GLOSAS EMILIANENSES PDF

He tenido en cuenta esta necesidad en varias ocasiones, así también con respecto a las Glosas Emilianenses (Hamburg, , versión española Sevilla, ). The Glosas Emilianenses are several different kinds of glosses added to selected parts of a 10th-century manuscript from the region of La Rioja in Northern. Record Number: of Title: Glosas Emilianenses. Description: The website for the ‘Glosas Emilianenses’ offers a wide selection of scholarly works.

Author: Dulabar Tok
Country: Denmark
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Art
Published (Last): 24 July 2014
Pages: 444
PDF File Size: 3.34 Mb
ePub File Size: 8.9 Mb
ISBN: 662-2-32720-998-1
Downloads: 74811
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Grosar

Actes du IXe colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif, Lyon septembre In the present paper, I discuss two aspects of the Glosas Emilianenses that emilianemses consequences emilkanenses the ongoing discussion of the overall purpose of the glosses.

One aspect is connected to the type of information the glosses provide. These glosses have been glosxs to convey syntactic or grammatical information on the language in the base text. I show that there are great many examples that do not fall into such a category; rather, some glosses appear to be stylistic changes to the text.

My claim is that a didactic setting does not encourage this type of changes. The other aspect is gloss to the relative complexity of the glosses; I show that certain glosses are dependent on the indicated changes in the word order before they make sense. I argue that this complexity entails that the glosses could not have been meant for use in real time, for instance while reading aloud.

Finally, I argue that both of these findings strongly suggest that the existing hypotheses regarding the purpose of the Glosas Emilianenses are unsatisfactory.

Glosas Emilianenses

Combining the stylistic element with the relative complexity, I suggest instead that these glosses may have been intended as emendation marks for a scribe.

The Glosas Emilianenses are several different kinds of glosses added to selected parts of a 10th-century manuscript from the region of La Rioja in Northern Spain. The manuscript consists of a variety of different religious texts, and most of the glossed texts are sermons. Some of these glosses are seen as very early instances of written Ibero-Romance; however, there are also numerous non-lexical glosses in the manuscript. There are three main types of glosses in the manuscript: The most common changes are moving the verb to initial position on sentence level VSO is obtained in practically all the main declarative emilianensessand moving the determinative before its noun on phrase level.

The regularity of these changes and their synchronicity with later developments in the language unambiguously indicate that they are connected to diachronic developments in the word order. The grammatical glosses are more heterogeneous. They mainly consist of the Latin relative or interrogative pronoun qui in some of its forms and in combination with prepositions emiliannses a subtype of the lexical glosses the supplementary glosses, see below.

There is one single form for the nominative qui and one for the accusative ke.

As a rule, yet there are many exceptions, these forms gloss the subjects and direct objects in the base text respectively. The genitive forms show number and gender cuius, corum, quarum and gloss genitives in the base text. The dative forms show number cui, quibus and gloss indirect objects. The ablative forms in the base text are glossed in the same way as prepositional phrases; by way of a preposition in combination with ke.

In addition to glossing nouns in the base text with which they agree, these glosses may also appear followed by a noun, a lexical gloss, thus introducing a subject or another argument into the sentence. In other words, qui may gloss a nominative noun glosws present in the base text, or, together with a nominative noun, gloss a verb in the base text which lacks an explicit subject.

Another subtype of grammatical glosses consists of the personal pronouns ego, tu, nos and uos, which gloss verbs. The lexical glosses may be divided into two main subtypes; synonymous and supplementary. The first type, as the name reveals, consists of synonyms to a word in the base text. They are often, but not always, placed in the margin and are connected to the base text word by means of a symbol, often a neume.

  AUTOMATOR ADD WATERMARK PDF

Frequently these glosses display Romance features as concerns spelling, morphology and vocabulary.

On folio 67r, for instance, the gloss aflarat, a periphrastic future, is attached to jnueniebit. The supplementary glosses, i.

HISTORY OF BASQUE THE GLOSAS EMILIANENSES (GLOSSES OF ST. EMILIANUS)

As nouns, they often appear introduced by a grammatical gloss e. They are most often placed in between the lines of the base text, and are clearly attempts at writing correct Latin, displaying for instance synthetic forms. Scholars do not agree as to the purpose of these glosses.

At first glance they look very similar to glosses used for educational reasons, and one of the most important. Other scholars, however, believe that the vernacular variety and the variety used in the written texts substantially belong to the same language variety, and find the above hypothesis unconvincing. This way of interpreting the language community, together with the fact that the texts are mostly sermons, have led to an alternative hypothesis, namely that they were guidelines or tools meant to facilitate reading the texts aloud, 5.

Wright8 argues that the two ways of writing used among the lexical glosses portray different scripta, rather than different language varieties. Both hypotheses fail to account for all aspects of the glossed texts.

As concerns the sequential glosses, the syntax in these sermons is quite transparent; the glossed sentences consist very often of two or three phrases, with very little subordination and almost no hyperbaton.

If the purpose of the sequential glosses were to facilitate understanding or translating, it would make more sense to use them in the cases when the base text represented some particular difficulty as to the word order. It is difficult to imagine that the syntax in these texts would cause problems for the average student. I suggested a third hypothesis in Hagemannwhich to a greater degree accounts for the contradicting aspects of the Glosas Emilianenses.

