After reading Luchonachos’ previous post, whose Latin text contains an adjectival resultative predicate (claudus effectus est ‘he became lame’), the following question came to my mind:

Why is it the case that in Latin adjectival resultative constructions are (typically/basically) reduced to the ones we can find in Romance languages (e.g., Sp. Se quedó cojó ‘He went lame’; Dejó la silla vacía ‘He left the seat empty’, etc), the ones whose verb crucially lacks a manner component?

E.g., cf. Omnes consulares (…) partem istam subselliorum nudam atque inanem reliquerunt (Cic. Cat. 1, 7).

That is to say, why is it the case that Latin (consistently/systematically?) lacks adjectival resultative constructions like the complex ones typically found in Germanic languages, where the verb has a strong manner component? E.g., cf. He pushed the door open; He hammered the metal flat; He drank the teapot empty; He danced himself tired; The joggers ran the pavement thin; He shot the President dead, etc.

Probably, something similar happens with prepositional resultative phrases of the following kind: e.g., Cicero wrote his hands to the bone.

  • 3
    I'm not sure there's an answer to this other than that resultative constructions of the English type are rather unusual cross-linguistically -- there's no particular reason why we should expect Latin to have them.
    – TKR
    Jan 2 '19 at 1:27
  • 2
    Maybe "rather unusual" is a slight overstatement (I'm not sure the Chinese and Japanese examples are of the same type as the English), but I don't think such constructions are common enough that we should expect a given language to have them a priori. It's an interesting question, but like many "Why does language X have feature Y" questions it may not be answerable.
    – TKR
    Jan 2 '19 at 1:48
  • 1
    That gets into epistemological questions about what one means by explanation in linguistics. Personally I feel doubtful about positing unobservable parameters and tend to agree with Haspelmath that "any linguist who asks 'why?' is ipso facto a historical linguist", but this is probably going too far afield.
    – TKR
    Jan 2 '19 at 2:08
  • 1
    That's right. Linguistic variation is addressed differently by functional linguists like Haspelmath and by generative linguists like Chomsky (NB: the authors of the paper I mentioned above are also generativist). But do you know what? The important linguistic difference separating "wipe-clean/float-into" languages (e.g., English) from "clean-wiping/enter-floating" languages (e.g. Spanish) was put forward by a COGNITIVE linguist: Leonard Talmy, who is an anti-Chomskian linguist!
    – Mitomino
    Jan 2 '19 at 2:16
  • 2
    Is Latin really "satellite-framed"? (I've always found Talmy's terminology unfortunately opaque, BTW; "path-centric" and "manner-centric" seem clearer.) It seems unlikely insofar as none of its descendants are, nor to the best of my knowledge are other early IE languages (at least, I've looked into this a bit in Greek and found very little in the way of satellite framing). But anyway why should we expect satellite framing to correlate with the existence of English-type resultatives?
    – TKR
    Jan 2 '19 at 2:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.