INFINITIVE CLAUSE SYNTAX IN THE GOSPELS

by

Edgar J. Lovelady

Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements

for the degree of Master of Theology in

Grace Theological Seminary

May 1976

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accepted by the Faculty of Grace Theological Seminary

in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree

Master of Theology

Examining Committee

James L. Boyer

Homer A. Kent Jr.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is not always the case that one can complete his advanced

theological degree with thesis advisors who were the student's first

teachers of Greek 18 years previously. It is also not always the case

that one is allowed the freedom to go out on a theoretical limb to pur-

sue a project which is somewhat a departure from traditional topics in

theology. Happily, both of these exceptions blended effectively in the

advising and production of this study.

The natural modesty of both of my advisors, Dr. James Boyer and

Dr. Homer A. Kent, Jr., prevents me from heaping upon them the praise

for their scholarship and counsel that is their due. But I should like

them and the readers of this thesis to know just how deeply I appreciate

their contributions to my work.

Just about all of the Greek I now know and recently have had the

joy of teaching, is attributable to the efforts of these men of God. I

have profited from their insights in courses in grammar, exegesis, 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.

iv

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I have learned any one thing from this project, it is the

truth of the following axiom from the pen of Dr. A. M. Fairbairn, and

congenially embodied in my two advisors: "No man can be a theologian

who is not a philologian. He who is no grammarian is no divine."

v

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

LIST OF TAGMEMIC SYMBOLS viii

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 The Problem

1.2 Previous Research

II. TAGMEMIC THEORY 16

2.1 The Tagmemic Theoretical Model

2.2 The Corpus

2.3 Procedures of Analysis

III. INFINITIVE CLAUSE CONSTITUENTS 42

3.1 Identification of Clauses

3.2 Primary Clause Tagmemes

3.3 Secondary Clause Tagmemes

3.4 The Infinitive Clause Marker Tagmeme

IV. TYPES OF INFINITIVE CLAUSES 86

4.1 Infinitive Clause Typology

4.2 Active Infinitive Clauses

4.2.1 Intransitive

4.2.2 Transitive

4.2.3 Transicomplement

4.2.4 Middle

4.2.5 Ditransitive

4.2.6 Equational

4.3 Passive Infinitive Clauses

4.3.1 Transitive

4.3.2 Transicomplement

4.3.3 Ditransitive

4.4 Interrogative Infinitive Clauses

4.4.1 Transitive

4.4.2 Ditransitive

4.4.3 Equational

vi

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page

Chapter

V. CONCLUSION 133

5.1 Problems

5.2 Suggestions for Interpretation

5.3 General Conclusions

BIBLIOGRAPHY 158

vii

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LIST OF TAGMEMIC SYMBOLS

I. Tagmemes

A. Sentence

SL Sentence Linker

B. Clause

Ag Agent

Alt Alternative

Ax Axis

B Benefactive

C Subject Complement

C Connector

Cir Circumstance

D Direction

F Purpose

Fmk Purpose Marker

G Goal

H Head

I Indirect Object

Ins Instrument

L Location

M Manner

Modmk Modifier Marker

Neg Negative

O Direct Object

OC Objective Complement

P Predicate

PC Predicate Complement

Peri Position Indicator for Peripheral Tagmemes

Q-C-R Interrogative-Complement-Relator

Qmk Question Marker

Q-O-R Interrogative-Object-Marker

Reas Reason

Reasmk Reason Marker

Ref Reference

Rel Relationship

Resmk Result Marker

RU Retained Object

S Subject

Sc Source

Smk Subject Marker

T Time

Tmk Time Marker

viii

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Phrase

Alt Alternative

C Connector

D Determiner

H Head

Pos Possessive

Rel Relator

II. Structures

A. Clause

AvC1 Adverbial Clause

D.Q. Direct Quotation

D-S Coordinate Dissimilar Structure

InfCl Infinitive Clause

0 Zero Manifestation

PtC1 Participial Clause

B. Phrase

Aj_ad Adversative Adjective Phrase

Nalt Alternative Adjective Phrase

Aj_(cx) Adjective Phrase (optionally complex)

Art_neg Negative Article Phrase

Av_co Coordinate Adverb Phrase

dis_pn Distributive Pronoun Phrase

D-S_co Coordinate Dissimilar Structure

IA Item-Appositive Phrase

N Noun Phrase

N_ad Adversative Noun Phrase

N_co Coordinate Noun Phrase

N_comp Comparative Noun Phrase

N_cx Complex Noun Phrase

NP Proper Noun Phrase

N_pt Participial Nominal Phrase

Num_en Enumerative Numeral Phrase

0 Zero Manifestation

RA Relator-Axis Phrase

RA_alt Alternative Relator-Axis Phrase

RA_co Coordinate Relator-Axis Phrase

RA_cx Complex Relator-Axis Phrase

Voc Vocative Phrase

C. Word

aj adjective

aj_comp comparative adjective

alt alternator

art article

ix

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

av adverb

c connector

dem demonstrative pronoun

dv_inf(p) ditransitive infinitive (optionally passive)

eqv_inf equational infinitive

indf_pn indefinite pronoun

indf_neg negative indefinite pronoun

int_pn interrogative pronoun

iv_inf intransitive infinitive

n common noun

neg negative (1:131)

np proper noun

num numeral

num_ord ordinal numeral

0 zero manifestation

pos personal pronoun in genitive case

ptc particle (2n)

rcp reciprocal pronoun

refl reflexive pronoun

rel relator

rel_pn relative pronoun

tcp_inf passive transicomplement infinitive

tv_inf(p) transitive infinitive (optionally passive)

v-emo emotive verb

v-erg ergative verb

v-freq frequentative verb

v-im imminent verb

v-inc inceptive verb

v-mid middle verb

v-nec necessitative verb

v-s verb-seems

III. Clause Types

InfdCl Ditransitive Infinitive Clause

InfdpCl Passive Ditransitive Infinitive Clause

InfeC1 Equational Infinitive Clause

Infe-iCl Inceptive Equational Infinitive Clause

Infe-sC1 Stative Equational Infinitive Clause

InfiC1 Intransitive Infinitive Clause

InfmC1 Middle Infinitive Clause

InftC1 Transitive Infinitive Clause

Inft/cC1 Transicomplement Infinitive Clause'

Inft/cpCl Passive Transicomplement Infinitive Clause

InftpCl Passive Transitive Clause

whQ-InfdC1 wh-Question Ditransitive infinitive Clause

yhp-InfeqC1 wh-Question Equational Clause

x

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

whQ-InftC1 wh-Question Transitive Clause

IV. Transformations

T-rel Relative Clause Transformation (with Direct Ob-

ject)

T-rel-IO Indirect Object Relative Clause Transformation

T-wh-Qd wh-Question Ditransitive Clause Transformation

T-wh-Qe wh-Question Equational Clause Transformation

T-wh-Qt wh-Question Transitive Clause Transformation

xi

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In spite of the extensive and precise scrutiny given to the

study of the ancient Greek language in general and New Testament Greek

in particular, there is still sufficient room left to challenge the in-

vestigator today. Recently-developed theories of language analysis have

made feasible the study of languages from fresh vantage points, thus

adding to the well-established body of linguistic knowledge currently

available. The process has been both cyclical and spiral, for as we have

come to know more about specific languages, the development of linguistic

theory has been advanced, and in turn the advancement of theoretical

linguistics has expanded and deepened our command of the languages.

It is the purpose of this study to present the results of a

syntactic analysis of selected infinitive clauses furnished by the con-

temporary linguistic method known as tagmemics, presented in a subsequent

part of this study. In so doing, it is hoped that this presentation can

serve both as a reference tool for infinitive clauses in New Testament

Greek, and as a model for the systematic analysis of other syntactic

constructions to be explored by researchers to follow. While this study

is data-based and analysis--oriented, conclusions involving the language

of the New Testament are drawn wherever they are warranted for their

use in translation and interpretation. This study, then, is essen-

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2

1.1 The Problem

The primary contribution of this study is grammatical rather

than exegetical, and this purpose is based on the premise that the more

we know about the language itself, the more accurate and reliable can be

our interpretation of its literature. The central and basic question

resolves to this: Is there such a thing as positional syntax in Koine

Greek for clauses? It is safe to say that Greek scholars for over a

century have generally felt that inflectional criteria have determined

clausal syntactic relationships, and that word order (with some excep-

tions¹) was of marginal consequence. Indeed, most Greek grammars devote

the bulk of their coverage to inflectional syntax. For example, in

Blass and Debrunner's classic work, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament,

225 pages are given to a discussion of inflectional syntax, while only

about 15 pages treat the significance of word order.²

The studies undertaken by students of Greek are soundly based on

observation collected from a wide range of sources, both Biblical and

extra-Biblical. Such constructions as the articular infinitive, genitive

^l Such studies as that by E. C. Colwell, "A Definite Rule for the

Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," reprint from Journal of

Biblical Literature, LII (1933), p. 9, demonstrate the contribution that

word order studies can make to Koine Greek grammar. In an extensive

survey of predicate nouns with and without the article occurring both

before and after the verb he finds that out of 112 definite predicates

used before the verb, only 15 are used with the article (13%), while 97

are used without the article (87%). From this and other evidence he

concludes that word order and not definiteness is the variable quantum

in predcate nominative constructions.

² F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament

and Other Early Christian Literature, rev. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press, 1961).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3

absolute, ingressive aorist (and many more) have been presented in

grammatical compendia primarily as resource tools for those who are

either learning the language, translating texts, or exegeting passages.

With such impressive and useful work available, the time has arrived to

consider positional syntax in Greek from the point of view of conceptual

linguistic competence and performance. One may now legitimately query

whether the choice of word order was completely or partially random in

view of the extensive inflectional system, or were there actually domi-

nant and favorite syntactic patterns employed by native Greek speakers?

