(126) [...] *fut* rois par covent Salemons son
be.PST.3SG king.SBJ.M.SG by arrangement.OBL.M.SG Salomon.SBJ.M.SG his.OBL.M.SG
père viv-ent.
father.OBL.M.SG live-V.ANT

'Salomon became king by arrangement during the life of his father.' (Bibl. Mac. Rois 1)

Hence, it comes as no surprise that the category of these *-ant* forms is highly controversial. For instance, Väänänen (1963³: 140) and Ménard (1973: 170, 173) take them as gerunds,<fnref n="42" /> while Buridant (2000: 324-327, 2019: 461-466) analyses them as present participles.<fnref n="43" /> Anglade (1958: 215-217) takes all absolute forms as gerunds, but does not mention the conjunct forms. As for Arnavielle (1984: 39), he argues that the absolute adjuncts are in theory gerunds, but that, from a diachronic perspective, “*le participe paraît remplacer ou du moins largement concurrencer le gérondif dans ces emplois*”. Confusingly, Buridant (2000: 324-327, 2019: 461-466) maintains the term ‘gerund’, but does not use this term as a categorial label referring to a specific category of non-finite verb forms, as in the grammatical tradition of Latin, but as a functional label referring to a sub-type of adjunct present participles, namely conjuncts. Indeed, when discussing forms like *plorant* ‘crying’ (123), he states that ‘*le participe présent est incident à un procès principal dont il marque une modalité secondaire*’ (Buridant 2000: 326, 2019: 466), and, commenting two concrete examples, he asserts:

> *Comme gérondif proprement dit, le participe déclare le procès comme contentant d'un autre procès, et constitue ainsi l'équivalent d'un adverbe qui aurait un caractère verbo-temporel.*

In view of the morphological merging of the gerund and the present participle and the resulting blurring of their categorial distinction, the use of the term ‘gerund’ as a functional label alongside that of ‘present participle’ as a categorial label does not clarify the grammatical description of the forms at stake. Rather, it testifies of the embarrassment caused by the morphological fusion of the two forms in Old French and of the difficulty to describe the resulting *-ant* forms in a clear and unambiguous way.

Noteworthy, some absolute adjunct *-ant* forms show signs of a partially grammaticalised status as prepositions (Klemenz 1884: 39; Stimming 1886: 157; Garner 1889: 136; Lerch 1912: 13; Foulet 1930: 98; Aspland 1968; Ménard 1973: 173; Buridant 2000: 325-326, 2019: 462-465). The forms cited

<footnote n="42">⁴² It should be noted that Väänänen (1963³: 140) is in the first place concerned with the evolution of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin. He discusses the evolution of these forms from Late Latin to Romance and in the individual Romance languages only very briefly, and inevitably too categorically in the case of Old French – where the complexity of this matter due to the morphological merging of the two forms requires a more comprehensive and nuanced discussion.</footnote>

<footnote n="43">⁴³ Combettes (2003: 8-9) alternates between the terms ‘present participle’ and ‘*-ant* forms’ in discussing conjunct adjunct forms. This might suggest that he takes the forms in issue as present participles. However, an explicit claim about the categorial status of these forms is lacking. He might, for instance, use these terms in a more or less synonymous, categorially neuter way. Hence, it is not clear whether he truly conceives of them as present participles.</footnote>
in the literature are built on the verbs *voir* ‘to see’ (127), *oir* ‘to hear’ (128), *pendre* ‘to hang’ (129),
*durer* ‘to last’ (130), and *entrer* ‘to enter’ (131).<fnref n="44" />

(127) **Ve-ant** els ad l' escrit
see-V.ANT they.OBJ.M.PL have.PRS.3SG ART.DEF.OBL.M.SG document.OBL.M.SG
el feu ardant geté.
in;ART.DEF.OBL.M.SG fire.OBL.M.SG burn.V.ANT throw.PTCP.PST

'He threw the document in the burning fire while they were watching.' (Guernes *Becket* 3539)

(128) Dunc fu lit li escriz oi-ant
so be.PST.3SG read.PTCP.PST ART.DEF.SBJ.M.SG document.SBJ.M.SG hear-V.ANT
tut le tropel.
all.OBL.M.SG ART.DEF.OBL.M.PL crowd.OBL.M.PL

'So the document was read while the whole crowd was listening.' (Guernes *Becket* 1006)

(129) Quant [...] il muert le plet pend-ant [...].
when he.SBJ.M.SG die.PRS.3SG ART.DEF.OBL.M.SG process.OBL.M.SG hang-V.ANT

'When he dies during the process (...).' (Ph. de Beau. *Coutumes* 225)

(130) [...] se ele le porte meins de .VII. mois
if she.SBJ.F.SG he.OBJ.M.SG carry.PRS.3SG less than seven month.OBL.M.PL
le mariage dur-ant [...].
ART.DEF.OBL.M.SG marriage.OBL.M.SG last-V.ANT

'If she carries it (an unborn child) for less than seven months during the marriage (...).' (Ph. de Beau. *Coutumes* 579)

(131) Entr-ant settenbre, a l' oisme di /
begin-V.ANT September.OBL.M.SG at ART.DEF.OBL.M.SG eighth.OBL.M.SG day.OBL.M.SG
Morut li reis [...].
die.PST.3SG ART.DEF.SBJ.M.SG king.SBJ.M.SG

'At the beginning of September, on the eighth day, the king died.' (Wace *Rou* 9223-9224)

The forms built on the verbs of visual perception *voir* ‘to see’ and auditory perception *oir* ‘to hear’ are
particularly intriguing from a typological point of view. In their prepositional use, the sensory value of
voir ‘to see’ and *oir* ‘to hear’ is backgrounded in favour of a more grammatical meaning. This meaning
consists of indicating the mere presence of their former subject during the realisation of the main state

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴ In Middle French (14th-16th c.), the prepositional use of -ant forms is also attested for *moyenner* ‘to serve as an intermediary’ and * toucher* ‘to touch’ (Aspland 1968: 164-165; Buridant 2000: 326). In the course of time, *moyennant* ‘by means of’ and *touchant* ‘concerning’ complete their grammaticalisation process and thus acquire full membership of the category of the preposition. They still have this status in Modern French. However, at this stage of the language, the use of the preposition *touchant* ‘concerning’ is obsolete and restricted to the literary language (Aspland 1968: 164-165; Buridant 2000: 326). In discussing the prepositional use of some -ant forms, Aspland (1968: 165) and Buridant (2000: 326) also mention the form *nonobstant* ‘notwithstanding’, which is “composed of *non* and *obstant* (< *obstare* , to stand in the way of)” (Aspland 1968: 165). However, this form cannot be considered an -ant form, in the first place because it lacks a corresponding finite verb due to the presence of the negative morpheme *non* (see the criterion proposed by Eklund 1970: 12-13). Moreover, the verb on which it is built exists in Latin, but does not survive in the transition to Old French. Hence, *nonobstant* ‘notwithstanding’ is built on a verb that no longer exists at the time of its formation, which violates another of Eklund’s (1970: 12) constraints.</footnote>
of affairs (Klemenz 1884: 39; Stimming 1886: 157; Garner 1889: 136; Lerch 1912: 13; Foulet 1930: 98; Aspland 1968: 155-156, 161; Buridant 2000: 325-326, 2019: 463-464). This meaning is also frequently conveyed by the preposition *devant* ‘before, in presence of’ (132), and a competition thus arises between this preposition and the -ant forms built on *voir* ‘to see’ and *oir* ‘to hear’ (Aspland 1968: 155; Buridant 2000: 325-326, 2019: 464).

(132) [...] l' *apeloit* *de traïson* / [...] *devant la* he.OBJ.M.SG accuse.PST.3SG of betrayal.OBL.F.SG before ART.DEF.OBL.F.SG gent.
people.OBL.F.SG
‘He accuses him of betrayal before the people.’ (Joufrois 270-271)

In the course of the 12th c., the competition between the forms of visual and auditory perception settles in favour of *voir* ‘to see’. This is evidenced, *inter alia*, by the fact that the -ant form is often built on *voir* ‘to see’ instead of *oir* ‘to hear’ in contexts where the main verb requires in principle an act of auditory perception (Aspland 1968: 155, 157). Witness (133): the verb *dirai* ‘(I) will say’ designates a declarative act, and hence one expects *oiant* ‘hearing’ instead of *voiant* ‘seeing’:

(133) [...] *je* *le* *vos* *dirai* **voi-ant** *toz* *cels*
I.SBJ.M.SG it.OBJ.N.SG you.OBL.M.PL tell.FUT.1SG see-V.ANT all.OBL.M.PL DEM.OBL.M.PL
de ceste place.
of DEM.OBL.F.SG place.OBL.F.SG
‘I will tell it to you in the presence of everyone who lives here.’ (Graal 17)

From the end of the 12th c. onward, the forms built on *voir* ‘to see’ and *oir* ‘to hear’ are both gradually replaced by the preposition *devant* ‘before’ (Aspland 1968: 155, 157, 164). This process is completed in Middle French (14th-16th c.), without leaving traces of prepositional uses of *voir* ‘to see’ and *oir* ‘to hear’ in subsequent stages of the language (Grandsaignes d’Hauterive 1947: 438, 580; Buridant 2000: 326, 2019: 464).

Regarding the forms built on *pendre* ‘to hang’ (129), their originally spatial meaning ‘hanging, being suspended’ shifts toward the temporal meaning ‘being suspended, being in progress’ by means of the space-to-time metaphor (Marchello-Nizia 2007: §2.3). This temporal meaning is equivalent to that of the -ant forms built on *durer* ‘to last’ (130), which generates another case of functional competition. In contrast with those built on *voir* ‘to see’ and *oir* ‘to hear’, the forms built on *pendre* ‘to hang’ and *durer* ‘to last’ finish their grammaticalisation process, and thus acquire full membership of the category of the preposition, though only in the Middle French period (Buridant 2000: 326, 2019: 464). The fully grammaticalised prepositions *pendant* ‘during’ and *durant* ‘during’ are still used concomitantly in contemporary French.
As to the forms built on *entrer* ‘to enter’ (131), in line with the lexical meaning of this verb, they denote the beginning of some period (Keller 1953: 338; Aspland 1968: 159; Buridant 2000: 325, 2019: 462-463). Like those built on *voir* ‘to see’ and *oir* ‘to hear’, the forms built on *entrer* ‘to enter’ do not complete their grammaticalisation process, and thus do not acquire full membership of the category of the preposition. Hence, their prepositional use is confined to Old French – it does not leave any traces in the subsequent stages of the language (Buridant 2000: 326).

Although the *-ant* forms built on *voir* ‘to hear’, *oir* ‘to hear’, and *entrer* ‘to enter’ do not complete their grammaticalisation process and although the forms built on *pendre* ‘to hang’ and *durer* ‘to last’ complete their grammaticalisation process only in Middle French, their use with prepositional features in Old French is unquestionable. This is manifest in instances like (134) and (135), where the constituent headed by *voiant* ‘seeing’ is respectively used in parallelism with the PP *devant mon tré* ‘before my tent’ (134) and in coordination with the PP *a celé* ‘in secret’ (135).

(134) [...] **Voi-ant** mes gens, devant mon tré/
see-V.ANT my.OBL.F.SG people.OBL.F.SG before my.OBL.M.SG tent.OBL.M.SG
Ma parole en sera tenue [...].
my.SBJ.F.SG word.SBJ.F.SG INCH be.FUT.3SG hold_as_true.PTCP.PST.F.SG
‘In the presence of my men, before my tent, my word will begin to be held as true.’ (Chr. de Troyes *Perceval* 2252-2253)

(135) *Sovent viennent a parlement/* Et a celé et voi-ant
often come.PRS.3PL to parliament.OBL.M.SG and in hide.PTCP.PST and see-V.ANT
gent.
people.OBL.F.SG
‘They often come to the parliament, both in secret and in public (lit. ‘and with everyone looking’).’
(Bér. *Tristan* 577-578)

The prepositional use of these forms is also apparent from other factors. However, since this use is not at the center of this thesis, these factors will not be further investigated.<fnref n="45" /> Since they are not full members of the category of the preposition in Old French, these forms are still analysable as absolute adjuncts (cf. Halmøy 2013: 278 for equivalent forms in Modern French). This is how they will be taken in this thesis.

As in the case of conjunct and absolute adjunct *-ant* forms without prepositional features, the issue of the category of absolute adjuncts with prepositional features is controversial. For instance, the forms built on *voir* ‘to see’ and *oir* ‘to hear’ are analysed as gerunds by some authors (e.g. Klemenz 1884: 36; Stimming 1886: 545; Garner 1889: 135-138; Brunot 1922: 465; Meyer-Lübke 1923: 553-561; Škerlj 1926: 139; Lyer 1931, 1934: 244, 258; Veenstra 1946: 48; Aalto 1951: 145-157; Anglade 1958: 216;

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵ For an overview and discussion of these factors, see Aspland (1968), who focuses on the forms built on the perception verbs *voir* ‘to see’ and *oir* ‘to hear’.</footnote>
Aspland 1968: 154-155; Ménard 1973: 173), but as present participles by others (Diez 1843⁴: 957-958; Mercier 1879: 25; Etienne 1895: 310; Lerch 1912: 13, 1915: 481; Weerenbeck 1927: 145; Buridant 2000: 325-326, 2019: 461-466). The main argument of the latter analysis is the frequent use of the Late Latin present participle in absolute adjuncts, which is claimed to be the source of the prepositional use of Old French -ant forms. However, Aspland (1968: 154-155) rejects this hypothesis on the basis of morphological grounds. He notes that the overwhelming majority of these forms have the precise ending -ant, even in contexts where one expects the agreeing ending -anz (Aspland 1968: 154-155).<fnref n="46" /> Veant 'seeing' (127) is a case in point: as a present participle, it should agree with the pronoun els 'they' and thus take the ending -anz, but instead of this ending, it has the non-agreeing ending -ant. Since this invariable ending is characteristic of the gerund, Aspland (1968: 154-155) argues that these forms are gerunds. However, as mentioned earlier (§2.2.1), the Old French present participle also evolves toward morphological invariability. For this reason, the morphological criterion put forward by Aspland (1968: 154-155) is unreliable. Does this mean that the forms in question are categorially indeterminate?

As for the previous types of -ant forms, the external syntax of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin might be conclusive, provided again that the gerund and the present participle do not encroach on each other's distribution in either the transition from Late Latin to Old French or during the Old French period itself. In Late Latin, absolute adjunct present participles often display prepositional features, as clearly evidenced by *faciente* 'doing' (136): the ablative singular ending -iente of this form is at odds with the accusative plural ending of the noun that functions as its subject, *viz.* *interregna* 'time between two reigns' (Galdi 2019: 96).

(136) [...] *quae* unus de fidelibus ac leodebus [...] REL.ACC.N.PL one.NOM.M.SG among follower.ABL.M.PL and subject.ABL.M.PL *interrigna* facie-nt-e visus est time-between_kings.ACC.N.PL do-PTCP.PRS-ABL.N.SG see.PTCP.PST.NOM.M.SG be.PRS.3SG *perdidisse* [...]. lose.INF.PST

'(...) which (possessions) one of his followers and subjects is seen to have lost because of the time between two reigns' (*Edict. Chloth*. p. 285)

By contrast, no instances have been reported of Late Latin absolute adjunct gerunds with prepositional features. Hence, it could be argued that all Old French -ant forms with prepositional features are present participles. However, none of these forms is a full member of the category of the preposition, but remains in essence an absolute adjunct. Therefore, they cannot be simply taken as present participles, since the Late Latin gerund can just as well occur in absolute adjuncts (Elss 1907: 46; Flinck-Linkomies 1924:

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶ Of the 101 forms built on *voir* 'to see' and the 58 built on *oir* 'to hear' included in the Old French corpus of Aspland (1968: 155), the exact ending -ant is taken by respectively 98 and 50 instances.</footnote>
219; Odelstierna 1926: 58; Weerenbeck 1927: 169; Biese 1928: 91; Svennung 1935: 425; Aalto 1949: 80-82; Väänänen 1963³: 141; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 144, 380; Aspland 1968: 155; Kooreman 1989: 221; Maltby 2002: 223; Adams 2013: 736-739; Pinkster 2021: §16.95). Moreover, the Late Latin present participles for which a prepositional use has been recognised are built on different verbs than the Old French *-ant* forms. It is therefore not excluded that the Old French forms with a semi-prepositional status originate by grammaticalisation from absolute adjunct gerunds instead of present participles (Aspland 1968: 153, 155). They might even have multiple sources (*cf*. Van de Velde *et al*. 2015: 1), some going back to absolute adjunct gerunds, and others to absolute adjunct present participles. As in the case of conjunct and absolute adjuncts without prepositional features, the category of these forms can therefore not be established with absolute certainty.

To sum up, all adjunct *-ant* forms in Old French are categorially indeterminate, except the ones governed by a preposition (> gerunds) or displaying an inflectional variant of the ending *-ant* (> present participles).

### 2.2.2.3. The verbal -ant form

Finally, the Old French *-ant* form can have the external syntax of a verb. In this case, it serves as the main verb of a progressive or presentative progressive construction. Witness *chantant* 'singing' (137) and *ourant* 'praying' (138): in (137), *chantant* 'singing' forms with the verb *ert* 'he was' a verbal periphrasis designating a durative state of affairs (Gougenheim 1929; Anglade 1958: 215-216; Ménard 1973: 171-172; Buridant 2000: 357-358, 2019: 517-519; Combettes 2003: 8-9); in (138), *ourant* 'praying' combines with the pronoun *le* 'him' and the verb of visual perception *trouvai* 'I found', this pattern expressing a durative state of affairs introduced in the universe of discourse as a new information, viz. as a thetic information unit (Vangaever 2021).

(137) *Un prestres ert messe chant-ant.*
ART.INDF.SBJ.M.SG priest.SBJ.M.SG be.PST.3SG Mass.OBL.F.SG sing-V.ANT
'A priest was singing the Mass.' (Adg. *Mir.* 9.1)

(138) [...] *A genous le trouvai our-ant [...].*
on knee.OBL.M.PL he.OBJ.M.SG find.PST.3SG pray-V.ANT
'I found him praying on his knees.' (Bodel *Nicolas* 511)

These two uses of the *-ant* form will be explored in respectively §2.2.2.3.1 and §2.2.2.3.2.
2.2.2.3.1. *-Ant* forms used in a progressive construction

In Old French, -ant forms acting as the main verb of a progressive construction cannot only be combined with être 'to be' as the progressive marker, but also with a motion verb (Gougenheim 1929; Aspland 1971; Buridant 2000: 357, 2019: 517-518; Combettes 2003: 8-9; Schøsler 2004, 2005, 2007; Becker 2005).<fnref n="47" /> For instance, *cerchant* 'pursuing' (139) and *siglant* 'sailing' (140) form a progressive verbal periphrasis with respectively *alot* 'he went' and *vindrent* 'they came'.

(139) *Forment* **alot** *Romeins* **cerch-ant** [...].
vigorously go.PST.3SG Roman.OBL.M.PL pursue-V.ANT
‘He went vigorously pursuing the Romans.’ (Wace *Brut* 12833)

(140) [...] *A Toteneis vindrent sigl-ant* [...].
to Totnes come.PST.3PL sail-V.ANT
‘They came sailing to Totnes.’ (Wace *Brut* 14345)

As in Late Latin, the degree of grammaticalisation of the motion verbs is often low, especially when they combine with an -ant form denoting a movement itself (Buridant 2000: 357, 2019: 517; Combettes 2003: 8-9; Becker 2005: 313-314; Vangaever & Carlier 2020: 251). *Vindrent* ‘they came’ (140) and *aller* ‘to go’ (141), combined with respectively *siglant* ‘sailing’ and *najant* ‘swimming’, are cases in point, as will be demonstrated below.

(141) [...] car il a travaillé 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)

*Vindrent* ‘they came’ (140) and *aller* ‘to go’ (141) undoubtedly have a progressive value: they present the state of affairs denoted by *siglant* ‘sailing’ (140) and *najant* ‘swimming’ (141) as durative, or at least evoke a “*dilatation temporelle qui représente le déroulement de l’action au ralenti*” (Becker 2005: 313-314; see also Lapaire & Rotgé 1998: 421). They behave in this regard like *ert* ‘he was’ (137) and *alot* ‘he went’ (139), and hence *vindrent siglant* ‘they came sailing’ (140) and *aller najant* ‘to go swimming’ (141) can indeed be analysed as progressive constructions. However, the combination of *vindrent* ‘they came’ (140) and *aller* ‘to go’ (141) with an -ant form built on another motion verb reactivates their lexical meaning, which is therefore less backgrounded than in the case of *alot* ‘he went’ (139) and

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷ In the transition from Late Latin to Old French, the verb *esse* ‘to be’ and the posture verb *stare* ‘to stand’ survive as two distinct verbs, namely *être* ‘to be’ (or *estre*) and *ester* ‘to stand’. However, some of their forms merge morphologically, leading to a situation of lexical indeterminacy. Following convention, all forms in issue will be taken as forms of *être* ‘to be’, all the more because no instances have been reported of progressive constructions with an auxiliary that can undoubtedly be considered a form of *ester* ‘to stand’.</footnote>
especially *ert* ‘he was’ (137) (Anglade 1958: 172; Buridant 2000: 357, 2019: 517; Becker 2005: 313-314; Vangaever & Carlier 2020: 251). As a matter of fact, the reactivation of this lexical meaning gives rise to a division of labor: *vindrent* ‘they came’ (140) and *aller* ‘to go’ (141) serve as directional verbs marking a move away from or closer to a given landmark, whereas *siglant* ‘sailing’ (140) and *najant* ‘swimming’ (141) specify the manner of the movement (cf. Anglade 1958: 172; Arnavielle 1984: 39; Buridant 2000: 357, 2019: 517; Combettes 2003: 8-9; Becker 2005: 313-314; Vangaever & Carlier 2020: 251). *Vindrent siglant* ‘they came sailing’ (140) and *aller najant* ‘to go swimming’ (141) behave in this respect like ‘satellite-framed constructions’ (Talmy 1985, 2000; Schøsler 2008), so that *siglant* ‘sailing’ and *najant* ‘swimming’ can also be taken as conjunct adjuncts. However, following most authors (e.g. Gougenheim 1929; Anglade 1958: 215-216; Ménard 1973: 172; Becker 2005: 313-314; Vangaever & Carlier 2020: 251), forms like *siglant* ‘sailing’ (140) and *najant* ‘swimming’ (141) will nonetheless be analysed as the main verb of a progressive construction, not only because the accompanying motion verbs also have a progressive value, but also because these verbs often show other signs of a grammaticalised status, like a reduced or even entirely lost argument structure. I will return to this point in Chapter 3 (§3.5.4), where the distinction between conjunct adjuncts and progressive constructions will be investigated in detail.

