INFINITIVE
CLAUSE SYNTAX IN THE GOSPELS
by
Edgar
J. Lovelady
Submitted in partial
fulfillment of requirements
for the degree of
Master of Theology in
Grace
Theological Seminary
May 1976
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accepted by the Faculty of Grace
Theological Seminary
in partial fulfillment of
requirements for the degree
Master
of Theology
Examining
Committee
James
L. Boyer
Homer
A. Kent Jr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is not always the case that one can complete his
advanced
theological degree with thesis
advisors who were the student's first
teachers of Greek 18 years
previously. It is also not always the case
that one is allowed the freedom
to go out on a theoretical limb to pur-
sue a project which is somewhat
a departure from traditional topics in
theology. Happily, both of
these exceptions blended effectively in the
advising and production of this
study.
The natural modesty of both of my advisors, Dr. James
Boyer and
Dr. Homer A. Kent, Jr.,
prevents me from heaping upon them the praise
for their scholarship and
counsel that is their due. But I should like
them and the readers of this
thesis to know just how deeply I appreciate
their contributions to my work.
Just about all of the Greek I now know and recently have
had the
joy of teaching, is
attributable to the efforts of these men of God. I
have profited from their
insights in courses in grammar, exegesis,
tual criticism, extra-Biblical
Koine, and classical Greek. Indeed, many
of the essential concepts in
this work have been either shaped or tem-
pered by their knowledge, and a
part of their earthly satisfaction should
be to see their own work
extended through their students. However, they
may not wish to be held
responsible for the linguistic novelties which
govern the methodological
purview of the study, and the consequences, for
better or worse, are
attributable to the author.
iv
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I have learned any one thing
from this project, it is the
truth of the following axiom
from the pen of Dr. A. M. Fairbairn, and
congenially embodied in my two
advisors: "No man can be a theologian
who is not a philologian. He
who is no grammarian is no divine."
v
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
LIST OF TAGMEMIC SYMBOLS viii
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 The Problem
1.2 Previous Research
II. TAGMEMIC THEORY 16
2.1 The Tagmemic Theoretical Model
2.2 The Corpus
2.3 Procedures of Analysis
III. INFINITIVE CLAUSE
CONSTITUENTS 42
3.1 Identification of Clauses
3.2 Primary Clause Tagmemes
3.3 Secondary Clause Tagmemes
3.4 The Infinitive Clause Marker Tagmeme
IV. TYPES OF INFINITIVE CLAUSES
86
4.1 Infinitive Clause Typology
4.2 Active Infinitive Clauses
4.2.1 Intransitive
4.2.2 Transitive
4.2.3
Transicomplement
4.2.4 Middle
4.2.5 Ditransitive
4.2.6 Equational
4.3 Passive Infinitive Clauses
4.3.1 Transitive
4.3.2 Transicomplement
4.3.3 Ditransitive
4.4 Interrogative Infinitive Clauses
4.4.1 Transitive
4.4.2 Ditransitive
4.4.3 Equational
vi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page
Chapter
V. CONCLUSION 133
5.1 Problems
5.2 Suggestions for Interpretation
5.3 General Conclusions
BIBLIOGRAPHY 158
vii
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIST OF TAGMEMIC
SYMBOLS
I. Tagmemes
A. Sentence
SL Sentence
Linker
B. Clause
Ag Agent
Alt Alternative
Ax Axis
B Benefactive
C Subject
Complement
C Connector
Cir Circumstance
D Direction
F Purpose
Fmk Purpose
Marker
G Goal
H Head
I Indirect
Object
Ins Instrument
L Location
M Manner
Modmk Modifier Marker
Neg Negative
O Direct
Object
OC Objective
Complement
P Predicate
PC Predicate
Complement
Peri Position
Indicator for Peripheral Tagmemes
Q-C-R Interrogative-Complement-Relator
Qmk Question
Marker
Q-O-R Interrogative-Object-Marker
Reas Reason
Reasmk Reason Marker
Ref Reference
Rel Relationship
Resmk Result Marker
RU Retained
Object
S Subject
Sc Source
Smk Subject
Marker
T Time
Tmk Time
Marker
viii
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Phrase
Alt Alternative
C Connector
D Determiner
H Head
Pos Possessive
Rel Relator
II. Structures
A. Clause
AvC1 Adverbial
Clause
D.Q. Direct
Quotation
D-S Coordinate
Dissimilar Structure
InfCl Infinitive
Clause
0 Zero Manifestation
PtC1 Participial Clause
B. Phrase
Ajad Adversative Adjective Phrase
Nalt Alternative Adjective Phrase
Aj(cx) Adjective
Phrase (optionally complex)
Artneg Negative
Article Phrase
Avco Coordinate Adverb
Phrase
dispn Distributive Pronoun Phrase
D-Sco Coordinate Dissimilar Structure
IA Item-Appositive Phrase
N Noun Phrase
Nad Adversative Noun Phrase
Nco Coordinate Noun Phrase
Ncomp Comparative Noun Phrase
Ncx Complex Noun
Phrase
NP Proper Noun Phrase
Npt Participial Nominal Phrase
Numen Enumerative Numeral Phrase
0 Zero Manifestation
RA Relator-Axis Phrase
RAalt Alternative Relator-Axis Phrase
RAco Coordinate Relator-Axis Phrase
RAcx Complex Relator-Axis Phrase
Voc Vocative Phrase
C. Word
aj adjective
ajcomp comparative
adjective
alt alternator
art article
ix
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
av adverb
c connector
dem demonstrative
pronoun
dvinf(p) ditransitive
infinitive (optionally passive)
eqvinf equational
infinitive
indfpn indefinite
pronoun
indfneg negative
indefinite pronoun
intpn interrogative
pronoun
ivinf intransitive
infinitive
n common
noun
neg negative
(1:131)
np proper
noun
num numeral
numord ordinal
numeral
0 zero manifestation
pos personal
pronoun in genitive case
ptc particle
(2n)
rcp reciprocal
pronoun
refl reflexive
pronoun
rel relator
relpn relative
pronoun
tcpinf passive
transicomplement infinitive
tvinf(p) transitive
infinitive (optionally passive)
v-emo emotive
verb
v-erg ergative
verb
v-freq frequentative
verb
v-im imminent
verb
v-inc inceptive
verb
v-mid middle
verb
v-nec necessitative
verb
v-s verb-seems
III. Clause Types
InfdCl Ditransitive
Infinitive Clause
InfdpCl Passive
Ditransitive Infinitive Clause
InfeC1 Equational
Infinitive Clause
Infe-iCl Inceptive
Equational Infinitive Clause
Infe-sC1 Stative
Equational Infinitive Clause
InfiC1 Intransitive
Infinitive Clause
InfmC1 Middle
Infinitive Clause
InftC1 Transitive
Infinitive Clause
Inft/cC1 Transicomplement
Infinitive Clause'
Inft/cpCl Passive
Transicomplement Infinitive Clause
InftpCl Passive
Transitive Clause
whQ-InfdC1 wh-Question
Ditransitive infinitive Clause
yhp-InfeqC1 wh-Question
Equational Clause
x
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
whQ-InftC1 wh-Question
Transitive Clause
IV. Transformations
T-rel Relative Clause Transformation (with
Direct Ob-
ject)
T-rel-IO Indirect Object Relative Clause Transformation
T-wh-Qd wh-Question Ditransitive Clause Transformation
T-wh-Qe wh-Question Equational Clause Transformation
T-wh-Qt wh-Question
Transitive Clause Transformation
xi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In spite of the extensive and precise scrutiny given to
the
study of the ancient Greek
language in general and New Testament Greek
in particular, there is still
sufficient room left to challenge the in-
vestigator today.
Recently-developed theories of language analysis have
made feasible the study of
languages from fresh vantage points, thus
adding to the well-established
body of linguistic knowledge currently
available. The process has been
both cyclical and spiral, for as we have
come to know more about
specific languages, the development of linguistic
theory has been advanced, and
in turn the advancement of theoretical
linguistics has expanded and
deepened our command of the languages.
It is the purpose of this study to present the results of
a
syntactic analysis of selected
infinitive clauses furnished by the con-
temporary linguistic method
known as tagmemics, presented in a subsequent
part of this study. In so
doing, it is hoped that this presentation can
serve both as a reference tool
for infinitive clauses in New Testament
Greek, and as a model for the
systematic analysis of other syntactic
constructions to be explored by
researchers to follow. While this study
is data-based and analysis--oriented,
conclusions involving the language
of the New Testament are drawn
wherever they are warranted for their
use in translation and
interpretation. This study, then, is
tially a grammar of the
infinitive clause in the New Testament Gospels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
1.1 The
Problem
The primary contribution of this study is grammatical
rather
than exegetical, and this
purpose is based on the premise that the more
we know about the language
itself, the more accurate and reliable can be
our interpretation of its
literature. The central and basic question
resolves to this: Is there such
a thing as positional syntax in Koine
Greek for clauses? It is safe
to say that Greek scholars for over a
century have generally felt that
inflectional criteria have determined
clausal syntactic
relationships, and that word order (with some excep-
tions1) was of
marginal consequence. Indeed, most Greek grammars devote
the bulk of their coverage to
inflectional syntax. For example, in
Blass and Debrunner's classic
work, A Greek Grammar of the New
Testament,
225 pages are given to a
discussion of inflectional syntax, while only
about 15 pages treat the
significance of word order.2
The studies undertaken by students of Greek are soundly
based on
observation collected from a
wide range of sources, both Biblical and
extra-Biblical. Such
constructions as the articular infinitive, genitive
l Such studies as that by
E. C. Colwell, "A Definite Rule for the
Use
of the Article in the Greek New Testament," reprint from Journal of
Biblical Literature, LII (1933), p. 9,
demonstrate the contribution that
word
order studies can make to Koine Greek grammar. In an extensive
survey
of predicate nouns with and without the article occurring both
before
and after the verb he finds that out of 112 definite predicates
used
before the verb, only 15 are used with the article (13%), while 97
are
used without the article (87%). From this and other evidence he
concludes
that word order and not definiteness is the variable quantum
in
predcate nominative constructions.
2 F. Blass and A.
Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New
Testament
and Other Early
Christian Literature,
rev. Robert W. Funk (
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
absolute, ingressive aorist
(and many more) have been presented in
grammatical compendia primarily
as resource tools for those who are
either learning the language,
translating texts, or exegeting passages.
With such impressive and useful
work available, the time has arrived to
consider positional syntax in
Greek from the point of view of conceptual
linguistic competence and
performance. One may now legitimately query
whether the choice of word
order was completely or partially random in
view of the extensive inflectional
system, or were there actually domi-
nant and favorite syntactic
patterns employed by native Greek speakers?
Did speakers of Greek draw from
the obviously finite number of orders
for clausal units to correlate
with the inflectional signals, or even
more, to convey singular
distinctions of meaning on their own? And
what circumstances, if any,
trigger the differences in the use of word
order patterns? While one may
agree with Blass and Debrunner that word
order is far freer in Greek
than in modern English,3 we may also concur
that "there are,
nevertheless, certain tendencies and habits (in the N.T.
especially in narrative) which
have created something like a normal word
order.”4
A problem more immediate but still intimately related to
the
central question is whether the
infinitive with its adjuncts can be
recognized as a clause, or
whether it is to be confined to phrasal sta-
tus. The standard grammars of
the past century have not generally
accorded this construction
clausal status (perhaps by default of
3 Ibid., p. 248.
4 Ibid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
discussion), and the noted
grammarian A. T. Robertson took pains to ar-
gue its phrasal status. Only
quite recently has the possibility been
advanced that it is possible to
recognize infinitive and participial
clauses in their own right.
Here, then, is a significant question to be
dealt with in this study.
The solution of the two aforementioned questions is
contingent
upon the answers provided by
two lesser, but more immediate problems.
First, the clausal units of
meaning, if indeed there are such, must be
ascertained and stipulated. In
this study units of meaning in clausal
or phrasal strings are called tagmemes. Tagmemes emerge with the
ident-
ification of such elements as
subject, predicate (verbal construct only),
direct object, indirect object,
complement, and any other functional
units which may contribute to
the total meaning of the clause. Such
units are laid out in Chapter
Three.
Second, the various orders of these units in a clausal
string
must be charted. Once this has
been done, a clause typology analysis
can be constructed in matrix
form in order to display graphically the
different kinds of clauses in
the material studied. The results of this
phase of the investigation are
reported in Chapter Four. Prior to these
chapters, Chapter Two presents
the theory of tagmemics and the proce-
dures of analysis employed in
this study. Chapter Five affords the
opportunity to draw conclusions
and discuss peculiarities and problems
encountered which have a
bearing on translation.
One example of potential ambiguity which requires a study
of
word order beyond inflectional
considerations appears in Philippians 1:7:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
dia>
to> e@xein me e]n t^? kardi<% u[ma?j, "because I have you in
(my) heart."
Since both me and u[ma?j are in
the accusative case, only the context or
a general positional usage
based on other instances could tell which is
the subject and which is the
object of the infinitive clause. Such
problems as this are handled
within the purview of Chapter Five.
At this point it may be appropriate to anticipate the
findings
and the conclusion spelled out
in detail later in this study by briefly
explaining why the term
infinitive clause is employed rather than
infinitive phrase. Infinitives
with their associated word groups re-
flect clausal features in a
number of languages when they possess such
functional units as subject,
predicate, object, and so on, rather than
phrasal features, which
typically consist of main word "heads" with
associated modifiers. Thus the
meaningful units of clauses have a dif-
ferent kind of status and
reflect a higher degree of autonomous signifi-
cance than do the units of
phrases. It is now reasonably established
that the difference between
phrases and clauses is one of "levels" of
the grammatical hierarchy on
which they are functioning. Such levels
are discussed in Chapter Two,
and the existence of such levels is recog-
nized throughout this study.
1.2 Previous
Research
Alexander Buttmann, in A Grammar of the New Testament Greek
(1880),5 does not
discuss the origin or nature of the infinitive.
Rather, he devotes considerable
coverage to the use of the infinitive as
5 Alexander Buttmann, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek
(Ando-
ver,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
complement, subject, object,
and verbal or adjectival adjunct. While he
also deals with the infinitive
as imperative and the use of articles and
prepositions, his most
interesting discussion is his treatment of the
kai>
e]ge<neto or e]ge<neto de>
constructions with temporal infinitive con-
structions as narrative markers
based on the Hebrew expression yhiy;va
transmitted by means of the
Septuagint.
Samuel Green's Grammar
of 1880 treats infinitives as "verbal
substantives expressing the
abstract notion of the verb."6 He identi-
fies the infinitive as another
mood of the verb in its own right:
Like the verb in other moods, it
admits the modifications of tense
and voice. It may have a subject, or
may govern an object, near or
remote; and it is qualified by
adverbs. Like a substantive, it may
be the subject or object of a verb;
it is often defined by the
article, and is employed in the different cases.7
Green apparently gives embryonic recognition to the
infinitive
as a potential clausal entity,
while he still recognizes its nominal
properties. For Green, an
infinitive can function as subject or object
of another clause, always has
its own subject in the accusative case,
and also functions as verbal
adjunct for intention or result. He notes
the imperatival use of the
infinitive in Philippians 3:16.
William Goodwin's Syntax
of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek
Verb (1889),8 is
based on classical texts. Like so many other grammars,
he focuses on the infinitive
itself as opposed to infinitival
6 Samuel Green, Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek
Testament
(New
York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1880), p. 324.
7 Ibid.
8 William Goodwin, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek
Verb
(London: The Macmillan Co., 1889), pp. 297-328.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
constructions. His definition
of the infinitive is almost identical
with Green's.9 Most
of his space is devoted to a listing of infinitive
uses with numerous citations
for support. His next volume, A Greek
Grammar
(1894),10 covers the complete field of classical Greek grammar,
but condenses the section on
infinitives from his previous work with the
same essential content.
The definitive study of Koine Greek infinitives based on
schol-
arly traditional grammar is
found in Clyde W. Votaw's "The Use of the
Infinitive in Biblical
Greek" (1896).11 This doctoral thesis at the
of all the infinitives in the
Septuagint and in the New Testament, which
in itself is a Herculean task.
While he did not explore infinitive
clauses as such, he made a
basic distinction between anarthrous and
articular infinitives and
catalogued their twenty-two functions (listing
frequencies) as they related to
their governing clauses.
Votaw discussed the Hebraistic influence upon the use of
the
infinitive in Biblical Greek,
and he also tabulated the frequencies of
tenses of the infinitive,
concluding that "aorists predominate over the
presents in the apoc. and N.T.
in the ratio of 4 to 3, but in the O.T.
in the ratio of 2 to 1.”12
This difference he attributes to the
9 Ibid., p. 297.
10 William Goodwin, A Greek Grammar (
11
(unpublished
Doctor's dissertation,
12 Ibid.,
p. 59.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8
influence of the Hebrew
original. Votaw's most pointed reference to
infinitive clause order appears
in the following statement:
When the subject of the infinitive is expressed it is
always in the
accusative case. The position of the subject in the
clause regular-
ly is immediately before, or less frequently after, the
infinitive.
The object of the infinitive follows the infinitive, and
follows
also the subject if that stands
after the infinitive.13
In subsequent discussion this study shows that Votaw's
first
sentence requires
amplification, for it is possible for the logical
subject of the infinitive to be
in the dative case when the word in
question is involved in a
co-function as the indirect object of a main
clause or when used as a dative
of reference. And the rest of the
quotation also requires further
development, which, indeed, is the
task of the present study.
Nevertheless, Votaw's work remains the
pioneer study which many other
pedagogical materials have drawn upon
with profit.
James H. Moulton, author of A Grammar of New Testament Greek
(1906),14 discusses
in his Prolegomena (Vol. I) the
infinitive from an
historical perspective. In Volume III, Syntax (1963),15 for which Nigel
Turner is responsible, the
infinitive is treated in several useful ways:
(1) as possessing dative
function, such as purpose, result, and for
absolute constructions; (2)
with various clausal usages normal to an
independent clause, first
without article, as direct object, as subject,
as an adverbial without
specific function, and next with article, and
13 Ibid., p. 58.
14 James H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 3
vols.
(3rd
ed.;
15 Moulton, op. cit., ed. Nigel Turner, Vol. III.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9
with or without a preposition
to perform the function of a subordinate
clause; and (3) as reflecting
general classical usage in respect to
cases, with some exceptions.
Against the classical rule that the sub-
ject of a dependent infinitive
is not expressed again if it is the
same as the subject of the
independent verb, Turner notes that
Quite often in the Koine and NT, although the governing
verb and the
infin. have the same subject, the latter will be in the
accus. This
is distinct from class. Greek, which has either the
nominative or no
noun at all with the infin.16
Turner points out further departures of New Testament
infinitive
usage from classical Greek, such
as the placement of the infinitive
alone, whereas in classical
Greek the full accusative with infinitive
construction would be used; and
also that the accusative with the infin-
itive is more restricted in New
Testament Greek because the o!ti, peri-
phrasis had become influential
generally in later Greek.17
Herbert W. Smyth's Greek
Grammar (1920; rev. 1956),18 devotes
almost twenty pages to the
infinitive in one of the most complete treat-
ments in a general grammar.
While most of his discussion focuses on the
immediate uses of single
infinitives, Smyth comes close to a recognition
of the clausal propensities of
infinitives with their adjuncts:
b. [the infinitive] can have a subject before it and a
predicate
after it, and it can have an object in the genitive, or
accusative
like the corresponding finite verb . . . the object of an
infinitive
never stands in the objective
genitive . . . . c. It is modified by
16 Ibid., p. 147.
17 Ibid., p. 148.
18 Herbert W. Smyth, Greek Grammar, rev. Gordon Messing (
bridge,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10
adverbs, not by adjectives . . e. It forms lauses of result
with w[ste,
and temporal clauses with pri<n, etc.19
Based as it is on classical texts, Smyth's work covers
forms and
uses of infinitives not found
in the New Testament, but he covers judi-
ciously and in detail the use
of infinitives as subject, predicate,
appositive, and object, as well
as the relationship of infinitives to
adjectives, adverbs, and
substantives in a manner essentially compatible
with the findings of the
present study, though differing in specific
method of analysis.
A. T. Robertson in his A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in
the
Light of Historical Research (1934),20 provides
an extensive survey
of the origin and development
of the infinitive from pre-historic times
even in comparison with
Sanskrit. He strongly asserts that the infini-
tive is substantival in nature,
and hence he declines to divide the
infinitive into anarthrous and
articular uses. To him, these are only
two aspects of the substantive
quality of the infinitive, and he chooses
rather to divide the infinitive
into substantival and verbal aspects.
Robertson makes much of his
theory that the infinitive, as a substantive,
is always in a case
relationship to its governing clause:
(a) Case (Subject or Object Infinitive). Here I mean the
cases of
the inf. itself, not the cases used with it. The inf. is
always in
a case. As a substantive this is obvious. We have to
dismiss, for
the most part, all notion of the ending (dative or
locative) and
treat it as an indeclinable
substantive.21
19 Ibid., p. 438.
20 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the
Light of Historical
Research (Nashville,
Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1934),
pp.
1051-1095.
21 Ibid.,
p. 1058.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11
Robertson offers further support for his position by
noting that
infinitives are used after
prepositions and in connection with other
substantives, adjectives, and
verbs as complements and appositives, just
as are other nominals.
Robertson's separate treatment of the verbal
aspects of the infinitive
includes the discussion of voice, tense, cases,
indirect discourse, personal
constructions, and a range of uses from
epexegetical to purpose,
result, cause, time, and infinitive absolutes.
Another distinctive assertion of Robertson is that
because the
infinitive is not finite, it
can not, as with the participle, have a
subject.22 He says,
[the infinitive] stands, indeed, in the place of a finite
verb of
the direct statement, but does not thereby become finite
with a
subject. From the syntactical standpoint the construction
is true
to both the substantival and verbal
aspects of the inf.23
Thus for Robertson the infinitive is a verbalized
substantive.
Instead of recognizing the
subject of an infinitive in the accusative,
he says, "the true nature
of the acc. with the inf. [is] merely that of
general reference."24
Apparently, then, his theory of grammar was so
heavily case-oriented that it
prevented him from dealing with infini-
tives and their adjuncts as
clause constructions, and he was thus forced
to regard infinitive word
groups as phrases. The evidence later adduced
in this study indicates that
Robertson was not entirely correct, and
that infinitive collocations
are indeed clausal in nature.
22 Ibid., p. 1082.
23 Ibid., P. 1083.
24 Ibid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12
Dana and Mantey's A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
(1947),25 has the
advantage of being the most readable and most clearly
presented discussion of the
infinitive. While these authors follow
Robertson in their basic
position, they make a considerable advance upon
his erratic prose. On the
origin of the infinitive, they point out that
It may be that its assumption of verbal characteristics
and func-
tions caused the Greek infinitive to lose its substantive
inflec-
tion. But this obscuration of its formal significance had
no
effect upon its essential noun force.26
Thus the infinitive retains its noun force particularly
when
used with the article. Dana and
Mantey cite Basil L. Gildersleeve's
concise summation of the
historical development of the infinitive:
"By the substantival loss
of its dative force the infinitive became
verbalized; by the assumption
of the article it was substantivized
again with a decided increment
of its power."27 The authors go on to
demonstrate the significance of
the article as used with the infinitive:
[it] has no fixed effect upon its varieties' in use. That
is, a
particular use may occur with or without the article at
the option
of the writer, in accordance with his desire to make the
expression
specific or general.28
Elsewhere Dana and Mantey explain further how the use or
non-use
of the article determines
whether the infinitive is specific or general:
The genius of the article is nowhere more clearly
revealed than in
its use with infinitives, adverbs,
phrases, clauses, or even whole
25 H. E. Dana and Julius
R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek
New Testament (New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1947), pp. 208-220.
26 Ibid., p. 210.
27 Ibid., p. 211.
28 Ibid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13
sentences (cf. Gal. 5:14) . . . . There is no English
idiom even
remotely akin to this, for in English we never use an
article with
anything other than a substantive, and then to mark
definiteness.
When we begin to find the article used with phrases,
clauses, and
entire sentences, we are, so to speak, "swamped in
Greek." The use
of the article with the phrase, clause, or sentence
specifies in a
particular way the fact expressed: marks it out as a
single iden-
tity. So in Mt. 13:4, kai> e]n t&? spei<ran au]to<n, and as he sowed,
points to the fact of that particular sowing, while in
Mt. 12:10,
toi?j
sa<bbasin qerapeu<ein, to heal on the Sabbath,
emphasizes the
character of the deed (a Sabbath healing) . . . . The
articular
infinitive singles out the act as a particular occurrence
while
the anarthrous infinitive employs
the act as descriptive.29
Dana and Mantey conclude their discussion by
distinguishing the
verbal uses of the infinitive
(purpose, result, time, cause, and com-
mand) from the substantival
uses (subject, object, indirect object,
instrument, apposition, and
modifier of a noun or adjective).
A Greek Grammar of
the New Testament (1913), by F. Blass and A.
Debrunner, translated by Robert
W. Funk (1961),30 covers most thoroughly
the uses of the infinitive in
the New Testament. One of their best
sections (No. 392) deals
extensively with the infinitive as complement
with the main clause usage of
certain verbs like qe<lw,
bou<lomai, e]pi-
qume<w,
zhte<w, fobe<w, du<namai, i]sxu<w, and dokima<zw, rather than dealing
with such constructions as
objects. They also discuss articular infini-
tives, as well as prepositions
and cases with infinitives.
Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, both a linguist and a New
Testament
scholar, has written a helpful
textbook for students of Greek in his
Language
of the New Testament (1965), in which he discusses the forms
29 Ibid., pp. 137-138.
30 F. Blass and A.
Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New
Testa-
ment and Other Early
Christian Literature,
trans. Robert W. Funk (Chica-
go: The University of Chicago
Press, 1961), pp. 191-202.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14
and uses of the infinitive.31
Goetchius anticipates one of the findings
independently arrived at in the
present study:
Like the English infinitive, the Greek anarthrous
infinitive may
serve to complete the meaning of certain verbs which
seldom or
never occur without such an infinitive complement; such
infinitives
are, accordingly, called complementary infinitives. The
most impor-
tant verbs which govern complementary infinitives are du<namai, qe<lw,
bou<lomai,
me<llw, and a]rei<lw.32
Goetchius distinguishes between the former construction
and
anarthrous infinitives which
also occur as objects of verbs which ordi-
narily govern substantive
objects, such as zhte<w and keleu<w.33 In addi-
tion to the usual observations
on the infinitive, he regards anarthrous
infinitives as subject of
impersonal verbs such as dei?, e@cestin, and
also ei]mi<.34
The most recent text to be surveyed is the inductivist
effort of
William Sanford LaSor, entitled
Handbook of New Testament Greek
(1973).35 The second
of the two volumes is a grammar which is apparent-
ly conditioned by structuralist
linguistic methodology. LaSor gives
unrestrained recognition to the
concept of an infinitive with its ad-
junct elements as a clause:
The infinitive, in turn, since it is verbal, may have its
own sub-
ject, object, or other modifiers. In
such case the infinitive
31 Eugene Van Ness
Goetchius, The Language of the New
Testament
(New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965), pp. 191-202.
32 Ibid., p. 195.
33 Ibid., p. 197.
34 Ibid., p. 199.
35 William
(
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15
clause serves as a noun clause defining the subject of
the verb.
ou]k
h#n dunato>n kratei?sqai au]to>n u[p ] au]tou? 'It was not possible for
him to be held by it.' (lit., 'him to be held by it was
not possi-
ble') (Ac. 2:24).36
Furthermore, LaSor states as the purpose of Lesson 45 of
his
first volume, "To study
infinitive clauses."37
LaSor agrees with Goetchius in his treatment of the
complemen-
tary infinitive when he says,
"Verbs of wishing, commanding, advising,
permitting, beginning,
attempting, and the like usually require another
verb to complete the
meaning."38 When infinitives function in a tem-
poral capacity, or are used to
indicate purpose or result, they are re-
garded by LaSor as verb
modifiers.39 When the infinitive is used after
w!ste or w[j to show result, the construction is comparable
to a subordi-
nate clause, according to
LaSor.40
Several conclusions may be drawn from this review of research.
First, studies in Greek tend to
reflect an increasing influence of lin-
guistic procedures which
currently exist as a roundabout continuation of
the older (and often more
compartmentalized) discipline of philology.
Linguistics was first developed
as a language science 75-100 years ago,
partially as a reaction to the
established study of the literate lan-
guages by focusing on
undescribed languages, and this required some sig-
nificant alterations in
methodology. In turn, a greater development in
36 Ibid., p. 163.
37 Ibid., Vol. I, pp. A-148-A-152.
38 Ibid., p. 168.
39 Ibid., pp. 178-179.
40 Ibid.,
p. 179.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16
language theory was demanded in
the search to discover language univer-
sals (that is, whatever
features different languages have in common,
whether these features are
surface-level or deep-structure phenomena).
Now a number of different
linguistic theories can be brought to bear on
specific languages to help
advance the state of knowledge.
Second, most discussion has converged on the historical
proper-
ties of the infinitive, its
nature, and its uses. The function of the
infinitive in relation to the
main clause of which it is a part has pre-
occupied investigators,
presumably because their interest lay in produc-
ing either pedagogical or
reference grammars to assist students and
translators whose goal was
predominantly exegetical or literary.
Third, very little attention has been given to the
infinitive as
the nucleus of a construction
which can legitimately be characterized as
clausal--a special type of
clause, to be sure, but nonetheless clausal.
Although grammarians like Smyth
and LaSor have given tacit recognition
to such a thing as an
infinitive clause, no real study has been made of
the components of the
infinitive clause. And since a grammarian of the
stature of A. T. Robertson has
taken an emphatic stand that the infini-
tive collocation is only
phrasal, the question obviously deserves to be
settled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER
II
TAGMEMIC THEORY
2.1 The
Tagmemic Theoretical Model
Tagmemic grammar is an outgrowth of, and an elaboration
upon,
the descriptivist-structuralist
method of linguistic analysis developed
by such investigators as
Leonard Bloomfield and C. C. Fries. It has
also been capable of
assimilating features and procedures germane to
other systems of analysis, such
as generative capacity and transforma-
tions, and has as well been
distinguished by a number of original con-
tributions to the study of
behavior and language in its own right.
