1

The Ancient Greek partitive genitive in typological perspective

Luz Conti -Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

Silvia Luraghi - Università di Pavia

Abstract

The paper describes the usage of the partitive genitive in Ancient Greek. We show that

the partitive genitive can take a variety of syntactic functions, including subject, direct

object, complement of other bivalent and trivalent verbs, adverbial, and complement of

preposition. Hence, the partitive genitive is not connected with a specific grammatical

relation: rather, it indicates partial involvement of a referent in an event, which is

usually reflected in a low degree of transitivity. In addition, the partitive genitive may

indicate indefiniteness. From the point of view of discourse organization, partitive

subjects, which often occur in presentative clauses, convey new information and are

never topical. Beside partitive subjects in personal constructions, partitive arguments

also occur in impersonal constructions, in which they can display some behavioral

properties of subjects. Partitive adverbials occur in space and time expressions, mostly

limited to Homeric Greek. Especially when occurring with prepositions, the partitive

genitive indicates that a portion of space is conceived as constituted of detachable units,

as opposed to the accusative. This has various consequences on possible landmarks and

on the structure of trajectories when the same preposition occurs with either case.

Keywords: partitive genitive, Ancient Greek, indefiniteness, degrees of affectedness,

2

low transitivity, low involvement.

1. Introduction

In this paper, we give a description of the partitive genitive in Ancient Greek

(henceforth AG). We show that the partitive genitive can occur in a wide variety of

syntactic constructions, partly parallel to the genitive in other Indo-European

(henceforth IE) languages, or to other partitive markers discussed in this book.

Significantly, both direct objects and subjects can be encoded through the partitive

genitive, which does not, thus, indicate a specific grammatical relation. As we show in

the paper, the partitive genitive may be obligatory in a certain construction, or it may

alternate with another case. We argue that, in the latter type of occurrences, the original

motivation for the use of the partitive genitive is the encoding of partial/low

involvement of a referent in an event.

The paper is organized based on the syntactic functions of the partitive genitive,

and is divided into four main sections, devoted to the genitive used as a second

argument (sec. 2), as a subject (sec. 3), as a third argument (sec. 4), and as an adverbial

(sec. 5). Section 6 summarizes the findings. In the remainder of this section, we give a

preliminary survey of syntactic, semantic and denotational features of the AG partitive

genitive.

The AG genitive results from the syncretism of the IE genitive and ablative, as

shown in Fig. 1:

3

FIGURE 1: CASE SYNCRETISM AND THE ANCIENT GREEK GENITIVE

Proto-Indo-European genitive

Ancient Greek genitive

Proto-Indo-European ablative

The Proto-Indo-European (PIE) ablative essentially expressed origin, separation

or distance with respect to a landmark, while the genitive had a partitive value, which

constituted the basis for this syncretism.1 From a synchronic point of view,

distinguishing usages of the AG genitive which must be accounted for as based on the

partitive meaning from those that result from syncretism with the ablative is not always

straightforward. Comparison with the other IE languages allows us to reconstruct verb

specific constructions which took a (partitive) genitive second argument, such as those

occurring with some perception verbs.2 However, this task may become more

complicated when the comparative method fails to yield conclusive evidence, and the

genitive depends on verbs which, given their meaning, could in principle take either a

genitive or an ablative complement.

1 The functions of the PIE genitive are traditionally divided into adnominal and adverbal (see Brugmann,

Delbrück 1911: 565-567). In its adnominal function, the genitive indicated the relation between a head

noun and a modifier noun, as it does in all IE languages that preserved and still preserve case marking.

The partitive meaning that we discuss in this paper was typical of the adverbal genitive (Brugmann,

Delbrück 1911: 567).

2 In such cases, the verb can be said to indicate an event unfolding away rather than toward an entity:

consider examples such as „to hear something or someone‟, i.e. to perceive a hint of something or

someone making a noise. This means that the semantic distance of the genitive from the ablative was

relatively small. Along with other factors, this overlap contributed to the syncretism of the IE genitive and

ablative in AG.

4

In its partitive usage, grammars traditionally describe the AG genitive as

denoting an entity that is only partially involved in the verbal action (cf. Schwyzer,

Debrunner (1950: 101) and Chantraine (1953: 50-51) among others), being a whole that

can be divided into detachable parts, as shown in Fig. 2:

FIGURE 2: PARTITIVE MEANING OF THE GENITIVE:

In fact, such description of the partitive meaning does not make any distinction

between cases in which the partitive genitive must be understood as a part of a partitive

construction, a pseudo-partitive, (see Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001), or as an indefinite. We

come back to this issue later on in this section.

From a syntactic point of view, the AG partitive genitive has several uses: it can

function as a second argument, frequently with direct object properties (this is its most

often described usage), as a subject, as a third argument, as an adverbial,3 or as the

complement of a preposition. In practice, it can take any syntactic function, with the

exception of indirect object of verbs of giving or saying: as we show in sec. 4, genitive

third arguments are not indirect objects. Thus, the partitive genitive does not encode a

specific grammatical relation, and does not fulfill the function which is typical of case,

that is, to indicate the relation between and NP and the predicate or the sentence in

3 After Homer, use of the partitive genitive without a preposition became restricted, essentially, to

predicate arguments. In its function as an adverbial the genitive normally occurs in prepositional phrases,

except when it expresses time with a temporal referent (cf. nuktós „during the night‟).

5

which it occurs (Blake 1994:1; see further Luraghi 2003: 61-62 and 2009:243-249).

Notably, in many of these functions the partitive genitive is a possible alternative to

another case, which does indicate a grammatical relation (e.g. the nominative for the

subject, the accusative for the direct object, etc.).

The genitive also functions as a predicate in copular and pure nominal sentences

as in (1). This example contains a so-called „genitive of material‟, discussed below, sec.

4.

(1.) állo ti oûn héteros ... ôn

other:NOM INDF.NOM PTC other:NOM be:PTCP.PRS.NOM

líthou ou líthos eî?

stone:GEN NEG stone:NOM be:PRS.2SG

„Then if you are other than stone, you are not stone?‟ (Pl. Euthd. 298a).

Remarkably, in each of the uses we analyze in this paper, the partitive genitive is

generally (much) less frequent in comparison with other expressions.

As noted above, traditional descriptions of the meaning of the AG partitive

genitive do not capture completely all its semantic facets. Let us consider examples (2)-

(5):

(2.) tòn pûr kêai ánôige… optêsaí

DEM.ACC fire:ACC light:INF.AOR order:IMPF.3SG roast:INF.AOR

te kreôn

PTC meat:GEN.PL

„He ordered him to light the fire and roast some meat.‟ (Hom. Od. 15.97s.);

6

(3.) tôn kēríōn hósoi éphagon tôn

ART.GEN.PL honeycomb:GEN.PL REL.NOM.PL eat:AOR.3PL ART.GEN.PL

stratiōtôn pántes áphronés te

soldier:GEN.PL all:NOM.PL crazed:NOM.PL PTC

egígnonto

become:IMPF.3PL

„The soldiers who ate of the honeycomb (=specific) all went off their heads.‟ (X.

An. 4.8.20);

(4.) polláki moi katédeusas… khitôna oínou

often 1SG.DAT stain:AOR.2SG tunic:ACC wine:GEN

apoblúzōn

spit.out:PTCP.PRS.NOM

„You often stained my tunic when you spat out wine.‟ (Hom. Il. 9.490-491);

(5.) en d’ Apóllōnos pólei nemomisménon

in PTC Apollo:GEN town:DAT establish:PTCP.PRF.NOM

estì krokodeílou phageîn pántōs hékaston

be:PRS.3SG crocodile:GEN eat:INF.AOR in.all.cases each:ACC

„In the town of Apollonopolis it is an established custom for every person

without exception to eat crocodile.‟ (Plu. Mor. 371.D.5-6).

In (2) and (3) the NPs kreôn and tôn kēríōn refer to parts of specific entities: they can be

translated as „a part of that meat‟, „some of that honeycomb‟. In (4) and (5), on the other

hand, the NPs oínou „some wine‟ and krokodeílou „some crocodile (meat)‟ have generic

reference: the partitive genitive does not denote a part of a specific entity; rather, it

functions as a marker of indefiniteness, and indicates an indefinite quantity of an

7

unbounded, non-specific entity.

Note that in examples (2) and (4) from Homer it is only the context that can

disambiguate between partitive construction and indefinite partitive: in the Homeric

epic the definite article is not yet fully grammaticalized. Consequently, it is not always

easy to determine if the referent of a noun is definite or indefinite. Examples (4) and (5),

on the other hand, show a different distribution of the definite article with respect to the

two types of partitive genitive in Classical Greek, after full grammaticalization of the

definite article. In (3), in which we find a partitive construction, the article also occurs,

while in (5), in which the genitive functions as a marker of indefiniteness, we do not

find the article. According to Napoli (2010), who has analyzed the use of the partitive

genitive limited to consumption verbs, occurrence vs. non-occurrence of the definite

article indicates a distinction between partitive vs. pseudo-partitive construction (as in „a

cup of that coffee‟ vs. „a cup of coffee‟, in which the NP „of coffee‟ is non-referential;

cf. Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001, 2006). However, the above examples do not

straightforwardly support this hypothesis, as the usage of the partitive without an article

does not seem to be limited to pseudo-partitive constructions: indeed, examples (4) and

(5) do not contain pseudo-partitives. Rather, the genitive indicates indefinitenessand

non-specificity. In addition, the definite article with partitive subjects seems to work in

the contrary way, as it occurs with indefinite partitives (see below, sec. 3).

