of distributional contexts in which the two verb forms occur in the Homeric poems. It appears that most of the aorist and perfect forms follow a regular - if not straight formulaic - contextual distribution including a PP with a substantive that refers to the physical organ involved during the action/state described by the verb. The recurring syntactic links are as follows (table l ) : 9

IE *weid- as a root with DS features in the Homeric poems

269

Table 1. The physical organ involved in the action/state described by the aorist eidon and the perfect oida. aorist

eidon

+ ophthalmoisin

eyes-DAT.PL 'in (with) the eyes'

+ en ophthalmoisin

in-PREP eyes-DAT.PL 'in the eyes'

+ opsei sight-DAT.SG 'with the sight'

perfect

öida

+ thymö mind-DAT.SG 'in (with) the mind' + eni thymö in-PREP mind-DAT.SG 'in the mind'

Iliad

Odyssey

21 χ

17 χ

3 χ

1 χ

1 χ

-

Iliad

Odyssey

2 χ

3 χ

-

1 χ

+ katä thymön in-PREP mind-ACC.SG 'in the mind'

3 χ

+ thymos mind-NOM.SG 'the mind'

I χ

+ phresin

3 χ

4 χ

in-PREP mind-DAT.PL 'in the mind'

3 x

4 χ

+ katäphrena

in-PREP mind-ACC.SG 'in the mind'

3 χ

1 χ

+ peri phresin

in-PREP mind-DAT.PL 'in the mind'

mind-DAT.PL 'in (with) the mind'

+ eniphresi(n)

+ prapidessi

mind-DAT.PL 'in the mind'

-

4 χ

1 x -

1 χ 1 χ

This distribution confirms the semantic hypothesis outlined above: on the one hand, the aorist denotes a kind of perception that merely consists of an immediate eyesight (dative ophthalmoisin 'eyes' - or equivalent locative periphrastic expressions); on the other, the perfect denotes a perception that goes beyond the physical sighting, since it being mediated by a process of elaboration which takes place in the mind (dative thymö ' m i n d ' - or equivalent locative periphrastic expressions).

4. Gradualness of linguistic change: the role of polysemy Now, focusing on the context allows us to distinguish two crucial steps of the semantic change, (1) the so-called STAGE OF OVERLAP and (2) the STAGE OF LEXICALIZATION. According to Evans and Wilkins (2000: 549), in the first stage, the semantic change from a meaning A to a meaning Β involves a transitional stage of POLYSEMY where only one form takes both the meanings (stage of overlap). 1 0 At this stage, the new meaning is not yet lexicalised. On the basis of these claims, we would have the following evolution path:

270

Annamaria Bartolotta

1.

Stage of overlap

(a)

initially, one polysemous form has in nuce both the overlapping meanings A and B: the aorist eidon denotes the two senses inherited from the IE root *weid-, i.e. 'to see with the eyes' (MEANING A) and the extended form 'to see with the mind' (MEANING B);

(b)

the primitive meaning A is enriched by a regular contextual support (bridging context) which enables the speakers to distinguish clearly a new meaning B: some Homeric passages testify the presence of such BRIDGING CONTEXTS which support the semantic extension of eidon (see below).

2.

Stage of

lexicalization

The contextual sense (MEANING B) becomes then lexicalised after creating a different morphological status of the root. This new status is here created by deriving the Aktionsart category of Perfect through the change of the root's vowel (*woid-). *woida is in fact characterized by a strong paradigmatic autonomy and an early morphological lexicalization. Evidence for this early lexicalization comes from the absence of reduplication (which normally marks the perfect), the presence of proper personal endings, the presence of the vowel change (apophony) and the presence of a new categorization form (Aktionsart), which denotes the so-called 'resulting state', i.e. a state resulting from a process. 11 Evidence for the first stage comes from Homeric passages that seem to be an exception to the regular distribution discussed in §3 (table 1). As stated above, the dative ophthalmoisi 'eyes' occurs in fact with the aoristic forms since they properly refer to the original sense of 'seeing' related to eyesight; whereas datives such as thymö, phresin, etc. 'mind', are linked to the perfect, since this latter relates to a cognitive process which takes place only in the mind. Now, the BRIDGING CONTEXT is instead represented by those passages in which the aorist forms occur with the syntactical expressions usually proper to the perfect. Let us analyse the text. In Iliad XXI, 61, as shown in (3),

IE *weid- as a root with DS features in the Homeric poems (3)

ophra

idömai

(in order) that-CONJ see-AOR.SUBJ.lSG

ede

eni in-PREP

271

phresin mind-DAT

daeiö

and-CONJ know-AOR.SUBJ.lSG 'that I see in my mind and k n o w '

the locative expression eni phresin 'in the mind', which occurs with the aorist subjunctive idömai Ί see', represents a bridge between the first meaning 'to see with the eyes', normally conveyed by eidon from *wid-, and the extended sense 'to see with the mind', that involves a cognitive inferential process triggered by ocular sight. A confirmation to what has been claimed comes from the presence, in the context, of the subjunctive daeiö (derived from the root Vda 'to know') which is closely related to the subjunctive idömai Ί see': in this way a form of knowledge which completes the idea of a whole cognitive process is expressed. The other example is in Odyssey VIII, 450, as shown in (4), (4)

hod' [...] ide thy mo he-NOM+PRT [...] saw-AOR.IND. 1SG mind-DAT 'he (viz. Odysseus) saw in his mind.'

where the irregular coexistence of the dative thymö 'mind' with the aorist ide 'he saw' is again the residual trace of a semantic change in progress. Further supporting evidence for bridging contexts which function as catalysing support for linguistic change is to be found in Homeric passages where the aorist eidon is immediately followed by cognitive verbs such as noeö Ί perceive', gignoskö Ί come to know', phräzomai Ί think, I perceive', hormainö Ί revolve in the mind', etc. Here it is again possible to distinguish two steps of the same process which begins with (i) the visual stimulus and ends with (2) an internalization of knowledge (see Bartolotta 2002b: 25).

5. The splitting traces To summarize, the Homeric poems testify to a gradual splitting of the root *weid-, both semantically and morphosyntactically: -

different distributional contexts that indicate the different semantic value of eidon and oida (see table 1);

272

Annamaria

Bartolotta

-

morphosyntactic and aspectual differentiation, evidenced by alternating case assignment: aorist [-stative] + accusative vs. perfect [+stative] + genitive;

-

presence of bridging contexts (aorist eidon + distributional context proper to the perfect) which support the extended sense of the root (*wid-) (examples (3) and (4)).

6. The morphologic-syntactic-semantic interface: a typological perspective After delineating this situation, let us return to the peculiar morphosyntactic behaviour of the perfect oida. The variation from a genitive to an accusative syntax - which characterizes many other knowledge verbs of the Homeric poems, like pynthdnomai Ί learn', didäskö Ί teach', 4da Ί learn, I k n o w ' , etc. as well as oida - is noticeable in the transitional period between the Iliad (genitive 23 x) and the Odyssey (genitive 3 χ ) and, finally, to the Greek classic age, where the accusative case definitively prevails over the genitive case. Further investigations allow us to hypothesize that this morphosyntactic variation is part of a broader diachronic change that involves the whole linguistic system, a typological change of which this variation is an important piece of evidence. As is well-known, many Indo-European scholars pointed out that it is possible to reconstruct, for the late stage of IndoEuropean, a change from an active-stative to a nominative-accusative system (see, a m o n g others, Lehmann 1999: 318). According to this assumption based on comparative studies, the Indo-European language undergoes a complex systemic change involving morphological, syntactical, semantic and lexical structures. To quote just the more relevant here, it is interesting to note that, after this change, the relationship between verb and noun (or between noun and noun) turns out to be based on a structural (i.e. a mere inflectional) regimen rather than on one of semantic concord, with the following results: 1 2 (i)

the semantic-lexical relationship between verb and noun (proper to an active-stative type), according to which the noun meaning was aimed to complete the meaning of the verb depending on its [± stative] feature, becomes just a verb/noun structural relationship in the nominative-accusative type;

IE *weid- as a root with DS features in the Homeric poems (ii)

273

the semantic value of the so-called INHERENT case, which is assigned by a lexical head V to the N P it governs, in conjunction with θ-role assignment, now makes way for a new purely syntactic evaluation of the STRUCTURAL case, which is not assigned in conjunction with Θrole assignment by a lexical head. 13

Furthermore, as is well known in Indo-European studies, this change means that the verbal system has been shifted from an aspectual model, which is characteristically proper to an active-stative type, to a temporal model, which is a subsequent acquisition of the nominative-accusative type, where Tense distinctions begin to play an increasingly important role in respect of Aspect distinctions. On the basis of these assumptions, I will argue that the oida genitive-marked construction is a residual trace of an early activestative stage of the IE language - a stage which early Greek inherited since the genitive was the inherent case which best adapted itself semantically in order to complete the verb aspectual meaning. 14 In other words, a genitive of INFERENCE would semantically reflect the mediated relationship which links the stative verb oida to its object, since at the early stage there still was no trace of transitivity in the PIE verbal system. 15 The oida accusative-marked construction, which originally had its own semantic value expressing an immediate relationship verb/noun, would have instead gradually reflected a transitive structural relationship between the verb and its object, having just an abstract syntactic-position value (i.e. the accusative case marks the noun which follows the verb immediately). In this way, the accusativemarked construction, which now falls within a nominative-accusative system, makes regular the verb-noun relationship in a temporal model where the aspectual differences, which were once essential in the option for a semantically related case, began to be less and less important. Such a development would explain why an accusative case had to replace the genitive case in the syntax of oida during the shifting to the Greek classical age. To recap the most important features involved in the linguistic change just sketched, here is a summary table (table 2):

274

Annamaria Bartolotta

Table 2. Indo-European typological variation: some important morphological-syntactical-semantic features involved in oida linguistic change. nominative-accusative system

active-stative system

semantic-lexical relationship verb/noun —» syntactic-structural relationship verb/noun semantic value of the inherent case

—> syntactic value of the structural case

aspectual system

—» temporal system

oida + genitive (θ-related case)

—> oida + accusative (no θ-related case)

7. The syntax of oida between genitive and accusative From a synchronic point of view, one of the most striking pieces of evidence of the semantic value related to case-assignment comes from those passages where oida assigns different cases practically to the same DPobject. This case assignment is not random, for, as I shall argue, it is closely connected to the semantic relationship between verb and noun. Compare, for example, Iliad XII, 100 (= V, 11; V, 549) (5)

Arkhelokhos t' Akamas te, mdkhes Archelochus-NOM and-CONJ Acamas-NOM and-CONJ battle-GEN.SG eu eidote pdses well-ADV know-PERF.PART.DL whole-GEN 'both Archelocus and Acamas, who well know (see in their mind) the whole battle'.

to Iliad VII, 237, here repeated as (6): (6)

autär egon eu oida miikhas t' nay-ADV I-NOM well-ADV know-PERF battles-ACC.PL and-CONJ androktasias te slayings.of.men-ACC.PL and-CONJ 'nay, I know (see in my mind) well battles and slayings of men'.

In (5) the genitive singular adjective pdses, which refers to mdkhes, means 'all' taken as a whole, and not 'each' as some classical translations give. 16 It refers to a knowledge as a result of a whole complex of military opera-

IE *weid- as a root with DS features in the Homeric poems

275

tions of which a battle consists. The same explanation is indeed valid for the genitive pases sophies in (1), where pases refers to a kind of knowledge which is the result of a complex of techniques taken as a whole, the fruit of an internalization and re-elaboration of data from which a sort of science or art is inferred (mediated relationship between verb and its DP-object). Moreover, it should be noted that, morphologically speaking, the genitive is not due to the fact that oida is inflected as a nominal form, i.e. the participle eidote in (5), because the same construction is to be found in (1), where eide is a subjunctive. In (6), instead, the plural accusative mäkhas refers to a series of military operations considered not as a whole, but as single concrete events, directly experienced without referring to a general abstract form of knowledge (non-mediated relationship between verb and its DP-object). The plural forms are often preferred in similar constructions, as we can see in Iliad XI, 719, where Nestor is too young and has not learnt yet the art of war deriving from the internalization of the concrete experience of a series of military actions: (7)

ou gär ρό ti m' iphe not-NEG in fact-CONJ yet-ADV I-PRON.ACC said-AOR.3SG idmen polemeia erga to know-PERF.INF warlike-ACC.PL deeds-ACC.PL 'he (Neleus) said in fact that I (Nestor) did not know (see in my mind) as yet deeds of w a r ' .

These considerations should also explain every alternating construction of oida, which assigns either genitive or accusative. Thus, on the one hand, we have the genitive case in expressions such as the following (8): (8)

a. eidote theres knowing-PERF.PART.DL hunt-GEN.SG ' k n o w i n g (seeing in the mind) the art of hunting'

(II. X, 360)

b. eidos pugmakhies knowing-PERF.PART.DL boxing-GEN.SG ' k n o w i n g (seeing in the mind) the art of boxing'

(II. XXIII, 665)

c. aikhmes eu eidos spear-GEN.SG well-ADV knowing-PERF.PART.SG 'knowing (seeing in the mind) well the art of the spear' (II. XV, 525)

276

Annamaria Bartolotta d. eidote khärmes knowing-PERF.PART.DL fight-GEN.SG 'knowing (seeing in the mind) the art of the fight'

(II. V, 608)

e. oiönön sdpha eidos birds-GEN.PL clearly-ADV knowing-PERF.PART.SG 'knowing (seeing in the mind) clearly the (divinatory) art of the birds' (Od. I, 202) On the other hand, the same inflected forms of oida assign the accusative case, as in (9): (9)

a. apatilia eidos deceiving-ADJ.NEU.ACC.PL knowing-PERF.PART.SG 'knowing (seeing in the mind) deceiving things' (Od. XIV, 288) b. eidos pantoious te knowing-PERF.PART.SG each.kind.of-ADJ.ACC.PL and-CONJ dölous käi medea pyktui crafts-ACC.PL and-CONJ devices-ACC.PL cunning-ACC '(viz. Odysseus) knowing (seeing in the mind) each kind of crafts and cunning devices' (II. Ill, 202) c. thymos eni stethessi epia mind-NOM in-PREP breast-DAT kindly-ADJ.ACC denea oide thoughts-ACC.NEU.PL knows-PERF.IND '(your) mind in the breast knows (sees) kindly thoughts' 1 7 (II. IV, 360) d. olophoia eidos pernicious-ADJ.NEU.ACC.PL knowing-PERF.PART.SG 'knowing (seeing in the mind) pernicious things' (Od. XVII, 248)

As is definitively shown by all the occurrences of oida in Homeric poems, 18 the inherent status of genitive can be namely defined as GENITIVE OF INFERENCE. Therefore, both Jannaris' (1897) hypothesis on the Greek perception verbs (genitive = direct perception vs. accusative = indirect perception), and the partitive genitive hypothesis (see § 1) are to be discarded for the morphosyntax of oida}9 Furthermore, since there is no semantic neutralization of the two cases at the synchronic level, the idea that the genitive case is an alternative spelling-out of the abstract objective case feature

IE *weid- as a root with DS features in the Homeric poems

277

should be rejected. To recapitulate, in the early stage of Greek, case assignment was a matter of inherent meaning based upon the semantic relationship between the verb and its DP-object.

8. The modularity of the grammar After this analysis of the status of the features involved in the oida perfect, it is possible to clarify a synchronic account of the early Greek verb structure. The presupposition behind this is that the peculiar situation of eidon and oida, which are tenses belonging to the same verb paradigm, is explainable only by considering the idiosyncratic lexical and morphological properties of the root-stem. These properties play a role in syntax since only they can account for certain future developments responsible for any morphosyntactic structure of the verb. The morphological and lexical features of the root have to be visible in the syntactic derivation before and not after Spell-Out: only in this way will it be possible to give a predictive synchronic explanation of all the linguistic phenomena related to the verb. That is why in this treatment I follow Embick (2000: 187-188) when he argues against the Distributed Morphology principles such as those of the LATE INSERTION a n d t h e FEATURE DISJOINTNESS e x p r e s s e d in M a r a n t z ( 1 9 9 4 ,

1995). According to these principles, which defend a modular concept of grammar, the morphological features and the arbitrary properties of vocabulary items are irrelevant for syntax. They must not be present in the syntactic derivation, with the result that the lexical Roots and the functional morphemes have to be inserted after Spell-Out. The *wiidon / *woida case study seems instead to highlight the role played in structuring syntactic configurations by the idiosyncratic semantic properties of the verbal Root with its morphological features, such as Aspect and Aktionsart (carried by apophony). 20 This claim is valid for the inherent case-selection and, as we shall see in the next section, for the related feature-checking process.21 Moreover, it is worth noting that dead languages such as Sanskrit, for example, allow us to reconstruct a Proto-Indo-European language whose lexicon was essentially based on a root-items system.

9. Syntactic structure of the Early Greek verb In order to describe the structure of the Homeric Greek syntax, I shall assume a clause structure endowed with three functional heads, Tense, Aspect and

278

Annamaria Bartolotta

Light verb, within the framework of the Agr-less checking theory of the Minimalist model. Following some suggestions coming from Embick's analysis of Latin verb, the notation V in (10) is for the Root, «that is, the member of the open-class vocabulary appearing in this position» (Embick 2000: 195). Moreover, according to Stroik (2001: 368), it should be noted that 'the light verb v, which bears the [Vform] feature, is a functional category that has both morphophonetic and semantic justification'. The [Vform] contains all the morphological features of the root, such as Aktionsart, etc., which are responsible for the case selection of the verb. 22 These morphological features, that have to be visible in the syntax by virtue of the EARLY INSERTION of the root (i.e. from the outset of the derivation), will be checked in the head v. The structure will be then represented as follows: (10)

TP Τ

AspP

V

DP

The TP bears the temporal feature, but it has been hypothesized that an Agr(eement) node can be added in the morphological component to form a T-Agr position (see Chomsky 1995). Here it is assumed that the verb undergoes the checking of φ-features such as person, number, gender, including thematicity feature [±th] (Embick 2000: 197), i.e. a morphological feature which reveals the presence of a theme vowel as in weid-o-n. However, it should be noticed that tense inflection and agreement inflection seem to be two quite different systems, as pointed out, to quote just a few, by Friedmann and Grodzinsky (1997, 2000) in their neurophysiological analysis, or by Guasti and Rizzi (2000: 1). It could be therefore assumed that agreement is checked in a mechanism different from that for tense. So, since agreement may not have a node of itself, it may check in one of the other checking points below Τ (Friedmann and Grodzinsky 2000: 99). The AspP projects the perfective or imperfective aspectual feature, which is related to the verb and then to v. It deals with a basic aspectual opposition, which plays a fundamental role in the syntax of early Greek, as already pointed out. Then, the vP head contains all the morpholexical properties ([Vform]) which the

IE *weid- as a root with DS features in the Homeric poems

279

verb is provided with. Among them, the most important is the feature related to the Aktionsart category, including notions such as stativity, causativity, agentivity, punctuality, and so on. As for eidon and oida, the [Vform] features relate respectively to a punctual action (aorist) and a resulting state (perfect). 23 As regards the Λ/Ρ, it should be noted once again how important it is that the verbal Root is present in the syntax from the outset of the derivation. In fact, the case difference between accusative or genitive overtly manifested by the morphology depends on the lexical values of the Root: 24 both cases had originally a semantic (inherent) value which was available in order to make the verb semantically complete. Moreover, the presence of the Root playing a role in Homeric Greek also finds a diachronic justification, as results from the well known fact that in ancient languages such as Vedic and even Proto-Indo-European (from which Homeric Greek directly derived) the lexical items were memorized as roots. Finally, as for the verb's arguments, I follow Lopez (2001: 714) in distinguishing the different properties of subject and object feature checking. In other words, while for the external argument, i.e. the subject, it has been hypothesized that, after originating from the VP shell (the Specv position), it checks its formal features with T, a different treatment seems to characterize object feature checking. This is what I shall try to argue in the next section.

