Martti a. Nyman - Sum

Linguistic Society of America

Where Does Latin Sum Come from?Author(s): Martti A. NymanSource: Language, Vol. 53, No. 1 (Mar., 1977), pp. 39-60Published by: Linguistic Society of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/413054 .Accessed: 27/01/2011 14:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lsa. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Linguistic Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lsa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/413054?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lsa

WHERE DOES LATIN SUM COME FROM?

MARTTI A. NYMAN

University of Helsinki

The derivation of Lat. sum, es(s), est from IE *esmi, *esi, *esti involves methodo- logical problems. The data, as they appear, e.g., in early drama, are well known, but they have been incorrectly described. At face value, the paradigm of Plautus contains allomorphic variation-sum, ess ss, est st-which has traditionally been explained away by 'aphaeresis'. This has been used as a synchronic morphophonemic rule, generating the surface variants from the underlying forms /ess/ and /est/ respectively, and with the implication that the IE model is related directly to these underlying forms. But there is evidence that 'aphaeresis' has no linguistic basis in Latin, and the IE paradigm described must be in terms of the allomorphic variation observable in Plautus. It is claimed here that the development of sum from *esmi is related to the origin of the variation est st (< *esti). The study is primarily concerned with the mechanism of this remodeling process, but some chronological suggestions are also made.*

The Latin copula has been a stumbling block for students attempting to relate its present indicative paradigm (1) to the Indo-European model paradigm (2):

(1) sum, es(s), est, sumus, estis, sunt (2) *esmi, *es(s)i, *esti, *smos, *ste(s), *senti (N *s6nti)1

Relating 1 to 2 apparently presupposes more than mere operation of sound laws. However, recourse to analogy as an explanatory principle has been shunned by some scholars; as Bonfante (1932:114) says, 'on ne voit absolument pas comment un paradigme du type sum, ess, est, sumus, [estis], sunt aurait pu naitre par analogie.'2 This conclusion is understandable, since analogical development may reasonably be expected to have produced a paradigm more regular than 1, something like that (re)constructed by Varro (Ling. 9, 100): esum, es, est.

To resolve the controversy, Bonfante constructed the model paradigm on the Latin basis, while van Wijk 1905 posited IE by-forms to which the Latin paradigm could be related by means of sound laws (e.g. *s5mos > sumus). These lines of reasoning have been criticized by Szemerenyi (1946, 1964:191-5), who gives an insightful account of the processes apparently involved in the development of the 'unexpected' Latin paradigm from the IE model. Like most scholars, Szemerenyi

* I am grateful to Philip Baldi, Jaakko Frosen, Esa Itkonen, Andrew Sihler, and Oswald Szemerenyi for reading a preliminary draft of this paper. Their critical remarks have contributed invaluably to the final version. The responsibility remains, of course, entirely my own.

1 The model paradigm is based on Szemerenyi (1970:288; cf. 1964:191, n. 4) and on Watkins (1969:25-6). As a result of comparative reconstruction, the variation it shows is natural enough. To quote Hall (1960:203): 'Ever since the beginnings of the comparative method, it has been evident that ... every proto-language has to be reconstructed as non-uniform, i.e. showing dialectal variations.'

2 Ernout (1953:175) motivates the anomalous character of the copula by invoking the frequency of use: 'La verbe signifiant "etre" est le plus irregulier de la langue latine. En raison de frequence de son emploi, il a echappe en grande partie aux actions analogiques et a conserve sa structure compliquee.'

39

LANGUAGE, VOLUME 53, NUMBER 1 (1977)

accepts 2 as a point of departure. It is also the starting point of the present study.3 Adopting 2 as our point of departure challenges us to find a conceivable way of

relating it to the Latin facts. First, in ?1, I shall review the path opened by Szeme- renyi, not because it necessarily leads to the truth, but because it is the most thorough study so far.

1. SZEMERENYI'S ANALYSIS. According to Szemerenyi 1964, the remodeling process started from certain phonetic difficulties connected with the voicing of s before voiced consonants, with the forms *smos and *esmi developing into *mos and *emi respectively. This development would have destroyed the transparency (Kiparsky 1971) or iconicity (Anttila 1972) of the paradigm.4 Instead of using one or two (synchronic) base forms (/es-/ and /s-/), from which the surface forms could have been derived, speakers would have had to memorize a list of suppletive variants: *emi, *essi, *esti, *mos, *stes, *sonti. The attested form sumus, which comes from the earlier *somos, indicates that the speakers chose to salvage the synchronic derivability of the paradigm;5 they separated the endangered sequence sm by the anaptyctic vowel o, 'whose timbre was determined by the labial character of m' (191).

3 Let it be mentioned, however, that paradigm 2, which rests primarily upon the Sanskrit and Greek evidence, would not be accepted as basic by everyone. Philip Baldi (private communica- tion) has drawn my attention to the proposal of Schmalstieg 1972 which, if accepted, would force us to reconsider the possibility that the Latin paradigm may represent the earliest stage, with Skt. asmi, stha as well as Gk. eimi ( < esmi) being innovations. On the basis of fragmentary data collected from various IE languages, Schmalstieg reconstructs 'an ancient accentual mobility which consisted of putting the stress on the final syllable in the first singular, first plural and third plural but the penultimate syllable in the second and third singular and the second plural' (136). This accentual pattern generates the ablaut grades characteristic of the present indicative paradigm of the Latin 'athematic' verbs sum 'I am', fero 'I carry', edo 'I eat', and volo 'I wish', as well as the Gothic third weak class etc. Such a reconstruction has the theoretical property of deriving the more predictable from the less predictable, since it is obviously easier to explain the Sanskrit and Greek paradigms by the principle of paradigmatic leveling than to derive an apparently irregular paradigm (like that in Latin; cf. Bonfante, 114) from a more regular one (e.g. Skt. asmi, asi, asti). Substantially, of course, Schmalstieg's conclusion is not cogent, because the linguistic phenomena serving as input to the reconstruction can be, and have been, explained as internal developments (cf. Jasanoff 1973 on the Germanic third class, and Szemerenyi 1964:198-9 on Lat. fers, fert etc.)

4 The point Szemerenyi is making can be expressed in these terms, although he does not use them.

5 The conflict between synchronic derivability (transparency) and list character (opacity) is the everyday life of language, and linguists attempting to write psychologically real grammars must take account of this fact. In the case of the Latin copula, the change *smos > *somos reflects the victory of synchronic derivability over listing of variants (cf. *mos and *emos). But the Romance languages show that lists have won in the end, despite the workings of analogy (cf. Roth 1965). Again, compare the Avestan forms ahmi, asti, mahi, hanti to the respective Sanskrit forms asmi, asti, smaki, santi: here too, lists have won. The Greek paradigm is an instructive example of these conflicting tendencies. At the outset, the full root es- was generalized to the whole paradigm, as is seen in the Mycenaean graphemic sequence e-e-si 'they are', i.e. /e(h)ensi/ < *es-enti (Strunk 1960, cf. Watkins 27) or /?(n)si/ (J. Frosen, p. c.). Then the initial and intervocalic s became h and subsequently disappeared, producing the opaque paradigm eimi, ei, esti, eimen, este, eisi, which had to be analysed in a different manner than before. The forms of the paradigm could no longer be synchronically derived from a single underlying /es-/. Instead, the variants es- and ei- were abduced and listed in the lexicon, as can be seen in hyper- characterized forms like Ionic eis 'you (sg.) are' (i.e. ei 'you are' plus 2sg. -s; e.g. II. 16.515,

40


The therapeutic effect could also, and even more naturally, have been achieved by generalizing es- to the whole paradigm; but Szemerenyi points out that '*esmos would have presented the same difficulties as *esmi' (192), i.e. *esmos > *ezmos > *emos. (This is the way it went in Greek.)

