Universals In Comparative Morphology Jonathan David Bobaljik

Universals In Comparative Morphology Jonathan
David Bobaljik download
https://ebookbell.com/product/universals-in-comparative-
morphology-jonathan-david-bobaljik-56400618
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
Universals In Second Scholasticism A Comparative Study With Focus On
The Theories Of Francisco Surez Sj 15481617 Joo Poinsot Op 15891644
Daniel Heider
https://ebookbell.com/product/universals-in-second-scholasticism-a-
comparative-study-with-focus-on-the-theories-of-francisco-surez-
sj-15481617-joo-poinsot-op-15891644-daniel-heider-5152862
Universal Empire A Comparative Approach To Imperial Culture And
Representation In Eurasian History Dr Peter Fibiger Bang
https://ebookbell.com/product/universal-empire-a-comparative-approach-
to-imperial-culture-and-representation-in-eurasian-history-dr-peter-
fibiger-bang-2626034
Financing Universal Access To Healthcare A Comparative Review Of
Landmark Legislative Reforms In The Oecd World Scientific Series In
Health Scientific Health Investment And Financing Hardcover Alexander
S Preker
https://ebookbell.com/product/financing-universal-access-to-
healthcare-a-comparative-review-of-landmark-legislative-reforms-in-
the-oecd-world-scientific-series-in-health-scientific-health-
investment-and-financing-hardcover-alexander-s-preker-10457852
Natural Behavior The Evolution Of Behavior In Humans And Animals Using
Comparative Psychology And Behavioral Biology Burton A Weiss
https://ebookbell.com/product/natural-behavior-the-evolution-of-
behavior-in-humans-and-animals-using-comparative-psychology-and-
behavioral-biology-burton-a-weiss-46101468

Copulas Universals In The Categorization Of The Lexicon Regina Pustet
https://ebookbell.com/product/copulas-universals-in-the-
categorization-of-the-lexicon-regina-pustet-4722554
Sexed Universals In Contemporary Art Aesthetics Today Penny Florence
https://ebookbell.com/product/sexed-universals-in-contemporary-art-
aesthetics-today-penny-florence-1747832
Variation And Universals In Biolinguistics 1st Edition Lyle Jenkins
https://ebookbell.com/product/variation-and-universals-in-
biolinguistics-1st-edition-lyle-jenkins-4687758
The Problem Of Universals In Contemporary Philosophy Galluzzo
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-problem-of-universals-in-
contemporary-philosophy-galluzzo-5285884
The Problem Of Universals In Early Modern Philosophy 1st Edition
Stefano Di Bella
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-problem-of-universals-in-early-
modern-philosophy-1st-edition-stefano-di-bella-6639444

Universals in Comparative Morphology

Current Studies in Linguistics
Samuel Jay Keyser, general editor
A complete list of books published in the Current Studies in Linguistics series
appears at the back of this book.

Universals in Comparative Morphology
Suppletion, Superlatives, and the Structure of Words
Jonathan David Bobaljik
The MIT Press
Cambridge, Massachusetts
London, England

© 2012 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any elec-
tronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage
and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher.
MIT Press books may be purchased at special quantity discounts for business or sales
promotional use. For information, please email [email protected] or write
to Special Sales Department, The MIT Press, 55 Hayward Street, Cambridge, MA
02142.
This book was set in Times Roman by Westchester Book Composition. Printed and
bound in the United States of America.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Bobaljik, Jonathan David.
Universals in comparative morphology : suppletion, superlatives, and the structure of
words / Jonathan David Bobaljik.
p. cm. — (Current studies in linguistics)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-262-01759-6 (alk. paper)
1. Grammar, Comparative and general—Morphology. 2. Grammar, Comparative and
general—Syntax. 3. Grammar, Comparative and general—Word formation.
4. Linguistics. I. Title.
P241.B63 2012
415’.9—dc23
2011048955
10987654321

Für Susi und Leo

Contents
Acknowledgments ix
Abbreviations xi
1 Introduction
1.1 Introduction
1
1.2 Distributed Morphology6
1.3 Constructing the Database15
1.4 Comparative Typology18
2 Comparative Suppletion
2.1 Introduction
27
2.2 *ABA: Explaining a Gap31
2.3 Universal Grammar versus the European Sprachbund39
2.4 Summary47
3 The Containment Hypothesis
3.1 Introduction
49
3.2 Transparent Containment49
3.3 Comparison and the Synthetic/Analytic Divide67
3.4 The Synthetic Superlative Generalization79
3.5 Containment and Semantic Considerations95
3.6 Chapter Summary103
4 The Comparative-Superlative Generalization: The Data
4.1 Adjectives
105
4.2 Adverbs116
4.3 Quantiﬁers123
4.4 Chapter Summary135
5 Theoretical Reﬁnements
5.1 Introduction: Taking Stock
137
5.2 Conditions on Suppletion: Exponence versus Readjustment139
5.3 Adjacency, ABC, *AAB144

viii Contents
5.4 AAB Ablaut158
5.5 Merger, Rule Ordering, Diacritics, and Acquisition163
6 GettingBetter: Comparison and Deadjectival Verbs
6.1 Introduction
169
6.2 Preliminary Remarks172
6.3 Deadjectival Degree Achievements: Doubting Dowty176
6.4 To Good, to Badden, and to Many187
6.5 Summary: What’s the Difference?205
7 Complexity, Bundling, and Lesslessness
7.1 Introduction
209
7.2 Lesslessness213
7.3 Conservative Decomposition: Adjacency and Bundling221
7.4 Concluding Remarks224
Appendixes 227
A The Broad Sample 229
B The Focused Survey 243
C Principal Sources 257
References 269
Index

Acknowledgments
The research reported here has occupied me for a number of years, and in that
time, I have beneﬁted (and I hope the book has as well) from the comments,
questions, and suggestions of a large number of linguists. I would like to sin-
gle out in particular the following, whose suggestions (whether I was able to
address them or not) were of particular importance in shaping my thinking
at one point or another in the course of this work: Susi Wurmbrand, Edwin
Williams, Ken Saﬁr, Andrew Nevins, Jason Merchant, Alec Marantz, Chris
Kennedy, Harry van der Hulst, Jon Gajewski, David Embick, Miloje Despi´c,
Andrea Calabrese, Mark Baker, and two reviewers. I also received useful
comments from Greville Corbett, Wolfang U. Dressler, Danny Fox, Michael
Wagner, Roger Schwarzschild, Ljiljana Progovac (and members of her reading
group), and others mentioned in notes below. I owe a special debt of grati-
tude to the many linguists and/or language experts who have helped me with
particular languages (see appendix C).
In addition, I thank all those who have sat through presentations of parts of
this material and provided feedback, including audiences at the University
of Connecticut, the Jersey Syntax Circle (Princeton), Universitetet i Tromsø,
the Workshop on Theoretical Morphology (Leipzig), GALANA-2 (McGill),
the University of Massachusetts (Amherst), the Georgetown University Round
Table, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Chicago,
Cornell University, Universität Stuttgart, the Wiener Sprachgesellschaft, New
York University, the University of Pennsylvania, GLOW 34 (Vienna), the
Roots III Workshop (Jerusalem), and the Comparative Germanic Syntax Work-
shop 26 (Amsterdam). I also thank participants who heard and commented
on extended presentations in a seminar on comparatives co-taught with Yael
Sharvit, a morphology seminar at the University of Connecticut, and a mini-
course at Rutgers University.

x Acknowledgments
I am also grateful to the reviewers whose comments on an earlier, much
shorter manuscript led me to rethink the project in important ways and to con-
clude that a monograph format was needed to avoid skimping on the empirical
or theoretical front (or both). My thanks to Jay Keyser and Ada Brunstein for
working with me to make this happen, and to Anne Mark for her invaluable
editorial advice.
For research assistance, I thank Carlos Buesa García, Miloje Despi´c, Natalia
Fitzgibbons, Zhanna Glushan, Gísli Rúnar Harðarson, I-Ta Chris Hsieh, Nina
Radkevich, Oksana Tarasenkova, and the University of Connecticut Inter-
library Loan Service. Funding for portions of this work was provided by
the National Science Foundation (BCS–0616339), the Alexander von Hum-
boldt Stiftung (a Transcoop project with Uli Sauerland), a sabbatical grant
from the American Philosophical Society, and a grant from the University
of Connecticut Research Foundation for acquiring a collection of descriptive
grammars.
Above all, I am grateful to Susi and Leo Wurmbrand for their support—and
patience—throughout this project.

Abbreviations
1/2/3ﬁrst/second/third person
A.SPRLabsolute superlative
ABL ablative
ACC accusative
ADD additive
ADESS adessive
ADJ adjective
ADNOM adnominal
ADV adverb
CGEL Cambridge Grammar of the English Language(Huddleston and
Pullum 2001)
CMPR comparative
COCA Corpus of Contemporary American English
CONV converb
COP copula
CG Comparative–Change of State Generalization
CSG Comparative-Superlative Generalization
DAT dative
DECL declarative
DEF deﬁnite
DEG degree
DIM diminutive
DM Distributed Morphology
DWB Deutsches Wörterbuch(Grimm and Grimm 1854–1961)

xii Abbreviations
ELAT
elative
EMPH emphatic
F feminine
FACT factive
GEN genitive
HON honoriﬁc
INCEPTinceptive
INFIN inﬁnitive
INFL inﬂection
INST instrumental
INTNS intensiﬁer
LOC locative
LV linking vowel
M masculine
N neuter
NEG negative
NML nominalizer
NOM nominative
NPI negative polarity item
OBJ object
OBL oblique
OED Oxford English Dictionary
PART partitive
PL plural
POS positive
PRD predicator
PREF preﬁx
PRES present
PROG progressive
PST past
PTCP participle
RED reduplicant
REFL reﬂexive

Abbreviations xiii
REL
relational particle
RSG Root Suppletion Generalization
SG singular
+
SPE speciﬁc
SPRL superlative
SSG Synthetic Superlative Generalization
STD.MKRstandard marker
SUBJ subject
TOP topic
TV theme vowel
UG Universal Grammar
VIP Vocabulary Insertion Principle
VM verb marker
WDG Wörterbuch der deutschen Gegenwartssprache

1
Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Morphology is sometimes characterized as the domain of the lawless,
and among the miscreants, no process epitomizes irregularity more than
suppletion—the wholesale replacement of one stem by a phonologically unre-
lated stem—as in the comparative and superlative degree of adjectives (good –
better – best). On the basis of a large, crosslinguistic survey (just over 300
languages), I argue that there are nevertheless strikingly robust patterns in
this domain, robust enough to be solid contenders for the status of linguistic
universals.
One goal of this study is to offer theoretical explanations for these gener-
alizations, thereby setting out a formal generative typology (in the sense of
Baker and McCloskey 2007; Baker 2009) of suppletion in adjectival compari-
son. In the course of developing an analysis, I will argue that the assumptions
needed bear on choices among theoretical frameworks, with the framework of
Distributed Morphologyhaving the right architecture to support the account. In
addition to the theoretical implications of the generalizations, I suggest that the
striking patterns of regularity in what otherwise appears to be the most irregu-
lar of linguistic domains provide compelling evidence for Universal Grammar
(UG). The core theoretical claim will amount to saying that certain types of
meaning cannot be expressed monomorphemically. A central example is the
superlative, as in Englishbiggest. I contend that no language has a true superla-
tive morpheme that attaches to adjectival roots. Apparent examples, such as
English-est, in fact have a richer structure, where the superlative-forming
element always embeds a comparative: (roughly) [[[
ADJECTIVE]COMPAR-
ATIVE]SUPERLATIVE]. This structure is transparent in many languages (see
chapter 3). The argument for UG here constitutes in some ways a twist on
the familiar logic of the poverty of the stimulus. Within any one language,

2 Chapter 1
the evidence from suppletion is far too scant for any observed patterns to
emerge as signiﬁcant. Thus, if there are universal generalizations to be had
(as I contend there are), their signiﬁcance can only be appreciated in their
crosslinguistic scope. A second goal of the book, then, is to contribute to the
search for the basic building blocks of grammatical meanings: morphological
primitives.
Over the course of the book, I contend that the following generalizations
have the status of linguistic universals. I discuss various clariﬁcations, and I
address apparent counterexamples, providing alternative accounts. The ﬁrst
generalization is the Comparative-Superlative Generalization (CSG), in two
parts, extending observations in Ultan 1972.
(1)The Comparative-Superlative Generalization, part 1 (CSG1)
If the comparative degree of an adjective is suppletive, then the superlative
is also suppletive (i.e., with respect to the positive).
(2)The Comparative-Superlative Generalization, part 2 (CSG2)
If the superlative degree of an adjective is suppletive, then the comparative
is also suppletive (i.e., with respect to the positive).
The two parts of the CSG require that an adjective that is suppletive in grada-
tion will be suppletive in both the comparative and superlative grades (relative
to the basic, positive root). The CSG allows for patterns such asbad – worse –
worst(henceforth, an ABB pattern), with the suppletive root common to both
comparative and superlative, and for patterns such as Latinbonus – melior –
optimus‘good – better – best’ (ABC), with distinct roots in all three grades.
What is disallowed (and virtually unattested) is a pattern in which only the
comparative*good – better – goodest(*ABA) or only the superlative*good –
gooder – best(*AAB) shows suppletion.
Two important terminological clariﬁcations should be made here. First, by
superlativehere and throughout I refer only torelative superlatives, meaning
‘more X than all others’. The generalizations do not extend to what are some-
times calledabsolute superlatives(also calledelativesin some traditions). The
latter do not have a strictly comparative sense, and mean instead ‘
ADJto a very
high or excessive degree’. For example, in Italian there is a distinction between
relative superlatives (formed by adding the deﬁnite article to the comparative:
il migiore‘the better’=‘(the) best’,la più bella‘the more beautiful’=‘the
most beautiful’) and absolute superlatives (marked by the sufﬁx-issim-:buon-
issim-o‘very, extremely good’,bell-issim-a‘very/extremely beautiful’). Other
afﬁxes that form absolute (rather than relative) superlatives include the Slavic
preﬁxpre-(as in Slovenianpre-lép‘too/very beautiful’<lép‘beautiful’), the

Introduction 3
Russian sufﬁx-ejš-ij(as invern-ejš-ij drug‘very/most loyal friend’<vern-
yj drug‘loyal friend’), and Modern Greek-tat-os.
1
Absolute superlatives are
not subject to the generalizations laid out here, evidently because they lack the
comparative component of meaning (and hence structure).
2
A second clariﬁcation regards the termsuppletionitself. I do not take sup-
pletion to represent a point on a cline of irregularity (contrast Wurzel 1985);
rather, I see a categorical divide between suppletion (a relation holding among
distinct exponents, or vocabulary items, as ingo – went) and other forms of
irregularity such as ablaut (which involve phonological changes to a single
underlying exponent, as intell – told). I return to these points in more detail
below—in particular, presenting arguments for a distinction between supple-
tion and readjustment rules in chapter 5. For now, I simply mention these
clariﬁcations as they are important to understanding the scope of the gener-
alizations under scrutiny. On suppletion generally, as well as on differing uses
of the term, see Mel’ˇcuk 1994 and Corbett 2007.
Two further generalizations to be discussed are the following:
(3)The Synthetic Superlative Generalization (SSG)
No language has morphological superlatives (X-est), but only periphrastic
comparatives (more X).
(4)The Root Suppletion Generalization (RSG)
Root suppletion is limited to synthetic (i.e., morphological) comparatives.
The SSG constitutes the claim, independent of suppletion, that no lan-
guage shows a regular pattern analogous to*long – more long – longest,in
which the comparative is exclusively periphrastic, whereas the superlative is
morphological. (The termsperiphrasticandmorphologicalin this sense are
interchangeable withanalyticandsynthetic, respectively, and I will alternate
among these at points below.)
The RSG adds to this the claim that no language shows suppletion of the
root in periphrastic comparatives:*good – more bett. There is a subtlety to
the formulation of the RSG that should be mentioned here, in light of modern
1. Not all languages draw a clear distinction between the two types of superlative, and
grammatical descriptions are sometimes vague on this point. As a rule of thumb, I have
tried to note all questionable cases wherever an analytical decision bears on the status
of the empirical generalizations under discussion.
2. As is often the case with linguistic terms,relativeandabsolute superlativeare used
somewhat inconsistently in the literature. Some authors (see e.g., Hackl 2009) use them
not in the sense just indicated, but to refer to two different readings of the (relative)
superlative, namely, those termed thecomparativeandabsolutereadings elsewhere.

4 Chapter 1
Romance languages such as French and Italian, in which regular comparatives
are all periphrastic, but which have a handful of suppletive forms. The key
point to keep in mind is that suppletion, in the normal case, involves a substi-
tution of roots, but leaves functional morphology intact. Thus,bett-erin place
of*good-erpreserves the comparative afﬁx-er, and this is characteristic of the
signiﬁcant majority of examples of suppletion. While suppletion does appear
to compete or alternate with periphrastic constructions in some languages (thus
Italian:buon-o‘good’ may be compared periphrastically or suppletively,più
buonoormigliore, both meaning ‘better’), no language shows root suppletion
with (obligatory) preservation of the comparative morpheme, when the latter
is free-standing. This introduction is not the place to explore the subtleties,
but I signal the point here since the examples are likely to be familiar to many
readers (Romance superlatives are the focus of section 3.3.2).
Yet another generalization concerning the morphological expression of
degree is the following:
(5)Lesslessness
No language has a synthetic comparative of inferiority.
Comparison of superiority (‘more X’) is afﬁxal in many languages, as inlong –
long-er, but comparison of inferiority (‘less X’) never is; schematically,more
X : X-er :: lessX:*. This last generalization is the most unquestionably robust
of the lot.
3
For the generalizations in (1)–(4), there are apparent challenges that
must be (and can be) addressed. But (5) is surface-true without even a hint of
a problematic case in the 300 languages examined for the present study. The
generalization is discussed in chapter 7.
The hypothesis that lies at the core of the proposals in this book can be
phrased as follows:
(6)The Containment Hypothesis
The representation of the superlative properly contains that of the com-
parative.
Subject to some qualiﬁcations, the central claim is that (7a) is a possible
representation, but that (7b) is universally disallowed.
(7) a. [[[
ADJECTIVE]COMPARATIVE]SUPERLATIVE]
b. *[[
ADJECTIVE]SUPERLATIVE]
3. This generalization is mentioned tentatively by Cuzzolin and Lehmann (2004,
1213), with no indication of the sample size they drew on. I have found no other men-
tion of this in the literature (other than in the descriptions of individual languages), nor
any systematic survey, though I imagine it is widely suspected to hold.

Introduction 5
The Containment Hypothesis stands at the heart of the account of (1), (2),
and (3). These generalizations are shown to follow from (6) on a small set of
independently motivated, general theoretical assumptions. The most important
among these are given in (8), discussed in more detail below.
(8) a.Late Insertion (realization)
The (abstract) morphosyntactic representation is the input to a mor-
phological component, characterized in part by rules of exponence
(vocabulary insertion) that assign phonological realizations to the
terminal nodes.
b.Underspeciﬁcation, elsewhere ordering
The rules of exponence (vocabulary insertion) may be underspeciﬁed
and thus may compete to realize a given node; such competition is
resolved by the Elsewhere Condition (Subset Principle, P¯an.inian order-
ing), in which more speciﬁc rules take precedence over more general
ones.
c.Locality
Morphological rules are constrained to operate under strict conditions
of locality; in certain conﬁgurations, an erstwhile trigger of a given rule
may be too far away to trigger that rule. Structural adjacency may be
a condition on certain types of rule (rules of exponence, readjustment
rules).
How these assumptions are to be made precise, and how they interact with the
Containment Hypothesis to derive the generalizations given above, is the focus
of chapters 2–5.
An important further question addressed here is how (6) is to be formalized,
and relatedly, why it should hold. Somewhat tentatively, I will suggest that the
impossibility of (7b) is a consequence of a general limit on the complexity of
individual morphemes. That is, at least for the functional or grammatical (as
opposed to lexical) vocabulary, there are intrinsic limits on possible morpheme
meanings. I suggest that the meaning ‘more than all others’ is, by this crite-
rion, too complex to be expressed monomorphemically, and it must therefore
be split into (at least) a piece meaning ‘more’ and another meaning (roughly)
‘than all (others)’. The Containment Hypothesis in (6) and (7) is thus not itself
a part of UG, but a consequence of a far more general condition. Some rather
speculative remarks on this theme, including how it may underlie an account of
(5) and how it connects to proposals regarding impossible morphemes in other
empirical domains (see Kayne 2005; Bobaljik 2008; Hackl 2009), occupy
chapter 7.

6 Chapter 1
In addition to the generalizations just considered, the following emerges as
a strong trend in the data, surprisingly many (but not all) prima facie counter-
examples being readily accounted for in other terms:
(9)The Comparative–Change of State Generalization (CΔG)
If the comparative degree of an adjective is suppletive, then the corre-
sponding change-of-state verb is also suppletive (i.e., with respect to the
positive adjective).
In a manner strongly reminiscent of the missing*good – better – goodest
pattern with superlatives, the more spotty domain of deadjectival verbs is
well-populated with patterns such asbad – worse – worsen, but precious few
examples show the corresponding verb derived from the positive root:good –
better – *gooden. Though this generalization is less robust than the others
considered here, its formal parallel to (1) warrants consideration. I examine the
CG in chapter 6, considering in particular the implications of a parallel to the
Containment Hypothesis (6) in this empirical domain, as against more tradi-
tional proposals for the lexical semantics of deadjectival degree achievements
(cf. Dowty 1979).
The study itself begins in earnest in chapter 2. In the following sections,
I present additional background remarks that some readers may ﬁnd useful.
In section 1.2, I discuss some core theoretical assumptions that will come
up in the course of the work. In section 1.3, I discuss the nature of the data
sets used for this study, and some of the choices made in aiming for a bal-
ance between diversity of languages and comprehensive coverage of the data.
The phenomena of core interest show a signiﬁcant areal concentration, with
comparative suppletion largely unattested outside of a Greater European area,
a fact that poses a special challenge to what is fundamentally a quantitative
claim about the signiﬁcance of gaps in the data. In section 1.4, I provide an
extremely brief review of prior literature on the typology of comparative
constructions.
1.2 Distributed Morphology
One contribution of the present study is intended to be empirical, and to the
extent possible, I have characterized core descriptive results in a relatively
neutral vocabulary. In addition, I have taken pains to present the theoretical
argument, in particular in chapter 2, in terms that are as general as possi-
ble, in order to permit fair comparison with alternatives across theoretical
frameworks. That said, one of the goals of the current work is to argue that a

Introduction 7
particular set of assumptions is required in order to explain the generalizations
above. I take it as uncontroversial that a key component of explanation in this
sense is not only to be able to describe the attested patterns, but also to exclude
the unattested patterns; all six generalizations presented in the previous section
describe gaps in the data, which, I argue at length below, are systematic rather
than accidental. I contend that the framework of Distributed Morphology (DM)
has the right general architecture to support the assumptions needed to derive
these generalizations. It is not clear that competing morphological frameworks
do. If this contention is correct, then this book constitutes an argument for that
general theoretical framework. With that in mind, it seems of use to lay out
here some of the relevant aspects of DM (and associated terminology) that I
will appeal to in the accounts to be developed below. This section does not aim
to give a comprehensive overview of the framework (see Halle and Marantz
1994; Harley and Noyer 1999; Embick 2010, chap. 2; Bobaljik, to appear); it
aims only to present some key notions that play a role in what follows.
The most important aspect of DM for the theory of comparative suppletion
to be developed here is the treatment ofcompetitionandblockingin allo-
morphy. Distinct phonological matrices compete to realize (combinations of)
grammatical features, in different contexts. To take a well-worn case, there
are in English, as in many languages, a variety ofexponentsof the gram-
matical feature
PLURAL, with irregular (lexically restricted) exponents taking
precedence over the regular, default spelling out of the plural feature, wher-
ever available: thus,ox-en,sheep-Ørather than*ox-es,*sheep-s. As has been
widely noted, such competition effects imply that morphology isrealizational,
incorporating some version of theSeparation Hypothesis(Beard 1995, with
many antecedents noted therein), which holds that the derivation of the mor-
phological representation of complex words is separate from (and prior to) the
spelling out or realization of those representations.
In the DM instantiation of this general approach,rules of exponence(equiv-
alently, ofvocabulary insertion) provide the phonological realization for
morphosyntactic representations, held to be derived by the syntax (hence inser-
tion islate, as opposed to theearly, presyntactic insertion characteristic of
lexicalist frameworks). Examples of some rules of exponence for English are
given in (10); collectively, the rules of exponence for a language are referred
to as theVocabularyof the language.

8 Chapter 1
(10) a.PRES3SG→-s=/-z/
b.
PRES →Ø
c.
PL →Ø/] N
where N=sheep,foot,...
d.
PL →-en / ] N
where N=ox
e.
PL →-s=/-z/ / ] Nf.CMPR →-er
g.
√
GOOD →be(tt)- /]CMPR]
h.
√
GOOD →good
i.
√
BIG →big
...
A few words on notational conventions here: the rules relate a grammatical
feature matrix (in
SMALL CAPS) to a phonological representation. For ease of
exposition, I use standard orthography as a proxy for the phonology throughout
this book. Rules of exponence may be context-free or context-sensitive, where
the context may include idiosyncratic lexical restrictions (as in (10c–d)). In my
presentation of the rules of exponence, I use the symbol→to express the rela-
tionship these rules represent, taking it to be one of rewriting of features with
their exponents (see Halle 1990; Trommer 1999; Bobaljik 2000b). Another
formalism within DM uses⇔expressing correspondence, rather than rewrit-
ing (see Halle and Marantz 1993; Embick 2010). Nothing of consequence turns
on this distinction in the present work.
The entries in (10a–f) provide exponents for the functional (i.e., grammat-
ical) vocabulary of the language, constituted by grammatical features (these
features should be understood as shorthand for a more sophisticated feature
analysis, or decomposition into grammatical primitives). By contrast, the
vocabulary entries forroots(10g–i), indicated as
√
ROOT, are to be under-
stood not as features, but as identiﬁers for individual roots, abstracting away
from allomorphy. It will be crucial to the analysis of competition in suppletion
thatgoodandbett-be seen as manifestations of a single abstract root; hence,
rules of exponence must apply to roots (Beard’s (1995) Lexemes;l-morphemes
in the terminology of Harley and Noyer (1999)) as well as to grammatical
morphemes, an assumption that is incompatible with the framework of Beard
(1995).
4
Beyond that simple point, I take no stand on the correct representation
of these identiﬁers; for the vast majority of lexical roots, the identiﬁer may just
as well be the (or a) phonological representation, making exponence for these
4. For differing views on this point within DM, see Marantz 1996, 2007; and Embick
2010, 193n1.

Introduction 9
roots trivial. Where there is no risk of confusion, I will often omit the root
symbol in Vocabulary fragments given below.
Given representations such as (11), the rules in (10) will apply to provide
exponents to the various nodes (for (11a), I have given a labeled partial tree dia-
gram; for the others, only more abbreviated representations with information
omitted not relevant to the point).
(11) a. [[
√
PLAY]VPRES,3,SG]V +Inﬂ
V
√
PLAY
play
Inﬂ
→
PRES
3SG
√
/z /
b. [[
√
DOG]NPL]=dog-z
c. [[
√
OX]NPL]=ox-en
d. [[
√
BIG]ACMPR]=big-er
e. [[
√
GOOD]ACMPR]=bett-er
Where more than one rule is compatible with a given node, competition
is regulated by theElsewhere Condition(Kiparsky 1973), which may be
formulated as in (12).
5
(12)Elsewhere Condition
If two (incompatible) rules R
1,R2may apply to a given structure, and the
context for application of R
2is contained in that of R1, then R1applies
and R
2does not.
The Elsewhere Condition, as widely discussed, applies to force the choice of
an irregular allomorph over a competing regular one, as in the pluralox-en
in (11c). Rule (10d) bleeds application of rule (10e) in (11c), by the Else-
where Condition. (It is understood that rules are disjunctive, and only one
rule of exponence may apply to a given node in the general case. Disjunctiv-
ity of rules satisﬁes Kiparsky’s incompatibility condition on the application
5. Compare Halle’s (1997) formulation of the Subset Principle, which combines the
Elsewhere Condition, as a condition regulating rule interaction, with a general condition
on rule application that a rule may apply only when its structural description (including
contextual restrictions) constitutes a subset of the context being considered. Thus, a
rule may not apply if its description includes features that are not part of the node to
which insertion applies.

10 Chapter 1
of (12).)
6
In a similar manner, (12) ensures that (10a) and not (10b) is inserted
in the inﬂectional position in (11a), yielding(she) play-s, rather thanplay-Ø,
even though the description for (10b) is met. Finally, in the realm of root allo-
morphy, and directly relevant to the rest of this book, the Elsewhere Condition
forces a contextually restricted allomorph (10g) to block insertion of a context-
free allomorph of the same root (10h), when the context for insertion is met, as
in (11e). This derivesbett-errather than*good-eras the comparative ofgood.
See Embick and Marantz 2008 for further discussion of blocking in DM and
for comparison to alternative conceptions.
Working backward through the derivation, the representations that are the
input to vocabulary insertion are taken to be derived, in the ﬁrst instance, in
the syntax, though they are subject to additional postsyntactic manipulations in
some cases. We may take one example that will ﬁgure in the discussion of the
RSG and SSG in chapter 3. Among the abstract morphemes of English, along
with a slew of adjectival roots, is a morpheme
CMPRthat combines with adjec-
tives to yield the comparative. As is well-known, English comparatives have
both a periphrastic and a synthetic guise:more politeandpolit-er, respectively.
In a DM account (see Embick and Marantz 2008), a single syntactic struc-
ture underlies both the periphrastic and the synthetic expressions, namely, that
in (13a).
(13)
6. See also Anderson 1992 and Stump 2001 on disjunctive rule application. In con-
trast to the theories discussed in these works, DM holds that the locus of disjunctivity
is the terminal node; thus, “rule blocks” are in the general case featurally coherent.
However, DM provides mechanisms for manipulating the structure after syntax but
prior to vocabulary insertion, which allows for the description of departures from a
one:one mapping of terminal nodes to exponents. See Halle and Marantz 1993 and
Noyer 1997 for discussion and comparison with the framework proposed in Anderson
1992 in particular.

Introduction 11
Sticking to the basic case, a periphrastic comparative likemore politearises
when (13a) is subject to vocabulary insertion, with the comparative element
(pronounced asmore) and the adjective in separate maximal projections. A
synthetic construction arises when some operation M, indicated by the arrow
in (13b), combines the two terminal nodes into a single complex head, yielding
(13c) (cf. (11d–11e)). The theory provides a variety of options for the identity
of M, including head movement (either in, or after, the syntax), the operation
Morphological Merger (Marantz 1989),
7
or perhaps others (see Embick and
Noyer 2001 for an array of options). Very little, if anything, in the current
study hinges on what M is in any given example, and so I will remain generally
agnostic throughout. For concreteness, and for consistency with the analysis
of reinforcing adverbs in section 3.3.1, I will use a downward-pointing arrow
in trees such as this, thus taking M as (lowering via) Merger. (The various
operations that are candidates for M may differ in the labels they would assign
to the nodes in (13c): for example, in whether
CMPRis adjoined toADJor
vice versa. I intend to remain agnostic here and use lowercase letters simply as
mnemonic devices to refer to various nodes.)
In the view that the input to morphology is a syntactic representation, DM
contrasts with other realizational frameworks such as those of Aronoff (1994)
and Beard (1995), as well as with word-and-paradigm models (Matthews 1972;
Anderson 1992; Stump 2001). In many of these frameworks, which reject the
idea that syntax is the source of the concatenation and arrangement of gram-
matical features, the morphosyntactic feature bundle is unstructured. Effects of
afﬁx order are the product of stipulated rule ordering, for example, by order-
ing rules of exponence into disjunctive rule blocks (Anderson 1992). In the
course of this book, I contribute to the argument for a syntactically structured
morphosyntactic representation. Speciﬁcally, there appear to be locality con-
ditions on allomorphy that require the kind of hierarchically structured input
representation that DM posits but competing theories reject.
7. Marantz 1989, 261 deﬁnes Morphological Merger as follows:
(i) At any level of syntactic analysis (D-structure, S-structure, phonological structure),
a relation between X and Y may be replaced by (expressed by) the afﬁxation of
the lexical head of X to the lexical head of Y.
The core cases of Merger encompass rebracketing under adjacency as an account of
certain cliticization effects: [X [Y...]]→[X+Y...], and the afﬁxation of a head X to
the head of its complement, as in afﬁx hopping: [X [
YPY]]→[ YPX+Y]. In practice,
Merger of the afﬁx-hopping type tends to effect a lowering operation, though this is not
strictly a part of the deﬁnition. See Bobaljik 2002a for more discussion.

