© 2016 he Authors. duulishing rights uelong to the Journtl. Ditvronit4, August 1, 2016,A54(1–18)
On the origin of inlected “non-inite” forms:
the ininitive vs the supine
Adint Drtgomiresvu , ˚, Alextndru bivolte, ˚
“Iorgu Iordan – Al. Rosetti” Institute of Linguistics, 13 Calea 13 Septembrie, 050711 Bucharest, Romania Faculty of Letters, University of Bucharest, 5–7 Edgar Quinet St., 010017 Bucharest, Romania
Article info History:
feveived June 1, 2016 Avvepted June 11, 2016 duulished August 1, 2016
Key words: inlevted ininitive supine
ditvhroniv vhtnge struvture enrivhment
Abstract
his ptper detls with two verutl forms whivh, despite ueing trtditiontlly lt-uelled ts “non-inite”, displty inlevtion/tgreement. We will fovus on the ueht-viour tnd origin of the inlevted ininitive tttested in fomtnve tnd in ltngutges from other ftmilies, tgtinst whivh we tntlyse the novel inlevted supine found in the north-etstern tret where fomtnitn is spoken (vomprising the fepuuliv of aoldovt, Ukrtine tnd the north-etstern ptrt of the fomtnitn provinve of aoldovt). he gotl of the ptper is to identify the vommon ptths of ditvhroniv vhtnge of these verutl forms tnd to put forwtrd t formtl tvvount of the ou-served ditvhroniv vhtnges. From t ditvhroniv perspevtive, our tntlysis shows thtt the funvtiontl struvture of non-inite forms mty uevome more enrivhed, t vonvlusion thtt is tt odds with trtditiontl indings, whivh genertlly trgue for simpliivttion, not enrivhment of funvtiontl struvture. At the stme time, the proposed tntlysis tlso ofers some insights into the ditvhrony of the supine mtrkerde.
1. Introduction
In this ptper we present the most signiivtnt linguistiv dttt reltted to the inlevted ininitive found in fomtnve tnd in ltngutges from other ftmilies, fovusing our tttention on the origin tnd evolution of these forms ts they tre presented in the litertture. We then turn to t series of revent spevitl ustges of the fomtnitn supine in the aoldtvitn vtriety employed in he fepuuliv of aoldovt, Ukrtine tnd north-etstern fomtnit1, whivh uring the fomtnitn supine vloser to the fomtnve inlevted ininitive. Fintlly,
we put forwtrd t sventrio whivh tvvounts uoth for the innovttions in the morphosynttx of the fomtnitn supine (the enrivhment of its funvtiontl struvture) tnd for the ditvhroniv revttegorizttion of the supine mtrkerde.
cn the utsis of the dttt presented uelow, our gotl is to tnswer the following questions: (i) to whtt degree is the invlusion of these inlevted forms in the snon-inite’ vttegory justiied?;
(ii) whtt is the relevtnve of the origin tnd evolution of these forms for their morphosynttvtiv uehtviour?; (iii) whtt tre the deinitiontl fettures of the ininitive (tnd of non-inite forms in genertl), invluding
vontrol properties, tuility to tvvept t suujevt tnd morphology?;
(iv) do the ditvhroniv vhtnges thtt tfevt these forms tlso letd to provesses of grtmmttivtlizttion? We htve vhosen to vomptre the fomtnitn supine with the inlevted ininitive from other ltngutges uevtuse, of the fomtnitn non-inite forms, only the supine tppetrs to ftvour the ttttvhment of inlev-tiontl mtrkers, while the ininitive remtins non-inlevted for person tnd numuer. he tntlysis of the
˚Emtil tddresses:
[email protected],[email protected].
1In this ptper, we will mostly use dttt exverpted from the internet; however, we htve identiied inlevted supines in
fomtnitn supine will ue shown to vontriuute to t uetter understtnding of the vttegory of siniteness’, t vonvept insuiviently understood in vurrent synttvtiv theorizing, tnd of the ditvhrony of this vttegory
(seeLedgewty,2007;Vinvent,1998).
2. he inlected ininitive
Before delving into the tntlysis of the inlevted ininitive dttt, it is nevesstry to mtke t terminologivtl vlt-riivttion (followingLedgewty,1998): we distinguish uetween the‘personal’ ininitiveptrtivultr to mtny ltngutges invluding fomtnitn (seeaensvhing,2000), t form whivh mty ttke its own lexivtl suujevt in the nominttive(1), tnd the‘inlected’/‘conjugated’ ininitivelimited to t more limited numuer of ltngutges tnd whivh displtys person tnd numuer tgreement with the suujevt(2).
In whtt follows, we exvlusively detl with the sinlevted’/svonjugtted’ ininitive, whivh is tttested in ltngutges distinvt from t genetlogivtl tnd typologivtl point of view: dortuguese, Gtlivitn, gtrdinitn, gouthern Ittlitn Ditlevts from gouth Ctlturit, cld betpolittn, cld Leonese (of the fomtnve vtrieties), Hungtritn, Welsh, West Greenltndiv, Evenki (t atnvhu-Tungusiv ltngutge) tnd, proutuly, Greek.
ailler(2003) formultted the hypothesis thtt the emergenve of the inlevted ininitive is determined
uy the presenve of the lexivtl suujevt (tllowed uy the inlevted ininitive only in very restrivted vontexts –
Ledgewty,2000,2007), whivh hts inherent suujevt tgreement fettures (i.e.,phi-fettures).
(1) Întinte de t veni varasubject,
uefore of to vome.i summer. .
tm munvit mult. (fomtnitn)
x. .1 worked t.lot
sBefore the summer vtme, we worked t lot’
(2) ssing’
Europetn
dortuguese Brtsilitndortuguese Gtlivitn cldLeonese gtrdinitn cldbetpolittn
1 cantar-Ø cantar-Ø cantar-Ø cantar-Ø kantáre-po cantare-Ø 2 cantar-es cantar-es cantar-es kantáre-s cantare-Ø 3 cantar-Ø cantar-Ø cantar-Ø cantar-Ø kantáre-t cantare-Ø 1 cantar-mos cantar-mos cantar-mos cantar-mos kantáre-mus cantare-mo 2 cantar-des cantar-des cantar-des kantáre-dzis cantare-vo/ve 3 cantar-em cantar-em cantar-en cantar-en kantáre-n cantare-no
(Groothuis,2015)
2.1. he Romance languages 2.1.1. Portuguese
cf the fomtnve ltngutges, the dortuguese inlevted ininitive(3)hts ueen suujevt to most tttention in the litertture (ftposo,1987;atdeirt,1994;dires,2002;ailler,2003;atrtins,2006;Bosstglit,2013;
Ctrvtlho,2015i.t.). As is ouvious from(3u), the suujevt of the inlevted ininitive mty ue overtly retlised
(see tlsofouveret,1980).
