Crossing diachrony and synchrony: the case of Italian nominal plural

Nicola Lampitelli

1

Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages 38 Urbana-Champaign, 6th-8th of April, 2008

The case of Italian nominal plural: diachrony and synchrony Nicola Lampitelli, University of Paris VII, UFR de Linguistique ([email protected]) HU

[0]

UH

Intro

This work stems from both the traditional historical linguistics (Ernout, 1953; Beneveniste, 1984; Väänänen, 1963; Rohlfs, 1969 among others) and the general theoretical framework of Distributed Morphology (DM) (Halle & Marantz, 1993; Marantz, 1997; Embick & Noyer, 2004 among others). I aim to demonstrate that the Italian noun plural marker is one single item for both masculine and feminine genders and that its phonological form is /i/. I aim to demonstrate that it originated from Latin plural accusatives.

[1.0] The data: Latin and Italian nouns (1) singulars: a] b]

Latin nouns declension I M F NOM poeta rosa ACC poetam rosam gloss poet rose

declension II M F lupus fagus lupum fagum wolf beech

N ovum ovuum egg

plurals: c] d]

declension I declension II M F M F N NOM poetae rosae lupī fagī ova ACC poetās rosās lupōs fagōs ova gloss poets roses wolves beeches eggs (gender predictability for decl. I and II)

(2) singulars: a]

Italian nouns: “-a group” M F poeta rosa gloss poet rose U

U

U

U

plurals: b]

1

“-a group” M F poeti rose gloss poets roses U

U

U

U

declension III M F dux pax ducem pacem leader peace

declension III M F N ducēs pacēs corpora ducēs pacēs corpora leaders peaces bodies (no gender predictability)

“-o group” M F1 lupo wolf

“-e group” M F duce pace leader peace

“-o group” M F lupi wolves

“-e group” M F duci paci leaders peaces

F

U

F

U

U

U

There is only one F noun in this group: mano-mani (hand(s)).

N corpus corpus body

U

U

U

U

U

U

Crossing diachrony and synchrony: the case of Italian nominal plural

2

Nicola Lampitelli

[1.1] Some general remarks on nouns: (3) (4) (5) (6)

Declensions IV and V have disappeared and they were absorbed by declensions I, II and III. The Italian system is slightly simpler than Latin one: a] No more syntactic cases b] Neuter agreement disappeared Format of Italian nouns = [… V#] ; Vsg = a, o, e Vpl = e, i Plural isogloss, discussed here, in Romance; West: Pl = [s] / East: Pl = [i]. The classical hypothesis explains this isogloss using the distinction ACC/NOM for [s] and [i] plurals, respectively.

[1.2] The morphological hypothesis (MH) & the phonetic hypothesis (PH) (7)

(8)

(9)

MP: Rohlfs (1969); Meyer-Lubke (1985); Tekavčić (1972) and others have always claimed that Italian plural nouns derive from Latin plural nominatives: decl. gen. LT IT IT gen (gloss) I F rosae → rose F roses II M lupī → lupi M wolves PH: Reichenkron (1939); Äbischer (1960 & 1961); Maiden (1996) have claimed that a different hypothesis is conceivable for Italian feminine [-e] plural: the base would be Latin declension I accusative: decl. gen. LT → IT gen. (gloss) I F rosās → rose F roses They all postulate the following phonetic evolution, that is vocalisation of the fricative s→š→i

[1.3] MH and PH compared (10) a] b] c] d] e]

Latin → Italian following MH decl. singular gen I poetam → poeta M I rosam → rosa F II lupum → lupo M III ducem → duce M III pacem → pace F

plural poetae → *poete (analogy) → poeti rosae → rose lupī → lupi ducēs → *duce (analogy) → duci pacēs → *pace (analogy) → paci

gen M F M M F

(11)

Analogy is needed to reinterpret data in 10.a, 10.d and 10.e (Cf. Rohfls, 1969; Tekavcic, 1972; Meyer-Lübke, 1985).

(12)

Latin accusatives used as nominatives (Väänänen, 1963:84; Tekavčić, 1972:47; Maiden, 1996:150; Rohlfs, 1969:II, 28; Renzi & Andreose, 2003:227): a] hic quescunt duas matres duas filias ([CIL] III, 3551; Budapest, Hungary) Two mothers and two daughters rest in peace here b] filios et nepotes memoria patri posuerunt ([CIL] VIII, 7476; Cirta, Algeria) The sons and the nephews built in the memory of the father c] et animas eorum sepulta sunt in inferno (Carta di Arborea, Italy) And their souls are buried in the hell We also have one examples from archaic Latin (V-I centuries B.C.): a] quot laetitias insperatas modo mi inrepsere in sinum (Atellan by L. Pomponius) How many un expected nice things took hold of my heart

