Archaic Syntax in Indo-European: The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French

413 Pages·2000·65.54 MB·English

by  Brigitte Bauer

Archaic Syntax in Indo-European
W
DE
G
Trends in Linguistics
Studies and Monographs 125
Editor
Werner Winter
Mouton de Gruyter
Berlin · New York
Archaic Syntax in Indo-European
The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French
by
Brigitte Bauer
Mouton de Gruyter
Berlin · New York 2000
Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague)
is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin.
© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines
of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Bauer, Brigitte
Archaic syntax in Indo-European ; the spread of transitiv-
ity in Latin and French / by Brigitte Bauer.
p. cm. - (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs;
125)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 3 11 0167239 (alk. paper)
1. Indo-European languages - Syntax. 2. Indo-European
languages - Verb. 3. Proto-Indo-European language - Syn-
tax. I. Title. II. Series.
P671.B38 2000
415-dc21
00-024833
Die Deutsche Bibliothek - Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Bauer, Brigitte:
Archaic syntax in Indo-European : the spread of transitivity in
Latin and French / by Brigitte Bauer. - Berlin ; New York :
Mouton de Gruyter, 2000
(Trends in linguistics : Studies and monographs ; 125)
ISBN 3-11-016723-9
© Copyright 2000 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin
All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this
book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechan-
ical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, with-
out permission in writing from the publisher.
Disk conversion: Readymade, Berlin.
Printing: Werner Hildebrand, Berlin.
Binding: Lüderitz & Bauer, Berlin.
Printed in Germany.
To Marius G.M. Bauer
1910-1997
In fond remembrance

