Reconsidering The History of Latin PDF

Reconsidering the History of Latin and Sabellic Adpositional Morphosyntax
Benjamin W. Fortson IV
American Journal of Philology, Volume 131, Number 1 (Whole Number 521), Spring 2010, pp. 121-154 (Article) Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press DOI: 10.1353/ajp.0.0092
For additional information about this article

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ajp/summary/v131/131.1.fortson.html
Access provided by CNRS BiblioSHS (22 Jan 2014 17:18 GMT)
RECONSIDERING THE HISTORY OF LATIN AND SABELLIC ADPOSITIONAL MORPHOSYNTAX

BENJAMIN W. FORTSON IV
u
Abstract. Latin constructions of the type magna cum laude with great praise have traditionally been equated structurally and historically with univerbated phrases of the type mecum with me and further with postpositional constructions in Sabellic like Umbrian nertru-co persi at the left foot. Moreover, all three have been adduced as archaic survivals of postpositional syntax in Italic. A detailed investigation of both the synchrony and diachrony of these constructions, however, reveals that these conclusions are for the most part incorrect and that our historical account of the evolution of adpositional syntax in both branches of Italic must be revised.
1.1. ONE Of THE HALLMARKS Of LATIN is a type of discontinuous prepositional phrase in which, descriptively, the preposition appears inside its object noun phrase, the well-known magna cum laude construction.1 Bearing a certain resemblance to this construction, and often equated with it,2 is the rule that the preposition cum becomes a postposed clitic when its object is a personal, relative, or interrogative pronoun, as in mecum, with me and quibuscum, with whom. Further comparison of one or both of these constructions with the behavior of adpositions in the related Sabellic (Osco-Umbrian) languages has always suggested itself,3 for in these languages certain adpositions are postpositional and attached as enclitics typically to the rst word in the adpositional phrase, as in Umbrian nertruco persi, at (his) left foot, VIb 37, 394 (-co = Lat.
Or magna cum cura construction, depending on ones level of anxiety. A connection between the two has been imputed most recently by Clackson 2004b, 806; from older literature, note Leo 1895, 418; Wackernagel 1928, 2.201; and Drexler 1965, 85, inter alia. 3 The comparison has been voiced by, e.g., von Planta 189697, 2.441; Poultney 1959, 156; and Szantyr 1972, 215. 4 Umbrian examples are drawn from the Iguvine Tables and are referred to by tablet and line number; other Sabellic texts are cited according to Rix 2002. Faliscan texts are cited according to the edition of Giacomelli 1963.
1 2
American Journal of Philology 131 (2010) 121154 2010 by The Johns Hopkins University Press
122
benjamin w. fortson IV
cum); and tertiama spanti,5 at the third dish, IV 2 (-a = Lat. ad). This type of syntagm, which I will henceforth be calling the Sabellic nertruco persi construction, thus combines the word order of magna cum laude with the enclisis seen in mecum. 1.2. Basic historical linguistic methodology would predispose us to view Latin mecum and its ilk as archaic holdovers, since postpositional enclitic -cum is exceptional and unproductive. The purported connection between mecum and the magna cum laude construction, together with their purported relationship to the Sabellic nertruco persi construction, only bolsters this sense: enclitic -cum in mecum is prosodically comparable to the enclitic postposition in nertruco persi, and postpositional placement of adpositions is characteristic especially of the more ancient branches of Indo-European. Thus we might conclude that mecum and the magna cum laude construction are the last vestiges of postpositional syntax in Latin. Such considerations have led to the explicit or implicit further claim that prehistoric or early Latin was more postpositional than its classical descendant.6 1.3. The purpose of this paper is to reexamine the historical analyses of these three constructions and show that the interrelated claims in 1.2 are in need of heavy revision. It will be demonstrated, rst, that the magna cum laude and nertruco persi constructions are synchronically different; second, that the origins of the two constructions are also different; third, that the mecum construction is not especially archaic; and fourth, that neither Latin nor the rest of Italic was richer in postpositional syntax at an earlier date than during the historical period. Along the way, synchronic and diachronic analyses of all three constructions will be offered. 2. We will rst treat the synchronic description of the magna cum laude and nertruco persi constructions, starting with the latter, which has been the object of some recent interest by Wilhelm (1999)7 and Clack5 Following the standard convention, boldface is used for the transcription of forms in non-Latin Italic alphabets, and italics are used otherwise. Emphasis or highlighting will be indicated by underlining. 6 Lindsay 1907, 82; Leo 1895, 418; von Planta 189697, 2.490 (cf. also 440); Bauer 1995, 130, 132, 135; Wilhelm 2001, 164, 16869; Clackson 2004b, 806; Bakkum 2009, 304; cf. also Scherer 1975, 29 (mecum etc. are Reste alter Nachstellung); Wilhelm 1999, 88 (mecum etc. are traces of postposing). The only hint of a voice that I have yet found that appears to allow a different possibility is Baldi 1990, 49, repeated almost verbatim in 1998, 81: Discovering such patterns [scil., basic word-orders] and drawing inferences for reconstruction depends crucially on the assumption that such marked structures as the Latin postpositions are indeed archaisms and not innovations. 7 Revised and expanded as chap. 4 of his dissertation (2001). As the conclusions there are not materially different, I shall generally be citing only the more widely available 1999 study.
latin and sabellic adpositional morphosyntax
123
son (2004a). In Umbrian, ve adpositions typically or always8 occur as postpositional clitics: -ar=, -a, up to; kum, ku, -com, -co, at, with; -en, em, -e, -e, -(e)m, in(to); per, -pe, -per, on behalf of; and ta, tu, -to from. A postposition normally appears added to the rst word in a postpositional phrase unless that word is a pronominal genitive (as in erer nomneper, by/through this ones name passim). 2.1. Wilhelm (1999, 93) argues that Umbrian postpositions were second-position clitics within their phrase. In his discussion of apparent exceptions like erer nomneper just mentioned, he suggests that the genitive demonstrative erer formed a single unit with the following noun, much as in Latin (univerbated) huiusmodi, so that in fact the postposition was placed second in its phrase. But he admits that the consistent spelling with word-break after erer renders this interpretation difcult, and he is right to hesitate. First of all, the comparison with huiusmodi is not apt, since huius is a demonstrative modier or determiner, whereas erer is a pronominal that is not a modier: determiners are prone to destressing and being incorporated into the prosodic domain of the noun that they modify, while (non-adjectival) pronouns generally remain fully stressed and project their own prosodic domains.9 Second, even adjectival demonstratives in Umbrian were prosodically robust enough to host postpositions, as in uraku ri esuna, at that sacred ritual, Va 5, esisco esoneir seueir, at each (of) those rituals, VIa 18.10 The fact that erer does not host the clitic in erer nomneper thus contradicts Wilhelms assertion that Umbrian postpositions were placed to the right of the rst stressed word in their phrase, and would seem to rule out a prosodic motivation for postposition placement. 2.2. If the rule for placing postpositions cannot be prosodically motivated, it must be grounded in the syntax, and this is the tack taken by Clackson (2004a, 402), who provides an account that I believe is much closer to the correct answer. He claims that Umbrian postpositions could not be attached to a genitive if the head noun of the phrase was present. It is only this formulation that needs improvement, since it couches the rule in terms of the disallowal of an already exceptional situation (clisis
We will discuss the distribution below in more detail. Cross-linguistic examples of this distinction are legion; to name just one, in Swiss German the neuter demonstrative das has been reduced to a monosegmental proclitic s in its function as a denite article (the) but has remained das in independent pronominal function (that one, the one). 10 In the contexts of these passages, the demonstratives are simply anaphoric and not used contrastively or emphatically. There is thus no reason to suppose that they would have been markedly stressed or especially destressed either.
8 9
124
of a postposition to a genitive, on which more presently), which puts the cart before the horse. The principle is simply that Sabellic postpositions must be enclitic to the rst word in the postpositional phrase that is in the case they govern. This predicts the two central descriptive facts of Sabellic postpositional phrases: (1) if the object phrase consists of a noun and a modier (in either order), the postposition attaches to the rst of them (hence nertru-co persi above and not *nertru persi-co; veruf-e treplanu Ib 9 [uerof-e treblano VIb 47], to the Trebulan Gate, and not *uero treblanof-e), and (2) if the object phrase contains a noun plus a dependent genitive, the postposition is never attached to the genitive (hence erer nomne-per above and not *eres-per11 nomne; carsom-e uestisier, to the avenue of Vesticius, VIa 1314, and not *uestisier-e carsom; Paelignian praicim-e perseponas, into the p. of Persephone, Pg 9, and not *perseponas-e praicim).12 The restriction that the postposition must be attached to a word in the case it governs is a simple adjacency principle that has many typological parallels.13 2.2.1. The only apparent exceptions are phrases where the head noun is gapped (Clackson 2004a, 402, n. 9), as in Oscan Maamiies-e, in Mamius (house), Po 55; the genitive here functions as the object of the postposition.14 Possibly complicating this are data from a set of Oscan potters inscriptions15 from Teanum Sidicinum that read vibieisen beriieis anei upsatuh sent tiianei (Si 5) and beriiumen anei upsatuh sent tiianei (Si 6, 20, 21). The last three words upsatuh sent tiianei mean were/have been made at Teanum, with these wares or the like as understood subject; preceding this phrase is a genitive (vibieis beriieis of Vibius Berius; beriium, of the Berii) to which en is attached, followed by
*eres(-) is the expected allomorph of (rhotacized) erer before a consonant-initial clitic; cf. abl. pl. esisco, with these, VIa 18 (2.1 above) alongside free-standing esir, VIIa passim. 12 Note that GenitiveNoun is an allowed word-order in Sabellic. For a discussion and classication of the different word-orders possible within the noun phrase in Umbrian, see Matzinger 2004. 13 For example, in the Turkic language Karaim (spoken in Lithuania nowadays but historically in Crimea), a postposition must occur right after its nominal head rather than after any possessive modiers of that head (Csat 2002, 32425). In Zoque (Mexico), the plural marker is attached to the rst noun or adjective in the noun phrase but skips over any preceding non-nominals (Halpern 1995, 159); a similar distribution for the postposed denite article is found in Bulgarian and Amharic (ibid. 15459, and passim). In Bardi (Australia), the ergative clitic is attached to the rst word of an ergative phrase unless that word is a possessive (Claire Bowern, pers. comm.). 14 Latin could do this too, e.g., ad Iuturnae, ad Vestae; see TLL s.v. ad col. 486. 15 Drawn to my attention by Brent Vine.
11
125
