A Weight Problem: Vowel Length in Classical Latin

Jon Brennan New York University jon.brennan@nyu.edu 8th SUNY/CUNY/NYU Miniconference November 18th, 2006

Introduction
Classical Latin exhibits a regular vowel length alternation apparent in nominal, adjectival, and verbal paradigms:1 (1) Noun (masc. singular): honor a. nom honor b. gen hono:ris c. dat hono:ri: d. acc hono:rem e. abl hono:re: (2) Adjective (masc. singular): stronger a. nom fortior b. gen fortio:res c. dat fortio:ri d. acc fortio:rem e. abl fortio:re (3) Verb (subjunctive): make, do a. 1s feram b. 2s fera:s c. 3s ferat d. 1p fera:mus e. 2p fera:tis f. 3p ferant
I would like to thank Tuuli Adams, Maria Gouskova, Kyle Major, Jason Shaw, and Cara Shousterman, as well as three anonymous reviewers, for their thoughtful input regarding the material presented here. 1 Examples are adapted from Lindsay (1896/1963) and Lewis and Kingery (1918), who also oer detailed discussion of the sources of information for vowel quality and length in Classical Latin (see also Allen, 1973).

Vowel Length in Latin

Jon Brennan

Goals: Characterize the phonological context that conditions this phenomenon, and identify the relevant markedness and faithfulness constraints responsible for the alternation within Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky, 1993/2002). Proposal: The eect of a cross-linguistic markedness constraint against tri-moraic (superheavy) syllables surfaces in non-initial contexts. This is explained in terms of an interaction between a constraint against tri-moraic syllables ( ), and position-specic faithfulness constraints (Beckman, 1998). Several apparent exceptions suggest that not all coda segments count for weight, that is, some segments resist being given a mora. The distribution of these exceptions suggests that the relevant dimension characterizing those segments is perceptibility (Steriade, 2001). While vowel length in Latin has been extensively discussed in the generative literature with respect to metrical structure, the vowel length observation noted here is shown to reect the interaction of cross-linguistic constraints on syllable structure while also oering insight into non-sonority-based weight restrictions. Outline: 1. Background 2. A generalization and the analysis 3. Exceptions, and a rened analysis 4. Conclusions

1
1.1

Background
Morphology
The alternation is phonologically conditioned and not due to idiosyncratic morphology. For verbs, the vowel immediately preceding the axed endings belongs to the stem and not to the inectional endings which are consistent across verb classes and moods:2 (4) 3p, si. present active indicative opta-t he/she hopes imple-t he/she lls du:ci-t he/she leads 3p, si. present subjunctive indicative opte-t he/she should hope implea-t he/she should ll du:ca-t he/she should lead

The weight-alternation could still result from a oating mora associated with the endings, Ill address this in a bit.
The relevant vowel is not necessarily part of the root; (4) shows that indicatives and subjunctives dier precisely in form of the relevant vowel. At present it only matters that this vowel is the same throughout the inectional paradigm.
2

8th SUNY/CUNY/NYU MiniConference November 18th, 2006

Vowel Length in Latin

Jon Brennan

For nouns and adjectives, identifying the stem in nominal forms is harder as inection for number/gender/case varies signicantly across noun classes. While its possible to argue that the vowel quantities here are morphologically xed, the contexts in which a nal vowel must be short are exactly the same as for verbs. Because the alternation is highly predictable, it is desirable to capture the pattern in the grammar.

1.2

Shortening, not Lengthening

The alternation is note due to lengthening associated with the inectional morphology (a oating mora), or to phonological lengthening. The following examples are phonologically equivalent to (1) and (3) respectively, but show short vowels throughout: (5) Noun (masc. singular): grove, wood 3 a. nom nemus b. gen nemoris c. dat nemori: d. acc nemorum e. abl nemoro: (6) Verb (indicative): begin 4 a. 1s incipio: b. 2s incipis c. 3s incipit d. 1p incipimus e. 2p incipitis f. 3p incipiunt In other words, short vowels are predictable in the paradigms but long vowels are not.

