Accusative of ?? in Luke 7:29 (Archived discussion revisted)

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Accusative of ?? in Luke 7:29 (Archived discussion revis

Post by cwconrad »

Stephen Hughes wrote:In reading the ideas about subject-affectedness that various people raise here on the forum, and the varying degrees of subject-(self)affectedness that one or other voice can imply, there is the other side of the coin too. Object-affectedness.

Are there verbs where object-affectedness is implied when a case other than the accusative is used with a verb? It seems that in most cases the accusative is used for situation involving object-affectedness. Is that a valid supposition.
The "new (voice-category) orthodoxy" is that there are two morphological categories of voice in ancient Greek: (1) "active" morphology is unmarked for subject-affectedness, (2) "middle-passive" is marked for subject-affectedness. I'm not quite clear on what we should call athematic aorist actives in -ὐναι, -ῶναι, -(θ)ῆναι, but those verbs are very largely inherently subject-affected verbs.

I don't think there is any inflectional category of verbs linked strictly to object-affectedness.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Accusative of ?? in Luke 7:29 (Archived discussion revis

Post by cwconrad »

Stephen Hughes wrote:In reading the ideas about subject-affectedness that various people raise here on the forum, and the varying degrees of subject-(self)affectedness that one or other voice can imply, there is the other side of the coin too. Object-affectedness.

Are there verbs where object-affectedness is implied when a case other than the accusative is used with a verb? It seems that in most cases the accusative is used for situation involving object-affectedness. Is that a valid supposition.
I'm not sure whether this is relevant to the question you're asking, but I'll throw it in:

Verbs of perception are, I think, inherently subject-affected, but as recently noted, many of them tend to be conjugated with active inflection (unmarked for subject-affectedness) and to be construed with accusatives ordinarily viewed as direct objects:
το­ὺς ἀστέρας ἐν τῇ νυκτί βλέπομεν. Here τοὺς ᾶστέρας is commonly deemed a "direct object" of βλέπομεν, although if there's any impact /alteration of anything on anything else, it is the starlight that impinges on our eyes. It might be better, however, to say of our stargazing, τοὺς ἀστέρας θεώμεθα, because we are deliberately focusing our attention upon the starts. Even in this case, however, I think I'd rather refer metalinguistically to τοὺς ἀστέρας as an adverbial accusative than as a "direct object" of the verb.

What of ἀκούειν? The rule here is that we construe ἀκούειν with an accusative of the sound perceived and with a genitive of the source from which the sound comes: ἀκούομεν τῶν ποιμένων τὰς βοάς -- where the genitive phrase is independent of τὰς βοάς? What of ἅπτεσθαι, which ordinarily takes a genitive of the person/thing contacted. The risen Jesus says to Mary, μή μου ἅπτου, probably not "Don't touch me" but "Don't hold on to me." (Some of us used to refer to a "genitive of the target" for this sort of verb that's probably partitive in origin.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 621
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Accusative of ?? in Luke 7:29 (Archived discussion revis

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

Stephen Hughes wrote: Are there verbs where object-affectedness is implied when a case other than the accusative is used with a verb? It seems that in most cases the accusative is used for situation involving object-affectedness. Is that a valid supposition.
N. Turner says quite much about this in his Syntax under ch. 17, "Case additions to the verb: without a preposition". To sum up the answer for your question: no. It's easy to see some logic and tendencies, but many verbs changed their object cases over time. For example: "Gen (class.) is still used with desire, reach, obtain [...], but there is a tendency towards the accus. in Hell. Greek." "While the gen. with to fill, be full of, is still apparent, the accus. is encroaching on the gen. already in LXX..."

On the other hand, you ask/say two different things: 1) "Are there verbs where object-affectedness is implied when a case other than the accusative is used with a verb?" and 2) "in most cases the accusative is used for situation involving object-affectedness". They are not necessary logically tied to each other. For example, if accusative is just a default case for all kinds of objects, it could be used in all situations, while the other cases would be more limited.

Also you have to define "object-affectedness": does it just replace subject with object but retain all the affectedness classes which can be found for subject-affectedness? For example, mediopassive can be used for situations where the subject does something for his own benefit. But if you define object-affectedness so that it includes doing something for the object's benefit, the answer to your first question is "yes", because there demonstrably are "object-affected" verbs which have other cases than accusative, for example δουλευω (dative).

It's possible that originally the accusative was used for prototypically transitive cases where the object (other than the subject) is directly, visibly and concretely affected and the other cases were used in other situations. I don't know.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Accusative of ?? in Luke 7:29 (Archived discussion revis

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:Also you have to define "object-affectedness": does it just replace subject with object but retain all the affectedness classes which can be found for subject-affectedness? For example, mediopassive can be used for situations where the subject does something for his own benefit. But if you define object-affectedness so that it includes doing something for the object's benefit, the answer to your first question is "yes", because there demonstrably are "object-affected" verbs which have other cases than accusative, for example δουλευω (dative).
How extensive or complex a form do such definitions of object-affectedness often take?

Is every accusative (or other oblique case) with a transitive verb subject to the blanket term "direct object". If that is the case, then "direct object" in terms of Greek a grab-bag of miscellanies. In terms of the current thinking in Greek grammar, is the definition of direct objecthood defined in any way by the need for some type of object affectedness?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Accusative of ?? in Luke 7:29 (Archived discussion revis

Post by cwconrad »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:Also you have to define "object-affectedness": does it just replace subject with object but retain all the affectedness classes which can be found for subject-affectedness? For example, mediopassive can be used for situations where the subject does something for his own benefit. But if you define object-affectedness so that it includes doing something for the object's benefit, the answer to your first question is "yes", because there demonstrably are "object-affected" verbs which have other cases than accusative, for example δουλευω (dative).
How extensive or complex a form do such definitions of object-affectedness often take?

Is every accusative (or other oblique case) with a transitive verb subject to the blanket term "direct object". If that is the case, then "direct object" in terms of Greek a grab-bag of miscellanies. In terms of the current thinking in Greek grammar, is the definition of direct objecthood defined in any way by the need for some type of object affectedness?
I know a lot of us still like to talk about "direct objects" of transitive verbs, but I've been under the impression that it's the fashion these days to use the term "complement" rather than "object" and to speak rather of verbs with accusative, dative, or genitive complements, e.g. genitive (χάριτος ἐτύχομεν, φωνῆς ἥκουσα), dative (τῷ ᾿Ιωάννῃ φίλῳ χρῶμαι). Is the term "direct object" frowned upon nowadays?
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 621
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Accusative of ?? in Luke 7:29 (Archived discussion revis

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

cwconrad wrote: I know a lot of us still like to talk about "direct objects" of transitive verbs, but I've been under the impression that it's the fashion these days to use the term "complement" rather than "object" and to speak rather of verbs with accusative, dative, or genitive complements, e.g. genitive (χάριτος ἐτύχομεν, φωνῆς ἥκουσα), dative (τῷ ᾿Ιωάννῃ φίλῳ χρῶμαι). Is the term "direct object" frowned upon nowadays?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_%28grammar%29 : "The term complement overlaps in meaning with object: all objects are complements, but not vice versa. The objects that verbs do and do not take is explored in detail in valency theory."
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”