Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T23:26:45.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The accusative and infinitive in Latin: a refractory complement clause1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

O. S. Pillinger
O. S. Pillinger
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Indiana University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this paper I set out to show that, contrary to expectation, Subject-to-Object Raising does not form part of the derivation of Accusative and Infinitive (A&I) complements in Latin: and that this, coupled with the apparent NP-status of these complements, causes some difficulties for two of the current ‘schools’ of transformational-generative grammar, namely Generative Semantics/Relational Grammar, and Chomsk's Extended Standard Theory.

After a brief note on the use of intuition in analysing a dead language, the basic positions of the above two schools are given, together with certain distinctions and terminology relevant to the Latin data under consideration.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 1980, pp. 55 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

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

Aissen, J. (1974). Verb Raising. Lln 5. 325–366.Google Scholar
Andrews, A. D. (1971). Case agreement of predicate modifiers in Ancient Greek. Lln 2. 127–151.Google Scholar
Bowers, F. (1968). English complex sentence formation. JL 4. 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1970). On complementizers: toward a syntactic theory of complement types. FL 6. 297–321.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1976a). On the form and functioning of transformations. Lln 7. 3–40.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1976b). Nonarguments for raising. Lln 7. 485–501.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P. (eds), A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1967). English [Word-classes]. Lingua 17. 24–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, J. (1970). Root and structure-preserving transformations. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation.) Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. (1972). A reformulation of certain syntactic transformations. In Peters, S. (ed), Goals of linguistic theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Gildersleeve, B. L. & Lodge, G. (1895). Latin grammar. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Householder, F. W. (1969). Review of Lakoff, R. (1968). Language Sciences 10. 11–18.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. E. (1976). Toward a theory of relationally-based grammar. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois.) Mimeographed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Joseph, B. D. (1978). Morphology and universals in syntactic change: evidence from medieval and modern Greek. (Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.) Mimeographed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. (1976). Toward a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1970). Global rules. In Seuren, P. (ed.), Semantic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press (1974).Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1968). Abstract syntax and Latin complementation. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Leumann, J. B., Hofmann, & Szantyr, A. (1965). Lateinische Grammatik, Vol. II: Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. Munich: C. H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. T. & Short, C. (1879/1966). A Latin dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1975). Natural logic and the Greek moods. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loflin, M. D. (1968). A note on VP complementation. JL 4. 285–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1966). Towards a ‘notional’ theory of the ‘parts of speech’. JL 2. 209–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1974). The English verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Pepicello, W. J. (1977). Raising in Latin. Lingua 42. 209–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pepicello, W. J. (1978). Generative Latin syntax: a case study. (Unpublished paper delivered at the 1977 annual meeting of the Americal Philological Association.)Google Scholar
Pillinger, O. S. (1977). Aspects of Latin complementation. (Unpublished M.Phil dissertation, University of Reading.)Google Scholar
Postal, P. (1974). On raising. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Postal, P. & Perlmutter, D. M. (1974). Some general laws of relational grammar. (Unpublished lecture-handout, LSA Summer Institute, Amherst, Mass.)Google Scholar
Quicoli, A. C. (1972). Aspects of Portuguese complementation. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, S.U.N.Y., Buffalo.)Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. S. (1967). The Grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1972a). The category squish: Endstation Hauptwort. PCLS 8. 316–328.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1972b). Primacy and the order of constituents. (Unpublished lecture-handout, Northeastern Linguistic Society meeting, Amherst, Mass.)Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1973). Nouniness. In Fujimura, O. (ed), Three dimensions of linguistic theory. Tokyo: TEC.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1974). There, there, (there, (there, (there, …))). PCLS 10. 569–587.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. (1977). Grammatical relations and surface cases. Lg. 53 789–809.Google Scholar
Wagner, , Heinz, K. (1968). VP complementation: a criticism. JL 4. 89–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, T. (1977). Transformations and the lexicon. In Culicover, P. et al. (eds), Formal syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Woodcock, E. C. (1959). A new Latin syntax. London: MethuenGoogle Scholar