<table><caption>**Table 4.19.** Productivity of the verb complement gerund in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>#tokens</td><td>29</td><td>47</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>#types</td><td>28</td><td>47</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes</td><td>27</td><td>47</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>#types/#tokens</td><td><strong>0.97</strong></td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.63</strong></td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes/#tokens</td><td><strong>0.93</strong></td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.50</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

In other words, the verb complement gerund is less schematic (or ‘lexically open’) in legal texts than in historical and religious texts (cf. Barðdal 2008: 22). Within the group of the legal texts, the productivity of the verb complement gerund is much higher than that of the adnominal gerund, according to both the type-token ratio (0.63 vs 0.36) and the hapax-token ratio (0.50 vs 0.21).

As in the case of the adnominal gerund, the low productivity of the verb complement gerund in legal texts is partially due to the fact that these texts contain more lexical combinations with a relatively high frequency than the historical and religious texts. Indeed, the legal texts comprise one combination occurring eight times and thus representing more than a quarter of all combinations in these texts. The combination in issue is *decernere* ‘to decide’/*ordinare* ‘to ordain’ (28), attested in eight distinct charters between the 7th and the 8th c.

(28) [...] *per presentem precepcione decernemus ordena-nd-um*
by *be_present.PTCP.PRS.ACC.F.SG* charter.ABL[ACC].F.SG *decide.PRS.1PL* ordain-GER-ACC
*quod in perpetium volemus esse mansurum [...]*<fnref n="11" />
*REL.ACC.N.SG* to *eternity.ACC.N.SG* want.PRS.1PL *be.INF.PRS* remain.PTCP.FUT.ACC.N.SG

‘By the present charter we decide to ordain what we want to remain for eternity.’ (Chart. Mer. 150)

The legal texts further contain one combination occurring three times (*decernere* ‘to decree’/*roborare* ‘to strengthen’) and two combinations used twice (*consentire* ‘to consent’/*facere* ‘to do’ and *placere* ‘to please’/*insérer* ‘to insert’). In contrast, all combinations in the religious and historical texts are hapaxes, except *compungere* ‘to incite’/*credere* ‘to believe’ (29), occurring twice in the historical texts.

(29) [...] *numquam conpunctus est miser ad crede-nd-um.*
never *incite.PTCP.PST.NOM.M.SG* be.PRS.3SG *miserable.NOM.M.SG* to *believe-GER-ACC*

‘This miserable (man) was never incited to believe.’ (Greg. Tur. Franc. 6.5)

<footnote n="11">¹¹ The analysis of *ordenandum* ‘to ordain’ (28) as a bare accusative gerund is close to its analysis as an impersonal gerundive. In the latter case, it is used in a passive and deontic verbal periphrasis with the elliptic infinitive auxiliary *esse* ‘to be’, leading to the translation ‘we decide that what we want to remain for eternity should be ordained’. However, *ordenandum* ‘to ordain’ can be replaceable by the present active infinitive *ordinare* ‘to ordain’. This replacement criterion is one of the decisive criteria used to categorise *-ndum* forms as either gerunds or gerundives (see §3.4.1.1). Additionally, *ordenandum* ‘to ordain’ does not have an outspoken deontic value. Indeed, the passage in (28) is part of a charter by means of which the author himself issues an ordonnance. The analysis of the *-ndum* clause as an impersonal clause with a passive and deontic interpretation is thus less plausible than its analysis as a personal clause with an active interpretation.</footnote>
As such, the five most frequent lexical combinations account for 53% of all combinations in the legal texts (16 instances out of 30), against only 21% in the historical texts (5 instances out of 29) and 11% in the religious texts (5 instances out of 47).

The low productivity of the verb complement gerund in legal texts is also manifest from the lexical variation of the gerunds separately. Table 4.20 shows that this variation is lowest in the legal texts, just like the lexical variation of the adnominal gerunds (see §4.2.1.3).

<table><caption>**Table 4.20.** Lexical variation of the verb complement gerunds in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>#tokens</td><td>29</td><td>47</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>#types</td><td>27</td><td>43</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes</td><td>26</td><td>39</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>#types/#tokens</td><td><strong>0.93</strong></td><td><strong>0.91</strong></td><td><strong>0.53</strong></td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes/#tokens</td><td><strong>0.90</strong></td><td><strong>0.83</strong></td><td><strong>0.40</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Moreover, the legal texts present more lexemes with a relatively high frequency than the historical and religious texts. Leaving out the hapaxes, the legal texts contain one lexeme used eight times (*ordinare* ‘to order’), one lexeme occurring five times (*facere* ‘to do’), one lexeme used three times (*roborare* ‘to strengthen’), and one lexeme occurring twice (*inserere* ‘to insert’). In contrast, the religious texts present only four lexemes occurring two times (*peccare* ‘to sin’, *sacrificare* ‘to sacrifice’, *credere* ‘to believe’, and *inquirere* ‘to investigate’), and the historical texts one lexeme used thrice (*credere* ‘to believe’). The five most frequent lexemes thus represent 63% of all verb complement gerunds in the legal texts (19 instances out of 30) versus 19% in the religious texts (9 instances out of 47) and 24% in the historical texts (7 instances out of 29). The most frequent lexeme in the legal texts is illustrated in (28) above; the runner-up is exemplified in (30).

(30) [...] nos ita facie-nd-um ob hoc
we.NOM.M.PL in this way do-GER-ACC because of DEM.ACC.N[F].SG
ordinatione recipimus [...].
ordonnance.ABL[ACC].F.SG accept.PST.1PL

‘We accept because of this ordonnance to act in this way.’ (Form. Marc. 2.52)

A similar conclusion can be drawn for the lexical variation of the governing verbs: it is lower in legal texts than in historical and religious texts (Table 4.21). This runs parallel to what has been observed for the lexical variation of the nouns governing an adnominal gerund (see §4.2.1.3).
<table><caption>**Table 4.21.** Lexical variation of the verbs governing a verb complement gerund in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>#tokens</td><td>29</td><td>47</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>#types</td><td>26</td><td>39</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes</td><td>24</td><td>34</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>#types/#tokens</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.83</td><td>0.50</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes/tokens</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.72</td><td>0.33</td></tr></tbody></table>

Excluding the hapaxes, the legal texts show one lexeme occurring eleven times (*decernere* ‘to decree’), one lexeme used three times (*placer* ‘to please’) and three lexemes occurring twice (*constringere* ‘to incite’, *consentire* ‘to consent’, and *sufficere* ‘to suffice’). The historical texts contain one lexeme used thrice (*spondere* ‘to promise’) and one lexeme occurring twice (*compungere* ‘to incite’). The religious texts, as for them, show three lexemes used thrice (*consentire* ‘to consent’, *petere* ‘to ask’, and *desistere* ‘to stop’) and two lexemes occurring twice (*sufficere* ‘to suffice’ and *constringere* ‘to incite’). The five most frequent lexemes account for 67% of all verbs governing a gerund in the legal texts (20 instances out of 30) against 28% in both the historical and the religious texts (respectively 9 instances out of 29 and 13 instances out of 47). The most frequent lexeme in the legal texts is systematically combined with the most frequent lexeme used for the gerund – the combination is exemplified in (28).

### 4.2.2.4. Morphological marking of the gerund

As in Classical Latin, verb complement gerunds in Late Latin can stand in the prepositional accusative (e.g. *ad scribendum* ‘to write’ (31)), the dative (e.g. *faciendo* ‘to do’ (32)), the bare ablative (e.g. *commonendo* ‘to remind’ (33)), and the prepositional ablative (e.g. *in veniendo* ‘in coming’ (34)).

(31) [...] *cum primum animum ad scribe-nd-um appuli* [...].
when first mind.ACC.M.SG to write-GER-ACC apply.PST.1SG
‘When I first applied my mind to write (...).’ (Sulp. Sev. *Mart.* 1.0.5)

(32) [...] *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)

(33) *Itaque non destitit episcopus commone-nd-o* [...].
and.so NEG stop.PST.3SG bishop.NOM[ACC].M.SG[PL] remind-GER-ABL
‘And so, he did not stop reminding the bishops (...).’ (*Vit. Elig.* 1.35)
(34) *Si [...] abba in venie-nd-o moras innexuerit [...]*.<fnref n="12" />

if abbot.NOM.M.SG in come-GER-ABL delay.ACC.F.PL fasten_to.SBJV.PST.3SG

‘If the abbot fastened delay to his coming (...).’ (Vit. *Sadalb*. 20)

All prepositional accusative verb complement gerunds are governed by *ad* ‘to’, while the prepositional ablative ones are introduced by *in* ‘in’ – as in the case of the adnominal gerund.

In addition to the markings in (31-34), the Late Latin corpus contains several verb complement gerunds in the bare accusative (e.g. 27/28/30)), marking unattested in Classical Latin (Odelstierna 1926: 45, 54; Aalto 1949: 61, 86; Palmer 1964: 322; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 378; Pinkster 2015: 58, 2021: §15.137-§15.138).<fnref n="13" /> The emergence of the bare accusative marking might be explained in the same way as in the case of the adnominal gerund, *viz.* as a morphosyntactic symptom of the increasing competition between the gerund and the infinitive (*cf*. Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 379; Pinkster 2021: 16.100). That is, some Late Latin verb complement gerunds might have come to be marked analogically to their bare accusative infinitive competitors, or simply be marked as such as the result of hypercorrection.

The Late Latin corpus also contains one verb complement gerund in the bare genitive, namely the form *faciendi* ‘to doing’, exemplified in (35) (*cf*. Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 376).

(35) [...] *ubicumque aut undecumque nobis tribuistis facie-nd-i,*

wherever or in_whatever_direction we.DAT.M.PL grant.PST.2PL take_action-GER-GEN

*Christo presule, adimplere agnovimus [...]*

Christ.ABL.M.SG protector.ABL.M.SG accomplish.INF.PRS accept.PST.1PL

‘In whatever place and direction you granted us to take action, we accepted to accomplish (it) under the protection of Christ.’ (Form. *Sal. Merk*. 58)

This bare genitive marking is at the least surprising. Even in Late Latin, where the case system gradually collapses and where constituents are often marked in innovative ways, the direct object of a transitive verb like *tribuere* ‘to grant’ practically never stands in the bare genitive. Though the analysis of *faciendi* ‘to do’ as the bare genitive direct object of *tribuistis* ‘you granted’ cannot be excluded due to the absence of alternative readings (*cf*. Zeumer 1886: 261), it is more plausible that the bare genitive marking of this form is the result of anacoluthon: *faciendi* ‘to do’ is planned as the adnominal argument of an abstract noun like *potestatem* ‘power’ (as in (12)), but contextually assigned the function of direct object of *tribuistis* ‘you granted’ due to an interruption in the planned syntax, *i.e.* the omission of the originally planned head noun *potestatem* ‘power’.

<footnote n="12">¹² Notice that the gerund *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 holds as a light verb construction (see also §2.1.1.2.2.1.2).</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ Recall that some authors do nonetheless recognise the existence of bare accusative verb complement gerunds in the Classical period (e.g. Aalto 1949: 82-86; Blümel 1979: 86; Bauer 1993: 67). See the discussion in §1.2.1.</footnote>
Finally, there are some verb complement gerunds that end in -ndo and thus take the form of dative or ablative gerunds, but that are best taken as accusative forms affected by the apocope of final /m/ and the vocalic confusion between /ɔ/ and /ũ/, just like the adnominal gerund faciendo ‘to do’ (24) discussed in §4.2.1.4. The form exemplando ‘to copy’ (36) is a case in point.

(36) Cui libet exinde aliqua exempla-nd-o faciat [...].
INDF.DAT.M.SG please.PRS.3SG from_this INDF.ACC.N.PL copy-GER-ABL[ACC] do.SBJV.PRS.3SG
‘If it pleases someone to copy something out of it, let him do.’ (Form. Marc. praef. 1)

Figure 4.2 shows that, in the Late Latin corpus, verb complement gerunds are most often marked in the bare accusative (48%) or the prepositional accusative (42%). The other markings are extremely rare.

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.2.** Morphological marking of the verb complement gerunds in Late Latin</figcaption></figure>

Given the absence of bare accusative gerunds in Classical Latin, the dominance of this type of gerunds in Late Latin indicates that the intensifying competition between the gerund and the infinitive in verb complements manifests itself in two directions: although the long-term tendency consists of the gradual replacement of the gerund by the infinitive, the gerund may occasionally be used instead of an infinitive, even in its canonical function as the direct object of a transitive verb (e.g. (27/28/30)).

### 4.2.2.5. Conclusion

Against expectations, the frequency of verb complement gerunds does not decline from Classical to Late Latin nor during the Late Latin period, neither in (normalised) absolute terms nor in proportion to the total number of gerunds. Merovingian Latin shows an unexpectedly high proportion of verb complement gerunds (11%), but this result is mainly due to an idiolectic feature of Fredegar’s *Chronica*. The portion of verb complement gerunds is considerably higher in the historical texts than in the religious and legal
texts, but this is again due to their relatively high number in Fredegar’s *Chronica*. Like the adnominal gerund, the verb complement gerund is less productive in legal than in historical and religious texts.

In Late Latin, verb complement gerunds represent a small portion of the total number of gerunds (8%). In the transition to most (Old) Romance languages, these gerunds are substituted by infinitives. A crucial role in this replacement is played by the increasing use of prepositional infinitives, in particular infinitives governed by *ad* ‘to’ (Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 139; Palmer 1964: 318; Bauer 1993: 62; Schulte 2007: Ch. 7; see also §2.1.1.2.2.1.2).

### 4.2.3. Adjective complement gerunds

The final type of gerunds used in nominal syntactic configurations are dependent on an adjective, such as *ad belligerandum* ‘to wage war’ (37) and *ad scribendum* ‘to write’ (38).

(37) *Erat [...] corde pius et animo etiam ad belligera-nd-um*
be.PST.3SG heart.ABL.M.SG pious.NOM.M.SG and spirit.ABL.M.SG indeed to fight-GER-ACC
*fortis.*
brave.NOM.M.SG

‘He was pious in his heart and in his spirit indeed brave to fight.’ (Vit. Elig. 1.12)

(38) [...] *nec iam tremula ad scribe-nd-um manus est apta [...].*
NEG yet shaking.NOM.F.SG to write-GER-ACC hand.NOM.F.SG be.PRS.3SG ready.NOM.F.SG
‘My shaking hand is not yet ready to write.’ (Form. Marc. praef. 1)

This section aims to investigate the frequency of adjective complement gerunds from Classical to Late Latin (§4.2.3.1) and within the period of Late Latin (§4.2.3.2). As in the case of the adnominal and verb complement gerunds, the frequency of the adjective complement gerunds in Late Latin will be further explored in view of their frequency and productivity in the historical, religious, and legal texts (§4.2.3.3). The final section will be devoted to the morphological marking of this type of gerunds (§4.2.3.4).

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

Adjective complement gerunds are not very frequent in both Classical and Late Latin (Table 4.22). This holds for both their (normalised) absolute frequency and their proportion to the total number of gerunds. Between Classical and Late Latin, both frequency parameters show a declining trend. This is in keeping with the predictions regarding the intensifying competition, in Late Latin, between the gerund and the infinitive, on the one hand, and between the gerund and the present participle, on the other.
<table><caption>**Table 4.22.** Frequency of adjective complement gerunds in Classical and Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#adjective complement<br>gerunds (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#gerunds<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#adjective complement gerunds/<br>#gerunds</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classical Latin</td><td>123 (1.97)</td><td>1 270 (20.32)</td><td>9,69%</td></tr><tr><td>Late Latin</td><td>41 (0.96)</td><td>1 308 (30.71)</td><td>3,13%</td></tr></tbody></table>

A chi-square goodness-of-fit test shows that the decreasing proportion of adjective complement gerunds might not be random: this proportion is higher than expected in Classical Latin and lower than expected in Late Latin in a statistically highly significant way ($\chi^2 = 42.22; df = 1; p < 0.0001$) (Table 4.23).

<table><caption>**Table 4.23.** Observed vs expected proportion of adjective complement gerunds to the total number of gerunds in Classical and Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classical Latin</td><td>123 (9,69%)</td><td>81 (6,38%)</td><td>+4.70</td></tr><tr><td>Late Latin</td><td>41 (3,13%)</td><td>83 (6,35%)</td><td>-4.63</td></tr></tbody></table>

Thus, the declining proportion of adjective complement gerunds might reflect a linguistic change. As in the case of the adnominal gerund (see §4.2.1.1), this decline might indicate that, in the Late Latin corpus, the gerund is increasingly replaced by the infinitive in adjective complements (cf. Aalto 1949: 73; Ernout & Thomas 1951: 269; Elcock 1960: 111; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 369, 378; Scherer 1975: 89; Harris 1978: 198-199; Fruyt 1996: 47, 56, 59). However, since corpus-based studies of the external syntax of the infinitive from Classical to Late Latin are currently lacking, this hypothesis remains speculative, all the more because the proportion of adjective complement gerunds is also expected to decline – indirectly – due to an increasing proportion of adjunct gerunds (see §4.3.1).

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

Due to their very low frequency in Late Latin, little can be said about the frequency pattern of adjective gerund complements during this period. Table 4.24 shows that, against expectations, the frequency of these forms does not show a rectilinear decreasing trend, neither in (normalised) absolute terms nor in proportion to the total number of gerunds. The absolute frequency of this type of gerunds even increases, though too modestly to be of significance.

<table><caption>**Table 4.24.** Frequency of adjective complement gerunds in Imperial, Merovingian, and Early Medieval Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#adjective complement<br>gerunds (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#gerunds<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#adjective complement<br>gerunds/#gerunds</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Imperial Latin</td><td>1 (0.33)</td><td>52 (17.33)</td><td>1,92%</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian Latin</td><td>15 (0.80)</td><td>525 (28.01)</td><td>2,86%</td></tr><tr><td>Early Medieval Latin</td><td>14 (0.82)</td><td>553 (32.34)</td><td>2,53%</td></tr></tbody></table>
According to a chi-square goodness-of-fit test, the diachronic variation in the proportion of adjective complement gerunds is probably random. Indeed, this proportion is lower than expected in Imperial and Early Medieval Latin and higher than expected in Merovingian Latin, but the differences between these periods are statistically insignificant ($\chi^2 = 0.22$; df = 2; p = 0.8958) (Table 4.25).

<table><caption>**Table 4.25.** Observed vs expected proportion of adjective complement gerunds to the total number of gerunds in Imperial, Merovingian, and Early Medieval Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Imperial Latin</td><td>1 (1,92%)</td><td>1 (1,92%)</td><td>-0.32</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian Latin</td><td>15 (2,86%)</td><td>14 (2,67%)</td><td>+0.28</td></tr><tr><td>Early Medieval Latin</td><td>14 (2,53%)</td><td>15 (2,71%)</td><td>-0.18</td></tr></tbody></table>

Even though the expected frequency of adjective complement gerunds in Imperial Latin is smaller than five, so that a chi-square goodness-of-fit test is in principle not recommendable (cf. Levshina 2015: 29), this finding is highly reliable in view of the normalised frequencies in Table 4.24. Thus, the fluctuating proportion of adjective complement gerunds does not show a linguistically significant trend.

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

In the Late Latin corpus, the frequency of adjective complement gerunds is highest in the religious texts, both in (normalised) absolute terms and in proportion to the total number of gerunds (Table 4.26). Yet, the difference with especially the legal texts is too small to be significant. However, the low frequency of this type of gerunds in the three textual domains does not allow drawing solid conclusions.

<table><caption>**Table 4.26.** Frequency of adjective complement gerunds in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>#adjective complement gerunds (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#gerunds (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#adjective complement gerunds/ #gerunds</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>4 (0.51)</td><td>213 (27.26)</td><td>1,88%</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>27 (1.09)</td><td>720 (29.06)</td><td>3,75%</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>10 (1.00)</td><td>375 (37.49)</td><td>2,67%</td></tr></tbody></table>

A chi-square goodness-of-fit test shows that the proportion of adjective complement gerunds is higher than expected in the religious texts and lower than expected in the historical and legal texts. However, the differences between the three thematic domains are statistically speaking insignificant ($\chi^2 = 2.93$; df = 2; p = 0.2311) (Table 4.27).
<table><caption>**Table 4.27.** Observed vs expected proportion of adjective complement gerunds to the total number of gerunds in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>4 (1,88%)</td><td>7 (3,29%)</td><td>-1.04</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>27 (3,75%)</td><td>23 (3,19%)</td><td>+0.93</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>10 (2,67%)</td><td>12 (3,20%)</td><td>-0.51</td></tr></tbody></table>

In other words, the proportion of adjective complement gerunds in the Late Latin corpus does not show significant thematic variation. This result contrasts this type of gerunds with both adnominal and verb complement gerunds, which are more frequent in respectively the legal and the historical texts.

Another difference between adjective complement gerunds and the two previous types of gerunds pertains to their productivity, measured in function of the lexical variation between the gerund and the governing adjective. Though its low absolute number of instances calls for some vigilance in evaluating its productivity, the adjective complement gerund is more or less equally productive in the three thematic domains (Table 4.28). This finding is at odds with what has been observed for the adnominal and verb complement gerunds, which are both less productive in legal texts than in historical and religious texts.

