The Latin Genitive: (Pseudo-)Partitive Values and Massifiers.

Argument. Why Classifiers? Why the Genitive? Why Latin? Won over by the idea that Classifiers are the secret behind the mystery of quantitative expressions; that they, as semi-lexical elements, generate double-headed projections with both a lexical and a semi-lexical head; and, most importantly, by the fascinating assumption that Classifiers are a class that projects universally, I set out to discover whether or not there might be such a syntactic category in Latin a language whose status in this respect has not, at least to my knowledge, been investigated yet. In this way, if I manage to prove that they exist even in Latin, I will be finding data to support the theory of universally-present Classifiers. Since the idea of quantity (which entails the distinction between countability and divisibility) is logically linked with the (pseudo)-partitive function, and since, in Latin as well, partitivity is a semantic function of the Genitive case, I think this is the best territory to explore. The choice for Latin as the language to base my demonstration on is motivated by both subjective reasons (my desire to continue studying it) and objective arguments, mainly the general lack of attention given to Latin by highly-trained linguists working in the Generative framework.

Revisiting the Latin Genitive. In traditional grammars of the Latin language, a large part of the Syntax is made up of long chapters on the functions of each of the six cases, each one of them being endowed with an elaborate system of functions and sub-functions detailing the various contexts in which a noun in that case may appear.1 Of all these, two different types of Genitive can be

Personally, I hold the heretical belief that these sophisticated, but dull classifications have risen precisely from

the grammarians mania of placing every single item of data into a proper class, sometimes indiscriminately mixing syntactic and semantic criteria and establishing separate sub-classes whose only purpose is to name a particular context, determined by the regent phrase. I am positive that a careful study into Latin cases, based on a more linguistically accurate approach, might yield a better, more unitary system of case functions.

linked with the idea of partitivity and pseudo-partitivity, which, in turn, will lead us to identify syntactic constructions that could in fact be a type of massifier. I will briefly present these two functions2 of the Genitive case, as given in the advanced grammar of the late professor Sluanschi, who mainly followed the older work of Ernout and Thomas, one of the most influential in the field. In their own study, Ernout and Thomas begin the analysis with an interesting idea, claiming that the essential function of the Genitive could be precisely that of specifying3. This can be linked to the special, adnominal status of the Genitive, as opposed to the other cases, which are ad-verbal4. The first value of the Genitive that I am going to analyse is the one named genitiv explicativ in Romanian, or the Genitive of Definition. Sluanschi (1994: 99) gives a very good explanation of this function: the series, class, opposing category a noun explicitly or implicitly belongs to. This first mentioning of (semantic) classes and categories of nouns is worth remembering for our present purpose as I will later show how some of these defining Genitives are exactly what we are looking for. The evolution of this type of Genitive is explained thus: for phrases denoting names of places, like Lutetia Parisiorum Lutetia (the city) of the Parisian tribes = Paris, the city was first seen as the administrative seat of a union of tribes; for phrases like Urbs Romae the City of Rome or flumen Tiberis the river of the Tiber the name initially belonged to the protecting divinity, an anthropomorphic representation of the place or river. (Sluanschi 1994: 99) In the same category of Genitives of Definition, Sluanschi includes two other kinds of defining: one that he calls contrasting categorical series, like in Cic. Mur., 33: fidei5

(1).

virtutibus

constantiae,

gravitatis, iustitiae,

virtues-ABL PL steadfastness-GEN dignity-GEN justice-GEN loyalty-GEN through the virtues of steadfastness, dignity, justice and loyalty
2

As we shall see, like every other traditional classification, this one is both syntactic and semantic, with the

semantic considerations leading to a redundancy in the number of functions that are identified separately.
3 4

A. ERNOUT, F. THOMAS, Syntaxe Latine (Paris: Editions Klincksieck, 1989), p. 39 D. SLUANSCHI, Sintaxa limbii latine. Vol. I Sintaxa propoziiei, ediia a doua, revzut i adugit