anei. This last form is a locative but the meaning is unknown; workshop and potters wheel are the two most widely followed interpretations (see Untermann 2000 s.v.). Views have differed over whether anei is to be construed with the preceding genitives, with the earliest scholarship taking vibieis-en beriieis and beriium-en as independent (at Vibius Berius, at the Beriis; thus Weege 1909) and others claiming that the genitives are dependent on anei and that the latter is the object of -en (in the a. of Vibius Berius/the Berii; Grienberger 1921, 208; von Blumenthal 1937, 3233; Pisani 1942, 243). But in yet another of these inscriptions (Si 4) we read minis beriis anei upsatuh sent tiianei, where anei is preceded by a proper name in the nominative (minis beriis); this shows that it is not necessary to take anei as going together with the genitives in Si 5, 6, 20, or 21.16 Given the uncertainties surrounding anei, it is of course hazardous to base any conclusions on these texts; but assuming that it refers to the location of manufacture, I favor the view that vibieisen beriieis anei and beriiumen anei mean at Vibius Berius, in the workshop/on the wheel and at the Beriis, in the workshop/on the wheel, respectively, rather than on the wheel/at the workshop of Vibius Berius/the Berii. However, if the latter turns out to be the true meaning, then (this variety of?) Oscan underwent a syntactic innovation vis--vis the rest of Sabellic that is of historical interest but of no consequence for my overall arguments. 2.2.2. In some Sabellic texts the postposition -en in is attached to both members of an AdjectiveNoun phrase; this construction will be discussed further below in 3.23.2.5. 2.3. The absence of syntagms from Sabellic in which the postposition follows a dependent genitive contrasts starkly with the situation in Latin, where such word orders are common. But Penney (1999, 265) claimed that the Latin order GenitivePrepositionNoun is a later articial poetic innovation (his sample of Plautus contained no examples), modeled on the Greek construction of that type. It is unclear if he meant to restrict his statement to nouns in the genitive, which indeed are hard to nd in this construction in Plautus.17 But they are not totally absent: I have found at least the (slightly more complicated) example aegri ex abitu uiri at Am. 641, and a thorough search of the whole corpus could well turn up more instances. In any event, examples with pronominal genitives are ready to hand; cf. eius pro meritis, Mer. 105; eius ex semine, St. 169; eius a
Thus contra von Blumenthal 1937, 3233, who explains the nominative minis beriis as der primitiv unangesetzte beziehungslose Nominativ. 17 I have mostly limited myself to Plautus for illustrative Archaic Latin material throughout this paper, supplemented by the lists in Neue-Wagener where relevant.
16
126
patre, Trin. 741; eorum ex ingenio, Trin. 1049; amborum ex sententia, Truc. 961; eius se ex iniuria, Cist. 180. At least as frequent in this position are datives functioning as possessives; but whether these are underlyingly dependent on the heads of the prepositional phrases, or rather have sentential scope like datives of reference, is not clear.18 Either way, the frequency and naturalness of the type eius pro meritis in early poetry strongly suggest that GenitivePrepositionNoun was a native Latin construction. Perhaps Greek inuence encouraged more widespread use with nominal genitives, but that use is unlikely to have ever been grammatically impossible, especially given how easily GenitiveNoun phrases could be rendered discontinuous in other contexts.19 2.4. It is, in fact, precisely in this broader context of discontinuous NPs in Latin that, by Occams razor, we should analyze the magna cum laude construction synchronically and diachronically. AdjectiveNoun hyperbaton is enormously common, and the intervening element or elements can belong to any part of speech. Latinists need no introduction to the likes of illustriorem obtinebat locum, Cic. Brut. 238; duas in castris legiones, Caes. B.C. 3.75; suam citius abiciet humanitatem, Cic. Pro Lig. 16; cum ceteris coronas imposuerint uictoribus, Cic. Ad Fam. 5.12.8; and nullum enim uobis sors campum, Cic. Pro Mur. 18.20 While the syntactic mechanisms that generate such word-orders are not yet agreed upon, the null assumption, based on processes known from living languages, is that syntactic movement (typically fronting of one kind or another) of one of the elements of the NP is responsible for the discontinuity.21 That, in fact, is exactly what Clackson (2004a, 396) assumes as the origin of the magna cum laude construction: fronting of the rst element around the preposition. 2.5. It could be argued that, instead of magna being fronted around cum, the preposition was moved rightward around magna by the process of prosodic ip invoked by Halpern (1995) to explain the positioning of second-position clitics (and cf. Wilhelms account of the nertruco persi construction evaluated above). To test this, I collected examples from
18 Examples from Plautus include mi in mentem, Am. 180, 293 and elsewhere; tibist in manu, Am. 564; dis in manust, Bac. 144. 19 From just the Prologue of the Amphitruo one may note Iouis sum lius (30), sat habet fauitorum (79), in Amphitruonis uertit sese imaginem (121), serui sumpsi Sosiae mi imaginem (124), Amphitruonis illic est seruos Sosia (148); with pronouns, cuius huc iussu (26), cuius ego hanc fero imaginem (141). 20 Drawn from the convenient list of examples in Devine and Stephens 2006, 543. 21 Devine and Stephens 2006 is the most extensive and systematic treatment of this topic to date.
127
Plautus where an additional element from outside the prepositional phrase intervenes. In all cases, the intervening element precedes the preposition: quamque in urbem, Poen. 106; measque in aedis, Mer. 786; suis med ex locis, Trin. 823; tua te ex uirtute et mea, Mil. 738; quam se ad uitam, Bac. 1077; rem esse in nostram, Per. 609; uno asto in loco, Men. 56; hoc recipimur in loco, St. 685; secundo salue in pretio, Poen. 331. (Comparable examples from Sabellic are lacking.) If the prosodic ip account were correct, it might be able to handle the rst few of these phrases if it included suitable ordering rules for the positioning of the preposition vis--vis the positioning of intervening clitics (-que, personal pronouns). But it would surely predict *hoc in recipimur loco, an order not attested to my knowledge in Plautus,22 with one special exception to be discussed directly below. Additionally, since non-clitic elements can intervene in all types of NP hyperbata, a prosodic ip clitic account of magna cum laude would fail to be general enough.23 None of these problems is faced by a fronting analysis. 2.6. I am aware of only one occurrence in Plautus of the hoc in recipimur loco type of word order, namely, quo in quemque hominem facile inueniatis loco, in what place you can easily nd any kind of man (Cur. 467).24 This exception is instructive: it patterns with the legal formula quam in quisque decuriam or qua in quisque decuria, attested several times in CIL I 202 (Neue-Wagener 18921902, 2.951; cf. Wackernagel 1928, 2.201). Wackernagel pointed to this formula as evidence that in here was a true postposition, more closely connected with the preceding relative-interrogative than with its nominal head, and extended that conclusion to magna cum laude phrases in general. But the two cases are not comparable. The syntagm qui in quisque ( . . . ) Xi represents the cross of two constructions. It is rst of all a subtype of the common collocation of quisque with a preceding wh-word; where the wh-word is an adjective, we frequently see hyperbaton of the type qui quisque Xi, as in quo quisque loco, Livy 1.25.14; quo quisque pacto, Ter. Hec. 216. It also is an instance of anastrophe (postpositional use of a preposition, as Wackernagel correctly noted) after wh-words, which we will discuss further
22 Such orders do begin to show up in later Republican poetry but might be an artistic license there. For a list, see Neue-Wagener 18921902, 2.94952. 23 Cf. also the numerous arguments adduced by Devine and Stephens 1999, 20922, against such an account in regard to comparable hyperbata in Greek. 24 Another supposed example, neque tui me quicquam inuenisti penes and you didnt nd anything of yours on me at Aul. 654, cited by Khner-Stegmann 1912, 2.1.588, contains adverbial penes rather than a true adposition; cf. Fortson 2008, 165.
128
below; to anticipate some of my conclusions there, it does not appear that anastrophe is structurally comparable to magna cum laude. 2.7. Further evidence supporting our analysis of the underlying structural conguration of magna cum laude comes from the prosodic organization of these phrases in early Latin, which indicates, not surprisingly, that the preposition cohered more closely to the following noun than to the preceding adjective, contrary to Wackernagels claim. I have assembled and discussed this evidence elsewhere (Fortson 2008, 11217) and shall repeat just one item here. The following is the only passage known to me from Plautus where a magna cum laude construction is split across a line-break (Am. 14445): . . . ab dextera maxumo / cum clamore inuolant impetu alacri. Since line-end in Plautusas in many other poetriescorresponds with a prosodic break in the phonology,25 and since proclitics do not end verse-lines and enclitics do not begin them, it follows that the prosodic articulation of these phrases was [magna] [cum laude] rather than [magna cum] [laude]. In Sabellic, by contrast, the latter articulation obtained, yielding [nertru-co] [persi]. 2.8. To sum up so far, the synchronic and diachronic analyses of magna cum laude are identical: the type of fronting discussed above was a syntactic process commonat least grosso modoto all the older IndoEuropean languages26 and present in the entire history and prehistory of Latin. Sabellic, too, attests the same process; witness, e.g., Umb. sersi pirsi sesust, when he shall have sat down in (his) seat, VIa 5; uerisco treblanir porsi ocrer pehaner paca ostensendi, (the vessels) which will be shown at the Trebulan gates for purifying the citadel, VIa 1920; and South Picene, praistaklasa posmu,27 Sp TE 5. In all these examples the conjunction or relative pronoun (pirsi, porsi, posmu) has had clausal material fronted around it. 3.1. Our next task is to determine whether the same historical development lies behind nertruco persi as behind magna cum laude. We saw in 2.22.5 that the synchronic rules generating the two constructions are different, but it could still be the case that the diachronic source is the same and that subsequent developments, of a kind to be further specied, resulted in a new synchronic analysis for the nertruco persi construction. As will emerge below, however, this approach does not prove satisfactory;
See Ch. 5 passim of Fortson 2008 and the references cited there. For an overview with examples from other languages see Fortson 2009, 15960. 27 The verb is gapped. Opinion differs on the interpretation of praistaklasa (perhaps two words praistakla sa). See Eichner 19881990a, 198200; Martzloff 2006; and Mercado 2006.
25 26
129
but before turning to it, we must evaluate two recent analyses of the origin of the nertruco persi construction by Clackson and Wilhelm. 3.2. As briey mentioned above (2.2.2), sometimes the Sabellic postposition -en was doubled, getting added not only to its nominal object but also to any modier of that object (e.g., South Picene ombrien akren, in Umbrian territory, Sp CH 2). Clackson (2004a, 401) has claimed that this was the older construction,28 from which nertruco persi arose by gapping of the second postposition.29 Since the tendency, in his view, was for doubling of postpositions to be progressively lost over time (ibid.), he prefers not to follow the usual analysis that -en had been reanalyzed as a case-marker.30 As a parallel to his proposed development, he points to Vedic syntagms of the type nvyasa\ vcah, with a newer song, where only the adjective nvyas- is marked with the instrumental singular ending -a\ (402). 3.2.1. As will be seen below, I share Clacksons view that the nertruco persi construction arose independently and by a different path from the magna cum laude construction. But the mechanism he proposes suffers from multiple problems. 3.2.2. First of all, the chronology of the attestations is not in Clacksons favor: repeated -en is not clearly older than nonrepeated -en, being found in materials disparate in both time and language. In Umbrian, it is true that one phrase is written with doubling on one of the older Iguvine Tables but without doubling on one of the later ones: vapef-em aviekluf-e, toward the augural seats (Ib 14, third century b.C.E.) versus the later uapef-e auie(h)clu (VIa 10, VIb 51, rst century b.C.E.).31 But this is the only phrase in the older Tables to exhibit doubling, whereas there are two other phrases with doubling in the younger Tables: ocr-em si-em, on the Fisian mount, VIa 46; and tot-eme iouin-em, in the Iguvine state, ibid. (variant tot-eme iouin-e, VIa 26). Far more commonly, the postposition is not doubled in either the older or the younger Tables.32 Outside
So averred already also by Wackernagel 1928, 2.200. It is not clear from his wording whether Clackson believes -en was the only postposition that was ever doubled, or whether the other postpositions could be as well but are not attested as such. He speaks at any rate of the doubled-postposition construction in general terms. The question is not a trivial one; see further discussion below in main text. 30 An analysis followed by the authors he cites as well as by, e.g., Prosdocimi 1970, 4041; Nocentini 1992, 215; and Wallace 2004, 831; 2007, 2324. 31 See, e.g., Poultney 1959, 148; cf. Clackson 2004a, 401. 32 Thus veruf-e treplanu, to the Trebulan Gate, Ib 9; eikvases-e atiieier, at the Atiedian meetings, Va 4, 16 (translation following Weiss 2007, 36669); anglom-e somo, to the highest angle, VIa 9; asam-e deueia, to the divine altar, VIa 10; tertiam-e praco,
28 29
130
of Umbrian, examples of doubled -en are also found in both earlier and later periods: e.g., South Picene ombrien akren, in Umbrian territory, Sp CH 2 (fourth century b.C.E.) or earlier); Oscan hrtn kerrin, in the enclosure of Ceres,33 Sa 1 A12 (early second century b.C.E.). 3.2.3. The second problem concerns the forms and contexts of the doubled postpositions: they are different in Umbrian from the rest of Sabellic. The different forms of -en have never received more than cursory treatment, so it will be useful to clarify the facts. In South Picene and Oscan, all examples of doubled -en have contracted with the preceding o- or i-stem locative ending *-ei to produce the phonetic sequence [-e\n].34 There are no unambiguous examples of this contraction in Umbrian.35 Additionally complicating matters, the only securely attested examples with doubling in Umbrian contain a variant ending em not found in the rest of Sabellic.36 Furthermore, the one example of doubling from the older language is in the accusative, not the locative (the phrase vapef-em aviekluf-e above). The source of this m is disputed37 but is an Umbrian
to the third tower, VIa 13; destram-e scapla, onto (his) right shoulder, VIb 49; uerof-e treblano, to the Trebulan Gate, VIb 47. vukum-en esunum-en into the grove into the sacrice = into the grove-rite III 20 is not a single phrase. (For the interpretation, see Weiss 2010, 114.) 33 kerr-, of Ceres, is a relational adjective, not a genitive. 34 von Planta 189697, 2.112, with references to earlier literature. On the South Picene material, see also Marinetti 1985, 91; M. Janda 1993, 154; and Martzloff 2006, 119. 35 arven, in the eld, III 13 is contracted from loc. arve* + -en; the (a\-stem!) locative arve* < *arwai shows the Umbrian-specic monophthongization of *ai to e. This monophthongization did not take place before another vowel or yod, so if (*)-en had been attached to the locative in pre-Umbrian times, the resultant combination would have remained arva(i)en. Compare peaem adj. (lying) on the ground (?) IIa 11, III 32 < virtual *pedai-yo-, pernaia- adj. (appearing) in front (?) beside perne < *pernai, and subocau I invoke < *sub-wok-a\-yo\. 36 Since the nal nasal of -en is practically never written and nal -ms are indicated less often than not, spellings like tote iouine, in the Iguvine state, VIa 36, VIb 29 could theoretically reect a phrase with doubled -en or -em, as pointed out, e.g., by Buck 1928, 114. But careful examination of orthographic practice shows this to be unlikely, as I plan to discuss in detail in a separate study. 37 Some (e.g., von Planta 189697, 1.572, 2.93, and Meiser 1986, 275 believe the variation between m and n in the Umbrian postposition reects merely a weakly pronounced nal nasal. But, as Buck saw (1928, 71), since m appears for expected n but not the other way around, this is unlikely. Patterns in the orthography, which I shall discuss in the separate study mentioned above, also strongly suggest that the m is linguistically real. As for the source of the -m, I favor the analysis of Buck 1928, 71, and Poultney 1959, 69, that the -m arose by long-distance assimilation to a preceding -m- in the accusative (*... m-en > *. . . m-em), against Untermann s.v. en (sandhi outcome of -n before a labial, which is contradicted by the textual evidence). Cf. also numem, name, for numen in the same passage
131
innovation. All this suggests that the various doubled postpositional constructions in the Sabellic languages are at least partially independent developmentsperhaps the result of the spread of an areal featureand contraindicates Clacksons hypothesized trend from doubled to nondoubled usage.38 3.2.4. The third problem with Clacksons scenario is his view that -en had not been reinterpreted as a case-marker, and the ramications this has for his gapping model. 3.2.4.1. In his defense, it must be said that the traditional literature on this issue is not fully satisfactory: on the basis of what is labeled repeated -en it is claimed that this element had become reinterpreted as a case-marker. We have just seen, though, that repeated en is really a misnomer (in spite of my own use of the phrase above for convenience): Oscan and South Picene have repeated [-e\n], while Umbrian has repeated em. And the notion that en was reinterpreted as a case-marker overlooks the glaring fact that the actual postposition -e(n) continued on as a productive word. So the claim that -en has become a case-marker is at best imprecise, and in that sense Clackson is right to dispute it. 3.2.4.2. But what about the [-en \ ] and -em that this is really all about? There is uncertainty within the linguistics community over the distinction between clitics and bound morphemes (such as case-inections) and attendant disagreements over terminology. This is not the place to address such matters directly.39 What is beyond dispute, however, is that ordinary adpositions do not get repeated within an adpositional phrase, in Italic or elsewhere.40 In Italic linguistics, the voices in favor of interpreting Sabellic -en (rectius [-e\n] or -em) as a genuine case-maker have pointed to the
where -em appears for -e(n). I would extend their analysis to include the late prehistoric *-nf (phonetically *-mf ) of the accusative plural (*... mf-en > *... mf-em). The stage *-nf or *-mf is thought to underlie the archaizing spelling abrons, boars, at VIIa 43, where S could be a miscopying of F (8 in the native alphabet; see Meiser 1986, 118, n. 1; Untermann 2000 s.v. abrof ). 38 Note that if doubled -em started out in the accusative in Umbrian (previous footnote), this would reect yet another difference between it and the rest of Sabellic. 39 A classic treatment is Zwicky and Pullum 1983. 40 Such repetition is sometimes adopted by function words, a class to which adpositions probably do not belong: Carlson 1980, 94, n. 2, has provided good arguments that prepositions are actually full lexical items, some of which can take on function-word roles. By denition, function elements do not have individual lexical meaning; their meanings are better attributed to the structures of which they are a part (id. p. 71, and passim) and essentially encode a functional feature of that structure. Functional features can be expressed with overt morphology or lexis once within the phrase or clause over which they have scope, or more than once (multiple marking).
132
fact that it can be attached to both the nominal head and its modier(s), and to the fact that a postposition can be attached to it (seen only in the case of totem-e discussed above). To this could be added the following consideration from the South Picene corpus. This language attests doubly marked phrases in hyperbaton: e.g., esmen vepses vepeten, buried (?) in this tomb/monument (?), Sp TE 1; and men veiat vepet, (he) v.s in the middle of the tomb/monument, Sp MC 1. This means that -en, (n) [-e\n] only makes sense as a locative desinence, since buried in this, in (the) tomb or (he) v.s in the middle, in the tomb is awkward and at variance with how the cognates of the demonstrative esmen and the adjective men work in the rest of Italic. As for Umbrian, in spite of the differences between it and the rest of Sabellic that we have discussed, it is hard not to interpret -em as anything other than a case-marker or an extension of one. One could descriptively take the -fe(m) of vapefem avieklufe as a variant accusative plural in illative function, and em a variant locative singular.41 3.2.4.3. The fact that there was no real doubled postposition -en and the fact that doubled [-en \ ] and -em are best viewed as something other than postpositions (whatever one chooses to call them) present grave problems for Clacksons gapping theory. If it is not the postposition that is doubled, but something else, then one cannot very well claim that the nertruco persi construction arose from doubled postpositionsthere werent any. Failing that, the only available starting point would have been the real doubled constructions of the hrtn kerrin or vapefem avieklufe type. This would entail either of the following subsequent histories:42 (a) The second instance of the case-marker element was gapped. The now unrepeated case-marker was then reinterpreted as a postposition. Speakers of pre-Umbrian subsequently patterned the syntactic behavior of three still independent adpositions on it (*ad, to, at; *kom, with; *per, for; the case of a fourth, *ta\(-), from, is not so clear; see 5.5). (b) Pre-Umbrian speakers reinterpreted the doubled case-markers as postpositions and extended the pattern to the adpositions listed in (a). They then gapped the second adposition in such constructions.
There is little if any distinction in sense between Umbrian locatives with and without -e(n). Karin Tikkanen suggests (pers. comm.) that the formal merger of the dative with the locative in the singular led to a tendency to disambiguate the latter by adding the postposition -e(n). I am grateful to Ms. Tikkanen for sharing the results of her doctoral research with me before its completion. Now available as Tikkanen 2009. 42 Clackson himself does not spell out any details of his gapping scenario.
41
133
Both of these models suffer from serious drawbacks. Regarding (a), gapping a case-marker would result in a phrase marked only once for the relevant case feature, i.e., an example of Gruppenexion or phrasal inection, which is unheard of in Italic.43 Additionally, the kind of Gruppenexion where the inectional marker is attached to the rst rather than the last member of the phrase is very rare, found to my knowledge only in some Australian languages.44 Even if a case-marker could have been dropped in this way, a subsequent reanalysis of the case-marker as a postposition is very difcult to imagine.45 This problem besets (b) as well, and the extension of usage beyond -en is unmotivated. 3.2.5. Surely the best account of the relationship between the nertruco persi and the hrtn kerrin constructions is what I would consider just the null hypothesis: single postpositions were originally the rule, as the comparative evidence from both inside and outside Italic unequivocally suggests, and then competing grammars arose in which the fusion of -en or its variants with locatives and accusatives produced new case-like elements. The original single-postposition grammar lived on everywhere;46
Sporadic univerbations of AdjectiveNoun phrases where the rst element is no longer inected (as in Latin gen. rosmarini, (h)olusatri Largus) are of course irrelevant. The Vedic Sanskrit parallel Clackson offers (3.2 above) is a very special case: although he cites my discussion of this type, where a similar development is proposed (Fortson 1998, 13637, with n. 23), I do not believe he distinguishes sufciently between instrumental singular cases like nvyasa\ vcah and instrumental plural cases like brhat :bhir t,: with lofty aid (-bhir is the instr. pl. sufx while t : aid is instr. sing.). Cases of the second type, in my proposal, represent an ancient state of affairs where the instrumental plural marker retained some of its former status as an adposition, while cases of the rst type came about by analogy. Importantly for our present purposes, the reanalysis was in my view a conscious manipulation of the language on the part of Rigvedic poets in a very specic formulaic context. 44 See Blake 1994, 1013. The reduction in doubled markers in nominal phrases that is found in many other languages (Clackson 2004a, 402) does not, at least in IE, result in the dropping of case-endings, to my knowledge. 45 The true demorphologization of afxes is inordinately rare. The cases that have been adduced, as, e.g., by Abel 1975; R. Janda 1981, 1995, 2001, 300301; and Luraghi 1998, represent almost without exception opportunistic lexicalizations, conations, or the results of other processes that are not actual reversals of grammaticalization. On the general issue, see also Fortson 2003, 65658; Heath 1998, 751; and Hopper and Traugott 1993, 127. 46 Including, n.b., the use of en as a regular preposition in Osc. en eituas, concerning the money, Lu 1.9 (Tabula Bantina); Paelignian i bratom, concerning (?) the favor, Pg 4.2. It is true that the Tabula Bantina shows inuence from Latin and that en eituas might be a calque on Lat. in pecunias, but that is no argument against en having existed already as a preposition in Oscan, as correctly noted by Nocentini 1992, 21011. It is also possible that eituas is a genitive sing. (concerning [the matter of] the money), in which case the
