2 corpus, namely [cattex-pos="VERppa"). This list of attested endings, viz. -ans, -ants, -antz, -ent, -enz, -end, -en, -an, -and, -aunt, -aunte, -auntes, -aunts, and -auntz, has been added to the basic morphological query used to select all verb forms in -ant, i.e. [word=".*ant|.*anz"). Parallel to the procedure adopted to retrieve all Late Latin gerunds and present participles, I added to this query a code aiming to exclude a series of recurrent words homonymous with one of the possible forms of the verb form in -ant, e.g. the subordinating conjunction quant 'when' and the adjective granz 'big'.<sup>34</sup> This final query gave a total number 38 209 results, but only a small number of them instantiate verb forms in -ant.

I discarded from these hits all instances that are not built on the present stem of a verb “used in the language current at the time when the text in question was written” (Eklund 1970: 12), and that can as such not qualify as verb forms. The same morphological criterion was thus adopted as for the Late Latin present participle (see §3.4.2.1.1 and §3.4.2.1.4). Hence, morphologically irregular instances, like *étant* ‘being’ (*> être* ‘to be) and *ayant* ‘having’ (*> avoir* ‘to have’) qualify as verb forms in -ant as much as regular forms such as *lisant* ‘reading’ (*> lire* ‘to read’) and *disant* ‘saying’ (*> dire* ‘to say’).

Have also been excluded all forms built on the present stem of a verb, but corresponding to finite verb forms inflected in the third person plural and thus having the ending -ent (e.g. *chantent* ‘they sing’). Another group of forms discarded are those used in a more or less lexicalised verbal expression, such as *faire semblant* ‘to pretend’, *faire connaissant* ‘to reveal’, and *faire entendant* ‘to make clear’. This type of expressions has not been attested with a gerund or present participle in the Late Latin corpus, but, as mentioned in Chapter 1 (§1.2.2.2.6 and §1.3.2.2.8), they do occur in the Classical Latin corpus. Like their Old French counterparts, these gerunds and present participles have been excluded from the Classical Latin dataset. Finally, I omitted all -ant forms used in the *Commentaire en prose sur les*

<footnote n="34"><sup>34</sup> The morphological query thus used is [word=".*ant|.*anz|.*ante|.*antes|.*ants|.*antz|.*ent|.*enz|.*end|.*en|.*an|.*and|.*aunt|.*aunte|.*auntes|.*aunts|.*auntz"&word!="tant|christian|forment|erent|sent|cenz|devient|devint|soen|lenz|fierent|vestime nt|vent|repairent|returnerent|reconurent|ourent|durement|suvent|commandement|soient|autant|errement|amen|paien|dient|nïent| ben|fierement|tent|monument|argent|neient|amfant|gentement|belament|prient|volent|ornement|dient|men|uan|tient|johan|gent|n ient|present|benlement|sovent|jugement|avient|doivent|Jehan|pan|evan|talenz|rien|getent|virent|voillent|nen|bien|vindrent|vindre nt|furent|estoient|souvent|leans|humblement|amen|premiement|enfans|venrant|getterent|maent|salvament|sagrament|paramen z|preiement|aveien|moniment|eren|enz|ven|vient|mien|ent|cent|sen|element|christiien|bien|den|enfan|van|venrant|gran|affanz|an| genz|abanz|avan|crident|davan|man|perdonent|vestimenz|fan|devent|ren|fortment|fortmen|ten|tan||pend|gran|afanz|grand|jovant| besanz|en|bobant|normanz|gent|rend|voldrent|argent|ben|ant|anz|comans|pleinemant|certainement|mandemant|ceanz|rant|chanz| conmanz|conmant|leanz|mante|fausembulant|jehans|normanz|enfantemeant|conmendemanz|porquant|putantes|reconcilians|erub escant|ripient|scrutans|cognoscant|setante|adans|alquans|cante|tyranz|tanz|enfanz|comanz|romanz|alquant|sergant|tiranz|sergan z|nonante|johans|tantes|ante|neporquant|decidant|erubescant|nepurquant|neporquant|enfante|enfanz|a|quanz|çaianz|chambellan s|umblemant|entante|demant|vulcans|covanz|tant|compleignemant|sichanz|adanz|devant|roidemant|quarante|vulcanz|hantes|can t|cant|serjanz|chieremant|pans|comant|hautemant|hante|branz|brans|avant|garrigant|jherusalant|frans|blans|repant|chante|bezans |tyrant|apant|grant|atant|nonpuissanz|errammant|tans|prant|dant|jans|souvant|conmant|ans|quant|quant|tante|dans|grans|grans|de vant|itant|seissante|grant|frans|ranz|belyssans|brant|sans|belissans|alemans|flans|belissant|païsant|belyssant|garans|garant|serjan sljant|anfant|talant|bethleant|abrahannt|auquant|serjant|seissante|anfanz|sanz|anz|granz|dant|rans|dedanz|fromant|longuemand|p arlemant|briemant|jugemant|antretant|prochenemant|hardemant|longuemant|vanz|soldeemant|vante|formant|sodemant|espesse mant|vante|atant|ahanz|sovant|momant|lunguemant|danz|granz|tormante|vant|danz|cinquante|dedanz|tormant|liemant|hastivem ant|malemant|altremant|laidemant|laianz|altretant|davant|atante|antante|antant|ansemant|menüemant|comant|tanz|ordenemant|b elemant|celeemant|richemant|solemant|mautalant|mant|autremant|alquant|folemant|esprant|comancemanz|anchantemant|alqua nt|chans|ahans|loëmant|sanz|descendemant|legieremant|fieremant|oignemant|sainemant|maltalant|seüremant|premieremant|enf ant|avant|tormant|sichans|troïans|antant|naturalmant|ordeneemant|restoremant|dolcemant|sant|quantes|deffant|isnellemant|fant| ganz|deuant|rollant|guant|cinquante|cumant|guarant|alcant|qant|qualogrenant|qualogrenanz|calogrenanz|bans|voiremant|entant| hardemanz|felenessemant|espant|troians|mans|sante|itant|pant|parans|rolanz|nonsaichant|atanz|anfans|nonvoiant"%c|].</footnote>
*psaumes I-XIII* in translations of Late Latin passages instead of in Old French comments on the Bible text. This is in line with the more general exclusion of translated texts, so as to retain only texts written in authentic Old French.

The remaining *-ant* forms instantiate either verb forms in *-ant* or adjectives, and the group of verb forms in *-ant* include both nominalised and non-nominalised instances. As in the case of the Late Latin present participle, however, it is not always easy to determine whether some *-ant* form is a verb form or an adjective (§3.4.3.1) or, in the case of a verb form, whether or not it is nominalised (§3.4.3.2). For the sake of uniformity of this thesis, these issues have been handled on the basis of the same criteria as those used for Late Latin *-ns* forms. The final set of Old French verb forms in *-ant* will be presented in §3.4.3.3.

In order to avoid categorial confusion between verb forms in *-ant* and adjectives in *-ant*, I will use in the remainder of this section the term ‘verb form in *-ant*’ to refer to the non-finite verb forms to which this study is devoted. The term ‘*-ant* form’ will be used as a purely formal label, covering both adjectives and verb forms in *-ant* (see also the end of §2.2.3.2

### 3.4.3.1. Verb forms in *-ant* vs adjectives

In this study, all *-ant* forms built on the present stem of a verb “used in the language current at the time when the text in question was written” (Eklund 1970: 12) without showing additional morphology will be categorised as verb forms, irrespective of whether they are formed in a regular or irregular way, but provided that their meaning is either identical to that of their corresponding finite verb or can be derived from it through deactualisation and/or (contextual) recategorisation. For instance, the form *escoulourjans* ‘fading’ (31) qualifies as a verb form, because it is built on the present stem of *escolourger* ‘to fade’ and has the same meaning as this verb, apart from the fact that, due to its subject predicate use, it does not express this meaning as a process, but as the property derived from this process (‘to fade’ > ‘fading, disappearing’).

(31) [...] *par les memoires qui sont escoulourj-ans*
by ART.DEF.OBL.F.PL memory.OBL.F.PL REL.SBJ.F.PL be.PRS.3PL fade-V.ANT.SBJ.F.PL
et *par les vies as gens*
and by ART.DEF.OBL.F.PL life.OBL.F.PL to;ART.DEF.OBL.F.PL people.OBL.F.PL
*qui sont courtes [...].*
REL.SBJ.F.PL be.PRS.3PL short.SBJ.F.PL

‘By the memories that are fading and by the lives of the people that are short.’ (Ph. de Beau. *Coutumes* prol. 4)
Within this line of thinking, forms like *vaillant* 'valuable' (> *valoir* 'to be of worth'), *poant* 'powerful' (> *pouvoir* 'to be able to'), and *savant* 'wise' (> *savoir* 'to know') hold as verb forms as much as forms like *voiant* 'seeing' (> *voir* 'to see'), *lisant* 'reading' (> *lire* 'to read'), and *oiant* 'hearing' (> *ouïr* 'to hear'). Remember that the term 'verb form in -ant' is used here as a categorial label covering the Old French outcomes of the Late Latin gerund and present participle, and does not feature the internal nor external syntax of the forms at stake (it is thus not restricted to forms having verbal internal and/or external syntax). As in the case of the Late Latin present participle, this wide definition of the Old French verb form in -ant makes that the final dataset contains several forms that qualify as adjectives in a stricter definition. So as to avoid that this choice biases the results of this study, the broadness of this definition will be taken into account in the evaluation of all quantitative results (see Chapter 6).

In accordance with the morphological criterion mentioned above, Old French -ant forms built on a verb that existed in Late Latin, but fell out of use in Old French, like *présent* 'present' (> Lat. *praeesse* 'to be present'), *absent* 'absent' (> Lat. *abesse* 'to be absent'), and *obédient* 'obedient' (> Lat. *oboedire* 'to obey'), are adjectives, and have as such been excluded.

### 3.4.3.2. Nominalised vs non-nominalised -ant forms

Like Late Latin present participles, Old French -ant forms serving as the head of a NP can be more or less lexicalised in this function or act as the head of a "NP without a noun" or "nounless NP" (Corblin 1990: 65; see Ménard 1973: 170; Arnavielle 1984: 39). An example of a form developing a lexicalised use as the head of a NP is *tenant* 'legitimate owner', built on the verb *tenir* 'to hold' and used as a technical term in legal texts. In (32), the nominalised character of this form is particularly clear from its syntactic context, since it combines with the definite article *li* 'the'.

(32) [...] *meismement quant li tenant l' ont*
especially when ART.DEF.SBJ.M.PL legitimate_owned.SBJ.M.PL it.OBJ.F.SG have.PRS.3PL
*souferte sans debat.*
endure.PTCP.PST.F.SG without dispute.OBL.M.SG
'(...) especially when the legitimate owners endured it without dispute.' (Ph. de Beau. *Coutumes*
766)

As an example of an -ant form used as the head of a nounless NP, consider *getant* 'throwing' (33): this form selects the NP *l'arc* 'the bow' as its direct object and contextually serves as the head of a nounless NP due to the absence of a subject case noun like *homme* 'man'.
(33) [...] *Cume l'*
arc **get-ant /** Met la
like ART.DEF.SBJ.M.SG bow.OBL.M.SG throw-V.ANT put.PRS.3SG ART.DEF.OBL.F.SG
sëete avant.
arrow.OBL.F.SG before

‘(...) like the bow-bearer (lit. ‘thrower of the bow’) puts his arrow forward.’ (Ph. de Thaon *Comput* 1759-1760)

Like their Late Latin counterparts, all Old French *-ant* forms acting as the head of a NP have been omitted. However, as in the case of their Late Latin counterparts, it is sometimes difficult to establish whether or not an Old French *-ant* form heads a NP. The most frequent type of such ambiguous forms are governed by the preposition *en* ‘in’ (e.g. *estant* ‘standing’ (34) and *dormant* ‘sleeping’ (35)).

(34) *Puis en est-ant* dunad beneïcun a tuz ces de
then in stand-V.ANT give.PST.3SG blessing.OBL.F.SG to all.OBL.M.PL DEM.OBL.M.PL of
*Israel* [...].
Israel

‘Then he blessed all people from Israel while standing.’ (Rois 132)

(35) [...] *ki* l' *ocit* en **dorm-ant** [...].
REL.SBJ.M.SG he.OBJ.M.SG kill.PST.3SG in sleep-V.ANT
‘(...) who killed him in his sleep.’ (Ph. de Thaon *Bestiaire* 412)

On the one hand, *estant* ‘standing’ (34) and *dormant* ‘sleeping’ (35) can be taken as verb forms in *-ant*
acting as the head of an adjunct denoting the circumstances under which the subject of *dunad* ‘he gave’
realises the main state of affairs (34) or under which the direct object of *ocit* ‘he killed’ is affected by
the main state of affairs (35). On the other hand, they can be taken as nominalised forms having the
same semantic value as in their verb form analysis, but in a more abstract way due to their deactualised
status, in particular the suspension of a concrete subject (e.g. *en estant* ‘in a standing position’)
(cf. Dik
1985: 11; Lehmann 1988: 191).<fnref n="35" /> In theory, both analyses are equally plausible, even for instances like
*dormant* ‘sleeping’ (35), whose subject is not coreferential with the subject of the main verb. This is due
to the fact that, unlike in Modern French, where the subject of verb forms in *-ant* preceded by *en* ‘in’ is
in principle always coreferential with that of the main verb (e.g. (36)) (Wagner & Pinchon 1991: §368),
in Old French, this subject coreferentiality constraint is not yet in place (Halmøy 2003: 113).<fnref n="36" /> Witness
(37), in which the subject of *alant* ‘going’ and *venant* ‘coming’, undoubtedly verb forms in *-ant*, is not
coreferential with any constituent of the main clause.

<footnote n="35">³⁵ In Modern French, this nominalised use of *-ant* forms preceded by *en* ‘in’ is no longer possible.</footnote>

<footnote n="36">³⁶ For a critical discussion about the implicit subject of verb forms in *-ant* introduced by *en* ‘in’ in Modern French, see Halmøy (1982: 177-219, 2003: 109-123).</footnote>
(36) *Je me rase en chant-ant.*
I.SBJ.M.SG REFL.OBJ.M.SG shave.PRS.1SG in sing-V.ANT
'I shave while singing.' (Halmøy 2003: 102)

(37) [...] *se la bateure est fete en marchié*
if ART.DEF.SBJ.F.SG battering.SBJ.F.SG be.PRS.3SG do.PTCP.PST.F.SG in market.OBL.M.SG
*ou en al-ant ou en ven-ant du marchié [...]*
or in go-V.ANT or in come-V.ANT from;ART.DEF.OBL.M.SG market.OBL.M.SG
'If the battering is committed during the market or on the way to or from the market (...).' (Ph. de
Beau. *Coutumes* 839)

In this study, all forms governed by the preposition *en* 'in' and allowing an analysis as verb forms have been taken as such, and have therefore been included in the final dataset (see also Halmøy 2003: 42-48, 113). It is worth noting in this regard that when the subject of the *-ant* form is not coreferential with any constituent of the main clause, it can usually be easily inferred from the discourse context. For instance, the subject of *alant* 'going' and *venant* 'coming' (37) corresponds to the implicit agent of *est fete* 'is committed', and the subject of *dormant* 'sleeping' and *veillant* 'being awake' (38) is coreferential not with the subject of the relative clause containing the two *-ant* forms, but with the subject of the main clause verb *comença* 'he began'.

(38) [...] *lors comença a penser par les choses qui*
then begin.PST.3SG to think.INF.PRS by ART.DEF.OBL.F.PL thing.OBL.F.PL REL.SBJ.F.PL
*aparoient et en dorm-ant et en veill-ant [...]*
appear.PST.3PL and in sleep-V.ANT and in beAwake-V.ANT
'Then he began to think about the things that appeared both when he was sleeping and when he
was awake.' (Graal 261)

However, a small group of forms combined with the preposition *en* ‘in’ are nonetheless better analysed
as nominalised forms for purely semantic reasons. Consider *seant* ‘sitting’ (39).

(39) *Pernez m' as braz, sim*
take.IMP.PRS.2PL I.OBJ.M.SG at;ART.DEF.OBL.M.PL arm.OBL.M.PL AFF;I.OBJ.M.SG
*drecez en se-ant.*
lift_up.IMP.PRS.2PL in sit-V.ANT
'Take me by my arms, lift me up in a sitting position.' (Roland 2829)

In theory, *seant* ‘sitting’ (39) can be taken as either the head of an adjunct denoting the state of affairs
resulting from the main state of affairs or as the head of a NP expressing this same value, but again in a
more abstract way due to its deactualised status (*cf*. Dik 1985: 11; Lehmann 1988: 191). However, while
this resultative meaning is easily expressed by nominalised forms introduced by *en* ‘in’, especially when
combined with a verb evoking a change of posture such as *dresser* ‘to lift up’, it is only rarely expressed
by forms that unambiguously qualify as verb forms.<fnref n="37" /> Therefore, forms like *seant* ‘sitting’ (39) are best analysed as nominalised. Hence, they have been excluded from the final dataset.

Another type of forms that are best taken as nominalised are those illustrated by *estant* ‘standing’ (40). This form can in principle be analysed in three ways.

(40) *Eneas s'* estut an est-ant [...].

Eneas REFL.OBJ.M.SG stand.PST.3SG in stand-V.ANT
‘Eneas stood in an up-right (lit. ‘standing’) posture.’ (Eneas 4669)

First, it can be taken as the head of an adjunct expressing the circumstances under which the subject of the main verb realises the main state of affairs. Next, it can be analysed as the main verb of a progressive construction, in which case *s’estut* ‘stood’ has the status of an auxiliary and serves to present the state of affairs denoted by *estant* ‘standing’ (40) as ongoing (this analysis is not excluded due to the presence of the preposition *an* ‘in’). Finally, it can be regarded as nominalised: *s’estut* ‘he stood’ qualifies in this case as a full lexical verb and *en estant* ‘in an up-right posture’ as an adjunct PP specifying the state of affairs denoted by *s’estut* ‘he stood’. Since *s’estut* ‘he stood’ and the *-ant* form are built on the same verb, *i.e.* *ester* ‘to stand’, the lexical meaning of the former seems foregrounded. This makes its analysis as the auxiliary of a progressive construction less plausible. Moreover, if *estant* ‘standing’ was the main verb of a progressive construction, we would have expected an auxiliary built on *être* ‘to be’ or *aller* ‘to go’, which are not only more frequent in this function than *ester* ‘to stand’, but also, and perhaps more importantly, exempt from the structural ambiguity of *s’estut* ‘he stands’. Given the semantic and lexical redundancy between *s’estut* ‘he stood’ and *estant* ‘standing’, the status of the *-ant* form as a nominalised form seems most plausible. This and similar forms have therefore been discarded from the final dataset.

All *-ant* forms combined with both a possessive determiner and the preposition *en* ‘in’ are without any doubt nominalised (e.g. *estant* ‘standing posture’ (41) and *dormant* ‘sleep’ (42)), and have as such also been excluded (Ménard 1973: 173; Harris 1978: 199-200; Arnavielle 1984: 38).

(41) *Dunc l'* a *fait* l'* apostoiles* en
so he.OBJ.M.SG have.PRS.1SG do.PTCP.PST ART.DEF.SBJ.M.SG apostle.SBJ.M.SG in
sun **est-ant** lever [...].
his.OBL.M.SG stand-V.ANT rise.INF.PRS

‘So, the apostle made him rise in his up-right posture.’ (Guernes Becket 2352)

(42) [...] et pasturent an son dorm-ant [...].
and feed.PST.3PL in his.OBL.M.SG sleep-V.ANT
‘And they fed (on him) in his sleep.’ (Eneas 493)

<footnote n="37">³⁷ Although Old French may not be simply compared with Modern French, it is interesting to note that the Modern French *-ant* form introduced by *en* ‘in’ never expresses the result of the main state of affairs (Halmøy 2003: 87-108).</footnote>
It is worth adding that nominalised -ant forms governed by the preposition en 'in' are lexically restricted. In the corpus of this study, they are built on the verbs *seoir* 'to sit' (*< seant* 'sitting posture'), *ester* 'to stand' (*< estant* 'standing posture'), *dormir* 'to sleep' (*< dormant* 'sleep'), *veiller* 'to be awake' (*< veillant* 'wake'), or *croître* 'to grow' (*< creissant* 'waxing of the moon'). A broader range of verbs is attested in the legal text *Coutumes de Beauvaisis*, written by Philippe de Beaumanoir in the 13th c. This text also contains forms built on *demander* (*< demandant* 'charge'), *défendre* (*< defendant* 'defense'), *monter* (*< montant* 'upward line of inheritance'), *avaler* (*< avalant* 'downward line of inheritance'), and *descendre* (*< descendant* 'downward line of inheritance').

Finally, all bare -ant forms introduced by a (usually possessive) determiner are also nominalised, and have as such been discarded. Consider, for instance, the form *vivant* 'life' (43).

(43) [...] *La nostre aïde tout mon viv-ant*
ART.DEF.OBL.F.SG our.OBL.F.SG help.OBL.F.SG all.OBL.M.SG my.OBL.M.SG live-V.ANT
avréz.
have.FUT.2PL

'You will have my help as long as I live.' (Ami 560)

### 3.4.3.3. Final set of Old French verb forms in -ant

In view of the criteria presented in the preceding sections, the number of verb forms in -ant (hereafter again '-ant form') retained in the Old French dataset corresponds to 2 153. This number is significantly lower than the combined attested frequency of the Late Latin gerund (n=1 786) and present participle (n=8 785). This difference is huge also in relative terms, as shown in Table 3.10.<fnref n="38" />

<table><caption>**Table 3.10.** Frequency of the gerund and the present participle in the Late Latin and Old French corpora</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#gerunds and<br>present participles</th><th>#words</th><th>#gerunds and present participles<br>per 10 000 words</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Late Latin</td><td>10 093</td><td>425 903</td><td>236.98</td></tr><tr><td>Old French</td><td>2 153</td><td>843 838</td><td>25.51</td></tr></tbody></table>

The number of gerunds and present participles is almost ten times higher in the Late Latin than in the Old French corpus. Since the present participle is much more frequent than the gerund in the Late Latin corpus (31 vs 206 forms per 10 000 words), the low frequency in the Old French corpus might suggest that many present participles are not replaced by their competing gerund forms in the transition from

<footnote n="38">³⁸ According to a chi-square goodness-of-fit test, this difference is statistically highly significant (χ² = 13121.32; df = 1; p < 0.0001).</footnote>
Late Latin to Old French, but by other linguistic structures, like finite clauses. Indeed, if they had been replaced by gerunds, the number of Old French -ant forms would have been much higher. This contrast between the high frequency of gerunds and especially present participles in the Late Latin corpus and the low frequency of -ant forms in the Old French corpus will be discussed in Chapters 4 to 6.

With respect to the diachronic distribution of the Old French -ant forms, 6% of them occur in the *Chanson de Roland* and can therefore not be assigned to Early Old French or the 12th-13th c. with absolute certainty. This leaves us with 94% of unambiguously periodisable instances (2 022 forms out of 2 153). As expected in view of the distribution of the Old French words among these periods, most of the periodisable -ant forms occur in the 12th-13th c. (Table 3.11). However, proportionally speaking, the frequency of these instances is higher in Early Old French than in the 12th-13th c. On the diachronic axis, the relative frequency of the Old French -ant form is thus declining.<fnref n="39" />

<table><caption>**Table 3.11.** Frequency of the -ant form in the Early Old French and 12th-13th c. corpora</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#-ant forms</th><th>#words</th><th>#-ant forms per 10 000 words</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Early Old French</td><td>33</td><td>8 957</td><td>36.84</td></tr><tr><td>12th-13th c.</td><td>1 989</td><td>807 404</td><td>24.63</td></tr></tbody></table>

The *Chanson de Roland* contains 131 -ant forms on a total number of 27 477 words. This equals 47.68 instances per 10 000 words. It is in this respect more similar to the Early Old French texts than to the 12th-13th c. texts. In Chapter 6, I will investigate whether this association of the *Chanson de Roland* with the earliest stage of Old French is also supported by the syntactic use of the -ant form.

