The old order and the new: A case history

50 (l9SO,fil--i land Publishing

Company

ht up 111the English tradition of classical learning the r of the casts. as set out in nominal and adjectival paradigms, may seem hardly less natural nd self-evident than the order of the letters of the alphabet jwhich, thou in fact of unknown origin, is hallowed by immemorial precedent). And one’s first encounter with another tradition, as, for example, in German grammars of Greek or Latin, comes as something of a cultural shock. Once accustomed to the recitation of ‘Nominative-Vocative-Accusative-Genitive-Daliive(-Ablative)’, one is Eiable to find the ‘foreign’ order of Nom.-Gen.-Dat.-Act-Voc.(-Abl.) if not downright perverse. Yet, like the peculiar manner of stresssical Greek (see e.g. Allen 1974: I34ff), it is the English tradition that is historically the less original, and, as we shall see, it dates only from the last century. We shall, however, also argue that in this matter the ‘new’ order has solid advantages, both theoretical and practical, over the ‘old’. In the earlier part of this study we are concerned primarily with the factual, historical background : but may state in advance that no und in antiquity. A common real argument for the old order is to b modern apologia for that order, name1 t by citing the Genitive next o the Nominative (especially in dictionaries) the declension of the word is thereby most clearly indicated, was never put forward by the ancient writers themselves, even when (a rare occurrence: cf. p. 68) such indications were mentioned at all. The European tradition derives ultimately, of course, from Greek; but bc-fore considering the origins of the system, it may be of interest, and later relevance, to take a sideways look at a quite other system, though one that concerns a related language - Sanskrit. If one includes the Vocative, Sanskrit has eight cases, though the Indian grammarians in fact

consider this case simply as a variant of the Nomir,ative used in calling (~;r:rllhltcllllli). They take the plain stem as the basis c&ftheir paradigm. to which are added the various case-inflexions (only the Vocative being derived from the Nominative infexIon: cf. Pfinini VI.i.69). The order of the recognized cases is Nom.-Ace.-lnst~umental-Dat.-Abl.-Gets.-Locative, and these arc named simply b.y their order, viz. from prcrthrtta ‘first’ for the Nominative to suptwli ‘seventh’ for the Locative? The basic; of this order is a purely practical one: given the Nominative as first, it is the only order to bring together all cases which in some numbt:rs or declensions are ‘ syncret ized ‘, i.e. have identical forms (thus Abl -Gen. in numerous singulars, Nom.-Act. in neuters and dual, Dat.-Abl. in plural, Gen.-Lot. and Inst.-Dat.-Abl. in dual)..

.

lassieal antiquity

Our term ‘case’ in its grammatical sense is derivred (via French) fro-m the Latin casus ‘fall’; and other modern terms such as the German FaN or Russian pcrl/ezIj are simply calques (translation-loans) based on the Latin. The Latin name in turn is a literal translation of the Greek n&~. This term, the original rnotivation of which remalns a problem,” is first found in a technical sense in Aristotle, who however employs it in a much Cder context than later writers, and primarily with a more philosophical than grammatical si;gnificance. So far as concerns the noun (&W/L(Y) we find in Aristotle (cf. Atl.Pr. 4%49~1) an opposition between KbjO.L4’ ‘appellation’, which is the noun in its function of naming things, and 7iTC;jUL~, which is the form in which it appears in the sentence. Thus it is specified that terms ($xM) are stated in the K+W mode, e.g. &B~WTOS 3, against &@&770~ etc., whereas in the premisses (~~oT&ws) nouns appear in the appropriate TT&J~S form, as e.g. ~VQ~OIJ. On the face of it this looks like a simple distinction between the Nominative and other cases: but other examples cited by Aristotle in the same passage make it clear that this is not necessarily so: for instance, in the premiss d ~;~I&WTOS @W even &~)~UI~TOS is a ~~c&Y[s.Similarly the neuter Nominative 8iK~%tOl’ may be a Khfk~ a!, opposed to Genitive &KdOU, but also a n4ots of 6lKu100h’q. Elsewhere the term n4~~ is applied to the numbers of nouns, ’ The ordinals are feminine in agreement with rihhakfi ‘distinction’, Lcrbal inficxions and wrtain suff~ues. ’ For dl\cussion cf. Hiers;he 1955; Pinborg 1975: 76ff.

a term used also of

iW.S. Allen, C.O. E’rirtk / The old order ad

titc stew

63

and to derivatives of nouns, as certain adjectives; Further, to derivatives of adjectives. as comparatives ard adverbs; and, like the Sanskrit &IzIukti, its use extends also to verbs, where only the present indicative is termed @j/w and other tenses and moods are YT~C~~S 5p70~ (cf. I& ItIt. 3, I6b; PocJt. 1457~). However, in its more restricted usage it does come near to the later sense of ‘case’, though in such contexts it is also clear that the Nominative is not considered a rrcr;a~.. The Nominative form is the &O~U se]", and, unlike the other, cases, can form propositions with ‘is’ (cf. /?c ht. 2, 16h). There is same doubt whether Aristotle considered the Vocative as a case in this sense; but it seems poc.sible that he did from the fact that in the List-mentiolred passage he refers to examples in the Genitive and Dative 'Kd &cc 70~a~7d (cf. also Poet. 14570) - which could be taken to imply more than one other case. !t was evidently so interpreted by later Peripatetics according to Ammonius (Cot~tr~t.irl DC ht. 16, p, 44 Bussem. . . . 77Tc;uc:cI~c 7;js ,., Khq7lK+ bop(opE'vq+. In AH. Pr. 4% Aristotle uses the ;*erb nimc1v to -refer to examples in the Dative, Genitive, and Accusative - but also in the Nominative: so that when he continues with ‘i &TUJc;dih)tWS nlb7Et 70i;v0p01', it would probably be wrong to take it in a strictly grammatical sense as evidence for a further case. Aristotle himself nowhere names the cases; nor are they presented in any regular order in hisI works. For both the naming (on which see particularly de Mauro 1%5) and probably the ordering the Stoics are responsible, as also for the inclusion of the Nominative as a n6c~~. This last feature of the Stoi: doctrine is made possible by an interpretation of X-&W different from that of Aristotle (whatever it may have been): as explained by Ammonius (lot. cit.), nimw for the Stoics refers to the process of the idea in r,he mind ‘descending’ into the physical manifestation of speech ; by which criterion the Nominative may be considered a ~c;ja~ as much as any other case, all actual forms being on a different ‘level’ from the mental, A distinction was, however, made between the Nominative and other cases, the former being called 6pOrj(or EI%E~~) ‘ upright’ (or ‘direct’) and th.e latter nhdy~ ‘oblique’. Sittig (1931) has suggested that these terms, like 776~ itself, were originally derived from the fall of dice (or rather knuckle-bones), the top side being dp& and the other three nhc;ylcx1=I ‘on the (other) sides’.3 Though favourably received by Hjelmslev (1935: 6), this is a rather fanciful idea, and strong arguments have been ‘j Cf. al ,o Lejeune 1950. Another interpretation of the Stoic n+x~ in general, based on Stobacus, is suggested by Frede (1977: 68, 1978: 32), viz. as referring to the cases ‘falling under’ the relevant concepts.

64

W.S. AIlen, C.O. Brink / The old order ad

the twr

adduced against it by Barwick (1933). In terms of Stoic linguistic philomost naturally refers sophy the distinction of dp0$ cv ‘0&CC versus &+~rl to vertisaI/direct ‘descent’ versus oblique, slanting descent. Ammonius likens if. to the fall of a pointed shaft such as a stylus, which may descend and stick in the ground either vertically or at an angle, the Nominative being likened to the upright, vertical fall on account of its ‘archetypal’ nature, or, as Barwick suggests, as having the more direct descent from the mental idea; whereas, in Robins’ words (1951 : 32), the other cases “were grouped together as “oblique’ because in at least some of their uses there was prominent not only the meaning of the noun as such but a particular relation between it and another word or words in the sentence”. owever, seem not to have included the Vocative as a case and here they would be supported by many modern linguists, including Hjelmslev (1935: 4, 97). By them (as by the Indians) it was treated as 0pEVt~K61’). just like, for ch;>.racterizing a separate sentence-type (7~ pOOC~] example, the imperative (~~OOTCXKTLK~IJ): cf. Diogenes Laertius V11.66; Ammonius In De Int., p. 2, 26 Busse. The oblique cases recognized by Zeno are named by Diogenes Laertius (Accusative). (W1.65) as y EVlKlj (Genit ive), 607LK< (Dative), and ~&aTtK?j But in the list of the works of Chrysippus given by Diogenes (Vll.192) is one ‘I&$ 7&f n&E 7T&XCL)V’, implying _foztroblique cases. This has Deen widely interpreted to mean that the Stoics recognized the adverb as a case; but this is hardly likely. For although Chrqsippus does not explicitly mention the adverb as a separate part of speech, it is so recognized by Antipater (with the name ~E&-~s: cf. Diogenes V11.57); and Priscian. though he says of the Stoics (II, p. 54 Keil) that they recognizec only five rts, adds that “adverbia nominibu.: vel verbis connumerabant et quasi iectiva verborum ea nominabant “. Barwick suggests that Chrysippus’ work in fact did include discussion of the Vocative, though only in order to point out that it had the mere form and not the function of a case (cf. also Robins 1951: 33). The names given to the oblique cases by the Stoics call for s3me comment. 80~ctj is, superficially at least, self-explanatory (see hc wever de Mauro 1965). But yEVtK+ raises some problems. It is of course an adjectival de1ivative of ~CVO~, but admits of more than one interpretation. It could be intended, as Steinthal assumes (1890: 303), in the sense of ‘generic’, i.e. the form used for the claqs of which individuals and sub-classes are members, as, for example, in T&V&TCI)V 76. t.& &TWdya&, rdl 62 K&i., KC2 rL;v c;JyuB&v rc; pzv ... Ed! 62 Kd. ; or more specifically (cf. the alternative

narpl~< below) from its use in indicating the ‘kinship’ of a person, as, for example, I7crvoar~‘~sd ~TXEO~/~~&OU. But it could also, as suggested by Pohlenz (1939: 172f, 1948: 45), have the sense of ‘general’, i.e. case in its ost general function. in so far as it can be conjoined with all major word-classes - nouns, adjectives, and verbs (cf. also Choeroboscus, fro&. in TI14ocJ.,p. I 12, 14 Nilgard) -, or more vaguely (as Wackernagel 1920: ‘03)as expressing the most general case-relationship, The term ~h-mtt~~ also admits of differing interpretations. It could be connected with CXL)T& in the latter’s sense either of ‘cause’ or of ‘accusation’. It is virtually certain (as first noted by Trer.-lelenburg in 1836, and in spite of an ingenious but dubious countersuggestion by Kapp 1956) that It is in fact derived from C&K&V,a term used by Aristotle in opposit ion to cdho~, in the sense of the *etect ’ or ‘effected ’ as opposed to the ‘cause’ (cf. AH. Post. 1.9, 760; 11.16, 98~). We shall have reason to return to these last two case-names in connexion with the Latin grammarians. We come next to the Greek grammarians, as represented primarily by Dionysius Thrax. The general grammatical tradition is a combination of Peripatetic and Stoic doctrine, and the list of cases given by Dionysius (p. 31 Uhlig) includes the Nominative as in the Stoics and the Vocative as (probably) in the Peripatetics. The relevant passage is as follows: “I~T&EK ~I’O/.&IJV &Id &VTE’ dph’j, YEVtKTj, 60 r a”$ &LQ~LK~, K~~TLK~“. Dionysius then goes on to mention alternative names for some of the cases: C%JO~CWTM~~ or &%a for 6~64; KT~)T~K$ oi’ 77a~plK+ for yEVLK+ (based on particular ‘L!r;es of the Genitive); &~lm&lK~ for 8OTlK$ (as e.g. in K~&w ~~~VCX~O~S ym’p~); and 77pO0a~‘Op~~tK< for K~~TLKI~. The Peripatetic exclusion of the Nominative from the ._l;e-system continued, however, to beacknowledged; a commentator on Dionysius (Scfiol., p. 546 Hilgard) observes that it is treated as a case only ‘KCWCXX~~UTLKGS’, i.e. by ‘misuse’ or semantic extension: similarly Choeroboscus, Prol. r’c Tllcod., p, 109, 26 Hilgard; Herodian, on the other hand, argued for t e propriety of its inclusion, and perhaps also Apollonius Dyscolus (for discussion cf. Ap. Dysc., Fr., pp. 65-66 Schneider). In relatively recent times the Nominative was again excluded by Wiillner (1827), for which he is criticized by Hjelmslev (1935 : 43). The order of the cases as stated by Dionysius is general in all later works, though controversy over the position of the Vocative is mentioned by some commentators (Choeroboscus, p. 111, 25 Hilgard ; SCM. in D. Thv., p. 548, 14ff Hilgard); it had apparently been suggested that the Vocative should come first, as referring to the second person (similarly Bernhardi