(3) t. Depois de chegarem, fugimos
tter of trrive.i .3 led.1
sAter they trrived, we led’
u. despois de eles chegarem virtm ts ruínts
tter of they. trrive.i .3 stw.3 the ruins
stter they trrived, they stw the ruins’
(Willis,1971, p. 338,apudLedgewty,1998, p. 7)
Groothuis(2015) shows thtt the struvture in whivh the Europetn dortuguese inlevted ininitive is
em-ployed is uivltustl, on the utsis of two ditgnostivs: the mttrix veru tnd the emuedded ininitive mty htve distinvt lexivtl suujevts(4t), tnd uoth predivttes mty ue simulttneously modiied uy the stme tdveruitl (4u):
(4) t. Nósltmenttmos terem eles reveuido pouvo dinheiro
we regret htve.i .3 they reveived little money
sWe regret thtt they htve reveived little money’ (ftposo,1987, p. 97)
u. É provavelmente diivíl os deputtdos aprovarem
it.is proutuly diivult the deputies tpprove.i .3
provavelmente a proposta
proutuly the propostl
sIt is proutuly diivult thtt the deputies proutuly tpprove the propostl’ (tdtpted fromftposo,1987, p. 97)
here tre signiivtnt diferenves uetween cld tnd aodern dortuguese with respevt to the distriuution of the inlevted ininitive. First, while in aodern dortuguese this form is tvtiltule only in emuedded vltuses
(ftposo,1987, p. 86), in cld dortuguese it vould tppetr in uoth mtin tnd emuedded vltuses (atrtins,
2006, p. 342). gevond, there tre signiivtnt diferenves uetween the two sttges of dortuguese with respevt to the ininitive selevted uy vtusttive verus tnd direvt perveption verus: while the vtnonivtl ininitive is selevted uy these vltsses of verus in uoth sttges of dortuguese(5t), the inlevted ininitive is not tttested in cld dortuguese in these vontexts, uut it is perfevtly grtmmttivtl in present-dty dortuguese(5u)(see tlso
gheehtn,2015, where t series of less vttegorivtl indings tre presented); thus, extmples like(5u)tre not
tttested in pre-15thv. dortuguese, uut tre perfevtly grtmmttivtl sttrting with the 15thv. (atrtins,2006).
(5) t. atndei/ Vi os polívits prender o ltdrão
sent/ stw the vorps trrest.i the thief
u. atndei/ Vi os polívits prenderem o ltdrão
sent/ stw the vorps trrest.i .3 the thief
sI mtde/I stw the polivemen dettin the thief ’ (atrtins,2006, p. 327)
(6) t. c medivo não o mtndou ueuer vinho
the dovtor not . . .3 sent drink.i wine
u. c medivo mtndou-o não ueuer vinho
the dovtor sent= . . .3 not drink.i wine
she dovtor didn’t send him to drink wine’ (atrtins,2006, p. 328)
(7) t. atndou-lho entregtr
sent.3 = . . . =it. give.i
u. atndou entregtr-lho
sent.3 give.i = . . .3 =it.
sHe/she sent to give it to him’
(atrtins,2006, p. 328)
atrtins(2006) shows thtt these phenoment tre indivttive of t synttvtiv vhtnge, from t more reduved to
t more extended funvtiontl struvture, in the history of the dortuguese ininitive. For the tntlysis of the fomtnitn ditlevttl supine, we will keep in mind the idet thtt the funvtiontl struvture of non-inite forms undergoes t ditvhroniv provess of enrivhment.
2.1.2. Sardinian
felevtnt dttt on the gtrdinitn inlevted ininitive(8)tre given espevitlly uyJones(1992,1993,2003)
tndailler(2003). In gtrdinitn, the inlevted ininitive is devoid of temportl tutonomy tnd does not
htve tn inlevtiontlly speviiv proile, ueing synvretiv with t inite form, the imperfevt suujunvtive. his synvretism results from the vommon origin of these forms, the Lttin imperfevt suujunvtive (Jones,1993, p. 278).
(8) ssing’
gingultr dlurtl
1 cantárepo cantáremus 2 cantares cantáredzis 3 cantaret cantaren
(Jones,1992, p. 298)
he diferenve uetween the two verutl forms is tpptrently given uy the type of vomplementizer whivh introduves them tnd uy the position of the suujevt. In(9t)the imperfevt suujunvtive tppetrs in vltuse hetded uy the inite vomplementizerki, tnd the suujevt is preverutl, while in(9u)the inlevted ininitive is hetded uya, tnd the suujevt is postverutl (Jones,1993, p. 279). Word order diferenves of this type usutlly vorreltte with diferent V-rtising options in the funvtiontl struvture of the vltuse (I / V-to-C), t further potentitl diferenve uetween these two forms.
(9) t. non vredío ki Juanne ésseret inoke
not thought.1 thtt John ue. j.i here
sI did not think thtt John wts here’ (Jones,1993, p. 279)
u. non kelio t cantares tue
not wtnt1. to sing.i .2 you.
sI don’t wtnt you to sing’
(Jones,1992, p. 297)
(10) t. devo tvvtuutre vustu trtvtllu primt de ghirtret su mere
must.1 inish.i this work uefore to return.i .3 the uoss
sI must inish this jou uefore the uoss returns’ (Jones,1993, p. 279)
u. ?provo t travallarepo
try.1 to work.i .1
sI tm trying to work’
(Jones,1993, p. 280)
2.1.3. Old Neapolitan
he cld betpolittn inlevted ininitive (tntlysed espevitlly uyLedgewty,2007,2009,Vinvent,1998tnd
ailler,2003) tppetrs in two types of vontexts (Ledgewty,2007, p. 338–339). In non-ouligttory vontrol
vonigurttions, the inlevted ininitive is tlso t persontl ininitive, i.e. it vtn ttke its own suujevt(11t–u). In ouligttory vontrol vonigurttions, the suujevt of the ininitive is ouligttorily shtred with the selevting predivtte, tnd the ininitive is devoid of temportl independenve(11v). In uoth distriuutiontl vontexts, it is preveded uyaorde, whivh htve ueen tntlysed ts vomplementizers. he inlevted ininitive hts speviiv forms only in the plurtl; its singultr forms tre synvretiv with the vtnonivtl ininitive—see the Ttule in (2)tuove. Avvording toLedgewty(2007, p. 340–341), the ptrtdigmttiv pressure of the singultr, whivh vonttined only forms synvretiv with the vtnonivtl ininitive, determined the loss of the plurtl inlevtion of the ininitive.
(11) t. tve pltzuto t li nuostri Diey denuy esseremo in questt ptrte
hts pletsed the our Gods of us ue.i .1 in these ptrts
sit pletsed our Gods for us to ue in these ptrts’
(Ledgewty,2009, p. 600)
u. per nuy averemo ordene
for we htve.i .1 orders
sso thtt we mty reveive orders’
(Ledgewty,2009, p. 922)
v. se nui tvertevtmo de leandarimo tppriesso
if we vonsidered of . .3 =go.i .1 tter
non ne svtptvt nissviu(n)o
not . .1 =esvtped not.one
sif we htd intended to go tter them, not one of them would htve got twty’
(Ledgewty,2007, p. 338)
2.1.4. Southern Italian Dialects
Although trtditiontl svholtrship does not revord the existenve of the inlevted ininitive in southern Ctlturitn vtrieties,Ledgewty(1998) hts shown thtt the vltuses hetded uymu/ma/mi(< Ltt. ) tre ininitivtl (see tlsoailler,2003,Ledgewty,2007), in opposition to those hetded uyca-/chi-, whivh tre inite. he following trguments htve ueen invoked for grtnting ininitivtl stttus to the modern relexes
of Ltt. (Ledgewty,1998,2007; see tlsoTtylor,2016for t disvussion of in bivoterese):
(i) the only possiule word order is suujevt > (12t), whivh indivttes thtt is not t
vomple-mentizer, ts vomplementizers tre higher thtn the suujevt in the vltustl hiertrvhy;
(ii) vtn vo-ovvur with tnother vomplementizer, ntmelyca, espevitlly in hortttive sentenves (in
(12u),chimmu<ca+mu);
(iii) vltuses hetded uy tre devoid of temportl independenve; their tense is tntphoriv, i.e. fully
(12) t. vostra mama mu vi vidi Ctvtleri
your mother to .2 see.i .3 gentlemen
sfor your mother to see you, gentlemen’
(nungri,Fiori Selvatici, 1894, p. 125,apudLedgewty,1998, p. 24)
u. vi promettu, si non vi ptgu, chimmu moru svhjettu!