As to the thematic distribution of the Old French -ant forms, more than half of them are used in the literary (36%) or religious texts (27%), in line with the thematic distribution of the words of the Old French corpus (see Figure 3.8). The number of instances in the didactical, legal, and historical texts accounts for respectively 18%, 14%, and 6% (Table 3.12 below). In relative terms, the frequency of the -ant form is highest in the didactical texts and lowest in the legal ones (Table 3.12).<fnref n="40" />

<table><caption>**Table 3.12.** Frequency of the Old French -ant form in the five thematic domains</caption><thead><tr><th>Domain</th><th>#-ant forms</th><th>#words</th><th>#-ant forms per 10 000 words</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Didactical</td><td>388</td><td>89 778</td><td>43.22</td></tr><tr><td>Literary</td><td>779</td><td>268 620</td><td>29.00</td></tr><tr><td>Historical</td><td>122</td><td>48 730</td><td>25.04</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>291</td><td>153 161</td><td>19.00</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>573</td><td>283 549</td><td>20.21</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="39">³⁹ A chi-square goodness-of-fit test indicates that this decline is statistically significant ($\chi^2 = 4.85$; df = 1; p = 0.0276).</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ According to a chi-square goodness-of-fit test, these thematic differences are statistically highly significant ($\chi^2 = 179.88$; df = 4; p < 0.0001).</footnote>
This result is in contrast with that obtained for the Late Latin gerund, which is most frequent in the legal texts (see Table 3.3), while it is similar to that of the Late Latin present participle, which is also least frequent in the legal texts (see Table 3.8). In Chapter 6, I will investigate to which extent the thematic differences in the frequency of the -ant form are related to differences on the level of its syntactic use. As stated earlier with respect to the Late Latin gerund and present participle, the unequal thematic distribution of the Old French instances will be taken into account in the evaluation of all quantitative results (see §3.6.2.2 and §3.6.3.1).

### 3.4.4. Final dataset

The final dataset of this thesis comprises 1 270 gerunds and 1 786 present participles in Classical Latin, 1 308 gerunds and 8 785 present participles in Late Latin, and 2 153 -ant forms in Old French. This yields a total number of 15 305 forms. In relative terms, the Classical Latin contains 49 gerunds and present participles per 10 000 words, the Late Latin corpus 237, and the Old French corpus only 26 (Table 3.13).

<table><caption>**Table 3.13.** Final dataset of this study</caption><thead><tr><th>Language</th><th>Type of non-finite verb form</th><th>#instances</th><th>#instances per 10 000 words</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Classical Latin</td><td>Gerund</td><td>1 270</td><td>20.32</td></tr><tr><td>Present participle</td><td>1 789</td><td>28.57</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Late Latin</td><td>Gerund</td><td>1 308</td><td>30.71</td></tr><tr><td>Present participle</td><td>8 785</td><td>206.27</td></tr><tr><td>Old French</td><td>-Ant form</td><td>2 153</td><td>25.51</td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 3.13 highlights in particular the exceptionally high frequency of the Late Latin present participle in comparison with that of the Late Latin gerund or with that of both the gerund and the present participle in Classical Latin. As for the frequency of the Old French-ant form, it represents approximately half of the combined frequency of the gerund and the present participle in Classical Latin, and about a tenth of the total number of gerunds and present participles in Late Latin. These differences will be taken into account in the assessment of the evolution of the gerund and the present participle from Late Latin to Old French in Chapters 4 to 6.

### 3.5. Ambiguities with regard to the syntactic use of the gerund, present participle, and -ant form

The evolution of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin and the categorial status of the -ant form in Old French will be mainly investigated on the basis of their external syntax. However, it is not
always easy to determine the syntactic use of the forms at stake. Hence, it is of paramount interest to
explore the distinction between some uses, and to set out the criteria used to distinguish them.

These criteria combine syntactic and semantic arguments, and include a number of linguistic tests.
It should be stressed that, as mentioned in §3.4.1.1, our ineluctable lack of linguistic intuition about dead
language (e.g. Latin) or past stages of contemporary languages (e.g. Old French) makes that such tests
should be used with caution. Their result should also be interpreted in terms of probability rather than
certainty (cf. Schøsler 2007: 97 on Old French). Therefore, two general precautions have been taken in
determining the syntactic use of all gerunds, present participles, and -ant forms. On the one hand, all
forms have been analysed within their discourse context, so as to maximise the number of authentic
syntactic and semantic clues in favour of this or that analysis. Instead of taking into account the small,
but extendable, portion of the left and right contexts provided by the *Base de français médiéval* for all
hits of a given query, I had at my disposal the full texts of the Late Latin and Old French corpora. I thus
established the use of all gerunds, present participles, and -ant forms within their full discourse context.
On the other hand, the use of all forms has been manually verified more than a year after the first
annotation round, in order to maximise the objectivity and consistency of their analysis (especially of
the ambiguous ones). Although the final analysis of some forms might still be subject to debate, the size
of the dataset (n=12 246) is large enough to avoid that these instances distort the quantitative results.
After all, the ambiguous forms are largely outnumbered by the unambiguous ones.

The following sections aim to explore the various cases of syntactic ambiguity encountered in the
corpus of this study, and to expound the criteria used to resolve them. The types of ambiguity that will
be examined relate to the distinction between: (i) adjuncts and adnominal phrases (§3.5.1); (ii) adjuncts
and verb complements (§3.5.2); (iii) subject predicates and progressive constructions (§3.5.3); and (iv)
progressive constructions and adjuncts (§3.5.4).

**3.5.1. Adjuncts vs adnominal phrases**

In Late Latin, the ambiguity between adjuncts and adnominal phrases applies to both the gerund and the present participle. It also holds for some *-ant* forms in Old French. Before discussing some cases of ambiguity between these two types of constituents (§3.5.1.2), I will define each of them in terms of their clearest cases (§3.5.1.1). The defining properties of prototypical adjuncts and adnominal phrases listed in §3.5.1.1 will serve as the starting point to analyse the dubious cases in §3.5.1.2.

**3.5.1.1. Prototypical adjuncts vs adnominal phrases**

The distinction between prototypical adjuncts and adnominal phrases is clear: adjuncts modify verbal
predications and belong as such to the VP or the clause as a whole, whereas adnominal phrases relate to
a noun, and thus belong to the NP. To be more precise, adjuncts are syntactically and semantically
optional constituents that modify the state of affairs designated by a verb in some way or other (Dik
1997: 87; Pinkster 2015: 12). For instance, the gerund *orando* ‘by praying’ (44) expresses the means by
which is realised the state of affairs expressed by *suscitavit* ‘he brought back to life’, while the present
participle *stans* ‘standing’ (45) and the -ant form clause *cler en riant* ‘smiling clearly’ (46) denote the
circumstances accompanying the states of affairs expressed by respectively *leget* ‘he reads’ (45) and *ad
dit* ‘he said’ (46).

(44) [...] *Petrus*
*qui*
*Tabitham*
*mortuam*
**ora-nd-o**
Peter.NOM.M.SG REL.NOM.M.SG Tabitha.ACC.F.SG dead.ACC.F.SG pray-GER-ABL
*suscitavit* [...].
bring_back_to_life.PST.3SG

‘Peter, who brought the dead Tabitha back to life by praying (...).’ (Greg. M. *dial*. 2.30.26)

(45) [...] *st-ans*
ipse
*episcopus*
*leget*
*verba*
stand-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG INTENS.NOM.M.SG bishop.NOM.M.SG read.PRS.3SG word.ACC.N.PL
*Domini* [...].
Lord.GEN.M.SG

‘The bishop reads the words of the Lord while standing.’ (*Peregr. Aeth.* 33.2)

(46) *Cler en ri-ant* l' *ad dit* a *Guenelun* [...].

clearly in smile-V.ANT it.OBJ.N.SG have.PRS.3SG say.PTCP.PST to Guenelon

‘He said it to Guenelon with a big smile.’ (*Roland* 619)

As they are syntactically and semantically optional, adjuncts can be omitted without making the sentence ungrammatical or changing its core meaning (Dik 1997: 89). This is shown for the adjuncts in (44-46) in respectively (47-49).

(47) *Petrus*
*Tabitham*
*mortuam*
*suscitavit.*
Peter.NOM.M.SG Tabitha.ACC.F.SG dead.ACC.F.SG bring_back_to_life.PST.3SG
‘Peter brought the dead Tabitha back to life.’ (adapted from Greg. M. *dial*. 2.30.26)

(48) *Ipse*
*episcopus*
*leget*
*verba*
*Domini*
...
INTENS.NOM.M.SG bishop.NOM.M.SG read.PRS.3SG word.ACC.N.PL Lord.GEN.M.SG
‘The bishop reads the words of the Lord.’ (adapted from *Peregr. Aeth.* 33.2)

(49) *L' ad dit* a *Guenelun* [...].
it.OBJ.N.SG have.PRS.3SG say.PTCP.PST to Guenelon

'He said it to Guenelon.' (adapted from *Roland* 619)

By contrast, adnominal phrases syntactically depend on a noun, and serve to define, describe, or classify
the referent of this noun (Marouzeau 1910: 12, 22; Woodcock 1959: 50; Pinkster 2015: 965-966, 994-
996). For example, the gerund *egrediendi* ‘to leave’ (50) defines the type of opportunity granted by the
withdrawal of the bear, and the present participle *lactantem* ‘suckling’ (51) and the -ant form *culchant*
'setting' (52) specify respectively the subset of piglets whose theft is punishable by a financial penalty of 120 denarii (51) and the point of compass where the island of Guernsey is situated (52).

(50) [...] *removit* se ab ostio ursa [...] *atque*
withdraw.PST.3SG REFL.ACC.F.SG from doorway.ABL.N.SG bear.NOM.F.SG and
**egredie-nd-i** ei praestitit aditum.
leave-GER-GEN DEM.DAT.M.SG give.PST.3SG opportunity.ACC.M.SG
'The bear withdrew from the doorway and gave him the opportunity to leave.' (Pass. Columb.
1.5.11)

(51) *Si quis* porcellum **lacta-nt-em** furaverit [...] CXX
if INDF.NOM.M.SG piglet.ACC.M.SG suck-PTCP.PRS-ACC.M.SG steal.SBJV.PST.3SG 120
denarios [...] *culpabilis* iudicetur.
denarius.ACC.M.PL guilty.NOM.M.SG judge.FUT.PASS.3SG
'If someone steals a suckling piglet, he will be accused (to pay) 120 denarii.' (Lex Sal. 1.2)

(52) [...] A *Gernerui* sunt *arivé / Un* isle *vers*
at Guernsey be.PRS.3PL arrive.PTCP.PST ART.INDF.OBL.M.SG island.OBL.M.SG toward
*soleil* **culch-ant** [...].
sun.OBL.M.SG set-V.ANT

'They arrived in Guernsey, an island in the West. (lit. 'toward the setting sun').' (Wace *Brut* 14188-14189)

Within the group of the adnominal phrases, a distinction is to be made between semantically necessary and optional constituents, because only the latter may be close to analysis as adjuncts (see the discussion in §1.2.2.2.1 and §1.3.2.2.1). Compare the gerund phrases in (50) and (53): in (50), *egrediendi* 'to leave' is semantically necessary, since the meaning of the governing noun *aditum* 'opportunity' alone does not suffice to form a meaningful information unit, as shown in (54); in (53), on the contrary, *ad spargendum super nos* 'to sprinkle on us' is semantically optional, because the meaning of the noun *sal* 'salt' suffices to form a meaningful information unit on its own, as evidenced by (55).

(53) [...] *benedic* [...] *sal* ad *sparge-nd-um* super nos [...].
bless.IMP.PRS.2SG salt.ACC.M.SG to sprinkle-GER-ACC on we.ACC.M.PL
'Bless the salt to sprinkle on us.' (Vit. Hugb. 13)

(54) ?? *Removit* se ab ostio ursa *atque*
withdraw.PST.3SG REFL.ACC.F.SG from doorway.ABL.N.SG bear.NOM.F.SG and
*ei* praestitit aditum.
DEM.DAT.M.SG give.PST.3SG opportunity.ACC.M.SG
'The bear withdrew from the doorway and gave him the opportunity.' (adapted from *Pass. Columb.*
1.5.11)
(55) *Benedic sal.*
bless.IMP.PRS.2SG salt.ACC.M.SG
‘Bless the salt.’ (adapted from *Vit. Hugb.* 13)

In the case of adnominal phrases with a present participle or -ant form, an additional distinction should be made between appositive and restrictive phrases, since only the former might give rise to an analysis as adjuncts (see §1.3.2.2.1). Appositive phrases provide accessory information, i.e. information that is not required to identify referent of the head noun (Poletto & Sanfelici 2017: 805). For instance, the present participle clause validissime egrotans ‘(being) very gravely ill’ (56) and the -ant form vaillant ‘(being) worthy’ (57) depend on respectively infantulus ‘little boy’ (56) and clerc ‘clerk’ (57), but the information conveyed by them does not restrict the referent of these nouns, contrary to the NPs *nomine Mummolenus* ‘named Mummolenus’ (56) and *Gerlant* ‘Gerland’ (57).

(56) [...] *infantulus* *quidam* *nomine* *Mummolenus* *validissime* little_boy.NOM.M.SG INDF.NOM.M.SG name.ABL.N.SG Mummolenus.NOM.M.SG very_gravely *egrota-ns* *ad extrema* *pene* be_ill-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG to final.ABL[ACC].F.SG torment.ABL[ACC].F.SG *deductus* *est.* bring-PTCP.PST.NOM.M.SG be.PRS.1SG

‘Some little boy named Mummolenus, who is very gravely ill, is brought to its final torment.’ (Vit. Desid. 46)

(57) *De iceo trai a guarant / Le vaill-ant* of DEM.OBL.N.SG bear.PRS.1SG as witness.OBL.M.SG ART.DEF.OBL.M.SG be_worthy-V.ANT clerc *Gerlant* [...]. clerk.OBL.M.SG Gerland

‘I bear the worthy clerk Gerland witness of this.’ (Ph. de Thaon *Comput* 2951-2952)

Appositive adnominal phrases can therefore be omitted without changing the referent of the governing noun, as illustrated for the two instances in (56-57) in respectively (58-59).

(58) *Infantulus* *quidam* *nomine* *Mummolenus* *ad* little_boy.NOM.M.SG INDF.NOM.M.SG name.ABL.N.SG Mummolenus.NOM.M.SG to *extrema* *pene* *deductus* *est.* final.ABL[ACC].F.SG torment.ABL[ACC].F.SG bring-PTCP.PST.NOM.M.SG be.PRS.1SG

‘Some little boy named Mummolenus is brought to its final torment.’ (adapted from *Vit. Desid.* 46)

(59) *De iceo trai a guarant / Le clerc*
of DEM.OBL.N.SG bear.PRS.1SG as witness.OBL.M.SG ART.DEF.OBL.M.SG clerk.OBL.M.SG *Gerlant.*
Gerland

‘I bear the clerk Gerland witness of this.’ (adapted from Ph. de Thaon *Comput* 2951-2952)
By contrast, restrictive phrases provide information that is required to identify the referent of the head noun (Poletto & Sanfelici 2017: 805). Witness (51), in which *lactantem* ‘suckling’ is required in order to identify the subset of piglets whose theft is punishable by a financial penalty of 120 denarii, or (52), where *culchant* ‘setting’ enables identifying the part of the sun’s daily trajectory that metonymically stands for the geographical situation of the island of Guernsey. For this reason, the omission of restrictive phrases changes the referent of the governing noun, as shown by the deletion of *lactantem* ‘suckling’ in (51) and of *culchant* ‘setting’ (52) in respectively (60-61).

(60) Si quis porcellum furaverit CXX denarios
if INDF.NOM.M.SG piglet.ACC.M.SG steal.SBJV.PST.3SG 120 denarius.ACC.M.PL
culpabilis iudicetur.
guilty.NOM.M.SG judge.FUT.PASS.3SG
‘If someone steals a piglet, he will be accused (to pay) 120 denarii.’ (adapted from *Lex Sal.* 1.2)

(61) A Gernerui sunt arivé / Un isle vers
at Guernsey be.PRS.3PL arrive.PTCP.PST ART.INDF.OBL.M.SG island.OBL.M.SG toward
soleil.
sun.OBL.M.SG
‘They arrived in Guernsey, an island toward the sun.’ (adapted from Wace *Brut* 14188-14189)

In (60), the financial penalty of 120 denarii no longer applies to the theft of suckling piglets, but to that of piglets in general. Thus, the deletion of the restrictive present participle changes the scope of the law. In (61), the geographical orientation of the island of Guernsey is no longer fixed in the West. Instead, it constantly changes in function of the sun’s daily trajectory, which is absurd.

### 3.5.1.2. Ambiguous cases

Though sharp in theory, the distinction between adjuncts and adnominal phrases is often fluid in practice (Marouzeau 1910: 12, 22; Laughton 1964: 62, 65-66; Pinkster 2015: 994). Cases in point are the gerund phrase *ad habitandum* ‘to live’ (62), the present participle clause *omnia pacienter ferens* ‘enduring everything with patience’ (63), and the -ant form phrase *cler luisant* ‘shining brightly’ (64).

(62) [...] ei=que domum ad **habita-nd-um** magna praeparavit
DEM.DAT.M.SG=and house.ACC.F.SG to live-GER-ACC great.ABL.F.SG prepare.PST.3SG
sollertia.
skill.ABL.F.SG
‘And with great skill he prepared for him a house to live.’ (Vit. *Waldedr.* 2.9.15)
(63) [...] vir *Dei omnia pacienter fere-ns*
man.NOM.M.SG God.GEN.M.SG all.ACC.N.PL patiently endure-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG
*cybum et potum ei dare precepit.*
food.ACC.M.SG and drinks.ACC.M.SG DEM.DAT.M.SG give.INF.PRS order.PST.3SG

‘As he endured anything with patience, the man of God ordered to give him food and drinks.’ (Vit. Pard. 11)

(64) *Quant d' iloec la traistrent avant / Uns rais*
when from there it.OBJ.F.SG pull.PST.3PL forward ART.INDF.SBJ.M.SG ray.SBJ.M.SG
*l' ensiwi cler luis-ant.*
it.OBJ.F.SG follow.PST.3SG brightly shine-V.ANT

‘When they pulled it forward from there, a ray followed it, shining brightly.’ (Adg. Mir. 44.137-138)

In order to determine the type of these constituents, different criteria can be put forward. As noted in the previous section, adjuncts are always semantically optional, while adnominal phrases can, but need not, be semantically optional. Hence, all constituents that are semantically necessary or required to identify the referent of some noun are adnominal phrases. However, this criterion is of little use, because it only allows to distinguish between adjuncts and semantically obligatory and/or restrictive adnominal phrases, distinction that is almost always clear. The true cases of syntactic ambiguity concern the semantically optional constituents, which makes the semantic typology of adnominal phrases in the previous section highly relevant.

Indeed, it is on account of their semantic optionality that the three constituents illustrated in (62-64) are syntactically ambiguous. Their optionality is evident from the comparison between (62-64) and (65-67), the latter corresponding to the examples in (62-64) deprived of respectively *ad habitandum* ‘to live’, *omnia pacienter ferens* ‘enduring everything with patience’, and *cler luisant* ‘shining brightly’.

(65) *Ei domum magna praeparavit sollertia.*
DEM.DAT.M.SG house.ACC.F.SG great.ABL.F.SG prepare.PST.3SG skill.ABL.F.SG
‘And with great skill he prepared for him a house.’ (adapted from Vit. Waldedr. 2.9.15)

(66) *Vir Dei cybum et potum ei*
man.NOM.M.SG God.GEN.M.SG food.ACC.M.SG and drinks.ACC.M.SG DEM.DAT.M.SG
*dare precepit.*
give.INF.PRS order.PST.3SG

‘The man of God ordered to give him food and drinks.’ (adapted from Vit. Pard. 11)

(67) *Quant d' iloec la traistrent avant / Uns rais*
when from there it.OBJ.F.SG pull.PST.3PL forward ART.INDF.SBJ.M.SG ray.SBJ.M.SG
*l' ensiwi.*
it.OBJ.F.SG follow.PST.3SG

‘When they pulled it forward from there, a ray followed it.’ (adapted from Adg. Mir. 44.137-138)
The analysis of phrases like *ad habitandum* ‘to live’ (62), *omnia pacienter ferens* ‘enduring everything with patience’ (63), and *cler luisant* ‘shining brightly’ (64) thus needs to be established on the basis of other criteria.

The most obvious criterion that can be invoked concerns the essential distinction between adjuncts and adnominal phrases, i.e. that adjuncts modify a verbal predication, and thus belong to the VP or the clause as a whole, whereas adnominal phrases relate to a noun, and thus belong to the NP. As a corollary, constituents denoting a state of affairs that is in some way or other related to that expressed by another verb qualify as adjuncts, while constituents designating a property of a noun hold as adnominal phrases (Marouzeau 1910: 48; Eklund 1970: 19-20). However, while this criterion undeniably allows separating prototypical adjuncts (e.g. (44-46)) from prototypical adnominal phrases (e.g. 53-56)), it is not decisive for less prototypical instances, like those in (62-64). Witness the gerund phrase *ad habitandum* ‘to live’ (62): on the one hand, it can be seen as the modifier of the noun *domum* ‘house’, in which case it specifies an inherent property of this noun (‘house to live’ -> ‘dwelling place’); on the other hand, it can be taken as the purpose adjunct of the state of affairs denoted by *praeparavit* ‘he prepared’ (‘he prepared a house in order for him to live in it’). The analysis of this and similar forms has been determined on the basis of the following two criteria.

(i) Constituents that can be pronominalised along with the noun on which they potentially depend are adnominal phrases. *Ad habitandum* ‘to live’ (62) validates this criterion, as shown by (68), and so it is best considered adnominal.

(68) *Ei=que eam magna praeparavit sollertia.*
DEM.DAT.M.SG=and DEM.ACC.F.SG great.ABL.F.SG prepare.PST.3SG skill.ABL.F.SG
‘And with great skill he prepared it for him.’ (adapted from *Vit. Waldedr.* 2.9.15)

(ii) Constituents that cannot be replaced by a finite adjunct clause are adnominal phrases. This criterion confirms the adnominal analysis of *ad habitandum* ‘to live’ (62), since its replacement by a finite purpose adjunct clause leads to an ungrammatical sentence (69).<fnref n="41" />

(69) * *Eique domum magna praeparavit sollertia*  
DEM.DAT.M.SG=and house.ACC.F.SG great.ABL.F.SG prepare.PST.3SG skill.ABL.F.SG  
*ut habitaret.*  
that live.SBJV.PST.3SG  
‘And with great skill he prepared a house for him, so that he could dwell.’ (adapted from *Vit.*  
*Waldedr.* 2.9.15)

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ Note that the sentence in (69) becomes grammatical when adding a spatial adjunct to the finite adjunct clause, like *ibi* ‘there’. However, such an addition is not allowed in proclaiming the adjunct analysis of constituents on the basis of criterion (ii).</footnote>
These same two criteria can be applied to the clause *cler luisant* ‘shining brightly’ (66). In theory, this form can be taken as either the modifier of the noun *rais* ‘ray’, in which case it expresses a property of this noun’s referent (‘a brightly shining ray’), or the adjunct of the state of affairs denoted by *ensiwi* ‘it followed’, in which case it evokes the circumstances under which the ray of light followed the removal of some symbol. However, *cler luisant* ‘shining brightly’ (64) can be pronominalised together with the noun *rais* ‘ray’ (see (70)), while it cannot be substituted by a finite temporal adjunct clause (see (71)).

