University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics

Volume 2 Issue 1 Working Papers Article 5

1-1-1995

Nominative-Accusative Syncretism and Syntactic Case

Don Ringe

Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl

Recommended Citation Ringe, Don (1995) "Nominative-Accusative Syncretism and Syntactic Case," University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Vol. 2 : Iss. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol2/iss1/5

This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol2/iss1/5 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Nominative-Accusative Syncretism and Syntactic Case

This working paper is available in University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol2/iss1/5 Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 2 (1995)

Nominative-Accusative Syncretism and Syntactic Case erotism in that the Gsg.,2 Dsg., and Npl. are all characterized by the ending -ac, while the Dpi. and Abpl. both end in -is. I am NOT defining syncretism as the complete merger of morphosyntactic categories (which is what the term has usually meant in historical linguis DmRinge tics); thus the fact that the Proto-Indo-European (PE) instrumental case has completely Syncretism in inflectional paradigms is commonplace, and linguists who work with merged with the ablative in Latin is not "syncretism" under the definition used in this paper. Syncretism as here defined corresponds more or less exactly to Carstairs' "inflexional heavily inflecting languages develop intuitions about what kinds of syncretism are "natu homonymy" (Carstairs 1987:87-90) and Mciser's "formal syncretism" (Meiser 1992:188- ral", but the motivations of syncretism (on any level) are difficult to demonstrate rigorous ly.1 In this paper I hope to contribute to such a demonstration for nominative-accusative 90).3 It is clear that syncretism is a phenomenon of autonomous morphology, since rt (NA) syncretism. does not affect the syntax (Aronoff 1994:82-5). Theoreticians sometimes seem to take it After discussing the problem of what constitutes evidence (§1) and showing that for granted that particular instances of syncretism are principled, reflecting the covert struc many examples of syncretism can be historical accidents of no systematic relevance (§2), I ture of a language's inflectional morphology; examples that come readily to mind areJa- describe instances of NA syncretism in Ancient Greek (§3) and West Germanic (§4) that kobson (1966[I936], especially pp.83-8), Williams (1981:267-9), Pinker (1984:178-9). cannot readily be explained as accidental. I consider explanations of these phenomena from Zwicky (1985:374), and Luraghi (1991:63-6). Such proposals are usually plausible—for several theoretical points of view (§5) ami propose a morphosyntactic account in terms of example, it makes intuitive sense that the Dpi. and Abpl. should be syncrctized in Latin, Halle and Marantz' "Distributed Morphology" (§6); some general conclusions and sugges since they appear to be the two most "marked" cases—but it is not obvious that any particu tions for further work follow (§7). lar proposal is correct, since one also finds syncretisms that cannot possibly reflect the The "formalist" approach I have adopted in pursuing these questions is a reaction to structure of the paradigm (Jakobson 1966[1936]:52, McCreightand Chvany 1991:99). A more than a decade of frustration with traditional treatments of morphological change (such particularly clear example of the latter is the syncretism of Gsg. and Npl. in several classes as Kurytowicz 1949). It should therefore come as no surprise that I find unhelpful the of Latin nouns (I decl. -ae, U decl. mX -I. IV decl. m.f. -us); as Williams (1981:268-9) work of Wurzel (1984), Bybce (1985). Maiden (1992) and other scholars who have re observes, this can only be an accident, since Gsg. and Npl. share no grammatical features mained relatively close in spirit to traditional ways of thinking about these problems. Such under any reasonable analysis. (Bierwisch 1967:245-6 makes a similar point for German; approaches are unsatisfying in at least two ways. Though they correctly identify observ cf. also Joseph and Wallace 1984:322-3 on syncretism in Latin nominals, and see further abletendencies of change, they provide no principled explanation of changes that operate in below.) It seems clear that a rigorous investigation of syncretism must start with the op a direction contrary to our expectations; this is especially the case for those hypotheses that posite assumption: ANY instance of syncretism might be accidental; if we wish to provide a recognize competing tendencies, with which virtually any development can be "explained". cogent explanation for syncretism as a process of grammar, we must concentrate on those Moreover, all these scholars seem to be proceeding on the assumption that the least abstract syncretisms which we cannot actually explain as accidents. solutions available are preferable, and that more abstract approaches should be considered Carstairs (1987:90-102) argues for a distinction between accidental and systematic only as necessary. I can find no principle of linguistics that justifies this assumption; in homonymy in paradigms on distributional grounds; for example, he regards the syncretism fact, the entire enterprise of generative grammar represents a deliberate departure from such between Dpi. and Abpl. in Latin nominal declension as systematic because it is exception "bottom up" analyses. I am convinced that any truly explanatory account of inflectional less and cannot be described as the consequence of any independently motivated rule, while morphology must relate it to syntax, and for that reason I have tried to pursue questions most other syncretisms in the system of Latin noun inflection are considered accidental be about syncretism in the Government-Binding (GB) tradition, which provides a wealth of cause they do not occur in all lexical classes.4 This is also the approach of Zwicky (1985: theoretical tools for such an inquiry. 374-5). One can define the terms this way, but that tells us little about the principles of Readers should be advised that sections 2, 3, and 4 present large amounts of mor syncretism and perhaps nothing at all about the motivations for it; observation of the syn- phological data in great detail; syntacticians may wish to read those sections relatively tight ly, concentrating on the conclusions rather than on the details of the data. 2 I use the following abbreviations for case, number, and gender markers: N = nominative. Ac = accusa 1 Definitions and approaches tive. G = genitive. D = dative, Ab = ablative, I = instrumental, V = vocative; A = accusative in languages with no ablative case; sg. = singular, du. = dual, pi. = plural; masc. or m- = masculine, fern, or f. = femi I define syncretism as the morpho logical expression of contrasting morphosyntactic nine, neul. or n. = neuter. "Declensions" are lexical classes ofnouns, identifiable by their patterns of categories, or combinations of such categories, by the same affix or morphological pro inflectional endings; Latin declensions are identified with Roman numerals according to the traditional

cess. For example, the Latin paradigm of "first declension" (I decl.) nouns exhibits syn- system. 3 The complete merger of morphosyntactic categories is Meiscr's "functional syncretism" (loc. cu.). Car- slairs uses the term syncretism more complexly: "A systematic inflexional horoonymy is a syncretism if (a) the homonymous forms are simultaneous exponents of more than one morphosyntactic property, and 1 Thai an attempt to treat the motivations of syncretism in forma] terms would be worthwhile was first (b) the conditions under which the homonymy occurs (or: the context for the homonymy) can be stated suggested to me by Anthony Kroch. and continuing discussions with him have contributed substantially to entirely in terms of properties thus realised" (Carstairs 1987:115-6).In other words, Carstairs restricts the the progress of this work; discussions with Anne Vainikka at a critical moment have also been very import term to homonymies that are exceptionless (see below) and are not externally conditioned (e.g. phonologi- ant. In addition, I would like to thank Maria Bittncr, Robin Clark. Michael Covington. Joe Eska, Andrew Garreit. Roger Higgins. Hans Hock. Brian Joseph, Mark Liberman, Craig Melchcrt. Joe Salmons, Ann cally), and to "fusional" languages. Taylor, and three anonymous referees for much helpful discussion. None of these colleagues necessarily 4 Some further theoretical considerations are also involved (see Carslairs 1984b, 1987: 102-28). but all arc agrees with me, and of course all remaining error <, omissions, and infelicities are my own. synchronic. essentially based on distributional observations.

45 46 Pern Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 2 (1995) Nominative-Accusative Syncretism and Syntactic Case Don Ringe

chronic distribution of syncretisms does not necessarily reveal the organizational principles The system of Latin noun endings can be found in Table I.8 which underlie them, or whether they are all teamed the same way, or what purpose (if any) they might serve. On the other hand, it is reasonable to suppose that the conditions Table 1 under which particular syncretisms first arose in the history of a language will reveal some Inflectional endings of Latin nouns.9 thing about the motivations for them; historical evidence should therefore be useful. n(n) n(mf) I(fm) V(fm) ffl(n) ffl(mf) nii(mf) mi(n) IV(mf) IV(n) Motivations for syncretism, both synchronic and diachronic, can be suggested on sg. N -um -us -a -es 0 0,-s -is,-es -c -us -u(-u?) several levels. Presumably any particular instance of syncretism is ultimately the result of a Ac -um -um -am -em 0 -em -em -e -um -u(-u?) historical change which was accepted by a language community for reasons that were in G -I -~i -ai>-ae 4l -is -is -is -is -Qs -us part social; but if the change in question occurred more than a century or so ago, its social D -6 -6 -ae -el -I -1 -I -1 -ul *u motivations will probably be unrecoverable for lack of evidence. It is also very likely that Ab -6 -6 -a -S -e -c -e, -i -I -Q -u the change in question occurred in a context of second-language (or -dialect) learning (Ki- pi. N -a -I -ae -es -a -es -cs -ia -us -ua parsky 1978: 86-7), but the details of that process, too, are often unrecoverable.5 Ac -a -6s -as ■ -es -a ■& -es, -Is -ia -us -ua These difficulties can be circumvented by focussing on types of syncretism that are G -orum -omm -arum -erum -um -um -ium -ium -uum -uum common crosslinguistically. For patterns of syncretism that recur independently in numer DAb -is -Ts -Is -ebus -ibus -ibus -ibus -ibus -ibus -ibus ous languages we should be able to suggest system-internal motivations (which will have operated in conjunction with the historical contingencies just mentioned); but it appears that Virtually all the syncretisms in this table fall into three classes. hardly anyone has approached the subject from a comparative point of view. The only A number of syncretisms were inherited from PIE, the earliest reconstructable an noteworthy exception6 is Andrew Carstsirs, who notes that syncretism is typical in "fu- cestor of Latin. These include the syncretism of Nsg. and Acsg. in all neuter paradigms sional" paradigms but not in strictly agglutinative ones, and suggests that a functional moti (the first, fifth, eighth, and tenth columns in the table-as weU as all neuter adjectives and vation for syncretism is that it reduces the burden on the memory in the former case but pronouns), of Npl. and Acpl. in all neuter paradigms, and of Dpi. and Abpl. in all nominal would not do so in the latter (Carstairs 1984b:80-2, Carstairs and Stemberger 1988). This paradigms. The origin of these syncretisms is beyond recovery because comparative re is almost certainly correct,7 but the hypothesis is too general to be of much immediate use; construction of ancestors of PIE is impossible in the absence of clearly related sister lan- in particular, it does not help to explain why some syncretisms rather than others typically euaaes* they MIGHT have been the result of historical accidents and must therefore be ex occur. The latter question is answered in part by other principles of paradigm architecture cluded from the discussion. We do need to explain the fact that these syncretisms persisted (such as the "slab" principle; see especially Carstairs 1984a: 103-10, 1987:77-83) and by in Latin for more than three millennia."* But Carstairs1 suggestion that syncretism reduces considerations of markedncss (on which cf. e.g. Battistella 1990 with bibliography, and the burden on the memory is sufficient explanation for that fact, provided the syncretisms see below for some examples), but there is a residue of cases for which no plausible func in question are NOT UNNATURAL; after all, if a language system offers the learner smaller tional explanation can be offered. paradigms, the only good reason not to leam them would be that they re prohibitively hard This unexplained residue includes NA syncretism, which one might expect to be to learn. This tells us that the syncretisms in question are acceptable, but it does not tell us dysfunctional in heavily case-marking languages with scrambling (or other pervasive word- what motivated them in the first place.11 order changing rules). Fortunately the historical origins of several instances of NA syn cretism are documented or reliably reconstructable by the comparative method, and it is to such cases that we must now turn. The first case history, however, reveals a serious pitfall 8 I have omitted the marginal locative and vocative cases, as well as a number of minor stem classes (eg. O deel masculine nouns in -r). For a brief discussion of some isolated lexical peculiarities, alternative to be avoided. forms etc see Joseph and Wallace (1984:322-3. table p. 324). Unlike the instances discussed below, the widespread syncretism of nominative and vocative sg. in Latin, and the syncretism of locative and ablative 2 A cautionary tale: syncretism in Latin noun inflection sg in consonant stems, are not inherited and do not seem to be wholly accidental; but the marginal status of the locative and vocative cases in ihe Latin system is likely to have been a factor in those developments. The inflection of Latin nouns offers a familiar set of parallel paradigms, associated Thus the omission of the locative and vocaUve cases does not greatly alter the picture presented here. The with lexically determined gender and stem classes, in which syncretism is commonplace. unconventional order of columns in Table 1 is intended to highlight various instances of syncretism. 9 See footnote 2 above on the labelling of the lexical classes, and note that m indicates third-declension consonant stems, but uTi third-declension i-stems. Segmentation of stem and endings in archaic Indo- European nominal paradigms is a well-known problem; I have adopted the solutions that seem most rea- 5 I emphasize that motivations must be reconstniciablc IN DETAIL in order to contribute to our under standing of language structure and change; general observations about the relation between language contact sonabie to me. t 10 I here adopt the hypothesis that the PIE speech community began to disintegrate around 3500 B.C.; lor and change ore of little use. O'Neil (1978) is a case in point. discussion of the problems involved see especially Mallory (1989). "Classical" Latin is the language of the 6 Mention should also be made of Coleman (1993), a cursory overview of some of the older IE languages upper class of Rome between about 100 B.C. and the early second century A.D. which is useful for orientation. Meiser (1992) deals almost exclusively with the complete merger of mor- 1' These developments contrast sharply with the fate of the Absg. in Latin, and indeed in Italic as as phosyntaciic categories (i.e. "syncretism" in the sense usual among historical linguists; see above). whole In PIE the Absg. and Gsg. exhibited the same endings in all stem classes except the o-stems (= the ' However, caution is advisable: experimental investigation of the role that memory plays in handling Latin D decl.); but in Italic distinctive Absg. endings were developed for all stem classes on the model of inflectional morphology is still in its infancy, and the striking difference between the experimental results the o-stems. thus undoing the syncretism. A further complication involves the fate of the instrumental case of Stemberger and McWhinney (1988) and Badc^kcr and Caramazza (1989) suggests that inflectional mor in Italic It merged with the ablative, and in fact the Latin II decl. DAbpl. ending -U < *-oys was originally phology might be stored, generated, and processed quite differently in typologically different languages.

47 48 Volume2(1995) PennWorking PapersinLinguistics Nominative-AccusativeSyncretismandSyntacticCase DonRinge

Idecl.Gsg.-at(>-ae)clearlyarosebysuffixationofTJdecl.-ftothestemvowel A secondgroupofsyncretismsinLatindeclensionarosebyregularsoundchange.

