Elena Anagnostopoulou , Dionysios Mertyris and Christina Sevdali

1. A classification of Ancient Greek three-place predicates and the structure of datives and genitives Elena Anagnostopoulou, DionysiosMertyris and Christina Sevdali On the place of case in Grammar, PlaCiG Rethymnon 18 – 20 October 2018

2. Introduction • Project question: The nature of case morphology and case variation and its relationship to whatever licenses DPs (traditionally called Case); The general approach is to tackle this question through an investigation of the evolution of the case system in the history of Greek and its varieties; • Empirical domain: The evolution of dative and genitive in the history of Greek, from Ancient to Modern Greek.

3. Roadmap of the talk • The functions of Ancient Greek (AG) datives and genitives; • A focus on three-place predicates; • A novel classification of AG three-place predicates; • Dat-Nom and Gen-Nom alternations: environments and some puzzles; • First diachronic remarks; • Conclusions – further questions

4.  Functions of AG datives (Jannaris 1897)

5. Roles of argumental datives in three-place predicates and constructions with two objects • Goal • Addressee (with verbs of communication) • Arguments corresponding to ‘with’ PPs (comitatives and instruments) • Affected patients • Affected possessors • Experiencers

6. Functions of AG genitives (Jannaris 1897, Mertyris 2014)

7. Roles of argumental genitives • Partitive • Ablative • Cause • Affected patient • Possessor • Content/ Locatum

8. Focus of the project so far • Datives and genitives with three-place predicates; • Conti (1998) has focused on datives and genitives with monotransitives. • The curious property of datives and genitives in AG is that they enter dat/gen-nom alternations (passivisation, middles, possessor raising) but not with all verbs. • In order to understand datives and genitives we have been trying to create a classification of AG three-place predicates taking into account modern classifications (e.g. Gropen et al 1989, Levin 1993, Pylkkänen 2002, Cuervo 2003); • This has led to a re-classification of traditional verb classes; • We have been trying to monitor the productivity and the restrictions of typologically unusual dative/genitive-nominative alternations in AG ditransitives.

9. Methodology • Data from 48 authors from Homer to the 5th c. AD; • ‘Verb-sensitive’ search on Thesaurus Linguae Grecae and Papyri; • Re-classification done through the comparison between the behaviour of predicates and their arguments in AG and the behaviour of their translation equivalents in English according to Levin’s classification; • Passivisability (or more generally diatheses alternations) of the arguments is also taken into account when deciding how to split subclasses.

10. AG three-place predicates • Traditional grammars /philological tradition makes a classification based on the case morphology of the two objects (Jannaris 1897, Smyth 1920, Goodwin 1894). • Accusative – Accusative • Dative – Accusative • Genitive – Accusative • Dative – Genitive

11. AG three-place predicates • A closer investigation suggests that a classification on the basis of case arrays is oversimplified and potentially misleading. • Moreover, it is claimed that AG did not have DP/PP alternations in ditransitives (dative alternations). • However we do observe the restricted use of PPs instead of dative and or genitive DPs in very few classes.

12. Highlights • Dat-Gen ‘class’ does NOT exist • Acc-Acc is NOT one (uniform) class • Acc-Gen is NOT one (uniform) class • Acc-Dat is NOT one (uniform) class

13. Dat-Gen ‘class’ Traditionally this ‘class’ is said to involve verbs of: • Taking part, transmission (metekho:/koino:neo: ‘take part in’, metadido:mi‘transmit’); • Concession (parakho:reo: ‘concede’, etc); • The verb phthoneo: ‘envy’. • All verbs from this class can be subsumed under other classes that involve either accusative-genitive/partitive alternation or dative/genitive syncretism. • We will come back to these cases.

14. Acc-Acc ‘class’ NOT one class : • Ero:tao: ‘Ask’: transfer of message /communicated message • Didasko: ‘teach’, transfer of message • Keleuo: ‘command’ • Aiteo: ‘ask for’ • Apaiteo: ‘demand back’ • Ze:teo: ‘ask for/seek’  maybe ‘ferret’ class from Levin • Aphaireo: ‘remove’  (remove verbs) (also has ACC-GEN and the ACC-DAT combination with a malefactive DAT)

15. Acc-Acc ‘class’ • In some of these verbs the IO is a goal (ero:tao:, didasko: and keleuo: )  Accusative-Dative syncretism; • In some of these verbs the IO is a source (aiteo: , apaiteo:, ze:teo:, aphaireo: ) • Accusative-Genitive syncretism. • Interesting alternation fact: unlike what grammars report, e.g. Smyth (1920: 396), who states that “in double accusative constructions, the object that denotes the person is the one that turns into nominative in passives” • This is not the case, with verbs erotao, didaskoandkeleuowhere the inanimate theme can also become nominative in passives iffthe goal is expressed in dative or if the goal is left unexpressed.