(70) *Quant d' iloec la traistrent avant / Il l' ensiwi.*<sup>42</sup>
when from there it.OBJ.F.SG pull.PST.3PL forward it.SBJ.M.SG it.OBJ.F.SG follow.PST.3SG
‘When they pulled it forward from there, it followed it.’ (adapted from Adg. *Mir.* 44.137-138)

(71) * Quant d' iloec la traistrent avant / Uns rais
when from there it.OBJ.F.SG pull.PST.3PL forward ART.INDF.SBJ.M.SG ray.SBJ.M.SG
l' ensiwi pendant qu' il luisait cler.
it.OBJ.F.SG follow.PST.3SG during that it.SBJ.M.SG shine.PST.3SG brightly
‘When they pulled it forward from there, a ray followed it while it was shining brightly.’ (adapted
from Adg. *Mir.* 44.137-138)

Moreover, *cler luisant* ‘shining brightly’ (64) can be replaced by a finite appositive relative clause (see (72)). This confirms its analysis as an adnominal phrase rather than as an adjunct.

(72) *Quant d' iloec la traistrent avant / Uns rais*
when from there it.OBJ.F.SG pull.PST.3PL forward ART.INDF.SBJ.M.SG ray.SBJ.M.SG
l' ensiwi qui cler luisait.
it.OBJ.F.SG follow.PST.3SG REL.SBJ.M.SG brightly shine.PST.3SG
‘When they pulled it forward from there, a ray that shone brightly followed it.’ (adapted from Adg.
*Mir.* 44.137-138)

Finally, *cler luisant* ‘shining brightly’ (64) has a descriptive meaning. This type of meaning is more characteristic of adnominal phrases than of adjuncts (Marouzeau 1910: 48; Eklund 1970: 19-20).

Unlike *ad habitandum* ‘to live’ (62) and *cler luisant* ‘shining brightly’ (64), the present participle clause *omnia pacienter ferens* ‘enduring everything with patience’ (63) accumulates the functions of prototypical adjuncts and adnominal phrases: on the one hand, it provides accessory information about the NP *vir Dei* ‘man of God’; on the other hand, it expresses the state of affairs providing the temporal and even causal setting against which should be interpreted the state of affairs denoted by *precepit* ‘he ordered’, as evident from the discourse context, given in (73).

<footnote n="42"><sup>42</sup> The NP *uns rais cler luisant* ‘a brightly shining ray’ is indefinite, and can therefore in principle not be pronominalised by the definite personal pronoun *il* ‘it’, but this is less relevant here.</footnote>
(73) *Statim cum ad ominem dei fuisset aductus, multis conviciis vel increpacionibus virum dei exprobrans, dicens latronem, falsatorem, inpostorem. Tunc vir dei, omnia pacienter fere-ns, cybum et potum ei dare precepit.*

‘Immediately when he was brought to the man of God, he reproved the man of God with many insults and reproaches, calling him a bandit, a fraud, an imposter. Then, as he endured everything with patience, the man of God ordered to give him food and drinks.’ (*Vit. Pard.* 11)

The combination of these two functions is not the exclusive property of Late Latin present participles. It is also well known for, e.g., a sub-type of French adverbs ending in -ment ‘-ly’, namely the “adverbes de manière orientés vers le sujet”, which specify both the manner of a state of affairs and the attitude of the subject toward it (Molinier 1990: 35-36). An example of such an adverb in contemporary French is *attentivement* ‘carefully’ (74).

(74) *Paul a lu attentivement la notice.*
Paul have.PRS.3SG read.PTCP.PST carefully ART.DEF.F.SG notice.F.SG
‘Paul read the notice carefully.’ (Molinier 1990: 35)

In this dissertation, constituents of the type exemplified in (63) have been analysed on the basis of their contextually most salient function. For instance, one function of the present participle clause in (63) consists of providing background information about the man of God, namely Pardulfus. However, this function is less important than its other function, which consists of providing the temporal and slightly causal setting against which should be interpreted the state of affairs denoted by *precepit* ‘he ordered’ – this is particularly clear in (73). Clauses like *omnia pacienter ferens* ‘enduring everything with patience’ thus primarily serve as so-called ‘frame-setters’ or ‘scene-setters’ for the subsequent discourse (Diessel 2005: 459-460). This analysis of the clause in (63) is supported by the fact that it is not pronominalised with the NP *vir Dei* ‘man of God’ in the demonstrative *ille* ‘he’ (see 75). Furthermore, it can be replaced by a finite adjunct clause (see (76)) – note that the conjunction *cum* ‘as’ also often combines a temporal and a causal value, just like many adjunct present participle phrases.

(75) *Tunc ille, omnia pacienter fere-ns, cybum*
then DEM.NOM.M.SG all.ACC.N.PL patiently endure-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG food.ACC.M.SG
*et potum ei dare precepit.*
and drinks.ACC.M.SG DEM.DAT.M.SG give.INF.PRS order.PST.3SG

‘As he endured anything with patience, he ordered to give him food and drinks.’ (adapted from *Vit. Pard.* 11)
(76) *Vir Dei, cum omnia pacienter ferret*
man.NOM.M.SG God.GEN.M.SG when all.ACC.N.PL patiently endure-SBJV.PST.3SG
*cybum et potum ei dare precepit.*
food.ACC.M.SG and drinks.ACC.M.SG DEM.DAT.M.SG give.INF.PRS order.PST.3SG

‘As he endured anything with patience, the man of God ordered to give him food and drinks.’ (adapted
from *Vit. Pard.* 11)

Admittedly, *omnia pacienter ferens* ‘enduring everything with patience’ (63) can also be replaced by a
finite relative clause (see (77)). However, since these clauses often establish an adverbial relation with
the state of affairs denoted by the main verb, this criterion is less conclusive.

(77) *Vir Dei, qui omnia pacienter ferebat*
man.NOM.M.SG God.GEN.M.SG REL.NOM.M.SG all.ACC.N.PL patiently endure-PST.3SG
*cybum et potum ei dare precepit.*
food.ACC.M.SG and drinks.ACC.M.SG DEM.DAT.M.SG give.INF.PRS order.PST.3SG

‘The man of God, who endured anything with patience, ordered to give him food and drinks.’ (adapted
from *Vit. Pard.* 11)

To conclude, the analysis of constituents containing a gerund, present participle, or -ant form as adjuncts or non-argumental/appositive adnominal phrases has essentially been based on their ability to be pronominalised and to be replaced by a finite adjunct clause. As a general rule, constituents for which an adverbial relation with the main clause can be (easily) inferred, like *omnia pacienter ferens* ‘enduring everything with patience’ (63), have been analysed as adjuncts rather than as adnominal phrases.

**3.5.2. Adjuncts vs verb complements**

The second type of syntactic ambiguity is restricted to the Late Latin gerund, and concerns the
distinction between adjuncts and verb complements (Pinkster 2021: §16.100). As in the case of the
preceding type of syntactic ambiguity, I will first explore the distinction between prototypical adjuncts
and verb complements (§3.5.2.1), and then examine some dubious cases (§3.5.2.2).

**3.5.2.1. Prototypical adjuncts vs verb complements**

The distinction between prototypical adjuncts and verb complements is clear.<fnref n="43" /> As mentioned in §3.5.1.1 (and as is well known), adjuncts are syntactically and semantically optional constituents that modify the state of affairs denoted by a verb in some way or other. By contrast, verb complements are required by

<footnote n="43">⁴³ For a detailed and critical discussion, see, e.g., Pinkster (1972: 79-82) and Dik (1997: 86-90).</footnote>
(the meaning of) a predicate, and can as such not be omitted without making the sentence ungrammatical or changing its core meaning (Dik 1997: 89). For this reason, the PP *in Amsterdam* and the NP *a car* in (78) are respectively an adjunct and a verb complement, since the omission of the former (see (79)), but not of the latter (see 80)), makes the sentence ungrammatical.

(78) *John bought a car in Amsterdam.* (Dik 1997: 88)

(79) *John bought a car.* (Dik 1997: 88)

(80) *John bought in Amsterdam.* (adapted from Dik 1997: 88)

### 3.5.2.2. Ambiguous cases

While being clear-cut in theory, in practice it is sometimes “difficult to decide whether a given term has the status of an argument or a satellite” (Dik 1997: 87). Consider the clause *ad quemlibet parvum hortum fratribus excolendum* ‘to cultivate a garden however small’ (81), whose analysis hesitates between that as the complement of the verb *patebat* ‘it is accessible’ and as the purpose adjunct of this verb.

(81) [...] *ad quemlibet parvum hortum fratribus excole-nd-um*
to INDF.ACC.M.SG small.ACC.M.SG garden.ACC.M.SG brother.DAT.M.PL cultivate-GER-ACC
 nulla *patebat* planities [...].
no.NOM.F.SG be_accessible.PST.3SG plain.NOM.F.SG

‘No plain was accessible for the brethren to cultivate a garden however small.’ (Greg. M. dial. 1.7)

In this study, the analysis of such clauses has been based on the most basic distinction between adjuncts and verb complements, as defined and illustrated above. Hence, the gerund clause *ad quemlibet parvum hortum fratribus excolendum* ‘to cultivate a garden however small’ (81) qualifies as a verb complement: although its omission does not make the sentence ungrammatical, it triggers a semantic shift of *patebat* from ‘it was accessible’ to ‘it stood open’ (82).

(82) *Nulla patebat planities.*
no.NOM.F.SG be_accessible.PST.3SG plain.NOM.F.SG
‘No plain stood open.’ (adapted from Greg. M. dial. 1.7)

Likewise, *Christum praedicando* ‘preaching about Christ’ (83) cannot be omitted without causing the meaning of the verb *quievit* to shift from ‘she stopped’ in (83) to ‘she rested’ in (84).

(83) [...] *numquam sancta quievit Christum praedica-nd-o.*
never *blessed*.NOM.F.SG stop.PST.3SG Christ.ACC.M.SG preach-GER-ABL
‘The blessed (woman) never stopped preaching about Christ.’ (Pass. Pimen. 1.14.15)
(84) *Numquam sancta quievit.*
never blessed.NOM.F.SG stop.PST.3SG
'The blessed (woman) never rested.' (adapted from *Pass. Pimen.* 1.14.15)

An example of a phrase acting as an adjunct rather than as a verb complement is *ad vescendum* 'to eat'
(85). Indeed, its omission affects neither the grammaticality nor the core meaning of the sentence (86).

(85) [...] *convivium fecerunt, in quo ad vesce-nd-um carnes*
banquet.ACC.N.SG make.PST.3PL in REL.ABL.N.SG to eat-GER-ACC meat.ACC.F.PL
*paratae sunt [...]*
prepare.PTCP.PST.NOM.F.PL be.PRS.3PL
'They organised a banquet, in which meat was prepared to eat.' (Greg. M. *dial.* 1.1)

(86) *Convivium fecerunt, in quo carnes paratae*
banquet.ACC.N.SG make.PST.3PL in REL.ABL.N.SG meat.ACC.F.PL prepare.PTCP.PST.NOM.F.PL
*sunt.*
be.PRS.3PL
'They organised a banquet, in which meat was prepared.' (adapted from Greg. M. *dial.* 1.1)

**3.5.3. Subject predicates vs forms used in a progressive construction**

The next type of syntactic ambiguity concerns Late Latin present participles and Old French *-ant* forms,
and relates to the distinction between subject predicates and forms used as the main verb of a progressive
construction (Dietrich 1973: 289; Jensen 1990: 324-325). When a present participle or *-ant* form is
combined with *esse* 'to be' in Late Latin or *être* 'to be' in Old French, it is indeed often difficult to
determine whether it acts as the predicate of the subject or as the main verb of a progressive construction.
In the former case, *esse* 'to be'/'être' 'to be' has the status of a copular verb, whereas in the latter case, it
serves as an auxiliary grammaticalised in the expression of the progressive aspect. As in the previous
sections, the ambiguous forms will be explored (§3.5.3.2) after a discussion of prototypical instances
used as subject predicates and as the main verb of a progressive construction (§3.5.3.1).

**3.5.3.1. Prototypical subject predicates vs forms used in a progressive construction**

As in the previous cases, the distinction between prototypical forms acting as subject predicates and as
the main verb of a progressive construction is clear. As noted in §1.3.2.2.2 with regard to the present
participle in Classical Latin, subject predicates are syntactically obligatory constituents combined with
a copular verb (or a verb used as such) in order to assign some property or temporary state to the subject
of a proposition, independently of some other state of affairs (Quirk *et al.* 1985: 54-55; Rémi-Giraud
2013: 268-271; Pinkster 2015: 30). Consider (87), in which *habundans multitudine hominum* ‘abundant with a multitude of people’ is the predicate of the subject NP *ipsa civitas* ‘the city’, to whose referent it assigns the feature [+crowded]. Likewise, in (88) *semblant a Deu* ‘resembling God’ is the predicate of the subject *il* ‘they’, to the referent of which is ascribed the feature [+similar to God].

(87) *Ipsa etiam civitas habunda-ns multitudine*
INTENS.NOM.F.SG for city.NOM.F.SG abound-PTCP.PRS.NOM.F.SG multitude.ABL.F.SG
*hominum est [...]*
man.GEN.M.PL be.PRS.3SG

‘For that city is abundant with a multitude of people.’ (Peregr. Aeth. 19.1)

(88) *Carço fu vaine gloire qu' il volrent*
for DEM.SBJ.N.SG be.PST.3SG vain.SBJ.F.SG glory.SBJ.F.SG that they.SBJ.M.PL want.PST.3PL
*estre sembla-nt a Deu [...]*
be.INF.PRS resemble-V.ANT to God.OBL.M.SG

‘For it was a vain glory that they wanted to resemble God.’ (Comm. psaum. 1)

The meaning of subject predicate present participles and -ant forms is often slightly different from that of the verb on which they are built. As mentioned in §3.4.2.1.2 and §3.4.3.1, this comes from the fact that they are used with an adjectival function and are often also deactualised. This deactualisation triggers a shift in the type of their meaning, i.e. from a state of affairs to a property or temporary state derived from this state of affairs.<fnref n="44" /> Witness *habundans* ‘abounding’ (87) and *semblant* ‘resembling’ (88), which do not designate dynamic processes, but the static properties resulting from these processes. In a similar vein, the meaning of *ictans* (89) shifts from ‘bragging’ to ‘(being) arrogant’ and that of the form *combatant* (90) from ‘fighting’ to ‘combative’.

(89) [*...*] si felicitas eluxerit, non sis
if good_fortune.NOM.F.SG be Mani fes.SBJV.PST.3SG NEG be.SBJV.PRS.2SG
*iacta-ns* [...].
brag-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG

‘If good fortune manifests itself, do not be arrogant.’ (Isid. synon. 2.6)

(90) Li emperere est ber e cumbat-ant [...].
ART.DEF.SBJ.M.SG emperor.SBJ.M.SG be.PRS.3SG brave.SBJ.M.SG and fight-V.ANT
‘The emperor is brave and combative.’ (Roland 2737)

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴ It is well known that the use of forms in syntactic configurations characteristic of the members of another category (definable as contextual recategorisation) triggers a semantic effect (Goldberg 1995; Francis 1999; Francis & Michaelis 2004; Spencer 2005; Lauwers & Willems 2011). Consider the use of mass nouns like *café* ‘coffee’ and *thé* ‘tea’ in a count NPs like *Je veux un café/thé* ‘I want a coffee/tea’ in Modern French: the inherently mass interpretation of the nouns in question shifts towards a count interpretation, consisting of denoting a more or less conventionalised portion of coffee or tea (see Lauwers 2014). In the literature, this phenomenon of semantic reinterpretation is accounted for in terms of ‘coercion’ (e.g. Francis 1999; Francis & Michaelis 2004; Spencer 2005; Lauwers & Willems 2011; Lauwers 2014) or ‘accommodation’ (Goldberg 1995).</footnote>
Subject predicates can usually be transformed into adnominal phrases. This confirms that they encode a property rather than a process. *Habundans multitudine hominum* ‘abundant with a multitude of people’ (87) and *semblant a Deu* ‘resembling God’ (88) allow this transformation, since their adnominal use in respectively (91) and (92) is not impossible.

(91) **Batanis est civitas habunda-ns multitudine**
Batanis.NOM.F.SG be.PRS.3SG city.NOM.F.SG abound-PTCP.PRS.NOM.F.SG multitude.ABL.F.SG
hominum.<fnref n="45" />
man.GEN.M.PL

‘Batanis is a city that abounds with a multitude of people.’ (adapted from *Peregr. Aeth.* 19.1)

(92) **Carço fu vaine gloire qu' il volrent**
for DEM.SBJ.N.SG be.PST.3SG vain.SBJ.F.SG glory.SBJ.F.SG that they.SBJ.M.PL want.PST.3PL
**estre hum sembl-ant a Deu [...].**
be.INF.PRS man.SBJ.M.PL resemble-V.ANT to God.OBL.M.SG

‘For it was a vain glory that they wanted to be men resembling God.’ (adapted from *Comm. psaum.* 1)

Regarding progressive constructions, they are verbal periphrases made up of a verb that is more or less grammaticalised as an aspectual auxiliary and a present participle or -ant form serving as the syntactic and semantic main verb (Aalto 1949: 76; Vangaever 2019: 252-253; see §1.3.2.2.5). For example, *fuerunt* ‘they were’ (93) forms a progressive construction with the present participle *sequentes* ‘following’, and *est* ‘it is’ (94) with the -ant form *durant* ‘lasting’. The grammatical value of the auxiliaries *fuerent* ‘they were’ (93) and *est* ‘it is’ (94) scopes over the lexical meaning of *sequentes* ‘following (93) and *durant* ‘lasting’ (94), and presents, within this specific syntactic configuration, the state of affairs denoted by the present participle or -ant form as ongoing.

(93) [...] **invenerunt speluncam, quam seque-nt-es fuerunt**
find.PST.3PL cave.ACC.F.SG REL.ACC.F.SG follow-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL be.PST.3PL
**forsitan per passus centum.**
about for step.ACC.M.PL hundred

‘They found a cave, which they have followed for about a hundred steps.’ (Peregr. Aeth. 14.6)

(94) **La glorie d' icest mund n' est**
ART.DEF.SBJ.F.SG glory.SBJ.F.SG of DEM.OBL.M.SG world.OBL.M.SG NEG be.PRS.3SG
**lungement dur-ant.**
for_a_long_time last-V.ANT

‘The glory of this world is not lasting for a long time.’ (Guernes *Becket* 1245)

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵ The subject of this example, namely the proper noun *Batanis* ‘Batanis’, is the city to which Egeria refers in (87).</footnote>
The meaning of present participles and -ant forms acting as the main verb of a progressive construction is identical to that of their corresponding finite verb forms, because they also denote a state of affairs. Therefore, progressive constructions can be replaced by a finite form of the verb on which the present participle or -ant form is built – this finite form needs to be inflected in the same tense, mood, and person as the auxiliary of the progressive construction. This replacement does not entail any semantic change other than an aspectual one (it may erase or simply background the progressive value of the state of affairs). This is illustrated for sequentes fuerunt ‘they have been following’ (93) and est durant ‘it is lasting’ (94) in respectively (95-96): the former is replaced by the perfect tense verb secuti sunt ‘they followed’ and the latter by the present tense verb dure ‘it lasts’.

(95) *Invenerunt speluncam, quam secuti sunt forsitan*
find.PST.3PL cave.ACC.F.SG REL.ACC.F.SG follow.PTCP.PST.NOM.M.PL be.PRS.3PL about
*per passus centum.*
for step.ACC.M.PL hundred
‘They found a cave, which they followed for about a hundred steps.’ (adapted from *Peregr. Aeth.*
14.6)

(96) *La glorie d' icest mund ne dure*
ART.DEF.SBJ.F.SG glory.SBJ.F.SG of DEM.OBL.M.SG world.OBL.M.SG NEG last.PRS.3SG
*lungement.*
for_a_long_time
‘The glory of this world does not last for a long time.’ (adapted from Guernes *Becket* 1245)

### 3.5.3.2. Ambiguous cases

Though sharp in theory, the distinction between forms used as subject predicates and as the main verb of a progressive construction is sometimes fluid in practice. Witness the coordinated present participles *gaudentes* ‘rejoicing’ and *exultantes* ‘exulting’ in (97) and the form *escoulourjant* ‘fading’ (98).

(97) *Erant nam=que ibidem gaude-nt-es et quasi exulta-nt-es*
be.PST.3PL for=and there rejoice-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL and as_if exult-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.SG
*leticia inenarrabili.*
happiness.ABL.F.SG indescribable.ABL.F.SG
‘For they were rejoicing there and, as it were, exulting with an indescribable happiness.’ (Vit. Adelph.
11)

(98) *Mes voir est que pour ce que memoires sont*
but true.SBJ.N.SG be.PRS.3SG that for DEM.OBL.N.SG that memory.SBJ.F.PL be.PRS.3PL
*escoulourj-ant [...].*
fade-V.ANT
‘But it is true that because memories are fading (...).’ (Ph. de Beau. *Coutumes* 211)
The discussion in §3.5.3.1 above provides three criteria to resolve this kind of syntactic ambiguity:

(i) If the interpretation of the present participle or -ant form shows a shift in the type of meaning of the corresponding finite verb from a state of affairs to a property derived from this state of affairs, the present participle or -ant form acts as a subject predicate rather than as the main verb of a progressive construction. Based on this criterion, *gaudentes* 'rejoicing' and *exultantes* 'exulting' (97) function as the main verb of a progressive construction, since they denote a state of affairs and have the same meaning as the finite forms of *gaudere* 'to rejoice' and *exultare* 'to exult'. In contrast, *escoulourjant* 'fading' (98) is the predicate of the subject *memoires* 'memories': as apparent from the discourse context, provided in (99) below, *escoulourjant* 'fading' denotes a general property of memories instead of a temporary, durative state of affairs realised by them. Hence, its meaning is slightly different from that of its corresponding finite verb ('fading, disappearing' > 'volatile, transient').

(99) *Mes voir est que pour ce que memoires sont escoulourjant et que fort chose seroit a retenir si grant plenté de paroles [...] li baillis ou la justice puet et doit arester en escrit briement ce seur quoi les parties entendent a avoir jugement.*

‘But because memories are fading and because it would be a hard thing to remember such a large amount of words, it is true that the bailiff or the judicial authorities can or should briefly write down about what the parties intent to have a judgment.’ (Ph. de Beau. *Coutumes* 211)

(ii) If the present participle or -ant form constituent can be transformed into an adnominal phrase, it functions as a subject predicate rather than as the main verb of a progressive construction. This criterion confirms the analysis of *gaudentes* ‘rejoicing’/*exultantes* ‘exulting’ (97) as the main verb of a progressive construction, and of *escoulourjant* ‘fading’ (98) as a subject predicate. Witness (100-101): in (100), the adnominal use of *gaudentes* ‘rejoicing’ and *exultantes* ‘exulting’ changes the meaning and syntax of the sentence (*erant* ‘they were’ becomes an existential verb and acquires a presentative function, and *gaudentes* ‘rejoicing’ and *exultantes* ‘exulting’ are restrictive modifiers defining the type of people present); in (101), on the contrary, the adnominal use of *escoulourjant* ‘fading’ does not change the core meaning or syntax of the sentence (*sont* ‘they are’ is still a copular verb accompanied by a subject predicate, the sole difference being that *escoulourjant* ‘fading’ now acts as the restrictive modifier of the noun *choses* ‘things’ instead of as a subject predicate).

(100) *Erant nam=que ibidem homines gaude-nt-es et quasi be.PST.3PL for=and there man.NOM.M.PL rejoice-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL and as_if exulta-nt-es leticia inenarrabili. exult-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.SG happiness.ABL.F.SG indescribable.ABL.F.SG*

‘For there were people there who were rejoicing and, as it were, exulting with an indescribable happiness.’ (adapted from *Vit. Adelph.* 11)
(101) *Mes voir est que pour ce que memoires sont but true.SBJ.N.SG be.PRS.3SG that for DEM.OBL.N.SG that memory.SBJ.F.PL be.PRS.3PL choses escoulourj-anz [...]. things.SBJ.F.PL fade-V.ANT.SBJ.F.PL*

‘But because memories are things that fade, it is true that (...).’ (adapted from Ph. de Beau. *Coutumes* 211)

(iii) If the verb *esse* ‘to be’ or *être* ‘to be’ can be omitted and the present participle or *-ant* form replaced by the finite form of the verb inflected in the same tense, mood, and person as the deleted form of *esse* ‘to be’ or *être* ‘to be’ without triggering a semantic change other than an aspectual one, the present participle or *-ant* form acts as the main verb of a progressive construction rather than as a subject predicate. This criterion confirms the analysis of *gaudentes* ‘rejoicing’ and *exultantes* ‘exulting’ (97) as the main verb of a progressive construction (see (102)), and of the form *escoulourjant* ‘fading’ (98) as a subject predicate (see (103)).

