"Praedicativum and Subject Complement"

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Phonetik, Phonologie und Metrik

BÉLA ADAMIK Zu den archaischen lateinischen Inschriftfragmenten auf Bruchstücken eines Tonfasses von Satricum ....................................................................................

xxx

VINCENT MARTZLOFF Altlat.-altfalisk. Akk. mēd als möglicher Reflex einer Interaktion hoher und niederer Phonostile ...........................................................................................

RENATO ONIGA Metrica latina arcaica e fonologia prosodica ....................................................

PAOLO DE PAOLIS Problemi di grafia e pronunzia del latino nella trattatistica ortografica tardoantica ........................................................................................................

LUCIE PULTROVÁ Constitution of the Classical Latin accent ........................................................

MARTINA VANÍKOVÁ The Saturnian verse. A New Attempt at the establishment of its metric structure ............................................................................................................

Morphologie

GUALTIERO CALBOLI De coniunctiuo et optatiuo Latina et Graeca in lingua .....................................

OLGA ÁLVAREZ HUERTA Acusativo y Dativo en Latín .............................................................................

JULIE GALLEGO Le participe futur en consécutive chez les historiens latins: de la postériorité à la réécriture de l’Histoire ...............................................................................

GERD V. M. HAVERLING On tense, viewpoint and modality from Early to Late Latin ............................

THOMAS LINDNER Textkritische Probleme bei lateinischen Nominalkomposita ............................

MARIA NAPOLI

2

How Impersonal is the Latin Impersonal Passive? ...........................................

MICHEL POIRIER Retour sur l’indicatif parfait actif en latin ........................................................

Syntax

ALESSANDRA BERTOCCHI – MIRKA MARALDI Mid-scalar quantifiers in Latin .........................................................................

COLETTE BODELOT Quo(=)modo relatif / comparatif: son évolution du latin préclassique au latin postclassique .....................................................................................................

BERNARD BORTOLUSSI Si qui(s) ............................................................................................................

CONCEPCION CABRILLANA Praedicativum and Subject Complement ..........................................................

PIERLUIGI CUZZOLIN Evidenzialitätsstrageien ....................................................................................

VALENTINA FANELLI Le costruzioni reciproche nella lingua latina ....................................................

ROLAND HOFFMANN Latin Word Order Revisited: Information Structure of Topic and Focus .........

MARIE-ANGE JULIA Licet: un cas de grammaticalisation? ................................................................

ELISABETTA MAGNI Grammaticalization processes in the genesis of Latin modal adverbs: rewriting the story of scilicet and videlicet .......................................................

ARTHUR RIPOLL À propos de la quantification en latin: de la nature de multum .........................

FRANCESCO ROVAI Active traits in Latin. Evidence from literary and epigraphic texts ..................

OLGA SPEVAK La flexibilité du syntagme nominal en latin .....................................................

SOPHIE VAN LAER Approche syntaxique et discursive de la comparaison ‘identifiante’ ................

CARLOTTA VITI On long-distance reflexivity in Latin ................................................................

3

Semantik und Lexikologie

IOANA-RUCSANDRA DASCALU Valeurs lexico-sémantiques du verbe latin facere dans les comédies de Plaute ..............................................................................

TOMMASO DEL VECCHIO Scambi di persona e identità travisate nel lessico plautino ...............................

ANTONIO MARÍA MARTÍN RODRÍGUEZ Reddita more ueteri pro data accipiendum est: ¿un valor anormal de reddere en Virgilio (Aen. 3,333-334)? ........................................................................................

EMANUELA MARINI La “classe d’objets” des sons et des bruits non vocaux en latin ....................

ANNA NOVOKHATKO In search of other people’s words: pursuing the semantics of literary borrowings in the language of Latin poetry ......................................................

ANDREA NUTI Some notes on the use of stare .........................................................................

ANNA ORLANDINI – PAOLO POCCETTI Due verbi delocutivi latini tra semantica e pragmatica: autumare e negare .....

CADINA PALACHI Semántica léxica y sintaxis de los verbos Latinos de movimiento. Relaciones entre verbos simples y sus derivados por medio de prefijos .............................

MARÍA ASUNCIÓN SÁNCHEZ MANZANO Problemas semánticos y sintácticos de la creación de nuevas palabras: el cambio lingüístico y el léxico ...........................................................................

TATIANA TAOUS Le latin cērtāre à l’épreuve du français lutter: Présentation et application de l’approche polysémique du groupe CRISCo ....................................................

NATALIA VEGA Estudio sintáctico-semántico del verbo gigno: Voz activa vs. Voz pasiva .......