■a-(Sommer1914:325-6),anditseemsequallyclearthatVdecl.Gsg.-eT(>-eT)aroseby Theseinclude12IIdecl.Dsg.-6<*-oy(Sommer1914:341-2)butAbsg.-6<-3d(actually extensionoftherulethatformedtheIdecl.ending(Sommer1914:397,Leumann1977: attestedinOldLatin);13IIdecl.Gsg.-f<*-I(Devine1970:1-9,14-5,86-7)butNpl.m.f. 446).ThehistoryoftheDsg.endingsismuchlessclear,buttheconsensusofopinionis -f<*-oy(Sommer1914:346-7);m decl.i-stemDsg.-i"<*-cy,plausibly<*-eyeyby thattheirmergerwiththeGsg.endingswasanaccidentinwhichregularsoundchange haplology(Meillet1914),butAbsg.-f<-id(actuallyattestedinOLat.);'4IVdecl.Gsg. playedamajorrole(Sommcr1914:327-8,398-9,Leumann1977:417-20,445-6).■«I

-us<*-ows(Sommer1914:388),butNpl.m.f.-us<*-owes(ibid.p.392)13andAcpl. decl.Npl.-aeisclearlyparalleltoIIdecl.-f(seeabove),bothultimatelyreflectingthe m.f.-its<*-uns(ibid.p.393).Regularsoundchangeisamechanismoflanguagechange spreadofpronominalendingstoothernominals(seee.g.Sommer1914:329,346-7), strictlyconfinedtothephoneticsandphonologyoflanguages.Thustheoriginalmotiva thoughthephonologicalhistoryoftheIdecl.endingismuchlessclearthanthatofitsII tionsthese forsyncretisms—thatis,thelanguagechangesthatbroughtthemintoexistence declmodeloranalogue.17Inshort,thethree-wayIdecl.syncretismin-aeultimatelyre —werestrictlynon-morphosyntactic;intermsofthelanguage'smorphology,thesesyn sultedfromthespreadoftwoendings(Gsg.andNpl.)totheIdecl.fromtheparallelpara cretismsoriginatedinhistoricalaccidentsthatdonotnecessarilyrevealanythingaboutthe digmsofotherlexicalclasses,plusatleastsomeregularsoundchanges;andthesameis systemofinflection(thoughwecanat leastsay—again—thattheycannotbeunnatural, true,mutatismutandis,oftheVdecl.syncretismin-If. sincetheypersistedoverasubstantialperiodoftime). ThesyncretismofVdec!.Nsg.,Npl.,Acpl.-isresultedfromanenormouslycom Thethirdlargegroupofsyncretismsinthissystemowesitsexistencetothespread plexprocessinvolvingtheconflationofthreeinheritedparadigms:adiphthongstem(the ofinflectionalendingsfromonelexicalclasstoanother(horizontallyinthetable),orfrom sourceofdils'day'),anaberranti-stem(thesourceofrls'thing,property,business),and pronotninalstonounsandadjectives—thatis,theextensionofanaffixingtoalexical rule aclassoflaryngealstems(thesourceofVdecl.nounsin-i&).18Nsg.-Usistheregular classnotpreviouslywithinitsscope.(Inmanycasessoundchangealsoplayedpart.) a reflexofinherited•-yeh2-s,andthe-esofptebes'00111111011people[collective]canreflecta Thefollowingcasesarcstraightforward:IIIdecl.i-stemNsg.m.f.-isisinherited,but parallel»-weh2-s(withregularlossof*wafteralabial;SteinbauerapudMayrhofer1986. Gsg.-is<*-esistheinheritedconsonant-stemending,replacinginheritedi-stemGsg. 133);Npl.resdirectlyreflectsinherited*rey-es<•Hrehi-y-es1(Szemerdnyi1956:173 *-eys(Sommer1914:369.372);ffldecl.i-stcmNsg.m.f.-esapparentlyalsoreflectsan 176-8);Acpl.diescanalsobeinherited(cf.Szemerenyi1956:196-8andespecially200), inheritedending(cf.Kuiper1942:64-8),probably*-ey>*-e-*-Is,with Nsg.-sfrom andthereisatleastsomepossibilitythatAcpl.-Usisthesound-changeoutcomeofin an otherparadigms,resultinginsyncretismwiththeinheritedNpl.-is(seeimmediatelyfol heritedending(by"Slang'sLaw";seeStang1965.Mayrhofer1986:163-4).19Theconsti lowing);DIdecl.i-stemNpl.m.f.-es<*-eyesisinherited,butAcpl.m.f.-is(whichisin tutionoftheLatinVdecl.fromthesethreeverydifferentparadigmsclearlyinvolvedexten competitionwithinherited-Is)istheC-stcmending—whileHIdecl.C-stemNpl.m.f.-is, sivespreadofendings,includingtheendingsunderdiscussion,fromonelexicalclassto ontheotherhand,istheoldi-stemending,replacinginherited*-es(Sommer1914:382, another,butthedetailsarenolongerrecoverable. . .. ,

385-6). ThelastproblematicclassareIV thedecl.neuternouns,aperennialcruxofLatin

Therearealsothreecasesthatrequiremoredetaileddiscussion. historicallinguistics.Theevidenceregardingthe lengthoftheNAcsg.endingisconflict

ing,butitisclearthatatleastsomenounsexhibitedlong-«atleastsomeofthetime(sec

nowWeiss1993:92-3).ThePIEendingwasclearlyshort*-u(preservedin Skt.,OK., aninstrumentalending(onwhichwasmodelledtheIdecl.ending"-ays>-ft);yelthepreexistingsyncre tismofDpi.andAbpl.wasnotaffectedbythosedevelopments.Discussionofthesephenomenaisbeyond thescopeofthispaper,buttheywilleventuallyhavetobedealtwithinanygeneralaccountofsyncretism. '«ThestandardexplanationofIdecl.Dsg.-at(givenbyboththesourcescited)isthatitdevelopedbyreg

12Someofthemorecomplexsyncretismsinsubsequent discussedparagraphsinvolveregularsound ularsoundfrom change changetheinheritedending'-ay;butonewouldexpectsuchending an antohahaveggiven■*by changes,buttheyalsoinvolve(ormightinvolve)othertypesofchange. regularl sounddchangeh (cf.(fthethcorrespondingIIdecl.declendingdiscussedabove),above)and>"*«Dsg.*££****

13Iusethesymbolsto indicateregularoundchanges,<— and—»forchangesofothertypes. attestedinnon-urbaninscriptions.ItseemsmorelikelythattheIdeclendinghasbeenmodelledonthe

14Asananonymousrefereeremindsme,thisisnotthewholestoryoftheHIdecl.Absg. Consonant- OlltmonosvllabicVdeclending-ei(seethesourcescited),whichinthecaseoftheoverwhelmingly stem-«hasinpartspreadtothe i-stems(bytheprocessdescribedbelow),thusundoingthesound-change ™n no"nIt*MnTc°»reflectinherited--ey-ey(Szemerfnyi1956:177-8).WhythisUmerending syncretism;cf.footnote11aboveforsomeotherinstancesofreversalofsyncretisminLatinablatives. should(later)appearasdisyllabic-itisunclear;atleasttwoplausibleexplanationscometomind(extension

Moresignificantlyforthepresentinvestigation,thevariationbetween-eand-fhas spreadfromi-stem ofaroleWg.=teg.'fromtheIdecl.toIheVdecl.;introducUonofindecl.Dsg.-0. adjectivestoconsonant-stemadjectives,thuscreatingapartialsyncretismbytheprocessdiscussedinthe '7Again-Jissaidtoreflect'-ay(formedontheanalogyof0decl.--oy)byasoundchangethatissen- followingparagraph;andwhile-ewaseventuallygeneralizedamongnouns,-fwasgeneralizedamong ousry^peTt.Apreform«-aywouldbeatleastasplausible,wereitnotforfact thethat,since.talways adjectives.Thehugenumericalpreponderanceofi-stemadjectivesoverconsonant-stemadjectivesmustbe occursinm unstressedsyllable,thenounandadjectiveending'-ayshouldhavebecome-fseee.g.Som- atleastpartlyresponsibleforthelatterdevelopment,andthatsuggestsonereasonforthespreadofendings merl9l4:102).Iwouldsuggestinsteadthatnounandadj.Npl.(-ffl»-cereflectsarelativelyrecentintro fromparadigmtoparadigmevenwhensyncretismresults(asdiscussedbelow);butthemostinteresting ductionofthepronominalending'-aythathadsurvivedwithoutchangemstressedmonosylables(toNpl. thingaboutthiscaseisthatitshowsthatidenticallyinflectednounsandadjectivescanbeassignedtodiffer f.'these-,qmt•Npl-f-'which1).ExactlywhatendingitreplacedisdebatableC-as?•-!<'-ay??). entlexicalclasses,andsocandevelopdifferently,solelyonthebasisoftheircategorydifference.Forthe 18,pes-hope'andM*'mist,faith'areolds-stemsthathavebeenattractedintotheVdecl.^"da"'*- factsseeSommer(1914:375-8);cf.alsoCarstairs(1984c:122-3). andmerehaVebeensomeotherinterchangesbetweentheDIandVdecll.aswell;seeSommer(1914:395).

15IdonotsharethenervousnessthatLejeune(1943:87)expressesinpositingthisasapurelyphonologi caldevelopment.Lejeune'sproposedscenario,accordingtowhichtheNpl.andAcpl.m.f.formsinnearly ■9ThereissomepossibilitythatNpl.risandAcpl.Hieventuallyfelltogetherbyregularsoundchange,if allstemclassesmergedby soundand/or changeanalogicalchange,andtheIandIIdecl.formswerelater theexpectedAcpl.•Hrehi-i-nswasreplacedby'Hrehi-y-os(withstem•Hrehi-y-fromtheobliquecases. redifferentiatedbythe introductionofpronominalendings(Lejeune1943:89-90),presupposesachronology Szemerenyi1956:177-8),orif.atalaterstage,theexpectedAcpl.'reinswasreplacedby'reyens. ofchangeswhichcannotbedemonstrated.

49 50 Volume 2 (1995) Nominative-Accusative Syncretism and Syntactic Case Don Ringe Penn Working Papers in Linguistics

Gothic, etc.), and the source of Latin -u remains somewhat obscure, though a development 3 The Greek conundrum involving transfer of a dual ending into singular function seems most likely (Weiss 1993: 94-100). The sources of Absg. -u and Dig. -« are clearly different; the former uncontro- Classical Attic Greek22 shows little syncretism in nominal paradigms. Table 2 pre vcrsially reflects Proto-Ilalic *-ud, while the latter is perhaps best explained as the result of sents a representative sample of noun endings.23 extending the rule that generated i-stem Dsg. -for its ancestor to the u-stcms (i.e. the IV decl.) at some point in the development of Proto-Italic or Latin (see Lcjeune 1943:94-6, Table 2 Weiss 1993:98-9 with footnote 15). Inflectional endings of some Classical Attic Greek nouns. The spread of markers from one lexical class to another is an extremely common a(n) fl(mf) 2(0 Kfin) y,(m) u(n) £S(fm) £&(n) C(mf) l(o)24 type of morphological change among the inflectional endings of IE languages; in fact, it -U -£:s -OS 0,-s 0,-r sg. N -on -OS -c -is -Us seems to be much more common than any type of change involving affixes that characterize -OS -a 0,-r A •on -on -e:n -in -Un -u -e: the same lexical class (i.c. on the vertical axis in Table I).20 Moreover, a large percentage -ti D o:i -3:i -£:i -en25 -ci -ei -ei -ei -i of the traditionally recognized "analogical changes that cannot be reduced to proportions"21 -o:s -OS -tos G -o: -o: -e:s -eo:s -e3:s -ea:s -o:s belong to this category; familiar examples include recharacterized forms like English chil -e -te du. NA o: -3: -a: • •e: -e: -e: -e: -e: dren orfeels. This phenomenon is worth exploring in its own right because it seems likely -loin DG -oin -oin •ain -&)in -doin -doin -oin -6in -oin to reveal much about the organization of paradigms in languages with multiple lexical -es -ta pi. N -a -oi -ai -e:s -e:s -E -e:s -e classes; but from the point of view of the paradigms associated with specific classes, syn •as -ta A -a -o:s -a:s -e:s -e:s -e:s -e; cretisms arising through the spread of affixes from one lexical class to another look just as -si -si D -ois -ois -ais •esi -esi -esi -esi -esi accidental as the ones caused by regular sound change. -D:n -3:n -3:n -to:n In summary, the accidents discussed above can together account for nearly all the G -a:n -s:n -3:n -eo:n -eo:n -e3:n syncretisms in Latin noun endings (though see footnotes 8,11,14, and 16 for some quali Of the syncretisms in this table, the following were inherited from PIE: Nsg. and Asg. of fications). Of course it does not follow that all these syncretisms were ENTIRELY acciden neuter nouns (the first, sixth, eighth, and tenth columns); Npl. and Apl. of neuter nouns; tal; as Mark Libcrman (p.c.) reminds me, it is quite likely that these syncretisms and others Ndu. and Adu. of all nouns.2* Syncretism of the Ddu. and Gdu. is a Greek innovation, arose by accident, but that only those that fit the structure of the language survived the pro but the prehistory of the endings is so obscure that nothing definite can be said about the cess of social selection that is always involved in language change. We can even suggest p one way in which a syncretism might "fit the structure of the language": as Michael Coy- ington (p.c.) observes, syncretism normally involves inflectional endings of roughly simi pr0CeSSTher0CeSS only other syncretisms in Classical Attic Greek noun inflection affect the Npl. lar phonological shape, and that might be a precondition for the ultimate success of any and Apl. of masculine and feminine i-stems, u-stems, and es-stems (the fourth, fifth, and syncretism. (See sections 3 and 4 below for further examples.) But I do not see how such seventh columns in Table 2). The same syncretisms appear in the corresponding lexical a scenario can be PROVED for any specific instance of syncretism; and in the absence of classes of adjectives; in addition, the alternative Npl. and Apl. of comparative adjectives in such proof we must bear in mind that most of the syncretisms in Latin noun inflection, in sofar as their origins are discoverable, MIGHT have been incidental to the structure of their individual paradigms at every stage of their development, and so cannot be relied on to re veal the covert structure of those paradigms—except that these particular syncretisms can 22 "Classical" Greek is roughly the language of the 5th c. B.C. and the first half of the 4th c; Attic is the dialect of Athens and its hinterland. My transcription is not a transliteration of the spelling currently in not be excessively difficult to learn. This is a sobering result. If we simply assumed that syncretism between two or use, but reflects a conservative 5th c. pronunciation {on which see Allen 1974). more endings in the paradigm of a given Latin noun reveals the underlying structure of its 23 The number of lexical classes is much larger than in Latin; for example, there arc ten classes in the I decl." (Smyth 1956:48-52). All classes of m. and f. nouns exhibiting syncretism are included in Table 2. paradigm, we would be advancing a principled morphosyntactic explanation for what could Since the traditional classification of nouns is much less useful in Greek, I have identified the columns as be a capricious accident of history in most of the examples whose history is recoverable. "o-stems" (= U decl.). "a-stems" (= I decl.), etc. (all remaining stem types belong to the HI decl. in the tradi Clearly we must first exclude such accidents before formulating hypotheses about the tional system) I omit the vocative case. Unlike the Latin vocative, the Greek cannot be called marginal structure of a language—especially if those hypotheses are potentially the foundations for on formal grounds, since it differs from the nominative in the singular in a large number of paradigms. theoretical proposals. Syncretism of vocative and nominative in the dual and plural was inherited from PIE, but subsequent syn On the other hand, by no means ali instances of syncretism can reflect easily identi cretism of Vsg. and Nsg. was not rare, and sound change and other accidents seem to have played hale or no fiable historical accidents. The following sections discuss more interesting cases. role. For brief discussion see section 6 and footnote 90 below. 24 The problem of segmentation between stem and endings is especially involved for the last column, and the interim solution I have adopted is not necessarily correct; but for the purposes of this discussion any reasonable solution is adequate. . 25 See Threaite 1980:381-3 on the evidence for this Attic ending (which does not appear in Smyth 1956). 26 All these syncretisms occur in the paradigms of adjectives and pronouns as well. 27 It has long been noticed, however, that marginal or moribund categories (the Greek dual is both) exhibit an unusually high degree of syncretism

51 52 Volume2(1995) Nominative-AccusativeSyncretismandSyntacticCase DonRinge PennWorkingPapersinLinguistics

canbefoundinthefactthatthei-stemGsg.ending-eo:shasalsobeengeneralizedtou- -on-exhibitaparallelsyncretism.28Thuswefindthefollowing:

stemnouns.33Butitisvirtuallyimpossibletoexplainthefirstinstanceofthissyncretism

(whicheverlexicalclassitoccurredin)asatraditional"analogicalchange,becauseno i-stemNApl.pdle:s(f.)'cities',mdnte.-s(m.)"seers',tr$:s(m.f.)'three'

plausiblemodelforitexistsanywhereinthelanguage.Noteespeciallythatananalogy u-stemNApl.prisbets(m.)'ambassadors',he:d£:s(m.)'sweet'

withtheinheritedpattern syncreticofneuterparadigmsisNOTplausible.Themorphologi cs-stcmNApl.tri£re:s(f.)'triremes',ale:thS:s(m.f.)'true' caldistinctionbetweenneuterandnonneuternominalsisquitesharpinAncientGreek, comparativeNApl.m£:sdo:s(m.f)'bigger',besideNpl.mt:sdonesandApl. andtheneuternominativeandaccusativeendingsbearnoresemblancetomasculineana mi:sdonas feminineendings;moreover,andmostimportantly,adistinctionbetweenNpl.andApl.in

themasculineandfemininewasconstantlyreinforcedbytheverycommono-stemanda- A comparisonwiththectymologicallyexj>ectedreflexes,presentedinTable3,showsclear stemparadigms—includingespeciallythedefinitearticle,35whichcooccurredfrequently lythatthesesyncretismsarenottheresultofsoundchange.29 withnounsofalltypes.Moremoderntheoreticalargumentsconvergeonthesameresult:

generalizationoftherulesyncretizingNsg.andAsg.neuter ofnominals,andNpl.ana Table3 Aplofneuternominals,36toafewmasculineandfeminineparadigmsINTHEPLURAL DevelopmentofinnovativesyncreticendingsinClassicalAtticGreek. ONLYisanexcessivecomplicationofthegrammarthatwemightexpecttobedisfavoredat Proto-Greek expectedAttic actualAttic

almostanystageoflanguageacquisition.37 . i-stemNpl. *-cy-es> *-ees > -e:s -e:s Acleversolutiontothisproblemalongtraditionallineswasproposedninetyyears i-stemApl. *-i-ns30 > *-i:s -e:s agobyJacobWackernagel.Sinceitisclearthatthestem-final-e-whichi-stemsandu- u-stemNpl. *-ew-es> *-ees > -«:s -e:s stemsinheritedintheGsg.,Npl., Dsg..andGpl.38hasspreadtotheDpi.aswell(see u-stemApl.*-u-ns31 > *-u:s -e:s Table2),39wemightsuggestthatitalsospreadtotheearly Apl.inthedevelopmentofthe es-stemNpl.*-ch-es> *-ees > -e:s -e:s AtticandIonicdialects;thatis,Apl.*-insand*-unscouldhave beenreplacedby*-ensat es-stemApl.*-ch-as>*-eas > *-e:s -e:s anearlydate,andthelatterwouldthenhavebecome-e:sbytheregularsoundchangecalled os-stemNpl.*-oh-es>*-oes32> -o:s -o:s the"secondcompensatorylengthening"(2ndCL;Wackemagel1903:371-2).Thishypoth

os-stemApl.*-oh-as> *-oas > *-o:s -o:s esisisplausibleinitself,butanarchaicHomericformandthereconstructablechronology

ofchangessubstantiallydecreaseitsplausibility.The2ndCLclearlyoccurredafterthe Wemustthereforeascribeorigin theofthesesyncretismstosomemorphologicalchange.

