Pinkster, Harm (1942-) [1990], Latin Syntax and Semantics [info], xii, 320 p.: ill.; 24 cm. [word count] [Pinkster].
Previous Sub2Sect

Next Sub2Sect

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 --

Previous Sub2Sect

Next Sub2Sect

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