Re: NATLANG: French past participles

On Tuesday, April 6, 2004, at 03:38 AM, Trebor Jung wrote:

> In French, you form the passé composé with the formula Pronominal
> Prefix+avoir/être+past participle (I think Christophe is right in his
> classification of French as polysynthetic--I didn't learn it in school
> that
> way, that'd be pretty cool--but I'll start describing French like that).
> Usually, the infix is <avoir>, but the past participles of 16 special
> verbs
> (the "Dr Mrs Vandertramp" verbs) take <être>.
Yep - and in English also, the corresponding verbs once used 'to be' for
the same reason as French, e.g. I am  come; he is gone. Such forms are
still occasionally used for mock archaic effect.

>  Even more interesting (and
> odd), these past participles act like adjectives (but *only* these):
No, not at all. The past participle of the 'avoir' verbs agree with the
object of the verb if, as is normal with pronouns, they come before the
verb, e.g.
je l'ai vu = I have seen him
je l'ai vue = I have seen her
je les ai vus = I have seen them (masc.)
je les ai vues = I have seen them (fem).

> Il est allé. He has gone.
> Elle est allée. She has gone.
> Ils sont allés. They-masc. have gone.
> Elles sont allées. They-fem. have gone.
>
> Is there a reason for this?
Yep - the same reason it happens in other Romancelang - the past
participle, like all participles, is an _adjective_ . We see the same in
Esperanto:
li estas irinta = he has gone
ili estas irintaj = they have gone.

The 'etre' verbs derive from VL intransitives. In classical Latin past
participles were normally passive in meaning, except for deponent verbs an
oddities like 'pransus' "having lunched" <-- prandere "to take lunch", "to
have lunch". The perfect tenses of deponent verbs are always periphrastic
in CL, e.g.
profecti sunt = they have set off
locuta est = she spoke

VL simply extended this handy form for all intransitives, so in Italy &
Gaul they were saying:
*est venu:tus = he has come (Fr. il est venu; Italian: è venuto)
*est venu:ta = she has come (Fr. elle est venue; Italian: è venuta)
*sunt venu:ti: = they [masc] have come (Fr. ils sont venus; Italian: sono
venuti)
*sunt venu:tae = they [fem] have come (Fr. elles sont venues; Italian:
sono venute)

This was not available for transitive verbs because their past participles
were (and still are) passive (except for the few oddities like 'pransus').
Instead they made use of a construction found as early as Plautus (2nd
cent BCE), e.g.
multa bona bene parta habemus = we have many goods (which have been)
well-produced
'partus' "(having been) produced" <-- parere

abstrusam hababebam = I was having her kept-hidden
domitos habere.....oculos = to have his eyes tamed...
hasce aedis conductas habet = he has these hired buildings = he has hired
these buildings [as "he" is the implied subject/agent of both verbs]

We find this used in Cicero in the 1st cent. BCE, e.g.
inclusum in curia senatum habuerunt = they kept the senate shut up in the
curia [senate house]
[Romulus]plebem in clientelas principum descriptam habuit = [Romulus] had
the people assigned to the patronage of leaders
domitas habere libidines = to have one's desired tamed
bellum habere susceptum = to have the undertaken war = to have undertaken
the war
de Caesare satis dictum habebo = I shall have enough said about Caesare =
I shall have said enough about Caesar

So in the spoken Latin of Gaul & Italy:
*illum vidu:tum habeo --> I have him seen/ I have seen him (Fr. je l'ai vu;
  It. l'ho veduto)
*illam vidu:tam habeo --> I have her seen/ I have seen her (Fr. je l'ai
vue; It. l'ho veduta)
*illos vidu:to:s habeo --> I have them seen/I have seen them [masc] (Fr.
je les ai vus; It. li ho veduti)
*illas vidu:ta:s habeo --> I have them seen/I have seen them  [fem] (fr.
je les ai vues; It. he ho vedute)

In Old French & early Italian the perfect participle always agreed with
direct object in this construction. But with the weakening of 'avoir' and
'avere' to the function of mere auxiliaries, the passive meaning of the
participle tended to become obliterated and there developed a tendency to
leave the participle invariable (in the masc. singular form). This is
observable in French texts of the 12th cent. and becomes general in the
13th cent., but agreement was generally retained if the direct object
preceded the verb (e.g. j'ai la vérité entendue). Confusion and hesitation
persisted until the 18th century, when the modern rules was adopted:
- if the direct object precedes the verb, the participle agrees with it;
- if the direct object follows the verb, there is no agreement

Italian has no such rule and one may say either 'ho comparata la casa'
(with agreement) or 'ho comprato la casa' without agreement (I have bought
the house). But, I understand, the common tendency is keep agreement if
the subject precedes but not if it follows.

In the Iberian peninsular things advanced further and, as in English,
"have" became generalized as the auxiliary for the perfect tense and hence
participle agreement has gone.

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com    (home)
raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk   (work)
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760

Reply