Pragmatik und Stilistik

TAMÁS ADAMIK Die Figurenlehre in der Rhetorik an Herennius ................................................

4

MARGHERITA DONATI Vocative and Person in Priscian’s metalinguistic reflections ...........................

GIOVANBATTISTA GALDI Connective particles in Late Latin: The case of Jordanes .................................

BENJAMÍN GARCÍA-HERNÁNDEZ Lingüística del texto y crítica textual (Plaut. Bacch. 120-24) ............................

MARIE-DOMINIQUE JOFFRE Cohérence textuelle et deixis: Le jeu hic / ille dans la prose latine ...................

SANDOR KISS Termes organisateurs et termes continuateurs dans quelques textes narratifs latins .................................................................................................................

CAROLINE KROON Anaphoric Reference and referential choice in Ovid’s Metamorphoses ..........

SILVIA PIERONI Nos as expression of the ‘ego’ in Cicero’s Letters to Atticus (books I-IV) ......

JOSINE SCHRICKX Die Partikel nempe diskurspragmatisch neu betrachtet ....................................

LUIS UNCETA GÓMEZ La expresión del agradecimiento en la comedia Latina ....................................

DANIELA URBANOVÁ L’elemento coercitivo nelle tabellae defixionum di argomento amoroso – alcuni aspetti testuali ........................................................................................

ALFONS WEISCHE Nachklassik vs. Klassik. Zu Sprache und Stil von Seneca Rhetor und Asconius ...........................................................................................................

Computerlinguistik

JOSEPH DENOOZ L’emploi de subordonnants de temps dans un corpus latin ..............................

DOMINIQUE LONGREE – CAROLINE PHILIPPART DE FOY – GERALD PURNELLE Subordinate clause boundaries and word order in Latin: the contribution of the LASLA syntactic parser project LatSynt ....................................................

DOMINIQUE LONGRÉE – CÉLINE POUDAT New Ways of Lemmatizing and Tagging Classical and post-Classical Latin: the LATLEM project of the LASLA ................................................................

5

MASSIMO MANCA Database and corpora of ancient texts toward the “second dimension”: theory and practice of MQDQ project ..............................................................

STEFANO MINOZZI The Latin WordNet project ...............................................................................

MARCO PASSAROTTI – PAOLO RUFFOLO Parsing the Index Thomisticus Treebank. Some Preliminary Results ...............

Einleitung der Herausgeber

SYNTAX

Praedicativum and Subject Complement*

CONCEPCIÓN CABRILLANA

1. Approach and starting point

One of the questions when studying the function of the Praedicativum (hence, P), is

differentiating it from the function of the Subject Complements (hence, SubjC), in

case the latter agree with the Subject. In such case, it is also a bit difficult sometimes

to tell it apart from the Attributes or modifiers within the NP1.

Among the criteria provided to establish the difference in the case of copula-

tive verbs we could mention the fact that the SubjC is obligatory while the P can be

omitted2; this distinction, as PINKSTER (1983: 210) put it, seems rather clear as it is,

but it depends – among other things – on how the copulative verb is considered. So

far, there are no comprehensive studies on these issues.

This essay is intended to deal with this problem. Thus, it might be relevant to

analyse the contexts in which those verbs (i) that have traditionally been classified

as copulative appear, and also those in which we may find some other verbs (ii)

which may behave as copulative under certain conditions, in combination, in both

cases, with certain adjectives that act typically as P: in these contexts it will be more

difficult to distinguish between SubjC and P3.

Among the verbs defined as copulative in the KÜHNER-STEGMANN grammar

(1912, I: 15-19) we find fieri (“to grow into”), nasci - renasci (“to be (re)born”), existere (“to become”), manere - permanere - remanere (“to remain”), uideri (“to

seem”), apparere (“to appear”), euadere (“to become”). There are also some other

verbs which may behave as copulative verbs4 under certain conditions: verbs such as

constare, euenire, extare, stare, uiuere, among others. Let us see an example of the

latter; an example that does not seem to be so clear at first, in order to see what

happens with some verbs that can behave as copulative verbs.

The second entry for uiuo in the OLD states: “acting as a copulative, esp. in

affective contexts: To be5 a… being (sim.)”; among the different examples included

in the dictionary, the following one appears:

* This study forms part of the Research Project HUM 2005-06622-C04-03; I would like to

thank the Project members for their suggestions on previous versions of this study.

