the origin of spanish

7/27/2019 The Origin of Spanish...

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-origin-of-spanish 1/30

The origin of Spanish entre tú y yo “between you and me”A typological parallel to Englishbetween you and I ?

Joel RiniUniversity of Virginia

The present study analyzes both diachronically and typologically the syn-chronically irregular Spanish syntagm, entre tú y yo “between you and me”,which employs the subject pronouns,tú and yo , rather than the expectedprepositional pronouns,ti and mí . First, a thorough examination of OldSpanish texts reveals that the Old Spanish syntagm did indeed exhibit prepo-sitional pronouns, i.e., OSp.entre mí & ti (a fact virtually unknown to spe-cialists of Spanish historical grammar), thus unveiling a syntactic changefrom entre mí & ti > entre tú y yo . Next, the change is compared to the typol-ogically similar ongoing change in Modern English, namely,between you and me > between you and I . It is then shown here that although the change inthese languages appears, on the surface, to be an exact parallel, the origin, orcause, of the change in each language is different. Nevertheless, certain fac-tors — including the ultimate inability of the preposition to govern thesecond of two conjoined elements, as well as word-order patterns of thesubject pronouns — were indeed found to have played a role in the develop-

ment of bothentre tú y yo and between you and I .

Keywords: Spanish language; Spanish philology; Spanish historical grammar;diachronic syntax; language typology

1. Introduction

The Spanish personal pronouns have traditionally been divided according totheir syntactic function into the following four categories: (a) nominative or



140 Joel Rini

rst and last categories, i.e., subject and prepositional, differ only in the rstand second persons singular, as shown in bold in (1):

(1) Subject Prepositional1st sing. yo mí 2nd sing. tú ti

but, 3rd sing. él él ella ella

1st pl. nosotros/-as nosotros/-as 2nd pl. vosotros/-as vosotros/-as 3rd pl. ellos ellos

ellas ellas

The second person formal,usted , and its plural counterpart,ustedes (both of which take third person verb forms), as well as the third person neuter singular,ello , are also the same in both of these categories. Structurally similar tomí andti is the third person reexive prepositional form,sí , which has no tonicnominative counterpart, though indeed an atonic counterpart inse .1

For the purpose of taxonomic economy, the formsél, ella, ello, usted,nosotros, vosotros, ellos, ellas, ustedes , which function as both subjects andprepositional objects, could be merged into one category labeled “tonicpronouns”, opposing their atonic dative and accusative counterparts,le , lo , la ,les , los , las , nos , os . On the other hand, the formsmí , ti , and sí , which are truly distinct from both their subject and atonic object counterparts, are indeedappropriately named “prepositional” because they can only appear after apreposition. That is, the formsmí , ti , and sí never appear alone, as completely free morphemes, but are governed by and bound to their accompanyingpreposition, as the examples in (2) demonstrate. In response to the question in(2a), the prepositional syntagm in (2b) is required, while the utterance in (2c)does not occur, and would be considered ungrammatical or non-native if it did:

(2) a. ¿Para quién es este regalo?“For whom is this gift?”

1. It should be pointed out for the non-specialist of Spanish that when the preposition

concerned iscon “with”, one nds, not the synchronically expected *con mí , *con ti , *con sí ,but rather,conmigo ,contigo ,consigo . These syntagms,containing theallomorphs-migo , -tigo ,sigo descended from Lat t For the changes involved from Latin to



The origin of Spanishentre tú y yo “between you and me” 141

b. Para ti.“For you.”

c. *Ti.

“You.”Conversely, the nominative counterparts tomí and ti , i.e., yo and tú , can indeedappear alone, a fact which allows one to categorize them as completely freemorphemes, and so, they are not, in general, governed by and bound toprepositions, as the examples in (3a–d) demonstrate:

(3) a. ¿Quién ganó el premio?“Who won the prize?”

b. Yo.“Me.” (or, alternatively, “I [did].”)

c. ¿A quién le dieron el premio?“To whom did they give the prize?”

d. *A yo2

Even in conjoined structures the formsyo and tú are avoided after prepositions,as the preposition tends to be repeated before each conjoined entity, calling forthe appearance of a prepostional pronoun, as shown in the examples in (4):

(4) Estos dulces son exclusivamente para ti y para mí.“These candies are just for you and me.”Dile que el regalo es sólo de ti y de mí.“Tell her that the gift is from you and me only.”

There is, however, one notable exception. In conjoined structures with theprepositionentre “between”, the subject forms are obligatory, as the examplesin (5) demonstrate:

2. ZamoraVicente (1967:202) reports theuseof subject pronouns after other prepositions,e.g.,a yo , con yo , de yo , para yo , a tú , con tú , de tú , para tú , etc., in Leonese and Aragonese, aswell as in Central America, Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia, and Río de la Plata. However, theappearance of yo and tú after other prepositions in these cases is clearly due to leveling of theprepositional pronominal paradigm. That is, since theother prepositional pronouns,él , ella ,usted , nosotros , vosotros , ellos , ellas , ustedes function as both subject and prepositional forms,

the subject formsyo and tú have thus oustedmí and ti after all prepositions. However, invarieties of Castilian which do not allow yo and tú after prepositions other thanentre —which in fact include most varieties “leveling in the prepositional category” does not



142 Joel Rini

(5) Él puede sentarseentre tú y yo .“He can sit between you and me.”Este secreto se debe quedarentre tú y yo .

“This secret should remain between you and me.”Sóloentre tú y yo , te digo francamente que ese tipo me cae mal.“Just between you and me, I tell you frankly that that guy rubs me thewrong way.”

Indeed, the utterances in (5) would be considered unacceptable to the nativespeaker of Modern Spanish if the prepositionalmí and ti were used in place of yo and tú , as shown in (6):

(6) *Él puede sentarseentre ti y mí .*Este secreto se debe quedarentre ti y mí .*Sóloentre ti y mí , te digo francamente que ese tipo me cae mal.

However, in the third person reexive, the prepositional formsí immediately followsentre . Butt and Benjamin (1995:129)write: “Se is unique in being theonly pronoun requiring a prepositional form afterentre : entre túyyo ,but entre sí ‘among themselves’.” Furthermore, on rare occasions in Modern Spanish,when not conjoined with each other, nor with any other entity, the forms of the1st and 2nd persons singular that appear immediately afterentre are indeed theprepositionalmí and ti , as the examples in (7) demonstrate. In such cases,entre is closer in meaning todentro de “inside, within”:

(7) Dijeentre mí…“I said to (i.e., within) myself…”Dijisteentre ti…“You said to (i.e., within) yourself…”

also, Dijoentre sí…“He/She said to (i.e., within) him/herself…”

