Crossing diachrony and synchrony:
the case of Italian nominal plural
Nicola Lampitelli
1
Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages 38
Urbana-Champaign, 6th-8th of April, 2008
The case of Italian nominal plural:
diachrony and synchrony
Nicola Lampitelli, University of Paris VII, UFR de Linguistique
(nicolalampitelli@gmail.com)
HU
[0]
UH
Intro
This work stems from both the traditional historical linguistics (Ernout, 1953; Beneveniste,
1984; Väänänen, 1963; Rohlfs, 1969 among others) and the general theoretical framework of
Distributed Morphology (DM) (Halle & Marantz, 1993; Marantz, 1997; Embick & Noyer,
2004 among others).
I aim to demonstrate that the Italian noun plural marker is one single item for both masculine
and feminine genders and that its phonological form is /i/. I aim to demonstrate that it
originated from Latin plural accusatives.
[1.0] The data: Latin and Italian nouns
(1)
singulars:
a]
b]
Latin nouns
declension I
M
F
NOM poeta rosa
ACC poetam rosam
gloss poet rose
declension II
M
F
lupus fagus
lupum fagum
wolf beech
N
ovum
ovuum
egg
plurals:
c]
d]
declension I
declension II
M
F
M
F
N
NOM poetae rosae
lupī fagī
ova
ACC poetās rosās
lupōs fagōs ova
gloss poets roses
wolves beeches eggs
(gender predictability for decl. I and II)
(2)
singulars:
a]
Italian nouns:
“-a group”
M
F
poeta rosa
gloss poet rose
U
U
U
U
plurals:
b]
1
“-a group”
M
F
poeti rose
gloss poets roses
U
U
U
U
declension III
M
F
dux
pax
ducem pacem
leader peace
declension III
M
F
N
ducēs pacēs corpora
ducēs pacēs corpora
leaders peaces bodies
(no gender predictability)
“-o group”
M
F1
lupo
wolf
“-e group”
M
F
duce pace
leader peace
“-o group”
M
F
lupi
wolves
“-e group”
M
F
duci paci
leaders peaces
F
U
F
U
U
U
There is only one F noun in this group: mano-mani (hand(s)).
N
corpus
corpus
body
U
U
U
U
U
U
Crossing diachrony and synchrony:
the case of Italian nominal plural
2
Nicola Lampitelli
[1.1] Some general remarks on nouns:
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Declensions IV and V have disappeared and they were absorbed by declensions I, II
and III.
The Italian system is slightly simpler than Latin one:
a] No more syntactic cases
b] Neuter agreement disappeared
Format of Italian nouns = [… V#] ; Vsg = a, o, e Vpl = e, i
Plural isogloss, discussed here, in Romance; West: Pl = [s] / East: Pl = [i].
The classical hypothesis explains this isogloss using the distinction ACC/NOM for [s]
and [i] plurals, respectively.
[1.2] The morphological hypothesis (MH) & the phonetic hypothesis (PH)
(7)
(8)
(9)
MP: Rohlfs (1969); Meyer-Lubke (1985); Tekavčić (1972) and others have always
claimed that Italian plural nouns derive from Latin plural nominatives:
decl. gen. LT
IT
IT
gen
(gloss)
I
F
rosae →
rose
F
roses
II
M
lupī →
lupi
M
wolves
PH: Reichenkron (1939); Äbischer (1960 & 1961); Maiden (1996) have claimed that a
different hypothesis is conceivable for Italian feminine [-e] plural: the base would be
Latin declension I accusative:
decl. gen. LT
→
IT
gen. (gloss)
I
F
rosās →
rose F
roses
They all postulate the following phonetic evolution, that is vocalisation of the fricative
s→š→i
[1.3] MH and PH compared
(10)
a]
b]
c]
d]
e]
Latin → Italian following MH
decl. singular
gen
I
poetam → poeta
M
I
rosam → rosa
F
II
lupum → lupo
M
III
ducem → duce
M
III
pacem → pace
F
plural
poetae → *poete (analogy) → poeti
rosae → rose
lupī → lupi
ducēs → *duce (analogy)
→ duci
pacēs → *pace (analogy)
→ paci
gen
M
F
M
M
F
(11)
Analogy is needed to reinterpret data in 10.a, 10.d and 10.e (Cf. Rohfls, 1969;
Tekavcic, 1972; Meyer-Lübke, 1985).
