Must a participle have a finite main verb?

Thomas Dolhanty
Posts: 401
Joined: May 20th, 2014, 10:13 am
Location: west coast of Canada

Re: Must a participle have a finite main verb?

Post by Thomas Dolhanty » April 29th, 2015, 3:49 pm

Another example:

Matthew 6:5 wrote:
ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς καὶ ἐν ταῖς γωνίαις τῶν πλατειῶν ἑστῶτες προσεύχεσθαι

I think the time of ἑστῶτες should be understood relative to προσεύχεσθαι, not to some other verb, no? Or how about this one:
No. I think that's wrong. An infinitive, like a participle, does not have time. Both are non-finite. Their time is defined by the time of the sentence. Neither ἑστῶτες nor προσεύχεσθαι can be said to have "time" except in relation to the main verb. Here, I think the time is modal with relationship to φιλοῦσιν - 'they love [often] to stand praying'.
Matthew 05:13 wrote:
εἰς οὐδὲν ἰσχύει ἔτι εἰ μὴ βληθὲν ἔξω καταπατεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων.

As I read this, βληθὲν is to be interpreted relative to καταπατεῖσθαι - βληθὲν ἔξω describes the circumstances under which it is trampled.
Again, an infinitive does not have time - it is timeless. The "time" of an infinitive, or a participle can only be spoken of in relation to its context.
0 x


γράφω μαθεῖν

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3743
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Must a participle have a finite main verb?

Post by Jonathan Robie » April 29th, 2015, 4:01 pm

Thomas Dolhanty wrote:That is, you cannot write an English sentence like, "Going to the lake", or "Going to the lake, while talking to a man." By definition an English participle cannot stand alone as the main verb in a sentence. If the Greek participle is different in this sense, I do not understand the difference.

This is what I understand from the statement, " ...a participle must have a finite main verb ...".
Yes, I think that's true for verbal participles.
Thomas Dolhanty wrote:As to the temporal relationship, I think it is defined by ἐταράχθησαν, and because it is aorist, the time can be either before or during the time of the main verb for an aorist participle (Wallace). The whole phrase as a unit explains why they were afraid. What happens within the phrase (seeing him walking upon the water), as I understand it, has no bearing on the question - or else I'm missing something. The whole phrase must be read as relating to the main verb.
I think there's more than one temporal relationship here. Let's break it down.
οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης περιπατοῦντα ἐταράχθησαν λέγοντες ὅτι Φάντασμά ἐστιν, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ φόβου ἔκραξαν.

Code: Select all

[ δὲ
  [ 
    [ οἱ μαθηταὶ ]
    ἰδόντες
    [ αὐτὸν
        [ ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης ]
        περιπατοῦντα
    ]
    ἐταράχθησαν
    [ λέγοντες
      [ ὅτι Φάντασμά ἐστιν ]
    ]
  ]
  καὶ 
  [ ἀπὸ τοῦ φόβου ἔκραξαν ]
]
As I see it, the time of ἰδόντες and λέγοντες should be interpreted relative to ἐταράχθησαν, and the time of περιπατοῦντα should be interpreted relative to ἰδόντες,
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3743
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Must a participle have a finite main verb?

Post by Jonathan Robie » April 29th, 2015, 4:11 pm

Thomas Dolhanty wrote:No. I think that's wrong. An infinitive, like a participle, does not have time. Both are non-finite. Their time is defined by the time of the sentence. Neither ἑστῶτες nor προσεύχεσθαι can be said to have "time" except in relation to the main verb.
We agree that non-finite verbs can have time in relation to the main verb, and that the tense of a non-finite verb indicates the time relation with respect to the main verb.

I'm mostly talking about nested structures in which one non-finite verb v1 has a direct relationship to the main verb v0 , and another non-finite verb v2 has a direct relationship to the non-finite verb v1 and only an indirect relation to the main verb. I currently think that just as v1 has time in relation to the main verb, v2 has time in relation to v1. I think you are saying that both v1 and v2 have time only in direct relation to v0?

I'll look for examples that have bearing on the question.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3042
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Must a participle have a finite main verb?

Post by Stephen Carlson » April 29th, 2015, 5:12 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:Grammars often say or imply that a participle must have a finite main verb, but I see quite a few examples (391 in the GNT) where it's not clear to me that this is the case.
It's good to nail down what exactly is the claim, but I think you're making it more interesting than it is. Usually, the claim is something like every sentence must have a finite main verb (allowing for implied ἐστίν, etc.), and that a participle by itself does not qualify as a main verb. No one is claiming that a participle has to depend on a finite verb--after all, they can depend on any verb--only that, in a sentence with a participle, there is some finite verb (express or implied) somewhere in it. A participle by itself cannot make a complete sentence.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

timothy_p_mcmahon
Posts: 257
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:47 pm

Re: Must a participle have a finite main verb?

