⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ gsas workshop on indo-european and historical linguistics ⋅ harvard university, november 9, 2012 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅

m o r e n o m i t r o v i ćjesus college, cambridge

coordinate construction in indo-european

1. introduction

1.1. Diachronic syntax, reconstruction and PIE.

● Lehmann’s (1974) attempt to reconstruct PIE syntax

– There is no reference to Armenian, Albanian or the Celtic languages (Delbrück, 1900: vi)

– Although some of the results of this method may be correct, the method itself is unsoundand has been extensively criticised since the 1980s (e.g. by Lightfoot 1980, Smith 1981, andMcMahon 1994)—see Walkden (2009) for an overview.

● change is idealistically curved:

– the time course of change: not instanta-neous in the historical record—instead,they typically follow an S-shaped curvewhen frequency of occurrence of a newform vs. an old one is plotted againsttime. (Roberts, 2007: 296)

– replacement of an essentiallypragmatically-determined word orderwith an increasingly grammatically-determined word order and the con-comitant emergence of functional cat-egories. For evidence, see Taylor (1990)for a diachronic treatment of Greek andLedgeway (2012) for a diachronic syn-tactic analysis of Italic/Romance.

– Denison’s (2003) S-curve for diachronicsyntax: “slow, slow, quick, quick, slow”1

a

b

t

%ne

w

prag.-

det.wo

gram.-de

t. wo

1 Changes start slowly, gather speed, and then taper oU slowly again. (Roberts, 2007: 296)

m o r e n o m i t r o v i ć

1.2. Aim/s: Explaining the two (P)IE facts.

#1 two morphosyntactic strategies for conjunction:∃{ tree1

α&β

, tree2

α&β

}

#2 coordinator1 may semantically quantify:v∧1βw ∼ vanyβw ∼ ∧1 ≃ ∀-like

aim Getting the semantic facts to fall out of the syntax:fact#1 ⊢ fact#2

2. the data: two coordination strategies

orthotonic coordinators³¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹·¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹µ

enclitic coordinators³¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹·¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹µ

A Latin:

(1) α[uestem]

garment.accetand

β[nomina]names.acc

‘Garment and names.’(Capt., 37; Torrego 2009: 458)

(2) α[consulemconsul

interVcerat]had.killed

etand

[eiushis

exercitumarmy

subunder

iugumyoke

miserat]sent

‘He had killed the consul and sent hisarmy under the yoke.’(Caesar, BG., 1.12.5; Agbayani and Golston 2011)

(3) α[domi]home.loc

β[duelli]war.loc

queand

malebadly

fecisitdid.2.sg.pst‘In peace and in warfare you haveperformed villainously.’

(Pl., Asin. 559; Ledgeway 2012: 32)

(4) defrom

dominoowner.abl

α[bono]good.abl

β[bono]12

good.ablqueand

[aediVcatore]12

builder.abl

‘From a good owner and a good builder.’(Agr., 1; Asin. 559; Ledgeway 2012: 32)

(5) α[plus]more

β[minus]less

ueor

‘More or less.’ (Capt., 995; Torrego 2009: 456f.)

B Greek:

(6) α[entáuthathere

émeinanwaited.3.pl.pst

heeméraasdays

tréis]three

kaìand

β[éekecame

Ménoon]Menon

‘They waited there three days andMenon came.’

(Xen.,Anab. 1.2.6; Agbayani and Golston 2011)

harvard, nov. 9 ⋅ gsas workshop on indo-european and historical linguistics / 2

c o o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n i n i n d o - e u r o p e a n

(7) kaìand

α[minhim

phoone´esaasaddressing

épeawords

pteróentawinged

proseeúda]he.spoke

‘. . . and addressing him, he spokewinged word.’

(Hom,Od. 15.259; Agbayani and Golston 2011)

(8) α[skéeptron]scepter

β[tiimáas]honours

teand

‘Scepter and honours.’(Aes.,Prom. 171; Agbayani and Golston 2011)

(9) α[tè]12

thedèand

[práksai]12

making‘and the making.’

