Volume 24, Issue 1

Latin, like several other Indo-European languages, resorts to (at least) two distinct syntactic patterns to form comparative complementation: clausal comparatives, where the degree taken as the standard of comparison is expressed by a full or reduced clause introduced by a particle, generally quam ; phrasal comparatives, where the standard of comparison is represented by a single phrase, typically an NP or a DP, marked for the ablative case. The aim of this contribution, couched within the Principles and Parameters framework, is to clarify the derivation of these two constructions. In fact, the analytic options available turn out to be quite restricted. There is little doubt that all particle constructions originate as full clauses and can be reduced/elided when the lexical/structural environment allows it. As for the ablative construction, the direct analysis, in which the case-marked nominal is directly inserted in the immediate vicinity of the comparative word X- er , is quite natural. However, following recent analyses developed for other languages, we will argue that phrasal comparatives are also derived from clauses in which the CP layer is silent, except for its specifier, which is the position in which the standard is marked for the ablative case. This analysis succeeds in transparently representing and explaining the quite unusual restriction formulated by some Latin scholars, according to which the ablative competes with the quam construction only when it represents what would be a nominative or an accusative in a quam -clause. Our conclusions are supported by a careful analysis of quam- constructions (Section 2), where distributional properties, the behavior of reflexives and of negative polarity items, and the reduction processes involved are precisely explored, and by a precise account of the case-construction (Section 3), in which the structure behind it is carefully probed, keeping in mind the claim that the restrictions it obeys reflect the effect of general morphological and syntactic formal principles.

This article reexamines a thorny and much-debated issue of Latin and Romance studies, i.e. the loss of contrastive vowel length, which Latin had but which did not survive into any Romance language. Among the crucial evidence for assessing the chronology and exact course of the demise of Latin vowel length are the metalinguistic testimonies of grammarians. These have recently received accurate treatment and have been invoked by some (most notably, M. Mancini) to oppose the traditional view, dating back to H. Schuchardt, according to which contrastive vowel length was lost when an open syllable lengthening rule came into being, and to argue instead that its demise was caused by a sound change lengthening all stressed vowels independently of syllable structure during the imperial age. The present article reassesses the relevant testimonies by the grammarians placing them first within the framework of the artigraphic tradition to which they pertain and thereby weighing their value as witnesses to ongoing sound change, concluding that the evidence supports the traditional view. The latter is, finally, further corroborated by prosodic evidence from Gellius’ Noctes Atticae and Virgilius grammaticus’ Epitomae , who, at both ends of the period under consideration, attest to the fading of the vowel length contrast and to the subordination of vowel length not only to stress but also to syllable structure.

In this short etymological note, we derive Lat. nota ‘mark, sign’ from the PIE root *gnet- ‘press, knead’ (OE cnedan , OCS gnetǫ , etc.). It is argued that nota < * gnoteh 2 initially denoted impressed or branded marks, in contradistinction to signum < *seknom (from the root of secō ‘cut’), which denoted carved or incised signs.

Etymological dictionaries of Latin – whether by Ernout and Meillet, Walde and Hofmann, or de Vaan – show that the origin of mulier remains uncertain. In response, the authors propose a new etymology, pursuing a previously unexplored approach. A formal analysis, grounded in historical phonetics and comparative Indo-European linguistics, is complemented by a cultural interpretation of the hypothesized meaning. This latter perspective likewise reveals notable parallels with conceptions attested in other Indo-European traditions.

The etymology of Latin signum ‘mark, sign’ and its Sabellic cognates such as Oscan segnúm ‘statue’ has long been disputed. I reevaluate the two main hypotheses as to what verbal root of Proto-Indo-European underlies these forms: * sekH - ‘cut’ (Lat. secō ) or * sek w - ‘follow’ (Lat. sequor ). The former, though well received among scholars, will turn out to be problematic from a phonological standpoint; while the syncope of the vocalized laryngeal in the putative reconstruction * sekH - no - and the subsequent voicing assimilation of * k before n could account for Latin signum , the same explanation is not applicable to the Sabellic data due to the forms like Oscan akeneí ‘year’ with a voiceless velar. The reconstruction * sek w - no - thus enables us to pursue a unitary treatment for both Latin and Sabellic. Furthermore, I argue that the wide range of semantics of signum can be better explained by * sek w -. As the Germanic derivative * sek w - ni - shows (e.g., Gothic siuns ‘sight, appearance’), the underlying notion ‘follow’ of the verbal root is used as not only ‘physically follow’ but also ‘visually follow’; this binary value is sufficiently broad to encompass the various senses of our ‘sign’ words.