Pinkster, Harm (1942-) [1990], Latin Syntax and Semantics [info], xii, 320 p.: ill.; 24 cm. [word count] [Pinkster].
Previous SubSect

Next SubSect

7.4. Discussion of some individual constructions

This section deals with a number of the constructions mentioned in crosssection 7.2. and crosssection 7.3: first of all, in crosssection 7.4.1 a number of criteria which serve to distinguish embedded predications functioning as arguments and embedded predications functioning as satellites. In crosssection 7.4.2 I discuss the differences between the AcI and the construction consisting of accusative + prolative infinitive. In crosssection 7.4.3 I deal with predicates which allow both constructions. crosssection 7.4.4 concerns the interchangeability of the infinitive construction and ut-clauses. In crosssection 7.4.5 I discuss the Nominativus cum Infinitivo (NcI), and in crosssection 7.4.6 the so-called Accusativus cum Participio (AcP). In crosssection 7.4.7 the Dominant participle construction is treated. In crosssection 7.4.8 I recapitulate a number of restrictions on embedded predications.

7.4.1 Criteria to distinguish between arguments and satellites

A number of grammars, e.g. K.–St. (II. 272; 208; 232), make a distinction between final (i.e. Purpose) `noun clauses', i.e. arguments, and final `adverb clauses', i.e. satellites. Examples are (73) and (74), respectively:

(73) quod me ut scribam aliquid hortaris (`As to the fact that you incite me to write something', Cic. Att. 2.12.3)

-- 123 --

(74) maiores nostri ab aratro adduxerunt Cincinnatum illum ut dictator esset (`Our forefathers got the famous C. from behind the plough in order that he become dictator', Cic. Fin. 2.12)

Other, largely historically oriented grammars such as Sz. do not make the distinction noun clauses: adverb clauses, but simply speak of `Purpose clauses'. The equation or combined treatment of constructions of this kind has several causes.

(a) Formal similarities

There is a formal similarity between the two types of embedded predication, in spite of their different functions in the sentence and the fact that they are not semantically equivalent. The Complement clause introduced by ut in (73) does not represent the purpose of the exhortation, but its content. In (74), on the other hand, the ut-clause does indicate the Purpose of the state of affairs of the main predication.

(b) Nominal equivalents

Some constructions occurring with the predicate hortari are adduced to prove that the Complement of hortari in fact fulfils the semantic function Purpose, e.g. (75):

(75) ipsum tamen Pompeium separatim ad concordiam hortabor (`Yet, I will encourage P. himself separately to adopt a concordant attitude', Cic. Att. 7.3.5)

In many grammars we do not find a clear distinction between the use of prepositions to mark obligatory constituents and their use to mark satellites. As a result, instances like (75) are interpreted as Purpose Adjunct, on the basis of the presence of the so-called `final' ad. (For `final' ad in satellites see examples (64) and (66) above). In reality, ad concordiam in (75) indicates the content of the exhortation. There are also unequivocal instances, which impose the conclusion that the ut-clause with hortari is an argument and fulfils the syntactic function Complement. Examples are:

(76) sin tu, quod te iam dudum hortor, exieris (`If, as I have been encouraging you to do for a long time, you have gone away', Cic. Catil. 1.12)

(77) equidem pacem hortari non desino (`I do not stop urging for peace', Cic. Att. 7.14.3) [33]

(78) hortantibus dehinc quibusdam inediam et lenem exitum (`While some were offering the advice of a gradual death as a result of starvation', Tac. Ann. 11.3.2)

From these examples it becomes clear that hortari can also govern nominal constituents in the function Complement, and that an anaphoric pronoun in the accusative may be used to refer to the embedded predication.