Having explained why es- was not generalized, Szemerenyi remarks (193) that 'the form *smos became difficult, and therefore called for remedy, long before the form *esmi. This means that the new *somos was created when *esmi was still in use.' It is evident that initial sm became difficult earlier than medial sm. The evidence adduced by Szemerenyi is strengthened by the form co-smittere from Verrius Flaccus (as cited in Paul. Fest. 67), who had access to this obsolete form but not to the primeval simplex *smittere (or the like). Besides, the inscription of Duenos has mitat (not *smitat), although it has cosmis (for comis).6 There are, moreover, parallel developments suggesting that phonetic innovations involving cluster simplification tended to begin in the initial position.7

At this point, however, a trifling inconsistency appears. If initial sm in *smos became difficult long before medial sm in *esmi, there of course was no principled reason why the situation COULD not have been remedied by introducing the full stem *esmos. But sumus leads us to conclude that es- was not generalized. Instead, s and m, which were felt as belonging to different constituents, were separated by means of the vowel o. Szemerenyi thinks that the development in question was phonetic in character, viz. some kind of therapeutic anaptyxis. However, the 'anaptyctic' o can be and has been interpreted in a different way (see, e.g., Leu- mann 1963:310).

As soon as medial sm also began to create difficulties, the endangered *esmi was gradually replaced by *esomi. According to Szemerenyi (192), this change cannot have taken place much earlier than the Latin rhotacism, i.e. about 350 B.C. In historical Latin, the sg. form is sum, which can easily be traced to *som(i). But why was *esomi replaced by *somi?

Szemerenyi suggests three contributing factors. First, he states that *esomi gave way to *somi 'perhaps partly under the influence of *somos' (192). The influence of *somos has been invoked many times before, but not via the intermediate *esomi (cf. Sommer 1914:528, Leumann 1963:310, who arrive at *som directly through

Hdt. 3.71.3); this was a deductive innovation resulting from an abduction (for the terminology, see Andersen 1973). The mechanism is clear enough; cf. the Herodotean forms ea-s 'you (sg.) were' (1.187.5) and ea-te 'you (p1.) were' (4.119.2) in which the stem ed- is originally the impf. lsg. morpheme (cf. Chantraine 1961:206). These examples show that sound laws produce paradigmatic irregularity, creating lexicalized allomorphs which may be used for creative purposes (cf. Anttila 1975). The innovation essi (e.g. Od. 1.175, Pind. 01. 6.90) reflects, on the other hand, an attempt to make the root es- iconic by means of internal reconstruction (which, in this case, actually restores the early IE situation). In Attic, however, it was ei that survived in the 2sg. form, while eimen was replaced by esmen. The curious fact for the item-and-process linguist is that eimi was not replaced by esmi. This shows, again, that lists tend to prevail, especially in the most frequently used forms.

6 See Kent 1926, Goldmann 1926. 7 Cf. gnoscere : cognoscere > noscere: cognoscere (class.) > noscere : connoscere (later; cf.

Fr. connaitre). According to Fisher (1948:156), connoscere is attested in Plaut. Amph. 822E and Truc. arg. 9B; but these are surely clerical, not Plautine, reflexes.

41


the proportion x: *somos = *esiam: *esdmos). Second, from Szemerenyi's treat- ment of the Oscan sim, the principle of paradigmatic pressure can be extracted: *esomi gave way to the disyllabic *somi to fit into the same series with the other disyllabics *essi and *esti (194). Third, 'the reduction of *esomi to *somi was no doubt speeded up by such phrases as *nesomi (ne-esomi), ego6(e)somi' (195). Szemerenyi adduces sentence-phonetic factors, but confines discussion to the Isg. form.

2. THE LATIN FACTS AND THEIR DESCRIPTION. All attempts to relate the Latin paradigm (1) to the IE model paradigm (2) have been based on the assumption that es(s) and est directly continue the IE forms *es(s)i and *esti respectively. Accord- ingly only sum has been regarded as problematic:

(3) IE LATIN *esmi -?- sum *es(s)i -> es(s) *esti -> est

This current misconception stems from an incorrect or uncompleted synchronic description of the philological data. Adoption of this conventional description prevented even Szemerenyi from going far enough in his analysis.

Before our first documents, there was a period during which the 2sg. and 3sg. forms had only the forms *ess(i) and *est(i) respectively. But as soon as we arrive at Archaic Latin and written records, we face the variations (2sg.) ess ss and (3sg.) est - st. The following examples are from Plautus:

(4) Cas. 1007 non iratass? 'you're not angry?' Mil. 615 quis homo sit magis meus quam tuss? 'who's more a man after

my own heart than you are?' Amph. 836 mulier ess, audacter iuras 'you're a woman, you swear boldly' Amph. 937 iam nunc irata non ess? 'you're not angry anymore?' Cist. 120 idem mihist ... uitium 'I've got the same fault' Cas. 587 quodfactost opus 'what needs to be done' Aul. 147 quid est id, soror? 'what is it, sister?' Men. 1128 quod tibi nomen est, fecit mihi 'he gave me your name' (lit.

'the name which is to you'). The distribution of the 'full' and 'reduced' forms can be stated, roughly, as follows (for details, see Nyman 1974:7-8, Brinkmann 1906):

(5) ess, est after consonants; ss, st after vowels.

The change, if expressed by means of diachronic correspondence between IE and Plautine Latin, was not (e.g.) *esti > est, but *esti > est - st. Consequently, the problem is not that summarized in 3, but rather that of relating *esmi to sum, *es(s)i to the variants ess - ss, and *esti to est st:

(6) IE LATIN *esmi -> sum *es(s)i-> ess ' ss

*esti ---> est st

42


This variation in Plautus was, of course, a synchronic fact of his language, and-we may assume-of Archaic Latin in general. It would thus be interesting to try to describe how the variation ess ss, est st was structured (in the sense of Linell 1974:45) in the synchronic grammar of Plautus. At least three possibilities can be envisioned:

(7) The form est (ess) was taken as basic, and st (ss) was synchronically derived from it by 'aphaeresis':

e-0/V # sC/

This is the traditional approach represented by a whole series of respectable scholars (Brinkmann 1906, Sommer 1914:293, Leumann 1963:174, Safarewicz 1953:98, Soubiran 1966). According to this analysis, the paradigm is represented as sum, ess, est, sumus, estis, sunt.

(8) The copula had two lexicalized paradigms, a 'full' one and a 'reduced' one:

(sum, ess, est, sum, ss, st, sumus, estis, sunt

This kind of analysis was suggested in passing by Havet 1884. The selection of one paradigm or the other was determined by the phonological context, as in 5.

(9) The form st (ss) was taken as basic, and the 'full' form est (ess) was derived from it synchronically by the application of a morphophonemic sandhi rule characterizable as 'prothesis':

0 e//C# sC#

This analysis is suggested by Nyman 1974. Accordingly, the Plautine paradigm is represented as sum, ss, st, sumus, estis, sunt.8

However, the synchronic description of the Plautine system is not our primary concern here, although some discussion will be devoted to it below. The relevant question for the present purpose is this: How did the variants ss and st come into being? The commonly accepted answer has been 'aphaeresis', regarded as caused

8 The question concerning lexical storage can, of course, also be put in a more subtle manner. It can be asked whether the present indicative paradigm of the copula was stored as a paradigm consisting of 'word-size' units, or whether the speakers were able to segment the 'words' into smaller building-blocks ('morphs'). It has been observed above (fn. 5) that morphological evolution can be viewed as a constant tug of war, with lists of suppletives, or surface variants tied to syntagmatic associations and language use, opposed to processes for deriving the surface forms from basic or underlying roots (synchronic derivability). According to one suggestion (cf. Kehoe & Whitaker 1974), words of great frequency are stored as 'word-size' units, while infrequent words are stored as smaller units; but this hypothesis is at best only a rough approximation. In the case of Latin, the replacement of *smos by *somos seems to indicate that speakers were aware of the morpheme boundary between s- and -mos, although *smos was phonetically monolithic. It also reflects the victory of synchronic derivability over listing of paradigm forms (*smos would have resulted in *mos, if listed without internal constituent analysis). It seems that the synchronic derivability of the present indicative of the copula had already begun to fade at the time of Plautus (with the introduction of estis).