Kenneth L. Pike and Robert E. Longacre have been the
major
theorists of the tagmemic
system, but others like Benjamin Elson, Velma
Pickett, and Walter A. Cook
have also contributed in significant measure
to the expansion and
presentation of the theory. All present tagmemic
analysis weighs heavily on
Pike's Language in Relation to a Unified
Theory
of the Structure of Human Behavior,1 but the more immediate
theoretical and procedural
sources for this study are Elson and
Pickett's An Introduction to Morphology and Syntax,2 Longacre's Grammar
1 Kenneth L. Pike, Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of
the Structure of Human
Behavior
(2d ed.;
1971).
2 Benjamin Elson and
Velma Pickett, An Introduction to
Morphology
and
Syntax (Santa Ana, Cal.: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1969).
17
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18
Discovery
Procedures,3 and Cook's
Introduction to Tagmemic Analysis.4
Basic to the system is the concept of the tagmeme, which
term is
ultimately derived from the
Greek word ta<gma, which
means "an order, a
rank, an arrangement," or
even "a position." Grammatical description is
not really complete when
expressed in terms of function alone, such as
subject + predicate + object,
nor is it sufficient to use form alone, in
the manner noun + verb + noun.
Rather, both function and form must be
seen to correlate at given
points in a string of functional parts in a
language. These points in a
grammatical string may be considered as
functional slots which can be
filled by one or more kinds of form or
construction. In other words,
function and form coordinate in the above
instances of clause description
in the manner S:n + P:V +0:N, which
reads, "subject slot
filled by a noun, predicate slot filled by a verb
phrase, and object slot filled
by a noun phrase." The lower case n
indicates a word form, and the
capitals V and N refer to phrasal con-
structs.
When a tagmemicist approaches the analysis of a language
for the
first time, he looks for
apparent sets of correlations as illustrated
above. If he is working with
clauses, he may note that there are words
or constructions which
represent various functional properties like sub-
ject, predicate, object,
indirect object, complement, agent, manner,
time, location, and so on. He
then postulates a correlation between
3 Robert E. Longacre, Grammar Discovery Procedures (
Mouton
& 1964).
4 Walter A. Cook, Introduction to Tagmemic Analysis (
Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inc., 1969).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19
this functional
"slot" and the formal entity which manifests the func-
tional slot, and he labels it a
tagma, which is the word for a tenta-
tive identification of
grammatical slot/formal filler correlation. This
identification, it must be
remembered, is made without necessary refer-
ence to the indigenous
grammatical system of the language concerned.
However, the analysis is not
complete until reference is made to the
system of the language, but
this occurs at a subsequent stage in analy-
sis.
Proceeding in this manner it is possible to construct a
grammar
by moving from the unknown to
the known as hypotheses are made and
checked with a native informant
or with whatever knowledge is already
available, in the case of
ancient languages. Thus the analysis does not
rely on isolated, ad hoc
observations, but neither is it confined to a
repetition of already-existing
grammatical statements.
When a corpus reveals an overall pattern of tagmas with
consis-
tency, it is possible to posit
tagmemes for such occurrences, or stan-
dardized emic (that is, language-systemic) slot-filler
correlations
whereby utterances are
constructed by native speakers of the language.
In other words, tagmas are
identified by the making of immediate, inde-
pendent, absolute judgments,
however tentative (in linguistic parlance
these are etic statements).
When the systematic patterns or usages of
the language confirm these
tagmatic judgments, the units in question are
advanced to the status of
tagmemes, or established typological function-
form correlations of the
langauge. Tagmas are individual, tentative,
somewhat unrelated language
entities arrived at by initial exploration
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20
in a language. Tagmemes are
language-typological and language perva-
sive.
Thus the functional slot provides the grammatical
relation, and
the filler class specifies the
pertinent grammatical categories, but
both must exist in a dynamic
correlation. This correlative concept of
tagma-tagmeme with slots and
fillers can also be seen as analogous to
the earlier purely formalistic
relationships of phone-allophone-phoneme
and morph-allomorph-morpheme in
phonological and morphological theory.
Pike's definition of a tagmeme is as follows: "A
verbal motif-
emic-slot-class correlative is
a TAGMEME; and a verbal etic motif-slot-
class correlative is a
TAGMA."5 While Pike's definition may appear at
first to be too esoteric, it is
nonetheless the most accurate concise
one available. However, Elson
and Pickett's definition provides a more
lucid explanation for the
moment:
The
tagmeme, as a grammatical unit, is the correlation of a grammat-
ical function or slot with a class
of mutually substitutable items
occurring in that slot. This slot-class
correlation has a distri-
bution within the grammatical
hierarchy of a language. The term
slot refers to the grammatical function of the tagmeme.
The terms
'subject,’ ‘object,’ ‘predicate,’ ‘modifier,’ and the
like indicate
such grammatical functions . . . . Slot refers primarily to gram-
matical function and only secondarily to linear position
. . . .
The term class refers to the list of mutually
substitutable mor-
phemes and morpheme sequences which may fill a slot . . .
. The term
'grammatical hierarchy' refers to the fact that a
sequence of mor-
phemes (analyzable in terms of strings of tagmemes) may
themselves
manifest a single tagmeme. This fact is one of the
notions impor-
tant to the way in which grammar is structured in terms of
levels.
The tagmemes analyzed at each significant level
constitutes [sic]
the grammatical hierarchy of a language.6
5 Pike, p. 195.
6 Elson and Pickett, pp. 57-58.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21
The last part of this quotation refers to another
important con-
cept provided by tagmemic
grammar, which is the distinction of levels in
a grammatical hierarchy.
According to Walter A. Cook,
In
tagmemics, the unit is the tagmeme, a correlation of function and
form; the construction is a potential string of tagmeme
units, the
syntagmeme; and the system is the gramatical hierarchy,
arranged in
a series of systematic levels. By geometric analogy, the
tagmeme is
a point, the construction a line made up of points, and
the gram-
matical hierarchy lines arranged
from higher to lower.7
The various levels can thus be described as if they were
in rel-
ative positions in
space--higher or lower in relationship to one another.
The actual levels in the
analysis of languages are (from higher to lower)
the discourse, paragraph,
sentence, clause, phrase, word, and morpheme
levels. Constructions (that is,
multi-morpheme, multi-word, multi-
phrase, Multi-clause, and so
on) occur at the first six levels listed,
and the seventh, or morpheme
level, is an ultimate point of reference
for meaning at one or more of
the other levels; whereas the other levels
are capable of being broken
down into tagmemic constructions, the mor-
phemic level does not yield
itself to further segmental analysis be-
cause morphemes are the
ultimate constituents carrying independent se-
mantic content. Morphemes are
traditionally referred to as inflections,
derivational prefixes and
suffixes, and word stems. Because this is as
far as analysis of independent
referential units of meaning can be
carried, the phonological
system of a language must be treated in its
own right as a separate
psycholinguistic component or related to the
other levels by means of
morphophonemics.
7 Cook, p. 27.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22
At the discourse level discourses are analyzed in terms
of their
tagmemic slots and
constructions which manifest them. For example, a
narrative discourse may have
such tagmemes as title, aperture, one or
more episodes, conclusion, and
closure, each manifested by such struc-
tures as paragraphs or
sentences.8 At the paragraph level paragraphs
have their own tagmemic slots
and exponents for them. The narrative
paragraph, for example, may
have such ordered slots as setting, one or
more "build-up" slots
by means of which the content of the paragraph is
developed, and a terminus slot.
Each of these may be manifested by sen-
tences.9 This
description is by no means inclusive, for a variety of
discourse and paragraph
tagmemes can be found in many languages. The
same can be said for the other
levels to be considered here. In real-
ity, each language determines
its own tagmemes at each level.
At the sentence level such sentence types as simple,
coordinate,
antithetical, sequential, and
concatenated sentences are analyzed in
terms of their tagmemic
constituents. For the simple sentence, which is
typically the basic systemic
form, such a nuclear tagmemic slot as the
sentence base may be filled by
transitive, intransitive, ditransitive,
8 For further explication
and examples of these discourse tag-
memes
as they appear in Old English, see Edgar J. Lovelady, "A Tagmemic
Analysis
of AElfric's Life of St. Oswald"
(unpublished Doctor's disser-
tation,
acre,
Discourse, Paragraph, and Sentence
Structure in Selected Philip-
pine Languages, 3 vols. (
tics,
1968); and Longacre's Hierarchy and
Universality of Discourse Con-
stituents in
9 Further discussion of
paragraph types is found in Lovelady, pp.
263-277.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23
or equational clauses.
Peripheral sentence slots, such as margins which
may precede or follow the
sentence base, may be manifested by other
structures, such as the clause
in some languages, or a relator-axis
(i.e., subordinated) sentence.10
At the clause level tagmemes such as subject, predicate,
object,
complement, manner, location,
and agent, emerge. At the phrase level
word groups are broken down
into (1) exocentric, non-centered, relator-
axis structures;11
(2) endocentric, multiple-head, coordinate or item-
appositive phrases;12
and (3) endocentric, modifier-head structures
represented by noun phrases,
verb phrases, adjective phrases, and some-
times, adverb phrases. The word
level provides for analysis of words on
the basis of (1) ability to
take inflections (nouns, verbs, adjectives,
and so on); (2) derivational
formation (as major parts of speech are
changed or remain unchanged in
their part-of-speech status by the addi-
tion of derivational affixes);
and (3) formations as compounds, either
endocentric, where the compound
is the same as one of the roots, or
exocentric, where the compound
differs from either of the roots. It is
at the morpheme level that this
kind of analysis stops, and morphemes
are rather mapped into
functional slots in grammatical constructions as
10 The theory of sentence
level tagmemes and types of sentences
is
found in Lovelady, pp. 46-115.
11 An exocentric
construction is not centered in the sense that
it
possesses no dominating head tagmeme which can stand for the whole
construction
in its functional slot.
12 An endocentric
construction has a dominating head (or heads)
which
can replace the whole construction in a functional slot. Item-
appositive
phrases have multiple heads with the same referent but are
juxtaposed
in apposition (although possibly physically separated), not
joined by a connector.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24
members of filler classes which
fill these slots.
This, then, is an overview of the basic kinds of analysis
car-
ried on in tagmemic studies.
While the present study specifically con-
centrates on the clause level
of the grammatical hierarchy, use is made
of other levels, especially the
phrase and word levels, as warranted.
One should not gain the
impression from this study that tagmemics is
only useful in studying
clauses, for the same process of determining the
dynamic correlations of
function and form is utilized on all of the
levels. Different terms are, of
course, required for work on the dif-
ferent levels.13
The flexibility and adaptibility of the tagmemic system
in des-
cribing quite different
languages is apparent partially in its method of
recognizing relationships among
the various levels of grammar. It is
typical in most languages for
morphemes to fill slots on the word level,
for words to fill slots on the
phrase level, for phrases to fill slots
on the clause level, and for
clauses to fill slots on the sentence
level. Thus constructions on a
given level are normally mapped up to
the next higher level to fill
slots on that level. But a recognition of
atypical mapping is also
allowed in this system. "Level skipping" takes
place when a construction on
one level does not map immediately into
the very next higher level, but
rather is placed in some yet higher
level slot, as when a word
fills a slot at the clause level by bypassing
13 Clause and
phrase-level analysis is discussed in Lovelady, pp.
118-250;
and in two recent unpublished monographs: "A Positional Syn-
tax
of Koine Greek," Grace Theological Seminary, August, 1974; and "A
Tagmemic
Analysis of Genesis 37," Grace Theological Seminary, August,
1975.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25
the phrase level. So when a
single noun manifests a subject slot on the
clause level instead of, say, a
noun phrase from the phrase level,
"level skipping" has
taken place.
Another phenomenon pertaining to the levels is called
"layer-
ing," which occurs when
one construction is included within another con-
struction at the same level, as
when a clause manifests a tagmemic slot
in another clause string. Yet
another phenomenon is the existence of
"loopbacks," the
embedding of higher level constructions within lower
levels, such as when a relative
clause fills the identifier slot within
a phrase in post-position
relative to the phrase head:
(1) determiner:article head:noun identifier:adjective clause
the
man who came to dinner
All of these phenomena, normal mapping from one level to
the
next, level-skipping, layering,
and loopbacks, are regarded as reflect-
ing the process of embedding.
Embedding is characteristic of all gram-
matical constructions not being
described in terms of string analysis,
where only the functional slots
in a grammatical string (such as sub-
ject, predicate, object) are
the matters of concern.
The generative capacity of a theoretical system is of
consider-
able importance in present-day
linguistics, and has been since the
introduction of
transformational-generative theory (abbreviated T-G) by
Noam Chomsky and his followers.
Tagmemic grammar does possess adequate
generative power, however, in
addition to its precision as a descriptive
technique. But tagmemic
generative power differs from T-G generative
power by its operation
throughout the several grammatical levels.
Transformational-Generative
grammar, on the other hand, revolutionized
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26
linguistics by exploring the
mentalistic processes by which human beings
generate the surface-level
structure utterances from deep-structure
components. This generative
process can be demonstrated by a simple
tree diagram:
(2)
S
|
Nuc
|
|
----------------------------------------------|
|
|
NP VP
|
|-------------------|------------------|
pn
Aux MV Manner
| tense V |
| | | |
she
past run rapidly
Here the generative process is seen as a series of
choices which
are made by employing the base
rules of a postulated mentalistic syn-
tactic component. The speaker
wishes to construct a sentence, symbol-
ized by S. An internalized rule
allows the speaker to use an optional
sentence modifier (as in "Certainly, I know the answer")
along with the
nucleus (Nuc), which in turn
consists of a noun phrase and a verb
phrase. Being disenchanted with
sentence modifiers for the moment, how-
ever, the speaker chooses only Nuc. Since the noun phrase (NP) and the
verb phrase (VP) are the
choices made for the subject and the predicate
(the speaker, for example,
could have selected a noun clause in place of
the noun phrase) from the
compositional repertoire of the nucleus, fur-
ther choices need to be made.
The noun phrase can be rewritten as (or
the selection made as) a
pronoun, and the verb phrase can involve other
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27
postulated subchoices for an
auxiliary unit which obligatorily carries
tense, a main verb unit which
in this case turns out to be intransitive,
and an optional manner unit.
When a postulated lexical component is
brought to bear for word
choices, the pronoun becomes she, the
main verb
becomes run, and manner becomes
rapidly. A further choice of tense
ren-
ders past. At this stage all of
these word choices still are only po-
tential morphemes, not
surface-level utterances, which they will become
only when a postulated
phonological component (for speech) or a graph-
ological component (for
writing) gives them "real" existence. And be-
fore this happens, a
transformational affix rule reverses the past and
run
morphemes to give an embryonic ran.
On the surface level, the sen-
tence reads, "She ran
rapidly."
Such a simplistic example merely suggests the
complexities which
abound in the generation, or
production of utterances. Exponents of T-G
do not assert that the
selectional rules referred to above along with
the tree diagram are the actual processes which transpire
in the human
mind. Rather, they are
analogous to these processes in much the same
way a schematic diagram
represents the relationships of electronic com-
ponents to a television
repairman: they demonstrate and map out genera-
tive power from source to
output.
Tagmemic grammar also has generative power, and tree
diagrams
can be constructed in a similar
way as in illustration (2) above, with
the exception that the tree
diagram is superimposed over a grid of the
several levels. This means that
the branching which reflects embedded
structures is explicit at all
levels, providing that the grammar is
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28
properly structured by the
tagmemic formula devised at each level. The
reader is referred to the
several examples of tagmemic tree diagrams
later in this section and in
Chapters Four and Five for illustration of
this point.
Transformations are also recognized in tagmemic grammar.
Trans-
formations are essentially
rules of change, movement rules whereby vari-
ous morphemes or higher-level
constructions are relocated in the order
of the string (which is usually
a phrase or clause). The best-known
transformation is probably the
active-passive. Among the many who dis-
cuss this rule which applies to
numerous languages, Goetchius gives one
of the clearest examples:14
(3) Active Passive
Xs ---- Vact ------
Yo ---> Ys-- Vpass ---- by + Xo
| |
|----------------------------------------| | |
| |-------------------------------------------------------------| |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
In Greek, the transformation works like this:
(4) Active Passive
e]gw> lu<w
to>n dou?lon ----------> o[
dou?loj lu<etai u[p ] e[mou?
| |
|----------------------------------| | |
|
|------------------------------------------------------| |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Thus "The slave is being loosed by me" is a
transformational
derivative of "I am
loosing the slave," which may be regarded as a ker-
nel sentence. With examples
like the one above, the usefulness of the
transformational concept
becomes apparent in its specifying the nature
of the relationship between
clauses. Goetchius does not incorporate
case transformation rules in
the above examples, and such must be
14 Eugene Van Ness
Goetchius, The Language of the New
Testament
(New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1965), pp. 94-96.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29
provided in complete
transformation rules where inflected languages are
concerned. This criterion is
observed in the transformations described
later in this study.
Both tagmemicists Longacre and Cook have recognized the
necessi-
ty of incorporating
transformations in tagmemic grammar. Cook stipu-
lates:
With the introduction of transformational rules or matrix
devices
to show the relationship, between sentences, it is still
necessary
to describe both kernel sentences and derived sentences
in order to
discover the differences between structures. However, the
final
grammar may be considerably simplified by employing some
type of
transformational rule or matrix display, together with an
analysis
of only kernel sentences.15
Finally, tagmemic grammar makes unapologetic use of
meaning. As
Longacre says, "We work
with formal correlates of meaning."16 Struc-
tural linguistics confined
itself deliberately to a surface-level for-
malism in its classificatory
descriptions of corpuses. Transformational-
generative grammar restricted
itself consciously to formalistic phrase-
structure generations and
transformations from deep structure to surface
structure within the syntactic
component of an individual's linguistic
prowess. Meaning has
characteristically been tolerated in T-G to the
extent that the linguistic
intuition of the individual (Robert B. Lees'
Sprachgefuhl) is
brought to bear to discriminate well-formed from un-
grammatical utterances. But
even here there is a formalistic tendency.
Lees has said,
It is precisely this Sprachgefuhl, this intuitive notion about
linguistic structure, which,
together with the sentences of a
15 Cook, pp. 42-43.
16 Longacre, p. 23.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30
language, forms the empirical basis of grammatical analysis;
and it
is precisely the purpose of linguistic science to render
explicit
and rigorous whatever is vague about
these intuitive feelings.17
It is true that in his later work Chomsky has tried to
accommo-
date his overriding
preoccupation with syntax by correlating it with
semantics, but there is a
decided trend to turn generative syntax upside
down to generative semantics.18
In view of this, any contribution to
linguistic science which
incorporates both form and meaning may be ex-
pected to produce more durable
results. Pike's assessment of the situa-
tion has special point:
In tagmemics . . . we insist that neither the grammar nor
the mean-
ing can be identified independently of the other. Rather,
in tag-
memic terms, the empirical basis of grammatical analysis
is a com-
posite of structured meaning and structured form . . . .
Tagmemics
is set up as part of a theory of behavior, not merely as
a formal
algebraic system. For this reason also--in addition to
our analyti-
cal methodology and the nature of the form-meaning
composite--it re-
fers to meaning more extensively than does transform
grammar. Chom-
sky observes that when he some day extends his studies to
cover such
matters, then, too, semantic considerations will enter .
. . . We
consider it inadequate to assume that intuition of
linguistic form
divorced from a larger theory of semantics is a
sufficient explana-
tion of tagmemic meaning.19
17 Robert B. Lees, Review
of Noam Chomsky, Syntactic Structures
(Mouton),
Language, XXXIII (July-September,
1957), 39.
18 Noam Chomsky has tried
to accommodate his syntactic theory to
"the
semantic component" in his later Aspects
of the Theory of Syntax
(Cambridge,
Mass.: The M. I. T. Press, 1965), pp. 148-163. However,
James
D. McCawley and others have based their generative processes on
the
semantic component of the mentalistic language-generating mechanism
which
is regarded as basic, and have related the syntactic component to
this
theoretical unit. For example, see James D. McCawley, "The Role of
Semantics
in a Grammar," in Universals in
Linguistic Theory, ed. Emmon
Bach
and Robert Harms (
1968),
pp. 124-169, and Charles J. Fillmore and D. Terence Langendoen,
eds.,
Studies in Linguistic Semantics (
Winston,
Inc., 1971).
19 Pike, pp. 500-501.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31
Hence the tagmemic system can be seen to be perhaps the
broadest
in its ability to relate itself
to the demands of natural languages and
to other theories constructed
to handle them. Tagmemics is partially
but not merely taxonomic, and
as Longacre observes, “. . . neither
'analysis' nor 'taxonomy' are
words lacking in scholarly or scientific
status."20
Indeed, other theoretical approaches are dependent upon the
contributions of observations,
classifications, and analysis, whether
transcribed by a linguistic
field worker, or disclosed by means of a
speaker's linguistic
competence. But tagmemics is more than this, as
Pike's gesture of rapprochement
indicates: "My feeling that tagmemics
and transformationalism should
ultimately merge in the main stream of
linguistics [is denied by
(Paul) Postal on theoretical grounds].”21
Longacre reflects the same
desire as Pike, expressing himself more fully
on the matter:
Need taxonomy and generation be
opposed as logically irreconcilable
viewpoints? Or is this opposition
one more of those unnecessary
and time-consuming pseudo-conflicts
with which the history of human
thought is strewn? If all grammars
worthy of the name are in some
sense generative and if even current
writings in generative grammar
can not escape some analysis,
identification, and labelling, then
the generation-versus-taxonomy
opposition is one with which we
should rightly have little patience.22
Applied to a sample sentence of Koine Greek, for example,
the
tagmemic system of analysis can
be illustrated by means of the tree
diagram. While there are
several methods of representing sentences by
the tagmemic system, this is
the best one for visibility, ease of
20 Longacre, p. 40.
21 Pike, p. 497.
22 Longacre, p. 11.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32
drawing, and accuracy. It also
demonstrates the superiority of tag-
memics over T-G in preserving
the form-function correlates, since both
grammatical slot and formal
filler are depicted explicitly at each
branching node on every level.
The levels of the grammatical hierarchy
are listed on the left, and in
this diagram they are extended across the
page in a linear maser.
Sentence Base:tCl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | |
Clause P:tv S:n M:RA O:N
| | | |
| | |-----------| |----------|----------|
Phrase
| | R:rel Ax:n D:art H:n Pos:pn
| | |
| | | |
Word e@labon gunai?kej e]c
a]nasta<sewj tou>j nekrou>j
au]tw?n
The sentence above was taken from Hebrews 11:35:
"Women re-
ceived their dead by a
resurrection." The diagram is to be interpreted
as follows. Items to the left
of a colon indicate functional slots.
The sentence level of syntactic
analysis consists of a Base slot filled
by a transitive clause. If the
intonation pattern were an object of
study in addition to syntax, an
intonation slot would appear at the far
right of the diagram level with
the Base slot, to be filled by a nota-
tion of the particular
intonation pattern, such as ICF for
"intonation-
final contour," in the
case of a declarative sentence. Thus Base can be
seen to be nuclear on the
sentence level, and if other modifying units
accompanied the Base, either
preposed or postposed, they would be
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33
analyzed as peripheral tagmemes
called Margins which could reflect
the
semantic properties of
Circumstance, Reason, Purpose, Cause, and the
like.
At the clause level there are multiple slots arranged in
a
string, with a predicate slot
filled by a transitive verb; a subject
slot filled by a common noun; a
manner slot filled by a relator-axis
phrase (roughly equivalent to a
prepositional phrase); and a direct ob-
ject slot filled by a noun
phrase. The only distinctive grammatical
introductions in the sentence
on the phrase level appear in a further
explication of the manner slot
and the direct object slot. For the
clause manner slot, on the
phrase level the relator slot is filled by a
word-class relator
(preposition), and the axis slot is occupied by a
common noun. For the direct
object noun phrase, there is a determiner
slot (determining, or specifying
that a nominal head of a phrase unit
is to follow subsequently)
manifested by an article, a head slot (the
nuclear nominal of the phrase)
expounded by a common noun, and the usual
(in Greek) postposed possessive
slot, filled by a personal pronoun.
In a language like Greek where there is a
highly-developed case
system, subscripts can be used
to indicate the case of constructions,
such as Na for noun
phrase in the accusative case, pnd for pronoun in
the dative case, and so on. It
is also usually essential to abbreviate
verb identifications with
symbols like tv for transitive verb, iv for
intransitive verb, and eqv for
equational (linking or copulative) verb.
Passive and non-finite verbs
can also be recognized by such symbols as
tvinfp for
transitive passive infinitive. When it is desirable to
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
34
specify a number of fillers for
a given slot, the method S:N/pn can be
used, which means that a
subject slot can be filled by either a noun
phrase or a pronoun. The reader
may consult the List of Tagmemic Sym-
bas included at the beginning
of this study for identification of un-
familiar abbreviations.
Other kinds of examples may also be of interest. For the
sake
of space they are short
sentences. The first one, from Luke 4:41, fea-
tures an equational clause as
the filler of the sentence Base, and C
stands for subject complement.
Notice the recursive embedding in which
the noun phrase of the
possessive slot is in turn embedded in the noun
phrase of the clause complement
slot.
(6)
Sentence Base:eqC1
-------------------------------------------------
| | |
Clause S:pn P:eqv C:N
| | |
| | |----------|-----------------|
Phrase | | D:art H:n Pos:Ng
|
| | | |
(Embedded
Phrase)
|----------------|
| | |
| D:
artg H:npg
Word Su>
ei# o[ Yu[o>j tou? qeou?
The order of each string is readily observable in this
type of
diagram. This is a decided
advantage over the old Reed-Kellogg method23
23 H. A. Gleason, Jr., Linguistics and English Grammar (
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,
1965), pp. 142-151, gives a judicious
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35
of diagramming where relative
positions of words are obscured by a con-
cession to logical statement.
Diagrammed by the Reed-Kellogg method,
the sentence from Hebrews 11:35
might appear thus:
(7)
gu<naikej | e@labon |
nekrou>j_________
| | | |
| |
e]c | tou>j | au]tw?n
| a]nasta<sewj
Obviously any contribution of phrasal or clausal order to
the
meaning of the sentence (or for
comparison with other sentences) is
lost, whereas the tagmemic
method not only preserves the natural word
order, but it also retains the
logical design of the sentence and fur-
thermore specifies the
function-form correlation at each level. How-
ever, the tagmemic method has
the drawback that a great deal of paper
space is used to depict
sentences and clauses with recursive embedding.
But the same technique as the
Reed-Kellogg method employs can be used
to indicate related clauses by
means of dotted lines.
appraisal
of the Reed-Kellogg diagrams. On the history of this system
he
says, "The Reed and Kellogg scheme [Alonzo Reed and Brainerd Kellogg,
Higher Lessons in
English,
1877, 1885, 1896, 1909] was designed to re-
flect
the base-and-modifier description which prevailed in American
school
grammar. With varying amounts of modification, much of it simp-
ly
abridgment, it continues in use in many school textbooks. It has re-
ceived
very little attention from linguists or university scholars, and
is
peculiarly the property of the public schools and of English depart-
ments
strongly oriented toward the public schools. Indeed, linguists
have
tended to dismiss it out of hand. But it is actually a very effec-
tive
device for exhibiting the school grammar analysis of English sen-
tences
. . . . In any case, any fundamental deficiencies of diagramming
are
deficiencies of the underlying analysis or of misuse in the schools,
not
of the graphic device," (pp. 142-143). Nevertheless, the method is
wanting
as a technique of linguistic enquiry, but its excellence does
appear
in its display of logical relationships.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36
Another example appears as
follows:
(8)
Sentence
|---------------------------------------|
Sentence SL:c Base:dCl
| |
|
|----------|----------------|---------|------------------|
Clause | P:dv 0:Na. S:np I:pnd L : RA
| |
|--------| | | |--------------|
Phrase | | H:n Des:aj | |
R:rel Ax:Nd
| | | | |
| | |------|-------|
(Embedded) |
| | | | |
| D:art H:n
Pos:png
| | | | | |
| | | |
Word Kai> e]poi<hsen doxh>n
mega<lhn Leuei?j
au]t&? e]n t^? oi#ki<%
au]tou?
The above sentence, from Luke 5:29, reads, "And Levi
made a
great feast for him in his
house." Here kai< may
well be functioning on
the sentence level as a
peripheral element to the nuclear sentence Base.
There may be other peripheral
constructions to be discovered, such as
clausal margins which modify
the whole sentence Base in Greek, and which
do not have a function strictly
within the clause which manifests the
sentence Base. So Kai> is likely filling a Sentence Linker slot
on the
sentence level. Note also that
in this case the clause which manifests
the Base is a ditransitive
clause; that is, its transitivity is distri-
buted in two ways, to an
indirect object as well as to a direct object.
The L in the diagram stands for the secondary location tagmeme, and np
indicates a proper noun. The
rest of the diagram should now be clear.
This type of analysis is the kind that is used in the
chapters
to follow on the syntax of the
infinitive clause.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37
2.2 The
Corpus
In order to make a completely definitive statement on the
syntax
of the infinitive clause in the
New Testament it would be necessary, of
course, to analyze every
infinitive collocation which might qualify as
an infinitive clause. However,
this was too extensive a task for the
present study and therefore a
limited corpus was selected. In order to
make a complete statement about
a significant part of the New Testament,
all of the infinitives in the
Gospels were evaluated. This at least
provided some measure of
diversity with the covering of sizeable por-
tions of four different
authors.
There is a total of 980 infinitive uses in the four
Gospels. Of
these, 158 (16%) are single
infinitives, and 822 (84%) are infinitive
clauses.24 This
means that infinitive clauses outnumber single infini-
tive uses by a ratio of 5.25 to
1. To put it another way, more than
five out of every six uses are
clausal. For the present it is conven-
ient to say that all
infinitives not existing in single uses are re-
garded as clauses.
