Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T14:16:15.329Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Origin and Development of Latin Habeo+Infinitive

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Robert Coleman
Robert Coleman
Affiliation:
Emmanuel College, Cambridge
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is well known that the future indicative and conditional (or future-in-thepast) paradigms of most Central and West Romance languages reflect a Latin infinitival construction with habeo, e.g. Italian canterd <cantare habeo, cantaria < cantare habebam.Although the development was essentially a Vulgar Latin one and so belongs to the subliterate register of the language, it is reflected now and again in the written material from the classical and post-classical periods. It is, therefore, possible by a study of its occurrences in the written material to make inferences about its origins within the antecedent morpho-syntactic system and the structural pressures that gave rise to its development.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , May 1971, pp. 215 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Aalto, P.Untersuchungen über das lateīnische Gerundium und Gerundivum (Helsinki, 1949).Google Scholar
Arndt, W. F. and Gingrich, F. W.Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, 1957) s.v. ἒχω6.Google Scholar
Blaise, A. and Chirat, H., Dictionnaire Latin–Français des Auteurs Chrétiens (Paris, 1954) s.v. habeo, 10–11.Google Scholar
Bulhart, V., in Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, 6. 3: s.v. habeo, col. 2454. 12— 2458. 83.Google Scholar
Compernass, J., ‘Vulgaria’, Gl. 8 (1917), pp. 88–121.Google Scholar
Ernout, A.and Fr. Thomas, Syntaxe latine (2nd ed., Paris, 1953).Google Scholar
Goodwin, W. W., Syntax of the Greek Moods and Tenses (Edinburgh, 1912).Google Scholar
Hahn, E. A., ‘Genesis of the Infinitive with Subject-Accusative’, T.A.P.A. 81(1950), pp. 117–29.Google Scholar
Hofmann, J. B., ‘Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Vulgärlateins’, I.F. 23 (1926), pp. 80–122.Google Scholar
Jannaris, A. N., An Historical Greek Grammar (London, 1897).Google Scholar
Kirk, W. H., ‘The Syntax of the Gerund and the Gerundive’, T.A.P.A. 73 (1942), pp. 293–307, and 76 (1945) pp. 166—76.Google Scholar
Lampe, G. W. H.,A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1961) s.v. ἒχω, B. 2.Google Scholar
Leumann, M., ‘Lateinisch habere mit Infinitiv’, Mus. Helv. 19 (1962), pp. 65–71.Google Scholar
Löfstedt, E., Syntactica 2 (2nd ed., Lund, 1956), Kap. 4: ‘Zur Auflosung des Futurums und des Locativs’.Google Scholar
Lunt, H. G., Old Church Slavonic Grammar (’s-Gravenhage, 1959).Google Scholar
Mayser, E., Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit, 2. 3 (Berlin, 1934).Google Scholar
Meyer-Lübke, W., Grammaire des langues romanes (French tr., Paris, 1895— 1906).Google Scholar
MossÉ, F., Manuel de la langue gotique (Paris, 1942).Google Scholar
Müller, B., ‘Das lateinische Futurum und die romanischen Ausdrucksweisen für das futurische Geschehen’, Rom. Forsch. 76 (1964), pp. 44–97.Google Scholar
Nau, F., ‘Histoire des solitaires Égyptiens’,Revue de l'Orient Chrétien 12 (1907), pp. 43–69, etc. (nine parts, concluding Ibid Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 18 (1913), pp. 137 ff.Google Scholar
Plater, W. E. and White, H. J.Grammar of the Vulgate (Oxford, 1926).Google Scholar
Postate, J. P. ‘The Future Infinitive Active in Latin’, I.F. 4 (1894),pp. 252—8.Google Scholar
Rönsch, H., Itala und Vulgata (Marburg and Leipzig, 1869).Google Scholar
Rohlfs, G.Historische Grammatik der italienischen Sprache (Berne, 1949—1953).Google Scholar
Salonius, A. H.Vitae Patrum: kritische Untersuchungen über Text, Syntax undWortschatz (Lund, 1920.).Google Scholar
Sophocles, E. A., Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (rev. ed. of Thayer, J. H., New York, 1887) s.v. ἒχω.Google Scholar
Szantyr, A.Lateinische Grammatik 2: Syntax und Stilistik (rev. ed. of Grammar, Leumann–Hofmann’s) München, 1963.Google Scholar
Taylor, Pauline ‘The construction AaAertf-with-infinitive in Alcuin’, Rom Rev. (1924), pp. 123–7.Google Scholar
Thielm, Ph., ‘Habere mit dem Infinitiv und die Entstehung des romanischen Futurums’, A.L.L. 2 (1885), pp. 48–89, 157–202.Google Scholar
Thielm, Ph.,‘Habere mit dem Part. Perf. Pass.’ A.L.L. 2 (1885), pp. 372–423, 509–49.Google Scholar
VÄÄnÄnen, V., Le Latin vulgaire des inscriptions pompéiennes (2nd ed., Berlin, 1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VÄÄnÄnen, V., Introduction au latin vulgaire (Paris, 1963).Google Scholar
Valesio, P.,‘The Romance synthetic future pattern and its first attestations’,Lingua 20 (1968), pp. 113–61, 279–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wackernagel, J., Vorlesungen über Syntax I (Basel, 1924), pp. 196 ff.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U.Languages in Contact (New York, 1953).Google Scholar