Such examples of mí , ti , and sí afterentre in Modern Spanish are not due to thealternative meaning of entre in these cases. Rather, they are remnants of anearlier system in whichmí and ti regularly followedentre , even when conjoinedwith one another, or when each was conjoined with another entity. That is, theprepositional syntagms shown above in (6) deemed non-native or ungrammati-

cal to speakers of Modern Spanish would indeed have been very familiar tospeakers of Old Spanish as the 13th-century example in (8) from the RoyalS i i f Alf X El S bi

http://-/?-

http://-/?-




(8) Emporidad estamos yo & tu & poridad sea comoentre mi & ti (General Estoria IV , 1280).“You and I are in a state of condence, and may the condence remain

between me and you.”This example suggests that there existed in Old Spanish a clear-cut syntacticopposition of prepositionalmí and ti afterentre (aswasandstillisthecaseafterallprepositions, with the exception of con ) and yo and tú as subjects of the verb.3

The way to express “between you and me” in Old Spanish, then, was exactly the same as one nds in Modern Italiantra me e te , Modern Frenchentre moi et toi , and Modern European Portugueseentre mim e ti , i.e., the preposition

followed by prepositional pronouns.4

From Old to Modern Spanish, there hasthus been a syntactic change fromentre mí & ti > entre tú y yo . This change,which will be the focus of this article, should be of concern not only to special-ists of Spanish historical syntax but to diachronists in general, in light of theongoing typologically similar change in Modern English, i.e.,between you and me > between you and I . These parallel developments may well exhibit somecommon factors.

2. Previous analyses

The use of mí and ti afterentre in Old Spanish is largely unfamiliar to grammar-ians and even specialists of Spanish historical grammar. No comment on thisOld Spanish structure or explanation for the syntactic change fromentre mi & ti > entre tú y yo can be found in any of the most authoritative Spanish histori-cal grammars of the twentieth century (cf.Menéndez Pidal 1941,Lloyd 1987,

3. Ofcourse, one notes a correlationbetween thedifferentpossible semanticvaluesof entre ,that is, “between” on the one hand, and “among” and “within” on the other, and thepresence or absence of change respectively. However, the different semantic values are alsodirectly linked to the type of syntactic structure concerned, in that, in the former case (i.e.,“between”), one will nd conjoined structures, while in the latter (i.e., “among”, “within”),one will not. As will be seen below, it is the nature of the syntactic structure concerned, i.e.,conjoined, not the semantic value itself, that madeentre mí & ti “between you and me”particularly susceptible to the change under consideration here.4 . In Brazilian Portuguese, however, the idea “between you and me” is expressed, as it is inSpanish with subject pronouns though with the order 1st person + 2nd person thus:entre

http://-/?-

http://-/?-



144 Joel Rini

and Penny 1991). This is not completely surprising, however, since these worksfocus primarily on matters of historical phonology and morphology.

One does nd, nonetheless, an occasional reference to the structure in other

works. With regard to the question of which pronouns follow entre , Hanssen(1913:191)stated that “[a]isladamente se halla el caso oblicuo [one ndsisolated instances of the oblique case]” and cited only one example“et cartas ay dello entre mí et vos (Crónica General 420a, 25).” More recently, the RealAcademia Española (RAE) similarly acknowledged the existence of such astructure in Old Spanish, but suggested that examples of it in Old and ClassicalSpanish, though not as common as examples of entre tú y yo , are not at all rareor isolated, as Hanssen had stated.5 García de Diego (1951)too had foundvacillation between subject and prepositional forms afterentre in Old Spanishbut did not view this vacillation as random. Rather, based on the examplesNon veo carrera por do haya amor entre mí e ti “I see no way that there may be lovebetween me and you” (Calila e Dimna , 9),La diferencia que hay entre mí y ellos “The difference that exists between me and them” (Don Quijote , II, 58),Serán medianeros entre vuesa merced y mí “There will be mediators between you andme” (Don Quijote , II, 25), he concluded that in Old and Classical Spanish theprepositional forms regularly followedentre . However, if the entities followingentre (i.e., 1st and 2nd person singulars) were also to function as the subject of a subsequent verb, he believed that the nominative forms would necessarily beused, as in the example:Entre tú y yo lo acabaremos “Between you and I, we willnish it” (García de Diego 1951:313).6 Keniston (1937:51), in his descriptionof Modern Spanish syntax, recognized the constructionEntre tú y yo + Verb,and in fact believed that it was likely the origin of the use of subject formsyo and tú in general afterentre : “After the prepositionentre a personal pronoun

with another substantive [i.e., when conjoined], normally has the subject form.This construction is probably derived from the use of entre to introduce a realsubject …Entre Diz y yo hemos llenado el fogón de tablas ‘Between Diz and I, we

5. The RAE (1973:501–502): “Cuando la preposiciónentre va delante de los pronombresde primera y segunda persona del singular, encontramos vacilación en textos medievales y clásicos: en general predominan las formas pronominales del nominativo ( yo , tú ), pero noescasean los ejemplos de régimen preposicional (mí , ti ).”6 . García de Diego based his comments on Cuervo’s note 123 to Bello’s 1847 grammar.Cuervo (1898:476): “Si la preposiciónentre puede preceder al sujeto de la frase es señal de

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-




have lled the hearth with planks of wood’ (Baroja, Pío.Paradox, rey . Madrid,1917, p.106).”7 García de Diego, on the other hand, thought that the changebegan during the Golden Age in constructions where the rst of the twoconjoined elements afterentre was not a tonic pronoun, citing the followingexample from Lope de Vega:Aplazado en efecto quedó el campo entre Fortunio y yo “The country side was indeed hemmed in between Fortunio and I” (La campana de Aragón , 3). Fromentre NP + yo , the structureentre tú y yo wouldeventually arise, though García de Diego does not say how or why.8

The foregoing observations by previous language historians and grammari-ans are based on too few examples to establish whether the Old Spanishsyntagmentre mí & ti occurred sporadically (as suggested by Hanssen), fre-quently (as stated by the RAE), or fairly regularly (as believed by García deDiego). Nor can one be at all certain about García de Diego’s claim that thesyntactic structureEntre tú & yo + Verb occurred with complete regularity inOld Spanish, particularly in light of only one example from the 19th century.Finally, Keniston’s belief that the syntactic context of Entre + 1st and 2ndperson singular entities + Verb was “probably” the point of origin for a subse-quent generalized syntactic change from OSp.entre mí & ti > ModSp.entre tú y yo is certainly a notion worth investigating, as is García de Diego’s claim thatthe change began in the syntactic context of entre + NP (= noun or nounphrase) + tonic pronoun. However, both of these hypotheses need substantia-tion by more examples from Old Spanish. Indeed, in order to shed light on allof the issues raised here, a thorough examination of a signicant number of OldSpanish texts would be desirable.

