Acta XIV Colloquii Internationalis Linguisticae Latinae edd. Concepcién Cabrillana & Christian Lehmann lull EDICIONES CLASICASPrimera edicion 2014 Ediciones Clasicas S.A. garantiza un riguroso proceso de seleccién y evaluacién de los trabajos que publica. Los autores Concepcién Cabrillana & Christian Lehmann eds.) Alfonso Martinez Diez, Editor & Publisher Ediciones Clisicas, S.A. / San Maximo 31, 4°8 Edificio 2000 228041 Madrid ‘Tits: 91-$003174 /$003270 Fax. 91-5003185. E-mail: ediclas@arrakis.es Web: wwww.edicionesclasicas.com 2000 LS.BIN. 84-7882-782-X Depésito Legal: M-36304-2014 Impreso en Espana por CIMAPRESSINTERNAL COMPLEMENTS IN LATIN: MORE ON THEIR SEMANTIC, SYNTACTIC, AND PRAGMATIC STATUS Jess DELA VILLA Universidad Autonoma de Madrid (Spain) jesus delavilla@uam.es JESUS POLO Universidad San Dmaso (Spain) jesuspoloarrondo@zmail.com Abstract ‘The aim of this paper isto revisit intemal complement, in particular internal accusatives. The study approaches tis phenomenon fom tree points of view: semantic, syntactic, and, finally, pragmatic, pay ing special attention tothe notion of Focus. The paper explores intemal complements within the frame- \work of verbal complementation structures. Keywords: Intel complements, Semantics, Syntax, Pragmatics 1. Introduction In Latin, three types of nominal constructions are traditionally considered “inter- nal”: intemal accusative (1), internal nominative (2), and internal ablative (3). (1) ludum insolentem ludere pertinax. “He insists in playing an unusual game” (Hor, carm. I 29.50) (2) at confidentia ila militia miltatur multo magis pondere “That warfare is waged much more successfully by spirit than by weight” (Plaut. Persa 232) (3) triumphauit in magistratu, insign, ut illorum temporum habitus ert, triumpho “He celebrated the triumph, while still holding office, ina style which, for the circum stances of those days, was magnificent” (Liv. X 46.2) ‘These constructions have usually been discussed from three approaches: first, their identification and delimitation in relation to other complements (e.g, Fugier, 1994; Rosén, 1981: 101-129; 1996); second, their syntactic status, in particular when they adopt the form of a complement in accusative with verbs traditionally considered in- transitives, as in (4) (e.g., Bortolussi, 1988; Rosén, 1996); and third, the need to ex- plain why intemal complements are very often complex syntagms formed by noun and one or more epithets (Rosén, 1996). (4) mirum atque inscitum somniaui somnium “{ dreamt a strange and unusual dream?” (Pleut. Rud. $97) Concepeiéa Cabrilana & Christian Lehmann (ed), Aca XIV Collogi Internationals Lingustiae Laine, Madrid, Ediciones Clisias, 2014454 JestS DELA VILLA & Jests POLO But, as we will show, most of the existing descriptions are not fully convincing or are incomplete. Accordingly, we will try to offer new views on these three aspects. 2. Semantic characteristics of internal constituents: delimitation Internal constituents have been traditionally identified on the basis of semantics. Nevertheless, there has been confusion in terminology. When analyzing this type of constituent, we can find labels such as figura etymologica, cognate complement, in- ‘ermal complement or effected object. Rosén (1996: 128) has provided an important clarification of the terminology and the most serious effort to define the notion of internal complement within the studies on Latin. Limiting herself to the syntactic po- sition of the object, she proposes the following classification: (6) A) Internal objects (abstract, typically second order entities") B) External objects (typically first order entities, either animates or inanimates) a) Affected (external and preexistent to the event itself) ») Effected (produced as a result of the event). In relation to this classification, figura etymologica would be a notion only par- tially coincident with that of “internal complement”. Actually, there are instances of “figura which cannot be considered internal complements, as ne dentes dentiant “or my teeth will have nothing to teethe on” (Plaut. Mil, 34): clearly, the teeth are neither a reference to the event itself nor a result of it. Therefore, the label “cognate object”, widely used by Rosén, would be more appropriate to identify the intemal comple- ments that are, at the same time, instances of figura etymologica. This last label should bee kept, then, just to refer to the stylistic —non semantic— phenomenon of phonetic coincidence between the verb and one or more of the constituents ofthe sentence. ‘Once we have reached this point, which clarifies much of the precedent status quaestionis, two aspects remain open. First, what are the limits of cognate comple- ‘ments within internal complements? Second, what are the relationships and limits be- tween internal complements and external complements? In