Grammatical Ambiguity in Latin Author(s): F. Jones Source: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 48, Fasc. 4 (Sep., 1995), pp.

438-459 Published by: BRILL Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4432518 . Accessed: 23/08/2011 07:39
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne.

http://www.jstor.org

GRAMMATICAL

AMBIGUITY BY F. JONES

IN

LATIN1)

and the ear passes what it and temporal, in a sequential order that matches the auditory in the way we write and read; it stimulus itself, a fact reflected within cerwould be anomalous by no means impossible (though "Utterances are linear receives to the brain material if the brain were to process the incoming limitations) slows in some other order'' (Jones 1991a: 81). Genuine ambiguity a problem for or disrupts this process. is, therefore, Ambiguity in mid-utterance, and since it arises continually language analysts tain as cases in real speech situations, yet is only noticed in exceptional than the linguistic when facts turn out to be more complex descripmisunderstands tion (as when the old man Euclio persistently in Plautus' Aulularia 731 ff.)2), or when the confession Lyconides' acts as context extra-linguistic misunderstood audience wilfully reference with ing a a theatre prompt (as when nostra miseria tu es magnus as a

or when faced Cic. ad Ait. 2.19.3), to Pompeius Magnus; a determined ad Her. 2.16). It is clearly worth askpedant (cf. or even turns out to be problematic ambiguity why potential

fall-back line, "conin so few cases. The schoolteacher's perceived text will decide", very often works, but the nature of the context, will bear examination. or the relevant aspects of the context, collected from recent I use literary verse) examples (often for second unseen chosen by external examiners set-texts, reading, year Classics is literary our evidence and third etc. The vast bulk of at Liverpool, so there is no alterall of it written), (and native. But the use of ideas arising from work on spoken languages of conin its own right, and a number is a legitimate experiment siderations to make it viable. There is the fact that the relaconspire students 1) I am grateful for comments and discussion to Prof. Dr Harm Pinkster, Mr P.A. George (who also allowed me to read unpublished work which I have used freely), and to those present when earlier versions of this paper were delivered as research seminars at Liverpool and Manchester. 2) See Moore and Carling 1982: 145-146 on giving directions. ? E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1995 Mnemosyne, Vol. XLVIII, Fase. 4

GRAMMATICAL AMBIGUITY IN LATIN between in which be written

439

tionship

polarity one should prepared

nothing aware of

and spoken is not a simple language said of the one is true of the other. Rather a virtual continuum extending more than from

will sound formal language (which usually to informal will include unprepared 'written') language (which letters as well as spoken language)3). There is also many of Cicero's in ancient literature the fact that orality is deeply implicated (Vogtfor example, was predominantly not silent, Spira 1990); reading, and performance Morewas a major form of literary presentation. over, ancient language the writing authors, just like and did so in a volume modern that must authors, spoke their own have hugely outweighed but be the basis of literary struc-

they did: this cannot ture and language. the psychology of language is a part of Finally, the psychology of perception in general, and to the extent that the of the brain and its cognitive structure are not cultureanatomy specific, and the way in which attributed processing strategies in non-linguistic observations numerical data etc), auditory, that the principles and the sensory organs, memory, to language-use conform to general fields (say the handling of visual, one is the more inclined to believe to particular modern languages

are not confined

(though specific strategies may be)4). I begin with two praeteritiones: (a) since the topic of ambiguity as a whole is so extensive, I pass over lexical, referential and phrasing and confine to grammatical ambiguity myself for present purposes ambiguity. the nature of My second praeteritio (b) is less thorough: is an issue of far greater generality and complexity than grammar I wish to raise here. Rather I content with some meagre myself comments I should history of to apply as noun,

mainly on traditional grammatical terminology. like to identify four possible strands of argument, (i) The the names to other of the cases languages) (and from there and to some extent of such in Latin extended concepts

3) Cf. Eyre 1991: 107 and Eyre and Baines 1989: 91-120. 4) There is, of course, the difference between reader and listener that the one can hear the speaker/reciter*s phrasing and the other cannot. Often this must have been a decisive factor in potential ambiguities simply not arising in practice (cf. Marius Victorinus GLK 6.204.4, mutato accentu). But this factor cannot always have been decisive or relevant, even; nevertheless it must very often have been at least a contributory factor.

440

F. JONES

with the development verb, subject, object etc is deeply entwined of a body of pedagogic material produced by grammatici to explain to the difficult of a literary tradition features (especially verse) the basic strategies of spoken native speakers and not to explain Latin, actual describe extremes (ii) One language nouns could observe For the behaviour of such and categories in samples. and verbs example, Hopper in terms of a continuum Thompson between two

and Thompson 1984); in Latin one might note (Hopper there is in Latin the force of an doubt as to whether Quintilian's the locative). extra case, the instrumentive (and one could mention more hazy than readers of KenThe picture on the ground may be nedy's primer imagine, grammar, observing nor purely objective much to do with social of the sociology (iii) One could consider is not wholly that correctness of grammar and has a matter of efficient communication5),

and self-image and presentation. aspiration research experimental (or even conduct) (iv) One could consider has been done in this field, but any into word-storage. Much show of details here would be little more than a specious sampling of scientific The window-dressing. net result of such considerations is a suggestion on a selection that tradi-

into the brain by for the to speak. But even this is not formed in a vacuum learning and has to external been exposed has already reality recipient it. It has been shown that the mind perceives started to categorize and Bock external categories (Osgood reality in partially preformed the figure on it automatically For instance, 1977: 93-94). highlights which the figure is set, a ground rather than the ground on/against the human, the actor rather than the action or recipient, animate, or even identity the familiar etc. There is a clear overlap, active, between tional these Grammar categories (actor, and their like, and those used by Funcbeneficiary, topic [cf. recipient, agent, in prelinguistic, hierarchies Such cognitive "develop etc). familiar] " over' and are 'taken by the perception-based experience" 5) To take a special, but significant case, correct grammar may be a tool in positively excluding certain types of audience from understanding.

based tional grammar is a construction of linguistic and not a foundation phenomena another grammar, an internal one, which is built

of linguistic There is structures.