10. The Object-in-situ hypothesis: Case assignment in an active-stative language On the basis of the analysis of many modern Indo-European languages, such as English, which does not maintain a morphological case system, the Minimalist Case theory (Chomsky 1995) is mainly concerned with abstract case. Thence, when it does not involve a covert operation, case assignment is considered as a pure syntactic specifier-head relationship between a noun phrase and a functional head (see, among others, Giorgi and Pianesi 1997: 10). However, this assumption cannot be valid for languages whose typology is active-stative or in a transitional stage from an active-stative to a nominative-accusative type, as is seen in Homeric Greek. A Spec-Head relationship could be more successfully maintained for nominative, which is the case related to the structural position of the external argument subject, but the same cannot be valid for an inherent semantic case related to an internal argument whose principal aim was to complete the meaning of the verb. In other words, it could be suggested that in a general theory the inherent-case

280

Annamaria Bartolotta

assignment should be more emphasized. The oida case study has shown that alternating accusative or genitive is not a mere structural fact, but a matter of morphological-syntactic-semantic interface. That is to say, a verb with dual subcategorization features, as is seen to occur with oida in the early stage of Greek, points out that case assignment of internal arguments depends on the morphosyntactic properties of the lexical verb. In structural terms, object can also check its features in situ, against the same verbal head that assigns it a θ-role (Lopez 2001: 699) without moving anywhere. 2 5 This is indeed the result of the fact that accusative case is here a feature which is interpretable at the semantic component LF. Only this hypothesis, which is consistent with some recent suggestions about the role of semantically uninterpretable morphological features in dislocation property (Chomsky 2000: 26), allows us to highlight the typological difference between a nominative-accusative type, where the accusative case has only a structural configurational value (non θ-related), and an active-stative type, where the case still involves a semantic value which plays an important role in identifying the verb's meaning. 2 6 This solution also maintains strict locality of Θmarking: an Object-in-situ hypothesis points out indeed the close semantic relationship between the verb and its internal argument through maintaining the highest level of adjacency between the two constituents. Crucially, despite some widely accepted assumptions of Chomsky's theory (see Adger et al. 1999: 5), in certain languages - for example Homeric Greek - case becomes an interpretable feature which does not need movement for checking since it survives in the mapping to the semantic component and is not ' a formal feature that plays a role only in the syntactic derivation itself (Hale 1998: l l ) . 2 7 Under these assumptions, it could therefore be hypothesized that a language which is typologically classified as active-stative is a [+0PC] language. According to this THETA POSITION CHECKING Parameter, elements can undergo feature checking at their θ-position (Ura 2000: 38), that is the same position where they receive a θ-role. It could be hypothesized that object enters into a checking relation with ν without moving anywhere, that is, following Ura (2000: 220), the morphosyntactically tight relation between a verb and its object is connected to an obligatory checking relation between them. Accordingly, it has been proposed that 'the [±0PC]-ness lies in v's lexical properties' and that 'v's property concerning formal features checking depends upon the aspectual-head that selects ν as its complement' (Ura 2000: 219). 28 As a consequence, in the proposal made here, the role of such a Parameter turns out to be fundamental in the analysis of Homeric Greek, which still shows traces of an active-stative type. Hence, I

IE *weid- as a root with DS features in the Homeric poems

281

argue against M a r a n t z ' s proposal that features such as accusative do not belong to the computational system, which sees only the formal feature [+Case], so that spelling out this case feature as accusative is just a matter of PF (Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 2001: 21 1).29 If this statement could in fact refer to an abstract case accusative, the same is not valid for an inherent case accusative. In other words, such a generalization does not take minimally into account the inherent-case system, which, on the contrary, should be more emphasized in a M P general theory. Indeed, this explanation does not fit the analysis of a language like early Greek and other ancient dead languages w h o s e verbal system shows that it maintains traces of an ancient active-stative type. In structural terms, this m e a n s that the Greek sentence structure, during a gradual transitional stage w h e r e its typology w a s not completely nominative-accusative but it was still maintaining some active-stative type peculiarities, probably had the following characteristics: (i)

the verbal system turns out to be provided with both AspP and TP since the Indo-European active-stative type, which is directly inherited in Greek, shows that the aspectual distinctions play a role more important than the tense distinctions;

(ii)

the vP contains all the morphosemantic features, such as [±stative], proper to the verbal Root (i.e. Aktionsart), which are f u n d a m e n t a l for case assignment (the option for genitive or accusative); this is the reason w h y we have to hypothesize an Early Insertion of the Root, which is responsible for the lexical entry of the verb and its dual subcategorization features;

(iii)

the verb has to be represented as a Root, since are the semantic properties of this latter which are relevant in assigning the inherent case: w h e n the Root is *wid- [-stative] the aorist eidon assigns the accusative; w h e n the Root is *woid- [+stative] the perfect oida is able to assign also the genitive;

(iv)

the internal argument (object) checks its formal feature of inherent case (genitive or accusative) in situ (without involving a movement), i.e. where it is base-generated and receives its θ-role f r o m the related lexical head ( * w i d - / *woid-). It is in fact semantically interpreted at the LF. This solution fits the hypothesis that the N o u n and the Root are listed together in a derived lexical entry;

(v)

the external argument (subject) checks regularly its formal feature (nominative case) against the functional head T.

282

Annamaria

Bartolotta

On the basis of these considerations, the Homeric Greek verb structure related to eidon and oida results as follows: 3 0 (11)

TP DP,

Τ q-JJ

AspP

[aor] / [perf] [φ-features]

Asp 1

(V+v)i Asp 0 [±perfective] t (V + v)j

vP t.

v ,0

VP

[Aktionsart]

t(^+v)i

t (V Root),

DP

According to T a n a k a ' s hypothesis (1999), it could be also proposed that AspP is inside the lexical domain of vP, sandwiched between vP and VP. As the anonymous reviewer has pointed out, this hypothesis would suit with the fact that semantic case is related with the aspectual and Aktionsart properties of the lexical entry and respects adjacency. Furthermore, if ν is the locus of Aktionsart, then incorporation of Asp to ν can derive the relation between Aktionsart and aspect in the language. 3 1

11. Greek sentence structure after change After Greek gradually developed into a nominative-accusative language, Verbs and N o u n s of its Lexicon need not be listed together in a derived lexical entry. In accordance with the nominative-accusative type, there is in fact a mere structural relation of transitivity between a verb and its internal argument, without involving any semantic concord. Thus, being an abstract case which is not associated inherently with the verbal Root, the accusative is not semantically interpretable at LF. Consequently, the feature checking requires the intermediacy of a Specifier-Head relation with a functional category. That is why the inherent genitive case with oida is increasingly less c o m m o n in the Greek classical age, until it disappears and is totally replaced by the accusative, the structural position case par excellence.

IE *weid- as a root with DS features in the Homeric poems

283

Therefore, once the nominative-accusative system has stabilized, the sentence of a structure having a form of the paradigm of oida as a predicate shows that: (i)

the internal argument (object) has to move in order to check its [-interpretable] feature of accusative structural case, since it does not receive a case in situ from the lexical head V (oida + accusative in Classical Greek);

(ii)

it becomes less and less important that the semantic properties of the Root have to be visible in a pre-syntactic level, since they do not determine an inherent case assignment (oida does not show case alternation between accusative and genitive in Classical Greek);

(iii) both AspP and vP, which bear the morphosyntactic characteristics of the verb, play now a marginal role in respect of TP, since Tense tends to incorporate every temporal distinctions related to the verb.

12. Conclusion The implications of this analysis seem to be straightforward. Through an examination of the *weidon / *woida case in the Homeric poems, it can be seen that the lexical properties of the Root in a presyntactic lexicon determine the syntactic behaviour. Some recent results in the field of the brain sciences are unexpectedly found to support in the view we have reconstructed. As pointed out by Penke (2003: 50), problems with inflectional morphology have consequences for syntactic representations, that is, the morphosyntactic features of the selected lexical items determine the building up of syntactic representations (Penke 2003: 51). The background assumption here is that in languages with an active-stative typology, case plays a role in syntax. In fact, having an inherent semantic meaning that indicates the close relationship between a verb and its internal argument, case can be a feature which is interpretable at the LF. In other words, the direct θ-role of the verb is associated in the lexicon with a direct argument that receives a precise lexical case.32 This close semantic relationship between verb and noun finds a syntactic counterpart in the fact that the direct internal argument NP checks its object-case feature within the lexical verb, without involving a movement. According to Pesetsky (1996: 223), 'the availability and syntactic positioning of arguments is not a matter of chance, but arises from laws governing the structure of lexical entries, from

284

Annamaria

Bartolotta

laws regulating the projection of these entries onto syntactic structure'. Moreover, as pointed out again in Pesetsky (1996: 291): (12) The meaning of an item determines most (if not all) of its syntactic properties. This perspective attributes a fundamental role to the semantic/syntactic interface, to the extent that the centrality of the morphosemantic properties of the Root-item turns out to be relevant in the syntactic derivation. This conclusion is in line with recent research on the strategic role of the interaction between subcategorization information and semantics of the verb in order to know how to use a verb in deriving a syntactic structure (see Hare, McRae and Elman 2003: 281). 33 Furthermore, since changing from semantic to syntactic values of the case drives movement operations in order to check the uninterpretable formal features, it could be said that 'changing morphology has certainly consequences for syntax' (Lightfoot 2002: 18). It should also be noticed that the [±0PC] Parameter and the role of case are both due to the typological structure of a language. Unlike an activestative language, where the [+0PC] Parameter is activated, in a nominativeaccusative language the licensing of the object-case checking feature (when not inherent) normally requires the intermediacy of a Specifier-Head relation with a functional category, since the case generally has a mere abstract configurational positioning value. The *weidon / *woida case study here outlined shows some characteristics of the syntactic behaviour proper to Early Greek, but it is noteworthy that the same phenomenon can be easily found in Vedic as well (Bartolotta 2002a: 114), which shows an identical morphosyntactic development, both synchronically and diachronically, in the dual subcategorization features of the root vid- (Speijer 1886 [1988]: 90). This could lead us to hypothesize that IE languages underwent an important typological change, whose residual trace is represented by such inherited phenomena as the dual subcategorization features of the verb oida in Homeric poems. Old Greek at its earliest stage maintains traces of a gradual typological change involved by IndoEuropean languages. The synchronic discrepancies can be accounted for by diachrony: the dual subcategorization features which characterized part of the morphosyntactic properties of the early Greek verbal system would testify for a change from a previous active-stative type to a more recent nominative-accusative type. After an initial overlapping period of the two types, the latter would have been definitively stabilized during the classical

IE *weid- as a root with DS features in the Homeric poems

285

age. Hence, unlike theories of linguistic change which suggest that morphosyntactic change is abrupt and total, because it is the result of the resetting of certain parameters (Timberlake 1977, Lightfoot 1991, 1998, Harris and Campbell 1995), the line of research proposed here is more consistent with some recent approaches, according to which parameter settings do not change abruptly. On the contrary, change occurs as a result of competition between alternative parameter settings during periods of syntactic variation (Pintzuk 2003). Typology and semantics in a diachronic perspective have had to be taken into account to put forward an explanation of peculiar case assignments by different forms of one verbal paradigm in a synchronic state of language. 34 My working hypothesis has involved diachrony in the interpretation of this phenomenon. As for the implications and the motivations of the linguistic change that I have supposed, further investigation is required.

Notes 1. From the analysis of all the occurrences of oida in the Homeric poems, the use of genitive or accusative case due to the definite or indefinite nature of the object NP involved does not seem likely (cf. Belletti 1988: 31). For the analysis of the oida occurrences and such related matters, see Bartolotta (2002a: 57-70). 2. The following abbreviations are used in the paper: AN = animate; AOR = aorist; PERJF = perfect; IND = indicative; SUBJ = subjunctive; PART = participle; INF = infinitive; CONJ = conjunction; GEN = genitive; ACC = accusative; NOM = nominative; DAT = dative; SG = singular; PL = plural; DL = dual; NEU = neuter; A D V = adverb; PREP = preposition; PRON = pronoun; ADJ = adjective; NEG = negation; PRT = particle. 3. It is worth noting that in the Homeric poems the perfect oida occurs very often with adverbs such as eu 'well', like in these first examples (with the same role of sapha 'clearly' in example 8e). The presence of such adverbs means that the vision expressed by the lexical root is a particular one, i.e. it deals with a vision deeper than a mere perception (see § 2 in the text). Indeed, such adverbs never appear in the poems with the aorist eidon. 4. See, to quote just a few, Speijer (1886 [1988]: 90), Brugmann-Delbriick (1893: 308), Schwyzer (1953: 105), Chantraine (1963: 55), Kurilowicz (1964: 186), Lasso de La Vega (1968: 418-426), Luraghi (1996: 53), etc. 5. Further analysis of the oida occurrences in Homeric poems is discussed in Bartolotta 2002a: chapter 8.

286 6.

Annamaria

Bartolotta

For more discussion about this definition initially introduced by Vendryes, see De Boel (1987: 20). 7. Compare Old Indie (yeda), Avestan (vaedä), Gothic (wait), Old Irish (ro.fetar), Armenian (gitem), Old Slavic (vede), etc., which all reveal a deep connection between the meaning of 'knowing' and the meaning of 'seeing', from which the former originated. For a detailed description of the semantic extension among different domains see Sweetser (1998). 8. In a previous work (Bartolotta 2002a: 116 ff.) I have hypothesized the existence of a GENITIVE OF INFERENCE. See also below, note n. 15. 9. It can be easily assumed that the three nouns thymos, phren and prapides refer to the human mind, whose seat is respectively placed in the heart, in the diaphragm and in the midriff. 10. It has been recently pointed out that 'the great majority of cases where different meanings of a verb are associated with different subcategorization frames involve polysemy. That is, these verbs exhibit highly related meanings, often with a more concrete physical sense and extensions to more abstract and metaphorical uses' (Hare, McRae and Elman 2003: 283). 11. See Di Giovine (1996, 2: 127-131) for a detailed discussion on each piece of evidence regarding this early morphological lexicalization of the perfect oida. 12. In an active-stative type, as has been supposed for the Proto-Indo-European language, to assign an argument depends on the semantic properties of the lexical head, that is, the choice of a Noun and its related case strictly depends on the [± stative] feature of its head. 13. The inherent (theta-related)-structural opposition of generative grammar corresponds to the concrete-abstract opposition of historical linguistics (see Haudry 1977). 14. The genitive case was traditionally defined in historical linguistics as the case of 'general determination' (Adrados 1992: 152), since it is shown to hold a wide range of different meanings in respect of the other cases. For the original functions of the genitive case, see Morani (1992: 221). 15. This terminology is taken from a previous work (Bartolotta 2002a: 113). The INFERENCE refers to the peculiar cognitive process involved with oida where knowledge is not immediate but inferential, that is, the result of a complex activity of the mind including more than one step, from the visual perception to the internal acquisition (memorization) and finally to the elaboration of the data. The option for the genitive case would reflect the fact that, as underlined also in Belletti (1988: 3), 'the most typical instance of an inherent Case is one where a particular Case is associated with a particular θ-role'. 16. See, among others, Murray (1924): 'well skilled in all manner of fighting', Mazon (1957-61): 'experts ä tous les combats', Calzecchi Onesti (1950): 'esperti d'ogni battaglia'. Note also that the adjective pases seems to be dislocated on the right peryphery in order to emphasize by means of topicalization the comprehensive meaning of 'all' as a whole.

IE *weid- as a root with DS features in the Homeric poems

287

17. It has to be noticed that in the Homeric poems, even when the accusative refers to an abstract object, e.g. 'thoughts' in (9c), every mental experience is experienced in a very concrete way, as results from a wide literature on this topic. See Bartolotta (2002a: 123) and references cited there. 18. Further details and occurrences in Bartolotta (2002a: 116-124). 19. Both hypotheses are to be discarded also for other verbs of perception like mnäomai (see Bartolotta 2003: 54). 20. On the role of Aktionsart in the verbal system see, among others, Van Valin and La Polla (1999: 92): '[...] verbs have a basic Aktionsart type, which is how they are represented in the lexicon', and Gennari (2003: 35), who underlines that we need not only the tense morphemes, but also the Aktionsart morphemes in order to determine the exact temporal interpretation of a sentence. 21. Although the dissociation between the lexicon and the computational system has been pointed out in order to corroborate the thesis of the modularity of the Grammar (Anderson and Lightfoot 2000: 20), the close interaction between the lexicon and morphological features on the one hand and the computational operations on the other should not be underestimated, since the latter are often triggered by the former during the syntactic derivation (Lorenzo and Longa 2003: 651). Also White (2003: 3) points out that 'properties of items that enter ino a computation may vary in feature composition and feature strength, with associated syntactic consequences'. 22. With regard to the distribution of more than one morphological feature related to one Head 'little v', it should be said that this is a first attempt to include those features in the syntactic configuration. Subsequent thorough examinations of such relationships should lead us to a more homogeneous representation, which perhaps will include a one-to-one relationship between a Head and its related features. 23. It has been shown that 'little v' morphemes with semantic contents as agentive, Stative, inchoative, causative, etc., which can form different types of verbs from the same root, are responsible for many syntactic effects (see Arad 2002). 24. Maling (2001: 458) shows that 'although there is no neat one-to-one correlation between m-case and thematic role, case does serve to identify verbal arguments on a verb-by-verb basis'. 25. The theory which distinguishes subject and object Feature checking is in line with Alexiadou and Anagnostoupolou's generalization (2001) according to which 'by Spell-Out VP can contain no more than one argument with an unchecked Case feature'. Furthermore, some current issues offer new inputs against movement for feature checking. Among others, Picallo (2002: 118119) assumes 'following Chomsky 1999, that Case-φ checking (i.e. the operation Agree) is a syntactic process that applies independently of movement'; Moro (2004: 5) points out that 'movement of noun phrases in languages with fully overt Case morphology (such as Latin) is hard to explain' if maintaining that movement is triggered by uninterpretable features.

288

Annamaria

Bartolotta

26. Evidence for the relevance of the object noun phrase to the aspectual interpretation of the verb with which it is closely integrated and which denotes a complex activity is to be found also in non-Indo-European languages such Hungarian (see Kiefer 1994: 185-205). 27. Ormazabal (2000: 236) has demonstrated that in constructions using certain verbs the object movement is triggered by an animacy feature; differently it stays in situ. 28. This parameter has been introduced by Ura in order to characterize the ergative languages compared to 'languages like English or other European languages: [...] whereas Checking may coincide with θ-assignment in some languages, it may not in others. [...] Put differently, [±0PC] is the key to the distinction between nominative-accusative languages and ergative-absolutive languages, a big topic to which numerous studies have been devoted'. Given this background, referring to the comments of the anonymous reviewer, the [±©PC] Parameter could be considered as a macroparameter (in the sense of Baker 1996), to the extent that its implications have a fundamental impact on the typology of languages such as Old Greek or Vedic at earlier stages. 29. A confirmation to what has been here hypothesized comes also from the studies of non-Indo-European languages such as Finnish, where 'aspect is not defined in terms of a simple, one-to-one correspondence between form and meaning but rather as a result of the contribution of one or more of the following factors: the lexical semantics of the verb, derivational morphology, case variation of the object [...]' (Bache, Basboll and Lindberg 1994: 11). 30. It should not be disregarded that, as some recent hypotheses might suggest (see Lorenzo and Longa 2003: 648), not only the case but also morphological features such as Tense, Aspect and Aktionsart could be considered [+Interpretable], and then they would not need to be moved in order to be checked. 31. Notice that, differently from here, Tanaka does not take into account any vP, but he simply splits the VP in two shells, inside which an AspP is assumed to be placed. 32. With regard to this topic, see Maling (2001: 436^137), who has pointed out the role of the differences between a direct θ-role which is associated with a direct argument that receives structural case and one which receives lexical case in German. 33. Following Pinker, Hare, McRae and Elman (2003: 283) point out that 'subtle semantic distinctions between otherwise similar verbs often determine the sorts of syntactic structure in which the verbs may appear'. 34. As stated in Hale (1998: 1), who follows a Minimalist perspective, 'the study of change may provide valuable insights into the proper characterization of certain syntactic phenomena within current syntactic theory'.

