63 Colloquial and Li.. - Ganino.com

Possessive pronouns in Plautus 81
its head noun and is strengthened by sibi, a pleonastic reflexive pronoun
whose presence is certainly not called for by the valency of the verb vivere
‘live’. But two lines later he says suco suo in the same meaning; this time
the possessive pronoun, although equally emphatic, follows its head noun
and is not strengthened by any dative pronoun.
As far as the origin of the type suus sibi is concerned, scholars are agreed
that, in certain collocations in which the dative had a proper syntactic
function, it was reanalysed as a particle strengthening an accompanying
possessive (see for example Lindsay 1907: 41 or Norberg 1944: 65–6). 16 The
starting point could have been cases like the following: 17
(14) neque puduit eum id aetatis sycophantias
struere et beneficiis me emere gnatum suum sibi. (Pl. As. 71–2)
And he was not ashamed to play tricks at his age and to buy for himself
the affection of me, his son, with these acts of kindness.
Here suum and sibi stand next to each other, but do not belong together;
suum modifies gnatum,whilesibi goes with emere. However, with the verb
emere one does not need to specify the recipient, at least not if that recipient
is identical with the subject. In cases like this, the string suum sibi could
be reanalysed as possessive plus strengthener. But this example also differs
from the ones with suum sibi in the meaning ‘his own’ in one crucial
respect: suum is not contrastive. 18
Actually, it is quite difficult to come up with attested sentences containing
verb-governed sibi following a form of suus. This is why grammars
also mention sentences like the following ones as starting points of the
reanalysis (both quoted in Lindsay 1907: 41):
(15) meas mihi ancillas invito me eripis. (Pl. Rud. 712)
You’re dragging my slave-girls away from me against my will.
(16) iustumst tuus tibi servus tuo arbitratu serviat. (Pl. Bac. 994)
It is only fair that your slave should serve you according to your wishes.
16 Hofmann–Ricottilli (1985: 294) speak of a proliferation of the ‘ethic’ dative, which is rather vague.
What is more, there is only one instance of meus mihi (see below), whereas all other instances involve
third-person suus sibi; however, an ethic dative of the third person is unheard of.
17 Wölfflin (1892a: 476) is far too specific when he states that the starting point was the standard
divorce formula (e.g. Pl. Am. 928 tibi habeas res tuas, reddas meas ‘have your own things for yourself
and return mine’).
18 The phrase gnatum suum as a whole could be emphatic (‘his very own son’), but no contrast between
suus and other potential possessors is involved.