2020: 853). This development toward one single ending also takes place in some contemporary Italian dialects: -and- generalises in northern dialects and -end- in southern ones (Elcock 1960: 111).

The second morphological evolution of the gerund involves the accusative gerund. In contrast with Classical Latin, where this gerund is always prepositional, in Late Latin it can also be bare (Aalto 1949: 86; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 378; Bauer 1993: 67; Pinkster 2015: 305, 2021: §15.137-§15.138, §16.100).<fnref n="4" /> Bare accusative gerunds can be used in different types of constituents, among which purpose adjuncts (e.g. *ambulandum* 'to walk' (1)) (Odelstierna 1926: 32-42; Aalto 1949: 86; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 379; Pinkster 2021: §16.100) and verb complements (e.g. *prilium committendum* 'to engage in battle' (2)) (Odelstierna 1926: 43-56; Aalto 1949: 86; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 378; Pinkster 2021: §15.138).

(1) *Deinde ambulet et alio die ambula-nd-um ducere [...].*<fnref n="5" />
then walk.SBJV.PRS.3SG and other.ABL.M.SG day.ABL.M.SG walk-GER-ACC bring.INF.PRS
'Then he should walk, and the following day (too) you should bring (him) to walk.' (Chiron 133)

(2) *Theubertus [...] prilium vellens committe-nd-um*
Theudebertus.NOM.M.SG battle.ACC.N.SG wish.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)

According to Pinkster (2021: §16.100), the emergence of the bare accusative gerund is to be seen within the light of the increasing “confusion between the functions of the present infinitive and the gerund” (see also Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 379). In Late Latin, the functional competition between the gerund and the infinitive becomes more intense (see §2.1.1.2.2). This intensifying functional competition might have indeed an impact on the morphology of the two types of non-finite verb forms, all the more because they are in a relation of morphological complementarity (the gerund holds as the suppletive form of the infinitive; see §1.2.1). In contexts where the prepositional gerund competes with the bare infinitive, such as verb complements and purpose adjuncts, their rising functional confusion might cause some gerunds to be marked analogically to their bare infinitive counterpart (e.g. *committendum* ‘to engage’ instead of *committere* ‘to engage’ in (2)) – the concept of analogy is to be understood as “the exchange of features between expressions on the basis of a (partial) similarity” (De Smet 2014: 35-36).<fnref n="6" /> Put differently, the

<footnote n="4">⁴ Remember that some authors recognise the existence of a bare accusative gerund also in Classical Latin (Aalto 1949: 82-86; Blümel 1979: 86; Bauer 1993: 67). However, this analysis is controversial, since most scholars analyse the *-ndum* forms in issue as impersonal 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). See the discussion in §1.2.1 with respect to Classical Latin.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ *Ducere* ‘to bring’ is a so-called ‘jussive infinitive’: it has an imperative value and acts syntactically as a finite verb (Ernout & Thomas 1951: 272; Elcock 1960: 112; Palmer 1964: 318; Harris 1978: 198; Fruyt 1996: 48, 58). As such, it is a competitor of morphologically finite imperative verbs.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ Another possibility, pointed out by Hofmann & Szantyr (1965: 379) with regard to purpose adjunct gerunds, is that the bare accusative marking is used in a hypercorrect way against the spread of the prepositional infinitive. They further note that the</footnote>
rise of the bare accusative gerund in Late Latin might be an analogy-driven, morphosyntactic symptom
of the intensifying functional competition between the gerund and the infinitive. It is worth noting that
such analogical marking can also be observed in the opposite direction. In Classical Latin, the infinitive
is practically always bare, while in Late Latin, it is increasingly governed by a preposition, mostly *ad
'to* (Ernout & Thomas 1951: 256; Scherer 1975: 86; Harris 1978: 199). Thus, the prepositional infinitive
might have gained ground under influence of the prepositional gerund. This hypothesis is supported by
the fact that most prepositional gerunds and infinitives are introduced by the same preposition, namely
*ad* ‘to’. As we will see later, there is also another, more fundamental, factor contributing to the rise of
the prepositional infinitive, and, incidentally, to the increasing functional confusion between the gerund
and the infinitive. For now, it suffices to mention that the emergence of the bare accusative gerund and
the rising frequency of prepositional infinitives gradually puts an end to the relation of morphological
complementarity between the gerund and the infinitive.

Apart from the morphological evolutions mentioned above, the Late Latin gerund is occasionally
affected by phonetic evolutions (Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 380). Most relevant here are the apocope of
final /m/ and the vocalic confusion between /ō/ and /ŭ/ (cf. Väänänen 1963³: 36-37, 66-67). These two
evolutions typically co-occur, as in the case of *possedendo* ‘to possess’ (3).<fnref n="7" />

(3) [...] *omnis res meas [...] ad filio meo [...]*
all.ACC.F.PL possession.ACC.F.PL my.ACC.F.PL to son.ABL[ACC].M.SG my.ABL[ACC].M.SG
*trado ad possedendo.*
give.PRS.1SG to possess-GER-ABL[ACC]
‘I give all my possessions to my son in order (for him) to possess (them).’ (Form. Andec. 58)

From a morphological point of view, *possedendo* ‘to possess’ (3) looks like a dative or ablative gerund. However, it instantiates an accusative gerund affected by the phonetic evolutions just mentioned. It thus stands for *possedendum* ‘to possess’. This is manifest from the presence of the preposition *ad* ‘to’, which always assigns the accusative to its complement (Pinkster 2015: 1230). The analysis of *-ndo* forms as phonetically affected accusative gerunds can also be defended for some bare forms, provided that they perform a function from which the dative and bare ablative gerunds are excluded (e.g. second argument of a transitive verb assigning the accusative to its internal argument). Such cases have not been reported in the literature, but a clear instance has been found in the Late Latin corpus of this thesis. This example will be discussed in Chapter 4 (§4.2.2.4). Conversely, the Late Latin corpus contains a few *-ndum* forms in contexts where one expects *-ndo* (e.g. in instrumental adjuncts). These forms are hypercorrected for

<footnote>emergence of purpose adjunct bare accusative gerunds might be due to “*die formal-analogischen Einwirkungen der normalen Konstruktionen*” (p. 379), but it is not entirely clear what they mean by this.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Forms affected by phonetic evolutions will be glossed morphologically, but an additional gloss, between square brackets, will be added to mark the expected category from a syntactic viewpoint. For the morphological gloss, I marked the ablative rather than the dative for all forms having the same ending in the two cases. The case chosen here is less relevant, but priority was given to the ablative because ablative constituents outnumber dative constituents and because the ablative has more functions than the dative.</footnote>
the phonetic evolutions in issue. Hence, they should not be taken as accusative gerunds, but as dative or ablative ones. Examples of such forms will be given in various sections of Chapter 4.

### 2.1.1.2. Syntactic changes of the gerund

Contrary to its morphological ones, the syntactic properties of the gerund undergo important changes in Late Latin. These changes pertain to both its internal (§2.1.1.2.1) and external (§2.1.1.2.2) syntax.

#### 2.1.1.2.1. Internal syntactic changes of the gerund

The changes on the level of the internal syntax of the gerund involve the internal syntactic complexity of gerund phrases (§2.1.1.2.1.1) and the marking of the internal argument of the gerund (§2.1.1.2.1.2).

##### 2.1.1.2.1.1. Internal syntactic complexity of gerund phrases

In Classical Latin, the number of gerund phrases with a high degree of internal syntactic complexity is low, because most phrases share one or more constituents with the main clause, denote a state of affairs that is partly ‘deactualised’ (Dik 1985: 11), and/or contain one or more implicit arguments that need to be inferred from the discourse context (Kühner & Stegmann 1914⁵: 735; Lyer 1932: 226-228; Palmer 1964: 321-324; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 373-374; Risch 1984: 97; Bauer 1993: 63, 2005: 516; Pinkster 2021: §14.12; see §1.2.2.1.1). Hence, their mean degree of finiteness is low (cf. Lehmann 1988: 191-197; Kooreman 1989: 226). In Late Latin, the number of gerund phrases with a high(er) degree of internal syntactic complexity increases, especially in substandard varieties (Lyer 1932: 228-232; Palmer 1964: 324; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 373-374; Kooreman 1989: 224-225; Bauer 1993: 64-65, 2005: 516). They can still share constituents with the main clause, denote a (partly) deactualised state of affairs, and/or contain implicit arguments that need to be inferred from the discourse context, but the general trend is toward more explicit constituents of their own. This holds in particular for the internal argument of adjunct bare ablative gerunds (Lyer 1932: 228-230; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 373-374; Kooreman 1989: 224-225). The phrases headed by these forms thus become more clause-like. *Reliqua depopulando* ‘while plundering the other (cities)’ (4) and *quid faciendo* ‘by doing what’ (5) are cases in point.

<footnote>(4) [...] *ad Mettensem urbem reliqua depopula-nd-o perveniunt* [...]. to Metz.ACC.F.SG city.ACC.F.SG other.ACC.N.PL plunder-GER-ABL come_to.PRS.3PL ‘They come to the city of Metz while plundering the other (cities).’ (Greg. Tur. *Franc.* 2.6)</footnote>
(5) [...] quid **facie-nd-o** vitam aeternam possidebo?
INT.ACC.N.SG do-GER-ABL life.ACC.F.SG eternal.ACC.F.SG possess.FUT.1SG

‘By doing what will I possess the eternal life?’ (Vulg. Luc. 18.18)

The rising number of complex gerund phrases is mainly due to the evolution of the competition between gerunds governing a direct object and NPs comprising a personal gerundive (Kühner & Stegmann 1914⁵: 735-736; Lyer 1932: 228-232; Palmer 1964: 324; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 373; Bauer 1993: 64-65, 2005: 516). As noted in §1.2.2.1.1, NPs containing a personal gerundive (e.g. *legendarum epistularum* ‘to read the letters’ (6)) are usually preferred over gerund clauses including an explicit direct object (e.g. *legendi epistulas* ‘to read the letters’ (7)) in Classical Latin, especially in standard varieties.

(6) *Tempus* **lege-nd-i** epistulas.
time.NOM.N.SG read-GER-GEN letter.ACC.F.PL
‘The time to read the letters.’ (Bauer 1993: 64)

(7) *Tempus* **lege-nd-arum** epistularum.
time.NOM.N.SG read-GERV-GEN.F.PL letter.GEN.F.PL
‘The time to read the letters (lit. ‘of the letters that should be read’).’ (Bauer 1993: 64)

From the 1st c. AD onward, but more markedly from the 2nd and especially the 3rd c. AD onward, NPs with a personal gerundive start falling out of use, in both standard and substandard varieties (Kühner & Stegmann 1914⁵: 735-736; Lyer 1932: 228-232; Palmer 1964: 324; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 373; Bauer 1993: 64-65, 2005: 516). As a corollary, the use of gerunds governing an explicit direct object generalises. This generalisation soon spreads to phrases exempt from competition with NPs including a personal gerundive, so that the frequency of complex gerund clauses rises even more (Bauer 2005: 516).

The evolution toward a more complex and clause-like internal structure of gerund phrases leads to an increase in their mean degree of finiteness (cf. Lehmann 1988: 191-197; Kooreman 1989: 226). In this sense, the evolution of gerund phrases is reminiscent of a process of ‘finitisation’ (Rose 2016: 350), described in §1.3.2.1.1 with regard to the present participle. Since the degree of finiteness of a clause is reflected on the morphosyntactic structure of its head (Givón 1990: 853; Bisang 2001: 1400; Nikolaeva 2010: 1178-1179), the finitisation of gerund phrases in Late Latin leads to a process of morphosyntactic verbalisation of the gerund (Lyer 1932: 230-231; Kooreman 1989: 226-227). That is to say, the gerund becomes more verbal – at least in terms of its internal syntax. According to Bauer (1993: 65, 2005: 516), the morphosyntactic verbalisation of the mainly active gerund at the expense of the chiefly passive gerundive is part of a large-scale Indo-European development toward an increasingly transitive syntax.

A few remarks are in order about the subject of the gerund. As in Classical Latin, this subject is mostly implicit. Except in adjuncts, this implicit subject is usually deactualised (e.g. (6)). In adjuncts, it is most often specific (or actualised) and coreferential with the subject or agent of the main clause (e.g. (4-5)) (Kooreman 1989: 221). However, it may also be coreferential with another constituent of the main
clause, unlike in Classical Latin (Odelstierna 1926: 59; Svennung 1935: 425; Aalto 1949: 78-80; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 380; Pinkster 2021: §21.14). Witness (8-9): in (8), the subject of *peragendo* ‘by doing’ corresponds to the dative pronoun *tibi* ‘for you’, i.e. the second argument of *prodest* ‘it is advantageous’; in (9), the subject of *querendo* ‘as he was looking for’ is coreferential with the second argument of *adiuverunt* ‘they helped’, namely the accusative pronoun *eum* ‘him’.

(8) **Dic,** *tibi* *quid* *prodest* *scelus*
tell.IMP.PRS.2SG you.DAT.M.SG INT.NOM.N.SG be_advantageous.PRS.3SG crime.NOM.N.SG

*hoc* **perage-nd-o** [...]? DEM.ACC.N.SG do-GER-ABL

‘Tell (me), which crime is advantageous for you by doing this?’ (Ven. Fort. *carm*. 4.15.7)

(9) [...] *dii* *adiuverunt* *eum* **quere-nd-o** *divinitatem* [...].
god.NOM.M.PL help.PST.3PL DEM.ACC.M.SG look-GER-ABL divinity.ACC.F.SG

‘The gods helped him as he was looking for divinity.’ (Leo *Alex*. 2.4)

These adjunct gerunds compete with conjunct adjunct accusative, genitive, dative, and ablative present participles (Odelstierna 1926: 59; Svennung 1935: 425; Aalto 1949: 78-80; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 380; Pinkster 2021: §21.14). Thus, instead of the gerunds *peragendo* ‘by doing’ (8) and *querendo* ‘as he was looking for’ (9), the present participles *peragenti* ‘doing’ and *querentem* ‘looking for’ could have been used, marked in respectively the dative and the accusative through agreement with the pronouns *tibi* ‘for you’ (8) and *eum* ‘him’ (9) (Odelstierna 1926: 59; Aalto 1949: 78-79; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 380; Pinkster 2021: §21.14 fn. 56). The emergence, in Late Latin, of gerunds of the type illustrated in (8-9) extends the area of competition between adjunct gerunds and present participles.

This competition is further extended by the appearance of absolute adjunct gerunds, *i.e.* gerunds having a usually explicit subject that is not coreferential with any constituent of the main clause (Elss 1907: 46; Flinck-Linkomies 1924: 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; Kooreman 1989: 221; Maltby 2002: 223; Adams 2013: 736-739; Pinkster 2021: §16.95).<fnref n="8" /> These forms are always marked in the bare ablative, while their subject stands in the nominative (Flinck-Linkomies 1924: 219; Aalto 1949: 80-82; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 144). Examples of absolute adjunct gerund clauses are *providendo illis Deus Meliora quam petunt* ‘because God foresees better things for them than they ask for’ (10) and *hoc dicendo princeps miliciae* ‘when the general of the army said this’ (11).

<footnote n="8">⁸ According to Adams (2013: 736-739), most absolute adjunct gerunds are not deliberately used as such, but as the mere result of anacoluthon. This question is of no interest in this thesis. In the literature, no examples of absolute adjunct gerunds are cited from before the 6th c. AD. Hence, their appearance might be a particularly late phenomenon.</footnote>
(10) **Multi** *orantes* *non* *exaudiuntur* **provide-nd-o**
many.NOM.M.PL *pray.PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.PL* NEG *hear_clearly.PRS.PASS.3PL* foresee-GER-ABL
*illis* *Deus* *meliora* *quam* *petunt.*
DEM.DAT.M.PL *God.NOM.M.SG* better.ACC.N.PL *than* ask_for.PRS.3PL

‘Many people who pray are not clearly heard because God foresees better things for them than they ask for.’ (Isid. *Sent.* 3.7.26)

(11) **Hoc** **dice-nd-o** *princeps* *miliciae* *subrisit*
DEM.ACC.N.SG *say-GER-ABL* *first.NOM.M.SG* *army.GEN.F.SG* *smile.PST.3SG*
*Nectanabus* *et* *dixit* [...].
Nectanabus.NOM.M.SG *and* *say.PST.3SG*

‘When the general of the army said this, Nectanabus smiled and said (...).’ (Leo *Alex.* 1.2)

These forms compete with both nominative and ablative absolute adjunct present participles (Elss 1907: 46; Flinck-Linkomies 1924: 219; Odelstierna 1926: 58; Škerlj 1926: 55, 180; Weerenbeck 1927: 160; Biese 1928: 91; Svennung 1935: 425; Aalto 1949: 80-82; Väänänen 1963³: 141; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 144; Maltby 2002: 223; Adams 2013: 737). Indeed, the combination of a nominative noun and an adjunct bare ablative gerund can either be replaced by an ablative noun and an agreeing present participle (e.g. *providente Deo* ‘God foreseeing’ instead of *providendo Deus* ‘God foreseeing’), or the nominative noun can be preserved and the gerund replaced by a nominative present participle (e.g. *providens Deus* ‘God foreseeing’ instead of *providendo Deus* ‘God foreseeing’).

The fact that the bare ablative gerund becomes a competitor of the present participle in all types of conjunct adjuncts and in absolute adjuncts has important implications for the functional competition between the adverbial gerund and the adverbial present participle (see §2.1.1.2.2.2 and §2.1.2.2.2.1).

### 2.1.1.2.1.2. Marking of the internal argument of the gerund

The morphosyntactic verbalisation of the gerund is also visible in the marking of its internal argument, though in a less significant way (Bauer 1993: 65, 2005: 516). As in Classical Latin, in Late Latin, the gerund has either verbal or nominal external syntax. In (12), *edendi* ‘of eating’ has verbal internal syntax, since its internal argument is assigned the accusative, just like when it is governed by a finite form of *edere* ‘to eat’. In (13), in contrast, *evadendi* ‘to avoid’ has nominal internal syntax: its internal argument stands in the genitive, just like when it depends on a noun, while it is assigned the accusative when it is governed by a finite form of *evadere* ‘to avoid’.
(12) [...] officium ede-nd-i homines demiratur.
practice.ACC.N.SG eat-GER-GEN man.ACC.M.PL be_amazed.PRS.3SG
'He is amazed by the practice of eating men.' (Iul. Val. 1.9.17)

(13) **Evade-nd-i** calamitatis inditionem non comprehendo [...].
avoid-GER-GEN disaster.GEN.F.SG indication.ACC.F.SG NEG seize.PRS.1SG
'I do not seize the indication to avoid the disaster.' (Isid. synon. 1.5)

In Classical Latin, the gerund most often displays verbal internal syntax (Ernout & Thomas 1951: 263; Palmer 1964: 321; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 369; Bauer 1993: 65, 2005: 516). Within this period, the number of forms with nominal internal syntax gradually decreases from as early as the 1st c. BC onward (Kühner & Stegmann 1914: 745). This tendency is set forth in Late Latin. Hence, the increasing number of gerunds governing an explicit direct object at the cost of NPs including a personal gerundive mostly have verbal external syntax. Since non-finite clauses headed by a form exhibiting verbal internal syntax are more finite than those headed by a form showing nominal internal syntax (Lehmann 1988: 191-197), this evolution positively contributes to the finitisation of gerund phrases.

### 2.1.1.2.2. External syntactic changes of the gerund

The external syntactic changes of the gerund in Late Latin are more critical than those pertaining to its internal syntax. They take place in the light of the functional competition of the gerund with (especially) the infinitive and the present participle. These competitions gain in intensity and start settling in a way that radically distinguishes the use of the gerund in Late Latin from its use in Classical Latin (Aalto 1949: 73; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963: 140; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 369, 384; Harris 1978: 199-200; Kooreman 1989; Bauer 1993, 2005; Maraldi 1994; Adams 2003: 748-749, 2013: 725-740; Pinkster 2021: §21.14).

As in Classical Latin, in Late Latin, the gerund can have nominal or adverbial external syntax. In the former case, it is adnominal or used as the complement of a verb, adjective, or adverb, while in the latter case, it occurs in an adjunct. Unlike in Classical Latin, the gerund can also act as the main verb of a progressive construction (Aalto 1949: 75-76; Väänänen 1963: 141; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 380; Dietrich 1973: 305-312; Haverling 2010: 497). In this use, it displays verbal external syntax – just like the present participles occurring in this construction (see §1.3.3). Thus, the bipartite distinction between nominal and adverbial gerunds in Classical Latin shifts toward a tripartite distinction between nominal, adverbial, and verbal gerunds in Late Latin. In other words, the gerund evolves from a ‘bi-functional’ to a ‘tri-functional category of non-finite verb forms’ (cf. Nedjalkov 1995: 104-105).

This section will examine the evolution of the nominal (§2.1.1.2.2.1), the adverbial (§2.1.1.2.2.2), and the verbal (§2.1.1.2.2.3) gerund in Late Latin, and investigate the role played in these evolutions by
the competition of the gerund with (especially) the infinitive and the present participle. The impact of
these evolutions on the external syntactic profile of the gerund will be measured in §2.1.1.2.2.4.

2.1.1.2.2.1. *The nominal gerund*

The nominal gerund has the same uses in Late Latin as in Classical Latin. It can thus occur in adnominal
phrases or as the complement of a verb, adjective, or adverb (Aalto 1949: Ch. 4; Elcock 1960: 110-111;
Väänänen 1963³: 139; Bauer 1993: 67). The first three uses are explicitly mentioned and exemplified in
the existing literature, while the latter is not. This does not necessarily mean that the gerund can no
longer occur in adverb complements in Late Latin. This type of gerunds might for instance be used in
texts that have not been transmitted to us or that have not yet been discovered or examined. The lack of
cited instances only suggests that, if they exist in Late Latin, adverb complement gerunds are at the least
extremely rare. It is worth recalling that this type of gerunds are also extremely rare in Classical Latin
(see §1.2.2.2.4). Due to their absence in discussions of the Late Latin gerund in the existing literature,
adverb complement gerunds will be left out in the following sections (as we will see in Chapter 4, this
type of gerunds are also absent in the Late Latin corpus of this thesis). Attention will thus be restricted
to gerunds used in adnominal phrases (§2.1.1.2.2.1.1), verb complements (§2.1.1.2.2.1.2), and adjective
complements (§2.1.1.2.2.1.3). A conclusion with respect to the nominal gerund as a whole will be drawn
in §2.1.1.2.2.1.4.

2.1.1.2.2.1.1. Adnominal gerunds

In Late Latin, adnominal gerunds can depend on a larger variety of nouns than in Classical Latin, though
the most frequent type of nouns is identical in the two periods: abstract nouns (Aalto 1949: Ch. 4; Palmer
1964: 322-323; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 375; Bauer 1993: 62). In (14), the gerund clause *exercendi
milites* ‘to train soldiers’ depends on the abstract noun *cura* ‘care’.

(14) Tanta [...] *fervabatur* exerce-nd-i milites cura ut [...].
so_great.NOM.F.SG rage.PST.PASS.3SG train-GER-GEN soldier.ACC.M.PL care.NOM.F.SG that
‘Such a great care to train soldiers was raging that (...).’ (Veg. mil. 2.12)

An example of a Late Latin gerund phrase depending on a concrete instead of an abstract noun is *ad
spargendum super nos* ‘to sprinkle on us’ (15).

