Término medio y causa propia

A significant problem with previous scholarship on the modal categories of Proto-Indo-European has been an essentially tacit assumption that certain morphological categories, such as the subjunctive and optative, should have existed throughout the life of Proto-Indo-European, or that, if they are to be thought of as later developments in the proto-language, they should have emerged fully formed and in their ‘classical’ function. Such an approach is seen, for example, in Jasanoff (2009), who suggests that the Indo-European optative mood developed in the period between the separation of Anatolian from Proto-Indo-European and that of Tocharian ‒ generally accepted as the next branch to separate, despite its relatively late attestation ‒ but makes no effort to explain how it may have developed. This seems to contradict what can be established from studies of the development of living languages. Although phonological developments can introduce new productive morphemes into a system ‒ as seems to have occurred with the OIr. ā- subjunctive (2.2.2) ‒ it is rare for new morphology, syntax, or semantics to be generated spontaneously. Rather, they evolve through a slow process of reanalysis of existing material. Moreover, it is cross-linguistically uncommon for modality to be the first step in such a process, as can be seen from the prevalence in living languages of modal forms which can be traced back to forms with earlier temporal or aspectual functions.20

Although exceptions to any theory of language change can be found, and language universals in the Greenbergian sense (e.g. 1966) are no longer generally accepted, the tendencies observed in typological studies could prove useful in examining how the attested Celtic subjunctive forms relate both to a Proto-Celtic parent form, and an earlier Proto-Indo-European form. They are therefore discussed here ‒ with particular reference to studies of how verbal categories develop ‒ to inform the syntactic and semantic aspects of reconstructing the Proto-Celtic subjunctive. The two principal applications of typology to this problem are the following: first, recognising cross- linguistically common paths of semantic development, allowing a degree of evidence-based conjecture around the earlier usages of morphemes; second, observing that certain syntactic environments are more conservative of earlier morphology and semantics, which may allow

20 _{Cf. the Armenian forms cited in 1.4.3.1, and the development of the Spanish synthetic future into an} epistemic mood, e.g. Tendrá veinte años, ‘he’s probably (about) twenty years old’ (Bybee et al. 1994:202).

26

comparative reconstruction of certain syntagmata associated with the subjunctive in Proto-Celtic, and possibly even Proto-Indo-European.

1.4.3.1 Paths of development

It is well-known that some linguistic changes are likelier than others, and this is acknowledged by both formal (e.g. Lightfoot 1979:149–50) and functional (e.g. Bybee et al. 1994) linguists. Indeed, it is a precondition of linguistic reconstruction that language change must be in some respect predictable. Evidence for this is found in phonology, as well as in semantics and syntax. For example, sound changes like [k] > [tʃ], [p] > [f], [z] > [r], [s] > [h] can be treated as unidirectional, since they are cross-linguistically so common, and their reverse vanishingly rare (Haspelmath 2004:19). Similarly, in lexical semantics there are developments which appear to be unidirectional, and therefore to an extent predictable, forming the basis of the field of historical semantics (cf. Blank and Koch 1999; Allan and Robinson 2011).

Such theories of the directionality of linguistic change can also apply to the semantics of verbal categories. This has been widely explored, and is perhaps most comprehensively explored in Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1994), in which the authors present copious data for developmental pathways for the verbal categories of modality, tense, and aspect.21 _{These ideas have since been} expanded, and the practice of producing ‘semantic maps’ of common paths of development of semantic categories, is now commonplace (van der Auwera and Plungian 1998; van der Auwera, Dobrushina, and Goussev 2003; Ö. Dahl 2008; Croft and Poole 2008; Boye 2010). Although caution must be exercised, a method involving extrapolation on the basis of observable cross- linguistic phenomena seems more reliable than simple comparison of usages found in individual languages, since the usage of forms evidently changes over time.

Some of the tendencies observed in the production of semantic pathways and maps are of particular interest in relation to the development of the subjunctive in both Celtic and Indo- European. As mentioned above (1.4.1), recent publications by Bozzone (2012) and Dahl (2005; 2013) propose that the Indo-European subjunctive should be considered a development of the thematic present tense. This proposal has distinct merits (1.4.1), and is bolstered by the

21 _{Although Bybee et al. treat this as a study of grammaticalisation, this term is so variously applied in the} literature that it will be avoided here: it does not seem necessary, for instance, for the non-regular phonological reduction that is traditionally associated with grammaticalisation to take place for morphemes to follow paths of semantic development. This is the case with the development of Proto- Germanic *magan-/mugan-, ‘be able’ in English (1.4.3.2), which followed regular sound change: OE ic mæg > ModE I may, cf. OE dæg > ModE day; cf. also the development of OArm. subjunctive in -iƈ- from PIE iterative-present *-sk̑e/o-.

