A handbook of Christian Latin: style, morphology, and syntax - Albert Blaise - Google Livres
Items 1 - 10 of Greek & Latin Literature 1 · Greek & Latin Linguistics 3 . Sound and Grammar: A Neo-Sapirian Theory of Language by Susan F. based on the work of the early American linguist Edward Sapir, supplemented with ideas . The book focuses on the grammatical relations and their coding in cas See More. A. Blaise A Handbook of Christian Latin: Style, Morphology and Syntax p., x mm, original edition: , reprint, ISBN: Items 1 - 10 of Greek & Latin Literature 1 · Greek & Latin Linguistics 3 .. Sound and Grammar: A Neo-Sapirian Theory of Language by Susan F. based on the work of the early American linguist Edward Sapir, supplemented with ideas . The book focuses on the grammatical relations and their coding in cas See More.
Morphology & Syntax | brill
Hierarchy might be seen as a multivalued dependency pattern in a certain domain. Many such dependencies including hierarchicalhave been discovered by Joseph Greenberg, one of the founding fathers of linguistic typology. In the present context it is relevant that Greenberg proposed that cases can be ranked on the following markedness hierarchy: One pertains to formal marking; Dative is more likely to be overtly marked than Accusative and Accusative is more likely to be overtly marked than Nominative which in many languages does not have an overt marker.
Furthermore, this hierarchy aims at capturing implicational relation; thus the presence of the Accusative case entails the presence of the Nominative case in a language system. This latter aspect has been taken further by Barry Blake, the author of the classic textbook on Case published by Cambridge University Press. Blake proposed a more elaborate version of the hierarchy as presented below: Blake provided some evidence for the hierarchy looking at composition of case systems across languages.
This hierarchy is of course of great interest for typology, as it is an example, on the possible constraints on the grammatical systems here, case systems. A full-scale typological validation of the hierarchy is still outstanding, but certain findings in the literature have been corroborated by typological and corpus studies in particular, in the writings of John Hawkins.
Furthermore, relevance of Case Hierarchy have been partly corroborated through psycholinguistic research. For example, cross-linguistic studies of language acquisition confirmed that cases higher on the hierarchy are acquired earlier cross-linguistically. Furthermore, psycholinguistic research also revealed that language comprehension violations resulting from a substitution of higher case for the lower one in ungrammatical sentences, when accusative replaces dative are felt as less severe as compared to violations of the opposite kind.
The Grammar of Words: An Introduction to Linguistic Morphology
This interpretation is, however, more contentious since a simple hierarchy like this cannot really capture all the semantic relations between cases and all the possibilities of syncretism, or, broader, polysemy patterns. Explaining cross-linguistically frequent polysemy patterns such as allative-dative polysemyneeds a more complex network, such as semantic maps. Semantic maps are typological constructs aiming at capturing regular polysemy patterns across languages and also diachronic developments.
These multidimensional representations can explain more realistically how cases can develop, extend their meanings and merge. Case system of West Greenlandic Eskimo as represented on the map of case functions from: Handbook of case, Labels on the map stand for individual case roles: A nice thing about semantic maps is that the posited configuration of functions is assumed to be universal, only extensions of certain markers across the functions on the map would be different for different languages.
Directions for future research and related projects case, valency, grammaticalization Constructed Languages Linguist Marc van Oostendorp on international communication, beautiful and ugly sounds, and paradox of constructed languages After working on case in a project led by Helen de Hoop at the University of Nijmegen HollandI was involved in typological projects at Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig. We started with a selection of 80 verb meanings and studied their case frames across languages, to see whether certain verbs are more likely to share the case frame in the same way as some other verbs.
First two dimensions of a multidimensional scaling showing clustering of microroles for the 80 verbs in the ValPaL data from: Identifying semantic role clusters and alignment types via microrole co-expression tendencies. For clarity, Medieval Latin more frequently includes an explicit subject: Various changes occurred in vocabulary, and certain words were mixed into different declensions or conjugations.
Many new compound verbs were formed. Some words retained their original structure but drastically changed in meaning: Owing to heavy use of biblical terms, there was a large influx of new words borrowed from Greek and Hebrew and even some grammatical influences.
That obviously largely occurred among priests and scholars, not the laity. In general, it is difficult to express abstract concepts in Latin, as many scholars admitted.
For example, Plato's abstract concept of "the Truth" had to be expressed in Latin as "what is always true". Medieval scholars and theologians, translating both the Bible and Greek philosophers into Latin out of the Koine and Classical Greek, cobbled together many new abstract concept words in Latin. Syntax[ edit ] Indirect discourse, which in Classical Latin was achieved by using a subject accusative and infinitive, was now often simply replaced by new conjunctions serving the function of English "that" such as quod, quia, or quoniam.
There was a high level of overlap between the old and new constructions, even within the same author's work, and it was often a matter of preference. A particularly famous and often cited example is from the Venerable Bedeusing both constructions within the same sentence: The resulting subordinate clause often used the subjunctive mood instead of the indicative.
This new syntax for indirect discourse is among the most prominent features of Medieval Latin, the largest syntactical change. Several substitutions were often used instead of subjunctive clause constructions. They did not break the rules of Classical Latin but were an alternative way to express the same meaning, avoiding the use of a subjunctive clause. The present participle was frequently used adverbially in place of qui or cum clauses, such as clauses of time, cause, concession, and purpose.
That was loosely similar to the use of the present participle in an ablative absolute phrase, but the participle did not need to be in the ablative case.
Habeo I have [to] and "Debeo" I must would be used to express obligation more often than the gerundive. Given that obligation inherently carries a sense of futurity "Carthage must be destroyed" at some point in the futureit anticipates how the Romance languages such as French would use "habeo" as the basis for their future tenses abandoning the Latin forms of the future tense.