-- 124 --

(c) Restrictions on tense

Satellite and argument ut-clauses with verbs such as hortari share at least one restriction: the tense of the subordinate clause cannot be anterior to the tense of the main sentence. The following instances would be impossible:

(73') *quod me ut scriberem aliquid hortaris (`* As to the fact that you incite me to have written something')

(74') *maiores nostri ab aratro adduxerunt Cincinnatum illum, ut dictator fuisset (`*Our forefathers got the famous C. from behind the plough in order that he had become dictator')

Besides similarities between argument and satellite ut-clauses such as those discussed here, there are also differences.

(a) Omissibility

A fundamental difference between the two constructions is, of course, the fact that argument clauses with hortari cannot be omitted, whereas satellite clauses can.

(b) Question words

A second difference, which was already mentioned above, lies in the fact that satellite ut-clauses provide the answer to a question cur?/quo consilio?, whereas argument ut-clauses do not.

(79) tene me, obsecro :: Cur? :: ne cadam (`Hold me, please :: Why? :: In order that I do not fall', Pl. Mil. 1260)

(c) Correlating expressions

In crosssection 7.3.1. (ix) (p. 119) we have seen that satellite ut-clauses may correlate with an adverb (idcirco) or another expression with a similar function (e.g. eo animo) in the main sentence. Argument clauses cannot.

(d) Juxtaposition/coordination

In crosssection 7.3.1. (viii) (p. 119) we have seen that satellite ut-clauses can be coordinated with other satellite clauses. This possibility of coordination usually entails identity of semantic and syntactic function (see above p. 30). Juxtaposition, on the other hand, proves that there is a difference in semantic and syntactic function. Example (80) shows that the argument clause (ut … consequare) is juxtaposed to the ut-satellite (ut … uteremur).

(80) intellexi … nihil mihi optatius cadere posse quam ut tu me quam primum consequare ut … tuo tuorumque praesidio uteremur (`I understand that nothing better could happen to me than for you to join me as soon as possible, so that I can make use of the protection offered by you and your companions', Cic. Att. 3.1) [34]

-- 125 --

(e) Referential identity

Argument ut-clauses with three-place predicates as a rule involve referential identity between one of the three arguments of the main predication and one of the arguments of the embedded predication. For an example of a three-place predicate see (43a):

(43a) patri persuasi, ut aes alienum filii dissolveret

The Addressee (patri) is referentially identical to the Agent of dissolveret. [35] In the case of two-place predicates, there is either identity of the first arguments of the two predications, or there is no identity at all, see (29c) and (29a), respectively:

(29c) virtutum in alia alius mavult excellere

(29a) tu malim … actum ne agas

Satellite ut-clauses do not necessarily require such referential identity, see (81):

(81) Caesar singulis legionibus singulos legatos et quaestorem praefecit uti eos testes suae quisque virtutis haberet (`C. gave each legion a legate and a quaestor as leaders, in order for everyone to have in them witnesses of their own courage', Caes. Gal. 1.52.1)

Satellite ut-clauses are naturally also found with one-place predicates, see (82):

(82) eo … ad te animo venimus, ut de re publica esset silentium (`We have come to you with the following intention, viz. that there be no talk of politics', Cic. Brut. 11)

(f) Controllability

In the case of argument ut-clauses with certain classes of verbs (e.g. hortari) the embedded predication has to be controllable. This is relatively obvious: it is no use exhorting someone to do something which is not in his power. This means, for instance, that the Addressee of the main sentence may not fulfil the semantic function Patient in the embedded predication and that this embedded predication may not be a state. Cf. in contrast (74).

(g) Omissibility of the conjunction

The two types of construction furthermore differ in that in argument ut-clauses the subordinator (ut (ne)) is omissible (type fac venias (`make sure that you come')), something which is impossible in `real' Purpose clauses. [36]

We see, thus, that there are four general criteria (viz. (a)-(d)) [37] to prove the difference between the constructions, while there are also specific criteria to bring to light the differences in the case of verbs of communication and emotion. Particularly (e) and (f) show that the constructions merely seem to be the same. In reality there appear to be semantic restrictions on the content of

-- 126 --

this construction if it is used as an embedded predication with e.g. hortari. We have already seen such restrictions in crosssection 2.4., and will again in what follows.