(Bucureti: Editura Universitii din Bucureti, 1994), p. 95

5

For quick translations of the words in this paper, I have often checked William Whitakers Words, a

searchable, easy-to-use dictionary, which can be found online at http://lysy2.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe. For a more advanced research, the standard resource is the large Oxford Latin Dictionary, but a good alternative is the older dictionary by Lewis and Short, now in the public domain and browsable online at http://athirdway.com/glossa/

or in:

(2).

sebi

ac picis

glebas

(Caes. B.G., 7, 25, 2)

tallow-GEN and tar-GEN clod-ACC PL clods of tallow and tar

(3).

frugum

alimenta

carnisque

(Liv. 23, 30, 3)

crops-GEN provisions-NOM meat-GEN-and provisions of cereals and meat

and another, including examples like

(4).

tria

genera

cupiditatum (Cic. Fin. 2, 26)

three-NOM types-NOM desires-GEN three types of desire

Concerning the examples in (1) (3), Sluanschi (1994: 113) correctly rejects the partitive interpretation that Ernout and Thomas give to this type of constructions; he points to the de/din difference in Romanian (o bucat de pine defining, o bucat din pine partitive). Of course, what he calls defining here is actually a quantitative pseudo-partitive phrase. If we can safely claim that (2) and (3) are quantitative pseudo-partitive phrases, with glebas and alimenta as the semi-lexical heads and each with a double lexical head, the data in (1), however, seems to elude this categorization, being a genuinely defining (or appositional) expression, much like the English equivalent (the virtue of loyalty is just as defining/appositional as the City of London). The interesting part in all this is that some school grammars, like Mateis6 consider the example in (2) as a poetical Genitive of Matter, denoting the particular substance that the object is made of. Another example that Matei gives for this sub-type of Genitive is in Ov. Met.110:

(5).

flumina

iam lactis,

iam flumina

nectaria ibant

Rivers-NOM here milk-GEN here rivers-NOM nectarous went here rivers of milk flowed, there rivers of nectar

V. MATEI, Gramatica limbii latine (Bucureti: Editura Scripta, 1996), p. 187

If we are to accept (5) as an example of this semantic category, then we are forced to point to the distinction between it and (2). (5), an extract from a poem, is highly expressive and poetical, a fact underlined by the parallelism the structure enters with a phrase including a sophisticated adjective (nectaria). Milk and nectar dont usually come in rivers. Tallow and tar can. Therefore, while (5) is a Defining Genitive of matter, (2) is a quantitative pseudopartitive phrase, in other words, an instance of Latin massifier. Sluanschi considered defining Genitives what I will like to claim are instances of qualitative pseudo-partitive expressions (cf. an idiot of a doctor or Rom. un boboc de fat):

(6).

scelus

viri

(Plt., Curc. 614 ; M. G., 434 ; Truc., 621)

crime-NOM/VOC man-GEN a crime of a man, scoundrelly fellow (trans. Henry Thomas Riley)

(7).

flagitium

hominis

(Plt. As., 475; Cas., 155, 532 ; Men., 489, 709)

outrage-VOC man-GEN an outrage of a man, disgraceful man (trans. Henry Thomas Riley)

(8).

monstrum

mulieris

(Plt. Poen., 273)

monster-NOM woman-GEN a monster of a woman, a monstrosity of a woman (trans H.T.Riley)

(9).

deliciae

pueri

(Plt. Pen., 204)

delight-NOM PL boy-GEN charmer of a boy (trans. Henry Thomas Riley)

(10).

pestes

hominum

(Cic. Fam., 5, 8, 2)

pest-NOM PL people-GEN a pest of a man(plural), pestilent persons

As we can see, this type of constructions occurs, like in modern languages in fact, mostly in expressive, familiar registers, like that of comedy or private correspondence. The fact that, with the exception of (9), all are insults and are generally used directly in the face of the denoted person is another argument for including them in the colorful, spoken register.