<table><caption>**Table 4.28.** Productivity of the adjective complement gerund in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>#tokens</td><td>4</td><td>27</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>#types</td><td>4</td><td>26</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes</td><td>4</td><td>25</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>#types/#tokens</td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.96</strong></td><td><strong>0.90</strong></td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes/#tokens</td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.93</strong></td><td><strong>0.80</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Thus, the degree of schematicity of the adjective complement gerund does not appear to be sensitive to thematic variation (cf. Barðdal 2008: 22). On closer inspection, almost all combinations of a gerund and a governing adjective are hapaxes. Only two combinations occur twice: *aptus* ‘suitable’/*construere* ‘to build’ (39) and *condignus* ‘worthy’/*habitare* ‘to live’ (40) – the former is used in two different religious texts and the latter in two distinct legal texts.

(39) [...] *dixerunt*, *quod ei* *locum* *aptum* *ad construe-nd-um* say.PST.3PL that DEM.DAT.M.SG place.ACC.M.SG suitable.ACC.M.SG to build-GER-ACC *monasterium* *ostendere* *deberent*. monastery.ACC.N.SG show.INF.PRS must.SBJV.PST.3PL

‘They said that they should show him a place suitable to build a monastery.’ (Vit. Amand. 23)
(40) [...] cum domo condignam ad habita-nd-um [...].
with house.ABL.F.SG worthy.ACC[ABL].F.SG to inhabit-GER-ACC
‘(...) with a house worthy to inhabit.’ (Form. Marc. 2.15)

The similar degree of productivity of the adjective complement gerund in the three thematic domains is also apparent from the lexical variation of the gerunds separately. Table 4.29 shows that this variation is somewhat lower in the legal texts than in the historical and religious texts, but due to the low absolute number of instances in the three thematic domains, this difference is probably hazardous.

<table><caption>**Table 4.29.** Lexical variation of the adjective complement gerunds in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>#tokens</td><td>4</td><td>27</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>#types</td><td>4</td><td>25</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes</td><td>4</td><td>23</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>#types/#tokens</td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.93</strong></td><td><strong>0.80</strong></td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes/#tokens</td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.85</strong></td><td><strong>0.60</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

The legal and religious texts each contain two lexemes occurring twice. In the legal texts, these lexemes are *habitare* ‘to live’ (40) and *dictare* ‘to compose’ (41), whereas in the religious texts, they correspond to *construere* ‘to construe’ (39) and *agere* ‘to do’ (42).

(41) [...] et alios prudentissimos viros [...] ac rethores
and other.ACC.M.PL very_prudent.ACC.M.PL man.ACC.M.PL and rhetorician.ACC.M.PL
et ad dictandum peritus [...].
and to compose-GER-ACC skilled.NOM[ACC].M.SG[PL]
‘(...) and other very prudent men and rhetoricians and men skilled in composing.’ (Form. Marc. praef. 1)

(42) [...] ut quicquid despicabile in monasterio ad agendum
that INDF.ACC.N.SG contemptible.ACC.N.SG in monastery.ABL.N.SG to do-GER-ACC
esset, ipse assumeret.
be.SBJV.PST.3SG INTENS.NOM.M.SG take_on.SBJV.PST.3SG
‘(...) that he would take on himself anything contemptible to do in the monastery.’ (Vit. Rom. 4)

The lexical variation of the adjectives governing a gerund is similar in the legal and religious texts. It is slightly higher in the historical texts, but this is insignificant since there are only four instances in these texts – which happen to be all hapaxes (Table 4.30).
<table><caption>**Table 4.30.** Lexical variation of the adjectives governing a gerund in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>#tokens</td><td>4</td><td>27</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>#types</td><td>4</td><td>20</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes</td><td>4</td><td>17</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>#types/#tokens</td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.74</strong></td><td><strong>0.70</strong></td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes/tokens</td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.63</strong></td><td><strong>0.50</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

In the legal texts, the adjectives occurring more than once correspond to the parasynonyms *condignus* ‘worthy’ (40) (n=3) and *dignus* ‘worthy’ (43) (n=2). In the religious texts, these lexemes are *paratus* ‘ready’ (44) (n=4), *aptus* ‘suitable’ (39) (n=3), and *promptus* ‘ready’ (45) (n=3).

(43) [...] *qui* digni ad ipso officio
REL.NOM.M.PL worthy.NOM.M.PL to INTENS.ABL[ACC].N.SG service.ABL[ACC].N.SG
**guberna-nd-um** apparere noscuntur.
direct-GER-ACC appear.INF.PRS know.PRS.PASS.3PL
‘(...) who are known to appear worthy to direct this service.’ (Suppl. form. Marc. 6)

(44) [...] *qui* paratior est ad *deroga-nd-um* bonis
REL.NOM.M.SG more_ready.NOM.M.SG be.PRS.3SG to detract-GER-ACC good.DAT.N.PL
potius quam ad *imita-nd-um* [...].
rather than to imitate-GER-ACC
‘(...) who is more ready to detract good things than to imitate (them).’ (Vit. Genov. 11)

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

### 4.2.3.4. Morphological marking of the gerund

As in Classical Latin, adjective complement gerunds in Late Latin can be marked in the prepositional accusative (e.g. *ad oboediendum* ‘to obey’ (45)), the bare genitive (e.g. *evadendi* ‘to escape’ (46)), and the prepositional ablative (e.g. *in iudicando* ‘in judging’ (47)).

(46) Sed ipse Erchanoldus evade-nd-i cupidus
but INTENS.NOM.M.SG Erchinoald.NOM.M.SG escape-GER-GEN eager.NOM.M.SG
volens exsilire [...].
want.PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG leap.INF.PRS
‘But when Erchinoald himself, eager to escape, wanted to leap (...)’ (Vit. Gall. Wett. 2.35)
(47) *Erat* [...] *in iudiciis iustus*, *in iudica-nd-o* *cautissimus* [...].
be.PST.3SG in trial.ABL.N.PL fair.NOM.M.SG in judge-GER-ABL most_cautious.NOM.M.SG
‘He was fair in trials, (and) most cautious in judging.’ (Greg. Tur. *Franc.* 6.30)

As in the case of the adnominal and verb complement gerunds, all prepositional accusative forms are governed by *ad* ‘to’, while the unique prepositional ablative form is introduced by *in* ‘in’. The Late Latin corpus does not contain dative instances, although this marking is in theory not excluded. It has in any case been attested in Classical Latin (Palmer 1964: 323; Pinkster 2021: §15.139; see also §1.2.2.2.3).

In addition to the markings mentioned above, there is also one adjective complement gerund that stands in the bare ablative, namely *abstinendo* ‘abstaining’ (48).

(48) [...] *ceteris* *quoque pius*, *sibi* ***abstine-nd-o*** *severus* [...].<fnref n="14" />
other.ABL.M.PL also *pious.NOM.M.SG* *REFL.DAT.M.SG* abstain-GER-ABL severe.NOM.M.SG
‘(He was) also pious with others, (but) severe in his own abstinence.’ (Vit. *Elig.* 2.10)

There are no manuscript variants for this form (*cf*. Krusch 1902: 701). In my opinion, its analysis as a bare ablative gerund is more plausible than as either a dative gerund or a hypercorrected bare accusative gerund (the ending -ndo being wrongly used instead of -ndum as a reaction against the spread of the apocope of final /m/ and the vocalic confusion between /ð/ and /ŭ/). The most plausible explanation of this bare ablative marking is that *abstinendo* ‘abstaining’ was planned as a prepositional ablative gerund introduced by *in* ‘in’, but that this preposition was – unintentionally – omitted due to the presence of the pronoun *sibi* ‘himself’, whose final vowel is identical to that of the monosyllabic preposition *in* ‘in’.

Finally, there is one form that is marked in the genitive while at the same time being governed by the preposition *ad* ‘to’, which usually assigns the accusative to its complement (*cf*. Pinkster 2015: 1230).

(49) *Scio* *quia vobis=cum sunt [...] prudentissimi viri*
know.PRS.1SG that you.ABL.M.PL=with be.PRS.3PL very_prudent.NOM.M.PL man.NOM.M.PL
*et ad dicta-nd-i docti* [...].
and to compose-GER-GEN skilled.NOM.M.PL
‘I know that men who are very prudent and skilled to compose are with you.’ (Form. *Bitur. praef.* 1)

Like the adnominal forms *ad prosequendi* ‘to pursue’, *ad rationandi* ‘to conclude’, and *ad interpellandi* ‘to interrupt’ in (23), the adjective complement *ad dictandi* ‘to compose’ (49) is a morphosyntactic blend of a bare genitive and a prepositional accusative clause. This blend may have been triggered by the intensifying competition in adjective complements (and elsewhere) between bare genitive gerunds and

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ Notice that the syntactic analysis of this form is difficult to determine. On the one hand, it can be taken as the complement of the adjective *severus* ‘severe’, but on the other hand, it can be analysed as an adjunct. The adjective complement analysis adopted here is based on the fact that *abstinendo* ‘abstaining’ primarily serves to specify the domain of application of the quality expressed by the adjective *severus* ‘severe’. Anyhow, this one instance does not have any impact on the quantitative results.</footnote>
prepositional infinitives governed by *ad* ‘to’ (Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 379). Another explanation is that *dictandi* ‘to compose’ was originally planned as the adnominal argument of a noun like *artem* ‘art’, but that for some reason or other, this noun is left unexpressed, hereby causing the contextual reanalysis of *ad dictandi* ‘to compose’ as the complement of *docti* ‘skilled’.

Figure 4.3 presents the frequency of the different markings of the adjective complement gerunds in the Late Latin corpus.

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.3.** Morphological marking of the adjective complement gerunds in Late Latin</figcaption></figure>

As shown in Figure 4.3, the dominant marking is the prepositional accusative. The other markings are extremely rare or even restricted to one single instance. Given that the gradual replacement of the gerund by the infinitive in adjective complements is related to the increasing use of prepositional infinitives, in particular infinitives introduced by *ad* ‘to’ (Väänänen 1963³: 139; Palmer 1964: 318; Bauer 2005: 517; Schulte 2007: Ch. 7), the dominance of prepositional accusative gerunds in the Late Latin corpus might suggest that the use of prepositional infinitives instead of their prepositional gerund competitors is far from being generalised. Yet, a corpus-based study of the external syntax and morphological marking of the infinitive in Late Latin is required in order to verify this hypothesis.

### 4.2.3.5 Conclusion

In accord with predictions, the frequency of adjective complement gerunds decreases from Classical to Late Latin, both in (normalised) absolute terms and in proportion to the total number of gerunds. Against expectations, however, these frequencies do not decline during the Late Latin period. There are also no significant differences regarding the frequency or productivity of this type of gerunds in the three textual domains, unlike what has been observed for the adnominal and verb complement gerunds.

In Late Latin, the proportion of adjective complement gerunds to the total number of gerunds is extremely small (3%). In the transition to most (Old) Romance languages, this type of gerunds disappear
altogether, being replaced by infinitives and abstract (de)verbal NPs (Aalto 1949: 73; Ernout & Thomas 1951: 269; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 139; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 369, 378; Scherer 1975: 89; Harris 1978: 198-199; Bauer 1993: 62; see also §2.1.1.2.2.1.3).

### 4.2.4. General conclusion: the evolution of the nominal gerund

The preceding sections have investigated the frequency of adnominal, verb complement, and adjective complement gerunds between Classical and Late Latin and during the period of Late Latin separately. The aim of the current section is to collate the results obtained in these sections, in order to examine to which extent the presumed disassociation of the gerund from its nominal external syntax is backed up by empirical evidence.

The frequency of the nominal gerund is higher in Classical than in Late Latin (Table 4.31), both in (normalised) absolute terms and in relation to the total number of gerunds. However, the difference is much more pronounced according to the second parameter (76% vs 39%). In line with expectations, the data of this study thus show a decreasing use of the gerund in nominal syntactic configurations.

<table><caption>**Table 4.31.** Frequency of nominal gerunds in Classical and Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#nominal gerunds<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#gerunds<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#nominal gerunds/<br>#gerunds</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classical Latin</td><td>964 (15.42)</td><td>1 270 (20.32)</td><td>75,91%</td></tr><tr><td>Late Latin</td><td>513 (12.04)</td><td>1 308 (30.71)</td><td>39,22%</td></tr></tbody></table>

Considering the extent of the decreasing proportion of nominal gerunds, it is not surprising that a chi-square goodness-of-fit test suggests that it reflects an ongoing linguistic change. Indeed, this proportion is higher than expected in Classical Latin and lower than expected in Late Latin in a statistically highly significant way ($\chi^2 = 150.72$; df = 1; p < 0.0001) (Table 4.32).

<table><caption>**Table 4.32.** Observed vs expected proportion of nominal gerunds to the total number of gerunds in Classical and Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classical Latin</td><td>964 (75,91%)</td><td>728 (57,32%)</td><td>+8.76</td></tr><tr><td>Late Latin</td><td>513 (39,22%)</td><td>749 (57,26%)</td><td>-8.64</td></tr></tbody></table>

As noted in §4.2.1.1 and §4.2.3.1 with regard to the decreasing proportion of adnominal and adjective complement gerunds separately, this change might consist of the gradual replacement of the gerund by the infinitive in nominal external syntax. However, in the absence of corpus-based studies of the external
syntax of the infinitive from Classical to Late Latin, this hypothesis remains speculative. After all, the proportion of nominal gerunds is also expected to decline indirectly, i.e. due to an increasing proportion of adverbial gerunds, caused by the progressive substitution of the present participle by the gerund in non-purpose adjuncts (see also §4.3.1). Moreover, nominal gerunds are also in competition with abstract (de)verbal NPs, by which they are also often replaced, though less frequently than by infinitive clauses (cf. Bauer 1993: 62). Therefore, it would be interesting to compare the results obtained in this study for the gerund with those obtained in a methodologically similar corpus study of not only the infinitive, but also of (a representative sample of) abstract (de)verbal NPs. Such a comparison could indicate to which extent the decline of nominal gerunds from Classical to Late Latin is actually due to their replacement by infinitives and abstract (de)verbal NPs. The indirect role played by adverbial gerunds in this decline will be examined in §4.3.1.

Despite the sharp decline from Classical to Late Latin, the proportion of nominal gerunds in Late Latin is still relatively high (39%), especially when considering that, in the transition to (most) Romance languages, the gerund entirely loses its ability to occur in nominal syntactic configurations (Aalto 1949: 73; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 139; Harris 1978: 197, 199; Bauer 1993: 62). This leads to the conclusion drawn earlier with respect to the adnominal gerund, namely that there is a large gap between the external syntax of the gerund in Late Latin, at least as observable in the written documents that have come down to us, and in most (Old) Romance languages.

During the Late Latin period, the (normalised) frequency of the nominal gerund rises, against all predictions (Table 4.33). However, this frequency rise is to be seen in the light of a rising frequency of the gerund in general. Hence, it is probably random. More tellingly, the proportion of nominal gerunds to the total number of gerunds declines, in accord with expectations. However, this decline is slight, and the nominal gerund still represents a large share of the total number of gerunds even in the latest period.

<table><caption>**Table 4.33.** Frequency of nominal gerunds in Imperial, Merovingian, and Early Medieval Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#nominal gerunds<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#gerunds<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#nominal gerunds/<br>#gerunds</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Imperial Latin</td><td>22 (7.33)</td><td>52 (17.33)</td><td>42,31%</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian Latin</td><td>202 (10.76)</td><td>525 (28.01)</td><td>38,48%</td></tr><tr><td>Early Medieval Latin</td><td>204 (11.93)</td><td>553 (32.34)</td><td>36,89%</td></tr></tbody></table>

A chi-square goodness-of-fit test shows that the proportion of nominal gerunds is higher than expected in Imperial and Merovingian Latin and lower than expected in Early Medieval Latin, but the differences between these periods are statistically insignificant ($\chi^2 = 0.46$; df = 1; p = 0.7945) (Table 4.34). Hence, the declining proportion observed in Table 4.33 is probably random, i.e. not symptomatic of an ongoing linguistic change.
<table><caption>**Table 4.34.** Observed *vs* expected proportion of nominal gerunds to the total number of gerunds in Imperial, Merovingian, and Early Medieval Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Imperial Latin</td><td>22 (42,31%)</td><td>20 (38,46%)</td><td>+0.52</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian Latin</td><td>202 (38,48%)</td><td>199 (37,90%)</td><td>+0.22</td></tr><tr><td>Early Medieval Latin</td><td>204 (36,89%)</td><td>209 (37,79%)</td><td>-0.38</td></tr></tbody></table>

The absence of significant diachronic variation within the period of Late Latin suggests that the crucial period in the external syntactic evolution of the gerund is the period between Classical and Late Latin, not that between Imperial and Early Medieval Latin (see also §4.3).

While the frequency of nominal gerunds in the Late Latin corpus does not show great diachronic variation, it shows significant thematic variation (Table 4.35). Indeed, the frequency of these gerunds is much higher in legal texts than in historical and religious texts, both in (normalised) absolute terms and in relation to the total number of gerunds.

<table><caption>**Table 4.35.** Frequency of nominal gerunds in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>#nominal gerunds (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#gerunds (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#nominal gerunds/ #gerunds</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>66 (8.45)</td><td>213 (27.26)</td><td>30,99%</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>247 (9.97)</td><td>720 (29.06)</td><td>34,31%</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>200 (20.00)</td><td>375 (37.49)</td><td>53,33%</td></tr></tbody></table>

A chi-square goodness-of-fit test indicates that the high proportion of nominal gerunds in the legal texts is probably not random. Indeed, the proportion of these forms is higher than expected in the legal texts and lower than expected in the historical and religious texts in a statistically highly significant way (χ² = 27.16; df = 2; p < 0.0001) (Table 4.36).

<table><caption>**Table 4.36.** Observed *vs* expected proportion of nominal gerunds to the total number of gerunds in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>66 (30,99%)</td><td>84 (39,44%)</td><td>-1.92</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>247 (34,31%)</td><td>282 (39,17%)</td><td>-2.11</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>200 (53,33%)</td><td>147 (39,20%)</td><td>+4.36</td></tr></tbody></table>

It is important to recall that the productivity of the nominal gerund is usually lower in legal texts than in historical and religious texts, except when used in adjective complements. Also, the legal texts contain more lexical combinations of a gerund and a governing noun or verb with a high token frequency than
the historical and religious texts. This might positively contribute to the higher share of nominal gerunds
in these texts (see also §4.5).

4.3. The adverbial gerund

After having investigated the evolution of the nominal gerund, I will explore in this section the evolution
of the adverbial gerund. Unlike the nominal gerund, the adverbial gerund can occur in only one type of
constituents, viz. adjuncts. Two examples of adjunct gerunds are *ad praedandum* ‘to plunder’ (50) and
*superbiendo* ‘by being arrogant’ (51).

(50) [...] in regno Burgundie ad praeda-nd-um ambulare nitebatur.
in region.ABL.N.SG Burgundy.GEN.F.SG to plunder-GER-ACC march.INF.PRS strive.PST.3SG
‘He strove to march in the region of Burgundy (in order) to plunder.’ (Fredeg. cont. 45)

(51) Unde primus homo superbie-nd-o ceciderat [...].
from_where first.NOM.M.SG man.NOM.M.SG be_arrogant-GER-ABL fall.PST.3SG
‘From where the first man had fallen by being arrogant.’ (Vit. Madelb. 2.4.1)

As noted throughout §4.2, the gradual replacement of the gerund by the infinitive in nominal syntactic
configurations in Late Latin reduces the proportion of nominal gerunds to the total number of gerunds.
Consequently, the proportion of adverbial gerunds rises, even if their (normalised) absolute frequency
does not increase. This makes the gerund – indirectly – specialise in adverbial external syntax. Recall,
however, that the gerund is also claimed to be substituted by the infinitive in purpose adjuncts (cf. Ernout
& Thomas 1951: 256, 270; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 139; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 345,
378-379; Frucht 1996: 55, 58-59; Bauer 1993: 67, 2005: 517, 519; Pinkster 2021: §16.86). In this type of
adjuncts, the gerund can be marked in the prepositional accusative (e.g. *ad praedandum* ‘to plunder’
(55)), the bare accusative (e.g. *capiendum* ‘to take’ (52)), the prepositional genitive (e.g. *orandi causa*
‘to pray’ (53)), the bare genitive (e.g. *victitandi* ‘to survive’ (54)), or the dative (e.g. *lavando* ‘to wash’
(55)), but not in the ablative. Moreover, the gerund has only rarely a semantic value other than purpose
in these markings. Hence, the replacement of the gerund by the infinitive in purpose adjuncts leads to a
decline and the eventual loss of accusative, genitive, and dative adjunct gerunds. Therefore, the ablative
is the only case in which the adjunct gerund survives in the Romance languages (Aalto 1949: 73; Ernout
& Thomas 1951: 267; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 139; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 369; Adams
2003: 748).<fnref n="15" />

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ While the gerund is gradually replaced by the infinitive in purpose adjuncts in Late Latin, in Romance, the adverbial gerund re-acquires the potential to express the purpose of the main state of affairs (Aalto 1949: 76-78). This evolution is not surprising considering the development of the bare ablative gerund in Late Latin toward semantic neutrality and versatility (see the running text). Hence, it is only to be expected that it increases its range of semantic values in Romance, and even starts being used with values inaccessible to its Late Latin (bare ablative) origin.</footnote>
(52) [...] *tunc Chuní* *predas capie-nd-um* adgrediebant [...].
then Hun.NOM.M.PL spoil.ACC.F.PL take-GER-ACC approach.PST.3PL
‘Then the Huns approached to take the spoils.’ (Fredeg. *chron*. 4.48)

(53) [...] *ora-nd-i* *causa circuibat* altaria.
pray-GER-GEN in_order_to go_around.PST.3SG altar.ACC.N.PL
‘He went around the altar in order to pray.’ (*Vit. Austr.* 2.3)

(54) [...] *victita-nd-i* *helemosinam querebat*.
survive-GER-GEN alm.ACC.F.SG ask.PST.3SG
‘He asked for alms in order to survive.’ (*Vit. Austr.* 1.15)

(55) *Soror quaedam lava-nd-o vestimentorum sordes [...] ad*
sister.NOM.F.SG INDF.NOM.F.SG wash-GER-DAT clothes.GEN.N.PL dirt.ACC.F.PL to
*cellam officinae [...] veniens [...].*
room.ACC.F.SG process.GEN.F.SG come.PTCP.PRS.NOM.F.SG
‘When some sister came to the laundry room (in order) to wash the dirty spots of the clothes (...).’ (*Vit. Sadalb.* 21)

Despite its substitution by the infinitive in purpose adjuncts, the gerund in Late Latin is held to specialise
in adverbial external syntax (*cf*. Marouzeau 1910: 79; Kühner & Stegmann 1914⁵: 753; Lyer 1932; Aalto
1949: 65-66; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 140-141; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 373, 377, 379-
380, 384; Harris 1978: 200; Kooreman 1989; Bauer 1993, 2005; Maraldi 1994; Adams 2003: 748, 2013:
725-740; Pinkster 2021: §21.14). This is argued to be due to the fact that the bare ablative gerund
gradually loosens its ties with its original manner/instrumental/causal value (e.g. (51)), thus developing
into a semantically more neuter and versatile strategy for adverbial subordination (Hofmann & Szantyr
1965: 379-380). Crucially, it is argued to be increasingly used with the temporal value characteristic of
the adverbial present participle, which consist of expressing a state of affairs co-occurring with the main
state of affairs, either entirely (56) or partially (57).