66

W.S. Alh,

C.O. Brink 1 The old order and rhe new

in 1805, criticized by Hjelmslev 1935; 23f), whereas all the other cases referred to the third person. But this view did not prevail, and Choeroboscus himself argues that since the other cases may in fact refer to nr1~9 person, the Vocative should actually come last. It would appear that the established order Leas well known, even outside grammatical circles, before Dionysius Thrax. In I%.-Herodian I7t-pl OX~~&YJW (Rh.Gr. 8 599f W: 3, 97 Sp) there is quoted an example of the figure ca!lr-d TO&~TTWTOV (repetition of a noun in different cases) from Cleochares (3rd cent. BL’.); it occurs in a eulogy of Demosthenes, which begins “~~~Lo~&I~~silrrtarq c!KGiy. 3?jyLodkhJc n&js /L&f 6 pros . ..“. then uses the other cases of the name in the established order, finishing with “... &%KWS TE &&h~~, tS A~,&&vE~ “. lr will also be noted that the order of the oblique cases reported for Zeno

corresponds to their order in the established series: admittedly, with on11 three terms. there is a one-in-six chance of its being fortuitous, particularl;, ai it is reported at a much later date and at least at second hand (Diogenes iaertius, ? 3rd cent. A.D.); but in view of the Cleochares example, which, with its five cases, can hardly be fortuitous (5! = 120), it seems likely that Zeno, not very much earlier, would have been familiar with such an order, if not himself actually the originator of it. Ps.-Herodian in the same connexion also mentions an example of polyptoton from Anacreon (= Diehl, Ah. Ly. Cr. I, 44X):

Here too the cases are in agreement with the established order, and this is held by some scholars to indicate a very earl;) origin of that or{ the whole this seems unlikely. Mahlow (1926: 212) suggests rhat a first line containing the Nominative has dropped out: if this were ;o it would reduce the chance occurrence to 1:24; but, as Sittig points out (1931: 26), the ,UE’V in the liirst extant line makes this improbable, and in ~:c!ntent the poem is complete as it stands: cf. also PfeiRer 1968: 13f. Moreover, as Pohlenz observes ( 1939: 168). the order follows naturally from stylistic corl\idcrations (progressive specification of meaning in the verbs‘); and so, quite :ipart f’rom the date (6th cent. B.C.), it is hardly likely that we have hcrc rtny evidence for an estttblished grammatical tradition (on the possible

W.S. Men, C.O. Brirtk / The old order urtd the new

67

ordering of a four-term polyp:oton in Archilochus see Lobe1 1928; Pfeiffer 1968: 14). In another late work I7+ OX~+OV, by Alexander son of Numenils (R/I. Gr. 8, 473 W; 3, 34 Sp), two further examples of threepolyprota are cited from classical author:, Demosthenes (= II+ T@ ENS xix.298) and Xenophon (= Cyrop. VI11.2.8); but in the former the order is Nom.- at.-Gen., and in the latter Dat.-Nom.-Gen: so neither of these example rovides evidence for the order earlier than Zen0 h the negative evidence is of course not conclusive, since only exceptionally would one expect the grammatical order to govern the sequence in literary works. Finally in Callimachus, Hymn 5, the name /Tc~hh&occurs four times in different cases; and the oblique cases occur in the grzmmatical order ;5 but these are widely separated - Gen, in line 1, at. in 15, Act. in 53 (the Nom. appears in 132). With this separation we can hardly call this an example of the polyptoton figure, and the order must be fortuitous. -Apart from the genera I recognition of the established order, we also find attempts by later commentators to justify that order, as in the case of the Vocative mentioned above. Choeroboscus argues, for example, that the Dative precedes the Accusative because it may relate not only to an action (rrp+pcl), as, for example, in JIpra&px~ &%+L, but also in some cases (‘KcwxX~~~TCX&‘) to posSession (KITi@), as, for example, in Ali &k; SO that, unlike the Accusative, ‘660 EIv8~$m OCVT&S’. And in recent times the order has been applauded by a philologist of the stature of Wackernagel ( 1920: 17f): “This “, he says, “was certainly not an accidental or arbitrary order, but well considered. The case of the subject, the Nominative, was placed first then, under the influence, it seems, of a localistic theory” (i.e. with regard to spatial indications) next the case which serlves the idea of departure, the Genitive; then the Dative, in which the noun rnayindicate the resting-place; an nally the Accusative, in which the noun represents the goal. This is a rational and readily understandable sequence “. A more prosaic though no more convincing explanation 5 The occurrence was noted by Dr. A.W. Bulloch and the order by Prof. F.H. Sandbach (personal communication). tj A theory first proposed in detail by Wullner (1827 : cf. Hjelmslev 1935 : 36ff), whereby a11 case-functions are viewed as derived directly or metaphorically from spatial concepts such as movement, locat ion, and orientation. The theory was already foreshadowed in Byzantine Hjelmslev 1935: 10ff and p, 71 below. In Denmark it was to some extent favoured times: by J.N. Madvig (1875: 126ff, and cf. 1843: 29), and in England by T.H. Key (cf. 1874: 224ff). In recent times it has seen a resurgence and extension in the form of ‘case-grammar’ (see e.g. Anderson 1971): for discussion see Lyons 1977: 481ff, 718ff.

suggested by Hermann (1938) namely that the order arises from a common order of words in sentences bhere all the cases (other than the Vocstive) occur, as for example I~TO~E~&OS d Adyor~ T+ vii.;) rfjv ~p,y+*

is

ZUp&KEV.

Latin grammarians took over the Gre& tradition of the cases virtually unchanged, but were faced with the necessity of adding a sixth case, the Latin Ablative. By Varro this is termed simply sestus or Lcrfimrs (SC. cmrs). Quintilian is the fi,*st to use the title dhtiws. l-le also raises the question (hst. Or. 1.4.26) whether there ought a!so to be recognize sixth Greek case and a seventh Latin case, namely the ‘instrument but this would be everywhere identical in form with the Greek Dative and the Latin Ablative: and Priscian rightly rejects a tlistinction between the Ablative used with and without a preposition (II, 190 K): b‘supervacuun~ faciunt igitur qui septimum addunt, qui nulla differentia vocis in ullo nomine distet a sexto”. Even an eighth case, a sort of ‘allative’ (as fond. X‘c>r example, in Finnish and ungarian), is mentioned by Pompeius (V, !83 K) for constructions like it cir~or c&o, but this too has no formal justification (for further discussion see Murru 1978). For the most part the Latin names given to the other cases are straight translations from the Greek : thus rectd or t~o~~tirwtiws (Varro noruirmtfi) for 6p6;?or 6VOp~TlK7j; Ohhpi for 77-L%y~al; chtirws (Varro also c/crr~tli)for b-lKl;, and Priscian also c’oi;IrI~Ctl(~~~til*lI.~for ~T~cwY;\T~K~~; rowtirl~s for Two cases, Kl\yTlK< (Prkcian ah SdlitUtOi'il~Sfor 7TpCrriYyOpW77K?i). however, call for some comment. “JwK+ is generally rendered as gmctiu~s;R t h is, however, is probably not the correct translation, implying as it does ;I conncxion with the verb ,gi,~~r~ rather than the noun gcJ/rrts.Of the varioits possible interpretations of the Greek term (cf. 64 above) the most base and probable is either ‘generic or ‘general’: the Latin translation was perhaps encouraged by the existence of the more specialized alternative 7~plK7j, itself rendered variously as pmWrrs. putrirrs, or pcrtrwus. A closer translation is Priscian’s alternative gcr~crcdis (II, 185 K), though ht: interprets this in the sense of being the form from which the other case-forms can most easily be derived. ln support of this Schulze (1923: 249) points out that to characterize a baradigm in Latin the Nominative and Gcnitive forms are often sufficient; and Steinthal (1890: 302) observes that in modern dictionaries we in fact cite the ger,itive as the representative ott‘the oblique cases (Varro, however, The

’ Dona(u\

(IV,

377 K) ;\lso counts t hc Vocative

’ Thih, not gcnitic~s, is the correct

form.

as a caslis redits.

69

notes that in some declensions the Accusative or Ablative may serve better: L. L. X.28, 62 as against 1X.91). The special term ~u-?~Tw~ also pears in Priscian rendered as possmsiws. A rnw-e serious mistr;~nsl;ttic~n appears in the Accusative. The Greek term &WWC~~might best be rendered in Latin by something like @&til*us, as suggested by Trendelenburg (I 836: 124). But the Latin writers took the wrong sense of C&=/Q, whence the name mwwtiws, which seems first to ave been used y Varro (L. L. VI 11.67; also wcusmdi 66 and cf. 16). ian also gives the alternative rendering ctrlr.vcrti~~us (11, 185f K) : wto loco est accusativus, sive causativus”; and some modern writers applauded this as nearer to the correct translation (cf. Sittig 1931 : 28: Schwa-y~er;‘Det~runrler1950: 54 II. 3; Dahlmaln 1940: 76). Mowcvcr, the . p;\w$?o cantlnllcs: ‘b;uwo hominem, et in causa hominem fxio” \ihich showy that Priscian in fact intends cwrwtirrrs not in the sense of YauM ive‘ (in any case rare in Latin) but of ‘accusational. litigational ‘, ;~!I$ so egects no improvement: as Trendelenburg observes (10~. cit.), “Causativi nomini verum inest; exemplum autem ineptum et prope sensu cassum “. The Greek order of the cases was taken over by the Latin writers unchanged, with the addition of the Ablative after the Vocative at the end. There is one passage in Varro where examples are cited in a different order (L, L. V111.16): Nom.-Voc.-Act.-Abl.-Dat.-Gen. But there is no discussion oi the point, and it can hardly be significant; for Varro, as we have seen, referred to the Ablative as cNSl/s.w-tm, and elsewhere (e.g. V111.63) he cites various paradigms in the traditional order. And that (x-&r is indeed described by Priscian (11, 186 K) as ‘ordo naturalis’ though some of his justifications of it cannot be taken seriously, for example regarding the Dative (“qui magis amicis convenit”) taking precedence over the Accusative (“qui ma is ad inimicos attinet”)!

In the Middle Ages the formal study of case followed basically the lines laid down in antiquity, but a few works call for special comment. One of the most popular Latin grammars to emerge was the Doctrirde of Alexander of Villedicu (1199:’ ed. Reichling 1893), based less evidently ” Bursill-HaIl(l977: 3) notes the existence of more than 400 versions, many with comnuxtrtries. It may still have been in use in Italy as late as 1850: cf. Reichling 1893: LXXXIX; Kukenheim 1951: 83.

than others on earlier works, lo It is composed in extremely clumsy hexameter verses ;l l and the nature of the metre means that for the Nominative the term nOdn5tit~us cannot be used: what we find is either wctus or, in a few cases, primus. The other conventional case-names can be used, but not always convenifzntly: thus instead of gm~tirrts we once find secl&lrs; beside datitws is cften found tertius; beside acctrsatitws more commonly quartus: rocatirw,; occurs only once, being replaced twice by I*OCCIIIS and in all other occurrences by quintus; beside crhlatitvr.~we find more commonly sextus (as ;n Varro) and once SU~NW~WS. The established order is thus confirmed by the alternative names, and metrical exigencies result in a parallel naming system comparable with that of Sans p. 62). Around the same time there came into being a more philosophical than practical type of grammar, the so-called ‘speculative grammars’. !>ased on “the scholastic ideals of science as a search for universal and invariant causes” (Lyon 5 1968: 15; cf. Robins 1951: 74ff, 1967: 76ff). By this view the various ‘rrJn IrJub~of meaning’ (mod sigruj?candi) conferred on words and parts of speech reflect real ‘modes of being’ (modi essendi) through the mediation IJ,fthe mental ‘modes of apprehending’ SC.reality (modi intelhgendi). A gl:neral title of such grammars is consequently ‘De modis significandi’, and their authors are commonly known as ’ Modistae’. Since reality is everywhere the same, and all men are presumed to apprehend it in the same wali, differences in actual languages are to be considcrcd as involving merely the accidenr;J and superficial clothing of an undcrlying universality. Hcjwever, the grammars of this period are closely based on those of Priscian :jnd Donatus, 30 that in fact the ‘universal’ categories turn out to be essc:ntially those of Latin. This applies amongst other things to their treatment of the cases, which are in number and order the e as those of Latin : one may consult, for example, the Cramrwtica Specuhtira of Thomas of Erfurt (c. 1350, formerly attributed to Duns Scotus), of which Ch. xix is devoted to case (ed. Bursill-Hall 1972: 186ff). But as regards thGr discussion of this category,, the Modistae fall into a hopeless confusion of semantic and syntactic criteria, with only occasional and incidental re,krence to morphological matters. Interpretation of their discussions is thus highly problematical, and is further complicated by the Ii’ Cf. Kukenh einl 1951 : 82: Bursill-Hall 1977: 2. I1 :I\ a later britx (C’oclcus, 1511) comments: ” Nostri adolesccntuli a puero Alexandri inbuuntur verciculi~, brcuibus sane, at incomptis, dcticientibus superfluentibusque, sequipedalibw quoque glowmatis“ (Kukenheim 1951: 13).