IE *weid- as a root with DS features in the Homeric poems

289

References Adger, David, Susan Pintzuk, Bernadette Plunkett and George Tsoulas 1999 Specifiers. Minimalist approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Adrados, Francisco R. 1992 Nueva Sintaxis del Griego antiguo. Madrid: Gredos. Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou 2001 The Subject-in-Situ Generalization and the Role of Case in Driving Computations. Linguistic Inquiry 32/2: 193-231. Anderson, Stephen R. and David W. Lightfoot 2000 The Human Language Faculty as an Organ. Annual Review of Physiology 62: 697-722. Arad, Maya 2002 Universal features and language-particular morphemes. In Theoretical Approaches to Universals, Artemis Alexiadou (ed.), 15-39. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bache, Carl, Hans Basbell and Carl-Eric Lindberg 1994 Tense, Aspect and Action. Empirical and Theoretical Contributions to Language Typology. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Baker, Mark 1996 The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bartolotta, Annamaria 2002 a L'occhio della mente. Un'ereditä indoeuropea nei poemi omerici. Palermo: Circolo Glottologico Palermitano. 2002b Generativismo e cognitivismo: teorie grammaticali a confronto. In Idee e parole. Universi concettuali e metalinguistici, Vincenzo Orioles (ed.), 9-42. Roma: II Calamo. 2003 Towards a Reconstruction of Indo-European Culture: Semantic Functions of IE *men-. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Karlene Jones-Bley, Martin E. Huld, Angela Delia Volpe and Miriam Robbins Dexter (eds.), 37-62 (Journal of Indo-European Monograph Series 47). Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man. Belletti, Adriana 1988 The Case of Unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 19/1: 1-34. Brugmann, Karl and Berthold Delbrück 1893 Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der Indogermanischen Sprachen. III (Erster Teil). [Outline of the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages III, Part 1] Strassburg: Trübner. Chantraine, Paul 1963 Grammaire Homerique. Paris: Klincksieck.

290

Annamaria

Bartolotta

Chomsky, Noam 1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 2000 Linguistics and Brain Science. In Image, Language, Brain, Alec Marantz, Yasushi Myashita and Wayne O'Neil (eds.), 13-28. Cambridge, Mass./London, England: MIT Press. De Boel, Gent 1987 La syntaxe des verbes 'voir' chez Homere. Glotta 65/1-2: 19-32. Di Giovine, Paolo 1996 Studio sulperfetto indoeuropeo. II. Roma: II Calamo. Embick, David 2000 Features, Syntax, and Categories in the Latin Perfect. Linguistic Inquiry 31/2: 185-230. Evans, Nicholas and David Wilkins 2000 In the mind's ear: the semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 76/3: 546-592. Friedmann, Na'ama and Yosef Grodzinsky 1997 Tense and Agreement in Agrammatic Production: Pruning the Syntactic Tree. Brain and Language 56: 397-425. 2000 Split inflection in neurolinguistics. In The Acquisition of Syntax, Marc-Ariel Friedemann and Luigi Rizzi (eds.), 84-104. Harlow, England: Longman. Gennari, Silvia P. 2003 Tense Meanings and Temporal Interpretation. Journal of Semantics 20/1: 35-71. Giorgi, Alessandra and Fabio Pianesi 1997 Tense and Aspect. From Semantics to Morphosyntax. New York/ Oxford: Oxford University Press. Guasti, Maria Teresa and Luigi Rizzi 2000 Agreement and Tense as distinct syntactic positions: evidence from acquisition, in: http://www.ciscl.unisi.it/persone/rizzi.htm. Haegeman, Liliane 1996 Manuale di Grammatica Generativa. Milano: Hoepli. (Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. 2nd Edition. UK: Blackwell Publishers). Hale, Mark 1998 Diachronic Syntax. Syntax 1/1: 1-18. Hare, Mary, Ken McRae and Jeffrey Elman 2003 Sense and structure: Meaning as a determinant of verb subcategorization preferences. Journal of Memory and Language 48 (2): 281-303. Harris, C. Alice and Lyle Campbell 1995 Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

IE *weid- as a root with DS features in the Homeric poems

291

Haudry, Jean 1977 L 'emploi des cas en vedique. Introduction a l'itude des cas en indoeuropeen. Lyon: L'Hermes. Jannaris, Antonius Ν. 1897 An Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect. Hildesheim: Georg Holms. Kiefer, Ferenc 1994 Some peculiarities of the aspectual system in Hungarian. In Tense, Aspect and Action. Empirical and Theoretical Contributions to Language Typology, Carl Bache, Hans Basb0ll and Karl-Eric Lindberg (eds.), 185-205. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kurylowicz, Jerzy 1964 The inflectional categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. Lasso de La Vega, Jose S. 1968 Sintaxis Griega I. Madrid: Patronato Menendez y Pelayo. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1999 La linguistica indoeuropea. Bologna: II Mulino (Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics. 1993: London-New York: Routledge). Lightfoot, David W. 1991 How to set Parameters: Arguments from Language Change. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 1998 The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change and Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 2002 Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lopez, Luis 2001 On the (Non)complementarity of Θ-Theory and Checking Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 32/4: 694-716. Lorenzo, Guillermo and Victor M. Longa 2003 Minimizing the genes for grammar. The minimalist program as a biological framework for the study of language. Lingua 113: 643-657. Luraghi, Silvia 1996 Studi su casi e preposizioni nel greco antico. Milan: Franco Angeli. Maling, Joan 2001 Dative: The heterogeneity of the mapping among morphological case, grammatical functions, and thematic roles. Lingua 111: 419^164. Marantz, Alec 1994 A late note on Late Insertion. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 1995 'Cat' as a phrasal idiom: Consequences of Late Insertion in Distributed Morphology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

292

Annamaria

Bartolotta

Morani, Moreno 1992 Linee di storia della flessione nominale indoeuropea. Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso. Moro, Andrea 2004 Linear Compression as a Trigger for Movement. In Triggers, Henk van Riemsdijk and Anne Breitbarth (eds.), 387-429. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ormazabal, Javier 2000 A Conspiracy Theory of Case and Agreement. In Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 235-260. Cambridge, Mass./London: MIT Press. Penke, Martina 2003 On the morphological basis of syntactic deficits. Brain and Language 87 (1): 50-51. Pesetsky, David 1996 Zero Syntax. Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, Mass./London, England: MIT Press. Picallo, M. Carme 2002 Abstract agreement and clausal arguments. Syntax 5 (2): 116-147. Pintzuk, Susan 2003 Variationist Approaches to Syntactic Change. In Joseph D. Brian and Richard D. Janda (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 509-528. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Schwyzer, Edward 1953 Griechische Grammatik I-II. München: C. Η. Beck. Speijer, Jacob S. 1886 Sanskrit Syntax. Leiden. [Reprint 1988.] Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Stroik, Thomas 2001 On the Light Verb Hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 32 (2): 362-369. Sweetser, Eve 1998 From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. 6th Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tanaka, Hidezaku 1999 Raised Objects and superiority. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 317-325. Timberlake, Alan 1977 Reanalysis and Actualization in Syntactic Change. In Mechanisms of syntactic change, Charles N. Li (ed.), 141-177. Austin: University of Texas Press. Ura, Hiroyuki 2000 Checking Theory and Grammatical Functions in Universal Grammar. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

IE *weid- as a root with DS features in the Homeric poems

293

Van Valin Robert D. and Randy J. La Polla 1999 Syntax. Structure, meaning and function. 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. White, Lydia 2003 Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Texts Monro, David B. and Allen W. Thomas 1902 Homeri Opera. [Reprint 1978] Oxford: Clarendon Press Murray, Albert T. 1924 Homer, The Iliad. Vol. I—II. Loeb Classical Library. [Reprint 1978] Cambridge: Harvard University Press Mazon, Paul 1957-61 Homere. Iliade. Tome I : chants I—VI; tome II: chants VII—XII; tome III: chants XIII-XVIII; tome IV: chants XIX-XXIV. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Calzecchi Onesti, Rosa 1950 Omero. Iliade. Torino: Einaudi.

The syntax of Classical Greek infinitive Vassilios Spyropoulos

1. Introduction Generative approaches to language assume the existence of a Universal Grammar (UG) as a set of general principles that are common to all languages and define the Computational System of the Language (Chomsky 1981, 1995). These principles interact with a number of parameters, which express language specific properties, so as to produce linguistic structures. The principles of UG, therefore, offer a powerful tool for not only describing, but also explaining linguistic structure. In addition, they can also provide with a method for improving our knowledge about the structure of dead languages. In many cases information about a dead language is so sporadic that linguists rely on the comparative method1 in order to reconstruct its missing structures. UG may also help linguists reconstruct such languages: based on what they know about a language and on the general principles of the UG, linguists can formulate hypotheses about what may constitute a possible structure in that language. On the other hand, there are dead languages for which there is sufficient information, so that our knowledge about their grammar is pretty much complete. In such cases, UG can help linguists to account for certain idiosyncrasies of the language under examination and, ultimately, to explain why certain structures and phenomena exist in this language. In this paper we examine infinitival clauses in Classical Greek (CIGr).2 The infinitive is a common verbal category in the languages of the world, and its syntax has been studied a lot. As a result, it is well established that infinitival syntax is governed by a number of universal principles (common to all clausal structures) regarding the following modules: (1)

a. b. c. d. e.

The structure of INFL- and C-layers Case-assignment The licensing of null-elements Theory of movement Control module

296

Vassilios Spyropoulos

There are a number of parameters associated with these principles, which determine the internal structure of an infinitival clause and the constructions in which this infinitival clause can participate. A major parameter is concerned with the issue of finiteness, i.e. the ability of the functional category INFL to assign case to the subject of the clause. The issue of finiteness is closely associated with the feature specification of INFL, i.e. the existence of tense and agreement features, the parameters of which are argued to be morphosyntactically determined (Chomsky 1993, 1995). Another parameter is concerned with the categorial status of the infinitival clauses, i.e. whether they are INFLPs or CPs. The interaction of these parameters determines the conditions under which an infinitival clause can have an overt DP-subject or participate in control and raising structures. We argue that CIGr. infinitival clauses are not finite, in the sense that their INFL does not assign case to their subjects and, consequently, CIGr. exhibits raising and control phenomena. We also claim that CIGr. infinitival clauses have an articulated C-domain, the lower functional projection of which has the option of assigning accusative case to the DP-subject of the infinitival clause, when it is properly activated. This analysis of CIGr. infinitives provides an explanation for a number of idiosyncratic properties of infinitival syntax in this language, namely the occurrence of an overt DPsubject in exactly the same environments where raising and control phenomena are also found. In addition, it offers a classification of infinitival constructions based on the properties of the infinitival clause itself and not on the characteristics of their surface structure, as descriptive analyses of traditional grammars do. The paper is organized as follows: In section 2 we present some of the main morphological and syntactic properties of CIGr infinitives. In section 3 we examine the so-called Accusativus cum Infinitivo construction and we argue against an analysis that suggests that CIGr. infinitival INFL, being specified for [T], is able to assign accusative case to the DP-subject of the infinitival clause (Philippaki-Warburton and Catsimali 1989, 1991, Sevdali 2003). Instead, in section 4, it is argued that this DP-subject is assigned accusative case by a relevant head inside the C-domain. Section 5 outlines how the interaction of UG principles with the language specific parameters can account for the whole range of CIGr. infinitival clauses. Section 6 concludes the paper.

The syntax of Classical Greek infinitive 297 2.

Some facts about CIGr infinitives

2.1. Morphosyntax CIGr. infinitive inflects for four of the traditional tenses (present, aorist (past), future, (present) perfect) of the CIGr. verbal system and for three voices (active, passive and medio-passive). The relevant forms are shown in the following table: (2) Infinitive forms of the verb lyo: 'set free' Tense

Voice active

passive

medio-passive

present

lyein

lyesthai

lyesthai

future

lysein

lythe:sthai

lysesthai

aorist

lysai

lythe:nai

lysasthai

(present) perfect

lelykenai

lelysthai

lelysthai

It has been noticed that tense distinctions in CIGr. infinitive mask an aspect distinction (Jannaris 1897; Schwyzer 1950; Binnick 1991): the present infinitive denotes durative aspect, the aorist infinitive punctual aspect and the perfect infinitives perfect aspect.3 The future infinitive is partly out of this system4 for the following reason: It is considered to be a novelty in the CIGr. verbal system that resulted from the grammaticalization of direct speech (Schwyzer 1950). As a consequence, it has a very limited distribution and can be mainly used after the so-called verba dicendi et sentiendi,5 where it substitutes for the future indicative of the direct speech:6 (3)

tous nomizontas the

ikanous

esesthai

ta

symferonta

think-PART.ACC.PL7 able-ACC.PL be-INF.FUT the useful-ACC.PL

didaskein

tous politas

teach-lNF.PRS the citizen-ACC.PL 'those w h o think that they will be able to teach the citizens their own interests' (X. Mem. 1.2, 10)

Interestingly, in the structures consisting of a verbum dicendi/sentiendi and an infinitive, the infinitive may vary for all possible tenses (present, past, future, perfect), with each form referring to a different temporal point in relation to the tense of the main clause:

298

Vassilios Spyropoulos poiein touto a. elegon ton kyron said-3PL the Cyrus-ACC.SG do-INF.PRS this-ACC poie.sein touto ton kyron b. elegon said-3PL the Cyrus-ACC.SG do-INF.FUT this-ACC poie:sai touto ton kyron c. elegon said-3PL the Cyrus-ACC.SG do-INF.AOR this-ACC pepoie:kenai ton kyron d. elegon said-3PL the Cyrus-ACC.SG do-INF.PRF

touto this-ACC

'They were saying that Cyrus is doing/will do/did/have done this' On the basis of this variability, it has been suggested that CIGr. infinitive carries morphological specification for tense, and thus its INFL is specified as [+T] (Philippaki-Warburton and Catsimali 1989, 1991; Tantalou 2003; Sevdali 2003). However, this variability is not always possible. As it was mentioned above, the future infinitive has a very limited distribution and it is mainly found after the verba dicendi/sentiendi, where a full sequence of tenses is established. However, in other embedded clauses the future infinitive is not standardly used and the different infinitival forms denote only aspect: present - durative, aorist - punctual, perfect - perfect: (5)

a. tois allots past pare:ggellen eksoplizesthai the other-DAT.PL all-DAT.PL was.ordering give.arms-INF.MED.PRS ' H e was ordering all the others to take the arms' (X. An. 1.8, 3) b. l*eksoplisesthai /eksoplisasthai give.arms-INF.MED.FUT /give.arms-INF.MED.AOR /eksoplisthai /give.arms-INF.MED.PRF

In addition, there are also embedded infinitival clauses where the infinitive cannot vary for tense, and only one infinitive form (usually the present infinitive) is possible. In these cases, the infinitive and the matrix verb denote the same event: (6)

arkhomai epainein /*epaine:sein /*epaine:sai start-1SG praise-INF.PRS / praise-INF.FUT / praise-INF.AOR Ί start praising'

We will return to this issue later in section 3.2.

The syntax of Classical Greek infinitive

299

2.2. Syntactic distribution The syntactic distribution of the infinitive in CIGr is the following: (7)

(8)

Infinitive in subject clauses: tis alke: (estin) ton thanonta epiktanein? what help-NOM (is) the dead-ACC kill.again-INF.AOR 'What would be the benefit of killing again a dead man?' lit. 'What kind of help is to kill again a dead man?' Infinitive in complement clauses: a. meno.n ebouleto ploutein Menon-ΝΟΜ wanted-3SG get.rich-INF.PRS 'Menon wanted to get rich' b. omologo: meidian ... lamprotaton gegene.sthai admit-lSG Meidias-ACC glorious-ACC become-INF.PRF Ί admit that Meidias has become the most glorious...' (Z>. 21, 153) c. sou ... deomai akolouthein you-GEN beg-lSG follow-INF.PRS Ί beg you to follow...'

(9)

{PI. Prt. 336a)

Infinitive in temporal and result adjunct clauses introduced with the complementizers prin 'before' and o:ste 'so that' respectively: a. ou proteron epausato makhomenos ..., prin not before stopped-3SG fight-PRT.MS.NOM.SG before helein to basileion conquer-INF.AOR the kingdom-ACC.SG 'He didn't stop fighting until he conquered the kingdom' (Isoc. 9,32) b. te:i orge:i houto: khalepe:i ekhre.to es pantas, the anger-DAT so tough-DAT used-3SG to all-ACC.PL o.ste me.dena dynasthai prosienai so.that nobody-ACC.SG be.able-INF.AOR get.close-INF.PRS 'He was behaving so badly to everybody, so that nobody could stay with him' (Th. 1.130, 2)

300 -

Vassilios

Spyropoulos

Infinitive in main clauses instead of the imperative:

(10) sy de moi ta khre.mata deksai... you-NOM PRT I-DAT the money-ACC.PL accept-INF.AOR 'You, on the other hand, accept the money from m e . . . ' (Hdt. VI.86, a) -

Infinitive as a noun, introduced with the definite article and functioning as a proper D P (the articular infinitive)·.

(11) a. to the-ACC tou the-GEN '...(she)

so.fronein timo.sa be.wise-INF.PRS value-PART.FEM.NOM.SG biou pleon life-GEN more valuing wisdom more than life' (A. Supp.

1013)

b. hina apisto.si to:i eme tetime:sthai COMP doubt-SBJ.3PL the-DAT 1-ACC honour-PASS.INF.PRF hypo daimono.n by gods-GEN 'in order to doubt that I have been honoured by the gods' (X. Mem. 14) c. arksantes tou diabainein begin-PART.AOR.MSC.NOM.PL the-GEN cross-INF.PRS ' . . . ( t h e y ) starting to c r o s s . . . ' (X. An. 1.4, 15) -

Infinitive in fixed expressions (absolute

infinitive)·.

(12) ale:thes ge, ho:s epos eipein, ouden true-NTR.ACC.SG PRT so word-ACC.SG say-INF.AOR nothing eire.kasin have.said-3PL ' S o to speak, not a single word of what they have said is true' Leaving aside the so called 'absolute infinitive' and the infinitive in main clauses, we move on to examine the infinitival syntax in CIGr. by focusing on the case properties of the subject of the infinitival clause.

2.3. Traditional grammar description of infinitival syntax Traditional grammars describe infinitival syntax by focusing on the morphological case of the DP that is interpreted as the subject of the infinitive.

The syntax of Classical Greek infinitive

301

They refer to four possible 'syntaxes': nominativus cum infinitivo, accusativus cum infintivo, genitivus cum infinitivo and dativus cum infinitivo. (13) nominativus cum infinitivo (NomI) a. (houtos) ouketi edynato bioteuein (he-NOM) no more was.able-3SG live-INF.PRS ' H e was not able to live any more' a', he/proi edynato [PROj bioteuein] b. meno.n ebouleto ploutein Menon-ΝΟΜ wanted-3SG get.rich-INF.PRS ' M e n o n wanted to get rich' b'. meno:nj ebouleto [PRO] ploutein] c. ο assyrios eis te:n kho:ran embalein the Assyrian-NOM in the country-ACC invade-INF.AOR aggelletai announce-PASS.3SG 'It is announced that the Assyrian has invaded the country' c'. [o assyrios]j aggelletai [tj embalein eis te:n kho:ran] (14) accusativus cum infinitivo (AccI) a. es touton ton kho.ron legetai in this the place-ACC say-PASS.3SG aphikesthai ton straton arrive-INF.AOR the army-ACC 'It is said that the army has arrived in this place' a'. protxpi legetai [[ton straton] aphikesthai...]