(56) [...] *proiecit se ad pedes Childeberti dicens*
throw.PST.3SG REFL.ACC.M.SG to foot.ACC.M.PL Childebert.GEN.M.SG say.PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG
*fle-nd-o* [...].
cry.GER-ABL

‘He threw himself at the feet of Childebert and said in tears (...).’ (*Hist. Franc.* 24)

(57) *Ista dice-nd-o [...] signum sonavit ad vespera [...].*
DEM.ACC.N.PL say-GER-ABL sign.NOM.N.SG resound.PST.3SG for vesper.ACC.M.PL
‘When he was saying these things, the sign for the vespers resounded.’ (*Visio Bar.* 5)

In the course of time, adjunct bare ablative gerunds are held to gradually replace their present participle
counterparts. This shift increases the absolute frequency of adverbial gerunds, and, concomitantly, their
proportion to the total number of gerunds. In this way, the gerund specialises in adverbial external syntax also in direct way.

This section aims to examine to which extent the specialisation of the gerund in adverbial external syntax is corroborated by the data of this study. I will also investigate whether this specialisation is more the indirect result of the decline of nominal gerunds, and thus of the gradual substitution of the gerund by the infinitive in nominal syntactic configurations, or the direct result of the increasing frequency of adverbial gerunds, and thus of the gradual replacement of the present participle by the gerund in (non-purpose) adjuncts. In order to explore these issues, I will first examine the frequency of adjunct gerunds from Classical to Late Latin (§4.3.1) and within the period of Late Latin (§4.3.2). Their frequency study in Late Latin will be refined by the study of their frequency and productivity in the three textual domains (§4.3.3). The analysis of the adverbial gerund in Late Latin will be concluded by the examination of its morphological marking (§4.3.4) and, focusing on bare ablative forms, the frequency pattern of manner/instrumental/causal gerunds (§4.3.5).

### 4.3.1. Frequency from Classical to Late Latin

The frequency of adjunct gerunds sharply rises between Classical and Late Latin, both in (normalised) absolute terms (from 5 to 19 instances per 10 000 words) and in proportion to the total number of gerunds (from 24% to 61%). This result is in keeping with the above-mentioned predictions.

<table><caption>**Table 4.37.** Frequency of adjunct gerunds in Classical and Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#adjunct gerunds<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#gerunds<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#adjunct gerunds/<br>#gerunds</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classical Latin</td><td>306 (4.90)</td><td>1 270 (20.32)</td><td>24,09%</td></tr><tr><td>Late Latin</td><td>792 (18.60)</td><td>1 308 (30.71)</td><td>60,55%</td></tr></tbody></table>

Given the steepness of the increasing proportion of adjunct gerunds, it is not surprising that a chi-square goodness-of-fit test suggests that it reflects an ongoing linguistic change. Indeed, the proportion in issue is lower than expected in Classical Latin and higher than expected in Late Latin in a statistically highly significant way ($\chi^2 = 200.21; df = 1; p < 0.0001$) (Table 4.38).

<table><caption>**Table 4.38.** Observed vs expected proportion of adjunct gerunds to the total number of gerunds in Classical and Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classical Latin</td><td>306 (24,09%)</td><td>541 (42,60%)</td><td>-10.91</td></tr><tr><td>Late Latin</td><td>792 (60,55%)</td><td>557 (42,58%)</td><td>+9.95</td></tr></tbody></table>
This change undeniably consists of a specialisation of the gerund in adverbial external syntax. However, the results in Tables 4.37 and 4.38 do not indicate to which extent this specialisation is the indirect result of the gradual substitution of the gerund by the infinitive in nominal syntactic configurations, on the one hand, and the direct result of the gradual replacement of the present participle by the gerund in adverbial external syntax, on the other. Yet, some insight in the dynamics behind this specialisation can be gained by comparing the frequency pattern of nominal gerunds and adverbial gerunds: whereas the proportion of these gerunds to the total number of gerunds respectively rises and declines in a more or less equally significant way, the (normalised) absolute frequency of the adverbial gerund sharply increases (i.e. from 5 to 19 instances per 10 000 words), while that of the nominal gerund decreases only modestly (i.e. from 15 to 12 instances per 10 000 words). This difference in (normalised) absolute frequency indicates that, in the Late Latin corpus of this study, the specialisation of the gerund in adverbial external syntax might be more due to the generalisation of the gerund in adjuncts at the expense of the present participle than to the generalisation of the infinitive in nominal syntactic configurations at the cost of the gerund (and to the concomitant declining frequency of nominal gerunds). This hypothesis will be verified in §4.3.5.

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

During the Late Latin period, the frequency of adjunct gerunds rises according to both parameters, i.e. their (normalised) absolute frequency and their proportion to the total number of gerunds (Table 4.39). This is in line with predictions. However, the frequency rise is modest, and hence probably hazardous.

<table><caption>**Table 4.39.** Frequency of adjunct gerunds in Imperial, Merovingian, and Early Medieval Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#adjunct gerunds<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#gerunds<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#adjunct gerunds/<br>#gerunds</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Imperial Latin</td><td>29 (9.67)</td><td>52 (17.33)</td><td>55,77%</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian Latin</td><td>322 (17.18)</td><td>525 (28.01)</td><td>61,33%</td></tr><tr><td>Early Medieval Latin</td><td>348 (20.35)</td><td>553 (32.34)</td><td>62,93%</td></tr></tbody></table>

This is confirmed by a chi-square goodness-of-fit test. The proportion of adjunct gerunds is lower than expected in Imperial and Merovingian Latin and higher than expected in Early Medieval Latin, but the differences between these three periods are statistically speaking insignificant ($\chi^2 = 0.44$; df = 2; p = 0.8025) (Table 4.40). Hence, the declining proportion of adjunct gerunds is most likely random.
<table><caption>**Table 4.40.** Observed *vs* expected proportion of adjunct gerunds to the total number of gerunds in Imperial, Merovingian, and Early Medieval Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Imperial Latin</td><td>29 (55,77%)</td><td>32 (61,54%)</td><td>-0.56</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian Latin</td><td>322 (61,33%)</td><td>325 (61,90%)</td><td>-0.15</td></tr><tr><td>Early Medieval Latin</td><td>348 (62,93%)</td><td>342 (61,84%)</td><td>+0.32</td></tr></tbody></table>

These figures corroborate the conclusion drawn with regard to the nominal gerund, viz. that the external syntax of the gerund greatly changes from Classical to Late Latin, but remains relatively homogenous during the Late Latin period. Furthermore, despite their sharp frequency rise between Classical and Late Latin and although they are the dominant type of gerunds in Late Latin, the proportion of adjunct gerunds in Late Latin is lower than expected in the light of the intensifying competition of the gerund with the infinitive and the present participle. Since in most (Old) Romance languages, the gerund can only occur in adjuncts and progressive constructions (cf. Aalto 1949: 73, 75-76; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 139; Bauer 1993: 62; Adams 2013: 725; Vincent 2016: 45), the figures for the adverbial gerund support the issue raised in connection with the nominal gerund, namely that there is a large gap between the use of the gerund in Late Latin, at least in the written records transmitted to us, and in (Old) Romance.

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

In the Late Latin corpus, the (normalised) absolute frequency of the adjunct gerund is highest in the religious texts (Table 4.41). However, the difference with the historical and legal texts is too small to be significant. By contrast, the proportion of this type of gerunds to the total number of gerunds is much lower in the legal texts than in the historical and religious texts.

<table><caption>**Table 4.41.** Frequency of adjunct gerunds in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>#adjunct gerunds (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#gerunds (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#adjunct gerunds/ #gerunds</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>145 (18.56)</td><td>213 (27.26)</td><td>68,08%</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>472 (19.05)</td><td>720 (29.06)</td><td>65,56%</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>175 (17.50)</td><td>375 (37.49)</td><td>46,67%</td></tr></tbody></table>

According to a chi-square goodness-of-fit test, the low proportion of adjunct gerunds in the legal texts is not random. Indeed, this proportion is lower than expected in these texts and higher than expected in the historical and religious texts in a statistically very significant way ($\chi^2 = 16.91; df = 2; p = 0.0002$) (Table 4.42).
<table><caption>**Table 4.42.** Observed vs expected proportion of adjunct gerunds to the total number of gerunds in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>145 (68,08%)</td><td>129 (60,56%)</td><td>+1.41</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>472 (65,56%)</td><td>436 (60,56%)</td><td>+1.73</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>175 (46,67%)</td><td>227 (60,53%)</td><td>-3.45</td></tr></tbody></table>

This result is the mirror image of that obtained for adnominal gerunds: whereas the legal texts contain the lowest proportion of adjunct gerunds, they comprise the highest density of adnominal gerunds. By contrast, the historical and religious texts are characterised by a high proportion of adjunct gerunds and a low proportion of adnominal gerunds (for the methodological implications of this, see §4.5).

The frequency of the adjunct gerunds in the three thematic domains will now be further examined in the light of their productivity, measured in terms of the lexical variation between the gerunds and the main verbs. Table 4.43 shows that this lexical variation is lower in the legal texts than in the historical and religious texts. This is in line with the trend observed in the case of adnominal and verb complement gerunds.

<table><caption>**Table 4.43.** Productivity of the adjunct gerund in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>#tokens</td><td>145</td><td>472</td><td>175</td></tr><tr><td>#types</td><td>134</td><td>454</td><td>107</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes</td><td>124</td><td>440</td><td>79</td></tr><tr><td>#types/#tokens</td><td><strong>0.92</strong></td><td><strong>0.96</strong></td><td><strong>0.61</strong></td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes/#tokens</td><td><strong>0.86</strong></td><td><strong>0.93</strong></td><td><strong>0.45</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Thus, the adjunct gerund is least schematic in the legal texts (cf. Barðdal 2008: 22, 26). Within the group of legal texts, the productivity of the adjunct gerund is higher than that of the adnominal gerund, based on both the type-token ratio (0.61 vs 0.36) and the hapax-token ratio (0.45 vs 0.21), but about as high as that of the verb complement gerund, for which the type-token and hapax-token ratios are respectively 0.63 and 0.50.

Again, the low productivity of the adjunct gerund in the legal texts is partially due to the fact that these texts comprise more lexical combinations with a relatively high frequency. Yet, the influence of these combinations on the productivity of the adjunct gerund is less pronounced than in the case of the adnominal and verb complement gerunds. The five most frequent lexical combinations of an adjunct gerund and a main verb account for 19% of all combinations in the legal texts, against only 8% in the historical texts and 3% in the religious texts. Moreover, in the legal texts, the most frequent combination
represents 5% of all combinations, vs 2% and less than 1% in respectively the historical and the religious texts (Table 4.44).

<table><caption>**Table 4.44.** Inventory and cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexical combinations of a main verb and an adjunct gerund in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Lexeme of main verb</th><th>Lexeme of gerund</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Historical</td><td>mittelre 'to send'</td><td>hiemare 'to winter'</td><td>3 (2,07%)</td></tr><tr><td>capere 'to seize'</td><td>bellare 'to fight'</td><td>2 (1,38%)</td></tr><tr><td>irruere 'to invade'</td><td>vastare 'to ravage'</td><td>2 (1,38%)</td></tr><tr><td>ingredi 'to enter'</td><td>pugnare 'to fight'</td><td>2 (1,38%)</td></tr><tr><td>dimittere 'to send away'</td><td>custodire 'to guard'</td><td>2 (1,38%)<sup>16</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="text-align: right; font-weight: bold;">11 (7,59%)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Religious</td><td>tradere 'to deliver'</td><td>crucifigere 'to crucify'</td><td>3 (0,64%)</td></tr><tr><td>divertere 'to divert'</td><td>manere 'to stay'</td><td>3 (0,64%)</td></tr><tr><td>pergere 'to go on'</td><td>orare 'to pray'</td><td>3 (0,64%)</td></tr><tr><td>venire 'to come'</td><td>orare 'to pray'</td><td>3 (0,64%)</td></tr><tr><td>pergere 'to go on'</td><td>sepelire 'to bury'</td><td>2 (0,42%)<sup>17</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="text-align: right; font-weight: bold;">14 (2,97%)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Legal</td><td>tradere 'to bequeath'</td><td>possidere 'to possess'</td><td>9 (5,14%)</td></tr><tr><td>relinquere 'to bequeath'</td><td>possidere 'to possess'</td><td>9 (5,14%)</td></tr><tr><td>derelinquere 'to bequeath'</td><td>possidere 'to possess'</td><td>6 (3,43%)</td></tr><tr><td>residere 'to sit down'</td><td>audire 'to listen'</td><td>5 (2,86%)</td></tr><tr><td>relaxare 'to loosen'</td><td>excolere 'to cultivate'</td><td>5 (2,86%)<sup>18</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="text-align: right; font-weight: bold;">34 (19,43%)</td></tr></tbody></table>

The two most frequent combinations in the legal texts are *relinquere* 'to bequeath'/*possidere* 'to possess' (58) and *tradere* 'to bequeath'/*possidere* 'to possess' (59).

(58) [...] ut [...] quicquid [...] teneat atque possedeat et that INDF.ACC.N.SG have.SBJV.PRS.3SG and possess.SBJV.PRS.3SG and suis posteris ad **posside-nd-um** relinquat [...]. his.DAT.M.PL descendant.DAT.M.PL to possess-GER-ACC bequeath.SBJV.PRS.3SG '(...)' that he may have and possess and bequeath everything to his descendants (in order for them) to possess (it). ('Form. Marc. 1.30)

(59) [...] ipso campo vobis [...] tradi **possede-nd-um**. INTENS.ABL[ACC].M.SG field.ABL[ACC].M.SG you.DAT.M.PL bequeath.PST.1SG possess-GER-ACC 'I bequeathed you this field (in order for you) to possess (it).' ('Form. Marc. 2.21)

<footnote n="16">16 The historical texts contain five more lexical combinations occurring twice.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">17 There are nine more lexical combinations used twice in the religious texts.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">18 The legal texts present one more lexical combination occurring five times.</footnote>
Table 4.44 also shows that, from a semantic point of view, the productivity of the adjunct gerund in the legal texts is even lower than suggested by the figures in this table, since the three most frequent lexical combinations are synonymous (cf. Barðdal 2008: 35).

Table 4.45 shows that a similar conclusion can be drawn from the lexical variation of the adjunct gerunds alone. Indeed, this variation is lower in the legal texts than in the historical and religious texts.

<table><caption>**Table 4.45.** Lexical variation of the adjunct gerunds in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>#tokens</th><td>145</td><td>472</td><td>175</td></tr><tr><th>#types</th><td>100</td><td>301</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><th>#hapaxes</th><td>79</td><td>213</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><th>#types/#tokens</th><td><strong>0.69</strong></td><td><strong>0.64</strong></td><td><strong>0.33</strong></td></tr><tr><th>#hapaxes/#tokens</th><td><strong>0.54</strong></td><td><strong>0.45</strong></td><td><strong>0.14</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

To a greater extent than the productivity of the adjunct gerund, the low lexical variation of the adjunct gerunds in the legal texts is influenced by the high frequency of specific lexemes. The five most frequent lexemes account for 42% in the legal texts against 17% in the historical texts and 11% in the religious texts. Also, the most frequent lexeme in the legal texts represents 20% of all gerunds, while it accounts for only 5% in both the historical and religious texts (Table 4.46).

<table><caption>**Table 4.46.** Inventory and cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexemes used for adjunct gerunds in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Lexeme of gerund</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Historical</td><td>hiemare 'to overwinter'</td><td>7 (4,83%)</td></tr><tr><td>pugnare 'to fight'</td><td>5 (3,45%)</td></tr><tr><td>proeliare 'to fight'</td><td>5 (3,45%)</td></tr><tr><td>fugere 'to flee'</td><td>4 (2,76%)</td></tr><tr><td>vastare 'to ravage'</td><td>4 (2,76%)<sup>19</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>25 (17,24%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Religious</td><td>orare 'to pray'</td><td>24 (5,08%)</td></tr><tr><td>legere 'to read'</td><td>7 (1,48%)</td></tr><tr><td>praedicare 'to preach'</td><td>7 (1,48%)</td></tr><tr><td>dicere 'to say'</td><td>7 (1,48%)</td></tr><tr><td>manere 'to stay'</td><td>6 (1,27%)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>51 (10,81%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ The historical texts contain three other lexemes occurring four times.</footnote>
<table><tr><td rowspan="5">Legal</td><td><i>possidere</i> 'to possess'</td><td>35 (20,00%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>excolere</i> 'to cultivate'</td><td>11 (6,29%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>audire</i> 'to listen'</td><td>10 (5,71%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>facere</i> 'to do'</td><td>9 (5,14%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>dominare</i> 'to dominate'</td><td>9 (5,14%)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td><b>74 (42,29%)</b></td></tr></table>

The most frequent lexeme in the legal texts is *possidere* ‘to possess’ (e.g. (58-59)). The examples in (60) and (61) illustrate the most frequent lexeme in respectively the historical (*hiemare* ‘to winter’) and the religious texts (*orare* ‘to pray’).

(60) **Chuni hiema-nd-um annis singulis in Esclavos**
Hun.NOM.M.PL overwinter-GER-ACC year.ABL.M.PL every.ABL.M.PL to Slave.ACC.M.PL
*veniebant* [...].
*come*.PST.3PL

‘The Huns came every year to the Slaves in order to overwinter.’ (Fredeg. *chron*. 4.48)

(61) [...] *sed ea quae sancti viri ora-nd-o*
but DEM.NOM.N.PL REL.ACC.N.PL sacred.NOM.M.PL man.NOM.M.PL pray-GER-ABL
*efficiunt* [...].
*accomplish*.PRS.3PL

‘But the things that sacred men accomplish by praying (...).’ (Greg. M. *dial*. 1.8)

A similar picture emerges from the lexical variation of the main verbs. It is also lower in the legal texts than in the historical and religious texts (Table 4.47).

<table><caption>**Table 4.47.** Lexical variation of the verbs combined with an adjunct gerund in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>#tokens</td><td>145</td><td>472</td><td>175</td></tr><tr><td>#types</td><td>89</td><td>278</td><td>51</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes</td><td>65</td><td>195</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>#types/#tokens</td><td><strong>0.61</strong></td><td><strong>0.59</strong></td><td><strong>0.29</strong></td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes/#tokens</td><td><strong>0.45</strong></td><td><strong>0.41</strong></td><td><strong>0.13</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

The five most frequent lexemes represent 41% of all lexemes in the legal texts vs 23% in the historical texts and 13% in the religious texts. Also, the most frequent lexeme alone accounts for 14% of all main verbs in the legal texts against 7% and 4% in respectively the historical and religious texts (Table 4.48).
<table><caption>**Table 4.48.** Inventory and cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexemes used for verbs combined with an adjunct gerund in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Lexeme of main verb</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Historical</td><td>mittere 'to send'</td><td>10 (6,90%)</td></tr><tr><td>dirigere 'to send'</td><td>7 (4,83%)</td></tr><tr><td>venire 'to come'</td><td>6 (4,14%)</td></tr><tr><td>pergere 'to go on'</td><td>6 (4,14%)</td></tr><tr><td>ingredi 'to enter'</td><td>4 (2,76%)<sup>20</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>33 (22,76%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Religious</td><td>venire 'to come'</td><td>18 (3,81%)</td></tr><tr><td>tradere 'to hand over'</td><td>17 (3,60%)</td></tr><tr><td>pergere 'to go on'</td><td>11 (2,33%)</td></tr><tr><td>dicere 'to say'</td><td>8 (1,69%)</td></tr><tr><td>dare 'to give'</td><td>8 (1,69%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>62 (13,14%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Legal</td><td>ingredi 'to enter'</td><td>24 (13,71%)</td></tr><tr><td>recipere 'to receive'</td><td>18 (10,29%)</td></tr><tr><td>relaxare 'to loosen'</td><td>11 (6,29%)</td></tr><tr><td>tradere 'to bequeath'</td><td>10 (5,71%)</td></tr><tr><td>residere 'to sit down'</td><td>9 (5,14%)<sup>21</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>72 (41,14%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

The most frequent lexemes in the historical (*mittere* 'to send'), religious (*venire* 'to come'), and legal texts (*ingredi* 'to enter') are exemplified in respectively (62-64).