Did speakers of Greek draw from the obviously finite number of orders

for clausal units to correlate with the inflectional signals, or even

more, to convey singular distinctions of meaning on their own? And

what circumstances, if any, trigger the differences in the use of word

order patterns? While one may agree with Blass and Debrunner that word

order is far freer in Greek than in modern English,³ we may also concur

that "there are, nevertheless, certain tendencies and habits (in the N.T.

especially in narrative) which have created something like a normal word

order.”⁴

A problem more immediate but still intimately related to the

central question is whether the infinitive with its adjuncts can be

recognized as a clause, or whether it is to be confined to phrasal sta-

tus. The standard grammars of the past century have not generally

accorded this construction clausal status (perhaps by default of

³ Ibid., p. 248.

⁴ Ibid.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4

discussion), and the noted grammarian A. T. Robertson took pains to ar-

gue its phrasal status. Only quite recently has the possibility been

advanced that it is possible to recognize infinitive and participial

clauses in their own right. Here, then, is a significant question to be

dealt with in this study.

The solution of the two aforementioned questions is contingent

upon the answers provided by two lesser, but more immediate problems.

First, the clausal units of meaning, if indeed there are such, must be

ascertained and stipulated. In this study units of meaning in clausal

or phrasal strings are called tagmemes. Tagmemes emerge with the ident-

ification of such elements as subject, predicate (verbal construct only),

direct object, indirect object, complement, and any other functional

units which may contribute to the total meaning of the clause. Such

units are laid out in Chapter Three.

Second, the various orders of these units in a clausal string

must be charted. Once this has been done, a clause typology analysis

can be constructed in matrix form in order to display graphically the

different kinds of clauses in the material studied. The results of this

phase of the investigation are reported in Chapter Four. Prior to these

chapters, Chapter Two presents the theory of tagmemics and the proce-

dures of analysis employed in this study. Chapter Five affords the

opportunity to draw conclusions and discuss peculiarities and problems

encountered which have a bearing on translation.

One example of potential ambiguity which requires a study of

word order beyond inflectional considerations appears in Philippians 1:7:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5

dia> to> e@xein me e]n t^? kardi<% u[ma?j, "because I have you in (my) heart."

Since both me and u[ma?j are in the accusative case, only the context or

a general positional usage based on other instances could tell which is

the subject and which is the object of the infinitive clause. Such

problems as this are handled within the purview of Chapter Five.

At this point it may be appropriate to anticipate the findings

and the conclusion spelled out in detail later in this study by briefly

explaining why the term infinitive clause is employed rather than

infinitive phrase. Infinitives with their associated word groups re-

flect clausal features in a number of languages when they possess such

functional units as subject, predicate, object, and so on, rather than

phrasal features, which typically consist of main word "heads" with

associated modifiers. Thus the meaningful units of clauses have a dif-

ferent kind of status and reflect a higher degree of autonomous signifi-

cance than do the units of phrases. It is now reasonably established

that the difference between phrases and clauses is one of "levels" of

the grammatical hierarchy on which they are functioning. Such levels

are discussed in Chapter Two, and the existence of such levels is recog-

nized throughout this study.

1.2 Previous Research

Alexander Buttmann, in A Grammar of the New Testament Greek

(1880),⁵ does not discuss the origin or nature of the infinitive.

Rather, he devotes considerable coverage to the use of the infinitive as

⁵ Alexander Buttmann, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek (Ando-

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6

complement, subject, object, and verbal or adjectival adjunct. While he

also deals with the infinitive as imperative and the use of articles and

prepositions, his most interesting discussion is his treatment of the

kai> e]ge<neto or e]ge<neto de> constructions with temporal infinitive con-

structions as narrative markers based on the Hebrew expression yhiy;va

transmitted by means of the Septuagint.

Samuel Green's Grammar of 1880 treats infinitives as "verbal

substantives expressing the abstract notion of the verb."⁶ He identi-

fies the infinitive as another mood of the verb in its own right:

Like the verb in other moods, it admits the modifications of tense

and voice. It may have a subject, or may govern an object, near or

remote; and it is qualified by adverbs. Like a substantive, it may

be the subject or object of a verb; it is often defined by the

article, and is employed in the different cases.⁷

Green apparently gives embryonic recognition to the infinitive

as a potential clausal entity, while he still recognizes its nominal

properties. For Green, an infinitive can function as subject or object

of another clause, always has its own subject in the accusative case,

and also functions as verbal adjunct for intention or result. He notes

the imperatival use of the infinitive in Philippians 3:16.

William Goodwin's Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek

Verb (1889),⁸ is based on classical texts. Like so many other grammars,

he focuses on the infinitive itself as opposed to infinitival

⁶ Samuel Green, Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament

(New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1880), p. 324.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ William Goodwin, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek

Verb (London: The Macmillan Co., 1889), pp. 297-328.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7

constructions. His definition of the infinitive is almost identical

with Green's.⁹ Most of his space is devoted to a listing of infinitive

uses with numerous citations for support. His next volume, A Greek

Grammar (1894),¹⁰ covers the complete field of classical Greek grammar,

but condenses the section on infinitives from his previous work with the

same essential content.

The definitive study of Koine Greek infinitives based on schol-

arly traditional grammar is found in Clyde W. Votaw's "The Use of the

Infinitive in Biblical Greek" (1896).¹¹ This doctoral thesis at the

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8

influence of the Hebrew original. Votaw's most pointed reference to

infinitive clause order appears in the following statement:

When the subject of the infinitive is expressed it is always in the

accusative case. The position of the subject in the clause regular-

ly is immediately before, or less frequently after, the infinitive.

The object of the infinitive follows the infinitive, and follows

also the subject if that stands after the infinitive.¹³

In subsequent discussion this study shows that Votaw's first

sentence requires amplification, for it is possible for the logical

subject of the infinitive to be in the dative case when the word in

question is involved in a co-function as the indirect object of a main

clause or when used as a dative of reference. And the rest of the

quotation also requires further development, which, indeed, is the

task of the present study. Nevertheless, Votaw's work remains the

pioneer study which many other pedagogical materials have drawn upon

with profit.

James H. Moulton, author of A Grammar of New Testament Greek

(1906),¹⁴ discusses in his Prolegomena (Vol. I) the infinitive from an

historical perspective. In Volume III, Syntax (1963),¹⁵ for which Nigel

Turner is responsible, the infinitive is treated in several useful ways:

(1) as possessing dative function, such as purpose, result, and for

absolute constructions; (2) with various clausal usages normal to an

independent clause, first without article, as direct object, as subject,

as an adverbial without specific function, and next with article, and

¹³ Ibid., p. 58.

¹⁴ James H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 3 vols.

(3rd ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906, 1957).

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9

with or without a preposition to perform the function of a subordinate

clause; and (3) as reflecting general classical usage in respect to

cases, with some exceptions. Against the classical rule that the sub-

ject of a dependent infinitive is not expressed again if it is the

same as the subject of the independent verb, Turner notes that

Quite often in the Koine and NT, although the governing verb and the

infin. have the same subject, the latter will be in the accus. This

is distinct from class. Greek, which has either the nominative or no

noun at all with the infin.¹⁶

Turner points out further departures of New Testament infinitive

usage from classical Greek, such as the placement of the infinitive

alone, whereas in classical Greek the full accusative with infinitive

construction would be used; and also that the accusative with the infin-

itive is more restricted in New Testament Greek because the o!ti, peri-

phrasis had become influential generally in later Greek.¹⁷

Herbert W. Smyth's Greek Grammar (1920; rev. 1956),¹⁸ devotes

almost twenty pages to the infinitive in one of the most complete treat-

ments in a general grammar. While most of his discussion focuses on the

immediate uses of single infinitives, Smyth comes close to a recognition

of the clausal propensities of infinitives with their adjuncts:

b. [the infinitive] can have a subject before it and a predicate

after it, and it can have an object in the genitive, or accusative

like the corresponding finite verb . . . the object of an infinitive

never stands in the objective genitive . . . . c. It is modified by

¹⁶ Ibid., p. 147.

¹⁷ Ibid., p. 148.

¹⁸ Herbert W. Smyth, Greek Grammar, rev. Gordon Messing (Cam-

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10

adverbs, not by adjectives . . e. It forms lauses of result

with w[ste, and temporal clauses with pri<n, etc.¹⁹

Based as it is on classical texts, Smyth's work covers forms and

uses of infinitives not found in the New Testament, but he covers judi-

ciously and in detail the use of infinitives as subject, predicate,

appositive, and object, as well as the relationship of infinitives to

adjectives, adverbs, and substantives in a manner essentially compatible

with the findings of the present study, though differing in specific

method of analysis.

A. T. Robertson in his A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in

the Light of Historical Research (1934),²⁰ provides an extensive survey

of the origin and development of the infinitive from pre-historic times

even in comparison with Sanskrit. He strongly asserts that the infini-

tive is substantival in nature, and hence he declines to divide the

infinitive into anarthrous and articular uses. To him, these are only

two aspects of the substantive quality of the infinitive, and he chooses

rather to divide the infinitive into substantival and verbal aspects.

Robertson makes much of his theory that the infinitive, as a substantive,

is always in a case relationship to its governing clause:

(a) Case (Subject or Object Infinitive). Here I mean the cases of

the inf. itself, not the cases used with it. The inf. is always in

a case. As a substantive this is obvious. We have to dismiss, for

the most part, all notion of the ending (dative or locative) and

treat it as an indeclinable substantive.²¹

¹⁹ Ibid., p. 438.

²⁰ A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the

Light of Historical Research (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1934),

pp. 1051-1095.

²¹ Ibid., p. 1058.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11

Robertson offers further support for his position by noting that

infinitives are used after prepositions and in connection with other

substantives, adjectives, and verbs as complements and appositives, just

as are other nominals. Robertson's separate treatment of the verbal

aspects of the infinitive includes the discussion of voice, tense, cases,

indirect discourse, personal constructions, and a range of uses from

epexegetical to purpose, result, cause, time, and infinitive absolutes.