(Hdt. 111.26)

b. omologo: meidian ... lamprotaton gegene.sthai admit-lSG Meidias-ACC most.glorious-ACC become-INF.PRF Ί admit that Meidias has become most glorious' (D. 21, 153) b'. proi omologo: [[Meidian] gegenesthai lamprotaton] c. dedidakhen ... home ros has.taught Homer-NOM kai tous allous pseude: legein and the others-ACC lies-ACC say-INF.PRS ' H o m e r has taught the others also to tell lies' c'. home:roSj dedidakhen [tous allous]j [PROj legein pseude:...] (Arist. Po. 1460 a 1 8 - 1 9 )

302

Vassilios Spyropoulos

(15) genitivus cum infinitivo (GenI) a. sou ... deomai akolouthein you-GEN b e g - l S G follow-INF.PRS

Ί beg you to follow...' a', proj deomai souj [ P R O j akolouthein] (16) dativus cum infinitivo (DatI) a. tois allois pa:si the

pare:ggellen

(PL Prt. 336a)

eksoplizesthai

other-DAT.PL all-DAT.PL was.ordering give.arms-lNF.MED.PRS

'he w a s ordering all the others to take the arms' a', proj pare:ggellen [tois allois pa:si]j [PROj eksoplizesthai]

b. edoksen

autois ...

thought-3SG they-DAT

eksoplisamenois give.arms-PRT.MED.DAT.MSC.PL

proienai walk.forward-INF.PRS

'They decided to take the arms and march forward' lit. 'It was decided by them, after they take the arms, to march forward' b'. proexpi edoksen autoisj [PRO, proienai] (X. An. II. 1, 2) However, none of these 'syntaxes' describes a homogeneous set of structures. Thus, it is obvious that the nominativus cum infinitivo syntax is a cover term for obligatory subject control (13a), optional subject control (13b) and raising-to-subject structures (13c). Accusativus cum infinitivo syntax describes both object control structures (14c) and structures with an infinitival clause containing a DP-subject marked with accusative case (14a,b). Genitivus cum infinitivo and dativus cum infinitivo syntaxes describe control structures, with the DP in genitive/dative being an argument of the matrix verb. In what follows we examine the properties of CIGr. infinitival syntax, in order to discover the principles that underlie this divergent set of structures. We will be mainly concerned with a construction that is considered to be an idiosyncrasy of CIGr. infinitival syntax, namely the AccI syntax.

3. Accusativus cum infinitivo syntax Accusativus cum infinitivo (AccI) syntax describes a syntagm that consists of an infinitive and a DP in accusative which is understood as the subject of the infinitive. However, the syntactic status of this DP varies, as it can be

The syntax of Classical Greek infinitive

303

either the subject of the embedded infinitival clause or the DP-object of the matrix predicate. Recall examples (14b,c) repeated as (17a,b): (14) a. omologo: meidian ... lamprotaton gegene:sthai admit-lSG Meidias-ACC most.glorious-ACC become-INF.PRF Ί admit that Meidias has become most glorious' (D. 21, 153) b. dedidakhen... home.ros kai tous allous pseude: legein has.taught Homer-NOM and the others-ACC lies-ACC say-FNF.PRS 'Homer has taught the others also to tell lies' CArist. Po. 1460 a l 8-19) In (17a) the DP in the accusative is not theta-marked by the matrix verb and, therefore, it is the structural subject of the embedded infinitival clause (18a). On the other hand, the DP in the accusative in (17b) realizes an argument of the matrix verb, from which it receives structural accusative case. The subject of the embedded infinitival clause is a controlled empty category, namely a PRO (18b). (18) a. pro\ omologo: [[meidian] gegenesthai lamprotaton] b. home:rosj dedidakhen [tous allous]j [PRO; legein pseude:...] The AccI sequences of the second type constitute object control constructions and should not be confused with those of the first type. From now on, we will use the term AccI syntax for referring to the constructions of the first type only, i.e. for the structures in which the DP in the accusative is the structural subject of the embedded infinitival clause. Given that the DP in the accusative case in AccI syntax is the structural subject of the infinitival clause, the source of its accusative case calls for an explanation. The principles of case assignment present us with two possibilities: (a) AccI syntax involves Exceptional Case Marking (ECM), i.e. the DP-subject receives its accusative case from the matrix predicate; and (b) the accusative case is assigned by a head inside the infinitival clause.

3.1. The ECM analysis According to an ECM analysis of the AccI syntax, the DP-subject of the embedded infinitive receives its accusative case by participating in a syntactic relation with the matrix predicate. There are different proposals about

304

Vassilios Spyropoulos

the exact syntactic mechanism that assigns this accusative case, 8 but there is a consensus about the conditions such a mechanism should obey: (a) the matrix predicate must be able to assign structural case; and (b) the embedded infinitival clause should project only to the level of INFLP, i.e. there should be no CP intervening between the matrix predicate and the embedded DPsubject. However, AccI syntax appears in constructions that do not obey these conditions: First, the infinitival clause in AccI constructions is a CP, as coordination with an o/7'-clause shows (Sevdali 2003; Tantalou 2003): (19) a. hymas

pantas

eidenai

e:goumai

oti

ego:

men

you-ACC.PL all-ACC.PL know-INF.PRS think-1SG that I-NOM PRT

ortho:s

lego:

touton

de

skaion

einai

correctly say-lSG he-ACC PRT unkind be-INF.PRS Ί think that you all know that I, on the one hand, speak correctly, while he, on the other hand, is unkind'

b. e:goumai [hymas pantas eidenai [cp oti ego: men lego: ortho:s] [infCL touton de einai skaion]] In (19) the infinitival clause (InfCL) is co-ordinated with a clause introduced by the complementizer oti 'that'. The latter clause is therefore a CP and since the infinitival clause can be co-ordinated with such a clause, it must also be a CP. The CP status of infinitival clauses with AccI syntax is also evident by the fact that such clauses occur in environments where only a CP is allowed. Thus, an infinitival clause with AccI syntax can appear as clausal associate to an zY-expletive: (20) a. khre:n kai tous allouspotamous... homoio:s paskhein was.necessary and the other rivers-ACC similarly suffer-INF.PRS 'The other rivers should also suffer in the same way' (Hdt. 11.20) b. proexpi khre:n [kai tous allous potamous homoio:s paskhein] Clausal associates of /f-expletives are considered to be CPs (Chomsky 1981, 2001). CIGr. is a null-subject language, thus /i-expletives have the syntactic status of a null-pronoun proexp\ specified as 3SG. Its clausal associate, therefore, should have the status of a CP, which means that the infinitival clause in (20b) is a CP. In addition, infinitival clauses with AccI syntax can appear as subjects:

The syntax of Classical Greek infinitive (21) a. tro.as

algea

paskhein

ou

nemesis

305 (estin)

Trojans-ACC sufferings-ACC suffer-lNF.PRS NEG just-NOM (is)

'It's not right for the Trojans to suffer in this way' b. [[tro:as paskhein algea] ou estin nemesis] Infinitival clauses in subject position have been considered to be CPs (Chomsky 1981, Manzini 1983, Haegeman 1994). Thus, we conclude that the infinitival clause in (21) is a CP. Second, AccI syntax occurs with infinitival clauses that are complements of verbs with no case assigning properties. More specifically, consider example (22) where the infinitival clause is a complement of an 'impersonal' verb: (22) synebe: ...

gelo:na

nika:n

amilkan

happened-3SG Gelon-ACC defeat-INF.PRS Amilcas-ACC

'It happened that Gelon defeated Arnikas'

(Hdt. VII. 166)

Impersonal verbs do not assign an external theta role and take a clausal complement that realizes a 'theme' theta-role. Thus, they are not able to assign accusative case by Burzio's Generalization (Burzio 1986). Consequently, the DP-subject of the infinitival clause in these structures cannot receive its accusative case from the matrix verb. Similarly, the AccI syntax in an infinitival clause introduced by a verbum dicendi is maintained even when passivization has turned the matrix verb into an 'impersonal' verb. Consider example (14a) repeated here as (23a) and its active equivalent (23b): (23) a. es touton ton kho.ron in this

aphikesthai

legetai

the place-ACC say-PASS.3SG

ton

arrive-lNF.AOR t h e

straton army-ACC

'It is said that the army has arrived in this place' b. es touton ton kho. ron legousin aphikesthai ton straton in this the place-ACC say-3PL arrive-lNF.AOR the army-ACC 'They say that the army has arrived in this place' Example (23a) is the passive equivalent of (23b). The relevant structures are shown in (24). Notice that in an ECM construction, passivization of the matrix verb makes ECM unavailable (25):

306

Vassilios Spyropoulos

(24) a. proi legousin [[ton straton] aphikesthai] b. proexpi legetai [[ton straton] aphikesthai] (25) a. They consider [Zidanne to be the best football player] b. *It is considered [Zidanne to be the best football player] Since the external argument of a passive verb is not syntactically realized, such verbs are not able to assign accusative case. Thus, ECM is banned in this environment. Examples (24) and (25) constitute a minimal pair, which shows that in CIGr. the AccI syntax does not involve ECM. In addition, infinitival clauses with AccI syntax can appear as complements of nouns: (26) he: aggelia tous helle:nas ta hopla the announcement-NOM the Greeks-ACC the weapons-ACC tithes thai... put-INF.MED.PRS

'the announcement that the Greeks hand over the weapons...' Nouns are assumed to assign inherent case (Chomsky 1981, 1986), and thus they cannot assign case to the DP-subject of an embedded infinitival clause, because they do not theta-mark it. This is the reason why ECM is banned in infinitival clauses that are complements of nouns as the ungrammaticality of (27) shows: (27) *the belief of Zidanne to be the best football

player

Thus, the grammaticality of example (26) indicates that AccI syntax does not involve ECM. Let us summarize so far: We presented evidence that AccI syntax can appear in environments which do not respect the conditions of ECM. Thus, it was shown that infinitival clauses with AccI syntax (a) are CPs and (b) appear as complements to matrix predicates that are not able to assign structural accusative case. All these facts indicate that AccI syntax does not involve ECM and the source of the accusative case of the DP-subject of the infinitival clause is clause internal. This conclusion is reinforced by the following examples, where no case assignment relation can be established between the matrix predicate and the DP-subject of the infinitival clause because of the syntactic status of the infinitival clause:

The syntax of Classical Greek infinitive

307

(28) dareios, prin men aikhmalo. tous genesthai Darius-NOM before PRT captives-ACC become-INF.AOR tous eretrieas, eneikhe sphi deinon kholon the Eretrians-ACC had-3SG them-DAT terrible-ACC anger-ACC 'Darius was galled with Eretrians, before they were taken captives' (29) a. hina apisto.si to:i eme tetime.sthai COMP doubt-SBJ.3PL the-DAT I-ACC honour-PASS.INF.PRF hypo daimono:n by gods-GEN 'in order to doubt that I have been honoured by the gods' b. apisto:si [ DP to:i [Cp eme tetime:sthai ]] In example (28) the infinitival clause is a temporal clause introduced with prin 'before'. Such clauses are adjuncts and therefore the matrix verb has no access to their internal structure (Condition on Extraction Domains', Huang 1982). Yet, AccI syntax is possible as (28) shows. Similarly, AccI syntax occurs in nominalized infinitival clauses. Such infinitival clauses are introduced with the definite article to 'the' in the appropriate case and have the status of a DP. Case assignment from the matrix predicate is blocked by the intervention of the DP node (a Relativized Minimality or Minimal Link Condition effect; Chomsky 1986, 1995; Rizzi 1991). Another argument against the ECM analysis of AccI syntax comes from a very interesting idiosyncrasy of the GenI and DatI constructions. In section 2.3, we mentioned that these constructions typically involve a control structure, with the DP in the genitive/dative case realizing an argument of the matrix predicate and controlling an empty subject in the infinitival clause (30b)-(31b): (30) a. sou ... deomai akolouthein you-GEN beg-lSG follow-INF.PRS Ί beg you to follow...' b. pros deomai souj [PROj akolouthein] (31) a. tois allots pa:si pare.ggellen eksoplizesthai the other-DAT.PL all-DAT.PL was.ordering give.arms-INF.MED.PRS 'he was ordering all the others to take the arms' b. proj pare:ggellen [allois pa:si]j [PROj eksoplizesthai]

308

Vassilios Spyropoulos

The controlled empty subject of the embedded infinitival clause is a PRO that carries no case. This analysis is supported by the following facts: (32) a. kyrou edeonto o:s prothimotatou pros ton polemon Cyrus-GEN begged-3SG so most.willing-GEN to the war-ACC genesthai become-lNF.AOR (X. HG. 1.5, 2) 'They were begging Cyrus to become most willing for war' b. proj edeonto [kyrou-GEN]j [PROj genesthai o:s prothimotatou-GEN] (33) a. ο de:mos synekho:re:sen the public-NOM permitted-3SG pro.to.i graphe.nai first-DAT write-INF.PASS.AOR

auto.i he-DAT

'the public permitted him to register first'

(Aeschin. III. 186)

b. ο de:mos synekho:re:sen [auto:i-DAT]j [PROj graphe:nai proto:i-DAT] In (32)-(33) the infinitival clauses contain nominal predicate modifiers that modify their empty subjects. In CIGr., predicate modifiers, as all nominal modifiers, obligatorily agree in case with the elements they are predicated of or modify (Andrews 1971; Morel 1989).9 Thus, the case of such modifiers can be used as a diagnostic for the case of the element they modify, when this element is phonologically empty. The predicate modifiers in (32)-(33) modify the empty controlled subject of the embedded infinitival clause and agree in case with the DP that is coindexed with this empty subject. This means that the empty subject of the embedded infinitival clause carries no case (i.e. it is a PRO), so that case transmission from the matrix controller is not blocked. But, one can easily find examples such as the following, in which the predicate modifier appears in the accusative case instead of the expected genitive/dative: (34) a. deomai hymo:n ... iatrous genesthai beg-lSG you-GEN doctor-ACC become-INF.AOR Ί beg you to remedy...' b. deomai [hymo:n-GEN]j [ec{ genesthai iatrous-ACC]

The syntax of Classical Greek infinitive

309

(35) a. oude autois the.baiois epetrepete not these-DAT Thebans-DAT were.permitting-2PL autonomous einai independent-ACC be-INF.PRS

{X. HG. VI.3, 9)

'Not even Thebans were you permitting to be independent' b. epetrepete [the:baiois-DAT]i [ec, einai autonomous-ACC] That the predicate modifier is marked with accusative case indicates that the empty subject of the embedded infinitival clause, which the predicate modifier modifies, is also marked with accusative case, so that it blocks case transmission from the controller in the matrix clause. Thus, examples (34) and (35) involve a hidden AccI construction, in which the infinitival clause contains a controlled null-subject pro in the accusative case: (36) a. deomai [hymo:n-GEN]j [[/?ro-ACC]i genesthai iatrus-ACC] b. epetrepete [the:baiois-DAT]j [ [ p r o - A C C ] j einai autonomous-ACC] Since the matrix predicate has already assigned genitive/dative case to its DP-object, ECM cannot be the explanation for the accusative case of the infinitival empty subject. To sum up, the structures examined above clearly show that AccI syntax appears in environments where ECM is not possible. All these facts indicate that there is a head inside the infinitival clause that is able to assign accusative case to its subject. In what follows we will present and assess two hypotheses: (i) the Tense-hypothesis, according to which the source of this accusative case is the [+T] feature of infinitival INFL, (ii) the Chypothesis, which claims that the accusative case is assigned by a null prepositional complementizer.

3.2. The role of Tense and the Tense-Hypothesis CIGr. infinitives inflect for tense and in this respect they differ from the infinitives of languages such as English, Italian etc. Although not all the infinitival clauses exhibit the same temporal properties, as we will see below, CIGr. infinitival INFL may be considered to be specified as [+T], as a reflex of this morphological marking. From this point of view, the [T] feature of the INFL is assumed to be morphologically defined. PhilippakiWarburton & Catsimali (1989, 1991) and Sevdali (2003) capitalize on this

310

Vassilios Spyropoulos

tense property of the infinitival INFL and suggest that the infinitival INFL in CIGr has case assigning properties, because it is specified as [+T]. 10 Let us call this approach as the Tense-Hypothesis. Significantly, this account associates the case assignment ability of INFL with the existence of a morphologically defined [T] feature." Thus, an INFL head may have the following case assigning properties according to its specification: (37) a. b. c. d.

[+T, +AGR] [-T, -AGR] [+T, - A G R ] [-T, +AGR]

nominative case (finite clauses) no case (non-finite clauses) accusative case (CIGr. infinitives) nominative case (Portuguese infinitives' 2 )

Strictly speaking, such an analysis makes some very clear predictions: CIGr. infinitives are [+T], because of their paradigmatic alternation for morphological tense. If case assignment properties are associated with [+T], then all infinitival clauses in CIGr. are expected to be finite and have either an overt DP-subject or a null pro subject marked with accusative. Consequently, CIGr. infinitival clauses are expected not to allow for raising and syntactic control in terms of a PRO. The data presented so far show that this prediction is falsified. We will return to the discussion of these data in the next section. There is a worrying aspect in this analysis: It is mainly based on the AccI constructions with verba dicendi et sentiendi, where the infinitive can vary for all tenses and a full sequence of tenses is established: (38) a. elegon

ton kyron

poiein

touto

said-3PL the Cyrus-ACC.SG do-INF.PRS this-ACC

b. elegon

ton kyron

poie.sein

touto

said-3PL the Cyrus-ACC.SG do-INF.FUT this-ACC

c. elegon

ton kyron

poie.sai

touto

said-3PL the Cyrus-ACC.SG do-INF.AOR this-ACC

d. elegon

ton kyron

pepoie.kenai

said-3PL the Cyrus-ACC.SG do-INF.PRF

touto this-ACC

'They were saying that Cyrus is doing/will do/did/have done this' In such examples the infinitival clause has both morphologically and interpretatively full temporal properties. However, not all infinitival clauses share the same temporal properties. In examples such as the ones in (39),

The syntax of Classical Greek infinitive

311

the infinitival clause has a fixed temporal interpretation (the event time of the infinitival clause is future oriented with respect to that of the matrix clause) and the variation among the infinitive forms simply denotes aspectual variation. Crucially, the future infinitive is not normally found in such examples: 1 3 (39) a. tois allots pasi pare.ggellen eksoplizesthai the other-DAT.PL all-DAT.PL was.ordering give.arms-INF.MED.PRS ' H e was ordering all the others to take the arms' b. /*eksoplisesthai

/eksoplisasthai

give.arms-INF.MED.FUT/give.arms-INF.MED. AOR

leksoplisthai give.arms-lNF.MED.PRF

There are also examples in which the infinitival clause can be argued to have no temporal properties at all: (40) arkhomai epainein l*epaine:sein l*epaine:sai start-lSG praise-INF.PRS/ praise-INF.FUT/ praise-INF.AOR Ί start praising' In such examples, the event time of the infinitive is identical or simultaneous with that of the matrix predicate. As a result no variation of infinitive forms can be found, and the infinitive can appear only in one form, mainly that of the present infinitive. Putting these facts together, we can conclude that there is a three level pattern as far as the temporal properties of the infinitival clauses are concerned: (a) The infinitival clause has full temporal properties, which are determined by the tense morphology of the infinitive (free infinitives (FI)), (b) The infinitival clause has a fixed tense value, which is imposed by the semantics of the matrix predicate. The tense morphology of the infinitive is in this case interpretatively transparent (dependent infinitives (DI)). (c) The infinitival clause has no tense value at all, or it is anaphoric to that of the matrix predicate (anaphoric infinitives (AI)). These facts show that there is an asymmetry between the paradigmatic value of the [T] feature and its interpretative value. An analysis that associates case assignment with the temporal properties of the INFL should decide and clearly explain whether case assignment properties are associated with the paradigmatic or the interpretative value of this [T] feature. In what

312

Vassilios

Spyropoulos

follows, we will show that we need not worry about that, since there is enough evidence that shows that the assignment of accusative case to the DP-subject of the infinitive is not determined by the [+T] specification of the infinitival INFL.