GRAMMATICAL AMBIGUITY IN LATIN

441

later" (Osgood and Bock 1977: 93) linguistic system as it develops and are an important factor underlying But there are word-order. further as well: since the cognitive structure of the implications brain can only vary within narrowly defined limits, and the speechcontext listener, amount correct, placed a large extent necessarily to the extent that the speaker's of relevant available knowledge it follows that the listener should is to shared by presuppositions to the listener and speaker about the are roughly is already

find that he/she

on the right lines for tracking the discourse new by matching mental model of the "story so linguistic input with his/her ongoing and setfar", the physical setting etc. In other words, the direction of the discourse, the listener's of the world and the ting knowledge it is perceived in all conspire to form the concognitive categories text which circumvents some potential a ambiguity by making situation in which all sorts of theoretically alternative possible are simply meanings the language-processing. not relevant Within and this therefore context do not surface in semantics, phrasing and morphology all contribute to comprehension, but not equally, or in a fixed proportion. But it is possible to argue for a basic discourse > cognitive / semantics structure > grammar hierarchy. That is to say discourse determined semantic helps sort out vaguely items6), together to which relations. I give below tors, discourse * need-to-know' to illustrate the importance of these facexamples model and semantics, and in particular a applying to grammatical but first some principle relations, to show to what extent the problem can be limited by takexamples of appropriate account units. ing nemini 1) nam quid ea memorem, quae nisi eis qui uidere credibilia subuorsos maria sunt, a priuatis montis, compluribus constrata esse (Sail.Cat. 13.1) Unless the whole of the first phrase, nam quid ea memorem, is taken and with semantic information (i.e. the that to sort meaning of a word to the item the cognitive it refers) sorts categorisation out or helps applies out grammatical

6) Cf. Plutarch (Dem. 2.3) and Augustine (de Doctr. Chr. 2.14.21) on second language. In reading sentences with an unknown word incorporated there may be no hiatus in the reading flow depending on context etc.

442 and

F. JONES

as a single at some level the processed entity, with the vagueness of of quid ( = what/why?) compounds ambiguity in the accusative until after the relative clause, ea (not explained together a labyrinth of possible meanings that follows) to produce took place only at the level of in the first three words. If processing word to word (or below), breakdown might be a real threat at this infinitive But taking the colon as a whole (and point. more than four words) there is no ambiguity, tion of communication. into that means here no no potential disrup-

In one of the following two examples the taking of a larger unit about but without of sense, account completion brings of the syntax involved: a complete definition necessarily achieving 2)

sed quis cenantibus una, Fundani, pulchre fuerit tibi, nosse laboro. (Hor. Sat. 2.8.19-20) melius. quid hoc intersit ab ipso audieris (Hor. Sat. 2.8.32-33) 3) the subjunctive In the first of these two examples fuerit seems to which is fulfilled (almost immediately) indicate indirect question by nosse laboro, but in example quid (3) it is fair to ask how to construe hoc intersit before tifiable sub-unit proceeding, of discourse. on the grounds that it is a clearly idenIt does not seem to me demonstrably be?' and then go might the difference himself rather and than main take the verb. In the question rhetorical strategy

wrong to read this as, 'What better hear from the man on 'You'd two either idea clusters case together Fundanius' as an indirect overall fussiness

is to belittle

has any significance at all; i.e. quid but it can be read of potentiality, hoc intersit is not a real deliberation an intrigued either personating as a piece of mimesis, Fundanius that Nasidienus' listener as an intrigued words (or himself to Nasidienus' original on listener the role of intrigued or ironically imposing listener), words (this record of Nasidienus' to Fundanius' Horace listening gains some support from audier-is). On any reading quid hoc intersit but the grammatical is a form of indirect discourse, explanation, on audieris, does not answer the quesdependent question is of view to whose which amounts tion just raised, point is possinor does the fact that a grammatical description assumed7), the need for such a question. ble exclude indirect 7) Ancient theory could cope with this sort of question under the term mimesis: cf. Porph. at Hor. Sat. 1.2.129 on vae\ Don. ai Ter. Andr. 773. Cf. 'focalisation' as used by e.g. Fowler 1990.

GRAMMATICAL AMBIGUITY IN LATIN I now discuss

443

of grammatical in the terms ambiguity above (discourse outlined need-to-know model, semantics, etc). I have not structured to these terms since my discussion according examples they are so often Rather derived. entwined I have with each other material that no benefit would be gathered between nominative and ambiguity other cases, finally proceeding to some of case-function and phonetics8). 4) quis non Latino sanguine pinguior campus sepulcris impia proelia testatur Medis auditumque sonitum ruinae? Hesperiae qui gurges aut quae ilumina lugubris ignara belli? quod mare Dauniae non decolorauere caedes? Odes 2.1.29-36) quae caret ora cruore nostro? (Hor. the time the reader/listener reaches quod the anaphora By figure is evident; he has, however, also been exposed to the nominative is he to know that quod mare is accusative? to this is that if language-processing works at all levels the whole colon mare Dauniae non simultaneously9) quod decolorauere caedes can be treated as a working unit, and in that case Part of the answer the verb, only a few words later than quod mare, settles the matter. In small clusters the difference between the uses of the word quid of the type quid est? and quid habet? may be as as the analogous distinction between the "what" in imperceptible "What is it?" and that in "What has he got?" But in this example would reveal something about the structure of any such processing this passage that might circumvent the question of the case of quod out to be no difficulty in answering which identifies Grammar, functions such as agent, cognitive/semantic patient, recipient, benefactive, instrumental, action, state, goal etc rather than grammatical representations (which have no one to one correspondence it. In though terms of Functional 8) The low-profile of verbs in this account stems from the fact that much of the question of ambiguity with regard to verbs relates not to grammatical ambiguity but to ambiguity of reference. I intend to treat this matter elsewhere. 9) Cf. Davison 1984: 799-802 and Brown and Yule 1983: 234-236. mare even there turns in utterances three times. How or when to potential according accusative then functions, general considerations

more

444 to the functional

F. JONES

of quis non Latino sanguine roles)10) the structure non decolorauere caedes and quae pinguior campus and quod mare Dauniae in all three elements there is a caret ora cruore nostro is equivalent: geographical The following 5) 'non promisistis' Anaphora prose location example haec mihi ait, and which has been subjected to Italian blood. is comparable:

litora, nautae, 'non haec mihi terra is common

rogata

est.'