While some motion verbs have a low degree of grammaticalisation, others have a high or even maximal degree of grammaticalisation. Witness (142), in which the subject of *aluignant* ‘lengthening’ and *acurzant* ‘shortening’ is inanimate, so that *vunt* ‘they go’ cannot be taken as a lexical verb denoting physical movement. Indeed, it can only be analysed as an auxiliary grammaticalised in the expression of the progressive aspect, and thus a marker of metaphorical movement, in particular movement in time:

(142) 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 are lengthening and the nights shortening.’ (Ph. de Thaon *Comput* 379-380)

With respect to the category of the *-ant* forms, it is in principle indeterminate for all forms having the exact ending *-ant*. Indeed, in Late Latin, the gerund and the present participle can both be used as the main verb of a progressive construction, and hence there is no objective argument for categorising Old French forms having the ending *-ant* as either gerunds or present participles. Nonetheless, some authors take an explicit stand in this debate. These scholars can be divided in three groups. The first group takes all forms as present participles, irrespective of whether the auxiliary is *être* ‘to be’ or a motion verb (e.g. Buridant 2000: 357-358, 2019: 517-519).<fnref n="48" /> By contrast, the second group of authors analyses all forms as gerunds, also irrespective of the type of the auxiliary (e.g. Aalto 1973: 73). According to the third and

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸ The position of Combettes (2003: 8-9) is similar as for the conjunct adjunct forms (see fn. 43 in §2.2.2.2).</footnote>
largest group, some forms are present participles, while others hold as gerunds (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). Interestingly, the category of the -ant forms is held to depend on the type of auxiliary: the forms combined with être 'to be' are taken as present participles, while those combined with a motion verb are considered gerunds.<fnref n="49" /> However, this third hypothesis is equally speculative as the former two, since the Late Latin gerund and present participle can both form a progressive construction with the two types of auxiliaries. The resulting categorial indeterminacy is explicitly recognised by Becker (2005: 311) for the forms combined with venir 'to come', as apparent from the very first sentence of his paper:

> Dans cet article nous nous concentrerons sur les périphrases de mouvement associées au mode quasi-nominal (le participe ou le gérondif selon la nomenclature) en français et en italien.

In the footnote accompanying this opening sentence, Becker (2005: 311) only mentions Riegel *et al.* (1994⁴: 253), who take all forms involved as present participles. Following these authors, Becker (2005) categorises as present participles all forms having the exact ending -ant and combined with a motion verb, without pronouncing himself on the category of the forms combined with être 'to be' (in line with the scope of his paper). It is almost anecdotal that, while systematically speaking of these instances as present participles in the running text of his paper, he writes "*Venir + gérondif en ancien français*" in the heading of the very first section dealing with them (p. 313). This and similar observations elsewhere clearly demonstrate that the category of these forms is indeterminate, which makes category assignment inconsistencies of the type just illustrated perhaps even inevitable. In order to avoid such inconsistencies, Vangaever & Carlier (2020) use the purely formal label '*formes verbales en -ant*' without taking position in the delicate debate of their category.

This categorical indeterminacy also holds for graphical/phonetic variants of the forms in issue, like *firend* 'beating' and *desfazend* 'destroying' (143) or *parlan* 'speaking' and *annuncian* 'announcing' (144).

(143) [...] de dobpla corda ·lz vai fir-end, tot
with double.OBL.F.SG rope.OBL.F.SG he.OBJ.M.SG go.PRS.3SG beat-V.ANT all.OBL.M.SG
lor marched vai desfaz-end.
their.OBL.M.SG market.OBL.M.SG go.PRS.3SG destroy-V.ANT
'He is beating them with a double rope, he is destroying their whole market.' (*Passion* 75-76)

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹ Arnavielle (1984: 39) adopts an even more complex categorisation. He analyses as present participles all forms combined with *être* 'to be', on the one hand, and all forms combined with a motion verb and having an inflectional variant of the ending *-ant*, on the other. By contrast, he takes as gerunds all forms combined with a motion verb and having the invariant ending *-ant*.</footnote>
(144) *Per* *toz* *lengatges* *van* **parl-an**, *las*
through all.OBL.M.PL language.OBL.M.PL go.PRS.3PL speak-V.ANT ART.DEF.OBL.F.PL
*virtuz* *Crist* *van* **annunci-an** [...].
virtue.OBL.F.PL Christ.OBL.M.SG go.PRS.3PL announce-V.ANT

‘They are speaking in all languages, they are announcing the virtues of Christ.’ (Passion 481-482)

By contrast, forms having an inflectional variant of the ending -ant can be taken as present participles, on the assumption that the gerund remains morphologically invariable and does not occasionally agree with its subject by analogy to the present participle (Aravielle 1984: 40; see also §2.2.1).<fnref n="50" /> An example of an inflected form is *muianz* ‘mooing’ (145): it agrees with its pro-dropped feminine plural subject, and thus takes the ending -anz instead of the non-agreeing ending -ant.

(145) **Mui-anz** *pur lur* *véels* *alerent* [...].
moo-V.ANT.SBJ.F.PL for their.OBL.M.PL calf.ABL.M.PL go.PST.3PL

‘They were mooing for their calves.’ (Rois 13)

With respect to prepositional forms used as the main verb of a progressive construction, they could in principle be categorised as gerunds, unless the present participle encroaches on the morphology of the gerund either between Late Latin and Old French or within the period of Old French itself. However, the scientific literature does not provide examples of prepositional forms in Old French. In contemporary French, on the contrary, their existence is undeniable. A case in point is the form *en augmentant* ‘rising’ in structures like *les prix vont en augmentant* ‘the prices are rising’ (*cf*. Vangaever & Carlier 2020).<fnref n="51" />

### 2.2.2.3.2. *-Ant* forms used in a presentative progressive construction

The final use of Old French -ant forms to be discussed is their use in a presentative progressive construction. This is a construction containing a more or less grammaticalised presentative marker, a NP and an -ant form. The presentative marker may be realised by a verb of visual perception (e.g. *voit* ‘he saw’ (146)), a verb of auditory perception (e.g. *oïrent* ‘they heard’ (147)), the presentative *ès* ‘behold’ or a graphical or phonetic variant of this form (e.g. (148)), or an (impersonal) third person form of the verb *avoir* ‘to have’ (e.g. *out* ‘there was’ (149)) (Vangaever 2021).

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰ According to Aravielle (1984: 40), this type of forms are present participles encroaching on the distribution of the gerund.</footnote>

<footnote n="51">⁵¹ The question whether *en* ‘while’ still holds as a preposition in Modern French is subject to debate. Some authors regard it as the gerund marker, having lost its original prepositional force (e.g. Halmøy 2003: 62-63, 2013: 275; Begioni & Rocchetti 2010: 81-83). In Old French, in contrast, the status of *en* ‘in’ as a preposition is uncontroversial.</footnote>
(146) [...] *le* **resgarda**, et quant il *le* voit
he.OBJ.M.SG watch.PST.3SG and when he.SBJ.M.SG he.OBJ.M.SG see.PRS.3SG
**atend-ant** devant *la* porte [...] *li* dist [...].
wait-V.ANT before ART.DEF.OBL.F.SG door.OBL.F.SG he.SBJ.M.SG say.PRS.3SG
‘He watched him, and when he sees him waiting before the door, he says (...).’ (Graal 325)

(147) [...] *quant oïrent* *le* païsant / « Fuiez, fuiez,
when hear.PST.3PL ART.DEF.OBL.M.PL peasant.OBL.M.PL flee.IMP.PRS.2PL flee.IMP.PRS.2PL
fuiez » **dis-ant** [...].
flee.IMP.PRS.2PL say-V.ANT

‘When they heard the peasants say: “Flee, flee, flee” (...).’ (J. de Meun Rose 14807-14808)

(148) Ez Bricaudel par *la* ville **cri-ant** [...].
behold Bricaudel through ART.DEF.OBL.F.SG city.OBL.F.SG shout-V.ANT
‘There is Bricaudel shouting through the city.’ (Ami 2378)

(149) Une *corune* d' *or* out *a la*
ART.INDF.OBL.F.SG crown.OBL.F.SG of gold.OBL.M.SG have.PST.3SG at ART.DEF.OBL.F.SG
*croiz* **pend-ant** [...].
cross.OBL.F.SG hang-V.ANT

‘There was hanging a golden crown at the cross.’ (Guernes Becket 6101)

As mentioned in §1.3.2.2.7 with respect to Classical Latin, my analysis of this type of *-ant* forms differs from their analysis in the grammatical tradition of French (for Old French, see, e.g. Klemenz 1884: 12; Stimming 1886: 550; Mönch 1912: 137, 168; Škerlj 1926: 91, 215; Lyer 1934: 217; Veenstra 1946: 24; Arnavielle 1984: 39; Buridant 2000: 327, 2019: 467-468; Combettes 2003: 9; for Modern French, see, e.g., Halmøy 2013: 279-280). In this tradition, the forms at stake are analysed as object predicates. However, since they do not assign a property to the referent of their subject NP, but rather denote a durative state of affairs in which this referent is involved at some point in time, they have a verbal instead of an adjectival force.<fnref n="52" /> Hence, their analysis as object predicates is untenable – at least in view of how this type of constituents are defined in this thesis (see §1.3.2.2.3).<fnref n="53" />

Notice that discussions of these forms in the literature are typically restricted to forms combined with a perception verb, whereas those combined with the presentative ès ‘behold’ or avoir ‘to have’ are given no or only little attention. The lack of attention for the latter might be due to their extremely low absolute frequency (Vangaever 2021), but also to the fact that they cannot possibly be taken as object predicates. Hence, they indirectly challenge the analysis of their structurally equivalent forms combined with a perception verb. By contrast, the -ant forms combined with the presentative ès ‘behold’ can in

<footnote n="52">⁵² Note that the state of affairs performed by the subject NP may be static (e.g. (146/149) or dynamic (e.g. (147/148)).</footnote>

<footnote n="53">⁵³ Focusing on complexes of a NP and an -ant form combined with a perception verb or the presentative ès ‘behold’, Aspland (1974) defends the same analysis as that usually adopted for the equivalent constructions in Latin (see §1.3.2.2.6). He thus analyses the NP and the -ant form as a complement clause functioning as the direct object of the perception verb or the presentative, the latter being analysed in this respect as a true predicate.</footnote>
theory be analysed as object predicates, but only when the presentative is taken as a true predicate and
the accompanying NP as its direct object. In this case, the presentative is structurally equivalent to an
imperative form of the verb *voir* 'to see', like *veez* 'see' or *vez* 'see' (Aspland 1974: 15; Buridant 2000:
537). However, another analysis of *ès* 'behold' is available: it can be considered as a purely grammatical
marker (i.e. as a non-predicative element), and the accompanying NP as a true subject (Buridant 2000:
537). In this analysis, the *-ant* form cannot be taken an object predicate. The analysis adopted in this
study and elaborated in more detail in Vangaever (2021) has the advantage of being applicable to the
three types of *-ant* forms (those combined with a perception verb, with the presentative *ès* 'behold', and
with *avoir* 'to have'). It thus presents a unified account of what appear to be 'allostructions', that is,
"variant structural realisations of a construction that is left partially underspecified" (Cappelle 2006:
18).

It goes without saying that not all *-ant* forms combined with a NP and a perception verb, the presentative *ès* 'behold', or *avoir* 'to have' function as the main verb of a presentative progressive construction. When they do not denote a durative state of affairs, but assign instead a property to the referent of their subject, they act instead as object predicates. This is the case in (150): *verdoiant* '(being) green' assigns the feature [+green] to the referent of the direct object pronoun *le* 'it' through the act of visual perception denoted by *vit* 'she saw' – the referent of this pronoun corresponds to the crown of the tree in the Garden of Eden from which Eve unwittingly took an apple.

(150) [...] *quant* [...] *ele* vit le raim, [...] *s*'
when she.SBJ.F.SG see.PST.3SG ART.DEF.OBL.M.SG branch.OBL.M.SG REFL.OBJ.F.SG
*aperçut* por ce que ele le vit
notice.PST.3SG for DEM.OBL.N.SG that she.SBJ.F.SG it.OBJ.M.SG see.PST.3SG
*verdoi-ant* [...].
be.green-V.ANT

‘When she saw the branch, she noticed that she saw it being verdant.’ (Graal 247)

It should also be noted that the perception verbs used in a presentative progressive construction have a relatively low degree of grammaticalisation. This is evident from the fact that their lexical sensory value is usually not evicted by their grammatical meaning, but rather co-exists with it as a backgrounded value (*cf*. Hopper’s 1991: 22 notion of ‘persistence’; see also Heine 2002: 86). Recall that this grammatical value consists of presenting the state of affairs designated by the *-ant* form as all-new, *viz.* as a thetic information unit. Such persistence also holds for the evidential value of the perception verb, which is intrinsically related to its sensory value and which is also more or less backgrounded depending on the discourse context (Vangaever 2021). This evidential value has been acknowledged by Greco (2013: 179-180) and Zheltova (2017: 317-319) for Latin, but it also holds for Old French (and other languages with a similar construction). Witness (146) and (147), where *voit* ‘he saw’ (146) and *oïrent* ‘they heard’
(147) also express the source of the information encoded by *atendant* ‘waiting’ (146) and *disant* ‘saying’ (147).

Let us finally examine the category of the *-ant* forms. In Late Latin, the main verb of a presentative progressive construction can be realised by a present participle, but not by the gerund. Hence, the Old French forms used in this construction can in theory be analysed as present participles, at least if one assumes that the gerund does not encroach on the distribution of the present participle, neither in the transition from Late Latin to Old French, nor during the Old French period itself. However, empirical evidence suggests that the gerund does acquire this function, because some Old French *-ant* forms used as the main verb of a presentative progressive construction are governed by the preposition *en* ‘in’ (e.g. the coordinated forms *estant* ‘standing’ and *encensant* ‘spreading incense’ (151)). Since only the Late Latin gerund can be prepositional, these Old French forms can thus be categorised as such, unless the present participle becomes compatible with prepositions.

(151) [...] *truvád* le rei Jeroboam tut en **est-ant** é
find.PST.3SG ART.DEF.OBL.M.SG king.OBL.M.SG Jerboa all in stand-V.ANT and
*cel* altel avúiltre **encens-ant**.
DEM.OBL.M.SG altar.OBL.M.SG wicked.OBL.M.SG burn_incense-V.ANT

'He found King Jerboa while standing and burning incense on that wicked altar.' (Rois 142)

Nonetheless, some authors take all forms in question as present participles (Klemenz 1884: 12-13; Lerch 1912: 70; Buridant 2000: 327, 2019: 467-468; Combettes 2003: 9). This analysis is coherent with their traditional analysis as object predicates, a use accessible to the Late Latin present participle, but not to the gerund. Buridant (2000: 327, 2019: 467) takes even the prepositional forms as present participles, thus assuming that the present participle encroaches on the distribution of the gerund.<fnref n="54" /> Unlike Buridant, some authors analyse all forms in issue as gerunds (e.g. Diez 1843⁴: 261; Garner 1889: 426-427; Lyer 1934: 217-236; Ménard 1973: 172-173). A third and final group of scholars opt for a hybrid hypothesis, taking some forms as gerunds, but others as present participles (Stimming 1886: 550-552; Mönch 1912: 137-139, 142-143, 168, 170; Škerlj 1926: 91-92, 219; Veenstra 1946: 24-29, 67; Aspland 1974). For instance, Aspland (1974) regards the forms with the invariant ending -ant as gerunds, but those with an inflectional variant of this ending as present participles.<fnref n="55" />

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴ Buridant (2000: 327, 2019: 467) remains implicit about the implications of this analysis for the categorial distinction between the gerund and the present participle. Indeed, in his discussion of prepositional forms like those in (151), he simply states that “*la distinction formelle entre participe present et gérondif n’est pas pertinente en ancien français, la préposition en pouvant accompagner ou non le participe*”. However, he does not determine the theoretical impact of this morphological fusion of the gerund and the present participle on their categorial distinction.</footnote>

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵ As noted in the running text, Ménard (1973: 172-173) categorises all *-ant* forms concerned as gerunds. However, in a remark about the forms with an inflectional variant of the ending *-ant*, he states that “*on ne saurait dire si l’on a affaire originellement à un gérondif ou à un participe present*”. In other words, he recognises the categorial indeterminacy of these forms, but not of those having the invariant ending *-ant*.</footnote>
2.2.2.4. Conclusion

As in the case of the gerund and present participle in Late Latin, the external syntax of the Old French -ant form is diverse. It can occur in adnominal phrases, subject and object predicates, adjuncts, progressive constructions, and presentative progressive constructions. These uses are far from equally frequent (Aspland 1968: 153), but since corpus-based studies of the external syntax of this form in Old French are currently lacking, hypotheses about their relative frequency are speculative. Consequently, it is impossible to determine the external syntactic profile of the Old French -ant form, and, as a corollary, its morphosyntactic and typological profile. It can only be pointed out that this form has uses characteristic of three categories, i.e. the adjective, the adverb, and the verb – without knowing their relative weight –, and that the former two types fall respectively under Haspelmath’s (1995: 4) participle and converb types of non-finite verb forms (the verbal uses are excluded from this classification). One of the aims of the empirical part of this study is to explore the frequency of the different uses of the -ant form in a diachronic corpus of Old French texts (Chapter 6).

The previous sections have also investigated to which extent the external syntax of the Old French -ant form is a useful criterion to identify its category. Under the assumption that the gerund and the present participle do not encroach on each other's distribution between Late Latin and Old French nor within the period of Old French itself, all -ant forms used in adnominal phrases, subject and object predicates, and presentative progressive constructions can be considered present participles, while those used in adjuncts and progressive constructions are categorially indeterminate. Thus, the degree of categorial indeterminacy of the -ant form depends on the combined relative frequency of adjunct forms and forms used in a progressive construction. However, as mentioned above, corpus-based studies of the external syntax of the -ant form are currently lacking. Hence, its degree of indeterminacy is unknown. As such, it is not clear whether the categorial indeterminacy of the Old French -ant form is a minor or a major problem, that is, whether it applies to a small or large number of instances. The empirical part of this thesis aims to measure this degree of categorial indeterminacy on the basis of quantitative evidence, and to evaluate the impact of the morphological merging of the gerund and the present participle on their categorial distinction in the light of this degree of indeterminacy. The question as to how this distinction in Old French has been dealt with in the scientific literature will be explored in the following section.

2.2.3. Categorial distinction between the gerund and the present participle

The preceding sections have shown that the gerund and the present participle become morphologically
partly identical in the transition from Late Latin to Old French, and that this process of morphological
merging is gradually completed during the Old French period (Ménard 1973: 170; Harris 1978: 200; Arnavielle 1984: 40). The two types of non-finite verbs evolve toward morphological invariability, their inflectional ending -ant being directly attached to a verb’s present stem. This morphological merging of the gerund and the present participle blurs their categorial distinction (Ménard 1973: 169; Harris 1978: 200; De Smet 2014: 39-40; Bazin-Tacchella 2020: 852), and the resulting categorial indeterminacy can only be resolved for some forms. The criteria allowing to categorise -ant forms as either gerunds or present participles concern their morphology and external syntax (Arnavielle 1984: 38), but they are little reliable because they are based on the assumption that the gerund and the present participle do not exhibit morphological and/or distributional exchange, neither in the transition from Late Latin to Old French, nor within the period of Old French itself. Yet, this assumption is problematic, since empirical evidence suggests that such encroachment does take place (cf. De Smet 2014: 40). This holds for the three criteria that can be invoked to categorise Old French -ant forms, namely the presence of a preposition, their inflectional ending, and their syntactic use (cf. Arnavielle 1984: 38; De Smet 2014: 39-40). The aim of this section is to identify the issues raised by these criteria, and to determine their implications for the categorial distinction between the gerund and the present participle.

In theory, all prepositional -ant forms can be taken as gerunds, because in Late Latin, only the gerund can be prepositional (Anglade 1958: 217; Ménard 1973: 173-175; Harris 1978: 199; Arnavielle 1984: 38-39; Jensen 1990: 322; De Smet 2014: 39). However, this argument raises a problem for two groups of prepositional -ant forms. On the one hand, some instances have an inflectional variant of the ending -ant, which is unexpected for gerunds (e.g. *enhortanz* ‘encouraging’ (115)). As mentioned in §2.2.1, such inflected forms can be analysed in two opposite ways: either they are gerunds encroaching on the morphology of the present participle by virtue of agreeing with a noun, or they are prepositional present participles, *viz.* forms encroaching on the distribution of the gerund. On the other hand, some prepositional forms are used in a way accessible to the Late Latin present participle, but not to the Late Latin gerund (e.g. *en estant* ‘standing’ and *en encensant* ‘spreading incense’ (151)). Again, two analyses are available: either they are gerunds encroaching on the distribution of the present participle, or they are present participles encroaching on the morphology of the gerund, in particular prepositional present participles. Whatever their analysis, the forms at stake indicate that there is at least some morphological and/or distributional exchange between the gerund and the present participle. This makes their categorial distinction even more blurred. This issue further suggests that the first criterion, *i.e.* the presence of a preposition, is not plainly reliable, as already mentioned in §2.2.1.