W.S. AIic~t, C.O. Grirtk / Tltc old ordcv mtd the new

‘71

at there is much disagreement between the various authors themThe Modistae in fact do little if anything to advance the study of’ case, and we shall not concern ourselves further with their work; (for a mmary see Bursill-Hall 1971 : 969ff). In the east, however, we find a very different approach in the work of the monk and scholar Maximus Planudes (c. 9260-9 390) Lkpl OVVT&WF (Bachmann 9828: 905ff). Planudes had an exceptional command of Latin, and translated a number of Latin works into Greek, including t9ie smaller grammar of Donatus (cf. Sandys 1921: 27f). The work referred to is based upon Ch. xvii of Priscian’s grammar; part is direct transla.tion (with appropriate changes of example - e.g. p. 114 “0 /_L”r)pO’; +;, &77T~p ~K&O~ +d;) for Priscian‘s ‘ L’irgilius ego sicut ilke qo (xvii. 96 = I II, 997 K), but part contains a good deal of extension, including pp. 121-123 arising out of Priscian xvii.25 = 111, 923 K.” Th’IS section discusses the irlterrogative adverbs of place. ‘where’, ‘whither’, and “whence’. Planudef; points out that the first of these refers to ‘staying or stopping (pov;p Kd OTC&) in a place ‘, and the second and third to movement - the second movement towards, answered general9y by an Accusative with preposition, and the third movement from, answered generally by a Genitive with preposition. He then proceeds as follows: “.4nd here it must be mentioned that these three questions . . . have been assigned the three oblique case\ in accordance uith a certain natural sequence (Kad 7Lva &mKiv ~~Kdd~Ul~‘~). comes firsi, then the Dative, and third the L?ccusative, . . . As in the oblique cases the Gcnitive so here also the question ‘whence‘ comes first, rollo\ved by ‘where’, a:iLi lastly ‘wn::her’, in accordance with the three parts of time. For ‘&hence‘ refers to the past, since wr:en w’e a\!(, ‘Whence came the man ‘1‘(or ‘comes’ or ‘will cclme‘j, we indicate that he has left the place whence he came (or comes or will come), Rut ‘where‘ refers to the prestnt, since uilen we ask, ‘Where 1s so-and-so?‘ (or ‘was’ or ‘will be’), we indicate his present staying in the placein which he is (or was or will be). And ‘whither’ refers to the future, since when we ask, ‘Whither is the man going?’ (or ‘went’ or ‘v.ill go’), we indicate his arrival at that placein !he future. Or it may bc put like this: someone must first ctorne to us from somewhere, then be with us, then go from us to elsewhere”.

Here, then, we have an implied justification of the traditional case-order, on a localistic basis, which is far superior to the nonsense put forward by Priscian himself (see p. 69) and which coincides almost exactly with the reasoning followed by Wackernagel (set p. 67). Planudes’ cxpositioq seems in fact to be a development of ideas yet earlier proposed by Heliodorus l2 Erroneously published by Giittling (1822) as the work of Thcodosius (c. 400 A.D.): cf. Uhlig 1883: xxxvii. 13 Cf. Priscian’s ‘ordo naturalis’ (II, 186 K; see p. 69 above).

of Alexandria

72

W.S. Allen,

C.O. Brink / The old artier anti the new

(71h-8th cent.. cf. Pinborg 1975: 87), who discusses the order of the CASTS in a passage preserved in the Scholia Londinensia on the grammar of Dionysius Thrax14 (Hilgard 1901: 54Xf). He observes that the ‘local states’ ((I-&CLSCCL 70;TlKCd) arc three, viz. ‘from, in, and to a phce’, and that these are expressed by the Genitive, Dative, and Accusative respectively; and he continues: “‘The state of movement from, i.e. the Genitive, becomes the state of movement towards, i.e. the Accusative, and so seems to pass through the Dative indicating the state of rest; for this reason the Dative comes before the Accusative”. Next we may note ;an English medieval contribution in the Latin Grammar of Aelfric, Abbot of Eynsham (c. 1000: ed. Zupitza IWO). This is an elementary, practical grammar, based on the ucrks of Priscian and Donatus, but novel in that the language of presentation is the author’s native Anglo-Saxon. His purpose is thereby to simplify the task of learning for beginners; but, as he also suggests ifi‘his preface, it may incidentally serve as a grammar of Angio-Saxon: for all the Latin examples are glossed in this languqe. So far as the cases arc i:LIzcerned, these are listed and treated in the traditional order (Zupitza 18863:10,21ff). The Latin tcrminology is literally translated : thus “~l~~~/i/l~~ili~i~3 y:‘ nemnjendlic (‘ naming’) . . . gcwitirrtts is i:ectrynendlic (‘generating’) o66e gclignjendlic (‘possessing’) . . . drtirrrrs ys fclrgyfendlic (’ giving’) . . . cmusxttiuus ys wrcgendlic (‘accusing’) . . . rrocutirrrrs ys clypjendlic (‘calling’) o$iTe gecigcndlic (‘ invoking’) . . _ dhtirrw ys xtbredendlic (‘taking away’) . . .“. In his examples of the fIccusative Aelfric first g&s one jvhich fits the name: ‘%rrr~~homiwn~ uccw0 @me man ic wrege “; but other examples are not so appropriate (‘%M homimw mo pysne man ic lufige; JINIIC’ wtu q~prdwrrdi pis &ng ic rek~hte”), and Aclfric seems to realise the difficulty: for in his definition if the case he says “ mid iSirn CIISUbyiS geswutelod, hti men sprecafi be ‘%lcum pinge”, i.e. ‘by this case is m;rnifested how one speaks about anything’ - a much wider and vaguer definition than the traditional name suIXests . cc As compared with the six Latin cases, the Anglo-Saxon noun had only ti>ur (Nom., Gen.. Dat., Acc.),ls so that examples of the Latin Ablative l

- In ttic rn.~x. and ncut. sing. of strong adjectives and the ncut. sing. of dcmonstrativc pr~~nc~urik,hobtx~cr. therc~u’;i\ 31w an In\trunicnt;tl: a survival is seen in scntcnct’s Iihc’Thc more the merrier’, where ‘the’ derives from tile Instrumental bj ‘by that (much)‘. This

lvould provide a close parallcl for the Latin Ablative in some of its uses, but Aelfric does not intohe it.

bt’.S. Allen, C.O. Brittk

i The old order mtd the ttew

73

have to be glossed by a preposition with the Dative; this is not specificallv commented on by Aelfric, and he seems deliberately to have chosen, as examples of the Ablative, expressions in which the preposition a(b) is which can then be conveniently translated by the Anglo-Saxon.ficrj,z: thus for example ‘2 rqe lrerri fram cyninge ic corn” and “nb his pueris docrus SW fram &urn cildum ic eom BeEred “. ce of Aelfric’s work from our point of view is that it an early example of the transference of the Lat ill system to the description of a different, ‘modern’ tongue (cf. f), and illustrates the problems associated with it. A had faced the author of the Armenian version (5th ammar of Dionysius Thrax. For classical Armenian had seven cases (Nom.. Act., at., Lot., Abl., Inst.); and we in fact find the Instrumental insert en the Dative and the Accusative 1883: 31 n. cf. Merx 1883: LXI). The Armenian case-names are of me interest? As regards the Accusative, the text mentions that the eeks call it pcastaku~t, where y’nst = either ‘cause’ or ‘litigation’, raiher like the Greek C&I&The term actually used in the Armenian version is either ltr~~*&~rr~ or .wdraka)t, i.e. ‘asking’ or ‘seeking’ - which suggests a possible misunderstanding of the Greek term as if related to the verb &7X?V. For the Genitive the text uses the term seiakan, where set = ‘species, type, race’, hence “generic’ - which is probably a nore correct rendering of the Gree,; yt-l)tKTj than the Latin grrzetirws(cf. pp. 64, 68).

he Rationalists Though the ‘speculative’ grammars of t e Modistae had little detailed of grammar, their philosophical influence on the subsequent developme and universalist basis and their distinction between what we might now call a ‘deep’ (universal) and a ‘surface’ (language-specific) structure continued to attract interest (cf. Chomsky 1966: 97 n. 67). Lyons (1968: 15) suggests that the term ‘speculative’ in this context should be taken as referring to the view that language is a mirror (.~pecrrlrrm)of reality: an echo of this idea is found in the general observation of Leibnitz that l6 The Roman transliteration of Armenian terms used by Merx is misleading, since it in which the values of scme modern western Armenian pronunciation, consonants have changed radically: the classical values are preserved by the modern northeastern dialects, and the transliterations here used are based on these (as in Meillet 1913).

representsthe

“languages are the best mirror of the human spirit” (Chomsky M6: 2% and in this form it had received particular application in France by the teachers of Port-Royal (on whom see Padley 1976: 2lOff). in particular the Gwr?lrmriw g~k$wle ct rtlisomh of Arnauld and Lancelot ( 16fO. Tht: important difference between such works and the me ie\ al grammars is that they seek their universals not so much in ‘reality’ (even with the mind as mediator) as in human reason itself: the underlying philo no longer that of scholasticism but of Cartesian rationalism. Nor insist on an exact parallelism between the deep (mental) md surfwe structures; as regards case it is noted (Padley 1976: 256) that “s~n~~ languages indicate certain syntactic relationships by means of cases, w others use ‘particles which take their place”’ - a recognition in fact made earlier by Tommaso Campanella (15684639) and even by humanists such as Thomas Linacre (1460-1524): cf. Padley 1976: 43f. 168. However, not even the rationalist works succeeded in throwing ofT the influence of Latin grammar; in the Port-Royal gramm;tr it ih noted. for instance (p. 51). that “it is useful also to give an Ablative to Greek nouns. which is always identical with the Dztive, because this proserves a greater analogy between the two languages, which are generally learned together”. We might treat this idea as a mere practical. pedagogical convenience; but in t hc Norrr*elle r&/lot/e pow t~pprcr~thc jkihwtlt I(; hgw ,cyw*~p~~ (first published in 1655 and attributed to Lancelot) it is more firmlv stated that “in nothing have the grammarians so confused the analog; of the construction as in claiming that the GrcekFl had no Ablati\re, instead ~11 admitting a wonderful relationship between Greek ;md Latin on thib point “, and even more emphatically, ” Wc say that the Ablative . . . 1~91 only is found in Greek but is even essential” (cf. Kukenhcirn 1951 : 24 II.). In these works the traditional order of the cases is changed only to the extent that the Vocative is promoted to ?.he position immediately after the !\Jominat ive. Though the actual schools of Port-Roval were short-lived, their influence was long-lasting (the Grmwwiw gthtbht~ was translated into English in 1753, and reprinted, other than as a historical document, as late as 183O‘r; an important work on the same line5 is Yicolas Bc:wzt!e’s GI”IIIIIIM~W ,@+lAd~~ 014 espositiot1

r~ulsomt+

cks

t%+lwrlts

tIt4’t’s.vli)‘t~.~ AI

lcryi#y,

published in I767 (for discussion see Bartlett 1975). To ;I greater extent than the earlier rationalists, however, Beauz& succeeds in breaking away from the Latin patfern, and as regards the case system he criticizes their subservience to the six-case Latin model, pointing out that some lp.nguages