This hypothesis argues that the totality of glosses may be indications meant for a scribe on how to copy the texts anew. In other words, the glosses were emendation marks intended to modify the language of the base text.

The syntactic and grammatical annotations may have been intended to edit or emend the text, adapting it to the usage of the time and region. Within this perspective, all of the glosses, from the sequential glosses consisting of letters to the marginal glosses written in untraditional spelling, are explained as indications on how to copy the texts anew.

I show that the grammatical glosses fail to convince as a method for learning Latin, and that their purpose seem to be more connected to style than grammar. I finally claim that the emendation hypothesis is capable of explaining all of the glosses to a more satisfying degree than the hypotheses so far proposed. There are features among the grammatical glosses that indicate their not having to do with learning Latin.

In many instances, the apparent reason for glossing is stylistic.

This tendency to stylistically improve the text manifests itself in various ways; two of them are treated in the following. First, the grammatical glosses sometimes gloss the sentences in a syntactically erroneous manner by classical standards.

Stylistic preferences which overrule syntactic considerations are a clear indication that grammar is not the main concern. Second, there are some changes or additions to the base text that are superfluous from a grammatical or didactic point of view. Such glossing only makes sense if the purpose were to improve stylistically the text, not if the purpose were to teach Latin.

In the following example, the original subject has been glossed as the object:. It is not, however, likely that it was originally intended as an object, given its passive morphology. The two following cases of multiplicabitur show similar behaviour.

In 2 and 3 agreement is lacking between verb and subject in the base text, and the subjects are emiliannenses ke, as if they were objects. The golsas pactus is emi,ianenses to originally have been glossed with b because of the wmilianenses of.

If the glossator were a teacher, this would be where he would stress the need for agreement to his students. What would perhaps have been confusing to the students was the fact that the transitive verb multiplicare in the passive allowed for a direct object. This supposed Latin teacher had no problem overlooking that the verb was in the passive, and that canonical passives cannot allow direct objects, emilianfnses he insisted on agreement between subject and verb.

  AMPLIFICATEUR OPRATIONNEL UA741 PDF

Is it merely a coincidence that this type of passive did not survive in Romance, while verb-subject agreement did? Students trying to learn Latin synthetic passives would be gravely deceived by their master in these cases, how were they to learn that these forms emiliabenses passive?

A possible explanation for disregarding the passive form may be found in the increase of deponent verbs17 in Late Latin, perhaps resulting in the redundancy of the passive ending even with real passives. Another interesting observation about 3 is that in Classical Latin, the noun signa. Compare with example The original structure of this sentence is plural subject, multa signa, plural intransitive verb, apparebunt, and circumstantial complement, jn caelo: Even so, the glosses turn the plural subject into an object of a Latin plural verb that does not allow objects.

Again, this glossing would be confusing for the students. Emilianensew is no apparent reason why signa in one case should be tagged nominative and emilianenaes another accusative.

(ARCH) Glosas Emilianenses

The form signa may be both accusative and nominative, nevertheless, the glossing in 3 and 4 indicates the exact opposite of what the respective syntactic function of signa is originally. This glossing indicates in the first case that signa may be used with singular verbs, and in the second that it should not be used with plural verbs; these indications entail that signa is singular. It also indicates that Latin grammar, as we understand it, is not the chief concern of the glossator. These oddities may not be merely dismissed as errors; they are too regular for that.

The fact that the noun signa is identical in both cases nominative and accusative may have contributed to the emiliansnses the glossator exhibits, but it is highly unlikely that he did not know that a subject is nominative or that an object is accusative.

I assume they were not mistakes as much as outputs of the glossators actual language. Other examples of the stylistic inclination of the glossator are to be found among emilianwnses many redundant additions, at least from a grammatical point of view. In the example above, the sentence et ambulabit ad mare mortuum.

The second gloss, ambulauit qui antechristus ad ke. The sentence in itself is straightforward from a syntactic point of view. The two complements, ad mare mortuum and a mare majore, which both depend on the one verb already present in the base text, would not represent any difficulty.

A similar example is found emklianenses f27r:. The sentence reads et suscitabi bellum. According to the scholars who believe these glosses are didactic, these glosses are partly grammatical indicators ke and corum and partly Rmilianenses translations lebantai and pugna.

Two other glosses, ego lebantai and ke pugnam, above respectively suscitabi and. Since they are synonyms of words already present in the text, they are probably meant as either substitutions or repetitions. This combination of modifications is difficult to fit into the didactic hypothesis.

On the one hand, some syntactic modifications change the original structure of the sentences in a way that is not correct according to traditional grammar. On the other hand, the stylistic modifications, by some scholars seen as explanatory, seem to be prompted by other mechanisms than understanding.

The idea that such changes should have an instructional motivation is unconvincing. Interdependency among the glosses. This dependency is one of many examples of the complex relation the glosses have to one another, and suggests the need for time and opportunity to use them.

In fact, they would create confusion if they were meant to be used as they are; since the position of a gloss makes no sense glossing the word in the base emilianensea unless the indications of the sequential glosses are followed. In addition, the glossing in the examples is clearly not didactic.

The sequential glosses generally mark the word order in the manuscript.