Download resultative predicative adjunct constructions in the gothic bible

RESULTATIVE PREDICATIVE ADJUNCT CONSTRUCTIONS
IN THE GOTHIC BIBLE
Alexander Andrason
University of Iceland
Abstract: The aim of this article is to answer the question of whether Gothic included predictive adjunct
resultative constructions in its verbal system, as well as to determine the degree of the grammaticalization
of such analytical expressions. In order to respond to these questions, the author analyzes the correlation
between the Greek perfect forms, mainly in the Gospel of Mark, and their Gothic participial predicative
adjunct translations.
In light of the evidence, the author concludes that Gothic had an analytic participial way of conveying the
explicit resultative sense recurring to several predicative adjunct expressions. It is possible to identify one
such expression as having been grammaticalized as the HAVE resultative and/or perfect in other Germanic
languages, i.e. the “haban” participial predicative adjunct expression.
In Gothic, however, several predicative adjunct constructions remained lexical expressions of
resultativity. The grammaticalization and specialization of the “haban” type did not begin, and the
introductory verb continued being the main verb with no traces of auxiliarization. The participle
functioned as the predicative adjunct, and the coindexation of the subject of the introductory verb with
that of the participial agent was not imposed. The only slight signs of the beginning of the
grammaticalization process are found in a few examples of the metaphorical extension where the verb
“haban” cannot be understood as literally denoting a physical possession. Consequently, the situation in
Gothic may typologically parallel the original and unattested state of affairs in other Germanic languages
that developed the HAVE perfect.
1. Introduction
It is a well-known fact that Germanic languages have developed two forms of the participial
perfect. One employs the auxiliary BE type verb, while the other uses the HAVE verb, as, for
instance, in Icelandic Ég hef sagt ‘I have said’ and Ég er kominn ‘I have come’. This situation is
found in all Old Germanic languages, for example in Old Norse, Old High German and Old
English. The only Germanic language that supposedly never included the HAVE type perfect in
its verbal system was Gothic.1
According to Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca (1994), the participial HAVE perfects follow a
prototypical evolutional path2 established for resultative constructions. This means that they
start their grammatical life as lexical resultative proper3 periphrases and then turn into perfect
(subsequently, possessive-existential, resultative, inclusive, experiential, indefinite, and
hodiernal perfect). Finally, they become explicit past grams. Furthermore, it should be observed
that the HAVE resultative is only one of several participial expressions that may be labeled
“predicative adjunct constructions” (PA constructions)4 and that can be employed to convey the
resultative meaning. All of them display the following syntactic structure:
TEMPLATE 1:
MAIN VERB + OBJECT + PARTICIPIAL PREDICATIVE ADJUNCT 5
1
It must also be noted that, even though among the introductory verbs the most frequently
encountered are those expressing a permanent or temporary possession (as in Germanic have,
haben, hafa, in Romance habeo, and in Slavic ima or mieć), the predicative adjunct construction
functioning as a resultative proper may employ other bivalent verbs.6 In fact, non-possessive
introductory verbs can even be found at later developmental stages of the resultative, i.e. when it
functions as a perfect, as demonstrated by the Galician perfect where the verbs dar “give” and
levar “lift, raise” have been auxiliarized.7
At the beginning, functioning as resultative proper, the PA construction mainly describes
the state of the object of the main verb understood as a result of a previous action expressed by
the participle. In other words, the subject S1 of the main verb performs an action on the object
O1 that appears together with a participle presenting its quality. This quality is equivalent to the
result of a previous action expressed by the participle and performed on the object O2 by the
subject S2 of the verb from which the participle is derived. The object of the main verb O1 and
that of the participial verb (i.e. the verb from which the participle was drawn) O2 are the same
while the subjects of both verbs do not have to coincide. In fact, the agent of the participle is
usually removed in the resultative proper periphrasis.8 Such a formation may be labeled the subobjective resultative 9 and corresponds to the possessive resultative type in Nedjalkov &
Jaxontov (1988) and Maslov (1988). However, since resultative participles may display both
objective (eaten) and subjective (gone) values, expressions that are built on the predicative
adjunct template can generate not only sub-objective (the sequence describes a relation between
the subject of the introductory verb and the object of the verb from which the participle was
derived) but also sub-subjective (the sequence describes a relation between the subject of the
introductory verb and the subject of the verb from which the participle was derived) resultative
types. In both cases, the prior action experienced by the object O1 is conveyed by the participle.
As such, it is the participle, not the verb, which provides the resultative meaning (Drinka 2003).
