classics 191 paper

8/10/2019 Classics 191 Paper

1/10

The Roman Empire left behind many legacies that still live on today. One of those

legacies is the Romance languages, spoken by millions of people worldwide, both as a

native tongue and a second language. Many of these languages descended from or were

heavily influenced by Vulgar atin, a variety of atin that was spoken by the common

Roman people. !uring the course of their con"uest, Roman soldiers brought this

language to the provinces, laying down the foundations for the Romance languages. One

of the main differences between Vulgar atin and #lassical atin is the case system of

their nouns. $hile #lassical atin had a five%case system, with each noun having a

specific case form that carries out a special function, Vulgar atin eventually developed a

much simplified case system. $hile #lassical atin was relatively static and

conservative, Vulgar atin underwent a process where most of the case forms gradually

disappeared, which resulted in a two%case or even one%case system in many Romance

languages today.

The decline of the case system in Vulgar atin was not a new phenomenon. The

five%case system that we know in #lassical atin was itself a simplified version of an

earlier case system. &n &ndo%European, there were originally eight cases '(lkire and

Rosen, pg. )*+. $hen it branched off into atin, there were only five cases. ikewise,

when it branched off into (ncient -reek, there were only four cases left, so this

phenomenon is also not limited to atin alone. The reason the cases were lost was

because they merged together with other cases, or the other cases took over the functions

of the lost cases. The instrumental cases function was taken over by the ablative, for

e/ample. Meanwhile, the locative case also merged with the genitive or dative, as seen in

phrases such asRomae sum, meaning 0& am in Rome1 '2odmer, pg. 3)*. The process

)


2/10

then continued in Vulgar atin, where many linguistic changes contributed to the

eventual demise of the case system.

The fall of the case system was due to a combination of many linguistic

phenomena that built up over Vulgar atins history. 4ome of the proposed causes

included a more regular word order, increased usage of prepositions, phonetic changes, as

well as functional confusions between the inflections. Thus, lets begin our analysis of the

case systems fall, and look at each cause closely, in order to see the impact each one had

on the case system.

5irst off is word order. $ord order matters in English as well as other languages.

$hen we say 0the farmer drives the cow,1 we cannot mi/ the words around easily, as the

sentences meaning will be changed or lost. #lassical atin, on the other hand, had the

case inflections to tell us the meaning. Thus, it was allowed to have a more 0free1 word

order. ( 0free1 word order in #lassical atin, however, was simply employed as a literary

device, and had little to do with the way atin was spoken by the common people

'2odmer, pg. 367. 8ust as no English speaker would speak the language of 8ames 8oyce

in real life, it is unlikely for a common Roman citi9en to speak like #icero or #ato the

Elder. (s such, :ust like 8ames 8oyces Ulysses, many #lassical atin literary works were

not designed for rapid reading '2odmer, pg. 367. The average Roman citi9ens probably

would want to get their point across "uickly in a conversation, rather than trying to

compose a defense speech like #icero. Thus, it is probably safe to assume that no

common Roman citi9en would want to mi/ up the word order, leading to a more regular

and fi/ed word order in Vulgar atin.

6


3/10

;ow does a more fi/ed word order relate to the collapse of the case system< The

reason that word order matters in English is because it helps convey a meaning. $hen the

word order is enough to convey the meaning, there will probably be no need for a case

system. ;owever, a more regular word order is not likely to be a significant cause of the

eventual collapse of the case system. Rearranging words in a sentence was probably not

enough to cause such a complete collapse of the case system, where it was reduced from

five cases to one or two cases. 2esides, as aforementioned, 0free1 word order was

employed as a device by Roman writers, and had little to do with the speech of

commoners. ;ence, either regular word order was already in place in Vulgar atin, or it

emerged as a by%product of the fall of the cases, caused by phenomena that are more

likely to dismantle them completely. 4uch phenomena included the rise of prepositions in

Vulgar atin.

&n Vulgar atin, prepositions were very fre"uent, whereas in #lassical atin, they

were used with discretion '2odmer, pg. 3)*. $hile less fre"uent use of prepositions was

considered 0graceful1 and 0well%bred1 in #lassical atin '2odmer, pg. 3)*, it was

thought of as ambiguous and obscure by the common people. They would rather want

clarity in a conversation, and thus, they used more prepositions. &n Vulgar atin, the

increased use of prepositions would eventually displace some of the case inflections of

the case system, and rendered these case forms unnecessary.