(15) [...] benedic [...] sal ad sparge-nd-um super nos [...].
bless.IMP.PRS.2SG salt.ACC.M.SG to sprinkle-GER-ACC on we.ACC.M.PL
‘Bless the salt to sprinkle on us.’ (Vit. Hugb. p. 491)
As in Classical Latin, adnominal gerunds can be in the bare genitive (14) or the prepositional accusative (15) (Aalto 1949: Ch. 4). They might also be able to stand in the prepositional ablative, as in Classical Latin, but no such examples have been cited in the literature for Late Latin. One of the latest reported instances dates from the 2nd c. AD. The form in issue is *in profitendo* ‘in declaring’ (16).

(16) [...] *maximam* scientiam in *profite-nd-o* habuerunt [...].
greatest.ACC.F.SG skill.ACC.F.SG in declare_in_public-GER-ABL have.PST.3PL
‘They had the greatest skill in declaring in public.’ (Mela 178.38)

As seen in §1.2.2.2.6, adnominal gerunds are the dominant type of gerunds in Classical Latin. At this stage of the language, they are also much more common than their infinitive competitors, especially in standard varieties (Kühner & Stegmann 1914⁵: 742-744; Aalto 1949: 61-62; Ernout & Thomas 1951: 269; Palmer 1964: 320; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 350-351; Menge et al. 2000: 746-748; Pinkster 2021: §17.13-17.15). In Late Latin, the restrictions on the use of the adnominal infinitive gradually disappear. Hence, the infinitive becomes a competitor of the gerund in an increasing number of semantic and syntactic contexts (Aalto 1949: 73; Ernout & Thomas 1951: 269; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 139; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 351; Harris 1978: 198; Fruyt 1996: 47). For instance, in Classical Latin, the infinitive can only depend on abstract nouns acting the predicate of the subject or object (Kühner & Stegmann 1914⁵: 742-743; Pinkster 2021: §15.128, §17.15), whereas in Late Latin, these nouns may perform the same functions as those allowing an adnominal gerund (Väänänen 1963³: 139; Fruyt 1996: 47). Witness (17), in which the infinitive clause *infirmos curare* ‘to cure the ill’ depends on the direct object of *dat* ‘he gives’, *viz.* *potestatem* ‘opportunity’.

(17) [...] *dat* *potestatem* *infirmos* *curare* [...].
give.PRS.3SG opportunity.ACC.F.SG ill.ACC.M.PL cure.INF.PRS
‘He gives the opportunity to cure the ill.’ (Hier. *in Matth.* 1.10.7)

However, the infinitive does not only extend its area of competition with the adnominal gerund, it also starts replacing it (Aalto 1949: 73; Ernout & Thomas 1951: 269; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 139; Harris 1978: 198, 199; Bauer 1993: 62). That is to say, the competition between the gerund and the infinitive in adnominal phrases starts settling in favour of the latter. In this way, the gerund gradually loses its adnominal use. This evolution is completed in the transition from Late Latin to most Romance languages (Aalto 1949: 73; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 139). Indeed, the non-finite equivalent in most Romance languages of the Late Latin adnominal gerund is the prepositional infinitive – the default preposition is *di* ‘of’ in Italian and *de* ‘of’ in the other languages (Harris 1978: 198-199; Schulte 2007: 88). As an example of this shift, compare the Latin NP *ars legendi* ‘the art of reading’ (18) with its counterparts in Modern French (19), Spanish (20), and Romanian (21) (Schulte 2007: 88).
(18) *Ars lege-nd-i.*

art.NOM.F.SG read-GER-GEN

‘The art of reading.’ (Schulte 2007: 88)

(19) *L' art de lire.*

ART.DEF.M.SG art.M.SG of read.INF.PRS

‘The art of reading.’ (Schulte 2007: 88)

(20) *El arte de leer.*

ART.DEF.M.SG art.F.SG of read.INF.PRS

‘The art of reading.’ (Schulte 2007: 88)

(21) *Art=a de a trăi.*

art.F.SG=ART.DEF.F.SG of INF read.INF.PRS

‘The art of reading.’ (Schulte 2007: 88)

Notice that, as in Classical Latin, most adnominal gerunds in Late Latin are marked in the bare genitive (e.g. (14/18)). The fact that their infinitive successors in Romance are always prepositional suggests that the substitution of the gerund by the infinitive in adnominal phrases is not only part of the restructuring of the system of non-finite verb forms (see §2.1.1.2.2.4 and §2.1.1.3 below), but also of the more general shift from the synthetic marking of syntactic relationships by means of inflectional morphology to their analytic marking by means of prepositions (cf. Ernout 1914³: 9-10; Väänänen 1963³: 111).

### 2.1.1.2.2.1.2. Verb complement gerunds

A similar evolution can be observed for verb complement gerunds. As in Classical Latin, these gerunds can head a constituent acting as the second (e.g. *faciendo* ‘to do’ (22)) or third (e.g. *ad credendum* ‘to believe’ (23)) argument of a verb (Odelstierna 1926: 45; Aalto 1949: 86-87; Elcock 1960: 111; Pinkster 2021: §15.137-§15.138).

(22) [...] *tam qui fecerit quam qui facie-nd-o*
as_well_as REL.NOM.M.SG do.SBJV.PST.3SG as REL.NOM.M.SG do-GER-ABL

*consenserit anathema sit [...]*

consent.SBJV.PST.3SG anathema.NOM.N.SG be.SBJV.PRS.3SG

‘Let both who did (it) and who consented to do (it) be anathema.’ (Form. Marc. 2.4)

(23) *Cum fidem nullus adhiberet signis quibusdam,*
although faith.ACC.F.SG no.NOM.M.SG practice.SBJV.PST.3SG sign.ABL.N.PL particular.ABL.N.PL

*plerosque ad crede-nd-um coartabat.*

most_people.ACC.M.PL to believe-GER-ACC bring.PST.3SG

‘Although no one practiced faith with particular signs, he brought most people to believe.’ (Sulp. Sev. Mart. 1.23.3)
They can also be marked in the same ways as in Classical Latin. Thus, they may stand in the dative (e.g. *faciendo* ‘to do’ (22)), the prepositional accusative (e.g. *ad credendum* ‘to believe’ (23)), the bare ablative (e.g. *extinguendo* ‘extinguishing’/*excludendo* ‘excluding’ (24)), and the prepositional ablative (e.g. *in veniendo* ‘in coming’ (25)). Unlike in Classical Latin, they may also occur in the bare accusative (e.g. *solvendum* ‘to pay’ (26)) and the bare genitive (e.g. *abeundi* ‘to leave’ (27)) (Odelstierna 1926: 45, 54; Aalto 1949: 61, 86; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 378; Pinkster 2021: §15.137-§15.138).<fnref n="9" />

(24) O felix penitentia, quae [...] non [...] delictorum
EXCL fortunate.VOC.F.SG penance.VOC.F.SG REL.NOM.F.SG NEG crime.GEN.N.PL
flammas extingue-nd-o frequenti=que ieiunio peccatorum
flame.ACC.F.PL extinguish-GER-ABL frequent.ABL.N.SG=and fasting.ABL.N.SG sin.GEN.N.PL
virus exclude-nd-o destitit [...].
poison.ACC.N.SG exclude-GER-ABL stop.PST.3SG

‘O fortunate penance, which did not stop extinguishing the flames of crimes nor excluding the poison of sins by frequent fasting.’ (Vit. Elig. 1.7)

(25) Si [...] abba in venie-nd-o moras innexuerit [...].<fnref n="10" />
if abbot.NOM.M.SG in come-GER-ABL delay.ACC.F.PL fasten_to.PST.3SG
‘If the abbot fastened delay to his coming (...).’ (Vit. Sadalb. 20)

(26) Iube Gundebadum tibi tributa solve-nd-um [...].
order.IMP.PRS.2SG Gundebadus.ACC.M.SG you.DAT.M.SG tribute.ACC.N.PL pay-GER-ACC
‘Order that Gundebadus pays the tributes to you.’ (Fredeg. chron. 3.23)

(27) [...] Latini comici metuentes [...] ne quis
Latin.NOM.M.PL comic-poet.NOM.M.PL fear.PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.PL that INDF.NOM.M.SG
fastidiosus finito actu velut admonitus
bored.NOM.M.SG finish.PTCP.PST.ABL.M.SG act.ABL.M.SG as_if advise.PTCP.PST.NOM.M.SG
abeu-nd-i reliquae comoediae fiat
leave-GER-GEN remaining.GEN.F.SG comedy.GEN.F.SG become.SBJV.PRS.3SG
contemptor [...].
despiser.NOM.M.SG

‘The Latin comic poets, fearing that some bored spectator, as if advised to leave by the end of an act, becomes a despiser of the rest of the comedy (...).’ (Donat. Ad. praef. 1.4)

<footnote n="9">⁹ In (22), (24), and (26), the gerunds are assigned respectively the dative, the ablative, and the accusative by the verbs *consentiret* ‘he consented’ (22), *destitit* ‘he stopped’ (24), and *iube* ‘order’ (26). *Credendum* ‘to believe’ (23) and *veniendo* ‘coming’ (25) are assigned respectively the accusative and the ablative by the prepositions *ad* ‘to’ (23) and *in* ‘in’ (25). *Abeundi* ‘to leave’ (27) is assigned the genitive by the past participle *admonitus* ‘advised’, which thus has adjectival internal syntax.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Note that *in veniendo* ‘in coming’ does not depend on *innexuerit* ‘he fastened’ alone, but on the combination of this verb with the noun *moras* ‘delay’. This combination functions as a so-called ‘light (or support) verb construction’ (Pinkster 2015: 74). Details about this type of constructions in Latin can be found in, e.g., Rosén (1981: 130-159), Flobert (1996), Hoffmann (1996, 2015), and Pinkster (2015: 74-77).</footnote>
In Classical Latin, verb complement gerunds are rare (see §1.2.2.2.6). This is mainly due to the relation of morphological complementarity between the gerund and the infinitive in this period: the gerund only exists in the prepositional accusative, the genitive, the dative, and the ablative, while the infinitive only exists in the nominative and is almost always bare in the accusative (see §1.2.1). Since the gerund does not exist in the bare accusative, it is excluded from the quantitatively largest group of verb complements, *i.e.* those serving as the direct object of a verb that assigns the (bare) accusative to its internal argument. In Classical Latin, this type of constituents thus require a bare infinitive. This changes in Late Latin: due to the emergence of the bare accusative gerund, the gerund starts to occur in direct objects. As such, it enters in competition with the bare infinitive. Witness (26), where the innovative bare accusative gerund *solvendum* ‘to pay’ is used instead of the ‘expected’ bare infinitive *solvere* ‘to pay’.

Although the gerund sometimes replaces the infinitive in direct objects (e.g. in (26)), the general, long-term trend consists of the substitution of the gerund by the infinitive (Aalto 1973: 73; Elcock 1960: 111; Harris 1978: 199; Bauer 1993). This replacement is moreover not restricted to direct objects, but applies instead to verb complements in general. However, like its substitution in adnominal phrases, the replacement of the gerund by the infinitive in verb complements is completed only in the transition from Late Latin to Romance – or at least to most Romance languages. A key factor in this evolution is the increasing use of the prepositional infinitive and the extension of the range of prepositions allowing infinitive complements (Ernout & Thomas 1951: 256; Harris 1978: 199; Schulte 2007: Ch. 7). Crucially, the infinitive in Late Latin becomes compatible with the preposition *ad* ‘to’, which grammaticalises in the transition to Romance as one of the two main complementisers of the infinitive – the other one is *de* ‘of’ (Schulte 2007: Ch. 7). The substitution of the gerund by the infinitive in prepositional verb complements in Late Latin is illustrated by the shift from *ad laborandum* ‘to work’ (28) to *ad laborare* ‘to work’ (29) as the second argument of *horto* ‘I exhort’. The infinitive outcome of this evolution in Modern French is exemplified in (30) (Elcock 1960: 111).<fnref n="11" />

(28) *Te horto ad labora-nd-um.*
you.ACC.M.SG exhort.PRS.1SG to work-GER-ACC
‘I exhort you to work.’ (Elcock 1960: 111)

(29) *Te horto ad laborare.*
you.ACC.M.SG exhort.PRS.1SG to work.INF.PRS
‘I exhort you to work.’ (Elcock 1960: 111)

(30) *Je t' exhorte à travailler.*
I.SUBJ.M.SG you.OBJ.M.SG exhort.PRS.1SG to work.INF.PRS
‘I exhort you to work.’ (Elcock 1960: 111)

<footnote n="11">¹¹ The examples in (28-30) are forged by Elcock (1960: 111) in order to present the structural change in a schematic way. He hereby assumes that, in Late Latin, the deponent verb *hortari* ‘to exhort’ evolves into a regular verb. The alignment of deponent verbs on the model of regular verbs is a well-known feature of Late Latin (and of substandard varieties in earlier periods) (cf. Väänänen 1963³: 101, 128). Hence, the examples of Elcock (1960: 111) in (28-29) can be taken as representative of Late Latin.</footnote>
2.1.1.2.2.1.3. Adjective complement gerunds

The same trend can be observed for adjective complement gerunds. In Late Latin, the gerund can depend on the same adjectives as in Classical Latin, but in the course of time, the inventory of these adjectives slightly extends (Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 377; Pinkster 2021: §17.31). The example in (31) presents three distinct adjectives, each of them governing a different gerund (Aalto 1949: 62).

(31) **Secunda** *activa* *est* *quae* [...] **habe-nd-i**
second.NOM.F.SG active.NOM.F.SG be.PRS.3SG REL.NOM.F.SG have-GER-GEN
*insatiata*, **rapie-nd-i** *cauta*, **serva-nd-i** *sollicita*
unsatisfied.NOM.F.SG take-GER-GEN careful.NOM.F.SG preserve-GER-GEN solicitous.NOM.F.SG
*geritur*.
manage.PRS.PASS.3SG

‘The second (phase) is active and is managed unsatisfied of having, careful of taking, and solicitous of preserving.’ (Fulg. *myth*. 2.66)

As in Classical Latin, adjective complement gerunds in Late Latin can stand in the bare genitive (e.g. *habendi* ‘of having’, *rapiendi* ‘of taking’, and *servandi* ‘of preserving’ (31)), the prepositional accusative (e.g. *ad audiendum* ‘to hear’ and *ad ignoscendum* ‘to forgive’ (32)), and the prepositional ablative (e.g. *in iudicando* ‘in judging’ (33)). A few instances are also found in the bare ablative (e.g. *culpando* ‘being blamed’ (34)), marking unattested in Classical Latin (Pinkster 2021: §17.32). It is possible that this type of gerunds may also stand in the dative, as in Classical Latin, but to my knowledge, no examples of this marking have been cited in the literature.

(32) [...] *solers* ad **audie-nd-um**, *clemens* ad **ignosce-nd-um** [...].
skilled.NOM.M.SG to listen-GER-ACC merciful.NOM.M.SG to forgive-GER-ACC
‘(...) skilled to listen and merciful to forgive.’ (CIL 5.6725)

(33) *Erat* enim [...] in iudiciis iustus, in iudica-nd-o
be.PST.3SG for in legal_process.ABL.N.PL fair.NOM.M.SG in judge-GER-ABL
*cautissimus* [...].
most_cautious.NOM.M.SG

‘For he was fair in legal processes and most cautious in judging.’ (Greg. Tur. *Franc*. 6.30)

(34) [...] **culpa-nd-o** nihilum dignus [...].<fnref n="12" />
blame-GER-ABL in_no way worthy.NOM.M.SG
‘(...) in no way worthy of being blamed.’ (CIL 3.9504.2-4)

<footnote n="12">¹² Contrary to most gerunds, *culpando* ‘being blamed’ (34) has a passive value. It is well known that the active voice value of the gerund is a tendency rather than a rule (Kühner & Stegmann 19145: 728-729; Scherer 1975: 90; Menge *et al.* 2000: 729-730; Pinkster 2015: 286-288). See also §1.1.2, fn. 5).</footnote>
In Classical Latin, adjective complement gerunds are not very frequent (see §1.2.2.2.6). The infinitive sometimes competes with the gerund in these constituents, but at this stage of the language, the gerund is nonetheless more common (Ernout & Thomas 1951: 269; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 350; Pinkster 2021: §17.27-§17.29). This changes again in Late Latin. In this period, the use of the infinitive gains in frequency, to the detriment of the gerund (Aalto 1949: 73; Ernout & Thomas 1951: 269; Elcock 1960: 111; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 369, 378; Scherer 1975: 89; Harris 1978: 198-199). Thus, the gerund is gradually replaced in adjective complements by the infinitive (e.g. *ad satisfacere* ‘to satisfy’ (35)), just like in adnominal phrases and verb complements. Once more, this substitution is completed only in the transition from Late Latin to Romance – or at least to most Romance languages.

(35) [...] *qui eos habet necessarios ad satisfacere* [...].
REL.NOM.M.SG DEM.ACC.M.PL have.PRS.3SG necessary.ACC.M.PL to satisfy.INF.PRS
‘(...) who has them necessary to satisfy (the claim) (...).’ (Lex Sal. 49.1)

As in the previous cases, the shift from gerunds to infinitives in adjective complements would not have been possible without the increasing use of prepositional infinitives, in particular infinitives governed by *ad* ‘to’ (Ernout & Thomas 1951: 256, 270; Elcock 1960: 111; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 369, 378; Scherer 1975: 89; Harris 1978: 198-199; Fruyt 1996: 47, 56, 59). The substitution of the gerund by the infinitive in prepositional adjective complements is illustrated by the shift from *ad dicendum* ‘to say’ (36) to *ad dicere* ‘to say’ (37) as the complement of *facile* ‘easy’. The corresponding infinitive clause in Modern French is *à dire* ‘to say’ (38) (Elcock 1960: 111).

(36) *Facile ad dice-nd-um.*
easy.NOM.N.SG to say-GER-ACC
‘Easy to say.’ (Elcock 1960: 111)

(37) *Facile ad dicere.*
easy.NOM.N.SG to say.INF.PRS
‘Easy to say.’ (Elcock 1960: 111)

(38) *Facile à dire.*
easy.SG to say.INF.PRS
‘Easy to say’. (Elcock 1960: 111)

### 2.1.1.2.2.1.4. Conclusion

The preceding sections have shown that, in Late Latin, the gerund is gradually replaced by the infinitive in adnominal phrases as well as in verb and adjective complements (Aalto 1949: 73; Elcock 1960: 111; Harris 1978: 197, 199; Bauer 1993). This evolution is all the more significant from a morphosyntactic viewpoint: since these three types of gerunds show nominal external syntax, it consists of the substitution
of the nominal gerund by the nominal infinitive (Harris 1978: 197, 199). In other words, the infinitive
specialises in Late Latin in nominal external syntax at the cost of the gerund. Hence, the survival of the
gerund in the transition from Late Latin to (most) Romance (languages) becomes completely reliant on
its adverbial and verbal external syntax.

2.1.1.2.2.2. *The adverbial gerund*

Unlike the nominal gerund, the adverbial gerund has only one use, namely in adjuncts (see §1.2.3). As in Classical Latin, adjunct gerunds in Late Latin can be bare or prepositional. They can also still express a wide range of semantic values (Aalto 1949: Ch. 4; Galdi & Vangaever 2019: 100-103; Pinkster 2021: §16.99-§16.104, §21.14). Consider the examples in (39-41): in (39), *ambulandum* ‘to walk’ is assigned the accusative by the preposition *ad* ‘to’, the gerund phrase as a whole denoting the purpose of the main state of affairs; in (40), *concedendo* ‘by granting’ is marked in the bare ablative, because it is used in a clause specifying the manner of the main state of affairs; in (41), finally, *respondendo* ‘answering’ is assigned the ablative by the preposition *in* ‘in’, which confers a temporal value to the gerund phrase.

(39) [...] *postea ad ambula-nd-um producetur [...]*.
thereafter to walk-GER-ACC bring.SBJV.PRS.PASS.3SG
‘Thereafter it (the mule) should be brought to walk.’ (Veg. *mulom*. 1.35)

(40) *Magnificasti Alexandrum concede-nd-o illi fiduciam in honour.PST.2SG Alexander.ACC.M.SG grant-GER-ABL DEM.DAT.M.SG faith.ACC.F.SG in hoc [...].*
DEM.ABL.N.SG

‘You have honoured Alexander by granting him faith in this.’ (Leo *Alex*. 2.7)

(41) [...] *in responde-nd-o sic ait [...]*.
in answer-GER-ABL thus say.PST.3SG
‘In answering (him), he thus said (...).’ (Iul. Val. 3.38.60)

Generally speaking, the different types of adjunct gerunds express the same values as in Classical Latin.
Thus, bare genitive (e.g. *orandi* ‘in order to pray’ (42)) and dative forms (e.g. *suadendo Philippum per somnium* ‘to persuade Philippus in his sleep’ (43)) always express a purpose, just like most prepositional genitive (e.g. *orandi gratia* ‘in order to pray’ (44)) and accusative forms (e.g. *ad ambulandum* ‘to walk’ (39)) (Pinkster 2021: §16.100).<fnref n="13" />

<footnote n="13">¹³ As in Classical Latin, most prepositional accusative gerunds in Late Latin are combined with *ad* ‘to’. This preposition usually has a purpose value and confers this value to the gerund phrase (Aalto 1949: 86-88). Other prepositions assign other values to the gerund phrase (Aalto 1949: 88; Pinkster 2021: §16.102-§16.103). For instance, gerunds governed by *ob* ‘for the sake of’ bear a causal meaning (Pinkster 2021: §16.103), while those introduced by *inter* ‘between’ have a temporal value (Aalto 1949: 88; Pinkster 2021: §16.102). As noted in §1.2.2.2.5 with regard to Classical Latin, adjunct prepositional genitive gerunds can also take on a causal value (Pinkster 2021: §16.103).</footnote>
(42) [...] *ora-nd-i* extra civitate egrediens [...].
pray-GER-GEN outside city.ABL[ACC].F.SG go_out.PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG
‘(...) going out of the city in order to pray.’ (Vit. Hugb. p. 486)

(43) [...] apprehendit avem marinam *suade-nd-o* Philippum
take.PST.3SG bird.ACC.F.SG of_the_sea.ACC.F.SG persuade-GER-DAT Philippus.ACC.M.SG
per somnium.
during sleep.ACC.N.SG
‘He took the seabird in order to persuade Philippus in his sleep.’ (Leo Alex. 1.8)

(44) [...] ad basilicam sancti Marcelli [...] ora-nd-i
to basilic.ACC.F.SG saint.GEN.M.SG Marcellus.GEN.M.SG pray-GER-GEN
gratia pergebat.
for_the_sake_of go_to.PST.3SG
‘He went to the basilic of saint Marcellus for the sake of praying.’ (Vit. Austr. 1.4)

In Late Latin, the purpose of the main state of affairs can in addition be expressed by a bare accusative gerund phrase, unlike in Classical Latin (Odelstierna 1926: 32-42; Aalto 1949: 86; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 379; Pinkster 2021: §16.100). An often-cited example in this regard is *ambulandum* ‘to walk’ (1), which has already been discussed with respect to the morphological changes of the gerund in Late Latin (see §2.1.1.1) – this example is repeated below for practical reasons.<fnref n="14" />

(1) Deinde ambulet et alio die **ambula-nd-um** ducere [...].
then walk.SBJV.PRS.3SG and other.ABL.M.SG day.ABL.M.SG walk-GER-ACC bring.INF.PRS
‘Then he should walk, and the following day (too) you should bring (him) to walk.’ (Chiron 133)

In Classical Latin, the infinitive sometimes competes with the gerund in purpose adjuncts, namely when the main verb denotes a transfer or movement (see §1.2.2.2.5). In Late Latin, purpose adjunct infinitives can still combine with this type of verbs (e.g. *ad manducare* ‘to eat’ (45)), but they can also depend on other types of verbs (Perrochat 1932: 164-169; Norberg 1943: 206-231; Fruyt 1996: 45-46; Pinkster 2021: §16.86). Witness (46), in which the coordinated infinitives *comedere* ‘to eat’ and *bibere* ‘to drink’ act as the purpose adjuncts of the posture verb *sedit* ‘(it) sat down’ (Pinkster 2021: §16.86).

