1. A classification of Ancient Greek three-place predicates and the structure of datives and genitives
Elena Anagnostopoulou, Dionysios Mertyris and Christina Sevdali
On the place of case in Grammar, PlaCiG
Rethymnon 18 – 20 October 2018

2. Introduction Project question:
The nature of case morphology and case variation and its relationship to whatever licenses DPs (traditionally called Case);
The general approach is to tackle this question through an investigation of the evolution of the case system in the history of Greek and its varieties;
Empirical domain:
The evolution of dative and genitive in the history of Greek, from Ancient to Modern Greek.

3. Roadmap of the talk
The functions of Ancient Greek (AG) datives and genitives;
A focus on three-place predicates;
A novel classification of AG three-place predicates;
Dat-Nom and Gen-Nom alternations: environments and some puzzles;
First diachronic remarks;
Conclusions – further questions

4. Functions of AG datives (Jannaris 1897)
Adverbial uses
Argumental uses
“Dative proper” in Jannaris
Instrumental
DO in monotransitives
IO in ditransitives
Locative
“High applicatives”:
Benefactives/malefactives
Ethical datives
Comitative
Dative expressing the agent (in passives)
Dative expressing the possessor (with ‘be’)

5. Roles of argumental datives in three-place predicates and constructions with two objects
Goal
Addressee (with verbs of communication)
Arguments corresponding to ‘with’ PPs (comitatives and instruments)
Affected patients
Affected possessors
Experiencers

6. Functions of AG genitives (Jannaris 1897, Mertyris 2014)
Genitive inside a DP or AP
Adverbial uses
Argumental uses
Subjective / Objective
Genitive of time
DO in monotransitives
Possessive
Qualitative (expressing the extent)
IO/DO in ditransitives
Genitive of comparison
Genitive with ‘be’

7. Roles of argumental genitives
Partitive
Ablative
Cause
Affected patient
Possessor
Content/ Locatum
Argumental genitive bears a prototypically ‘source’ role
(ablative and by extension also partitive and cause)

8. Focus of the project so far
Datives and genitives with three-place predicates;
Conti (1998) has focused on datives and genitives with monotransitives.
The curious property of datives and genitives in AG is that they enter dat/gen-nom alternations (passivisation, middles, possessor raising) but not with all verbs.
In order to understand datives and genitives we have been trying to create a classification of AG three-place predicates taking into account modern classifications (e.g. Gropen et al 1989, Levin 1993, Pylkkänen 2002, Cuervo 2003);
This has led to a re-classification of traditional verb classes;
We have been trying to monitor the productivity and the restrictions of typologically unusual dative/genitive-nominative alternations in AG ditransitives.

9. Methodology Data from 48 authors from Homer to the 5th c. AD;
‘Verb-sensitive’ search on Thesaurus Linguae Grecae and Papyri;
Re-classification done through the comparison between the behaviour of predicates and their arguments in AG and the behaviour of their translation equivalents in English according to Levin’s classification;
Passivisability (or more generally diatheses alternations) of the arguments is also taken into account when deciding how to split subclasses.

10. AG three-place predicates
Traditional grammars /philological tradition makes a classification based on the case morphology of the two objects (Jannaris 1897, Smyth 1920, Goodwin 1894).
Accusative – Accusative
Dative – Accusative
Genitive – Accusative
Dative – Genitive

11. AG three-place predicates
A closer investigation suggests that a classification on the basis of case arrays is oversimplified and potentially misleading.
Moreover, it is claimed that AG did not have DP/PP alternations in ditransitives (dative alternations).
However we do observe the restricted use of PPs instead of dative and or genitive DPs in very few classes.

12. Highlights Dat-Gen ‘class’ does NOT exist
Acc-Acc is NOT one (uniform) class
Acc-Gen is NOT one (uniform) class
Acc-Dat is NOT one (uniform) class

13. Dat-Gen ‘class’
Traditionally this ‘class’ is said to involve verbs of:
Taking part, transmission (metekho:/koino:neo: ‘take part in’, metadido:mi ‘transmit’);
Concession (parakho:reo: ‘concede’, etc);
The verb phthoneo: ‘envy’.
All verbs from this class can be subsumed under other classes that involve either accusative-genitive/partitive alternation or dative/genitive syncretism.
We will come back to these cases.

14. Acc-Acc ‘class’ NOT one class :
Ero:tao: ‘Ask’: transfer of message /communicated message
Didasko: ‘teach’, transfer of message
Keleuo: ‘command’
Aiteo: ‘ask for’
Apaiteo: ‘demand back’
Ze:teo: ‘ask for/seek’  maybe ‘ferret’ class from Levin
Aphaireo: ‘remove’  (remove verbs)
(also has ACC-GEN and the ACC-DAT combination with a malefactive DAT)

15. Acc-Acc ‘class’
In some of these verbs the IO is a goal (ero:tao:, didasko: and keleuo: )
 Accusative-Dative syncretism;
In some of these verbs the IO is a source (aiteo: , apaiteo:, ze:teo:, aphaireo: )
Accusative-Genitive syncretism.
Interesting alternation fact: unlike what grammars report, e.g. Smyth (1920: 396), who states that “in double accusative constructions, the object that denotes the person is the one that turns into nominative in passives”
This is not the case, with verbs erotao, didasko and keleuo where the inanimate theme can also become nominative in passives iff the goal is expressed in dative or if the goal is left unexpressed.

