Navigation – Plan du site
La pragmatique

Latin cleft constructions, synchronically, diachronically, and typologically reconsidered

Les phrases clivées latines reconsidérées synchroniquement, diachroniquement et typologiquement
Roland Hoffmann
p. 201-210

Résumés

Les phrases clivées, plutôt rarement employées, représentent dans la syntaxe latine une stratégie de focalisation syntaxique particulière. Une analyse morphosyntaxique de la phrase focale, de la locution clivée et de la construction complète montre une tendance à présenter une structure uniforme, bien que tous les paramètres ne soient pas en accord parfait. Du point de vue diachronique, on peut constater que le nombre des phrases clivées diminue, que les constructions avec pronoms prédominent et que le nombre des adjectifs focalisés augmente de plus en plus. Plusieurs paramètres de variation sont étudiés dans une perspective typologique. En latin, les pronoms clivés sont souvent omis, l’ordre de la locution clivée et de la phrase clivée est figé. En outre, le latin emploie une stratégie supplémentaire de focalisation, à savoir l’ordre des mots marqué. L’usage abondant des phrases pronominales clivées y semble caractéristique.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

I thank my colleague Georg Kripp for correcting this French abstract and the anonymous readers for correcting the English and for their helpful comments.

1. Introduction

1Focus, the most salient constituent of the sentence within the information structure (Dik, 1980), is, especially in Latin, a central element of its mainly pragmatically determined word order. Apart from word order, there are several other focalisation strategies in Latin:

(1)

Dii maiores sunt qui me restituerunt in integrum. (Petron. 140, 12)

(2)

Sed accidit perincommode quod eum [sc. Quintum fratem] nusquam vidisti. (Cic. Att. 1, 17, 2)

(3)

Bene facis, inquit, quod me adiuvas… (Cic Fin. 3, 16)

(4)

Etenim si quid generis istiusmodi me delectat, pictura delectat. (Cic. Fam. 7, 23, 3)

2One of these strategies, which is found in many languages, are “cleft” constructions (CCs) by which the focused constituent is clefted by a copular clause and the original sentence often becomes a relative clause, as in (1). Rosén (1989; 2007) mentions three other strategies, which concern adverbs in focus position. This study will be restricted to proper cleft constructions.

3Hartmann and Veenstra (2013, p. 5) give the following definition of CCs:

In its classical form, a cleft clause is a bi-clausal copulative construction, consisting of an impersonal pronoun (the cleft pronoun), a copular verb, the informationally prominent phrase (the cleft phrase) and an embedded relative clause (the cleft clause).”

4The clause containing the cleft phrase (Dii maiores in (1)) and the copular verb will be called the focus clause (Dii maiores sunt in (1)). The other clause will be called the cleft clause. This contains a relative marker (Harries-Delisle, 1978). Another term used in the description of this phenomenon is “extrafocal verb” for the verb of the relative clause (Lehmann, 2014).

5Due to infrequency of use Latin CCs have received little attention. Apart from two articles by P. Jochimsen (1907) and B. Löfstedt (1966), only E. Goria has examined these constructions (2012; 2013) thoroughly. This paper deals with a number of issues that have not yet received sufficient attention.

6In section 2, Latin CCs from Early to Late Latin will be analysed morphosyntactically. One of the aims will be to show that they have typical properties. In section 3, a diachronic study, three representative authors from different periods of Latin will be studied to see if there is a development in the use of CCs. Finally, a typological section will show which parameters we need when comparing several languages and where Latin fits in.

2. Morphosyntactic analysis

7In this section, the morphosyntactic properties of Latin CCs will be defined and analysed. As a sample I use 131 instances cited by Löfstedt (1966), Goria (2012; 2013) or in other works, as well as some found by myself. Since, morphologically speaking, the CC consists of seven elements, these elements lead to a number of questions which have to be solved.

2. 1. The focus function

  • 2 Cf. also Plaut. Poen. 1043-6.

8In order to prove that Latin CCs are focus constructions, we need unambiguous contexts. Such a context is provided by constituent questions. In (5) such a focus context can be seen.2

(5)

CHRYS.: Vis tibi ducentos nummos iam promittier,

ut ne clamorem hic facias neu convicium?

