Infinitive Clause Syntax in The Gospels: by Edgar J. Lovelady
Infinitive Clause Syntax in The Gospels: by Edgar J. Lovelady
Infinitive Clause Syntax in The Gospels: by Edgar J. Lovelady
by
Edgar J. Lovelady
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
Ajad Adversative Adjective Phrase
Nalt Alternative Adjective Phrase
Aj(cx) Adjective Phrase (optionally complex)
Artneg Negative Article Phrase
Avco Coordinate Adverb Phrase
dispn Distributive Pronoun Phrase
D-Sco Coordinate Dissimilar Structure
IA Item-Appositive Phrase
N Noun Phrase
Nad Adversative Noun Phrase
Nco Coordinate Noun Phrase
Ncomp Comparative Noun Phrase
Ncx Complex Noun Phrase
NP Proper Noun Phrase
Npt Participial Nominal Phrase
Numen Enumerative Numeral Phrase
0 Zero Manifestation
RA Relator-Axis Phrase
RAalt Alternative Relator-Axis Phrase
RAco Coordinate Relator-Axis Phrase
RAcx Complex Relator-Axis Phrase
Voc Vocative Phrase
C. Word
aj adjective
ajcomp comparative adjective
alt alternator
art article
ix
av adverb
c connector
dem demonstrative pronoun
dvinf(p) ditransitive infinitive (optionally passive)
eqvinf equational infinitive
indfpn indefinite pronoun
indfneg negative indefinite pronoun
intpn interrogative pronoun
ivinf intransitive infinitive
n common noun
neg negative (1:131)
np proper noun
num numeral
numord ordinal numeral
0 zero manifestation
pos personal pronoun in genitive case
ptc particle (2n)
rcp reciprocal pronoun
refl reflexive pronoun
rel relator
relpn relative pronoun
tcpinf passive transicomplement infinitive
tvinf(p) transitive infinitive (optionally passive)
v-emo emotive verb
v-erg ergative verb
v-freq frequentative verb
v-im imminent verb
v-inc inceptive verb
v-mid middle verb
v-nec necessitative verb
v-s verb-seems
III. Clause Types
InfdCl Ditransitive Infinitive Clause
InfdpCl Passive Ditransitive Infinitive Clause
InfeC1 Equational Infinitive Clause
Infe-iCl Inceptive Equational Infinitive Clause
Infe-sC1 Stative Equational Infinitive Clause
InfiC1 Intransitive Infinitive Clause
InfmC1 Middle Infinitive Clause
InftC1 Transitive Infinitive Clause
Inft/cC1 Transicomplement Infinitive Clause'
Inft/cpCl Passive Transicomplement Infinitive Clause
InftpCl Passive Transitive Clause
whQ-InfdC1 wh-Question Ditransitive infinitive Clause
yhp-InfeqC1 wh-Question Equational Clause
x
whQ-InftC1 wh-Question Transitive Clause
IV. Transformations
T-rel Relative Clause Transformation (with Direct Ob-
ject)
T-rel-IO Indirect Object Relative Clause Transformation
T-wh-Qd wh-Question Ditransitive Clause Transformation
T-wh-Qe wh-Question Equational Clause Transformation
T-wh-Qt wh-Question Transitive Clause Transformation
xi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
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.
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
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
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
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 Na for noun phrase in the accusative case, pnd for pronoun in
the dative case, and so on. It is also usually essential to abbreviate
verb identifications with symbols like tv for transitive verb, iv for
intransitive verb, and eqv for equational (linking or copulative) verb.
Passive and non-finite verbs can also be recognized by such symbols as
tvinfp for transitive passive infinitive. When it is desirable to
34
specify a number of fillers for a given slot, the method S:N/pn can be
used, which means that a subject slot can be filled by either a noun
phrase or a pronoun. The reader may consult the List of Tagmemic Sym-
bas included at the beginning of this study for identification of un-
familiar abbreviations.
Other kinds of examples may also be of interest. For the sake
of space they are short sentences. The first one, from Luke 4:41, fea-
tures an equational clause as the filler of the sentence Base, and C
stands for subject complement. Notice the recursive embedding in which
the noun phrase of the possessive slot is in turn embedded in the noun
phrase of the clause complement slot.
(6)
Sentence Base:eqC1
-------------------------------------------------
| | |
Clause S:pn P:eqv C:N
| | |
| | |----------|-----------------|
Phrase | | D:art H:n Pos:Ng
| | | | |
(Embedded Phrase) |----------------|
| | | | D: artg H:npg
Word Su> ei# o[ Yu[o>j tou? qeou?
The order of each string is readily observable in this type of
diagram. This is a decided advantage over the old Reed-Kellogg method23
23
H. A. Gleason, Jr., Linguistics and English Grammar (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.
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:artg P:tvinf 0:pna
13. O:Na P:tvinf
16. S:pnd P:tvinf O:Na.
Obviously three orders are apparent here for the nuclear tag-
memes, with PL.0, 0-P, and S-P-0. Therefore it was necessary to re-list
the syntagmemes by their order patterns. This can not be done with the
first transcription of syntagmemes from the clause sheets, because the
range of order patterns is not known until that initial transcription is
made.
The rewrite transcription of syntagmemic orders offered the
opportunity to examine the relationship of introductory prepositions and
articles to the clause, as well as the placement of other peripheral
tagmemes in the syntagmeme. A consecutive sample from the P-0 listing
exhibits the following elements:
(10) 640. P:tvinf B:refld O:na
645. P:tvinf O:Na M:Nd Reas:RA M:PtC1
646. P:tvinf O:Na M:PtCl
649. Neg:n P:tvinf O:aja
653. P:tvinf L:RA O:Na T:RA.
Thus tagmemes which precede, intervene in, and follow the tag-
memes of syntagmemes can be specified in order to determine the total
clausal possibilities reflected in this corpus. When the rewrite
42
transcription was completed, the descriptive material was ready to be
written as the present study.
CHAPTER III
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.
3.2.2.2 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).
3.2.2.5 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).
2
William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexi-
con of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 400.
64
One other example appears to be based on another pattern of
nominal referents:
(ti< ga>r w]felei? a@nqrwpon kerdh?sai to>n ko<smon o!lon kai>) zhmiwqh?nai
th?n yuxh>n au]tou?; "for what use is it for a man to gain the whole world and
to be deprived of his life?" (Mk. 8:36). The verb zhmio<w in the active
voice means "to inflict damage on (someone)" while in the passive it
means "to suffer damage" (only so in the New Testament). A traditional
interpretation might handle the clause in this way, not allowing for a
transformational relationship, and explaining th>n yuxh>n as an accusative
of reference, giving the translation "suffer loss with respect to life."
With a transformational interpretation, the active base is likely
"They deprived him of his life," with the referent pattern N1 (=They),
N2 (=him), and N3 (=his life). Thus N2, him, becomes a@nqrwpon, subject
of the first infinitive clause and subject referent of the clause in
question, while N3, his life, becomes the retained objective complement
of the passive clause. The referent N1 was apparently not selected for
an agentive construction with u[po<.
3.3.1.3 Numeral
pri>n h} di>j a]le<ktora fwnh?sai, "before the cock will have crowed twice"
(Mk. 14:30).
3
Koine Greek noun phrases are discussed positionally in tagmemic
form in Lovelady, op. cit., pp. 50-58. In that corpus (Luke 8 and 9),
17 syntagmemes of the noun phrase were ascertained and reduced to four
formulas. This noun phrase syntagmeme noted here represents an addition
to those already described.
4
Ibid., p. 14.
79
had entered into a boat, he could repose on the sea" (Mk, 4:1).
5
Ibid., p. 18.
6
A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the
Light of Historical Research (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1934),
pp. 1051-1095; James H. Moulton, A Gramnar of New Testament Greek, Vol.
I, Prolegomena (3rd ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906, 1957); and
H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual of the Greek New Testament
(New York: The Macmillan Co., 1947), pp. 208-211.
80
speakers, verbal qualities which conveyed the inherent verbal sense of
dynamism without the restrictions of finite tense. Subsequently this
verbal quality was again nominalized by the addition of the article,
either in solo appearance or used in connection with a prepositional
relator just as a noun phrase with article can follow a preposition as
object or axis of the resulting phrase.
However, the speaker in actual competent use must have had a
selectional system available to him dependent upon the semantic charac-
ter of the message he wanted to relate. Therefore it is theoretically
possible to describe the selectional possibilities for the relating
units (hereafter called markers) by means of a formula presumably
analogous to whatever selectional rules were operative in the phrase
structure or transformational component of the speaker. It must be
understood that such a formula does not contradict the nominal (or in
Robertson's terminology, substantival) quality lent by the article, nor
the other peculiar qualities contributed by the relators as they are
traditionally understood. But the very fact that such markers as pro>j to<
and ei]j to< are, in practice, indistinguishable in their reflection of
purpose, is a strong indication that Greek speakers selected their mar-
kers for infinitive clauses as one unit. They would either choose pro>j
to< or ei]j to< if they wished to express purpose (given only these two
markers, of course). And if a speaker wanted to convey antecedent time,
the choice of pro> tou? or pri>n (h}) was available.
The comprehensive tagmemic formula for selectional possibilities
for the non-anarthrous infinitive clause is:
(1) + _____ mk: +(+rel +art)/+(+rel +ptc) +Ax:InfCl.
81
The functional slot is indicated on the left of the equation.
As mentioned above, the functional slot is a marker indicator, which is
symbolized by mk. The + sign specifies the marker unit as optional, as
indeed it is in the light of the figures that 673 of the 822 clauses are
anarthrous (81%), while 149 are non-anarthrous (19%). Optionality as
mentioned here refers to structural optionality. It is apparent that
from a semantic point of view the intention of the speaker overrides
structural optionality. Thus the speaker has the semantic choice of
making his infinitive clause reflect the aspects of reason or cause,
several different time features, purpose, result, and so on.