2. Genitive second arguments

When the genitive is used as the second argument of a verb, one finds two different

types of construction. In the first type, the genitive, though originally a partitive, does

8

not indicate that only a part of a referent is affected. Rather, the occurrence of the

genitive is conditioned by the verb. In Homer and, to a lesser extent, in later authors, the

genitive in such constructions usually alternates with the dative or with a prepositional

phrase. In addition, some verbs (typically verbs of perception or mental activity) may

occur with the genitive or with the accusative, with no clear semantic difference. All

verbs in this group are low transitivity predicates, which do not indicate a change of

state. Low involvement is reflected by low transitivity, and in particular by the absence

of a change of state undergone by a Patient: genitive second arguments are semantically

Themes, rather than Patients.

In the second type of construction, which is less frequent, the genitive can occurs

with transitive verbs, some of which indicate change of state, and alternate with the

accusative. This alternation is semantically relevant: the genitive in such occurrences

indicates either low or partial affectedness, while the accusative indicates high or total

affectedness. This type of usage is more frequent in Homeric Greek, and becomes less

frequent in later authors. In principle, it is possible with any transitive verb; in practice,

however, it is most often attested with specific groups of verbs, such as verbs of

consumption and verbs that mean „touch‟/„reach‟, such as tugkhánō and lambánō.

Genitive objects in this second type of construction can be real Patients and undergo a

change of state. Low involvement is substantiated by the fact that only a part of their

referent is affected.

2.1. Non-motivated alternation between the genitive and other cases

As shown in examples (6)-(8), with certain verbs the dative or a prepositional phrase

with the dative can refer to the same extra-linguistic reality as the genitive. Therefore, it

9

is difficult to determine whether the meaning of the genitive differs from that of other

types of expression:

(6.) hòs mega pántōn Argeíōn ḗnasse

REL.NOM mightily all:GEN.PL Argives:GEN.PL rule:IMPF.3SG

„Who ruled mightily over all the Argives.‟ (Hom. Il. 10.32-33);

(7.) ... pâsin nekúessi kataphthiménoisin anássein

all:DAT.PL corpse:DAT.PL perish:PTCP.AOR.MID.DAT.PL rule:INF.PRS

„... to be the lord among all the dead that have perished.‟ (Hom. Od. 11.491);

(8.) andrássin en polloîsi kaì iphthímoisin

man:DAT.PL in many:DAT.PL PTC brave:DAT.PL

anássōn

rule:PTCP.PRS.NOM.SG

„Ruling over many brave heroes.‟ (Hom. Od. 19.110).

Remarkably, the verb ánassein „reign‟, „govern‟ belongs to a group of verbs that

can take the locative in IE languages (see Brugmann, Delbrück 1911: 513 and Dahl, this

volume with examples from Indo-Iranian). Such verbs often have an animate second

argument which does not undergo a change of state. Similarly, verbs that take the dative

often have animate second arguments and do not indicate change of state, as the verb

amúnō „help‟ in example (9):

(9.) Hellēnída eînai automoléein ek

or Greek:ACC.SG be:INF.PRS or flee:INF.PRS from

tôn barbárōn kaì autoîsi amúnein

10

ART.GEN.PL barbarian:GEN.PL and 3PL.DAT.PL help:INF.PRS

„[The ship] was either Greek, or a fugitive from the barbarians helping them.‟

(Hdt. 8.87.4).

In general, all verbs with a dative/genitive alternation are low transitivity predicates,

which indicate a low degree of affectedness, as the patient does not undergo a change of

state.

Examples (10) and (11) feature another kind of dative/genitive alternation, based

on the instrumental meaning of the dative:

(10.) epeì k’ olooîo tetarpṓmestha góoio

When PTC dire:GEN enjoy:PRF.M/P.1PL groan:GEN

„When we have taken our fill of dire lamenting.‟ (Hom. Il. 23.10);

(11.) philótēti trapeíomen

love:DAT enjoy:AOR.MID.1PL

„We take our joy in love.‟ (Hom. Il. 3.441).

The AG dative is a syncretic case, which resulted from the merger of the IE dative,

locative and instrumental. Alternation of the instrumental and the genitive with the class

of verbs discussed here is also quite typical of IE languages (see Brugmann, Delbrück

1911: 583-584). Examples (10) and (11) show that in AG the verb térpesthai „enjoy‟

can take either an instrumental dative or a partitive genitive (cf. English „satiate

with/of‟). Such alternation also occurs with certain types of third arguments and

adverbials (see section 4 below).

As in the case of the alternations with the dative, the alternation of the genitive

11

with the accusative does not seem to give rise to semantic differences with certain types

of verb, such as verbs of perception and mental activity:4

(12.) tákha dè mnēsthai émellon Argeîoi …

soon PTC remember:INF.AOR be.about.to:IMPF.3PL Argives:NOM.PL

Philokḗtao ánaktos

Philoctetes:GEN king:GEN

„But soon the Argives would remember their king, Philoctetes.‟ (Hom. Il. 2.724-

725) ;

(13.) Tudéa d’ ou mémnēmai

Tydeus:ACC PTC NEG remember:INF.PRF

„But I don‟t remember Tydeus.‟ (Hom. Il. 6.222).

Occasionally, the genitive may indicate an entity which is fully affected by the

event denoted by the verb, as in (14). In such cases, the genitive alternates with the

accusative, which occurs in (15):

(14.) laboménē tôn gounátōn

clasp:PTCP.AOR.NOM.SG.F ART.GEN.PL knees:GEN.PL

„And she, clasping his knees…‟ (Hdt. 9.76.11);

(15.) ... lábe dískon

clasp:AOR.3SG disc:ACC

„He clasped a disc.‟ (Hom. Od. 8.186).

4 On genitive-accusative alternation with perception verbs, see further Luraghi and Sausa (2012).

12

Even though synchronically there is no semantic difference connected with case

alternation in (14) and (15), a semantic motivation can be detected for the origin of the

usage of the partitive genitive here: partitivity in such occurrences is connected with the

fact that the entity is conceived as a part of a whole.

2.2. Semantically motivated alternation between the genitive and the accusative

In some cases, mostly with verbs of consumption, the genitive/accusative alternation

reflects an obvious difference in meaning, based on partial vs. total affectedness. This

alternation can be understood in two different ways:

a) A referent is affected to a low extent, i.e. it does not undergo a change of state.

The verb can have different degrees of transitivity, which are specified by the

case: again, as with the verbs discussed in sec. 3.1, the accusative is connected

with high transitivity and change of state.

b) Only a part of a referent is affected by an event denoted by a high transitivity

predicate, and undergoes a change of state, while the rest of it remains

unaffected. In this latter case, the difference between the genitive and the

accusative does not lie in different degrees of transitivity, but rather in the extent

to which a referent undergoes a change of state.

Partial affectedness as in (a) is shown in examples (16) and (17). Whereas in

(16) the accusative object indicates that a referent is actually reached, that is, that the

action denoted by the verb is carried out and achieves its intended effects, in (17) the

genitive indicates the opposite: in fact, Hector does not reach his boy, who gets scared

at his father‟s helmet plume (cf. Hom. Il. 6.467-470, and see the discussion in Luraghi

2011: 337 regarding case alternation with this verb):

13

(16.) hoppóterós ke phthêisin orexámenos

INDF.NOM.SG PTC overtake:SBJV.AOR.3SG reach:AOR.PTCP.NOM

khróa kalón

flesh:ACC fair:ACC

„Which of the two will first reach the other's fair flesh.‟ (Hom. Il. 23.805);

(17.) hṑs eipṑn hou paidòs oréxato

so say:AOR.3SG 3SG.GEN child:GEN reach:AOR.3SG

phaídimos Héktōr

glorious:NOM Hector:NOM

„So saying, glorious Hector tried to reach his boy.‟ (Hom. Il. 6.466).

Examples (18)-(21) demonstrate partial affectedness and low involvement as

understood in (b): the referent of the direct object undergoes a change of state in all

occurrences, but (19) and (21) refer to a whole, while (18) and (20) only refer to an

indefinite quantity of the referent involved.

(18.) óphra píoi oínoio

for drink:OPT.3SG wine:GEN

„In order to drink some wine.‟ (Hom. Od. 22.11);

(19.) pine te oînon

drink:IMP.2SG PTC wine:ACC

„Drink the wine!‟ (Hom. Od. 15.391);

(20.) pleúsantes es Leukáda tḕn Korinthíōn

sail:PTCP.PRS.NOM.PL to Leucas:ACC ART.ACC Corinthian:GEN.PL

14

apoikían tês gês étemon

colony:ACC ART.GEN land:GEN ravage:AOR.3PL

„Sailing to Leucas, the colony of the Corinthians, they ravaged part of the

country.‟ (Thuc. 1.30.2);

(21.) hoi Ēleîoi ... Lepreatōn tḕn gên

ART.NOM.PL Elean:NOM.PL Lepreate:GEN.PL ART.ACC land:ACC

étemon

ravage:AOR.3PL

„The Eleans ravaged the land of the Lepreates.‟ (Thuc. 5.31.3.)

In certain occurrences, with plural count nouns, the partitive genitive does not

indicate that an indefinite quantity of the entities that constitute the whole is affected.

Rather, it refers to a single, unspecified individual, as in (22):

(22.) Adrḗstoio d’ égēme thugatrôn

Adrastos:GEN PTC marry:AOR.3SG daughter:GEN.PL

„He married (one) of Adrastos’ daughters.‟ (Hom. Il. 14.121).

In such cases, too, the partitive genitive can alternate with the accusative, as shown in

(23). Note that gunaîka „a woman‟ in (23) is also indefinite, and it does not refer to a

specific woman already known form the previous context:

(23.) éntha d’ égēme gunaîka

there PTC marry:AOR.3SG woman:ACC.SG

„There he married a woman.‟ (Hom. Od. 15.241).