(12)
Latin accusatives used as nominatives (Väänänen, 1963:84; Tekavčić, 1972:47;
Maiden, 1996:150; Rohlfs, 1969:II, 28; Renzi & Andreose, 2003:227):
a]
hic quescunt duas matres duas filias ([CIL] III, 3551; Budapest, Hungary)
Two mothers and two daughters rest in peace here
b]
filios et nepotes memoria patri posuerunt ([CIL] VIII, 7476; Cirta, Algeria)
The sons and the nephews built in the memory of the father
c]
et animas eorum sepulta sunt in inferno (Carta di Arborea, Italy)
And their souls are buried in the hell
We also have one examples from archaic Latin (V-I centuries B.C.):
a]
quot laetitias insperatas modo mi inrepsere in sinum (Atellan by L. Pomponius)
How many un expected nice things took hold of my heart
(13)
Crossing diachrony and synchrony:
the case of Italian nominal plural
(14)
a]
b]
c]
d]
e]
(15)
a]
b]
Nicola Lampitelli
3
Latin → Italian following PH
decl. singular
gen
I
poetam → poeta
M
I
rosam → rosa
F
II
lupum → lupo
M
III
ducem → duce
M
III
pacem → pace
F
plural
poetās → poetai → *poete
rosās → rosai → rose
lupōs → lupoi *→ lupi
ducēs → ducei → duci
pacēs → pacei → paci
gen
M
F
M
M
F
As you can see in 14, two forms need an explanation:
decl I M Pl ACC poetās → poetai → *poete instead of grammatical [poeti]
This form is phonetically correct, but it is agrammatical in modern Italian.
decl II M Pl ACC lupōs → lupoi *→ lupi
This form need a phonetic interpretation, because how could the diphthong -oi → -i?
(16)
PH as expressed in Reichenkron (1939); Äbischer (1960 & 1961) and Maiden (1996)
gives a partial explanation about the origin of Italian plural marker.
(17)
Arguments for a phonetic evolution s → i
a]
Monosyllabic Latin words as nōs ‘we’, vōs ‘you (pl)’ and post ‘after’ gave the
following words in Italian, respectively: [noi] ‘we’, [voi] ‘you (pl)’ and [poi] ‘after’.
This is a clear example of the evolution s → i.
b]
2nd singular person in verbs:
conj. Latin Italian (gloss)
conj Latin Italian (gloss)
I
cantās canti you sing
II
vidēs vedi you see
III
legĭs leggi you read
IV
dormīs dormi you hear
(18)
I reject MH because:
a] It stems from the idea that Pl NOM is the base of Italian plurals (this is in
contradiction with the majority of Romance languages;
b] It needs to use an analogical process to justify the unique modern plural [i].
(19)
I accept PH because:
a] It stems from the idea the Pl ACC is the base of Italian plurals, unifying Romance
nominal system origins;
b] It explains a larger number of noun types comparing to MH.
c] The output stage of PH represents the underlying modern Italian nominal forms as
you can see below (cf. [2]).
[2]
An organic and unified one hypothesis:
I recall the general theoretical framework of Distributed Morphology (henceafter DM) (Halle
& Marantz, 1993; Embick & Halle, 2003; Embick & Noyer, 2004 and Marantz, 1997 among
others), the Theory of Elements ([KLV], 1985 & 1990) and the general theoretical framework
of CV syllable type (Lowenstamm, 1996 & (to appear)).
(20)
I accept PH and I claim that M plurals too derive from declension II Pl ACC -ōs.
(21)
I call this hypothesis organic because it provides an organic and unique evolution for
the entire system of modern Italian plurals.
