Future paradigms in Latin : pesky anomaly or sophisticated technique?

Title: Future paradigms in Latin : pesky anomaly or sophisticated technique?
Author: Zheltova, Elena
Source document: Graeco-Latina Brunensia. 2020, vol. 25, iss. 1, pp. 211-223
  • ISSN
    1803-7402 (print)
    2336-4424 (online)
Type: Article

Notice: These citations are automatically created and might not follow citation rules properly.

The article deals with paradigms of the future simple (3rd and 4th conjugations only) and the future perfect active that can be treated as anomalous since they form the first person singular and other forms by adding different suffixes to the verbal stem. This entails, first, a certain heterogeneity within the paradigms and, second, a partial overlapping of these paradigms with two other verbal paradigms. Although attempts to unify the future simple and future perfect paradigms were made by archaic authors, Classical Latin has preserved this "inconvenient" distinction, presumably, to highlight the first person singular. The question arises as to why Latin sought to single out the first person singular in this particular way. I will explain this phenomenon as a manifestation of language egocentrism. I will argue that the forms under consideration may function as egocentric devices. Since Latin is a pro-drop language, it requires special means to highlight the speaker as the most significant speech act participant and to give him/ her a privileged status with respect to the other speech act participants. Thus, by using an -am form, the speaker received an additional opportunity to express some modal values better than the other participants did, while with the -ero form, the speaker, conversely, could express his/her thoughts more definitely or unambiguously. In both cases, the singling out of the first person locutor seems to be much more significant for the language as a communicative system than the unified character of the paradigms. The argument is based on an analysis of examples from the works of Latin authors as well as comparative material from other languages.
[1] Apresjan, Yu. D. (1995). Deiksis v leksike i grammatike i naivnaja model mira [Deixis in lexicon and grammar and a naive world model]. In Selected works (vol. 2; pp. 629–650). Moscow: Yazyki russkoj kul'tury.

[2] Baldi, Ph. (1999). The foundations of Latin. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

[3] Benveniste, E. (1976). Problèmes de linguistique générale (Vol. 1). Paris: Gallimard.

[4] Bühler, K. (1965). Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache (2nd ed.). Stuttgart: G. Fischer.

[5] Cristofaro, S. (2012). Descriptive notions vs. grammatical categories: Unrealized states of affairs and 'irrealis'. Language Sciences, 34, 131–146. | DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2011.08.001

[6] D'Angour, A. (2019). Translating Catullus 85: why and how. Philologia Classica, 14(1), 155–160.

[7] Elliott, J. R. (2000). Realis and irrealis: Forms and concepts of the grammaticalisation of reality. Linguistic Typology, 4, 55–90. | DOI 10.1515/lity.2000.4.1.55

[8] Ernout, A. (2004). Istoricheskaja morfologija latinskogo jazyka [Morphologie historique du latin] (Transl. into Russian; 2nd ed). Moscow: Editorial URSS.

[9] Givón, T. (1994). Irrealis and the Subjunctive. Studies in Language, 18(2), 265–337. | DOI 10.1075/sl.18.2.02giv

[10] Greenbaum, S. (1996). The Oxford English Grammar. Oxford: University Press.

[11] Greenwood, L. H. G. (1989). Cicero. The Verrine Orations (with an English translation by L. H. G. Greenwood). Cambridge, Mass. – London: Harvard University Press.

[12] de Haan, F. (2012). Irrealis: fact or fiction? Language Sciences, 34, 107–130. | DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.016

[13] Handford, S. A. (1946). The Latin Subjunctive. Its Usage and Development from Plautus to Tacitus. London: Methuen.

[14] Hofmann, J. B., & Szantyr, A. (1972). Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik (Teil 2, Bd. 2). München: C. H. Beck Verlag.

[15] Jakobson, R. (1984). Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. In R. Linda, & M. H. Waugh (Eds.), Russian and Slavic Grammar: Studies 1931–1981 (pp. 41–58). Amsterdam: de Gruyter.

[16] Mauri, C. & Sansò, A. (2012). What do languages encode when they encode reality status? Language Sciences, 34, 99–106. | DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2010.11.004

[17] Mosegaard Hansen, M.-B. (2016). The Structure of Modern Standard French. A Student Grammar. Oxford: University Press.

[18] Paducheva, E. (2008). Vyskazyvanije i jego sootnesennost' s deystvitel'nostju [Utterance and its correspondence to reality] (5th ed.). Moscow: LKI.

[19] Paducheva, E. (2011). Egocentričeskie valentnosti i dekonstrukcii govorjaščego [Egocentric valencies and deconstruction of the speaker]. Voprosy jazykoznanija [Questions of linguistics], 2011(3), 3–18.

[20] Palmer, L. R. (1988). The Latin Language. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

[21] Pinkster, H. (1990). Latin Syntax and Semantics. London – New York: Routledge.

[22] Pinkster, H. (2015). Oxford Latin Syntax. Oxford: University Press.

[23] Plungian, V. A. (2011). Vvedenije v grammaticheskuju semantiku: grammaticheskije znachenija i grammaticheskije sistemy jazykov mira [Introduction into Grammatical Semantics: Grammatical Meaning and Grammatical Systems of the World's Languages]. Moscow: RSUH.

[24] Polikarpov, E. A. (2007). Iz uchenija Apollonija Diskola o grammaticheskikh litsakh [Concerning Apollonios Dyskolos' doctrine about grammatical persons]. Philologia Classica, 7, 96–109.

[25] Pozdniakov, K. I. (2009). O prirode i funktsijakh vnemorfemnykh znakov [On the nature and functions of non-morphemic signs]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija [Questions of linguistics], 6, 35–64.

[26] San Roque, L., Floyd, S., & Norcliffe, E. (2018). Egophoricity: An Introduction. In L. San Roque, S. Floyd, & E. Norcliffe (Eds.), Egophoricity [Typological Studies in Language, 118, pp. 1–78]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

[27] Sihler, A. L. (1995). New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. New York – Oxford: University Press.

[28] Stojnova, N. M. (2016). Nefuturalnyje upotreblenija form buduschego vremeni [Non-futural uses of the future tense forms] [retrieved 20.02.2020 from http://rusgram.ru/Нефутуральные_употребления_форм_будущего_времени].

[29] Tronsky, J. M. (2001). Istoricheskaja grammatica latinskogo jazyka [Historical Grammar of Latin] (2nd ed.). Moscow: Indrik.

[30] Uspensky, B. (2007). Ego Loquens. Jazyk i kommunikatsionnoje prostranstvo [Ego Loquens. Language and Communicative Space]. Мoscow: Rossijskij Gosudarstvennyj Gumanitarnyj Univ.

[31] Yonge, C. D. (1856). The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero (Transl. C. D. Yonge). London: Henry G. Bohn.

[32] Zheltova, E. (2018). How to Express Surprise without Saying "I'm Surprised" in Latin. Philologia Classica, 13(2), 228–240.