In Medieval Latin, however, it was still indirect discourse and not yet used as simply a future tense. Instead of a clause introduced by ut or ne, an infinitive was often used with a verb of hoping, fearing, promising, etc. Conversely, some authors might haphazardly switch between the subjunctive and indicative forms of verbs, with no intended difference in meaning.
The usage of sum changed significantly: Further, many medieval authors did not feel that it made sense for the perfect passive construction "laudatus sum" to use the present tense of esse in a past tense construction so they began using fui, the past perfect of sum, interchangeably with sum.
Chaos in the usage of demonstrative pronouns. Hic, ille, iste, and even the intensive ipse are often used virtually interchangeably. In anticipation of Romance languages, hic and ille were also frequently used simply to express the definite article "the", which Classical Latin did not possess.
Unus was also used for the indirect article "a, an". Use of reflexives became much looser. A reflexive pronoun in a subordinate clause might refer to the subject of the main clause. The reflexive possessive suus might be used in place of a possessive genitive such as eius. Comparison of adjectives changed somewhat. The comparative form was sometimes used with positive or superlative meaning. Also, the adverb "magis" was often used with a positive adjective to indicate a comparative meaning,and multum and nimis could be used with a positive form of adjective to give a superlative meaning.
Classical Latin used the ablative absolute, but as stated above, in Medieval Latin examples of nominative absolute or accusative absolute may be found. This was a point of difference between the ecclesiastical Latin of the clergy and the "Vulgar Latin" of the laity, which existed alongside it.
The educated clergy mostly knew that traditional Latin did not use the nominative or accusative case in such constructions, but only the ablative case. These constructions are observed in the medieval era, but they are changes that developed among the uneducated commoners.
Classical Latin does not distinguish progressive action in the present tense, thus laudo can mean either "I praise" or "I am praising". Introductions are not always useful, but good editions of texts in which the language is unusual or excessively difficult generally do contain at least a brief outline of the salient linguistic features of the text; and if the edition is good, the editor probably knows the language of the text better than anyone else.
Oxford University Press, However, it is a strictly classical dictionary, not going beyond the 2nd century, and thus excluding most of the corpus of patristic Latin from its definitions.
Medieval Latin was profoundly influenced by the Vulgate and by the Church fathers, so while the OLD is, of course, very useful, for medievalists, Lewis and Short is probably better: Perhaps worse organised than the OLD, it is nevertheless useful for the medievalist because it includes in its compass Late Latin, thus incorporating many definitions based on patristic texts and the Vulgate.The verb & its arguments: verbs as functions, nouns as arguments (Lesson 1 of 4)
Be warned that the first definition is not by any means necessary or likely to be the most common one! Lewis and Short lists the etymological definition first, and thus the first definition is frequently the least common usage. But if you are patient and have reasonably good eyesight, you should find what you are looking for. Lewis and Short can be consulted online at Perseus. Medieval Latin expands greatly, perhaps especially after aboutand there is no single dictionary that can work for all of it.
Lewis and Short, while useful for Late Latin, is not good enough even for that, and when dealing with later texts, especially with technical material including theology, jurisprudence, charters, wills, etc. A word of caution: These meanings rarely, if ever, supersede completely the classical meanings.
Medieval Latin - Wikipedia
Moreover, many dictionaries of Medieval Latin do not even list words that are glossed adequately for the purposes of medievalists in the standard classical dictionaries though which one is the standard varies depending on the language of the lexicographer of the dictionary you use! Thus a similar situation obtains as with grammars: In addition to the dictionaries listed below, many repositories of sources such as the MGH series of diplomata; the MGH volumes may be viewed and searched online at www.
- Grammatical Case: Morphology, Syntax, and Word Order
- Follow the Author
This is, of course, not always possible with all dictionaries; but words change or take on new meanings, sometimes drastically different from what you will find in the first dictionary you consult, or under the first definition of the word.
A definition valid for Late Latin, based on a text from Egyptmight not be equally valid for the Carolingian kingdom east of the Rhine ; similarly, a word used in a treatise on secular law might not mean the same thing in a strictly theological tract.
This is a real pain, I know, but sensitivity to this issue can save you from major howlers the fact that established and well-reputed scholars are not immune to such howlers should not encourage you to be lazy. The standard dictionary of Medieval Latin insofar as there can be a standard is J. J Burgers, 2 vols Leiden: Brill, ; this should generally be your first port of call for anything not satisfactorily explained in Lewis and Short and Niermeyer sometimes provides better definitions, for medievalists, even of words apparently satisfactorily explained in Lewis and Short.
The definitions are in French, English, and German. Its chronological range is roughly from to Niermeyer is very useful especially because it provides examples, and some times a large number of them, in almost every definition; the editors also take pains to try and list the first attested use of a word in any particular sense though this should be used only as a rough guide for dates of particular usages, not as absolute fact. Another useful dictionary covering the period between around and around is Albert Blaise, Lexicon Latinatis medii aevi praesertim ad res ecclesiasticas pertinens Turnhout: The definitions are in Latin; it is in ten volumes and unwieldy.
But when you are working on obscure topics, dealing with wills and charters that list household articles or agricultural tools, you will often find Du Cange is very helpful. Du Cange is available online in scanned image files here and hereand as a fully searchable tool with a French interface here.
For the much smaller chronological scope of Late Latin, the standard works are Albert Blaise ed. Brepols, ; and Alexander Souter ed. Clarendon Press, ; the latter provides brief definitions only, no examples.
Another dictionary, handy because of its portability, is E.