(Aristotle,Poetics 1454a; Agbayani and Golston2011)

C Hittite:

(10) nuand

α[kánprt

MursilinMursilis.acc

kuennir]they.killed

nuand

β[esharblood

ieir]shed.3.pl

nuand

γ[HantilisHantilis

nahsariyatati]feared.3.sg.m‘And they killed Mursilis and they shedblood and Hantilis was afraid.’

(2BoTU. 23.1.33-35)

(11) α[... ginuwas gad.hi.a]for.kneesveils

β[patann]12

feet.genaand

[gišgìr.gub]12

stool‘Veils for the knees and a stool for thefeet.’ (StBoT. 25.25.i.10)

(12) α[anšu.kur.ra.meš]charioteers

β[lú.mešis.guškin]12

golden.groomsyaand

[humandan]12

all‘Charioteers and all the golden grooms.’

(StBoT. 24.ii.60-61)

D Old Church Slavonic:

(13) α[suvetucounsel.m.sg.acc

sutvoritook.3.sg.aor

suwith

knęziprinces.pl.inst

svoimi]poss.refl.inst

iand

β[swith

Moravlęnythe Moravians.pl.inst

poslasent.3.sg.aor

kuto

carjutsar.sg.dat

Mixailu]M.sg.dat

‘the Prince of Moravia took counsel withhis Moravian princes and appealed toEmperor Michael, [...].’ (vc, 142)

(14) α[Azu]12

Ižeand/but

[gljotell.1.sg.pres

vamuyou.dat

...]12

‘But I tell you ...’ (cm, Mat 5:28)

3 / gsas workshop on indo-european and historical linguistics ⋅ harvard, nov. 9

m o r e n o m i t r o v i ć

E Gothic:

(15) α[akneither

anaon

lukarnastaþin]candle.dat.sg

jahand

β[liuteiþlight.ind.3.sg

allaimall.dat.pl

þaimit.dat.pl

inin

þammathat.m.dat.sg

garda.]house.m.dat.sg

‘Neither do men light a candle, and putit under a bushel.’ (ca, Mat. 5:15)

(16) (galaiþcame.pret.3.sg

inin

praitauriajudgement hall.acc.sh

aftraagain

PeilatusP.nom

jah)and

α[wopidacalled.pret.3.sg

Iesu]J.acc

β[qaþ]12

said.pret.3.sguhand

[imma.]12

him.m.dat.sg‘(Then) Pilate entered into the judgmenthall again, and called Jesus, and saidunto him.’ (ca, Joh. 18:33)

F Old Irish:

(17) α[boíwas.3.sg.aor

Conchubur]C.m.nom.sg

ocusand

β[maithithe nobles.pl.nom

UladN

Ulstermen.m.pl.geniN

innEmuin]Emain Macha

‘Conchobar and the nobles of theUlstermen were in Emain Macha.’

(Compert Con Culainn, 1.1)

(18) α[ba]12

copchand

[riking

Temrach]12

Tara.gen‘. . . and he was king of Tara.’ (Laws, 4.179)

G Vedic:

(19) α[m´aneg

nous

mah´antam]

great.accutáand

β[m´aneg

nous

arbhakám]

small.acc‘[O Rudra, harm] not either great orsmall of us, [...].’ (R. V, 1.114.07a)

(20) α[bhasa]radience.instr

β[śrávobhiś]fame.instr

caand

‘with (thy) radiance and with (thy)fame.’ (R. V, 6.1.11ab)

(21) α[svàrsun

yádwhen

áśmann]rock.loc

β[adhip´a]12

masteruand

β[ándho]12

darkness‘When the sun is in the rock, anddarkness is master.’ (R. V, 7.88.2c)

harvard, nov. 9 ⋅ gsas workshop on indo-european and historical linguistics / 4

c o o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n i n i n d o - e u r o p e a n

H Avestan:

(22) . . . utaand

α[mazdåwisdom.m.sg.gen

huruϑmaincrease.m.sg.nom

haomahaoma.m.sg.voc

raosegrow.2.subj.mid

garamountain.sg.m.loc

paiti]toward

‘And [thus] may you grow upon thatmountain, O Haoma, [bringing] theincrease of wisdom, [...].’ (YH, 10.4)

