Disputatio:Hyperbaton

Iacobe, it's good to see that your article on hyperbaton has reached the level that transcends other wikis in ambition. I hope you don't mind if I offer a few remarks on its disposition. I haven't got around to reading Devine & Stephens, so I don't know how much your presentation depends on theirs. As the name suggests, hyperbaton is a syntactic transformation by which an element is moved from its canonical or conceptual position in a NP (i.e., Noun Phrase or, less technically, nominal syntagm) e.g. by means of Fronting:

X [ [A] [B] ]_NP ⇒ B X [ [A] [ ] ]_NP.

E.g., bonis viris [ [mala] [multa] ]_NP acciderent ⇒ multa bonis viris [ [mala] [ ] ]_NP acciderent.

Structurally, I think the process looks pretty much like this. Now, it seems to me that it's not relevant to know in which case the X (here = bonis viris) is. In the case at hand, multa is a quantifying adjective (like omnis, totus, nullus, &c) which are relatively free to move around. Instead of classifying X's according to case, it seems to me -- to list something off the cuff -- that, in judging sentences involving hyperbaton, we have to pay heed to the type of the adjective, rectional properties of verbs, the constructional environment of the hyperbaton, and so on.

Of the instances of "Casu ablativo", the first can't be properly judged, because the citation is too short; but the latter, involving an ablativus absolutus construction, is a non-case, because the relation between illis and correptis is comparable to the Subject-Predicate relation, and so it's irrelevant to ask what the X is.

The same goes for the "Casu accusativo" instance: "centurioni ferrum destringenti" is precisely as natural as "centurio ferrum destringit". The accusativeness of "ferrum" isn't the difference that makes a difference. Methinks it's non-pertinent that centurioni ... destringenti involves a kind of NP; it's more important to note that the NP is a shorthand sentence.

WRT the instances of "Casu genetivo", I'm not quite sure if they involve a hyperbaton at all. Given Gildersleeve's verdict ("A violent displacement of words"), one might ask whether the conceptually meticulous "incursiones subitas hostium" would fare better in articulating and conveying the information than the "violently displaced" phrase "subitas hostium incursiones". This brings me to pragmatics: Natural-language sentences are always embedded in a text, and hyperbaton is probably a part of important textual strategies. What you have done so far is a good start. But I suggest the article should be improved along the lines adumbrated above. But of course, if the source of subsections 2.1.1.1-4 in the present article is Devine & Stephens, let it be so. After all, we're working on an encyclopedy, not doing original research. --Neander 15:19, 9 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Neander. They're greatly appreciated. As you rightly say, it "transcends other wikis in ambition" (though not yet, you'll perhaps agree, in execution). Indeed, other wikis are generally poor on technical matters relating to style (and especially meter). Wikipedia's article on Elegy, for example, barely touches on form and focuses mainly on function (its article on elegiac couplets is better). An exception is its article on the golden line (a hexameter of the form aurea purpuream subnectit fibula vestem, Aeneid 4.139), which, though a special kind of hyperbaton, undoubtedly deserves an article of its own, apart from our article on hyperbaton. ¶ I started by checking the definition in Devine & Stephens, and then found all the so-far-listed examples by myself. (These could have been safeguarded on a user-page, but then you wouldn't have noticed them!) I thought it'd be more fun to find what I could, and then go back and fit the examples into D&S's scheme. D&S have an 86-page chapter on the subject, a book in itself, which our presentation should reflect much more accurately & fully, but this is a busy time for me. ¶ Regarding "it's not relevant to know in which case the X (here = bonis viris) is": my memory is that D&S do sort examples by various such criteria, but that memory could of course be wrong. ¶ On "centurioni ferrum destringenti": yes, and perhaps not least because participles are a special problem, so I've hidden that example. ¶ On the instances of "casu genetivo": yes, and at best we can say that it's merely a simple kind of hyperbaton, and at worst it's so commonplace as hardly to be felt as a violent disjunction at all—which makes for us the point that hyperbaton (and perhaps other patterns of style) may not be qualitatively definable; we may have to accept that we're treating a continuum. ¶ Regarding "After all, we're working on an encyclopedy, not doing original research": the notion that encyclopedias don't include "original research," though often bruited as a touchstone in wikipedian discussions, is false, and practical action based on it is accordingly questionable: but that's a subject for another day, and work in the real world looms! IacobusAmor 13:25, 10 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