Just about the same proportion of single infinitives to
infini-
tive clauses is found in each
of the four Gospels, with one exception.
In Matthew, out of a total of
250 infinitive uses, 37 (15%) are single,
while 213 (85%) ar clausal. In
Mark, out of a total of 201 uses, 31
(15%) are single, while 170
(85%) are clausal. In Luke, out of a total
of 392 uses, 59 (15%) are
single, while 333 (85%) are clausal. But in
24 For a definition of
the infinitive clause and its distinction
from a single infinitive usage,
see section 3.1 of Chapter Three.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38
John, out of a total of 137
uses, 31 (22%) are single, while 106 (78%)
are clausal. The lower
percentage of incidence of infinitive clauses in
John may be interpreted as an
objective indicator of the allegedly
simple Greek, if it is agreed
that the use of clauses as opposed to
single infinitives is a mark of
linguistic sophistication.
Another objective indicator of the difficulty level of
the Greek
of each author is found in the
number of infinitives per page. For a
rough spot check the number of
pages devoted to each author in the text
used to identify the
infinitives for this study25 was divided into the
number of infinitives used by
each author. For Matthew there were 98
pages with 250 infinitives to
give an average of 2.55 infinitives per
page. For Mark there were 66
pages with 201 infinitives to give an
average of 3.04 infinitives per
page. For Luke there were 111 pages
with 392 infinitives to give an
average of 3.54 per page. But for John
there were 80 pages with 137
infinitives to give an average of only 1.71
per page. Again, if the very
use of infinitives as opposed to other
structures is agreed as a mark
of literary sophistication, Luke is the
most literate and John the
least literary. Even beyond this, the very
types and variety of infinitive
uses set Luke and John at opposite ends
of the literary spectrum so far
as the language of the Gospels is con-
cerned.
Clyde W. Votaw has counted a total of 2276 infinitives in
the
New Testament. It is possible
to make a rough projection of the
25 H
KAINH DIAQHKH
(2d ed.;
Bible Society, 19 8), pp.
1-355.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39
validity of this study by
comparing the figures obtained with Votaw's
total. There are 787 pages in
the New Testament Greek text used for
this study. The number of pages
covered for this study is 355, or 45%,
with 55% left unexplored for
statistical use here. Statistically a
sample approaching half of a
total corpus is very satisfactory, certain-
ly enough upon which to make
reliable projections under normal circum-
stances. The circumstances
here, it must be admitted, may not be com-
pletely normal, for there are
authors which remain untouched (Paul,
Peter, James, Jude), different
lengths of books, and different genres of
composition. And even a study
of the infinitives in the Book of Acts
made subsequent to the research
for the present study reveals some
interesting differences from
the Lukan Gospel. Nevertheless it is pos-
sible to speculate, if the
percentage figures for the Gospels hold true
for the rest of the New
Testament, there are approximately 1912 of
Votaw's 2276 used with their
own clauses (84%), and 364 single infini-
tives (16%).26
2.3 Procedures
of Analysis
The selection of infinitives was undertaken by a reading
through
the chosen corpus. In order to
provide a safeguard to slips of the eye
and other errors of
identification, Nathan E. Han's A Parsing
Guide to
the
Greek New Testament27 was consulted. It was
discovered that between
26 In Acts there are 465
total infinitives in 111 pages. There
are
37 single infinitives (8%), and 428 infinitive clauses (92%). The
average
per page is 4.19, much higher than even Luke's Gospel.
27 Nathan E. Han, A Parsing Guide to the Greek New Testament
(Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press,
1971), pp. 1-228.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40
20 and 30 infinitives per
Gospel had been overlooked in the initial
reading.
When all of the infinitives were noted by underlining in
the
Greek text, the next procedure
was to proceed through the Gospels, writ-
ing out each infinitive or
infinitive clause on a separate sheet of
notebook paper. The 822 clauses
were written out in Greek at the top of
the sheet, and immediately
below, the tentative tagmatic identifications
were made for units like
subject, predicate, and so on. Below this the
infinitive itself was completely
parsed for further ease of reference,
and still lower on the page the
entire clause of which the infinitive
clause was apart was written
out and a tagmatic identification of its
constituents made in order to
determine how the infinitive functioned
in the governing clause or
phrase in which it was embedded.
Finally, a listing of the functional slot which the
infinitive
filled was given on the page,
along with any other pertinent comparative
information. As the corpus was
increasingly covered, aberrations in
earlier identifications were
noted and corrected to conform to the sys-
tem of the language which was
emerging. When the judgments made in the
identification of tagmas began
to reflect the language system, the iden-
tifications could more
confidently be regarded as tagmemes.
With three large notebooks thus filled with data, the
next step
was to make that data
accessible for classification. Each infinitive
clause reflected some kind of
order of its main components. This string
of components, called a syntagmeme, was written out in tagmemic
formula
for each clause according to
the clause type it reflected, based on
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41
transitivity factors. So for
active transitive clauses, for example, a
series of entries might look
like this:
(9) 8. Fmk:artg P:tvinf
0:pna
13. O:Na P:tvinf
16. S:pnd P:tvinf
O:Na.
Obviously three orders are apparent here for the nuclear
tag-
memes, with PL.0, 0-P, and
S-P-0. Therefore it was necessary to re-list
the syntagmemes by their order
patterns. This can not be done with the
first transcription of
syntagmemes from the clause sheets, because the
range of order patterns is not
known until that initial transcription is
made.
The rewrite transcription of syntagmemic orders offered
the
opportunity to examine the
relationship of introductory prepositions and
articles to the clause, as well
as the placement of other peripheral
tagmemes in the syntagmeme. A
consecutive sample from the P-0 listing
exhibits the following
elements:
(10) 640. P:tvinf B:refld
O:na
645. P:tvinf O:Na
M:Nd Reas:RA M:PtC1
646. P:tvinf O:Na
M:PtCl
649. Neg:n P:tvinf O:aja
653. P:tvinf L:RA O:Na T:RA.
Thus tagmemes which precede, intervene in, and follow the
tag-
memes of syntagmemes can be
specified in order to determine the total
clausal possibilities reflected
in this corpus. When the rewrite
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42
transcription was completed,
the descriptive material was ready to be
written as the present study.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER III
INFINITIVE CLAUSE CONSTITUENTS
3.1 Identification
of Clauses
The identification of clauses in this corpus has been
conducted
according to the principle that
linguistic structures which communicate
nuances of meaning, most
frequently phrases and words, are grouped
around and related to a
predicate verb, whether it is finite or non-
finite. Such a predicate verbal
unit, and therefore the presence of a
Predicate tagmeme, is essential
for determining whether a given con-
struction with other potential
clausal characteristics is indeed a
clause. The Predicate, then, is
the basic obligatory element in the
process of discriminating
clauses from non-clauses.
Since the predicate verb in Greek is inflected for person
and
number (in the case of a finite
verb), a predicate verb can constitute
a minimal clause. This
criterion apparently carries over to the non-
finite verbs as well, and
therefore the 158 instances of the single
infinitive disclosed in the
corpus could be treated in this way, but
they would be of little real
interest as far as a clausal structure is
concerned. Consequently, any
and all infinitives which do not appear
in a functional slot in the
main clause in a solitary form are treated
here as clauses. This means
that all infinitives from those with the
most sophisticated clausal
structure to those consisting of only a
Predicate tagmeme and an
article or relator (i.e., preposition or
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
44
subordinating conjunction) are
included as clauses in this study.
A brief discussion of Greek clausal types in general
seems
desirable at this point in
order to demonstrate just how the infinitive
clause fits into the overall
clausal system. This material is based on
a recent tagmemic study of two
randomly-selected chapters of the New
Testament, Luke 8 and 9.1
Various types of clauses are apparent beyond the mere
recogni-
tion of the Predicate tagmeme,
and there are other nuclear elements such
as Subject, Direct Object, and
Subject Complement, which serve along
with the Predicate tagmeme to
distinguish different types of clauses.
But instead of describing the
characteristics of clauses solely from the
linear aspect of functional
slots, it is feasible to present the para-
meters of clauses in systemic
form. These parameters may be discussed
in reference to three
immediate, specific coordinates: (1) transitivity,
(2) voice, and (3) finiteness.
Transitivity is a variable which incor-
porates intransitive,
transitive, ditransitive, and equational proper-
ties. Voice is a variable
representing the potential set: active,
passive, and imperative.
Finiteness is a variable expressing either
finite or non-finite verbal
properties. These most specialized dis-
criminators establish basic
clause typology.
While the basic heuristic clause-type discriminator is
the fac-
tor of transitivity, the other
immediate specific coordinates mentioned
above, voice and finiteness,
can also be grouped for convenience along
1 Edgar J. Lovelady,
"A Positional Syntax of Koine Greek" (unpub-
lished
research monograph, Grace Theological Seminary, August, 1974),
73 pp.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
45
with further general
coordinates, such as Independent, Subordinated, and
Dependent Clause structure. The
Subordinated coordinate has three sub-
coordinates, namely, Adverbial,
Nominal, and Adjectival.2 Infinitive
and Participial Clauses are
Dependent sub-coordinates. The chart that
follows describes the system
just outlined based on just two rather long
chapters from Luke's Gospel.
2 Adverbial, Adjectival,
and Nominal Clauses are functional
designations
for subordinated clauses with finite verbs. In tagmemics
these are called relator-axis
clauses by virtue of their construction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
46
The double-barred arrows indicate transformational
relationships
whereby passive clauses are
derived from active clauses, after the
general manner described on
page 27. Six of the thirty-one clause types
in the chart above are
infinitive clauses, based on this very limited
corpus. With the larger corpus
of the Gospels, twelve types of infini-
tive clauses have become
evident, and these are presented in Chapter
Four.
3.2 Primary
Clause Tagmemes
The primary clause tagmemes identified in this corpus
which are
especially relative to the
transitivity coordinates are the Subject,
Predicate, Direct Object,
Indirect Object, Objective Complement, Sub-
jective Complement, Retained
Object, and Object-Relator.
3.2.1 The
Subject Tagmeme
Of the 822 clauses in this corpus, there are 229 with
Subject
tagmemes. Seventeen different
elements manifest this tagmeme, and, as
the grammars suggest, they are
generally in the accusative case. The
various manifesting structures
for this tagmeme, without individual
frequency counts and not listed
in frequency of appearance, are exempli-
fied below within their clausal
context.
3.2.1.1 Personal Pronoun,
Accusative
(ou]ke<ti
a]fi<ete) au]to>n ou]de>n poih?sai t&?
patri> h} t^? mhtri<,
"no longer
allow him to do anything
for father or mother" (Mk. 7:12).
3.2.1.2 Noun Phrase, Accusative
(kai>
e]qera<peuein au]to<n) w~ste to>n kwfo>n lalei?n kai>
ble<pein, "and he
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
47
healed him, so that the blind
man spoke and saw" (Mt. 12:22).
3.2.1.3 Coordinate Noun
Phrase, Accusative
(eu]kopw<teron
de> e]stin) to>n
ou]rano>n kai> th>n gh?n
parelqei?n . . . , "and it
is easier for heaven and
earth to pass away . . ." (Lk. 16:17).
3.2.1.4 Complex Noun Phrase,
Accusative
A complex noun phrase is one
that has a nucleus of an entire noun phrase
which itself comprised a
"head," and a following modifier slot which is
usually filled by a clausal
structure. In the example given the post-
posed modifier is the adjective
clause introduced by oi#j
(ei#pen) fwnhqh?nai au]t&? tou>j dou<louj tou<touj
oi#j dedw<kei to> a]rgu<rion,
"he commanded that these
servants to whom he had given the money be
called to him" (Lk.
19:15).
3.2.1.5 Item-Appoitive
Phrase, Accusative
An item-appositive phrase is
simply an appositional construction with an
item slot and an appositive
slot, each manifested by appropriate struc-
tures. The example given is the
only such instance of this usage, and
is separated.
(kai>) fwnh>n
e]c ou]ranou? gene<sqai, Su> ei# o[ Ui[o<j mou o[ a]gaphto<j . . .
"and a voice came
from heaven,''You are a beloved Son'. . ." (Lk. 3:22).
3.2.1.6 Single Common Noun,
Accusative
(qe<leij
ei@pwmen) pu?r katabh?nei a]po> tou? ou]ranou? . . .
, "Do you wish that
we should call fire to
come down from heaven . . ." (Lk. 9:54).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48
3.2.1.7 Proper Noun,
Accusative
(o[
lao>j . . . pepeisme<noj ga>r e]stin) ]Iwa<nnhn
prarh<thn ei#nai, "the
people . . . are persuaded that
John is a prophet" (Lk. 20:6).
3.2.1.8 Proper Noun Phrase,
Accusative
]En de> t&? u[postre<fein to>n ]Ihsou?n (a]pede<cato
au]to>n o[ o@xloj . . .) "And
while Jesus was
returning, the crowd waited for him . . ." (Lk. 8:40).
3.2.1.9 Demonstrative
Pronoun, Accusative
(Ou]
qe<lomen) tou?ton basileu?sai e]f ] h[ma?j, "We do not want this
one to
reign over us" (Lk. 1994).
3.2.1.10 Indefinite Pronoun,
Accusative
(w!ste
mh> i]sxu<ein) tina> parelqei?n dia> th?j o[dou? e]kei<nhj,
"so that it was
not possible for anyone
to pass by that way" (Mt. 8:28).
3.2.1.11 Reflexive Pronoun,
Accusative
(e]nkaqe<touj
u[pokrinome<nouj) e[autou>j dikai<ouj ei#nai, "spies who feigned
themselves to be
righteous" (Lk. 20:20).
3.2.1.12 Adjective,
Accusative
In such cases as the following
the formal adjective functions in a pro-
nominal manner.
w!ste
e]ci<stasqai pa<ntaj, "so that all were
amazed" (Mk. 2:12).
3.2.1.13 Pronoun Phrase,
Accusative
(kai>
meta> tau?ta mh> e]xo<ntwn) perisso<teron ti poih?sai, "and after this,
not having anything more
to do" (Lk. 12:4).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
49
3.2.1.14 Infinitive
(kai>
ei#pen)
doqh?nai au]t^? fagei?n, "and he requested
something to eat to
be given to her" (Mk.
5:43).
3.2.1.15 Personal Pronoun,
Dative
The present study makes a novel
departure from the standard grammars,
to a limited extent, in
recognizing that words or constructions in the
dative case which function on a
main clause level as indirect objects
or as datives of reference can
co-function in a secondary manner as sub-
jects of the infinitive clause
which is embedded in the main clause.
Section 5.1.1 in Chapter Five
presents this grammatical phenomenon in
detail.
(ou!twj
ga>r pre<pon e]sti>n) h[mi?n plhrw?sai pa?san dikaiosu<nh,
"for thus it
is fitting for us to fulfill
all righteousness" (Mt. 3:15).
3.2.1.16 Single Common Noun, Dative
(ei]
e@cestin)
a]ndri> gunai?ka a]polu?sai, "whether it is lawful for
a man to
send away his wife" (Mk.
10:2).
3.2.1.17 Noun Phrase, Dative
(kaqw>j
e@qoj e]sti>n) toi?j ]Ioudai<oij e]ntafia<zein, "just as it is the
custom
for the Jews to
bury" (Jn. 19:40).
3.2.2 The Predicate
Tagmeme
Predicates may be regarded basically from the viewpoint
of
transitivity because a
correlation appears to exist between the syntag-
memic clause pattern in which
the Predicate functions (i.e., Subject-
Predicate,
Subject-Predicate-Object, and so on), and the inherent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50
semantic nature of the kernel
verb which expounds the Predicate slot.
Seven different transitivity
types of Predicate are observed for the
infinitive clause.
3.2.2.1 Intransitive
Predicates which do not take direct objects reflect the
property
termed intransitive. The Predicate slot with its intransitive filler
does not refer in this study to
all the constructions which follow the
subject, as the term does in
many traditional grammars. The concept
here is restricted to the purely
verbal clause nucleus. An example
appears below:
(kai>
e]ge<neto) e]n t&? e]lqei?n
au]to>n ei]j oi#kon tinoj tw?n a]rxo<ntwn tw?n
Farisai<wn
sabba<t& fagei?n a@rton . . . "and
it came to pass while he
went into
the house of a certain one of the rulers of the Pharisees on
the Sabbath to eat bread . .
." (Lk. 14:1).
3.2.2.2 Transitive
Transitive Predicates take a direct object, or a direct
object
and objective complement. In
this sense they are monotransitive in
that
their transitivity has a
unifocus which transmits to one object which,
in turn; may be qualified by a
complement. One example is:
(le<gete) e]n beelzebul e]kba<llein me ta> daimo<nia,
"you say that I cast out
demons by Beelzebub" (Lk.
11:18).
3.2.2.3 Transitive Passive
While the monotransitive Predicate is active in voice,
passive
clauses which are the result of
the passive transformation reflect a
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
51
passive voice verb. An example
is:
mega>
de> to> e]gerqh?nai me (proa<w
u[ma?j ei]j th?n Galilaian), "and after I am
raised up I will
precede you into
3.2.2.4 Transitive Middle
The designation middle Predicate is to be distinguished
from the
middle voice of verbal
inflections. A middle verb is one which can take
an object, but it is not
capable of receiving the passive transformation.
In English there are several
such verbs, as in "The potatoes weighed
five pounds," or "I
have one hundred dollars." These can not be trans-
formed into the passive, for
the results would be ungrammatical (i.e.,
unacceptable to the, native
speaker), as with "*Five pounds were weighed
by the potatoes," and
"*One hundred dollars were had by me." The verb
e@xw in
Greek exhibits the same feature, which is inherent in the nature
of the verb rather than
resident in the inflectional system.
dia>
to> mh> e@xein ba<qoj gh?j, "because (it) did not
have depth of earth"
(Mk. 4:5).
3.2.2.5 Ditransitive
The designation ditransitive involves transitivity
focused in
two ways: to a direct object,
and to an indirect object, each with a
different referent 4s opposed
to a direct object with objective comple-
ment, which have the same
referent.
(oi[
Farisai?oi kai> Saddoukai?oi . . . e]perw<thsan) au]to>n shmei?on e]k tou?
ou]ranou?
e]pidei?cai au]toi?j, "the Pharisees and Sadducees . . .
asked him
to show them a
sign from heaven" (Mt. 16:1).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
52
3.2.2.6 Ditransitive Passive
The passive transformation applied to a ditransitive
clause ren-
ders a passive voice Predicate
with at least an Indirect Object tagmeme
in the clause and on occasion a
Subject tagmeme as well. Further dis-
cussion of this rather
specialized type is found in Section 4.3.3.
(ei#pen) fwnhqh?nai
au]t&? tou>j dou<louj tou<touj oi$j dedw<kei to>
a]rgu<rion,
"he commanded these
servants to whom he had given the money to be called to
him" (Lk. 19:15).
3.2.2.7 Equational
The Equational Predicate is used in infinitive clause
copulative
constructions. The primary verb
used is ei]mi<.
(le<gonta) e[auto>n xristo>n basile<a ei#nai,
"saying that he himself was
Christ, a king" (Lk.
23:2).
3.2.3 The Direct Object
Tagmeme
The greatest variety of constructions of any tagmeme
manifest
this tagmeme. Of the 428 total
instances of the tagmeme, no less than
29 distinguishable forms
expound it. They are listed below.
3.2.3.1 Single Common Noun,
Accusative
(Mh>
nomi<shte o!ti h#lqon) balei?n
ei]rh<nhn e]pi> th>n gh?n, "Do not think that
came to cast peace on
the earth" (Mt. 10:24).
3.2.3.2 Noun Phrase,
Accusative
(me<llei
ga>r [Hr&<dhj) zhtei?n to> paidi<on tou? a]pole<sai
au]to<, "for Herod is
about to seek the child
in order to destroy him" (Mt. 2:13).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
53
3.2.3.3 Coordinate Noun
Phrase, Accusative
(kai>) qerapeu<ein pa?san no<son kai> pa?san
maloni<an, "and to heal every dis-
ease and every sickness"
(Mt. 10:1).
3.2.3.4 Adversative Noun
Phrase, Accusative
(Mh>
nomi<shte o!ti h#lqon) katalu?sai
to>n no<mon h} tou>j profh<taj, "do not
think that I came to destroy the
law or the prophets" (Mt. 5:17).
3.2.3.5 Complex Noun Phrase,
Accusative
(du<nasqe) piei?n to> poth<rion o{ e]gw> me<llw
pi<nein, "are you able to drink
the cup which I am about to
drink?" (Mt. 20:22).
3.2.3.6 Item-Appositive
Phrase, Accusative
(mh>
fobhq^?j)
paralabei?n Mari<an th<n
gunei?ka< sou, "do not be afraid to
take Mary your wife" (Mt.
1:20).
3.2.3.7 Personal Pronoun, Accusative
(e]boulh<qh) la<qra a]polu<sai au]th<n,
"he wanted to send her away secretly"
(Mt. 1:19).
3.2.3.8 Indefinite Pronoun,
Accusative
(e]nedreu<ontej
au]to>n) qhreu?sai ti
e]k tou? sto<matoj au]tou?, "lying in wait
for him to catch something
from his mouth" (Lk. 11:54).
3.2.3.9 Negative Indefinite
Pronoun, Accusative
(ou]
du<nati o[ Yi[o>j) poiei?n
a]f ] e[autou? ou]de<n, "the Son is able to do noth-
ing by
himself" (Jn. 5:19).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
54
3.2.3.10 Demonstrative Pronoun,
Accusative
(Pisteu<ete
o!ti du<nmai) tou?to poih?sai, "do you believe that I am able to
do this?" (Mt.
9:28).
3.2.3.11 Reflexive Pronoun,
Accusative
(o[
de> qe<lwn) dikaiw?sai
e[auto>n (ei#pen . .
.), "and the one wishing to
justify himself said . .
." (Lk. 10:29).
3.2.3.12 Reciprocal Pronoun,
Accusative
w!ste
katapatei?n a]llh<louj, "so as to tread on one
another" (Lk. 12:1).
3.2.3.13 Numeral, Accusative
(kai>
prose<qeto) tri<ton pe<myai, "and he added to send a third"
(Lk. 20:
12).
3.2.3.14 Adjective,
Accusative
(pw?j
du<nasqe) a]gaqa> lalei?n (ponhroi>
o@ntej);
"how are you able to speak
good things, being
evil?" (Mt. 12:34).
3.2.3.15 Proper Noun,
Accusative
(Pw?j
du<nasqe Satana?j) Satana?n e]kba<llein; "How is Satan able to
cast out
Satan?"
(Mk. 3:23)
3.2.3.16 Proper Noun Phrase,
Accusative
(o[
Peila?toj . . . qe<lwn) a]polu?sai
to>n ]Ihsou?n,
"Pilate . . . wishing to
release Jesus"
(Lk'. 23:20).
3.2.3.17 Elliptical
Attributive Phrase, Accusative
The nature of the phrase in question is one with an
article
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
55
neuter in gender and accusative
in case, with an implied, non-manifest
substantive qualified by an
attributive relator-axis phrase. In tag-
memic terminology this would be
a complex noun phrase with the head of
the governing noun phrase
deleted. Acts 18:25 provides a comparable
example to the one offered
below: ta> peri> tou? ]Ihsou?.
(mh>
kataba<tw) a@rai ta> e]k
th?j oi]ki<aj au]tou?, "let him not come down to
take away the things out of
his house" (Mt. 24:17).
3.2.3.18 Interrogative
Pronoun, Accusative
Ti< (e]ch<lqate
ei]j th>n e@rhmon) qea<sasqai;
"What did you go out into the
desert to behold?" (Mt.
11:7).
3.2.3.19 Participial Nominal Phrase, Accusative
This phrase type accounts for the kind of phrasal group
which
reflects noun phrase form, but
which has a head manifested by a parti-
ciple. It does not seem to
deserve the status of a participial clause
because it does not offer
clause structure. This construction suggests
the flexibility of Greek to
give a dynamic quality to its nominal
expressions.
(o[
de> parh<ggeilen au]toi?j) mhdeni>
ei]
them to tell no one the
thing that had happened" (Lk. 8:56).
3.2.3.20 Coordinate
Participial Nominal Phrase, Accusative
As with the above example, this is an attributive
participial
phrase used substantively, but
it reflects conjoining.
(h@rcato) e]kba<llein tou>j pwlou?ntaj kai> tou>j
a]gora<zontaj e]n t&? i[er&?,
"he began to cast out
the ones who sold and the ones who bought in the
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
56
in the temple" (Mk.
11:15).
3.2.3.21. Nominal Clause
Two kinds of Nominal Clause in general are used: one kind
with
introductory relative pronoun,
and another introduced by the subordina-
tor i!na.
(1) (w[molo<ghsen au]t^?) dou?nai o{ e]a>n ai]th<tai,
"he promised her to give
(her) whatever she might ask"
(Mt. 14:7).
(2) (Ou]k e]du<nato ou$toj . . .) poih?sai i!na kai> ou$toj mh> a]poqa<n^;
"Was not
this man able . . . to cause that
this one also should not die?" (Jn.
11:37).
3.2.3.22 Infinitive Clause
(kai>
h@rcato)
parakalei?n au]to>n a]pelqei?n
a]po> tw?n o[ri<wn au]tw?n, "and
they began to beseech him to
depart from their environs" (Mk. 5:17).
3.2.3.23 Direct Quotation
(mh>
a@rchsqe)
le<gein e]n a[autoi?j, Pate<ra
e@xomen to>n Abraam, "do not
begin to say among yourselves,
'We have Father Abraham'" (Lk. 3:8).
3.2.3.24 Personal Pronoun,
Dative
In many instances the direct object of a verb is found in
the
dative case because the verb of
the infinitive clause is compounded with
a preposition that takes the
dative case, as in the following example.
w!ste
e]pipi<ptein au]t&? i!na au]tou? o!ywntai o!soi ei#xon
ma<stigaj, "so as to
press about him in order
that as many as were having plagues might touch
him" (Mk. 3:10).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
57
3.2.3.25 Coordinate Noun
Phrase, Dative
Some verbs, like doule<w and latreu<w, idiomatically take the
dative.
(ou]
du<nasqe) qe&?
douleu<ein kai> mamwn%?, "you are not able to be
a slave
to God and mammon"
(Mt. 6:24).
3.2.3.26 Noun Phrase, Dative
(e]gw>
de> le<gw u[mi?n) mh>
a]ntisth?nai t&? ponhr&?), "but I say to you, 'Do
not
resist the one who is evil'"
(Mt. 5:39). Here again the dative is con-
ditioned by the preposition
compounded with the verb.
3.2.3.27 Participial Nominal
Phrase, Dative
(ei]
dunato<j e]stin) e]n
de<ka xilia<sin u[panth?sai t&? meta> ei@kosi xilia<dwn
e]rxome<n&
e]p ] au]to<n; "whether he is able to oppose with ten
thousand the
one with twenty thousand who is
coming against him?" (Lk. 14:31).
3.2.3.28 Personal Pronoun, Genitive
(i!na
eu!rwsin)
kathgorei?n au]tou?,
"in order that they might find how to
accuse him" (Lk.
6:7). The verb kathgore<w can
take the genitive case
idiomatically.
3.2.3.29 Noun Phrase,
Genitive
(oi[
dokou?ntej) a@rxein tw?n
e]qnw?n, "the ones who consider to rule over
some of the Gentiles"
(Mk. 10:42). When used in the sense of "to rule,"
the verb arxw takes the genitive which adds the partitive
sense here to
the Direct Object tagmeme. In
general it appears that the use of
specialized cases apart from
the accusative offers a semantic conflation
to the Direct Object, whether
directive (dative), or partitive
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
58
(genitive). Thus the Direct
Object is not so much case-defined as logic-
or notionally-defined.
3.2.4 The Indirect
Object Tagmeme
There are ten distinguishable elements which manifest the
Indi-
rect Object slot. The dative
case is predominantly used.
3.2.4.1 Personal Pronoun,
Dative
(kai>
prosh?lqon oi[ maqhtai> au]tou?) e]pidei?cai au]t&? ta>j oi]kodoma>j tou?
i[erou?, "and
his disciples came to show him the buildings of the temple" (Mt.
24:1).
3.2.4.2 Proper Noun, Dative
(e@cestin) dou?nai kh?nson Kai<sari h} ou@;
"is it lawful to give tribute to
Caesar or
not?" (Mk. 12:14).
3.2.4.3 Indefinite Pronoun,
Dative
(kai>
au]to>j parh<ggeilen au]t&?) mhdeni>
ei]
to tell (it) to no one"
(Lk. 5:13).
3.2.4.4 Noun Phrase, Dative
(h@rcato ]Ihsou?j xristo>j) deiknu<ein toi?j maqhtai?j au]tou? o!ti . . . ,
"Je-
sus Christ began to show to
his disciples that . . ." (Mt. 16:21).
3.2.4.5 Coordinate Noun Phrase,
Dative
w!ste
paradou?nai au]to>n t^? a]rx^?
kai> t^? e]cousi<% tou? h[gemo<noj, "so as to
deliver him to the rule and
authority of the governor" (Lk. 20:20).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
59
3.2.4.6 Comparative Noun
Phrase, Dative
(qe<lw
de>)
tou<t& t&? e]sxat& dou?nai w[j kai> soi<,
"and I want to give to this
last one as also to you"
(Mt. 20:14).
3.2.4.7 Articular Nominal
Phrase, Dative
(e]pi<treyo<n
moi)
a]pota<casqai toi?j ei]j to>n
oi]ko<n mou, "allow me to say
goodbye to the ones in a
house" (Lk. 9:61).
3.2.4.8 Participial Nominal
Phrase, Dative
(a]pe<steilen
to>n dou?lon au]tou? . . .) ei]
h@dh
e!toima e]stin, “and he sent his servant . . . to say to the ones who
had been invited,
'Come, because it is already prepared'" (Lk. 14:17).