15

Remarkably, reference to a single, indefinite entity belonging to a given set is

also possible with verbs that normally admit alternation of the genitive and the

accusative with no change of meaning, and do not indicate change of state, such as

perception verbs. Consider example (24):

(24.) hōs ep’ exódōi klúō tôn éndothen

as at exit:DAT hear:PRS.1SG ART.GEN.PL inside

khōroûntos

run:PTCP.PRS.GEN.SG

„I hear as though [one] of them inside was running out at the exit.‟ (S. El. 1322;

from Nachmanson 1942: 17).

In (24) the fact that the genitive NP tôn éndothen „those inside (pl.)‟ functions as a

partitive is shown by the occurrence of khōroûntos „running (sg.)‟, which limits the

reference of the genitive NP to one.

As the examples show, the genitive typically occurs in the place of a direct

object: as already remarked, it indicates that a part of a referent undergoes the effects of

the event, possibly a change of state, indicated by the verb. As often noted, the partitive

indicates partial affectedness; crucially, however, in the occurrences discussed in this

section partial affectedness does not always coincide with a low degree of affectedness.

To the contrary, the part of the referent which undergoes the effects of the state of

affairs may be affected to any degree, including high, as it can undergo a change of

state: typically, partitive expressions occur with verbs of ingestion, which imply that the

referent of the direct object is consumed.

16

To sum up, in AG the partitive genitive can indicate indefiniteness of direct

objects, but just sporadically (cf. examples (4) and (5)). This limitation partly follows

from the fact that, as we have seen above, the genitive also enters partitive

constructions; in addition, genitive direct objects are obligatory with numerous verbs.

Such constituents are real direct objects, as shown by possible passivization (see Conti

1998, Luraghi 2010); typically, they occur with low transitivity verbs, which do not

indicate a change of state, such as verbs of perception, mental activity, or verbs that

mean „touch‟ or „reach‟. Some verbs allow for accusative/genitive variation; in some

cases, such variation triggers different meanings of the verb, but in most cases factors

that affect it are harder to indicate. In any case, when different meanings are available in

such contexts, the genitive typically indicates lower transitivity and a lesser degree of

affectedness. An example is the verb orégein „reach (out)‟ in Homeric Greek, which

indicates that the referent of the direct object is actually reached only with the

accusative, while the genitive indicates failure to accomplish the action (see Luraghi

2011 for details). Indeed, partial involvement, or low participation, of the Patient, which

is characteristic of the genitive, is generally considered a clear indicator of a low degree

of transitivity.5 Other factors that also determine transitivity, such as the degree of

control by the Agent or Experiencer over the event, the absence or presence of negation

in the sentence and the telic or atelic nature of the state of affairs described in the

sentence, also seem to have some influence over use of the AG genitive. The specific

importance of each of these factors and their possible interconnection, however, remain

to be determined.6

5 On the parameters that determine transitivity in a sentence, see Hopper- Thompson (1980).

6 For partial analyses of some of these factors in AG, see Conti (2002), (2010a), Napoli (2010) and Riaño

(2005).

17

Both the verbs that only take the genitive and the low transitivity verbs that

allow for alternation with the accusative, here described in (a), are in sharp contrast with

the verbs in (b), with which the genitive has a clear partitive interpretation and can

indicate indefiniteness, as seen in sec. 3.1. Indeed, when the genitive functions as a

partitive or as a partitive construction it does not indicate a low transitivity or a low

degree of affectedness. Rather, low participation of the referent in the event is borne out

by the fact that only a part of a certain referent is affected by the event itself. The degree

of affectedness can be high, and it can imply change of state, as with verbs of

consumption. In the case of genitive/accusative alternation, as shown in (18)-(21), there

is no difference triggered by degrees of affectedness: rather, the difference lies in the

fact that the partitive genitive signals that only a part of the referent is affected, to the

same degree as signaled by the accusative.

3. Genitive subjects

In AG the partitive genitive is used very sporadically as a (non-canonical) subject. This

use is attested since Homer, albeit rarely. Undoubtedly, the phenomenon is an IE

legacy.7 Before describing this usage, we briefly summarize the properties of canonical

subjects in AG.

Prototypical subjects, canonically encoded in the nominative, display a number

of pragmatic, semantic and morphosyntactic properties that reflect both their relevance

7 In recent years, many works have been devoted to the analysis of non canonical subjects in both Indo-

European and non Indo-European languages. On this topic see, among others, Aikhenvald, Dixon (2001),

Baños (2003), Bhaskararao, Subbarao (2004), Barðdal (2006) Barðdal, Eythórsson (2003, 2009)

Eythórsson, Barðdal (2005), and Seefranz, Montag (1983, 1984). Dahl (this volume) discusses partitive

genitive subjects in Indo-Iranian.

18

in comparison to other arguments and their close ties to the verbal predicate. This is

shown by the tendency for subjects to be chosen as topic, and take semantic roles such

as Agent, Experiencer or Force.8

Syntactic properties of subjects are more difficult to pinpoint. In Greek, control

of reflexive pronouns, possible elision, and control of elliptical (null) arguments, often

taken as behavioral properties of subjects in other languages, are not solely

characteristic of subjects.9

In contrast, coding properties, in particular agreement in number and person with

the verbal predicate, do seem to differentiate the subject from other arguments.

Typically, nominative subjects agree with the verb. Although some sporadic instances

are found involving lack of agreement between a nominative subject and the verb, as we

will see in (4.1), no agreement is documented between the predicate and other

arguments.10

Thus, nominative marking is characteristic of canonical subjects in AG.

Constituents which, although not encoded in the nominative case, display some

subject properties, whether these are semantic, pragmatic or morphosyntactic, are

considered non-canonical subjects. Remarkably, the genitive can function as a non-

8 On the functions of prototypical subject in natural languages, see Keenan (1976), Keenan, Comrie

(1977) and Dik (1997: 357-358).

9 The syntactic properties of subjects as defined by Cole, Harbert, Hermon and Sridhar (1980) in a

typological paper remain a point of reference in the analysis of Indo-European languages. On the

peculiarities of subjects in AG, cf. Conti (2010b).

10 Note that, in argument clauses with the infinitive the subject is encoded by the accusative case. All

other arguments remain unchanged: ho nomothétēs títhēsi toùs nómous „The policymaker (nom)

establishes the laws (acc)‟ vs. oîmai tòn nomothétēn toùs nómous tithénai „I believe that the

policymaker (acc) establishes the laws (acc)‟. In the event of coreference with any of the arguments of the

main clause, the subject of the infinitive clause may be omitted, or it can remain in the nominative, see

Luraghi (1999).

19

canonical subject both in personal and in impersonal constructions in AG. The

following sections illustrate its features.

3.1. Non-canonical subject in personal constructions

3.1.1 Syntactic properties

In contrast to other ancient and modern IE languages, in which partitive subjects often

do not agree in number and person with the predicate, in AG agreement between

genitive subjects and the predicate is systematic.11

Homer gives us the first possible

example of agreement between a genitive, in the plural, and the verb, also in the plural.

Apart from other possible interpretations (on which see Conti, 2010d), this passage

allows us to analyze the genitive as a non-canonical subject. Due to the fact that in

Homer the forms of autós are still employed -leaving aside a few exceptions- with an

emphatic value, and not as forms of the third person anaphoric pronoun, autôn may be

interpreted as expression of the focus (Conti 2010d: 9-10):

(25.) autôn gàr sphetárēisin atasthalíēisin ólonto

DEM.GEN.PL PTC own:DAT.PL wickedness:DAT.PL perish:AOR.MID.3PL

11 Comparison with other IE languages suggests that lack of agreement between the genitive and the

predicate predates agreement between the two: non-canonical subjects acquire agreement with the

predicate as they gradually move closer to prototypical subjects. With regard to this phenomenon, see

among others Sasse (1982) and Seefranz, Montag (1984). On lack of agreement between partitive

subjects and verbal predicates in Latin, Germanic Slavic, see Conti (2010a: 101-102 and fn. 18 and 19).

He development outlined above is in line with the „behavior before coding‟ principle (Haspelmath 2010),

which predicts that behavioral properties precede coding properties (e.g. agreement) when a new

construction arises, as in this case the partitive subject construction.

20

„They (viz. Odysseus‟ comrades) perished, indeed, through their own blind folly‟

(Hom. Od. 1.7-9).

Thus far we have not been able to find any example of lack of agreement

between the genitive and the verb,12

except for some involving forms of existential

verbs such as e.g. eimí „to be, exist‟. However, it must be noted that for the verb eimí

lack of agreement is not limited to genitive subjects: rather, it can also be found with

nominative (i.e. with canonically marked) subjects. Compare example (26) with (27)

and (28):

(26.) tôn dè polemiōn ên hoùs

ART.GEN.PL PTC enemy:GEN.PL be:IMPF.3SG REL.ACC.PL

hupospóndous apédosan

under.truce:ACC.PL return:AOR.3PL

„And there were some of the enemies, who they returned under a truce.‟ (Xen.

Hell. 7.5.17);

(27.) kaì éstin hoì etúnkhanon

and be:PRS.3SG REL.NOM.PL.M reach:IMPF.3PL

kaì thōrákōn kaì gérrōn

and breastplate:GEN.PL and shield:GEN.PL

„And there were some that made it to breastplates and shields.‟ (Xen. Cyr.

2.3.18);

12 For the analysis of the genitive in subject function we selected works by Homer, Aeschylus, Herodotus,

Sophocles, Euripides, Thucydides, Aristophanes, Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle and Plutarch. We also

reviewed the contents of the Hippocratic Corpus.

