From comitative to clausal conjunction in a typological perspective: Evidence from simul in early Latin

Abstract

This analysis investigates the role of comitative constructions as a coordination strategy in early Latin. From a typological perspective, it is well-known that a comitative marker can be used to express a conjunctive relationship (Mithun 1988: 338; Haspelmath 2004: 15). The Latin comitative construction with simul ‘together; simultaneously’ (de Vaan 2008: 564; cf. Corder 1905: 5) shows a gradual grammaticalization process toward a ‘coordination-like’ construction. It gives rise to new conjunctive functions that involve not only the phrasal level but also extend to the broader sentence level (cf. Gast & Diessel 2012, Haspelmath 2004). The syntactic and semantic analysis of the occurrences of simul/semul in Latin literary texts from the late 3rd to early 1st century BC allows us to identify at least four main functions of this term, which proves to be multifunctional at a synchronic level (cf. Haumann 1997: 47; Kortmann 1998: 58). Depending on the different contexts of use, it indeed behaves as i) a spatial or temporal adverb, ii) a preposition, iii) a noun or adjective phrase conjunction, and iv) a sentence conjunction. From a diachronic perspective, the distribution of those occurrences suggests that starting as an adverb, simul develops a coordinating function, initially at the NP level and later extending to the independent sentence level. This development conforms to the general grammaticalization path COMITATIVE > NP-AND > SENTENCE-AND (Heine & Kuteva 2004: 83). From a typological perspective, although modern Indo-European languages have been undoubtedly classified as AND-languages, these data would support the existence of previous WITH-coordination strategies in Latin, as has been also assumed for other ancient Indo-European languages (Stassen 2000: 37; Bartolotta 2025). Moreover, given that pairing of the comitative function with temporal functions of simultaneity or concomitance is common cross-linguistically, it is not surprising that simul, while still retaining its function as a lexical adverb (cf. Hopper 1991), tends to further evolve from a comitative marker added to NP arguments into a temporal clause marker used to introduce subordinate clauses. This development conforms to the grammaticalization path COMITATIVE > TEMPORAL (cf. Heine & Kuteva 2004: 89-90). References Bartolotta, A. (2025), From WITH-languages to AND-languages: Insights from Ancient Greek, in Verano, R. et al. (Eds.), Papers in Greek Linguistics, Sevilla: Editorial de la Universidad de Sevilla (forthcoming). Corder, L. F. (1905). The use of simul, simulac (atque) and synonyms, cum primum ut primum and ubi primum from the earliest literature down to the Augustan age. PhD thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia. Gast, V. and Diessel, H. (2012), The typology of clause linkage: status quo, challenges, prospects. In (Eds.), Clause Linkage in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 1-36. Haspelmath, M. (2004): Coordinating constructions: An overview. In M. Haspelmath (Ed.), Coordinating Constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 3-39. Haumann, D. (1997), The Syntax of Subordination. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. (2004): World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hopper, P. J. (1991), On some principles of grammaticization. In E. Traugott and B. Heine (Eds.) Approaches to Grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 17–35. Kortmann, B. (1998), Adverbial subordinators in the languages of Europe. In J. van der Auwera (Ed.), Eurotyp. 3. Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 457-561. Mithun, M. (1988), The grammaticization of coordination. In J. Haiman and S. Thompson (Eds.), Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 3