infinitives

[bacon]

1. In BBG, the following is given as an example of an infinitive acting as a substantive:
το εσθιειν εστιν αγαθον to eat is good
Compare with an example regarding adjectives:
ο ανθÏ￾ωπος αγαθος the man is good
where the verb εστιν is understood in the greek and "created" in english to get the proper translation. Does an infinitive always require the verb in greek? or could it look like: το εσθιειν αγαθον.
2. Complementary infinitives: I'm a bit confused with these and will use the first two examples in BBG to illustrate my confusion.
δει αυτην εσθιειν it is necessary for her to eat
εξεστιν εσθιειν αυτω it is lawful for him to eat
My understanding is that αυτην is accusative because words that act like a subject and a direct object are put in the accusative case when associated with an infinitive and that αυτω is dative because εξεστιν takes its subject in the dative. If that is true, I don't see why the form of αυτος is dictated by εσθιειν in the first case and εξεστιν in the second.(hopefully my confusion is clear)
If I changed the first sentence to: it is necessary to eat her, or the second to: it is lawful to eat him (I will leave the ethics of cannibalism to the Food Channel forum) I'm at a loss to see how that would be done.
3. From John 1:22," ...ινα αποκÏ￾ισιν δωμεν τοις πεμψασιν ημας...". After parsing πεμψασιν correctly I realized that I didn't know why it had a third declension ending. I looked in little Liddell and found a verb πεμπτος which is third declension and so I assume this is why the participle is as well. If that is true, my question is, will all verbs in greek have a corresponding noun where one can derive the proper declension for the participle?
Thank you for any and all responses.

[Bert]

I don't have much time now but if no one else has answered by tomorrow or Wednesday, I'll have a crack at it.

[IreneY]

Ok let me see if I can answer in a coherent way

1. In BBG, the following is given as an example of an infinitive acting as a substantive:
το εσθιειν εστιν αγαθον to eat is good
Compare with an example regarding adjectives:
ο ανθÏ￾ωπος αγαθος the man is good
where the verb εστιν is understood in the greek and "created" in english to get the proper translation. Does an infinitive always require the verb in greek? or could it look like: το εσθιειν αγαθον.

I cannot think of any case where the verb is absent unless we are talking about a theatrical play perhaps. It is not impossible but, as I said, I can't think of a case. I will scan through some books to see if I find anything.

IF however we were talking about a more complex phrase (where εστι is present in another part of it) then it is definitely possible.

2. Complementary infinitives: I'm a bit confused with these and will use the first two examples in BBG to illustrate my confusion.
δει αυτην εσθιειν it is necessary for her to eat
εξεστιν εσθιειν αυτω it is lawful for him to eat
My understanding is that αυτην is accusative because words that act like a subject and a direct object are put in the accusative case when associated with an infinitive and that αυτω is dative because εξεστιν takes its subject in the dative. If that is true, I don't see why the form of αυτος is dictated by εσθιειν in the first case and εξεστιν in the second.(hopefully my confusion is clear)
If I changed the first sentence to: it is necessary to eat her, or the second to: it is lawful to eat him (I will leave the ethics of cannibalism to the Food Channel forum) I'm at a loss to see how that would be done.

I am not sure what you mean by "a direct object" in this case. AYTHN is put in accusative because, as you said, it is the subject of εσθιειν but not of the (impersonal) δει. So, as in all cases where the subjects of the infinitive and the verb are different, the subject of the infinitve is put in accusative.


έξεστιν does NOT take its subject in dative. It's another of the impersonal ones. When we have impersonal verbs, they are often accompanied by a dative which (to keep matters simple) shows to whom the verb refers to. The subject of the infinitive (always in accusative) can be deduced by the dative.

Sometimes however, instead of putting the dative, the accusative (inf subject) is put and the dative showing the person "acting" can be deduced from that (a reversal of what I mentioned above)
I am not sure why, but verbs δει and χÏ￾ηι are the ones that more often are accompanied by an accusative and not the dative.