The slot in the above formula will, in effect, be filled in with
the semantic choice of marker. The right side of the correlation indi-
cates that the marker slot may be filled by (1) a relator alone, such as
pri<n or w!ste; (2) a relator plus article, as with dia> to<, pro> tou?, e]n t&?
meta> to<, ei]j to<, pro>j to<; (3) a relator with particle, as with pri>n h}
and (4) an article alone, as with to< or tou?. These are all the combina-
tions found in this corpus. The next functional slot is designated as
the axis slot of the non-anarthrous construction, which is expounded by
an infinitive clause.
The formula above is based on a general system of symbolic logic
which reads, in part:
(2) +(+A +B)
+(+A +B).
The first line of (2) reads, "tagmemes A and B are both obligatory,"
which applies to point (3), pri>n h}. The second line renders the combin-
ations A, B, and AB. This rule cares for points (1), (2), and (4) in the
82
initial part of this explanation. The virgule (slant) indicates mutual
exclusiveness of the parts on either side.
The listing below presents all of the situations found in this
corpus to be handled by the comprehensive formula.
(3)
Semantic Feature Category Relator Article/Particle Axis
1. Reason (or Cause) dia> to< InfCl
2. Time la | (Antecedent time | pro> tou? InfCl
3. Time lb | in main clause | pri>n (h}) InfCl
4. Time 2 (Contemporaneous e]n t&? InfCl
time in main clause)
5. Time 3 (Subsequent time meta> to< InfC1
in main clause)
6. F1 (Purpose) ei]j to< InfCl
7. F2 pro>j to< InfC1
8. F3 tou? InfCl
9. F4 w!ste InfCl
10. Mod (Modifier) tou? InfCl
11. S (Subject) to< InfCl
12. Res (Result) w!ste InfCl
The diagram which follows offers a graphic explanation of for-
mula (1) and chart (3). The various components which manifest + ____ mk
are extrapolated from the formula for ease of reference. In essence,
the diagram tells how the components of the formula (right column) can
handle the diverse semantic and structural elements discerned in the
text (the left column).
83
(4)
Semantic Feature Category Formula Component
1. Reas --------------------------------------------------------| +(+rel +art)
2. Time 1a ----------------------------------------------------| +(+rel +art)
3. Time 1b ----------------------------------------------------- +(+rel +ptc), +(+rel)
4. Time 2 ------------------------------------------------------| +(+rel +art)
5. Time 3 -------------------------------------------------------| +(+rel +art)
6. F1 -----------------------------------------------------------| +(+rel +art)
7. F2 -----------------------------------------------------------| +(+rel +art)
8. F3 ------------------------------------------------------------ +(+art)
9. F4 ------------------------------------------------------------ +(+rel)
10. Mod ---------------------------------------------------------- +(+art)
11. S ------------------------------------------------------------- +(+art)
12. Res ----------------------------------------------------------- +(rel)
Each of the Semantic Feature Categories used above is now pre-
sented with manifesting units in a context taken from the corpus.
1. Reasmk:rel/arta (15 examples).
(kai> eu]qu>j e]caneteilen) dia> to> mh> e@xein ba<qoj gh?j, "and it sprang up
immediately because it did not have depth of earth" (Mk. 4:5).
2. T1amk:rel/artg (6 examples).
(e]pequ<mhsa tou?to to> pasxa fagei?n meq ] u[mw?n) pro> tou? me paqei?n, "I
desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffered" (Lk. 22:15).
3. Tlbmk:rel (7 examples) or rel/ptc (2 examples).
(e]n tau<t^ t^? nukti>) pri>n a]le<ktora fwnh?sai (tri>j a]parnh<s^), "in this
84
night before the cock crows, you shall deny me thrice" (Mt. 26:34).
(su sh<meron tau<t^) pri>n h} di>j a]ke<ktora fwnh?sai (tri<j me a]par-
nh<s^), "You, this day, even in this night, before the cock crows, shall
deny me thrice" (Mk. 14:30).
4. T2mk:rel/artd (36 examples).
(kai> e]qau<mazon) e]n t&? xroni<zein e]n t&? na&? au]to<n, "and they were marvel-
ing while he tarried in the temple" (Lk. 1:21).
5. T3mk:rel/arta (6 examples).
( [O me>n ou#n Ku<rioj ]Ihsou?j) meta> to> lalh?sai au]toi?j (a]nbelh<mfqh ei]j
to>n ou]rano<n, "Therefore the Lord Jesus, after he spoke to them, was received
up into heaven" (Mk. 16:19).
6. F1mk:rel arta (5 examples).
(kai> o!lon to> sune<drion e]zh<toun kata> tou? ]Ihsou? marturi<an) ei]j to>
qanatw?sai au]to<n, "and the whole Sanhedrin were seeking witness against
Jesus in order to put him to death" (Mk. 14:55).
7. F2mk:rel/arta (6 examples).
(kai> poih<sousin shmei?a kai> te<rata) pro>j to> a]poplana?n ei] dunato>n tou>j
e]klektou<j, "and they shall do signs and wonders in order to deceive, if
possible, the elect ones" (Mk. 13:22).
8. F3mk:artg (23 examples).
(Toi?j a]gge<loij au]tou? e]ntelei?tai peri> sou) tou? diafula<cai se, "He shall
give his angels charge concerning you) in order to guard you" (Lk. 4:10).
85
9. F4mk:rel (3 examples).
(kai> h@gagon au]to>n e!wj a]fru<oj tou? o@rouj e]f ] ou$ h[ po<lij &]kodo<mhto
au]twn,) w!ste katakrhmni<sai au]to<n, "and they led him to the edge of the
mountain on which their city had been built, in order to (or, "so as to") fling
him down" (Lk. 4:29). The subordinator w!ste is customarily used to ex-
xess result in a dependent clause or infinitive clause, but on occasion
he result is not carried through. In such cases the usage is termed
”intended result” in most grammars, a designation which is, for practi-
cal purposes, tatamount to purpose. At any rate, "intended result"
indicates purposive action which may or may not result in a literal
consequence.
10. Modmk:artg (7 examples). In addition to the F3 (purpose) use of the
article tou? with the infinitive clause, the article serves to relate an
infinitive clause to a head for which it serves as modifier. In this
way infinitive clauses can modify nouns or noun phrases as part of a
complex noun phrase, or adjectives as part of a complex adjective
phrase. Both the Modmk:artg and the modified head are underlined in the
examples below.
(e]plh<sqhsan ai[ h[me<rai) tou? tekei?n au]th<n, "the days for her childbearing
accomplished" (Lk. 2:6) (The infinitive clause modifies a noun
irase).
(W# a]no<htoi kai> bradei?j t^? kardi<%) tou? pisteu<ein e]pi> pa?sin oi$j
e]la<lhsan oi[ profh?tai, "0 foolish ones and slow in heart to believe on all the
ings which the prophets spoke" (Lk. 24:25).
86
11. Smk:arta (6 examples).
to> de> a]ni<ptoij xersi>n fagei?n (ou] koinoi? to>n a@nqrwpon), "but the eating
with unwashed hands does not defile the man" (Mt. 15:20).
By a comparison with the infinitive clause types shown on page 44, which
recorded six infinitive clause types based on two chapters, the present
chart is seen to be much more comprehensive with twelve types based on
89 chapters.
The transitivity factors listed above are to be explained as (1)
intransitive (no direct object); (2) transitive (with direct object);
(3) transicomplement (with direct object and object complement); (4)
l
middle (a verb inherently in the middle state of transitivity );
1
For an explanation of the middle verb see 3.2.2.4, p. 50.
88
(5) ditransitive (with indirect object and direct object in the fullest
form, but at least with indirect object); and (6) equational (copulative
clause with subject complement). The other coordinates of the matrix
diagram have to do with the nature of the clause as it possesses either
the characteristics of a statement or a question. It is apparent from
the chart that active and passive clauses are found only with statements
on the transitivity scale. The double-barred arrows on the chart indi-
cate a third dimension coordinate which is to be regarded as a super-
imposed coordinate relative to the two coordinates which exist on a
plane. The short double-barred arrows indicate the transformational
relationship between active and passive clauses, while the longer
double-barred arrows indicate the transformational relationship between
the active statement clauses and the interrogative clauses. These
relationships are discussed in the appropriate sections.
4.2.1 Intransitive
Two hundred twenty-five of the 822 clauses reflect intransitive
structure (27%). There are three patterns of order for the nuclear
89
tagmemes: Predicate only; Subject-Predicate; and Predicate-Subject.
They are discussed in order of their frequency, although frequency does
not necessarily reflect what may be the basic order pattern for the
native speaker as he possesses a competent command of the linguistic
system of his language.
4.2.1.3 Predicate-Subject
Of all the intransitive forms, the Predicate-Subject clause is
the most generally used for the marker tagmeme, for 32 of its 44 clauses
have the marker (72%), whereas with the Predicate alone there were only
21 out of 104 uses (20.2%), and with the Subject-Predicate, only 17 out
of 77 (22%). Here, then, is a partial determinant of word order. Most
of the markers are time markers (22 out of 32).
There is a total of twenty-five secondary tagmemes in this order
pattern out of a total of 44 clauses. Thus this type reflects the low-
est percentage of secondary tagmemes of the three forms (P = 101%,
S-P = 79%, P-S = 57%). Thus it is obvious that this form is the most
terse, structurally and semantically, of the three. The clause formula
is:
93
InfiCl = mk (±Peri1) +P (±Peri2) + S (±Peri3) (±Peri4) (±Peri5)..