16. Acc-Acc ‘class’ • Theme passivisation without a goal Ou gar poukatanoo: to nun ero:to:menon Not then that understand.1sg the.acc now asked.acc ‘I do not understand what has been asked’ (Plato, Phil. Sophista 233 a 2) 2. Theme passivisation with a dative IO Edidachthe: gar ekeino:itherapeueinto:ipharmako:ite:napistian Taught.pass.3sg then him.dat to cure the medicine.dat the doubt.acc ‘It has been taught to him to cure doubt through a medicine’ (IsidorusPel. Epistulae de interpretationedivinaescripturae Β.1 ep.354 l.12)

17. Acc-Gen ‘class’ • NOT one class • Involves 5 further sub-classes: • Type A: ‘real’ ditransitives of the ‘from’ type where the genitive expresses the source akouo: ‘listen’, manthano: ‘learn’, punthanomai‘be informed’ and also apostereo: ‘deprive’ etc. • Type B: ‘cut’ verbs where the genitive is the possessortemno, apotemno:, kopto:, apokopto: ‘cut/cut off, ’ekkopto: pe:roo: ‘maim’ • Type C: ‘judicial’ verbs prefixed with kata- kate:goreo: ‘accuse’ where the genitive is linked to the genitive-assigning preposition/prefix • Type D: where genitive is the locatumple:ro: ‘fill’, kenoo: ‘empty’, ko:luo: ‘prevent’ etc. • Type E: krino, dio:ko:, epaineo:, eudaimonizo:, thaumazo:, makarizo:, ze:loo: and phthoneo: with animate object in accusative with genitive expressing the cause

18. Acc-GenType A ‘deprive someone of something’ • ‘Real ditransitive of the ‘from’-type’: GEN/IO & ACC/DO, akin to Levin’s class of verbs of possessional deprivation, like ‘deprive’ Accusative = DO (theme) Genitive = IO /low source • Not entering the double object alternation in Modern Greek • Apostero: te:narche:n-ACCautou-GEN ‘Deprive of the power him’ ’   • Here genitive = animate and marks ‘from’ • In the same type: akouo: ‘hear’, manthano ‘learn’ kai lambano ‘receive’ • Akouotauta-ACCtes: Kalupsous-GEN ‘Hear these from Kalypso’

19. Acc-GenType B ‘cut off something from someone’ • temno:, apotemno:, kopto:, apokopto:, ekkopto:, pe:roo: ‘maim’ (Acc-DO & Gen-IO) • Classic possessor raising (external or internal?) construction 1. apokopsantesautoutaskheiras(Herodotus, Hist. 6,91:12) cut.prtcp 3sg.gen the hands.acc ’Cut the hands off him/cut off his hands’ • When expressing inalinable possession, involving a body part, in mediopassive morphology: then the Gen IO can alternate with Nom (see also passivisation section).

20. Acc-Gen Type C ‘accuse someone of something’ Judicial verbs with ‘kata’ prefix with GEN animate affected argument  Animate genitive 1. Kate:goreo: ton phonon tinos ‘Accuse of/for murder someone-gen ’ NB: with a synonym without a prefix, like,dikazo‘trial’ this IO can surface in dative 2. Dikazotiniti ‘Trial someone-dat for something-acc’ • In both of these environments/verbs the animate argument is a affected goal, and we see clearly that the presence/absence of the prefix and its case assigning properties controls the morphological realization of this goal.