Another distinctive assertion of Robertson is that because the

infinitive is not finite, it can not, as with the participle, have a

subject.²² He says,

[the infinitive] stands, indeed, in the place of a finite verb of

the direct statement, but does not thereby become finite with a

subject. From the syntactical standpoint the construction is true

to both the substantival and verbal aspects of the inf.²³

Thus for Robertson the infinitive is a verbalized substantive.

Instead of recognizing the subject of an infinitive in the accusative,

he says, "the true nature of the acc. with the inf. [is] merely that of

general reference."²⁴ Apparently, then, his theory of grammar was so

heavily case-oriented that it prevented him from dealing with infini-

tives and their adjuncts as clause constructions, and he was thus forced

to regard infinitive word groups as phrases. The evidence later adduced

in this study indicates that Robertson was not entirely correct, and

that infinitive collocations are indeed clausal in nature.

²² Ibid., p. 1082.

²³ Ibid., P. 1083.

²⁴ Ibid.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12

Dana and Mantey's A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament

(1947),²⁵ has the advantage of being the most readable and most clearly

presented discussion of the infinitive. While these authors follow

Robertson in their basic position, they make a considerable advance upon

his erratic prose. On the origin of the infinitive, they point out that

It may be that its assumption of verbal characteristics and func-

tions caused the Greek infinitive to lose its substantive inflec-

tion. But this obscuration of its formal significance had no

effect upon its essential noun force.²⁶

Thus the infinitive retains its noun force particularly when

used with the article. Dana and Mantey cite Basil L. Gildersleeve's

concise summation of the historical development of the infinitive:

"By the substantival loss of its dative force the infinitive became

verbalized; by the assumption of the article it was substantivized

again with a decided increment of its power."²⁷ The authors go on to

demonstrate the significance of the article as used with the infinitive:

[it] has no fixed effect upon its varieties' in use. That is, a

particular use may occur with or without the article at the option

of the writer, in accordance with his desire to make the expression

specific or general.²⁸

Elsewhere Dana and Mantey explain further how the use or non-use

of the article determines whether the infinitive is specific or general:

The genius of the article is nowhere more clearly revealed than in

its use with infinitives, adverbs, phrases, clauses, or even whole

²⁵ H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek

New Testament (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1947), pp. 208-220.

²⁶ Ibid., p. 210.

²⁷ Ibid., p. 211.

²⁸ Ibid.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13

sentences (cf. Gal. 5:14) . . . . There is no English idiom even

remotely akin to this, for in English we never use an article with

anything other than a substantive, and then to mark definiteness.

When we begin to find the article used with phrases, clauses, and

entire sentences, we are, so to speak, "swamped in Greek." The use

of the article with the phrase, clause, or sentence specifies in a

particular way the fact expressed: marks it out as a single iden-

tity. So in Mt. 13:4, kai> e]n t&? spei<ran au]to<n, and as he sowed,

points to the fact of that particular sowing, while in Mt. 12:10,

toi?j sa<bbasin qerapeu<ein, to heal on the Sabbath, emphasizes the

character of the deed (a Sabbath healing) . . . . The articular

infinitive singles out the act as a particular occurrence while

the anarthrous infinitive employs the act as descriptive.²⁹

Dana and Mantey conclude their discussion by distinguishing the

verbal uses of the infinitive (purpose, result, time, cause, and com-

mand) from the substantival uses (subject, object, indirect object,

instrument, apposition, and modifier of a noun or adjective).

A Greek Grammar of the New Testament (1913), by F. Blass and A.

Debrunner, translated by Robert W. Funk (1961),³⁰ covers most thoroughly

the uses of the infinitive in the New Testament. One of their best

sections (No. 392) deals extensively with the infinitive as complement

with the main clause usage of certain verbs like qe<lw, bou<lomai, e]pi-

qume<w, zhte<w, fobe<w, du<namai, i]sxu<w, and dokima<zw, rather than dealing

with such constructions as objects. They also discuss articular infini-

tives, as well as prepositions and cases with infinitives.

Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, both a linguist and a New Testament

scholar, has written a helpful textbook for students of Greek in his

Language of the New Testament (1965), in which he discusses the forms

²⁹ Ibid., pp. 137-138.

³⁰ F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testa-

ment and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. Robert W. Funk (Chica-

go: The University of Chicago Press, 1961), pp. 191-202.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14

and uses of the infinitive.³¹ Goetchius anticipates one of the findings

independently arrived at in the present study:

Like the English infinitive, the Greek anarthrous infinitive may

serve to complete the meaning of certain verbs which seldom or

never occur without such an infinitive complement; such infinitives

are, accordingly, called complementary infinitives. The most impor-

tant verbs which govern complementary infinitives are du<namai, qe<lw,

bou<lomai, me<llw, and a]rei<lw.³²

Goetchius distinguishes between the former construction and

anarthrous infinitives which also occur as objects of verbs which ordi-

narily govern substantive objects, such as zhte<w and keleu<w.³³ In addi-

tion to the usual observations on the infinitive, he regards anarthrous

infinitives as subject of impersonal verbs such as dei?, e@cestin, and

also ei]mi<.³⁴

The most recent text to be surveyed is the inductivist effort of

William Sanford LaSor, entitled Handbook of New Testament Greek

(1973).³⁵ The second of the two volumes is a grammar which is apparent-

ly conditioned by structuralist linguistic methodology. LaSor gives

unrestrained recognition to the concept of an infinitive with its ad-

junct elements as a clause:

The infinitive, in turn, since it is verbal, may have its own sub-

ject, object, or other modifiers. In such case the infinitive

³¹ Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, The Language of the New Testament

(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965), pp. 191-202.

³² Ibid., p. 195.

³³ Ibid., p. 197.

³⁴ Ibid., p. 199.

³⁵ William Sanford LaSor, Handbook of New Testament Greek, 2 vols.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15

clause serves as a noun clause defining the subject of the verb.

ou]k h#n dunato>n kratei?sqai au]to>n u[p ] au]tou? 'It was not possible for

him to be held by it.' (lit., 'him to be held by it was not possi-

ble') (Ac. 2:24).³⁶

Furthermore, LaSor states as the purpose of Lesson 45 of his

first volume, "To study infinitive clauses."³⁷

LaSor agrees with Goetchius in his treatment of the complemen-

tary infinitive when he says, "Verbs of wishing, commanding, advising,

permitting, beginning, attempting, and the like usually require another

verb to complete the meaning."³⁸ When infinitives function in a tem-

poral capacity, or are used to indicate purpose or result, they are re-

garded by LaSor as verb modifiers.³⁹ When the infinitive is used after

w!ste or w[j to show result, the construction is comparable to a subordi-

nate clause, according to LaSor.⁴⁰

Several conclusions may be drawn from this review of research.

First, studies in Greek tend to reflect an increasing influence of lin-

guistic procedures which currently exist as a roundabout continuation of

the older (and often more compartmentalized) discipline of philology.

Linguistics was first developed as a language science 75-100 years ago,

partially as a reaction to the established study of the literate lan-

guages by focusing on undescribed languages, and this required some sig-

nificant alterations in methodology. In turn, a greater development in

³⁶ Ibid., p. 163.

³⁷ Ibid., Vol. I, pp. A-148-A-152.

³⁸ Ibid., p. 168.

³⁹ Ibid., pp. 178-179.

⁴⁰ Ibid., p. 179.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16

language theory was demanded in the search to discover language univer-

sals (that is, whatever features different languages have in common,

whether these features are surface-level or deep-structure phenomena).

Now a number of different linguistic theories can be brought to bear on

specific languages to help advance the state of knowledge.

Second, most discussion has converged on the historical proper-

ties of the infinitive, its nature, and its uses. The function of the

infinitive in relation to the main clause of which it is a part has pre-

occupied investigators, presumably because their interest lay in produc-

ing either pedagogical or reference grammars to assist students and

translators whose goal was predominantly exegetical or literary.

Third, very little attention has been given to the infinitive as

the nucleus of a construction which can legitimately be characterized as

clausal--a special type of clause, to be sure, but nonetheless clausal.

Although grammarians like Smyth and LaSor have given tacit recognition

to such a thing as an infinitive clause, no real study has been made of

the components of the infinitive clause. And since a grammarian of the

stature of A. T. Robertson has taken an emphatic stand that the infini-

tive collocation is only phrasal, the question obviously deserves to be

settled.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER II

TAGMEMIC THEORY

2.1 The Tagmemic Theoretical Model

Tagmemic grammar is an outgrowth of, and an elaboration upon,

the descriptivist-structuralist method of linguistic analysis developed

by such investigators as Leonard Bloomfield and C. C. Fries. It has

also been capable of assimilating features and procedures germane to

other systems of analysis, such as generative capacity and transforma-

tions, and has as well been distinguished by a number of original con-

tributions to the study of behavior and language in its own right.

Kenneth L. Pike and Robert E. Longacre have been the major

theorists of the tagmemic system, but others like Benjamin Elson, Velma

Pickett, and Walter A. Cook have also contributed in significant measure

to the expansion and presentation of the theory. All present tagmemic

analysis weighs heavily on Pike's Language in Relation to a Unified

Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior,¹ but the more immediate

theoretical and procedural sources for this study are Elson and

Pickett's An Introduction to Morphology and Syntax,² Longacre's Grammar

¹ Kenneth L. Pike, Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of

the Structure of Human Behavior (2d ed.; The Hague: Mouton & Co.,

1971).

² Benjamin Elson and Velma Pickett, An Introduction to Morphology

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

17

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18

Discovery Procedures,³ and Cook's Introduction to Tagmemic Analysis.⁴

Basic to the system is the concept of the tagmeme, which term is

ultimately derived from the Greek word ta<gma, which means "an order, a

rank, an arrangement," or even "a position." Grammatical description is

not really complete when expressed in terms of function alone, such as

subject + predicate + object, nor is it sufficient to use form alone, in

the manner noun + verb + noun. Rather, both function and form must be

seen to correlate at given points in a string of functional parts in a

language. These points in a grammatical string may be considered as

functional slots which can be filled by one or more kinds of form or

construction. In other words, function and form coordinate in the above

instances of clause description in the manner S:n + P:V +0:N, which

reads, "subject slot filled by a noun, predicate slot filled by a verb

phrase, and object slot filled by a noun phrase." The lower case n

indicates a word form, and the capitals V and N refer to phrasal con-

structs.