43


by enclisis. While the enclitic nature of the copula is beyond question in itself, inferring 'aphaeresis' as a phenomenon consequential upon it has involved an epistemological 'salto mortale' which has not been very successful (cf. Nyman 1974). This problem will be my main topic in ?3, which contains a review of the processes conceivably involved in the metamorphosis of the IE model paradigm into Latin, when examined in pursuance of the time-honored research (including Szemerenyi's).

3. INFEASIBILITY OF 'APHAERESIS'. According to Szemerenyi, the replacement of IE *esmi by *esomi was caused by the phonetic difficulties created by the sm sequence. This explanation is very attractive, although it suggests that Oscan sum- which, from one perspective of comparative reconstruction, seems to have a common origin with Lat. sum (cf. Sommer 1901:347, 1914:528)-is either an indigenous development, or the result of Latin influence (Szemerenyi 1964:194, n. 3). Subsequently *esomi developed into *som(i), with possible contributory factors as enumerated above. Although the influence of *somos has been generally invoked, this explanation suggests 'petitio principii', since it seems to apply only in this particular case.9 Also, the alleged tendency toward parisyllabism within the singular paradigm needs supplementary evidence. Considerations of sentence phonetics have not been carried out to the logical conclusion: if the form *nesomi, whose constituent boundary was opaque, was resegmented as *ne-somi, why was not the equally ambiguous *nesti (see Brugmann 1904:210) segmented as *ne-sti? Obviously the way in which the Latin paradigm is usually given in grammars and handbooks (sum, es, est) has made this question inconceivable.

3.1. Seemingly, Lat. est (ess) is the direct continuation of IE *esti (*es(s)i). It has therefore been easy to consider est (ess) as the basic alternant, from which st (ss) was derived by 'aphaeresis'. Invoking either phonetic or semantic weakness of the copula, together with its enclitic nature, has not led to clarification of problems. On the contrary, unnecessary problems have been created.

From the diachronic point of view, why was e phonetically weak only in (e)ss and (e)st-but not, e.g., in esse (Nyman 1974:8-11)? And if the suppression of e in (e)st was caused by the meaninglessness of the copula (e.g., Ubi est liber? => Ubist liber ?; cf. the total deletion of the copula in Russian Gdejest' kniga ? => Gde kniga ?), then why was est reduced even when used 'vi substantiva' (cf. Plaut. Cist. 735 est quidam homo qui ... ait, but Mil. 1012 homo quidamst qui scit) ? It seems that neither phonetic nor semantic factors can be held responsible for the 'aphaeresis' of e in est (ess). In general the reduction has been seen as an effect of the enclitic nature of the copula. However, it is incomprehensible why the enclitic effect should be so strong, especially in monosyllabic forms; the opposite might be expected.

From the preceding it can be seen that it is very difficult to motivate ' aphaeresis' historically. Moreover, in regard to terminological content, Latin 'aphaeresis' is a

9 Cf. the 1sg. future (faci)am, in spite of pl. (faci)emus. It is true that the 'expected' desinence -em occurs in the manuscripts (e.g. Plaut. Mil. 676 accipiem [-am Nonius], Truc. 963 sinem); but the occurrences are very few, and are generally regarded as clerical errors (Leumann 1963:326; cf. Sommer 1914:525).

44

WHERE DOES LATIN SUM COME FROM?7

phenomenon categorically different from the Greek aphaeresis (see Nyman 1974:9-18); and thus Leo was justified in stating that "'Apharesis" [ist] fur das Lateinische kein grammatisches Begriff' (1912:285). His explanation 'Synalophe mit Enklisis' is, however, equally difficult. In what follows, one more problem will be taken up to show how 'aphaeresis' as an explanatory principle can only complicate the issue.

3.2. In the data presented in 4, one unexpected and therefore difficult type was left out. Consider the following examples from Plautus:

(10) Mil. 574 sed satine oratuss? :: abi 'but have I begged your pardon enough? :: Off with you'

Mil. 825 eho tu sceleste, qui illii subpromuss, eho10 'ha, you rascal, you're his under-butler, so see here'

Mere. 1004 nihil opust resciscat 'there's no need of her learning' Amph. 615 geminus Sosia hicfactust tibi 'this Sosia has been made your

twin' Pseud. 248 mortuost quifuit; qui sit ussust 'a past one's a dead one; a

present one's needed'.11

How are forms such as oratuss 'you have been begged', opust 'it is needed', mortuost 'he's dead' etc. to be explained historically? And how are they analysed synchronically ?

Three principles have been invoked in order to explain the provenance of the forms in -uss and -ust:

(11) a. Haplology (e.g. Sommer 1914:293): opus(es)t. b. Loss of s, with subsequent contraction of vowels (Leo, 279-88): opus

est > opu est > opust. c. Aphaeresis (e.g. Brinkmann 1906:73-4, Juret 1913:95): opus est >

opus st > opust.

The feasibility of haplology has been discredited by Nyman (1974:30-31), and Leo's explanation has been generally rejected (see e.g. Brinkmann, 45-74, Leumann, 175). Aphaeresis seems to furnish the only serious solution; but even this explanation is very difficult to justify, because it runs counter to our metatheory of phonetic naturalness. In principle, it is quite conceivable that 'aphaeresis' could take place before vowels; but why should s, which is a consonant, behave like a vowel? Brinkmann's phonetic explanation, according to which the weak e was lost between identical consonants (73-4), is problematic;12 and after all, it is very improbable that the change -us est > -ust was phonetic in character. On the other hand, the possibility of analogical development remains distant as long as it is unclear what could have provided the model for extending the 'aphaeresis' analogically to

10 Cui tu suppromus seho, B (see Leo, 281). 1' The difficult problem of -est for -is est will not be considered in this study (see Nyman

1974:33-5, Touratier 1975). 12 For example, it fails to motivate the non-occurrence of forms such as *salust (for saluss est)

(see also Nyman 1974:31).

45


-us(e)st (as suggested by Juret), for the vowels do not form a natural class with the sole consonant s.

3.3. From the synchronic point of view, deriving -ust from -us est involves serious problems, which weaken the 'traditional' approach outlined so far. Technically, it is not difficult to manipulate the environment of 'aphaeresis' (7) to 'account for' the complication created by the -ust cases:

(12) e-^ v{ _s _ sC

But, to be sure, this is no linguistically significant generalization-whether it is judged by counting the distinctive features required (as suggested by Halle 1961), or by observing the functioning of the combination 's & vowels' as a natural class (in the spirit of Campbell 1974).

Let us consider, e.g., the form opust. Should it be segmented as opu'st or as opus't? Our first guess is that opu'st is the 'correct' segmentation. (This is also the option of most editors.) This assumption enables us to make the following important observation:

(13) From the morphophonological point of view, the final s seems to behave as though it preceded a word beginning with a consonant.

This is to say that final s seems to disappear as if conditioned by the same factor responsible for the loss of final s in instances such as facturus sum -+facturu' sum, opus sunt -? opu' sunt, Venus mi -. Venu' mi etc. Cf. the evidence provided by the Plautine prosody:

(14) Asin. 376 dico hercle ego quoque utfacturu' sum 'and by the Lord, I'm telling how I'm going to do it'

Cap. 164 iam maritumi omnes milites opu' sunt tibi' and furthermore you need every sea soldier'

Mere. 38 eodem quo amorem Venu' mi hoc legavit die 'it was my legacy from Venus on the same day she gave me my love'.

What entitles us to interpret the -ust type as a sub-case of the tendency of final s to drop before consonants? First, both phenomena are facultative in Plautus:

(15) a. -u'#st: Bacch. 705 sed nune quantillum usu'st auri tibi Mnesiloche? die mihi 'well now, Mnesiloche, what's the paltry sum you need? tell me'

-us#est: Bacch. 706 militi nummis ducentis iam usus est pro Bacchide 'I need two hundred pounds at once to pay the captain for Bacchis'

b. -u'#C-: Epid. 535 credo ego illi hospitio usu' uenit 'she's in need of hospitality, I dare say'

-us#C-: Bacch. 763 sed nunc truculento mi atque saeuo usus senest ' but now I must make the old man feel fierce and savage'.

