Infinitive with Dative

[AVEPARTHE]

Infinitive constructions with the Dative

χαίρετε!
So I've been dealing with a little special phrase that I have yet to fully grasp its nuances, leaving me with many doubts. The phrase is the following: οὐκ ἔστι πᾶσι δὴ εὐδαίμοσιν εἶναι.
I had a few ideas, given research and comments, that the dative εὐδαίμοσιν is a dative of (dis)advantage, that οὐκ ἔστι (accent due to οὐ) means "it is not possible" (though I have yet to understand how and why is that), and that there is an infinitive phrase εὐδαίμοσιν εἶναι, wherein εὐδαίμοσιν agrees with πᾶσι.
The questions pertain to syntax, more than anything else.

An example that I was given to understand this was (a) λέγειν ἐστίν Κύρῳ (to read is to Cyrus, thus it is possible for Cyrus to read; as if it were a dat. possessive and an impersonal function of the verb?), seeing that the infinitive is alone, whereas in the other example, (b) [σὲ εἶναι ἀθάνατον] οὐκ ἔστι σοι, roughly meaning "it is not possible for you to be immortal". Then, as I recall it being taught, the acc. subject of the infinitive phrase gets deleted (reason?), and because there's no overt subject anymore, ἀθάνατον changes to agree with σοι, the "new subject", thus the phrase [εἶναι ἀθανάτῳ] οὐκ ἔστι σοι, similar to the phrase in my problem.
But so far, any resolution to my question lacks any depth of explanation, only, in simpler words, stating "that's how it works. Deal with it."

Regardless, the previous example I gave doesn't really answer much. So my doubts here are (1) Is the construction ἐστί + dat. = to be possible, valid? Why is that? And, is it impersonal as I understand it to be? (2) Using example (b) to better understand the main problem of this post, I'd ask, why in the accusativus cum infinitivo construction whose subject is σὲ, and refers to σοι, the acc. subject gets deleted? Was the "original" subject of the problem's infinitive phrase deleted too? And lastly (3) Why would ἀθάνατον change to agree with σοι, as εὐδαίμοσιν to πᾶσι? If possible, I'd like more than "x is attracted to y", and I know infinitives can go with other cases, too.
Does this phenomenon have a name that I can refer to? Is there an underlying function to this beyond looks and deletion of words?

I apologize beforehand if these are tedious questions, or if I'm asking more than I should, and likewise, thanks to anyone who can help me here.

ἔρρωσθε εὐτυχῶς!
- Ave

[Paul Derouda]

I'm sorry - my explanation will be that "x is attracted to y"...

I think οὐκ ἔστι πᾶσι δὴ εὐδαιμονίους εἶναι (with the accusative, i.e. acc. c. inf. construction) would be equally correct.

"It is not for everyone to be happy" - so basically, ἐστί + dat. = "to be possible, valid", just like you say.

However, εὐδαίμοσιν/εὐδαμονίους here is what is called a predicate adjective, and in your example the predicate adjective with the infinitive is "attracted" to the dative case of the object of the governing verb (i.e. πᾶσι).

See Smyth §1060-1062 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... apter%3D38

"A predicate substantive, adjective, or participle referring to a dative stands in the dative or in the accusative in agreement with the unexpressed subject of the infinitive." (says Smyth).

[Edit: corrected an accent blunder.]

[AVEPARTHE]

I'm sorry - my explanation will be that "x is attracted to y"...

I think οὐκ ἔστι πᾶσι δὴ εὐδαιμονίους εἶναι (with the accusative, i.e. acc. c. inf. construction) would be equally correct.

"It is not for everyone to be happy" - so basically, ἐστί + dat. = "to be possible, valid", just like you say.

However, εὐδαίμοσιν/εὐδαμονίους here is what is called a predicate adjective, and in your example the predicate adjective with the infinitive is "attracted" to the dative case of the object of the governing verb (i.e. πᾶσι).

See Smyth §1060-1062 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... apter%3D38

"A predicate substantive, adjective, or participle referring to a dative stands in the dative or in the accusative in agreement with the unexpressed subject of the infinitive." (says Smyth).

[Edit: corrected an accent blunder.]

So it's only in the dative because it is agreeing with the "unexpressed subject of the infinitive"? Hmm... and no other function besides that? I was asking as such because my teacher had asked me what function is performing εὐδαίμοσιν, as if being in the dative results in an extra function (hence other comments saying dative of advantage), rather than simply agreeing with the unexpressed subject.
Thanks, either way, for your reply!