W.S. Mett,

C.O. Brirtk 1 The old order nttti the ttebr-

75

have no formal cases, whilst others (he cites Lappish) may have as many as 13. To-day we could go further and cite certain extremely ‘polyptotic’ languages of the NE. Caucasus, such as CeEen or Lakk or Tabassaran,

with 30. 48, and 52 cases respectively.17 It has to be admitted that the are just sufhxal exponents of specialized local meanings, note. for example, such refinements as the following: in Lakk ‘The brother is better tjr~rl the si,yter (ssu-ior)‘; the subject-case when used with the Equative, r~t~?~~ (r4.w4-,p4) is NS good ns the sister (ssrr-kssa)’ ; and a Similative for conventional expressions such as ‘(ns) ‘v -kwt-m-(l)‘. where the suffix is the same as is used in expressions such 3s ‘Like his sistar)r(.wr-C;trr~~), he also is good ‘. It is at such conventional expressions even in English have a Kercnt form from true equations: one can, for example, omit the tirst ‘as’. and on the other hand one cannot add ‘is’ after the term. nor put the ex ression into a negative or interrogative form ts convent;onal character \Ll Y Mitchell 1958 : I 1Of). conventional equriaion is, in Whorf’s terms (1938), a ‘not marked in sentences in general, but requiring a distinctive treatment in certain types of sentence’). In other words we t say that we have here a case-category of deep structure, the surface of which is obligatory, and morphological, in Lakk, but potential, and syntactical, in nglish. Rcauzde’s exflla tion of the names of the cases is hardly felicitous; particularly specious and feeble is his treatment of the Accusative (ii, 124) which he connecps with the French (‘IOXW in its derived sense of ‘to indicate, manifest ‘, “because one has to indicate the actual term of the eneral relationship expressed by the preposition ” (as e.g. in Latin (an) rhun?) - though this sense in fact dates only from the 13th century! oyal principles was the German Another 18th.century follower of .I.W. Meiner, whose Versucltether att r ntemMicIten Sprache abgebildete~t VermmftIehre ocier pltilosophische wtd ai/gemeine Spracldehre appeared in . Meiner is at pains to point out (167 n.) that the number of cases in a language is not absolute but arbitrary; whether one emplo,,s case-forms, prepositions, or any other means of expressing the conceptual relations, “this is only a difference in the indication of the cases - the cases themselves, however, i.e. the possible ways in which a word can function in the l

l7 By contrast, in the N.W. Caucasian Abkhaz and Abaza there is no case-system at all.

sentenc’e, must be and must remain the same everywhere”. One is herr; of’ the terminological distinction made much later (by Blake ‘I bet \vce;l ’ case ’ ;ts a.11 underlying sytltactic-scmal~lic relations ‘case-form’ as an expression of that relationship in a particular I by whatever means. However, the underlying case-system in work bears suspicious marks of ckkcal paternity. He insists on thsir number being no more and no less than five, though o ‘IC’of t hew. the Subject, is divisible into Ist/3rd-person subject and 2nGpcrson subject ( = Nom inat ive and Vocative respectively). Apart from the Subject there is the personal object, for whose benefit something is done (= Dative): the p;tssjve object of an active subject (= Accusative): $lnythiT;g which serves as an instrument or means to the subject (= Ahlat~vc); ;.nd finally any km 11~relationship with any of the others, which further determinc~ it I== Gznitivc, as e .g. in ‘Der Sohn Gottcs’). What is of particular iniercht from our pc,int of view is that Weiner states (164) that “these six cases must follow one another thus” (viz. as above) “according to the most nat 1-1 ml order “, i.e. Nom.-Voc.-Dat.-Ace.-Abl.-Ger-. - a very considerable departure from the traditional sequence. Another later exponent of rationalist, general grammar was the Danish scholar N.L. Nissen, who in 1801 published a Danish translation of the work of A. 1. Silvestre de Sacy, P~irlc@~ tie ,~rm~m~iw ,qhthh~ ( I 799). N ith an appended outline of Danish grammar which w;ts later publihhcd qarately. But both in this and in his earlier Greek gramm;tr (I 798) Niwn follows the traditional order of the cases, except nh;it in the I;itter, in tile Dual number. he brackets together the syncrctizcd Nom.-AK.-Voc. :ind Gen.-Dat., in that order. Finally an interesting sidelight is cast on the universalist doctrines of continental Europe by the work IJf two Icelandic scholars. In 1651 (soon :tftcr the founding of the Port-Royal schools) there was written by Runtilfur J&l bson a Grmmdc~ islmdic~c~ rudhlp~~t~~, in which t ho six-case system of atin was taken over and zpplicd to Icelandic. Rut in 1’738 Jon Magntisson, in his Grcrrum~tiu~ isitrtdiccr, writes as follows: “Casus prazter q18atuor non habemus, ncmpe Nominativum, Gcnitivum, Dativum et Accucat ivum ” ,* and he appends a note, evidently referring to followers of Port-Royal and similar traditions: “Sunt qvibus displiceat, me ti numero C;isuum excludcre Vocativum et Ablativum. Sed respondeo, meum propositurn non esse novis ChimEris linguam nostram adulterare, sed, ut est, veriirn descri here “. No-one, he points out, has ever thought of adding to the Greek noun a ‘construct state’ just because this is found in Hebrew;