7.4.2 AcI and accusative + prolative infinitive

Strictly speaking, the term `Accusativus cum Infinitivo' (AcI) is used for constructions such as:

(83) dico te venire (`I say that you come')

In this example te venire as a whole is an argument containing the content of the statement (in the syntactic function Object with dico). [38] Te in (83) is not the person to whom the statement is addressed, since such an Addressee with dicere is marked by the dative:

(84) dico ei te venire (`I say to him that you come')

Often, however, the term AcI is used more broadly, so as to include cases like (85): [39]

(85) admoneo te venire (`I warn you to come')

Formally, this is, of course, an instance of an accusative (te) and an infinitive (venire). In contrast to (84), however, here it is not correct to regard te venire as a whole as an argument (in the function Object), since admonere is a three-place verb with one argument referring to the person who is warned (semantic function Addressee, in the active voice syntactic function Object) and one argument referring to the content of the warning (with the function Complement). [modified 12-08: Cf. (86a,b) and (87) for nominal and clausal expression of the Complement, respectively:

(86a) eam rem nos locus admonuit (`The place reminded us of the event', Sal. Jug. 79.1) [40]

(86b) de quo (proelio) vos … admonui (`Of which I have informed you', Cic. Man. 45)

(87) Antipater … admonere reliquos potuit ut adcuratius scriberent (`Antipater might have served as a warning to his successors that they should take greater pains at writing', Cic. Leg. 1.6)]

Infinitives such as venire in (85) will from now on be called `prolative infinitives' (for admonere see also crosssection 7.4.3 on p. 128). A comparison of the embedded predications and noun phrases shows that differences in semantic and syntactic structure are hidden beneath the ostensibly identical forms. In the remainder of this section I discuss a number of differences between the `real' AcI (example (83)) and the `accusative + prolative infinitive' (example (85)). For verbs which allow two constructions (accusative + prolative infinitive and accusative + AcI) see below, crosssection 7.4.3.

(a) Addibility of Addressee

Above it has already been pointed out that a constituent in the semantic function Addressee can be added to dico te venire. In the case of admoneo

-- 127 --

te venire this is impossible, since here te is the Addressee (but see crosssection 7.4.3 below).

(b) Restrictions on the predicate and on the arguments of the embedded predication

With admonere the warning cannot refer to something which has already happened prior to the warning. Consequently, we do not find:

(88) *admoneo te venisse (`*I warn you to have come')

We do, on the other hand, find instances such as:

(89) dico te venisse (`I say that you have come')

The AcI with dicere is not subject to restrictions as to the controllability of the embedded predication, or as to the animacy of the accusative constituent. With dicere we find e.g.:

(90) quid … spectans deus ipse diceret Marcellum … in mari esse periturum (`What could the god himself be aiming at in saying that M. would die at sea', Cic. Fat. 33)

(91) in quo iudicio … de verbis quaesitum esse dicatur (`A trial which, as will be argued, was about words', Cic. Caec. 38)

(92) quod (Xenophon) diceret eosdem labores non aeque gravis esse imperatori et militi (`Because X. said that the same efforts are not equally strenuous for a general and for a soldier', Cic. Tusc. 2.62)

In (90) we find a non-controllable predicate (perire); in (91) the passive of a controllable predicate; in (92) the Subject of the embedded predication is an inanimate entity. In embedded predications with admonere, on the other hand, there are, in fact, restrictions on these two points (controllable, animate). [41]

(c) Substitution

In the case of admonere the infinitive [modified 12-08: corresponds to, and can be replaced by,] a finite subordinate clause with or without the subordinator ut (ne). The constituent in the accusative – in the active voice - is still the entity that is being warned. The two constructions are synonymous: [42]

(93) illud me praeclare admones …, ne nimis indulgenter et ut cum gravitate potius loquar (`You rightly admonish me to do this, viz. not to speak too leniently, but rather with some dignity', Cic. Att. 9.9.2) [43]

The infinitive of dicere + AcI cannot be replaced (see p. 129). The criteria mentioned here clearly show the difference between the AcI proper and the construction of accusative + prolative infinitive. [44] We will see a similarity in crosssection 7.4.5. on p. 130 about the NcI.