21

(28.) ésti dè heptà stádioi

be:PRS.3SG PTC seven stadia:NOM.PL

ex Abúdou es tḕn apantíon

from Abydos:GEN to ART.ACC opposite.shore:ACC

„There are seven stadia between Abydos and the opposite shore.‟ (Hdt. 7.34.4).

Thus, rather than being an archaic feature of partitive subjects, this usage reflects

grammaticalization of the genitive in its function as non-canonical subject.13

In addition to agreement with the predicate in number and person, the genitive

also displays another interesting morphosyntactic property: it can head attributive or

predicative constituents in the nominative. This is the case with the nominative

participle thēreuthéntes in (29), which has a predicative function with respect to the

genitive autôn (see further the nominative mégiston in example (33), which functions as

an attribute of the genitive subject tês diaitētikês):

(29.) eisì gàr autôn kaì parà basiléi tôn

be:PRS.3PL PTC they:GEN.PL and by king:DAT ART.GEN.PL

Perséōn entheûten thēreuthéntes

Persian:GEN.PL there capture:PTCP.AOR.PASS.NOM.PL

„There are (some) of these (sc. ants), captured there, even by the king of the

Persians.‟ (Hdt. 3.102.2).

13 Lack of agreement between the subject and the predicate is not limited to eimí, but also occurs with

forms of gígnomai „become, exist, come into being‟. Evaluation of the semantic and pragmatic

peculiarities of both verbs in these contexts could turn up interesting results.

22

Genitive subjects can also occasionally occur with the infinitive in complement

clauses, in which one normally finds the accusative (cf. fn. 9), as shown in the following

example, in which the genitive pronouns sphôn and ekeínōn are subjects of an infinitive:

(30.) éphasan … epimignúnai sphôn te

say:AOR.3PL intermingle:INF.AOR 3PL.GEN PTC

pros ekeínous kaì ekeínōn pros heautoús

toward DEM.ACC.PL and DEM.GEN.PL toward REFL.ACC.PL

„They said that some of them (sc., the Carduchians) intermingled with those

people, and some of those people with them.‟ (X. An. 3.5.16).14

Apparently, there is a difference in the use of the definite article with partitive

subjects and partitive objects. As remarked in sec. 1, when the partitive genitive

indicates indefiniteness it occurs without the definite article (cf. example (5) above). On

the other hand, the definite article tends to occur in partitive constructions. In the case of

genitive subjects, apparently, indefiniteness can also be indicated by genitive NPs with

the definite article, as shown in example (31):

(31.) en hósoisi toû liparoû enên

in INDF.DAT.PL ART.GEN fat.GEN be:IMPF.3SG

„There was fat even in them (sc. the bones).‟ (Hp. Carn. 4.6).

14 The predicate allows for a reciprocal reading. It seems, then, that the degree of agency of the subjects is

not high.

23

3.1.2. Semantic and denotational properties

The denotational properties of genitive subjects display no peculiarities in comparison

with genitive second arguments: case marking indicates that one or several entities are

partially involved, to an indeterminate extent, in the event expressed by the verb.

From a semantic perspective, the genitive is generally associated with the

expression of semantic roles far removed from the Agent. Genitive subjects are

normally Patients or Themes, as in the examples already discussed, and in (32) and

(33):

(32.) hṓste ouk apéthanon autôn

so.that NEG die:AOR.3PL DEM.GEN.PL

„So none of them (viz. of the Athenians) died.‟ (X. Hell. 4.2.21);

(33.) tês diaitētikês esti mégiston

ART.GEN.SG diet:GEN be:PRS.3SG great:SUP.NOM

paratēréein kaì phulássein

observe:PRS.INF and supervise:PRS.INF

„Some aspects related to the diet are the most necessary things to observe and

supervise.‟ (Hp. Acut. 22.1).

The genitive is also used as a subject of predicates expressing culmination, such

as those meaning „arrive‟, „appear‟, „disappear‟, „fall asleep‟, and so on, which denote

achievements. Such verbs are cross-linguistically most often unaccusative, and their

subjects are syntactically treated as patients (see Levin, Rappaport Hovav 1995). An

example is (34):

24

(34.) en khṓrai épipton hekatérōn

in place:DAT.SG fall:IMPF.3PL both:GEN.PL

„Men of both sides fell in their position.‟ (X. Hell. 4.2.20).

Partitive subjects of unaccusative verbs also occurs in Slavic and in Basque (cf.

Miklosich (1883: 357) on Slavic languages in general and Timberlake 2004 on Russian;

on Basque, see Etxeberria (this volume) and Aritmuño (this volume)). In other

languages, both IE and non-IE, like Lithuanian and Finnish, use of partitive expressions

also extends to unergative verbs, but remains much more frequent with unaccusatives

(see Senn (1966: 392-395), Huumo (2003) respectively, and Luraghi and Kittilä (this

volume)).

3.1.3. Pragmatic aspects

From a pragmatic point of view, genitive subjects normally have a non-topical function,

as they refer to participants that are newly introduced into discourse. Indeed, they often

appear in presentative clauses, in accordance with the fact that the partitive genitive is a

marker of indeterminacy/indefiniteness. When the genitive denotes several human

entities, both the identity and the number of individuals involved in the event are also

indefinite. This feature contrasts with typical characteristics of topical elements, which

must be easily identifiable both for the speaker and for the hearer.

The non-topical nature of genitive subjects is in accordance with their frequent

post-verbal position in the sentence, as seen in examples (29), (32) and (34). As

remarked above, items chosen as topics are typically definite, as they have been

introduced earlier in discourse, while partitive subjects are indefinite. Indeed, post-

25

verbal position is a frequent feature of indefinite subjects across languages. For

example, Lyons (1999: 88) remarks that in Chinese “[t]he verbs that allow a post-verbal

subject are those of appearance or location, some verbs of motion and few other”: in

other words, the same verbs that typically allow for partitive subjects in AG. Lyons

further observes that these verbs are unaccusative, and concludes that unaccusative

verbs allow for post-verbal subjects in many languages including English, under the

constraint that the subject NP is indefinite. In the Romance languages, in which the

partitive article functions as an indefinite, such indefinite and non-topical subjects are

also typically post-verbal, as shown in the following Italian examples (see further

Carlier, Lamiroy, this volume):

(35.) Si è sparso del sangue.

REFL be:PRS.3SG shed:PTCP.M.SG of.DEF.ART.M.SG blood(M):SG

„(Some) blood was shed.‟

(36.) Arrivano dei soldati.

arrive:PRS.3PL of.DEF.ART.M.PL soldier(M):PL

„Some soldiers are coming.‟

The genitive systematically denotes entities that do not participate in the speech

act: this is the pragmatic reflex of low participation, the main feature of partitive

genitive arguments. As a consequence, partitive genitive subjects are typically encoded

in the third person, either singular or plural. The non-topical nature of genitive subjects

is also a reason for this: as is widely known, first and second person pronouns are

closely linked to expression of the topic. Indeed, speech act participants are often

26

chosen as topics in discourse.15

3.2. Negation

Handbooks of AG and other ancient IE languages highlight the frequent occurrence of

the partitive genitive in negative sentences. In fact, in Lithuanian and Slavic, second

arguments of verbs in negative sentences are, with few exceptions, encoded through the

partitive genitive (cf. Miklosich 1883: 498-499, 1966: 392- 419 and Timberlake 2004).

Furthermore, in Slavic languages genitive subjects mostly occur in sentences with

negative polarity (cf. Miklosich 1883: 357-358 and Večerca 1993: 75). As shown in

Miestamo (this volume), the occurrence of partitive cases with negation is not limited to

IE languages. However, it seems to be a phenomenon best detectable in (some)

languages of Europe, as “[t]he requirement that a case with a partitive function be used

on NPs under the scope of negation is not found outside the familiar European

languages.” (see Etxeberria this volume, and Aritmuño, this volume on Basque, and

Miestamo this volume for examples from Balto-Finnic languages).

In AG occurence of the genitive under the scope of negation is sporadic, and is

apparently limited to genitive subjects.16

Example (32) and the passage cited below in

15 Note further that first and second person pronouns are located at the top of the animacy hierarchy. The

genitive, in its turn, rather denotes entities that do not occupy the highest position in animacy hierarchy,

but are located lower down on the scale, such as human entities that are not speech-act participants, non-

human animate entities and inanimate entities. On animacy and topic > comment hierarchies, see among

others Dik (1997: 357-358).

16 We did not find evidence of a similar tendency for the use of the genitive as second argument.

However, as far as we know an exhaustive analysis of all available data is needed to enable definite

conclusions to be made on this point.

27

(37) provide examples of genitive subjects in negative sentences:

(37.) pánta péphraktai kouk éstin opês

all:NOM.PL.N fence.in:PRF.M/P.3SG and+not be:PRS.3SG hole:GEN

oud’ ei séphrōi diadûnai

not if mosquito:DAT creep:INF.AOR

„Everything is squeezed together and there is no room even for a mosquito to go

through.‟ (Ar. Vesp. 352).

The tendency observed in languages of different genetic affiliation to employ the

partitive genitive, or the partitive case if available, as the subject of intransitive verbs,

and more specifically, unaccusative verbs (cf. Miestamo this volume) under the scope of

negation is explained in Conti (2010a) as follows. Unlike canonical subjects, partitive

subjects are especially characterized by a low degree of agentivity. In intransitive

clauses, sentence negation is a factor that diminishes the subject‟s agentivity. Indeed,

sentence negation indicates that the state of affairs described in the sentence cannot be

brought about, and, consequently, that the agent/subject cannot perform or carry out its

potential agentivity. Remarkably, the semantic effect achieved by the occurrence of the

partitive genitive under the scope of negation is specular to the effect achieved by the

occurrence of partitive genitive objects in affirmative clauses. In the latter, the partitive

genitive indicates low affectedness of the Patient, whereas in the former it indicates low

agentivity. Thus, it is hardly surprising that negation and the partitive genitive or the

partitive case can occur in intransitive sentences featuring a predicate that takes a non-

agentive subject, and in transitive sentences in which the verb does not indicate a

change of state.

28

3.3. Impersonal constructions

The partitive genitive is also used with a small set of impersonal constructions. In such

occurrences, genitive NPs co-occur with NPs in the dative or the accusative, which

denote animate, generally human beings. Genitive NPs in their turn may indicate either

animate or inanimate entities (see Conti 2010b, c). Typically, dative or accusative NPs

are Experiencers, while genitive NPs are Stimuli.

In recent studies on non-canonical, or non-nominative subjects, the construction

described above has been extensively studied in numerous IE and non IE languages (see

for example the papers in Bashkararao, Subbarao (2004) and, on IE languages, Barðdal,

Eythórsson (2009) among others). Cross-linguistically, it occurs with verbs of emotion,

perception, mental activity, and physical sensation, that is, experiential predicates.17

The

Experiencer NP is normally understood as the non-canonical subject of these verbs,

based on the fact that it tends to show behavioral properties of subjects, though not

being coded in the canonical subject case (i.e. the nominative). However, genitive

Stimuli also exhibit some subject properties, as we will show below.

In AG, constructions of this type are restricted to verbs of feeling and verbs of

lacking or needing: mélei tiní (dat) tinos (gen) „there is care for something to

somebody‟, „somebody cares for something‟, metamélei tiní (dat) tinos (gen)

„somebody repents for something‟, deî tiní (dat) / tiná (acc) tinos (gen), ellépei tiní

(dat) tinos (gen) and khrḗ tiná (acc) tinos (gen) „there is need of something for

somebody‟:

17 See further Moreno (1990a) and (1990b), Bossong (1998), Bauer (2000) Haspelmath (2001), Cuzzolin,

Napoli (2008), and Barðdal, Eythórsson (2009). For the Germanic languages, see Barðdal (2006).

29

(38.) Zēnì tôn sôn mélei pónōn

Zeus:DAT ART:GEN.PL POSS.2SG.GEN.PL care:PRS.3SG sorrow:GEN.PL

„Your sorrows interest Zeus.‟ (Eur. Heracl. 717);

(39.) autòn gár se deî promēthéōs

DEM.ACC.SG PTC 2SG.ACC need:PRS.3SG provident:GEN

„You yourself have need of someone who thinks ahead.‟ (A. Pr. 86).

Contrary to some other IE languages, notably Latin (Cuzzolin, Napoli 2008) and

Germanic (Barðdal 2006), in AG we are dealing with constructions that are only

documented sporadically. In Homer and Herodotus, these constructions are even less

frequent than in later authors. This fact is difficult to explain if we accept, as

comparison with other IE languages suggests, that verbs of emotion already featured

non-canonical subjects in PIE (see Wackernagel 1920: 117, Brugmann 1925: 24-26,

Hermann 1926: 290-291 and more recently Barðdal, Eythórsson 2009). In addition, it

must be borne in mind that in AG constructions featuring non-nominative subjects are

gradually replaced by canonical constructions, with nominative subjects. We can

therefore conclude that the constructions that we are now analyzing are residual,

although their evolution features some rather disharmonious stages.18

Leaving aside the diachronic interpretation of these constructions in AG, the

18 The prevailing world view in works by a given author and the stylistic resources that characterize each

literary genre also unquestionably act as conditioning factors, determining the extent to which impersonal

constructions are used. Therefore, it is not surprising that impersonal constructions are much more

frequent in tragedy, where reality is governed by uncontrollable, distant forces, than in the Homeric

poems, whose heroes and gods fight for control over the events they experience.

30

characteristics of the genitive in the selected documents are described below.19

From a

semantic point of view, the genitive denotes the triggering factor behind the state of

affairs described in the sentence, i.e. the Stimulus (see, among others, Verhoeven, 2007:

54-55 on this semantic role). A loose relationship between the notion Stimulus and

those of Agent and Force, all triggering factors of a certain state of affairs, explains the

existence of personal constructions such as those shown in examples (40)-(41). In these

passages, the Stimulus is coded in the nominative; it corresponds to the genitive of the

impersonal constructions discussed in this section (see examples (42)-(44)):20

(40.) eím’ Oduseùs Laertiádēs, hòs …

be:PRS.1SG Odysseus:NOM.SG son.of.Laertes:NOM.SG REL.NOM.SG

ánthrṓpoisi mélō ...

man:DAT.PL care:PRS.1SG

„I am Odysseus, son of Laertes, of great interest to men.‟ (Hom. Od. 9.19-20);

(41.) ... hōs autoîsi metamélēi pónos

that DEM.DAT.PL repent:SBJV.PRS.3SG penalty:NOM.SG

„...that the penalty will make them repent.‟ (Aesch. Eum. 771).

In so-called impersonal constructions, the genitive features one behavioral

property of subjects: it can be used in coordination with clauses that contain infinitives

19 Works analyzed include those of Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes. Among

prose writers, works have been selected from Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato, Xenophon, Demosthenes and

Plutarch (Conti 2010b).

20 It can be argued that the dative Experiencer has subject properties in these occurences, as in those in

which the Stimulus is in the genitive, see below, the discussion of examples (43) and (44). We do not

pursue this issue further here, as it lies beyind the scope of the present paper.

31

and accusative subjects. It is widely accepted that coordination between two elements is

only possible if their syntactic, semantic and pragmatic functions are equivalent (cf.

Dik, 1997: 189-190):

(42.) ou nautikês kaì phaúlou stratiâs mónon

NEG fleet:GEN and insignificant:GEN army:GEN only

deî, allà kaì pezòn polùn xumpleîn

need:PRS.3SG but also infantry:ACC large:ACC sail.with:INF.PRS

„Not only are a fleet and an insignificant army needed, but also a large infantry

force to sail with them.‟ (Th. 6.21.1).

In complement clauses, genitives in impersonal constructions are not elided in

the case that they are coreferential with the subject of the governing clause. Canonical

subjects are either elided, or they may surface in the nominative or in the accusative (see

Luraghi (1999) and above, fn. 9):

(43.) póthen? Tí d’ autêi soû

how why PTC 3SG.DAT.F 2SG.GEN

mélein dokeîs, téknon?

matter:INF.PRS think:PRS.2SG son:VOC

„How is that? Why do you think, son, you matter to her?‟ (Eur. El. 657).

In (43), the genitive does not function syntactically as a subject. The passage

does not provide syntactic cues as to the status of the dative: note however that in other

occurrences the dative NP does in fact display the syntactic behavior typical of subjects

32

(cf. Conti 2010c: 263-264). Thus, the dative may qualify as a non-canonical subject as

well, as we will show below.

In terms of pragmatic properties, the data show that the genitive is usually

rhematic, and expresses the comment, rather than the topic. Generally speaking, it is the

dative that encodes the topic while the genitive, when placed in initial position is often

the focus of the clause. In this passage it is the dative constituent that can be interpreted

a non-canonical subject:

(44.) pleiónōn dḕ geōrgôn te kaì

more:GEN.PL PTC laborers:GEN.PL PTC and

tôn állōn dēmiourgôn deî hēmîn

ART.GEN.PL other:GEN.PL craftsman:GEN.PL need:PRS.3SG 1PL.DAT

têi pólei

ART.DAT city: DAT

„More laborers and all the other craftsmen are what our city needs.‟ (Pl. Rep.

371.a).

In conclusion, subject properties of genitive NPs in personal and impersonal

constructions are partly different. In personal constructions, such as those discussed in

sec. 3.1, the genitive displays two coding properties of prototypical subjects: it agrees in

number and person with the verb, and triggers nominative agreement with attributive

and predicative adjectives. Its semantic properties, however, clearly differ from the

properties that are most typical of subjects, i.e. to express the Agent.

In impersonal constructions, in contrast, the genitive only displays one

behavioral property which is typical of subjects: use in coordination with control

33

infinitives. One significant feature is shared by the genitive of personal constructions

and the genitive of impersonal constructions, which keeps both of them apart from

prototypical subjects: the fact that they indicate discourse referents which are not topics.

As topics are normally definite, this fact is in accordance with the partitive value of the

genitive, which indicates indefiniteness. In addition, non-topicality can be seen as a

discourse reflex of low participation, as indicated by the partitive genitive.

3. Genitive third arguments

As already remarked in sec. 1, the partitive genitive can also function as the third

argument of certain three place predicates. Crucially, however, such third arguments are

never indirect objects, and do not occur with verbs of giving or saying. This is an

interesting restriction, as the indirect object function is apparently the only syntactic

function which is not accessible to partitive genitives. We cannot offer an explanation

for this restriction. Tentatively, we suggest that it might be connected with the fact that

indirect object is a syntactic function partly different from others, as it is virtually

always taken by NPs which refer to human entities. Dative coding seems to be strictly

associated with human referents that take semantic roles typical of third arguments,

such as Recipient and Addressee, as well as neighboring roles, such as Beneficiary.

Basically, verbs which can have a genitive third argument belong to two groups:

(a) Verbs referring to legal actions, like „accuse‟ and „condemn‟, as in (45).

Here, the occurrence of the genitive can hardly be explained from a synchronic

point of view:

(45.) ḕn Lakedaimoníous tês exapátēs timōrēsṓmetha

34

if Spartan:ACC.PL ART.GEN trick:GEN punish:SBJV.AOR.1PL.