Preface
Comparative linguistic research, applying the comparative method and the
method of internal reconstruction, is based on two fundamental principles:
arbitrariness of the linguistic sign as defined by Saussure and language
consistency. Since the relation between the signiflant and the signifie is
arbitrary, the occurrence of the same element and related meaning in two
or more languages must be ascribed to language contact, that is borrowing,
or to common linguistic origin. If in addition, systematic phonemic corre-
spondences between similar signs are found in these languages, then the
basis of the relationship can be further specified: such phonological corre-
spondences point to a common origin (cf. Meillet 1926:20ff). They reflect
language consistency.
Acceptance of consistency is widely held in phonology, as indicated by
the abundance of sound "laws", but linguists seem to be reluctant to ac-
knowledge relationship between grammatical phenomena, as treatments of
word order in various early languages illustrate. Advocates of so-called
"free word order" are sceptical of the arguments of their "opponents",
which take into account the distinction between marked and unmarked
sequences, evidence from successive linguistic stages, and especially struc-
tural correspondences. That is to say syntacticians base their conclusions
on regularities in ordering patterns just as phonologists do on regularities
in phonological patterns and the changes they undergo. Language consist-
ency is therefore observed in grammatical as well as in phonological pat-
terns as I demonstrate in this book. The grammatical characteristics of
languages have systems that can be accounted for in linguistic terms. This
observation can be found—in essence—in the work of many Indo-Europea-
nists, such as Benveniste (1966a:91ff) and Meillet, who stated:
une langue constitue un Systeme complexe de moyens d'expression, Systeme oü
tout se tient et oü une innovation individuelle ne peut que difficilement trouver
place si, provenant d'un pur caprice, eile n' est pas exactement adaptee ä ce Systeme,
c'est-ä-dire si eile n'est pas en harmonie avec les regies gonerales de la langue
(1926:16)
As suggested by Meillet and others as well (e.g. Benveniste 1966a), lan-
guage consistency applies to synchronic as well as diachronic language
stages.
VÜi Preface
Diachronie Indo-European linguistics aims to reconstruct Proto-Indo-
European and to analyze the developments that the protolanguage and
subsequently the daughter languages underwent. Reconstruction of the
protolanguage traditionally has received most attention, but both aims are
intertwined as statements by Indo-Europeanists throughout the 19th cen-
tury demonstrate.
In the preface to their new journal, Morphologische Untersuchungen auf
dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen (1878), Brugmann and
Osthoff presented what has been labeled the manifesto of the Junggram-
matiker (Lehmann 1993:7; for an English version of the text, see Lehmann
1967:198-209). In it, the authors not only reaffirm the validity of the often
misinterpreted "Ausnahmslosigkeit der Lautgesetze", but they also stress
the importance of analysis of language change in later languages. The later
stages, they argue, provide direct evidence on language change, on various
types of speech, and on the results of change. The consistency of sound
change, for example, is amply illustrated in languages that are attestated
only orally (Brugmann and Osthoff 1878, quoted henceforth in the English
version; 1967:201). Instead of focusing uniquely on the "oldest periods ...
those lying closest to the original language,... [the] development, the proc-
ess of change of linguistic forms through many centuries" should be pur-
sued as well in order to reconstruct the protolanguage (Brugmann and
Osthoff 1967:199, 201). Consequently, Indo-Europeanists should also fo-
cus on developments "whose previous history can be pursued at some length
on the basis of texts and whose starting-point is directly known to us"
(Brugmann and Osthoff 1967:200). Analysis of language change as advo-
cated by Brugmann and Osthoff not only provides a better perception of
language in general, but indirectly contributes to the reconstruction of the
protolanguage as well: the developments that are observed in later stages
inform us about the characteristics of the language in earlier stages.
Keeping in mind Saussure's and Meillet's principle of language consist-
ency and the manifesto of Brugmann and Osthoff, I set out in this book to
analyze one of the major syntactic developments in Indo-European, the
spreading of transitivity. Proto-Indo-European was a nominative language,
characterized (1) by the distinction between subject of transitive and intran-
sitive verbs on the one hand, and direct object on the other; and (2) by
subject - verb agreement. In addition, it had a number of structures that
traditionally have been difficult to account for, such as mihi est construc-
tions, impersonal verbs, and absolute structures. They survived in the early
daughter languages, but with time came to be replaced in most of them. On
the basis of comparative analysis it will be argued that these structures were
Preface ix
indeed inherited from the protolanguage and that they do not fit the patterns
of a nominative language. That is to say, these structures were archaic and
are residues of an earlier language system, as diachronic analysis will fur-
ther support. This book therefore analyzes in detail those structures, their
origin, their grammatical characteristics, and their development, discuss-
ing the implications for the reconstruction of the protolanguage. In addi-
tion, their identification as residues and their replacement by transitive
constructions not only illustrates the spreading of transitivity in Indo-Eu-
ropean, but also shows that transitivity is not a universal feature and cannot
be taken for granted for all stages of Proto-Indo-European. Analysis of
these archaic structures makes it possible, therefore, to re-evaluate the
characteristics of the protolanguage as well as the developments that the
daughter languages underwent, especially the spreading of transitivity.
In writing this book, I received the help of a large number of scholars
and institutions. This research project was planned and started during a
Fellowship of the Niels Stensen Foundation (Amsterdam), which allowed
me to spend more than a year at the University of Texas at Austin and at
the University of Cambridge (UK). Subsequently, a three-year fellowship
of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (Amsterdam)
provided the opportunity to continue and complete the project. I am most
obliged to the Niels Stensen Foundation and the Board of the Royal Neth-
erlands Academy of Arts and Sciences for their support and the confidence
they showed in electing me as one of their Fellows. Without them this book
would have been impossible.
These major Fellowships enabled me—while based at the University of
Nijmegen in the Netherlands—to spend more than three years at foreign
universities, to expand international contacts, and to become familiar with
various university systems, academic institutions, and research approaches.
Among the people to be mentioned here two persons stand out, Professor
W.P. Lehmann (Linguistics Research Center, The University of Texas at
Austin) and Professor Robert Coleman (Faculty of Classics, University of
Cambridge). Their generous hospitality in accepting me at their universi-
ties, their kind willingness to discuss the topic of my research on numerous
occasions, and their constructive comments and suggestions offered me the
possibility of carrying out my research in a most stimulating atmosphere.
I am also most grateful to the staff of the Linguistics Research Center at
Austin and the Faculty of Classics at Cambridge for allowing me to use
their computer facilities.
In addition, I am also deeply indebted to Professor W.P. Lehmann, for
reading the manuscript of this book and for his numerous comments, which,