The same conclusion can be drawn for the second criterion, namely the inflectional ending of the -ant form. The Late Latin source of the Old French gerund, *i.e.* the ablative gerund, is formally invariable, while the Late Latin source of the Old French present participle agrees with a noun in case, gender, and number. Therefore, Old French verb forms having an inflectional variant of the ending -ant can in principle be considered present participles. However, this argument is questionable for two groups
of forms. As pointed out with respect to the previous criterion, some *-ant* forms agree with a noun while being governed by a preposition (e.g. *enhortanz* ‘encouraging’ (115)). These instances are to be taken as either prepositional present participles, thus as forms encroaching on the distribution of the gerund, or as prepositional gerunds encroaching on the morphology of the present participle. Conversely, a vast number of occurrences have the non-agreeing ending *-ant* in syntactic contexts from which the gerund is excluded, and in which an agreeing present participle is expected (e.g. the adnominal form *brunisant* ‘shining’ (114)). This latter type of forms can also be analysed in two opposite ways: either as present participles encroaching on the morphology of the gerund and thus taking the invariable ending *-ant*, or as gerunds encroaching on the distribution of the present participle. Anyhow, we need to assume at least some cases of formal and/or distributional exchange between the gerund and the present participle, and thus of categorial overlap or blurring. The diachronic shift of the present participle toward the invariable ending *-ant* further stimulates this categorial blurring. In view of the preceding remarks, agreement is far from being a reliable criterion to categorise Old French *-ant* forms, a claim also made by Buridant (2000: 324; 2019: 461). Its reliability decreases even over time, as the present participle tends to become morphologically invariable.

Like the morphological criteria just discussed, the external syntax of the Old French *-ant* form is little reliable (Aspland 1968: 152). In Late Latin, the gerund has some uses that are inaccessible to the present participle, and *vice versa*, but the two forms also share uses. In principle, Old French *-ant* forms used in a way inaccessible to the Late Latin gerund can be categorised as present participles, and, conversely, forms used in a way inaccessible to the Late Latin present participle can be taken as gerunds. However, as apparent from the previous paragraphs, some of these occurrences are nonetheless indeterminate, due to morphological reasons. This conflict between the form and the function of these instances indicates that morphological merging and distributional encroachment between the gerund and the present participle does take place. As for the forms used in a way accessible to both the Late Latin gerund and present participle, they are by definition indeterminate. On the whole, the external syntax of Old French *-ant* forms is therefore an under-effective criterion for determining their category.

In sum, none of the criteria is conclusive for categorising Old French *-ant* forms. Even a combination of morphological and syntactic criteria is often not decisive. Since the best way to define linguistic categories is on the basis of morphological and syntactic criteria (Trask 1999: 281; Aarts 2007: 2; Pullum 2009: 257), the lack of decisive arguments of precisely these types suggests that the categorial distinction between the gerund and the present participle is suspended. As expected in cases where the criteria for category assignment are not conclusive and where the distinction between two categories is blurred, the categorial distinction between the Old French gerund and present participle has been dealt with in two opposite ways. This opposition is in line with a more general opposition between two types of approaches toward categorisation, viz. the ‘splitting approach’ and the ‘lumping approach’ (Croft 2001: 32). The next two sections will discuss successively the ‘Splitter Hypothesis’ (§2.2.3.1) and the
‘Lumper Hypothesis’ (§2.2.3.2) of the distinction between the gerund and the present participle in Old French.

### 2.2.3.1. Splitter Hypothesis

The advocates of the Splitter Hypothesis claim that the gerund and the present participle exist in Old French as two distinct categories of non-finite verb forms, just like in (Late) Latin (Gougenheim 1929; Anglade 1958: 215-217; Väänänen 1963³: 140-141; Ménard 1973: 169-175; Harris 1978: 199-201; Arnavielle 1982, 1984: 38, 1997; Jensen 1990: 322-334; Buridant 2000: 324-327, 2019: 461-469).<fnref n="56" /> They implicitly or explicitly hold that the morphological merging of the gerund and the present participle does not blur their categorial distinction, but ‘simply’ causes a homonymic collision. Since their categorial distinction is preserved, the main challenge of this hypothesis is to establish the criteria for category assignment, in order to allow drawing a sharp line between the two categories. However, as shown in the preceding discussion, the available morphological and syntactic criteria do not allow categorising all *-ant* forms. In many cases, they even lead to conflicting categorisations. What is more, the Splitter Hypothesis is based on the assumption that the gerund and the present participle do not take over (part of) each other’s morphology and distribution, while empirical evidence suggests that such encroachment does take place. For these reasons, the Splitter Hypothesis is untenable.

Surprisingly, this hypothesis is nonetheless adopted by most authors. Its popularity might be due to the influence of the Latin grammatical tradition, acknowledged for the description of Old French (Guiraud 1963: 117; Aspland 1968: 151-152), but also of many other, even non-European languages (Haspelmath 2010: 664, 667, 675; Vincent 2016: 37). Indeed, just like many caseless languages have often been described in terms of the Latin case system until well into the 19th c. AD (Haspelmath 2010: 666-667), the description of Old French *-ant* forms might have been forced in the grammatical framework developed for the description of Latin without considering the language-specific properties of these Old French outcomes of the Latin gerund and present participle. In this spirit, the recognition of the gerund and the present participle as two distinct categories in Old French might violate the so-called ‘categorial particularism’ (Haspelmath 2010: 664). This refers to the idea that languages have their own categories and their own criteria for category assignment, and can as such not be described in terms of the categories created for the description of other languages – at least not without revising the

<footnote n="56">⁵⁶ Most of these authors regard the gerund and the present participle as distinct categories on the same level of abstraction (Anglade 1958: 215-217; Väänänen 1963³: 140-141; Ménard 1973: 169-175; Harris 1978: 199-201; Jensen 1990: 322-334), except Buridant (2000: 324-327, 2019: 461-469). This author subcategorises the gerund under the present participle. However, as pointed out before, Buridant uses the term ‘gerund’ inconsistently, i.e. sometimes as a categorial label and sometimes as a functional label referring to a subtype of present participles. Therefore, it is even not clear whether he adheres to the Spitter Hypothesis or to Lumper Hypothesis. If he takes this label as a functional label, he does not adhere to the Spitter Hypothesis, but to the Lumper Hypothesis, considering all *-ant* forms as present participles. If, on the other hand, he takes it as a categorial label, he adheres to Splitter Hypothesis, and in particular to the version of the theory that regards the gerund as a sub-category of the present participle.</footnote>
set of their defining properties (Boas 1911; Joos 1957; Haspelmath 2010: 664, 669). Violations of the categorial particularism lead to grammatical bias and controversial category assignments (Haspelmath 2010: 664, 669). Therefore, they need to be avoided at any cost.

Evidence supporting the hypothesis that the categorial distinction between the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin has been artificially imposed on the description of Old French comes from the fact that many authors propose a radical functional split between the gerund and the present participle in Old French on the basis of their (presumed) functional evolution in Late Latin, but without considering their morphological evolution. For example, Väänänen (1963³: 140-141), Harris (1978: 200-201), and Jensen (1990: 322) take as present participles all forms having adjectival external syntax and all forms combined with *être* 'to be' to form a progressive construction, but as gerunds all forms with adverbial external syntax and all forms forming a progressive construction with a motion verb. The analysis of Old French *-ant* forms with adjectival and adverbial external syntax as respectively present participles and gerunds seems logical in view of the (presumed) specialisation of the Late Latin present participle and gerund in respectively adjectival and adverbial external syntax. However, even if this functional differentiation in Late Latin is supported by empirical evidence, their formal merging in Old French makes it theoretically impossible to impose a radical functional split between the gerund and the present participle. This conclusion was also reached on the basis of the empirical data examined in §2.2.1 and §2.2.2, which unambiguously suggested that, in Old French, at least some morphological and/or distributional exchange takes place between the gerund and the present participle. Even more problematic is the analysis of *-ant* forms combined with *être* 'to be' or a motion verb in a progressive construction as respectively present participles and gerunds, because there is no empirical evidence whatsoever showing that Late Latin present participles and gerunds used in progressive constructions specialise in different auxiliaries. All this shows is that the functional split between the gerund and the present participle in Old French proposed by these scholars is most likely imposed by analogy to the categorial distinction between the gerund and the present participle in Latin without properly revising their language-specific properties in Old French, in particular their morphological properties.

Significantly, despite recognising the gerund and the present participle as two distinct categories in Old French, most advocates of the Splitter Hypothesis often avoid the categorial labels ‘gerund’ and ‘present participle’ in their description of concrete instances, using instead the categorially neuter and morphological label ‘-*ant* form’ or ‘verb form in *-ant*’ (Fr. ‘*forme (verbale) en -ant*’) (e.g. Ménard 1973: 169-175; Aspland 1974; Harris 1978: 200-201).<fnref n="57" /> This clear discrepancy between theory and practice, i.e. between preserving the categorial distinction between the gerund and the present participle, on the

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷ Combettes (2003: 7-10) – and others – alternates between the term ‘present participle’ and ‘-*ant* form’. However, an explicit claim about the categorial distinction between the gerund and the present participle is lacking. Hence, it is not clear whether he adheres to the Splitter or the Lumper Hypothesis, that is, whether he uses the term ‘present participle’ as a categorially neuter synonym for ‘-*ant* form’ and thus as a cover term for all *-ant* forms, be it gerunds or present participles.</footnote>
one hand, and using the morphological label '-ant form'/'verb form in -ant' instead of the categorial
labels 'gerund' and 'present participle', on the other hand, further invalidates the Splitter Hypothesis. It
also confirms that the categorial distinction between the gerund and the present participle in Old French
does in fact not reflect a linguistic reality.

2.2.3.2. Lumper Hypothesis

This brings us to the Lumper Hypothesis, put forward most explicitly by two authors dealing with this
topic from outside the field of French historical linguistics, namely the Latinist Adams (2003: 749) and
the Anglicist De Smet (2014: 40).<fnref n="58" /> They argue that the morphological merging of the gerund and the
present participle in Old French does not merely blur the categorial distinction between them, but
suspends it and causes the two types of non-finite verb forms to merge also on a categorial level. Adams
(2003: 749) speaks in this regard of a “conflation of the two categories”. De Smet (2014: 40) notes that
the resulting categorial blend combines properties of the Late Latin gerund and the Late Latin present
participle, so that “the all-purpose invariable non-finite form in -ant eventually left over is, in syntactic
terms, neither a real gerund nor a real participle”. More recently, Bazin-Tacchella (2020: 852) leaves an
opening for this hypothesis of categorial merging from within the field of historical French linguistics:

En ancien et moyen français, on parlera plutôt de formes en -ant, variables ou invariables, car les catégories de participe et de gérondif, adaptées à la grammaire latine, ne seront établies qu’à partir du 17e s.

Yet, an explicit claim about the categorial status of the Old French -ant form is lacking, and hence it is
not clear how exactly this passage should be interpreted in the light of the aforementioned debate.<fnref n="59" />

The implications of the Lumper Hypothesis for the description of Old French grammar are drastic:
the categorial merging of the gerund and the present participle abolishes their very existence as distinct
linguistic categories, so that they can no longer be used to describe -ant forms. To abandon categories
that are so entrenched in the grammatical tradition of Old French (or of French in general) is not evident.
However, as argued in the preceding sections, this is the only way in which the impact of the
morphological merging of the gerund and the present participle on their categorial distinction can be

<footnote n="58">⁵⁸ It is worth emphasising that the Lumper Hypothesis has been proposed by scholars from outside French linguistics. This clearly shows that descriptive linguistics can benefit greatly from the point of view of experts of other languages, and that such external point of views are often necessary in order to call into question some aspect of grammar. Hypotheses elaborated in a different grammatical tradition might lead to new insights and sometimes even groundbreaking advances, as will be argued to be the case for Adams’ (2003: 749) and De Smet’s (2014: 40) contributions to the debate about the distinction between the gerund and the present participle in Old French.</footnote>

<footnote n="59">⁵⁹ The Lumper Hypothesis (or some variant of it) is defended for Modern French by a few authors working within the field of French linguistics (e.g. Wilmet 1997: 292-294, 521; De Carvalho 2003; see also Zemb 1978: 131, who compares French and German). However, the argumentation that can be developed for Modern French, where en ‘in’ is mandatory before the gerund, is different from that for Old French. Hence, this question will not be further addressed.</footnote>
convincingly accounted for, both in view of the empirical data and from a theoretical perspective. In addition, this hypothesis is in line with the particularist view on linguistic categories: it rightly separates Old French from the other Romance languages, in which the gerund and the present participle do not merge morphologically, and thus do not undergo categorial blurring. Most importantly, however, the Lumper Hypothesis solves the fundamental problem of the categorial indeterminacy of Old French *-ant* forms, because these forms are all conceived as belonging to the same category. The question that remains in this respect is how to denominate this new category and the forms associated with it.

In order to facilitate cross-linguistic comparison and typological research, Lehmann (2018a: 35-37) argues that language-specific categories are best labelled on the basis of a comparative approach: if descriptive linguists are to create a new category, they should have a look at other languages and verify whether some language has an equivalent category. If this is the case, the new category should ideally be named after its equivalent in that other language – this existing label might of course be adapted for the sake of unambiguously covering the two categories. If, on the contrary, there are no languages having an equivalent category, the new category should be given a new label.

In the case of the categorial blend of the gerund and the present participle in Old French, there exists a comparable category in English. Similar to their morphological fusion in Old French, the gerund and the present participle merge morphologically between Old and Middle English, their ending being the invariable morpheme *-ing* (Kisbye 1971: 54; Lass 1992: 146; Dalton-Puffer 1996: 90-91; Fonteyn 2016: 307-309, 311). As in the case of Old French, the morphological merging of the English gerund and present participle raises a categorial problem, because some *-ing* forms are categorisable as either gerunds or present participles (Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 82; Duffley 2006: 1; Fonteyn 2016: 312-313).<fnref n="60" /> While most authors still recognise the gerund and the present participle as two distinct categories, some authors evaluate their morphological fusion and functional overlap in terms of categorial merging. For instance, Quirk *et al.* (1985: 1291-1292) consider all forms present participles, and refer to them as ‘*-ing* participles’ or ‘*-ing* forms’. An intermediate position is defended by Huddleston & Pullum (2002: 80) and Duffley (2006: 1): they recognise the gerund and present participle as two distinct categories, but instead of categorising the indeterminate forms as either gerunds or present participles, they group them in a third category and label them ‘gerund-participles’.

By analogy to these labels proposed for English, the categorial blend of the gerund and the present participle in Old French could be labelled – on the basis of a comparative approach – ‘*-ant* participle’, ‘*-ant* form’, or ‘gerund-participle’. The first of these labels prioritises the present participle, but this is

<footnote n="60">⁶⁰ As in the case of Old French, the question which *-ing* forms are categorially indeterminate is subject to debate. Focusing on Present-Day English, Huddleston & Pullum (2002: 82) and Duffley (2006: 1) cite as examples all forms acting as the main verb of a progressive construction (e.g. *he is singing*) and as the head of a conjunct adjunct (e.g. *hearing this, he opened the door*). Fonteyn (2016: 312-313) recognises this for some conjunct adjuncts (e.g. *after being ready, we took coach*) and some absolute adjuncts (e.g. *Disks, no, Yeah, I know, but with them not knowing, friend’s because there’s so much disk swopping*).</footnote>
less appropriate since there is no objective reason for such priority (the label '-ant gerund' could just as well be used). From a comparative point of view, the best candidates are thus '-ant form' and 'gerund-participle' or, more accurately, 'verb form in -ant' and 'gerund-present participle'.

However, it is also interesting to have a look at other labelling strategies, i.e. strategies other than looking for an equivalent category in another language. Various suggestions can be made.

(i) The Old French blend of the gerund and the present participle could be named after one of its source categories – strategy underlying the term '-ing participle' proposed by Quirk et al. (1985: 1292) for English. However, this strategy is best avoided since there are no objective reasons to prioritise the label 'gerund' or 'present participle', as mentioned above. Additionally, both labels run the risk of wrongly evoking a one-to-one correspondence with the gerund or present participle in (Late) Latin, and thus of generating terminological confusion.

(ii) Another option is to combine the labels of the source categories. This strategy underpins the term 'gerund-participle' used by Huddleston & Pullum (2002: 80) and Duffley (2006: 1) for English. The most obvious options are 'gerund-present participle' and 'present participle-gerund', but the shorter variants 'gerund-participle' and 'participle-gerund' are more practical. These labels have the advantage of explicitly marking both the blended character of the category and its two source categories. However, they have the disadvantage of erroneously suggesting the priority of the first-mentioned source category, and of being morphologically complex.

(iii) The third possibility is to forge a shorter and more practical version of the labels in (ii), such as the acronyms 'gerpar' (> **gerund-participle**) or 'parger' (> **participle-gerund**). These two options are little successful, but the term 'parund' (> **participle-gerund**) is convincing, also because it has the metalinguistic advantage of allowing a fully transparent equivalent in French, viz. *parondif*. Moreover, since only part of the labels of the source categories are used in this term, the risk of wrongly evoking the priority of the first mentioned category is downgraded.

(iv) Since the forms in issue have the invariable ending -ant or at least tend to generalise this ending, yet another option is to use a purely formal label (cf. Haspelmath 2010: 674). This strategy endorses the term '-ing form', also used by Quirk et al. (1985: 1292) for English. The options here are 'verb form in -ant' and 'verbal -ant form'. They have the theoretical advantage of being categorially neuter, but the practical disadvantage of being morphologically complex. The shorter variants '-ant form' and 'form in -ant' are in principle good alternatives, but their disadvantage is that they do not explicitly mark that the forms at stake are verb forms, and differ in this regard from other types of -ant forms, like (de)verbal adjectives and nouns.
(v) The Old French blend of the gerund and present participle could also be labelled based on one of its functional properties (cf. Haspelmath 2010: 674; Lehmann 2018a: 36-37). For instance, after one of the three cross-linguistically recurrent types of non-finite verbs distinguished by Haspelmath (1995: 4). Depending on whether it has mostly nominal, adjectival, or adverbial external syntax, it could be named respectively ‘masdar’, ‘participle’, or ‘converb’. However, this strategy requires quantitative results gathered from corpus-based studies of the external syntax of the forms at hand, which are lacking in the current state of the art. This type of study will be conducted in the empirical part of this thesis, and I will therefore postpone the discussion of fifth this strategy to Chapter 6.

(vi) The two final options are to assign to the Old French blend an already existing, but non-linguistic label or to create an entirely new linguistic label, *viz.* a neologism. Reference can be made in this regard to the terminology created by Damourette & Pichon (1968-1971) for the description of French grammar. In an attempt to neutralise the terminological confusion in the French grammatical tradition, these authors propose to replace some of the traditional labels by arbitrarily chosen terms, such as *assiette* ‘plate’ instead of *article* ‘article’.<fnref n="61" /> However, this strategy is radical and has not successfully spread in the linguistic community. For this reason, this final strategy should only be adopted as a last resort, *i.e.* when none of the previous strategies result in an appropriate option.

In my opinion, the most suitable candidates among the labels just presented are ‘parund’ and ‘-ant form’. From a theoretical viewpoint, these labels are more or less equally justifiable. From a cognitive point of view, the former raises the problem of being idiosyncratic because of its neological character. From a practical perspective, the latter is less convenient due to its morphological complexity. Thus, the choice ultimately depends on whether priority is given to the practical (>) ‘parund’) or cognitive (>- ‘-ant form’) advantage. For the time being, I will continue using the formal label ‘-ant form’, by analogy to the term ‘-ing form’ used in the grammatical tradition of English. The more precise label ‘verb form in -ant’ will be used wherever necessary to avoid categorial confusion with other forms in -ant, like adjectives (for instance in §3.4.3). I will reevaluate this labelling issue at the end of this thesis (Chapter 6 (§6.9) and Conclusion).

As we have seen in this section, the Lumper Hypothesis of the categorial distinction between the gerund and the present participle in Old French is more convincing that the Splitter Hypothesis, both from a theoretical point of view and on the basis of scattered empirical data. However, a comprehensive quantitative study of the Old French -ant form is required in order to properly evaluate these hypotheses, on the basis of the exact degree of categorial indeterminacy of the -ant form. Indeed, this degree will

<footnote n="61">⁶¹ These authors propose the terms ‘adjectif verbal’ and ‘affonctif verbal’ for respectively the (present) participle and the gerund in Modern French. The former has to be rejected for the present participle because it generates categorial confusion with true verbal adjectives, such as *convaincants* ‘convincing’ in *il a donné des arguments convaincants* ‘he gave convincing arguments’ (*vs* the present participle *convainquant* ‘convincing’ in *il a donné des arguments convainquant tous les members du jury* ‘he gave arguments that convinced all members of the jury’). The label ‘affonctif verbal’ for the gerund is to be avoided for obvious reasons of terminological obscurity.</footnote>
indicate whether the issue of categorial indeterminacy of the Old French *-ant* form is a minor or a major grammatical problem, that is, whether it affects a small or a large number of instances. Thus, this degree will betoken to which extent the theoretical discussion about the categorial distinction between the gerund and the present participle is relevant. This type of study constitutes a gap in the existing literature, but will be carried out in the empirical part of this thesis (Chapter 6).

**2.3. Conclusion and aim of the empirical part of this thesis**

The preceding sections have explored the evolution of the gerund and the present participle from Late Latin to Old French, and investigated the impact of their morphological merging in Old French on their categorial distinction. The discussions in these sections are a summary of the available literature, and have been critically assessed on the basis of published empirical data. However, as mentioned in these sections, the hypotheses put forward lack a strong empirical basis. Hence, the presumed changes in Late Latin and their implications for the categorial distinction between the gerund and the present participle in Old French remain somewhat speculative.