„If we punish the Spartans for their trick...‟ (X. An. 7.1.25.3).

(b) Verbs of filling and commercial transaction that can take either a genitive or an

instrumental dative. This group corresponds to two-place verbs such as

térpomai, described in sec. 2.1; case alternation is also attested in other IE

languages. An example of this alternation is given below:

(46.) en d’ ōteilàs plêsan aleíphatos

in PTC wound:ACC.PL fill:AOR.3PL ointment:GEN

enneṓroio

nine.years.old:GEN

„They filled the wounds with an ointment that was nine years old.‟ (Hom. Il.

18.351);

(47.) kalámēs plē santes pân tò ploîon

reed:GEN fill:PTCP.AOR.NOM.PL all:ACC ART.ACC boat:ACC

toûto apieîsi kata tòn potamòn

DEM.ACC send.away:PRS.3SG along ART.ACC river.ACC

„They then fill all this boat with reeds and send it floating down the river.‟ (Hdt

1.194.2);

(48.) dakrúois gàr Hellád’ hápasan éplēsen

tear:DAT.PL PTC Greece:ACC all:ACC fill:AOR.3SG

„For she filled all Greece with tears.‟ (E. Or.1363).

The IE origin of this usage of the partitive genitive can be demonstrated by

35

parallels with other languages, such as for example Latin:

(49.) plenus timoris

full:NOM fear:GEN

„full of fear‟;

(50.) plenus expectatione

full:NOM expectation:ABL

„full of expectation.‟

5. Adverbial

A peculiarity of the AG partitive is its adverbial usage, which also has some parallel in

the other IE languages, though to a limited extent. Adverbial genitives occur in spatial

and temporal expressions, mostly in Homeric Greek. In addition, in Homeric Greek one

can still appreciate the usage of the partitive genitive with adpositions. This was

apparently an innovation in AG, whose semantic impact lost relevance after Homer.

5.1. Space and time

Below are some local expressions in the genitive:

(51.) ê ouk Árgeos êen

PTC NEG A.:GEN be:IMPF.3SG

„Was he not in Argos?‟ (Hom. Od. 3.251);

(52.) hína me ... è halos è epì gês alge sete

36

for NEG or sea:GEN or on land:GEN suffer:FUT.2PL

pêma pathóntes

misery:ACC.PL endure:PTCP.AOR.NOM.PL

„In order for you not to undergo trouble either at sea or on land.‟ (Hom. Od.

12.26-27).

In such examples, the genitive could alternate with a dative locative, as in:

(53.) pater d’ emos Argei nasthe

father:NOM PTC POSS.1SG.NOM Argos:DAT abide:AOR.3SG

„My father lived in Argos.‟ (Hom. Il. 14.119).

Elsewehere, it may alternate with a PP which basically indicates a locative, as shown in

(52), in which halòs is coordinated with an epí phrase.21

Even though such occurrences are relatively few, they are very important when

compared to occurrences of the so-called ablative genitive. Indeed, the genitive without

prepositions could express the meaning of an ablative only under special contextual

21 The occurrence of the genitive in (52) is also remarkable in this respect. In Homeric Greek,

adpositional phrases were not yet fully grammaticalized as such (see Hewson, Bubenik 2004 for a

thorough discussion); especially on the spatial plane, adpositions often specified meanings that could be

independently expressed by cases. This is especially clear in (52), where both halós and gês indicate

location, and epí adds the specification of a relation which holds on the vertical axis. Interestingly, in

similar occurrences with epí the dative also seems to express pretty much the same meaning as the

genitive, see Luraghi (2003: 298, 302-303) for examples and discussion.

37

conditions, with verbs or adjectives that required such meaning.22

When no such

indication was available from the context, apparently, the most readily available

interpretation of a genitive was the partitive. This is shown by example (51), in which

we find the verb „be‟. The meaning of a dedicated ablative case here would be „being

away from‟: however, that the AG genitive is not a dedicated ablative is shown by the

fact that such a meaning can only be expressed through a PP in Homer, as in (54):

(54.) kaì gár tís th’ héna mêna

and PTC INDF.NOM PTC one:ACC month:ACC

méno n apò hês alókhoio ...

remain:PTCP.PRS.NOM from POSS.3SG.GEN wife:GEN

„For he that abides but one single month far from his wife ...‟ (Il. 2.292).

Similarly, example (52) does not contain any indication encoded by the verb regarding

the meaning of the spatial expression. The locative meaning of the NP halós is encoded

only by the genitive case.

As compared to other cases (the dative, which could functioned as a locative,

and the accusative, which could appear in allative and perlative expressions), the

partitive genitive points toward the conceptualization of a portion of space as

constituted by subparts, separable from one another, among which an entity can be

located. This has consequences on the structure of possible trajectories within genitive

22 Remarkably, even with motion verbs the genitive does not per se express Source, and does not function

as an ablative: it does so only when the verb itself requires a Source expression. Otherwise, the genitive

indicates Direction, as does the dative with certain verbs of motion, and as does the accusative. See

Chantraine (1953: 52-53), and Luraghi, Sausa (2012).

38

landmarks in PPs, as we will see in the next section.

After Homer, the partitive genitive in spatial expressions is no longer found.

However, time expressions also occur in Classical Greek, as in (55):23

(55.) pínein te kaì eupathéein, oute h merēs oute

drink:INF.PRS PTC and enjoy:INF.PRS NEG day:GEN NEG

nuktós aníenta

night:GEN let.go:PTCP.PRS.ACC

„and would drink and enjoy himself, not letting up day or night,‟ (Hdt. 2.133.4).

5.2. Complement of adposition

The occurrence of the partitive genitive with adpositions is an innovative feature of

Homeric Greek. In other ancient IE languages, the genitive does not normally occur

with adpositions, unless its origin is adnominal: an example is the genitive with causā

and gratiā in Latin. Remarkably, the independent meaning of cases was still quite

strong in Homeric Greek even with adpositions (the adpositional phrase was still

developing, see Hewson, Bubenik 2006, Luraghi 2010). The result of the extension of

the partitive genitive to adpositional phrases had the effect that cases developed

different oppositions between one another.

Inherited from PIE was the threefold opposition:

dative --> locative

23 The use of the partitive genitive in time expressions can be reconstructed for PIE as it is also attested in

other ancient (and some modern) languages, for example in Germanic, cf. Gothic nahts, Modern German

nachts „at night‟.

39

accusative --> allative

genitive --> ablative

The inherited spatial meaning of cases had the consequence the AG dative encoded the

locative relation (cf. example (53)). This fact depends on case syncretism, as the dative

was the merger of the PIE dative and locative. However, as we have seen above, the

independent spatial meaning of the partitive genitive is locative: it indicates an area in

which a certain event takes place. In addition, even the accusative could indicate a

location, rather than a direction. When indicating location, the accusative is generally

said to occur in situations in which a certain extension of space is envisaged, and often

adds a perlative meaning, as in:

(56.) póthen pleîth’ hugrà kéleutha; ... mapsidíōs

whence sail:PRS.2PL wet:ACC.PL path:ACC.PL randomly

alálēsthe ... hupeìr hála ...?

wander:PRS.2PL.M/P over sea:ACC

“Whence do you sail over the watery ways? ... do you wander at random over

the sea?” (Hom. Od. 71-73).

Example (56) is especially interesting when compared to (52): in both examples, similar

spatial relations are expressed twice, the second time with the addition of an adposition

that indicates a relation on the vertical axis. As the occurrence of the adverb mapsidíōs

„at random‟ shows, the accusative profiles movement on a surface: hence the name of

„accusative of extension‟ (see Chantraine 1953: 45).

Especially when occurring with prepositions, the genitive and the accusative

indicate two different types of extended areas. The opposition between the two cases

40

can be understood as a spatial correspondence of the opposition between partial and

total affectedness with partitive genitive or accusative direct objects of verbs of

consumption. The partitive indicates a surface that can be divided into parts; the

accusative, on the contrary, indicates an extension which is conceived as an indivisible

whole. This difference affects the type of landmarks that can occur in the two cases.

The difference is neatly examplified by metá, „among‟. With this preposition, the

accusative only occurs with singular collective nouns or with plurals modified by the

adjective pâs „all‟. An example is:

(57.) toîsi dè thumòn enì stéthessin órine

DEM.DAT.PL PTC soul:ACC in breast:DAT.PL stir:AOR.3SG

pâsi metà plethún

all:DAT.PL.M among crowd:ACC

„He moved the soul of everyone in the crowd.‟ (Hom. Il. 2.142-143).

The genitive, on the other hand, only occurs with plural count nouns, as shown in:

(58.) hoì mèn ... metà Boiotôn emákhonto

DEM.NOM.PL PTC among Boeotian:GEN.PL fight:IMPF.M/P.3PL

„these were fighting among the Boeotians‟ (Hom. Il. 13.699-700).

In the above examples, landmarks are multiplex following the terminology in Talmy

(2000). However, while genitive landmarks are multiplex and discontinuous, accusative

ones are continuous. This means that genitive landmarks are formed by sub-units which

can be singled out separately, while accusative landmarks cannot be further analyzed.

41

Such difference is reflected by the occurrence of plural count nouns (genitive) or

collective or nouns with pâs (accusative).24

Another way in which the opposition between the genitive and the accusative

can affect the conceptualization of the landmark is shown by the usage of diá. This

preposition has a perlative meaning „through‟, and indicates that a trajector is moving

along a trajectory inside a landmark (without reference to the initial or endpoint of the

trajectory). With this prepostion, case alternation alters the structre of the trajectory.