3.2.4.9. Relator-Axis Phrase
(h@rcato
de>)
le<gein pro>j au]tou>j
o!ti
. . . , "and he began to say to them
that . . ." (Lk. 4:21).
3.2.4.10 Personal Pronoun, Accusative
(kai>
h@rcato)
dida<skein au]tou>j
polla<, "and he began to teach them many
things" (Mk. 6:34).
There are 77 instances of the Indirect Object tagmeme in
the
corpus.
3.2.5 The Objective
Complement Tagmeme
There are four infinitive clauses which utilize the
Objective
Complement tagmeme. Three
elements serve to give realization to the
slot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60
3.2.5.1 Complex Noun Phrase,
Accusative
(kai>) dou?nai th>n yuxh>n au]tou? lu<tron a]nti>
pollw?n, "and to give his life
a ransom for Many"
(Mt. 20:28).
3.2.5.2—Adjective Phrase, Accusative
(o[
de> Peila?toj boulo<menoj) t&?
o@xl& to> i[kano>n poih?sai (a]pe<lusen
au]toi?j
to>n Barabba?n), “but Pilate wishing to make the crowd satisfied,
he re-
leased Barabbas to them"
(Mk. 15:15). This identification is somewhat
tenuous, due to its apparent
influence by a Latin construction, which
may have thrust to>n o@xlon into the dative case. An
alternative possibil-
ity is that t&? o@xl& is the indirect object, and to> i[
object, which would be read as,
"but Pilate wishing to do the sufficient
thing for
the crowd (i.e., 'the thing that would satisfy the crowd'),
he released Barabbas to
them."
3.2.5.3 Alternative
Adjective Phrase, Accusative
(o!ti
ou] du<nasai) mi<an
tri<xa leukh>n poih?sai h} me<lainan,
"because you are
not able to make, one hair white
or black" (Mt. 5:36).
3.2.6 The Subjective
Complement Tagmeme
Twenty-nine Subjective Complement tagmemes are found in
this
corpus, used in connection with
equational clauses. The accusative case
is used in most cases, but
there are some instances of the nominative
case, as explained in 4.2.6.1.
3.2.6.1 Single Common Noun,
Accusative
(pepeisme<noj
ga<r e]stin) ]Iwa<nnhn prafh<thn ei#nai,
"(the people) are
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
61
persuaded that John it a prophet"
(Lk. 20:6).
3.2.6.2 Noun Phrase, Accusative
(e@dwken
au]toi?j e]cousi<an) te<kna
qeou? gene<sqai,
"he gave them authority
to become children of God" (Jn.
1:12).
3.2.6.3 Interrogative Pronoun,
Accusative
Ti<na me (le<gousin
oi[ a@nqrwpoi) ei#nai;
"Who do men say that I am?" (Mk.
8:27).
3.2.6.4 Item-Appositive
Phrase, Accusative
(le<gonta) e[auto>n xristo>n basile<a ei#nai,
"saying he himself was Christ,
a king"
(Lk. 23:2).
3.2.6.5 Complex Noun Phrase,
Accusative
(ti<j
tou<twn tw?n triw?n) plhsi<on (dokei? soi) gegone<nai
tou? e]mpeso<ontoj
ei]j
tou>j l^sta<j, "which of the three seems to you to have
become a neighbor
of the one who fell among the
robbers?" (Lk. 10:36).
3.2.6.6 Adjective Phrase,
Accusative
(oi[
de> pa<ntej kate<krinan) au]to>n e@noxon ei#nai qana<tou,
"and all of them
pronounced him to be worthy
of death" (Mk. 14:64).
3.2.6.7 Relator-Axis Phrase
(o!ti) e]n toi?j tou? Patro<j mou (dei?) ei$nai me, "that it is necessary for
me to be about my
Father's'affairs" (Lk. 2:49).
3.2.6.8 Comparative Adjective
(to>
ti<j au]tw?n dokei?) ei#nai
mei<zwn, "which of them is supposed to be
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
62
greater" (Lk. 22:4).
3.2.6.9 Noun Phrase, Nominative
(ou]
du<natai) ei#nai< mou
maqhth<j, ”he is
not able to be my disciple" (Lk.
14:33).
3.2.6.10 Single Adjective,
Nominative
(Ei]
qe<leij) te<leioj ei#nai, "If you wish to be complete .
. ." (Mt. 19:
21).
3.2.6.11 Ordinal Numeral, Nominative
(kai>
o{j a}n qe<l^) e]n
u[mi?n ei#nai prw?toj . . , "and whoever wishes to be
first among
you . . ." (Mt. 20:27).
3.2.7 The Retained Object
Complement Tagmeme
There are four transitive passive clauses which seem to
reflect
a retained Object Complement
tagmeme when transformed into the passive.
Three are fairly certain
identifications, while one is rather tentative.
The low frequency of occurrence
prohibits a firmer statement.
3.2.7.1 Proper Noun,
Nominative
(filou?sin
de> . . . ) kalei?sqai u[po> tw?n a]nqre<pwn Rabbei, and
they love
. . . to be called Rabbi by
men" (Mt. 23:7). The active version of this
passive clause, translated into
English, is most likely, "Men called
them Rabbi." The nominal
constituents of this active clause reflect the
referent pattern N1,
N2, and N2, applied to men, them, and Rabbi, res-
pectively. The designation N1
indicates the first nominal referent of
the sentence pattern, and N2
expresses the second nominal referent, of
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63
which there are two in the
clause in question. In the passive transfor-
mation the first, N2,
them, becomes the third person plural
inflection of
the finite verb (and thus the
antecedent of the infinitive); the second
N2 becomes the retained object
complement; and N1 becomes the object of
the agent preposition u[po<.
3.2.7.2 Noun Phrase,
Nominative
(ou]ke<ti
ei]mi> a@cioj) klhqh?nai
ui[o<j sou, "I am no longer worthy to be
called your son"
(Lk. 15:19). Again, the active clause structure is very
likely, "They called me
your son," with the referent pattern N1 (=They),
N2 (=me), N3 (=your son). Without recognizing the
possibility of trans-
formation to explain the
passive form, however, Arndt and Gingrich
offer this explanation for the
meaning of the passive:
Very oft. the emphasis is to be placed less on the fact
that the name
is such and such, than on the fact that the bearer of the
name ac-
tually is what the name says about him. The pass. be
named thus ap-
proaches closely the mng. to be, and it must be left to
the feeling
of the interpreter whether this transl. is to be
attempted in any
individual case. Among such pass.
are these: .... Lk. 15:19.2
However, it is nevertheless possible to make a good case
for the
transformational relationship
by reference to Matthew 1:21, where the
active form is exactly
analogous to the one postulated in English form
above: kale<seij to> o@noma au]tou? ]Ihsou?, "you shall call his name
Jesus."
The referent pattern is N1
(= -ei]j, 2d sing. inflection), N2 (=to> o@noma
au]tou?), and
N2 (= ]Ihsou?). With
such an active clause using kale<w, the
conclusion of the
transformational relationship is strengthened.
2 William F. Arndt and F.
Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexi-
con of the New Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature (
The
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
64
One other example appears to be based on another pattern
of
nominal referents:
(ti<
ga>r w]felei? a@nqrwpon kerdh?sai to>n ko<smon o!lon kai>) zhmiwqh?nai
th?n
yuxh>n au]tou?;
"for what use is it for a man to gain the whole world and
to be deprived of his
life?" (Mk. 8:36). The verb zhmio<w in the
active
voice means "to inflict
damage on (someone)" while in the passive it
means "to suffer
damage" (only so in the New Testament). A traditional
interpretation might handle the
clause in this way, not allowing for a
transformational relationship,
and explaining th>n yuxh>n as an
accusative
of reference, giving the
translation "suffer loss with respect to life."
With a transformational interpretation, the active base
is likely
"They deprived him of his
life," with the referent pattern N1 (=They),
N2 (=him), and N3 (=his life). Thus N2, him,
becomes a@nqrwpon, subject
of the first infinitive clause
and subject referent of the clause in
question, while N3,
his life, becomes the retained objective complement
of the passive clause. The
referent N1 was apparently not selected for
an agentive construction with u[po<.
3.2.8 The
Object-Relator Tagmeme
A special kind of Object tagmeme apparently is used when
the
relative pronoun or
interrogative pronoun serves to introduce either a
nominal relative or an
interrogative clause. The exponent of this slot
appears to function en portmanteau; that is, on two levels
at once. The
examples below require some
explanation:
3.2.8.1 Relative Pronoun
(Ou]x
ou$toj e]stin) o{n (zhtou?sin) a]poktei?nai; "Is not this one (he)
whom
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
65
they are seeking to kill?"
(a. 7:25). The main clause consists of the
three words which appear before
o{n. The entire construction of o{n zh-
tou?sin
a]poktei?nai is a relative clause functioning as the manifestor of
the Complement tagmeme of the
main clause. The finite verb of the rela-
tive clause is zhtou?sin. The
object of zhtou?sin is the
separated infini-
tive clause o{n . . . a]poktei?nai, which evidently has undergone
a relativ-
ization transformation from the
basic active kernel construction zhtou?sin
a]poktei?nai
au]to<n, "they are seeking to kill him." Every one of the
twelve relative or
interrogative clauses in which the infinitive clause
is embedded with its object as
a relative pronoun relative clause intro-
ducer has the order
O-R:relpn/intpn + (relative clause verb) + P:tvinf.
In this sense, all relative
pronouns have this double function: they
relate to an antecedent in the
main clause, either expressed or under-
stood, and they function in a
nominal-type slot in their own clause. In
such clauses the relative
pronoun conforms in person, number, and gender
to the governing antecedent
with which it is related.
3.2.8.2 Interrogative
Pronoun
Ti< (e]ch<lqate
ei]j th>n e@rhmon) qea<sasqai;
"What did you go out into the
wilderness to look at?"
(Lk. 7:24). Again, the portmanteau and separated
construction prevails as above,
with the exception that a Location tag-
meme accompanies the main
clause verb. So Ti< is both
relator of the
main clause and transformed
object of the infinitive qea<sasqai.
3.2.9 The Indirect
Object-Relator Tagmeme
One example is found in which the relative clause relator
is a
distributive relative
construction (&$ e]a>n,
"to whomever").
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
66
3.2.9.1 Distributive
Relative Phrase, Dative
(kai>
ou]dei?j ginw<skei . . . ti<j
e]stin o[ path>r ei] mh> o[ Ui[o>j kai>) &$ e]a>n
bou<lhtai
o[ Ui[o>j a]pokalu<yai, "and no one knows . . . who the
Father is,
except the Son and to
whomever he wishes to reveal it" (Lk. 10:22).
The statements on the order of
elements and portmanteau function made
above in Section 3.2.8 apply
here also. The very common Greek practice
of omitting the antecedent of
the relative pronoun is obvious here as in
the previous cases. An
alternative translation would be, "and the one to
whom he
wishes to reveal it."
3.3 Secondary
Clause Tagmemes
The secondary, or peripheral clause tagmemes identified
are
Manner, Location, Time,
Relationship, Direction, Negative, Agent, Goal,
Reference, Purpose, Source,
Benefactive, Reason (or Cause), Circumstance,
and Instrument. In addition to
their semantic properties they are also
characterized by their relative
optionality of occurrence and their rela-
tive freedom of permutation in
clause structure. They are presented
below.
3.3.1 The
Manner Tagmeme
Ninety-four total examples are found, with a great
diversity of
manifesting structures.
3.3.1.1 Single Adverb
(w!ste
mhke<ti au]to>n du<nasqai) fanerw?j ei]j
po<lin ei]selqei?n, "so that he
was no longer able to enter
into the city openly" (Mk. 1:45).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
67
3.3.1.2 Single Adjective,
Accusative
(kalo<n
e]sti<n) se ei]selqei?n ei]j
th>n zwh>n xwlo<n, "it is good for you to
enter into life lame"
(Mk. 9:45).
3.3.1.3 Numeral
pri>n
h} di>j a]le<ktora fwnh?sai, "before the cock will
have crowed twice"
(Mk. 14:30).
3.3.1.4 Noun Phrase, Dative
(kai>) toi?j da<krousin (h@rcato) bre<xein
tou>j po<daj au]tou?, "and she began
to wet his feet with tears"
(Lk. 7:38).
3.3.1.5 Coordinate Noun
Phrase, Dative
dia>
to> au]to>n polla<kij pe<daij kai> a[lu<sesin
dede<sqai, "because he often
had been bound with shackles
and with chains" (Mk. 5:4).
3.3.1.6 Complex Noun Phrase,
Dative
(kai>
h@rcato .
. .) e]kma<ssein t&?
lenti<& &$ h#n diecwsme<noj, "and he be-
gan . . . to wipe with a
towel with which he was girded" (Jn. 13:5).
3.3.1.7 Adversative
Adjective Phrase, Accusative
(kalo<n) soi< (e]stin) ei]selqei?n ei]j th>n zwh>n kullo>n h} xwlo<n,
"it is better
for you to enter into life lame
or maimed . . ." (Mt. 18:8).
3.3.1.8 Relator-Axis Phrase
(mh>
a@rchsqe)
le<gein e]n e[autoi?j,
Pate<ra e@xomen to>n Abraam, "do not
begin to say within
yourselves, 'We have Father Abraham’" (Lk. 3:8).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
68
3.3.1.9 Coordinate
Relator-Axis Phrase
to>
a]gapa?n au]to>n e]c o!lhj th?j kardi<aj kai> e]c o!lhj th?j
sune<sewj kai> e]c
o!lhj
th?j i]sxu<oj, "to love him with the
whole heart and with the whole under-
standing and with the whole
strength" (Mk. 12:33).
3.3.1.10. Enumerative
Numeral Phrase, Nominative
(h@rcato
.
. .) le<gein au]t&? ei$j kata>
ei$j, Mh<ti e]gw<; "they began . . . to
say to him one by one,
'Is it I?'" (Mk. 14:19).
3.3.1.11 Enumerative Noun
Phrase, Nominative
(kai>
e]pe<tacen au]toi?j) a]nakliqh?nai
pa<ntaj sumpo<sia sumpo<sia, "and he
commanded them all to sit down group
by group" (Mk. 6:39).
3.3.1.12 Vocative Phrase,
Vocative
(kai>
h@rcato)
a]spa<zesqai au]to<n, xai?re,
basileu? tw?n ]Ioudai<wn,
"and
they began to greet him, 'Hail,
King of the Jews'" (Mk. 15:18).
3.3.1.13 Participial Clause
(o[
Pe<troj h@rcato) e]pitima?n
au]t&? le<gwn, !Ilew<j soi
Ku<rie: ou] mh> e@stai
soi
tou?to, "Peter began to rebuke him, saying, 'Be it
far from you, Lord;
this shall never happen to you'"
(Mt. 16:22).
3.3.1.14 Adverbial Clause
(posa<kij
h]qe<lhsa) e]pisunagagei?n ta>
te<kna sou, o{n tro<pon o@rnij
e]pisuna<gei
ta> nossia au]th?j u[po> ta>j pte<rugaj,
"how often I wanted to
gather together your children in
the manner in which a hen gathers her young
under the wings"
(Mt. 23:37).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
69
3.3.1.15 Single Noun;
Genitive
(
"Whence shall someone be
able to supply these men with bread here in the
desert?" (Mk. 8:4).
3.3.1.16 Single Adjective; Genitive
(e]du<nato
ga>r tou?to) praqh?nai pollou?,
"for this was able to be sold for
much"
(Mt. 26:9).
3.3.2 The Time
Tagmeme
Forty-thre cases of the Time tagmeme are found. The
different
aspects of time spcified by the
Time tagmeme are (1) time when; (2) ces-
sation of time; (3) length of
time; (4) anticipatory time; (5) contem-
poraneous time; and (6)
priority in time. Exponents are given below.
3.3.2.1 Single Adverb
(ou]de>
e]to<lhse<n tij. . .) eperwth?sai
au]to>n ou]ke<ti, "nor did anyone dare
. . . to ask him any longer"
(Mt. 22:46) (Cessation of time).
3.3.2.2 Single Noun, Dative
e]n
t&? e]lqei?n au]to>n ei]j oi#ko<n tinoj tw?n a]rxo<ntwn tw?n
Fairsai<wn
sabba<t& fagei?n a@rton, "while he went into the
house of a certain one of the
rulers of the Pharisees' on
the Sabbath to eat bread" (Lk. 14:1) (Time
when).
3.3.2.3 Numeral, Accusative
(o!ti) ]Hlei<an (dei?) e]lqei?n
prw?ton, "that it is necessary for Elijah to
come first" (Mt.
17:10, Mk. 9:11) (Priority in Time).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
70
3.3.2.4 Noun Phrase, Accusative
(Ou!twj
ou]k i]sxu<sate) mi<an
w!ran grhgorh?sai met ] e]mou?;
"Were you not
able thus to watch with me for
one hour?" (Mt. 26:40) (Length of Time).
3.3.2.5 Coordinate Adverb
Phrase
(plh>n
dei?)
me sh<meron kai> au@rion
kai> t^? e@xome<n^ poreu<esqeai,
"however, it is necessary for me to go today and
tomorrow and on the one following"
(Lk. 13:33) (Time when). The
coordinate adverb phrase is embedded as a
unit coordinated with t^? e]xome<n^, which is a disparate
structure.
3.3.2.6 Participle Clause,
Accusative
mw!ste
to>n o@xlon qauma<sai ble<pontaj kwfou>j lalou?ntaj, kullou>j
u[giei?j kai> xwlou>j peripatou?ntaj,
kai> tuflou>j ble<pontaj, "so that the
crowd marveled when they saw
the dumb speaking, the maimed healthy, and the
lame walking and the blind
seeing" (Mt. 15:31) (Time when).
3.3.2.7 Adverbial Clause
(au]t&?
kexrhmatisme<non) . . . mh>
i]dei?n qa<naton pri>n h} a}n i@d^ to>n
Xristo>n
Kuri<ou, "having been revealed to him that he should not see
death until
he should see the Anointed One
of the Lord" (Lk. 2:26) (Anticipatory
Time).
3.3.2.8 Infinitive Clause
(e]pequ<msha) tou?to to> pasxa fagei?n meq ] u[mw?n pro> tou? me
paqei?n, "I
desired to eat this Passover
with you before I suffered" (Lk. 22:15) (Time when,
subsequent to main infinitive
clause).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
71
3.3.2.9–Relator-Axis
Phrase
(kai>
e]ge<neto) au]to>n e]n toi?j sa<bbasin
paraporeu<esqai dia> tw?n
spori<mwn, "and
it came to pass while he was passing through the cornfields on
the Sabbath . .
." (Mk. 2:23) (Contemporaneous Time).
3.3.2.10 Noun Phrase, Dative
(Ei]
e@cestin)
toi?j sa<bbasin qerapeu?sai; "Whether it is lawful to heal on
the Sabbath?"
(Mt. 12:10) (Time when).
3.3.3 The
Location Tagmeme
The most numerous secondary tagmeme is Location with 111
exam-
ples.
3.3.3.1 Single Adverb
(kalo<n
e]stin)
h[ma?j w$de ei#nai,
"it is good for us to be here" (Mt. 17:4).
3.3.3.2 Personal Pronoun,
Dative
(kai>
mh> duna<menoi) prosene<gkai
au]t&? dia> to>n o@xlon, "and not being able
to draw near to him
because of the crowd . . ." (Mk. 2:4).
3.3.3.3 Negative Articular
Nominal Phrase, Accusative
(kai>
sunh<xqhsan polloi<,) w!ste
mhke<ti xwrei?n mhde> ta> pro>j th>n qu<ran.
"and many were gathered together, so that
no longer was there room, not even
about the door"
(Mk. 2:2).
3.3.3.4 Relator-Axis Phrase
(to> ptu<on
e]n t&? xeiri> au]tou? . . .) sunagagei?n
to>n si?ton ei]j th>n a]poqh<khn
au]tou?,
"the fan (is) in his hand . . . to gather the wheat into his
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
72
barn"
(Lk. 3:17).
3.3.5 Coordinate
Relator-Axis Phrase
to>
de> kaqi<sai e]k deciw?n mou kai> e]c eu]wnu<mwn (ou]k e@stin e]mo>n tou?to
dou?nai),
"but to sit on my right hand and on the left hand, this is not
or me to give" (Mt.
20:23).
3.3.6
Complex Relator-Axis Phrase
meta> sou? (e!toimo<m ei]mi) kai> ei]j fulakh>n kai> ei]j qa<naton poreu<esqai, "I
ready to go with you even to
prison and to death" (Lk. 22:33). Here
the coordinate relator-axis
phrase takes the modifier kai<, which
makes
the total unit a complex phrase
type.
3.3.7 Alternative Relator-Axis
Phrase
to>
de> kaqisai< e]k deciw?n mou h} e]c e]uwnu<mwn (ou]k e@stin e]mo>n dou?nai), but
to sit on a right hand or on
the left hand is not for me to give" (Mk.
10:40).
3.8 Adverbial Clause
(kai>
h@rcanto)
e]pi> toi? kraba<ttoij tou>j
kakw?j e@xontaj perife<rein o!pou
h@kouon
o!ti e]sti<n, "and they began to carry the ones who
were sickly
where they heard that he was"
(Mk. 6:55).
3.3.4 The
Relationship Tagmeme
The Relationship tagmeme, with 22 instances of use, is
mani-
by only three distinguishable
elements, as illustrated below.
3.3.4.1 Personal Pronoun, Dative
(
]Ea>n de<^) me
sunapoqanei?n soi . . , "If it is necessary for me to die
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
73
with you"
(Mk. 14:31). The Relationship tagmeme thus specifies some
kind of association between
people.
3.3.4.2 Noun Phrase, Dative
( @H ti<j
basileu>j, poreuo<menoj) e[te<r&
basilei? sumbalei?n ei]j po<lemon
. . . , "Or what king,
going to meet with another king in battle
(Lk. 14:31).
3.3.4.3 Relator-Axis Phrase
(h#lqon
ga>r)
dixa<sai a@nqrwpon kata> tou?
patro>j au]tou? . . . , "for I came
to turn a man against his
father . . ." (Mt. 10:35).
3.3.5 The
Direction Tagmeme
Twenty tagmemes are found which reflect the concept of
direction
rather than representing a
fixed location as in the former tagmeme. The
only exponent is a relator-axis
phrase.
3.3.5.1 Relator-Axis Phrase
(kai>
h]rw<thsen) au]to>n (o!pan to> plh?qoj . . .) a]pelqei?n a]p ] au]tw?n,
"and all
the multitude asked him to
depart from them" (Lk. 8:37).
3.3.6 The Negative Tagmeme
There are twenty Negative tagmemes which are always
placed in
position immediately before the
Predicate infinitive, regardless of
clause type or clause order
pattern. This applies to the orders of
nuclear elements P-C, S-P, P-0,
0-P, and P alone. There is only one
exponent for this tagmeme.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74
3.3.6.1 Negative Particle (mh>)
tou?
mh> poreu<esqai a]p ] au]tw?n, "in order that (he
should) not go away from
them" (Lk. 4:42).
3.3.7 The Agent
Tagmeme
Fourteen tagmemes representing the agent of an action are
noted,
with two manifesting elements.
The Agent tagmeme is primarily used in
connection with passive clauses
to indicate the original subject of the
active clause, but Agent is
also infrequently found in active clauses of
the infinitive as well.
3.3.7.1 Personal Pronoun, Dative
(th>n
dikaiosu<nh u[mw?n mh> poiei?n e@mprosqen tw?n a]nqrw<pwn) pro>j to>
qeaqh?nai
au]toi?j, "do not practice your righteousness
before men in order to be
seen by them" (Mt.
6:1).
3.3.7.2 Relator-Axis Phrase
(le<gete) e]n beezeboul
e]kba<llein me ta> daimo<nia, "you are saying that I
cast out demons by Beelzebub"
(Lk. 11:18) (As found in an active clause).
3.3.8 The Goal
Tagmeme
The Goal slot, with twelve usages, focuses on an end or
goal of
action or activity. Three
structures manifest the tagmeme, which fre-
quently suggests the object of
religious faith.
3.3.8.1
Personal Pronoun, Dative
(ou]de>
metemelh<qhte u!steron) tou? pisteu?sai au]t&?, "nor did you repent
afterwards in order to believe on
him" (Mt. 21:32).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
75
3.3.8.2 Relator Axis Phrase
(ou]k
e]lh<luqa) kale<sai
dikai<ouj a]lla> a[martwlou>j ei]j meta<noian,
"I have
not come to call righteous
ones, but sinner unto repentance" (Lk. 5:32).
3.3.8.3 Participle Clause,
Nominative
(kai>
h@rcanto)
sunzhtei?n au]t&?, zhtou?ntej par
] au]tou? shmei?on a]po> tou? ou]ranou?,
peira<zontej
au]to<n, "and they began to debate with him, seeking
from him sign from heaven, tempting
him" (Mk, 8:11).
3.3.9 The
Purpose Tagmeme
The Purpose tagmeme is used in nine cases, with three
structures
filling the slot.
3.3.9.1 Single Infinitive
( ]Ege<neto de> e]n tai?j h[me<raij
tau<taij) e]celqei?in au]to>n
ei]j to> o@poj
proseu<casqai,
"And it came to pass in these days that he went out into the
mountain to pray"
(Lk. 6:12).
3.3.9.2 Infinitive Clause
(me<llei
ga>r [Hr&<dhj) zhtei?n to> paidi<on tou? a]pole<sai au]to<,
"for Herod is
about to seek the child in
order to destroy him" (Mt. 2:13).
3.3.9.3.
Adverbial Clause
(pollou>j
ga>r e]qera<peusen,) w!ste
e]pipi<ptein au]t&? i!na au]tou? a!ywntai
o!soi
ei#xon ma<stigaj, "for he healed many, so that (they)
pressed about him
in order that as many as were
having plaques might touch him" (Mk. 3:10).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
76
3.3.10 The Source Tagmeme
The Source tagmeme is the opposite of Goal, identifying
the
origin of an action or state.
Eight examples are found with two mani-
festing items.
3.3.10.1 Single Adverb
(Dei?) u[ma?j gennhqh?nai a@nwqen,
"It is necessary for us to be born from
above"
(a. 3:7).
3.3.10.2 Relator-Axis Phrase
(kai>) fwnh>n
e]c ou]ranou? gene<sqai, Su> ei# o[ Ui[o>j mou o[ a]gaphto<j . . .
"and a voice came from
heaven, 'You are my beloved Son . . .'" (Lk. 3:
22).
3.3.11 The
Reference Tagmeme
This tagmeme reflects reference made about a person or
thing.
There are ten examples, and
only one manifestor.
3.3.11.1 Relator-Axis Phrase
(kai>
e]fobou?nto) e]rwth?sai
au]to>n peri> tou? r[h<matoj tou<tou,
"and they were
fearing to ask him about
this word" (Lk. 9:45).
3.3.12 The
Benefactive Tagmeme
This tagmeme indicates activity undertaken on behalf of
another,
who is the recipient and
benefitter of the action. Six examples are
noted, with four manifesting
structures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
77
3.3.12.1 Personal Pronoun, Dative
(o!ti
poreu<omai) e[toima<sai
to<pon u[mi?n, "because I am going to prepare a
place for you" (Jn.
14:2).
3.3.12.2 Reflexive Pronoun,
Dative
(
@Anqrwpo<j tij au]genh>j e]poreu<qh ei]j xw<ran makra>n) labei?n e[aut&?
basilei<an
kai> u[postre<yai, "a certain noble man went into a far-off
country to
receive for himself a
kingdom, and to return" (Lk. 19:12).
3.3.12.3
Alternative Noun Phrase, Dative
(ou]ke<ti
a]fi<ete) au]to>n ou]de>n poih?sai t&?
patri> h} t^? mhtri<, "no
longer
allow him to do anything for
father or mother" (Mk. 7:12).
3.3.12.4 Relator-Axis Phrase
(o!ti
sumfe<rei) e!na a@nqrwpon
a]poqanei?n u[pe>r tou? laou?, "because it is ex-
pedient for one man to die on behalf
of the people" (Jn. 18:14).
3.3.13 The Reason or
Cause Tagmeme
While the infinitive clause itself frequently manifests a
Reason
slot on the main clause level,
this kind of tagmeme is also found in the
infinitive clause string
itself. Very often it is difficult to make an
absolute distinction between
reason and cause, and hence the tagmeme is
given joint labeling. Four
examples are found with two manifesting
items.
3.3.13.1 Relator-Axis Phrase
(h@rcanto
a!pan to> plh?qoj tw?n maqhtw?n . . .) ai]nei?n to>n qeo>n fwn^? mega<l^
peri>
pasw?n w$n ei#don duna<mewn, "all the number of the
disciples began to
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
78
praise God with a loud voice because
of all the mighty works which they
saw"
(Lk. 19:37). In this example the noun phrase which manifests the
axis of the relator-axis phrase
has, in turn, a brief relative clause
embedded in the descriptor slot
of the noun phrase in the manner Q:aj +
Des:AjCl + H:n (Quantity +
Descriptor + Head).3
3.3.13.2 Infinitive Clause
(qe<lwn) i]dei?n au]to>n dia> to> a]kou<ein peri>
au]tou?, "wishing to see him be-
cause he had heard about him"
(Lk. 23:8).
3.3.14 The Circumstance
Tagmeme
The phenomenon of attendant circumstance is reflected in
three
instances, which leads to the
identification of the Circumstance tag-
meme. The tagmeme is much more
plentiful on the main clause level.4
Two units manifest the tagmeme.
3.3.14.1 Intransitive
Participle, Accusative
(kai>
kate<neusan toi?j meto<xoij e]n t&? e[te<r& ploi<&) tou? e]lqo<ntaj sullabe<sqai
au]toi?j, "and
they beckoned to the comrades in the other boat in
order that, having come,
(they) should help them" (Lk. 5:7).
3.3.14.2 Participle Clause,
Accusative
w!ste
au]to>n ei]j ploi?on e]mba<nta kaqh?sqai e]n t^? qala<ss^ "so
that when (he)
3 Koine Greek noun
phrases are discussed positionally in tagmemic
form
in Lovelady, op. cit., pp. 50-58. In
that corpus (Luke 8 and 9),
17
syntagmemes of the noun phrase were ascertained and reduced to four
formulas.