21. Acc-Gen Type D ‘fill something with something else’ ‘free someone from something’ • ACC/DO & GEN/PP: (subclass of spray load verbs) Acc = location Genitive = content / locatum • English with and from = AG genitive 1. Emple:setete:nthalassantrie:ro:n Fill.2pl the sea.accships.gen ‘You will fill up the sea with ships’ (Demosthenes, De Chersoneso74) 2. Ko:luo: touspolemious-ACCte:sorme:s-GEN ‘Hinder the enemies from the attack’ 3. Apoluohumas-ACC te:saitias-GEN ‘Free you from the accusation’

22. Acc-Gen Type D • Genitive = ‘of’ / ‘from’ alternation • These genitives also alternate with apo and ek ‘from’ PPs 1. haito:nekeikako:napoluousinhe:mas  which free us from evils in that other world (Plato, Respublica 2.365a) 2.apoluo:n[…] te:npsukhe:napote:stouso:matoskoino:nias separating the soul from communion with the body. (Plato, Phaedo 65a)

23. Acc-GenType E ‘accuse someone of something’ • Three-place predicate with animate object in Acc with genitive expressing the cause Acc IO (animate) – Gen Cause ( almost the opposite of Type C above) • krino: ‘accuse’ , dio:ko: ‘prosecute’ , epaineo: ‘praise’ , eudaimonizo:, makarizo: ‘deep someone happy/congratulate’ , thaumazo: ‘admire’, ze:loo: ‘be jealous of’. [Cf. also phthoneo: ‘be jealous of’ that appears also as a monotransitive with a dative object and an optional genitive of cause. (This genitive can also be a PP)

24. Acc-Gen summary/highlights • Only one class allows gen-nom alternation: Type B ‘cut off’ class (possessor raising); • Genitive is source, possessor, locatum or cause; • Genitive syncretizes the meanings expressed by from, of, with; • Prefix plays a case-assigning role: ‘ Type C ‘judicial class’; • There is genitive – dative syncretism with affected goals (accuse + gen / trial + dat) .

25. Acc-Dat ‘class’ • NOT one class • Involves 4 classes: • Type A: ‘classic goal verbs’ corresponding to alternating and non-alternating verbs in English • Type B: Advise verbs and verbs expressing command • Type C: ’Entrust verbs’ • Type D: Levin’s ‘amalgamate verbs’

26. Acc-DatType A ‘give someone something’ • DAT/IO & ACC/DO: ‘classic goal verbs’ e.g. Give, bring, send, tell 1. dido:mitiniti give someone-dat something-acc 2. pempo: tiniti send someone-dat something-acc

27. Acc-DatType A Superclass: verbs of change of possession including: • Give verbs:dido:mi, antapodido:mi, apodido:mi, paradido:mi, do:reo:/do:roumai‘give/donate/gift’, perne:mi ‘sell’, po:leo: ‘sell’ [ PLUS: misthoo: ‘let’, daneizo: ‘lend’, diakikhre:mi‘lend’, tino: ‘repay’, apotino:, ektino:, ple:roo: (late Hellenistic) all allow the dative to alternate in the middle voice ] (We still need to study some ‘give’ examples with possible goal passivization) [metadido:mi‘give a part / give a share ]– where the theme is actually genitive, so it looks as if it is in the gen-dat class but this is simply the acc-gen partitive alternation that is generalized in any verb taking accusative.] • Future having verbs:parekho:, opheilo: ‘owe’ • Contribute verbs (subclass of future having verbs): eisphero: ‘bring in’, thuo: ‘sacrifice’, spendo:, aphieroo:, anatithe:mi‘attribute/dedicate’, aponemo:, prosnemo:, diadido:mi.

28. Acc-DatType A • Verbs of communication of propositions: ‘Say’ verbs: apokalupto:, de:loo:,‘reveal’, lego: ‘say/tell’, angello: ‘announce’, apangello‘report’, koinoo: ‘notify’ [ Only non-alternating subclass in English] • Verbs of transfer of message: ‘show’: hupagoreuo: ‘dictate’ , se:maino: ‘indicate’, deiknumi ‘show’, apodeiknumi ‘point out’ , epideiknumi ‘display’, katadeiknumi ‘make known’ • Send verbs: pempo:, stello: ‘send’ , apostello: ‘dispatch’, ephie:mi‘send/throw’ • Bring and take verbs: phero: ‘bring’, [ PLUS komizo: ‘carry’, prosago: ‘bring’ , prosfero: ‘bring’ where the dative alternates with nominative]