12 Chapter 1
The argument begins from the assumption that rules of exponence operate
cyclically, beginning with the root (cycle-based theories of locality within DM
are offered in Bobaljik 2000b and Embick 2010). A ﬁrst consequence of such
cyclic approaches is that some form ofNo Lookahead Conditionwill hold
(e.g., Simpson and Withgott 1986, 155). To start with Simpson and Withgott’s
example, the derivation of the English wordcliticization[[[clitic] iz(e)] ation]
proceeds in steps, adding-izeto the stemcliticon the ﬁrst cycle, and adding
-ationto the result on a second cycle. In the ﬁrst cycle, when-izeis added,
information is available about the stem (e.g., that it is a noun); hence, this may
constrain the process (e.g., triggering allomorphy). However, no information is
available about what will happen in the second cycle: thus, information about
the more peripheral sufﬁx may not condition processes such as allomorphy
for the ﬁrst sufﬁx. To do so would involve “looking ahead” to a subsequent
cycle. In other words, as the complex word is constructed, one condition on
allomorphy for a given afﬁx is that it may only be sensitive to information
already present in the morphological structure at the time that afﬁx is added.
In the domain of inﬂection, No Lookahead in its strongest form is too strong.
As Carstairs-McCarthy (1992, 214) puts it: “[i]t is as if inﬂectional realisa-
tion operates on the basis of precise information about what has already been
spelled out..., butonly vague information about what has yet to be spelled
out.” Though differing in detail, cyclic approaches that posit a structured mor-
phosyntactic representation as the input to rules of exponence derive something
weaker than Simpson and Withgott’s No Lookahead, and more in line with
Carstairs-McCarthy’s description: a rule of exponence at the root may be con-
ditioned by information that is part of the representation at that stage of the
derivation, namely, the morphosyntactic properties of the higher nodes, but
not their phonological form.
8
In addition to the cyclicity condition, two other locality conditions play a
role in the current work. One condition, at least as a working hypothesis,
is that a morpheme (or feature)βmay condition allomorphy for morpheme
αonly if the two are in the same morphological “word” (i.e., complex X
0
):
βmay condition allomorphy forαin the environment in (14a) but not that
in (14b), where a maximal projection intervenes (abstracting away from lin-
ear order). (An alternative formulation, in line with Embick 2010, would
make reference tophasesorcyclic nodes, in place of maximal projections,
8. This is a matter of ongoing debate; see Embick 2010 and Bonet and Harbour, to
appear, for current discussion.

Introduction 13
in (14b), relating the condition more closely to the discussion of cyclicity in
the preceding paragraph.)
(14) a.α...]
X
0...β
b. *α...]
XP...β
The RSG (4) falls out as a special case of this broader condition. The Italian
root
√
GOODmentioned above has two allomorphs: the comparativemiglior-
and the elsewhere formbuon-. To a ﬁrst approximation, Italian grammar treats
operation M in (13b) as optional: if M applies, the suppletive root is required,
but if M does not apply, then the head
CMPRis insufﬁciently local to the root,
and suppletion is not triggered, givingpiù buono‘more good’.
Evidently, (14) is a necessary but not a sufﬁcient condition on locality for
contextual allomorphy. Even within a complex X
0
there appear to be locality
conditions at work. Thus, in the structure in (15), for at least some values of
X, Y is unable to condition root allomorphy.
(15) Y
X
√
√
ROOT
X
Y
A strong proposal is that any X serves as an intervener between Y and the
root in (15)—in essence, a condition of structuraladjacencyon root allomor-
phy, as proposed in one form or another by various authors (Siegel 1978;
Allen 1979; Embick 2003, 2010).
9
A structural adjacency condition appears
to be somewhat too strong as a general condition on contextual allomorphy
(see Carstairs 1987; Bobaljik 2000b; Chung 2007b), but in the current study,
adjacency makes the right divide in a number of interesting cases. I will there-
fore tentatively adopt the adjacency condition as part of the theory of locality
for root allomorphy, leaving it to a future project to understand why adjacency
might not restrict afﬁxal allomorphy (Bobaljik 2000b), as well as reconciling
this with the sporadic apparent counterexamples in the literature just men-
tioned (see the exchange in Bobaljik 2000b; Carstairs-McCarthy 2001, 2003;
and Adger, Béjar, and Harbour 2003 for pertinent discussion).
9. Embick (2010) proposes a condition of linear adjacency, in addition to a domain-
based structural condition. In essence, Embick’s theory incorporates strict adjacency,
but allows for the deletion or “pruning” of X when X is nonovert.

14 Chapter 1
It is in this last, and narrowest, sense of locality that the DM approach
clearly parts company with competing realizational theories that assume no
hierarchical structure among the abstract, grammatical features. In theories
such as Anderson’s (1992) and Stump’s (2001), where the morphosyntactic
representation is unstructured, with word structure given by the rules of expo-
nence, there is no obvious sense of “higher nodes” in the morphosyntactic
representation—no sense in whichadjacencycan be deﬁned or evaluated rel-
ative to the abstract features that serve as the input to the rules of exponence
(as opposed to adjacency among the exponents, which is readily deﬁnable). If
an adjacency condition in this sense (or something like it) is substantiated (as
argued for here), its existence serves as a further argument for word-internal
hierarchical arrangement of grammatical features prior to vocabulary insertion.
A ﬁnal aspect of the framework that should be mentioned here, and one
that has received less attention to date, is the treatment of portmanteau
morphology—cumulative exponencein the terminology of Matthews (1972,
1991). In some instances, a single phonological string appears to correspond
to multiple terminal nodes of the (morpho)syntactic representation. Contrast
bett-er, the comparative of
√
GOOD, which appears to contain the regular
comparative sufﬁx-eralongside the suppletive root allomorph, withworse,
the comparative of
√
BAD, which appears to express simultaneously the
root meaning and the comparative. The theoretical framework adopted here
presents at least two ways of approaching portmanteaus (and no reason to
suspect that all will fall to the same treatment).
On the one hand, the general structure of comparatives, [[
ADJ]CMPR], can
be maintained even for theworsecase, but with mutually conditioned contex-
tual allomorphs:
BAD→worse/
]CMPR], andCMPR→Ø/]
A
+],
where A
+
=worse,less. This approach would preserve the structure for
English comparatives unchanged even for the portmanteaus; also, it essentially
recapitulates history, where the deletion of-erhad a phonological motivation.
Note that the overwhelming majority of root suppletion is of thebett-ertype,
preserving derivational and inﬂectional morphology beyond the root.
On the other hand, one could treat the exponentworseas a true portman-
teau, spelling out both the root and the comparative elements: [
BAD,CMPR]→
worse, inserted at the top node in (13c). Radkevich (2010) proposes to allow
insertion at nonterminal X
0
nodes in exactly this way (see also Neeleman and
Szendr˝oi 2007; Caha 2009), with a speciﬁc proposal about how to restrict
application of this mechanism to avoid overapplication. Equivalently, an oper-
ation of Fusion may be invoked (Halle and Marantz 1993; see also Bobaljik
1997 and Chung 2007b) to combine the two terminals in (13c) into a single
node prior to the application of rules of exponence.

Introduction 15
As it happens, there is perhaps an argument in the domain of comparatives
for treating (some) portmanteaus as complex exponents (either with Fusion
or with insertion at complex nodes) rather than as a conspiracy of mutually
conditioned allomorphs. The argument has to do with the locality conditions
mentioned above. Recall from section 1.1 that alongside suppletive patterns
likegood – better – best(with a common allomorph in the comparative and
superlative), patterns are also attested with three distinct root allomorphs, such
as Latinbonus – melior – optimus‘good – better – best’. The Latin pattern
poses a prima facie challenge to the adjacency condition on allomorphy in that
the superlative is, by the Containment Hypothesis, never structurally adjacent
to the root, yet there is clearly root allomorphy conditioned by the superla-
tive in this example. However, combining the nonterminal-insertion or Fusion
approach to portmanteaus with the adjacency condition on allomorphy allows
for a narrow loophole to adjacency, with a clear prediction, stated here:
(16) The superlative may only condition root allomorphy (distinct from the
comparative) when the root and the comparative together are expressed
by a portmanteau.
The prediction is indeed borne out (see chapter 5 for a discussion of why this
should hold), although the number of relevant examples is small enough that
we cannot be conﬁdent this is not an accident. It is worth mentioning here,
though, as it illustrates on the one hand how the various assumptions interact
and on the other hand how surface violations of conditions (such as adjacency)
may arise as the product of the interaction of various principles at some level
of abstraction.
While there is far more that should be said about the theoretical framework,
the above discussion will I hope provide sufﬁcient background for the material
to be discussed in the next chapters. Chapter 5 returns to the ﬁne detail of the
theory, after the broader discussion in chapters 2 and 3.
1.3 Constructing the Database
The results reported here are drawn from the investigation of just over 300
languages, representing an attempt to strike a balance between the opposing
demands of representing areal and genetic diversity and of achieving a com-
prehensive catalogue of attested examples of suppletion in comparative and
superlative morphology. Assembling the data may be thought of as a three-
stage procedure, and this approach is reﬂected in the presentation of the results
in appendix A, appendix B, and chapter 4.

16 Chapter 1
The ﬁrst stage, reported in appendix A, is a broad sample of 148 lan-
guages, representing approximately 40 families and a dozen or so isolates
(using the classiﬁcations at Bickel and Nichols 1996– and http://multitree
.linguistlist.org/ as a rough guide, with no implied commitment to these classi-
ﬁcatory schemas). Languages were included in this sample on a quasi-random
basis, with availability of descriptions leading to some skewing.
10
Multiple
languages were chosen from most families, as there is variation in the expres-
sion of comparison even within a single family, sometimes striking variation
among closely related languages.
While the broad sample is used for verifying the empirical generalizations
discussed above, the broad sampling method proves to be not particularly
illuminating in this regard as the majority of the world’s languages satisfy
the interesting generalizations for rather trivial reasons. Most languages, for
example, lack ABA patterns in superlative adjectival suppletion because they
lack suppletion in gradation, lack superlatives, or lack adjectives altogether.
Thus, the primary function of the broad sample lies in identifying regions and
families with the morphological properties of interest to the present study (sup-
pletion in adjectival gradation, morphological comparatives or superlatives).
Taking the results of the broad sample (along with a LinguistList query and
a literature review) as a starting point, I assembled a second survey, aiming
for comprehensiveness rather than breadth—to have as many data points as
possible from languages with comparative suppletion and/or morphological
superlatives. To this end, I focused ﬁrst on languages that have evidence of
morphologically marked grades of comparison (from the ﬁrst survey and the
literature review), and then expanded outward to languages closely related to
the core sample, to the extent grammatical descriptions were available. The
results of this focused survey are presented in appendix B. This second sample
includes 174 languages (of which 20 are from the broad sample). Approxi-
mately two-thirds of these languages have morphological comparative forms
10. A large number of grammatical descriptions, in particular older descriptions of
languages of the Americas, provide no information on how comparison is expressed.
Many of these languages may well have no clear comparative construction and/or may
be classiﬁed in the conjoined type (see section 1.4). In choosing representatives for a
given family, stock, or area, some priority was given to languages discussed in previous
typological surveys of comparison (Ultan 1972; Stassen 1985, 2008) to facilitate com-
parability across studies, although this proved impractical in many cases (either because
of difﬁculty in obtaining data, or because these studies include an overabundance of
languages from some families).

Introduction 17
(somewhat fewer have morphological superlatives), and of these, approxi-
mately 70 show examples of comparative suppletion. A striking areal skew
emerges at this point: morphological marking of comparative and superla-
tive is attested (though not common) around the globe, but (with perhaps the
sole exception of Cherokee) the conﬂuence of both suppletive comparatives
and morphological superlatives (central to investigating the CSG) appears to
be limited to languages historically from Europe and its closest neighbors—a
Greater European Sprachbund.
Despite the concerns this areal concentration raises for a universalist per-
spective, there is sufﬁcient variation in the data from this group of languages
for interesting and signiﬁcant patterns to emerge. In light of the fact that many
of these languages are closely related, however, counting languages in a survey
of this type becomes increasingly problematic (see Bickel 2008 and references
therein). To see the problem, consider the English triplegood – better – best,
a pattern consistent with the CSG. German also has a CSG-consistent ABB
pattern for the corresponding adjective:gut – besser – (am) besten. Indeed, so
do almost all known Germanic languages present and past; compare Gothic
goþs – batiza – batists. Yet surely the facts from each of these individual lan-
guages are contingent facts of their history; ultimately, the entire Germanic
‘good’ paradigm represents but a single innovation, somewhere in the pre-
history of northern Europe. In assembling the actual data presented below, in
order to mitigate the inﬂuence of borrowing and common inheritance, I took
the approach of counting cognate sets, rather than languages, counting only
one exemplar for each cognate triple of the formpositive – comparative –
superlative. A comprehensive listing of attested suppletive triples (positive –
comparative – superlative) is given in chapter 4. In order to be counted there,
each pattern must differ in at least one of the roots from a pattern already in the
data set (see section 2.3.2 for elaboration). This avoids questions of deﬁning
and counting languages. We need not take a stand on whether Norwegian and
Swedish, or Serbian and Croatian, are distinct languages, or how many stages
in the history of English, we should recognize. The Germanic ‘good’ triple
contributes a single data point. Thus, some triples like this represent numer-
ous languages over a wide time period, while others may be contributed by a
single dialect—for example, the Giazza Cimbrian (German)guot –ăeg-ur –
ăeg-ur-ste‘good – better – best’, for which the comparative and superlative
have a different etymological source from Germanbesserand Englishbetter
(see Schweizer 2008, 397, and section 2.3.2 below).
Approached this way, the generalizations remain robust, despite the con-
cern of an areal concentration. As regards the CSG, more than 100 distinct

18 Chapter 1
cognate triples are reported in chapter 4. Some 70 of these involve qualita-
tive adjectives (with only one potentially problematic example). Quantiﬁers
such as ‘much/many’ and ‘few’ (which introduce additional complexities) con-
tribute nearly 40 triples, with a handful of apparent challenges. The full data
set is presented in chapter 4; and problems and qualiﬁcations are discussed
in the relevant chapters below. Moreover, although comparative suppletion is
unquestionably an areal phenomenon, there is sufﬁcient variation within the
languages that have it to raise the questions addressed here, chief among them
being why some patterns are attested and others are not. Simply noting that
abstract patterns may be resilient to change over time provides an insufﬁcient
answer. The patterns that are attested do change: suppletion arises and is lost,
doublet patterns come into being or fall out of use, and so on. Of the var-
ious ways in which one could characterize patterns in the data, most are in
fact not stable over time. What is stable is precisely the generalization that
the attested (or reconstructible) changes do not yield AAB and ABA patterns
in this domain. What this study aims to provide is an account of why, in a
sea of irregularity, these particular generalizations constitute islands of stabil-
ity. More discussion of these issues occupies the latter part of chapter 2, after
more details of the theory and its empirical basis are presented.
1.4 Comparative Typology
A ﬁnal array of useful background information for this study concerns the
typology of the expression of comparison, and the place of this study in rela-
tion to previous work. In broad terms, an expression of comparison has three
principal parts: a predicate denoting a gradable property, the subject of com-
parison, and the standard against which it is contrasted (see the English (17a)
and synonymous Russian (17b) examples here). Two additional elements in
these particular examples are comparative morphology (either free or bound),
glossed
CMPR, expressing that the utterance is comparative, and a special
marker of the standard of comparison, the particlethanin English and the
genitive case in Russian.
(17) a. The bear is larg -er than the dog.
SUBJECT PROPERTY -CMPR STD.MKR STANDARD
b. Medved’ bol’š -e sobak -i.
bear big -
CMPRdog - GEN
SUBJECT PROPERTY CMPR STANDARD STD
.MKR
Previous typological studies focus largely or exclusively on the broad
syntax of these constructions, and/or on the morphology of standard marking

Introduction 19
(Andersen 1983; Stassen 1985, 2008). Only Ultan (1972) discusses the mor-
phology of comparative marking (see also brief remarks in Dixon 2008), and
Ultan’s study does not focus on the contrasts that are of primary interest here
(although he remarks brieﬂy on suppletive patterns and notes the essential
content of the CSG). In terms of coarse-grained morphosyntax, three broad
types of comparative construction can be identiﬁed crosslinguistically (my
classiﬁcation differs in part from prior authors’ in ways that will become
clear presently): theconjoinedcomparative, the‘exceed’comparative, and the
standardcomparative. All three are illustrated here, although most of this
book will be concerned with the third type, and then only with a subset
thereof.
In theconjoinedcomparative, a simple positive expression such asThe bear
is largeis juxtaposed with a contrasting expression (e.g., an antonymous pred-
icate, as in (18)); a simple positive expression is juxtaposed with negation (as
in (19)); or a plain predicate is juxtaposed with an intensiﬁed one (as in (20)).
(18) Mosbi
Port Moresby
ó=le
NEU=TOP
sum
big
eka
and
Banimo
Vanimo
ó-ta
NEU-EMPH
gwˇaab=o=be.
small=
PRD=DECL
‘Port Moresby is bigger than Vanimo.’ (Mian; Fedden 2007, 122)
(19) TinuPn
these
LeNu-Pn-ˇc
berry-
PL-DIM
ˇc’eBuz-laX-aPn,
sweet-
ADJ-PL
a
but
xaNnaPn
those
qaPm.
not
‘These berries are sweeter than those.’ (Itelmen; ﬁeld notes [SB14A])
(20) Poka
stilt
fain
this
maala,
long
ne
ADD
oko
other
maala
long
akena.
very
‘This stilt is long but the other one is longer (lit. very long).’ (Mauwake; Berghäll
2010, 272)
Roughly one out of every four to ﬁve languages makes use of a conjoined com-
parative as the primary or exclusive means of expressing comparison (34/167
languages in Stassen 2008, and 37/148 in my broad sample).
11
11. The conjoined-comparative strategy may be endangered. Of the 109 languages in
Stassen 1985, 42 are each spoken by more than 1 million people according to the ﬁgures
inEthnologue(Gordon 2005). Taking population to be a rough proxy for endangered
status, we might consider these 42 to be relatively safe. In the 109-language sample, 20
(18%) are conjoined-comparative languages, but only one of these (Nahuatl, with 1.4
million speakers) is among the 42 relatively large languages. See also Dixon 2008 for
speculative remarks on the distribution of different comparative types and their propen-
sity for diffusion and borrowing. The relative proportion of the other comparative types
remains essentially constant between the full 109 languages and the 42 large languages,
with standard comparatives outnumbering ‘exceed’ comparatives by roughly 3
1
2
to 1.

