Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Linguistic Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language.
http://www.jstor.org
Universityof 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 incorrectlydescribed.At face value, the paradigmof Plautus contains
allomorphicvariation-sum, ess ss, est st-which has traditionallybeen explained
away by 'aphaeresis'. This has been used as a synchronic morphophonemic rule,
generatingthe surfacevariantsfrom the underlyingforms /ess/ and /est/ respectively,
and with the implicationthat the IE model is relateddirectlyto these underlyingforms.
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 primarilyconcerned 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
>
40
LANGUAGE,
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 Szemerenyi, 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 pro-
cess started from certain phonetic difficultiesconnected 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 paradigm2, which rests primarilyupon the Sanskritand
Greek evidence, would not be accepted as basic by everyone. Philip Baldi (privatecommunication) has drawn my attention to the proposal of Schmalstieg 1972 which, if accepted, would
force us to reconsiderthe possibility that the Latin paradigmmay representthe 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 penultimatesyllable in the second and third singular and the
second plural' (136). This accentual pattern generates the ablaut grades characteristicof the
presentindicativeparadigmof 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 reconstructionhas the
theoretical property of deriving the more predictable from the less predictable, since it is
obviously easier to explain the Sanskritand Greek paradigmsby the principleof paradigmatic
leveling than to derive an apparentlyirregularparadigm(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, becausethe linguisticphenomenaservingas input to the reconstruction
can be, and have been, explained as internal developments(cf. Jasanoff 1973 on the Germanic
third class, and Szemerenyi1964:198-9 on Lat. fers, fert etc.)
4 The point Szemerenyiis making can be expressedin these terms, although he does not use
them.
5 The conflict between synchronic derivability(transparency)and list character(opacity) is
the everydaylife of language, and linguists attemptingto write psychologicallyreal grammars
must take account of this fact. In the case of the Latin copula, the change *smos > *somos
reflects the victory of synchronicderivabilityover 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
instructiveexampleof these conflictingtendencies.At the outset, the full root es- was generalized
to the whole paradigm,as is seen in the Mycenaeangraphemicsequence e-e-si 'they are', i.e.
/e(h)ensi/ < *es-enti(Strunk 1960, cf. Watkins27) 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 analysedin a differentmanner than before. The
forms of the paradigmcould no longer be synchronicallyderivedfrom a single underlying/es-/.
Instead, the variantses- and ei- were abduced and listed in the lexicon, as can be seen in hypercharacterizedforms like Ionic eis 'you (sg.) are' (i.e. ei 'you are' plus 2sg. -s; e.g. II. 16.515,
41
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 difficultearlierthan medial sm. The evidence
adduced by Szemerenyiis strengthenedby the form co-smitterefrom VerriusFlaccus
(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., Leumann 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 deductiveinnovation resultingfrom an abduction (for the terminology,
see Andersen 1973). The mechanismis 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 internalreconstruction(which,
in this case, actuallyrestoresthe early IE situation). In Attic, however, it was ei that survivedin
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 frequentlyused forms.
6 See Kent 1926, Goldmann 1926.
7 Cf. gnoscere : cognoscere > noscere: cognoscere(class.) > noscere : connoscere(later; cf.
Fr. connaitre).Accordingto Fisher (1948:156), connoscereis attested in Plaut. Amph.822E and
Truc. arg. 9B; but these are surely clerical, not Plautine, reflexes.
42
the proportion x: *somos = *esiam:*esdmos). Second, from Szemerenyi's treatment 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 THEIRDESCRIPTION.
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. Accordingly only sum has been regarded as problematic:
IE
(3)
LATIN
*esmi -?-
sum
*es(s)i ->
*esti ->
es(s)
est
(6)
IE
*esmi
*es(s)i->
LATIN
->
sum
ess
'
ss
st
43
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
sC/
(8) The copula had two lexicalized paradigms, a 'full' one and a 'reduced'
one:
(sum, ess, est,
sunt
sum, ss, st, sumus, estis,
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 characterizableas '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 concerninglexical storagecan, of course, also be put in a more subtle
manner.
It can be asked whetherthe presentindicativeparadigmof the copula was stored as a paradigm
consisting of 'word-size' units, or whetherthe speakerswere 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 syntagmaticassociationsand languageuse, opposed to processesfor derivingthe surface
forms from basic or underlyingroots (synchronicderivability).Accordingto 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 replacementof *smosby *somosseems 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 derivabilityof the present indicative of the copula had
already begun to fade at the time of Plautus (with the introduction of estis).
44
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 sumwhich, 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?=> Gdekniga ?),
then why was est reduced even when used 'vi substantiva' (cf. Plaut. Cist. 735 est
quidamhomoqui ... ait, but Mil. 1012 homoquidamstqui 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).
45
analogically to
46
-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:
e-^
(12)
sC
v{ _s
47
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 SHORTvowel. This statement holds true with regard to both phenomena. There is no -Vs#C-
'
*-V'#C-
48
CATULLUSCICERO
PLAUTUS TERENCE ENNIUS LUCRETIUS
+
-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 fragmentsof 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.
3rd
4th
2nd
5th
1st
8
8
5
15
58
Enn. Ann.
6
2
4
2
35
Lucretius
TABLE2. The frequencyof the suppressionof final s, as distributed
according to the metrical feet in the hexametricpoetry 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 Lucretiusit 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 requireddactylic 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 apparentdisproportion 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 interpretedas
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
49
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
This paradigm is one surface structurewhich 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 concernedlpl. *smos: a variant *somos was created as in Figure 1.
*smos > *smos
*somos
or
*smos
- *SOios
*smos
FIGURE1.
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 aboutppunless they created and
used *somos.