principle, all the classifi cations of intemal complements that can be found in general grammars and mono- graphs neglect these questions. The traditional classification and grouping of comple- ments between “cognate” and “not cognate” and between “intemal” and “external” are clearly defined, But, as we will see, this does not always reflect reality. As for the first point —cognate versus non-cognate— it would simply depend on the existence of an etymological relationship between the verb and the complement. Actually, This is the case for instances of total coincidence between the verb and the noun, which must be, obviously, classified as clear cases of cognate objects, asin (6). In contrast, instances such as that of (7), where there is no etymological coincidence between the verb and the complement, must be classified as internal objects, but not cognate objects. (6) mei memineris, dum uitam uiuas “P' give you cause to remember me so long as you live” (Plaut. Persa 494) "he classi reference forthe difreation between Fst ode entities concres) s.second ode enites (evens) and qualities (notions a white” rgd’) that of Lyons (1977).Ineral complements in Latin: more on their Semantic, Syntactic, and Pragmatic Sus 455 ()tertiam iam aetatem hominum Nestor uivebat “Nestor had already reached the thitd age of humans” (Cie. Cato 31) Nevertheless, there are many eases where the situation is not so clear. First, fre- quently, there is an etymological coincidence between the verb and the noun, but this noun is associated with an attribute which has no relation to the verb, Examples (1)- (4) are cases of that situation. In other words, semantically —and pragmatically (see below)— there is not the same relationship between uitam uiuere and ludum inso- lentem ludere. n the frst case, the verb and the noun refer to the same referent, the life of someone, whereas in the second case, it is stated that someone, having other possibilities of playing other games, has chosen a particular one. So, inthis latter case, we cannot say that there is a total semantic coincidence between the verb and the nominal phrase that acts as its object. The referents are not identical. In other cases, as Rosén (1981: 109-112) has pointed out, the lack of total coinci- dence between the verb and the complement comes from the combination of a com- pound verb and a single noun (8), or, much more rarely, a compound noun and a single verb (9). In those instances, the coincidence, again, is not total (8) ego intus interim iam et omamentis meis et sycophantis tuom exomabo vilicum “Meanwhile, indoors I'll forthwith provide your bailiff with my disguise and strata- gems” (Plaut. Poen. 425) (9) sed quasi amnis e is rapit, sed tamen inflexuflectitur “Asa swift river tears straight of, but still winds in” (Naev. 39 Ribbeck) Finally, in some cases where there is a total etymological coincidence, the lan- ‘2uage has specialized the noun’s content so that there is not a total semantic coinci- dence between the verb and the noun, as in (10), where sermonem is not any kind of, combination (serere, ‘to join’), but one of words and sentences. (10) quod quidem mini pollucts uirgis servos sermonem serat? “And really, is a slave well trounced with the rod to be commencing a discussion with me?” (Plat. Cure. 193) In consequence, to answer our first question, it is difficult to establish a clear-cut boundary between cognate complements and other internal complements. We think that, instead of proposing discrete categories, it would be better to accept the existence of @ continuum within intemal complements between the pure cognate and the non~ cognate complements. ‘Our second question is about the relationship between internal and extemal com- plements. Rosén (1991: 129) recognizes the usual shift from nomen actionis to nomen acti and vice-versa. Therefore, it is not strange that we can find ambiguous instances between internal complements and extemal effected complements (11), and also be- tween internal complements and external affected complements (12) (11a) Pulmoneum edepot nimis uelim womitum womas “By Polux! I would be happy if you vomit the worst vomit out of your lungs!” (Plau. Rud. 511) (118) Admonuisti etiam, quod in Creta fuisses, dictum aliquod in petitionem tuam dici potuisse “You reminded me also thatthe fact that you had been in Crete gave me an opportunity ‘of making a pun upon your candidature” (Cie. Planc. 85)456 Jest ELA VILLA & Jests POLO (1c) quantis laudibus suom erum seruos collaudauit “The way that splendid slave praised his own master—a perfect panegyric!” (Plaut Capt 421) (11) hc deo complacitumst, me hoe ornatu ornatam in incetasregiones timidam eiec- tam? “ls itreally by God that I should be cast on a strange shore in this pitiable plight and frightened so?” (Plaut. Rud. 187) (ie) cantitenam eadem canis “You're singing the same old song” (Ter. Phorm. 