1 Cf. PINKSTER (1995: 92-93).

2 Cf. PFISTER (1973: 157), PINKSTER (1995: 207).

3 Furthermore, it should be taken into account that apart from verbs of movement, P usually

appears with verbs that are similar to copulas (PINKSTER 1995: 207).

4 Cf. CABRILLANA (under development).

5 My own italics.

230 CONCEPCIÓN CABRILLANA

(1) sed tu insulsa male et molesta uiuis (Catull. 10,33)

According to the OLD, this text does not translate as *“you live as a dull, terribly irritating” – taking dull and irritating as P – but as “you are terribly dull and so irritating”. Should we accept this, it would involve a ‘loss of meaning’ of uiuo, to a certain extent, and, thus, the verb would lose part of its density and semantic content and it would start behaving as a veritable copulative verb with a minimum pre-dicationality index6; thus, the seeming P would in fact be functioning as a SubjC7. Moreover, we should also take into account that uiuo shares certain features with esse: it denotes a durative process and a lexical, undelimited Aktionsart; it is thanks to these features that it can approach the syntactic-semantic characterization of sum under certain specific conditions.

The interpretation of insulsa and molesta as P is ruled out due to the impossibi-lity to apply the test proposed by HAPP (1976: 287) and described by PINKSTER (1983: 205; 1995: 190-192) in order to identify a real P: a paraphrase using a clause with sum:

(2) sed tu insulsa male et molesta uiuis ≠ *cum insulsa male et molesta sis tu uiuis

This approach means that the said verb – as well as those that might behave as copulative verbs and which usually have a monovalent predicate frame – may turn out to have a bivalent predicate frame. This predicate frame must be characterized in a very general way, given the wide range of adscription possibilities concerning the different types of S of the prototypical8 copulative verb, in whose case the first slot is followed by a second argument that will be SubjC:

(3) V “Be” x1[±concrete]Stative x2[±concrete]SubjC erat res Romana superior (Liv. 1,12,10) fuit is integer (Liv. 1,25,7)

Considering this predicate frame as a prototypical structure in the case of copulative verbs sets the structural bases9 of the model that must be followed in order to apply the (non)-omissibility criterion concerning the elements studied in this article (P and SubjC) to the copulative-attributive structure. Furthermore, it is also possible for those verbs that can behave as copulative verbs to have different existential

6 Cf. GOOSSENS (1992). ‘Predicational’ can be equated with ‘denotational’, in the sense of

LYONS (1977: 207). 7 The different translations and commentaries show this copulative value: cf. Dolç (Alma

Mater), Alonso G. (Aache), Fdez. Corte & Glez. Iglesias (Cátedra), Ellis (1889), Cornish-Postgate-Mackail (Loeb), Lee (Oxford), Herrmann (Latomus), Lafaye (Belles Lettres). Similarly, it is also shown by the existing commentaries that refer to several of the examples with this meaning in the OLD: ELLIS (1889: ad loc.), FORDYCE (1961: ad loc.).

8 Cf. CABRILLANA (1998). 9 As to the Semantic Function assigned to the S, cf. VAN VALIN-LAPOLLA (1997: 141-146).

Praedicativum and Subject Complement 231

meanings (with a monovalent structure) or locative meanings (with a bivalent structure): we will come back to this issue later on (3.2; 3.3).

As for the adjectives that usually appear as P, KÜHNER-STEGMANN’s grammar (1912, I: 235-237) establishes three types of adjectives: (i) place and time adjectives, (ii) number – degree – scale adjectives and (iii) adjectives expressing manner – mood – affection – state of mind, etc. This study focuses on the following adjectives: (i) Place and time: diuersus, extremus, inferior, infimus, medius, obuius, propior, proximus, summus, superior. (ii) Number – degree – scale: assiduus, confertus, frequens, nouissimus, postremus, princeps, prior, rarus, solus, totus, uniuersus. (iii) Manner – mood – affection – state of mind: ignarus, ignorans, improuidus, improuisus, imprudens, incautus, incolumis, insciens, inscius, inuitus, laetus, libens, maestus, nescius, nudus, obscurus, occultus, priuatus, prudens, repentinus, saluus, sciens, subitus, tacitus, tardus, trepidus, tutus, uoluntarius, praeceps. Apart from the aforementioned 50 adjectives, the participle absens has also been included.

Of course, all the instances in nominative or accusative (in AcI structures) –which are those in which agreement with the S can take place in copulative-attributive structures– have been studied.