1.3

Metrical Structure
1.3.1 Stress Placement

Vowel length is not determined by stress. The location of main stress can be succinctly stated as follows: A long penult was accented. . . but if the penult was short, the antepenult received the accent. . . [d]isyllables were necessarily accented on the penult. Kent (1932), cited in Allen (1973). (7) shows the paradigm in (3) with stress and syllabication:
Nemus belongs to a group of nouns in which which intervocalic [s] shifted to [r] in all inected forms. For present purposes, the critical comparison is in the oblique forms, where short [o] surfaces throughout. 4 The rst-person singular marker surfaces alternatively -o and -m, correlating with mood.
3

8th SUNY/CUNY/NYU MiniConference November 18th, 2006

Vowel Length in Latin (7) Verb (subjunctive): make, do a. 1 Si. /fera: -m/ b. 2 Si. /fera: -s/ c. 3 Si. /fera: -t/ d. 1 Pl. /fera: -mus/ e. 2 Pl. /fera: -tis/ f. 3 Pl. /fera: -nt/

Jon Brennan

f e.ram f e.ra:s f e.rat fe.r a:.mus fe.r a:.tis f e.rant

Note in particular (a), (c), and (f), where vowel length of the nal syllable varies though each is unstressed. 1.3.2 Extrametricality

Final-syllable extrametricality (Hayes, 1995) does not condition vowel length. Latin foot structure is a moraic trochee, and degenerate feet are banned (Prince and Smolensky, 1993/2002). So, bisyllabic words will be prosodied into a single foot: ( ) not ( ) . Therefore, minimal paris such as fera:s / ferat are both fully footed and dont dier with regards to nal syllable extrametricality. 1.3.3 Iambic Shortening

Vowel shortening isnt example of iambic shortening under the inuence of a preceding short syllable (e.g Lindsay, 1896/1963; Allen and Greenough, 1888/1903; Allen, 1973; Mester, 1994). (8) cani:s canis (dog), ego: ego (I), male: male (bad)

The alternation occurs even when the shortened vowel comes after a long vowel5 : (9) Verb: a. b. c. ... lead 1s du:cam 2s du:ca:s 3s du:cat

2
2.1
5

Analysis
Descriptive Generalization
The relevant context is apparent when syllabication and prosodic structure are considered:

In addition, brevis brevians is most frequently associated only with pre-classical dramatic meters, while the present data is characteristic of Classical Latin.

8th SUNY/CUNY/NYU MiniConference November 18th, 2006

Vowel Length in Latin (10) Noun (masc. singular): honor a. nom /hono:r/ b. gen /hono:r -is/ c. dat /hono:r -i:/ d. acc /hono:r -em/ e. abl /hono:r -e:/ (11) Adjective (masc. singular): a. nom /fortio:r/ b. gen /fortio:r -is/ c. dat /fortio:r -i:/ d. acc /fortio:r -em/ e. abl /fortio:r -e/

Jon Brennan

(h o.nor) ho.(n o:).ris ho.(n o:).ri: ho.(n o:).rem ho.(n o:).re:

stronger (f or.ti).or (for.ti).( o:).res (for.ti).( o:).ri (for.ti.( o:).rem (for.ti).( o:).re (f e.ram) (f e.ra:s) (f e.rat) (fe.r a:).mus (fe.r a:).tis (f e.rant)

(12) Verb (subjunctive): make, do a. 1 Si. /fera: -m/ b. 2 Si. /fera: -s/ c. 3 Si. /fera: -t/ d. 1 Pl. /fera: -mus/ e. 2 Pl. /fera: -tis/ f. 3 Pl. /fera: -nt/