495) (12a) mihi itaee uidetur praeds praedatum irier “Loot such as that, think, ison the road to being looted” (Plaut. Rud, 1242) (12b) sed ut acerbus est, pro bene facts cum mali messim metere “Abr the bittemess of it, when you reap 2 crop of cruelty from seeds of kindness!” (laut. Epid. 718) (12e)seelestionem cenam cena tuam “Yes, andthe food you fed me was more cursed that.” (Plaut. Rud. 508) (124) Fecist, er, faetias, quom hoc donauisti dono tuom seruom Stichum You did well, master, presenting your servant tichus with this present?” (Plaut. Stich 656) In the first case —ambiguous instances between internal complements and exter- nal effected complements (11)— the ambiguity of these instances has two origins. One is general: every internal complement can be considered somehow as a form of effected constituent,” because by means of this construction the event is referred to ‘twice, through the verb and through the noun; therefore, the content of the noun can be seen as the immediate result of the event. So, in relation to the opposition effected / affected, internal complements could be considered as a subclass within effected constituents. Second, in all the instances such as those of (11) the noun has an ambig- uous reference: it can refer to the event itself, or toa more or less concrete result: if wwe take womitum, dictum, laudibus, omatu and cantilenam as the expression of the action itsel, they would be internal complements; but if we consider all these notions as the result of the event, they should be considered external effected complements As for the ambiguous instances between intemal complements and external af- fected complements (12), the ambiguity is not so much of a semantic character, but of a referential character of the nouns: the entities affected by the action of the verb predate the action itself —they are external to the action— but they are lexically pre- sented and referred to only in theit condition of constituents of the action of the verb: the objects that became praeda in (12a), for example, existed before the robbery, but they acquired the category of loot only in the context of the action of praedare and, therefore, some of their referential characteristics are intemal to the action itself. And the same could be said for messim-metere, cenam-cenare, dono-donare, ete 2 Botolusi (1988: 75).Intemal complements in Latin: mote on their Semantic, Syntactic, and Pragmatic Status 457 Of course, the characteristics of those terms make them also closer to external effected constituents, and, in consequence, it is also possible to defend the existence of a continuum between external effected and affected constituents. ‘The main conclusion we can propose from this data is that Rosén’s taxonomy should be completed in the sense that the different subclasses cannot be considered closed discrete groups, but as open related categories: some constituents are clearly classifiable within one of the subclasses, whereas others must be situated in interme- diate positions between one class and the other. The following schema would give account of this situation: (13) Semantic characteristics of nominal constituents in relation to the content of the verb Internal (including cognate) eee eS external effected -——- external affected 3, Syntactic status of internal constituents 3.1. Syntactic characteristics as complements Among the internal constituents, there is no controversy about the syntactic status of internal accusatives with transitive verbs, asin (14), because it is generally accepted that the accusative is an argument and fills the slot of the Goal (object). Likewise, it is not problematic to label an internal ablative, with verbs that don’t have an ablative as their second argument as in (15), as an adjunct. (14) potine tuhomo facinus facere strenuom? “My man, can you do an energetic deed?” (Plaut. Cis. 231) (15) hoc deo complacitumst, me hoc omatu ornatam in incertas regiones timidam eiectam. “This wanted the god, that I were thrown out, adorned with this omament, full or fear, to unknown regions” (Plaut. Rud. 187) For facere there are countless examples of its use with other objects which are not intemal complements. And with ornare there are also examples where instruments are also not internal (15). (15°) praecipuam habet laudem corporis forma, quam ineredibili omauitvirute belli “he has obtained the highest admiration because ofthe beauty of his appearance, which he even augmented with an incredible bravery inthe war” (Nep. reg. 1.4) ‘There are, however, other constructions whose analysis lacks such agreement. This is the case for verbs that only allow intemal accusative complementation, as in the examples of (16). (16a) ut profecto uiuas acter miser 1.80 that without a doubt you must be spending a wretched life” (Plaut, Amph, 1023) (166) nullas hoc