(23) yuž¯@myou.2.sg.nom

aeibiiothem.pl.dat

ahuralord.m.sg.voc

α[aogostrength.n.sg.acc

datagive.2.pl.aor.imp

aš. a]truth.n.sg.inst

β[xš. aϑr@m]

power.n.sg.acccaand

‘O Lord, may you give strength to them2through Truth and that power [. . . ]’

(YH, 29.10)

I Tocharian:

(24) α[s. erśkanasisters.f.pl.voc

ñime

aiścergive.q.pres.pl.ix

cethese.m.obl.sg

pintwat]alms.m.obl.sg

epeor

β[sewho.m.sg.nom

ññissathan me

śpalmem.better

takam.be.3.pl.subj

cwihim.m.sg.gen

aiścer]give.pl.pr.ix‘Sisters, will you give me these alms orwill you give (them) to him who wouldbe better than me?’ (tB, THT, 107.18)

(25) α[manot

empelesterrible.m.pl.obl

omskem. sac]evil.m.pl.allt

[ma]12

notpeand

β[tampewatsesac]12

powerful.m.pl.allt‘Not for the terrible, the evil, and not forthe powerful’ (tA, Pun. yavanta-Jataka, 26b)

(NB: s. / s.pä (tb) and śkam. (ta) are canonically enclitic, or-thotonic (epe-type) coordinators are in minority.)

2.1. An S-curved evolution of late IE coordination.

● All branches of IE (except Albanian and Armenian2) boasted two series of coordinators: ortho-tonic and enclitic.

● All branches of IE exhibit a diachronically uniform trend: loss of enclitic and takeover of ortho-tonic coordinators.

∴ the enclitic series = archaic, the orthotone series = innovative

2 There is semantic evidence that Armenian had an enclitic coordinator.

5 / gsas workshop on indo-european and historical linguistics ⋅ harvard, nov. 9

m o r e n o m i t r o v i ć

(26)

t

%ne

w

*PIE? +enclitic

impo

ssible

+orth

otonic

+enclitic

*PIE? ±enclitic

synch. IE

2.2. PIE coordination: ±enclitic or +enclitic?

2.2.1. A closer look at Indo-Iranian.

(27) Distribution of enclitic/orthotonic coordinators, signalling initial and peninitial coordinatecomplexes, in late Indo-Iranian. R. gvedic data based on Klein (1985a, 1985b), Avestan data myown.

a. R. gvedicutá

48%

ca

52%

b. Avestan

uta

4%

ca/ca

96%

harvard, nov. 9 ⋅ gsas workshop on indo-european and historical linguistics / 6

c o o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n i n i n d o - e u r o p e a n

(28) Distribution of enclitic/orthotonic coordinators, signalling initial and peninitial coordinatecomplexes, in much later Indo-Iranian. Old Persian data based on Klein (1988), Mahabharatadata my own (statistical extrapolation via Digital Corpus of Sanskrit).

a. Classical Sanskrit (Mahabharata;Hellwig 2011)

uta1%

ca

99%

b. Iranian: Old Persian (Klein, 1985b)uta

90%

ca

10%

● Hypothesis I: PIE, or at leat PIIr., syntax coordination was ±enclitic → coexistence of encliticand orthotonic connectives

ë Why does Avestan (or Tocharian for that matter) not show this then?

∴ PIE being ±enclitic is very unlikely.

● Hypothesis II: PIE, or at leat PIIr., syntax coordination was +enclitic→ development of ortho-tonic connectives from enclitic counterparts

ë This explains (27): Avestan is more archaic — more resistant to development of orhotonicconnectives

∴ a syntactic diagnostic for diachrony: retention of enclitic connectives

● A (relatively naïve) diachronic sketch of the IE patterns of coordination in Tab. 1

– Indic (=Classical Sanskrit and early prakrits3) is the only exception in the Indo-Europeantrend

● what would explain this convergent change— the change must be regulated internally,

– the change must be regulated internally

ë not externally via contact

ë the only other explanatory candidate is UG (Chomsky 1957 et seq.)ë a hypothesis:there is something about the trees, which makes them behave—and change, inthe same way