While long vowels surface freely in open syllables, vowels are always short if the syllable is closed by a consonant such as [r], [m], [t], or the cluster [nt]. Long vowels do surface in syllables closed by [s]. Latin closed syllables are heavy as indicated by weight-sensitive stress placement: CVC and CVV syllables attract stress (e.g Allen, 1973; Mester, 1994). Adopting a moraic theory of syllable weight, coda consonants may be assigned a mora when in coda position (weight-by-position; Hayes, 1989). Consequently, (C)VVC syllables are superheavy (Prince and Smolensky, 1993/2002; Zec, 1995; Mor en, 1999). Now, closed syllables with long vowels appear elsewhere: (13) Noun (masc. si.): enjoyment a. nom fru:c.tus b. dat fru:c.tu:s c. gen fru:c.tui: d. acc fru:c.tum e. abl fru:c.tu:

(14) Generalization (C)VVCi (trimoraic) syllables are disallowed except word-initially (where Ci doesnt include [s]) 8th SUNY/CUNY/NYU MiniConference November 18th, 2006 5

Vowel Length in Latin Can we conrm that the positional contrast is initial vs. non-initial?

Jon Brennan

1. There are some derivationally complex forms that show no long vowels in medial closed syllables, though the base form does have a long vowel: (15) a. b. Hope (present active indicative) optam, opta:s, optat, opta:mus, opta:tis, optant future passive participle: op.tan.dus

2. Cross-linguistically, initial syllables show more contrasts when compared with medial and nal syllables (e.g. Beckman, 1998).

2.2

OT Analysis

The generalization in (14) reects the combined eects of three dierent kinds of constraints: those enforcing weight-by-position, those mitigating against superheavy syllables, and those ensuring that the vowel alternation only surfaces non-initially. 2.2.1 Weight-by-Position

Weight-by-position eects can be captured using the following constraints (Mor en, 1999): (16) a. WbyP: Coda consonants be moraic.6 b. *Mora(C): Do not associate a mora with a consonant.7 , 8 c. /CV C/ WbyP *Mora(C) a.  CV C * b. CV C *! Superheavy Syllables

2.2.2

Zec (1995) argues that superheavy syllables are cross-linguistically dis-preferred. Within a moraic theory of weight this can be translated into the following constraint: (17) : A syllable cant have three moras.

The fact that the eects of this constraint emerge only in only certain positions suggests an interaction with position-specic constraints.
7

Equivalently, *Append (Rosenthall and van der Hulst, 1999) or MoraicCoda (Broselow et al., 1997). *Mora(C) generalizes a set of markedness constraints ranked in a xed sonority-based hierarchy. 8 Equivalent to Rosenthall and van der Hulsts (1999) /cons.

8th SUNY/CUNY/NYU MiniConference November 18th, 2006

Vowel Length in Latin 2.2.3 Positional Constraints

Jon Brennan

Within the theory of Positional Faithfulness, (e.g. Beckman, 1997, 1998) faithfulness to one position, e.g. Faith( 1 ), is ranked above a general markedness constraint which then is ranked above general faithfulness.9 (18) Faith- 1 >> Mark >> Faith

For the present analysis, the relevant faithfulness constraints ensure that vowel length is identical between the underlying and surface form. (19) (20) Ident-Length( 1 ): The length specications in the rst syllable of the input match the length specications in the output.10 Ident-Length: The length specications in the input match the length specications in the output

Putting these constraints together, the following tableau illustrates the necessary rankings: (21) a. WbyP, Ident-Length( 1 ) >> >> Ident-Length b.
/hono: r/ i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii.  ho.no r ho.no: r ho.no: r /fru:ctu:m/ fru: c .tu m fru: c .tu: m fru c .tu m fru: c.tu m WbyP Ident-Length( 1 ) *! *! * **! *! *! * * ** * Ident-Length *

Exceptions and a Rened Analysis

The ranking in (21b) ensures that no long vowels will surface in closed non-initial syllables, but we have already seen one exception to this generalization: vowel shortening is insensitive to syllables closed by [s]

Positionally specied markedness (Zoll, 1998; de Lacy, 2001; Gordon, 2004) can also capture the generalization, though only by allowing a markedness constraint to target non-initial syllables. The Latin data alone do not provide compelling evidence for adopting one account of positional constraints over another. It is worth noting, however, that allowing markedness constraints to target non-initial segments conicts with the conclusion reached by Gordons (2004) positional markedness account of weight eects which addressed data for which initial-syllables more likely contained moraic codas than non-initial syllables. This was captured by a constraint ensuring moraic codas syllable initially was ranked above faithfulness constraints. If a positional markedness account were pursued, something of a reconciliation between these two accounts would need to be made. 10 See Mor en (1999) for a more sophisticated approach to moraic faithfulness.

8th SUNY/CUNY/NYU MiniConference November 18th, 2006

Vowel Length in Latin There also exists one other set of exceptions:

Jon Brennan

Present active participles and some numerical adverbs have a nal syllable with a long vowel followed by coda [ns].11 (22) a. b. c. d. e. a. b. c. opta:ns imple:ns duce:ns incipie:ns sentie:ns sexie:ns optie:ns novie:ns hoping lling leading beginning feeling six times eight times nine times

(23)

There are two possible ways to these exceptional segments might be represented in a moraic theory of weight: a. The coda consonant is adjoined to the syllable, that is it does not participate in weightby-position (24a) b. The coda consonant shares a mora with the preceding vowel (Broselow et al., 1997) (24b) (24) a. C V In OT terms: (24a) represents the case where a constraint against non-moraic codas (e.g. WbyP) is violated (24b) represents the case where a constraint against mora sharing is violated (e.g. *SharedMora) Two questions 1. Can we decide which representation is right? 2. What makes [s] and [ns] exceptional? V C b. C V V C

3.1

Minimal Word Eects

In Classical Latin monosyllabic words must be CVV(C) or CVC (word minimality; McCarthy and Prince, 1986) Prince and Smolensky (1993/2002) provide an analysis in which all content words must be assigned prosodic structure (LxPr), and a constraint forcing feet to be binary at some level of analysis (FtBinarity). Accordingly, all content words in Latin must be at least bi-moraic.
11

The forms in (23) occurred in free variation with surface forms with nal [s] (e.g. sexies, opties )

8th SUNY/CUNY/NYU MiniConference November 18th, 2006

Vowel Length in Latin

Jon Brennan

Prediction If coda [s] and [ns] are adjoined, than mono-syllabic words with an underlying short vowel will surface with a long vowel to satisfy FtBinarity. This prediction appears to be correct. In the examples below the mono-syllabic nominative singular form is given rst followed by the disyllabic genitive form which is indicative of the vowel quantity in rest of the paradigm. The presence of a short vowel in disyllabic forms is taken to indicate that the vowel is underlyingly short. (25) a. b. c. d. ge:ns, gentis. . . people mo:ns, montis. . . mountain pe:s, pedis. . . foot a:s, assis. . . coin

The vowel is lengthened just in the case when the when the appears in a mono-syllabic word. Mono-syllabic content words closed with other segments dont show the alternation (26) a. b. c. dux, ducis. . . leader sors, sortis. . . sister urbs, urbis. . . city

Something is forcing [s] and [ns] not to be dominated by a mora and isnt violated to satisfy minimality eects. A mora-sharing analysis (24b) does not predict that a coda segment must share a mora in an otherwise unmarked circumstance, just that it may do so if necessary. Clearly, FtBinarity does not force mora sharing. On the other hand, mora-bearing consonants are themselves marked (e.g. *Mora(C)) and the only way to satisfy a constraint of this type is by direct adjunction to the syllable. (27) /pe s/ *Mora([s]) FtBin WbyP Ident-Length( 1 a.  pe: s * * b. pe s *! c. pe s *! Word-minimality requirements favor a syllable-adjunction analysis over a mora-sharing analysis of the exceptional segments.12
In response to a question posed by Ellen Broselow during the Miniconference, the possibility of syllable adjunction is limited to word-nal contexts (Hung, 1994), ensuring that medial syllables ending in coda [n] (as in (15b), above) and [s] do count as heavy (i.e. penultimate syllables ending in [s] and [n] do count as heavy for stress placement). In other words, coda [s] and [n] are only exceptional word-nally.
12