20 Chapter 1
In the‘exceed’comparative type, a verb meaning ‘exceed’ or ‘surpass’
(either as the main predicate or as a modiﬁer) expresses the meaning of com-
parison. This type may be expressed by the loose English paraphrasesThe
bear is big, exceeding the dogorThe bear exceeds the dog in tallness (height).
‘Exceed’ comparatives are particularly common among (though not limited to)
languages with serial verb constructions, and are widespread in sub-Saharan
Africa and Southeast Asia. Examples illustrating variants of this type are given
in (21)–(23).
12
(21) Uqa
3
SG
cecela.
long
Uqa
3
SG
ija
1
SG
wol-te-Ø-na.
surpass-1
SG-3SG-PRES
‘He is taller than me.’ (Amele; Roberts 1987, 91)
(22) T¯a
he
bi
EXCEED
n¯ı
you
g¯ao.
tall
‘He is taller than you.’ (Mandarin; Li and Thompson 1981, 564)
(23) Ø-j`ær=a-hi
3
M.SG.SUBJ-surpass= OBJ-1SG
t-à-y@tte.
F-SG-intelligence
‘He is smarter than [me].’ (lit. ‘He surpasses me in smartness.’)
(Tamashek; Heath 2005, 244)
On the whole, this type is roughly as common as the conjoined type, com-
prising 33/167 languages in Stassen 2008 and 39/148 languages in my broad
sample.
The remainder (better than half) of the world’s languages make use of
some version of thestandardconstruction. In this construction, comparison
is (superﬁcially at least) monoclausal, with a special marker for the standard
of comparison, often a locative case marking (or adposition), or sometimes
another element speciﬁc to comparatives, such as the English particlethan.In
English and Russian (exempliﬁed above), the standard is marked and there is
also analytic or synthetic marking of the property-denoting predicate. Marking
of the predicate is often optional, as in Modern Hebrew (24), and in fact the
most common strategy crosslinguistically has no (obligatory) marking of the
12. For some languages, there is a rather fuzzy boundary between ‘exceed’ compara-
tives and standard comparatives. In Mandarin and Thai, for example, the element that
marks comparison is historically derived from a verb meaning ‘exceed, surpass’; how-
ever, it is no longer obviously a verb synchronically and may instead be analyzed as a
standard marker. Deciding the issue one way or the other for these languages does not
affect the points of interest in this book.

Introduction 21
predicate, overt comparative morphosyntax thus being marked only on the
standard, as in Japanese (25) and many other languages.
13
(24) Dan
Dan
gavoha
tall
(yoter)
MORE
mi-Meri.
FROM-Mary
‘Dan is taller than Mary.’
(25) Sally-wa
Sally-
TOP
Bill-yori
Bill-
FROM
kasikoi.
smart
‘Sally is smarter than Bill.’ (Beck, Oda, and Sugisaki 2004, 327)
13. An apparent additional type (not generally noted in the previous literature) is rep-
resented in my sample in the (distantly related) Formosan languages Amis and Rukai,
and possibly in Purépecha (Tarascan), an isolate in Mexico.
In Amis and Rukai, there is no distinct adjectival category; property-denoting pred-
icates are verbal. In both languages, one way of expressing comparison is to express
the standard of comparison as the direct object of the property-denoting predicate, with
partial reduplication in the verb in Rukai (Zeitoun 2007, 182), but no further marking
in Amis, illustrated here.
(i) MaSu@Su-(aj)
fat-
PROG
kuni
this
a
(
GEN)
wawa.
kid
‘This kid is fat.’
(ii) TaPaNajaj
big
ku
SUBJ
waÙu
dog
tu
OBJ
puSi.
cat
‘The dog is bigger than the cat.’ (He et al. 1986, 61–63)
I suspect this is best seen as a special case of standard-marking where there is no
morphological distinction between direct objects (patients) and (certain) obliques, a
property shared with other Formosan languages. In Paiwan, the standard in a compara-
tive construction is marked by the particletua/tjai, which also marks direct objects, but
which is described as a sort of elsewhere marker for phrases in a variety of syntactic
functions (Egli 1990, 189–199). Kuo (2008) shows that Amis has a variety of means
for expressing comparison, including conjoined comparatives, ‘exceed’ constructions
(with main predicate ‘more’, as in other Austronesian languages), and standard-like
constructions with oblique marking of the standard NP; one of these constructions
involves a preﬁx on the predicate. (I thank I-Ta Chris Hsieh for providing English
translations of examples in He et al. 1986.)
In Purépecha (Tarascan), as described by Foster (1969, 126–128), a transitivizing
morpheme-ku-(which has a variety of functions) may be added to a verbalized
adjective to yield a comparative, the standard being expressed as a direct object. This
construction is somehow ephemeral: older descriptions (de S. Juan Crisóstomo Nájera
1879; Swadesh 1969) give an ‘exceed’ comparative, while a more recent descrip-
tion (Chamoreau 2003) shows a periphrastic construction with the borrowed Spanish
adverbmas.

22 Chapter 1
Whether languages of the Japanese type have a null comparative element is
a signiﬁcant issue in the semantics literature. (See Beck, Oda, and Sugisaki
2004; Kennedy 2007a; Oda 2008; Beck et al. 2009; and Hayashishita 2009,
among many others. I also discuss this brieﬂy in light of Armenian in section
3.4.2.)
In the most comprehensive typology work on comparison to date (Stassen
1985, 2008), the morphological marking of the predicate is not considered.
Stassen’s typology focuses instead on the nature of the marking of the stan-
dard. For example, Stassen draws a distinction between case-marked standards
and particle-marked standards as different major types of comparative con-
struction. However, this distinction appears to cross-classify with the type of
morphological marking of the predicate of interest here, and I have thus not fol-
lowed this classiﬁcation. All of the languages in appendix A and appendix B,
constituting the main data set for the study of the CSG in particular, are drawn
from the standard type, for the reason that languages of this type were the only
ones to exemplify the phenomena of interest. Regarding that last observation,
a few points of general interest arise, which I mention brieﬂy here.
For the conjoined and ‘exceed’-type comparatives, it is a matter of debate
whether expressions of this sort should be considered to constitute a gram-
matical(ized) comparative in any meaningful sense (Sapir 1944; Ultan 1972;
Seuren 1984; Steele 1987). Is their interpretation simply the sum of their
(overt) parts, or do they involve any hidden grammatical comparative element?
Only recently has the semantics of these constructions come under scrutiny
(see Beck et al. 2009; Kennedy, to appear); no conclusive evidence of hidden
elements of comparative pieces has emerged, over and above what translation
equivalents in languages like English have. Regarding conjoined comparatives,
it may be noted that the languages of this type investigated for the current
study also typically lacked any clear overt comparative marker as an obliga-
tory component of these constructions. For a few such languages, an element
glossed ‘more’ or ‘
CMPR’ is given in examples. Six of the 20 conjoined-
comparative languages in Stassen 1985 (Maori, Menomini, Miskitu, Motu,
Nahuatl, Samoan) have such elements in the glosses, but as far as I have
been able to determine from the grammatical descriptions, these elements
are general-purpose intensiﬁers, rather than comparative adverbs. For exam-
ple, Stassen (1985) provides the Miskitu example in (26a) with an element
glossed as a comparative marker, based on the description of this element by
Conzemius (1929, 80): “The adjective is compared by placing before it the
wordskau,k¯ara,kanra,orkanmapa. . . ‘more’ for the comparative.” Yet else-
where, Conzemius (1929, 106–109) discusses the same elements that occur
in comparatives (in Miskitu, and in the other Chibchan languages) as having

Introduction 23
a broader range of intensifying meanings—for example, glossed as ‘still’ in
(26b), where a comparative sense is clearly precluded by the context. Examples
in other languages tend to be of a similar nature.
14
(26) a. YaN
I
kau
MORE
tukta,
young
man
you
almuk.
old
‘I am younger than you.’
b. . . . yapti-k¯ı
mother-my
kau
still
raya
alive
sa.
COP?
‘...mymother is still alive.’
In any event, suppletion was not indicated in any description of the conjoined
comparative languages.
As with the conjoined comparatives, in ‘exceed’ comparatives it is not clear
that there is any hidden comparative semantics that would necessitate a gram-
matical comparative marker other than the verb. No language in my sample has
an identiﬁable comparative marker on the property-denoting predicate in such
a comparative construction; to the extent that this predicate has morphology
different from whatbigwould have inThe bear is big, the morphology is what
is expected from the general syntactic environment (e.g., a nominalization, as
in (23)) or a general (noncomparative) emphatic marker.
14. But note the brief discussion of comparison in the Hokan language Kiliwa in Mixco
2000, 41–42. This language appears to use conjoined clauses, with loose literal para-
phrases such as ‘He’s not like me; he’s tall-er’, though there is no discussion of whether
the afﬁx glossed
MOREcan be used outside of this construction. Another relevant exam-
ple may be Dyirbal. Dixon (1972) gives a comparative afﬁx-baóa, used in examples
lacking an overt standard, such as (i). Dixon (1972, 227) notes that when “an explicit
comparison is needed,” a conjoined construction is used, as in (ii)–(iii), which may
contain the comparative on one or both clauses.
(i) N%inda
you
midi–baóa.
small-
CMPR
‘You are smaller.’
(ii) N%ad%a
I
bulgan-baóa
big-
CMPR
bayi
he
midi–baóa.
small-
CMPR
‘I’m bigger (than him); he’s smaller (than me).’
(iii) Bayi
he
bulgan
big
Nad%a
I
bulgan-baóa.
big-
CMPR
‘He’s big (but) I’m bigger.’
Dixon (1977, 245) reports a similar pattern for the afﬁx-wad%anin Yidiñ, though he
notes that it is also used as a marker of emphasis, glossable as ‘very’.

24 Chapter 1
Interestingly, a handful of ‘exceed’-comparative languages do show (appar-
ent) suppletion.
15
Wolof and Fulfulde/Pulaar, two related Niger-Congo lan-
guages, lack a grammatical category of adjective; quality-denoting predicates
pattern as verbs. These languages are typiﬁed by ‘exceed’-comparative strate-
gies; however, they do have a handful of verbs with inherently comparative
meanings, such as Wolofsut‘be taller than’, used without the ‘exceed/surpass’
verb, as in the Wolof examples in (27a–d) from Mc Laughlin 2004 and personal
communication (see Labouret 1952 for comparable Fulfulde examples). Note
that the comparative verb, unlike canonical examples of suppletion, does not
block the regular ‘exceed’ comparative fornjool‘tall’, as in (27e), from Munro
and Gaye 1991, 49.
(27) a. Ibu
Ibu
moo
3
SG.SUBJ.FOCUS
nay.
be.miserly
‘Ibu is miserly.’
b. Ibu
Ibu
moo
3
SG.SUBJ.FOCUS
gën
surpass
a
LV
nay
be.miserly
Faatu.
Faatu
‘Ibu is more miserly than Faatu.’
c. Faatu
Faatu
dafa
3
SG.VERB.FOCUS
njool.
be.tall
‘Faatu is tall.’
d. Faatu
Faatu
dafa
3
SG.VERB.FOCUS
sut
be.taller.than
Ibu.
Ibu
‘Faatu is taller than Ibu.’
e. Moo
3
SG.SUBJ.FOCUS
gën-a
surpass-
LV
njool
be.tall
Aamadu.
Amadou
‘He’s taller than Amadou.’
Similarly, in the unrelated Berber language Tamashek, the verb-Vj˘Vr-
‘surpass’ (resultative:-oj´ær-is used (with a nominalization of the property
predicate) to form comparatives and superlatives (see (23)), but there are also
verbs with intrinsically comparative meaning, including at least-Vf V-‘be bet-
ter than’ (Heath 2005, 245).
16
As far as I can determine, these languages do not
have a distinct superlative construction for which the CSG would make predic-
tions, and since the languages do not draw a distinction between adjectives and
verbs, it is not clear what expectations may hold for an analogue to the CG
15. This was ﬁrst drawn to my attention by Fiona Mc Laughlin.
16. Intrinsically comparative verbs for some adjectival meanings are also reported for
Mayali (Evans 2003, 569–570).

Introduction 25
(cf. remarks on inceptives in section 6.4.4). The apparent suppletion in these
language types is noted here, but not explored any further.
Returning to the standard comparative languages, and in particular those
with morphological marking, it is perhaps worth noting, by way of a passing
etymological observation, that there appears to be a recurring source for com-
parative afﬁxes: namely, morphemes with a meaning like ‘rather’, ‘more or
less’, or ‘in contrast to others’. Benveniste (1948, 124–126) suggests that the
original meaning of the Proto-Indo-European*-i
“
oswas to defuse the force of
the positive. Across Turkic, the sufﬁx-rak(in its many surface forms) var-
iously forms comparatives, as in Karaim (Musaev 1966, 267) and Uzbek
(Reshetov 1966, 346), or diminutives (cf. English-ish, Russian-ovat-), as
in Khakas (Karpov 1966, 434) and Nogai (Baskakov 1966, 284). Similarly,
the reﬂexes of Finno-Ugric*-mpare comparative afﬁxes in some languages
(Finnish, Hungarian), but have meanings like ‘rather’ in others (Nenets) (see
Fuchs 1949). Among adverbs as well, in Lahu, the adverba-cíhas the basic
meaning ‘a little, somewhat’; but when used with a property-denoting stative
verb, it serves to form the comparative (Matisoff 1973, 273–274). An excep-
tion to this pattern is Chukchi, where the comparative afﬁx appears to be an
oblique case marker (see Skorik 1977, 334).
This completes the review of some theoretical, methodological, and typo-
logical background that informs the remainder of this book. On, now, to the
phenomena of interest.

2
Comparative Suppletion
2.1 Introduction
In many languages, a handful of adjectives form their comparative grade via a
root (or base) that is etymologically unrelated to the positive root. It is for this
phenomenon that the termsuppletive(German:suppletorisch) was originally
coined by Osthoff (1888, 1899). Some examples are given in (28), with roots
boldfaced.
1
(28) POS CMPR
a. Englishgood bett-er
b. Latin bon-usmel-ior ‘good’
c. Icelandicgamall eld-ri ‘old’
d. Georgiank’argi-i u-mˇjob-es-i ‘good’
e. Upper SvanžG@d xo-š-a ‘big’
f. Abkhaz a-c
w
g
j
aj-ejc
w
o-w ‘bad’
g. Basque on hobe ‘good’
h. Estonianhea pare -m ‘good’
In most such examples, the suppletive comparatives have regular compara-
tive morphology but the root is not supplied by or phonologically derived from
the positive base. Pairs of suppletive and nonsuppletive comparatives in (29)
illustrate this. (In a small minority of examples, such as Englishbad – worse
1. For familiarity, examples will generally be given in the standard orthography or
standard transliteration of the languages in question, and in citation forms wherever
practical. Thus, even though our interest is in the roots or stems and the comparative
and superlative morphology, many examples will contain additional (irrelevant) inﬂec-
tional material, such as the masculine nominative singular ending-usin Latin (28b) and
elsewhere.

28 Chapter 2
and the Basque example in (28g), the comparative morpheme is missing, a
situation I return to in sections 2.2 and 5.3.1.)
(29)
POS CMPR
a. Englishgood bett-er
long long-er
b. Latinbon-usmel-ior ‘good’
dur-usdur-ior ‘hard’
c. Icelandicgamall eld-ri ‘old’
stór stær-ri ‘strong’
d. Basqueasko gehi-ago ‘most’
zoro zoro-ago ‘crazy’
e. Voticüvä par@-pi ‘good’
süvä süve-pi ‘deep’
Adjectives in some languages also have a superlative grade, with the mean-
ing ‘more
ADJthan all others’. (Recall from chapter 1 that throughout this
work, unless otherwise noted, I will restrict the termsuperlativeto the sense
of relative superlatives, excluding the “absolute” superlatives such as Italian
bell-issim-a‘very beautiful’.) Suppletion also extends to the superlative grade.
In the majority of cases, the superlative and comparative forms share a com-
mon root, distinct from that of the positive (Ultan 1972, 144), as in (30). I
will refer to this as an ABB pattern, to indicate that the shared root (B) in the
comparative and superlative is distinct from the root of the positive (A).
(30)
POS CMPR SPRL
a. English good bett -er be-st
b. English bad worse wor -st
c. Danish god bed -re bed-st ‘good’
d. Czech špatn-ýhor-ší nej-hor-ší ‘bad’
e. Georgian k’argi-i u-mˇjob-es-i sa-u-mˇjob-es-o ‘good’
f. Estonian hea pare -m par-im ‘good’
g. Kildin Saamišig’ p Er’-am pEr’-mus ‘good’
h. Basque asko gehi -ago gehi-en ‘many’
i. Kabardiankwad, ba nax nax -deda ‘many’
j. Cherokee osda dajehla wi-dajehl-˜2Pi ‘good’
Another suppletive pattern that is rare, but nevertheless attested, is the ABC
pattern, in which each grade is built on a distinct root. The Latin, Welsh, Old
Irish, and Middle Persian triples meaning ‘good – better – best’ constitute ABC
patterns, as shown in (31).