3 I am still to examine the prakrit facts.

7 / gsas workshop on indo-european and historical linguistics ⋅ harvard, nov. 9

m o r e n o m i t r o v i ć

Table 1. Single/Double System of coordination in IE (Mitrović, 2011: 75)

system of coordination

doublesingle

non-medial medial

*IIr. +

Indo-Aryan

t××××Ö

Vedic +

Classical +

Synchronic +

Iranian

t××××Ö

Avestan +

Old Persian +

Synchronic +

Hittite +

Italic

t××××Ö

Latin +

Synchronic +

Celtic

t××××Ö

Old Irish +

Synchronic +

Greek

t××××Ö

Ancient Greek +

Synchronic +

Germanic

t××××Ö

Gothic +

Synchronic +

Slavonic

t××××Ö

OCS +

Synchronic (+) +

3. how one develops orthotonic coordinators in indo-european

3.1. Some preliminary theoretical assumptions.

Following Kayne (1994) and Zhang (2010), inter alia,4, coordination is assumed to be binary.

4 For arguments on the binary nature of coordination, see Blümel (1914), BloomVeld (1933), Bach (1964), Chomsky (1965), Dik(1968), Dougherty (1969), Gazdar et al. (1985), Goodall (1987) and Muadz (1991), among many others.

harvard, nov. 9 ⋅ gsas workshop on indo-european and historical linguistics / 8

c o o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n i n i n d o - e u r o p e a n

I. Prepositive 1p type

(29) m´aneg

nous

mah´antamgreat.acc

utá&

m´aneg

nous

arbhakámsmall.acc‘[O Rudra, harm] not either great orsmall of us, [...].’ (R. V, 1.114.07a)

(30) RP

XP R0

utá

YP

II. Postpositive 2p type (assuming X0-movement is part of NS, as per Roberts (2010))

(31) α[bhasa]radience.instr

β[śrávobhiś]fame.instr

ca&

‘with (thy) radiance and with (thy)fame.’ (R. V, 6.1.11ab)

(32) α[svàrsun

yádwhen

áśmann]rock.loc

β[adhip´a]12

masteruand

[ándho]12

darkness‘When the sun is in the rock, anddarkness is master.’ (R. V, 7.88.2c)

(33) RP

XPR0

Yi∈YP ca/u

YP

. . . ⟨Y⟩ . . .

3.2. Nexus type: utá : ca.

● “ca in R. gveda normally functions as a coordinator signalling tighter nexus between shorterunits, while utá serves as a higher level concatenator conjoining longer stretches of discourse.”Klein (1985a: 88)

● formalising the observation:

– longer stretch of discourse . . . [+CP]

– shorter stretch of discourse . . . [−CP]

● combination:

coordinator type distribution [+cp] coordinand [−cp] coordinand

¬ utá 47.64% (N = 705) 51.66% (N = 364) 48.34% (N = 341)­ ca 52.56% (N = 775) 7.61% (N = 59) 92.39% (N = 716)

Table 2. Categorial distribution of the double system

3.3. Motivating an additional layer.

● Idea: utá = u + ta/ca5

5 The assumption that -ta (√⋆-te) / ca (

√⋆kwe) occupy the same syntactic position does not entail the assumption that ca is

etymologically -ta, since we know the latter is false.

9 / gsas workshop on indo-european and historical linguistics ⋅ harvard, nov. 9

m o r e n o m i t r o v i ć

– synchronic motivation: u and ca independent heads — cf. (31) & (32)

– diachronic motivation: utá reconstructable only bimorphemically as ⋆h2u + ⋆te (Dunkel,1982)

a. Ved. utá, Gr. aute, Lat. aut = ⋆h2u + ⋆-te

b. Ved. u ca = ⋆h2u + ⋆-kwe

c. Goth. jau = ⋆yó + ⋆-h2u

d. Hit. takku, OIr. toch = ⋆tó + ⋆-kwe

⋮

e. orthotonic coordinator in IE = ⋆&0 + ⋆&0

– technical motivation: ca and C0 cannot Agree & incorporate, hence u is realised to repair/ check 2P requirement on ca:

ë empirical generalisation: overt C0s do not undergo incorporation (reasons could bephasal, see Chomsky 2001 among others)

ë prevented Agree between C0 and ca — additional head u merged as repair for check-ing (34)

Incorporational asymmetry: ca+C0

X∈CP + ca combination distribution

[Spec, CP0] + ca 5.94% (N=46)

C0 + ca 1.68% (N=13)(p < 0.001)

(34) RP

⋯u

ca CP

∅ C0 ⋯

3.4. Structural asymmetry.

Ð→ Signature Asymmetry: Two speciVers versus two heads.

(35) RP

xpR02

u-R02

-ta

yp

(36) RP

Spec1

xp Spec2

Z0i∈I

R−1

ca

ypI

harvard, nov. 9 ⋅ gsas workshop on indo-european and historical linguistics / 10

c o o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n i n i n d o - e u r o p e a n

3.5. Light coordinator hypothesis.

● ∴ 1P utá-construction:rP

ext. arg. r′

r0

u

RP

R0

=tá

int. arg.

● 2P ca-construction:rP

ext. arg. r′

r0

∅

RP

R0

X0i∈β R−1

ca

int. arg.β

3.6. Coordination types revisited.

(37) α-ca β-carP

α R0

ca

r0

0pf

β R0

ca

(38) α β-carP

α R0

0pf

r0

0pf

β R0

ca

(39) α u+tá βrP

α R0

0pf

r0

uR0

ta

β

Further evidence for rP:

● RP may be realised independently (§4)

● R0 and r0 have diUerent semantic properties (§4)

● rP in lIr. violates Coordinate Structure Constraint (Ross, 1967), RP does not (§6)

4. the uncoordinating function of the coordinator

(40) A Vedic & Classical Sanskrit:

a. ⟨prát⟩ıdám.this

víśvamworld

modateexults

yátwhich

[ kím.what

caand

] pr. thivy´amworld.f.acc

ádhiupon

‘This whole world exults whatever is upon the earth.’ (R. V, 5.83.9c)

b. naneg

yasyawhom.gen

[ kaśwho.m.sg

caand

] tititartiable to overcome

maya?illusions.pl

‘No one [=not anyone] can overcome that (=the Supreme Personality of Godhead’s)illusory energy.’ (Skt., Bhagavatapuran. a, 8.5.30)

c. yadyif

abhyupetam.promised to be accepted

[ kvawhere

caand

] sadhuhonest

asadhudishonest

vaor

kr. tam.done.pst.part

maya1.sg.instr‘If you accept whatever I may do, whether honest or dishonest.’ (Skt., Bhagavatapuran. a, 8.9.12)

11 / gsas workshop on indo-european and historical linguistics ⋅ harvard, nov. 9

m o r e n o m i t r o v i ć

d. [ sahásram.one thousand

yásyawhose

ratáyagifts

[ utáand

[ vaor

sántiare

bh´uyasıh.more abundant

]]

‘Whose precious gifts in thousands come, yea [and are], even more abundant.’ (R. V,1.11.08c)

B Latin:6

(41) ut,that

inin

quowho

[ quiswhat

queand

] artiVciocraft

excelleret,excels,

isis

inin

suohis

generefamily

RosciusR

dicereturspoken

‘so that he, in whatever craft he excels, is spoken of as a Roscius in his Veld of endeavor.’(Lat., Cic., de Or. 1.28.130)

C Gothic:

(42) [ þishvadwhere

uhand

] [. . .] gaggis.go.2.sg.pres.act.ind

‘wherever you go’ (Mat. 8:19)

D Old Church Slavonic:

(43) da(so) that

byšamight.3.pl.aor

[ iand

inyhere.f.pl.nom

stranycountries.f.pl.nom

] togothis.n.sg.gen

zręšteseeing.f.pl.pres.act.part

podobilisęimitate.f.pl.res.part+refl

namuus.pl.dat

‘. . . so that even the countries here, seeing this, might emulate us.’ (vc, 14.1.2)

E Classical Armenian:

(44) et‘eif

o⋅who

k‘√and

. . .

