Search

International audience; This paper investigates the loss of the word order ‘Object-Verb’ (OV) in the history of Latin/Romance. It is argued that the immediate cause of this development is an independent change in the grammar of Latin, namely the genesis of A-movement for subjects (which was discussed in detail in Danckaert (2017), ‘The Development of Latin Clause Structure’, OUP). Using Yang’s (2000, 2002) variational acquisition model, I present corpus data which show that despite remaining the minority pattern throughout the lifespan of the Latin language (ca. 200 BC - 600 AD), in Late Latin the order ‘VO’ is in fact cued more robustly than the competing order ‘OV’, an observation which leads to the correct prediction that in the long run the former will oust the latter.

International audience; This paper argues that despite formal resemblances, Latin perfect tense BE-periphrases of the type amatus sum ‘I was loved’ are not the historical source of Romance present tense passives like Italian sono amato and French je suis aimé (both meaning ‘I am (being) loved’). Evidence comes from the observation that Late Latin has a very strong preference for the head-final order ‘past participle - BE’, which goes against the otherwise general tendency for the language to move towards a strictly head-initial TP. As an alternative, I propose that amatus sum perfects disappeared from the language, and that the analytic present tense passives are new formations. The Late Latin preference for head-final BE-periphrases is explained in terms of phonological weakening of the auxiliary. I conclude by comparing this phonological process to the oft-discussed grammaticalization of HAVE (habeo) as a marker of futurity.