This noun phrase syntagmeme noted here represents an addition
to
those already described.
4 Ibid.,
p. 14.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
79
had entered into a boat, he
could repose on the sea" (Mk, 4:1).
3.3.15 The Instrument
Tagmeme
As opposed to the Agent tagmeme, which expresses personal
agency
behind actions, the instrument
tagmeme carries the notion of impersonal
agency. There is only one
instance of this tagmeme appearing with the
infinitive clause, whereas in
main clause usages no less than four struc-
tures alone represent the
concept.5
3.3.15.1 Relator-Axis Phrase
(seismo>j
me<gaj e]ge<neto e]n t^? qala<ss^) w!ste to> ploi?on kalu<ptesqai
u[po> tw?n kuma<twn, "a great upheaval
happened in the sea, so that the boat was
covered by the waves"
(Mt. 8:24).
3.4 The Infinitive
Clause Marker Tagmeme
Of the 822 infinitive clauses in the corpus, 673 are
anarthrous,
while 149 are introduced by an
article, some kind of phrasal or clausal
relator, or both. The
historical development of articular infinitives
and their use with prepositions
is a diachronic matter, and is certainly
covered thoroughly by A. T.
Robertson and others.6 Apparently due to
the loss of the dative nominal
inflection for infinitives, the early
forms of infinitives asserted
to themselves by usage of the Greek
5 Ibid., p. 18.
6 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the
Light of Historical
Research
(Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1934),
pp.
1051-1095; James H. Moulton, A Gramnar of
New Testament Greek, Vol.
I,
Prolegomena (3rd ed.;
H.
E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual of
the Greek New Testament
(New York: The Macmillan Co.,
1947), pp. 208-211.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80
speakers, verbal qualities
which conveyed the inherent verbal sense of
dynamism without the
restrictions of finite tense. Subsequently this
verbal quality was again
nominalized by the addition of the article,
either in solo appearance or
used in connection with a prepositional
relator just as a noun phrase
with article can follow a preposition as
object or axis of the resulting
phrase.
However, the speaker in actual competent use must have
had a
selectional system available to
him dependent upon the semantic charac-
ter of the message he wanted to
relate. Therefore it is theoretically
possible to describe the
selectional possibilities for the relating
units (hereafter called
markers) by means of a formula presumably
analogous to whatever
selectional rules were operative in the phrase
structure or transformational
component of the speaker. It must be
understood that such a formula
does not contradict the nominal (or in
Robertson's terminology,
substantival) quality lent by the article, nor
the other peculiar qualities
contributed by the relators as they are
traditionally understood. But
the very fact that such markers as pro>j
to<
and ei]j to< are, in practice, indistinguishable in
their reflection of
purpose, is a strong indication
that Greek speakers selected their mar-
kers for infinitive clauses as
one unit. They would either choose pro>j
to< or ei]j to< if they wished to express purpose (given
only these two
markers, of course). And if a
speaker wanted to convey antecedent time,
the choice of pro> tou? or pri>n
(h}) was
available.
The comprehensive tagmemic formula for selectional
possibilities
for the non-anarthrous
infinitive clause is:
(1) + _____ mk: +(+rel +art)/+(+rel
+ptc) +Ax:InfCl.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
81
The functional slot is indicated on the left of the
equation.
As mentioned above, the
functional slot is a marker indicator, which is
symbolized by mk. The + sign specifies the marker unit
as optional, as
indeed it is in the light of
the figures that 673 of the 822 clauses are
anarthrous (81%), while 149 are
non-anarthrous (19%). Optionality as
mentioned here refers to
structural optionality. It is apparent that
from a semantic point of view
the intention of the speaker overrides
structural optionality. Thus the
speaker has the semantic choice of
making his infinitive clause
reflect the aspects of reason or cause,
several different time
features, purpose, result, and so on.
The slot in the above formula will, in effect, be filled
in with
the semantic choice of marker.
The right side of the correlation indi-
cates that the marker slot may
be filled by (1) a relator alone, such as
pri<n or w!ste; (2) a relator plus article, as with dia> to<, pro> tou?, e]n
t&?
meta>
to<,
ei]j to<, pro>j to<; (3) a relator with particle,
as with pri>n h}
and (4) an article alone, as
with to< or tou?. These
are all the combina-
tions found in this corpus. The
next functional slot is designated as
the axis slot of the
non-anarthrous construction, which is expounded by
an infinitive clause.
The formula above is based on a general system of
symbolic logic
which reads, in part:
(2) +(+A +B)
+(+A +B).
The first line of (2) reads,
"tagmemes A and B are both obligatory,"
which applies to point (3), pri>n h}. The
second line renders the combin-
ations A, B, and AB. This rule
cares for points (1), (2), and (4) in the
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
82
initial part of this
explanation. The virgule (slant) indicates mutual
exclusiveness of the parts on
either side.
The listing below presents all of the situations found in
this
corpus to be handled by the
comprehensive formula.
(3)
Semantic Feature Category Relator Article/Particle Axis
1. Reason (or Cause) dia> to< InfCl
2. Time la | (Antecedent
time | pro> tou? InfCl
3. Time lb | in main clause | pri>n (h}) InfCl
4. Time 2 (Contemporaneous e]n t&? InfCl
time in main clause)
5. Time 3 (Subsequent time meta> to< InfC1
in main clause)
6. F1 (Purpose) ei]j to< InfCl
7. F2 pro>j to< InfC1
8. F3 tou? InfCl
9. F4 w!ste InfCl
10. Mod (Modifier) tou? InfCl
11. S (Subject) to< InfCl
12. Res (Result) w!ste InfCl
The diagram which follows offers a graphic explanation of
for-
mula (1) and chart (3). The
various components which manifest + ____ mk
are extrapolated from the
formula for ease of reference. In essence,
the diagram tells how the
components of the formula (right column) can
handle the diverse semantic and
structural elements discerned in the
text (the left column).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
83
(4)
Semantic Feature Category Formula
Component
1. Reas
--------------------------------------------------------| +(+rel +art)
2. Time 1a
----------------------------------------------------| +(+rel +art)
3. Time 1b
----------------------------------------------------- +(+rel +ptc), +(+rel)
4. Time 2
------------------------------------------------------| +(+rel +art)
5. Time 3 -------------------------------------------------------| +(+rel +art)
6. F1 -----------------------------------------------------------| +(+rel +art)
7. F2 -----------------------------------------------------------| +(+rel +art)
8. F3 ------------------------------------------------------------ +(+art)
9. F4 ------------------------------------------------------------ +(+rel)
10. Mod
---------------------------------------------------------- +(+art)
11. S
------------------------------------------------------------- +(+art)
12. Res
----------------------------------------------------------- +(rel)
Each of the Semantic Feature Categories used above is now
pre-
sented with manifesting units
in a context taken from the corpus.
1. Reasmk:rel/arta
(15 examples).
(kai>
eu]qu>j e]caneteilen) dia>
to> mh> e@xein ba<qoj gh?j,
"and it sprang up
immediately because it
did not have depth of earth" (Mk. 4:5).
2. T1amk:rel/artg
(6 examples).
(e]pequ<mhsa
tou?to to> pasxa fagei?n meq ] u[mw?n) pro> tou?
me paqei?n, "I
desired to eat this Passover
with you before I suffered" (Lk. 22:15).
3. Tlbmk:rel (7
examples) or rel/ptc (2 examples).
(e]n
tau<t^ t^? nukti>) pri>n a]le<ktora fwnh?sai (tri>j
a]parnh<s^), "in this
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
84
night before the cock
crows, you shall deny me thrice" (Mt. 26:34).
(su sh<meron
tau<t^) pri>n h} di>j a]ke<ktora fwnh?sai (tri<j me a]par-
nh<s^),
"You, this day, even in this night, before the cock crows, shall
deny me thrice" (Mk.
14:30).
4. T2mk:rel/artd
(36 examples).
(kai>
e]qau<mazon) e]n t&? xroni<zein e]n t&? na&? au]to<n,
"and they were marvel-
ing while he tarried in
the temple" (Lk. 1:21).
5.
T3mk:rel/arta (6 examples).
( [O me>n ou#n
Ku<rioj ]Ihsou?j) meta> to> lalh?sai au]toi?j (a]nbelh<mfqh
ei]j
to>n
ou]rano<n, "Therefore the Lord Jesus, after he spoke to
them, was received
up into heaven" (Mk.
16:19).
6. F1mk:rel arta
(5 examples).
(kai>
o!lon to> sune<drion e]zh<toun kata> tou? ]Ihsou? marturi<an) ei]j to>
qanatw?sai
au]to<n,
"and the whole Sanhedrin were seeking witness against Jesus in order to
put him to death" (Mk. 14:55).
7. F2mk:rel/arta
(6 examples).
(kai>
poih<sousin shmei?a kai> te<rata) pro>j to>
a]poplana?n ei] dunato>n tou>j
e]klektou<j,
"and they shall do signs and wonders in order to deceive, if
possible, the elect ones"
(Mk. 13:22).
8. F3mk:artg
(23 examples).
(Toi?j
a]gge<loij au]tou? e]ntelei?tai peri> sou) tou? diafula<cai se,
"He shall
give his angels charge
concerning you) in order to guard you" (Lk. 4:10).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
85
9. F4mk:rel (3
examples).
(kai>
h@gagon au]to>n e!wj a]fru<oj tou? o@rouj e]f ] ou$ h[ po<lij
&]kodo<mhto au]twn,)
w!ste katakrhmni<sai au]to<n, "and they led him
to the edge of the
mountain on which their city
had been built, in order to (or, "so as to") fling
him down" (Lk. 4:29). The
subordinator w!ste is
customarily used to ex-
xess result in a dependent
clause or infinitive clause, but on occasion
he result is not carried
through. In such cases the usage is termed
”intended result” in most
grammars, a designation which is, for practi-
cal purposes, tatamount to
purpose. At any rate, "intended result"
indicates purposive action
which may or may not result in a literal
consequence.
10. Modmk:artg (7 examples). In
addition to the F3 (purpose) use of the
article tou? with the infinitive clause, the article serves
to relate an
infinitive clause to a head for
which it serves as modifier. In this
way infinitive clauses can
modify nouns or noun phrases as part of a
complex noun phrase, or
adjectives as part of a complex adjective
phrase. Both the Modmk:artg
and the modified head are underlined in the
examples below.
(e]plh<sqhsan
ai[ h[me<rai) tou?
tekei?n au]th<n, "the days for her childbearing
accomplished" (Lk. 2:6)
(The infinitive clause modifies a noun
irase).
(W#
a]no<htoi kai> bradei?j t^? kardi<%) tou? pisteu<ein
e]pi> pa?sin oi$j e]la<lhsan
oi[
profh?tai, "0 foolish ones and slow in heart to believe on
all the
ings which the prophets
spoke" (Lk. 24:25).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
86
11. Smk:arta (6
examples).
to> de> a]ni<ptoij xersi>n fagei?n (ou] koinoi? to>n a@nqrwpon), "but the
eating
with unwashed hands does not
defile the man" (Mt. 15:20).
12. Resmk:rel (20 examples).
(kai>
i]dou> seismo>j me<gaj e]ge<neto e]n t^? qala<ss^) w!ste to>
ploi?on kalu<ptesqai
u[po> tw?n kuma<twn,
"and behold, a great upheaval happened in the
sea, so that the boat
was covered by the waves" (Mt. 8:24).
With the tagmemic components of the infinitive clause
thus re-
viewed, the foundation has been
provided for the analysis of the infini-
tive clause itself, and this
follows in the next chapter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER
IV
TYPES OF INFINITIVE
CLAUSES
4.1 Infinitive
Clause Typology
This chapter concentrates on the infinitive clause
syntagmeme,
or string of tagmemes. There
are no fewer than twelve types of infini-
tive clauses based on
transitivity factors and other coordinates, such
as active and passive
statements, and questions. The chart below iden-
tifies all and only the
infinitive clause types found in the corpus.
By a comparison with the
infinitive clause types shown on page 44, which
recorded six infinitive clause
types based on two chapters, the present
chart is seen to be much more
comprehensive with twelve types based on
89 chapters.
The transitivity factors listed above are to be explained
as (1)
intransitive (no direct
object); (2) transitive (with direct object);
(3) transicomplement (with
direct object and object complement); (4)
middle (a verb inherently in
the middle state of transitivityl);
1 For an
explanation of the middle verb see 3.2.2.4, p. 50.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
88
(5) ditransitive (with indirect
object and direct object in the fullest
form, but at least with
indirect object); and (6) equational (copulative
clause with subject
complement). The other coordinates of the matrix
diagram have to do with the
nature of the clause as it possesses either
the characteristics of a
statement or a question. It is apparent from
the chart that active and
passive clauses are found only with statements
on the transitivity scale. The
double-barred arrows on the chart indi-
cate a third dimension
coordinate which is to be regarded as a super-
imposed coordinate relative to
the two coordinates which exist on a
plane. The short double-barred
arrows indicate the transformational
relationship between active and
passive clauses, while the longer
double-barred arrows indicate
the transformational relationship between
the active statement clauses
and the interrogative clauses. These
relationships are discussed in
the appropriate sections.
4.2 Active
Infinitive Clauses
There are evidently six active infinitive clause types
which
make up the majority of
infinitive clause usages, with 732 out of the
822 clauses represented (89%).
Each type has a variety of orders of the
nuclear tagmemes (intransitive,
three orders; transitive, seven forms;
transicomplement, two forms;
middle, three forms; ditransitive, thirteen
forms; and equational, nine
forms). These are presented in the sub-
sections which follow with
examples and tagmemic formulas.
4.2.1 Intransitive
Two hundred twenty-five of the 822 clauses reflect
intransitive
structure (27%). There are
three patterns of order for the nuclear
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
89
tagmemes: Predicate only;
Subject-Predicate; and Predicate-Subject.
They are discussed in order of
their frequency, although frequency does
not necessarily reflect what
may be the basic order pattern for the
native speaker as he possesses
a competent command of the linguistic
system of his language.
4.2.1.1 Predicate Only
This pattern has the highest frequency of the three, with
104
total examples. Also, of the
three it reflects the highest incidence of
secondary tagmemes, with a
total of 108 such units, or 101% as many
secondary tagmemes as nuclear
tagmemes. Twenty-one of the 104 instances
include the introductory (to
the infinitive clause) marker tagmeme.
Moreover, this form utilizes
the greatest variety of secondary tagmemes,
which may be found in two
possible ranks of position preceding the
Predicate, and in three
possible positional ranks following the Predi-
cate. Most of the clauses,
however, use only one or two tagmemes, and
if two, they are typically
placed on either side of the nuclear tagmeme.
Only two of the 104 clauses
have used the double rank in pre-position,
and only one has used the
triple rank in post-position. A formula may
be given to represent the kinds
of tagmemes employed positionally in the
clause:
InfiC1
= + ___ mk +M/L +L/M/Sc/T/D/G/Rel/Neg +P +L/D/M/T/G/Rel/Ref/B/Sc
+Rel/M/Reas/L/G/D/T +M.
The ranks are clearly visible in the positioning of
secondary
tagmemes relative to the
nuclear tagmeme (+P) by the optionality symbols.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
90
The formula means that an
optional marker tagmeme can appear first, to
be followed by an optional
Manner or Location tagmeme, then by an op-
tional Location, Manner,
Source, Time, Direction, Goal, or Relationship
tagmeme, then by an obligatory
Predicate, next by either a Location,
Direction, Manner, Time, Goal,
Relationship, Reference, Benefactive, or
Source tagmeme, then by a
Relationship, Manner, Reason, Location, Goal,
Direction, or Time tagmeme, and
finally by a Manner tagmeme. None of
the secondary tagmemes
co-occur, however, and following this lengthy
statement of the positional
possibilities it is convenient to construct
the formula in simpler terms:
InfiC1
= + ____ mk (±Peri1)
(±Peri2) +p (±Peri3) (±Peri4) (±Peri5).
The abbreviation Peri
stands for Peripheral tagmeme
inclusive of
the specific secondary tagmemes
listed above. On this clause form it
should also be pointed out that
when a marker tagmeme occurs, only in
one instance does a secondary
tagmeme appear before the Predicate and
that one is Negative.
Furthermore, when two secondary tagmemes (or
three) follow the Predicate, no
marker or other secondary tagmemes pre-
cede the Predicate. From this
the conclusion can be drawn that the rel-
ative positions in the clause
can only bear so much weight, the weight
of grammatical structures
tagmemically identified. One example may be
given:
P:ivinf Sc:RA T:RA
. . . a]nasth?nai
e]k nekrw?n t^? tri<t^
h[me<r%". . . to rise up from the
dead on the third day"
(Lk. 24:46).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
91
4.2.1.2 Subject-Predicate
A Subject tagmeme is apparently required when the main
clause
verb is impersonal, when the
antecedent of the main clause receives fur-
ther identification by
repetition, or when the subject of the infinitive
clause co-functions as a
possible direct object of the main clause
(sometimes termed a consociate
function). Introductory markers for this
order of clause tend to be
severely restricted in comparison with the
Predicate-Subject form of the
clause, with 17 markers for the 77 clauses.
The formula for the clause form
is:
InfiC1 = ± _____ mk (±Peril)
(±Peri2) +S (±Peri3) +P (±Peri4)
(±Peri5).
In four cases the Subject is manifested by the Subject
Marker
tagmeme, namely the article in
the accusative case. When that situation
prevails, either one optional
tagmeme, or none, intervenes between Smk
and P. The postpositive de> is not counted among the units of the in-
finitive clause syntagmeme
since it functions as a sentence-linker or
main clause linker. An example
of a clause used as the subject of the
main clause, with Smk, is:
Smk:arta M:Nd
P:ivinf
to>
(de>) a]ni<ptoij xersi>n fagei?n (ou] koinoi? to>n
a@nqrwpon), "But
the eating with unwashed hands
does not defile the man" (Mt. 15:20).
When the Subject is manifested by anything other than arta,
Peril can be Time:
Peri2 can be Manner or Location; Peri3 can be Loca-
tion, Manner, Time, Negative,
Circumstance, Goal, Relationship, or
Source; Peri4 can be
Location, Direction, Time, Goal, Relationship, or
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
92
Benefactive; and Peri5
can be Location or Manner. As is usual in infin-
itive clauses, the negative
tagmeme is positioned immediately before the
Predicate when it occurs.
Further positional limitations appear to be
as follows: when either Peril
or Peri2 are used, the other Peri's do
not co-occur; when Peri3
and Peri4 are manifested, other Peri's do not
co-occur; and when Peri4
and Peri5 appear, other Peri's do not co-occur.
An example with conventional
Subject tagmeme is:
S:pna P:ivinf D:RA L:RA
(ke<leuson) me e]lqei?n
pro>j se> e]pi> ta>
u!data,
"command me to come to
you on the water" (Mt.
14:28).
In this form of the intransitive clause the total
incidence of
secondary tagmemes is 61 of the
77 nuclear combinations, or 79%.
4.2.1.3 Predicate-Subject
Of all the intransitive forms, the Predicate-Subject
clause is
the most generally used for the
marker tagmeme, for 32 of its 44 clauses
have the marker (72%), whereas
with the Predicate alone there were only
21 out of 104 uses (20.2%), and
with the Subject-Predicate, only 17 out
of 77 (22%). Here, then, is a
partial determinant of word order. Most
of the markers are time markers
(22 out of 32).
There is a total of twenty-five secondary tagmemes in
this order
pattern out of a total of 44
clauses. Thus this type reflects the low-
est percentage of secondary
tagmemes of the three forms (P = 101%,
S-P = 79%, P-S = 57%). Thus it
is obvious that this form is the most
terse, structurally and
semantically, of the three. The clause formula
is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
93
InfiCl
= mk (±Peri1) +P (±Peri2)
+ S (±Peri3) (±Peri4) (±Peri5)..
A Time tagmeme is used only once in Peril, and
Location is used
only once in Peri2,
of all the clauses. And only 15 of the 44 clauses
have any kind of optional
tagmeme in post-position relative to the last
nuclear element, the Subject.
When used, Peri3 has either Manner, Loca-
tion, Source, Relationship,
Direction, or Reference; Peri4 has Location,
Reference, Purpose, or Time;
and Peris has Location or Purpose. The
only co-occurrence appears with
Manner following the Subject:
P:ivinf
S:Na M:Nd M:RA
L:RA
(kai>)
katabh?nai to> pneu?ma to> !Agion
swmatik&? ei@dei w[j
peristera>n
e]p
] au]to<n,
"and the Holy Spirit came down upon him in bodily form like a
dove" (Lk. 3:22).
A more extensive example appears with Tmk:
Tmk:rel/artd P:ivinf S:pna L:RA
e]n
t&? e]lqei?n au]to>n ei]j oi#kon tinoj tw?n
a]rxo<ntwn tw?n
T:nd
F:InfCl
Farisai<wn
sabba<t& fagei?n a@rton, "while he went into the house of a
certain one of the rulers of
the Pharisees on the Sabbath to eat bread" (Lk. 14:1).
4.2.2
Transitive
Three hundred eighty-six of the 822 clauses reflect
transitive
structure (47%). There are
seven patterns of order for the nuclear tag-
memes: Predicate-Object;
Object-Predicate; Subject-Predicate-Object;
Subject-Object-Predicate;
Predicate-Subject-Object; Object-Subject-
Predicate; and
Object-Predicate-Subject.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
94
4.2.2.1 Predicate-Object
The P-0 form is the most widely used pattern, with 236
instances.
It is also the most diversified
in the kind of secondary tagmemes which
accompany the nuclear elements,
and it has more of these elements than
any of the other patterns, for
there are 78 such elements, or 33% as
many of these as there are
nuclear combinations. Eleven per cent, or
26 of the 236 clauses, have
markers. The formula for the pattern is:
InftCl
= + _____ mk (±Peri1) +P (±Peri2) +0 (±Peri3)
(±Peri4) (±Peri5).
Peril can be Manner,
Negative, Time, Location, or Circumstance;
Peri2 can be Manner,
Location, Time, or Benefactive; Peri3 can be Pur-
pose, Direction, Location,
Relationship, Manner, Time Reason, Goal,
Reference, or Benefactive; Peri4
can be Reason, Relationship, or Goal;
and Peri5 can be
Manner or Time. Co-occurrence takes place in only two
cases, and these are following
the Object tagmeme, where Goal and Manner
both co-occur. In only three
cases do two or three optional tagmemes
appear after the Object
tagmeme, and the rest appear in solo form. An
example of the pattern is:
P:tvinf O:Na M:Nd
(h@rcanto)
ai]nei?n to>n qeo>n fwn^? mega<l^
peri> pasw?n w$n ei]do>n
M:PtC1
duna<mewj, le<gontej . . . ,
"they began to praise God with a loud voice for all
the mighty works which they
saw, saying . . ." (Lk. 19:37).
4.2.2.2. Object-Predicate
The 0-P form ranks second in transitive clause usage,
with 106
uses with conventional Object
tagmeme, and 12 more uses with the special
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95
Object-Relator tagmeme,
totaling 118 instances. There is a total of 27
secondary tagmemes sprinkled in
the 118 clauses, resulting in a figure
of 22% as many of these as
there are nuclear combinations.
Perhaps the most striking feature of this pattern is the
absence
of any marker tagmeme. This is
possibly the case because these infini-
tive clauses are used in the
vast majority of cases as the Predicate
Complement or Direct Object of
the governing clause (99 of the 106 uses
above), and hence they have no
opportunity to have affixed to them mar-
kers whose essential character
is to offer aspects and shadings of se-
mantic meaning to the total
main clause (such as time, purpose, reason,
and so forth). The clause
formula is:
InftCl
= (±Peri1) +0 (+Peri2) +P (±Peri3) (±Peri4).
Peril includes Time,
Source, Manner, and Negative; Peri2 in-
cludes Negative or Time; Peri3
incorporates Location, Source, Manner,
Direction, Relationship, and
Time; and Peri4 consists of either Loca-
tion, Purpose, or Time. No tagmemes
co-occur, and in the one instance
where Negative appears
pre-Object, it is the form ou]de<, the
conjunctive
negative, rather than Two clauses have Peri3 and Peri4
manifested
(one of them with Negative
intervening 0-P), and one clause has Manner
pre-Object and Location
post-Predicate. An example is:
O:Na P:tvinf Rel:RA T:InfCl
(e]pequ<mhsa) tou?to to> pasxa fagei?n
meq ] u[mw?n pro> tou? me
paqei?n,
"I
desired to eat this Passover
with you before I suffer" (Lk. 22:15).
Another form of the transitive 0-P clause deserves
mention here.
It is the special infinitive
clause use with a relative clause in which
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
96
the object of the infinitive
serves also as object-relator of the rela-
tive clause.2 In each case there is separation of the
manifesting
structure of the Object-Relator
slot and the Predicate tagmeme. In one
case there is a Location
tagmeme in post-position. That is the example
now cited:
O-R:relpna P:tvinf L:RA
(th>n
e@codon au]tou?,) h{n
(h@mellen) plhrou?n e]n Ierousalhm
"his departure which he
was about to accomplish in
The relationship may be expressed in the following
diagram:
Ncx
|----------------------------------|
H:N
Mod:AjC1
|--------|----------|
|--------|--------------------|
D:art H:n Pos:pos R
P:v-im PC:InfC1
|
| | | | |---------------------|
|
| | 0-R:relpna | P:tvinf L:RA
| | | | | | R:rel Ax:n
|
| | | | | | |
th>n e@codon au]tou?
h{n (h@mellen) plhrou?n e]n
Ierousalhm
The diagram shows a complex noun phrase (which on another
main
clause level manifests the
Direct Object slot of e@legon). Its head is
the noun phrase translated
"his departure," and the modifier of the noun
phrase is an entire Adjective
Clause which consists of Relator tagmeme,
Predicate filled by a verb of
the imminent classification, and a Predi-
cate Complement tagmeme
manifested by an infinitive clause. The
2 For an explanation of
the Object-Relator tagmeme, see Section
3.2.8, pp. 63-64.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
97
Object-Relator tagmeme is
evidently induced by a relativization trans-
formation from some deep
structure predication such as "He was about to
accomplish his departure."
In English it is possible to formulate the
kernel structure as
X
N Y
He was about to accomplish | his departure | yesterday.
By means of the formula
|
who |
T-rel
= X + N + Y --> N + | that | + X
+ Y
| which |
it is possible to derive the
construction, "the departure which he was
about to accomplish
yesterday," when which is selected because the
antecedent, departure, is
non-personal.
In a similar way the Greek Adjective Clause may be
derived from
a statement. Given a string
X N Y
h@mellen
plhrou?n | th>n e@codon au]tou? | e]n
Ierousalhm
and the rule
| o{j
|
T-rel
=X+N+Y --> N + | [+gen]
| X + Y,
| [+case]|
it is feasible to derive th>n e@codon au]tou ? h{n h@mellen plhrou?n e]n
Ierou-
salhm. Thus
it becomes apparent that English and Greek are not so very
different in their syntactic
derivational processes--at least in this
type of construction--since
essentially the same rule handles the rela-
tionship. Here is a kind of
linguistic universal which at least attests
to the underlying relatedness
of English and Greek within the
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
98
Indo-European language family.
The singular difference between the two
is the specification of the
proper gender and case of the relative pro-
noun which is normal with Greek
but impossible with English because of
historical processes.
4.2.2.3 Subject-Predicate-Object
Sixteen clauses reflect this order which arises when the
need
for subject identification is
apparently felt. Only three secondary
tagmemes are found in all of
the 16 clauses, indicating that there are
only 19% as many of these as
there are nuclear patterns. Five clauses
(31%) have introductory
markers, and two of these are Subject markers
with articular manifestation. The
formula is:
InftCl = + _____ mk +S
+P +0 (+Peril).
When Smk (Subject Marker)3 occurs, the S of the formula is
automatically
deleted and shifted to the Smk
unit, which functions as the Subject of
the infinitive clause. The
situation is analogous to the way in which
a relative pronoun can function
both as object of the verb and as rela-
tor of the clause. Peril
is manifested by either Manner or Time. In
two cases S is separated from
P. The pattern is obviously a very con-
cise one, allowing no
intervening tagmemes among the nuclear units. An
example is:
Reasmk:rel/arta S:pna P:tvinf 0:aja
dia>
to> au]to>n
ginw<skein pa<ntaj,
"because he knew all men (Jn.
2:24).
3 For an explanation of
Smk as Infinitive Clause Marker, see
Section 3.4, pp. 78-85.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99
4.2.2.4 Subject-Object-Predicate
Seven examples are found, without any trace of marker.
They
manifest either Object tagmemes
or Predicate Complement tagmemes on a
higher clause level. Only two
secondary tagmemes are used with the
seven clauses. The formula is:
InftCl = +S +0 +P (+Peril).
An example is:
S:pn O:na P:tVinf
(ei]
e@cestin)
a]ndri> gunai?ka a]polu?sai, "whether it is lawful
for a man to
send away (his) wife" (Mk.
10:2). The phenomenon of dative subjects in
infinitive clauses is discussed
in Section 5.1.
4.2.2.5 Predicate-Subject-Object
Five clauses reflect this pattern, and in two cases there
are
secondary tagmemes, Agent and
Purpose. Three of the clauses also have
Time markers. The formula is:
InftC1 = +Tmk +Ag
+P +S +0 +F.
An example is:
AG:RA P:tyinf S:pn
O:Na
(le<gete) e]n beelzeboul
e]kba<llein me ta>
diamo<nia, "you say (that) by
Beelzebub I am casting out demons"
(Lk. 11:18).
4.2.2.6 Object-Subject-Predicate
Three concise clauses of this form use no secondary
tagmemes and
only one marker among them. The
formula is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100
InftC1 = +Tmk +0 +S +P.
An example is:
Tmlc:rel/artg O:pna S:npa P:tvinf
Pro>
tou ? se Fi<lippon fwnh?sai . . . , "Before Philip
called you
. . ." (Jn. 1:48).