7. Although one cannot nd an exact parallel in English to theEntre tú y yo + Verbconstruction (since the verb in English would mark the subject with the rst person pluralsubject pronoun, we , i.e., *Between you and I,we will nish it ), what these scholars havesuggested for the change in Spanish in not unlike the substitution of object by subjectpronouns when the entities concerned are considered by speakers to be the subject of anensuing verb. Jespersen (1949:263) called this the “Notional Subject”, and providedexamples such as:let’s you and I go together (Pinero, The Benet of the Doubt ); it made Dad and I laugh (Macaulay,Keeping Up Appearances ).8 . Again, García de Diego based his view on the idea expressed by Cuervo (1898:476): “E

tal la repugnancia que muestra la lengua a emplear el terminal separado de la preposición,que Cervantes llegó a decira solo tú en vez desolo a ti o a ti solo ; lo cual, junto con lacircunstancia de confundirse en la mayoría de los pronombres el nominativo y el terminal



146 Joel Rini

3. New data

Gathering data on Old Spanish syntagms such asentre mí & ti , entre tú & yo ,etc. can be much more easily accomplished today than even only a decade agobecause of the publication of twocd-rom programs that contain an immensecorpus of data for Old Spanish. They are: ADMYTE (=Archivo digital de manuscritos y textos españoles ) and The Electronic Texts and Concordances of the Prose Works of Alfonso X, el Sabio (Kasten, Nitti and Jonxis-Henkemans 1997).The former includes texts from the early 13th- to the early 16th centuries; thelatter, both Royal Scriptorium and non-Royal Scriptorium texts from the 13th,14th, and 15th centuries. A search of these two computer les for the syntacticstructures under consideration here turns up the data presented below inTables 1–4.

When observing these data, one must keep in mind that the total numberof examples of the various syntagms found in Old Spanish is relatively low. Thatsaid, I believe it is nonetheless signicant that, in general, the prepositionalforms mí and ti occur afterentre almost to the total exclusion of the subjectpronouns yo and tú . For example, Table 1 compares the number of occurrencesof conjoined prepositional vs. conjoined subject pronouns afterentre in OldSpanish and shows that the former clearly outnumber the latter.

The situation was much the same when the second person pronoun wasvos ,

Table 1. 1st and 2nd Person Conjoined Prepositional vs. Subject Pros. afterentre inOldSpanish

Syntagm Alfonsine Prose ADMYTE vol. 0 Total

entre mí & tientre ti & mí

50

146

196

entre yo & túentre tú & yo

00

01

01

which, as is well known, functioned as either a plural form of address, or as adeferential alternative in the singular, in place of tú . Observe the data below inTable 2.

Even in the conjoinedstructures containinga mix ofprepositional and subjectpronouns shown in Table 3, it is the prepositional, not the subject pronoun, that

http://-/?-

http://-/?-




Prepositionalmí and ti also appear almost to the total exclusion of yo and tú

Table 2. Prepositional vs. Subject Pronouns Conjoined withvos after entre in OldSpanish


entre mí & vosentre vos & mí

20

60

80

entre yo & vosentre vos & yo

00

00

00

Table 3. 1st and 2nd Person Conjoined Prepositional and Subject Pros. afterentre inOld Spanish

Syntagm Alfonsine Prose ADMYTE vol. 0entre mí & túentre ti & yo

00

11

entre yo & tientre tú & mí

00

00

when conjoined with other prepositional pronouns. Ina searchfor everypossiblecombination of mí , ti vs.yo , tú + él , ella , nos , ellos , ellas afterentre , one nds only one occurrenceofa subject form, e.g.,entre yo & ellas (ADMYTEvol.0)comparedwith 2 occurrences of entre ti & ella , 3 of entre nos & ti (Alfonsine corpus), 3 of entre mí & él , 4 of entre él & mí , and 9 of entre ella & mí (ADMYTE vol. 0).9

When conjoined with a noun or noun phrase (both indicated below by NP), prepositionalmí and ti still occurred more frequently than, though not tothe total exclusion of, the subject forms, as shown in Table 4.

4. Implications of new data for previous analyses

In light of the foregoing data, let us now return to the issues that emerged fromthe observations and comments of previous scholars and grammarians.

9 . No occurrences of the following syntagms were found:entre ti & él, entre él & ti, entre yo

& él, entre él & yo, entre tú & él, entre él & tú, entre mí & ella, entre ella & ti, entre yo & ella,entre ella & yo, entre tú & ella, entre ella & tú, entre ti & nos, entre tú & nos, entre nos & tú,entre mí & ellos entre ellos & mí entre ti & ellos entre ellos & ti entre o & ellos entre ellos &



148 Joel Rini

a. Frequency of entre mí & ti vs. entre tú & yo in Old Spanish

Table 4. Prepositional vs. Subject Pronouns Conjoined with a NP afterentre in OldSpanish


entre mí & NPentre NP & míentre ti & NPentre NP & ti

20

110

9060

110

170

entre yo & NPentre NP & yoentre tú & NPentre NP & tú

0010

1010

1020

As regards the question of the frequency of the prepositional pronounsmí andti after entre in Old Spanish, the data have already provided a clear answer:Indeed, their appearance afterentre in Old Spanish was virtually categorical. Asone can see in Tables 1 and 2, the use of conjoined rst and second personprepositional pronouns (i.e., any combination of mí , ti , and vos ) after entre outnumbers that of the subject pronouns 33 (97%) to 1 (3%). In addition,whenmí and ti respectively were conjoined withother prepositional pronouns,nouns, or noun phrases, their occurrence surpassed that of the subject pro-nouns 49 (92.5%) to 4 (7.5%). Thus in the texts analyzed for this study, thetotal occurrence of prepositional vs. subject pronouns afterentre is 82 (94.3%)to 5 (5.7%).10

The sole example of entre tú & yo in Table 1 appears inCastigos y Docu-mentos para bien vivir III , a work originally composed in 1293 under Sancho IV,and later copied sometime between 1440–1460, the approximate date of theextant manuscript. Given the total absence of subject pronouns afterentre inthe Alfonsine corpus, it is most likely that this one occurrence of entre tú & yo was rst written in the 15th-century copy, not in the 1293 original, thusreplacing an earlier *entre mí & ti . Indeed one ndsentre mí & ti in very similarpassages from theCastigos y Documentos para bien vivir I and the Castigos y

10 . The two data in Table 3 were not included in these calculations because they contain amix of subject and prepositional forms and therefore cancel each other out They were




Documentos para bien vivir II . Observe all three examples in (9):

(9) & todas las otras cosas pasaranentre mj & ti (Cast. y Doc. I , p.241)E todas las otras cosas pasaranentre mj & ti (Cast. y Doc. II , p.149)“And all the other things will occur between me and you”mas sepas que todas las cosas pueden passarentre tu & yo (Cast. y Doc.III , p.183).“but may you know that all things can occur between you and I”

It appears that the 15th-century scribe of theCastigos y Documentos para bien vivir III took some liberties regarding the syntax of his copy, including whatmust have been a personal preference for subject pronouns afterentre , surely a

linguistic innovation during his time. It is also important to note that thepreferred order of the conjoined prepositional pronouns, particularly in theearly-medieval period was rst person followed by second person, i.e.,entre mí & ti/entre mí & vos (27 occurrences) vs.entre ti & mí/entre vos & mí (6 occur-rences), and the only order found in the entire Alfonsine corpus. Thus, if aspeaker of the 13thcenturyweregoing toshift fromprepositional tosubject forms,hemight have beenmuchmore inclined to produce *entreyo&tú than entre tú & yo . In fact we nd in theCid two examples in which, afterentre , yo precedes theconjoined element:entre yo & ellas (line 2087) andentreyo&myoÇid (line2959).Given this question of word order, together with the evidence fromCastigos y Documentos para bien vivir I and II , we may conclude that the rst example of entre tú & yo does not occur in Old Spanish until the mid-15th century.b. Entre to introduce conjoined subjects of the verb as origin? The notion that subject pronouns occurred regularly afterentre in Old Spanishwhen they also functioned as the subject of the following verb doubtless arose

from scholars’ and grammarians’ encounters with such examples from ModernSpanish. For, of the 6 examples of subject pronouns afterentre found in all of the Alfonsine corpus and ADMYTE, only one example truly serves as thesubject of the following verb when the pronoun immediately follows thepreposition. Observe all 6 examples in (10a–f):

(10) a. entre yo & ellas en vuestra merçed somos nos (Cid , line 2087).“between I and they (fem.) in your good graces are we”

b. entre yo & myo Çid pesa nos de coraçon (Cid , line 2959).

“between I and my Lord it weighs on our hearts”c. entre mj & tu qui muyto es fuert (Libro del Tesoro , p.252).



150 Joel Rini

d. entre tu & tu ja sse deue terminar (Libro de Apolonio , p.5).“between you and your daughter it should be nished”

e. Digo yo por que el sennor es testigoentre tu & tu mugier de tu

mancebia (General Estoria IV ).“I do say because the Lord is witness between you and your wife of your youth”

f. mas sepas que todas las cosas pueden passarentre tu & yo (Cast. y Doc.III , p.183).

Only the subject pronouns of the example in (10a) can be considered the gram-matical subject of the following verb. The syntagm containing a subject pro-noun + NP in (10b) actually represents a decomposition of the atonicnos . Why it is introduced by entre is unclear, butGarcía de Diego (1951:313)referred tothis example as “un caso analógico”, presumably to the structure found in(10a). In (10c),tú indeed functions as the subject of the Aragonese secondperson singular verb form,es (whereas Castilian,tú eres ), but note that thepronoun mí , which immediately followsentre , has not been affected. In (10d),if the use of tú had been triggered by its functioning as the subject of theensuing verb, that verb would have appeared as *vos deuedes , not sse deue . In

(10e) tú clearly does not function as the subject of any verb, nor do the subjectpronouns in (10f), which constitutes the sole example of entre tú & yo found inthe entire body of Old Spanish texts analyzed for the present investigation.Moreover, one nds a few counterexamples, i.e., syntactic structures in whichprepositional pronouns afterentre do indeed represent the entities that consti-tute the subject of the following verb, shown in (11):

(11) entre mj & ty estaremos seguros (Sumas de la Historia Troyana , p.217,written in Castilian 1300–1350, copied 1340–1360).“between me and you we will be certain”entre mi & ti estaremos seguros de vno a otro (Crónica Troyana , p.237,translated from Latin to Castilian in 1350, printed in 1500).“between me and you we will be certain of one another”di al Rey queentre mi & el perdemos nuestro tiempo(Gran Conquista de Ultra Mar , p.258, written in Castilian in 1295, copied ca. 1300–1400).11

“Tell the King that between me and him we are wasting our time”

11 Structures like these found in Old Spanish live on in Modern Italian e gTra me e te lo

http://-/?-

http://-/?-




In light of the foregoing data, then, there is no reason to believe that thestructure Entre + subject pronouns + Verb occurred with any regularity whatsoever in Old Spanish, as García de Diego had suggested. There is, there-fore, even less reason to believe, as did Keniston, that such a syntactic structurewas the origin of the Modern Spanish constructionentre tú y yo .c. Entre + NP + Pronoun as origin? Let us next consider the claim that the change of entre mí & ti > entre tú y yo began in the syntactic context of entre + NP + Pronoun. It has been assumedthat in such syntagms, the prepositional pronoun was replaced by a subjectpronoun because of the inuence of the noun or noun phrase, which wouldhave been morphologically identical in both the nominative and accusative,thus:entre mi padre (nom./acc.)& mí (prep.) > entre mi padre (nom./acc.)& yo (nom.). From syntagms such asentre mi padre & yo , it has further been as-sumed that the subject pronountú could then easily take the place of the nounor noun phrase, yieldingentre tú y yo . This hypothesis, however, is untenablefor the following reasons.

First, although Spanish nouns do indeed have one form for both subjectand object, this hypothesis does not explain why speakers would have perceived

the NP as a subject after a preposition rather than simply as the object that itwas. Second, and more important, in the data gathered for this study, one doesnot nd in Old Spanish the syntactic patternentre + NP + Pronoun. Rather,one nds exclusively the patternentre + Pronoun + NP, as is clear from Table 4above. Observe in (12) some of the examples from Table 4:

(12) entre mí & NPNos auemos acordadoentre mj & la rreyna (Cuento de Tristán de Leonis ,p.88)“We have come to an agreement between me and the Queen”Yo vjne aquj a que me libredes vn pleyto agora que esentre mj E vnaSeñora (Cancionero de Baena , p.318)“I came here so that you might free me of a dispute that now stands be-tween me and this woman”sy ay entre mj & los omnes (Cancionero Castellano Misc., p.2)“if there is [any] between me and the men”entre ti & NP

por las malas & feas cobdiçias que son estadasentre ty & ese omne(Libro de las Doñas , p.84)



152 Joel Rini

porne enemjstadentre ty & la muger (Invencionario , p.235)“I will put hatred between you and that woman”que dioentre ty & su Rey amorio & piedat (Cancionero Castellano Misc.,

p.7)“who gave between you and his King love and piety”

The order entre + NP + Pronoun therefore does not appear until the post-medieval period, yet we have our rst example of OSp.entre tú & yo in amedieval manuscript that was copied sometime between 1440 and 1460. Ittherefore does not seem very likely that this is the syntactic environment fromwhich entre tú y yo arose. Perhaps a look at a typologically similar change inprogress outside of Spanish could shed some light on the matter.

5. English between you and I

In Modern American English it has become increasingly more common to hearthe utterancebetween you and I instead of between you and me . In fact, the useof the rst person singular subject pronoun in conjoined structures is not

limited to the prepositionbetween , as one also hears utterances such asTake a picture of Mom and I , The gift is from her and I , etc.Hock (1991:629)providessimilar examples shown in (13):

(13) This book is for people like you and I.Between you and I, this book isn’t worth the paper it was written on.He gave it to Mary and I.

Hock (1991:627–629) explains that such examples are the result of a hyper-

correction. Upon producing an utterance likeMe and Joey went to the swimming pool , the speaker is told “Don’t say Me and Joey , say Joey and I .” Such a simplepronouncement does not give the person who uttered the phrase any rules forwhen to useMe and Joey and when to useJoey and I , but only conveys to thespeaker that there is something wrong with using the object pronounme inconjoined structures. The result is the extension of the rst person singularsubject pronoun to all syntactic contexts when it is conjoined with anotherelement. Syntagms likebetween you and I , to Mary and I , etc., have in fact

gained such acceptance that for some speakers it is only “correct” to use subjectpronouns of any person in conjoined structures, and even when prepositions

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-




are not involved, e.g.,I raised he and his sister .12

Althoughbetween you and me > between you and I is an ongoing change inModern American English, according toJespersen (1949:273)this constructionhas been frequent in British English since Elizabethan times, e.g.,all debts are cleerd betweene you and I (Shakespeare,Merch. III ); So far had this innocent girl gone in jesting between her and I (Defoe,Roxana ).13 Jespersen (1949:272–273)also cited examples of you and I , papa and I , Edward and I , etc., after otherprepositions, e.g.,This life has joys for you and I (Burns), as well as in thefunction of direct or indirect object without prepositions, e.g.,ask why God does not kill you and I (Defoe,Robinson Crusoe ); Won’t you give papa and I a little of your company? (Goldsmith, The Vicar of Wakeeld ). Jespersen (1949:273)acknowledged the role of hypercorrection in the substitution of …and me by …and I (as described above by Hock 1991), but also believed that the “NotionalSubject” had a hand in giving rise to such constructions (For a description of Jespersen’s “Notional Subject”, see note 7).14

One aspect of the English construction that has not been commented onheretofore is that the change was only allowed to occur because of the morpho-logical structure of the rst of the conjoined elements. That is, speakers only committed, and subsequently accepted, hypercorrections involving prepositionslikebetween you and I , to Mary and I , of Mom and I , from her and I , etc., becausethe rst of the conjoined elements was compatible with the prepositioninvolved. That is, forms such asyou , Mary , Mom, her , etc. have always directly followed the prepositionsbetween , to , of , from, etc., so that the transition from,for example, the “correct”You and I + Verb to the hypercorrect Preposition + you and I was easily accomplished. However, if the order of the conjoinedsubject pronouns when appearing with verbs had been reversed — that is, if it

had been “correct” usage to say *I and you + Verb — it is doubtful that thecorrecting of an “incorrect” utterance likeMe and you + Verb would have ledto hypercorrections such as *between I and you , *He gave it to I and Mary , *Take a picture of I and Mom, *The gift is from I and her . Indeed these utterances

12. I recently heard this utterance on a documentary called “Taming the Tiger”, from atrainer who was referring to his raising of a pair of tiger siblings.13. Baugh(1935:344)mentionsinachapterentitled“Theappealtoauthority”thatbetween you and I was condemned by prescriptive grammarians in England during the 18th century.14 I would like to thank my colleague Professor Mark Elson from the department of

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-



154 Joel Rini

would not have been acceptable to any native speaker of Modern Englishbecause the 1st person subject pronoun,I , has never followed any preposition.

These aspects of the English innovation are exactly what makes it sodifficult to understand the change fromentre mí & ti > entre tú y yo . First, whilethere is little doubt that the change currently in progress in Modern AmericanEnglish originally was, and continues to be motivated by the desire to speak “correctly” asHock (1991:627–629) has clearly and accurately explained, thecase of Spanishentre tú y yo cannot be explained as a hypercorrection. Speakersof Old Spanish simply did not commit any original “error” of using preposi-tional pronouns as subjects (i.e., one does not nd, for example, *mí & ti vamos or *vamos mí & ti ) necessary to lead to a hypercorrect use of subject pronounsafterentre . Second, the compatibility of the rst of the conjoined elements withthepreposition (i.e.,between/to/of/from,etc.+ you/Mary/Mom/her , etc.) presentin English is totally absent from Spanish. Just as *between I and you would bemuch more difficult to explain thanbetween you and I because the subjectpronoun I has never followed any preposition, so too is the Spanish construc-tion, precisely because the subject pronountú , historically, has likewise neverfollowed any preposition. Nevertheless, the nature of the English constructionand an understanding of how it likely arose alerts one to the fact that there musthave been some other factor or factors involved in the evolution of the Spanishconstruction which aided the pronountú in overcoming its incompatibility with entre .

6. A new explanation

Although the earliest example of entre tú y yo found in this study was deter-mined to be from the mid-fteenth century (see example 9 above), the earliestexamples of subject pronountú immediately followingentre , shown below in(14), appear two centuries prior:

(14) entretu & tu ja (Libro de Apolonio , p.5, written 1240–1260)“between you and your daughter”entre tu & tu mugier (General Estoria IV , 1280)“between you and your wife”

Note that these earliest examples contain in the second of the conjoined slots,h bj b h i h h i dj i

http://-/?-

http://-/?-




force within the syntagm, as depicted in (15), thus yielding a more vocalicallysymmetrical conjoined structure:

(15) entreti & ¨ (leveling)–tu muger > entretú & tu muger

Another possible explanation for the shift of pronounsti > tú in such a struc-ture is that the pronominal form “assimilated” its vocalic element to that of thepossessive, as depicted in (16):

(16) entreti –(assimilation)Æ & tu muger > entretú & tu muger

One may question if the possessivetu could really have been capable of levelingthe pronominal ti , or if a pronoun would “assimilate” to a possessive adjective.But the fact remains that the earliest examples of entre tú + (other element)involve the possessivetu in the second conjoined slot, while other syntagms of the period in which the NP did not contain possessivetu exhibitentre ti + NP;cf. entre ti & la estrella , entre ti & el pie (Libro del saber de astronomia , 1277,Alfonso X). One should also keep in mind that such vocalic symmetry orstructural similarity as found inentre tú & tu + N was already present insyntagms containing persons other than the second singular, as shown below in(17). Such syntagms may have served as a model for the second person singular,particularly those containingvos ~ vuestro/-a/-s , sincevos functioned, not only as a plural, but also as a deferential singular form of address in place of tú :

(17) like entremí &mi mugerentre nos &nuestras mugeresentre vos &vuestra(s) muger(es)

so entretú & tu mugerreplacing entreti & tu muger15

15. Similarly, in a separate study, I have suggested that the apparently straightforwardsyntactic change of vos “you pl.” >vos otros “you others” >vosotros “you pl.” would not haveoccurredhad itnot been for the structural similarity betweenthe rising formvosotros/-as anditspossessive counterpartvuestro/-a “your(s)” andin particular, thepluralvuestros/-as , giventhe morphological similarities between pronominalmí and possessivemi , mío , mía , míos ,mías , and pronominaltú and possessivetu , tuyo , tuya , tuyos , tuyas . I suggest that innovativevosotros was taken to be in allomorphic status with, for example,vuestros (i.e., /vosótr-/ ~

/vués(o)tr-/),despite thefactthat therewasnoetymologicalconnectionbetween thesegment/-tros/ of one form and the other. Had it not been for this morphological coincidence, Ibelieve that the informal plural of Spanish would now beos todos a syntagm which is well



156 Joel Rini

Whatever the reason, the fact remains that some speakers chosetú over ti attimes when the NP contained possessivetu , if not only for the simple reasonthat the vocalically symmetricalentre tú & tu + N “sounded better” than theasymmetricalentre ti & tu + N. And as regards the question of frequency of entre tú & tu + N, I would suggest that although only two examples of entre tú & tu + N appeared in writings of the 13th century — a fact which in and of itself is signicant, particularly given that one example appeared in a RoyalScriptorium text of Alfonso the Wise! — it is not inconceivable that in thespoken registers of 13th century Castilian, phrases such as “el sennor es testigoentre tu & tu mugier” (GE IV ) abounded. In any case, the early structureentre tú & tu + N, though certainly not the only factor involved in the change underconsideration here — since it would remain to be explained why entre tú & tu + N would have triumphed overentre mí & mi + N — nevertheless may havebegun to prepare speakers’ ears for the eventual replacement of entre ti … by entre tú….