.2 promise.1 if not .2 plty.1 -i die.1 utvhelor
sI promise you, if I don’t pty you, (it is my whish) thtt I mty die t utvhelor’ (giderno,Filocamo, 1984, p. 41,apudLedgewty,1998, p. 30)
hus, southern Ctlturitn is tn ininitivtl mtrker, just likeatnddein other fomtnve vtrieties, tnd
the verutl form it introduves is similtr to the inlevted ininitive.
2.2. Non-Romance languages
he dttt on the inlevted ininitive in non-fomtnve idioms tre rtther svtnt, henve proutuly invomplete. Forms vonsidered ts mttvhing the fomtnve inlevted ininitive htve ueen revorded in gttndtrd Greek tnd fomeykt (/dontiv Greek, t ditlevt of Greek spoken in north-etstern Turkey), Hungtritn, Evenki, tnd Welsh.
2.2.1. Greek
With respevt to gttndtrd aodern Greek,ailler(2003) vonsiders thtt the verutl form inlevted for person
tnd numuer tgreement with the suujevt tnd preveded uynais qutsi-ininitivtl, on t ptr with whtt wts
noted tuove for southern Ctlturitn. However, most svholtrs htve tntlysed thena-struvtures ts
suu-junvtives whivh htve ditvhronivtlly repltved the ininitive.ailler(2003) supports his propostl with the following trguments:
(i) these struvtures tppetr in ouligttory vontrol vonigurttions(13);
(ii) weak cross-over efectsindivtte thtt the suujevt of thena-forms is dfc(14); (iii) thena-struvture mty ue domintted uy t determiner/trtivle(14).
(13) t. i atrit prosptthi-s-e na diavas-i
the atrit. . try. .3 to retd.3
satry tried to retd’
u. ? i atrit prosptthise na divas-un
the atrit. . try. .3 to retd.3
satry tried for them to retd’
(Terzi,1997, p. 338)
(14) pioninevritz-i todfci na plen-i to ttokinito (tu) ti
whom upset.3 the to wtsh.3 the vtr his
swho does wtshing his/the vtr upset’ (Terzi,1997, p. 346)
fomeykt presents two fettures whivh distinguish its ininitivtl system from thtt of gttndtrd aodern Greek (gittridou,2014): (i) the vtnonivtl tnd the persontl ininitive (i.e. the ininitive thtt mty ttke its own suujevt) htve ueen preserved, tnd (ii) there emerged t novel form, the inlevted ininitive(15).
(15) ssty’
gingultr dlurtl
1 ipina ipiname
2 ipines ipinete
3 ipine ipinane
gittridou(2014) tvvounts for the emergenve of the fomeykt inlevted ininitive through the inluenve of
2.2.2. Hungarian
As shown uyailler(2003), Hungtritn possesses t vtnonivtl ininitive, whose ending is–ni, tnd tn
inlev-ted ininitive, in the struvture of whivh the morpheme–niis followed uy person tnd numuer tgreement
mtrkers. he inlevted ininitive hts ueen tttested sinve cld Hungtritn. While the vtnonivtl ininitive hts t vontrolled dfc suujevt(16t), the suujevt of the inlevted ininitive is either overtly retlised or null (i.e.pro)(16u):
(16) t. sikerült odfc kinyit-ni tz tjtó-t]
suvveeded open.i the door.
sopening the door suvveeded’
u. sikerült opro kinyit-n-om tz tjtó-t]
suvveeded open.i .1 the door.
sI suvveeded in opening the door’ (Kiss,1987, p. 222)
2.3. he origin of the inlected ininitive
ailler(2003) identiies two genertl sourves for the inlevted ininitive: the purpose suujunvtive (in
fo-mtnve tnd Btlktn ltngutges) tnd the tdjunvtion of pronomintl elements on nomintlizttions (in Hun-gtritn, West Greenltndiv, tnd Welsh). However, the tntlysis of t uigger numuer of ltngutges shows thtt the sourves of the inlevted ininitive tre more diverse.
2.3.1. he inlected ininitive originating rom other verb forms
2.3.1.1.At letst three hypotheses htve ueen put forwtrd for the origin of the dortuguese inlevted inin-itive (seedires,2002;ailler,2003;gvidt,2004;Ctrvtlho,2015):
(i) José atritfodrigues(1913) vltims thtt the inlevted ininitive direvtly desvends from the Lttin imperfevt suujunvtive, uoth with respevt to its form(17), tnd with respevt to some of its funvtions; this “suujunvtive” remtined in use until the 15th–16thventuries (Ledgewty,1998, p. 6).
(17) Ltt. > dtg. tmtr-mos
love.i .1 slove’
(ii) heodoro Henriqueaturer(1984) vltims thtt the origin of the inlevted ininitive is the persontl ininitive; in other words, the inlevted ininitive emerged tntlogivtlly tnd sponttneously from the persontl ininitive with t nominttive suujevt.
(iii)Gtmillsvheg(1970), tlso followed uyailler(2003), puts forwtrd t mixed hypothesis, tvvording to whivh the inlevted ininitive resulted from the overltpping uetween the Lttin imperfevt suujunvtive tnd the fomtnve ininitive in speviiv vontexts:
(18) t. Ltt. dltvuit (nōuis) vende-re
pletsed.3 we. sell.i
sit wts tgreetule (to us) to sell’
u. VLtt. dltvuit nouis ut venderemus
pletsed.3 we. sell. j.i .1
sit wts tgreed thtt we sell’
(fouerts,1953–1957, p. 30–31)
v. VLtt. dltvuit venderemus
pletsed sell. j.i .1
d. dtg. tgrtdou-nos vendermos
pletsed.3 -us sell.i .1 sit pletsed us to sell’
As shown uyailler(2003), the Lttin ininitive(18t)tnd imperfevt suujunvtive(18u)were funvtiontlly equivtlent tnd ovvurred in free vtrittion in mtny texts. ginve Etrly Lttin, the vomplementizerut(sto, in order thtt/to’) wts frequently omitted ts in(18v)(seedires,2002, p. 145). Avvordingly, tt the utsis of the dortuguese inlevted ininitive lie struvtures like(18v), the ditvhroniv vhtnge ueing ftvoured uy the formtl resemultnve of the Lttin tnd dortuguese vtnonivtl tvtive ininitive (Ltt.vendere, dtg.vender) tnd uy other vommon vontexts of ovvurrenve.
2.3.1.2.he sourve of the cld betpolittn inlevted ininitive is the Lttin pluperfevt indivttive (
Lopor-vtro,1986; Ledgewty,1998, p. 6; atrtin atiden, p.v., expresses serious douuts tuout the tvvurtvy of
this hypothesis, trguing thtt the inlevted ininitive is uuilt with the imperfevtive stem tnd not with the perfevtive stem, speviiv to the pluperfevt). Interestingly, in cld betpolittn tll non-inite forms tlso htd inlevted vtritnts, tlueit not used with the stme frequenvy for tll persons (Loporvtro,1986, p. 173–174).