genus uigilas wigilarunt “They never spent their nights in this way” (Gell pr. 19) (16) cum Pyrrus rex in terra Italia esst et unam atque alteram pugnas prospere pugnasset “When King Pyrrus was already in Italy and the frst two battles had successfully been fought... (Gel. I 8.1)458 Juss DELA Vitta & Jests Povo (16d) aduerso flumine ie iter unius iubet ‘He ordered to advance in a one-day march up the stream” (Liv. XX1 27.2) For these cases, general grammars don’t discuss the govemed nature of the accu- sative as a complement of the verb. But more recent studies —either on the basis of theoretical principles (Bortolussi, 1988) or considering some syntactic particularities of those constructions (Rosén, 1996)— don’t accept that they are real arguments. Within the generative model known as Government and Binding (Chomsky, 1981), Bortolussi (1988: 76-80), after having examined all the characteristics of the internal accusatives with verbs usually not used with an object, concludes that these accusatives are real direct objects, but that they are not arguments in the sense of ‘Chomsky’s theory. Leaving aside the internal problems that this conclusion has for the theory itself, as Bortolussi himself recognizes (1988: 80), there is an important descriptive disadvantage derived from his proposal: on the basis of purely theoretical premises, we are forced to analyze, in different ways, syntactic constituents that be- have in exactly the same way. The problem comes from the fact that GB theory — and, in general, most of the so-called “formalist” theoretical frames— tends to cate- gorize verbs as cither transitive or intransitive, In consequence, a verb classified as intransitive cannot have an argument, Therefore, internal accusatives such as those of (16) cannot, in a very aprioristic way, be arguments. We must remember, however, that it has been widely stated that a notion such as transitivity should be deseribed in gradual terms: there are verbs and pragmatic conditions that more typically require an argument than others, whose absolute uses are more frequent.’ In these terms, verbs. that only admit intemal accusatives can also be considered as transitive verbs, but with a lower degree of transitivity. Their transitiveness is only activated when the referent is totally or partially coincident with the event described by the verb. ‘Of a very different character is Rosén’s argument (1996). On the basis of some syntactical characteristies of the internal accusatives, in her encompassing revision of the internal complements, she strongly refutes their status as arguments (1986:143): “Viewed from any angle, the cognate complement is not a grammatical object at all. (...) The admissibility of such a cognate complement to a verb should not play a role at all in the classification of this verb from the viewpoint of valency”. Altematively, she proposes that the internal complement should be considered as a pseudo-actant. Of course, this opens a new theoretical problem: what kind of constituent is a pseudo- ‘actant? Is it part of the argumental structure of the verb? Ifnot, what is its relationship towards the verb and the rest of the constituents of the sentential structure? The an- swer to these questions remains open. Nevertheless, the most important problem is ifthe syntactic tests which are the basis of Rosén’s argumentation are really valid. “The first test she proposes is that of nominalization, Rosén points out that in the case of a nominalization of the verb, contrary to real objects (17), the internal aceu- satives could not be kept in the form of objective genitives (17°). » See, eg, Naess(207).Intemal complements in Latin: more on their Semantic, Syntactic, and Pragmatic Status 459 (17) mitterelegatos — missio legatorum (17°) pugnam acerrimam pugnare — *pugna pugnae acerrimae Although this is true, it must be noted that this also happens with most internal effected accusatives, including those that appear with typical transitive verbs and that are widely accepted among real objects, as facinus facere or dicta dicere. In fact, nominalizations such as those of (18) are also not attested, (18a) scelesta facta facere (Plaut. Mil. 734) —» ?fuctum factorum seelestorum (18b) istace dicta dicere (Plaut. Trin, 77) —» 2éietio istorum dictorum ‘Therefore, this testis not conclusive, unless we assume that any effected accusa- tive object with facere or dicere is also a pseudo-actant, which does not seem to be something acceptable in syntactic terms. The explanation of restrictions such as those in (17°) and (18), then, seems to be not of syntactic, but of semantic character: cognate complements don’t accept this kind of nominalizations, imespective of the fact that the complement is the complement of atypically transitive verb or is the complement of a verb with restricted transitivity. A second test proposed