(45) Quomodo potest hic nobis carнем dare ad manducare?
how can.PRS.3SG DEM.NOM.M.SG we.DAT.M.PL meat.ACC.F.SG give.INF.PRS to eat.INF.PRS
‘How can he give us meat to eat?’ (Ital. Ioh. 6.52)

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ Note that the parallelism between this bare accusative gerund and the prepositional accusative phrase *ad ambulandum* ‘for a walk’ (39). This parallelism clearly indicates that the two types of constituents are equivalent and thus in competition with each other, especially considering that the *Mulomedicina Chironis*, from which is taken the example in (1), is the main source of Vegetius’ text, from which is taken the example in (39).</footnote>
(46) [...] *sedit* *populus* *comedere* *ac bibere* [...].
sit_down.PST.3SG people.NOM.M.SG eat.INF.PRS and drink.INF.PRS
‘The people sat down to eat and to drink.’ (Vulg. Ex. 32.6)

Due to the increasing number of verbs with which it may combine, the infinitive becomes a competitor of the gerund in a growing amount of purpose adjuncts. However, the infinitive does not only extend its area of competition with the gerund, it also starts substituting it, as in adnominal phrases as well as in verb and adjective complements (Ernout & Thomas 1951: 256, 270; Elcock 1960: 110-111; Väänänen 1963³: 139; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 345, 378-379; Fruyt 1996: 55, 58-59; Bauer 1993: 67, 2005: 517, 519; Pinkster 2021: §16.86). Once again, this gradual replacement of the gerund by the infinitive is completed in the transition from Late Latin to Romance – or at least to most Romance languages. In some Romance languages, purpose adjunct infinitives can moreover still be either bare or prepositional, just like in Late Latin. Witness the Modern French clauses *apporter des fruits* ‘to bring fruit’ (47) and *à lire* ‘to read’ (48) (cf. Elcock 1960: 110-111).

(47) *Je viens apporter des fruits.*
I.SUBJ.M.SG come.PRS.1SG bring.INF.PRS ART.INDF.M.PL fruit.M.PL
‘I come to bring fruit.’

(48) *Il donna à sa femme des livres à lire.*
he.SBJ.M.SG give.PST.3SG to his.F.SG wife.F.SG ART.INDF.M.PL book.M.PL to read.INF.PRS
‘He gave to his wife some books to read.’

Since purpose adjunct gerunds always stand in the accusative, the genitive, and the dative, and since the gerund has only rarely another semantic value in these cases, the replacement of purpose adjunct gerunds by infinitives leads to the decline and eventual disappearance of accusative, genitive, and dative adjunct gerunds. As a corollary, adjunct gerunds survive in Romance only in the ablative (Aalto 1949: 73; Ernout & Thomas 1951: 267; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 139; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 369; Adams 2003: 748).<fnref n="15" />

As regards ablative adjunct gerunds, the prepositional forms are mostly governed by *in* ‘in’, which confers a temporal value to the gerund phrase (41) (Aalto 1949: 71-72; Pinkster 2021: §16.102). Bare ablative gerunds, as for them, have more or less the same semantic values as in Classical Latin, but in Late Latin, the relative frequency of these values is held to change in a way that is of crucial interest for the competition between the gerund and the present participle (Kooreman 1989: 219-220; Adams 2013:

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ A few authors argue that, in Late Latin, the bare ablative gerund acquires the possibility to carry a final value (Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 380; Kooreman 1989: 223). However, since the ablative gerund is morphologically identical to the dative gerund, there is no reason to take gerunds in *-ndo* with a purpose value as datives in Classical Latin, but as bare ablatives in Late Latin. Another group of authors recognise the existence of purpose bare ablative gerunds throughout the history of Latin, while at the same time acknowledging that of purpose dative forms (Odelstierna 1926: 24; Aalto 1949: 63, 76-78). This hypothesis is also untenable, since there are no objective arguments to determine whether some purpose gerund in *-ndo* is a dative or an ablative. The best option is therefore to take all forms in issue as either datives or bare ablatives. Following most authors, among whom Palmer (1964: 323) and Pinkster (2021: §16.100), all purpose adjunct bare gerunds in *-ndo* are taken in this thesis as datives.</footnote>
725-726). Bare ablative gerunds still often express the manner of the main state of affairs, the means by which it is realised, or the state of affairs by which it is unintentionally brought about (e.g. *moriendo* ‘by dying’ (49)) (Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 379; Kooreman 1989: 222; Adams 2013: 725), but they are claimed to be increasingly used with other semantic values (Lyer 1932; Ernout & Thomas 1951: 267; Väänänen 1963³: 140-141; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 379-380; Kooreman 1989: 222-223; Adams 2013: 725-726; Pinkster 2021: §21.14).

(49) [...] *mortem morie-nd-o vicerit [...] .
death.ACC.F.SG die-GER-ABL defeat.PST.3SG
‘He defeated death by dying.’ (Cypr. *epist*. 73.5)

The range of these other values is relatively large and varied (Lyer 1932: 395-399; Aalto 1949: 65; Galdi & Vangaever 2019: 100-103). However, one of these values is considered to stand out in frequency. The value in issue is the default semantic value of adjunct present participles, namely the temporal value of expressing a state of affairs concomitant with the main state of affairs (Lyer 1932: 389-395; Ernout & Thomas 1951: 267; Väänänen 1963³: 140-141; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 379-380; Adams 2013: 725-726; Pinkster 2021: §21.14). As in the case of adjunct present participles, this simultaneity relation may be partial (50) or complete (51).

(50) [...] *ubi quidem Tharso et eu-nd-o Ierusolimam iam fueram.*
where indeed Tharsus.ABL.M.SG also go-GER-ABL Jerusalem.ACC.F.SG already be.PST.1SG
‘Where in Tharsus I had indeed already been also when going to Jerusalem.’ (Peregr. Aeth. 22.1)

(51) [...] *sic redirent mature [...] dice-nd-o psalmos vel antiphonas [...] .*
so return.SBJV.PST.3PL early say-GER-ABL psalm.ACC.M.PL or antiphon.ACC.F.PL
‘So they returned early while singing psalms or antiphons.’ (Peregr. Aeth. 15.5)

In Late Latin, the adjunct bare ablative gerund is thus claimed to gradually loosen its ties with its original manner/instrumental/causal value, and to develop into a semantically more neuter and versatile strategy for adverbial subordination, to the image of the adjunct present participle (Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 379-380). According to Adams (2013: 725-740), however, this shift is less drastic than has traditionally been assumed. Though recognising that the absolute frequency of adjunct bare ablative gerunds with a non-manner/instrumental/causal value increases, he convincingly demonstrates that many of the alleged non-manner/instrumental/causal gerunds can nonetheless be analysed as such. He concludes that many instances are simply “ambiguous and not unequivocally to be assigned a non-instrumental participial function”, and further argues that the bare ablative gerund is in fact “subject to *ad hoc* shifts of meaning determined by the context” (Adams 2013: 739; see also Lyer 1932: 399; Galdi & Vangaever 2019: 99; Pinkster 2021: §16.99). Adams’ claim is supported by quantitative evidence gathered from a corpus of technical texts examined by Galdi & Vangaever (2019: 100-103, 106-107). It will be further empirically tested in the second part of this thesis (Chapter 4, §4.3.5).
However, the fact remains that, over time, the frequency of non-manner/instrumental/causal bare ablative gerunds gradually increases, at the cost of the present participle (Marouzeau 1910: 79; Kühner & Stegmann 1914⁵: 753; Lyer 1932; Aalto 1949: 65-66; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 140-141; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 373, 377, 379-380, 384; Harris 1978: 200; Kooreman 1989; Bauer 1993, 2005; Maraldi 1994; Adams 2003: 748, 2013: 726, 735, 739; Pinkster 2021: §21.14). This replacement is held to extend to adjuncts in general, leading to the disappearance of the present participle in this type of constituents. As per usual, this process of substitution is completed only in the transition from Late Latin to Romance (Marouzeau 1910: 79; Aalto 1949: 73; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 384; Harris 1978: 200; Adams 2013: 726; Vincent 2016: 45). Evidence in favour of this shift can be found in the Romance languages themselves: in these languages, adjuncts can still be headed by a gerund, but not by a present participle (Elcock 1960: 111; Harris 1978: 200; Adams 2013: 726; Vincent 2016: 45).<fnref n="16" /> However, as we will see in §2.2, Old French does not conform to this pattern, and hereby has a unique position among the Romance languages.

The substitution of the present participle by the gerund in adjuncts calls for two remarks. First, this substitution would not have been possible without the process of morphosyntactic verbalisation of the gerund (Lyer 1932: 399; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 373). Indeed, until at least the 2nd c. AD, the number of adjuncts with a high degree of internal syntactic complexity and comprising in particular an explicit direct object is much higher in the case of the present participle than in the case of the gerund. Hence, adjunct gerund phrases could not have successfully replaced their present participle counterparts without gaining in internal syntactic complexity (Lyer 1932: 230-231; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 373). As stated in §2.1.1.2.1.1, the morphosyntactic verbalisation of the gerund is mainly due to the decline of NPs including a personal gerundive. Thus, the evolution of the competition between the gerund and the present participle is not independent from their competition with other types of non-finite verb forms.

The second remark relates to the distinction between conjunct and absolute adjuncts. Discussions of the competition between the bare ablative gerund and the present participle in adjuncts usually focus on conjunct adjuncts. This is due to the fact that, as stated in §2.1.1.2.1.1, the subject of the bare ablative gerund is mostly coreferential with the subject of the main clause, so that it mainly competes with the nominative present participle. The replacement of nominative present participles by ablative gerunds in conjuncts is then held to be due to the semantic flexibility of the latter: since “the nominative participle must agree with the subject in number, while the ablative of the gerund is independent of the subject”, the gerund is often “more convenient, if less precise, than the participle” (Wackernagel & Langslow 2009: 352; see also Vester 1983: 136; Adams 2013: 736).<fnref n="17" />

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ For Spanish, see, e.g., Lloyd (1987: 315) or Penny (1995²: 235-237). For Italian, see, e.g., Maiden (1995: 124).</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ This advantage of the bare ablative gerund over the nominative present participle supports De Smet’s (2008, 2008b, 2013) claims that the substitution scenario in functional competition only takes place when one of the competing forms has significant advantages over the other (see also §1.1.3, fn. 7). However, the semantic flexibility of the gerund is not the only reason behind</footnote>
However, adjunct bare ablative gerunds in Late Latin can also have an explicit subject that is not coreferential with a constituent of the main clause (see §2.1.1.2.1.1). These absolute forms compete with present participles as much as conjunct forms. This is apparent from the equivalence between the gerund clause *sancto suggerendo Spiritu* ‘the Holy Spirit suggesting (it)’ (52) and the present participle clause *amicis suggerentibus* ‘his friends suggesting (it)’ (53) (Väänänen 1963³: 141; Wackernagel & Langslow 2009: 352; Adams 2013: 736-739).<fnref n="18" />

(52) [...]hoc etiam tonitualis ille evangelistarum DEM.ACC.N.SG also thundering.NOM.F.SG DEM.NOM.M[F].SG evangelist.GEN.M.PL vox, sancto suggere-nd-o Spiritu, [...] concelebrat [...]. voice.NOM.F.SG holy.ABL.M.SG suggest-GER-ABL spirit.ABL.M.SG celebrate.PST.3SG ‘The thundering voice of the evangelists, on the suggestion of the Holy Spirit, also celebrated this.’ (Form. Marc. 2.1)

(53) [...] ad paternam, amicis suggere-nt-ibus commigravit domum. to paternal.ACC.F.SG friend.ABL.M.PL suggest-PTCP.PRS-ABL.M.PL move.PST.3SG house.ACC.F.SG ‘He moved to his father’s house on the suggestion of his friends (lit. ‘because his friends suggested (it)’).’ (Vit. Furs. 2)

In this competition too, the present participle is gradually replaced by the gerund. Witness the Romance languages, where absolute adjuncts can still be headed by a gerund, but not by a present participle (Aalto 1949: 82; see also Vincent 2016: 45) – Old French is again an exception (see §2.2). The Spanish and Italian clauses yo faziendo esto ‘while I am doing this’ (54) and e stando ogn’ uomo queto et attento ‘when every man will be quiet and attentive’ (55) are two examples of Old Romance absolute adjunct gerunds clauses cited by Aalto (1949: 82).

(54) [...] yo fazie-ndo esto, ellos acabaron lo so [...]. I do-GER DEM.N.SG they.SBJ.MPL finish.PST.3PL ART.DEF.N.SG their.N.SG ‘While I am doing this, they finished theirs.’ (Cid 3205)

(55) [...] sta-ndo ogn’ uomo queto et attento, comincerà questi stand-GER every.M.SG man.M.SG quit.M.SG and attentive.M.SG begin.FUT.3SG DEM.M.SG a cantare [...]. to sing.INF.PRS ‘When every man will be quiet and attentive, he will begin to sing.’ (Fra’ Guidotto *Fiore* 57.230)

<footnote>its victory, and certainly not the most important one. As we will see in §2.1.1.3, the main force behind this substitution process is the restructuring of the system of non-finite verb forms in terms of morphosyntactic specialisation.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ Note that the subject of the gerund in (52) is not marked in the nominative, as in most absolute gerund clauses, but in the ablative. If anything, this confirms the confusion between absolute adjunct gerunds and ablative absolute adjunct present participles, and in particular the encroachment of the gerund on the distribution of the present participle.</footnote>
To summarise, in Late Latin, the gerund increasingly loses ground to the infinitive in purpose adjuncts, while extending its use in all other types of adjuncts at the expense of the present participle.

### 2.1.1.2.2.3. *The verbal gerund*

The Late Latin gerund cannot only exhibit nominal or adverbial external syntax, but also verbal external syntax. In this case, it acts as the main verb of a progressive construction (Aalto 1949: 75-76; Väänänen 1963³: 141; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 380; Dietrich 1973: 305-312; Haverling 2010: 497). Like their present participle counterparts, progressive gerund constructions are verbal periphrases composed of a verb that is more or less grammaticalised into an aspectual auxiliary and a bare ablative gerund used syntactically and semantically as the main verb (Aalto 1949: 76). Within this specific configuration, the grammatical(ised) meaning of the auxiliary consists of presenting the state of affairs denoted by the gerund as ongoing. Hence, it serves as a marker of the progressive aspect. This progressive marker can be realised by a form of the verb *esse* ‘to be’ (e.g. *erat* ‘he was’ (56)), a posture verb, such as *stare* ‘to stand’ (e.g. *stetit* ‘he stood’ (57)), or a motion verb, like *vadere* ‘to go’ (e.g. *vadunt* ‘they go’ (58)) (Aalto 1949: 75; Dietrich 1973: 305-312).

(56) [...] *in monte* *erat* *Darius* ***vocifera-nd-o*** *et* in mountain.ABL.M.SG be.PST.3SG Darius.NOM.M.SG scream-GER-ABL and ***congrega-nd-o*** multitudinem hostium [...]. gather-GER-ABL multitude.ACC.F.SG enemy.GEN.M.PL

‘On the mountain, Darius was screaming and gathering a multitude of enemies.’ (Leo *Alex*. 2.14)

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

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

(58) [...] *contra* *illos* *qui* ***mentie-nd-o*** *vadunt* [...]. against DEM.ACC.M.PL REL.NOM.M.SG lie-GER-ABL go.PRS.3PL

‘(...) against those who go lying.’ (*Carol. capit*. 1a.810)

The use of the gerund as the main verb of a progressive construction historically derives from its use as the head of an elaborating adjunct phrase (Aalto 1949: 76).<fnref n="19" /> The emergence of this use is to be explained in the same way as in the case of the present participle. This process has been investigated in §1.3.2.2.5,

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ In Vangaever (2019), I examine the emergence of the progressive gerund construction along with that of its present participle counterpart within the theoretical framework of Diachronic Construction Grammar. See also §1.3.2.2.5, fn. 72.</footnote>
and will not be rediscussed here.<fnref n="20" /> More relevant here is the observation that, unlike in the progressive present participle construction in Classical Latin, the auxiliary of the progressive gerund construction in Late Latin can be realised by a motion verb. This type of verbs often keep track of their original lexical meaning (cf. the concept of ‘persistence’ put forward by Hopper 1991: 22), and thus display a low degree of desemanticisation and, by extension, grammaticalisation (cf. Heine 1993: 54-56). The same holds for the posture verbs (Dietrich 1973: 307), as for the progressive present participle construction in Classical Latin (see §1.3.2.2.5). For instance, in (57) the general may be standing while hesitating, and in (58), people may be moving around while telling lies. However, the question whether the general is standing (57) and whether the people telling lies are moving around (58) is contextually less relevant. What really matters is that the general has been hesitating for some time (57) and that some people continuously tell lies (58). This is manifest from the discourse context of (57-58), given in respectively (59-60).

(59) *Emensaque aestimatione decimi lapidis cum prope silvam venisset squalore tenebrarum horrendam, stetit dux diu cunctando, indicio perfugae doctus per subterranea quaedam occulta fossasque multifidas latere plurimos, ubi habile visum fuerit erupturos.*

‘And after having advanced approximately ten miles, when he had come near a forest formidable with its forbidding shade, the general stood in hesitation for some time, being informed by the report of a deserter that large forces were lurking in some hidden underground passages and wide-branching trenches, ready to burst forth when they saw an opportunity.’ (Amm. 17.1.8)

(60) *Ut missive comites illorum missos transmittunt contra illos qui mentiendo vadunt, ut eos convincant.*

‘Just like the legates or their officials send around messengers against those who go lying, in order to convince them.’ (Carol. capit. 1a.810)

In (59), the narrator zooms in on a state of affairs taking place near a forest after a general and his army marched ten miles, and after this same general has been told that enemies are waiting for an opportunity to attack. The focus is on the hesitations of the general, since he is trying to figure out what to do about the threat of the enemy. At the center of the passage in (60) is the lying of some people: legates or their officials are sending around messengers in order to convince the people who are spreading lies about some matter. Within these contexts, the lexical meaning of *stetit* ‘he stands’ (59) and *vadunt* ‘they go’ (60) is backgrounded in favour of their grammatical value, which consists of presenting the hesitations of the general (59) and the lying of some people (60) as ongoing. The general may stand while hesitating, but he may just as well be sitting, lying, or even pacing around. Similarly, the people may move around while telling lies, but they may just as well be sitting, lying, or even standing still.

<footnote n="20">²⁰ It is highly plausible that the emergence of the progressive gerund construction in Late Latin did not take place independently from the further development of the progressive present participle construction, all the more because the two constructions are in competition since the very emergence of the gerund variant (cf. Aalto 1949: 75). The fact the gerund and the present participle also compete with each other in the source structure of the progressive construction strengthens this hypothesis. The relation between the two types of progressive constructions and the role played in their further evolution by the competition between adjunct bare ablative gerunds and adjunct present participles has not yet been investigated (cf. Vangaever 2019: 262-263).</footnote>
Needless to say, the persistence of the lexical meaning of some posture and motion verbs makes it sometimes difficult to establish whether their combination with a bare ablative gerund instantiates a progressive construction or its bi-clausal source structure. Therefore, it is not suprising that the analysis of some combinations is subject to debate. A good example is *ire trahendo* ‘(that) they go dragging’ (61), which is taken as a progressive construction by, e.g., Aalto (1949: 75), Hofmann & Szantyr (1965: 380), and Dietrich (1973: 309), but as a bi-clausal structure comprising an adjunct gerund by Pinkster (2021: §21.14).

(61) [...] credas ut stellas ire **trahe-nd-o** comas.
believe.SBJV.PRS.2SG that star.ACC.F.PL go.INF.PRS drag-GER-ABL ray.ACC.F.PL
‘You would believe that stars go dragging their rays.’ (Ven. Fort. *carm.* 5.5.118)

This same holds for the present participle counterparts, both in Classical Latin (see §1.3.2.2.5) and Late Latin (see §2.1.2.2.2.3.1). The distinction between progressive gerund constructions and their bi-clausal source structure will be examined in detail in Chapter 3 (§3.5.4).

For now, it is important to note that, as soon as they emerge, progressive gerund constructions enter in competition with their present participle equivalents. As in adjuncts, this competition soon starts settling in favour of the gerund (Aalto 1949: 75; Dietrich 1973: 305, 307; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 380). Thus, progressive present participle constructions are gradually replaced by gerund constructions, and definitively so in the transition to Romance (Meyer-Lübke 1899: 333; Diez 1843⁴: 907; Lyer 1934: 169; Aalto 1949: 75; Dietrich 1973: 305, 307; Harris 1978: 200-201; Vincent 2016: 45). The examples in (62-63) illustrate a progressive gerund construction in respectively Modern Spanish and Italian.

(62) *Estuvo escribie-ndo hasta despues del alba.*
be.PST.3SG write-GER until after of;ART.DEF.F.SG dawn.F.SG
‘He was writing until after dawn.’ (Squartini 1998: 38)

(63) *Ieri Giulio stava parla-ndo con Marco, quando arrivò Giacomo.*
yesterday Giulio stand.PST.3SG talk-GER with Marco when arrive.PST.3SG Giacomo
‘Yesterday Giulio was talking with Marco, when Giacomo came.’ (Squartini 1998: 73)

Despite this long-term replacement of the present participle variant by the gerund variant, the former is occasionally attested in Old Romance, namely in Old Italian (Filzi 1914: 35-40; Škerlj 1926; Squartini 1998: 28), Old Occitan (Squartini 1998: 28), and Old Romanian (Squartini 1998: 29). As we will see in (§2.2), Old French has an idiosyncratic position among the Romance languages also in this respect.

### 2.1.1.2.2.4. *External syntactic profile of the gerund*

As in Classical Latin, the external syntax of the gerund in Late Latin is diverse: it can occur in adnominal phrases, verb complements, adjective complements, adjuncts, and probably also adverb complements.
In addition, it can act as the main verb of a progressive construction. However, the frequency of these uses drastically changes in view of the intensifying competition of the gerund with the infinitive and the present participle. This section will synthesise these changes and measure their impact on the external syntactic profile of the gerund. As stated in the Introduction of this thesis, there are currently no corpus studies of the external syntax of the gerund in Late Latin, let alone studies providing quantitative figures of its various uses. Hence, all frequency shifts predicted by the functional changes set out in the previous sections remain speculative. One of the aims of the empirical part of this thesis is to investigate to which extent these functional changes are observable in a diachronic corpus of Late Latin texts (Chapter 4).

As regards the competition between the gerund and the infinitive, it involves adnominal phrases, verb complements, adjective complements, and purpose adjuncts. These competitions all tend to settle in favour of the infinitive. This evolution causes the number of adnominal, verb complement, adjective complement, and purpose adjunct gerunds to drop, and, incidentally, their proportion to the total number of gerunds. As for the competition of the gerund with the present participle, it concerns non-purpose adjuncts and progressive constructions. These competitions both settle in favour of the gerund. This shift makes the number of non-purpose adjunct gerunds and gerunds used in a progressive construction rise, and, as a corollary, their proportion to the total number of gerunds. These trends turn up in Late Latin, especially in substandard varieties, but are completed only in the transition to Romance. – or at least to most Romance languages. However, the transition from Late Latin to Old French is a notable exception to some of them (see §2.2).