A Time tagmeme is used only once in Peril, and Location is used
only once in Peri2, of all the clauses. And only 15 of the 44 clauses
have any kind of optional tagmeme in post-position relative to the last
nuclear element, the Subject. When used, Peri3 has either Manner, Loca-
tion, Source, Relationship, Direction, or Reference; Peri4 has Location,
Reference, Purpose, or Time; and Peris has Location or Purpose. The
only co-occurrence appears with Manner following the Subject:
P:ivinf S:Na M:Nd M:RA L:RA
(kai>) katabh?nai to> pneu?ma to> !Agion swmatik&? ei@dei w[j peristera>n
e]p ] au]to<n, "and the Holy Spirit came down upon him in bodily form like a
dove" (Lk. 3:22).
A more extensive example appears with Tmk:
Tmk:rel/artd P:ivinf S:pna L:RA
e]n t&? e]lqei?n au]to>n ei]j oi#kon tinoj tw?n a]rxo<ntwn tw?n
T:nd F:InfCl
Farisai<wn sabba<t& fagei?n a@rton, "while he went into the house of a
certain one of the rulers of the Pharisees on the Sabbath to eat bread" (Lk. 14:1).
4.2.2 Transitive
Three hundred eighty-six of the 822 clauses reflect transitive
structure (47%). There are seven patterns of order for the nuclear tag-
memes: Predicate-Object; Object-Predicate; Subject-Predicate-Object;
Subject-Object-Predicate; Predicate-Subject-Object; Object-Subject-
Predicate; and Object-Predicate-Subject.
94
4.2.2.1 Predicate-Object
The P-0 form is the most widely used pattern, with 236 instances.
It is also the most diversified in the kind of secondary tagmemes which
accompany the nuclear elements, and it has more of these elements than
any of the other patterns, for there are 78 such elements, or 33% as
many of these as there are nuclear combinations. Eleven per cent, or
26 of the 236 clauses, have markers. The formula for the pattern is:
InftCl = + _____ mk (±Peri1) +P (±Peri2) +0 (±Peri3) (±Peri4) (±Peri5).
Peril can be Manner, Negative, Time, Location, or Circumstance;
Peri2 can be Manner, Location, Time, or Benefactive; Peri3 can be Pur-
pose, Direction, Location, Relationship, Manner, Time Reason, Goal,
Reference, or Benefactive; Peri4 can be Reason, Relationship, or Goal;
and Peri5 can be Manner or Time. Co-occurrence takes place in only two
cases, and these are following the Object tagmeme, where Goal and Manner
both co-occur. In only three cases do two or three optional tagmemes
appear after the Object tagmeme, and the rest appear in solo form. An
example of the pattern is:
P:tvinf O:Na M:Nd
(h@rcanto) ai]nei?n to>n qeo>n fwn^? mega<l^ peri> pasw?n w$n ei]do>n
M:PtC1
duna<mewj, le<gontej . . . , "they began to praise God with a loud voice for all
the mighty works which they saw, saying . . ." (Lk. 19:37).
4.2.2.2. Object-Predicate
The 0-P form ranks second in transitive clause usage, with 106
uses with conventional Object tagmeme, and 12 more uses with the special
95
Object-Relator tagmeme, totaling 118 instances. There is a total of 27
secondary tagmemes sprinkled in the 118 clauses, resulting in a figure
of 22% as many of these as there are nuclear combinations.
Perhaps the most striking feature of this pattern is the absence
of any marker tagmeme. This is possibly the case because these infini-
tive clauses are used in the vast majority of cases as the Predicate
Complement or Direct Object of the governing clause (99 of the 106 uses
above), and hence they have no opportunity to have affixed to them mar-
kers whose essential character is to offer aspects and shadings of se-
mantic meaning to the total main clause (such as time, purpose, reason,
and so forth). The clause formula is:
InftCl = (±Peri1) +0 (+Peri2) +P (±Peri3) (±Peri4).
Peril includes Time, Source, Manner, and Negative; Peri2 in-
cludes Negative or Time; Peri3 incorporates Location, Source, Manner,
Direction, Relationship, and Time; and Peri4 consists of either Loca-
tion, Purpose, or Time. No tagmemes co-occur, and in the one instance
where Negative appears pre-Object, it is the form ou]de<, the conjunctive
negative, rather than Two clauses have Peri3 and Peri4 manifested
(one of them with Negative intervening 0-P), and one clause has Manner
pre-Object and Location post-Predicate. An example is:
O:Na P:tvinf Rel:RA T:InfCl
(e]pequ<mhsa) tou?to to> pasxa fagei?n meq ] u[mw?n pro> tou? me paqei?n, "I
desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer" (Lk. 22:15).
Another form of the transitive 0-P clause deserves mention here.
It is the special infinitive clause use with a relative clause in which
96
the object of the infinitive serves also as object-relator of the rela-
2
tive clause. In each case there is separation of the manifesting
structure of the Object-Relator slot and the Predicate tagmeme. In one
case there is a Location tagmeme in post-position. That is the example
now cited:
O-R:relpna P:tvinf L:RA
(th>n e@codon au]tou?,) h{n (h@mellen) plhrou?n e]n Ierousalhm
"his departure which he was about to accomplish in Jerusalem" (Lk. 9:31).
The relationship may be expressed in the following diagram:
Ncx
|----------------------------------|
H:N Mod:AjC1
|--------|----------| |--------|--------------------|
D:art H:n Pos:pos R P:v-im PC:InfC1
| | | | | |---------------------|
| | | 0-R:relpna | P:tvinf L:RA
| | | | | | R:rel Ax:n
| | | | | | | |
th>n e@codon au]tou? h{n (h@mellen) plhrou?n e]n Ierousalhm
2
For an explanation of the Object-Relator tagmeme, see Section
3.2.8, pp. 63-64.
97
Object-Relator tagmeme is evidently induced by a relativization trans-
formation from some deep structure predication such as "He was about to
accomplish his departure." In English it is possible to formulate the
kernel structure as
X N Y
He was about to accomplish | his departure | yesterday.
By means of the formula
| who |
T-rel = X + N + Y --> N + | that | + X+Y
| which |
it is possible to derive the construction, "the departure which he was
about to accomplish yesterday," when which is selected because the
antecedent, departure, is non-personal.
In a similar way the Greek Adjective Clause may be derived from
a statement. Given a string
X N Y
h@mellen plhrou?n | th>n e@codon au]tou? | e]n Ierousalhm
and the rule
| o{j |
T-rel =X+N+Y --> N + | [+gen] | X + Y,
| [+case]|
it is feasible to derive th>n e@codon au]tou ? h{n h@mellen plhrou?n e]n Ierou-
salhm. Thus it becomes apparent that English and Greek are not so very
different in their syntactic derivational processes--at least in this
type of construction--since essentially the same rule handles the rela-
tionship. Here is a kind of linguistic universal which at least attests
to the underlying relatedness of English and Greek within the
98
Indo-European language family. The singular difference between the two
is the specification of the proper gender and case of the relative pro-
noun which is normal with Greek but impossible with English because of
historical processes.
4.2.2.3 Subject-Predicate-Object
Sixteen clauses reflect this order which arises when the need
for subject identification is apparently felt. Only three secondary
tagmemes are found in all of the 16 clauses, indicating that there are
only 19% as many of these as there are nuclear patterns. Five clauses
(31%) have introductory markers, and two of these are Subject markers
with articular manifestation. The formula is:
InftCl = + _____ mk +S +P +0 (+Peril).
3
When Smk (Subject Marker) occurs, the S of the formula is automatically
deleted and shifted to the Smk unit, which functions as the Subject of
the infinitive clause. The situation is analogous to the way in which
a relative pronoun can function both as object of the verb and as rela-
tor of the clause. Peril is manifested by either Manner or Time. In
two cases S is separated from P. The pattern is obviously a very con-
cise one, allowing no intervening tagmemes among the nuclear units. An
example is:
Reasmk:rel/arta S:pna P:tvinf 0:aja
dia> to> au]to>n ginw<skein pa<ntaj, "because he knew all men (Jn.
2:24).
3
For an explanation of Smk as Infinitive Clause Marker, see
Section 3.4, pp. 78-85.
99
4.2.2.4 Subject-Object-Predicate
Seven examples are found, without any trace of marker. They
manifest either Object tagmemes or Predicate Complement tagmemes on a
higher clause level. Only two secondary tagmemes are used with the
seven clauses. The formula is:
InftCl = +S +0 +P (+Peril).
An example is:
S:pn O:na P:tVinf
(ei] e@cestin) a]ndri> gunai?ka a]polu?sai, "whether it is lawful for a man to
send away (his) wife" (Mk. 10:2). The phenomenon of dative subjects in
infinitive clauses is discussed in Section 5.1.
4.2.2.5 Predicate-Subject-Object
Five clauses reflect this pattern, and in two cases there are
secondary tagmemes, Agent and Purpose. Three of the clauses also have
Time markers. The formula is:
InftC1 = +Tmk +Ag +P +S +0 +F.
An example is:
AG:RA P:tyinf S:pn O:Na
(le<gete) e]n beelzeboul e]kba<llein me ta> diamo<nia, "you say (that) by
Beelzebub I am casting out demons" (Lk. 11:18).
4.2.2.6 Object-Subject-Predicate
Three concise clauses of this form use no secondary tagmemes and
only one marker among them. The formula is:
100
InftC1 = +Tmk +0 +S +P.
An example is:
Tmlc:rel/artg O:pna S:npa P:tvinf
Pro> tou ? se Fi<lippon fwnh?sai . . . , "Before Philip called you
. . ." (Jn. 1:48).
4.2.2.7 Object-Predicate-Subject
Only one clause reflects this form. There are no markers or
secondary tagmemes. The formula is:
InftC1 = +0 +P +S.
O:dema P:tvinf S:NPa
(ou]xi>) tau?ta (e@dei) paqei?n to>n Xristo>n, "Was it not necessary for
Christ to suffer these things . . . ?" (Lk. 24:26).
The order pattern of this last clause may be explained by the
practice observed in this corpus for the writers to place the Predicate
immediately after such impersonal verbs as dei?, and e@cestin when the
subject of the infinitive or the object appears in front of the dei? or
e@cestin.