Since we already know that, contrary to the situation in other Germanic languages, the
HAVE participial periphrasis did not function in Gothic as a central gram with a clear perfect
meaning. Since the diachronic typology teaches us that all participial perfects come from
resultative proper constructions, one should search for any participial expression that conveyed
the resultative proper meaning when analyzing the birth of the perfect in Gothic. Furthermore,
because the HAVE resultative proper (ancestor of the HAVE perfect) is built on the predicative
adjunct pattern, one should take into consideration all expressions that display the participial
predicative adjunct structure and, simultaneously, provide the resultative proper meaning in
order to describe a possible rise of the resultative construction in Gothic. Gothic, being the
oldest recorded Germanic language, should exhibit the most original stage of the development
of the HAVE perfect, i.e. the phase where the HAVE participial PA periphrasis is one of several
participial resultative PA expressions. At that time, however, the specialization of the HAVE
resultative had not begun. Neither had the auxiliarization of the HAVE verb. Consequently, one
might expect to observe a pre-grammaticalization stage of the HAVE participial PA expressions,
i.e. the stage that constituted the input of the HAVE perfect.10
Hence, this article aims to answer the question of whether Gothic used participial
resultative constructions built on the predicative adjunct template. It will also explore whether
Gothic began the grammaticalization process of one of the aforementioned PA resultative
formations and, thus, commenced its incorporation into the verbal paradigm. In particular, it
will examine whether it is possible to identify a participial PA periphrasis in Gothic that would
typologically correspond to the original stage of the well-known Germanic HAVE perfect. In
order to respond fully to these questions, I will analyze the correlation between the Greek
perfect forms in the Gospel of Mark and their respective Gothic participial predicative adjunct
translations. Several examples from other parts of the Wulfila Bible will also be presented.
2
2. Predicative adjunct constructions in Gothic
In the Gothic version of the Gospel of Mark, there are eight instances where the sequence
consisting of an introductory verb, an object and a resultative participle is used to render the
original Greek perfect participle:
3.1
4.15
7.30
9.1
part.]
11.2
14.15
16.6
ἐξηραμμένην
ἐσπαρμένον
ἐξεληλυθός
ἐληλυθυῖαν
[perf.mid.part.]
[perf.mid.part.]
[perf.act.part.]
[perf.act.part.]
gaaursana habands handu
[past part.]
usnimi waurd ata insaiano [past part.]
bigat unhulon usgaggana
[past part.]
gasaihvand iudinassu...qumanana
[past
δεδεμένον
[perf.mid.part.]
bigitats fulan gabundanana
[past part.]
ἐστρωμένον [perf.mid.part.]
taiknei kelikn...gastrawi
[past part.]
ἐσταυρωμένον
[perf.mid.part.]
Iesu sokei...ushramidan
[past part.]
16.14 ἐγηγερμένον [perf.mid.part.]
aim gasaihvandam ina urrisanana
[past
part.]
The clearly sub-objective value may be illustrated by the following examples:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
aan ai wira wig sind, arei saiada ata waurd, jah an gahausjand unkarjans, suns
qimi Satanas jah usnimi waurd ata insaiano11 in hairtam ize. (Mark 4:15)12
οὗτοι δέ εἰσιν οἱ παρὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ὅπου σπείρεται ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὅταν ἀκούσωσιν
εὐθὺς ἔρχεται ὁ σατανᾶς καὶ αἴρε ι τ ὸν λόγον τ ὸν ἐσπ αρμ ένον εἰς αὐτούς.
jah qa du im: gaggats in haim o wirawairon iggqis, jah sunsaiw inngaggandans in
o [baurg] bigitats fulan gabundanana, ana ammei nauh ainshun manne ni sat;
andbindandans ina attiuhats. (Mark 11.2)
καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, ὑπάγετε εἰς τὴν κώμην τὴν κατέναντι ὑμῶν, καὶ εὐθὺς
εἰσπορευόμενοι εἰς αὐτὴν εὑρήσε τε π ῶλ ον δε δεμ ένον ἐφ' ὃν οὐδεὶς οὔπω
ἀνθρώπων ἐκάθισεν: λύσατε αὐτὸν καὶ φέρετε.
jah sa izwis taiknei kelikn mikilata, gastrawi, manwjata; jah jainar manwjai unsis.
(Mark 14.15)
καὶ αὐτὸς ὑμῖν δε ίξε ι ἀνάγα ιον μέγα ἐστ ρω μέν ο ν ἕτοιμον: καὶ ἐκεῖ ἑτοιμάσατε
ἡμῖν.
aruh qa du im: ni faurhtei izwis, Iesu sokei Nazoraiu ana ushramidan; nist her,
urrais, sai ana sta arei galagidedun ina. (Mark 16.6)
ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐταῖς, μὴ ἐκθαμβεῖσθε: ἰη σο ῦν ζ ητε ῖτε τὸν ναζαρηνὸν τ ὸν
ἐστ αυ ρω μ ένον: ἠγέρθη, οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε: ἴδε ὁ τόπος ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὐτόν.
Let us analyze these examples in detail. As main verbs that occur in the sub-objective
Gothic resultative construction, one observes niman “take” (Mark 4.15), bigitan “find” (Mark
11.2), taiknjan “show” (Mark 14.15), and sokjan “seek” (Mark 16.6) all displaying dynamic
non-possessive value. The participle corresponds to transitive verbs: in-saian “sow” (Mark
4.15), ga-bindan “bind” (Mark 11.2), ga-straujan “strew” (Mark 14.15), us-hramjan “crucify”
(Mark 16.6). All these examples describe a state of the object of the main verb understood as
resulting from a previously received action performed not necessarily by the subject of the main
verb. In fact, in no example does the subject of the main verb coincide with the subject of the
participial verb that represents the agent of the action performed on the object and conveyed by
the participle.
