Complementary Infs. vs Infs. in Indirect Discourse

[Rolleston]

Discriminating between complementary infinitives and those
that are found in indirect discourse appears to be important:
the case of predicate nouns or adjectives may be affected.

Two examples that I hope will illustrate the difference:

vir bonus esse didicit.
he learnt to be a good man

se bonum virum esse didicit
he learnt that he was a good man

Any comments on the correctness of the
Latin and the accompanying translations?

Thanks,

R.

[Rolleston]

Let me put my question another way. Does anyone have
a bulletproof definition of "prolative infinitive" or, if you like,
"complementary infinitive". The definition must not rely on
vague declarations about meaning. In other words, I want
a definition that I can use to decide whether any particular
infinitive is "prolative".

You may wish to look at this message: http://tinyurl.com/3d4z7

N&H's definition is terribly flawed.

Thanks,

R.

[Johannes Patruus]

Post by Rolleston
Let me put my question another way. Does anyone have
a bulletproof definition of "prolative infinitive" or, if you like,
"complementary infinitive". The definition must not rely on
vague declarations about meaning. In other words, I want
a definition that I can use to decide whether any particular
infinitive is "prolative".
You may wish to look at this message: http://tinyurl.com/3d4z7
N&H's definition is terribly flawed.

What, are you not satisfied with the explanation in BA Intro 34 (p.6)
previously quoted (http://tinyurl.com/yukm4)??!

The latter is elaborated at length in BA 42.

I know you were once contemplating getting your own copy of BA, and I urge
you to do so, as much for your own benefit as to save me typing. There are
several second-hand copies available as well as new. And while you're at
it, you might as well get G&L too. Nothing else will satisfy your
searching questions!

Johannes

[Rolleston]

Post by Johannes Patruus

Post by Rolleston
N&H's definition is terribly flawed.

What, are you not satisfied with the explanation in BA Intro 34 (p.6)
previously quoted (http://tinyurl.com/yukm4)??!

Not particularly. The idea that prolative infinitives
are the objects of the verbs they are associated
with is questionable. A&G appear to view things
differently:

[A&G, Sec. 456, Note]

But some infinitives usually regarded as objects
can hardly be distinguished from this construction

where "this construction" refers to the construction of
the complementary infinitive. Schoof's paper may
also cast doubt on the idea that prolative infinitives
are the objects of verbs, but I'm still mulling it over.

There are other problems not addressed by the BA
quote. One has to account for the differences between
these:

(a) Volo haec dicere
(b) Volo me haec dicere
(c) Volo te haec dicere

Only in (a) is "dicere" a prolative infinitive:

[A&G, Sec. 456]

Verbs which imply another action of the same
subject to complete their meaning take the
Infinitive without a subject accusative.
:

The peculiarity of the Complementary Infinitive
construction is that no Subject Accusative is in
general admissible or conceivable.

I'm not yet convinced that "dicere" in (a) is in a
syntactic category of its own.

Post by Johannes Patruus
I know you were once contemplating getting your own copy of BA, and I urge
you to do so, as much for your own benefit as to save me typing. There are
several second-hand copies available as well as new. And while you're at
it, you might as well get G&L too. Nothing else will satisfy your
searching questions!

Remove "else"?

Cheers,

R.

[Johannes Patruus]

Post by Rolleston

Post by Johannes Patruus

Post by Rolleston
N&H's definition is terribly flawed.

What, are you not satisfied with the explanation in BA Intro 34 (p.6)
previously quoted (http://tinyurl.com/yukm4)??!

Not particularly. The idea that prolative infinitives
are the objects of the verbs they are associated
with is questionable. A&G appear to view things
[A&G, Sec. 456, Note]
But some infinitives usually regarded as objects
can hardly be distinguished from this construction
where "this construction" refers to the construction of
the complementary infinitive. Schoof's paper may
also cast doubt on the idea that prolative infinitives
are the objects of verbs, but I'm still mulling it over.
There are other problems not addressed by the BA
quote. One has to account for the differences between
(a) Volo haec dicere
(b) Volo me haec dicere
(c) Volo te haec dicere
[A&G, Sec. 456]
Verbs which imply another action of the same
subject to complete their meaning take the
Infinitive without a subject accusative.
The peculiarity of the Complementary Infinitive
construction is that no Subject Accusative is in
general admissible or conceivable.
I'm not yet convinced that "dicere" in (a) is in a
syntactic category of its own.