Comparative Suppletion 29
(31) POS CMPR SPRL
a. Latin bon-usmel-ior opt-imus ‘good’
b. Welsh da gwell gor -au ‘good’
c. Old Irishmaith ferr dech ‘good’
d. M. Persianx¯ob weh /wah-¯ıypahl-om/p¯aš-om ‘good’
I will argue below that ABB and ABC are the only attested suppletive pat-
terns and that a handful of apparently divergent patterns should be reanalyzed.
The state of affairs regarding comparative suppletion may then be schematized
as in (32). Of ﬁve logically possible patterns of root identity and suppletion,
only three are attested.
(32)
POS CMPR SPRL
a. Regular A A A big – bigger – biggest
b. Suppletive A B B good – better – best
c. Doubly suppletive A B C bonus – melior – optimus
d. Unattested A B A *good – better – goodest
e. Unattested A A B *good – gooder – best
This patterning was noted brieﬂy in the closing paragraphs of the only pre-
vious study of the morphology of comparison (Ultan 1972). For a 20-language
sample, Ultan (1972, 144) notes that “suppletive paradigms in the comparison
of adjectives almost always imply formal identity or near-identity of the bases
shared by the comparative and superlative vis-à-vis those shared by the pos-
itive and equative.” Ultan’s generalization is robustly supported in the larger
survey reported here. Indeed, I submit that (a slight reformulation of) Ultan’s
generalization is a strong contender for the status of a linguistic universal.
2
For
reasons that will become clear as we proceed, I suggest breaking the gener-
alization into two pieces, to cover (32d) and (32e) separately. We may thus
formulate the two-part generalization in (33) and (34), referring to the whole
generalization as the CSG.
(33)The Comparative-Superlative Generalization, part 1 (CSG1)
If the comparative degree of an adjective is suppletive, then the super-
lative is also suppletive (i.e., with respect to the positive).
2. Ultan suggested that the generalization represents a strong tendency and not an abso-
lute. In part, this is because the ABC pattern is anomalous as regards his generalization
(showing nonidentity between the comparative and superlative); the ABC pattern is
consistent with the CSG as formulated below. In addition, Ultan believed ABA patterns
to occur. However, the one apparent ABA pattern he noted seems to be misanalyzed
(see footnote 11 of chapter 4).

30 Chapter 2
(34)The Comparative-Superlative Generalization, part 2 (CSG2)
If the superlative degree of an adjective is suppletive, then the compara-
tive is also suppletive (i.e., with respect to the positive).
The CSG (both parts) ranges over synthetic (i.e., morphological) compara-
tive and superlative grades. Analytic (periphrastic) constructions show differ-
ent behavior (I return in section 3.4 to why this is so). The immediate goal
of this chapter is to propose an explanation of this apparent universal and
to consider some consequences of that explanation. The explanation I offer
has two key components (both qualiﬁed below). First, the representation of
the superlative must properly contain (be derived from) that of the compara-
tive. Second, suppletion constitutes a special case of rules of exponence (also
called vocabulary insertion), introducing distinct root formatives into speciﬁc
contexts. Such rules are most properly formulated in terms of arealizational
theory of morphology (in the sense of Stump 2001), in which morpholog-
ical rules spell out a derivationally prior complex (i.e., syntactic) structure.
Part 1 of the CSG in (33) follows essentially from these two assumptions.
An additional assumption, that there is an adjacency condition on context-
sensitive rules of exponence, extends the theory to account for part 2 of
the CSG.
The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows. In section 2.2, I ﬁrst
sketch the bare bones of the analysis, presenting the leading ideas but leaving
details and motivation of assumptions aside. I then turn to a type of poverty-of-
the-stimulus argument raised by the suppletion data. The key generalizations
concern gaps, and since suppletion is such a marginal phenomenon in any one
language, there is no way that the data available to any given learner could
be robust enough to distinguish accidental from systematic gaps in his or her
language. In section 2.3, I elaborate on this argument for the hand of UG,
arguing against an appeal to historical accident.
Once the reader can see where we are headed, I turn in chapter 3 to a dis-
cussion of independent evidence for one key assumption, and then I present a
reﬁnement of some details of the theory, necessitating many asides (some of
which reveal fruitful additional generalizations).
In chapter 4, I lay out in more detail the results of a crosslinguistic investi-
gation of (33). In a relatively comprehensive survey of comparative suppletion
encompassing more than a hundred distinct examples (there are some tricky
issues in counting, discussed below), only a handful of prima facie counter-
examples turn up, for which I propose alternative analyses in sections 4.1 and
4.3. If the apparent counterexamples can indeed be explained away, as I sug-

Comparative Suppletion 31
gest, then the ABB and ABC patterns are indeed the only attested ones. No
adjective shows an unambiguous ABA pattern—that is, hypothetical*good –
better – goodestor*bonus – melior – bonissimusin which the comparative
alone is suppletive, with the positive and superlative sharing a common root.
2.2 ***ABA: Explaining a Gap
The account of the CSG begins by assuming that the representation of the
superlative properly contains that of the comparative in all languages. I call
this theContainment Hypothesis. Note that this embedding is transparent in the
overt morphology in many languages, as in the Czech and Georgian examples
in (30) and in the nonsuppletive examples in (35).
(35)
POS CMPR SPRL
a. Persiankam kam -tarkam-tar-in ‘little’
b. Cimbrianšüa šüan -aršüan-ar-ste ‘pretty’
c. Czech mlad-ýmlad-ší nej-mlad-ší ‘young’
d. Hungariannagy nagy-obb leg-nagy-obb ‘big’
e. Latvianzil-aiszil-âk-ais vis-zil-âk-ais ‘blue’
f. Ubykh nüs
◦
@ç’a-nüs
◦
@a-ç’a-nüs
◦
@‘pretty’
Further evidence for the Containment Hypothesis (and some qualiﬁcations)
will be provided in chapter 3. The most straightforward (but not the only)
means of representing containment is via a nested structure, in which the
superlative is derived from the comparative by the addition of some morpheme.
Thus, we have theNesting Hypothesisin (36a) as a special case of the
Containment Hypothesis.
3
Under certain assumptions, this can be seen as
an implementation of the markedness hierarchy positive<comparative<
superlative proposed by Greenberg (1966), Canger (1966), and Ultan (1972), a
topic to which I will return.
4
On the Nesting Hypothesis, despite appearances,
3. Here and throughout, diagrams represent stems to which inﬂectional morphology
may be added. The comparative embeds the positive stem (or base), minus inﬂectional
morphology.
4. The Nesting Hypothesis is also reminiscent of proposals for an implicational hier-
archy among a series of functional heads in particular domains, where the inventory
of functional heads is subject to crosslinguistic variation, but the presence of a higher
head entails the presence of lower heads. See Wurmbrand 2008, 2011c, for a proposal
regarding variation in the structure of inﬁnitival complements, and Radkevich 2010 on
PP structure.

32 Chapter 2
the representation in (36b) is thus incorrect for languages like English; there
must be a “hidden” comparative element even in forms such asbiggest.
5
(36) a. [[[ADJECTIVE]COMPARATIVE]SUPERLATIVE]
b. *[[
ADJECTIVE]SUPERLATIVE]
The structure in (36a) can of course be represented as a tree diagram, as
in (37). I use the convention of
SMALL CAPSto represent the abstract mor-
phemes, and I put aside questions about the proper labels for nonterminal
nodes. Thus,a,c,sare simply mnemonics to refer to speciﬁc nodes in the dia-
grams. Also, as in (36a), I represent the afﬁxes as sufﬁxes, though what is of
interest is the hierarchy (constituency), not linear relations (e.g., the superlative
exponent is a preﬁx in Czech).
(37) a.
POSITIVEb.COMPARATIVE c.SUPERLATIVE
a
ADJ
c
a
ADJ
CMPR
s
c
a
ADJ
CMPR
SPRL
Consider now the nature of the rules of exponence that insert phonological
material at the nodes in (37). The ﬁrst case to consider is Czech, a language in
which the nesting structure in (37) is morphologically transparent, as noted in
descriptive grammars of the language (e.g., Janda and Townsend 2000). The
relevant forms of two Czech adjectives are given in (38).
(38)
POS CMPR SPRL
a.mlad-ýmlad-ší nej-mlad-ší ‘young’
b.špatn-ýhor-ší nej-hor-ší ‘bad’
A fragment of the Czech rules of exponence (the Vocabulary) is given in (39).
6
5. Note also that I must reject aPOSmorpheme in the positive, a morpheme that,
although not clearly manifest in overt morphology in any known language, is an impor-
tant component of some semantic treatments; see Kennedy 2007b. I return to this
question in section 4.2.
6. Here and below, the rule fragments presented are only those required for the point
under discussion. The Czech Vocabulary includes additional rules introducing other
allomorphs of the comparative sufﬁx, notably-ˇejší/-ejší, along with contextual restric-
tions regulating their distribution, and the same holds for comparative and superlative
exponents in other languages below. These complexities do not affect the structure of
the argument and are left aside for ease of exposition.

Comparative Suppletion 33
(39) a.SPRL→nej-
b.
CMPR→-ší
c.
YOUNG→mlad-
d.
BAD →hor- /
]CMPR]
e.
BAD →špatn-
The rules in (39a–c) account for the three forms of the regular adjectivemlad-ý
(additional rules insert inﬂectional exponents, including the masculine sin-
gular nominative-ýin the citation form). The exponents simply realize the
corresponding terminal nodes in the structures in (37).
Where a regular adjectival root such asmlad-‘young’ has only a single
form, suppletive roots have, by deﬁnition, multiple allomorphs. The Czech
root meaning ‘bad’ has two: one (hor-) introduced by the context-sensitive rule
in (39d), and the other (špatn-) introduced by the context-free rule in (39e).
The logic of elsewhere ordering ensures that the more speciﬁc allomorph is
chosen whenever possible. Thus, both allomorphs compete for insertion in
the comparative structure in (37b), and the allomorphhor-, being the most
speciﬁc form available, wins. In the positive structure (37a), the environment
forhor-is not met, and thus the elsewhere allomorphšpatn-wins by default.
Now notice what happens in the superlative. By assumption, the representation
of the superlative (properly) includes that of the comparative. Therefore, the
context for the “comparative” allomorphhor-is met, and that allomorph is
selected. The rules in (39a–b) operate as before, supplying exponents to the
comparative and superlative nodes. The superlative, with the proper exponents,
is shown in (40).
(40) s
SPRL
nej-
c
a
ADJ
⇔
hor-
* špatn-
◦
CMPR
-ší
This constitutes the ﬁrst key result: the combination of assuming a nested
structure and applying the elsewhere logic to root allomorph selection yields
an ABB pattern as an automatic consequence whenever an adjective has a
suppletive comparative and nothing further is said. Because the comparative is
contained in the superlative, the comparative allomorph (of an adjectival root)

34 Chapter 2
will automatically be compatible with the superlative context as well, and will
necessarily block the positive (default) allomorph of that root. Thus, the ABA
pattern (a return to the positive root in the superlative) is effectively excluded,
yielding the core content of the CSG1.
Now, although the logic just sketched correctly excludes ABA patterns,
it nevertheless does allow for patterns beyond ABB. In particular, the ABC
pattern is readily describable. The comparative root allomorph will necessarily
block the positive in the superlative context, but the comparative allomorph
can in turn be blocked by an even more highly speciﬁc exponent, as in the
allomorphs of the Latin root for ‘good’. The Vocabulary fragment in (41)
provides the rules of exponence that will derive the ABC pattern for this adjec-
tive (in chapter 5, I will revise the somewhat cumbersome formalism for the
superlative context in (41a)).
(41) a.
GOOD→opt- /
]CMPR]SPRL]
b.
GOOD→mel- /
]CMPR]
c.
GOOD→bon-
d.
SPRL→-imus
e.
CMPR→-ior
As it happens, one additional clean-up is needed for the Latin examples. The
rules in (41) provide the correct root allomorph in each context, but will gen-
erate an overt comparative sufﬁx inside the superlative. While this is correct
for Czech (and many other languages; see chapter 3), the rules as stated will
incorrectly give*opt-ior-imusin place ofopt-imusfor Latin. To derive the sur-
face forms in which the comparative marker is not visible in the superlative,
I posit that the comparative morpheme has a phonologically null allomorph
that occurs in the context of the superlative, as in (42). The standard elsewhere
logic will ensure that the null allomorph wins out over the regular compara-
tive (43b) in the superlative, just as it selects the correct root exponents in the
suppletive cases so far examined.
(42)
CMPR→Ø/
]SPRL]
The revision to the context for (41a) to be offered in chapter 5 will in fact
avoid the need for (42) for the Latin examples just given, but the issue is a
more general one, and a null allomorph has broader application. For example,
adding (42) to the English rules of exponence in (43) will correctly generate
bigg-er, as opposed to*bigg-er-est.

Comparative Suppletion 35
(43) a.BIG→big
b.
CMPR→-er
c.
SPRL→-est
The assumptions above serve to effectively derive the CSG1 from the Con-
tainment Hypothesis and the assumption that rules of exponence are subject
to elsewhere ordering: the ABA pattern is unstatable as a formal pattern. If
there are only two distinct listed root forms in a language’s Vocabulary, no
ordering of the rules introducing these roots will lead to an ABA pattern. But
the attested patterns, ABB and ABC, are readily derived, with ABB in some
sense being the unmarked case of comparative suppletion, as against the ABC
pattern, which requires an additional rule.
Now, there is a loophole, in the sense that it is in principle possible to
generate a surface ABA pattern by appeal to accidental homophony. The
grammatical pattern would necessarily be an ABC pattern, with three formally
distinct root allomorphs, but where (the analogue of) (41a) would introduce the
same phonological matrix as (41c), sandwiching the comparative allomorph
between them. I suggest that the grammar per se does not exclude this possi-
bility, but I invoke the well-worn idea that there is a general antihomophony
bias in acquisition, of which (44) is a special case.
(44)Antihomophony
Learners avoid positing a contextual allomorph of a morphemeμthat is
homophonous with the default exponent ofμ.
If one thinks of rules of exponence as overwriting or rewriting rules, the
essence of (44) is that learners will posit no rule of exponence of the form
X→X, which effects no change but serves only to block some more gen-
eral rule. Irregular forms that appear to have no change from the base, such
as the English irregular pluralsheep(singularsheep) or past tensehitmust
thus involve a zero afﬁx (contra Anderson 1992). The proposal in (44) closes
the loophole that would otherwise allow for false ABA patterns, arising as
ABC patterns in disguise, despite the grammar universally excluding true ABA
patterns. This leaves some wiggle room; one could consider the homophony
strategy as a retreat of last resort with the implication perhaps that observation-
ally, the CSG1 should emerge as a trend, rather than an absolute (cf. Pertsova
2007). Accidents do happen, after all. I will nevertheless resist this, and at least
as a working strategy I will pursue the stronger claim that (44) is never violated
and thus that apparent ABA patterns must ﬁnd alternative explanations. I return
to this point in chapter 3 and section 4.2.

Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:

qual ultima avea già mutato padrone: che il papa coi tredici cardinali
restasse prigione, finchè fossero pagati i primi cento cinquanta mila
ducati d'oro, dopo di che fosse condotto a Napoli o a Gaeta, per
aspettar le risoluzioni di Carlo V, con altre condizioni, fra le quali era
la liberazion dei Colonnesi dalle censure. Entrò dunque il presidio
cesareo in castello San'Angelo, e da lì innanzi il papa e i cardinali
ebbero miglior tavola, ma non già la libertà. Cività Castellana era in
poter dei collegati. Andrea Doria ricusò di poi, consegnar Cività
Vecchia. Nè Parma e Piacenza, preventivamente avvisate dal papa, si
vollero rendere agli Spagnuoli. Intanto, ossia che il fetore di tanti
uomini e cavalli uccisi in Roma facesse nascere una terribil epidemia,
oppure che la vera peste nel gran bollor di tante armi penetrasse
colà: certo è che nella barbarica armata comandata dal principe
d'Oranges entrò la moria, che cominciò a far molta strage: laonde,
tra per questo malore e per altri accidenti, si fece il conto che in
meno di due anni non restò in vita neppur uno de' tanti assassini
dell'infelice città di Roma, e passarono in altre mani le immense loro
ricchezze. Penetrò anche la peste suddetta in castello Sant'Angelo
con pericolo della vita del pontefice, perchè d'essa morirono alcuni
de' suoi cortigiani.
Non si potè ben sapere se Carlo Augusto, dimorante allora in
Ispagna, avesse o serrati gli occhi, o acconsentito al viaggio e alle
funeste imprese del duca di Borbone; e su questo fu disputato non
poco dai politici; pretendendo anzi alcuni, che se il Borbone
sopravviveva, siccome disgustato dell'imperadore, meditasse di torgli
il regno di Napoli. Sappiamo solamente che alla nuova del sacco di
Roma, e della prigionia del papa, egli si vestì da scorruccio, ne
mostrò gran doglia, e fece cessar le feste ed allegrezze già
cominciate per la nascita d'un figlio, che fu poi Filippo II; così
asserendo il Mariana e il Messia contro a quel che ne scrive il
Guicciardini. E potrebbe essere che egli allora non fingesse, e che
poi, mutato parere, pensasse a far mercatanzia e guadagno delle
disgrazie del papa, perchè certamente non mostrò da lì innanzi qual
calore che conveniva ad un monarca cattolico per farlo rimettere in
libertà. Anzi fu creduto ch'egli desiderasse che il papa fosse condotto

in Ispagna. Facili troppo sono le dicerie in tempo massimamente di
grandi sconcerti. All'incontro, i re di Francia e di Inghilterra,
mostrando in apparenza un piissimo zelo pel soccorso del pontefice,
ma infatti mirando di mal occhio la troppo cresciuta potenza e
prepotenza di Cesare in Italia, e premendo al re Francesco di riavere
i suoi figliuoli dalle mani di esso imperadore, formarono lega fra loro,
per rinforzar la guerra in Italia contra di lui. In questa lega entrarono
anche i Veneziani, e dipoi il duca di Milano e i cardinali che erano in
libertà, a nome del sacro collegio, e i Fiorentini, con patto che il
ducato di Milano dovesse lasciarsi libero a Francesco Sforza duca.
Mentre si faceano oltramonti questi maneggi e preparamenti di
guerra, in Lombardia non cessavano, anzi crescevano i guai. Era
restato governator di Milano Antonio da Leva con tre mila fanti
tedeschi, quattro mila spagnuoli e settecento lancie. Un soldo non
v'era da pagar questa gente; però sbardellatamente viveano alle
spese de' miseri Milanesi, già talmente rovinati, che neppur aveano
da mangiare per loro stessi. Richiamò il senato veneto da Roma le
sue genti col duca d'Urbino, per unirsi col duca di Milano, e andar
poscia a dare il guasto alle biade mature de' Milanesi. A questo fine
passarono a Lodi verso il principio di luglio. Preveduto il loro disegno,
il Leva andò a postarsi a Marignano: il che sconcertò le loro idee. In
questi tempi Gian-Giacomo de Medici, castellano di Musso, che nulla
avea che fare coi Medici di Firenze, ed era comunemente appellato il
Mcdeghino, condotto dalla lega, prese il castello di Monguzzo tra
Como e Lecco. Spedito colà il conte Lodovico da Barbiano, ossia da
Belgioioso, non solo nol ricuperò, ma vi perdè quattro cannoni e
molti fanti. Venne poi esso castellano con quattro mila fanti e
cinquecento cavalli nel Milanese, dove recò infiniti danni. Antonio da
Leva, segretamente uscito una notte da Milano, sul far del giorno
con tal empito assalì il Medeghino, che in poco tempo lo ruppe, e la
maggior parte di quella gente restò morta o presa. Poscia, andato un
dì l'esercito collegato a devastare il Milanese, cadde in un'imboscata
fatta da esso Leva, e dopo lunga battaglia diede alle gambe con
morte di più di mille e cinquecento soldati.

Dopo avere il re Cristianissimo assoldati dieci mila Svizzeri, ed
unito nel suo regno un potente esercito, lo spinse in Italia sotto il
comando di Odetto di Fois, signor di Lautrec, a noi noto per le
precedenti guerre. Condusse ancora al suo soldo il valoroso Andrea
Doria con otto galee. Il primo che calò in Italia per via di Saluzzo, fu
il conte Pietro Navarro, celebre capitano, il quale con tre mila fanti
ito a Savona, tosto se ne impadronì, e si mise a fortificarla.
Similmente con grossa armata comparve di qua dai monti il Lautrec,
e giunto ad Asti, per avere inteso che Lodovico conte di Lodrone,
posto alla guardia d'Alessandria con tremila Tedeschi, avea mandata
buona parte di sua gente al Bosco, per riscuotere le taglie, gli fu
addosso; e, piantate le artiglierie, cominciò a bersagliar quel castello.
Per otto giorni fece il Lodrone una gagliarda difesa; ma infine si
arrendè quel castello, e fu messo a sacco, con restare il Lodrone e
gli abitanti anche essi prigionieri. Il Guicciardini scrive diversamente;
cioè che il Lodrone era in Alessandria, e la moglie co' figli nel Bosco,
che generosamente furono a lui mandati dal Lautrec. Nei medesimi
tempi fu stretta la città di Genova per terra da Pietro Navarro e da
Cesare Fregoso, e per mare da Andrea Doria almirante di Francia.
Perchè la carestia, universale allora in Italia, affliggeva forte quella
nobile e popolata città, le speranze del popolo erano poste in sette
galee ed alquante navi cariche di grano, che colla ricchissima caracca
Giustiniana erano per viaggio. Ma colte queste dal Doria in Portofino,
ed assediate, vennero in sua mano. Altre perdite fecero i Genovesi;
laonde presero la risoluzione di darsi ai Franzesi. Si ritirò il doge
Antoniotto Adorno nel castelletto; e la città senza uccision di gente,
e col solo saccheggio del palazzo Adorno, ottenute vantaggiose
condizioni, tornò sotto il dominio di Francia. Mandò il Lautrec per
governatore colà Teodoro Trivulzio; e ciò fu sul fine di agosto. Andò
egli poscia a mettere il campo ad Alessandria, alla cui guardia era il
conte Giam-Batista di Lodrone con mille e cinquecento Tedeschi, a
cui poco prima s'era unito con altri mille fanti il conte Alberico da
Belgioioso. Grande strepito e guasto faceano le artiglierie in quelle
mura, ma non minor difesa e ripari per molti giorni fecero gli
assediati, finchè, temendo questi le mine di Pietro Navarro, e
perduta la speranza del soccorso, arrenderono la città, salvo l'avere

e le persone, con obbligo di uscir dallo Stato di Milano, e di non
militare per sei mesi in favor dell'imperatore. Voleva il Lautrec
mettere presidio in Alessandria, ma gli oratori del duca di Milano e
de' Veneziani tanto dissero, che lasciò mettervelo al duca, con restar
perciò indispettito contra di lui. Questi progressi dell'armata franzese
fecero conoscere ad Antonio da Leva il pericolo, in cui si trovava, non
restandogli più che cinque mila fanti e due mila cavalli. Pensò di
ritirarsi a Pavia; ma, saputo che non vi era da vivere, mandò colà il
conte Lodovico da Barbiano con due mila fanti e cinquecento cavalli,
ed egli, restando in Milano, seguitò a scorticar più di prima
quegl'infelici cittadini.
Passò dipoi il Lautrec a Basignana il Po, e venne alla sua
ubbidienza Novara con tutte le castella di quel distretto. Passato
anche il Ticino, si trasferì otto miglia vicino a Milano, dove si unì colle
genti venete e sforzesche. Poscia andò ad accamparsi sotto Pavia,
cominciando con gran flagello di artiglierie a diroccar le mura di
quella città, che dal suddetto conte di Belgioioso valorosamente
veniva difesa. Vasta breccia era fatta, e i miseri Pavesi si
raccomandavano al conte che non li lasciasse esposti alla crudeltà
de' Franzesi. Il conte, che voleva tirare il più in lungo che potesse la
resa, gli andava confortando; e quando poi s'accorse che i nemici
s'allestivano per venire all'assalto, spedì nel dì 4 d'ottobre uffiziali al
Lautrec per capitolare la resa. Mentre se ne stendevano le
condizioni, ecco che gl'inferociti soldati, mal sofferendo di vedersi
torre di bocca la preda, tanto i Guasconi dall'una parte, che gli
Svizzeri dall'altra, seguitati appresso dai Tedeschi ed italiani,
furiosamente per le rovine della breccia entrarono nella sfortunata
città con tal rabbia, che in meno d'un'ora uccisero più di due mila
persone tra soldati e terrazzani: spettacolo orrido e miserando. Poi
tutta la città fu saccomanata, fatti prigioni tutti i benestanti, e
costretti con esorbitanti taglie a riscattarsi. Niun rispetto s'ebbe a'
luoghi sacri, e le donne rimasero vittima della libidine di que' diavoli,
a riserva di quelle che prima si erano rifuggite ne' monisteri delle
sacre vergini, ai quali, per cura di alcuni capitani, non fu inferita
molestia. Ecco le terribili conseguenze delle guerre d'allora.

Bruciarono ancora i Guasconi un'intera contrada, e peggio avrebbero
fatto, se il Lautrec, mosso a compassione, non avesse costretto
l'esercito tutto ad uscire della desolata città di Pavia. Non restava più
se non Milano e Como da sottomettere, e il duca di Milano e il legato
veneto, quasi colle ginocchia in terra, si raccomandarono al Lautrec,
perchè seguitasse l'impresa, mostrando la facilità di vederne presto il
fine. Ma perchè era venuto al campo il cardinal Cibò per sollecitare il
Lautrec alla liberazione del papa, tuttavia tenuto sotto buona guardia
dagli Spagnuoli, a tali istanze si arrendè esso Lautrec. Licenziati gli
Svizzeri, che ricusarono di andare a Roma, s'avviò a Piacenza, dove
si fermò, per trattar lega con Alfonso duca di Ferrara, e con Federigo
marchese di Mantova. Si ridusse dunque a Ferrara il cardinale
suddetto con tutti i plenipotenziarii della lega, per muovere il duca, il
quale, tratto dall'ossequio che professava all'imperadore, e
dall'antecedente suo impegno, ripugnava ad unirsi coi di lui nemici.
Tuttavia, per le minaccie a lui fatte che gli si scaricherebbe addosso
tutto l'esercito franzese, entrò anch'egli nella stessa lega con
condizioni molto onorevoli, una delle quali fu che il re Cristianissimo
darebbe in moglie a donno Ercole di lui primogenito Renea di
Francia, figlia del re Lodovico XII, e cognata del medesimo re
Francesco. Furono anche promesse molte cose a nome del papa, ma
niuna d'esse gli fu poi mantenuta. Lo strumento di essa lega,
stipulato nel dì 15 di novembre fu da me dato alla luce [Antichità
Estensi. Par. 2.]. Nel dì 7 di dicembre anche Federigo Gonzaga
marchese di Mantova sottoscrisse la medesima lega come apparisce
dall'atto pubblico, rapportato dal Du-Mont [Du-Mont, Corps Diplomat.].
Allontanato che fu da Milano il Lautrec, Antonio da Leva, che poco
stimava l'esercito veneto e sforzesco, uscito di Milano, costrinse nel
dì 28 d'ottobre Biagrasso alla resa, dove erano cinquecento fanti; e
sopraggiunto Giano da Campofregoso col soccorso, gli diede una
rotta, con acquistar le di lui artiglierie. Queste poi, nell'essere
condotte a Milano, gli furono tolte dal conte di Gaiazzo, giovane
ferocissimo, passato nel dì innanzi al servigio de' Veneziani.
Biagrasso fu poscia ricuperato dai Franzesi. Riuscì ancora a Filippo
Torniello, per ordine d'esso Leva, d'entrar nel castello di Novara, che
tuttavia si tenea per l'imperadore, e con cinquecento fanti italiani

sotto il suo comando di cacciar dalla città lo smilzo presidio ivi
lasciato dal duca di Milano.
Torniamo ora agli affari di Roma. Per compimento delle miserie e
della rovina di quella afflittissima città, già dicemmo esservi
sopraggiunta la peste, che ogni dì facea strage grande di soldati e di
Romani. Essendo entrata anche in castello Sant'Angelo nel mese
d'agosto, il papa e i cardinali, quivi racchiusi e posti in sì gran
pericolo, cominciarono con grande istanza a pregar i capitani cesarei
di aver loro misericordia. Perciò, se dice il vero l'Anonimo Padovano,
ottennero nel dì 15 del suddetto mese d'essere condotti in
Belvedere, dove furono posti di guardia mille Spagnuoli. Il resto di
quell'inumano esercito, per salvarsi dal contagio, si slargò ad Otricoli,
Terni, Narni, Spoleti ed altri luoghi, a molti de' quali, dopo averne
esatte grandissime taglie, diedero anche il sacco. Perchè la rocca di
Spoleti fece resistenza, la presero per forza, e misero a fil di spada
quel presidio. Seguirono poi varii piccioli fatti, e spezialmente su quel
di Terni, fra essi e l'esercito collegato, che s'era ridotto di qua da
Perugia città, a cui in questi tempi toccò una burrasca. Perciocchè
entratovi una notte con aiuto d'essi collegati Orazio Baglione, vi
uccise Gentile Baglione, già messovi dal papa, con altri di quella
stessa famiglia e de' suoi aderenti. A molte case fu dato il sacco, e il
popolo arse e spianò da' fondamenti il palazzo del suddetto Gentile,
restando poi signore di Perugia il medesimo Orazio. Anche in Siena
fu gran sollevazione del popolo contra dei nobili, circa trenta de'
quali rimasero uccisi. Vi accorse da Spoleti il principe d'Oranges,
quetò il tumulto, e lasciò ivi di guardia mille fanti. Mentre queste
cose succedeano, papa Clemente coi tredici cardinali continuava a
star come prigione, e a cercar le vie di riacquistare la libertà, senza
poterle trovare. Il danaro pattuito non compariva, e sempre
s'incontravano nuovi ostacoli ne' negoziati, perchè l'Augusto Carlo V
mostrava ben voglia e zelo per la sua liberazione, ma con esigere
cauzioni che il papa non fosse da lì innanzi contra di lui. Intanto il
Lautrec, dopo tante belle parole d'essere inviato in aiuto di lui, facea
un passo innanzi e due indietro, perchè avvisato che si trattava alla
gagliarda di pace fra l'imperadore e il suo re. Finalmente essendo

morto il vicerè Lanoia, e subentrato nel governo di Napoli Ugo di
Moncada, questi fu chiamato a Roma, per trattare della liberazion del
pontefice. Con esso Moncada si unirono Girolamo Morone e il
cardinal Pompeo Colonna, segretamente guadagnati dal papa; e
tanto si operò, che fu stabilito l'accordo nel dì ultimo d'ottobre, con
obbligarsi il papa di non essere contrario a Cesare per le cose di
Milano e di Napoli, e di pagare allora e poi in varie rate un'immensa
quantità di danaro. Per supplire al presente bisogno si ridusse
Clemente VII a crear per danari alcuni cardinali (al che in addietro
non s'era mai voluto indurre), persone, dice il Guicciardini, la
maggior parte indegne di tanto onore. Inoltre, concedè nel regno di
Napoli decime e facoltà di alienar beni di chiesa, e diede per ostaggi
due cardinali. Era stabilito il dì 9 di dicembre per uscir di castello,
dove il Guicciardini dice ch'egli era, e non già in Belvedere. Ma
Clemente, diffidando sempre degli Spagnuoli, la notte precedente,
travestito da mercatante o da ortolano, se ne uscì, e raccolto in Prati
da Luigi Gonzaga, fu condotto sino a Montefiascone, e poscia ad
Orvieto, senza che neppur uno de' cardinali l'accompagnasse, e con
tal meschinità, che non era da meno de' pontefici de' primi tempi,
che viveano senza pompa, esposti ogni dì alle scuri degli Augusti
pagani. E così passò l'anno presente: anno degno d'indelebil
memoria per l'infame sacco di Roma, per la prigionia del papa, per
tante desolazioni di guerra e saccheggi, e per altri innumerabili
malanni che unitamente si scaricarono sopra quasi tutta l'Italia, in
maniera tale che veramente fu creduto non essersi mai veduto un
cumulo di tanti mali in Italia, dacchè nacque il mondo. Perciochè,
oltre ai suddetti mali la peste infierì in Napoli, Roma, Firenze ed altri
luoghi. I fiumi, usciti per le copiose pioggie dai lor letti, inondarono
le campagne; e queste, anche senza essere oppresse dai fiumi, per
le suddette soverchie pioggie, o per altre naturali cagioni, diedero un
miserabile raccolto universalmente per l'Italia. Il perchè, secondo
l'attestato dell'Anonimo Padovano, mancavano di vita i poveri, per
non aver di che vivere e per non trovar chi loro ne desse. Per tutte le
città, dic'egli, castella e ville si vedeano infiniti poveri con tutte le lor
famiglie andar mendicando, e gridando misericordia e sovvenimento.
Più non si potea andare per le chiese, piazze e strade: tanto era il

numero de' poveri con volti macilenti, squallidi, e tali, che avrebbono
mosse a pietà le pietre. E la notte per le strade s'udivano sì orrende
voci ed urli, che spaventavano ogni persona. E intanto nulla
mancava a tante ciurme di soldati desolatori delle contrade italiane;
e l'immenso danaro di Roma andava ad ingrassare soldati eretici, o
gente piena di ogni vizio e priva di religione.

