AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION
"VERB+PREPOSITION+INFINITIVE" IN
SPANISH
by
MAURICE DAVID INGRE
B.A., University of British Columbia, 1963
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS
in the Department of
HISPANIC AND ITALIAN STUDIES
We accept this thesis as conforming to the
required standard
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April, 1972 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study.
I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.
Department of Hispanic and Italian Studies
The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada ABSTRACT
The intent of the thesis, as explained in the Introduc• tion, is to examine the development and use of the verb+pre- position+infinitive construction in Castilian. The Introduc• tion serves to present the problem and to suggest an explana• tion. That is, the postulation of an initial prepositional meaning within the construction, which has since been lost in many cases.
Chapter One deals with the three terms employed in the construction, and indicates the possible ambiguity of each term, and the complexity inherent within its use. It examines several accepted definitions of the terms and of their rela• tionship to one another, and seeks to resolve several conse• quent problems.
Chapter Two consists of a study of the development of the construction from Latin to Old Spanish. It attempts to deal briefly with various Latin constructions and their sub• sequent influence, and tries to show how many of them resulted in the Spanish construction under consideration.
Chapter Three examines a number of examples of this construction in Old Spanish. It presents a possible inter• pretation of these quotations in the context of the verb+ preposition+infinitive construction, and attempts to demon• strate how and why they occurred, comparing and contrasting
Old and modern usage.
Chapter Four is an examination of the situation of
Modern Spanish, in terms of the same construction. It looks at a number of verbs in the language, indicates their ety• mology briefly, and points out various comparisons and con- 11 trasts with modern French. A discussion of these forms follows, with the intent of corroborating the original hypo• thesis. The Conclusion^, consists of a summation of the infor• mation gained in the course of the study. TABLE OF CONTENTS abbreviations page iii
Introduction.. Ii. " 1
Chapter I ...... " 9 Chapter I, Footnotes " 25
Chapter II " 23 Chapter II, Footnotes..... — :. " 50
Chapter III " 52 Chapter III, Footnotes... " 77 Chapter IV .... " 79 Chapter IV, Footnotes " 110
Conclusion 11 111 Bibliography " 114 LIST OF TABLES
Table I Verbs Requiring the Preposition "a" page 82
Table II Verbs Requiring the Preposition nde" " 86
Table III Verbs Requiring Other Prepositions " 90
Table IV Verbs Requiring Wo Preposition " 95
Table V Statistical Analysis of Verb Lists " 97 ABBREVIATIONS
The following abbreviations will be used throughout both text and footnotes to designate the works indicated; these latter may be found sub verba in the bibliography.
Academia : Real Academia Espanola, Gramatica de la lengua espafiola.
Allen : Allen and Greenough*s New Latin Grammar
Fisionomia : Criado de Val, Fisionomia del idioma espanol
Gramatica : Toro y Gomez, Miguel de, Gramatica de la lengua castellana segun la Academia EspaHola
Hescott : Hescott, R., El Desarrollo de las preposi- ciones en el espaHol medieval
Linguistica : Pottier, Bernard, Linguistica moderna y filo- logia hispanica
Lopez : Lopez, Maria Luisa, Problemas y metodos en el analisis de. preposiciones
Sintactica : Martin Alonso,: Evolucion sintactica del espanol INTRODUCTION
The intent of this paper will be to examine the de• velopment and use of certain prepositions within certain types of infinitive constructions in Castilian.. The basic purpose, however, will not be merely to trace the documented usage of these particles, but to consider them in the light of what might more readily be termed a kind of grammatical vestige of a previously "felt" part of speech.
A person speaking his own native language tends to be unaware - consciously - of the intricacies of the grammar of that language. He utilizes certain forms, certain construc• tions, or turns of phrase, not through the open recollection of some governing rule, but rather by the immediate "feeling" that it "sounds right". What "sounds right" within a single language, however, is itself a rather ambiguous and often mercurial criterion. Generally, each ideolect maintains criteria which are peculiar to itself; likewise, within-a short period of time, the more general "feeling" of "what sounds right" within a speech community also tends to change.
Those utterances which pertain more to the vernacular and to slang, are usually the most unsuccesful in introducing them• selves into any more definitive grammatical criterion than
"what sounds right". And yet'these utterances are often the most colourful, the most representative of the changing con• ditions of the language, and thus the most luminous indica• tors of the manner in which the speakers of the language are modifying their "feeling" for their mother tongue.
After some time, of course, many utterances which had .2
originally appeared in a language through attempts to
create novel images, to make expressions more colourful, or to avoid the confusion of words which have become homo• nyms, are fully accepted within the formal framework of the
language's lexicon or syntax. Such was the case with French
tete from TESTA, for example. Similarly, semantic extension
resulted in the general Romance Languages' adoption of
CABALLUS with the general meaning of horse; an analogous type of phenomenon resulted in the transference of meaning which caused BUCCA to give boca, e.tc, with the meaning of mouth rather than cheek. And here vie encounter one of the
prime.questions to be considered. To what extend is the way a person - a native speaker - viex^s his own language, "feels"- his own language, confuses his own emotional inferences with his learned and conditioned reflexes, relevant to the way..in which he effects a change in his mother tongue? What is the
influence of a group's supposed memories of what is to be
considered "correct", upon the metamorphosis constantly in
play in any language? Such things as hypercorrection are
often manifestations of this influence, for example the hum-
erous connotation applied to such errors as bacalado, Bilbado,
stemming from corrections to the commonly heard but officially
condemned pronunciations such"as habla*o, canta'o, etc.
Similarly, the effect of regularization, which has had strong
effect on the formation of many Spanish verbs, has not been
forceful enough to include forms such as *rompido, *decido, and *volvido, which have not fallen subject to regular patterns. 3
One fact should permanently be borne in mind, des• pite its seemingly obvious nature: descriptive, prescrip• tive and proscriptive grammars alike are the rather arti• ficial creations of people attempting to comment upon a de facto situation. Although supposedly authoritative bodies - the Real.Academia Espanola or the Academie Fran- palse, for.example - do expedite or impede change in a language, they too are in effect dealing a posteriori with a language originated by a multitude of speakers almost totally unconcerned with "correctness". The influences of both substrata and superstrata, and the diverse speech patterns of individuals are, in a sense, the true builders of speech criteria. The fact that Francien superceded other
Gallic dialects, such as Provenpal, by force of both liter• ary and socio-political ascendency over a previously estab• lished literary tradition, is an example of how one dialect becomes a prestige, tongue'. Such is also the case with the rise of Castilian - the linguistic "odd man out" amongst the various Iberian dialects.
Purely etymological explanations may be justified in the case of lexical derivations; though here, too, one no• tices the interference of,such phenomena as analogy, faulty juncture, popular etymology, etc. (For example, estrella from the "combination" of ASTRUM and STELLAM; algodon and many others retaining the Arabic definite article; cerrojo by influence of cerrar from VERUCULUM.) With the introduc• tion of caiques into a language, etymological explanation can become increasingly tenuous, at least as an exclusive interpretation. (For example, the formation of hidalgo, and
French plut.au ciel.) And when one attempts to explain syn• tax and phraseology, especially viewed diachronically, ety• mology may be more hindrance than help. The explanation of a particular phenomenon, of course, should be sought within the confines of the type of problem to be solved. That is to say, if the matter concerns phonetic points, a phonetic explanation should be developed; if morphological, a like solution must be found; if syntactic, analogous means taken.
Similarly, if the problem at hand is one which seems to re• side more in the way individuals approach their language, that is, a'*"..subjective, type of criterion, but seen on a mass scale, some sort of "subjective" solution must be pursued.
Basically, the type of utterance to be dealt with here is that of the preposition used between certain verbs and their dependent infinitives in Castilian. For example, why does one say voy a hacerlo rather than voy hacerlo or voy en hacerlo? Why is it.correct to say empiezan a leer but not empiezan leer or empiezan de leer? What accounts for the locution cuento con verle instead of cuento a verle? What is the reason for the choice of preposition in sueno contigo, rather than sueno de ti? Two; rather obvious types of rea• soning with regard to an answer appear immediately. One can state that the usage is entirely dependent upon long esta• blished grammatical conventions and therefore to be observed.
Or one can merely attempt to answer the question "why?" with 5 the panaceic (but factually invalid) "because it sounds right that way". Both supposed answers are, of course, placebos, and propose no' real information. The former is but the kind of a posteriori pronouncement already men• tioned, which in effect begs the question. And the latter, unfortunately, tends, to answer a slightly different ques• tion, that of "what is used?" rather than that of "why?".
Neither, then, is satisfactory according to the problem presented.
Another tack often taken is to describe the circum• stances leading up to the present state of affairs. This would entail a more or less comprehensive listing of past situations, leading up to modern grammatical prescription, without investigations or, deliberation of impetus or moti• vation. Several excellent studies have been made of the development of Spanish prepositions from Latin. But this type of. work also tends to skirt the issue in a most impor• tant sense. The "development" in question is still along the lines of "what has happened" rather than "why. has it happened". And it tends to neglect, as well, the "subjec• tive" plane. That is to say, the language did not develop as an entity unto itself. The people speaking it were, in fact, responsible for moulding it into its present state.
And those people, as we have mentioned, did not generally govern themselves by grammatical concepts, but by personal
choice. How else can one give comprehensive explanation of the differing state of affairs to be found in the different 6
Romance languages, taking into account, of course, all other types of criteria, such as substrata and superstrata (al• though these, too, relate to the idea of the individual's whims). Why, for example, does Spanish say prometi hacerlo, while French prefers .j'ai promis de le faire? Why does
Spanish say sone' con mis amigos, in contrast to French .j'ai songe* a mes amis? And a vivid example might be the ambi• valence in modern French between commencer a. faire quelque- chose and commencer de faire quelquechose. What accounts for these differences? Analogy within a language, to be sure, does play an important role. But it cannot rightly be taken as.the prime source of change. The basic question still remains' unanswered: why was a certain preposition
chosen to follow a certain verb?
In order to attempt a solution to the problem, a num• ber of factors must be considered. The usage in question
is an integral part of a language derived chiefly from Latin.
Therefore, we should try initially to establish the proba• bilities of direct ..development from this source, but bearing
in mind that Latin seldom utilized this type of construction.
Perhaps an examination of the:transitional period including
Vulgar Latin and Iberian Romance will prove more fruitful.
We can also attempt an analysis of the verb - that is to say, with regard to its meaning - which seems to have displayed an affinity for a certain preposition before a dependent infin•
itive. Within this frameworky.we must consider such factors as analogy - both amongst verbs and with reference to adjec- 7 tives and substantives as well - and concept,, as just men• tioned. Successive grammarians also are sure sources of influence, as is the regulating effect of the Real Academia.
There must be an involvement not only with the exigencies of literary style, whose development unerringly effects modifi• cations within a language, but with the spontaneity of the spoken word, whose influence has been continuous throughout the history of the language.
One of the most important and crucial considerations must be the following. What are the various ways in which it is possible to view the definition and function of a pre• position? Not only the explicit (and occasionally implicit) roles it.has been assigned by grammars, but the manner in which it can be conceived and interpreted by a speaker. As the use of the preposition spread and grew in the Romance languages, owing in large part to the breakdown of the Latin declensions, what kinds of connotations can be hypothesized as having been attached to these particles? For it is read• ily admitted that the connotations one attributes to any word, whatever its purely grammatical function, are often more res• ponsible for the fate of this word than its denotation. And it must be remembered that in. an utterance such as se divoLrtio en la ciudad, the preposition fulfills a completely different function than it does in se divirtio en ver la ciudad. In the former, the preposition demonstrates some kind of inde• pendent conceptual function, while in the latter it serves rather as a mere grammatical tool, without any obvious, funda- mental part to play in the meaning of the phrase. How, then, do we account both for the actual retention of a preposition, and for the particular choice of the preposition en after the verb divertirse?. When Iberian Romance speakers "initially" decided to utilize en in this context - or another preposi• tion in another situation, or no preposition at all - how were they approaching the meaning? Did they perhaps tend to think of the preposition as being important because of a real prepositional function being considered inherent in its use?
That is to say, were these constructions formed at first by speakers viewing the preposition as a word with a vital mean• ing of its own, as relevant and as necessary to conveying the sense of the sentence as that of any other word within it?
By attempting to confront this type of problem, we can per• haps deal with the question "why did it happen?", rather than
"What happened?". CHAPTER I
The initial.step in the attempted clarification of the verb+preposition+infinitive construction in Spanish should perforce be an investigation of terms and concepts.
It is entirely probable that a fairly well educated speaker of Spanish or English would utilize the words "verb", "prep• osition", and "infinitive", without any seeming difficulty.
He may be aware of definitions common to grammar books, such as "A verb is a part of speech which expresses action or state"; "A preposition is a part of speech which links a word or group of words' not containing a verb to the rest of the sentence"; and, "An. infinitive is a verbal noun". Even a cursory examination of customary definitions of the parts of speech presents an•unfortunate difficulty: the cognate defin• ition. The explanation of one part of speech is interpreted in terms of another, whose definition is couched in terms of yet.another, and so on.
"Most of us", says Louis B. Salomon, "toss about a number of words rather promiscuously (not.words on the order of
'cucumber* or 'tennis* or 'glass* or * parakeet*, but * peace*,
*democracy*, * freedom*, * justice*, *rights') without ever really examining what referents or defining qualities we have in mind, or even whether we have had any at all; and, if challenged, we are likely to turn to our favorite dictionary in the hope that it will tell us what we have been meaning all along."1 An identical situation is largely true insofar as one is accustomed to interpret the meaning of "verb", "prep• osition", and "infinitive". Though the terms are discussed 10 with frequency and apparent facility, and their referents
employed necessarily in all everyday speech, the full com•
plexity of their identity still seems highly elusive. And
yet, it must be admitted, - this ignorance on the part of the
majority of the speech community produces ho tangible effects,
beneficial or prejudicial, on the lives of the individual
members of that community.
Despite an ostensible negative appearance, this is a
very important consideration. Unaware of any categorical
definitions which have been somehow imposed on one's language,
one.naturally remains relatively unaware of growing diver•
gencies in the.speech of the "community; one's ideolect will
be much more influenced by.some kind of subjective aesthetic
considerations than by. the supposed "correctness" of grammars
employed in an educational system. If of one million people
speaking the same language,. only one thousand are truly cog•
nizant of the significance of their terminology, but these
are unable to impose their convictions on the others, the •
remaining nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand - the over•
whelming majority of the speech community - will continue to
speak their-language and communicate by it, unconcerned with
grammatical rules. Their speech will gradually change; in•
deed, the less consciously aware they are of grammatical pre•
scription and proscriptipn, the more rapid the changes are
likely to be.
In a sense, we can use this hypothetical situation as an
analogy to part of the linguistic history of the Romance orb il of western Europe. Until comparatively recent times, inter• communication on a large scale was unknown between geogra• phically ' or'- politically separated- areas. Also until a rela• tively short time ago, the vast majority of the populace of all areas was illiterate. They spoke as they chose, and: they were unconstrained by any knowledge of "correct grammar";. It can be surmised that to the average uneducated speaker of a medieval Romance language, Latin was almost as incomprehensi• ble as another Romance language might have been. And so, as we discover that the reasons for the choice of preposition in the structures we shall be investigating cannot be ex• plained solely through direct reference to Latin, we shall see the significance of the following idea. The way people spoke and the way they thought, the way they approached "what soun• ded right", uncurbed by adherence to formalized grammar, strongly influenced the growth and development of the verb+ preposition+infinitive locution. "The standard meaning of a verbal symbol at any given time is what the users of the,symbol do with it at that time."2 This will be true regardless of a posteriori grammatical pronouncements, and is manifested by' the constant changes observable in a language such as Spanish.
Applying this concept directly to the verb+preposition+ infinitive construction, we can conclude that, in fact, it does not really matter if one has arrived at the form "empezar de", provided one is able to communicate the appropriate con• cept with sufficient clarity, to the majority of the speech community. The initial choice of a word in a given environ- 1.2 merit by the speakers of a language is unimportant in most cases, as long as the symbol ,is accepted by all, or at least by a "quorum" for communication.
One can thus postulate the following: as a language grows, it exists over a given time space. Within that time space - let us take the arbitrary figure of five hundred years - each.generation will learn the language and pass it on to its progeny. Not. only does each generation effect slight changes in the language, but differences are of course noticeable on an individual level as well. What would hap• pen, then, if one generation decided unanimously to make-a change in the language of the speech community?3 If they were successful in making the change fairly unanimous, and could in some way retain relatively good communication with their elders as well, the change could easily become "normal" in the language. This type of modification usually occurs spontaneously and - in a sense - unconsciously. Good exam• ples are the instances of new slang which spring into common usage in any language, .such as "hang-up" and "up tight" and
"rip off" in English. Once they are fairly common and wide• spread, they become intelligible, to most of the speech com• munity; after remaining in the language for some time and after having gained more universal acceptance, they usually come to be considered a part of the "formal" lexicon. Again, in English, one could point to the multitude of terms origi• nally coined as neologisms by such authors as Shakespeare, words which now form part of "standard English". 13
An analogous type, of interpretation is valuable in attempting to explain the emergence, of some of the choices of preposition in the verb+preposition+infinitive construction in Spanish. As the Latin case system broke down, the use of prepositions developed rapidly. As people spoke, they used the words they were creating, and the locutions they were
inventing, to express themselves more clearly, more colour- fully, or more precisely. Their reasons for choosing one word over another may or may not have had a rational explan• ation. The speakers might have been attracted by the sound of a grouping of words, or they might have thought they re• membered having been taught to use a certain syntax; they might have established differences not previously necessary or existing because of a desire to avoid what now seemed:an ambiguity; they might have mistakenly interpreted a term:no longer in common use and:decided "to replace it with one oc• curring more frequently, for "aesthetic" reasons alone, lea• ving us with an unexplained modern enigma of phraseology.
We are thus forced to consider the problem not only from a narrow etymological point of view, .but from a much wider.one, encompassing semantic.and human implications as well.