Itiseasyenoughtodescribewhathashappened:whenbothNpl.andApl.are markedbyalongvowelfollowedby-s.syncretismoccurs,anditistheNpl.formthat 33however, Not,tou-stemadjectives;thuswefindprisbtxslikep6Uo:s.buthedioswiththeoriginalu-

"winsout"(Meillet1905:47-8).Motivatingsuchadevelopmentisnotsoeasy.Ifwe

stemGsg.ending. . couldaccountfor theof originthissyncretisminoneofthefourlexicalclasses,wemight 34Ananonymousrefereeobjectstothisstatement,pointingoutthatneuterandnonneuternominalsare suggestthattherulegeneratingthesyncreticpatternwassubsequentlygeneralizedtothe typicallyidenticalexceptinthenominative,accusative,andvocative.Butitispreciselyihenominative otherclasses;inthecaseofthei-stemsandu-stems,atleast,supportforthishypothesis andaccusativethatareatissuehere;moreover,neuternominalsalwaysshow(inherited)NAsyncretism,

whilenonneuternominalsveryseldomshowNAsyncretism.Intherelevantsense,then.1thinkmystate

mentstands(evenundertraditionalassumptionsaboutmorphologicalchange).

35Therelevantformsofthearticlearem.Npl.hoi.Apl.td:s.f.Npl.hoi,Apl.Ui:s.Thedefinitearacle 28Thoughcomparativeadjectivesofthisclassareinflectedlargelyasn-stems.theNpl.andApl.ofall

wasoriginallyademonstrative,andbstilllargelysoinHomer,buteveninsuchafunctionitoccurredvery gendersexhibitrelicalternativeformsreflectingtheoriginalos-steminflectionoftheclass.Onthehistory frequently(ascanbeseenfromtheHomericpoems). ofthesecomparativesseefurtherSzemere'nyi(1968b).

36AndNdu.andAdu.ofneuternominals—vacuously,sincetherulesyncretizingNdu.Adu. andofall 29AnanonymousrefereeaskswhetherAtticesstemandos-stcmApl.-e:s.-o:smightnotbethereflexes ofpre-Greek'-es-ps,*-os-psbyregularsoundchange;sound-changemergerofNpl.andApl.intheseclas

37Noteverycomplicationofthegrammarisunlikelytoariseinacquisition;seeKiparsky(1978:80-90) seswouldthenprovidemodelfor a thesyncretismintheotherclassesdiscussedhere.Unfortunatelythis suggestioniscompletelyatvariancewiththeknownsoundchangesofAncientGreek;pre-Greek*nis

38'In'bwh'stemclassesthe stem-finalmidvowelwasoriginallyfollowedbyasemivowel(*-y-inthei- alwaysvocalized,andtheoutcomeisusuallya(thoughfewdialects a showo).Ofcourse,sincethereare

stems.«-w-intheu-stems)whichwaslostbyregularsoundchangeintervocalically(cf.theNplformsin noothercasesof*-Vsps,wecannotassertthatthesound changesuggestedisIMPOSSIBLE.Butthatdoes

notalterthebalanceofevidence,becauseofthemethodologicalconstraintswithinwhichhistoricalrecon Table3)IntheGsg.andGpl.ofi-stems-e-developedfrom-£.-bytheregularsoundchangecalledquanti- structionmustoperate.Sincehistoricallinguisticsessentiallyextrapolatesintoadomaininwhichhypo tativemetathesis"(QM);*uspdleox"ofachyandpdlexn"ofcities"respectively"^.f^"**"

actuallyattestedinHomer,and•polfc>:n(andtheruleaccentingtheGsg.hasbeengeneralizedtoGpl.). the thesesarenotdirectlytestable(usuallyprehistiry),anyhypothesismustbewellsupportedifitistobe

QMmusthaveoccurredbeforetheHomericpoemsreachedtheirpresentform(sometimeinthe8lhc. acceptable.Sincethereisnosupportforthishypothesis,weareconstrainedtorejectit—allthemoreso

BC)sinceHomerdoesuseformsthathaveundergonethechange—butprobablynotlongbefore,since becauseitprovidesuswithahighlydesirableexplanationforrefractorydata,andthedangerthatitwillbe

theformulaictraditionoforalpoetryinwhichtheHomericpoet(s)workedalsopreservesnumerousforms acceptedforpreciselythatreason(andsogiverisetoacircularargument)isconsequentlyconsiderable.

thathavenotundergoneQM.Theauthenticityofbothgroupsofformsistoalargeextentguaranteedby 30Cf.CretantriinsApl."three"(«-*lrins). themeterofthepoems(whichisbasedonacontrastbetweenlightandheavysyllables). 31Cf.CretanuiunsApl."sons'.

39Theoriginali-stemDpi.ending-1stsurvivesinoist•to/for/withsheep"andtrist"lo/for/withthree. 32Cf.Mycenaean(LinearB)me-zo-e"bigger"TheLinearBsyllabaryincludedsignsforopensyllables Stemsin-a---«-(notincludedinTable2)donotexhibitastem-finalmidvowelinanyforms. only;thusthefinal*-sisnotwritten.

53 54 Volume2(1995) Nominative-AccusativeSyncretismandSyntacticCase DonRinge PermWorkingPapersinLinguistics

•polusor'poluis46—andinfactpolu:siscitedasZenodotos'readinginascholion(i.e. frontingofinheritedlong*a:40—thesoundchangemostcharacteristicoftheAttic-Ionic

anancienttextualnote)toIliadB4.Thissecondfactthe altersbalanceoftheevidence dialectgroup41—hadbegun,becausethenewlong*a:*sthatarosebythe2ndCLwerenot

substantially.Thoughpolu:sitselfcouldconceivablybetheresultofafurtheranalogical fronted(cf.e.g.theApl.ofa-stemsin-a.s<*-ans,whichcontrastswiththeGsg.in -e:s<

change(Wackemagel1903:371),themosteconomicalreadingoftheevidencerecognizesit *-a:s);quantitativemetathesis(QM;seefootnote38)alsopresupposesthefrontingof*a:.42 astheoriginalHomericformandthe-e:sofpolS.sasanAtticismofthetexttradition—and Thedateofthefrontingof*a:hasbeenthesubjectofintensiveinvestigation,butnofirm

inthatcase-e:s Apl.isnotpan-Attic-Ionicinanystemclass,andsoisnotlikelytoreflect conclusionscanbereached(seeLarochc1972).Still,itseemsclearthatallthreechanges

musthaveoccurredearlyinthedevelopmentofAttic-Ionic,43sincetheeffectsofthefirst Moreover,syncretismofNpl.andApl.isalsoattestedsporadicallyinotherdialects twoareuniformthroughoutthedialectgroup,whileevenQMisdemonstrablypre-Homeric of AncientGreek,andthedetailsaredifferentfromtheAtticsituation.47InHeraklean,48 (thoughHomeralsopreservesnumerousarchaicformswhichhavenotundergoneQM;see

forexample,wefindaNpl.tri:s'three'whichisetymologicallytheApl.form,reflecting footnotes38and42).IfApl.-e:s reflects*-ensbythe2ndCL,ittooshouldbepan-Attic-

Proto-Greek(PG)*trins(thePGNpl.*treyeswouldhavegiven*tre:sinHeraklean).49In Ionicinatleastoneoftherelevantstemclasses,andwemightexpecttofinditinourearli

anumberofnorthernWestGreekdialectsoneevenfindsinstancesofC-stemNpl.-es (or estextensivedocumentsfromthatdialectgroup,theHomericpoems.Whatwemostlyfind

itsreflex)usedinplaceofApl.-as(oritsreflex).TypicalexamplesareApl.dekatetores inHomerarei-stemApl.-i:s--ias--euis,ofwhichthefirstistheinheritedformandthe

'fourteen1(Schwyzer1923,320.6,5°cf.alsoBourguet1925:25-30;PhokianatDelphi, othersareanalogicallyremodelledontheC-stems,andu-stemApl.-eas,likewisearemod

early5thc.B.C.);sumpolemtisantes'havinghelpedwagewar'(Schwyzer1923,426.7-8; elledform.44Buttherealso areseveralinstancesofpole:s,Apl.m.ofpolus'much,(pi.)

AkhaianatDyma,3rdc.B.C.);sundiaso:isantes'havinghelpedsave'(ibid,lines9-10); many1—inspiteofthefactthattheNplisvirtuallyalwaysUNCONTRACTEDpolies (<

♦poldwes;Wackemagel1903:369-70).ThiswouldsupportWackeraagel'shypothesis damosiophulakes'publicguardians'(427.4,samedialect,city,anddate);elassones'les

mostpowerfully,wereitnotfortwofurtherfacts.In thefirstplace,ourtextofHomer ser'(ibid,line12);tfiariter'thanks'with-er<*-es(425.16;EleanatOlympia.3rdor2nd

waseditedatleasttwiceinantiquitybyspeakersofAtticGreek,andisthereforeriddled c BC) ThoughthesephenomenaarestructurallysimilartotheAtucsyncretismsdis

withAtticisms—asearlierscholarshadsuggested,asWackemageldulynotes,andashe cussedabove,theyclearlycannotbeexplainedbyWackemagel'shypothesisregardingthe

demonstratedatgreatlengthinasubsequentbook(Wackemagel1903:370-1bibliog with Atticu-stcmforms;insteadaquitedifferentexplanationisusuallyoffered.Someottne

raphy,1916).Theendingofpole.scmbesuchanAtticism,45replacinganoriginal examplesquotablearenumerals the 'three'and'four';andthefactthe thatnominativeand

accusativeof'two'areidenticalinGreek(sinceit'sadual),while'five'andhighernumer

alsareuninflected,hasledtothesuggestionthattheinflectionof'threeandfourbaa

40Thefrontingofinheritedlong*a:to(approximately)'x:wasuniformthroughoutAttic-Ionic,butthe beguntobeeroded,sothatthenominativeandaccusativeforms:cameitobeusedf™?™?-

subsequentdevelopmentofthelonglowfrontvowelwasnot;fordiscussionseeSzemerfnyi1968aand inatelyandeventuallyunderwentsyncretism(Wackemagel1903:368,MeiUet1905:48).

Gates1976. ThesyncreticNApl.in-esissupposedtohavespreadfromtetores'fourtootherC-stem

41Attic-Ionicisoneofthemajorsubgroupso!AncientGreekdialects;itsmajorsubdivisionsareAttic. categories,especiallythoseindicatingquantityorsize(likeelassones)andthosecooccur-

WestIonic(thedialectofEuboiaandOropos),:indEastIonic(thedialectoftheCyclodesandthecoastof ringwith'four';whiletheparticipialApl.in -nt-esisthoughttohaveoriginatedasa Npl.

AsiaMinor).BothIonicdialectsexhibitlocalvariation;forexample,a"CentralIonic"groupcomprising inaiiacoluthon(i.e.notexhibitingmorphologicalcaseagreementwiththenounphraseot

thesubdialectsoftheCycladesissometimesrecognized.Allthesedialects,butespeciallyAttic,areknown whichitappearstobethecomplement;Wackemagel1903:368-9,Smyh1956:479). cf

frominscriptions.ThebulkofClassicalGreekliteratureisalsowrittenin Attic,whichisconsequentlyby ThisexplanationofApl.-esinparticiplesseemsplausible,atleastatfirstglance(though

farthe bestknowndialectofAncientGreek:thedialectofHerodotosandoftheHippocraticcorpusisEast seesection5below);buttheremaininghypothesesarenotplausibleatall.Innodialectof Ionic,whilethatofHomer,thoughartificial,isb.isedonanarchaicformofEastIonicwithsomeadmixture AncientGreekisanywidererosionoftheinflectionof'three'and'fourcertainlyattested, ofarchaicAiolic. whiletherangeofexamplesofApl.-escitedabove,evenomittingtheparticiples,casts 42 Thereareanumberofprobativeexamples,o;whichtheI-stemGpl.isrepresentative:-d:o:n inherited

(preservedunchangedasanarchaicAiolicendinginHomer)>-fca.-n(sowrittenontheSteleofNikandre,a

7th-c.B.C.EastIonicverseinscriptionofNaxos, thoughscannedasasinglesyllable)>-txn(sowritten " Oneactuallyexpectsanacuteaccent(Wackemagel1903:370).butanalog.calsourcesfora"rcumflex inHomer,thoughoftenscannedassingle a syllable)> ->:n(seeTable2). areavailableinplenty.ForthesakeofconsistencyItranscribeHomericGreekandhe*"**%£&* 4^Thoughnotnecessarilyin"Proto-Attic-Ionic",ifbythattermwemeanahistoricallyreal,moreorless below)withthesamesymbolsIuseforClassicalAttic(seefootnote22),thoughitisclearthatdifferences uniformdialectancestraltothewholegroup(asopposedtotheputativeparentdialectreconstructedfromthe

inpronunciationexisted. ,•mo «*■».* attestedof dialectsthegroupbythecomparativemethod—adialectwhichisnotlikelytohavebeenhistori 47Idiscussheretheclearestandbestestablishedexamples;someofthoselistedinSchwyzer(1939:563-4. callyrealevery indetail).Notethatthe2ndCLoccurrednotonlyinAttic-Ionic,butalsoinmostWest

589)aredoubtful. GreekdialectsandinBoiotian(anAiolicdialectheavilyinfluencedbyWestGreek),leavingunaffected,in

48ThisistheDoric(i.e.southernWestGreek)dialectofHeraklea,anearlySpartancolonyinsouthern wholeorinpart,onlysomedialectsonthegeorraphicalmarginsoftheGreekworld(EastAiolic,Thes-

Italythatdevelopeditsowndialectalpeculiarities. salian,Elean.Kyrcnaian,Cretan,perhapsCypriote)aswellasArgolicandtheisolatedArkadian;andsince

49Theseandothernon-Attic-Ionicforms foundininscriptionsaretranscribedwithoutaccents,sincein the2ndCLisnotrcconslructableforProto-WctGreekorProto-Aiolic,themostplausiblehypothesisis

scriptionsdonotmarkaccentsandtheaccentsystemsofdialectsoutsideoftheAttic-Ionicgroupareatbest thatitspreadevenacrossmajordialectboundaries—inwhichcaseitcouldeasilyhavespreadthroughthe

imperfectlyknown.Arelativelyfullcollectionofthemoreimportantepigraphicaltextsdialects inother Attic-Ionicgroupaftergroup thathadbeguntodifferentiate.

thanAttic(insofarastheywerethenknown)isSchwyzer1923. 44LaterEastIonicexhibitsi-stcmApl.i:s.u-stemApl.-eas;seeSmyth(1894:395-6.398-9).

