Читать книгу Multiple Preverbs in Ancient Indo-European Languages - Chiara Zanchi - Страница 32

Preverbs are synchronically uninflected morphemes that occur in front of a verbal stem and modify its meaning, as shown in (1).1

Examples (1)a-d contain the reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European local adverb *pr-ó ‘forward, forth’ (LIPP II 636–637) occurring in front of a motion verb and modifying its meaning accordingly.2 Vedic, Ancient Greek, and Old Church Slavic motion verbs of (1)a-d go back to the same PIE root, i.e. *h₁ei̯- ‘go, walk’ (IEW 293–296; LIV² 232), whereas the Old Irish one is related to PIE *h₂nek̂- ‘reach’ (IEW 316–318; LIV² 282).

Though the notion of preverb was coined and is traditionally employed in the field of Indo-European studies (Booij & Van Kemenade 2003: 1; the term “preverb” itself is a calque from the post-Classical Latin lemma prae-verbium, attested in Varro, De lingua latina 6.38, and in Gellius 6.7.5), many non-Indo-European languages also exhibit an array of uninflected morphemes that have the same functions as Indo-European preverbs (cf. Section 3.3). The functions of Indo-European preverbs are described in what follows (cf. Bader 1997; Booij & Van Kemenade 2003).

In the first place, preverbs operate at the semantic level: they modify the meaning of the verb onto which they attach in different ways. Primarily, they provide a verbal root with spatial information: preverbs can give indication to location events, or specify the direction of motion. For example, the Ancient Greek and Old Irish simplex caused motion verbs phérō ‘bring, carry’ and beirid ‘carry, bring’ (< PIE *b^her- ‘carry, bring’; cf. IEW 128ff.; LIV² 76ff.) can be combined with a number of preverbs, resulting in the different composites displayed in (2) and (3) (this list of composites is illustrative but not exhaustive for either language; the added preverb and its semantic contributions are highlighted in bold):

1 AG composites with phérō ‘bring, carry’ana-phérō ‘bring up, bring back, report’apo-phérō ‘bring away, bring back, hand in’dia-phérō ‘carry in different ways, differ’ek-phérō ‘carry out of’em-phérō ‘carry in’eis-phérō ‘carry in(to), contribute, introduce’epi-phérō ‘bring upon’kata-phérō ‘bring down’meta-phérō ‘carry across, translate’pro-phérō ‘bring forward, utter’pros-phérō ‘bring to, offer, pay’huper-phérō ‘carry over, be preeminent’

2 OIr. composites with beirid ‘bring, carry’ar·beir (literally) ‘before bring’ → ‘live, eat, use’as·beir (literally) ‘out_of bring’ → ‘say, speak’con·beir ‘bring together, conceive’do·beir ‘bring to, give’fo·beir ‘bring under, subdue’for·beir (literally) ‘bring over’ → ‘grow, surpass’fris·beir (literally) ‘bring against’ → ‘oppose, resist, obstruct’imm·beir ‘carry around, put, employ’

Preverb-verb combinations can result in non-compositional (idiomatic or unpredictable) meanings: put another way, the meaning of the resulting composite verbs cannot always be inferred from the sum of the meanings of their elements. Among composites in (2) and (3), the following show non-compositional semantics: AG ana-phérō ‘report’, apo-phérō ‘hand in’, dia-phérō ‘differ’, meta-phérō ‘translate’, pro-phérō ‘utter’, and huper-phérō ‘be preeminent’; OIr. ar·beir ‘live, eat, use’, as·beir ‘say, speak’, con·beir ‘conceive’, for·beir ‘grow, surpass’, imm·beir ‘employ’. Several similar non-compositional developments occur across different languages: for example, in both Ancient Greek and Old Irish, the root for ‘bring’, combined with different preverbs (AG pro- ‘forth, forward’, OIr. ess- ‘out of’), produces a communication verb (pro-phérō ‘utter’(2)j; as·beir ‘say, speak’ (3)b; cf. also Rus. pro-iz-nosit’ ‘forth-out_of-bring’ → ‘say, pronounce, utter’ that contains the Slavic equivalents for both preverbs, and a verbal base for bringing). Arguably, these similarities are byproducts of the lexicalization of the Container metaphor, according to which human body is conceptualized as a container (cf. Chapter 2). In a number of formations, preverbs develop lexical meanings beyond the etymological spatial ones: for example, the preverb apo- ‘away from’ basically expresses ablativity, but it comes to mean ‘back’ in apo-phérō ‘bring back’. The same preverb also gains more abstract meanings. For example, in combination with the communication verb eîpon ‘say’, apo- expresses refusal, such as in ap-eîpon ‘deny’ (< apo- ‘away’ + eîpon ‘say’).