"Nos vemos obligados", says Pottier, "para obrar de buena fe, a recurrir a la sustancia semantica. Y no hay por qu6 avergonzarse. Los estudios recientes exclusivamente formales han demostrado con su fracaso que la lengua es algo muy distinto de un simple mecanismode combina- ciones. El mecanismo existe, e incluso es funda• mental. Y, desde luego, tiene su razon de ser: la necesidad por parte del hombre de aprovechar al m&xirno (mediante las diferenciaciones del dis- curso) un reducido numero de cuadros simples de 14
pensamiento (las representaciones de la lengua) que le permitan de esta ,manera, y con un mfnimo de esfuerzo, expresar la multiplicidad de sus actividades mentales. Quierase o no, la ling- ' uistica es una ciencia humana."^-
In order to indicate the' confusion which may underlie concepts normally considered simple, articulate, and une• quivocal, let us examine some postulated definitions of the. three particles with which we are concerned, the verb, the preposition, and the infinitive. While so doing, we shall attempt to point out discrepancies,, contradictions, dif• ficulties, and, hopefully, some conclusions concerning the development of the verb+preposition+infinitive construction in modern Spanish.
Lenz says the following:
"...para llegar a una definicidn del verbo debemos distinguir dos casos: 1) El verbo encierra • en si la expresion clara del surjeto pronominal, como en latin y castellano; entonces el VERBO. es una palabra que por si sola expresa todo un juiciq independiente (sujeto ypredicado) y forma una ora-
ci6n. 2) Se exige, como.eh francos, ingles y ale- i m£n, la expresi6*n separacia del sujeto; entonces el VERBO es una palabra que anadida a un sujeto, ex• presa con el un juicio cbmpleto e independiente y forma una oraci6n."5. .,
His attempt-to;resolve the difficulty incurred by the inclu• sion of several languages falls prey to other problems. For example, Lenz thinks even this rather complex definition insufficient; consequently he proceeds to discuss restric• tions and exceptions. One might thus suppose he is properly intent on avoiding any possible confusion or ambiguity. How• ever, what can we make of his use of the term "palabra"? . 15
Only certain tenses of the verb in Spanish - not to mention other languages - are composed of a single word. Or are. we to interpret "palabra" as meaning "word or group of words", in which case do we not encounter the problem of attempting to determine what exactly constitutes the verb (grammatically as well as meaningfully) in a form such as "Nunca se me ha podido decirlo"? What, then, is the exact significance of
"verb"?
Miguel de Toro y Gomez attempts a much simpler defini• tion. "YERBO", he says, "es una parte de la oracion que designa esencia, existencia, accion, pasion, o estado, casi siempre con expresi6n de tiempo y de persona."^ Perhaps because of its very vagueness and imprecision, this defini• tion is not subject to the same sort of criticism levelled against that of Lenz. But how does it distinguish words such as "agrio" - which indicates "esencia", "eterno" - which in• dicates "existencia", "carrera" - which indicates "accion",
"locamente" - which indicates "pasion", or "cansado" - which indicates "estado", from "VERBO", if the expression of time and person is not necessarily one of the defining character• istics of a verb.
What about the infinitive? "Modo infinitivo", says Toro y Gomez "es el que anuncia en abstracto la idea del verbo sin expresar numero ni persona."7 According to Lenz, though, the
"infinitivo" is a "substantivd verbal", and is one of the three "verboides del castellano". The term "verfeides" he defines as "aquellas formas verbales que no encierran en si 16
la expresion.de la persona del sujeto y que, si se agregan a un nominativo sujeto-, no forman con 61 una proposicion
separable, -aunque contengan todos los elementos de un juicio
completo."3 The most important aspect here is the mention
of the term "substantivo verbal". The following quotation
shows an attempt.to relate this idea to that of the prepo•
sition. 9
"De los terminos relacionados por la prepo- sicion, el primero puede' ser un substantivo, un adjetivo o un verbo, y tambien un pronombre o un adverbio. y'hasta una interje.ccion; pero el segundo ha de ser siempre un nombre substantivo o palabra o locucion de significacion equivalente. Equiva- lentes en significacion al substantivo sabemos que son: el pronombre, el infinitivo, que es la forma substantivada del verbo, una oracion substantiva y • los adverbios de lugar y de tiempo, que no son mas que los pronombres demostrativos de los nombres que denotan dichas ideas."
The import of this argument seems to be that the identity of
the infinitive is always that of a substantive. However, if
the infinitive is inevitably to be considered a substantive,
should it not behave in the same way as the latter in all
cases? But here we see one of the anomalies of verbs which
govern no preposition before a noun, but which do require a
preposition before a dependent infinitive, for example "apren-
der". One says "Aprendo a hacer el trabajo", but "Aprendo la
leccion". Does this not cast doubt on the basic idea of tra•
ditional grammatical description which maintains that the
infinitive is only a verbal noun, and does not behave inde•
pendently? 17
"PREPOSICION", says Toro y Gomez, "es una parte in• declinable de la oracion que sirve para denotar el regimen o dependencia que tienen entre si dos palabras o clausulas.n-*- (
This is slightly different from the definition afforded us by Lenz, who once again, in his attempt to be thorough and comprehensive, includes too much material and thus creates other problems. He offers the following definition: "La PREPOSICION es una palabra invariable que sirve para transformer un substantivo en atributo o complement© de otro elemento de la misma proposicidn. Si el termino no es verda- dero substantivo, al menos funciona como tal... De las formas verbales, el infinitivo, que es substantivo verbal, con facilidad extraordin- aria admite en castellano cualquier preposi- cion..."11 The difficulty, it is apparent, is the same encountered above in the interpretation of the function of the infinitive. But two points do appear from the above: first, that the prepo• sition indicates some sort of relation between two elements, and that its relative position is also of importance. These concepts have evolved through the course of cen• turies of grammatical interpretation, and, with the exception of the interjection, modern classification of the parts of speech, including the preposition, can be traced back to the Greeks.12 A very brief history of prepositional definition can be obtained from the following lines.
"Las preposiciones fueron consideradas como palabras de enlace, junto con las conjunciones, por los estoicos, que senalaron tambiln su caracter de prepuestas...Fue Dionisio de Tracia quien separd las preposiciones del grupo que formaban con las conjunciones, y definio la preposicidn como la parte 18 ' •
de la oraci6n que se coloea delante de las otras partes en combinaciones sintacticas y en formacidn de palabras...En las escuelas de Europa, durante toda la antiguedad y la Edad Media, la gramatica concibio, pues, la preposicidn desde el punto de vista de la logica, como...un termino de union, que se oponia a las palabras concretas como los norabres o los pronombres...Sint&ctieamente, se definio la preposicidn como un termino *colocado delante*...Al llegar al Renaci- miento, la definieion de, la Gramcitica Cas- tellana de Nebrija...no representa nada nuevo: •Una de las diez partes de la oracion, la cual se pone delante de las otras por aiun- tamiento o por composicidn*. Y senala bien que las preposiciones sirven para demostrar la significacion de los casos...Mas original es la definicidn...de Villandn: *La lengua castellana tiene palabras que el latin llama preposiciones porque se proponen al nombre o al verbo en la clausula para manifestar mas el affecto humano del que la pronuncia*... Scaligero estudia ampliamente las preposi• ciones y rechaza todas las definiciones tra- dicionales. Las preposiciones sirven para indicar el lugar, el movimiento y el repose.. Despues de multiples tentativas de definieion, llegamos a la cdlebre Gramatica de Port-Royal, plenamente satisfactoria: 'Es el exponente de una relacidn considerada de una maner-a abstrac- ta y general, e independiente de t.odo termino antecedente y consecuente*. Definieion comple- tamente al dia, y que esta* en la base de la teoria de Viggo Br^ndal, que define las prepo• siciones como palabras cuya funcion es expresar una relacidn, pero una relacidn pura sin con- sideraciones directas a los objetos- o a las situaciones."13
This last definition, and that of Port-Royal, insist on the function of the preposition, rather than its own inde• pendent identity. That is to say, it would appear to take at least a part of its meaning from what precedes and what fol• lows it. Born directly from this idea is the question of whether the preposition demonstrates a meaning of. its own, or is it merely a connector?14 A bit contentious seems the Real Academia*s definition: "Esta particula, llamada impropiamente parte de la oracion, no tiene valor de por si en el habla; es un element© de relacidn, cuya signifi- cacidn depende no solo de ella, sino del valor de los voca- blos por ella relacionados."15 One such relationship would occur in a sentence such as "Me abstengo de fumar demasiado", in which apparently the preposition "no tiene valor de por si en el habla", since the relationship of "abstener" to "fumar" is that of the simple idea "No fumo demasiado", or "Prefiero no fumar demasiado". However, since the concept of abstention can be figuratively construed as one of with• drawal, the preposition "de" may have been chosen to better visualize this idea. A further explanation can be found in an analogy with sentences such as "Abstengo del vino cuahto puedo", in which the preposition has likely been derived from the use of a previous genitive. Note also this comment of Salomon, which, though here relating to adverbs, could also be applicable to prepositions:
"...(W)e have some compound verbs (in English) in which "words" are interchangeable with their apparent opposites: when you enter data on a routine form or questionnaire, you are filling it in (or out); v/hen you reduce the speed of your car, you are slowing up (or down), and so forth. If the substitution of out for in, down for up_, produces no change in the meaning of the whole expression, this at least raises a question as to whether these words (in such expressions) have what we should call meaning. "16
A similar type of phenomenon can be said to be observed in
Spanish. Although the present "grammaticality" of the ex• pression would suffer, would it have caused unintelligibility .20 for the future if "continuar de hacerlo" had developed in place of "continuar a hacerlo", "fijarse de algo", and the like? Or if "empezar a hacerlo" had remained as "empezar de hacerlo", as it had been in Old Spanish? It is interes• ting to observe, incidentally, that in terms of general semantic meaning, de is the direct opposite of a, and per• haps in some way, one could conceive of the absence of a preposition as being semantically contrary to the incidence of any preposition, indicating - with no facetious intent whatever - that "nothing" may be as important or as unnece• ssary as "something" when dealing with semantics. Similarly, one can sense analogies between "empezar a hacer/poder hacer" and "begin tp_ do it/can do it". What could we call the "meaning function" of the English prepositional infinitive marker, if not the same as that of the Spanish preposition, this same "empty form", even without attempting to equate the normal concept of. "infinitive marker" in Spanish with that of English?
A contrasting but definitive view is taken by Pottier, who says: "Hasta se ha podido. decir que hay preposiciones . que llegan a no tener significacidn (a propdsito del *def francos), lo que no se puede justificar: si existe un mor- fema en una lengua, esta este condicionado y por lo tanto desempena un pa pel en la *estructuraf de la lengua. "17 if, then, a preposition must have a.definite meaning, must con• vey some kind of information independent of that granted by the words which surround it, what form may this "meaning" ;21 take when viewed in the context of the verb+preposition+ infinitive construction? Does "meaning" in this sense merely indicate some kind of "grammatical convention" as the pleonastic ne has become in certain comparison struc• tures in French? Or is "meaning" required to have some type of semantic justification as well? The former by it• self would be unworkable, since it obscures the distinction between sense and form. Thus one can postulate, as previous ly mentioned, that there once existed a prior "meaning" (now lost) attached to the preposition. In this way can one ex• plain the occurrence of the various prepositions in their various environments: at the time of first utilizing this particle, the speakers "felt" a need for it in order to communicate their ideas. Such a theory would, in fact, tie together the implication of the Real Academia and the pro• nouncement of Pottier: the word was necessary and existed to fill a semantic need; its importance was gradually, lost to the consciousness of the speakers, but has remained as a grammatical vestige, without which the phrase would not "sound right" to the native, even if its meaning did not change.x It has become unimportant but at the same time necessary, both meaningful and "palabra vacia1?.
In terms of how we are to understand the function of the preposition, it is of interest to consider still another remark of Lopez, in his discussion of the grammarian Vendryes: 22
"Por su parte, Vendryes ha rechazado las preposiciones de las partes de la oracion porque son simples morfemas; el papel que desempefian puede representarse en otras lenguas por un procedimiento morfoldgico muy distinto. Asi, el espanol dice *el libro de. Pedro*, donde el latin, *liber Petri*."19 Is his point, however, valid? Even in Classical Latin, prepositions had their uses, quite distinct and auto• nomous from the semantic manifestation of the morphological system. And surely, the fact that Spanish has all but done away with the case system cannot be considered a good reason for excluding prepositions from grammatical description.
In fact, keeping in mind, what Nebrija had said with re•
gard to the definition of prepositions20} j.et us examine a piece of information presented by the Real Academia2!: Es tan intima la conexidn entre la preposicidn y el nombre que junto con ella sirve de complemento a otro vocablo, que el entendimlehto la concibe como for- mando un solo concepto mental con dicho nombre, y al expresarlo. lo haee como si las dos palabras, es decir, la preposicidn y el nombre, fuesen una sola; y asi, decimos *de casa, a casa, por casa*, sin dar valor prosddieo a las particulas *de, a, por*, y pronun- ciandolas como. si se escribiese *decasa, acasa, por- casa*. Por esta razdn son procliticas todas las preposiciones, y en este sentido bien podemos decir que el castellano tiene una *declinacidn preposicio- nal* en compensaeion de la-perdida declinacidn latina que las lenguas romances han substituido por lasppre- posiciones y el nombre, asi como en latin las desi- nencias no fueron en su .origen otra cosa que parti- • culas que iban detras de los mismos nombres."
In the context of the verb+preposition+infinitive construction, this concept would not really be functional, quite apart from the difficulties of attempting to describe such a system com• prehensively .for substantives. The choice of the preposition •23 in the construction we are concerned with, then, depends not on the infinitive following, but on the preceding verb, and, at times, upon the contextual meaning, when more than one preposition may follow a certain verb. The preposition, then, is here clearly not a proclitic of the infinitive.
An interesting hypothetical system could be conceived, however, analogous though opposite in direction to that sug• gested by the Academia. In such a system - speaking parti• cularly of the verb+preposition+infinitive construction - the preposition could become, in fact, a verbal enclitic, com• pleting a kind of declensional system of the verb, or, in other words, establishing yet another class within the con- jugational system now existing. Thus, the verb would be con• jugated through tense and voice; its forms for mood would include indicative, subjunctive, infinitive, and one final form, called, perhaps, the "enclitic mood". The postclitic prepositions 'a1, 'de', etc., would be attached to the verb to form this mood (similar in concept, one might say, to.the Portuguese personal infinitive), whenever the verb directly preceded an infinitive. A "zero form" would be recognized to deal with those verbs which govern a dependent infinitive without, preposition. But it would then be necessary to class• ify verbs which can govern a variety of prepositions, those which require a preposition before an infinitive but not a substantive, and those which take a'preposition except before a pronoun object (for example, contestar). Such a system of classification, of course, would be even more unwieldly and -24 problematic than the rather cumbersome one presently em-, ployed to describe Spanish. However, its hypothetical validity should be equally difficult to refute. And con• sidering it should point out that, as stated earlier, common terms such as "preposition", can easily prove to be ambiguous, difficult, and extremely complex, when examined in many of their everyday structures. FOOTNOTES, CHAPTER I
1) Salamon, Louis B., Semantics & Common Sense, Holt, Rine- hart and Winston, Inc., N.Y., 1966, p. 49
2) Ibid, p. 23
3) This type of experiment was attempted by Mussolini, al• though it must be admitted that no "generation decided unanimously" to abandon "Lei" in all discourse. The reasons for the failure of this experiment are likely extremely complicated, and would involve factors such as the natural unwillingness of the people to change their speech habits of generations, the difficulty of thorough communication and comprehensive educational, changeovers, and - probably most important of all - the fact that this change was forcibly imposed, rather than freely chosen. Pottier, Bernard; Linguistica moderna y filologia hispan- ica, version espanola de Martm Blanco Alvarez, Editorial Gredos, S.A., Madrid 1968, p. 143
Lenz, Rudolfo, La Oracion y sus partes, Estudios de gramatica general y castellana, Madrid, 1935, p. 392
Gramatica, p. 57
7 Ibid, p. .59 8 Lenz, p. 396..'. • -V ] '
9 Academia, p. 207 10 Gramatica, p. 189 . 11 Lenz, p. 509/520 12 Lopez, p. 13
13 Ibid, p. 15/16 14 "...El gramatico sueco Nat Beckman...pone preposiciones y conjunciones juntas bajo la indicacidh comun de *conec- tores* (*Bindeordt), y declara que la principal tarea de la preposicidn es estar *conectadaT a un sustantivo, con el proposito de formar un atributo, y que la principal tarea de las conjunciones es de unir frases." L6pez, p. 19 15) Academia, p. 206
16) Salomon, p. 8/9
17) Lingiilstica, p. 145- Pottier is criticizing the idea of the "empty word", the 26
particle which is used grammatically, but whose exis• tence cannot apparently be justified by semantic means, and which is therefore considered to be entirely super• fluous. He elaborates his argument as follows: "El historiador de la lengua, acostumbrado tradicionalmente a buscar el detalle, el ejemplo marginal, se siente pro- clive a pensar que un morfema como 'a' o 'de*, que parece que significan lo que uno quiera, acaban, en consecuencia por no significar nada preciso. Y de ahi la desastrosa denominacidn de "palabra vacia", verdadero monstruo lin- guistico. Por el hecho de existir cien variedades de azul
18) Compare the sentences "Salgo para ver a mi tio" and "He de ver a mi .tio". The former utilizes the preposition "para" which retains its original semantic function: it is re'strictively necessary to the sense of the word group, although, admittedly, only to a certain extent. In the latter the preposition'"de" possesses this char• acteristic to such a slight degree, if at all, as to make it non-restrictive.. However, in a sentence such as "Salg sin ver a mi tip", the situation is totally distinct. Here, the preposition,"sin" is of vital importance to the meaning of the sentence; without it, a completely oppo• site idea would likely be construed. Here, then, the preposition has retained fully the original semantic function once attributed,to the others, but since lost.