43
134
only the case-morphology had changed in some areas. That is exactly the history of the parallel Clackson (2004a, 4012) cites in Old (and modern dialectal) Lithuanian illative -n(a), allative/adessive p(i). 3.3. We now turn to a second, and quite different, diachronic account of the Umbrian facts, namely, that proposed by Wilhelm (1999, cf. 2001, 16264). In his view, the Umbrian postpositions are the oldest true adpositions in the language; their status as second-position clitics47 arose from very early grammaticalization that began with *en (perhaps together with *ta\), followed by the rest in successive independent ts of grammaticalization. The other adpositions, all prepositional, betray more recent entry into the class of prepositions by the fact that some of them can still function as adverbs and by virtue of their often more complex morphology (e.g., hondra, hutra, below; superne, above [8990]). These became prepositions, not postpositions, partly because they had not undergone any phonological erosion (since they were not yet grammaticalized), but mostly by analogy with what Wilhelm considers the rst preposition in Sabellic, the ancestor of Osc. pstin, along; Umb. pusti(n), posti, for each; SPic. postin, along. The development he envisages is as follows: in the prehistory of Sabellic, the adverb *posti, after, could be semantically modied by the postposition *-en to create what would ultimately become posti(n). Since in his view *-en was a second-position clitic, the Sabellians did not say *posti N-en, but rather *posti-en N; once *posti-en had become stereotyped and lexicalized, it became the preposition posti(n) (9798). Its semantic opposite *prai soon came to be positioned analogously, and gradually the others followed suit. In Oscan a similar chain of events took place, but the makeover was more complete, with only -en remaining as a postposition and all the rest becoming prepositions (98). 3.3.1. This hypothesis is in some ways quite ingenious, but it begs a crucial question about the original placement of *posti. Wilhelm explicitly afrms that *posti had not yet been grammaticalized as an adposition (97), yet he assumes that it was placed prenominally; in other words, he has built into his reconstruction the essential fact that he is trying to explain. On the probably correct assumption that posti(n) does derive from *posti + *-en48 and that *-en could be attached to adverbials,49 we
phrase does not mirrror the Latin construction that closely; this view dates back to von Planta 189697, 2.98, 445, and is followed by Untermann 2000 s.v. etiuvam. 47 In his view; as we have already seen ( 2.1), I dispute this. 48 For the smattering of alternative views, see Untermann 2000 s.v. pstin. 49 Typologically comparable are Latin forms like n \ super (98).
135
would expect *posti-en to have had the same freedom of movement that all other adverbials had. At the end of the day, Wilhelm in fact does not present an account of how prepositional syntax arose in Umbrian. 3.3.2. Wilhelm does make one important contribution, though it must partly be extracted from between the lines: although he believes that the Umbrian postpositions represent the relics of an earlier stage, unlike the other scholars we cited at the outset (see n. 6) he does not believe that that earlier stage was a largely or exclusively postpositional one. His argument is actually somewhat confused on this point: on the one hand he goes to some pains to assert that Umbrian is a postpositional, not a prepositional, language (8586),50 but on the other hand he avers that each postposition achieved the status of postposition essentially independently of the rest. I believe this latter view to be largely correct. Where I differ from him is in his notion that Proto-Sabellic (and Proto-Italic before it) had few or no true adpositions yet; that topic will occupy us again below, as will the demonstration that Proto-Sabellicand probably Proto-Italic toowas essentially prepositional. 3.4. We must now consider other possible diachronic accounts of the Umbrian postpositional syntactic facts and return in particular to the possibility mentioned above in 3.1 that the order is originally due to the same factors that generated magna cum laude in Latin, namely, fronting of a noun or its modier around what was originally a preposition. Two factors make this scenario unworkable. The rst is the relative rarity of magna cum laude constructions. They are not common in Latin,51 and (perhaps not surprisingly) no example is attested in the entire Sabellic corpus. It is hard to imagine how speakers could have deduced a (quasi-) postpositional syntactic rule from magna cum laude structures in the face of the far more numerous ordinary PPs with preposition plus bare noun (the commonest type) or preposition plus modied noun without fronting of the modier (much commoner than with fronting). Even if
50 Such labels are largely beside the point and often obfuscating. But if they are to mean anything, surely they should refer to whatever the productive syntactic behavior of adpositions is, and to the extent that adpositions constitute a diachronically open class, the productive behavior was uncontroversially prepositional, as Wilhelm 1998 himself argues throughout his paper. In synchronic terms, in fact, the postpositions are underlyingly prepositions that are lexically marked for movement to the right of their objects (so, too, Wilhelm). An extended treatment of this issueand the study whose conclusions Wilhelm rejectsis Nocentini 1992, who also provides a good overview (and rebuttal, 224 and passim) of typological arguments adduced on the basis of considerations of clausal word-order that have tried to shoehorn Umbrian into the status of a postpositional language. 51 Aside from stereotyped idioms like quam ob rem, qua de causa.
136
we imagine that the originally marked magna cum laude order became stereotyped and the most common order when a noun was modied, we run into prosodic difculties: recall that in these constructions the preposition, like prepositions in general, was prosodically closer to the following word than the preceding fronted word. We would expect that, by virtue of their weak prosodic status, the light prepositions in question would have become proclitics;52 and that would render a putative reanalysis as enclitics attached to the previous word unmotivatable. Perhaps this is not unimaginable, but I am unaware of any Indo-European language in which such events transpired; certainly no known descendant or variety of Latin ever developed a system remotely comparable. 4. A similar development that could be entertained is to start not with a construction of the magna cum laude type but with the other Latin construction that has been repeatedly equated with nertruco (persi) and where at least the prosodic difculties in the scenario above would not arise, namely, mecum, tecum, and their kin. It is now time to take a closer look at these. 4.1. The facts are well-known: the preposition cum is realized as a postpositional enclitic when its object is a personal, relative, or interrogative pronoun.53 No other preposition regularly behaves this way, but apparently reecting the same phenomenon is a small set of lexicalized forms evincing the same word-order: quoad, quaad, qua\- ea\- ha\c-propter (fairly recent univerbations, to judge by qua\ . . . propter, Am. 815), ha\cqua\ tenus, quo\ circa, \ perhaps id-circo\, plus the more ancient quando\ (*do\ to), and perhaps in-de and un-de, on which more below. Additionally, in Plautus there are numerous examples of anastrophe:54 quo ab (As. 119, Rud. 555), qua ab (Mil. 1047), quem ad (Bac. 176), qua ex (Ep. 171), quam per (Poen. 13), qui (instr.) pro (As. 397), quam propter (Aul. 786, Bac. 1032), quas propter (Trin. 1164); also fugam in (Am. 238),55 gratiam
Especially since several of the other monosyllabic prepositions are often written without word-break between them and the following object in the older Tables: preveres, in front of the gate, in all three of its occurrences, likewise pusveres, behind the gate; the scribe was more diligent about representing word-breaks in the younger Tables by always writing pre uer(e)ir and post uerir; note also easa, from the altar, IIa 38, and ehesu, from this, VIb 54, but more careful ehe esu immediately following in the same line. 53 With the relative and interrogative pronoun, normal prepositional placement is also found and became the rule after Cicero; see TLL s.v. cum, col. 1342, and Leumann 1977, 241. Note also utriscum, with which? Truc. 153. 54 Some of these are not included in the lists in Neue-Wagener 2.943 and 94649. I omit aduersus, circiter, erga, penes, and other quasi-adverbial adpositions. 55 This example taken from Lindsay 1907, 82.
52
137
per (St. 71), mandatis super (Bac. 196). The words are written separately56 and are not lexicalized or obviously old retentions; almost all involve a wh-word. I know of only one other example of a preposition following a personal pronoun from early Latin, namely, ted endo towards you on the Duenos inscription.57 This kind of anastrophe is also found with ad and de in administrative (legal or religious) language with such impersonal idioms as agitur, dictum est, and iudicatum est, such as quo de agitur, Ter. Ph. 5234; quos ad soleret referendum censuit, Cic. N.D. 2.10 (Neue-Wagener 18921902, 2.94243; Ernout and Thomas 1953, 119). 4.2. Wackernagel claimed that items like mecum and quoad are old and represent the last traces in Latin of postpositional usage, which he viewed as much more fully preserved in Umbrian; a comparable viewpoint is implied in Delbrck (1900, 1067). Subsequent discussions have added little to this picture. But the material lends itself to other interpretations as well. First of all, the restriction of this sort of pattern to pronouns58 immediately evokes typological parallels, such as in Germanic, where prepositions appear postpositionally after the adverbs here, there, and where, adverbial placeholders that function in lieu of neuter demonstrative or interrogative pronouns: Eng. hereby, thereat; Ger. daraus, wozu; Dan. derfor, hertil. French constructions of the ciaprs, ci-contre type furnish another parallel. Wackernagel (1928, 2.198) considered the Germanic forms to be holdovers from a stage exhibiting
56 Delbrck 1900, 107, claims that the orthographic word-division is meaningless: [o]ffenbar liegt Tonanschluss vor. I do not know what evidence he based this claim on; even if this were true some of the time, it need not have been true all the time. 57 Note incidentally perfectly normal prepositional en two lines later in the phrase en manom einom, for good going, vel sim. (I do not follow the view of Eichner 198890b, 211, and 215, that en is a preverb in tmesis/anastrophe with the preceding feced; cf. Vine 1999, 67, and Wilhelm 2001, 16566.) The familiar prepositions from Classical Latin are equally prepositional in the oldest Archaic material, to the extent that we can tell: kom meois sokiois Garigliano Bowl (late sixth/early fth century), pro leod Tibur inscription (CIL I2 2658, sixthfourth century). 58 The three exceptions from Plautus in the list above (fugam in, gratiam per, mandatis super) are extremely unusual in Latin; cf. Marouzeau 1949, 49; Ernout and Thomas 1953, 119. The rst two are in fact not without textual difculties. Am. 238 (the locus of fugam in) has been emended numerous times for suspected corruption (for a summary, see Questa 1995, 63), but the reading is preserved independently in Nonius (p. 480.16 M. = 770 L.), and the mockhigh style of the passage suggests deliberate use of an unusual word-order. As for the second (gratiam per, St. 71), the Ambrosian palimpsest differs from the Palatine tradition (gratiam per A, gratiam a patre P). Most editors, however, have preferred the reading in A. See Leo 1895, 41819; Lindsay 1896, 99 (though the metrical difculties he alludes to do not exist, since petimus is the standard reading later in the line rather than petemus); and Petersmann 1973 on St. 71.
138