Importantly, preverbs can also carry out more grammatical functions than those outlined above. To begin with, preverbs frequently modify the actionality or lexical aspect of the verb onto which they attach, from durative to punctual or from atelic to telic. This function has been ascribed to preverbs of Indo-European languages, including Vedic, Homeric Greek, Old Church Slavic, and Old Irish (cf. the relative discussions in Chapters 4–7). Relevant examples also come from other Indo-European languages, both ancient and modern, as is shown in (4).

In addition, preverbs can bring about other types of actional meanings such as iterative (e.g. AG ana-metrḗsthai ‘start again’), distributive (OR po-jati ‘take for multiple times’), delimitative (OR po-sěděti ‘sit for a while’), and ingressive (e.g. Ved. prá √an ‘start breathing’, ní √svap- ‘fall asleep’; AG hupo-perkázō ‘begin inch by inch to assume a dark color’; OCS vъs-po-męnǫti ‘start remembering’; OR raz-bolětisja ‘fall ill’).

In Slavic languages, it is noteworthy that preverbs not only modify the lexical aspect of verbs, but have developed into fully-fledged markers of grammatical aspect: preverbs underwent grammaticalization into “bounder perfectives” (Bybee 1985; Dahl 1985; Bybee & Dahl 1989; Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994; cf. the thorough collection of references contained in Ruvoletto 2016: 8–33). Such a typologically unusual development and its motivations are discussed in Chapter 6: even in the most anciently attested variety of Slavic, Old Church Slavic, one can find evidence for the subsequent expansion of the so-called “Slavic-style aspect” (cf. also Eckhoff & Haug 2015; Wiemer & Seržant 2017). As is shown in Chapter 7, Old Irish preverbs also carry out grammatical functions: specifically, the preverb ro (< PIE *pr-ó ‘forward, forth’) is paradigmaticized to express perfectivity; the contentless preverb no (< PIE *nú ‘now’; LIPP II 577) behaves as a verbal auxiliary under certain morphosyntactic conditions.

Since the publishing of the work of Hopper & Thompson (1980), it has been acknowledged that a linkage exists between telicity-perfectivity and transitivity: in particular, a high degree of telicity-perfectivity is implied by prototypical transitivity (cf. Section 2.3.2.2). Therefore, as preverbs can mark telicity and perfectivity, they are also candidates to function as so-called “applicative” markers. Applicatives are overt verbal morphemes that “allow the coding of a thematically peripheral argument or adjunct as a core-object argument” (Peterson 2007: 1). In (5), an example from Ainu (isolated, Hokkaido, Japan) is shown:

The same state of affairs is denoted in (5)a-b: in the former example, Location is expressed through a postpositional phrase introduced by ta ‘in’; in the latter sentence,, Location is promoted to direct object of the composite verb e-horari, which contains the crucial applicative prefix e-.

A typological parallel has been drawn between Indo-European preverbs and applicatives, as Indo-European preverbs also seem able to promote an adjunct to argumental status (on Vedic, cf. Chapter 4; Danesi 2009; and reference therein; on Ancient Greek, cf. Chapter 5; Horrocks 1981; Viti 2008a; on Lithuanian, cf. Kozhanov 2016). In (6), it is shown that Lithuanian preverbs can function in the same way as the applicatives in (5): the simplex verb eiti ‘go’ is intransitive, and takes an optional PP per+ACC expressing Path in (6)a. By contrast, the same morpheme per occurs in front of eiti as a preverb in (6)b: accordingly, the Path-participant is promoted to direct object.

The preverb/applicative per- of Lithuanian is etymologically connected with the corresponding preposition per: they both go back to the same Proto-Indo-European adverb *pér (LIPP II 607). The linkage just outlined between Lithuanian preverbs/applicatives and prepositions is common within the Indo-European languages, in which preverbs can usually also function as adpositions (that is, pre- and postpositions) and adverbs (cf. Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3). This linkage also displays typological parallels: the same morphemes that function as applicatives can also occur out of the preverbal context, as adpositions or adverbs, in non-Indo-European languages, including for example Ayoreo (Zamucoan, Paraguay, Bolivia; Ciucci 2014 with references). Switching to the diachronic plane, it is worth mentioning that adpositions constitute one of the possible sources for applicatives (cf. Seiter 1979 on Oceanic languages; Weir 1986 on Nadëb, Nadahup, Amazonas, Brazil; Craig & Hale 1988 on Algoquian languages; Peterson 2007: 125ff.). This development is accounted for as a discourse-oriented grammaticalization: according to Craig & Hale (1988), what has triggered the reanalysis of an adposition as a preverb (i.e. applicative) is the null anaphora of the noun phrase taken by the preposition. Though a grammaticalization path triggered by null anaphora is difficult to hypothesize for Indo-European preverbs, due to the presence of a developed case system complicating the whole picture, a number of scholars also believe that pragmatic features, such as topicality, are essential to account for certain developments of Indo-European preverbs (cf. Sections 3.1.2 below and 3.1.3; Viti 2008a, 2008b).

