Latin

Return to Italy & Eastern Romance language list

This page is intended as a comprehensive bibliography of pseudocoordination in Latin; for discussion, see Section 2.2.2.2 of Ross (2021). If you have any feedback or additional references to suggest, please contact me.

Status

Description status: mentioned in many sources, but few detailed studies
Current bibliographic coverage: essentially complete
Total references: 53
Last updated: December 2022, based on dissertation (Dec. 2021), Section 2.2.2.2

Summary

Pseudocoordination appears to be attested with motion verbs, as well as some other verbs, although the degree of grammaticalization of these constructions is unclear given limited documentation of colloquial Latin. The connecting element in these constructions can be either of the coordinators et or ac (along with rare variants with enclitic -que or asyndesis). Previous research can generally be divided into research about Latin that includes pseudocoordination and studies about pseudocoordination that mention Latin.

Research about pseudocoordination including Latin

Ascoli, G. I. 1898. Un problema di sintassi comparata dialettale. Archivo glottologico italiano 14(3). 453–468. [Page 468]

Ascoli, G. I. 1899. Appendice all’articolo “un problema di sintassi comparata dialettale.” Archivo glottologico italiano 15(1/2). 221–225. [Page 223]]

Coseriu, Eugenio. 1966. «Tomo y me voy» Ein Problem vergleichender europäischer Syntax. Vox romanica: Annales helvetici explorandis linguis romanicis destinati 25. 13–55.

Coseriu, Eugenio. 1968. Coordinación latina y coordinación románica. In Actas del III Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos, III, Coloquio de estudios estructurales sobre las lenguas clásicas, Madrid, 28 de marzo-1 abril de 1966, 35–57. Madrid: Sociedad Española de Estudios Clásicos. [Page 44]

Coseriu, Eugenio. 1977. «Tomo y me voy»: Un problema de sintaxis comparada europea. In Estudios de lingüística románica, 79–151. Madrid: Editorial Gredos.

Dietrich, Wolf. 1973. Der periphrastische Verbalaspekt in den romanischen Sprachen: Untersuchungen zum heutigen romanischen Verbalsystem und zum Problem der Herkunft des priphrastischen Verbalaspekts. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. [Page 15]

Dietrich, Wolf. 1983. El aspecto verbal perifástico en las lenguas románicas: estudios sobre el actual sistema verbal de las lenguas románicas y sobre el problema del origen del aspecto verbal perifrástico. Madrid: Editorial Gredos. [Page 27]

García Sánchez, Jairo Javier. 2004. Tomo y me voy: Entre el influjo bíblico y la gramaticalización obvia. Plurilinguismo, Contatti di Lingue e Cultura 10. 139–150.

García Sánchez, Jairo Javier. 2007. “Tomo y me voy”: expresión plena y elipsis. In Beatriz Mariscal & María Teresa Miaja de la Peña (eds.), Actas del XV Congreso de la Asociación Internacional de Hispanistas “Las dos orillas”, Monterrey, México del 19 al 24 de julio de 2004, 163–176. México, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica, Asociación Internacional de Hispanistas, Tecnológico de Monterrey, El Colegio de México. [Page 170]

Harrison, Caskie. 1889. Correspondence: “try and” for “try to,” and “somebody’s else” for “somebody else’s.” The Nation 1247: May 23, 1889. 425–426. [Page 426]

Havers, Wilhelm. 1927. Enumerative Redeweise. Indogermanische Forschungen 45(1). 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1515/if-1927-0188 [Pages 230–236]

Hock, Hans Henrich. 2015. “Serial Verbs” in South Asian languages: Compound Verbs or Pseudo-Coordination? Presented at South Asian Language Analysis Roundtable (SALA) 31, Lancaster University, May 16, 2015.