It is important to recall that when two or more forms enter in competition, two main scenarios can be distinguished (Traugott & Trousdale 2013: 18; Fonteyn 2016: 32, 2019: 53; De Smet et al. 2018: 198). Either one of the alternatives is favoured and causes its competitor(s) to decline or even disappear (Leech et al. 2009), or each of the alternatives subsists, but specialises in different functional domains (Torres Cacoullos & Walker 2009). The outcomes of these scenarios are referred to by De Smet et al. (2018: 198) as respectively ‘substitution’ and ‘differentiation’. In Late Latin, the functional competition of the gerund with the infinitive and the present participle settles in terms of the second scenario, that of differentiation: the infinitive specialises in adnominal phrases, verb as well as adjective complements, and purpose adjuncts at the expense of the gerund, while the gerund specialises in non-purpose adjuncts and progressive constructions to the detriment of the present participle (on the latter, see also §2.1.2.2.2).

The emerging functional differentiation between the gerund and the infinitive has an important morphological implication. As in Classical Latin, the gerund in Late Latin almost always occurs in an adnominal phrase, verb complement, adjective complement, or purpose adjunct when it is marked in the accusative, the genitive, or the dative. By contrast, the ablative gerund is almost always used in a non-purpose adjunct or progressive construction. Thus, the specialisation of the gerund in Late Latin in these latter two uses and its replacement by the infinitive in its other uses entails that the gerund survives in
the ablative, while gradually disappearing in the other case forms (Aalto 1949: 73; Ernout & Thomas 1951: 267; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 139; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 369; Adams 2003: 748). Consequently, the Romance gerund goes back to the ablative gerund rather than to the Late Latin gerund as a whole. Since the external syntactic profile of this ablative gerund significantly differs from that of the accusative, genitive, and dative forms, and is as such not representative of the gerund as a whole, it is not surprising that the Latin gerund is more similar to the English gerund than to the Romance gerund (cf. Haspelmath 1995: 45; see also Vincent 2016: 37, 46).

In view of the evolution just sketched, one might raise the question to which extent the gerund in Late Latin and in Romance can still be considered as the suppletive form of the infinitive. In Late Latin, the collapse of the case system and the increasing use of prepositional infinitives enable the infinitive to occur in an increasing number of syntactic contexts. Among these contexts are those from which the infinitive was excluded in Classical Latin, and in which the gerund was to be used instead. Considering that, in Late Latin and in the transition to Romance, the gerund and the infinitive specialise in different functional domains and that, in doing so, the infinitive replaces the gerund in the accusative, the genitive, and the dative, but not in the ablative, the gerund ceases to act as the suppletive form of the infinitive. That is to say, it develops into a morphologically and functionally independent type of non-finite verb forms. This evolution toward categorial independency starts in Late Latin, but is completed only in the transition to Romance. Indeed, it is in this transitional period that the infinitive definitively replaces its gerund competitors, while leaving unaffected its functionally and formerly also formally complementary ablative gerund form.

It should be emphasised that the emerging division of labour between the gerund and the infinitive in Late Latin is to a large extent made possible by increasing use of prepositional infinitives, in particular forms governed by *ad* ‘to’ (Ernout & Thomas 1951: 256; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 369; Harris 1978: 199). In this way, the evolution toward functional differentiation between the gerund and the infinitive is not only part of the restructuring of the system of non-finite verb forms (Elcock 1960: 110-119; Bauer 1993: 59), but also of the more general shift from the synthetic marking of syntactic relations by means of inflectional morphology to their analytic marking (Ernout 1914³: 9-10; Väänänen 1963³: 111).

### 2.1.1.3. Morphosyntactic profile of the gerund

The changes affecting the external syntax of the gerund in Late Latin have also important implications for its morphosyntactic profile. From a morphosyntactic perspective, the substitution of the gerund by the infinitive in adnominal phrases as well as in verb and adjective complements entails that the gerund progressively loses its nominal external syntax. By contrast, its replacement by the infinitive in purpose adjuncts ousts the gerund from only part of its adverbial external syntax. Put differently, the nominal
gerund is gradually substituted by the nominal infinitive, whereas the adverbial gerund and the adverbial infinitive specialise in different semantic values. As for the specialisation of the gerund in non-purpose adjuncts and progressive constructions at the cost of the present participle, its morphosyntactic correlate is its specialisation in adverbial and verbal external syntax. Thus, the emerging functional differentiation between the gerund and the infinitive and between the gerund and the present participle follows a much more general evolutionary trend, namely that of morphosyntactic specialisation. This trend commences in Late Latin, but is pursued more markedly in the transition to Romance (cf. Carlier & Combettes 2015). Barring purpose adjunct infinitives, on the one hand, and gerunds used in a progressive construction, on the other, the infinitive thus specialises in nominal external syntax and the gerund in adverbial external syntax. The more general conclusion to be drawn is that functional competition may not only increase the degree of functional isomorphism of a language, but also, and perhaps more significantly, its degree of morphosyntactic isomorphism.

### 2.1.1.4. *Typological profile of the gerund*

The external syntactic changes of the gerund in Late Latin do not only have important implications for its morphosyntactic profile, but also for its typological profile. Recall that the typological profile of the gerund is obtained by mapping its morphosyntactic profile on Haspelmath's (1995: 4) typology of non-finite verb forms, in which a distinction is made between: (i) masdars, *i.e.* forms with nominal external syntax; (ii) converbs, *i.e.* forms exhibiting adverbial external syntax, and (iii) participles, *i.e.* forms with adjectival external syntax). As in Classical Latin, the nominal gerund in Late Latin falls under the masdar type, while the adverbial gerund is associated with the converb type. Like the verbal present participle in Classical Latin, the verbal gerund in Late Latin is not related to any of these types, at least not from a synchronic point of view. Hence, it will be left out in the following discussion.

In Late Latin, the specialisation of the gerund in adverbial external syntax and its replacement by the infinitive in nominal external syntax strengthens its association with the converb type and weakens its link with the masdar type. That is to say, the gerund becomes more and more converb-like. Since the labels ‘masdar’, ‘converb’, and ‘participle’ are used in this thesis as purely functional labels (see §1.2.4), this process can be referred to as ‘converbalisation’.<fnref n="21" /> This does not mean that the Late Latin gerund *is* or *becomes* a converb, just like the Classical Latin gerund is not a masdar (see §1.2.5). The Late Latin gerund is nothing but the Late Latin gerund, *viz.* a language-specific non-finite verb form with a unique set of morphological and syntactic properties and an equally unique morphosyntactic profile. However, due to its converbalisation, it is not surprising that, in typological literature, descriptions are sometimes

<footnote n="21">²¹ I first used this term in a paper presented at the 13th International Colloquium on Late and Vulgar Latin at the University of Eötvös Loránd in Budapest (September 2018). To my knowledge, this term has not been used before. The title of the paper in issue is: *Categoriality in language change: The “converbalisation” of the gerund.*</footnote>
found of Romance gerunds in terms of converbs. Witness Haspelmath (1995: 45), who states that “[T]he Romance gerund is a rather typical converb”. The label ‘converb’ being taken in this study as a language-independent functional label instead of a language-specific categorial label, I refrain from this practice.

### 2.1.2. The present participle

Having explored the evolution of the gerund in Late Latin, I will investigate in this section the evolution of the present participle. As for the gerund, I will first examine the changes affecting the morphology (§2.1.2.1) and syntax (§2.1.2.2) of the present participle. Then, I will assess the impact of these changes on the morphosyntactic (§2.1.2.3) and typological (§2.1.2.4) profile of the present participle. Changes in the competition of this form with the gerund will be studied throughout these sections, and hence they will not be synthesised in a separate section.

#### 2.1.2.1. Morphological changes of the present participle

Like those of the gerund, the morphological properties of the present participle are similar in Late Latin and in Classical Latin. They remain moreover relatively stable over time (Elcock 1960: 111, 116). Only one evolution can be observed, identical to that affecting the morphology of the gerund. This evolution consists of the generalisation of the forms of the first and second/third declension verbs at the expense of those of the fourth/fifth declension, thus of forms containing -ant- (e.g. *cantantem* ‘singing’) or -ent- (e.g. *delentem* ‘destroying’) at the cost of forms comprising -i(e)nt- (e.g. *morientem* ‘dying’) (Elcock 1960: 111.

However, as in the case of the gerund, the morphology of the present participle is also occasionally affected by phonetic evolutions. Most relevant are the apocope of final /m/ and the spirantisation of /nt/ before /i/ or /e/ (Väänänen 1963³: 54, 66-67). For instance, *presente* ‘present’ (64) looks like an ablative present participle, but instantiates in fact as an accusative form affected by the apocope of final /m/. The accusative is assigned through agreement with the noun *misso* ‘messenger’. Besides being also apocoped for its final /m/, this form shows vocalic confusion between /ɔ/ and /ũ (cf. Väänänen 1963³: 54, 66-67).
(64) [...] *ipsum* nunc per **prese-nt-e** misso
INTENS.ACC.M.SG now by beollo present.PTCP.PRS-ABL[ACC].M.SG sending.ABL[ACC].M.SG
vobis direximus.<fnref n="22" />
you.DAT.M.PL direct.PST.1PL

‘We now directed him to you by this sending.’ (Epist. Desid. 2.3)

The fact that *presente misso* ‘this sending’ stands for *presentem missum* ‘this sending’ is evident from
the presence of the preposition *per* ‘by’, which always assigns the accusative to its complement (Pinkster
2015: 1230).

An example of a present participle affected by the spirantisation of /nt/ before /i/ or /e/ is offered
by *nuncupancia* ‘named’ (65). The originally dental consonant /t/ of this form is spirantised before /i/,
leading to the ending -ancia instead of -antia.

(65) [...] de loca nuncupa-nc-ia illa [...].
about place.ACC[ABL].N.PL be_named-PTCP.PRS-ACC[ABL].N.PL DEM.ACC[ABL].N.PL
‘(...) about these places that are named (...).’ (Form. Tur. p. 161)

As in the case of the gerund, the phonetic evolutions affecting the morphology of the present participle
are of little interest in this study. Hence, they will not be further examined.

2.1.2.2. Syntactic changes of the present participle

Contrary to its morphological properties, the syntactic properties of the present participle undergo drastic
changes in Late Latin. These changes pertain to both its internal (§2.1.2.2.1) and external (§2.1.2.2.2)
syntax, though the latter are much more pronounced than the former (as in the case of the gerund).

2.1.2.2.1. Internal syntactic changes of present participle phrases

The changes regarding the internal syntax of the present participle concern the internal complexity of
present participle phrases (§2.1.2.2.1.1) and the marking of the internal argument of the present
participle (§2.1.2.2.1.2).

<footnote n="22">²² In Late Latin, the determiner/pronoun *ipse* progressively loses its emphatic character and gradually develops into a relatively neuter definite determiner/pronoun (*cf.* Aebischer 1948; Selig 1992; Carlier & De Mulder 2010). However, this evolution is completed only in the transition from Late Latin to Romance. Hence, this Late Latin determiner/pronoun is often referred to as a proto-article or ‘articloid’, term coined by Aebischer (1948).</footnote>
2.1.2.2.1.1. *Internal syntactic complexity of present participle phrases*

In Classical Latin, present participle phrases with a high degree of internal syntactic complexity are rare until the 1st c. BC, and mostly conjunct adjuncts headed by a nominative present participle (Marouzeau 1910: 13-22; Lyer 1932: 227). From the 1st c. BC onward, the number of phrases with a high degree of internal complexity increases, especially in literary texts and texts written in a high register (Marouzeau 1910: 13-22; Lyer 1932: 230-231). This causes the mean degree of finiteness of these phrases to rise (cf. Lehmann 1988: 191-197), hereby exemplifying the concept of finitisation (cf. Rose 2016: 350; see also §1.3.2.1.1).

In Late Latin, the finitisation of present participle phrases continues. Thus, phrases with a complex internal syntactic structure gain in frequency. The coordinated clauses headed by *facientes* ‘making’ and *euntes* ‘going’ (66) are cases in point: *facientes* ‘making’ governs the noun *aquam* ‘water’ as its direct object<fnref n="23" /> and is further modified by the adverbs *inde* ‘thence’ and *denuo* ‘again’ as well as by the ablative NP *alia die* ‘the following day’, which act as respectively a spatial, an aspectual, and a temporal adjunct; *euntes* ‘going’, as for it, is accompanied by the PP *inter montes* ‘between the mountains’, which serves as its spatial argument, and by the adverbs *adhuc* ‘still’ and *aliquantulum* ‘a little bit’, respectively an aspectual and a quantificational adjunct.

(66) *Inde denuo alia die facie-nt-es aquam et*

thence again other.ABL.F.SG day.ABL.F.SG make-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.SG water.ACC.F.SG and

**eu-nt-es** *adhuc aliquantulum inter montes pervenimus ad*

go-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.SG still a_little bit_ between mountain.ACC.M.SG arrive.PST.1PL at

*mansionem* [...].

residence.ACC.F.SG

‘After we stocked water again from there the following day and after we still walked a little bit between the mountains, we arrived at a residence.’ (Peregr. Aeth. 6.1)

This general trend toward finitisation does not entail that present participle phrases can no longer have a low degree of internal syntactic complexity. Indeed, they can still be restricted to the present participle, and the internal argument of transitive present participles can still be ‘deactualised’ (Dik 1985: 11) or left implicit, to be inferred from the discourse context. Witness (67), where the present participle phrase only contains the form *sequenti* ‘following’ – its direct object is left unspecified because it can be easily inferred from the discourse context.

<footnote n="23">²³ The present participle *facientes* ‘making’ and the noun *aquam* ‘water’ form a light verb construction.</footnote>
(67) *Die autem *seque-nt-i* [...] prostraverunt se in day.ABL.M.SG but follow-PTCP.PRS-ABL.M.SG prostrate.PST.3PL REFL.ACC.M.PL to orationem [...]. prayer.ACC.F.SG

'But the following day, they prostrated to pray.' (*Vit. Gal. Wal.* p. 315)

Nevertheless, complex present participle phrases become more frequent. They develop in this way into a syntactically more versatile and clause-like subordination strategy. Since the degree of finiteness of a clause is reflected morphosyntactically on its head (Givón 1990: 853; Bisang 2001: 1400; Nikolaeva 2010: 1178-1179), the finitisation of present participle phrases makes the present participle continue its process of morphosyntactic verbalisation set off from the 1st c. BC onward. The gerund and the present participle thus both undergo a process of morphosyntactic verbalisation. However, this process starts a few centuries earlier with the present participle that with the gerund.

### 2.1.2.2.1.2. Marking of the internal argument of the present participle

The morphosyntactic verbalisation of the present participle also manifests itself in the marking of its internal argument (Bauer 1993: 65, 2005: 516), just like in the case of the gerund. As in Classical Latin, the present participle in Late Latin can have the internal syntax of a verb or an adjective. Compare (66) and (68): in (66), *facientes* 'making' has verbal internal syntax, since its direct object, *viz.* the accusative noun *aquam* 'water', is marked in the same way as when governed by a finite form of *facere* 'to make eat'; in (68), on the contrary, *favens* 'supportive' has adjectival internal syntax, since its second argument *vestrae peticionis* 'your petition' is assigned the genitive, just like when it depends on a noun, while it stands in the dative when governed by a finite form of *favere* 'to support'.

(68) [...] si ipse vestrae peticionis fave-ns [...] if INTENS.NOM.M.SG your.GEN.F.SG petition.GEN.F.SG favour-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG esse voluerit [...]. be.INF.PRS want.SBJV.PST.3SG

'If he himself wanted to be supportive of your petition (...) .' (*Vit. Bonit.* 35)

However, the present participle has overwhelmingly verbal internal syntax, as already in Classical Latin. Since non-finite clauses showing verbal internal syntax are more finite than those exhibiting adjectival internal syntax (*cf.* Lehmann 1988: 191-197), this positively contributes to the mean degree of finiteness of present participle clauses.
2.1.2.2.2. External syntactic changes of the present participle

Generally speaking, the external syntax of the present participle in Late Latin is as diverse as in Classical Latin, in that it can still display adjectival, adverbial, and verbal external syntax (Elcock 1960: 111-112; Väänänen 1963³: 140-141). It has adjectival external syntax when used in an adnominal phrase, a subject predicate, or an object predicate; adverbial external syntax when heading an adjunct; and verbal external syntax when acting as the main verb of a progressive or presentative progressive construction or when serving as a finite verb (see §1.3.3). The tripartite distinction between adjectival, adverbial, and verbal present participles in Classical Latin is thus preserved in Late Latin. Hence, the present participle is still a ‘tri-functional category of non-finite verb forms’ (cf. Nedjalkov 1995: 104-105).

Despite having the same uses as in Classical Latin, the external syntactic profile of the present participle in Late Latin drastically changes. This is due in particular to its intensifying competition with the gerund (Aalto 1949: 73; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 140-141; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 384; Bauer 1993, 2005; Adams 2003: 748, 2013: 725-740; Pinkster 2015: 549 fn. 237, 2021: §21.14). This section aims to explore the evolution of this profile, by examining the evolution of successively the adverbial (§2.1.2.2.2.1), the adjectival (§2.1.2.2.2.2), and the verbal present participle (§2.1.2.2.2.3).

As in the case of the gerund, the external syntax of the present participle in Late Latin has not yet been the subject of a quantitatively oriented diachronic corpus study. Moreover, discussions of this topic in the existing literature are usually short and poorly documented (e.g. Elcock 1960: 111-112; Väänänen 1963³: 140-141). Some uses of the present participle have been examined in more detail, such as its use as a finite verb (e.g. Eklund 1970: 117-205; Adams 1976: 60-65) and as the main verb of a presentative progressive construction (e.g. Greco 2013), but others have been given no or little attention, for example its use in adnominal phrases as well as in subject and object predicates. Since the current section serves to present the state of the art of the evolution of the present participle in Late Latin, the different uses of the present participle will therefore be illustrated by only a few examples. In the empirical part (Chapter 5), these uses will be exemplified more extensively.

2.1.2.2.2.1. *The adverbial present participle*

As in Classical Latin, the adverbial present participle in Late Latin has only one use, namely in adjuncts (Väänänen 1963³: 140). In (69) and (70), *haec videns* ‘seeing this’ and *manducans multum* ‘eating a lot’ serve as respectively a temporal and a concessive adjunct.
(69) Haec **vide-ns** virgo ancilla=que Christi
DEM.ACC.N.PL see-PTCP.PRS.NOM.F.SG virgin.NOM.F.SG servant.NOM.F.SG=and Christ.GEN.M.SG
ad Claudium imperatorem dixit [...].
to Claudius.ACC.M.SG emperor.ACC.M.SG say.PST.3SG

‘Seeing this, the virgin and servant of Christ said to Emperor Claudius (...)’ (Pass. Iul. 1.1.4)

(70) [...] **manduca-ns** multum esurit [...].
eat-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG a lot be hungry.PRS.3SG

‘Despite eating a lot, it is hungry.’ (Chiron 407)

A bipartite distinction can also still be made between conjunct and absolute adjunct present participles. The subject of conjunct forms is coreferential with a constituent of the main clause. Hence, it is typically syntactically shared with this main clause (e.g. (69-70)). In contrast, the subject of absolute forms is not coreferential with any constituent of the main clause. For this reason, it usually explicit inside the present participle clause (e.g. *sancto Moyse* ‘saint Moses’ in (71)).

(71) [...] *ubi incensus est vitulus [...] iube-nt-e*
where burn.PTCP.PST.NOM.M.SG be.PRS.3SG calf.NOM.M.SG order-PTCP.PRS.-ABL.M.SG
*sancto Moyse* [...].
saint.ABL.M.SG Moses.ABL.M.SG

‘(...) where the calf was burned on command of saint Moses (lit. ‘because saint Moses ordered (it)’).’ (Peregr. Aeth. 5.6)

In contrast with Classical Latin, where absolute present participles are practically always marked in the ablative,<fnref n="24" /> in Late Latin, they may also stand in the nominative, the accusative, or the genitive (Kühner & Stegmann 1914⁵: 792; Pinkster 2021: §16.88, §16.94-§16.98). Depending on the case of the present participle, a distinction is made between nominative (e.g. *benedicens nos episcopus* ‘the bishop blessing us’ (72)), accusative (e.g. *advenientem sanctum Abraam* ‘saint Abraham approaching’ (73)), genitive (e.g. *inter se invicem cogitationum accusantium aut etiam defendentium* ‘their thoughts accusing and also defending each other’ (74)), and ablative (e.g. *iubente sancto Moyse* ‘saint Moses commanding (it)’ (71)) absolute (adjunct) constructions (Kühner & Stegmann 1914⁵: 792; Müller-Lancé 1994; Pinkster 2021: §16.88, §16.94-§16.98).

(72) [...] **benedice-ns** nos episcopus profecti sumus.
bless-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG we.ACC.M.PL bishop.NOM.M.SG leave.PTCP.PST.NOM.M.SG be.PRS.1PL

‘After the bishop blessed us, we left.’ (Peregr. Aeth. 16.7)

<footnote n="24">²⁴ As mentioned in §1.3.2.2.4, most authors only acknowledge the existence of ablative absolute present participles in Classical Latin. However, some scholars also recognise the existence of nominative absolutes in this period. The candidates for the latter are in any case extremely rare. Hence, absolute present participles in Classical Latin are either always or practically always in the ablative.</footnote>
(73) [...] sanctus Melchisedech, advenie-nt-em sanctum
saint.NOM.M.SG Melchisedech.NOM.M.SG approach-PTCP.PRS-ACC.M.SG saint.ACC.M.SG
Abraam, hostias Deo puras [...] optulit.
Abraham.ACC.M.SG sacrifice.ACC.F.PL God.DAT.M.SG pure.ACC.F.PL offer.PST.3SG
‘As saint Abraham was approaching, saint Melchisedech offered pure sacrifices to God.’ (Peregr.
Aeth. 14.2)

(74) [...] ostendunt opus legis [...] inter se invicem
show.PRS.3PL work.ACC.N.SG law.GEN.F.SG between REFL.ACC.M.PL mutually
cogitationum accusa-nt-ium aut etiam defende-nt-ium [...].<fnref n="25" />
thought.GEN.F.PL accuse-PTCP.PRS-GEN.F.PL or also defend-PTCP.PRS-GEN.F.PL
‘They show the work of the law while their thoughts are mutually accusing and also defending
each other.’ (Vulg. Rom. 2.15)

The present participle competes with the gerund in adjuncts already in Classical Latin (see §1.4). At this
stage of the language, however, the competition between these forms is weak. On the one hand, they are
specialised in different semantic values, so that their external syntactic overlap has more of a semantic
complementary distribution than of a true functional competition (Vester 1983: 125; Kooreman 1989:
219; Adams 2013: 725-726; Galdi & Vangaever 2019: 100-108; Pinkster 2021: §21.14). On the other
hand, their competition is more or less restricted to conjunct clauses having a subject coreferential with
that of the main verb. The forms subject to competition are thus bare ablative gerunds and nominative
present participles (Aalto 1949: 78; Vester 1983: 103; Kooreman 1989: 220; Adams 2013: 736; Pinkster
2021: §14.12, §21.14).

