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.








            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, tex-

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.





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."































                                TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS                                                                          iv

LIST OF TAGMEMIC SYMBOLS                                                             viii


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






V. CONCLUSION                                                                                                     133

            5.1 Problems

            5.2 Suggestions for Interpretation

            5.3 General Conclusions

BIBLIOGRAPHY                                                                                                      158



























                          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




            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




                        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



            whQ-InftC1                wh-Question Transitive Clause

IV.  Transformations

            T-rel                            Relative Clause Transformation (with Direct Ob-


            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



























                                         CHAPTER I




            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 essen-

tially a grammar of the infinitive clause in the New Testament Gospels.




                                        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 (Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press, 1961).



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


            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.



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:



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, Mass.: Warren F. Draper, Pub., 1880), pp. 258-280.



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.



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

University of Chicago concentrated, as the title suggests, on the uses

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 (New York: The Macmillan

Co., 1894), pp. 325-334.

            11 Clyde W. Votaw, "The Use of the Infinitive in Biblical Greek"

(unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Chicago, 1896), 59 pp.

            12 Ibid., p. 59.



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.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906, 1957).

            15 Moulton, op. cit., ed. Nigel Turner, Vol. III.



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 (Cam-

bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1920; 1956), pp. 436-453.



            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.



            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.



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.



            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.



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 Sanford LaSor, Handbook of New Testament Greek, 2 vols.

(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1973), pp. 163-179.



            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.



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





                                        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.; The Hague: Mouton & Co.,


            2 Benjamin Elson and Velma Pickett, An Introduction to Morphology

and Syntax (Santa Ana, Cal.: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1969).




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-


            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 (The Hague:

Mouton &      1964).

            4 Walter A. Cook, Introduction to Tagmemic Analysis (New York:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969).



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-


            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



in a language. Tagmemes are language-typological and language perva-


            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.



            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.



            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, Purdue University, 1974), pp. 253-263. Also see Robert E. Long-

acre, Discourse, Paragraph, and Sentence Structure in Selected Philip-

pine Languages, 3 vols. (Santa Ana, Cal.: Summer Institute of Linguis-

tics, 1968); and Longacre's Hierarchy and Universality of Discourse Con-

stituents in New Guinea Languages: Discussion (Washington, D. C.:

Georgetown University Press, 1972).

            9 Further discussion of paragraph types is found in Lovelady, pp.




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.



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,




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



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




                  | ----------------------------------------------|

                  |                                                               |

               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



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



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.



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-


            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.



            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 (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,

1968), pp. 124-169, and Charles J. Fillmore and D. Terence Langendoen,

eds., Studies in Linguistic Semantics (New York: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston, Inc., 1971).

            19 Pike, pp. 500-501.



            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.



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



analyzed as peripheral tagmemes called Margins which could reflect the

semantic properties of Circumstance, Reason, Purpose, Cause, and the


            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



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.


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 (New York:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965), pp. 142-151, gives a judicious



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:


            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.



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.



                                       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.



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-


            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.; London: The British and Foreign

Bible Society, 19 8), pp. 1-355.



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.



20 and 30 infinitives per Gospel had been overlooked in the initial


            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



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


            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



transcription was completed, the descriptive material was ready to be

written as the present study.




                                    CHAPTER III




                          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



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.



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.



            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


                                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. 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). Noun Phrase, Accusative

(kai> e]qera<peuein au]to<n)  w~ste to>n kwfo>n lalei?n kai> ble<pein, "and he



healed him, so that the blind man spoke and saw" (Mt. 12:22). 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). 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). 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). 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 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). 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). 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). 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). 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). 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). 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          Infinitive

(kai> ei#pen) doqh?nai au]t^?  fagei?n, "and he requested something to eat to

be given to her" (Mk. 5:43). 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


(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).  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). 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



semantic nature of the kernel verb which expounds the Predicate slot.

Seven different transitivity types of Predicate are observed for the

infinitive clause. 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). 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). Transitive Passive

            While the monotransitive Predicate is active in voice, passive

clauses which are the result of the passive transformation reflect a



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 Galilee" (Mt. 26:32). 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). 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 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). 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. 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). 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 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). 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). 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). 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). Personal  Pronoun, Accusative

(e]boulh<qh) la<qra a]polu<sai au]th<n, "he wanted to send her away secretly"

(Mt. 1:19). 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). 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 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). 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). Reciprocal Pronoun, Accusative

w!ste katapatei?n a]llh<louj, "so as to tread on one another" (Lk. 12:1). Numeral, Accusative

(kai> prose<qeto) tri<ton pe<myai, "and he added to send a third" (Lk. 20:

12). 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). 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) Proper Noun Phrase, Accusative

(o[ Peila?toj . . . qe<lwn) a]polu?sai to>n   ]Ihsou?n, "Pilate . . . wishing to

release Jesus" (Lk'. 23:20). Elliptical Attributive Phrase, Accusative

            The nature of the phrase in question is one with an article



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). 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). 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


(o[ de> parh<ggeilen au]toi?j) mhdeni> ei]pei?n to> gegono<j, "and he instructed

them to tell no one the thing that had happened" (Lk. 8:56). 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



in the temple" (Mk. 11:15). 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). 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). 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). 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 Coordinate Noun Phrase, Dative

            Some verbs, like doule<w and latreu<w, idiomatically take the


(ou] du<nasqe) qe&? douleu<ein kai> mamwn%?, "you are not able to be a slave

to God and mammon" (Mt. 6:24). 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. 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). 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. 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