27

observable fact that present tenses often develop into future tenses and subjunctives cross- linguistically (Haspelmath 1998). Within Indo-European, for example, this can be seen in the Tocharian subjunctive, which functions synchronically as both a future tense and a subordinate verbal form. Many of the forms of the subjunctive in Tocharian derive from present tense stem forms in Proto-Indo-European, e.g. TB kärnāṃ, ‘(s)he will buy’, < *ku̯_{ri-né-h2-, cf. Vedic krīṇa ́ti, OIr.}

crenaid, alongside recharacterised TB present kärnā-ṣṣä_{/ske-. Similarly, in most modern Armenian}

dialects the subjunctive derives from the Old Armenian simple present tense, e.g. Modern Eastern Armenian kardam, ‘(that) I read’ < OArm. kardam, ‘I read’ (Sayeed and Vaux 2017:1155), while a periphrastic form with the verb ‘to be’ functions as the simple present tense, e.g. kardum em, ‘I read, am reading’.

In contrast, the opposite development does not take place often, if at all. Although examples of ‘demodalisation’ have been suggested by scholars opposed to unidirectionality in grammaticalisation, these are often simple relexicalisations of material that has otherwise assumed grammatical status. Moreover, Ziegeler (2004 passim, especially pp.127‒30) has shown that such relexicalisations are semantically similar to the grammatical material from which they develop, thus following a semantic, if not a morphosyntactic, path of development. Consequently, the suggestions of Jasanoff (2003:180–82) and Ringe (2006:160–61) that Tocharian and Germanic indicative forms derive from Proto-Indo-European subjunctives seem quite unlikely. Admittedly, demodalisation in inflecting languages is not well-studied, so it is unclear whether they behave differently. Nonetheless, explanations of forms which contradict known cross- linguistic tendencies should probably be avoided.

The idea that the Indo-European subjunctive developed from an earlier verbal form is also supported by the observation made by Bybee et al. (1994:213–14) that cross-linguistically the only further development that modal forms tend to undergo after restriction to subordinate clauses is “gradual loss from the language”. Consequently, if the subordinate functions of the Indo- European subjunctive were already its primary function in the parent language, it is unlikely that it would have survived into the daughter languages, since such peripheral verbal forms are easily lost. Again, evidence for such developments can be found in the development from Classical Armenian to Modern Armenian, in which the subjunctive in -iƈ-, already confined to a limited range of functions in Classical Armenian, was ousted by the classical present tense indicative as it became a new subjunctive, and consequently lost (Vaux 1995:141).

Both Bozzone (2012) and Dahl (2005; 2013) have attempted to apply such typological findings to the question of the thematic subjunctive. It is a theoretical framework derived from Bybee et al. (1994) that leads Bozzone to conclude that the subjunctive developed from a marginalised present tense, as a future tense in Proto-Indo-European. Her theory is jeopardised, however, by

28

the fact that the formation she identifies as being the source of the subjunctive is the thematic present *-e_{/o-. She posits that this formation was displaced from its main clause present tense}

functions by more marked formations such as *-i̯e_{/o- or *-sk̑}é_{/ó-presents. There are two obvious}

problems with this suggestion. First, if we consider the evidence of Anatolian, it seems likely that the simple thematic present in *-e_{/o- is younger than the presents in *-i̯}e_{/o- and *-sk̑}é_{/ó-. Anatolian}

is generally taken to be the first Indo-European branch to separate from the family, and attests the latter two formations but not the simple thematic present (1.3.2.1). Assuming that older morphology was displaced by newer formations, we should then expect subjunctives in *-i̯e_{/o- or}

*-sk̑é_{/ó-, rather than the attested *-}e_{/o-. Additionally, the thematic present tense morpheme *-}e_/o-

is a highly productive formation in the branches which attest the thematic subjunctive, making it difficult to believe that it was marginalised already within Proto-Indo-European. As will be shown with examples from Armenian (1.4.3.2), it is more common for newer formations to marginalise older ones, rather than vice versa.

Consequently, it is difficult to maintain the hypothesis that the thematic subjunctive of Proto- Indo-European is directly related to the thematic present. In Chapter 5, after a reconstruction of the Proto-Celtic subjunctive has been offered, we will ask whether the Celtic material can provide new insights into the form of the Proto-Indo-European subjunctive.

1.4.3.2 Conservative environments

As well as the existence of pathways of development followed by verbal forms, it is useful to note that there are certain syntactic environments in which earlier semantics and morphology are preserved, even after ceasing to be productive in main clauses. One such environment is in protases of conditional sentences (Bybee et al. 1994:208–9), as illustrated by the English example ‘If I may make a suggestion,…’. Here, an earlier meaning of ‘may’ as indicating permission or ability of the agent is preserved, significantly closer to Old English mæg in “á mæg God wyrcan wundor

æfter wundre”, “God can work wonder after wonder” (Beowulf l.930, cited in Bybee et al.