by Rosén to differentiate between normal objects and the internal accusative with “less-transitive” verbs is the possibility of appending this sec- ‘ond type as a kind of rightward dislocation, as in (19). (19) egos uestros patres... uiros clarssimos mihique amicissimos uiuere abitror et eam quidem vitam, quae est sola uta nominanda “Itis my belie? that your fathers, ... mos illustrious men and very close to me, live on and living that life which alone ought to go by that name” (Cie. Cato 77) Rosén argues that an addition as that of (19) (et eam quidem uitam) is only possible with saturate constructions, that is, when the verb has already filled its argument slots. Therefore wivere would be already saturated in (19) and this would imply tat it does not require uitam as a complement. Nevertheless, contrary to Rosén’s estatement, although rare, there do seem to exist rightward dislocations that also affect arguments in non-saturated constructions such as those of (20). (20a) MaRcus: Qui uero utraque re excelleret, ut et doctrinae studis et regendaciuitate princeps esset, quis facile practer hunc inueniri potest? ATTICUS: Puto posse, et quidem aliquem de tribus nobis, “MARCUS: Do you think that it would be easy to find someone, apart from this man, who was excelent in both matters: in being the very frst inthe study of theories and inthe govemment of the city? ATTICUS: I think indeed that it could be possible; actually, any one of we three” (Cie. deg. II 14.24) (208) quam ob rem, mi Quinte, conscende nobiscum et quidem ad puppim “Therefore, oh Quintus, come down with us to the ster” (Cie. fam. X11 25.5) (20c) modo wenit Octauius, et quidem in proximam uillam Philippi “Octavius has lately arrived at the villa next fo mine, that of Philippus” (Cie. Att. XIV 12)460 JesUS DELA VILLA & Jesus POLO In (20a) itis the subject that is appended. In (20b) and (20c) it is the directional obligatory complement ofthe verb. So, it seems that arguments can also be appended in no saturated constructions. Therefore, in examples such as those of (19) the con- struction of the verb uiuere doesn’t need to be considered as saturated, of, at least, not less than in the examples of (20), and, in consequence, it is not a proof against the argumental status of the intemal complement. To sum up, there is no definitive evidence or syntactic test against the argumental character of internal accusatives. On the contrary, the rest of the evidence and, in particular, the possibility ofits becoming the subject of the passive construction, as in (2), confirms its character as a real argument of the verb. This immediately poses a descriptive problem: how to deal in structural terms with the internal complements of those “less-transitive” verbs, which only admit an argu- ‘mental object if it isan intemal accusative. 3.2. Syntactic representation of internal accusatives In principle, any verb is associated with a particular argumental structure.* Fol- lowing the proposal of Dik (1997: 77-97), the argumental structure, also called “pred ‘ate frame”, of a verb like facio can be represented as in (21), (21) facio. [/animate/apa [eFFected pen This formula can be read as follows: every single use of the verb facere can be seen as the realization in a conerete context of a set of relationships which are always associated with the use of that verb. So, facio describes a state of affairs where some- one, usually a human or an animal, that is, an animate entity, autonomously acts (that is, as an Agent) to produce something. The possibilities of this produced result are extremely broad, but it must always be something effected by the action of the verb and is traditionally labeled as a Patient. So, “predicate frames” are the abstract structures lexically associated with most words and, in particular, with verbs, and justify the way in which that term can be used. A predicate frame, then, can be roughly identified with regime ot complement structures of more traditional theories. For each item of the lexicon of a language, a predicate frame should be proposed to explain its basic, not derived, combinatory re- quirements. For a verb like facio or dico, every complement in accusative, either extemal or intemal, can be simply considered the expression of the argumental slot Patient, ‘The question is, again, how to reflect the internal complement in the predicate frame of the verbs that only accept an accusative argument when it is semantically cognate with the verb as ire wiam (Verg. Aen. IV 467-468), cenare cenam (Plaut. Rud. 508) or uiuere witam (Apul. apol. 24), and, over all, how to justify that, except in those cases, the structural slot normally remains empty. In principle, there are two possibil- * Actuly not only vers, but also nouns, actives and adverts canbe associated wo particular argument suc tures: progrsto ad acc, cigs in, apie rad + a 8:Internal complements in Latin: more on thet Semantic, Syntactic, and Pragmatic Status 46 ities: first, we can assume that those verbs have two different constructions, an intran- sitive more frequent predicate frame (22) and a secondary transitive one (22°), which is behind the uses with an internal complement: (22) como, [animatellagen (22°) ceno,{Vanimate!