However, even though the above examples display the structure: introductory verb + object
+ resultative participle, they cannot be interpreted only as predicative adjunct expressions. They
can also be understood attributively. First, it should be noted that Gothic, contrary to Greek,
3
does not formally differentiate between predicative and attributive adjectives and participles.
Consequently, the same participial form may frequently be analyzed both as predicative as well
as attributive. 13 Second, in some of the above quoted sentences, the Gothic participle
corresponds to the Greek perfect participle in the attributive position, as in Mark 4.15 τὸν λόγον
τὸν ἐσπαρμένον and in Mark 16.6 ἰησοῦν […] τὸν ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον. Also, the
examples in Mark 11.2 and 14.15 can have an attributive sense in Greek even though the
predicative sense seems to be more probable.14 As such, in the Gothic examples presented so
far, the resultative participle may be interpreted both as attributive and predicative
complements. Put differently, none of the participial sequences can be analyzed uniquely as the
predicative adjunct construction.
It should be noted that the predicative adjunct resultative type is not restricted to participles
derived from transitive verbs. On the contrary, it may occur with participles that correspond to
intransitive verbs of motion like gaggan “go” (Mark 7.30), qiman “come” (Mark 9.1), and urreisan “rise, resuscitate” (Mark 16.14), or to an intransitive inchoative verb ga-airsan “dry up”
(Mark 3.1). As a result, in the case of participles derived from intransitive verbs, the resultative
construction does not display the sub-objective value, i.e. the object of the main verb does not
coincide with the object of the verb from which the participle is formed. This time, the object of
the resultative chain matches the subjects of the verb underlying the participle.15 Such a property
clearly perpetuates the use and value of the Proto-Indo-European verbal adjectives in *-to- and
*-no-16 that can display both the objective and subjective resultative meaning. The four cases
where this occurs are presented below:
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Jah galai aftra in swnagogen, jah was jainar manna gaaursana habands handu.
(Mark 3.1)
καὶ εἰσῆλθεν πάλιν εἰς τὴν συναγωγήν. καὶ ἦν ἐκεῖ ἄνθρωπος ἐξη ραμ μ έν ην
ἔχων τ ὴν χεῖρα:
jah galeiandei du garda seinamma bigat unhulon usgaggana jah o dauhtar
ligandein ana ligra. (Mark 7.30)
καὶ ἀπελθοῦσα εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτῆς ε ὗρεν τὸ παιδίον βεβλημένον ἐπὶ τὴν κλίνην
καὶ τ ὸ δα ιμ όν ιον ἐξε λη λυ θός.
Jah qa du im: amen, qia izwis atei sind sumai ize her standandane, ai ize ni
kausjand dauaus, unte gasaihvand iudinassu gudis qumanana in mahtai. (Mark 9.1)
καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι εἰσίν τινες ὧδε τῶν ἑστηκότων οἵτινες οὐ μὴ
γεύσωνται θανάτου ἕως ἂν ἴδω σιν τ ὴν βα σιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐλ ηλυ θυῖα ν ἐν
δυνάμει.
bi spedistin an anakumbjandam aim ainlibim ataugida, jah idweitida ungalaubein ize
jah harduhairtein, unte aim gasaihvandam ina urrisanana, ni galaubidedun. (Mark
16.14)
ὕστερον [δὲ] ἀνακειμένοις αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἕνδεκα ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ὠνείδισεν τὴν
ἀπιστίαν αὐτῶν καὶ σκληροκαρδίαν ὅτι τοῖς θεα σαμ ένο ις αὐτ ὸν ἐγη γε ρμέν ο ν
οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν.
In all the abovementioned examples, the Greek perfect participle stands in the predicative
position. However, contrary to Greek, Gothic does not have the formal means to differentiate
between predicative and attributive adjectives and participles. As such, the Gothic examples
Mark 3.1,17 7.30 and 9.1 may be understood both predicatively and attributively. In Mark 16.14,
the predicative reading is the most likely since the object is pronominalized.18 It should also be
noted that the main introductory verbs of this sub-subjective predicative adjunct construction
are similar to those of the previously presented sub-objective type: haban, bigitan and saihvan.
Finally, the original Greek middle perfect participle may be rendered as a construction
corresponding to the sub-objective type with the difference being that, instead of finding the
4
participle, one finds an adjective. This happens in two instances where the adjective daubata
‘hardened/unfeeling’ and aursjana “dried up” are used in order to translate the Greek perfect
participles, respectively, πεπωρωμένην and ἐξηραμμένην:
(9)
(10)
jah frajands Iesus qa du im: hva aggkei unte hlaibans ni habai? ni nauh fraji nih
witu, unte daubata habai hairto izwar. (Mark 8:17)
καὶ γνοὺς λέγει αὐτοῖς, τί διαλογίζεσθε ὅτι ἄρτους οὐκ ἔχετε; οὔπω νοεῖτε οὐδὲ
συνίετε; πεπ ω ρω μένην ἔχετ ε τὴν κα ρδ ίαν ὑμῶν;
jah in maurgin faurgaggandans gasehvun ana smakkabagm aursjana us waurtim.