50ThenumberprecedingtheperiodistheidentifyingnumberofthisinscriptioninSchwyzerscollection; 45Theformasawhole,however,cannot;theAtticApl.ofthisadjectiveistheirregularpolld.s(cf.Attic

thenumbersaftertheperiodidentifythelinesoftheinscriptionfromwhichtheformisquoted. Npl. pelUl).

55 56 Volume 2 (1995) Nominative-Accusative Syncretism and Syntactic Case Don Ringc Perm Working Papers in Linguistics

doubt on any explanation starting from the single lexeme 'four'.51 More importantly, a be found in Table 4.55 piecemeal explanation of the repeated syncretism between Npl. and Apl. can never be wholly convincing. It seems more reasonable to suppose that all these syncretisms of Npl. Table 4 and Apl., in all dialects in which they are attested, reflect a single process and share a single Inflectional endings of OE nouns.56 motivation which has not yet been discovered. a(n) a(m) iifl(m) ( n(mf) n(n) C(m) And the range of examples in Ancient Greek is wider still. In the Hellenistic period sg. N 0 0 -e -e -u -u -a,-e57 -c fot gos syncretism of the C-stem m.f. Npl. and Apl., under the form of the old Npl. -es, began to A 0 0 -e -e -e -u -an -e fot gos occur also in the Attic koine* (the international dialect of Greek used throughout the eastern rj> -e -e -c -e -e -a -an -an Kt ges Mediterranean, based largely but not exclusively on Attic). Examples of Apl. -es in place G -es -cs -es -es -e -a -an -an fotes ges of older -as begin to be reasonably frequent in papyri of the 2nd c. B.C. (e.g. gtin&ikes pi n -u -as -as -e -a,-e58 -a,-u -an -an fet ges lcatheme'na:s 'women seated (Apl.)', td.s Ugontes 'those (Apl. m.) saying'; see Mayser A -u -as -as -e -e, -a -u, -a -an -an let ges 1906:59); and though the conservative tradition of writing tends to exclude them, they were D -urn -um -urn -urn -urn -um -um -um fotum gosum clearly part of the spoken language, since the Modern Greek inflection of m.f. C-stems G -a -a -a -igea -a -a -ena -ena fota gosa shows NApl. -es. It is overwhelmingly unlikely that northern West Greek dialects, remote and chiefly rural, could have influenced the cosmopolitan Attic koine".52 It has been sug Of the numerous syncretisms in this table, some arc accidental (in the sense developed gested that NApl. -es arose by analogy with the older NApl. -e:s of i-stems, u-stems, etc. above) and some are not; the following types can be distinguished. (Wackcrnagel 1903:369), but I find that almost as unlikely because of the numbers and In neuter paradigms (the first and eighth columns) syncretism of the Nsg. and relative frequency of the lexemes in question. Though u-stem and es-stem adjectives arc Asg and of the Npl. and Apl.. was inherited from PIE. In all the remaining paradigms reasonably numerous,53 and though some of the u-stem adjectives are basic and common, except the 6-stems and non-neuter n-stems, syncretism of the Nsg. and Asg. occurred by nouns of all the Classical Attic masculine and feminine categories exhibiting syncretism are regular sound change (typically by loss of the original endings).59 Most other syncretisms few; C-stem nouns are more numerous and more frequent, and C-stem adjectives even in the singular are also the result of sound change, as are the syncretism of the l-stem Npl. more so because all masculine active participles belong to that class. While such an analog ical extension of the syncretic rule cannot be absolutely excluded, I think we are justified in 55 I omit some minor lexical classes and the marginal instrumental case, which differs from the dative looking for a more plausible explanation. only in the masculine and neuter singular in pronominal and strong adjective inflection. In the plural the In sum, syncretism of the Npl. and Apl. occurred repeatedly in Ancient Greek mas Proto-Germanic (PGmc.) endings were Dpi. *-V-maz and Ipl. '-V-miz (where «-V- is the stem vowel); the culine and feminine paradigms; neither regular sound changes nor traditional analogical last two segments of each ending were lost by regular sound change, and that accident gave nse to anexcep- changes can plausibly account for that phenomenon, and an explanation of a different kind tionless syncretism. In the earliest attested stages of OE the o-stem endings of the singular were Dsg. -a, should be sought. Before we begin that search, however, it is worth observing that the Ise -j both of which became -e by regular sound change (Sievers 1882). In 6-stems the replacement ol same sort of syncretism has occurred repeatedly and independently in West Germanic lan Isg *-u by Dsg. -a > -e cannot have been accidental (cf. the OHG situation below), but the conditions un guages as well.54 The following section discusses those phenomena in detail. der which it occurred are unclear, since it is unclear how long the instrumental had been undergoing syntac tic merger with the dative at the time the change occurred. In other stem classes the prehistory of the isg. ending is not securely reconstructablc. For an exhaustive description of the facts of OE nominal syncretism 4 West Germanic see Plank 1990. 56 The stem classes are identified in the same fashion as for Ancient Greek (see Tabte 2). The m. i-stem West Germanic languages exhibit massive syncretism in nominal inflection; a case endings given arc those characteristic of nouns with light stem syllables. In all categories the ending -« is in point is the Old English (OE) inflection of nouns. A synopsis of OE noun endings can dropped after a heavy syllable, but no examples occur in the plural of u-stems with heavy stem syllables (i.c: only -a occurs in the NApl. of those nouns). For the consonant stems I cite the lexemes foot and 'goose' to demonstrate i-umlaut of the stem syllable. 57 In the Nsg. of this class masculine nouns end in -a, feminine nouns in -e. 51 An anonymous referee asks whether -« might not have developed from pre-Greek '-us by sound change 58 In this stem class early Kentish documents exhibit Npl. a and -c. Apl. e; early West Saxon documents in the Northwest Greek dialects. I doubt that that is even possible; these dialects exhibit a < prc-Greek *n show Npl. -a. Apl. -e and -a; later documents of both those dialects have NApl. -a. while the Anglian dia in alt clear cases, and a divergent development before final *-s is highly implausible both phonetically and lects have NApl. -« at all periods. See Brunner (1965:206). » The c-stem NAsg. is a more complex case than Table 4 suggests. The PIE ending Asg. '-m became phonologically. 52 What we know of the sociopolitical situation suggests the reverse, even in less remote outlying dia PGmc. »-un (the superscript " indicates nasalization), which should have been lost in OE after a heavy lects: some examples of Apl. -« in late West Greek inscriptions are likely to be the result of Attic koine syllable but have remained as -« after a light syllable (see footnote 56). In fact most OE C-stems do have influence. A case in point is Apl. m. pdntes 'all' toward the end of the great cull inscription at Andania heavy stem syllables and an endingless Asg. The only light-stemmed Asg. that is quotable .s studui. col (Schwyzcr 1923,74.174), inscribed in Messenian Doric (more or less) in 92 or 91 B.C. umn' which apparently exhibits the inherited ending. The Nsg. of this noun is also studu, and the other 33 Comparatives in -on-, however, are a closed class of about 20 members in Attic. two C-stems with light stem syllables, hnutu 'nut1 and hnitu 'nit', show the same Nsg. ending; it seems to have been borrowed from the 0-stcms (not surprisingly, since all three nouns are feminine). Thus the syn 54 Similar phenomena are also attested in late Hittite; see Mclmyre (1986:63-6). I am grateful to Craig cretism of Nsg. and Asg. in the C-stcms is largely the result of sound change, but in small pan also the Melchert for calling these facts to my attention and for sending me the relevant part of Mclntyre (1986), and result of the spread of an ending from one lexical class to another. (For the facts of this case see Brunner to an anonymous reviewer for calling attention to the same type of change in late Hieroglyphic Luvian; considerations of space have precluded discussing those data here. 1965:226-9.)

57 58 Volume2(1995) PennWorkingPapersinLinguistics Nominative-AccusativeSyncretismandSyntacticCase DonRinge

Table5 andApl.witheachotherandwithmostendingsofthe singular,thatoftheu-stemGDsg.

DevelopmentofinnovativesyncreticendingsinOE. withtheGpl.,thatofthe6-stemNpl.withtheGpl.,thatofthe6-stemADGsg.withthe PGmc. PWGmc."expectedOE actualOE Apl.,andthatoftheC-stemDsg.withtheNpl.(SeeBrunner1965:123-8,Stiles1988:

129-31forbriefdiscussionsoftheprehistoryofOEvowelsinfinalsyllables.) »-5s > -as -as a-st.Npl.m. *-6z-+*-(.

Themultiplesyncretisminthen-stcmsisaspecialcase.Mostoftheoriginalend > *-an64> *-a -as a-st.Apl.m. *-anz ingshavebeenlostbyregularsoundchange,60andthesurvivingword-finalsequence-an -aand-e *-5 > -a 6-st.Npl. *-6z > wasoriginallypartofthestem.Thevowelofthatsequenceexhibitedablautalternationsin -aand-e *-a > -ae>-e o-st.Apl. *-6z > themasculineandneutern-stemparadigmsofProto-Germanic(PGmc.),butthosealterna > *-iu> u-st.Npl.m.f. *-iwiz tionshavebeenlevelledinOE.Thechronologyofthosechangesisnolongerrecoverable, .U66 -u- -a *-un > u-st Apl.m.f. *-unz > butitisatleastpossiblethatthelevellingoccurredwhen-Vn-wasstillsynchronicallypart (i-umlaut)(i-umlaut) > •-i > C-st.Npl. *-iz ofthestemandnotacase-and-numberending.Thuswecannotshowthatthesyncretism *-u (i-umlaut) > *-un > ofOEn-stemendingsresultedfromprocessesotherthansoundchangeandthelevellingof C-st.Apl. *-unz

stemalternations(thoughitmayhave).

Itisstrikingthatthislatterclassofsyncretisms,likethoseofAncientGreek,allinvolvethe ThesyncretismoftheC-stemNpl.withtheinheritedGsg.form(whichinOEsur Npl.andApl.(thoughseealsofootnote55above). vivesonlyamongfeminineC-stcms)islikewisecomplex,butitliesmuchfartherbackin ThedevelopmentofOEadjectiveendingswassimilar,exceptthatthestrongadjec thedevelopmentofthelanguage.AlreadyinPGmc.theendingofbothcategorieswas tivemasc.a-stemNpl.endingthatwasgeneralizedtoApl.functionwasnotbut -as-e< *-iz.IntheNpl.thisendingisthereflex,byregularsoundchange,ofthePIENpl.ending

*-es;buttheGsg.endingsofPIEC-stemspresentamuchmorecomplexpicture.SomeC-

stemnounsexhibitedaGsg.in*-4s(withtheaccentontheending);othersshowedGsg. « Ithaslongbeencustomarytosuggestthai"Proto-WestGermanic"wasneveraunitarydialect.How-

*-s(withtheaccentonthestem),andwithinthePIEperiodathirdending*-os(unaccent everthediscussionsofthequestionthat1haveseendonotdistinguishclearlybetweensharedinnovations ed?)alsodeveloped.(OnPIEGsg.endingsseee.g.Brugmann1911:150-2andSchindler (theonlyvalidof basissubgrouping)andsharedretentions,nordotheypaymuchattentiontothechronolo

gyofchanges.TodemonstrateconclusivelythatPWGmc.wasneveraunitarydialect,onewouldhaveto 1972,1975a,1975b:262-6.)Inpre-PGmc.thelexicalalternationbetweenGsg.endings

showthatthesignificantsharedinnovationsthatcharacterizetheWest Germaniclanguageswereprecededin waslevelled,*-esbeinggeneralizedtoallC-stemnouns.Thisendingshouldhavegiven at leastonelanguagebysignificantchangesthattheothersdidnotshare;untilthathasbeendone,theques *-iswhenaccentedand*-izwhenunaccented(byVerner'sLaw),butthealternant*-izwas tionremainsopen.Inanycase,thiscolumnreportsareconstructedintermediatestageinthedevelopment generalized.AnyremainingdifferencesofaccentbetweenGsg.andNpl.disappearedby oftheendingsthatappearstohaveshared beenbytheotherWestGermaniclanguages.Onthesound soundchangewhenphonemicaccentwaslostinPGmc,andat thatpoint(atthelatest)the changesinvolvedseeStiles(1988:129-3I). twoendingswerefullysyncretized.Itcanbeseenthatthissyncretismwasthefinalresult 63PGmc"M"wasapparentlya long0-vowelthatdifferedfromordinarylong*0bysomeadditionaldis ofascriesofdevelopmentsincidentaltotheparadigm. tinctivefeature-seeStiles(1988:117-28)foranextensivediscussionofitsoriginsanditsreflexesinthe

ThesyncretismofNpl.andApl.intheC-stems,u-stems,andS-stems,however,is variousGermaniclanguages.Thisvowelissometimescalled"nimoric«0",suggestingthatitwasover- clearlynottheresultofregularsoundchangeorotherchangesexternaltotheparadigm. long;adifferenceofintonationbetweenthetwolong6-vowelshasalsobeensuggested(wilhoneeyeon

Thesamesyncretisminthemasculinea-stemsandija-stemsisprobablynotexternallymo Balto-Slavic.whichevolvedsuchadistinctionofintonationsonalllongvocalicnucleiandwnicnmayoe tivatedcither,thoughopinionsdiffer.61Onceagaincomparison a oftheactuallyoccurring particularlycloselyrelatedtoGermanic(Stang1972;cf.Dyenetal.1992:54-6.85-8)).However.Jasanoff

(1980-378,381)pointsoutthatPGmc.*6alwaysreflectsolderdisyllabicsequencesofvowels,andwe endingswiththoseexpectedonetymologicalgrounds(presentedinTable5)showsata

mustreckonwiththepossibilitythatthedisyllabicsequencespersistedassuchinPGmc.(sothat0 glancethatthesesyncretismsareunexpected. wouldbemerelyacomparativeconstruct):thishasimportantconsequencesforhypothesesregardingthe

originofthisOEending (whicharebeyondthescopeofthispaper).

64Raisednindicatesof nasalizationthevowel.ThesevowelsthatdevelopedfromPGmc.'-Viasamjo

havebeenlong;atanyratetheydevelopedlikelongvowels,tojudgefromthefollowingevidence.InOld

HighGermanonefindsbothNpl.andApl.gesti'guests*,withi-umlautandanovertending,

•easoand•gasll"respectively(reflectingPGmc.'gastTzand'gastinz);theformcontrastswithbothNsg.

andAsg.gast,withnoumlautandovert noending.

andAsg•gasti".bothwithendingscontainingshortvowels.InOEmosti-stemswilhheavystemsyla-

bleshavebeentransferredintothea-stems;butfew theremainingi-stemplurals,suchasletdepeople,

showthesamepattern(Brunner1965:214-5).Thenasalizedlow vowelwasheavilyroundedinOEaid

closelyrelateddialectsandthusdevelopedlikeinheritedm6(cf.alsogSs<»gansandIhelike,Brunner1So5:

53withAnm.I). 60IIisnotclearwhetherIhisincludesIhem.f.Apl.ending,becauseitishardtofindunambiguousevi

65Thesourceofthisendingremainsobscure;seeBrunner(1965:219)forbriefdiscussion. denceforIhedevelopmentof*-0n(

66IfthePWGmc.nasalizedvowelshadbeenshort,onewouldexpect-uafterlightsyllables,zeroafter syllableswhichdidimmediately not followtheaccentedsyllable.theApl.ending Ifwasnotlostbysound

heavysyllables(seefootnote56);iftheywerelong(asIsuggest)itisnotclearwhatiheOEreflexshould change,thesyncretismofNpl.andApl.inm.f.n-stemswaslikethatintheC-slems(onwhichsee-below).

be(thoughinvariant-useemsmostlikely,cf.ija-stemtndt'end1<*endi

examplesofu-stemApl.-«or zeroafterheavysyllables. beyondthescopeofIhispaper.

