France Language – Syntax Part I

France Language - Syntax 1

This smoothing of the inflection is closely related to the evolution of the syntax. The syntagms of Latin, that is, the combinations of the terms of the simple or complex sentence and the logical values ​​of these different combinations, have now been preserved in French, now replaced with innovations, mostly due to the extension of phrases whose use was originally more limited. This extension is explained in general both by the need to remedy the lack of a worn bending [δ], and by the tendency to give each shape a fixed and well-defined value [σ], and by the tendency to give an expression more precise to thought [ν], both with the contamination of various expressions, which had comparable values, and were confused following an association of ideas [α]. Here we will limit ourselves to tracing the history of these innovations, leaving out the mass of preserved forms, which do not characterize French either with respect to Latin or with respect to other Romance languages. If we consider the simple sentence, the verb appears as the soul of the sentence. As far as the voices of the verb are concerned, the loss of the Latin synthetic passive, amor, gave rise to a complete system of analytic forms composed with êtreil esta etésera etc. alas, the use of homo (onon voit) in cases of the impersonal passive, a moderate extension of the reflexive form, clamor se tollit = tollitur, from which in French, to the 3rd person, with a thing name by subject, cela se voit, and for certain verbs, in all three persons, with a personal name for subject, je me nomme = nominor.

According to EZINERELIGION, the pronominal form se erumpere, equivalent of erumpere, in which the reflexive pronoun has the sole function of putting the subject in relief, is extended in the ant. fr. to all intransitive verbs, se tairese périrse dormirs’aller (δ and ν). This usage was regularized by fr. modern which made certain pronominal forms mandatory, s’évanouirs’écroulers’en allers’enfuir [ν], but eliminated certain others, se périrse dormirs’allerse fuir [ o ], developing it instead for transitive verbs followed by a complement of relation or cause introduced by the preposition des’apercevoirse moquerse vanter de quelque chose [ν].

Regarding the ways and times, the ancient language hesitates for the expression of the past between the simple perfect, the chanta, hereditary form, and the new periphrases the a chantéthe ot chanté. The chantathe vint, at first more widespread, gradually gave way to il a chantéil est venu. During the critical phase of this conflict (seventeenth century), grammarians tried to establish between the two phrases distinctions of meaning (ν and σ), which remained artificial.

As for the auxiliary in these paraphrases, être was anciently prevalent with the intransit. vi, the east couru ; avoir with transitives. But since these could be used absolutely and therefore were sometimes equal to intransitives, a confusion arose and it was said il a couru. Today a dozen intransitives always want être (aller etc.), about twenty être or avoir (passer, etc.), the other avoir.

The participle joined with être is in agreement with the subject, as in the etymological phrase amatus sum. The fr. ant. therefore says the est marizthe sont venu ; and Br. modern says ils sont venuselles sont aimées. After avoir, the participle remained invariable with the intransitive or transitive verbs used absolutely or with the noun verb: the ant. fr. the avoient estez is a very rare form. If there is an object complement, the participle originally agreed with it, because etymologically it was its apposition: habeo spatham tractam: fr. ant. j’ai traite l’Espée. Gradually the group consisting of the auxiliary and the participle was perceived as a coherent verb form, equal to the perfect simple traxi, and the participle tended to become invariable, j’ai trait l’Espée. But the agreement lasted a long time if the complement was between the auxiliary and the participle, j’ai l’épée traite, a word order that fell into disuse from the 16th century. XVII onwards. The agreement still exists, if the complement precedes the group, je l’ai tirée. These rules were progressively established in the 16th and 17th centuries (σ).

The present participle soon came into conflict with the gerund. It was originally, as a gerund, invariable, chantingchantant. As a participle it was variable like an adjective; but since etymologically it belonged to the II class (type fortis), it originally varied only in number and case: fr. ant. ele vint rianzthe finds it riant. A riant female was only able to appear later, when she strongly crept next to the femm. fort. As a result, in the conflict of invariability (gerund) with variability (participle), the feminine has always had a lower position; in the sec. XVI Palsgrave considers – ante (s) as a poetic license; and in the sec. XVII Vaugelas absolutely condemns des femmes mangeantes des confitures, while admitting agreement in the number, des hommes mangeans des confitures. The invariability in the number as well as in the genus – that is the gerund – definitively won the victory after the decision of the Academy (1679) that the active participations would no longer be declined. Today a clear distinction is made between j’ai vu une femme charmant des serpents (verb) and j’ai vu une femme charmante (adjective [σ]).

France Language - Syntax 1