In Late Latin, the competition between the gerund and the present participle in adjuncts gains in
intensity. At least two reasons can be put forward. Most significantly, the bare ablative gerund gradually
loosens its ties with its original manner/instrumental/causal value, so as to develop into a semantically
more neuter and versatile strategy for adverbial subordination. In this way, it becomes a competitor of
the present participle in an increasing number of semantic contexts (Marouzeau 1910: 79; Kühner &
Stegmann 1914⁵: 753; Lyer 1932; Aalto 1949: 65-66; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 140-141;
Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 373, 377, 379-380, 384; Harris 1978: 200; Kooreman 1989; Bauer 1993,
2005; Maraldi 1994; Adams 2003: 748, 2013: 726, 735, 739; Pinkster 2021: §21.14). In addition, despite
remaining most often coreferential with that of the main verb, the subject of bare ablative gerunds starts
being able to not be coreferential with any constituent of the main clause, as in (75) (Väänänen 1963³:
141; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 144; Pinkster 2021: §21.14; see also §2.1.2.2.1.1 and §2.1.1.2.2.2).

<footnote n="25">²⁵ As noted by Pinkster (2021: §16.96), the use of genitive absolute present participles in religious texts is influenced by Biblical Greek. Witness the clause in (74), which translates a Greek genitive absolute adjunct present participle clause.</footnote>
(75) [...] *meos* animos plura vide-*nd-o* cremas.
my.ACC.M.PL soul.ACC.M.PL more.ACC.N.PL see-GER-ABL burn.PRS.2SG
‘You burn my soul as I see more.’ (Ven. Fort. *carm.* 11.19.2)

However, the competition between the gerund and the present participle does not only gain in intensity, but also starts settling, in favour of the gerund (Marouzeau 1910: 79; Kühner & Stegmann 1914⁵: 753; Lyer 1932; Aalto 1949: 65-66; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 140-141; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 373, 377, 379-380, 384; Harris 1978: 200; Kooreman 1989; Bauer 1993, 2005; Maraldi 1994; Adams 2003: 748, 2013: 726, 735, 739; Vincent 2016: 45; Pinkster 2021: §21.14). As mentioned in §2.1.1.2.2.2, adjunct present participles are thus gradually replaced by gerunds. Although this replacement primarily concerns conjuncts, it also holds for absolute forms (Väänänen 1963³: 141).

This evolution is even more significant from a morphosyntactic viewpoint: since adjunct gerunds and present participles have the external syntax of an adverb, the replacement of the latter by the former consists of the substitution of the adverbial present participle by the adverbial gerund. That is, the gerund specialises in adverbial external syntax at the expense of the present participle. Hence, the survival of the present participle in the transition from Late Latin to Old Romance becomes completely reliant on its adjectival and verbal external syntax, examined in respectively §2.1.2.2.2.2 and §2.1.2.2.2.3.

### 2.1.2.2.2.2. The adjectival present participle

In Late Latin, the adjectival present participle has the same uses as in Classical Latin. It can thus occur in adnominal phrases (e.g. *ineunte* ‘beginning’ (76)), subject predicates (e.g. *contradicentes* ‘obstinate’ and *furantes* ‘mad’ (77)), and object predicates (e.g. *tumentem* ‘swollen’ (78)).

(76) [...] *cum ab ineu-*nt-*e* pueritia [...] *militaveritis* [...].
when from begin-PTCP.PRS-ABL.F.SG childhood.ABL.F.SG serve.SBJV.PST.2PL
‘When you served (in the army) from the beginning of your childhood (...).’ (Epist. Austr. 5)

(77) [...] *quod deinceps apostolus praecipit exsequantur* ut non
REL.ACC.N.SG next apostle.NOM.M.SG order.PST.3SG carry_out.SBJV.PRS.3PL that NEG
*sint contradice-*nt-*es* non *fura-*nt-*es*.
be.SBJV.PRS.3PL contradict-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL NEG be_mad-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.SG
‘They should execute what the apostle ordered next, so that they would not be contrarious or mad.’
(Hier. in Tit. 2.9)

(78) [...] *totum=que illius vultum tume-*nt-*em* ac
whole.ACC.M.SG=and DEM.GEN.M.SG face.ACC.M.SG be_swollen-PTCP.PRS-ACC.M.SG and
lividum reddidit.
bluish.ACC.M.SG make.PST.3SG
‘And he made his whole face swollen and bluish.’ (Greg. Dial. 1.2.11)
It is held that, in Late Latin, the gradual replacement of the present participle by the gerund in adjuncts makes the present participle specialise in its adjectival uses, in particular its adnominal use (Marouzeau 1910: 79, 83-84; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 140; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 384; Harris 1978: 200; Kooreman 1989: 219-220). This shift results from the fact that the replacement of adjunct present participles by gerunds reduces the absolute frequency of adverbial present participles, and, incidentally, their proportion to the total number of present participles. As a result, the fraction of adjectival present participles increases, even if their absolute frequency remains stable. In this sense, the specialisation of the present participle in adjectival external syntax is in the first place an indirect evolution, that is to say, not due to a rising absolute frequency of adnominal phrases as well as subject and object predicates.

Like that of the gerund in adverbial external syntax, the specialisation of the present participle in adjectival external syntax is not completed in Late Latin, but only in the transition to Romance. Indeed, in most Romance languages, the present participle can no longer occur in adjuncts, while it can still be used in adjectival syntactic configurations, in particular adnominal phrases – be it as a productive form or as a more or less lexicalised one. Witness *cambiante* ‘changing’ (79) and *saliente* ‘outgoing’ (80) in Modern Spanish (Rigau 2000: 352).

(79) *Una situación cambia-nte.*

ART.INDF.F.SG situation.F.SG change-PTCP.PRS.F.SG
‘A changing situation.’ (Rigau 2000: 352)

(80) *El presidente salie-nte.*

ART.DEF.M.SG president.M.SG leave-PTCP.PRS.M.SG
‘The outgoing president.’ (Rigau 2000: 352)

As we will see in §2.2, Old French differs from other Old Romance languages also in this respect.

### 2.1.2.2.2.3. *The verbal present participle*

In addition to its adverbial and adjectival uses, the present participle in Late Latin can have the external syntax of a verb, just like in Classical Latin. In this syntax, it functions as the main verb of a progressive (§2.1.2.2.2.3.1) or presentative progressive construction (§2.1.2.2.2.3.2), or as a syntactically finite verb (§2.1.2.2.2.3.3). As mentioned in §1.3.2.2.7 with respect to Classical Latin, the latter use of the present participle is controversial. Hence, it will be discussed in detail.

#### 2.1.2.2.2.3.1. *Present participles used in a progressive construction*

In Classical Latin, progressive present participle constructions are extremely rare, and the auxiliary (or the verb used as such) corresponds to either the verb *esse* ‘to be’ or a posture verb, like *stare* ‘to stand’
(Aalto 1949: 75). In Late Latin, this type of constructions gain in frequency, especially in substandard varieties and in religious texts (Marouzeau 1910: 39; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 388; Scherer 1975: 96). Moreover, besides *esse* ‘to be’ (e.g. (81)) or a posture verb (e.g. (82)), the auxiliary may be realised by a motion verb, such as *ibat* ‘he goes’ (83).<fnref n="26" />

(81) Erat enim intra Treverici termini territurio
be.PST.3SG for inside of_the_**people_of**_Trèves.GEN.M.SG border.GEN.M.SG area.ABL[ACC].N.SG
*cuidam* *barbaro* *servie-ns*.
some.DAT.M.SG barbarian.DAT.M.SG serve-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG

‘For he was serving some barbarian in the area of the border of Trèves.’ (Greg. Tur. *Franc*. 3.15)

(82) Stabant etiam principes sacerdotum et scribae constanter
stand.PST.3PL for chief.NOM.M.SG priest.GEN.M.PL and scribe.NOM.M.PL constantly
**accusa-nt-es** eum.
accuse-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.PL DEM.ACC.M.SG

‘For the chief priests and the scribes were constantly accusing him.’ (*Vulg. Luc*. 23.9-10)

(83) [...] ille vero ibat incessanter vocifera-ns hoc
DEM.NOM.M.SG but go.PST.3SG continuously shout-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG DEM.ACC.N.SG
illi accidisse ob scelere quod in
DEM.DAT.M.SG happen.INF.PST because_of crime.ACC.N.SG REL.ACC.N.SG against
servum sancti Trudonis perpetrasset.
servant.ACC.M.SG saint.GEN.M.SG Trudo.GEN.M.SG complete.SBJV.PST.3SG

‘But he (the thief) was continuously shouting that this had happened to him because of the crime that he completed against the servant of saint Trudo.’ (*Vit. Trud*. 26)

Like the posture verbs, the motion verbs used as the auxiliary in this construction often have a low degree of grammaticalisation. This is due to the fact that their lexical source meaning often co-exists with their grammatical meaning, which consists of presenting the state of affairs denoted by the present participle as ongoing (*cf*. Hopper’s (1991: 22) concept of ‘persistence’; see also Heine 2002: 86). For example, in (82) the priests and scribes may stand while accusing Jesus, and in (83) the thief may move around while shouting. However, this is contextually less relevant than the continuous accusations of the priests (82) and the constant shouting of the thief (83).

Despite its increasing frequency in Late Latin, the progressive present participle construction does not survive in the transition to Romance. Indeed, this construction is replaced by its gerund competitor, as mentioned in §2.1.1.2.2.3 (Aalto 1949: 75; Dietrich 1973: 305, 307; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 380). Consequently, the Romance progressive construction is essentially a gerund construction (Meyer-Lübke

<footnote n="26">²⁶ According to most authors, the increasing use of the present participle as the main verb of a progressive construction in Late Latin is strongly influenced by Biblical Greek (e.g. Scherer 1975: 96). While Greek syntax certainly has an influence on this use of the present participle, especially in religious texts, its impact on the development of this use may nonetheless not be overestimated, as claimed by Amenta (2003: 146-148) and confirmed by Haverling (2010: 495-496).</footnote>
1899: 333; Diez 1843⁴: 907; Lyer 1934: 169; Dietrich 1973: 305, 307; Vincent 2016: 45). Remnants of the present participle variant are nonetheless found in some Old Romance languages (see §2.1.1.2.2.3).<fnref n="27" /> As often, Old French has an idiosyncratic position in this respect (see §2.2).

### 2.1.2.2.2.3.2. *Present participles used in a presentative progressive construction*

As in Classical Latin, the verbal present participle in Late Latin can also function as the main verb of a presentative progressive construction. In this construction, a present participle combines with a NP and a verb of visual (e.g. *vidistis* ‘you saw’ (84)) or auditory (e.g. *audi* ‘hear’ (85)) perception.

(84) *Vidistis itaque oculis fidei in evangelio piscatorem*
see.PST.2PL so eye.ABL.M.PL faith.GEN.F.SG in Gospel.ABL.N.SG fisherman.ACC.M.SG
*epula-nt-em.*
eat-PTCP.PRS-ACC.M.SG

‘So with the eyes of faith you saw the fisherman eating in the Gospel.’ (Aug. serm. 558.136)

(85) [...] *audivi vocem dice-nt-em [...].*
hear.PST.1SG voice.ACC.F.SG say-PTCP.PRS-ACC.F.SG
‘I heard a voice saying (...).’ (Greg. Tur. *Franc.* 7.1)

Recall that the lexical meaning of the perception verbs usually co-exists with their grammatical meaning, which consists of presenting the state of affairs expressed by the present participle as all-new, that is, as a thetic information unit (cf. Hopper 1991: 22; Heine 2002: 86). In addition, the perception verbs often have an evidential value, since they usually express the source of information expressed by the present participle (cf. Greco 2013: 179-180 and Zheltova 2017: 317-319).

In Late Latin, the presentative marker may also be realised by the presentative *ecce* ‘behold’ (86) or by a third person form of the verb *habere* ‘to have’ (87), unlike in Classical Latin (Vangaever 2021). The latter is used in an impersonal way, announcing Romance presentative structures like Spanish *hay* ‘there is’ and French *il y a* ‘there is’ (cf. Luque 1978; Stengaard 2008; Pinkster 2015: 97).<fnref n="28" />

<footnote n="27">²⁷ According to Marouzeau (1910: 39), the progressive present participle construction does survive in the transition from Late Latin to Romance. However, except for Old French and some rare instances in other Old Romance languages, this claim is manifestly wrong, since it is infirmed by empirical data.</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸ Presentative progressive constructions with *habere* ‘to have’ are often semantically and syntactically ambiguous, just like those with a perception verb (see §1.3.2.2.6). Indeed, *habere* ‘to have’ may not only be interpreted in an impersonal way, thus with a presentative function, but also in a personal way, i.e. with a possessive meaning. However, the possessive meaning of *habere* ‘to have’ is often backgrounded in favour of its grammatical function, which consists of introducing the state of affairs denoted by the present participle and its accompanying NP as new information. In contexts where this grammatical value offers a more plausible interpretation of the sentence, *habere* ‘to be’ is best taken in an impersonal way, and thus as the presentative marker of a presentative progressive construction – despite the persistence of its possessive meaning (cf. Hopper 1991: 22).</footnote>
(86) [...] *ecce dominum deum tuum [...] sta-nt-em*
behold Lord.ACC.M.SG God.ACC.M.SG your.ACC.M.SG stand-PTCP.PRS-ACC.M.SG
*ad summitatem scale [...]*.
at top.ACC.F.SG ladder.GEN.F.SG
‘Behold your Lord, God, standing on top of the ladder.’ (Vit. Pard. 1.29)

(87) *Habebat [...] in cubiculo [...] multorum pignora sanctorum [...]*
have.PST.3SG in room.ABL.N.SG many.GEN.M.PL symbol.ACC.N.PL saint.GEN.M.PL
*depende-nt-ia* [...].
hang-PTCP.PRS-ACC.N.PL
‘In his room there were hanging symbols of many saints.’ (Vit. Elig. 1.8)

The appearance of *ecce* ‘behold’ in Late Latin supports the hypothesis that perception verbs combined with an accusative NP and a present participle may acquire a presentative function. The same is true for *habere* ‘to have’, whose use as an impersonal verb with a presentative function is certainly not frequent in Late Latin, but nonetheless uncontroversial (Stengaard 2008; Pinkster 2015: 97). An example of this use of *habere* ‘to have’ outside the presentative progressive present participle construction is given in (88) (Stengaard 2008: 115).

(88) *Habebat autem de eo loco ad montem*
have.PST.3SG but from DEM.ABL.M.SG place.ABL.M.SG to mountain.ACC.M.SG
*Dei forsitan quattuor milia.*
God.GEN.M.SG perhaps four mile.ACC.N.PL
‘But from that place to the mountain of God there was perhaps four miles.’ (Peregr. Aeth. 1.1)

As in constructions with a perception verb, the present participle and its subject NP are in the accusative when the presentative marker is realised by the verb *habere* ‘to have’ (87). This marking is reminiscent of the former function of the NP as the direct object of *habere* ‘to have’ and of the present participle as the head of an elaborating adjunct agreeing with this NP. In line with the process of syntactic reanalysis, defined by Langacker (1977: 58) as “the change in the structure of an expression or class of expressions *that does not involve any immediate or intrinsic modification of its surface structure*” (italics mine), the case form of the present participle and the NP thus does not change, despite their structural reanalysis as respectively the main verb and the subject of the construction. In other words, the present participle and its subject NP are not ‘actualised’ (Timberlake 1977: 141), *i.e.* morphosyntactically aligned on their new function. However, this does not exclude their analysis as being syntactically reanalysed (Hopper & Traugott 1993²; Harris & Campbell 1995; Barðdal & Gildea 2015: 17-18).

As for the constructions with *ecce* ‘behold’, the present participle and its subject NP can stand in either the accusative (e.g. (86)) or the nominative (e.g. (89)).
(89) [...] *cum alveum* Mosellae [...] *transmeassent*, ecce!
when channel.ACC.M.SG Moselle.GEN.F.SG cross.SBJV.PST.3PL behold
*venie-ns* sancta Tetta [...] .
come-PTCP.PRS.NOM.F.SG saint.NOM.F.SG Tetta.NOM.F.SG

‘When they had crossed the channel of the Moselle, behold, there was saint Tetta coming.’ (Vit. Adelph. 6)

This variation is not restricted to the use of *ecce* ‘behold’ in presentative progressive constructions, nor to its use in Late Latin in general (Pinkster 2015: 368). Witness the Classical Latin examples in (90) and (91), where *ecce* ‘behold’ governs respectively the accusative pronoun *me* ‘me’ (90) and the nominative proper noun *Sebosus* ‘Sebosus’ (91).

(90) *Ecce me.*
behold I.ACC.M.SG
‘Here I am (lit. ‘behold me’).’ (Plaut. *Cist.* 283)

(91) *Cum haec [...] scribebam, ecce tibi Sebosus!*<fnref n="29" />
when DEM.ACC.N.PL write.PST.1SG behold you.DAT.M.SG Sebosus.NOM.M.SG
‘When I was writing this, behold, (there came) Sebosus to you.’ (Cic. *Att.* 2.15.3)

As in Classical Latin, the sole competitor of the present participle in this construction in Late Latin is the infinitive. However, this competition is still restricted to contexts in which the presentative marker is a perception verb and has a backgrounded sensory value rather than a cognitive one. In the transition from Late Latin to most Romance languages, the present participle is replaced in this construction by the infinitive (cf. Aspland 1974: 16). A Modern Spanish example of this infinitive construction is given in (92) (Fernández-Ordóñez 2000: 1371).

(92) *El agua lo ves caer desde la ventana.*
ART.DEF.M.SG water.F.SG it.M.SG see.PRS.2SG fall.INF.PRS from ART.DEF.F.SG window.F.SG
‘You see the water falling from the window.’ (Fernández-Ordóñez 2000: 1371)

Again, the transition from Late Latin to Old French provides an exception to this shift (see §2.2).

### 2.1.2.2.2.3.3. *Present participles used as syntactically finite verbs*

The final use of the present participle to be discussed is as a finite verb. In this use, the present participle is the predicate of a clause in which it “has a position such, that it seems to serve as a finite form and can be replaced – without any other changes being made in the sentence – by a finite form” (Eklund

<footnote n="29">²⁹ According to Pinkster (2015: 368), the nominative marking of *Sebosus* ‘Sebosus’ is due to the fact that this noun functions as the subject of a finite verb like *venit* ‘he came’, which, he claims, needs to be inferred from the discourse context.</footnote>
1970: 119; see also Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 389-390; Adams 1976: 60-65). An example of such a clause is *inde moventes* ‘moving from there’ (93), used in coordination with the finite clause *multitudo monachorum obviaverunt nobis* ‘a multitude of monks approached us’ - this coordination is a clear sign of the syntactically finite status of the former:

(93) [...] inde **move-nt-es** [...] et ecce multitudo monachorum
thence move-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.SG and behold multitude.NOM.F.SG monk.GEN.M.PL
obviaverunt nobis [...].
approach.PST.3PL we.DAT.M.SG

‘We moved thence and, behold, a multitude of monks approached us.’ (Anton. Plac. A.37)

In Classical Latin, syntactically finite present participles are extremely rare, and practically restricted to substandard varieties and religious texts translated from Greek (Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 389; Eklund 1970: 117-205 passim). In Late Latin, this use of the present participle becomes more frequent, but is still practically confined to substandard varieties and religious texts translated from Greek (Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 389; Eklund 1970: 140, 117-205). The influence of Biblical Greek is particularly strong in relative clauses (e.g. (94)) (Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 389; Eklund 1970: 144-153).

(94) *Innocentius*, *qui* **depreca-ns** *sanctum*
Innocentius.NOM.M.SG REL.NOM.M.SG pray-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG saint.ACC.M.SG
*Andream* [...].
*Andreas.ACC.M.SG*

‘Innocentius, who prays to Saint Andreas (...).’ (Inscr. Christ. Diehl 3859)

In (94), *deprecans* ‘praying’ serves as the head of a relative clause introduced by the pronoun *qui* ‘who’, which is normally combined with a morphologically finite verb. *Deprecans* ‘praying’ thus stands for the finite present tense verb *deprecatur* ‘he prays’, by which it can be replaced without other changes being made, in line with Eklund’s (1970: 119) definition cited above. However, the present participle can also be used as a syntactically finite verb in other types of subordinate clauses (Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 389; Eklund 1970: 154-158; Adams 1976: 62). Consider (95), where *metuentes* ‘fearing’ is the head of an adverbial clause introduced by the conjunction *quia* ‘since’, which is normally accompanied by a morphologically finite verb, such as, for instance, *metuebant* ‘they feared’.
<table><tr><td>(95)</td><td>Sed quia senatus et populus Zenonem metue-nt-es,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>but since Senate.NOM.M.SG and people.NOM.M.SG Zenon.ACC.M.SG fear-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>ne quid male pateretur civitas, relicto</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>lest INDF.ACC.N.SG bad.ACC.N.SG endure.SBJV.PST.3SG city.NOM.F.SG abandon.PTCP.PST.ABL.M.SG</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Basilisco, se illi omnes dederunt.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Basilisk.ABL.M.SG REFL.ACC.M.PL DEM.DAT.M.SG all.NOM.M.PL give.PST.3PL</td></tr></table>

‘But since the Senate and the people feared Zenon, they all surrendered to him after having abandoned the Basilisk, lest the city would endure something bad.’ (Anon. *Vales*. 2.43)

In the scientific literature, the existence of syntactically finite present participles is widely recognised (Löfstedt 1911: 249; Biese 1928: 82; Cavallin 1934: 77; Svennung 1935: 433-434; Eriksson 1939: 65-67; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 389-390), except by Adams (1976: 60-65). However, Adams’ position is untenable, since many present participles are unquestionably syntactically finite (e.g. (93-95)). As for Eklund (1970: 117-205), in spite of recognising their existence, he argues that many alleged syntactically finite present participles can also be analysed in a different way, and that their number is thus lower than has been assumed. The alternative analyses of these forms are diverse, and are related to the more general discussion of how the syntactically finite use of the present participle came into being. In the literature, various explanations have been given. Since these explanations are complementary rather than mutually exclusive (Biese 1928: 82; Svennung 1935: 433-434; Eriksson 1939: 65-67; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 389; Eklund 1970: 117-205), syntactically finite present participle clauses might qualify as what Van de Velde *et al*. (2015: 1) call ‘multiple source constructions’, *i.e.* constructions deriving “not just from one, but from different source constructions at once”.

The aim of the following sections is to explore the various sources of syntactically finite present participle clauses. However, since these clauses are not at the center of this thesis, the discussion will be relatively short. A more detailed and richly documented discussion of this topic is provided by Eklund (1970: 117-205), who focuses on Christian texts translated from Greek up to 600 AD.

### 2.1.2.2.2.3.3.1. Source 1. Present participles used in a progressive construction

The first source of syntactically finite present participle clauses are progressive constructions (Löfstedt 1911: 249; Biese 1928: 82; Svennung 1935: 433; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 389; Eklund 1970: 136-141). It is argued that some present participles are not deliberately used as syntactically finite verbs, but as the result of the ellipsis of the auxiliary *esse* ‘to be’ in a progressive construction. For instance, Eklund (1970: 139) claims that *expectans* ‘waiting’ (96) is syntactically finite due to the ellipsis of *erat* ‘he was’. This analysis of *expectans* ‘waiting’ (96) is supported by the fact that an explicit auxiliary is used both
in the Greek source of the Late Latin text and in all Latin manuscripts of the *Vetus Latina* other than the *Codex Aureus*, on which is based the reading in (96) (Eklund 1970: 139).