Moreover, both phenomena have similar 'frequency profiles'. The statistics provided by Brinkmann (51-2), concerning the ratio between -ust and -us est,13 con-

13 -us est, 248; -ust, 440 (-us ess, 67; -uss, 133). The 'frequency profile' is just the opposite in Terence.

46


verge with the general characterization by Lindsay: 'In the earlier poetry it is the rule, not the exception, that final s before an initial consonant does not lengthen a preceding short vowel by "position"' (1915:40, n. 3).

Second, as a rule, s disappears only when preceded by a SHORT vowel. This statement holds true with regard to both phenomena. There is no -Vs#C- ' *-V'#C- variation in Plautus, nor has the -uis#est type any *-u'#st counterpart.14

Third, the short vowel in question is prevailingly u (etymologically *o) in both cases. This suggests a diachronic relationship. Note Brinkmann's statement concerning the -ust cases, as compared with Proskauer's observations concerning the loss of s:

Verum enim vero ea ipsa re, quod -us terminatio multo crebrius quam -is et -es in sermone Romanorum adhibebatur, evenire iam poterat, ut litterarum -s est in -st contractio a compo- sitione -us est initium caperet. - Itaque syllabarum in -us cadentium cum est contractionem ab altera et tertia personis sing. perf. pass. profectam esse aio: primo factus es, factus est, similia in factus factust contracta sunt, quae contractio postmodo omnia alterius declinationis nomina arripuit atque postremo usque eo propagata est, ut quamlibet formam, quae in brevem u cum s simplici exibat cum es est contrahere liceret. (Brinkmann, 50-51; original emphasis removed.)15

In ein- und derselben Inschrift ist mehrmals -s nach -o weggelassen, wahrend es nach anderen Vokalen geschrieben ist. - -s fehlt ausser nach -o nur einmal nach -e (Proskauer 1909:15) ... Das indogermanische -s kam ... hinter dem offenen o-Laut in Wanken. - Fehlt -s nach anderen Vokalen, so ist das der Analogie des besonders haufigen -o zuzuschreiben (38).

These statements imply *o as the point of departure for analogical extension to other vowels 16

Fourth, the -ss est type has no -st counterpart. There is no such variation as hospess est *hospest. If interpreted from the perspective adopted in this section, this circumstance turns out to be an instance of the fact that -s is not suppressed if it is morphophonemically -ss. In other words, there are no such instances as *hospe' fuit (for hospess fuit).

Fifth, the -ust type seems to have a 'fatal' unity not with the 'normal' aphaeresis, but with the loss of final s. While the -st variant continues to be used after vowels during the classical period (see e.g. Siedow 1911), the PRODUCTIVITY of the -ust type can be seen as DECLINING CONVERGENTLY with the productivity of the loss of final -s. The correctness of this statement is not, however, obvious without qualificatory notes; consider Table 1 (p. 48).

14 It is, however, highly probable that this second rule reflects only a general norm or tendency (cf. the discussion in Nyman 1975, Perini 1974:131-42).

16 'To be sure, for the very reason that the -us ending was used much more frequently than -is and -es in the speech of the Romans, it might have happened that the contraction of -s est into -st originated from the -us est combination. - Therefore my claim is that the coalescence of the syllables ending in -us with est originated from the 2nd and 3rd sg. perf. pass.: factus es, factus est etc. were first contracted into factus, factust. This contraction then affected all nouns of the 2nd declension, and finally had such an extension that it was possible for any form terminating in a short u and a simple s to coalesce with es and est.'

16 Juret's explanation (91-5) also presupposes this. In general, grammarians seem to generalize the environmental statement to include ALL short consonants (e.g. Sommer 1914:303-4)- without sufficient screening of philological data, to my mind.

47


PLAUTUS TERENCE ENNIUS LUCRETIUS CATULLUS CICERO -V'#st + + +a - - -

-V SC- + + + + +b + TABLE 1. Occurrence of -V'#st and -V'#C- in six authors (Cicero: translation of Aratus' Phaenomena. '+' = occurring; '-' = not occurring).

a The fragments of Ennius contain only three instances of -V'#st, all of which are -ust.

b Catullus employs this device only once, viz. in the last line of the last poem (166,8), and notably after i: dabi(s).

The table shows that the -ust type is not employed by the time of Lucretius, Catullus, and Cicero; and even the fragments of Ennius have only three cases of -V'#st, all of which are -ust (Ann. 129 datust, 252 paratust, 306 dictust). Thus, at first sight, Table 1 seems to contradict the above statement; but consider Table 2.

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Enn. Ann. 8 5 8 15 58 Lucretius 2 6 2 4 35 TABLE 2. The frequency of the suppression of final s, as distributed according to the metrical feet in the hexametric poetry of Ennius and Lucretius. The table is based on the statistics in Bailey (1947:124).

Table 2 shows that final s is usually suppressed on the fifth foot, which by metrical convention is constrained to be of dactylic form. (On the other feet there is a free choice between dactylic and spondaic forms.) On the basis of his statistics, Bailey concludes: 'whereas in Ennius' day the suppression was regarded as normal, by the time of Cicero and Lucretius it was considered as archaic licence'. Moreover, he states that' Ennius seems to be ready to use the suppression in any foot where he wishes for it.' No attention is paid to the prevalence of the fifth foot both in Ennius and in Lucretius, although the statistics clearly indicate that the suppression of final s was a device for creating the required dactylic prosody. We are entitled to conclude that, even in Ennius, most instances of the suppression falling on the fifth foot (and quite probably on the other feet, too) belonged to metrical conventions specific to dactylic poetry. In this way the apparent disproportion of the 94 instances of -V'#C-, vs. the mere three cases of -u'#st, is extenuated, perhaps eliminated altogether. According to Proskauer (15, 38), -s was re-introduced to the final position about 200 B.C., in connection with the change of o to u in final syllables (cf. Juret 1913:92, Hamp 1959:170-71). The usage of Ennius (and even that of Plautus) differed already from colloquial reality (later restored by the 'poetae noui'; cf. Proskauer, 39, and Hamp, 171). Thus, in Ennius, some cases of suppression belong to the general poetic usage, which was in the process of taking on an archaic flavor, while part belong to the specific conventions of dactylic poetry.

All these considerations strongly suggest thot the -ust type must be interpreted as a sub-case of the suppression of final s in Latin between 600 B.C. and 200 B.C. This association enables us to infer further hypotheses which, if confirmed, accumulate as supporting evidence for the correctness of this assumption. For example, we could expect that the -ust type has a ' (phono-)stylistic profile' similar to that of the

48


suppression of final s. Dressier (1973:132) suggests that, in the more familiar and negligent style, suppression is less restricted. If this is true, we ought to expect similar behavior of the -ust type.

The above discussion amounts to establishing the -ust type as a sub-case of the general tendency of final s to be suppressed under certain conditions. If this generalization is valid, then we must conclude that, at a certain period of time, the Latin paradigm was structured or 'memorized' as represented in 9.

4. DERIVATION OF THE LATIN PARADIGM FROM THE IE MODEL. The IE model

paradigm, as presented in 2, results from the application of the comparative method to the IE daughter languages, especially Sanskrit and Greek. It contains synchronic variation that may, in principle, be sociolinguistically interpreted.17 Our starting point will be a paradigm which represents one form of linguistic continuity deri- vable from it. Anticipatorily, and somewhat sloppily, we could call it the Latinizing continuity:

(16) *esmi, *essi, *esti, *smos, *ste(s), *sonti

This paradigm is one surface structure which can be derived from the variation in 2. It is a piece of sociolinguistic reality, since it reflects a certain dialectal choice. Our proto-paradigm 16 ties up with linguistic continuity by representing one split-off point of further linguistic evolution toward Latin (i.e. one node in the genealogical tree).

We may envision (with Szemerenyi) that the first split-off relevant to our discussion concerned lpl. *smos: a variant *somos was created as in Figure 1.

*smos > *smos *somos

or

*smos

*smos - *SOios

FIGURE 1.

The process may be described in terms of the practical syllogism model proposed by Itkonen (1974:298):

(17) A intends to bring about p. A considers that he cannot bring about p unless he does a. Therefore A sets himself to do a.

