I can’t understand how, why, and when participles agree with other nouns in the sentence.
M, p.215 “the participle has… the ability to govern objects…”
p. 235 b. “αρξομαι τους πατερας επαινεων”. The noun is plural accusative, but the participle is nominative. Should it not be accusative (i.e., “ἑπαινουντα” ) to agree with the noun?
p. 235 b. (last example) “τουτον επαυσαν προδιδοντα την πολιν” - accusative participle and accusative noun. All is well.
I see many other examples of nominative participles not agreeing with accusative objects.
I know that supplementary participles in predicate position will agree “… with the subject or direct object…” But how do you decide which?
p. 235 b. “αρξομαι τους πατερας επαινεων”. The noun is plural accusative, but the participle is nominative. Should it not be accusative (i.e., “ἑπαινουντα” ) to agree with the noun?
In this case, ἐπαινέων agrees with the implied subject “'ἐγώ”. lit. ‘Ι will begin to praise (or more literally, “praising”) the fathers.’
p. 235 b. (last example) “τουτον επαυσαν προδιδοντα την πολιν” - accusative participle and accusative noun. All is well.
Here προδιδόντα agrees with τοῦτον. ‘they stopped him (from) betraying the city.’
These are two of several verbs that require supplementary participles to complete the meaning. Other verbs that do this are:
χαίρω, ἥδομαι, διατελέω, λήγω, παύομαι, φαίνομαι, αίσχύνομαι, τυγχάνω, λανθάνω and φθάνω
The syntax was answered perfectly above. Two minor points of morphology with ptcps: επαινεων–>ἐπαινῶν (in Attic). And if it were agreeing with the noun (πατέρας) it would be ἐπαινοῦντας (masc acc pl).
Thank you Aetos and Phalakros, but I’m still puzzled as to why, in this case, does the participle agree with the subject instead of with the object “pateras”? Since participles have a case, I would think that they can agree with either one.
Obviously, I am missing some very basic concept.
Basically, what determines the case of the participle? When would a ppl agree with the object instead of the subject?
I think it’s important to remember that in the end, a participle is a verbal adjective and as such it can be used to modify or add meaning to any noun, be it subject or object. As an adjective, it will take the same case, gender and number as the noun it’s modifying, so if the noun happens to be the subject, the participle will be in the nominative. If the noun happens to be the object of a verb, it may take the accusative case for a direct object, the dative or genitive for an indirect object, or with compound verbs may take the case called for by the preposition. If a participle is paired with that noun, it will have to agree in case, gender and number. N.B.: Bear in mind that this is a very general statement and does not take into account all uses of the participle (such as genitive absolutes or accusative absolutes).
The fact that there must be agreement can help you identify which noun the participle is modifying. Phalakros mentioned that for the participle to agree with πατέρας, the form would be ἐπαινοῦντας. Since it doesn’t, it must agree with something else, in this case the subject of the the verb ἄρξομαι (ἐγώ).
Hope this helps.
I think your main misunderstanding is to think that participles agree with their (direct) objects. This is not the case. They have to agree with their subject. So “εἶδον τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον” means “I saw the man as he came”, while “εἶδον τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενος” means “I saw the man as I came”.
Context: The unnamed Roman military tribune had ordered Paul tied up for beating and interrogation. Now however, the officer knows that Paul is a Roman citizen, who under Roman law (as I understand)must not be tied up or beaten. Hence the officer is concerned that he has exceeded his authority.
and in particular this: ἦν δεδεκώς. At first I thought this must be a compound verb form that I don’t know. But, when I opened up this forum, I immediately noticed this thread, which changed my thinking. So, I’ll type out in translationese my present understanding of the problematic phrase.
Translationese: that he [ Paul ] was a Roman [citizen] and that he [the military tribune] was the-one-tying him [Paul ] up.
αὐτὸν is the direct object of the participle δεδεκώς.
The implied subject of ἦν is the military tribune.
I know that supplementary participles in predicate position will agree “… with the subject or direct object…” But how do you decide which?
I wanted to point out that Asterisk1234 is quoting correctly, but the text is likely referring to the subject or direct object of the main verb, which would be the subject of any participle in agreement, as has been pointed out. Asterisk1234 very understandably took it to mean subject or direct object of the participle. A difficulty of complex grammar explanations.
The KISS explanation that I like: participles are more powerful, “verbal,” adjectives. (Almost) everything beyond that is idiom.
