Theoretical Morphology Of The French Verb

THEORETICAL MORPHOLOGY OF THE FRENCH VERB LINGVISTICÆ INVESTIGATIONES: SUPPLEMENTA Studies in French & General Linguistics/ Etudes en Linguistique Française et Générale This series has been established as a companion series to the periodical "LINGVISTICÆ INVESTIGATIONES", which started publication in 1977. It is published jointly by the Linguistic Department of the University of Paris-Vincennes and the Laboratoire d'Automatique Documentaire et Linguistique du C. N. R. S. (Paris 7). Series-Editors: Jean-Claude CHEVALIER (Univ. Paris Vincennes) Maurice GROSS (Univ. Paris 7) Christian LECLERE (L. A. D. L.) Volume 1 JAMES FOLEY Theoretical Morphology of the French Verb THEORETICAL MORPHOLOGY OF THE FRENCH VERB JAMES FOLEY Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B. C. AMSTERDAM / JOHN BENJAMINS B. V. 1979 ©Copyright 1979 - John Benjamins B. V. ISBN 90 272 0501 9 / 90 272 0502 7 No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. PREFACE This book presents a theoretical analysis of French verb mor­ phology based on the linguistic theory presented in my book Foundations of Theoretical Phonology. It provides, in the detailed analy­ sis of a natural language, exemplifications and illustrations of the principles presented in that book. The analysis of French verbs found herewithin is neither a syn­ chronic description nor a diachronic description, but rather a theo­ retical achronic analysis whose goal is the explanation of the his­ torical phonetic development of the French verb from the Latin verb in terms of changes in the underlying abstract morphological forms and in the set of rules relating these etyma to the phonetic forms. One of the basic premises of the book is that the French super­ ficial phonetic forms are not derived from the Latin superficial phonetic forms, whether classical or popular, but rather that both are derived from abstract etymological forms. For example, I do not regard Fr fallu as derived from Lt ƒat sus, but rather consider both as derived from *fallětu(s), the different phonetic results being due to different rule application. The essential difference in the two languages with regard to the development of these forms is the loss of the short thematic vowel in Latin (with subsequent automa­ tic assibilation), contrasted with the French lengthening of the thematic vowel (with subsequent automatic diphthongization, contrac­ tion, and other phonological changes), ut infra. It is important to emphasize the difference between description and theoretical analysis. Though in descriptive linguistics one may 2 PREFACE distinguish between a synchronic description and a diachronic des­ cription, in theoretical linguistics, where our first concern is not description, but explanation, such a distinction is irrelevant. Descriptive linguistics, whether synchronic or diachronic, is pri­ marily a branch of applied linguistics, perhaps of some practical interest, but of no theoretical concern. In my theoretical analysis I ignore the synchronic/diachronic distinction, believing it not only unnecessary, but even delete­ rious in its divergence of energy from genuine problems into pseudoproblems. It is a misconception which must be suppressed before linguistics can commence its theoretical development. Though gene­ rally regarded as a theoretical advance, this distinction perpe­ tuated with a spurious air of legitimacy, neither the best of syn­ chronic and diachronic linguistics, but rather the worst, the theo­ retical impoverishment of diachronic linguistics, equalled only by the data impoverishment of synchronic linguistics, which became more concerned with establishing trivial models of description than with understanding language. The mo