Contenu du sommaire : Autour du De Adverbio de Priscien

Autour du De Adverbio de Priscien

• Articles

  • Présentation - Marc Baratin, Alessandro Garcea p. 4-6
  • Présentation du De Adverbio de Priscien - Groupe Ars Grammatica p. 7-28
  • Plan détaillé du De Aduerbio - Groupe Ars Grammatica p. 29-29
  • Traduction du De Aduerbio - Groupe Ars Grammatica p. 30-91
  • Aristarch, die Tékhnai Grammatikaí und apollonios dyskolos zum adverb. Zur geschichte einer wortkategorie in der griechischen grammatik - Stephanos Matthaios p. 93-120
    L'objectif de cet article est de présenter la conception de l'adverbe qui s'est formée pendant la genèse des théories linguistiques en grammaire grecque ancienne. La première section traite des raisons qui ont conduit à traiter l'adverbe comme une catégorie autonome dans le système ancien des parties du discours; la seconde analyse les définitions reçues dans les anciens manuels de grammaire; enfin, la troisième section discute la catégorisation sémantique de l'adverbe qui se manifeste dans les classifications basées sur des propriétés sémantiques.

    The aim of this paper is to present the theory that was formed with respect to the adverb at the various stages of the foundation of linguistic theory in ancient Greek grammar. The first section deals with the reasons that led to treating the adverb as an autonomous category in the ancient system of the parts of speech. The second section analyses the received definitions concerning the adverb in the ancient grammar manuals. The third and final section discusses the semantic categorisation of the adverb, manifested in the classification of adverbs depending on their semantic properties.
  • Apollonius Dyscole et l'adverbe - Sylvain Brocquet p. 121-140
    The treatise On Adverbs features as one of the Scripta Minora which Apollonius Dyscolus devotes to various parts of speech (mérē toû lógou), and is organically related to his Syntax. The Alexandrine grammarian strives to define the adverb as an independent part of speech, not only because of its morphology (not being subject to inflexion), but also because of a set of semanto-syntactical features on which its relationship with the other parts of speech is based. The definition of the adverb, given at the very beginning of the treatise, and minutely discussed in what follows, seems to be the result of his study rather than his starting point. This definition is used as the very criterion for the caseanalyses following in the remainder of the treatise, most particularly the long section devoted to the problems of merism. To Apollonius, invariability is not sufficient to consider a word as an adverb; its syntactic behaviour must conform to the initial definition too: •the adverb is a non-inflected word which restrictively or non-restrictively predicates the inflexions in the verbs, without which it cannot make a meaning complete”. This paper aims to throw some light on the main aspects of this definition: the status of the adverb as a non-essential part of speech; its non-inflected form; its predicative function, and the object of this predication, namely the inflexions of the verb; the combinatory restrictions which limit its use; and finally its appropriate position, which should be before the verb. Apollonius' view is related to a tradition according to which the adverb is as closely connected with the verb as the adjective is with the noun: only its being employed with a verb is taken into account, and not, for instance, with an adjective. However, the grammarian's originality lies in his rational approach: he always tries to describe linguistic data in accordance with a lógos, rather than with the appearances of common usage, and to define categories in a comprehensive rather than an extensive manner. This reflects his conception of language as something structured and therefore intelligible.
  • Les adverbes dans la tradition grammaticale latine avant Priscien - Guillaume Bonnet p. 141-150
    Dans la perspective scolaire d'apprentissage dans les oeuvres littéraires de l'identification des catégories de mots, les maîtres latins étaient confrontés au problème de l'invariabilité et de la multiplicité des marqueurs de la catégorie des adverbes. En partant des versions du de aduerbio figurant dans les Regulae du Pseudo-Augustin, on s'attache à déterminer comment les artigraphes se sont efforcés de dégager des critères de reconnaissance non ambigus des adverbes. Par ailleurs, la reconnaissance traditionnelle en latin d'une catégorie des interjections, formellement comme sémantiquement peu distincte de celle des adverbes, a imposé un discours justificatif dont on étudie les positionnements.