4.2.3 Transicomplement
Four of the 822 clauses reflect the post-Predicate structure of
Object-Object Complement in two order forms. These clauses comprise
0.5% of the total.
4.2.4.1 Predicate-Object
The two examples each have a Reason marker and Negative slot be-
fore the Predicate, with no other tagmemes. The formula is:
InfmCl = +Reasmk +Neg +P +0.
Since there are no other examples, it presently appears that the
marker and Negative are part of the nuclear pattern. An example is:
Reasmk:rel/arta Neg:neg P:v-midinf 0:Na
(kai> eu]qu>j e]cane<teilen) dia> to> mh> e@xein ba<qoj gh?j,
"and it grew up immediately, because it did not have depth of earth" (Mk.
4:5).
4.2.4.2 Object-Predicate
Each of the two clauses here has a secondary tagmeme, one pre-
posed and one post-posed. In both cases the Object slot is manifested
4
See Section 3.2.2.4, p. 50.
103
by the noun zwh>n or the noun phrase zwh>n ai]w<nion. Each is emphatic in
its positional recognition of spiritual life, not the physical life-
principle of secular reference. The formula is:
InfmCl = +M +0 +P +L.
An example is:
O:Na P:v-midinf L:RA
(t&? Ui[&? e@dwken) zwh>n e@xein e]n e[aut&?, "to the Son he gave to have
life in himself" (Jn. 5:26).
4.2.4.3 Subject-Predicate-Object
Two concise clauses admit no other tagmemes than the nuclear
ones. Each manifests a Predicate Complement slot on the main clause
level. In each case the logical subject of the infinitive clause is a
pronoun in the dative case,5 as in the example which follows the formula:
InfmCl = +S +P +0.
S:pnd P:v-midinf O:Na
(Ou]k e@cesti<n) soi e@xein th>n gunai?ka tou? a]delfou? sou, "It is not
lawful for you to have the wife of your brother" (Mk. 6:18).
4.2.5 Ditransitive
The ditransitive clause is one of the most difficult to handle,
either in this corpus, where there are 13 discernible forms, or in other
languages which the writer has analyzed tagmemically. In one chapter of
Hebrew alone there are six patterns for finite-verb ditransitive
5
See Section 5.1 for a full discussion of datives which function
primarily as datives of reference, and secondarily as logical subjects.
104
clauses, and in Old English there are four such patterns in 236 lines.6
And in two chapters of Luke there are no fewer than six patterns in
independent clauses.7 So it appears that ditransitive clauses are
typically the most unstable in these languages, and similar results
could probably be adduced from other languages.
There are 71 ditransitive clauses in the corpus, providing a 9%
contribution toward the total of 822 clauses. They are found apparently
without Subject or Object on occasion, or without Subject, or without
Object. Stated positively, they appear with the elements Subject, Predi-
cate, Indirect Object, Object; Subject, Predicate, Indirect Object;
Predicate, Indirect Object, Object; and Predicate, Indirect Object. As
long as the syntagmeme has an Indirect Object slot it has been included
in this listing. This has been done on the basis that the infinitive
clause is a reduced clause structure to begin with, a derivative of deep
structure or kernel constructions, and that the absence of one or
another elements is due to mentalistic deletion processes which are
regular to the language system but which may not be fully conscious to
the speaker.
6
Edgar J. Lovelady, "A Tagmemic Analysis of Genesis 37" (unpub-
lished research monograph, Grace Theological Seminary, August, 1975);
and "A Tagmemic Analysis of AElfric's Life of St. Oswald" (unpublished
Doctor's dissertation, Purdue University, 1974).
7
Lovelady, "A Positional Syntax of Koine Greek" (unpublished
research monograph, Grace Theological Seminary, August, 1974), pp. 26-27.
105
with 27 cases out of the 71 ditransitive clauses (38%). Only two of the
27 clauses (7%) have markers, and there are six secondary tagmemes found
among all the clauses, indicating that there are 22% as many of these as
there are nuclear patterns. In general, ditransitive clauses make rela-
tively little use of introductory markers. The formula is:
InfdCl = +Fmk +T +P +I +Ref/M +0 +T.
The Purpose marker is the only one used, and no secondary tag-
memes co-occur. Most of the clauses with this order are used to fill
either Predicate Complement or Purpose slots on the higher clause level.
Most of the clauses in this pattern have their Object slots filled with
clausal structures (18 out of 27, or 66%): Direct Quotation, Nominal
Clause, and infinitive clause. This serves as a general discriminator
for clause order from the P-O-I order, whose Object slots are never
filled by such structures. An example is:
P:dvinf I:RA Ref:RA O:D.Q.
(h@rcato) le<gein pro>j tou>j o@xlouj peri> ]Iwa<nnon, Ti< e]ch?lqate ei]j th>n
e@rhmon qea<sasqai; "he began to say to the crowds concerning John, 'What
did you go out into the wilderness to see?'" (Lk. 7:24).
8
J. D. Denniston, Greek Prose Style (Oxford: The Clarendon
Press, 1965), p. 42.
108
which are inflected, such as Old English, degrees of emphasis apparently
correlate with clausal position as a rhetorical device, especially when
permutations of "normal" clause order are not attributable to any
grammatical determinant. If emphasis is considered by degree, the nu-
clear tagmeme in initial position may be designated as emphatic, and
when medial, as semi-emphatic.9
Proceeding on such a basis as this for Greek, stylistic or
rhetorical permutations may reflect primary emphasis when nuclear tag-
memes are in initial position, secondary emphasis when in medial posi-
tion, and tertiary emphasis when they follow medial position. The in-
terpretation thus advanced here was adopted independently of Denniston's
conclusions on the matter in his Greek Prose Style:
As regards beginning and end, it is generally admitted, and is in-
deed beyond dispute, that the weight of a Greek sentence or clause
is usually at its opening, and the emphasis tends to decline as the
sentence proceeds . . . . It is a far more difficult matter to de-
termine whether the end of the sentence or clause is to be regarded
as being a secondary position of emphasis.10
It should be noted that Denniston's last sentence in the above
quotation is made in the light of relatively rare rhetorical use of an
emphatic word placed at the end of a sentence to gain added emphasis
from that position.
9
Lovelady, "A Tagmemic Analysis of AElfric's . . . ," p. 158.
10
Denniston, op. cit., pp. 44-45.
109
emphatic Indirect Object. No optional tagmemes are found. The formula
is:
InfdCl = +0 +I +P.
An example is:
0:na I:npd P:dvinf
(Tou?ton eu!ramen . . . kwlu<onta) fo<rouj Kai<sari dido<nai, "we found this
man forbidding to give tribute to Caesar" (Lk. 23:2).
4.2.6 Equational
Equational clauses are those which have an equational (also
termed linking, copulative) verb manifesting the Predicate slot, and
exhibiting a tagmeme which serves as a Subject Complement. Just as in
the previous clause types, an overt Subject is not always necessary. It
will also be seen that Complement is not obligatory to certain special-
ized forms.
115
There are 40 equational clauses out of the 822 total clauses
(5%). Nine forms are found. The discussion begins with those that have
a manifest Complement. These are regarded as the norm for the clause
type.
4.2.6.1 Complement-Predicate
This is the most numerous form of those with Complement. Nine
such clauses are found. No marker tagmemes are found, which indicates
an analogy to the 0-P pattern of the transitive clause and the I-P pat-
tern of the ditransitive clause. In general, it appears that the ini-
tial presence of the Predicate tagmeme encourages the use of the marker
unit as well as other secondary tagmemes in pre-posed position, and the
presence of Object, Indirect Object, Complement, and to a lesser extent,
Subject slot, discourages such practice. The formula is:
InfeCl = +L +C +P +L.
Location does not co-occur; the tagmemes in the formula come
from different clauses. An example is:
C:ajn P:eqvinf
(qe<leij) u[gih>j gene<sqai, "do you wish to become whole?" (Jn. 5:6).
In one such clause the Complement is manifested by a noun phrase
in the accusative case, whereas the others are all nominative. This is
the case because the Complements of equational infinitives in general
agree in case with the Subject of the main clause Predicate verb, or
they agree with the understood Subject of the infinitive clause in the
absence of an overt main clause Subject antecedent or infinitive clause
116
Subject. The accusative Complement clause is:
C:Na P:eqvinf
(e@dwken au]toi?j e]cousi<an) te<kna qeou? gene<sqai, "he gave to them the
P:dv I:pnd 0:Ncx
authority to become the children of God" (Jn. 1:12).
Here the entire infinitive clause fills the modifier slot of the complex
noun phrase in the manner:
O:Ncx
|--------------------------------------------------|
H:na Mod:InfCl
| |-----------------------------------------|
| C:Na P:eqvinf
| |------------| |
| H:na Pos:npg |
| | | |
e]cousi<an te<kna qeou ? gene<sqai
Since there is no overt Subject for the infinitive, the Comple-
ment is in the accusative case in agreement with the understood infini-
tive Subject, which would have been accusative in case.
4.2.6.2 Predicate-Complement
The P-C order has six examples with one preposed Reason marker
and two Location tagmemes for all the clauses. The formula is:
InfeCl = +Reasmk +L +P +C.
One example is:
P:egvinf C:Nn
(ou] du<nati) ei#nai mou maqhth<j, "he is not able to be my disciple"
(Lk. 14:26).
117
4.2.6.3 Subject-Complement-Predicate
The subjectful equational clause has four examples in this form.
No markers or secondary tagmemes are found. The formula is:
InfeCl = +S +C +P.
An example is:
S:pna C:Aja P:eqvinf
(oi] de> pa<ntej kate<krinan) au]to>n e@noxon ei#nai qana<tou, "and all of
them pronounced him to be worthy of death" (Mk. 14:64). The adjective
phrase (Aja) is separated by the equational verb.