The object of "volo" in (a) is the verbal noun (sc. infinitive) "dicere",
and in (b)/(c) it is the noun-clause "me/te haec dicere".

Quid plura?

Post by Rolleston

Post by Johannes Patruus
I know you were once contemplating getting your own copy of BA, and I urge
you to do so, as much for your own benefit as to save me typing. There are
several second-hand copies available as well as new. And while you're at
it, you might as well get G&L too. Nothing else will satisfy your
searching questions!

Remove "else"?

[Sobs quietly to self ...]

Johannes

[Rolleston]

Post by Johannes Patruus
The object of "volo" in (a) is the verbal noun (sc. infinitive) "dicere",
and in (b)/(c) it is the noun-clause "me/te haec dicere".

Consider "soleo haec dicere".

Is "dicere", the prolative infinitive, the object of "soleo"?

"soleo" is, apparently, intransitive.

R.

[Johannes Patruus]

Post by Rolleston

Post by Johannes Patruus
The object of "volo" in (a) is the verbal noun (sc. infinitive) "dicere",
and in (b)/(c) it is the noun-clause "me/te haec dicere".

Consider "soleo haec dicere".
Is "dicere", the prolative infinitive, the object of "soleo"?
"soleo" is, apparently, intransitive.

It is, according to BA 42 which begins [Damn, you've got me typing it!] -

****************************************************************

There is in Latin, as in English, a large number of verbs which generally
have as their object the infinitive of another verb. (See Intr.34)
Such are verbs of -
(a) Possibility (or the reverse). Possum, nequeo.
(b) Duty habit. Debeo; soleo, assuesco, consuevi
(c) [etc. to (f)]

*****************************************************************

However the above wording is that of Sir James Mountford, prior to whose
1938 revision the section began:

*****************************************************************

A large number of verbs are used in Latin in close combination with an
infinitive mood without any intervening accusative. They are, in fact, a
kind of auxiliary verb, as they cannot as a rule stand by themselves, or
make full sense without the infinitive with which they are joined; they
are called modal because they give, as it were, a fresh mood (modus) to
the other verb. Compare the English "I can do," must do," "ought to do,"
"wish to do," where 'do' and 'to do' are both in the infinitive mood.

*****************************************************************

I have nothing further to contribute to this line of enquiry.

Johannes (textbook-quoter by appointment)

[Rolleston]

Post by Johannes Patruus

Post by Rolleston
Consider "soleo haec dicere".
Is "dicere", the prolative infinitive, the object of "soleo"?
"soleo" is, apparently, intransitive.

It is, according to BA 42 which begins [Damn, you've got me typing it!] -

It is intransitive, or it is the object of "soleo"?
I assume you mean the latter.

It gets an "n." in L&S, as does "possum".

Now, these verbs may be transitive in a special sense.
That is, they may take objects of a certain restricted sort.

Doubtful, at the very least.

Post by Johannes Patruus
A large number of verbs are used in Latin in close combination with an
infinitive mood without any intervening accusative. They are, in fact, a
kind of auxiliary verb, as they cannot as a rule stand by themselves, or
make full sense without the infinitive with which they are joined; they
are called modal because they give, as it were, a fresh mood (modus) to
the other verb. Compare the English "I can do," must do," "ought to do,"
"wish to do," where 'do' and 'to do' are both in the infinitive mood.

"A fresh mood"? Oh, the incomparable precision!

"they cannot as a rule stand by themselves"?

Bollocks. I suspect that most of the verbs on N&H's list
can be used without a complementary infinitive and make
"full sense" when so used (but let's not get tangled up in
woolly assertions about meaning).

Thank you or typing in the relevant sections of BA. They
are certainly worth considering, even if I'm not convinced
by them at this point.

Cheers,

R.