(102) *Nam=que ibidem gaudebant et quasi exultabant leticia for=and there rejoice.PST.3PL and as_if exult.PST.3PL happiness.ABL.F.SG inenarrabili. indescribable.ABL.F.SG*

‘For there they rejoiced and, as it were, exulted with an indescribable happiness.’ (adapted from *Vit. Adelph.* 11)

(103) *Mes voir est que pour ce que memoires escoulourjent. but true.SBJ.N.SG be.PRS.3SG that for DEM.OBL.N.SG that memory.SBJ.F.PL fade.PRS.3PL*

‘But because memories fade, it is true that (...).’ (Ph. de Beau. *Coutumes* 211)

Admittedly, *sont escoulourjant* ‘they are fading’ can be substituted by a finite form of *escolourger* ‘to fade’, as shown in (103). However, this finite form has a generic meaning and denotes a property of the subject *memoires* ‘memories’ rather than a temporary, but durative state of affairs. This is at odds with what holds for *gaudebant* ‘they rejoiced’ and *exultabant* ‘they exulted’ (102). Therefore, *escoulourjant* ‘fading’ is a subject predicate rather than the main verb of a progressive construction.

It is worth noting that the distinction between subject predicates and main verbs of a progressive construction greatly benefits from the analysis of the present participles and *-ant* forms within their discourse context. This has been illustrated in (ii) for the subject predicate analysis of *escoulourjant* ‘fading’ (98), and will now be demonstrated for the analysis of *gaudentes* ‘rejoicing’ and *exultantes* ‘exulting’ (97) as the main verbs of a progressive construction. The discourse context of these instances, given in (104), describes the atmosphere in some place. The two participles each denote a state of affairs that positively contributes to the charm of this place.
(104) *Moxque locus ille inenarrabili dulcedine atque odore suavitatis repletus enituit. Erant namque ibidem gaudentes et quasi exultantes leticia inenarrabili.*

‘That place soon sparkled, filled with an indescribable sweetness and smell of charm. For they were rejoicing there and, as it were, exulting with an indescribable happiness.’ (Vit. Adelph. 11)

Occasionally, the syntactic context may also give clues in favor of one or the other analysis. For instance, when the present participle or -ant form is coordinated with a regular adjective, they are subject predicates (Eklund 1970: 20; Jensen 1990: 325). Witness *patientes* ‘patient’ and *obedientes* ‘obedient’ (105), coordinated with the regular adjectives *mites* ‘mild’ and *humiles* ‘humble’.

(105) *Estote mites et humiles, patie-nt-es,*
be.IMP.PRS.2PL mild.NOM.M.PL and humble.NOM.M.SG endure-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL
**obedie-nt-es** [...].
obey-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL

‘Be mild and humble, patient, (and) obedient.’ (Epist. Merov. 11)

This criterion is less critical for the analysis of the present participles in (105), because *patientes* ‘patient’ and *obedientes* ‘obedient’ undoubtedly act as subject predicates even without taking into account their coordination with the adjectives *mites* ‘mild’ and *humiles* ‘humble’. However, it is decisive in (106): the coordination of *soef oulant* ‘smelling sweet’ with the adjective *blanche* ‘white’ points toward the subject predicate analysis of the -ant form, whereas an analysis of *estoit soef oulant* ‘it was good-smelling’ as a progressive construction could have been defended in the absence of a coordination with this adjective.

(106) [...] *et cele qui estoit d' Abel estoit blanche* and DEM.SBJ.F.SG REL.SBJ.F.SG be.PST.3SG of Abel be.PST.3SG white.SBJ.F.S *et soef oul-ant.*
and sweetly smell-V.ANT

‘And that (the smoke) of Abel was white and good-smelling.’ (Graal 254)

The analysis so far relied on the external syntax of the present participle or -ant form. As to their internal syntax, it proves to be a less reliable criterion to address their syntactic ambiguity. Since subject predicate forms have adjective external syntax, whereas forms serving as the main verb of a progressive construction have verbal external syntax, it could be argued that present participles and -ant forms with adjectival internal syntax qualify as subject predicates, while those with verbal internal syntax act as the main verb of a progressive construction. However, this reasoning does not stand up to empirical evidence. Witness *habentes* ‘having’ (107) and *queranz* ‘seeking’ (108): these occurrences act unquestionably as subject predicates, despite the fact that they have verbal instead of adjectival internal syntax. Indeed, the former assigns the accusative to its internal argument, *viz.* the NP *divitis et opulentas eclesias* ‘rich and wealthy churches’ – as do finite forms of *habere* ‘to have’ –, and the latter assigns the oblique case to its internal argument, *i.e.* the noun *pain* ‘bread’ – just like finite forms of *quérir* ‘to seek’.
(107) *Sunt* *Greci* *episcopi* *habe-nt-es* *divitis* *et*
be.PRS.3PL Greek.NOM.M.PL bishop.NOM.M.PL have-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL rich.ACC.F.PL and
*opolentas* *eclesias* [...].
wealthy.ACC.F.PL church.ACC.F.PL

‘The Greek bishops have rich and wealthy churches.’ (Epist. Merov. 4)

(108) [...] *povre* *devint* *et pain* *quer-anz* [...].
poor.SBJ.M.SG become.PST.3SG and bread.OBL.M.SG seek-V.ANT

‘He became poor and short of food (lit. ‘bread-seeking’).’ (J. de Meun *Rose* 14505)

**3.5.4. Adjuncts vs forms used in a progressive construction**

The final type of syntactic ambiguity to be discussed involves the three types of forms explored in this study, viz. the Late Latin gerund, the Late Latin present participle, and the Old French -ant form. It concerns the distinction between the use of these forms as the main verb of a progressive construction and as the head of an adjunct (e.g. Schøsler 2007: 96-97 on Old French). As in the case of the previous types of syntactic ambiguity, I will first investigate the distinction between prototypical forms used in adjuncts and as the main verb of a progressive construction (§3.5.4.1), and then examine some dubious cases (§3.5.4.2).

**3.5.4.1. Prototypical adjuncts vs forms used in a progressive construction**

As mentioned earlier (§1.3.2.2.5, §2.1.1.2.2.3, and §2.1.2.2.3.1), the use of the Latin gerund and present participle as the main verb of a progressive construction historically derives from their use as the head of an elaborating conjunct adjunct expressing either the manner of the state of affairs denoted by *esse* ‘to be’, a posture verb (e.g. *stare* ‘to stand’), or a motion verb (e.g. *vadere* ‘to go’), or the circumstances accompanying this state of affairs (Aalto 1949: 76; Vangaever 2019: 254-258). In the emergence of the progressive construction, the lexical meaning of *esse* ‘to be’ or the posture or motion verb is gradually backgrounded and eventually lost in favour of its grammatical meaning. This latter meaning consists of presenting the state of affairs denoted by the gerund or present participle as ongoing, that is to say, “in its uninterrupted duration or continuity” (Garey 1957: 91). The lexical meaning of the gerund or present participle, as for it, is not only preserved, but also foregrounded (*cf*. Heine 1993: 54, 2002: 86). In this way, *esse* ‘to be’ or the posture or motion verb shifts from the status of main verb to that of auxiliary grammaticalised in the expression of the progressive aspect, while the gerund or present participle shifts from the status of head of an adjunct to that of semantic and syntactic main verb. The result is a verbal periphrasis whose formal and functional properties differ from those of the bi-clausal structure that gave rise to it. At least in theory, the distinction between the two uses of the gerund and the present participle
involved is therefore sharp. Witness (109) and (110), in which where the present participles *veniens* 'coming' (109) and *respondentes* 'answering' (110) combine with the same verb, *viz. stare* 'to stand', but have nonetheless a different function.

(109) *Propius vero magister militum venie-ns sine closer but chief.NOM.M.SG soldier.GEN.M.PL come-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG without comite stetit [...]. official.ABL.M.SG stand.PST.3SG*

'But after coming closer, the chief of the army stood still without an official.' (Pass. Eustach. 1.4)

(110) *Et diacono dicente singulorum nomina semper and deacon.ABL.M.SG say.PTCP.PRS.ABL.M.SG each.GEN.M.PL name.ACC.N.PL always pisinni plurimi stant responde-nt-es semper [...]. child.NOM.M.PL many.NOM.M.PL stand.PRS.3PL anwer-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.SG always*

'And always, as the deacon says the names of each (of them), many children are always answering (...).' (Peregr. Aeth. 24.6)

In (109), *stetit* 'he stood' is used as a lexical posture verb and *veniens* 'coming' as the head of an adjunct, since it can be deleted without making the sentence ungrammatical or altering the meaning of the posture verb, as evidenced in (111).

(111) *Vero magister militum sine comite stetit. but chief.NOM.M.SG soldier.GEN.M.PL without official.ABL.M.SG stand.PST.3SG*

'But the chief of the army stood still without an official.' (adapted from Pass. Eustach. 1.4)

By contrast, in (110) the posture verb *stant* 'they stand' is used as an auxiliary, because it does no longer evoke the position of a body. *Respondentes* 'answering' acts in this case as the main verb of a progressive construction. The main verb status of this form is clear from the fact that its omission alters the meaning of *stant* 'they stand', by activating its full lexical meaning as a posture verb (see (112)).

(112) *Et diacono dicente singulorum nomina semper and deacon.ABL.M.SG say.PTCP.PRS.ABL.M.SG each.GEN.M.PL name.ACC.N.PL always pisinni plurimi stant. child.NOM.M.PL many.NOM.M.PL stand.PRS.3PL*

'And always, as the deacon says the names of each (of them), many children stand still.' (adapted from Peregr. Aeth. 24.6)

### 3.5.4.2. Ambiguous cases

In practice, it is sometimes difficult to decide whether a Late Latin gerund or present participle acts as an adjunct or as the main verb of a progressive construction, especially when it combines with a posture
or motion verb. This is due to the fact that the lexical meaning of these verbs is often not entirely lost, but co-exists with their grammatical meaning as a backgrounded value, phenomenon called ‘persistence’ by Hopper (1991: 22; see also Heine 2002: 86). In such cases, the posture or motion verb is used neither as a full lexical verb nor as a completely grammaticalised marker of the progressive aspect, thus having a status between a prototypical main verb and a prototypical auxiliary. Examples of such syntactically ambivalent forms are the gerund *cunctando* ‘hesitating’ (113), discussed at length in §2.1.1.2.2.3, and the coordinated present participles *pastinantes* ‘ploughing’, *pangentes* ‘planting’, and *componentes* ‘arranging’ (114).

(113) [...] *cum* *prope* *silvam* *venisset* [...] *stetit* *dux*
when near forest.ACC.F.SG come.SBJV.PST.3SG stand.PST.3SG general.NOM.M.SG
*diu* **cuncta-nd-o.**
for_some_time hesitate-GER-ABL

‘When he had come to a forest, the general stood in hesitation for some time.’ (Amm. 17.1.8)

(114) [...] *in quibus* *campis* *stabant* *rustici* **pastina-nt-es**
in REL.ABL.M.PL land.ABL.M.PL stand.PST.3PL farmer.NOM.M.PL plough-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL
*et cum omni* *studio* *sarmenta* **pange-nt-es** *atque*
and with all.ABL.N.SG zeal.ABL.N.SG seed.ACC.N.PL plant-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL and
*spinosa* *surcula* *rosarum* *animose et cautissime*
thorny.ACC.N.PL stem.ACC.N.PL rose.GEN.F.PL ardently and cautiously
**compone-nt-es.**
arrange-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL

‘(...) on which lands farmers stood ploughing, planting seeds with the highest zeal, and ardently and cautiously arranging the thorny stems of roses.’ (Pass. Caec. 1.18.13)

This type of ambiguity is preserved in the transition from Late Latin to Old French, for the simple reason that the bi-clausal structure giving rise to the progressive construction continues to exist alongside this progressive construction, resulting in a situation of ‘layering’ (Hopper 1991: 22). A clear example of an ambiguous Old French *-ant* form is *preeschant* ‘preaching’ (115).

(115) *Ichis* *prestres* *estoit* *molt* *preudons* *et* *molt* *boins*
DEM.SBJ.M.SG priest.SBJ.M.SG be.PST.3SG very loyal_man.SBJ.M.SG and very good.SBJ.M.SG
*clercs*, *et* *aloit* **preesch-ant** *par* *les* *teres*
clerk.SBJ.M.SG and go.PST.3SG preach-V.ANT through ART.DEF.OBL.F.PL land.OBL.F.PL
*des* *crois* [...].
of;ART.DEF.OBL.F.PL cross.OBL.F.PL

‘This priest was a very loyal man and a very good clerk, and went preaching in the lands of the cross.’
*(Constantinople 1)*
In order to determine whether gerunds, present participles, or -ant forms act as adjuncts or as the main verb of a progressive construction, four criteria can be put forward.

(i) Forms used as adjuncts are syntactically optional, while those used as the main verb of a progressive construction are syntactically obligatory. Hence, the first criterion to identify the use of ambiguous instances is their omissibility: if they cannot be deleted without making the sentence ungrammatical or altering the meaning of the posture or motion verb, they serve as the main verb of a progressive construction. This holds for the gerund *trahendo* ‘dragging’ (116), the present participles *proficiens* ‘prospering’ and *succrescens* ‘growing’ (117), and the -ant forms *demenant* ‘driving about’ and *abatant* ‘knocking down’ (118), as shown in respectively (119) to (121): the omission of the non-finite verb forms induces an interpretation as lexical motion verbs of the various forms of ‘to go’, namely *ire* ‘go’ (119), *ibat* ‘he went’ (120), and *vunt* ‘they go’ (121), while this interpretation is lacking in the original examples.<fnref n="46" />

(116) [...] *credas* ut *stellas* ire **trahe-nd-o** comas.<fnref n="47" />

believe.SBJV.PRS.2SG that star.ACC.F.PL go.INF.PRS drag-GER-ABL ray.ACC.F.PL

‘You would believe that stars go dragging their rays.’ (Ven. Fort. *carm*. 5.5.118)

(117) Et locupletatus est homo et ibat

and enrich.PTCP.PST.NOM.M.SG be.PRS.3SG man.NOM.M.SG and go.PST.3SG

**proficie-ns** *atque succresce-ns* *donec magnus*

prosper-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG and grow-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG until great.NOM.M.SG

*vehementer effectus est.*

exceedingly make.PTCP.PST.NOM.M.SG be.PRS.3SG

‘And the man became rich and went prospering and growing until he became exceedingly wealthy.’

(Vulg. *Gen*. 26.13)

(118) Bretun les vunt mult **demen-ant** / E a granz

Briton.SBJ.M.PL they.OBJ.M.PL go.PRS.3PL heavily pursue-V.ANT and in large.OBL.F.PL

*turbes abat-ant* [...].

crowd.OBL.F.PL slay-V.ANT

‘The Britons go heavily pursuing them and slaying them in large numbers.’ (Wace *Brut* 12069-12070)

(119) Credas ut stellas ire.

believe.SBJV.PRS.2SG that star.ACC.F.PL go.INF.PRS

‘You would believe that stars go.’ (adapted from Ven. Fort. *carm*. 5.5.118)

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶ In Late Latin, *ire* ‘to go’ can be used in an absolute way, that is, without a spatial constituent acting as its second argument. Therefore, the omission of the gerund phrase in (116) and of the present participles in (117) does not render the sentences ungrammatical. By contrast, in Old French, the motion verb *aller* ‘to go’ cannot be used in an absolute way. The omission of the -ant form clause in (118) thus provokes the ungrammaticality of the sentence.</footnote>

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷ Based on the criterion in (i) (and on other criteria to be discussed below), *trahendo* ‘dragging’ (116) undoubtedly functions as the main verb of a progressive construction. This analysis of *trahendo* ‘dragging’ (116) is also defended by, e.g. Aalto (1949: 75), Hofmann & Szantyr (1965: 380), and Dietrich (1973: 309). In contrast, Pinkster (2021: §21.14) takes this form as the head of an adjunct.</footnote>
(120) *Et locupletatus est homo et ibat donec and enrich. PTCP.PST.NOM.M.SG be.PRS.3SG man.NOM.M.SG and go.PST.3SG until magnus vehementer effectus est. great.NOM.M.SG exceedingly make.PTCP.PST.NOM.M.SG be.PRS.3SG 'And the man became rich and went until he became exceedingly wealthy.' (adapted from Vulg. Gen. 26.13)

(121) * Bretun vunt. Briton.SBJ.M.PL go.PRS.3PL 'The Britons go.' (adapted from Wace *Brut* 12069-12070)

Crucially, even if the non-finite verb form can be omitted without making the sentence ungrammatical, it will be taken as the main verb of a progressive construction if its omission alters the core meaning of the sentence (e.g. (116-117)). In many cases, the choice between the two analyses requires evaluating the informational contribution of the non-finite verbal form in relation to the broader discourse context, as shown in detail for *cunctando* 'hesitating' (113) in §2.1.1.2.2.3 (cf. Diewald 2002; Heine 2002). As mentioned there, this form conveys the most informative part of the sentence, while the primary function of *stetit* 'he stands' is to present the general's hesitations in their ongoing duration. The lexical source meaning of the posture verb is not necessarily excluded, but it is in any case relegated to the background. For this reason, *cunctando* 'hesitating' (113) acts as the main verb of a progressive construction rather than as the head of an adjunct. The same conclusion can be drawn for the Old French form *preeschant* 'preaching' (115): the PP *par les teres des crois* 'in the lands of the cross' could in principle be taken as the spatial argument of *aloit* 'he went'. Hence, the omission of *preeschant* 'preaching' does not make the sentence ungrammatical (122). However, the absence of *preeschant* 'preaching' makes the clause *aloit par les teres des crois* 'he went in the lands of the cross' much less informative within the specific context of the preceding discourse.

(122) *Ichis prestres estoit molt preudons et molt boins* DEM.SBJ.M.SG priest.SBJ.M.SG be.PST.3SG very loyal_man.SBJ.M.SG and very good.SBJ.M.SG *clercs, et aloit par les teres* clerk.SBJ.M.SG and go.PST.3SG through ART.DEF.OBL.F.PL land.OBL.F.PL *des crois [...]* of;ART.DEF.OBL.F.PL cross.OBL.F.PL

‘This priest was a very loyal man and a very good clerk, and went in the lands of the cross.’ (adapted from *Constantinople* 1)

Therefore, the combination of *aloit* ‘he went’ and *preeschant* ‘preaching’ (115) is best taken as a verbal periphrasis, in which the grammatical meaning of *aloit* ‘he went’ prevails over its lexical meaning. The same argument applies to the present participles *pastinantes* ‘ploughing’, *pangentes* ‘planting’, and *componentes* ‘arranging’ (114), at least when they are analysed in their discourse context, given in (123):
(123) [...] iocantes et ridentes et variis deliciis affluentes vidi glaciali tempore transire per campos in quibus campis stabant rustici **pastinantes** et cum omni studio sarmenta **pangentes** atque spinosa surcula rosarum animose et cautissime **componentes**.

‘During the ice age, I saw joking and laughing people and people abounding with various delights cross lands on which farmers stood ploughing, planting seeds with the highest zeal, and ardently and cautiously arranging the thorny stems of roses.’ (Pass. Caec. 1.18.13)

The opposite conclusion can be drawn for the present participle *respiciens* ‘looking at’ (124), which is
combined with the same verb as the forms in (123), viz. *stare* ‘to stand’.

(124) *Et postea sic debet in casa sua intrare et de quatuor angulos terrae pulverem in pugno colligere debet, et sic postea in duropello, hoc est in limitare, stare debet, intus in casa respiciens, et sic de sinistra manu de illa terra trans scapulas suas iactare super illum, quem proximio rem parentem habet.*

‘And thereafter he should enter his house and collect dust from its four corners in his hand, and then he should stand on the *duropello* , that is, on the threshold, while looking into the house, and then with his left hand he should throw the earth over his shoulders onto him who is his nearest relative.’ ( *Lex Sal. 58.2* )

The passage in (124) contains a series of instructions that a murderer has to perform in his house if he
cannot pay his composition. After having collected dust from his house, he must stand on its threshold
with his face turned and throw the dust over his shoulders. Within this context, *stare* ‘to stand’ is clearly
used as a full lexical posture verb and *respiciens* ‘looking at’ as the head of an adjunct specifying the
circumstances that need to accompany the posture of the murderer. The fact that this murderer must
stand on the threshold of his house while looking inside is an important part of this official ritual. Hence,
*stare* ‘to stand’ cannot be taken as a grammatical marker of the progressive aspect. The combination of
*stare* ‘to stand’ and *respiciens* ‘looking at’ thus does not form a verbal periphrasis, but a bi-clausal
structure equivalent to that containing *veniens* ‘coming’ and *stetit* ‘he stood’ in (109).

(ii) If the gerund, present participle, or -ant form is combined with a motion verb, its function can sometimes be determined on the basis of the animacy of its subject (cf. Schøsler 2007: 95-96). Used as full lexical verbs (without a metaphorical interpretation), motion verbs require an animate subject, but grammaticalised as auxiliaries, they can no longer impose semantic restrictions on their subject, and become as such compatible with inanimate subjects (Heine 1993: 55). Consequently, forms combined with a motion verb and an animate subject can either act as the head of an adjunct or as the main verb of a progressive construction, while those with inanimate subject can only serve as the main verb of a progressive construction – unless they are interpreted in a metaphorical way (Vangaever 2019: 258). Examples of this latter type of forms are scarce in Late Latin, but frequent in Old French. The gerund *trahendo* ‘dragging’ (116) can be cited as a Late Latin example, although
its subject, viz. the noun *stellas* ‘stars’, can in some way be conceived of as animate, at least within
the Greco-Roman context of conceiving the movements of celestial objects. Two unambiguous Old
French examples are given in (125): the subject of *aluignant* ‘lengthening’ corresponds to the NP
*li jurn* ‘the days’, and that of *acurzant* ‘shortening’ to the NP *les nuiz* ‘the nights’.

(125) *Li* **jurn** *vunt* **aluign-ant** / *E* *les*
ART.DEF.SBJ.M.PL day.SBJ.M.PL go.PRS.3PL lengthen-V.ANT and ART.DEF.SBJ.F.PL
*nuiz* **acurz-ant**.
night.SBJ.F.PL shorten-V.ANT

‘The days go lengthening and the nights shortening.’ (Ph. de Thaon *Comput* 379-380)

The analysis of the forms *aluignant* ‘lengthening’ and *acurzant* ‘shortening’ (125) as the main verbs of a progressive construction is further confirmed by the fact that they cannot be omitted without affecting the grammaticality of the sentence (see (126)), in line with the criterion in (i).

(126) * Li *jurn* et *les* nuiz vunt.
ART.DEF.SBJ.M.PL day.SBJ.M.PL and ART.DEF.SBJ.F.PL night.SBJ.F.PL go.PRS.3PL
‘The days and the nights go.’ (adapted from Ph. de Thaon *Comput* 379-380)

If the motion verb allows a metaphorical interpretation, it is compatible with an inanimate subject while keeping its status as a full lexical verb. In this case, the analysis of the gerund, present participle, or -ant form depends on other criteria. Consider *degutant* ‘dropping’ (127).