(62) [...] misit monachum suum ad depreca-nd-um iudici ut [...].
send.PST.3SG monk.ACC.M.SG his.ACC.M.SG to beg-GER-ACC judge.DAT.M.SG that
'He sent his monk in order to beg the judge that (...).' (Greg. Tur. *Franc.* 6.8)

(63) [...] cum venero ante tribunal Christi ad accusa-nd-um
when come.FUT.1SG before tribunal.ACC.N.SG Christ.GEN.M.SG to accuse-GER-ACC
te [...].
you.ACC.M.SG
'When I will have come before the tribunal of Christ to accuse you (...).' (*Pass. Columb.* 1.8.16)

<footnote n="20">20 The historical texts contain two other lexemes occurring four times.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">21 There is one more lexeme occurring nine times in the legal texts.</footnote>
(64) [...] *ingressus est ille in loco*
enter.PTCP.PST.NOM.M.SG be.PRS.3SG DEF.NOM.M.SG in place.ABL.M.SG
*nuncupante illo [...] ad placitum suum*
be人权. P TCP.PRS.ABL.M.SG DEF.ABL.M.SG to plea.ACC.N.SG his.ACC.N.SG
*custodie-nd-um [...].*
watch_over-GER-ACC

'He entered that place called X in order to watch over his plea.' (Form. Turon. 31)

4.3.4. Morphological marking of the gerund

In order to examine whether the frequency of ablative adjunct gerunds increases from Classical to Late
Latin and within the period of Late Latin, as expected in view of the intensifying competition of the
gerund with the infinitive and the present participle in Late Latin, it is first necessary to explore the
morphological marking of the adjunct gerunds in Late Latin. As in Classical Latin, these forms can stand
in the prepositional accusative (e.g. *ad custodiendum* ‘to watch over’ (64)), the bare genitive (e.g. *orandi*
‘to pray’ (65)), the prepositional genitive (e.g. *explorandi causa* ‘to explore’ (66)), the (bare) dative (e.g.
*devitando* ‘to avoid’ (67)), the bare ablative (e.g. *moriendo* ‘dying’ (68)), and the prepositional ablative
(e.g. *pro redimendum* ‘to redeem’ (69)).<fnref n="22" />

(65) [...] *ora-nd-i* extra civitate egrediens [...] dicebat [...].
pray-GER-GEN out_of city.ABL[ACC].F.SG leave.PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG say.PST.3SG
‘When leaving the city in order to pray, he said (...).’ (Vit. Hugb. 6)

(66) [...] *explora-nd-i* causa adiit urbem.
explore-GER-GEN in_order_to go_to.PST.3SG city.ACC.F.SG
‘He went to the city in order to explore it.’ (Vit. Gall. Wett. 1.6)

(67) [...] *ibi=que diebus plurimis hanc infestacionem devita-nd-o*
there=and day.ABL.M.PL many.ABL.M.PL DEM.ACC.F.SG threat.ACC.F.SG avoid-GER-DAT
*et rigio temore residit.*
and royal.ABL.M.SG fear.ABL.M.SG stay.PST.3SG
‘And there he stayed many days (in order) to avoid this threat and out of fear for the king.’ (Fredeg.
*chron*. 4.83)

(68) [...] *daemones tuos morie-nd-o vicerunt [...].*
demon.ACC.M.PL your.ACC.M.PL die-GER-ABL defeat.PST.3PL
‘They defeated your demons by dying.’ (Pass. Symph. 1.552.19)

<footnote n="22">²² The marking of *redimendum* ‘to redeem’ will be discussed below.</footnote>
(69) [...] *ut aliquid* [...] *pro redime-nd-um* ultionem nostram
that INDF.ACC.N.SG for redeem-GER-ACC[ABL] retribution.ACC.F.SG our.ACC.F.SG
*peccaminum Domino offerre deberimus [...].*
sin.GEN.N.PL Lord.DAT.M.SG offer.INF.PRS must.SBJV.PST.1PL
‘(...) that we must offer something to the Lord for redeeming the retribution of our sins.’ (Form.
*Sal. Bign.* 18)

When marked in the prepositional accusative, the gerund is mostly governed by *ad* ‘to’ (297 instances out of 305). The other prepositions are *inter* ‘during’ (n=3), *ob* ‘for the sake of’ (n=2), *propter* ‘because of’ (n=2), and *praeter* ‘apart from’ (n=1). In the prepositional ablative, the gerund is governed twice by *pro* ‘in exchange for’ and once by *de* ‘concerning’. Surprisingly, there are no ablative gerunds governed by *in* ‘in’, although they account for approximately a quarter of all ablative adjunct gerunds in Classical Latin (Vangaever 2018: 13). The prepositional genitive forms are mostly governed by *gratia* ‘for the sake of’ (24 instances out of 38) or *causa* ‘for the sake of’ (8 instances), but a few instances are also found with *ad* ‘to’. This marking is again a morphosyntactic blend of a bare genitive and a prepositional accusative pattern, as in the case of the three coordinated adnominal gerunds in (23) and the adjective complement gerund in (49). In (70), the quirkily marked prepositional genitive gerund *ad faciendi* ‘to do’ is coordinated with the canonically marked prepositional accusative *ad possidendum* ‘to possess’.

(70) [...] *ins tua* trado dominatione et potestate
in your.ABL[ACC].F.SG leave.PRS.1SG possession.ABL[ACC].F.SG and power.ABL[ACC].F.SG
*perpetualiter ad posside-nd-um vel ad facie-nd-i* [...] *quicquid volueris.*<fnref n="23" />
eternally to possess-GER-ACC or to do-GER-GEN INDF.ACC.N.SG choose.FUT.2SG
‘I leave (this) in your possession and power in order for you to eternally possess (it) and do (with it) whatever you will choose.’ (Form. *Turon. app.* 3)

In addition to the markings just mentioned, some adjunct gerunds have been found in the bare accusative (e.g. *hiemandum* ‘to winter’ (60)). This marking is unattested in Classical Latin (see § 2.1.1.2.2.2).

Finally, like some adnominal and verb complement gerunds, some adjunct gerunds end in -ndo and thus take the form of dative or ablative gerunds, but are to be analysed instead as accusative forms affected by the apocope of final /m/ and the confusion between /ō/ and /ŭ/. This analysis is undeniable for all forms like *praenunciando* ‘to announce’ (71), since they are governed by the preposition *ad* ‘to’, which assigns the accusative to its complement (cf. Pinkster 2015: 1230).

(71) [...] *ad gloriam dei praenuncia-nd-o surgamus.*
to glory.ACC.F.SG God.GEN.M.SG announce-GER-ABL[ACC] rise.SBJV.PRS.1PL
‘Les us rise in order to announce the glory of God.’ (Vit. *Wandr.* 2)

<footnote n="23">²³ There are no alternative readings for the form *faciendi* ‘to do’ (cf. Zeumer 1886: 164).</footnote>
By contrast, all bare adjunct gerunds in -ndo bearing a semantic value that can be expressed by a dative or bare ablative gerund are best taken as such. For instance, purpose gerunds like *devitando* ‘to avoid’ (67) have been analysed as dative gerunds, while manner/instrumental/causal forms like *moriendo* ‘by dying’ (68) have been treated as bare ablative gerunds.

Conversely, some adjunct gerunds end in -ndum and thus look like bare accusative gerunds, but are to be taken as ablative gerunds with an ending that is hypercorrected for the phonetic evolutions just mentioned. This analysis is unquestionable for forms like *redimendum* ‘redeeming’ (69), which needs to be considered as an ablative gerund due to the presence of the preposition *pro* ‘in exchange of’, which assigns the ablative to its complement (*cf*. Pinkster 2015: 1230-1231).<fnref n="24" /> This analysis also applies to all bare forms having a semantic value inaccessible to the bare accusative adjunct gerund, such as manner, instrument, or cause. In this way, instrumental -ndum gerunds like *fundendum* ‘shedding’ (72) should be regarded as hypercorrected bare ablative gerunds.<fnref n="25" />

(72) [...] *qui nos sanguinem funde-nd-um redemisti.*
REL.NOM.M.SG we.ACC.M.PL blood.ACC.M.SG shed-GER-ACC[ABL] redeem.PST.2SG
‘(...) who redeemed us by shedding blood.’ (*Visio Bar.* 10)

Figure 4.4 shows the frequency of the different markings of the adjunct gerunds in the Late Latin corpus.

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.4.** Morphological marking of the adjunct gerunds in Late Latin</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="24">²⁴ It is interesting to note that the three Late Latin prepositional ablative adjunct gerunds have the hypercorrected ending -ndum. Due to the low absolute number of instances, however, it is impossible to determine whether or not this is accidental.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵ The analysis of such forms as hypercorrected bare ablative gerunds is further supported by the fact that for several of these forms, including *fundendum* ‘by shedding’ (72), the non-hypercorrected ending -ndo is proposed as an alternative reading (*cf*. Levison 1910: 385).</footnote>
As shown in Figure 4.4, the bare ablative is the dominant marking of adjunct gerunds (43%). However, the difference with the prepositional accusative (39%) is tiny. Except for the bare accusative, accounting for 10% of all adjunct gerunds, the other markings are extremely rare, each representing less than 5%. The most striking result in Figure 4.4 is that despite its dominance, the bare ablative is much less frequent than expected in view of the intensifying competition of the gerund with the infinitive and the present participle in Late Latin. In order to gain more insight into this result, I will investigate the frequency of ablative adjunct gerunds from Classical to Late Latin (§4.3.4.1) and within Late Latin (§4.3.4.2).

### 4.3.4.1. Frequency of ablative adjunct gerunds from Classical to Late Latin

In (normalised) absolute terms, the frequency of ablative adjunct gerunds increases between Classical and Late Latin, as expected (Table 4.49). However, this result is to be seen in the light of the increasing frequency of adjunct gerunds in general. Hence, it is likely random. More tellingly, against predictions, the proportion of ablative adjunct gerunds to the total number of adjunct gerunds sharply declines.

<table><caption>**Table 4.49.** Frequency of ablative adjunct gerunds in Classical and Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#ablative adjunct gerunds<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#adjunct gerunds<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#ablative adjunct gerunds/<br>#gerunds</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classical Latin</td><td>245 (3.92)</td><td>306 (4.90)</td><td>80,07%</td></tr><tr><td>Late Latin</td><td>342 (8.03)</td><td>792 (18.60)</td><td>43,18%</td></tr></tbody></table>

A chi-square goodness-of-fit test shows that the proportion of ablative adjunct gerunds is higher than expected in Classical Latin and lower than expected in Late Latin in a statistically highly significant way ($\chi^2 = 55.48; df = 1; p < 0.0001$) (Table 4.50). Hence, the decline observed in Table 4.49 might not be random.

<table><caption>**Table 4.50.** Observed vs expected proportion of ablative adjunct gerunds to the total number of adjunct gerunds in Classical and Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classical Latin</td><td>245 (80,07%)</td><td>164 (53,59%)</td><td>+6.37</td></tr><tr><td>Late Latin</td><td>342 (43,18%)</td><td>423 (53,41%)</td><td>-3.96</td></tr></tbody></table>

As shown in Figure 4.4, the low proportion of ablative adjunct gerunds in Late Latin is due to the high proportion of accusative gerunds. These represent almost half of all adjunct gerunds in the Late Latin corpus (48%), while they account for only 20% in the Classical Latin corpus (61 instances out of 306). Thus, the question that arises is not why the proportion of ablative adjunct gerunds decreases between Classical and Late Latin, but why the proportion of accusative gerunds increases so drastically.
Recall that the gerund is marked based on its function or governing preposition. As mentioned in §4.3.4, the overwhelming majority of prepositional accusative adjunct gerunds in the Late Latin corpus are governed by *ad* ‘to’ (297 instances out of 305). This preposition usually bears a purpose value, as in (73) (Aalto 1949: 86-88).

(73) [...] *ad monasterium suum* [...] *ad mane-nd-um divertit.*
to monastery.ACC.N.SG his.ACC.N.SG to stay-GER-ACC divert.PST.3SG
‘He diverted to his monastery (in order) to stay (there).’ (Vit. Elig. 2.18)

This same value is also conveyed by most bare accusative gerunds (e.g. *pugnandum* ‘to fight’ (74)) (cf. Aalto 1949: 86).

(74) [...] *ad portam castri* [...] *pugna-nd-um perrexerunt.*
to door.ACC.F.SG camp.GEN.M.SG fight-GER-ACC march.PST.3PL
‘They marched to the door of the camp in order to fight.’ (Fredeg. *chron.* 4.87)

Unlike accusative adjunct gerunds, ablative adjunct gerunds cannot express the purpose of the main state of affairs.<fnref n="26" /> This leads us to conclude that the high proportion of accusative adjunct gerunds and the low proportion of ablative adjunct gerunds in the Late Latin corpus has a semantic explanation (and that the accusative marking of purpose adjunct gerunds is preferred over the genitive and dative markings). The high fraction of accusative adjunct gerunds also suggests that, in the Late Latin corpus, purpose adjunct gerunds are barely substituted by infinitives, contrary to what is expected in the light of the intensifying competition between the gerund and the infinitive in this type of adjuncts.

### 4.3.4.2. Frequency of ablative adjunct gerunds within the period of Late Latin

During the Late Latin period, the frequency of ablative adjunct gerunds rises in (normalised) absolute terms, while it declines in proportion to the total number of adjunct gerunds (Table 4.51). The frequency rise in absolute terms is again to be seen in the context of the increasing frequency of adjunct gerunds in general, and hence it is probably hazardous. The declining proportion of ablative adjunct gerunds is more relevant here.

<footnote n="26">²⁶ As mentioned in §2.1.1.2.2.2 (fn. 15), some authors argue that, in Late Latin, the bare ablative adjunct gerund acquires the potential to express the purpose of the main state of affairs, as part of its more general development toward semantical neutrality and versatility (e.g. Aalto 1949: 76-78; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 380). However, the ablative gerund has the same morphology as the dative gerund, and the latter typically has a purpose value from the earliest texts onward. Therefore, there is no objective reason to consider purpose adjunct *-ndo* gerunds as ablative gerunds in Late Latin, but as dative gerunds in Classical Latin. Anyhow, the question whether these gerunds are dative or ablative forms has no impact on the quantitative results of this study, since the number of purpose adjunct *-ndo* gerunds in the Late Latin corpus is extremely low (12 instances out of 792).</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 4.51.** Frequency of ablative adjunct gerunds to the total number of adjunct gerunds in Imperial, Merovingian, and Early Medieval Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#ablative adjunct gerunds<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#adjunct gerunds<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#ablative adjunct gerunds/<br>#adjunct gerunds</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Imperial Latin</td><td>18 (6.00)</td><td>29 (9.67)</td><td>62,07%</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian Latin</td><td>155 (8.27)</td><td>322 (17.18)</td><td>48,14%</td></tr><tr><td>Early Medieval Latin</td><td>145 (8.48)</td><td>348 (20.35)</td><td>41,67%</td></tr></tbody></table>

However, a chi-square goodness-of-fit test suggests that this decrease is probably random. Indeed, the proportion of ablative adjunct gerunds is higher than expected in Imperial and Merovingian Latin and lower than expected in Early Medieval Latin, but the differences between these periods are statistically insignificant ($\chi^2 = 1.86; df = 2; p = 0.3946$) (Table 4.52).

<table><caption>**Table 4.52.** Observed vs expected proportion of ablative adjunct gerunds to the total number of adjunct gerunds in Imperial, Merovingian, and Early Medieval Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Imperial Latin</td><td>18 (62,07%)</td><td>15 (51,72%)</td><td>+0.88</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian Latin</td><td>155 (48,14%)</td><td>148 (45,96%)</td><td>+0.60</td></tr><tr><td>Early Medieval Latin</td><td>145 (41,67%)</td><td>156 (44,83%)</td><td>-0.85</td></tr></tbody></table>

The declining proportion of ablative adjunct gerunds from Classical to Late Latin and within the period of Late Latin suggests that, against predictions, the present participle might not be increasingly replaced by the bare ablative gerund in adjuncts in the Late Latin corpus. At the same time, this decline suggests that, in this same Late Latin corpus, the gerund is not gradually substituted by the infinitive in purpose adjuncts (for this would reduce the absolute frequency of accusative, genitive, and dative gerunds, and, incidentally, their proportion to the total number of adjunct gerunds).

### 4.3.5. Frequency of manner/instrumental/causal bare ablative adjunct gerunds

It is held that, in Late Latin, the bare ablative adjunct gerund is increasingly used with a semantic value other than its original manner/instrumental/causal value, thus evolving into a semantically more neuter and versatile strategy for adverbial subordination (cf. Lyer 1932; Aalto 1949: 65-66; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 140-141; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 379-380; Bauer 1993, 2005; Adams 2003: 748, 2013: 725-740). In doing so, it is argued to progressively replace the adverbial present participle. Thus, the frequency of non-manner/instrumental/causal bare ablative gerunds is expected to increase between Classical and Late Latin and within the period of Late Latin itself. In order to empirically examine this
hypothesis, a binary distinction has been made between bare ablative adjunct gerunds with a manner/
instrumental/causal value, on the one hand, and those having another semantic value, on the other.

Manner gerunds express an inherent and descriptive property of the main state of affairs (Vester
1983: 109; Pinkster 2015: 858). For instance, in (75) *vociferando* ‘yelling’ specifies the way in which
Pompinius shouted.

(75) [...] *Pompinius* coepit *vocifera-nd-o* clamare [...].
Pompinius.NOM.M.SG begin.PST.3SG yell-GER-ABL shout.INF.PRS
‘Pompinius began to shout yellingly.’ (Pass. Proc. 2.22.2)

Instrumental gerunds express the means by which is realised – in a controlled and intentional way – the main state of affairs (Vester 1983: 109; Pinkster 2015: 874). In (76), *tangendo* ‘by touching’ and *videndo* ‘by seeing’ denote the states of affairs through which the speaker is invited to acknowledge that some object is a rock.

(76) Mitte manum tuam et tange-nd-o disce
put.IMP.PRS.2SG hand.ACC.F.SG your.ACC.F.SG and touch-GER-ABL learn.IMP.PRS.2SG
saxum hoc esse si vide-nd-o non nosti.
rock.ACC.N.SG DEM.ACC.N.SG be.INF.PRS if see-GER-ABL NEG know.PST.2SG
‘Raise your hand and learn that this is a rock by touching (it) if you do not know it by sight.’ (Pass.
Caec. 1.30.27)

Finally, causal gerunds express whatever brings about the main state of affairs in an uncontrolled and
unintentional way (Vester 1983: 109; Pinkster 2015: 902). For example, in (77) the clause *nec orando
sed moerendo* ‘not because of praying, but because of being sad’ specifies why the man of God was
crying.

(77) Cum=que [...] nec tamen vir domini ut consueverat
when=and NEG nonetheless man.NOM.M.SG Lord.GEN.M.SG as become_used_to.PST.3SG
**ora-nd-o** plangeret sed moere-nd-o.
pray-GER-ABL cry.SBJV.PST.3SG but be_sad-GER-ABL
‘When the man of the Lord did nonetheless not cry because he was praying, as he used to, but because
he was sad.’ (Greg. M. dial. 2.17.7-8)

The semantic values expressed by non-manner/instrumental/causal gerunds are varied. They will not be
further examined here, since the precise value of these forms is less relevant for the purpose of this study
than their being non-manner/instrumental/causal.<fnref n="27" /> Suffice it to note that the most frequent value of these

<footnote n="27">²⁷ For the inventory and frequency of these values in a Late Latin corpus of technical texts, see Galdi & Vangaever (2019: 100-103). See also Lyer (1932: 382-396) and Aalto (1949: 65-70).</footnote>
forms is a temporal value, consisting of expressing a state of affairs concomitant with the main state of affairs, as in (78) (Galdi & Vangaever 2019: 101).

(78) [...] *gratula-nd-o* ob talis patroni meritum ad
rejoice-GER-ABL because_of so_great.GEN.M.SG patron.GEN.M.SG merit.ACC.N.SG to
propria reversi sunt.
own.ACC.N.PL return.PTCP.PST.NOM.M.PL be.PRS.3PL

‘They returned to their homes rejoicing for the merit of so great a patron.’ (Vit. Gall. Wett. 2.36)

In order to investigate to which extent the bare ablative adjunct gerund loosens its ties with its original manner/instrumental/causal value in Late Latin and evolves into a full-fledged substitute of the adverbial present participle, I will explore the frequency of manner/instrumental/causal bare ablative forms from Classical to Late Latin (§4.3.5.1) and during the Late Latin period (§4.3.5.2).