When we apply this teleological model to our data, we get the following picture: (18) Some speakers intended to bring about p.

They considered that they could not bring aboutpp unless they created and used *somos.

Therefore they created *somos.

Creating *somos was an intentional act motivated by p. That this innovation received social acceptance and brought about the sociolinguistic variation *smos ^ *somos (tradition vs. innovation), shows that it was somehow called for. This

'7 By yielding a diasystem of surface structures (see Anttila 1972:275), the comparative method gives us exemplifications of sociolinguistic reality.

49


appears also in the fact that the variant *smos was ousted by 'natural selection'. Now what was it the speakers intended to bring about? In other words: What

was the content of p? We are already familiar with Szemerenyi's explanation, according to which initial sm began to create difficulties by threatening to destroy the transparent constituent structure of the paradigm (this happened in Avestan, which has mahi for Skt. smah). Szemerenyi suggests that the perilous situation was healed by inserting o between s and m. The 'anaptyctic' o vowel has been interpreted by many scholars (e.g. Safarewicz 1953:243, Ernout 1953:176, Leumann 1963:310) as the theme vowel-which, at this time, was o before nasals. Thus the form *somos can be regarded as a partial thematization of the copula, in order to maintain the synchronic recoverability of its constituents.

In addition, Isg. *esmi was thematized, but we are unsure of the exact chronology. There are at least three possibilities; but before reviewing them, some points of relative (as well as absolute) chronology must be made. First, apocope of i (e.g. *esti > est) antedated rhotacism. This may be concluded from the 2sg. ending -is (e.g. leg-is) < *-es < *-esi. Had the final i not been apocopated before rhotacism, the process would have looked like this: *legesi > *legeri > *leger (cf. Goetze 1923:88-9). Moreover, in the inscription of Duenos, which dates from a period before rhotacism,18 the apocopation of i is already a fait accompli (cf. mitat and Kent's remarks on it, 1926:211-12). Second, rhotacism took place approxi- mately in the middle of the 4th century B.C. (for a competent discussion of rhotacism, see Safarewicz 1932). Third, rhotacism antedated the fading of s (or z) with compensatory lengthening of the vowel before a voiced consonant. For example, the process dusmo (= dumoso; Livius Andronicus fr. 31 Mor.) > dumo postdates rhotacism (cf. Goetze, 114).

Now we are ready to compare three conceivable thematization processes of *esmi. Let us first consider the chronology implied in Szemerenyi's view that 'when *esmi (or *ezmi) began to create difficulties, it followed the model of the existing *somos' (1964:193). If this is true, the thematization did not take place until after rhotacism. Let us also assume that the final i in *esmi had been apocopated before rhotacism, together with other verbs such as *legesi > legis (although, as has been pointed out to me by Szemerenyi, this does not need to be the case). Because of functional reasons, disyllabic forms obviously tended to resist apocopation (cf. ante, mare etc.; but also *essi, *esti > ess, est). The process may be visualized as in Figure 2.

Time -* ca. 350 B.C.

*esmi ( J *ezm ( ) *esom

FIGURE 2. Visualization of the possibility that *esom postdates rhotacism. It is, however, hard to believe that an apocopated variant of *esmi, viz. *esm (or

*ezm), would have survived and superseded the non-apocopated variant-which, to be sure, was easier to pronounce. It is improbable that even one generation of

18 According to Kent (1926:222), 'slightly before 350 B.C., perhaps even earlier'. Goldmann (32) posits the date somewhat earlier, viz. 450-400 B.C.

50


people would have tolerated a form like *ezm with its heavy final cluster. Therefore it seems more plausible to think that, after the apocopation of i, the resulting *ezm was somehow immediately remodeled into *som, without the intervening *esom. This may have happened during the period of rhotacism. According to this line of thought, *esmi was remodeled to *som because rhotacism would have produced a variant such as *erom. This process is visualized in Figure 3.

Time - ca. 350 B.C.

*esmi ( *ezm ) *som (*erom...0)

FIGURE 3. Remodeling of *esm(i) into *som.

A third possibility would be to think that *esmi was thematized or 'regularized' before the apocopation of i. This assumption puts the chronology somewhere between the 6th and 5th centuries, as visualized in Figure 4.

Time -> 5th cent. ca. 350 B.C.

*esmi ( ) *esomi ( *esom ) *som 0 ^ J ~ ~~~~~~ (*erom..0)

FIGURE 4. Visualization of the possibility that *esmi was thematized before the apocopation of i.

According to this view, the variant *esom had been ousted by 350 B.C., either antedating rhotacism or coinciding with it. The latter alternative would explain the remodeling *esom > *som: The traditional form *esom was rhotacized into *erom, which fell outside the paradigm. Therefore *esom was re-interpreted on the basis of *somos. The result was the variation (*esom >) *som *erom, whose latter member did not survive.

It is not necessary to make an absolute decision as to which of the three possibilities in Figs. 2-4 is closest to the truth. In the present study we are interested primarily in the MECHANISM of change, not in its exact chronology; and the mechanism is reasonably similar in all three cases. (As far as chronology is concerned, I hope to have elaborated the matter to such an extent that a detailed chronological study can be attempted.)

Let us adopt the third possibility (Fig. 4) for our purposes.'9 According to it, *esmi was thematized to *esomi, either simultaneously with the thematization of *smos to *somos, or later-perhaps in connection with the apocopation of final i. If we assume the latter possibility, the thematization can be motivated in a conceivable way. The process may, again, be described by means of a practical syllogism:

19 Szemerenyi now has somewhat modified his position. He suggests (p.c.) a twofold remedy for the endangered *smos. The speakers could either create *somos after *sonti (cf. *legomos: *legonti), or *esmos after *estes (which was created to achieve parisyllabism with *sonti). He assumes that both forms existed side by side for a time; during that period *esmi acquired the by-form *somi (cf. *esmos: *somos = *esmi: *somi). Later the forms with es- were dropped in the first person forms.

51


(19) The speakers intended to avoid the sequence *ezm which (would have) resulted from the apocopation of final i, because final zm was awkward to pronounce.

The speakers considered that they could not carry out this intention unless they manipulated the heavy cluster by 'thematizing' *ezm.20

Therefore they set themselves to create *esom on the model of *somos.

The apocopation, which took place somewhere between 700 and 450 B.c.,21 produced both *ezm and the therapeutic innovation *esom. It may be noted that this corresponds also to the Varronian esum (Ling. 9, 100)-which, to be sure, has usually been regarded as suspicious.

We are now at the point where the present indicative paradigm of the copula was of the following shape:

(20) *esom, ess, est, *somos, *stes, *sont

This state of affairs prevailed until the rhotacized and non-rhotacized variants began to co-exist. At this transitory period-during which, if we adopt the chronology of Kent 1926, the inscription of Duenos was written-the traditional form *esom tended to be replaced by the new *erom. The latter form represented the regular development, although it caused irregularity within the present indicative paradigm-a situation known as Sturtevant's paradox. *Esom was doomed to give way to *erom; but this innovation was too extraordinary to be adopted into the paradigm, the defining characteristic of which was the presence of s. A visualization is given in Figure 5.

DIFFERENT

e s om e s s

e s t

s omos

s tes s ont

SAME

FIGURE 5.

(The visualization is adopted from Anttila 1975:11-12.)

The paradox was resolved by creating the new variant *som. It would be tempting to say that, once again, *som was modeled on *somos; but this would be somewhat inexact. It seems not implausible to think that *som resulted from a flash of

20 The 'thematization' of the lsg. form was, strictly speaking, a secondary or non-proper thematization on the model of somos, which represents a true thematization. The proper form would have been *es6, but it was already in use (cf. Szemerenyi 1964:192, n. 1).

21 The Carmen Saliare seems to attest the non-apocopated desinence -nti (in tremonti for tremunt). According to the tradition, the badly transmitted Carmen Saliare dates from the time of Numa Pompilius, the second king of Rome (715-673 B.C.). The inscription of Duenos already has apocopated forms.