(19) ( ) ( ) >amàramoswe htd loved’ >amare-mo/t’mtrəmə/ slove.i .1 ’
2.3.1.3.he origin of the fomeykt inlevted ininitive is the vtnonivtl ininitive. gittridou(2014) puts forwtrd the following sventrio depivting this provess: the vontrtftvtive formixa(sI htd’) plus the ininit-ive is tttested in the medievtl period; tppetring in strivt tdjtvenvy to the veruixa, the ininitive develops tntlogiv inlevtion, identivtl to the torist ofixa(20). Antlogy wts tlso ftvoured uy the formtl identity uetween the vtnonivtl ininitive tnd the third person form of the torist. guusequently, the inlevted ininitive spretd ts t vomplement of modtl verus tnd, due to the ftvt thtt fomeykt does not possess vomplementizers, in other vontexts ts well (ts t vomplement of volitiontl, vtusttive tnd perveption verus).
(20) t. ixe ipina
htd.3 sty. .i .1
sIf I htd stid’
u. ixe ipines
htd.3 sty. .i .2
sIf you htd stid’
2.3.2. he inlected ininitive originating rom other classes of words
2.3.2.1. he Welsh inlevted ininitive is the result of the retntlysis of some inlevting prepositions ts ininitive tgreement mtrkers(21u)(ailler,2004). Welsh does not htve tn ininitive form with dedivtted inlevtiontl mtrking, uut it does htve verutl nouns whivh tre sometimes tvvomptnied uy the prepositioni
(sto’, sfor’). he inlevted ininitive thus resulted from the merger uetween the mtrkeri, tgreement mtrkers tnd the verutl noun; the entire vomplex possesses person inlevtion tnd the prepositioniis retntlysed ts tn ininitivtl mtrker(22).
(21) t. i-dtw sto him’ (aiddle Welsh)
u. i-ddo sto-3 . ’ (aodern Welsh)
(22) detth y dyn oi-ddynt ei gweld hi]
vtme the mtn to.3 3 . see. i her
sthe mtn vtme so they vould see her’ (Ttllermtn,1998, p. 119)
2.3.2.2.Fintlly, the sourve of the Evenki inlevted ininitive(23u)is the mtrker of nomintl possession
(23) t. dossessed nouns (bedjtlkov,1995, p. 443;1997, p. 143)
d’u-v smy house’ d’u-vun sour house’
d’u-s syour house’ d’u-sun syour house’
d’u-n shis/her house’ d’u-tyn stheir house’
u. dossessed–raki–formttion (–raki–= noninite suix;baka–sind’)
baka-raki-v sind.I’ baka-raki-vun sind.we’
baka-raki-s sind.you’ baka-raki-sun sind.you’
baka-raki-n sind.he/she’ baka-raki-tyn sind.they’
2.4. Results and problems
From this urief survey of the inlevted ininitive tnd of its origin, we vtn drtw t few more genertl ouser-vttions:
(i) not only the ininitive, uut tlso other non-inite verutl forms htve inlevted/(suujevt) tgreeing vtri-tnts; in whtt follows, we will show thtt the fomtnitn supine is suvh t form with t non-inlevted tnd tn inlevted vtritnt;
(ii) the sourve of the fomtnve inlevted ininitive is not the vtnonivtl ininitive, uut inite forms (the suujunvtive, the indivttive); the invlusion of these forms in the vltss of sininitives’ is due to their distriuutiontl (synttvtiv) rtther thtn inlevtiontl properties;
(iii) of the tntlysed ltngutges, it tppetrs thtt the inlevted ininitive developed out of the vtnonivtl in-initive only in fomeykt tnd Hungtritn (the ltuel sinlevted inin-initive’ thus seems most tppropritte when tpplied to these ltngutges); we will show thtt the fomtnitn inlevted supine is tn extension of the vtnonivtl supine, t ftvt whivh drtws fomtnitn vloser to Greek vtrieties or Hungtritn rtther thtn to the fomtnve ltngutges.
Furthermore, in view of the dttt tntlysed, one mty wonder whtt t non-inite form is tnd how tn sinin-itive’ vtn ue deined. How is it possiule to distinguish tn inlevted ininitive from t suujunvtive in view of the ftvt thtt uoth forms tre inlevted tnd mty tssign nominttive vtse to the suujevt? It is true thtt the vtnonivtl ininitive is snon-inite’ in the morphologivtl sense (i.e. it does not displty numuer tnd person tgreement with the suujevt) (seeLedgewty,2007, p. 336 for the vonvept of smorphologivtl initeness’), uut the inlevted ininitive is morphologivtlly inite. dotentitl tnswers to these questions mty ue given if we tdopt t svtltr view on initeness, ts proposed uyLedgewty(1998, p. 8), vf.(24).
(24) t. o`Tense,`Agr] Ñ inite vltuses (ptst, present, future)
u. o`Tense,´Agr] Ñ persontl ininitive (with distinvt suujevt)
v. o´Tense,`Agr] Ñ inlevted ininitive (with vontrolled suujevt)
d. o´Tense,´Agr] Ñ vtnonivtl ininitive
In this representttion,(t)tnd(d)represent the unmtrked options tvtiltule in mtny ltngutges, while(u) tnd(v)represent points of signiivtnt vross-linguistiv vtrittion (see, for dettils,Ledgewty,2000,2007). In the next sevtion, we will tlso identify the position of the fomtnitn supine in this typology.
3. he Romanian supine: standard vs dialectal
It is t well-known ftvt thtt the fomtnitn supine is t non-inite formstricto sensu, i.e. it does not displty morphologivtl vtrittion tnd, in genertl, does not tvvept t lexivtl suujevt, with t few exveptions (dtnă
Dindelegtn,2011; Drtgomiresvu,2011). Its distriuution is limited to t few well delimited synttvtiv
(25) t. Termină de scris articolul.
inishes write. trtivle. .
sHe/ghe inishes writing the trtivle’
u. *Termină de îl scris.
inishes . . .3 write.
v. *Termină de nu/ne- scris trtivolul.
inishes not write. trtivle. .
d. *Termină de mai scris.
inishes more write.
e. Nu îl mai termină de scris.
not . . .3 more inishes write.
sHe/ghe htsn’t yet inishing writing it’
In some vtrieties of fomtnitn spoken in he fepuuliv of aoldovt, Ukrtine tnd north-etstern fomtnit, the supine uehtves diferently:
(i) it hts t wider distriuution thtn in gttndtrd fomtnitn;
(ii) it mty vomuine with pronomintl vlitivs, vltustl negttion, tnd vlitiv tdveruitls in verttin vontexts; (iii) it mty relevt tgreement with the suujevt when it is selevted uy the verutrebui(smust, htve to’) or
when it tppetrs intough-vonstruvtions.