CLEOM.: Nihil est quod malim. (Plaut. Bacch. 873-75)

2. 2. The focus clause

9Does Latin have a special pronoun that resembles the neutral expletive pronoun it in English or es in German? Only in ten instances does the focus clause contain a pronoun alongside the cleft phrase, in most cases a form of the anaphoric pronoun is, but there is also one form of ipse. So in the regular case of Latin CCs there is no pronoun and there is certainly not a specialized cleft pronoun.

10By which categories is the cleft phrase constituted? Table 1 shows that pronouns form the largest proportion. Nouns constitute only a third. Adverbs are also possible, though in a different type of CC.

Table 1: The categories forming the cleft phrase

Noun

Prep.

Dem. pron.

Pers. pron.

Interr. pron.

Indef. pron.

Pronouns:
all

[adv.]

Total

38

1

31

21

14

15

81

[12]

131

11In the wider corpus in part 3 we also find adjectives in a cleft phrase, contrary to former analyses. An example is (6). This corresponds to the analysis of Modern English by Quirk et al. (1985, p. 1385).

  • 3 Cf. also Plaut. Truc. 221 (stultus sit qui).

(6)

Solus est hic qui numquam res ad aerarium referat. (Cic. Verr. 2, 1, 98)3

12Three cases have to be distinguished: when the adjective functions as a predicate of the verb in the focus clause (6), when the adjective functions as a secondary predicate or when the prominent adjective refers to an adverbially used adjective.

  • 4 See also Bell. Hisp. 3, 1 (temporis), Sen. Epist. 42, 8 (saepe), Epist. 86, 16 (nunc).

13Are there other constituents in addition to the cleft phrase? Normally, it is assumed that the focus clause is only formed by the cleft pronoun, the cleft phrase, and the copula. However, there are four instances in my sample4 which show that another constituent is possible in Latin CCs:

(7)

Interdum populus est quem timere debeamus. (Sen. Epist. 14, 7)

14In all four instances temporal adjuncts are present. In (7) the temporal adjunct interdum is anaphorically repeated in the following two sentences and so emphasized.

15Furthermore, the focus clause can contain a sympathetic dative as (8) shows, but it can also remain in the extrafocal clause (9).

(8)

Nam illi quidem hau sane diust quom dentes exciderunt. (Plaut. Merc. 541)

(9)

[…] nihil est qui illi homini diminuam caput. (Plaut. Men. 304)

16A focus clause can also be introduced by nempe as in (10).

(10)

In summam, nempe ego sum qui traducor: taceat et gaudeat. (Stat. Silv. 4, praef. 35)

17According to modern pragmatic research, nempe is a discourse marker (Schrickx, 2011). The occurrence of such a particle and the sympathetic dative shows that a CC is a strategy on the discourse level.

18As for its tense, the copula normally appears in the present tense (Table 2). Other tenses are found in less than 10% of the instances.

Table 2: The distribution of the tense of the copula

Pres.

Pres. inf.

Pres.: all

Impf.

Impf. subj.

Perf.

Future

Total

abs.

111

10

121

4

2

3

1

131

%

84.7

7.6

92.3

3.1

1.5

2.3

0.8

100.0

  • 5 A case where the copula is not omitted is Sen. Nat. 6, 32, 9.

19Can the copula be omitted? Most often (128x) this constitutive element is not omitted. Only in parallel structures is omission sometimes possible, though not always (12x).5

(11)

Ego sum ille qui longas terras et ignotas regiones peragraui, ego ille qui tam longe abieram ut in patriam redire non possem. (Quint. Decl. 320, 6)

20In which sentence types is the focus clause used? As to be expected, mostly in declarative ones. In the other 17 examples we find only questions which are attested with some frequency: constituent questions (13x), where the interrogative pronoun in the nominative is the cleft phrase, as in (12) and (13), and sentence questions (6x), also in rhetorical use (4x).