(mong the case forms that were displaced due to the rise of prepositions was the

genitive case. !uring Vergils time, the genitive case was falling out of favor in Vulgar

atin, and was instead replaced with a combination of the preposition deand the ablative

case '2odmer, pg. 36=. 5or e/ample, in his -allic $ars ').)=, #aesar wrotepauc de

3


4/10

nostrs'a few of us, as opposed topauc nostrrum, which would have been the correct

form in #lassical atin. 2y the end of the Empire, the combination of de and the ablative

case had completely taken over the function of the genitive case and displaced it. &n many

modern Romance languages today, the preposition deis normally used to denote

possession> a function once belonged to the genitive case. Even before the Romance

languages fully emerged, a separate genitive case had ceased to be relevant. Other cases

would soon meet the same fate.

(fter the genitive fell out of favor, the dative case also became gradually

displaced. (lthough the dative case was a bit more resistant than the genitive, it still

could not survive, and the cause for its fall was also more fre"uent use of prepositions in

Vulgar atin. Even in the earlier stages of the development of atin, it already had a rival

in the form of the preposition ad '2odmer, pg. 36?.Ad is often used in con:unction with

the accusative case, and this combination often had the same function as the dative case.

5or e/ample, in one of his plays, @lautus wrote ad carnuficem dab'& give to the

e/ecutioner, whereas we would have e/pected carnufic dab'2odmer, 36?. ;ence,

even before the time of #icero and Vergil, the process of displacement had already begun.

Eventually, the dative case also fell out of favor, :oining the genitive case as they both

disappeared and left behind only a few traces in the modern Romance languages.

$ith both of the genitive and dative cases gone, the ablative and accusative took

over their functions when they are combined with certain prepositions such as de and ad.

Thus, so far, there were only three distinct cases in Vulgar atin. !ue to phonetic

changes, however, the ablative and accusative cases would also eventually cease to be

7


5/10

distinctive. $hen phonetic changes came in, the entire case system would be shaken up,

changing the paradigm of the nouns, especially the singular case forms.

One of the most influential phonetic changes was the loss of the final consonant

%m. 2y the first century 2#, the final Am at the end of a word was hardly pronounced

';erman, pg. 3B. ;owever, there were also cases where the Am was simply omitted due

to practical reasons, such as the lack of space at the end of a line ';erman, pg. 7C. There

were also a few e/ceptions to this phenomenon, where the Am is retained, such as in

monosyllables like remand quem, which later became 5rench rienand 4panish quien

';erman, pg. 7C. These few e/ceptions are rather negligible when compared to the

impact of the loss of Am, however. $hen the Am is lost, it played a large role in the

demise of the case system, or to be more specific, the singular accusative case.

(ny atinist would know that most nouns singular accusative case form ends

with Am. Thus, when the Am is lost, the singular accusative case ceased to be distinctive.

This is especially true in the first declension, where the difference between the singular

nominative and singular accusative is the final consonant Am. $hen the Am is gone, so is

the difference. 5or e/ample, we can no longer distinguish between nautaand nautam

when the Am is loss. $ith the Am gone, the singular accusative case form is no more.

The process of case decay did not stop with :ust the loss of Am, however. Over the

years, many vowels also lost their length distinctions, when the short vowels and long

vowels merged together '$eiss, pg. =C*. This is attested in many modern Romance

nouns that descended from atin. 5or e/ample, we have 4panish luzand &talian luce, both

of which originally came from atin lcem'$eiss, pg. =CB. This might have been

caused by confusion between short and long vowels in unstressed syllables, but

=


6/10


7/10

Thus, we can see how much an impact phonetic changes had on the singular case forms.

$hen phonetic changes were combined with a wider use of prepositions, the result was

the near complete destruction of the singular case forms, evident in the two%case or one%

case system in many Romance languages.

The singular case forms in Vulgar atin had largely been dismantled through a

combination of phonetic changes and increased preposition usage. ;owever, would the

plural case forms suffer the same fate< &n many Romance languages, we can see that

there are only one or two plural case forms. Thus, it is "uite clear that the plural case

forms were also eliminated. They :ust underwent a process that was a bit different from

what the singular case forms went through, which still ultimately resulted in their

disappearance in Vulgar atin and the Romance languages.