Another surface pattern that may have played a role, however minor, inpreparing speakers’ ears for the eventual patternentre tú … is whatButt andBenjamin (1995:128)call “preposition-like words”, e.g.,excepto , incluso , menos ,salvo , hasta , and según , which in Modern Spanish are followed by subjectpronouns. A search for patterns such asexcepto tú , incluso yo , etc. in OldSpanish, however, turns up only examples of según + subject pronouns in fullexpressions, i.e., with verbs, e.g.,segund tu ordenares “according to how you willcommand”,segunt tu puedas “according to how you will be able”;segun(d/t) yo estimo/pienso/creo/aprendí/ordenare/estó/trobo/he aprendjdo/deseo/veo/deprise/ digo “according to how I esteem/think/believe/learned/will command/am/nd/have learned/desire/see/unfastened/say” (ADMYTE vol. 0). Thus the Modern

Spanish expressions such assegún tú “according to you” andsegún yo “accord-ing to me” are elliptical structures. If, however, such ellipses became commonin the late Medieval period, it could be argued thatsegún tú , salvo tú , etc. helpedpave the way forentre tú… , but such structures could not have been theprimary reason for the change under consideration here. For, we would remainwithout an explanation for why in Modern Spanish one does not say *entre yo y tú (given según yo , incluso yo , etc.), as well as why the inuence of suchstructures would be limited to the prepositionentre . It appears, therefore, that

the primary cause of the change from OSp.entre mí & ti > ModSp.entre tú y yo is to be found in the nature of the prepositionentre .

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-




is that, syntactically, this preposition is generally not repeated before eachprepositional pronoun, at least in Modern Spanish, whereas prepositions suchas a “to”, de “of, from”,para “to, for”, etc. are indeed repeated before each.16

Ramsey (1956:92), in his synchronic description of ModSp.entre tú y yo , wrote:Between the prepositional form and the preposition preceding it, nothingwhatever should intervene. Consequently when two or more prepositionals arethe objects of the same verb, the preposition must be repeated before each.Otherwise the nominative form will be used…. The prepositionentre , however,cannot be thus repeated since its meaning is reciprocal. In modern usage thesubject forms of the personal pronouns follow it.17

Although Ramsey’s statement accurately describes the reciprocal nature of entre in Modern Spanish (a description which, presumably, would apply to thesemantic value of OSp.entre as well), it does not explain why both pronounsshould appear in the subject form. Indeed, according to Ramsey’s description,we should nd in Modern Spanish *entre ti y yo rather than entre tú y yo , sinceit is only the second of the conjoined elements that is ungoverned by thepreposition. Moreover, the inability of ModSp.entre to govern a prepositionalpronoun in second position — thus calling for a subject form — applies to

Modern Spanish only, and suggests that there has been a change in this facet of the prepositionentre from Old to Modern Spanish. Indeed, it is clear from thetextual evidence gathered for this study that in the earliest period of OldSpanish (13th and 14th centuries, and presumably before that), the prepositionentre was perfectly capable of governing, not only the rst, but also the secondof the conjoined elements. Hence the prepositional pronouns in second

16. Thereare OldSpanish examples,however, whichexhibit such repetition of entre despiteits reciprocal meaning, e.g.,entre ti & entre aquel logar “between you and between thatplace”,entre ti & entrel pie de la cosa derecha “between you and between the foot of the thingto the right”,entre ti & entrela cosa “between you and between the thing”,entre ti & entrela rayz “between you and between the base” (Alfonsine prose,Libros del saber de astronomia ,1277).17. Ramsey’s statement echos that of Bello (1847), a fellow grammarian of the samecentury, with whose grammar Ramsey must have been familiar. Bello (1847:302):

Entre los casos terminalesmí , ti , sí , y la preposición que forma complemento con

ellos, no se pone ordinariamente palabra alguna…. Es preciso pues en ocasionessemejantes, o repetir la preposición … o alterar el orden de los términos de maneraque nada medie entre la preposición y el caso terminal Pero lo primero es

http://-/?-

http://-/?-



158 Joel Rini

position in examples such asentre mí & ti and entre ti & mí (in Table 1),entre él & mí , entre ella & mí (ADMYTE vol. 0), andentre nos & ti (Alfonsine prose).Over time, however, the second of the conjoined elements, not being in directcontact with the preposition, may have come to be loosely or weakly governedby it at rst, and eventually, not at all. This weakness and eventual loss of theability of entre to govern the second position would lead to the replacement of the prepositionally governed pronounsmí and ti by totally free (i.e., ungovern-able) morphemes, in this case, yo and tú respectively. It appears thatentre beganto lose its ability to govern the second of the conjoined elements by the late-14th or early-15th century, as the example in (18) attests:

(18) mas digno de auer el amorentre ti & yo (Cuento de Tristán de Leonis ,p.16, written 1390–1410, copied 1410).“more worthy of having love between you and I”

This factor may have been operative in the rise of the English construction aswell, though, to date, it has not been invoked. That is, although the motive forthe change in English is clearly hypercorrection, it is entirely possible that thesubstitution of …and me by …and I was greatly facilitated by the fact that thissecond of the conjoined elements was not in direct contact with the prepositionin examples likebetween you and me > between you and I , or the verb inexamples likeShe saw Dad and me at the store > She saw Dad and I at the store .

A structure such asentre ti & yo , however, containing an awkward combi-nation of tonic object and subject pronouns, was not to last. Eventually, theincreasingly more common subject pronounyo in the ungoverned secondposition would call for, and perhaps even force, its second-person counterpart,tú , into the rst position, thus overriding the preposition’s preference for theobject form,ti , yielding the innovationentre tú & yo . That is, onceentre couldno longer govern the second position, but indeed was still capable of governingthe rst, speakers had to make a choice: Either maintain a prepositional formafter a preposition but remain with an asymmetrical conjoined structure (i.e.,entre ti & yo ), or introduce a free, ungovernable morpheme into a governedposition for the sake of symmetry in the conjoined structure (i.e.,entre tú & yo ).Support for the latter option would be found, not only in the syntagmentre tú & tu + N described above (and perhaps in the ellipticalsegún tú ), but also, and

most inuentially, in the syntactic patterntú & yo when these appeared with averb. It is important to note that while Modern Spanish exhibits the patterntú Old S i h hibi d h & ú d h h “ d ”




order of tú & yo did not come into vogue until the 15th century.18 Again, thisis precisely the century in which the rst example of entre tú & yo appeared, i.e.,1440–1460. The inuence of this change of word order of subject pronouns andtheir inuence on the choice of pronouns appearing afterentre may be schema-tized as follows in (19):