(Mark 11.20)
καὶ παραπορευόμενοι πρωῒ εἶδον τ ὴν συ κῆν ἐξ η ρα μ μένην ἐκ ῥιζῶν.
Among all abovementioned sub-objective and sub-subjective examples, we can identify
one that remains (though it certainly does not display the same structure, meaning and function)
as the possessive resultative that has been grammaticalized in all posterior Germanic languages
as the HAVE perfect. This resultative type occurs in Mark 3.1 manna gaaursana habands
handu. A similar construction (with the adjective used instead of the participle) is used in Mark
8.17 daubata habai hairto. Both examples correspond to the perfect participle in the Greek
original, as noted earlier. Besides the two instances presented above, there are other less
abundant occurrences where the periphrasis with the verb haban and a resultative participle is
used in the Gothic Bible, i.e., in Mark 3.3, Luke 14.18, Luke 19.20, John 17.13, and Timothy
I 4.2. The participles used in these cases are derived from intransitive verbs: gaaursans (gaairsan “dry”) or from transitive verbs, respectively: faurqians (faur-qian “excuse”),
galagis (galagjan “lay, put down”) usfullis (us-fulljan “fulfill”), and gatandis (ga-tandjan
“kindle, light, consume with fire”). Not surprisingly three of the five examples correspond to the
Greek perfect participle: Luke 14.18 παρῃτημένον, John 17.13 πεπληρωμένην, and Timothy I
4.2 κεκαυστηριασμένων. In Mark 3.3, the periphrastic resultative reflects the Greek sequence
[adjective + object + possessive verb]:19
(11)
jah qa du amma mann amma gaaursana habandin handu: urreis in midumai.
(Mark 3.3)
καὶ λέγει τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τῷ τὴν ξ η ρὰν χε ῖρα ἔχον τ ι, ἔγειρε εἰς τὸ μέσον.
In the remaining examples (taken not from the Gospel of Mark but from other parts of
the Gothic Bible) the Greek participle, either the present middle participle (Luke 19.20) or the
perfect middle participle (Luke 14.18, John 17.13, and Timothy I 4.2) underlies the Gothic
translation:
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
jah dugunnun suns faurqian allai. sa frumista qa: land bauhta jah arf galeian jah
saihvan ata; bidja uk, habai mik faurqianana. (Luke 14.18)
καὶ ἤρξαντο ἀπὸ μιᾶς πάντες παραιτεῖσθαι. ὁ πρῶτος εἶπεν αὐτῷ, ἀγρὸν ἠγόρασα
καὶ ἔχω ἀνάγκην ἐξελθὼν ἰδεῖν αὐτόν: ἐρωτῶ σε, ἔχε μ ε π α ρῃτ ημ ένον .
jah sums qam qiands: frauja, sai, sa skatts eins anei habaida galagidana in fanin;
(Luke 19:20)
καὶ ὁ ἕτερος ἦλθεν λέγων, κύριε, ἰδοὺ ἡ μνᾶ σου ἣν ε ἶχον ἀπο κε ιμ έν ην ἐν
σουδαρίῳ:
i nu du us gagga, jah ata rodja in manasedai, ei habaina fahed meina usfullida in
sis. (John 17.13)
νῦν δὲ πρὸς σὲ ἔρχομαι, καὶ ταῦτα λαλῶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἵνα ἔχω σιν τ ὴν χα ρὰν τὴν
ἐμὴν πε πλ η ρω μένην ἐν ἑαυτοῖς.
in liutein liugnawaurde jah gatandida habandane swesa miwissein, (Timothy I 4.2)
ἐν ὑποκρίσει ψευδολόγων, κε καυ στ ηρια σμ έν ω ν τ ὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν,
5
It should be noted that the adjectives παρῃτημένον, ἀποκειμένην, and πεπληρωμένην in
Luke 14.18, 19.20, and John 17.13 stand in the predicative position in the Greek texts. In the
Gothic text, the participial sequence in the examples from Luke 14.18 and 19.20 should be
understood predicatively and not attributively. In these instances, the object is pronominal and
the adjectival attributive reading is improbable. Furthermore, the example in Luke 14.18 is
highly instructive because it shows that predicative adjunct sequence cannot be taken literally.
Here, the verb haban does not display the literal physical sense of owing or having. The
construction has been metaphorically extended to a clear stative but not possessive meaning.20 A
similar observation is valid for Timothy I 4.2, where the possession must be understood
figuratively.
