1

The Indo-European Adverb in diachronic and typological perspective∗

Pierluigi Cuzzolin, Bergamo / Ignazio Putzu, Cagliari/ Paolo Ramat, Pavia

PART I

1. General remarks on Adverb

The aim of the present paper is twofold: 1) to define some controversial aspects concerning the notion of “adverbiality” both from a formal and a conceptual viewpoint; 2) to apply the results of such an analysis to the oldest stages of some Indo-European languages within the framework of the so-called “dynamic typology”.

It is undeniable that there are some points within the picture sketched here which are still under discussion : these will be left open to further investigation. The reconstruction of Adverb (henceforth ADV) is a thorny issue: we refer to Putzu/Ramat (in press) for a thorough discussion. In one of his fundamental contributions to Indo-European linguistics, Jerzy Kurylowicz treated the relation between adverbs and adpositions in a way which has been widely accepted (1964: 171):

The fact that in the I.E. languages many an indeclinable may function both as preverb and as preposition has been a sufficient reason for attributing to them an adverbial origin. Such an assumption fully accounts for their subsequent functional bifurcation.

1.1. From the typological comparison viewpoint , it is well-known that there are languages in which forms occur that are described as adverbial, even though they do not exhibit the features which are peculiar for adverbs, at least according to the Western linguistic tradition.

In yidi? and numerous other languages of Australia (both pama-nyungan and non-pama-nyungan: Dixon/Aikhenvald 2002: 181-183), adverbs tend to be marked with the same markers of the verbs they modify. Palau, a language spoken in the Philippines (Hagège 1985) employs verbs as well as noun phrases, both accompanied by a relational marker –r, in adverbial function. In Maori, “adverbs” show agreement with the verb only for diathesis (active or passive). In Avar, “some adverbs (depending on their phonological shape) may show agreement in noun class with the absolutive phrase of their clause. Recall that this is the same pattern as agreement in Avar verbs, although the adverbs are not marked for other categories, such as tense, which are specified for verbs” (Anderson 1985: 200-201).

It is also worth mentioning the type cited by Talmy Givón: “Unlike the categories noun, verb and adjective, adverbs are a rather mixed lexical class, semantically, morphologically and syntactically. Many adverbs are full sentential constructions rather than one-word lexical items […] But even single adverbial words display relatively little cross-language comparability. Unlike nouns, verbs and to some extent adjectives, adverbs tend to be derived from other lexical words […. ] In some languages, noun, verb or adjective stems may become incorporated into the verbal word when functioning as manner adverbs” (Givón 1984: I 80, emphasis original). In Ute the following examples occur:

( 1 ) ute i. noun-derived adverb: mamá-ci “woman” and mamá-pagáy’wa-y woman-walk-IMM[ediate]

∗ The research was funded in 2001-2003 by the Italian Ministry for University, Scientific Research and Technology (MURST). The general title of the program was ‘Mutamenti tipologici nella morfosintassi delle lingue indoeuropee’ (COFIN # 2001 105242). Seven Italian universities participated in the project: The Istituto Universitario Orientale in Naples (now Univers. degli Studi di Napoli ‘L’Orientale’), the Libera Università Maria Assunta in Rome, the University of Pavia, the University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, the University of Trieste, the University of Viterbo (‘Università della Tuscia’), and the Università per Stranieri in Siena. The general coordinator of the project was Prof. Giorgio Banti of the ‘Orientale’.

Part I is due to Pierluigi Cuzzolin and Paolo Ramat, Part II to Ignazio Putzu. It goes without saying that the whole paper was discussed and worked out together.

2

“(he) is walking like a woman” ii. verb-derived adverb: tuná- “hunt” and tuná-voro-í

hunt-walk-IMM “(he) is hunting around, he is walking-hunting”.

In this case the nominal, verbal or adjectival stem, when it has an adverbial function, loses all markers identifying it as a noun, an adjective or a verb. Something similar occurs in the I.-E. languages, where the accusative neuter of the adjective occurs with adverbial function in expressions like Gr. ò*L NT<,\F"H Sapph. 31 Voigt, vv. 3-4) = lat. dulce loquentem (cfr. Hor. Odes I,22,24 f. dulce ridentem Lalagen amabo,/ dulce loquentem, which was to become a literary tópos: Chi non sa come dolce ella sospira/ e come dolce parla e dolce ride, Petrarca, Rerum Vulgarium Fragmenta 159,13 f.). Basically, the purely adjectival stem is used, even though an accusative neuter with zero ending is in opposition to all other inflected forms provided with endings.

The complex inventory occurring in the non-I.-E. languages we have been referring to – something that makes a general definition of ADV difficult to provide - is analysable, in our opinion, keeping two relevant aspects in mind. First of all, the great morpho-syntactic variability of the languages mentioned above, showing that some characteristics of the ADV are intimately connected with the linguistic type these languages belong to. Just to give an example, adverbs exhibiting features proper to verb tend to occur in isolating or agglutinative rather than fusional languages . Secondly, each of the aforementioned adverbial forms exhibits a different degree of integration into the predicative nucleus of the sentence: at one pole, those ADVs which are fully integrated and represent core arguments, and at the other pole, the ADVs which are pure adjuncts and therefore may be omitted while the sentence remains grammatical.. Of course, one could ask, with Anderson (1985], whether the close parallelism between the behaviour of verbs and adverbs enables us to really speak of “adverbs”, but the question, reformulated within our framework, loses its provocative force and can at least preliminarily, receive an answer,.

More generally, in non-Indo-European languages, the adverb apparently has a form closer to inflection, thus revoking in discussion, at least as far as Indo-European languages are concerned, one of its basic features, i.e. that of not exhibiting agreement, differently, for instance, from the ADJ. In fact in hua (“East New Guinea highlands”, Diessel 1999: 28), demonstrative pronouns contain three elements: “a demonstrative root, a (non-locative) case marker, and the suffix –bo’, which Haiman (1980: 228) analyses as a nominaliser”. On the contrary, the demonstrative adverb is allegedly formed by the same deictic root, without including, however, the nominaliser –bo’, “and therefore “cannot be classified as a demonstrative pronoun in locative case” (Diessel 1999: 28). See the following examples:

( 2 ) hua (Haiman 1980: 259 in Diessel 1999: 28) a. ma- bo’ –mamu’

prox-nlz-erg “this (one)”

b. ma-roga prox-loc “here, hither”. (see Putzu / Ramat, in press)

There are languages like Hungarian, which show ADP postposed (POSP) with agreement: in this case ADV and ADP show a pattern of behaviour completely different from that shown by ADV and ADP in the I.-E. tradition:

( 3 ) Péter-nek alatt-a P.-DAT under-3Sg. “under P.”

the prepositional phrase behaves exactly like the noun phrase, showing double marking both on the “head” and in the “dependence”:

3

( 3 bis) Péter-nek láb-a P.-DAT foot-3Sg. “P.’s foot”

(see Stephen Matthews in LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG, 15.XII.2003). Claude Hagège (p.c.) has paradoxically remarked that the adverb is rather a peculiarity of the I.-E. languages and many linguistic families do not even possess it .

Taking into account this great range of morphological formations, to which others could be added, the first reaction should be that of discarding a category “bonne à tout faire”. We quote Pottier: “Il semble que l’on ait mis dans les grammaires sous la rubrique ‘adverbes’ tous les mots dont on ne savait que faire” (Pottier 1962: 53).

However, the very fact that this label, coined by the Greek grammarians (Gr. e¦pi¿rrhma “[what is ] beside the verb”: ad-verbium), is still in use after two thousand years shows that, at least intuitively, it consists of a functional core, and of one or more features common to a certain number of “linguistic objects” at the semantic, morphological and syntactic levels. Linguists of Western tradition continue to employ the labels ‘adverbs’ and ‘adverbiality’ even when describing languages typologically very different from the I.-E. type.

The first difficulty is therefore to identify a category that groups adverbs consistently, separating them, if possible, from other elements, which are often formally coinciding but functionally different, just like preverbs (PREV) and adpositions (ADP).

A further difficulty is that, as mentioned above, “the delimitation of word formation from inflection is not equally strict everywhere […) and within word formation at its most typical, compounding is not always equally clearly distinguished from derivation” (Plank 2003: 8].

2. Adverbs in Indo-European

Consequently, the problem is to ascertain whether, besides the set of deictics of the hic and nunc type which are clearly ascribable to PIE, there are any other adverbs that can be reasonably ascribed to Proto-Indo-European and what they are. More generally, the problem is to ascertain whether and how PIE formally expressed the functions that almost every ancient I.-E. language later expressed through the lexical category of the adverb.

The innovation that characterises the history of the I.-E. languages is the development of a special type of adverb that: a) from the functional point of view basically expresses way or manner; b) from the formal point of view is characterised by structural transparency and morpholexical productivity (diagrammaticity). Such an innovation was extraordinarily productive in all branches of Indo-European. What is noteworthy is that each branch followed the same process of formation, even though with different morpholexical material. We will come back to this aspect later.

What has been said so far leads to the individuation of two classes of adverbs: the first is represented by deictic adverbs that can be defined according to the traits of opacity and non-productivity (hic, nunc); the second by adverbs of manner that can be derived through highly productive word-formation rules, such as clear-ly, merri-ly.

