拉丁语现在分词与其句法语义用法有关的衰落

IF 0.2 0 CLASSICS Journal of Latin Linguistics Pub Date : 2018-06-26 DOI:10.1515/joll-2018-0001
H. C. Walvoort
{"title":"拉丁语现在分词与其句法语义用法有关的衰落","authors":"H. C. Walvoort","doi":"10.1515/joll-2018-0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper deals with the declension of the Latin present active participle (ppa), which shows several inconsistencies: the ablative singular for instance may end in -e or in -i (sapiente, sapienti) and the genitive plural may end in -um or -ium (sapientum, sapientium). Some grammarians, notably modern ones, assume that there are syntactico-semantic considerations or circumstances, leading to ablative -e ending when verbal force is intended (such as in the ablative absolute) or substantival force, and to -i ending when there is nominal, notably adjectival force. I have investigated whether ancient, medieval and modern grammarians treat such a phenomenon. In addition, I looked for inconsistencies in the grammarian’s own ppa declension from this syntactico-semantic point of view. It turns out that ancient and medieval grammarians do not formulate declension of the ppa according to its syntactico-semantic function, with the exception of the anonymous author of the Ars Ambrosiana, nor do they decline their own ppa’s according to a conventional rule of this kind. This calls for other explanations regarding the declensional inconsistencies observed. Some of the ppa forms may reflect a temporary phenomenon which would have disappeared in due course through diachronic evolution and paradigm leveling. Some forms may have persisted because of their frequency and idiomatic force or because of the compelling analogy with other words and phrases. But these ppa declensional variations do not appear to conform to a syntactico-semantic rule.","PeriodicalId":29862,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Latin Linguistics","volume":"17 1","pages":"1 - 22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/joll-2018-0001","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Declension of the Latin present participle in connection with its syntactico-semantic use\",\"authors\":\"H. C. Walvoort\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/joll-2018-0001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This paper deals with the declension of the Latin present active participle (ppa), which shows several inconsistencies: the ablative singular for instance may end in -e or in -i (sapiente, sapienti) and the genitive plural may end in -um or -ium (sapientum, sapientium). Some grammarians, notably modern ones, assume that there are syntactico-semantic considerations or circumstances, leading to ablative -e ending when verbal force is intended (such as in the ablative absolute) or substantival force, and to -i ending when there is nominal, notably adjectival force. I have investigated whether ancient, medieval and modern grammarians treat such a phenomenon. In addition, I looked for inconsistencies in the grammarian’s own ppa declension from this syntactico-semantic point of view. It turns out that ancient and medieval grammarians do not formulate declension of the ppa according to its syntactico-semantic function, with the exception of the anonymous author of the Ars Ambrosiana, nor do they decline their own ppa’s according to a conventional rule of this kind. This calls for other explanations regarding the declensional inconsistencies observed. Some of the ppa forms may reflect a temporary phenomenon which would have disappeared in due course through diachronic evolution and paradigm leveling. Some forms may have persisted because of their frequency and idiomatic force or because of the compelling analogy with other words and phrases. But these ppa declensional variations do not appear to conform to a syntactico-semantic rule.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29862,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Latin Linguistics\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 22\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/joll-2018-0001\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Latin Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/joll-2018-0001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"CLASSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Latin Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/joll-2018-0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:本文研究了拉丁语现在主动分词(ppa)的变格,发现它有几个不一致之处:例如,烧蚀单数可能以-e或-i (sapiente, sapienti)结尾,物主复数可能以-um或-ium (sapientum, sapientium)结尾。一些语法学家,尤其是现代语法学家,认为存在句法语义上的考虑或情况,导致当想要表达言语力量(如绝对语气)或实体力量时,以消融的-e结尾,而当有名义力量,特别是形容词力量时,以-i结尾。我已经调查了古代、中世纪和现代语法学家是否对待这种现象。此外,从句法语义的角度来看,我寻找了语法学家自己的ppa变格中的不一致之处。事实证明,古代和中世纪的语法学家并没有根据ppa的句法语义功能来制定其变格,除了Ars Ambrosiana的匿名作者之外,他们也没有根据这种常规规则来拒绝自己的ppa。这就要求对观测到的变暖不一致进行其他解释。一些ppa形式可能反映了一种暂时的现象,这种现象将在适当的时间内通过历时进化和范式平衡而消失。有些形式可能会因为它们的使用频率和习惯性而保留下来,或者因为与其他单词和短语有令人信服的相似之处。但这些变化似乎不符合句法-语义规则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Declension of the Latin present participle in connection with its syntactico-semantic use
Abstract This paper deals with the declension of the Latin present active participle (ppa), which shows several inconsistencies: the ablative singular for instance may end in -e or in -i (sapiente, sapienti) and the genitive plural may end in -um or -ium (sapientum, sapientium). Some grammarians, notably modern ones, assume that there are syntactico-semantic considerations or circumstances, leading to ablative -e ending when verbal force is intended (such as in the ablative absolute) or substantival force, and to -i ending when there is nominal, notably adjectival force. I have investigated whether ancient, medieval and modern grammarians treat such a phenomenon. In addition, I looked for inconsistencies in the grammarian’s own ppa declension from this syntactico-semantic point of view. It turns out that ancient and medieval grammarians do not formulate declension of the ppa according to its syntactico-semantic function, with the exception of the anonymous author of the Ars Ambrosiana, nor do they decline their own ppa’s according to a conventional rule of this kind. This calls for other explanations regarding the declensional inconsistencies observed. Some of the ppa forms may reflect a temporary phenomenon which would have disappeared in due course through diachronic evolution and paradigm leveling. Some forms may have persisted because of their frequency and idiomatic force or because of the compelling analogy with other words and phrases. But these ppa declensional variations do not appear to conform to a syntactico-semantic rule.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
50.00%
发文量
5
期刊最新文献
Future expressions in a sixth-century Latin translation of Josephus From deceit to pain: Late Latin dolus and the interplay between semantics and analogy Roman tablets as linguistic corpora: evidence for phonological variation in 2nd c. Latin Iterative or stative? New morphosemantic analyses of Latin lūgeō ‘mourn’ and doleō ‘feel pain’ Multiplication, addition, and subtraction in numerals: formal variation in Latin’s decads+ from an Indo-European perspective
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1