(13)

Crossing diachrony and synchrony: the case of Italian nominal plural (14) a] b] c] d] e] (15) a] b]

Nicola Lampitelli

3

Latin → Italian following PH decl. singular gen I poetam → poeta M I rosam → rosa F II lupum → lupo M III ducem → duce M III pacem → pace F

plural poetās → poetai → *poete rosās → rosai → rose lupōs → lupoi *→ lupi ducēs → ducei → duci pacēs → pacei → paci

gen M F M M F

As you can see in 14, two forms need an explanation: decl I M Pl ACC poetās → poetai → *poete instead of grammatical [poeti] This form is phonetically correct, but it is agrammatical in modern Italian. decl II M Pl ACC lupōs → lupoi *→ lupi This form need a phonetic interpretation, because how could the diphthong -oi → -i?

(16)

PH as expressed in Reichenkron (1939); Äbischer (1960 & 1961) and Maiden (1996) gives a partial explanation about the origin of Italian plural marker.

(17)

Arguments for a phonetic evolution s → i a] Monosyllabic Latin words as nōs ‘we’, vōs ‘you (pl)’ and post ‘after’ gave the following words in Italian, respectively: [noi] ‘we’, [voi] ‘you (pl)’ and [poi] ‘after’. This is a clear example of the evolution s → i. b] 2nd singular person in verbs: conj. Latin Italian (gloss) conj Latin Italian (gloss) I cantās canti you sing II vidēs vedi you see III legĭs leggi you read IV dormīs dormi you hear

(18)

I reject MH because: a] It stems from the idea that Pl NOM is the base of Italian plurals (this is in contradiction with the majority of Romance languages; b] It needs to use an analogical process to justify the unique modern plural [i].

(19)

I accept PH because: a] It stems from the idea the Pl ACC is the base of Italian plurals, unifying Romance nominal system origins; b] It explains a larger number of noun types comparing to MH. c] The output stage of PH represents the underlying modern Italian nominal forms as you can see below (cf. [2]).

[2]

An organic and unified one hypothesis:

I recall the general theoretical framework of Distributed Morphology (henceafter DM) (Halle & Marantz, 1993; Embick & Halle, 2003; Embick & Noyer, 2004 and Marantz, 1997 among others), the Theory of Elements ([KLV], 1985 & 1990) and the general theoretical framework of CV syllable type (Lowenstamm, 1996 & (to appear)). (20)

I accept PH and I claim that M plurals too derive from declension II Pl ACC -ōs.

(21)

I call this hypothesis organic because it provides an organic and unique evolution for the entire system of modern Italian plurals.

(22)

The change between Latin and Italian reflects a change in the syntactic structure:

U

U

Crossing diachrony and synchrony: the case of Italian nominal plural a] b] c]

Nicola Lampitelli

4

Case was lost Thematic vowels/declensions were lost The evolution oi → i has been caused by syntactic change

[2.1] The steps of syntactic evolution: from Latin to Italian nouns (23) a]

Latin nouns structure evolution: from Latin to Italian nouns STEP 1 b] STEP 2 loss of case and ThP Acc, pl pl case/numP numP case/num ACC [-sg] n [αF]

nP

num [-sg] ThP

Th Decl{I-V} CV

CV

nP n [αF]

√ {1-2}

√ CVC[..]

CVC[..]

Agr c]

STEP 3: Italian plurals pl numP num [-sg]

nP n [αF]

V U

U

√P Spec √ group{1-2} | Agr CVCVC(V)

1] case/num node hosts accusative and plural marker; it is provided by a syllable CV. 2] n hosts the gender, as in Kihm (2002) and Lowenstamm (to appear); it bears a syllable CV. 3] Th bears the information about the declension. Via an agreement operation with n, a vowel appears (the so called thematic vowel). 4] once case is lost, the syllable associated to the node case/numP is lost too. No more place exist for the plural marker. 5] the syllable CV in nP is also lost, this means that the thematic vowel can’t any more be associated to the structure. 6] the declensions disappear following the general tendency of the majority of romance language. But Italian maintains a double distinction in the expression of gender (expressed by {i-ii} in 28.b). This mirrors the situation in modern Italian as shown in 3: -group {i}: -a for F and -o for M (rosa/lupo) -group {ii}: -e for both genders. (duce/pace) 7] in the structure shown in 23.b, the information {1} and {2} have no template to be associated to. This is information is provided by the root. 8] the most important topic of Italian nouns is that their nP have a free V (underlined) that hosts all the morphological operations on nouns (group marker, gender and number).