The lack of a comprehensive corpus-based study is without any doubt unfortunate for Late Latin. However, without empirical evidence allowing to objectively measure the presumed functional changes of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin, it remains possible to study the conditions of use of both the gerund and the present participle, since their categorial distinction is still in place. In contrast, the absence of a large-scale empirical study is highly problematic for Old French. In this language, the morphological merging of the two types of non-finite verbs suspends their categorial distinction, giving rise to a situation of categorial indeterminacy. This categorial indeterminacy can sometimes be solved on the basis of morphological and/or distributional criteria, but in many cases it cannot. Moreover, there is compelling evidence in favour of morphological and distributional encroachment of the gerund on the present participle, and/or *vice versa*. This calls in fact into question the category of each and every *-ant* form. The only possible way to maintain the distinction between the gerund and the present participle in Old French is to hypothesise a functional split on the *-ant* forms. However, this split must reflect a linguistic reality rather than being an artificial continuation of categories created for the description of (Late) Latin. This issue can only be tackled on the basis of quantitative empirical evidence gathered from a diachronic corpus of Late Latin and Old French texts. Indeed, the verification in such a corpus of the presumed functional changes of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin is the *conditio sine qua non* for exploring the possibility of a strict functional split of Old French *-ant* forms, and thus for maintaining the categorial distinction between the gerund and the present participle instead of merging them.
In order to accurately measure the impact of the morphological merging of the gerund and the present participle in Old French on their categorial distinction and to appropriately establish whether the categories of the gerund and the present participle are preserved in the transition from Late Latin to Old French, the second part of this thesis aims at empirically investigating the evolution of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin, on the one hand (Chapters 4 and 5), and to assess on the basis of this investigation the categorisation issue of Old French *-ant* forms, on the other (Chapter 6). The empirical investigation will be carried out on the basis of an extensive amount of data gathered from a large and varied corpus of Late Latin and Old French texts and will be evaluated using statistical methods, so as to enable addressing the above-raised issue in the best possible way. The corpus and the dataset of this study will be presented in the following chapter, along with the methodology that will be used (Chapter 3).

By empirically investigating the evolution of the gerund and the present participle in both Late Latin and Old French, the second part of this thesis aims to fill a gap in both historical Latin linguistics and historical French linguistics. Given that linguists working in these diachronically complementary fields of research have in the past usually been operating independently from each other, the empirical part of this study does not only aim at bridging (part of) the linguistic gap between Late Latin and Old French, but also (part of) the institutional gap between the respective research fields (see also §3.1).
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>
# Part II. Empirical investigation
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>
# Chapter 3. Corpus, dataset, and methodology

## 3.1. Introduction

The first part of this study has explored the morphological and syntactic properties of the gerund and the present participle in Classical Latin (Chapter 1), and summarised the currently available knowledge about their evolution from Late Latin to Old French (Chapter 2). As mentioned at the end of the previous chapter (§2.3), this evolution has not yet been the subject of a comprehensive diachronic corpus study, at least not of a study focusing on their external syntax in general. Therefore, it is still an open question to which extent their presumed syntactic and morphosyntactic differentiation in Late Latin is supported by empirical data, and to which extent the Old French *-ant* form is categorially indeterminate. Hence, the exact impact of the morphological merging of the gerund and the present participle on their categorial distinction is still unknown.

The aim of the second part of this study is to empirically investigate these questions in a large and varied diachronic corpus of Late Latin and Old French texts. This empirical investigation will be carried out in three distinct chapters: the evolution of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin will be explored in respectively Chapter 4 and Chapter 5, while the categorial indeterminacy of the Old French *-ant* form will be examined in Chapter 6. The aim of the current chapter is threefold: (i) to present the corpus (§3.3) and dataset (§3.4) of this study; (ii) to examine the various types of syntactic ambiguity of the gerund, present participle, and *-ant* form constituents evoked in Chapters 1 and 2 (§3.5); and (iii) to expound the research procedures and methodology that will be used (§3.6). However, before tackling these aspects, I will detail the broader research context of this thesis (§3.2).

## 3.2. Research context: the PaLaFra project

This thesis has been performed within the context of the ANR/DFG project PaLaFra ("Passage du latin au français: constitution et analyse d'un corpus numérique latino-français"). This is the first large-scale international project aiming at exploring the linguistic and conceptual "no man's land" (Herman 2006: 184) between Late Latin as spoken in Gaul and Old French.<fnref n="1" /> Within the context of this project has been elaborated a digital and morphosyntactically annotated corpus of Late Latin and Old French texts showing language use as representative as possible of the language spoken in Gaul between Late Antiquity and the Early and High Middle Ages. The key morphosyntactic changes of this language are currently being empirically investigated by a large group of experts from the complementary fields of

<footnote n="1">¹ The website of this project can be consulted at http://palafra.org (ANR-14-FRAL-0006).</footnote>
historical Latin linguistics and historical French linguistics. By creating a synergy between two complementary research communities that have until now been operating in a more or less autonomous way, the PaLaFra project aims to unify the linguistic and conceptual insights required to bridge the gap between Late Latin and Old French. This collaborative approach was successfully adopted in a pilot publication project carried out by two of the instigators of the PaLaFra project, namely A. Carlier and C. Guillot-Barbance (Carlier & Guillot-Barbance 2018). This pilot project showed that the research climate was ready for a more comprehensive project reuniting diachronic experts from Latin and French historical linguistics.

The scientific output of the members of the PaLaFra project is manifold. At the center are (i) the elaboration of a digital and morphosyntactically annotated corpus of Late Latin and Old French texts, meanwhile freely accessible on the website of the *Base de français médiéval*,<fnref n="2" /> and (ii) the publication of a comprehensive manual, being currently edited by Anne Carlier, Lieven Danckaert, Céline Guillot-Barbance, Maria Selig, and myself under the title *Bridging the Gap between Late Latin and Early Old French: Empirical Investigations of (Morpho)Syntactic Changes*.<fnref n="3" /> In addition, various publications can be mentioned, like Bucher *et al.* (2017), Carlier (2016, 2017), Carlier & Lamiroy (2018), Galdi & Vangaever (2019), Guillot-Barbance *et al.* (2017), Pincemin *et al.* (2018), Selig *et al.* (2017), Simonenko & Carlier (2020), Vangaever (2017, 2018, 2019, 2021), and Vangaever & Carlier (2020) (see also all contributions in Carlier & Guillot-Barbance 2018). This dissertation is yet another example of the output of the PaLaFra project. It also inherits from this project its focus on the morphosyntactic properties of the gerund and the present participle.

## 3.3. Corpus

The present study essentially draws its empirical data from the corpus elaborated within the context of the PaLaFra project. Being compiled for the specific purpose of examining the transition from Late Latin to Old French, this corpus provides the ideal empirical base for the topic of this dissertation. This corpus is moreover pioneering in combining Late Latin and Old French texts, so that the empirical investigation of the gerund and the present participle from Late Latin to Old French is unique. It goes without saying that the texts of the PaLaFra corpus have been selected with care. Language change typically emerges in the spoken language and reaches the written language only at a later stage due to its more conservative character (Herman 2006: 186). Therefore, the texts included in the PaLaFra corpus show a language use

<footnote n="2">² The website of the *Base de français médiéval* (BFM) and other information about this database is provided in the Bibliography (section ‘Corpora and databases’).</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ This manual is complementary to the monumental *Grande Grammaire Historique du Français* (GGHF), edited by Christiane Marchello-Nizia, Bernard Combettes, Sophie Prévost, and Tobias Scheer (2020). The GGFH investigates the history of French from its very emergence to the 21st c. The methodology and corpus orientation of the two publication projects are comparable, and several contributors to the GGHF are also members of the PaLaFra project.</footnote>
that is as representative as possible of the language spoken in Gaul between Late Antiquity and the Early
and High Middle Ages. Admittedly, the number and the variety of the texts are not equally large for all
centuries, and only written data are available. Hence, they might not faithfully reflect the ongoing
changes in the spoken language (Herman 2006: 186). These are however the material and technological
inconveniences proper to historical corpus linguistics in general. What matters more is that the texts of
the PaLaFra corpus document the transitional period between a mother and a daughter language in an
almost uninterrupted way. As such, they provide an empirical base that is exceptional not only from a
cross-linguistic perspective, but also from a Romance point of view. Indeed, the unified corpus of Late
Latin and Old French texts is unique in the field of historical corpus linguistics, and can therefore serve
as a laboratory to empirically test hypotheses formulated in general and typological linguistics. The fact
that the linguistic features of (Late) Latin and its daughter language (Old) French are often diametrically
opposed from a typological perspective, e.g. with respect to word order and inflectional morphology,
adds to the interest of the PaLaFra corpus. It is within the context of this unique empirical base that the
evolution of the gerund and the present participle from Late Latin to Old French will be examined in the
second part of this thesis.

The texts of the PaLaFra corpus are divided into three sub-corpora: a corpus of Late Latin texts (PALAFRALAT-V2-0), a corpus of Old French texts (PALAFRAFRO-V2-2), and a so-called ‘parallel corpus’ comprising a subset of the Late Latin texts of the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus and their Old French translation included in the PALAFRAFRO-V2-2 corpus (PALAFRAPAR). This parallel corpus has been compiled for the specific purpose of comparing Late Latin and Old French structures on a micro-linguistic level. However, it does not contain texts other than those included in the PALAFRA-LAT-V2-0 and PALAFRAFRO-V2-2 corpora, and hence it will not play a role in this thesis. In addition to the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 and PALAFRAFRO-V2-2 corpora, the corpus of this study includes the BL2LAT corpus, which is a pilot version of the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus (but one that contains a mainly different sample of texts), and the Classical Latin corpus examined by Vangaever (2018).<fnref n="4" /> Since this dissertation focuses on the transition from Late Latin to Old French, however, this Classical Latin corpus will not be investigated in the same detail as the Late Latin and Old French corpora (see §3.6.1.2). The inclusion of the BL2LAT corpus has a primarily practical reason: the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 and PALAFRAFRO-V2-2 corpora have been compiled and morphosyntactically annotated in the course of the PaLaFra project. Before the (definitive version of the) PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus was available, I explored the use of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin in its pilot version. Instead of later replacing this BL2LAT corpus by the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus, I retained it as an additional corpus, not only because most texts included in it are different from those of the PALAFRALAT-V2-0

<footnote n="4">⁴ Like the PALAFRALAT-V2-0, PALAFRAFRO-V2-2, and PALAFRAPAR corpora, the BL2LAT corpus is hosted by the *Base de français médiéval*. The Classical Latin corpus has been presented in §1.2.2.2.6. More technical information about these corpora is given in the Bibliography (section ‘Corpora and databases’).</footnote>
corpus, but also because it contains some texts of the 4th-5th c., which are scarce in the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus.

The remainder of this section will present in more detail the Late Latin corpora BL2LAT and PALAFRALAT-V2-0 (§3.3.1) and the Old French corpus PALAFRAFRO-V2-2 (§3.3.2). I will also set out which texts of these corpora will be included in the corpus of this thesis, and which texts will be excluded. The texts selected for the corpus of this study will be assigned to a sub-period of Late Latin or Old French, thus providing the basis for the diachronic investigation in Chapters 4 to 6. Drawing on Banniard (2018: 29), the period of Late Latin will be divided into three sub-periods: Imperial Latin (4th-5th c.), Merovingian Latin (6th-7th c.), and Early Medieval Latin (8th-10th c.).<fnref n="5" /> As for the period of Old French, it will be divided into the conventional sub-periods of Early Old French (9th-11th c.) and Old French (12th-13th c.).<fnref n="6" /> This latter label is thus used for both the general period between the 9th and the 13th c. and the sub-period covering the 12th-13th c. This might occasionally cause confusion. In order to avoid such confusion, I will reserve the term ‘Old French’ for the general period between the 9th and the 13th c. (as in Chapter 2), and refer to the sub-period in terms of the two centuries subsumed under it, namely the 12th-13th c.

### 3.3.1. Late Latin

This section aims to describe in more detail the BL2LAT (§3.3.1.1) and PALAFRALAT-V2-0 (§3.3.1.2) corpora. I will also merge the texts of these corpora retained in the corpus of this dissertation in a single, Late Latin corpus (§3.3.1.3).

#### 3.3.1.1. *The BL2LAT corpus*

The BL2LAT corpus contains 30 Late Latin texts between the 4th and the 12th c. These texts are written in prose and belong to the religious domain, except for Fredegar’s *Chronica*, which is a historical text.<fnref n="7" /> Most of the religious texts are hagiographies (n=25), but there are also two dialogues, one itinerary, and

<footnote n="5">⁵ Banniard (2018: 29) also includes the 3rd c. in the Imperial Latin period. However, the BL2LAT and PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpora do not contain texts from this century, and hence it will not be considered in this thesis. As for the period of Early Medieval Latin (8th-10th c.), it is meant as the Latin counterpart of the period referred to by Banniard (2018: 29) as ‘Proto-French’ (8th-9th c.). Nevertheless, it is slightly extended so as to include also the 10th c., period for which the BL2LAT and PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpora present a number of linguistically interesting texts.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ The Old French period is often extended to the mid-14th c. However, since the PALAFRAFRO-V2-2 corpus contains only one text from the 14th c., this text will be discarded from the corpus of this study. Hence, the first half of the 14th c. will be excluded from the period of Old French.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Only part of Fredegar’s *Chronica* is included in the BL2LAT corpus, namely the fourth book and the continuations (see also Appendix 1). The author of this text is in fact unknown. Indeed, the name Fredegar is introduced only in 1579, in the *Recueil des antiquitez gauloises et françoises* by Claude Fauchet. It is furthermore unclear whether the text is written by a single author, as argued by, e.g., Lot (1914) and Goffart (1963), or by two or more authors, as held by, e.g., Krusch (1882), Hellmann (1934), and Wallace-Hadrill (1958). For practical reasons, I will refer to this text in this thesis as “Fredegar’s *Chronica*”, without taking a stand in the debate on its authorship.</footnote>
one letter. Fredegar’s text is a chronicle. The texts of the BL2LAT corpus jointly contain 130 494 words, which equals an average text length of 4 350 words.<fnref n="8" /> However, the actual length of the texts ranges from 601 (i.e. the anonymous *Passio Symphorosae*) to 20 335 (i.e. Fredegar’s *Chronica*) words.

The corpus of the present study includes all texts of the BL2LAT corpus, except the *Vita Petri Venerabilis*. This text is written in the 12th c., and thus falls outside the period of Latin taken into account in this thesis. One text of the BL2LAT corpus has been divided into two texts, namely the *Peregrinatio Aetheriae*. In the BL2LAT corpus, the itinerary written by the nun Egeria in the 4th c. is accompanied by a letter of Valerius of Bierzo composed in the 7th c., the two documents being treated as one single text. For obvious chronological reasons, these two texts have been separated in the corpus of this study. Thus, this corpus contains 30 Late Latin texts from the BL2LAT corpus. These texts comprise a total number of 125 908 words, which makes an average length of 4 197 words per text.

On the basis of their date of composition mentioned in the *Base de français médiéval*, the texts of the BL2LAT corpus have been assigned to one of the three sub-periods of Late Latin distinguished earlier, viz. Imperial Latin (4th-5th c.), Merovingian Latin (6th-7th c.), and Early Medieval Latin (8th-10th c. This was unproblematic for all texts with a date of composition falling within the limits of one and the same century (e.g. the *Peregrinatio Aetheriae*, written in 384) or overlapping between two or more centuries subsumed by the same period (e.g. the *Passio Nazarii et Celsi*, composed around 600 and thus on the verge between the 6th and the 7th c.). However, a few texts (n=5) have a date of composition that overlaps between two or more centuries covered by distinct periods of Late Latin. Hence, they cannot be unambiguously assigned to Imperial, Merovingian, or Early Medieval Latin. This holds, for instance, for the *Passio Agathae*, which dates from around 500 and is as such on the verge between the 5th and the 6th c. and, incidentally, between the periods of Imperial and Merovingian Latin. Likewise, the *Passio Victoris et Coronae* and the three versions of the *Passio Viti* are dated around 700, and thus fall between Merovingian and Early Medieval Latin.<fnref n="9" /> Instead of (arbitrarily) subsuming these texts under one of the three sub-periods of Late Latin, they have been isolated and excluded from all quantitative and statistical analyses of the evolution of the gerund and the present participle between Imperial and Early Medieval Latin. In contrast, they have been retained in all other analyses, e.g. in those comparing the syntactic use of the two types of non-finite verb forms between Classical and Late Latin (see §3.6.1.2). The diachronic distribution of the unambiguously periodisable words is presented in Figure 3.1 – they represent 90% of all words (113 092 out of 125 908).

<footnote n="8">⁸ The *Base de français médiéval* does not provide the number of words alone, but the combined number of words and signs of punctuation. I calculated the number of words in the BL2LAT corpus by subtracting the number of punctuation signs from the combined number of words and punctuation signs as mentioned in the *Base de français médiéval* (n=145 636). The number of punctuation signs (n=15 142) was determined on the basis of the query [*word="."*], which, against all appearances, selects all signs of punctuations, not only dots.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ The three versions of the *Passio Viti* are three distinct texts: they tell a similar story, but are linguistically different. Therefore, they are all three included in the corpus of this study (as in Carlier & Guillot-Barbance 2018; see p. 16).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.1.** Diachronic distribution of the words of the unambiguously periodisable texts of the BL2LAT corpus included in the corpus of this thesis (n=113 092)</figcaption></figure>

The thematic distribution of the total number of Late Latin words is shown in Figure 3.2. Considering the textual composition of the BL2LAT corpus (29 religious texts vs 1 historical text), it is not surprising that most of them belong to the religious domain:

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.2.** Thematic distribution of the words of the texts of the BL2LAT corpus included in the corpus of this thesis (n=125 908)</figcaption></figure>

The list of the texts of the BL2LAT corpus included in that of the present study is given in Appendix 1. The texts are arranged in chronological order, and within each century in alphabetical order. For each text, mention is made of respectively the sub-period of Late Latin, the century, the title, the author (if known), the thematic domain, and the textual genre. Whenever the date of composition overlaps between two or more centuries and/or sub-periods of Late Latin, all centuries and periods involved are mentioned.
3.3.1.2. *The PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus*

The PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus contains 187 Late Latin texts between the 5th and the 10th c. These texts are written in prose and can be divided into historical (n=107), legal (n=51), and religious texts (n=29). The historical texts are mainly letters (n=103), but they also include two historiographies and two chronicles. The religious texts are all hagiographies. Most of the legal texts are charters (n=40), but there are also nine formularies and two laws. Together, the texts of the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus contain 329 823 words. This yields an average text length of 1 764 words, against 4 350 in the BL2LAT corpus.<fnref n="10" /> This difference is due to the fact that 76% of the texts of the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus are letters (n=103 or 55%) or charters (n=40 or 21%), texts genres that are usually very short. Indeed, while they make up 76% of all texts, the letters and charters comprise only 14% of all words (45 071 out of 329 823) – 10% (or 31 877 words) for the letters and 4% (or 13 194 words) for the charters. The average length of the letters and charters is similar (respectively 309 and 330 words per document). However, the above-mentioned average length should not obscure the fact that the actual length of the texts of the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus strongly fluctuates between 68 (the *Epistula Brunihildae ad Anastasiam augustam*) and 24 311 (*Vita Eligii episcopi Noviomagensis*) words.

The corpus of this study includes all but five texts of the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus. The fourth book and continuations of Fredegar's *Chronica*, treated as two distinct texts in this corpus, are excluded because they are already part of the BL2LAT corpus. The three remaining texts, namely the *Vita Sulpicii episcopi Biturigi*, the *Vita Filiberti abbatis Gemeticensis et Heriensis*, and the *Vita Pardulfi abbatis Waractensis*, are each represented in two versions going back to the same archetype. Only one of these versions has been retained in the corpus of this thesis. For the *Vita Sulpicii episcopi Biturigi* and the *Vita Filiberti abbatis Gemeticensis et Heriensis*, the version A has been retained, because these versions are considered closest to the original texts by their editors in the *Monumenta Germaniae Historica* (hence MGH), i.e. the database of primary sources that provided the two texts in issue (and many other texts of the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus) (cf. Krusch 1902: 365; Levison 1910: 578).<fnref n="11" /> As to the *Vita Pardulfi abbatis Waractensis*, it is unclear which version is closest to the original text, so that no motivated choice

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ As in the case of the BL2LAT corpus, the *Base de français médiéval* does not provide the number of words alone, but the combined number of words and punctuation signs. I calculated the number of words in the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus in the same way as for the BL2LAT corpus (the combined number of words and punctuation signs amounts to 398 142 and the number of punctuation signs alone to 68 319).</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ Krusch (1902: 365), the editor of the *Vita Sulpicii episcopi Biturigi* in the MGH states: “Vitae Sulpicii quales editae sunt et brevior (B) et prolixior (C) textum primigenium minime exhibent, sed ipsi proprius accedere videtur quod nobis eruere licuit exemplar ignotum (A).” (‘The lives of Sulpicius as edited in the shorter version B and the more extended version C certainly do not provide the original text, but the unknown version A that I have been able to construe seems to be close to it’; my transl.). In a similar vein, the editor of the *Vita Filiberti abbatis Gemeticensis et Heriensis* in the MGH, Levison (1910: 578), writes: “Quae cum ita sint, dubitari nequit, quin recensioni A potior auctoritas adhibenda sit quam textui B.” (‘Since things are as such [viz. that the B version contains more conjunctions and adverbs than the A version], it is without doubt that the A version has more authority than the B version’; my transl.).</footnote>
can be made (Levison 1920: 22).<fnref n="12" /> The version selected for the corpus of this study is the one with the largest number of words (version 1), although the difference with the shorter version is negligible (4 119 vs 4 088 words). In view of the preceding remarks, the corpus of this dissertation includes 182 texts of the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus. These texts comprise a total number of 299 995 words and have an average length of 1 648 words.