e says, remain content with the categories we have been ” a~iarunl lingvarum ubertates intuentes, non 33: 8, 12, 25).

~~~in~e~ tvith the work of Nissen (cf. Mat-key 1976:

60: 97) and also of Jon Magnusson (cf. F. Jonsson eat Danish comparatisr Rasmus Christian Rask Wished work was an ’ Introduction to the Icelandic which appeared in I81 I, though it had been the case system, Rask here maintains itional order Nom.-Gen. at-Ace., and in the morpholog!cal section retains the traditional Latin names (though in the syntax he e did generally in later works, Danish names anish scholars, including Nissen : cf. Diderichsen nconnected innovation, however, is in the ordering 28f the paradigms are set out in the order Neuterinstead of the usual M.-F.-N. Rask justifies his nds that the Neuter forms are the simplest, and the similar to the Neuter; this, he says, applies to all nd is doubtless the reason for the syncretism oi‘ for example in French. This innovation of Rask’s w: s not, however, well received by an eminent reviewer of his book, the Germanist Jakob Grimm (1812: 249 = 4: 520). 7f) we find Rask’s view of the Already in a letter of (?) 1809 ( = 183 priority of the Neuter as the basic form extended also to Latin and Greek; he suggests, for example, that P+S should be derived from I.I_&+ s and T$!KXI‘ from T-+W + S. He also suggests that the order of the cases (in Eatin) should be Nom.-Voc.-Act.-Dat.-Abl.-Gen. (an order which differs from that of Meiner only in the reversal of Dative and Accusative which is a clear advantage in view of the syncretism of Nom.-Voc.-Act. in the Neuter). One might think, Rask comments, that this change in the traditional order of the cases was immaterial; but when one describes a natural object it is certainly not a matter of indifference whether one uses the same order as Nature or an arbitrary order. “It would”, he says sarcastically, “be a fine sort of natural history in which one started with the fishes. then went on to the metals, and so on; and equally hopeless, it seems to me, is the old order in the grammars”.

78

W.S. Allen, C-0.

Brirtk / The old order ami the new

These views on the ordering of the genders and the CL?SCS a letter of 18 11 ( = 1941 : 64f), with particular reference to with omission of the Ablative). This order he claims to criteria: (1) the natural order of the ideas expressed by the en (2) the natural sequence of the forms of the endings or their d from another. By the first criterion he justifies his order of the cases a101 expressing first the simple name, then the calling of the na direct and indirect objects, and finally the case whcrebv o transition of thought from one word to another. The S&I though unclearly expressed, seems from the context to invol tions both of syncretism and of derivability (in either a diachronic or a synchronic sense); he cites as examples the seyucnces f;+(u b,jropct and n&Ics, ndhl, &h~~, &IEL, ~&UK, and draws attention to t fact that, in the Neuter and in the Dual, if one orders the cases other than in this way, the result will be “most confused and unnatural” - fo presumable reason that syncretized cases would be separated in the Dual, Nom.-Voc.-Act. in Dual and Neuter); and he express his regret that he had not used this order in his book on leekmdic, We here encounter a dualism which was to bedevil Rask‘s theo position ever after (cf. Diderichsen 1960: 49ff). II the one hat employs semantic, rational criteria (‘deep structure’) and on the other purely formal criteria (‘surface structure’); and firm conclusions c only be reached on such a dual basis if the two structures were isornsr and Rask does indeed in the same ietter claim that this is always so experience suggests otherwise. As regards syncretism. for example, it is at least arguable that basically this happens in response to a mer the deep, semantic categories concernud (cf. Hjelmslev 1935: 104): but in some cases it must surely result from purely ‘accidental’, regular phonetic mergers, as, for example, Latin Dat. Sing. It@ < Proto-l E *-bi (cf. Avestan rdwktii)= Abl. Sing. It@ < *-&I (cf. Sanskrit q&7/) (cf. also Bazell 1960; R. Coleman 1976). The same (Latin) order is described in a letter of 1812 (= 1941: 149)a?+ “natural” and “offering the deepest insight”. The same arguments are employed, and he again regrets not haviirg used it earlier: he was, he says, afraid to offend established usage, but now realises that he should not have taken this into consideration. For suppose, he says, that in botany one were to classify plants according to their height: the traditional order of cases has no more reason than that. “ But”, he concludes, “enough and II fear too much on this matter! “,

‘.%

79

‘

in an

xticlc

on

anish grammatical

e six cases represented by Latin are basic to ay be syncretism and in others

sk inverts the order of Dative en.; and in materials for 90 about syncretism in the

-Dat., but justifies it on the same npublished papers (18 18a : 18a: 172 := 1932: 191) he hich of the last two [i.e. en. and Dat.] shouM bc set first: but in view of the relationship of the s . . ., the order here given Elsewhere (I 8 I Sa: 22Sf == 1932: 247), referring the Plural, he comments e traditional ordc:f uf cases (which separates them) is therefore er accident, according as as they presented themore have no scruples in rejecting

a let;er of 1819 (- 1941: 420f) he admits that his nitive immediately after the Accusative was based on rcilcct the original situation in Slavic. In the Same letter he also admits that hc has come to his final conclusions clnl}! “‘after much troublesome speculation on the matter, even after having given up hope of ever finding e finds further support for his order a satisfactory system in this tangle”. in the fact that it is more in accordance with that employed by the Sanskrit grammarians (where the Dative precedes the Genitive: cf. p. 62 above).

1817 had appeared Rask’s grammar of Anglo-Saxon. in

In

order adopted is Nom.-Act.-Dat.-Gcn. At the end of his prcf~~ invokes the Indian grammarians in support of his order in original Danish version, the lnstrumental (see fn. 15) is treated as a form of the Dative, with which it is generally syncretized (e.g. bdt in the version as revised for Thorpe’s English translation treats it as an Ablative (cf. p. 56 : ’ dh~iws irrstr’w?tcrlli’); a that the Ablative should be placed before the Dat ivt.?!’ ( I earlier in the materials for a Latin grammar (see above). He i point in the preface (1830: LIV) by taking the singular declension of the Latin pronoun is, arguing from this that the Accuhat ive should not separated from the Nominative, because in the Neuter both m-c dike. an in the Feminine “tn~ is clearly derived from at, not from ci or ($6’. ,\blat ives, he says, “belong to the same element as CZW,WII, and thercfore should not be separated”; “~;jl/.~is formed from ci, by the nd of the Greek ending -OS, not vice versa; t#s should therefore be after ci’, not before it nor between cw and PO”. He also repents his view that the Neuter should be placed first a,s the simplest of the three (1817: 16; 1830: 24). The same ordering of the principal cases Act.-Dat.-Gen.) is taken over by Henry Sweet in his ~~~~,~t~~-~~~~~~~~~? ~~~~~~~~~ of 1882, though with the Instrumental reco niLed as such ;tnd ~~l~~~ed at the end. In I8 18 Rask published a Swedish translrtt ion of his Icelandic ’ !ntw= duct ion’ of 181 I ; in this his revised order is rww adopted, and is d~~~l~d~d sed in the ntx preface”” (omitted Srom the English translation 01 here (xxvi ff) reiterates his view that the old order was a matter of chance, and was objectionable in bringing unlike forms together and separating like forms. Exceptions to the universality of his order hc admits may occur - but only to the extent that one expects some irregularity in nature. and they concern only accidentrll :tnd irrelev;lnt matters. He compares his innovation with that of Linnaeus basing his classification of plants on their own essential structure and interrelations rather than on such an accidental criterion as scasonality; and he again points out that I” Cf. 1830, LIX (in postscriptrrtti to prcfacc): ” Hahcs igitur, Lector hcnwole, nicurn lc)

b6

opu5, scd accuratius

ct elcgmtiu\

gtmuinunl

C;B~I.CSSUIII”.

. . . as in the grammars of the Indian languages“ - an error, found also in his letter of 1824 (1941: 112). ‘20We are grateful for the assistance of Dr. M. W. Braestrup and Prof. F.H. Sandhach in reading the Danish and Swedish materials respectively.

e Indian tradition. In the main part of the 3: 52) hc st;~tcs that “Of the cases the act. is last of aI\ the &en., which has most peculiariard to the mutua Etymological philosophical meaning thereby denoted, to ndic, but also in Germ. and iill Gothic and es, as weI\ as in Greek and Latin”. Rask’s order is also n his Pnhttv- of Mothw

1927). : I t .Zf) Rask *;lgain discusses case-ordering, Nt~m.-Vuc.-Act.-Dat.-Abl.-Oen : these he c. -= ‘subjective’, Ace.-Dat. = ‘objective’, ;ind hc again comments that this order in d by the Iirahmins for the indian languages. risian grammar (translated into Dutch in e too he adopts the order Nom.-Voc.-Acc.describes (26) as “the natural order”. rity of the Neuter, deriving the Masculine m this as in his Iettcr of 1809; and in thisconnexion he refers to Grimm’s crit4zisrn of his Icelandic ’ Introduction’ in 1812 (see p. 77 above): “ He has %‘,>\rrysRask, “restored the gender and case forms to the old Latin tjrdl:r, ithhich is manifestly wrong in Latin itself, a!) well as in all languages \vhich have this systev11”‘.Grimm, as might have been expected, returned to the attack with a r,vicw of Rask’s latest work. He begins (1825: 83 = 884: 362) by repeating and expanding his objections to the ordering of rs, and then proceeds to the ca ordering. First he attempts to ask’s innovation by pointing t that something similar had already been done bgf J. Dobrowsky in is Bust ilu t iorres lirgum Shk7e s Grimm sees not the slightest ~~~~~~~~~~i Wt4ri.s. 21 For rhe Germanic langu ~dva~~ag~ in the invlovrrtion, “which unnecessarily upsets what was instilled in US all fro n our schooldays ill learning the Greek and Latin ot’? on to m;tke the interesting point that Rask’s argu~clen~io~~~ “. ~~~e~~~ i\ not consisteiit, since, if the unintlected neuter is given priority, them “the Accusative, which in GermarP is mostly uninflected, should Iwlm~dic,

21 The order adopted b-4 Dobrowsky (460f) is Nom.-Act.-Gen.-Dat.-Lot.-Sociative (or Instrusnental)-Voc. L2 From subsequent rerrarks it is clear that he means ‘Germanic’ rather than ‘German’ (e.g. Gothic Nom. H’I#~, iicc. gulf; Old Norse dfr, df).

be placed splendidly

before &quwt

the

Nominative”.

Thcrc

1;~

argument:

Grimm accepts that the Accusative is closet (mentioning their syncrctism in the Neuter): any way lost by putting the Accusative after the Geniticc By way of paraIle1, it would, he says, be co

wrds

a11

xcordiiig to their niorpli,~loj.$al an t txm according 10 their pronunck~t ion. e.g. analysis suffers not the s!ightcst harm [‘koin &ar gckrQntn~t’] by ihe latter way of writing, which is the most suitable for praeticttl ~~~~~~~~~~~“. However, Grimm was not entirely unmoved by Rask’s ;quments. In the first edition of his Dctrtsclte Gtwttrrttrtik (IXIS)) he has hw the order Nom.-Gal.-Dat.-kc.-Voc., and the same applies to the wco edition up to the third volume (It331 ); but in the fourth volume ( devoted to syntax, we find the following ;tdmissionx

ut no further volumes appeared; ~~~~~i~.~~l~~~~~l ~~~r~~~,~z~~ of 1848 nominal paradigms r. It is thus clear that, however much Rask’s theoret ical views, in practical by Rask in his own short-lived 8ff). He repeats many of his task for not having read his And as regards the reference to ints out that the work in question was published introduced the new ordering in the prize essay i;rammar of 1817; and that 15 earlier 1% ark, a Bohemian grammar of 1809, was still order, Rask thus seeks to establish the originality as well as erit of his i~~~v~t~~n. evoted considerable space to Rask’s views, since he himself ~~ore persistent attention to the problems of case-ordering than r writer has done; and his conflict with Grimm epitomizes the ~~~~~~~t ion of innovatory and conserv.itive attitudes.

to Kennedy

and beyond

0ur survey has reached the 19th century, and the traditional case-order, nt any rate in the teaching of Latin and Gtcek, had remained acceptable, e contrary. We started our in spite of Rask’s strong arguments to researches with the guess that the new C) er might have arisen in the rammar schools of the 16th century and so become traditional in . But we had our doubts, for we remembered that certainly Shakespeare’s ‘small Latin ’ was sufficient to suggest to him what he makes his Welsh parson and schoolmaster, Sir Hugh Evans, say in Merry Wiaes, Act IV, Scene 1: “Nominative, hig hag hog: pray you, mark: Genetivo hujus. Well what’s your Accusative case? . . . What is the Focative case, William?” This at least seems to presume the traditional order. So in fact the professional scholars taught. When Thomas Linacre, who had learned much from the Italian humanists, issued his Rudimerjta Grummatices for the Llstruction of Princess Mary (? 1523, based on his earlier ProgJwrasmatp? Grummatices Vulgaria of c. 1512), it was the 25 The name of O&din’smessenger.

traditional case-order which he inculcated: and this also granted in his Oe emetdata structuru Latirli swm~t humously in 1524. And so too the pedagogues repeated. T the teaching of elementary Latin about the middle of t and for a considerable time to come, n slror’tc~ Genercrlly to be Used irl the Kjwgcs Mqkdes .

Domirtiorrs,

and John Colet (1549), has the same traditional order position of the Vocative, which remained unsettle haec musal Genetiuo huius musae/ Datiuo huic: musae musam/ Vocatiuo o muss/ Ablatiuo ab hat muss”. C Paul’s School, had been a pupil of Linacrc, and had ; first High Master. Colet had died in IS19 and I_ily in Introtht~-tiolr was in fact a re-working of their earlier Linacre’s) Rudirtler~tcr Grmunntices ( 1509- 10, but first which had been adopted by Wolsey for his school at of I543 contains a royal injunction by Henry Vlll re use of this grammar in the schools (“as ye intend pleasure”), in order to end the ‘@ate hynderaunce, which l~~~~~~~f~~~~ hath been, through the diuersitie of grammers and teat injunction was continued under succeeding so\ereignrs, by the Short h/rodrctiorl of I 549. and by El izr bet h in t ho c to (“vpon Paine of our Indignation, and as you will ;NIII~~UXC’ trary “). The work was also prescribed by the Convocati~~n ()I8Prr’l:~tc~111 1571 and 1604 (“non aliam praelegent aut docebunt “)? t is t~~~~~f~~~.~ y surprising that, even when these injunctions wxe relaxed, such r as the ordering of the cases should remain unchanged, as nn t Westmirutcr Grcr~w~urr (e.g. I 659), the Etm G~IIIIII~~(su~cc~~~~r,t‘mm I 758, to the Short Itltrcrt~lrcefiolr), the C7vi.d.s Hospittrl Gr(~~~~~~l~~~ (20 1771). the Kirq fYrt*d VI Gr~uww~ - the shortcomings of which \t mulats.rd Roby, when he was Secl)nd M;~stor at Dulwich, himtAt to d Elwwltmy Lath Grm~a~urr*( 1X62) -- ;md many others. As late as the fortics

of the 19th ccntwy,

Bwjmlin

;\‘l Kc~Ilwdy,

whose influence on claGx1 teaching in English schools cm1 ~c‘mu$ t-w cxaggerated,z~ cant inued the old order. Thus t hc Ltrhrtw G~~~~}?~~~~~til~i~tl x For further details see Blach 1908 : 65fT; 1909: 8 I fl’; Padley 1976: 23ff. 27 B . H * Kennedy (I 804-1889) was “the greatest classical teacher of this century”, according to T.E. Page writing in 1892 (Diet. ofNutiom/ Biogrqhy, XXX: 415). That th s view was widely held is shown by D.S. Coleman. Subrirme Corolh: T/w Chssic~s nt Shrcwb~uy Sd~ool w&r Dr Blrtlcr cud Dr Kcwdy (IC’SO).So not only the large nclnlbers of r’ormer pupils believed, because they owed to him a lasting love of the Classics, but also profc Aonal scholars of the calibre of Munro and Heitland.

t?lllltfrqf f/wLtrtit: Ltfryrrqy ( 1847), ut in the Pifblic She/ Lmh Primv ~~~~~~~which proved as momentous for the

“‘The arrangcmcnt of the Six Cases given by which is in fact the current ent obtained in the Plrhli~~Sc~l~ool Ltrtiu hc new order of Nom+Voc.)-Act. with Kcmxdy’s Primer and GI’LIIWILW. that t hc suc:c’esso? the new order in initiative. The success, yes. But he advantqges of the change, let alone htz the first to moot the change. He ;*.I the, c ant~~mor> narfitrrr A fl bwe, h;mu;rrl%* ?~P’knl\\P’f~lPZBP‘al~ ‘rfi;ii - ilOt to mention m.*.rlP~b@8Wb .l\F.TRb,u~~U, RfE &El\. l LIrrbrrL.L yuurbu Cl adopted the new order as he found it in the grammars of two ed ~~~~~ish scholars and teachers - one of them, Thomas l-kwitt Key, older than hinMf,2H and the other, & nry John Roby, a man.‘)~’More important still, Madvig’s own grammar had enjoyed erablc success in England. An English translation first appeared in HLN and kry Ill 6 a third edition had been publishcd.30 me unilrtended humour in Kennedy’s sandwiching the name greatest and moht original of Latin scholars - Madvig’s, that is -.- betiseen those of two minor, if meritorious, adherents in his own nt ry. (‘hrc,nol~,~icaiiy. however, the sequence Key-Madvig-Roby was justi~ed in a sense. In his Lrrth Grrmrwr ott the system oj’ crrfdcjbrrtts (l846)., the first work of the kind to show an inkling of the new comparative :

Jo In Germany, however, as Madvig himself noted, the new order of the cases had proved an obstacle to the adoption of his grammar by the schools: cf. 3rd German edition (1857), p. xiv. Jakob Grimm’s fierce opposition to this and similar innovations proposed by Madvig’s important predecessor in this field doubtless contributed to this effect (cf. section 4 of this parer). Grimm’s opposition may also have retarded recognition in Germany of the new case-order and its advantages.

W.S. Allen, C.O. Brink / The old order and the new

86

philology. Key offered the revised order of the cases. Madvig’s englishe Grammar appeared, as we have said, in 1849, znd Roby’s EIermwtar~~ Lath Grclmmar was published with the *same feature .i apparent sequence 1845 (Key), 1849 (Madvig), I862 ( (Kenned!,). This chronology, however, was not quite what it seemed. preface (Q. x) Key had actually referred to Madvi known in England; he singled out “a Latin Grammar in the language in SVo9’.It is iiitely therefore that Key had met the revised order in the German translation of Madvig’!; Grammar. Madvig’s work appeared in his native Danish in 1841, in German in 1844 (the work apparently consulted by Key), and the English tt anslation of I849 was made from the German text? Moreover the author had added some ‘Obset stations’ (Bunla)vklli,lgrr, 1841) to the original text, in which he explained the new features of his work. These he republished in a revised and enlarged German translation of 89 pages (Bcmwkuuge11, 1843). It was from this essay (partly in German and, more widely, in English through the extracts in the preface to Woods’s translation:* that the fullest statement of Madvig’s views reached English readers. These views then are likely to have been know n to corn pilers of Latin G rammars in England. What Key said in his preface did at any rate some justice to his predecessor. But although he obviously recognized the importance of Madvig’s innovations, there was no need for him, in the context of a school grammar, to go into the reasons for the revised order of the t:ascs. Roby in turn had little interest in what he might have considered ‘speculations’, and Kennedy apparently e.

More than half of Woods’s brief preface (81 pages) to his translation of Madvig’s Grammar is devoted to an explanation of his author’s arrangement of the cases, especially the Accusative. He does not, however, refer to an earlier paper of Madvig’s on gender (‘Om Kjannet i S 1836: German translation 1875: l-47 = 197 I : 47-80). in which a rnuc:l more reasoned discussion of these problems had been provided. Woods remarks that the revised order “differs from that which had commonly been followed by Latin grammarians”. e quotes from the Ohtwdw~s “that the accusative is placed immediately after the nominative in Sanscrit, ” The Danish edition was entitleid Latinsk Sproglme til Skolebtwg (Copenhagen, 1841). L.H.F. Oppermann’s German version, Lateinische Sprachlehre fiir die Schulen (Braunschweig, 1844), and the English version, made from the German text by the Rev. George Woods, A Latin Grammar for the use of schools (Oxford, 1849).

er has been adopted by the distinguished philologist the Grammar of the European languages gener-

estions have been discussed in the preceding e comparatist on the classical scholar is patent. But it a Madvig was able to form important comparativeown. Moreover, as one might expect, he has a l~~nguagesthan Rask. Finally, his own position ections as that of his predecessor. He does not with others that are purely formal, and his frw from the duality that mars Rask’s mode of advig treats ‘deep structures’ and ‘surface although he does, where appropriate, cite t of morphological. The historical criterion is impressed on the reader from the outset. In considering the formal aspects of declension, Madvig, like Rask, makes his start nob, according to convention, from the Masculine and Feminine nouns with their different forms for the Nominative and Accusative, but from the Neuter, where syncretism is undeniable in these two cases in uiar and Plural. He contends that the historical Neuter ier stage of the language in which Accusative and Nominative represent a single case. This contention is qualified at greater length in the essay on gender to vihich we have already referred. The pre-historic form that preceded the historical Acc./Nom. of Neuter nouns is there defined as a non-case (’ Nicht-Cajus‘) or common case (‘Gemeincasus’) which lacks the specific elements (endings) that go to make up the o cr cases. The common case denotes, he suggests, a direct participatio the action expressed by the verb, whereas the other cases stand in an oblique relation to the action. For that reason the term LYISIIS rc~rrs could more adequately be extended to the Accusative and Nominative that came to replace the original common case, since the truly ‘oblique’ cases express special relationships with the action (1836; 1875: 37, 40 = 1971: 73, 75). Madvig states that the ‘common case’ in its most original form is found in Latin Neuters ending in c, I, Y, and i, and Greek u and 1. In some consonant-stems (11343: 26 = 1971: 328) a final consonant is dropped, as, for example, IUC, car (compared with the oblique stem lcrct-, cord-); in others, he assumes, a short vowel is added, citing for example forte; and in the Masc./Fern. Act. this is extended by a final m (e.g. urbem), though

ss

W.S. Allen,

C.O. Briuk 1 The old order ami rhe new

in Greek only the vowel a is added. In vowel-stems he observes that both languages add a nasal in the Masc./Fern. Act. (Latin 111,Greek 10:e.g. I+), and in the thematic stems this is added also in the Neuter (~OWC +.K&v, etc.). These ‘appendages’ he assumes to be merely ‘euphonic’, as also the distinction between the Greek Masc./Fern. Nom. and Act. Plural in consonant-stems (-CC,-QSrespect ivcly) (I 836: I875 : 45 - 19 79). Sanskrit, he notes, shows much the same phenomena, thou ;\. loss to explain the final II which appears in the Sanskrit Act. Plural of \,ow&stems. The euphonic, phonetically weak nature of the final nasals he supports by the observation that in Latin final ,Wis elidable, and by the f;ict that in Greek v may function in an ‘cphelcystic’ rtilc (’ nunation‘ in Arabic is cited as a parallel). With the hindsight of later research we now kno\c that many of the d&lb of Madvig’s argument were wide of the mark. For instance, cwlrwr is cited as an example of the original r-stem, whereas it is more probably derivable from *CN/CNW ( < *cdurr.i);and on the other hand the final YOWIof.f&e belongs to the stem (< *-i).""The W/Vand vowels added to the plain stem in the Masc./Fern. Act. and the Neuter, according to Madvig. are of course not independent additions by the Irtnguages concerned, but go back to Indo-European *III in the case of vofvcl-stems: for es:~mplc. Latin ~WW~I,Greek &I~, Sanskrit ~WW~ K I E *wrwr~~ The wnc anplies to the final vowel CYin Greek and (VUin Latin consonant~term : t hcse both derive from an I E syllabic nasal *III (an automatic I:iriant of *HI after a consonant): thus, for csample. @WI, 77%~ < IE */~t~~‘~ft~z.:‘:’ It is natural thal Madvig should not have been aware of this, \iracc the sq~llabic nasals of Indo-European were not postulated until the :t~lt‘of the Neogrammarians (by Brugmann in 1876). A similar explanation &derlies the Masc./Fern. Act. Plural of Greek consonant-stems (-OS), u hich is derivable from *-{IS,as in the Latin equiv:llent +.s (via *-errs); and it San&r-it vowel-stem form such as dr~it1 ‘horses’ is dcrivablc, like Latin

, and the assumed changes which ier period of prehistory. gender may be summed up by the ords and inanimate or non-action preceded the later distinction eminine, and Neuter. For animate ase, the * Nominative’, was later common case was left behind as a specific object stained some of the earlier more advig here cites its use with prepositions, its of duration. mewwe, or goal of movement, and in Greek; its tk; to these he adds in a later h ‘absolute’ uses as in exclamawith the infinitive in commands (e.g. 7'06s 1971, 331ff; 1856; 1875: 124ff = asc. Nom. in Indo-European was , Greek. and Latin -, whereas Feminines, which a special ending a, in Greek Q or 9, did not accept the *-s Madvig did not attempt to decide what the morphological origin 1875: 43 = 1971: 78), but his he idea that the Nominuivz

might be derived from an ‘unmarked’ rimm in his review of Rask’s Frisian Grammar (see p. 81 above). Madvig takes this idea a stage further in identifying this Accusative (formerly ‘common case’) with the Neuter Nom./Acc., and moreover goes on (1836; 1875: 42 = 1971: 77) for the minor errors of detail to make a hypothesis whit?, after allowi general linguistic speculation referred to above, was rnuah in advance of his time. He notes, from a description by Humboldt (in Ad&ig 1817: 316), that in Basque “substantives have a double Nominative”, one used when the subject is active (in a physical sense), and the other ‘*~l~iclti.~ Jbrmcrll_)~ identicul with the Accusutirle” (Madvig’s emphasis) when the subject is passive or neutral. 35 He proceeds to imply that in Indo-European the special ‘active’ subject case was extended to subjects in general (becoming the historical Nominative), but, as we have seen, not for all 35Humboldt(1817) describes the one ‘Nom.’ as “des Handelns”, with a termination -(e)c, and the other as “des Leidens oder neutralen Zustandes”, bracketed with the ACC. as comprising simply “Der Nahme oder das Wort selbst”. He comments (317) that this peculiarity of Basque “scheint mir such in Riicksicht auf die allgemeine Grammatik nicht unwichtig. . . . Der Nominativ bey Verbis neutris ist eigentlich gar kein Casus . ..“.