The partitive genitive, which indicates a surface that can be divided into separate units,

indicates a unique trajectory, along which the trajector can be traced down at any point

in its movement. The accusative, instead, indicates that the trajectory is internal to the

landmark, but cannot be traced in a precise manner. In much the same way as the

„accusative of extension‟ in example (56), the accusative with diá indicates a random

movement. Consider the examples:

(59.) kephalèn d’ hapalês apò deirês kópsen

head:ACC PTC tender:GEN from neck:GEN cut:AOR.3SG

Oïliádes ... hêke dé min sphairedòn

24 The dative also occurs with metá in Homeric Greek: and indeed it is the most frequent case. It occurs

215 times, while the accusative occurs 164 times and the genitive, which was mostl likely a recent

innovation, only occurs five times, in occurrences similar to the one in (58). In location expressions, the

dative was not constrained by specific types of landmark: in particular, it could occur both with count and

with mass nouns. Thus, contrary to the other two cases, the dative was underspecified regarding the

mass/count distinction in location expressions. Note that metá could occur with other types of expression,

notably it could mean „between‟ (only with the dative), or it could indicate motion after a landmark (with

the accusative). See Luraghi (2003: 244-249) and (2005). Remarkably, the dative, which was the most

frequent case in Homeric Greek, is no longer used with metá in Classical Attic-Ionic.

42

son.of.O.:NOM throw:AOR.3SG PTC 3SG.ACC like.a.ball

helixámenos di’ homílou

roll:PTCP.AOR.MID.NOM through crowd:GEN

„The son of Oïleus cut the head from the tender neck, and with a swing he sent it

rolling through the throng like a ball.‟ (Il. 13.202.204);

(60.) helixámenos dià béssas

turn:PTCP.AOR.MID.NOM through glen:ACC.PL

„(A wild boar) turning around through the glens.‟ (Il. 17.283).

In (59) and (60) the same verb form, helixámenos, indicates two different types of

motion. The head of the champion in (59), cut off from his neck, rolls on itself along a

straight trajectory inside an area defined by the crowd: here, the genitive landmark is a

surface which can be divided into parts. Hence, the trajectory can be traced down. The

wild boar in (60), instead, runs around in different directions among the glens. The

accusative landmark does not allow for precise tracking of the trajector, and movement

is performed at random. Thus, the difference between diá with the genitive and diá with

the accusative with motion verbs can be captured in terms of trajectory structure: while

diá with the genitive indicates a single path, diá with the accusative indicates multiple

path.25

A similar distinction appears when the two types of prepositional phrase occur

with verbs that denote static situations. Compare the following examples:

(61.) polloì dè sues thaléthontes

25 In a limited number of occurrences, diá takes the directional accusative in Homer and indicates

movement across a landmark, see Luraghi (2012).

43

many:NOM.PL PTC swine:NOM.PL bloom:PTCP.PRS.NOM.PL

aloiphêi heuómenoi tanúonto dià

grease:DAT singe:PTCP.PRS.M/P.NOM.PL stretch:IMPF.M/P.3PL through

phlogòs Hephaístoio

flame:GEN H.:GEN

„Many swine, rich with fat, were stretched to singe over the flame of

Hephaestus.‟ (Il. 9.467-468);

(62.) autàr ho Kúklo pas megál’ épuen, hoí rhá

then DEM.NOM K.:ACC.PL loudly call:IMPF.3SG DEM.NOM.PL PTC

min amphìs óikeon en spéessi di’

3SG.ACC around live:IMPF.3PL in cave:DAT.PL through

ákrias enemoéssas

height:ACC.PL windy:ACC.PL

„Then he called aloud to the Cyclopes, who dwelt round about him in caves

among the windy heights.‟ (Od. 9.399-400).

In (61), diá with the genitive denotes a situation in which a (number of) straight

trajector(s) is stretched through an area identified by the flame. In (62) instead diá with

the accusative indicates that the units which constitute the trajector are located randomly

within a certain area (more details and other examples can be found in Luraghi 2003 ch.

3.9).

6. Recapitulation

In this paper, we discussed various usages of the AG genitive which may be regarded as

44

connected with its partitive value. We have shown that, when functioning as a partitive,

the genitive can take virtually any syntactic function, except apparently that of third

argument of verbs of giving and communication. Accordingly, we have analyzed the

semantic, syntactic and pragmatic features of the partitive genitive in specific syntactic

functions.

Originally, the partitive genitive indicated that an entity is made up of divisible

parts. With such an entity, it is conceivable that an event does not affect all its parts. As

a consequence, the partitive genitive indicates a low degree of involvement of a certain

referent in a state of affairs. This general feature has different instantiations, depending

on other variables, as e.g. the fact that the partitive genitive functions as an object, as a

subject, or as an adverbial. In the case of partitive direct objects, low involvement may

mean that a referent does not undergo a change of state, or that only a part of it does.

These features are most clear with verbs that admit case variation for direct objects,

whereby accusative objects indicate high involvement. Especially verbs that do not

admit case variation and take partitive objects are low transitivity predicates, which do

not indicate change of state (this is also true of some verbs that admit case variation).

Genitive subjects, too, typically occur with low transitivity predicates, most

often in presentative constructions or with unaccusative verbs. As they imply

indefiniteness and are only seldom clause initial, they are not topical: rather, they

introduce new participants into the discourse. In so-called impersonal constructions,

typically with experiential predicates, genitive constituents display some behavioral

properties of subjects. In such constructions, they typically indicate the Stimulus and

co-occur with Experiencer NPs mostly in the dative (less frequently in the accusative),

which can also display some behavioral properties of subjects. Thus, both genitive and

dative NPs with experiential predicates qualify as non-canonical subjects.

45

In several languages, partitives shown a strict connection with negation. This

connection is also present in AG, even though to a limited extent: partitive subjects can

occur under the scope of negation, but they are far from being obligatory, as the

nominative case can occur as well, and is in fact more frequent.

As already remarked, partitive third arguments are infrequent: in particular, they

never occur in the function of indirect object, that is, with verbs of giving or saying,

with which the indirect object is typically human. Indeed, they are virtually restricted to

verbs of judging or condemning and to verbs of filling and of economic transaction,

with which they alternate with the instrumental dative. Note that such third arguments

are typically inanimate.

Partitive adverbials can indicate a point in time or in space, the latter usage being

virtually limited to Homer. They occur in passages in which the locative dative would

also be possible. In addition, the partitive genitive can also occur in adpositional

phrases, again mostly limited to Homeric Greek. With adpositions, the partitive genitive

tends to either be interpreted as a locative, again competing with the dative, or as a

perlative, which indicates unidirectional path. In the latter case, we find an opposition

with the accusative, which denotes multidirectional path. The partitive nature of the

genitive, when referring to space, envisages a landmark as composed by detachable

units. A trajectory moving on such a landmark is conceived of as moving along a

clearly individuated trajectory, hence the implication of unidirectionality, as opposed to

the accusative, which has no similar implications.

In conclusion, the partitive genitive shows features which are also found in other

Indo-European languages, and are typical of partitive cases in some non-Indo-European

ones, thus confirming various cross-linguistic tendencies of partitives. Among them, the

most notable is the fact that the partitive genitive does not indicate the syntactic

46

function taken by a NP: rather, it can occur in virtually any syntactic function. This is at

odds with what is normally considered the function of case, and makes the partitive

genitive even more remarkable.

47

References

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra, R. M. W. Dixon and Masayuki Onishi (eds.) 2001. Non-

canonical marking of subjects and objects. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Ariztimuño López, Borja. This volume. The origin of the Basque partitive.

Baños, José Miguel. 2003. Paenitet y los verbos impersonales de sentimiento en latín:

sintaxis y pragmática del acusativo personal, in José Miguel Baños,

Concepción Cabrillana, Esperanza Torrego and Jesús de la Villa (eds.),

Praedicativa, Complementación en griego y latín, Santiago de Compostela:

Universidad Santiago de Compostela, 51-77.

Barðdal, Johanna. 2006. Construction-specific properties of syntactis subjects in

Icelandig and German, Cognitive Linguistis 17.1:39-106.

Barðdal, Johanna and Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2003. The Change that never happened:

The story of the oblique subjects, Journal of Linguistics 39.3:439-472.

Barðdal, Johanna and Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2009. The origin of the oblique-subject

construction: an Indo-European comparison, in Vit Bubenik, John Hewson and

Sarah Rose (eds.), Grammatical Change in Indo-European Languages.

Amsterdam: Benjamins, 179-193.

Bauer, Brigitte. 2000. Archaic Syntax in Indo-European. Berlin/New York: Mouton

de Gruyter.

Benedetti, Marina. 2006. Mehr als Passiv: über einige Verbalmorpheme in

altindogermanischen Sprachen. International Journal of Diachronic

Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 3:91-110.

Bhaskararao, Peri and Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds.). 2004. Non-Nominative

Subjects. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

48

Blake, Barry. 1994. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bossong, George. 1998. Le marquage de l‟expérient dans les langues d‟Europe, in

Jack Feuillet (ed.) Actance et Valence dans les Langues de l’Europe.

Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 259-294.

Brugmann, Karl. 1913. Griechische Grammatik II, München: C. H. Beck.

Brugmann, Karl. 1925. Die Syntax des einfachen Satzes im Indogermanischen,

Berlin/Leipzig: Mouton de Gruyter.

Brugmann, Karl and Berthold Delbrück. 1911. Grundriss der vergleichende

Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, 2nd edn, vol. 2: Vergleichende

Laut-, Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre, Strassburg: Trübner.

Carlier, Anne. 2007. From Preposition to Article: The Grammaticalization of the

French Partitive, Studies in Language 31:1-49.