Like those of the BL2LAT corpus, the texts selected from the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus have been assigned to one of the three sub-periods of Late Latin, based on their date of composition mentioned in the *Base de français médiéval*. For the texts with a date of composition extending over two or more centuries covered by a different sub-period of Late Latin, the same principle was adopted as in the case of the BL2LAT corpus: instead of arbitrarily subsuming them under one of the sub-periods, they have been isolated and left out from all quantitative and statistical analyses of the evolution of the gerund and the present participle from Imperial to Early Medieval Latin, but retained in all other analyses (see also §3.6.1.2). This holds for the following five texts: (i) the *Formulae Marculfi* and (ii) the *Supplementum formulae Marculfi*, both composed between 650 and 730; (iii) the *Vita Amati*, written between the 7th and the 8th c.; (iv) the Merovingian Charter 144, dating from between 694 and 711; and (v) the *Vita Wandregiseli*, whose date of composition revolves around 700. The unambiguously periodisable words account for 91% of all words (273 193 out of 299 995). Their diachronic distribution is shown in Figure 3.3.

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.3.** Diachronic distribution of the words of the unambiguously periodisable texts of the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus included in the corpus of this thesis (n=273 193)</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="12">¹² The editor of the text in the MGH, W. Levison (1920: 22), states: “Itaque in Vita recensenda neque 1 neque 2a. b neglegendi sunt, atque satis lugendum, quae lectio preferenda sit, haud semel vix certo diiudicari posse (...).” (‘And so, in reviewing the Life, neither the version 1 nor the version 2a. b should be neglected, and it is to be regretted that it cannot be determined with certainty once and for all which version is to be preferred’; my transl.).</footnote>
As shown in Figure 3.3, the period of Imperial Latin is highly underrepresented in the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus. Indeed, this corpus includes only three texts from this period, viz. three letters belonging to the collection of *Epistulae Austrasicae* and containing only 180, 241, and 583 words (the letters in issue are respectively the second, the first, and the twenty-third). This is why it is important to include the BL2LAT corpus, which, as seen in §3.3.1.1, provides a workable, though not very high, amount of words for the Imperial Latin period (n=26 841; see Figure 3.1).

The thematic distribution of the total number of Late Latin words is presented in Figure 3.4.

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.4.** Thematic distribution of the words of the texts of the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus included in the corpus of this thesis (n=299 995)</figcaption></figure>

As in the BL2LAT corpus, the religious texts dominate in terms of number of words. However, in the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus, the legal texts also play an important role – this type of texts are absent in the BL2LAT corpus. The absolute number of words in the historical texts is much higher than in the BL2LAT corpus, but their proportion to the total number of words is similar. The texts and words of the two Late Latin corpora will be merged in a single corpus in §3.3.4.

Appendix 2 presents the list of the texts of the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus retained in the corpus of this study. The same type of information is provided as for the texts of the BL2LAT corpus.

### 3.3.1.3. *The Late Latin corpus of this thesis*

The previous sections have described the BL2LAT and PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpora, and set out which texts of these corpora are included in the corpus of this thesis. The aim of the current section is to merge these texts into a single Late Latin corpus, hereafter referred to as ‘the Late Latin corpus (of this study)’.
A comparison will also be made between this Late Latin corpus and the Classical Latin corpus examined
by Vangaever (2018).

Taken together, the texts retained from the BL2LAT and PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpora yield a total number of 212 Late Latin texts between the 4th and the 10th c. These texts contain 425 903 words, which equals an average text length of 2 009 words. In comparison, the Classical Latin corpus comprises 88 texts with a total number of 625 034 words. This corresponds to 7 103 words per text.<fnref n="13" /> As we will see, the average text length does not impact the frequency of the gerund and the present participle in the Classical and Late Latin corpora, let alone on their syntactic use (see §3.4).

Most texts of the Late Latin corpus can be unambiguously assigned to one of the three sub-periods
of Late Latin (202 texts out of 212). The same holds for the number of words (386 285 out of 425 903).
The diachronic distribution of the total number of words of the unambiguously periodisable Late Latin
texts is presented in Figure 3.5.

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.5.** Diachronic distribution of the words of the unambiguously periodisable texts of the Late Latin corpus of this thesis (n=386 285)</figcaption></figure>

As shown by Figure 3.5, the period of Imperial Latin is severely underrepresented in comparison with Merovingian and Early Medieval Latin. Yet, the absolute number of words of this period is high enough to thoroughly examine the use of the gerund and the present participle (see §3.4.1 and §3.4.2).

With respect to the thematic distribution of the words of the Late Latin corpus, most of them occur
in the religious texts, but the legal and historical texts also contain a large number of words (Figure 3.6).

<footnote n="13">¹³ Unlike the *Base de français médiéval*, the LASLA database provides the number of words of individual texts, i.e. without taking into account punctuation signs. The numbers of words per text included in the Classical Latin corpus have been summed up using Excel, since the LASLA database does not allow creating online sub-corpora and thus does not allow calculating such numbers automatically – this is indeed possible in the *Base de français médiéval*.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.6.** Thematic distribution of the words of the Late Latin corpus of this thesis (n=425 903)</figcaption></figure>

The uneven diachronic and thematic distribution of the words of the Late Latin corpus might distort the quantitative results that will be obtained: the more words there are in some period or thematic domain, the higher are the odds for this period or thematic domain to show a larger number of gerunds or present participles, and hence the higher are their odds to bias the quantitative tendencies. So as to avoid such bias, all frequencies in the empirical part of this study will be normalised and statistically evaluated (see §3.6.1.2 and §3.6.3.1).

Before exploring the Old French corpus, it should be pointed out that most texts of the Classical Latin corpus reflect standard language use, while the texts of the Late Latin corpus reflect as much as possible the spoken language – or at least the language used in substandard settings, where language change typically emerges (cf. Herman 2000: 7). This different textual composition might have an impact on the results of the evolution of the gerund and the present participle from Classical to Late Latin, and hence it will be taken into account in evaluating all results (see §3.6.1.2). However, in spite of the distinct textual composition of the Classical and Late Latin corpora, my 2018 corpus study of the external syntax of the gerund and the present participle in Classical Latin is the first of its kind. Hence, it is at least possible to compare the two periods on the basis of quantitatively approached empirical data. Moreover, the external syntax of the gerund and the present participle is held to be relatively stable in Classical Latin, so that this diaphasic asymmetry might be less problematic than suggested by the previous discussion.

### 3.3.2. Old French

The Old French corpus PALAFRAFRO-V2-2 contains 44 texts between the 9th and the 14th c. Most of these texts are written in either prose (n=22) or verse (n=21), but one text shows alternating passages in
prose and verse, viz. the chantefable *Aucassin et Nicolette*.<fnref n="14" /> From a thematic viewpoint, these texts can be divided into religious (n=22), literary (n=8), didactical (n=7), legal (n=4), and historical (n=3) texts. The religious texts are predominantly hagiographies (n=12), but they also comprise two sermons, two miracles, two psalters, one drama, one commentary, one letter, and one historiography. The literary texts contain four novels, three epics, and one short novel. Among the didactical texts are two dialogues, two lapidaries, one novel, one bestiary, and one computus. The legal texts comprise two charters, one oath, and one treaty, while the historical texts include two chronicles and one historiography. These 44 texts contain a total number of 1 019 776 words, yielding an average text length of 23 177 words.<fnref n="15" /> However, the actual length of the texts strongly varies between 113 (i.e. the *Serments de Strasbourg*) and 139 313 (i.e. the *Coutumes de Beauvaisis*).

The corpus of this study includes all but ten texts of the PALAFRAFRO-V2-2 corpus. Nine texts have been excluded since they are Old French translations of Late Latin texts, and hence reflect language use that is less natural and might be influenced by the Late Latin original. These texts are *Li ver del juïse*, the *Psautier de l'Orne*, the *Psautier de Cambridge*, *Li Dialoge Gregoire lo Pape*, the *Vie de saint Benoit*, the *Epistle saint Bernart a Mont Deu*, *Li sermon saint Bernart*, the *Dialogue de l'âme de saint Isidore*, and the *Vie de saint Lambert*. The *Légende de sainte Bathilde*, written by Jean Vignay, has also been excluded because it is composed in the 14th c. Hence, it falls outside the period of Old French as defined in this study. The 34 texts of the PALAFRAFRO-V2-2 corpus retained in that of this dissertation contain 843 838 words. This equals an average text length of 24 819 words. This length is remarkably higher than that of the Late Latin texts (n=2 129) (see §3.3.1.3).

On the basis of their date of composition reported in the *Base de français médiéval*, these 34 texts have been subsumed under one of the two sub-periods of Old French distinguished earlier, namely Early Old French (9th-11th c.) and the 12th-13th c. This was straightforward for all texts, except the *Chanson de Roland*. This text is composed around 1100 and can as such not unambiguously be assigned to either Early Old French or the 12th-13th c.<fnref n="16" /> The same principle will be adopted as in the case of the BL2LAT and PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpora: the *Chanson de Roland* will be excluded from all quantitative and statistical analyses of the evolution of the *-ant* form from Early Old French to the 12th-13th c., but retained in all other analyses (see §3.6.2.2). Given that it is the only text of the Old French corpus that cannot be periodised with absolute certainty, the syntactic use of the *-ant* form in this text will be

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ Spoken language is typically less faithfully reflected in versified texts than in prose texts. Therefore, texts composed in verse are in theory less appropriate for the study of language change. However, the inclusion of versified texts in Old French corpora is practically inevitable, especially for the period of Early Old French (9th-11th c.). Indeed, the majority of the texts preserved from this period are versified, so that their exclusion would drastically impoverish this already scantily documented period.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ As in the case of the BL2LAT and PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpora, the *Base de français médiéval* does not provide the number of words alone, but the combined number of words and punctuation signs. The number of words in the PALAFRAFRO-V2-2 corpus was calculated in the same way as for the Latin corpora (the combined number of words and punctuation signs amounts to 1 205 205 and the number of punctuation signs alone to 181 429).</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ In the *Grande Grammaire Historique du Français*, this text is subsumed under the 12th c. (Prévost 2020: 46). For the sake of uniformity with the Late Latin corpus, I will not assign this text to this century and thus to the period of the 12th-13th c., but isolate it as a separate text, on the verge between the two sub-periods of Old French.</footnote>
systematically compared with its use in the Early Old French and 12th-13th c. corpora, in order to
examine to which extent the use of this linguistic form can be taken as a criterion in the more general
discussion of the periodisation of this text.

The words of the unambiguously periodisable texts retained in the Old French corpus of this thesis represent 97% of all words (816 361 out of 843 838). Figure 3.7 shows their diachronic distribution.

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.7.** Diachronic distribution of the words of the unambiguously periodisable texts of the PALAFRAFRO-V2-2 corpus included in the corpus of this thesis (n=816 361)</figcaption></figure>

As shown in Figure 3.7, the Early Old French period is severely underrepresented in the PALAFRAFRO-V2-2 corpus. However, this is less due to the textual composition of this corpus than to the poor number of texts available from this period, i.e. texts transmitted to us. Yet, the small number of words between the 9th-11th c. include several *-ant* forms, so that the use of these forms in the earliest period of French can nonetheless be investigated (see §3.4.3).

Figure 3.8 shows the thematic distribution of all words included in the Old French corpus.

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.8.** Thematic distribution of the words of the texts of the PALAFRAFRO-V2-2 corpus included in the corpus of this thesis (n=843 838)</figcaption></figure>
As in the BL2LAT and PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpora, most words of the PALAFRAFRO-V2-2 corpus are used in religious texts, although the difference with the literary texts is small. The legal and didactical texts also comprise a large number of words, just like the historical texts – at least in absolute terms. As apparent from the comparison between Figures 3.6 and 3.8, the Old French corpus is thematically more diverse than the Late Latin corpus.

The texts from the PALAFRAFRO-V2-2 corpus retained in the corpus of this thesis are listed in Appendix 3. For each text, the same type of information is provided as for the texts of the BL2LAT and PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpora.

**3.4. Dataset and ambiguities with respect to morphosyntactic categorisation**

After having detailed the composition of the corpus of this study, I will present its dataset. As mentioned in §1.2.2.2.6 and §1.3.2.2.8, the Classical Latin dataset includes all 1 270 gerunds and all 1 792 present participles occurring in the Classical Latin corpus. These forms have been retrieved automatically on the basis of the available morphosyntactic annotation of the texts of this corpus and using the interface of the LASLA database. In a similar vein, the Late Latin and Old French datasets comprise all gerunds and present participles occurring in the Late Latin and Old French corpora. As noted earlier, the texts of the Late Latin and Old French corpora elaborated within the context of the PaLaFra project have been morphosyntactically annotated (and lemmatised). Hence, all Late Latin gerunds and present participles and all Old French *-ant* forms can in principle be extracted by means of a morphosyntactic query. However, a first exploration of the 8 079 Late Latin gerunds and present participles retrieved by the appropriate query in the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus, i.e. [pos="V" & mood="PARTICIPLE"&tense= "PRESENT"] [pos= "V"& mood="GERUND"], and of the 3 250 Old French *-ant* forms selected by the query [cattex-pos="VERppa"]<fnref n="17" /> in the PALAFRAFRO-V2-2 corpus revealed that not all forms selected by these queries are Late Latin gerunds or present participles or Old French verb forms in *-ant*. Conversely, a closer look at the texts showed that the queries do not select all Late Latin gerunds and present participles nor all Old French verb forms in *-ant*. In other words, the morphosyntactic annotation of the texts of the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 and PALAFRAFRO-V2-2 is not completely reliable, at least not for the forms investigated in this study. The annotators are not to be blamed in this connection: some forms morphologically look like a Late Latin gerund or present participle or like an Old French verb form in *-ant* and also perform a syntactic function accessible to one of these forms, but can nonetheless

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ It is worth noting that the annotators of the PALAFRAFRO-V2-2 corpus did not use two distinct labels for the Old French outcomes of the Late Latin gerund and present participle. Rather, they merged these forms into a single category, covered by the label ‘VERppa’ – ‘ppa’ stands for ‘participe présent actif’ (‘active present participle’). The fact that the categorial merging of the gerund and the present participle in Old French is the most feasible *modus operandi* in PoS-tagging should not come as a surprise: how could annotators possibly categorise all *-ant* forms with absolute certainty when linguists strongly disagree on their categorial status, and when morphological criteria are of no or only little help?</footnote>
be categorised in a different way (e.g. some Late Latin gerunds in -ndum and -ndi can also be analysed
as gerundives, and some Late Latin present participles and Old French -ant forms can also be seen as
adjectives). Therefore, the choices made in annotating the texts almost inevitably lead to a number of
controversial category assignments. Although it can hardly be practically managed otherwise, the fact
that the morphosyntactic annotation of the texts has been manually performed and/or verified by
different persons adds to this annotation issue – even if the annotations are performed on the basis of
the same, predefined set of parameters.

In order to resolve these issues, all texts of the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 and PALAFRAFRO-V2-2 corpora retained in the corpus of this thesis have been searched for gerunds, present participles, and verb forms in -ant on the basis of morphological queries. The instances selected by these queries have been categorised as Late Latin gerunds, Late Latin present participles, or Old French verb forms in -ant on the basis of the principles that will be set out in respectively §3.4.1, §3.4.2, and §3.4.3. The Late Latin gerunds and present participles occurring in the texts of the BL2LAT corpus had to be retrieved in the same way, for the simple reason that these texts have not been morphosyntactically annotated. The final dataset of this study will be presented in §3.4.4.

Two paleographical issues need to also be addressed. On the one hand, several Late Latin and Old French texts contain one or more corrupt passages, viz. passages that have only partly been transmitted. All forms used in such passages whose syntactic use cannot be determined with absolute certainty have been discarded from the dataset. On the other hand, some occurrences retrieved by the aforementioned morphological queries have one or more alternative readings, i.e. morphologically deviant forms attested in one or more manuscripts other than the one on which is based the edition of the text in the BL2LAT, PALAFRALAT-V2-0, or PALAFRAFRO-V2-2 corpora. Given the large number of forms that were to be manually reviewed (see §3.4.1 to §3.4.3), it was impossible to check for manuscript variants for each of these forms separately. Moreover, their alternative readings are not mentioned in the *Base de français médiéval*, but need to be searched for each form individually in the critical edition of the text. Therefore, the Late Latin and Old French datasets have been compiled on the basis of the readings proposed in the BL2LAT, PALAFRALAT-V2-0, and PALAFRAFRO-V2-2 corpora. Some forms in the dataset of this study might have an alternative reading that is paleographically speaking more likely than that proposed in the BL2LAT, PALAFRALAT-V2-0, or PALAFRAFRO-V2-2 corpora, but their frequency is without any doubt too low to distort the quantitative results. Yet, I verified the presence of manuscript variants for all forms with one or more unexpected traits, e.g. an unexpected syntactic use or case form. The few instances analysed in this way will be discussed in due course in Chapters 4 to 6.
### 3.4.1. The Late Latin gerund

The ending of the Late Latin gerund corresponds in principle to -ndum, -ndi, or -ndo. The ending -ndum is occasionally affected by the vocalic merging of /ɔ/ and /ũ/ and/or by the apocope of final /m/, and the ending -ndo is occasionally hypercorrected for one or both of these phonetic evolutions, as mentioned in §2.1.1.1 (see also Väänänen 1963³: 36-37, 66-67; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 380). In order to select all possible forms of the gerund, the endings -ndom and -ndu have been added to the morphological query used to extract all gerunds in the Late Latin corpus. However, no gerunds in -ndom or -ndu have been found. This is not surprising given the fact that the two phonetic evolutions just mentioned typically co-occur, the phonetically affected accusative ending thus being -ndo instead of -ndom or -ndu, and the hypercorrected dative or ablative ending -ndum instead of -ndom or -ndu. I added to the morphological query [word=".*ndum|.*ndi|.*ndo|.*ndom|.*ndu"] a code aiming to exclude a number of recurrent words homonymous with one of the possible forms of the gerund, like the adverb aliquando 'sometime' or the subordinating conjunction quando 'when'.<fnref n="18" /> This query yielded a total number of 2 225 forms, among which 534 in the BL2LAT corpus and 1 691 in the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus (at least in the texts of these corpora retained in the corpus of this thesis).

Have been discarded from these results all forms that are not built on the present stem of a verb and can as such not be qualify as gerunds. The remaining forms instantiate either gerunds or gerundives, because the gerundive is sometimes morphologically identical to the gerund. Three cases of such formal identity can be distinguished.

(i) When inflected in the nominative neuter singular and the accusative masculine and neuter singular, the gerundive has the same ending as the accusative gerund, i.e. -ndum.

(ii) When inflected in the genitive masculine and neuter singular and the nominative masculine plural, the gerundive is morphologically identical to the genitive gerund, having the ending -ndi.

(iii) When inflected in the dative and ablative masculine and neuter singular, the gerundive has the same ending as the dative and the ablative gerund, namely -ndo.

Most forms in -ndum, -ndi, and -ndo can be unambiguously categorised as gerunds or gerundives on the basis of morphological and/or syntactic criteria. However, some of them can be taken as either gerunds or gerundives. These forms can be divided into three groups: forms in -ndum combined with a direct transitive verb (§3.4.1.1) or with an accusative masculine or neuter singular noun (§3.4.1.2), and forms

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ The morphological query thus used is [word=".*ndum|.*ndi|.*ndo|.*ndom|.*ndu" & word!="quando|aliquando|inmundo|immundo|iracundi|childebrando|chadoindum|sisenandi|sisenando|sisenandum|leudemundo|rependo|chadoindo|defendo|profundum|blando|contendo|effundi|abscondi|perpendo|fundo|respondi|emendo|perpendo|inpendo|profundo|ostendo|accendi|inmundum|os tendi|descendi|mundo|mundum|perpendi|intendi|praetendi|grandi|ascendi"%c]. Since the BL2LAT corpus is not lemmatised, all forms homonymous with one of the possible forms of the gerund had to be included in this query each individually.</footnote>
in -ndi combined with a genitive masculine or neuter singular noun (§3.4.1.3). The following sections will discuss the criteria used to categorise these three types of forms. The final set of Late Latin gerunds will be presented in §3.4.1.4.

### 3.4.1.1. -Ndum forms combined with a direct transitive verb

As mentioned in §2.1.1.1, in Late Latin, the gerund is sometimes marked in the bare accusative, e.g. in verb complements (Aalto 1949: 86; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 378; Bauer 1993: 67; Pinkster 2015: 305, 2021: §15.137-§15.138). Witness (1), where *inibi prilium committendum* ‘to start a war there’ acts as the direct object of the present participle *vellens* ‘wishing’.

(1) *Theubertus* [...] *prilium* *vellens* *committe-nd-um*
Theudebertus.NOM.M.SG battle.ACC.N.SG want.PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG engage-GER-ACC
*adgreditur*.
attack.PST.3SG

‘As he wished to engage in battle, Theubertus attacked.’ (Fredeg. *chron*. 4.37)

However, some forms in -ndum combined with a direct transitive verb can also be taken as gerundives forming a passive and deontic verbal periphrasis with the implicit infinitive auxiliary *esse* ‘to be’ (Kühner & Stegmann 1914⁵: 730-731; Ernout & Thomas 1951: 286; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 377-378; Menge *et al*. 2000: 734-736; Pinkster 2015: 303-304). Depending on whether it combines with an explicit masculine or neuter singular noun with which it agrees in case, gender, and number, so as to trigger the ending -um, the gerundive is personal or impersonal. An example of an -ndum form allowing an analysis as either a bare accusative gerund or a personal gerundive is *silendum* ‘to be quiet/to be kept silent’ (2).

(2) a. *Sed neque hoc sile-nd-um puto [...]*.
but NEG DEM.ACC.N.SG keep_silent-GER.acc think.PRS.1SG
‘But I do not mean to keep this silent.’ (Greg. M. *dial*. 2.25.18)

b. *Sed neque hoc sile-nd-um puto [...]*.
but NEG DEM.ACC.N.SG keep_silent-GERV.acc.N.SG think.PRS.1SG
‘But I do not think that this should be kept silent.’ (Greg. M. *dial*. 2.25.18)

In (2a), *silendum* ‘to be quiet’ is analysed as a bare accusative gerund and the pronoun *hoc* ‘this’ as its direct object, resulting in the translation ‘but I do not mean to keep this quiet’. By contrast, in (2b), the form *silendum* ‘to be kept silent’ is taken as a personal gerundive depending on the pronoun *hoc* ‘this’ and agreeing with this pronoun in case, gender, and number. It forms with this pronoun an elliptic
accusative and infinitive construction serving as the direct object of the verb *puto* ‘I think’.<fnref n="19" /> In this analysis, the example in (2b) is to be translated as ‘but I do not think that this should be kept silent’. The question raised at this point is how exactly *-ndum* forms combined with a direct transitive verb, like *silendum* ‘to be quiet/to be kept silent’ (2) should be analysed and categorised, in order to determine which of them should be included in the dataset, and which of them should be excluded.