| yen [dinner asen Altematively, on the other hand, we could accept that there is a single predicate frame with the slot of the complement always present, as in (22°), but that very often this slot is not filled. ‘The first solution has the advantage that it would not be necessary to propose the existence of a slot for a complement in accusative for virtually almost any verb, even when the intemal complement is attested only once or in very few instances. But, we need, then, to describe the relationship between the two alternative predicate frames for the same verb. Moreover, as that alternation is not idiosyncratic for a single verb, but is repeated for many verbs, we should be able to explain this systematic alternation more generally within the grammar of Latin. In other words, we need to assume that there is a general rule in the language that allows the use of traditionally considered intransitive verbs as transtives in certain circumstances. And, additionally, we should be able to determine what those circumstances are. Until now, as far as we know, no such rules or conditions have been described and justified. ‘Thus, the second possibility may seem more Suitable, as it can be dealt with in @ ‘more clear and general way: all the uses of the same verb can be looked at as the expression of a single predicate frame and the lack of expression of an argumental slot could be justified as a case of ellipsis. ‘The conditions for ellipsis have been widely studied both for Latin (e.g. Sznajder, 1998) and inter-Iinguistically (e.g, Garefa Ve~ lasco & Portero, 2002). Within these explanations, the ellipsis of a complement can be easily explained for the verbs we are considering: in most uses the generic content of the complement (ire uiam, cenare cenam, or uiuere witam) makes it unnecessary and irrelevant to express the complement, exactly as in the cases of the traditionally called absolute uses of typical transitive verbs, for example, in expressions as dicere bene, facere male, ete. But, when it becomes relevant to express the referent, either ic reasons or in terms of information, for example when it becomes specific (longam ire wiam, scelestionem cenam cenare, fortunatam witam uiuere, etc), the ar- gumental slot is filled. In the following section we explore some of the reasons that may make expressing an intemal accusative relevant. ‘Summing up, itis possible to conclude that intemal complements are always ar- guments and therefore, there must be a structural slot in the predicate frames of those verbs to justify their use. The lexical restrictions imposed on that slot —they admit only intemal effected referents, totally or partially identical with the event itself— make it unnecessary to express that argument, except when there is any factor that makes its expression relevant, 4. The justification of internal constructions To justify the use of internal constituents, there have been different proposals. i) Most of them are fixed formulae (Rosén, 1981; Touratier, 1994).462 JESUS DELA VILLA & JEsts POLO ii) They are a stylistic device (Biese, 1978; Rosén, 1981). iii) They imply a generic reference to the event (Rosén, 1996). iv) They transform telie predicates into atelic ones (Rosén, 1996). v) They are a way to reinforce the verbal content (Kithner & Stegmann, 1914), vi) They involve phenomena of focalization (Pinkster, 1995; Rosén, 1996). ‘These different possibilities are not incompatible; it may be that more than one is, present in a single instance, ‘The two first proposals have to do with stylistics. To start with, the repeated use of certain constructions clearly shows that in many cases we are in front of fixed for- ‘mulae. Nevertheless, this happens with a limited number of formulae and this cannot explain the use of internal complements in every case. Apart from that, diachronically, those constructions, before becoming formulae, were created on the basis of syntactic, and semantic conditions. Therefore, their original creation must be justified in the same terms as the other uses of internal complements. Second, a stylistic effect was surely present, atleast in the etymologically cognate complements. Nevertheless, the aesthetic effect of alliteration cannot be argued in most cases where the complements are not cognates. In consequence, it can only be considered as a factor to justify the presence of this construction in a limited number of instances. The proposals mentioned in iii) and iv) —the generic character