The research focuses on a corpus including texts by Plautus (Amph., Asin., Aul., Bacch., Capt., Cas., Cist., Curc., Epid., Men., Merc.), Cicero (Verr., Cat., Sest., Mil., Phil., orat., Brut., fin., off., leg., Att.), Lucr., Virgil (Aen.), Ovid (met.), Livy (1-5; 21-25), Columella (rust.), Pliny (nat. 8-11, 28-32) and Tacitus (hist., dial.).

2. Structure of the study

The study is divided into two sections: the first one is longer and it involves the application of the omissibility criterion in order to check its relevance in the distri-bution of the SubjC and P functions; in this first section several possibilities are set forth: the occurrence of P in bivalent structures, where it is possible to appreciate quite clearly the simultaneous presence of SubjC and P (3.1) or the occurrence of P in locative structures (3.2), the occurrence of P in monovalent structures (3.3) and the existence of cases that pose identification problems (3.4). The second section (4) provides new details to the study after the analysis of some statistical data. Finally, the main conclusions are summarized (5).

3. Application and analysis of the (non-)omissibility criterion

3.1. Co-occurrence of SubjC and P The explicit, simultaneous presence of SubjC and P takes place in the case of the verb sum only. Let us see a few examples:


(4) ubi sciens fideli infidus fueris (“item, consciously treacherous to a trusting

friend”10

, Plaut. Asin. 568)

It seems rather clear in this example that infidus – SubjC – appears in the second

slot, and this term could not be done away with for in such case the sentence would

turn ungrammatical and meaningless:

(5a) *ubi sciens fideli fueris (*“just as when you deliberately were who was faithful

to you”)

But this does not happen if we omit sciens, which is P in this case:

(5b) ubi fideli infidus fueris (“just as when you were unfaithful to him he who was

faithful to you”)

This type of transformations brings about structures in which, even though part of

the information is lost, the structure is still possible without the omitted element.

We include a similar instance next, in which absens would be P, and carior would

appear in the second slot; this is a copulative-attributive structure like the one

formalized in (3) whose case the dative is a non-argumental one:

(6) iam sum tibi carior absens? (“and I now dearer to you when absent from you?”,

Ov. met. 11,424)

Even though the concomitance between SubjC and P and their mutual differencia-

tion seems easier if it is a present participle11

that functions as P, such explicit

coincidences are also possible in the case of those elements which function as

adjectives only:

(7) nam sola nulla inuitior solet esse (“there isn’t a girl loathes being alone more

[than I do]”, Plaut. Cist. 310)

In a first reading we might think that both sola and inuitior may work as P; but the

following context will make it clear which one is the main structure, proving that

inuitior is in fact P, since sola marks the second position of the verb:

(8) me uocato, / ne sola sis (“just call on me, if you don’t want to be alone”, Plaut.

Cist. 310-311)

In the second slot we may find an adverb or some other type of indeclinable word

such as a numeral:

(9) nudus uinctus centum pondo es, quando pendes per pedes (“stripped and tied you

weigh a hundred pounds – when you’re hanging by your heels”, Plaut. Asin. 301)

10

The translations of the different examples are partially or completely based upon Loeb’s.

11 Cf. PINKSTER (1995: 194).


An old fossilized ablative functioning as an adverb (pondo) depends on the numeral, centum; thus, nudus and uinctus can only be P, as omitting them does not turn this structure into an ungrammatical one; moreover, this structure is followed by another clause (quando pendes per pedes) that strengthens the temporal reference of the P, which is limited to the context in which it is operating12. The example is also the answer to a previous question:

(10) quot pondo ted esse censes nudum? (“how much do you think you weigh, stripped?”, Plaut. Asin. 299)

By looking at the context we find out that the informational focus in (9) is in fact centum, which means that this element could hardly be omitted from the pragmatic point of view either. This instance comes to prove that the omissibility criterion is not to be applied at the syntactic level exclusively, but also at the pragmatic level: if the omission of an element renders the information provided meaningless, even if the syntactic structure is possible —theoretically speaking— as an isolated example, this may show that the element that guarantees the adequate transmission of the information cannot be omitted13. Therefore, the omissibility criterion would be relevant but, depending on the case, it might be necessary to apply it subsidiarily at the pragmatic level too, as can be seen in (11)14.

(11) magno usui rei publicae Ser. Sulpicius et priuatus et in magistratibus fuerit (“Servius Sulpicius was, both in a private station and in office, often of great service to the State”, Cic. Phil. 9,15)

If we take it that the ‘personal’ dative depends on the dative of purpose15 and both of them are omitted, the resulting predicate might be feasible – in theory – from the syntactic point of view, but not from the semantic or from the pragmatic perspective, since its meaning would change altogether and it would not be compatible with its overall communicative context:

(12) Ser. Sulpicius et priuatus et in magistratibus fuerit (“Servius Sulpicius had been both a private person and a magistrate”)

Servius Sulpicius is already known by the audience not only due to the knowledge of the world, but also due to the previous context; as from the beginning of the Ninth Philippic (cf. Phil. 9,1) Cicero had been proposing to pay a tribute to the outstanding jurist. The defence speech stresses his attributes in public trials.