2.1. Even though not central to the arguments worked out in this paper, the following question which is certainly relevant to the definition of Adverb, arises,: which of the two aforementioned classes better meets the criteria by which we define adverb (see Ramat 2002) ? Two approaches are possible and therefore two solutions, even though however neither of them is mutually exclusive.

According to the first approach (see Ramat / Ricca 1994, Ramat / Ricca 1998, and Putzu / Ramat, in press), the most typical adverbs are those of the first class. Such an approach aims at cross-linguistic comparison on a large scale and consequently employs general definitory traits, like the tendency to lexicalisation and therefore morphological opacity and non-productivity.

On the contrary, at least for a modern western language speaker, the most typical adverb, is the one that can be defined as characterised by high diagrammaticity, i. e. a clear and systematic relation between formal segments and semantic correlates and, consequently, by morphological

4

transparency and productivity: see, for instance, the English adverbs in –ly or the German adverbs in –(er)weise.

To adopt one approach rather that the other mainly depends on the type of investigation to be carried out and on the breadth of the comparison domain : the first approach turns out to be suitable for the comparison of languages from different families, whereas the second accounts for the fact that our western language speaker intuitively recognises as typically adverbial the forms that do not conform to the first type: for example, s/he will recognise as typically adverbial the form allegramente “merrily” rather than qui “here” .

If it is evident that glücklicherweise, heureusement, certainly, feliciter are adverbs formed according to specific word-formation rules, how should we evaluate forms such as Lat. sursum, statim, certe, Gr. dh¢n etc.? Etymological analysis gives confirmation for some adverbs (Lat. sursum, statim) and hypothesises with high probability for others (Gr . dh¢n) that they are forms provided with inflectional endings, more precisely in the accusative case. What remains unclear, however, is the reason why forms such as extra “outside”, supra “above” exhibit the feminine ending whereas certe “certainly” has to be traced back to a masculine or a neuter ablative. Vittore Pisani (1949: 151) considered these suffixes, exactly like the ones in *-dhi of oiÃkoJi “at home”, *-dhen of ou¦ranÍJen “from the sky” – as ‘speciali’ (“frozen forms…disassociated from paradigms ”, according to the formulation by Winfred Lehmann 1974: 232). It seems impossible to relate these “special suffixes” to the case system that a cross-linguistic comparison enables us to reconstruct, as on the contrary is the case for the instrumental *-phi(n), attested in Homer: Çfi and bÂhji both meaning “with strength, violently” and sometimes having an adverbial value. Case forms such as olim or dh¢n are certainly less transparent than the ones occurring in adverbs such as Gr. (ú)oiåkoi, “at home” or Lat. domi “at home”, Gr. nukto¢j “by night”or Goth. nahts “by night”, with clear and regular locative and genitive endings, respectively. At this point, it is not useless to recall that the Greek grammarians already considered the adverbs ending in –wj as the sixth case, implicitly confirming what we have claimed so far, i.e. that it is difficult to draw a neat borderline between inflection and word-formation rules.1 2.2. Consequently, the definition of the category ADV as a “part of speech” cannot but take into account both formal and functional criteria. In the following pages we resume the line of reasoning according to which we have defined the monorhematic (monolexical) I.-E. ADV: I. From the morphosyntactic viewpoint: a. Adverbs are lexemes that do not vary from the morphological viewpoint. They can be lexicalised elements, i.e. they have an opaque morphosyntactic structure (like xqe¿j “yesterday”) and form a close, non-productive class (see Lat. noct-u “by night” parallel to di-u “by day”; but the ablatives of nox and dies are nocte and die). Whereas **in diu is not attested, in (hoc) die is a possible, well attested phrase. Prepositional phrases, or even whole short sentences with adverbial value underwent a process of lexicalisation, giving monorhematic adverbs with frozen, unmodifiable word order: for instance, in Latin one never finds **sit fors an, but only forsitan “perhaps”. Expressions such as fors fuat an/ut never became monorhematic adverbs and still have to be accounted for as phraseological. Monorhematic, i.e. monolexical adverbs represent the prototype of this category. There are at least two remarks that have to be taken into account: first of all, this criterion is crucially bound to the morphological structure of the language in question. It means that the monorhematic adverb only represents the prototypical adverb in those languages in which polyrhematic expressions such as in hoc die beside hodie are also possible. The issue loses its relevance in languages with an isolating morphology like Chinese. Secondly, the label “lexicalisation”, if conceived as a process parallel to grammaticalization, presupposes that the adverb, or the phrase from which the adverb developed, was originally polyrhematic, as Lat. clara mente “clearly”. 1 Haspelmath (1996) suggests considering English adverbs in -ly as inflectional, even though they undoubtedly derive from a compound of *-li o (< germ. *lika(n) “body”). Of course preliminary to such a suggestion should come the discussion on what can, or even must be considered inflection, both from a diachronic and synchronic viewpoint. For a discussion on Haspelmath’s assumptions, see Ricca (1998); see also Van der Auwera (1994: 40a).

5

b. Since ADV is an independent word, it has a relative semantic autonomy: in fact, unless it is an ARG of the PRED, it can be deleted or omitted in a sentence, but the sentence remains fully correct from the grammatical point of view.

c. Even from the syntactical viewpoint, ADV is relatively free: its syntactic position depends on the part it modifies (the verb, the noun, the adjective or also another adverb: Gr. mála skhedón “très voisin, very nearly”; Lat. valde bene “très bien, very well”).

II. From the functional point of view:

a. ADV is a modifier. There are several types of modifiers: modifiers of verbal phrases, those that refer only to the predicate, and those whose scope is outside the predicate. If adverbs of manner, place, time, are inside the predicate, they have to be considered as arguments of the predicate, because they fill a valency of the predicate. Therefore, one can claim that they modify the head which is not self-sufficient from the semantic point of view, just as in the case of verbs of movement: one cannot simply go, but has to specify the direction of movement: for example, Lat. ire intro ac foras “go inside and outside”, i.e. to enter and to exit, Lat. venire obviam “to go towards”. On the contrary, if the modifiers are outside the predicate, they are not arguments, but adjuncts that occur beside a self-sufficient head: this is the case for optime in hic manebimus optime ; hic manebimus “we will remain here” is a complete and absolutely acceptable sentence. Hic, on the contrary, is an argument of manebimus “we’ll remain, we’ll stay”: in fact, one necessarily remains, stays somewhere.

b. From the point of view of the semantic roles, adverbs in Indo-European express lexically the notions of time, place, manner, and means.

As observed above, in order to define the category of ADV it is necessary to take into account syntax, semantics and morphology, according to a global perspective. In fact, in many languages plurifunctional morphemes and multicategorial terms exist. French, a language that offers a large amount of diachronic and diatopic documentation, has recently been investigated from this point of view (see Marchello-Nizia 2002): entre, en, de are prepositions (PREP) but also preverbs (PREV) (and even nominal prefixes). PREVs can be inseparable (“préfixes lexicalisés”) or separable (for example Deu s’en partiz de mei [Li quatre livre des Reis, 110); Et s’entresont venu [Chevalier au cygne, 125) where entre is bound to the auxiliary; cf. Buridant 2000: §§439, 440). Aval (< AD VALLEM) appears at the beginning of the 12th . as ADV and also as PREP “sans qu’on puisse dire si l’un des emplois a précédé l’autre” (Marchello-Nizia (2002: 209]):

( 4 ) Altres…ne descendit aval cest pui (Voyage de St. Brendan [a.1112),172) “Nobody else went down this hill”,

where aval, so to say, “looks” leftwards to the verb of movement and rightwards to the complement of place2. The situation is not different from the one still occurring in contemporary Italian:

( 5 ) a. togliamo via dalla testa “lit. let us take off (our hats) from our heads” b. scendi giù dalle scale! “come down from the stairs”

There are two possible readings:

( 6 ) a’ [togliamo viaADV)VP [dalla testa)PP b’ [scendi giùADV)VP [dalle scale)PP

or

2 Subsequently French tends to distinguish ADV from PREP and PREV: this is the case of tres (< TRANS) that established itself as PREV in forms such as traverser , and as ADV in the form très. But in OFr. we still find Qui m’at apris a chanter tres m’anfance (Conon de Béthune [1170-1190]) “who taught me to sing when I was a child”

6

( 7 ) a’’ [togliamo ]V [[via da]PREP la testaNP]PP

b’’ [scendi]V [[giù da]PREP le scaleNP]PP

The situation is not even different from the one found comparing the oldest I.-E. languages with examples such as:

( 8 ) kefalh¤j aÃpo fa¤roj eÀleske (Od. 8,88) “Ulysses raised his veil from his head”

(cf. Adrados 1975: 844; Nocentini 1992: 228 f.)3. Also the usage of the ADV/ADP in postverbal and/or sentence final position can be analysed in this perspective: drink your milk up!, trinke es aus! The function of up and aus is to provide aspectual information about the action expressed by the verb (see Vincent 1999: 1119). With regard to this aspectual value of ADV/ADP, see cases such as Lat. taceo but preterite con-ticui, premo versus opprimo, supprimo etc., with a development towards tempo-aspectual values which probably fit into the drift space à time, which is well-known in many different linguistic traditions, and not only in Indo-European.

