Food for Thought: Infinitives & Accusatives

Textkit is a learning community- introduce yourself here. Use the Open Board to introduce yourself, chat about off-topic issues and get to know each other.
Post Reply
Talmid
Textkit Member
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:04 am
Location: Ft Drum, NY

Food for Thought: Infinitives & Accusatives

Post by Talmid » Wed Jul 25, 2007 4:28 am

We see this in our grammar books all the time:

Mr. Grammarian: "Infinitives do not have a subject."


but then...

Mr. Grammarian: "The accusative is the subject of the infinitive."


Huh?

annis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3399
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Contact:

Re: Food for Thought: Infinitives & Accusatives

Post by annis » Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:31 pm

Talmid wrote:
Mr. Grammarian: "Infinitives do not have a subject."

Mr. Grammarian: "The accusative is the subject of the infinitive."


Mr. Grammarian is being imprecise. Infinitives are not morphologically marked for subject as finite verb forms are, i.e., λύω, ἔλυον, amÅ￾, amÄ￾bam. In certain syntactic constructions with infinitives the subject of the clause may be indicated with accusative. These are very different constructions. A single finite verb can be a complete, grammatically correct, utterance. A single infinitive cannot (ignoring for the moment one word statements and answers to questions that leave things implied).
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;

Talmid
Textkit Member
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:04 am
Location: Ft Drum, NY

Post by Talmid » Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:08 pm

Annis -

I agree that Mr. Grammarian is being inprecise.

I have more thoughts on the matter, but I'm hoping others will contribute to the discussion before I post my ramblings.

User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2018
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Contact:

Post by Lucus Eques » Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:21 pm

By "infinitives do not have a subject," he means to say "infinitives are not finite." Imprecise indeed!
L. Amadeus Ranierius

SCORPIO·MARTIANVS

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:36 am

There was some discussion about this (quite)a while back.
http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-foru ... ve+respect

Talmid
Textkit Member
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:04 am
Location: Ft Drum, NY

Post by Talmid » Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:21 pm

Well seeing that this thread is about dead, here are some comments by A.T. Robertson which have influenced my thinking—particularly how he identifies the error of forcing our understanding of English syntax back into Greek (or Latin for the matter). These come from his Large Grammar, pp. 489-90:

"The grammars generally speak of the accusative as the subject of the infinitive. I confess that to me this seems a grammatical misnomer. The infinitive clause in indirect discourse does correspond to a finite clause in English, and a clause with ὅτι and the indicative may often be used as well as the infinitive clause. But it is not technically scientific to read back into the Greek infinitive clause the syntax of English nor even of the ὅτι clause in Greek. Besides, not only is the infinitive a verbal substantive and in a case like the verbal adjective (the participle), but being non-finite (in-finitive) like the participle (partaking of both verb and noun), it can have no subject in the grammatical sense. No one thinks of calling the accusative the 'subject' of the participle….When the infinitive is used with the accusative, it indicates the agent who has to do with the action by the accusative, since the infinitive can have no subject in the technical sense."

In seminary I recall hearing that at best, all we can determine from the accusative with the infinitive is that the accusative is somehow associated to the action of the infinitive. We think of it as the subject of the action only because of inference, not because of the explicit statements of the text. Hence, claiming that the accusative is the subject of the infinitive does not adhere strictly to grammar.
Last edited by Talmid on Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:29 am

26 hours of no reply does not a dead thread make.

User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Post by IreneY » Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:32 pm

So, let me see if I get this straight: In, for instance

Ἐγώ νομίζω κοινόν á¼￾χθÏ￾όν á¼￾πάντων τῶν Ἑλλήνων εἶναι βασιλέα


we can't be sure that it's the king who is the common enemy? Someone else could be the subject of "to be", which is also somehow related to the king ? :D And I don't mean how we perceive it I mean what the author had in mind.

And what about the cases where the subject of the verb and the so called if you wish subject of the infinitive coincide? The subject of the verb is only somehow related to the infinitive again and we can't be sure how?

Unless of course we are arguing about terminology and whether we should coin a new term for the subject of the infinitive.

Does the same holds true for other languages too? (whatever that "same" is :D )

Edit: Bert I think we only have to put "that" in the place of "this" and what Talmid says makes sense :) I think I killed that discussion :D
Last edited by IreneY on Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Post by modus.irrealis » Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:33 am

I guess it does depend on your grammatical framework and what a term like subject means within that framework, but for me, one convenient consequence of saying that infinitives have subjects is that it gives a simple way to state the difference between an infinitive like ποιησαι and a deverbal noun like ποιησις: the former, but not the latter, is like a verb in having grammatical roles (subject, direct object, etc.) and being able to assign cases to them.