12 Cf. PINKSTER (1983: 208). 13 Cf. (21), (22). 14 Cf. also (16). 15 I will leave aside the question of whether the second dative in the double dative structure

should be considered argumental or dependent on the dative of purpose, since there are not definitive data to solve this problem; cf. BAÑOS (1995: 19-30).


Therefore, at this point of the communicative process it makes no sense to inform that private person was the reiterated topic of the discourse and that he had also been a magistrate. Thus, the context that is closer and not so close to the predicate must be taken into account: Cicero appears at the end of the speech and he emphasises that Servius Sulpicius has behaved exemplarily (Phil. 9,15); and, thus, the words in (11) are pronounced as a summary, and the orator finds sufficient reasons to put for-ward the subsequent proposal to build a bronze statue in Servius Sulpicius’ honour (cf. Phil. 9,16).

Therefore, it seems rather clear that the second slot of the predicate frame includes, at least, magno usui, while the P is formed by priuatus in coordination with in magistratibus. 3.2. Praedicativa in locative structures As to the possibility to find P with verbs with a locative meaning, it must be taken into account that these verbs have also a bivalent predicate frame which, according to their prototypical structure, would be formulated as follows: (13) V “Be somewhere” x1[+concrete]Stative x2[+space]Place Thus, in (14a), the locative ablative Patris would be in the second slot, while inuitus would clearly be P: it can be omitted and the structure does not remain ungrammatical. The same would happen in (14b), where the locative forms part of maneo’s16 argumental structure and sola can only be P; the Attribute option is also neutralized since that function cannot appear with pronouns17:

(14a) ego, …, Patris sum non inuitus (“I… am not in Patras against my will”, Cic. Att. 11,16,4) (14b) ea sola in fide manserat Gallica gens (“the Gallic tribe —the only one— had remained loyal”, Liv. 21,55,4) (14c) dum stabat regno incolumis (“while he stood secure in princely power”, Verg. Aen. 2,88) (14c) could be termed as a dubious case if we consider the locative a non-argumental locative, although it is rather difficult to establish this for sure just using the data provided by dictionaries, since we lack a corpus study. Still, I think that the

16 Cf. OLD, maneo 6a; among the examples supporting the meaning there is one with great

lexical coincidence: Piso tamen in fide mansit (Cic. dom. 66). Moreover, the ThLL, s.v., 283,61 mentions that maneo might also take ablative or locative, be it specified or not (281,74), and the structure might appear without a predicative (Cic. Verr. 2,90) or also with it (Verg. Aen. 3,409).

17 Cf. PINKSTER (1995: 205). 18 Or they can also appear less frequently than as SubjC: cf. also PINKSTER (1995: 200).


correct meaning is the one provided by the OLD, s.v, 7d: “(with less reference to the absence or physical movement) to remain (in a place)”; in the two examples that are provided in order to exemplify the meaning an argumental locative element appears:

(15a) qui domi stare non poterant (“those who could not stay at home”, Cic. Flac. 14) (15b) stet regno (“[they advised him (sc. Syphax)] to abide in his own kingdom”, Sil. 17,78)

In fact, Silius Italicus’ example is lexically identical to Virgil’s, which also includes a grammatical and lexical (dum) confirmation that the situation expressed by P affects S only while the verbal state expressed by stabat lasts. Obviously enough, the omission of incolumis does not affect the grammaticality of the expression. 3.3. Presence of Praedicativa in monovalent structures As has already been said (cf. 3.1), the co-occurrence of SubjC and P takes place with esse, only, and that happens on very few occasions (cf. 4). Praedicativa appear with some of the verbs included in this study, although this usually happens when they do not behave as fully copulative verbs: that is to say, when they implement the other possibilities of their respective intransitive and monovalent valences in the case of sto – (16) –, uiuo – (18) – or appareo – (19a)-(19b) –:

(16) cum staret tacitus (“when he stood still without answering”, Liv. 2,29,2) In this case P is clear; the context comes to prove that in fact what this means is not that the S of staret was silent, but that it was standing still and, at the same time, silent: it is a trial at court during which one of the participants is summoned before the court; in fact, and as a consequence of what the text of this example explains – namely, that the person summoned should not move –, a bit further down the text goes:

(17) lictorem ad eum consules mittunt (“the consuls sent a lictor to him”, Liv. 2,29,2).