(96) [...] venit Ioseph ab Arimathia, nobilis decurio, come.PST.3SG Joseph.NOM.M.SG from Arimathea.ABL.F.SG noble.NOM.M.SG officer.NOM.M.SG qui et expecta-ns regnum Dei [...]. REL.NOM.M.SG also expect-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG kingdom.ACC.N.SG God.GEN.M.SG 'There came Joseph of Arimathea, a noble officer who was also expecting the kingdom of God.' (Vet. Lat. Marc. 15.43)

According to Hofmann & Szantyr (1965: 389), the ellipsis of the auxiliary “erklärt sich leicht daraus, daß das Part. in periphrastischen Formen fast alleiniger Träger des Verbalinhalts ist”. They also claim that this ellipsis of *esse* ‘to be’ is analogous to its ellipsis in other especially past participle, constructions.

Opinions strongly diverge on the number of present participles analysable as syntactically finite due to this type of auxiliary ellipsis. For example, Hofmann & Szantyr (1965: 389) defend this analysis for most forms, while Eklund (1970: 141) states that “a derivation from periphrases can be confirmed only in a few cases”. This latter position is more convincing for at least two reasons. On the one hand, many syntactically finite present participle clauses do not denote an outspoken durative state of affairs, and are therefore difficult to analyse as progressive constructions with an ellipted form of *esse* ‘to be’. The clause headed by *veniens* ‘coming’ (97) is a case in point.

(97) Quidam [...] Vincentius nomine nummorum arcarius INDF.NOM.M.SG Vincentius.NOM.M.SG name.ABL.N.SG money.GEN.M.PL treasurer.NOM.M.SG venie-ns ad civitatem Gabis ut ex come-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG to city.ACC.F.SG Gabi.ABL.M.PL in_order_to onBehalf_of actionem auri publici munimen acciperet. function.ACC[ABL].F.SG gold.GEN.N.SG public.GEN.N.SG protection.ACC.N.SG receive.SBJV.PST.3SG 'Someone named Vincentius, the treasurer of the public monies, came to the city of Gabi in order to receive protection on behalf of his function for the public gold.' (Pass. Getul. 1.99.1)

On the other hand, the frequency of progressive present participle constructions is low throughout the history of Latin (Eklund 1970: 11-74). Also, although the oldest instances are found in the 2nd c. BC, they gain in frequency only in Late Latin (Eklund 1970: 74; Pinkster 1998: 230), according to Haverling (2010: 496) from especially the 6th c. AD onward. Therefore, it is unlikely that most present participles acting as syntactically finite verbs serve in fact as the main verb of an elliptical progressive construction. Indeed, the first instances of syntactically finite present participles appear in the 1st c. AD (Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 389; Eklund 1970: 140), and thus predate the frequency rise of progressive constructions in Late Latin.
Another ‘argument’ against the ellipsis analysis found in the literature relates to the fact that some texts containing several syntactically finite present participles do not comprise any forms occurring in a progressive construction with an explicit form of *esse* ‘to be’ – or only a few of them (Eriksson 1939: 65-67; Eklund 1970: 120; Adams 1976: 61). Some scholars take this as evidence against the ellipsis analysis (Eklund 1970: 120; Adams 1976: 61), but the (near-)absence of progressive constructions *with* an explicit auxiliary in these texts does not necessarily exclude the analysis of present participle clauses *without* an explicit auxiliary as elliptical progressive constructions. Hence, this ‘argument’ has no weight in the above discussion.

For the two reasons mentioned earlier, the number of present participles serving as syntactically finite verbs due to auxiliary ellipsis is certainly lower than claimed by Hofmann & Szantyr (1965: 389), in line with Eklund’s (1970: 136-141) criticism. The fact remains, however, that the forms in issue act as syntactically finite verbs in the texts transmitted to us – or can at least be analysed as such. Indeed, while it cannot be determined whether the writer thought of them as syntactically finite or as the main verb of an elliptical progressive construction – not even when comparing translated Late Latin texts with their Greek source –, it can unambiguously be established that they serve as finite verbs in (one or more manuscripts of) the Late Latin texts that have reached us. Since grammatical sense can be made of them without assuming an implicit auxiliary, it might therefore be better to take them as such. This is in any case how they will be analysed in this thesis.

2.1.2.2.2.3.3.2. Source 2. Absolute adjunct nominative present participles

Another source of syntactically finite present participle clauses are nominative absolute adjunct clauses (Löfstedt 1911: 158-159; Biese 1928: 82; Cavallin 1934: 77; Eriksson 1939: 65-66; Eklund 1970: 168-171). These clauses often have a high degree of syntactic autonomy, in that they are only loosely attached to the syntactically superordinate clause (Horn 1918: 54, 58-59; Biese 1828: 75). Hence, they can easily serve as bridging clauses for syntactically finite clauses, whose head is also mostly in the nominative (Eklund 1970: 168). Moreover, from a synchronic point of view, some present participles are ambiguous between an analysis as syntactically finite forms and absolute adjuncts. Punctuation plays an important role in this matter (Eklund 1970: 168-171; Adams 1976: 61-65). Witness *venientes* ‘coming’, which is best analysed as an absolute adjunct present participle in (98), but as a syntactically finite verb in (99), because the noun *tempus* ‘time’ is followed by a comma in (98), but by a full stop in (99) (Eklund 1970: 168-169).
(98) *Iterum venie-nt-es* in Hierusolima, ubi [...] *aegrotus* remansi
again go-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL to Jerusalem.ABL[ACC].F.SG where sick.NOM.M.SG stay.PST.1SG
*per* multum *tempus*, *evidenter occulata* *fide*
during much.ACC.N.SG time.ACC.N.SG clearly conceal.PTCP.PST.ABL.F.SG faith.ABL.F.SG
*vidi* *beatam* *Euphemiam* *per* *visionem* *et Antonium*.
see.PST.1SG blessed.ACC.F.SG Euphemia.ACC.F.SG during vision.ACC.F.SG and Anthony.ACC.M.SG
‘When we went again to Jerusalem, where I stayed for a long time as I was sick, with a concealed faith
I saw the blessed Euphemia and Anthony in a vision.’ (Anton. Plac. A.46)

(99) *Iterum venie-nt-es* in Hierusolima, ubi [...] *aegrotus* remansi
again go-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL to Jerusalem.ABL[ACC].F.SG where sick.NOM.M.SG stay.PST.1SG
*per* multum *tempus*. *Evidenter occulata* *fide*
during much.ACC.N.SG time.ACC.N.SG clearly conceal.PTCP.PST.ABL.F.SG faith.ABL.F.SG
*vidi* *beatam* *Euphemiam* *per* *visionem* *et Antonium*.
see.PST.1SG blessed.ACC.F.SG Euphemia.ACC.F.SG during vision.ACC.F.SG and Anthony.ACC.M.SG
‘We went again to Jerusalem, where I stayed for a long time as I was sick. With a clearly concealed
faith I saw the blessed Euphemia and Anthony in a vision.’ (Anton. Plac. A.46)

However, punctuation was added to original Latin texts only in the Middle Ages. Therefore, it reflects
the interpretation of the medieval copyist rather than the intention of the writer. Additionally, in many
contexts, different punctuation strategies are possible. For this reason, it is not surprising that different
manuscripts of the same text often offer different punctuation (Eklund 1970: 168-169). Punctuation, it
turns out, is thus not always reliable to determine the use of present participles. This conclusion is further
supported by the fact that editors are not always consistent in their punctuation (Eklund 1970: 168-169).
The example in (98/99) is illustrative: following the A reading of the *Itinerarium Antonini Placentini*,
Geyer (1898: 190) proposes the punctuation in (98) in the edition of the text, but the one in (99) in the
verb index at the end of the edition (p. 448). In this way, *venientes* ‘coming’ is a syntactically finite
present participle in the edited text, but an absolute adjunct in the verb index. An alternative reading of
this text, the B reading, has a punctuation similar to that proposed in (98). However, in contrast with the
A reading of (98), in which *vidi* ‘I saw’ is the main verb and *venientes* ‘coming’ an absolute adjunct
present participle, in the B reading, given in (100), *venientes* ‘coming’ is a syntactically finite present
participle and *vidi* ‘I saw’ the head of finite adjunct clause, introduced by the conjunction *usquedum*
‘until’ and subordinate to the present participle clause (Eklund 1970: 169).<fnref n="30" />

<footnote n="30">³⁰ Galdi (2015: 42-55) notes that the language in the B version of the *Itinerarium Antonini Placentini* is almost systematically regularised, i.e. purified from innovative features. Hence, it does not present the authentic language of the author, making it less relevant for the study of language change.</footnote>
(100) *Iterum venie-nt-es* Hierusolima, ubi ego egrotus
again go-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL Jerusalem.ABL[ACC].F.SG where I.NOM.M.SG sick.NOM.M.SG
per multum tempus iacui, usquedum vidi per
during much.ACC.N.SG time.ACC.N.SG lay.PST.1SG until see.PST.1SG during
visionem beatam Euphemiam et Antonium.
vision.ACC.F.SG blessed.ACC.F.SG Euphemia.ACC.F.SG and Anthony.ACC.M.SG

'We went again to Jerusalem, where I laid sick for a long time, until I saw in a vision the blessed Euphemia and Antonius.' (Anton. Plac. B.46)

Bearing in mind the oftentimes arbitrary and conflicting punctuation in medieval manuscripts, Eklund (1970: 168-170) accepts the syntactic ambiguity of some present participles and the possibility to take them as syntactically finite forms, while Adams (1976: 61-65) systematically analyses them as absolute adjuncts (see also Pitkäranta 1978: 78-85). In doing so, the latter does not refrain from imposing punctuation different from that provided in the manuscript variants of some text, and thus in its existing editions. Adams' analysis is certainly convincing for some instances, but the generalisation of this analysis to all forms involved is a bridge too far (cf. Eklund 1970: 168-170). Adams position must be understood in his overall refusal to recognise the existence of syntactically finite present participles.

Since language change is a slow and gradual process, in which the emergence of new structures from existing ones includes at least one period in which specific instances are ambiguous between the source and the target structure (Faarlund 1990: 48; Heine 2002: 86; Hopper & Traugott 1993²: 124-126), the ambiguity of some present participle clauses might suggest that syntactically finite clauses derive from nominative absolute adjuncts. However, the latter are not the only possible source of syntactically finite clauses, and the role played by them might not be overestimated. Indeed, they are extremely rare until the 4th c. AD (Galdi 2017: 33-37), while syntactically finite present participles occur from the 1st c. AD onward, though only rarely (Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 389; Eklund 1970: 140).<fnref n="31" /> What is more, the frequency of nominative absolute adjunct present participles is relatively low even in Late Latin (Galdi 2017: 34-37), so that their contribution to the further development of syntactically finite present participles is probably small.

### 2.1.2.2.2.3.3.3. Source 3. Conjunct adjunct nominative present participles

The third source of syntactically finite present participle clauses are nominative conjunct adjunct clauses (Eklund 1970: 162-167). Like their absolute counterparts, nominative conjunct adjuncts often have a high degree of syntactic and semantic autonomy, their connection to the syntactically superordinate

<footnote n="31">³¹ It is worth reiterating that some authors reject the existence of nominative absolute adjunct present participles before Late Latin (e.g. Keydana 1997: 328; Pinkster 2021: §16.95). This further relativises their role in the emergence of syntactically finite present participles.</footnote>
clause being relatively loose (Marouzeau 1910: 29; Galdi & Vangaever 2019: 110).<fnref n="32" /> This type of adjuncts are more frequent in Late Latin than in Classical Latin, but clear instances are found already in the earliest texts. An often-cited example in the literature is the clause headed by *everrentes* ‘sweeping out’ (101) (see also §1.3.2.2.4).

(101) *Cibatui quod sit, obiciunt triticum siccum,*
food.DAT.M.SG insofar as be.SBJV.PRS.3SG offer.PRS.3PL wheat.ACC.N.SG dry.ACC.N.SG
*in centenos vicenos turtures fere semodium,*
for hundred.ACC.M.PL twenty.ACC.M.PL turtledove.ACC.M.PL about half-modius.ACC.M.SG
*cottidie everre-nt-es eorum stabula [...]*
every_day sweep_out-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL their.GEN.M.PL quarter.ACC.N.PL

‘As to food, they offer dry wheat, about a half-modius for 120 turtledoves, and they sweep out their quarters every day.’ (Varro *rust*. 3.8.2)

Like their absolute counterparts, these conjuncts can easily function as bridging clauses for syntactically finite present participle clauses. This is also suggested by the ambiguity of some of these clauses (Eklund 1970: 162-167). For instance, *addens* ‘adding’ (102) is taken as a syntactically finite present participle by Petschenig (1881: 165), but as a conjunct adjunct subordinate to the finite verb *iubet* ‘he orders’ by, among others, Horn (1918: 48) and Eklund (1970: 162) - even with the punctuation in (102), in particular the full stop after the verb *propelli* ‘to be driven forward’.<fnref n="33" />

<footnote n="32">³² Galdi & Vangaever (2019: 110) refer to such adjuncts as ‘secondary focus adjuncts’, while Bary & Haug (2011) and Haug (2012) use the term ‘independent rhemes’ (see §1.3.2.2.4).</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³ Horn (1918: 48) and Eklund (1970: 162) argue that “*addens* (...) is ‘psychologically’ subordinate to *iubet*” and therefore “not really a syntactically finite present participle” (Eklund 1970: 162; italics and single quotation marks original). This explanation is hardly defendable from a syntactic point of view, especially given the presence of an unrelated finite clause between those comprising *iubet* ‘he orders’ and *addens* ‘adding’. Eklund (1970: 162-167) extends this analysis to all present participles used in passages containing a declarative verb.</footnote>
(102) [...] iubet cunctos episcopos, qui Carthagine fuerant
order.PRS.3SG all.ACC.M.PL bishop.ACC.M.PL REL.NOM.M.PL Carthage.ABL.F.SG be.PST.3PL
congregati, quorum iam ecclesias, domos et
gather.PTCP.PST.NOM.M.PL REL.GEN.M.PL already church.ACC.F.SG house.ACC.F.PL and
substantiam ceperant, in hospitiis, quibus erant,
possession.ACC.F.SG take.PST.3PL in room.ABL.N.PL REL.ABL.N.PL be.PST.3PL
expoliari et expoliatos foris muro
rob.INF.PRS.PASS and rob.PTCP.PTC.ACC.M.PL outdoors wall.ABL[ACC].M.SG
propelli. Non animal, non servus, non
drive_forth.INF.PRS.PASS NEG animal.NOM.N.SG NEG slave.NOM.M.SG NEG
mutanda quae ferebant vestimenta penitus
change.GERV.NOM.N.PL REL.ACC.N.PL wear.PST.3PL clothes.NOM.N.PL entirely
dimittuntur; adde-ns adhuc, ut nullus
send_away.PRS.PASS.3PL add-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG besides that no.NOM.M.SG
quempiam illorum hospitio reciperet [...].
INDF.ACC.M.SG DEM.GEN.M.PL hospitality.ABL.N.SG receive.SBJV.PST.3SG

'He orders that all bishops, who were gathered in Carthage and whose churches, houses, and possessions they had already taken, be robbed in the rooms where they were staying and be thus driven forth outdoors, to the wall. Not an animal, not a slave, not the clothes that they wore and needed to be changed were entirely sent away. He besides adds that nobody ought to receive any of them in hospitality.' (Vict. Vit. 3.15)

Eklund (1970: 162-167) regards most of these present participles as conjunct adjuncts, but not without recognising that some of them might nevertheless be analysed as syntactically finite. By contrast, Adams (1976: 61-65) takes again a more radical stance. In line with his overall rejection of syntactically finite present participles, he systematically takes the forms in issue as conjunct adjuncts, imposing, wherever necessary, punctuation different from that provided in medieval manuscripts and offered in modern text editions. For instance, he holds that *veniens* 'coming' is syntactically finite with the punctuation in (103), but argues that this punctuation is misleading.
(103) [...] Nepos [...] factus est episcopus et Nepos.NOM.M.SG make.PTCP.PST.NOM.M.SG be.PRS.3SG bishop.NOM.M.SG and Nepo factus imperator Romae. Mox Nepos.NOM.M.SG make.PTCP.NOM.M.SG emperor.NOM.M.SG Roma.GEN.F.SG soon venie-ns Ravennam: quem persequens come-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG Ravenna.ACC.F.SG REL.ACC.M.SG pursue.PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG Orestis patricius cum exercitu, metuens Orestes.NOM.M.SG noble.NOM.M.SG with army.ABL.M.SG fear.PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG Nepos adventum Orestis, ascendens Nepos.NOM.M.SG arrival.ACC.M.SG Orestes.GEN.M.SG embark.PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG navem fugam petit.<fnref n="34" /> ship.ACC.F.SG flight.ACC.F.SG seek.PST.3SG

He argues that the clause headed by *veniens* ‘coming’ should not be separated from the previous sentence by a full stop, but by a comma. He then states that, if “a comma is placed after *Romae*, and a full stop after *Ravennam*”, as in (104), “*veniens* becomes a postponed perfective pres. part., describing an action posterior to the election of Nepos”, thus instantiating conjunct form (Adams 1976: 61; italics original).

(104) [...] Nepos [...] factus est episcopus et Nepos.NOM.M.SG make.PTCP.PST.NOM.M.SG be.PRS.3SG bishop.NOM.M.SG and Nepo factus imperator Romae. Mox Nepos.NOM.M.SG make.PTCP.NOM.M.SG emperor.NOM.M.SG Roma.GEN.F.SG soon venie-ns Ravennam. Quem persequens come-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG Ravenna.ACC.F.SG REL.ACC.M.SG pursue.PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG Orestis patricius cum exercitu, metuens Orestes.NOM.M.SG noble.NOM.M.SG with army.ABL.M.SG fear.PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG Nepos adventum Orestis, ascendens Nepos.NOM.M.SG arrival.ACC.M.SG Orestes.GEN.M.SG embark.PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG navem fugam petit. ship.ACC.F.SG flight.ACC.F.SG seek.PST.3SG

<footnote n="34">³⁴*Persequens* ‘pursuing’ is a nominative absolute form. *Metuens* ‘fearing’ and *ascendens* ‘embarking’ are conjunct forms.</footnote>
Adams' (1976: 61-65) analysis might again be preferable for some present participles, but it cannot be generalised to all forms. Some instances are at the least ambiguous between the two analyses, and for others, the analysis as a syntactically finite present participle is much more convincing than as a loosely attached conjunct adjunct (cf. Eklund 1970: 162-167).

2.1.2.2.2.3.3.4. Source 4. Anacoluthon

A fourth source of syntactically finite present participle clauses is anacoluthon. This phenomenon can be described as an unintended interruption in the planned syntax (Svennung 1935: 434; Eriksson 1939: 67; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 389; Eklund 1970: 144-161; Adams 1976: 62). Anacoluthon often leads to a 'contamination of two modes of expression' (Eklund 1970: 144), that is to say, a blended structure whose beginning is characteristic of one structure, but its end of another. According to Svennung (1935: 434) and Adams (1976: 62), the clause headed by *metuentes* 'fearing' (95), repeated below, is a case in point: it begins as a finite adjunct clause introduced by the conjunction *quia* 'since', but finishes as an adjunct present participle clause. They argue that this syntactic interruption is triggered by the semantic affinity between the intrinsically causal meaning of *quia* 'because' and the frequent causal meaning of adjunct present participles, especially in sentence-initial position.

(95) *Sed quia senatus et populus Zenonem metue-nt-es,*
but since Senate.NOM.M.SG and people.NOM.M.SG Zenon.ACC.M.SG fear-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL
*ne quid male pateretur civitas, relicto*
lest INDF.ACC.N.SG bad.ACC.N.SG endure.SBJV.PST.3SG city.NOM.F.SG abandon.PTCP.PST.ABL.M.SG
*Basilisco, se illi omnes dederunt.*
Basilisk.ABL.M.SG REFL.ACC.M.PL DEM.DAT.M.SG all.NOM.M.PL give.PST.3PL

'But since the Senate and the people feared Zenon, they all surrendered to him after having abandoned the Basilisk, lest the city would endure something bad.' (Anon. Vales. 2.43)

It is claimed that the syntactically finite use of this and similar present participles is not deliberate, but the result of a breach in the planned syntax. This analysis undoubtedly holds for most forms, especially the earliest ones, but it cannot be generalised to all occurrences, at least not in the later period. Indeed, in the later period, this use of the present participle might occasionally have been deliberate, namely as the unforeseen result of the increasing number of undeliberate instances in earlier periods. Nevertheless, irrespective of whether their use is deliberate, the forms act as syntactically finite verbs in the texts that have come down to us. Hence, they offer irrefutable evidence in favour of the existence of syntactically finite present participles, hereby invalidating Adams' (1976: 62) claim.<fnref n="35" />

<footnote n="35">³⁵ Surprisingly, Adams (1976: 60) does not perceive a conflict in refuting the existence of syntactically finite present participles, on the one hand, and admitting that of present participle clauses introduced by a relative pronoun or subordinating conjunction,</footnote>
2.1.2.2.2.3.3.5. Source 5. Apodotic use of coordinating conjunctions

The syntactically finite use of the present participle has also been related to the so-called ‘apodotic use of coordinating conjunctions’, that is, their use as devices coordinating an adjunct with a hierarchically superordinate constituent (Svennung 1935: 433-434; Eriksson 1939: 66-67; Eklund 1970: 172-195). The apodotic use of coordinating conjunctions is attested throughout the history of Latin. However, it is more common in Late Latin than in Classical Latin, and within the period of Late Latin it is most characteristic of Christian texts (Eklund 1970: 172-195; Wehr 2008: 180). Different conjunctions can be used in this way, such as *et* ‘and’, *atque* ‘and’, *sed* ‘but’, and the enclitic *-que* ‘and’ (Eklund 1970: 172-195). They may coordinate both finite and non-finite adjunct clauses with a hierarchically superordinate clause, the non-finite variants being nonetheless confined to participle clauses (Eklund 1970: 173; Galdi 2014: 63). In (105), the enclitic morpheme *-que* ‘and’ coordinates the present participle *respondens* ‘answering’ with the morphologically finite verb *dixit* ‘he said’. In (106), the clauses headed by the present participle *vocans* ‘calling’ and the morphologically finite verb *statuit* ‘he put’ are coordinated by means of the second occurrence of the conjunction *et* ‘and’:

(105) *At ille responde-ns dixit=que ad eos [...]*
but DEM.NOM.M.SG answer-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG say.PST.3SG=and to DEM.ACC.M.PL
‘But he answered and said to them (...).’ (Act. Andr. 93.11)

(106) *Et voca-ns Iesus puerum et statuit*
and call-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG Jesus.NOM.M.SG boy.ACC.M.SG and put.PST.3SG
eum in medio eorum.
DEM.ACC.M.SG in middle.ABL.N.SG DEM.GEN.M.PL
‘And Jesus called the boy and put him in the middle of them.’ (Vet. Lat. Matth. 18.2)

Due to their coordination with a morphologically finite verb, present participles of the type exemplified in (105-106) unambiguously serve as syntactically finite verbs, contrary to Adams' (1976: 63) claim. In line with his overall rejection of this type of present participles, this author states that the forms in issue are “not felt to be genuinely finite” themselves, because they require “the support of a neighbouring finite verb” (Adams 1976: 63). As in the case of the clauses discussed in the previous sections, he usually imposes punctuation other than that proposed in medieval manuscripts and modern text editions, in order to make possible their analysis as conjunct adjuncts that are only loosely attached to the superordinate clause. Again, Adams' position is convincing for some clauses, but it cannot be extended to all of them.