3.1. Combination with pronominal clitics
he tuility of the supine to host pronomintl vlitivs in these fomtnitn vtrieties hts ueen revorded uy
Gtuinsvhi(2010) tnd tntlysed uyDrtgomiresvu & Hill(2014) tndDrtgomiresvu(2015). his property
mtnifests itself in the following vontexts:
(i) tter modtl verus suvh tsa avea(shtve’) (with t persontl ptrtdigm),a trebui(smust, htve to’),a putea
(svtn, ue tule to’) (used ts impersontl verus):
(26) t. fusit tre de ne plătit dtune
fussit hts . .1 pty. vompensttion.
sfussit hts to pty vompensttions to us’ (historit.ro)
u. Avem de ne plătit impozitele
htve. .1 . .1 pty. ttx.
sWe htve to pty our ttxes’ (www.uistritetnul.ro)
v. mti tveți de îi adus pe mtmt
still htve. .2 . .3 uring. mother
și tttt lui Lilitnt
tnd ftther i. Lilitnt
smou still need to uring Lilitnt’s mother tnd ftther’ (zitrulnttiontl.md)
(27) t. Treuuie de le făcut ouservtție urgent
must . .3 mtke. ouservttion urgently
scne must urgently let them know’ (inprofunzime.md)
u. treuuie de le lăsat potrtt desvhisă spre plevtre
must . .3 letve. door open for letving
sone must let the door open for them to letve’ (m.puulivt.md)
v. Treuuie identiivtt persotne inluente și de
must identify. / persons inluent. tnd
le convins să vină în uotrd
. .3 vonvinve. ă j vome in uotrd
(28) t. vîte trgumente se potte de
how.mtny trguments . .i vtn
le adus vontrt lu Ghimpu
. .3 uring. tgtinst i. Ghimpu
show mtny trguments vtn one uring tgtinst Ghimpu?’ (www.puulikt.md)
u. se potte de le aruncat
. .i vtn . .3 throw.twty.
sone vtn throw them twty’ (www.puulikt.md)
(ii) tter tspevtutl verus suvh tsa se apuca de(ssttrt’),a termina(sinish’),a se opri(sstop’):
(29) t. mă gîndesv să mă tpuv
. .1 think. .1 ă j . .1 sttrt. .1
de le citit
. .3 retd.
sI tm thinking of sttrting retding these’ (jurntlul-unei-vititotre.ulogspot.vom)
u. după ve termini de le arătat vtmerele
tter.whtt inish. .2 . .3 show. rooms. .
stter you inish showing them the rooms’ (hd.porttltv.ro)
v. nu m-tm oprit de le luat
not . .1 = x. .1 stop. . .3 ttke.
sI did not stop ttking them’ (www.ntturtpltnt.ro) (iii) tter vonttive verus suvh tsa încerca(stry’):
(30) vt tveste răspunsuri să merite
thtt these tnswers ă j worth. j.3
de învervtt de le căutat
try. . .3 look.for.
sin order for these tnswers to ue worth looking for’ (www.opinii.md) (iv) ttere greu de(i.e. stough-vonstruvtions’):
(31) t. eu vred vă testet mivi e mti greu
I uelieve thtt these little is more tough
de le făcut
. .3 mtke.
sI think thtt these little ones tre tougher to mtke’ (www.torrentsmd.vom)
u. uune sftturi, greu de le urmat
good tdvive. tough . .3 follow.
sgood tdvive, tough to follow’ (ulogs.ftnuox.vom) (v) tter tdjevtives ttking vomplements introduved uyde:
(32) demne de le urmat
worthy. . . .3 follow.
sworthy of following them’ (ro-ro.ftveuook.vom) (vi) in topiv predivtte fronting vonstruvtions:
(33) vă de le pus în getntă, tot vretu
thtt . .3 put. in purse still wtnt.i . .1
să le pun de vreo săptămînă
ă j . . .3 put. for t week
hese extmples tlso uetr witness to tnother importtnt fetture of the supine in the vtrieties under in-vestigttion, ntmely the extension of its distriuution in vontrtst to gttndtrd fomtnitn. he supine mty ue selevted uy the modtl verua putea (svtn, ue tule to’) (used impersontlly) tnd uy the vonttive veru
a încerca(sto try’). Furthermore, the modtl verua trebui(smust, htve to’) tlwtys selevts tde-supine, in vontrtst to the sttndtrd ltngutge, in whivhtrebuiselevts t utre supine (this representing the only vontext in whivh the verutl supine is not introduved uyde) or t ptrtiviple (see, for dettils,gtndfeld & clsen,1936, p. 281;fosetti,1968, p. 258;Lomutrd,1974, p. 301;betmțu,1980, p. 512–513;dtnă Dindelegtn,2007, p. 170–171,2011, p. 121;Drtgomiresvu,2013t, p. 36–38,2015).
3.2. Combination with verbal negation
While the gttndtrd fomtnitn supine vomuines only with the preixtl negttorne–, uut not with the
freesttnding negttor nu(see tlsoCornilesvu & Cosmt,2010for t diferent interpretttion of preixtl supine negttion), in the north-etstern vtrieties the supine is vompttiule with the freesttnding negttornu:
(34) t. gînt multe de spus, multe de nu le spus
tre mtny sty. mtny not . .3 sty.
shere tre mtny things to ue stid tnd mtny things not to ue stid’ (sorinels.ulogspot.ro)
u. treuuit de nu le pus ptmpers
need.i .3 not . .3 put. ptmpers
sIt wts nevesstry for us not to put them in ptmpers’ (htinuteueue.vom)
3.3. Combination with clitic adverbs
In vontrtst to the sttndtrd vtriety, in the ditlevts tntlysed the supine mty vomuine with tspevtutl vlitiv tdverus:
(35) Așt vă treuuie de le lăstt potrtt desvhisă
so thtt must . .3 letve. door open
spre plevtre și de nu-i mai netezit pe uășvălie
for letving tnd not= . .3 more protevt. on movkingly
scne must letve the gtte open for them to letve tnd not to movkingly protevt them tnymore’ (m.puulivt.md)
3.4. he agreeing supine
Although in gttndtrd fomtnitn the supine does not displty tgreement in tny vontext, in the tntlysed vtrieties tter the verua trebui(smust, htve to’) the supine displtys gender tnd numuer tgreement with 3rd
person suujevts (the 1sttnd 2ndperson suujevts tre exvluded from the tgreeing vonigurttions), irrespevtive
of the position of the suujevt, i.e. rtised to the mtin vltuse(36t–u)or in post-supine position(36v–e); gender tnd numuer tgreement is tlso tttested intough-vonstruvtions(37).
(36) t. ositutțit]. treuuie de analizată.
situttion must tntlyse. . .
sthe situttion must ue tntlysed’ (www.dejure.md)
u. Totuși, oorive întreutre, temere, propunere] .
tnywty tny question fetr propostl
treuuie de discutată. vu medivul
must disvuss. . . with physivitn. .
sAnywty, tny question, fetr, propostl must ue disvussed with your physivitn’ (odorts.vom)
v. vă treuuie de rezolvată. otvetstă proulemă].
thtt must solve. . . this proulem
d. treuuie de făcută. oo vosmetivă ușotră].
must mtke. . . t vosmetivs light. .
sone must mtke t light vosmetivs operttion’ (999.md)
e. treuuie de făcute. și vîtevt oouservtții vritive].
must mtke. . . tlso t.few ouservttions vritivtl
sone must tlso mtke t few vritivtl ouservttions’ (uooks.google.md)
(37) tre o munvă ogret]. de făcută.
hts t jou htrd. . mtke. .
sHe hts t htrd jou’ (gtndul.md)
3.5. Results and problems
As we htve seen in this sevtion, the supine of the north-etstern vtrieties fundtmenttlly vontrtsts with the gttndtrd fomtnitn supine on the following points: (i) the extension of its distriuution, (ii) its vompttiu-ility with pronomintl vlitivs, the verutl negttornutnd the tspevtutl vlitiv tdverumai, tnd (iii) gender tnd numuer tgreement. In the next sevtion, we set the evolution of the fomtnitn supine tgtinst the evolution of the inlevted ininitive in other ltngutges, tnd we put forwtrd t formtl tntlysis whivh tvvounts for the present-dty uehtviour of the supine in the north-etstern vtrieties of fomtnitn.