But what about an example from (colloquial?) English like "For him to leave would be a huge loss"? It seems perfectly natural to say that "him" here is the subject of "leave."

Arvid
Textkit Member
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:06 am
Location: Seattle WA

Post by Arvid » Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:09 am

modus.irrealis wrote:But what about an example from (colloquial?) English like "For him to leave would be a huge loss"? It seems perfectly natural to say that "him" here is the subject of "leave."


But then the subject is in the "Objective" case. Does this make English an ergative language? But "to leave" isn't passive.... Could it be reanalyzed as: "For there to be a leaving (of him).... I think English has abandoned grammar in the conventional sense.
phpbb

modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Post by modus.irrealis » Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:24 am

Arvid wrote:But then the subject is in the "Objective" case. Does this make English an ergative language?
Well, for me, (spoken) English doesn't have case, at least not in any traditional way, but I did choose the example specifically because it resembles in some way the accusative + infinitive construction of the classical languages, so I'm not sure why that would make it ergative.

But "to leave" isn't passive.... Could it be reanalyzed as: "For there to be a leaving (of him)....
I don't know -- it seems clear that "leave" there is an infinitive and like I said, it seems natural to me to say that "him" functions as its subject.

I think English has abandoned grammar in the conventional sense.
That's an opinion I would strongly disagree with :) (unless you mean by "grammar" something very different than I do).

Arvid
Textkit Member
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:06 am
Location: Seattle WA

Post by Arvid » Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:51 am

modus.irrealis wrote:That's an opinion I would strongly disagree with :) (unless you mean by "grammar" something very different than I do).


Well, of course, I didn't mean that (exactly.) I suppose that sounded like one of the types of comments I most hate when I hear people make them: "Chinese has no grammar" for example. Of course what they mean is that Chinese has no morphology; syntax carries almost all of the grammatical load. English has almost no morphology, but its syntax is a precision instrument, particularly the auxiliary verbs.

What I really meant is that colloquial English at least has a way of evading any rules you can possibly write down. I came to this conclusion contemplating the "intensification infix" as in abso-f***ing-lutely!

Perhaps by the stage of development of the Greek language represented in the New Testament, with so many non-Greeks learning the language and using it with structures from their own languages affecting their Greek usage, the distinction between finite and infinitive verbs had become hazy. Anybody know enough Aramaic to shed any light on this?
phpbb

User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Post by IreneY » Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:42 am

Why do I get the feeling that we are mixing two different discussions slash threads here? The use of infinitive gradually declined and it is in classical Greek that the usage of infinitives is most prominenet (I don't have any studies to back this up). Since the structure we are talking about and the use of infinitive predates Alexander the Great by some centruries Hebrew has little to do with whether an infinitive has a subject be it in nominative or accusative.

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:17 pm

modus.irrealis wrote:But what about an example from (colloquial?) English like "For him to leave would be a huge loss"? It seems perfectly natural to say that "him" here is the subject of "leave."

Actually "to leave" is the subject of your sentence (of the verb "would be".)It is not a verb, but a (verbal) noun.

It is a general statement. If you want to limit this statement, you have to specify what the subject refers to.
That is done in the objective case. In Greek that is done in the accusative case. [b] It is called the accusative of reference. To leave (with reference to him) would be a huge loss.

modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Post by modus.irrealis » Sun Jul 29, 2007 4:47 pm

Arvid wrote:Well, of course, I didn't mean that (exactly.) I suppose that sounded like one of the types of comments I most hate when I hear people make them: "Chinese has no grammar" for example. Of course what they mean is that Chinese has no morphology; syntax carries almost all of the grammatical load. English has almost no morphology, but its syntax is a precision instrument, particularly the auxiliary verbs.

What I really meant is that colloquial English at least has a way of evading any rules you can possibly write down. I came to this conclusion contemplating the "intensification infix" as in abso-f***ing-lutely!

Ah -- our view are pretty close then, although my emphasis would be on the fact that spoken language will always be more varied and less codified than any standardized written languages, and thus have more complicated rules than the somewhat simplified written language -- but speaking still seems like a rule-based activity. Even with your example, there must be some rule that says why you have to split the word at that point and can't at any other.

