Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Open Access Variation versus Change

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Variation versus Change

  • HTML
  • PDF
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

Clausal Clitics between Homer and Herodotus

image of Indo-European Linguistics

Enclitic distribution in Greek (and archaic Indo-European generally) is governed by a set of generalizations known as WACKERNAGEL’S LAW, according to which enclitics occur in “second position.” As has long been known, surface exceptions to Wackernagel’s Law in Homer are uncommon, but in Herodotus are far more frequent. Wackernagel himself attributed this difference to syntactic change: in Homer a single mechanism is responsible for second-position clitic distribution, while in Herodotus the old second-position rule competes with new placement rules. Although the nature of these innovative mechanisms has never been explicated, philologists have adopted this view with apparent unanimity. The central claim of this paper is that the alleged syntactic change is an illusion. What Wackernagel and others have observed in Homer and Herodotus is a difference in usage, not grammar. Specifically, Herodotus uses constructions that yield non-canonical surface patterns (i.e., the clitic is not “second” in its clause) more often than Homer. As the same generalizations capture the distribution of clitics in both Homer and Herodotus, there is no validity to the claim that Wackernagel’s Law is weaker in the classical period than in the archaic, or that there are new distributional rules at work.

Affiliations: 1: University of California, Los Angeles dgoldstein@humnet.ucla.edu

10.1163/22125892-00401006
/content/journals/10.1163/22125892-00401006
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
10
5
Loading

Enclitic distribution in Greek (and archaic Indo-European generally) is governed by a set of generalizations known as WACKERNAGEL’S LAW, according to which enclitics occur in “second position.” As has long been known, surface exceptions to Wackernagel’s Law in Homer are uncommon, but in Herodotus are far more frequent. Wackernagel himself attributed this difference to syntactic change: in Homer a single mechanism is responsible for second-position clitic distribution, while in Herodotus the old second-position rule competes with new placement rules. Although the nature of these innovative mechanisms has never been explicated, philologists have adopted this view with apparent unanimity. The central claim of this paper is that the alleged syntactic change is an illusion. What Wackernagel and others have observed in Homer and Herodotus is a difference in usage, not grammar. Specifically, Herodotus uses constructions that yield non-canonical surface patterns (i.e., the clitic is not “second” in its clause) more often than Homer. As the same generalizations capture the distribution of clitics in both Homer and Herodotus, there is no validity to the claim that Wackernagel’s Law is weaker in the classical period than in the archaic, or that there are new distributional rules at work.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/journals/22125892/4/1/22125892_004_01_s003_text.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1163/22125892-00401006&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah
/content/journals/10.1163/22125892-00401006
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/22125892-00401006
Loading
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/22125892-00401006
2016-01-01
2017-10-19

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation