Advanced search
1 file | 352.29 KB

On the construction of HAVE with passive perfect participle in Greek and Latin

Klaas Bentein (UGent)
(2011) ERANOS. 106. p.65-76
Author
Organization
Abstract
In this article, I discuss the origins of periphrastic ἔχω with passive perfect participle, and its relationship with the structurally similar Latin construction of habeo with passive perfect participle. After critically reviewing four hypotheses brought forward in the secondary literature, I conclude that both HAVE-perfects must be considered independent developments, originating from a common syntactic pattern HAVE + object + predicate. I furthermore argue that we should strictly distinguish between ἔχω with passive perfect participle and ἔχω with active/middle aorist participle, the two constructions being diachronically unrelated and functionally dissimilar.
Keywords
Latin, HAVE-perfect, diachrony, periphrasis, Greek

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 352.29 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

Chicago
Bentein, Klaas. 2011. “On the Construction of HAVE with Passive Perfect Participle in Greek and Latin.” Eranos 106: 65–76.
APA
Bentein, K. (2011). On the construction of HAVE with passive perfect participle in Greek and Latin. ERANOS, 106, 65–76.
Vancouver
1.
Bentein K. On the construction of HAVE with passive perfect participle in Greek and Latin. ERANOS. 2011;106:65–76.
MLA
Bentein, Klaas. “On the Construction of HAVE with Passive Perfect Participle in Greek and Latin.” ERANOS 106 (2011): 65–76. Print.
@article{2987513,
  abstract     = {In this article, I discuss the origins of periphrastic \unmatched{1f14}\ensuremath{\chi}\ensuremath{\omega} with passive perfect participle, and its relationship with the structurally similar Latin construction of habeo with passive perfect participle. After critically reviewing four hypotheses brought forward in the secondary literature, I conclude that both HAVE-perfects must be considered independent developments, originating from a common syntactic pattern HAVE + object + predicate. I furthermore argue that we should strictly distinguish between \unmatched{1f14}\ensuremath{\chi}\ensuremath{\omega} with passive perfect participle and \unmatched{1f14}\ensuremath{\chi}\ensuremath{\omega} with active/middle aorist participle, the two constructions being diachronically unrelated and functionally dissimilar.},
  author       = {Bentein, Klaas},
  issn         = {0013-9947},
  journal      = {ERANOS},
  keyword      = {Latin,HAVE-perfect,diachrony,periphrasis,Greek},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {65--76},
  title        = {On the construction of HAVE with passive perfect participle in Greek and Latin},
  volume       = {106},
  year         = {2011},
}