the question I am looking at goes beyond valency.
That perhaps sounds like dodging the question. I really do have lingering doubts about the idea that valency is completely blind to the finite/non-finite distinction.
the question I am looking at goes beyond valency.
Perhaps you'll find the distinction between external arguments and internal arguments usewful. External arguments are like the subject of a verb and they tend to agree with and/or have forms that relate to their function outside the verb phrase. Internal arguments are like direct and indirect objects and their properties tend to be determined by the verb. I suppose that voice may affect the forms of internal arguments, but I'm not aware of finiteness affecting anything but the external argument, at least in Indo-European languages.Stirling Bartholomew wrote:I tend to look at constituents beyond the nuclear clause as part of the syntax which gets me in to trouble all the time. What I find objectionable is the notion that it doesn't matter what form the verb is in, as if we could simply swap forms which isn't the case as illustrated below.
ὁ πέμψας με βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν·
If με serves both as the object of πέμψας and the subject of βαπτίζειν, I would consider that part of the "configuration" and that makes it not possible to substitute a finite verb for the infinitive in this "configuration." It would require some rewriting. The way I look at this ὁ πέμψας is part of the "configuration" in which βαπτίζειν functions. So the question I am looking at goes beyond valency.
I suppose anything can be up for grabs but I've never seen anything to suggest to me that finiteness is relevant for the valency of the (internal) arguments. I like to keep an open mind and I am willing to see evidence suggesting it, but it's not something that's ever appeared on my radar screen.Stirling Bartholomew wrote:I really do have lingering doubts about the idea that valency is completely blind to the finite/non-finite distinction.
Yes that is useful. I suspect that my metalanguage comprehension has degraded over time from lack of use. I spend a lot more time reading texts than talking about them.Stephen Carlson wrote: Perhaps you'll find the distinction between external arguments and internal arguments usewful. External arguments are like the subject of a verb and they tend to agree with and/or have forms that relate to their function outside the verb phrase. Internal arguments are like direct and indirect objects and their properties tend to be determined by the verb. I suppose that voice may affect the forms of internal arguments, but I'm not aware of finiteness affecting anything but the external argument, at least in Indo-European languages.
Stephen Carlson wrote: Perhaps you'll find the distinction between external arguments and internal arguments usewful. External arguments are like the subject of a verb and they tend to agree with and/or have forms that relate to their function outside the verb phrase. Internal arguments are like direct and indirect objects and their properties tend to be determined by the verb. I suppose that voice may affect the forms of internal arguments, but I'm not aware of finiteness affecting anything but the external argument, at least in Indo-European languages.
LSJ
σύμφορ-ος, ον,
accompanying, λιμὸς ἀεργῷ σύμφορος ἀνδρί hunger is the sluggard's companion, Hes.Op.302: c. gen., πενίης οὐ σύμφοροι, ἀλλὰ κόροιο Id.Th.593.
suitable, useful, profitable, c. dat., ἔκτη . . κούρῃ οὐ σύμφορός ἐστιν the sixth day is not good for a girl, Id.Op.783; οὐ . . σύμφορόν ἐστι γυνὴ νέα ἀνδρὶ γέροντι Thgn.457; ἡ πενίη κακῷ σύμφορος ἀνδρὶ φέρειν Id.526; πολλῷ ξυμφορώτερον ἐς . . Th.3.47; πρὸς . . Pl.Lg.766e, Isoc.6.74 (Sup.); σύμφορόν ἐστι, = συμφέρει, Hdt.8.60.ά, S.OC592; Πλούτῳ . . τοῦτο -ώτατον Ar.Pl.1162, cf. Th.2.36: τὰ ς. what is expedient, S.OC464, etc.; τῶν ἀναγκαίων ξυμφόρων διαναστάς departing from his necessary (i.e. natural) interests, Th.4.128; δρᾶν τὰ -ώτατά τινι E.Med.876; τὸ ὑμέτερον ξ. your plea of expediency, opp. τὸ δίκαιον, Th.5.98, cf. 3.47. Adv., -ρως ἔχειν to be expedient, Isoc.5.102; Χρῆσθαι X.Cyr.4.2.45: Comp. -ώτερον Id.HG6.5.39: Sup. -ώτατα Th.8.43, X.Cyr.5.3.22, PCair.Zen.637.14 (iii B.C.), etc.
Well, yeah. Words prefixed with συν- often take datives, and δρᾶν does not (rarely, if all). It's just the relative odds here. Why go for the long shot when the odds-on favorite is racing on its preferred track?Stirling Bartholomew wrote:ἡμῖν construes with τὰ συμφορώτατα according to LSJ. So does that mean it isn't an "argument" of δρᾶι? That whole line of reasoning bothers me. According to the LSJ editors the syntax tree would show τὰ συμφορώτατα linked below δρᾶι and ἡμῖν linked below συμφορώτατα. But why parse it that way? Just because the LSJ people see a pattern of συμφορ- with datives.
Stephen Carlson wrote:Well, yeah. Words prefixed with συν- often take datives, and δρᾶν does not (rarely, if all). It's just the relative odds here. Why go for the long shot when the odds-on favorite is racing on its preferred track?Stirling Bartholomew wrote:ἡμῖν construes with τὰ συμφορώτατα according to LSJ. So does that mean it isn't an "argument" of δρᾶι? That whole line of reasoning bothers me. According to the LSJ editors the syntax tree would show τὰ συμφορώτατα linked below δρᾶι and ἡμῖν linked below συμφορώτατα. But why parse it that way? Just because the LSJ people see a pattern of συμφορ- with datives.