It is interesting to note that in some instances where the Gothic translator uses the PA
resultative construction with haban, the Latin Vulgate chooses a similar habeo possessive
periphrasis: Mark 3.1 homo habens manum aridam, Luke 14.18 rogo te habe me excusatum,
John 17.13 ut habeant gaudium meum impletum, and Timothy I 4.2 et cauteriatam habentium
suam conscientiam. In two of the abovementioned examples, the perfect participle is used in
order to describe the quality of the object of the verb habeo. This Latin construction is an
obvious source of the Romance analytic perfect found, for instance, in French j’ai écrit and
Spanish he escrito. Furthermore, in other occasional cases where we find the sub-objective or
sub-subjective resultative construction in Gothic, the Latin text also offers explicit resultative
formation such as the perfect infinitive in Mark 16.14 qui viderant eum resurrexisse and the
perfect passive in Mark 4.15 et aufert verbum quod seminatum est in corda eorum.21
There is another clearly possessive verb in Gothic as well as in other Germanic languages,
namely aigan. However, one can find only one example in the Gospel of Mark where the verb
aigan is linked to an object and its respective adjective. In addition, there are no instances where
the object would be described by an accompanying resultative participle. Therefore, such
examples are not of great importance in our study: 22
(16)
anuh nauhanuh ainana sunu aigands liubana sis, insandida jah ana du im
spedistana, qiands atei gaaistand sunu meinana. (Mark 12:6)
ἔτι ἕνα ε ἶχεν, υἱὸν ἀγαπ η τόν: ἀπέστειλεν αὐτὸν ἔσχατον πρὸς αὐτοὺς λέγων ὅτι
ἐντραπήσονται τὸν υἱόν μου.
To summarize the data, the participial predicative adjunct expressions are used eight times
in the Gospel of Mark in order to render the original Greek perfect middle participle. In four
instances the meaning is sub-objective, and in four other cases it is sub-subjective. It should be
emphasized that, even though in some cases the construction may also be understood
attributively, the predicative reading is more likely in numerous examples. The PA construction
with the introductory verb haban appears only twice in the Gospel of Mark, corresponding to a
perfect middle participle and an adjective from the Greek original. Besides these two cases (of
which one is, in fact, attributive rather than predicative) there are four other instances in the
Wulfila Bible where the PA construction employs the introductory verb haban. Three of them
correspond to the Greek perfect middle participle, and one translates to the present middle
participle.
According to Ekbo (1943: 111), the examples in Luke 14.18 and John 17.13 are
«mekaniskt kalkerade» from the Greek original. Thus, they do not constitute a highly important
piece of evidence in the interpretation of the Gothic syntax. Furthermore, EKBO minimizes the
significance of the correspondence between the Gothic and the Greek texts. Instead Ekbo
follows Streitberg (1910-1919: 420 and 436), indicating that in some examples the Gothic text
may have reflected the Latin translation (cf. Timothy I 4.2 and also Timothy II 2.26). In fact,
6
Ekbo (1943: 112) concludes that the construction haban + resultative participle did not belong
to the «gotiskt språkbruk» and is certainly right in stating that the PA resultative constructions
with haban are infrequent. However, if we consider all predicative adjunct constructions
including verbs haban, niman, bigitan etc., i.e., if we understand them as a syntactic matrix or
template, and if we analyze the correspondence between the Greek original form and their
Gothic translation (even if in some cases the Latin text underlies the Gothic Bible), we must
conclude that Gothic could provide the explicit resultative meaning using such sub-objective
and sub-subjective PA participial sequences. What I claim here is not that Gothic included a
grammaticalized HAVE perfect.23 Such a claim is wrong and unjustified. The purpose of my
argument is rather to show that Gothic frequently employed certain participial constructions
which perpetuated and slightly extended the Proto-Indo-European usage and also may have
constituted the starting point for the second resultative round in Germanic languages 24 (Maslov
1988: 72-76). Thus, with respect to the PA construction using *-no- and *-to- participles, the
situation in Gothic may be understood as a linking stage between the Proto-Indo-European and
Old and Modern language in the Germanic family.25
3. Interpretation of evidence and conclusion
Let us summarize the evidence presented above. Gothic frequently translates the Greek perfect
through an explicitly resultative construction: the sequence with a set of transitive verbs like
haban, niman, bigitan, saihwan together with the object and its participial predicative adjunct. 26
In particular, the predicative adjunct resultative type is most frequently used in order to translate
the Greek middle perfect. This syntactic template (with haban or other introductory verbs)
reflects the Greek middle perfect six times but the active perfect only twice, In both cases, the
participles of intransitive verbs of motion are used in the Gothic text. Furthermore, the
construction may use both objective and subjective resultative participles. This means that the
participle describing the quality of the object of the introductory verb in the PA construction
may be derived from both transitive and intransitive verbs. In the case of the predicative adjunct
resultative with intransitive participles, the construction describes the action being performed by
the subject of the main verb with respect to its object that equals the subject of the verb from
which the participle is derived (sub-subjective type). When the participle from a transitive verb
is used, the construction provides a clear sub-objective meaning. Consequently, we can state
that PA constructions are regularly used when the Greek middle perfect is translated into
Gothic. Secondly, we can assert that they are not restricted to the objective and sub-objective
force respectively. In fact, when occurring with subject resultative participles, they constitute
the sub-subjective resultative type.
Gothic resultative constructions have their roots in Proto-Indo-European. The predicative
adjunct construction perpetuates the PIE syntactic structure where the verbal adjective describes
the object of the main verb. The question arises as to whether the Gothic construction is more
grammaticalized than the PIE sequence. In view of the evidence presented above, it can hardly
be so. Even though it consistently provided a clear and explicit resultative meaning, the Gothic
predicative adjunct construction was still a lexical expression whose resultative meaning
stemmed from the participle itself. The grammaticalization of this construction had not yet
begun and, aside from some cases of metaphorical extension, the meaning and function of the
predicative adjunct sequence probably remained the same as the meaning in Proto-IndoEuropean. Thus, instead of one resultative periphrasis, we are dealing with one resultative
7
syntactic pattern (template) that in the posterior Germanic languages will permit the creation of
the HAVE type perfect.