(12)

Quis est quem vides? (Plaut. Cas. 212)

(13)

Quid id est quod scis? (Plaut. Merc. 478)

21What is the order of the cleft phrase, the copula, and a possible cleft-pronoun? Table 3 shows that often the copula is placed directly before the cleft clause (14). Except for one instance this order is even maintained when an anaphoric cleft pronoun is present, which then stands between the cleft phrase and the copula (15). Only in four cases does the copula take the initial position (16).

(14)

Scythia est quo mittimur, inquam, / Roma relinquenda est. (Ov. Trist. 1, 3, 61-2)

(15)

aut tu is es qui in disputando non tuum iudicium sequaris… (Cic. Leg. 1, 36)

(16)

Erat idem temporis Sex. Pompeius frater qui cum praesidio Cordubam tenebat […]. Ipse autem Cn. Pompeius adulescens Uliam oppidum oppugnabat. (Bell. Hisp. 3, 1, 1)

Table 3: Order of cleft phrase and copula

CPH-COP

CPH-CPR-COP

CPH-COP-CPR

COP-CPH

Total

abs.

127

9

1

4

131

%

97.0%

6.9%

0.8%

3.1%

100.0%

CCL: Cleft Clause; CPH: Cleft Phrase; COP: Copula; CPR: Cleft Pronoun; FCL: Focus Clause

22If there appear in the focus clause connectors and particles like enim, which normally have to be placed in the second position of a sentence in accordance with Wackernagel’s Law (Bauer, 2009, p. 293-5), in 5 of 7 cases they do not stand between cleft phrase and copula, but after the copula (17).

(17)

Pectus est enim quod disertos facit(Quint. Inst. 10, 7, 15)

23So both elements of a CC seem to be a syntactic unity in the linguistic competence of the speakers.

2. 3. The cleft clause

24Can all syntactic positions be relativized, or are there restrictions? In principle, in Latin, where even the basis of a comparative construction can be a relative pronoun, there are nearly no restrictions in the “Accessibility Hierarchy” of Keenan and Comrie (1977) in contrast to other languages.

25As Table 4 shows, the relative expression may be the subject in its clause, as in (17), the object, as in (13), the indirect object, as in (18), and the prepositional argument, as in (19). It may also be an adjunct as in (20).

(18)

Nostrum genus est cui debetur regnum caelorum, non illi generi… (Aug. Serm. 14, 3)

(19)

Praeterea scio hunc esse in quem potissimum Iuppiter se convertit. (Varro Rust. 2, 5, 5)

(20)

Hic est […] apud quem cubitum ponitis. (Petron. 27, 4)

Table 4: Syntactic functions of the relative pronoun of cleft clauses

S

O

IO

PA*

Adjunct

Inflected

relative pronoun

No (inflected) relative pronoun

Total

abs.

60

27

4

2

13

106

25

131

%

45.8

20.6

3.1

1.5

9.9

80.9

19.1

100.0

* PA = Prepositional argument

26Can the extrafocal verb in the cleft phrase be chosen freely, or are there any morphological, syntactic, or semantic restrictions? The extrafocal verb may be an intransitive (pallere) or transitive verb (vendere), in the passive (dari) or reflexive voice (se convertere); it may belong to a dynamic or non-dynamic, a controllable or a non-controllable state of affairs (venire, habitare, urere, scire). Apart from the fact that the extrafocal verb cannot occur in the imperative mood, it does not seem to be restricted in any way.

27As to the tense of the extrafocal verb, Table 5 shows a difference with respect to the copula.

Table 5: Distribution of the tense in the cleft clause

pres. ind.

pres. subj.

pres.:

all

future I

impf. ind.

impf. subj.

perf. ind.

perf. subj.

plpf.

ind.

plpf. subj.

not pres.: all

Total

abs.

68

20

88

5

5

7

19

4

2

1

43

131

%

51.9

15.3

67.2

3.8

3.8

5.3

14.5

3.1

1.5

0.8

32.8

100.0

28The present tense, which is attested 88 times, may be the predominant tense here also, but other tenses, with the perfect being the most frequent, constitute nearly one third of the sample.