Later on, in many, but not all cases, preverbs combined with a verb ( ADV+V) became inseparable from the verb, thus giving rise to new lexemes, as in Greek, where a¦faireiªn is no longer separable: cf. pi¿nw “drink” vs. e¦kpi¿nw “drink up” (as aus-trinken!), fronti¿zw “think (intr.)” vs. e¦kfronti¿zw “think up (tr.)” (see Romagno 2004: 174 f.):

( 9 ) I.NA URU Kar-ga-miš an-da-an i-yah-ha-at (KBO IV 4) DAT/LOC city Karkemish inside went (cf. Gamkrelidze / Ivanov 1995: § 6.6.1)

In the Germanic languages there are pairs such as to uplift vs. to lift up, Germ. übersetzen “to ferry”(with the stress on the first syllable and separable prefix) vs. übersetzen “to translate” (with the stress on the penultimate and inseparable prefix), Dutch doorlopen “flow” (stress on the first syllable and separable) vs. doorlopen “cross” (stress on the penultimate and inseparable). Evidently, the separable forms are representative of a syntactic situation where the preverb – already ADV/ADP – preserves more of its original value, whereas the inseparable forms represent a (close) class of lexemes (Van der Auwera 1999: 122 f.). Not infrequently the compound ends up losing its semantic relation with the simple verb: Goth. got. beitan “bite”, but andbeitan “threaten”, brikan “break”, but ufbrikan “despise”.

Chantraine clearly outlined this particular situation in his Grammaire homérique (Paris 1953: 82), when describing those elements he labelled ‘particules’: “Il s’agit, en réalité, de petits mots invariables qui viennent préciser l’idée exprimée, et qui, originellement, sont autonomes [emphasis added]. Ils peuvent s’employer soit absolument, soit à côté d’un verbe comme adverbes ou comme préverbes, soit à côté d’un nom comme prépositions. Le texte homérique, fort archaïque, permet particulièrement bien de montrer avec quelle souplesse s’emploient ces mots et comment leur emp loi dans la phrase peut varier”.

2.3. It is usually claimed that OV languages tend to have PREV. However, both French and Italian – besides the other Romance languages, all exhibiting dominant VO word order – have preserved the usage of PREV, either maintaining the word inherited from Latin (see, for instance, contraddire, contraffare, disgiungere, dissociare) or creating new lexemes (see disidratare, disinnescare, disincagliare, etc.). French still preserves a few cases of postposed ADP that specify the verb: il viendra avec , et l’on pendouilla Pierre et sa Jeannette avec). Apparently, the fortune of PREV and ADP does not depend on the basic word order, but it is rather the syntactic position that assigns the functional value of ADV or ADP4: “La categoria dei cosiddetti ‘avverbi indoeuropei’ indicanti determinazioni spaziali, sembra dunque essere indifferenziata, in quanto a classe e significato lessicale, tra ADV e ADP” (Putzu / Ramat, in press). It is normally claimed in grammars that an ADP (PREP or POSP) selects, ‘governs’, a specific case. However, when the

3 De Angelis (2004] provides an interpretation of data that partially differs from ours, on the basis of metrical and accentual reasons which can not be discussed here. 4 “Thus the different positions of [the] various particle elements in the different stocks eventually led to different word-classes” (Baldi 1979: 54).

7

same ADP (for instance, Gr. peri¿ “around” , Skr. parás “beyond”) can ‘govern’ all the cases of the declension, i.e. genitive, dative, accusative, (in Sanskrit also locative, ablative, and instrumental), it means that in fact neither peri¿ nor parás were originally bound to any specific grammatical case. On the whole, what Meillet has already claimed about the autonomy of the word in I.-E. is in fact undeniable. It represents a type in which the “linguistic sign” is very complex, with prefixes, infixes and suffixes that determine both the semantic value and the syntactic function. Think, for instance, of a verb such as mi-mnh¿-sk-ein , morphologically hypercharacterised by reduplication, root apophonic grade, inchoative suffix, infinitive ending: all this information conveys the meaning “to start to perform intensely the acion X’, where X = “to think (cf. mens –tis) > to remember” (cfr. mnh¿-ma, mnhmosu¿nh etc.). Also think of the corradical Lat. *mon-eyo >moneo, with the o-grade typical of the causatives + causative suffix + 1st sing ind. pres. act.: we get “to make somebody think” > “to warn”. The different I.-E. linguis tic traditions underwent phonetic processes by which the morphological structure of the inherited forms progressively became less analysable. They became, obviously only in part, stable lexemes, no longer diagrammatic ‘labels’ (cf. Benedetti 2003: 238sg.). It is highly doubtful that a speaker of Latin would have been able to recognise the etymological relation between moneo and mens, taking for granted (which is far from being unquestionable) that the class of abstract feminine nouns in *-ti- was still identified as such (mens, and pars, but sitis and pestis).

Well, we may follow the progressive lexicalisation of the problematic category we labelled ADV/ADP/PREV. Some of these forms specialised as adverbial lexemes, and fell into the same category as those of the ancient common I.-E. tradition such as Gr. xqe¿j = Skr. hyás, Avest. zyo, Lat. heri etc. whose etymology is not clear (see also in modern I.-E. languages, examples such as Engl. yet, It. giù,5 Fr. très etc. Other forms specialised rather as PREP (e.g. It. sopra, da, in), whereas a small set continued as PREV, often lexicalised and no longer separable (OFr. encumbrer and ingombrare, enseignier and insegnare ecc.).6 All cases of the nominal inflection can have an adverbial function, even though there are cases that exert this function more frequently:7 these are the so-called “semantic” cases (DAT.[Gr. di¿khi], LOC.[(ú)oiåkoi], INSTR. [iªfi]), in opposition to the so-called “syntactic” cases: the former have a semantic value, i.e. a non-relational, autonomous value, like location in space and time, specification of means and manner of action; the latter rather derive their value from the syntactic function they have in the sentence. Note, however, that both can represent an ARG of the PRED. Consequently, instead of reconstructing an “adverbial” case, we may claim that I.-E. could employ the inflectional cases to linguis tically instantiate the semantic functions that the ancient and modern I.-E. languages in later stages lexicalised through adverbs. Morphs dedicated to the formation of adverbs (for instance, Lat. –iter) were created independently in most I.-E. languages and one can assume – as it will be clearly shown in the second part of the present paper – that they were created just because of the progressive loss of the function of the cases: specification of place, time, manner show the tendency to abandon the inflection paradigms and to establish themselves in some autonomous forms: see, for instance, the series of Latin adverbs in –e (certe, firme), derived from an ablative in –e(d ), vs. the ablative in -o(d) of the corresponding adjectives.

2.4. To sum up:

In the ancient I.-E. languages ADV were stored in the lexicon as follows: A) Lexemes which gave information about space and time of the predication (the so-called circumstantials); in addition, there were focalisers, quantifiers and intersentential connecting elements. These types of words are invariable, not transparent and their class is not productive: in

5 It is worth noting that the prepositional value is to be found in the non-monorhematic expressions giù

da, fuori da; giù and fuori are ADVs. 6 In Old French it is still possible to find the ‘PREV’ en (< Lat. IN) separate from the verb: Or set il bien

qued il s’en doit aler (Vie de S. Alexe, 279) “Now he well knows that he has to go away”, Marchello-Nizia (2002: 203).

7 It is not possible in this paper to discuss the cases from which adverbs derive more frequently (for this relevant issue see Cuzzolin, in press).

8

fact, they are prototypical adverbs according to the characteristics mentioned above, § 2.2, such as, for instance, Skr. abhí, Gr. a¹mfi¿, OHG. umbi, Gaul. ambi- “around”; Gr. proti¿ / pro/ti, pro¿», ¿Skr. práti < I.-E. *pre/oti , etc. A) represents the oldest core of the category ADV/ADP/PREV. B) Later, the different linguistic traditions within the I.-E. family created a huge number of monorhematic expressions (therefore, still lexemes) indicating the way, the manner. Even these were invariable, but transparent from the morphosyntactic point of view and their class was productive. These are the adverbs derived either through specific word formation rules: Greek adverbs in –w», Latin –(i)ter; or by grammaticalisation like the ones mentioned in footnote 1: *-liko (cf. Goth. ga-lik -o, Germ. -gleich, ecc.). Since they are derived through a process of grammaticalisation, one can speak of an “amphizone” of the old I.-E. adverbial core.

It is not mere coincidence if Vedic and Classical Sanskrit have a relatively small number of prototypical adverbial lexemes, when compared with other I.-E. ancient languages. The case system was still strong enough to be able to express the circumstantials by itself. In fact sometimes in Vedic, it is difficult to distinguish between an inflected form and an adverb: durena “far” (used as an ADV) is the instrumental of durá “far”, balat “vigorously” is the ablative of bala “strength”, etc. (cf. Lazzeroni 1997:145). On the other hand, Pinault (1995:42 ff.), investigating the relative chronology of the Vedic texts has convincingly shown that a gradual development towards the establishment of the ADV/ADP in preverbal position can be clearly observed. C) The progressive weakening of the case system and the loss of its functions, which brought about the spreading of syncretism of cases, had the result that certain forms provided with case endings remained frozen and isolated: as is the case of Lat. olim, Gr. dh/n, etc.

At the same time the progressive weakening of the case system allowed analytical constructions which used the ADV/ADP to express semantic roles. At this point, old lexemes such as Germ umbi, Gr. pro/», Skr. práti etc. became true prepositions governing one inflectional case:

(10 ) NFLEX +ADP or ADP+ NFLEX

The examples quoted from Plautus by Vincent are enlightening:

( 11 ) quae ad patrem vis nuntiari? (Capt. 360) “what do you want me to report to your father?”

and

( 12 ) numquid aliud vis patri nuntiari? (Capt. 400) “do you want anything else to be reported to your father?”