19) Lopez, p. 66 20) Lopez, p. 16. Nebrija says: "Los acident.es dela preposi• cidn son tres: figura, orden i-caso...Los casos con que se aiuntan las preposiciones son dos, genitivo i acusa- tivo...Sirven...las preposiciones para demostrar la di- versidad dela significacidh delos casos, como de para demostrar cuia es alguna cosa que es el segundo caso, a 27
para demostrar aquien aprovechamos o empecemos que es el tercero case, a esso mesmo para demostrar el cuarto caso enlos nombres proprios i aun algunas vezes enlos comunes. Ai algunas preposiciones que nunca se hallan sino en composici(5n, i son estas con des re, como con- cordar, desacordar, recordar." Nebrija, Antonio de; Gramdtica Gastellana, Edicion de la Junta del Genten- ario, Madrid, 1946,. p. 83/84. See also Chapter IV, pages 79-81 and 101-103.
21) Academia, p. 206 CHAPTER- II
The fact that Spanish differs considerably from the other Romance languages presents the complex problem of . determining why it should have.derived differently from French, Italian, Portuguese, or Rumanian. As well, one must consider the development of the different Romance dia• lects within the confines of each language. Here, too, of course, one is faced with the question of determining what distinguishes a language from a dialect. Until comparatively recently, for example, Catalan was considered first a dialect of Provencal - itself often having been understood as a dia• lect of French - and then of Spanish. And what is meant by Spanish? Does one include within the language, madrileTio, asturiano, gallego-portugu£s, valenciano, andaluz, etc., or does one have to make further divisions? If so, then where and how does one establish these differences of terminology? These, however, are not the problems to be confronted in this paper. When reference is made to Spanish, it is to be under• stood that what is meant, is the so called "standard Spanish". What must be considered here, however, is the process by which certain traits of Spanish reached their present state, and, indirectly, the contrasts often evident between Spanish and, for example, French.
The factors which governed the development of a speech peculiarly Spanish in the confines of the Iberian peninsula were manifold. To begin with, the substratum' languages of the area were responsible for certain influences upon the Latin super-imposed upon them. The effect of the Roman conquest in 29 the area now Spain was immensely heavy. Not only did the indigenous speeches secede"to the implantation of a foreign language - and this phenomenon occurring within a compara• tively short period of time - but the entire cultural fabric of the land was radically altered so as to conform to cri• teria of the expanding Roman empire. The native peoples rapidly relinquished their various individualities - with the notable exception.of the Basques, who have remained linguis• tically autonomous and culturally identifiable to this day - and gradually acquired a fair degree of homogeneity as a Roman province. "En el tiempo de AUGUSTO", Martin Alonso in• forms us,l "cualquier civis romanus de nuestras ciudades de It^lica (Vicus italicensis) o M<_rida (Augusta Emerita) podia viajar por las calzadas romanas y hacerse entender en las Galias (Francia), la Dacia (Rumania), la Retia (parte de Suiza, Italia y Austria) hasta las orillas del Danubio y del Rin. La coordinacidn de la frase y el saludo eran identicos: Salve (Dios te guarde). Vale (Se fuerte)." This fact is no longer true, however. Phraseology, greetings, farewells, as well as lexicon, differ greatly, not only between the various areas named, but even within the confines of each.
In the Iberian peninsula, the Romance speech which even• tually developed from the admixture of Vulgar Latin and the languages of the province, at length became recognizable, and began to acquire peculiarities of its own. For example, where• as manducare was generally used in the Gallic provinces and the Italic peninsula (giving French manger and Italian mang- 30 iare), the form comedere predominated in Iberia, producing comer.2 Words deriving from Iberian roots which remained common produced a vocabulary unknown to the other areas, for example izquierdo, barro, zorro, and so forth. The Visigothic invasions and -settlements produced other changes upon the speech of the inhabitants. Then, from the beginning of the eighth to the end of the fifteenth century, Spain - or at least large parts of it - was under Arab domination. Once more, the attributes of the language changed repeatedly. Finally, during the Golden Age, the work of a number of suc• cessive grammarians, culminating in a sense in the establish• ment and recognition of the Real Academia Espanola in 1713> provided for an accepted regularization of Spanish, in form almost identical to that of the present day.
One of the most important factors in the development of Spanish to be considered here is the following. The Latin case system was breaking down. The distinction between the various cases of a declension became unrecognizable in speech; words from one declension shifted to another, "adapting" their form accordingly;3 Latin fourth and fifth declension words were assimilated into the other three declensions. New means of communicating ideas became requisite; old differences were lost and thus produced considerable confusion; what was once a language now considered one of the most precise, articulate and logical, was fast becoming something totally different - a koine of fairly nondescript character, at least in the light of any comparison with its parent tongue. But one cannot 31 surmise that the speakers of this language, somewhere be• tween what is called Vulgar Latin and what is referred to as Romance, were at any time unable to converse articulately. Despite the fragmentation which was in progress, and the in• creasing divergence of the speech of one community from that of another, making intercommunication more and more difficult, the people themselves continued to use their language with the fluency of any native speaker of any tongue. It must be re• membered that they themselves were responsible for the changes which were.occurring; they themselves were modifying their speech habits and molding their means of communication. What "sounded right" to them was acceptable, without the interfer• ence or criticism of "authoritative" prescription or proscrip• tion. Their own linguistic consciousness served them as needed to communicate with their fellows, even though their lives and their society could likely support a less complex communication paraphernalia than is now apparently necessary.
The loss'of the case system occurred along with a depen• dence on syllabic stress rather than vocalic length distinc• tion - a phenomenon which was, in effect, already the rule in Vulgar Latin. At the same time, there grew up a more and more analytic sintactic system to replace the synthetic one which had lost its communicative abilities. Martin Alonso states:^ "La flexicon nominal practicamente desaparece, y para suplirla se introducen, en el lenguaje popular mas que en el literario, las preposiciones flexivas. El uso de los casos se hizo cada vez mas restringido. Aun en los mismos autores 32 tardios, como en PETRONIO, se produce una verdadera confusion en las declinaciones." This fact is of extreme importance, for we see here the intimations of a new syntax which acquired an increasing dependence on prepositions. The preposition, or rather, prepositional locutions, could no longer be a matter of style or emphasis, as for example, between "exeunt Roma", and "exeunt de Roma", but rather the only available means of indicating basic relationships of kinds previously shown with• in the declensional system.
It must be stressed that the development of the prepo• sition and of its usage was but one of the numerous changes being undergone. The phonetic system itself was becoming modified; the morphology of verbs as well as of substantives was being radically altered; the definite article was becoming recognizably distinct from a demonstrative adjective. The importance of the prepositional development must not be under• estimated, for this particular process can be seen as one of the links between that which would be considered part of "gram• mar" by the Bloomfieldian school, and that which would be classed as semantics, which they largely ignored since they did not seem able to define it in the same kind of absolute terms governing the langue and parole distinctions of Saussure.
As people began to use prepositions to convey basic mean• ings, they must inevitably have come to "understand" them in a different way from before. Their "feeling" for the prepo• sitions grew out of the semantic content of their entire speech patterns. And this would seem a matter of greater 33 significance than the mere "joining together of two other words in the sentence": there was no other kind of juncture possible; and yet the number of prepositions available and utilized has always been smaller than the number of possible relationships existing between other words. The result was that each preposition in common usage acquired more than one type of meaning, depending upon the context of the in• dividual word relationship, and, often, of the locution of which it formed a part. And upon the utilization of prepo-. sitions in dependent infinitive constructions, one must as• sume that somehow the very people who had been using the particles independently, imputed similar meanings to them in this function. That is to say, the preposition which came to be used after a certain verb to introduce an infi• nitive would in some way be thought of as necessary, whether for the purpose of expressiveness, emphasis, or variety. It would somehow seem unlikely that prepositions gradually ac• quired such a function for no reason whatever, and the like• lihood of semantic causes rather than "grammatical" ones appears greater, since scarcely any historical explanation for the latter can be found in terms of Latin origin. There• fore, -we must suppose that this function of the preposition was the "invention" of the people who continued to speak the changing Romance of the times, and fulfilled a communicative need, however illusory to us now. 34
It is interesting to bear in mind that, although the functions imposed upon prepositions, caused by the increas• ing need to replace "relationship markers" lost through the degeneration of the declensional system of Latin, were, for the most part, without linguistic precedent in the lingua franca of Romance, the actual words chosen were all either direct derivatives of Latin prepositions, or compounds formed from them. This is to say that no truly original forms were constructed; no totally new additions were made to the lexicon as a means of alleviating a difficulty not previously evident. The derivation of common modern Spanish prepositions.is relatively simple and direct. Those which are most often connected with the structure of verb+prepo- sition+infinitive are as follows:
LATIN to SPANISH
AD a CUM con DE de IN en
pora < por + a para PER por
SINE sin SUPER sobre
It should be noted that Latin A, AB, ABS did not succeed in maintaining a place in the language. The reasons are fairly easily explained.. With the loss of the case system, the de• velopment of this preposition to "a", as would be regular, would lead to inevitable homonymic confusion with "a" from 35
AD, a situation intolerable under the light of their con• trary meanings.5 We have seen, then, that the perhaps most cogent reason for the rapid development of the preposition was to fulfill the functions previously carried out by the case system of Latin. What types of functions were these, and by what were they in fact replaced?
A) THE GENITIVE6
1) In Classical Latin, one of the functions of the genitive case involved a kind of appositional explanation or modification of the noun, but not indicating normal pos• session. e.g. "Vir summae virtutis" (Un hombre de gran valor)
2) It may indicate a "true genitive"; that is, a pos• sessive genitive, commonly shown in English by the. use of the possessive inflection. e.g. "Alexandri canis grandis est." (El perro de Alejandro es grande)
3) It is used to show the complement of certain intrans• itive verbs, such as those of remembering.
e.g. "Memini semper nominisvestri." (Me acuerdo siempre de vuestro nombre.)
4) It indicates the noun which is the complement of
copula verbs.
e.g. "Non est hominis fortis lugere doloribus." (No es de hombres fuertes llorar en las desgracias.) • 36
5) It indicates the specification of accusation or fault. ... "; •'>= e.g. "Arguo te patriae lesae." (Te acuso de ofensa a la pa- tria.)
6) It is used to show esteem or give an estimation. e.g. "Quanti tibi hoc est?" $En cuento estimas esto?)
7) It replaces a final dative in certain expressions. e.g. "Doctor honoris causa" (Doctor honorario -.'para honra*)
Both the first and second examples have been replaced by "de" plus an object in Spanish. Although the meaning of each construction is different, the actual form of both in• volved the genitive, and consequently underwent common: de• velopment. This should not, of course, be taken as suggest• ing that from all similar constructions in Latin were derived similar constructions in Spanish. For example, the Accusa• tive in "Vado ad Romam" produces the analogous "voy a Roma", whereas that of the epithet "me miserum!" is represented by the apparent genitive of "pobre de mi". However, the dis• tinction between numbers 1) and 2) can also be observed in common modern English usage, wherein the first normally re• quires the preposition "of", the second normally demonstrat• ing the apostrophe of possession. The difference is neces• sarily a semantic one, since in the former example, one could not substitute the latter*s construction without radically 37 altering the meaning, and vice versa. The third case provides a possible derivative explana• tion of certain verb constructions in Spanish. The analogy from "me acuerdo de mi promesa" to "me acuerdo de haberlo prometido" is fairly obvious. Both involve the same kind of description, or further explanation of the verb, that is to say, its complement. Since a genitive construction was the result of the former, the. latter idea also could most easily be interpreted by speakers in the same way, leading to the identical prepositional usage.
The idea contained within the fourth example, coupled with a further use of the genitive with adjectives, such as "insons culpae", help to explain the evolution of modern Spanish constructions such as "Es facil de hacer", "bueno de", "libre de", and "breve de". However, a locution such as "lento a", or "primero a" and its variant "primero en", are not so easily explicable, except by reference to a dif• ferent Latin construction, that of the Dative used with cer• tain adjectives, for example "naturae aptum", "castris ido- neus locus", and the sentence "sedes huic nostro non impor- tuna sermoni". On the other hand, the locution "nihil dif• ficile amanti puto" does not provide us with a ready deri- vatory construction.
Number 5) can fairly easily be interpreted in the same way as number 3)« The progression from "me disculpo de la falta" to "me disculpo de faltar" is a simple one, and quite understandable in semantic terms. 33
Martin Alonso also informs us? that in the Vulgar Latin of the Iberian Peninsula, the genitive was often replaced by other constructions, in particular by the use of "de" plus the Ablative, e.g.
"Clerici DE ipsa ecclesia" (Clerigos de la misma iglesia) "Possesor DE propria terra" (Poseedor de su tierra) As well, the genitive continued to be used in partitive construc• tions, as it often was in Classical Latin. e.g. "Aliquid habet DE verecundia discipuli" (Tiene algo de la verguenza del discipulo.) He adds that the Genitive construction began to lose consider• able ground towards the beginning of the third century A.D.• However, it must be recalled that the Genitive has survived in modern Spanish in certain words. Examples of the "possessive" Genitive can be seen in words like "martes" and "jueves", coming from "dies mart is" and. "dies .jovis", respectively. The descriptive Genitive shows its presence in "agricultura" from "agricultura", a Genitive-Nominative compound from Latin. From the foregoing, it can be seen that at least in some measure, it is possible to explain a number of the verb+prepo- sition+infinitive constructions- of modern Spanish by a devel• opment from the loss of the Genitive case distinction and the substitution of prepositions.' Also of importance, though, are some of the usages of the Dative in Latin, and their consequent development into Spanish.$ B) THE DATIVE
1) As the indirect object of a verb. e.g. "Sibi regnum parabat." (Preparaba para si el mando.) 39
2) As the complement of certain intransitive verbs. e.g. "Praetor exercitui praeerat magno." (El pretor estaba
al frente de un gran ejercito.) 3) As the complement of certain nouns or adjectives.9 e.g. "Hostis est quoque inimicus singulis nobis." (El enemigo de la patria es tambien enemigo de cada uno de nosotros.) 4) To express the agent of a predicate in the passive. e.g. "Signum tradendum est victis militibus." (La bandera ha de ser entregada por los soldados vencidos.) 5) As a complement indicating spacial and temporal re• lationship. e.g. "Exeuntibus ex castris turris altissima est." (Al salir del campamento, hay una torre muy alta.) 6) The "possessive Dative" e.g. "Sunt nobis mitia poma." (Tenemos dulees manzanas.)
Alonso mentions as -we nip that the Dative remained in fairly common usage in the Iberian Peninsula for a longer period than did the Genitive. However, he points out that even around the time of Plautus, it became frequent to replace it by the Accu• sative preceded by the preposition "ad". e.g. "Ad me magna nuhtiavit. '(Me anuncid grandes cosas.) "Si pecunia AD id templum data erit..." (Si fuere dado dinero para este templo...) "Ait AD me." (Me dijo.) As is the case with the Genitive, however, certain vestiges of the dative case remain in modern Spanish, for example the in- 40 i direct object pronouns "le" and "me" from "illi" and "mini" respectively, and the relative "cuyo" from "cuites11.
This information can also be useful in beginning to account for some verbs in modern Spanish which govern the preposition "a" before an infinitive. For example, number 1) can be applied by analogy to the constructions "prepararse a", "acostumbrarse a", "atreverse a", etc. This is especially significant in consideration:of the Dative being replaced by AD plus the Accusative, thus"giving direct etymological rea• soning as well. Probably more important, however, is the fol• lowing assumption. One cannot ignore' the almost inevitable conclusion that to the speakers of Latin, the Dative carried an understood and "felt" meaning. This construction was gra• dually replaced by that of AD/Accusative. It is inconceivable that the latter did not in some way perpetuate the semantic force of its predecessor in the minds of the people, who were in fact changing their own language, but obviously intending to retain full communicative abilities with each other and hence not wishing to obliterate meanings and distinctions im• portant to them. Thus, they would tend to "feel" the prepo• sition linking the two verbs of a sentence such as "Cum vener• is ad bibere"-'-!. If they had not considered it a necessary part of the locution, they would surely have abandoned it; or in other words, they would not have originated it in the first, place if it were of no importance to the meaning of the sen• tence for them, in accordance with how they "felt" their lang• uage. It is evident now, however, that this strong and direct 41 prepositional function eventually became lost or obscured, but the occurrence of the preposition itself in such locutions
is evidence and vestige of the older "meaning group" of which
it then formed such a necessary part.. 42
If we were to assume that the type of construction that we .are concerned with derived directly from Latin, it should be easily demonstrable that a vast number of one to one cor• respondences between Classical Latin constructions and those of modern Spanish exist, on which to verify this hypothesis. However, as we shall see, this does not seem to be the case.
Latin tended to use a subjunctive construction preceded by UT in the affirmative, NE in the negative, to handle most clausal locutions. It is interesting that of the major Romance languages, the only one which has retained this type of struc• ture is Rumanian, which introduces non-relative clauses - whether a change of subject from the principal clause exists or not - with the particle sa plus a subjunctive. It is most likely that this phenomenon derives in large part from the tardy influence of linguistic changes within the central Empire upon this rather remote region. Lying on the periphery of the Roman sphere of power, those changes effected by speakers of the language towards the axis - Rome - would require long per• iods of time to be transmitted and accepted by the inhabitants of Dacia. However, Aurelian's recall of the Roman Legions from this outlying province, around 270 A.D., resulted in its complete isolation from the rest of the Empire. Linguistic changes occurring later simply never reached Dacia, which then continued an independent development, but retaining some "ar• chaic" features.
Another anomaly appears, however. For a long time, the various areas now within the confines of modern day Spain, 43
France, and Italy, were in only scanty communication with one another. Interchange of language became slight, and the var• ious areas grew independently in large measure. And yet it is an observable fact that all three areas - at least in terms of the "standard language" associated with each - have devel• oped analogous constructions. The idea of certain verbs re• quiring certain prepositions .before an infinitive is as•common to the Italian or to the Frenchman as it is to the Spaniard. From a common origin in Latin, which had no such tendency - or at least shows only scattered examples of verbs followed by AD before an infinitive - the vast majority of Romance tongues have accepted this as an integral necessity of speech. That the basis of a common approach existed, cannot, then, be ig• nored, since the multiplicity of influences - substrata, super• strata, literature, the court, etc.. - which exerted themselves differently upon the peoples of the different regions could not have permitted this kind of homogeneity to be born of it• self. It seems probable' that; the impetus was received from the same breakdown of the Latin declensional system and resultant
growth and importance of prepositions which has already been mentioned. This phenomenon was most definitely a universal one amongst all Romance speakers, and its effects were, again, among the most forceful of those which effected the appearance
of Romance and its subsequent development.^2
Let us now examine some of the Latin constructions which
provide comparison and contrast with those of modern Spanish, 44 and attempt to discern what conclusions can be drawn from them.