29When the cleft pronoun is a 1st or 2nd person and is at the same time subject of the extrafocal verb, the extrafocal verb agrees with it in person (in all 15 instances). This is further evidence that there is always agreement in person between both verbs (Goria, 2013, p. 159).

2. 4. The whole construction

30In respect to the whole construction, the relation between the tense of the copula and the extrafocal verb is interesting (Table 6).

Table 6: The tense of the copula in the focus clause (FCl) and of the verb in the cleft clause (CCl)

CCl

FCl

pres.

pres. subj.

fut. I

impf.

impf. subj.

perf.

perf. subj.

plpf.

plpf. subj.

Total

pres.

67

20

4

1

2

14*

2

1

-

111

pres. inf.

1

-

-

1

6

-

2

-

-

10

fut.

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

impf.

-

-

-

3

-

1

-

-

-

4

impf. subj.

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

2

perf.

-

-

-

-

-

2

-

1

-

3

all

69

20

5

5

8

17

4

2

1

131

%

52.7

15.3

3.8

3.8

6.1

13.0

3.0

1.5

0.8

100.0

* Odisse (Vulg. Iud. 11,7) is counted semantically as a present tense.

31Two situations can be distinguished: one in which the copula has another tense than the present, and another in which the copula is present tense but the cleft clause contains another tense. Altogether there are only ten instances where the copula is not used in the present tense. The indicative past forms can be explained by the fact that there is a narrative tense and that the copula appears also in the past tense as in (21). Both imperfect forms in the subjunctive result from the fact that the focus clause is not the main clause and the main verb is in a past tense (22).

(21)

Charilaus et Nymphius principes civitatis […] partes ad rem agendam divisere, ut alter ad imperatorem Romanorum tranfugeret, alter subsisteret […]. Charilaus fuit qui ad Publium Philonem venit […]. (Liv. 8, 25, 9)

(22)

Et ipsi coeperunt quaerere inter se quis esset ex eis qui hoc facturus esset. (Vulg. Lc. 22, 23)

32In Mart. 9, 93, 3f., the copula is in the future tense, because the cleft clause is a direct question in direct speech, referring to a future context. So all cases can be explained by the special context.

33The second situation refers to those cases where the copula is present tense and different from the tense of the cleft clause. There are 32 instances of this.

34How can this difference be explained? In some instances the copula has the form of the present infinitive, standing for the imperfect tense. In a second group the cleft phrase appears in the first or second person, in a third group hic and ille constitute the cleft phrase. In both cases the present tense of the copula can be explained by the deictic use of the subject. Apart from two special cases there are only two instances left where the cleft phrase is a temporal expression (23) or the logical formula inde est (24). Apparently, such temporal and logical expressions fall outside the usual tense context of a cleft clause.

(23)

Tertius dies est quod audivi recitantem Sentium Augurinum… (Plin. Epist. 4, 27, 1)

(24)

Et inde est quod Labienus […] dixit: ‘Ille triumphalis senex…’ (Sen. Contr. 4, 2, 7)

35What deserves attention is the fact that the deviant use of the copula in the present tense in all instances can be explained by the specific tense context.

36As for the order of both clauses, most often (128x) the focus clause appears before the cleft clause. This seems to be iconic, since it contains the clefted prominent phrase. However, in three cases, (25)-(27), the focus clause follows. Here the focus phrase is a noun or noun phrase and functions in two cases as the subject and in the third one as an oblique. In the Fasti instance metrical considerations (Goria, 2012, p. 64f.) could be the reason, but in the instance of the Heroides the sequence could also be in the other way. However, the example of an artistic poet like Ovid shows that the order was not so strict that it could not sometimes be inverted.

(25)

Ipsa virum rapui simulacraque nuda reliqui: / quae cecidit ferro, Caesaris umbra fuit. (Ov. Fast. 3, 702)

(26)

Quae iurat mens est; nil coniuravimus illa. (Ov. Epist. 21, 137)

(27)

Quod autem haec ab illo audivimus, annus octavus est. (Sulp. Sev. Dial. 2, 14, 4)

37Finally, there are some peculiarities in word order where a disjoined element stands in sentence initial position. In this way not only the prominent noun alone, but also this constituent – in (28) an adjective, in (29) the object of the extrafocal verb – is given focus.

