On plurality in verbs prefixed by com-

MARE, MARÍA

Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

Congreso; 20th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics; 2019

Comitative adpositions present different problems regarding argument structure, semantic interpretation, and agreement facts (Stolz et al. 2006). This presentation aims to analyze Latin verbs prefixed by comitative com- from a neo-constructionist perspective in the Distributed Morphology framework (Halle&Marantz 1993) in order to explain the connection between the prefix and the plurality requirements for arguments. The data we focus on are constructions in which the prefix com- affects the argument selection of the verb, differentiating it from its base form.(1) a.si peperit, cum viro con=cubuit [Cic. Inv. 1.44]if give-birth.PRF.IND.3SG with man.ABL.SG with=lie.PRF.IND.3SG?if a woman gave birth, she had a sexual intercourse with a man?b. iste etiam cubaret [Cic. Ver. 3.56] DEM.NOM.SG still lie-in-bed.IPFV.SUBJ.3SG?as he was still in bed?Changes in argument structure derived from prefixation are frequent in Latin, but com- prefixation in the cases analyzed here imposes plurality requirements that must be satisfied in some way. A verb like concubo ?lie with? (1a), for instance, does not obligatorily need the presence of a comitative phrase, but of any construction that satisfies plurality. In fact, the reference introduced by the comitative can be materialized as a coordinated DP (2a) or it can be part of a plural DP (2b). The comitative phrase is required in the case of verbs like concubo ?lie with? or coeo ?to meet/combine?, only when the subject is singular, otherwise, it is not present in the structure (examples from Revuelta Puigdollers 2015: 159).(2) a. virtus et summa potestas non co=eunt [Luc 8 494-495]virtue.NOM.SG and highest force.NOM.SG no with=go.PRS.3PL?virtue and rule do not combine well together?b. reliqui (milites) co=eunt inter se [Caes. Civ. 1. 75]rest.NOM.PL(soldier.NOM.PL) with=go.PRS.3PL into CL?the rest formed into a body?As follows from the data, there are two strategies for the DP arguments to satisfy the requirement of plurality: plural/coordinated DPs or a singular DP plus a comitative phrase. This phenomenon gives rise to an important question for neo-constructionist approaches: if the prefix is responsible for the argument alternation, how can we explain the two different ways (see (1a) and (2)) in which the new argument can be introduced? Some current discussions could shed light on this puzzle. Wood&Marantz (2017) propose that all argument introducing heads ? Voice, p, Appl? can be reduced to the label i(ntroducer)*. With this proposal in mind, and following Acedo Matellán?s (2016) approach to word formation, we claim that prefixed com- is a root (√COM) that merges in different places in the structure, where it adds the nuance of ?company?/?simultaneity? to the base verb. The head i* should be merged to introduce the internal and the external arguments as well as the new argument related to them (the ?companion?), depending on the verb (collacrimo ?cry wih sbdy for sthg? or compono ?put sthg with?). Nevertheless, we propose that i* second merge is not free, but depends on the properties of the first DP introduced, i.e., if it is plural or not. The comitative phrase would be related to this second i*.