### 4.3.5.1. From Classical to Late Latin

Table 4.53 shows that the (normalised) absolute frequency of manner/instrumental/causal gerunds rises between Classical and Late Latin, against expectations. However, this trend is probably accidental, since the frequency of bare ablative adjunct gerunds in general also increases in this period. More importantly, the proportion of manner/instrumental/causal bare ablative adjunct gerunds to the total number of bare ablative gerund adjuncts decreases, as expected. In Table 4.53, the abbreviation MIC stands for ‘manner/instrumental/causal’).

<table><caption>**Table 4.53.** Frequency of manner/instrumental/causal bare ablative adjunct gerunds in Classical and Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#MIC bare ablative<br>adjunct gerunds<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#bare ablative<br>adjunct gerunds<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#MIC bare ablative adjunct gerunds/<br>#bare ablative adjunct gerunds</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classical Latin</td><td>165 (2.64)</td><td>180 (2.88)</td><td>91,67%</td></tr><tr><td>Late Latin</td><td>263 (6.18)</td><td>342 (8.03)</td><td>76,90%</td></tr></tbody></table>

However, a chi-square goodness-of-fit test indicates that this decline is probably random: the proportion of manner/instrumental/causal bare ablative adjunct gerunds is lower than expected in Classical Latin and higher than expected in Late Latin in a statistically insignificant way ($\chi^2 = 2.96$; df = 1; p = 0.0853) (Table 4.54).
<table><caption>**Table 4.54.** Observed vs expected proportion of manner/instrumental/causal bare ablative adjunct gerunds to the total number of bare ablative adjunct gerunds in Classical and Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classical Latin</td><td>165 (91,67%)</td><td>148 (82,22%)</td><td>+1.43</td></tr><tr><td>Late Latin</td><td>263 (76,90%)</td><td>280 (81,87%)</td><td>-1.04</td></tr></tbody></table>

In Late Latin, the link of the bare ablative adjunct gerund with its original manner/instrumental/causal value thus remains too strong for it to be regarded as semantically neuter or neutralised. Admittedly, the proportion of manner/instrumental/causal forms declines from Classical to Late Latin, but even in Late Latin, the overwhelming majority of bare ablative forms express one of their original values. This same conclusion was drawn by Galdi & Vangaever (2019: 100-103, 106-108) for a corpus of technical texts: the proportion of manner/instrumental/causal gerunds declines from Classical to Late Latin (see Table 4.55), but according to a chi-square goodness-of-fit test, this decrease is statistically insignificant ($\chi^2 = 0.04$; df = 1; p = 0.8415) (see Table 4.56). Note that Tables 4.55 and 4.56 do not provide the normalised absolute frequency of the gerunds involved, since the number of words in the corpora examined has not been calculated nor reported in Galdi & Vangaever (2019) – it is also less relevant here.

<table><caption>**Table 4.2.** Frequency of manner/instrumental/causal bare ablative adjunct gerunds in the Classical and Late Latin corpora investigated by Galdi & Vangaever (2019)</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#MIC bare ablative adjunct gerunds</th><th>#bare ablative adjunct gerunds</th><th>#MIC bare ablative adjunct gerunds/ #bare ablative adjunct gerunds</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classical Latin</td><td>84</td><td>99</td><td>84,85%</td></tr><tr><td>Late Latin</td><td>77</td><td>95</td><td>81,05%</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 4.55.** Observed vs expected proportion of manner/instrumental/causal bare ablative adjunct gerunds to the total number of bare ablative adjunct gerunds in the Classical and Late Latin corpora investigated by Galdi & Vangaever (2019)</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classical Latin</td><td>84 (84,85%)</td><td>82 (82,83%)</td><td>+0.20</td></tr><tr><td>Late Latin</td><td>77 (81,05%)</td><td>79 (83,16%)</td><td>-0.21</td></tr></tbody></table>

The conclusion to be drawn from these independent corpus studies is that, in Late Latin, the bare ablative adjunct gerund tends to keep its ties with its original manner/instrumental/causal value, and thus does not develop into a full-fledged substitute of the adverbial present participle (see also Adams 2013: 725-740). In the transition to Romance, however, the bare ablative adjunct gerund does develop into this semantically neuter and versatile substitute of the adverbial present participle. One of the key factors that might have played a role in this evolution is the collapse of the case system: the loss of inflectional morphology weakens and eventually erases the association of the Romance outcome of the Latin bare
ablative gerund with its default, case-related manner/instrumental/causal value, hereby pushing it toward semantic neutrality and versatility.

### 4.3.5.2. Within the period of Late Latin

During the Late Latin period, the frequency of manner/instrumental/causal bare ablative adjunct gerunds does not show a rectilinear tendency, neither in (normalised) absolute terms nor in proportion to the total number of bare ablative adjunct gerunds (Table 4.57). Indeed, the absolute and relative frequency of this type of gerunds is fluctuating, the highest figures being found in Merovingian Latin.

<table><caption>**Table 4.56.** Frequency of manner/instrumental/causal bare ablative adjunct gerunds in Imperial, Merovingian, and Early Medieval Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#MIC bare ablative adjunct gerunds (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#bare ablative adjunct gerunds (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#MIC bare ablative adjunct gerunds/ #bare ablative adjunct gerunds</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Imperial Latin</td><td>12 (4.00)</td><td>18 (6.00)</td><td>66,67%</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian Latin</td><td>124 (6.61)</td><td>151 (8.06)</td><td>82,12%</td></tr><tr><td>Early Medieval Latin</td><td>103 (6.02)</td><td>143 (8.36)</td><td>72,03%</td></tr></tbody></table>

A chi-square goodness-of-fit test shows that the proportion of manner/instrumental/causal bare ablative adjunct gerunds is higher than expected in Imperial and Early Medieval Latin and lower than expected in Merovingian Latin, but the differences between these periods are statistically insignificant ($\chi^2 = 1.22$; df = 2; p = 0.5434) (Table 4.58).

<table><caption>**Table 4.57.** Observed vs expected proportion of manner/instrumental/causal bare ablative adjunct gerunds to the total number of bare ablative adjunct gerunds in Imperial, Merovingian, and Early Medieval Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Imperial Latin</td><td>12 (66,67%)</td><td>14 (77,78%)</td><td>-0.48</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian Latin</td><td>124 (82,12%)</td><td>116 (76,82%)</td><td>+0.77</td></tr><tr><td>Early Medieval Latin</td><td>103 (72,03%)</td><td>110 (76,92%)</td><td>-0.62</td></tr></tbody></table>

These figures suggest that the fluctuation in Table 4.57 is probably random, and that the use of the bare ablative adjunct gerund is thus relatively homogenous within the Late Latin period. Put differently, the association of the bare ablative gerund with its original manner/instrumental/causal value remains strong throughout the period of Late Latin. This disallows regarding it as semantically neuter (or neutralised). This finding helps explaining the key factors behind the specialisation of the gerund in adverbial external syntax in the Late Latin corpus.
Since the gerund does not appear to evolve toward semantic neutrality, this specialisation is not
due to an increasing substitution of present participles by gerunds in adjuncts. Yet, two other factors can
be put forward. On the one hand, this specialisation in adverbial external syntax is partly – and indirectly
– due to a gradual replacement of the gerund by the infinitive in nominal syntactic configurations. This
hypothesis is supported by the decreasing frequency of nominal gerunds from Classical to Late Latin,
both in (normalised) absolute terms and in proportion to the total number of gerunds (see Table 4.31 in
§4.2.4). However, the role of this replacement may not be overestimated. Indeed, within the Late Latin
period, the (normalised) absolute frequency of nominal gerunds rises (see Table 4.33 in §4.2.4), whereas
the opposite tendency is expected if the gerund were progressively replaced by the infinitive in nominal
external syntax. Yet, this hypothesis still stands, since the rising absolute frequency of nominal gerunds
is to be seen within the light of a rising frequency of gerunds in general in this period (and the increase
of gerunds in general is steeper than that of the nominal gerunds). On the other hand, the frequency rise
of adverbial gerunds is also partly due to the increasing frequency of accusative purpose adjunct gerunds
(see §4.3.4). Since this increase has a purely semantic explanation, however, it does not really show a
syntactic specialisation of the gerund in adverbial external syntax.

Of the two main driving forces behind the specialisation of the gerund in adverbial external syntax hypothesised in the literature, *i.e.* the progressive substitution of the gerund by the infinitive in nominal syntactic configurations and the gradual replacement of the present participle by the gerund in adverbial external syntax, only the former thus seems to be at work in the corpus of this study, though less strongly than expected. A more general conclusion regarding this finding will be drawn in the following section.

4.3.6. Conclusion

As expected in the light of the intensifying competition of the gerund with the infinitive and the present participle in Late Latin, the frequency of adjunct gerunds rises from Classical to Late Latin. This holds for their (normalised) absolute frequency, but also, and more significantly, for their proportion to the total number of gerunds. The absolute and relative frequency of adverbial gerunds rises also within the Late Latin period, but in a statistically insignificant way – against predictions. Adjunct gerunds are less frequent and less productive in legal texts than in historical and religious texts.

Also against expectations, the fraction of ablative adjunct gerunds to the total number of gerunds declines, both from Classical to Late Latin and within the period of Late Latin. Additionally, the bare ablative adjunct gerund keeps its strong associations with its original manner/instrumental/causal value, impeding it to develop into a full-fledged substitute of the adverbial present participle. These findings suggest that the sharp frequency rise of adverbial gerunds from Classical to Late Latin is more the result of the gradual replacement of the gerund by the infinitive in nominal external syntax than of the gradual
substitution of the present participle by the gerund in adverbial external syntax. However, an important
role is also played by the high frequency of accusative gerunds in the Late Latin corpus. This invites us
to interpret the frequency rise of adverbial gerunds with care, since part of this increase thus has a purely
semantic explanation rather than a syntactic one.

Notwithstanding their sharp frequency rise from Classical to Late Latin, adjunct gerunds account
in Late Latin for a lower proportion of the total number of gerunds than expected in view of the Romance
development (61%). The conclusion to be drawn from this is again that there is a large gap between the
use of the gerund in Late Latin, at least in the written documents transmitted to us, and in most Romance
languages, where it can only occur in adjuncts and in progressive constructions.

4.4. The verbal gerund

Having examined the evolution of the nominal and adverbial gerunds, I will explore in this section the
evolution of the verbal gerund. In principle, this type of gerund can be used in only one way, i.e. 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). Recall that the auxiliary (or the verb used as
such) in this construction is some form of the existential verb *esse* ‘to be’ (e.g. *erat* ‘he was’ (79)), a
posture verb (e.g. *stetit* ‘he stood’ (80)), or a motion verb (e.g. *ire* ‘to go’ (81)).

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

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

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

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

(81) [...] *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)

In Late Latin, the gerund is held to gradually replace the present participle in progressive constructions
(Lyer 1934: 169; Aalto 1949: 75; Dietrich 1973: 305, 307; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 380). However,
the Late Latin corpus does not comprise any progressive gerund construction, while it does contain some
instances of progressive present participle constructions (see §5.4.1). Hence, this hypothesis is not borne
out by empirical evidence (the examples in (79-81) above are cited from Aalto 1949: 75). The absence of progressive gerund constructions in the Late Latin corpus is in line with the status of this construction as an exploratory ‘forerunner’ (Bertinetto et al. 2000: 538) or ‘precursor’ (Bertinetto 2000: 563) of the Romance progressive construction, viz. a kind of ‘experimental substitute’ of synthetic imperfect tense verb forms (Pinkster 1998: 234; Haverling 2010: 492-493). It should also be recalled that the substitution of the present participle by the gerund in progressive constructions in the transition from Late Latin to Romance is a tendency rather than a rule, since the present participle variant is attested in several Old Romance languages (see §4.1.1 and §2.1.1.2.2.3).

Whereas the Late Latin corpus does not comprise gerunds used in a progressive construction, it does contain three gerunds functioning syntactically as a finite verb. This use has gone unnoticed for the gerund, but has been recognised for other types of non-finite verb forms, *i.e.* the infinitive and the present participle (see §2.1.2.2.2.3.3). The use of the gerund as a finite verb is undeniable in two of these three instances, while in the third, it may be subject to discussion.

The first example is *servandum* ‘(they) keep’ (82). This form serves as the main verb of a clause coordinated with that containing the morphologically finite verb form *constringent* ‘they tighten’ – the coordination marker is the enclitic morpheme *-que* ‘and’. The analysis of this form as a syntactically finite verb is corroborated by the absence of manuscript variants (*cf*. Krusch 1888: 164).

(82) [...] eos benigne gobernantes eorum amiciciam DEM.ACC.M.PL kindly govern.PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.PL DEM.GEN.M.PL friendship.ACC.F.SG *constringent* semper=que *serva-nd-um*. tighten.FUT.3PL always=and keep-GER-ACC ‘By managing them kindly, they will tighten their friendship and keep it forever.’ (Fredeg. *chron.* 4.85)

The second unambiguous example of a gerund used as a finite verb is *credendo* ‘I believe’ (83). This form is combined with the subordinating conjunction *ut* ‘as’, and heads a parenthetical clause indicating “to what extent or under which conditions the content of the sentence is presented as true” (Pinkster 2015: 926).<fnref n="28" />

(83) De eius praesentem transitum [...], ut *crede-nd-o*, about DEM.GEN.M.SG beollo PTCP.PRS.ACC.M.SG passage.ACC.M.SG as believe-GER-ABL rex gaudet in caelo. king.NOM.M.SG rejoice.PRS.3SG in heaven.ABL.N.SG ‘The king rejoices in heaven with his present passage, I believe.’ (Epist. Austr. 1)

<footnote n="28">²⁸ Pinkster (2015: 926) labels such constituents ‘qualified truth disjuncts’.</footnote>
There are no alternative readings for this form (*cf*. Gundlach 1892: 113), but some editors replace it by the finite verb *credo* ‘I believe’. While this is the expected form according to Classical Latin standards (*cf*. Pinkster 2015: 926), its absence as an alternative reading in at least one manuscript precludes this editorial emendation. If anything, this emendation shows the discomfort of (some) editors in analysing this extremely rare, but interesting use of the bare ablative gerund.

The third and final instance of a gerund used as a finite verb is *ordinandum* ‘(they) appoint’ (84). This form occurs in a clause coordinated with that containing the finite verb *ducerent* ‘they bring’.

(84) [...] *ut beatum* *virum* [...] *ad urbem* *iam dictam*
that blessed.ACC.M.SG man.ACC.M.SG to city.ACC.F.SG already say.PTCP.PST.ACC.F.SG
*ducerent* *atque pontificem* ***ordina-nd-um.***
bring.SBJV.PST.3PL and priest.ACC.M.SG appoint-GER-ACC
‘(...) that they would bring the blessed man to the aforementioned city and appoint him priest.’ (*Vit. Euch.* 4)

As opposed to *servandum* ‘(they) keep’ (82) and *credendo* ‘I believe’ (83), *ordinandum* ‘(they) appoint’ (84) has an alternative reading in some manuscript variants: the finite subjunctive imperfect tense form *ordinarent* ‘they appoint’ (*cf*. Levison 1920: 48). This is the expected form to Classical Latin standards and resolves the conflict between the non-finite form of *ordinandum* ‘(they) appoint’ and its syntactic use as a finite verb. Hence, it could be argued that this alternative reading should be preferred over the gerund reading in (84). However, the existence of paleographically unambiguous gerunds serving as finite verbs (e.g. (82-83)) is compatible with a reading of *ordinandum* ‘(they) appoint’ (84) as a gerund. Hence, I stick to the gerund reading of this form.

As in the case of the present participle (see §2.1.2.2.2.3.3), the use of the gerund as a finite verb could result from anacoluthon rather than being deliberate, especially in syntactically complex sentences in which the gerund clause is embedded in a subordinate clause (*cf*. Eklund 1970: 117-205). However, irrespective of whether this use of the gerund is deliberate or the result of an interruption in the planned syntax, the forms in issue differ from all other types of gerunds. Hence, they merit a separate discussion. The extreme rareness of this use of the gerund certainly indicates that this use has never been generalised (and, incidentally, it is not preserved in the transition from Late Latin to Romance), but this marginal status should not prevent us from analysing the few forms involved as assuming the role of a finite verb.

The three gerunds used as finite verbs in the Late Latin corpus each belong to a different period (i.e. one instance in Imperial Latin, one in Merovingian Latin, and one in Early Medieval Latin). Two instances appear in the historical domain (82-83) and one in the religious domain (84). Needless to say, these forms represent a negligible part of the total number of gerunds (0,23%). Their normalised absolute
frequency is also extremely low (0.07 instances per 10 000 words in the Late Latin corpus). Hence, they
have no impact on the external syntactic, morphosyntactic, and typological profile of the gerund.

In sum, the data of this thesis do not show a specialisation of the gerund in verbal external syntax.

**4.5. External syntactic profile**

The preceding sections have explored the frequency of the different uses of the gerund from Classical
to Late Latin and within the period of Late Latin. This section aims to collate these results, in order to
establish and examine in more detail the external syntactic profile of the gerund. Since the frequency of
the different uses of the gerund has been discussed at length in the previous sections, the figures showing
the external syntactic profile of the gerund in the current section will be commented in a global way.

The external syntactic profile of the gerund is dominated by the same two uses in Classical and
Late Latin, viz. in adnominal phrases and adjuncts (Figure 4.5). Together, these uses represent 84% of
all gerunds in Classical Latin and 89% in Late Latin. However, while its adnominal use is dominant in
Classical Latin (60%), its adjunct use is most common in Late Latin (61%). Hence, the external syntactic
profile of the gerund drastically changes between these two periods. The remaining uses of the gerund
each represent less than 10% in the two periods. Therefore, the impact of their frequency rise or decline
on the external syntactic profile of the gerund is limited. For practical reasons, the frequency of gerunds
used as finite verbs in Late Latin (0,23%) is not mentioned in Figure 4.5.

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.5.** External syntactic profile of the gerund in Classical and Late Latin</figcaption></figure>

Within the period of Late Latin, the external syntactic profile of the gerund remains relatively stable (Figure 4.6). Indeed, its two dominant uses jointly represent 90% of all gerunds in Imperial Latin, 86%
in Merovingian Latin, and 92% in Early Medieval Latin. The use of the gerund as a finite verb accounts for respectively 1,92%, 0,19%, and 0,18% (these proportions are not mentioned in Figure 4.6).

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.6.** External syntactic profile of the gerund in Imperial, Merovingian, and Early Medieval Latin</figcaption></figure>

While the external syntactic profile of the gerund in Late Latin does not show significant change on the diachronic axis, it does show relevant thematic variation (Figure 4.7). In particular, the legal texts greatly differ from the historical and religious texts. Most strikingly, the gerund is most often adnominal in the legal texts, while in the historical and religious texts, it predominantly occurs in adjuncts. However, the combined frequency of these two uses is similar in the three thematic domains, viz. 84% in the historical texts, 90% in the religious texts, and 89% in the legal texts. The frequency of the gerunds used as finite verbs, left out in Figure 4.7, are respectively 0,94%, 0,14%, and 0%.

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.7.** External syntactic profile of the gerund in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</figcaption></figure>
This result clearly shows that the language used in legal texts differs from that in historical and religious texts. An important methodological insight can be drawn from this: at least for Late Latin, it is advisable not to rely exclusively on legal texts to study language change, and to evaluate results from these texts separately from those obtained for other types of texts. The atypical character of the use of the gerund in legal texts might be due to the specific stylistic features of these texts. On the one hand, the archaic character of the juridical style might account for the high proportion of adnominal gerunds, which is reminiscent of Classical Latin (see Figure 4.5). On the other hand, the formulaic character of the juridical style might account for the larger number of gerunds with a low degree of productivity, which has been observed in particular for adnominal, verb complement, and adjunct gerunds.

Finally, the external syntactic profile of the gerund in Late Latin also differs according to its case form. Crucially, the gerund most often occurs in adjuncts in the accusative, the dative, and the ablative, whereas in the genitive, it is predominantly adnominal (Figure 4.8). The frequencies left unspecified in Figure 4.8 are of: (i) the accusative forms used as finite verbs (0,35%); (ii) the genitive forms used in adjective complements (1,09%) and verb complements (0,27%); and (iii) the ablative gerunds used in adnominal phrases (0,28%), adjective complements (0,56%), verb complements (2,26%), and as finite verbs (0,28%).

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.8.** External syntactic profile of the gerund in Late Latin per case form</figcaption></figure>

From a Romance perspective, the external syntactic profile of the ablative gerund is highly interesting: in the transition from Late Latin to Romance, the gerund only survives in the ablative (Aalto 1949: 73; Ernout & Thomas 1951: 267; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 140-141; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 369; Buridant 2000: 237; Adams 2003: 748). Since practically all ablative gerunds occur in adjuncts, it comes as no surprise that in most Romance languages, the gerund only maintains this use (as well as its
use in progressive constructions, which is historically derived from it). Put differently, in the transition
from Late Latin to most Romance languages, the gerund survives with an external syntactic profile that
is not representative of the Late Latin gerund as a whole. This co-explains why the use of the Romance
gerund is so different from its use in Late Latin.

4.6. Morphosyntactic profile

I will establish in this section the morphosyntactic profile of the gerund, and examine its evolution from
Classical to Late Latin (§4.6.1) and within the period of Late Latin (§4.6.2). The morphosyntactic profile
of the gerund in Late Latin will also be investigated comparatively in the historical, religious, and legal
texts (§4.6.3). A comparison will also be made between the different case forms of the gerund (§4.6.4).

