verb valency patterns, finite & infinitive

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1141
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

verb valency patterns, finite & infinitive

Post by Stirling Bartholomew »

In another forum it has been dogmatically asserted that the valency patterns for a given verb will be identical for the finite and infinitive forms of the verb.

Does anyone have a problem with this?
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1141
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: verb valency patterns, finite & infinitive

Post by Stirling Bartholomew »

Here is a direct quote:
whether a verb is in finite form or in infinite form is immaterial to the syntax of the sentence constituents dependent on that verb
what do you say to that?
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: verb valency patterns, finite & infinitive

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Well, "subjects" of infinitives will be in the accusative instead of the nominative...
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1141
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: verb valency patterns, finite & infinitive

Post by Stirling Bartholomew »

Stephen Carlson wrote:Well, "subjects" of infinitives will be in the accusative instead of the nominative...
Yes and we also have genitive absolutes.

If we have a verb with three arguments in finite form would we be safe to assume that those three arguments would be found with the non-finite forms of the verb? It seems to me that in actual usage the patterns are some times dependent on the finite/non-finite distinction. We might start off with the assumption that a trivalent finite verb would retain that pattern for non-finite forms but discover by observation that usage doesn't support that assumption. That for a given lexeme the idioms don't display a trivalent non-finite pattern.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: verb valency patterns, finite & infinitive

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:It seems to me that in actual usage the patterns are some times dependent on the finite/non-finite distinction.
This had never occurred to me (as I had assumed that finiteness should not make a difference) and I find it fascinating. Are there actual cases of usage that support this observation?
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1141
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: verb valency patterns, finite & infinitive

Post by Stirling Bartholomew »

Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:It seems to me that in actual usage the patterns are some times dependent on the finite/non-finite distinction.
This had never occurred to me (as I had assumed that finiteness should not make a difference) and I find it fascinating. Are there actual cases of usage that support this observation?
I haven't tried to find one. Perhaps someone else has found an example. The question came up in regard to how LSJ articles handle verbs. If LSJ cites a finite verb which appears both bivalent and trivalent with a double accusative. Do we assume that the infinitive of that lexeme will take a double accusative rather than an accusative and a dative?

δράω was the verb being discussed:


{ΚΡ.} Ὅμαιμε, δεινά μ' Οἰδίπους, ὁ σὸς πόσις,
640
δρᾶσαι δικαιοῖ, δυοῖν ἀποκρίνας κακοῖν,
ἢ γῆς ἀπῶσαι πατρίδος ἢ κτεῖναι λαβών.

Lets assume incorrectly that μ' represents the dative MOI rather than ME. That was the question. It was a trivial question about whether MOI is elided. Got off track.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1141
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: verb valency patterns, finite & infinitive

Post by Stirling Bartholomew »

I have decided to look at this with the verb βαπτίζω and for my first sample I looked for βαπτίζω with ὑπό + agent. The finite βαπτίζω, participle and infinitive are all found with ὑπό + agent.

Matt. 3:13 Τότε παραγίνεται ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰορδάνην πρὸς τὸν Ἰωάννην τοῦ βαπτισθῆναι ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ.

Mark 1:5 καὶ ἐξεπορεύετο πρὸς αὐτὸν πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα καὶ οἱ Ἱεροσολυμῖται πάντες, καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ποταμῷ ἐξομολογούμενοι τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν.

Mark 1:9 Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου.

Luke 3:7 Ἔλεγεν οὖν τοῖς ἐκπορευομένοις ὄχλοις βαπτισθῆναι ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ· γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, τίς ὑπέδειξεν ὑμῖν φυγεῖν ἀπὸ τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς;

Luke 7:30 οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ οἱ νομικοὶ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἠθέτησαν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς μὴ βαπτισθέντες ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ.

βαπτίζω with ὑπό + agent finite, participle and infinitive.


now what about the river argument?

Matt. 3:6 καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ποταμῷ ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐξομολογούμενοι τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν.