(??.

Met.

parallelism

in rhetorical

3.652-653) verse and

and there is very often the fleeting (cf. example [26] below), of a technical which can be circumvented by ambiguity possibility insofar as one can. This really means at a natural speed, reading to case assignation, and paythe need-to-know principle applying roles of the words and the functional to the semantics ing attention to them by the nature of the entities assigned of the discourse. This strategy, the direction at work continuously, 6) egressum whether there they refer to and by be it noted, must be or not. is a potential ambiguity

me accepit Aricia Roma magna rhetor comes Heliodorus, modico: hospitio inde Forum Appi, Graecorum longe doctissimus; differtum nautis, cauponibus atque malignis. (Hor. Sat. 1.5.1-4) In this example the issues are very much the same (the question difrelates to the case of Forum Appi), but there is a significant ference

so that the semantic in that there is no rhetorical parallelism role played by Forum Appi is less predetermined patby an external in that sense this passage is more typical of ordinary language tern; of Horace's Satires). Forum Appi (sermo\ this is part of the programme to Aricia in the first line, or accusative could be nominative, parallel inde clearly after an implied verb of motion (so Rudd's translation), and automatically puts Forum Appi into the semantic either but this need not exclude grammatical 'goal', role until But there is no need to decide its grammatical possibility. at which to make Forum Appi nominative, a new verb emerges inde Forum Appi as the sentence of effort favours point economy entails role motion of kernel with the idea of motion implied by inde providing closure (the

10) See e.g. Siewierska 1988: 30 and Halliday 1970: 146-158.

GRAMMATICAL AMBIGUITY IN LATIN to a growing conforms impression ellipse in diaries and travel-records)11). favoured Met. 1.509) 7) crura notent sentes (??. 8) 9) [solacia] accipit tendit In of the

445

stylistic

brevity

quae pater haud aliter quam cautes murmura ponti et natam delamentatur ademptam (Ov. Met. 11.330) Met. habent sua uerba dolores (??. onus matrem, neque

10.506) of the the nominativeindeterminacy examples in the plural in third declension nouns and in accusative distinction which is not uncommon neuter nouns generally creates a situation these in its own right, but which raises a more general issue very clearly. In example (7) we have a three word unit in which the semantics of the world12) circumvent of the words and the reader's knowledge we all know whether or bushes legs scratch bushes, any problem: scratch legs. The same situation arises in example (8) with a minor in the colometry, difference and again in the second half of example (9). Yet of word-order). But example (and permutation of the first unit, tendit onus matrem, (9) is useful to look at because where the inflexion but semanof matrem is absolutely unequivocal of the world (despite into a knowledge metamorphosis is still pregnant and her belly is being stretched plant, Myrrha by her labour) would allow no ambiguity even were that not the case. Instances examples tors and like this are even more frequent than those like the other in this group; it is contrary to reason to suppose that facwhich circumvent are no strategies potential ambiguities are not present. when such ambiguities operative tics and again semantics there is yet another and knowledge of the world are decisive

longer In the following case assignation turns out to be possible example at the end of a sentence, a hugely long one, but sufficiently not long with the words in advance of full to necessitate a way of coping and this raises the question of how grammatical analysis are ultimately ducts of the two approaches balanced. 10) uix sua, uix sanae uirgo Niseia compos the pro-

11) It is by no means clear to me that the articulation or phrasing in a performance would in this case be a deciding factor. Palmer's suggestion, that me accepit be supplied from the first line, is less attractive because of the intervention of a comment about Horace's companion. 12) For 'knowledge of the world' or 'encyclopedic knowledge' see Brown and Yule 1983: 61-62, 235-270.

446 mentis

F. JONES erat. felix iaculum quod tangeret ille, manu felicia frena uocabat quaeque premeret

(Ov.

Met.

Starting 4happy context have

8.35-37) at felix various possibilities of: (a) a might be conceived is semantically and so alien to the general javelin' unlikely of Scylla's would probably never story that its possibility a listener's mind even

for a moment; (b) 'happy the seems plausible, javelin which he would hold', however, amounting of exclamation to an accusative and reflecting closely Scylla's interin a piece of mimesis (cf. on example nal thoughts but [3] above); it emerges that the grammatical vocabat (c) analysis completed by 'she called he held happy' the javelin which provides ( ='any javelin he would be holding'), the -que links the two noun because In this case felix and felicia could be seen simply phrases in parallel. as object complements and tangeret as generic But we subjunctive. do not need to know that this is what the construction will be while

entered

we are still reading (or hearing) line 36, nor, when we reach the end of 37, do we need to discard the exclamatory tone of the mimesis (which suggested an accusative is not with analysis as it proceeds, nor does it force the reader to reject his interim In fact, since uocabat tells us that Scylla interpretation. vercalled Minos' javelin explicitly happy the end of the sentence grammatical the sentence balises preceding what line; has in the been already dramatically personated is given to the reader by the that is to say something of line 36 which is not available in any processing eius blanditiis est uoluptati (quoniam enim Plato escam malorum appellai uolupsenectus, capiantur modicis derived ut pisces), quamquam tarnen conuiuiis delecfrom Functional Gramof exclamation). Completion for dealing effectively necessary of the

pre-grammatical other way.

