Search Results

This chapter begins with the terminology and historical development of the infinitive forms,from a comparative point of view. The chapter then surveys first (Lecture 43) the main uses of the infinitive in constructions, and then (Lecture 44) absolute uses of the infinitive, especially the infinitive for imperative and the historic infinitive. Lecture 45 is devoted to the secondary use of the infinitive as a noun (the substantival infinitive), and to the decline of the infinitive in Greek. In Lecture 46, the chapter discusses the uses of the Latin supine forms (in -tum and -tu) at some length, but passes over the gerund and gerundive on the grounds that the origin of the forms is obscure. Finally, after some general remarks on the participle in all three languages, the chapter concentrates especially on Latin participial formations, future, perfect (passive), and present, including their use as adjectives and nouns. The chapter concludes with brief discussion of the absolute use of participles in Greek and Latin.

This chapter begins with the terminology and historical development of the infinitive forms, from a comparative point of view. The chapter then surveys first (Lecture 43) the main uses of the infinitive in constructions,and then (Lecture 44) absolute uses of the infinitive, especially the infinitive for imperative and the historic infinitive. Lecture 45 is devoted to the secondary use of the infinitive as a noun (the substantival infinitive), and to the decline of the infinitive in Greek. In Lecture 46, the chapter discusses the uses of the Latin supine forms (in -tum and -tu) at some length, but passes over the gerund and gerundive on the grounds that the origin of the forms is obscure. Finally, after some general remarks on the participle in all three languages, the chapter concentrates especially on Latin participial formations, future, perfect (passive), and present, including their use as adjectives and nouns. The chapter concludes with brief discussion of the absolute use of participles in Greek and Latin.

This chapter begins with the terminology and historical development of the infinitive forms, from a comparative point of view. The chapter then surveys first (Lecture 43) the main uses of the infinitive in constructions, and then (Lecture 44) absolute uses of the infinitive,especially the infinitive for imperative and the historic infinitive. Lecture 45 is devoted to the secondary use of the infinitive as a noun (the substantival infinitive), and to the decline of the infinitive in Greek. In Lecture 46, the chapter discusses the uses of the Latin supine forms (in -tum and -tu) at some length, but passes over the gerund and gerundive on the grounds that the origin of the forms is obscure. Finally, after some general remarks on the participle in all three languages, the chapter concentrates especially on Latin participial formations, future, perfect (passive), and present, including their use as adjectives and nouns. The chapter concludes with brief discussion of the absolute use of participles in Greek and Latin.

This chapter begins with the terminology and historical development of the infinitive forms, from a comparative point of view. The chapter then surveys first (Lecture 43) the main uses of the infinitive in constructions, and then (Lecture 44) absolute uses of the infinitive, especially the infinitive for imperative and the historic infinitive. Lecture 45 is devoted to the secondary use of the infinitive as a noun (the substantival infinitive),and to the decline of the infinitive in Greek. In Lecture 46, the chapter discusses the uses of the Latin supine forms (in -tum and -tu) at some length, but passes over the gerund and gerundive on the grounds that the origin of the forms is obscure. Finally, after some general remarks on the participle in all three languages, the chapter concentrates especially on Latin participial formations, future, perfect (passive), and present, including their use as adjectives and nouns. The chapter concludes with brief discussion of the absolute use of participles in Greek and Latin.

This chapter begins with the terminology and historical development of the infinitive forms, from a comparative point of view. The chapter then surveys first (Lecture 43) the main uses of the infinitive in constructions, and then (Lecture 44) absolute uses of the infinitive, especially the infinitive for imperative and the historic infinitive. Lecture 45 is devoted to the secondary use of the infinitive as a noun (the substantival infinitive), and to the decline of the infinitive in Greek. In Lecture 46,the chapter discusses the uses of the Latin supine forms (in -tum and -tu) at some length, but passes over the gerund and gerundive on the grounds that the origin of the forms is obscure. Finally, after some general remarks on the participle in all three languages, the chapter concentrates especially on Latin participial formations, future, perfect (passive), and present, including their use as adjectives and nouns. The chapter concludes with brief discussion of the absolute use of participles in Greek and Latin.