59 60 Volume2(1995) PernWorkingPapersinLinguistics Nominative-AccusativeSyncretismandSyntacticCase DonRinge

Table7 PGmc.*-ai.67 DevelopmentofinnoinnovativesyncreticendingsinOHG. ThesituationinOldHighGerman(OHG)issimilaringeneral,butdifferentinde PGmc. PWGmc. exp.OHG actualOHG tail.Table6givesasynopsisofOHGnounendings.68 -6s > *-os -a a-st.Npl.m *-6z-»*-6s -a > -a Table6 a-st.Apl.m *-anz > ■-a"

InflectionalendingsofOHGnouns.69 •-cos -e ija-st.Npl.m •-ijoz>*-ij6s> '-ijos> 3(n)a(m)jja(m ) 2(0 n(m) n(n)n(0 -e j > -e il.m '-ljanz 0 0 -a -o -a -a sg.N 0 0 -i -a(adj.-o) -i > -o 6-st.Npl. *-6z 0 -a A 0 0 0 -on -a -On -a -a(adj.-o) o-st.Apl. *-6z ■-a > D -e -e -ie -e -i -u -in -in -On '-u > *-u-0 -a 6-st.Nsg. •-6 -a -u -u -iu -iu(-iu->)-i-u -in -in -On I -a > -a 6-st.Asg. •-6" -un G -es -es -es -es -i -a -in -in > •-c -u 6-st.Dsg. *-6i -a N -i -un -On pi. 0 -a -e -i -on *-u -u-0 -u 6-st.Isg. > -i -un A 0 -a -e -i -a -on -On

DI -um -um -um -im -un -om -om -6m -6m Twothingsparticularly arestrikingaboutthesedevelopments.Inthefirstplace,thenomi

-eo -eo -eo -ono -ono -ono-ono nativeandaccusativeareagainthecasespredominantly72involved,chiefly(thoughthis

timenotexclusively)intheplural.Secondly,thegeneralsimilarityoftheOHGdevelop

Onceagaintheoriginsofthesyncretismsarcvarious. mentstothoseofOEmakeitclearthatthesametypesofprocesseshaveoccurred,butthe

Inneuterparadigms(thefirstandeighthcolumns)syncretismoftheNsg.and thoroughgoingdifferencesofdetailmakeitequallyclearthatthesedevelopmentshappened

Asg.,andoftheNpl.andApl.,wasinheritedfromPIE.Inmasculinea-andija-stems, independentlyinthetwolanguages. . andinmasculineandfemininei-stems,syncretismof Nsg.andAsg.occurredbyregular ThedevelopmentofotherOHGnominalendingswassimilartothatofnounend soundchange(namelylossoftheoriginalendings).Theremainingsyncretismsinthen- ings,exceptthatthedemonstrative in andstrongadjectiveparadigmsthefem.6-stemlNpl. stemparadigms,andthoseamongthei-stcmsthatwerecompletebythetimethe ofearliest endingwasgeneralized(seeTable7)andthemasc.a-stemNpl.endingreflectingPGmc. survivingdocuments,likewiseoccurredbyregularsoundchange;70sodidtheexception *-aiwasgeneralizedtoApl.function,asinOE.73 lesssyncretismofDpi.andIpl.(asinOE;seefootnote55).

However,syncretismoftheNpl.andApl.inthemasculinea-andija-stemsisnot 5 Motivatingnominative-accusativesyncretism attributabletoexternalfactors.Thesituationinthe6-stemsismorecomplex,butittooin volvessyncretismsthatarenotaccidental:thoughGsg.-adidmergewiththeAsg.and Insection3Imaintained,largelyonthebasisoflanguage-specificargument;,that

Apl.71endingsbyregularsoundchange,thesyncretismofNsg.andAsg.,andofNpl. at leastsomeoftheNApl.syncretismsobservedinAncientGreekcannotplausiblybe ex andApl.,cannotbeexternallymotivated.Inallthesecasesitistheaccusativeending,not plainedastraditionalanalogicalchanges.Nowthata widerrangeofdatahasbeenpre thenominative(asisusualinOE),thatwasgeneralized;however,inOHG femininepro sented,weareinabetterpositiontoreconsidertherelativeexplanatoryvalueofalternative

nounsandstrongadjectivestheNpl.endingtookoverthefunctionoftheApl.ratherthan descriptionsofmorphologicalchange. . . viceversa.Inaddition,Dsg.andkg.haveundergonesyncretismintheo-stcms,theold Becausetraditionalaccountsofmorphologicalchangeareframedexclusivelyin

Isg.endingbeinggeneralized;andthesamechangeislargelycompleteamongthefern,i- termsoftherelationsbetweensurfaceforms,theyseemincompatiblewithamodemunder stems,thoughin thatparadigmtheDsg.endingwasgeneralized.Table7comparesthe standingofmorphology.However,anypracticinghistoricallinguistwillbeawarethat actuallyoccurringendingswiththosethatwouldbeexpectedbyregularsoundchange someanalogicalchangescaneasilybereinterpretedasgeneralizationsofmorphological alone. rulesthatfitunobjectionablyintomodemframeworks.Notthatthesurface-onentedand

rule-orientedstatementsarenotationalvariantsofoneanother;onthe contrary,theyreston

radicallydifferentunderstandingsofhowgrammarsarestructured.Nevertheless,acon-

" Virtuallyallclassesofstrongadjectiveshaveadoptedthea/S-stemendingsinOE. Theunmarkedde monstrativeshowsNApl.painallgenders,butihehistoryofthisformisnolentirelyclear.Inpartitis

clearlythesound-changereflexofPGmc.masc.Npl.•pai;itMIGHTalsoreflectunstressedmasc.Apl.

72ThesyncretismofDsg.andIsg.ino-stcmsisnoteworthy,buttheconditionsunderwhichitoccurred •panzandfern.Npl.'pflz,withtheexpectedending*-alengthenedwhenrestressed,bulthatisveryuncer

aresignificantlydifferent,sinceIheDpi.andIpl.hadalreadyfallentogetherbysoundchangeinallpara tain. digmsandtheinstrumentalcasewasbeingreplacedbythedativesyntacticallyduringtheOHGperiod

68AgainIomitsomeminorlexicalclasses. (Braune1975:180-1;cf.footnote55Ihe onOEsituation).However,seealsosection6below. 69Theu-stemsandC-stcmshavelargelybeentransferredintootherlexicalclassesinOHG. 73TheOldSaxonpatternofsyncretismissimilartothatofOEinthem.a-stems(NApl.-os)andija- 70NoteIhesurvivalofablautalternationsinthefinalsyllablesofmasculineandneutern-slcms. stems(NApl.•««).butlikeIhatofOHGinIhe5-stemnouns(NAsg.a.NApl.also-a).Inplural iheof

71TheNApl.endingthis ofstemclassisusuallygivenaslong-4butthephilologicalevidencestrongly OSadjectivesilappearsthatthesyncretismofthef.NApl.gavemesameresultasinnouns(asinOE). suggeststhatitwasshortinearlyOHG;seeStiles(1988:140-1footnote22) withbibliographyfordiscus- notadifferentresult(asinOHG).

61 62 Volume2(1995) Nominative-AccusativeSyncretismandSyntacticCase DonRinge PennWorkingPapersinLinguistics

tismsarethebasisforthemorphologicalreanalysesthatgiverisetosyncretismsNOTmoti siderablerangeofwell-attestedmorphologicalchangescanbeexplainedaboutequallywell vatedbyfactorsexternaltotheparadigm.Inotherwords,accidentalsyncretismsprovide fromeitherperspective,andIwillbeginbyconsideringexamplesofNAsyncretismamen the"pivot"onwhichthereanalysisturns.75ButinGreeknoplausibjesound-changepivot abletosuchreinterprctation.

forthercanalysiscanbefound.Ihavearguedabovethattheneuterisunlikelyasasource A traditionalviewofNA syncretismintheWestGermaniclanguagescanbe con

forreanalysis.especiallybecausetheinitialscopeofthereanalysiswassonarrow(seethe vertedintoamoremodernaccountalongthefollowinglines.AsinallIElanguages,the

discussioninsection3):toextendapattern"N=A",forexample,fromtheneuter(inall Nsg.andAsg.ofneuternounshadbeenidenticalforthousandsofyears,andthatsyn

numbers)andthedualtoafewsmallclassesofnon-neuternominalsintheplural(butnot cretismmust havebeenexpressedinaruleofthegrammar(entirelywithinthemorphologi

thesingular)isacomplicationofthegrammarthatwouldsurelybehardtolearnifthere calcomponent,sincesyntaxisnotimplicated;thediscussionofthecorrespondingLatin

werenoothermotivationforit.Further,whiletheintroductionofanewNApl.in-e:sin ruleinAronoff1994:82-4isvalidforallconservativeIElanguages).Theerosionandloss

onesmalllexicalclass(bywhatevermeans)mightbegeneralizedtoafewsimilarclasses,it ofendingsbyregularsoundchangegraduallycreatedanumberofmasculineandfeminine

seemsmostunlikelythatitcouldhaveledtothelaterreanalysisinamuchlargerclassby nounclassesinwhichtheNsg.andAsg.werelikewiseidentical.Solongastherewere

whichApl.-aswasreplacedbytheNpl.ending-es.Theformalpivotsthatthelanguage onlyafewsuchclasses,nosignificantrestructuringofthegrammarneedhaveoccurred.

offersaresimplymuchtooweak\nsupportforGreekthetypeofhypothesisthatworksso InthoseclassesthemorphologicalspelloutrulesfortheNsg.andAsg.endingsmight

wellinWestGermanic.Moreover—andperhapsmoreimportantly—itisclearthatbycon merelyhavehappenedtohavethesameoutput(inan"affixless"systemlikethatofAronoff

tinuingtoworkfromrelationsbetweensurfaceformsthisostensiblymodernanalysisactu 1994),oraveryspecific"ruleofreferral"(inthesystemofZwicky1985)mighthaveac

allycondemnsitselftoexplainarangeofdatanowiderthantraditionalanalogicalchanges countedforthesyncretism,ortheremighthave beenaVocabularyitem(inthe"Distributed

Morphology"ofHalleandMarantz1993)whoseunderspecifiedfeaturesallowedittobe canhandle. .

We mightconsiderbroadeningoursearchforpivotsinclude tosyntax,intheexpec insertedforbothfunctions.74ButwhensyncretismofNsg.andAsg.hadoccurredina tationthatasyntacticallyambiguoususeofsomeclassofformscouldleadtoreanalysisin largemajorityoflexicalclassesofallgenders,anoptimalgrammarwouldexpressthegen thatclass,whichwouldthenprovidethepivotforfurther,purelymorphologicalreanalysis. eralizationthatNsg.andAsg.wereusuallyidentical.Inadultgrammarsrulesofthetype

ThisseemsespeciallypromisinginthecaseoftheGreekparticiples.Wackernagelhasal justdescribed,butconsiderablymoregeneralincontent,musthaveexisted;learnersofthe readysuggestedthatinGreektheuseoftheNpl.in-esfortheApl.in-asbeganfromex languages,ontheotherwould hand,probablyhaveformulatedastillmoregeneralhypoth amplesNpl. ofparticiplescoreferentialwithnounphrasesintheApl.butnotagreeingwith esis"Nsg.=Asg."(cf.Aronoff1994:83)atsomepointintheiracquisitionofthesystem theminsurfacecase(Wackernagel1903:368-9;seesection3above).Butthishypothesis ofinflections.Fromeitherperspectivethefactthatthe(feminine)6-stcmsandthenon- isbesetwithproblems.Thoughthesyntacticstatusofparticiplesinanacoluthonhasnot neutern-stemscontinuedtoshowdifferentformsforNsg.andAsg.wouldappearasa

beenstudied(sofarasIknow),itseemstolerablyclearthattheyaretheheadsofclausesin complicationofthegrammar.Thesituationinthepluralmusthave beensimilar,though

"absolute"construction—thatis,inastructuralpositionnotCase-governedbythematrix sound-changemergerofNpl.andApl.occurredinfewernon-neuterclassesofstems verb—andmustthereforebeassignedCaseinsomemaximalprojectionhigherthanthema (notablythei-stems;possiblyalson-stems). the Moreover,thefactNA thatsyncretism

trixV'.76Reinterpretingsuchparticiplesasaccusativesshouldthereforeinvolvea chronic wasinevidencebothinthesingularandinthepluralmighthaveledatleastsomelanguage failureonthepartoflearnerstoperceivethattheyareabsolutes.Thisseemsimplausible, learnerstoaradicallysimplifyinghypothesis"N=A".Allthesefactorsshouldhavemoti

especiallyinAncientGreek,whichboastedawealthofabsoluteconstructions(cf.Smyth vatedlanguagelearnerstosyncretizethosenominativeandaccusativeformsthathadnotal

1956:447,459-62);andtheplausibilityofthescenarioisnotincreasedbythefactthatthe readyundergonesyncretismbysoundchange,andtheappearanceinOEandOHGofNA supposedreanalysiseventuallyhadimportantmorphologicalconsequencesfortheinflec syncretismswithout"external"motivationisthereforenotparticularlysurprising.Of

tionofplurals,butneverofsingulars!77Moreover,evenifsuchadevelopmentcouldhave coursewestillneedtoexplainhowthesepurelymorphologicalsyncretismssurvivedtobe

occurred,wewouldstillhavetoshowthattheparticipleswerethepivotforthespreadof comepartofthenaturallinguisticvariationinthespeechcommunity(andeventuallytobe

thepurelymorphologicalreanalysis.Thisisscarcelypossible,sincethereanalysesthat adoptedbyallspeakers),inspiteofthefactthattheywereerrorswhentheyfirstoccurred;

gaverisetothe AtticNApl.formsin-e:sand-o:soccurredgenerationsbeforeApl.parti butthereareatleasttwoplausibleapproachestothatproblem.Whenanentirecommunity

ciplesin-esbegantoappearinthatdialect.Finally,wefindnoPOSITIVEindicationthat islearningaprestigedialect,learnerswilltypicallybeusingthenewdialectwitheachother

participleswerethepivotformorphologicalreanalysisinANYotherlexicalclassWhile farmorethanwithitsnativespeakers;insuchcircumstancesplausibleerrorsarequitelike

theuseparticiples of inanacoluthonmighthavecontributedtothesyncretismofNpl.and lysurvive to andpropagate(Kiparsky1978:86-7).Furthermore,evenchildrenlearninga

firstlanguageinanenvironmentsaturatedwithnativespeakersmightretainatleastafew

innovationsintoadulthood,providedthoseinnovationsfitintothestructureofthegrammar 75Thisconceptisfamiliarfromtraditionalaccountsofanalogicalchange,thoughithasseldombeenac

felicitously(Andersen1974:24,Hooper1980:179-80).Sucheventsshouldprovideample cordedmuchdiscussioninitsownright

opportunitiesforparadigmaticsyncretism. 76IamgratefultoAnthonyKrochformuchhelpfuldiscussionoftheseconstructions.

Theabovehypothesis,however,willnotworkforGreekbecauseofwhatitmust 77Somecautionisnecessaryhere,sincereanalysisbylanguagelearnersmerelyintroducesnewformsinto

presuppose.Thedevelopmentspositedintheprecedingparagraphbeginfromthesurface thelinguisticvariationwithinthecommunity,andthenewformsmustTHENousttheirolderrivalsitthey

mergerofcategoriesbysoundchangeorotheraccidentalfactors;thoseaccidentalsyncre- aretobecomelinguisticnorms.Wecouldsuggestthatlearnersmadethepositedreanalysisbothinthesin

gularandintheplural,butthatonlythenewpluralformseventually"wonout".Possiblytheinnovative

pluralformsweresosuccessfulbecausethemarkednessofthepluralfavoredpurelymorphologicalsyncre

tism(seebelow).Butevenifweacceptallthosearguments,itisverydisturbingthatnotraceofinnova 74 Thisthirdalternativeisnotsosimple,sinceihesystemofsyntacticfeaturesmusthavebeensuchasto tivesingularformssurvives,andthatfactaloneshouldleadustodoubtthishypothesis. allowfortheparticularunderspecificationrequire.!;seefurtherbelow.