(18) et tacitum uiuit sub pectore uulnus (“a wound throbbing silently deep inside her”, Verg. Aen. 4,67)

In the case of (18) it seems that the copulative interpretation of uiuo must be ruled out even though the context is a relatively affective one, as has been said before (cf. 1). But, at the same time, the question is whether the adjective could be interpreted as Attribute in spite of the fact that HOFMANN-SZANTYR (1965: 172) refuse such possibility as they say that the adjectives that may appear as P express characte-ristics that are not permanent18. Yet, should tacitum be interpreted as an Attribute, it might have appeared next to uulnus rather: this position would have also been acceptable from the metrical point of view, because the measure is possible and it has the dactyl in the fifth foot; and the number of dactyls (= 3) and spondees (= 2) is


the same in both cases. In other words: the position of tacitum here is not forced by metrical reasons, instead, it has been deliberately sought for by the author. As for appareo, Columela writes:

(19a) centaurus totus apparet (“the Centaur is completely visible”, Colum. 11,2,39) (19b) Vergiliae totae apparent (“the Pleiads are completely visible”, Colum. 11,2,40)

Doubt rises, once more, since these adjectives could be Attributes in fact. Regardless of the fact that HOFMANN-SZANTYR (1965:172) criticised this option, the possibility to substitute it by an adverb19 seems to favour its interpretation as P. Then, the words that function as S in these two examples always appear in that context without Attributes and with monovalent verbs in order to express their start, their con-cealment or their cancelation20. This very construction can be observed with other verbs in similar contexts; the example included next is rather eloquent, for the previous context – which shares the basic syntactic structure of exoritur – seems to clear up any doubts concerning the fact that totum is functioning as P.

(20) Fidicula mane exoritur, … Idem sidus totum exoritur (“the Little Lyre rises in the morning, … the whole of the same constellation rises”, Colum. 11,2,84) 3.4. Ambiguous cases So far we have proved that the omissibility criterion is useful to tell apart the different elements that work as P and those that function as SubjC. Yet, in some cases this distinction is not easy either, and both possibilities exist in theory. In some of these cases it is also necessary to use context information, which does not mean that the option chosen cannot be criticised. Let us have a look at the following example: (21) postquam perspexi salua esse intus omnia (“now I have made certain everything is all right inside”, Plaut. Aul. 80)

On the one hand, we could say that the presence of the adverb turns this construction into a locative one, giving salua the chance to function as P. Yet, the expression saluus esse seems to be practically lexicalized21; being a more colloquial22 and

19 Cf. PFISTER (1973: 161), PINKSTER (1991: 77; 1995: 199-200). 20 Cf. Colum. 11,2,66; 11,2,77; 11,2,34; 11,2,36; 11,2,39; 11,2,74; 11,2,77; 11,2,78; 11,2,84.

The ThLL (appareo, 262,69) includes this use of appareo with first arguments referring to stars or air phenomena and it also includes an example that resembles the ones provided by Columella: Cic. nat. deor. 2,68.

21 Although the potential attributive nature of the expression is proved by examples such as Cic. Phil. 13,33.

22 Cf. OLD, saluus, 1b.


conversational23 formula, it appears in the corpus in almost 50% of the cases in this type of contexts24.

Another seemingly ambiguous example is (22):

(22) et turribus altis / stant maesti (Verg. Aen. 9,470-471) If we take the text as it is, without a context, a double option seems to be possible: (i) sto can be taken as a copulative verb (“and (sc. the Aeneads) are sad in the high towers”) or (ii) it can be interpreted as a locative verb (cf. (14c)), which means that maesti can act as a real P: “and (sc. the Aeneads) stand sadly on the high towers”. The latter seems to be the one suggested by the previous context, where the verb seems to express a position rather than an attribution25:

(23) Aeneadae duri murorum in parte sinistra/ opposuere aciem (“the hardy sons of Aeneas have set their opposite line, hold the broad trenches”, Verg. Aen. 9,468-469) Nevertheless, it is hard to establish a clear cut distinction between a predicate with the syntactic, semantic features of a copulative verb and the so-called semi-copulas and pseudo-copulas26, among which sto27 is included.The following example can also be considered dubious if maneo is taken as a copulative verb, instead of as an intransitive verb with no need for a second argument: the second possibility is the one suggested by the OLD, s.v. 8a: “(of abstract things) to remain in existence, persist, continue, last”. This dictionary (s. v., 5b) also includes the typical con-struction with praedicativum, meaning “to continue to be, remain (in a specified state or condition)”, but it only gives a few examples with first arguments [+concrete], although this should not be an insurmountable difficulty. Moreover, the disjunction between id imperium and incolume seems to favour the interpretation of incolume as P.

