Semantic difference between genitive and relational ("belong-to") adjectives

Question

There is class of relational adjectives that their meaning is "belong to" "pertain to" like grammaticus. (maybe that distinction is somewhat artificial, as one can say that magnus is "belongs to the magni")

Is there a perceptible different between using them and using the genitive case of the corresponding noun?

For example is there a different between:

Ab equinis pedibus procul recede (Trust not a horse's heels)

and

Ab equorum/equi pedibus procul recede.

Or between "furnus aeneus" and "furnus aeris", or between "ars grammaticae" and "ars grammatica"

Answer 1

I know you are asking for a semantic answer but I will instead adopt a syntactic approach.

Why ? Because as an answer to your question, I would tend to say :

no, because they are both semantically empty.

I will support my claim using a major DM-style assumption, namely that there is no essential difference between inflection and derivation.

The difference between the genitive and relational adjectives pertains to functional (as opposed to semantic) content.

Relational APs are, by definition, never predicative (cf. 1), which may be predicted by assuming them to lack the semantic PredP layer and only retain the functional aP layer.

(1) # Hic pes est equinus. 'This foot is equine.'

The genitive, in turn, may be regarded as semantically similar to English of and was later replaced by Vulg. Latin de : it expresses the vaguest relation possible, and may be interpreted in various ways according to the context -- quite similarly to what accusative case does with the Verb, since the object of a Verb may denote whatever thematic role is needed ; the genitive is, somehow, the direct case of the Noun -- hence the idea that such projections are purely functional.

Strikingly, the only way (1) may be interpreted is by relating it to (2).

(2) Hic pes est equi. 'This foot is that of a horse.'

That is, in both cases the predicative use coerces the structure into receiving a non-vague interpretation, and it seems to be encoded at least in the adjective as a structural variation since it is reflected in the grammar, e.g. by the fact that relational adjectives are usually found after the N :

(3)

• a. pes equinus / ? equinus pes
• b. furnus aeneus / ? aeneus furnus

Such analogy, it seems to me, supports a hypothesis of GenP and aP as semantically null, purely functional projections, the only difference being that the complement of Gen is always a NP/DP, while aPs need not embed a nP unless they are relational (= little a may attach to a bare Root), cf. (4) .

(4)

• a. # Hic pes est equinus.
• b. Hic pes est magnus.

In (4a), A is relational, and as such, necessarily denominal. We have a [aP [nP √]]-style structure. This correlation is similar to what we find with the genitive.

In (4b), A is predicative and as such, not necessarily denominal : here we likely have a structure more like [PredP [aP √]].

Answer 2

[Note: this answer was revised in response to Vincent's post]

I have a feeling that when a genitive noun phrase has a definite meaning, such as when "equi pedes" and "equorum pedes" have the senses "the horse's feet" and "the horses' feet", it is less likely to be replaced by a relational adjective than when the genitive noun phrase has an indefinite or general meaning ("a horse's feet" or "horses' feet").

(Context typically makes it clear whether a genitive noun has a definite/specific meaning: we'd usually only expect to find a phrase meaning "the horses' feet" in a context where we've previously mentioned specific horses.)

However, I'm not sure that my feeling is correct. Relational adjectives derived from proper nouns are a common type of exception to the above: even though proper nouns have an inherently definite meaning, the use of relational adjectives derived from them is common in Latin.

Vincent has mentioned the example of patrius used with a sense "her father's", and the paper "Slavic Possessive Genitives and Adjectives from the Historical Point of View," by Ranko Matasović, gives the example "meam [...] erilem concubinam" = "the concubine of my master (Plautus, Miles Gloriosus 49)" (page 10). Although meam here agrees syntactically iwth concubinam, semantically it seems to apply to erilem.

I wonder however whether all relational adjectives are used as freely, or if ones referring to specific common personal relationships such as patrius and erilis might show special behavior that is not generally productive.

I found a passage that points out the difficulty of evaluating the semantic meaning of relational adjectives for this type of noun:

In adjectives derived from nouns referring to highly individuated human beings and, at the same time, that can also refer to an institutionalized figure (like erus, pater, rex, etc.) a clear-cut distinction between the indication of a specific participant (corresponding to the nominal status) and, on the other hand, the categorial value (corresponding to the adjectival status) tends to fade and, in short, it can depend on the context.

("Possession", by Philip Baldi and Andrea Nuti, in Constituent Syntax: Quantification, Numerals, Possession, Anaphora, edited by Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin, page 362)