When a tagmemicist approaches the analysis of a language for the

first time, he looks for apparent sets of correlations as illustrated

above. If he is working with clauses, he may note that there are words

or constructions which represent various functional properties like sub-

ject, predicate, object, indirect object, complement, agent, manner,

time, location, and so on. He then postulates a correlation between

³ Robert E. Longacre, Grammar Discovery Procedures (The Hague:

Mouton & 1964).

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

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19

this functional "slot" and the formal entity which manifests the func-

tional slot, and he labels it a tagma, which is the word for a tenta-

tive identification of grammatical slot/formal filler correlation. This

identification, it must be remembered, is made without necessary refer-

ence to the indigenous grammatical system of the language concerned.

However, the analysis is not complete until reference is made to the

system of the language, but this occurs at a subsequent stage in analy-

sis.

Proceeding in this manner it is possible to construct a grammar

by moving from the unknown to the known as hypotheses are made and

checked with a native informant or with whatever knowledge is already

available, in the case of ancient languages. Thus the analysis does not

rely on isolated, ad hoc observations, but neither is it confined to a

repetition of already-existing grammatical statements.

When a corpus reveals an overall pattern of tagmas with consis-

tency, it is possible to posit tagmemes for such occurrences, or stan-

dardized emic (that is, language-systemic) slot-filler correlations

whereby utterances are constructed by native speakers of the language.

In other words, tagmas are identified by the making of immediate, inde-

pendent, absolute judgments, however tentative (in linguistic parlance

these are etic statements). When the systematic patterns or usages of

the language confirm these tagmatic judgments, the units in question are

advanced to the status of tagmemes, or established typological function-

form correlations of the langauge. Tagmas are individual, tentative,

somewhat unrelated language entities arrived at by initial exploration

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20

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

sive.

Thus the functional slot provides the grammatical relation, and

the filler class specifies the pertinent grammatical categories, but

both must exist in a dynamic correlation. This correlative concept of

tagma-tagmeme with slots and fillers can also be seen as analogous to

the earlier purely formalistic relationships of phone-allophone-phoneme

and morph-allomorph-morpheme in phonological and morphological theory.

Pike's definition of a tagmeme is as follows: "A verbal motif-

emic-slot-class correlative is a TAGMEME; and a verbal etic motif-slot-

class correlative is a TAGMA."⁵ While Pike's definition may appear at

first to be too esoteric, it is nonetheless the most accurate concise

one available. However, Elson and Pickett's definition provides a more

lucid explanation for the moment:

The tagmeme, as a grammatical unit, is the correlation of a grammat-

ical function or slot with a class of mutually substitutable items

occurring in that slot. This slot-class correlation has a distri-

bution within the grammatical hierarchy of a language. The term

slot refers to the grammatical function of the tagmeme. The terms

'subject,’ ‘object,’ ‘predicate,’ ‘modifier,’ and the like indicate

such grammatical functions . . . . Slot refers primarily to gram-

matical function and only secondarily to linear position . . . .

The term class refers to the list of mutually substitutable mor-

phemes and morpheme sequences which may fill a slot . . . . The term

'grammatical hierarchy' refers to the fact that a sequence of mor-

phemes (analyzable in terms of strings of tagmemes) may themselves

manifest a single tagmeme. This fact is one of the notions impor-

tant to the way in which grammar is structured in terms of levels.

The tagmemes analyzed at each significant level constitutes [sic]

the grammatical hierarchy of a language.⁶

⁵ Pike, p. 195.

⁶ Elson and Pickett, pp. 57-58.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21

The last part of this quotation refers to another important con-

cept provided by tagmemic grammar, which is the distinction of levels in

a grammatical hierarchy. According to Walter A. Cook,

In tagmemics, the unit is the tagmeme, a correlation of function and

form; the construction is a potential string of tagmeme units, the

syntagmeme; and the system is the gramatical hierarchy, arranged in

a series of systematic levels. By geometric analogy, the tagmeme is

a point, the construction a line made up of points, and the gram-

matical hierarchy lines arranged from higher to lower.⁷

The various levels can thus be described as if they were in rel-

ative positions in space--higher or lower in relationship to one another.

The actual levels in the analysis of languages are (from higher to lower)

the discourse, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word, and morpheme

levels. Constructions (that is, multi-morpheme, multi-word, multi-

phrase, Multi-clause, and so on) occur at the first six levels listed,

and the seventh, or morpheme level, is an ultimate point of reference

for meaning at one or more of the other levels; whereas the other levels

are capable of being broken down into tagmemic constructions, the mor-

phemic level does not yield itself to further segmental analysis be-

cause morphemes are the ultimate constituents carrying independent se-

mantic content. Morphemes are traditionally referred to as inflections,

derivational prefixes and suffixes, and word stems. Because this is as

far as analysis of independent referential units of meaning can be

carried, the phonological system of a language must be treated in its

own right as a separate psycholinguistic component or related to the

other levels by means of morphophonemics.

⁷ Cook, p. 27.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

22

At the discourse level discourses are analyzed in terms of their

tagmemic slots and constructions which manifest them. For example, a

narrative discourse may have such tagmemes as title, aperture, one or

more episodes, conclusion, and closure, each manifested by such struc-

tures as paragraphs or sentences.⁸ At the paragraph level paragraphs

have their own tagmemic slots and exponents for them. The narrative

paragraph, for example, may have such ordered slots as setting, one or

more "build-up" slots by means of which the content of the paragraph is

developed, and a terminus slot. Each of these may be manifested by sen-

tences.⁹ This description is by no means inclusive, for a variety of

discourse and paragraph tagmemes can be found in many languages. The

same can be said for the other levels to be considered here. In real-

ity, each language determines its own tagmemes at each level.

At the sentence level such sentence types as simple, coordinate,

antithetical, sequential, and concatenated sentences are analyzed in

terms of their tagmemic constituents. For the simple sentence, which is

typically the basic systemic form, such a nuclear tagmemic slot as the

sentence base may be filled by transitive, intransitive, ditransitive,

⁸ For further explication and examples of these discourse tag-

memes as they appear in Old English, see Edgar J. Lovelady, "A Tagmemic

Analysis of AElfric's Life of St. Oswald" (unpublished Doctor's disser-

tation, 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.

263-277.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

23

or equational clauses. Peripheral sentence slots, such as margins which

may precede or follow the sentence base, may be manifested by other

structures, such as the clause in some languages, or a relator-axis

(i.e., subordinated) sentence.¹⁰

At the clause level tagmemes such as subject, predicate, object,

complement, manner, location, and agent, emerge. At the phrase level

word groups are broken down into (1) exocentric, non-centered, relator-

axis structures;¹¹ (2) endocentric, multiple-head, coordinate or item-

appositive phrases;¹² and (3) endocentric, modifier-head structures

represented by noun phrases, verb phrases, adjective phrases, and some-

times, adverb phrases. The word level provides for analysis of words on

the basis of (1) ability to take inflections (nouns, verbs, adjectives,

and so on); (2) derivational formation (as major parts of speech are

changed or remain unchanged in their part-of-speech status by the addi-

tion of derivational affixes); and (3) formations as compounds, either

endocentric, where the compound is the same as one of the roots, or

exocentric, where the compound differs from either of the roots. It is

at the morpheme level that this kind of analysis stops, and morphemes

are rather mapped into functional slots in grammatical constructions as

¹⁰ The theory of sentence level tagmemes and types of sentences

is found in Lovelady, pp. 46-115.

¹¹ An exocentric construction is not centered in the sense that

it possesses no dominating head tagmeme which can stand for the whole

construction in its functional slot.

¹² An endocentric construction has a dominating head (or heads)

which can replace the whole construction in a functional slot. Item-

appositive phrases have multiple heads with the same referent but are

juxtaposed in apposition (although possibly physically separated), not

joined by a connector.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24

members of filler classes which fill these slots.

This, then, is an overview of the basic kinds of analysis car-

ried on in tagmemic studies. While the present study specifically con-

centrates on the clause level of the grammatical hierarchy, use is made

of other levels, especially the phrase and word levels, as warranted.

One should not gain the impression from this study that tagmemics is

only useful in studying clauses, for the same process of determining the

dynamic correlations of function and form is utilized on all of the

levels. Different terms are, of course, required for work on the dif-

ferent levels.¹³

The flexibility and adaptibility of the tagmemic system in des-

cribing quite different languages is apparent partially in its method of

recognizing relationships among the various levels of grammar. It is

typical in most languages for morphemes to fill slots on the word level,

for words to fill slots on the phrase level, for phrases to fill slots

on the clause level, and for clauses to fill slots on the sentence

level. Thus constructions on a given level are normally mapped up to

the next higher level to fill slots on that level. But a recognition of

atypical mapping is also allowed in this system. "Level skipping" takes

place when a construction on one level does not map immediately into

the very next higher level, but rather is placed in some yet higher

level slot, as when a word fills a slot at the clause level by bypassing

¹³ Clause and phrase-level analysis is discussed in Lovelady, pp.

118-250; and in two recent unpublished monographs: "A Positional Syn-

tax of Koine Greek," Grace Theological Seminary, August, 1974; and "A

Tagmemic Analysis of Genesis 37," Grace Theological Seminary, August,

1975.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

25

the phrase level. So when a single noun manifests a subject slot on the

clause level instead of, say, a noun phrase from the phrase level,

"level skipping" has taken place.