4.2.6.4 Subject-Predicate-Complement
One example is found, with concise form. The formula is:
InfeC1 = +S +P +C.
The clause is:
S:pna P:eqvinf C:Na
(kai> poih<sw) u[ma?j gene<sqai a[leei?j a]nqrw<pon, "and I will make you to be-
come fishers of men" (Mk. 1:18).
4.2.6.5 Complement-Subject-Predicate
The Complement is evidently emphatic by position and by con-
tent, for the exponent of the tagmeme is to>n xristo>n in this one example
from the corpus. The formula is:
InfeC1 = +C +S +P.
118
The example is:
C:Na S:pna P:eqvinf
(o!ti ^@deisan) to>n xristo>n au]to>n ei#nai, "because they had known him to
be the Christ" (Lk. 4:41).
4.2.6.6 Complement-Predicate-Subject
This tentative identification of one clause is a bit unusual,
for a relator-axis phrase appears to manifest the Complement slot. The
formula is:
InfeCl = +C . . . +P +S.
The clause is:
C:RA P:eqvinf S:pna
(o!ti) e]n toi ?j tou ? Patro<j mou (dei )? ei#nai me, "that it is necessary
for me to be concerned with the things of my Father" (Lk. 2:49).
While a case could be made for other identifications of the con-
struction, the clause can clearly be read as meaning, "It is necessary
for me to be this, that is, concerned with my Father's affairs."
4.2.6.7 Subject-Predicate
Two subtypes are found with this order pattern. They are fully
discussed below.
11
Paul Roberts, English Sentences (New York: Harcourt, Brace &
World, Inc., 1962), pp. 44-45.
119
the pattern N + be + Adj; another is the pattern N + be + N; and yet
another is N be + Adv. The first two would be called predicate ad-
jective and predicate nominative constructions, respectively. The third
might be dubbed predicate adverbial.12 This pattern accounts for such
sentences as "The boy was here;" "I was there;" "He is outside;" and
"We were out."
Similarly in the Greek infinitive clause (and likely more ex-
tensively), there is a class of clauses whose Predicate slot is manned
by an equational verb, and which also may allow for a secondary tagmeme
of an adverbial nature. The formula of the S-P order with Locational
Adverbial is:
InfeCl = + _____mk +S +L +P +L.
The Locational tagmemes do not co-occur in the four examples.
One of the clauses is:
S:pna P:eqvinf
(kalo<n e]stin) h[ma?j w$de ei#nai, "it is good for us to be here" (Mt.
17:4; Mk. 9:5; Lk. 9:23).
The construction is exactly the same in each of the Synoptic
Gospels, which leads one to believe that when the infinitive clause is
the modifier of the adjective head on the main clause level (this rela-
tionship is based on the fairly common practice identified in other
clauses; a case could possibly be made that the equational infinitive
12
As far as can be ascertained, this term is original with the
present writer.
120
clause is the subject of estin, but this analysis regards estin in such
constructions to be impersonal), the Location tagmeme is attracted to
the position intermediate between Subject and Predicate. When such a
construction does not occur, the Location tagmeme is in post-Predicate
position:
S:pna P:eqvinf L:RA
(nomi<santej de>) au]to>n ei#nai e]n t^? sunodi<%, "and supposing him to be
in the group . . ." (Lk. 2:44).
4.2.6.7.3 Predicate-Subject
Agin , two subtypes are found with this order pattern.
Stative Clause
The one stative (or perhaps better termed existential) form is
clause:
Neg:neg P:eqvinf S:na
mh> ei#nai a]na<stasin , "saying (that) there was no such
resurrection" (Mt. 22:23).
122
It is worth noting that with the P-S order of the stative clause
the Negative tagmeme appears pre-Subject, rather than intervening be-
tween Subject and Predicate as with the former stative-inceptive type
(4.2.6.7.2). The formula here is:
Infe-sCl = +Neg +P +S.
4.3.1.3 Subject-Predicate
There are 10 clauses with S-P order. Agent never occurs in this
form of the clause. Only two clauses utilize markers (20%). A total of
seven secondary tagmemes is found, indicating that there are 70% as many
optional tagmemes as nuclear units. The formula is:
InftpCl =+ ____ mk +S +T+M +P +Ins/L/Sc.
One clause uses Instrument, which is the impersonal counterpart
of Agent. An example is:
125
Resmk:rel S:Na P:tvinfp Ins:RA
w!ste to> ploi?on kalu<ptesqai u[po> tw?n kuma<twn, "so that the boat
was covered by the waves" (Mt. 8:24).
4.4.1 Transitive
Only one order pattern is found, which is Object . . . Predicate.
The main clause nucleus always intervenes between the separated elements
of the infinitive clause. Six such clauses are found. The formula is:
whQ-InftCl = +Q-O-R . . +P.
The Question-Object-Relator slot is always filled by an inter-
rogative pronoun in the accusative case, which further serves to confirm
the Objective nature of the tagmeme, especially since there is no overt
Subject for the infinitive. An example is:
Q-O-R:intpna P:tvinf
Ti< (e]ch<lqate ei]j th>n e@rhmon) qea<sasqai; "What did you go out
129
into the wilderness to behold?" (Mt. 11:7).
The clause is apparently a derived one by means of a question
transformation. The question structure of the clause with the port-
manteau function of the Q-O-R tagmeme is exhibited below:
wh-Qt
|---------------|-----------------|-------------------------------|
Qmk P:iv L:RA F:InfC1
| | | |
O:intpna | | |
Ti< e]ch<lqate ei]j th>n e@rhmon Qea<sasqai
The relationship of the wh-Q clause to declarative form is seen
in the relatively simple transformation rule below. A wh-Q is a ques-
tion that requires an answer of content, such as who, what, why, when,
where. In this case the kind of wh-Q is specified by the semantic con-
tent of the interrogative pronoun: what. Given the string
X | Y | N[+indfpna]
e]ch<lqate ei]j th>n e@rhmon | qea<sasqai | ti
and the rule
T-wh-Qt = X + Y + N[+indfpna] --> N[+intpna] + X + Y,
it is possible to derive the result,
N[+intpna] | X | Y
Ti< | e]ch<lqate ei]j th>n e@rnmon | qea<sasqai.
130
4.4.2 Ditransitive
Only one such clause is found, with the order Object . . . In-
direct Object-Predicate. The formula is:
whQ-InfdCl = +Q-O-R . . . +I +P.
The example is:
Q-O-R:intpna I:pnd P:dvinf
Ti< (qe<lete<) moi dou?nai; "What do you wish to give me?" (Mt.
26:15).
The transformational relationship is shown below following the
diagram of the interrogative clause as it stands.
wh-Qd
|-----------------------------|--------------------------------|
Qmk P:tv O:InfCl
| | |---------------------|
0:intpna | I:pnd P:dvinf
| | | |
Ti< qe<lete< moi dou?nai
Given the string
X | N[+indfpna] | Y
qe<lete< moi | ti | dou?nai,
and the rule
T-wh-Qd = XN[+indfpna] Y --> N[+intpna] + X + Y,
it is possible to derive the result,
131
N[+intpna] | X | Y
Ti< | qe<lete< moi | dou?nai
4.4.3 Equational
Six interrogative equational clauses are found in which the
separation occurs between Subject and Predicate tagmemes in the order
Complement-Subject . . . Predicate. In such clauses it appears that the
Predicate of the infinitive clause has been extrapolated from its own
clause to the end of the main clause. The formula is:
whQ-InfeCl = +Q-C-R +S . . . +P.
An example is:
Q-C-R:intpna S:pna P:eqvinf
Ti<na me (le<gousin oi[ a@nqrwpoi) ei#nai; "Who do men say
I am?" (Mk. 8:27).
Diagrammed, the whole structure appears thus:
wh-Qe
|-------------------|----------------------|-------------------|
Qmk O:InfCl P:tv S:Na
| | | |
C:intpna S:pna | | P:eqvinf
| | | | |
Ti<na me le<gousin oi[ a@nqrwpoi ei#nai
The transformational relationship is a little more complex here.
This is because the governing main clause has three arrangements of its
constituents. Therefore in a transformational rule, allowance must be
132
made for these as well as the transposition of structural elements. The
three arrangements of main clause order are seen in the examples below:
P:tv S:Nn
(1) Ti<na me le<gousin oi[ a@nqrwpoi ei#nai; "Who do men say that I am?"
Mk. 8:27).
S:Nn P:tv
(2) Ti<na me oi[ o@xloi le<gousin ei#nai; "Who do the multitudes say that I
am?" (Lk. 9:18).
S:pnn P:tv
(3) [Umei?j de> ti<na me le<gete ei#nai; "But who do you yourselves say that
I am?" (Mk. 8:29).
Therefore, given the statement strings
X
le<gousin oi[ a@nqrwpoi< |
| Y | N [+indfpna] | Z
oi[ o@xloi le<gousi< | me | ti | ei#nai,
(u[mei?j) le<gete<
(pnx)
and the rule
T-wh-Qe = X(pnx) + Y + N[+indfpna] +Z --> (+pnx) + N[+intpna] + Y + X + Z
it is possible to reconstruct the statement strings above as
N[+intpna] | Y | X | Z
(1) Ti<na | me | le<gousin oi[ a@nqrwpio | ei#nai;
N[+intpna] | Y | X | Z
(2) Ti<na | me | oi[ o@xloi le<gousin | ei#nai
(+pnx) | N[+intpna] | Y | X | Z
(3) [Umei ?j (de>) | ti<na | me | le<gete | ei#nai
133
The production of the transformation strings should be clear if
the identified units are checked with the transformation formula. The
specification (±pnx) means that when the kernel string has an X which
contains an intensive usage of the personal pronoun, that pronoun is
fronted in the clause to initial position, before N. The postpositive
de> appears, of course, as usual.
The interrogative clauses as a group comprise 1.6% of the total
of 822 clauses.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
5.1 Problems
1
A. T. Robertson's position has been cited earlier in Section
1.2, pp. 8-9.
136
constructions which also utilize accusative case subjects. The first is
the infinitive clause with the impersonal dei?, with 12 examples. The
dominant order is dei? + Infinitive clause Subject (noun phrase or per-
sonal pronoun, accusative), with ten examples. Apparently when there is
a proper noun (one example) or demonstrative (one example) as infinitive
clause Subject, that word is fronted to achieve the order infinitive
clause Subject + dei? + remainder of infinitive clause. An example of
each is given below:
S:pna L:RA P:ivinf
(2) dei? au]to>n ei]j [Ieroso<luma a]pelqei?n, "it is necessary for him
P:v-nec PC:InfCl
to enter into Jerusalem" (Mt. 16:21).
S:Na 0:aja P:tvinf
(3) o!ti dei ? to>n ui[o>n tou ? a]nqrw<pou polla> paqei?n, "that it is neces-
P:v-nec PC:InfCl
sary for the Son of man to suffer many things" (Mk. 8:31).
S:npa P:ivinf T:num
(4) ]Hlei<an dei? e]lqei?n prw?ton, "it is necessary for Elijah to
PC:InfCl P:v-nec
come first" (Mk. 9:11).
S:dema P:ivinf
(5) e]kei ?non dei ? au]ca<nein, "it is necessary for that one to in-
PC:InfCl P:v-nec
crease" (Jn. 3:30).
The abbreviation PC represents the Predicate Complement tagmeme
on the main clause level which is used to classify infinitives and in-
finitive clauses which follow certain verbs and are not strictly expo-
nents of Direct Object tagmemes.
137
The other rather specialized construction is the accusative Sub-
ject with the adjective kalo<n manifesting the Complement slot of a main
clause whose Predicate is filled by the equational verb e]sti<n, with six
examples. The usual order is kalo<n + e]sti<n + infinitive clause Subject
in the accusative case, with five examples. One example has kalo<n +
infinitive clause Subject + e]sti<n. One of the former types is:
S:pna L:av P:eqvinf
(6) kalo<n e]stin h[ma?j w$de ei#nai, "it is good for us to be here"
C:Aja P:eqv Mod:InfC1
(Lk. 9:33).
In a manner somewhat comparable to the above cases of accusative
infinitive clause Subject with impersonal necessitative verb or as ad-
jective modifier with equational verb, personal pronouns, nouns, and
noun phrases in similar environments functioning primarily in dative of
reference constructions can also be regarded as secondarily serving as
logical subject for the complementary infinitive clauses. This means
that the dative word or construction in question is serving en portman-
teau, for it co-functions, for practical purposes, both on the main
finite clause level, and on the more restricted infinitive clause level.
The diagrams used with each clause illustrated should make clear
the functional relationships. The tagmeme identifications located
immediately below the Greek clause represent those of the main clause
and primary functions. Below this listing level the general infinitive
clause function is tagmemically noted. Above the line of Greek text the
syntagmemic constituents of the infinitive clause are listed. Arrows
point in the direction of modification. Dotted lines indicate the
138
continuation of a separated construction.
There are no fewer than ten such clause forms in the corpus, and
they are basically of two types. The first, and more numerous, is the
usage with a permissive verb (e@cestin) rather than a necessitative verb,
as with the accusative. There are six permissive verb examples. In
five cases the order is permissive verb + dative of reference-infinitive
clause Subject. In four of the instances the Subject is a first- or
second-person singular personal pronoun in the dative case, and in one
it is a common noun dative. In one case the order is first-person plu-
ral personal pronoun + permissive verb + remainder of infinitive clause.
Examples of each are as follows:
--->
| S:pnd | P:v-midinf | O:pna
(7) Ou]k e@cesti<n, | soi | e@xein | au]th>n "It is not lawful for
<---- <-----
P:v-per | Ref:pnd |
PC:InfCl
------------------------>
you to have her" (Mt. 14:4).
---->
| S:nd | 0:na | P:tvinf
(8) ei] e@cestin | a]ndri> | gunai?ka | a]poku?sai, "if it is lawful for a
P:v-per | Ref:nd |
<----- | <----- |
| PC:InfCl |
--------------------------->
man to send away (his) wife" (Mk. 10:2).
-------> | - - - - - - - - -> | -------->
S:pnd | | P:tvinf O:indfneg
(9) [Hmi?n | ou]k e@cestin | a]poktei?nai ou]de<na, "It is not lawful
Ref:pnd | P:v-per |
---------> | -----> |
PC:InfCl | |
---------> |- - - - - - - - - - - -| -------------->
for us to kill anyone" (Jn. 18:31).
Other similar examples are Mt. 20:15, Mk. 6:18, and Jn. 5:10.
139
The second type is the usage with the equational clause as modi-
fier of an adjective which functions as the Complement of e]sti<n, with
four cases. In three of the cases the order is C:aja + P:eqv + Subject
of infinitive clause. This Subject of the infinitive clause as modifier
is either a pronoun or noun phrase in the dative case. In one case the
dative Subject pronoun intervenes between adjective Complement and equa-
tional Predicate. Examples are:
------>
| | | S:pnd | P:tvinf O:Na
(10) ou!twj ga>r | pre<pon | e]sti>n | h[mi?n | plhrw?sai pa?san dikaio-
| C:Ajcx | P:eqv | Ref:pnd |
| | <-- | <-------- |
| H:ajn | | Mod:InfCl |
<-- - - - - - - -----------------------------
su<nhn, "for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness"
(Mt. 3:15).
----------------->
| | | S:Nd | P:ivinf
(11) kaqw>j | e@qoj | e]sti>n | toi?j ]Iousai<oij | e@ntafia<zein, just as it
| C:Ncx | P:eqv | Ref:Nd |
| | <--- | <--------------- |
| H:nn | | Mod:InfCl |
<--| - - - - - - - | <------------------- |
is the custom for the Jews to bury" (Jn. 19:40).
| --------> | - - - - - | -->
| S:pnd | | M:na G:RA P:ivinf
(12) kalo<n | soi< | e]stin | mono<fqalmon ei]j th>n zwh>n ei]selqei?n,
C:Ajcx | Ref:pnd | P:eqv |
| ----------> | ---> |
H:ajn | Mod:InfCl | |
<-- | ------------- | - - - | ------------------
is good for you to enter into life one-eyed" (Mt. 18:9). The other ex-
ample is found in Mt. 2:4.
With such evidence as the foregoing examples provide, it seems
feasible to recognize the possibility that datives of reference in cer-
tain specified environments can co-function in a secondary way as
140
logical Subject of the infinitive clause.
2
Clyde W. Votaw's work has been surveyed in Section 1.2, pp. 7-8.
143
S:InfCl P:tv 0:Na
(18) to> de> a]ni<ptoij xersi>n fagei?n ou] koinoi? to>n a@nqrwpon, "but the eat-
ing with unwashed hands does not defile the man" (Mt. 15:20).
The example is taken from Mark 5:17: "they began to beg him to
depart from their districts."
3
This problem was alluded to in Section 1.1, pp. 4-5.
151
first. This rule applies to Philippians 1:7 where me is consequently
the Subject and apac is the Object, outside of contextual considerations.
The rule also handles example (30), where the proper elements have al-
ready been indicated.4
The rule to handle suspicious combinations of the type in situa-
tion (2) is a little more complex. There are two orders of the candi-
date units before the Predicate: S-0-P and O-S-P. Here the primary de-
terminant must be the context. In the seven S-0-P clauses, there is no
contextual doubt as to which is the Subject and which is the Object.
There is not even a formal doubt, for the nature of the tagmeme expo-
nents is different enough to make an easy distinction (i.e., the Subject
may be a pronoun while the Object is a Nominal Clause; or the Subject
may be a noun phrase while the Object may be an adjective). In the case
of example (31), however, the pronoun and the proper noun are both ac-
ceptable candidates for either tagmeme in their own right, and recourse
must be made to the context. In that context Philip had already con-
tacted Nathaniel (the apparent referent for se as Christ addresses him)
in verse 45 of John 1. Therefore the order is O-S-P, as it is with two
other clauses. It may be that where formal ambiguity arises in pre-
Predicate suspicious combinations, the order will turn out to be O-S-P,
but further clauses will have to be studied to determine this.
A possible contribution to the translation of Luke 12:15 comes
with the recognition of a potential dative Subject. This is admittedly
4
A subsequent analysis of Acts shows eleven clauses with Predi-
cate-Subject-Object order, which further bears out this conclusion,
since this is the only ordering of S and 0 following P.
152
a difficult passage to analyze and translate:
(34) (o!ti ou]k) e]n t&? perisseu<ein tini> (h[ zwh> au]tou? e]stin) e]k tw?n u[parx-
o<ntwn au]t&?.
The construction is not strictly comparable to those in Section
5.1.1, but regarding the dative indefinite pronoun as a possible Subject
for perisseu<ein, it may be literally rendered thus: "because his life
is not in this, namely, for someone to surfeit because of his posses-
sions." This may be smoothed to read, "for a man's life does not con-
sist in his surfeiting by reason of his possessions."
5
See, for example, David L. Shores, A Descriptive Syntax of the
153
erosion of inflections due to phonological processes and analogical con-
formity has forced modern English to rely on a limited number of set
patterns. But a great deal of scholarship is going on in Old English
to study both the synchronic and the diachronic aspects of word order
in correlation with the inflectional system, and we are apparently
standing on the threshold of such studies for Greek.6
2. Contrary to the assertions by A.T. Robertson that infinitives with
their adjunct structures are phrasal in nature, the overwhelming
Peterborough Chronicle (The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1971), 224 pp.; and
Edgar J. Lovelady, "A Tagmemic Analysis of AElfric's Life of St. Oswald"
(unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Purdue University, 1974), pp. 118-
193. Both of these are tagmemic studies of Old English word order.
6
John Algeo cites an interesting index of synthesis for inflec-
ted languages, which consists of the number of morphemes in a sentence
(or corpus) divided by the number of words in a sentence (or corpus).
