What is ‘early Latin’? The main contention of the present volume is that this question does not have a single answer. Rather, ‘early Latin’ is one of those ubiquitous labels (like ‘old’ or ‘archaic’ Latin) which have been used by classical scholars to denote different linguistic entities, and above all to describe a variety of linguistic features, in an often confusing and potentially contentious way. ‘Early Latin’ is above all a linguistic construct, which evokes frameworks of periodisation (often diverging), and posits a distinction between a supposedly discrete and cohesive linguistic variety (‘classical Latin’) and another one, equally discrete and cohesive, belonging to an earlier time period (‘pre-classical Latin’, a notion which has often carried negative value judgments since antiquity). Far from aiming to replace one theoretical framework with another, the studies presented here contribute, through a fresh analysis of specific linguistic phenomena and stylistic trends, to challenge the myths of periodisation and standardisation, and to expose the limited usefulness of evolutionary models to explain language change.

The aim of this chapter is to analyse the constructions with support verb (like verba facere, consilium capere, in memoria habere, etc.) in Plautus and Terence, as well as to highlight, among other aspects, their frequency of use, syntactic types, and which are the most common verbs and constructions. At the same time, the comparison between Plautus and Terence and, above all, between early Latin and a selected corpus of classical Latin prose (Caesar, Cicero, Sallust and Livy) and poetry (Virgil and Ovid) will allow me (i) to demonstrate the process of grammaticalization and renewal of these analytic expressions, (ii) to refine the widespread idea that the constructions with support verb are a characteristic of colloquial Latin, and finally (iii) to determine whether early Latin has its own peculiarities in the use of these complex expressions.

This chapter focuses on morpho-syntactical phenomena that are typically brushed off with labels such as ‘archaism’ or ‘colloquialism’ (e.g. siet; medio-passive infinitives ending in -ier; med; familiai; absence of subordinator ut; absence of subject accusatives). These labels provide neither an explanation nor an assessment that takes their functions and distributions into account. The analysis of distribution patterns shows whether a type of scansion, a morpheme, or a construction that stands out from the angle of an Indo-Europeanist or that of a classicist is in fact normal in early Latin, or marked in some way. For example, the discrepancy between the different conjugations shows that Plautus and Terence do not pick forms in -ier and then try to fit them into the line; rather, they write their lines and only pick forms in -ier if it cannot be helped. This has implications for assessing the stylistic value of forms in -ier in contemporary inscriptions or in Lucretius. This analysis, in turn, can help us to understand early texts in their own right, and aids us in reconstruction or understanding how a Roman of the classical period would have felt about a specific phenomenon.