63 64 Volume2(1995) PermWorkingPapersinLinguistics Nominative-AccusativeSyncretismandSyntacticCase DonRinge

egorydirect ofcasehaseverbeenadduced.ThemereexistenceofNAsyncretisms,evenif Apl.,ortothegeneralizationoftheNpl.endingoncesyncretismwasunderway,Idonot

wellrepresentedcrosslinguistically,isNOTevidence,asIhavearguedatlengthinsections sechowitcouldhaveprovidedtheinitialimpetusforthesyncretism.Possiblytheparticip 1and2.IclaimthattheoccurrenceofNAsyncretismswithoutparadigm-externalmotiva lesarenottherightcategoryinwhichtoseekasyntacticbut pivot;Ihavenotbeenableto tionandWITHOUTSURFACEPIVOTSconstitutesclearevidencefortheexistenceofasuper constructevensoplausibleascenariostartingfromanyotherclassofforms,andIdoubt

ordinatecategoryofdirectcase...... ,.A a~~, thatsyntacticambiguitiesarccommonplaceenoughtoexplainanysubstantialnumberof Confidencethatthisisthecorrecthypothesiswouldbeincreasedifindependen syncretisms. evidenceforitcouldbeadduced.Itwouldbeespeciallyhelpfulifwecouldfindparallel Onlyamoreabstractsolutioncancircumventthesedifficulties,andin facttheout changesinprogressincontemporarylanguagesofapparentlysimilarstructure.However, linesofaplausibleabstractanalysishavelongbeenavailable(seebelow).Theorganiza

Ihavenotbeenabletofindanypublisheddiscussionofsuchchanges;Iknowofnosoci- tionofmorphologicalcasesappearstobehierarchicalinsuchawaythatnominativeand olinguisticstudiesofthespreadofanycasesyncretismthroughaspeechcommunity,nor accusativearegroupedtogetherunderasuperordinatecategoryofsomesort.Thegrammar ofanylanguageacquisitionstudiesthatdescribecasesyncretisminthecourseoflearning. canbesimplifiedbyeliminatingthedistinctionbetweennominativeandaccusative,leaving Infact,thepatternofevidencemightsuggestthatsyncretismdoesnotnormallyoc onlythesuperordinatecategory.Thishypothesisaccountseasilyforthedevelopmentsin curinfirstlanguagelearning.Specialistsinlanguageacquisitionroutinelydiscussthe Greek.Italsooffersareasonableexplanationforthefactthatinthatlanguagethesyncre learningofcasesystems,butnoneofthepublishedaccountsdescribesadevelopmentthat tismwasconfinedtotheplural:ifthemotivationforthechangewassimplificationofthe

resemblesthoseunderdiscussionhere.81Forexample,itisinterestingthatthedistinction grammaringeneral(ratherthan,forexample,bringingspecificinflectionalclassesunder betweennominativeandaccusativeisacquiredmoderatelylateinModemHighGerman, thescopethe ofsamemorphologicalrules),andifweaddtheplausibleassumptionthatthe andthatthenominativeisuseduntilthecontrastismastered(Mills1985:155);since but oppositionofsingularandpluralwasprivativeinGreek,thatthe sopluralwasmarkedby thatcontrastisovertlymarkedinadultGermanonlyondeterminersinagreementwithmas anadditionalfeature,agreatertendencytosimplifytheinflectionofthe(marked)plural culine singularnouns(andonpersonalpronouns),lateacquisitionmightsimplyreflectthe mightbeexpected.78FortheWestGermaniclanguages,ofcourse,thishypothesisisnot relativepaucityofrelevantdatainthetargetlanguage.Thedifficultythatchildrenlearning strictlynecessary,buttherearestillatleasttwogoodreasonsforentertainingit.Inthefirst Japaneseseemtoexperiencewithdirectcaseparticlesislikewiseintriguing;butsincethe place,ifwefindourselvesobligedtoadoptitforsomeofthemorearchaicIElanguages,it particlescanbeomittedinadultJapanese,andsincethesystemisnotablymorecomplex isreasonabletosupposethatitisnaturalforallofthem,sincetheyallhavesimilarcase- thantheuseofcasesinaconservativeBElanguage,theimplicationsoftheseacquisition markingsystems;anditfollowsthatthishypothesisshouldNOTbeconsideredlessplausi factsarefarfromclearClancy (see1985:387-93).Similarfactorscomplicatethelearning bleforWestGermanicthan explanationslequiringsurfacepivotssimplybecauseitinvokes oftheFinnishaccusativecase(AnneVainikka,p.c).TheTurkishcasesystemshows onlyunderlyingcategories.Secondly,thefrequencyofNApl.syncretismisnolessstrik greaterresemblancetothoseofconservativeIElanguages,butitseemstobeacquired inginWestGermanicthaninotherIElanguages,79andweoughttoaskwhetherthatfre quicklyandeasily(Aksu-KocandSlobin1985:854-5).82Accountstheacquisition of of quencyispeculiarenoughstatisticallytorequiresuchanexplanationastheoneIhavepro morphologicalcaseinotherlanguagesaresimilar.ThisisconsistentwithKiparskyssug posed(thoughwewon'tbeabletoanswerthatquestionunlessanduntilwehaveawide gestionthatgrammarsimplificationtypicallyoccursinsecond-language(or-dialect)learn enoughrangeofcasestorunstatisticaltests).Ofcoursethetwohypothesesarenotmutu ingintheabsenceofacriticalmassofnativespeakers—aprocessthathas,unfortunately, allyexclusive;developmentsof bothtypescouldhavecontributedtothemassivesyncre beentoolittlestudiedindetail(cf.ThomasonandKaufman1988:145-6). tismthatwefindinWestGermaniclanguages. Thisabsenceofcontemporaryevidenceisdisappointing,becausecomparablyde Atleasttheexistenceof suchasuperordinatecategoryhasbeenassumedbyalmost tailed historicaldataarevirtuallyneveravailable.Thereisanotherarea,however,inwhich everygroupofinterestedlinguists.Indo-Europeanistsareusedtothinkingofthesetwo wecanseekcorroborationforthehypothesisadvancedabove.Inflectionalmorphology cases(togetherwiththevocative)as "direct"cases,sincetheyappeartohaveconstituteda existslargelyinordertoexpresssyntacticfunctions,anditisreasonabletosupposethat morphologicalclassinPIE andmostofitsdaughters(cf.Colcman1993).Modemmor- thereissomedefinablerelationbetweenmorphologicalcasesystemsandsyntacticCase phologistshaveadoptedthesameanalysiswithoutcomment(cf.e.g.Williams1981:267- structures(assuggestedalreadybyBierwisch1967).Ifthemorphologypossessesthe 9,Zwicky1985:375).Syntacticiansshouldalsofindthisanalysisnatural,becauseinthe underlyingstructuresuggestedhere-acategoryofdirectcasesuperordinatetonominative languagesinquestionnominativeandaccusativearetheusualmorphologicalexponentsof andaccusative—weshouldtrytoconstructacoherentmorphosyntacticaccountwhichlinks thosesyntacticCasesofsubjectandobjectthatareassignedbystructuralconfiguration thatmorphologicalstructuretothestructureofsyntaxinanexplanatoryway;thetwowill alone(cf.e.g.Bierwisch1967:246-8,Chomsky1981:48-51,FreidinandBabby1984; see thensupportoneanother,increasingthelikelihoodthattheanalysisbicorrect.Inthefol furthersection6below).80 lowingsectionIshallattempttoconstructsuchanaccountusingdatafromOldEnglishand However,Iamnotawarethatanyreliableempiricalsupportforasuperordinatecat- AncientGreek,thetworelevantlanguagesforwhichsyntacticinformationisreadilyavail-

78Inotherwords,ifpluralformsweremarkedwithanadditionalfeature,theymightbemore"costly"and somorelikelytobesimplified;cf.Noyer1992:225-6.246-68,281-90fordiscussionandexemplifcationof 81IamgratefulAnne toVainikkaforhelpfuldiscussionofthispoint. thisgeneralidea. S2Ontheotherhand,the agglutinativemorphologyoftheTurkishsystem(incontrasttotheI'f"™"* 79ThefrequentappearanceofNAsyncretisminIElanguagesisobviouseven fromthebriefdiscussionof

characterofIEinflectionalparadigms)Ulikelytobeonereasonwhyi,,slearnedsoeasily.as_BtornJoseph Coleman(l993). remindsme:cf.Carstairs1observation(citedinsection1above)thatsyncretismreducestheburdenonthe

80Ishallcapitalize"Case"whenitreferstoasyntacticcategory(the betteravoidconfusion to withmor memoryonlyinfusions]languages. phologicalcase),followingChomsky(1981:16footnoteI).

65 66 Volume2(1995) PennWorkingPapersinLinguistics Nominative-AccusativeSyncretismandSyntacticCase DonRinge

have"wonout"instead(asinmostoftheGreekandOEexamples).Butthefactthatwe able.83 aredealingwithhistoricalchangesoffersareadyexplanationfortheseanomalies.Inevery

instancetheremusthavebeenaperiodofvariationinwhichinnovativespeakerswereus 6 Syncretismandmorphosyntax ingonlythenominativeending(atleastsomeofthetime)whilemoreconservativespeakers

continuedtousebothendings.Insuchsituation a languagelearners—especiallysecond Sinceinflectionalmorphologymustexpresssyntacticfeatures,letusstartfromthe

laneuaeclearners—canhaveacquiredthesyncretizedpatternbutinstantiateditwiththe workinghypothesisthatmorphologicalcasesstandinaone-to-onerelationwithsyntactic "wrong"ending,generalizingtheaccusativeendingratherthanthenominative.Onewould Cases—thatis,thateachsyntacticCaseisalwaysmappedontothesamemorphological

expectthegeneralizationofaccusativeendingsundersyncretismtobelesscommon,andit case,whichhasnootherfunctionthantoexpressthesyntacticCaseinquestion.Sucha apparentlyis,thoughmuchmoreworkonthesubjectisneeded. hypothesisseemstobeverywidelyusedinworkoncase-markinglanguagesinthegen A moreseriousproblemhastodowithsyncretismsthatwedoNOTfind.Ifthe erativetradition.ItisassumedalreadyinBierwisch(1967)andstatedexplicitlyinKeme- nominativeistheunmarkedcase,withminimalfeaturespecification,whydocases other nade(1987:66,98-100);Vainikka(1993)showsthatitworksremarkablywellforFin thantheaccusativesoseldomundergonon-accidentalsyncretismwiththenominative.'u nish.84Sincetheprimaryfunctionofthenominativeandaccusativecasesisencodingthe syncretismresultsfromfeaturalunderspecificationofcaseendingstheanswertothis structuralCasesofsubjectandobject,wemustbeginfromthatmorphosyntacticconnec questionmustlieinthemorphosyntacticfeaturesofthenodesatwhichtheendingsarein tion.ThemorphologicaltheoryIwilluseisthe"DistributedMorphology"ofHalleand serted,withwhichthefeaturesoftheendingsthemselvesmustbeconsistent.Thosefea Marantz(1993). turesaregeneratedbythe syntax.ThusitappearsthattheCasesofsubjectandobjectshare IfitistruethatNA syncretismeliminatesthedistinctionbetweenthedirectcases, afeaturefotsharedbyothersyntacticCases.InmosttheorieswithinteGBtraditionthis leavingonlythecategory"direct".DistributedMorphologyofferstwopotentialaccountsof isdifficulttoformalize,becausetheCasesofsubjectandobjectaredifferentlyassigned; theprocess.NA syncretismmightreflectfeaturalunderspecificationofcase-and-number butChomsky(1991:433-7,1992:9-11)proposesananalysisinwhichtheirafsjjp"11""l* endings(whichare"Vocabulary"itemsinthistheory),anunderspecifiedendingbeingin closelyparallel.T(theTensenode)israisedandadjoinedtoAGRS.whileV*|israised sertedatnodesmarkedforsubjectorobjectCase;alternatively,someoftherelevantsyn andadjoinedtoAGRo;anNPintheSPEC-AGRspositionisassignedsubjectCasebyT tacticnodesmightundergofeatureImpoverishmentinthemorphologicalcomponentofthe whileanNPintheSPEC-AGR0positionisassignedobjectCasebyV(andbothNPs grammar,sothatnarrowly less specifiedendingscouldbeinsertedatthosenodes(Noyer

1992:51).Butintheselanguagesthesecondalternativeishighly undesirablefortheory- sharetherelevant^featuresoftheirrespectiveAGRnodes).Asimpleadditiontothis internalreasons.Ancient In Greek,forinstance,theApl.endingsofonlyafewlexical proposalcanbesuggested:anAGRnodeofanykindassignsafeature[+direct]totheNP classessyncretizewiththecorrespondingNpl.endings;one mustknowthearbitraryin initeSPECpositiotwhileAGRoalsoassignsafeature[+acc];accusativecaseendings flectionalclassofthelexicalheadinordertodeterminewhetherasyncreticendingmustbe willultimatelybeinsertedatnodesbearingthefeatures[+case.+direct,+acc],whilethe inserted.Therefore,ifsyncretismoccursasaresultofImpoverishment,atleastsomeVo defaultnominativeendingswillbeinsertedintonodesbearing[+case,+direct],andtherest cabularyinsertion—namely,insertionofthelexicalhead—-mustprecedeImpoverishment, oftheanalysisisasabove.Thefeature[-Kiirect]effectivelyexcludesanynon-accidental

whileotherinstancesof Vocabularyinsertion—namely,insertionoftheendings—must syncretismofthenominativewithanobliquecase. , .. ..

followit.Thisclearlymakesthetheorymoreunconstrained.Ishallthereforeassumethat Howeverthereareanumberofproblemswiththissolution,whichIshalldiscuss

NA syncretismreflectsfeaturalunderspecificationofcase-and-numberendings. inorderofincreasingseverity.Leastproblematicistheuseofthenominativeasthecom

Asafirstapproximation,letussupposethataccusativecaseendingsbearasyntac plementofverbslike'be'and'become*.Thatthisisactuallypartofalargerpatterncanbe ticfeature[+acc]whichnominativeendingslack;thisisconsistentwithplausibleproposals seenfromthefollowingAncientGreekexamples,87allwiththeaoristgeneSM'become, thatnominativeisthedefaultmorphologicalcase(cf.e.g.Jakobson1966[1936]:58-60, provetobe": Andrews1982:470-1).NAsyncretismwillthenreflectlossof(orfailuretolearn)particu laraccusativeendings;sincethecorrespondingnominativeendingsarethe(featurally)most specificVocabularyitemsthatarenondistinctfromthefeaturesofterminalnodesatwhich theaccusativeendingswouldbeinsertediftheyexisted(HalleandMarantz1993:119-22), thenominativeendingswillbeinsertedinstead,andsyncretismwillhaveoccurred.85

NA syncretismsinwhichtheaccusativeendingisgeneralized,suchasHeraklean

Greektri:s'three'andnearlyalltheOHGexamplesdiscussedabove,areapotentialprob lemforthisanalysis,sinceonewouldexpectthelessfullyspecifiednominativeendingto

83IncitingAncientGreekexamplesIhavenotrestrictedmyselftoClassicalAttic;however,allthecon- stmctionsillustrateddooccurinClassicalAtticunlessidentifiedas"archaic".

86Intheremainderofthisparagraph"V"istheabbreviationfor"verb"(ratherthan"vocative"). 84Iassumethatatleastsubject,object,oblique,andadnominal(i.e.genitive)Casesmustrecognized, be 87CitationsfromAncientGreekliteraturefollowthestandardindexingsystemforeachauthororwork. assketchedinChomsky(1981:49-50)andassumedinmuchsubsequentwork(e.g.FreidinandBabby1984, Andrews1971adducesabroaderrangeofGreekexamplesandarguesthatthefullrangeofdatacannotbe Kemenade1987). accountedforinthetransformationalapproachthencurrent.Afulldiscussionofhisexamplesisbeyond 85Bearinmindthat,inadditiontotherelevantsyntacticfeatures,thesenodesalsobearlexicalclassfea

thescopeofthispaper. tureswhichmustagree withthoseoftheir lexicalheads.