[Paul Derouda]

"So it's only in the dative because it is agreeing with the "unexpressed subject of the infinitive"? "

No. Smyth's notion of an "unexpressed subject of the infinitive" is strange, but basic idea is that since εἶναι is an infinitive, in the most typical, regular case it would take an accusative subject (only it doesn't have a subject) and also an accusative object. In this case, we would be dealing with a typical regular acc. c. inf. construction.

οὐκ ἔστι πᾶσι δὴ εὐδαιμονίους εἶναι.

HOWEVER, because the Greeks loved to make things more complicated and convoluted for us, they can also construct this in another way. Instead of the accusative, the predicate adjective (εὐδαιμονίους) that goes with the infinitive (in this case, εἶναι) can be "attracted" to the dative case of the object (πᾶσι) of the governing verb (ἔστι):

οὐκ ἔστι πᾶσι δὴ εὐδαίμοσιν εἶναι.

[AVEPARTHE]

[...]
οὐκ ἔστι πᾶσι δὴ εὐδαιμονίους εἶναι.

HOWEVER, because the Greeks loved to make things more complicated and convoluted for us, they can also construct this in another way. Instead of the accusative, the predicate adjective (εὐδαιμονίους) that goes with the infinitive (in this case, εἶναι) can be "attracted" to the dative case of the object (πᾶσι) of the governing verb (ἔστι):

οὐκ ἔστι πᾶσι δὴ εὐδαίμοσιν εἶναι.

I think I understand how it changed now, but I still have that doubt I mentioned. With what you wrote, I can assume that it is nothing more "mystical", so to speak, than a predicate adjective being attracted to the object governing the infinitive verb, right?
So there's no special or otherwise weird function εὐδαίμοσιν is performing. No dative of advantage, means, &c.
I say this because my teacher, as we're tackling another trickier phrase, said that "if I discover the function εὐδαίμοσιν is carrying out in that sentence, then I'd know what the other one is doing." I'm lost.

Anyhow, thanks for clarifying how this works!

[Paul Derouda]

”With what you wrote, I can assume that it is nothing more "mystical", so to speak, than a predicate adjective being attracted to the object governing the infinitive verb, right?”

It’s attracted to the object of the governing verb (ἔστι), not of the infinitive verb. Basically, εὐδαίμοσιν is dative because πᾶσι is dative.

”So there's no special or otherwise weird function εὐδαίμοσιν is performing. No dative of advantage, means, &c.”
Not that I can see, no. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong.

[MattK]

Hi Ave. I noticed you seem to be having some trouble getting your head around the ἔστι μοι construction. I don't know if you have the Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek, but I'll go through what it says, add some ideas, and see if it helps.

They actually treat this kind of structure twice. The first time, it's under 'Impersonal Constructions', where it's described as a quasi-impersonal verb, taking an infinitive / accusative infinitive as subject (as opposed to a 'proper' impersonal verb, which has no subject - they give νείφει, it's snowing, as an example).

They state that ἔστι (with the recessive accent, so not enclitic) is used as an alternative to ἔξεστι, both meaning "it is possible": the example given is καὶ ταῦτα... ἔστι μοι κομπεῖν, which they translate as "I can boast these things". The translation captures the meaning of the expression without reproducing its grammar, but if we look at your sentence we can bring the grammar rather closer:

οὐκ ἔστι πᾶσι δὴ εὐδαίμοσιν εἶναι

The subject is εὐδαίμοσιν εἶναι. I don't think it's going to be helpful to worry about the case or function of εὐδαίμοσιν for now. Let's focus on the meaning - to be happy. The infinitive is a verbal noun, and we can use it this way in English, though when it's the subject of a sentence it's more idiomatic to use the gerund - compare "to hike is fun" (grammatical but weird) and "hiking is fun" (much more natural). So we could say the sentence means "Being happy is not possible for everyone".

Your original post suggests that you have trouble understanding where the idea of "possible" comes from - all I can say is that the Greeks evidently understood it as being implicit in this structure. If it helps, you can imagine it was there explicitly - the sentence could read
οὐ δυνατόν ἐστι... without changing the meaning.

The Cambridge Grammar treats the ἔξεστι with dative structure (and therefore the ἔστι one as well, presumably) again in its chapter on infinitives. Here (51.8 ) it says that ἔξεστι is a modal verb, taking the infinitive as its complement. I cannot see that this is anything other than an alternative way of looking at it - I may be missing something, but there does not seem to be any difference in form or meaning between this 'dynamic infinitive' complement and the infinitive subject of the quasi-impersonal verb. In fact, as Mastronarde says in his review, in section 51.11 they say that with the 'modal' verb δεῖ the infinitive construction is its subject (δεῖ σε καθεύδειν... παρʹ ἐμοί - δεῖ is the verb, and the rest of the words quoted are the subject).