(28)

Fetilae sunt equae quas similatis. (Paul. Diac. Hist. Lang. 1,24)

(29)

Epidicum quis est qui revocat? (Plaut. Epid. 201)

2. 5. Concluding remarks

38The preceding morphosyntactic analysis has shown that despite the many formal parameters of Latin CCs there is a strong tendency towards a uniform structure, though in none of the parameters discussed is there total agreement.

3. Notes on the diachrony of Latin cleft constructions

39For this purpose three authors are analysed who represent three different stages of development: Plautus, Cicero, and Seneca the Younger. The corpus comprises all complete comedies of Plautus, all speeches of Cicero, some of his philosophical writings and his letters, and Seneca’s letters to Lucilius. Quantitatively, the Ciceronian corpus is with about 621.200 words 3,9 times as large as Plautus (165.900) and 5,6 times as large as Seneca (116.000). The corpus study reveals that in Plautus there are 185 instances, in the Ciceronian corpus 566 CCs, and in Seneca 78 CCs.

40Is there a quantitative development from Plautus to Seneca? Are the CCs increasing or decreasing in frequency? Furthermore: Which morphosyntactic types are prevailing? Is there a development?

41To start with Cicero, Table 7 shows that there is a correlation between text quantity and the numbers of the CCs. That is: Cicero uses CCs in the three different text types with more or less the same frequency. Only the letters have fewer cleft constructions.

Table 7: The distribution in the three different parts of the corpus in Cicero

Speeches

Philosophical writings

Letters

Altogether

~ 415.750

63.8%

~ 118.550

18.2%

~ 116.900

18.0%

651.200

100.00%

360 CC

63.6%

113 CC

20.0%

93 CC

16.4%

566 CC

100.00%

42As for a possible quantitative development from Plautus to Seneca, the results can be seen in Table 8.

Table 8: Development from Plautus to Cicero and Seneca and from Cicero to Seneca

From Plautus: Cicero

Seneca

From Cicero: Seneca

Expected value

185 x 3,9

722

185 x 0.7

130

566 x
5,6

102

Real value

566

-21.6%

78

-40.0%

78

-23.50%

43From Plautus to Cicero and from Cicero to Seneca the number of the CCs is clearly decreasing.

44As for the categories to which the cleft phrase belongs, Table 9 shows the rough distribution.

Table 9: The categories of the cleft phrase in the corpus

pronouns

nouns

adjectives

numerals

total number

Plautus

153

82.7%

29

15.7%

2

1.1

1

0.5%

185

100.0%

Cicero

430

76.0%

95

16.8%

33

5.8

8

1.4%

566

100.0%

Seneca

32

41.0%

18

23.1%

28

35.9

-

-

78

100.0%

45The pronoun is the most frequent and the numeral the most infrequent category. Between these extremes are the noun and the adjective. However, there are somewhat clear quantitative differences. The pronoun, which in Plautus reaches the highest value, decreases in Seneca to nearly the half of Plautus. At the same time the noun increases in Seneca. The most evident change is the enormous increase of the adjective, which in Seneca constitutes 35.9% of the instances, whereas in Plautus and in Cicero it is rarely used. So there seems to be a correlation of the decreasing noun and the increasing adjective in Seneca.

46For the frequent pronoun type one should distinguish the pronouns into subcategories like personal pronouns, demonstrative pronouns, and zero quantifiers (nemo, nihil).

47Table 10 shows clear differences. The personal pronoun is the least attested type of a cleft phrase (4.2%). An exception seems to be the letters of Cicero where due to the text type personal pronouns increase to more than 15%. Demonstrative pronouns reach a higher value in Plautus and Seneca than in Cicero. Zero quantifiers which climb to the double percentage in Cicero, decrease in Seneca to less than 10%. The most frequent pronoun is the interrogative, which, except in the letters of Cicero (25.3%), constitutes between 45 and 55% of the instances.