The assessment of the actual role played by Indo-European preverbs in promoting an adjunct to argumental status is complicated by the fact that Proto-Indo-European and many daughter languages possess the previously mentioned case systems. On the one hand, it is true that preverbs can centralize an adjunct, thus aligning themselves with applicatives. On the other hand, the centralized adjunct frequently does not exhibit all the coding and behavioral properties of direct objects proper: often, it does not receive the usual coding and does not play the usual role for direct objects, i.e. an accusative case expressing the Patient (e.g. Viti 2008a); in addition, these putative direct objects cannot always be passivized (e.g. Kulikov 2012).

Moreover, in Proto-Indo-European and in a number of ancient Indo-European languages, cases not only serve the grammar (i.e. by distinguishing subjects from objects), but also retain parts of their concrete meanings (cf. especially Kuryłowicz 1964: 179ff. on the distinction between grammatical and concrete cases). Accordingly, in many contexts, preverbs are not strictly necessary to allow for an adpositionless second argument, though they certainly contribute to clarifying the meaning of verbs and adpositionless cases. For example, in Ancient Greek, the usage of the adpositionless genitive poliês halòs ‘gray sea’ is allowed both with a composite containing ex- ‘out of’ (ex-ana-dúomai ‘emerge from’) and with a composite lacking it (ana-dúomai ‘emerge’):

In addition, the extension of the transitive construction seems not always to be triggered by the occurrence of preverbs, but rather by the own frequency of this construction. This is true, for example, for Ancient Greek (cf. Luraghi 2010). Horrocks (1981: 41), alleging the applicative usage of Ancient Greek preverbs, mentions the composite pros-eîpon, which can take an accusative argument (tòn ‘him’ expressing the Addressee) in the sense of ‘address someone’, as in (9):

Horrocks remarks that the simplex eîpon cannot take a different direct object from the cognate épos ‘word’ (or its non-cognate synonym, mûthon) or the indefinite pronoun ti ‘something’. However, the example in (10) contests this claim: the simplex verb eîpon takes the accusative of the Addressee, that is, Héktora.

In fact, it is undeniable that preverbs are connected with valency-related formations, as they are involved in making up reciprocal constructions in different ancient Indo-European languages, as shown in (11)a-c:

In (11)a from Hittite, the verb imiya- ‘mix’ and the preverb anda ‘in’ indicate an object-oriented spatial reciprocal situation. In (11)b from Vedic, a canonical intransitive reciprocal is expressed by means of the preverb ví ‘in two spaces, in two times, in different directions’. In the Homeric passage in (11)c, the reciprocal meaning emerges from the preverb-verb construction with amphí ‘around’, detached from the plural verb héponth’(i) ‘follow’. In the Old Irish passage in (11)d, a personal reciprocal construction is formed with the verb taking the plural verbal endings, and preceded by the preverb imm-, which in this context surfaces as -mu-.5

Together with the semantic and syntactic functions outlined above, preverbs can also serve discourse-related purposes. Specifically, Boley (2004: 56–58) describes Hittite, Vedic, and Homeric preverbs (i.e. place words in her terms; cf. Section 3.1.4.1) as elements able to draw anaphoric reference, and thus to contribute to textual cohesion. The following example from the Odyssey is instructive in this respect:

In (12), no overt referent occurs accompanying the preverb en in clause-initial position (cf. Section 3.1.2), though one understands from the preceding context that the preverb en refers to a previously mentioned raft. Boley’s remark is supported by the quantitative analysis carried out by Viti (2008a) on Homeric poems: Viti showed that the majority of referents linked to preverbs are topical, and thus either previously mentioned in the discourse context, or known within speakers’ encyclopedic knowledge. The cohesive function of preverb repetition in Vedic and Homeric Greek has been investigated by Dunkel (1976, 1979), and Klein (e.g. 1987, 2007, 2008). A relevant Vedic example follows: in (13), the preverb ní ‘down’ is repeated three times in the stanza, specifically at the beginning of each verse.