greater frequency of anastrophe. Whether that is true or not,59 these anastrophic constructions clearly arose independently in each of these languages or brancheswhatever exactly the mechanismand need not be ancient simply by virtue of containing a postpositional use of what is normally a preposition. 4.3. The fact that most of the forms of the mecum type begin with a monosyllabic pronoun also reminds us of processes of prosodic inversion that affect sequences of short words, such as obligatory particle movement in English whereby a phrase like give up it surfaces as give it up.60 It is thus possible that, at a certain stage of the language, forms like me, id, and so forth that were not sufciently robust to host a preposition were ipped in combination with the latter and then received phraseinitial stress. Syntactic inversion is yet another source of such orders. The forms quocum and quibuscum, as Wackernagel himself mentioned,61 could have been generated by wh-movement of the interrogative or relativizer around the preposition, as also in longer phrases like quam ob rem.62 Vincent (1999, 112526) called attention to a nice parallel to this from San Dionicio Ocotepec Zapotec (Oaxaca, Mexico): if a wh-word is the object of a preposition, the wh-word is fronted by wh-movement as usual and the preposition is carried along with it (technically called piedpiping), with inversion occurring with certain prepositions that are then realized as postpositions. (In an interesting further parallel with Latin, lack of inversion, which is acceptable but disfavored with these prepositions, is least acceptable with cn, with.)63 Since wh-movement existed
The afrmative position (without reference to Wackernagel) is taken for Old English by Wilhelm 2001, 241. 60 Cf. Vincent 1999, 1124, who believes that mecum does not contain a true postposition and has a comparable (but different) phonological account of its genesis (112526). 61 And cf. more recently Vincent 1999, 1125. 62 Note that the nearly homophonous indenite pronoun and adjective quis does not host postpositional cum: it was not subject to wh-movement. Tzotzil (Mexico) provides a parallel for a language that is prepositional but that exhibits Gen.Prep.N. word-order when the possessive is a wh-word (buchu ta sna lit. whose in house = in whose house; Aissen 1996, 470). 63 See now Broadwell 2001, 2089, and 211. (An earlier study of Broadwells was the source used by Vincent.) Broadwell is uncertain why some prepositions invert and others do not, noting only that most of the ones that do not are borrowings from Spanish, but that cn is also such a borrowing and yet undergoes inversion. If one scans his lists (209), however, it appears that the invertible prepositions are typically shorter than the ones that do not invert (cn, cuh, dhjts, l, n invert, but dhspuhhs, xt, nths, zcy do not)a parallel with Umbrian. (Broadwell informs me [pers. comm.] that the material does not divide out quite so neatly, since alongside noninvertible zcy, like, is invertible cy, on
59
139
at all recoverable stages in both the history and the prehistory of Latin, quocum could have been generated at any time, and the lexicalization could be relatively recentas must be the case anyway with quibuscum, which replaced an older ablative (*)qu \scum.64 4.4. According to the available evidence, therefore, any productive kind of anastrophe was historically quite limited in scope as far back as we can trace it in Latin. The oldest material does not support the claim that Latin was more postpositional in its early history than the later language. For good measure we can add an argumentum ex silentio: if Latin really had been more postpositional in its prehistory, we might expect some frozen univerbated postpositional phrases to have survived, but only prepositional phrases are found (e.g., affatim, se\dulo\ < se\ dolo\(d), \lico\ < *en s(t)loco\(d), and de\nuo < *de\ nouo\(d)though admittedly none of these is very ancient). While it is true that the anastrophe prole of the language did in fact change between the Archaic and Classical periods, it changed in a very particular way. Anastrophe with light prepositions, to judge by the lists and discussion in Neue-Wagener (18921902, 2.94649), dwindled in use and productivity, whereas anastrophe with heavier prepositions greatly expanded, perhaps under inuence from Greek, where anastrophe with heavier prepositions is commoner than with light ones. Additionally, after the Archaic period, anastrophe occurs with a much greater variety of objects, not just wh-words. 5. To be sure, simply pelting the traditional view with a barrage of alternate scenarios is not the same thing as an argument and does not prove that mecum and quocum are not archaic holdovers. But defenders of the latter view have never provided hard evidence in support of their position and have not considered other possible reasons for the facts. Our case can be made stronger if we can demonstrate on the basis of comparative material that inversion of preposition and object was
top of. I assume thesealong with dhjts and xtoccupy a gray area between very light and very heavy prepositions. The same is true of Umbrian e(he) [e\], out of, which is a preposition and not a postposition even though it is a monosyllable, but a heavy one.) The fact that inversion is most robust in Zapotec with a borrowed preposition underscores the point made in 4.2 that postpositional usage of prepositions is not in itself evidence of archaism! 64 This form may be indirectly attested in Fronto Ad amicos 1.3.1 (172.4 van den Hout). Fronto was fond of using archaisms, so this could be a genuine late attestation of the Archaic form that happens not to have survived in any of our extant documentation from the period. Greefs emendation to qu\cum (1876, 68283) has not been accepted by editors. Quiscum also appears as a variant reading in a pair of Ciceronian mss.; see van den Hout 1999 on Fronto 172.4.
140
no more productive in the common ancestor of Latin and Sabellic than in Latin (recall that embedded in Wackernagels view is also the claim that mecum is historically the same as the nertruco persi construction). I believe that this can indeed be demonstrated; let us now investigate the whole question of inversion of preposition and object in Sabellic. 5.1. The inversion at least of wh-words and adpositions is guaranteed to be of Common Italic date, as evidenced by one secure word-equation between Latin and Sabellic; two others are less certain. Exactly cognate are Latin quando\ and Umbrian panu*, only attested in the form panu-pei, quandoque, at whatever time, VIIb 1. The -do\ is the same lost preposition *do\, to (cognate with Eng. to), as in Latin do\-nec; since it does not exist anymore as a living entity in any attested Italic language, quando\ and panu* must continue a *kwa\ndo\ (morphematically *kwa\m-do\) that is at least of Common Italic date, if not earlier. 5.2. Two other forms, reconstructible as *kwa\n-de and *kwon-de and both meaning when, contain the element *de, which is more difcult to come to terms with.65 *kwa\n-de underlies U. pane, pane (at the time) when Ib 40, VIIa 46, and Archaic Latin quamde, than, with restored -m- under the inuence of quam;66 the probably synomymous *kwon-de is reconstructible for Proto-Sabellic on the basis of Osc. pn, pun, pon, Umb. pune, puni, pon(n)e, when, with *kwon- < *kwom = Lat. quom, cum, when.67 The element *-de is also reected in Avestan vae\smn-da, toward the house; Gk. (as in , homeward); and a host of other clitic and tonic forms in a variety of ablaut grades throughout
A third, *id-de, has been forwarded by Untermann 2000 as the etymon for the somewhat obscure Umbrian adverb erse (VIa 6), which has been variously translated as then, during, and from then on. But a geminate *dd probably did not become a rhotacized rs, since intervocalic geminates that arose secondarily were apparently not simplied; cf. the occasional doubled spellings in the younger Tables like appei, as soon as, after VIIb3 <*at-kwe(-). Since erse is correlative with pirsi, perse, if, when, I would derive it from *id-id parallel to the *kwid-id that became pirsi (Meiser 1986, 43). But as will emerge shortly in the main text, it does not actually matter if this form contained *-de or not. 66 For the semantic development of Lat. quamde (when, then than), compare Eng. than and its West Germanic congeners, all originally adverbs of time; note also Germ. als, when; as; than. 67 In theory at least, Latin unde could also continue a *kwon-de, with a loss of *kwparallel to that in ubi, uter, etc. But the difference in meaning between when and whence, along with various other considerations, make it unlikely that this *kwon-de, if it existed, was the same form as Proto-Sabellic *kwon-de. I follow the traditional account whereby unde (or its immediate ancestor) was formed analogically to inde on the model ibi : inde :: ubi : X, X = unde. See Walde-Hofmann 193856 s.v. inde; Leumann 1977, 482; de Vaan 2008 s.v. -de; and on the semantics of -de, Wackernagel 1928, 2.209; de Vaan loc.cit.
65
141
Indo-European.68 Though frequently considered adpositional, it is unclear whether *de can be so classied; Wackernagel (1928, 2.157) considers it an unechte Prposition or Prpositionsadverb. Some even view it as entirely lacking in directional semantics of its own; de Vaan (2008, s.v. -de) translates it as here or there. Whatever the case, *de was clearly inherited into Italic as a clitic already, so neither *kwa\n-de nor *kwon-de can be taken as instances of inversion in this branch. 5.3. On the basis of *kwa\n-do\, we have established that inversion of wh-word and preposition was possible in Common Italic. More difcult, however, is establishing that inversion of any other pronoun and preposition was a feature of either Common Italic or Common Sabellic, as we will now discuss. 5.3.1. The only Latin-Sabellic isogloss that used to be cited as an example of a shared inversion of (non-wh) pronoun and preposition cannot stand today. According to most older handbooks,69 the Umbrian adposition com occurs both as a comitative preposition meaning with when used with animate objects, and as a clitic postposition normally having locative meaning, at, by, unless its object is a pronoun, in which case the comitative meaning is found again. This latter usage is immediately reminiscent of Latin mecum and was considered vestigial; on this basis scholars such as Delbrck (1900, 106) saw a Latin-Umbrian isogloss. 5.3.1.1. The primary problem with this is the paucity and ambiguity of the available data. The preposition com is attested only four times, with a total of two different objects, both of which happen to be animate (com peracris sacris, with the victims that are more than a year old; com prinuatir, with the prinuati-ofcials). And there are only two putative examples of postpositional -com traditionally interpreted as meaning with: eruku, with it, III 31; and erucom, with him, VIb 50. Moreover, a different interpretation of the rst of these is favored nowadays. The context shows that the postposition there is just as easily, if not better, understood in its locatival rather than comitative sense: (III 3031) sakre/ vatra ferine feitu, place the v. of the victim on the tray (?), followed by eruku aruvia feitu with the same verb, place the grain-offerings at/by it, vel sim.70 All this makes it very risky to claim either that prepositional
68
See Pokorny 1959 s.v. de-, Brachet 2000, 2333. The *do\ above is from the same
stem. E.g., von Planta 189697, 2.446; Buck 1928, 203; Poultney 1959, 148. On the controversy surrounding the interpretation of eruku, see Nocentini 1992, 220, with n. 23. See also Weiss (2010, 11112), who shows clearly that comitative prepositional com is not attested with inanimate objects; we would expect the same of the postposition.
69 70
142