4.2.2.7 Object-Predicate-Subject
Only one clause reflects this form. There are no markers
or
secondary tagmemes. The formula
is:
InftC1 = +0 +P +S.
O:dema P:tvinf S:NPa
(ou]xi>) tau?ta (e@dei) paqei?n to>n Xristo>n,
"Was it not necessary for
Christ to suffer these things .
. . ?" (Lk. 24:26).
The order pattern of this last clause may be explained by
the
practice observed in this
corpus for the writers to place the Predicate
immediately after such
impersonal verbs as dei?, and e@cestin when the
subject of the infinitive or
the object appears in front of the dei?
or
e@cestin.
4.2.3 Transicomplement
Four of the 822 clauses reflect the post-Predicate
structure of
Object-Object Complement in two
order forms. These clauses comprise
0.5% of the total.
4.2.3.1 Predicate-Object-Objective
Complement
Two cases are found, and both of them have identical
wording,
which is not always the case
with parallel passages in the Synoptic
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
101
Gospels. There are no markers
or secondary tagmemes. The formula is:
Inft/cCl = +P +0 +OC.
In both cases the Object Complement tagmeme is manifested
by a
complex noun phrase, as opposed
to the next order, which is distin-
guished by its use of an
adjectival phrase to fill the OC slot. An ex-
ample of this P-O-OC form is:
P:tvinf 0:Na OC-Ncx
(kai>) dou?nai
th>n yuxh>n au]tou ? lu<tron a]nti> pollw?n, and
to give his life
a ransom for many" (Mk.
10:45, Mt. 20:28).
4.2.3.2 Object-Objective
Complement-Predicate
Again the pattern is concise, with no markers or
secondary tag-
memes. The choice of the
adjective phrase for OC may dictate the order
form. The formula is:
Inft/cCl = +0 +0C +P.
In the example given, the adjective phrase is an
alternative one
showing separation between the
initial element and the adverse element
which follows the Predicate.
O:Na OC:Ajalt P:tvinf
(ou] du<nasai) mi<an tri<xa
leukh>n poih?sai h} me<lainan, "you are not
H:aj Alt:alt H:aj
able to make one hair white or
black" (Mt. 5:36). The alternative ad-
jective phrase consists of a
head slot manifested by an adjective, a
separated alternative slot
manifested by an alternative connector, and
another head slot filled by an
adjective. This is typical multiple-
head conjoining, albeit
alternative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
102
4.2.4
Middle
The nature of the middle clause has already been
discussed.4 It
is transitive in that it takes
an object, but it is restrictively trans-
itive in that the clause with
its verbal nucleus is not capable of being
transformed into a passive
construction, as are other transitive forms.
Therefore the middle clause is
presented separately, although the pat-
tern orders may be compared to
fully-transitive forms.
There are six such clauses, comprising 0.7% of the corpus,
with
three nuclear orders:
Predicate-Object; Object-Predicate; and Subject-
Predicate-Object.
4.2.4.1 Predicate-Object
The two examples each have a Reason marker and Negative
slot be-
fore the Predicate, with no
other tagmemes. The formula is:
InfmCl = +Reasmk +Neg +P +0.
Since there are no other examples, it presently appears
that the
marker and Negative are part of
the nuclear pattern. An example is:
Reasmk:rel/arta
Neg:neg P:v-midinf 0:Na
(kai> eu]qu>j
e]cane<teilen) dia>
to> mh> e@xein ba<qoj gh?j,
"and it grew up
immediately, because it did not have depth of earth" (Mk.
4:5).
4.2.4.2 Object-Predicate
Each of the two clauses here has a secondary tagmeme, one
pre-
posed and one post-posed. In
both cases the Object slot is manifested
4 See Section 3.2.2.4, p. 50.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103
by the noun zwh>n or the
noun phrase zwh>n ai]w<nion. Each is emphatic in
its positional recognition of
spiritual life, not the physical life-
principle of secular reference.
The formula is:
InfmCl = +M +0 +P +L.
An example is:
O:Na P:v-midinf L:RA
(t&? Ui[&? e@dwken) zwh>n e@xein e]n
e[aut&?, "to the Son he gave to have
life in himself" (Jn.
5:26).
4.2.4.3 Subject-Predicate-Object
Two concise clauses admit no other tagmemes than the
nuclear
ones. Each manifests a
Predicate Complement slot on the main clause
level. In each case the logical
subject of the infinitive clause is a
pronoun in the dative case,5
as in the example which follows the formula:
InfmCl = +S +P +0.
S:pnd
P:v-midinf O:Na
(Ou]k e@cesti<n) soi e@xein
th>n gunai?ka tou? a]delfou?
sou,
"It is not
lawful for you to have the wife
of your brother" (Mk. 6:18).
4.2.5
Ditransitive
The ditransitive clause is one of the most difficult to
handle,
either in this corpus, where
there are 13 discernible forms, or in other
languages which the writer has
analyzed tagmemically. In one chapter of
Hebrew alone there are six
patterns for finite-verb ditransitive
5 See Section 5.1 for a
full discussion of datives which function
primarily as datives of
reference, and secondarily as logical subjects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
104
clauses, and in Old English
there are four such patterns in 236 lines.6
And in two chapters of Luke
there are no fewer than six patterns in
independent clauses.7
So it appears that ditransitive clauses are
typically the most unstable in
these languages, and similar results
could probably be adduced from
other languages.
There are 71 ditransitive clauses in the corpus,
providing a 9%
contribution toward the total
of 822 clauses. They are found apparently
without Subject or Object on
occasion, or without Subject, or without
Object. Stated positively, they
appear with the elements Subject, Predi-
cate, Indirect Object, Object;
Subject, Predicate, Indirect Object;
Predicate, Indirect Object,
Object; and Predicate, Indirect Object. As
long as the syntagmeme has an
Indirect Object slot it has been included
in this listing. This has been
done on the basis that the infinitive
clause is a reduced clause
structure to begin with, a derivative of deep
structure or kernel
constructions, and that the absence of one or
another elements is due to
mentalistic deletion processes which are
regular to the language system
but which may not be fully conscious to
the speaker.
4.2.5.1 Predicate-Indirect
Object-Object
This is by far the most dominant pattern by numerical
frequency,
6 Edgar J. Lovelady,
"A Tagmemic Analysis of Genesis 37" (unpub-
lished
research monograph, Grace Theological Seminary, August, 1975);
and
"A Tagmemic Analysis of AElfric's Life
of St. Oswald" (unpublished
Doctor's
dissertation,
7 Lovelady, "A
Positional Syntax of Koine Greek" (unpublished
research monograph, Grace
Theological Seminary, August, 1974), pp. 26-27.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
105
with 27 cases out of the 71
ditransitive clauses (38%). Only two of the
27 clauses (7%) have markers,
and there are six secondary tagmemes found
among all the clauses,
indicating that there are 22% as many of these as
there are nuclear patterns. In
general, ditransitive clauses make rela-
tively little use of
introductory markers. The formula is:
InfdCl = +Fmk +T
+P +I +Ref/M +0 +T.
The Purpose marker is the only one used, and no secondary
tag-
memes co-occur. Most of the
clauses with this order are used to fill
either Predicate Complement or
Purpose slots on the higher clause level.
Most of the clauses in this
pattern have their Object slots filled with
clausal structures (18 out of
27, or 66%): Direct Quotation, Nominal
Clause, and infinitive clause.
This serves as a general discriminator
for clause order from the P-O-I
order, whose Object slots are never
filled by such structures. An
example is:
P:dvinf I:RA Ref:RA O:D.Q.
(h@rcato) le<gein
pro>j tou>j o@xlouj
peri> ]Iwa<nnon,
Ti< e]ch?lqate ei]j th>n
e@rhmon
qea<sasqai; "he began to say to the crowds concerning
John, 'What
did you go out into the
wilderness to see?'" (Lk. 7:24).
4.2.5.2 Predicate-Object-Indirect
Object
The nine examples of this pattern show this one to be a
signifi-
cant one, for it is third in
numerical frequency. Three of the clauses
have a marker unit (33%), and
there are four optional tagmemes used for
all of the nine clauses. The
Object clot in this position is limited
to single nouns, pronouns, and
noun phrases, as opposed to the foregoing
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
106
pattern. The formula is:
InfdCl = + ______ mk +Sc +P +0 +M +I +M +Reas.
Result or Purpose markers are used when selected, and it
can be
said that the two Manner slots
of the formula do not co-occur in any one
clause. An example is:
Fmk:artg P:dvinf O:Na I:Nd
M:RA
tou ?
dou?nai gnw?sin
swthri<aj t&? la&?
au]tou? e]n a]fe<sei
a[martiw?n
au]tw?n
dia> splagxna> e]le<ouj qeou? h[mw?n e]n oi$j e]piske<yetai h[ma?j
a]ntolh> e]c u!youj
"in order to give
knowledge of salvation to his people in forgiveness of
their sins because of the
tender mercies of our God in connection with
which the Day-Spring from on
high shall visit us" (Lk. 1:77).
4.2.5.3 Indirect
Object-Predicate-Object
The six clauses of this pattern admit no peripheral
tagmemes.
The fronting of the Indirect
Object tagmeme appears to be for the pur-
pose of emphasis. The
possibility of confusing the Indirect Object of
the infintive as the Indirect
Object of the main clause is eliminated
by the following example:
I:indfpnd
P:dvinf 0:Npta
(o[ de> parh<ggeilen au]toi?j) mhdeni> ei]
instruction to them to tell to
no one the thing that had happened" (Lk.
8:56).
In this example the pronoun au]toi?j is the indirect object
of the main
clause, and the infinitive
clause itself is the direct object of that
clause. Then within the
infinitive clause the indefinite pronoun mhdeni>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
107
functions as indirect object.
The formula is:
InfdCl = +I +P +O.
4.2.5.4 Indirect
Object-Object-Predicate
Three examples are found, with no optional tagmemes. All
three
examples apparently give
secondary emphasis to the Object tagmeme by the
medial position in the clause.
In the previous pattern the Object re-
ceives tertiary emphasis by
position. The formula is:
InfdCl = +I +0 +P.
An example is:
I:pnd O:na P:dvinf
(sune<qeto) au]t&?
a]rgu<rion dou?nai,
"they consented to give him the money"
(Lk. 22:5).
The matter of emphasis by word order is admittedly a
difficult
one in Greek. As Denniston
points out,8 the problem can be approached
in two ways: by way of grammar,
or by way of logic and rhetoric. Using
a grammatical interpretation,
one might say that a verb of consenting
(sunti<qhmi)
requires the order Indirect Object-Object-Predicate, while a
verb of forbidding (kwlu<w) has
the order Object-Indirect Object-Predi-
cate, as in Section 4.2.5.5.
However, this would have to be substanti-
ated by considerable further investigation.
By using the logical-rhetorical route of analysis, other
inter-
pretations are rendered
possible. In other Indo-European languages
8 J. D. Denniston, Greek Prose Style (
Press, 1965), p. 42.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
108
which are inflected, such as
Old English, degrees of emphasis apparently
correlate with clausal position
as a rhetorical device, especially when
permutations of
"normal" clause order are not attributable to any
grammatical determinant. If
emphasis is considered by degree, the nu-
clear tagmeme in initial
position may be designated as emphatic, and
when medial, as semi-emphatic.9
Proceeding on such a basis as this for Greek, stylistic
or
rhetorical permutations may
reflect primary emphasis when nuclear tag-
memes are in initial position,
secondary emphasis when in medial posi-
tion, and tertiary emphasis
when they follow medial position. The in-
terpretation thus advanced here
was adopted independently of Denniston's
conclusions on the matter in
his Greek Prose Style:
As regards beginning and end, it is generally admitted,
and is in-
deed beyond dispute, that the weight of a Greek sentence
or clause
is usually at its opening, and the emphasis tends to
decline as the
sentence proceeds . . . . It is a far more difficult
matter to de-
termine whether the end of the sentence or clause is to
be regarded
as being a secondary position of
emphasis.10
It should be noted that Denniston's last sentence in the
above
quotation is made in the light
of relatively rare rhetorical use of an
emphatic word placed at the end
of a sentence to gain added emphasis
from that position.
4.2.5.5 Object-Indirect
Object-Predicate
Two clauses use this pattern, which again has its own
emphasis
order with initial (and
presumably emphatic) Object, and secondarily
9 Lovelady, "A
Tagmemic Analysis of AElfric's . . . ," p. 158.
10 Denniston, op. cit., pp. 44-45.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
109
emphatic Indirect Object. No
optional tagmemes are found. The formula
is:
InfdCl = +0 +I +P.
An example is:
0:na I:npd P:dvinf
(Tou?ton eu!ramen . . . kwlu<onta) fo<rouj
Kai<sari dido<nai, "we found this
man forbidding to give tribute
to Caesar" (Lk. 23:2).
4.2.5.6 Object-Predicate-Indirect
Object
With one example, this is the least-used pattern of the
three-
unit nuclear patterns of the
ditransitive infinitive clause. The for-
mula is as concise as its three
tagmemes.
InfdCl = +0 +P +I.
The example is:
O:Na P:dvinf I:Nd
(oi@date) do<mata a]gaqa> dido<nai toi?j
te<knoij u[mw?n, "you know to give good
gifts to your children"
(Lk. 11:13).
4.2.5.7 Predicate-Indirect
Object
This two-unit nuclear pattern is the second most
plentiful di-
transitive clause type, with
ten examples. In one instance a Time mar-
ker is used, and one clause has
a Purpose tagmeme postposed. For the
number of its uses, it is a
very conservative pattern. The formula is:
InfdCl = +Tmk +P +I +F.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
110
An example is:
P:dvinf
I:Nd
(e@dramon) a]paggei?lai toi?j maqhtai?j au]tou?,
"they ran to announce (it) to
his disciples" (Mt. 28:8).
4.2.5.8 Indirect
Object-Predicate
This form emphasizes the Indirect Object unit, with seven
exam-
ples. Two clauses each have a
Manner tagmeme, which, of course, do not
co-occur. The formula is:
InfdCl = +M +I +M
+P.
It should also be noted that no marker tagmeme is used
with any
of these clauses. An example
is:
M:av I:pnd P:dvinf
(e@doce ka]moi>) kaqech?j soi gra<yai, "it seemed good to me
also
. . . with an orderly
presentation to write to you" (Lk. 1:3).
One interesting example occurs with the Relative Clause
which
uses the Indirect Object of the
infinitive clause in portmanteau fashion
as the relator of the Relative
Clause. This is similar to the Object-
Relator usage already discussed
in Section 4.2.2.2, pp. 95-96. The
clause is:
I:R:dispnd
(ou]dei?j ginw<skei . . . ei] mh>
o[ Ui[o>j kai>) &$ e]a>n
(bou<lhtai o[
Ui[o>j)
P:dvinf
a]pokalu<yai, "no one knows . . .
except the Son and the one to whomever
the Son wishes to reveal
(it)" (Lk. 10:22).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
111
The infinitive clause is comprised of the Indirect
Object-Rela-
tor manifested by the
distributive relative pronoun construction &$ e]a>n,
and the Predicate slot with the
infinitive a]pokalu<yai. By
distributive
it is meant that the recipients
of the action are definitely known to
the bestower of the action, but
unknown to non-performers of that ac-
tion. This is a significant distinction from the
concept of the indefi-
inite pronoun which does not
specifically include definiteness, although
originally it may allow for it.
The infinitive clause is the Predicate
Complement of the Nominal
Clause Predicate. The Nominal Clause itself
fills the second head slot of a
coordinate noun phrase. The coordinate
phrase is part of an Exception
construction yet to be explored
tagmemically. It is still clear, however, that the
Exception construc-
tion is a delayed elliptical
construction whose full rendition would be,
translated, " . . except
the Son and the one to whomever he wishes to
(it), knows who is the
Father." Be that as it may, the construc-
tion and may be diagrammed as
follows:
Nco
|----------------------------------|
C:c H:NomC1
| |-------------|---------------|--------------|
| R P:tv
| I—R:dispnd
P:dvinf
| | | | |
kai> &$ e]a>n bou<lhtai o[ ui[o>j a]pokalu<yai
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
112
The clause is very likely a transformation from a kernel
utter-
ance such as "The Son
wishes to reveal (it) to him." A formula can be
constructed in a similar manner
to the one for the Object-Relator con-
struction, building into this
formula the provision for the Indirect Ob-
ject relativization
transformation. Given the string in kernel struc-
ture:
X Y Z Nd
o[ ui[o>j | bou<lhtai | a]pokalu<yai | (ti)
au]t&?,
it is possible to use the rule
| o!j |
T-rel-IO =X+Y+Z+N --> | [+d]
[+dis ptcl]| +Y[+subj] + X + Z
| [+gen] |
in order to arrive at the
result string in the text:
dispnd
| Y[+subj] |
X | Z
&$ e]a>n | bou?lhtai | o[ ui[o>j
|
a]pokalu<yai (ti).
The sign [+d] indicates that the relative pronoun must be
in the
dative case, and [+subj]
provides for the shift to the subjunctive mood
with e]a>n, which demands the
subjunctive with Y. The sign [+gen] in the
formula provides that the
gender of the relative pronoun remains the
same as that of its antecedent.
4.2.5.9 Predicate-Indirect
Object-Object-Subject
This pattern and the next four patterns utilize four
nuclear
tagmemes in various
permutations. It is difficult to determine which is
the dominant form, since each
form is used only once. This form P-I-O-S
may be the prevailing one for
native speakers, since it reflects the
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
113
P-I-O pattern of the most
numerous three-element syntagmeme, and this is
the only form to take an
introductory marker unit. None of these take
optional tagmemes. The formula
is:
InfdCl = +Reasmk +P +I +0 +S.
The example is:
Reasmk:rel/arta P:dvinf I:pnd O:na S:Na
dia< (ge) to>
pare<xein moi ko<pon th>n xh<ran tau<thn, "because this
widow showed me toil (I will
avenge her)" (Lk. 18:5).
4.2.5.10 Subject-Predicate-Object-Indirect
Object
The formula for the one example is:
InfdCl = +S +P +0 +I.
The example is:
S:pna P:dvinf O:N I:Nd
(e@dei) se (ou#n) balei?n
ta> a]rgu<ria< mou toi?j trapezeitaij,
"it was
necessary therefore for you to
give my money to the moneylenders" (Mt.
25:27).
4.2.5.11 Subject-Object-Predicate-Indirect
Object
The formula for the one example is:
InfdCl = +5 +0 +P +I.
The example is:
S:pna P:Ncx
(oi[ Farisai?oi kai>
Saddoukai?oi . . . e]phrw<thsan) au]to>n shmei?on e]k tou?
P:dvinf I:pnd
ou]ranou?
e]pidei?cai au]toi?j, "the Pharisees and Sadducees asked
him to show
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
114
them a sign from heaven"
(Mt. 16:1).
4.2.5.12 Subject-Indirect
Object-Object-Predicate
The formula is:
InfdCl = +S +I +0 +P.
The example is:
S:pna I:npd 0:na P:dvinf
(e@cestin) h[ma?j
Kai<sari fo<ron dou?nai, "is it lawful for us to
give tri-
bute to Caesar?" (Lk.
20:22).
4.2.5.13 Indirect
Object-Predicate-Subject-Object
The formula is:
InfdCl = +I +P +S . . . +0.
The Object is separated from the Subject. The example is:
I:Nd P:dvinf S:pna
O:Na
(o!ti kai>) tai?j
e[te<raij po<lesin eu]aggeli<sasqai me (dei?) th>n basilei<an
tou? qeou?, "that also it is
necessary for me to preach the kingdom of God
to the other cities" (Lk.
4:43).
4.2.6
Equational
Equational clauses are those which have an equational
(also
termed linking, copulative)
verb manifesting the Predicate slot, and
exhibiting a tagmeme which
serves as a Subject Complement. Just as in
the previous clause types, an
overt Subject is not always necessary. It
will also be seen that
Complement is not obligatory to certain special-
ized forms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
115
There are 40 equational clauses out of the 822 total
clauses
(5%). Nine forms are found. The
discussion begins with those that have
a manifest Complement. These
are regarded as the norm for the clause
type.
4.2.6.1 Complement-Predicate
This is the most numerous form of those with Complement.
Nine
such clauses are found. No
marker tagmemes are found, which indicates
an analogy to the 0-P pattern
of the transitive clause and the I-P pat-
tern of the ditransitive
clause. In general, it appears that the ini-
tial presence of the Predicate
tagmeme encourages the use of the marker
unit as well as other secondary
tagmemes in pre-posed position, and the
presence of Object, Indirect
Object, Complement, and to a lesser extent,
Subject slot, discourages such
practice. The formula is:
InfeCl = +L +C +P +L.
Location does not co-occur; the tagmemes in the formula
come
from different clauses. An
example is:
C:ajn P:eqvinf
(qe<leij) u[gih>j
gene<sqai, "do you wish to become whole?" (Jn. 5:6).
In one such clause the Complement is manifested by a noun
phrase
in the accusative case, whereas
the others are all nominative. This is
the case because the
Complements of equational infinitives in general
agree in case with the Subject
of the main clause Predicate verb, or
they agree with the understood
Subject of the infinitive clause in the
absence of an overt main clause
Subject antecedent or infinitive clause
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
116
Subject. The accusative
Complement clause is:
C:Na P:eqvinf
(e@dwken au]toi?j e]cousi<an) te<kna
qeou? gene<sqai,
"he gave to them the
P:dv
I:pnd 0:Ncx
authority to become the
children of God" (Jn. 1:12).
Here the entire infinitive
clause fills the modifier slot of the complex
noun phrase in the manner:
O:Ncx
|--------------------------------------------------|
H:na
Mod:InfCl
|
|-----------------------------------------|
| C:Na P:eqvinf
|
|------------| |
| H:na Pos:npg
|
| | | |
e]cousi<an te<kna qeou ? gene<sqai
Since there is no overt Subject for the infinitive, the
Comple-
ment is in the accusative case
in agreement with the understood infini-
tive Subject, which would have
been accusative in case.
4.2.6.2 Predicate-Complement
The P-C order has six examples with one preposed Reason
marker
and two Location tagmemes for
all the clauses. The formula is:
InfeCl = +Reasmk +L
+P +C.
One example is:
P:egvinf C:Nn
(ou] du<nati) ei#nai mou
maqhth<j, "he is not able to be my disciple"
(Lk. 14:26).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
117
4.2.6.3 Subject-Complement-Predicate
The subjectful equational clause has four examples in
this form.
No markers or secondary tagmemes
are found. The formula is:
InfeCl = +S +C +P.
An example is:
S:pna
C:Aja P:eqvinf
(oi] de> pa<ntej kate<krinan) au]to>n e@noxon ei#nai qana<tou, "and all of
them pronounced him to be
worthy of death" (Mk. 14:64). The adjective
phrase (Aja) is
separated by the equational verb.
4.2.6.4 Subject-Predicate-Complement
One example is found, with concise form. The formula is:
InfeC1 = +S +P +C.
The clause is:
S:pna P:eqvinf C:Na
(kai> poih<sw) u[ma?j
gene<sqai a[leei?j a]nqrw<pon, "and I will make you to
be-
come fishers of men" (Mk.
1:18).
4.2.6.5 Complement-Subject-Predicate
The Complement is evidently emphatic by position and by
con-
tent, for the exponent of the
tagmeme is to>n xristo>n in this one example
from the corpus. The formula
is:
InfeC1 = +C +S +P.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
118
The example is:
C:Na S:pna P:eqvinf
(o!ti
^@deisan) to>n xristo>n au]to>n ei#nai,
"because they had known him to
be the Christ" (Lk. 4:41).
4.2.6.6 Complement-Predicate-Subject
This tentative identification of one clause is a bit
unusual,
for a relator-axis phrase
appears to manifest the Complement slot. The
formula is:
InfeCl = +C . . . +P +S.
The clause is:
C:RA P:eqvinf S:pna
(o!ti) e]n toi ?j tou ? Patro<j
mou (dei ?) ei#nai me, "that it is necessary
for me to be concerned with the
things of my Father" (Lk. 2:49).
While a case could be made for other identifications of
the con-
struction, the clause can
clearly be read as meaning, "It is necessary
for me to be this, that is,
concerned with my Father's affairs."
4.2.6.7 Subject-Predicate
Two subtypes are found with this order pattern. They are
fully
discussed below.
4.2.6.7.1 Predicate Adverbial
In his book entitled English
Sentences, Paul Roberts recognizes
three patterns of nuclear
structure with the equational verb.11 One is
11 Paul Roberts, English Sentences (
World, Inc., 1962), pp. 44-45.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
119
the pattern N + be + Adj;
another is the pattern N + be + N; and yet
another is N be + Adv. The first two would be called predicate ad-
jective
and
predicate nominative constructions,
respectively. The third
might be dubbed predicate adverbial.12 This
pattern accounts for such
sentences as "The boy was here;" "I was there;" "He is outside;" and
"We were out."
Similarly in the Greek infinitive clause (and likely more
ex-
tensively), there is a class of
clauses whose Predicate slot is manned
by an equational verb, and
which also may allow for a secondary tagmeme
of an adverbial nature. The
formula of the S-P order with Locational
Adverbial is:
InfeCl = + _____mk +S +L
+P +L.
The Locational tagmemes do not co-occur in the four
examples.
One of the clauses is:
S:pna P:eqvinf
(kalo<n e]stin) h[ma?j w$de ei#nai, "it is good for us to be here" (Mt.
17:4; Mk. 9:5; Lk. 9:23).
The construction is exactly the same in each of the
Synoptic
Gospels, which leads one to
believe that when the infinitive clause is
the modifier of the adjective
head on the main clause level (this rela-
tionship is based on the fairly
common practice identified in other
clauses; a case could possibly
be made that the equational infinitive
12 As far as can be
ascertained, this term is original with the
present writer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
120
clause is the subject of estin, but
this analysis regards estin in such
constructions to be
impersonal), the Location tagmeme is attracted to
the position intermediate
between Subject and Predicate. When such a
construction does not occur,
the Location tagmeme is in post-Predicate
position:
S:pna P:eqvinf L:RA
(nomi<santej de>) au]to>n ei#nai
e]n t^? sunodi<%,
"and supposing him to be
in the group . . ." (Lk.
2:44).
4.2.6.7.2 Stative or
Inceptive Clause
The so-called "stative" variety using what is
etymologically an
equational verb, actually has
two qualities: a purely stative force
with ei]mi<, and an inceptive force
with gi<nomai. As an
example of the
first, this clause is given:
Tmk:rel/artg S:Na P:eqvinf
(do<cason me . . . t^? do<c^ h$
ei#xon) pro> tou? to>n ko<smon ei#nai,
"glorify me . . . with the
glory which I was having before the world
existed" (Jn. 17:5).
A clause with gi<nomai is as follows:
Tmk:rel S:npa P:eqvinf
pri>n
Abraam gene<sqai, (ei]gw> ei]mi<), "before Abraham came to
exist, I
am" (Jn. 8:58).
The three clauses with ei]mi<
reflect the formula:
Infe-sCl = +S +Neg +P.
The three inceptive clauses with the verb gi<nomai or the
verb
pa<reimi, have the formula:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
121
cl= + _____ mk +S +Neg
+P.
When the order of the stative or inceptive verb clause is
S-P,
tagmeme characteristically
intervenes between them.
4.2.6.7.3 Predicate-Subject
Agin , two subtypes are found with this order pattern.
4.2.6.7.1 Predicate Adverbial
As now seen to be typical, the marker appears extensively
this pattern in which the
Predicate is the first nuclear tagmeme.
In every one of the predicate
adverbial constructions has a marker.
The five of the latter forms.
The formula is:
+ _____ mk
+L +P +S +L/Reas +M.
Location does not co-occur. Each predicate adverbial
clause has
tagmeme . An example is:
Tmk:rel/artd P:eqvinf S:pna L:RA
e]ge<neto
e]n t&? ei#nai
au]to>n e]n mi%? tw?n po<lewn, "And it
while he was in one of the
cities . . .'' (Lk. 5:12).
Stative
Clause
The one stative (or perhaps better termed existential)
form is
clause:
Neg:neg P:eqvinf S:na
mh>
ei#nai a]na<stasin ,
"saying (that) there was no such
resurrection" (Mt. 22:23).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
122
It is worth noting that with the P-S order of the stative
clause
the Negative tagmeme appears
pre-Subject, rather than intervening be-
tween Subject and Predicate as
with the former stative-inceptive type
(4.2.6.7.2). The formula here
is:
Infe-sCl = +Neg +P +S.
4.2.6.9 Predicate Only
Four clauses are found with equational verb but without
Subject
or Complement. Three of the
four have a secondary tagmeme, which fits
them into the predicate
adverbial classification, and one has only a
Time marker. The formula is:
InfeCl = +Tmk +Sc/M
+P +Rel.
An example is:
P:eqvinf Rel:RA
(e]dei?to de> au]tou? o[ a]nh>r
a]f ] ou$ e]celhlu<qei ta>
daimo<nia) ei#nai su>n au]t&?,
"and the man from whom the
demons had gone out was asking to be with
him" (Lk. 8:38).
4.3 Passive
Infinitive Clauses
There are evidently three passive clause types which make
up
9.7% of the total infinitive
clauses in the corpus (80 out of 822). The
three types are: transitive
passive; transicomplement passive; and
ditransitive passive. The
essential concept of the derivational rela-
tionship which exists between
active and passive clauses has been
spelled out in Section 2.1,
page 27.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
123
4.3.1 Transitive Passive
There are 70 transitive passive clauses (8.5% of the
total cor-
pus). Three forms are observed:
Predicate only; Predicate-Subject; and
Subject-Predicate.
4.3.1.1 Predicate Only
This pattern has the highest frequency of the three, with
31
total examples. Just as the
intransitive Predicate-only pattern, it re-
flects the highest incidence of
secondary tagmemes, with a total of 33
such units, or 106% as many
secondary tagmemes as nuclear units. Only
four markers are used with the
31 examples (13%), which makes this the
lowest of the transitive
passive forms in this ratio. This situation
exactly compares with the
Predicate only pattern as mentioned in Section
4.2.1.3, page 91, which deals
with the intransitive forms. The formula
is:
InftpCl = +Fmk (+Peril)
+P (+Peri2) (+Peri3).