(127) *Li* sans vait **degut-ant** / Sur *les*
ART.DEF.SBJ.M.SG blood.SBJ.M.SG go.PRS.3SG drop-V.ANT on ART.DEF.OBL.M.PL
oisels chaant [...].
bird.OBL.M.PL sing.V-ANT

‘The blood goes dropping on the singing birds.’ (Ph. de Thaon *Bestiaire* 2361)

*Vait* ‘it goes’ (127) can be interpreted metaphorically. In this case, it takes the inanimate NP *li sans* ‘the blood’ as its subject and the spatial PP *sur les oisels chant* ‘on the singing birds’ as its second argument. *Degutant* ‘dropping’ acts in this case as the manner adjunct of *vait* ‘it goes’ and can as such be omitted without affecting the grammaticality of the sentence or altering its core meaning, as shown by (128).

(128) *Li* sans vait sur *les* oisels chaant.
ART.DEF.SBJ.M.SG blood.SBJ.M.SG go.PRS.3SG on ART.DEF.OBL.M.PL bird.OBL.M.PL sing.V-ANT
‘The blood runs on the singing birds.’ (adapted from Ph. de Thaon *Bestiaire* 2361)

However, the motion expressed by *vait* ‘it goes’ is backgrounded in favour of that denoted by the form *degutant* ‘dropping’. Hence, the former can nonetheless be taken as a grammaticalised auxiliary, serving to present the dropping of the blood as ongoing. *Degutant* ‘dropping’ (127) acts in this case as the main
verb of a progressive construction rather than as a manner adjunct. This analysis will be confirmed by
the remaining two criteria.

Before exploring these criteria, it is important to recall that many combinations of a motion verb
and a gerund, present participle, or -ant form built on a motion verb itself (e.g. *vait najant* 'he goes
swimming') remain ambiguous (see §2.2.2.3.1). This is due to the fact that the non-finite verb form
reactivates the lexical meaning of the motion verb by expressing a motion itself (Anglade 1958: 172;
Buridant 2000: 357, 2019: 517; Becker 2005: 313-314; Vangaever & Carlier 2020: 251). As mentioned
in §2.2.2.3.1, this reactivation gives rise to a division of labor: the motion verb functions as a directional
verb marking a move away from or closer to a given landmark, while the gerund, present participle, or
-ant form specifies the manner of the motion – to the image of satellite-framed constructions (cf. Talmy
1985, 2000; Schøsler 2008). As such, the non-finite verb form can in theory still be analysed as an
adjunct. However, this form is nonetheless taken by most authors as the main verb of a progressive
construction, mainly because the lexical meaning of the motion verb is mostly backgrounded in favour
of a progressive value (Gougenheim 1929; Anglade 1958: 215-216; Ménard 1973: 172; Becker 2005:
313-314; Vangaever & Carlier 2020: 251). This position will also be taken in this thesis.

(iii) As mentioned in §3.5.3.2, progressive constructions composed of the auxiliary *esse* ‘to be’/être ‘to be’ and a gerund, present participle, or *-ant* form can be replaced – without any semantic change other than an aspectual one – by a finite verb form inflected in the same tense, mood, and person as the auxiliary in the initial construction. This substitution criterion can also be applied to determine the use of gerunds, present participles, or *-ant* forms combined with a posture or motion verb (cf. Schøsler 2007: 96). If this operation affects the grammaticality of the sentence or alters its core meaning, the non-finite verb form is the head of an adjunct. If this is not the case, the form involved acts as the main verb of a progressive construction. On the basis of this criterion, the present participles *ingemescens* ‘sighing’ and *dicens* ‘saying’ (129) function as the main verbs of a progressive construction, since their replacement by the finite imperfect tense forms *ingemescebat* ‘he sighed’ and *dicebat* ‘he said’ and the omission of the motion verb *ibat* ‘he goes’ does not affect the grammaticality of the sentence nor induces a change in its core meaning, as shown by (130).

(129) [...] *reliquit uxorem suam et accipiens duos*
leave.PST.3SG wife.ACC.F.SG his.ACC.F.SG and take.PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG two.ACC.M.PL
*infantes suos ibat ingemesce-ns et*
child.ACC.M.PL his.ACC.M.PL go.PST.3SG sigh-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG and
*dice-ns [...]*
say-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG

‘He left his wife and, after he took his two children, he went sighing and saying (...).’ (Pass. *Eustach*. 1.10)
(130) Reliquit uxorem suam et accipiens duos
leave.PST.3SG wife.ACC.F.SG his.ACC.F.SG and take.PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG two.ACC.M.PL
infantes suos ingemescebat et dicebat [...].
child.ACC.M.PL his.ACC.M.PL sigh.PST.3SG and say.PST.3SG

‘He left his wife and after he took his two children he sighed and said (...).’ (adapted from *Pass.
Eustach*. 1.10)

This criterion also confirms the analysis of *trahendo* ‘dragging’ (116) and *degutant* ‘dropping’ (127) as the main verbs of a progressive construction. This is evidenced by the grammaticality of respectively (131-132) and by the fact that the meaning of these examples is similar to that of the original examples.

(131) Credas ut stellas trahere comas.
believe.SBJV.2SG that star.ACC.F.PL drag.INF.PRS ray.ACC.F.PL
‘You would believe that stars drag their rays.’ (adapted from Ven. Fort. *carm*. 5.5.118)

(132) Li sans degute / Sur les oisels chaant.
ART.DEF.SBJ.M.SG blood.SBJ.M.SG drop.PRS.3SG on ART.DEF.OBL.M.PL bird.OBL.M.PL sing.V-ANT
‘The blood drops on the singing birds.’ (adapted from Ph. de Thaon *Bestiaire* 2361)

Most forms combined with a motion verb and built on a motion verb themselves validate this criterion, and act therefore as the main verb of a progressive construction. *Najant* ‘swimming’ (133) is a case in point. Indeed, its replacement by the infinitive *najer* ‘to swim’ used in coordination with *aller* ‘to go’ (134) has no implications for the grammaticality or core meaning of the sentence.

(133) [...] car il a travaillié maint jor d' aller
for he.SBJ.M.SG have.PRS.3SG toil.PTCP.PST many.OBL.M.PL day.OBL.M.PL of go.INF.PRS
**naj-ant** par cele mer.
swim-V.ANT on DEM.OBL.F.SG sea.OBL.F.SG
‘For he toiled many days swimming on this sea.’ (*Eneas* 3301)

(134) [...] car il a travaillié maint jor de
for he.SBJ.M.SG have.PRS.3SG toil.PTCP.PST many.OBL.M.PL day.OBL.M.PL of
**najer** par cele mer.
swim.INF.PRS on DEM.OBL.F.SG sea.OBL.F.SG
‘For he toiled many days swimming on this sea.’ (adapted from *Eneas* 3301)

Conversely, *criant* ‘shouting’ (135) does not validate this criterion. Hence, it functions as the head of an adjunct. Indeed, the deletion of the finite verb *s’an vet* ‘he goes’ (and of the spatial constituent *vers la presse* to the crowd’ serving as its second argument) and the substitution of the *-ant* form by the finite present tense form *crie* ‘he shouts’ alters the core meaning of the sentence, as illustrated by (136).
(135) *Vers la presse [...] / S' an vet cri-ant [...].*

to ART.DEF.OBL.F.SG crowd.OBL.F.SG REFL.OBJ.M.SG INCH go.PRS.3SG shout-V.ANT

'He goes to the crowd while shouting (...).' (Chr. de Troyes *Yvain* 4329-4330)

(136) *Crie [...].*

shout.PRS.3SG

'He shouts (...).' (adapted from Chr. de Troyes *Yvain* 4329-4330)

The same observation can be made for the present participle *osculans* 'kissing' (137) and the gerund *peccando* 'sinning' (138), combined with the motion verb *vadere* 'go': the omission of the motion verb and its arguments, namely *ad oracionem* 'to a prayer' (137) and *in deterius* 'to something worse' (138), and the replacement of the non-finite verb forms by the finite present tense forms *osculat* 'he kissed' (139) and *pecces* 'you sin' (140) changes the basic meaning of the sentence.

(137) *Mox ad oracionem vadit cum suspirio et lacrimis altaris*

soon to prayer.ACC.F.SG go.PRS.3SG with sigh.ABL.N.SG and tear.ABL.F.PL altar.GEN.N.SG

*cornu oscula-ns.*

vessel.ACC.N.SG kiss-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG

'He soon starts a prayer, kissing the vessel of the alter with sighs and tears.' (*Vit. Hugb.* 12)

(138) [*...] *vide ne umquam pecca-nd-o in deterius vadas.*

see.IMP.PRS.2SG that_not_ ever sin-GER-ABL to worse.ACC.N.SG go.SBJV.PRS.2SG

'See that you never go to something worse by sinning.' (Isid. *synon.* 1.38)

(139) *Mox cum suspirio et lacrimis altaris cornu osculat.*

soon with sigh.ABL.N.SG and tear.ABL.F.PL altar.GEN.N.SG vessel.ACC.N.SG kiss.PRS.3SG

'He kisses the vessel of the alter with sighs and tears.' (adapted from *Vit. Hugb.* 12)

(140) *Vide ne umquam pecces.*

see.IMP.PRS.2SG that_not_ ever sin.SBJV.PRS.2SG

'See that you never sinn.' (adapted from Isid. *synon.* 1.38)

(iv) The fourth and final criterion is the coordination of the posture or motion verb with the finite form of the gerund, present participle, or -ant form inflected in the same tense, mood, and person (Schøsler 2007: 96-97). If this coordination is possible without making the sentence ungrammatical or altering its essential meaning, the non-finite verb form acts as an adjunct and the accompanying verb as a full lexical posture or motion verb. If not, the non-finite verb form is the main verb of a progressive construction and its accompanying posture or motion verb its auxiliary. This criterion confirms the analysis of all forms discussed with respect to criterion (iii). On the one hand, the substitution of the present participles *ingemescens* 'sighing'/*dicens* 'saying' (129) and of the gerund *trahendo* 'dragging' (116) by respectively *ingemescebat* 'he sighed'/*dicebat* 'he said' (141) and *trahere* 'to drag' (142) used in coordination with *ibat* 'he went' (141) and *ire* 'to go' (142) does not
make the sentence ungrammatical (due to the ability of *ire* 'to go' to be used in an absolute way),
but this procedure leads to the addition of a motion event that is lacking in the original examples.

(141) ??*Reliquit uxorem suam et accipiens duos*
leave.PST.3SG wife.ACC.F.SG his.ACC.F.SG and take.PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG two.ACC.M.PL
*infantes suos ibat et ingemescebat et dicebat* [...].
child.ACC.M.PL his.ACC.M.PL go.PST.3SG and sigh.PST.3SG and say.PST.3SG

'He left his wife and, after he took his two children, he went and sighed and said (...).' (adapted
from *Pass. Eustach.* 1.10)

(142) ??*Credas ut stellas ire et trahere comas.*
believe.SBJV.2SG that star.ACC.F.PL go.INF.PRS and drag.INF.PRS ray.ACC.F.PL

'You would believe that stars go and drag their rays.' (adapted from Ven. Fort. *carm.* 5.5.118)

On the other hand, the replacement of *degutant* ‘dropping’ (127) and *najant* ‘swimming’ (133) by the
forms *degute* ‘it drops’ (143) and *najer* ‘to swim’ (144) used in coordination with *vait* ‘it goes’ (143)
and *aller* ‘to go’ (144) leads to ungrammatical sentences, because the spatial constituents *sur les oisels*
*chaant* ‘on the singing birds’ (143) and *par cele mer* ‘on this sea’ (144) are unlikely to act as the second
arguments of *vait* ‘it goes’ (143) and *aller* ‘to go’ (144) instead of as the adjuncts of the *-ant* forms
converted into finite forms.

(143) * Li sans vait et degute / Sur les
ART.DEF.SBJ.M.SG blood.SBJ.M.SG go.PRS.3SG and drop.PRS.3SG on ART.DEF.OBL.M.PL
oisels chaant.
bird.OBL.M.PL sing.V-ANT

'The blood goes and drops on the singing birds.' (adapted from Ph. de Thaon *Bestiaire* 2361)

(144) * [...] car il a travaillié maint jor d'
for he.SBJ.M.SG have.PRS.3SG toil.PTCP.PST many.OBL.M.PL day.OBL.M.PL of
aller et najer par cele mer.
go.INF.PRS and swim.INF.PRS on DEM.OBL.F.SG sea.OBL.F.SG

'For he toiled many days going and swimming on this sea.' (adapted from *Eneas* 3301)

Conversely, the replacement of the *-ant* form *criant* ‘shouting’ (135), the present participle *osculans*
‘kissing’ (137), and the gerund *peccando* ‘sinning’ (138) by respectively *crie* ‘he shouts’, *osculat* ‘he
kisses’, and *pecces* ‘you sin’ used in coordination with *s’an vet* ‘he goes, *vadit* ‘he goes’, and *vadas*
‘you go’ does not affect the grammaticality of the sentence nor causes a significant semantic change,
as evident from respectively (145-147).

(145) Vers la presse / S' an vet et crie [...].
to ART.DEF.OBL.F.SG crowd.OBL.F.SG REFL.OBJ.M.SG INCH go.PRS.3SG and shout-PRS.3SG
'He goes to the crowd and shouts (...).' (adapted from Chr. de Troyes *Yvain* 4329-4330)
(146) Mox ad oracionem vadit et cum suspirio et lacrimis soon to prayer.ACC.F.SG go.PRS.3SG and with sigh.ABL.N.SG and tear.ABL.F.PL altaris cornu osculat. altar.GEN.N.SG vessel.ACC.N.SG kiss-PRS.3SG

'He soon starts a prayer and kisses the vessel of the alter with sighs and tears.' (adapted from *Vit. Hugb.* 12)

(147) Vide ne umquam pecces et in deterius vadas see.IMP.PRS.2SG that_not ever sin-SBJV.PRS.2SG and to worse.ACC.N.SG go.SBJV.PRS.2SG

'See that you never sinn and go to something worse.' (adapted from Isid. *synon*. 1.38)

Thus, the first series of forms function as the main verb of a progressive construction, while the latter are used as the head of an adjunct. As manifest from the preceding discussion, the four criteria used to distinguish between the two uses are complementary, and usually lead to the same analysis. Forms that remain nonetheless ambiguous have been analysed as the main verb of a progressive construction if the lexical meaning of the posture or motion verb can be conceived of as backgrounded compared to its grammatical (i.e. aspectual-progressive) meaning. This practice is in line both with the analysis of most authors (e.g. Gougenheim 1929; Anglade 1958: 215-216; Ménard 1973: 172; Becker 2005: 313-314; Vangaever & Carlier 2020: 251) and with the more general principle that in discourse contexts where a pragmatic inference overrides the coded meaning of a form, this inference typically offers "a more plausible interpretation of the utterance concerned" (Heine 2002: 86). In our case, the pragmatic inference corresponds to the progressive value of the posture or motion verbs Therefore, the auxiliary analysis of these verbs is typically more plausible than their analysis as full lexical verbs.

**3.6. Research procedure and methodology**

The aim of the final section of this chapter is twofold. First, I will set out the procedure that will be used to empirically examine the evolution of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin (§3.6.1), on the one hand, and to explore on the basis of this investigation the impact of their morphological merging in Old French on their categorial distinction (§3.6.2), on the other. Next, I will detail the methodology that will be used to objectively assess these issues (§3.6.3).

**3.6.1. Evolution of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin**

Before outlining the procedure that will be used to explore the evolution of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin (§3.6.1.2), I will briefly recapitulate the main research questions regarding this evolution (§3.6.1.1).
### 3.6.1.1. Recapitulation of the research questions

It is commonly hypothesised that, in Late Latin, the gerund specialises in adverbial external syntax due to its gradual substitution by the infinitive in nominal external syntax, on the one hand, and to the gradual replacement of the present participle by the gerund in adverbial external syntax, on the other. In view of this hypothesis, the Late Latin corpus is expected to show an increasing frequency of adjunct gerunds (e.g. *bellando* ‘by fighting’ (148)) at the expense of gerunds used in adnominal phrases (e.g. *videndi* ‘to see’ (149)), verb complements (e.g. *revellandum* ‘to revolt’ (150)), and adjective complements (e.g. *ad oboediendum* ‘to obey’ (151)).

(148) [...] *castro* *Claremonte* *rex* ***bella-nd-o*** *ceperat* [...].
fort.ABL[ACC].N.SG Clermont.ABL[ACC].N.SG king.NOM.M.SG fight-BER-ABL take.PST.3SG
‘The king had taken the fort of Clermont by fighting.’ (Fredeg. *cont*. 46)

(149) [...] *copiam* ***vide-nd-i*** *recoepit*.
ability.ACC.F.SG see-GER-GEN get_back.PST.3SG
‘She got back the ability to see.’ (Vit. *Austr*. 1.11)

(150) *Cum=que* [...] *Radulfus* [...] *contra* *Sigybertum* ***revella-nd-um***
when=and Radulfus.NOM.M.SG against Sigebert.ACC.M.SG revolt-GER-ACC
disposuissit [...] .
order.SBJV.PST.3SG
‘When Radulfus had ordered to revolt against Sigebert (...).’ (Fredeg. *chron*. 4.87)

(151) *Tunc ipsi* *pueri* [...] *prompti* ***ad oboedie-nd-um*** [...] *me*
then INTENS.NOM.M.PL kid.NOM.M.PL prompt.NOM.M.PL to obey-GER-ACC I.ACC.M.SG
*usque* ***ad praedictum*** *locum* ***duxerunt*.
all_the way to aforesaid.ACC.M.SG place.ACC.M.SG bring-PST.3PL
‘Then the kids, prompt to obey, brought me all the way to the aforesaid place.’ (Visio *Bar*. 13)

A key role in the gradual replacement of the present participle by the gerund in adverbial external syntax is argued to be played by the fact that the bare ablative gerund progressively loosens its association with its original manner/instrumental/causal value (e.g. *bellando* ‘fighting’ (148)), and increasingly expresses the default temporal semantic value of the present participle, which consists of denoting a state of affairs co-occurring with the main state of affairs (e.g. *stando* ‘standing’ (152)).

(152) [...] *ille, qui iactabat* *merita* *sua* et
DEM.NOM.M.SG REL.NOM.M.SG throw.PST.3SG merit.ACC.N.PL his.ACC.N.PL and
***sta-nd-o*** ***orabat***.
stand-GER-ABL pray.PST.3SG
‘He who threw (around) his merits and prayed while standing.’ (Epist. *Merov*. 16)
The substitution of the present participle by the gerund in adverbial external syntax is held to cause the present participle to specialise in adjectival external syntax. It is therefore expected that the Late Latin corpus shows a decline of present participles used in adjuncts (e.g. *adstans* 'standing' (153)) in favour of forms occurring in adnominal phrases (e.g. *circumstans* 'standing around' (154)), subject predicates (e.g. *ovans* 'rejoicing' (155)), and object predicates (e.g. *tumentem* 'swollen' (156)).

(153) *Dehinc super sepulchrum ipsum ad sta-ns oravit*
then on grave.ACC.N.SG INTENS.ACC.N.SG stand_on-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG pray.PST.3SG
*ad dominum [...]*
to Lord.ACC.M.SG

‘Then he prayed to the Lord while standing on the grave.’ (Sulp. Sev. *Mart.* 1.11.4)

(154) *Cum=que haec audisset circumsta-ns populus [...]*
when=and DEM.ACC.N.PL hear.SBJV.PST.3SG stand_around-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG people.NOM.M.SG
‘When the people standing around had heard this (...).’ (*Pass. Vit.* 2.1.16.9)

(155) [*... famulus dei permansit ova-ns atque*
servant.NOM.M.SG God.GEN.M.SG remain.PST.3SG rejoice-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG and
*intrepidus.*
fearless.NOM.M.SG

‘The servant of God remained happy (lit. ‘rejoicing’) and fearless.’ (*Vit. Pard.* 15)

(156) [*... totum=que illius vultum tume-nt-em ac*
all.ACC.M.SG=and DEM.GEN.M.SG face.ACC.M.SG be_swollen-PTCP.PRS-ACC.M.SG and
*lividum reddidit.*
bluish.ACC.M.SG make.PST.3SG

‘And he made his whole face swollen and bluish.’ (Greg. M. *dial.* 1.2.11)

Like adjunct present participles, present participles used in progressive constructions are considered to be gradually replaced by gerunds. Therefore, the Late Latin corpus is also expected to show a decreasing frequency of progressive present participle constructions (e.g. *erat reconcilians* ‘he was conciliating’ (157)) in favour of their gerund competitors (e.g. *stetit cunctando* ‘he stood in hesitation’ (158)).

(157) *Deus erat in Christo mundum reconcilia-ns*
God.NOM.M.SG be.PST.3SG in Christ.ABL.M.SG world.ACC.M.SG conciliate-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG
*sibi?*
REFL.DAT.M.SG

‘Was God conciliating the world for himself in the body of the Christ? (Epist. Merov. 1)
(158) [...] *cum prope silvam venisset [...] stetit dux*
when near forest.ACC.F.SG come.SBJV.PST.3SG stand.PST.3SG general.NOM.M.SG
*diu cuncta-nd-o.*
for_some_timehesitate-GER-ABL

‘When he had come to a forest, the general stood in hesitation for some time.’ (Amm. 17.1.8)

As for the two remaining uses of the present participle, *i.e.* as the main verb of a presentative progressive construction (e.g. *decantantem* ‘singing’ and *agentem* ‘doing’ (159)) and as a syntactically finite verb (e.g. *salutans* ‘saluting’ (160)), they are not subject to competition with the gerund. Hence, no hypothesis can be formulated about their frequency on the basis of the competition between the gerund and the present participle.

(159) [...] *audierunt eum decanta-nt-em in camino laudes*
hear.PST.3PL DEM.ACC.M.SG sing-PTCP.PRS-ACC.M.SG in furnace.ABL.M.SG praise.ACC.F.PL
*deo et gratias age-nt-em.*
God.DAT.M.SG and gratitude.ACC.F.PL do-PTCP.PRS-ACC.M.SG
‘They heard him singing praise to the Lord and thanking him in the middle of the flames.’ (Pass. Vict. 1.642.20)

(160) **Saluta-ns** *gloriam vestram et commendo familiarem*
salute-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG glory.ACC.F.SG your.ACC.F.SG and entrust.PRS.1SG friend.ACC.M.SG
*meum presbyterum Maccolum [...].*
my.ACC.M.SG priest.ACC.M.SG Maccolus.ACC.M.SG
‘I salute your glory and give trust in my friend, the priest Maccolus.’ (Epist. Austr. 1)

### 3.6.1.2. Research procedure

In order to determine to which extent the gerund specialises in adverbial external syntax and the present participle in adjectival external syntax, I will investigate the frequency of the adverbial gerund and the adjectival present participle in the Classical and Late Latin corpora. Within the Late Latin corpus, a comparison will also be made between Imperial, Merovingian, and Early Medieval Latin. For each of these periods, the frequency of adverbial gerunds and adjectival present participles will be examined on the basis of two measurements: (i) their normalised absolute frequency, *i.e.* the number of instances per 10 000 words in the period in issue; and (ii) their proportion to the total number of gerunds or present participles per period. The second measurement is most important, because only this method can detect shifts in the conditions of use of the gerund and the present participle suggesting specialisation in either adverbial and adjectival external syntax.
Yet, detailed insight into the shifts in the conditions of use of the gerund and the present participle can only be gained by exploring the frequency pattern of all uses of the gerund and the present participle. The proportion of these uses will allow establishing the external syntactic profile of the gerund and the present participle, as well as their morphosyntactic and typological profiles. This bottom-up procedure has been outlined in Chapter 1 for the gerund and the present participle Classical Latin, and will be used in Chapters 4 and 5 for the study of the respectively the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin. The standard hypothesis about the evolution of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin will be mainly evaluated on the basis of their morphosyntactic profile, since these profiles most clearly show to which extent the two forms specialise in either adverbial or adjectival external syntax.