The eventual demise of the plural case forms had less to do with phonetic changes

when compared to the singular case forms. They were relatively unaffected by phonetic

changes, and most of the phonetic distinctions that distinguished an inflection from

another were relatively stable in the plural case forms ';erman, pg. =3. &nstead, the

erosion of the plural case forms was caused by the functional confusions between the

inflections. This is when the wrong case was used for another case, and in Vulgar atin,

this happened on many occasions. The accusative case, for e/ample, was used where the

ablative case would have been more appropriate, or vice versa. 5or e/ample, we have

cum filis sus trsinstead of cum flis sus tribus, as the preposition cumgenerally

re"uired the ablative case ';erman, pg. =3. Even if there were prepositions that accepted

both cases, they would lose semantic distinctions. 5or e/ample,subhc titul'beneath

this tombstone denoted the location of where something is, whereas sub hunc titulum

+


8/10

denoted the direction of a movement ';erman, pg. =7. (s time went on, they became

increasingly interchangeable, and both came to mean 0beneath this tombstone.1 Thus,

this only served to blur the line between the ablative case and the accusative case.

The confusions between case inflections became increasingly common in ate

atin te/ts, even though the plural case inflections were formally distinct ';erman, pg.

=3. 5unctional confusions eventually triumphed over formal distinctions as time went

on. &n Vulgar atin, people continued to use the wrong cases, and even when there were

prepositions that accept more than one case, the difference in semantics gradually

disappeared. $hen semantic distinctions are gone, it is likely that one case form will be

favored more than others, as people will not need two phrases that have the same

meaning. (midst the confusions, one plural case form in particular rose above all the

others in importance. That case form was the accusative case.

The plural accusative case form was the case form that became increasingly

prominent as the other plural case forms faded away. This can be seen in some of the

Romance languages, where the plural forms end in As, hinting at their descent from the

accusative plural case form of atin. &n #lassical atin, many verbs took on a specific

case. &n Vulgar atin, however, verbs tended to take on the accusative case ';erman, pg.

=7. Toward the end of the Empire, it was clear that the accusative case had risen above

the other cases in importance, when a new grammatical construction arose from it

';erman, pg. =7. This was the accusative absolute, which was modeled after the ablative

absolute, and almost always carried out the same function. $ith the accusative case

gradually taking over in the plural case forms, and the singular case forms being

destroyed by phonetic changes and prepositions, the case system of nouns had completely

*


9/10

collapsed in Vulgar atin. This collapse, much like the collapse of the Roman Empire,

did not pass without conse"uences.

$hen the case system of nouns crumbled under the pressures of linguistic

changes, it had several effects in Vulgar atin, some of which simplified the language

even more. The five declensions, for e/ample, were reduced to three. The fourth and fifth

declensions did not have many nouns to begin with, and with the collapse of the case

system, they grew even less distinct ';erman, pg. ?)%?6. $hen the case system fell, the

second and fourth declensions both looked identical, and thus, many fourth declension

nouns were absorbed into the second declension. Meanwhile, the fifth declension

contained mostly feminine nouns, which were reassigned to the mostly feminine first

declension. 5ifth declension nouns such asfacies andglaciesbecamefaciaandglacia

and so on ';erman, pg. ?6. The disappearance of inflections in nouns also rendered

inflections in ad:ectives unnecessary, and hence, inflections in ad:ectives also shared the

same fate and went away '2odmer, pg. 36+. 5inally, with the fall of the case system, the

prepositions will be on the rise. $ith all the inflections gone, prepositions will be

necessary to give meaning to words, taking over the functions that the case system once

held.

The collapse of the case system is one of the testaments of the constantly evolving

nature of languages. &t had been brought down by a combination of many factors that

built up over the years, as the Roman Empire e/tended its reach. $hen the Empire

marched its soldiers into the provinces, it laid down many foundations, including the

foundation for the Romance languages that descended from Vulgar atin. One of the

processes that helped make the Romance languages as we know today, however, had

B


10/10

already begun before there was a Roman Empire. The simplification of the case system in

Vulgar atin had already begun when &ndo%European branched off into atin. The

process then continued in Vulgar atin, as phonetic changes and prepositions, among

other causes, completely tore down the case system. The fall of the case system had

contributed to the birth of the modern Romance languages, a legacy of the Roman

Empire that still lives on to this day.

)C

classics 191 paper

Documents