The PA Gothic analytic resultatives may be easily recognized in other old and modern
Germanic languages. In particular, one construction that followed the predicative adjunct
resultative template, i.e. the HAVE type, is extensively used in posterior Germanic languages.
This is, in fact, the main expression of the perfect and resultativity in the Germanic family. In
all languages, the possessive verb with the meaning “to have” has been generalized as an
auxiliary verb. In some languages, this possessive verb has been generalized for all kinds of
verbs and is the only auxiliary verb in the perfect tenses, for example in Icelandic and English.
The meaning of the periphrasis equals the perfect (English, Swedish and Icelandic) or has
acquired past value (Yiddish, Afrikaans, and to some extent also Dutch and Vilamovicean).
Finally, the participle in the sub-objective type is most frequently left uninflected.
The Gothic predicative adjunct resultatives (especially with the verb haban) certainly match
the typical Germanic perfect constructions. However, it must be emphasized again that the
Gothic predicative adjunct resultative is far from being fully or even partially grammaticalized.
The construction is significantly more lexical than grammatical. Contrary to the situation in
modern Germanic languages, the subject of the sub-objective construction does not coincide
with the subject of the verb that underlies the participle.27 Furthermore, this resultative type
admits several verbs with both possessive stative and dynamic (non-possessive) meaning as the
finite verb. Thus, specialization and generalization did not commence (Hopper & Traugott
2003: 101-106 and 116-118). All this evidence means that the auxiliarization of the verb haban
in the PA resultative construction never began. Thus, finite verbs in the predicative adjunct
construction still function as main verbs and may not be classified as auxiliaries. This also
implies that the participle did not become the main verb. On the contrary, it continued being
used as a predicative adjunct forming a Small Clause (Romani 1987), and the agreement with
the object is preserved in Gothic. Finally, the haban periphrases have a clear non-fientive and
stative value in contrast to the fientive and actional character displayed in posterior languages
(see Haspelmath 1994 on verbalization of participles). It is therefore not surprising that, as far
as the aspectual-temporal interpretation is concerned, the meaning of the PA constructions does
not correspond to universal, existential or actional perfects but rather to the resultative proper –
semantically, the very first stage of the anterior cline constituting one of drifts included in the
resultative path (see Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994 and Dahl 2000).
On the other hand, it must be noted that even in Gothic there are some indices suggesting
that the constructions had already begun their grammaticalization process. There are few cases
in which the predicative adjunct construction cannot be reduced to the simple sum of its lexical
components (cf. Luke 14.18). In other words, it could not be taken literally and, thus, ceased
being completely transparent and deductible from its component. Such a change resulting from
the extension and metaphor led to the situation where certain new, not original, meanings and
uses were incorporated. This would have marked the very first sign of its reanalysis as a
resultative gram (moving toward becoming a perfect) instead of being merely a lexical literal
sequence. However, in most cases the predicative adjunct construction functions as a purely
lexical and transparent construction.
Finally, we can suppose that the meaning and uses of PA resultative constructions in Gothic
may also illustrate the original situation in other Germanic languages. Even in their most remote
texts, the old Germanic languages already present the resultative analytical construction as
having a clear perfect value and being already profoundly grammaticalized (though also
displaying some vestiges of less grammaticalized stages). However, the original but unattested
behavior of the Nordic and West-Germanic perfects can parallel the state of affairs that has been
depicted in Gothic. In fact, using the unidirectional laws of grammaticalization and the anterior
drift (Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994 and DAHL 2000), departing from the modern and
8
passing through old Germanic languages, one would obtain exactly the same situation as has
been described above in the case of Gothic: a set of periphrastic resultative expressions built on
the predicative adjunct template and displaying resultative proper meaning. Furthermore, such
expressions would admit object (derived from transitive verbs) and subject (formed from
intransitive verbs) resultative participles. Finally, it should be possible to identify one of these
analytical constructions that would later be specialized and generalized as the perfect (HAVE
type). This postulated state of affairs matches the arrangement and function of Gothic participial
resultative PA expressions perfectly.
To conclude, it can be state that Gothic had two analytic participial ways of conveying
resultative meaning. These are widely recognized as the wisan periphrasis as well as the
predicative adjunct construction. Both formations perpetuate two PIE constructions: the
periphrasis consisting on the BE verb + *-to- / *-no- verbal adjective and the predicative adjunct
template, respectively. The predicative adjunct construction still remained a template and, thus,
none of the possible expressions which followed the PA pattern were grammaticalized. The
only slight signs of the beginning of the grammaticalization process and of the development
toward the perfect (anterior drift) are found in a few examples of the metaphorical extension in
the case of the PA chain with the verb haban.
Bibliography
BARNES, Michael. 1999. A new introduction to Old Norse. London: Viking Society for Northern
Research.