Generally speaking, Latin, as mentioned, used clausal constructions rather than dependent infinitives. However, certain locutions could govern the infinitive, principally substantive clauses or their variants.13 1) Verbs which have the meaning of admonish, ask, bargain, command, decree, determine, permit, persuade, resolve, urge, and wish may use.an infinitive construction in place of a de• pendent clause, but do so most frequently in poetry. Such verbs include caveo, cogo, concedo, constituo, euro, decerno, edico, flatigo, hortor, impero, insto, mando, moneo, persuadeo, peto, postulo,. principio, pronuntio, quaero, rogo, scisco, timeo, video, volo, etc. , Observe the following two examples of each construction: • . i) hortatur eos ne animo deficiant (les urge que no se 'desanimen)
ii) his uti conquirerent imperavit (les mando que buscaran) iii) ne quaere doceri (no busques que te lo digan) iv) temptat praevertere (intenta volverse)
In the first example, Spanish sees no difficulty in following the structure of Latin. In the second, however, "les mando buscar" would be of equal acceptability. The third case shows the use of the passive infinitive of Latin, a form long lost to Romance; consequently, Spanish must use a subjunctive,con• struction, as is generally common when a subject change is in• volved. The fourth example shows no such change, and demon- 45
strates identical structure, with the exception that Spanish
utilizes a reflexive verb. 2) Some verbs in Latin, for example iubeo and veto, nor• mally take an infinitive, with its subject in the accusative case.14 For example: i) Labienum iugum montis ascendere iubet (le manda a Labieno subir a la cumbre. ii) ab opere legates discedere vetuerat (le habia prohir; bido al teniente dejar el trabajo) iii) vetuere (bona) reddi (prohibieron que se devolvieran los bienes)
A subjunctive clause would perhaps be more common in modern
Spanish in the first example: "le manda a Labieno que suba...".
In number ii) as in number i), a subjunctive construction would
be equally valid in Spanish: "le habia prohibido al teniente
que dejara...". And as in'the previous set of examples, number
iii)cannot be translated directly because of its use of the
passive reddi.
3) Either the infinitive construction or the subjunctive
is permissible with verbs of wishing. As often occurs in
Spanish, when no subject change occurs, an infinitive is
commoner; when the subject of one clause differs from that of
the other, a subjunctive construction is preferred.
i) augur flieri volui (querfa hacerme augur)
ii) cupio vigiliam meam tibi tradere (deseo entregarte mi
vigilia)
iii) iudicem me esse, non doctorem volo (no quiero ser pro- 46
fesor, sine- juez)
iv) me Caesaris militem dici volui (quiero que me llamen
soldado de Cesar)
v) cupio me esse clementem /Generally: cupio clemens esse/
(quiero ser clemente)
vi) omnes homines, qui sese student praestare ceteris
animalibus (todo hombre que quiera superar los demas seres) vii) volo te scire (quiero que sepas) viii) vim volumus exstingui (queremos que se suprima la violencia) ix) te tua frui virtute cupimus (deseamos que recibas la
recompensa de tu virtud) : x) vupio ut impetret (espero que el lo consiga) xi) numquam optabo ut audiatis (nunca esperare que oigas...)
The first six sentences involve no change of subject in the
Latin; the following five do change. Notice in number i) that the Latin passive infinitive construction is replaced by a reflexive. The use of the reflexive in Spanish, it might be noted, is one of the distinguishing features of the language.
In number iv), however, this periphrasis is not feasible, and
Spanish must resort to a subjunctive construction, since a change of subject does occur between "quiero" and "llamen".
The same thing is true of sentence number vii). And here it should be noticed that whereas Latin can utilize an infinitive construction, despite the subject change, Spanish is unable to do so. This is observable in all the remaining examples above. 47
4) Verbs which convey the idea of permission can govern constructions with an infinitive or a subjunctive.
i) permisit ut faceret (le permitio hacer) ii) concedo tibi ut ea praetereas (concedo que pases por alto aquellos asuntos) iii) tabernacula statui passus non est (no permitio que acamparan) .iv) vinum importari non sinunt (no dejan que se importe vino)
Number i), of course, could also be expressed as "permitio que lo hiciera"; number ii) as "te permito pasar..."; number iii) as "no les permitio acampar". To express number iv) as "no les dejan importar vino", however, would detract from the impersonal idea inherent in the Latin.
5) Similar constructions are possible with verbs which express determination, decree, resolve, and the like.
i) constituerant ut L. Bestia quereretur. (habian deter-
minado que Lucio Bestia se quejara)
ii) proelio supersedere statuit (se decidio a rehusar
batalla)
iii) de bonis regis quae reddi censuerant (de los bienes
del rey, los cuales se habia declarado que se devol-
vieran)
Only in the second example can Spanish avoid a subject change and consequent subjunctive construction. Again one sees in number iii) the value of the passive infinitive, which pre• cludes the involved and awkward dependent clause in Spanish. L8 .
Subjunctive clauses are seen comparatively in the following: iv) decernit uti consules dilectum habeant (ordena que los consules hagan leva) . v) edicto ne quis iniussu pugnaret (habiendo dictado que ninguno luchara sin drdenes)
6) Verbs which express caution or effort generally employ c the subjunctive construction*with UT, but CONOR usually takes a dependent infinitive. i) cura ut quam primum intellegam (hazme saber cuanto antes) . ii) dant operam ut habeant (se esfuerzan tener) iii) conatus est Caesar reficere pontis (Cesar tratd de reconstruir el puente) Note that all these examples utilize the dependent infinitive in Spanish, and that number iii) evidences the verb+preposi- tion+infinitive structure in question.
Thus we have seen that a grammatical convention in Latin
need not produce a similar one in Spanish. Hence, the idea
of deriving constructions etymologically in the same way as
it is most often possible to do with lexicon, is frequently
not a valid procedure. Once again, it must be maintained that
the most important factor to be considered in the explanation
of a phenomenon is the very fact that the speakers of a lang•
uage effect changes which they desire to make. Their reasoning
is not necessarily logical, but more often dependent upon
"what sounds right" to them. As long as they are able to 49
convey ideas, distinguish nuances, and express themselves to other members of their linguistic community, their language
continues to be "correct" and "acceptable" to them; and their feeling for their native speech is not to be hindered or expedited by what may have gone before. FOOTNOTES, CHAPTER II
1) Sintactica, p. 11 2) It is interesting to note, however, that Catalan uses men.jar from manducaffe, illustrating one of the many fea• tures it shares in common with Gallo-Romance.
3) Cuando desaparece el latin vulgar fundido en las lenguas de la Romania, salvo en los pronombres personales, quedaban en Dacia tres casos, y en elresto del Imperio, dos: un nominativo y un acusativo. La forma del plural es otra de las caracteristicas. La 's' final latina se cdnserva en la Romania occidental. En la oriental se eludieron la *s* y la 'm' finales y la 'u' y&la ?or sonaron lo mismo. No habia medio de distinguir .•portam* de *portas*. Sint&ctica, p.17, Note.
4) Ibid, p. 17 5) More will be said about this feature on page 101-2 , in terms of prepositional prefixes and independent prepositions. 6) Adapted in part from Sintactica, p. 17, et. seq. 7) Ibid, p. 18 8) Adapted in part from loc. cit. 9) Cf. see p. 37 ; the explanation of the fourth example of The Genitive. •'
10) Sintactica, p. 18 11) Loc. cit. . ,
12) Let it not be forgotten that French retained a two-case system for a great length of time; that Rumanian still evidences the Nominative-Accusative case as distinct from the Genitive-Dative, and has separate Vocative forms for some words, in the modern language; even modern English, whose speakers often think of their language as almost com• pletely analytic, has vestiges of a case system: he/him, she/her, who/whom, etc. However, the very fact that word order has assumed such semantic importance in the modern Romance languages is evidence of the monumental effect caused by the destruction of the Latin declensional system.
13) Adapted from Allen, pps. 363 et seq. 14) Observe that this feature of Latin has been incorporated into English grammar; one says, for example, "I ordered him to buy the book", in which "him", accusative case, is the subject of the infinitive "buy", which is in turn the direct 51 object of the verb "ordered". Note also that in French, one says, for example, "Je l*ai fait parler", in contrast to "Je lui ai fait dire la phrase". But due to the lack of distinction between direct and indirect object pronouns in Spanish, no such contrast can be found between "le .nice hablar" and "le hiee decir la frase". CHAPTER III
With the appearance of an identifiable Romance standard within the Iberian Peninsula, the use of prepositions to intro• duce infinitives after verbs became, as we have seen, a recog• nizable phenomenon. We may now attempt to discern what in• fluences were at work to maintain and develop it. R. Hescott tells us rather categorically - seemingly too much so in view of the complexity of the.problem - that this construction nse desarrolld en el latin tardio como continuacion de los giros vulgares de preposicion con gerundio rigiendo un complemento. "-*- He also provides us with examples of infinitives governed by the prepositions ad, de_, per, pro, and the compound per ad, as
evidenced in Roman Spain.2 And he makes a point of telling us the meaning expressed by each preposition: ad shows the neces• sity of the action of the infinitive; de seems to lack meaning for him, and is noteworthy only by its scarcity; pro indicates that the action of the infinitive remained unrealized and is characteristic of Spanish3 - hopefully, he does not wish his apparent corollary to be interpreted as meaning that unreali- zation of action is a Spanish characteristic; the same prepo• sition can also indicate finality or destination, he says, as can per, and the compound, per ad.
A) i) "uendimus ad tibi Ienneco presbiter terra nostra propia que abes ad debedire cum Sarrozino", (Cardefia, 173, 2, 965, 162) ii) "si aliquis homo ad disrependun venerit...tunc abiatis ad prendere de nos ipsa ereditate", (San Vicente, 32, 11, 53
1037, 162)
B) i) "de rompere illds montes...tale poetione abeat regula
de Sancti Jukiani", (Cardena, 363, 40, O64, 169)
ii) "non habuerunt fuero de horaicidio pectare", (San Millan,
49, 38, 996-1020, 169) ''
C) i) "et de ipso precio non remansit debitum pro dare", (Cardena, 60, 80/ 912, 170) ii) "scalda qiiarn uel pro scalidare", (San Vicente, 30, 34,
1028, 170)
iii) "Ego Radanius qui saion fuit. per mandatus iudicis pro ipsa uilla absoluere", (Santa Maria, 2, 66, 027, 171) iv) "si venit...homo uillano pro pignos saccare per forcia", (San Millan, 49, 15, 955, 171) D) i) "et illos montes per ligna taggare aut pascere",
(Cardena, 363, 38, 964,'171)
ii) "fui ad casa de Fredlnando cum Friola et rogauimos ilium per cartam traslatare de utnia...et translatauit... ipsam cartan", (Santo Toribio, 66, 6, 962, 171)
E) i) "non donem vobis ilia aqua per ad uestra necessaria adimplire", (Cardena, 54, 15, 956, 172)
This information is useful and interesting in that it illus• trates the vacillation which characterized the developing, language, and shows the beginnings of neologisms, such as pro, and the usages immediately ascribed to them. However, once again, it does nothing to indicate the reason for initial choice, unless, perhaps, indirectly. It must be remembered that "a" 54 derives from a preposition indicating direction towards some• thing, an idea easily associable with that of necessity, in the sense of progression towards the completion of an action.
Hescott presents us with a description of the use of prepositions with infinitives in Old Spanish, giving again the meaning of the preposition within its construction. Let us examine his conclusions in order to decide whether some kind of semantic association can be ascertained; that is, let us see whether a "why" can be found, corresponding to his "what".^- I. The proposition "a" The infinitive with "a" denotes direc• tion towards, and thus the purpose of an action.
1) It can introduce the direct object of a transitive verb such as ayudar, comecar, empecar, pensar or conpecar: : ' "e ruego a San Peydro que me ayude a rogar" (Cid, 363) "Conpiepan a recibir lo que el fid mando", (Ibid, 25§5) 2) With verbs of motion, it indicates the goal or object of the action: "Do sopieron que era venienronlo a vuscar", (Fern. Glez., 119); "Abaxaron las lancas y fueron a feryr" (Ibid, 308); "e tornos a sonrrissar", . (Cid, 1266)
3) "al" with infinitive indicates simultaneity, or action immediately prior to that of the verb: "al exir de Salon mucho ovo buenas aves", (Cid. 859)5 "al cargar las areas - veriedes gozo tanto", (Ibid, 170)
4) With haber (aver), it indicates necessity or futurity: "ca a mouer ha mio pid", (Cid. I69) ; t5castigar-los he como abran a far", (Ibid, 229); "ouieron te a laudare", (Ibid, 335) 5) Used with ser, it signifies the passive equivalent of. haber a or haber de: "firme mientre son estos a escar- mentar", (Cid, 1121);."tales ganancias traen que son a aguardar", (Ibid, 1823).
The first two cases present no apparent problem. The fact that a has been chosen to introduce a direct object was likely the result of mental association with the use of AD plus ACCUSA- 55
TOTE, which developed, as both direct and indirect object identifier. Note the use of the modern Spanish "personal a". Similarly, AD indicated movement and direction towards a place or person or object; the analogy is obvious, since the action inherent in the infinitive is readily conceived of as being an object.5 The case of number 3) can perhaps be explained in the light of association with such. Latin idioms as "ad tempus", "ad latera", "ad hunc modum", and "ad diem", where the concur• rence of position is transferred to a concurrence of time.
Number 4) might: be viewed as.a direct development from the previous Latin construction of HABERE AD, which, though not generally employed with infinitive, was not unknown, and from the construction of some verbs, also including HABERE, taking AD plus the gerund or gerundive, for example "corpora insueta ad onera portanda".6 However, we must consider this while bearing in mind the modern usage of "haber de" coexisting with "hay (< haber) que", the-latter probably owing its derivation to "que" having been interpreted as a substantive on the one hand, and as a subordinate conjunction on the other, as both functions are also commonplace in modern Spanish. In the last case, number 5), one can again see two forces at work. Analogy with "haber a" must surely have contributed to the choice of "a" to be used with "ser",.since, as Hescott mentions, the identity of the latter can be construed as a passive rendering of the former. As well, "a" being "felt" and thought of in terms of "an approach towards" something, the idea of the in• finitive's action comprehended as the destination would also 56 be easily construed in the mind of the speakers, who were responsible for this choice of locution.
II. The preposition "antes". This preposition expresses the
notion of priority: "E yre a. la cort - en antes de iantar",
(Cid, 3045).
This example provides us with an interesting contrast. Where• as the use of "a" with the infinitive can, as we are attempt• ing to verify, be conceived as the residue of a meaningful segment of a construction, now little more than a grammatical contrivance, a preposition such,as antes de, falls into-another category altogether. The compound of Mantes" found in the quotation above (from which the present day preposition "delante de" is derived), need prove no impediment: the crux here is meaning, not appearance. The derivation of "antes" from ANTE continues the concept of priority; within the con• struction of verb+prepositiori+infinitive, this concept has remained intact to the present day. This is indeed different from the case of both "a" and "de" in this function, whose original prepositional meaning-load has been removed almost totally.
III. The preposition "de". In the Middle Ages, says Hescott,
this preposition was greatly preferred over "a" before
an infinitive, and he quotes Beardsley as saying that
"De mas el infinitivo es la mas popular de todas".7 An
important fact appears, though, when we consider the 57
statement of Lenz, that "...en castellano, el uso del infinitive con de retrocede, pues en vez de "'me cumple de fazer, olvidabaseme de escribir*, etc., hoy se pre- fiere el infinitivo sin preposicidn.Thus we observe that a radical change seems to have occurred. This, in turn, can be compared to the fact that the preposition "di" is the most frequently employed in the corresponding construction in modern Italian, and that "de". seems to be gaining some ascendency in modern French.
1) It may be used with infinitive as the subject of "ser", with a substantive, adjective, or adverb: "de dar e quitar el es el facedor", (Fern. Glez., 441); "Venida es la hora de prender la soldada", (Mil de Ntra. Sra., 136).
Similarly, it may introduce an infinitive which is the predicate of the copula: "pensemos de yr nuestra via, esto sea de vagar", (Gid, 3&); "La obra del palacio non es de olvi- dar", (Lib. de Alex., 1956).
2) It may govern an infinitive used as a direct object of verbs such as comencar, empecar, cesar, prometer: "moros e moras - compeparon de llorar", (Gid, 856); "juntos con sus mesnadas - compepos las de legrar", (Ibid, 1083).
3) Similar to this, Hescott says, is the use of "de" plus infinitive to express a non-absolute idea, used with verbs such as those mentioned in 2), and with.others like pensar, asmar, dudar, fincar, dexar, etc. "Beardsley la llama *de relativa*, 58 he tells us, and "Menendez Pidal dice que tiene el sentido inceptivo de disponerse a u ocuparse en"9: "Sueltan las rien- das e pienssan de aguijar", (Cid, 16) ; "e los mediados gallos piensan de cavalgar", (Ibid, 325).
4) It can be used with an infinitive to express cause, means, and separation: "por amor de acabarlo non se podia dar vagar", (Fern. Glez. 385); "Nos fartan de catarle quantos ha en la cort", (Cid, 3406); "el abbat don Sancho tornan de cas- tigar", (Cid, 384).
5) The construction can modify a substantive: "En los dias de vagar", (Cid, 2963).
6) It is used with aver.(modern "tener") plus a substan• tive, indicating desire, fear, etc.: "viniesse a mio pid que a sabor de cavalgar", (Cid, 1190).
7) The construction of de_ plus infinitive may also modify an adjective: "Sabet que esta es una de las cosas del mundo rnas grave de poner so una regla general", (Lib. Enfenido, .125) .
8) Haber de-plus- the infinitive' expresses the same neces• sity or futurity as the construction of haber a: "en la fe de don Cristo que avyan de creexj", (Fern. Glez., 14); "Para siempre jamas non los ha de perder", (Lib. de Buen Amor, 151).