Post by timothy_p_mcmahon » April 29th, 2015, 5:54 pm

Are you not considering imperative participles in this discussion? (e.g., 1 Peter 2:18)
0 x

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3042
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Must a participle have a finite main verb?

Post by Stephen Carlson » April 29th, 2015, 6:12 pm

timothy_p_mcmahon wrote:Are you not considering imperative participles in this discussion? (e.g., 1 Peter 2:18)
Well, that and a couple of exceptions to be named later.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3743
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Must a participle have a finite main verb?

Post by Jonathan Robie » April 30th, 2015, 8:49 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:
Jonathan Robie wrote:Grammars often say or imply that a participle must have a finite main verb, but I see quite a few examples (391 in the GNT) where it's not clear to me that this is the case.
It's good to nail down what exactly is the claim, but I think you're making it more interesting than it is. Usually, the claim is something like every sentence must have a finite main verb (allowing for implied ἐστίν, etc.), and that a participle by itself does not qualify as a main verb. No one is claiming that a participle has to depend on a finite verb--after all, they can depend on any verb--only that, in a sentence with a participle, there is some finite verb (express or implied) somewhere in it. A participle by itself cannot make a complete sentence.
The model you just described is clearer and more explicit than what I see in the grammars I'm reading. Perhaps you can point to places that they state this as clearly as you just did? If we can make this just a little more explicit and test it, that's what I'm looking for.

The descriptions of participles in Smyth, Rijksbaron, etc. refer to "the finite verb" in ways that imply that the relationship between the participle and "the finite verb" is central. I don't see clear statements that a participle can depend on any verb, but I think that's true from what I see in queries. When I read these grammars, I can't tell whether "the main verb", "the leading verb", etc. can be any verb (including participles and infinitives) or not. Is "the main verb" the same thing as "the verb that the participle depends on"? Is "the main verb" the same thing as "the leading verb"? Is it the same thing as "the finite verb"? To me, at least, the grammars I am reading are not sufficiently clear about these things, at least not in the sections I am looking at. I need this level of clarity.
Stephen Carlson wrote:Usually, the claim is something like every sentence must have a finite main verb (allowing for implied ἐστίν, etc.), and that a participle by itself does not qualify as a main verb.
Or perhaps that every independent clause has a finite verb (expressed or implied, you need some model that covers verbless clauses in Greek, etc.), and an independent clause can stand alone as a complete sentence. I'd like to know what "etc." covers in more detail ;->
Stephen Carlson wrote:
timothy_p_mcmahon wrote:Are you not considering imperative participles in this discussion? (e.g., 1 Peter 2:18)
Well, that and a couple of exceptions to be named later.
Let's see if we can get the exceptions all named ...
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3042
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Must a participle have a finite main verb?

Post by Stephen Carlson » April 30th, 2015, 10:12 am

Jonathan Robie wrote:Let's see if we can get the exceptions all named ...
Don't know about "all," but for a start, you have the anacolutha at Gal 2:4 and 2:6. The epistolary greeting formula in Gal 1:1-3, etc. I'm sure there are other sentences or sentence fragments without a(n explicit) main, finite verb. But these are all infrequent in the greater scheme of things.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3743
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Must a participle have a finite main verb?

