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 ανθ?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 αποκ?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]

<?xml version="1.0"?>

[Bert]

<?xml version="1.0"?>

[Bert]

<?xml version="1.0"?>

[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 πα?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]

@bacon

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.

@bacon

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]

@IreneY

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]

@bacon

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 αποκ?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]

@bacon

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.)

@bacon

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]

@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

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 ?€á½³Î¼?ˆÎ±?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]

<?xml version="1.0"?>

[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.

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]

@IreneY

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