In any case, if we go with the modal interpretation we'd look at your sentence as meaning 'It's not possible for everyone to be happy', or 'not everyone can be happy' which mean the same as the "Being happy..." version we looked at earlier. Again, we have to accept the the idea of possibility was implicit to the Greeks in this structure.

[jeidsath]

The subject is εὐδαίμοσιν εἶναι.

I'd take issue with CGCG, if it is really saying this. I don't think that this explanation fits the word order that the Greeks would use around these impersonal verbs. If the infinitive construction were conceived as <verbing>, rather than as the object of an impersonal verb, I feel like they would express it a bit differently.

Here are the LSJ's examples for εἶναι + inf., to be possible. The last first, as it's the weird one, where the subject seems to be θάλασσα with the infinitive as a predicate.

θάλασσα δʼ οὐκέτʼ ἦν ἰδεῖν

The others. Notice how impersonal εἶναι usually gets fronted.

ἔστι γὰρ ἀμφοτέροισιν ὀνείδεα μυθήσασθαι
ἔστι μὲν εὕδειν
ἔστι δὲ τερπομένοισιν ἀκούειν
εἴ τί πού ἐστι (sc. πιθέσθαι)
τοιάδε . . ἐστὶν ἀκοῦσαι
ἔστι τεκμήρια ὁρᾶν
ἔστω ἀποφέρεσθαι τῷ βουλομένῳ
μυρία ἂν εἴη λέγειν
ὅπως ἂν ᾖ δρᾶν
ἁδόντα δʼ εἴη με τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς ὁμιλεῖν
ἔστιν ἐκπεσεῖν ἀρχῆς Δία

And now compare word order of the existence examples, where there really is an expressed subject, and we're no longer seeing this fronted εἶναι

οὐκ ἔσθʼ οὗτος ἀνήρ, οὐδʼ ἔσσεται
ἔτʼ εἰσί
τεθνηῶτος . . μηδʼ ἔτʼ ἐόντος
οὐκέτʼ ἐστί
οὐδὲ δὴν ἦν
ὁ οὐκ ὤν, οἱ οὐκ ὄντες
οἱ ὄντες
ὁ ὤν
θεοὶ αἰὲν ἐόντες
ἐσσόμενοι
κἀγὼ γὰρ ἦ ποτʼ, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκ εἴμʼ ἔτι
ὡς ἂν εἶεν ἅνθρωποι
ζώντων καὶ ὄντων Ἀθηναίων
εἰ ἔστι ἀληθέως [ἡ τράπεζα]
ὄλωλεν, οὐδʼ ἔτʼ ἐστὶ Τροία
δοκεῖ μοι Καρχηδόνα μὴ εἶναι
ἂν ᾖ τὸ στράτευμα
τῶν ὄντων χρημάτων καὶ τῶν προσιόντων
τὸ ἐσόμενον ἐκ . .
τὴν οὖσαν ἐκκλησίαν
τοῦ ὄντος μηνός
ἱερέων τῶν ὄντων
αἱ οὖσαι [ἐξουσίαι]

[MattK]

I'd take issue with CGCG, if it is really saying this

It's not one of their examples. As I say, they don't give an explanation of how (or if) we are to distinguish between the infinitive as subject of impersonal verb / complement of modal verb, at least as far as I can tell.

[jeidsath]

Smyth 1984/1985 gives some examples, I see. Here it is certainly a subject:

κόσμος (ἐστι) καλῶς τοῦτο δρᾶν

I see that Smyth 1985 makes the claim that the infinitive is the subject for all these types of verbs ἔστι (it is possible), δεῖ, δοκεῖ. I really wonder about this though. When there is a predicate adjective or an article for the infinitive, it's got to be a subject, of course [EDIT: well, depending on the verb]. But in a lot of cases that is generally absent from the construction, and word order just seems odd for this to be the case for everything he lists: ἄξιον, δίκαιον, ἀναγκαῖον, κτλ, all go into the bucket for him.

1985d claims that Homer "only shows the beginnings of the use of the infinitive as a real subject", which suggests to me that Smyth might classify some ἔστι + inf. examples one way (the ones from Homer), and others another.