For example, if there were three words in a sentence, and seven mor-
phemes, the index of synthesis would be 2.33. Algeo applies this to
Latin and English (he does not list Greek), and obtains the following
indeces: Latin: 2.19; Old English: 1.79; Middle English: 1.33; and
modern English: 1.26. A study by the present writer, using Algeo's
corpus (Ex. 3:1-5) in the Greek Septuagint version revealed an index of
1.68, lower than Old English! The gap in the indices between the clas-
sical languages and even the English of 1500 years ago, and ours today
is strikingly revealed. John Algeo, Problems in the Origins and Devel-
opment of the English Language (2nd ed.; New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, Inc., 1972), pp. 81-82.
As examples of word order studies in Old English which can have
either a methodological or comparative bearing on Greek analysis, the
following works are cited: Faith F. Gardner, An Analysis of Syntactic
Patterns of Old English (The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1971), 85 pp.; Ann
Shannon, A Descriptive Syntax of the Parker Manuscript of the Anglo-
Saxon Chronicle from 734 to 891 (The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1964), 67
pp.; Charles Carlton, Descriptive Syntax of the Old English Charters
(The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1970), 200 pp.; Robert A. Palmatier, A Des-
criptive Syntax of the Ormulum (The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1969), 137
pp.; William H. Brown, Jr., A Syntax of King Alfred's Pastoral Care (The
Hague: Mouton & Co., 1970), 91 pp.; and Celia M. Millward, Imperative
Constructions in Old English (The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1971), 73 pp.
154
evidence demands recognition as clause structure.7 Infinitive clauses
have clause-type tagmemes, clause-type syntagmemes, and clausal trans-
formations. They are a form of reduced-clause structure by their non-
finite status and other limitations, but they are apparently derived
from clausal deep-structure sources in the generative component of human
speech production. Infinitive clauses can be typologized by means of a
three-dimensional matrix diagram8 which shows the twelve formal varieties
of the clauses based on the six factors of transitivity involved, the
two voices (active and passive) and statements versus questions. Order-
ly transformational rules can be written to show the formal relationship
between kernel and derived clauses, such as the passive, relative, and
interrogative clauses.9
3. The traditional system of grammar has obscured, though not deliber-
ately, the complex but orderly structural process whereby the mapping
of elements from one grammatical level to another takes place. The con-
cept that language communication consists of a simple laying down of one
element after another in linear fashion has been replaced by a greater
balance between the vertical system of the language, in which lower-
level structures are apparently relentlessly crowding upward as if for
7
The evidence consists mainly of Chapters Three and Four of this
study.
8
See Section 4.1, p. 86.
9
For the passive rule, see Section 2.1, p. 27; for passive clause
forms, see Section 4.3, pp. 121-127; for the relative transformation, see
Section 4.2.2.2, pp. 95-96; for interrogative transformations, see Sec-
tion 4.4, pp. 127-132.
155
recognition, and the horizontal reality which we all encounter when we
attempt to decode the language. This newer balanced emphasis on the
vertical structure is revealed graphically in the tree diagrams dis-
played in various sections of this study. At all times the correlation
between function and form is preserved in these diagrams, and also pre-
served are the word order patterns and logical relationships. The sys-
tem of mapping from one level to another disclosed in the tree diagrams
is closely analogous to the system that the native speaker must have had
in his mind when he produced the utterances in the language. Such a
study as this brings us closer to the "compositional moment" of the
literature in Greek. In addition to the extensive inflectional system
and other syntactic rules which have already been described, the Greek
speaker had a systematic knowledge of structural mapping possibilities
which resulted in the word order that we have in the text.
More specific conclusions are the following:
4. Out of the 980 infinitive uses studied, 822 are clauses (84%), while
158 are single (16%). Clauses outnumber single infinitives by a ratio
of over five to one.10
5. There are nine nuclear tagmemes,11 15 secondary tagmemes,12 and one
marker unit for infinitive clauses.13 All of these units are selected
10
See Section 2.2, p. 36.
11
See Section 3.2, pp. 45-65.
12
See Section 3.3, pp. 65-78.
13
See Section 3.4, pp. 78-85.
156
on the basis of notional choice. For the first time, formulas have been
constructed for the marker units which introduce infinitive clauses, and
for infinitive clause syntagmemes, or word order patterns.14
6. Middle clauses and transicomplement clauses have been distinguished
for the first time.15 Ditransitive clauses are seen to be the most un-
stable syntagmemically.16
7. A new form for the infinitive clause with equational verb has been
identified: the predicate adverbial, in addition to the predicate nom-
inative and predicate adjective forms.17
8. Infinitives are used (1) as subject of main clause; (2) as direct
object of main clause; (3) as predicate complement in connection with
certain specified verbs; (4) as subject complement with equational
verbs; (5) as exponent of various secondary tagmemes; (6) as modifier of
noun and adjective elements; and (7) as functional imperative.18
9. The initial presence of the Predicate tagmeme in the nuclear pattern
of a clause encourages the use of a marker unit and other secondary tag-
memes in the pre-posed position. The presence of Subject, Direct
14
For the marker formula see p. 79; syntagmeme formulas are all
contained in Chapter Four.
15
See Section 3.2.2.4, p. 50, and Section 4.2.4, pp. 101-102.
16
See Section 4.2.5, pp. 102-113.
17
See Section 4.2.6.7.1, pp. 117-119.
18
See Section 5.1.3, pp. 141-145.
157
Object, Indirect Object, and Subject Complement tagmemes in initial pos-
ition discourages this.19
10. In conformity with other studies, it is observed that antecedent
subjects or objects are not generally repeated in infinitive clauses.
11. When there is no overt Subject tagmeme in an equational infinitive
clause, the filler of the Complement slot is in the same case as its
antecedent, whether that is the subject of the main clause, or the un-
derstood subject of the infinitive clause.20
12. Problems in identifying the Subject and Object in transitive
clauses where some ambiguity occurs because both are in the accusative
case, can be handled easily when both elements in question appear after
the Predicate, for in that case the order is regularly P-S-0. Very
little such ambiguity exists beyond this, and can be handled by refer-
ence to the context.21
13. A new system of classifying verbs which take Predicate Complements
manifested by infinitive constructions has been devised. Such terms as
ergative verb, necessitative verb, inceptive verb, and others are used
to describe these special verb types.22
19
See Section 4.2.6.1, p. 114.
20
Ibid. , pp. 114-115.
21
See Section 5.2, pp. 149-151.
22
See Section 5.1.3.3, pp. 142-143.
158
14. There is now reason to believe that nouns, pronouns, and nominal
phrases which function primarily as datives of reference with equational
or permissive verbs, can also function secondarily as logical dative
subjects of infinitive clauses.23
15. It is significant that this tagmemic analysis of the Koine Greek
infinitive clause in the New Testament Gospels accounts for all the
pertinent syntactic phenomena without residue. Such a result as this is
not usually expected in linguistic analysis.
23
See Section 5.1, pp. 133-139.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aalto, Pentti. Studien zur Geschichte des Infinitivs im Griechischen.
Helsinki: Der Finnischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1953.
Algeo, John. Problems in the Origins and Development of the English
Language. 2d. ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.,
1972.
Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chica-
go: The University of Chicago Press, 1957.
Becker, Alton L. "Conjoining in a Tagmemic Grammar of English," Mono-
graph Series on Languages and Linguistics, No. 20, 109-121.
Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, 1967.
Belasco, Simon. "Tagmemics and Transformational Grammar in Linguistic
Analysis," Linguistics, 10 (December, 1964), 5-15.
Blass, F. and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature. Trans. by Robert W. Funk.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961.
Bloomfield, Leonard. Language. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1933.
Bolinger, Dwight. Aspects of Language. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, Inc., 1975.
Boyer, James L. A Manual of Greek Forms. Winona Lake, Ind.: BMH Books,
1972.
Brend, Ruth M. "Tagmemic Theory: An Annotated Bibliography," in Jour-
nal of English Linguistics, IV (March, 1970), 7-46.
Brown, William H., Jr. A Syntax of King Alfred's Pastoral Care. The
Hague: Mouton & Co., 1970.
Burguiere, Paul. Histoire De L'Infinitif En Grec. Paris: Librairie
C. Klincksieck, 1960.
Buttmann, Alexander. A Grammar of the New Testament Greek. Andover,
Mass.: Warren F. Draper, Pub., 1880.
Carlton, Charles. Descriptive Syntax of the Old English Charters. The
Hague: Mouton & Co., 1970.
160
Casagrande, Joseph B. "Language Universals in Anthropological Perspec-
tive," in Universals of Language, ed. Joseph H. Greenberg.
Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, pp. 220-235.
Chafe, Wallace L. Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1970.
Chomsky, Noam. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: The
M.I.T. Press, 1965.
_________. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton &
Co., 1969.
________. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1957.
Cook, Walter A. "Case Grammar as a Deep Structure in Tagmemic Analy-
sis," Languages and Linguistics: Working Papers, No. 2, 1-9.
Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, 1971.
_________. "The Generative Power of a Tagmemic Grammar," Monograph
Series on Languages and Linguistics, No. 20, 27-41. Washington,
D. C.: Georgetown University Press, 1967.
__________. Introduction to Tagmemic Analysis. New York: Holt, Rine-
hart and Winston, Inc., 1967.
Cooper, Guy L. Zur syntaktischen Theorie and Textkritik der altischen
Autoren. Juris Druch, 1971.
Dana, H. E. and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New
Testament. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1947.
Denniston, J. D. Greek Prose Style. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1965.
Dineen, Francis P. An Introduction to General Linguistics. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967.
Dover, K. J. Greek Word Order. Cambridge: The University Press, 1960.