Mark 1:5 καὶ ἐξεπορεύετο πρὸς αὐτὸν πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα καὶ οἱ Ἱεροσολυμῖται πάντες, καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ποταμῷ ἐξομολογούμενοι τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν.

Mark 1:9 Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου.


Here we have only finite verbs. Is this significant? I doubt it.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1141
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: verb valency patterns, finite & infinitive

Post by Stirling Bartholomew »

Now lets look at βαπτίζω with at a dative agent ἐν ὕδατι. I think this will illustrate something useful.

Matt. 3:11 Ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν, ὁ δὲ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἰσχυρότερός μού ἐστιν, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι· αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί·

Mark 1:8 ἐγὼ ἐβάπτισα ὑμᾶς ὕδατι, αὐτὸς δὲ βαπτίσει ὑμᾶς ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ.

John 1:26 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰωάννης λέγων· ἐγὼ βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι· μέσος ὑμῶν ἕστηκεν ὃν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε,

Acts 1:5 ὅτι Ἰωάννης μὲν ἐβάπτισεν ὕδατι, ὑμεῖς δὲ ἐν πνεύματι βαπτισθήσεσθε ἁγίῳ οὐ μετὰ πολλὰς ταύτας ἡμέρας.

Acts 11:16 ἐμνήσθην δὲ τοῦ ῥήματος τοῦ κυρίου ὡς ἔλεγεν· Ἰωάννης μὲν ἐβάπτισεν ὕδατι, ὑμεῖς δὲ βαπτισθήσεσθε ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ.


NOW look at this configuration:

John 1:33 κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ πέμψας με βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν· ἐφ᾿ ὃν ἂν ἴδῃς τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον καὶ μένον ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ.

Can you see that the infinitive here has a different configuration? The expression ὁ πέμψας με requires an infinitive. I suppose that one could say that the valency is the same since both the infinitive and finite verb have a subject and an agent but the pattern of the configuration certainly isn't the same. And the infinitive is required not optional for the John 1:33 configuration.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: verb valency patterns, finite & infinitive

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:I haven't tried to find one. Perhaps someone else has found an example. The question came up in regard to how LSJ articles handle verbs. If LSJ cites a finite verb which appears both bivalent and trivalent with a double accusative. Do we assume that the infinitive of that lexeme will take a double accusative rather than an accusative and a dative?
I would assume that if any form of the lexeme took a dative, LSJ (assuming it's complete...) would cite it. I'm aware of no rule that causes an object to change case based on the finiteness of the verb.
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:Lets assume incorrectly that μ' represents the dative MOI rather than ME. That was the question. It was a trivial question about whether MOI is elided. Got off track.
If μοι is read in the text, I'd try to interpret as a dative (beneficiary, ethical, etc.) before deciding it was really part of a double accusative construction.
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:now what about the river argument?
By the way, I don't really consider this an argument but an adjunct, which are somewhat more loosely connected to the predication.
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:Now lets look at βαπτίζω with at a dative agent ἐν ὕδατι. I think this will illustrate something useful.
I'd rather say the dative is an instrument (I don't like "agent" for inanimate referents)...
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:NOW look at this configuration:

John 1:33 κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ πέμψας με βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν· ἐφ᾿ ὃν ἂν ἴδῃς τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον καὶ μένον ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ.

Can you see that the infinitive here has a different configuration? The expression ὁ πέμψας με requires an infinitive. I suppose that one could say that the valency is the same since both the infinitive and finite verb have a subject and an agent but the pattern of the configuration certainly isn't the same. And the infinitive is required not optional for the John 1:33 configuration.
I don't understand what you mean by "configuration"! Word order? (same) Case assignment? (same except for the subject, but we knew that). Please help me.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1141
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: verb valency patterns, finite & infinitive

Post by Stirling Bartholomew »

Stephen Carlson wrote: I don't understand what you mean by "configuration"! Word order? (same) Case assignment? (same except for the subject, but we knew that). Please help me.
I don't either which is part of the problem. 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.


btw: the dative is instrumental, it was late in the day.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”