(see Vincent 1999: 1115). The ‘moral of this story’ is as follows: the coming into being of the ADV/ADP is not an isolated phenomenon in the development of the I.-E. languages. On the contrary, it is just a chapter of a more general typological evolution , namely the trend that led many I.-E. languages from the synthetic type to an analytical one, which is more transparent and diagrammatic (think, for instance, of the origin of the comparative types: plus, màs, mehr, pió, bolee + ADJ). The usage of the phrases ADP+case follows the tendency towards transparency. It is the same tendency that, some centuries later, would create the ADV in –ment(e), -lich /-ly and –(er)weise. The history of languages often shows a cyclic movement.8

8 There are many examples that can be produced in favour of this cyclicity: cf. for instance Hagège (1978). Another good case is represented by the “drift” towards “esophoric forms” in the verbal system, well investigated by A. De Angelis and P. Di Giovine (in press): in I.-E. languages, namely in Germanic and Indo-Iranian, a progressive right dislocation of the functional load of the verb can be noticed: the paradigmatic information originally present in the root (e.g apophony as in binden – band -gebunden and the stress-shift between singular and plural in the perfect and in the present with nasal infix: Skr. 1^ sing. yu-na-j-mi vs. 1^ plur. yu-ñ-j-mah; cf. Lat. iungo) tends to move progressively towards the end of the word, i.e. towards the endings, and this increases the diagrammatic transparency of the paradigm.

Nowadays, however, in (colloquial) English, as well as the pan-Germanic characteristic of expanding rather than reducing the inherited apophonic alternation in the class of so-called strong verbs (see Ramat 1988: 191), forms such as I’ll cry, I’d say, I’ve seen occur, where the phonetic weight of the auxiliary is minimal; without an appropriate context we are unable to decide whether ‘ll derives from will or shall, ‘d from had, should or would. Apparently, a sort of verbal introflexion is on the way, not different from the one

9

It is now possible to substantiate the general discourse of this first part with specific data taken from the Vedic, Greek and Latin linguistic traditions.

PART II

3. Introductory remarks We have already stated above that the nominal morphology of the ancient Indo-European languages, in comparison with PIE, is characterised by a general reduction of the number of cases (and consequently, by phenomena of syncretism). While the loss of cases was still taking place, I.-E. languages were already developing alternative strategies to express the different functions proper to the various cases, i.e. on the one hand, they were developing a system of adpositions, on the other hand, a series of adverbs.

From the point of view of morphological typology, this complex set of phenomena appears to represent a shift from a synthetic type to a more analytic one.

In Putzu/Ramat (in press), within the framework of a dynamic perspective of the typological phenomena, the reasons that might have caused the crisis of the case system were one of the issues under investigation. The tentative answer was that such a crisis was bound to the variation of the morphic indexes of fusion and synthesis (and in particular, to that of cumulation). In fact, the more the units of a morphological system are easily segmentable and reducible to an unambiguous meaning, the more that combinatory system functions. Therefore, it was firstly hypothesised that the crisis of the case system can be described as a variation of the indexes of the aforementioned parameters of fusion and synthesis; secondly, that there could be a typologically relevant relation between the increase of those indexes, the crisis of the inflectional case system and the development of adpositions and adverbs In order to demonstrate this it is necessary:

1. to calculate the index of fusion and cumulation in ancient I.-E. languages and to compare these indexes with those of modern I.-E. languages from the same linguistic traditions (for example, Classical Greek compared with Modern Greek); 2. to check whether an increasing usage of adverbial (and also adpositional) forms expressing spatial, temporal and finally even modal relations corresponds to a reduction or loss of the so-called “concrete” cases which express(ed) the same semantic relations.

In the present paper, we have tried to test the former of the two points in question, whereas the latter will be treated in another paper. At this moment we can simply repeat what we have already noticed on the history of the various ancient I.-E. languages; namely that case systems are strongly reduced with respect to PIE and that a rich and complex system of adpositions and adverbs with spatial, temporal and modal functions co-occurs with the case reduction.

brought about by metaphony in plurals of the type teeth, geese, feet . But see on the contrary the analogical extension which has produced the new plural books instead of the “regular” beech). The diagrammaticity, which caused the replacement of the synthetic forms by analytic ones provided with an auxiliary ( I saw à I have seen) , again becomes opaque because of the phonetic erosion (I’ve seen).

10

3.1. Definitions

In this paper we assume that the morpheme can be lexical or grammatical. According to the European structuralist tradition, the morpheme has a twofold nature 9. Therefore, the lexical morpheme, or lexeme, is the combination of a morph in its phonemic shape and a semanteme, i.e. the unit of the semantic-lexical level. In turn the grammatical morpheme is the combination of the morph with one or mo re grammemes. By grammeme we mean the basic unit ( a quantum) of grammatical information. For instance, given the partition of Ger. Frei-heit (/'frai-hait/), the German morpheme {–heit} − phonologically realized by the morph /hait/ − cumulates the ‘singular’ and ‘feminine’ grammemes; or, given the partition of It. gatt-o, gatt-i (/'gatt-o/, /'gatt-i/), the Italian morpheme {-i} – phonetically realised by the morph /-i/ – cumulates the ‘plural’ and ‘masculine’ grammemes.

In both cases the ratio between morph, on the one hand, and grammemes on the other hand is 1:2. On the contrary, given the partition /'kæt/, /'kæt-s/, the English morpheme {-s} − (realised by the morph /-s/) − only encodes the ‘plural’grammeme: the ratio between morph and grammeme is 1:1. Consequently, the morph /-i/ of Italian bears grammatical information which is double that

9 For an overview of the classical definitions of morpheme, see Berruto (1990). Greenberg (1960) adopts

the concept of morpheme as worked out by the American school (Sapir, Bloomfield). The American school, as Lepschy (1966: 157) points out, defines morphemes as “le unità minime dell’analisi morfemica, che comprendono dunque anche i semantemi o lessemi della terminologia tradizionale e corrispondono ai monemi di Martinet”. This is not a purely terminological issue: as Lepschy (1966: 157) makes clear, “la descrizione morfologica di tipo americano comprende anche problemi di semantica e di vocabolario, ed entro di essa resta spesso non ben chiarito lo stato del sistema grammaticale in senso ristretto (del dominio cioè dei morfemi in senso tradizionale, distinti dai lessemi)”. In fact, even if Greenberg (1960) disagrees with Nida on some points (see for instance Greenberg 1960: 190), he accepts the analysis according to criteria proper to the post-Bloomfieldian structuralism. Such an approach, as Lepschy (1966: 159) underlines, “ha portato a discussioni infinite su problemi che non possono non apparire artificiosi: p.es. in feet plurale di foot, come si distribuiranno gli allomorfi fra i tre morfemi (che significano ‘pied-‘, ‘singolare’ e ‘plurale’)…?”. Does /f_t/ support the basic lexical meaning ‘foot, while /-u:-/ supports ‘singular’ and /-i:-/ ‘plural’? On the basis of the proportion boy:boy-s :: man:men, Greenberg (1960: 189) analyses man as made up of only one morph whereas he analyses men as made up of two morphs, the one meaning ‘man’ and the other meaning ‘plural’. In order to avoid similar problems, in this paper we assume that the form men is not segmentable (therefore it counts as only one morph) and that it cumulates the semanteme ‘man’ and the grammeme ‘plural’ in opposition to man, which cumulates the semanteme ‘man’ and the grammeme ‘singular’.

Greenberg counts the zero morph of /‰i:p-0/ ‘sheep.plural’ as opposed to /‰i:p/ ‘sheep.singular’. In this paper we do not count the zero morph. Even though the concept of zero morph can be useful to reconstitute symmetry in the system (but the issue is today very controversial), it seems risky to count a highly abstract element in the same manner as all the other elements which really occur in a string. (On the unnecessary character of the zero-morph see Haspelmath 2002: 33). It is worth noting that, with Greenberg’s approach, boy~boy-s, man~men and sheep~sheep all count the same, i.e. 1 morph in the singular, 2 morphs in the plural. The introduction of the concept of grammeme allows for a more precise distinction between the formal level (to which the morph has to be assigned) and the functional level (to which the grammeme has to be assigned): in this way it is possible to count morph by morph and grammeme by grammeme (and not morphs and grammemes together, as Greenberg is forced to do).

Greenberg had however some good reasons to analyse the way he did. For instance, Greenberg’s expedient of computing men as if it actually were **man-s enabled him to treat the non-concatenative morphology exactly as the concatenative one. The method adopted here, does not allow the quantification of the apophonic, metaphonic, etc. variations (man and men are considered as not being segmentable forms). Greenberg did not worry about justifying the results of his analysis from the point of view of a general morphological theory. He restricted himself to the problems concerning how to treat the evidence resulting from his combinatory analysis. For example, he rightly noticed the morphological variation contrasting man to men but he did not pay attention to justifying the claim according to which men contains two morphs just like boy-s. Obviously, different approaches to this analysis produce different results in counting the indexes, even if we might observe that any differences we obtained never led to mutually contradictory results (given the low number of controversial cases). However, we do not exclude the use of Greenberg’s methods for particular cases in the future.

11

of the English morph /-s/10. We will therefore supplement the Greenbergian analysis with an analysis based on the concept of cumulation (see below).

