Complementary or Objective Infinitive

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

This is messed up

look at this

my book says that

PEUR CLARUS ESSE DESEDERAT
and
PEUR AMICUM CLARUM DESEDERAT

are both complementary and objective infinitves?

but isnt a complementary infinitive a formation like 'ESSE DESEDERAT'
in any case which will automatically preclude the chance of it being
an objective infinitive? DESIDERAT however is on the list of
verbs which form objective infinitive sentences

is it the PEUR CLARUS vs the PEUR AMICUM CLARUM
that makes the difference?

thanks

[adrianus]

I think you mean "desiderat" // "Desiderat" esse id quod vis dicere puto.

PEUR CLARUS ESSE DESIDERAT = "The boy wants to be famous" (complementary infinitive // modo infinitivo complementario)
PEUR AMICUM CLARUM ESSE DESIDERAT = "The boy wants his friend to be famous" (objective infinitive // modo infinitivo objectivo)

Not both at the same time, here. // Heic non sunt simul eodem modo.

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

Not both at the 'same' time, here. // Heic non sunt simul eodem modo.

is it the 'same' time (hence context) that renders them uninterchangable?
in different contexts however either could be an objective or complementary infinitive
even though some of the nouns and adjectives are different?

or does context have nothing to do with it, that in fact they are interchangable
at any time?

or is it because the other additional words in the sentence change its sentence type
from complementary to objective?



thanks

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

let me ask it with this simplicity

are

PEUR ESSE DESEDERAT
and
PEUR ESSE DESEDERAT

both example complementary and objective infinitves at the same time?

[adrianus]

I still don't fully understand you.
Adhuc non te adusquè intellego.

As I said already
Ut iam dixi:

PEUR CLARUS ESSE DESIDERAT = "The boy wants to be famous" (complementary infinitive, NOT objective infinitive// modo infinitivo complementario et non objectivo)
PEUR AMICUM CLARUM ESSE DESIDERAT = "The boy wants his friend to be famous" (objective infinitive NOT complementary infinitive// modo infinitivo objectivo et non complementario)

[spiphany]

I think it's more important to understand what's going here than to worry too much about terminology.
Puer clarus esse desiderat
and
Puer amicum clarum esse desiderat
The main difference between the two sentences is that in the first one, the subject of both verbs is the same (namely, the boy). In the second, esse refers to a different person than the main verb (the boy wants someone else to be famous). If you want to take the sentences apart, you can rewrite the infinitive phrases as independent sentences:
Puer clarus est
Amicus clarus est
The construction of these two sentences is exactly the same; their relationship to Puer desiderat is not. When you have a change of subject in an embedded clause, Latin requires you to mark this (here, by putting "amicus" in the accusative) so the listener doesn't get confused.
("Puer amicus clarus esse desiderat" would mean "the boy wants to be a famous friend")

[Essorant]

Couldn't one also say: Puer se clarum esse desiderat ?

[adrianus]

Couldn't one also say: Puer se clarum esse desiderat ?

Surely, one could.
Id potes quidem dicere.

[spiphany]

Couldn't one also say: Puer se clarum esse desiderat ?

Surely, one could.
Id potes quidem dicere.

Do you have examples of this kind of usage or are you just reasoning based on "what seems right"?
Because the sentence strikes me as somewhat odd Latin, not as natural as the nom/inf construction.

[adrianus]

Vide
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cIUT ... se&f=false

Note 3 // Annotatio tertia

[adrianus]

"si quis putat se religiosum esse"
http://lexicon.ff.cuni.cz/html/oe_boswo ... b0976.html

(242) Cum ergo verbi gratia mens aerem se putat, aerem intelligere putat, se tamen intelligere scit; aerem autem se esse non SCIT sed PUTAT [When, for example, the mind thinks itself to be air, it thinks that air understands; it knows however that it understands. It does not KNOW but THINKS that it is air] (De Trinit., 10).