Crossing diachrony and synchrony: the case of Italian nominal plural

Nicola Lampitelli

5

[2.2] The theory explains the data (24) a]

STEP 1: Latin plural accusatives lupōs Decl I, M, Acc, pl case/numP case/num ACC [-sg] n [-F]

nP ThP

i output:

CV | ō Agr [lupōs]

rosās Decl. II, F, Acc, pl case/numP case/num ACC [-sg] n [+F]

Th Decl{II} CV | s

b]

√ CVCV | | | LUP

nP ThP Th Decl{I}

i

CV | s

CV | ā Agr [rosās]

√ CVCV | | | ROS

(25)

Intermediate forms They are [lupoi] and [rosai]: the structures in 24a and 24b explain both forms. Actually the structure doesn’t change from lupōs → lupoi and from rosās → rosai respectively. (This is the output stage of PH, as explained above in 19)

(26) a]

STEP 2: Loss of Case and Thematic Vowels (ThP disappears) numP numP num [-sg]

nP n [-F]

√ {1}

(27) a]

nP

i output:

b]

rose

group {i}, F, pl numP

num [-sg] √P

Spec group{1}

nP n [+F]

√

V CVC | | | | o Agr LUP [lupi] because [*lupœ] U

CVCV | | | ROS [*ros]

STEP 3: Italian plural nouns lupi group {i}, M, pl numP

n [-F]

√ {1}

i

[*lup]

num [-sg]

nP n [+F]

CVCV | | | LUP

i output:

num [-sg]

√P Spec group{1}

U

V | a U

i

U

√ CVCV | | | ROS U

Agr [rose]

Crossing diachrony and synchrony: the case of Italian nominal plural

Nicola Lampitelli

6

b] The information about the group is hosted in Spec√P, all the others nodes being already occupied. c] The free V position in the root template is the site of the association of group/gender vowel and plural marker. The parametric choice of Italian is that any operation on nouns must occupies this position, otherwise no association is possible. d] [KLV]’s (1985; 1990) Theory of Elements explains why /A.I/=[e] and why in a language such Italian, the operation /o.I/=[œ/ø] is not allowed. Front rounded vowels don’t exist in Italian vocalic system. Plural marker wins the competition with group/gender vowel.

[3]

Diachrony and synchrony together

(28)

For crossing diachrony and synchrony, I mean the comparison between STEP 3 (cf. 27) and modern Italian nouns structure.

Following [KLV] (1985 & 1990) and Lowenstamm (1996), I represent both the diachrony and the synchrony as it follows. (29)

Rose-type plural nouns Diachrony

a]

√ {I} ACC/Pl | | | ros a s | | | | | CVCV+CVn+CVcase/num

b]

√ | ros | | | CVCV

c]

√ {1}-- [+F] | | ros a | | | | CVC+V

d]

[rose]

(30)

a]

U

Synchrony

a]

√ {1}-- [+F] | | ros a | | | | CVC+V

b]

√ {1}-- [+F] Pl | | | ros a i | | | | CVC+V

U

Pl | i

U

{1} Pl | | a i

Pl | i

U

c]

Lupi-type plural nouns Diachrony √ {II} ACC/Pl | | | lup o s | | | | | CVCV+CVn+CVcase/num

U

U

[rose] Synchrony

a]

√ {1}-- [-F] Pl | | | lup o i | | | | CVC+V U

U

Crossing diachrony and synchrony: the case of Italian nominal plural

b]

√ | lup | | | CVCV

c]

√ {1}-- [-F] Pl | | | lupo i | | | CVC+V

d] (31)

U

Nicola Lampitelli

7

{1} Pl | | o s

U

[lupi]

b] c]

√ {1}-- [-F] Pl | | | lupo i | | | CVC+V U

[lupi]

Poeti-type plural nouns An important question arises now: do roots without group specification exist in Italian? If so, these nouns should have -i on the plural. These roots actually exist, such as √POET yielding poeta (sg) - poeti (pl) M (poet(s)). Diachrony

Synchrony

a]

√ {I} ACC/Pl | | | po e t a s | | | | | | CVCVCV+CVn+CVcase/num

b]

√ | po et | | | | CVCVCV

c]

√ [-F] | po et | | | | CVCVC+V

d]

[poeti]

U

a]

√ {ø} [-F] Pl | | po e t i | | | | CVCVC+V

b]

√ [-F] Pl | | po e t i | | | | CVCVC+V

U

U

Pl | s

U

Pl | i

c]

U

[poeti]

[4]

Conclusions

(32)

I explained why the form lupos gives lupi in Italian by means of DM.

(33)

Diachrony confirms the hypothesis that the plural marker is one single item, that is /i/.

(34)

The change is syntactic and not phonetic. The structure obliges the language to have just a vocalic marker to pluralize.