We shall now define the main morphological techniques which are the object of our quantitative analysis. Pure agglutination can be considered as the ideal 1:1 ratio (see below and Comrie 1983: 85). Agglutination is a technique of putting together more morphemes in a word. Morphs are linked within the word by means of slight modifications or with no modification at all (see Greenberg 1960: 185). The linking points among the morphs in the word are the junctures (from now on, J). The number of junctures in a word is always given by the number of morphs less one, i.e. J= (n – 1): for instance, the Italian and German words nazion-al-izz-are, nation-al-isier-en “to nationalise” have 4 morphs and 3 junctures. Modification is possible at the juncture level when the phonemes at the morph boundaries undergo changes due to contact: see the different phonetic realisations of the Italian negative prefix: in-nominabile, im-presentabile, il-leggibile, ir-rilevante. A consequence of the non-alteration of the morphic boundaries is constant word segmentability in the morphic elements.

The invariability of morphs is another of the definitory traits of agglutination11. In an ideal totally agglutinating language, morphs would always be segmentable and invariable. Absolute morph invariability contrasts with inflection which shows morphic variability. Comrie (1989: 49 ff.) has clearly discussed the strong difficulty of taking both parameters into account when one wants to quantify the index of agglutination. However, for our purpose, it is not necessary to establish the index of agglutination of the languages but only the index of fusion among morphs, i.e. only one of the parameters usually related to agglutination. This is perfectly possible, provided that, as Plungian (2001: 669b) underlines, the possibility of linear segmentation does not imply morpheme invariability in all contexts. So, for our purpose of calculating the index of fusion, only those changes that alter the morph boundaries and produce morphic fusion are relevant, as for instance in Fr. à le > au. On the contrary, the phenomenon by which the Indian ending –as >-o in samdhi [náras ná >náro ná] is irrelevant for our reckoning. When assembled with other morphs, morph boundaries can

1. either remain unchanged or undergo slight phonologically conditioned changes. In this case we speak of an automatic morph (or morpheme): for instance, vowel harmony in Turkish12 (Case 1., below); 2. or undergo changes which are not phonologically conditioned.

Case 1. If the combination of the morphs in a word is automatically determined, then we have agglutination. Consequently, if the combination of morphs in a word of a certain language is (prevailingly) automatically determined, then the language is labelled agglutinative. One example is obviously Turkish, where morphemes undergo an internal phonologically conditioned variation without altering the morphic boundaries: adam-lar-dan “from the men” but ev-ler-den “from the houses”, etc. Notice, however, that there can be also phonetic adaptation at the morphic boundary: cf. Turkish isti-yor “he wants” with iste-mek; toplu-yor “he gathers” with tapla-mak and di-yor “he says” with de-mek, without the‘Bindevokal’.

Case 2. The combination of morphs in a word is not automatic and the changes are the result of phonological rules which are no longer productive. When the boundaries among morphs are altered and cannot be automatically established or restored, it follows that the morphs themselves are inseparable. We say that two morphs are fused into one new morph – and this

10 Such a difference in terms of quantity of grammatical information cumulated by each morph cannot be quantified if the usual approach is used, though it may be convenient and useful for other goals. According to the traditional approach, one could claim that the Engl. morph /-s/ encodes the morpheme ‘plural’ and that the Ital. morph /-i/ encodes the morpheme ‘masc. plural’. In both cases the ratio between morph and morpheme would be 1:1.

11 On segmentability and invariability as logically independent parameters of agglutination see Comrie (1989: 51-52(.

12 Greenberg (1960: 190): “We define automaticity as the property of the entire morpheme where every morph is in automatic alternation with every other”. The morphs of a morpheme can be subdivided into subsets. Thus, whereas the morphs /–s –z –iz/ of the Engl. plural morpheme {-s} alternate automatically, the morphs /–en/ (e.g. ox-en) and /-Ø/ (e.g. sheep) do not. On the whole, the plural morpheme in English is not automatic.

12

process is called fusion. Typologically it is the opposite process with respect to agglutination. For example, a case in which the process of fusion is recognisable diachronically is the one involving the genitive singular of the s-stems in Ancient Greek: *-es-os > -ous. If we disregard any diachronic considerations, we can only notice that –ous cumulates the ‘genitive’ and ‘singular’ grammemes.

Only one seemingly special case is that of the allomorph due to morphology and not phonology. For instance, in Latin the morpheme for ‘1st sing’ is – in the present indicative but –i in the perfect of the indicative. It is the verbal stem that governs the allomorphy of the ‘1st sing’ morpheme (Plungian 2001: 670). Furthermore a morphological allomorph can be employed according to an agglutinative technique if the phonemes that are at its morphic boundaries remain unchanged or only undergo phonological changes. One has to keep in mind that morphological variation is often the result of the morphologisation of a forme r phonological variation, which is a phonological variation that cannot be accounted for by means of a productive phonological rule (e.g. the palatalization of /k/ into /±/ before the front vowel /i/ in It. /a'mi :ko/ “friend” > /a'mi :±i/ “friends”)..

Fusion is a morphological technique determined by phonological reasons and consists of the coalescence of two or more contiguous morphs (It. del < de il, Fr. à le > au) in such a way that the resulting morph simultaneously conveys the functional values originally conveyed by the formerly separated morphs. Fusion prevents each of the different functional values from being assigned to a morphologically identifiable segment. The index of fusion can be measured in terms of the more or less easy segmentation of the word into its basic elements: the greater the number of its segmentable, ‘detachable’ constituents (and of their relative junctures), the smaller the index of fusion and vice versa. Therefore, fusion is a phenomenon pertaining to the level of the form. It is the opposite of agglutination and has the effect of reducing the grade of synthesis of a language (see below).

Synthesis is the morphological technique that consists of the combination of distinct morphemes in the word. The index of synthesis of a language varies on the basis of the average of the morphemes that form the word. If I.-E. languages are examples of synthetic languages just like the Turkic languages, the maximum of synthesis is represented by the polysynthetic languages such as Yupik. Moreover, whereas languages such as Turkish and Yupik are also good examples of agglutination, i.e. they do not show fusion, the ‘historical’ I.-E. languages are highly fusional (or ‘fusive’). In other words, a language that is an ideal example of synthesis is also a good example of agglutination, i.e. a bad example of fusion, provided that morph (re)combinability is possible because of constant word segmentability. For this reason, the increase of fusion ends up undermining the synthetic system.

If fusion and agglutination are mainly phenomena at the formal level, they do however have some semantic correlates: in particular – as stated above – the main semantic correlate of fusion is cumulation , a phenomenon by which the same segment or morph conveys more than one functional value (see Mel’cuk 1982; Plungian 2001: 672-673). The ‘weighing’ of the informational content of the segments sets cumulation as a fundamental parameter of agglutination/fusion: we have to calculate the number of functional traits encoded in a formal segment. We define a ‘grammatical morph’ as a morph which instantiates a grammatical morpheme (see below). In agglutinative languages only one grammeme, i.e. a unit of grammatical information, corresponds to every grammatical morph (for the time being we shall disregard the lexical morphs), whereas in fusional languages, more than one grammeme usually correspond to one grammatical morph. Therefore, the ratio 1:1 (non-cumulation) between a morph and its functional value is the main semantic characteristic of the agglutinating technique. Fusion between morphs brings about cumulation. It is exactly this correlation that turns out to be of particular interest. In fact, on the basis of what we have stated above, the original hypothesis can be reformulated as follows: on the one hand an increasing index of fusion determines the reduction of the segmentability of the morphological constituents, causing system rigidity; on the other hand, it determines a large cumulation of functional values on one single morphological element, thus

13

causing a loss of diagrammaticity of the system. For this reason we shall now calculate the index of fusion and the index of cumulation first.

3.2. Criteria of analysis and notation

When ‘weighing’ the quantity of grammatical information, we will not take into account the information drawn from those inherent traits that allow the collocation of a word within its own inflectional paradigm, for instance 2nd declension for a noun, 4th conjugation for a verb, etc. It could be important to take even these traits into account: in the Latin shift from the archaic to the classical period there has been a clear increase of fusion. First of all, fusion involves the thematic suffixes which assign the word to a specific class of inflection. These thematic suffixes merged with the endings. Consider for instance: 1) Archaic Lat. popli-o-sio > Classical Lat. Publ i . If we do not consider the threefold parsing in 1) but just the twofold parsing in 2) poplio-sio or popli-osio, the historical change can not be understood: parsing 1) reduces the number of morphs (Archaic Lat. 3 > Classical Lat. 2); in parsing 2) the ratio remains 2:2.

This question involves several problems. The first of these , even though not the most important, is the greater complexity of the calculation: for this reason Greenberg (1960) explicitly avoided it. The second, and more significant problem is the difficulty in making an exact cross-linguistic comparison since this type of analysis is heavily based on the descriptions we find in grammars. Grammars very often make use of categories which are not appropriate for the description of the language they want to describe. The consequence is that the descriptive categories are not always homogeneous. Such an analysis cannot be applied to languages like Modern Welsh, where phonological processes have almost completely obliterated the original internal structure of the words.