The frequency pattern of the various uses of the gerund and the present participle from Classical to Late Latin and within the period of Late Latin itself will be statistically evaluated by means of chi-square goodness-of-fit tests, so as to distinguish random trends from those reflecting ongoing linguistic changes. Due to the difference in frequency of the Late Latin gerund and present participle in legal texts, on the one hand, and religious and historical texts, on the other, the frequency study of the syntactic uses of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin will be refined by the study of their frequency in the three thematic domains, taking also into account the (attested) productivity of the various types of gerund and present participle phrases in these domains. A methodological summary adapted to the study of the evolution of the two forms in Late Latin will be offered at the beginning of Chapters 4 and 5.

### 3.6.2. Categorial status of the -ant form in Old French

As in the previous section, I will set out the procedure that will be used to examine the categorial status of the -ant form in Old French (§3.6.2.2) after recapitulating the main research questions about this issue (§3.6.2.1).

#### 3.6.2.1. Recapitulation of the research questions

The results of the evolution of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin will be used to tackle the categorial status of the -ant form in Old French. As mentioned earlier, morphological and phonetic evolutions affecting the endings of the gerund and the present participle in the transition from Late Latin to Old French lead to the same form for the two types of non-finite verbs. This form has the invariant ending -ant or shows at least a development toward the generalisation of this ending. Due to this morphological merging, the category of -ant forms can no longer be determined on the basis of morphological criteria. However, two exceptions can be made. On the one hand, only the Late Latin gerund can be governed by a preposition, and hence all prepositional Old French -ant forms can in
principle be taken as gerunds. On the other hand, only the Late Latin present participle agrees with a noun in case, gender, and number. Hence, all Old French -ant forms with an inflectional variant of the ending -ant can in theory be analysed as present participles. However, these morphological criteria only apply if, in the transition from Late Latin to Old French and within the period of Old French itself, the gerund and the present participle do not encroach on each other's morphology. Such encroachment is theoretically possible and can therefore not be excluded (cf. De Smet 2014: 40), although it cannot be empirically investigated.

Since the category of -ant forms cannot be identified on the basis of morphological criteria, except perhaps for the two groups of forms just mentioned, the only basis for resolving their categorial indeterminacy is their syntactic use, approached from a retrospective historical perspective (cf. Aspland 1968: 151, 152, 166). This is precisely why the empirical investigation of the evolution of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin is a *conditio sine qua non* to study the categorial status of the -ant form in Old French. Two opposite scenarios can be distinguished and, depending on the one emerging from the evolution of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin, two distinct methods to examine the categorial status of the Old French -ant form.

### 3.6.2.2. Research procedure

In the first scenario, the presumed shift toward functional and morphosyntactic differentiation of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin is supported by empirical evidence: the gerund gradually replaces the present participle in adjuncts and progressive constructions, and forces the present participle to specialise in adnominal phrases, subject predicates, object predicates, and presentative progressive constructions. In this scenario, the categorial indeterminacy of the Old French -ant form can be resolved on functional grounds alone: the forms used in adjuncts and progressive constructions qualify as gerunds, whereas those occurring in adnominal phrases, subject predicates, object predicates, and presentative progressive constructions hold as present participles. Since all -ant forms can be taken as gerunds or present participles with absolute certainty, this scenario blocks the categorial indeterminacy of the Old French -ant form. Hence, the very existence of the categories of the gerund and present participle in Old French and their distinction is ‘saved’. However, even if this scenario emerged from the empirical investigation of the evolution of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin, two important issues remain. First, like the morphological criteria mentioned above, this functional criterion is only reliable if we assume that the gerund and the present participle do not encroach on each other’s distribution, neither in the transition from Late Latin to Old French, nor during the Old French period. However, as pointed out in §2.2.1, some forms undoubtedly demonstrate such encroachment, and thus call into question the reliability of this criterion. Second, the existence of -ant forms with morphological properties of a gerund, but used in a way inaccessible to the Late Latin gerund, and of -ant forms having
morphological properties of a present participle, but used with a function inaccessible to the Late Latin present participle (see §2.1.1), reveals a conflict between the form and function of the forms involved. This conflict requires a discussion that may eventually jeopardise the categorial distinction between the gerund and the present participle after all, and, as a corollary, the very existence of these categories.

In the second scenario, the presumed shift toward functional and morphosyntactic differentiation of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin is not corroborated by empirical evidence. In this scenario, the categorial indeterminacy of the Old French *-ant* form can be resolved on the basis of functional grounds for some, but not for all forms. Provided, as always, that the gerund and the present participle do not encroach on each other’s distribution, all *-ant* forms used with a function inaccessible to the Late Latin gerund could be considered present participles (Old French *-ant* forms do not perform any function inaccessible to the Late Latin present participle, and hence the opposite does not apply). This holds for all instances occurring in adnominal phrases, subject and object predicates, and presentative progressive constructions. In contrast, the occurrences used in adjuncts and progressive constructions would be categorially indeterminate, because in Late Latin, these functions are accessible to both the gerund and the present participle. Some of these indeterminate forms could nonetheless be categorised on the basis of the morphological criteria set out above, unless the gerund encroaches on the morphology of the present participle, or *vice versa*. In any case, the majority of the forms would remain indeterminate. These forms would not only challenge the categorial distinction between the gerund and the present participle in Old French, but also, and more fundamentally, the very existence of the two categories. Thus, the theoretical problems raised by this second scenario are more significant than in the case of the first scenario. However, in order to properly evaluate these issues, it is necessary to quantify the exact degree of categorial indeterminacy of the Old French *-ant* form. If this degree turned out to be low, *i.e.* affecting a small number of *-ant* forms, its theoretical implications would be modest and the existence of the categories of the gerund and the present participle could perhaps be ‘saved’. If, on the contrary, this degree turned out to be high, *i.e.* affecting a large number of forms, its theoretical implications would be significant and threaten the very existence of the two categories in Old French.

Depending on the scenario emerging from the empirical examination of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin (Chapters 4 and 5), the exact method used to tackle the categorial status of the Old French *-ant* form will be defined at the beginning of Chapter 6. For now, it suffices to note that the categorial indeterminacy of the Old French *-ant* verb will be investigated on the basis of the frequency study of the different uses of the *-ant* form, and that the frequency of these uses will be statistically evaluated by means of chi-square goodness-of-fit tests, as in the case of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin. A comparison will also be made between Early Old French and the 12th-13th c., so as to determine whether the *-ant* form undergoes functional evolutions within the period of Old French and therefore possibly also a shift in its degree of categorial indeterminacy. As noted in §3.3.3, the *Chanson de Roland* cannot be unambiguously assigned to Early Old French or the 12th-13th c. This
text will be systematically compared with these two periods, in order to contribute to the debate on its
periodisation by assigning it to either Early Old French or the 12th-13th c. on the basis of linguistic
features. As in the case of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin, the frequency study of the
different uses of the -ant form in Old French will be refined by the study of their frequency and
productivity in the distinct thematic domains.

3.6.3. Quantitative methods: statistical significance and productivity measures

As mentioned above, the frequency of the gerund and the present participle from Classical to Late Latin and of the -ant form in Old French will be statistically evaluated by means of chi-square goodness-of-fit tests. Their frequency study will furthermore be paired with a study of their productivity in the various thematic domains. The aim of this section is to present in more detail the statistical method of chi-square goodness-of-fit testing (§3.6.3.1), on the one hand, and the concept of linguistic productivity (§3.6.3.2), on the other. This methodological presentation will be somewhat technical, but in Chapters 4 to 6, all statistical results and productivity measurements will be translated into non-technical, linguistic terms.

3.6.3.1. Chi-square goodness-of-fit testing

Chi-square goodness-of-fit tests are statistical tests that allow comparing the observed, i.e. attested, and
expected frequencies of some phenomenon in two or more datasets. They determine to which extent its
observed frequency in the datasets in issue is higher or lower than would be expected if all instances
were, proportionally speaking, equally distributed among the datasets (Gries 2013: 165).<fnref n="48" /> In this study,
chi-square goodness-of-fit tests will be run in order to compare the observed and expected frequencies
of the various uses of the gerund and the present participle from Classical to Late Latin and of the -ant
form in Old French. These comparisons will indicate whether the increasing or decreasing frequencies
of these uses are random or symptoms of language change. Only the latter type of frequency shifts are
linguistically relevant. In what follows, I will first provide the technical details of chi-square goodness-
of-fit tests, and then give a simple illustration to demonstrate their interest for this study.

The statistical values provided by chi-square goodness-of-fit tests betoken how much difference
there is between the observed and expected frequencies of some phenomenon in two or more datasets
(the so-called ‘chi-square or χ² value’). They also indicate whether these differences are statistically
significant (the so-called ‘probability or p-value’), that is, “large enough for us to assume that, given the
size of the sample(s), it is probably not a random difference” (Gries 2013: 28). P-values equal to or

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸ In this thesis, all chi-square goodness-of-fit tests have been performed manually using VassarStats. This is an online, freely accessible application for statistical computation (http://vassarstats.net).</footnote>
higher than 0.05 indicate that the differences are statistically not significant, while p-values smaller than 0.05 indicate that they are highly significant (p < 0.001), very significant (0.001 ≤ p < 0.01), or simply significant (0.01 ≤ p < 0.05) (Gries 2013: 29). Standardised residuals show for each dataset involved the normalised difference between the observed and expected frequencies, whereby positive values indicate that the observed frequency is higher than the expected one, while negative values show that the opposite trend (Levshina 2015: 120, 221). Standardised residuals smaller than -1.96 or higher than +1.96 suggest that the observed frequency in some dataset is significantly lower or higher than expected at a statistical significance level equal to or lower than p = 0.05 (Levshina 2015: 221). At a statistical significance level lower than p = 0.01, the thresholds are respectively -2.58 and +2.58 (Levshina 2015: 221). When the observed and expected frequencies are compared between two datasets, standardised residuals are less relevant, since it is always clear which observed frequency contributes most to the obtained chi-square values (Levshina 2015: 221). By contrast, standardised residuals play a crucial role when the observed and expected frequencies are compared between three or more datasets, because they unambiguously indicate how much each observed frequency contributes to the obtained chi-square values (Levshina 2015: 120, 221). Chi-square goodness-of-fit tests can be carried out for datasets with low frequencies, but they are not recommendable when the expected frequency of some phenomenon is smaller than 5 in at least one dataset (Levshina 2015: 29).

So as to illustrate this technical description, I will compare the observed and expected frequencies of the gerund in the Classical and Late Latin corpora of this study based on a chi-square goodness-of-fit test. This comparison will be based on normalised frequencies, calculated as the number of gerunds per 10 000 words. As mentioned in §3.4.4, the observed frequency of the gerund in the Classical and Late Latin corpora is respectively 1 270 and 1 308, yielding a total number of 2 578. If this number of gerunds was equally distributed among the Classical and Late Latin corpora, which contain respectively 625 034 and 425 903 words, the Classical Latin corpus would contain 1 533 gerunds instead of 1 270, while the Late Latin corpus would comprise 1 045 forms instead of 1 308.<fnref n="49" /> That is, the observed frequency of the gerund in the Classical Latin corpus is lower than its expected frequency, while the observed frequency of the gerund in the Late Latin corpus is higher than its expected frequency. These differences show an increasing trend in the frequency of the gerund from Classical to Late Latin, but they do not indicate whether this trend reflects a linguistic change or a random difference. A chi-square goodness-of-fit test allows answering this question by statistically evaluating the observed and expected frequencies of the gerund in the two corpora. According to such a test, the rising frequency of the gerund between Classical and Late Latin is statistically highly significant. Indeed, the gerund is underrepresented in the Classical Latin corpus and overrepresented in the Late Latin corpus in a statistically highly significant way ($\chi^2 = 111.09$; df = 1; p < 0.0001) (Table 3.14).

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹ The numbers of 1533 and 1 045 gerunds in respectively the Classical and Late Latin corpora are the outcome of the equations [(1270+625094)*(1270+1308)]/(2578+1050937) and [(1308+425903)*(1270+1308)]/(2578+1050937), respectively (see, e.g., Levshina 2015: 210-211 for the formula to calculate the expected frequency of some phenomenon).</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 3.14.** Observed vs expected frequency of the gerund in the Classical and Late Latin corpora</caption><thead><tr><td>Period</td><td>Observed frequency</td><td>Expected frequency</td><td>Standardised residuals</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classical Latin</td><td>1 270</td><td>1 533</td><td>-6.72</td></tr><tr><td>Late Latin</td><td>1 308</td><td>1 044</td><td>+8.14</td></tr></tbody></table>

Hence, the frequency rise of the gerund from Classical to Late Latin is “large enough for us to assume that, given the size of the sample(s), it is probably not a random difference” (Gries 2013: 28). Thus, the increasing frequency of the gerund might reflect an ongoing linguistic change, which the linguist is then invited to further examine and, if possible, explain (this will be done in Chapter 4). Chi-square goodness-of-fit tests allow as such separating evolutions that are most likely random, and should therefore not be further investigated, from evolutions that are probably not random, and merit therefore a more detailed examination. As to the standardised residuals in Table 3.14, they exceed the required threshold of ±2.58 at p < 0.01 in both periods. Hence, they show that the underrepresentation of the gerund in the Classical Latin corpus and its overrepresentation in the Late Latin corpus both contribute to the chi-square values. This reinforces the conclusion that the frequency of the gerund significantly increases between Classical and Late Latin (see Chapter 4).

### 3.6.3.2. Productivity

In linguistics, the notion of productivity covers at least three distinct concepts (Barðdal 2008: 20-22). The first one defines productivity as “generality”, and is described in terms of “having a wide coverage”, “default”, “schematically open or non-restricted”, or “schematic (as opposed to listable)” (Barðdal 2008: 22). The second concept conceives of productivity in terms of “regularity”. It is related to descriptions like “regular”, “rule-based”, “easily combinable”, or “transparent or compositional” (Barðdal 2008: 22). The third and final concept is of productivity as “extensibility”, describable in terms of “developing new functions”, “occurring with new/novel/nonce items”, “attracting already existing items”, or “deviating from adult language” (Barðdal 2008: 20). In this study, productivity will be thought of in terms of the first concept, namely that of generality or attested schematicity: it will be examined to which extent the different syntactic configurations comprising a gerund or present participle or an *-ant* form are schematic in the Late Latin and Old French corpora.

In the past, the concept of productivity has primarily been studied in the field of morphology, in particular to explore the formation of new words (see, e.g., Aronoff 1976, 1983; Lieber 1981; Baayen & Lieber 1991; Baayen 1992, 1993; Bybee 1995; Bybee & Thompson 1997; Bauer 2001; Booij 2010). In the two last decades, this concept has proven to be relevant also in the domain of syntax (e.g. Barðdal 2008 for Icelandic; Zeldes 2012 and Hilpert 2013 for English; Zeldes 2012 for German; Gyselinck 2018 for Dutch; Ilioaia 2020 for Romanian; Vangaever & Carlier 2020 for Old and Modern French). The
study of the productivity of the different uses of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin and of the -ant form in Old French belongs to this second line of research, namely the study of syntactic productivity. In this thesis, the productivity of these syntactic uses will be measured in function of the lexical variation between the non-finite verb forms and the items used for another constitutive element of the syntactic configurations, such as the head noun in the case of an adnominal gerund. For practical reasons, however, I will simply speak of, e.g., ‘the productivity of the adnominal gerund’ instead of ‘the productivity of the syntactic configurations combining a noun and an adnominal gerund’. As a general rule, the more attested lexical variation there is, the more productive is the gerund or present participle (Barðdal 2008: 9).

In order to measure the productivity of a syntactic construction in function of the lexical variation between its constitutive parts, different factors, borrowed from the study of morphological productivity, can be used: (i) its token frequency, which corresponds to its total number of instances in a given corpus, and thus to the total number of lexical combinations (Aronoff 1983; Bybee 1985); (ii) its type frequency, which corresponds to the total number of distinct types in a given corpus, that is to say, the total number of distinct lexical combinations (Bybee 1985; Goldberg 1995, 2006; Bybee & Thompson 1997); (iii) the number of hapaxes, which corresponds to the total number of types (i.e. distinct lexical combinations) occurring once in a given corpus (Baayen & Lieber 1991); and (iv) the semantic coherence between the lexemes used in the slots examined (Aronoff 1976; Baayen 1992; Bybee 1995; Goldberg 1995, 2006; Bybee & Hopper 1997; Barðdal 2008).

Based on these parameters, different formulae can be put forward to measure the productivity of a syntactic structure. In this study, the productivity of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin and of the -ant form in Old French will be measured on the basis of two formulae that have originally been proposed in order to measure morphological productivity. The first formula consists of dividing the number of hapaxes by the token frequency of some structure: the higher is the number of hapaxes in proportion to the total number of tokens, the more productive is the structure (Baayen & Lieber 1991; Baayen 2005: 244). The second formula consists of dividing the type frequency of some structure by its token frequency: the higher is the type frequency in relation to the token frequency, the more productive is the structure (Lieber 1981: 114-115).<fnref n="50" /> These two formulae, called respectively the ‘hapax-token ratio’ and the ‘type-token ratio’, do not give an absolute indication of the productivity of a syntactic structure, but only a relative one. In this study, the productivity of the Late Latin gerund and present participle and of the Old French -ant form will be compared from a synchronic point of view in the distinct thematic domains represented in the Late Latin and Old French corpora.<fnref n="51" />

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰ For an overview and critical discussion of different productivity measurements in the field of morphology, see, e.g., Rainer (1987), Plag (1999), or Bauer (2001). See also Barðdal (2008: 25).</footnote>

<footnote n="51">⁵¹ Barðdal (2008: 35) holds that the productivity of a syntactic structure results from its type frequency, its semantic coherence, and the inverse relation between them: “[...] the higher the type frequency of a construction, the lower the degree of semantic</footnote>
<footnote>coherence is needed for a construction to be productive. Conversely, the lower the type frequency of a construction, the higher the degree of semantic coherence is needed for a construction to be extendable" (Barðdal 2008 : 34). Although this is undoubtedly the best way to measure the productivity of a syntactic structure, the semantic coherence of the lexemes used in the slots of the different types of gerund and present participle constituents in Late Latin and of the -ant form constituents in Old French will not be taken into account in this study. At least two reasons can be mentioned. First, the concept of productivity is not at the center of this study, so that a more basic approach largely suffices. And second, due to the large size of the dataset of this study, it would be methodologically hard to measure the semantic coherence for all gerund, present participle, and -ant form phrases in a consistent way.</footnote>
# Chapter 4. The gerund in Late Latin

## 4.1. Introduction

### 4.1.1. Aim of the chapter

It is claimed that in Late Latin, the evolution of the gerund is mainly driven by its functional competition with the infinitive (Aalto 1949: 73; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 369; Harris 1978: 199; Bauer 1993) and with the present participle (Aalto 1949: 73; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 140-141; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 384; Bauer 1993, 2005; Pinkster 2015: 549 fn. 237, 2021: §21.14). Its competition with the infinitive involves its nominal external syntax and its use in purpose adjuncts, and is held to gradually settle in favour of the infinitive. Put differently, gerunds occurring in adnominal phrases (e.g. *peccandi* ‘of sinning’ (1)), verb complements (e.g. *ad sacrificandum* ‘to offer’ (2)), adjective complements (e.g. *ad construendum* ‘to build’ (3)), and purpose adjuncts (e.g. *ad auxiliandum* ‘to help’ (4)) are argued to be gradually replaced by infinitives.

(1) [...] *contra consuetudinem pecca-nd-i* [...] *repuugna*.
against custom.ACC.F.SG sin-GER-GEN fight.IMP.PRS.2SG
‘Fight against the custom of sinning.’ (Isid. *synon*. 1.46)

(2) [...] *eos* [...] *hortabatur* ut *ad sacrifica-nd-um* *idolis* *consentirent*.
DEM.ACC.M.PL urge.PST.3SG that to sacrifice-GER-ACC idol.DAT.N.PL agree.SBJV.PST.3PL
‘He urged them to agree making offers to the idols.’ (*Pass*. *Symph*. 1.552.16)

(3) [...] *invenisti* [...] *aptum* locum ad **construe-nd-um** oraculum [...].
find.PST.2SG suitable.ACC.M.SG place.ACC.M.SG to build-GER-ACC oracle.ACC.N.SG
‘You found a place suitable to build an oracle.’ (*Vit*. *Gal*. *Wett*. 1.10)

(4) [...] *reges* [...] *ad auxilia-nd-um* uno animo convenerunt.
king.NOM.M.PL to help-GER-ACC one.ABL.M.SG spirit.ABL.M.SG gather.PST.3PL
‘The kings gathered with one spirit in order to help.’ (Fredeg. *cont*. 31)

The gradual substitution of the gerund by the infinitive in nominal syntactic configurations and purpose adjuncts is expected to reduce both the absolute frequency of these types of gerunds and their proportion to the total number of gerunds. As a corollary, the proportion of gerunds used in non-purpose adjuncts (e.g. *lamentando* ‘lamenting’ (5)) and as the main verb of a progressive construction (e.g. *cunctando* ‘hesitating’ (6)) is expected to increase, even if their absolute frequency does not rise.

(5) [...] *lamenta-nd-o* ad *fletum* me commovisti [...].
lament-GER-ABL to tears.ACC.M.SG I.ACC.M.SG move.PST.2SG
‘You moved me to tears by lamenting.’ (Isid. *synon*. 1.75)
(6) [...] cum *prope silvam* venisset [...] stetit dux
when near forest.ACC.F.SG come.SBJV.PST.3SG stand.PST.3SG general.NOM.M.SG
diu *cuncta-nd-o.*
for_some_time hesitate-GER-ABL

‘When he had come to a forest, the general stood in hesitation for some time.’ (Amm. 17.1.8)

In other words, the gradual replacement of nominal and adverbial purpose gerunds by infinitives leads – indirectly – to the specialisation of the gerund in adverbial and verbal external syntax.

As to the competition of the gerund with the present participle, it concerns their adverbial external syntax and their use in progressive constructions. Their competition in non-purpose adjuncts is claimed to settle in favour of the gerund, in particular the bare ablative gerund (Marouzeau 1910: 79; Kühner & Stegmann 1914⁵: 753; Lyer 1932; Aalto 1949: 65-66; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 140-141; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 373, 377, 379-380, 384; Harris 1978: 200; Kooreman 1989; Bauer 1993, 2005; Maraldi 1994; Adams 2003: 748, 2013: 725-740; Pinkster 2021: §21.14). This type of gerund is held to gradually loosen its ties with its original manner/instrumental/causal value, so as to develop into a semantically more neuter and especially versatile strategy for adverbial subordination. The adverbial present participle is argued to be replaced by the bare ablative gerund even in its prototypical temporal value, which consists of denoting a state of affairs co-occurring with the main state of affairs. Thus, the language is considered to evolve from present participles such as *psallentes* ‘singing psalms’ (7) to bare ablative gerunds like *psallendo* ‘singing psalms’ (8).

(7) [...] dum *circuirent* psalle-nt-es, dedicavit ecclesiam.
as go_around.SBJV.PST.3PL sing_psalms-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL dedicate.PST.3SG church.ACC.F.SG
‘As they went around (the temple) singing psalms, he dedicated the church.’ (Vit. Gall. Wal. 1.6)

(8) [...] cum [...] muros civitatis psalle-nd-o circuirent [...].
when wall.ACC.M.PL city.GEN.F.SG sing_psalms-GER-ABL go_around.SBJV.PST.3PL
‘When they went around the walls of the city singing psalms (...).’ (Hist. Franc. 26)

The gradual replacement of the present participle by the (bare ablative) gerund in non-purpose adjuncts is expected to increase the absolute frequency of adverbial gerunds and, incidentally, their proportion to the total number of gerunds. Thus, this substitution is held to make the gerund – directly – specialise in adverbial external syntax.