The Partitive Genitive. Sluanschis categorization. According to Sluanschi (1994: 100), the Partitive Genitive is related to the quantity to which one can operate a partitioning or, in our terms, the idea of divisibility. The first case of such a Genitive appears together with nouns signifying parts or unities of a naturally divisible mass:

(11).

pars

militum

part-NOM soldier-GEN PL part of the soldiers

(12).

dimidium praedae half-NOM spoils-GEN SG half of the spoils

(13).

reliquum pecuniae rest-NOM money-GEN SG the rest of the money

Here, the lack of determiner on the Genitive noun (which is an indication of a true partitive in English and other languages) is compensated by the fact that the very semantic nature of the other noun makes the partitive function of the whole expression evident. Then, Sluanschi lists some of the grammatical categories which demand the use of a Partitive Genitive. He includes neutral adjectives turned into nouns (summum highest, extremum most, ultimum last), adverbialized forms (multum a lot of, plus more, parum a little, minus less, paulum, exiguum a little; satis enough, affatim sufficient etc.), adjectives like multi many and pauci few and others related to them, as well as the correlatives tantum quantum so much as. It is interesting to note that these occur not only together with concrete nouns, but also formulate a judgment on the extent to which a certain abstract quality is present, as we can see in this double example, taken from a famous portrait of a Roman political figure:

(14).

satis

eloquentiae,

sapientiae

parum (Sal., Cat., 5)

enough eloquence-GEN wisdom-GEN little (Catilina was) sufficiently eloquent, (but he had) little wisdom 5

The idea of partitivity, argues Sluanschi (1994: 101) is present in the use of the Genitive with the superlative of adjectives, which receives the meaning of selecting a unique item out of a multitude:

(15).

maximus

montium

big-SUPERL SG mountain-GEN PL the tallest of the mountains

Partitivity is also involved in examples like

(16).

rex

regum (Plt. Capt., 825)

king-NOM king-GEN PL the king of kings,

which is a very expressive phrase, modeled after Greek ( ) and kept in modern languages as well, like the Romanian zmeul zmeilor. In these examples, the idea of partitivity is somehow included in the idea of superlativity. Concerning the Genitive used after cardinal numerals, we find out that the noun mille (thousand) is the only one that solely admits the Genitive, all the rest permitting two different types of constructions, an attributive one in which the numeral and the noun agree in case (tres hostes three enemies) and another one with the Genitive (tres hostium three of the enemies), the latter one being a partitive expression. Next, Sluanschi goes on to reject the interpretation found in most traditional grammars, which give a partitive value to the various types of expressions that I will quote below. I will claim that most, if not all of them, are pseudo-partitives of quantity, or massifiers. First of all, we have the neutral pronouns of different types (id, illud anaforical; quid interrogative; aliquid, quidquid undefined, nihil negative) which, used always in the singular, with another singular Genitive, form construction of the type

(17).

id

aetatis

that age-GEN that age

(18).

illud praemii that prize-GEN

that prize

(19).

quid novi? what new-GEN what news? cf. Fr. quoi de neuf?

(20).

aliquid

honoris

something honor-GEN a little honor

(21).

quidquid

negoti

whatsoever business-GEN a little business

(22).

nihil

boni

nothing good-GEN no good.

Sluanschi has the good intuition that constructions of this type are not true partitives. For lack of a better term, he calls them rather epexegetic (1994: 102), including them in the sphere of the Genitive of Definition. I would like to affirm that, for Latin, these neutral pronouns act as massifiers. The next very sharp intuition is that the inclusion of examples such as (2) in the Genitive of Matter is wrong (Sluanschi calls this a flagrant situation) and that they, too, belong to the Defining value of the Genitive. He adds two other examples, one of which,

(38).

lauri

folia

(Mart., 5, 4, 2)

laurel-GEN leaves-NOM laurel leaves

is another clear example of a massifier.