Table 10: The different types of pronouns forming a cleft phrase in the corpus

personal

demonstrative

indefinite

interrogative

zero quantifier

total amount

Plautus

6

3.9%

28

18.3%

10

6.5%

85

55.6%

24

15.7%

153

100.0%

Cicero

18

4.2%

33

7.7%

60

14.0%

188

43.7%

131

30.4%

430

100.0%

Seneca

1

3.1%

9

28.1%

3

9.4%

16

50.0%

3

9.4%

32

100.0%

(30)

Quid, de quo nulla dissensio est? (Cic. Fin. 4, 32)

48In (30) the copula is omitted. This is the only case of such an omission in Latin CCs apart from parallel structures. Though partly formulaic, such CCs are not used frequently. In the first book of De finibus the relation between quis and quid as a cleft phrase and in normal use is 2 compared to 52.

49In a language with interrogative pronouns standing always ex situ this seems to be the only strategy to emphasize the interrogative pronoun even more. An even stronger focus can be seen in the following example.

(31)

Quid est, Catilina? […] Quid est enim, Catilina, quod te iam in hac urbe delectare possit? (Cic. Catil. 1, 13)

4. Latin cleft constructions in typological perspective: a sketch

50Since “clefting as a focus marking strategy is very common cross-linguistically” (Hartmann and Veenstra, 2013, p. 3), we will end with a typological sketch. In forming cross-linguistically valid definitions the best way is to start from the function of CCs and to put them into a wider perspective. CCs are only one morphosyntactic means of focus constructions, namely the “contrastive focus construction” (Drubig and Schaffar, 2001, p. 1079). The minimal constituents of a CC are the cleft phrase and the cleft clause. Further elements are optional.

51First, some cross-linguistic variation can be observed with respect to the obligatoriness of the constituents. Languages like Arabic do not have a copular verb. Languages like Latin do normally not have a cleft pronoun. In other languages the relative marker may be absent. So, depending on the language, one, two, or all three elements may be absent (cf. Harries-Delisle, 1978).

52The order of the cleft phrase and the cleft clause normally reflects the order of the head noun and its relative clause; therefore this can also be a parameter of variation. In English and Latin, with postnominal relative clauses, the cleft phrase comes first, in Mandarin Chinese with prenominal relative clauses the cleft phrase comes after the cleft clause.

53Another typological question is whether clefting is the only focus marking strategy or “a subsidiary strategy besides more prominent means of focus marking” (Hartmann and Veenstra, 2013, p. 4). Marking by accent on the focused word is a strategy used in Modern German. Marking by word order is often used in Latin. Another focus marking strategy common in Turkish (Hartmann and Veenstra 2013, p. 4f.) is a focus constituent in the preverbal position. A fifth strategy of many African languages (Watters, 2000, p. 216) is the use of a focus particle as in (32).

(32)

Aghem (Crassfields Bantu, Benue Congo, Niger-Congo) (Watters, 2000, p. 215)

nyìŋ

á

kí’-bé

rat

it

past

run

in

C7-compound

focus

‘The rat ran inside the compound (not inside the house).’

54A further focus strategy is to attach to the focused element so-called clausal enclitics which contain tense, evidentiality and mood on the focused element.

55A last typological parameter concerns the category of the cleft phrase. What kind of categories can be clefted, only the noun phrase or additionally all sorts of pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, and also the verb as in (33)?

(33)

Modern German (own example)

Es war Singen, was die Schüler nicht konnten.

‘It was singing that the pupils were not able to do.’

56We will finish this section with examples of CCs in some major languages (34-36).

(34)

Arabic (colloquial) (Harries-Delisle, 1978, p. 425)

Ali

huwa-lli

Ali

he-rm

came

‘Ali is the one who came.’

(35)

Japanese (Harries-Delisle, 1978, p. 423)

Mary

ō

butta

hito

wa

Bill

da

Mary

obj

hit

person

subj

Bill

cop

‘The one who hit Mary is Bill.’