52


abduction (cf. Andersen), guided and aided by the existence of *somos. At some phonostylistic level at least, *ne esom 'I am not' and *ego esom 'I am' were of the shape *nesom and *egosom (cf. Szemerenyi 1964:195). Now we can see that *som resulted from the only reasonable way of analysing the constituent structure of expressions of this sort:

(21) *ne-som, *ego-som

This abductive segmentation resulted in a new piece of knowledge, statable roughly as follows:

(22) The Isg. form is som, not esom or erom.

A new intuition was created. When this 'knowledge' was applied in practice, the form *som was generalized to other contexts as well; e.g., it could be used in the beginning of a clause. This is (in Andersen's terms) the deductive stage. In this way the innovation was submitted to social control; and, as can be seen in Lat. sum, it passed this inductive stage. The form *som was not sensitive to rhotacism, even when placed after a word ending in a vowel (e.g. ego-som), because the word boundary suspended the rhotacizing effect. Thus s could continuously serve as the index of the paradigm (cf. Fig. 5). Besides, *som was consistent with *somos.

Now we have reached the end of the current Handbuch information (except for some refinements of detail such as *som > sum, *stes > estis). However, as appears from the Latin data elaborated above, it was not only the Isg. form that was remodeled. THE ENTIRE SINGULAR PARADIGM WAS RE-INTERPRETED. The result of the re-interpretation can be conceived as a morphological rule:

(23) Let the present-tense morpheme of the copula be /s/. This rule can be thought of as generating the following underlying system:

(24) /s-om/ /s-omos/ /s-s/ /s-tes/ /s-t/ /s-ont/

The character of the remodeling process can be represented diagrammatically as in Figure 6.

INDICATIVE SUBJUNCTIVE

SG. eS-

-0

70

r > s-

PL. S-

FIGURE 6.

The type of change was, of course, paradigm leveling, and one important aspect of its inner motivation is visualized in the diagram: elimination of purposeless variety (note that number was signaled by personal endings anyhow), or the old principle 'One meaning-one form' (cf. Anttila 1972, passim). This principle

53


covers both Kiparsky's 'paradigm coherence' (i.e., 'allomorphy tends to be mini- mized in a paradigm' 1971:598-9) and the 'Existenz gleich strukturierter Para- digmen ohne Alternation' mentioned by Schindler (1974:4)-and, in the case of Latin, emphasized by Nyman (1974:20-21). The possibility of rendering the presentt- tense system of the copula more iconic, by eliminating purposeless variation,22 was a factor that guided the abductive association as well as contributed to the social acceptance of the development diagrammed in Fig. 6.

That the 'knowledge' of the forms ss and st had really been abduced by speakers appears from their deductive reflexes in historical Latin (tuss, Plaut. Mil. 615;

mihzst, Plaut. Cist. 120; etc.; cf. also the -ust cases, and even the admittedly un- certain reading hic'st in Plaut. Poen. 1333A, see Lindsay 1922:76), which have usually been interpreted as instances of aphaeresis. However, by asserting the reality of the underlying representations in 24, I do not imply that the variants ess and est disappeared altogether. What I am claiming is that their status was re- interpreted on the systematic level. The knowledge of ss and st was readily applic- able when these forms were to be placed after words ending in a vowel; but as soon as they were to be placed after words ending in a consonant, the result would have been unsatisfactory. We can say that forms such as *mulierss (for mulier ess), *nomenst (for nomen est), etc., did not pass the social control (cf. also the above- mentioned instance of hic'st). After words ending in a consonant, the full forms ess and est continued to be the norm. In order to adhere to the norm, speakers abduced an adaptive morphophonemic rule of prothesis (9 above), which adjusted their pronunciation to the received norm. Thus, e.g., mulier est was derived synchronically as follows:

(25) /mulier#st/ (Underlying form) muler#est (Rule 9)

The model of the prothetic e came, of course, from the traditional ess and est- which perhaps did not disappear from all styles. We can imagine that ess and est were borrowed back from some sociolinguistically higher or more conservative style(s). The important matter is, however, that they were re-interpreted as resulting from the application of the adaptive prothesis rule.

5. THE PLAUTINE SYSTEM. We have now finished the characterization of what might be called the pre-Plautine system of the copula. According to the foregoing

22 Note that the same tendency to paradigmatic leveling is to be seen, somewhat later, in the

present subjunctive paradigm of the copula. At the time of the inscription of Duenos the system was as follows:

s-ie-m s5-i-mos s-ie-s s-i-tes s-ie-d s-i-ent

Plautus belongs to the period of transition: (s-ie-m ') s-i-m s-i-mus (s-ie-s %) s-i-s s-i-dis (s-ie-t .) s-i-t s-i-nt ( . s-i-ent)

The allomorph -i-, which originally signalled plurality, has here to a great extent ousted -ie-, the use of which in Plautus is confined almost entirely to the verse-end (cf. Hodgman 1907:108). In classical Latin the remodeling process can be seen as completed.

54


discussion, the surface forms

(26) *som, ss ess, st est, *somos, *stes, *sont

were derived from the underlying morphophonemic system (24) by the application of the 'adaptive' prothesis rule. In this section, we shall discuss the system of Plautus. On the surface, it can be represented as follows:

(27) sum, ess ss, est ' st, sumus, estis, sunt

This representation displays so much difference from the pre-Plautine one that it cannot be synchronically derived from the same underlying system. When com- paring these paradigms, we can sense both the operation of sound laws (e.g. *som > sum) and the re-organization of the morphological system (*stes > estis).

The problem of the internal constituent structure of the paradigm forms has been kept to the background in this study. This does not, however, imply that speakers were unable to perceive a similarity between the lexical items listed, or were unable to 'figure out' the structuring principles of the paradigm. On the contrary, it has been shown that the remodeling of *smos into *somos, and of *esmi into *som, presupposes both awareness of the manner in which constituents go together and intention to maintain the transparency of the constituent structure. Fig. 5 diagrams this iconic tendency from one point of view, rule 23, from another. Note that the existence of rules governing the morphological organization of the present paradigm does not entail non-existence of paradigm representation of words, particularly those of frequent use (cf. Kehoe & Whitaker).

In what follows we shall trace the remodeling process resulting in the Plautine paradigm. Two obviously 'analogical' processes are observable, viz. (*somos >) *somus > sumus and (*stes >) *stis > estis,23 and consideration of them helps us to recover some details of the synchronic principles of morphological organization (cf. Kiparsky 1972). Displaying these principles both describes the mechanism of the remodeling process and serves as a synchronic description of the Plautine system.

5.1. THE FIRST PERSON PLURAL. During the 3rd century B.C., a short 6 changed into ii in a closed final syllable (cf. Sommer 1914:141). We can imagine that this change affected the paradigm of sum as follows:

(28) *som > sum (e)ss (e)st

*somos > somus *(e)stis *sont > sunt

Obviously the change *somus > sumus was analogical, not sentence-phonetic (as suggested by Leumann, 310); but I think we should realize, in the spirit of Kiparsky (1972:280), that what is implied in this change is not just an occasional pairwise association ('unter dem Einfluss von sum', Sommer 1914:528; 'after 3rd pl.', Kent 1946:106), but rather a 'deeper' reformulation of a morphological spell-out rule.

23 For ease of presentation, we here choose the relative chronology *stes > *stis > estis. The real order of the process has no bearing on the present discussion.

55


The 'punctum saliens' is that it was the 'paradigmatic' alternation u o which was felt to render the constituent structure opaque-not, e.g., the m n alternation, which was equally real at face value; see Figure 7.

The change proceeded

(A) from a to b not (B) from c to d

sum sum suum sum sum *s o mus s u mus *so m us *so m us s u nt s u nt su n t *su m (p)t

FIGURE 7.