dandum 11) sed si aliquid non facile resistimus?diuine tatem, quod immoderatis tan e? uidelicet epulis caret

homines

potest. (Cic. In this example

de Sen. 44) another concept

of topic-role. mar comes into play, viz. the relevance When one else both will be accusative thing is called something (or nominative in passive expressions). By what criteria do we know which is the factors may be at stake in Various and which the appellation? topic and rhythm (appellai uoluptatem in the word order including variety

GRAMMATICAL AMBIGUITY IN LATIN

447

and it is not uncommon to find example [11] gives a cretic-trochee), before rather than after the topic (as in this the appellation placed cf. Sen. Clem. 1.11.2; Calp. Flacc. 42 (p. 34.5 ff H?kanexample): Deci Min. 314.6 etc13). But the order 1.4.21; son); Quint. [Quint.] is not constant; rather the deciding is factor as far as the listener of the discourse concerned seems to be his own following and his to refer one of the two elements involved to a dominant ability discourse topic (the cant aid in this). In the following speaker/reciter's intonation would be a signifi-

dominance

case there is a good example of the relative of topic-recognition over grammatical decoding: ratiocinari didicisset 12) hinc quemadmodum deinque dispensator factus esset, omnia diligenter curiosus redpictor cum inscriptione diderat. (Petr. 29.4) omnia sums topic which up the preceding the narrator wishes list and represents the aggregated to deal with; its grammatical case, is indeterminate (nominative/accusative),

a neuter plural, being of the sequel are enough but the semantics to place it appropriately when the need arises; in the meantime it is sufficient for the listener is on its way14). This to know that omnia is the topic and comment situation is likely to arise whenever there is a sentence-initial (and as: there is a colon-initial) neuter, etiam consummatis 13) quod opus, difficile, professoribus qui commode tractauerit discendo sufficiet cuicumque (Quint. 1.9.3) clarus Echion 14) templa, deum matri quae quondam frequently fecerat ex uoto, nemorosis Met. abdita siluis (Ov. 10.686-688) It is also present with topic-marking where the topic structures, is syntactically from the rest of the sentence, such phrase disjunct as: 15) de forma, ouem esse oportet In cases such as the following, ambiguity, cessing topic recognition operation15). ampio (Varr? RR 2.2.3) there is no grammatical although is still part of the listener/reader's procorpore transibant when

13) This is found to be the case also where one thing is described as being something else: e.g. Cic. de Sen. 5, odiosa omnis offensio; 7 \,fructus... senectusest... memoria et copia. 14) On topic-first structures see Jones 1991a: 86-89. 15) Cf. Clark and Haviland 1977: 32 ff. and Tomlin 1986: 49 f.

448 haec uulnera pro lib?rtate 1.1) example

F. JONES publica excepi, the same mei hunc oculum pro uobis issue, but is more

16)

impendi; (Petr. The following complex: 17) non omnis

involves

usque ego postera dum Capitolium recens, scandet cum tacita uirgine Odes 3.30.6-9) pontifex. (Hor. For the reader who has reached only Capitolium there is no way of determining its case. The degree to which the listener/reader crescam laude anticipates possibility16) that involves The which Capitol must this but allowing unclear, obvious structure at this point, and the one of effort, is '... while the Capitol lasts'. most economy and the relevant comment, clearly has the topic-role can only be along these lines. In now be forthcoming, linguistic the most structures is

uitabit

moriar, Libitinam:

multaque

pars

continugives us not simply a picture of the Capitol's of the contibut a vivid and emotive representation ing existence, of linked with the Capitol's survival, existence, nuing integrally fact Horace traditional and as soon Roman ritual. Capitolium is the topic as the verb appears that the Capitol which follows (as it does of the dum clause, its semanimmediately)

shows tic field (climbing) and not the performer, suitable semantic

shortly

is the patient of the action in the form of a

item, viz. pontifex. Here topic recognition assigns the right place in the discourse, Capitolium psychological subject, and the semantics of Capitolium and scandet assign the correct functional roles to the Capitol and an as yet unspecified agency and ponclosure. Identification of the case of Capitolium is possible tifex brings only only world when be an inference scandet is reached, but this case-identification can itself from what semantics and knowledge of the

tell us, that the Capitol does not climb, it is climbed. That inflexion is to say, grammatical here does not assign grammatical on other roles, for in this case these roles can only be assigned grounds. It is not just the case that the nominative-accusative distinction fails to appear in inflexions in neuters and third declension plurals 16) Cf. Clark and Clark 1977: 75 ff. and Marslen-Wilson, 1978: 225. Tyler and Seidenberg

GRAMMATICAL AMBIGUITY IN LATIN

449

for it also disappears in the accusative(as example [11] showed), construction also happen in noun phrases, infinitive (this may where a genitive either subject or object: memor nostri may represent vs quis nostrum) which does not regularly of intergenerate problems pretation freeness of word order as regards despite grammatical distinction, subject and object17). In fact the nominative-accusative as already is not the only factor in roleinvolved indicated, even when there is no potential Real readers assignation ambiguity. and indeterminate or processing ambiguous and since these handles are always present instances, (indeed they are central to the communicative aspect of language) one cannot but assume are always relevant. In fact many a they piece of Latin are sometimes omitted. 18) hoc tarnen minimum in animo! (cf. Sen. Ep. in Ulis malorum: quanto plus tenebrarum remains even when final verbs (which perspicuous the main or only clue as to grammatical case) are listeners use other handles for