1994:193), than its modern usage as a marker of epistemic possibility, as in ‘I may finish by Friday’ (eidem 1994:240). The meaning ‘to be able’ is attested in early Germanic languages from all three branches of the family, e.g. Gothic 1sg. mag, ‘I am able’; OHG magan/mugan, ON mega, both ‘to be able’.22 _{This suggests that this is the earlier meaning of the verb, and that it has} undergone semantic developments in the separate branches of Germanic. We find reflexes of the

22 _{NHG mögen is probably a ‘split’ in the semantics of OHG magan/mugan: its earliest uses with the meaning} ‘to like’ are with verbs of sense, whence the meaning was presumably abstracted further (Diewald 1999:316).

29

Indo-European thematic subjunctive well-attested in conditional protases in Homeric Greek and Early Latin, and in OIr.. They also survive in Vedic conditionals marked with the conjunction ca. Similarly, Bybee et al. note that “subordinate clauses … tend to be conservative grammatically, retaining older syntax and morphology” (1994:231). In practice this means that subjunctives develop from forms which had previously functioned as indicatives when another formation becomes sufficiently productive in main clauses to confine them to subordinate clauses. They illustrate this with examples from the development from Classical to Modern Armenian. The Modern Eastern Armenian present tense is a synthetic formation using a non-finite verbal form suffixed with -um and forms of the verb ‘to be’, e.g. gnum em, ‘I go, am going’ (Kozintseva 1995:24). Alongside this exists the subjunctive, MEA gnam, ‘(that) I go’ (id.:36). In earlier Armenian, however, these forms have different functions: the latter form is that of the simple present tense, and still is in certain irregular verbs, e.g. MEA gitem ‘I know’ (Haspelmath 1998:31). The periphrastic form develops in Middle Armenian, where it functions as a progressive present, providing a contrast similar to that between Modern English ‘I go’ and ‘I am going’. As the periphrastic form became more frequent, perhaps because it reduced the variety of forms in the language,23 _{the synthetic present became increasingly limited in its scope, until it was restricted} to a few environments,24 _{becoming grammaticalised as a subjunctive. It seems possible, then, that} the distribution of the subjunctive found in the Indo-European languages ‒ i.e. limited to subordinate contexts ‒ is unlikely to be original, but rather a result of grammaticalisation either late in Proto-Indo-European or in the daughter languages themselves. In Celtic, too, it is possible that the range of contexts in which the subjunctive is found is more limited than it would have been in Proto-Celtic.

The findings of Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca about preservation of earlier meanings of verbal forms in environments such as conditional protases also point towards a more fundamental problem in the reconstruction of the semantics of the Proto-Indo-European subjunctive, namely that the semantics of modal forms are often pragmatically conditioned. This has been recognised since at least the work of Palmer (1986), and can be illustrated by the English utterances ‘He must phone us as soon as he arrives’ and ‘He must be in the office by now’. In the first of these utterances, the modal verb must is deontic, asserting an obligation to be discharged by the subject 23 _{All indicatives in MEA except for the aorist are now periphrastic with forms of ‘to be’ (Kozintseva} 1995:24), reflecting a tendency in the language to reduce its inflectional variety.

24 _{Namely (a) future formations with the prefixes kʿǝ or pʿitʿi, depending on dialect; (b) purpose clauses; (c)} protases of conditional sentences; (d) in temporal clauses with the conjunction meaning ‘until’; (e) in complement clauses to the verb ‘be necessary’; (f) with volitional or deontic force in main clauses (Bybee et al. 1994:231; Kozintseva 1995:36ff.).

30

of the utterance, here a third party. In the latter utterance, however, the verb must is epistemic, and represents an expression of the speaker’s commitment to the truth value of the proposition, here a strong commitment. There is clearly no morphological distinction between these readings: it is entirely context-dependent. Moreover, languages can attest more than one exponent of deontic and epistemic modality at the same time: in Latin, for example, the synchronic subjunctive is both deontic and epistemic, e.g. moneat, ‘(s)he should warn’ (deontic) or ‘(s)he may warn’ (epistemic). The interpretation is conditioned by grammatical and pragmatic context. Deontic modality, however, is also grammaticalised in Latin in the imperative for the 2/3sg./pl., e.g. 3sg.

monētō, ‘let him warn’, although the third person forms are clearly receding throughout the

documented period, being replaced by the subjunctive. It is unrealistic, therefore, to expect a one- to-one correspondence both between form and function and between function and form in the parent language. Moreover, since it is impossible to reconstruct the pragmatics of Proto-Indo- European or Proto-Celtic, we have no way of determining which contexts may have conditioned which form or function.