In general, we can interpret the usage of de with the
infinitive as being the result of two concepts, that of the genitive, and that of temporal or spatial separation, the latter 60 being, in general, the contrary of a, which showed temporal or spatial approach. However, the element of necessity or futurity, also shown by this construction would more readily be envisaged as a derivation from the Latin gerund or gerun• dive. For example, in number 1), we can see a genitive idea in the first section, a gerundive concept in the second. Now, the idea of necessity can also be thought of in terms of "possession": when something is necessary, it belongs to the absolute order of destiny or practicality. When something is contained in the idea of futurity, it must likewise form part of what is to come. One might easily think of speakers "feel• ing" that this "belonging" required some kind of identifier, and, coupled with the constant influence of analogy, undertake unconsciously to fulfill this role by the utilization of their genitive marker, the preposition "de".
When one thinks of something, the genitive idea is again clear. However, what of concepts such as doubting, leaving, and promising? When one doubts the existence of something, one is retracting that thing from the realm of fact; when one leaves something, or ceases to do something, one is removing oneself from that concept and establishing a figurative dis• tance between oneself and that idea; when one promises to do something, one is fairly easily able to visualize this act as a voluntary surrender of one's freedom of choice to do other• wise, that is, one withdraws oneself.from the arbitrary. All these may therefore be expressed by the concept of de, signi• fying "away from". 61
The cause and means of number 4) are again clearly a genitive idea. The separation concept of the same number is, naturally enough, an example of figurative retraction. Both, therefore, use de without presenting a problem of understanding the choice of preposition. The case of number 5), obviously, is that of another kind of genitive, to be constructed with that preposition which expresses this concept. The same is true of number 6). An explanation of number 7) can once more be couched in terms of continuing a genitive construction. Whereas in Classical Latin, only certain adjectives regularly governed the genitive case, later usage permitted the genitive with a great number of them, thus providing the framework of meaning and understanding which led to verb+de+infinitive.1°
IV• The preposition "en". Hescott tells us that the construc• tion verb+en+infinitive carries the same meaning as would the construction without the preposition. But, he says that it answers the questions where? and how? with verbs and adjectives, "que siempre te trabais en salvar los errados", (Mil. de Ntra. Sra., 289); "Ovyeron gran rrebato en pasar aquel vado", (Fern. Glez., 356); "Senores, punad en faser buerias obras", (La Danza.de la Muerte, 41); "en
visitar enfermos non era1 enbargado", (Santo Domingo, 116) .
If the meaning of the phrase were exactly the same with or without the preposition, and if at the time that this con• struction - that using en - became accepted, no difference were to be imputed by the speakers, does it really seem likely 62 that they would have evolved the construction in the first place? Is it not more likely that the original idea of the preposition IN - both that of IN plus accusative and IN plus ablative - was still maintained in the minds of the speakers? The figurative idea of place within or movement into, as well as the occasional literal one contained in the meaning of the locution, is easily recognizable. The answering of both ques• tions - how and where - ,1s readily conceived in terms of "place". And thus it would seem reasonable to assume again that the "feeling" that the speakers had for their language, especially since this language was still in a considerable state of flux, was responsible for the development of this con• struction.
V. The preposition "para", or "pora", and the preposition "por".
Both prepositions, when used with an infinitive, express
the idea of purpose. "Pero, si las queria para con ellas
usar", (Lib. de Buen Amor, 48); "Vos fuerades pora bivir,
e yo pora morir maest", (Cantar de Roncesvalles, 89); "ar-
rando las tierras para sembrar pan", (La Danza de la Muerte,
223)5 "Los que son por venir plazralis de oilla", (Mil. de
Ntra. Sra., 215); "Cruzaronse romeros por ir en ultramar",
(Mil. De Ntra. Sra., 102); "estas se adoban por ir con el
Canpeador", (Cid, ,1997) .
Once again, the continuation of a meaning and a concept appears responsible for the development of this construction. Both PER and PRO, which are the etymon of both por and para, 63 indicated either literal or figurative purpose, even when expressed by the idea of "through". Since the latter Latin preposition - which carried much emphasis of purpose and figurative direction - was the more important in the deriva• tion of the' Spanish prepositions, the resultant conceptuali• zation of the construction is even more understandable.
VI. The preposition "sin". This indicates the lack of reali•
zation of the action of the infinitive which it precedes: "Non ay syn noche dia, nin segar syn sembrar, nin'reyr sin llor|.r"/Sem. Tob., 156). No discrepancy occurs here, either. The idea carried through from that of SINE remains constant. The expression is clear, and the meaning is conveyed; *the construction's origin is surely easily envisaged.
A final note to be taken is that in all these cases shown, the infinitive, has obviously been thought of as a substantive, and has behaved accordingly. This might well seem too obvious and natural to be of worth. However, as we have seen in Chap• ter I, this is not the case. An infinitive does not al• ways function in a fashion identical to that of a substantive. 64
The material presented thus far might seem to indicate that only two criteria need be considered to determine the reasons for the development of the construction verb+prepo- sition+infinitive: the identity of the infinitive and its meaning, and the identity and meaning of the preposition, in terms, of course, of the relationship existing between these two. This, however, would be to leave out the third control• ling variable, the initial verb of the construction, to which only indirect attention has been given in the first section of this chapter. Let us now focus attention on this element, and try better to realize its importance.
Following is an examination of the uses of verbs with prepositions and infinitives in Old Spanish, from the point of view of seeing which verbs governed which prepositions.H Some two hundred examples have been found in four main sources, and they cover, in general, the period of time from the tenth through the fifteenth centuries. The first•is the section designated Documentos Castellanos, as found in Menendez './
Pidal's Crestomatfa del espanol medieval, Tomo I.12 The1 iden• tification of these quotations will be the number 1, indicating this section, folloxved by the number corresponding to the sub• section, as listed within the Grestomatxa, followed by the line number. The sub-sections comprise the following documents:13
1) Ano 921 - Cardena (Burgos)
2) Afio 937 - Cardena .
3) Ano 939 - Valpuesta, part. jud. de Villarcayo (Burgos)
4) Afio 967 - Castilla del Norte 65
5) Afio 971 - Ibeas de Juarros (Burgos)
6) Ano 978 - Covarrubias (Burgos)
7) Ano 993 - Castilia del Norte
8) Afio 1011 - Valpuesta, part. jud. de Villarcayo (Burgos)
9) Hacia el ano 1030 - Clunia o Coruna del Conde (Burgos)
10) Afio 1039 - Valpuesta j part. jud. de Villarcayo (Burgos)
11) Afio 10ZJ.4 - San Millan de la Cogolla, part, de Najera, (Logrono) 12) Afio 1047 - Santona (Santander) 13) Afio IO63 - Ona (N. de Burgos) All these, then, are Casti'.lian documents, and are thus most relevant to our study. The second source is the edition of the Cid, also found in the same Crestomatfa-1^• This will be identified by the initial number 2, followed by the line number. The third source is the Generaciones y Semblanzas, the critical edition of R.B. Tate-1-^, with quotations taken from the sections comprising pages 1 through 13. These will be designated by the reference Tate, followed by the page and line number. The
fourth source is the Prologo ,r and Titol I through IV of Libro
_ °f El Fuero vie .jo de Castilla.-6 Those quotations taken from this source will be identified by the word Fuero, fol• lowed by the page number.
It is recognized that three different editors are respon• sible for the texts chosen, and that the many variants encoun• tered within the manuscripts upon which they based their edi• tions, are often contradictory. However, for the purposes of this investigation, no important problem should arise therefrom. 66
In most cases, the use of prepositions is fairly uniform, and the occasional discrepancies which might arise should serve only to indicate the state of flux within the language during those centuries. Furthermore, for our purposes, it is imperative to establish a base, and this must be a recog• nized edition of old texts, since paleography is not in ques• tion here. That is to say,, the "word" of the editor has had to be accepted verbatim, and his efforts arbitrarily considered authoritative.
The number of texts chosen, and the quotations discerned from them^ is not in any way intended to be thorough or com• prehensive, but rather illustrative. Such a relatively small number of examples could never purport to categorical conclu• sions; however, valuable indications of the linguistic state of affairs of the times can be gleaned from such a selection,, in the same sort of way as a random sampling of a community can point out opinion trends. And-the existence of trends towards the use of verb+preppsition+infinitive constructions is really the gist of this discussion.
One final point: the graphy "f" has consistently been transcribed here as "s"; the graphy nZ " has been written "e"; the verbs are listed alphabetically - those which have easily recognizable modern forms are shown under this designation, for example "aver" will appear under "haber", "fazer" under "hacer", etc., whereas verbs such as "compecar" are listed independently. acogerse acoiense a andar de dia e de noch (2,2690) adelinar adelinan a posar 'pora folgar essa noch (2,2857) apartarse - , se apartava a ver sus .fechos (Tate, 6, 8) atender (modern meaning -" esperar)
non deve atender a pagar, nin a dejar penos al tercer dia (Fuero, 10) ayudar fasta 4uel*ayuden a ganar senor (Fuero 13) e Ruego a san Peydro que me ayude a Rogar (2,363) bastar bastara dezir tanto que... (Tate, 11, 7) menos seso e esfuerco les basta para regir (Tate, 5> 26) cansar canssados son de ferir ellos amos a dos (2,2745) comenzar comenzd a reinar (Tate, 5.11) compepar
la sena tiene en mano, conpecd de espolonar (2,705)
Essora les conpiepan a dar (los) ; yfantes de Carrion (2,2735)
curar (modern meaning - cuidar)
non euro de lo escrivir (Tate,11,19)
dar
si el Rey da algund castiello a tener a alguno (Fuero,6)
deber non las deve dar a ningund hombre (Fuero,4) c6mmo lo deuedes far (2,315) 68 en un espejo se deven mirar (Tate,10,11) non debent ibi pascere (1,11,11) J debent referire (1,11,7) ; Non las deuieraos tomar por varraganas, si non f(o)ssemos •Rogados (2,2759/60) debent uenire ad uillam e accipere fidiatorem (1,11,5) de.jar non se dexen governar..a otros (Tate, 5,29) a los iudios te dexeste prender (2,347) entremeterse algunos que se entreraeten de escrivir e notar las antiguedades i (Tate,1,10) se entreraetan de turbar (Tate,10,13) enviar devenle imbiar a decir.. .que;;.. (Fuero,17) el rey enbio a la socorrer a su condestable (Tate,7,10) imbianvos pedir merced (Fuero,l6) escribir Por los conplazer e lisonjar o por temor de los enojar, escriven mas... (Tate,2,20) esperar non deve atender a pagar...nin esperar de quitarlos (Fuero,ll) estar devel'estar a amistat (Fuero,25) grave seria grave de crer (Tate,6,l8) cosas muy grandes e graves de crer (Tate, 1,13). haber quando muere el vasallo...a a dar a suo Senor... (Fuero,ll) alTa dar treinta dias (Fuero,14) se avier a deslindar (Fuero,23) e conseiaronle en toda la Corte, que lo avia a facer (Fuero,8) assi lo an todos ha far (2,322) ouieron (t)e a laudare (2.335) en el monumento (oviste a) Resupit(ar) (2,358) E quando ovier el Rico orae a salir (Fuero,14) e a a tomar la amistat (Fuero,25) 69
...e de lo que ha de aver el Sefior del vasallo por Nuncio (Fuero,11) estos cavallos, que el avia de aver (Fuero,12) mucho aueraos de andar (2,321) la villa fue tanto aquexada que se ovo de aplazar (Tate,7,21) voluntad i^ue el avia de continuar (Tate,12,19) quel*an de facer derecho (Fuero,26) que non aya de facer el Rey pecho (Fuero,5) e alo de mostrar a Fijosdalgo (Fuero,24) cada uno avia de regir (Tate,11,22) como a de venir el de la Behetria (Fuero,10) las manos se ouo de untar (2,354) e el Senor non le a que demandar (Fuero,11) hacer la poca conversacidm faze al.prxcipe ser temido (Tate.6,1) ^uando oy nos partimos, en vida nos faz iuntar (2,365) fago vos saver que... (Fuero,21) ir deben ir con el a guardarle (Fuero,13) e yre a la cort enantes de yantar (2,3051)
El Cid a dona Ximena 'yuala abracar (2,368) ...a Dios se (fo) acomendar (2,411) dona Ximena al pid la manol va besar (2,369) El Rey don Alfonsso :• a Tolledo va entrar (2,3053) yuanlos ferir de fuertes corapones (2,718) Vo meter la uuestra sena en aque11a mayor az (2,707) sobre Nauas de Palos el Duero ua passar (2,401) la manol ban besar (2,298) a la Figueruela myo pid iua posar (2,402) A la sierra de Hiedes ellos yuan posar (2,415) hyua Repebir a don Eluira e a dona Sol (2,2817) al almofalla se uan tornar (2,694) la calpada de guinea yuala traspassar (2,400) Minaya ua ueer sues primas do son (2,2858). mandar
Con aquestos piento que adobar mandd (2,3101) mandan fincar la tienda yfantes de Carri6n (2,2701) mando juntar todas sus gehtes (Tate,8,19) que el mando matar (Fuero,23) e rex Garsia mandauit peggare, e serna apreciare e peggare (1,11,23) mandaronle yr adelante (2,276,6) a sos caualleros mand6los todos iuntar (2,312) Mandaron cargar las azemilas con aueres (2,2705) mandedes ensellar (2,317) Mand6 fazer candelas y poner en el altar (2,3055)
1 70
Mando el Rey a myo Cid' (a) aguardar (2,308) necesario necesario es de ser muy rico (Tate,6,14) osar
Non uos osariemos abrir nin coger por nada (2,44) conbidar...mas ninguno non osaua (2,21) ca nol osan dezir nada (2,30) non le osarien uender al menos dinarada (2,64) pensar
Alii" pienssan de aguiiar (2,10) dezildes que prendan Rastro. y pienssen de andar (2,389) pense* de escrivir (Tate,^,5) pensemos de yrnuestra vxa, esto sea de vagar (2,380) pienssan de andar (2,391) Otro dia manana pienssa de caualgar (2,394) Myo pid eon los sos vassallos pensso de caualgar (2,376) penssemos de caualgar (2,320) Otro dia manana pienssan de caualgar (2,413) a los mediados gallos pienssan de ensellar (2,324) Penssad, sefior, de entrar en. la pibdad (2,3046) placer a mas les plaze relatar cosas estrafias (Tate,1,11) poder
Ca en yermo o en poblado podernos han alcanpar (2,390) nos las pueden camear ca el pid bien las connospe (2,3183) la utilidad e provecho que dello se les podia seguir (Tate,2,8) se puede llamar trufa (Tate,1,17) Nol pueden catar de yerguenpa yfantes de Carrion (2,3126) qui los podrie contar (2,699) tanto son de traspuestas que nada dezir non pouden (2,2784) Aquel Pero Vermudoz non lo pudo endurar (2,704) non podrie escapar (2,310) danle grandes colpes, mas nol pueden falssar (2,713) Hya non pueden fablar (2,2747) algun bien uos pueda far (2,302) Buen casamiento perdiestes, meior podredes ganar (2.2867) No lo podemos negar, ca dos espadas nos dio (2,3172) e los podrie perder (Fuero,6) en su tierral pudies tomar (2,309) iiun veamos el dia que vos podamos vengar (2,2868) que avia poder de esaminar (Tate,1,20) 71
querer si algund Rico; ome.. .se q'uier espedir del e de non ser suo vasallo (Fuero,12) et non quesierunt ynfantjones deSpelia suo mandato facere. (1,9,10) non lo quisieron fazer (Tate,7,27) nunca el lo quiso fazer (Tate,9,31) d'aquesta guisa quiero yr a la cort (2,3078) Nos quiso leuantar el Grespo de Grandn (2,3112) comigo non quisieron auer nada y perdieron mi amor (2,3157) ya querien caualgar (2,367) si algund Rico ome...se quier espedir del e de non ser suo ^ vasallo (Fuero,12) d£rgelas queremos dellant estando uos (2,3174) e quieren crebar albores (2,235) dar uos quiero uuestra part (2,314) deportar se quieren con ellas a todo su sabor (2,2711) la noch querii entrar (2,311) essa noch myo pid Taio non quisso passar (2,3044) ante Roydo de atamores la tierra querid quebrar (2,696) por tal lo faze esto que Recabdar quiere todo lo so (2,3098) todo ome, que se quisier salvar (Fuero,9) no gelo quiso tomar, mas mucho gelo gradid (2,2850) non les querien tornar palabra (2,21) retraerse
se retraerian de fazer obras (Tate,3,25) saber
toda nuestra Rencura sabremos contarnos (2.2862b) los castellanos supieron veneer (Tate,12,9) salir
Recebir los sale (2,297) ser
si otro omo fuer a desafiar (Fuero,19)
aquellas que fuesen de enmendar (Fuero,2) entre todas las virtudes las que mas fueron en.el de loar fueron... (Tate,9,19) Yieniendo a la primera, que es guardar fidelidad (Tate,11,1) suficiente '
era suficiente a regir e governar (Tate,5,25) 72
*temare proferre temaueri (1,3,4) tener non son tenudos de imbiarle mas ninguna cosa (Fuero,17) tornar (modern meaning volver) e tornaronse a armar (2,695) E el a las nirias tornolas a catar (2,371) tornos a sonrisar (2,298) .