The competition between the gerund and the present participle in progressive constructions is also held to settle in favour of the gerund (Lyer 1934: 169; Aalto 1949: 75; Dietrich 1973: 305, 307; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 380). Present participle constructions like *stant respondentes* ‘they are answering’ (9) are thus expected to be gradually substituted by gerund constructions like *stetit cunctando* ‘he stood in hesitation’ (6).
(9) *Et diacono dicente singulorum nomina semper*
and deacon.ABL.M.SG say.PTCP.PRS.ABL.M.SG each.GEN.M.PL name.ACC.N.PL always
pisinni plurimi stant **responde-nt-es** semper [...].
child.NOM.M.PL many.NOM.M.PL stand.PRS.3PL anwer-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.SG always
'And always as the deacon says the names of each (of them), many children are always answering (...).'
*(Peregr. Aeth. 24.6)*

Yet, the replacement of the present participle by the gerund in progressive constructions is a tendency rather than a rule. Indeed, the present participle variant of this construction is occasionally attested in different Old Romance languages, such as Italian (Škerlj 1926; Filzi 1914: 35-36, 39-40; Squartini 1998: 28), Occitan (Squartini 1998: 28), and Romanian (Squartini 1998: 29). In these languages, the auxiliary of the present participle construction is usually an existential or posture verb, which might explain why most scholars analyse as present participles all Old French *-ant* forms used in a progressive construction with *être* ‘to be’, but as gerunds all forms combined with a motion verb (e.g. Gougenheim 1929; Anglade 1958: 215; Väänänen 1963³: 140-141; Ménard 1973: 171-172; Harris 1978: 201; Werner 1980: 370-380; Arnavielle 1984: 39; Squartini 1998: 27).

The aim of this chapter is to investigate to which extent the presumed specialisation of the gerund in adverbial and verbal external syntax in Late Latin is supported by empirical evidence.

### 4.1.2. Methodology

If the gerund specialises in adverbial external syntax in Late Latin, it is expected that the proportion of adverbial gerunds to the total number of gerunds rises both between Classical and Late Latin and within the period of Late Latin, at the cost of nominal gerunds. Moreover, the (normalised) absolute frequency of adverbial gerunds is expected to increase due to the substitution of the present participle by the (bare ablative) gerund in non-purpose adjuncts. Since the verbal gerund appears only in Late Latin (*cf*. Aalto 1949: 75-76; Väänänen 1963³: 141; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 380; Bertinetto 2000: 562; Haverling 2010: 497), its frequency in this period is expected to rise in (normalised) absolute numbers, but not in proportion to the total number of gerunds. This is due to the fact that progressive gerund constructions and their present participle competitors are rare throughout the period of Late Latin (Eklund 1970: 11-74; Pinkster 1998: 230), becoming more frequent only in the individual Romance languages (Bertinetto 2000: 563; Bertinetto *et al*. 2000: 538).

In order to empirically verify these hypotheses, the (normalised) absolute frequency of the various uses of the gerund in the Late Latin corpus will be calculated and compared with their frequency in the Classical Latin corpus. Additionally, and more importantly, I will compare the frequency of the various uses of the gerund in proportion to the total number of gerunds in the Classical and Late Latin corpora.
Within the Late Latin corpus, a comparison will be also made between the sub-periods of Imperial (4th-5th c.), Merovingian (6th-7th c.), and Early Medieval (8th-10th c.). All proportions will be statistically evaluated by means of chi-square goodness-of-fit tests, so as to distinguish random trends from those reflecting ongoing linguistic changes (Gries 2013: 28; Levshina 2015: 221). The frequency study of the various uses of the gerund in Late Latin will be refined by the study of their frequency and (attested) productivity in the three thematic domains represented in the Late Latin corpus, namely the historical, religious, and legal domains.

The results of this chapter are based on the 1 270 gerunds used in the Classical Latin corpus (see §1.1.2.2.6 and §3.4.1.4) and the 1 308 instances occurring in the Late Latin corpus (see §3.4.1.4). The Late Latin forms that cannot be unambiguously assigned to Imperial, Merovingian, or Early Medieval Latin will be discarded from the quantitative analyses pertaining to their evolution during the Late Latin period, but retained in all other quantitative analyses. This holds for 178 forms. Hence, the evolution of the external syntax of the gerund in Late Latin will be based on 1 130 datapoints (see §3.4.1.4). These 1 130 occurrences represent 86% of all Late Latin gerunds, so that the results emerging from them may be considered representative of the Late Latin corpus in general.

### 4.1.3. Structure of the chapter

The examination of the gerund will be structured according to the type of its syntactic use. First, I will investigate the gerunds having nominal external syntax (§4.2), then those with adverbial external syntax (§4.3), and finally those displaying verbal external syntax (§4.4). The results obtained in these sections will be collated in §4.5, in order to establish the external syntactic profile of the gerund. On the basis of this profile, I will then establish the morphosyntactic (§4.6) and typological (§4.7) profile of the gerund.
A conclusion will be drawn in §4.8.

## 4.2. The nominal gerund

The specialisation of the Late Latin gerund in adverbial and verbal external syntax is claimed to be partly (and also indirectly) due to the gradual replacement of the gerund by the infinitive in nominal syntactic configurations. It is therefore expected that the (normalised) frequency of adnominal, verb complement, adjective complement, and adverb complement gerunds decreases both between Classical and Late Latin and within the period of Late Latin. The same decline is expected for the proportion of these gerunds to the total number of gerunds.

The Classical and Late Latin corpora do not contain any adverb complement gerund. The absence of such instances supports Pinkster's (2021: §17.35) claim that subordinate clauses almost never depend
on an adverb, due to the risk of “an overload of information” at a relatively low level in the hierarchical structure of the sentence. Attention will thus be restricted to gerunds used in adnominal phrases (§4.2.1), verb complements (§4.2.2), and adjective complements (§4.2.3). The results obtained in §4.2.1 to §4.2.3 will be combined and evaluated in §4.2.4.

### 4.2.1. Adnominal gerunds

A first type of gerunds occurring in nominal syntactic configurations are adnominal gerunds. Examples of such forms are *nocendi* ‘of harming’ (10) and *videndi* ‘to see’ (11).

(10) [...] *mille noce-nd-i artibus sanctum virum conabatur*
thousand harm-GER-GEN method.ABL.F.PL holy.ACC.M.SG man.ACC.M.SG try.PST.3SG
*inludere [...]*
mistreat.INF.PRS

‘He tried mistreating the holy man with thousand methods of harming.’ (Sulp. Sev. *Mart.* 1.22.1)

(11) [...] *copiam vide-nd-i recoepit.*
ability.ACC.F.SG see. GER-GEN get_back.PST.3SG
‘She got back the ability to see.’ (*Vit. Austr.* 1.11)

This section aims to examine the frequency of adnominal gerunds from Classical to Late Latin (§4.2.1.1) and during the Late Latin period (§4.2.1.2). Their frequency in Late Latin will be further investigated in the light of their frequency and productivity in the historical, religious, and legal texts (§4.2.1.3). A final aspect of these forms that will be studied is their morphological marking (§4.2.1.4).

#### 4.2.1.1. Frequency from Classical to Late Latin

Table 4.1 shows that the normalised absolute frequency of the adnominal gerund declines from Classical to Late Latin (i.e. from about 12 to 9 instances per 10 000 words), whereas the gerund as a whole gains in frequency (i.e. from approximately 20 to 31 instances per 10 000 words). More importantly, however, adnominal gerunds represent more than half of all gerunds in Classical Latin (60%), while in Late Latin, they account for only about a quarter (28%). These decreasing absolute and relative frequencies are in line with what is expected in view of the gradual replacement of the gerund by the infinitive in adnominal phrases. In §4.3.1, I will examine whether the declining proportion of adnominal gerunds is also due – though indirectly – to an increasing absolute frequency of adverbial gerunds (at the expense of adverbial present participles).
<table><caption>**Table 4.1.** Frequency of adnominal gerunds in Classical and Late Latin<fnref n="1" /></caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#adnominal gerunds<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#gerunds<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#adnominal gerunds/<br>#gerunds</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classical Latin</td><td>756 (12.10)</td><td>1 270 (20.32)</td><td>59,53%</td></tr><tr><td>Late Latin</td><td>366 (8.59)</td><td>1 308 (30.71)</td><td>27,98%</td></tr></tbody></table>

According to a chi-square goodness-of-fit test, the decreasing proportion of the adnominal gerund is not random. Hence, it might reflect an ongoing linguistic change. Indeed, this portion is higher than expected in Classical Latin and lower than expected in Late Latin in a statistically highly significant way ($\chi^2 = 146.61$; df = 1; p < 0.0001) (Table 4.2).

<table><caption>**Table 4.2.** Observed vs expected proportion of adnominal gerunds to the total number of gerunds in Classical and Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classical Latin</td><td>756 (59,53%)</td><td>553 (43,54%)</td><td>+8.65</td></tr><tr><td>Late Latin</td><td>366 (27,98%)</td><td>569 (43,50%)</td><td>-8.52</td></tr></tbody></table>

The declining proportion of adnominal gerunds might be due to their gradual replacement by infinitives. However, in the absence of corpus studies of the external syntax of the infinitive from Classical to Late Latin, this hypothesis remains speculative. After all, the fraction of adnominal gerunds is also expected to drop – indirectly – due to the rising absolute frequency of adverbial gerunds at the expense of present participles.

Yet, the Late Latin corpus provides unambiguous evidence that the decreasing trend in Table 4.1 is at least partly due to the gradual replacement of adnominal gerunds by infinitives. Compare (12) and (13): in (12), the noun *potestatem* ‘power’ governs the coordinated genitive gerunds *habendi* ‘to have’, *tenendi* ‘to hold’, and *faciendi* ‘to do’ as its adnominal arguments, while in (13) and in other passages of the same text, the genitive gerund *faciendi* ‘to do’ is replaced by the more innovative bare infinitive *facire* ‘to do’.

<footnote n="1">¹ The columns ‘#adnominal gerunds’ and ‘#gerunds’ show first the raw absolute number of instances in the period concerned (e.g. 756 in Classical Latin) and then, between brackets, their normalised absolute frequency, calculated as the number of forms per 10 000 words in the period involved (e.g. 12.10 in Classical Latin). The same presentation is adopted in all following tables in this and the following chapters.</footnote>
(12) [...] *ita ut ab hac die unusquis ex ipsis
so that from DEM.ABL.F.SG day.ABL.F.SG each.NOM.M.SG from INTENS.ABL.M.PL
quod accepit habe-nd-i, tene-nd-i vel quicquid
REL.ACC.N.SG receive.PST.3SG have-GER-GEN hold-GER-GEN or INDF.ACC.N.SG
exinde elegerint facie-nd-i liberam habeant potestatem.
thereafter choose.FUT.3PL do-GER-GEN free.ACC.F.SG have.SBJV.PRS.3PL power.ACC.F.SG
'So that from this day (onward) each of them may have the free power to have and to hold what he
received, and to do thereafter (with it) whatever they will choose.' (Form. Marc. 2.24)

(13) [...] *ita ut ab hac die unusquis ex ipsis
so that from DEM.ABL.F.SG day.ABL.F.SG each.NOM.M.SG from INTENS.ABL.M.PL
memorata loca, quod acciperunt habe-nd-i,
mention.PTCP.PST.ACC.N.PL place.ACC.N.PL REL.ACC.N.SG receive.PST.3PL have-GER-GEN
tene-nd-i vel quicquid exinde pro eorum oportunitate et
hold-GER-GEN or INDF.ACC.N.SG thereafter for DEM.GEN.M.PL benefit.ABL.F.SG and
conpendio facire elegerint liberum perfruantur arbitrium.
profit.ABL.N.SG do.INF.PRS choose.FUT.3PL free.ACC.N.SG enjoy.SBJV.PRS.3PL power.ACC.F.SG
'So that from this day (onward) each of them may have the free power to have and to hold the
mentioned places, which they have received, and to thereafter do (with them) whatever they will
choose for their benefit and profit.' (Form. Marc. 2.23)

### 4.2.1.2. Frequency within the period of Late Latin

During the Late Latin period, the (normalised) absolute frequency of the adnominal gerund slightly rises, contrary to what is expected in the light of its competition with the infinitive (Table 4.3). However, the gerund as a whole also gains in frequency, and more steeply than the adnominal gerund. Therefore, this result is most likely hazardous. As to the proportion of adnominal gerunds to the total number of gerunds, it declines from Imperial to Early Medieval Latin, but, against predictions, not in a rectilinear way.

<table><caption>**Table 4.3.** Frequency of adnominal gerunds in Imperial, Merovingian, and Early Medieval Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#adnominal gerunds<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#gerunds<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#adnominal gerunds/<br>#gerunds</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Imperial Latin</td><td>18 (6.00)</td><td>52 (17.33)</td><td>34,62%</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian Latin</td><td>129 (6.88)</td><td>525 (28.01)</td><td>24,57%</td></tr><tr><td>Early Medieval Latin</td><td>162 (9.47)</td><td>553 (32.34)</td><td>29,29%</td></tr></tbody></table>

A chi-square goodness-of-fit test shows that the proportion of adnominal gerunds is higher than expected in Imperial and Early Medieval Latin and lower than expected in Merovingian Latin. Nevertheless, the
differences between the three periods are statistically insignificant ($\chi^2 = 3.25$; df = 2; p = 0.1969) (Table 4.4).

<table><caption>**Table 4.4.** Observed *vs* expected proportion of adnominal gerunds to the total number of gerunds in Imperial, Merovingian, and Early Medieval Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Imperial Latin</td><td>18 (34,62%)</td><td>14 (26,92%)</td><td>+1.00</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian Latin</td><td>129 (24,57%)</td><td>144 (27,43%)</td><td>-1.22</td></tr><tr><td>Early Medieval Latin</td><td>162 (29,29%)</td><td>151 (27,31%)</td><td>+0.88</td></tr></tbody></table>

Hence, the fluctuating decline of the proportion of adnominal gerunds is probably random. This finding suggests that, within the Late Latin period, the gerund is not increasingly substituted by the infinitive in adnominal phrases. However, it might also indicate that the gerund does not progressively replace the present participle in non-purpose adjuncts, because this would increase the absolute number of adverbial gerunds and, incidentally, their fraction to the total number of gerunds – at the expense of the proportion of adnominal gerunds. The first hypothesis remains speculative due to the lack of corpus-based studies of the external syntax of the infinitive from Classical to Late Latin. The second one will be examined in §4.3.2.

### 4.2.1.3. Frequency and productivity in the three thematic domains

In the Late Latin corpus, the adnominal gerund is most frequent in the legal texts, both in (normalised) absolute numbers and in relation to the total number of gerunds (Table 4.5). Note that the (normalised) frequency of the gerund in general is also highest in the legal texts.

<table><caption>**Table 4.5.** Frequency of adnominal gerunds in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>#adnominal gerunds (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#gerunds (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#adnominal gerunds/ #gerunds</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>33 (4.22)</td><td>213 (27.26)</td><td>15,49%</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>173 (6.98)</td><td>720 (29.06)</td><td>24,03%</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>160 (16.00)</td><td>375 (37.49)</td><td>42,67%</td></tr></tbody></table>

A chi-square goodness-of-fit test shows that the high proportion of adnominal gerunds in the legal texts might not be random. Indeed, the proportion of these forms is higher than expected in the legal texts and lower than expected in the historical and religious texts in a statistically highly significant way ($\chi^2 = 44.80$; df = 2; p < 0.0001) (Table 4.6). The most significant contribution to this result is precisely made by the overrepresentation of adnominal gerunds in the legal texts.
<table><caption>**Table 4.6.** Observed vs expected proportion of adnominal gerunds to the total number of gerunds in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>33 (15,49%)</td><td>60 (28,17%)</td><td>-3.45</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>173 (24,03%)</td><td>201 (27,92%)</td><td>-2.01</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>160 (42,67%)</td><td>105 (28,00%)</td><td>+5.38</td></tr></tbody></table>

Thus, the question arises as to what distinguishes the use of the adnominal gerund in legal texts from its use in historical and religious texts. The answer lies in the productivity of the adnominal gerund.

I measured the productivity of the adnominal gerund in terms of the lexical variation between the gerund and its governing noun on the basis of the two formulae mentioned in §3.6.3.2: (i) the type-token ratio, which corresponds to the proportion of distinct lexical combinations to the total number of lexical combinations; and (ii) the hapax-token ratio, which consists of the proportion of lexical combinations occurring once to the total number of lexical combinations. Table 4.7 shows that the attested productivity of the adnominal gerund is remarkably lower in the legal texts than in the historical and religious texts, according to both productivity measurements.

<table><caption>**Table 4.7.** Productivity of the adnominal gerund in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>#tokens</td><td>33</td><td>173</td><td>160</td></tr><tr><td>#types</td><td>33</td><td>159</td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes</td><td>33</td><td>147</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>#types/#tokens</td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.92</strong></td><td><strong>0.36</strong></td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes/#tokens</td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.85</strong></td><td><strong>0.21</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Hence, the adnominal gerund is less schematic in the legal texts than in the historical and religious texts (cf. Barðdal 2008: 22). Noteworthily, the historical texts comprise the exact same number of hapaxes as the legal texts (n=33), but on a total number of tokens that is only about a fifth of that in the legal texts (33 against 160).

The low productivity of the adnominal gerund in the legal texts is not only due to the low number of types and hapaxes in these texts (see Table 4.7), but also to the relatively high frequency of particular lexical combinations of a noun and an adnominal gerund. In order to demonstrate this, let us explore the inventory and cumulative frequency of the five most frequent combinations in the legal and religious texts (the historical texts will be left out because all combinations in these texts are hapaxes) (Table 4.8).
<table><caption>**Table 4.8.** Inventory and cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexical combinations of a noun and an adnominal gerund in the religious and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Lexeme of noun</th><th>Lexeme of gerund</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Religious</td><td>occasio 'opportunity'</td><td>peccare 'to sin'</td><td>3 (1,73%)</td></tr><tr><td>potestas 'power'</td><td>mortificare 'to kill'</td><td>3 (1,73%)</td></tr><tr><td>finis 'end'</td><td>vivere 'to live'</td><td>2 (1,16%)</td></tr><tr><td>spes 'hope'</td><td>invenire 'to find'</td><td>2 (1,16%)</td></tr><tr><td>licentia 'permission'</td><td>orare 'to pray'</td><td>2 (1,16%)<sup>2</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"></td><td><strong>12 (6,94%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Legal</td><td>potestas 'power'</td><td>facere 'to do'</td><td>40 (25,00%)</td></tr><tr><td>potestas 'power'</td><td>tenere 'to hold'</td><td>10 (6,25%)</td></tr><tr><td>potestas 'power'</td><td>habere 'to have'</td><td>9 (5,63%)</td></tr><tr><td>ponteficium 'authority'</td><td>facere 'to do'</td><td>9 (5,63%)</td></tr><tr><td>mansus 'house'</td><td>commanere 'to stay'</td><td>6 (3,75%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"></td><td><strong>74 (46,25%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

As shown in Table 4.8, the five most frequent lexical combinations of a noun and an adnominal gerund account for 46% of all combinations in the legal texts against only 7% in the religious texts. Even more tellingly, the legal texts contain one combination accounting for a quarter of all combinations in these texts, namely *potestas* 'power'/*facere* 'to do' (14).

(14) [...] ut [...] liberam in omnibus habeat potestatem facie-nd-i [...]. that free.ACC.F.SG in all.ABL.N.PL have.SBJV.PRS.3SG power.ACC.F.SG do-GER-GEN '(...) that he may have in everything the free power to do (...) .' (Form. Sal. Merk. 20)

By contrast, the ‘most frequent’ lexical combination in the religious texts represents less than 2% of all combinations. There are two such combinations, viz. *occasio* ‘opportunity’/*peccare* ‘to sin’ and *potestas* ‘power’/*mortificare* ‘to kill’. The first of these is exemplified in (15).

(15) [...] occasionem pecca-nd-i amplexus sum. opportunity.ACC.F.SG sin-GER-GEN embrace.PTCP.PST.NOM.M.SG be.PRS.1SG ‘I embraced the opportunity to sin.’ (Isid. synon. 1.44)

Table 4.9 shows that the lexical variation of the adnominal gerunds alone is also lower in the legal texts than in the historical and religious texts. However, the difference with the religious texts is smaller than in the case of the lexical combinations of nouns and adnominal gerunds (Table 4.9).

<footnote n="2">² The religious texts contain seven other lexical combinations occurring twice.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 4.9.** Lexical variation of the adnominal gerunds in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>#tokens</td><td>33</td><td>173</td><td>160</td></tr><tr><td>#types</td><td>30</td><td>113</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes</td><td>28</td><td>86</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>#types/#tokens</td><td><strong>0.91</strong></td><td><strong>0.65</strong></td><td><strong>0.24</strong></td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes/#tokens</td><td><strong>0.85</strong></td><td><strong>0.50</strong></td><td><strong>0.14</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

It turns out that the low lexical variation of the adnominal gerunds in the legal texts is partially due to the relatively high frequency of specific lexemes. This is in line with what has been observed for some lexical combinations of a noun and an adnominal gerund. Indeed, the five most frequent lexemes account for 63% of all adnominal gerunds in the legal texts, versus only 24% in the historical texts and 21% in the religious texts. In addition, the most frequent lexeme alone represents 36% of all adnominal gerunds in the legal texts, against 9% and 8% in respectively the historical and the religious texts (Table 4.10).

<table><caption>**Table 4.10.** Inventory and cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexemes used for adnominal gerunds in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Lexeme of gerund</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Historical</td><td>dicere 'to say'</td><td>3 (9,09%)</td></tr><tr><td>edere 'to eat'</td><td>2 (6,06%)</td></tr><tr><td>revertere 'to return'</td><td>1 (3,03%)</td></tr><tr><td>orare 'to pray'</td><td>1 (3,03%)</td></tr><tr><td>venire 'to come'</td><td>1 (3,03%)<sup>3</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>8 (24,24%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Religious</td><td>vivere 'to live'</td><td>14 (8,09%)</td></tr><tr><td>loqui 'to speak'</td><td>9 (5,20%)</td></tr><tr><td>peccare 'to sin'</td><td>6 (3,47%)</td></tr><tr><td>mortificare 'to kill'</td><td>4 (2,31%)</td></tr><tr><td>orare 'to pray'</td><td>3 (1,73%)<sup>4</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>36 (20,81%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Legal</td><td>facere 'to do'</td><td>58 (36,25%)</td></tr><tr><td>habere 'to have'</td><td>15 (9,38%)</td></tr><tr><td>tenere 'to hold'</td><td>15 (9,38%)</td></tr><tr><td>commanere 'to stay'</td><td>6 (3,75%)</td></tr><tr><td>exigere 'to examine'</td><td>6 (3,75%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>100 (62,50%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="3">³ The remaining twenty-five adnominal gerunds in the historical texts are also hapaxes.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ There are seven more lexemes occurring three times in the religious texts.</footnote>
The highly frequent lexeme *facere* ‘to do’ in the legal texts is illustrated in (13) and (14) above.<fnref n="5" /> The most frequent lexemes in the historical and religious texts are respectively *dicere* ‘to say’ (16) and *vivere* ‘to live’ (17).

(16) *Optaveram* [...] ut mihi *subcumberit* talia *dice-nd-i*
    wish.PST.1SG that I.DAT.M.SG befall.SBJV.PST.3SG so_great.NOM.F.SG speak-GER-GEN
    *fagundia* [...].
    eloquence.NOM.F.SG

‘I had wished that I had such a great eloquence of speaking.’ (Fredeg. *chron. praef.* 4)

(17) [...] *impunita* manet male *vive-nd-i* licentia.
    unpunished.NOM.F.SG remain.PRS.3SG badly live-GER-GEN possibility.NOM.F.SG
    ‘The possibility to live badly remains unpunished.’ (Isid. *synon.* 1.3)

The lexical variation of the nouns governing a gerund is also lower in the legal texts than in the historical and religious texts. Again, the difference is larger with the historical texts than with the religious texts, though the low absolute number of instances in the historical texts disallows drawing a firm conclusion from this (Table 4.11).