In this study, the analysis of the forms in issue has been based on three criteria: (i) their voice value; (ii) the presence of a deontic value; and (iii) their commutability with an active present infinitive. With respect to the first criterion, the voice value of the gerund is typically active, whereas that of the gerundive is always passive when forming a verbal periphrasis with *esse* ‘to be’ (Kühner & Stegmann 1914⁵: 728-729; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 371; Scherer 1975: 90; Menge *et al.* 2000: 729-730; Pinkster 2015: 285-288). Therefore, forms having an active interpretation are gerunds, whereas those having an outspoken passive interpretation are gerundives. However, the active interpretation of the gerund is a tendency rather than a rule, because forms having a passive interpretation can sometimes nonetheless be taken as gerunds (cf. Kühner & Stegmann 1914⁵: 728-729; Scherer 1975: 90; Menge *et al.* 2000: 729-730; Pinkster 2015: 286-288). Furthermore, many instances can be interpreted with either an active or a passive interpretation, and these interpretations are often more or less equally plausible in the discourse context. This holds, for instance, for *silendum* ‘to keep silent/to be kept silent’ (2), as implicitly pointed out in the discussion of this example. This form is moreover used at the beginning of a new paragraph, so that a more concrete discourse context is lacking to help categorising it. All in all, the voice value of the *-ndum* forms alone is of little help in determining their category.

Occasionally, however, the active interpretation of the *-ndum* form is ruled out by the presence of an explicit agent. This agent is typically realised by a dative NP, but it can also be instantiated by a PP. The preposition corresponds in this case to *a(b)* ‘by’, and assigns the ablative to its complement (e.g. (3)) (Kühner & Stegmann 1914⁵: 729-731; Ernout & Thomas 1951: 286; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 369-370; Scherer 1975: 90-91; Risch 1984: 43; Menge *et al.* 2000: 534; Pinkster 2015: 62, 296-297).

(3) [...] *ea*
DEM.ABL.F.SG tibi you.DAT.M.SG fiducia faith.ABL.F.SG libellum work.ACC.M.SG edidi, submit.PST.3SG qua REL.ABL.F.SG
nulli a te prode-nd-um reor [...].
no.DAT.M.SG by you.ABL.M.SG reveal-GERV-ACC.N.SG mean.PRS.1SG

‘I have submitted the work to you with this faith, by which I mean that you should not reveal (it) to anyone (lit. ‘that it should not revealed to anyone by you’).’ (Sulp. Sev. *Mart. praef.* 2)

These forms unambiguously instantiate gerundives, and have thus been excluded from the dataset.

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ The accusative and infinitive construction is elliptic because the infinitive auxiliary *esse* ‘to be’ is left unexpressed.</footnote>
The second criterion to categorise *-ndum* forms combined with a direct transitive verb concerns the presence of a deontic value. As mentioned above, gerundives forming a verbal periphrasis with *esse* ‘to be’ do not only have a passive value, but also a deontic one. This latter value is absent from all types of gerund constituents, and hence all *-ndum* forms with a deontic value hold as gerundives. This criterion confirms the gerund status of *committendum* ‘to start’ (1), its deontic value being ruled out by the modal value of the governing verb *vellens* ‘wishing’. At the same time, it corroborates the gerundive analysis of *prodendum* ‘(you should) reveal’ (3), whose deontic value is salient. As to *silendum* ‘to keep silent/to be kept silent’ (2), it can, but does not need to, be interpreted with a deontic value. However, since the sentence in which it occurs opens a new paragraph, and since it has a pragmatic function consisting of introducing a new topic of interest for the narrative to be reported, the status of this form as a gerundive with a deontic value is more convincing. As a general rule, all forms for which a deontic value can be assumed have been analysed as gerundives, and have therefore been excluded from the dataset. Dubious cases have also been excluded, in order to ensure that the dataset contains only forms that can undeniably be considered gerunds.

The final criterion allowing to categorise *-ndum* forms combined with a direct transitive verb is their commutability with an active present infinitive. As mentioned in §2.1.1.2.2.1.2, verb complement bare accusative gerunds compete with active bare present infinitives. Therefore, *-ndum* forms that can be replaced by an active present infinitive as the complement of a direct transitive verb hold as gerunds, while those which do not allow this replacement instantiate gerundives. However, our ineluctable lack of linguistic intuition about dead languages or past stages of contemporary languages makes that this and other linguistic tests should be handled with care, and that their result should be interpreted in terms of probability instead of certainty (see Schøsler 2007: 97 on Old French). With this proviso, the criterion just presented seems to confirm the gerund analysis of *committendum* ‘to start’ (1) and the gerundive status of *prodendum* ‘(you should) reveal’ (3), at least if one accepts the grammaticality of (4) and the ungrammaticality of (5).

(4) *Theubertus prilium vellens committere adgreditur*
Theudebertus.NOM.M.SG battle.ACC.N.SG want.PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG engage.INF.PRS attack.PST.3SG
‘As he wished to engage in battle, Theubertus attacked.’ (adapted from Fredeg. *chron*. 4.37)

(5) *[*...] ea tibi fiducia libellum edidi, qua*
DEM.ABL.F.SG you.DAT.M.SG faith.ABL.F.SG work.ACC.M.SG submit.PST.3SG REL.ABL.F.SG
nulli a te prodere reor [...].
no.DAT.M.SG by you.ABL.M.SG reveal.INF.PRS mean.PRS.1SG

‘I have submitted the work to you with this faith, by which I mean to not reveal (it) to anyone by you.’ (adapted from Sulp. Sev. *Mart*. *praef*. 2)
As for *silendum* ‘to keep silent/to be kept silent’ (2), it seems replaceable by an active present infinitive, as shown by the presumed grammaticality of (6). However, this replacement rules out the deontic value of the verb complement, which, as noted above, is contextually relevant.

(6) *Sed neque hoc silere puto [...].*
but NEG DEM.ACC.N.SG keep_silent.INF.PRS think.PRS.1SG

‘But I do not mean to keep this silent.’ (adapted from Greg. M. *dial.* 2.25.18)

Therefore, *silendum* ‘to keep silent/to be kept silent’ (2) and similar forms are best taken as gerundives, despite their commutability with an active present infinitive. The conclusion to be drawn is that the three criteria put forward are not always conclusive, but that the second criterion, the presence of a deontic value, is the most reliable one. For this reason, the categorisation of *-ndum* forms combined with a direct transitive verb has in the first place been based on the question of whether the clauses headed by them bear an outspoken deontic value, in which case the *-ndum* forms have been excluded from the dataset.

### 3.4.1.2. -Ndum forms combined with an accusative masculine or neuter singular noun

A second syntactic configuration raising ambiguity between gerunds and gerundives are forms in *-ndum* combined with an accusative masculine or neuter singular noun. Witness *reficiendum* ‘to repair’ (7): on the one hand, it can be analysed as an accusative gerund governing the noun *corpus* ‘body’ as its direct object and being assigned itself the accusative by the preposition *ad* ‘to’ (7a); on the other hand, it can be taken as a personal adnominal gerundive depending on the noun *corpus* ‘body’, which, as for it, is assigned the accusative by the preposition *ad* ‘to’ (7b).

(7) a. [...] *invenerunt* [...] *quaeque* poterant ad **reficie-nd-um** corpus
find.PST.3PL INDF.ACC.N.PL can.PST.3PL to repair-GER-ACC body.ACC.N.SG
*delectabilia* videri.
delightful.ACC.N.PL see.INF.PRS.PASS
‘They found anything that could be considered delightful to repair their body.’ (Greg. M. *dial.* 2.13.20)

b. [...] *invenerunt* [...] *quaeque* poterant ad **reficie-nd-um**
find.PST.3PL INDF.ACC.N.PL can.PST.3PL to repair-GERV-ACC.N.SG
*corpus* *delectabilia* videri.
body.ACC.N.SG delightful.ACC.N.PL see.INF.PRS.PASS
‘They found anything that could be considered delightful for their body that needed to be repaired.’ (Greg. M. *dial* 2.13.20)

In the former analysis, *ad reficiendum corpus* ‘to repair their body’ (7) holds as a prepositional gerund clause, while in the latter, it qualifies as a PP including a personal gerundive. In this study, the category
of the forms involved has been determined on the basis of the same criteria as those used to categorise
*-ndum* forms combined with a direct transitive verb: those having an outspoken passive value and, more
importantly, a (salient) deontic one are taken as gerundives, while those exempt from these values and
replaceable by an active present infinitive are analysed as gerunds.<fnref n="20" /> Based on these criteria, *reficiendum*
‘to repair’ (7) holds as a gerund: although a passive and deontic interpretation is not excluded (‘for their
body that needed to be repaired’), its active and especially non-deontic interpretation is more likely (‘to
repair their body’). Moreover, it is replaceable by the active present infinitive *reficere* ‘to repair’ without
this replacement causing the loss of a salient deontic value, as clear from the comparison between (7)
and (8).

(8) *Invenerunt* [...] *quaeque* poterant ad *reficere* corpus
find.PST.3PL INDF.ACC.N.PL can.PST.3PL to repair.INF.PRS body.ACC.N.SG
*delectabilia* videri.
delightful.ACC.N.PL see.INF.PRS.PASS

‘They found anything that could be considered delightful to repair their body.’ (adapted from Greg.
M. *dial*. 2.13.20)

In the Late Latin corpus, most *-ndum* in issue allow this replacement, and have as such been categorised
as gerunds. An additional example of such a form is *devorandum* ‘to devour’ (9). Its replacement by the
present active infinitive *devorare* ‘to devour’ is illustrated in (10).

(9) [...] *te* ad **devora-nd-um** licentiam ei dabo.
you.ACC.M.SG to devour-GER-ACC permission.ACC.F.SG DEM.DAT.M.SG give.FUT.1SG
‘I will give him the permission to devour you.’ (*Pass. Columb*. 1.5.6)

(10) [...] *te* ad **devorare** licentiam ei dabo.
you.ACC.M.SG to devour.INF.PRS permission.ACC.F.SG DEM.DAT.M.SG give.FUT.1SG
‘I will give him the permission to devour you.’ (adapted from *Pass. Columb*. 1.5.6)

The fact that most forms in this syntactic configuration have been taken as gerunds instead of gerundives
is in line with the more general replacement of NPs and PPs including a personal gerundive by gerund
constituents containing an explicit direct object. As noted in §2.1.1.2.1.1, this replacement takes place
from the 3rd c. onward and lines up with the process of finitisation of gerund phrases, i.e. their evolution
toward a more complex and clause-like internal structure (Kühner & Stegmann 1914⁵: 735-736; Lyer
1932: 228-232; Palmer 1964: 324; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 373; Bauer 1993: 64-65, 2005: 516).

<footnote n="20">²⁰ According to Hofmann & Szantyr (1965: 373), the direct object of the gerund typically follows the gerund until the 7th c., but increasingly precedes it from this century onward. Hence, it could be argued that word order is an additional criterion to categorise the *-ndum* forms at stake. However, as admitted by Hofmann & Szantyr (1965: 373) themselves, these word order patterns are tendencies rather than rules. Moreover, Hofmann & Szantyr (1965: 373) do not provide quantitative results, so that it is unclear to which extent the two word orders reflect objective tendencies until and from the 7th c. onward. For these reasons, this criterion has not been retained in this thesis (a corpus-based diachronic study of the two word order patterns would certainly be interesting to reevaluate its relevance).</footnote>
3.4.1.3. -Ndi forms combined with a genitive masculine or neuter singular noun

A similar discussion can be held for verb forms in -ndi combined with a genitive masculine or neuter
singular noun. As an example, consider inveniendi 'to find' (11): on the one hand, it can be taken as an
adnominal genitive gerund depending on the noun spe 'hope' and governing the noun corporis 'body'
as its direct object, in which case the gerund has the nominal internal syntax (11a); on the other hand, it
can be seen as a personal gerundive depending on the noun corporis 'body', which, as for it, depends
on the noun spe 'hope' and therefore stands in the bare genitive (11b).

(11) a. [...] *ab spe iterum invenie-nd-i corporis destituuntur [...].*

from hope.ABL.F.SG again find-GER-GEN body.GEN.N.SG leave.PRS.PASS.3PL

‘They are again left without hope to find the body.’ (Vit. Elig. 2.6)

b. [...] *ab spe iterum invenie-nd-i corporis destituuntur [...].*

from hope.ABL.F.SG again find-GERV-GEN.N.SG body.GEN.N.SG leave.PRS.PASS.3PL

‘They are again left without hope for the body that needed to be found.’ (Vit. Elig. 2.6)

In the former analysis, *inveniendi corporis* (11) is a gerund phrase, while in the latter, it instantiates a NP including a personal gerundive. As for the preceding types of categorial ambiguity, these -ndi forms have been taken as gerundives when they have an outspoken passive and especially a deontic value, but as gerunds when having an active value and being replaceable by an active present infinitive without losing a contextually salient deontic value. Returning to *inveniendi* ‘to find’ (11), its passive and deontic interpretation is not excluded (‘without hope for the body that needed to be found’), but it is much less plausible than its active, non-deontic interpretation (‘without hope to find the body’). In addition, it can be replaced by the present active infinitive *invenire* ‘to find’ (12), which does not have any deontic value whatsoever.

(12) [...] *ab spe iterum invenire corpus destituuntur [...].*<fnref n="21" />

from hope.ABL.F.SG again find.INF.PRS body.ACC.N.SG leave.PRS.PASS.3PL

‘They are again left without hope to find the body.’ (adapted from Vit. Elig. 2.6)

It could be argued that, since the Late Latin gerund mostly has verbal internal syntax, the forms in -ndi concerned should be taken as gerundives instead of gerunds with nominal internal syntax. However, this argument is infirmed by instances like (13), in which *suspendendi* ‘to suspend’ can only be analysed as a gerund governing the genitive noun *ultionis* ‘vengeance’ as its direct object and thus having nominal

<footnote n="21">²¹ Recall that the infinitive is increasingly used in adnominal phrases in Late Latin, so that it can indeed replace the adnominal gerund *inveniendi* ‘to find’ (11). However, the infinitive typically has verbal internal syntax. Hence, the genitive noun *corporis* ‘of the body’ in (11) has been replaced by the accusative noun *corpus* ‘body’ in (12). This replacement does not weaken the argument: what really matters is that the adnominal *-ndum* constituent can be replaced by an active infinitive clause, so that the former can be taken as a gerund constituent instead of a passive and deontic gerundive construction.</footnote>
internal syntax. Indeed, if it were a gerundive, it should agree with this genitive feminine noun and thus take the form *suspendendae* ‘to suspend’.

(13) [...] *non desperabamus divinam* [...] *ultionis* **suspende-nd-i** manum [...].

NEG despair.PST.1PL divine.ACC.F.SG vengeance.GEN.F.SG suspend-GER-GEN hand. ACC.F.SG

‘We did not despair the divine hand to suspend vengeance.’ (Epist. Austr. 9)

In other words, though the internal syntax of the gerund mostly corresponds to that of a verb, it can also correspond to that of a noun (Kühner & Stegmann 1914⁵: 745). Therefore, forms in -ndi combined with a genitive masculine or neuter singular noun cannot be automatically considered gerundives, but need to be categorised on the basis of the criteria set out above.

An interesting example in this regard is (14): *minuendi* ‘to reduce’ and *effugiendi* ‘to escape’ are combined with respectively the genitive masculine noun *doloris* ‘pain’ and the genitive the neuter noun *funeris* ‘death’. The -ndi forms are to be analysed as genitive gerunds displaying nominal internal syntax, thus as forms governing the nouns *doloris* ‘pain’ and *funeris* ‘death’ as their direct object. This gerund analysis of *minuendi* ‘to reduce’ and *effugiendi* ‘to escape’ is indisputable because of their parallelism with *evadendi* ‘to avoid’. This form combines with the genitive feminine noun *calamitatis* ‘disaster’ and cannot be analysed as a personal gerundive depending on the noun *calamitatis* ‘disaster’, because in this case, it should agree with this noun and take the form *evadendae* ‘to avoid’. Consequently, it can only be taken as a gerund with nominal internal syntax, selecting the noun *calamitatis* ‘disaster’ as its direct object.

(14) **Evade-nd-i** calamitatis inditionem non comprehendo, **minue-nd-i**
avoid-GER-GEN disaster.GEN.F.SG indication.ACC.F.SG NEG seize.PRS.1SG reduce-GER-GEN
doloris argumenta non colligo, **effugie-nd-i** funeris
pain.GEN.M.SG argument.ACC.N.PL NEG collect.PRS.1SG escape.GER-GEN death.GEN.N.SG
vestigium non invenio.
trace.ACC.N.SG NEG find.PRS.1SG

‘I do not seize the indication to avoid the disaster, I do not collect the arguments to reduce the pain, I do not find the trace to escape from death.’ (Isid. *synon*. 1.8)

### 3.4.1.4. Final set of Late Latin gerunds

In view of the criteria set out in the previous sections, the number of Late Latin gerunds included in the dataset of this thesis is 1 308. This number is slightly higher than the number of instances retained in the Classical Latin dataset (n=1 270). Considering the size of the Classical and Late Latin corpora, the gerund is more frequent in the Late Latin than in the Classical Latin corpus. The normalised frequency
of the gerund in the two corpora, calculated as the number of instances per 10 000 words, is presented in Table 3.1.

<table><caption>**Table 3.1.** Frequency of the gerund in the Classical and Late Latin corpora</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#gerunds</th><th>#words</th><th>#gerunds per 10 000 words</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classical Latin</td><td>1 270</td><td>625 034</td><td>20.32</td></tr><tr><td>Late Latin</td><td>1 308</td><td>425 903</td><td>30.71</td></tr></tbody></table>

The increasing frequency of the gerund between Classical and Late Latin observed in Table 3.1 is highly relevant.<fnref n="22" /> In Late Latin, the gradual replacement of the present participle by the gerund in non-purpose adjuncts and progressive constructions leads to an increasing frequency of gerunds, whereas the gradual substitution of the gerund by the infinitive in adnominal phrases, purpose adjunct, verb complements, and adjective complements reduces the frequency of the gerund. The increasing trend observed in Table 3.1 could therefore indicate that the former evolution is more significant than the latter, i.e. that the rise of gerunds at the expense of present participles in non-purpose adjuncts and progressive constructions outweighs their decline in adnominal phrases, verb complements, adjective complements, and purpose adjuncts in favour of the infinitive.

Another factor that might contribute to the frequency rise of the gerund is the replacement of NPs and PPs containing a personal gerundive by gerund clauses including an explicit direct object. However, the precise impact of this replacement on the increasing frequency of the gerund cannot be measured without a quantitative study of the competing gerund and gerundive phrases from Classical to Late Latin. Such a study falls outside the scope of this thesis. In §3.4.2.3, I will briefly return to this question when evaluating the frequency pattern of the present participle.

The remainder of this section aims to explore the diachronic and thematic distribution of the Late Latin gerunds. With regard to their diachronic distribution, 14% of the gerunds cannot be unambiguously assigned to either Imperial, Merovingian, or Early Medieval Latin. This leaves us 86% of periodisable forms (1 130 occurrences out of 1 308). As expected from the distribution of the Late Latin words among these three periods (see Figure 3.5), most of the periodisable forms occur in the Merovingian and Early Medieval Latin sub-corpora (see Table 3.2 below). Relatively speaking, the frequency of these instances increases between Imperial and Early Medieval Latin, as shown in Table 3.2.<fnref n="23" />

<footnote n="22">²² According to a chi-square goodness-of-fit test, this difference is also statistically highly significant ($\chi^2 = 111.09$; df = 1; p < 0.0001). More details about this type of statistical test will be provided in §3.6.3.1.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ A chi-square goodness-of-fit test suggests that this frequency rise is statistically highly significant ($\chi^2 = 21.23$; df = 2; p < 0.0001).</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 3.2.** Frequency of the gerund in the Imperial, Merovingian, and Early Medieval Latin corpora</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#gerunds</th><th>#words</th><th>#gerunds per 10 000 words</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Imperial Latin</td><td>52</td><td>30 003</td><td>17.33</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian Latin</td><td>525</td><td>187 454</td><td>28.01</td></tr><tr><td>Early Medieval Latin</td><td>553</td><td>170 986</td><td>32.34</td></tr></tbody></table>

The increasing tendency between Imperial and Early Medieval Latin observed in Table 3.2 calls for the same remark as that made for the frequency rise between Classical and Late Latin: it might suggest that the substitution of the present participle by the gerund in progressive constructions and non-purpose adjuncts is more significant than the replacement of the gerund by the infinitive in adnominal phrases, verb complements, adjective complements, and purpose adjuncts.

Concerning the thematic distribution of the Late Latin gerunds, more than half of them occur in the religious texts (55%), the legal and historical texts containing respectively 29% and 16%. In relative terms, however, the gerund is most frequent in the legal texts, while having a similar frequency in the religious and historical texts (Table 3.3).<fnref n="24" />

<table><caption>**Table 3.3.** Frequency of the gerund in the three thematic domains in the Late Latin corpus</caption><thead><tr><th>Domain</th><th>#gerunds</th><th>#words</th><th>#gerunds per 10 000 words</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Religious</td><td>720</td><td>247 763</td><td>29.06</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>375</td><td>100 016</td><td>37.49</td></tr><tr><td>Historical</td><td>213</td><td>78 124</td><td>27.26</td></tr></tbody></table>

As we will see in Chapter 4, the legal texts do not only differ from the religious and historical texts with respect to the frequency of the gerund, but also, and more significantly, with regard to its syntactic use. For this reason, the unequal thematic distribution of the gerunds will be taken into account in evaluating all quantitative results (see §3.6.1.2 and §3.6.3.1).