(36)

Indonesian (Harries-Delisle, 1978, p. 426)

bukan

saya

yang

beladjar

bahasa

Indónésia

not

I

rm

studying

language

Indonesian

‘I am not the one who studies Indonesian.’

57Against this typological background some characteristics of Latin CCs become clearer. Only with respect to the clefted pronoun does Latin have a tendency of dropping, whereas all other elements are obligatory. The mainly uniform character of the order is a consequence of the postnominal order of Latin relative clauses. Classical Latin has one further focalisation strategy, namely marked word order. The use of CCs primarily for pronouns instead of nouns seems to be peculiar. This might be the reason why CCs have never been a central linguistic phenomenon in Latin.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Bauer, B., 2009, Word order, in Ph. Baldi and P. Cuzzolin (eds.), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, vol. 1, Berlin, p. 241-316.

Dik, S. C., 1980, Functional Grammar, Dordrecht.

Drubig, B. and Schaffar, K. W., 2001, Focus constructions, in M. Haspelmath et al. (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals, Berlin, p. 1079-1104.

Goria, E., 2012, Le frasi scisse latine tra forma e funzione, MA Thesis, Turin.

Goria, E., 2013, Towards a taxonomy of Latin cleft sentences, Journal of Latin Linguistics 12, p. 147-172.

Harries-Delisle, H., 1978, Contrastive emphasis and cleft sentences, in J. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language 4, California, p. 419-486.

Hartmann, K. and Veenstra, T., 2013, Introduction, in K. Hartmann and T. Veenstra (eds.), Cleft Structures, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, p. 1-32.

Jochimsen, Paul, 1907, Beiträge zur Hervorhebung des einzelnen Satzteiles, bezw. eines Satzes mittelst c’est (…) que (qui), Diss., Kiel.

Keenan, E. L. and Comrie, B., 1977, Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar, Linguistic Inquiry 8, p. 63-99.

Lehmann, Chr., 2014, Satzspaltung, in System grammar, in http://www.christianlehmann.eu/ling/lg_system/grammar/morph_syn/satzspaltung.php. (1.11.2014)

Löfstedt, B., 1966, Die Konstruktion c’est lui qui l’a fait im Lateinischen, IF 71, p. 253-277.

Quirk, R. et al., 1985, A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, London.

Rosén, H., 1989, General subordinators and sentence complements, in G. Calboli (ed.), Subordination and Other Topics in Latin, Amsterdam, p. 197-217.

Rosén, H., 2007, La mise en relief par apodose aux subordonnées en si…, qu-…, quando… et similia, in C. Bodelot (ed.), Éléments asyntaxiques ou hors structure dans l’énoncé latin, Clermont-Ferrand, p. 75-90.

Schrickx, J., 2011, Lateinische Modalpartikeln. Nempe, quippe, scilicet, videlicet und nimirum, Leiden.

Watters, J. R., 2000, Syntax, in B. Heine and D. Nurse (eds.), African Languages. An Introduction, Cambridge, p. 194-230.

Haut de page

Notes

2 Cf. also Plaut. Poen. 1043-6.

3 Cf. also Plaut. Truc. 221 (stultus sit qui).

4 See also Bell. Hisp. 3, 1 (temporis), Sen. Epist. 42, 8 (saepe), Epist. 86, 16 (nunc).

5 A case where the copula is not omitted is Sen. Nat. 6, 32, 9.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Roland Hoffmann, « Latin cleft constructions, synchronically, diachronically, and typologically reconsidered », Pallas, 102 | 2016, 201-210.

Référence électronique

Roland Hoffmann, « Latin cleft constructions, synchronically, diachronically, and typologically reconsidered », Pallas [En ligne], 102 | 2016, mis en ligne le 20 décembre 2016, consulté le 22 octobre 2017. URL : http://pallas.revues.org/3692 ; DOI : 10.4000/pallas.3692

Haut de page

Auteur

Roland Hoffmann

Gymnasium Nieder-Olm
rohoffi@web.de

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Licence Creative Commons
Pallas – Revue d'études antiques est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.

Haut de page
  • Logo Presses universitaires du Midi
  • Revues.org