-- 128 --

7.4.3 Predicates allowing both AcI and accusative + prolative infinitive

The description of admonere in reality turns out to be slightly more complicated. With admonere we not only find a three-place construction with a prolative infinitive as third argument (like admoneo te venire) but also a three-place construction with an AcI-construction as third argument (like admoneo te hostes venire, `I warn you that the enemies are coming'). In English, too, these frames may be discerned `to warn someone to … ' and `to warn someone that something is the case', respectively. Examples of admonere aliquem + AcI are:

(44d) tantum te admonebo … te his daturum (salutem) (see p. 115)

(44e) admonitus sum ab illo … dici posse (see p. 115)

This `true' AcI is naturally not subject to the restrictions mentioned above ( crosssection 7.4.2.) for admonere + accusative + prolative infinitive.

The same possibility (three-place construction with as third argument either a prolative infinitive or an AcI) is found with docere (`to teach'), since this verb, too, has an Addressee marked by the accusative (in the active voice); see examples (39e) and (39d) on p. 113. Other verbs of communication, such as persuadere, do not show this at first sight striking co-occurrence of two accusative constituents with one predicate, since there the Addressee is as a rule marked by the dative (see example (43d) on p. 115: hos homines cannot be interpreted as Addressee). The difference between prolative infinitive and AcI with admonere and docere correlates with the difference between imperative and declarative modality of the embedded predication. We return to this difference in crosssection 7.4.4.

The verbs meaning `to order', in particular iubere, constitute a separate problem, which did not appear clearly from tables 7.4 and 7.5 on pp. 108 and 112, respectively. [45] With this group of verbs we find both a three-place construction with a prolative infinitive and a two-place construction with a `true' AcI. Examples of the three-place construction are (41d) and (42c) on p. 114. Examples of the two-place construction referred to are:

iussi...ianuam claudi (see (42d))
/...ianuam patere
imperavi...te laudari

Also possible is (two-place!!):

iussi...te venire
imperavi...te venire
(`I have given the order that you must come')

In the interpretation aimed at here te is not the Addressee of the order. Naturally, iussi te venire can also mean `I have ordered you to come'; this is,

-- 129 --

therefore, a case of structural ambiguity. Note that this ambiguity does not exist in the case of imperare, since with imperare the Addressee is marked by the dative (imperavi tibi venire). [46]

7.4.4 Interchangeability of infinitive construction and ut-clause

With the predicate dicere we find besides the AcI construction also embedded predications in the form of an ut-clause, where the ut-clause in its turn may be replaced by a prolative infinitive (see K.–St. I. 683).

(38b) dices (eis) … paulum proferant auctionem

(38b') dices (eis) auctionem proferre [47]

The ut-clause and the prolative infinitive construction with dicere are subject to the same restrictions that we saw above for the prolative infinitive with admonere and the ut-clause with hortari: the embedded predication must be `controlled', and cannot, therefore, be passive; anteriority of the infinitive is impossible; in the embedded predications expressions like nimirum, fortasse, haud dubie are excluded. [48] The modality of the embedded predication is imperative (see crosssection 7.2.3.), whereas this modality is declarative in the case of the AcI. Other predicates which allow embedded predications with declarative or imperative modality are the verbs of communication, respondere (`to answer'), scribere (`to write'), clamare (`to shout'), nuntiare (`to report'), etc. We also find this alternation with a number of two-place verba sentiendi: decernere (`to determine'), statuere (`to decide'), cogitare (`to consider'), etc. [49] As was stated above, admonere also belongs to the class of verbs that allow both an embedded predication with declarative modality (= admonere aliquem + AcI) and an embedded predication with imperative modality (= admonere aliquem + ut-clause or prolative infinitive). Schematically, this may be represented as table 7.6. Table 7.6
Predicate (incl. Subject)Addresseecontent
dicotibime abireabire/ut abeas
admoneoteme abireabire/ut abeas
statuoØme abire (= to determine that)abire/ut abeam (= to decide to)