Other even more relevant items of data are provided as the names of natural, technical or operational units that do not demand an automatic partitioning but belong to the abstract values of belonging (103). Sluanschi identifies three separate classes, all of which are nothing other than categories of massifiers. First, we have the names of different multitudes:

(39).

grex

porcorum

herd-NOM pig-NOM PL a herd of pigs

(40).

multitudo

civium

multitude-NOM citizen-GEN PL the multitude of citizens

(41).

turba

servorum

crowd-NOM slave-GEN PL a crowd of slaves

(42).

legio

tironum

legion-NOM recruit-GEN PL a legion of recruits

(43).

ala

equitum

squadron-NOM rider-GEN PL a cavalry squadron

Related to this, we should notice that, as in modern Romance languages, the existence of the classifier is not in complimentary distribution with the presence of plural morphology. The behavior of these constructions would be better established through a corpus study7 of their agreement patterns.
7

This is possible by using the incredibly convenient search tool offered by the website of the Perseus Project,

maintained by Tufts University (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/search). The visitor is able to instantly find a certain word or phrase (together with its inflectional variants) in all the texts of their enormous database. For Classical Greek and Latin, Perseus probably has the most complete library. Another good resource is http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/, which also includes Medieval and Neo-Latin materials.

The second type of massifiers is the one of measure units, actual or theoretical (103): (44). libra auri

pound-NOM gold-GEN a pound of gold

(45).

talentum

argenti

talent-NOM silver-GEN a talent of silver or a sum of money

(46).

modius

frumenti

peck8-NOM grain-GEN two gallons of cereals

(47).

cadus

vini

jar-NOM wine-GEN a jar of wine.

The lack of determiners in Latin makes it more difficult to formally establish the boundaries between genuine partitives and pseudo-partitives / massifier uses. The context is the only one that can give us clues to the type of interpretation that should be assigned to them, but their use as true partitives seems to be rare. Then, we have the clichs of spoken language:

(48).

mica

panis

crumb-NOM bread-GEN a crumb of bread

(49).

gutta

aquae

drop-NOM water-GEN a drop of water

Modius was actually the name of a special Roman unit of measure for dry substances, the equivalent of 2

gallons

(50).

poculum

vini

cup-NOM wine-GEN a cup of wine,

which, as we can see, are evidently other genuine massifiers.

Maurels analysis In his paper on the relation between the Genitive and Quantification, Maurel identifies several types of quantitative expressions that include the Genitive and proposes a unified analysis. He postulates the existence of a [X Ng]NP, where Ng is the noun in the Genitive case, and X is the quantitative element that he incorrectly ascribes to the class of Determiners (in fact, his X is nothing else but the semi-lexical head of the projection, i.e. the massifier). Even if he fails to recognize them as massifiers, his classifications and lists of X elements could prove to be useful.

Conclusions By revisiting the traditional classification of the syntactic and semantic values of the Genitive case in Latin, I have managed to uncover a large number of cases where classifiers are present. The list would have to be enlarged by other examples found in the corpus. Just like the modern European languages, Latin does not have count-classifiers. Instead, it has many semi-lexical massifiers, which are used together with the rich plural morphology. A special aspect, that differentiates double-headed projections in Latin (a syncretic language) from the ones in modern analytical languages, is the lack of a pseudopartitive preposition (like Eng. of, Rom. de, Fr. de etc.) for Latin, this is lexically encoded in the Genitive morphology. Apart from the massifiers naming multitudes, units of measure or containers, present cross-linguistically, Latin has the additional possibility of using neuter pronouns and certain adverbs in constructions that I would like to claim are also massifiers. Through all this, Latin data can prove useful in the study of an important topic in modern linguistics, reinforcing the idea that this fascinating language still deserves to be explored.

10

Works Cited
SLUANSCHI, Dan. Sintaxa limbii latine. Vol. I Sintaxa propoziiei, ediia a doua, revzut i adugit. Bucureti: Editura Universitii din Bucureti, 1994 ERNOUT, Alfred, Francois THOMAS. Syntaxe Latine. Paris: Editions Klincksieck, 1989 MATEI, Virgil. Gramatica limbii latine. Bucureti: Scripta, 1996 MAUREL, Jean-Pierre. Genitif et Quantification. TOURATIER, Christian (ed). Syntaxe et Latin, Actes du IIme Congres International de Linguistique Latine, Aix-en-Provence, 28-31 Mars 1983. Publications Universite de Provence, 1985

11