(24) tamen id imperium ei ad puberem aetatem incolume mansit (“still, power was kept for him, unimpaired, until he arrived at manhood”, Liv. 1,3,1) Finally, let us have a look at two examples in which a possible P appears with monovalent existential structures28:

23 Cf. Gaffiot, saluus, 2. 24 27 out of 79 occurrences appear in comedy and 10 in Cicero’s epistolographic work. 25 In Conington & Nettleship’s general commentary (1848) this sentence is compared to Verg.

Aen. 10,121. Hardie’s essay (1994) also points out that “for the picture of the Trojan standing in their towers, cf. 10,121”.

26 Cf. HENGEVELD (1992: 38-45). 27 Eng. to stand. 28 A formulation of the prototypical predicate frame of this structures could be V“Occur” x1[-

concrete]Stative.


(25) nunc si quis erit, erit uoluntarius (“if any (sc. calamity) shall come now it will

be of our own choice”, Cic. Phil. 6,19)

The context contributes to the interpretation of sum in (26) as an event verb:

(26) fuit aliquis fatalis casus, ut ita dicam, quem tulimus, quoquo modo ferendus fuit

(“there has befallen a calamity, ordained, so to speak, by Fate, which we have borne

as we could”, Cic. Phil. 6,19)

Due to this, it is advisable to take at least the first erit in (25) as an event verb (“to

take place”, “to happen”); if the second erit is interpreted in the same way, the

adjective uoluntarius could be plausibly interpreted as P. Nonetheless, I think it is

more probable for the second erit to be a copulative verb; in whose case, the S

(casus) would be an already introduced Topic (“should misfortune supervene, it would be voluntary”) which would function as first argument of the adscription of

uoluntarius, an adjective that would become SubjC; in fact, the author might have

chosen an adverb (uoluntarie) in order to make the existential interpretation more

plausible; and this possibility does not actualize the use of nominatives in adverbial

function29

, even though it would not be impossible.

(27) ita duo diuersa proelia erant (“thus, there were two different battle fronts30

”,

Liv. 23,29,12)

As to this second example, the main question is whether to interpret diuersa as P in

an existential structure or whether to take the adjective as a mere Attribute. That

possibility is rejected by HOFMANN-SZANTYR (1965: 172) and, in my opinion, it

should not be ruled out altogether as there seems to be no data in that context to

refuse it; the criterion that adjectives acting as Praedicativa cannot be Attributes for

they assign a non-permanent feature might not be a universal one, as several

examples reveal31

.

4. Statistical specifications32

In any case, not many contexts pose such insurmountable doubts. In fact, language

seems to try to avoid excessive ambiguity since in the corpus used most instances

are characteristic of copulative verbs in their most frequent construction: elements

functioning as SubjC in copulative-attributive structures, although they are

29

Cf., e. g., rursus. 30

The author means the centre of the battle field and its sides.

31 Cf., e. g., Cic. Sest. 130, Plaut. Curc. 248, Ov. met. 2,733-734, etc.

32 Particularly dubious cases have not been included in the general samples, either due to

textual questions or due to the impossibility to establish for sure the type of structure in each

case.


adjectives that usually function as P. In this regard, there is a rather amazing piece of data, namely, there are few verbs apart from esse (cf. Table 2), and they are more frequent in poetry than in prose, and this type of text is considerably longer in the analysed corpus. Thus, generally speaking, prose writers such as Cicero and Livy prove to be highly regular as far as structures are concerned, using a less ‘varied’ verb range, preferring esse to other copulative verbs in most cases; it is poets who use a greater variety in their structures and it is also them who use P more (7.97% [poetry]:: 3.17% [prose]). But even so, there is a scarce presence of P in the type of context selected for this study (4.25%). The distribution of the examples found is shown next:

Prose Poetry TOTAL Cases with esse 446 (79.92%) 112 (20.08%) 558 Cases with other verbs

27 (50.94%) 26 (49.06%) 53

TOTAL 473 (77.41%) 138 (22.59%) 611 Cases of P 15 (3.17%) 11 (7.97%) 26 (4.25%)