Another phenomenon pertaining to the levels is called "layer-

ing," which occurs when one construction is included within another con-

struction at the same level, as when a clause manifests a tagmemic slot

in another clause string. Yet another phenomenon is the existence of

"loopbacks," the embedding of higher level constructions within lower

levels, such as when a relative clause fills the identifier slot within

a phrase in post-position relative to the phrase head:

(1) determiner:article head:noun identifier:adjective clause

the man who came to dinner

All of these phenomena, normal mapping from one level to the

next, level-skipping, layering, and loopbacks, are regarded as reflect-

ing the process of embedding. Embedding is characteristic of all gram-

matical constructions not being described in terms of string analysis,

where only the functional slots in a grammatical string (such as sub-

ject, predicate, object) are the matters of concern.

The generative capacity of a theoretical system is of consider-

able importance in present-day linguistics, and has been since the

introduction of transformational-generative theory (abbreviated T-G) by

Noam Chomsky and his followers. Tagmemic grammar does possess adequate

generative power, however, in addition to its precision as a descriptive

technique. But tagmemic generative power differs from T-G generative

power by its operation throughout the several grammatical levels.

Transformational-Generative grammar, on the other hand, revolutionized

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

26

linguistics by exploring the mentalistic processes by which human beings

generate the surface-level structure utterances from deep-structure

components. This generative process can be demonstrated by a simple

tree diagram:

(2) S

|

Nuc

|

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

| |

NP VP

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

pn Aux MV Manner

| tense V |

| | | |

she past run rapidly

Here the generative process is seen as a series of choices which

are made by employing the base rules of a postulated mentalistic syn-

tactic component. The speaker wishes to construct a sentence, symbol-

ized by S. An internalized rule allows the speaker to use an optional

sentence modifier (as in "Certainly, I know the answer") along with the

nucleus (Nuc), which in turn consists of a noun phrase and a verb

phrase. Being disenchanted with sentence modifiers for the moment, how-

ever, the speaker chooses only Nuc. Since the noun phrase (NP) and the

verb phrase (VP) are the choices made for the subject and the predicate

(the speaker, for example, could have selected a noun clause in place of

the noun phrase) from the compositional repertoire of the nucleus, fur-

ther choices need to be made. The noun phrase can be rewritten as (or

the selection made as) a pronoun, and the verb phrase can involve other

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

27

postulated subchoices for an auxiliary unit which obligatorily carries

tense, a main verb unit which in this case turns out to be intransitive,

and an optional manner unit. When a postulated lexical component is

brought to bear for word choices, the pronoun becomes she, the main verb

becomes run, and manner becomes rapidly. A further choice of tense ren-

ders past. At this stage all of these word choices still are only po-

tential morphemes, not surface-level utterances, which they will become

only when a postulated phonological component (for speech) or a graph-

ological component (for writing) gives them "real" existence. And be-

fore this happens, a transformational affix rule reverses the past and

run morphemes to give an embryonic ran. On the surface level, the sen-

tence reads, "She ran rapidly."

Such a simplistic example merely suggests the complexities which

abound in the generation, or production of utterances. Exponents of T-G

do not assert that the selectional rules referred to above along with

the tree diagram are the actual processes which transpire in the human

mind. Rather, they are analogous to these processes in much the same

way a schematic diagram represents the relationships of electronic com-

ponents to a television repairman: they demonstrate and map out genera-

tive power from source to output.

Tagmemic grammar also has generative power, and tree diagrams

can be constructed in a similar way as in illustration (2) above, with

the exception that the tree diagram is superimposed over a grid of the

several levels. This means that the branching which reflects embedded

structures is explicit at all levels, providing that the grammar is

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

28

properly structured by the tagmemic formula devised at each level. The

reader is referred to the several examples of tagmemic tree diagrams

later in this section and in Chapters Four and Five for illustration of

this point.

Transformations are also recognized in tagmemic grammar. Trans-

formations are essentially rules of change, movement rules whereby vari-

ous morphemes or higher-level constructions are relocated in the order

of the string (which is usually a phrase or clause). The best-known

transformation is probably the active-passive. Among the many who dis-

cuss this rule which applies to numerous languages, Goetchius gives one

of the clearest examples:¹⁴

(3) Active Passive

Xs ---- V_act ------ Y_o ---> Ys-- V_pass ---- by + X_o

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

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

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

In Greek, the transformation works like this:

(4) Active Passive

e]gw> lu<w to>n dou?lon ----------> o[ dou?loj lu<etai u[p ] e[mou?

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

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

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

Thus "The slave is being loosed by me" is a transformational

derivative of "I am loosing the slave," which may be regarded as a ker-

nel sentence. With examples like the one above, the usefulness of the

transformational concept becomes apparent in its specifying the nature

of the relationship between clauses. Goetchius does not incorporate

case transformation rules in the above examples, and such must be

¹⁴ Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, The Language of the New Testament

(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965), pp. 94-96.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

29

provided in complete transformation rules where inflected languages are

concerned. This criterion is observed in the transformations described

later in this study.

Both tagmemicists Longacre and Cook have recognized the necessi-

ty of incorporating transformations in tagmemic grammar. Cook stipu-

lates:

With the introduction of transformational rules or matrix devices

to show the relationship, between sentences, it is still necessary

to describe both kernel sentences and derived sentences in order to

discover the differences between structures. However, the final

grammar may be considerably simplified by employing some type of

transformational rule or matrix display, together with an analysis

of only kernel sentences.¹⁵

Finally, tagmemic grammar makes unapologetic use of meaning. As

Longacre says, "We work with formal correlates of meaning."¹⁶ Struc-

tural linguistics confined itself deliberately to a surface-level for-

malism in its classificatory descriptions of corpuses. Transformational-

generative grammar restricted itself consciously to formalistic phrase-

structure generations and transformations from deep structure to surface

structure within the syntactic component of an individual's linguistic

prowess. Meaning has characteristically been tolerated in T-G to the

extent that the linguistic intuition of the individual (Robert B. Lees'

Sprachgefuhl) is brought to bear to discriminate well-formed from un-

grammatical utterances. But even here there is a formalistic tendency.

Lees has said,

It is precisely this Sprachgefuhl, this intuitive notion about

linguistic structure, which, together with the sentences of a

¹⁵ Cook, pp. 42-43.

¹⁶ Longacre, p. 23.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

30

language, forms the empirical basis of grammatical analysis; and it

is precisely the purpose of linguistic science to render explicit

and rigorous whatever is vague about these intuitive feelings.¹⁷

It is true that in his later work Chomsky has tried to accommo-

date his overriding preoccupation with syntax by correlating it with

semantics, but there is a decided trend to turn generative syntax upside

down to generative semantics.¹⁸ In view of this, any contribution to

linguistic science which incorporates both form and meaning may be ex-

pected to produce more durable results. Pike's assessment of the situa-

tion has special point:

In tagmemics . . . we insist that neither the grammar nor the mean-

ing can be identified independently of the other. Rather, in tag-

memic terms, the empirical basis of grammatical analysis is a com-

posite of structured meaning and structured form . . . . Tagmemics

is set up as part of a theory of behavior, not merely as a formal

algebraic system. For this reason also--in addition to our analyti-

cal methodology and the nature of the form-meaning composite--it re-

fers to meaning more extensively than does transform grammar. Chom-

sky observes that when he some day extends his studies to cover such

matters, then, too, semantic considerations will enter . . . . We

consider it inadequate to assume that intuition of linguistic form

divorced from a larger theory of semantics is a sufficient explana-

tion of tagmemic meaning.¹⁹

¹⁷ Robert B. Lees, Review of Noam Chomsky, Syntactic Structures

(Mouton), Language, XXXIII (July-September, 1957), 39.

¹⁸ Noam Chomsky has tried to accommodate his syntactic theory to

"the semantic component" in his later Aspects of the Theory of Syntax

(Cambridge, Mass.: The M. I. T. Press, 1965), pp. 148-163. However,

James D. McCawley and others have based their generative processes on

the semantic component of the mentalistic language-generating mechanism

which is regarded as basic, and have related the syntactic component to

this theoretical unit. For example, see James D. McCawley, "The Role of

Semantics in a Grammar," in Universals in Linguistic Theory, ed. Emmon

Bach and Robert Harms (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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31

Hence the tagmemic system can be seen to be perhaps the broadest

in its ability to relate itself to the demands of natural languages and

to other theories constructed to handle them. Tagmemics is partially

but not merely taxonomic, and as Longacre observes, “. . . neither

'analysis' nor 'taxonomy' are words lacking in scholarly or scientific

status."²⁰ Indeed, other theoretical approaches are dependent upon the

contributions of observations, classifications, and analysis, whether

transcribed by a linguistic field worker, or disclosed by means of a

speaker's linguistic competence. But tagmemics is more than this, as

Pike's gesture of rapprochement indicates: "My feeling that tagmemics

and transformationalism should ultimately merge in the main stream of

linguistics [is denied by (Paul) Postal on theoretical grounds].”²¹

Longacre reflects the same desire as Pike, expressing himself more fully

on the matter:

Need taxonomy and generation be opposed as logically irreconcilable

viewpoints? Or is this opposition one more of those unnecessary

and time-consuming pseudo-conflicts with which the history of human

thought is strewn? If all grammars worthy of the name are in some

sense generative and if even current writings in generative grammar

can not escape some analysis, identification, and labelling, then

the generation-versus-taxonomy opposition is one with which we

should rightly have little patience.²²

Applied to a sample sentence of Koine Greek, for example, the

tagmemic system of analysis can be illustrated by means of the tree

diagram. While there are several methods of representing sentences by

the tagmemic system, this is the best one for visibility, ease of

²⁰ Longacre, p. 40.

²¹ Pike, p. 497.

²² Longacre, p. 11.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

32

drawing, and accuracy. It also demonstrates the superiority of tag-

memics over T-G in preserving the form-function correlates, since both

grammatical slot and formal filler are depicted explicitly at each

branching node on every level. The levels of the grammatical hierarchy

are listed on the left, and in this diagram they are extended across the

page in a linear maser.