(19) 13th Century 14th Century 15th Century yo & tú + V

yo & tú + V > > tú &yo + Vtú &yo + V Ø

entre ti &yo > entre tú &yo

The entire development of OSp.entre mí & ti to entre tú y yo , then, may besummarized as follows in (20):

(20) yo & tú + V > tú &yo + Ventre mí & ti Ø

entre mí & ti > > entre ti &mí > entre ti &yo > entre tú &yoentre ti &mí

18. In the entire Alfonsine corpus, for example, one nds no example of tú & yo + V (norV + tú & yo ), but only yo & tú + V (or V+ yo & tú ). Observe the following examples:Emporidad estamos yo & tu (General Estoria IV ); Et conuienne a saber & paremos le mientes yo & tu (General Estoria II ); que mientre yo&tu fueremos uiuos que tu sienpre seas mia (General Estoria II ); non partjmos a esta gujsa egual mente el mundo yo & tu (General Estoria V ); Et yo & tu non andamos ya de tienpo aca en vna auentura (General Estoria V ); & sus cartas en quel dixo: ven & veamos nos & abengamos nos yo & tu (General Estoria V ). Likewise, theBiblia Latina , translated from Latin to Castilian in 1250, offers the following examples:& desto que yo & tu ponemos (p.173);Juramos yo & tu diziendolo en el nombre de dios (p.174);yo & tu vno somos (p.248); quando yo & tu andando en el carro seguiemos (p.261); et si te plaze vayamos nos yo & tu adelante (p.389). It is not until the 15th century that one nds asignicant number of examples that exhibit the patterntú & yo + Verb/Verb + tú & yo .Examples include:tu & yo somos hermanados (Libro de las Doñas , p.416; translated fromCatalan to Castilian in 1448);y en estas cosas non discrepamos tu y yo en nada (Visión delectable , p.145; 1485);vamos tu et yo amj padre (Esopete Historiado I , p.170; translated toCastilian from Greek, via Latin and German 1482 ad quem, printed in 1488);vamos tu & yo amj padre (Esopete Historiado II , p.151, printed in 1489);y con pequeña fuerza podremos tu y yo acabar (Tratado de amores de Arnalte y Lucenda , p.65; written in Castilian in 1491 ad

quem, copied in 1546);tu y yo la suframos (Tratado de amores de Arnalte y Lucenda , p.73);antes que tu y yo mi remedio buscasemos (Tratado de amores de Arnalte y Lucenda , p.147);no q ieras q e t de na herida moramos (Tratado de amores de Arnalte L cenda p 170);



160 Joel Rini

Portuguese offers evidence to support the proposed chain of events for Spanish,where we nd a more Old Spanish-like structure in European Portuguese, i.e.entre mim e ti , and a more Modern Spanish-like structure in Brazilian Portu-

guese, i.e.,entre eu e você (or entre eu e tu ). Cuesta (1971:245)reports that inEuropean Portuguese, the form of the second position may alternate betweenprepositional and subject forms, i.e.,entre mim e ti ~ entre mim e tu , though thelatter may be considered less acceptable. Thus it appears that in ModernEuropean Portuguese, as in Old Spanish,entre has begun to lose its ability togovern a prepositional form when not in direct contact with it. This develop-ment must have advanced more quickly in Brazilian Portuguese, where we only nd subject pronouns afterentre . The order of subject pronouns when appear-ing with verbs has always beeneu e tu/você in Brazilian (as well as European)Portuguese. Thus it appears that a structure such asentre mim e tu (from earlierentre mim e ti ) shifted toentre eu e tu (before the widespread substitution of tu for você ), because of the word ordereu e tu + V, as shown in (21):

(21) eu e tu + V –(continues unchanged)Æ eu e tu + VØ

entre mim e ti > entre mim etu > entre eu e tu

It should be noted here that in English too, the pattern of subject pronouns hasaffected conjoined structures that had earlier exhibited both object and subjectforms, e.g.,between her and I > between she and I , because of She and I + V.Given the parallel developments in Spanish, Brazilian Portuguese, and English,it will not be surprising if European Portuguese eventually undergoes thechange as well.

Though it is not totally clear when Brazilian Portugueseentre eu e você (andthe now less commonentre eu e tu ) became the norm, the Spanish structureclearly did not gain total acceptance until the mid-20th century. Generations of speakers must have struggled, on the one hand, with the pressure to inserttú after entre for the reasons outlined above, and on the other, with the desire touse a prepositional pronoun afterentre , as one nds prepositional forms afterentre in the late-Medieval period, and well beyond.19 Indeed, a signicant

19. Examples include:que esta sea la nal anbaxadora entre ti y mi te soplico (Tratado de amores de Arnalte y Lucenda ,1491, copied in 1546);de ynportuno esta merced quite y tal contrato t ti i q eden q e as se g arde te pido(ibid ); como o de ía q ien él era

http://-/?-

http://-/?-




number of examples of entre tú y yo do not even emerge in the written languageuntil the 19th century.20

Comments by grammarians also attest to this struggle between preposition-al and subject forms, and, more importantly, inform us that the ultimatetriumph of entre tú y yo over entre mí y ti has occurred only recently. Bello, in1847, still recognized the constructionentre mí y ti , and in fact, surprisingly,makes no mention of its competitor,entre tú y yo . However, he did indeedrecognize constructions such asentre mi padre y yo as being common, thoughhe further stated (1847:302): “Bien que no tengo por ilegítima, aunque menosusada, la construcciónentre usted y mí , entre fulano y mí [Although I don’tregard as incorrect, though less used, the constructionentre usted y mí , entre fulano y mí ].”

Ramsey (1956:92),who wrote the manuscript of his classic textbook between 1889 and 1893, stated that “[i]n modern usage the subject forms of thepersonal pronouns follow it [entre ]” and gave the examplesentre él y yo, entre V. y yo , entre mi hermano y tú , and entre tú y yo , though the last was followed by the parenthetical statement “(occasionally Entre ti y mí)”.

In 1898, Cuervo gave his opinion on the state of affairs. With regard toentre ti y mí (and entre mí y ti ) he stated: “Esta construcción parece desusada hoy

la amistad, que entre ti é mí se affirma, no ha menester (Celestina , 1499);¡O triste, é quando veré yo esso entre mí é Melibea ! (ibid.); como entre ésta mi señora é mí , es necesario (ibid.); é entrañas escudriña, al qual puso entre él é mí , que te buscasse (ibid.); vos, mi hija Mabilia, que por la discordia que entre mi y los de vuestro linage está tengo yo de olvidar lo que me havéis servido (Amadís de Gaula ,1508);La diferencia que hay entremíyellos (Quijote II,1615);Aquí el señor ventero y el gran Sancho serán medianeros y apreciadores entre vuesa merced y mí

