In the first place, most available ancient texts, apart from inscriptions, are medieval copies. Is it possible to elucidate this matter on the basis of a corpus of transmitted texts? There are serious limitations. Is the declension paradigm of the ppa as a rule determined by the syntactico-semantic use? Classical, medieval and modern grammarians greatly differ in their treatment of this question, as I will show. Used as a substantive, the ending is again - e ( cum sapiente), as well as in proper names ( Clemente), but there are many exceptions. More specifically, this “rather singular phenomenon” leads to an - e ablative ending in “purely” participial-verbal use (“rein partizipialer Verwendung”), which is most obvious in the ablative absolute ( vere ineunte, me praesente), but the ppa takes - ī ending when used attributively ( a sapienti viro). e und - ī nach der syntaktischen Verwendung geregelt, eine in der Formenlehre ziemlich singuläre Erscheinung” ( Leumann 1977: 438 my emphasis). He writes “Bei nt-Partizipien ist die Verteilung von abl. Leumann (1977) points to syntactico-semantic factors, at least with respect to the ablative singular. Are these separate paradigms of the ppa and if so, what determines which set of endings is used? ia, and on the other with endings - ĕ, -um, -a, which are also found in vetus, dives and pauper and in comparatives. Whereas the other two participles, perfect passive and future active, show a regular inflection as if they were nomina, more specifically adjectives, of the first and second declension (- us, -a, -um), the ppa seems to follow two declensional paradigms: on the one hand according to adjectives of the third declension such as felix and ingens, with endings abl.sg. Ancient grammarians explain that the term participium highlights its derivation: it takes its gender and case from a noun and its time and meaning from a verb. and as a participle in a strict verbal sense ( consule per Phocidem et Boeotiam exercitum ducente). as an adjective ( ab religioso et sapienti iudice) It may act as a noun ( falsos rumores dissipatos esse dicat de innocente), The Latin present active participle ( participium praesentis activi ppa) has nominal and verbal characteristics. But these ppa declensional variations do not appear to conform to a syntactico-semantic rule.
Some forms may have persisted because of their frequency and idiomatic force or because of the compelling analogy with other words and phrases. Some of the ppa forms may reflect a temporary phenomenon which would have disappeared in due course through diachronic evolution and paradigm leveling.
This calls for other explanations regarding the declensional inconsistencies observed.
It turns out that ancient and medieval grammarians do not formulate declension of the ppa according to its syntactico-semantic function, with the exception of the anonymous author of the Ars Ambrosiana, nor do they decline their own ppa’s according to a conventional rule of this kind. In addition, I looked for inconsistencies in the grammarian’s own ppa declension from this syntactico-semantic point of view. I have investigated whether ancient, medieval and modern grammarians treat such a phenomenon. Some grammarians, notably modern ones, assume that there are syntactico-semantic considerations or circumstances, leading to ablative - e ending when verbal force is intended (such as in the ablative absolute) or substantival force, and to - i ending when there is nominal, notably adjectival force. This paper deals with the declension of the Latin present active participle (ppa), which shows several inconsistencies: the ablative singular for instance may end in - e or in - i ( sapiente, sapienti) and the genitive plural may end in - um or - ium ( sapientum, sapientium).
0 kommentar(er)