29. Acc-Dat classType B ‘command/advise someone to do something’ • Verbs of communication (in particular advise-verbs and verbs expressing Command/ force) • IO passivizing verbs • All these verbs look like they involve some kind of saying (but note that lego: is NOT part of the passivizing list of verbs • These verbs look as if they are affecting the addressee in some ways): epiballo:“lay on” (or put on / force) , paraineo:“advise”, sumbouleuo:“counsel”, martureo:“bear witness” “testify” epistello:“enjoin” “give orders in written form”, epitasso:“order”, tasso:, prostasso:, diatasso:, parangello:, me:nuo:, prome:nuo: • NB: parallel use of DAT/ ACC with a lot of verb classes (e.g. Command verbs: epitasso:, tasso:, prostasso:, already govern the accusative in ClG either in rare occasions or in some of their other meanings) • chrao: ‘proclaim’ (from the ‘middles’ section but the datives alternates)

30. Acc-Dat Type C ‘gift someone with something’ Entrust verbs – where the dative IO passivises • charizo: ‘gratify’ , kle:rodoteo: ‘bequeath’ • parenguao: ‘hand over/entrust’ , enkheirizo: ‘entrust’, epitrepo: ‘entrust’ They look like give/future having verbs BUT IO alternates with all of them that is why we classify them separately. [Cf. parakho:reo: ‘give/offer’ ] that looks as if it has a gen-dat frame and coexists also with a dat-acc frame and both objects can alternate.]

31. Acc-DatType D ‘liken someone with something’ ‘mix something with something else’ • ‘Amalgamate verbs’ (Levin) & Comparison: ACC object + ‘with’ DAT Comparison verbs: apeikazo:, eikazo:, isoo:, eksisoo: homoioo: Apeikazeineauton-accto:ikheiro:ni-dat ‘to liken himself to the worst’ Mixing verbs:meignumi, kerannumi, sunkrouo:, sunallasso: Levin: verbs of combining and attaching meignumititini ‘mix something-acc with something else-dat’

32. Acc – Dat summary/highlights • Alternating (passive/middle) datives exist in a lot of these classes: • In type A subclass with bring/take verbs but also some give verbs; • In most of type B (command/advise) • In all of type C entrust verbs (Should this be a different class to Type A or should they be subsumed?) • Dative is a prototypical goal; • Dative is a prototypical addressee of communication; • Dative as ‘with’ with amalgamate verbs.

33. Three-place predicates summary • There are three superclasses based on case morphology only (not four): • ACC – ACC • ACC – DAT • ACC – GEN • There are many subclasses some of which should not be thought of as ditransitives; • There is a broader range of uses with the genitive than with the dative; dative is a more uniform case; • We see many more alternating datives than genitives. • The only real alternating genitives are the possessor constructions.

34. DAT/GEN-NOM alternations • Three environements: (1) passivisation proper prosphero: “offer” DAT-ACC Kai eis to stoma prosferetaite:ntrophe:n(ACC) ‘And he is offered the food in the mouth; (Aristotle, Historia animalum 492b) Active structure: prosphereite:ntrophe:n (ACC) auto:i (DAT) enkheirizo“entrust” DAT-ACC te:nnome:n(ACC) to:nkreo:nenkheiristheis ‘He is entrusted with the distribution of meat’ (Lucian, Prometheus 3, A.D. 2) active structure: enkheirisaste:nnome:n(ACC) to:nkreo:nauto:i

35. DAT/GEN-NOM alternations Middle morphology in AG = same as passive except in the future and aorist where there are different forms. Some of the verbs that exhibit productive use in the middle have an active structure with two arguments, one of which is a dative that can be absorbed in the ‘middle’ structure. Uses of the Middle in AG (Allan 2002): (among others) • Direct reflexive middle: kopto: ‘beat’ - koptomai ‘beat myself’ • Indirect reflexive middle: Louo: ‘Wash’ – Louomai ‘wash myself’ Perspective shifting middle: Daneizo: ‘lend’ – Daneizomai ‘borrow’

36. DAT/GEN-NOM alternations (2) Reflexives (middles) (absorption of a dative – daneizo: - daneizomaietc.) daneizo: “lend” DAT-ACC → daneizomai“borrow” Erato:n (NOM) […] edaneisatopara touemoupappoutalanta duo (ACC) Eraton borrowed from my grandfather two talents (Lysias, On the property of Eraton2 (4 B.C.) active structure: ho emospappos(NOM)edaneisenErato:ni (DAT) talanta duo (ACC) Emisthoutopar’oukekdidontoste:naule:n (ACC) ‘and tried to rent the courtyard, but the smith did not want to lease it.’ (Herodotus, Historiae 1.68.5 Active structure: misthoo: te:naule:n (acc) auto:i (dat)