(22)
The change between Latin and Italian reflects a change in the syntactic structure:
U
U
Crossing diachrony and synchrony:
the case of Italian nominal plural
a]
b]
c]
Nicola Lampitelli
4
Case was lost
Thematic vowels/declensions were lost
The evolution oi → i has been caused by syntactic change
[2.1] The steps of syntactic evolution: from Latin to Italian nouns
(23)
a]
Latin nouns structure evolution: from Latin to Italian nouns
STEP 1
b]
STEP 2 loss of case and ThP
Acc, pl
pl
case/numP
numP
case/num
ACC
[-sg] n
[αF]
nP
num
[-sg]
ThP
Th
Decl{I-V}
CV
CV
nP
n
[αF]
√ {1-2}
√
CVC[..]
CVC[..]
Agr
c]
STEP 3: Italian plurals
pl
numP
num
[-sg]
nP
n
[αF]
V
U
U
√P
Spec
√
group{1-2}
|
Agr
CVCVC(V)
1] case/num node hosts accusative and plural marker; it is provided by a syllable CV.
2] n hosts the gender, as in Kihm (2002) and Lowenstamm (to appear); it bears a syllable CV.
3] Th bears the information about the declension. Via an agreement operation with n, a vowel
appears (the so called thematic vowel).
4] once case is lost, the syllable associated to the node case/numP is lost too. No more place
exist for the plural marker.
5] the syllable CV in nP is also lost, this means that the thematic vowel can’t any more be
associated to the structure.
6] the declensions disappear following the general tendency of the majority of romance
language. But Italian maintains a double distinction in the expression of gender (expressed by
{i-ii} in 28.b). This mirrors the situation in modern Italian as shown in 3:
-group {i}: -a for F and -o for M
(rosa/lupo)
-group {ii}: -e for both genders.
(duce/pace)
7] in the structure shown in 23.b, the information {1} and {2} have no template to be
associated to. This is information is provided by the root.
8] the most important topic of Italian nouns is that their nP have a free V (underlined) that
hosts all the morphological operations on nouns (group marker, gender and number).
Crossing diachrony and synchrony:
the case of Italian nominal plural
Nicola Lampitelli
5
[2.2] The theory explains the data
(24)
a]
STEP 1: Latin plural accusatives
lupōs Decl I, M, Acc, pl
case/numP
case/num
ACC
[-sg] n
[-F]
nP
ThP
i
output:
CV
|
ō
Agr
[lupōs]
rosās Decl. II, F, Acc, pl
case/numP
case/num
ACC
[-sg] n
[+F]
Th
Decl{II}
CV
|
s
b]
√
CVCV
| | |
LUP
nP
ThP
Th
Decl{I}
i
CV
|
s
CV
|
ā
Agr
[rosās]
√
CVCV
| | |
ROS
(25)
Intermediate forms
They are [lupoi] and [rosai]: the structures in 24a and 24b explain both forms.
Actually the structure doesn’t change from lupōs → lupoi and from rosās → rosai
respectively.
(This is the output stage of PH, as explained above in 19)
(26)
a]
STEP 2: Loss of Case and Thematic Vowels (ThP disappears)
numP
numP
num
[-sg]
nP
n
[-F]
√ {1}
(27)
a]
nP
i
output:
b]
rose
group {i}, F, pl
numP
num
[-sg]
√P
Spec
group{1}
nP
n
[+F]
√
V
CVC
|
| | |
o
Agr
LUP
[lupi] because [*lupœ]
U
CVCV
| | |
ROS
[*ros]
STEP 3: Italian plural nouns
lupi group {i}, M, pl
numP
n
[-F]
√ {1}
i
[*lup]
num
[-sg]
nP
n
[+F]
CVCV
| | |
LUP
i
output:
num
[-sg]
√P
Spec
group{1}
U
V
|
a
U
i
U
√
CVCV
| | |
ROS
U
Agr
[rose]
Crossing diachrony and synchrony:
the case of Italian nominal plural
Nicola Lampitelli
6
b] The information about the group is hosted in Spec√P, all the others nodes being already
occupied.
c] The free V position in the root template is the site of the association of group/gender vowel
and plural marker. The parametric choice of Italian is that any operation on nouns must
occupies this position, otherwise no association is possible.
d] [KLV]’s (1985; 1990) Theory of Elements explains why /A.I/=[e] and why in a language
such Italian, the operation /o.I/=[œ/ø] is not allowed. Front rounded vowels don’t exist in
Italian vocalic system. Plural marker wins the competition with group/gender vowel.