Table 1. General distribution of examples and instances of Praedicativa A second interesting piece of data has to do with those verbs that appear in the contexts studied and with their occurrence frequency. In the first place, it has been observed that not all the verbs in this study appear in structures involving the adjectives selected: there are examples of only 9 verbs out of the 16 presented in §1 and, except for the verb sum, this happens on very few occasions. In spite of that, and even though the amount is too low to get trustworthy data, in general, verbs other than esse tend to appear with P more often when they keep a semantic value slightly different from the copulative meaning. Table 2 shows these data in detail:

Verb SubjC (without P)

P TOTAL

sum 543 (97.32%) 15 (2.68%) 558 fio 14 (100%) 0 14 sto 9 (69.24%) 4 (30.76%) 13 uideor 10 (100%) 0 10 maneo 6 (75%) 2 (25%) 8 appareo 1 (33.33%) 2 (66,67%) 3 consto 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2 uiuo 0 2 (100%) 2 exsto 1 (100%) 0 1 TOTAL 585 (95.75%) 26 (4.25%) 611

Table 2. Distribution of verbs and functions


5. Conclusions

Apart from what has been said so far regarding the analysis carried out, the following conclusions could be drawn:

1. The (non-)omissibility criterion is relevant to differentiate between SubjC

and P, even though it shouldn’t be exclusively applied at a syntactic level, but also – at least subsidiarily – at a pragmatic level: sometimes, a P can be omitted from the

point of view of the theoretically possible syntactic structure, but not from the

communicative point of view. 2. Applying this criterion involves that, as far as the establishment of their

complement structure is concerned, the treatment of copulative verbs coincides with

that of non-copulative verbs. 3. The scarcity of examples in which ambiguity cannot be done away with

comes to prove that language tends to avoid such cases; similarly, this is also proved by the data that attest the low frequency of those verbs that are traditionally

considered copulative, except for esse, in structures with SubjC and P. In spite of the

few statistical data available, it seems that the general trend in the contexts studied is for P to appear proportionally more frequently with verbs other than esse when they

keep their semantic value and their own syntactic structure, which is slightly

different from the general, prototypical predicate frame of copulative verbs33.

References BAÑOS, J. M. 1995. „El ‘doble dativo’ en latín“. In: M. E. Torrego et al. (eds), Sintaxis del dativo

latino. Barcelona, 11-32. BOLKESTEIN, A. M. 1983. „Genitive and dative possessors in Latin“. In: S. C. Dik (ed), Advances

in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht, 55-91.

CABRILLANA, C. 1998. „Structures of Identification and Attribution with sum“. In: B. García

Hernández (ed), Estudios de lingüística latina, I. Madrid, 217-233.

CABRILLANA, C. (u.d.), Syntactic and Semantic Analysis of esse.

ELLIS, R. 1889. A Commentary on Catullus. Oxford.

FORDYCE, C. J. 1961. Catullus: A Commentary. Oxford.

GAFFIOT, F. 1983. Dictionnaire latin-français. Paris.

GLARE, P. G. W. (ed) 1982. Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford.

GOOSSENS, L. 1992. „Graded predicationality, semantization and be in a Functional Grammar of English“. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 7, 53-71

HAPP, H. 1976. Grundfragen einer Dependenz-Grammatik des Lateinischen. Göttingen.

HARDIE, P. 1994. Virgil. Aeneid. Book IX. Cambridge.

HAUDRY, J. 1968. „Les emplois doubles du datif et la fonction du datif indo-européen“. BSL 63,

41-159.

HENGEVELD, K. 1992. Non-verbal predication. Berlin-New York.

HOFMANN, J. B. & A. SZANTYR 1965. Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik mit dem allgemeinen Teil der lateinischen Grammatik. München.

33 Cf. (3).


KÜHNER, R & C. STEGMANN 19142. Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, II Satz-lehre, 1-2. Hannover.

LYONS, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge. PFISTER, R. 1973. „Prädikationsbezogene Sprachbetrachtung im Lateinischen“. Münchener Studien

zur Sprachwissenschaft 31, 151-167. PINKSTER, H. 1983. „Praedicativum“. In: H. Pinkster (ed), Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.

Amsterdam, 199-217. PINKSTER, H. 1991. „Le ‘Praedicativum’“. In: C. Touratier (ed), Compléments prédicatifs et

attributs du complément d’object en Latin. Aix-Marseille, 72-78. PINKSTER, H. 1995. Sintaxis y Semántica del latín. Madrid. Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, 1904-. Leipzig. VAN VALIN, R. D. & R. LAPOLLA (1997). Syntax: structure, meaning and function. Cambridge.

"Praedicativum and Subject Complement"

Documents

Transcript of "Praedicativum and Subject Complement"