This chapter begins with the terminology and historical development of the infinitive forms, from a comparative point of view. The chapter then surveys first (Lecture 43) the main uses of the infinitive in constructions, and then (Lecture 44) absolute uses of the infinitive, especially the infinitive for imperative and the historic infinitive. Lecture 45 is devoted to the secondary use of the infinitive as a noun (the substantival infinitive), and to the decline of the infinitive in Greek. In Lecture 46, the chapter discusses the uses of the Latin supine forms (in -tum and -tu) at some length,but passes over the gerund and gerundive on the grounds that the origin of the forms is obscure. Finally, after some general remarks on the participle in all three languages, the chapter concentrates especially on Latin participial formations, future, perfect (passive), and present, including their use as adjectives and nouns. The chapter concludes with brief discussion of the absolute use of participles in Greek and Latin.

This chapter is concerned with the non‐finite complementation of hear‐class verbs in structures such as we saw her cross the road. These structures present a number of theoretical challenges which are addressed here in terms of the WG network. The differences between infinitival and participial non‐finite clauses, the interaction between the different senses of see and the infinitival clauses, and the ontological nature of the percept are all discussed; a solution to the ungrammaticality of *he was seen cross the road is also offered. There is also an account of the widely discussed properties of veridicality and exportability displayed by these structures.

This chapter presents what is dubbed the ‘AUX-headed’ pattern of inflection. This is the one that is statistically the most common and characteristic of the better-known languages of the world (as well as a large number of lesser-known languages). In the AUX-headed pattern, the auxiliary verb is the inflectional head of the construction, indexing all obligatory verbal inflectional categories, with the corresponding lexical verb appearing in a dependent, nominalized, infinitive, or unmarked form. Such non-finite forms are given a range of designations, depending in part on such factors as other functions of the sam element within the grammatical system of the language concerned, the form and function of other elements with which it may contrast, or the metalanguage of analysis appropriate to various grammatical traditions. Terms such as infinitive, nominalizer, gerund, participle, etc., are common and often motivated language-specifically. The boundaries between various types of category of ‘non-finite’ forms of lexical verbs in AVCs may or may not be rigidly definable structurally in language specific terms, and are decidedly not so when viewed on a macro-comparative scale. Further, some languages allow variation between different forms of the lexical verb with the same auxiliary in the same function, while others show paradigms or semi-paradigms with more than one form obligatory in different forms (sometimes in a suppletively construed paradigm).

This chapter presents an overview of issues of the to-infinitive discussed in the literature. It is usually assumed that the infinitive is a noun in Old English, and that, hence, the to-infinitive is a prepositional phrase; this entails that there has been a category change, which is usually argued to have taken place in Middle English. The author argues that the category change must predate Old English, as the to-infinitive is already completely verbal at that stage, which means that the syntactic innovations in Middle English cannot be due to a category change. Another traditional assumption that is discussed and rejected is the view that the to-infinitive gained ground at the expense of the infinitive without to, the so-called ‘bare infinitive’.

This chapter describes the earliest syntactic function of the to-infinitive: that of purpose adjunct, as in Present-day English, I left early to catch the train. Data from Gothic and Old English show that this function could be encoded by three expressions: the du- or to-infinitive, the du- or to-prepositional phrase, and the subjunctive clause introduced by ei in Gothic and by þæt in Old English. It has been claimed in the literature that the bare infinitive could also express purpose in Old English, but a closer look at the data shows that these infinitives occur after verbs of motion and rest, and are parallel to the present participles in Present-day English, he came running, he sat thinking. Such bare infinitives do not express purpose by simultaneity.

This chapter argues that to in Old English is semantically occupying the same niche as the subjunctive ending (or, for Present-day English, the modal verb that has taken over the subjunctive function) and should be accommodated in the functional projection that accommodates the subjunctive ending and, later, the modals, say T(ense). This in effect means that there has been no change in the syntactic status of to since it stopped being a preposition in prehistoric times. In early Middle English, split infinitives become possible, a change triggered by the fact that the finite subjunctive was increasingly coming to be expressed by a free form (a modal verb) raising to T overtly, rather than by a bound form (a subjunctive ending), raising to T covertly. The overt movement of to brought it in line with the rest of its paradigm: the modal verbs.

