Are adverbial participles only nominative?

Biblical Greek morphology and syntax, aspect, linguistics, discourse analysis, and related topics
RandallButh
Posts: 944
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Are adverbial participles only nominative?

Post by RandallButh » March 22nd, 2018, 5:25 am

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
March 21st, 2018, 11:00 pm
RandallButh wrote:
March 21st, 2018, 9:04 am
ὁ ἄνθρωπος περιεπάτει

ἐγὼ εἶδον ὅτι ὁ ἄνθρωπος περιεπάτει

ἐγὼ εἶδον τὸν ἄνθρωπον περιπατοῦντα

In the third line the adjective περιπατοῦντα is part of an embedded object phrase/clause and "in the predicate position," but it is not at adverb to εἶδον or adverbial. I find "adverbial participle" to be as enlightening as "deponent." :roll:

We can all agree that participles belong to a broad category called ἐπίθετα.
Interesting attempt, but I don't see the sentences as saying the same thing. They are significantly different, and would not be used the same way in terms of the syntactical relationship to the rest of the context. Of course, there is also the sense in which an object is adverbial, since it limits the action of the verb.
Of course, they would not fit the "same" context in the "same" way. Structural choices are made for different pragmatic effects. And the relationship to the rest of the context is not "syntactical" but a part of discourse.
With regard to the third sentence, used by you to prove your point, I don't ever recall seeing such a usage absolutely in the way you have composed it. There would nearly always be something else, like a prepositional phrase, not simply the participle. I say nearly, but I don't recall ever seeing an exception.
Fine. Our texts are usually more complicated than "Run, Spot, run."
For ease of reference, please add a prepositional complement to the participle, but that doesn't change the participle's function. It is still a predicate usage:
ἐγὼ εἶδον τὸν ἄνθρωπον περιπατοῦντα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης
Jn 6.19 θεωροῦσιν τὸν Ἰησοῦν περιπατοῦντα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ ἐγγὺς τοῦ πλοίου γινόμενον

But frankly, if the lexemes fit, there is nothing wrong with accusative Noun+ Participle (Period).
Jn 21.9 βλέπουσιν ἀνθρακιὰν κειμένην (noun+participle only)
- - - - - - - - - - - - καὶ ὀψάριον ἐπικείμενον (noun+participle only)
- - - - - - - - - - - - καὶ ἄρτον.
Mt 9.23 Καὶ ἐλθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ ἄρχοντος καὶ ἰδὼν τοὺς αὐλητὰς καὶ τὸν ὄχλον θορυβούμενον
Mk 5.31 βλέπεις τὸν ὄχλον συνθλίβοντά σε
Mk 5.36 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς παρακούσας τὸν λόγον λαλούμενον
Mk 15.21 καὶ ἀγγαρεύουσιν παράγοντά τινα Σίμωνα Κυρηναῖον ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾿ ἀγροῦ, τὸν πατέρα Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ Ῥούφου,
κτλ.
In all these examples adding the metalanguage "adverbial" to the participle is unnecessary and misleading.
Even in the last example they did not compel Simon in a "passing-by" way, but Simon was passing by. The participle is a predicate/verbal adjective for the embedded noun phrase. And if you want to call object phrases "adverbial" because they restrict the predication, then the metalanguage takes another turn for the worse and "adverb" starts to dissolve.

Everyone, including ancient Greeks, are agreed that participles have adjectival (nominal) morphology. And ἔρχομαι has middle morphology.
1 x



Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1247
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Are adverbial participles only nominative?

Post by Barry Hofstetter » March 22nd, 2018, 12:53 pm

RandallButh wrote:
March 22nd, 2018, 5:25 am

Of course, they would not fit the "same" context in the "same" way. Structural choices are made for different pragmatic effects. And the relationship to the rest of the context is not "syntactical" but a part of discourse.
Same thing, different metalanguage.
Fine. Our texts are usually more complicated than "Run, Spot, run."
For ease of reference, please add a prepositional complement to the participle, but that doesn't change the participle's function. It is still a predicate usage:
ἐγὼ εἶδον τὸν ἄνθρωπον περιπατοῦντα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης
Jn 6.19 θεωροῦσιν τὸν Ἰησοῦν περιπατοῦντα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ ἐγγὺς τοῦ πλοίου γινόμενον

But frankly, if the lexemes fit, there is nothing wrong with accusative Noun+ Participle (Period).
Jn 21.9 βλέπουσιν ἀνθρακιὰν κειμένην (noun+participle only)
- - - - - - - - - - - - καὶ ὀψάριον ἐπικείμενον (noun+participle only)
- - - - - - - - - - - - καὶ ἄρτον.
Mt 9.23 Καὶ ἐλθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ ἄρχοντος καὶ ἰδὼν τοὺς αὐλητὰς καὶ τὸν ὄχλον θορυβούμενον
Mk 5.31 βλέπεις τὸν ὄχλον συνθλίβοντά σε
Mk 5.36 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς παρακούσας τὸν λόγον λαλούμενον
Mk 15.21 καὶ ἀγγαρεύουσιν παράγοντά τινα Σίμωνα Κυρηναῖον ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾿ ἀγροῦ, τὸν πατέρα Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ Ῥούφου,
κτλ.
In all these examples adding the metalanguage "adverbial" to the participle is unnecessary and misleading.
Even in the last example they did not compel Simon in a "passing-by" way, but Simon was passing by. The participle is a predicate/verbal adjective for the embedded noun phrase. And if you want to call object phrases "adverbial" because they restrict the predication, then the metalanguage takes another turn for the worse and "adverb" starts to dissolve.

Everyone, including ancient Greeks, are agreed that participles have adjectival (nominal) morphology. And ἔρχομαι has middle morphology.
I think these are excellent examples which support what you are saying.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

DennisKenaga
Posts: 3
Joined: July 2nd, 2018, 7:48 pm

Re: Are adverbial participles only nominative?

Post by DennisKenaga » July 11th, 2018, 10:15 am

The restriction of adverbial participles to nominative apparently attempts to impose an arbitrarily simplistic terminology on a more complex reality. Here is a partial list of GNT oblique circumstantial participles: MT 8:23, MT21:23, MK 16:12, MK16:14, LK 1:3, LK17:7, AC 3:12,AC16:37, AC20:3, AC23:15, 2C 5:14, EP 2:1, EP 2:5, PP 1:7, CL 1:21,2P 2:21, 2P 3:5, JD 0:5, JD 0:22.

They are all oblique and anarthrous and do not directly modify anarthrous substantives. Like all participles, they have some adjectival or attributive quality, but that is not the most salient function. They are most like nominative circumstantial participles in function. Since this is a well established language pattern, the approach is not to ban its name or deny the phenomenon but give the construction as a whole the most fitting name. “Adverbial participles” or “oblique circumstantial participles” seem to fit.
0 x

Post Reply