8th SUNY/CUNY/NYU MiniConference November 18th, 2006

Vowel Length in Latin

Jon Brennan

3.2

What is so special abut [s] and [ns]? (a tentative exploration)

To summarize, the following classes of segments act dierently w.r.t. weight eects: (28) Exceptional Segments/Sequences: a. Count for Weight: [r, m, t, b, nt] b. Dont Count for Weight: [s, ns] How can these two classes of segments be characterized? Two approaches: Sonority (Zec, 1995) and Perceptibility (Steriade, 2001). 3.2.1 Sonority

Zec (1995) and Mor en (1999) argue that weight-by-position is conditioned by sonority such that less sonorous segments are more marked when counted for weight13 : (29) a. b. Relative Sonority: Vowels Sonorants Obstruents Constraint Hierarchy: *Mora(Obs) >> *Mora(Son) >> *Mora(V)

But, this hierarchy would incorrectly predict that [t] and [s] group together in contrast to [m] and [n]. What about a ner-grained analysis of sonority (Gouskova, 2004 citing Jespersen, 1904)? (30)
glides > rhotics > laterals > nasals [n] [m] [r] > vcd frics > vcd stops > vcless frics > vcless stops [b] [s] [t]

Still cant distinguish the segments [s] and [n] from [t] and [m]! Sonority doesnt seem to be able to make the necessary distinctions. 3.2.2 Perceptibility

Steriade (2001) argues that the relative perceptibility of segments is reected in constraint hierarchies. Strident segments in particular are highly perceptible, and thus less subject to markedness constraints.14 For example, Steriade notes that inter-obstruent stops were generally elided in Colloquial Latin, but interobstruent [s] and nasals was preserved at the expense of a preceding stop. The high perceptibility of [s] making it less susceptible to phonological change.
Gordon (2002) argues that coda weight is a function of segment intensity. With regards to the present data, however, this account makes the same predictions as sonority (see Parker, 2002 for discussion) 14 Engstrand and Ericsdotter (1999) oer a phonetic analysis in support of this argument.
13

8th SUNY/CUNY/NYU MiniConference November 18th, 2006

10

Vowel Length in Latin

Jon Brennan

Perhaps perceptibility is also responsible for the exceptional behavior of [s] (and [n]) with regards to moraicity. In other words, the hierarchy of constraints prohibiting consonants from bearing moras (i.e. *Mora(C)) is built o of perceptibility. Such a hierarchy explains why *Mora([s]) can be ranked above WbyP in (27) above, while other coda consonants are assigned a mora. Intuitively, what is happening in Latin is not that dissimilar from the exceptional capacity for [s] to appear in complex consonant clusters in English (e.g. sixths ). What about [n] vs. [m]? In a phoneme identication task Cutler et al. (2004) found [m] was more often misidentied than [n] in coda position. In other words, [n] was more easily perceived than [m]. The approach is promising, but would benet from further evidence that [s] and [n] form a natural class in Classical Latin and elsewhere.

Summary & Conclusions

An alternation in non-initial vowel length evidences the emergence of an otherwise inactive phonological markedness constraint against trimoraic syllables. Vowel length was shown not to be determined by the prosodic conditions of the non-initial syllable. The alternation was captured by ranking a cross-linguistically attested markedness constraint * in relationship with positional faithfulness constraints: WbyP, Ident-Length( 1 ) >> >> Ident-Length Examining several apparent exceptions revealed a small set of segments that are forced to be non-moraic. The distribution of these segments seems best characterized by a hierarchy of constraints built o of perceptibility.