122.5) In this example the cases o? minimum and plus are unproblematic, nominative. the verbs dixerim and est at the ends presumed Adding of the cola (which is how Seneca wrote the passage) little changes except noted tonal that colour?and since cola the omitted the grammatical case of minimum. Be it verbs are final verbs, the reader has, selected read?and understood? above,

for each

of the two what I have

the verb. In the exactly printed above before reaching first of the two cola, then, minimum becomes accusative only at the last moment, its case not mattering up to that point; indeed I think it worth that the reader/listener suggesting that minimum is nominative presumption ing on not having grammar ple (18) omission (this to waste time and effort argument does since not make he would an initial be gamblin a re-evaluation of the

substantives, e.g. a plausible because text survived either the inclusion or of the verbs. Of course this is a minority case, but it is not 17) Conscious equivocation is always possible; a Greek rhetorical treatise suggests using the passive (cf. Pinkster 1990: 58) to avoid ambiguity with subject and object accusatives (Rh.Al. 1435b6 ff). I owe this reference to Prof. C. Carey, who also suggests that the accusative infinitive at Demosthenes 54.31 might be an example of such equivocation.

with neuter nouns and applies regularly I chose examCapitolium in example [17] above).

450

F. JONES

selected at random (in which since other passages special pleading, are revealing in the same excision of the verbs remains obvious) way, 19) ?? in summis turribus qui pomaria ac fastigiis domuum inde ortis ?, quorum radicibus quo improbe cacumina ?? non uiuunt contra naturam qui in mari ? et delicate natare ipsi sibi non ? fundamenta thermarum nisi calenda ac tempestate fluctu ?? cum instituerunt stagna omnia contra naturae consuetudinem in totum ab nouissime ?, siluae in tectis illa ?. a sufficiency of semantic information proceed for processing be virtually accrues to complete by the time the verb is reached. is unequivocal Often case assignation (as with pomaria, but this is not the case siluae, fundamenta, omnia), always (cacumina)18), and even where it is other factors coincide (naturally) and would be decisive even if the inflexions were not. For instance, in qui pomaria the qui refers to the unnatural people Seneca is talking and there is a natural and known about, pomaria means 'orchards*, for the relationship between stereotype people and orchards (people sell orchards etc), and prune, harvest, plant, grow, water, nurture, we know that these people are doing something contrary to the norm, most people not do this in summis turribus; because do obviously therefore verb the performer, qui represents pomaria the patient, or placing. This analysis does indicate putting to be available information grammatical (which happens must but it is not an elaborate substitute and the without in this (Sen. Ep. As the sentences 122.8-9) e.g.: non uiuunt contra naturam

case), viz. grammatical, form

analysis, the meaning Seneca We may now extend the range of cases covered by the discussion. in form19). Firstly, dative and ablative plural which are indistinctive liberae cenae, sed tot uenerat iam tertius dies, id est expectatio 20) uulneribus confossis fuga magis placebat quam quies (Petr. 26.7)

for an easy and objective, to since all this information compounds wants to communicate.

feriantur, 18) The verbs in this passage are: serunt, nutant, egissent, iaciunt, videntur, velie, and desciscunt. 19) One could ask whether similar questions have practical significance within the scope of the ablative (or any other case) alone: such as whether the ablative phrase here is ablative absolute or agentive ablative: aquam quae Marcia appellatur duplicavi fonte novo in rivum inmisso (Res Gestae 20.2)

GRAMMATICAL AMBIGUITY IN LATIN interim dum Ule omnium textorum allatum et ad aliud dicta inter lusum est cum corbe me cubiculum

451 consumit,

21)

gustantibus nobis repositorium 22) 'sic placito consurrexit

(Petr. 33.3) ibi inducit.

introductis quibusdam septem linteis coopertum corpus splendentibus ' testibus manu reuelat... (Ap. Met. 2.24) retinet... uis eius et Lysimachus quae ab eo nomen 23) inuenit tanta est ut iumentis discordantibus NH iugo inposita asperitatem cohibeat 25.72) (Pliny In example (20), despite of a noun and a participle ablative is ablative

the collocation which both

on placebat. The other dependent in that the meaning examples (i.e. a model of can be reconstructed the events described) without any difficulty, but in these cases this does not help to fix the grammatical analysis. are rather different In grammatical makes (21-23) they terms, a viable each ablative in examples phrases in terms of the discourse, absolute; which does not follow on from what has of the italicized

the semantics absolute), and confossis is a dative

(in the italicized phrase) could be ablative (suggesting of the words show that uulneribus

information provide in strict temporal but rather they or logical sequence, gone before the sequence will emerge with material whose relevance interrupt in relation to the main clause following serve the function (i.e. they often main fulfilled clause by a circumstantial unfolds the connection them to be understood relevance

out to allow background the syntactic relevance

But as the ablative absolute). with the italicized phrases turns of the general datives. as Instead which suits (a generality a more specific absolute), with a pair of examples in a tree.

independence becomes possible.

at first presupposed of the ablative Comparison issue: a car and felled

English may clarify this 24a) The wind wrecked

a car. 24b) The wind felled a tree and wrecked In the first example a temporal is described. In the sequence well take the sequence second a listener to possess a causal might as well as a temporal one. In real life anteriority often relationship coincides with relationships20). and such sentences causality The wider notion of'iconicity' causal express is relevant here: the can

20) See Brown and Yule 1983: 125 on 'She married and became pregnant' and 'She became pregnant and married'.

