Lieven Danckaert

Latin embedded clauses : the left periphery

This monograph is one of the first studies that approaches Latin syntax from a formal perspective, combining detailed corpus-based description with formal theoretical analysis. The empirical focus is word order in embedded clauses, with special attention to clauses in which one or more constituents surface to the left of a subordinating conjunction. It is proposed that two such types of left peripheral fronting should be distinguished. The proposed analyses shed light not only on the clausal left periphery, but also on the overall structure of the Latin clause. The study is couched in the framework of generative grammar, but since a thorough introduction is provided, no special background in formal syntax is required. Major topics touched upon are word order, information structure, locality, and the syntax of pied-piping. The book covers both synchronic and diachronic topics of Latin syntax, and is of interest for classical philologists, historical linguists, and formal syntacticians.

Quidem as a Marker of Emphatic Polarity

The present paper deals with the (morpho)syntax and the interpretation of the Latin particle quidem. At the morphosyntactic level, it will be argued that quidem can be characterized as a weak adverb (in the sense of Cardinaletti & Starke 1999), and that it is the middle member of a tripartite paradigm with strong equidem and clitic -quidem as the two other members. As to the syntax of quidem, it is contended that the particle always takes scope over an entire proposition, and that it never induces constituent focus. It will be shown that the element to the left of quidem can be a focus, a topic or a discourse neutral constituent, and that the pragmatic status of this element is never affected by the presence of quidem. Finally, two claims are made about the interpretation of quidem. First, it is proposed that quidem is a marker of affirmative polarity, rather than a modal adverb. Second, in accordance with many previous accounts that consider quidem to be a focus particle, quidem will be characterized as a marker of emphatic affirmative polarity, which emphasizes that the state affairs expressed by a given proposition does indeed hold. Under this view, quidem can be considered a marker of VERUM focus (in the sense of Hohle 1992).

Latin Embedded Clauses

This monograph is one of the first studies that approaches Latin syntax from a formal perspective, combining detailed corpus-based description with formal theoretical analysis. The empirical focus is word order in embedded clauses, with special attention to clauses in which one or more constituents surface to the left of a subordinating conjunction. It is proposed that two such types of left peripheral fronting should be distinguished. The proposed analyses shed light not only on the clausal left periphery, but also on the overall structure of the Latin clause. The study is couched in the framework of generative grammar, but since a thorough introduction is provided, no special background in formal syntax is required. Major topics touched upon are word order, information structure, locality, and the syntax of pied-piping. The book covers both synchronic and diachronic topics of Latin syntax, and is of interest for classical philologists, historical linguists, and formal syntacticians.

The origins of the Romance analytic passive: evidence from word order

This paper argues that despite formal resemblances, Latin perfect tense BE-periphrases of the type amatus sum ‘I was loved’ are not the historical source of Romance present tense passives like Italian sono amato and French je suis aime (both meaning ‘I am (being) loved’). Evidence comes from the observation that Late Latin has a very strong preference for the head-final order ‘past participle - BE’, which goes against the otherwise general tendency for the language to move towards a strictly head-initial TP. As an alternative, I propose that amatus sum perfects disappeared from the language, and that the analytic present tense passives are new formations. The Late Latin preference for head-final BE-periphrases is explained in terms of phonological weakening of the auxiliary. I conclude by comparing this phonological process to the oft-discussed grammaticalization of HAVE (habeo) as a marker of futurity.

The loss of Latin OV: steps towards an analysis

This paper investigates the loss of the word order ‘Object-Verb’ (OV) in the history of Latin/Romance. It is argued that the immediate cause of this development is an independent change in the grammar of Latin, namely the genesis of A-movement for subjects (which was discussed in detail in Danckaert (2017), ‘The Development of Latin Clause Structure’, OUP). Using Yang’s (2000, 2002) variational acquisition model, I present corpus data which show that despite remaining the minority pattern throughout the lifespan of the Latin language (ca. 200 BC - 600 AD), in Late Latin the order ‘VO’ is in fact cued more robustly than the competing order ‘OV’, an observation which leads to the correct prediction that in the long run the former will oust the latter.

The decline of Latin left-peripheral presentational foci: causes and consequences

This chapter is concerned with the syntax and diachronic evolution of a particular focalization strategy in Latin, which involves displacement of presentational foci to the clausal left periphery. On the basis of a large‐scale corpus study, it is shown that this phenomenon starts to decline around the first half of the first century AD. It is suggested that this evolution is related to another syntactic change that took place in the same period, namely a decreasing frequency of verb‐final sentences. It is argued that both the predominant SOV word order of Latin and the occurrence of presentational foci in the left periphery can be accounted for by assuming that the entire vP is moved to the middle field, to a position higher than the tense phrase. Finally, the loss of vP movement can explain both of the aforementioned syntactic changes.

Magis rythmus quam metron: the structure of Seneca's anapaests, and the oral/aural nature of Latin poetry

The aim of this contribution is twofold. The empirical focus is the metrical structure of Senecas anapaestic odes. On the basis of a detailed formal analysis, in which special attention is paid to the delimitation and internal structure of metrical periods, I argue against the dimeter colometry traditionally assumed. This conclusion in turn is based on a second, more methodological claim, namely that in establishing the colometry of an ancient piece of poetry, the modern metrician is only allowed to set apart a given string of metrical elements as a separate metron, colon or period, if this postulated metrical entity could “aurally” be distinguished as such by the hearer.