RandallButh wrote:In one sense, all "circumstantial" participles are really adjectival.
If one looks at the syntactic glue they are adjectival.
If one looks at how they would have been communicated using finite verbs, then they become "circumstantial". .
In the true participle, therefore, we are to look for both the adjectival and the verbal aspects, as in the infinitive we have the substantival and the verbal. The emphasis will vary in certain instances. Now the adjectival will be more to the fore as in the attributive articular participle like ὁ καλῶν. Now the verbal side is stressed as in the circumstantial participle. But the adjectival notion never quite disappears in the one as the verbal always remains in the other (barring a few cases noted above). One must, therefore, explain in each instance both the adjectival and verbal functions of the participle else he has set forth only one side of the subject. It is true that the verbal functions are usually more complicated and interesting,6 but the adjectival must not be neglected.
The verbal and the adjectival standpoints come together. A number of the grammars apply the term “adverbial” to all the circumstantial participles. But it is more than doubtful if one gains as much as he loses thereby. It is true that logically a sort of adverbial relation may be worked out, an adverbial addition to the sentence. But it does not help much from the syntactical point of view to insist on this fact in the exposition of the circumstantial participle. As to form the circumstantial participle is still adjectival. The adverbial notion is inferential and purely logical.
RandallButh wrote:"Syntactic glue" would refer to the adjectival endings on participles that act as threads that tie a participle to the rest of the sentence. when those endings are nominative, they tie the participle to the subject of the main verb, even if the subject is not expressed explicitly outside of the verb itself. Thus a participle may be tied to the subject implied in an ending in a finite verb.
Now why describe something with new metaphors instead of standard metalanguage? Because, if standard metalanguage has led to an impass, then it is necessary to loosen things up so that a student may see how the language is supposed to be flowing.
Stephen Carlson wrote:I have to admit that I'm a little surprised to see a circumstantial (adverbial) participle between a finite verb and its infinitival complement. That's not what I would have expected, and I would love to see other examples of this. On the other hand, it would be nice to see some examples of adjectival participles with τις.
I think that, with either construal of the participle, the propositional content is pretty much the same, so it's hard to tell whether the subordinate clauses of the English translations are intended to the convey an understanding of the participle as circumstantial.
Users browsing this forum: Louis L Sorenson and 1 guest