Gram - SEAS

54 3 Mechanisms: reanalysis and analogy
(9) Multos ferro, multos veneno (occidit); habeo enim
many dagger-INST, many poison-INST (killed); have-ISG even
dicere quem . . . de ponte in Tiberim deicerit.
tell-INF someone ... from bridge in Tiber threw
'Many he killed by the dagger, many by poison; I can even give you an example
of one man whom ... he threw from the bridge into the Tiber. '
(c. 40 BC, Cicero, S. Rosc. 100; cited in Pinkster 1987: 206)
In (9) and several other examples like (10), the 'have' -verb precedes the infinitive,
and is separated from it:
(10) De re publica nihil habeo ad te scribere nisi . . .
about matter public nothing have- I SG:PRES to you write-INF except . ..
'I have nothing to write to you about the commonwealth except . .. '
(c. 40 BC, Cicero; cited in Fleischman 1982: 121)
But later a different order is also attested, in which the 'have' -verb follows the
infinitive directly:
(I I) Haec cantare habeo.
Although the changes are assumed to have occurred between the third and sixth
centuries AD, most of the attested examples come from later texts. Examples
include:
(12) a . . .. et quod sum essere habetis
... and what be- I SG be-INF have-2PL
'and what 1 am, you have to/will be'
(seventh-century inscription; cited in I. Roberts 1993a: 234)
b. Et si interrogatus fueris, quomodo dicere
and if asked be-2SG:PERF:SUBJUNCT, how say-INF
habes? Veritatem dicere habeo.
have-2SG:PRES:SUBJUNCT? truth say-INF have- I SG:PRES
'And you, if you are asked, what do you have to/will you say?
1 will have the truth to say/l will speak the truth.'
(7 15, Cod. Dip/. Long. Siena; cited in Fleischman 1982: 59.
I. Roberts 1993a: 234)
From the perspective of reanalysis, the important fact is that constructions like
(12) contain a main verb hab- and an infinitive complement, in a structure of the
type: [[dicerel habeol, and in contexts that can be understood to be obligative or
at least future oriented. If one is asked what one can say, the inference can be that
one ought to say it. In such contexts, provided the forms are adjacent, a language
user could be led by abduction to interpret the input string not as representing
two underlying clauses, but rather as being bracketed together in a structure of the