Seeking critique for description of Greek Circumstantial / Adverbial Participles

Greek Learning Greek
1

I am looking for a good way to articulate a technical description of the function of Greek Circumstantial Participles (sometimes also called Adverbial Participles). This is my first-pass attempt at doing so and I am by no means saying this is correct. I am seeking some constructive criticism, and I’m new to trying to describe things in broader linguistic categories like parataxis/hypotaxis, adjuncts, converbs, etc., so please go easy on me.

How can I make this description more accurate and precise? If I am way off, please provide viable alternative descriptions. My definition tends more toward later Koine usage.

Description:

The Greek Circumstantial Participle is an anarthrous non-finite nominal verb form which can be characterized as functioning as an adverbial, often more specifically an adjunct adverbial. It is hypotactic in sense as logically subordinated to the independent clause and modifying the main verb, but paratactic in form in that it does not require a conjunction to set it off from the rest of the sentence. It functions similarly to a converb in a sentence, and supplies adjunct adverbial senses such as time, manner, purpose, reason, condition, concession, etc.

Discussion:

Now, I understand that hypotaxis and parataxis are syntax categories and so in one sense it doesn’t make sense to speak of logical/conceptual hypotaxis, and that that is likely a misuse of the term. However, I do want to convey the strictly subordinate sense (cf. converbs) of the participle since it is never the main verbal action of the sentence. On the other hand, I have recently discovered that A.T. Robertson describes hypotactic senses in Greek that seem to accommodate Greek participles.

Supplementary Citations

  1. Greek Circumstantial Participles

“In traditional terminology, circumstantial participles are one of the three main types of participles in Ancient Greek. Their semantic function is simple as they describe the circumstances of the main action. Although morphologically they agree with a noun, syntactically they are the adjunct of the verb phrase. Their general usage in Indo-European languages has been very well described in different grammars. They are semantically equivalent to a subordinate circumstantial clause.”

The Syntax of Participles in Homeric Greek: Heritage or innovation? by Maciej Jaszczynski

  1. Hypotaxis/Syntaxis and Subordination/Coordination

“Hypotaxis and parataxis are often discussed in conjunction with the closely realted concepts of subordination and coordination (among many others, see Lehmann 1988; Cristofaro 2006:15-60; Fabricus-Hansen and Ramm 2008). Although some equate hypotaxis with subordination and parataxis with coordination, it is equally common that the two sets of concepts are viewed as overlapping but formally distinct: whereas coordination and subordination concern the syntactic-semantic relationship of two clauses, hypotaxis and parataxis refer to the presence or absence of morphological or lexical markers of the relationship.”

Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, Volume 2. Entry on “Hypotaxis” by Robert Holdstedt.


Thoughts?

2

After a discussion elsewhere I think I am convinced to drop the terms hypotaxis and parataxis in relation to the participle altogether and simply describe it as “adjunct”.

3

Participle taxonomy is a bit amorphous, and I’d personally start my description with something to indicate you aren’t exactly describing a concrete exclusive class. “A participle is (not necessarily exclusively? I don’t know much about how the grammars do it) classified as circumstantial when it…”

Anyway, this isn’t the sort of thing that I would normally ever read, so you can take my comments with a grain of salt:

“which can be characterized as functioning as an adverbial”

If you are so characterizing it, then you can delete “which can be characterized”, right?

“often more specifically an adjunct adverbial”

Do you really mean to imply that there are times that it doesn’t? I can’t think of any. It always does, I would think. But if there are exceptions, I’d like to hear about them.

“It functions similarly to a converb”

How does it differ functionally from a converb in any way? (Especially since you’re talking about the specifically adverbial circumstantial participles.)

And it’s not clear to me whether you are just talking about the circumstantial participle itself, or the whole participle phrase?

As far as Jaszczynski goes, the use of “syntactically” when he says they are adjunct to concept like a “verb phrase”, saying this is in a contrast (“although”) to agreement with a noun, is something I’d object to. What could “syntactically” mean here. They do agree with a noun and are adjunct to a verb phrase, but throwing in “syntactically” is just padding, as far as I can see.