com could not also have meant at, by and that postpositional -com with pronouns could not have had both meanings as well, the old comitative and the innovative71 locatival meaning. It is safest to say that Umbrian had an adposition com meaning with or at that could be used prepositionally or postpositionally, and no special diachronic conclusions are warranted for its use after pronouns. Its status as a postposition must be analyzed independently of Latin mecum and together with the other postpositions in the language, on which more presently. 5.3.2. The remaining evidence, such as it is, suggests that Sabellic has much less anastrophe after pronouns than Latin. 5.3.2.1. Umbrian arnipo, until, VIb 25, 41, not only means the same thing as Archaic Latin don \ icum but is morphosemantically its exact equivalent: both begin with a preposition meaning to (*do\, *ad), followed by the negative *ne\, and end with an accusative of the relative-indenite pronoun: *ad-ne\-kwom (or -kwod) *do\-ne-kwom.72 The formation is not recent in Umbrian, which (together with Oscan) had long since limited the productive sentential use of *ne\ to prohibitives;73 and importantly, *ad is used prepositionally, whereas in attested Umbrianolder Umbrian, at that, for it is not found in the younger parts of the Iguvine Tablesit is a postposition: -a(r=). Thus arnipo is an old form but does not show the inversion that one might perhaps expect. 5.3.2.2. Probably to be judged the same way is Oscan adpd, so long as, meaning the same thing as Latin quoad and composed of the same elements (modulo a triing difference in case)74 but in the reverse order. This would be unremarkable in a language whose only postposition is -en, save for the fact that ad is not a living adposition in Oscan anymore; there it was renewed by the addition of an -s to create az. Therefore, adpd is archaic, yet, like arnipo, also does not show the inversion that one might perhaps expect.75 There is, however, the possibility that
Contra Wilhelm 1999, 95, who claims that the comitative usage was innovatory, but that is contradicted by the comparative facts. 72 It is not clear to me if do\nique (Lucr.+) is old; if so, it rests on a parallel formation *do\-ne-kwe. 73 The simple negator is neip, neip in both languages: *ne-\-kw(id). 74 Osc. pd = Lat. quod. 75 The retained voiced d of ad- might not be expected before a voiceless stop, but it patterns with the rhotacism of ad(-) in Umbrian, and the fact that the following pd begins with a p is reminiscent of those older varieties of Latin where the nal -d in ad(-) and apud was rhotacized, especially before a following labial (Leumann 1977, 155; see also Del Tutto, Prosdocimi, and Rocca 2002, 46367). Note also adfust, (he) shall have been present, Cp 31.
71
143
adpd was refashioned from *az( )pd using the combining form ad- (cf. adfust, n. 75). Either way, though, there is no evidence of inversion. Taken together, adpd and arnipo suggest that postpositional placement of ad in Umbrian is an innovation. 5.3.3. The Umbrian hapax iepru, IIa 32, has been taken by some76 to be a temporal adverb thereupon, daraufhin, etymologically a postposition -pru attached to a locative demonstrative *ey-ei or *ey-ois. This analysis is very questionable; (*)pru does not otherwise occur as a postposition and is not attested in Umbrian anyway. (A short-vowel variant, *pro, may be the etymon of the postposition per; see the next section.) The supposed meaning thereupon does not comport well with the semantics of *pro\ either. The context is at any event not well understood, and, to the extent that we can make any sense of it at all, the alternative interpretation liver is just as likely. 5.4. The postpositions -per and -ta, -tu are more difcult to evaluate because it is not known with which other Italic adposition the rst is to be equated, and the second cannot be equated with any. Umbrian per cannot go directly back to *per because the nal -r probably would have been lost (cf. Meiser 1986, 280); it has been taken from *pers (Untermann 2000, s.v., following Rix 1986), *peri (de Vaan 2008, s.v. per), and *pro (Bral 1875, 71; Nocentini 1992, 211; compare for the phonology ager eld < *agros and the primary mediopassive third-person endings -ter, -nter if they are from *tro, *-ntro77). Under the view that -per continues *pers, it is formally *per extended by -s (cf. Osc. az above), and further related to78 the preposition pert, across, beyond, IIa 36, and Osc. pert up to, till < *perti (cf. post < *posti). Outside Sabellic, the Latin particle per in time expressions has been forwarded as a comparandum (as in semper, always; nuper, recently; paulisper, for a brief time), but it is debated whether this is identical to the preposition per (if the basic meaning is throughout [a period of time]), or whether this is the same element as the Sabellic clitic *-pert in Osc. petiropert, petirupert, four times, and Um. triiuper, trioper, thrice.79 And it has not been settled whether this *-pert is identical with the preposition pert above.80 I do not believe that we have enough evidence to settle any of these questions. For my part, I prefer the older view that per continues *pro (with clitic
See the references in Untermann s.v. On *-tro, *-ntro in Italic and Celtic, see Jasanoff 1997. 78 But not identical to, pace Clackson 2004a, 397; see below. 79 Under this assumption, defended by Livingston 2004, 19, semper originally meant once. 80 It is so taken by Nocentini 1992, 211, but the semantics do not agree very well.
76 77
144
shortening of the vowel from *pro\) because of the meaning (equivalent to Latin pro\ rather than per), the already guaranteed existence of (*)pro\ in Sabellic (Osc. pru on the Tabula Bantina, Lu 1.13, 21 [abbr.], 24, and in the abbreviation pr Cm 9), and the fact that, as stated above, only the lightest adpositions are postpositional in Umbrian. However, nothing hinges crucially on this view being correct. The only important conclusion is that Umbrian -per is not securely identical to any other enclitic form elsewhere in Italic. 5.5. The nal Umbrian postposition is ta, -tu, -to, from. It has no known equivalent elsewhere in Italic.81 The orthographic variation indicates the vowel was a rounded [], the outcome of word-nal *-a\.82 The best available etymology remains that of von Planta (189697, 2.454), who derived it from a feminine instrumental of the demonstrative *to-.83 Assuming this is correct, we are dealing with an adverbial preform that was probably only reinterpreted fairly late as an adposition and that initially had the function of adding some extra zing to an ablative. We may therefore speculate that it was always positioned after the ablative that it went with, even before it was reinterpreted as a postposition and captured as a clitic. The positioning of this word is therefore old, but its grammatical status as a postposition is secondary. 6. To sum up our ndings in 5.15.5, we have direct evidence, in the equation quando\ = panu(-), that Proto-Italic could invert prepositions with wh-words, presumably as a result of wh-movement and pied-piping. Only Latin has positive evidence of an expanded ability to invert prepositions with other pronouns, whether this is modeled on the wh-inversion cases,84 the result of prosodic inversion, the result of a combination of
Marinetti 1985, 11213, suggested that SPic. poioeta CH.1 contained it also, but the t can be read as f (she herself indicates on p. 231 that she read t con molte riserve). Rix 2002, 69, reads poi oefa. 82 This fact vitiates an earlier view (Aufrecht and Kirchhoff 184951, 1.156) that equated -ta, -to with the Latin ablatival sufx -tus in forms like caelitus, from heaven <PIE *-tos. 83 The comparison by Hollield 1984, 7779 (not mentioned in Untermann 2000 s.v. -ta), with the Vedic locational particle t :t added to ablatives (as in uttar :t-ta\t, from the north; a\r :t-ta\t, from afar; further examples in Wackernagel-Debrunner 1896, 3.500), is appealing semantically, but his reconstruction of an abl. *tad \ as the ancestor of U. -to will not work on phonological grounds, since only word-nal *-a\ underwent rounding. It is possible that a number of feminine ablatives in -a\d in Italic are actually old instrumentals remade as ablatives (see Garca Ramn 1997, for which reference I am indebted to Brent Vine), so the use of an instrumental here in ablatival function would not be surprising. 84 This has been suggested, but without a mechanism. Perhaps mecum, etc. could have arisen in echoic answers to questions: Quocum?Mecum.
81
145
these two factors, or due to something else entirely. In the case of the attachment of -cum to personal pronouns, the resultant inverted syntagms were common enough85 to become lexicalized and univerbated. We saw above that there is no positive evidence that the latter are especially archaic, and they could have arisen in various ways at various times in the languages history.86 On the Sabellic side of things, we have no evidence that either the quoad or the mecum constructions was still alive in the historical period: *kwa\ndo\ dates back to Common Italic; *kwa\nde and *kwonde, regardless of their age (Common Italic and at least Common Sabellic, respectively), contain an inherited clitic that may not have even been adpositional. Although the Sabellic material cannot be pressed too hard, it suggests the reverse development of that seen in Latin: inversion of prepositions enjoyed no eforescence in Sabellic and may have even died out before that linguistic entity arrived on the scene. 6.1. Our discussion so far shows that we cannot easily explain the nertruco persi construction as having its locus in something akin to the mecum construction, for there is no evidence that the latter existed or lasted sufciently long into the prehistory of Umbrian. Admittedly, this statement must remain tentative given the relative paucity of material in the Umbrian corpus, but our discussion of arnipo and Osc. adpd suggests that this is the correct conclusion. 6.2. The only clitic postposition that we can securely posit for ProtoSabellic is *en, alongside which freestanding en also continued to exist.87
Most of the basic prepositional relationships are expressed by the inectional cases, but not the comitative relationship, whence the frequency of me(-)cum compared with other combinations that must have occurred as well. These (*me\d ad, *me\d ab, etc.) were not robust enough to have survived being overridden by renewals with otherwise fully prepositional ad, ab, etc. The Ibero-Romance descendants of mecum, tecum, etc. (with added con- as also in Old Italian: e.g., Spanish conmigo contigo, Portuguese comigo contigo) are sometimes classied as separate comitative forms. There is in principle no reason why their Latin ancestors could not also be so labeled. It is cross-linguistically common for pronominal systems, especially personal pronouns, to have more case distinctions than nouns in the same language, whether by retention or innovation (see on the general topic of such asymmetries Iggersen 2005). In the case hierarchies discussed in Blake 1994, 15760, comitatives are usually found in languages already possessing a nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, locative, and ablative or instrumentalexactly the Latin system, though not the Ibero-Romance one. 86 The fact that mecum etc. survived all the way down into Romance is not evidence that mecum itself harks back to a distant past. Since not all the attested forms are archaic, learners must have deduced the inversion and cliticization with pronouns as a rule of grammar, for that best explains the creation of replacement forms like quibuscum (4.3). 87 See n. 46 above. The few instances in Umbrian where -e is graphically separated from the preceding word by an interpunct (rupinie : e Ib 27, tae : epirfer : tu for tae :
85
146
There is no evidence that Latin or Faliscan88 inherited postposed or clitic *()en.89 It is not surprising that this one securely reconstructible postposition has a well-known special status in Indo-European, for we know of other times and places where *en became a clitic postposition and even a case-afx. It arguably happened in PIE or pre-PIE itself at one point, if the capture of this postposition is the origin of athematic locatives in *en like *dhhm-en, on earth.90 It may have happened again in Baltic, if -en became captured as part of the locative singular endings in -e (-), though the details are difcult for this hypothesis.91 Thus Italic might have inherited an *en already that could be a postpositive.92 7. I will now propose a framework for understanding the development of the nertruco persi construction as well as of adpositional morphosyntax in all of Sabellic. I cannot vouch for every detail; others may prefer to see certain developments differently. But the scenario outlined