<footnote>on the other. Though implicitly, he seems to reason that all clauses of the latter type are the result of anacoluthon, and that their unplanned character does not allow accepting the existence of syntactically finite present participles. If this is his reasoning, it needs to be rejected. As argued in the running text, even if they are not deliberately used as such, the present participles function as syntactically finite verbs in the texts transmitted to us. Hence, their very existence cannot be denied.</footnote>
Adjunct clauses acquiring the status of a syntactically finite clause by virtue of being coordinated with a morphologically finite clause are often qualified as ‘parahypotactic’ – the underlying concept is known as ‘parahypotaxis’ (Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 389; Galdi 2014: 63).

### 2.1.2.2.2.3.3.6. Source 6. Mistakes and mistranslations

Finally, Eklund (1970: 121) argues that some present participles used in texts translated from Greek are syntactically finite “due to mistakes made unintentionally by the authors and translators” (see also pp. 142-143). The forms involved are thus not deliberately used as syntactically finite verbs, but as the result of either a correct translation from an authentic error in the Greek source or a mistranslation from the Greek source (Eklund 1970: 142). This analysis can be defended for some instances – a few examples are given in Eklund (1970: 142-143). However, as in the case of syntactically finite present participles resulting from anacoluthon, this type of forms undeniably act as syntactically finite verbs in the Latin texts transmitted to us. Hence, they provide irrefutable evidence of the existence of syntactically finite present participles. Besides, it cannot be established with absolute certainty whether the use of present participles as syntactically finite verbs in passages where they are lacking in the Greek source is due to a deliberate translation, and thus to an intentional deviation from the Greek source, or to an undeliberate mistranslation. What can be undeniably determined is how the forms in question function in the Latin text. As noted earlier with regard to other types of forms analysable as syntactically finite, these forms are perhaps best taken in the way that they are transmitted in the Latin text, all the more because they are liable to a grammatical interpretation without hypothesising errors or bad translations. This matter is of course more complicated when distinct manuscripts of the same Latin text offer different readings, but this is less relevant for the purpose of this study. It goes without saying that this philological remark holds for all present participles serving as syntactically finite verbs (or analysable as such).

### 2.1.2.2.2.3.3.7. Conclusion

The preceding sections have shown that the syntactically finite use of the present participle has various possible sources. Three of these are linguistic structures: progressive constructions, absolute adjuncts, and conjunct adjuncts. Specific present participles used in these structures might first have been used unintentionally in a syntactically finite way, perhaps as the result of auxiliary ellipsis, anacoluthon, the apodotic use of coordinating conjunctions, a mistake translated as such from Greek, or a mistranslation from Greek. However, the increasing frequency of syntactically finite present participles in Late Latin might suggest that this use of the present participle also became a deliberate use. This does not entail that all syntactically finite present participles are deliberately used as such, but that, at this stage of the
language, this use might be intentional in some cases, while remaining unintentional in others. For this reason, it is not only advisable to recognise the existence of syntactically finite present participles, but also to embrace the possibility that, in the course of time, speakers started deliberately using the present participle in this particular way. After all, the existence of morphologically non-finite, but syntactically finite verbs is not exceptional, neither in Latin, nor in other languages. For instance, in many languages, including Latin, the infinitive can act as a syntactically finite verb in instructions, as a competitor of a morphologically finite imperative verb (Ernout & Thomas 1951: 272; Elcock 1960: 112; Palmer 1964: 318; Harris 1978: 198; Fruyt 1996: 48, 58). This so-called ‘jussive use’ of the infinitive is exemplified for Late Latin in (107), where the infinitive *dare* ‘to give’ is used in parallelism with the finite imperative verb *dato* ‘give’; *agiter* ‘shake’ (108) illustrates a jussive infinitive in Modern French (Fruyt 1996: 48).

(107) *Ordeum* dato, non simpliciter dare.
wheat.ACC.N.SG give.IMP.PRS.2PL NEG simply give.INF.PRS
‘Give wheat, (but) do not simply give (it) (i.e. without processing it).’ (Chiron 138)

(108) **Agiter** avant de s' en servir.
shake.INF.PRS before of REFL from_it serve.INF.PRS
‘Shake before use (lit. ‘before making use of it’).’ (Fruyt 1996: 48)

The Latin infinitive is also often used as a syntactically finite verb in narrative texts (Ernout & Thomas 1951: 270-271; Palmer 1964: 317-318; Harris 1978: 199). Examples of such ‘historic(al) infinitives’ are *frangere* ‘to break’, *ruere* ‘to ruin’, and *scindere* ‘to tear’ (109).

(109) [...] *circumstabant* navem turbines venti, imbres
surround.PST.3PL ship.ACC.F.SG whirlwind.NOM.M.PL wind.NOM.M.PL rain.NOM.M.SG
*fluctus=que* atque procellae [...] *frangere* malum, ruere
flood.NOM.M.PL=and and storm.NOM.F.PL break.INF.PRS mast.ACC.M.SG ruin.INF.PRS
*antennas*, *scindere* vela [...].
yard.ACC.F.PL tear.INF.PRS sail.ACC.N.PL

‘The whirlwinds surrounded the ship; the rain, the floods, and the storms broke the mast, ruined the yards, and tore the sails.’ (Plaut. *Trin*. 835-837)

Another question that needs to be reassessed is the syntactic ambiguity of some present participles. As shown in the previous sections, some present participles can be taken as either syntactically finite verbs or as (i) the main verb of a progressive construction, (ii) an absolute adjunct, or (iii) a conjunct adjunct. Different authors often propose competing analyses of one and the same form. Given this disagreement, originating in the various sources of syntactically finite present participles, it is most prudent to define these forms without reference to their possible sources, but focusing only on their observable syntactic use in the clause. In view of this, their best definition is probably that proposed by Eklund (1970: 119), as forms having a position such that they act as a finite verb and can be replaced by a finite verb without
other changes being made in the sentence. In this thesis, syntactically finite present participles will be exclusively conceived of in terms of this definition. This means that, except for those in (98), (101), and (104), all present participles cited in the previous sections will be taken as syntactically finite.

In the literature, the use as a syntactically finite verb has not been reported for the gerund. Hence, the present participle is exempt from competition with the gerund in this use. Yet, this type of present participles is not preserved in the transition from Late Latin to Old Romance. This suggests that, despite gaining in frequency and perhaps even becoming occasionally deliberate in Late Latin, this use of the present participle did not successfully spread in the speech community (Croft 2000: 5; Traugott 2015: 53, 55). The main reason for this loss is the mismatch between the morphologically non-finite form of the present participle and its syntactically finite use. Due to this conflict, the present participle is an unfit competitor of morphologically finite verbs. Expectedly, syntactically finite present participle clauses are replaced by clauses headed by a morphologically finite verb, which are exempt from the form-function mismatch just mentioned.

2.1.2.2.2.4. *External syntactic profile of the present participle*

As in Classical Latin, the external syntax of the present participle in Late Latin is diverse. Indeed, it can occur in adnominal phrases, subject as well as object predicates, and adjuncts, but it may also act as the main verb of a progressive or presentative progressive construction, or be used syntactically as a finite verb. However, in Late Latin, the frequency of these uses drastically changes in view of the intensifying competition of the present participle with the gerund. This section aims to synthesise these changes, and to determine their impact on the external syntactic profile of the present participle. As in the case of the gerund, the current absence of quantitatively oriented corpus studies of the external syntax of the present participle in Late Latin does not allow providing concrete figures for the frequency shifts predicted by the functional changes discussed in the previous sections. Therefore, these shifts remain to some extent speculative. One of the aims of the empirical part of this study is to explore to which extent these shifts are observable in a diachronic corpus of Late Latin texts (Chapter 5).

In Classical Latin, the present participle mostly occurs in adjuncts. However, it is also frequently used in adnominal phrases – its other uses are extremely rare (see §1.3.2.2.7). Its competition with the gerund is restricted to adjuncts This competition is weak and appears more as a semantic complementary distribution, since the two forms are specialised in different semantic values (see §1.4).

In Late Latin, the area of competition between the gerund and the present participle extends, due to the emergence of the gerund in progressive constructions and to its appearance in absolute adjuncts as well as in conjunct adjuncts having a subject coreferential with a constituent of the main clause other
than its subject. Over time, the competition between the gerund and the present participle becomes more intense, in both adjuncts and progressive constructions. Soon, these competitions start settling in favour of the gerund, which thus comes to specialise in adjuncts and progressive constructions. Consequently, the present participle becomes completely reliant on its other uses, i.e. in adnominal phrases, subject as well as object predicates, presentative progressive constructions, and as a syntactically finite verb. Thus, the functional competition between the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin gradually settles in terms of differentiation, which is one of the two main outcomes of functional competition (Traugott & Trousdale 2013: 18; De Smet et al. 2018: 198).

### 2.1.2.3. Morphosyntactic profile

The external syntactic changes of the present participle in Late Latin have also important implications for its morphosyntactic profile. From a morphosyntactic viewpoint, the specialisation of the gerund in adjuncts at the expense of the present participle entails that the present participle is progressively ousted from adverbial external syntax. By contrast, the specialisation of the gerund in progressive constructions expels the present participle from only part of its verbal external syntax, since it still has verbal external syntax in presentative progressive constructions and when used as a syntactically finite verb. However, the present participle loses the latter two uses in the transition from Late Latin to Romance, and hence it becomes entirely reliant on its adjectival external syntax (Marouzeau 1910: 79, 83-84; Elcock 1960: 111; Palmer 1964: 325; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 384; Kooreman 1989: 219-220). Thus, the emerging functional differentiation between the gerund and the present participle follows a more general tendency, that of morphosyntactic specialisation (cf. Carlier & Combettes 2015). Indeed, excluding the forms with verbal external syntax, the gerund specialises in adverbial external syntax and the present participle in adjectival external syntax. As noted with respect to the gerund (§2.1.1.3), the more general conclusion to be drawn is that functional competition may not only increase the degree of functional isomorphism of a language, but also its degree of morphosyntactic isomorphism.

Within the family of the Romance languages, the tendency toward morphosyntactic specialisation is generally pursued most strongly in French (Carlier & Combettes 2015). As we will see in §2.2, however, the evolution of the gerund and the present participle provides a notable exception to this trend.

### 2.1.2.4. Typological profile

The changes in the external syntax the present participle in Late Latin have also serious implications for its typological profile. Remember that the adverbial present participle falls under Haspelmath's (1995: 4) converb type of non-finite verbs, while the adjectival present participle relates to his participle type
(see §1.3.4). As to the verbal present participle, it is not associated with any of these types, at least not in synchrony – just like the verbal gerund. Hence, it will be left out in the following discussion.

In Late Latin, the specialisation of the present participle in adjectival external syntax strengthens its link with the participle type of non-finite verb forms, and weakens its association with the converb type. That is, the present participle becomes more participle-like. Since the labels ‘masdar’, ‘converb’, and ‘participle’ are used in this thesis as purely functional labels (cf. Haspelmath 2010: 665; Lehmann 2018a: 33), this process can be labelled ‘participialisation’. The participialisation of the present participle in Late Latin and in the transition to Romance makes this form a ‘true participle’, viz. a non-finite verb form that, functionally speaking, ‘deserves’ its name, unlike in Classical Latin, where it behaves more like a converb than as a participle (see §1.3.4).

### 2.1.3. Conclusion

In Late Latin, the system of non-finite verb forms is drastically restructured. In this restructuring, a major role is played by the evolution of the gerund and the present participle. The evolution of these forms is mainly driven by functional competition. The gerund competes with different types of non-finite verb forms and with abstract (de)verbal NPs, but above all with the infinitive and the present participle. The competition of the gerund with the infinitive concerns its nominal external syntax and its use in purpose adjuncts, and settles in favour of the infinitive. As a consequence, the gerund specialises in non-purpose adjuncts and progressive constructions, where it competes with the present participle. This second type of competition settles in favour of the gerund, which makes the present participle specialise in adjectival external syntax (its remaining verbal uses are lost in the transition from Late Latin to Romance). Due to these evolutions, the system of non-finite verb forms gradually develops specialised forms for nominal (the infinitive), adverbial (the gerund), and adjectival (the present participle) functions. These functions are respectively aligned on Haspelmath’s (1995: 4) masdar, converb, and participle types of non-finite verb forms. Hence, in Late Latin, the infinitive becomes increasingly masdar-like, the gerund converb-like, and the present participle participle-like. However, this evolution toward form-function alignment does not apply equally to all Old Romance languages, as will be shown for Old French in the following section.

Noteworthily, as in Classical Latin, the rivalry between the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin does not raise a categorial problem. Indeed, the two forms are morphologically distinct, so that the competing forms in adjuncts and progressive constructions can always be categorised as either gerunds or present participles. In other words, the increasing functional competition between the gerund and the present participle does not blur their categorial distinction.
## 2.2. The gerund and the present participle in Old French

Old French will be delimited in this study as the period between the 9th c. AD, i.e. when the first texts written in the vernacular language appear, and the 13th c. AD (see also §3.3.2). In the transition from Late Latin to Old French, the morphological and syntactic properties of the gerund and the present participle are subject to drastic changes. While their syntactic changes are similar to those taking place between Late Latin and other Romance languages, their morphological changes are language-specific (Elcock 1960: 112). Some of these morphological changes are triggered by phonetic evolutions affecting the endings of the gerund and the present participle, and ultimately leading to the same form for the two types of non-finite verbs (Elcock 1960: 112; Buridant 2000: 237, 2019: 343; Wackernagel & Langslow 2009: 352 fn. 15; De Smet 2014: 38-40; Bazin-Tacchella 2020: 852-854). This morphological merging of the gerund and the present participle blurs the categorial distinction between them, so that some forms can no longer be categorised as gerunds or present participles with absolute certainty (Ménard 1973: 169; Harris 1978: 200; De Smet 2014: 40; Bazin-Tacchella 2020: 852). The result is a situation of what can be labelled ‘categorial indeterminacy’ (Aarts 2007: 4). This indeterminacy challenges the distinction between the categories of the gerund and the present participle, and thus raises a fundamental problem for their description in Old French.

This section aims to explore the evolution of the gerund and the present participle from Late Latin to Old French and during the Old French period. I will focus in particular on the categorial distinction between these forms. Attention will first be paid to the changes affecting the morphology of the gerund and the present participle and leading to their morphological merging (§2.2.1). In this section, I will also examine the impact of this morphological merging on the categorial distinction between the gerund and the present participle in general. Next, I will analyse the external syntax of the two forms, and explore the impact of their morphological merging on their categorial distinction for each of their uses separately (§2.2.2). Finally, the conclusions drawn from §2.2.1 and §2.2.2 will be synthesised in order to measure the global degree of categorial indeterminacy of the Old French outcomes of the Late Latin gerund and present participle (§2.2.3). This latter section will also assess the implications of this indeterminacy for the theoretical distinction between the two types of non-finite verb forms.

### 2.2.1. Morphological merging of the gerund and the present participle

In the transition from Late Latin to Old French, the paradigms of the gerund and the present participle are drastically reduced, because they do not survive in all case forms (Aalto 1949: 73; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 140-141; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 369; Buridant 2000: 237, 2019: 343). As noted in §2.1.1.2.2.4, the gerund is replaced by the infinitive (and abstract NPs) in all functions characteristic
of the accusative, genitive, and dative gerunds. Hence, only the ablative form, having the ending -ndo,
has a descendant in Old French (or in Romance in general) (Aalto 1949: 73; Ernout & Thomas 1951:
267; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 140-141; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 369; Buridant 2000: 237,
2019: 343; Bazin-Tacchella 2020: 853). As for the present participle, only the nominative and accusative
forms have a continuation in Old French (Buridant 2000: 237, 2019: 343; Bazin-Tacchella 2020: 852-
853). This is due to the collapse of the (Late) Latin case system, characterised by the generalisation of
nominative forms for the functions covered by the nominative and vocative cases, and the generalisation
of accusative forms for all other functions (Buridant 2000: 62, 2019: 71; Bazin-Tacchella 2020: 853).<fnref n="36" />
In the transition from Late Latin to Old French, the nominative and the vocative conflate in the subject
case (Fr. ‘cas sujet’), while the accusative, the genitive, the dative, and the ablative merge in the oblique
case (Fr. ‘cas régime’) (Buridant 2000: 62, 2019: 71; Bazin-Tacchella 2020: 853). This evolution affects
nouns, adjectives, determiners, and participles alike, and reduces the forms of the present participle that
survive in Old French (Buridant 2000: 237, 2019: 343; Bazin-Tacchella 2020: 852-853). Moreover, due
to the general loss of the neuter, the present participle only survives in the masculine and the feminine
(Buridant 2000: 61; Bazin-Tacchella 2020: 852-853).<fnref n="37" /> Since the Latin present participle has the same
form in these genders, there is little morphological variation in the forms giving rise to descendants in
Old French (Bazin-Tacchella 2020: 852). Indeed, the forms at stake show only three distinct inflectional
endings: -ns (nominative singular), -ntem (accusative singular), and -ntes (nominative and accusative
plural).

However, the ablative gerund and the nominative and accusative present participles do not survive
in the transition from Late Latin to Old French without undergoing further morphological changes. Quite
the contrary, they are affected by two types of changes: changes pertaining to their productive formation
out of verbs used in the language of this period, on the one hand, and changes triggered by phonetic
evolutions, on the other (Elcock 1960: 112; Harris 1978: 200; Buridant 2000: 237, 2019: 343; Bazin-
Tacchella 2020: 853). The former concern the vowel ending of the present stem of the verbs used for
the gerund and the present participle. In Late Latin, this ending corresponds to -a, -e, or -ie depending
on the conjugational class of the verb, although in most parts of the Roman Empire, including Gaul, the
first class ending -a and the second/third class ending -e generalise at the cost of the fourth/fifth class
ending -ie (Elcock 1960: 111). Between Late Latin and Old French, the first class ending -a extends to

<footnote n="36">³⁶ Buridant (2000: 62, 766; 2019: 1129) refers to the accumulation of functions under a single morphological case by the term ‘synapsis’. Meyer-Lübke (1894) and Herman (1998, 2000) describe the collapse of the Latin case system in detail. Schøsler (2020: 633-639) studies the evolution of the case system from Late Latin to Old French. Two recent corpus studies about the evolution and/or role of case marking in Late Latin and Old French are respectively Pinkster (2018) and Schøsler (2018).</footnote>

<footnote n="37">³⁷ In the earliest stages of Old French, the neuter is preserved in a small number of nouns going back to Late Latin neuter plural nouns in -a, but these nouns are soon reinterpreted as feminine nouns (Buridant 2000: 61). This resistance to the disappearance of the neuter mainly concerns collective nouns, such as *arme* ‘combination of the pieces of an armour’, which goes back to the plural of the Latin neuter noun *armum* ‘weapon’, i.e. *arma* ‘weapons’ (Buridant 2000: 61). For Italian, the neuter as a marker of a collective reference is maintained for a few lexemes up to Modern Italian (e.g. *un braccio* ‘an arm’, *le braccia* ‘the arms’). For the evolution of the morphological marking of gender on nouns, adjectives, and participles in the transition from Late Latin to Old French, see Schøsler (2020: 639-640).</footnote>
the detriment of the second/third class ending -e (Ernout & Thomas 1951: 267; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 141; Buridant 2000: 237, 2019: 343; Bazin-Tacchella 2020: 853). As a result, -a is no longer analysed as the ending vowel of the present stem of the verb, but reanalysed as being part of the inflectional ending of the gerund and present participle. Hence, the ending -ando becomes the invariable ending of the gerund, while the ending of the present participle is -ans in the nominative singular, -antem in the accusative singular, and -antes in the nominative and the accusative plural (Harris 1978: 200; Buridant 2000: 237, 2019: 343; Bazin-Tacchella 2020: 853). It is worth noting that the evolution toward a morphologically invariable ending for the gerund is in line with its specialisation in the external syntax of an adverb, since the gerund now becomes more adverb-like not only from a functional perspective, but also from a morphological one (Aspland 1968: 152; Harris 1978: 199).

Regarding the morphological changes triggered by phonetic evolutions, they concern the ending of the gerund and the present participle (Elcock 1960: 112; Buridant 2000: 237, 2019: 343; De Smet 2014: 38-40). In the case of the gerund, these evolutions consist of the apocope of the final vowel and the devoicing of the dental consonant thus left in final position, which leads to the ending -ant (Elcock 1960: 112; Harris 1978: 200; Buridant 2000: 50, 237, 2019: 343). Due to the invariability of this ending and in particular to the loss of the morpheme -o, which is the case marker of the ablative gerund in Late Latin, the Old French gerund becomes uninflected for case. Hence, it cannot be considered marked in either the subject case or the oblique case, just like adverbs. That is to say, the gerund falls outside the Old French case system.

With respect to the present participle, the phonetic evolutions affecting the nominative forms have been given no attention in the literature, while discussions of the accusative forms are restricted to the singular (e.g. in Elcock 1960: 112; Harris 1978: 200; Buridant 2000: 237, 2019: 343).<fnref n="38" /> The focus on the accusative might be explained by the fact that the Old French outcome of this case, *i.e.* the oblique case, covers more functions than the outcome of the nominative, *i.e.* the subject case. Hence, the chances for present participles to agree with a noun in the oblique case are higher than their chances to agree with one in the subject case. However, the higher frequency of oblique case present participles holds for both singular and plural forms. Hence, the lack of attention for accusative plural present participles remains unexplained. Anyhow, the evolutions affecting the ending of the accusative present participle are equally evident for the singular and the plural: (i) the singular ending -antem gets apocoped for its final consonant and its post-tonic vowel, which leads to the same ending as that of the gerund, viz. -ant; (ii) the plural ending -antes preserves the final consonant as part of the more general evolution of the morpheme -s into the grammatical marker of the plural number, while the post-tonic vowel is apocoped, the resulting ending -ants being graphically rendered as -anz (Buridant 2000: 47, 201, 237, 2019: 343).

<footnote n="38">³⁸ A recent exception is Bazin-Tacchella (2020: 853). See the following footnote for more information.</footnote>
By contrast, the evolution of the Late Latin nominative forms to the Old French subject case forms cannot be explained by regular phonetic evolutions. For instance, the Late Latin nominative singular present participle ends in -ans, while the Old French subject case singular present participle ends in -anz in the masculine and in -anz or -ant in the feminine. -Anz could in principle be a phonetic or graphical variant of -ans (Buridant 2000: 43), but the evolution from Late Latin -ans to Old French feminine -ant seems phonetically unexplainable. A similar observation can be made for the plural present participle, which ends in -antes in Late Latin, both in the masculine and the feminine, but takes in Old French the ending -ant in the masculine and -anz in the feminine. The shift from Late Latin -antes to Old French -anz can be explained in the same way as the evolution of the accusative plural present participle, but again, the shift from Late Latin -antes to Old French -ant seems phonetically unexplainable. Thus, the question arises as to how to account for the subject case endings of the Old French present participle, or at least the endings inexplicable by regular phonetic evolutions.