(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. 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). 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). Indefinite Pronoun, Dative

(kai> au]to>j parh<ggeilen au]t&?) mhdeni> ei]pei?n, "and he himself charged him

to tell (it) to no one" (Lk. 5:13). 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). 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 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). 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). Participial Nominal Phrase, Dative

(a]pe<steilen to>n dou?lon au]tou? . . .) ei]pei?n toi?j keklhme<noij,  @Erxesqe, o!ti

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). 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). 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



                     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



                                                                                                                                    60 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).—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[kano>n the direct

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." 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 Single Common Noun, Accusative

(pepeisme<noj ga<r e]stin)   ]Iwa<nnhn prafh<thn ei#nai, "(the people) are



persuaded that John it a prophet" (Lk. 20:6).  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). Interrogative Pronoun, Accusative

Ti<na me (le<gousin oi[ a@nqrwpoi) ei#nai; "Who do men say that I am?" (Mk.

8:27). 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). 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). 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). 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).  Comparative Adjective

(to> ti<j au]tw?n dokei?) ei#nai mei<zwn, "which of them is supposed to be



greater" (Lk. 22:4). Noun Phrase, Nominative

(ou] du<natai) ei#nai< mou maqhth<j,  ”he is not able to be my disciple" (Lk.

14:33). Single Adjective, Nominative

(Ei] qe<leij) te<leioj ei#nai, "If you wish to be complete . . ." (Mt. 19:

21). 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. 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



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<. 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 (Chicago:

The University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 400.



            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: Relative Pronoun

(Ou]x ou$toj e]stin) o{n (zhtou?sin) a]poktei?nai; "Is not this one (he) whom



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. 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 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


                                 3.3.1 The Manner Tagmeme

            Ninety-four total examples are found, with a great diversity of

manifesting structures.  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 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). Numeral

pri>n h} di>j a]le<ktora fwnh?sai, "before the cock will have crowed twice"

(Mk. 14:30). 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). 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). 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). 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).  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 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). 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). 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). 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). 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). 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 Single Noun; Genitive

(Po<qen) tou<touj (dunh<setai< tij) w$de xorta<sai a@rtwn e]p ] e]rhmi<aj,

"Whence shall someone be able to supply these men with bread here in the

desert?" (Mk. 8:4).  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. 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). 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). 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 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). 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. 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). 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). 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–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).  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. Single Adverb

(kalo<n e]stin) h[ma?j w$de ei#nai, "it is good for us to be here" (Mt. 17:4). 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). 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). 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



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.



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.  Personal Pronoun, Dative

( ]Ea>n de<^) me sunapoqanei?n soi . . , "If it is necessary for me to die



with you" (Mk. 14:31). The Relationship tagmeme thus specifies some

kind of association between people. 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). 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. 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 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. 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). 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.

    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 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). 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.            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). 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). 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).




                      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. Single Adverb

(Dei?) u[ma?j gennhqh?nai a@nwqen, "It is necessary for us to be born from 

above" (a. 3:7). 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:



                               3.3.11 The Reference Tagmeme

            This tagmeme reflects reference made about a person or thing.

There are ten examples, and only one manifestor. 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 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). 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). 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). 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. 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



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 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. 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). 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.



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 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.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906, 1957); and

H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual of the Greek New Testament

(New York: The Macmillan Co., 1947), pp. 208-211.



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.



            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



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.


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).




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



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).



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


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


(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).



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, p. 50.



(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



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. 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


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.



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


            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 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



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%. 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




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 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


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). 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



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



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 Jerusalem" (Lk. 9:31).

            The relationship may be expressed in the following diagram:



                 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.



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



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. 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.



            3 For an explanation of Smk as Infinitive Clause Marker, see

Section 3.4, pp. 78-85.


                                                                                                                                    99 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. 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). Object-Subject-Predicate

            Three concise clauses of this form use no secondary tagmemes and

only one marker among them. The formula is:



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). 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



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. 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



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). 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.



                                       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. 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). 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, p. 50.



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). 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.



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. 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, Purdue University, 1974).

            7 Lovelady, "A Positional Syntax of Koine Greek" (unpublished

research monograph, Grace Theological Seminary, August, 1974), pp. 26-27.



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). 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



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). 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]pei?n to> gegono<j, "and he gave

instruction to them to tell to no one the thing that had happened" (Lk.


            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>



functions as indirect object. The formula is:

InfdCl = +I +P +O. 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 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 (Oxford: The Clarendon

Press, 1965), p. 42.



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. 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.



emphatic Indirect Object. No optional tagmemes are found. The formula


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). 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). 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.



            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). 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, pp. 95-96. The

clause is:


(ou]dei?j ginw<skei . . . ei] mh> o[ Ui[o>j kai>) &$ e]a>n      (bou<lhtai o[ Ui[o>j)


a]pokalu<yai, "no one knows . . . except the Son and the one to whomever

the Son wishes to reveal (it)" (Lk. 10:22).



            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:



                  C:c                                     H:NomC1

                    |                  |-------------|---------------|--------------|

                   |                  R                   P:tv               S Nn            O:InfCl

                   |           I—R:dispnd                                                                  P:dvinf

                   |                  |                    |                   |                                  |

                 kai>            &$ e]a>n         bou<lhtai    o[ ui[o>j                      a]pokalu<yai




            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-


    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. 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



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). 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). 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



them a sign from heaven" (Mt. 16:1). 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). 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.



            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. 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



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:



          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. 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 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. 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). 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.



The example is:

                            C:Na                   S:pna     P:eqvinf