### 3.4.2. The Late Latin present participle

The ending of the Late Latin present participle corresponds to one of the endings of the third declension adjectives, namely -ns, -ntem, -ntis, -nti, -nte, -ntes, -ntia, -ntium, -ntum, or -ntibus. These endings are sometimes affected by phonetic evolutions, in particular the vocalic confusion between /ɛ/ and /ɪ/, the apocope of final /m/, and/or the assibilation of /t/ (cf. Väänänen 1963³: 36-37, 55, 66-67). An exploratory

<footnote n="24">²⁴ According to a chi-square goodness-of-fit test, the differences between the three thematic domains are statistically highly significant (χ² = 20.2; df = 2; p < 0.0001). The most significant contribution to the obtained chi-square values is made by the overrepresentation of gerunds in the legal texts.</footnote>
investigation of the attested endings of the present participle based on the morphosyntactic query [pos= "V"& mood="PARTICIPLE" & tense="PRESENT"] in the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus revealed that only the phonetic variants -nts, -ncia, -ncium, -ntebus -ntaes, -ntae, and -ntces are used. These variants have been added to the basic morphological query used to select all present participles in the Late Latin corpus, i.e. [word=".*ns|.*ntem|.*ntis|.*nti|.*nte|.*ntes|.*ntia|.*ntium|.*ntum|.*ntibus"]. As in the case of the gerund, I added to this query a code serving to exclude a selection of recurrent words homonymous with one of the possible forms of the present participle, like the nouns *mons* ‘mountain’ and *gens* ‘nation’.<fnref n="25" /> This final query yielded a total number of 13 173 forms, among which 3 595 in the BL2LAT corpus and 9 578 in the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus (at least in the texts retained in the corpus of this thesis).

Have been excluded from these results all forms that are not built on the present stem of a verb and can as such not hold as present participles. The remaining forms instantiate either present participles or third declension adjectives. The latter are often historically derived from present participles by means of a lexicalisation process. From a synchronic point of view, it is therefore sometimes difficult to identify the category of forms in -ns or an inflectional variant of this ending (henceforth '-ns forms'), especially when they are used with an adjectival function (Marouzeau 1910: 48-63; Eklund 1970: 12-13, 18-25; Scherer 1975: 94). Moreover, some -ns forms are nominalised, i.e. serve as the head of a NP (Marouzeau 1910: 63-70; Laughton 1964: 70-83; Palmer 1964: 326; Scherer 1975: 95-96; Pinkster 2015: 956-958). As noted in §1.3.2.2, the use of these forms results from a process of (contextual) lexicalisation, and hence they are not taken into account in this study. However, it is not always easy to establish whether an -ns form acts as the head of a NP, especially for forms that are not fully lexicalised on the diachronic axis (Ernout & Thomas 1951: 275; Eklund 1970: 16-18; Pinkster 2015: 954, 956-958). For the reasons just mentioned, it is important to examine in more detail the distinction between present participles and adjectives (§3.4.2.1), on the one hand, and between nominalised and non-nominalised present participles (§3.4.2.2), on the other. The final set of Late Latin present participles will be presented in §3.4.2.3.

<footnote n="25">²⁵ The morphological query thus used is [word=".*ns|.*ntem|.*ntis|.*nti|.*nte|.*ntes|.*ntia|.*ntium|.*ntum|.*ntibus|.*nts|.*ncia|.*ncium|.*ntebus|.*ntaes|.*ntae|.*ntces"&word!="montes|prudentibus|provintia|quantis|dentes|omnipotentis|indumentis|conten- ti|pons|adolescentia|infantis|infante|claremonte|frantia|uiolentia|frontem|argenti|gentis|uehementem|arrogantia|gens|monte|gent- es|gentem|clemens|frequentes|clementia|quanti|clementia|momentis|aliquantis|nutrimentis|elementi|iumentis|mentium|iumenti| mens|inoboedientem|omnipotentis|gente|prudentia|gentibus|frequentia|septigenti|pontem|prudens|uentis|mundumtenti|demente s|insipientes|inuenti|quingentis|uestimentis|tormentis|amentia|mentibus|omnipotentii|omnipotentibus|aliquanti|uehemens|nuntiu- m|mentis|mentem|uenti|fontium|mentem|sentis|prudentem|omnipotens|omnipotentem|innocentes|repente|mentes|innocentem|in gens|adulescens|recens|ingenti|substantia|sponte|inconstantia|frontis|dentibus|ingenti|mens|mente|sacramentis|emolumenti|spo nte|duodeuiginti|inputens|impudens|monazontes|lente|monazontes|fundamentis|fontem|fontes|fronte|infans|montibus|quanti|in fantes|infantibus|testamenti|testamenti|montibus|tanti|gentes|ingentes|reverentia|reuerentia|tante|aliquantis|fons|fonte|fontem|q uotiens|gentium|aliquotiens|tantis|monti|ante|calciamenti|ingentem|ingens|trans|frequens|argumentis|ingentis|montis|montem|u iginti|frequenti|montium|prouintia|ante|mons|infans|infantem|inpotentia|infantia|documentis|nuntia|totiens|mons|monte"%c]. As stated with respect to the gerund, the BL2LAT corpus is not lemmatised. Hence, all forms homonymous with one of the possible forms of the present participle had to be included in this query each individually.</footnote>
### 3.4.2.1. *Present participles vs adjectives*

In the literature, different criteria have been proposed to categorise -ns forms as either present participles or adjectives (Marouzeau 1910: 48-63; Eklund 1970: 12-13, 18-25). These criteria concern three distinct aspects of the forms at stake, namely their morphology (§3.4.2.1.1), semantics (§3.4.2.1.2), and syntax (§3.4.2.1.3). The following sections will review these criteria (§3.4.2.1.1-§3.4.2.1.3) and list the ones that I will use in this thesis (§3.4.2.1.4).

#### 3.4.2.1.1. Morphological distinction

Different morphological criteria have been proposed. Most obviously, present participles are non-finite verb forms, so that only forms having a corresponding finite verb “used in the language current at the time when the text in question was written” (Eklund 1970: 12) may qualify as present participles (see also Marouzeau 1910: 49). Based on this criterion, three types of -ns forms hold as adjectives instead of present participles, and are thus excluded from the dataset.

(i) Forms lacking a corresponding finite verb both “in the language current at the time when the text in question was written” (Eklund 1970: 12) and in all previous synchronic stages, such as *clemens* ‘merciful’, *demens* ‘reckless’, *ingens* ‘enormous’, and *vehemens* ‘violent’ (Marouzeau 1910: 49 fn. 1; Eklund 1970: 12-13). These forms are not built on the present stem of a verb, but are regular adjectives that simply happen to have the same inflectional endings as the present participle.

(ii) Forms that lack a corresponding finite verb “in the language current at the time when the text in question was written” (Eklund 1970: 12), but that had such a corresponding finite verb at an earlier stage of the language (Marouzeau 1910: 49; Eklund 1970: 12). Marouzeau (1910: 26, 49) cites as examples *frequens* ‘frequent’, *repens* ‘sudden’, and *recens* ‘recent’, which he claims to be derived from respectively *frequere*, *repere*, and *recere* – note that he does not provide a proper meaning for these verbs and that the former two are unattested). Another example cited by Marouzeau (1910: 49), but discussed in more detail by Eklund (1970: 12), is *potens* ‘powerful’. Both authors derive this form from the present stem of the unattested verb *potere* ‘to be able to’. However, as rightly observed by Eklund (1970: 12, fn. 1), *potens* ‘powerful’ might also be built on the present stem of *posse* ‘to be able to’, which exists throughout the history of Latin.<fnref n="26" /> This latter analysis is adopted

<footnote n="26">²⁶ Eklund (1970: 12 fn. 1) refutes *posse* ‘to be able to’ as the origin of *potens* ‘powerful’ because he finds it “hardly justified from a syntactical point of view, since there is a syntactical difference: *potens* very seldom takes an infinitive in pre-Christian Latin [...], whereas the infinitive is frequent along with finite forms of *posse*” (italics original). However, this is an unconvincing argument, since the absence of an infinitive object is the result of the ‘deactualised’ (Dik 1985: 11) status of *potens* ‘powerful’ when having adjectival external syntax, feature that does not only characterise other present participles, but also other types of non-finite verb forms (Lehmann 1988: 191-195). Besides, there are instances of *potens* ‘powerful’ showing adjectival external</footnote>
by Hofmann & Szantyr (1965: 386, 388), who thus regard *potens* ‘powerful’ as a present participle, but not without adding that its meaning is not identical to that of its corresponding finite verb. This is a valid point, to which I will return in §3.4.2.1.2.

(iii) Forms built on the present stem of a verb that is used “in the language current at the time when the text in question was written” (Eklund 1970: 12), but to which is attached additional morphology absent from this corresponding finite verb (Eklund 1970: 12-13). Examples are *evidens* ‘evident’ and *impatiens* ‘impatient’: they are built on respectively *videre* ‘to see’ and *pati* ‘to bear’, but they contain in addition the respective prefixes *e(x)* ‘from’ *in-* ‘un-’ (Eklund 1970: 12-13).

However, not all forms validating the first morphological criterion are present participles (Marouzeau 1910: 49; Eklund 1970: 12). According to Eklund (1970: 12), only the forms whose stem is “exactly the same in the p.p. [present participle, JV] as in the finite forms” can be categorised as present participles, like *amans* ‘loving’ and *audiens* ‘hearing’, built on the present stem of respectively *amare* ‘to love’ (i.e. *ama-*) and *audire* ‘to hear’ (i.e. *audi-*) (see also Marouzeau 1910: 49). Based on this second criterion, *prudens* ‘prudent’ does not hold as a present participle, since it is built on *providere* ‘to take precautions’ without simply “adding *-nt-* to the present stem” (Eklund 1970: 12; italics original). *Prudens* ‘prudent’ contrasts in this respect with *providens* ‘taking precautions’, built on the same verb and unquestionably validating Eklund’s criterion (*cf*. Marouzeau 1910: 49; Eklund 1970: 12). However, while this second criterion makes perfect sense for forms like *prudens* ‘prudent’, it is problematic for a particular group of irregular verbs.

Indeed, some irregular verbs have different present stems. This raises the question on the basis of
which stem(s) the *-ns* forms should be built in order to qualify as present participles (Eklund 1970: 12
fn. 1). Examples are *praeesse* ‘to be present’, *abesse* ‘to be absent’, *ire* ‘to go’, and *velle* ‘to want’. *Velle*
‘to want’, for instance, gives rise to both *vellens* ‘willing’ and *volens* ‘willing’ (Eklund 1970: 12 fn. 2).
In the case of *ire* ‘to go’, phonetic variation in its present stem leads to the co-existence of *iens* ‘going’
(in the nominative singular and the accusative neuter singular) and forms built on *eunt-*, such as *euntes*
‘going’ (nominative and accusative masculine and feminine plural). Though he is not explicit about this,
Eklund (1970: 12 fn. 2) seems to take all stems of these verbs as legitimate stems for the formation of
present participles. This is undoubtedly the only viable position.

As apparent from the preceding paragraph, the second morphological criterion of Eklund (1970: 12) is less reliable than the first one. Irregular verbs are by definition formed in an idiosyncratic way, and hence it is not surprising that they differ from regular verbs with respect to the formation of present participles. For this reason, it seems more adequate to retain only the first criterion, and to ‘simply’ add

<footnote>syntax and governing an infinitive object, as observed by Bonnet (1890: 438) and confirmed by Eklund (1970: 12 fn. 1) himself.
This supports the present participle analysis of at least these occurrences.</footnote>
that the forms categorisable as present participles may be formed in either a regular or an irregular way.
This adjustment will also be of crucial interest for the definition of the Old French verb form in -ant.
Indeed, without this adjustment, morphologically irregular forms like *être* 'being' and *avoir* 'having',
built on respectively *être* 'to be' and *avoir* 'to have', cannot hold as verb forms in -ant – position that is
untenable (see §3.4.3.1).

The third morphological criterion to categorise -ns forms as either present participles or adjectives
is the presence of grammatical morphemes that are only compatible with adjectives, in particular those
expressing the comparative and superlative degrees of comparison (Marouzeau 1910: 50; Eklund 1970:
18). For instance, forms containing the comparative morpheme -ior- (e.g. *parentiores* 'rather obedient')
or the superlative morpheme -issim (e.g. *praecellentissimus* 'very distinguished'), can qualify as present
participles.

Eklund (1970: 22) puts forward a fourth morphological criterion, namely the formation of adverbs
on the basis of -ns forms. He argues that forms having an adverb derived from them "may be placed on
a level with the adjectives" (Eklund 1970: 22). As an example, he cites *ardens* 'burning', at the basis of
the adverb *ardenter* 'ardently, eagerly'. However, the creation of an adverb on the basis of an -ns form
does not necessarily imply that this form is an adjective, if this is indeed what Eklund (1970: 22) means
by his rather vague description. The adverb might also be formed on the basis of a present participle that
has a descriptive meaning and that is often used with an adjectival function. This could be the case for
*ardens* 'burning', as this form is often used adnominally. A distinction should thus be made between the
category and the function of -ns forms, which is often ignored in discussions about the category of the
forms at stake – at least in explicit terms. Given that it is based on the confusion between category and
function, the fourth morphological criterion of Eklund (1970: 22) will not be retained in this thesis.

3.4.2.1.2. Semantic distinction

From a semantic viewpoint, the categorisation of -ns forms as either present participles or adjectives has
often been related to the question of whether their meaning is identical to or different from that of the
corresponding finite verb. In the former case, the -ns forms qualify as present participles, while in the
latter case they hold as adjectives (Marouzeau 1910: 49-50; Eklund 1970: 20-21). Marouzeau (1910:
50) takes *diligens* 'diligent' on the basis of this criterion as an adjective, since its meaning diverges from
that of the verb on which it is built, *viz.* *diligere* 'to love', as evidenced by the example in (15).

(15) *Recte loquere et proinde dilige-nt-em ut uxorem decet.*
properly speak.PRS.2SG and just love-PTCP.PRS-ACC.F.SG as wife.ACC.F.SG fit.PRS.3SG
‘You speak properly and just as it fits a diligent wife.’ (Plaut. *Amph.* 773)
Marouzeau (1910: 50) defends a similar analysis for *praesens* ‘being present’, also adopted by Eklund (1970: 21). These authors rightly derive this instance from *praeesse*, but are mistaken in restricting the translation of this verb to ‘to be in charge’. *Praeesse* can also have the meaning ‘to be present’, which is moreover the typical meaning of the *-ns* forms built on this verb. Therefore, *praesens* ‘being present’ qualifies as a present participle, just like *amans* ‘loving’, built on *amare* ‘to love’.

In fact, the semantic criterion just presented is misleading. Present participles are non-finite verb forms that can have adjectival external syntax and that are in this case usually 'deactualised' (Dik 1985: 11) for one or more arguments. This adjectival use can provoke a slight shift in the meaning of the verb, which nonetheless remains related to the original meaning. *Diligentem* 'diligent' (15) is a case in point: its meaning differs from that of *diligere* 'to love' only because it acts as an adnominal modifier without a concrete direct object. This yields "a generic, habitual or potential reading rather than a reading which directly designates some actual state of affairs" (Dik 1985: 11). Crucially, the contextual reinterpretation of *diligentem* 'diligent' does not necessarily change its category. Hence, it can still qualify as a present participle. Put differently, *-ns* forms may be used with an adjectival function and have several properties related to this category while remaining present participles from a morphosyntactic point of view, as implicitly admitted by Eklund (1970: 20-21). The conclusion to be drawn is that, as mentioned earlier (§3.4.2.1.1), a clear distinction should be made between the category and the function of *-ns* forms, in order to avoid the pitfall of categorising *-ns* forms as adjectives instead of present participles simply because of their slightly different meaning due to their deactualised status and adjectival function.

Over time, the repeated use of deactualised *-ns* forms with an adjectival function might lead to a process of lexicalisation, and thus to their eventual recategorisation as adjectives (Marouzeau 1910: 59). However, from a synchronic point of view, the distinction between deactualised present participles with adjectival external syntax and lexicalised or lexicalising adjectives is tiny. It does moreover not raise a semantic or syntactic issue, but only a categorial one, related to the distinction between category and function mentioned earlier. In line with the broad definition of the present participle that will be adopted in this study (§3.4.2.1.4), all deactualised *-ns* forms showing adjectival external syntax will be taken as present participles, provided that they are built on a verb "used in the language current at the time when the text in question was written" (Eklund 1970: 12) without having additional inflectional morphology that can only be marked on adjectives. This choice might be controversial for some forms (e.g. *praesens* 'present'), but at least it provides a methodologically transparent framework respecting the distinction between the category and function of *-ns* forms as much as possible. Moreover, the broadness of this definition of the present participle will be taken into account in the assessment of all quantitative results, so that an eventual overrepresentation of adjectival present participles will be relativised (Chapter 5).

A similar argument can be developed for the second semantic criterion proposed by Eklund (1970: 19-20). He claims that adjectives usually denote qualities, whereas present participles typically express
"actions or developments". He cites as examples the adjectives *bonus* 'good', *albus* 'white', *longus* 'long', and *fortis* 'strong', and the present participles *faciens* 'doing', *docens* 'learning', *dicens* 'saying', and *adveniens* 'arriving' (see also Marouzeau 1910: 22, 48; Kühner & Stegmann 1914⁵: 755). This claim is certainly true for adjectives, but for the present participle, it is more or less restricted to forms having the adverbial or verbal external syntax. As stated with respect to the first semantic criterion, the meaning of present participles used with an adjectival function often slightly diverges from that of the verb on which they are built, especially when they are deactualised, such as *diligentem* 'diligent' in (15). In this change, the type of meaning of the *-ns* form typically shifts from an "action or development" to a quality (Marouzeau 1910: 48; Eklund 1970: 20). This holds for both *diligentem* 'diligent' (15) and *proserpens* 'creeping forward' (16) (Marouzeau 1910: 48; Eklund 1970: 20).

(16) *Tamquam proserpe-ns*
bestia est bilinguis
like creep_forward-PTCP.PRS.NOM.F.SG animal.NOM.F.SG be.PRS.3SG treacherous.NOM.M.SG
et scelestus.
and evil.NOM.M.SG
'Like a snake (lit. 'animal that creeps forward) he is treacherous and evil.' (Plaut. Persa 299)

The same argument applies to the forms with a different *type* of meaning than their corresponding finite verb: forms denoting a quality can instantiate present participles as much as those expressing an "action or development". The former may denote a quality simply because they are used with syntactic function characteristic of a category other than their own category, *i.e.* through (contextual) recategorisation, as stated implicitly by Marouzeau (1910: 48) and Eklund (1970: 19-20). This hypothesis is supported by the fact *-ns* forms may denote a quality instead of an "action or development" not because of exhibiting adjectival external syntax or being deactualised, but because of being built on a verb denoting a quality by itself (e.g. *candens* 'being white-hot' (17)).

(17) *Tum vero ac si cande-ns*
*ferrum* *faucibus* *accepisset* [...].
then but as if be_very_hot-PTCP.PRS.ACC.N.SG iron.ACC.N.SG jaw.ABL.F.PL take.SBJV.PST.3SG
'But then, as if he took a very hot iron in his jaws (...).' (Sulp. Sev. *Mart*. 1.17.7)

In view of the previous discussion, it is not surprising that the question of whether *-ns* forms are present participles or adjectives mostly applies to forms having a descriptive meaning or designating a state (in the Vendlerian sense), such as *praesens* 'present', *patens* 'standing open', *excellens* 'excelling', *valens* 'being strong', and *abundans* 'abounding' (Marouzeau 1910: 48-63). These types of meaning are simply often attributed or predicated as qualities. However, qualities may be expressed not only by adjectives, but also by deactualised present participles used with an adjectival function.

The definition of the present participle in this study will not take into account the semantic criteria just explored, but only require that the *-ns* form, in order to qualify as a present participle, has a meaning
derivable from the meaning of its corresponding finite verb through deactualisation and/or (contextual) recategorisation (e.g. *diligentem* ‘diligent’ (15)).

### 3.4.2.1.3. Syntactic distinction

Various syntactic criteria have been put forward to categorise -ns forms. To start with, Marouzeau (1910: 49) holds that all forms used in a way inaccessible to its corresponding finite verb qualify as adjectives instead of present participles. For instance, in (18) *lubentes* ‘pleasing’ is used in a personal way, in that it agrees with a noun in case, gender, and, number, while its corresponding finite verb is impersonal (i.e. *lubet* ‘it pleases’).

(18) [...] *qui* semper malo muliebri sunt
REL.NOM.M.PL always misfortune.ABL.N.SG womanly.ABL.N.SG be.PRS.3PL
**lub-en-tes.**
please.PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL
‘(...) who are always pleased with the misfortune of women.’ (Plaut. *Cist*. 681)

Eklund (1970: 21-22) also mentions this criterion, but while Marouzeau (1910: 49) takes the forms in question as adjectives, by invoking a mechanism of transcategorial shift (“*adjectivation du participe*”), Eklund (1970: 21-22) makes the necessary distinction between category and function, considering them present participles used with an adjectival function. Like the semantic criteria discussed in the previous section, this first syntactic criterion is thus poorly reliable. The same applies to the three other syntactic criteria found in the literature.

(i) Forms coordinated with regular adjectives and/or past participles with adjectival external syntax may be adjectival present participles instead of adjectives, provided that they validate the morphological criteria presented in §3.4.2.1.1 (Eklund 1970: 20). A clear example is the subject predicate *fluens* ‘flowing’ (19), coordinated with the past participle *dissipata* ‘disordered’ and the adjective *inculta* ‘unpolished’.

