Category for participles, infinitives, finite verbs

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4166
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Category for participles, infinitives, finite verbs

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Barry Hofstetter wrote:I am not going to redo my parsing sheets. I just explain to students that they aren't really moods, but they've got to go somewhere.
That's pretty much where I'm landing so far. If I knew a really good way to improve my markup, I would do so, but I haven't heard it yet.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Category for participles, infinitives, finite verbs

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Stephen Hughes wrote:Why do you say "don't have", rather than "aren't marked for".
Because the discussion is about morphology.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Category for participles, infinitives, finite verbs

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:Why do you say "don't have", rather than "aren't marked for".
Because the discussion is about morphology.
Is it customary to discuss morphology at a word-by-word level rather than at a sense-unit-by-sense-unit level or is it just in discussions about Greek?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
MAubrey
Posts: 1091
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Category for participles, infinitives, finite verbs

Post by MAubrey »

Stephen Hughes wrote:Is it customary to discuss morphology at a word-by-word level rather than at a sense-unit-by-sense-unit level or is it just in discussions about Greek?
Well, at a morpheme "level." That's sort of what morphology is.
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Category for participles, infinitives, finite verbs

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:Why do you say "don't have", rather than "aren't marked for".
Because the discussion is about morphology.
Is it customary to discuss morphology at a word-by-word level rather than at a sense-unit-by-sense-unit level or is it just in discussions about Greek?
I don't understand this question. My comment was made in the context of a reply to Barry; I don't see how general patterns of usage are more appositely pertinent.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Category for participles, infinitives, finite verbs

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Stephen Carlson wrote:
Participles and infinitives don't have person either.
Yes, which is why in fact they are called infinitives -- they are not limited with regard to person and number. So on your handy-dandy parsing sheet, you just mark tense, category and voice, i.e. εὶπεῖν, aorist active infinitive.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Category for participles, infinitives, finite verbs

Post by cwconrad »

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Participles and infinitives don't have person either.
Yes, which is why in fact they are called infinitives -- they are not limited with regard to person and number. So on your handy-dandy parsing sheet, you just mark tense, category and voice, i.e. εὶπεῖν, aorist active infinitive.
Seems like some of our recent threads have been going in circles (maybe it seems so to me only). I did "hint" earlier and reiterate (not yet ad nauseam, I hope), that If the term "infinitive" is thought to mean "unlimited", then the term is not wholly apt for a form that is limited for tense and voice.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4166
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Category for participles, infinitives, finite verbs

Post by Jonathan Robie »

MAubrey wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:Is it customary to discuss morphology at a word-by-word level rather than at a sense-unit-by-sense-unit level or is it just in discussions about Greek?
Well, at a morpheme "level." That's sort of what morphology is.
With one caveat: when tagging sentences, if a form can have more than one interpretation, many corpuses do use context to choose among the possible interpretations. That's really helpful for searching.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
MAubrey
Posts: 1091
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Category for participles, infinitives, finite verbs

Post by MAubrey »

Jonathan Robie wrote:
MAubrey wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:Is it customary to discuss morphology at a word-by-word level rather than at a sense-unit-by-sense-unit level or is it just in discussions about Greek?
Well, at a morpheme "level." That's sort of what morphology is.
With one caveat: when tagging sentences, if a form can have more than one interpretation, many corpuses do use context to choose among the possible interpretations. That's really helpful for searching.
Good point.
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Category for participles, infinitives, finite verbs

Post by cwconrad »

Jonathan Robie wrote:
MAubrey wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:Is it customary to discuss morphology at a word-by-word level rather than at a sense-unit-by-sense-unit level or is it just in discussions about Greek?
Well, at a morpheme "level." That's sort of what morphology is.
With one caveat: when tagging sentences, if a form can have more than one interpretation, many corpuses do use context to choose among the possible interpretations. That's really helpful for searching.
Corpora, perhaps? Or If the corpus is relatively small, like the GNT, they can be called "corpuscles."
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”