    In order to teach their students how to identify the various parts of speech in literary works, the Latin masters were faced with the problem of adverb invariability as well as that of the numerous markers of this category. Basing our analysis on two versions of de aduerbio presented in the Regulae of the Pseudo-Augustin, we aim to determine in what ways the artigraphs have attempted to find non-ambiguous criteria for adverb identification. In addition, since the interjection is identified in the Latin grammatical tradition, and viewed as both formally and semantically close to the adverb, justifying the category of the adverb was a necessity, the reasons of which are examined in this paper.
  • Le traitement de l'adverbe au-delà du livre XV des IG de Priscien : les adverbes «génériques» et la distinction entre adverbe et conjonction - Marc Baratin p. 151-165
    L'objet de cet article est d'examiner si le reste des IG de Priscien, et notamment les deux derniers livres, consacrés à la construction, apportent quelque chose de plus à l'étude de l'adverbe développée dans le livre XV. Deux points sont abordés: les adverbes génériques et la différence entre adverbes et conjonctions. Les antécédents de la notion de généricité dans la grammaire grecque permettent de comprendre l'originalité de Priscien sur ce point; cela aboutit à une réorganisation de la classe nominale, et à une articulation des noms et adverbes génériques avec les classes sémantico-fonctionnelles des interrogatifs / indéfinis / relatifs / corrélatifs. Par ailleurs, la différence entre adverbes et conjonctions a fait l'objet de deux interprétations distinctes, apparemment antinomiques, mais un même exemple de quia, traité par Priscien lui-même une fois comme adverbe et une autre fois comme conjonction, montre que ce grammairien disposait en fait de deux analyses possibles.

    The aim of the article is to assess whether the rest of the IG by Priscian, and in particular the last two books dealing with constructio add anything new to the study of the adverb in book XV. Two points are investigated: generic adverbs and the difference between adverbs and conjunctions. First we show that the history of the notion of •genericity” in Greek grammar allows us to understand how original Priscian was on this topic; this leads us to reorganize the nominal category, and to articulate nouns and generic adverbs with the semantic-functional categories of interrogative/ indefinite/ relative/ correlative words. Second we try to establish that the difference between adverbs and conjunctions has been the subject of two seemingly antinomic interpretations, but the same example with quia, which Priscian himself defines first as an adverb and later as a conjunction, proves that the grammarian had in fact two possible analyses to offer.
  • (Silence on) Adverbs in Plutarch Plat. Quaest. 10 - Alessandro Garcea, Angelo Giavatto p. 167-177
    Dans son dixième platônikon zêtêma, Plutarque essaie de justifier l'assertion platonicienne selon laquelle le discours résulte de l'assemblage de noms et de verbes, les autres classes de mots n'étant pas des parties du discours autonomes. Curieusement, Plutarque ne considère pas les adverbes, qui pourtant étaient reconnus par les grammairiens alexandrins, comme Plutarque lui-même semble le reconnaître au tout début de sa discussion. A nos yeux, les adverbes n'ont pas été oubliés inconsciemment. Plutarque a fondé toute sa démonstration sur une interprétation strictement grammaticale de l'approche métaphysique de Platon. Aussi est-il obligé de ne pas prendre en compte les adverbes, car ils possèdent des caractéristiques morpho-sémantiques qui pourraient montrer l'incohérence de son système.

    In order to justify the Platonic formula that speech results from the blend of nouns and verbs, Plutarch tries to demonstrate that all other kinds of words are not autonomous parts of speech (tenth platônikon zêtêma). Strangely enough, he does not discuss adverbs, even while they were recognised by Alexandrinian grammarians, as he himself seems to acknowledge when he mentions them at the very beginning of his discussion. We will try to show that adverbs are not victims of an involuntary omission. Plutarch based his overall demonstration on a strictly grammatical understanding of Plato's metaphysical viewpoint; he is therefore forced not to discuss adverbs, since they possess peculiar morpho-semantic features which could show the inconsistency of his reconstruction.
  • The ancient grammarians concept of the adverb : the failure to make a distinction between a verb and a sentence - Harm Pinkster p. 179-180

• Lectures et critiques

  • Comptes rendus

    • Herbert E. Brekle, Edeltraud Dobnig-Jülch, Hans Jürgen Höller und Helmut Wei. Bio-Bibliographisches Handbuch zur Sprachwissenschaft des 18. Jahrhunderts. Die Grammatiker, Lexicographen und Sprachtheoretiker des deutschsprachigen Raums mit Beschreibungen ihrer Werke, Herausgegeben, 2005 - Saint-Gérand Jacques-Philippe p. 181-182
    • Carter, M. G. Sibawayhi, 2004 - Kouloughli Djamel p. 182-189
    • Lamb Sydney. Language and Reality, 2004 - Béatrice Godart-Wendling p. 189-192
    • Lauwers P. La description du français entre tradition et modernité : étude historiographique et épistémologique de la grammaire française entre 1907 et 1948, 2004 - Valérie Raby p. 192-195
    • Riverso Emanuele. Capire l'Islâm, 2003 - Kouloughli Djamel-Eddine p. 195-198

  • Note de lecture

    • Schenkeveld Dirk M. A Rhetorical Grammar. C. Iulius Romanus, Introduction to the Liber de Aduerbio as Incorporated in Charisius', 2004 - Garcea Alessandro p. 198-198