3.3. Evidence against the Tense-hypothesis Let us examine the following examples: (41) a. oude phthora outo.s anthro:po:n oudamou no destruction-NOM so people-GEN.PL no.place emne:moneueto genesthai mention-PASS.PST.3 SG become-INF.AOR 'Never was such a slaughter mentioned anywhere to have taken place' (Th. 11.51) b. ephe: ... aksein lakedaimonioius zo:ntas said-3SG bring-INF.FUT Lakedaimonians-ACC live-PRT.PRS.ACC.PL ' H e said that he would bring back the Lakedaimonians alive' (Th. IV.28, 4) Examples (41a) and (41b) involve subject-to-subject raising and subject control respectively: (42) a. [DP oude phthora outo:s anthro:po:n]j emne:moneueto [IP tj genesthai] 1 4 b. proj ephe: [cp PROj aksein lakedaimonious] Both examples (41a) and (41b) involve an infinitival clause as a complement to a verbum dicendi. The infinitival clause is able to establish a full sequence of tenses as the examples in (43) show: (43) a. oude phthora emne:moneueto no destruction-NOM mention-PASS.PST.3SG genesthai /gignesthai lgene:sesthai become-INF. AOR/become-lNF.PRS/become-lNF.FUT b. ephe: agein /aksein lagagein te.ksein said-3 SG bring-INF.PRS/bring-INF.FUT/bring-INF.AOR/bring-INF.PRF

The syntax of Classical Greek infinitive

313

According to the Tense-hypothesis, this tense variation indicates that the infinitival I N F L is specified as [+T] and as a consequence it has the ability of assigning accusative case. Thus, neither can subject-to-subject raising take place nor can a P R O be licensed as the subject of the infinitival clause. The examples in (41) would then be incorrectly predicted to be ungrammatical. In fact, in CIGr., Accl syntax in infinitival clauses after a verbum dicendi/ sentiendi is in free variation with a N o m I syntax, which involves either subject-to-subject raising or subject-control: (44) a. N o m I syntax involving subject-to-subject raising ο assyrios eis te:n kho.ran embalein the Assyrian-NOM in the country invade-INF.AOR aggelletai anounce-PASS.3SG ' T h e Assyrian is announced to have invaded the country' (X. Cyr. V.3, 30) b. N o m I syntax involving subject-control ο assyrios eis te:n kho. ran embalein aggellei the Assyrian-NOM in the country invade-INF.AOR anounce-3SG ' T h e Assyrian announces that he invaded the country' c. Accl syntax ton assyrion eis te:n kho. ran embalein aggellousi the Assyrian-ACC in the country invade-INF.AOR anounce-3SG 'They announce that the Assyrian invaded the country' d. Accl syntax after a passive verbum dicendi ton assyrion eis te:n kho:ran embalein the Assyrian-ACC in the country invade-INF.AOR aggelletai anounce-PASS.3SG 'It is announced that the Assyrian invaded the country' It is obvious that the Tense-hypothesis has no account for the examples with N o m I syntax, because in these examples it is evident that the infinitival INFL, despite its [+T] specification, assigns no case. This conclusion gains further support f r o m the following examples:

314

Vassilios Spyropoulos

(45) a. e.ggeltai ... he: ... makhe: pany iskhyra announce-PASS.PRF.3SG the battle-NOM very strong-NOM gegonenai become-INF.PRF (PL Chrm. 153b) 'The battle has been announced to have become very fierce' b. [Dp e: makhe:-NOM]j e:ggeltai [ [ec]j gegonenai iskhyra-NOM] (46) a. ksynebe: san de kai byzantioi ... ype.kooi einai agreed-3PL PRT and Byzantines-NOM vassals-NOM be-INF.PRS 'The Byzantines also agreed to be vassals' b. [DP byzantioi-NOM]j ksynebe:san [ [ec]j einai ype:kooi-NOM] In examples (45) and (46) the predicate modifier, which modifies the empty subject of the embedded infinitival, is marked with nominative case. Given that predicate modifiers always agree in case with the element they modify, the nominative case of the predicate modifiers in (45) and (46) indicates that no case assignment has taken place in the embedded infinitival clause and that the ec-subject is an NP-trace and a PRO respectively. The facts presented above show that AccI syntax is in free variation with control and raising phenomena in FIs. Interestingly, AccI syntax is in free variation with a control structure in DIs and after a big variety of predicates as well, which indicates that this variation is a generalized phenomenon of CIGr. complementation structures: (47) a. AccI syntax ton men synebe: apothanein the-ACC.SG PRT happened-3SG die-INF.AOR 'It happened that this one died...' a'. proexΡ, synebe: [ C P fop-subject ton men] apothanein] (Arist. Po. 1452 b 28) b. DatI syntax involving control ksynebe: hymi:n peisthe.nai akeraiois happened-3SG you-DAT.PL persuade-PASS.INF.AOR intact-DAT.PL 'It happened to you to be persuaded when you were safe...' b'. proexpi ksynebe: hymi:nj [Cp PRO; peisthe:nai akeraois] (:Th. 11.61,2)

The syntax of Classical Greek infinitive

315

(48) a. N o m I involving control eime: sy boule:i apokrinasthai if NEG you-NOM want-3SG reply-INF.AOR 'if you don't want to reply...' a', ei syj me: boule:i [cp PRO] apokrinasthai ] b. AccI syntax kindyneuein ouk eboulonto .... autous risk-INF.PRS NEG wanted-3PL these-ACC 'They didn't want for them to r i s k . . . ' b'. pro\ ouk eboulonto [Cp autouSj kindyneuein]

(Th. IV. 15)

(49) a. DatI syntax involving control to is allois pa.si pare.ggellen eksoplizesthai the other-DAT.PL all-DAT.PL was.ordering give.arms-INF.MED.PRS 'he was ordering all the others to take the arms' a', proj pare:ggellen [tois allois pa:si]j [Cp PROj eksoplizesthai] (X. An. 1.8, 3) b. AccI syntax pare.ggeile ta hopla tithesthai tous helle. nas ordered-3SG the arms-ACC put-INF.MED.PRS the Greeks-ACC ' H e gave the order that the Greeks should hand over the arms' b'. proi pare:ggeile [ C p bp-subject tous helle:nas], tithesthai ta hopla] (X.An. 11.2,21) The constructions examined above show that both a DP-subject in accusative case and a caseless null-subject (PRO or NP-trace) may appear in the same environment. Given that the properties of the infinitival I N F L remain stable - i t is specified as [ + T ] - we conclude that INFL is not responsible for this case variation. More specifically, it is evident that infinitival INFL does not assign accusative case, otherwise this variation w o u l d n ' t have existed. Thus, we conclude that infinitival INFL in CIGr. is non-finite and has no case assigning properties. This hypothesis accounts for the raising and control p h e n o m e n a in a straightforward way. Thus, AccI syntax is suggested to be an optional Last Resort operation for the licensing of an overt DP-subject in the infinitival clause, when required.

316

Vassilios

Spyropoulos

4. AccI syntax and the C-Hypothesis In the previous section, we concluded that AccI syntax is mainly used as a Last Resort operation that licenses an overt DP-subject in the infinitival clause. A similar mechanism is used in English infinitival constructions, when suspension of control is required: (50) a. Bill, wants [PROj to go shopping] b. Bill wants [for Mary to go shopping] (51) a. John, tried hard [PROj to get this job] b. John tried hard [for Mary to get the job] The verbs want and try are control verbs and take as a complement an infinitival clause with a P R O subject (50a) and (51a). The control pattern is suspended in (50b) and (51b) by the insertion of the preposition for as C. The preposition assigns accusative case to the subject of the infinitival clause, allowing for it to be overtly realized, and thus control is suspended. The similarity with the corresponding constructions from CIGr. seems not to be accidental: (52) a. ei me: sy boule:i apokrinasthai if NEG you-NOM want-3SG reply-INF.AOR 'if you don't want to reply...' b. kindyneuein ouk eboulonto ... autous risk-INF.PRS NEG wanted-3PL these-ACC 'They didn't want for them to r i s k . . . ' CIGr. uses AccI syntax in the same way as English uses ybr-infinitivals. This similarity indicates that the accusative case in AccI syntax is determined by the C-layer. W e will call this analysis the C-Hypothesis (Tantalou 2003). AccI syntax is also found in Latin (Bolkestein 1976; Pillinger 1980; Cecchetto and Oniga 2002): (53) laudavisse hasce ait architectonem praise-INF.PAST these-ACC.PL say-3SG architect-ACC.SG ' H e says that an architect has praised these'

The syntax of Classical Greek infinitive

317

Cecchetto and Oniga (2002) examine the properties of AccI syntax in Latin and conclude that it does not involve ECM. They propose that the DPsubject of the embedded clause is assigned accusative case by an empty prepositional complementizer, something like a null for. Tantalou (2003) claims that CIGr. AccI syntax should be analyzed in the same way and she argues that this analysis is supported by the CP-status of the infinitival clause in an AccI construction. We believe that this analysis is on the right track, mainly because it can account for the optional assignment of the accusative case. If this null complementizer is an optional element, as for is in English, control and raising are also possible with the same infinitival clause, when this null-C is absent. But, such an analysis requires a number of issues to be addressed: (i) the licensing of this element and (ii) its exact position and status.

4.1. AccI and the licensing of the null element Let us assume that the DP-subject in an infinitival clause with AccI syntax is assigned accusative case by a null prepositional complementizer. We will call this element 0for. 0Jor as a null element requires licensing. Empty complementizers have been assumed to have an affix status and, therefore, they are licensed by getting incorporated into the matrix verb (Stowell 1981; Kayne 1984; Pesetsky 1991; Ormazabal 1995). This kind of incorporation is considered to be a strictly local operation, so that it is banned when adjacency is not respected (Boskovic 1997; Martin 1996). This analysis explains why ίΛαί-deletion in English is blocked, when (i) the embedded clause is in subject position (57b), (ii) an adverbial element intervenes between the main predicate and the embedded clause (57c), or (ii) the embedded clause has been extraposed (57d): (54) a. b. c. d.

John believes that/0,Mary will take the job That/*0,ha, Mary took the job made John happy John believes without a doubt that!* 0,ha, Mary will take the job It didn 7 surprise John that/*0thai Mary took the job

In CIGr., infinitival clauses with AccI syntax can be found in all the environments mentioned above:

318

Vassilios Spyropoulos

(55) a. Infinitival clause with AccI in subject position tro.as algea paskhein ou nemesis (estin) Trojans-ACC sufferings-ACC suffer-INF.PRS NEG just-NOM (is) 'It's not right for the Trojans to suffer in this way' b. Extraposition kindynos oun pollous apollysthai danger-NOM then many-ACC loose-PASS.lNF.PRS 'Then, there is a danger for many people to get killed' (X. An. V . l , 6) c. Intervention of adverbials synebe: te:s aute.s he:mera:s en te:i sikelia. i happened-3SG the-GEN this-GEN day-GEN in the-DAT Sicily-DAT gelo:na nika.n amilkan Gelon-ACC defeat-INF.PRS Amilcas-ACC 'It happened that on the same day in Sicily Gelon defeated Amilcas' cHdt. VII. 166) The data in (55) show that the licensing of CIGr. & f o r is different from that of English 0,/, a( , in that no adjacency with the matrix verb is required. This means that the relevant mechanism for the licensing of 0/„,. is not incorporation/affixation into the matrix verb. Rather, CIGr. 0 / o r is licensed inside its infinitival clause by a clause internal mechanism. The answer to the licensing issue lies behind the distribution of AccI syntax. The data presented in sections 3.2 and 3.3 shows that AccI syntax is possible with FIs and DIs but not with Als. Als occur after the so-called 'verbs of obligatory coreference' (translation of the Greek term). These are mainly obligatory subject control verbs such as the following: (56) a. ouketi edynato bioteuein no more was.able-3SG live-INF.PRS 'He was not able to live any more' b. houto: kalein eio.thasin so call-INF.PRS are.used.to 'They are used to call (it) with this name'

{Arist. Po. 1447 b 17)

The main characteristic of these verbs is that they take an infinitival complement that does not have temporal properties, since its event point is the same or simultaneous with that of the matrix predicate. This is because the matrix and the embedded predicate in fact express the same event. Based

The syntax of Classical Greek infinitive

319

on this distributional evidence, we propose that 0f O r is only licensed in environments where tense is licensed. Thus, 0/„ r is only licensed in FIs and DIs, because in these infinitival clauses either a full sequence of tenses is established (FIs: 57) or there is a fixed temporal reference (DIs: 58). Crucially, the facts presented in section 3.3 show that AccI syntax is always possible in these environments: (57) omologo: meidian ... lamprotaton gegene:sthai admit-lSG Meidias-ACC most.glorious-ACC become-INF.PRF Ί admit that Meidias has become the most glorious' (58) a. pare.ggeile ta hopla tithesthai tous helle.nas ordered-3SG the arms-ACC put-MED.INF.PRS the Greeks-ACC 'He gave the order that the Greeks should hand over the arms' b. kindyneuein ouk eboulonto ... autous risk-INF.PRS NEG wanted-3PL these-ACC 'They didn't want for them to risk...' Theoretically speaking, such an analysis is closely associated with the proposals that associate the temporal properties of a clause with the C-domain (Stowell 1982; Boskovic 1997; Martin 2001; Chomsky 2001; Pesetsky and Torrego 2001). According to these analyses, the temporal properties of INFL are selected by a tense feature [T] of C and are licensed by means of a covert syntactic operation (covert movement - feature checking) that guarantees their matching. Longobardi (1996) proposes that such a covert operation licenses the accusative case of the DP-subject in English gerunds: (59) a. Him sleeping in the bedroom, Mary... b. While PRO/*him sleeping in the bedroom,

Mary...

He claims that English gerunds have temporal properties and proposes that (covert) V-to-C raising licenses these temporal properties. This (covert) movement also licenses the accusative case of the gerundival DP-subject. The existence of an overt complementizer blocks the (covert) movement and consequently, the licensing of the accusative case. Thus, in example (59b), a PRO is licensed as the subject of the infinitival clause. Similarly, Cecchetto and Oniga (2002) associate covert V-to-C movement for tense checking with AccI syntax in Latin infinitival clauses. They propose that the infinitive covertly moves to C in order to license its temporal properties,

320

Vassilios Spyropoulos

and by doing so it also licenses a null preposition 0for in C, which in turn assigns accusative case to the embedded DP-subject of the infinitival clause. Returning to CIGr. infinitives, recall that AccI syntax is possible only when the embedded infinitival exhibits temporal properties and is banned from Als, which carry no temporal properties. Thus, we propose that FIs and DIs have a [T] feature in their C-domain, which expresses their temporal properties and that 0fOr is parasitic to it. Thus, it is licensed only when this [T] feature is also licensed. However, it should be clarified that we do not propose that, whenever [T] is licensed in the C-domain, accusative case is assigned to the subject of the infinitival clause. This would be a notational variant of the Tense-Hypothesis and it would leave unaccounted for the possibility of raising and control in the environments where AccI syntax occurs, contrary to the facts. What we argue for is that 0for can optionally appear only when a [T] feature is licensed in the C-domain, but not necessarily vice-versa.

4.2. The position of 0for in CIGr. Let us return to the English examples in (59) repeated here as (60): (60) a. Him sleeping in the bedroom, Mary... b. While PROf*him sleeping in the bedroom, Mary... Longobardi (1996) claims that the ungrammaticality of (60b) indicates that the existence of a complementizer blocks the V-to-C movement for tense checking and, consequently, the licensing of accusative case. Given this observation, 0for and, consequently, AccI syntax will be in complementary distribution with an overt complementizer. Nevertheless, in CIGr., AccI syntax is possible with infinitival clauses introduced with overt complementizers: (61) a. te:iorge:i

houto: khalepe.i

the anger-DAT so

o.ste

me.dena

ekhre:to

es

tough-DAT used-3SG to

dynasthai

pantas, all-ACC.PL

prosienai

so.that nobody-ACC.SG be.able-lNF.AOR get.close-lNF.PRS

'He was behaving so badly to everybody, so that nobody could stay with him'

The syntax of Classical Greek infinitive 321 b. dareios, prin aikhmalo.tous genesthai Darius-NOM before captives-ACC become-INF.AOR tous eretrieas, eneikhe sphi deinon kholon the Eretrians-ACC had-3SG them-DAT terrible-ACC anger-ACC 'Darius was galled with Eretrians, before they were taken captives' Such examples are unexpected, if 0{nr merges with the C position. These examples involve an infinitival clause with AccI syntax, which is introduced by an overt complementizer. The availability of the AccI syntax in such an environment indicates that 0for occupies another position than the normal C position. The pattern is explained by assuming the Split-CHypothesis proposed by Rizzi (1997). Rizzi proposes that the functional category C is decomposed to two basic C heads: The first carries information about the clause-typing properties of the clause and is called Cforce. Proper complementizers are assumed to merge with this position. The second carries information about the finiteness of the clause and is called Cfin. The feature content of this head is therefore relevant to the grammatical properties of INFL (mood, aspect, tense, agreement). Topic and Focus projections are also assumed to occur between these two heads: (62)

[cPl

Cf orce

[TopP/FocP

Top/FoC

[cP2

Cfi„

[iNFLP

INFL ... ]]]]

We propose that 0for merges with Cfin and, thus, it is compatible with other complementizers that merge with the Cforce position. Significantly, the position of 0for and its licensing are now straightforwardly related. We argued in the previous section that 0for is licensed when a [T] feature is licensed in the C-domain. Given that the locus of this feature is the Cfin head, it follows that this head is also the host of the 0f„r\ (63)

[CPI

Cforce

prin/oste

•••[CP2

Cfm[tense] 0for

[INFLP

]]]

[DP-subject]-ACC

Thus, the existence of a [T] feature, which expresses the temporal properties of the infinitival clause, activates the C^,, head in the C-domain. Being activated, Cfln can host 0/ o r , which is responsible for the AccI syntax. In other words, the relation between [T] and the licensing of 0for is indirect: [T] licenses the position that 0for occupies and not the element itself.

322

Vassilios Spyropoulos

4.3. 0/or as [Agr] The discussion of the properties of AccI syntax has led to an analysis that incorporates the following assumptions: -

-

AccI syntax in CIGr is optional; It involves a syntactic operation that licenses an overt DP-subject in an infinitival clause by assigning accusative case to it; The element that assigns this accusative case is a 0/„ r ; This 0f n r merges with the lower Cfin head, when the latter is activated/ licensed by the existence of a [T] feature, which expresses temporal properties; Cfin head is a bundle of features relevant to the inflectional properties of the clause.

In the Minimalist Program the existence of null elements is questioned on the grounds of the principles of Inclusiveness and Full-Interpretation (Chonsky 1993, 1995). Only bundle of features are supposed to exist as null-elements in syntax. Thus, the status of 0for as an empty preposition that assigns accusative case is questionable. Based on the theoretical assumptions that case is assigned by agreement checking (Chomsky 2000, 2001), we will propose that this 0for is in fact a bundle of [Agr] nominal features, which constitutes a part of the feature specification of Cfin. Let us discuss the properties of the Cfin head. Cfm is assumed to host the finiteness properties of the clause and to select the appropriate INFL head. Thus, a Cfin that selects for a finite INFL supposedly carries [T] and [Agr] features; these elements are proposed to be licensed by means of an operation Agree with INFL and, by this means, to acquire morphological manifestation. The assumption that a finite Cf,n carries [Agr] features is supported by the complementizer-subject agreement data found in languages such as French and Flemish (Rizzi 1991, Haegeman 1992). In a non-finite clause, such as the English infinitive, the [T] and [Agr] features of Cfin cannot be licensed by establishing a relation with INFL, since the latter is negatively specified for [T] and [AGR], Nevertheless, we saw that in CIGr. infinitival clauses a [T] feature can be licensed in C^,, when (i) a full sequence of tenses is established after verba dicendi (FIs), and (ii) a fixed tense value is selected by the matrix predicate (DIs). Given that [Agr] features can be parasitic to [T] features (Landau 2004), whenever [T] is licensed in Cfin, [Agr] may also occur. These [Agr] features cannot be licensed by establishing a checking relation with INFL, because the latter is negatively specified for

The syntax of Classical Greek infinitive 323 [Agr], since CIGr. infinitives do not inflect for subject agreement. However, they can establish a checking relation with the DP-subject of the embedded clause. As a result of this checking relation, [Agr] is licensed and the DPsubject of the infinitival clause acquires accusative case. CIGr. infinitival clauses with AccI syntax are therefore proposed to have the following structure: (64) [CP, C force ... [CP2 Cfin[T, Agr] [INFLP DP-subject INFL[+T] ...]]] We therefore conclude that the infinitival DP-subject in AccI syntax acquires its accusative case by establishing a checking relation with an [Agr] element in the Cfin head, which is a part of its feature constitution. This proposal has the following theoretical advantages: (i) it subsumes AccI syntax to the unified agreement system of case assignment, (ii) it does not face any problems with the Inclusiveness and Full Interpretation conditions, since [Agr] is a bundle of features which is subject to the principles and operations that license the constitution of the Cfin and the licensing of its features.