The standard doctrine that basic grammatical classes (parts of speech) are not semantically definable rests on erroneous assumptions about the nature of linguistic meaning. With a proper view of meaning, basic categories—notably noun and verb—have plausible conceptual characterizations at both the prototype level (for typical examples) and the schema level (valid for all instances). The prototypes are based on conceptual archetypes: objects for nouns, and actions for verbs. The schemas are independent of any particular conceptual content, residing instead in basic cognitive abilities immanent in the archetypes: for nouns, grouping and reification; in the case of verbs, the ability to apprend relationships and to track their evolution through time. An expression's grammatical category specifically depends on the nature of its profile (not its overall content). Thus a noun profiles a thing (defined abstractly as any product of grouping and reification), while a verb profiles a process (a relationship tracked through time). Expressions that profile non-processual relationships include adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, infinitives, and participles. Relational expressions can be categorized in different ways, depending on factors like the number and type of focused participants, whether the profiled relation is simplex or complex, and whether it is apprehended holistically or sequentially. These characterizations prove efficacious in describing how relational expressions function as noun modifiers and in clausal organization.

In Plautus and Terence a present infinitive in the accusative and infinitive construction can be posterior in meaning. The future infinitive, which also occurs under these circumstances, is the only possibility in the classical era. The present infinitive with posterior time reference is subject to certain restrictions in the early period. It can only be used if the verb (with its complements) is telic in meaning; it is particularly frequent if the subjects of the superordinate verb and of the infinitive are identical; and it occurs more often than expected if the infinitive is dare ‘to give’.

This chapter treats all aspects of verbal syntax, including some topics bordering on morphology, such as the finite/non-finite distinction, the reflexive verbs, and auxiliaries. The main parts of the chapter have to do with complements and adjuncts, and with word order within the VP, where both OV and VO are found. The latter is argued to be the underlying order in Old Norse. Verbs take all kinds of complements: NPs in all cases except the nominative, PPs, finite and non-finite clauses, and small clauses (‘accusative with infinitive’).

This chapter examines the change that contributes to the extension of inflected infinitives to the complement of Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) verbs from the sixteenth century on. The chapter is organized in six sections. Section 14.2 draws some diachronic parallels between ECM verbs and control/raising verbs. Section 14.3 shows that causative and perception verbs entered both the faire-infinitive construction and the ECM construction in Old Portuguese. This is a relevant matter because it was the existence of the ECM structure that made room for the emergence of the inflected infinitive in the clausal complements of ECM verbs. Section 14.4 identifies a type of independent inflected infinitival clause, in Old Portuguese, which played a central role in the change. Section 14.5 spells out a proposal to explain how the inflected infinitive came to be allowed in the clausal complements of ECM verbs. It discusses how the change also affected raising and control verbs. Section 14.6 concludes the chapter.

That Obligatory Control (OC) is fundamentally a dual phenomenon is an old theme in generative grammar, which appears in different guises: VP vs. NP complements, PRO vs. deleted reflexive, predication vs. coindexing, functional vs. anaphoric control, restructuring vs. non-restructuring, property-denoting vs. propositional complements, etc. Most of these divisions are regretfully based on the availability of an English-specific construction, the for-infinitive. This study offers a new take on this old theme. The duality of OC we pursue is firmly grounded in the semantic type of the matrix predicate: attitude vs. nonattitude predicates. We will also see that it has syntactic consequences for the categorial size of the clausal complement. Our starting point will be the empirical landscape of clausal complementation described in Landau’s Agree model.

It is argued that intellectualism is incompatible with the facts about complementation in a variety of languages. It is also argued that one of the main empirical bases for anti-intellectualism (the alleged existence of ability-denoting ‘how to’ clauses) does not survive close scrutiny. At the same time, the chapter demonstrates the need to have abilities in the ontology of abstract entities that serve as arguments of attitude predicates; exemplifies the existence of epistemically oriented attitude predicates that select for both facts and abilities; sketches an ontology formalized in type theory with records for events, propositions, questions, outcomes, and abilities; indicates how a single verb can select for factive, resolutive, and ability-denoting infinitives without assuming lexical ambiguity; and shows how a semantic account of resolutive complementation (interrogatives embedded by predicates such as know, learn, and understand) extends to ‘how to’ clauses without introducing any additional mechanisms.

This chapter begins by examining the connections between remnant movement, scrambling, and restructuring. It introduces a number of phenomena and concepts essential for the description of the syntactic structure of West Germanic as well as for the understanding of the discussion of restructuring infinitives. It discusses the essential properties of and the relevant restrictions on remnant movement. It also talks about the interaction between remnant movement and head movement. It argues that remnant categories created by head movement cannot undergo further movement and show how this restriction can be derived from Attract Closest as well. It demonstrates that the original account by Den Besten and Webelhuth is flawed. It argues that remnant VPs in German are created by licensing movement of VP-internal material into dedicated licensing positions in the lower middle field. It outlines the core ideas and concepts that were adopted and indicates the account of individual phenomena.