67 68 Volume 2 (1995) Nominative-Accusative Syncretism and Syntactic Case Don Ringe Penn Working Papers in Linguistics

1I) Xenophon, Anabasis 1.7.10: recent theories of syntax. . More worrisome is the use of the nominative outside of any coherent syntactic con entaufiadt entti ekwplis(a:i ari^mds egineto text, such as the listing or naming of objects, or the nominative of direct address in lan there PTCLin the-D muster-D number-N bccome-AOR-3sg. guages with no vocative case.*0 Such nouns cannot have been assigned a feature [+direct] fan m&n Helltno:n aspis mu:rta: kai by any AGR node; under the above analysis it would have to be stipulated that the nomina thc-Gpl. PTCL Grcek-Gpl. shield-N tcn-thousand-N and tive is the default case extrasyntactically. tetrakosta:, ... The really serious problem, though, is the fact that in archaic IE languages the ac four-hundrcd-N cusative has a considerable number of functions other than encoding the structural Case of 'At that point the number under arms came to, of the Greeks, 1400 the direct object. For example, the following uses are typical in OE. hoplites, ...'(literally: '... 1400 shield [sg.!], ..Z)88 • Object of (some) prepositions: (2) Herodotos 78.100.4: sit P4rsa:s, basilit. m£ poits&is (5) Voyage ofOhthere 13.30-14.1:91 He eweed pest hS bade on pam lande norpweardum a#? M WestSK- ( you-N Persian-Apl. king-V don't make-AOR-SUBJ-2sg. 'He said that he dwelt in the land to the north beside Ills Western §£i. katageldsto.s gei.esfiai Htltesi. laughable-Apl. become-AOR-INF Greek-Dpl. (6) Voyage ofOhthere 15.35-6: 'Sire, don't you make the Persians become a laughingstock to the ... and par sint swT&e micle merasfersce geond && BM£QS> Greeks!" '... and there there are very large freshwater lakes thlpHRhotit ui£ mountains.' (3) Xenophon, Anabasis 7.1.21:

nu:n soi tksestin, b: Ksenopk&n, andti • Extent of time or space: now you-D be-possible-PRES-3sg. O Xenophon-V man-D gen&flai. (7) Voyage ofOhthere 14.21-2: become-AOR-INF ...ac him was ealne weg weste land on pat steorbord, 'Now, Xenophon, you have an opportunity to prove yourself a man!' '... but the whole way, there was barren land to his starboard, (literally: '... it is possible for you to prove to be a man.') (8) West Saxon Gospel of Matthew 20:6: (4) Xenophon, Hellenica 1.S.2: HwTstande gi Mr eallne dasideie? ... autd: te K&:ro: edeonto hxs prothii:motdto: prds 'Why arc you (pi.) standing here idle all {lay?' ... self-G and Cyrus-Gbcg-IPF-3pl. as most-eagcr-G towards

tdn pdlemon genesflai. •Degree: the-A war-A become-AOR-INF *... and they begged Cyrus himself to show himself as zealous as (9) MUnc. Catholic homilies U. 122.11: possible in prosecuting the war.' P6 ne mihte se papa pat gedafian, pfah QehiiaR wolde; "Then the Pope was unable to permit that, though he was gntircjy. Note that each example shows the subject of genisfiai in a different morphological case, willing;' and that in every instance the complement agrees in case with the subject:89 in (3) and (4) an embedded subject PRO is assigned Case under control from an clement of the matrix Similar uses are typical of Ancient Greek, as the following examples demonstrate. clause, while (2) appears to be an instance of exceptional Case-marking, in which the cm- bedded subject is assigned Case under government by the matrix verb. It is clear that 'be come' and similar verbs do not assign Case to their complements. These are instances of Case agreement rather than assignment; presumably SPEC-head agreement is involved (cf. Heycock 1991:163-6, Chomsky 1992:11-3), though the details remain to be worked out in

90 The frequent syncretism of nominative and vocative (cf. footnote 23) is evidently related to this phc- 88 Numbers of other contingents, both Greek and non-Greek, follow; hence the unusual position of the Gpl. 91 Citations from the Voyage ofOhthere are by page and line ofBately's(1980) edition of the O!d English 89 This is not the only possible pattern for such constructions in Ancient Greek (cf. Smyth 1956:278. translation of Orosius; citations from other parts of the OE Orosius are by book and chapter. The character Andrews 1971), but it is the one that is crosslin uistically "normal", appearing also in Latin, for example 7 has been expanded as and (cf. e.g. Gildersleeve and Lodge 1895:337).

69 70 Volume 2 (1995) Nominative-Accusative Syncretism and Syntactic Case Don Ringe Penn Working Papers in Linguistics

Object of (some) prepositions: One'sune s initial impression is thatuiai morphologicaluiuipuuiugiwui casesu»w inm theseuimw languagesiuuB»i.6w are•»*> "mor-.— »* i a ** * *\f\A *^ A rt\ >t-_a :_ ^iiMl.i n«j«M«Ui\lfiniMnl unite tltuiBut positingpuuwie »•»•!<•••«»»morphomes »«^—should be a hypothesisu.u.>u-n:» ofAriiu.ilast resort,racnr* sinceeinm» it impliesimnlioc a9 majormninr discontinuityHicrnntimiitv between syntactic catecatC- T^arrd.sinde...di'dUo.ti fcdi'dgnoiankMamafifam? gories and the inflectional morphemes which must encode them; it is worth trying to make 'Do they have courage for, some (reason) other than through sense of the connection between morphology and syntax for as long as we still can. How, ignorance and lack of (earning?' then, could "shoehoming" be described in Distributed Morphology? Our problem is that accusative endings are inserted not only at nodes bearing the (U) Iliad \A2: features [+case, +dircct, +acc] (see above), but apparently also at nodes bearing simply ho gar Llfte fioax epl ntas Akf'aib.n ... l-hcase, +accj; in the latter instance the features will reflect inherent Case, assigned under 'for he had come to the swift ships of the Akhaians ...* government by specific lexemes or for semantic reasons, and [+direct] will not be present because the features have not been assigned structurally in the immediate context of an Extent of time or space: AGR node. But the accusative endings themselves must bear the features [+case, +dircct, +accj for the reasons advanced above; consequently they will be featurally inconsistent (12) Xenophon, On horsemanship 8.1: with nodes bearing [-tease, +acc]—the endings are overspecified, so to speak—and cannot ... treTfretn detsei tdn hfpponkj&pra.nt kM fa&ULMi[lldgia, be inserted at those nodes. We can adjust the hypothesis as it stands only by positing a rule that ADDS a feature [+direct] in the context of [+acc], thereby proposing featural "Enrich '... it will be necessary for the horse to mn bgjh WpMll flirt downhill ment" thereveiseofInipoverishinent,asatheoreUcalpossibmty. But in that case the rela (courses), and oblique (ones!.' tion between syntactic and morphological features will be more or less completely uncon strained—an extremely undesirable result We must conclude instead that the analysis so (13)Herodotos6.119.2: far is somehow fundamentally flawed. ...en stathmb:!... apd men S6:son dika kai die:kos(o:s stadto.s We might attempt to solve these problems by proposing that the direct cases are aptl&onti, characterized by the ABSENCE, rather than the presence, of a syntactic feature. Under this '... at a waystation ... 210 stadia distant from Susa,' proposal Case assigners adjoined to AGR nodes do not assign an extra feature, but all other Case assigners do. The Ancient Greek system of Case and case, for example, can (14) Iliad 2.292: then be described as follows. The features of the morphological case endings are the fol hina mt'na m&nozi lowing: 'staying one month' nominative l+case] genitive [-tease, +obl, +gen] •Degree: vocative t+case,92 +voc] dative [+casc, +obl, +dat] accusative [+case, +acc] (15) Herodotos 1.32.5: Emdi de sli kai ploutiem mega ph&ineai kai basileus pollbtn e:nai Accusative case endings can be inserted at nodes bearing [+case, +acc] (assigned by the verb when adjoined to AGRo) and at nodes bearing [+case, +obl, +acc] (assigned under government by specific lexemes or semantically), for which they are appropriately under- 'Now you seem to me to be very rich and to be king of many people;' specified If a vocative or accusative ending is unavailable, the underspecified nominative ending is employed, and syncretism occurs. But what prevents the nominative appearing • Goal of motion (archaic construction): in place of an unavailable genitive or dative? . . In at least some archaic IE languages there is an oblique case X which is marked lor (16) Iliad 10.195: case and obliqueness only; unavailability of any other oblique case ending therefore leads to ... Arg4io:nbasiltes, hosoi keklt:atobgd£&.- the use of the underspecified oblique case X rather than the nominative. The West Ger '... all the kings of the Argivcs, who had been called 12 Ihs. council' manic system seems to have been of this sort; the features of the case endings were plausi bly as follows: It is easy to give an informal account of this pattern. None of the underlined nominals in the accusative are arguments of the verb; rather, these are PERIPHERAL uses of the accusa nominative [+casc] genitive [+case, +obl, +gen] tive. Evidently a morphological case can perform peripheral functions in addition to its accusative [+case, +acc] instrumental [+case, +obl, +inst] central function; in other words, distinct secondary syntactic functions can be "shoehomed" dative [+case, +obl] into the same morphological case with a primary function. Centrality of function can be defined syntactically: structural Cases an; more central than inherent Cases; arguments are more central than adjuncts. But if this plausible account is to be of any use, we must find a way to formalize it. 92 This is an assumption; it is not at all clear how Case is assigned to nominals in direct address.

71 72 Volume 2 (1995) Nominative-Accusative Syncretism and Syntactic Case Don Ringe Penn Working Papers in Linguistics

Unavailability of instrumental endings apparently led to the use of the corresponding dative Contrast verbs with non-accusative objects and their impersonal passives: endings, and that can have been a factor in the eventual loss of the instrumental altogether (cf. footnotes 55 and 72). (19) Orosius 1.5: Similar syncretisms of oblique cas^s do not seem to have occurred in Ancient Greek And him [dat.] da loseph, rihhvls man, mid godcunde fultume gehealp. ^ within the historical period;93 but there is at least one piece of syntactic evidence suggesting 'And Joseph, a righteous man. helped them then with divine assistance. that the dative was in fact marked only with the features [+case, +obl], as suggested for West Germanic. Prepositions in Ancient Greek assign Case to their objects, but at least (20) Cum pastomlis 225.22-3:95 some of those assignments must be lexical rather than structural, since which morphologi Ac Qpm [dat.] mag beon swide hrade geholpenfrom his Idreowe, cal case surfaces depends on the identity of the preposition and its meaning. In Classical 'But he can be helped by his teacher very quickly,' Attic, for example, we find parit basilio:s [gcn.j 'from the Shah', but par' emdi [dat.] 'at my house' andpard fen polin [ace] 'past the city'; meta t6uto:n [gen.] 'among these*, but (21) Orosius 3.9: meta tauta [ace] 'after these (things)'; and so on. In most dialects there are two preposi ...ah him [dat.] nolde Alexander Jte£ [gen.] getygpian. tions, apd 'from' and ek ~ eks 'out of, w hich assign only a Case encoded by the genitive \.. but Alexander was unwilling to grant him liuU-' —not surprisingly, since it is a usual function of the genitive to express motion away from something; in Attic, for example, one finds apd td: hierd: [gen.] 'from the sanctuary' and (22) jElfric,lfric, Catholic homilies 1.330.29-30:1.330.293 ek td: irgo: [gen,] 'out of the construction site*. However, in the Arkadian, Cypriote, and ...ac him. [dat.] nas getrfadfad flffflffpp fflfo" Osse feen.i, Pamphylian dialects these prepositions appear with the dative instead; for example, the '... but hs was not granted ihai Jillls faYQL' Arkadian equivalents of the two Attic phrases just quoted are apu toi ieroi [dat.] (Schwyzer 1923, 661.22; Mantinea, 5th c. B.C.) and es toi ergoi [dat] (Schwyzer 1923, 656.49; There is no reason to believe that any of the nominals in (20) and (22) are subjects (any Tegea, 4th c. B.C.). In terms of the usual Greek patterns of case-marking this makes no more than the fronted dative nominals in (19) and (21), which clearly cannot be subjects sense—unless it amounts to a simplification, reflecting an assignment of [+case, +obl] (= because those sentences contain nominative subjects); so far as can be determined, the sub dative) in place of the more highly specified [+case. +obl, +gen]. I therefore propose that jects of (20) and (22) are empty. Note that the nominals of these clauses cannot appear in the dative case is the default oblique case in Ancient Greek as well. the nominative case; thus the following are ungrammatical: A question which remains unresolved is the status of the genitive case. It is unclear exactly how the adnominal Case is assigned, and therefore unclear why the genitive should (23) *SS [nom.] mceg bion geholpen. be [+obl] in all instances; but since an attempt to answer that question would take us too far afield, I can only assume, on the basis of its morphosyntactic behavior, that the genitive is (24) *Hi [nom.] nas getldod d&re lytlan lisse. [+obl] in archaic IE languages. That its behavior in some non-IE languages is very differ ent emerges clearly from Vainikka (1993). (25) *Him nces getlpod seo lytle liss [nom.]. A final question concerns the status of the accusative as the exponent of structural objective Case. In OE this is not problematic: structurally assigned direct object status is This is exactly what we should expect if the nominative and accusative express the struc apparently marked only by the accusative case, since only objects so marked can become tural subject and object Cases morphologically, while the genitive, dative, and instrumental the subjects of passives in OE,94 as the following examples demonstrate. A typical active- express other syntactic Cases.96 passive pair is the following:

(17) Orosius 6.7 (sec footnote 89): 95 Citations from the OB translation of Gregory the Great's Cum pasloraUs are by page and line of HI betyndan lanes dura [ace.]. Sweet's (1871) edition. . . 'They closed U& doors of (the temple of) Janus.' 96 The only exception to the rule that all and only accusative objects can become the nominative subjects of passives occurs among verbs that can take two accusative objects, like haum -command' and l&rm 'teach'. Such verbs usually appear with a personal object in the accusative and a clausal object, e.g.: (18) Orosius 3.5: Ac pa pa OctdiMmts se casere to rlcefeng, pa wurdon tanas dam [nom.] Hit pa hyssa ft^gmf (ace.) korsforiatan, '(He) then ordered ejcJi of the warriors to let (his) horse go.' {Battle of Motion 2) betyneda, But occasionally one finds as the theme object an appropriate lexeme in the accusative case: 'But when the emperor Ociavian began his reign, then were the ... SOeme [ace.] he t&rdegcQdd lace.], of Janus closed,' 1... (hurt the other he taught cnlkna,' (Curapastoraiis'29l.2\) But though both objects arc in the accusative, the recipient object of these verte ""become *^j«ct of a passive while the theme object cannot, or at least docs not normally do so (Mitchell 1985.1:349-50), thus 93 [i is clear thai syncretism of the instrumental with the dative occurred in the "Dark Ages'* between the Mycenaean period and the 8th c. B.C., but full discussion of the complex evidence for that development is we find such examples as ...and he cwadQsl (ace.) hi [nom.J hOten wars. beyond the scope of this paper. «... and he said wJiat he was ordered (to say).' (Bede 388.29-30. Miller's 1891 edition) 94 I assume that advancement to subject in pa.\>ives is a reasonable diagnostic for structural Case of the direct object. but never such an example as

73 74 Volume 2 (1995) Nominative-Accusative Syncretism and Syntactic Case Don Ringe Penn Working Papers in Linguistics

In Greek, however, we do NOT find a close correlation between passivization and (33) Herodotos 7.lO.y.l: accusative case marking. It is true that a majority of two-argument verbs take accusative [nom.] tb:n gephii:re'03i td: objects, many of which can become the subjects of passives; but the dative and genitive |direct case will be demonstra 'and it (the ship) was spun completely around, struck with the ble in Ancient Greek-the language that provides us with our most unambiguous examples thunderbolt of Zeus,* f ^te£tod1fS^annot£S^ be avoided by positing a particular relative chronol (28) Herodotos 1.195.1: ogy of historical changes. If we suggest that the passivizability of non-accusative objects ... esflL-tide to&ide fdat.l lihrioMai, in Ancient Greek is a recent development (from the viewpoint of the Classical language , 'and they use the following kind of clothing.' we might contend that the NA syncretismof Classical Atuc and ^^1^™^^ alects could have occurred at a somewhat earlier period, wh<* s^c.^ °bJ^1 ^^ *?* (29) Herodotos 7.144.2: always expressed by the accusative (a system almost certainly inherited from PIE), and in gfli [nom.l de es td men epotefietsan ouk ekhr&:s^e:san, fSne attestation of passives before vL 5th c. B.C is so poor that that is one ™*onable interpretation of the data (Debrunner 1950:240-1)." But that will not explain the further 'now they (the ships) weren't used for what they had been built for/ S^cnSn that occurred in the Hellenistic period, in which Npl. ^«ff^J±^' that change clearly took place under the syntactic conditions described i (30) Plato, Apology 36a 1: ... hdtimj2L[gen]katepstpfifsasfie, above.98 "... that you (pi.) have voted to condemn me.' sian examples by Halle and Marantz 1993:171^ looinoie yy, um would be highly undesir (31) Xenophon, Hellenica 5.2.36: able, since it would show a major discontinuity between the syntax and the morphology, KM eki:nos [nom.] men laieps£:ph(srh£:... but such a conclusion might be forced by the data. Fortunately the pattern of data shows 'And that (man) was condemned by vote ..." that such an analysis is very implausible for Ancient Greek. A large majority of verbs whose objects appW in the genitive or dative case belong to well-defined semanuc classes Passives of the types exemplified in (29) and (31) are not rare. Even more striking are the (cf Smyth 1956:320-6,338-44); it is difficult to see how that fact could be accounted for alternative passives to verbs with both a dutive and an accusative object: unless we posit some correlation between argument structure and the marking of objects with the genitive or dative case. It follows that the use of these cases to mark passivizable (32) Herodotos 4.202.2: objects cinnot be a purely morphological phenomenon. On the other hand, it is clear that tdutoisi [daL] di tt&pffin [ace.] epitrepse he: P^eretf.me:. 52 marking of objects with the genitive or dative case is lexical, since (a) the accusattve 'and Ip. these (men) Pheretime entrusted the city.' case is deariy the default morphological case for direct objects and (b) we find a few sets of (more or less) synonymous verbs of which some members take accusative objects while

97 There are a few early examples in which dative and genitive objects are not advanced to subject in the passive, which is therefore impersonal (Debrunner 1950:239; note Hut .hat construction rcma.ns normal in Uwperfect and pluperfect tenses, ibid. p. 241); bm that does not necessarily exclude the peculiar personal TCweOmi Ocrtte was h&ttn hint, passive type under consideration here, since the grammars generating the different types of passives can have 'Tell me what was commanded him.' The significance of this pattern is not clear. The syntax of Latin docire 'teach* and similar verbs shows the been in competition for a considerable period of time. _ same peculiarity; but there are also languages, such as Middle High German, in which either accusative ob 98 I have argued in section 3 above that this later syncretism cannot be the result of morphological rule ject can become ihe subject of a passive (Hans Hock, p.c). generalization or dialect contact.