Al abbat don Sancho tornan de castigar (2,383) traba.jar trabajan los manificos reyes e prxncipes en fazer guerras... (Tate,3,9) usar maguer que el Rey non use a posar en ella (Fuero,8) usaban ansi de dar el suo cavallo (Fuero,12) venir non quiso venir,a facerle derecho (Fuero,22) si algund Labrador de Fijodalgo venier sb el Rey a morar . . (Fuero,5) tres Reyes de Arabia te vinieron adorare (2.336) esta tercera a Toledo la vin fer oy (2,3131) venid aca seer comigo, Campeador (2,3114b) Vino myo Cid yazer a Spinaz de Can (2,393) ver veriedes armarse moros, apriessa entrar en az (2,697) v^uando lo vieron entrar al que en buen ora napid (2,3107) Si vieredes yentes venir por connusco yr, abbat (2,3$$) , Vxolos venir e odid una Razdn (2,2772) fasta que viesse venir sus primas amas a dos (2,2770) Veriedes tantas lancas premer e alpar, tanta adagara foradar e passar, tanta loriga falssar e desmanchar, tantos pendones blancos salir vermejos en sangre, tantos buenos cauallos sin sos duenos andar (2,276-80)
^volere legamenta inervare volverit (1,1,4) voluntad (as indication of *volere) 73 avia grande voluntad de hordenar su fazienda (Tate,6,3)
Of especial interest in the above set of examples are the following points. The verb compepar is shown both with the preposition a' and the preposition de, whereas its cognate comenzar only with a, and the modern verb empezar is construc• ted with a as well. One might also mention that the French cognate, commencer. normally takes the preposition a, although an ambivalence similar to that witnessed within Old Spanish is now occurring in French, with the construct commencer de becoming frequently heard. When one begins to do something, one is figuratively approaching it - a concept expressed by the preposition a rather than de, and was likely foremost in the mind of the speakers. The occurrence of the de construc• tion is most probably the result of analogy and the commonness of that locution, as mentioned earlier; it is worthy of note that it is no longer acceptable in Spanish.
A similar idea would be surmised to explain the incidence °f enviar a, of which two examples are quoted. The construc• tion of enviar plus infinitive without preposition would tend to indicate two things: it was felt that the idea of direction was too remote to effect retention of the a, and that meaning did not change, nor was confusion caused, as is presently the case in the no-preposition construction of the modern language.
Illustrations are shown for all three constructions with the verb haber: use of a, use of de, and use of que. An ex• planation for these locutions has already been suggested above. 74
But note that with the verb ir, the construction without the preposition a is much more' commonly encountered than that of the modern language. , It is also interesting to compare the old construction with that of modern French, which likewise says aller faire quelque chose, without recourse to a preposi• tion. However, the contrasting case of mandar shows greater affinity with modern Spanish. Once more, the idea of direction loses ground as a conscious concept, and finally disappears,
while with ir, this idea remained constant and powerful, pre• cluding the loss of the preposition within the.construction. The usage of pensar de carries the idea of the genitive. However, the modern distinction between pensar de and pensar en would seem a result of the following conceptual distinction. When considering the commission of an act - that is, being about to carry it out, rather than ruminating upon it - the idea of proceding towards it and establishing contact with it is a facile one. Thus, en, deriving from IN plus accusative, was a logical semantic choice to distinguish this concept from that of indicating what the qualities of the "pensar" actually are.
In the case of poder, the last example is included merely to indicate that when the infinitive is used substantively, it requires a genitive concept to follow, again for the purposes of quality description, whereas when the infinitive is used verbally, as in the other examples, no prepositional force was ever felt.
The first and last examples of the use of querer are the 75 same quotation; but the repetition is to emphasize that in the first instance, the preposition d_e introduces the second infinitive, ser, whereas the second instance is in accord with all the other examples, showing no preposition before the in• finitive espedir. The use of the de in the one case was likely caused by an error of attraction from the "del"*s preceding, rather than being a use justifiable by meaning.
The examples of ser plus a, ser plus de., and ser plus the infinitive alone, are most likely analogous to the three usages of haber, excepting the last case, in which preposi• tional meaning is felt when the infinitive guardar is used as the subjective complementjof the copula.
Since when one does something again, one "returns to do it", as is the literal meaning of tornar (or modern volver), the use of a before the infinitive is most reasonable indeed, and it is almost certain that the preposition was originally employed to convey a then very necessary meaning, and has been kept to this day. The contrasting tornar de most proba• bly occurred through analogy to the common usage of this pre• position at the time, iin analogous explanation could be sur• mised for the conflicting usage of usar, since when one is accustomed to something, one increases one*s proximity to it, figuratively speaking.
The use of ver plus an infinitive is, in one sense, the same type of construction as those going before. However, it must be admitted that in some way, the "deep-structure" mean• ing is of a different category; The infinitive following ver 76 must necessarily be the direct object of the verb, and must- show its own subject. An identical situation will occur for transitive verbs which express the receipt of a sensory ac• tion, for example, ofr, or sentir.
AS mentioned initially, the foregoing does not pretend to be a comprehensive analysis of old usage, nor does it purport to explain thoroughly the reasons for the growth of this usage. Rather, it is designed to serve as an illustra• tion of both, and an indication of how the topic can be ap• proached, not from a strictly diachronic, objective viewpoint, but from one in which the individual speaker7 s sense and feel• ing for his own language would have appeared to play a major role, and in which ideas - the prepositional concept in par• ticular - are responsible for word and structure choice, and if and when this idea is no longer felt, the construction is likely to change as well. CHAPTER III - FOOTNOTES
1) Hescott, p. 37
2) Ibid, pps. 37/38. The references to the manuscripts are his, and are identified on pps. 3$/39 °f Hescott.
3) "Por medio de este giro se expresa la falta de cumplimiento de accidn del infinitivo. Ya eso es caracteristico del propio espartol." Hescott, p. 37.. 4) The material is adapted from Hescott, pp. 77 et seq.; the uses of the prepositions and the quotations cited are. his, and are identified on his p. 85.
5) "Se uso mucho el acusativo como complemento de verbos tran- sitivos: Unctionem hanc utebis. Y Petronio escribe: Per- suadeam te (por tibi)•..(E)l dativo se conservd ma's tiempo que el genitivo. Sin embargo, ya desde PLAUTO se tiende a • sustituirlo por el acusativo con ad: AD me magna nuntiavit... Detras de los verbos de movimiento se ponia~ad o in con acusativo: Eamus IN forum." Sintactica, pps. 18/11?.
6) Allen, p. 291
7) AS cited by Hescott, p. 79, (23).
8) Lenz, R., La Oracidn y sus partes, Centro de Estudios histdricos, Madrid, 1935., p. 403.
Compare as well the relative numerical superiority of "a" to "de", as seen in Chapter IY, page 96.
9) Hescott, p. 80.
10) "The poets and later writers use the genitive with almost any adjective to denote that with reference to which the quality exists (Genitive of specification): -""Callidus rei militaris", "pauper aquae", "notus animi paterni", "fessi rerum", "integer vitae scelerisque purus". The Genitive of Specification is an extension of the construction with adjec• tive requiring an object of reference, (those) denoting desire, knowledge, memory, fulness, power, sharing, guilt, and their opposites..." Allen, pps. 216/17.
11) A number of verbal adjectives have also been included, since the construction- verbal adjective+preposition+infini• tive is analogous to the construction verb+prepositidn+in- finitive, with which we are particularly concerned.
A very thorough treatment of this issue can be found in Beardsley, W.A., Infinitive Constructions in Old Spanish, AMS Press Inc., New-York, .1966. Dr. Beardsley has made a comprehensive investigation into both the documented usages of verb plus preposition plus infinitive, and the relative 78
frequency of these occurrences. It should also be pointed out, however, that although his stipulated intent is to "serve not only as a systematic record of the facts in the case, but also and especially as an aid in the comprehension of modern phenomena in the light of their origin and his• torical relations" (p.xi), and although it would seem that he has definitely realized his aim, he also is concerned with the "what" rather than the "why". He does not really attempt to ascertain the semantic, psychological, or other possible reasons in the minds of the people, which would have led to the kind of linguistic situation producing the various locutions evidenced.
12) See Bibliography, sub verbum.
13) Men. Pidal, pps. 12 et seq.
14) Ibid, pps. 32-50. 15) See Bibliography, sub verbum. 16) See Bibliography, sub verbum. CHAPTER. IV
Having looked briefly at various usages of verbs with preposition plus infinitive in the older form of the language, let us now consider the situation of modern Spanish, and attempt to analyse our findings in the light of the contrast.
The majority of this information will be presented in the form of a paradigm, upon which some discussion will follow.
The table attempts to illustrate a variety of points,1 arranged in four major sections, each containing four columns.
The sections show respectively, verbs which normally take the preposition "a", those which require "de", those followed by some other preposition - "con", "en", "para", "sin", or "sobr.e", or by "que" - and those which govern an infinitive directly, without the use of a preposition.
The left-hand column shows the prepositional prefix in• herent within the verb. This information will serve to point out some contrasts which "occur when a prefix deriving from one category of preposition, forms part of a verb which uses a different type of preposition before an infinitive; it also illustrates another use of these particles which has survived in a different environment from that of the independent prepo• sition. For the purpose of facilitating this contrast, the prefixes will normally be shown in the form of the Spanish preposition that they have become, and will appear in lower case; exceptions are those which have no distinct derivative in the prepositional lexicon of the modern language, for ex• ample, OB, and AD> a to distinguish it from AB; these will be written in upper case. 80
The second column gives an alphabetical listing of verbs requiring the preposition specified at the head of each section, lis in the previous chapter, a few verbal adjec• tives are included, in order to note analogous constructions of interest. This list pretends only to be exemplary: it is not to be viewed as a complete or thorough compilation of Spanish grammar relating to verbs and prepositions.2 A great many more instances might have been included, but the number chosen suffices for the purpose. One final point with regard to the verb list: prepositions enclosed within parentheses, following the verb, indicate alternate constructions, to be found under the appropriate sectionj an (x) alluding to the section of verbs requiring no preposition.
The third column consists of etymological information concerning the verbs. Etymons shown are for the purpose of indicating the LATIN to Spanish composition of the words, usually with particular interest to prepositional prefix plus root word. No attempt has=been made to illustrate all steps in the derivation of the Spanish words, for which.one .v should refer to Corominas, Diccionario, as in the bibliography.
Verbs whose prefix consists of a form of the preposition DE tend to maintain the meaning of the preposition in the pre• fix, that .is, either in its static or kinetic aspect of sepa• ration or pseudo-genitive, for example decidir, depender. However,- the combination .of DE and EX in some way, to form a prefix, conveys the idea of negation or refutation, for ex• ample desprenderse, disculparse. The prefix IN- signifies the 81 negation or refutation of the root to which it is attached, and is written in upper case to differentiate it from the form IN >en which indicates position.
The fourth column contains the French equivalents - whenever this word is cognate ito the Spanish - in order to demonstrate the many interesting contrasts which occur.
Following the four sections of the list will be. a statistical analysis of the forms cited.
Note:{-
In these tables as well,' examples of verbal adjectives taking prepositions are occasionally cited. Similarly, as discussed in Chapter IT, page 104-, some of the verbal locu• tions shown are followed by a substantive rather than an in- finitive. Both these constructions have been included to il• lustrate the development of analogous usage in the language. 82
TABLEI - VERBS- REQUIRING THE PREPOSITION "a" a abalanzarse afcbalanzar c VjL. *BILANCIA AD abandonarse Fr. < Frankish bandon (+a=AD) a'abandonner £ AD acoeder ACCEDERE < AD+CEDERE acceder a XAD acercarsa AD+G_)RCA AD acertar (cos) AD+CERTIS+Basque influence AD aconodarse AD+COHMODUS s'accomoder de AD acostumbrarse AD+CONSUETUDINE s'accoutuner a AD adelantarse AD+DE+IK+AKTE ... s'avancer vers AD adorar (en) AD+ORARE adorer AD aficionarse (de) AD+AFFICERE AD agarrarse (de) AD+GARFA:1 , A AD agaardarse AD+Y/ARDON AD ajustarse AD+*JTJXTARE AD alcanzar AD+*IHCALCARE: alentar (para) *ALENITARE < AHHELARE AD allanarse AD+PLANUS animarse AN IMA antic iparse ANTICIPARE antic iper AD aplicarse AD+PLICARE s'appliquer a. AD aprender AD+PREHENDERE apprendre a, AD apresurarse AD+PRSSSTJRA s'empresser de AD arriesgar AD+RESECARE risquer de AD arrojarse AD+RUSSEUS AD asistir ASSISTERE < AD+SISTERE assister a AD aspirar ASPIRARE < AD+SPIRARE aapirer a. atinar • DESTHAREtio ("a^n "or b v"ae" apparen) t contradic• AD atreverse AD+TRIBUERE SIBI autorizar (para) *AUCTORICARE <. AUCTOR autoriser. a. AD avenirse • AD+VENIRE > ADVENTUS AD aventurarse AD*VEHTURA s'aventurer a AD avezarse AD+VITIUM AD ayudar ADJUTARE < AD+JDVARE aider a bastar (para) •EASTARE caer CADERE ceder CEDERE ' ceder a 33 : COM cogerse COLLIGERE < CUM+LIGERE COM corneasar *COMINITHRE c con+INITIARE connencer a, de CON comparar (con) COMPARARE < CUM+PARARE comparer a CON comprometerse con+PROMITTERE! CON condenar con+DAMNARE condamner a CON confiar (en) •CONFIDAEE <: con+FIDERE confier a CON conformarse (con) CONFORMARE < con+FORMA se conformer a CON consagrarse CONSACRARE < SACRtT se consacrer a. CON con3pirar con+SPIRARE conspirer CON contestar (x) CONTESTARI < TESTIGO continuar CONTINUARE contimier a, de CON contribuir CONTRUIBUERE contribuer a) CON convidar (para) •COHVITARE < IHVITARE+CONVIVI0H inviter a. correr (de,con) CURRERE courir dar (con,en) DARE donner sur DE decidir(le) (por,x:) DECIDERE < DE+CAEDERE decider de (-se estar decidido c.f. decidir etre decide a DE dedicarse DEDICARE < DE+DICARE < DICERE se dedier a DE,EX,AD desafiar DE+EX+AD+FIDARE • defier de destinar (para) DESTINARE destiner a DE deterninarle DETERHINARE < DE+TERMINU etre determine i estar determinado(en ) c.f„ determinar H II - i DE disponerse DEPONERE / des+poner echarse JACTARE en eapezar. en+PIEZA commencer a., de en ensenar HSIGNARE enseigner a entrar (en) INTRARE entrer dans en er-viar INVIARE.<..iN+yiA. ••„•„ envoyer. equivaler AEQ.UBS + VALERE - equi^aibix a. EX esforzarse (para, EX +. FORTIA s'efforcer de esperar (x)por) ' S PER ARE '' EX exceder (de) EX + CEDERE EX excitar EXCI-TARE < EX +. CITARE exciter a EX exponerse EX -;- .PONERE s'exposer a forzar FORTIA forcer a. ganar Gothic' *GANAH • estar hecho c.f. -hacer $4
humillarse HUKILIARE /, HtJMILIS s'humilier a IN. impeler IMPELLERE <. IN +' PELLERE IN impulsar II-1PULSARE <; IN + PELIERE IN inoitar . 111 .+. CITARE • inciter a IN inclinarse KCLINARE <. IN + CLIN ARE etre enclin a IN indueir IN + DUCERE IN inspirar IN + SPIRARE inspirer a IN invitar (para) IN + VITARE inviter a ir IRE aller jugar JOCARI jouer a, de lanzarse LANCEARE < LANCEA se lancer sur limitarse LIMITARE i. LIMITE se limiter a llegar PLICARE r aandarle (x) MANDARE meterse MITTERE se mettre a. mirar HIRARI necesario (para) NECESSARITJS < NE CESSE necessaire a negarse (x) NEGARE obligar OB + LIGARE '; obliger a. ofrecerse OPFERRE < OB + FERRE' offrir de oler OtERE oponerse OPPONERE OB + PONE RE s'opposer a parar (de,en) PARARE parecerse (x) •PARESCERE PARERE
pasar (desinf ) *PASSARE< PASSU passer a PER persuadirse PERSUADERE < PER + SUADERE persuader & ponerse PONERE PRAE prepararse (para) PREPARARE 4. PRAE + PARARE se preparer a. PRAE : prestarse PRAESTAREX PRAE + STARE se preter a. PRAE presto (para) c.f. prestar pret a primero (en) PRIHARTU premier a principiar PRINCIPIU proceder PRO + CEDERE proceder a. propasarse PRO +'PASSARE propio (de,para) PROPRIUS propre a PRO pronto (para) PROHPTUS < PROHERE < PRO +EMERE PRO provocar PROVOCARE £ PRO + VOCARE < VOCE provoquer a 35
quedarse (en,por,para) Q.UTETARE " RE rebajarse RE + BASSUS s'abaisser a RE reducirse RE + DUCERE se reduire a RE referirse RE + PERRE ': . se refe'rer a. rehusarse (x) REFIfflDERE refuser de RE renunciar (x) RENUNTIARE renoncer a RE resigna'rse • RESIGHARE; se re signer a RE resistirse (s) RESISTERE rlsister "a RE resolverse,(x) RESOLVE RE se resoudre a responder (de) RESPOHDERE repondre a. romper RUMPERE saber (x) SAFE RE •: salir S A LIRE semejar •SIMILIARE < SIMILIS sembler a sentarse (para) • *ADSENTARE < SEDERE s'asseoir afin someterse SUBHITTERE se soumettre a subir (x) SUBIRE tender TENDERE tendre a tenter TEKPTARE tenter de tirar Germanic TERAN tornar TORNARE tras traducir (en) ' TRADUCERE < TRANS + DUCERE traduire en trepar onomatopoeic ultimo (en) ULTIMUS venir (en) VENIRE venir volar VOLARE voler volver VOLVERE votar (por) VOTU voter pour 86
TABLE II - VERBS REQUIRING THE PREPOSITION "de"