3. From John 1:22," ...ινα αποκÏ￾ισιν δωμεν τοις πεμψασιν ημας...". After parsing πεμψασιν correctly I realized that I didn't know why it had a third declension ending. I looked in little Liddell and found a verb πεμπτος which is third declension and so I assume this is why the participle is as well. If that is true, my question is, will all verbs in greek have a corresponding noun where one can derive the proper declension for the participle?
Thank you for any and all responses.

Once again I am not sure what you mean .
The past participle of the verbs ending in omega (first person, sing, present) ends in -ας, -αντος (gen) and is of the third declension.
So in the case of πέμπω it is πέμψας, πέμψαντος

[Bert]

1. In BBG, the following is given as an example of an infinitive acting as a substantive:
το εσθιειν εστιν αγαθον to eat is good
Compare with an example regarding adjectives:
ο ανθÏ￾ωπος αγαθος the man is good
where the verb εστιν is understood in the greek and "created" in english to get the proper translation. Does an infinitive always require the verb in greek? or could it look like: το εσθιειν αγαθον.

In Greek it often happens that a sentence does not have a verb. Most commonly this is the case with the verb εἰμί.
á½￾ ἄνθÏ￾ωπος ἀγαθός is a noun with a adjective in the predicate position, but it can also be viewed as a complete sentence were the verb is left out. á½￾ ἄνθÏ￾ωπος is the subject, the assumed verb is ἑστίν and an adjective as predicate.
The same can happen with an infinitive as subject of the sentence. Τὸ á¼￾σθίειν ἀγαθόν is a complete sentence (but you may need to have some context to understand it correctly.)
Phil. 1:21 has this sort of construction. á¼￾μοὶ γὰÏ￾ τὸ ζῆν ΧÏ￾ιστὸς καὶ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κέÏ￾δος could have been written as á¼￾μοὶ γὰÏ￾ τὸ ζῆν ΧÏ￾ιστὸς á¼￾στὶ καὶ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κέÏ￾δος á¼￾στίν.

I'll have a look at the other questions a little later. (Maybe even today.)

[Bert]

2. Complementary infinitives: I'm a bit confused with these and will use the first two examples in BBG to illustrate my confusion.
δει αυτην εσθιειν it is necessary for her to eat
εξεστιν εσθιειν αυτω it is lawful for him to eat
My understanding is that αυτην is accusative because words that act like a subject and a direct object are put in the accusative case when associated with an infinitive and that αυτω is dative because εξεστιν takes its subject in the dative. If that is true, I don't see why the form of αυτος is dictated by εσθιειν in the first case and εξεστιν in the second.(hopefully my confusion is clear)
If I changed the first sentence to: it is necessary to eat her, or the second to: it is lawful to eat him (I will leave the ethics of cannibalism to the Food Channel forum) I'm at a loss to see how that would be done.

I’ll try to explain how I understand it. The “subjectâ€￾ of the infinitive is in the accusative as an accusative of reference. An infinitive is not limited by a subject. For instance: “To eat is goodâ€￾ is a general statement. If the infinitive refers to someone or something in particular then that someone/thing is placed in the accusative. “To eat is good with reference to her.â€￾ We don’t talk like that so we make it, “It is good for her to eat.â€￾
I understand δεῖ αá½￾τὴν á¼￾σθίειν a little different. I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong. I see á¼￾σθίειν as the subject of the impersonal verb δεῖ. In English that would be, “To eat is necessary for her.â€￾
ἔξεστιν á¼￾σθίειν αá½￾Ï„á¿· maybe a little different. Mounce says that verbs that take a direct object in the dative will take the “subjectâ€￾ of their infinitive in the dative as well. (There is also a dative of reference. Maybe this can be called a dative of reference.)
To me it almost seems as if αá½￾Ï„á¿· is the indirect object of ἔξεστιν. To eat is lawful for her.