I have now taken a look at Devine & Stephens. While I have great respect for these commilitones, I must say that their treatment of hyperbaton is close to being a technical overkill. Their approach seems to be based upon a variety of Chomskyan X-bar syntax. Although I have sometimes taught also this ilk of syntax for bread-winning, I confess that I'm not overly fond of it. As far as Latin is concerned, what they have to say about hyperbaton is scarcely the ultimate statement. Writing fancy trees may be funny, but I'm for a more traditional approach. It'd be funny to integrate dependency relations and constituent structure.

I agree wholeheartedly! IacobusAmor 13:30, 12 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

It's good that you hid, though perhaps a bit half-heartedly, the sentence "centurioni ferrum destringenti". Yes, participles involve special problems, but in the case at hand, what is important to note is that the discontinuous elements aren't really discontinuous, because the participium coniunctum is a shorthand sentence. For the same reason, I'd hide the ablativus absolutus "illis quoque igni correptis" as well.

Better: I've deleted them! IacobusAmor 13:32, 12 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the intervening X, I still think it's irrelevant to know which case it's in. It'd be interesting to hear what makes you think that case might be relevant. I didn't find D&S entertaining such an approach. (Though I can't say to have taken a close look.)

Yes, probably we're treating a continuum. In any case, a word order like "grande mortalis aevi spatium" is so commonplace that it's scarcely the exception that confirms the rule.

Right now I'm not sure how to define hyperbaton in exact terms. A structure involving discontinuous elements may be too loose. D&S's "Head....Modifier" discontinuity is a good starting point, but given this, it's worth pointing out that there's a clear difference between, say, "nactus idoneam ad navigandum tempestatem tertia fere vigilia solvit" and "crebri ad eum rumores adferebantur". In the latter example, crebri and rumores are brusquely discontinued by the P-phrase "ad eum" that modifies the predicate verb. This looks more hyperbatic than the former sentence, in which the P-phrase "ad navigandum" modifies "idoneam". For the reason that there are no crossing dependencies (i.e., Head - Modifies relations), I'd suggest "idoneam ad navigandum tempestatem" isn't hyperbatic at all. --Neander 15:37, 11 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

Excellent points all, and your corrections have improved what little text we've got. I've added a few more examples this morning, but have to run now. (Busy, busy!) Feel free to develop your thoughts further in Latin! IacobusAmor 13:30, 12 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

Aliae linguae

Have you considered a section on usage in other languages? There are some cool examples in Slovene, in which language hyperbaton is more exceptional than in Latin, given the more rigorous (especially in terms of clitics) word order.

For instance, Adi Smolar's lyric in his song Kravata bashing the practicing of wearing a tie:

a kaj, ko takšne obleke ni imel, ki bi ___ podala k lepi se kravati

et quid, ubi non habuit tale vestimentum, quod collari pulchro detur.

The blank represents the space where se should be, podati se being a reflexive verb, and se being one of those Wackernagelian second position clitics which should occur right after the optative particle bi (which in turn must come after the conjunction ko). Not only does it jump out of position here, but it goes between an adjective and noun, which never occurs in Slovene. --Ioscius ^∞ 23:05, 10 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

Looks good! Feel free to add a section! ¶ I wonder if, in English, postposed adjectives couldn't be considered hyperbatonesque. I'm thinking of the pattern seen in the house beautiful, the light fantastic, and such. The pattern is presumably left over from Norman French (heir apparent [an apparent heir], queen regnant [a ruling queen], sign manual [a signature], etc.), but maybe native speakers feel it otherwise nowadays. IacobusAmor 23:56, 10 Iunii 2010 (UTC)