452

F. JONES linguistic

way

can reflect structures real-world structures (as the speaker21)), as when actions/events in a temporal perceived by are narrated in the same sequence sequence (e.g. ueni, uidi, uici). It of past participles is not hard to find examples with causal sense in Latin "results

1964: 7-8), or clauses where a conditional force (Laughton from the juxtaposition of two clauses whose contents refer to two states of affairs that are conditionally related in the extra' world' 1991: 93). To revert to examples linguistic (Risselada (21is easily of these sentences 23), it seems to me that the meaning from semantics extricable the identification of past par(including but grammatical analysis in the form of case identification ticiples), to this end here, but is not not only does not contribute significantly even after the meaning determinate has been reached by other fully without readers could conceivably react in different ways aware of the grammatical ambiguity. becoming final before more discussion involves My example general of the first declension; could and dative singular examples genitive also be supplied dative and ablative singular of the second involving means: different and to mention fourth declension genitive singular effective at example plural etc). It is not an especially and while I have a sugfirst sight since it is, I believe, problematic, in the but the example is chosen to make it is tentative, gestion (not nominative to locate case the edges of no-man's-land, an important theoretical distinction, and number:and also viz. the

declension

spirit of attempting it involves because distinction between

ac fere patentissimis locis agitauit et ampia et assidua, 25) conuiuia conuiuatus simul discumberent. est et ut plerumque sexcenteni cum emissa Fucini lacus, ac paene submersus super emissarium suos omni cenae et liberos adhibebat ?mpetu aqua redundasset. cum pueris puellisque sedentes uescerentur. ripuisse nobilibus, conuiuae, reuocato qui more ueteri ad fulcra lectorum suraureum qui pridie scyphum in diem posterum, calicem fictilem edictum emittendi reperisset. quo ueniam daret cum periclitatum (Suet. Claud. flatum quen32)

existimabatur, dicitur etiam meditatus apposuit. uentris in conuiuio crepitumque dam prae pudore ex continentia

21) Cf. Juv. 3.128-130: cumpraetorlictoremimpellatet ire I praecipitemiubeatdudum vigilantibus orbis, / ne prior AlbinametModiam collegesalutet, where dudum vigilantibus orbis represents the attendant circumstances as perceived by the praetor.

GRAMMATICAL AMBIGUITY IN LATIN The Claudius* unnamed and

453

general

in full) is that of topic of this paragraph (given have Claudius as the subject, All the sentences parties. of the whole work is the dominant because Claudius topic reverts to him

whenever automatically nothing All the sentences begin with a verb or verb phrase pegged impedes. of the sentence onto this dominant topic with the exception beginand one of the guests conuiuae. Here the pattern is abrogated ning reference is moved persona dominant of the as an extra dramatis to the foreground, being introduced for the brief anecdote which is starting. is still the Claudius topic and his action, is expressed unnamed which with comes as the climax at the end verb of which yet another calicem fictilem apposuit. The

sentence, is the Claudius early is a character introduction

since he necessities, to the story, but as yet unintroduced to the audience to (cf. the est locus I intrat miles form followed by narrative which is relevant), the introduced and also the dramatic entity central of the story, since Claudius' action is described after a a problem of suspense. There is, however, which I have build-up glossed over so far, and that is what to make o? conuiuae in the short term. Case-assignation is of comparatively as I little importance, potential have above (cf. also ancillae at Petr. 22.4; dominae at Ov. suggested RA 583); in this instance, so long as we know who is being talked about (the party-goer) the matter of case can wait until the nature of what is being said about him ties the matter after up (dative of number is quite different apposuit), but the assignment (it is a semantic Suetonius introduces not just a grammatical matter)22). his sentence-topic at the beginning of his story arid we need to know whether guest or group of guests at a about Claudius' particular party (another parties is generalisation It is easy to wait for appropriate comment briefly possible). having the topic, but not if the topic itself is inadequately recognised a specific indicated. about inside, the number indeed But this is precisely what happens here, for the question of conuiuae cannot be solved until the reader is at the end of, the relative clause which forms the he is introducing

performer: of the conuiua suits discourse

22) Pinkster 1990: 266 ?.40 observes that in general in Latin there is more difference between number than between case (which is blindingly true also in, e.g., French and English).

454

F. JONES

colon (the verb existimabatur is singular). This is to say that following we do not know whether the story is about a party-goer or some until it is almost half over and the need-to-know party-goers princiearlier is thereby contravened, for the reader needs ple introduced this, but is not told and cannot work it out when the need At this point one might plead authorial or applies. incompetence or the scrappy nature of the odds and ends Suetonius sloppiness, for the chapter; otherwise I would suggest emendation has collected to < cuidam > conuiuae which anecdotal style23). are not always able to reveal semantic roles factors which can circumvent and other solves the awkwardness and suits the to know

then, Case-endings, of sentence-elements, potential unimpeded example expressed 26) fulmen ambiguities grammatical

of are still present when there is no possibility semantic is Furthermore, parallelism ambiguity. case. In the following in grammatical differences by two statements different parallel in semantic relations: grammatical structure, but

we have with

dentibus habent acres et aduncis apri, ira (??. Met. 10.550-551) est fuluis et uasta leonibus impetus Here fulmen habent and impetus est are parallel in content and posias are acres apri and fulvis leonibus. The tion in line and phrase, et aduncis dentibus and et vasta ira, stretches the patremaining pair, to a different tern with an element of uariatio (the et connects point to a different part of the semantic structure). in example Penthea (ace.) is the clause-initial (27) with which he is compared. topic and parallel to the equus (nom.) aere canoro ut fr?mit acer equus cum bellicus 27) assumit amorem, pugnaeque signa d?dit tubicen aether sic ictus longis ululatibus Penthea in each line and also how mouit Again, becomes (Ov. Met. 3.704-707) of each case is so wide that it the range of application to suggest that the other factors dealt deeply implausible

Observe

with

have a continuous role in language do not actually proAn accusative can be object, cessing. object-complement, apposiwho etc and Latin learners, tion, subject of an accusative-infinitive here rely much more heavily on explicit grammatical coding than more

23) Cf. Jones 1991: 168 on quidam in anecdotes in Pliny's letters.