The answer lies in the concept of analogy. In Old French, the endings of the oblique case present participle are identical to the oblique case endings of epicene adjectives of the type *grant* ‘big’. Hence, it may be hypothesised that the endings of the subject case present participles have been aligned on those of the subject case forms of this same group of adjectives.<fnref n="39" /> These endings correspond indeed to -anz in the masculine singular, to -anz/-ant in the feminine singular, to -ant in the masculine plural, and to -anz in the feminine plural (Anglade 1958: 214; Harris 1978: 200; Buridant 2000: 201-202, 237, 2019: 343). The alignment of the morphology of the Old French present participle on that of epicene adjectives like *grant* ‘big’ is illustrated in Table 2.1 for the verb *amer* ‘to love’ (Buridant 2000: 201, 237, 2019: 343):

<table><caption>**Table 2.1.** Alignment of the morphology of the present participle on that of the epicene adjectives of the type *grant* ‘big’ in Old French (illustrated for the verb *amer* ‘to love’)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>Subject case</th><th>Oblique case</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">Masculine</td><td rowspan="2">Singular</td><td>amanz 'loving'</td><td>amant 'loving'</td></tr><tr><td>granz 'big'</td><td>grant 'big'</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Plural</td><td>amant 'loving'</td><td>amanz 'loving'</td></tr><tr><td>grant 'big'</td><td>granz 'big'</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Feminine</td><td rowspan="2">Singular</td><td>amanz/amant 'loving'</td><td>amant 'loving'</td></tr><tr><td>granz/grant 'big'</td><td>grant 'big'</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Plural</td><td>amanz 'loving'</td><td>amanz 'loving'</td></tr><tr><td>granz 'big'</td><td>granz 'big'</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="39">³⁹ Bazin-Tacchella (2020: 853) proposes a different analysis. According to her, the nominative singular forms have been aligned on the model of the genitive nouns (-ans > -antis), in line with the more general tendency to align imparisyllabic forms on the model of parisyllabic forms. She further claims that the ending of the nominative plural masculine forms has been replaced by -i, conformingly to a morphological evolution in the paradigm of the third declension nouns. She does not comment on the evolution of the nominative plural feminine forms. To my knowledge, this author stands alone in this analysis. In any case, she does not provide scientific references for this analysis. In my opinion, the hypothesis of analogical alignment on the model of the epicene adjectives of the type *grant* ‘big’ is more plausible, also considering the further morphological evolution of the present participle (see running text).</footnote>
In the course of time, the feminine forms of the epicene adjectives of the type *grant* ‘big’ become aligned on those of non-epicene adjectives like *dur* ‘hard’, with this proviso that the “*forme analogique en face de l’épicène depend de différents paramètres comme l’aire régionale, la forme (proselvers), la position*” (Buridant 2000: 204-205). Given that the ending of the present participle is aligned on the model of the epicene adjectives, it is not surprising that the alignment of the feminine forms of these adjectives on those of the non-epicene adjectives is also extended to some present participles, especially when used with an adjectival function (*cf*. Anglade 1958: 214; Harris 1978: 200; Buridant 2000: 328). Witness (110), where the adnominal form *mescreantes* ‘non-believing’ has the non-epicene ending *-antes* instead of the ‘expected’ epicene ending *-anz*.

(110) [...] *de mescre-ant-es* *gens esteit pursis*.
by *not believ*-V.ANT-OBL.F.SG *people*.OBL.F.SG *be*.PST.3SG *pursue*.PTCP.PST.M.SG
‘He was pursued by non-believing people.’ (Bibl. Mac. Rois 1)

Due to the morphological and functional similarities of this and similar forms with regular adjectives, it
is sometimes hard to determine whether a particular instance holds as a present participle or an adjective
(Ménard 1973: 169; Aravielle 1984: 39). This difficulty has also been mentioned for the Latin present
participle (see §1.3.1), and will be discussed extensively in Chapter 3 (§3.4.3.1). More relevant for the
present discussion is the fact that, due to the aforementioned phonetic evolutions, the Old French present
participle has the same form as the gerund when it is inflected in: (i) the subject case masculine plural;
(ii) the oblique case masculine singular; (iii) the oblique case feminine singular; and (iv) possibly also
in the subject case feminine singular. These forms are all made up of the present stem of a verb and the
ending -ant, e.g. *am-ant* ‘loving’ (Harris 1978: 200; Buridant 2000: 328, 2019: 461; Bazin-Tacchella
2020: 853; see Table 2.1). Since these forms cannot be categorised as gerunds or present participles on
purely morphological grounds, they raise a fundamental problem for the categorial distinction between
the gerund and the present participle (Ménard 1973: 169; De Smet 2014: 39-40; Bazin-Tacchella 2020:
852).

However, the categorial indeterminacy of these forms can sometimes be resolved on the basis of
other criteria, viz. the presence of a preposition and their syntactic use (Aravielle 1984: 38; De Smet
2014: 39-40). In Late Latin, the ablative gerund, but not the nominative or accusative present participle,
can be governed by a preposition.<fnref n="40" /> Assuming that present participles do not become compatible with
prepositions between Late Latin and Old French, all *-ant* forms governed by a preposition can therefore
be taken as gerunds (Anglade 1958: 217; Ménard 1973: 173-175; Harris 1978: 199; Aravielle 1984:
38-39; Jensen 1990: 322; De Smet 2014: 39; Bazin-Tacchella 2020: 853-854). *Racatant* ‘buying back’

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ This holds in fact for the present participle in general, unless it acts as the head of a NP. This type of present participles are indeed compatible with prepositions, but since they are not taken into account in this study, this is less relevant here.</footnote>
(111) is a case in point, this form being separated from its governing preposition *por* 'to' by the noun *vie* 'life', which functions as the direct object of the gerund (cf. Ménard 1973: 174-175).

(111) Mais il le fait por vie racat-ant [...].
but he.SBJ.M.SG it.OBJ.N.SG do.PRS.3SG to life.OBL.F.SG buy_back-V.ANT
‘But he does it to buy back his life.’ (R. de Paris *Ogier* 5476)

The fact that all *-ant* forms governed by a preposition qualify as gerunds does not mean that all bare forms are present participles. In Late Latin, ablative gerunds are in fact much more often bare than prepositional, so that the presence, but not the absence, of a preposition is a useful criterion in resolving the categorial indeterminacy of Old French *-ant* forms. Since most *-ant* forms are bare instead of prepositional, however, the usefulness of this first criterion is relatively low.

The second criterion relates to the syntactic use of the *-ant* form, and is useful for a much larger group of instances. It relies on the uses of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin. Aspland (1968: 151, 152, 166), who deals only with absolute adjunct forms, speaks of the ‘retrospective historical approach’ of categorising Old French *-ant* forms. In principle, Old French *-ant* forms having a function from which is excluded the Late Latin present participle can be analysed as gerunds, while those used with a function inaccessible to the Late Latin gerund can be taken as present participles (cf. De Smet 2014: 39-40). For instance, forms serving as the main verb of a presentative progressive construction, like *fuiant* ‘fleeing’ (112), can be taken as present participles, because in Late Latin, this function can be performed by a present participle, but not by a gerund.

(112) [...] De toutes pars les veïst on fui-ant.
from all.OBL.F.PL side.OBL.F.PL they.OBJ.M.PL see.PST.3SG one.SBJ.M.SG flee-V.ANT
‘They were seen fleeing from all sides.’ (Narbonnais 7534)

However, this criterion is useless for all *-ant* forms performing a function accessible to both the Late Latin (ablative) gerund and (nominative and accusative) present participle. For instance, both forms can act as the main verb of a progressive construction, and hence Old French *-ant* forms used in this construction, like *querant* ‘looking’ (113), cannot be taken as either gerunds or present participles with absolute certainty.

(113) E quant ele at sei grant / Une
and when she.SBJ.F.SG have.PRS.3SG thirst.OBL.F.SG great.OBL.F.SG ART.INDF.OBL.F.SG
eve vait quer-ant.
water.OBL.F.SG go.PRS.3SG look-V.ANT
‘And when she has great thirst, she looks for water.’ (Ph. de Thaon *Bestiaire* 769-770)

Moreover, this syntactic criterion to resolve the categorial indeterminacy of *-ant* forms is only reliable if, in the transition from Late Latin to Old French or within the period of Old French itself, the gerund
and the present participles do not extend the range of their uses, *i.e.* when the gerund does not encroach on the distribution of the present participle, and *vice versa*. However, as we will see below, the Old French gerund has probably taken over some of the functions characteristic of the Late Latin present participle (De Smet 2014: 40). Hence, the syntactic use of Old French *-ant* forms might be less reliable to determine their category than suggested so far – I will return to this point at the end of this section. For now, it suffices to mention that, even if some *-ant* forms could be categorised as gerunds or present participles due to the presence of a preposition (e.g. *racatant* ‘buying back’ (111)) or their syntactic use (e.g. *fuiant* ‘fleeing’ (112)), others remain categorially indeterminate (e.g. *querant* ‘looking’ (113)). These latter forms raise a fundamental problem for the theoretical distinction between the categories of the gerund and the present participle, and thus for their grammatical description in Old French (De Smet 2014: 39-40).

Even more problematic is the fact that forms that might be categorised as present participles based on their syntactic use sometimes take the ending *-ant* in contexts where one expects *-anz* (Ménard 1973: 170; De Smet 2014: 40). Consider *brunisant* ‘shining’ (114): it modifies the noun *espiez* ‘swords’ and thus qualifies in principle as a present participle, but instead of agreeing with this noun and taking the ending *-anz*, it has the non-agreeing ending *-ant*.

(114) *Franceis* i *fierent* des espiez *brunis-ant*.
French.SBJ.M.PL there hit.PRS.3PL with;ART.DEF.OBL.M.PL sword.OBL.M.PL shine-V.ANT
‘The French are hitting there with their shining swords.’ (Roland 1664)

In the course of time, the number of non-agreeing forms like *brunisant* ‘shining’ (114) increases, which suggests that the present participle progressively turns into a morphologically invariable form, just like the gerund (Ménard 1973: 170; Harris 1978: 200; Aravielle 1984: 40). This evolution toward formal invariability might be triggered by the morphological identity of the gerund, on the one hand, and present participles for which the agreement yields the ending *-ant*, on the other hand. Indeed, the categorial indeterminacy related to this morphological identity might have been extended to the present participle in general, that is, also to the forms for which agreement is expected to yield an ending other than *-ant*. As such, the morphology of the present participle comes to be aligned on that of the gerund (Aravielle 1984: 40). Put differently, the evolution of the present participle in Old French toward morphological invariability might be an analogy-driven morphological effect of the blurring of its categorial distinction with the gerund.

Yet, the increasing number of forms like *brunisant* ‘shining’ (114) does not necessarily mean that the present participle becomes morphologically invariable. As noted by De Smet (2014: 40), the forms in issue might be gerunds instead of present participles, hypothesis for which he provides three possible explanations. First, the increasing number of forms like *brunisant* ‘shining’ (114) might be due to their systematic reinterpretation as (morphologically invariable) gerunds, even in syntactic uses from which
the Late Latin gerund is excluded. De Smet (2014: 40) refers to this mechanism as ‘categorial incursion’, which is a type of analogy that is punctual instead of gradual (see also De Smet 2009: 1748). In our case, the punctuality of the analogy would lie in the fact that all non-agreeing -ant forms are each individually reinterpreted as gerunds, and thus abruptly. However, the non-agreeing ending of forms like *brunisant* ‘shining’ (91) might also indicate that the gerund extends its range of uses at the expense of the present participle. In this case, the increasing number of non-agreeing forms is the result of “gerunds gradually copying and taking over the distribution of present participles” (De Smet 2014: 40). De Smet (2014: 40) speaks in this regard of ‘analogical extension’, a type of analogy that is gradual instead of abrupt. In our case, the gradual nature of the analogy would reside in the gradual encroachment of the gerund on the distribution of the present participle, and thus in the gradual spread of morphologically invariable -ant forms in contexts of use reminiscent of the Late Latin present participle instead of the Late Latin gerund. Finally, the increasing number of non-agreeing -ant forms could be due to a combination of the two mechanisms just mentioned: some forms could be present participles punctually reinterpreted as gerunds due to categorial incursion, while others could be gerunds having a function characteristic of the present participle due to analogical extension.

Whatever its cause, the increasing number of non-agreeing forms like *brunisant* ‘shining’ (114) clearly indicates that the categorial distinction between the gerund and the present participle is blurred (Aalto 1949: 73; Ménard 1973: 169; Jensen 1990: 322; Sarré 2000; De Smet 2014: 40; Bazin-Tacchella 2020: 852). This categorial confusion even affects forms that can be taken as gerunds due to the presence of a preposition (Jensen 1990: 323; Buridant 2000: 324). Witness *enhortanz* ‘encouraging’ (115): the fact that it is governed by the preposition *por* ‘to’ suggests that it is a gerund, while its morphological agreement with the subject *li apostoiles* ‘the apostle’ points to an analysis as a present participle.

(115) [...] *por les clers enhort-anz li*
to ART.DEF.OBL.M.PL clerk.OBL.M.PL encourage-V.ANT.OBL.M.PL ART.DEF.SBJ.M.SG
*apostoiles i donat consentement.*
apostle.SBJ.M.SG to_it give.PST.3SG consent.OBL.M.SG

‘The apostle gave his consent to it in order to encourage the clerks.’ (Dial. Greg. 4)

By analogy to the explanations given above for forms like *brunisant* ‘shining’ (114), the agreeing ending of forms like *enhortanz* ‘encouraging’ (115) could suggest that some gerunds are reinterpreted as present participles (categorial incursion) and/or that the present participle encroaches on the distribution of the gerund (analogical extension). However, given the very low frequency of agreeing prepositional forms like *enhortanz* ‘encouraging’ (115), the hypothesis that the gerund loses its morphological invariability is highly unlikely.

Despite the fact that the present participle can still take by grammatical agreement the ending -anz instead of the invariable ending -ant (especially when used in an adjectival function, like the adnominal
form *apartenanz* ‘belonging’ (116)) and despite the exceptional occurrences of gerunds in *-anz* instead of *-ant* (e.g. *enhortanz* ‘encouraging’ (115)), the gerund and present participle both evolve in Old French toward a morphologically invariant form, having the ending *-ant* (Wackernagel & Langslow 2009: 352).

(116) [...] *les granz conseulz des*
ART.DEF.OBL.M.PL big.OBL.M.PL council.OBL.M.PL about;ART.DEF.OBL.F.PL
***aparten-anz*** choses de Rome.
belong-V.ANT.OBL.F.PL affair.OBL.F.PL of Rome
‘(...) the big councils about the affairs belonging to Rome.’ (*Sages* 001.004)

Consequently, the gerund and the present participle become morphologically identical, which makes the blurring of their categorial distinction complete (Ménard 1973: 169; Harris 1978: 200; De Smet 2014: 39-40; Bazin-Tacchella 2020: 852). Therefore, it becomes impossible to identify the category of many *-ant* forms on purely morphological grounds, so that the two above-mentioned criteria should be invoked (cf. Arnavielle 1984: 38; De Smet 2014: 39-40). The presence of a preposition is a relatively reliable criterion, but it is inoperative for the bare forms, which are in the vast majority. As to the syntactic use of the *-ant* form, the Late Latin gerund and present participle have a partially overlapping distribution. Hence, this criterion is not conclusive. Moreover, the ‘retrospective historical approach’ (Aspland 1968: 151, 152, 166) of categorising Old French *-ant* forms on the basis of these two criteria is only reliable under the assumption that the gerund and the present participle do not encroach on each other’s morphology or distribution, neither in the transition from Late Latin to Old French, nor during the Old French period itself.<fnref n="41" /> Assuming, for the time being, that the morphology and distribution of these forms remains constant in this period, the following section aims to establish for each type of *-ant* forms whether their category can be identified based on their syntactic use. As we will see, scholars strongly disagree about which types of forms are to be taken as gerunds or present participles. This disagreement is not surprising, because in addition to the issue of the external syntactic overlap between the gerund and the present participle inherited from Late Latin, there is the problem of their morphological merging in Old French.

In the following sections, the term ‘*-ant* form’ will be used as a cover term for all non-finite verb forms in Old French built on the present stem of a verb and having either the exact ending *-ant* or a phonetic, graphical, or inflectional variant of this ending – regardless of their syntactic use.

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ Note that the presence vs absence of a preposition is not a purely morphological property, but one that combines morphology and syntax (prepositions are also markers of syntactic functions). For the sake of simplicity, however, I will refer to this criterion as a morphological criterion. What matters most is indeed the formal distinction between bare and prepositional forms.</footnote>
### 2.2.2. External syntax of the -ant form

Like the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin, the -ant form in Old French has various uses. These syntactic uses can be mapped on three different morphosyntactic categories, yielding a three-type distinction between adjectival (§2.2.2.1), adverbial (§2.2.2.2), and verbal -ant forms (§2.2.2.3). The following sections aim at exploring the distinct uses of the Old French -ant form and at defining for each use separately whether the forms involved are categorially determinate or indeterminate on the basis of a retrospective historical approach, i.e. on the basis of syntactic criteria valid in Late Latin. A conclusion about the degree of categorial (in)determinacy of the Old French -ant form as a whole will be drawn in §2.2.2.4.

#### 2.2.2.1. The adjectival -ant form

In Old French, -ant forms can occur in three types of constituents performing a syntactic function accessible to the adjective, viz. adnominal phrases, subject predicates, and object predicates (Arnavielle 1984: 39; Buridant 2000: 328, 2019: 468-469). Witness (117-119): in (117), *ardant* ‘burning’ modifies the noun *feu* ‘fire’; in (118), *bruianz* ‘making noise’ is the predicate of the subject *l’éve* ‘the water’; and in (119), *recreant* ‘surrendering’ is the predicate of the object *le* ‘him’.

(117) [...] *ad l'* *escrit el feu*
have.PRS.3SG ART.DEF.OBL.M.SG document.OBL.M.SG in;ART.DEF.OBL.M.SG fire.OBL.M.SG
**ard-ant** *geté*.
burn-V.ANT throw.PTCP.PST
‘He threw the document in the burning fire.’ (Guernes *Becket* 3539)

(118) [...] *l'* *eve estoit roide et brui-anz.*
ART.DEF.SBJ.F.SG water.SBJ.F.SG be.PST.3SG swift.SBJ.F.SG and make-noise.V.ANT.SBJ.F.SG
‘The water was swift and noisy.’ (Chr. de Troyes *Yvain* 3083)

(119) *Rendre le quidet u mort o recre-ant.*
render.INF.PRS he.OBJ.M.SG want.PRS.3SG or dead.OBL.M.SG or renounce-V.ANT
‘He wants to make him either dead or harmless.’ (*Roland* 2733)

The fact that *bruianz* ‘making noise’ (118) and *recreant* ‘surrendering’ (119) display adjectival external syntax is apparent from their coordination with the adjectives *roide* ‘swift’ (118) and *mort* ‘dead’ (119).

If we admit that the gerund and the present participle do not encroach on each other’s distribution in the transition from Late Latin to Old French nor within the period of Old French itself, all adjectival -ant forms unambiguously qualify as present participles (Anglade 1958: 216; Väänänen 1963³: 140; Ménard 1973: 169-171; Harris 1978: 200; Arnavielle 1984: 39; Buridant 2000: 328, 2019: 468-469).
This is undisputable for subject and object predicates, because in Late Latin, the gerund, but not the present participle, is excluded from these functions. It also holds for adnominal forms, despite the fact that the Late Latin gerund can also be adnominal. Indeed, Old French adnominal *-ant* forms agree in theory with their governing noun, just like Late Latin present participles, while the Late Latin gerund is assigned case based on its syntactic function or governing preposition. Moreover, the analysis of adnominal *-ant* forms as gerunds would require the presence of a preposition compensating for the loss of the Latin case affix, but a preposition is lacking in all constituents concerned.

Given that adnominal as well as subject and object predicate *-ant* forms can be taken as present participles based on their syntactic function alone, their morphological identity with the gerund does not raise a categorial problem. Hence, it is not surprising that, in the scientific literature, the analysis of these forms as present participles is uncontroversial.

### 2.2.2.2. The adverbial -ant form

The *-ant* form can also occur in constituents performing the syntactic function characteristic of an adverb, i.e. that of adjunct (Aspland 1968: 216-217; Ménard 1973: 170, 173; Buridant 2000: 324-327, 2019: 461-467; Combettes 2003: 8-9). Consider (120): *plorant* ‘crying’ is a temporal adjunct denoting the circumstances accompanying the state of affairs denoted by the main verb *a salüee* ‘(he) greeted’.

(120) *Tristan* l' *a* **plor-ant** salüee.
Tristan she.OBJ.F.SG have.PRS.3SG cry-V.ANT greet.PTCP.PST.F.SG
‘Tristan greeted her while crying.’ (Bér. *Tristan* 3777)

The subject of adjunct forms can be coreferential with the subject of the main verb (e.g. (120)), but also with another constituent of the main clause (Ménard 1973: 170, 175). For instance, in (121) the subject of *noant* ‘swimming’ is coreferential with the direct object of *prent* ‘(it) takes’, namely the NP *le peissun* ‘the fish’.

(121) [...] *Le* peissun prent **no-ant** [...].
ART.DEF.OBL.M.SG fish.OBL.M.SG take.PRS.3SG swim-V.ANT
‘It (the eagle) takes the fish as it swims.’ (Ph. de Thaon *Bestiaire* 2024)

However, not all adjunct forms are conjuncts. Indeed, their subject can just as well lack coreference with a constituent of the main clause. In this case, the subject is usually explicit within the adjunct clause for obvious semantic reasons (Klemenz 1884: 35; Stimming 1886: 545; Etienne 1895: 310; Aspland 1968; Ménard 1973: 173; Buridant 2000: 324-326, 2019: 461-466). An example of such an absolute adjunct form is *vivant* ‘living’ (122), its subject being the NP *le pere et la mere* ‘his father and mother’.
(122) Quant aucuns en porte eritage le
when INDF.SBJ.M.SG INCH take.PRS.3SG heritage.OBL.M.SG ART.DEF.OBL.M.SG
père et la mere viv-ant [...].
father.OBL.M.SG and ART.DEF.OBL.F.SG mother.OBL.F.SG live-V.ANT

'When someone starts taking inheritance during the life of his father and mother (...).' (Ph. de Beau.
*Coutumes* 481)

With respect to the category of adjunct -ant forms, those having the exact ending -ant are in principle indeterminate, since in Late Latin, the gerund and the present participle can both occur in both conjunct and absolute adjuncts (see §2.1.1.2.2.2 and §2.1.2.2.2.1). Thus, conjunct forms such as *plorant* ‘crying’ (120) and *noant* ‘swimming’ (121) and absolute forms like *vivant* ‘living’ (122) cannot be taken as either gerunds or present participles with absolute certainty. By contrast, prepositional forms like *en plorant* ‘while crying’ (123) and *sor deffendant* ‘while defending’ (124) can be categorised as gerunds, unless the present participle encroaches on the distribution of the gerund between Late Latin and Old French or within the period of Old French itself, by becoming in particular compatible with prepositions.

(123) Blancheflor respond en plor-ant.
Blancheflour answer.PRS.3SG in cry-V.ANT
‘Blancheflour answered in tears (lit. ‘while crying’).’ (Floire 2588)

(124) J' ai mort celui sor mon cors
I.SBJ.M.SG have.PRS.1SG kill.PTCP.PST DEM.OBL.M.SG while my.OBL.M.SG body.OBL.M.SG
deffend-ant.
defend-V.ANT

'I killed him out of self-defense (lit. 'while defending my (own) body').' (Huon 1104)

As for the adjuncts having an inflectional variant of the ending -ant, like *crianz* ‘shouting’ and *pluranz*
‘crying’ (125), they qualify in principle as present participles, unless they are gerunds having inherited
the morphological inflection of the present participle due to analogical incursion (cf. De Smet 2014: 40)
and thus agreeing with their subject (see §2.2.1).

(125) [...] vindrent devant le rei cri-anz é
come.PST.3PL before ART.DEF.OBL.M.SG king.OBL.M.SG shout-V.ANT.SBJ.M.PL and
plur-anz.
cry-V.ANT.SBJ.M.PL

‘They came before the kind while shouting and crying.’ (Rois 83)

However, the overwhelming majority of the adjunct forms are bare and have the exact ending -ant, and
are as such categorially indeterminate. This also holds for phonetic or graphical variants of these forms,
like *vivent* ‘living’ (126).