http://www.rosmini-in-english.org/NewEs ... 05Ch01.htm

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

I think it's more important to understand what's going here than to worry too much about terminology.
Puer clarus esse desiderat
and
Puer amicum clarum esse desiderat
The main difference between the two sentences is that in the first one, the subject of both verbs is the same (namely, the boy). In the second, esse refers to a different person than the main verb (the boy wants someone else to be famous). If you want to take the sentences apart, you can rewrite the infinitive phrases as independent sentences:
Puer clarus est
Amicus clarus est
The construction of these two sentences is exactly the same; their relationship to Puer desiderat is not. When you have a change of subject in an embedded clause, Latin requires you to mark this (here, by putting "amicus" in the accusative) so the listener doesn't get confused.
("Puer amicus clarus esse desiderat" would mean "the boy wants to be a famous friend")

can this be simply stated as in sentence #1

PUER CLARUS ESSE DESIDERAT

that the most important verb is DESIDERAT

while in sentence #2

PUER AMICUM CLARUM ESSE DESIDERAT

the most important verb is ESSE


can the stress placed upon one verb in the sentence change
the classification of the sentence from complementary to objective

or is only this true: the same identical verb in both sentences is always
considered the most important verb in that sentence and has nothing
to do with whether it is complementary or objective?

thanks

[adrianus]

can the stress placed upon one verb in the sentence change the classification of the sentence from complementary to objective

Stress can't do that. Note also that a speaker or reader could stress whatever verb they liked to subtly alter their meaning.
Emphasis sic facere non potest. Nota quoquè hoc: Lector vel orator ad significationem mutandam modo subtile vim cuicunque verbo quod placet dare potest.

or is only this true: the same identical verb in both sentences is always considered the most important verb in that sentence

It is not true. Both verbs in both these sentences are equally important or significant.
Falsum est. Alterum verbum alterae sententiae aequè magnum vel significans est.

and has nothing to do with whether it is complementary or objective?

As you say, the relative significance of these verbs has nothing to do with whether they are complementary or objective
Ut dicis, significantia horum verborum relativa an sit complementarium an objectivum non spectat.

[JPKerpan]

Now, I know that different sources have different ideas for what to name terms, so I will try to explain what I see the difference as.

A Complementary Infinitive merely completes the meaning of a verb. So in the sentence "Puer clarus esse desiderat" it is very clear that "desires to be" is the full idea of the verb. So it is equally clear that this is an example of complimentary infinitive.

An Objective infinitive is an infinitive that is one that can be seen as the object of a verb, so in the sentences "the boy desires a friend" and "the boy desires to become", "friend" and "become" are filling the same role as object of the verb "want". So many times an infinitive can be parsed as both objective and complementary. In fact, the complementary infinitive is a subset of objective infinitive uses.

Now lets look at the second sentence: Puer amicum clarum esse desiderat. The boy wants his friend to become famous. in this case it is the whole phrase "his friend to become famous" that is the object of the sentence. However, "esse" still completes the idea of the main verb; "he wants his friend" would be an incomplete idea. The problem I see with this second sentence is that the structure is more different in Latin than it appears in English. In Latin, I would really prefer this as an Sentence with an indirect statement: "The boy desires that his friend becomes famous". In this case it becomes quite apparent that the infinitive is the main verb in the Indirect Statement.

So, to summarize so far:
1) Complementary Infinitives are a type of objective infinitive use, and so are often called "compl. obj. infinitives".
2) When the accusative direct object of the main verb also seems to be the subject of an infinitive verb, you should recognize the possibility for Indirect Statement.
3) (though as of yet unexplained) Not all objective Infinitives are complementary. Some verbs are known for taking two accusative direct objects "I teach the boys math", for example has "boys" and "math" are in the accusative case. Similarly common you might see "I teach the boys to swim". "To swim" is just filling in the place of the second accusative in the double accusative structure, and is an objective infinitive. When we look so see if it is complementary though, "I teach the boys" is a perfectly fine sentence, and does not require a verb to complete the main meaning.

I hope this helps some