If you wanted to write, “It is necessary for her to eat bread,â€￾ you would also put bread in the accusative. δεῖ αá½￾τὴν á¼￾σθίειν ἄÏ￾τον. Mounce says that as a general rule the accusative of reference will be the first accusative and the direct object the second.

For the second part of your question, how to write “it is necessary to eat herâ€￾ or “it is lawful to eat himâ€￾, I am not sure if there is an clear way to do this. If it was, “ It is necessary to eat breadâ€￾ I think that δεῖ á¼￾σθίειν ἄÏ￾τον would be clear enough, but with your example, it would have to be in the context of cannabilism for someone to understand that “sheâ€￾ is going to be eaten, not doing the eating.
I hope I cleared up a little of the confusion.

[bacon]

Thanks to you both for your answers. I'll try to be more clear.
1. Irene, just a curiosity, why would a theatrical setting have a bearing on the presence of a verb with an infinitive? Is the absence of one a more poetic way of speaking?
2. I think I was being careless, by direct object I meant the accusative case.
Regarding the verb εξεστιν, I will quote the following from BBG. My purpose is not at all to be argumentative, merely to show why I was believing εξεστιν took its subject in the dative. p.303 "Two exceptions to this are the verbs εξεστιν (it is lawful) and παÏ￾αγγελλω(I command), which take a "subject" in the dative."
3. My question here was why the participle πεμψασιν had a third declension ending? Or more generally, how is declension for a participle chosen? The endings for nouns are determined by whether the noun is first, second or third declension. But verbs, not being nouns, do not have declension, however participles are declined. I was assuming that a verb like αποστελλω, when used as a participle would assume the declension of the noun αποστολος. I found a third declension noun corresponding to the verb πεμψασιν and I though I had the pattern. Hence my question of what declension a participle would take when the verb did not have an obvious noun partner. Did I clarify my misunderstanding?
4. When making a reply to a post, how do you get the "Quote:" and then the boxed text from the previous post?
Thanks again.

[Bert]

3. My question here was why the participle πεμψασιν had a third declension ending? Or more generally, how is declension for a participle chosen? The endings for nouns are determined by whether the noun is first, second or third declension. But verbs, not being nouns, do not have declension, however participles are declined. I was assuming that a verb like αποστελλω, when used as a participle would assume the declension of the noun αποστολος. I found a third declension noun corresponding to the verb πεμψασιν and I though I had the pattern. Hence my question of what declension a participle would take when the verb did not have an obvious noun partner. Did I clarify my misunderstanding?

I understand your 3rd question now. Thanks.

4. When making a reply to a post, how do you get the "Quote:" and then the boxed text from the previous post?
Thanks again.

You can click on the "quote" button on the post you want to reply to and add your reply to the bottom of it. (You can delete irrelevant parts of the quote.)
You can also just cut and paste the quote into the "Post a reply" box, then highlight it and click on the "Quote" button just below the subject line.

[IreneY]

1. As you've seen from Bert's reply it's not necessary to be in a theatrical play . What I meant (in rather bad English) is that in theatrical plays, in the dialogue parts, they immitate oral speach which is much more abreviated usually.

2. Is subject between inverted commas in the book? If so, then he should have explained a bit further what he meant. I hope I made it clear.

3. Yes you did. A rather logical one I think

4. The easiest way for me (others may have a different way of doing things) is to
a) click on "Quote" on the upper right corner of the message I want to quote
b) if I want to make separate boxes as I did above, I highlight each section and then click on "quote" above the reply white box
You can experiment (just hit preview to see if you got it right and just don't post it )

[Bert]

2. Is subject between inverted commas in the book? If so, then he should have explained a bit further what he meant.

It is indeed between quotation marks. What he means by that is, an infinitive is by definition a non-finite verbal form. So...No subject.
The accusative of reference limits the infinitive the way a subject limits a finite verb.
So it is like a subject but it is not really a subject, hence: "subject."

