HABEO QUID.../ HABEO QUOD...: variation libre ou originalité conditionnée?
Résumé
This paper is a comparative analysis of 'habeo + indirect question' and 'habeo + relative clause in the subjunctive mood'. After a short description of both constructions, I first analyze clear-cut examples of each type. Then, unlike several studies that refrain from classifying formally ambiguous examples, I try, by way of various criteria based on statistical data, to classify such instances. A discussion of the constructions in individual authors from Plautus to Tacitus provides evidence that habeo quid and habeo quod are not exact equivalents from a distributional point of view. Though both constructions do overlap occasionally under the constraint of historical, rhythmical and stylistic factors, they basically take two different forms: quid / cui dicam non habeo, in the case of an indirect question, and (non) habeo quod / cui dicam, in the case of a relative clause. These configurational differences are relevant to the fundamental nature of the constructions involved. Consequently, the negative or non-negative use of habeo and the placing of the subordinate clause either before or after habeo are due to specific syntactic or semantico-pragmatic features of either grammatical device. From a diachronic perspective, the results obtained by this investigation may shed light on the construction habeo + infinitive, a forerunner of the periphrastic active future in the Romance languages, which is assumed to be originally related to habeo quod + subjunctive.
Domaines
Linguistique
Origine : Fichiers produits par l'(les) auteur(s)