Page 1 of 2
verb valency patterns, finite & infinitive
Posted: December 9th, 2014, 1:47 pm
by Stirling Bartholomew
In another forum it has been dogmatically asserted that the valency patterns for a given verb will be identical for the finite and infinitive forms of the verb.
Does anyone have a problem with this?
Re: verb valency patterns, finite & infinitive
Posted: December 9th, 2014, 2:49 pm
by Stirling Bartholomew
Here is a direct quote:
whether a verb is in finite form or in infinite form is immaterial to the syntax of the sentence constituents dependent on that verb
what do you say to that?
Re: verb valency patterns, finite & infinitive
Posted: December 9th, 2014, 3:54 pm
by Stephen Carlson
Well, "subjects" of infinitives will be in the accusative instead of the nominative...
Re: verb valency patterns, finite & infinitive
Posted: December 9th, 2014, 4:35 pm
by Stirling Bartholomew
Stephen Carlson wrote:Well, "subjects" of infinitives will be in the accusative instead of the nominative...
Yes and we also have genitive absolutes.
If we have a verb with three arguments in finite form would we be safe to assume that those three arguments would be found with the non-finite forms of the verb? It seems to me that in
actual usage the patterns are some times dependent on the
finite/non-finite distinction. We might start off with the assumption that a trivalent finite verb would retain that pattern for non-finite forms but discover by observation that usage doesn't support that assumption. That for a given lexeme the idioms don't display a trivalent non-finite pattern.
Re: verb valency patterns, finite & infinitive
Posted: December 9th, 2014, 4:41 pm
by Stephen Carlson
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:It seems to me that in actual usage the patterns are some times dependent on the finite/non-finite distinction.
This had never occurred to me (as I had assumed that finiteness should not make a difference) and I find it fascinating. Are there actual cases of usage that support this observation?
Re: verb valency patterns, finite & infinitive
Posted: December 9th, 2014, 4:55 pm
by Stirling Bartholomew
Stephen Carlson wrote:Stirling Bartholomew wrote:It seems to me that in actual usage the patterns are some times dependent on the finite/non-finite distinction.
This had never occurred to me (as I had assumed that finiteness should not make a difference) and I find it fascinating. Are there actual cases of usage that support this observation?
I haven't tried to find one. Perhaps someone else has found an example. The question came up in regard to how LSJ articles handle verbs. If LSJ cites a
finite verb which appears both
bivalent and
trivalent with a double accusative. Do we assume that the infinitive of that lexeme will take a double accusative rather than an accusative and a dative?
δράω was the verb being discussed:
{ΚΡ.} Ὅμαιμε, δεινά μ' Οἰδίπους, ὁ σὸς πόσις,
640
δρᾶσαι δικαιοῖ, δυοῖν ἀποκρίνας κακοῖν,
ἢ γῆς ἀπῶσαι πατρίδος ἢ κτεῖναι λαβών.
Lets assume incorrectly that μ' represents the dative MOI rather than ME. That was the question. It was a trivial question about whether MOI is elided. Got off track.
Re: verb valency patterns, finite & infinitive
Posted: December 9th, 2014, 11:25 pm
by Stirling Bartholomew
I have decided to look at this with the verb βαπτίζω and for my first sample I looked for βαπτίζω with ὑπό + agent. The finite βαπτίζω, participle and infinitive are all found with ὑπό + agent.
Matt. 3:13 Τότε παραγίνεται ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰορδάνην πρὸς τὸν Ἰωάννην τοῦ βαπτισθῆναι ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ.
Mark 1:5 καὶ ἐξεπορεύετο πρὸς αὐτὸν πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα καὶ οἱ Ἱεροσολυμῖται πάντες, καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ποταμῷ ἐξομολογούμενοι τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν.
Mark 1:9 Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου.
Luke 3:7 Ἔλεγεν οὖν τοῖς ἐκπορευομένοις ὄχλοις βαπτισθῆναι ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ· γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, τίς ὑπέδειξεν ὑμῖν φυγεῖν ἀπὸ τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς;
Luke 7:30 οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ οἱ νομικοὶ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἠθέτησαν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς μὴ βαπτισθέντες ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ.
βαπτίζω with ὑπό + agent finite, participle and infinitive.
now what about the river argument?
Matt. 3:6 καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ποταμῷ ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐξομολογούμενοι τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν.
Mark 1:5 καὶ ἐξεπορεύετο πρὸς αὐτὸν πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα καὶ οἱ Ἱεροσολυμῖται πάντες, καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ποταμῷ ἐξομολογούμενοι τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν.