<table><caption>**Table 4.11.** Lexical variation of the nouns governing a gerund in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>#tokens</td><td>33</td><td>173</td><td>160</td></tr><tr><td>#types</td><td>25</td><td>84</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes</td><td>20</td><td>52</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>#types/#tokens</td><td><strong>0.76</strong></td><td><strong>0.49</strong></td><td><strong>0.13</strong></td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes/#tokens</td><td><strong>0.61</strong></td><td><strong>0.30</strong></td><td><strong>0.08</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

To a greater extent than for the lexical variation of the gerunds, the low lexical variation of the nouns in the legal texts is strongly influenced by the high frequency of particular lexemes. On the one hand, the five most frequent lexemes represent 83% of all nouns in the legal texts vs 39% and 27% in respectively the historical and religious texts. On the other hand, the most frequent lexeme accounts for 49% in the legal texts, while it only represents 15% in the historical texts and 8% in the religious texts (Table 4.12).

<footnote n="5">⁵ The high frequency of adnominal gerunds built on *facere* ‘to do’ in the legal texts is in line with the overall high frequency of this verb in legal texts. The frequent use of *facere* ‘to do’ in this type of texts is due to its semantic versatility and broadness, of which the 2nd-3rd c. jurist Papinian (dig. 50.16.218) explicitly testifies: “verbum *facere* omnem omnino faciendi causam complectitur dandi, solvendi, numerandi, indicandi, ambulandi” (‘the word *facere* embraces completely all sorts of “doing”: “giving”, “paying”, “reckoning”, “declaring”, “walking”; transl. Galdi 2018: 244).</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 4.12.** Inventory and cumulative frequency of the five most frequent nouns governing a gerund in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Lexeme of noun</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Historical</td><td>aditus 'opportunity'</td><td>5 (15,15%)</td></tr><tr><td>occasio 'opportunity'</td><td>2 (6,06%)</td></tr><tr><td>potestas 'power'</td><td>2 (6,06%)</td></tr><tr><td>regnum 'power'</td><td>2 (6,06%)</td></tr><tr><td>intentio 'intention'</td><td>2 (6,06%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>13 (39,39%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Religious</td><td>potestas 'power'</td><td>13 (7,51%)</td></tr><tr><td>facultas 'ability'</td><td>12 (6,94%)</td></tr><tr><td>licentia 'permission'</td><td>9 (5,2%)</td></tr><tr><td>copia 'opportunity'</td><td>7 (4,05%)</td></tr><tr><td>ars 'method'</td><td>5 (2,89%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>46 (26,59%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Legal</td><td>potestas 'power'</td><td>78 (48,75%)</td></tr><tr><td>ponteficium 'authority'</td><td>19 (11,88%)</td></tr><tr><td>arbitrium 'authority'</td><td>15 (9,38%)</td></tr><tr><td>licentia 'permission'</td><td>15 (9,38%)</td></tr><tr><td>mansus 'place'</td><td>6 (3,75%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>133 (83,13%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

The lexeme *potestas* 'power' (e.g. (13-14)) represents approximately a quarter of all nouns governing a gerund in the Late Latin corpus (93 instances out of 366). It is also the most frequent lexeme in both the legal and the religious texts. The most frequent lexeme in the historical texts is *aditus* 'opportunity' (18).

(18) [...] *aditum* **scribe-nd-i** *graciae* *vestrae* *repperimus* [...].
opportunity.ACC.M.SG write-GER-GEN grace.DAT.F.SG your.DAT.F.SG find.PST.1PL
‘We found the opportunity to write to your grace.’ (*Epist. Desid.* 2.6)

Table 4.12 further shows that most nouns governing a gerund are abstract nouns, as in Classical Latin (cf. Kühner & Stegmann 1914⁵: 737; Aalto 1949: 58-59; Palmer 1964: 323; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 375; Menge *et al.* 2000: 738-739; Pinkster 2015: 966, 2021: §17.17-§17.18; see also §1.2.2.2.1).

### 4.2.1.4. Morphological marking of the gerund

The final aspect of the Late Latin adnominal gerund to be investigated is its morphological marking. As in Classical Latin, this type of gerund can stand in the bare genitive (e.g. *scribendi* ‘to write’ (18)), the
prepositional accusative (e.g. *ad peccandum* ‘to sin’ (19)), and the prepositional ablative (e.g. *in veniendo* ‘in coming’ (20)).

(19) *Qualis tibi fuit ad pecca-nd-um intentio, talis*
like.NOM.F.SG you.DAT.M.SG be.PST.3SG to sin-GER-ACC intention.NOM.F.SG such.NOM.F.SG
*ad penite-nd-um sit devotio.*
to repent-GER-ACC be.SBJV.PRS.3SG devotion.NOM.F.SG
‘May your devotion to repent be such as was your intention to sin.’ (Isid. *synon*. 2.24)

(20) [...]ut nec in venie-nd-o sit tarditas et celerius inter
that NEG in come-GER-ABL be.SBJV.PRS.3SG slowness.NOM.F.SG and more quickly between
partes figantur placita oportuna [...].<fnref n="6" />
party.ACC.F.PL establish.SBJV.PRS.PASS.3PL plea.NOM.N.PL suitable.NOM.N.PL
‘(...) that there is no slowness in coming and that suitable pleas between the parties are established
more quickly.’ (Epist. Austr. 48)

In the Late Latin corpus, all prepositional accusative adnominal gerunds are governed by *ad* ‘to’, which usually has a purpose value (e.g. (19)) (Aalto 1949: 86-87; Pinkster 2021: §17.18, §17.20). The unique instance of a prepositional ablative gerund is governed by *in* ‘in’ (20), which has a temporal value (Aalto 1949: 71; Pinkster 2021: §17.20).

In addition to the markings just exemplified, the adnominal gerund sometimes stands in the bare accusative, marking that is absent in Classical Latin (Palmer 1964: 322; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 377; Pinkster 2015: 58). Witness *requirendum* ‘to ask’ (21), governed by the noun *pontificium* ‘authority’.

(21) [...]ut nullus [...] de ipso alode genitoris eorum
that no.NOM.M.SG from INTENS.ABL.M.SG land.ABL.M.SG father.GEN.M.SG DEM.GEN.M.PL
amplius **require-nd-um** pontificium habere non debeat.<fnref n="7" />
more ask-GER-ACC authority.ACC.N.SG have.INF.PRS NEG must.SBJV.PRS.3SG
‘(...) that no one should not have the authority to ask more from the land of their father.’ (Form.
*Sal. Merk*. 21)

This bare accusative clause is syntactically and semantically equivalent to the bare genitive clause *de ipsa alode genetore eorum amplius requirendi* ‘to ask more from the land of their father’ exemplified in (22), which depends on the same noun and is also used in the same semantic context.

<footnote n="6">⁶ The analysis of *in veniendo* ‘in coming’ (20) as an adnominal gerund is close to an analysis as an adjunct. On the basis of the criteria put forward in §3.5.1.2, it has been taken as an adnominal form. A central argument is its combination with the abstract noun *tarditas* ‘slowness’. As apparent from Table 4.11, this is the dominant type of nouns governing an adnominal gerund.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ There are no manuscript variants for this gerund (cf. Zeumer 1886: 249).</footnote>
(22) [...] *ut nullus [...] de ipsa alode genetore*
that no.NOM.M.SG from INTENS.ABL.F[M].SG land.ABL.M.SG father.ABL[GEN].M.SG
*eorum amplius require-nd-i pontefitium habere non dibiat.*
DEM.GEN.M.PL more ask-GER-GEN authority.ACC.N.SG have.INF.PRS NEG must.SBJV.PRS.3SG
‘(...) that no one should not have the authority to ask more from the land of their father.’ (*Form.*
*Marc.* 2.14)

As pointed out in §2.1.1.1, the emergence of the bare accusative marking might be a morphosyntactic symptom of the intensifying functional competition between the gerund and the infinitive (Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 379; Pinkster 2021: §16.100). In particular, the increasing frequency of adnominal bare infinitives like *facire* ‘to do’ (13) might cause some adnominal gerunds to be marked analogically to their infinitive competitors. However, the bare accusative marking of adnominal gerunds might also be the result of hypercorrection: the preposition *ad* ‘to’ of an originally planned prepositional accusative phrase might have been wrongly omitted at a time when the Latin case system is under pressure due to the expansion of prepositional constituents (Meyer-Lübke 1894; Ernout 1914³: 9-10; Väänänen 1963³: 111; Herman 1998, 2000). These two factors are likely complementary rather than mutually exclusive: some bare accusative gerunds might be marked by analogy to their infinitive competitors, and others as a result of hypercorrection – and perhaps a third group by a combination of these two factors.

The *Formulae Turonenses* also contain three coordinated gerunds that are marked in the genitive, while at the same time being governed by the preposition *ad* ‘to’ (23).

(23) [...] *ut omnes res meas vel causis meis [...] ad*
that all.ACC.F.PL case.ACC.F.PL my.ACC.F.PL or trial.ABL[ACC].F.PL my.ACC.F.PL to
**proseque-nd-i**, **rationa-nd-i**, **interpella-nd-i** cuicumque volueris
pursue-GER-GEN conclude-GER-GEN interrupt-GER-GEN INDF.DAT.M.SG want.FUT.3SG
*in omnibus habeas potestatem [...].*<fnref n="8" />
in all.ABL.N.PL have.SBJV.PRS.2SG power.ACC.F.SG
‘(...) that you have in everything the power to pursue, conclude, and interrupt all my cases or trials for anyone you want.’ (*Form. Turon. app.* 4)

Since *ad* ‘to’ normally assigns the accusative to its complement (cf. Pinkster 2015: 1230), the resulting gerund constituents are a morphosyntactic blend of a bare genitive and a prepositional accusative clause. This blend might also be triggered by the intensifying competition between the gerund and the infinitive, in particular the adnominal bare genitive gerund and the adnominal prepositional accusative infinitive (cf. Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 379).

<footnote n="8">⁸ There are no alternative readings for these forms (cf. Zeumer 1886: 165)</footnote>
Finally, the Late Latin corpus comprises one adnominal gerund in -ndo that is not governed by a preposition, and thus has the form of a bare ablative or dative gerund (24).

(24) Haec [...] omnia [...] tibi publicae trado adque transfundo
DEM.ACC.N.PL all.ACC.N.PL you.DAT.M.SG publicly give.PRS.1SG and transfer.PRS.1SG
solemniter, liberum exinde fruaris arbitrium et
solemnly free.ACC.N.SG hereafter enjoy.SBJV.PRS.2SG authority.ACC.N.SG and
dominatione facie-nd-o quod elegeris.<fnref n="9" />
power.ABL[ACC].F.SG do-GER-ABL[ACC] REL.ACC.N.SG choose.FUT.2SG

‘I publicly give and solemnly transfer all this to you, (so that) you may hereafter enjoy the free authority and power to do (with it) what you will choose.’ (Form. Bitur. 15)

However, this form is to be taken as a bare accusative gerund whose ending is affected by two phonetic evolutions that are pervasive in Late Latin, namely the apocope of final /m/ and the vocalic confusion between /ō/ and /ŭ/ (Väänänen 1963³: 36-37, 66-67; see also §2.1.1.1). This quirkily marked accusative gerund is syntactically and semantically equivalent to the bare genitive gerund *faciendi* ‘to do’ in (12/14) and to the bare infinitive *facire* ‘to do’ in (13). It thus corroborates the conclusion drawn with respect to the bare accusative marking, namely that the increasing “confusion between the functions of the present infinitive and the gerund” (Pinkster 2021: §16.100) has also reflexes on the morphology of the forms in issue (see also Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 379).

Figure 4.1 presents the frequency of the different markings of the adnominal gerund in Late Latin.

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.1.** Morphological marking of the adnominal gerunds in Late Latin</figcaption></figure>

As in Classical Latin (cf. Vangaever 2018: 17), adnominal gerunds in Late Latin are mostly marked in the bare genitive (84%). The prepositional accusative is not very frequent (13%) and the bare accusative

<footnote n="9">⁹ This form has no manuscript variants either (cf. Zeumer 1886: 175).</footnote>
is rare (2%). The prepositional genitive and the prepositional ablative are each restricted to one passage, in which the prepositional genitive happens to be marked on three coordinated gerunds.

### 4.2.1.5. Conclusion

The frequency of the adnominal gerund declines between Classical and Late Latin, both in (normalised) absolute terms (i.e. from 12 to 9 instances per 10 000 words) and in proportion to the total number of gerunds (i.e. from 60% to 28%). This evolution is in line with the predicted gradual substitution of the gerund by the infinitive in adnominal phrases. However, the declining proportion of adnominal gerunds might also be an indirect consequence of the gradual replacement of the present participle by the gerund in non-purpose adjuncts: this substitution increases the absolute number of adverbial gerunds and, hence, their proportion to the total number of gerunds, at the expense of the proportion of adnominal gerunds. This issue will be reevaluated in §4.3 in the light of the results of the adverbial gerund.

Against predictions, the proportion of adnominal gerunds does not significantly decrease within the period of Late Latin. Their (normalised) absolute frequency even slightly rises, though this trend is most likely random (it runs parallel to a frequency rise of the gerund in general). The frequency of the adnominal gerund is higher in legal texts than in historical and religious texts, difference that is related to a difference in use. Indeed, the productivity of the adnominal gerund is much lower in legal texts than in historical and religious texts.

Despite the sharply declining proportion of adnominal gerunds from Classical to Late Latin, i.e. from 60% to 28%, this proportion in Late Latin is still relatively high. This entails that there is a large gap between the use of the gerund in Late Latin and in most (Old) Romance languages, where it can no longer be adnominal (Aalto 1949: 73; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 139; Bauer 1993: 62; Schulte 2007: 88; see also §2.1.1.2.2.1.1.). In most (Old) Romance languages, the non-finite equivalent of the Late Latin adnominal gerund is the prepositional infinitive (cf. Harris 1978: 198-199; Schulte 2007: 88).

### 4.2.2. Verb complement gerunds

The next type of gerunds used in nominal syntactic configurations are verb complement gerunds, like *ad credendum* ‘to believe’ (25). This form acts as the third argument of *coartabat* ‘he brought’ and is as such semantically and syntactically obligatory, as shown by the presumed ungrammaticality of (26).<fnref n="10" />

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Recall that the distinction between verb complement gerunds and adjunct gerunds is not always sharp. This holds in particular for forms that convey in some way or other a final meaning (e.g. *ad credendum* ‘to believe’ (25)). See the discussion in §3.5.2.</footnote>
(25) Cum fidem nullus adhiberet signis quibusdam, although faith.ACC.F.SG no.NOM.M.SG practice.SBJV.PST.3SG sign.ABL.N.PL particular.ABL.N.PL plerosque ad crede-nd-um coartabat. most_people.ACC.M.PL to believe-GER-ACC bring.PST.3SG ‘Although nobody practiced faith with particular signs, he brought most people to believe.’ (Sulp. Sev. Mart. 1.23.3)

(26) * Cum fidem nullus adhiberet signis , although faith.ACC.F.SG no.NOM.M.SG practice.SBJV.PST.3SG sign.ABL.N.PL quibusdam plerosque coartabat particular.ABL.N.PL most_people.ACC.M.PL bring.PST.3SG ‘Although nobody practiced faith with particular signs, he brought most people.’ (adapted from Sulp. Sev. Mart. 1.23.3)

The aim of this section is to examine the frequency of verb complement gerunds from Classical to Late Latin (§4.2.2.1) and during the Late Latin period (§4.2.2.2). As in the case of the adnominal gerund, the frequency study of the verb complement gerund in Late Latin will be refined by a study of its frequency and productivity in the historical, religious, and legal texts (§4.2.2.3). The final section will investigate the morphological marking of verb complement gerunds (§4.2.2.4).

### 4.2.2.1. Frequency from Classical to Late Latin

The (normalised) absolute frequency of verb complement gerunds is very low in both Classical and Late Latin, i.e. respectively 1 and 2 instances per 10 000 words (Table 4.13). A similar picture emerges from their proportion to the total number of gerunds (7% against 8%). Between Classical and Late Latin, the frequency of this type of gerunds slightly increases. This result is at odds with what is expected in view of the intensifying competition in Late Latin between the gerund and the infinitive, on the one hand, and between the gerund and the present participle, on the other.

<table><caption>**Table 4.13.** Frequency of verb complement gerunds in Classical and Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#verb complement gerunds<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#gerunds<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#verb complement gerunds/<br>#gerunds</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classical Latin</td><td>85 (1.36)</td><td>1 270 (20.32)</td><td>6,69%</td></tr><tr><td>Late Latin</td><td>106 (2.49)</td><td>1 308 (30.71)</td><td>8,10%</td></tr></tbody></table>

However, the frequency rise of verb complement gerunds is too small to be significant. This is evidenced by a chi-square goodness-of-fit test: the proportion of verb complements gerunds is lower than expected
in Classical Latin and higher than expected in Late Latin, but in a statistically insignificant way ($\chi^2 = 1.54$; df = 1; p = 0.2146) (Table 4.14).

<table><caption>**Table 4.14.** Observed *vs* expected proportion of verb complement gerunds to the total number of gerunds in Classical and Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classical Latin</td><td>85 (6,69%)</td><td>94 (7,40%)</td><td>-0.94</td></tr><tr><td>Late Latin</td><td>106 (8,10%)</td><td>96 (7,34%)</td><td>+0.92</td></tr></tbody></table>

Thus, the proportion of verb complement gerunds does not show significant diachronic variation. This indicates that, in the Late Latin corpus, the gerund is not progressively replaced by the infinitive in verb complements. However, it might also suggest that the gerund does not increasingly substitute the present participle in non-purpose adjuncts, since this would increase the absolute number of adverbial gerunds and, as a corollary, their proportion to the total number of gerunds – at the cost of the proportion of verb complement. Whereas the first hypothesis remains speculative because of the absence of corpus-based studies of the external syntax of the infinitive in Late Latin, the second hypothesis will be examined in §4.3.2.

### 4.2.2.2. Frequency within the period of Late Latin

Within the period of Late Latin, the frequency of the verb complement gerund is about twice as high in Merovingian Latin than in Imperial and Early Medieval Latin, both in (normalised) absolute terms and in proportion to the total number of gerunds (Table 4.15). The frequency of this type of gerund thus does not show a rectilinear decline, against expectations.

<table><caption>**Table 4.15.** Frequency of verb complements gerunds in Imperial, Merovingian, and Early Medieval Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#verb complement gerunds<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#gerunds<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#verb complement gerunds/<br>#gerunds</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Imperial Latin</td><td>3 (1.00)</td><td>52 (17.33)</td><td>5,77%</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian Latin</td><td>58 (3.09)</td><td>525 (28.01)</td><td>11,05%</td></tr><tr><td>Early Medieval Latin</td><td>28 (1.64)</td><td>553 (32.34)</td><td>5,06%</td></tr></tbody></table>

A chi-square goodness-of-fit test shows that the proportion of verb complement gerunds is higher than expected in the Merovingian Latin period and lower than expected in Imperial and Early Medieval Latin in a statistically very significant way ($\chi^2 = 12.55$; df = 2; p = 0.0019) (Table 4.16). Note, however, that the only significant contribution to this result is made by the high proportion of instances in Merovingian Latin.
<table><caption>**Table 4.16.** Observed *vs* expected proportion of verb complement gerunds to the total number of gerunds in Imperial, Merovingian, and Early Medieval Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Imperial Latin</td><td>3 (5,77%)</td><td>4 (7,69%)</td><td>-0.54</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian Latin</td><td>58 (11,05%)</td><td>41 (7,81%)</td><td>+2.59</td></tr><tr><td>Early Medieval Latin</td><td>28 (5,06%)</td><td>44 (7,96%)</td><td>-2.36</td></tr></tbody></table>

This high proportion of verb complement gerunds in Merovingian Latin might therefore not be random. Although the expected frequency of instances in Imperial Latin is smaller than five, so that a chi-square goodness-of-fit test is in principle not recommendable (cf. Levshina 2015: 29), this finding is reliable in view of the normalised frequencies in Table 4.15. A closer examination of the verb complement gerunds in Merovingian Latin shows that their high frequency in this period is partly due to their high number in one particular text, namely Fredegar’s *Chronica*. This text contains fifteen such forms, *i.e.* more than a quarter of all verb complement gerunds in the Merovingian Latin corpus (n=58). An example of a verb complement gerund in this text is the bare accusative form *resistendum* ‘to resist’ (27).

(27) [...] *ipse* vero eorum studio et utiletate
INTENS.NOM.M.SG[PL] but DEM.GEN.M.PL devotion.ABL.N.SG and bravery.ABL.F.SG
Winidis *resiste-nd-um* spondent [...].
Venedes.DAT.M.PL resist-GER-ACC promise.PRS.3PL
‘But they promise to resist the Venedes with devotion and bravery.’ (Fredeg. *chron*. 4.74)

Hence, the high proportion of verb complement gerunds in Merovingian Latin probably does not reflect a general feature of the language in this period. It should also be pointed out in this regard that statistical significance does not necessarily mean that some tendency cannot be random. As Gries (2013: 28) puts it: “[T]he word *significant* is used in a technical sense here, meaning the effect (here, the difference) is large enough for us to **assume** that, given the size of the sample(s), it is **probably** not a random difference” (italics original, emphasis JV). That is, except for their relatively high number in Fredegar’s *Chronica*, to be interpreted as an idiolectical feature, verb complement gerunds might be more frequent in the Merovingian Latin corpus than in the Imperial and Early Medieval Latin corpora by mere chance. This is without any doubt the most plausible explanation of the results in Tables 4.15 and 4.16. Like that of adnominal gerunds, the proportion of verb complement gerunds thus fluctuates between Imperial and Early Medieval Latin in a – presumably – linguistically insignificant way.

### 4.2.2.3. Frequency and productivity in the three thematic domains

The (normalised) absolute frequency of verb complement gerunds in the Late Latin corpus is highest in the historical texts, though the difference with the religious and especially the legal texts is small (Table
4.17). The portion of this type of gerunds to the total number of gerunds is also highest in the historical texts, but for this parameter, the difference with the religious and the legal texts is more pronounced.

<table><caption>**Table 4.17.** Frequency of verb complement gerunds in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>#verb complement gerunds (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#gerunds (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#verb complement gerunds/ #gerunds</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>29 (3.71)</td><td>213 (27.26)</td><td>13,62%</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>47 (1.90)</td><td>720 (29.06)</td><td>6,53%</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>30 (3.00)</td><td>375 (37.49)</td><td>8,00%</td></tr></tbody></table>

According to a chi-square goodness-of-fit test, the high proportion of verb complement gerunds in the historical texts might not be random. Indeed, their proportion is higher than expected in this type of texts and lower than expected in the religious and legal texts in a statistically very significant way ($\chi^2 = 10.19; df = 2; p = 0.0061$) (Table 4.18). Note, however, that the only significant contribution to these chi-square values is made by the overrepresentation of verb complement gerunds in the historical texts.

<table><caption>**Table 4.18.** Observed vs expected proportion of verb complement gerunds to the total number of gerunds in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>29 (13,62%)</td><td>17 (7,98%)</td><td>+2.83</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>47 (6,53%)</td><td>58 (8,06%)</td><td>-1.49</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>30 (8,00%)</td><td>30 (8,00%)</td><td>-0.07</td></tr></tbody></table>

The high proportion of verb complement gerunds in the historical texts is to be explained along the same lines as their high proportion in the Merovingian Latin period. Indeed, Fredegar's *Chronica* belongs to the group of historical texts. Hence, the fifteen verb complement gerunds in this text account for half of all instances in the historical corpus. Therefore, the high proportion of verb complement gerunds in the historical texts is most likely not characteristic of the language used in this thematic domain in general, but an idiosyncratic feature of the language in Fredegar's *Chronica*.

The frequency of the verb complement gerund in the three thematic domains will now be further examined in the light of its productivity. I measured the productivity of this type of gerund in function of the lexical variation between the gerund and the governing verb. Though the low absolute number of instances in the three thematic domains does not allow drawing firm conclusions about the productivity of the verb complement gerund, it is clear that this form is less productive in legal texts than in historical and religious texts (Table 4.19). This result is in line with that obtained for the adnominal gerund.