Holm, Gösta. 1958. Syntaxgeografiska studier över två nordiska verb. Uppsala & Wiesbaden: Lundequist & Harrassowitz. [Page 208]

Jespersen, Otto. 1895. En sproglig værdiforskydning: og = at. Dania: Tidsskrift for Folkemål og Folkeminder 3. 145–183. [Page 149]

Logozzo, Felicia & Liana Tronci. 2019. Subordination vs coordination : la traduction latine des participes du verbe ἔρχομαι dans les Évangiles. Revue de linguistique latine du Centre Ernout (De Lingua Latina) 18. https://lettres.sorbonne-universite.fr/numero-18-la-subordination

Logozzo, Felicia & Liana Tronci. 2020. Nota sulle costruzioni a participio “pleonastico” nel greco biblico: il tipo ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν. Atti del Sodalizio Glottologico Milanese 14. 85–108. https://doi.org/10.13130/1972-9901/15413

Logozzo, Felicia & Liana Tronci. 2021. Autour de la pseudo-coordination. Réflexions comparatives sur le grec ancien et le latin. Presented at Séances mensuelles de la SLP, Société de Linguistique de Paris, École Pratique des Hautes Études, IV^e section (online), May 15, 2021.

Logozzo, Felicia & Liana Tronci. 2022. Pseudo-coordination and serial verbs in Hellenistic Greek? Some insights from the New Testament and the Septuagint. Journal of Greek Linguistics 22. 72–144. https://doi.org/10.1163/15699846-02201003

Morreale, Margherita. 1966. «… Fue y le dijo,» «… cogió y se fue.» Observaciones acerca del uso del verbo sin contenido semántico. Annali del Corso di Lingue e Letterature Straniere dell’Università di Bari 8. 76–88. [Pages 81–86]

Persson, P. 1918. Syntaktiska anmärkningar. In Studier tillegnade Esaias Tegnér den 13 Januari 1918, 444–454. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup. [Pages 447–452

Ross, Daniel. 2021. Pseudocoordination, Serial Verb Constructions and Multi-Verb Predicates: The relationship between form and structure. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Ph.D. dissertation. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5546425 [Section 2.2.2.2]

Sorrento, Luigi. 1951. Sintassi romanza: ricerche e prospettive. 2nd edn. Varese: Istituto Editoriale Cisalpino. [Pages 215–220]

Wackernagel, Jacob. 1920. Vorlesungen über Syntax: mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch. Vol. 1. Basel: Emil Birkhäuser & Cie. [Pages 61–63]

Wackernagel, Jacob. 2009. Lectures on syntax: with special reference to Greek, Latin, and Germanic. (Ed.) David Langslow. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Pages 86–88]

Research about Latin including pseudocoordination

Adams, J. N. 2021. Asyndeton and its Interpretation in Latin Literature: History, Patterns, Textual Criticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108943284 [Pages 128–137]

Antoine, F. 1900. De la parataxe et de l’hypotaxe dans la langue latine: II. Parataxe des propositions subordonnées non complétives. Revue des Études Anciennes 2(1). 22–46. https://doi.org/10.3406/rea.1900.1162 [Pages 24–26]

Ballas, Aemilius. 1867. Grammatica Plautina, Specimen Primum: de Particulis Copulativus. Gryphiswaldiae: Typis F. Hache. [Pages 15–16]

Bowen, Edwin W. (ed.). 1909. M. Tullii Ciceronis Laelius de Amicitia. Boston: D.C. Heath & Co. [Page 89]

Dalbera, Joseph. 2018. La grammaticalisation des formes itives et ventives en latin. Syntaxe et Sémantique 19(1). 29–48. https://doi.org/10.3917/ss.019.0029 [Page 45]

Draeger, A. 1876. Historische Syntax der lateinische Sprache. Vol. 2.1: Die Coordination. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. [Pages 25–26]

Elmer, H. C. 1887. Que, et, atque in the inscriptions of the Republic, in Terence, and in Cato. The American Journal of Philology 8(3). 292–328. https://doi.org/10.2307/287614 [Pages 314–316]

Fedriani, Chiara. 2019. The embodied basis of discourse and pragmatic markers in Greek and Latin. In Egle Mocciaro & William Michael Short (eds.), Toward a Cognitive Classical Linguistics, 69–92. Berlin: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110616347-004 [Pages 75–77]

Ferri, Rolando & Philomen Probert. 2010. Roman authors on colloquial language. In Eleanor Dickey & Anna Chahoud (eds.), Colloquial and Literary Latin, 12–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511763267.004 [Page 35]

Hofmann, J. B. 1965. Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. (Ed.) Anton Szantyr. München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. [Pages 783–784]