Therefore they created *somos.
50
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,18the apocopation of i is already a fait accompli (cf. mitat
and Kent's remarks on it, 1926:211-12). Second, rhotacism took place approximately 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'sview 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
-*
*esmi
( J
*ezm
( )
*esom
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
51
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 -
*esmi
FIGURE
*ezm
*som
(*erom...0)
( )
*esomi
^
FIGURE
5th cent.
(
*esom
J
*som
~~~~~~
(*erom..0)
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-interpretedon 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
of change, not in its exact chronology; and the mechprimarily in the MECHANISM
anism 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:
19Szemerenyinow has somewhat modifiedhis 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 acquiredthe
by-form *somi (cf. *esmos: *somos = *esmi: *somi). Later the forms with es- were dropped in
52
(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'sparadox. *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
om
s
s
s
omos
tes
ont
SAME
FIGURE 5.
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
thematizationon the model of somos, which representsa true thematization.The properform
would have been *es6, but it was already in use (cf. Szemerenyi1964:192, n. 1).
21
53
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 ENTIRESINGULARPARADIGM
WAS RE-INTERPRETED.
The
/s-omos/
/s-s/
/s-tes/
/s-t/
/s-ont/
SG.
SUBJUNCTIVE
eS70
-0
r >
PL.
s-
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
54
covers both Kiparsky's 'paradigm coherence' (i.e., 'allomorphy tends to be minimized in a paradigm' 1971:598-9) and the 'Existenz gleich strukturierter Paradigmen ohne Alternation' mentioned by Schindler (1974:4)-and, in the case of
Latin, emphasized by Nyman (1974:20-21). The possibility of renderingthe presentttense system of the copula more iconic, by eliminating purposeless variation,22was
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 uncertain 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 reinterpreted on the systematic level. The knowledge of ss and st was readily applicable 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 abovementioned 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., mulierest was derivedsynchronically
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 estwhich 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-interpretedas 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
Note that the same tendency to paradigmaticleveling is to be seen, somewhat later, in the
presentsubjunctiveparadigmof the copula. At the time of the inscriptionof Duenos the system
was as follows:
22
s-ie-m
s-ie-s
s5-i-mos
s-i-tes
s-ie-d
s-i-ent
Plautus belongs to the period of transition:
(s-ie-m
(s-ie-s
(s-ie-t
')
%)
.)
s-i-m
s-i-s
s-i-t
s-i-mus
s-i-dis
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 Plautusis confined almost entirelyto the verse-end(cf. Hodgman 1907:108).
In classical Latin the remodeling process can be seen as completed.
55
ess, st
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
'
This representation displays so much difference from the pre-Plautine one that it
cannot be synchronically derived from the same underlying system. When comparing 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 transparencyof 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
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.
56
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
to
sumsuum
sum
*s o mus
s u mus
s u nt
s u nt
c
sum
*so m us
su n t
to
d
sum
*so m us
*su m (p)t
FIGURE7.
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,24the u was also generalizedto the Ipl. form, for reasons too obvious
to be specified here. Seen in this light, the analogical change *somus > sumusshows
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
representsthe innovative usage of some speakerswho had abduced rule 29, was then
generalized to the whole linguistic community. We could speculate furthermorethat
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 reversedchange (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 regularvocalism 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 [3rdcent. A.D. ?]) Obviously the graphemicsequence
so was phonetically [so], which presupposes a morphophonemic /som/.26
24
That the 3pl. ending is to be analysedas -nt is evidentfrom 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 backingup his analysis of the presentindicativeparadigmwith
philological evidence which could have been drawn from early drama (see Nyman 1974); and
(2) for strivingto make do with only one underlyingformative/s-/ in the whole presentsystema strategywhich led him to invent some unjustifiedsynchronicprocesses. 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 expressthis pronunciationin writing. For a similarsuggestionin
regard to archaic inscriptions,cf. Safarewicz 1934 (other explanationsin Sommer 1914:528)
57
5.2. THE SECONDPERSONPLURAL.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.27Whatever has been uttered
existence is secured only by (successful) use, and
exists in a sense; but LINGUISTIC
it is the very use which may change functional relations between linguistic elements,
reverse markedness values of allomorphs, provide them with new semiotic functions, 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:
COPULA
(30)
E
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 conditushoc tumulost.
(Cf. also CIL 10,4427,2.) There is a differencein graphemicrepresentationaccording
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 requirementsof method as belonging to the essence of language.
58
59
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
H. 1973. Abductive and deductive change. Lg. 49.765-93.
ANDERSEN,
ANTTILA,R. A. 1972. An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. New
York: Macmillan.
-- . 1975. The indexical element in morphology. (Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft, Vortrage, 12.) Innsbruck: Institut fur Sprachwissenschaft.
BAILEY,C. 1947. Prolegomena to Titi Lucreti Cari De rerum natura libri sex, vol. I.
Oxford: Clarendon.
G. 1932. Lat. sum, es, est, etc. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris
BONFANTE,
99.111-29.
0. 1906. De copulae ESTaphaeresi. Diss. Marburg.
BRINKMANN,
K. 1904. Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen.
BRUGMANN,
Strassburg: Trubner.
L. 1974. Phonological features: problems and proposals. Lg. 50.52-65.
CAMPBELL,
P. 1961. Morphologie historique du grec. 2nd ed. Paris: Klincksieck.
CHANTRAINE,
Heidelberg:Winter.
HALL,R. A., JR. 1960. On realism in reconstruction. Lg. 36.203-6.
HALLE,M. 1961. On the role of simplicityin linguistic descriptions.Structureof language and its mathematicalaspects (Proceedingsof Symposiain Applied Mathematics, 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.
60