GRAMMATICAL AMBIGUITY IN LATIN advanced tions could about n.33), When extra be Latinist s, are aware could accusative of this as a problem. easily be extended, same way; traditional The and

455 list of funcother cases

of the

list in the de-centred grammars of the genitive 1990: 92 and 270 30 applications (Pinkster as object. as subject and the genitive the genitive including doubts about the force of an also Quintilian's one considers

one is near to the in Latin (1.4.26) case, the instrumentive, clear that the reader/listener needs other point where it becomes sources of information to place what kind of accusative, say, he/she linked with is faced with, and these other sources are so integrally the intended communication unnecessary. question to think that case-usage is so large24) one might be tempted is more a product social aspirations of the speaker's etc than a education, to the listener. structure are linguistic Speakers way of indicating understood despite mistakes (which are not always even perceived has much to do for correct speaking and the pressure by listeners) with other factors such as convention and auctoritas25). This position would be too extreme, for the case system for gives the potential a sort of of linguistic structure greater complexity (and provides of meaning overdetermination in real listening that is a safeguard conditions less than where ideal), voice noise, the speaker's background but even this is not uncontaminated etc may be by social that they may make the grammatical cases If the range of application of individual

aspects. This

general

noun-phrases matical information italicized unusual,

of occurrence picture is reinforced by the common where semantic items are not marked by gram-

at all, as in the following where the examples have no inflection. look more Some, phrases naturally, outlandish than others, but there is a core of even, cases (examples amat (see (28-31) K.-St. come II 280) from Pinkster

perfectly unexceptional 1990: 90): 28)

qui deum amat uirtutem

24) Individual cases do not have a specific semantic role each: Pinkster 1990: 40 ff. 25) Cf. Quint. 1.6.43-45; also Bramble 1974: 18 ff, 23 f, 38 fand the rhetorical theory of ethos whereby style represents the orator's self-presentation in a morally appropriate persona. Cf. also Taylor 1990: 118 ff. The persistent human tendency to seek and construct patterns should also be born in mind.

456 29) Xerxes... Tuse. 5.20) 30) 31) 32) nunc redeo

F. JONES praemium posuit qui inuenisset nouam uoluptatem (Cic.

Scipio cum intellecto in quos saeuiretur (Tac. Ann. 33) parto quod auebas (Hor. Sat. 1.1.94) Here we have phrases acting respectively accusative, by anything prepositions parable languages, to another ablative, ablative and ablative,

ad quae mihi mandas (Cic. ad Att. 5.11.6) quos paulo ante nominaux interiit (B.Afr. 96.2) 1.49.1) as nominative, but not marked dative, as such

except the reader's understanding (unless we count the in examples which is, on the one hand, com[30-31], with the of Latin into the Romance development and,

on the other, actually only shifts the same question point, for we could then ask about the role of cases in prepositional phrases before their ultimate disappearance). At this point it is worth citing Pinkster's from research findings

were

on possible "in a number of texts all noun phrases ambiguities: examined as if no information the case form was concerning available: number the information however, was taken to be known. The concerning information and gender at the reader's

either on the basis of the preceding context or on the basis disposal of his or her general knowledge was left out of account, as was any information on the basis of the word order and the occuravailable rence sion of a case form Pinkster in prepositional "that the concludes phrases." After of the some discusand syntactic in less than necessary

function by means of instances. From this, however, it cannot be concluded 5-10% that case marking is an insignificant element in language use_We deduce from this conclusion that case marking is can, however, for sucblocks, one much less important merely one of the building cessful communication than e.g. the meaning of the lexemes with which the sentences are built"26). Pinkster's experiment is

semantic

marking of a case is really

26) Pinkster 1990: 61-62. I should be strongly inclined to believe that the percentage would vary according to factors such as the literary-social prestige of the genre; (a) speaking 'properly' in complex units gives the speaker credibility as an authority, (b) utilisation of the extra complexity available by means of fully using an additional means of avoiding ambiguity can allow greater sophistication or complexity of expression, or a more economical expression of sophisticated thought, (c) the ludic aspect of style in its more grammatical aspects (rather than vocabulary, metaphor etc) also reflects social circumstances. By contrast, the vast

GRAMMATICAL AMBIGUITY IN LATIN

457

an artificial exercise, but it is a legitimate way of showing obviously Morefor non-grammatical factors to be functional. the potential to varying in real Latin of all social levels, over, though degrees, must have lacked consistent the inflexional clarity at the endings very least. "It has been that what in the field of phonetics strongly demonstrated is very strongly influenced hears or perceives which he puts upon what he hears the semantic interpretation by effec(Clark and Clark p. 212 ff). It is rather harder to demonstrate so as to fit the information is likewise perceived tively that syntactic very a listener meaning, languages be heavily but there actually is an indication work: that purely on those dependent in English, called 'functionals': as prepositions and conjunctions syntactic this is so in the way that tend to paths to meaning elements small commonly such words, the syntactic rela-

grammatical preponderantly which indicate

to others. Without of one constituent these, there is often tionship no way of syntactically the sentence structure. Now, conmapping to what one might expect, such words in English are contrary not the parts of utterances which receive clear or emphatic sistently utterance. The position in Latin is even more embarrassing since not only are most function words accentless, but most of the imporare accentless tant function and there is a wealth of morphemes evidence that terminations, in particular case endings, were not At one social level this can be seen in pronounced distinctively"27). the spelling of Pompeian graffiti, and at another by elision (Quint. of (for example) and the gradual disappearance the ablative 9.4.40) -d ending (for which see med and ted for me and te in Plautus, Gnaiod which is part of a continual etc in early inscriptions) one process, in the gradual and virtually of the resulting complete disappearance We have also the explicit case system28). of Quintilian testimony mass of the Latin speaking public (where linguistic conservatism must have had least impetus) were clearly in the forefront of constant simplification of syntax and grammar for socio-psycholinguistic reasons, thus emphasising the opposite potential inherent in the same language-system. 27) I quote from an unpublished paper by P.A. George. 28) See Palmer 1954: 160-161, 166. As endings disappear they may be substituted for in other ways (by the use of prepositions, pronouns, auxiliary verbs etc, the beginnings of which can all be found in Classical Latin). It is no coincidence that the use of ero, eris, erit etc and eram, eras, erat in the (compounded) passives of the future perfect and pluperfect tenses matches the terminations of the

458

F. JONES

were often thoroughly but also that absolute that endings garbled, clarity was not to be aimed at, and that the nature of the following of the preceding for word alters the pronunciation ending (verified spoken languages 1990: 96 ff): uero 34) dilucida quorum by experiment; see Wilder 1975: 56 ff; Love

si uerba tota exierint, erit pronuntiatio primum extremas solet, plerisque pars deuorari, pars destitu? ut est non perferentibus dum priorum sono indulgent, syllabas ita omnis inputare et uelut autem necessaria uerborum explanatio, nam et uocales freest et odiosum: litteras molestum adnumerare quentissime dissimulantur. coeunt et consonantium 11.3.33-34)29) discussed phenomena from the material quaedam above just insequente (and given uocali

(Quint.