37. DAT/GEN-NOM alternations Rijksbaron (2002: 148; his examples 429 and 430) shows morphologically dative benefactive arguments 1. (…) deipn-a basil-ei paraskeuaz-ein meals-acc king-dat prepare-act-inf ‘(to command) the preparation of meals for the king’ (Herodotus, Historia 7: 32) 2. Ouk ara turannid-a chr-e: paraskeuaz-esthaiouth’ Not then despotic power-acc must-3 sg to use-mid-inf not heaut-o:ioutete:ipol-ei yourself-dat not the city-dat ‘Then you don’t need to use despotic power neither for yourself nor forthe city’ (Plato, Alcibiades: I 135b) (1) is a straightforward case where the dative benefactive basilei ‘for the king’appears overtly with the active form of a verb. (2) is an illustration of a middle with an overt benefactive dative reflexive for reason of emphasis.

38. DAT/GEN-NOM alternations (3) Possessor raising / inalienable possession & passivisation constructions apotemno: “cut off” ACC. THEME - GEN.POSSESSIVE hoi alloi strate:goi(NOM) apotme:thentestas kephalas(ACC) the other generals having had their heads cut off (Xenophon, Anabasis 2.6.29 active structure: apotamontestas kephalas(ACC) to:n allo:n strate:go:n(GEN)

39. Results, questions and directions • Datives are much more uniform than genitives in qualifying as arguments of ditransitives. • With genitives we can draw clear parallels with corresponding prepositions. • One case where the genitive is already a DP = external posessors. • Less genitives alternating than datives – only the possessor cases.

40. P-incorporation • Following AAS (2014) we have proposed that genitives and datives in CG are contained within PPs, overt, as in the prefixed examples discussed here, or covert with non-prefixal verbs; • Prefixal verbs in CG are formed by P(reposition)-incorporation of the prepositions introducing the dative and genitive objects (see judicial class); • Generally speaking, PPs are phases, and, DPs contained within them are inaccessible to operations triggered by higher heads; i.e. opaque to operations like Agree & Move; • However, there are strategies by which such PPs become transparent (Rezac (2008) for different dialects of Basque); • One major strategy leading to the transparency of dative and genitive objects is P incorporation into a higher head, the complex V-Voice. • We propose that P-incorporation in CG makes the relevant PPs transparent, and the dative and genitive objects are allowed to passivize.

41. Genitives vs. Datives • Internal structure of genitives vs. internal structure of datives must explain why these alternations are more common with datives. • A possibility to explore, suggested to us by Mark Baker p.c., is that when datives alternate in Greek, dative is a structural case inside the PP. [The PP analysis gives us that the dative is sensitive to thematic information. The structural case part gives us the fact that they alternate. ] • Genitives, on the other hand, are still inside a PP but they are NOT structural– apart from the possessor raising constructions. • Related: The unusual fact that genitive is more marked than dative (e.g. as seen in case attraction phenomena).

42. Questions concerning case alternations • What does the alternation of datives/genitives in some of those classes but not others reveal for the structure of these classes? In the structural case hypothesis this would suggest that the verbs that show the alternations assign structural dative inside the PPs. Alternatively, P-incorporation works differently. • We know that prefixes have case-assigning and argument introducing properties in AG that they inherit to verbs under P-incorporation • But prefixed verbs do not correlate 1-to-1 with alternating verbs => non-prefixed verbs alternate as well (in other words, we cannot rely to the overt presence of these prefixes to be arguments for the existence of P-incorporation) • Why is the behavior of datives or genitives with respect to case alternations not uniform within one subclass (e.g. inside the give class)?

43. Diachronic remarks • Morphological dative is lost from the history of Greek. • IO passivisation is also lost. • Lavidas’s 2007 prediction: “When Accusative replaces dative as the case of IOs, IOs lose their ability to passivise” (this is supposed to start during the Hellenistic period)  Implicit causal link between the two.

44. Diachronic remarks • Our preliminary work has revealed that some verbs like: paraino:, diatasso: andme:nuo: (all of the ACC-DAT class) do not behave in that way and retain IO passivisation even after morphological dative is lost. • The key question in the diachrony is still what, if any, is the relationship between loss of morphological dative case and change in the behaviour of IOs vis a vis passivisation. • Also, we should look into the diachronic development of P-incorporation

45. Thank you Ευχαριστούμε