[IreneY]

an Infinitive does have a real subject. An impersonal verb however by definition doesn't. (and I still think he should have explained it further )

[Bert]

3. My question here was why the participle πεμψασιν had a third declension ending? Or more generally, how is declension for a participle chosen? The endings for nouns are determined by whether the noun is first, second or third declension. But verbs, not being nouns, do not have declension, however participles are declined. I was assuming that a verb like αποστελλω, when used as a participle would assume the declension of the noun αποστολος. I found a third declension noun corresponding to the verb πεμψασιν and I though I had the pattern. Hence my question of what declension a participle would take when the verb did not have an obvious noun partner. Did I clarify my misunderstanding?

The declension of participles has nothing to do with the declension of a cognate noun or adjective.
Active participles are 3-1-3. (masc. 3rd- fem. 1st- neut. 3rd)
Middle/passives are 2-1-2
Passives are 3-1-3

In your original post you wrote

I looked in little Liddell and found a verb πεμπτος which is third declension

You probably just mis-typed but πεμπτός is not a verb but an adjective. (A verbal adjective.)
It is not 3rd declension but 2-1-2.

Keep asking questions. I learn at least as much from answering them (and from reading the replies of others) as you do from reading my answers.

[bacon]

Bert, you are quite right. I took the above posts with me out of town this week to study and with a review of participles in BBG I realized I really was out of town!
I want to make sure I've understood the concept. Please correct any misunderstandings or misstatements.
The participle is a verbal adjective and can behave as an adjective or a adverb. The verbal part of the participle expresses aspect only(continuous/undefined/completed). The morpheme is determined by the aspect of the participle and the gender of the... a) noun being modified, if the participle is adjectival, or b)noun receiving the action of the participle. And the the case ending is determined by the previously mentioned nouns. The declension being determined as you showed in your previous post.
Assuming the above is correct, I now want to go back to my previous question regarding the participle πεμψασιν in Jn 1:22. ...ινα αποκÏ￾ισιν δωμεν τοις πεμψασιν ημας...". Here is the way I would parse πεμψασιν.
unaugmented aorist stem: πεμπ
tense formative: σα
1st aorist active participle morpheme: ντ
3rd declension, plural, dative case ending: σι(ν)
giving πεμπ + σα + ντ + σι(ν)
πεμψα + ντ + σι(ν) πσ contract to ψ
πεμψαντσι(ν) removing the + signs
πεμψασιν ντ drops out before σ
leaving an aorist participle, active, 3rd decl,dative, plural, masc/neut. Again assuming the above is correct( and this is where I got messed up with my original question), where is the plural dative noun that the participle is modifying?(since the participle has to match it in case, number and gender). I choose plural dative only because it gives the right answer, not because I understand why it works.
Thanks again for your answers and patience.

[bacon]

After my last post I thought of a variant of the parsing that would still give the same answer. I'm a little bothered by the unaugmented aorist stem being πεμπ. Here goes.
unaugmented aorist stem: πεμψα
tense formative: σα this would be an additional tense formative to the one buried in the previous ψα
1st aorist active participle morpheme: ντ
3rd declension, plural, dative case ending: σι(ν)
giving πεμψα + σα + ντ + σι(ν)
πεμψασα + ντ + σι(ν) removing first + sign
πεμψαα + ντ + σι(ν) σ is intervocalic and drops out
πεμψα + ντ + σι(ν) one of the double α 's drops out according to BBG p.145, 17.10 rule 1
πεμψαντσι(ν) removing + signs
πεμψασιν ντ drops out before σ

[Bert]

where is the plural dative noun that the participle is modifying?(since the participle has to match it in case, number and gender).

Here the participle stands on its own. There is no noun present for it to modify but in English you have to supply one. to THOSE who sent us, or, to THE MEN who sent us. See paragraph 29.6 of BBG. (Paragraph 29.5 if you have the 1st edition.)

I choose plural dative only because it gives the right answer, not because I understand why it works.