abominar (x) ABOHINARE AB abstenerse ABSTIHERE < AB + TENERE s'abstenir de AB abusar AEUSUS < AB + USU abuser de AD acabar (con,por) AD + cabo < CAPUT AD acompanado acompanar < AD + COMPANIA accorapagne de AD acordarse AD + CORDATU AD adornar (con) AD + ORNARE orner de AD advertir ADVERTERE avertir de AD aficionarse (a) c.f, aficionarse a AD afligirse AFFLIGERE s'affliger de AD agarrarse (a) c.f. agarrarse a AD agraviarse ' *AGGRAVIARE < GRAVE alegrarse 1 *ALECRIS < ALECER alimentarse (con) ALIHENTU < ALERE . s'alimenter de AD apiadarse AD + PIU , s'apitoyer sur AD aprovecharse AD + PROFECTU profiter de AD . arrepentirse . AD + REPAENIT2RE se repentir de asirse ASA se saisir de AD asonbrarse a +--sombra < UMBRA AD asustarse a + susto <; onomatopoeia avaro AVARU avare de AD avergon2arse a + verguenaa < VERECUNDIA avisar French aviser aviser de bueno (para) BONU bon a burlarse uncertain origin cansarse (en) CAHPSARE cesar CESSARE CEDERE cesser de con compadecersD con + padecer < padir < PATI compatir avec con concluir (por) CONCLUDERE < CON + CLAUDERE con congratularse ' . CONGRATULARI < CON + GRADU congratiller de con constar CONSTARE < CON + STARE contento CONTENTU content de correrse (a,con) c.f. correr a con cubrir (con) COOPERIRE < CON + OPERIRE couvrir de 67
cuidarse COGITARE culpar CULPARE CULPA -inculper de deber (x) DEBERE devoir de dejar(se) de + lexar 4. LAXARE de depender DEPENDERE < DE + PENDERE dependre de de,EX desconfiar des + COHFIDERE , se mefier de • de,EX descontento des + contento / c.f. contento mecontent de de,EX descuidarse (en) des + cuidar / c.f. cuidar de,EX deshacerse (por) des + hacer / c.f. hacer de de,EX despedirae de + espedir < EXPETERE < EX + PETERE de,EX desprenderse des + prender < PREHENDERE dificil DIFICILIS difficile a de,EX disculparse (por) dis + culpar / c.f. culpar de de,EX disfrutar (x) dis + f rutar < FRUTO < FRUI dotado DOTE doue' de dudar (en) DUBITARE ? douter de en enamorarse en + amor < AMOR s'enamourer de en encargarse en + cargar < CARRICARE se charger de en enfadarse Gallego-Portugue's enfadar-se haber (que) ' HABERE hacer (por,x) FACERE hartarse FARTU henchir IMPLERE remplir de huir (x) FUGERE s'enfuir de IN imposible IMPOSSIBILE impossible a IN ' incomodarse (por) IN + COMMUDU IN indignarse (con) IN + DIGNARE < DIGNU eHre indigne de IN inquietarse (en,por) IN + OTIETU s'inquieter de jactarse . HACTARE libre LIBERU libre de . llenar (con) PLENU ' remplir de lleno PLENU piein de maravillarse HIRABILIA s'emerveiller de mudar(se) MtTTARE necesitar (x) NECESSARIU necessiter ofenderse OFFENDERE s'offendre de olvidarse (x) •OBLITARE < OBLITU oublier de parar (a,en) cf. parar a • pasar (a,sin) cf. pasar a surpasser pensar (en,x) PENSARE <.PENDERE penser de pesar PENSARE < PENDERE PRAE prec6dido preceder < PRAE + CEDERE precede'' de preciarse .• PRETIARE.< PRETIU prendarse pendra < penpra < PIGNORA PRAE,OB preocuparse (por) PRAEOCCtFPARE < PRAE + OB +CAPERE se preoccuper de PRAE prescindir . FRAESCINDERE < PRAE + SCINDERE presumir (x) PRAESUMERE < PRAE + SUMERE propit (a,para) cf. propio a propre a quejarse •&UASSTARE < QUASSARE RE recatarse • re * CAPTARE < CAPERE. RE recelarse (x) re + CELARE reirse RIDERE rire de responder (a) RESPONDERE repondre de responsable RESPONDERE fesponsable de $9 seguido (por) SEaui suivi de servir (para,x) SERVIRE servir de sorprenderse French surprendre < PREHENDERE se surprendre sospechar (en) SUSPECTARE, 4. SUSPICARI soupponner teher niedo TEEERE + HETUS tratar TRACTARE' triunfar TRIUHPHU tpiompher,de us'ar •USARE < UTI user de valerse (x) VALE RE vengarse. VTNDICARE se venger de ver VIDERE 90 TABLE III - VERBS REQUIRING OTHER PREPOSITIONS COH AD acabar (de,por) cf. acabar de AD acertar (a) cf. acertar a AD adornar (de) cf . adornar de orner de alimentarse cf. alimentarse de." Salimenter de amenazar (x) MINACIA <.. MINA nenacer de bastar (a,para) cf. bastar a casarse CASA con conparar (a) cf. comparar a comparer a con conformarse (a) cf . confarmarse a se conformer a con congraciarse CONGRATIARE < CON + GRADU con contar COMPUTAEE < CON + PURARE compter sur con contentarse (de) cf. contento de,. se contenter de correr (a,de) cf. correr a con cubrir (de) cf. cubrir de couvrir de cumplir (x) COMPLERE dar (en,a) cf. dar a' de.EX descontento (de) cf. contento de mecontent de ds divertir.se (en) DITCRTERE < DE + VERTERE en encararse (x) en * cara < ^f(^iC of uncertain origin en encarinarse en + carino< CARERE en enojarse (de) cf. enojarse de entre entretenerse (en) entre + tener < TENERE goar(se) (de,en) cf. goaar de IN indignarse (de) cf. indignarse de s'indigner de llenar (de) cf. llenar de renplir de PRAE,OB preocuparse (de,por) cf. preocuparse de se preoccuper de rozarse *RUPTIARE < RUMPERE soSar SOMNUS + SOMNIUM songer a topar top ^ onomatopoeia tropezar entrepepar < *INTERPEDIARE < INTERPEDIRE 91 AD. adorar ADORARE < AD + ORARE adorer afanarse (por) , *AFFMHARE aferrarae Catalan aferrar penetrar PENETRARE pdnfitrer dans pensar•(de,x) of. pensar de penser a PER perseverar PERSSVERARE <.PER + SEVERU perse'verer dans PER persistir PERSISTERE < PER + SISTERE persister a plaoerse PLACERE se plaire a primero (a) cf. primero a premier \ quedar (a,por,-se para)cf . quedarse a RE reclinarse (sobre) RECLINARE ^ RE + CLIHARE s'incliner au/ies recostar (sobre) COSTA RE recrearse RECREARE < RE + CREARE RE reparar REPARARE < RE + PARARE RE.TRAS retrasarse RE + tras <> TRANS s'attarder a sospechaf (de) cf. sospechar de soupconner de tardar TARDARE tarder a tardo TARDU tard a trabajar (para,por) •TRIPALIARE < TRIPALIU travailler a traducir (a) cf. traducir a traduire en ultimo (a) cf. ultimo a vacilar VACILLARE vaciller entre venir (a) cf. venir a PARA alentar (a). cf. alentar a autorizar (a) cf. autorizar a autoriser a , bastar (a) • cfbasta. r a bueno (de) of.buen o de bon "a convidar (a) cf. convidar a inviter a destinar (a) ' cfdestina. r a de3tiner a. EX esforzarse (a,por) .• cfesforzars. e a s'efforcer de estar. (por) ' STARE 3tre pret a. en invitar (a) cf. invitar a inviter a. luchar- (por), ' LUCTARI lutter pour necesario (a) cf. necesario a necessaire a s>sM NUMERARE nommer a PRAE presto (a) cf! presto a pret a. . propio (a,de) cf. propio a propre a 93 pronto (a) cf. pronto a prompt a pugnar (por) PUGNARE quedarse (a,en,por) cf. quedarse a sentarse (a) cf. sentarse a s'asseoir :a servir (de,x) cf. servir de servir de POR AD acabar (de,con) cf'. acabar de . afanarse (en) cf. afanarse en AD apurarse a + PDRU con conoluir (de) cf. concluir de de deoidirse (a,x) cf. decidirse a se decider a de.EX deshacerse (de) cf. deshacerse de de,EX desvivirse des + vivir <^ VIVERE de,EX diseulparse (de) ' cf. diseulparse de EX esforzarse (a,para) cf» esforzarse a s'efforcer de estar (para) cf. estar para Stre en faveur de hacer (de,x) cf. hacer de IN impacientarse in + PATIENTE etre impatient de IN incomodarse (de) cf. incomodarse de sincommode1 r pour IN inquietarse (con,de) cf, inquietarse de s'.inquieter pour interesarse (en) cf. interesarse en s'interesser^a luchar (para) cf. luchar para lutter pour mirar MIRARI morirse HORIRE mourir de optar OPTARE opter pour preguntar (x) •PRAECUNCTARE < PERCONTARI PRAE,OB prgocBparse«,Ide) cf, prgbtnipgEsa de se preoccuper de pugnar (para) cf. pugnar para quedar (a,en,para) cf. quedarse a rabiar RABIA RE restar RESTARE < RE. + STARE seguido (de) cf. seguido de suivi de terminar TERMINARE trabajar (en,para) ' cf. trabajar en travailler pour velar VIGILARE veiller sur votar (a) VOTU voter pour 94 arc haber (de) of. haber de SIN pasarse (a,de) cf. pasar a se passer de SOBRE apoyarse (en) cf, apoyarse en s'appuyer sur 95. TABLE IV- VERBS REGUTRIHG HO PREPOSITION aconsejar CONSILIU conseiller de acordar (de) cf. acordarse de accorder amenazar (con) cf, amenazar con menacer de anhelar AMHELARE ansiar ANXIA AD aparentar APPARENTE - raandar (a) cf. mandar a commander de nerecer . Hispanic Latin MERESOERE ^ HERERE meriter de necesitar (de) cf. necesitar de necessiter negar (-se a) cf. negarse a nier de olvidar (de) cf, olvidar de oublier de brdenar ORBINARE ordoimer de osar AUSARE^ AUDERE oser pareoer (-se a) cf. parecerse a paraitre pedir PETERE pensarC:{de,en) cf. pensar de penser PER permitir PERMITTERE < PER + HITTERS pernettre de PRAE preferir • ' PRAEPERRE•< PRAE + FERRE pref isrer preguntar (por) cf. preguntar por PRAE presidir PRAESIDERE < PRAE + SEDERE presider PRAE presunir (de) cf. presumir de presumer de PRAE pretender PRAETEHDERE ^ PRAE + TENDERE pretendre PRAE preterir PRAETERIRE < PRAE + IRE PRO procurar PROCURARE PRO + CURARE procurer PRO prohibir PROHIBERE < PRO + HAVERE prohiber de PRO proraeter PROHITTERE< PRO + HITTERE promettre de PRO proponer(se) PROPONERE < PRO + PONERE proposer de PRO proyectar PROJECTARE < PROJICERE < PRO + JACEREprojete r de querer O.UAERERE RE recelar (-se de) ~ cf. recelarse de reoordar RECORDARI RE rehuir REFUGERE <, RE + FUGERE RE rehusar (-se a) cf. rehusarse a refuser de RE renunciar (a) cf, renunciar a renoncer a RE resistir (a) cf, resistir a resister a RE resolver (a) cf. resolver a resoudre "a. saber (a) cf. saber a savoir sentir SENTIRE servirse ,(de,para) cf. servirse de soler SOLERE sostener SUSTINERE soutenir subir (a) cf. subir a 97 tenor TENS RE tocar .••* onomatopoeia toucher valer (-se de)r cf. valerse de. valoir vedar' . VETARE .- TABLE V - STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OP VERB LISTS FORM NUMBER OF 'ITEMS APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGE Total number of listings:- 467 100.0 Total number of different forms:- 353 76.0 Number of forms which may govern more than one preposition:- 114 24.0 Forms governing the folloT7ing prepositions: "a" 137 39.0 117 33.0 "deJi "con" 31 9.0 "en" 55 16.0 "para" 19 5.0 30 8.0 1 0.3 1 0.3 "sobre" •1 0.3 Verbs requiring no preposition:- 75 21.0 Prefixes:- "a" ^ "AD" 44 12.0 "AB" 2 0.6 98 6.6 "con" 24 "de" 7 2.0 "de.EX" 11 3.1 "en" 14 4.0 "entre" 2 0.6 "M" 12 3.1 "OB" 2 0.6 "TRAS" 2 0.6 "VSR" 4 1.4 "PRAE" 10 2.? "PRO" 7 2.0 "RE" w 3.9 99 To begin with, it will-be noted from the pages showing numerical analysis of the. verbs that the preposition "a" is the most-frequently used. This in itself provides a histori• cal contrast with the statement of Beardsley that the prepo• sition "de" was the most frequently used in Old Spanish. The third most frequently used preposition is "enif (although more verbs require no preposition than do take "en").which most often signifies static place or position, a concept figura- tively explicable in the verb+preposition+infinitive construc• tion, as seen before. An interesting fact is mentioned by Criado de Val. He states: "En el espafiol es caracteristica la precisa oposicion entre el valor *directivo* (hacia algo) de *a* y el *locativo* o *estatico* de 'en*. Ni en italiano, en el que todavia. concurren *a* e 1 in* para expresar una situacidn de reposo, ni en el frances, en donde la aparicidn de la preposicion *dans* ha acabado de confundir los valores, y muy desgastados, de *a* y de *en*, hay una tan clara difer- encia. Esta diferencia entre el valor de las dos preposiciones no solo se ha mantenido hasta el espanol actual, siho que algunos usos antiguos no bien diferenciados han sido modifi- cados. Cervantes todavia podia decir: TAquel grande amigo de Arsenio el rico, que vivia A San Juan*, por tratarse de un hecho local e interne. En Hispanoamerica se conservan todavia rastros de este uso: *Entro A la casa. Metio A la carcel, etc.*"3 This surely reinforces the basic.idea that the use of prepositions in the verb+preposition+infinitive construc• tion was in a certain fashion identical to the use of prepo- . 100 sitions in other functions.. The semantic force of the pre• position was initially just as strong in the former case as in all the latter. Gradually, however, the meaning - or rather, the conscious awareness of the meaning - was lost as it became less and less vital, to the sense of the phrase. Why might it lose this importance? The changeover from one type of meaning-indicator to another is not at all unusual in the development of languages. Just as the sense indicators of Latin's synthetic structure were replaced by the more ana• lytic system of the Romance languages, so the distinctions lost through the lessening of the true prepositional meaning in the verb+preposition+infinitive group was assigned to other grammatical functions, where necessary; for example, the choice of verb, the tense of the infinitive, the change to a subordinate clause structure, and so on. However, as can be seen in comparisons of old and new usage, this loss did not always result in confusion or ambiguity. In particular, con• sider Hescott*s conclusion regarding the use of "en" in Old Spanish, as mentioned in the previous chapter. A further quotation from Criado de Val corroborates this proposition. He says: En el franees moderno, la confusion entre *a* y 'en' para expresar direccidh o reposo es evidente, usandose a menudo ambas preposiciones indiferentemente:*EN Pologne, EN Algerie, AU Tonkin, EN Bosnie, etc.; EN ete, AQ printemps, AU paradis, EN enfer, etc.*. En todos estos ejem- plos-, las preposiciones 'a* y 'en' tienen un significado muy vago, y su uso esta determinado por el sustantivo a que se 101 refieren."^ The conclusion is likewise identical: the loss of the prepositional meaning.originally felt in the locution has not brought about a lack of communicative exactitude. It is immaterial which preposition has come to be used in what environment; what is important and significant is that all speakers of French have in fact adopted the same convention. Thus one can assume a fairly arbitrary development of the phenomenon, in the sense that once the break-down of differ- entiable meaning occurred the path the future development of the structure would take was unpredictable, A good exam• ple of this can be gathered from one final extract from Griado de Val, where he states: "ASI como la preposicidn ?a? es caracteristica del espanol, la preposicidn * de? ha alcan- zado en.el franees moderno un extraordinario desarrollo, y puede considerarse como representante peculiar de su sistema prepositive En realidad, esta gran evolucion de la prepo• sicidn *de* en franees ha ampliado de tal forma su funeidn, que en la actualidad apenas tiene un significado definido, convertida en un puro instrumento gramatical."5 And this, of course, further reinforces the same idea of original meaning construed in the mind of the. speaker, then lost gradually, but without the disappearance of the grammatical form, which only now seems to be without apparent semantic value. Assuming this to be the case, however, presents us with another problem. With respect to the list of verb forms we have examined, two types of prepositions can be seen. Those which are used as prefixes and those which are used indepen- 102 dently. It is to be remembered, though, that the origin of both types is identical: a direct derivation from Latin.6 We must notice apparent disparities between the idea of the preposition used as a prefix in contrast with that of the preposition used to introduce an infinitive. For example, we see comproroMterse, whose etymology contains the prefix con; and yet it often takes the preposition a. Likewise, the verbs contribuir and convidar. A verb such as dedicarse contains the prefix deriving from the preposition de, and yet requires a before an infinitive, whereas the concept of de is directly contrary to that of a. The opposite phenomenon is to be ob• served with verbs such as acabar, acordarse, and avergonzarse, whose etymons contain the preposition a, and yet the verbs govern the preposition de. The emphatic distinction between a and en pointed out above seems confused in consideration of verbs such as empezar, containing the prefix en, but taking ,i the preposition a. Similarly, complacerse and consentir en• fold the prefix con but also take en; and the verb condescen- der shows the combination of the prefixes con, dg_ and EX, and yet still requires the preposition en. analogous discrepan• cies are to be found in countless verbs. How is this to be explained? In a sense, the likely answer has already been given. Whereas in the original formation of the verb by the speakers, employing the prepositional prefix, the meaning was felt, by the time the verb reached the stage where it was used with a preposition to introduce an infinitive, this for• mer meaning was no longer ostensible. Hence, >. no real 103 discrepancy existed. We can observe that a kind of precedent for this phenomenon existed in Latin. Allen presents us with these clauses.7 a) "Caesar Germanos flumen traicit. b) idem ius iurandum adigit.Afranium. c) quos Pompeius omnia sua praesidia circumduxit." Then, he gives a note with the following explanation:^ "The double construction indicated is possible only when the force of the preposition and the force of the verb are each, distinctly felt in the compound, the verb governing the direct, and the preposition the secondary object. But often the two parts of the compound become close• ly united to form a transitive verb of simple meaning. In this case the compound verb is transitive solely by virtue of its prepositional part and can have but one accusative, - the same which was formerly the secondary object, but which now becomes the .direct. So traicio comes to mean either (1) to pierce (anybody) (by hurl• ing) or (2) to cross (a river etc.):- "'gladio hominem traiecit'1 (Here iacio has lost all transitive force, and serves simply to give the force of a verb to the meaning of trans, and to tell the manner of the act.) rtRhodanum traiecit*(Here iacio has become simply a verb of motion, and traicio is hardly distinguishable from transeo.) In these examples hominem and Rhodanum, which would be secondary objects if traiecit were used in its primary signification, have become the direct objects..." Another point worthy of mention, since it relates direc• tly to meaning - in particular to the "deep structure" mean• ing of the Transformationalists - is that certain verbs govern certain constructions depending upon the contextual meaning. For example, contestar takes the preposition a before a substantive, for example, "siempre contesto a tus preguntas", or "no voy a contestar a lo que me dijiste"; how• ever, when the direct object is a pronoun, no preposition is 104' to be used, for example, "no voy a contestarlo". Similarly, a verb such as impedir can generally form the verb+prepo- sition+infinitive construction only when an indirect object is specified, for example "Nadie te impide hacerlo". A verb such as cubrir would likely prove impossible to place in this type of structure. Other verbs, such as abundar de are difficult to use in a construction with a dependent.Infinitive, rather than fol• lowed by a substantive. It is most probable that some ex• amples of such a construction could be .formed, but even though they might be valid, we run the risk of selecting a sentence analogous to one of Chomsky's inventive examples. He stipu• lated that "grammaticality" is in no way subverted by "The man (that) the girl(that) I used to go with marriedj just got drafted"^; however, although the sentence is understandable to any native speaker, the probability of any such speaker's actually uttering such a locution seems most slight indeed. Such is the case with abundar de, but it should still be borne in mind that with this verb, the use of the preposition before an infinitive would almost certainly be ascribed to the result of a genitive construction, by influence of analogy with nouns, and thus remains relevant to our discussion. An identical hypothesis would be valid to explain a verb such as cansarse de. From a sentence like "Me canso del trabajo?, a simple step is required to produce the analogous "Me canso de trabajar". AS to a locution like cansarse en, which involves a 105 change in meaning ,< we can apply what we have already seen concerning the use of the.preposition en before an infinitive in Old Spanish, to explain the different word choice. And this in itself adds emphasis to the stated idea that the preposition in all cases originally possessed a "felt" meaning independent of its environment. Another example* of this.fact can be seen in the use of a verb such as deber. A difference of meaning is to be found between the sentences "El tren debia llegar a las tres"', and "El tren debia de llegar a las tres". The fact that the preposition de usually has the meaning of "away from" might serve to explain the discrepancy in the sense that in the latter example, the significance of the action or concept involved in "debia" is somewhat more removed from that ex• pressed in "llegar", thus reducing the obligation or even the probability of the arrival of the train,. With regard to the contrastive information afforded us by the French equivalents of the verbs in the list, we have further corroboration of the idea that many developments are arbitrary, occurring at the xtfhim of the speakers, as they unfold new ways of communicating with one another. Consider• ing the common origin of the two languages, one might expect a greater similarity in the verb+preposition+infinitive con• struction between the two languages. This, however, does not seem to be the case. It must indeed be noted that even Por• tuguese, much closer to Spanish linguistically than is French, has developed structures not now visible in its Iberian sister 106 language. The personal infinitive of Portuguese provides an example. But perhaps more akin to the matter at hand is a locution formed in Portuguese with the impersonal infinitive, "frente al espanol", states Criado de Val, "es tambien carac- teristico el uso portugues de infinitivo impersonal unido a la preposicidn 'a' con valor de gerundio: 'Estava A DORMIR (Estaba DURMIENDO. Esta A ACABAR (Esta ACABANDO)»".10 The many divergencies between Spanish and French usage, then, might be somewhat surprising were one to consider that the verb-i-preposition-i-infinitive construction had a direct and coherent derivation from Latin, without this all-important factor of "speakers' choice", A large number of analogous features do, of course, exist. For example, the means of forming the compound tenses (avoiding, for the moment, the fact that French conjugates certain verbs with etre, rather than with avoir), and it is'worth noting that Portuguese has retained a synthetic pluperfect, as well as the infixing of pronouns in the future and conditional tenses, and that the eastern Romance of Rumanian has also maintained synthetic tenses and other means of forming compounds, AS well, the evolution of the definite article, and the object pronouns, appears fairly consistent in the two languages, as do such morphosyntactic features as the agreement of adjectives with nouns and verbs with subjects. Admittedly, certain of the Spanish forms cited do not have cognates as their French translations, thus are not subject to proper comparison and consequently do not appear 107 on the list. Examples would be verbs such as agarrarse, which would be rendered -by saisir, avezarse by s'habituer, echarse by se mettre, examinarse by the phrase passer un examen, presumir by pretendre, divertirse by s'amuser, bastar by suffir, and so on. However, there are in fact a very large number of verbs which do have cognates in French which retain the same meaning as the Spanish. Once more a dichotomy appears. Some of these verbs have been evolved in French, admitting the same preposition be• fore an infinitive as occurs in Spanish. Examples are destinar, and destiner, ensenar and enseigner, obligar and obliger, depender and dependre, dudar and douter, triunfar and triom- pher, desear and desirer, preferir and preferer, sostener and soutenir, saber and savoir. It is interesting to notice that of the Spanish verbs governing the preposition en, only two cognate verbs which may take dans are found, these being per- severar - perseverer and penetrar - pen£trer. Many cognate pairs, however, do not display the same choice of preposition. For example, we find esforzarse a but sVefforcer de, lanzarse a but se lancer sur, tentar a but tenter de; compadecerse de but complitir avec, fiarse de but se fier a, and that all adjec• tival forms - which, as mentioned previously, are most likely derivations of a genitive construction in Latin - like bueno de, facil de, imposible de. - require the preposition a in French, possibly due to a previous dative idea; we find amen- azar con but menacer .de, sonar con but songer a; convertir en but convertir a, obstinarsei en but s'obstiner a, tardar en but 108 tarder a, en but •/influer ';.sur-^.,We find servir para but servir de and velar por but veiller sur, and pasarse sin but se passer de. Within the section dealing with Spanish verbs requiring no preposition, we find deviations such as fingir but feindre de, .jurar but .jurer de, blvidar but oub• lier de, permitir but permettre de, prometer but promettre de,• proponer but proposer de, provectar but pro.jeter de. A fur• ther examination of the various sections of the list will provide many other instances of both similarities and differ• ences. What conclusions can be drawn from this information? Primarily, we have acquired further substantiation of the validity of our assumption. ; The choice of preposition in the verb+preposition+infinitive construction in Spanish seems to be the result- of a number of factors. However, that factor which has often been thought of as being by far the most significant and forceful in the evolution of this construc• tion, namely, some type of direct derivation from the parent language, no longer seems quite so comprehensive an explana• tion. What does now~ seem of greater importance in the devel• opment of this construction is the factor - more semantic than objectively linguistic - of the language's modification to suit the preferences of the speakers, in an often apparently arbitrary fashion. The effects of previous constructions in Latin are not to be denied; nor are the influences of analogy. Rather, all these traits combined to produce one of the more peculiar facets of the Spanish language (and, it might be 109 added, of the other Romance tongues), its prepositional system, of which the verb+preposition+infinitive construc• tion is an integral part. CHAPTER I? - FOOTNOTES 1) The alphabetical lists of modern Spanish verbs has in part been adapted from M.M.. Ramsey's Textbook of Modern Spanish, with consideration also being given to informa• tion found in the Diccionario de dudas of Manuel Mesa Seco, and to Construcciones sinta'cticas by Emilio Nanez. The etymological information provided has been adapted largely from the Diccionario critico etimologico of J. Corominas. (See bibliography, sub verbs for these works.) 2) Good treatments of this matter are available in both Seco's Diccionario de dudas and in Construcciones sin- tacticas of Na^z. 3) Fisconomia, p. 162. Note, however, that Spanish still shows position - albeit figuratively, in structures such as "a las cinco de la tarde", "a los diez minutos", f,al dia siguiente", etc. 4) Loc cit. 5) Ibid, p. 163 6) "Tradicionalmente se llamaban preposiciones propias a las separables o que constituian palabra independiente, e impropias a las inseparables; como a estas las llamamos hoy prefijos, no parece logico seguir hablando de propias, sino simplemente de preposiciones. Son las siguientes: »a, ante, bajo, cabe (hoy nunca usada), con, contra, de, desde, en, entre, hacia, hasta, para, por, segun, sin, so (muy poco usada), sobre, y tras*". Esquer Torres, Didac- tica, de la lengua espanola, p. 258. 7) Allen, p. 245 8) Idem, Note 3- 9) AS quoted in Labov, William; The Study of Language in its Social Context, Studium Generale 23, Columbia University, New York, 1970, p. 40. 10) Fisionomia, p. 85 Ill CONCLUSIONS Various factors have now been examined. First, it has been seen that common terms such as "verb", "preposition", and "infinitive" are, in fact, much more complicated than at first apparent. They are frequently used in ambiguous con• texts, and lend themselves.to further and greater misinter• pretation. The construction verb-fpreposition+infinitive is common to all the major western Romance languages. However, the sources of this locution are not as readily discernible as those of, for example, the two forms of the Castilian imperfect subjunctive, or even Catalan periphrastic preterite. Its origins appear to be more in the realm of semantics and ideolects than in the field of etymology and direct deriva• tion from Latin. In the same way as new words and expressions are con• stantly entering any language used by a speech community, the verb+preposition+infinitive construction grew up in Western Europe as a result of language change. The Latin declensional system decayed, and its disappearance necessitated the imple• mentation of another system of meaning-indicators, and in• cluded the development of a number of prepositions. These prepositions retained, on one hand, the functions previously carried out by word endings - indicating, for example, approach, withdrawal, agent, possession, etc., and by the Latin prepo• sitional system, and on the., other hand resulted in new con• structions being formed by analogy, especially of a conceptual order. 112 an examination of some features of Old Spanish has afforded a kind of historical explanation for the at times puzzling choice of prepositions (or the lack of a preposition) in the verb+preposition+infinitive construction. The original choice of these particles seems likely to have been caused by the speakers1 attempt to establish meaning differences which they felt necessary. Their reasoning was influenced by many factors, not the least among them being analogy, both between two forms and between ideas. For example, the use of a geni• tive after a verb in Latin had often produced the use of "de" with the substantive in Iberian Romance; from this, it was a short step to using."de" after the same verb, but before an infinitive. In terms of ideas, the speakers likely viewed certain verbs as expressing'directional action, whether liter• al or figurative, and were thus persuaded to utilize the ap• propriate preposition to convey this idea. The final result has been the physiognomy of modern Spa• nish. Looking at the contemporary language, we are able to compare its development'"with that of its sister tongue, French, and thereby see interesting contrasts. Although the two lan• guages have the same ancestor, they have acquired their own separate linguistic personalities. The verb+preposition+in• finitive structure is as common to one as to the other, but often manifests itself in-different.ways. Verbs requiring "de" in Spanish may govern "a" in French; verbs governing both "a" and "para" in Spanish cannot normally indicate this difference simply by prepositional choice, in French, and so 113 on. However, numerous correspondences do appear, as would seem logical, since, as mentioned, both Spanish and French have been derived from the same basic root. Finally, it can only be added that the subject remains fully open to further research and investigation. No con• clusive proof has yet been found to corroborate the theory that the speakers of Old Spanish felt a strong "prepositional" meaning when they began to use the verb+preposition+infini• tive construction, an identifiable meaning which has since passed into obscurity in many cases. It is still evident, however, in the use of the prepositions "para',', "por", and "sin", the deletion of which completely upsets the sense of the phrase, at the moment, in any case, no contradictory theory seems to have postulated with any greater cogency. Hopefully, more lengthy investigation of the problem will eventually reveal the facts. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen and Greenough: New.Latin Grammar edited by J.B. Green- ough, A.A. Howard, G.L. Kittredge, Benjamin L. B'Ooge. Ginn and Company, N.Y., 1931. Alonso, Amado:Particidn de las lenguas romances de occidente; Estudios linguistuos. Temas espanoles. Madrid, Edicion Gredos, 1951> PP« 19 et seq. Bach, Emmon: An Introduction to Transformational Grammars, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., N.Y., 1964. Badia Margarit, Antonio M.: Los complimentos pronominal: - adverbiales derivados de IBI e INDE en la Peninsula Iberica, Revista de Filologia Esp. Vol. 35, 1951 (67-74) Bahner, Werner: La linguistica espaliola del sigld de oro, Editorial Ciencia Nueva, Madrid, 1966. Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua: Language and Information; Selected Essays on Their Theory and Application, The Jerusalem Academic Press, Ltd., Jerusalem, 1964. Beardsley, Wilfred A.: Infinitive Constructions in Old Spanish, AMS Press Inc., New York, 1966. Bourciez, E. C. Klincksieck: Elements de la linguistique romane, Paris, 1910. Chomsky, Noam: Syntactic Structures; MoutonCo., The Hague, 1965. , .. X Corominas, J.: Diccionario critico etimologico de la lengua castellana, Berna, 1954, Editorial Francke. Correas, Gonzalo: Arte de la lengua espanola castellana, selecciones Graficas, Madrid, 1954. Criado de Val, M.: Fisionomia del idioma espanol, Aguilar S.A. de Ediciones, Madrid, ,^1954. Diez, Friedrich: Introduction to the Grammar of the Romance Languages; Translated by C.B. Cayley; Williams and Nor- gate, London, I863. Elcock, U.D.: The Romance Languages.,! Faber & Faber, London, I960. Entwistle, W.J.: The Spanish Language, Faber & Faber Ltd., London, 1965. Ernout, Alfred: Dictionnaire dtymologique de la langue latine, Centre national de la recherche scientifique; Paris, 1959. 115 Garcia de Diego, Vicente: Diccionario etimologico; Editorial S.M.E.T.A., Madrid, 1954- Gramatica de la lengua vulgar de Espana, Lovaina 1559, Edicion facsimilar y estudio de Rafael de Balbin y Antonio Roddan; Clasicos Hispanicos; Madrid, 1966. Griera, A.: Motes sur l'histoire des langues romanes; Revue de Linguistique Romane, Vol. V, 1929 (180-261) Hescott, R.: El desarrollo de las preposiciones latinas en espanol medieval; MA. Thesis, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico, D.F., 1961. Labov, William: The Study of Language in its Social Context; Studium Generale 23, Columbia University, New York, 1970, p. 40. Lapesa, R.: Historia de la lengua espanola; Talleres Graficos Esielicer, S.A., Madrid, 1965- Lenz, Rudolfo: La Oracion y sus partes; Estudios de gramatica general y castellana; Madrid, 1935- L<5pez, Maria Luisa: Problemas y metodos en el an£lisis de preposiciones; Editorial Gredos ,S,.A. Madrid, 1970. Martinez Amador, E.M.: Diccionario gramatical; Editorial Ramon Sopena, S.A., Barcelona, 1959. Menendez Pidal, R.: Manual de gramatica historica espanola; Libreria general de Victorian© Su^rez; Madrid, 1929. Meillet, A. & Cohen, M.: Les langues du monde, Tomes I & II, Centre National de la recherche scientifique, Paris, 1952. Menendez,Pidal, R.: Origenes del espanol. Estado linguistico de la Peninsula Iberica hasta el siglo XI; Madrid, 3rd Ed., . 1950. Nos 99-102; pp. 592 et seq. Mesa Seco, Manuel: Diccionario de dudas y dificultades de la lengua espanola, Ediciones Aguilar, Madrid, 1964. Nanez, Emilio: Construeciones sintacticas del espanol; Gonzalo Bedia, Santander, 1970. Nebrija, Antonio de: Gramatica Castellana; Edicion critica de Pascual Galindo Romeo y Luis Ortiz Munoz. Edicion de la , Junta del Centenario, Madrid, 1946. Perez de Gusma'n, Fernan: Generaciones y Semblanzas; Edicion critica par R.B. Tate, Tamesis Books L£'j§., London, 1905. 116 Pottier, Bernard: Linguistica moderna y filologia hispanica, Version espanola de Martin Blanco Alvarez; Editorial Gredos, Madrid, 1968. Py, Bernard: La Interrogacidn en el espafiol hablado de Madrid; These presented a la Fa cult 4 des lettres de lWniversite^ de Neuchatel pour obtenir le grade de docteur es lettres. AIMAV, Bruxelles, 1971. Ramsey, M.M. : A Textbook of Modern Spanish; Revised by Robert K. Spaulding; Holt, Rinehart and Wilson, N.Y., 1965. Real Academia Espanola: Gramatica de la lengua espanola; Espasa-Calpe, S.A., Madrid, 1931. Salomon, Louis B.: Semantics and Common Sense; Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York, 1966. Salvat Larrieu, R. & Garcia Movente, Manuel: Diccionario moderno Espanol-Francds Frances-Espanol; Gamier Freres, Paris, 1951. Salva", Vicente: Gramatica de la lengua castellana; Libreria Le Garnier Hermanos; Paris, 1859* Seifert, Elva:^ "Haber" y "tener" como expresiones de posesi6n en espanol; Revista de Filologia Espanola, Vol. KVII, 1930 (pp. 233-276,345-389). Senior, Judith: The Concepts of the Parts of Speech in The Early Grammars of the Spanish Language; Ph.D. Thesis, Radcliffe College, Cambridge, Mass., April, 1956. Spaulding, Robert K.: Syntax of the Spanish Verb; Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1952. Tagliavini, C: Le Origini delle lehgue neolatine; Bologna, 1952, R. Patron. Tarr, Frederick Courtney: Prepositional Complementary Clauses in Spanish with Special Reference to The Works of Perez Galdd~s; Ph.D., Princeton, 1921; Extrait de la Revue His- panique, tome LVI, New York, 1922. Tilander, Gunnar: Los Fueros de la novenera; Almquist & Wik- sells Boktryckeri Ab Uppsala, 1951. Toro Gomez, Miguel de^_ Gramatica de la lengua castellana segun la academia espanola; Casa Editorial Garnier Hermanos; Paris, 1929.' Torres, Ramon Esquer: Dida^ctica de la lengua espanola, Ediciones Alcala, Madrid, 196^T 117 Vidos, B.E.: Manuale di lingtiistica romanza, Firenze, 1959, L.S. Olschki. Zucker, George Kenneth: Linguistic Theory of the Siglo de Pro; an Evaluation; Ph.D., Iowa, 1964.