Knapp, Charles. 1911. Vahlen’s Ennius. The American Journal of Philology 32(1). 1–35. https://doi.org/10.2307/288801 [Pages 29–30]

Lord, John K. (ed.). 1885. M. Tullii Ciceronis Laelius de Amicitia. New York: D. Appleton and Co. [Page 92]

Norberg, Dag. 1956. Contributions à l’étude du latin vulgaire. In Hommages à Max Niedermann (Collection latomus XXIII), 251–257. Bruxelles: Latomus. [Page 255]

Nuti, Andrea. 2016. A matter of perspective: Aspect, deixis, and textual exploitation in the prototype semantics of eo and venio. In William Michael Short (ed.), Embodiment in Latin Semantics, 15–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.174.02nut [Pages 24–25]

Orlandini, Anna & Paolo Poccetti. 2008. Liens de coordination : une approche sémantique à travers les langues anciennes. Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique 24. 93–113. [Pages 101–103]

Orlandini, Anna & Paolo Poccetti. 2011. La référence spatio-temporelle et métalinguistiques des verbes de mouvement en latin et leurs évolutions romanes. In Claude Moussy (ed.), Espace et temps en latin, 25–45. Paris: Presses de l’Univité Paris-Sorbonne. [Pages 32–39]

Stengaard, Birte. 1991. Vida y Muerte de un Campo Semántico: Un estudio de la evolución semántica de los verbos latinos stare, sedere e iacere del latín al romance del s. XIII. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. [Pages 77–81]

Stolz, Friedrich & J. H. Schmalz. 1885. Lateinische Grammatik. In Griechische und Lateinische Sprachwissenschaft (Handbuch der klassischen Altertums-Wissenschaft in systematischer Darstellung mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Geschichte und Methodik der einzelnen Disziplinen 2), 127–411. Nördlingen: Verlag der C. H. Beck’schen Buchhandlung. [Pages 300–301]

TLL. 1900–. Thesaurus linguae Latinae. 11– vols. Leipzig & Berlin: B. G. Teubner & De Gruyter. https://thesaurus.badw.de/ [Pages: vol.2:1050,1072–1073, entry for atque & vol.5:895, entry for et]

Vahlen, Johannes. 1903. Ennianae poesis reliquiae iteratis curis. Lipsiae: In Aedibus B. G. Teubneri. [Page 208]

White, John T. (ed.). 1852. Cicero’s Cato Major and Lælius; or, De Senectute and De Amicitia: principally from the text of Gernhard, with English notes. London: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans. [Page 173]

Latin translation of pseudocoordination

Some studies have also discussed pseudocoordination in the context of Latin translation, especially from Semitic languages, as well as in comparison to Greek, regarding whether Latin was likely to translate pseudocoordination in the source language as pseudocoordination or some other form, and also whether Latin used pseudocoordination to translate other source constructions.

Čajkanovič, Von Veselin. 1910. Ein punisches Sprichwort bei Augustin. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 13(10). 436–437. https://doi.org/10.1524/olzg.1910.13.16.228b

García de la Fuente, Olegario. 1986. Sobre el uso de los adverbios en el latin biblico. In Domingo Muñoz León (ed.), Salvacion en la palabra: Targum, Derash, Berith: en memoria del profesor Alejandro Diez Macho, 135–156. Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad. [Pages 145–147]

García de la Fuente, Olegario. 1994. Latín bíblico y latín cristiano. 2nd edn. Madrid: Ediciones CEES. [Pages 217–218]

Otto, A. 1890. Die Sprichwörter und sprichwörtlichen Redensarten der Römer. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. [Page 277]

Plater, W. E. & H. J. White. 1926. A Grammar of the Vulgate: being an introduction to the study of the Latinity of The Vulgate Bible. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [Pages 117–118]

Rubio, Gonzalo. 2009. Semitic influence in the history of Latin syntax. In Philip Baldi & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.), Syntax of the Sentence (New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax 1), 195–239. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110205626.195 [Pages 221–222]

Torrego, M. Esperanza. 2009. Coordination. In Philip Baldi & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.), Syntax of the Sentence (New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax 1), 443–487. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110205626.443 [Page 452]