(19) [...] *dissipata* et *inculta* et *flue-ns* est
incoherent.NOM.F.SG and unpolished.NOM.F.SG and flow-PTCP.PRS.NOM.F.SG be.PRS.3SG
*oratio.*
speech.NOM.F.SG
‘The speech is incoherent, unpolished, and loose (lit. ‘flowing’).’ (Cic. *de orat*. 220)

(ii) Forms used with an adjectival syntactic function and a meaning related to that of the corresponding finite verb may also be adjectival present participles instead of adjectives, unless they violate the
morphological criteria set out in §3.4.2.1.1 (Marouzeau 1910: 50; Eklund 1970: 22). Examples are
subject predicates like *fluens* ‘flowing’ (19) and adnominal forms such as *ardenti* ‘ardent’ (20).

(20) [...] quis umquam fuit aut avaritia tam arde-nt-i
REL.NOM.M.SG ever be.PST.3SG or avarice.ABL.F.SG so burn-PTCP.PRS-ABL.F.SG
aut tam effrenatis cupiditatibus ut [...].
or so unbridled.ABL.F.PL desire.ABL.F.PL that
‘(...) who ever was with such an ardent avarice or such unbridled desires that (...)’ (Cic. fin. 3.36)

(iii) Forms having adjectival internal syntax are likely to also have adjectival external syntax. Yet, even
forms with adjectival internal syntax may be present participles instead of adjectives, provided, as
always, that they validate the morphological criteria mentioned in §3.4.2.1.1 (Marouzeau 1910:
50).<fnref n="27" /> Witness (21): *cupiens* ‘desiring’ holds as a present participle despite the fact that its internal
argument, *viz.* the pronoun *tui* ‘you’, is marked in the genitive (just like when it is governed by an
adjective) instead of the accusative (the case assigned by finite forms of the verb *cupere* ‘to desire’).

(21) Nam nemo ad te venit nisi cupie-ns
for nobody.NOM.M.SG to you.ACC.M.SG come.PRS.3SG unless desire-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG
tui [...].
you.GEN.M.SG
‘For nobody comes to you unless he desires you.’ (Ter. Hec. 141-142)

In addition to the criteria just illustrated, Eklund (1970: 20) argues that -ns forms used to translate Greek adjectives are present participles used with an adjectival function, at least when they do not violate the morphological criteria expounded in §3.4.2.1.1.

Just like the first syntactic criterion, the syntactic criteria in (i) to (iii) do not allow categorising -ns
forms as present participles vs adjectives, but as present participles having adjectival external syntax vs
present participles showing adverbial or verbal external syntax (Eklund 1970: 20-22). Put differently,
the forms in issue are functionally similar to adjectives without undergoing a shift of morphosyntactic
categorisation.

3.4.2.1.4. Conclusion

As shown in the preceding sections, different criteria have been put forward to categorise -ns forms as
either present participles or adjectives. Most of these criteria are misleading, because they concern less

<footnote n="27">²⁷ It goes without saying that forms having *verbal* internal syntax (e.g. governing an accusative second argument) are present participles instead of adjectives. The category of such forms is not subject to debate, and hence this criterion is not mentioned in the running text.</footnote>
the categorial distinction between present participles and adjectives than the functional distinction
between present participles with adjectival external syntax and present participles showing adverbial or
verbal external syntax. This holds in particular for all semantic and syntactic criteria. Thus, the most
reliable criteria to categorise -ns forms are the morphological ones. In view of the discussion of these
criteria in §3.4.2.1.1, I will take as present participles all -ns forms built on a verb "used in the language
current at the time when the text in question was written" (Eklund 1970: 12) without having additional
morphology, irrespective of whether they are formed in a regular or irregular way. The only semantic
criterion that needs to be added to this definition is that the forms categorisable as present participles
should have the same meaning as the verb on which they are built or a meaning that can be derived from
it through deactualisation and/or (contextual) recategorisation (see §3.4.2.1.2).

This definition of the present participle is relatively broad, and applies to forms like *praesens*
'present', *absens* 'absent', *sapiens* 'wise', and *potens* 'able to, powerful' as much as to forms like *amans*
'loving', *videns* 'seeing', *legens* 'reading', and *audiens* 'hearing'. Therefore, the dataset of this study
contains several forms that qualify as adjectives according to a narrower definition of the present
participle, as in, for instance, Eklund (1970: 12-13). In order to avoid that it biases the results of this
study, the broadness of this definition will be taken into account in assessing all quantitative results in
the empirical part of this study. This broad definition of the present participle, although it may be
criticised, has the advantage of being transparent and more operational for quantitative analyses, as will
be shown in Chapter 5.

3.4.2.2. Nominalised vs non-nominalised present participles

The distinction between nominalised and non-nominalised present participle has been discussed briefly
in §1.3.2.2 with respect to Classical Latin. As mentioned there, the present participle is sometimes used
as the head of a NP. A distinction needs to be made in this respect between forms that are more or less
lexicalised in this function (e.g. *negotians* 'merchant' and *amans* 'lover'), and forms functioning as the
head of what Corblin (1990: 65) calls a 'NP without a noun' or 'nounless NP'. These are NPs in which
the head noun is left unspecified, but can easily be inferred from the discourse context. Due to the ellipsis
of this noun, the originally adnominal adjective or participle is contextually nominalised, so as to serve
as the head of the NP (Marouzeau 1910: 63-70; Laughton 1964: 70-83; Palmer 1964: 326; Scherer 1975:
95-96; Pinkster 2015: 956-958). For example, *absentibus* 'the absent' (22) is contextually nominalised
as the head of an ablative NP (or at least of the nominal complement of the preposition *de* 'about'), the
elided noun being an ablative (pro)noun like *hominibus* 'men' or *quibusdam* 'some people'. An
equivalent example from the Late Latin corpus is *legentibus* 'readers' (23).
(22) [...] *cum* [...] *de* **abse-nt-ibus** [...] *dicitur*.
when about be_absent-PTCP.PRS-ABL.M.PL talk.PRS.PASS.3SG
‘(...) when people talk about the absent.’ (Cic. *off*. 1.134)

(23) *Simul et lege-nt-ibus* *consulendum fuit* [...].
at_theSame_time and read-PTCP.PRS-DAT.M.PL look_after.GERV.NOM.N.SG be.PST.3SG
‘And at the same time, it needed to be looked after for the readers (...).’ (Sulp. *Sev. Mart*. 1.8)

For most present participles, among which *absentibus* ‘the absent’ (22) and *legentibus* ‘readers’ (23), the question of whether they are nominalised is straightforward. Their nominalised status is obvious if they are lexicalised in this function. A recurrent example of such a form in the Late Latin corpus is *agens* ‘advocate’, derived from the verb *agere* ‘to defend a cause’. Noteworthily, the use of this form is almost restricted to legal texts. In (24), the nominalised character of this form is apparent from its combination with the possessive adjective *vestri* ‘your’.

(24) [...] *vos vel agentes vestri eam ad*
you.NOM.M.PL or advocate.PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.PL your.NOM.M.PL DEM.ACC.F.SG to
*parte vestra revocastis [...].*
part.ABL[ACC].F.SG your.ABL[ACC].F.SG reclaim.PST.3SG
‘You or your advocates reclaimed it (the land) for your share.’ (*Form. Marc*. 2.41)

However, for some forms it is difficult to determine whether they are nominalised (Marouzeau 1910: 67-68; Ernout & Thomas 1951: 275; Laughton 1964: 57, 82-83; Eklund 1970: 16-18; Pinkster 2015: 954, 958). Pinkster (2015: 958) cites as an example *lacrumantem* ‘crying’ (25). According to him, this form can be analysed as either a nounless NP (the implicit noun being the accusative pronoun *eum* ‘him’) or an adjunct denoting the circumstances under which its subject is affected by the main state of affairs.

(25) **Lacruma-nt-em** *lacinia tenet lacrumans.*
cry-PTCP.PRS-ACC.M.SG fringe.ABL.F.SG hold.PRS.3SG cry.PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG
‘In tears she holds him who cries at the fringe (of his cloak).’ (Plaut. *Asin*. 587)

Yet, Pinkster (2015: 956) defends the analysis of *lacrumantem* ‘crying’ (25) as an adjunct, although he does not explain why. I agree that the subject of this form can be easily “understood from the context” (Pinkster 2015: 956), and that in the presence of this subject, the present participle would function as an adjunct. However, I disagree with this analysis in the absence of this subject, as in (25). Contrary to true adjuncts, *lacrumantem* ‘crying’ (25) cannot be omitted without rendering the sentence ungrammatical (26). Hence, this form is best taken as a nounless NP acting as the direct object of *tenet* ‘she holds’.
(26) * *Lacinia* tenet lacrumans.
fringe.ABL.F.SG hold.PRS.3SG cry.PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG

‘In tears she holds at the fringe (of his cloak).’ (adapted from Plaut. *Asin.* 587)

Moreover, unlike prototypical adjunct present participle clauses, *lacrumantem* ‘crying’ (25) cannot be replaced by a finite subordinate clause. This is shown by the ungrammaticality of (27), where the present participle is replaced by a finite temporal adjunct clause introduced by the conjunction *dum* ‘while’.

(27) * Dum lacrumabat lacinia tenet lacrumans.
while cry-PST.3SG fringe.ABL.F.SG hold.PRS.3SG cry.PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG
‘In tears she holds at the fringe (of his cloak) while he cries.’ (adapted from Plaut. *Asin.* 587)

As a general rule, present participles that cannot be omitted without making the sentence ungrammatical and that cannot be replaced by a finite adjunct clause have been considered the head of a nounless NP instead of adjuncts. As a corollary, they have been discarded from the dataset. Anyhow, the number of this type of forms is low. Given the large size of the final dataset (see §3.4.2.3), this choice has therefore a negligible impact on the quantitative results in Chapter 5.

Another configuration raising the question of whether present participles are nominalised is their use in combination with a pluri-categorial form like *omnis* ‘every’. As an example, consider *sperantes* ‘believing’ (28): on the one hand, it can be analysed as the head of a nounless NP, in which case *omnes* ‘every’ acts as an indefinite determiner; on the other hand, it can be regarded as the modifier of *omnes* ‘everyone’, which holds in this case as an indefinite pronoun (*cf*. Laughton 1964: 57, 82-83).

(28) [...] sapientia dei omnes spera-nt-es in
wisdom.NOM.F.SG God.GEN.M.SG all.ACC.M.PL believe-PTCP.PRS-ACC.M.PL in
illum suscitat [...].
DEM.ACC[ABL].M.SG encourage.PRS.3SG

‘The wisdom of God encourages everyone who believes in Him.’ (*Pass. Vict.* 1.641.47)

However, the analysis of *sperantes* ‘believing’ as the head of a nounless NP requires that a noun like *homines* ‘men’ is ellipted or inferable from the discourse context, but this hypothesis is superfluous due to the presence of *omnes* ‘every’, which on its own often acts as the head of a nounless NP, as in (29).

(29) Denique omnes cucurrerunt ad secretarium iudicis [...].
then all.NOM.M.PL run.PST.3PL to chamber.ACC.N.SG judge.GEN.M.SG

‘Then all ran to the chamber of the judge.’ (*Pass. Agath.* 1.12.6)

Therefore, the most plausible analysis of present participles like *sperantes* ‘believing’ (28) is not as the head of a nounless NP, but as the modifier of the pluri-categorial form, serving in this case as a pronoun. This analysis has the advantage that it does not require the postulation of an ellipted noun in a linguistic
structure where an explicit pluri-categorial form can easily act as the head noun. However, it is worth noting that, as pointed out by Laughton (1964: 83), the distinction between these analyses is the problem of the linguist, not of the speaker: “it would no more occur to the Roman to analyse the nature of the participle in such a phrase than it would occur to the modern Englishman to ask himself, whether a notice saying ‘all persons trespassing will be prosecuted’ meant ‘all persons who trespass’ or ‘all trespassers’”. It goes without saying that this applies to many types of syntactic ambiguity.

Besides the two types of present participles just discussed, where a choice has been made between an analysis as either nominalised or non-nominalised forms, there is a small, but functionally diverse group of forms for which both analyses are more or less equally plausible (Eklund 1970: 17). The subject predicate *sapiens* ‘wise’ (30) is a case in point: on the one hand, it can be taken as the adjectival predicate of the pro-dropped subject of *es* ‘you are’; on the other hand, it can be regarded as the head of a nounless NP, the ellipted noun being *homo* ‘man’ (Eklund 1970: 17).

(30) *At tu qui sapie-ns es [...].*
but you.NOM.M.SG REL.NOM.M.SG be_wise-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG be.PRS.2sg
‘But you, who are wise (...).’ (Ter. *Phorm*. 403)

In this study, all present participles allowing an analysis as non-nominalised forms have been taken as such, and have therefore been included in the dataset.

### 3.4.2.3. Final set of Late Latin present participles

On the basis of the criteria set out in the previous sections, the number of present participles included in the Late Latin dataset is 8 785. This is significantly higher than the number of instances in the Classical Latin dataset (n=1 786). More importantly, the relative frequency of the present participle is also much higher in the Late Latin corpus than in the Classical Latin corpus (Table 3.4).<fnref n="28" />

<table><caption>**Table 3.4.** Frequency of the present participle in the Classical and Late Latin corpora</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#present participles</th><th>#words</th><th>#present participles per 10 000 words</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classical Latin</td><td>1786</td><td>625 034</td><td>28.57</td></tr><tr><td>Late Latin</td><td>8 785</td><td>425 903</td><td>206.27</td></tr></tbody></table>

Like that of the gerund, the increasing frequency of the present participle between Classical and Late Latin observed in Table 3.4 is highly relevant. Crucially, it is at odds with what is expected in the light of the standard hypothesis of the evolution of the present participle in Late Latin: its gradual replacement

<footnote n="28">²⁸ According to a chi-square goodness-of-fit test, this difference is statistically highly significant ($\chi^2 = 7949.56$; df = 1; p < 0.0001).</footnote>
by the gerund in non-purpose adjuncts and in progressive constructions is expected reduce rather than increase the frequency of the present participle. The spectacular frequency rise between Classical and Late Latin emerging from the data of this study might suggest that the presumed frequency decline of adjunct present participles and present participles used in a progressive construction is countered by an unexpected and drastically rising frequency of present participles in other contexts, namely in adjectival syntactic configurations, presentative progressive constructions, and/or syntactically finite clauses. Yet, the increasing frequency of the present participle might also indicate that the frequency rise of the gerund between Classical and Late Latin is not due to the replacement of the present participle by the gerund in non-purpose adjuncts and progressive constructions, and that the present participle thus persists in these uses. These hypotheses will be empirically examined in Chapters 4 and 5.

In comparing the Classical and Late Latin corpora, it is also interesting to explore the ratio of the number of present participles and gerunds. Although they both gain in frequency between Classical and Late Latin, the frequency rise of the gerund is modest (from 20 to 31 forms per 10 000 words; see Table 3.1), while that of the present participle is sharp (from 29 to 206 instances per 10 000 words; see Table 3.4). Table 3.5 provides the ratio of these forms in the two periods and shows that, although the number of present participles is higher than that of gerunds in both periods, the Classical Latin corpus contains 1.41 present participles for each gerund, while the Late Latin corpus comprises 6.72 of them (this rising ratio will be rediscussed in Chapter 5).<fnref n="29" />

<table><caption>**Table 3.5.** Ratio of the number of present participles and gerunds in the Classical and Late Latin corpora</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#present participles</th><th>#gerunds</th><th>#present participles/#gerunds</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classical Latin</td><td>1 786</td><td>1 270</td><td>1.41</td></tr><tr><td>Late Latin</td><td>8 785</td><td>1 308</td><td>6.72</td></tr></tbody></table>

As in the case of the gerund, the Late Latin present participles will also be explored with respect to their diachronic and thematic distribution. As to their diachronic distribution, 9% of them cannot be attributed to Imperial, Merovingian, or Early Medieval Latin with absolute certainty. This leaves us with 91% of periodisable instances (7 987 forms out of 8 785). In line with the distribution of the Late Latin words among these three periods (see Figure 3.5), most of these periodisable forms occur in the Merovingian and Early Medieval Latin sub-corpora. In relative terms, the frequency of the present participle increases between Imperial and Early Medieval Latin (Table 3.6).<fnref n="30" />

<footnote n="29">²⁹ A chi-square goodness-of-fit test shows that the high frequency of present participles in comparison with gerunds in Late Latin is statistically highly significant ($\chi^2 = 238.28$; df = 1; p < 0.0001).</footnote>

<footnote n="30">³⁰ According to a chi-square goodness-of-fit test, this frequency rise is statistically highly significant ($\chi^2 = 105.35$; df = 2; p < 0.0001).</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 3.6.** Frequency of the present participle in the Imperial, Merovingian, and Early Medieval Latin corpora</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#present participles</th><th>#words</th><th>#present participles per 10 000 words</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Imperial Latin</td><td>406</td><td>30 003</td><td>135.32</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian Latin</td><td>3 741</td><td>187 454</td><td>199.57</td></tr><tr><td>Early Medieval Latin</td><td>3 840</td><td>170 986</td><td>224.58</td></tr></tbody></table>

This increase calls for the same remarks as those made for the increasing frequency of present participles from Classical to Late Latin: it might indicate that either (i) the present participle is not replaced by the gerund in non-purpose adjuncts and progressive construction or (ii) the decline of present participles in these uses is countered by an unexpected and drastically increasing frequency of present participles used with adjectival external syntax, in presentative progressive constructions, and/or in syntactically finite clauses.

With respect to the ratio of the number of present participles and gerunds, while it rises between Classical and Late Latin (see Table 3.5), it decreases within the period of Late Latin (Table 3.7).<fnref n="31" />

<table><caption>**Table 3.7.** Ratio of the number of present participles and gerunds in the Imperial, Merovingian, and Early Medieval Latin corpora</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#present participles</th><th>#gerunds</th><th>#present participles/#gerunds</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Imperial Latin</td><td>406</td><td>52</td><td>7.81</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian Latin</td><td>3 741</td><td>525</td><td>7.12</td></tr><tr><td>Early Medieval Latin</td><td>3 840</td><td>553</td><td>6.94</td></tr></tbody></table>

In other words, the gerund and the present participle gain both in frequency within the Late Latin period, but, relatively speaking, the frequency rise of the gerund is steeper than that of the present participle.

As to the thematic distribution of the Late Latin present participles, most of them are used in the religious texts (66%). The legal and historical texts contain respectively 13% and 21%. Proportionally speaking, however, the present participle is much less frequent in the legal texts than in the religious and historical texts (Table 3.8). This result is opposite to that obtained for the gerund – this form is most frequent in the legal texts (see Table 3.3).<fnref n="32" />

<table><caption>**Table 3.8.** Frequency of the present participle in the three thematic domains in the Late Latin corpus</caption><thead><tr><th>Domain</th><th>#present participles</th><th>#words</th><th>#present participles per 10 000 words</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Religious</td><td>5 753</td><td>247 763</td><td>232.20</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>1 183</td><td>100 016</td><td>118.28</td></tr><tr><td>Historical</td><td>1 849</td><td>78 124</td><td>236.68</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="31">³¹ A chi-square goodness-of-fit test indicates that this decline is statistically insignificant ($\chi^2 = 0.08$; df = 2; p = 9608).</footnote>

<footnote n="32">³² According to a chi-square goodness-of-fit test, the differences between the three thematic domains are statistically highly significant ($\chi^2 = 491.16$; df = 2; p < 0.0001).</footnote>
As we will see in Chapter 5, the legal texts do not only differ from the religious and historical texts with regard to the frequency of the present participle, but also with respect to its syntactic use. As in the case of the gerund, the unequal thematic distribution of the Late Latin present participles will be taken into account in the evaluation of all quantitative results (see §3.6.1.2 and §3.6.3.1).

The frequency difference between the gerund and the present participle in the legal texts and the religious and historical texts can also be deduced from their ratio: for each gerund, the legal texts contain only three present participles, whereas the religious and historical texts comprise respectively 8 and 9 of them (Table 3.9).<fnref n="33" />

<table><caption>**Table 3.9.** Ratio of the number of present participles and gerunds in the three thematic domains</caption><thead><tr><th>Domain</th><th>#present participles</th><th>#gerunds</th><th>#present participles/#gerunds</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Religious</td><td>5 753</td><td>720</td><td>7.99</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>1 183</td><td>375</td><td>3.15</td></tr><tr><td>Historical</td><td>1 849</td><td>213</td><td>8.68</td></tr></tbody></table>

These specificities of the use of the gerund and the present participle in legal texts raise the question of whether the language used in these texts stands out also with respect to other features. If this proved to be the case, these observations would lead to an important, more general methodological insight: at least for Late Latin, it would be advisable not to rely exclusively on legal texts to analyse language change, and to evaluate all results from this type of texts separately from those of other thematic domains.

### 3.4.3. The Old French -ant form

The Old French verb form in-*ant* is inflected on the model of the epicene adjectives of the type *granz* ‘big’, and thus has the ending -*anz* or -*ant* (Anglade 1958: 214; Harris 1978: 200; Buridant 2000: 201-202, 237, 2019: 343; Bazin-Tacchella 2020: 853). However, the morphology of these adjectives tends to align on that of the non-epicene adjectives like *dur* ‘hard’, and so does the morphology of verb forms in -*ant*, especially when used with an adjectival function (Anglade 1958: 214; Harris 1978: 200; Buridant 2000: 328, 2019: 468-469). Moreover, the ending of verb forms in -*ant* is often affected by phonetic evolutions and/or graphic variations. All possible endings and graphic/phonetic variants of these forms need to be integrated in the morphological query used to retrieve all instances. As in the case of the Late Latin present participle, these endings and variants have been inventorised on the basis of an exploratory examination of the verb forms in -*ant* retrieved by a morphosyntactic query in the PALAFRAFRO-V2-

<footnote n="33">³³ A chi-square goodness-of-fit test suggests that the low number of present participles in comparison with gerunds in the legal texts vs the religious and historical texts is highly significant ($\chi^2 = 21.23; df = 2; p < 0.0001$).</footnote>