We have not taken into account the inherent traits that signal the inflectional class of the word: see Lat. put-a -re but dorm-i -re and curr-e-re; ros-a but duen-o-s, sit-i-s, etc. Moreover, every entry has been first analysed into morphs according to the well-known distributional criteria: thus, for instance, Vedic vaksati has been morphologically parsed as vak-s-a-ti, with one radical morph, two derivational morphs and an inflectional one. In the case of Gr. ba/skw whose glosses are : <verb/1st sing./Pres./Indic./Act.> the analysis is the following:

Analysis on a formal base Radical morphs

Derivational morphs

Inflectional Morphs

1 1 1

βα− -s ? - −ω But we shall consider to/ (det.ntr.sg.nom/acc) as being formed of only one radical morph. Such a solution derives from Greenberg’s assumption (1960: 191) according to which “every word must have at least one root morpheme. Hence in a one-morpheme word, that morpheme is necessarily a root”. The following schema is obtained:

Analysis on a formal base Radical morphs

Derivational morphs

Inflectional morphs

1 0 0 to/ − −

As regards derivational morphemes, only those that convey grammatical meanings, such as mood, tense and aspect in the verb, have been taken into account. Thus the -sk- infix of ba/skw has to be calculated since it conveys an inchoative aspect, but the morphemes that only introduce a

14

lexical derivational value have not been considered. Consequently and contrary to the previous analysis, in words like nazion-al-izz-are, nation-al-isier-en the –al-suffix will not be counted, since this is a derivational morph which has no impact on the grammatical meaning of the verb. We have decided to restrict our analysis to those cases of derivation that interfere with the grammatical configuration of the system rather than with the configuration of the lexicon. This is a purely operational and even questionable choice but its motivation lies in the type of object of our investigation, i.e. the expression of the grammatical functions concerning the cases. The results of the analysis based on semantics are listed under the following labels:

By INFLECTIONAL we mean a ‘quantum’ of information encoded by means of an inflectional affix. When the discourse is about INFLECTIONAL GRAMMEMES it refers to those ‘quanta’ of grammatical information expressed by an inflectional affix or by apophony. On the contrary, when the discourse is about NON INFLECTIONAL GRAMMEMES it refers to those ‘quanta’ of grammatical information NOT expressed by means of an inflectional affix. For instance, in Classical Gr.:

fa/-te say.pres -ind.2pl.act.13 The categories of tense and mood are not encoded by an inflectional affix but are inherent to the stem14. Therefore they will be counted in the column of the NON-INFLECTIONAL GRAMMEMES (strictly speaking ‘ind.’ is indicated by the suffix -o- of the stem). In addition, gender, number and case are usually indicated by an inflectional suffix. However, in the case for instance of the feminine singular definite article h¦ (NOM.), they are not encoded by a segmentable affix and have to be considered as inherent to the stem15. So, in this case grammemes of gender, number and case will be counted in the column of the NON-INFLECTIONAL GRAMMATICAL GRAMMEMES.

In a slightly different way, the feminine genitive singular of the definite article thª-» clearly encodes the case by means of a suffix (a segmentable morph, in opposition to –i of the dative and –n of the accusative). Therefore, gender and number, which are inherent to the stem, will be counted in the column of the NON-INFLECTIONAL GRAMMEMES, whereas the case grammeme will be counted in the column of the INFLECTIONAL GRAMMEMES. This analysis has the advantage, among others, of immediately allowing the calculation of the index of the inflectional cumulation, i.e. of the number of inflectional grammemes encoded on average by an inflectional morph.

Since prepositions form a closed inventory, we consider them as grammatical, not lexical elements. We know very well that, strictly speaking, prepositions with a more concrete meaning, i.e. those indicating spatial relations etc. (from, with) must be distinguished from those with a more abstract and grammaticalised meaning such as the ones indicating relations like possession etc. (of, to). In Greek and Latin – and presumably in the ancient I.-E. languages – prepositions mainly have a concrete value: they indicate origin, direction, place, etc. In time such prepositions (+ noun or pronoun) replaced the original forms of the noun or pronoun inflected with a semantic equivalent. Obviously, it is neither useful nor reasonable to deny that concrete cases such as the ablative, inessive, superessive, etc. are also endowed with grammatical relevance. Likewise,

13 NB: act = active, ind = indicative, pl = plural; pres = present. 14 In actual fact, we know that fa- is present through its opposition to e©¿-fa-te; and that it is indicative

through its opposition to fhªte, faiªte. It is the paradigm on the whole, i.e. the well-known relations in absentia, that assigns the values of tense, mood and aspect to the verbal form.

15 In this parsing zero-morph will not be taken into consideration.

Analysis on a semantic-functional base

Semantemes Non-inflectional grammemes

Inflectional grammemes

15

independently of their formal status, it would also neither be useful nor reasonable to deny that even prepositions with a meaning equivalent to that of the mentioned suffixes, possess grammatical value.

Furthermore, this assumption is consistent with what we know about the grammaticalisation clines from noun (concrete, relational) to preposition indicating spatio-temporal relations (Lehmann 1985; Himmelmann 1998): the noun belongs to the lexicon, the adposition is already grammaticalised, that is, it cannot belong to the lexicon with the same title as the noun from which it took origin)16. In addition, on the scale of grammaticalisation, the spatial prepositions of Latin de or ad are less grammaticalised than de “of” or a “to” of Late Latin and Romance. Finally, if grammaticalisation is the reduction of options to obligatoriness, i.e. non-option, the shift ADPOSITION > PREPOSITION, with the deletion of the option POSTPOSITION, is a further trait of grammaticalisation.

3.3. Calculation of indexes Taking Greenberg (1960) as our starting point, but adopting another technique of analysis and other parameters, we will calculate the following indexes:

Index of synthesis. Synthesis is the number of morphemes per word. It is calculated by dividing M/W (according to Greenberg 1960: 187)17, where M = number of morphemes and W = number of words. We will work on a textual sample of 50 words in random texts. M will therefore be the whole number of the morphs envisaged word by word in the text of 50 words.

Index of fusion. We have already claimed above (see § 3.1.1) that fusion can be calculated as a departing from the ideal ratio of agglutination, i.e. 1:1 ratio between morph and grammeme. According to GREENBERG, the measure of agglutination − which we do not calculate – is given by the rate of morphic boundaries per agglutinative construction. The index of agglutination is calculated with the formula A/J, where A represents the whole number of agglutinations (agglutinierende Konstruktionen) and J stands for the total of internal junctures of the words of a sample. However in this paper we have introduced a second way of counting the junctures by dividing the whole number of the junctures in 50 words by the 50 words analysed, thus also including the unanalysable words, i.e. the ones that do not exhibit any internal link (J=0) . This type of calculation, which is only apparently rougher, provides more easily comparable data not only among different languages but also among different stages of the same language or the languages of a certain group as regards the average of the internal analysability of the words. The index in question will be calculated with the formula J/W.

Index of global inflection (pure inflection). This is calculated according to the formula I/W, where I is the total of the inflectional morphs and W is the total of words in the sample.

Index of global cumulation. Cumulation is a phenomenon by which several functional values are cumulated on, i.e. conveyed by, the same segment at the level of expression. The index of cumulation indicates how many semantemes (from now on Sm) or grammemes (semanto-functional units at abstract level, Gr) are expressed on average by a morph (segment at the level of expression). This index is calculated by dividing the number of semantemes/grammemes by the number of morphs (SmGr/M). The index of cumulation is the main semantic parameter of agglutination. In fact, an ideal agglutinative language exhibits a 1:1 ratio between functional unit and morph.

Index of inflectional cumulation. This indicates how many functional grammatical elements, or grammemes, are expressed on average by one inflectional morph (affix). First of all one should point out that languages can express the same functional values either through an inflectional strategy, or through a different one, for example through a lexical or a derivational

16 Strictly speaking, even relational nouns used for spatial locations such as fronte in villette fronte mare

already show the beginning of grammaticalisation. 17 Oddly enough, Altmann/Lehfeldt (1973: 109), even though they refer to Greenberg (1960), give the

inverted formula: W/M. As far as we know, they are the only ones.

16

strategy. Having stated this, our starting point is the categories, the traits and the functional values which the ancient I.-E- lang uages encoded by means of inflection. Such an index is calculated by dividing the number of grammemes encoded by means of inflection (in this specific case, in Proto-Indo-European) by the number of inflectional morphs.

The formulae for calculating these indexes are summarized in the following table:

M/W Index of synthesis M = Morpheme; W = total number of words in a sample

J/W Index of analysis/fusion J = Junctures; W = total number of words in a sample

I/W Index of global inflection Pure inflection: I = Inflection morphemes; W = Word

SmGr/M Index of global cumulation Gives the number of semantemes or grammemes, i.e. how many units of the functional level on average, are encoded by each morph

I/Morph Index of inflectional cumulation

Gives the number of grammemes expressed through inflection in language X, which on average are encoded by an inflectional morph (affix).