5. Principles and Parameters of the CIGr infinitival syntax On the basis of (i) the complex data reviewed in the previous sections and (ii) the analysis of AccI syntax outlined above, we can now formulate a full account of CIGr. infinitival syntax, which is based on the general principles that define the feature constitution of the functional heads and their licensing. More specifically, we argue that CIGr. infinitival clauses have the universal clause structure, which consists of the following functional heads: (65) [cPl Cforce ··• [cP2 Cfln [iNFLP INFL ...]]] The feature constitution of each functional head is subject to language specific and construction specific parameters. Thus, INFL is suggested to be specified as [+T, -AGR], because CIGr infinitives inflect for tense but not for subject-agreement. Such a specification implies that INFL carries a [T] feature that is interpretable because of its morphological strength, and no [Agr] features. Because of the lack of [Agr] features, infinitival INFL cannot establish a checking relation with the infinitival subject, and thus no case assignment that involves this INFL and its subject takes place. The feature constitution of INFL is therefore determined by the language specific mor-

324

Vassilios

Spyropoulos

phological properties of CIGr. infinitives. The feature constitution of C fin on the other hand is mainly determined by the specific properties of the constructions it participates in. Cfi„ is the locus of finiteness, and therefore carries grammatical information concerning mood, tense, agreement, etc. We claim that Cf in can be either positively or negatively specified for tense, depending on the selectional requirements of the matrix predicate. When Cf in is positively specified for tense, it carries a [T] feature, which can be either interpretable or not. When non-interpretable, the [T] feature of C fin establishes a checking relation with INFL and gets its value from the [T] feature of the INFL. This checking relation results in establishing a full-sequence of tenses, since CIGr infinitival INFL can be morphologically specified for all tenses. This is the structure underlying FIs (67d). On the other hand, Cf in has an interpretable [T] feature, when its temporal properties are fixed because of the semantic and selectional properties o f the matrix predicate. This feature need not enter into a relation with the [T] feature of INFL in order to acquire content; the interpretable value of the [T] feature of INFL is, therefore, neutralized. This is the structure of the DIs (67b). A C fin that is negatively specified for tense can be suggested to carry no [T], resulting in the structure of Als (67a). Positive specification for tense is a prerequisite for the activation of the C fin head. When properly activated, Cfi„ can also be specified for agreement features and carry an [Agr] bundle of features. [Agr] features are considered to be universally non-interpretable (Chomsky 1995, 2000), so they establish a checking relation with a nominal element in their domain, in order to acquire value. As a result, the nominal element acquires case, more specifically accusative case. This is the structure of AccI syntax (67c, e). The general CIGr. infinitival structure is presented in (66) and (67) summarizes the resulting structures from the combination of the feature specifications of the Cfi„ and INFL heads (plus and minus marks represent interpretability and non-interpretability respectively): (66)

cfin ([ [±T], ([-Agr])])

(67) a.

[CPI

b. c.

[CPI [CPI

D.

[CPI

INFL[+T]

C f o r c e ...

[CP2 C f i n [,NFLP I N F L [ + T ] ...]]] (Als) (DIs) C f o r c e ... [cp2 Cfi n [+T] [INFLP I N F L [ + T ] ...]]] C f o r c e ... [CP2 C f i n [[+T], [-Agr]] [INFLP I N F L [ + T ] ...]]] (DIs with AccI) (FIs) C f o r c e ... [CP2 Cfi n [-T] [INFLP I N F L [ + T ] ...]]]

e. [CP, C f o r c e ... [CP2 C f i n [[-T], [-Agr]] [INFLP I N F L [ + T ] ...]]] (FIs with AccI)

The syntax of Classical Greek infinitive

325

To be more concrete, the structure of an AI excludes the possibility of having an [Agr] feature in C fin , because Cf,„ carries no [T], Given that infinitival INFL cannot assign case to its subject, the latter must either be a PRO or establish a checking relation with a case assigning head in the matrix clause, resulting in an overt/covert raising structure. Both control and raising structures surface as NomI constructions. (68) a. houto: kalein eio:thasin so call-INF.PRS are.used.to 'They are used to call (it) with this name' b. proi eio:thasin

[ C P [INFLP

PROj INFL[+T] kalein houto:]

DI structure allows for two options: When C fin is not specified for [Agr], a control structure is established and the subject of the infinitival clause is a caseless PRO. Depending on the case of the controller, this structure gets the surface form of NomI, GenI, DatI and AccI constructions (69a,b,c, and d respectively): (69) a. ei me: sy boule.i apokrinasthai if NEG you-NOM want-3SG reply-INF.AOR 'if you don't want to reply...' a', ei sy; me: boule:i [ CP C fm [+T] [ INFLP PROj INFL[+T] apokrinasthai]] b. sou ... deomai akolouthein you-GEN beg-lSG follow-INF.PRS Ί beg you to follow...' b'. proj deomai souj [Cp Cfj„[+T] [iNFLP PROj INFL[+T] akolouthein]] c. to is allois pa:si pare:ggellen eksoplizesthai the other-DAT.PL all-DAT.PL was.ordering give.arms-INF.MED.PRS 'he was ordering all the others to take the arms' c'. proj pare:ggellen [tois allois pa:si]j [ c p Cf,„[+T] [ I N F L P PRO] INFL[+T] eksoplizesthai]] d. dedidakhen ... home.ros kai tous allous has.taught Homer-NOM and the others-ACC pseude: legein... lies-ACC say-INF.PRS 'Homer has taught also the others to tell lies' d'. home:roSj dedidakhen [tous allous]j [CP Cf ln [+T] [INFLP PROj INFL[+T] legein pseude: ... ]]

326

Vassilios Spyropoulos

When Cfi„ is specified for [Agr], then an overt DP-subject in the accusative case is licensed as a result of the checking relation established between the [Agr] and the DP-subject. As a consequence, control is suspended and obviation is established. The structure surfaces as an AccI construction: (70) a. kindyneuein ouk eboulonto .... autous risk-INF.PRS NEG wanted-3PL these-ACC 'They didn't want for them to risk...' a', proj ouk eboulonto [Cp Cf in [[+T], [-Agr]] [inflp autousj INFL[+T] kindyneuein]] b. pare.ggeile ta hopla tithesthai tous helle:nas ordered-3SG the weapons-ACC put-MED.INF.PRS the Greeks-ACC 'He gave the order that the Greeks should hand over the weapons' b'. proj pare:ggeile [ CP C fin [[+T], [-Agr]] [[nflp [tous helle:nas]j INFL[+T] tithesthai ta hopla]] However, control is not always suspended in the presence of an [Agr] feature in Cfin. In other words, [Agr] feature can license an overt pronominal which is controlled by a matrix argument: (71) a. bouloime.n an eme tykhein want-OPT. 1SG PRT 1-ACC.SG come.across-INF.PRS ho:n boulomai which-GEN.PL want-1 SG Ί would like to get whatever I want'

(D. 24, 8)

b. pro, bouloime:n an [Cp C fin [[+T], [-Agr]] [inflp ernej INFL[+T] tykhein]] (72) a. bouloime.n an tykhein ho:n boulomai want-OPT. 1 SG PRT come.across-INF.PRS which-GEN.PL want-lSG b. proj bouloime:n an [Cp C fin [+T] [iNFlp PRO; INFL[+T] tykhein]] Example (71) differs minimally from example (72), in that the controlled infinitival subject surfaces as an emphatic pronominal in the accusative case, which is controlled by the matrix subject. Example (71) shows that CIGr resorts to AccI syntax whenever emphasis demands that the infinitival subject be overt. Theoretically speaking, by being assigned accusative case the embedded subject escapes the case-filter (Vergnaud 1980; Chomsky 1981) and is licensed so as to surface as an emphatic pronominal. Consider now the examples (73) and (74), which involve GenI and DatI syntax respectively:

The syntax of Classical Greek infinitive (73) a. kyrou edeonto o:s prothimotatou pros Cyrus-GEN begged-3SG so most.willing-GEN to genesthai become-INF.AOR 'They were begging Cyrus to become most willing a', proj edeonto [kyrou-GEN]j [PRO, genesthai o:s prothimotatou-GEN]

327

ton polemon the war-ACC

for war' (X. HG. 1.5, 2)

b. deomai hymo.n ... iatrous genesthai beg-lSG you-GEN.PL doctor-ACC.PL become-INF.AOR Ί beg you to remedy...' b'. deomai [hymo:n-GEN]j [ec, genesthai iatrous-ACC] (74) a. ο de .mos synekho:re:sen auto.i pro.to.i the public-NOM permitted-3SG he-DAT first-DAT graphe:nai write-INF. PA SS. A OR 'the public permitted him to register first' a', ο de:mos synekho:re:sen [auto:i-DAT]j [PRO] graphe:nai proto:i-DAT] (Aeschin. III. 186) b. oude autois the:baiois epetrepete not these-DAT Thebans-DAT were.permitting-2PL autonomous einai (X. HG. VI.3,9) independent-ACC.PL be-INF.PRS 'Not even Thebans were you permitting to be independent' b'. epetrepete [thebaiois-DAT]f [ec, einai autonomous-ACC] These examples were discussed in section 3.1 and it was concluded that the (b) examples involve a hidden AccI syntax with a pro-ACC subject in the infinitival clause, as evident from the accusative case of the predicate modifier. It is therefore suggested that [Agr] in C fin can also license a nullsubject pro-ACC in the infinitival clause, which is controlled by a matrix argument. Noticeably, morphological manifestation of [Agr] and pro is achieved by means of the agreement relation established between pro and the predicate modifier. As a consequence this structure is detectable only in the presence of a nominal modifier that modifies the empty subject of the infinitival clause, and the structure surfaces as an AccI construction. The relevant structures are presented in (75):

328

Vassilios Spyropoulos

(75) a. deomai [hymo:n-GEN]i [ CP C fm [[+T], [-Agr]] [INFLP P R O - A C Q INFL[+T] genesthai iatrous-ACC]] b. epetrepete [thebaiois-DAT]i [Cp C fin [[+T], [-Agr]] [INFLP pro-ACQ

INFL[+T] einai autonomous-ACC]]

Finally, FIs also allow for two options, depending on the presence vs. absence of [Agr] in Cfj„. In the absence of [Agr], the subject of the infinitival clause is assigned no case, allowing for control and raising. 15 These structures surface normally as NomI constructions (76a-b) and occasionally as DatI constructions (76c): (76) a. edoksen auto.i ... ske:ptos pesein thought-3SG he-DAT thunder-NOM fall-INF.AOR eis te:n patro.ian oikian in the family house 'He assumed that a thunder hit his family house' (X. An. III. 1, 11) a', skeptosj edoksen auto:i [INFLP t, INFL[+T] pesein] b. edokoun aeton ferein were.thinking-3PL eagle-ACC bring-lNF.AOR 'They were thinking of bringing an eagle' {Ar. V.15) b'. pro, edokoun [cp Cf in [-T] [INFLP PROj INFL[+T] ferein aeton]] c. edokei to:i nikia:i ... ikano:s paraskeuasthai was.thinking-3SG the Nikias-DAT sufficiently prepare-MED.lNF.PRF 'Nikias was believing that he has been adequately prepared' c'. proeKp, edokei [to:i nikia:i], [ CP C fin [-T] [ INFLP PRO; INFL[+T] paraskeuasthai]] (Th. VI.75) In the presence of [Agr] an agreement relation is established with the infinitival subject and the latter is assigned accusative case. The structure surfaces as an AccI construction: (77) a. es touton ton kho.ron legetai aphikesthai ton straton in this the place-ACC say-PASS.3SG arrive-INF.AOR the army-ACC 'It is said that the army has arrived in this place' (Hdt. 111.26) a'. proexPI legetai [ CP C fln [[-T], [-Agr]] [INFLP [ton straton] INFL[+T] aphikesthai]]

The syntax of Classical Greek infinitive

329

b. omologo: meidian ... lamprotaton gegene:sthai admit-lSG Meidias-ACC glorious-ACC become-INF.PRF Ί admit that Meidias has become most glorious' (D. 21, 153) b'. proi omologo: [ C P C f i n [[-T], [-Agr]] [ 1NFLP [meidian] INFL[+T] gegenesthai lamprotaton]] The following diagram summarizes the relation between the possible infinitival structures with the feature specification of the relevant functional categories and their surface manifestation in terms of the traditional grammar descriptions: (78) a.

[CP

Cfin

b.

[CP

Cfi„[+T]

[INFLP

INFL[+T] ...]]

[INFLP

-> control

NomI

INFL[+T] ...]]

control -> Noml/Genl/Datl/AccI C. [cp Cfi„[[+T], [-Agr]] [INFLP INFL[+T] ...]]

obviation -> AccI control with overt emphatic pronominal/pro d. [cpCfi„[-T] control raising

[INFLP

Datl/GenI

INFL[+T] ...]]

NomI NomI

e. [CP2 C f i n [[-T], [-Agr]] [,NFLP INFL[+T] ...]]

obviation

AccI

6. Conclusions In this paper, w e investigated the properties of infinitival clauses in CIGr. It was shown that infinitival syntax in CIGr. is subject to the general principles of U G that define the clause structure, the licensing of empty elements, and the licensing of the features of the functional and lexical categories. On the other hand, certain parameters determine the feature content of the relevant functional categories of the C- and INFL-domains. More specifically, it was shown that CIGr. infinitival INFL is specified as [+T, - A G R ] , because infinitives carry tense but no agreement inflection. As a consequence, CIGr infinitival INFL does not establish a checking relation with its subject, which is therefore allowed to establish a checking relation with another element, or to be a PRO. When not a PRO, the infinitival subject can establish a checking relation with either an element in the matrix clause (overt/

330

Vassilios Spyropoulos

covert raising) or an element in the C-domain of the infinitival clause. In the latter option, the subject acquires accusative case and is therefore licensed as an overt DP-subject or a pro. We argued that the element, with which the infinitival subject in accusative establishes a checking relation, is an [Agr] bundle of features situated in a separate Cfi„ head in the C-domain. This head hosts the grammatical properties of the clause and is therefore argued to be activated/licensed by the existence of a [T] feature, which expresses the temporal properties of the clause. Thus, it is concluded that the interaction of the parameters that define the language specific morphosyntactic structure of CIGr. interact with the general principles of UG that determine the licensing of categories and features, so as to allow for CIGr. infinitival clauses to have the option of having both null and overt subjects and to freely exhibit coreference and obviation.

Appendix Key to the abbreviations of Classical Greek texts Α., Supp. Aeschin. Ar., V. Arist. Po. D. Hdt. Isoc. Pi., O. PL, Chrm. PL, Prt. S., Ant. Th. X., An. X., Cyr. X., HG X., Mem.

Aeschylus Tragicus, Supplices Aeschines Orator Aristophanes Comicus, Vespae Aristoteles Philosophus, Poetica Demosthenes Orator Herodotus Historicus Isocrates Orator Pindarus Luricus, Olympian Odes Plato Philosophus, Charmides Plato Philosophus, Protagoras Sophocles Tragicus, Antigone Thucydides Historicus Xenophon Historicus, Anabasis Xenophon Historicus, Institutio Cyri (Cyropaedia) Xenophon Historicus, Historia Graeca (Hellenica) Xenophon Historicus, Memorabilia

The syntax of Classical Greek infinitive

331

Notes 1.

See Anttila (1989: Part III), Campbell (1998: Chapter 5), Szemerenyi (1999) and Fox (1995) for overviews of the principles of the comparative method. 2. The term Classical Greek refers to a specific period of the Ancient Greek language that spans between the 6 th and the 3 rd centuries BC. It describes the variety used in the literature production of this period, which is in most cases written in the Attic and Ionic dialects. Some representative grammatical descriptions of the syntax of CIGr. can be found in Jannaris (1897), Smyth (1918), Schwyzer (1950). Our data are drawn from the texts of this period. However, for the ease of exposition, in some cases we also use elementary textbook examples, either taken from existing grammar textbooks, or invented by ourselves. In the latter case, it has been verified that the constructions represented in these examples occur in the texts of the period. CIGr. examples are transliterated in a broad way, which relies on the main phonological values represented by the graphemes and abstracts away from phonological and phonetic details, such as length and tone, when they are not represented by separate graphemes and are not grammatically significant. 3. Despite its significance in determining the morphosemantics of the CIGr. verbal system, aspect seems to have no effect on the fmiteness of a clause and subsequently on the case marking of the subject of the infinitival clause. We will therefore ignore the role of aspect in the CIGr. verbal system, because it is not related with the issues of finiteness examined in this paper. 4. Future infinitive is suggested to denote punctual aspect (Schwyzer 1950; Binnick 1991). 5. Literally, the Latin term is translated as 'verbs of saying and feeling'. In fact, this category of verbs includes report-verbs and judge-verbs, such as lego: 'to say', aggello: 'to bring the news', nomizo: 'to decide, to judge', dokeo: 'to believe, to decide', etc. 6. Sometimes, a future infinitive may be found after verbs that express promise, will, hope, desire or expectation, as a result of denoting an inherently future event: (i) epaggellometha Ariaio.i... eis ton thronon promise-1 PL Ariaeus-DAT in the throne-ACC ton basileion kathiein

{X. An. 11.1,4)

the royal-ACC sit-iNF.FUT

' W e promise to Ariaeus that he will ascend to the royal throne' 7.

The following abbreviations are used in the paper. A O R : aorist, COMP: complementizer, FEM: feminine, IMP: imperative, INF: infinitive, MED: mediopassive, M S C : masculine, N E G : negation, NTR: neuter, OPT: optative, PART: participle, P A S S : passive, PL: plural, PRF: perfect, PRS: present, PRT: particle, PST: past, SBJ: subjunctive, SG: singular.

332 8.

9. 10.

11.

12. 13. 14.

15.

Vassilios

Spyropoulos

In the Government & Binding framework government from the matrix predicate is proposed to assign the accusative case to the DP-subject of the infinitival clause (Chomsky 1981; Kayne 1984). In the Minimalist Program government has been dispensed with as a syntactic notion and case assignment has been subsumed under the more general checking theory (Chomsky 1993). Two different analyses have been proposed in this framework: (i) ECM involves covert case assignment either by means of covert feature movement to the vP projection of the matrix verb (Chomsky 1995), or by means of operation Agree established for agreement checking between the matrix ν and the embedded DPsubject (Chomsky 2000). (ii) ECM involves overt movement of the DP-subject of the infinitival clause to a specifier position in the vP-domain of the matrix predicate (Lasnik 2001). This agreement pattern is retained to Modern Greek as well (see Spyropoulos 1998, 1999, 2005) To be more specific, Philippaki-Warburton and Catsimali (1991) attribute the case assigning properties of INFL to the positive specification of a finiteness feature [fin]. They claim that [fin] in CIGr. infinitives can be positively specified, and thus assign accusative case, because they inflect for tense. This analysis can be considered as the INFL variant of the analysis we will propose in sections 4 and 5. Philippaki-Warburton and Catsimali (1989, 1991) and Sevdali (2003) also propose that the infinitival INFL cannot assign nominative case because it is specified as [-AGR]. This constitutes an argument for the hypothesis that nominative case is, in fact, the result of subject-agreement checking (Chomsky 2000, 2001). Evidence for the agreement-nominative association also comes from Portuguese inflected infinitives and Modern Greek subjunctives: (a) Portuguese infinitives may inflect for subject-agreement; when such an infinitive is used the subject of the infinitival clause appears in nominative case (Raposo 1987). (b) Modern Greek lacks the category of infinitive and uses the subjunctive instead in complementation. MG subjunctives inflect for subject agreement and as a result nominative case is always assigned to its subject (PhilippakiWarburton and Catsimali 1999; Philippaki-Warburton and Spyropoulos 2002, in prep.). See Raposo (1987). But, see note 6. Here, we follow the widely accepted assumption that the infinitival clause in raising constructions is deprived of its CP status and it projects only to the INFLP level (Chomsky 1981, 2001). In raising structures the infinitival clause is deprived of its CP-status (see also note 14). That CIGr. infinitival clauses may not sometimes project to the level of CP is also evident from examples such as the following, which involve ECM:

The syntax of Classical Greek infinitive (i) kroisos enomizen heo.uton einai Kroisos was.thinking-3SG himself-ACC be-lNF.PRS anthro:po:n olbio.taton

333

(Hdt. 1.34)

people-GEN most.blissfull-ACC

'Kroisos believed himself to be the most blissful of all men' Given that in CIGr clauses anaphors cannot appear in subject position, that the anaphor heo. uton 'himself appears as the subject of the infinitival clause indicates that the infinitival clause does not constitute the governing category (or the complete functional complex) for the anaphor licensing. This is indicative of a construction involving ECM (see also the English translation).