‘If anyone [strike (thee) upon thy right cheek . . . ]’ (Mat., 5.39; Klein 1997: 196)

F Tocharian:

(45) ñemintuyojewels.pl.inst

ypicfull

olyiyam.ship.f.sg.loc

sarth

caravan.m.sg.oblJambudvipacJambudvipa.m.sg.allt

peand

yamuräs. ,having been made.supp.abs.m.sg.abl

s.pätseven

kom. saday.m.pl.perlt

kñukacneck.sg.allt

wram.water.sg.loc

‘With a caravan to Jambudvipa also having been made in a ship Vlled with jewels [. . . ]’ (tA,Pun. yavanta-Jataka, 5a)

G Hittite:

(46) kuišwho

ki√and

‘someone / anyone’ (Ivanov, 1999)

H Old Irish:

(47) a. cewhat

chaand

taibregive.2.subj

‘what[so]ever thou mays give.’ (Zu ir. Hss. 1.20.15; Thurneysen 2003: 289)

6 For Latin and Greek constructions of this type, see Gonda (1954)

harvard, nov. 9 ⋅ gsas workshop on indo-european and historical linguistics / 12

c o o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n i n i n d o - e u r o p e a n

b. cewhat

chaand

orrslay.3.m.subj

‘whichever he may slay.’ (Anecd. ii.63.14.h; Thurneysen 2003: 289)

5. semantics of r0

● The syntax of previous examples (40)–(47) be captured with the extra layer (LCH)

(48) ∼ wh+and= RP

wh

kim.

R0

ca

(49) ∼ uta+va= rP

α R0

0pf

r0

uR0

ta

β

R0

va

β

● What about semantics7

● R0 is realised as

– a marker of domain-widening indeVnites (40b), (46)

– a marker of free choice (FC) items: (40a,c), (41), (42), (47)

– a marker of focus (43), (45), (40d)

● the cluster of the three kinds of realisation means one thing: R0 is an alternative triggeringhead (see Chierchia 2012 and Fox 2006, among others)

● Each of the two coordinating heads (in syntax) is interpretable as an operator (in semantics).

5.1. Syntax of semantics.

(50) Syntax:RP

R0 int. arg.

(51) Semantics:φ(x)

λx[vxw ∈ vxwalt] int. arg.

5.2. LF of the low head.

(52) narrow-syntactic form:RP

R0

ca

int. arg.

β

7 Similar syntacto-semantic observations—and proposals—have been made for Malayalam (Jayaseelan, 2001), Japanese andKorean (Gill et al. 2004) and comparatively/more generally by Szabolcsi et al. (2012), (Szabolcsi, 2010: ch. 10), Kratzer(2006), among many others.

13 / gsas workshop on indo-european and historical linguistics ⋅ harvard, nov. 9

m o r e n o m i t r o v i ć

(53) logical form:φ(x) = ca(vkim. w) = {p} ⊆ {palt1 , palt2 , . . . , paltn }

φ

vcaw

= λp[{p} ⊆ {palt1 , palt2 , . . . , paltn }]

int. arg.

β

● As a wh-items (e.g. what / kim. ) has existential denotation (Karttunen, 1977), when combinedwith an alternative-triggering R0, its alternatives are universal (e.g. whatever / kim. ca):

(54) ⟦what⟧Ð→ ⟦whatever⟧:∀

p q

∃

● r0 blocks R0’s activation of alternatives of the internal coordinand

● in Sanskrit uta-va construction, an additional R0 is present so as to activate the alternatives ofthe internal coordinand—(40d)

(55) v(40d)w = ⋯⋯α⋯⋯ utá

∃X1={vβwALT1 ,vβwALT2 ,...,vβwALTn }³¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹·¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹µ

va⋯⋯β⋯⋯´¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¸¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¶

∃X2={vαw,vβw}

5.3. Alternative activation of a head: and-to-or.

● activation of the one alternative to r0 (= v∧w)?