The obtained values are now illustrated. The index of synthesis of the investigated languages gave the following values: Table 1 Language M/W Vedic 2,08 Hindi 1,4 Classical Greek 1,92 Modern Greek 1,78 Archaic Latin 2,16 Classical Latin 1,76 Modern Italian 1,56 Medieval Welsh 1,1 Modern Welsh 1

In line with our expectations, the oldest stages (or the archaizing varieties) of the different linguistic traditions have provided the highest values. All varieties tend to show a reduction of synthesis. In particular, these values depict the strong morphological conservativeness of Modern Greek, but also highlight the deep typological changes which occurred in Romance and especially in the Indian tradition. In Welsh, phonological changes deeply altered the word structure so that both Medieval and Modern Welsh show a very low degree of synthesis. Still as we expected, the segmentability of the words decreases because of the processes of fusion:

17

Table 2 Language J/W Vedic 1,1 Hindi 0,32 Classical Greek 0,92 Modern Greek 0,78 Archaic Latin 1,04 Classical Latin 0,78 Modern Italian 0,56 Medieval Welsh 0,1 Modern Welsh 0

The increase of fusion among morphs is signalled by the decrease of values in Table 2; these values indicate the easiness by which the morphs themselves are segmented. The most dramatic reduction of the segmentability of the words took place within the Indian tradition. In this case too, this reduction was also to be expected, given the strong decrease of the index of synthesis within the same tradition.

Generally speaking, as long as languages preserve a rich morphological system, the reduction of the number of segmentable morphs (a consequence of fusion) and the maintenance of the same quantity of information to be expressed determine the increase of the indexes of cumulation (number of functional traits per formal segment). Such a situation is typical of the ancient I.-E. languages (in particular, in their oldest stages) and also of a language like Modern Greek, which is not only rich from the morphological point of view but also conservative, at least with respect to the nominal system. Table 3 Language Sm.Gr/M Vedic 1,90 Hindi 2,10 Classical Greek 1,75 Modern Greek 2,28 Archaic Latin 1,88 Classical Latin 1,87 Modern Italian 1,82 Medieval Welsh 1,96 Modern Welsh 1,96

Table 3 shows that in the Latin and Romance traditions the index of global cumulation is preserved basically unchanged (the reduction of a few tenths is too small to be statistically relevant). At any rate , this datum did not meet our expectations. On the contrary, data of the Indian and Greek traditions completely confirm our prediction, showing a clear increase in the index of global cumulation. We shall now confine ourselves to the analysis of just morphs and grammemes. The reduction of the index of synthesis should imply the reduction of the inflectional morphs per word:

18

Table 4 Language I/W Vedic 0,82 Hindi 0,34 Classical Greek 0,72 Modern Greek 0,60 Archaic Latin 0,84 Classical Latin 0,56 Modern Italian 0,50 Medieval Welsh 0,1 Modern Welsh 0

Data in Table 4 confirm the prediction exactly. The reduction of the inflectional morphs for the same quantity of information to be expressed should determine an increase in the index of inflectional cumulation. Moreover, a dramatic reduction of inflectional morphs, an aspect of the more general reduction of synthesis, should bring about a reorganization of the morphological system with the shift to an analytical strategy. Consequently, it also brings about a redistribution of the functional load and therefore a decrease in the index of inflectional cumulation. In Table 5, we analyse the data of the index of inflectional cumulation comparing them with those of the index of synthesis (for the sake of convenience, we list them in the right-hand column): Table 5 Language Infl.Gramm./M M/W Vedic 3,19 2,08 Hindi 2,56 1,48 Classical Greek 2,36 1,92 Modern Greek 3,03 1,78 Archaic Latin 2,97 2,16 Classical Latin 2,85 1,76 Modern Italian 2,44 1,56 Medieval Welsh 1,96 1.1 Modern Welsh 1,96 1.0

Data confirm what had been predicted. From Classical Greek to Modern Greek, we can observe a 0.14 decrease of the index of synthesis, a 0.12 decrease of the inflectional index and a 0.67 increase of the index of inflectional cumulation. From Archaic Latin to Classical Latin, there is a 0.40 decrease of the index of synthesis, a 0.28 decrease of the inflectional index and a 0.12 decrease of the index of the inflectional cumulation. The reduction of the index of synthesis in this stage is clearly not so great as to alter the synthetic-fusional-inflectional of Greek (both Ancient and Modern) and of Latin (Archaic and Classical). But a further reduction of the index of synthesis to that of Italian (0.20 more with respect to Latin and, on the whole, 0.60 with respect to Archaic Latin) implies a reorganization of the system according to analytical principles. Likewise, in the Indian tradition: from Vedic to Hindi a 0.68 decrease of the index of synthesis, a 0.48 decrease of the index of inflection, and even a 0.63 decrease of the index of inflectional cumulation are observed. From Medieval Welsh to Modern Welsh the indexes are stable. Nevertheless, in this

19

linguistic tradition the index of synthesis and the inflectional index are much lower with respect to the values of the same indexes in the other linguistic traditions under examination. In Welsh, the ‘dramatic’ loss of morphological diagrammaticity brings about a strong decrease of cumulation. Fusion effaces the internal structure of words and determines an increase of unanalysable words in the lexicon. According to Greenberg (1960), a word which cannot be analysed into constituent parts is a root. In Vedic, roots are 51,9% out of the total of words in the sample; in Hindi, roots are 71%; in Medieval and Modern Welsh roots are 90,9% and almost 100%, respectively.

The decrease of the index of inflectional cumulation is to be accounted for by the ‘dismantlement’, especially in Welsh, of the rich ancient morphological system and by the resort to analytical strategies for expressing functional values: as claimed above, the adoption of the analytical strategy means the redistribution of the functional load onto several morphic units, which are no longer synthetic (bound morphs), but analytical (free morphs). On the contrary, Greek perfectly highlights the increase of the functional load as a consequence of the reduction of synthesis and the increase of the fusion in a language whose inflectional system is still highly developed.

The reduction of the 8 cases of PIE especially involves those Lehmann (1993, 1999: 238) defines as “adverbial, or concrete” cases, such as the locative, ablative (possibly the ‘directive’, if it existed) and the instrumental. Usually, reconstruction assigns 8 cases to PIE in the declension of the animate gender (of the o-stems), marked with 8 endings in the singular and 6 in the plural. In any case, the hypotheses concerning the reconstruction of PIE are not unequivocal. Therefore, we shall simply consider 8 (the number of the morphological cases in the singular) + 6 (the morphological cases in the plural) as an ideal reference against which we may homogeneously calculate the deviation of the I.-E. languages in terms of preservation/‘dismantlement’ of the case system. Whatever the approximation or even error deriving from this choice might be, what remains important is the fact that this approximation is distributed and does not alter the ratio among languages. Excluding from our reckoning, for simplicity’s sake, the dual and the direct cases of the neuter gender, only Old Indian preserves all the local cases of PIE but only in the singular of the declension of the a-stem. In the singular declension of the other stems the ablative merges with the genitive whereas in the plural, ablative and dative formally coincide. Within the Indian linguistic tradition, Hindi has currently lost its old case system: by means of morphology, it marks, but only partially, the opposition between direct case / indirect case and signals the syntactic functions –some even expressed by subject and direct object – with a complex system of postpositions. Mycenaean Greek shows living traces of concrete cases, of which however only fossils are preserved in Ancient and Classical Greek. Thus, in Classical Greek only 5 cases in the singular and 4 in the plural remain out of the 8 cases of the PIE, none of which is concrete. In morphologically conservative Modern Greek, cases are reduced to 4 for both grammatical numbers. In Classical Latin, where there are 6 cases in the singular and 4 in the plural, the reduction has involved the concrete cases: the locative, of which rich and well-documented traces remain, and the instrumental, both in the singular and plural, have been lost. The ablative preserves an autonomous form in the singular but merges with the dative in the plural; in addition, in the third declension nominative and accusative get confused because of phonological processes, etc. As is well-known, the dismantlement of the case system, apart from the minor preservation in the subsystem of the personal pronouns, is one of the most relevant traits of the emergence of the Romance languages.

Such a state-of-affairs is summarised in Table 6. In the first line we find the percentage of preservation of the case system on the whole (endings have been distinguished for every case); in the second line there is the percentage of preservation of the concrete cases:

Vedic Classical Greek Latin tot. % 96,4 64,3 71,4 Concrete cases % 80 0 20

It is easy to see that remarkably only Vedic has preserved the old system of the concrete cases. As is well-known (see Putzu / Ramat in press, § 2.4), it is only in Vedic and Sanskrit that spatial and

20

temporal relations (including instrumental/comitative ones) are expressed by inflected nominal (or pronominal) elements, clearly traceable back to their inflectional paradigms, rather than by adverbs or prepositional phrases18. The different varieties of Old Indian are at the same time the ones that basically preserve the ancient inflectional nominal system and are those which did not develop a system of adpositions and adverbs with a concrete function like the ones in Greek and Latin. To a certain extent, one could even claim that the inflectional nominal system undergoes a process of strengthening from Vedic to Sanskrit, so that in the latter a clear reduction of the usage of adpositions is observable. As Macdonell (1968: 139) points out, whereas Vedic employs 12 adpositions of I.-E. origin, Sanskrit usually employs only 3.

4. Conclusions To sum up, at the moment data basically confirm our original hypothesis and one of the issues we had decided to test in our previous paper (Putzu / Ramat, in press, § 2.4): an intrinsic relation between the typological indexes of synthesis and fusion exists which is aligned with the crisis of the inflectional morphology of cases in the nominal system. Side by side, productive processes of new adverbial formations start being observed.

This corresponds to what we underlined at the end of the first part of this paper, i.e. there is a drift of many linguistic traditions from the synthetic type to the analytical, more diagrammatic type.