Appendix
(31) Summary of Rankings: Ranking WbyP >> *Mora(C) * >> Ident-Length Ident-Length( 1 ) >> * FtBin >> Ident-Length( 1 ) WbyP >> Ident-Length( 1 ) *Mora([s],[n]) >> WbyP Result Coda syllables are generally moraic Superheavy syllables generally banned Trimoraic (superheavy) syllables OK initially minimal words resolved by lengthening minimal words are not resolved by non-moraic codas [n] and [s] are not assigned moras

8th SUNY/CUNY/NYU MiniConference November 18th, 2006

11

Vowel Length in Latin

Jon Brennan

References
Allen, J. H., and J. B. Greenough. 1888/1903. New Latin grammar . Boston: Ginn & Company. Allen, W. Sidney. 1973. Accent and rhythm . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beckman, Jill. 1997. Positional faithfulness, positional neutralization, and Shona vowel harmony. Phonology 14:146. Beckman, Jill. 1998. Positional faithfulness. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. URL http://roa.rutgers.edu. Broselow, Ellen, Su-I Chen, and Marie Human. 1997. Syllable weight: Convergence of phonology and phonetics. Phonology 14:4782. Cutler, Ane, Andrea Weber, Roel Smits, and Nicole Cooper. 2004. Patterns of English phoneme confusions by native and non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 116:36683678. Engstrand, Olle, and Christine Ericsdotter. 1999. Explaining a violation of the sonority hierarchy: Stop place perception in adjacent [s]. In Proceedings from the XIIth Swedish Phonetics Conference . Gordon, Matt. 2002. A phonetically-driven account of syllable weight. Language 78:5180. Gordon, Matt. 2004. Positional weight constraints in optimality theory. Linguistic Inquiry 35:692703. Gouskova, Maria. 2004. Relational hierarchies in optimality theory: The case of syllable contact. Phonology 21. Hayes, Bruce. 1989. Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20:253306. Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hung, Henrietta J. 1994. The rhythmic and prosodic organization of edge constituents. Doctoral Dissertation, Brandeis University. Jespersen, Otto. 1904. Lehrbuch der phonetik . Leipzip & Berlin: Teubner. Kent, R. G. 1932. The sounds of Latin , volume 12 of Langauge Monograph . Baltimore. de Lacy, Paul. 2001. Markedness in prominent positions. In HUMUT 2000 , ed. Ora Matushansky, Albert Costa, Javier Martin-Gonzalez, Lance Nathan, and Adam Szczegielniak, volume 40 of MIT Working Papers in Linguistics , 5366. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. URL http://roa.rutgers.edu. Lewis, Charlton Thomas, and Hugh Macmaster Kingery. 1918. An elementary latin dictionary . American Book Co. Lindsay, W. M. 1896/1963. The Latin language: An historical account of Latin sounds, stems, and exions . Oxford: Clarendon Press. McCarthy, John, and Alan Prince. 1986. Prosodic morphology . Samizdat, Amherst, and Waltham, MA. Mester, Armin. 1994. The quantitative trochee in Latin. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12:161. Mor en, Bruce. 1999. Distinctiveness, coercion and sonority: A unied theory of weight. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. Parker, Stephen G. 2002. Quantifying the sonority hierarchy. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 1993/2002. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar . Rutgers Optimality Archive ROA-537. Rosenthall, Sam, and Harry van der Hulst. 1999. Weight-by-position by position. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17:499540. Steriade, Donca. 2001. The phonology of perceptibility eects: The P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. Ms. UCLA. Zec, Draga. 1995. Sonority constraints on syllable structure. Phonology 12:85129. Zoll, Cheryl. 1998. Positional asymmetries and licensing. Ms. URL http://roa.rutgers.edu.

8th SUNY/CUNY/NYU MiniConference November 18th, 2006

12