Anno di
Cristo mdxxviii. Indizione i.
Clemente VII papa 6.
Carlo V imperadore 10.
Dacchè fu giunto in luogo di libertà, cioè in Orvieto il pontefice
Clemente, non tardò il duca d'Urbino cogli altri uffiziali dell'esercito
della lega a portarsi colà, per seco rallegrarsi e per tirarlo nella lega
stabilita con tante potenze dai suoi cardinali. Il trovarono irresoluto,
e per quanto dicessero, nol poterono muovere a prendere partito
alcuno. Così avesse egli fatto ne' tempi precedenti. Verso la metà poi
di gennaio inviò il vescovo sipontino a Venezia a fare istanza a quel
Senato che restituissero Ravenna e Cervia, e pagassero cento mila
ducati d'oro per sale occupato in Cervia, con altre domande che il
fecero conoscere mal soddisfatto di quella repubblica. Non
mancarono scuse a' Veneziani per non effettuar prontamente ciò che
il pontefice desiderava, mettendo anch'essi in campo le tante somme
di danaro da loro impiegate per procurargli la libertà; e poi
mandarono Gasparo Contarino, uomo di singolar prudenza, a
significar meglio le loro intenzioni al papa stesso. S'era fermato non
poco tempo il Lautrec in Parma e Piacenza, dalle quali città ricavò
circa quaranta mila ducati d'oro. Venne a Reggio, dove intese la
liberazion seguita di papa Clemente. Passò anche a Bologna, e prese
ivi un lungo riposo, sull'espettazione sempre che si potesse
conchiuder pace fra il re Francesco I e l'imperador Carlo V. Ma,
scioltosi in nulla ogni trattato, gli oratori di Francia e d'Inghilterra nel

dì 25 di gennaio nella città di Burgos in Ispagna intimarono la guerra
ad esso Augusto; e tanto essi che quei de' Veneziani, Fiorentini e
duca di Milano presero congedo da quella corte, senza poter non di
meno ottenerlo, perchè ritenuti contro il diritto delle genti. Ora il
Lautrec certificato di questo, si mosse coll'esercito suo alla volta del
regno di Napoli, e non volendo passar l'Apennino, s'inviò per la via
della Marca colà. Fu creduto che in tutto l'esercito de' collegati
fossero sessanta mila soldati. Si può detrarne un terzo. Ed è poi
spropositata cosa il dirsi da Odorico Rinaldi che vi si contassero
ottanta mila fanti e venti mila cavalli. Nel dì 10 di febbraio giunto al
fiume Tronto, che divide il regno di Napoli dagli Stati della Chiesa,
senza impedimento alcuno lo passò, ed espugnata per forza Civitella,
terra assai ricca e popolata, ne permise il sacco a' suoi soldati: iniquo
costume, tante volte da noi veduto praticato dalla milizia di que'
tempi, per rallegrare e maggiormente animare alle imprese quella
gente che si picca di esercitare il più onorato mestier del mondo,
quando a pruova di fatti erano tanti ladri ed assassini. Teramo e
Giulia Nuova si arrenderono a Pietro Navarro, e coll'aiuto della parte
angioina anche la grossa e potente città dell'Aquila venne in poter
de' Franzesi, e parimente Celano, Montefiore, e, in una parola tutto
l'Abbruzzo ultra. Il che non so se sia vero, mentre s'ha da altri che
essa città si ribellò sul fine di quest'anno agl'imperiali.
Forse si sarebbe volto il Lautrec verso la capitale del regno, se
non avesse inteso che s'era finalmente, cioè nel dì 17 di febbrio,
mossa da Roma l'armata imperiale sotto il principe d'Oranges, la
quale il Guicciardini e l'Anonimo Padovano fanno ascendere a dodici
in tredici mila Tedeschi, Spagnuoli ed Italiani. Ma costoro non s'erano
voluti partire di là, se non tiravano tutte le lor paghe; e convenne
che il papa sborsasse, oltre al già pattuito contante, anche venti mila
ducati d'oro. Uscita che fu quella mala gente fuori della desolata città
di Roma, v'entrò Napoleone Orsino abbate di Farfa con altri suoi
consorti, che un'impresa veramente gloriosa vi fecero, con ammazzar
quanti Spagnuoli e Tedeschi erano restati ivi malati. In questo
mentre il Lautrec s'impadronì della città di Chieti, capitale
dell'Abbruzzo citra, e poi di Sermona e d'altre terre; e mandò anche

gente a mettersi in possesso della importante dogana di Foggia e di
Nocera. Essendo venuto verso Troia l'esercito imperiale, anche il
Lautrec s'inviò all'incontro d'esso nel dì 12 di marzo, aspettando
continuamente che seco s'andassero ad unire le genti del marchese
di Saluzzo, de' Veneziani e de' Fiorentini. Parevano disposte
amendue le armate a far giornata; ma nulla di questo avvenne.
Spedito dal Lautrec Pietro Navarro a Melfi, città presidiata da secento
soldati e copiosa quantità di villani, la prese per forza, la saccheggiò,
con uccisione di circa tre mila persone. Questo acquisto si tirò dietro
l'altro di Barletta, di Trani, e delle terre circostanti, e parimente della
rocca di Venosa e di Ascoli. Secondo l'Anonimo Padovano, fu anche
presa in questi tempi dai Franzesi Manfredonia, città opulenta e di
molto popolo, e messa a sacco, con ricavarne un grosso bottino. La
stessa crudeltà, per attestato del medesimo storico, fu esercitata
nella presa di Troia. Così venne in lor potere la maggior parte della
Puglia e alquanto della Calabria, a riserva di Otranto, Brindisi ed altri
luoghi forti. Sì fatti progressi cagion furono che il vicerè don Ugo di
Moncada si ritirasse colle sue genti sotto le mura di Napoli, dopo
aver presidiata Gaeta con due mila fanti. Nè qui si fermò la fortuna
de' Franzesi. Anche Capoa, Nola, la Cerra, Aversa e il circonvicino
paese si sottomisero alla lor potenza. Nel qual tempo parimente la
flotta de' Veneziani s'impossessò di Trani e di Monopoli, con disegno
di conquistar anche Otranto, Brindisi e Putignano, terre tutte che,
secondo i patti, aveano da toccare alla repubblica veneta. Sul fine di
aprile andò poi il Lautrec ad accamparsi sotto Napoli.
Non erano intanto minori i guai della Lombardia. Perciocchè, non
bastando la fame, la peste e la guerra a desolare ed affliggere
gl'infelici popoli, insorse una febbre pestilenziale, differente dalla
peste, e chiamata mal mazzucco, pel cui empito ed ardore, molti
divenendo furiosi, si andavano a gittar giù dalle finestre, oppure ne'
pozzi e ne' fiumi, senza che i medici vi trovassero rimedio alcuno.
Durò questo flagello, a cui tenne poi dietro la peste, più di un anno,
e morirono per l'Italia infinite persone. Nella sola città di Padova
quattro mila tra nobili ed ignobili furono portati alla sepoltura. Corse
lo stesso malore per le città di Vicenza, Verona, Ferrara, Mantova ed

altre. Ma niuna delle città fu da paragonare per conto delle miserie
alla nobilissima città di Milano. Tante insopportabili angherie avea
posto in addietro Antonio da Leva, governatore imperiale, a quel
popolo, per poterne spremere danari da dar le paghe ai soldati
(giacchè un soldo non colava da Spagna), con obbligar anche gli
abitanti, privi di vitto per loro, ad alimentar le milizie, che moltissimi
d'essi per disperazione se n'erano fuggiti, abbandonando tutto.
Perciò quella doviziosa e sì popolata città, che da tanti secoli fu
l'onore dell'Insubria, sembrava oramai uno scheletro di città,
essendo nata l'erba per quasi tutte le strade e piazze; stando aperto
notte e dì il più delle botteghe senza le usate merci; vuote senza
numero le case e i palagi; i templi stessi privi d'ogni ornamento, e i
monisteri ridotti a pochi miserabili religiosi, che non poteano reggere
alle continue insolenze delle affamate truppe. La maggior parte poi
del territorio fra Adda e Ticino, e tante grosse terre e ville, parte
abbruciate, parte abbandonate dagli abitatori, senza trovarsi in
alcuni luoghi nè uomini, nè bestie, e senza più coltivarsi que' fertili
terreni, divenuti perciò un continuato bosco. E tanto più era
disperata quella parte di popolo che restava in Milano, perchè i
collegati, stando in Lodi ed altri siti, impedivano il passaggio dei
viveri all'afflitta città. Queste son le glorie de' principi, che senza aver
danaro si mettono a far guerre; e, per soddisfare alla mal nata
ambizione, nulla curano la total rovina degli infelici popoli e paesi
suoi, non che degli altrui. Dove si andassero i tanti tesori che
venivano allora dalle Indie Occidentali alla corte di Spagna, io non
vel so dire. In questi tempi Gian-Giacomo de Medici castellano di
Musso andò verso il fine d'aprile a mettere il campo al castello di
Lecco, secondato dai Veneziani. Arrivò colà spedito da Milano Filippo
Torniello, che il fece ritirar con poco garbo. Ma l'astuto castellano
trattò da lì innanzi per via di lettere con Girolamo Morone, divenuto
gran consigliere anche del principe di Oranges; e questi indusse non
meno esso principe che Antonio da Leva ad investirlo di Lecco,
acciocchè da lì innanzi, abbandonato il servigio della lega, servisse
colle sue forze all'imperadore. Ciò fu eseguito; ed egli tosto inviò a
Milano una gran copia di grano, che fu di mirabil soccorso alle
necessità di que' soldati ed abitanti.

Era noto all'imperator Carlo il bisogno e pericolo dello Stato di
Milano, e più quello del regno di Napoli. Perciò, fatto raunare in
Germania un corpo di quattordici mila Tedeschi sotto il comando di
Arrigo duca di Brunsvich, principe di molta sperienza ed autorità
nella disciplina militare, lo spedì per via di Trento verso Italia. Corse
per questo in Verona, e Vicenza e Padova tanto terrore, che i popoli
coi lor bestiami e col loro meglio fuggirono ai luoghi forti, come se
avessero alle spalle i nemici. Non potendo quell'armata passare per
la Chiusa, voltatasi per la valle di Caurino, circa il dì 8 di maggio
pervenne alla riviera di Garda, dove cominciò a imporre taglie, e a
bruciar ville. Dopo aver presa Peschiera, si diede a saccheggiar il
Bresciano e Bergamasco, con immensi danni e bruciamenti di quelle
contrade. Verso il fine d'esso mese avendo Antonio da Leva
intelligenza con alcuni capi di squadre de' Veneziani che erano in
Pavia, uria mattina, secondo il concerto, spinse la cavalleria
spagnuola entro quella città per una porta ch'era senza guardia. Ai
cavalli tenne dietro la fanteria, e presero la piazza. Fecero ben testa
e gran battaglia i cavalli leggieri veneti, ma con restar infine
svaligiati, e i loro condottieri prigioni. Con questa facilità il Leva
ricuperò una città che tanto tempo, fatiche e sangue era costata alla
lega per acquistarla. E giacchè fra il Ticino e l'Adda altro non restava
che Lodi, occupato dagli Sforzeschi, persuase esso Leva al duca di
Brunsvich di espugnar quella città, prima di passare al soccorso di
Napoli. Colà dunque si dirizzarono con tutte le lor forze, e dacchè le
batterie ebbero rovinata gran quantità di muro, passarono all'assalto.
Ma furono così ben ricevuti da Giam-Paolo Sforza governatore della
città, che non vi tornarono la seconda volta. Si applicarono perciò a
vincer colla fame la città, mal provveduta di viveri, e a tale estremità
la ridussero, che, se durava alquanto più l'assedio, conveniva a que'
di dentro di cedere. Ma eccoti entrare nell'esercito cesareo il mal
mazzucco, ossia febbre pestilenziale, che in men di otto giorni si
trovarono morti più di due mila soldati, ed altrettanti ammalati.
Bastò questo spettacolo, perchè la lor gente cominciasse, senza
poterla ritenere, a fuggir verso Lamagna: laonde fu costretto il resto
di quella sì diminuita armata a ritirarsi a Marignano, da dove poi
anche il duca suddetto si partì, prendendo la via di Como e di

Germania, massimamente perchè vi concorse il consiglio di Antonio
da Leva, a cui non piaceva di aver compagni nel governo. Dopo
questi fatti essendosi ingrossati in Lombardia i Franzesi per l'arrivo di
dodici mila Svizzeri e mille lancie, il signor di San Polo comandante
d'essi, e il duca d'Urbino generale de' Veneziani deliberarono di
tentar l'acquisto di Pavia, dove stavano in guardia due mila fanti
sotto Pietro da Birago e Pietro Bottigella. Nel dì 9 di settembre si
accamparono, e si diedero a bersagliarne le mura. Fatta ivi colle
bombarde sufficiente breccia, nel dì 19 d'esso mese per forza d'armi
e con grande uccisione sboccarono nella città, e misero a sacco quel
poco che vi era restato negli antecedenti saccheggi. Il castello si
arrendè fra poco con oneste condizioni per quel presidio. Crebbero
perciò i guai di Milano. Spedì bensì quel popolo disavventurato alcuni
de' nobili primarii in Ispagna, per rappresentare all'imperador Carlo V
le tante loro miserie; ma altro non ne riportarono che buone parole o
promesse di pace. E perciocchè Antonio da Leva, loro perpetuo
sanguisuga, dopo aver torchiato cotanto le lor borse, non trovava più
verso a pagar le truppe, gli fu suggerita una diabolica invenzione:
cioè di proibir, sotto pena della confiscazion de' beni, che niun
potesse tener farina e far pane in casa. Poscia, affittata la rigorosa
gabella del pane, ne ricavò tanto danaro, che diede le paghe alla sua
gente.
Fra l'armata del Lautrec, accampato sotto Napoli, e gl'imperiali
chiusi in essa città, seguivano intanto continue scaramuccie. Accadde
che verso il fine d'aprile quattro grosse navi cariche di frumenti e
d'altre provvissioni da bocca venivano a Napoli per soccorso di quella
gran città. Andrea Doria capitano delle galee di Francia diede ad
esse la caccia; ma non potendole sottomettere per mancanza di
soldati, mandò Filippino Doria a chiedere aiuto al Lautrec, il quale gli
spedì immantinente mille de' suoi migliori fanti. Anche il vicerè
Moncada, conoscendo l'importanza di quelle navi, e il loro pericolo,
in cinque galee entrò egli stesso con mille e cinquecento fanti, e col
fiore dei suoi uffiziali, senza saper cosa alcuna del soccorso inviato
dal Lautrec. Si attaccò nel dì 28 del mese suddetto in mare una fiera
battaglia che per gran tempo fu dubbiosa; ma infine restò la vittoria

ai due valorosi Doria. Vi perderono la vita lo stesso vicerè, Cesare
Feramosca ossia Fiera Mosca, Jaches di Altamura, con altri
assaissimi; e rimasero prigioni il marchese del Vasto, Ascanio e
Camillo Colonnesi, il principe di Salerno, ed altri molti capitani e
gentiluomini. Una sola galea degl'imperiali si salvò; le navi cariche
vennero poi tutte in potere d'Andrea Doria, colpo che quanto fu di
dolore ai difensori di Napoli, altrettanto rallegrò l'esercito della lega.
Comuni allora furono i pronostici che Napoli non si potrebbe
sostenere. Non mi fermerò io a narrar gli altri avvenimenti
dell'assedio di quella gran città, e della guerra che nel medesimo
tempo si fece per tutto il regno, con essere applicati anche i
Veneziani a ridurre in lor potere Otranto, Brindisi ed altre terre
marittime. A me basterà di dire che la peste era in Napoli; e questa
si comunicò al campo de' Franzesi, ossia della lega, per cui
terminarono il corso di loro vita il nunzio del papa e Luigi Pisano
legato veneto con altri signori. Cadde per la sua ostinazione in
quell'assedio dipoi malato anche il Lautrec, e finì di vivere nel dì 15
di agosto, con restare il comando al marchese di Saluzzo. Era perciò
in gran confusione quell'armata, con declinare ogni di più per la
mortalità della gente. Al che s'aggiunse un altro non lieve disastro,
perchè Andrea Doria destinato a guardar il mare, affinchè non
entrassero viveri in Napoli, essendo terminata la sua ferma col re
Cristianissimo, passò al servigio dell'imperadore: avvenimento che
sconcertò forte i disegni e le speranze de' capitani franzesi. Il perchè
dal marchese di Saluzzo verso il fine d'agosto fu presa la risoluzione
di levar il campo per ritirarsi ad Aversa. Ma gl'imperiali che stavano
all'erta, usciti di Napoli, con tanto furore piombarono addosso alla
retroguardia, che la misero in rotta, e fecero prigione Pietro Navarro
con altri. Il che inteso dal popolo d'Aversa, diede all'armi, e, chiuse le
porte, tagliò a pezzi quanti Franzesi v'erano prima entrati. Così
l'Anonimo Padovano, il qual soggiunse che, sopraggiunto il grosso
degl'imperiali, seguì un combattimento colla rotta de' collegati, i
capitani de' quali per la maggior parte rimasero prigioni, e fra gli altri
lo stesso marchese di Saluzzo, che poi morì; ed avere i villani fatto
gran macello di quella gente sbandata in vendetta delle molte offese
e ruberie lor fatte in addietro. Ma il Guicciardini scrive che, chiusa