subst;mt ives, “only~for suhstm~ir-es oj’n pcvtiruhr c/aw, that of L\ t_ile Lumwkd’ form (the historical Neuter Nom./Acc., origi

tical with the Masc. ACC.= ‘common case’) being retained for the ingnimate subject. The Basque situation is in fact typical of the many Ianpgcs of the world having a so-called ‘ergative‘ construction (cf. ,hserl 1963: 201, n. 132) - a term first coined for the description of certain Caucasian languages (cf. Seeiy 1977 : 19I, 194). In sue ;I bdircct’ case is used for the sub,ject of an intransitive verb direct object of a transitive verb; whereas a special ‘ergativc’ case is used f‘c?r the (typically animate) subject of a transitive verb: for see Lyons (1968: 350ff), Anderson (1971: 40ff). Seciy (I (1978). III the present century the hypothesis about Indo-Eurapcan hat\ been rnorc widely canvassed. though, it seems, without any rcco Madvig’s much earlier suggestion - first by the Dutch scholar of Basque. C.C. Uhienbeck, in 1901. The general implication of such hypotheses is that the ‘direct’ case underlies the historical Neuter and animate ( Accusative, and that the characteristic -s of the historical Nominative reflects an original ‘ Ergat ive ’ : see further Martinet (1962: 1SOff) and P.nderson (1971 : 54 n. 3)? These considerations have taken us far afield and, indeed. i\ ion from Madvig’s original hypotheses. But our diwwion hi\s also !Jwwn their far-reaching and productive character and, we hope. hits restored to them some of the acclaim which they deserve. Returning to Mar3iig.h position, we can now see more clearly the reasons that Icd him to rcprc~cnt

the Neuter paradigm by no more than t hrec cases (two oft hem syncret ist ic) - in the Singular siguw~~. sigrC, sigrw and in the Plural sigrw, .~j,~~~~~~~~t?? sigrkr. an arrangement like that folio~xd by ail grammarians in the Greek Dual (Woods, Pref. : vii). Madvig strongly emphasized the importance of not multiplying ‘unreal‘ cast!-dist inct ions, i.e. where t hc representat ion of more than one historic;~l cm: by a single form reflects. in his view, an earlier ;md less differemiated --_--

“’ The

h>,pothAs

can bc taken

further.

&ginning

with a study by N. van Wijk

III I9OZ

(for a brief surnniary cf. 0cr:cl and Morris 1905: 90f), the independent rsuggcstion h LSbeen made that the Ilt: Masc. No:Il. in *-.Y and the Gcn. in * -c~s/-~>.v art‘ simply ditkentiated form of an original

4 nglc mdinp,

(cf. aho Lchmi\nn

according

to whcthcr the noun functicmd

1958); and these two hypotheses could

as subject or nwditicr

now be brought

together as the

result of the observation (Allen 1964) that in a number of ‘ergative’ languages there is in fact syncretism of the Genitive and Ergat ive casts - as though the subject of a transitive verb were conceived as the ‘possessor’ of the action and its affected object (one may compare the use of the auxiliary languages)

‘to have’ in tile formation

of the perfect in western European

91

e apart fi-om the uncertainty of I whether Madvig’s three-element rposes of learning than the full ranlmarians who adopted his order af c.)-Act. etc., as ~~lllrrll-helluril-bclli_Aello-hello : thgs t not Roby 1862, who in this respect rinted 2:: ] rogc11~131,Gm. rcagni, g;i:} sistence (Woods. Pref.: vii) that the Icar Iler ought to ‘%o more cases in a language, than there are is salutary. But it does not reflact the actual hich made a clear distinction between hc#uct~,and likewise the two cases it is not essential to Madvig’s rts from the Obsercations. “From the comparative view of the formation of the Greek and Latin nominative accusative, which is borne out by the analogy of the whole family of es to which they belong, it follows first, that we ought to place the ether, that the unity of the neuter may not be broken up into IY+Uor (if the vocative is also placed separately) three forms. In the next that case (the accusative), which is only the theme euphoniously ht not to be inserted between cases which are formed by special terminations of their own. Hence this further advantage is gained by the correct arrangement, that the single form or case38 which in the plural corresponds to the dative and ablative singular is not divided into two by the interposition of the accusative, and that in the singular too the forms in o are not separated in the set nd declension ‘T3’ After summents that are inherent in the language and favour the marizing the a e the supposed advalt.tages to the learner of new order, he e forms which we ha\:e mentioned above. Finally, Madvig’s extension 0%‘his principle from the Accidence to the Syntax of tht; noun remains tc-, be discussed (Woods, Pref.: vii-x). He e 37 Ile\persen . ( 1924 : 173- 180)opy osed the fkt it ious number of cases asstlmed, on the Latin m~~del, in languages where they d j not apply. That however is a different matter, 3BThis is the meaning of “die eine Form (Casus)” in Bemerkungetz, 27, not, as Woods has it, “the simple form or case”. 39 Ilt is instructive to note that even in languages where only three caszs Nere postulated, the traditiona: order was imposed on them, and so Nom. and Act. were separated. Thus Murray’s once authoritative English Grammar (first in 1795) transferred the lraditional order of Latin Nom.-Gen.-kc. to the three putative cases in Eng!ish.

argues, quite rightly, that the fortuitous position, i of the Accusative between the Dative and the Ablakc vincing treatment of cast-syntax. The first md mot ;t transitive verb (the Accusak) was traditio instead of before, the special and more remote one Likewise, the relation expressed by 111~Accusat it-e was pin syntactical level as the Dat ivc and Ablat ivc ; for il t hc Accusative had been wcdgcd by the t wdit i viii). Whatever explanations are found for the syntactical and Abl;Jtive (Madvig himself inclined to the localktic cx fn. 6). it is clear that they denote ideas bbexternaI to the wtio c~presscd, whereas the accusat kc dcnotch t hc oh.jcc~ WI &c’ t h;m the subject “. Hence the Accusat kc is dcfincd h> rn;~rlrlcr that may be compared to ith formal ahpccl in the cast being formed in masculine and feminine 1101111s to cxpross tllc s the accusative remains as the word without any furth definition than that it is not the subject (or predicate U) or a passive verb), and it is employed whenever thcrc i:%ilo l~~ce~~~t~for some mot-c special description ” (Woods, Prcf. : ix): Madvig’s ~x~~l;~l~~~t~~~~~ of UQX of the Acr;us:itive other than t 1x11 d’ espr&n t hc ~~~~*i~~t u ii\ rnent ioncd above (p. 89). Ap:trf from this basic principle. ho\\cl’cr, spcculatic~~rr w;~~ nof beyond ~~~Sdcfincd limits. Unlike his prcdcct:>hor K;l& Mad\ ig dctail~ of the two ~Iassic;~I languages tirmlv in mind. HC inncJ\;t’Lt’ i5 main principle would t;kc him.~Tlrus the convr”ntional or ~L-AM was left intact. And every the Accwatiw, which vig*s own showing is more basic than the Nonlinativt‘.40 and hence should prcccde it if order were to be dctcrmined by historical cotlsidt’r;lfil~ll~,‘“” ~a~ not shifted to the top of the paradigm. Once theory had pr major criterion, convent ion was to bc changed, but no more

criterion demanded.

self stated the advantage, not only to the grammarjan but ases are first presented in the new r seen to prevail in the Syntax (Woods, d at the head of all cases, apart from educed at once “to the simplest Thus the relevant part of the Syntax e Nominative when it is the subject or when it is the predicative nodn with ~~1131 f-subsistent ” (par. 221). Then on to self only denotes that a word is not enerally without specifying any wlirc~ orbs, or the person or thing s immediately, is put in the Accusative ; ~.~~~~~~~~~ rkib ~~~~?~~~~~~~; ttwes Nmm” (par. 222). Equally he claims, cation, that the new order which juxtaposes the two am.-Act., would teach the learner to see more easily the n the active and passive forms of the sentence. “The ned into thz subject; sn which case the agent (which in was the subject) is now joined with u or ah; Pornpeius a hber c1me turletrrr ” (par. 222). “4 further advanta e claimed by Madvig for the new order and for his realistic view of the Accusative as the object case, continuing the original on case’ without any special significance, is perhaps more doubtful but not entirely without some substance. He suggested that a sentence like Cw)scrrCif ~~~??~~~jM~)~ would recall ‘Caesar conquered Pompey ‘, and thus come morn easily to learners who are at home “in a language (like English or Danish) in which the forms of the \c,‘sbade been largely given up” (1843: 31 = 1971: 333; Woods, Ref. : Such is the critical position that underlies the simple teaching reforms Roby, and K nedy. A glance back over the century and a half sk and Madv first proposed these principles suggests that Madvig in particular succeeded in three entirely different respects. First we would place the hypotheses concerning the development of genders and cases - the priority of the Neuter to the Masc./Fern., the postulate of a ‘common case’, and the priority of the Accusative to the Nominative. Since Madvig’s time the subjects of transitivity and ergativity have been much discussed, both in general and in relation to Indo-European prehistory; and research m this area continues (cf. PP. W-90 above). Many of these ideas have of course arisen independently of

94

W.S. Allen,

C.O. Brird / The old order md rhe new

Madvig’s hypotheses, but are nevertheless a tcstimo the originality of his work, which is hardly less r-emu in others where it is more readily recognized. The second matter of principle concerns the paral morphology and syntax in the order and treatment of ca recent critical grammars of Latin and Greek show Madvig.3 in that respect, though it is rarely acknowledged and often fa French grammars of Latin and Greek since the m 0. Kiemann‘s Sr~ta..ce hthc (1854 and later). A. I historiqw du lath (19 16 and later), P. Chant raine’s (I‘rtrr~ (1942-1953 and later) - usually offer the revised order i well as in syntax. In Germany, however. F. Sommcr compromise in his celebrated t~~rrt/f~~c*lr tl. Ilrl. Ltr~r(2nd ed. 1914). This compromise goes b;~k ;I long ICI with fn. 24). When dealing with the eight IE cases he started in order, Nom.-Act. etc. (p. 320). But when he came to t he arranged them in the traditional order, Nom.-Gen. e the Vocative between the Act. and Abl. A much more consistc’nt adopted by M. Leumann in the 5th edition of Stolit‘s U. &~~~~~~~~~~~ Forrmwlehrc ( 1928). Leumann (255, 263ff) arranged the ~~~~~~~~~~~ cases in the order Norn.(-~~roc.)-Acc.-Gcrl.-~nt.-At~l., ;I worked editiorr of 1977 (408ff, 417ff’). Similarl~~ J.H. Ho edition of Schn~alz’s Swtm, which Sormcd p;trt of the ~tme I (372ff), with the only proviso that the Vocative he;td\ he c;t%Y=q 111;1\ because of the paucity oP’specific forms outside the wco~~d Cclcll!&~ll. :I\ ;I curiosity, however, we note that t lofm;~nn committed hrm~elf to ;rn illogicality corresponding to Sommcr’s. While Sommcr adopte revised order for the I E case-system but rtdhercd to tradition for the Accusative, Hofmann, followed by A. Sjantyr in his new edition ( compromised the opposite way; the 1E C;MX appear in the tr~~dit~~~l~~~ Greco-Roman order, except for the Vocative‘ (Hofmann : 3 2 I), whereas the Latin case-syntax is given in the revised orde zer avoided this contradiction in his Gricdrisch ~~i~~?~~}?~~t~~. His list of I E cases is in a revised order except for the Voc;lti\e ( 1939 : 546): L’N. (precedes as ‘uninflected’) Nom.-Act.-Gcn.-Abl. (next to Gen. bec;tu4c of the similarity of their syntactical functions) -Dat.-Lot.-Inst.; the s;tme arrangement obtains where relevant cases are referred to in the discussion of the Greek declension. Schwyzer’s order is also to some extent influenced by the order generally adopted in comparative Indo-European studies,

Dt’.S. .4Nen. C.O. Brink ; Fhe old order and the re\rv

95

e r~~~~~~~iz~~,is in turn influenced by the Sanskrit order (cf.

txi:ive and Ablative arc syncrehis Vq$~~ichcmi~ Gvtmw~ntik of 1833 d the Sanskrit order throughout. In rder was consistently presented both Kent in 7%~ Forms qf‘ Lnth (1946: 2 I and Sommer’s compromise in his CO~H11( 193.3: 172, 175) and still retained in his (s‘rc~k Didwts of 1955. ~rgi in importance, comes the simple rearrangement