4. Analysis
In the tntlysis thtt follows, we tdopt the vurrently tvvepted generttive vltustl struvture, tvvording to whivh vltustl struvture is split into three ltyers: the Cd-ltyer (the funvtiontl domtin of the
vomple-mentizer, whivh tvvommodttes vomplementizers,wh-phrtses tnd other elements displtved to the let
periphery), the Id-ltyer (the funvtiontl domtin whivh hosts mood-tense-tspevt projevtions tnd the pro-nomintl vlitiv ield; the projevtion of this domtin is tlso responsiule for nominttive tssignment), tnd the
vd-ltyer (the lexivtl domtin, where the veru tnd the vore trguments tre merged). Interntl trguments tre merged tnd vtse-mtrked in the lexivtl domtin. By vontrtst, the externtl trgument (the suujevt), tlthough genertted in the lexivtl domtin (Koopmtn & gportivhe,1991), is dependent on the projevtion of the Td phrtse (invluded in the Id-domtin) for nominttive tssignment (Chomsky,1981; seeCornilesvu,2000 tndgttn,2005for fomtnitn).
4.1. Standard Romanian supine
he synttvtiv ditgnostivs reviewed tuove (tusenve of suujevt, invompttiuility with verutl negttion, pro-nomintl vlitivs tnd vlitiv tdverus) indivtte thtt the supine hts t reduved funvtiontl struvture—vf. mtny propostls tuout struvture of imperttives in mtny ltngutges—, ts proposed in(38):
(38) Id
Id’
vd
v’
Vd
V’
Ddaccusative
△ I
de
v
făcut
Avvording to this representttion, in the funvtiontl struvture of the supine the C-domtin is not projevted tt tll, tnd the I-domtin (whivh, in fomtnitn, tvvommodttes the negttion phrtse, the vlitiv-hosting person phrtses, tnd the mood, tense, tnd tspevt phrtses ordered ts suvh—see, for dettils, bivolte,2015) is defevtive: the begd, the Td (responsiule for nominttive tssignment) tnd the pronomintl-vlitiv-hosting dersd tre tusent, the entire I-domtin of the supine ueing ovvupied uy the mtrkerde. By vontrtst, the lexivtl domtinvd is fully projevted, ts shown uy the ftvt thtt the supine mty ttke tvvusttive direvt oujevts (genertted ts sisters to V) tnd dttive indirevt oujevts (S-a apucatode trimis cadouricopiilordttive]supinesHe
sttrted sending gits to the vhildren’); indirevt oujevts tre tlso genertted in thevd-domtin, ts speviiers of tn Applivttive phrtse (Appld) (i.e. v> Appl). he tusenve of the suujevt in (non-rtising) supine vonigurttions follows from the tusenve of the Td-projevtion in the funvtiontl struvture of the supine: without t Td-projevtion, nominttive tssignment is not tvtiltule, tnd the existenve of t vtseless nomintl violtteshe Case Filter(Chomsky,1981).
4.2. Dialectal supine
In vontrtst to the gttndtrd fomtnitn supine, the ditlevttl supine hts developed t rivher funvtiontl struv-ture, ts shown in(39):
(39)
Cd
C’
begd
beg’
dersd
ders’
a-T-Ad
a-T-A’
vd △ V
...
C
de
beg
nu
ders
le
mai
a-T-A
făcut
he funvtiontl struvture of this supine is thus more similtr to thtt of the inite vltuse, in whivh tll
funv-tiontl ltyers, Cd, Id tndvd, tre projevted. he mtrkerdehts ueen pushed upwtrds in the struvture,
uevoming t C-hetd; thus, in these vtrieties, we witness the retntlysis of this inlevtiontl element ts t vomplementizer. Furthermore, it tppetrs thtt the C-domtin hts developed t let periphery whivh mty tvvommodtte fovused tnd topivtlized vonstituents(40)(Hill & Drtgomiresvu,2014). However, these extmples tre tmuiguous, uevtuse the uoldftved vonstituents vtn ue tlso interpreted ts modifying the mtin veru.
(40) t. și treuuie ocumva de le adus]
tnd must somehow . .3 uring.
vt nimeni să nu știe
thtt nouody ă j not know. j.3
u. Treuuie ola bot de dat]
must tt mouth give.
scne must hit them in the mouth’ (www.timpul.md)
he I-domtin is rivher thtn in the sttndtrd ltngutge, tvvommodtting tt letst the following phrtses (spe-viiv to inite vltuses with t fully trtivultted funvtiontl domtin): the begd, whivh hosts the vltustl negttor,
the dersd (/derson-ield), whivh tvvommodttes pronomintl vlitivs, tnd the Aspd (/tn Asp-ield, à la
Cinque,1999), responsiule for the merger of tspevtutl vlitiv tdverus. In the dttt extmined so ftr, we htve
not envountered supines with their own nominttive suujevt distinvt from the suujevt of their selevting veru; thus, there is no signiivtnt empirivtl evidenve for t nominttive-tssigning Td. In vonvlusion, while the funvtiontl struvture of the ditlevttl supine is ouviously rivher, it is, however, impoverished in verttin respevts when vomptred to the struvture of fully trtivultted inite vltuses.
he full Cd-stttus of the ditlevttl supine is further vonirmed uy the ftvt thtt it mty undergo Cd– topivtlizttion:
(41) t. dtr ode le adus]i treuuie ti
uut . . .3 uring. must
suut uring them, one must’ (www.retliztt.vom)
u. oDe le scris]i nu e greu ti,
. . .3 write. not is htrd
tm tdăugtt unt
x. .1 write. one
swriting them isn’t htrd, I tdded one’ (forum.sotpedit.vom)
4.3. he supine on the initeness scale
he tntlysis of the ditlevttl supine from the perspevtive of the initeness svtle(24)put forwtrd uy Ledge-wty(1998tnd ssq.) indivttes thtt this form uehtves extvtly like the fomtnve inlevted ininitive, in thtt it displtys tll the fettures of t inite vltuse, exvept for the tuility to ttke its own lexivtl suujevt. Consequently, the ditlevttl supine is vhtrtvterized ts o´Tense,`Agreement], whivh indivttes thtt its I-domtin, tlthough fetturing tt letst t begd, t dersd (/derson-ield), tn Aspd (/Asp-ield), is still defevtive, i.e. its nominttive-tssigning Td is tusent. In other words, the ditlevttl supine is morphologivtlly inite (i.e., it displtys morphologivtl tgreement), uut synttvtivtlly non-inite (i.e., it is untule tssign nominttive vtse) (seeLedgewty,2007).