(ibid.); don Manuel engolfado en estas competencias que entre mí y Alejandra traíamos (Novelas amorosas, Desengaños amorosos,1637–1647);en el pupitre, erigiendo una protectora barrera entre ti y el gardián (1900s-SpWr Reiv1). The struggle between prepositional andsubject forms afterentre can even be witnessed in the writings of the same author, as thefollowing examples from Tirso de Molina (1583?-1648) show:Entre mí y la reina viuda . (El vergonzosos en palacio , III, 1);Entre él y mí no hay secretos.(La huerta de Juan Fernández , III,8); but Hubo algunas diferencias/De la opinión cuál ha sido/ Entre vuestra alteza y yo (Amar por arte mayor , III, 16).20 . Examples include:ha puesto entre tú y yo obstáculos (Las ilusiones del doctor Faustino ,

Juan Valera, 1824–1905);y no sospecha, que entre tú y yo medie (Cartas , Gertrudis Gómez deAvellaneda, 1814–1873);se ha pronunciado entre tú y yo , y que es (ibid.); vendrá a quedar la cosa t tú (Don Gon alo Gon ále de la Gon alera José María de Pereda 1833 1906);

http://-/?-

http://-/?-



162 Joel Rini

[This construction seems to be in disuse today].” He further stated, however,that entre mí/ti + NP “es hoy perfectamente aceptable [is perfectly acceptabletoday]” citing examples such asentre mí y mis perseguidores “between me andmy persecutors” andentre ti y Mariquita “between you and Mariquita”. On theother hand, he observed thatentre + NP +mí/ti was now replaced by entre + NP+ yo/tú , citing examples such asentre mis hijos y yo , and entre tu marido y tú .Finally, he condemned the use of yo , and eventú, immediately afterentre inexamples such asentre yo y el criado “between I and the servant” andentre tú y mi esposa “between you and my wife”, stating that “[p]arece a todo trancepreferible [it seems at all costs preferable]” to use the prepositional forms inthese cases, i.e.,entre mí/ti + NP. Although he advised against the use of tú afterentre when conjoined with a NP, he did not make any such pronouncementagainstentre tú y yo . Only from his statement thatentre ti y mí was, during histime, in disuse, can we deduce that he must have foundentre tú y yo acceptable,indeed the only other possibility.

It is not until 1945 that we nd a denitive statement in favor of the use of tú y yo after entre. Alcalá-Zamora (1945:302): “el uso se ha extendido y aanzado aun más desde la época de Bello, siendo lo autorizado y correctodecir: “entre tú y yo” [the use (of subject pronouns afterentre ) has beenextended and secured even more since the time of Bello, being the authoritativeand correct way to say (the idea of ‘between you and me’) as follows: “entre tú y yo” ]. Thus, from the time of the earliest example of entre tú y yo to Alcalá-Zamora’s consecration of the construction, nearly 500 years had passed.

To conclude, I would like to answer the question posed in the title of thisarticle, i.e., is the origin of Spanishentre tú y yo a typological parallel to thestructurally similarbetween you and I of English? As regards the origin, the

answer is no. In English, the change in progress is likely rooted in the hyper-correction of the “incorrect” use of object pronouns as subjects of the verb,together with, perhaps, the phenomenon of the “notional subject”, while inSpanish, the change clearly had nothing to do with either phenomenon.Nevertheless, other parallels in the development of the constructions in Englishand Spanish (and Brazilian Portuguese as well) have been revealed as a result of the present typological analysis. First, the second of the two conjoined elements,originally an object pronoun, ultimately found itself ungoverned and therefore

susceptible to replacement by a free morpheme, the pronominal subjectcounterpart in this case. Second, the word-order pattern of subject pronouns



164 Joel Rini

Ramsey, Marthon M. 1956.A Textbook of Modern Spanish: As now written and spoken in Castile and the Spanish American Republics . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Real Academia Española (RAE). 1973.Esbozo de una nueva gramática de la lengua española .Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.

Rini, Joel. 1990. “On the Chronology of Spanishconmigo, contigo, consigo , and the Interac-tion of Phonological, Syntactic, and Morphological Processes”.Hispanic Review 58.503–512.

Rini, Joel. 1992.Motives for Linguistic Change in the Formation of the Spanish Object Pronouns . Newark, Del.: Juan de la Cuesta.

Rini, Joel. 1999. “The Rise and Fall of Old Spanish ‘Y’all’:vos todos vs.vos otros” . Essays in Hispanic Linguistics Dedicated to Paul M. Lloyd,by Robert J. Blake, Diana L. Ranson, &Roger Wright, 209–221. Newark, Del.: Juan de la Cuesta.

Zamora Vicente, Alonso. 1967.Dialectología española . Madrid: Gredos.

Résumé

Le présent travail traite du développement du syntagme prépositionnel irrégulier en espagnolmoderne,entre tú y yo . Au lieu des pronoms prépositionnelsti et mí , la prépositionentre estsuivie des pronoms sujetstú et yo . Une analyse philologique révèle un fait presque inconnuchez les spécialistes de la grammaire historique espagnole: ce syntagme présentait, en effetdans des textes médiévaux les pronoms prépositionnels, i.e. ancien espagnolentre mí & ti .Par conséquent, l’auteur soutient la thèse d’un changement syntaxique:entre mí & ti > entre tú y yo . Ensuite, une comparaison typologique est faite avec le développement actuel dusyntagme en anglais:between you and me > between you and I . Bien qu’en apparence ceschangements syntaxiques soient identiques, au fond l’origine en est différente pour chaquelangue. L’auteur expose en conclusion deux facteurs ayant joué un rôle décisif dans ledéveloppement des syntagmesentre tú y yo et between you and I : l’impuissance de lapréposition à régir le deuxième élément conjoint, et les modèles des pronoms sujets quant àl’ordre des mots.

Zusammenfassung

In der vorliegenden Studie wird sowohl unter diachronischen als auch typologischenPrämissen das synchronisch unregelmäßige spanische Syntagmaentre tú y yo “zwischen dirund mir” untersucht, welches die Subjektpronominatú und yo an Stelle der erwartetenPräpositionalpronominati und mí verwendet. Zuerst zeigt eine detaillierte Untersuchung deraltspanischen Texte, dass im altspanischen Syntagma tatsächlich Präpositionalpronominaverwendet wurden, im vorliegenden Fall im Altspanischenentre mí y ti (eine Tatsache, dieSpezialisten auf dem Gebiet der historischen spanischen Grammatik faktisch unbekannt ist);dies zeigt einen syntaktischen Wechsel vonentre mí & ti > entre tú y yo.Weiter wird dieser




diesen Sprachen oberächlich exakt parallel erscheint, die Anlässe des Wechsels in denbeiden Sprachen verschieden sind. Jedoch konnten bestimmte gemeinsame Faktoren, diesowohl in der Entwicklung vonentre tú y yo als auch vonbetween you and I eine Rollegespielt haben, eruiert werden (was die Unfähigkeit der Präpositionen, das zweite von zweimiteinander verbundenen Elementen zu regieren, sowie die Muster der Wortfolge derSubjektpronomina einschließt).

Author’s address

Joel RiniDepartment of Spanish, Italian & Portuguese115 Wilson HallPO Box 400777Charlottesville, VA 22904–4777 U.S.A.e-mail: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



Copyright of Diachronica is the property of John Benjamins Publishing Co. and its content may not be copied

or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

the origin of spanish

Documents