Sentence Base:tCl

---------------------------------------------------------------------

| | | |

Clause P:tv S:n M:RA O:N

| | | |

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

Phrase | | R:rel Ax:n D:art H:n Pos:pn

| | | | | | |

Word e@labon gunai?kej e]c a]nasta<sewj tou>j nekrou>j au]tw?n

The sentence above was taken from Hebrews 11:35: "Women re-

ceived their dead by a resurrection." The diagram is to be interpreted

as follows. Items to the left of a colon indicate functional slots.

The sentence level of syntactic analysis consists of a Base slot filled

by a transitive clause. If the intonation pattern were an object of

study in addition to syntax, an intonation slot would appear at the far

right of the diagram level with the Base slot, to be filled by a nota-

tion of the particular intonation pattern, such as ICF for "intonation-

final contour," in the case of a declarative sentence. Thus Base can be

seen to be nuclear on the sentence level, and if other modifying units

accompanied the Base, either preposed or postposed, they would be

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

33

analyzed as peripheral tagmemes called Margins which could reflect the

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

like.

At the clause level there are multiple slots arranged in a

string, with a predicate slot filled by a transitive verb; a subject

slot filled by a common noun; a manner slot filled by a relator-axis

phrase (roughly equivalent to a prepositional phrase); and a direct ob-

ject slot filled by a noun phrase. The only distinctive grammatical

introductions in the sentence on the phrase level appear in a further

explication of the manner slot and the direct object slot. For the

clause manner slot, on the phrase level the relator slot is filled by a

word-class relator (preposition), and the axis slot is occupied by a

common noun. For the direct object noun phrase, there is a determiner

slot (determining, or specifying that a nominal head of a phrase unit

is to follow subsequently) manifested by an article, a head slot (the

nuclear nominal of the phrase) expounded by a common noun, and the usual

(in Greek) postposed possessive slot, filled by a personal pronoun.

In a language like Greek where there is a highly-developed case

system, subscripts can be used to indicate the case of constructions,

such as N_a for noun phrase in the accusative case, pn_d 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

tv_infp for transitive passive infinitive. When it is desirable to

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

34

specify a number of fillers for a given slot, the method S:N/pn can be

used, which means that a subject slot can be filled by either a noun

phrase or a pronoun. The reader may consult the List of Tagmemic Sym-

bas included at the beginning of this study for identification of un-

familiar abbreviations.

Other kinds of examples may also be of interest. For the sake

of space they are short sentences. The first one, from Luke 4:41, fea-

tures an equational clause as the filler of the sentence Base, and C

stands for subject complement. Notice the recursive embedding in which

the noun phrase of the possessive slot is in turn embedded in the noun

phrase of the clause complement slot.

(6)

Sentence Base:eqC1

-------------------------------------------------

| | |

Clause S:pn P:eqv C:N

| | |

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

Phrase | | D:art H:n Pos:N_g

_{| | | | |}

(Embedded Phrase) |----------------|

| | | | D: art_g H:np_g

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

35

of diagramming where relative positions of words are obscured by a con-

cession to logical statement. Diagrammed by the Reed-Kellogg method,

the sentence from Hebrews 11:35 might appear thus:

(7)

gu<naikej | e@labon | nekrou>j_________

| | | |

| | e]c | tou>j | au]tw?n

| a]nasta<sewj

Obviously any contribution of phrasal or clausal order to the

meaning of the sentence (or for comparison with other sentences) is

lost, whereas the tagmemic method not only preserves the natural word

order, but it also retains the logical design of the sentence and fur-

thermore specifies the function-form correlation at each level. How-

ever, the tagmemic method has the drawback that a great deal of paper

space is used to depict sentences and clauses with recursive embedding.

But the same technique as the Reed-Kellogg method employs can be used

to indicate related clauses by means of dotted lines.

appraisal of the Reed-Kellogg diagrams. On the history of this system

he says, "The Reed and Kellogg scheme [Alonzo Reed and Brainerd Kellogg,

Higher Lessons in English, 1877, 1885, 1896, 1909] was designed to re-

flect the base-and-modifier description which prevailed in American

school grammar. With varying amounts of modification, much of it simp-

ly abridgment, it continues in use in many school textbooks. It has re-

ceived very little attention from linguists or university scholars, and

is peculiarly the property of the public schools and of English depart-

ments strongly oriented toward the public schools. Indeed, linguists

have tended to dismiss it out of hand. But it is actually a very effec-

tive device for exhibiting the school grammar analysis of English sen-

tences . . . . In any case, any fundamental deficiencies of diagramming

are deficiencies of the underlying analysis or of misuse in the schools,

not of the graphic device," (pp. 142-143). Nevertheless, the method is

wanting as a technique of linguistic enquiry, but its excellence does

appear in its display of logical relationships.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

36

Another example appears as follows:

(8) Sentence

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

Sentence SL:c Base:dCl

| |

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

Clause | P:dv 0:N_a. S:np I:pn_d L : RA

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

Phrase | | H:n Des:aj | | R:rel Ax:N_d

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

(Embedded) | | | | | | | D:art H:n Pos:pn_g

| | | | | | | | | |

Word Kai> e]poi<hsen doxh>n mega<lhn Leuei?j au]t&? e]n t^? oi#ki<% au]tou?

The above sentence, from Luke 5:29, reads, "And Levi made a

great feast for him in his house." Here kai< may well be functioning on

the sentence level as a peripheral element to the nuclear sentence Base.

There may be other peripheral constructions to be discovered, such as

clausal margins which modify the whole sentence Base in Greek, and which

do not have a function strictly within the clause which manifests the

sentence Base. So Kai> is likely filling a Sentence Linker slot on the

sentence level. Note also that in this case the clause which manifests

the Base is a ditransitive clause; that is, its transitivity is distri-

buted in two ways, to an indirect object as well as to a direct object.

The L in the diagram stands for the secondary location tagmeme, and np

indicates a proper noun. The rest of the diagram should now be clear.

This type of analysis is the kind that is used in the chapters

to follow on the syntax of the infinitive clause.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

37

2.2 The Corpus

In order to make a completely definitive statement on the syntax

of the infinitive clause in the New Testament it would be necessary, of

course, to analyze every infinitive collocation which might qualify as

an infinitive clause. However, this was too extensive a task for the

present study and therefore a limited corpus was selected. In order to

make a complete statement about a significant part of the New Testament,

all of the infinitives in the Gospels were evaluated. This at least

provided some measure of diversity with the covering of sizeable por-

tions of four different authors.

There is a total of 980 infinitive uses in the four Gospels. Of

these, 158 (16%) are single infinitives, and 822 (84%) are infinitive

clauses.²⁴ This means that infinitive clauses outnumber single infini-

tive uses by a ratio of 5.25 to 1. To put it another way, more than

five out of every six uses are clausal. For the present it is conven-

ient to say that all infinitives not existing in single uses are re-

garded as clauses.

Just about the same proportion of single infinitives to infini-

tive clauses is found in each of the four Gospels, with one exception.

In Matthew, out of a total of 250 infinitive uses, 37 (15%) are single,

while 213 (85%) ar clausal. In Mark, out of a total of 201 uses, 31

(15%) are single, while 170 (85%) are clausal. In Luke, out of a total

of 392 uses, 59 (15%) are single, while 333 (85%) are clausal. But in

²⁴ For a definition of the infinitive clause and its distinction

from a single infinitive usage, see section 3.1 of Chapter Three.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

38

John, out of a total of 137 uses, 31 (22%) are single, while 106 (78%)

are clausal. The lower percentage of incidence of infinitive clauses in

John may be interpreted as an objective indicator of the allegedly

simple Greek, if it is agreed that the use of clauses as opposed to

single infinitives is a mark of linguistic sophistication.

Another objective indicator of the difficulty level of the Greek

of each author is found in the number of infinitives per page. For a

rough spot check the number of pages devoted to each author in the text

used to identify the infinitives for this study²⁵ was divided into the

number of infinitives used by each author. For Matthew there were 98

pages with 250 infinitives to give an average of 2.55 infinitives per

page. For Mark there were 66 pages with 201 infinitives to give an

average of 3.04 infinitives per page. For Luke there were 111 pages

with 392 infinitives to give an average of 3.54 per page. But for John

there were 80 pages with 137 infinitives to give an average of only 1.71

per page. Again, if the very use of infinitives as opposed to other

structures is agreed as a mark of literary sophistication, Luke is the

most literate and John the least literary. Even beyond this, the very

types and variety of infinitive uses set Luke and John at opposite ends

of the literary spectrum so far as the language of the Gospels is con-

cerned.

Clyde W. Votaw has counted a total of 2276 infinitives in the

New Testament. It is possible to make a rough projection of the

²⁵ H KAINH DIAQHKH (2d ed.; London: The British and Foreign

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

39

validity of this study by comparing the figures obtained with Votaw's

total. There are 787 pages in the New Testament Greek text used for

this study. The number of pages covered for this study is 355, or 45%,

with 55% left unexplored for statistical use here. Statistically a

sample approaching half of a total corpus is very satisfactory, certain-

ly enough upon which to make reliable projections under normal circum-

stances. The circumstances here, it must be admitted, may not be com-

pletely normal, for there are authors which remain untouched (Paul,

Peter, James, Jude), different lengths of books, and different genres of

composition. And even a study of the infinitives in the Book of Acts

made subsequent to the research for the present study reveals some

interesting differences from the Lukan Gospel. Nevertheless it is pos-

sible to speculate, if the percentage figures for the Gospels hold true

for the rest of the New Testament, there are approximately 1912 of

Votaw's 2276 used with their own clauses (84%), and 364 single infini-

tives (16%).²⁶

2.3 Procedures of Analysis

The selection of infinitives was undertaken by a reading through

the chosen corpus. In order to provide a safeguard to slips of the eye

and other errors of identification, Nathan E. Han's A Parsing Guide to

the Greek New Testament²⁷ was consulted. It was discovered that between

²⁶ In Acts there are 465 total infinitives in 111 pages. There

are 37 single infinitives (8%), and 428 infinitive clauses (92%). The

average per page is 4.19, much higher than even Luke's Gospel.