From this we can see why o in *somus was changed to u. As it was 'spelled out' by the same rule which, after the above-mentioned change o > u, spelled out the u in sum and sUnt,24 the u was also generalized to the Ipl. form, for reasons too obvious to be specified here. Seen in this light, the analogical change *somus > sumus shows the reality of the rule formulated by Foley (1965:61).25

(29) s + [+nasal]->. s + u + [+nasal] As implied in the above discussion, the associative track, the existence of which was indicated by the analogical change *somus > sumus, can be represented in two ways: first, as in Fig. 7; second, as in 29. Obviously the change in question was first implemented as the variation *somus sumus. The latter variant, which represents the innovative usage of some speakers who had abduced rule 29, was then generalized to the whole linguistic community. We could speculate furthermore that generalizing u was not the only remedy (though it was the successful one) for the somewhat annoying situation illustrated in 28 and in Fig. 7(A). One could imagine that some speakers tended to generalize the o from *somus to the lsg. and 3pl. forms as well, thus excluding them from the operation of the sound law which changed o to u in a closed final syllable. The isolated form sont in CIL 12, 1529, row 3, may be cited as evidence for this kind of reversed change (i.e. *sont > sunt > sont), because at the date when this inscription was written (somewhere between 134 and 90 B.C.), the change o> u was already complete (r. 1: Betilienus; 6: campum; 9: balinearium; etc.; cf. esp. r. 7: ludunt, which shows regular vocalism in the 3pl. ending). Perhaps another bit of evidence may be seen in the form so 'I am' in a vulgar inscription (CIL 10,2070 [3rd cent. A.D. ?]) Obviously the graphemic sequence so was phonetically [so], which presupposes a morphophonemic /som/.26

24 That the 3pl. ending is to be analysed as -nt is evident from the change sient /s-i-ent/ > sint /s-i-nt/ (cf. Sommer 1914:529, and n. 22).

25 Foley is at fault (1) for not backing up his analysis of the present indicative paradigm with philological evidence which could have been drawn from early drama (see Nyman 1974); and (2) for striving to make do with only one underlying formative /s-/ in the whole present system- a strategy which led him to invent some unjustified synchronic processes. Foley's critics have, however, ignored the stimulative element in his approach: presentation of an alternative synchronic analysis, which works quite well as far as the present indicative paradigm is concerned.

26 Hardly /sum/, unless we assume that it was realized with a nasalized vowel, [su] or [so], and that so was an attempt to express this pronunciation in writing. For a similar suggestion in regard to archaic inscriptions, cf. Safarewicz 1934 (other explanations in Sommer 1914:528)

56


5.2. THE SECOND PERSON PLURAL. The change *stis > estis was also analogical. The model came from the sg. forms ess and est (e.g. Leumann, 310). However, what is neglected by Latin scholars is the fact that this change took place at a period during which ess and est had the 'reduced' variants ss and st, respectively, and these could not serve as models. Moreover, in the pre-Plautine system sketched in ?4, ss and st were the 'normal' variants; whereas, from the logical point of view, ess and est had only a derivative existence. How, then, could they serve as models ?

Now it is clearly the case that our method, which looks upon language as a static ERGON, is preventing us from capturing the reality.27 Whatever has been uttered exists in a sense; but LINGUISTIC existence is secured only by (successful) use, and it is the very use which may change functional relations between linguistic elements, reverse markedness values of allomorphs, provide them with new semiotic func- tions, etc. In the present case, ess and est acquired their linguistic existence through continued use. They were listed in the lexicon as equipollent allomorphs of ss and st. This implies that the prothesis rule became superfluous; thus it hardly belongs to the synchronic system of Plautus. From the point of view of synchronic description, the two-paradigm approach (8) comes quite close to the proper representation; but note that the creation and existence of estis (as well as the surprisingly rapid disappearance of *stis) presupposes that the 'full' forms had acquired the status of dominant, normal variants. This situation may be formally expressed by means of two partially overlapping morphological spell-out rules-viz., rule 23 defining the present (indicative as well as subjunctive) as /s-/, and the following:

(30) E COPULA es /___+ [+coronal^ (3)[-perfective]e/ + [-nasal J

The transient character of the prothesis rule is emphasized by the fact that its replacement by rule 30 was a grammar simplification: now rule 30 stated the distribution of es- in the whole non-perfective system, while it had formerly been constrained to apply only to the non-present sub-system (i.e. es-se-s, es-to etc.) Rule 30 took precedence over rule 23, because the variants which had the vocalic nucleus were more natural and thus more frequent.

It has been suggested above that the unexpected form estis (cf. Leumann, 310) is an index of re-organization of the morphological system, whereby the variants ess and est acquired dominant status in comparison to the 'reduced' variants ss and st.

Is it possible to sustain this claim by something more substantial than the fact that the creation of estis seems to relate to it in a rather natural way ? I think so, though the point can be only sketched here. Consider the following line in a metrical inscription (CIL 12,882):

(31) Raptusqu(e) afatis conditus hoc tumulost. (Cf. also CIL 10,4427,2.) There is a difference in graphemic representation according to whether elision or 'aphaeresis' is involved. In the case of elision, the elidable vowel is manifested in writing. This indicates that the vowel in question is present on the systematic or morphophonemic level, although it is doomed to be reduced or dropped altogether on the phonetic level. (In this respect it may be compared to

27 Cf. Coseriu's warnings (1974:11-12) against the fallacy 'transitus ab intellectu ad rem', i.e. taking what are requirements of method as belonging to the essence of language.

57


the graphemic/morphophonemic representation urbs, pronounced [urps]). In the case of 'aphaeresis', the absence of the stem vowel in the graphemic representation (0)st indicates the absence of this vowel in the underlying representation. (For a similar argument in favor of the underlying absence of final s in archaic inscriptions, see Hamp, 167-8.) This implies that the 3sg. form had two underlying representations, viz. /est/ and /st/. Consequently 'aphaeresis' has no linguistic basis in Latin.

According to the majority of metricians and grammarians, 'aphaeresis' takes place whenever es(s) or est is placed after a word terminating in a vowel. This view also precludes elision of the preceding vowel; e.g., vi(a) est, for viast, is judged impossible. Expressed in the terminology used here, this implies both that the 'reduced' variant is chosen unexceptionally after a vowel, and that this should be reflected in the orthography. Some scholars regard the metricians' rule as too strict. Soubiran (1966:165-79) considers cases where elision, and consequent use of the 'full' variants es(s) and est, seem to be preferable on syntactic/semantic grounds. His point is that where the copula is separated from the preceding word by a syntactic cut, elision is more likely (cf. also Marouzeau 1908). This is especially clear in the case of sentence boundary; e.g., Plaut. Trin. 934 Arabiast in Ponto? Est 'Arabia is in Pontus? It is.' But a minor constituent boundary may also con- dition elision (Soubiran 1966:178-9; Marouzeau, 295-8). These are, it is true, only intuitive judgments. However, Soubiran is able (1966:177) to cite one indisputable case from Lucilius (1238 Marx: 0 Publ(i), o gurges Gallon(i), es homo miser, inquit) in which the 'full' variant es is placed after a vowel, and what takes place is elision.

On the grounds of the above discussion, I suggest that, in historical Latin, it was always possible to spell es and est even after a vowel (while the 'reduced' variants could not be used after a consonant); and whenever this was done, it was elision that was supposed to take place. In the example cited from Lucilius, there is, to be sure, a syntactic cut between Gallon! and es; but the expression mentules, i.e. mentul(a) es, in a Pompeian graffito (CIL 4,8931), warrants the belief that the reduced variants tended to be ousted from everyday speech altogether. This development is particularly understandable in the case of the 2sg. form, where use of the reduced form was a potential source of ambiguity (cf. Brinkmann, 13); but a few statements by Roman grammarians seem to indicate that st also tended to be ousted: Marius Sacerdos (3rd cent. A.D.) adduces licitum est as an example of a phrase ending in a monosyllable (6,493,14 Keil); and Bede (673-ca. 735) in his De arte metrica states that via est is scanned vi(a) est (7,274,1 Keil). If es(s) and est were indeed the dominant variants in historical Latin,28 the creation of estis becomes entirely understandable.

6. EPILOG. In spite of what I have said about the creation of estis, this development remains problematic. It is somewhat surprising that there seems to be no trace of *stis in our texts (cf. Nyman 1974:28, where an attempt is forced to motivate the non-occurrence of *stis on syntactic grounds). We cannot rule out the

28 Soubiran has shown that, as a rule, ' Virgile place est apres consonne ou au debut du vers lorsqu'il possede un sens fort; il place est apres finale elidable [i.e., he uses the variant st] lorsqu'il n'est qu'une copule ou un outil grammatical' ([1957] 1966:166). In the case of Vergil, the variants est and st seem to have developed a semiotic function which influences the word order.

