63 Colloquial and Li.. - Ganino.com

416 michael lapidge
plural perfect indicative [for confisi sunt?] (9.24); 22 lavavi, first singular perfect
indicative [for lavi] (1.10); and nostis, apparently intended as second
plural present indicative [for noscitis](9.17).
2.4 Syntax
During late antiquity, the syntax of spoken Latin underwent a number of
fundamental changes which are reflected in the syntax of the Romance languages.
The most striking of these changes is seen in the sequence of the verb
and its object in the simple sentence. Latin underwent a development from
object–verb (OV) in classical Latin to verb–object (VO) in the spoken Latin
of late antiquity, and hence in the Romance languages (Adams 1977a: 67–9;
Herman 2000: 85–7; Clackson and Horrocks 2007: 280–1). In DRF the
order VO outnumbers OV by 32:22 – roughly 60 per cent to 40 per cent –
a marked preponderance, but by no means an overwhelming one. 23 In
the letters of Claudius Terentianus (early second century), the earliest text
to exhibit VO features, the preponderance of VO to OV is already 40:14
(Adams 1977a: 68). József Herman has observed that ‘in most texts which
we might wish to characterize as “vulgar” the proportion of verb final [sc.
OV] sentences is 50 per cent at most’ (Herman 2000: 86). In short, the
preponderance of VO over OV might be taken as a reflex of spoken Latin;
but the significant proportion of OV (40 per cent) probably implies that
the author of DRF was familiar with the norms of written Latin of an
earlier period.
A similar conclusion can be drawn from the occurrence of constructions
involving the accusative and infinitive following verba dicendi vel sentiendi,
which were preferred in written classical Latin. In late antiquity, and following
the collapse of Imperial government (late fifth century), accusative
and infinitive constructions came to be replaced by subordinate clauses
containing a finite verb and introduced by quod, quia or quoniam, andit
was this latter type of construction which came to characterise the Romance
languages. Although DRF was undoubtedly composed after the collapse of
Roman Imperial government, it nevertheless exhibits a marked preference
for constructions with the accusative and infinitive (six examples: 4.12,
5.14–15, 5.17–18, 9.21–2, 10.3–4, 10.7–8)overthosewithquod or quia (two:
3.27–8, 7.9–10). This preference is presumably to be explained, once again,
by the author’s familiarity with the written Latin of earlier centuries.
22 Cf. TLL iv.206.48–9: ‘forma perf. confiderunt traditur Liv. 44, 13, 7, sed -rent edd.’
23 By the same token, when the verb is in the imperative, the ratio of VO to OV is 54:3; but as Adams
says, ‘there had always been a marked tendency for imperatives to precede their object’ (1977a: 68).