BENNETT, Charles Edwin. 1936. New Latin Grammar. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
BIBLIA SACRA VULGATA, GRYSON. R (ed.). 2006. 4 th edition, Hendrickson Publishers.
BROCCIAS, Cristiano. 2008. «Towards a history of English resultative constructions: the case of
adjectival resultative constructions». English Language and Linguistics, 12, Cambridge
University Press, pp. 27–54.
BYBEE, Joan, PERKINS , Revere and PAGLIUCA, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar.
Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
CRESPO, Emilio, CONTI, Luz and MAQUIEIRA, Helena. 2003. Sintaxis del griego clásico.
Madrid: Gredos.
CROFT, William. 2003. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DAHL , Östen. 2000. Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Berlin/New York: Mouton
de Gruyter.
DRINKA, Bridget. 2003. «The formation of periphrastic perfects and passives in Europe: An
areal approach», in BLAKE, Barry J. and BURRIDGE, Kate (eds.). Historical Linguistics
2001, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 105–128.
EKBO, Sven. 1943. Studier over uppkomsten av supinum i de germanska språken. Uppsala:
Appelbergs Boktryckeriaktiebolag.
FISHER, Olga. 1992. «Syntax», in BLAKE, NORMAN (ed.), The Cambridge History of the
English Language, Vol. 2. 1066-1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 207408.
HASPELMATH, Martin. «Passive Participles across Languages», in FOX, BARBARA A. and
HOPPER PAUL . J (eds.). 1994. Voice: Form and Function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.
151-177.
HOPPER, Paul and TRAUGOTT , Elizabeth. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
9
LUTHER BIBLE (1545). 2004. Bonn: Edition Lempertz.
MASLOV, Jurij. «Resultative, Perfect and Aspect», in NEDJALKOV, VLADIMIR (ed.), Typology of
resultative constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 63-85, 1988.
NEDJALKOV, Vladimir and JAXONTOV, Sergej. 1988. «The Typology of Resultative
Constructions», in NEDJALKOV, VLADIMIR (ed.), Typology of Resultative Constructions.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 3-62.
NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE, NESTLE, E. and ALAND, E. (eds.). 1993. 26th/ 27th
edition, American Bible Society.
ROMANI, Patrizia. 2006. «Tiempos de formación Romance I. Los tiempos compuestos», in
COMPANY, CONCEPCIÓN (ed.), Sintaxis histórica de la lengua española, vol. I,
México, Fondo de Cultura Económica, pp. 243-346.
SALVI, Giampaolo. «Syntactic Restructuring in the Evolution of Romance Auxiliaries», in
HARRIS, Martin and RAMAT, Paolo (eds.). 1987. Historical Development of Auxiliaries,
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 225-236.
SOLDERS, Severin. 1980. Grekisk Grammatik, Uppsala: LiberLäromedel.
STREITBERG, Wilhelm. 1910-1919. Die gotische Bibel. 1 and 2 vol, Heidelberg: Carl Winter's
Universitätsbuchhandlung.
THE BIBLE: AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION WITH APOCRYPHA. 1998. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
1
It should be noted that Gothic grammaticalized the resultative periphrases with the verb wisan “be”, for
instance gameli ist “it is written / it has been written”.
2
This universal development of resultative constructions is labeled “anterior drift” (Dahl 2000).
3
The term resultative proper should be understood as distinct form the perfect (universal, experiential or
resultative). It denotes the very beginning (the first stage) in the development of resultative constructions that
may later evolve into perfects and subsequently into past grams.
4
Such a sequence has received several names in the literature: predicative adjunct construction (Broccias
2008), predicate construction (Bennett 1936: 219), predicative construction (Crespo, Conti & Maquieira
2003: 28), predicative participial construction (Romani 2006: 251 and 272), and object complement
construction (Barnes 1999: 247 and Fisher 1992).
5
Predicative adjunct constructions may be found in several IE families. In old languages, they were not
grammaticalized and functioned as lexical expressions. This is true, for instance, in Old and Classical Latin
Caesar equitatum ex omni provincial coactum habuit (Bennett 1936: 219). Only when a bivalent introductory
verb became highly functional and polysemic, turning into an auxiliary (or half auxiliary), did predicative
adjunct expressions start to develop into verbal periphrases. However, this extremely frequent development
took place at later periods and independently in different IE families. Nevertheless, all of the oldest IndoEuropean languages could use the descendents of the *-no- and *-to- verbal adjectives (if they were preserved)
in predicative adjunct constructions with a set of introductory verbs. Such expressions paralleled and originated
in constructions where an adjective described the quality of the object of the introductory bivalent verb.
6
Such resultative proper constructions (distinct from perfects) may be found in modern Polish: mam list juz
napisany ‘I have the letter already written’, but also Dostałem list już napisany ‘I got the letter already written’.
Yet again, the subject of the introductory verb does not have to coincide with the agent of the action expressed
by the participle.
7
It may be stated that usually introductory verbs that became auxiliaries had already been frequent,
polysemic, semantically broad and functionally complex verbs that were employed in other constructions or
periphrasis. As such, it was easy to employ and grammaticalize such half auxiliarized or functionally
multifaceted verbs in predicative adjunct resultative expressions.
