ON DEVIANT CASE-MARKING IN LATIN^333is, to serve as accusative "subject" (via "raising to object") when the
embedded infinitival verb is passive. Whereas in (22a) the actor ursus
("bear") serves as pivot, here, remi ("oars"), the undergoer of sustineo ("I
hold back"), assumes pivot status by dint of the passive. The fact that
undergoers can serve as pivots in this construction demonstrates that pivot
status is not of necessity accorded to an actor.
Sentence (25a') is intended to show that the antecedent of the reflexive
adjective suus need not, as in (25a), be provided by the actor, which in this
case is the unexpressed first argument of expugno ("I attack") and cupio ("I
capture"). The antecedent is instead provided here by an undergoer (the
nominatively coded argument naves, "ships") permitted by the passive con
struction to occupy pivot position. Similarly, sentence (25b') contrasts with
(25b) in that the undergoer oifacio ("I make"), templa ("temples"), rather
than the unexpressed actor, provides the "target" for "object-control equi",
owing to its having been promoted to pivot position in the lower clause by
passive.
Such data as these, however, do not provide definitive proof for the
claim that the nominatively coded argument represents a PrP rather than
(necessarily) an SmP. One might argue that although in (22a') and (25a'-b')
an undergoer rather than an actor serves as pivot, pivot status is neverthe
less still being governed by a semantic role hierarchy. Since no higher-rank
ing semantic role is realized in these clauses, the undergoer is selected to
receive nominative coding. Were an actor present, it would be given pivot
status; since no actor is realized in the clause, the undergoer serves as pivot.
Pivot selection in this scenario thus remains wholly predictable from a
semantic role hierarchy.
Sentences (25c') and (25d'), however, provide evidence against the
claim of semantically governed pivot selection. In both of these passive sen
tences, an actor in realized as an ablatively coded argument (as per the pas
sive rule). The presence of this actor does not, however, prevent PrP status
from being assigned to that NP which is linked to the undergoer macrorole.
Thus, in (25c'), the undergoer oifacio ("I make") provides the "target" for
"subject-control equi" despite the fact that the actor of that predicate,
prudentia ("wisdom") is present in the clause. Similarly, in (25d'), an
undergoer serves as the zero anaphor of the main-clause subject Domitius.
This zero anaphor appears in the conjoined clause headed by the passive
form of the verb praeficio ("I place in command"). Thus, the undergoer of
that verb serves as the "target" of zero anaphora, despite the fact that the