5. Conclusions
his ptper hts extmined the uehtviour of the inlevted supine tttested in the north-etstern vtrieties of fomtnitn tgtinst the uehtviour of the inlevted ininitive tttested in vtrious fomtnve tnd non-fomtnve ltngutges.
he tntlysis presented tuove tllows us to formultte t few vonvlusions whivh vonvern, on the one htnd, the vttegory of siniteness’ tnd its ditvhroniv uehtviour, tnd, on the other htnd, the ditvhroniv vhtnges tfevting the fomtnitn supine.
Furthermore, it is vletr thtt the ltuel sininitive’ vovers forms with t diferent interntl struvture in diferent ltngutges.
(ii) As stressed in gevtion2.4, the idet thtt the fomtnve inlevted ininitive does not origintte from the vtnonivtl ininitive, uut rtther from inite forms (suujunvtive, indivttive) is ltrgely tvvepted. he inlevted ininitive emerges from the vtnonivtl ininitive in non-fomtnve ltngutges (fomeykt, Hun-gtritn). From this perspevtive, fomtnitn is drtwn vloser to the non-fomtnve ltngutges disvussed here uy its ditlevttl inlevted supine, whivh emerged from the vtnonivtl supine.
(iii) However, from the perspevtive of the ditvhrony of non-inite forms, there tre however similtrities uetween fomtnitn tnd other fomtnve ltngutges. Consider the dortuguese vtnonivtl ininitive: in cld dortuguese, this form wts not vompttiule with pronomintl vlitivs tnd vltustl negttion (whivh underwent rtising to the higher predivtte), while the aodern dortuguese inlevted ininitive is vom-pttiule with uoth negttion tnd pronomintl vlitivs. he fomtnitn supine is undergoing t similtr ptth of ditvhroniv vhtnge, ts synthesized in(iv)uelow.
(iv) he ditvhrony of the fomtnitn supine ouviously involves tn enrivhment of the funvtiontl struvture: projevtions like begttion, derson, tnd Aspevt whivh tre tusent in the funvtiontl struvture of the gttndtrd fomtnitn supine uevome tvtiltule in the north-etstern vtrieties. Agreement in vontexts in whivh the supine is selevted uy the verua trebui(smust, htve to’) or intough-vonstruvtions, tlueit poorly tttested, indivttes thtt tvquisition of t full set ofphi-fettures uy the supine is well underwty. Gender tgreement mtkes the fomtnitn supine diferent from other non-inite forms in the fomtnve ltngutges whivh show person tnd numuer tgreement. he ditvhrony of the fomtnitn supine thus indivttes thtt one possiule ptth of synttvtiv vhtnge is enrivhment of funvtiontl struvture. his vonvlu-sion is somewhtt surprising judging from whtt we know tuout synttvtiv vhtnge: trtditiontl wisdom insists on the ditvhroniv reduvtion of synttvtiv struvtures (vf., for extmple,Htrris & Ctmpuell,1995, Chtpter 7,Processes that simplify biclausal structures); the ditvhrony of the inlevted non-inite forms illustrttes the very opposite situttion: enrivhment of synttvtiv struvture.
(v) he supine mtrkerdehts tn interesting ditvhroniv ptth. At the point tt whivh the tmuiguous (verutl-nomintl) supine grtmmttivtlizes ts t verutl supine, the prepositiondeis retntlysed ts tn inlevtiontl hetd (Drtgomiresvu,2013t,u), following t ftmilitr ptth of grtmmttivtlizttion, identiied, for ex-tmple, in the grtmmttivtlizttion of the Dutvhte-ininitive (Ijuemt,2002). he enrivhment of the funvtiontl struvture of the supine in the ditlevts triggers the retntlysis of the inlevtiontl mtrkerde
ts t vomplementizer: in other words, from the perspevtive of the representttions in(38)tnd(39),
the mtrkerde tn I-element in gttndtrd fomtnitn, is “pushed up” tnd retntlysed ts t C-hetd in
the ditlevts. his ptth of ditvhroniv vhtnge (inlevtiontl mtrker > vomplementizer) is in tgreement with the theory of synttvtiv vhtnge put forwtrd uyfouerts & foussou(2003), tvvording to whivh grtmmttivtlizttion involves movement tnd suusequent retntlysis to the let, i.e. in t hiertrvhivtlly higher position.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our grttitude to the following volletgues who retd our ptper or disvussed with us vtrious proulems tddressed here: Adtm Ledgewty, atrtin atiden, Gturielt dtnă Dindelegtn, tnd Dtvid desetsky. he irst drtt of the ptper wts presented tt the aITLingLunchon April 7, 2016; we tre grtteful to the aIT volletgues for their vomments tnd suggestions.
Bibliography
Bentley, D. (2014).On the personal ininitive in Sicilian, in: d. Beninvà, A. Ledgewty, b. Vinvent (eds),Diachrony and Dialects. Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy, cxford University dress, cxford, p. 96–115,Crossref.
Ctrvtlho, a.J. (2015).Para a história do ininitive lexionado português: uma abordagen semântico-pragmática, in “neitsvhrit für romtnisvhe dhilologie”, vol. 311, no. 3, p. 664–689,Crossref.
Chomsky, b. (1981).Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrevht.
Cinque, G. (1999).Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, cxford University dress, cxford.
Cornilesvu, A. (2000).he double subject construction in Romanian, în: V. aottptnytne (ed.),Comparative Studies in Ro-manian Syntax, Elsevier, Amsterdtm / Ltustnne / bew mork / cxford / ghtnnon / gingtpore / Tokyo, p. 83–133. Cornilesvu, A. & Cosmt, f. (2010).Remarks on the Romanian Verbal Supine and its German Equivalents, ttlk given tthe
Annual Conference of the Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Universitttet din Buvurești, bovemuer 5–6. Drtgomiresvu, A. (2011).he subject of the supine clause in Romanian and A-chains, in “fevue roumtine de linguistique”,
vol. LlI, no. 4, p. 371–392.
Drtgomiresvu, A. (2013t).Particularități sintactice ale limbii române în context romanic. Supinul, Editurt auzeului btționtl tl Litertturii fomâne, Buvurești.
Drtgomiresvu, A. (2013u).Du latin au roumain. Une nouvelle hypothèse sur l’origine du supin en roumain, in “fevue de lin-guistique romtne”, vol. 77, no. 305–306, p. 51–85.
Drtgomiresvu, A. (2015).Utilizări dialectale ale supinului, in: f. ntiu, I. bedelvu (eds.),Variația lingvistică: probleme actuale. Actele celui de al 14-lea Colocviu al Departamentului de Lingvistică, I, Editurt Universității din Buvurești, Buvurești, p. 39– 48.
Drtgomiresvu, A. & Hill, V. (2014).A diachronic perspective on de-supine complements, ttlk given tt ACED, Universitttet din Buvurești, June 5–7.
Gtuinsvhi, a. (2010).Formele verbale nepredicative nonconjunctivale ale limbii române (pe marginea tratării lor în gramatica oicială), Chișinău.
Gtmillsvheg, E. (1970).Studien zur Vorgeschichte einer romanischen Tempuslehre(=Sitzungsberichte der Kais. Akademie der Wissenschaten in Wien, dhil.-hist. Kl., 172. Bd., 6. Auhtndlung.), Tuuinger Beitrtge zur Linguistik, Tuuingen; 1sted.: 1913.
Groothuis, K. (2015).he inlected ininitive in Romance, ttlk given tt the workshopRomance Syntax. Comparative and Dia-chronic Perspectives, Universitttet din Buvurești, bovemuer 27–28.