Abbreviations: languages Abbreviations: grammatical terms Avest. Avestan Engl. English

Fr. French

Gaul. Gaulish Germ. German

Goth. Gothic

Gr. Greek (P.)I.-E. ((Proto)Indo-European It. Italian Lat. Latin

OFr. Old French

OHG. Old High German Skr. Sanskrit

Texts Classical Greek: Erodoti historiae, I, 1. (recensuit C. Hude, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 19273). Modern Greek: random sentences from: Holton, David/Mackridge, Peter/Philippaki-Warburton, Irene, Greek. A Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Language. London & New York, Routledge, 1997. Archaic Latin: archaic inscriptions from: Baldi, Philip, The foundations of Latin. Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter, 1999.

18 Lazzeroni (1997: 145) (quoted in Putzu/Ramat, in press, § 2.4) points out that the same phenomenon can be observed in Sanskrit, warning however that “essendo il paradigma indoeuropeo conservato in tutti i casi - è talora difficile distinguere le forme avverbiali dalle forme della declinazione nominale: du re— a (str.) “lontano”; bala t (abl.) “fortemente”; ciram (acc.) “da lungo tempo” ecc.”. In addition, it has to be recalled that Sanskrit does not derive from Vedic but represents another Indo-Aryan tradition.

ABL Ablative N Noun

ACC Accusative NP Noun phrase

ADP Adposition O Object

ADV Adverb POSP Postposition

ARG Argument PP Prepositional phrase

DAT Dative PRED Predicate

FLEX Flexion PREP Preposition

GEN Genitive PREV Preverb

IND Indicative V Verb

INSTR Instrumental VP Verb phrase

LOC Locative WFR Word formation rules

NOM Nominative

21

Classical Latin: Cornelius Nepos, Liber de excellentibus ducibus exterarum gentium, Praef. I, 1-2. (a cura di Leopoldo Agnes, Torino, UTET, 1977). Italian: Italian translation of: Cornelius Nepos, Liber de excellentibus ducibus exterarum gentium, Praef. I, 1-2. (a cura di Leopoldo Agnes, Torino, UTET, 1977, pag. 67). Vedic: Rigveda I, 1 (Agni). (edited by: Arthur Anthony Macdonell, A Vedic Reader for Students. Madras, Oxford University Press, 1917). Hindi: random sentences from: Caracchi, Pinuccia, Grammatica Hindi, Torino, Manganelli, 20024. References Adrados, Francisco R.,1975, Lingüística indoeuropea. Madrid, Gredos. Anderson, Stephen R., 1985, Inflectional morphology. In: Shopen, T. (ed.), 1985, Language

typology and syntactic description. Vol. II. Complex constructions. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 150-201.

Altmann, Gabriel / Lehfeldt, Werner, 1973, Allgemeine Typologie. München, Fink. Baldi, Philip, 1979, Typology and the Indo-European prepositions, «Indogermanische

Forschungen», 84: 49-61. Berruto, Gaetano, 1990, Considerazioni sulla nozione di morfema. In: Berretta, M. / Molinelli, P. /

Valentini, A. (a cura di), 1990, Parallela 4. Morfologia. Tübingen, Gunter Narr,17-28. Buridant, Claude, 2000, Grammaire nouvelle de l’ancien français . Paris, SEDES. Benedetti, Marina, 2003, L’etimologia fra tipologia e storia. In: Mancini, M. (a cura di), 2004, Il

cambiamento linguistico. Roma, Carocci, 209-262. Chantraine, Pierre, 1953, Grammaire homérique, Paris, Klincksieck. Comrie, Bernard, 1989, Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. 2nd ed. Oxford, Blackwell. Cuzzolin, Pierluigi, in stampa, “Anomalous” adverbial formations in some Indo-European

languages . In: Banti, G. / Di Giovine, P. / Ramat, P. (eds.), in print, Typological change in the morphosyntax of Indo-European Languages. (Proceedings of the congress held in Viterbo 25-26 January 2002). Lincom Europa, (Lincom Studies in Indo-European Linguistics).

De Angelis, Alessandro, 2004, Forme di “tmesi” nel greco omerico, la legge di Wackernagel, e un caso di rianalisi sintattica. In: Giovanna ROCCA (a cura di), Dialetti, dialettismi, generi letterari e funzioni sociali. Atti del V Colloquio Internazionale di Linguistica Greca (Milano, 12-13 settembre 2002), Alessandria, Edizioni dell’Orso: 179-214.

De Angelis, Alessandro / Di Giovine, Paolo, in stampa, Il mutamento tipologico nella funzionalità dei morfemi verbali: le lingue germaniche e l’indo-iranico. In: Banti, G. /Di Giovine, P. /Ramat, P. (eds.), in print, Typological change in the morphosyntax of Indo-European Languages. (Proceedings of the congress held in Viterbo 25-26 January 2002). Lincom Europa, (Lincom Studies in Indo-European Linguistics).

Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. / Ivanov, Vjaceslav V., 1995, Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans. A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture. Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter.

Givón, Talmy , 1984, Syntax: a functional-typological introduction. Vol.I. Amsterdam, Benjamins. Greenberg, Joseph, 1960, A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language,

«International Journal of American Linguistics», 26, 178-194. (Trad. it.: Un approccio quantitativo alla tipologia linguistica. In: Ramat, P., a cura di, La tipologia linguistica. Bologna, Il Mulino, 1976: 171-192.)

Hagège , Claude, 1978, Du thème au thème en passant par le sujet: pour une théorie cyclique, «La linguistique», 14: 3-38.

Hagège, Claude, 1985, Les catégories de la langue palau (Micronésie), une curiosité typologique. München, Fink.

Haspelmath, Martin, 1996, Word-class-changing inflectional and morphological theory. In: Booij, G. / Van Marle, J. (eds.), 1995, Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht, Kluwer, 43-66.

Haspelmath, Martin, 2002, Understanding Morphology. London, Arnold. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., 1998, Regularity in irregularity: Article use in adpositional phrases,

«Linguistic Typology», 2: 315-353.

22

Lazzeroni, Romano, 1997, Sanscrito. In: Giacalone Ramat, A. / Ramat, P. (a cura di), 1997, Le lingue indoeuropee. 2a ediz. Il Mulino, Bologna. Nuova edizione, 123-149.

Lehmann, Christian, 1985, Grammaticalization: Synchronic Variation and Diachronic Change, «Lingua e Stile», 20: 303-318.

Lehmann, Winfred P., 1974, Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Austin/London, University of Texas Press.

Lehmann, Winfred P., 1993, Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics. London/New York, Routledge. (Trad. it. di Albano Leoni, F., La linguistica indoeuropea. Bologna, Il Mulino, 1999).

Macdonell, Arthur, 1968, Grammatica sanscrita elementare. Bologna, Pàtron. (A Sanskrit Grammar for Students. 3rd ed. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1927. Trad. it. di Giovanni Bechis).

Marchello-Nizia, Christiane, 2002, Prépositions françaises en diachronie: une catégorie en question, «Lingvisticae Investigationes», 25: 205-221

Mel’cuk, Igor A., 1982, Towards a language of linguistics: a system of formal notions for theoretical morphology. München, Fink.

Nocentini, Alberto, 1992, Preposizioni e posposizioni in oscoumbro, «Archivio Glottologico Italiano», 77: 196-242.

Pinault, Georges-Jean, 1995, Le problème du préverbe en indo-européen. In: Rousseau, A. (éd.), Les préverbes dans les langues d’Europe. Introduction à l’étude de la préverbation. Lille, Septentrion, 35-59.

Pisani, Vittore, 19492, Glottologia indeuropea. Torino, Rosenberg & Sellier. Plank, Frans, 2003, Noun phrase structure: An und für sich, in time, and in space. In: Plank, F.

(ed.), 2003, Noun phrase structure in the languages of Europe. Berlin / New York, Mouton de Gruyter, 3-33.

Plungian, Vladimir A., 2001, Agglutination and flexion. In: Haspelmath, M. / König, E. / Oesterreicher, W. /Raible, W. (eds.), 2001, Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook. Vol. II. Berlin, de Gruyter, 669-678.

Pottier, Bernard, 1962, Sémantique des éléments de relation. Paris, Klincksieck. Putzu, Ignazio / Ramat, Paolo, in stampa, Gli avverbi monolessicali di luogo, tempo e maniera

nelle lingue indoeuropee antiche. Verso un approccio tipologico. Banti, G. /Di Giovine, P. /Ramat, P. (eds.), in print, Typological change in the morphosyntax of Indo-European Languages. (Proceedings of the congress held in Viterbo 25-26 January 2002). Lincom Europa, (Lincom Studies in Indo-European Linguistics).

Ramat, Paolo, 1988, Introduzione alla linguistica germanica. Bologna, Il Mulino. Ricca, Davide, 1998, La morfologia avverbiale tra flessione e derivazione. In: Bernini, G. /

Cuzzolin, P. / Molinelli, P. (a cura di), 1998, Ars linguistica. Studi offerti a Paolo Ramat. Roma, Bulzoni, 447-466.

Van der Auwera, Johan, 1994, Adverbs and Adverbials . In: Asher, R. (ed.), 1994, The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford/New York/Seoul/Tokyo, Pergamon Press, 39b-42b.

Van der Auwera, Johan, 1999, Dutch verbal prefixes. Meaning and form, grammaticalization and lexicalization. In: Mereu, L. (ed.), 1999, Boundaries of Morphology and Syntax. Amsterdam / Philadelphia, Benjamins, 121-136.

Vincent, Nigel, 1999, The evolution of c-structure prepositions and PP from Indo-European to Romance, «Linguistics», 37: 1111-1153.