Perhaps by the stage of development of the Greek language represented in the New Testament, with so many non-Greeks learning the language and using it with structures from their own languages affecting their Greek usage, the distinction between finite and infinitive verbs had become hazy.

What do you have in mind with the distinction becoming hazy? Like Irene said, the infinitive eventually fell out of use but I can't think of something that would indicate the distinction becoming hazy.

-----

Bert wrote:Actually "to leave" is the subject of your sentence (of the verb "would be".)It is not a verb, but a (verbal) noun.

I agree that "to leave" (or perhaps the entire "for him to leave") is the subject of "would be," but I would argue that "leave" here is still verb-like even if it is also noun-like -- for one thing it can be modified by an adverb ("for him to leave quickly would be a great loss") while a deverbal noun can't ("his departure quickly would be a great loss"). That's what makes an infinitive an infinitive for me in that it can be used in places where nouns can be used but still preserves many of the properties of a verb.

It is a general statement. If you want to limit this statement, you have to specify what the subject refers to.
That is done in the objective case. In Greek that is done in the accusative case. [b] It is called the accusative of reference. To leave (with reference to him) would be a huge loss.

This is ultimately an issue of terminology and I'm just saying which terminology makes more sense to me. It does seem to me, however, that the nominative limits a finite verb in the same way that the accusative limits the infinitive and so I think it's reasonable to say that they both fill the same role in their respective clauses, namely the subject role. I don't see what's gained by saying that only finite verbs have subjects (and I presume direct objects, indirect objects, and the rest?) -- and then what's a finite verb -- some languages have verb forms that only agree with the subject in gender and number but I see no reason why we wouldn't say these still have a subject. [ETA: never mind about that last question -- I guess we could just say that a finite verb is a verb form that can form an independent sentence -- but then if all other verb forms are really nouns and adjectives, what would a non-finite verb form be?]

timeodanaos
Textkit Fan
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: Hafnia, Denmark

Post by timeodanaos » Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:44 pm

A small sidenote on the accusativus cum infinitivo: (not having read the entire discussion here)

When I first learnt that specific construction, I thought in my grammarian raptus that there ought to be more than one kind of accusative to prevent any misconception of a sentence, e.g. Marcus videt Gaium Cleopatram basiare - although kissing of course is a two-way-act, one should be able to distinguish between the agent and the object of the infinitive clause. Something like an ending showing to what means this accusative is corresponding.
Otherwise, one could of course in this very gender-specific example have written (even here, only if prospective, so not really) Marcus videt Gaium Cleopatram basiaturum.

Mostly, I thought of this because it was my first venture into seeing that not even Latin was a perfect language - it needs more cases! It needs more participles! It needs more K's! :wink:

User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Post by IreneY » Fri Aug 03, 2007 9:32 pm

Nope, it has enough cases as it is thank you very much :D Anyway, in such cases it's word order that's your friend there.

timeodanaos
Textkit Fan
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: Hafnia, Denmark

Post by timeodanaos » Sat Aug 04, 2007 9:48 am

Speaking Danish as my mothertongue, one of the most word order dependant languages of all, I'm pretty tired of having to lock the words into specific places. Where's my linguistic freedom? I demand more cases!

annis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3399
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Contact:

Post by annis » Sat Aug 04, 2007 1:01 pm

timeodanaos wrote: Where's my linguistic freedom? I demand more cases!


Ahh, morphology envy. An occupational hazard for classicists. I struggle with it myself. :)
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;

mjs
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 8:41 pm
Location: Suecia

Post by mjs » Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:59 pm

timeodanaos wrote:I thought in my grammarian raptus that there ought to be more than one kind of accusative to prevent any misconception of a sentence, e.g. Marcus videt Gaium Cleopatram basiare


It is not necessary. One can specify the agent by using passive voice, e.g.
Marcus videt Gaium a Cleopatra basiari - Cleopatra kissed Gaius,
Marcus videt a Gaio Cleopatram basiari - Gaius kissed Cleopatra.

The word order is NOT enough to determine who is kissing whom here. Not in Latin.:)

Essorant
Textkit Fan
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:35 pm
Location: Regina, SK; Canada
Contact:

Post by Essorant » Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:23 am

I believe the accusative and infinitive are used thus because they are both the objects of the finite verb. If one says: <i>I see him go</i>, the "him" and the infinitive "go" are being seen therefore they are objects, not subjects.

Post Reply