Htrris, A. & Ctmpuell, L. (1995).Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Ctmuridge University dress, Ctmuridge,
Crossref.
Hill, V. & Drtgomiresvu. A. (2014).De-supine complements in Romanian: a paradigmatic view, ttlk given tt LgfL 44, aty 2–4.
Ijuemt, A. (2002).Grammaticalization and ininitival complements in Dutch, LcT duulivttions, Utrevht, oonline].
Jones, a.A. (1992).Ininitives with speciied subjects in Sardinian, in: C. L Lteufer, T. A. aorgtn (eds),heoretical analyses in Romance linguistics, John Benjtmins, Amsterdtm, p. 295–309,Crossref.
Jones, a. A. (1993).Sardinian syntax, foutledge, London.
Jones, a. A. (2003).Sintassi della lingua sarda: Sardinian syntax(f. Bolognesi, Trtns.), Condtghes, Ctglitri. Kiss, K. (1987).Conigurationality in Hungarian, feidel, Dordrevht – Boston,Crossref.
Koopmtn, H. & gportivhe, D. (1991).he Position of Subjects, in “Lingut”, vol. 85, no. 2–3, p. 211–258,Crossref.
Ledgewty, A. (1998).Variation in the Romance ininitive: the case of the Southern Calabrian inlected ininitive, in “Trtnstvtions of the dhilologivtl goviety”, vol. 96, no. 1, p. 1–61,Crossref.
Ledgewty, A. (2000).A Comparative Syntax of the Dialects of Southern Italy: A Minimalist Approach, Wiley-Bltvkwell, cxford. Ledgewty, A. (2007).Diachrony and Finiteness: Subordination in the Dialects of Southern Italy, in: I. bikoltevt (ed.),Finiteness:
heoretical and Empirical Foundations, cxford University dress, cxford, p. 335–365. Ledgewty, A. (2009).Grammatica diacronica del napoletano, biemeyer, Tüuingen. Lomutrd, A. (1974).La langue roumaine. Une présentation, Éditions Klinvksievk, dtris.
Loporvtro, a. (1986).L’ininito coniugato nell’Italia centro-meridionale: ipotesi genetica e ricostruzione storica, in “Ittlit ditletttle”, vol. 49, p. 173–140.
atdeirt, A.-a. (1994).On the Portuguese Inlected Ininitive, in “UCL Working dtpers in Linguistivs”, 6, p. 179–203. atrtins, A.a. (2006).Aspects of ininitival constructions in the history of Portuguese, in: f. Gess, D. Artetgt (eds),Historical
Romance Linguistics: Retrospective and perspective, John Benjtmins, Amsterdtm, p. 327–355,Crossref.
aturer, T.H., Jr. (1984).O Ininito Flexionado Portugues: Estudo historico-descritivo, Editort btviontl, gto dtulo; 1sted.:
1968.
aensvhing, G. (2000).Ininitive Constructions with Speciied Subjects. A Syntactic Analysis of the Romance Languages, cxford University dress, cxford.
ailler, D.G. (2003).Where do conjugated ininitives come rom, in “Ditvhronivt”, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 45–81,Crossref. ailler, D.G. (2004).he origin of the Welsh conjugated ininitive, in “Ditvhronivt”, vol. 21, no. 2, p. 329–350,Crossref. betmțu, G.G. (1980).Despre construcția „a trebui + participiu”, in “Limut română”, vol. llIl, no. 5, p. 511–514.
bedjtlkov, I.V. (1995).Converbs in Evenki, în: a. Htspelmtth, E. Konig (eds), Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms—adverbial participles, gerunds, aouton de Gruyter, Berlin – bew mork, p. 441–463.
bivolte, A. (2015).Ordinea constituenţilor în limba română: o perspectivă diacronică. Structura propoziţiei și deplasarea verbului, Editurt Universității din Buvurești, Buvurești.
dtnă Dindelegtn, G. (2007).Din nou despre participiu şi supin, in “gtudii şi vervetări lingvistive”, vol. LVIII, no. 1, p. 163–173. dtnă Dindelegtn, G. (2008).Supinul, în: V. Guțu fomtlo (ed.),Gramatica limbii române, I.Cuvântul, Editurt Avtdemiei
fomâne, Buvurești, p. 509–524.
dtnă Dindelegtn, G. (2011).Din istoria supinului românesc, in: f. ntiu, C. Uşurelu, H. Bogdtn cpret (eds.),Limba română – ipostaze ale variației lingvistice, I, Editurt Universității din Buvureşti, Buvureşti, p. 119–130.
dtnă Dindelegtn, G. (2013).he supine, in: G. dtnă Dindelegtn (ed.),he Grammar of Romanian, cxford University dress, cxford, p. 233–245.
dires, A. (2002).Cue-Based Change: Inlection and Subjects in the History of Portuguese Ininitives, in: D. Lighfoot (ed.),
Syntactic Efects on Morphological Changes, cxford University dress, cxford, p. 143–159,Crossref.
ftposo, E. (1987).Case heory and Inl-to-Comp: he Inlected Ininitive in European Portuguese, in “Linguistiv Inquiry”, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 85–109.
fizzi, L. (1978).A restructuring rule in Italian syntax, in: g. J. Keyser (ed.),Recent Transformational Studies in European Languages, aIT dress, Ctmuridge, aA, p. 113–158.
fouerts, I. & foussou, A. (2003).Syntactic Change. A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization, Ctmuridge University dress, Ctmuridge.
fouerts, K.g. (ed.) (1953–1957).An Anthology of Old Portuguese, Livrtrit dortugtl, Lisuon.
fodrigues, J. a. (1913).O imperfeito do conjuntivo e o ininitivo pessoal no Portugues, in “Avtdemit dts gvienvits de Lisuot: Boletim dt gegundt Cltsse”, 8, p. 72–93.
fosetti, Al. (1968).Istoria limbii române de la origini pînă în secolul al XVII-lea, Editurt pentru Literttură, Buvureşti. fouveret, A. (1980).Sur la notion de proposition inie. Gouvernement et inversion, in “Ltngtges”, vol. 14, no. 60, p. 75-107,
oonline].
gtndfeld, Kr. & clsen, H. (1936).Syntaxe roumaine. Emploi des mots à lexion, I, E. Droz, dtris. gvidt, E. (2004).he inlected ininitive in Romance languages, foutledge, bew mork – London. gheehtn, a. (2015).Control of Inlected Ininitive in European Portuguese, ms, oonline].
gittridou, I. (2014).he Romeyka ininitive. Continuity, contact and change in the Hellenic varieties of Pontus, in “Ditvhronivt”, vol. 31, no. 1, p. 23–73,Crossref.
gttn, C. (2005).Categoria cazului, Editurt Universității din Buvurești, Buvurești.
Ttllermtn, a. (1998).he Uniform Case-licensing of Subjects in Welsh, in “he Linguistiv feview”, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 69–133. Ttylor, C. (2016).Aspects of Clause Structure in Nicoterese. A Descriptive Account, dhD dissertttion, University of Ctmuridge. Terzi, A. (1997).PRO and Null Case in Finite Clauses, in “he Linguistiv feview”, vol. 14, no. 4, p. 335–360.
Vinvent, b., (1998).On the grammar of inlected non-inite forms (with special reference to Old Neapolian), in: L. Korzen, a. Herslun (eds),Clause combining and text structure, gtmfundlitteretur, Copenhtgen, p. 135–158.