Carlier, Anne and Béatrice Lamiroy. This volume. The grammaticalization of the

prepositional partitive in Romance.

Chantraine, Pierre. 1953. Grammaire homérique II: Syntaxe, Paris: Klincksieck.

Cole, Peter, William Harbert, Gabriella Hermon, and S.N. Sridhar (eds.). 1980. The

acquisition of subjecthood, Language 56.4:719-743.

Conti, Luz. 1998. Zum Passiv von griechischen Verben mit Gen. bzw. Dat. als

zweitem Komplement, Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft (MSS),

58:13-50.

Conti, Luz. 2002. Kasussyntax bei Homer: Überlegungen zum adverbalen Akkusativ,

in Heinrich Hettrich and Jeong-So Kim (eds.), Indogermanische Syntax:

Fragen und Perspektiven, Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 1-19.

Conti, Luz. 2010a. Synchronie und Diachronie des altgriechischen Genitivs als

Semisubjekt, Historische Sprachforschungen 121, 2008 (2010):94-113.

49

Conti, Luz. 2010b. Weiteres zum Genitiv als Semisubjekt im Altgriechischen:

Analyse des Kasus bei impersonalen Konstruktionen, Historische

Sprachforschungen 122, 2009 (2010):182-207.

Conti, Luz. 2010c. Análisis del dativo en construcciones impersonales: Los conceptos

de sujeto y de semisujeto en griego antiguo, Emerita 78.2:249-273.

Conti, Luz. 2010d. Nota sobre Odisea I.7, Exemplaria 14:3-14.

Crespo, Emilio, Luz Conti and Helena Maquieira. 2003. Sintaxis del griego clásico,

Madrid: Gredos.

Cuzzolin, Pierluigi and Maria Napoli. 2008. An Overview of Impersonal Verbs in

Indo-European, in Rosemarie Lühr and Sabine Ziegler (eds.), Protolanguage

and Prehistory. Proceedings of the Twelfth Congress of the Indogermanische

Gesellschaft in Krakow.Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 75-81.

Dahl, Eystein. This volume. Subjects and Objects in Indo-Iranian and beyond.

Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 2, Complex and

Derived Constructions, Berlin /New York: Mouton de Gruyter (ed. by Kees

Hengeveld).

Eckert, Rainer, Emilia Crome and Christian Fleckenstein. 1983. Geschichte der

russischen Sprache, Leipzig: VEB Verlag.

Etxeberria, Urtzi. This volume. The definite article and the partitive in Basque:

dialectal variation.

Eythórsson, Thórhallur and Johanna Barðdal. 2005. Oblique subjects: A common

Germanic inheritance, Language 81/4:824-881.

Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European

languages, in Alexandra Aikhenvald, R. M. W. Dixon and Masayuki Onishi

(eds.), Amsterdam: Benjamins, 53-83.

50

Hermann, Eduard. 1926. Die subjektlosen Sätze bei Homer und der Ausdruck der

Tätigkeit, des Vorgangs und des Zustands, Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft

der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Heft 3.

Hettrich, Heinrich. 1990. Rektionaler und autonomer Kasusgebrauch, in Heiner

Eichner and Helmut Rix (eds.), Sprachwissenchaft und Philologie, Jakob

Wackernagel und die Indogermanistik heute, Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 82-

98.

Hettrich, Hettrich. Some remarks on the adverbal genitive in Rigvedic Sanskrit, in

Jared Tucker and Elizabeth Klein (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th World

Sanskrit Conference, Edinburgh, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas, in press.

Hewson, John and Vit Bubenik. 2006. From Case to Adposition: the Development of

Configurational Syntax in Indo-European Languages.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Hopper, Paul J. and Sara A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse,

Language 56:251-99.

Hualde, José Ignacio and Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.) 2003. A grammar of Basque,

Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Huumo, Tuomas. 2003. Incremental Existence: The World According to the Finnish

Existential Sentence, Linguistics 41/3:461-493.

Keenan, Edward. 1976. Towards a universal definition of „subject´, in Charles N. Li

(ed.), Subject and topic, New York: Academic Press, 303-334.

Keenan, Edward and Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal

grammar, Linguistic Inquiry 8:63-99.

Kiparsky, Paul. 1998. Partitive case and aspect, in Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder

(eds.), The Projection of Arguments, Stanford, California: CSLI, 266-307.

51

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2001. “A piece of the cake” and “a cup of tea”: partitive

and pseudo-partitive nominal constructions in the Circum-Baltic languages, in

Östen Dahl and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), The Circum-Baltic

Languages: Typology and Contact, vol. 2. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:

Benjamins, 523-568.

Kirschbaum, Ernst-Georg and Elizabeth Tauscher Kretschmar. (198013

): Grammatik

der russischen Sprache, Düsseldorf: Brücken Verlag.

Kühner, Rapahel and Bernhard Gerth. 1898. Ausführliche Grammatik der

griechischen Sprache, II.1, Hannover-Leipzig: Hahn.

Lasso de la Vega, José Luis. 1958. Genitivo partitivo sujeto en griego, Sociedad

española de Estudios Clásicos 2:462-472.

Lestrade, Sander. 2006. Marked Adpositions. Paper presented at the SIGSEM

Workshop on Prepositions, University of Trento, 3-6 April.

Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity. Cambridge MA: MIT

Press.

Luraghi, Silvia. 1999. The subject of complement clauses with the infinitive, in

Bernard Jaquinod (ed.), Les complétives en grec ancien, St. Etienne:

Publications de l‟Université, 199-213.

Luraghi, Silvia. 2003. On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases. A Study of the

Expression of Semantic Roles in Ancient Greek, Amsterdam/Philadelphia:

Benjamins.

Luraghi, Silvia. 2005. The history of the Greek preposition metá: from polysemy to

the creation of homonyms, Glotta 81:130-159.

Luraghi, Silvia. 2006. Greek prepositions: patterns of polysemization and semantic

bleaching, in Emilio Crespo, Jesús de la Villa and Antonio Revuelta (eds.)

52

Word Classes and Related Topics, Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters, 487-499.

Luraghi, Silvia. 2009. The internal structure of adpositional phrases, in Helmbrecht et

alii (eds.), Form and Function in Language Research: Papers in honour of

Christian Lehmann. Berlin/ New York: Mouton De Gruyter, 231-254.

Luraghi, Silvia. 2011. Two theoretical approaches to cases in comparison, in Thomas

Krisch and Thomas Lindner (eds.) Akten der 13.Fachtagung der

Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Wiesbaden: Reichert, 331-341.

Luraghi, Silvia. 2012. The spatial meaning of diá with the accusative in Homeric

Greek. Mnemosyne 65/3, 357–386.

Luraghi, Silvia & Seppo Kittilä. This volume. The typology and the diachrony of

partitives.

Meillet, Antoine and Joseph Vendryes. 1927. Traité de grammaire comparée. Paris:

Champion.

Miestamo, Matti. This volume. Partitives and negation: A cross-linguistic survey.

Miklosich, Franz. 1883. Vergleichende Syntax de slavischen Sprachen 4: Syntax,

Wien: Braumiiller.

Moreno, Juan Carlos. 1990a. Universal and typological aspects of impersonality, in

Werner Bahner, Joachim Schildtand and Dieter Viehweger (eds.), Proceedings

of the Fourteenth International Congress of Linguists, III, Berlin: Academy

Verlag, 2396-2398.

Moreno, Juan Carlos. 1990b. Processes and actions: internal agentless impersonals in

some European languages, in Johannes Bechert, Giuliano Bernini and Claude

Buridant (eds.) Toward a Typology of European Languages, Berlin/New York:

Mouton de Gruyter, 255-272.

Nachmanson, Ernst. 1942. Partitives Subjekt im Griechischen, Göteborg: Elanders

53

boktryckeri aktiebolag.

Napoli, Maria. 2010. The case for the partitive case: The contribution of Ancient

Greek. Transactions of the Philological Society 108/1:15-40.

Riaño, Daniel. 2005. La sintaxis de los verbos „„comer‟‟ y „„beber‟‟ en griego antiguo:

un estudio sobre el genitivo partitivo, Emerita 73:263-302.

Sasse, Hans Jürgen. 1982. Subjektprominenz, in Sieglinde Heinz and Ulrich

Wandruszka (eds.), Fakten und Theorien: Beiträge zur romanischen und

allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft. Festschrift fur Helmut Stimm zum 65.

Geburtstag, Tübingen: Narr, 266-86.

Schwyzer, Eduard and Albert Debrunner. 1950. Griechische Grammatik II, München:

C.H. Beck.

von Seefranz-Montag, Ariane. 1983. Syntaktische Funktionen und

Wortstellungsveränderung. Die Entwicklung „subjektloser’ Konstruktionen in

einigen Sprachen, München: Fink.

von Seefranz-Montag, Ariane. 1984. Subjectless Constructions and Syntactic Change,

in Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical Syntax, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 521-553.

Senn, Alfred. 1966. Handbuch der litauischen Sprache I, Heidelberg: Carl Winter

Verlag.

Večerca, Radoslav. 1993. Altkirchenslavische (altbulgarische) Syntax II, Freiburg:

Weiher.

Wackernagel, Jacob. 1920. Vorlesungen über Syntax I, Göttingen: Akademie der

Wissenschaften zu Göttingen.

Wandruszka, Ulrich. 1981. Typen romanischer Subjektinversion, in Horst Geckeler,

Brigitte Schlieben-Lange, Jürgen Trabant and Harald Weydt (eds.), Logos

semantikos. Studia linguistica in honorem Eugenio Coseriu (1921-1981) IV,

54

Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.