Remember that the morphosyntactic profile of the gerund is obtained by mapping its external
syntactic profile on the morphosyntactic categories of Classical/Late Latin, while taking into account its
morphological properties, which combine verbal and nominal features (see §1.2.1). As noted in §1.2.3
and §2.1.1.3 and operationalised in §4.2 to §4.4, this mapping yields three types of gerunds: (i) nominal
gerunds, occurring in adnominal phrases, verb complements, and adjective complements; (ii) adverbial
gerunds, used in adjuncts; and (iii) verbal gerunds, acting as the main verb of a progressive construction
or as syntactically finite verbs.

4.6.1. From Classical to Late Latin

In line with the evolution of its external syntactic profile, the morphosyntactic profile of the gerund drastically changes between Classical and Late Latin: whereas the gerund has predominantly nominal external syntax in Classical Latin, its focus shifts toward adverbial external syntax in Late Latin (Figure 4.9). In contrast with Classical Latin, in Late Latin, the gerund can also display verbal external syntax, though on a much more sporadic basis.
<figure><img src="image_32.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.9.** Morphosyntactic profile of the gerund in Classical and Late Latin</figcaption></figure>

The decline of nominal gerunds and the rise of adverbial gerunds from Classical to Late Latin are both statistically highly significant (see §4.2.4 and §4.3.1). Hence, they probably reflect an ongoing linguistic change. This change undeniably consists of the specialisation of the gerund in adverbial external syntax, which is the predicted outcome of its functional competition with the infinitive and the present participle. However, these competitions do not condition the specialisation of the gerund in this syntax in the same way: the infinitive replaces the gerund in nominal syntactic configurations, evolution that increases the proportion of adverbial gerunds in an indirect way, while the present participle is replaced by the gerund in adverbial external syntax, evolution that increases the proportion of adverbial gerunds in a direct way. The results of this study indicate that the first type of replacement is more important. However, a corpus-based study of the external syntax of the infinitive from Classical to Late Latin is required in order to verify this hypothesis.

4.6.2. Within the period of Late Latin

During the Late Latin period, the morphosyntactic profile of the gerund remains relatively stable (Figure 4.10). The declining proportion of nominal gerunds and the rise proportion of adverbial gerunds are both statistically insignificant (see §4.2.4 and §4.3.2). Hence, they reflect random trends rather than linguistic changes.
<figure><img src="image_33.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.10.** Morphosyntactic profile of the gerund in Imperial, Merovingian, and Early Medieval Latin</figcaption></figure>

These figures corroborate the conclusion drawn for the nominal and the adverbial gerund separately, i.e. that the use of the gerund greatly changes between Classical and Late Latin, while remaining relatively homogenous within the period of Late Latin. Also, despite its sharply decreasing proportion to the total number of gerunds between Classical and Late Latin, i.e. from 76% to 39%, the nominal gerund still represents between 37% and 42% of all gerunds in Late Latin. The nominal use of the gerund having disappeared in most Romance languages, it appears again that there is a huge gap between the use of the gerund in Late Latin, at least as observable in the written texts transmitted to us, and in Romance.

### 4.6.3. Comparison between the three thematic domains

While the morphosyntactic profile of the gerund in Late Latin is relatively stable on the diachronic axis, it shows significant variation from a thematic point of view. Indeed, the morphosyntactic profile of the gerund is dominated by the nominal gerund in legal texts, but by the adverbial gerund in historical and religious texts. The dominance of the nominal gerund in legal texts is nonetheless less pronounced than that of the adverbial gerund in historical and religious texts (Figure 4.11).
<figure><img src="image_34.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.11.** Morphosyntactic profile of the gerund in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</figcaption></figure>

This finding confirms the issue raised in connection with the external syntactic profile of the gerund: the language used in legal texts differs from that in historical and religious texts. Therefore, at least for Late Latin, results gathered from legal texts should be evaluated independently from those obtained for other types of texts, such as historical and religious texts.

### 4.6.4. Comparison of the case forms

Like its external syntactic profile, the morphosyntactic profile of the gerund in Late Latin also differs depending on its case form. As shown in Figure 4.12, the morphosyntactic profile of the gerund in Late Latin is dominated by adverbial external syntax in the accusative, the dative, and the ablative, but by nominal external syntax in the genitive.

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.12.** Morphosyntactic profile of the gerund in Late Latin per case form</figcaption></figure>
Since in the transition from Late Latin to Romance, the gerund only survives in the ablative, Figure 4.12 shows that the gerund survives with a morphosyntactic profile that is not representative of the Late Latin gerund as a whole. This profile is almost completely covered by adverbial external syntax (97%). This is why the use of the gerund in Romance is so different from its use in Latin, even in the latest period. The same conclusion was drawn with regard to the external syntactic profile of the gerund.

## 4.7. Typological profile

The final step in describing the evolution of the gerund consists of establishing 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 verbs, in which a distinction is made between: (i) masdars (i.e. forms with nominal external syntax); (ii) participles (i.e. forms having adjectival external syntax); and (iii) converbs (i.e. forms showing adverbial external syntax). The nominal gerund is subsumed under the masdar type, while the adverbial gerund falls under the converb type. The verbal gerund belongs to the converb type from a historical point of view, but from a synchronic perspective, it is not related to any of these types (see also §2.1.2.3). Hence, it will be left out in the following discussion.

In Classical Latin, the gerund predominantly falls under the masdar type (76%), its association with the converb type being relatively weak (24%). In Late Latin, the opposite tendency can be observed: the gerund is mainly subsumed under the converb type (61%), its link with the masdar type being weaker (39%). Since the labels 'masdar', 'participle', and 'converb' are used in this thesis as purely functional labels, the external syntactic evolution of the gerund between Classical and Late Latin can be described in terms of 'converbalisation', *viz.* the historical process in which a non-finite verb forms specialises in the external syntax of an adverb. This is not to say that the Late Latin gerund *is* or *becomes* a converb, just like the Classical Latin gerund *is* not a masdar. The Late Latin gerund *is* nothing but the Late Latin gerund, *i.e.* a language-specific category of non-finite verb forms with a unique set of morphological and syntactic properties and an equally unique morphosyntactic profile (see also §2.1.1.4).

In accord with its external syntactic and morphosyntactic profiles, the typological profile of the gerund remains relatively stable within the period of Late Latin. Its association with the converb type becomes stronger (from 56% to 63%), but in a statistically insignificant way (see §4.3.2). In other words, the crucial period for the converbalisation of the gerund is between Classical and Late Latin, not between Imperial and Early Medieval Latin. In the transition from Late Latin to Romance, the converbalisation of the gerund is completed, since in most Romance languages, the gerund only preserves its ability to have adverbial external syntax (or to occur in progressive constructions). This has led some scholars to conceive of the Romance gerund as a converb, *viz.* to assert that the Romance gerund *is* a converb (e.g. Haspelmath 1995: 2, 45). However, this practice is chiefly restricted to comparative and typological
linguistics, descriptive linguists usually retaining the traditional term ‘gerund’. In this study, both labels
are used, but in a different way: the label ‘gerund’ is used to refer to a ‘descriptive category’ (Haspelmath
2010: 664; Lehmann 2018a: 33), viz. a language-specific category of non-finite verbs with a unique set
of formal and functional properties, like the Classical or Late Latin gerund, while the label ‘converb’ is
used as a ‘comparative concept’, i.e. a purely functional label “created by comparative linguists for the
specific purpose of cross-linguistic comparison” (Haspelmath 2010: 665; see also Lehmann 2018a: 33).

**4.8. Conclusion**

The standard hypothesis of the competition of the gerund with the infinitive and the present participle predicts that, in Late Latin, the gerund undergoes a process of converbalisation. On the one hand, it is claimed to be gradually replaced by the infinitive in nominal external syntax. This substitution reduces the absolute number of nominal gerunds and, incidentally, their portion to the total number of gerunds. As a result, the proportion of adverbial gerunds rises, which makes the gerund converbalise in an indirect way. The gerund is also argued to be gradually replaced by the infinitive in purpose adjuncts. This leads to the disappearance of the gerund in a specific niche of its adverbial use. Hence, the converbalisation of the gerund is not a rectilinear evolution. On the other hand, the gerund is held to gradually substitute the present participle in adjuncts. This substitution increases the absolute number of adverbial gerunds and, concomitantly, their proportion to the total number of gerunds. Hence, the gerund converbalises also in a direct way. This specialisation of the gerund in the external syntax of the adverb is argued to mainly concern the bare ablative gerund. This form is held to gradually loosen its ties with its original manner/instrumental/causal value, thus developing into a semantically neuter and versatile strategy for adverbial subordination.

The converbalisation of the gerund is considered to be part of a more general evolution, *i.e.* the restructuring of the paradigm of non-finite verb forms (Elcock 1960: 110-119; Harris 1978: 195-203; Bauer 1993: 59, 2005). This evolution is characterised by an increasing degree of isomorphism and morphosyntactic specialisation. Roughly speaking, the infinitive specialises in nominal external syntax, and the gerund in adverbial external syntax. In the light of this tendency, the gerund ceases to act as the suppletive form of the infinitive. Instead, it develops into a non-finite verb form in its own right, having a position in the system of non-finite verb forms on a par with the infinitive (and the present participle, for instance). From a more general viewpoint, the evolution of the gerund in Late Latin illustrates the tendency of languages to maximise their degree of isomorphism through functional competition (*cf.* Bolinger 1968, 1977; Goldberg 1995; Fonteyn 2016: 31-32), and, focusing on the transition from Latin to Romance, the development toward a higher degree of morphosyntactic specialisation (*cf.* Carlier & Combettes 2015).
The converbalisation of the gerund in Late Latin is supported by the empirical data of this study, but only in a modest way. On the one hand, the proportion of nominal gerunds sharply declines from Classical to Late Latin (from 76% to 39%), while that of adverbial gerunds sharply rises (from 24% to 61%). However, within the period of Late Latin, these proportions remain relatively stable – or at least do not decrease or increase in a statistically significant way. Moreover, despite their sharp decline from Classical to Late Latin, nominal gerunds are still more frequent in Late Latin than expected (39%). On the other hand, the link of the bare ablative adjunct gerund with its original manner/instrumental/causal value remains largely in place between Classical and Late Latin, and does not weaken within the period of Late Latin. As a result, the Late Latin bare ablative adverbial gerund is far from being a full-fledged substitute of the adverbial present participle, that is to say, a semantically neuter or versatile strategy for adverbial subordination. In view of these results, the converbalisation of the gerund between Classical and Late Latin is probably more the result of the gradual replacement of the gerund by the infinitive in nominal syntactic configurations than of the gradual substitution of the present participle by the gerund in adverbial configurations. As a matter of fact, the only increasing tendency observed within the group of adverbial gerunds is a sharp frequency rise of accusative gerunds, which mostly express the purpose of the main state of affairs. This also suggests that, in the Late Latin corpus of this study, purpose adjunct gerunds are barely replaced by infinitives, against predictions.

Since this study is the first to empirically investigate the external syntactic and morphosyntactic evolution of the gerund from Classical to Late Latin and during the Late Latin period, its results have important implications for our understanding of the functional competition between the gerund and the present participle. Indeed, the present participle is claimed to specialise in adjectival external syntax as the result of the increasing replacement of the present participle by the gerund in adjuncts. However, since this replacement does not emerge from the data of this study, it is likely that the Late Latin present participle will not show signs of a specialisation in adjectival syntactic configurations – at least not in the corpus of this study. If this were the case, it would have far-reaching implications for the evolution of the gerund and the present participle from Late Latin to Old French, i.e. for the categorial status of the Old French *-ant* form. Indeed, if there is no decisive empirical evidence in favour of a specialisation of the Late Latin present participle in adjectival external syntax, it cannot simply be assumed that, in the transition from Late Latin to Old French, the present participle only survives in this syntax. As a result, the categorial indeterminacy of Old French *-ant* forms caused by the morphological merging of the gerund and the present participle could not be resolved on the basis of their external syntax, the adverbial forms qualifying as gerunds and the adjectival ones as present participles. This would not only challenge the distinction between the categories of the gerund and the present participle in Old French, but also their very existence in this language (cf. Adams 2003: 749; De Smet 2014: 40).
However, the finding that the gerund barely replaces the present participle in adverbial external syntax in the Late Latin corpus of this study does not necessarily mean that this evolution does not take place. For instance, it could be argued that the corpus of Late Latin texts is not sufficiently representative of the language used in the period examined. Despite the fact that, in comparison with the existing Late Latin corpora, the corpus elaborated within the context of the PaLaFra project and used as the Late Latin corpus of this study is large and varied, it is well known that, from a sociolinguistic point of view, there is a significant gap between written and spoken language (cf. Herman 2006: 186). Since language change typically emerges in the spoken language and reaches the written language only at a later stage, due to its more conservative character (Herman 2006: 186), it could be argued that the data of this study do not faithfully reflect the ongoing changes in the spoken language.

Though the absence of spoken records for this period makes it impossible to test this hypothesis, the fact that the Romance languages have emerged from different spoken varieties of Late Latin could give us an important clue. If the gerund does converbalise in spoken Late Latin, it is expected that there is a large gap between the use of the gerund in written Late Latin and the first written records of the Romance languages. This is certainly the case for Romance languages like Spanish and Italian, in which the gerund survived as a morphologically distinct form from the present participle and can only occur in adjuncts (and progressive constructions) (cf. Vincent 2016: 45). However, due to the morphological merging of the gerund and the present participle in Old French, this scenario cannot merely be assumed for the Old French *-ant* form. For how can we be sure that Old French adverbial (and verbal) *-ant* forms go back to Late Latin gerunds if Late Latin present participles can just as well occur in adjuncts (and progressive constructions)? In other words, the morphological merging of the gerund and the present participle in Old French particularises the distinction between these forms within the Romance family. Hence, this matter cannot be handled in the same way as in other Romance languages. All this indicates is that the categorial issue of the Old French *-ant* form cannot be resolved without an examination of the external syntactic and morphosyntactic evolution of the Latin present participle. This is the topic of the following chapter.
# Chapter 5. The present participle in Late Latin

## 5.1. Introduction

### 5.1.1. Aim of the chapter

According to most authors, the evolution of the present participle in Late Latin is mainly driven by its functional 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 2021: §21.14). This competition concerns its use in adjuncts and in progressive construction, and is considered settling in favour of the gerund (Marouzeau 1910: 79; Kühner & Stegmann 1914⁵: 753; Lyer 1932, 1934: 169; Aalto 1949: 65-66, 75; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 140-141; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 373, 377, 379-380, 384; Harris 1978: 200; Kooreman 1989; Bauer 1993, 2005; Maraldi 1994; Adams 2003: 748, 2013: 725-740; Pinkster 2021: §21.14). On the one hand, adverbial present participles (e.g. *gestans* 'bearing' (1)) are thus claimed to be substituted by gerunds (e.g. *dicendo* 'singing' (2)), even in their prototypical use of denoting a state of affairs co-occurring with the main state of affairs (compare (1-2)).

(1) [...] *ipse*          [...] *aurum*          suum          clippeo
          INTENS.NOM.M.SG  golden.ACC.N.SG  his.ACC.N.SG  shield.ABL[ACC].N.SG
          **gesta-ns**      inmunis          ad propria    rebeat.
          bear-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG unharmed.NOM.M.SG to own.ACC.N.PL return.SBJV.PRS.3SG
          'May he return to this house unharmed while bearing his golden shield.' (Form. Bitur. 17)

(2) [...] *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)

The gradual replacement of the present participle by the gerund in adjuncts is expected to – indirectly – reduce the proportion of adverbial present participles to the total number of present participles. As such, the proportion of present participles used in adjectival syntactic configurations, in particular adnominal phrases (e.g. *circunstantes* 'standing around' (3)), subject predicates (e.g. *habundans* 'abounding' (4)), and object predicates (e.g. *nocentem* 'harmful' (5)), is expected to increase, even without a (significant) rise of their absolute frequency.
(3) Populi autem **circunsta-nt-es** admirabantur omnes
people.NOM.M.PL but stand_around-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL admire.PST.3PL all.ACC.F.PL
passiones eius usque ad finem.
passion.ACC.F.PL his.GEN.M.SG until to end.ACC.F.SG
‘But the people standing around admired all his passions until the end.’ (Pass. Vict. 1.644.22)

(4) Ipsa etiam civitas **habunda-ns** multitudine
INTENS.NOM.F.SG for city.NOM.F.SG abound-PTCP.PRS.NOM.F.SG multitude.ABL.F.SG
hominum est [...].
man.GEN.M.PL be.PRS.3SG
‘For the city is abundant with a multitude of people.’ (Peregr. Aeth. 19.1)

(5) [...]ut ipse me faciat **noce-nt-em.**
that INTENS.NOM.M.SG I.ACC.M.SG make.SBJV.PRS.3SG harm-PTCP.PRS-ACC.M.SG
‘(...) that he himself can make me harmful.’ (Pass. Caec. 1.29.21)

To put it differently, the gradual substitution of the present participle by the gerund in adverbial external syntax is held to induce a specialisation of the present participle in adjectival external syntax (Marouzeau 1910: 79, 83-84; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 140-141; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 384; Harris 1978: 200; Kooreman 1989: 219-220; Bauer 1993, 2005).

On the other hand, present participles serving as the main verb of a progressive construction (e.g. vociferans ‘shouting’ (6)) are claimed to be increasingly replaced by gerunds (e.g. cunctando ‘hesitating (7)) (Lyer 1934: 169; Aalto 1949: 75; Dietrich 1973: 305, 307; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 380).

(6) [...]cum prope silvam venisset [...]stetit dux
when near forest.ACC.F.SG come.SBJV.PST.3SG stand.PST.3SG general.NOM.M.SG
diu **cuncta-nd-o.**
for_some_time hesitate-GER-ABL
‘When he had come to a forest, the general stood in hesitation for some time.’ (Amm. 17.1.8)

(7) [...]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)

However, this substitution process is not completed in the transition from Late Latin to Romance, since sporadic instances of progressive present participle constructions are attested in different Old Romance
languages, such as Italian (Škerlj 1926; Filzi 1914: 35-36, 39-40; Squartini 1998: 28), Occitan (Squartini 1998: 28), and Romanian (Squartini 1998: 29) (see §2.1.2.2.2.3.1).

With respect to the two remaining uses of the present participle, *i.e.* in a presentative progressive construction (e.g. *venientes* ‘coming’ (8)) or as a syntactically finite verb (e.g. *veniens* ‘coming’ (9)), they do not undergo competition with the gerund. The former compete with infinitives and are replaced by them in the transition from Late Latin to Romance (Aspland 1974: 16), while the latter are replaced by their morphologically finite competitors.

(8) [...] *cum vidissent* *Egyptios* *post se venie-nt-es*,
when see.SBJV.PST.3PL Egyptian.ACC.M.PL after REFL.ACC.M.PL come-PTCP.PRS-ACC.M.PL
*exclamaverunt*.
shout.PST.3PL

‘When they saw the Egyptians coming behind them, they shouted.’ (Peregr. Aeth. 7.4)

(9) *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 its function for the public gold.’ (Pass. Getul. 1.99.1)

The aim of this chapter is to examine to which extent the presumed specialisation of the present participle in adjectival external syntax in Late Latin is corroborated by empirical evidence.

### 5.1.2. Methodology

If the present participle specialises in adjectival external syntax Late Latin, the proportion of adjectival present participles to the total number of present participles is expected to increase between Classical and Late Latin and within the period of Late Latin, at the expense the adverbial present participle. As to the verbal present participle, the proportion of instances used in progressive constructions is expected to decrease, while no hypotheses can be formulated about the proportion of forms used in presentative progressive constructions and as syntactically finite verbs, at least not in the light of the intensifying functional competition between the gerund and the present participle. Since the specialisation of the present participle in adjectival syntactic configurations is primarily argued to be the indirect effect of its substitution by the gerund in adverbial external syntax, the (normalised) absolute frequency of adjectival present participles is not necessarily expected to rise.
In order to verify these hypotheses, the same method will be applied as in the case of the gerund in the previous chapter (Chapter 4). I will calculate and compare the (normalised) absolute frequency of the various uses of the present participle in the Classical and Late Latin corpora, and, more importantly, their proportion to the total number of present participles. Within the Late Latin corpus, a comparison will be made between the periods of Imperial (4th-5th c.), Merovingian (6th-7th c.), and Early Medieval Latin (8th-10th c.). All proportions will be statistically evaluated by means of chi-square goodness-of-fit tests, in order to distinguish random trends from those reflecting ongoing linguistic changes (cf. Gries 2013: 28; Levshina 2015: 221). The frequency of the distinct uses of the present participle in Late Latin will be further evaluated in the light of their frequency and productivity in the historical, religious, and legal texts.

The results of this chapter are based on the 1 786 present participles in the Classical Latin corpus (see §1.3.2.2.8 and §3.4.2.3) and the 8 785 instances in the Late Latin corpus (see §3.4.2.3). The Late Latin occurrences that cannot be unambiguously assigned to Imperial, Merovingian, or Early Medieval Latin will be discarded from the quantitative analyses of their evolution during the Late Latin period, but retained in all other quantitative analyses. This holds for 798 forms. Hence, the external syntactic evolution of the present participle in Late Latin will be based on 7 987 instances (see §3.4.2.3). These datapoints account for 91% of all Late Latin present participles, so that the results emerging from them may be regarded as representative of the Late Latin corpus in general.