Ellis, Jeffrey. Towards a General Comparative Linguistics. The Hague:
Mouton & Co., 1966.
Elson, Benjamin and Velma Pickett. An Introduction to Morphology and
Syntax. Santa Ana, Cal.: Summer Institute of Linguistics,
1969.
H KAINH AIACHKH. 2d ed. London: The British and Foreign Bible Society,
1958.
161
Fillmore, Charles J. and D. Terence Langendoen, eds. Studies in Lin-
guistic Semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,
1971.
Franklin, Karl J. "Tagmemics and Tagmemic Rules," Linguistics, 70
(June, 1971), 25-44.
Fries, Charles C. "On the Development of the Structural Use of Word-
Order in Modern English," Language, XV (July-September, 1940),
199-208.
Funk, Robert W. A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek.
Incomplete edition. Missoula, Montana: The Society for Bibli-
cal Literature, 1972.
Gardner, Faith F. An Analysis of Syntactic Patterns of Old English.
The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1971.
Garvin, Paul L. "A Study of Inductive Method in Syntax," Word, XVIII
(August, 1962), 107-120.
_________. On Linguistic Method: Selected Papers. The Hague: Mouton &
Co., 1964.
Gildersleeve, Basil L. Syntax of Classical Greek. 2 vols. New York:
American Book Co., 1900.
Gleason, H. A., Jr. An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics. Rev.
ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961.
_________. Linguistics and English Grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Inc., 1965.
_________. "The Organization of Language," Monograph Series on Languages
and Linguistics, No. 17, 75-96. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown
University Press, 1964.
_________. "Some Contributions of Linguistics to Biblical Studies," The
Hartford Quarterly, IV (No. 1, 1963), 47-58.
Goetchius, Eugene Van Ness. The Language of the New Testament. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965.
Goodwin, William. A Greek Grammar. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1894.
________. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb. London:
The Macmillan Co., 1889.
Green, Samuel. Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament. New
York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1880.
162
Greenberg, Joseph H. Anthropological Linguistics: An Introduction.
New York: Random House, 1968.
________. "Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the
order of Meaningful Elements," in Universals of Language, ed.
Joseph H. Greenberg. Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1963.
Greimas, A. J. Semantique Structurale. Paris: Librairie Larousse,
1966.
Grimes, Joseph E. "Positional Analysis," Language, LVIII (June, 1967),
437-444.
Hall, Robert A., Jr. Introductory Linguistics. Philadelphia: Chilton
Books, 1964.
Han, Nathan E, A Parsing Guide to the Greek New Testament. Scottdale,
Pa.: Herald Press, 1971.
Harris, Zellig S. Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1951.
Hayes, Walter M. An Introductory Greek Program. Chicago: Loyola Uni-
versity Press, 1966.
Hill, Archibald A. Introduction to Linguistic Structures. New York:
Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1958.
Hockett, Charles F. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1958.
Huttar, George L. "On Distinguishing Clause and Sentence." Unpublished
paper. n.p.: Summer Institute of Linguistics, n.d.
Jackendoff, Ray S. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cam-
bridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1972.
Jespersen, Otto. Analytic Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Win-
ston, Inc., 1969.
Kurath, Hans. "The Semantic Patterning of Words." Monograph Series on
Languages and Linguistics, N. 14, 91-94. Washington, D. C.:
Georgetown University Press, 1963.
Kurzova, Helena. Syntaktischen Struktur des Griechischen Infinitiv und.
Nebensatz. Prag: Verlag der Tschechaslowakischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 1968.
163
Langacker, Ronald W. Language and Its Structure. New York: Harcourt,
Brace & World, Inc., 1968.
Langendoen, D. Terence. The Study of Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Inc., 1969.
LaSor, William Sanford. Handbook of New Testament Greek. 2 vols.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1973.
Lees, Robert B. Review of Noam Chomsky, Syntactic Structures (Mouton &
Co.), in Language, XXXIII (July-September, 1957), 375-408.
Lehmann, Winfred P. Descriptive Linguistics: An Introduction. New
York: Random House, 1972.
________. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1962.
Leroy, Maurice. Main Trends in Modern Linguistics. Trans. Glanville
Price. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967.
Li, Charles N., ed. Word Order and Word Order Change. Austin, Tex.:
University of Texas Press, 1975.
Longacre, Robert E. Discourse, Paragraph, and Sentence Structure in
Selected Philippine Languages. 3 vols. Santa Ana, Cal: Summer
Institute of Linguistics, 1968.
________. Grammar Discovery Procedures. The Hague: Mouton & Co.,
1964.
_________. "From Tagma to Tagmeme in Biblical Hebrew," in A William
Cameron Townsend en el vigesimoquinto aniversario del Institute
de Verano. Mexico City: Instituto Linguistica de Verano, 1961.
_________. "Hierarchy and Methodology." Unpublished paper. Norman,
Okla.: Summer Institute of Linguistics, n.d.
_________. Hierarchy and Universality of Discourse Constituents in New
Guinea Languages: Discussion. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown
University Press, 1972.
_________. "Hierarchy in Language," in Method and Theory in Linguistics,
ed. Paul L. Garvin. The Hague: Mouton & Co., offprint, n.d.
________. "Some Fundamental Insights of Tagmemics," Language, XLI
(January-March, 1965), 65-76.
_________. "String Constituent Analysis," Language, XXXVI (January-
March, 1960), 63-88.
164
________. "Transformational Parameters in Tagmemic Field Structures,"
in Georgetown University Round Table Selected Papers on Lin-
guistics, 1961-1965, Richard O'Brien, compiler. Washington,
D. C.: Georgetown University Press, 1968.
Lovelady, Edgar J. "A Positional Syntax of Koine Greek." Unpublished
research monograph, Grace Theological Seminary, August, 1974.
________. "A Tagmemic Analysis of AElfric's Life of St. Oswald." Un-
published Doctor's dissertation, Purdue University, 1974.
_________. "A Tagmemic Analysis of Genesis 37." Unpublished research
monograph, Grace Theological Seminary, August, 1975.
Lyons, John. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: The
University Press, 1968.
_________. Noam Chomsky. New York: The Viking Press, 1970.
Maier, Friedrich. Die Version aus dem Griechischen: Schwerpunkte der
Syntax. Munchen: Max Hueber Verlag, 1969.
Martinet, Andre. Elements of General Linguistics. Trans. Elisabeth
Palmer. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960.
Matson, Dan M. "Tagmemic Description of Agreement." Monograph Series
on Languages and Linguistics, No. 20, 103-108. Washington,
D. C.: Georgetown University Press, 1967.
McCawley, James D. "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.
McNeill, David. The Acquisition of Language: The Study of Develop-
mental Psycholinguistics. New York: Harper & Row, Pub., 1970.
Millward, Celia M. Imperative Constructions in Old English. The Hague:
Mouton & Co., 1971.
Moulton, James H. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. 3 vols. 3rd ed.
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906, 1957.
Nida, Eugene A. Bible Translating. n.p.: pub. by the author, 1945.
_________. "Linguistic Theories and Bible Translating," The Bible Trans-
lator, XXIII (July, 1972), 301-308.
__________. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964.
165
________, and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969.
Ogden, Charles Jones. De Infinitivi Finalis Vel Consecutivi Construc-
tione Apud Priscos Poetas Graecos. New York: The Columbia
University Press, 1909.
Palmatier, Robert A. A Descriptive Syntax of the Ormulum. The Hague:
Mouton & Co., 1969.
Pike, Kenneth L. "Crucial Questions in the Development of Tagmemics--
the Sixties and Seventies." Monograph Series on Languages and
Linguistics, No. 24, 79-98. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown
University Press, 1971.
_________. "Dimensions of Grammatical Structure," Language, XXXVIII
(July-September, 1962), 221-244.
_________. "Grammar as Wave." Monograph Series on Languages and Lin-
guistics, No. 20, 1-14. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown Univer-
sity Press, 1967.
_________. "Grammatical Analysis." Unpublished experimental work.
Santa Ana, Cal.: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1975.
_________. "A Guide to Publications Related to Tagmemic Theory," in
Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. III, ed. Thomas A. Sebeok,
365-394. The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1966.
_________. "How to Make an Index," in Publications of the Modern Lan-
guage Association of America, LXXXIII (September, 1968), 991-
993.
________. "Language as Particle, Wave and Field," The Texas Quarterly,
II (Summer, 1959), 37-54.
_________. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of
Human Behavior. 2d ed. The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1971.
________. "On Tagmemes nee Gramemes," International Journal of American
Linguistics, XXIV (October, 1958), 273-278.
________, and Kent H. Gordon. "Preliminary Technology to Show Emic Re-
lations Between Certain Non-Transitivity Clause Structures in
Dhangar (Kudux, Nepal)," in International Journal of Dravidian
Linguistics, I (No. 1, n.d.), 55-79.
Roberts, Paul. English Sentences. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World,
Inc., 1962.
166
Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of
Historical Research. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1934.
Samarin, William J. Field Linguistics: A Guide to Linguistic Field
Work. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967.
Shannon Ann. A Descriptive Syntax of the Parker Manuscript of the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle from 734 to 891. The Hague: Mouton &
Co., 1964.
Shores, David L. A Descriptive Syntax of the Peterborough Chronicle.
The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1971.
Smyth, Herbert W. Greek Grammar. Rev. Gordon M. Messing. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1920, 1956.
Southworth, Franklin C. and C. J. Daswani. Foundations of Linguistics.
New York: The Free Press, 1974.
Ture, Kalen. Selbstandige Finalsatze and Imperativische Infinitive im
Griechischen. Uppsala: Almquist Wiksells Boktryokeri-A.-B.,
n.d.
Votaw, Clyde W. "The Use of the Infinitive in Biblical Greek." Unpub-
lished Doctor's dissertation, University of Chicago, 1896.
Wonderly, William L. Bible Translations for Popular Use. n.p.: United
Bible Societies, 1968.