58


possibility that the root vocalism in estis represents the most archaic type, as suggested by Watkins (32-4)-although the argument ultimately rests on the controversial question of how much weight must be given to the Hittite evidence (cf. Wyatt 1972:689 and Kurylowicz 1958, with subsequent discussion). The same is implied by Schmalstieg (see fn. 3, above). Proto-paradigm 2, which serves as our point of departure, represents the 'conservative' type of reconstruction; and one must confess that reconstructing the IE model paradigm still involves problems of principle. Consequently, our discussion is more an experiment than a final answer.

REFERENCES

ANDERSEN, H. 1973. Abductive and deductive change. Lg. 49.765-93. ANTTILA, R. A. 1972. An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. New

York: Macmillan. -- . 1975. The indexical element in morphology. (Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprach-

wissenschaft, Vortrage, 12.) Innsbruck: Institut fur Sprachwissenschaft. BAILEY, C. 1947. Prolegomena to Titi Lucreti Cari De rerum natura libri sex, vol. I.

Oxford: Clarendon. BONFANTE, G. 1932. Lat. sum, es, est, etc. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris

99.111-29. BRINKMANN, 0. 1906. De copulae EST aphaeresi. Diss. Marburg. BRUGMANN, K. 1904. Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen.

Strassburg: Trubner. CAMPBELL, L. 1974. Phonological features: problems and proposals. Lg. 50.52-65. CHANTRAINE, P. 1961. Morphologie historique du grec. 2nd ed. Paris: Klincksieck. COSERIU, E. 1974. Synchronie, Diachronie, und Geschichte. Transl. by H. Sohre.

Munchen: Fink. DRESSLER, W. 1973. Pour une stylistique phonologique du latin: a propos des styles

negligents d'une langue morte. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 68.129-45.

ERNOUT, A. 1953. Morphologie historique du latin. 3rd ed. Paris: Klincksieck. FISHER, I. 1948. Lat. connoscere. Bulletin Linguistique 16.156. FOLEY, J. 1965. Prothesis in the Latin verb sum. Lg. 41.59-64. GOETZE, A. 1923. Relative Chronologie von Lauterscheinungen im Italischen. Indo-

germanische Forschungen 41.78-149. GOLDMANN, E. 1926. Die Duenos-Inschrift. (Indogermanische Bibliothek, 3:8).

Heidelberg: Winter. HALL, R. A., JR. 1960. On realism in reconstruction. Lg. 36.203-6. HALLE, M. 1961. On the role of simplicity in linguistic descriptions. Structure of lan-

guage and its mathematical aspects (Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathe- matics, 12), ed. by Roman Jakobson, 89-94. Providence.

HAMP, E. 1959. Final -s in Latin. Classical Philology 54.165-72. HAVET, L. 1884. sum, s, st. Memoires de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 5.158. HODGMAN, A. W. 1907. Verb forms in Plautus. Classical Quarterly 1.97-134. ITKONEN, ESA. 1974. Linguistics and metascience. (Studia philosophica Turkuensia, 2.)

Kokemaki: Societas Philosophica et Phaenomenologica Finlandiae. JASANOFF, J. R. 1973. The Germanic third weak class. Lg. 49.850-70. JURET, C. 1913. Dominance et resistance dans la phonetique latine. Heidelberg: Winter. KEHOE, W. J., and H. A. WHITAKER. 1974. Lexical structure disruption in aphasia: a

case study. Psycholinguistics and aphasia, ed. by H. Goodglass & S. Blumstein, 267-79. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

KENT, R. G. 1926. The inscription of Duenos. Lg. 2.207-22. -. 1946. The forms of Latin: a descriptive and historical morphology. Baltimore:

LSA.

59


KIPARSKY, P. 1971. Historical linguistics. A survey of linguistic science, ed. by W. 0. Dingwall, 576-649. College Park: University of Maryland Linguistics Program.

-- . 1972. Review of Watkins 1969. Foundations of Language 9.277-86. KURYLOWICZ, J. 1958. Le hittite. Proceedings of the 8th International Congress of

Linguists, 216-43. Oslo: University Press. LEO, FR. 1912. Plautinische Forschungen zur Kritik und Geschichte der Komodie.

2nd ed. Berlin: Weidmann. LEUMANN, M. 1963. Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. (Handbuch der Altertums-

wissenschaft, 11:2.1.) Munchen: Beck. LINDSAY, W. M. 1915. A short historical Latin grammar. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon. ---. 1922. Early Latin verse. Oxford: Clarendon. LINELL, P. 1974. Problems of psychological reality in generative phonology: a critical

assessment. Reports from Uppsala University, Department of Linguistics, 4. MAROUZEAU, J. 1908. Sur l'emploi de la graphie -st = est. Revue de Philologie 32.291-9. NYMAN, M. A. 1974. Ubi est and ubist: the problem of Latin aphaeresis and the pho-

nology of esse. (Annales Universitatis Turkuensis, B:128; Opera ex Institute Philo- logiae Classicae Universitatis Turkuensis edita, 3.) Turku: Turun Yliopisto.

--. 1975. 1st der rest-Typus moglich? Arctos (Acta Philologica Fennica) 9.61-73. PERINI, G. B. 1974. Due problemi di fonetica latina. (Ricerche di storia della lingua

latina, 12.) Roma: Edizioni dell'Ateneo. PROSKAUER, C. 1909. Das auslautende -s auf lateinischen Inschriften. Strassburg:

Trubner. ROTH, W. 1965. Beitrage zur Formenbildung von lat. 'esse' im Romanischen. (Roma-

nische Versuche und Vorarbeiten, 17.) Bonn: Romanisches Seminar. SAFAREWICZ, J. 1932. Le rhotacisme latin. Wilna. -. 1934. A propos de i'm final latin. Eos 35.133-8. --. 1953. Zarys gramatyki historycznej jezyka lacifiskiego: Fonetyka historyczna;

fleksja. Warszawa: Panstw. Wydzial Nauk. SCHINDLER, J. 1974. Fragen zum paradigmatischen Ausgleich. Die Sprache 20.1-9. SCHMALSTIEG, W. R. 1972. Denominative verbs with the suffix -j-. La Linguistique

8.123-36. SIEDOW, A. 1911. De elisionis, apharesis, hiatus usu in hexametris Latinis ab Ennio

usque ad Ovidii tempora. Diss. Greifswald. SOMMER, F. 1901. Zur italischen Flexion des Ind. praes. von esse. Paper read at the '46.

Versammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmanner in Strassburg', Oct. 4. [Summary in IF Anzeiger 12.347.]

- -. 1914. Handbuch der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre. Zweite und dritte Auflage. Heidelberg: Winter.

SOUBIRAN, J. 1957. L'apherese du est chez Virgile. Pallas 5.43-61. --. 1966. L'elision dans la poesie latine. (Etudes et commentaires, 63.) Paris:

Klincksieck. STRUNK, K. 1960. Die 3.pl. des Verbum substantivum im Griechischen. Glotta 38.203-9. SZEMERENYI, 0. 1946. Latin sum. Egyetemes Philologiai Kozlony 69.82-91 (with an

English summary). . 1964. Syncope in Greek and Indo-European and the nature of Indo-European

accent. Naples. --. 1970. Einfuhrung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. Darmstadt: Wissen-

schaftliche Buchgesellschaft. TOURATIER, CHR. 1975. Review of Nyman 1974. Revue des Etudes Latines 52.436-7. WATKINS, C. 1969. Formenlehre 1: Geschichte der Indogermanischen Verbalflexion.

(Indogermanische Grammatik, 3:1.) Heidelberg: Winter. WIJK, N. VAN. 1905. Zur Konjugation des Verbum substantivum. Indogermanische

Forschungen 18.49-59. WYATT, W. F. 1972. Review of Watkins 1969. Lg. 48.687-95.

[Received 11 March 1976.]

60

Documents

Martti a. Nyman - Sum