Recall that the Latin present participle is defined in this thesis in a very broad sense, comprising
any non-finite verb form ending in -ns or an inflectional variant and built on a verb “used in the language
current at the time when the text in question was written” (Eklund 1970: 12). Their formation may be
regular or irregular, but their meaning needs to be the same as that of the corresponding finite verb or
derivable from it through deactualisation or contextual recategorisation (see §3.4.1.2.4). The broadness
of this definition will be taken into account in the evaluation of all quantitative results, but especially of
those pertaining to the adjectival present participle.

**5.1.3. Structure of the chapter**

The analysis of the present participle will be structured according to the type of its syntactic use. First, I will investigate the forms with adverbial external syntax (§5.2), then those having adjectival external syntax (§5.3), and lastly those with verbal external syntax (§5.4). The results obtained in these sections will be collated in §5.5, in order to establish the external syntactic profile of the present participle. On the basis of this profile, I will define successively the morphosyntactic (§5.6) and the typological (§5.7) profile of the present participle. A conclusion will be drawn in §5.8.
## 5.2. The adverbial present participle

Like the adverbial gerund, the adverbial present participle can only occur in adjuncts. The forms studied in this section comprise all types of adjunct present participles, regardless of the reference of their subject (and thus of the distinction between conjunct and absolute forms). This subject can be coreferential with the subject of the main verb (10) or with another constituent of the main clause, e.g. a direct object (11). However, it may just as well not be coreferential with any constituent of the main clause (12).

(10) *Hoc* **audie-nt-es** omnes qui in custodia
DEM.ACC.N.SG hear-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL all.NOM.M.PL REL.NOM.M.SG in custody.ABL.F.SG
erant clamaverunt [...].
be.PST.3PL shout.PST.3PL

‘When everyone who was in custody heard this, they shouted (...).’ (Pass. Proc. 1.6.1)

(11) *Cum eum* idola **destrue-nte-m** cultro
when DEM.ACC.M.SG idol.ACC.N.PL destroy-PTCP.PRS-ACC.M.SG knife.ABL.M.SG
quidam ferire voluisset [...].
INDF.NOM.M.SG hit.INF.PRS want.SBJV.PST.3SG

‘When someone wanted to hit him with a knife as he was destroying the idols (...).’ (Sulp. Sev. Mart. 1.15.1)

(12) *Hanc* ergo consuetudinem **iube-nt-e** Deo semper tenuimus [...].
DEM.ACC.F.SG so habit.ACC.F.SG order-PTCP.PRS-ABL.M.SG God.ABL.M.SG always hold.PST.1PL
‘So by God’s command we have always held this habit.’ (Peregr. Aeth. 10.7)

As mentioned in §5.1.1, in Late Latin, the present participle is held to be gradually replaced in adjuncts by the gerund. Therefore, the frequency of adverbial present participles is expected to decline both from Classical to Late Latin and during the Late Latin period, in (normalised) absolute terms as well as in proportion to the total number of present participles. However, since the Late Latin corpus of this study does not provide evidence in favour of the evolution of the gerund into a full-fledged substitute of the adverbial present participle (see §4.3), it might neither show a decline of adverbial present participles.

The aim of this section is to investigate the frequency of adjunct present participles from Classical to Late Latin (§5.2.1) and within the period of Late Latin (§5.2.2). Their frequency study in Late Latin will be refined by the study of their frequency and productivity in the three thematic domains, namely the historical, religious, and legal domains (§5.2.3). The analysis of the adverbial present participle will be concluded by the examination of its case marking (§5.2.4).
### 5.2.1. Frequency from Classical to Late Latin

Against expectations, the (normalised) absolute frequency of adjunct present participles increases from Classical to Late Latin (Table 5.1). However, this (spectacular) frequency rise is to be seen within the light of the rising frequency of the present participle in general. Yet, the frequency of this type of present participles also increases in relation to the total number of present participles, against predictions. Hence, the increasing use of adjunct present participles between Classical and Late Latin might not be random.

<table><caption>**Table 5.1.** Frequency of adjunct present participles in Classical and Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Period</th><th colspan="2">#adjunct present participles</th><th colspan="2">#adjunct present participles/</th></tr><tr><th>(per 10 000 words)</th><th></th><th>(per 10 000 words)</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classical Latin</td><td>1 025 (16.40)</td><td>1 786 (28.57)</td><td>57,39%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Late Latin</td><td>6 412 (150.55)</td><td>8 785 (206.27)</td><td>72,99%</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

This is confirmed by a chi-square goodness-of-fit test: the proportion of adjunct present participles is lower than expected in Classical Latin and higher than expected in Late Latin in a statistically highly significant way ($\chi^2 = 51.1$; df = 1; p < 0.0001) (Table 5.2).

<table><caption>**Table 5.2.** Observed vs expected proportion of adjunct present participles to the total number of present participles in Classical and Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classical Latin</td><td>1 025 (57,39%)</td><td>1 257 (70,38%)</td><td>-6.53</td></tr><tr><td>Late Latin</td><td>6 412 (72,99%)</td><td>6 181 (70,36%)</td><td>+2.94</td></tr></tbody></table>

The rising proportion of adjunct present participles between Classical and Late Latin and their resulting – unexpectedly – high proportion in Late Latin can be explained by at least three factors.<fnref n="1" />

(i) The decline of adjunct present participles in Late Latin is in the first place considered the result of their gradual replacement by gerunds, in particular bare ablative gerunds. These gerunds are argued to gain in frequency due to their development into a semantically more neuter and versatile means for adverbial subordination (Lyer 1932; Aalto 1949: 65-66; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963a: 140-141; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 379-380; Bauer 1993, 2005; Adams 2003: 748, 2013: 725-740; Pinkster 2015: Pinkster 2021: §21.14). However, the previous chapter has shown that the bare ablative adjunct gerund barely loosens its ties with its original manner/instrumental/causal value in

<footnote n="1">¹ Note that while the increasing frequency of adjunct present participles between Classical and Late Latin contrasts with what is expected in view of their competition with adjunct gerunds, it lines up with the observation made by various authors that the adjunct use of the present participle is particularly frequent in Late Latin narrative texts (e.g. Van Acker (2014: 130-131) with respect to passions; Combettes (2018: 404) with regard to Fredegar's *Chronica*). See also the running text below.</footnote>
the Late Latin corpus, and that the segment of bare ablative adjunct gerunds with a semantic value other than manner, instrument, or cause barely increases (see §4.3). A rising frequency has neither been observed for bare ablative adjunct gerunds in general (see §4.3.4), nor even for adjunct forms (see §4.3.1-§4.3.2). Hence, it is not surprising that the adverbial present participle, which the gerund is considered to gradually replace, does not recede in this same Late Latin corpus. However, this does not explain why the proportion of adjunct present participles rises from Classical to Late Latin.

(ii) On closer inspection, this increasing proportion is partly due to the increasing use of adjunct present participles as a narrative strategy, that is to say, as a device serving to express a series of states of affairs succeeding each other on the temporal axis and/or serving as background for the subsequent discourse (Van Acker 2004: 130-131; see also Combettes 2018: 403-408).<fnref n="2" /> The series of adjunct present participles usually ends with a finite verb, which is certainly the syntactic main verb of the sentence, but which does not necessarily carry the highest informational value. The states of affairs designated by the present participles are typically performed by the same subject as that of the finite main verb, and so the present participles are typically in the nominative. For instance, in (13) *quem videns* 'seeing him' and *desiderans eum capere* 'desiring to seize him' express respectively the temporal and the causal background against which should be interpreted the states of affairs denoted by the present participle clause *relinquens omnes* 'leaving everyone' and the finite main clause *cum paucis militibus eum insequitur* 'he followed him with a few soldiers'. At the same time, the state of affairs denoted by the present participle clause *relinquens omnes* 'leaving everyone' expresses additional temporal background information for the state of affairs designated by the finite main clause *cum paucis militibus eum insequitur* 'he followed him with a few soldiers'.

<footnote n="2">² Different factors might contribute to the increasing use of adjunct present participles as a narrative strategy in Late Latin. In any case, a central role is played by Latin translations of Biblical Greek (Haug 2012: 318-320). In Biblical Greek, the narrative use of the participle, including the present participle, is highly frequent. Given that Latin translators of Biblical Greek tend to maintain a present participle wherever such a form is used in the Greek original, the narrative use of these forms is more or less systematically taken over in Latin translations. Additionally, Latin present participles are often used to translate Greek aorist participles, the narrative use of which is also highly frequent (Haug 2012: 318). It is likely that this narrative use of the present participle in Latin translations of Biblical Greek spread to other, authentic Late Latin texts (perhaps first to religious texts, and then to other types of texts, such as historical texts). The growing success of these present participles in Late Latin, triggered by the influence of Biblical Greek, comes at the expense of finite clauses. The crucial advantage of present participle clauses over finite clauses is that they are more economic: they do not require a subordinating conjunction and they can easily share constituents with the main clause (cf. Lehmann 1988). Put differently, they are a highly condensed (or compact) means for adverbial subordination, which makes them particularly convenient in written texts. The Late Latin present participle shares this feature with its counterparts in other languages (e.g. Halmøy 2013: 280-281 with regard to the present participle in Modern French). Since they do not require a subordinating conjunction, adjunct present participle clauses have the further advantage to not have to overtly mark the semantic relation between the state of affairs denoted by them and the main state of affairs.</footnote>
(13) **Quem vide-ns** Placidus et desidera-ns
REL.ACC.M.SG see-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG Placidus.NOM.M.SG and wish-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG
eum capere, relinque-ns omnes, cum paucis
DEM.ACC.M.SG seize.INF.PRS leave-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG all.ACC.M.PL with few.ABL.M.PL
militibus eum insequitur.
soldier.ABL.M.PL DEM.ACC.M.SG follow.PST.3SG

‘When Placidus saw him and because he wanted to seize him, he left everyone and followed him with a few soldiers.’ (Pass. Eustach. 1.3)

Occasionally, however, the subject of (one of the) present participles is not coreferential with that of the main verb. Witness (14), in which the subject of *venientes* ‘coming’ and *proeliantes* ‘fighting’ differs from that of the present participle *cernens* ‘seeing’ and the finite main verb *nititur* ‘he strove’.

(14) Venie-nt-es autem Chlodoveus et Ragnacharius ad come-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL but Chlodoveus.NOM.M.SG and Ragnacharius.NOM.M.SG to pugnam fortiter=que inter se proelia-nt-es, fight.ACC.F.SG bravely=and between REFL.ACC.M.PL fight-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL Ragnacharius caesum cerne-ns exercitum Ragnacharius.NOM.M.SG slay.PTCP.PST.ACC.M.SG see-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG army.ACC.M.SG suum, fugire nititur [...]. his.ACC.M.SG flee.INF.PRS strive.PST.3SG

‘But when Chlodoveus and Ragnacharius engaged in battle and bravely fought against each other, Ragnarius, when he saw that his army was slain, strove to flee.’ (Hist. Franc. 18)

Yet, the present participles in (14) allow a similar analysis as those in (13). On the one hand, the clauses *venientes Chlodoveus et Ragnacharius ad pugnam* ‘Chlodoveus and Ragnacharius engaging in battle’ and *fortiter inter se proeliantes* ‘bravely fighting against each other’ provide the temporal background for the states of affairs denoted by the present participle clause *caesum cernens exercitum suum* ‘seeing that his army is slaughtered’ and the finite main clause *Ragnacharius fugire nititur* ‘Ragnacharius strove to flee’. On the other hand, the state of affairs denoted by the present participle clause *caesum cernens exercitum suum* ‘seeing that his army is slaughtered’ expresses additional temporal background for the state of affairs designated by the finite clause *Ragnacharius fugire nititur* ‘Ragnacharius strove to flee’.

Since it is characterised by a succession of present participle clauses, the narrative use of adjunct present participles increases their absolute frequency, and, hence, their proportion to the total number of present participles. However, since this use is held to be characteristic of narrative texts (Van Acker 2004: 130-131), the frequency of adjunct present participles in Late Latin is expected to be higher in historical and religious texts than in legal texts. This hypothesis will be investigated in §5.2.3.
(iii) The increasing frequency of adjunct present participles from Classical to Late Latin is also partially
due to their increasing use as markers of text structure. In languages without a proper punctuation
system such as Latin, the only way to overtly structure written language is to use syntactic or lexical
devices. Adjunct present participles are often used as a text-structuring device already in Classical
Latin, but in Late Latin, they are increasingly so. Consider the example in (15).

(15) *Tunc dixerunt eis beatissimi apostoli Petrus*
then say.PST.3PL DEM.DAT.M.PL most_fortunate.NOM.M.PL apostle.NOM.M.PL Petrus.NOM.M.SG
*cum Paulo: "[...]". Hoc **audie-nt-es**, omnes*
with Paulus.ABL.M.SG DEM.ACC.N.SG hear-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL all.NOM.M.PL
*qui in custodia erant clamaverant unanimiter*
REL.NOM.M.PL in custody.ABL.F.SG be.PST.3PL shout.PST.3PL unanimously
**dice-nt-es:** "[...]".
say-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL

‘Then the most fortunate apostles Peter and Paul said to them: “(...)”. When they heard this, everyone
who was in custody shouted unanimously, saying: “(...)”.’ (*Pass. Proc.* 1.6.1-2)

The clause *hoc audientes* ‘hearing this’ primarily functions as a so-called ‘frame-setter’ or ‘scene-setter’
(Chafe 1984; Diessel 2005: 459-460), because it sets the temporal frame within which the subsequent
discourse should be interpreted. At the same time, it serves as a text-structuring device by explicitly
marking the end of the direct speech. The link with the previous sentence is obvious: the pronoun *hoc*
‘this’ anaphorically refers to the direct speech, and the present participle *audientes* ‘hearing’ evokes the
act of auditory perception accompanying the declarative act reported by this direct speech. In a similar
way, the clause comprising *dicentes* ‘saying’ primarily functions as what Dik (1997: 311) calls a ‘tail
constituent’: it further clarifies the main state of affairs, in this case by specifying the words shouted. At
the same time, however, it functions as a text-structuring device by explicitly marking the beginning of
a new direct speech, function for which contemporary punctuations systems use a colon and quotation
marks. Especially this second text-structuring use of adjunct present participles, i.e. that of marking the
beginning of a new direct speech, is characteristic of Late Latin. It is particularly frequent in religious
texts, due to the relatively high number of Biblical citations in these texts.

Like their narrative use, the text-structuring use of adjunct present participles increases the overall
absolute frequency of adjunct present participles, and, incidentally, their proportion to the total number
of present participles.<fnref n="3" /> However, the narrative and text-structuring uses of the adjunct present participle

<footnote n="3">³ As mentioned in fn. 1, the increasing frequency of the narrative use of the present participle is strongly influenced by Biblical Greek. As to the text-structuring use of the present participle, it is particularly frequent in religious texts (see (iii)). Hence, the increasing proportion of adjunct present participles observed in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 is expected to be due to a particularly high frequency of these participles in religious texts. This hypothesis will be examined in §5.2.3.</footnote>
alone do not explain the unexpectedly high frequency of adjunct present participles in Late Latin. Some other, more general factors that might play a role will be discussed at the end of this chapter (§5.8).

The result in Table 5.1 also shows that, in the Late Latin corpus, the dominant use of the present participle is the same as that of the gerund. Indeed, the two forms predominantly occur in adjuncts, the present participle even more often (73%) than the gerund (61%; see §4.3.1). This result contrasts with what is expected in the light of the intensifying competition between the two forms.

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

During the Late Latin period, the (normalised) absolute frequency of adjunct present participles rises, against predictions. However, this increase is again to be interpreted within the context of an increasing frequency of present participles in general (Table 5.3). The proportion of adjunct present participles to the total number of present participles, on the contrary, shows a declining trend, as expected.

<table><caption>**Table 5.3.** Frequency of adjunct present participles in Imperial, Merovingian, and Early Medieval Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#adjunct present participles<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#present participles<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#adjunct present participles/<br>#present participle</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Imperial Latin</td><td>313 (104.32)</td><td>406 (135.32)</td><td>77,09%</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian Latin</td><td>2 855 (152.30)</td><td>3 741 (199.57)</td><td>76,32%</td></tr><tr><td>Early Medieval Latin</td><td>2 747 (160.66)</td><td>3 840 (224.58)</td><td>71,54%</td></tr></tbody></table>

A chi-square goodness-of-fit test shows that the proportion of adjunct present participles is higher than expected in Imperial and Merovingian Latin and lower than expected in the Early Medieval Latin period in a statistically significant way ($\chi^2 = 6.38; df = 2; p = 0.0412$) (Table 4.4). However, none of the three periods makes a significant contribution to the obtained chi-square values on its own.

<table><caption>**Table 5.4.** Observed vs expected proportion of adjunct present participles to the total number of present participles in Imperial, Merovingian, and Early Medieval Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Imperial Latin</td><td>313 (77,09%)</td><td>301 (74,14%)</td><td>+0.71</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian Latin</td><td>2 855 (76,32%)</td><td>2 771 (74,07%)</td><td>+1.61</td></tr><tr><td>Early Medieval Latin</td><td>2 747 (71,54%)</td><td>2 844 (74,06%)</td><td>-1.82</td></tr></tbody></table>

Hence, the declining proportion in Table 5.3 is probably random, even between Merovingian and Early Medieval Latin. Thus, against predictions, the data of this study do not display a disassociation of the
present participle from its adverbial external syntax, neither from Classical to Late Latin, nor within the period of Late Latin.

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

In the Late Latin corpus, the frequency of adjunct present participles is much higher in the historical and religious texts than in the legal texts, both in (normalised) absolute terms and in proportion to the total number of present participles (Table 5.5).

<table><caption>**Table 5.5.** Frequency of adjunct present participles in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>#adjunct present participles (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#present participles (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#adjunct present participles/ #present participles</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>1 493 (191.11)</td><td>1 849 (236.68)</td><td>80,75%</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>4 461 (180.05)</td><td>5 753 (232.20)</td><td>77,54%</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>458 (45.79)</td><td>1 183 (118.28)</td><td>38,72%</td></tr></tbody></table>

According to a chi-square goodness-of-fit test, the low proportion of adjunct present participles in the legal texts in comparison with the historical and religious texts is not random. Indeed, this proportion is lower than expected in the legal texts and higher than expected in the historical and religious texts in a statistically highly significant way ($\chi^2 = 221.98; df = 2; p < 0.0001$) (Table 5.6).

<table><caption>**Table 5.6.** Observed vs expected proportion of adjunct present participles to the total number of present participles in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>1 493 (80,75%)</td><td>1 350 (73,01%)</td><td>+3.9</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>4 461 (77,54%)</td><td>4 199 (72,99%)</td><td>+4.04</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>458 (38,72%)</td><td>863 (72,95%)</td><td>-13.8</td></tr></tbody></table>

As we will see in §5.3.1.3, the low proportion of adjunct present participles in the legal texts is mirrored by a high proportion of adnominal forms in these texts. The high proportion of adjunct present participles in the historical and religious texts confirms the hypothesis – mentioned in §5.2.1 – that the narrative and perhaps also text-structuring use of these forms is characteristic of historical and religious texts. As noted in §5.2.1, these uses lead to an increasing absolute frequency of adjunct present participles, and, hence, to an increase of their proportion to the total number of present participles.

The frequency of adjunct present participles in the historical, religious, and legal texts will now be refined by the study of their (attested) productivity in these texts. I measured the productivity of these
forms in terms of the lexical variation between the present participles and the main verbs according to the same two formulae as those used to measure the productivity of the various types of gerunds: the type-token ratio and the hapax-token ratio (see also §3.6.3.2). As shown in Table 5.7, the adjunct present participle is less productive in the legal texts than in the historical and religious texts.

<table><caption>**Table 5.7.** Productivity of the adjunct present participle in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>#tokens</th><td>1 493</td><td>4 461</td><td>458</td></tr><tr><th>#types</th><td>1 355</td><td>3 924</td><td>318</td></tr><tr><th>#hapaxes</th><td>1 265</td><td>3 664</td><td>263</td></tr><tr><th>#types/#tokens</th><td><strong>0.91</strong></td><td><strong>0.88</strong></td><td><strong>0.69</strong></td></tr><tr><th>#hapaxes/#tokens</th><td><strong>0.85</strong></td><td><strong>0.82</strong></td><td><strong>0.57</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Thus, the adjunct present participle is more schematic in historical and religious texts than in legal texts (cf. Barðdal 2008: 22). The same conclusion was drawn for the adjunct gerund (see §4.3.3).

Another parallel with the adjunct gerund is the fact that the low productivity of the adjunct present participle in the legal texts is not only due to the low number of types and hapaxes in these texts, but also to the relatively high frequency of specific lexical combinations. In order to demonstrate this, let us consider Table 5.8, showing the inventory and cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexical combinations of a main verb and an adjunct present participle in the three thematic domains.