Post by Jonathan Robie » May 1st, 2015, 10:21 am

Back to this verse:
Luke 2:36 wrote:Καὶ ἦν Ἅννα προφῆτις, θυγάτηρ Φανουήλ, ἐκ φυλῆς Ἀσήρ· αὕτη προβεβηκυῖα ἐν ἡμέραις πολλαῖς, Ζήσασα μετὰ ἀνδρὸς ἔτη ἑπτὰ ἀπὸ τῆς παρθενίας αὐτῆς,
I think this is an independent clause with implied ἐστίν, and could function as an independent sentence:
αὕτη προβεβηκυῖα ἐν ἡμέραις πολλαῖς
A very similar clause seems to function as an independent clause in Luke 1:18:
Luke 1:18 wrote:ἐγὼ γάρ εἰμι πρεσβύτης καὶ ἡ γυνή μου προβεβηκυῖα ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις αὐτῆς.
I think this is an independent clause with implied ἐστίν, and could function as an independent sentence:
ἡ γυνή μου προβεβηκυῖα ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις αὐτῆς.
Either of these could be rewritten using πρεσβῦτις and an implied ἐστίν without significantly changing the meaning:
Luke 2:36 (modified) wrote:Καὶ ἦν Ἅννα προφῆτις, θυγάτηρ Φανουήλ, ἐκ φυλῆς Ἀσήρ· αὕτη πρεσβῦτις, Ζήσασα μετὰ ἀνδρὸς ἔτη ἑπτὰ ἀπὸ τῆς παρθενίας αὐτῆς,
Luke 1:18 (modified) wrote:ἐγὼ γάρ εἰμι πρεσβύτης καὶ ἡ γυνή μου πρεσβῦτις.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Thomas Dolhanty
Posts: 401
Joined: May 20th, 2014, 10:13 am
Location: west coast of Canada

Re: Must a participle have a finite main verb?

Post by Thomas Dolhanty » May 1st, 2015, 11:51 am

Jonathan Robie wrote:Back to this verse:
Luke 2:36 wrote:Καὶ ἦν Ἅννα προφῆτις, θυγάτηρ Φανουήλ, ἐκ φυλῆς Ἀσήρ• αὕτη προβεβηκυῖα ἐν ἡμέραις πολλαῖς, Ζήσασα μετὰ ἀνδρὸς ἔτη ἑπτὰ ἀπὸ τῆς παρθενίας αὐτῆς,

I think this is an independent clause with implied ἐστίν, and could function as an independent sentence:
αὕτη προβεβηκυῖα ἐν ἡμέραις πολλαῖς
I think that is correct, and if I understand him correctly, I think that is what Culy says:
M. Culy - Baylor Handbook, Luke pg 88f wrote:Luke 2:36 Καὶ ἦν Ἅννα προφῆτις, θυγάτηρ Φανουήλ, ἐκ φυλῆς Ἀσήρ αὕτη προβεβηκυῖα ἐν ἡμέραις πολλαῖς, ζήσασα μετὰ ἀνδρὸς ἔτη ἑπτὰ ἀπὸ τῆς παρθενίας αὐτῆς

Καὶ. There is a clear shift in the narrative focus as Anna is introduced, but Luke continues to use Kai rather than the developmental δὲ (cf. v. 22).

ἦν. Impf ind 3rd sg είμι. Luke provides an extensive introduction to Anna using an explicit equative clause here, followed by clauses where ἦν is implied in verses 36b and 37.

Ἅννα. Nominative subject of ἦν.

προφῆτις. Predicate nominative of ἦν.

θυγάτηρ. Nominative in apposition to Ἅννα.

Φανουήλ. Genitive of relationship.

ἐκ φυλῆς. Source.

Ἀσήρ. “The tribe (named after) Asher” or “the tribe (named)
Asher.”

αὕτη. Nominative subject of an implied equative verb with προβεβηκυῖα.

προβεβηκυῖα ἐν ἡμέραις πολλαῖς. Luke makes use of what appears to be an idiom (see 1:7 on προβεβηκότες ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις αὐτῶν ἦσαν), here emphasizing extreme old age by using the adjective πολλαῖς: lit. “she was advanced in many days.“

προβεβηκυῖα. Prf act ptc fem nom sg προβαίνω (pluperfect periphrastic). Having introduced Anna with the verb ἦν, Luke feels free to leave this verb implicit in the clause that begins verse 37 αὐτὴ χήρα. The same is likely the case here (cf. 1:7, 18).

ἐν ἡμέραις πολλαῖς. Reference.

ζήσασα. Aor act ptc fem nom sg ζάω (causal; so Plummer. 72). The function of the participle is made more difficult by the lack of an explicit main verb for it to modify. It should likely be viewed as a modifier of the periphrastic (ἦν) προβεβηκυῖα (cf. Plummer, 72). The participial clause and verse 37 then provide an explanation for her advanced age.

μετὰ ἀνδρὸς. Association.

ἔτη ἑπτὰ. Accusativc indicating extent of time.

ἀπὸ τῆς παρθενίας. Temporal. Lit. “from the time of her virginity.”

αὐτῆς. Subjective genitive.
He then goes on to describe ζήσασα as modifying the (implied) periphrastic phrase which also seems right to me. If προβεβηκυῖα were not seen as a periphrastic (with the implied verb) I do not know what to do with αὕτη.
0 x
γράφω μαθεῖν

Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”