From this table it appears that the ut-clause and the prolative infinitive construction are synonymous and that they are in opposition to the AcI-construction (but see above crosssection 7.4.3. about iubere). Incidentally, the verbs with

-- 130 --

which ut-clause and prolative infinitive constructions are or ought to be possible differ in the extent to which we actually find the two constructions. There is, especially in poetry (see K.–St. I.680), a general tendency in favour of the infinitive construction. [50]

7.4.5 Nominativus cum Infinitivo (NcI)

In crosssection 7.4.2. we have seen that in dico te venire the constituent te has no semantic relation with dico, but that te venire forms a whole that with an active main predicate fulfils the syntactic function Object. This also becomes apparent in the passive: dico te venire can be transformed into:

(96) dicitur (a me) te venire (`It is said (by me) that you come')


(97) ei … dictum est clipeum esse salvum (`It has been said to him that his shield was safe', Cic. Fam. 5.12.5)

(98) dicitur eo tempore matrem Pausaniae vixisse (`It is said that the mother of P. lived in that period', Nep. Paus. 5.3) [51]

With admonet te venire, on the other hand, there is a semantic relation, te functioning as Addressee and fulfilling in the active voice the syntactic function Object. Consequently, passivization is possible:

(99) admoneor venire (`I am warned to come')


(100) vos … admonendos puto ne … putetis (`I think that you should be warned not to think', Cic. de Orat. 3.201)

Now, a problem is posed by instances such as:

(101) dicor venire (`I am said to come')

(102) eruptionem facturi fuisse dicebantur (`They were said to be going to break out', Cic. Att. 7.14.2)

This so-called personal construction is more common than the `impersonal' construction exemplified above. In spite of the fact that in (101) I is semantically speaking not an argument of dicere but of venire, I nevertheless becomes (syntactically speaking) Subject of the passive form of dicere. An argument of the embedded predication is, as it were, promoted to the main predication (see further crosssection 7.5. on p. 135 ff.). [52] On the other hand, (101) cannot be equated with (99). It turns out that the restrictions mentioned on p. 124 ff. are also applicable in the passive, e.g. the restriction on the tense of the embedded predication:

-- 131 --

(99a) ?admoneor venisse [53] (`I am warned to have come')

While the following expression is possible:

(101a) dicor venisse (`I am said to have come')

In explaining the occurrence of the personal passive constructions with dicere most grammars tacitly assume that the personal construction and the impersonal construction are synonymous. K.–St. I. 707–9, however, already point out that under certain circumstances the impersonal construction is preferred, e.g. when the point at issue is to whom, why or how a statement is made. The personal construction, on the other hand, turns out to be preferred if a constituent in the embedded predication is Focus and the embedded predication as a whole does not constitute a pragmatic unit (e.g. in the case of a question as to `who has been told to do something'). There are, therefore, pragmatic differences between the two constructions. See also crosssection 12.3.3. [54]

A completely different type is represented by the following, mainly poetic, constructions (see K.–St. I. 702).

(38f) quas hodie adulescens Diabolus ipsi daturus dixit

(103) sensit medios delapsus in hostes (`He noticed that he had ended up in the midst of the enemies', Verg. A. 2.377) [55]

7.4.6 Accusativus cum Participio (praesentis)

The AcP-construction, as exemplified in (26f) and (104), occurs in Classical Latin [56] with verbs of `perception'.