²⁷ Nathan E. Han, A Parsing Guide to the Greek New Testament

(Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1971), pp. 1-228.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

40

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

reading.

When all of the infinitives were noted by underlining in the

Greek text, the next procedure was to proceed through the Gospels, writ-

ing out each infinitive or infinitive clause on a separate sheet of

notebook paper. The 822 clauses were written out in Greek at the top of

the sheet, and immediately below, the tentative tagmatic identifications

were made for units like subject, predicate, and so on. Below this the

infinitive itself was completely parsed for further ease of reference,

and still lower on the page the entire clause of which the infinitive

clause was apart was written out and a tagmatic identification of its

constituents made in order to determine how the infinitive functioned

in the governing clause or phrase in which it was embedded.

Finally, a listing of the functional slot which the infinitive

filled was given on the page, along with any other pertinent comparative

information. As the corpus was increasingly covered, aberrations in

earlier identifications were noted and corrected to conform to the sys-

tem of the language which was emerging. When the judgments made in the

identification of tagmas began to reflect the language system, the iden-

tifications could more confidently be regarded as tagmemes.

With three large notebooks thus filled with data, the next step

was to make that data accessible for classification. Each infinitive

clause reflected some kind of order of its main components. This string

of components, called a syntagmeme, was written out in tagmemic formula

for each clause according to the clause type it reflected, based on

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

41

transitivity factors. So for active transitive clauses, for example, a

series of entries might look like this:

(9) 8. Fmk:art_g P:tv_inf 0:pn_a

13. O:N_a P:tv_inf

16. S:pn_d P:tv_inf O:N_a.

Obviously three orders are apparent here for the nuclear tag-

memes, with PL.0, 0-P, and S-P-0. Therefore it was necessary to re-list

the syntagmemes by their order patterns. This can not be done with the

first transcription of syntagmemes from the clause sheets, because the

range of order patterns is not known until that initial transcription is

made.

The rewrite transcription of syntagmemic orders offered the

opportunity to examine the relationship of introductory prepositions and

articles to the clause, as well as the placement of other peripheral

tagmemes in the syntagmeme. A consecutive sample from the P-0 listing

exhibits the following elements:

(10) 640. P:tv_inf B:refl_d O:n_a

645. P:tv_inf O:N_a M:N_d Reas:RA M:PtC1

646. P:tv_inf O:N_a M:PtCl

649. Neg:n P:tv_inf O:aj_a

653. P:tv_inf L:RA O:N_a T:RA.

Thus tagmemes which precede, intervene in, and follow the tag-

memes of syntagmemes can be specified in order to determine the total

clausal possibilities reflected in this corpus. When the rewrite

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

42

transcription was completed, the descriptive material was ready to be

written as the present study.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER III

INFINITIVE CLAUSE CONSTITUENTS

3.1 Identification of Clauses

The identification of clauses in this corpus has been conducted

according to the principle that linguistic structures which communicate

nuances of meaning, most frequently phrases and words, are grouped

around and related to a predicate verb, whether it is finite or non-

finite. Such a predicate verbal unit, and therefore the presence of a

Predicate tagmeme, is essential for determining whether a given con-

struction with other potential clausal characteristics is indeed a

clause. The Predicate, then, is the basic obligatory element in the

process of discriminating clauses from non-clauses.

Since the predicate verb in Greek is inflected for person and

number (in the case of a finite verb), a predicate verb can constitute

a minimal clause. This criterion apparently carries over to the non-

finite verbs as well, and therefore the 158 instances of the single

infinitive disclosed in the corpus could be treated in this way, but

they would be of little real interest as far as a clausal structure is

concerned. Consequently, any and all infinitives which do not appear

in a functional slot in the main clause in a solitary form are treated

here as clauses. This means that all infinitives from those with the

most sophisticated clausal structure to those consisting of only a

Predicate tagmeme and an article or relator (i.e., preposition or

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

44

subordinating conjunction) are included as clauses in this study.

A brief discussion of Greek clausal types in general seems

desirable at this point in order to demonstrate just how the infinitive

clause fits into the overall clausal system. This material is based on

a recent tagmemic study of two randomly-selected chapters of the New

Testament, Luke 8 and 9.¹

Various types of clauses are apparent beyond the mere recogni-

tion of the Predicate tagmeme, and there are other nuclear elements such

as Subject, Direct Object, and Subject Complement, which serve along

with the Predicate tagmeme to distinguish different types of clauses.

But instead of describing the characteristics of clauses solely from the

linear aspect of functional slots, it is feasible to present the para-

meters of clauses in systemic form. These parameters may be discussed

in reference to three immediate, specific coordinates: (1) transitivity,

(2) voice, and (3) finiteness. Transitivity is a variable which incor-

porates intransitive, transitive, ditransitive, and equational proper-

ties. Voice is a variable representing the potential set: active,

passive, and imperative. Finiteness is a variable expressing either

finite or non-finite verbal properties. These most specialized dis-

criminators establish basic clause typology.

While the basic heuristic clause-type discriminator is the fac-

tor of transitivity, the other immediate specific coordinates mentioned

above, voice and finiteness, can also be grouped for convenience along

¹ Edgar J. Lovelady, "A Positional Syntax of Koine Greek" (unpub-

lished research monograph, Grace Theological Seminary, August, 1974),

73 pp.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

45

with further general coordinates, such as Independent, Subordinated, and

Dependent Clause structure. The Subordinated coordinate has three sub-

coordinates, namely, Adverbial, Nominal, and Adjectival.² Infinitive

and Participial Clauses are Dependent sub-coordinates. The chart that

follows describes the system just outlined based on just two rather long

chapters from Luke's Gospel.

² Adverbial, Adjectival, and Nominal Clauses are functional

designations for subordinated clauses with finite verbs. In tagmemics

these are called relator-axis clauses by virtue of their construction.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

46

The double-barred arrows indicate transformational relationships

whereby passive clauses are derived from active clauses, after the

general manner described on page 27. Six of the thirty-one clause types

in the chart above are infinitive clauses, based on this very limited

corpus. With the larger corpus of the Gospels, twelve types of infini-

tive clauses have become evident, and these are presented in Chapter

Four.

3.2 Primary Clause Tagmemes

The primary clause tagmemes identified in this corpus which are

especially relative to the transitivity coordinates are the Subject,

Predicate, Direct Object, Indirect Object, Objective Complement, Sub-

jective Complement, Retained Object, and Object-Relator.

3.2.1 The Subject Tagmeme

Of the 822 clauses in this corpus, there are 229 with Subject

tagmemes. Seventeen different elements manifest this tagmeme, and, as

the grammars suggest, they are generally in the accusative case. The

various manifesting structures for this tagmeme, without individual

frequency counts and not listed in frequency of appearance, are exempli-

fied below within their clausal context.

3.2.1.1 Personal Pronoun, Accusative

(ou]ke<ti a]fi<ete) au]to>n ou]de>n poih?sai t&? patri> h} t^? mhtri<, "no longer

allow him to do anything for father or mother" (Mk. 7:12).

3.2.1.2 Noun Phrase, Accusative

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

47

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

3.2.1.3 Coordinate Noun Phrase, Accusative

(eu]kopw<teron de> e]stin) to>n ou]rano>n kai> th>n gh?n parelqei?n . . . , "and it

is easier for heaven and earth to pass away . . ." (Lk. 16:17).

3.2.1.4 Complex Noun Phrase, Accusative

A complex noun phrase is one that has a nucleus of an entire noun phrase

which itself comprised a "head," and a following modifier slot which is

usually filled by a clausal structure. In the example given the post-

posed modifier is the adjective clause introduced by oi#j

(ei#pen) fwnhqh?nai au]t&? tou>j dou<louj tou<touj oi#j dedw<kei to> a]rgu<rion,

"he commanded that these servants to whom he had given the money be

called to him" (Lk. 19:15).

3.2.1.5 Item-Appoitive Phrase, Accusative

An item-appositive phrase is simply an appositional construction with an

item slot and an appositive slot, each manifested by appropriate struc-

tures. The example given is the only such instance of this usage, and

is separated.

(kai>) fwnh>n e]c ou]ranou? gene<sqai, Su> ei# o[ Ui[o<j mou o[ a]gaphto<j . . .

"and a voice came from heaven,''You are a beloved Son'. . ." (Lk. 3:22).

3.2.1.6 Single Common Noun, Accusative

(qe<leij ei@pwmen) pu?r katabh?nei a]po> tou? ou]ranou? . . . , "Do you wish that

we should call fire to come down from heaven . . ." (Lk. 9:54).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

48

3.2.1.7 Proper Noun, Accusative

(o[ lao>j . . . pepeisme<noj ga>r e]stin) ]Iwa<nnhn prarh<thn ei#nai, "the

people . . . are persuaded that John is a prophet" (Lk. 20:6).

3.2.1.8 Proper Noun Phrase, Accusative

]En de> t&? u[postre<fein to>n ]Ihsou?n (a]pede<cato au]to>n o[ o@xloj . . .) "And

while Jesus was returning, the crowd waited for him . . ." (Lk. 8:40).

3.2.1.9 Demonstrative Pronoun, Accusative

(Ou] qe<lomen) tou?ton basileu?sai e]f ] h[ma?j, "We do not want this one to

reign over us" (Lk. 1994).

3.2.1.10 Indefinite Pronoun, Accusative

(w!ste mh> i]sxu<ein) tina> parelqei?n dia> th?j o[dou? e]kei<nhj, "so that it was

not possible for anyone to pass by that way" (Mt. 8:28).

3.2.1.11 Reflexive Pronoun, Accusative

(e]nkaqe<touj u[pokrinome<nouj) e[autou>j dikai<ouj ei#nai, "spies who feigned

themselves to be righteous" (Lk. 20:20).