The ambiguity but independent support that context, knowledge semantics matical have a larger decoding30).

partial

rehearsed)

of the world, basic cognitive processing place in language

suggest and patterns than gram-

of Liverpool, University School of Archaeology,

Classics

and

Oriental

Studies

actives of those tenses. Why the actives should show this coalescence into words with terminations may be connected with the comparative rarity of passives in real spoken language. Here we see what amounts to the generation of new endings, a process contrary to but not exclusive of the attrition of endings: both processes represent forms of simplification. This process merely displaces the question from case endings (etc) to prepositions, word order (etc). As regards verbs, Latin verbs carry a person-indicator which gradually becomes less distinct and pronoun-use becomes more regular. But the potential for ambiguity of reference is merely transferred to the pronoun from the person-ending, it does not disappear. 29) In a discussion of orthography (1.7.2 ff) Quintilian avers that the use of the apex to mark long syllables is not always necessary, because, he says, the nature of the word written will usually be obvious. Quintilian goes on to other questions of spelling; the most interesting for present purposes is this: ilia quoqueservataest a multis differentia, ut 'ad', cum essetpraepositio, d litteram, cum autem coniunctio, t acciperet (Quint. 1.7.5). Pompeian graffiti (e.g. CIL 4.1173; 2013; 2388) show that the distinction in sound between / and ?/was minimal at lower social levels. A different sort of pronunciation vagueness is evidenced by a comment of Suetonius' (Aug. 88) on a case of ipsi spelled ixi. 30) Plutarch (Dem. 2.3) describes his learning of Latin as follows: 'And here my experience was amazing but true, for I found that rather than understanding the matter from the words, I had from the matter itself some sort of practical knowledge through which I could follow through to the words as well.' Cf. Augustine De doctr.Christ. 2.14.21 ; cf. also Hor. AP 311, from a different perspective, but without the complication of second-language learning.

grammatical

ambiguity REFERENCES

in latin

459

J. Bramble, Persius and the ProgrammaticSatire (Cambridge 1974). G. Brown and G. Yule, Discourse Analysis (Cambridge 1983). E.V. Clark and H.H. Clark, Psychologyand Language (New York 1977). H.H. Clark and S.E. Haviland, Comprehension the Given-New Contract,in: R.O. and Freedle (ed.), Discourse Production and Comprehension (Norwood, New Jersey 1977), 1-40. A. Davison, Syntactic Markedness and the Definition of Sentence Topic,Language 60 (1984), 797-846. C.J. Eyre, Was AncientEgyptian reallya PrimitiveLanguage, Lingua y?gyptia 1 (1991), 97-123. C.J. Eyre and J. Baines, InteractionsbetweenOrality and Literacy in Ancient Egypt, in: K. Schousboe and M. Trolle Larsen (edd.), Literacyand Society (Copenhagen 1989), 91-120. D. Fowler, Deviant Focalisation in Virgil's Aeneid, PCPhS 36 (1990), 42-63. and Language Function, in: J. Lyons (ed.), New M.A.K. Halliday, LanguageStructure Horizons in Linguistics (Harmondsworth 1970), 140-165. P.J. Hopper and S.A. Thompson, The DiscourseBasis for Lexical Categoriesin Universal Grammar, Language 60 (1984), 703-752. F. Jones, Subject, Topic, Given and Salient; Sentence-beginnings Latin, PCPhS 37 in (1991), 81 ff. F. Jones, Naming in Pliny's Letters, SO 66 (1991), 147-170. E. Laughton, The Participle in Cicero (Oxford 1964). N. Love, The Locus of Languages in a RedefinedLinguistics, in: H.G. Davis and T.J. Taylor (edd.), Redefining Linguistics (London 1990), 53-117. W. Marslen-Wilson, L.K. Tyler and M. Seidenberg, Sentence Processing and the Clause Boundary, in: WJ.M. Levelt and G.B. Flores d'Arc?is (edd.), Studies in the perceptionof language (Chichester 1978), 219-246. T. Moore and C. Carling, UnderstandingLanguage (London 1982). C.E. Osgood and J.K. Bock, Salience and Sentencing:Some ProductionPrinciples, in: S. Rosenberg (ed.), Sentence production(Hillsdale, New Jersey 1977), 89-140. L.R. Palmer, The Latin Language (London 1954). H. Pinkster, Latin Syntax and Semantics (London 1990). R. Risselada, Modo and Sane, or what to do with Particles in Latin Directives, in: Amsterdam in Budapest (Amsterdam 1991), 81-104. A. Siewierska, Word OrderRules (London 1988). T.J. Taylor, Normativity and Linguistic Form, in: H.G. Davis and T.J. Taylor (edd.), Redefining Linguistics (London 1990), 118-148. R.S. Tomlin, Basic Word order:functional principles (London 1986). G. Vogt-Spira (ed.), Strukturender M?ndlichkeit (T?bingen 1990). L. Wilder, Articulatoryand Acoustic Characteristics SpeechSounds, in: D.W. Massaro of (ed.), Understandinglanguage (New York 1975), 31-76.