by for schoul-te;~~~hing.Third it may be, but it is of the cases tends to create expectadicf‘s shout the rht ions of the cases to each other. TLus the traitiar~! or&r will link the b!ominative a::d C_enitive m the mind of the cr, and Eater of the scholar, just as it wi!! link the Accusative with the que cases between which it occurs. This is a dislocation which learner scholar are better without, and Madvig’s view of these matters seems k.My sensibEeand practical. We have noted that the authors of most of uur scholarly grammars have e a ratBc>na!choice in replacing, more or less consistently, the traditi~~?~~~~ order by the revised. School-books, however, have on the whole ccn more traditional. In Denmark Madvig’s advocacy helped to establish order, ju\t as Kennedy’s authority in the schools had the same set in Britain. So th e new order became t raditiona! in thf\se countries. and remains so even when the full paradigm is not taught at the beginning of a classical language course but, as happens for example in the Cambridge reek projects, is postponed o a later stage. Similar developrance. But the traditional order ments have been reported to us from seems to prevail in Italy, in Spain, and in the majority of German and Dutch schools. In Norway the Danish practice is generally followed, of Dative before Genitive is also found, as favoured pite of the changes attempted by scholars like C.M. Zander and one or two others,4’ it is perhaps the influence of German scholarship in Sweden that has there made against the new order, especially where Ger.man is taught as the first foreign language. Nor, apparently, did 42 Thus Kristen Weierholt, Gresk Grammatikk til Skulebrlrk (2nd ed., Oslo, 1960). 43 Cf . C mIb. Zander, Latinsk Sprdkltiru, 1891; Bergmann-Lundqvist, Latinsk Grammatik, 1916 and later. Zander, the author of Ewythntia and other works, held the chair of Latin at Lund from 1891 to 1910.

Kent’s lead in favour of the new order prevail in the United States against the strength of the old paradigm buttressed by the Germa practicd~ We are informed that the order of cases remains traditional in Rs;.dan schools, though with some concessions to syncretism. And finally we return to the home of the traditional case-order, Greece - w ere. and’is not surprised to learn, no change of practice has come abouP

eferenccs Adclung,

J.C.,

Berlin. Allen, W.S.,

1817. Mithridatcs, 1964. Transitivity

odcr attgcmcine and

pos~cssi~~n.

l_i1Il~IIiISC

30,

vol. Iv.

.A!lsn, W.S., 1974. Vox Graeca. 2nd cd. London: Anderson, J.M., 1971. The grammar of case:

Cambridge

lid. J.S. V,~tcr.

337 333 (I’cpF. In’

1, SZ 90. 1Iarmondsccorth:

(cd.), S>*ntact ic- t hcory,

Houscholdcr

Sprachenkundc,

I .I\?‘.

Pctigurn).

Univ.

Press.

Towards a localistic theory. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 4. London: Cambridge Univ. PITS Arnauld, A., C. Lancelot, 1660. Grammaire gknkrak et raisonntie. Paris (rcpr. (%mva: Droz, 1972). Bachmann, L., 1828. Anecdota Bartlett,

B.E.,

1975.

Gracca,

Beauztie‘s

II. Leipzig (rcpr.

Grammairc

gtin&\lc:

Hildexlreim,

1965).

and methodology.

Theory

Janus

Hague: Mouton. Barivick, K.. 1932. Review of Sittig 1931. Gnomon 9, 587 594. Linguarum,

Bazcll, c’.E.,

ser. maiLj,r, 82. The

1960. A question of syncrctibm and analogy.

N ., 1767. Grammairc

Bcw/c;c,

gtinbralc ou ezrposition

du langage, pour servir dc fondcment Bernhardi, Blach,

S.,

A.-F.B.,

der Sprachwisscnsc}litft.

Shakcspoarej Latcing~r\nlnlatik. 44, 65-l 17; 45, 91-100.

1930. A semantic an_llysis of caqe. Curme

Monograph,

1 12. n&c\\airc\

ii l‘titudc de toutcs les langucs. Paris. Jahrb.

1908’9.

Gesellschaft Bl,thc, F.R.,

1805. Anfangsgriinde

TPhS,

raistJnnt;c dch t%ments Bcrhn.

d. dcutschcn

Vol. of Linguistic

Shithcspcdrc-

Studies (Language

7). !3- 49. Baltimore.

Bopp, F., 1833. Vergleichcnde

Grammatik

des Sanskrit,

Zcnd, Griechischen,

Litauischen, Gotischcn, und Dcutschen. Berlin. Buck, C.D., 1033. Conlparilt ive .;rammar of Greek and Lut in. C’hicago: Press.

Lateinischcn,

Univ.

of Chicago

Bach, C.D., 1955. The Greek dii lccts. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Bur>ill-Hall, G.L., 1971. Spcculativc grammars of the Middle Ages. In: T.A. Sebeoh (ed.), Approaches to semiotics, 1 1. The Hague: Mouton.

‘I4It is interesting to note that, as recently as 1970, A.W. Bennett refers, at pp. v--vi of his Intk).~ i’t~rhoruttt Skl/u.sticutrts, to t he old order as ” the usuill ‘Ii Many 1~ wrious

particularly

paradigm

order *‘.

schcklrs h:qve very kindly provided us with information on the teaching practice countries or have answered other questions. For detailed information we are indebted to C.J.F. Dowsett, Oxford: P.V. Jones, Cambridge (Greek Project);

Limentani, Cambridge; Serge N. Mouraviev, Moscow: R.G. Popperwell, Cambridge; M.W. Senger, Cambridge; Judith Taylor, Scarsdale, N.Y. (whose enquiry started us on OUT researches); Margaret J. Widdess (Cambridge School Latin Project); E. Wistrand, GtiteU.

borg.

.lll. G L.. 1072. ~~-~~~~~,G.L..

s of Erfurt.

19

rammars

of the Middle

London.

Ages: Notes on the manuscript PhonCt ique et morphologic,

ii :

laxe), Paris: Klineksicck. history of rationalist cwsbury s of syncretism in Latin.

thought.

under Dr. Butler and

In: A. Morpurgo

Davies,

uistics otl’cred to

W. Meid

L.R. Palmer,

43 56. Innsbruck. ~~.~~~~~~~~n~, Ii.. o,tXY\t,

IrUj.

c;.Vv.D..

V,lrro:

Dc l.ingu;t

1X4.3. S&Y M,\rkey.

l.;ttina,

Buch VIII.

I)cbrunn~, A. $6~ Schwa Lc‘r, E. Dirl‘++‘r~ R I?asmiIs Rask t>g den grammatiskc -.w\= X+119%11, I ‘, 13tiXk I Damkc \‘idsnsk. Sclskab 38(t). Copenhagen.

Dobr~~s~~, Ernout,

J., 1822. lnstitutioncs

A,, lQl6.

Morphologie

Frcde, M., 1977. The or and philkwphicai $! -79,. Dordrccht

Linguae

historique

Grimm,

C.G.

ted.),

tradition,

Medd., Kong.

Hict.-filol.

Slavica~ dialecti veterts. Vienna. du Iatin.

Paris,

ns of traditional gra:nmar. In: Butts, Hintikka (eds.), Historical mensions of logic, methodology and philosophy of science,

: Rcidcl.

Frcdc, M., l’“78. Principles of Stoic grammar. Bcrkcley : Univ. of California Press. Gottling,

Berlin.

T.L.

1822. Theodosii

In:

Alexandrini

J., 1812. Review of Rask 181 I. Allg.

J.M.

Rist

Grammatica.

Lit.-2.

(ed.),

The

Stoics,

27-75.

Leipzig.

1812, 31-34,

241-270

(= 1869: 65-73;

1884: SIS-530). Grimm,

J., 1819. Dcutsche

Grimm,

J., 1825. Review of Rank 1825. Gott.

Grammatik,

1. Gottingen. gel. Anz.

1825, 81-107

(= 1884: 361-376).

J., 1822137. Deutsche Grammatik. 2nd ed. 4 vols. Gottingen. Grimm, 3.. 1848. Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. Leipzig. Grimm, J., 1869, 1884. Kleinere Schriften, 1V, VI1 Hermann, E,, 1938. Die Reihenfolge der griechisclrcn Kasus. Glotta 26, 94-95. Hiersche, R., 1955. Entstehung und Entwicklung dcs Terminus ‘Fall’. Sb.DAW f. Sprachen, Lit., u. Kunst 3, I-19. Hj~lmslev, L., 1935. La catkgorie des cas, 1. Acta Jutlandica, 7.i. Aarhus. Grimm,

Hofmann, J.B. Sue Lcumann, M. Hubcr, E.R., 1957, Dcutschc Verfassungsgeschichte Huber,

E.R.,

Humboldt, Ban&s

Berlin,

KI.

seit 1789, I. Stuttgart.

zur deutschen Verfassungsgcschichte, I. Stuttgart. W. von, 1817. Berichtungen und ZustitLe zum ersten Abschnitte des zweyten 1961, Dokumente

dcs Mit/rri;futes

uber die Cantabrischc

oder Bask&he

Sprache.

In: Adelung

1817, 277 -360. Jensen,

P.J., 1963. Madvig

som tilolog. In: J.N.

hagen. Jespersen, 0,, 1924. The philosophy Jbnsson,

F.,

1933.

S.,

of grammar.

Den islandske grammatiks

Selskab, Hist.-filol. Jbnsson,

Madvig:

Et mindeskrift,

II,

1.209. Copen-

London.

historie til o, 1800. Kgl. Danske Vidensk.

Medd. X1X(4). Copenhagen.

1927. A primer of Modern Icelandic. London:

Kapp, E., 1956. Casus accusativus.

Festschrift

Oxford Univ. Press.

Bruno Snell, 15-21.

Miinchen.

lI,trk~>.

T.L.

or OId

(cd. S~ntl intrr)d.). Nkrrw

Tcwme:

197h. Rasmur;

Tr,lnhl;ltcd

Kristian

Rask,

by Sir Gcorgc

Webbe

A Grammar Dascnt.

of the Icelandic

Amsterdam

Studies

11~the Tht‘klr\ .tnd Hlytr)ry 01‘ Llngui
i xc. nwr.. cttw. c tiiol. 20, I5 i -2 I I. .. lQi3, Aft;trmcni*ches t’lcment;lrbuch. XI~ir~er.

J.tl;..

IBl.

Cr~r~~ch cincr

lchrp: ttde‘r phllrjwjphiwzhc

w IP~ introd. ~~h.tfl 1Ic:r\.

an dcr

Heidelberg.

mencchlichcn

Sprache

h, ti.Ci, Rrcklc: Grr\mnl,lt ic;b \,niversalis dcr Spr,tchphtl~~~c,phie),

UFI~

0 c .rrti\

-1.. I?#?.

abgebildctcn

Spri1ctllehW. Leipzig

und ;itlgemcinc

(repr.

(Mcistcruerke

Vernunft-

Stuttgart,

1971,

der Sprachwissen-

6).

Dic~n~~irlfl.le

intcrprctiltic~ule

in:

armeniac’;l.

188?, LVII-

Uhlig

I ‘c;\;til ~!tl
I

Ilurs

iI,

I

, _.

1’15s. S>nt,bgm;ltli

I”?)2

f

I‘jPS.

n+t\

IX\,I~I~W\

~l’,\ll~ll\r\l’.

~\klltw

h

\\;e\W‘fl. % I . It’)$.

i~nal>\is;. TPhS,

\lclI\tcv\,

lOI-

tC~~rtl‘,ittCt C;rml\k

N.L.,

Ocrtcl,

II., l:.P. illorri~, IWF.

IXO8. Cirrtndtr;rk

Spr~~glxw.

af Danlik

a pr~Jp~~\ito dell’ octavlts casus.

An cwmination

1976. Grammatical

1K92. Biography

C‘~qwnh,igcn.

Sproglrrre.

of Indo-tiatropxln infFect ion.

tlrm. l.rim.!on: cm,hk&y

HSCP

theory

Copen!,agcn.

of the theories

regarding

the nature

3..

in Western

Europe

1500-1700:

The Latin

tradi-

Univ. Pwss. of F&It. Kennedy

(‘litwic‘ll

lU7C.

l~ngu~\tt~s,

and

t 6, 63-i 22.

in:

Dictionary

of national

biography,

PI‘c~bI’cr, R., 1%8. IIsttory of classical scholarship: From the beginnings t icll~n~~tic .Qc. l.crndon : C’ambridgc Univ. Press ~‘lFhV~~

I IX.

I%K).

til~,l~,pi~~,-lit~giii\tict~e

qlic‘rtlcml

Niwm,

P;aJlc~. G.,A.,

(n!:pr.

I.44 155.

(;hJtt,~ %.

wgtn

Ilngui\tic

III

1’411

Greece.

antiquity:

13: Hi\tcwiography

of Linguist

In:

T.A.

Sebeok

(cd.),

its, 69 -I 26. The Hague:

XXX.

to the end of the Current

:Iends

in

Mouton.

P~~hlcw. XI., 1939,. I91c Hcgrundung dcr abendltindiwhen Sprachlehre durch die Stoa. Ciolt. Ndchr., phrl.-hi\t. ICI.. Fachgr. I, N.F. 111.6, 151 -I98 (repr. in: Kleinc Schriften,

t4. lh~rrc.

4.

I f ttiIdc4hcim,

Xl., l9-M. lh

P0hlcw.

Ra++k, R.K.,

1x1 I. Vejicdning

Ra+,,

1817

R-K.,

19651, 30 $6).

S,oa, I. Gottrngen. til dct i\landske

Angei\ah+k

Sproglaere.

cller gamlc

Stockhotm.

Nordiskc

Sprog. Copenhagen.

Sw ulso Thorpe

1830.

iXl8~. Underwgclw om dct gamlc Ntj141\he Sprogs Oprindelse. Copenhagen ( = 1912). Rad,, I<.K., I KIXh. Anvi\ning till Isltindchan ellcr Nordiska FornsprAket ( ?rSn Danskan

f&r&,

R.K.,

c,t’\cr\att

och omarbetad

af t cirfattaren).

Ra%k, R.K.,

IaCTS. I-‘ri\l%k Sprogl;ere.

R;r\h,

1826. h1 <)ctl wwcrkningcr

R.K.,

gtd. .4/J:. 1826, No. c) i 2. tlcrmod Rash,

R.K.,

Ra,k,

R.K.,

Ra,k,

R. K., I94l.

Relchling,

vcd Anmccdelw~ v vii,

1x34, 18.36, 1838. Samlede,

Udg1br-w ct’tcr t crrf,tttercn\ 1912. Udv~lgtc D. (cd.),

Breve

SCLTalso Markey

1976.

tildeI\

af min frisiske

Spro@re

i Giitfiug.

73 100 ( = 1838, 199-234). ftwhcn utrykte

Afhandlinger

af R.K.

Rack:

I, II, Iii. Ed. H.K. Rask. Copenhagen. Afhandlingtx, i. f-d. L.. tijclmlcv. Copetlhagen. Dad,

fru og til Ra\mur

1893. Das Doctrlnalc

maniac Pedagogica,

Stockholm.

Copenhagen.

Ra\h,

I. Ed. L. Hjelmflev.

dcs Alexander

Copenhagen.

de Villa-Dei.

Monumenta

XII. Berlin.

Rienlann, 0.. 1854. Syntaxe latine. Paris. Robins, R.H., 1951. Ancient and medieval

grammatical

theory in Europe.

Londm.

Gcr-

W.S. Allen,

100 R3bins,

R.H.,

Brink 1 The old order and the new

C.O.

1967. A short history of linguistics.

London.

H.J., 1862. An clcmcntary Latin grammar. Cambridge, London. Ruby, H.J.. 157114. A gwmmar of the Latin language from Pl~Iutui to S Si\cy, A.I. Silvcstre de, 1799. Principes de grammaire gitn6rale. mis ;i Ia Ruby,

Paris. S;mdys, J.E.,

1921, A history of classical scholarship,

Press. Schneider, R. (cd.),

1910. Apollonifrs

Hildesheim, 1905). Schulze, W., 1923. Zur Bildung ANTI-!&PON

Fragmcnta

Miinchen. E., A. Dcbrunncr,

(Gr.

im Griechischcn

dcs Vokativs

(Fcstschr. J. Wacknernagel),

E., 1939. Griechischc

Schwyzcr,

Dyscolus:

1. 3rd cd. London:

240-254.

und

Il.iii).

Lcipz

im La?cinisc

Giittingen.

I (Allgemcine

Grammatik,

Gr.

Csrmhrid

Teil:

Lautlchrc:

Wortbildun

Flcxion). Schwyzcr,

1950. Griechischc

Gramlnatik,

II (Syntax

und ~~ntnkt~~r‘hr:

St ilist i k). Miinchen. Sccly, J., 1977. An ergative historiography. Sittig,

E.,

XIII. Sommer,

1931. Das Alter

dcr Ausordnung

Stuttgart. F., 1914. Handbuch

Steinthal,

H.,

Historiographia unwrer

Lingui\tica

Kayus.

Tub.

IV,

Beitr.

191 -206.

/\lr

rIltcrtum~\r

,.

und Formenlehrc. 2nd cd. ttcidclhtx dcr Sprachwisscnschaft bci den Cricchen und Rome

d. lat. Laut-

1890. Geschichte

I. 2nd cd. Berlin (rcpr. Bonn, 1961). Sweet, H., 1882. Anglo-Saxon primer: Oxford:

Oxford

Univ.

Press.

Sweet, H., 1886. Icelandic primer: Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Szantyr, A., 1945. 2nd ed. of Hofmann‘s Lateinische Syntax (19)28). hlun~h~n. Tchckhoff, Thorpe,

C., 1978. .4ux fondcments

de la syntaxc:

B., 1830. A gramm:~r of the Anglo-Saxon

I’ergatif.

Paris.

tongue, with iI pril\t\.

Tr~1. rjl‘ R;l\k

181

Copen hagen. Trcgder, P.H., 1839. DC casuali nominntuum Latinorum dccliniiticjne libellu\. ~‘~~p~nt~ag~~~ Trendelcn burg, F.A., 1836. Accur;.ttivi nomcn quid tandem hibi vclit. s\c’trt Sot. Gr,rec. (Lips.)

I, 117-124.

ohlenbeck, C.C., 1901. Agens und Paticns im Kasussystcm IF 12, 170-171. LJhlig, G. (cd.), 1883. Dionysii twini, 1965).

Thr;lcis

J., 1920. Vorlwrngen

IYhorf,

1938. Some verbal categories

\‘~II Wijk,

N.,

1902. Dcr nominalc

hliltnis zum Nominativ. LVoods, G. Sw

Madvig

Spr;lc‘hw.

Ars Grammatica (Gr. Cr. 1.i). Lcipag (rqr.

\C:aukernagcl, B.L.,

der ind~~germtinl~chen

iiber Syntax, Genitiv

Hrl

I. Bawl.

of Hopi. Singular

Language

14, 275--2X&

im Indogcrmrrnixhcn

in seinem C’tx-

Zwolle.

1849.

dcr sprachlichcn (_‘asus und Modi. Munstcr. Zumpt, K.G., 18 18. Lateinische SchulgrLtnlmatik. Berlin (2nd ed. trsl. J. Kenrick, London, 1823). Zupitla, J. (cd.), 1880. Aclfrics Grammatik und Glosser. Summlung Englischer DcnhmLiler, ~~‘ullncr, F., 1827. Die Bcdcutung

I. Berlin.