Band 19, Heft 1

This paper analyzes uses, functions, and literary distribution of the negative politeness formula si placet ‘(lit.) if it pleases (you)’ in a corpus of Late Latin texts (third–sixth century CE). Drawing on both qualitative and quantitative observations, it is suggested that the pragmatic enrichment undergone by this conditional parenthetical clause is due to a conspiracy of factors, namely a process of semantic and pragmatic change fostered by a “politeness-induced invited inference” (Beeching 2005), which was triggered by a general process of literary imitation within the very specific discourse tradition of philosophical dialogues. The analysis shows, indeed, that si placet is very rarely used in the history of Latin and it is circumscribed to this specific literary genre. This suggests that this politeness formula developed as a genre-specific stylistic feature and as such it was replicated over centuries through the circulation of textual models and the propagation of genre-related practices, as a valuable linguistic device to render the idea of an urbane conversation among educated peers and, ultimately, as a marker of socio-cultural identity.

This paper provides an analysis of the variables that determine the syntactic distribution of ecce , a presentative adverb in Latin. Traditionally, grammarians have simply regarded ecce as an adverb (similar to here ) or an interjection (similar to hey! ) but this lexicographic view misses important syntactic phenomena. For example, adverbs in Latin can follow subjects, but ecce cannot. Interjections can be used as single words to express surprise, but ecce , as a presentative, is never used in the absence of a following determiner phrase (DP). Two corpora of almost seven million Latin words ranging from ∼200 BCE to 1800 CE were analyzed for instances of ecce . Adopting a cartographic approach, results suggest that ecce , as a presentative, is base-generated in the head of a Focus phrase (FocP) projection in the matrix clause. This is confirmed through its consistent precedence of subjects, scope over left-dislocated constituents in [Spec, FocP], and its ungrammaticality in the embedded domain. This study brings to light several theoretical implications for the under-studied category of presentatives by showing how discourse and hierarchical properties license the use of ecce and restrict its contexts of use.

The Council of Chalcedon was a multilingual event, but its multilingual situation was unbalanced. Most attendees spoke Greek, which was de facto the official language of the council. The Roman delegates spoke in Latin, presumably for symbolic reasons, and their statements were translated simultaneously into Greek. The difference of language was no apparent obstacle to communication; this can be seen best in the third session, which was efficiently chaired by the chief of the Roman delegation. Although the translations recorded in the Acts are generally reliable, there are some differences between the Latin and Greek versions reflecting political differences between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople. Languages other than Greek and Latin were spoken, as for example Syriac, but their role was marginal. The original minutes of the Council of Chalcedon reflected the “unbalanced” multilingualism of the assembly; they were mostly in Greek but preserved some parts in Latin. With time, and with Latin fading in the East, they lost the parts in Latin and became unilingual; at the same time, the Greek Acts were translated into Latin for a Latin-speaking western audience.

This study deals both with action nouns as a semantic class of word formation and with nominalization as a derivational process via offering a lot of relevant data in a kind of typological confrontation. Oswald Panagl investigates Latin examples applying criteria such as productivity, regularity, semantic transparency and syntactic behavior. As a result, he denotes derivations in - tiōn as the most vivid and active type of action noun delivering almost countless tokens. As a special case he treats the nominalizations in - tu becoming productive when they establish the grammatical category of supine in - tum . This procedure of a switch from derivation to inflection represents a sort of grammaticalization. He offers a scale model of increasing concretization (action–result–instrument–location–agents) exemplified with items from a variety of languages. Fritz Schweiger’s research presents a series of data from the Australian languages (Alyawarra, Bunuba, Diyari, Djapu, Gumbaynggir, Guugu Yimidhirr, Kalkatungu, Uradhi, Wambaya, and Wardaman). The author defines and analyzes the morpholo gical principles of word formation in his linguistic material and classifies the data arte legis. Because of the specific situation and the complex interrelations within this linguistic group of tongues investigated in this paper, it seems nearly impossible to develop and apply criteria of the common sort for uncovering genealogical kinship.

After taking into account the points stressed by Dr. Biddau, I will show that he misinterpreted Varro, Ling . 9.80 and Cic. De orat . 45–46, two basic references of his discussion, and that he did not consider Cicero’s whole passage. On the other hand, he did not focus on the epigraphic situation at all, as it has been described recently by Adams (2007. The regional diversification of Latin 200 BC–AD 600 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.). Therefore, I reject as substantially ungrounded his criticism.