The way you parse πέμψασιν showed to me that you did understand how it works so I'm not sure what you are not sure of .

[Bert]

After my last post I thought of a variant of the parsing that would still give the same answer. I'm a little bothered by the unaugmented aorist stem being πεμπ. Here goes.
unaugmented aorist stem: πεμψα
tense formative: σα this would be an additional tense formative to the one buried in the previous ψα

Some grammars will call πεμπ the aorist stem and σα the tense formative.
Others would call πεμψα the aorist stem. In the latter case don't add a tense formative. It is part of the stem.

[bacon]

[The way you parse Ã￾€á½³Î¼Ã￾ˆÎ±Ã￾ƒÎ¹Î½ showed to me that you did understand how it works so I'm not sure what you are not sure of .][/quote]My problem was that I knew the answer and so chose the correct case and gender based on that, not because I knew that the participle should be dative plural.
Your point on the necessity of supplying the noun in english makes sense, and in this case, the gender(masc or neuter) indicates it was men who did the sending. I'm still getting used to adding the required words in english during translation.
Thanks, Bert

[IreneY]

hmmm let's see:

First of all, a participle is a verbal noun, a gerund if you wish that can also act as an adjective or an adverb. When without an article it is usually translated with a gerund (-ing), when it has an article with an adjective.

The participle does indeed have to agree in gender, case and number with the term it modifies (unless it doesn't modify anything but this is a special casel; just keep that possibility in your mind for now and you will probably encounter the 'rule' later on).

In cases such as the one of your example, the term may be missing either because it is easily deducted or because the participle takes its place.
So why male, plural, dative?

Dative first: It's because the verb "give" takes it's indirect object in dative (give sth (acc) to someone (dat) )

Masculine and plural. In this case you have to know to whom the πέμψασιν refers to. In John 19 it says :

19 Καὶ αὕτη á¼￾στὶν ἡ μαÏ￾Ï„Ï…Ï￾ία τοῦ Ἰωάννου, ὅτε ἀπέστειλαν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι á¼￾ξ ἹεÏ￾οσολύμων ἱεÏ￾εῖς καὶ Λευίτας ἵνα á¼￾Ï￾ωτήσωσιν αá½￾τόν·

So πέμψασιν refers to οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι which is masculine and plural.

hope that explains that part of your question

[Bert]

hmmm let's see:

First of all, a participle is a verbal noun, a gerund if you wish that can also act as an adjective or an adverb. When without an article it is usually translated with a gerund (-ing), when it has an article with an adjective.

Maybe this is considered a mere technicality but in my view, a participle is a verbal adjective, not a noun.
English has gerunds but Greek does not.
The English word "sitting" can be (1) a gerund, (2) an adjectival participle and (3) a adverbial participle.
(1) Sitting can be hard on the back.
(2) The man sitting at the desk is my boss.
(3) The man eats his lunch sitting at his desk.

[IreneY]

Well, I always considered gerund to be closer to what a participle is although I realise that the English gerund is sometimes 'translated' as an infinitive in ancient Greek. (as in your 1st example)

I am not comfortable with calling it a verbal adjective for two reasons:
a)it doesn't describe participle all that well.
b)adjectives deriving from verbs such as those ending in -τέος or -τος are called verbal adjectives and are completely different from what a participle is.

[Paul]

I am not comfortable with calling it a verbal adjective [because] it doesn't describe participle all that well.

OK, I'll bite - how does the description "verbal adjective" fall short?

Cordially,

Paul

[IreneY]

της δε παÏ￾άλου αφικομένης νυκτός, ες τον ΠειÏ￾αιά ελέγετο η συμφοÏ￾ά και οιμωγές εκ του ΠειÏ￾αιώς εις το άστυ διήκε, ώστε εκείνης της νυκτός ουδείς εκοιμήθη, παίσεσθαι νομίζοντες οία εποίησαν Μηλίοις και άλλοις

Xenophon 2,2,3 (I think)