Soph. OT 639-41
{ΚΡ.} Ὅμαιμε, δεινά μ’ Οἰδίπους, ὁ σὸς πόσις,
δρᾶσαι δικαιοῖ, δυοῖν ἀποκρίνας κακοῖν,́
ἢ γῆς ἀπῶσαι πατρίδος ἢ κτεῖναι λαβών.
I reviewed Smyth on this but didn’t come away with a decisive answer. Should we read μ’ as a dative or accusative?
LSJ notes that δράω in finite form can take two accusatives but here we have δρᾶσαι as an argument of δικαιοῖ which is different. The syntax here isn’t strange but it is interesting.
LSJ notes that δράω in finite form can take two accusatives but here we have δρᾶσαι as an argument of δικαιοῖ which is different.
Why do you see the infinitive complement to δικαιοῖ as different from the finite verb? I don’t see why this isn’t a double accusative construction. "O. deems it just to do terrible things to me . . . "
δικαιοῖ is 3rd sing. pres. act. from δικαιόω:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Ddikaio%2Fw
That’s to say, the construction is perfectly normal. (δεινά is an “internal” accusative, με an “external” one.) The fact that a verb is infinitive makes no difference to its construction.
Also, μοι would not be elided.
That’s what I suspected but couldn’t find in Smyth.
The fact that a verb is infinitive makes no difference to its construction.
This statement leaves me wondering if we are all on the same wavelength in this discussion. Probably not.
This statement leaves me wondering if we are all on the same wavelength in this discussion. Probably not.
What makes you think the infinitive would require a different complement than a finite verb form? If you could explain that, perhaps we could figure out where the problem lies.
I did not say “the infinitive would require a different complement.” It is a matter of observation that infinitives have different usage patterns from finite verbs. You cannot assume that the infinitive will have the same valency pattern as the finite form. It may have it may not.
It is a matter of observation that infinitives have different usage patterns from finite verbs. You cannot assume that the infinitive will have the same valency pattern as the finite form. It may have it may not.
I can’t think of an instance in Greek where the infinitive doesn’t have the same “valency pattern” as the finite verb, but here it certainly does have the same valency pattern. From that perspective, I don’t see anything unusual about the quotation.
And LSJ doesn’t say that the finite verb has the double accusative valency pattern–it just gives an example with a finite verb. I would expect LSJ to note that the construction with the infinitive would be different from that with the finite verb if that were the case, since it would be, in my experience at least, unusual.
Posting a response I wrote earlier (but wasn’t sure whether to post), so please forgive redundancy.
No, probably not.
Your initial post said “LSJ notes that δράω in finite form can take two accusatives but here we have δρᾶσαι as an argument of δικαιοῖ which is different.”
LSJ does not specify “in finite form.” That would be absurd. To restate what Qimmik and I have told you, whether a verb is in finite form or in infinite form is immaterial to the syntax of the sentence constituents dependent on that verb. Is that more intelligible to you? (You might not like “dependent,” but I’m sure you understand what it means.)
It’s a grammatically elementary point. May I suggest you adjust your wavelength to accommodate it?
P.S. Now I see you did understand the statement, but are contesting the truth of it. Good luck with that.
[quote="mwh"whether a verb is in finite form or in infinite form is immaterial to the syntax of the sentence constituents dependent on that verb. [/quote]
I have take this statement to another forum.
Really not worth wasting my time here.
Please do report back if you find it’s not as I said. I’m always ready to learn.
It is a matter of observation that infinitives have different usage patterns from finite verbs. You cannot assume that the infinitive will have the same valency pattern as the finite form. It may have it may not.
Could you at least give a few examples of verbs that have different usage patterns in the infinitive and the finite forms (other than accusative vs. nominative subject)?
mwh, would not or could not? I don’t really know how I could search back but I’m pretty sure I’ve stumbled upon elided μοιs. (And I also seem to recall finding it strange myself but accepting it for what it was; just hope I’m not fabricating memories.)
You’ll have run across them in epic, I expect, but never in tragic iambics. And certainly not in this passage, where με is as normal as μοι would be bizarre.
Note. I’m responding to the questions directly addressed to me, but then I really have to leave. ευτυχοῦντες φιλοπονεῖτε!
τυφλός ἐστιν, δοκεῖ μοι, ὥσπερ νυκτερίς τις.
I really do have lingering doubts about the idea that valency is completely blind to the finite/non-finite distinction.
Again, I can’t recall that I’ve ever seen an example in Greek where an infinitive takes different complements than the finite forms of the verb. Many verbs have alternative complement/argument structures, but I’m not aware of any instance where the choice of one or the other depends on whether the verb form is finite or infinitive.