References Alexiadou, Artemis, Geoffrey Horrocks and Melita Stavrou (eds.) 1999 Studies in Greek syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Andrews, A. D. 1971 Case agreement of predicate modifiers in Ancient Greek. Linguistic Inquiry2: 127-151. Anttila, Raimo 1989 Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Binnick, Robert I. 1991 Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense and Aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bolkenstein, A.M. 1976 A.c.i. and ut-clauses with verba dicendi in Latin. Glotta 54: 263-291. Boskovic, Zeljko 1997 The Syntax of Non-finite Complementation. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Burzio, Luigi 1986 Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Campbell, Lyle 1998 Historical Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Chomsky, Noam 1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. 1986 Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. 1993 A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. In The view from Building 20, Ken Hale and Samuel J. Kayser (eds.), 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. 1995 The minimalist program. Cambridge Mass.: The MIT Press.

334

Vassilios

Spyropoulos

Chomsky, Noam 2000 Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka (eds.), 89-115. Cambridge Mass.: The MIT Press. 2001 Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1-52. Cecchetto, Carlo and Renato Oniga 2002 Consequences of the analysis of Latin infinitival clauses for the theory of Case and control. Lingue e Linguaggio 1: 151-189. Davies, William D. and Stanley Dubinsky (eds.) 2001 Objects and other Subjects: Grammatical Functions, Functional Categories and Configurationality. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Drachman, Gaberel, Angeliki Malikouti-Drachman, John Fykias and C. Klidi (eds.) 1997 Greek Linguistics '95: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Greek Linguistics, Salzburg, September 1995\ Vols. I—II. Graz: W. Neugebauer Verlag GmbH. Fox, Anthony 1995 Linguistic Reconstruction: An Introduction to Theory and Method. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haegeman, Liliane 1992 Generative Syntax: Theory and Description. A case study of West Flemish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1994 Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. (2nd edition.) Oxford: Blackwell. Haegeman, Liliane (ed.) 1997 Elements of Grammar: A Handbook in Generative Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Hale, Ken and Samuel J. Keyser (eds.) 1993 The view from Building 20. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Huang, Cheng-Teh James 1982 Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of Grammar. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.] Jannaris, Antonius Ν. 1897 An Historical Greek Grammar, chiefly of the Attic dialect. London: McMillan. Joseph, Brian D., Geoffrey Horrocks and Irene Philippaki-Warburton (eds.) 1998 Themes in Greek Linguistics II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kayne, Richard 1984 Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris. Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.) 2001 Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge Mass.: The MIT Press. Landau, Idan 2004 The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 811-877.

The syntax of Classical Greek infinitive

335

Lasnik, Howard 2001 Subjects, objects and the EPP. In Objects and other Subjects: Grammatical Functions, Functional Categories and Configurationality, William D. Davies and Stanley Dubinsky (eds.), 103-121. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Longobardi, Giuseppe 1996 The Syntax of N-Raising: A Minimalist Theory. (OTS Working Papers in Linguistics 96-005.) Manzini, Rita 1983 On control and control theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 421-^146. Martin, Roger 1996 A Minimalist Theory of PRO and Control. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut. 2001 Null case and the distribution of PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 141-166. Martin, Roger, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka (eds.) 2000 Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge Mass.: The MIT Press. Morrell, K. S. 1989 Studies on the Phrase Structure of Early Attic Prose. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. Ormazabal, Javier 1995 The Syntax of Complementation: On the Connection between Syntactic Structure and Selection. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut. Pesetsky, David 1991 Zero Syntax, vol. 2: Infinitives. Unpublished MS. Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego 2001 T-to-C Movement: Causes and consequences. In Ken Hale: A life in language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 335-426. Cambridge Mass.: The MIT Press. Pillinger, Ο. S. 1980 The accusative and infinitive in Latin: A Refractory Complement Clause. Journal of Linguistics 16: 55-83. Philippaki-Warburton, Irene and Georgia Catsimali 1989 'Accusativus-cum-infinitivo' sta arxea elinika (Accusativus-cum-infinitivo in Ancient Greek). Studies in Greek Linguistics 10: 89-108. 1991 The theory of control and raising in Ancient Greek and the status of PRO and NP-trace: Implications for the definition of subject. Unpublished MS. 1997 Control in Ancient Greek. In Greek Linguistics '95: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Greek Linguistics, Salzburg, September 1995: Vols. I—II, Gaberel Drachman, Angeliki MalikoutiDrachman, John Fykias and C. Klidi (eds.), Vol. II, 577-588. Graz: W. Neugebauer Verlag GmbH.

336

Vassilios

Spyropoulos

Philippaki-Warburton, Irene and Georgia Catsimali 1999 On Control in Greek. In Studies in Greek syntax, Artemis Alexiadou, Geoffrey Horrocks and Melita Stavrou (eds.), 153-168. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Philippaki-Warburton, Irene and Vassilios Spyropoulos 2002 Infinitely intriguing: The question of finiteness of Greek subjunctives. Paper presented at the Workshop on Greek Syntax: The Minimalist Seduction, University of Reading. in prep. That's how you get it under control: Greek subjunctives and controlled pro. Unpublished MS. Raposo, Eduardo 1987 Case theory and Infl-to-Com: The inflected infinitive in European Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 85-109. Rizzi, Luigi 1990 Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. 1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: A Handbook in Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Schwyzer, Eduard 1950 Griechische Grammatik. Zweiter Band: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik. München: C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Sevdali, Christina 2003 On the properties of Ancient Greek infinitive. Paper presented at the 6'h International Conference on Greek Linguistics, University of Crete, Rhethymnon. Smyth, Herbert Weir 1918 Greek Grammar. Harvard University Press. Spyropoulos, Vassilios 1998 The structure of small clauses in Modern Greek. In Themes in Greek Linguistics II, Brian D. Joseph, Geoffrey Horrocks and Irene Philippaki-Warburton (eds.), 169-196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1999 Agreement relations in Greek. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Reading.] 2005 Agreement and multiple case licensing in Greek. In Advances in Greek Generative Grammar, Melita Stavrou and Arhonto Terzi (eds.), 15-39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Stavrou, Melita and Arhonto Terzi (eds.) 2005 Advances in Greek Generative Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Stowell, Tim 1981 Origins of Phrase Structure. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. 1982 The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 561-570.

The syntax of Classical Greek infinitive

337

Szemerenyi, Oswald J. L. 1999 Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tantalou, Niki 2003 Infinitives with overt subjects in Classical Greek. Studies in Greek Linguistics 23: 358-365.

Latin object and subject infinitive clauses Lucio Melazzo The main Harvard Professor Joshua Whatmough, a rather pompous character, got up, interrupted after 10 minutes or so: "How would you handle..." and then he mentioned some obscure fact in Latin. I said I didn't know and tried to go on, but we got diverted and that's what we talked about for the rest of the time... (N. Chomsky, On Nature and Language)

The paper is organized as follows. In section 1 some data are presented which form the basis of my argument. Section 2 discusses the hypotheses that some scholars have made about the 'origin' of the accusative-andinfinitive construction. Section 3 examines the reasons which have been given for the accusative instead of the nominative as the case of the subject in infinitive clauses. Section 4 is devoted to the claim that object infinitive clauses are CPs. In section 5 a new structure for object infinitive clauses is proposed. Section 6 contains a first attempt to explain the case used for the subject in object infinitive clauses. Section 7 analyses subject infinitive clauses, which are held to have the same structure as object infinitive clauses. Section 8 makes some conclusive remarks and describes the new directions of research that the author proposes to follow.

1. The data Should any demonstration be needed, sentences (1) - (3) show that infinitive clauses in Latin exhibit a subject in the accusative.1 (1)

a. Nam constitui cum quodam hospite forCONJ agreePF IND ι SG with a-certainABL f o r e i g n e r ^ me esse ilium conventuram I A C C be PRES .INF he ACC meet FUT PPLE 'For I agreed with a certain foreigner that I would meet him.' (TER. Hec. 195-196)

340 Lucio Melazzo b. Teque

cognomen

non solum Athenis

you A C C -and c o g n o m e n A C C not only

humanitatem et culture A C C

prudentiam

deportasse sed

Athens A B L bring PF

INF

but

intellego

and w i s d o m A C C

be-aware P R E S . I N D .i. S G

'and I am aware that y o u brought h o m e from Athens not only a c o g n o m e n but culture and (practical) w i s d o m too.' (CIC. Sen. 1.1)

(2)

a. Romam

erat

nuntiatum [...]

fugisse

Antonium

R o m e A C C be [M p F I N D 3 SG announce P F PPLE N N 0 M f!ee P P INF Antony A C C 'It had been announced that Antony had fled to R o m e . ' (CIC. Fam. 11.12.1)

b. Difficile

est

amicitiam

manere,

hard ADJ .N.NOM be PRES .IND.3.SG friendship A C C remain P R E S

si a

virtute

defeceris

if

virtue^

departPF.SUBJ.2.sG

from

INF

'It is hard for friendship to remain if you have forsaken virtue.'

(CIC. Amic. 11.37)

(3)

a. Sed ego id

respondeo [...]

te

dolorem ferre

but InOM rtpRON.N.ACC replypREs .IND.l.SG y ° u A c c grief A C C

moderate,

nec

potuisse

in-a-dignified-manner A D V , not-and be-able P F

commoveri,

nec

fuisse

id

ucdl

PRES. INF

non [NF

not

humanitatis

tuae

move

PREs.iNF.PAss not-and be P F J N F it ACC humanity G E N your G E N 'But I reply that you bear grief in a dignified manner, you could not have been unmoved by it nor was this (part) o f your humanity.'

(CIC. Amic. 2.8) b. Illud

quidem nec

faciendum

est

thatpRQM.N.NOM indeed not-and to-be-done G D V E

nec

fieri

potest,

me

N N0M

be PRES

not-and happen P R E S 1 N F be-able P R E S . [ N D . 3 . S G I ACC longer A D V

tam

misera

tamque

turpi

[ND.3.SG

diutius [...] in in PREP

vita

s o A D V wretchedABL.sa s o ^ y - a n d ignominiousABL.so life A B L

commorari linger PRES .INF 'Indeed this neither must nor can be done: that I (should) linger (any) longer in a life so wretched and ignominious.' (CIC. Q. f r . 1.3.6)

Latin object and subject infinitive clauses

341

The subject is always in the accusative, regardless of the type of the infinitive clauses. In conformity with traditional classification these are divided into object clauses, e.g. those in (1); subject clauses, e.g. those in (2); and epexegetical clauses, e.g. those in (3). Besides infinitive clauses, there was another type of clause which may be held equivalent to the finite ίΛαί-clause of English, as exemplified in (4). (4)

a. Prae.tereo quod [...] earn sibi domum pass-overpRESjND.i.sc that C0 Nj that ADJ F.ACC herself DAT home ACC sedemque delegit residence A C C -and choose PF-IND .3 SG Ί pass over (the fact) that (she) chose for herself that residence and home.' (CIC. C/w.188) b. Accidit perincommode, quod eum nusquam happen PF jND 3 SG unfortunately ADV that C0NJ he ACC nowhere vidisti See

PF.IND.2.SG

'It happened most unfortunately that you did not see him anywhere.' (CIC. Att. 1.17.2) c. Hoc reprehendis, quod solere thispRQN.N.ACc blamePRES IND 2.SG thatC0NJ be-in-the-habitPRES 1NF me dicas de me ipso IaCC

Sa

yPRES.SUBJ.2.SG

gloriosius boastfullyadv.compar

a b o u t p R E p 'ABL ( m y ) s e l f A B L

praedicare praisePRESINF

'You blame (me for) this: that you say I am (i.e. that I am, as you say,) in the habit of speaking about myself too boastfully.' (CIC. Dom. 93.1-2) d. Quod omnes Siculi[...J Romae sunt, that C0NJ alljNDEp M N 0 M PL Sicilian M N 0 M PL Rome GEN be PRES ^ 3 PL nihilne id valebitl nothing 1NTERRPTCI it N0M be-worth F U T J N D 3 S G 'That all Sicilians are in Rome, will this be worth nothing?' (CIC. Ver. 1.1.20) In this type the clause introduced by quod had its verb in the indicative as in (4a), (4b) and (4d), or in the subjunctive as in (4c) and its subject, when phonetically realized, in the nominative. It is precisely the continuation of

342

Lucio

Melazzo

this type with the so called declarative quod that is found in the Romance languages. 2 In these languages, on the other hand, there exist no infinitive clauses corresponding precisely to the Latin infinitive clauses of the type exemplified in ( l ) - ( 3 ) . This situation is related to a diachronic change which affected this area of Latin syntax: quod-clauses of the kind presented in (4) had begun to supplant infinitive clauses in Latin since the 2 nd century AD. 3 Bearing in mind this circumstance and considering that both infinitive clauses and quod-clauses in Latin could occur in the same contexts introduced by the same verbs, school grammarians speak of object quod-c\msQS, subject quod-c\auses, epexegetical object quod-clauses, and epexegetical subject quod-clauses. These types are exemplified in 4(a-d). They also define clauses like those in (4) introduced by quod as explicit (i.e. finite), and describe the corresponding clauses in the infinitive as implicit (i.e. nonfinite).

2. The origin of the construction When considered from a typological point of view, the construction that Latin grammarians called ACCUSATIUUS CUM INFINITIUO (henceforth Acl) is rarely found in other languages. 4 This kind of construction seems likely to go back to Indo-European, for it is also attested in Hittite, Vedic Sanskrit, Iranian, Ancient Greek and Osco-Umbrian, 5 but it was precisely in Latin that the construction attained its greatest development and found a variety of usages without equal in other Indo-European languages. Reams of pages have been written to account for the origin of this construction, but a definitive solution has not been found yet. As Pinkster (1990: 126 and 140) says, however, each and every one of the theories which have been formulated, reasonable though it may seem, offers somewhat too simplistic an explanation to prove convincing. At present the most accredited theory, or at least the theory which seems the most trustworthy, posits that Acl started in dependence on verbs taking a double accusative and then spread to other areas. 6 This theory has been gradually elaborated in the last three or four decades. Thus the case of the subject of Latin object infinitive clauses is traditionally described as the accusative of the object of the verb in the superordinate clause. According to Calboli (1962: 3), 7 as there was (5) so there existed also (6) in Latin.

Latin object and subject infinitive clauses

(5)

Doceo aliquem grammaticam teachpREs.nro.i.sG somebody ACC grammar ACC Ί teach somebody grammar.'

(6)

Doceo aliquem sapere teach PRESIND .i.sG somebody ACC know PRESINF Ί teach somebody to know.'

343

In (5) two distinct accusative forms combined with doceo, while in (6) aliquem was the object of doceo. Thus (7) can be explained in the light of (6). (7)

Dicunt Sa

yPRES.IND.3.PL

me W c

uenire come

PRES.INF

'They say that I am coming.' The pronominal form me in (7) was originally the object of dicunt and then could be understood as a real subject of the infinitive form uenire. This, on the other hand, was intrinsically a verbal noun but eventually came to be equated with finite verb forms with their distinctions of tense and concord. Bolkenstein (1976) rightly rejected the hypothesis, supported by ErnoutThomas (1953: 271), that Acl originated in structures where perception verbs were involved, for these verbs always admit of two interpretations: the one has a merely perceptive value, the other is connected with a perceptivecognitive purport. 8 Bolkenstein (1976) also excludes that Acl has structures with verbs like admonere 'to advise' as its starting point. In point of fact, sentence (8) allows of two interpretations, as (9) and (10) make these clear. (8)

Admonet eum loqui advise PRES IND 3 SG he A cc speak PRFS INF 'He advises him to speak.'

(9)

pro admonet eum [loqui],

(10) pro admonet [eum loqui]. In (9) eum depends directly on the main verb, which is not the case in (10). On analogous grounds Miller (1974) denies that the origin of Acl can be found in structures with a verb like docere, as was implicitly suggested by

344

Lucio Melazzo

Ernout-Thomas (1953: 271) and accepted and further developed by Calboli (1962). Once again structures having verbs of the type of docere followed by Acl may be in fact interpreted in two different ways. So, for example, in (6) aliquem may be regarded as either the object of doceo or the subject of sapere, and in the first of these two alternatives sapere must be taken to have originally had a 'jussive' function similar to that of an imperative. Sentences with command verbs (VERBA IUBENDI) as main predicates also permit of a double interpretation. This is shown by (12) and (13) in relation to (11). (11) Iussi eum abire commandpp.rND.i.so heACC depart PRES . mF Ί commanded him to go away.' (12) pro iussi eum [abire], (13) pro iussi [eum abire]. Whether the structure of (11) is (12) or (13), however, the reference of pro exercises some control, and the difference is that between direct and indirect commands. Therefore Hahn (1950), Hofmann-Szantyr (1966: 3 5 3 354), Miller (1974), Wales (1982), Baldi (1983) and Wanner (1987: 69-70 and 304-305) consider Acl to have originated from sentences like ( l l ) . 9 Nevertheless, both syntactic and semantic reasons prevent such a hypothesis from carrying much conviction: Acl could hardly have developed beginning from sentences which were either susceptible of two structural analyses connected with two diverse interpretations or containing a main verb rather different in meaning from either a speech-act or a mental-state verb. Hence it is not surprising that other proposals should have been made. These, however, have been neither revolutionary nor more convincing. Generally this type of explanation conjures up the image of a dog biting its own tail: it circles round the question without managing to find any way out that would allow it to set off along a tangent in search of new paths to tread. Christol (1989) supposes Acl to have developed from a proleptic construction of Proto-Indo-European: in such a construction an extracted, i.e. proleptic, item is assigned Case in the position of the sentence where it has landed. 10 Hettrich (1992: 222, note 4) regards Acl as a substitute for an earlier construction with a double accusative or with an accusative form and a predicative adverb, while Pinkster (1990: 126-130) suggests that Acl should be distinguished from other constructions which similarly exhibit an

Latin object and subject infinitive clauses

345

infinitive. Acl should be exclusively related to object infinitive clauses like that in (7): in this sentence me and uenire both constitute one argument of dicunt and fulfil the grammatical function of complement of this verb, while in no circumstances can me refer to the addressee of the speech act that dicunt alludes to.