Only the Purpose marker is used with this pattern. Peril
can be
Agent, Relationship, Time, or
Manner. Peri2 can be Agent, Location,
Manner, Relationship, or Goal.
Peri3 has only one example, which is
Location. Agent, Relationship,
Manner, and Location do not co-occur.
An example is:
Fmk:rel/arta P:tvinfp
Ag:Nd
(pa<nta de> ta> e@rga au]tw?n poiou?sin) pro>j
to> qeaqh?nai toi?j a]nqrw<poij,
"they are doing all their
works in order to be seen by men" (Mt. 23:5).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
124
4.3.1.2 Predicate-Subject
The P-S pattern is also of high frequency, with 29
examples.
This is the form most widely
used with the marker unit, with 16 in-
stances (55%). Only eight
secondary tagmemes are used in all of the 29
clauses, providing only 27% as
many optional units as there are nuclear
units. The formula is:
InftpCl = + _____mk (+Peril)
+P (+Peri2) +S (+Peri3).
Peril can be either Manner or Time (one use of
each); Peri2
attests only two uses of Agent;
Peri3 has Agent, Location, Relationship,
and Manner. Agent never
co-occurs. The various markers are: Result,
Time, Reason, and Purpose. An
example is:
P:tvinfp
S:pna Ag:RA
L:RA
(a]poqanei?n to>n ptoxo>n kai>) a]penexqh?nai
au]to>n u[po> tw?n a]gge<lwn
ei]j
to>n ko<lpon Abraam, "the beggar died
and he was carried by the angels into
the bosom of Abraham" (Lk.
16:22).
4.3.1.3 Subject-Predicate
There are 10 clauses with S-P order. Agent never occurs
in this
form of the clause. Only two
clauses utilize markers (20%). A total of
seven secondary tagmemes is
found, indicating that there are 70% as many
optional tagmemes as nuclear
units. The formula is:
InftpCl =+ ____ mk +S +T+M
+P +Ins/L/Sc.
One clause uses Instrument, which is the impersonal
counterpart
of Agent. An example is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
125
Resmk:rel S:Na P:tvinfp Ins:RA
w!ste to>
ploi?on kalu<ptesqai u[po>
tw?n kuma<twn, "so that the boat
was covered by the waves"
(Mt. 8:24).
4.3.2 Transicomplement
Passive
Only four transicomplement passive clauses are found
(0.5% of
the total corpus). Only one
order pattern is found.
4.3.2.1 Predicate-Retained
Object Complement
These clauses have already been described from the point
of view
of the Retained Object
Complement tagmeme and possible transformational
relationships in, Section
3.2.7, page 61. No marker units are found, and
only one secondary tagmeme
appears between the two nuclear tagmemes.
The formula is:
InftcpCl = +P +Ag +ROC.
The fullest example is:
P:tcvinfp
Ag:RA ROC:na
(filou?sin de> . . . ) kalei?sqai u[po> tw?n a]nqrw<pon Rabbei, "and they love
. . . to be called Rabbi
by men" (Mt. 23:7).
4.3.3
Ditransitive Passive
Five such clauses are found, with four order patterns,
which
again indicates the positional
instability of ditransitive clauses in
general. The five clauses
comprise only 0.6% of the total 822 clauses.
The various orders are
Predicate-Indirect Object-Subject; Predicate-
Subject-Indirect Object;
Indirect Object-Predicate-Subject; and Predi-
cate-Indirect Object.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
126
4.3.3.1 Predicate-Indirect
Object-Subject
This is the most numerous of the ditransitive passive
clauses,
with two examples. The pattern
is very concise. The formula is:
InfdpCl = +P +I +S.
An example is:
P:dvinfp I:pnd
S:Ncx
(ei#pen) fwnhqh ?nai au]t& ? tou>j dou<louj tou<touj oi$n
dedw<kei to> a]rgu<rion,
"he commanded those
servants to whom he had given the money to be called
to him" (Lk. 19:15).
4.3.3.2 Predicate-Subject-Indirect
Object
The one example exhibits a Manner tagmeme inserted
between
Predicate and Subject. The
formula is:
InfdpCl = +P +M +S +I.
The example is:
P:dvinfp M:RA S:Ncx I:RA
(kai>) khruxqh?nai
e]pi> t&? o]no<mati au]tou? meta<noian ei]j a@fesin a[martiw?n ei]j
L :PtCl
pa<nta ta>
e@qnh a]rca<menoi
a]po> Ierousalhm,
"and repentance for the forgive-
ness of sins to be preached in
his name to all the Gentiles beginning in
The identification of the Indirect Object tagmeme here
must be
regarded as somewhat tentative.
While the preposition ei]j
normally de-
notes direction toward
something, the use of another preposition, pro<j,
is not unknown as a carrier for
indirect object, for it is used four
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
127
times in this corpus for such a
purpose. Apparently the indirect ob-
ject is ultimately a deep
structure entity which can be manifested in
surface structure by dative
inflections or by relator axis phrases. For
example, even in English one
may say, "He gave me the
book," or "He gave
the book to me." The preposition ei]j is
used twice in this corpus in a
possible indirect object
function, in the passage above and in Mark
13:10, where the syntagmeme has
a different order: (kai>) ei]j pa<nta ta>
e@qnh prw?ton (dei?) krhuxqh?nai to> au]agge<lion. If this usage is indeed an
indirect object, a verb
constraint indigenous to khru<ssw may be in-
volved. At this point it is
sufficient to raise the question without
drawing a final conclusion upon
such slight evidence.
4.3.3.3 Indirect
Object-Object-Predicate-Subject
The one example is concise. The formula is:
InfdpCl = +I +P +S.
The example is:
I:pnd P:dvinfp S:inf
(kai> die<tacen) au]t^?
doqh?nai fagei?n,
"and he commanded something to eat
be given to her" (Lk.
8:55).
4.3.3.4 Predicate-Indirect
Object
This is the most compact of the ditransitive passive
clauses.
It consists of only the two
nuclear tagmemes. The formula is:
InfdpCl = +P +I.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
128
The example is:
P:dvinfp I:Nd
(h]du<nato ga>r tou?to to>
mu<ron praqh?nai . . . kai>) doqh?nai toi?j
ptwxoi?j,
"for this ointment is able
to be sold . . . and to be given to the needy
ones" (Mk. 14:5).
4.4 Interrogative
Infinitive Clauses
There are thirteen infinitive clauses which are used in
question
constructions and which reflect
a distinctive and uniform pattern of
separation of the nuclear
constituents. None of these clauses ever
takes a secondary tagmeme.
Furthermore, the initial tagmeme serves as a
Question marker, whether the
tagmeme is an Object or Complement of the
Predicate infinitive. Three
factors of transitivity are found with
these clauses: monotransitive,
ditransitive, and equational.
4.4.1
Transitive
Only one order pattern is found, which is Object . . .
Predicate.
The main clause nucleus always
intervenes between the separated elements
of the infinitive clause. Six
such clauses are found. The formula is:
whQ-InftCl = +Q-O-R . . +P.
The Question-Object-Relator slot is always filled by an
inter-
rogative pronoun in the
accusative case, which further serves to confirm
the Objective nature of the
tagmeme, especially since there is no overt
Subject for the infinitive. An
example is:
Q-O-R:intpna
P:tvinf
Ti<
(e]ch<lqate
ei]j th>n e@rhmon) qea<sasqai;
"What did you go out
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
129
into the wilderness to
behold?" (Mt. 11:7).
The clause is apparently a derived one by means of a
question
transformation. The question
structure of the clause with the port-
manteau function of the Q-O-R
tagmeme is exhibited below:
wh-Qt
|---------------|-----------------|-------------------------------|
Qmk P:iv L:RA
F:InfC1
| | | |
O:intpna | | |
Ti<
e]ch<lqate ei]j th>n
e@rhmon Qea<sasqai
The relationship of the wh-Q clause to declarative form
is seen
in the relatively simple
transformation rule below. A wh-Q is a ques-
tion that requires an answer of
content, such as who, what, why, when,
where. In this case the kind of
wh-Q is specified by the semantic con-
tent of the interrogative
pronoun: what. Given the string
X | Y |
N[+indfpna]
e]ch<lqate
ei]j th>n e@rhmon | qea<sasqai | ti
and the rule
T-wh-Qt = X + Y + N[+indfpna]
-->
N[+intpna] + X + Y,
it is possible to derive the
result,
N[+intpna] |
X
| Y
Ti<
|
e]ch<lqate ei]j th>n e@rnmon
|
qea<sasqai.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
130
4.4.2
Ditransitive
Only one such clause is found, with the order Object . .
. In-
direct Object-Predicate. The
formula is:
whQ-InfdCl = +Q-O-R . . . +I
+P.
The example is:
Q-O-R:intpna I:pnd P:dvinf
Ti< (qe<lete<) moi dou?nai; "What do you wish to
give me?" (Mt.
26:15).
The transformational relationship is shown below
following the
diagram of the interrogative
clause as it stands.
wh-Qd
|-----------------------------|--------------------------------|
Qmk P:tv O:InfCl
| |
|---------------------|
0:intpna | I:pnd P:dvinf
| | | |
Ti<
qe<lete<
moi dou?nai
Given the string
X | N[+indfpna] |
Y
qe<lete<
moi | ti | dou?nai,
and the rule
T-wh-Qd = X N[+indfpna] Y --> N[+intpna] + X
+ Y,
it is possible to derive the
result,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
131
N[+intpna] |
X | Y
Ti< | qe<lete< moi | dou?nai
4.4.3
Equational
Six interrogative equational clauses are found in which
the
separation occurs between
Subject and Predicate tagmemes in the order
Complement-Subject . . .
Predicate. In such clauses it appears that the
Predicate of the infinitive
clause has been extrapolated from its own
clause to the end of the main
clause. The formula is:
whQ-InfeCl = +Q-C-R +S . . .
+P.
An example is:
Q-C-R:intpna S:pna
P:eqvinf
Ti<na
me (le<gousin
oi[ a@nqrwpoi) ei#nai; "Who do men say
I am?" (Mk. 8:27).
Diagrammed, the whole structure appears thus:
wh-Qe
|-------------------|----------------------|-------------------|
Qmk O:InfCl P:tv S:Na
| | | |
C:intpna S:pna | | P:eqvinf
| | | | |
Ti<na
me
le<gousin oi[
a@nqrwpoi ei#nai
The transformational relationship is a little more
complex here.
This is because the governing
main clause has three arrangements of its
constituents. Therefore in a
transformational rule, allowance must be
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
132
made for these as well as the
transposition of structural elements. The
three arrangements of main
clause order are seen in the examples below:
P:tv S:Nn
(1) Ti<na me le<gousin oi[
a@nqrwpoi ei#nai;
"Who do men say that I am?"
Mk. 8:27).
S:Nn P:tv
(2) Ti<na me oi[ o@xloi
le<gousin ei#nai; "Who do the multitudes say that I
am?" (Lk. 9:18).
S:pnn P:tv
(3) [Umei?j
de> ti<na me le<gete ei#nai; "But who do you
yourselves say that
I am?" (Mk. 8:29).
Therefore, given the statement strings
X
le<gousin oi[
a@nqrwpoi< |
| Y
| N [+indfpna] |
Z
oi[ o@xloi
le<gousi< | me | ti | ei#nai,
(u[mei?j) le<gete<
(pnx)
and the rule
T-wh-Qe = X(pnx)
+ Y
+ N[+indfpna] +Z --> (+pnx) + N[+intpna] + Y + X
+ Z
it is possible to reconstruct
the statement strings above as
N[+intpna] |
Y | X | Z
(1) Ti<na | me | le<gousin oi[ a@nqrwpio
|
ei#nai;
N[+intpna] |
Y | X | Z
(2) Ti<na | me | oi[ o@xloi le<gousin | ei#nai
(+pnx) |
N[+intpna] | Y | X | Z
(3) [Umei ?j
(de>) | ti<na
| me | le<gete | ei#nai
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
133
The production of the transformation strings should be
clear if
the identified units are
checked with the transformation formula. The
specification (±pnx) means that
when the kernel string has an X which
contains an intensive usage of
the personal pronoun, that pronoun is
fronted in the clause to
initial position, before N. The postpositive
de> appears,
of course, as usual.
The interrogative clauses as a group comprise 1.6% of the
total
of 822 clauses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
The material presented in Chapters Three and Four
consists of a
grammatical statement about the
nature of infinitive clauses, which are
revealed to be complex, yet reducible
to a systematic description. Such
a presentation serves to
suggest the further complexities which exist in
the language as a whole, all of
which were accessible to the native
speaker of Greek. This initial
grammar of infinitive clauses, however,
still needs to be tested and
refined by comparison with clauses not
covered in the present study
from the rest of the New Testament, the
Septuagint, classical sources,
and the papyri.
This chapter presents some additional tentative
conclusions,
some further problems,
suggestions for translation, and a number of
final conclusions of the study.
5.1 Problems
5.1.1 Dative
Subjects
A number of constructions are found which suggest the
possibil-
ity that datives which function
primarily as datives of reference with
impersonal or equational verbs,
may also function in a secondary manner
as the logical subject of the
complementary infinitive clause. In con-
nection with this proposal it
is necessary to state the range of dative
and infinitive uses as they
relate to the main clause and the infinitive
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
135
clause. From the following
construction it is clear that both the main
clause and the infinitive
clause may take indirect objects. Further-
more, the two dative uses may
be juxtaposed:
I:indfd P:dvinf
0:Npta
(1)
(o[
de> parh<ggeilen au]toi?j) mhdeni> ei]pei?n
to> gegono<j,
"and he in-
S:art P:dv I:pnd O:InfCl
structed them to tell
what had happened to no one" (Lk. 8:56).
The distinction between the Indirect Object of the main
clause
and the Indirect Object of the
infinitive clause is apparent. If there
is a logical subject of the
infinitive ei]pei?n it must certainly be
au]toi?j as referent, for au]toi?j (or in the context of
an infinitive
clause, au]tou<j) would
be doing the speaking which was prohibited. The
primary relationship of au]toi?j,
however, is with parh<ggeilen, since it
obviously serves that
ditransitive verb as Indirect Object.
This situation serves to introduce the possibility of
co-func-
tion for Indirect Objects of
ditransitive verbs in main clauses which
perform in a secondary way as a
kind of latent subject for the infini-
tive clause. This is not to
identify such structures as strictly mani-
festing the Subject tagmeme of
an infinitive clause, however. Instances
of this sort are fairly common
in the corpus (cf., for example, Mk. 8:6,
Lk. 9:61).
Except for the caveat of A. T. Robertson,1
subjects of infini-
tives in the accusative case
which generally function as direct objects
of main clauses have been
recognized. There are two more specialized
1 A. T. Robertson's
position has been cited earlier in Section
1.2, pp. 8-9.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
136
constructions which also
utilize accusative case subjects. The first is
the infinitive clause with the
impersonal dei?,
with 12 examples. The
dominant order is dei? +
Infinitive clause Subject (noun phrase or per-
sonal pronoun, accusative),
with ten examples. Apparently when there is
a proper noun (one example) or
demonstrative (one example) as infinitive
clause Subject, that word is
fronted to achieve the order infinitive
clause Subject + dei? +
remainder of infinitive clause. An example of
each is given below:
S:pna L:RA P:ivinf
(2)
dei? au]to>n ei]j
[Ieroso<luma a]pelqei?n, "it is necessary
for him
P:v-nec PC:InfCl
to enter into
S:Na 0:aja
P:tvinf
(3)
o!ti
dei ? to>n
ui[o>n tou ? a]nqrw<pou polla>
paqei?n,
"that it is neces-
P:v-nec PC:InfCl
sary for the Son of man to
suffer many things" (Mk. 8:31).
S:npa P:ivinf T:num
(4)
]Hlei<an
dei? e]lqei?n prw?ton, "it is necessary for Elijah to
PC:InfCl P:v-nec
come first" (Mk. 9:11).
S:dema P:ivinf
(5)
e]kei ?non dei ?
au]ca<nein,
"it is necessary for that one to in-
PC:InfCl P:v-nec
crease" (Jn. 3:30).
The abbreviation PC
represents the Predicate Complement tagmeme
on the main clause level which
is used to classify infinitives and in-
finitive clauses which follow
certain verbs and are not strictly expo-
nents of Direct Object
tagmemes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
137
The other rather specialized construction is the
accusative Sub-
ject with the adjective kalo<n
manifesting the Complement slot of a main
clause whose Predicate is
filled by the equational verb e]sti<n, with six
examples. The usual order is kalo<n + e]sti<n + infinitive
clause Subject
in the accusative case, with
five examples. One example has kalo<n +
infinitive clause Subject + e]sti<n. One
of the former types is:
S:pna L:av
P:eqvinf
(6)
kalo<n e]stin
h[ma?j w$de ei#nai, "it
is good for us to be here"
C:Aja P:eqv Mod:InfC1
(Lk. 9:33).
In a manner somewhat comparable to the above cases of
accusative
infinitive clause Subject with
impersonal necessitative verb or as ad-
jective modifier with
equational verb, personal pronouns, nouns, and
noun phrases in similar
environments functioning primarily in dative of
reference constructions can
also be regarded as secondarily serving as
logical subject for the
complementary infinitive clauses. This means
that the dative word or
construction in question is serving en
portman-
teau, for
it co-functions, for practical purposes, both on the main
finite clause level, and on the
more restricted infinitive clause level.
The diagrams used with each clause illustrated should
make clear
the functional relationships.
The tagmeme identifications located
immediately below the Greek
clause represent those of the main clause
and primary functions. Below
this listing level the general infinitive
clause function is tagmemically
noted. Above the line of Greek text the
syntagmemic constituents of the
infinitive clause are listed. Arrows
point in the direction of
modification. Dotted lines indicate the
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
138
continuation of a separated
construction.
There are no fewer than ten such clause forms in the
corpus, and
they are basically of two
types. The first, and more numerous, is the
usage with a permissive verb (e@cestin) rather
than a necessitative verb,
as with the accusative. There
are six permissive verb examples. In
five cases the order is
permissive verb + dative of reference-infinitive
clause Subject. In four of the
instances the Subject is a first- or
second-person singular personal
pronoun in the dative case, and in one
it is a common noun dative. In
one case the order is first-person plu-
ral personal pronoun +
permissive verb + remainder of infinitive clause.
Examples of each are as
follows:
--->
| S:pnd |
P:v-midinf | O:pna
(7)
Ou]k
e@cesti<n,
|
soi | e@xein |
au]th>n "It is not lawful
for
<---- <-----
P:v-per | Ref:pnd |
PC:InfCl
------------------------>
you to have her" (Mt.
14:4).
---->
| S:nd
| 0:na
| P:tvinf
(8)
ei]
e@cestin | a]ndri> | gunai?ka | a]poku?sai, "if it is lawful
for a
P:v-per | Ref:nd
|
<----- |
<----- |
| PC:InfCl |
--------------------------->
man to send away (his)
wife" (Mk. 10:2).
-------> | -
- - - - - - - -> | -------->
S:pnd | | P:tvinf O:indfneg
(9)
[Hmi?n
| ou]k e@cestin |
a]poktei?nai ou]de<na, "It is not lawful
Ref:pnd | P:v-per |
---------> |
-----> |
PC:InfCl | |
---------> |- - - - - - - - - - - -| -------------->
for us to kill anyone"
(Jn. 18:31).
Other similar examples are Mt.
20:15, Mk. 6:18, and Jn. 5:10.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
139
The second type is the usage with the equational clause
as modi-
fier of an adjective which
functions as the Complement of e]sti<n, with
four cases. In three of the
cases the order is C:aja + P:eqv + Subject
of infinitive clause. This
Subject of the infinitive clause as modifier
is either a pronoun or noun
phrase in the dative case. In one case the
dative Subject pronoun
intervenes between adjective Complement and equa-
tional Predicate. Examples are:
------>
| | |
S:pnd | P:tvinf O:Na
(10)
ou!twj ga>r | pre<pon | e]sti>n | h[mi?n
| plhrw?sai
pa?san dikaio-
| C:Ajcx
| P:eqv | Ref:pnd |
| | <--
| <-------- |
| H:ajn | | Mod:InfCl |
<-- - - - - - -
-----------------------------
su<nhn, "for thus it is fitting for us to
fulfill all righteousness"
(Mt. 3:15).
----------------->
| | | S:Nd | P:ivinf
(11)
kaqw>j | e@qoj | e]sti>n | toi?j ]Iousai<oij | e@ntafia<zein,
just as it
| C:Ncx | P:eqv |
Ref:Nd |
| | <--- |
<--------------- |
| H:nn | | Mod:InfCl |
<--| - - - - - - - | <------------------- |
is the custom for the Jews to
bury" (Jn. 19:40).
| --------> | - - - - -
| -->
| S:pnd | | M:na G:RA P:ivinf
(12)
kalo<n | soi< | e]stin | mono<fqalmon ei]j th>n zwh>n ei]selqei?n,
C:Ajcx | Ref:pnd
| P:eqv |
| ----------> | --->
|
H:ajn |
Mod:InfCl | |
<-- |
------------- | - - - |
------------------
is good for you to enter into
life one-eyed" (Mt. 18:9). The other ex-
ample is found in Mt. 2:4.
With such evidence as the foregoing examples provide, it
seems
feasible to recognize the
possibility that datives of reference in cer-
tain specified environments can
co-function in a secondary way as
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
140
logical Subject of the
infinitive clause.
5.1.2 The Infinitive Clause with ]Ege<neto Constructions
In 25 instances the construction kai> e]ge<neto or e]ge<neto
de< is
used with the infinitive clause
following, which in turn is followed by
a finite-verb clause which
produces more content of a semantic nature
than the e]ge<neto
construction. There are no uses of this construction
in either Matthew or John, and
only three in Mark, leaving a total of 22
in Luke. Investigation
discloses three different formal and semantic
uses of the combination in the
Gospels.
5.1.2.1 Temporal Infinitive
Clause Followed by Kai<
A temporal infinitive clause, either marked by e]n t&? or not
for-
mally marked but allowing a
temporal rendition by verb tense, when
followed by kai<,
demands that the following clause in question be prac-
tically regarded as a nominal
clause in apposition with e]ge<neto. Thus
kai< is understood as that, not and. There are
13 such cases. An exam-
ple is:
(13) Kai> e]ge<neto au]to>n e]n
toi?j sa<bbasin paraporeu<esqai dia> tw?n spori<mown kai>
oi[ maqhtai> au]tou?
h@rcanto o[do>n poiei?n ti<llontej tou>j sta<xuaj,
"And it came to pass
while he was passing through
the grainfields on
the Sabbath that his disciples began to make their way,
plucking the ears" (Mk. 2:
23).
The other passages are:
Mk. 2:15; Lk. 1:8; 2:6; 5:1; 5:12; 6:1;
9:51; 14:1; 17:11; 19:15; 24:4;
24:15.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
141
5.1.2.2 Temporal Infinitive
Clause. Followed by 0 Connector
This is the second largest class of uses, with nine
examples.
No use of the connector kai< is
made, although the insertion of a sup-
plied that is frequently helpful in conforming a translation to English
usage. There seems to be very
little semantic difference between this
form and the one with kai<. An example is:
(14) ]Ege<neto
de> e]n t&? e]ggi<zein au]to>n ei]j Iereixw 0 tuflo<j tij e]ka<qhto
para> th>n o[do>n e]paitw?n,
"And it came to pass while he drew near to
18:35).
Every infinitive clause with this usage is marked with e]n t&?.
The other cases are: Mk. 4:4; Lk. 9:26; 9:33; 11:1; 11:27; 18:35;
24:
30; and 24:51.
5.1.2.3 Infinitive Clause as
Finite-Clause Substitute
Three examples appear in which the infinitive clause acts
as a
substitute for the main clause
with finite verb. There is a finite-verb
clause which is introduced by kai<, or de<
following the infinitive clause,
and the connector is best
rendered by and. Furthermore, there
is no
time marker with the infinitive
clause in question, and to translate the
clause in a temporal manner
might subvert the nature of the circumstances
as reflected in verbal tenses
or the relationship of clauses. All three
examples are given:
(15) ]Ege<neto de> e]n e[te<r&
sabba<t& ei]selqei?n au]to>n ei]j th>n sunagwgh>n kai>
dida<skein kai> h#n a@nqrwpoj e]kei? kai>
h[ xei>r au]tou? h[ decia> h#n chra<, "And it
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
142
came to pass on another Sabbath
(that) he entered into the synagogue and
was teaching; and a
man was there, and his right hand was withered" (Lk.
6:6).
(16) ]Ege<neto de> e]n tai ?j
h[me<raij tau<taij e]celqei ?n au]to>n ei]j to> o@roj
proseu<casqai kai> h#n
dianuktereu<wn e]n t^? proseux^? tou? qeou?, "And it came
to pass in these days (that) he
went out into the mountain to pray, and
he was all night in prayer to
God" (Lk. 6:12).
(17) e]ge<neto de> a]poqanei?n to>n
ptwxo>n kai> a]penexqh?nai au]to>n u[po> tw?n
a]gge<lwn ei]j to>n ko<lpon
Abraam: a]pe<qanen de> kai> o[
plou<sioj kai> e]ta<fh,
"And it came to pass
(that) the beggar died and he was borne by the
angels to the bosom of Abraham; and
the rich man also died and was
buried" (Lk. 16:22).
In (15) and in (17) the infinitive clause is coordinated
by con-
joining with either a single
infinitive (15), or another clause (17).
5.1.3 The Uses of
Infinitive Clauses
Infinitive clauses have a variety of uses. These have
been
spelled out by many
grammarians, and most comprehensively by Votaw.2
Yet there are some problems to
be discussed in connection with these
uses.
5.1.3.1 Subject
Among the several uses of the infinitive clause is that
of Sub-
ject of another clause. This
has long been recognized. An example is:
2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
143
S:InfCl P:tv 0:Na
(18) to> de> a]ni<ptoij
xersi>n fagei?n ou] koinoi? to>n a@nqrwpon,
"but the eat-
ing with unwashed hands does not
defile the man" (Mt. 15:20).
5.1.3.2 Direct Object
Verbs which normally take a variety of direct object
structures
can also accommodate infinitive
clauses as direct objects. These are
transitive and ditransitive
verbs. An example is:
S:aja P:tv 0:InfC1
(19) EPEIDHPER
polloi> e]pexei<rhsan a]nata<casqai dih<ghsin peri> tw?n
piplhroforhme<nwn e]n h[mi?n
pragma<twn, "Forasmuch as many have taken in
hand to set forth an account
concerning the activities which have been fulfilled
among us"
(Lk. 1:1).
5.1.3.3 Predicate Complement
A number of verbs apparently reflect other
characteristics than
pure transitivity, and it is
difficult to supply a concrete "this" after
them as is possible with
unequivocal transitive verbs. These verbs seem
to pattern characteristically
with infinitives and infinitive clauses
which serve rather to complete
the meaning of the verb than to receive
some kind of transitive action.
These verbs have been noted and clas-
sified on the basis of their
inherent semantic qualities. Since the
focus of the present study was
not on this aspect, the identification
made here must be regarded as
somewhat tentative. Eight categories are
listed below, with the verbs
that comprise them:
1. V-erg (Ergative Verb): du<namai,
i]sxu<w, a]gwni<zomai. This is the
most numerous category by
frequency of use, and it involves verbs that
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
144
stipulate the ability to do
something.
2. V-inc (Inceptive Verb): a@rxw, promeleta<w. This
is another very
numerous category, which
specifies the inception of an action.
3. V-nec (Necessitative Verb): dei ?,
w]fei<lw, sumfe<rw, e]nde<xomai. Here
are included verbs of
necessity, ought, or obligation.
4. V-im (Imminent Verb): me<llw. This
verb differs from the inceptive
by stating the time reference
as prior to the action ("I am about to do
something") rather than
immediately after starting the action ("I began
to do something").
5. V-per (Permissive Verb): e@cestin, e]a<w. This
type of verb deals
with the permissibility of an
action, or its "lawfulness."
6. V-emo (Emotive Verb): qe<lw,
bou<lomai, fobe<omai, file<w, tolma<w, e]pi-
qume<w, ai]sxu<nw. Emotional, personal,
and psychological dimensions are
handled by this verb type.
7. V-freq (Frequentative Verb):
eiw<qei,
proti<qhmi. These verbs indi-
cate a frequency of action, or
repetition of it.
8. V-s (Verb of Seeming): doke<w,
eu]doke<w, katacio<w. Here are verbs
of seeming, supposing.
These kinds of verbs appear to pattern regularly with
infinitive
clauses which may be regarded
as their complements. An example of an
infinitive clause functioning
as Predicate Complement is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
145
Neg:N P:v-erg PC:InfCl
(20) ou]k
e]du<nato lalh?sai au]toi?j,
"he was not able to speak to them"
(Lk. 1:22).
In most cases the following Predicate Complement is
closely re-
lated to the foregoing
Predicate tagmeme.
5.1.3.4 Subject Complement
The infinitive clause can also be used in a predicate
nominative
construction. In two clauses
both the Subject and its Complement are
infinitive clauses. They are
similar, so only one is cited:
S:InfCl
P:eqv C:InfCl
(21) to> de> kaqi<sai e]k deciw?n
mou h} e]c eu]wnu<mwn ou]k e@stin e]mo>n dou?nai,
"but to sit on my right
hand or the left is not for me to give" (Mk. 10:
40).
