No abstract

The paper examines a group of subjunctive clauses attested in Tertullian’s works, which seem to deviate from the rules of consecutio temporum. Earlier researchers assumed that the unusual pattern follows from brachylogy, otherwise frequent in Tertullian’s writings. It is argued that in fact such clauses obey the rules of the Classical period and there is no need to explain their behavior as resulting from a brachylogical expression.

The paper examines a Late Latin construction consisting of a relative or an interrogative pronoun followed by a bare infinitive. It has been often proposed that the syntactic structure of such sentences results from a contamination of two distinct clause types. This paper proposes an analysis in terms of the Minimalist framework, rejecting the traditional approach and explaining syntactic and semantic properties of the structure on the basis of mechanisms independently motivated for other Latin structures. The surface shape of such clauses is argued to result from changes in morphological parameters. The analysis provides therefore support for the thesis that language change involves primarily the morphological module, which remains the main locus of diachronic and synchronic variation.

One of the most striking features of Lucifer's style is his frequent usage of a periphrastic structure. The paper proposes that there is a clear semantic distinction between this construction and synthetic verbal forms. Stylistic and interpretive consequences of Lucifer's usage follow from a comparison with other authors and transtextual gestures which determine a proper contextualization of such structures.

The Latin dominant participle construction poses a challenge for syntactic and semantic analysis due to its exhibiting an apparent syntax–semantics mismatch. Its syntactic behaviour and distribution is determined by a nominal phrase fronted to its left periphery, yet interpretive properties indicate that it is a propositional structure subject to nominalization. With the Minimalist Program of Chomsky (1993, 1995) as the framework of analysis, it is argued that taking into account the dynamics of syntactic operations as envisaged in Chomsky (2013b, 2015) and related work is sufficient to provide an account of syntactic and semantic properties of the dominant participle construction without positing construction–specific rules or covert syntactic nominalizers.