(26f) idque Socratem … audio dicentem

(104) adulescentium greges Lacedaemone vidimus ipsi incredibili contentione certantes pugnis (`We have seen with our own eyes troops of youngsters in Lacedaemon fighting with inconceivable obstinacy, using fists', Cic. Tusc. 5.77) [added 12-08] Besides the AcP this group of verbs also allows the AcI (the reverse is not always the case!). The difference between the two constructions is that in the case of the AcP the aspect of `perception' is central, and with the AcI that of `cognition' and `reflection' (see Sz. 387; Bolkestein 1976b: 283–8). In practically all instances of the AcP the accusative constituent can also be interpreted as an argument with the verb of perception. In example (26f), for instance, it can be argued that Socrates is heard while he is speaking. The only instance known to me that might be considered an exception is (105): [57]

(105) at ille ut Carthaginem venit multo aliter ac sperarat rem publicam se habentem cognovit (`But when he came to Carthage, he noticed that the political situation was quite different from what he had expected', Nep. Ham. 2.1)

K.–St. (I. 704) interpret this instance as an example of an AcP. In this case, the meaning must be that he could perceive the changes with his own eyes. [58] Against this analysis it can be objected that with two-place cognoscere in this sense we do not find nouns such as res publica as Object. It might be better to

-- 132 --

regard rem publicam and se habentem as Object and Object Complement, respectively (see p. 22), since there are parallels for three-place cognoscere (`to find (to be)':

(106) firmitatem … et constantiam … eandem cognosces quam reliquisti (`You will find my firmness and constancy to be the same as when you left', Cic. Fam. 9.11.1)

Sz. treats the AcP as a subcategory of the use of the participle as Praedicativum. It is true that in many cases omission of the participle and the constituents governed by it does not result in ungrammaticality of the remainder of the sentence. [59] In example (104) above this is, of course, impossible.

K.–St. I.704 classify in this group also instances such as (107), where no perception is involved. I consider these instances as clear examples of participles in the function Praedicativum. Unlike (26f), here replacement with an infinitive construction is impossible. 59a

(107) offendi eum sedentem in exedra et cum C. Velleio senatore disputantem (`I came upon him seated in the sitting room, in a discussion with the senator C.V.', Cic. N.D. 1.15)

7.4.7 Dominant participle construction

Examples of the so-called dominant participle [60] have been given in (19b) and (30e):

(19b) occisus dictator … pulcherrimum facinus videbatur

(30e) cum … valde absoluto Scaevola gauderet

In (19b) the constituent occisus dictator is an argument in the syntactic function Subject; in (30e) the constituent absoluto Scaevola is also an argument, but here in the syntactic function Complement. In crosssection 7.3.1 (vii) `Accompanying circumstances' (on p. 117) we have given examples of dominant participle constructions as satellites (the so-called ablative absolute): 60a

(52) (Cethegus) recitatis litteris … repente conticuit

-- 133 --

We have also seen the dominant participle construction on the noun phrase level (p. 79). Examples are:

(108) suspicio acceptae pecuniae (`The suspicion of having received money', Cic. Ver. 38)

(109) ante conditam … urbem (`Before the foundation of the city', Liv. 1, pr. 6) [61]

The dominant participle construction differs both from constructions in which the participle occurs as Praedicativum (see crosssection 8.5.5. on p. 160) and from constructions in which the participle occurs as Attribute. In the dominant participle construction the participle cannot be omitted. The result of omission of the participle from (19b), for instance, is ungrammatical:

(19b') * dictator … pulcherrimum facinus videbatur

The non-omissibility can also be illustrated with the aid of an instance such as (50). The sentence which remains after imperatore has been omitted is ungrammatical: [62]