Mark 1:9 Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου.
Here we have only finite verbs. Is this significant? I doubt it.
Re: verb valency patterns, finite & infinitive
Posted: December 9th, 2014, 11:55 pm
by Stirling Bartholomew
Now lets look at βαπτίζω with at a dative agent ἐν ὕδατι. I think this will illustrate something useful.
Matt. 3:11 Ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν, ὁ δὲ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἰσχυρότερός μού ἐστιν, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι· αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί·
Mark 1:8 ἐγὼ ἐβάπτισα ὑμᾶς ὕδατι, αὐτὸς δὲ βαπτίσει ὑμᾶς ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ.
John 1:26 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰωάννης λέγων· ἐγὼ βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι· μέσος ὑμῶν ἕστηκεν ὃν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε,
Acts 1:5 ὅτι Ἰωάννης μὲν ἐβάπτισεν ὕδατι, ὑμεῖς δὲ ἐν πνεύματι βαπτισθήσεσθε ἁγίῳ οὐ μετὰ πολλὰς ταύτας ἡμέρας.
Acts 11:16 ἐμνήσθην δὲ τοῦ ῥήματος τοῦ κυρίου ὡς ἔλεγεν· Ἰωάννης μὲν ἐβάπτισεν ὕδατι, ὑμεῖς δὲ βαπτισθήσεσθε ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ.
NOW look at this configuration:
John 1:33 κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ πέμψας με βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν· ἐφ᾿ ὃν ἂν ἴδῃς τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον καὶ μένον ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ.
Can you see that the infinitive here has a different configuration? The expression ὁ πέμψας με requires an infinitive. I suppose that one could say that the valency is the same since both the infinitive and finite verb have a subject and an agent but the pattern of the configuration certainly isn't the same. And the infinitive is required not optional for the John 1:33 configuration.
Re: verb valency patterns, finite & infinitive
Posted: December 10th, 2014, 1:00 am
by Stephen Carlson
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:I haven't tried to find one. Perhaps someone else has found an example. The question came up in regard to how LSJ articles handle verbs. If LSJ cites a finite verb which appears both bivalent and trivalent with a double accusative. Do we assume that the infinitive of that lexeme will take a double accusative rather than an accusative and a dative?
I would assume that if any form of the lexeme took a dative, LSJ (assuming it's complete...) would cite it. I'm aware of no rule that causes an object to change case based on the finiteness of the verb.
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:Lets assume incorrectly that μ' represents the dative MOI rather than ME. That was the question. It was a trivial question about whether MOI is elided. Got off track.
If μοι is read in the text, I'd try to interpret as a dative (beneficiary, ethical, etc.) before deciding it was really part of a double accusative construction.
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:now what about the river argument?
By the way, I don't really consider this an argument but an adjunct, which are somewhat more loosely connected to the predication.
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:Now lets look at βαπτίζω with at a dative agent ἐν ὕδατι. I think this will illustrate something useful.
I'd rather say the dative is an instrument (I don't like "agent" for inanimate referents)...
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:NOW look at this configuration:
John 1:33 κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ πέμψας με βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν· ἐφ᾿ ὃν ἂν ἴδῃς τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον καὶ μένον ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ.
Can you see that the infinitive here has a different configuration? The expression ὁ πέμψας με requires an infinitive. I suppose that one could say that the valency is the same since both the infinitive and finite verb have a subject and an agent but the pattern of the configuration certainly isn't the same. And the infinitive is required not optional for the John 1:33 configuration.
I don't understand what you mean by "configuration"! Word order? (same) Case assignment? (same except for the subject, but we knew that). Please help me.
Re: verb valency patterns, finite & infinitive
Posted: December 10th, 2014, 3:17 pm
by Stirling Bartholomew
Stephen Carlson wrote:
I don't understand what you mean by "configuration"! Word order? (same) Case assignment? (same except for the subject, but we knew that). Please help me.
I don't either which is part of the problem. I tend to look at constituents beyond the nuclear clause as part of the syntax which gets me in to trouble all the time. What I find objectionable is the notion that it doesn't matter what form the verb is in, as if we could simply swap forms which isn't the case as illustrated below.
ὁ πέμψας
με βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν·
If
με serves both as the object of πέμψας and the subject of βαπτίζειν, I would consider that part of the "configuration" and that makes it not possible to substitute a finite verb for the infinitive in this "configuration." It would require some rewriting. The way I look at this
ὁ πέμψας is part of the "configuration" in which
βαπτίζειν functions. So the question I am looking at goes beyond valency.
btw: the dative is
instrumental, it was late in the day.