– v∧walt = v∨w

● conjunction-containing disjunction in Tocharian and Old Church Slavonic (also in synchronicSlavonic)

● possibly also IIr. va, Lat. ue, etc = ⋆u + ⋆a = and + alt-trigger

(56) Tocharianve + pew = vorw = vandwalt

∵vpew = vandw

∴vew = alt-trigger

(57) Old Church Slavonic (and synch.Serbo-Croatian)vi + liw = vorw = vandwalt

∵viw = vandw

∴vliw = alt-trigger8

(58) a. ⟦p ∧ q⟧alt =p ∧ q

p q

p ∨ q

b. ⟦p ∨ q⟧alt =p ∧ q

p q

p ∨ q

8 The semantics of li is correctly predicted since li is also a contrastive and question particle. See Arsenijević (2011) for adetailed analysis. See also Szabolcsi et al. (2012) for a general discussion.

harvard, nov. 9 ⋅ gsas workshop on indo-european and historical linguistics / 14

c o o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n i n i n d o - e u r o p e a n

6. csc violations (or, the polysyndetic obviation thereof)

(59) CSCIn a coordinate structure, no conjunct may be moved, nor may any element contained in aconjunct be moved out of that conjunct. (Ross, 1967: 161)

(60) sanskrit:

[ im´anithese.acc.sg

ca&

ti lok´anworld.acc.sg

]α upa-hváyatesummon.2.sg.pres

[ tα et´anijthese.acc.pl

ca&

tj

s´amanichants.acc.pl

]CS

‘He summons these worlds and these chants.’(Śathapathabrahman. a, 1.8.1.19)

(61) avestan:

k@who

huuapåartist

[ raocåslight

-ca-&

]α dat˜give.aor

[ tα t@måsdark

-ca-&

]CS

‘What artist made light and darkness?’ (Yasna Hapaŋhaiti, 44.5.b)

(62) ⋱

VP

R0

ca/caα

V rP

tRPαr0

R0

ca/caβ

● Techically, (62) does not violate the CSC since the conjunct has not moved out of the coordinatestructure RP.

15 / gsas workshop on indo-european and historical linguistics ⋅ harvard, nov. 9

m o r e n o m i t r o v i ć

References

Agbayani, B. and Golston, C. (2011). Second posi-tion is Vrst position. In Embleton, S., Giannakis,G., and Koerner, K., editors, Festchrift for RaimoAnttila. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Arsenijević, B. (2011). Serbo-Croatian coordinativeconjunctions at the syntax-semantics interface.The Linguistic Review, 28:175–206.

Bach, E. (1964). An Introduction to TransformationalGrammars. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

BloomVeld, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt,Rinehart & Winston.

Blümel, R. (1914). Einführung in die Syntax. Heidel-berg: C. Winter.

Chierchia, G. (2012). FC nominals and FC disjunc-tion: the identity thesis. In Fălăuş, A., editor, Al-ternatives in Semantics. [to appear]. London: Pal-grave Macmillan.

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague:Mouton.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In Ken-stowicz, M., editor, Ken Hale: A Life in Language,pages 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Delbrück, B. (1983-1900). Vergleichende Syntax derindogermanischen Sprachen. Strasbourg: Karl J.Trübner.

Denison, D. (2003). Log(ist)ic and Simplistic S-curves. In Hickey, R., editor, Motives for languagechange, pages 54–70. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Dik, S. C. (1968). Coordination: its implications for thetheory of general linguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Dougherty, R. C. (1969). Review of Coordination: ItsImplications for the Theory of General Linguisticsby simon c. dik. Language, 45:624–636.

Dunkel, G. E. (1982). IE conjunctions: pleonasm,ablaut, suppletion. Zeitschrift für vergleichendeSprachforschung, 96(2):178–199.

Fox, D. (2006). Free choice and the theory of scalarimplicatures. Ms. MIT.

Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G., and Sag, I. (1985).Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.

Gill, K.-H., Harlow, S., and Tsoulas, G. (2004). Con-nectives, indeterminates, and quantiVcationalvariability. In Bonami, O. and Hofherr, P. C., edi-tors, Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Seman-tics, number 5, pages 75–88.

Gonda, J. (1954). The history and original functionof the indo-european particle kwe , especially ingreek and latin. Mnemosyne, 7(3):177–214.

