328 LAURA Α. MICHAELIS
h. Ferunt eum adesse.
(they) say him() be present(iNF)
"They say that he is present."
Such sentences as (23a,c,e,g) raise the following question: how can one
account for the fact that the genitive arguments of such predicates as pudet
and paentitet, although lacking salient subject properties (nominative cod
ing and the capacity to trigger verb agreement in oratio recta), can nonethe
less "raise to object", as can a bona fide subject? The answer to this ques
tion will require a more inclusive definition of subject than that provided by
the traditionally recognized case and agreement properties. Such a defini
tion, it will be seen, is provided within this framework. We might then now
turn to the RRG analysis of the Latin data.- A Role and Reference Grammar analysis of deviant case-marking in
Latin
The case-marking rules to be posited for Latin are similar to those proposed
by Van Valin (1991) for Icelandic and to those of many nominative-accusa
tive languages. These coding principles assume an algorithm intended not
only for the mapping of lexical representations into their syntactic manifes
tations but also for the linking of syntax to logical structure (See "Synop
sis", sect. 4.6,5 ). They are stated in (24):
(24) a. PrPs take nominative case.
b. Non-PrP macrorole core arguments take accusative case,
The default case for non-macrorole direct core arguments is
dative.
As in Icelandic, actor outranks undergoer for PrP. No argument can occupy
PrP position without being a macrorole. Further, any solitary macrorole-
bearing argument, whether actor [A] or undergoer [U], must be a PrP. (As
will be discussed, the verbs licensing genitive subjects, shown in (19) and
(23), constitute an exception to this last rule — there, the single macrorole-
bearing argument lacks PrP status, as indicated by its accusative case.)
We might now examine the evidence that the grammatical function
coded by the nominative in fact represents a pragmatic pivot. This discus
sion will necessarily be divided into two parts. First, it must be shown that
the nominative argument represents a pivot, i.e, that it occupies a