75 76 Volume 2 (1995) Nominative-Accusative Syncretism and Syntactic Case Don Ringe Pern Working Papers in Linguistics

Aronoff. Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press. others take dalivc or genitive objects. For example, siimphire:n 'benefit, be to the advan Badecker, William, and Alfonso Caramazza. 1989. "A lexical distinction between intlec- tage of takes a dative object, while the synonymous onin&nai and o.p^eli.n take accusative tion and derivation." Linguistic Inquiry 20.108-16. objects; er&:n 'love, be (passionately) in love with' takes a genitive object, while the scman- Bately Janet (ed.). 1980. The Old English Orosius. Oxford: Oxford University Press. tically similar yA/4:n 'love, feel affection for; kiss' and pothim 'desire, long for* take accu Battistella, Edwin L. 1990. Markedness. Albany: SUNY Press. sative objects. Bierwisch Manfred. 1967. "Syntactic features in morphology: general problems ot so- It therefore seems clear that the peculiar pattern of passives in Ancient Greek is a called pronominal inflection in German." To honor Roman Jakobson (The Hague: phenomenon of lexical syntax: objects of verbs which appear on the surface in the genitive Mouton), Vol. I, pp. 239-70. or dative case must have been assigned Case lexically, yet under passivization some behave Bourguet, Gmile. 1925. "Inscriptions de Delphes." Bulletin de Correspondance Helli- as though they were (also?) assigned structural Case." This need have no effect on NA syncretism, which is a phenomenon of autonomous morphology—especially as the accusa Braunet"wilhelm. 1975. Althochdeutsche Grammatik, 13th ed., revised by Hans Eggers. tive case unarguably remains the default expression of the structural Case of direct objects. TUbingen: Niemeyer...... • i— However, it will be necessary to construct a theoretical proposal accounting for the Ancient Brugmann, Karl. 1911. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermaniscnen Greek syntactic patterns in which the correct Case features are in every instance passed to Sprachen. U. Band, II. Teil. 2nd cd. Strassburg: Trubner. the morphological component of the grammar (Halle and Marantz 1993:114 and passim). I Brunner, Karl. 1965. Altenglische Grammatik. 3rded. TUbingen: Niemeycr. leave this task for future research. Bybce, Joan L. 1985. Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Carstairs, Andrew. 1984a. Constraints on allomorphy in inflexion. Bloorrungton: Indi 7 Conclusion ana University Linguistics Club. „„,.,. •■ ,third declension." Transactions of the Philo tism, but most of the necessary work remains to be done. In addition to the unresolved logical Society 1984:117-37. questions raised in the text and footnotes above, we must consider a larger question. As —. 1987. Allomorphy in inflexion. London: Croorn Helm. Robin Clark (p.c.) emphasizes, evidence for the above conclusions is thus far restricted to Carstairs, Andrew, and Joseph Paul Stemberger. 1988. "A processing constraint on in IE languages; I have not been able to find examples of similar phenomena from languages flectional homonymy." Linguistics 296.601-17. of other families. It therefore seems possible that the analysis advanced here is valid only Chomsky. Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht Fons. for languages that have set the universally available parameters in particular ways. Deter — 1991 "Some notes on economy of derivation and representation, Frcujui, R mining whether that is true is perhaps the most interesting question for further research. (ed.). Principles and parameters in comparative grammar (Cambridge, Mass.: — 1992^^minimalist program for linguistic theory. = MIT Occasional Papers in Lin- References Clancy,«^^ Aksu-Koc, Ayhan A., and Dan Isaac Slobin. 1985. "The acquisition of Turkish." Slobin Coleman, Robert. 1993. "Patterns of syncretism in Indo-European." Acrtsen Henk, and Robert J. Jeffers (cdd.). Historical linguistics 1989: papers from the 9th Interna (ed.) 1985:839-78. . n Allen, W. Sidney. 1974. Voxgraeca. 2nded. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. tional Conference on Historical Linguistics (Amsterdam: Benjamins), pp. HH- Andersen, Henning. 1974. 'Towards a typology of change: bifurcating changes and bi Debrunner. Albert. 1950. Griechische Grammatik. II. Band: Syntax und syntakttsche nary relations." Anderson, J. M, and C. Jones (edd.), Historical linguistics II Stiltstik. Munich: Beck. . . c,~nfnn\ Devinc, Andrew Mackay. 1970. The Latin thematic genitive singular. Stanford. Stanford (Amsterdam: North-Holland), pp. 17-60. Andrews, Avery D. 1971. "Case agreement of predicate modifiers in Ancient Greek. University Committee on Linguistics. Dyen, Isidore, Joseph B. Kruskal, and Paul Black. 1992. An lndoeuropean classf canon, Linguistic Inquiry 2.127-51. —. 1982. "The representation of case n Modern Icelandic." Bresnan, Joan (ed.), The a lexicostatisncal experiment = Transactions of the American Philosophical boci- mental representation of grammatical relations (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press), Ernout, Alfred. 1926. Morphologie historique du latin. 2nded. Paris: Klincksieck. pp. 427-503. Freidin. Robert, and Leonard RBabby. 1984. "On the interaction,of lexical and syntactic properties: case structure in Russian." Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics b. 99 The suggestion lhai these object might be doubly Case-marked is, in effect, a translation into standard GB terms of a proposal of Andrews (1982:471-3); the suggestion of Maranti (1984:77-83) is also similar. Gates, H. Phclps. 1976. "On the chronology of the Attic Ruckverwandlung." Glotta 54. This solution was called to my attention independently by Anthony Kroch and Robin Clark; both have 44-52 emphasized that such an analysis is merely a description of the facts, not a genuinely explanatory account Gildersleeve, Basil L., and Gonzalez Lodge. 1895. Latin grammar. 3rd ed. London: Among other things, it is very unclear how the standard analysis of nominative subjects of passives can be Macmillan. ,. „ made to account for the Greek passives under discussion, since the objects of these verbs are assigned inher Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. "Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflec ent Case lexically and should not have to move to satisfy the Case filter. I am grateful to Robin Clark and tion." Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel Jay Keyser (edd.), The view from building W. Maria Bittner for the reference to Andrews' work and to Anthony Kroch for the reference to Marantz' work.

77 78 Volume 2 (1995) Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Nominative-Accusative Syncretism and S\ ntactic Case Don Ringe

Miller Thomas (ed.). 1891. The Old English version of Bede's Ecclesiastical history of essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT 'the English people. Part 1,2. Oxford: Oxford University Press Press), pp. 111-76. Mills AnneE 1985. "The acquisition of German." Slobin(ed.) 1985.141-254, Heycock, Caroline. 1991. Layers of predication: the non-lexical syntax of clauses. Mitchell Bruce 1985. Old English syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. NoyeiR.£5. 1992. Features, positions, and affixes in autonomous morphology! Hooper. Joan Bybee. 1980. "Child morphology and morphophonemic change." Fisiak, Jacck(cd.)t Historical morphology (The Hague: Mouton),pp. 157-87. O'Neil W^ST 1978°' 'The^lSon of the Germanic inflectional systems: a study in Jakobson, Roman. 1966[1936]. "Beitrag zur allgcmeincn Kasuslehre." Hamp, Eric P., et al. (edd.). Readings in linguistics II (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), pp. 51-89. Reprinted from Travaux du Cercle Unguistique de Prague 6.240-88. Jasanoff, Jay. 1980. "The nominative singular of n-stcms in Germanic." Klar, Kathryn, et al. (edd.), American Indian and Indoeuropean studies: papers in honor of Madi son S. Beeler (The Hague: Mouton), pp. 375-82. ence on English Historical Linguistics (Amsterdam: Bej), pp Joseph, Brian, and Rex Wallace. 1984. "Latin morphology: another look." Linguistic Plank, Sfed.)ence on 1991. Paradigms: the economy of mflectwn. Berhn: deGry Inquiry 15.319-28. Kdler.Jochem. 1972. "L'apophonie des noms-racnes indo-europeens. Bulletin de Kemenade, Ans van. 1987. Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of Eng lish, Dordrecht: Foris. ^f"L*^^ ********** Kiparsky, Paul. 1978. "Analogical change as a problem for linguistic theory. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 8.77-96. Kuiper, F. B. J. 1942. Notes on Vedic noun-inflexion. = Mededeelingen der Nederland- (ed) Flexion und Wortbildung: Akten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen sche Akademie van Wetenschappcn. Afdeeling Letterkunde, N.R., Deel 5, No. 4. Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1949. "La nature des proces dits «analogiques»." Acta Unguistica 5. 15-37. Laroche, Emmanuel. 1972. "Observations sur la chronologic dc I'ionien a > e." Ernout, -. XW^Griechische GrammatiL I. Band: allgemeiner Teil, Lautlehre. Wortbildung. Alfred (ed.), Melanges de Unguistique et de philologie grecques offerts a Pierre Chantraine (Paris: Klincksieck), pp. 83-91. 1^^ Lejcune, Michel. 1943. "Notes sur la dt-clinaison latine." Revue des Etudes Latines 21. isch^Instrumental." Beitriige zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache undUte Leumann, Manu. 1977. Lateinische Lam- undFormenlehre. 2nded. Munich: Beck. Wdiar w" (ed) 1871-87. The holy gospels in Anglo-Saxon. Northumbrian, and Luraghi, Silvia. 1991. "Paradigm sire, possible syncretism, and the use of adpositions W^W^edO.^^ ^^/J^ Cambridge: Cambridge Un.vers.ty with cases inflective languages," Plank (ed.) 1991:57-74. ^ Maiden, Martin. 1992. "Irregularity as a determinant of morphological change. Journal Slobin. tSSIsaac (ed.). 1985. The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Vol.1: of Linguistics 28.285-312. Mallory.J. P. 1989. In search of the Indo-Europeans. London: Thames and Hudson. /SS. Th7s)>unds and inflections of the Greek dialects: Ionic. Ox- Marantz, Alec P. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press. ^Si^r: 2nd ed.. revised by Gordon M. Messing. Cambridge Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1986. "Lautlehrc: segmentale Phonologie des Indogermanischen. (Mass.): Harvard University Press. , Cowgill, Warren, and Manfred Mayrhofer, Indogermanische Grammatik, Band I. Sommer Ferdinand. 1914. Handbuch der lateinischen Laut-und Formenlehre. 2nd and (Heidelberg: Winter), pp. 73-216. . 3rd ed. Heidelberg: Winter. Mayscr, Edwin. 1906. Grammatik der sriechisclten Papyri aus der PtolemSerzeit. Leip Stang, Christian. 1965. "Indo-europecn *g»om, *d(i)iemr Hernz, Adam, et al (edd.), zig: Teubner. . , Symbotae linguisticae in honorem Georgii Kurylowcz (Wroclaw: Polska Aka- McCrcight, Katherine, and Catherine V Chvany. 1991. "Geometric representation of paradigms in a modular theory of grammar." Plank (ed.) 1991:91-111. —. l972mLexlk^ch^'sortderu^ereinstimmungen zwischen dem Slavischen, Battischen, Mclntyrc, Linda Lee. 1986. Animate plural in Neo-Hittite. M.A. Thesis, University of undGermanischen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. . North Carolina. . StembeSfrJo^h Paul and Brian MacWhinney. 1988. "Are inflected forms stored in Meillet, Antoine. 1905. "Hcllenica." M,moires de la Sociitide Unguistique de Parts 13. the lexicon?" Hammond, Michael, and Michael Noonan (edd.), Theoretical mar- phology (San Diego: Academic Press), pp. 101-16. —. 1914. "Lc datif singulier des themes en -i- en slave et en ilalique." Mimoires de la Stiles Patrick V. 1988. "Gothic nominative singular brobar 'brother and the reflexes ot Sociiti de Unguistique de Paris 18.378-9. Indo-European long vowels in the final syllables of Germanic polysyllables. Meiser. Gerhard. 1992. "Syncretism in Indo-European languages - motives, process, and results." Transactions of the Philological Society 90.187-218. Transactions of the Philological Society 86.115-43.

79 80 Nominative-Accusative Syncretism and Syntactic Case Don Ringe

Sweet, Henry (cd.). 1871. King Alfred's West-Saxon version of Gregory's Pastoral care. London: Triibner. .... Szemere'nyi, Oswald. 1956. "Latin res and ihe Indo-European long-diphthong stem nouns." Zeitschriftfur vergleichende Sprachforschung 73.167-202. —. 1968a. 'The Attic ,J*iickvcrwandlung"." Mayrhofer, Manfred, et al. (edd.), Studien zur Sprachwissenschafi und Kultitrkunde: Gedenkschrift ftir Wilhelm Branden- stein (Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Kulturwissenschaft), pp. 139-57. —. 1968b. "The Mycenaean and the historical Greek comparative and their Indo-Europe an background." Bartonfik, Antonfn (ed.). Studia mycenaea (Brno: Universila J. E. Purkynfi), pp. 25-36. . Thomason, Sarah Grey, and Tcrrence Kaufman. 1988. Language contact, creoltzaUon, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Thorpe Benjamin (ed.). 1844. The homilies of the Anglo-Saxon church. Parti: Sermo- nes catholici, or homilies of /Elfric. Vol I. London: iElfric Society. . 1846. —. —. Vol II. London: yElfric Society. Threatte, Leslie. 1980. The grammar of Attic inscriptions. Vol.1: phonology. Berlin: de Gruyter, ... j Vainikka, Anne. 1993. "The three structural cases in Finnish." Holmberg, Anders, and Urpo Nikannc (edd.), Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 129-59. Wackernagel, Jacob. 1903. "Zur griechischen Nominalflcxion." Indogermantsche Forschungen 14.367-375. —. 1916. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer. GGttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru- prccht. Weiss, Michael L. 1993. Studies in Italic nominal morphology. Ph.D. Dissertation, Cor nell University. _.,»,• Williams, Edwin. 1981. " On the notion, 'lexically related* and 'head of a word . Lin guistic Inquiry 12. 245-74. ... Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1984. Flexionsmorphologie und Naturlichkeit. Berlin: Akaderrue- Vcrlag. Zwicky, Arnold. 1985. "How to describe inflection." Proceedings of the Berkeley Lin guistic Society 11.372-86.

81