quella parte de' collegati in Aversa, per non veder maniera di
difendersi, andò il conte Guido Rangone a parlare col principe di
Oranges; e mentre capitolava, con avere accordato che tutti i
capitani restassero prigioni, e i soldati se ne andassero senza armi,
bandiere e cavalli, entrarono improvvisamente i cesarei in Aversa, e
diedero un terribil sacco all'infelice città. Per questo il Rangone
pretese di non essere prigione, e fu poi rilasciato dal marchese del
Vasto, dappoichè questi fu ritornato in libertà. Ecco dove andò a
terminare lo sforzo dell'armata della lega contra di Napoli dopo tanti
progressi, dopo tante apparenze di conquistare tutto quel regno, nel
quale non per questo cessarono le turbolenze e i guai. Perocchè
Renzo da Ceri con alcuni degli Orsini si fortificarono in Barletta, e i
Veneziani sotto la condotta di Cacciadiavoli Contarino occupavano
varii luoghi in Puglia e Calabria, con essere tornati quasi tutti gli altri
alla divozione di Cesare. Ma il principe d'Oranges, sì per mostrare
severità, come per cavar danari da pagar le sue milizie, non tardò a
far processi e confischi contra di que' baroni che in tal congiuntura si
erano mostrati aderenti a' Franzesi. Fece inoltre decapitare nella
pubblica piazza di Napoli alquanti di que' nobili. Gli altri fuggirono, o
si riscattarono con grossi pagamenti di danaro, trattando di ciò con
quel gran faccendiere di Girolamo Morone, a cui in ricompensa delle
sue fatiche donato fu il ducato di Boviano.
Mutazioni parimente nel presente anno seguirono in Genova. Già
dicemmo che il valoroso Andrea Doria era passato al servigio
dell'imperadore, avendo abbandonato quel di Francia, ossia perchè
non corressero le paghe promesse, o perchè il re Cristianissimo non
mostrasse di lui quella stima che meritava; o piuttosto perchè esso
re volesse in sua mano il marchese del Vasto, Ascanio Colonna, ed
altri da lui fatti prigioni, a' quali s'era esso Doria obbligato di
restituire la libertà, pagata che a lui fosse la taglia. Fu inoltre creduto
che l'amor della patria, signoreggiata allora dai Franzesi, e il
desiderio di stabilir ivi in più convenevol grado la sua famiglia, il
movesse ad abbracciare il partito di Carlo V, il quale per maneggio
del Vasto non mancò di accordargli delle vantaggiose condizioni. Ora
Andrea Doria, avendo ottenuta da esso Cesare la facoltà di rimettere

Genova in libertà, e sapendo che in essa città, per ragion della peste,
erano pochi soldati, nè si facea l'occorrente guardia; nel dì 12 di
settembre presentatosi al porto, giacchè se n'erano ritirate le galee
di Francia, animosamente v'entrò con soli cinquecento fanti: il che
bastò perchè il popolo si sollevasse gridando: Libertà, e Teodoro
Trivulzio regio governatore si ritirasse nel castelletto, che fu
immediatamente assediato. Mandarono appresso i Genovesi gran
gente ad assediar Savona, che i Franzesi aveano staccata dalla
suggezion di Genova: il che appunto più d'ogni altro motivo gli avea
renduti odiosi ai Genovesi. A nulla servì l'avere il Trivulzio fatte
istanze per soccorso al signor di San Paolo e al duca di Urbino. Vi fu
bene spedito un corpo di gente, ma non sufficiente al bisogno, ed
anche troppo tardi; laonde sul fine di settembre non men Savona
che il castelletto si arrenderono ad essi Genovesi, i quali non
perderono tempo a rendere inutile il porto di Savona con empierlo di
sassi, e spianavano da' fondamenti il castelletto. Per avere il Doria
restituita la libertà alla sua patria, gran gloria a lui ne venne,
confessando gli scrittori genovesi ch'egli avrebbe potuto, se avesse
voluto, farsene signore. Col tempo poi parve che quel popolo
dimenticasse sì fatto benefizio. Fu ivi stabilito un saggio governo; e
per togliere le divisioni e fazioni tra' nobili e popolari, che tanto
aveano afflitta quella nobilissima città, a ventotto delle più chiare ed
illustri famiglie (escluse l'Adorna e la Fregosa) si aggregarono le
altre, che erano ammesse agli onori e magistrati: dal che è poi
venuto che ivi sieno tanti Doria, Spinola, Grimaldi, Fieschi, ec.
Mandarono bensì dopo qualche tempo i Franzesi segretamente
alcune schiere d'armati per sorprendere Andrea Doria, abitante nel
suo bel palazzo fuori di Genova; ma egli per la porta di dietro in una
barchetta si salvò. Scaricossi la vendetta solamente sopra quel
palazzo, che fu posto a sacco.
Per confessione ancora del Guicciardini, papa Clemente VII, poco
avendo profittato de' flagelli a lui mandati da Dio, dacchè fu in
libertà, avea ripigliate le sue astuzie e cupidità. Ricuperò egli Imola e
Rimini. Partito poscia da Orvieto, fermossi qualche giorno in Viterbo,
ed indi se ne andò a Roma, dove pubblicò rigorosi bandi, chiamando

chiunque era fuggito, affinchè tornassero ad abitarvi. E perciocchè
l'odio suo contra di Alfonso duca di Ferrara, invece di rallentarsi, era
cresciuto, in quest'anno ancora ricorse alle insidie per torgli le sue
terre, e per fare anche di peggio, se gli fosse potuto riuscire. In
Reggio si scoprì un maneggio di Girolamo Pio, governatore di quella
città pel duca, col vescovo di Casale commissario dell'armi del papa
in Parma e Piacenza, coll'accordo già fatto d'introdurre in quella città
presidio pontificio [Anonimo Padov. Panciroli, Histor. Regiens. MS. Vita di
Alfonso MSSta. Guicciard., Istor. MS. di Ferrara. Varchi, Istor.]. Dal conte
Albertino Boschetti fu scoperta la trama, e convinto il reo, perdè la
testa. Venne appresso un altro tentativo, fatto da Uberto Gambara,
gran manipolatore di sì belle azioni, per sorprendere con ducento
cavalli ed altrettanti archibugieri il duca nel dover egli passare da
Modena a Ferrara. Per accidente non si partì egli nel dì destinato: il
che servì a scoprire le tese reti, che restarono senza la preda.
Scoperta fu anche un'altra congiura ordita dal medesimo Gambara
per far uccidere il duca di Ferrara, che si trovava allora malmenata
dalla peste. Di questo procedere disonorato e contro il precedente
accordo fece far molte doglianze Alfonso al pontefice, il quale si
scusò col dire che nulla sapea di quelle mene; ma nol persuase al
pubblico, e tanto meno dappoichè niun risentimento ne fece coi suoi
ministri. Era ito nel precedente anno don Ercole, primogenito d'esso
duca, con copioso accompagnamento a Parigi, per isposare Renea,
figlia di Lodovico XII re di Francia, e sorella della già defunta Claudia
regina, moglie del re Francesco I. Con somma magnificenza furono
celebrate quelle nozze; e la regal principessa col consorte, dichiarato
duca di Sciartres e Montargis, e visconte di Caen, Follese e Baiusa,
giunse a Reggio, poscia a Modena nel dì 12 di novembre, e di là
passata a Ferrara, vi fece la sua solenne entrata nell'ultimo d'esso
mese. Delle suntuosissime feste fatte in tale occasione in Modena, e
più in Ferrara, è da vedere il Faustini [Faustino, Storia di Ferrara.], e ne
ho parlato anch'io altrove [Antichità Estensi, Par. II.]. Secondo l'Anonimo
Padovano, furono fatte tante allegrezze, ch'è meglio tacere, che
dirne poco. Ma che è questo in comparazione di tante calamità e
sciagure di fame, di peste e di guerra, che inondarono tutte le altre
provincie d'Italia nell'anno presente?

Anno di
Cristo mdxxix. Indizione ii.
Clemente VII papa 7.
Carlo V imperadore 11.
Sul principio di quest'anno fu preso da una breve, ma pericolosa,
malattia papa Clemente, nel qual tempo, cioè a dì 10 di gennaio,
creò cardinale Ippolito figlio naturale di Giuliano de Medici; e, come
è l'uso in simili casi, corse anche la voce di sua morte a Firenze, voce
accolta con giubilo interno ed esterno di quasi tutti que' cittadini,
consapevoli del di lui sdegno contra di loro, e della sua voglia di
vendicarsi. Ma riuscì al pontefice di superar quel brutto golfo, con
ritornar presto ai suoi soliti giri politici, trattando nel medesimo
tempo coll'imperadore e col re di Francia, intento a cavar donde
potesse maggiori vantaggi. A non lievi agitazioni era tuttavia
sottoposto il regno di Napoli, perchè la città dell'Aquila s'era ribellata
a Cesare; Barletta la teneva Renzo da Ceri per li Franzesi; Trani,
Putignano e Monopoli erano in man de' Veneziani; e il monte di
Sant'Angelo, Nardò e Castro tuttavia ubbidivano ad essi Franzesi.
Accostandosi la primavera, spedì il principe d'Oranges contro l'Aquila
Alfonso marchese del Vasto, già rimesso in libertà, che durò poca
fatica a ricuperarla, e a far pagare ben caro a tutto quel popolo i
delitti di pochi, avendogli messa una taglia di cento mila ducati d'oro.
Andò poscia il marchese nel mese di marzo a mettere il campo a
Monopoli. Così valorosamente difesero i Veneziani quella terra,
ch'egli con grave danno de' suoi fu obbligato sul fine di maggio a

ritirarsi. Altre azioni di guerra furono poi fatte in quelle contrade colla
desolazion della Puglia. Fra le altre terre di que' contorni Molfetta,
presa da Cacciadiavoli Contarino, restò messa a sacco, e sì
barbaramente maltrattata ed arsa, che di peggio non avrebbe fatto
un crudelissimo nemico della fede di Cristo. Certamente se il re di
Francia avesse voluto o potuto applicarvi, avrebbe tenuto in grandi
imbrogli quel regno. Ma egli, oltre all'aver in piedi un trattato di pace
coll'imperatore, si trovava affaccendato in affari più importanti di
caccie e d'amori. Per conto della Lombardia, ivi con più caldo
seguitava la guerra. Sul fine del precedente anno erano giunti presso
Genova (perchè nella città non furono ammessi) due mila Spagnuoli,
tutti mal in ordine, senza scarpe in piedi, senza calzoni, gente
bruttissima ed orridissima a vederla, ma che per altro portava seco
la bravura: pregio che tuttavia ritien quella nazione. Tentò il signor di
San Polo general dei Franzesi d'impedir l'unione di costoro con
Antonio da Leva; ma il conte Lodovico di Barbiano, spedito a
riceverli, seppe sì destramente condurli, che felicemente arrivarono a
Milano. Per disgrazia di quel popolo, battuto da tante tribolazioni,
aveano costoro nome di soldati, ma si trovarono eccellenti ladri;
perchè di notte e di dì per le porte, per le finestre, per li tetti
entravano nelle case, ne asportavano quel poco ch'era rimasto ai
poveri Milanesi; e ciò perchè modo di pagarli non appariva, ed essi
erano spogliati di ogni bene: con somma vergogna di un imperadore
re di Spagna, che nulla pensava a pagar le sue genti, e sapea le
incredibili miserie de' Milanesi, nè provvedeva.
Impadronironsi i Franzesi circa questi tempi di Novara, ma non
del castello, siccome ancora di Vigevano, Sant'Angelo, Mortara ed
altri luoghi. Tenuto fu nel mese di maggio un gran consiglio dal
suddetto San Polo coi capitani veneti e sforzeschi, per far l'assedio di
Milano. Trovossi alle rassegne che non v'erano sufficienti forze, e
però fu risoluto di prendere, se si potea, colla fame quella gran città.
Postossi il San Polo a Biagrasso, il duca d'Urbino generale dei
Veneziani coi suoi e con parte delle genti sforzesche a Cassano:
daddove colle scorrerie infestavano tutto il paese, acciocchè
vettovaglia non entrasse in Milano. Intanto il San Polo, ossia che gli

venisse di Francia l'ordine, o ch'egli concepisse quel disegno,
determinò di passar colle sue milizie a Genova, con isperanza di
poter ricuperare quella città, giacchè Andrea Doria colle sue galee
era stato chiamato dall'imperadore in Ispagna. A questo fine passò
egli a Landriano, e, mandata innanzi la vanguardia, nel dì 21 di
giugno prese riposo in quel luogo. Avvisato della divisione dei
Franzesi Antonio da Leva, dopo aver animati i suoi colla sicurezza
della vittoria, sull'imbrunir della notte li mosse incamiciati a quella
volta, facendosi egli portare in una sedia da quattro uomini, per
essere storpio e rovinato dalla podagra. Con silenzio e senza suono
alcuno di trombe o tamburi arrivò quella seguente mattina addosso
ai Franzesi, che fecero ben per qualche tempo resistenza, e
massimamente due mila Italiani comandati da Gian-Girolamo da
Castiglione e dal conte Claudio Rangone. Ma infine diedero tutti a
gambe. Restò prigione lo stesso signor di San Polo, ferito in due
luoghi, coi suddetti Rangone e Castiglione ed altri capi d'importanza,
e furono presi molti cavalli, carriaggi ed artiglierie. Il conte Guido
Rangone, che tanto prima s'era messo al servigio del re di Francia,
nè si trovò al conflitto, perchè mandato innanzi colla vanguardia, si
salvò, riducendosi a Parma ed indi a Lodi. Così scrive il Guicciardini.
Abbiamo, all'incontro, dal Varchi ch'esso conte Guido, giovane di
grandissima espettazione, dopo aver guadagnato più ferite nel viso,
animosamente menando le mani, restò prigione. Invece di Guido
verisimilmente il Varchi volle dir Claudio. Tornossene il vittorioso
esercito imperiale tutto carico di bottino e di gloria a Milano. Fu poi
mandato Filippo Torniello con trecento fanti a ricuperar Novara: il
che egli felicemente eseguì, entrato che fu nel castello, con
iscacciarne il presidio franzese. Gli occorse nondimeno un accidente
curioso, che mentre egli cacciava fuori della città i nemici, un capo di
squadra ch'era nel castello, sciolti i prigioni, con essi ribellò il
medesimo castello. Fu nondimeno fatta loro tanta paura colle
artiglierie, che lo renderono, e fu loro permesso di andarsene,
siccome gli avea promesso il Torniello. Studiossi ancora in varie
maniere Antonio da Leva di fare sloggiare dal suo accampamento il
duca d'Urbino; ma non gli venne mai fatto; siccome neppure

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

Universals In Comparative Morphology Jonathan David Bobaljik

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Tags

Categories

Download

Quick Actions

Statistics

Related Slideshows

Universals In Comparative Morphology Jonathan David Bobaljik

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Slide 1

Slide 2

Slide 3

Slide 6

Slide 7

Slide 8

Slide 9

Slide 10

Slide 12

Slide 13

Slide 14

Slide 15

Slide 16

Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

Slide 23

Slide 24

Slide 25

Slide 26

Slide 27

Slide 28

Slide 29

Slide 30

Slide 31

Slide 32

Slide 33

Slide 34

Slide 35

Slide 36

Slide 37

Slide 38

Slide 39

Slide 40

Slide 41

Slide 42

Slide 43

Slide 44

Slide 46

Slide 47

Slide 48

Slide 49

Slide 50

Slide 51

Slide 52

Slide 53

Slide 54

Slide 55

Slide 56

Slide 57

Slide 58

Slide 59

Slide 60

Slide 61

Slide 62

Slide 63

Slide 64

Slide 65

Slide 66

Slide 67

Slide 68

Slide 69

Slide 70

Slide 71

Slide 72

Slide 73

Slide 75

Slide 76

Slide 77

Slide 78

Tags

Categories

Download

Quick Actions

Statistics