(50) * Bellum Gallicum C. Caesare gestum est

As becomes clear from the series of examples of gaudere in (30), the dominant participle construction is merely one of the possible forms of an embedded predication. Alternatives for example (19b) cited above might be:

(19b") quod dictator occisus erat, pulcherrimum facinus videbatur

(19b"') dictatorem occisum esse pulcherrimum facinus videbatur

In many cases the dominant participle construction may also be replaced by a noun phrase consisting of an action noun and a noun phrase in the genitive:

(19b"") caedes dictatoris pulcherrimum facinus videbatur

Both the non-omissibility of the participle and the fact that the construction as a whole can be replaced by alternative constructions show that the construction must be regarded as one whole.

Above I have shown how the dominant participle construction may be replaced by alternative constructions. It is, however, not the case that these alternatives are equivalent and mutually interchangeable. A dominant participle construction functioning as argument occurs only if it is implied that the state of affairs referred to by the dominant participle construction has in fact been realized, is being realized or will be realized, in other words, if the event referred to is `factive'. [63] Consequently, an embedded predication in the form of a dominant participle construction can only occur as argument with certain, `factive', main predications; we do, for instance, find such an embedded predication with pulcherrimum facinus videbatur, but not with difficilis esse:

(19b""') * Caesar occisus difficilis fuit

-- 134 --

There are no restrictions on the noun phrases and the predicates which may occur in the dominant participle construction itself. Also, there are no restrictions on the tense of the participle. An example of a dominant participle construction with a present participle is (110): [64]

(110) fugiens … Pompeius … homines movet (`The fact that P. is fleeing shocks the people', Cic. Att. 7.11.4)

The Predicate of a dominant participle construction need not necessarily be a verb, but may also be an adjective or a noun. Examples are (51), (111) and (112), respectively:

(51) qui tranquillo mari gubernare se negent posse (`Who say they cannot sail on a calm sea', Cic. Rep. 1.11)

(111) augebat metum gnarus Romanae seditionis et, si omitteretur ripa, invasurus hostis (`The fear was increased by the fact that the enemy was aware of the rebellion among the Romans and would make an invasion if the river bank were no longer guarded', Tac. Ann. 1.36.2)

(112) filius legati orator publicae causae satis ostenderet necessitate expressa quae per modestiam non obtinuissent (`The fact that the son of a legate acted as champion of the public cause made clear that they had exacted with force that which they had not been able to obtain with modest behaviour', Tac. Ann. 1.19.5)

7.4.8 Survey of the restrictions and criteria relevant to complex sentences

In this section I review a number of important restrictions treated in this chapter:

(i) Addibility of Disjuncts that limit the `truth value' of a sentence to certain sentence types (fortasse etc.: excluded with imperative modality (p. 101; p. 129)).

(ii) Factivity: the use of the dominant participle construction in embedded predications is restricted to those main predicates which presuppose that the event has taken place, is taking place or will take place. On the noun phrase level the dominant participle competes with the (non-factive) gerundive (p. 79; p. 133).

(iii) Referential identity: often there is referential identity between arguments of the main predication and the embedded predictaion (e.g. with persuadere alicui). In cases of referential identity the argument concerned may be omitted in the embedded predication. (In transformational-generative grammar this is called `Equi-NP-deletion') (p. 125 f.).

(iv) Tense: in embedded predications with verbs meaning `to order', `to wish', etc. the state of affairs referred to by the embedded predication must be posterior to the moment referred to by the main predication.

-- 135 --

(v) Controllability: embedded predications with verbs meaning `to order' must be controllable; this becomes clear e.g. in the restriction on the tense of the embedded predication mentioned in (iv) and in the impossibility of referential identity between the Addressee of the main predication and the Patient of the embedded predication.

Previous SubSect

Next SubSect

Pinkster, Harm (1942-) [1990], Latin Syntax and Semantics [info], xii, 320 p.: ill.; 24 cm. [word count] [Pinkster].
Powered by PhiloLogic