3.2.1.12 Adjective, Accusative

In such cases as the following the formal adjective functions in a pro-

nominal manner.

w!ste e]ci<stasqai pa<ntaj, "so that all were amazed" (Mk. 2:12).

3.2.1.13 Pronoun Phrase, Accusative

(kai> meta> tau?ta mh> e]xo<ntwn) perisso<teron ti poih?sai, "and after this,

not having anything more to do" (Lk. 12:4).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

49

3.2.1.14 Infinitive

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

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

3.2.1.15 Personal Pronoun, Dative

The present study makes a novel departure from the standard grammars,

to a limited extent, in recognizing that words or constructions in the

dative case which function on a main clause level as indirect objects

or as datives of reference can co-function in a secondary manner as sub-

jects of the infinitive clause which is embedded in the main clause.

Section 5.1.1 in Chapter Five presents this grammatical phenomenon in

detail.

(ou!twj ga>r pre<pon e]sti>n) h[mi?n plhrw?sai pa?san dikaiosu<nh, "for thus it

is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness" (Mt. 3:15).

3.2.1.16 Single Common Noun, Dative

(ei] e@cestin) a]ndri> gunai?ka a]polu?sai, "whether it is lawful for a man to

send away his wife" (Mk. 10:2).

3.2.1.17 Noun Phrase, Dative

(kaqw>j e@qoj e]sti>n) toi?j ]Ioudai<oij e]ntafia<zein, "just as it is the custom

for the Jews to bury" (Jn. 19:40).

3.2.2 The Predicate Tagmeme

Predicates may be regarded basically from the viewpoint of

transitivity because a correlation appears to exist between the syntag-

memic clause pattern in which the Predicate functions (i.e., Subject-

Predicate, Subject-Predicate-Object, and so on), and the inherent

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

50

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

Seven different transitivity types of Predicate are observed for the

infinitive clause.

3.2.2.1 Intransitive

Predicates which do not take direct objects reflect the property

termed intransitive. The Predicate slot with its intransitive filler

does not refer in this study to all the constructions which follow the

subject, as the term does in many traditional grammars. The concept

here is restricted to the purely verbal clause nucleus. An example

appears below:

(kai> e]ge<neto) e]n t&? e]lqei?n au]to>n ei]j oi#kon tinoj tw?n a]rxo<ntwn tw?n

Farisai<wn sabba<t& fagei?n a@rton . . . "and it came to pass while he

went into the house of a certain one of the rulers of the Pharisees on

the Sabbath to eat bread . . ." (Lk. 14:1).

3.2.2.2 Transitive

Transitive Predicates take a direct object, or a direct object

and objective complement. In this sense they are monotransitive in that

their transitivity has a unifocus which transmits to one object which,

in turn; may be qualified by a complement. One example is:

(le<gete) e]n beelzebul e]kba<llein me ta> daimo<nia, "you say that I cast out

demons by Beelzebub" (Lk. 11:18).

3.2.2.3 Transitive Passive

While the monotransitive Predicate is active in voice, passive

clauses which are the result of the passive transformation reflect a

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

51

passive voice verb. An example is:

mega> de> to> e]gerqh?nai me (proa<w u[ma?j ei]j th?n Galilaian), "and after I am

raised up I will precede you into Galilee" (Mt. 26:32).

3.2.2.4 Transitive Middle

The designation middle Predicate is to be distinguished from the

middle voice of verbal inflections. A middle verb is one which can take

an object, but it is not capable of receiving the passive transformation.

In English there are several such verbs, as in "The potatoes weighed

five pounds," or "I have one hundred dollars." These can not be trans-

formed into the passive, for the results would be ungrammatical (i.e.,

unacceptable to the, native speaker), as with "*Five pounds were weighed

by the potatoes," and "*One hundred dollars were had by me." The verb

e@xw in Greek exhibits the same feature, which is inherent in the nature

of the verb rather than resident in the inflectional system.

dia> to> mh> e@xein ba<qoj gh?j, "because (it) did not have depth of earth"

(Mk. 4:5).

3.2.2.5 Ditransitive

The designation ditransitive involves transitivity focused in

two ways: to a direct object, and to an indirect object, each with a

different referent 4s opposed to a direct object with objective comple-

ment, which have the same referent.

(oi[ Farisai?oi kai> Saddoukai?oi . . . e]perw<thsan) au]to>n shmei?on e]k tou?

ou]ranou? e]pidei?cai au]toi?j, "the Pharisees and Sadducees . . . asked him

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

52

3.2.2.6 Ditransitive Passive

The passive transformation applied to a ditransitive clause ren-

ders a passive voice Predicate with at least an Indirect Object tagmeme

in the clause and on occasion a Subject tagmeme as well. Further dis-

cussion of this rather specialized type is found in Section 4.3.3.

(ei#pen) fwnhqh?nai au]t&? tou>j dou<louj tou<touj oi$j dedw<kei to> a]rgu<rion,

"he commanded these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to

him" (Lk. 19:15).

3.2.2.7 Equational

The Equational Predicate is used in infinitive clause copulative

constructions. The primary verb used is ei]mi<.

(le<gonta) e[auto>n xristo>n basile<a ei#nai, "saying that he himself was

Christ, a king" (Lk. 23:2).

3.2.3 The Direct Object Tagmeme

The greatest variety of constructions of any tagmeme manifest

this tagmeme. Of the 428 total instances of the tagmeme, no less than

29 distinguishable forms expound it. They are listed below.

3.2.3.1 Single Common Noun, Accusative

(Mh> nomi<shte o!ti h#lqon) balei?n ei]rh<nhn e]pi> th>n gh?n, "Do not think that

came to cast peace on the earth" (Mt. 10:24).

3.2.3.2 Noun Phrase, Accusative

(me<llei ga>r [Hr&<dhj) zhtei?n to> paidi<on tou? a]pole<sai au]to<, "for Herod is

about to seek the child in order to destroy him" (Mt. 2:13).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

53

3.2.3.3 Coordinate Noun Phrase, Accusative

(kai>) qerapeu<ein pa?san no<son kai> pa?san maloni<an, "and to heal every dis-

ease and every sickness" (Mt. 10:1).

3.2.3.4 Adversative Noun Phrase, Accusative

(Mh> nomi<shte o!ti h#lqon) katalu?sai to>n no<mon h} tou>j profh<taj, "do not

think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets" (Mt. 5:17).

3.2.3.5 Complex Noun Phrase, Accusative

(du<nasqe) piei?n to> poth<rion o{ e]gw> me<llw pi<nein, "are you able to drink

the cup which I am about to drink?" (Mt. 20:22).

3.2.3.6 Item-Appositive Phrase, Accusative

(mh> fobhq^?j) paralabei?n Mari<an th<n gunei?ka< sou, "do not be afraid to

take Mary your wife" (Mt. 1:20).

3.2.3.7 Personal Pronoun, Accusative

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

(Mt. 1:19).

3.2.3.8 Indefinite Pronoun, Accusative

(e]nedreu<ontej au]to>n) qhreu?sai ti e]k tou? sto<matoj au]tou?, "lying in wait

for him to catch something from his mouth" (Lk. 11:54).

3.2.3.9 Negative Indefinite Pronoun, Accusative

(ou] du<nati o[ Yi[o>j) poiei?n a]f ] e[autou? ou]de<n, "the Son is able to do noth-

ing by himself" (Jn. 5:19).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

54

3.2.3.10 Demonstrative Pronoun, Accusative

(Pisteu<ete o!ti du<nmai) tou?to poih?sai, "do you believe that I am able to

do this?" (Mt. 9:28).

3.2.3.11 Reflexive Pronoun, Accusative

(o[ de> qe<lwn) dikaiw?sai e[auto>n (ei#pen . . .), "and the one wishing to

justify himself said . . ." (Lk. 10:29).

3.2.3.12 Reciprocal Pronoun, Accusative

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

3.2.3.13 Numeral, Accusative

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

12).

3.2.3.14 Adjective, Accusative

(pw?j du<nasqe) a]gaqa> lalei?n (ponhroi> o@ntej); "how are you able to speak

good things, being evil?" (Mt. 12:34).

3.2.3.15 Proper Noun, Accusative

(Pw?j du<nasqe Satana?j) Satana?n e]kba<llein; "How is Satan able to cast out

Satan?" (Mk. 3:23)

3.2.3.16 Proper Noun Phrase, Accusative

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

release Jesus" (Lk'. 23:20).

3.2.3.17 Elliptical Attributive Phrase, Accusative

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

55

neuter in gender and accusative in case, with an implied, non-manifest

substantive qualified by an attributive relator-axis phrase. In tag-

memic terminology this would be a complex noun phrase with the head of

the governing noun phrase deleted. Acts 18:25 provides a comparable

example to the one offered below: ta> peri> tou? ]Ihsou?.

(mh> kataba<tw) a@rai ta> e]k th?j oi]ki<aj au]tou?, "let him not come down to

take away the things out of his house" (Mt. 24:17).

3.2.3.18 Interrogative Pronoun, Accusative

Ti< (e]ch<lqate ei]j th>n e@rhmon) qea<sasqai; "What did you go out into the

desert to behold?" (Mt. 11:7).

3.2.3.19 Participial Nominal Phrase, Accusative

This phrase type accounts for the kind of phrasal group which

reflects noun phrase form, but which has a head manifested by a parti-

ciple. It does not seem to deserve the status of a participial clause

because it does not offer clause structure. This construction suggests

the flexibility of Greek to give a dynamic quality to its nominal

expressions.

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

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

3.2.3.20 Coordinate Participial Nominal Phrase, Accusative

As with the above example, this is an attributive participial

phrase used substantively, but it reflects conjoining.

(h@rcato) e]kba<llein tou>j pwlou?ntaj kai> tou>j a]gora<zontaj e]n t&? i[er&?,

"he began to cast out the ones who sold and the ones who bought in the

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

56

in the temple" (Mk. 11:15).

3.2.3.21. Nominal Clause