[3]
Diachrony and synchrony together
(28)
For crossing diachrony and synchrony, I mean the comparison between STEP 3 (cf.
27) and modern Italian nouns structure.
Following [KLV] (1985 & 1990) and Lowenstamm (1996), I represent both the diachrony and
the synchrony as it follows.
(29)
Rose-type plural nouns
Diachrony
a]
√
{I} ACC/Pl
|
| |
ros
a s
| | |
|
|
CVCV+CVn+CVcase/num
b]
√
|
ros
| | |
CVCV
c]
√ {1}-- [+F]
|
|
ros a
| | | |
CVC+V
d]
[rose]
(30)
a]
U
Synchrony
a]
√ {1}-- [+F]
|
|
ros a
| | | |
CVC+V
b]
√ {1}-- [+F] Pl
|
|
|
ros a
i
| | | |
CVC+V
U
Pl
|
i
U
{1} Pl
| |
a i
Pl
|
i
U
c]
Lupi-type plural nouns
Diachrony
√
{II} ACC/Pl
|
| |
lup
o s
| | |
|
|
CVCV+CVn+CVcase/num
U
U
[rose]
Synchrony
a]
√ {1}-- [-F] Pl
|
|
|
lup o
i
| | | |
CVC+V
U
U
Crossing diachrony and synchrony:
the case of Italian nominal plural
b]
√
|
lup
| | |
CVCV
c]
√ {1}-- [-F] Pl
| |
|
lupo
i
| | |
CVC+V
d]
(31)
U
Nicola Lampitelli
7
{1} Pl
| |
o s
U
[lupi]
b]
c]
√ {1}-- [-F] Pl
| |
|
lupo
i
| | |
CVC+V
U
[lupi]
Poeti-type plural nouns
An important question arises now: do roots without group specification exist in
Italian? If so, these nouns should have -i on the plural. These roots actually exist, such
as √POET yielding poeta (sg) - poeti (pl) M (poet(s)).
Diachrony
Synchrony
a]
√
{I} ACC/Pl
|
| |
po e t
a s
| | | |
|
|
CVCVCV+CVn+CVcase/num
b]
√
|
po et
| | | |
CVCVCV
c]
√
[-F]
|
po et
| | | |
CVCVC+V
d]
[poeti]
U
a]
√
{ø} [-F] Pl
|
|
po e t
i
| | | |
CVCVC+V
b]
√
[-F] Pl
|
|
po e t
i
| | | |
CVCVC+V
U
U
Pl
|
s
U
Pl
|
i
c]
U
[poeti]
[4]
Conclusions
(32)
I explained why the form lupos gives lupi in Italian by means of DM.
(33)
Diachrony confirms the hypothesis that the plural marker is one single item, that is /i/.
(34)
The change is syntactic and not phonetic. The structure obliges the language to have
just a vocalic marker to pluralize.
Crossing diachrony and synchrony:
the case of Italian nominal plural
[5]
8
Nicola Lampitelli
References
Äbischer, P. (1960) La finale -e du féminin pluriel italien, in Studi Linguistici Italiani, I:5-48.
---- (1961) La finale -i des pluriels italiens et ses origines, in Studi Linguistici Italiani, II:73-111.
Benveniste, E (1984) Origine de la formation des noms en indo-européen, Paris:Maisonneuve.
Brugmann, K., Bloch, J., Cuny, A. & A. Ernout (1905) Abrégé de grammaire comparée des langues indoeuropéennes, Paris:Klincksieck.
[CIL]: Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (1862-1925) Consilio et auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Regiae
Borussicae editum. 17 Bd. de Gruyter, Berlin 1.1862 ff. (Reimer, Berlin 1862-1925).
Embick, D. & M. Halle (2003) On the status of stems in Morphological Theory, in T. Geerts and H. Jacobs eds.