<table><caption>**Table 5.8.** Inventory and cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexical combinations of a main verb and an adjunct present participle in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Lexeme of main verb</th><th>Lexeme of present participle</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Historical</td><td>aio 'to say'</td><td>dicere 'to say'</td><td>8 (0,54%)</td></tr><tr><td>videre 'to see'</td><td>respicere 'to gaze at'</td><td>6 (0,40%)</td></tr><tr><td>deprecari 'to beg'</td><td>flectere 'to bend'</td><td>5 (0,33%)</td></tr><tr><td>dicere 'to say'</td><td>venire 'to come'</td><td>4 (0,27%)</td></tr><tr><td>dare 'to give'</td><td>dicere 'to say'</td><td>4 (0,27%)<sup>4</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"></td><td><strong>27 (1,81%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Religious</td><td>clamare 'to shout'</td><td>dicere 'to say'</td><td>36 (0,81%)</td></tr><tr><td>apparere 'to appear'</td><td>dicere 'to say'</td><td>15 (0,34%)</td></tr><tr><td>exclamare 'to exclaim'</td><td>dicere 'to say'</td><td>13 (0,29%)</td></tr><tr><td>dicere 'to say'</td><td>respondere 'to answer'</td><td>13 (0,29%)</td></tr><tr><td>respondere 'to answer'</td><td>dicere 'to say'</td><td>12 (0,27%)<sup>5</sup></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td><strong>89 (2,00%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="4">⁴ There are six other lexical combinations with a token frequency of four in the historical texts.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ The religious contain two more lexical combinations occurring twelve times.</footnote>
<table><tr><td rowspan="5">Legal</td><td>interpellare 'to prosecute'</td><td>venire 'to come'</td><td>19 (4,15%)</td></tr><tr><td>suggerere 'to suggest'</td><td>venire 'to come'</td><td>16 (3,49%)</td></tr><tr><td>derelinquere 'to leave'</td><td>mori 'to die'</td><td>11 (2,40%)</td></tr><tr><td>inferre 'to bring'</td><td>cogere 'to force'</td><td>10 (2,18%)</td></tr><tr><td>consentire 'to consent'</td><td>subscribere 'to subscribe'</td><td>9 (1,97%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"></td><td><b>65 (14,19%)</b></td></tr></table>

An important difference can be observed between the legal texts and the historical and religious texts: the five most frequent lexical combinations account for 14% of all combinations in the legal texts against only 2% in both the historical and the legal texts. Moreover, the most frequent combination represents 4% of all combinations in the legal texts versus less than 1% in the historical and religious texts. The most frequent combination in the legal texts is *interpellare* 'to prosecute'/*venire* 'to come' (16).

(16) [...] *ibi=que venie-ns ille illo interpellavit [...]*.
there=and come-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG DEM.NOM.M.SG DEM.ABL[ACC].M.SG prosecute.PST.3SG
'And when he came there, he prosecuted him.' (*Form. Marc.* 1.25)

Table 5.8 also shows that four of the five most frequent combinations in the religious texts contain two declarative verbs, in which case the present participle is typically used as a marker of text structure. The most frequent of these combinations in the religious texts is *clamare* 'to shout'/*dicere* 'to say' (15). The most frequent combination in the historical texts, namely *aio* 'to say'/*dicere* 'to say' also typically hosts a text-structuring present participle, as in (17).

(17) Ille haec audiens ad Gundebergam secrecius
DEM.NOM.M.SG DEM.ACC.N.PL hear.PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG to Gundeberga.NOM.M.SG secretly
ait dice-ns [...].
say.PST.3SG say-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG

'Hearing this, he secretly spoke to Gundeberga, saying: "(...)".' (Fredeg. *chron.* 4.51)

Contrary to what has been observed in the case of the adjunct gerund (see §4.3.3), the low productivity of the adjunct present participle in the legal texts does not appear from the lexical variation of the present participles separately. This variation is even higher in the legal texts than in both the historical and the religious texts, even though the differences are too small to draw firm conclusions (Table 5.9).
<table><caption>**Table 5.9.** Lexical variation of the adjunct present participles in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>#tokens</th><td>1 493</td><td>4 461</td><td>458</td></tr><tr><th>#types</th><td>469</td><td>1 017</td><td>151</td></tr><tr><th>#hapaxes</th><td>237</td><td>443</td><td>90</td></tr><tr><th>#types/#tokens</th><td><strong>0.31</strong></td><td><strong>0.23</strong></td><td><strong>0.33</strong></td></tr><tr><th>#hapaxes/#tokens</th><td><strong>0.16</strong></td><td><strong>0.10</strong></td><td><strong>0.20</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Proportionally speaking, however, the legal texts contain more lexemes with a high frequency than the historical and religious texts. On the one hand, the five most frequent lexemes account for 32% of all lexemes in the legal texts vs 21% in the historical texts and 17% in the religious texts. On the other hand, the most frequent lexeme alone represents 17% of all lexemes in the legal texts, while it accounts for only 8% and 9% in respectively the historical and religious texts (Table 5.10).

<table><caption>**Table 5.10.** Inventory and cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexemes used for adjunct present participles in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Lexeme of present participle</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Historical</td><td>dicere 'to say'</td><td>114 (7,64%)</td></tr><tr><td>venire 'to come'</td><td>83 (5,56%)</td></tr><tr><td>audire 'to hear'</td><td>46 (3,08%)</td></tr><tr><td>cernere 'to see'</td><td>43 (2,88%)</td></tr><tr><td>videre 'to see'</td><td>32 (2,14%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>318 (21,30%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Religious</td><td>dicere 'to say'</td><td>418 (9,37%)</td></tr><tr><td>audire 'to hear'</td><td>117 (2,62%)</td></tr><tr><td>venire 'to come'</td><td>92 (2,06%)</td></tr><tr><td>videre 'to see'</td><td>89 (2,00%)</td></tr><tr><td>agere 'to act'</td><td>49 (1,10%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>765 (17,15%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Legal</td><td>venire 'to come'</td><td>78 (17,03%)</td></tr><tr><td>praeesse 'to be present'</td><td>23 (5,02%)</td></tr><tr><td>mori 'to die'</td><td>16 (3,49%)</td></tr><tr><td>cogere 'to force'</td><td>15 (3,28%)</td></tr><tr><td>facere 'to do'</td><td>14 (3,06%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>146 (31,88%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

As to the lexical variation of the main verbs, it is also higher in the legal texts than in the historical and religious texts (Table 5.11), unlike what has been observed in the case of the adjunct gerund (see §4.3.3).
<table><caption>**Table 5.11.** Lexical variation of the verbs combined with an adjunct present participle in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>#tokens</th><td>1 493</td><td>4 461</td><td>458</td></tr><tr><th>#types</th><td>510</td><td>1 151</td><td>193</td></tr><tr><th>#hapaxes</th><td>243</td><td>535</td><td>107</td></tr><tr><th>#types/#tokens</th><td><strong>0.34</strong></td><td><strong>0.26</strong></td><td><strong>0.42</strong></td></tr><tr><th>#hapaxes/#tokens</th><td><strong>0.16</strong></td><td><strong>0.12</strong></td><td><strong>0.23</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

The legal texts comprise again more lexemes with a relatively high frequency than the historical and religious texts, although the difference is less pronounced than for in the case of the lexical variation of the present participles (Table 5.12).

<table><caption>**Table 5.12.** Inventory and cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexemes used for verbs combined with an adjunct present participle in the historical, religious, and legal texts in Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Lexeme of main verb</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Historical</td><td><i>dirigere</i> 'to direct'</td><td>32 (2,14%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>dicere</i> 'to say'</td><td>31 (2,08%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>aio</i> 'to say'</td><td>30 (2,01%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>interficere</i> 'to kill'</td><td>28 (1,88%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>venire</i> 'to come'</td><td>27 (1,81%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>148 (9,91%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Religious</td><td><i>dicere</i> 'to say'</td><td>144 (3,23%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>aio</i> 'to say'</td><td>78 (1,75%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>pervenire</i> 'to arrive'</td><td>74 (1,66%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>pergere</i> 'to go on'</td><td>70 (1,57%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>iubere</i> 'to order'</td><td>63 (1,41%)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>429 (9,62%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Legal</td><td><i>interpellare</i> 'to prosecute'</td><td>21 (4,59%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>suggerere</i> 'to suggest'</td><td>19 (4,15%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>derelinquere</i> 'to leave'</td><td>12 (2,62%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>inferre</i> 'to bring'</td><td>12 (2,62%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>componere</i> 'to collect'</td><td>11 (2,40%)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>75 (16,38%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

### 5.2.4. Case marking of the present participle

The final aspect of the Late Latin adjunct present participles to be examined is their case marking, and, related to this issue, the reference of their subject. All case forms have been attested, except the vocative.
In the nominative, the subject of the present participle is most often coreferential with the subject of the main verb – the present participle is thus predominantly a conjunct form (e.g. *agens* ‘doing’ and *dicens* ‘saying’ (18)).

(18) *At ille gratias Deo age-ns,*
but DEM.NOM.M.SG gratitude.ACC.F.PL God.DAT.M.SG do-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG
*comitem arcessiri iubet, dice-ns* [...].
companion.ACC.M.SG summon.INF.PRS.PASS order.PST.3SG say-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG
‘But he, after he thanked God, ordered that its companion be summoned with the words: “(...)”.’ (Greg.
Tur. *Franc.* 6.8)

However, the subject of nominative present participles does not need to be coreferential with the subject of the main clause. Witness (19), in which the subject of *benedicens* ‘blessing’ corresponds to a priest mentioned in the preceding discourse, whereas the subject of the main verb, *viz. facta est* ‘it was made’, corresponds to the noun *oratio* ‘prayer’. The resulting present participle is thus absolute.

(19) [...] *et denuo benedice-ns nos facta est*
and again bless-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG we.ACC.M.PL make.PTCP.PST.NOM.F.SG be.PRS.3SG
*oratio*.
prayer.NOM.F.SG
‘And after he blessed us again, a prayer was said.’ (*Peregr. Aeth.* 19.16)

In the accusative, the subject of the present participle is typically coreferential with the direct object of the main verb (e.g. (20)).

(20) *Multis honoribus tum eam eu-nt-em hac*
many.ABL.M.PL honour.ABL.M.PL then DEM.ACC.F.SG go-PTCP.PRS-ACC.F.SG and
*redeu-nt-em universi honoraverunt.*
return-PTCP.PRS-ACC.F.SG all.NOM.M.PL honour.PST.3PL
‘Then, everyone honoured her with many honours as she left and returned.’ (*Vit. Genov.* 47)

However, if it is embedded in an accusative and infinitive construction, the subject of accusative present participles tends to be coreferential with the subject of the infinitive main verb. For instance, in (21) the subject of *stimulantem* ‘frenzying’ corresponds to the NP *quendam aequum* ‘some horse’, which is the accusative subject of the infinitive *currere* ‘to run’.

(21) [...] *vident eminus quondam aequum vehementer*
see.PRS.3PL from_afar INDF.ACC.M.SG horse.ACC.M.SG vehemently
*stimula-nt-em currere* [...].
urge_forward-PTCP.PRS-ACC.M.SG run.INF.PRS
‘From afar they see some horse running in a heavy frenzy.’ (*Vit. Desid.* 18)
Like those in (20-21), most accusative present participles are conjunct forms. Nevertheless, the corpus
also contains a number of absolute accusative forms. *Advenientem* ‘approaching’ (22) is a case in point:
its subject corresponds to the NP *sanctum Abraam* ‘saint Abraham’, while the subject of the main verb
*optulit* ‘he offered’ is the NP *sanctus Melchisedech* ‘saint Melchisedech’.

(22) [...] *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)

The subject of genitive present participles is mostly coreferential with a non-argumental constituent of
the main clause. Consider (23), in which the subject of *redeuntis* ‘returning’ is the NP *eiusdem sacerdotis*
‘of this same priest’, which serves as the adnominal argument of the noun *genibus* ‘knees’.

(23) [...] *presbyterum* *quondam* *inibi* *sacrosancta* *tractantem*
priest.ACC.M.SG INDF.ACC.M.SG there sacred.ACC.N.PL perform.PTCP.PRS.ACC.M.SG
*mysteria* *conspexit*, *et* *consummationem* *sacrae* *actionis*
rite.ACC.N.PL see.PST.3SG and completion.ACC.F.SG sacred.GEN.F.SG act.GEN.F.SG
*opperiens*, *eiusdem* *sacerdotis* *ab* *officio*
wait_for-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG same.GEN.M.SG priest.GEN.M.SG from service.ABL.N.SG
***redeu-nt-is*** *genibus* *advolvitur* [...].
return-PTCP.PRS-GEN.M.SG knee.DAT.M.PL fall.PST.3SG
‘He saw there some priest performing sacred rites and, after he waited for the completion of the
sacred act, he fell to the knees of this same priest as he returned from service.’ (*Vit. Gall. Wal.*
2.41)

As to dative present participles, their subject is usually coreferential with the indirect object of the main verb. This is the case, for instance, for *vocanti* ‘asking’, whose subject corresponds to the indirect object noun *episcopo* ‘bishop’ (24).

(24) ***Qui*** [...] *altare* *constituit* et *noluit* ***voca-nt-i***
REL.NOM.M.SG altar.ACC.N.SG build.PST.3SG and not_want.PST.3SG ask-PTCP.PRS-DAT.M.SG
*episcopo* *consentire* [...].
bishop.DAT.M.SG consent.INF.PRS

‘He built an altar and did not want to consent to the bishop when he asked (for this).’ (*Epist. Merov.* 6)

Finally, the subject of ablative present participles is predominantly not coreferential with any constituent
of the main clause. Thus, the participles are mostly absolute, like *orante* ‘praying’ and *appropinquante*
‘approaching’ (25)).
(25) *Ipsa denique in obscuro carceris ora-nt-e*
INTENS.NOM.F.SG and then in darkness.ABL.N.SG prison.GEN.M.SG pray-PTCP.PRS-ABL.F.SG
*iam=que aurora diei appropinqua-nt-e ecce*
already=and dawn.ABL.F.SG day.GEN.M.SG approach-PTCP.PRS-ABL.F.SG behold
*angelus domini [...] apparuit [...].*
angel.NOM.M.SG Lord.GEN.M.SG appear.PST.3SG

‘And then, as she was praying in the darkness of the prison and as daybreak was already approaching, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared.’ (Pass. Bened. 1.15.1)

On occasion, however, the subject of ablative forms is coreferential with a constituent of the main clause. Witness (26), in which the subject of *dicente* ‘saying’ is coreferential with the subject of the main verb *audivit* ‘he heard’. Notice that this pro-dropped subject is cataphorically anticipated within the present participle clause by the pronoun *eo* ‘him’.

(26) *Et haec dice-nt-e eo audivit vocem*
and DEM.ACC.N.PL say-PTCP.PRS-ABL.M.SG DEM.ABL.M.SG hear.PST.3SG voice.ACC.F.SG
*de celo [...].*
from heaven.ABL.N.SG

‘And when he was saying this, he heard a voice from heaven.’ (Pass. Eustach. 2.13)

A more comprehensive investigation of the relation between the case marking of the adjunct present participles and the referentiality of their subject would be interesting, but falls outside the scope of this study. What is more interesting for the purpose of this thesis is the frequency of the different case forms of the participles in issue. Figure 5.1 shows that the dominant case form is the nominative.

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.1.** Case marking of the adjunct present participles in Late Latin</figcaption></figure>

Since the subject of nominative present participles is typically coreferential with the subject of the main verb, the dominance of this type of adjunct present participles indirectly confirms the hypothesis stated
above that the high proportion of adjunct present participles in Late Latin is partly due to their frequent
use as a narrative strategy. Indeed, as noted in §5.2.1, this use of the present participle is characterised
by a succession of present participles denoting a series of state of affairs typically performed by one and
the same referent, that of the subject of the finite main verb (Van Acker 2004: 130-131). The succession
of such participles does not only increase the number of nominative adjunct present participles, but also
that of adjunct present participles in general.

**5.2.5. Conclusion**

Against predications, the frequency of adjunct present participles rises between Classical and Late Latin, both in (normalised) absolute terms and in proportion to the total number of present participles. Their absolute frequency also rises during the Late Latin period, while their proportion to the total number of present participles declines in this period. Though in accordance with what is expected in the light of the intensifying competition between the present participle and the gerund in Late Latin, this declining proportion is statistically insignificant, and hence probably random. Adjunct present participles are less frequent and less productive in legal texts than in historical and religious texts.

The finding that adjunct present participles are the dominant type of present participles in Late Latin (73%) and that their proportion to the total number of present participles barely decreases during this period, after having considerably risen between Classical and Late Latin (i.e. from 57% to 73%), is all the more significant in view of the broad definition of the present participle adopted in this study. In a stricter definition, some adjectival present participles would hold as adjectives and hence be excluded from the dataset. As a corollary, the proportion of adverbial present participles would be higher. In this way, the predicted disassociation of the present participle from its adverbial external syntax in Late Latin would be disproven in an even more pronounced way.

The observation that the adverbial present participle represents 73% of all present participles in Late Latin in general and still 72% in the latest period (i.e. Early Medieval Latin), whereas the Romance present participle can no longer be used in adjuncts (Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 140-141; Bauer 1993, 2005), brings up the same conclusion as that drawn with respect to the nominal and the adverbial gerund, namely that there is a large gap between the use of the present participle in Late Latin, at least in the written records that have come down to us, and in Romance.

**5.3. The adjectival present participle**

After having investigated the evolution of the adverbial present participle, I will explore in this section
the evolution of the adjectival present participle. This form can be used in three types of constituents:
adnominal phrases, subject predicates, and object predicates. According to the standard hypothesis of the competition between the present participle and the gerund, the present participle specialises in Late Latin in adjectival syntactic configurations as the – indirect – result of its replacement by the gerund in adverbial external syntax (cf. Marouzeau 1910: 79, 83-84; Elcock 1960: 111; Väänänen 1963³: 140-141; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 384; Harris 1978: 200; Bauer 1993, 2005). Therefore, the proportion of adjectival present participles to the total number of present participles is expected to increase both between Classical and Late Latin and during the Late Latin period, at the cost of adverbial present participles, whereas their absolute frequency is not necessarily expected to rise – or decline. In order to verify this hypothesis, I will first explore the evolution of adnominal (§5.3.1), subject predicate (§5.3.2), and object predicate (§5.3.3) present participles separately. The results obtained for these forms will then be collated, so as to evaluate the evolution of the adjectival present participle as a whole (§5.4).

### 5.3.1. Adnominal present participles

A first type of present participles occurring in adjectival syntactic configurations are adnominal present participles. Examples are *ineunte* ‘entering’ (27) and *egrotans* ‘being ill’ (28), respectively a restrictive and an appositive present participle.

(27) [...] si nosti ab **ineu-nt-e** etate [...].

if know.PST.2SG from enter-PTCP.PRS-ABL.F.SG age.ABL.F.SG
‘If you knew from a young age (...).’ (Vit. Amat. 11)

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

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

This section aims to investigate the frequency of adnominal present participles from Classical Latin to Late Latin (§5.3.1.1) and within the period of Late Latin (§5.3.1.2). Their frequency in Late Latin will be further evaluated in the light of their frequency and productivity in the historical, religious, and legal texts (§5.3.1.3). The final aspect of these forms that will be examined is their case marking (§5.3.1.4).
### 5.3.1.1. Frequency from Classical to Late Latin

In (normalised) absolute terms, the frequency of adnominal present participles sharply increases from Classical to Late Latin, namely from 11 to 39 occurrences per 10 000 words (Table 5.13). However, the frequency of the present participle in general rises much more sharply, i.e. from 29 to 206 instances per 10 000 words. Therefore, the proportion of adnominal present participles to the total number of present participles decreases, against predications. This decline is considerable, viz. from 39% to 19%.

<table><caption>**Table 5.13.** Frequency of adnominal present participles in Classical and Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Period</th><th colspan="2">#adnominal present participles<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th colspan="2">#present participles<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th rowspan="2">#adnominal present participles/<br>#present participles</th></tr><tr></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classical Latin</td><td>690</td><td>(11.04)</td><td>1 786</td><td>(28.57)</td><td>38,63%</td></tr><tr><td>Late Latin</td><td>1 673</td><td>(39.28)</td><td>8 785</td><td>(206.27)</td><td>19,04%</td></tr></tbody></table>

A chi-square goodness-of-fit test shows that the fraction of adnominal present participles is higher than expected in Classical Latin and lower than expected in Late Latin in a statistically highly significant way ($\chi^2 = 253.94; df = 1; p < 0.0001$) (Table 5.14). Hence, the declining trend might not be random.

<table><caption>**Table 5.14.** Observed vs expected proportion of adnominal present participles to the total number of present participles in Classical and Late Latin</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classical Latin</td><td>690 (38,63%)</td><td>399 (22,34%)</td><td>+14.55</td></tr><tr><td>Late Latin</td><td>1 673 (19,04%)</td><td>1 964 (22,36%)</td><td>-6.56</td></tr></tbody></table>

While being opposite to what is expected in view of the standard hypothesis of the competition between the present participle and the gerund, this result is expected in the light of the rising share of adverbial present participles (see §5.2.1). Indeed, since the corpus of this study does not provide evidence in favour of the gradual replacement of the present participle by the gerund in adverbial external syntax, and thus of the disassociation of the present participle from this syntax, it is not unsurprising that this same corpus does not show a specialisation of the present participle in adnominal phrases. After all, this specialisation is primarily considered the – indirect – result of a decreasing proportion of adverbial present participles. Hence, it does not obtain when the segment of adverbial present participle gains instead of drops.

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

Within the period of Late Latin, the (normalised) absolute frequency of adnominal present participles rises, along with the frequency of the present participle in general (Table 5.15). The proportion of these