8
The obligatory coindexation of the two agents is a later phenomenon that can be observed at the stage where
the resultative becomes a perfect.
10
9
The resultative expression describes the relation between the subject of the introductory verb and the object
of the verb underlying the participle, i.e. the object of the verb from which the participle is derived. In this
article, I will follow and extend the terminology introduced by Nedjalkov (1988) who divides resultative
contractions into three classes: objective type (describing the state of the object of the participial verb),
subjective type (describing the state of the subject of the verb from which the participle is derived), and
possessive or sub-objective type.
10
Of course, this does not mean that the Gothic construction is a direct genetic ancestor of the HAVE perfect in
West and North Germanic languages.
11
In all quoted biblical passages, Gothic resultative expressions as well as the Greek original forms that
underlie them will be given in bold type.
12
All Gothic examples are taken from Streitberg (1910-1919). The Greek quotations are extracted from
Novum Testamentum Graece 26th/27th edition.
13
Such a situation in not infrequent and may be found in Polish, for instance. In Polish, the sequence
consisting of an introductory verb (most commonly the verb mieć ‘have’) and the resultative participle Mam list
napisany may be interpreted either as a predicative adjunct resultative proper “I have written the letter” or as an
attributive expression “I have a/the written letter”. In the first case, one is dealing with a participial Small
Clause while in the latter one the participle is a simple attribute of the object.
14
In Greek, the indefinite phrase consisting of substantive and adjectives (ἀνδρεῖος στρατιώτης) may be
ambiguous and can be understood predicatively or attributively depending on the context. On the other hand,
the adjective preceding or following the sequence article + noun (ἀνδρεῖος ὁ στρατιώτης and ὁ στρατιώτης
ἀνδρεῖος) is defined as standing in the predicative position. Finally, the sequences article + noun + article +
adjective ὁ στρατιώτης ὁ ἀνδρεῖος and article + adjective + noun ὁ ἀνδρεῖος στρατιώτης are attributive, i.e.
the adjective stands in the attributive position (Crespo, Conti & Maquieira 2003 and Solders 1980).
15
This may be labeled the sub-subjective type. This sequence describes the interaction of two subjects i.e. the
subject of the main verb and the subject of the participial verb that also functions as the object of the main
introductory verb.
16
It should be noted that Germanic -n- resultative participles are not direct successors of the PIE *-no- verbal
adjectives. They originated in their extension, i.e. in *-e/ono- formations.
17
See, however, that both LUTHER BIBLE (1545) and King James Bible (1611) translate the participial
sequence in Mark (3.1) attributively, respectively Und es war da ein Mensch, der hatte eine verdorrete Hand
and “There was a man there that had a withered hand”.
18
According to Salvi (1987) the existence of two separate constituents in HAVE type resultative expressions
can by demonstrated by the fact that the direct object can be pronominalized independently of its complement.
If the participle were an attributive modifier of the object, it would not be possible to express it overtly after the
object is pronominalized.
19
However, this example should be understood attributively. Take, for example, the Greek sequence τὴν
ξηρὰν χεῖρα where the adjective stands in the attributive position. As such, the corresponding Gothic example
is not a resultative proper PA construction but rather a resultative (in a broad sense) adjectival and attributive
formation.
20
Again, this does not mean that the construction equals a perfect or is partially grammaticalized. It simply
means that the meaning is not literal, and a metaphoric extension has occurred. Such a metaphoric extension is
necessary in order to begin the process of grammaticalization (Hopper & Traugott 2003 and Croft 2003).
21
Moreover, one may find some additional possessive HAVE constructions with adjectives instead of the
participle, i.e. in Mark 3.30 and 7.25 unhrains “unclean”, as well as in Mark 4.5 manags “much, many”.
22
Other examples in the remaining parts of the Gothic Bible (where the verb aigan is used in a possessive
construction together with the object and an adjective which conveys the quality acquired by it) are limited to
the expression someone has eternal life in John 6.40, 6.47, and 6.54.
23
Again, it should be emphasized that participial PA Gothic constructions correspond to the resultative proper
meaning and not to the perfect (resultative, universal or experiential). Typologically, they are close to the
resultative proper in Polish. Even though Polish expressions have been further grammaticalized, they do not
function as a perfect.
24
The first resultative round was the creation of the morphological pattern displayed in the “simple past”, as
for instance in English “walked” and “spoke”. However, this simple past was a periphrastic resultative
construction at the moment it was shaped. Thus, we are clearly dealing with a prototypical resultative
construction that develops according to the grammaticalization and anterior drift principles.
11
25
Again, this does not mean that the Gothic construction is a genetic ancestor of the HAVE perfect in other
Germanic languages.
26
As already noted, the same sequence may also frequently be interpreted as attributive.
27
This may be observed especially in the Gothic sub-subjective type where the subject of the introductory verb
cannot coincide with the participial agent. Consequently, Gothic expressions may not be considered equivalent
to Modern Germanic examples such as I have gone, where the participial agent (the participle has been
reanalyzed as the main verb) and the subject of the introductory verb (now reinterpreted as an auxiliary) must
have the same referent.
12