5.1.3.5 Exponent of
Secondary Tagmemes
By means of the various markers considered in Section
3.4, pages
78-85, infinitive clauses can
manifest secondary tagmeme slots on the
main clause level. This
involves, specifically, Reason, Time, Purpose,
and Result. It is also possible
for one of these clauses to manifest a
Purpose tagmeme without a
marker as the next example shows:
P:iv S:npn L:RA Reas:InfCl
(22) ]Ame>bh de>
kai> Iwshf . . . ei]j po<lin Daueid . . . dia> to> ei#nai
au]to>n
F :InfCl
e]c oi@kou kai> patria?j Daueid a]pogra<yasqai
su>n Mariam t^? e]mnhsteume<n^
au]t&? ou@s^ e]gku<&,
"And Joseph also went up . . . to the city of
because he was of the house and
lineage of David, to enroll himself with
Mary his espoused wife, (she)
being great with child" (Lk. 2:5).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
146
5.1.3.6 Modifier of Noun and
Adjective
Sixteen times the infinitive clause modifies a noun
structure,
and 22 times, a phrasal
adjective structure. An example of the former
was given in Section 4.2.6.1,
page 115. As an example of the latter,
the following example is
submitted:
Neg:neg P:eqv C:Ajcx
(23) ou$ ou]k ei]mi> i[
H:ajn
Mod:InfCl
worthy to bear the
sandals" (Mt. 3:11).
5.1.3.7 Imperative Function
The infinitive, in somewhat rare circumstances, can be
used in
an imperatival manner in
indirect discourse. This function is apparent
in Acts 21:4, 21:21, and 26:20.
Also rather rare is the imperatival
function not overtly in
indirect discourse, as witnessed in Rom. 12:5,
Phil. 3:16, II Th. 3:14, II
Tim. 2:14, and Ti. 2:9.
The imperative is used functionally for an imperative
construc-
tion in the sentence that
follows. The classification for this example
may stand somewhere between the
two uses mentioned above. On the one
hand, these are Christ's direct
words to those believers who should be
demonstrating Kingdom
character, for the passage is from the Sermon on
the Mount. On the other hand,
Christ does preface the imperatival in-
finitive with a typical
indirect discourse indicator: le<gw u[mi?n
Whichever grammatical usage is
taken, the sense of command comes through
clearly:
(24) e]gw> de> le<gw u[mi?n mh> a]ntisth?nai
t&? ponhr&?,
"but I tell you not to
resist (or, 'do not resist')
the one who is evil" (Mt. 5:39).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
147
5.1.4 Embedded
Infinitive Clauses
There are 17 instances in which one infinitive clause is
em-
bedded within another
infinitive clause. A diagrammed example is:
(25)
P:v-inc PC:InfCl
|
|----------------------------|
| P:tvinf
0:InfC1
| |
|---------------|------------|
| | S:pna P:ivinf L:RA
| | | | |------------------|
| | | | R:rel Ax:N
| | | | | |-------------|----------|
| | | | | D: art H:n
Pos-pos
| | | | | | | |
h@rcanto
parakalei?n au]to>n a]pelqei?n a]po>
tw?n o[ri<wn au]tw?n
The example is taken from Mark 5:17: "they began to
beg him to
depart from their
districts."
5.1.5 Separated
Constructions
Two types of construction which regularly are separated
in in-
finitive clauses are coordinate
constructions which manifest a tagmeme
immediately preceding the verb,
and reflexive pronouns as objects of in-
finitives.
5.1.5.1 Coordinate
Constructions
In three clauses where there is a coordinate construction
ex-
pounding the tagmeme just
before the Predicate, the coordinate phrase is
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
148
separated in the following
manner:
O:Ncod P:tvinf
(26)
(ou] du<nasqe) qe&?
douleu<ein kai> mamwn%?, "you are not able
to
H:nd C:c H:nd
serve God and mammon" (Lk.
16:13; Mt. 6:24).
0:Na OC:Ajalta P:tvinf
(27)
(o!ti ou] du<nasai) mi<an tri<xh leukh>n poih?sai
h} me<lainan
H:aja Alt:alt H:aja
"because you are not able
to make one hair white or black" (Mt. 5:36).
Coordinate constructions on various grammatical levels
are
characterized by Head tagmemes
and Connecting tagmemes. This is the
case above, in which a noun or
adjective may manifest a Head slot. The
Connector slot in (26) is
filled by the conjunction Rd,. In (27) the
Alternative tagmeme slot on the
phrase level is manifested by the al-
ternative conjunction
5.1.5.2 Reflexive Pronouns
When reflexive pronouns manifest the Object tagmeme of an
in-
finitive clause, the Object is
fronted and separated from the Predicate
by the main clause. There are
two examples, both identical:
0:reflpna P:tvinf
(28)
e[auto>n (ou] du<natai) sw?sai, "he is not able to save him-
PC:InfCl Neg:neg P:v-erg
self" (Mt. 27:42; Mk.
15:31).
5.1.6 Awkward Conjoining of
Infinitive Clauses
Infinitive clauses are almost always conjoined one with
another
when conjoining takes place. At
least two examples are found in the
corpus, however, which reflect
awkward conjoining with other structures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
149
It is difficult to label such
coordinate constructions, so the term
dissimilar
structure is used. In example (29), a relator-axis phrase is
conjoined with an infinitive
clause, and in example (31) the same kinds
of units are shown in reverse
order.
P:dv I:pnd
O:Ncx H:RA C:c
(29)
e@dwken
au]toi?j du<namin kai> e]cousi<an e]pi> panta ta>
daimo<nia kai>
H:Nco
Mod:D-Sco
H:InfCl
no<souj qerapeu<ein, "he gave them
power and authority over all the demons
and to heal diseases" (Lk.
9:1).
Diagrammed, the complex noun
phrase looks like this:
(30) 0:Ncx
|-----------------------------------------------------|
H:Nco
Mod:D-Sco
|--------|-------|
|-------------------------|-----------------|
H:RA C:c H:n H:RA C:C H:InfCl
|
| | |--------------| |
|-------------|
|
| | R:rel Ax:N
| 0:n P:tvinf
|
| | | |---------|-------| | | |
|
| | | Des:aj D:art H:N | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
du<namin
kai> e]cousi<an
e]pi> pa<nta ta>
daimo<nia kai> no<souj qerapeu<ein
P:dv I:pnd O:Ncx H:InfCl
(31) i]dou> de<dwka u[mi?n th>n
e]cousi<an tou? patei?n e]pa<nw o@fewn kai> skorpi<wn
H:N Mod:D-Sco
C:c
H:RA
kai>
e]pi> pa?san th>n
du<namin tou ? e]xqrou?, "behold I have given to you the
authority to tread upon snakes
and scorpions and over all the power of
the enemy" (Lk. 10:19).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
150
5.2 Suggestions for
Interpretation
At the outset of this study the question was posed
whether word
order could make any
contribution to the understanding of infinitive
clauses where both subject and
object were in the accusative case.3
The particular problem passage
cited was Philippians 1:7: dia> to>
e@xein
me e]n t^?
kardi<% u[ma?j. Two
similar passages are found in the Gospels,
both of which have the subject
and object juxtaposed instead of sepa-
rated as in the Philippians
passage. The two passages are:
P:tvinf S:pna
0:pna
(32) (Kai> e]ge<neto) e]n t& ?
eu]logei ?n au]to>n au]tou>j die<sth a]p ]
au]tw ?n . . .
"And it came to pass while
he blessed them, he separated from them . .
(Lk. 24:51).
0:pna
S:npa P:tvinf
Cir:PtC1
(33) (ei#pen au]t&?) Pro> tou? se Fi<lippon fwnh?sai, o@nta u[po> th>n sukh ?n
(ei#do<n se), "he said to him, 'Before
Philip called you, when (you) were
under the fig tree, I knew
you'" (Jn. 1:48).
The only nuclear orders where these suspicious
combinations take
place are: (1) where both S and
0 candidates appear following the P;
and (2) where both S and 0
candidates appear before the P. Nuclear or-
ders such as S-P-0 and O-P-S do
not exhibit the problem of potential
ambiguity because of their
semantic clarity.
The rule to handle suspicious combinations of the type in
situa-
tion (1) is that there is no
order P-O-S, and so therefore the order
must be P-S-0, which has five
examples in this corpus. So when there is
an S and 0, and they appear in
post-Predicate position, the S is always
3 This problem was alluded to in Section 1.1,
pp. 4-5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
151
first. This rule applies to
Philippians 1:7 where me
is consequently
the Subject and apac is the
Object, outside of contextual considerations.
The rule also handles example
(30), where the proper elements have al-
ready been indicated.4
The rule to handle suspicious combinations of the type in
situa-
tion (2) is a little more
complex. There are two orders of the candi-
date units before the
Predicate: S-0-P and O-S-P. Here the primary de-
terminant must be the context.
In the seven S-0-P clauses, there is no
contextual doubt as to which is
the Subject and which is the Object.
There is not even a formal
doubt, for the nature of the tagmeme expo-
nents is different enough to
make an easy distinction (i.e., the Subject
may be a pronoun while the
Object is a Nominal Clause; or the Subject
may be a noun phrase while the
Object may be an adjective). In the case
of example (31), however, the
pronoun and the proper noun are both ac-
ceptable candidates for either
tagmeme in their own right, and recourse
must be made to the context. In
that context Philip had already con-
tacted Nathaniel (the apparent
referent for se
as Christ addresses him)
in verse 45 of John 1.
Therefore the order is O-S-P, as it is with two
other clauses. It may be that
where formal ambiguity arises in pre-
Predicate suspicious combinations,
the order will turn out to be O-S-P,
but further clauses will have
to be studied to determine this.
A possible contribution to the translation of Luke 12:15
comes
with the recognition of a
potential dative Subject. This is admittedly
4 A subsequent analysis
of Acts shows eleven clauses with Predi-
cate-Subject-Object
order, which further bears out this conclusion,
since this is the only ordering
of S and 0 following P.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
152
a difficult passage to analyze
and translate:
(34) (o!ti ou]k) e]n t&?
perisseu<ein tini>
(h[ zwh> au]tou? e]stin) e]k
tw?n u[parx-
o<ntwn au]t&?.
The construction is not strictly comparable to those in
Section
5.1.1, but regarding the dative
indefinite pronoun as a possible Subject
for perisseu<ein, it may
be literally rendered thus: "because his life
is not in this, namely, for
someone to surfeit because of his posses-
sions." This may be
smoothed to read, "for a man's life does not con-
sist in his surfeiting by
reason of his possessions."
5.3 General Conclusions
The following conclusions emerge from this study of the
infini-
tive clause in the Gospels:
1. There
is indeed such a thing as word order in Koine Greek, and word
order is significant under
certain circumstances, whether they be formal
or stylistic. It is now
possible to state what are the favorite word
order arrangements for Greek
infinitive clauses, which certainly do not
pattern at random, even though
there is a greater variety of orders than
are seen in contemporary
English. The proliferation of word orders must
be seen as encouraged by the
extensive inflectional system. The situa-
tion between Old English and
modern English is analogous, for Old Eng-
lish is inflected to a degree
comparable to Greek, and it also displays
a number of word order patterns
for various nuclear syntagmemes.5 The
5 See, for example,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
153
erosion of inflections due to
phonological processes and analogical con-
formity has forced modern
English to rely on a limited number of set
patterns. But a great deal of
scholarship is going on in Old English
to study both the synchronic
and the diachronic aspects of word order
in correlation with the
inflectional system, and we are apparently
standing on the threshold of
such studies for Greek.6
2. Contrary to the assertions by A.T. Robertson
that infinitives with
their adjunct structures are
phrasal in nature, the overwhelming
Edgar
J. Lovelady, "A Tagmemic Analysis of AElfric's Life of St. Oswald"
(unpublished
Doctor's dissertation,
193.
Both of these are tagmemic studies of Old English word order.
6 John Algeo cites an
interesting index of synthesis for inflec-
ted
languages, which consists of the number of morphemes in a sentence
(or
corpus) divided by the number of words in a sentence (or corpus).
For
example, if there were three words in a sentence, and seven mor-
phemes,
the index of synthesis would be 2.33. Algeo applies this to
Latin
and English (he does not list Greek), and obtains the following
indeces:
Latin: 2.19; Old English: 1.79; Middle
English: 1.33; and
modern
English: 1.26. A study by the present writer, using Algeo's
corpus
(Ex. 3:1-5) in the Greek Septuagint version revealed an index of
1.68,
lower than Old English! The gap in the indices between the clas-
sical
languages and even the English of 1500 years ago, and ours today
is
strikingly revealed. John Algeo, Problems
in the Origins and Devel-
opment of the English
Language
(2nd ed.;
Jovanovich,
Inc., 1972), pp. 81-82.
As examples of word order studies in
Old English which can have
either
a methodological or comparative bearing on Greek analysis, the
following
works are cited: Faith F. Gardner, An
Analysis of Syntactic
Patterns of Old English (The Hague: Mouton
& Co., 1971), 85 pp.; Ann
Saxon Chronicle from 734
to 891
(The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1964), 67
pp.;
Charles Carlton, Descriptive Syntax of
the Old English Charters
(The
Hague: Mouton & Co., 1970), 200 pp.; Robert A. Palmatier, A Des-
criptive Syntax of the
Ormulum (The
Hague: Mouton & Co., 1969), 137
pp.;
William H. Brown, Jr., A Syntax of King
Alfred's Pastoral Care (The
Hague:
Mouton & Co., 1970), 91 pp.; and Celia M. Millward, Imperative
Constructions
in Old English (The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1971), 73 pp.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
154
evidence demands recognition as
clause structure.7 Infinitive clauses
have clause-type tagmemes,
clause-type syntagmemes, and clausal trans-
formations. They are a form of
reduced-clause structure by their non-
finite status and other
limitations, but they are apparently derived
from clausal deep-structure
sources in the generative component of human
speech production. Infinitive
clauses can be typologized by means of a
three-dimensional matrix
diagram8 which shows the twelve formal varieties
of the clauses based on the six
factors of transitivity involved, the
two voices (active and passive)
and statements versus questions. Order-
ly transformational rules can
be written to show the formal relationship
between kernel and derived
clauses, such as the passive, relative, and
interrogative clauses.9
3. The
traditional system of grammar has obscured, though not deliber-
ately, the complex but orderly
structural process whereby the mapping
of elements from one
grammatical level to another takes place. The con-
cept that language communication
consists of a simple laying down of one
element after another in linear
fashion has been replaced by a greater
balance between the vertical
system of the language, in which lower-
level structures are apparently
relentlessly crowding upward as if for
7
The evidence consists mainly of Chapters Three and Four of this
study.
8 See Section 4.1, p. 86.
9 For the passive rule,
see Section 2.1, p. 27; for passive clause
forms,
see Section 4.3, pp. 121-127; for the relative transformation, see
Section
4.2.2.2, pp. 95-96; for interrogative transformations, see Sec-
tion 4.4, pp. 127-132.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
155
recognition, and the horizontal
reality which we all encounter when we
attempt to decode the language.
This newer balanced emphasis on the
vertical structure is revealed
graphically in the tree diagrams dis-
played in various sections of
this study. At all times the correlation
between function and form is
preserved in these diagrams, and also pre-
served are the word order
patterns and logical relationships. The sys-
tem of mapping from one level
to another disclosed in the tree diagrams
is closely analogous to the
system that the native speaker must have had
in his mind when he produced
the utterances in the language. Such a
study as this brings us closer
to the "compositional moment" of the
literature in Greek. In
addition to the extensive inflectional system
and other syntactic rules which
have already been described, the Greek
speaker had a systematic
knowledge of structural mapping possibilities
which resulted in the word
order that we have in the text.
More specific conclusions are
the following:
4. Out of the 980 infinitive uses studied, 822
are clauses (84%), while
158 are single (16%). Clauses
outnumber single infinitives by a ratio
of over five to one.10
5. There are nine nuclear tagmemes,11
15 secondary tagmemes,12 and one
marker unit for infinitive
clauses.13 All of these units are selected
10 See Section 2.2, p.
36.
11 See Section 3.2, pp.
45-65.
12 See Section 3.3, pp.
65-78.
13 See Section 3.4, pp. 78-85.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
156
on the basis of notional
choice. For the first time, formulas have been
constructed for the marker
units which introduce infinitive clauses, and
for infinitive clause
syntagmemes, or word order patterns.14
6. Middle clauses and transicomplement clauses
have been distinguished
for the first time.15
Ditransitive clauses are seen to be the most un-
stable syntagmemically.16
7. A new form for the infinitive clause with
equational verb has been
identified: the predicate
adverbial, in addition to the predicate nom-
inative and predicate adjective
forms.17
8. Infinitives are used (1) as subject of main
clause; (2) as direct
object of main clause; (3) as
predicate complement in connection with
certain specified verbs; (4) as
subject complement with equational
verbs; (5) as exponent of
various secondary tagmemes; (6) as modifier of
noun and adjective elements;
and (7) as functional imperative.18
9. The initial presence of the Predicate tagmeme
in the nuclear pattern
of a clause encourages the use
of a marker unit and other secondary tag-
memes in the pre-posed
position. The presence of Subject, Direct
14 For the marker formula
see p. 79; syntagmeme formulas are all
contained
in Chapter Four.
15 See Section 3.2.2.4,
p. 50, and Section 4.2.4, pp. 101-102.
16 See Section 4.2.5, pp.
102-113.
17 See Section 4.2.6.7.1,
pp. 117-119.
18 See Section 5.1.3, pp. 141-145.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
157
Object, Indirect Object, and
Subject Complement tagmemes in initial pos-
ition discourages this.19
10. In conformity with other studies, it is
observed that antecedent
subjects or objects are not
generally repeated in infinitive clauses.
11. When there is no overt Subject tagmeme in an
equational infinitive
clause, the filler of the
Complement slot is in the same case as its
antecedent, whether that is the
subject of the main clause, or the un-
derstood subject of the
infinitive clause.20
12. Problems in identifying the Subject and
Object in transitive
clauses where some ambiguity
occurs because both are in the accusative
case, can be handled easily
when both elements in question appear after
the Predicate, for in that case
the order is regularly P-S-0. Very
little such ambiguity exists
beyond this, and can be handled by refer-
ence to the context.21
13. A new system of classifying verbs which take
Predicate Complements
manifested by infinitive
constructions has been devised. Such terms as
ergative verb, necessitative
verb, inceptive verb, and others are used
to describe these special verb
types.22
19 See Section 4.2.6.1,
p. 114.
20 Ibid. , pp. 114-115.
21 See Section 5.2, pp.
149-151.
22 See Section 5.1.3.3, pp. 142-143.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
158
14. There
is now reason to believe that nouns, pronouns, and nominal
phrases which function
primarily as datives of reference with equational
or permissive verbs, can also
function secondarily as logical dative
subjects of infinitive clauses.23
15. It is significant that this tagmemic analysis
of the Koine Greek
infinitive clause in the New
Testament Gospels accounts for all the
pertinent syntactic phenomena
without residue. Such a result as this is
not usually expected in
linguistic analysis.
23
See Section 5.1, pp. 133-139.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aalto,
Pentti. Studien zur Geschichte des
Infinitivs im Griechischen.
Algeo,
John. Problems in the Origins and
Development of the English
Language. 2d. ed.
1972.
Arndt,
William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A
Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chica-
go: The University of Chicago Press, 1957.
Becker,
graph Series on Languages and
Linguistics, No. 20, 109-121.
Washington, D. C.:
Belasco,
Simon. "Tagmemics and Transformational Grammar in Linguistic
Analysis," Linguistics,
10 (December, 1964), 5-15.
Blass,
F. and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of
the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature. Trans. by Robert W.
Funk.
Bloomfield, Leonard. Language.
Bolinger,
Dwight. Aspects of Language.
Jovanovich, Inc., 1975.
Boyer,
James L. A Manual of Greek Forms.
1972.
Brend,
Ruth M. "Tagmemic Theory: An Annotated Bibliography," in Jour-
nal of English Linguistics, IV
(March, 1970), 7-46.
Brown,
William H., Jr. A Syntax of King Alfred's
Pastoral Care. The
Hague: Mouton & Co., 1970.
Burguiere,
Paul. Histoire De L'Infinitif En Grec.
C. Klincksieck, 1960.
Buttmann,
Alexander. A Grammar of the New Testament
Greek.
Carlton,
Charles. Descriptive Syntax of the Old
English Charters. The
Hague: Mouton & Co., 1970.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
160
Casagrande,
Joseph B. "Language Universals in Anthropological Perspec-
tive," in Universals of Language, ed. Joseph H. Greenberg.
Chafe,
Wallace L. Meaning and the Structure of
Language.
Chomsky,
Noam. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.
M.I.T. Press, 1965.
_________.
Current Issues in Linguistic Theory.
________. Syntactic Structures.
Cook,
Walter A. "Case Grammar as a Deep Structure in Tagmemic Analy-
sis," Languages and Linguistics: Working Papers, No. 2, 1-9.
Washington, D. C.:
_________.
"The Generative Power of a Tagmemic Grammar," Monograph
Series on Languages and Linguistics, No. 20, 27-41.
D. C.:
__________.
Introduction to Tagmemic Analysis.
hart and Winston, Inc., 1967.
Cooper,
Guy L. Zur syntaktischen Theorie and
Textkritik der altischen
Autoren. Juris
Druch, 1971.
Dana,
H. E. and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual
Grammar of the Greek New
Testament.
Denniston, J. D. Greek Prose Style.
Dineen,
Francis P. An Introduction to General
Linguistics.
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967.
Ellis,
Jeffrey. Towards a General Comparative
Linguistics.
Mouton & Co., 1966.
Elson,
Benjamin and Velma Pickett. An Introduction
to Morphology and
Syntax.
1969.
H
KAINH AIACHKH. 2d ed.
1958.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
161
Fillmore,
Charles J. and D. Terence Langendoen, eds. Studies
in Lin-
guistic Semantics.
1971.
Franklin,
Karl J. "Tagmemics and Tagmemic Rules," Linguistics, 70
(June, 1971), 25-44.
Fries,
Charles C. "On the Development of the Structural Use of Word-
Order in Modern English," Language, XV (July-September, 1940),
199-208.
Funk,
Robert W. A Beginning-Intermediate
Grammar of Hellenistic Greek.
Incomplete edition.
cal Literature, 1972.
Garvin,
Paul L. "A Study of Inductive Method in Syntax," Word, XVIII
(August, 1962), 107-120.
_________.
On Linguistic Method: Selected Papers.
Gildersleeve,
Basil L. Syntax of Classical Greek. 2
vols.
American Book Co., 1900.
Gleason,
H. A., Jr. An Introduction to Descriptive
Linguistics. Rev.
ed.
_________.
Linguistics and English Grammar.
and Winston, Inc., 1965.
_________. "The Organization of Language," Monograph Series on Languages
and Linguistics, No. 17, 75-96. Washington, D. C.:
University Press, 1964.
_________.
"Some Contributions of Linguistics to Biblical Studies," The
Goetchius,
Eugene Van Ness. The Language of the New
Testament. New
Goodwin, William. A Greek Grammar.
________.
Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the
Greek Verb.
The Macmillan Co., 1889.
Green,
Samuel. Handbook to the Grammar of the
Greek Testament. New
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
162
Greenberg,
Joseph H. Anthropological Linguistics: An
Introduction.
________.
"Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the
order of Meaningful Elements,"
in Universals of Language, ed.
Joseph H. Greenberg.
Greimas,
A. J. Semantique Structurale.
1966.
Grimes,
Joseph E. "Positional Analysis," Language,
LVIII (June, 1967),
437-444.
Hall,
Robert A., Jr. Introductory Linguistics.
Books, 1964.
Han,
Nathan E, A Parsing Guide to the Greek
New Testament. Scottdale,
Harris,
Zellig S. Methods in Structural
Linguistics.
Hayes,
Walter M. An Introductory Greek Program.
versity Press, 1966.
Hill,
Archibald A. Introduction to Linguistic
Structures.
Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1958.
Hockett,
Charles F. A Course in Modern
Linguistics.
Macmillan Co., 1958.
Huttar,
George L. "On Distinguishing Clause and Sentence." Unpublished
paper. n.p.: Summer Institute of Linguistics, n.d.
Jackendoff,
Ray S. Semantic Interpretation in
Generative Grammar.
bridge,
Jespersen,
Otto. Analytic Syntax.
ston, Inc., 1969.
Kurath,
Hans. "The Semantic Patterning of Words." Monograph Series on
Languages and Linguistics, N. 14, 91-94.
Washington, D. C.:
Kurzova,
Helena. Syntaktischen Struktur des
Griechischen Infinitiv und.
Nebensatz. Prag: Verlag der Tschechaslowakischen Akademie
der
Wissenschaften, 1968.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
163
Langacker,
Ronald W. Language and Its Structure.
Brace & World, Inc., 1968.
Langendoen,
D. Terence. The Study of Syntax.
and Winston, Inc., 1969.
LaSor,
William Sanford. Handbook of New
Testament Greek. 2 vols.
Lees,
Robert B. Review of Noam Chomsky, Syntactic
Structures (Mouton &
Lehmann,
Winfred P. Descriptive Linguistics: An
Introduction. New
________.
Historical Linguistics: An Introduction.
Rinehart and Winston, 1962.
Leroy,
Maurice. Main Trends in Modern
Linguistics. Trans. Glanville
Price.
Li,
Charles N., ed. Word Order and Word Order
Change.
Longacre,
Robert E. Discourse, Paragraph, and
Sentence Structure in
Selected Philippine Languages. 3 vols.
________.
Grammar Discovery Procedures.
1964.
_________.
"From Tagma to Tagmeme in Biblical Hebrew," in A William
Cameron Townsend en el vigesimoquinto aniversario del
Institute
de Verano.
_________.
"Hierarchy and Methodology." Unpublished paper.
_________.
Hierarchy and Universality of Discourse
Constituents in New
University Press, 1972.
_________.
"Hierarchy in Language," in Method
and Theory in Linguistics,
ed. Paul L. Garvin.
________.
"Some Fundamental Insights of Tagmemics," Language, XLI
(January-March, 1965), 65-76.
_________.
"String Constituent Analysis," Language,
XXXVI (January-
March, 1960), 63-88.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
164
________.
"Transformational Parameters in Tagmemic Field Structures,"
in
guistics, 1961-1965, Richard O'Brien, compiler.
D. C.:
Lovelady,
Edgar J. "A Positional Syntax of Koine Greek." Unpublished
research monograph, Grace Theological Seminary, August,
1974.
________.
"A Tagmemic Analysis of AElfric's Life of St. Oswald." Un-
published Doctor's dissertation,
_________.
"A Tagmemic Analysis of Genesis 37." Unpublished research
monograph, Grace Theological Seminary, August, 1975.
Lyons,
John. Introduction to Theoretical
Linguistics.
University Press, 1968.
_________. Noam Chomsky.
Maier,
Friedrich. Die Version aus dem
Griechischen: Schwerpunkte der
Syntax.
Munchen: Max Hueber Verlag, 1969.
Martinet,
Andre. Elements of General Linguistics.
Trans. Elisabeth
Palmer.
Matson,
Dan M. "Tagmemic Description of Agreement." Monograph Series
on Languages and Linguistics, No. 20, 103-108.
D. C.:
McCawley,
James D. "The Role of Semantics in a Grammar," in Universals
in Linguistic Theory, ed. Emmon Bach and Robert Harms. New
McNeill,
David. The Acquisition of Language: The
Study of Develop-
mental Psycholinguistics.
Millward,
Celia M. Imperative Constructions in Old
English.
Mouton & Co., 1971.
Moulton,
James H. A Grammar of New Testament
Greek. 3 vols. 3rd ed.
Nida, Eugene A. Bible Translating. n.p.: pub. by the
author, 1945.
_________. "Linguistic Theories and Bible
Translating," The Bible Trans-
lator, XXIII
(July, 1972), 301-308.
__________. Toward a Science of Translating.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
165
________,
and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and
Practice of Translation.
Ogden,
Charles Jones. De Infinitivi Finalis Vel
Consecutivi Construc-
tione Apud Priscos Poetas Graecos.
University Press, 1909.
Palmatier,
Robert A. A Descriptive Syntax of the
Ormulum.
Mouton & Co., 1969.
Pike,
Kenneth L. "Crucial Questions in the Development of Tagmemics--
the Sixties and Seventies." Monograph Series on Languages and
Linguistics, No. 24, 79-98. Washington, D. C.:
University Press, 1971.
_________.
"Dimensions of Grammatical Structure," Language, XXXVIII
(July-September, 1962), 221-244.
_________.
"Grammar as Wave." Monograph
Series on Languages and Lin-
guistics, No. 20, 1-14. Washington, D. C.:
sity Press, 1967.
_________.
"Grammatical Analysis." Unpublished experimental work.
_________.
"A Guide to Publications Related to Tagmemic Theory," in
Current
Trends in Linguistics, Vol. III, ed. Thomas A. Sebeok,
365-394. The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1966.
_________.
"How to Make an Index," in Publications
of the Modern Lan-
guage Association of America, LXXXIII (September,
1968), 991-
993.
________.
"Language as Particle, Wave and Field," The
II (Summer, 1959), 37-54.
_________.
Language in Relation to a Unified Theory
of the Structure of
Human Behavior. 2d
ed.
________.
"On Tagmemes nee Gramemes," International
Journal of American
Linguistics, XXIV
(October, 1958), 273-278.
________,
and Kent H. Gordon. "Preliminary Technology
to Show Emic Re-
lations Between Certain
Non-Transitivity Clause Structures in
Dhangar (
Linguistics, I
(No. 1, n.d.), 55-79.
Roberts,
Paul. English Sentences.
Inc., 1962.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
166
Robertson,
A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New
Testament in the Light of
Historical Research.
Samarin,
William J. Field Linguistics: A Guide to
Linguistic Field
Work.
Shannon
Ann. A Descriptive Syntax of the Parker
Manuscript of the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle from 734 to 891.
Shores,
David L. A Descriptive Syntax of the
Smyth,
Herbert W. Greek Grammar. Rev. Gordon
M. Messing.
Southworth,
Franklin C. and C. J. Daswani. Foundations
of Linguistics.
Ture,
Kalen. Selbstandige Finalsatze and
Imperativische Infinitive im
Griechischen.
n.d.
Votaw,
lished Doctor's dissertation,
Wonderly,
William L. Bible Translations for Popular
Use. n.p.: United
Bible Societies, 1968.
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at:
ted.hildebrandt@gordon.edu