Proceedings of Going Romance 2003, Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
Embick, D. & R. Noyer (2004) Distributed Morphology and the Syntax/Morphology Interface, ms. University of
Pennsylvania.
Ernout, A. (1953) Morphologie historique du latin, Paris:Klincksieck.
Giacalone Ramat, A. & P. Ramat (1993) Le lingue indoeuropee, Bologna:Il Mulino.
Halle, M. & A. Marantz (1993) Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection, The view from the Building
20, K. Hale & S. J. Kayser, eds. MIT Press.
Harris, J. W. (1991) The exponent of gender in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 27-62.
[KLV]: Kaye, J., Lowenstamm, J. & J. R. Vergnaud (1985), The internal structure of phonological elements : a
theory of charm and government, Phonology Yearbook 2:305-328.
---- (1990), Constituent structure in phonology, Phonology Yearbook 7, 2:193-231.
Kihm, A. (2002) What's in a Noun: Noun Classes, Gender, and Nounness, ms., Univ. Paris 7.
Igartua, I. (2006) Genus alternans in Indo-European, in Indogermanische Forschung, Band 111:56-70,
Berlin:De Gruyter.
Longobardi, G. (2001) Formal Syntax, Diachronic Minimalism and Etymology: The History of French Chez,
Linguistic Inquiry 32, 2:275-302.
Lowenstamm, J. (1996) CV as the only syllable type, in Current trends in Phonology. Models and Methods,
Durand J. & B. Lakes eds, Salford, Mancherster (ESRI):419-441.
---- (to appear) “On n, ROOT, and types of nouns”, in Hartmann, J.M., V. Hegedus and H. van
Riemsdijk (eds.) (2008) Sounds of Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology. [North Holland
Linguistic Series, Linguistic Variations Volume 63]. Amsterdam:Elsevier.
Maiden M. (1996) On the Romance Inflectional Endings -i and -e, in Romance Philology I. 2:147-182.
Marantz, A. (1997) No Escape from Syntax: Don’t try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own
Lexicon, in University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2: 201-225.
Meiser, G. (1998) Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der Lateinischen Sprache, Darmstadt:Wissen-schaftliche
Buchgesellschaft.
Meyer-Lübke, W. (1974) Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen, Leipzig:O.R. Reisland.
---- (1985II) Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei dialetti toscani, Torino:Loescher.
Monaci, E. (1955) Crestomazia italiana dei primi secoli con prospetto grammaticale e glossario. RomaNapoli:Società Editrice Dante Alighieri.
Niedermann, M. (1953) Phonétique historique du latin, 3ème éd., Paris:Klincksieck.
Reichenkron, G. (1939) Beiträge zur romanischen Lautlehre, Jena-Leipzig:Gronau.
Renzi, L. & A. Andreose (2003) Manuale di linguistica e filologia romanza, Bari:Laterza.
Rohlfs, G. (1969) Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, Torino:Einaudi.
Sabatini, F. (1965) Sull’origine dei plurali italiani: il tipo in -i. in Studi Linguistici Italiani, V:5-39.
Sornicola, R. (2007) Riflessioni sullo studio del cambiamento morfosintattico dalla prospettiva di un
romanista: sincronia e diacronia rivisitate, Revue de Linguistique Romane 71, 5-64.
Stotz, P. (1998) Handbuch zur lateinische Sprache des Mittelalters, München:Verlag C. H. Beck.
Tekavčič, P. (1972) Grammatica storica dell’italiano, Bologna:Il Mulino.
Thornton, A. (2001) Some reflections on gender and inflectional class assignment in Italian, in C. SchanerWalles, J. Reminson & Neubarth F. eds. Naturally! Linguistic studies in honour of Wolfagang Ulrich
Dressler, Torino, Rosengerd & Sellier.
Väänänen, V. (1934) Le nominatif pluriel en -ās dans le latin vulgaire, in Neuphilologische Mitteilungen XXXV
3/4:81-95.
---- (1959II) Le latin vulgaire des inscriptions Pompéiennes, Berlin:Akademie Wissenschaften.
---- (1963) Introduction au latin vulgaire, Paris:Klincksieck.