Crossing diachrony and synchrony: the case of Italian nominal plural

[5]

8

Nicola Lampitelli

References

Äbischer, P. (1960) La finale -e du féminin pluriel italien, in Studi Linguistici Italiani, I:5-48. ---- (1961) La finale -i des pluriels italiens et ses origines, in Studi Linguistici Italiani, II:73-111. Benveniste, E (1984) Origine de la formation des noms en indo-européen, Paris:Maisonneuve. Brugmann, K., Bloch, J., Cuny, A. & A. Ernout (1905) Abrégé de grammaire comparée des langues indoeuropéennes, Paris:Klincksieck. [CIL]: Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (1862-1925) Consilio et auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Regiae Borussicae editum. 17 Bd. de Gruyter, Berlin 1.1862 ff. (Reimer, Berlin 1862-1925). Embick, D. & M. Halle (2003) On the status of stems in Morphological Theory, in T. Geerts and H. Jacobs eds. Proceedings of Going Romance 2003, Amsterdam, John Benjamins. Embick, D. & R. Noyer (2004) Distributed Morphology and the Syntax/Morphology Interface, ms. University of Pennsylvania. Ernout, A. (1953) Morphologie historique du latin, Paris:Klincksieck. Giacalone Ramat, A. & P. Ramat (1993) Le lingue indoeuropee, Bologna:Il Mulino. Halle, M. & A. Marantz (1993) Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection, The view from the Building 20, K. Hale & S. J. Kayser, eds. MIT Press. Harris, J. W. (1991) The exponent of gender in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 27-62. [KLV]: Kaye, J., Lowenstamm, J. & J. R. Vergnaud (1985), The internal structure of phonological elements : a theory of charm and government, Phonology Yearbook 2:305-328. ---- (1990), Constituent structure in phonology, Phonology Yearbook 7, 2:193-231. Kihm, A. (2002) What's in a Noun: Noun Classes, Gender, and Nounness, ms., Univ. Paris 7. Igartua, I. (2006) Genus alternans in Indo-European, in Indogermanische Forschung, Band 111:56-70, Berlin:De Gruyter. Longobardi, G. (2001) Formal Syntax, Diachronic Minimalism and Etymology: The History of French Chez, Linguistic Inquiry 32, 2:275-302. Lowenstamm, J. (1996) CV as the only syllable type, in Current trends in Phonology. Models and Methods, Durand J. & B. Lakes eds, Salford, Mancherster (ESRI):419-441. ---- (to appear) “On n, ROOT, and types of nouns”, in Hartmann, J.M., V. Hegedus and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.) (2008) Sounds of Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology. [North Holland Linguistic Series, Linguistic Variations Volume 63]. Amsterdam:Elsevier. Maiden M. (1996) On the Romance Inflectional Endings -i and -e, in Romance Philology I. 2:147-182. Marantz, A. (1997) No Escape from Syntax: Don’t try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon, in University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2: 201-225. Meiser, G. (1998) Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der Lateinischen Sprache, Darmstadt:Wissen-schaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Meyer-Lübke, W. (1974) Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen, Leipzig:O.R. Reisland. ---- (1985II) Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei dialetti toscani, Torino:Loescher. Monaci, E. (1955) Crestomazia italiana dei primi secoli con prospetto grammaticale e glossario. RomaNapoli:Società Editrice Dante Alighieri. Niedermann, M. (1953) Phonétique historique du latin, 3ème éd., Paris:Klincksieck. Reichenkron, G. (1939) Beiträge zur romanischen Lautlehre, Jena-Leipzig:Gronau. Renzi, L. & A. Andreose (2003) Manuale di linguistica e filologia romanza, Bari:Laterza. Rohlfs, G. (1969) Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, Torino:Einaudi. Sabatini, F. (1965) Sull’origine dei plurali italiani: il tipo in -i. in Studi Linguistici Italiani, V:5-39. Sornicola, R. (2007) Riflessioni sullo studio del cambiamento morfosintattico dalla prospettiva di un romanista: sincronia e diacronia rivisitate, Revue de Linguistique Romane 71, 5-64. Stotz, P. (1998) Handbuch zur lateinische Sprache des Mittelalters, München:Verlag C. H. Beck. Tekavčič, P. (1972) Grammatica storica dell’italiano, Bologna:Il Mulino. Thornton, A. (2001) Some reflections on gender and inflectional class assignment in Italian, in C. SchanerWalles, J. Reminson & Neubarth F. eds. Naturally! Linguistic studies in honour of Wolfagang Ulrich Dressler, Torino, Rosengerd & Sellier. Väänänen, V. (1934) Le nominatif pluriel en -ās dans le latin vulgaire, in Neuphilologische Mitteilungen XXXV 3/4:81-95. ---- (1959II) Le latin vulgaire des inscriptions Pompéiennes, Berlin:Akademie Wissenschaften. ---- (1963) Introduction au latin vulgaire, Paris:Klincksieck.