e : pir : fertu IIb 12, testre : euze for testre : e : uze IIb 27, 28) or a space (destr e VIb 4) are too sporadic to be linguistically signicant and are coupled with other orthographic irregularities. 88 The slim Faliscan corpus is silent with regard to all these matters. We can only assume on phyletic grounds that the language patterned with Latin, especially if, as some maintain, it was only a dialect of the latter (a conclusion defended now at book length by Bakkum 2009, but see also Adams 2007, 100107). The forms propramod, propramom (GG 2a) are often thought to contain the preposition pro, but pro- here could also be a prex. See the review of scholarship in Bakkum 2009, 4078. Bakkum (3045) suggests on typological grounds that Faliscan may have once had more postpositions, but partly because he subscribes to the view (mistaken, as I have tried to show) that Latin was more postpositional in its prehistory. He rightly rejects the suggestion that postpositional e(n) is attested in Faliscan pramoe and heie (Pisani 1964, 34951, and Rix 1993, 86, respectively). 89 Pace Wilhelm 1999, 98, who claims that ted endo on the Duenos inscription continues a derivative of clitic *en; but *endo was a separate inherited lexeme. Buechelers (1883, 200) derivation of tamen from tam plus postpositional *en is outdated (rectius *tam-em; Leumann 1977, 231). 90 See in detail Nussbaum 1986. On this type, see Friedman 2003, 23, 11, n. 20. Of course, it cannot be ruled out that the en-locatives have copied (by metanalysis) the termination *-en of endingless n-stem locatives. Vansverens (2000) recent alternate interpretation of the *-en as reecting an r/n-stem seems to me unlikely. 91 Stang 1966, 182, 196, 199, 205, and 209, reconstructs Proto-Baltic *-;, but since this must come from earlier *e\n, direct derivation from *en is difcult. Either the postposition itself was secondarily lengthened, which seems highly unlikely for a clitic, or after its capture the resultant *en-desinence was lengthened analogically after the lengthenedgrade endingless locatives of proterokinetic n-stems. It is also possible that the ending has nothing to do with the postposition. (I am grateful to Jay Jasanoff for clarication of these possibilities.) 92 The possibility, discussed by Clackson 2004a, 394, that also *per and *me were able to be (pro)clitic in PIE seems to me separate from what ultimately transpired in Umbrian. But I agree with him that PIE already had some true adpositions.
147
here seems the most straightforward way of getting from a known (or generally agreed-upon) Point A (the adpositional syntax of late PIE) to Point B (Umbrian) if we exclude the other scenarios that I have rejected. I only insist on two points: the enclisis of *ad, *kom, and *pro was an Umbrian innovation, and the particular cluster of behaviors associated with them (the syntactic rule deduced in 2.2, especially) came together no earlier than Proto-Sabellic, even if some features go farther back. 7.1. As is generally agreed, late PIE had adverbials that could function as preverbs or adpositions and could be separated from their head verbs or nouns by syntactic movement. To judge by Anatolian and Indo-Iranian, adpositions were mostly postpositional in the rst instance. If emphasized or contrasted, they were fronted within their phrase (or perhaps clause), whereas normally they remained in situ following their nominal object. In the stage of post-dialectal IE ancestral to Italic, in common with the ancestral stages of most of the other branches as well, through a series of syntactic reanalyses the fronted position became the default. But in the nascent Proto-Italic system certain adpositions still enjoyed some freedom of movement. In particular, a set of light adpositionsto simplify the story, let us say *ad, *kom, *en, and *pro continued to appear frequently as atonic postpositions. The reason had to do with a combination of semantics and pragmatics: these adpositions are not very content-ful, expressing general locational relationships that are rendered by case morphology in many other languagesinessive and illative (*en), comitative and locative (*kom), allative (*ad), and dative or benefactive (*pro).93 Considerably later, another element was reanalyzed as a postposition, and it too expressed a general locational relationship: the particle *ta\. In language after language, such elements get captured as desinences. By contrast, the ancestors of the heavier adpositions *tra\ns, *sup, *super, *kontra\d, and so forthtypically expressed more specialized relationships and, by virtue of often being morphologically derivative of other forms, had more phonetic body and were not prone to becoming prosodically subordinate to other words. Greater semantic salience coupled with greater prosodic salience was the perfect recipe for these elements to be frequently focused and to enter the ranks of prepositions early. Somewhat against this trend, some of them continued to exist as adverbials, with attendant positional freedom. 7.2. For Proto-Italic, *ad, *en, and so forth still had a double status as tonic preposition or atonic postposition. Latino-Faliscan generalized
93 Cf. Nocentinis observation (1992, 212) that the Umbrian postpositions are all locatival in character (actually, all but -per); he compares (214) the local sufxes in Greek (- - -) and the innovatory local cases in Old Lithuanian.
148
the prepositional variants (ultimately, in a partial repeat of history, they were subject to proclitic destressing).94 This development, to judge by the comparable histories of adpositions in most of the other IE branches, was unremarkable. In Proto-Sabellic, the typical placement of *en, *kom, *ad, and *pro after bare nouns triggered some syntactic reconguration: they were reanalyzed as postpositions,95 but because of their quasi-casemarking status they were disallowed from being preceded by a fronted genitive in their phrase (thus they did not become classic second-position particles). 7.3. Umbrian essentially continues the Proto-Sabellic stage but with the addition of turning *ta\ into a clitic postposition and losing tonic prepositional *ad (a remnant of which is contained in arnipo). In Oscan, tonic *ad was renewed by *ads (a remnant of *ad being in adpd) and atonic *ad was lost;96 *ta\ was also lost. In the case of *kom, both prepositional and postpositional usage was maintained, perhaps with innovated locatival meaning in the latter only (but we saw that the evidence was inconclusive); in Oscan, only the prepositional use survived. If Umbrian -per comes from *pro, as I am inclined to believe, then the fact that Oscan pru comes from *pro\ ts the overall picture quite nicely: this was the fully stressed form with full long vowel, while *pro lived on only as a proclitic preverb, and as a postposition in Umbrian.97 7.4. In all postpositional usages in Umbrian the prosodic subordination led to cliticization.98 So, to put it broadly, Oscan generalized fully
Note that Italic had word-initial stress, a feature that persisted as late as Archaic Latin and is probably still true of the other Italic languages down to the end of their attestations. The fossilized prepositional phrases in Latin like \lico\, de\nuo\, not to mention noun phrases like hodie\, are usually thought (as by me; cf. Fortson 2008, 45) to owe their word-initial stress to the lexicalization of the phrase and subsequent (or concomitant) reaccentuation by the Latin word-level stress rule. But it is intriguing to contemplate another possibility: that the preposition in *d : nouo\d, etc. already bore the main phrasal stress before the lexicalization, and that this persisted even after new prosodic organizational rules entered the picture that resulted in deaccentuation of prepositions. Cf. further below in the main text. 95 But not yet bound morphemes (except for *en). Only in Umbrian did they eventually become bound. 96 As already noted, ad did remain as a preverb. 97 I am glossing over some of the complications of the confusing history of pro\ and pro, but they are not likely to affect the validity of my general claims. For a good summary, see Leumann 1977, 56061, who notes that at least some examples of shortened *pro could date back to PIE. 98 It is possible that ikh : ko on the Volscian inscription VM 1 (fth century; reading by Rix 1992, 3839) preserves the earlier stage postulated for its sister language Umbrian in which this postposition had not cliticized; but the interpunct does not guarantee this. (I am grateful to Rex Wallace for drawing my attention to this inscription.)
94
149
stressed prepositional allomorphs when it could, while Umbrian generalized atonic clitics when it could (except for partly preserving prepositional en and com). This dichotomy is surely connected with the respective divergent phonological histories of the two languages: Oscan was much more conservative than Umbrian in its preservation of unstressed syllables (even adding many through anaptyxis), whereas Umbrian underwent massive weakening and loss of unstressed syllables. 7.5. Since neither Latin nor Sabellic has any good evidence of an early growth of postpositional syntax beyond the constrained limits that we have already discussed, the two sub-branches agree that Proto-Italic or its ancestor had already made the switch from the postpositional syntax of (late) PIE to prepositional syntax. But the switch was not entirely complete, and as we have just seen, here Umbrian does preserve something archaic that Latin does notnot postpositions per se, but a (much changed) remnant of the freedom of movement that adpositions had once enjoyed.99 As for the antiquity of the Latin magna cum laude construction, since it was generated by movement rules that had been in the language for a long time, it is both beliebig alt and beliebig jung, but it is not in any meaningful way a holdover of any archaic feature specic to adpositions.100
UNIvERSITY Of MICHIGAN e-mail: fortsonb@umich.edu
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abel, V. P. 1975. The Transposition of Pronominal and Verbal Clitics in the tokavic Dialect of Serbo-Croat. The Slavonic and East European Review 53:116. Adams, J. N. 2007. The Regional Diversication of Latin, 200 BCAD 600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
99 The only survival of this in Latin usually adduced is the ability of per to be fronted to clause-initial position and separated from its object in religious invocations (type per te deos oro). Note that the Latin/Sabellic situation is reversed in the case of preverbs: here it is Latin that preserves traces of their earlier freer positioning (ob uos sacro) but not Sabellic. 100 Some material in this article stems ultimately from Fortson 1996, 9699 (a subsection of chap. 2 of my dissertation, the rest of which has now been revised and expanded as Fortson 2008). Part of the research for this paper was undertaken during the academic year 2006/2007 at the Seminar fr Indogermanistik und Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Martin-Luther-Universitt, Halle, Germany, under the auspices of the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung. For helpful comments and advice on earlier drafts, I am indebted to Gerhard Meiser, Brent Vine, Rex Wallace, Michael Weiss, and two anonymous reviewers.
150
Aissen, Judith. 1996. Pied-Piping, Abstract Agreement, and Functional Projections in Tzotzil. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14:44791. Aufrecht, Theodor, and Adolf Kirchhoff. 184951. Die umbrischen Sprachdenkmler: Ein Versuch zur Deutung derselben. 2 vols. Berlin: Dmmler. Bakkum, Gabril Cornelis Leonides Maria. 2009. The Latin Dialect of the Ager Faliscus: 150 Years of Scholarship. Ph.D. diss., University of Amsterdam. Baldi, Philip. 1990. Indo-European Languages. The Major Languages of Eastern Europe, ed. Bernard Comrie, chap. 1, 1955. London: Routledge. . 1998. The Foundations of Latin. Berlin: de Gruyter. Bauer, Brigitte L. M. 1995. The Emergence and Development of SVO Patterning in Latin and French: Diachronic and Psycholinguistic Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. Blake, Barry J. 1994. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brachet, Jean-Paul. 2000. Recherches sur les prverbes de\- et ex- du latin. Brussels: Latomus. Bral, Michel. 1875. Les tables eugubines: Texte, traduction et commentaire, avec une grammaire et une introduction historique. Paris: Vieweg. Broadwell, George Aaron. 2001. Optimal Order and Pied-Piping in San Dionicio Zapotec. In Formal and Empirical Issues in Optimality Theoretic Syntax, ed. Peter Sells, 197223. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications. Buck, Carl Darling. 1928. A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian. Rev. ed. Boston: Ginn and Company. Buecheler, Franciscus. 1883. Umbrica. Bonn: Cohen. Carlson, Greg N. 1983. Marking Constituents. In Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles, ed. Frank Heny and Barry Richards, 1.6998. Dordrecht: Reidel. Clackson, James P. T. 2004a. The Word-Order Pattern Magna Cum Laude in Latin and Sabellian. In Indo-European Perspectives: Studies in Honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies, ed. J. H. W. Penney, 391404. Oxford: Oxford University Press. . 2004b. Latin. In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Worlds Ancient Languages, ed. Roger L. Woodard, 789811. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Csat, va gnes. 2002. Karaim: A High-copying Language. In Language Change: The Interplay of Internal, External and Extra-linguistic Factors, ed. Mari C. Jones and Edith Esch, 31528. Berlin: de Gruyter. Delbrck, Berthold. 1900. Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, part 3. Vol. 5 of Karl Brugmann and Berthold Delbrck, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Trbner. Del Tutto, Loretta, Aldo Luigi Prosdocimi, and Giovanna Rocca. 2002. Lingua e cultura intorno al 295 a.C.: Tra Roma e gli italici del nord. In La battaglia del Sentino: Scontro fra nazioni e incontro in una nazione. Atti del Convegno di studi (Camerino Sassoferrato, 1013 giugno 1998), ed. Diego Poli, 407663. Rome: Calamo.
