Madrid , Real Academia de la Historia. Today, due to its fundamental philological importance as the earliest surviving Castilian-language text , the entire manuscript has come to be known as Glosas Emilianenses. At the time, the region was a mixture of various cultures Castilian, Basque, Navarre, and Aragonese , which is the reason why traces of such languages are present in the text. It is the longest sentence in ancient Castilian included the whole codex. Facamus Deus Omnipotes tal serbitio fere ke denante ela sua face gaudioso segamus.
|Published (Last):||13 January 2014|
|PDF File Size:||17.31 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.15 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Hagemann Kristin. The Glosas Emilianenses : emendation marks. 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 have consequences for 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 thought 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 connected 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.
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 sequential glosses, the grammatical glosses and the lexical glosses.
The most common changes are moving the verb to initial position on sentence level VSO is obtained in practically all the main declarative sentences , and 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 or 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 already 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.
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. 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 Hagemann , which 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.
Stylistic changes. 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 marked ke, as if they were objects. The word pactus is thought to originally have been glossed with b because of the position 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, but he insisted on agreement between subject and verb.
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 were 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 4 :. 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. There is no apparent reason why signa in one case should be tagged nominative and in another accusative. 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 freedom 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 the many redundant additions, at least from a grammatical point of view. In the example above, the sentence et ambulabit ad mare mortuum. The first gloss. 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 on 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 Romance 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.
These marginalia are important as early examples of writing in a form of Romance similar to Spanish , and in Basque. He wrote about a thousand years ago in three languages:. The latter two would have been the vernacular languages in the region surrounding the monastery, although there is a possibility that the author of the glosses was an incomer to the area. The Glosses were formerly considered to include the first instances of early Spanish.