3. The question of the case of the subject In all likelihood the various attempts at an explanation of Acl in some diachronic perspective have derived from a persisting shortage of any theoretical justification for the subject of the object infinitive clauses occurring in the accusative. Dealing with Acl has been only a matter of giving a good reason for the accusative instead of the nominative as the case of the subject of a verb in the infinitive. Many solutions have been put forward; all are however open to criticism. I shall now discuss most of them. Bolkenstein (1989: 32) assumes that Latin non-finite clauses may have their own subject constituent, and that there is a rule which assigns the accusative case form to these subjects instead of the nominative case form, which is assigned to subjects of finite verb forms. As is immediately obvious, however, such a proposal eludes the problem rather than solve it. Baldi (1983) states that the accusative is due to perceptive-cognitive reasons, the subject of the infinitive clause occurring in the position of the complement of the finite verb form. Although it was accepted by Kurzovä (1989: 26), this hypothesis has at least one weak point. If (7) is taken into account, it is hard to believe that there the accusative form me is governed by the verb which the infinitive clause depends on, and Baldi does not give any reason for this oddity; nor does he elucidate the question of how Acl came to be extended to clauses including verbs of diverse groups. Analogously, albeit on different assumptions, Christol (1989) views the assignment of the accusative case to the subject of an object infinitive clause as the transfer of the specific grammatical function of direct object from the subordinate clause as a whole to the word naming who or what performs or undergoes the action stated by the infinitive verb form. Though not faultless, L a k o f f s (1968) work arouses interest in this question among linguists acting within the framework of generative grammar. Acl is initially accounted for by resorting to a rule called SUBJECT-TOOBJECT RAISING. So Saltarelli (1976) and Pepicello (1977 and 1980) have the subject of the dependent clause rise and come to be the object of the

346

Lucio Melazzo

verb in the superordinate clause. Bolkenstein (1989) and Maraldi (1983), however, demonstrate that such a rule has never existed and that the accusative marks the subject of the infinitive clause. 11 The approach to the problem has changed since Chomsky (1981). As is well known, English accusative-and-infinitive constructions like (14) get a different explanation. (14) I believe him to be a fool. Object clauses like him to be a fool in (14) are in fact thought not to have a left periphery, i.e. a CP-layer, and to be the complement of the upper V. This is what is usually called ECM (EXCEPTIONAL CASE-MARKING), a notion that Chomsky (1995) deals with again. As a notion, ECM is generally accepted in generative grammar and continues to stimulate researchers to further efforts to explain it. See e.g. Lopez's (2001) and Tanaka's (1999) recent attempts. This hypothesis has been accepted and adapted to shed light on Latin infinitive clauses even though Chomsky (1988: 140, note 25) himself recognizes that the case of accusative subjects of infinitives in Greek or Latin remains more problematic. Chomsky's theory finds an application to Latin in Calboli (1983) and Maraldi (1983). According to Calboli (1983), 12 (15) should have (16) as a structure. (15) lube hunc abire hinc aliquo command I M P 2.SG thisPR0N.M.ACc depart PRES . INF hence elsewhere 'Command this (man) to depart from here for (i.e. and go) somewhere else.' (16) lube hunc [s PRO abire hinc

aliquo].

Structure (16) is typical of sentences with an object-control predicate, and thus, as the object of the main verb, hunc controls the PRO subject of the infinitive complement. 1 3 On the other hand, (17) is different from (15). (17) Dico sa

[s te

bonum

yPRES .IND.l.SG you A C C good ACC Ί say that you are good.'

esse] UC

PRES.INF

In (17) dico is not a control verb. So it can assign the objective case to the pronoun te in as much as the IP of the esse-clause, not being dominated by

Latin object and subject infinitive clauses

347

a CP, does not constitute a barrier to government. 14 This hypothesis clashes with subject infinitive phrases like those in (2a) and (2b). In fact, the main clauses of these sentences contain predicates which appear unfit for the assignment of the accusative case.15 In spite of this, Calboli (1983) proposes that subject infinitive clauses must have sprung up when the accusative was already widely used as the case of the subject of clauses with a verb in the infinitive form. 16 Undoubtedly, some of the arguments that have been referred to take the absence of a CP into account. Should such a projection be present in the structure of the clause, it is supposed to constitute a barrier; otherwise the subject of any complement clause, including those introduced by quod, would receive its case from the V° of the matrix clause. Conversely, Cecchetto-Oniga (2002) do not exclude the presence of a CP in Acl clauses and conclude that these do not entail ECM. They assume that the subject of infinitive clauses is assigned the accusative case by an empty affixal complementizer which they term 0COMP· They claim that such a complementizer satisfies its affixal character by having the infinitive moved to its position in LF.' 7 It might also be worth noting that Tantalou (2003) suggests that Acl syntax in Ancient Greek should be described in the same way in as much as the CP-status of infinitive clauses in the Acl construction of that language cannot be questioned, and that in this miscellany Spyropoulos follows a similar line.

4. The presence of a left periphery in the Latin Acl construction The first question to be answered concerns the presence of left periphery in infinitive clauses. The case of Italian and Portuguese infinitives is well known. As Rizzi (1982: 78 ff.) showed, sentences like those in (18) assure the presence, in formal Italian, of subordinate clauses with an auxiliary in the infinitive and, as appears in (18c), a subject in the nominative. 18 (18) a. La Corte ha deliberato esser I'imputato the Court havePRES.IND.3.SG ruleP.PPLE bePRES.INF the defendant 'The Court has ruled the defendant to be innocent.' innocente innocent

348

Lucio Melazzo b. *La Corte ha deliberato l 'imputato esser the Court havepREs.jND.s.sc ™leP.PPLE the defendant bePRESUNF innocente innocent 'The Court has ruled the defendant to be innocent.' c. La Corte ha deliberato esser tu innocente the Court h a v e P R E S i [ N D . 3 . S G rulep.pp LE be PRES . INF you NOM innocent 'The Court has ruled you to be innocent.'

Further, from the contrast displayed in (19), which I have taken from Raposo (1987: 87), it is clear that a similar situation is to be found in Portuguese: (19) a. Eu

penso / afirmo

[terem

os

deputados

think / maintainPRES J N ι SG havePRES.INF the N0M delegates N0M trabalhado pouco ] work PPPLE littleADV Ί think /maintain that the delegates have worked little (i.e. done little work).' INOM

b. *Eu

D

penso / afirmo

[05

deputados

terem

think / maintainPRES.i.SG [theNOM delegates NOM haveINF PRES trabalhado pouco], workp.PPLE littleADV] Ί think / maintain that the delegates have worked little.' INOM

Nonetheless, Portuguese differs from Italian in that it has two infinitive forms, one of which is inflected. As in (18a) and (18b), so in (19a) and (19b), the auxiliary in the inflected form terem occurs to the left and to the right respectively of the subject os deputados, its position being the determinant of grammaticality.' 9 To account for cases like those of (18) in Italian and of (19) in Portuguese, a head-movement has been hypothesized and denominated AUX-TOCOMP and INFL-TO-C respectively. As for Italian, the nominative would be assigned to the subject of the infinitive clause by a special rule which Rizzi (1982: 87) formalizes as follows: (20) Assign Nominative Case to NP in the context Aux

.

Latin object and subject infinitive clauses

349

Similarly, Raposo (1987: 92 and 95) puts forward (21) as an explanation of the Case assignment to the subject of the infinitive clause in Portuguese. (21) a. In the absence of [+Tense], Infi (or Agr in Infi) is capable of assigning (the 20 ) nominative Case to a lexical subject only if it is itself specified for Case b. penso

[CP[C[C/T[I

Agr],] [ IP os deputados [,· t, VP]]]].

(21b) shows in a precise manner the movement of the inflected infinitive from I to CT, the head C + the operator T(ense). This movement allows (Agr in) Infi to be specified for case. Supposing the situation is as described with regard to the presence of a CP-layer, the grammatical structure of object infinitive clauses will be considered susceptible of variation from one language to another, regardless of their degree of kinship so that languages related to each other can be opposed to each other or even to their own ancestor. Latin could in fact have infinitive clauses devoid of a CP-layer and could therefore differ in this respect from Italian and Portuguese, which developed from it. In principle there is no reason why this could not be the case; the facts, however, point to a different conclusion. Let me consider (22) and (23) for the sake of argument. (22) Haec memini, et uictum thisN.Acc.PL remember PF IND i SG and vanquishp.PPLE.M.ACC.SG frustra contendere Thyrsin in-vain strivePREsj^p Thyrsis ACC 'These things I remember, and that Thyrsis, vanquished, strove in vain.'

(VERG.

Eel.7.69)

(23) Plurima quae no-end-of-things SUPERL N .ACC.PL w hich R E L P R O N N A C C P L invideant pure adparere tibi rem prevent PRES SUB j 3 pl clearly appear PRES . !NF you DAT matter ACC 'No end of things which prevent the matter from appearing clearly to you.' (HOR. 5. 1.2.100) As instances of an OV language with a non-rigid order, 21 both these passages deserve the greatest attention in that they supply some decisive data. Indeed, if (22) and (23) are regarded from the perspective of Kayne's (1994) antisymmetry of syntax, then uictum frustra contendere and pure adparere

350

Lucio Melazzo

tibi, once they have been moved, must have ended up in some functional position, and the place where they are found in their respective strings must be in the structure of split-CP which has been proposed by Rizzi (1997). I shall not go into details about this matter now. 2 2 1 shall instead quote (24) in support of what I have just stated. (24) Negat

Piso

scire

se [...]

quicquam

denyPRES.IND.3.sG Piso NOM know PRES . INF himself ACC anything N ACC SG 'Piso denies he knows (of) anything.' (CIC. Phil. 12.3.4) Accordingly, (24) helps to show that object infinitive clauses in Latin cannot be regarded as devoid of left periphery. In point of fact, scire has moved upwards beyond its subject, which is the long anaphor se. The facts speak for themselves, and (24) has not been chosen at random. It is an instance taken from a prose work by such a writer as Cicero, who is esteemed an authority of the utmost importance on Latin language and style. 23 Of course, many passages could have been cited here from texts either in verse or in prose, but an instance taken from prose writings has been preferred to convince those who believe that poetry enjoys a great deal of freedom to change the normal rules of language. If I am on the right track and Latin object infinitive clauses also have a left periphery, then credence should be given to L a k o f f s (1968: 5) view that the structures of two constructions which can be esteemed equivalent to each other are unlikely to be different. 24 So similar were infinitive clauses and gwoJ-clauses that the latter was to supplant the former, with which it had coexisted for a long time. Hence, to speak of infinitive clauses as possessing the structure of a CP as well does not in any way sound odd.

5. The structure of Latin infinitive clauses A second question is that of the structure of the construction. To attempt to settle the matter I propose first taking account of sentences like (3a) and (3b). The theories of the origin of Acl would have run into some difficulties with sentences like (3a) if they had been formed on the evidence of real texts rather than on the basis of fictitious examples. Indeed in (3 a) the main verb respondeo would have had to assign the accusative case to its own complement, the first id, which is singular and neuter in gender, and to the subjects of the infinitive clauses, te and the second id.25 All in all, a con-

Latin object and subject infinitive clauses

351

ceivable way of solving the problem would be for (3a) to have a structure like (25). (25)

CP

ego, id,

IP

t'/ respondeoi

VP

te dolorem... ferre moderate

fuisse id humanitatis tuae

potuisse non commoveri As can be easily seen in (25), the first id in (3a) is assumed to have landed at a place in the highest CP-layer - possibly Spec,Foe - by moving from the specifier position of a DP which has an &P as its complement. Alternatively, it could be assumed that it occupies the head position in DP, and the matrix DP is focussed, with the &P extraposed. The complement of this &P, whose head is the second nec of (3a), is the CP represented by the string fuisse id humanitatis tuae, while its specifier position is filled by another &P with the first nec in (3a) as a head and two CPs occupying the other two positions: te dolorem... ferre moderate is found in the position of the specifier, whereas potuisse non commoveri occurs in that of the complement.

352

Lucio Melazzo

It is now worth considering cases like (4c), which undoubtedly permits one to infer (26) as its structure.

reprehend is,

solere^ me w ty dicas

ι* tw de m e ipso gloriosius praedicare When considered carefully, (26) indicates that hoc in (4c) has undergone a m o v e m e n t parallel to that described for the id of (3a) in (25): the startingpoint is identical and the final destination in the CP-layer might also be the same. Consistently with both the school grammarians' view mentioned at the end of section 1 and the observation that the use of a non-finite verb in a Latin A c l construction is always accompanied by a null complementizer, a finite verb being only found with an overt complementizer, (25) and (26) suggest that both Latin object clauses (that with the verb in the infinitive and that introduced by quod) are base-generated in the complement position of a D P with another DP as a specifier 2 6 while, as is shown in (25), the possibility is not excluded that a &P is inserted into this complement position of the former DP. 2 7 Odd though it might appear, my hypothesis that Latin Acl constructions are CPs embedded within a DP the specifier of which is filled by another DP is not groundless. After all, this proposal provides some syntactic foundation for the semantic intuition that Acl con-

Latin object and subject infinitive clauses

353

structions and declarative gwod-clauses function as noun phrases: object and subject are terms that usually refer to NPs, and NPs join with a D-head to project it into a DP exactly as CPs are assumed to do in the constructions here at issue. Notwithstanding this consideration, someone might find it difficult to attribute the structures described in (25) and (26) to Latin, a language bereft of articles. Latin, however, did have demonstrative adjectives and pronouns, and demonstrative adjectives and pronouns have been held to project a full structure in the specifier position of the nominal extended projection (DP), while the article has been regarded as a functional head (D). According to Giusti (2001: 159-168), in the process of change which led from Latin to Romance languages it was a demonstrative adjective that was reinterpreted as an element of D.28 So, what still needs to be specified is that the demonstrative pronoun of the full structure in Spec,DP may be either overt and move as in (3a) and (4c) or covert as in (la), (lb) and (4a). In this perspective Greek sentences like (27) are also of great interest. (27) to min ού pote elpeto thumöi \ tethndmen theART.N.so he ACC not ever s u p p o s e ^ . , ^ ^ mind DAT diePF.INF 'Never did he suppose in his mind that he had died.' (HOM .11. 17.404-405) Note that, unlike Latin, Ancient Greek had the definite article, which originally was a demonstrative pronoun. In the neuter gender, this Greek form could precede infinitive clauses. It is all grist to the mill from my perspective, for this further evidence is corroboration of the interpretation I propose. Indeed, to in (27) has landed at a position in the higher CP-layer as id has in (3a). In (3a) id is preceded by ego, the topicalized subject of respondeo; so it can be assumed to occupy the lower Spec,Top of the higher CP-layer. In (27) to is followed by the enclitic pronoun min in compliance with Wackernagel's (1892) law. Being the subject of the infinitive clause with tethndmen as a predicate, the accusative form min must consequently have moved to its final place via some position in the lower CP-layer. 29 The syntactic status of Wackernagel's Law should be clarified before reaching a decision on this matter. 30 As to the position from which to in (27) started to move, consider (28).

354

Lucio Melazzo

(28) Ho

Tissaphernes

theART.M.NOM.sG

autä

proaisthomenos

tä

Tissaphernes N OM get-wind-of A oR.ppLE.M.NOM.sG theN.ACC.PL

taüta

bouleuomenös consider-the-possibility-ofPRES.PPLE.M A C C . P L aposthenai pros Kyron ... g o - o v e r A O R . I N F TOPREP Cyrus AC c 'Having got wind of (their) considering the possibility of going over to Cyrus, Tissaphernes...' (Xen. An. 1.1.7) same N .Acc.PL that PR0 N.N.ACc.PL

Notice that, independently of the presence of an overt subject in the complement clause aposthenai pros Kyron, tä autä taüta corresponds closely to id in (3 a), while the three determiners which compose this Greek string can be imagined as filling three different places in (29).

Hence, Ancient Greek allows us to consider (30) as a structure of infinitive clauses. (30) [ DP DP [D° CP]] Here D°, combining with CP, also has a DP as its specifier. Like id in (3 a), to in (27) might have been base generated in the DP filling the specifier position in (30). 31 For the time being, however, I am not able to be any more precise. Further clarification of my hypothesis on the structure of Latin infinitive clauses can be provided by (31)—(33), in that they give more details about (22)-(24), which were cited in the previous section.

Latin object and subject infinitive clauses (31)

CP haec,

IP

pro, meminit

VP t, t*

&P t,

&P et

DP CP

P R O victum, frustra y contendere.

IP ty Thyrsin w t'z

VP tx t w t 2

(32)

DP

plurima

CP quae,

IP

t, invideanti

VP

DP

Δ t/

VP tk

DP CP pure ; adparere v IP tibi v rem,,, tV t,

VP tvv t.v t y

355

356

Lucio Melazzo

(33)

CP negat,

IP Piso, t,

VP t, t,

DP pro

CP scire*

IP se* f ,

VP ti t j quicquam

As (31) shows sufficiently, in (22) haec and uictum frustra contendere Tyrsin combine with et, the head of &P. Haec has been raised to Spec,Top in the higher split-CP. On the other hand, in the second coordinated member, which has (30) as a structure, PRO uictum, frustra, and contendere have moved, directly or by successive stages, from where they had been basegenerated, and have landed at three different positions in the lower split-CP. Except perhaps in the case of PRO uictum, an adjunct that has the structure of a small clause and once occupied a specifier position within the DP constituting the external argument of contendere, each of these movements that have been assumed is canonical and can be easily followed in the tree sketched in (31). If examined more closely, the part of (32) where the constitution of the infinitive clause is presented indicates that pure and adparere in (23) have eventually reached some positions in the split-CP, and the same applies to tibi, the complement of adparere. However, both the pronominal form immediately to the right of the verb in the infinitive and some contingent nuances of meaning, which are of course a matter of interpretation, make it likely that the positions which frustra and contendere in (22) have risen to occupy do not correspond to those at which pure and adparere in (23) have finally arrived. As far as (24) is concerned, (33) displays a lower CP-layer which is, as it were, less heavy than those manifested by (31) and (32), for only the infinitive scire has been raised to the CP-layer, while like Thyrsin in (22) and rem in (23), se, the subject of the infinitive clause, does not move out of the IPlayer. Moreover, (31)-(33) reveal that in (22)-(24) the determiner combining

Latin object and subject infinitive clauses

357

with the CP of the infinitive clause to be projected into a DP is covert exactly like the determiner which is the head of the projection in the specifier position of this DP. Now, however synchronic my analysis may be, some diachronic considerations cannot be avoided. A series of syntactic correlations are generally admitted to have existed in Proto-Indo-European. When applied to clauses which were mutually connected, they were expressed by two different words: one of these derived from the w/z-stem *kwo-/ *kwi- while in the other the form */- (or previously *to-) could be recognized which constituted a base for both prenominal and pronominal determiners. These correlations are assumed to have changed historically as follows: (34)

kwo- ... *toPhase 1

*kwo- ... */- -> Phase 2

*i- ... *kwoPhase 3

0 ... *kwoPhase 4

This is the pattern which Haudry (1973) and Lehmann (1974) have called 'diptyque normale' and 'correlative diptych' respectively. In this pattern, in which the w/z-word originally preceded and eventually followed the determiner, the correlation had a meaning which can be exemplified by expressions like 'the man who/the thing which... this man!this thing...' corresponding to the Latin 'qui!quod... is/id...'.32 The transition from the IndoEuropean to the Latin phase has been convincingly stated by Haudry (1973), who recognizes three different stages in the process of change. Here it is worth noting that the w/2-form could be converted to a complementizer only when, as described by Phase 3 in (34), the two members of the diptych had already inverted their positions. 33 In all likelihood it can be maintained that the structure of both the Latin constructions here at issue, that with the subject in the accusative and the verb in the infinitive, and that with quod and a finite verb form, is directly related to Phase 3 or Phase 4 of (33), the neuter pronoun, either overt or covert, and the infinitive clause or the quod-clause being the two members of a correlative diptych. As things stand, the structure of both the Latin object quod-clause or, as will be said in section 7, the subject quod-clause and its or their counterpart with covert C° and verb in the infinitive somewhat resembles that of English relative clauses which has been proposed by Kayne (1994) and is reproduced here as (35). (35)

[Dp D° CP]

358

Lucio Melazzo

6. The reason why the subject of Latin infinitive clauses is in the accusative Although I am not yet able to present a thorough solution of the particular case assignment characterizing the construction at issue, I am inclined to believe that the accusative case of the subject of infinitive clauses is licensed by something in the CP-layer. This section will be devoted to the exposition of the reasons that induce me to make such a hypothesis. To begin with I think it useful to take account of cases like (36) and (37), which display instances of what is traditionally called the historical infinitive: (36) Invidere omnes mihi, \ mordere clanculum; ego envyPREs.iNF nom.pl Idat backbitepRgs.iNF on-the-sly ADV Inom non flocci pendere not strawGEN hold PRESJNF 'All envy me and backbite me on the sly, I do not care a straw.' (TER. Eu.

410-411)

(37) Ubi minitari Artabanus [...] rector Syriae ascow threatenPRES INF ArtabanusN0M governorNOM Syria