151
de Vaan, Michiel. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages. Leiden: Brill. Devine, A. M., and Laurence D. Stephens. 1999. Discontinuous Syntax: Hyperbaton in Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press. . 2006. Latin Word Order: Structured Meaning and Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Drexler, Hans. 1965. Lizenzen am Versanfang bei Plautus. Munich: Beck. Eichner, Heiner. 198890a. Ein Heldendenkmal der Sabiner mit trochischem Epigramm eines pikenischen Plautus des fnften Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Die Sprache 34:198206. . 198890b. Reklameiamben aus Roms Knigszeit (Erster Teil). Die Sprache 34:20738. Ernout, Alfred, and Franois Thomas. 1953. Syntaxe Latine. 2d ed. Paris: Klinck sieck. Fortson, Benjamin W. IV. 1998. Some New Observations on an Old Topic: Nvam vcah in the Rigveda. In Mr Curad: Studies in Honor of Calvert Watkins, ed. Jay Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert, and Lisi Oliver, 12738. Innsbruck: Institut fr Sprachwissenschaft der Universitt Innsbruck. . 2003. An Approach to Semantic Change. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, ed. Brian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda, 64866. Oxford: Blackwell. . 2008. Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin: de Gruyter. . 2009. Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. 2d ed. Malden: Blackwell. Friedman, Jay. 2003. Notes on IE *g[hiim- Winter. Friends and Alumni of Indo-European Studies Bulletin 10.2:120. Garca Ramn, Jos Luis. 1997. Adverbios de direccin e instrumental indoeuropeo. In Berthold Delbrck y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy: Actas del Coloquio de la Indogermanische Gesellschaft, Madrid, 2124 de septiembre de 1994, ed. Emilio Crespo and Jos Luis Garca Ramn, 11341. Madrid: UAM; Wiesbaden: Reichert. Giacomelli, Gabriella. 1963. La lingua falisca. Florence: Olschki. Greef, Adolf. 1876. Die Prposition cum in Verbindung mit dem Relativum. Philologus 35:67184. Grienberger, Theodor. 1921. Oskisches. Glotta 11:20511. Halpern, Aaron. 1995. On the Placement and Morphology of Clitics. Stanford, Calif.: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Heath, Jeffrey. 1998. Hermit Crabs: Formal Renewal of Morphology by Phonologically Mediated Afx Substitution. Language 74:72859. Hollield, Patrick Henry. 1984. Addenda and Corrigenda to P. H. Hollield, The phonological development of nal syllables in Germanic (Part 2), Die Sprache 26 (1980), 14578. Die Sprache 30:7379. Hopper, Paul, and Elizabeth Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
152
Iggesen, Oliver A. 2005. Case-Asymmetry: A World-Wide Typological Study on Lexeme-Class-Dependent Deviations in Morphological Case Inventories. Munich: LINCOM. Janda, Michael. 1993. Die Inschrift des Helms von Canosa und der Buchstabe des Sdpikenischen. In Oskisch-Umbrisch: Texte und Grammatik. Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft und der Societ Italiana di Glottologia vom 25. bis 28. September 1991 in Freiburg, ed. Helmut Rix, 14754. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Janda, Richard D. [Richard Janta]. 1981. A Case of Liberation from Morphology into Syntax: The Fate of the English Genitive Marker -(e)s as His. In Syntactic Change, ed. David Strong and Brenda Johns, 59114. Ann Arbor: Department of Linguistics, University of Michigan. . 1995. From Agreement Afx to Subject Cliticand Bound Root: -mos> -nos vs. (-)nos(-) and nos-otros in New Mexican and Other Regional Spanish Dialects. CLS 31(2):11839. . 2001. Beyond Pathways and Unidirectionality: On the Discontinuity of Language Transmission and the Counterability of Grammaticalization. Language Sciences 23:265340. Jasanoff, Jay H. 1997. An Italo-Celtic Isogloss: The 3pl. Mediopassive in *-ntro. In Festschrift for Eric P. Hamp, ed. D. Q. Adams, 1.14261. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man. . 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Khner-Stegmann = Khner, Raphael and Carl Stegmann. 1912. Ausfhrliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache. 2nd ed. Hannover: Hahn. Leo, Friedrich. 1895. Bemerkungen ber plautinische Wortstellung und Wortgruppen. Nachrichten von der Kniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gttingen, philologisch-historische Klasse, 41533. Leumann, Manu. 1977. Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. Munich: Beck. Lindsay, W. M. 1896. An Introduction to Latin Textual Emendation Based on the Text of Plautus. London: Macmillan. . 1907. Syntax of Plautus. Oxford: Parker. Livingston, Ivy. 2004. A Linguistic Commentary on Livius Andronicus. New York: Routledge. Luraghi, Silvia. 1998. On the Directionality of Grammaticalization. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 51:35565. Marinetti, Anna. 1985. Le iscrizioni sudpiceni I: Testi. Florence: Olschki. Marouzeau, Jules. 1949. Lordre des mots dans la phrase latine. Vol. 3: Les articulations de lnonc. Paris: Belles Lettres. Martzloff, Vincent. 2006. Picnien mih puh: Contribution linterprtation des cippes palo-sabelliques de Castignano (AP2) et de Penna S. Andrea (TE5). Lalies 26:10531. Matzinger, Joachim. 2004. Zur umbrischen Syntax: Die Anordnung der Erwei
153
terungen in der Determinans-Phrase. Historische Sprachforschung 117: 26991. Meiser, Gerhard. 1986. Lautgeschichte der umbrischen Sprache. Innsbruck: Institut fr Sprachwissenschaft der Universtitt Innsbruck. Mercado, Angelo. 2006. South Picene Poetry. Presented at the 25th East Coast Indo-European Conference. Columbus: Ohio State University. Neue-Wagener = Neue, Friedrich. 18921902. Formenlehre der lateinischen sprache. 3., sehr verm. au. von C. Wagener. Leipzig: Riesland. Nocentini, Alberto. 1992. Preposizioni e posposizioni in oscoumbro. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 77:196242. Nussbaum, Alan J. 1986. Head and Horn in Indo-European. Berlin: de Gruyter. Penney, J. H. W. 1999. Archaism and Innovation in Latin Poetic Syntax. In Aspects of the Language of Latin Poetry, ed. J. N. Adams and R. G. Mayer, 24968. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Petersmann, Hubert. 1973. T. Maccius Plautus, Stichus: Einleitung, Text, Kommentar. Heidelberg: Winter. Pisani, Vittore. 1942. Oskisch-Umbrisches. Indogermanische Forschungen 58:24353. . 1964. Le lingue dellItalia antica oltre il latino. 2d ed. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier. Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wrterbuch. Bern: Francke. Poultney, James Wilson. 1959. The Bronze Tables of Iguvium. Baltimore, Md.: American Philological Association. Prosdocimi, Aldo Luigi. 1970. Note sulle Tavole di Gubbio. Atti e Memorie dellAccademia Patavina di Scienze, Lettere e Arti 82:3352. Questa, Cesare [Caesar Questa]. 1995. Titi Macci Plauti Cantica. Urbino: Quattro Venti. Rix, Helmut. 1984. Die Endung des Akkusativ Plural commune im Oskischen. In o-o-pe-ro-si: Festschrift fr Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. Annemarie Etter, 58397. Berlin: de Gruyter. . 1992. La lingua dei volsci: Testi e parentela. In I volsci: Undicesimo incontro di studio del Comitato per larcheologia laziale, 3749. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto per lArcheologia Etrusco-italica. . 1993. Review of La civilt dei falisci: Atti del XV Convegno di studi etruschi ed italici, Civita Castellana, Forte Sangallo, 2831 maggio 1987 (Florence: Olschki, 1990). Kratylos 38:8387. . 2002. Sabellische Texte: Die Texte des Oskischen, Umbrischen und Sdpikenischen. Heidelberg: Winter. Scherer, Anton. 1975. Handbuch der lateinischen Syntax. Heidelberg: Winter. Stang, Chr[istian] S. 1966. Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Szantyr, Anton. 1972. Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. Munich: Beck.
154
Tikkanen, Karin. 2009. A Comparative Grammar of Latin and the Sabellian Languages: The System of Case Syntax (Ph.D. diss., Upsala University). Untermann, Jrgen. 2000. Wrterbuch des Oskisch-Umbrischen. Heidelberg: Winter. van den Hout, Michael J. P. 1999. A Commentary on the Letters of M. Cornelius Fronto. Leiden: Brill. Vansveren, Sylvie. 2000. Autour du nom de la terre et lhiver: Locatif post position. Indogermanische Forschungen 105:12031. Vincent, Nigel. 1999. The Evolution of C-Structure: Prepositions and PPs from Indo-European to Romance. Linguistics 37:111153. Vine, Brent. 1999. A Note on the Duenos Inscription. In UCLA Indo-European Studies. Vol. 1, ed. Vyacheslav V. Ivanov and Brent Vine, 293305. Los Angeles: UCLA Program in Indo-European Studies. von Blumenthal, Albrecht. 1937. Zum Oskisch-Umbrischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 55:2534. von Planta, Robert. 189697. Grammatik der oskisch-umbrischen Dialekte. Strassburg: Trbner. Wackernagel, Jacob. 1928. Vorlesungen ber Syntax mit besonderer Bercksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch. 2d ed. Basel: Birkhuser. Wackernagel-Debrunner = Wackernagel, Jacob, and Albert Debrunner. 1896. Altindische Grammatik. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Walde-Hofmann = Walde, Alois, and J. B. Hofmann. 193856. Lateinisches etymologisches Wrterbuch. Heidelberg: Winter. Wallace, Rex E. 2004. Sabellian Languages. In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Worlds Ancient Languages, ed. Roger L. Woodard, 81239. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . 2007. The Sabellic Languages of Ancient Italy. Munich: LINCOM. Weege, Fritz. 1909. Eine oskische Tpferfamilie. Bonner Jahrbcher 118:275 79. Weiss, Michael. 2007. Cui Bono? The Beneciary Phrases of the Third Iguvine Table. In Verba Docenti: Studies in Historical and Indo-European Linguistics Presented to Jay H. Jasanoff by Students, Colleagues, and Friends, ed. Alan J. Nussbaum, 36578. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Beech Stave. . 2010. Language and Ritual in Sabellic Italy: The Ritual Complex of the Third and Fourth Tabulae Iguvinae. Leiden: Brill. Wilhelm, Christopher. 1999. Word Order Change in Umbrian: From Prepositions to Postpositions. In UCLA Indo-European Studies. Vol. 1, ed. Vyacheslav V. Ivanov and Brent Vine, 85102. Los Angeles, Calif: UCLA Program in Indo-European Studies. . 2001. The Origins and Development of Adpositions and Adpositional Phrases in the Indo-European Languages. Ph.D. diss., UCLA. Zwicky, Arnold M., and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 1983. Cliticization vs. Inection: English nt. Language 59:50213.

Reconsidering The History of Latin PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Reconsidering The History of Latin PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Reconsidering the History of Latin and Sabellic Adpositional Morphosyntax

For additional information about this article

Access provided by CNRS BiblioSHS (22 Jan 2014 17:18 GMT)

RECONSIDERING THE HISTORY OF LATIN AND SABELLIC ADPOSITIONAL MORPHOSYNTAX

latin and sabellic adpositional morphosyntax

latin and sabellic adpositional morphosyntax

latin and sabellic adpositional morphosyntax

latin and sabellic adpositional morphosyntax

latin and sabellic adpositional morphosyntax

latin and sabellic adpositional morphosyntax

latin and sabellic adpositional morphosyntax

latin and sabellic adpositional morphosyntax

latin and sabellic adpositional morphosyntax

latin and sabellic adpositional morphosyntax

latin and sabellic adpositional morphosyntax

latin and sabellic adpositional morphosyntax

latin and sabellic adpositional morphosyntax

latin and sabellic adpositional morphosyntax

latin and sabellic adpositional morphosyntax

latin and sabellic adpositional morphosyntax

Вам также может понравиться