Gram - SEAS

3.5 Analogy/rule generalization 65
(26) Metuo enim ne ibi vos habebam fatigatos.
fear- ISO for lest there you:ACC:PL have- ISO tired-ACC:PL
'For I fear that I have tired you.'
However, in (22a, b) there is indeterminacy whether there is or is not agreement,
since zero neuter singular (nihil 'nothing' in (22a), satis 'enough' in (22b)) is
the "default" gender/number marker in Latin. With these constructions there is
potential for reanalysis, but we recognize that the perfect has arisen only when
there is overt and therefore determinable lack of agreement between object and
participle (PART) as in:
(27) Haec omnia probalum habemus.
those:ACC:PL all-ACC-PL tried-PART(?) have- I PL
'We have tried all those things.'
(sixth century, Oribasius; cited in Fleischman 1982: 120)
So long as constructions occurred which were ambiguous between adjectival participials
and perfects, e.g., (26), it was not possible to tell whether reanalysis had
occurred or not, except perhaps by inference from the context. Specifically, the
agreeing participial, which originated in a passive adjectival form, permits the understood
subject of the participial to be the subject of either the sentence or of some
other entity. For example, in (26) the agent of the act of tiring could either be the
subject '1', as the translation 'I fear that I have tired you' suggests (i.e., perfect),
or some other, unspecified, individual(s), as in 'I fear I have/see you tired' (i.e.,
participial). By contrast, the perfect requires that the understood subject of the participle
is the subject of the sentence (Vincent 1982). It is only when clear instances
of non-agreement, e.g., (27), occur, that we can find definitive overt evidence
for the structure change. These unambiguously non-agreeing forms presumably
arose by analogy ( = rule generalization) from neuter singular contexts to other
contexts.
A well-known example of the cyclical interaction of reanalysis, analogy
( = generalization), and reanalysis is the development of negation in French.
The sequence of changes must have been as follows (Hock 1991 [1986]: 194;
Schwegler 1988):
I. Negation was accomplished by placing the negative particle ne before the
verb.
II. A verb of motion negated by lie could optionally be reinforced by the
pseudo-object noun pas 'step' in the context of verbs of movement:
(28) II ne va (pas).
he not goes (step)
'He doesn't go (a step).'