Goodall, G. (1987). Parallel Structures in Syntax: Co-ordination, Causatives and Restructuring. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hellwig, O. (2010-2011). DCS - The Digital Corpus ofSanskrit. University of Heidelberg: Department ofClassical Indology, Heidelberg.

Ivanov, V. (1999). Indo-european syntactic rules andgothic morphology. In Ivanov, V. and Vine, B., ed-itors, UCLA Indo-European Studies. Los Angeles:UCLA.

Jayaseelan, K. A. (2001). Questions and Question-word Incorporating QuantiVers in Malayalam.Syntax, 4(2):63–93.

Karttunen, L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of ques-tions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1(1):3–44.

Kayne, R. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press.

Klein, J. S. (1985a). Toward a Discourse Grammar ofthe Rigveda. Part 1., volume I. Heidelberg: CarlWinter Universitätsverlag.

Klein, J. S. (1985b). Toward a Discourse Grammar ofthe Rigveda. Part 2., volume II. Heidelberg: CarlWinter Universitätsverlag.

Klein, J. S. (1988). Coordinate Conjunction in OldPersian. Journal of the American Oriental Society,108(3):387–417.

Klein, J. S. (1997). IndeVnite pronouns, polarityand related phenomena in Classical Armenian: Astudy based on the Old Armenian gospels. Trans-actions of the Philological Society, 95(2):189–245.

Kratzer, A. (2006). IndeVnites and the Operatorsthey Depend on: From Japanese to Salish. In Carl-son, G. N. and Pelletier, F. J., editors, Reference andQuantiVcation: The Partee EUect. Center for theStudy of Language and Information.

harvard, nov. 9 ⋅ gsas workshop on indo-european and historical linguistics / 16

c o o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n i n i n d o - e u r o p e a n

Ledgeway, A. (2012). From Latin to Romance: Mor-phosyntactic Typology and Change [Chapter 5].Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lehmann, W. P. (1974). Proto-Indo-European Syntax.Austin/London: UT Press.

Lightfoot, D. W. (1980). On reconstructing a proto-syntax. In Ramat, P., editor, Linguistic reconstruc-tion and Indo-European syntax: proceedings of thecolloquium of the ‘Indogermanische Gesellschaft’,pages 27–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

McMahon, A. M. S. (1994). Understanding languagechange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mitrović, M. (2011). The Syntax of Coordination inSanskrit. MPhil dissertation. University of Cam-bridge.

Muadz, H. (1991). Coordinate structure: a planar rep-resentation. PhD thesis, University of Arizona.

Roberts, I. (2007). Diachronic Syntax. Oxford Text-books in Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Roberts, I. (2010). Agreement and Head Movement.Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax.PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technol-ogy.

Smith, N. V. (1981). Consistency, markedness andlanguage change: on the notion ‘consistent lan-guage’. Journal of Linguistics, 17:39–54.

Szabolcsi, A. (2010). QuantiVcation. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Szabolcsi, A., Whang, J. D., and Zu, V. (2012). Compo-sitionality questions: QuantiVer words and theirmulti-functional(?) parts. Ms. NYU.

Taylor, A. (1990). Clitics and ConVgurationality in An-cient Greek. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylva-nia.

Thurneysen, R. (2003). A Grammar of Old Irish.Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.

Torrego, M. E. (2009). Coordination. In Baldi, P. andCuzzolin, P., editors, New perspectives on historicalLatin syntax, volume 180.1 of Trends in linguistics.New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Walkden, G. (2009). The Comparative Method in Syn-tactic Reconstruction. MPhil dissertation. Univer-sity of Cambridge.

Zhang, N. N. (2010). Coordination in Syntax. Cam-bridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Many thanks to Gennaro Chierchia and Uli Sauerland for their very helpful discussions,which have inspired the semantic analysis

Moreno MitrovićUniversity of CambridgeJesus CollegeCambridgecb5 8bl, ukmm821@cam.ac.uk / mmitrovic@fas.harvard.eduhttp://mitrovic.co

17 / gsas workshop on indo-european and historical linguistics ⋅ harvard, nov. 9