associated with the use of internal constituents and the atelie character of sentences with internal comple- ments— are of semantic character. There may be cases where those effects obtain from the use of an intemal complement. Nevertheless, there are also many cases ‘where we do not have such a generalization or atelic use of the verb, as in (23). (23a) Prius quam istam pugnam pugnabo, ego etiam prius dabo aliam pugnam ‘Before I fight that battle, I shall first fight another battle” (Plaut. Pseucl. $24-525) (23b) tertiam iam aetatem hominum Nestor uiuebat “Nestor had already reached the third age of humans” (Cie. Cato 31) (23e) triumphauitin magistratu insigni.. iumpho “This triumph, which he celebrated while still in office, was a very brilliant one” (Liv X46.2) Consequently, in our opinion, there is no real basis to consider the use of intemal complements as a codified or grammaticalized device to obtain certain referential re- suits From our point of view, the pragmatic effect which is implied in the proposals v) and vi) is much more important. Actually, it isa fact that most internal complements are accompanied by an attribute. And this attribute is informatively focalized, as the noun simply repeats the content of the verb. In other words, the repetition of a root or content in the verb and in the noun focuses all the attention on the new information, which is that of the attribute, Inthe cases of fully transitive verbs, such as facio or dico, the focusing effect simply introduces a pragmatic difference between focused and other instances of non-focused objects, but there is no other syntactic consequence in the sentence, because those verbs are almost always accompanied by a complement in accusative.Internal complements in Latin: more on their Semantic, Syntactic, and Pragmatic Status 463 In contrast, in the case of verbs that only accept an accusative complement when itis internal, such as ire, cenare or uiuere, this focalization justifies the very appear- ance of the complement, which otherwise would be informationally superfluous. In other words, itis the use of a focalizing attribute that makes the filling of the argu- ‘mental slot of the complement relevant. ‘As a conclusion for this section, we can propose that, besides stylistic phenomena and the fixation of certain formulae, the use of intemal complement normally implies a focalization. This justifies the use of most internal complements 5, Conelusions Afier a revision of the main characteristics of the use of internal complements, our proposal can be summarized as follows: i) Internal complements are always effected second order entities. Neverthe- less, semantically, there is nota clear cut between internal complements and external complements, either effected or affected. There seems to be a semantic continuum ‘among those groups. ii) Internal accusatives can always be considered arguments and, therefore, a slot for them should be introduced in the predicate frames of the verbs that attest this construction. The limited use of those complements with some verbs, traditionally considered as intransitives, can be justified by the general rules of ellipsis ‘The use of intemal complements is mainly associated with focalizing devices. References Diese, Julius A. A. 1878, De obiceto interno apud Plautum et Terentium atque de transitu verbalium notionum, Dis., Kiel BORTOLUSS, Berard 1988, “L'objet interne en Latin", in H. Weber & R, Zuber (eds), Linguist Parisete.Akten des 22 Linguistichen Kolloguiums Paris 1987, Tubingen: 73 &i CCuioMskyy, Noam 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrecht. Dik, Simon C. 1997, The Theory of Functional Grammar, BetiwNew York. Fucte, Huguette 1994, “Le verbe latin incorpore’-til ses complements?” in J Herman (ed), Linguistic Studies om Latin. Selected Papers form the 6 International Colloquium on Lavin Linguists (Budapest 1971), AmsterdanyPhiladelphia: 75-90. Gancia VELASCO, Daniel & PORTERO, Carmen 2002, “Understood objects in Functional Grammar", Working Papers on Functional Grammar 7. KOHNER, Raphael & STEGMANN, Carl 1914, Ausfidirliche Grammatik der Lateinischen Sprache 11, Hanover LyONS, John 1977, Semantics, Cambridge [Natss, Ashild 2007, Protonypical Transitvity, AmsterdanPhiladetphia, Piykstex, Harm 1995, Sintaxis ysementica del latin, Madrid Rost, Hannah 1981, Suds ithe syntax ofthe verbal noun in Early Latin, Munchen. Rosin, Hannah 1996, “Eam vitam vivere quae es sola nominanda’. Reflections on cognate ‘complements in R. Risselada et al. (eds.), On Latin. Linguistic and literary studies in Fonowr Harm Pinkster, Amsterdam: 127-189. SzNAUDER, Lyliane 1998, *Verbes transitifs sans objet en Latin” in B. Garcia-Hemindez (ed), ‘studios de Lingistca Latina. Actas del IX Cologuio internacional de Lingstica Latina, Madrid: 791-808. TOURATIER, Christian 1994, Syntaxe Latin, Louvain-la-Newve