16. Acc-Acc ‘class’ Theme passivisation without a goal
Ou gar pou katanoo: to nun ero:to:menon
Not then that understand.1sg the.acc now asked.acc
‘I do not understand what has been asked’ (Plato, Phil. Sophista 233 a 2)
2. Theme passivisation with a dative IO
Edidachthe: gar ekeino:i therapeuein to:i pharmako:i te:n apistian
Taught.pass.3sg then him.dat to cure the medicine.dat the doubt.acc
‘It has been taught to him to cure doubt through a medicine’ (Isidorus Pel. Epistulae de interpretatione divinae scripturae Β.1 ep.354 l.12)

17. Acc-Gen ‘class’ NOT one class Involves 5 further sub-classes:
Type A: ‘real’ ditransitives of the ‘from’ type where the genitive expresses the source akouo: ‘listen’, manthano: ‘learn’, punthanomai ‘be informed’ and also apostereo: ‘deprive’ etc.
Type B: ‘cut’ verbs where the genitive is the possessor temno, apotemno:, kopto:, apokopto: ‘cut/cut off, ’ekkopto: pe:roo: ‘maim’
Type C: ‘judicial’ verbs prefixed with kata- kate:goreo: ‘accuse’ where the genitive is linked to the genitive-assigning preposition/prefix
Type D: where genitive is the locatum ple:ro: ‘fill’, kenoo: ‘empty’, ko:luo: ‘prevent’ etc.
Type E: krino, dio:ko:, epaineo:, eudaimonizo:, thaumazo:, makarizo:, ze:loo: and phthoneo: with animate object in accusative with genitive expressing the cause
Extensive syncretism of different prepositional meanings all expressed through the genitive.

18. Acc-Gen Type A ‘deprive someone of something’
‘Real ditransitive of the ‘from’-type’: GEN/IO & ACC/DO, akin to Levin’s class of verbs of possessional deprivation, like ‘deprive’
Accusative = DO (theme)
Genitive = IO /low source
Not entering the double object alternation in Modern Greek
Apostero: te:n arche:n-ACC autou-GEN
‘Deprive of the power him’ ’  
Here genitive = animate and marks ‘from’
In the same type: akouo: ‘hear’, manthano ‘learn’ kai lambano ‘receive’
Akouo tauta-ACC tes: Kalupsous-GEN
‘Hear these from Kalypso’

19. Acc-Gen Type B ‘cut off something from someone’
temno:, apotemno:, kopto:, apokopto:, ekkopto:, pe:roo: ‘maim’ (Acc-DO & Gen-IO)
Classic possessor raising (external or internal?) construction
1. apokopsantes autou tas kheiras (Herodotus, Hist. 6,91:12)
cut.prtcp 3sg.gen the hands.acc
’Cut the hands off him/cut off his hands’
When expressing inalinable possession, involving a body part, in mediopassive morphology: then the Gen IO can alternate with Nom (see also passivisation section).
This is the ONLY alternating genitive

20. Acc-Gen Type C ‘accuse someone of something’
Judicial verbs with ‘kata’ prefix with GEN animate affected argument
 Animate genitive
1. Kate:goreo: ton phonon tinos
‘Accuse of/for murder someone-gen ’
NB: with a synonym without a prefix, like, dikazo ‘trial’ this IO can surface in dative
2. Dikazo tini ti
‘ Trial someone-dat for something-acc’
In both of these environments/verbs the animate argument is a affected goal, and we see clearly that the presence/absence of the prefix and its case assigning properties controls the morphological realization of this goal.
Genitive -assigning Prefix  genitive goal
NO prefix  standard/ ‘default’ goal realization = dative

21. Acc-Gen Type D. ‘fill something with something else’
Acc-Gen Type D ‘fill something with something else’ ‘free someone from something’
ACC/DO & GEN/PP: (subclass of spray load verbs)
Acc = location
Genitive = content / locatum
English with and from = AG genitive
1. Emple:sete te:n thalassan trie:ro:n
Fill.2pl the sea.acc ships.gen
‘You will fill up the sea with ships’ (Demosthenes, De Chersoneso 74)
2. Ko:luo: tous polemious-ACC te:s orme:s-GEN
‘Hinder the enemies from the attack’
3. Apoluo humas-ACC te:s aitias-GEN
‘Free you from the accusation’

22. Acc-Gen Type D Genitive = ‘of’ / ‘from’ alternation
Genitive = ‘of’ / ‘from’ alternation
These genitives also alternate with apo and ek ‘from’ PPs
1. hai to:n ekei kako:n apoluousin he:mas
 which free us from evils in that other world (Plato, Respublica 2.365a)
2. apoluo:n […] te:n psukhe:n apo te:s tou so:matos koino:nias
separating the soul from communion with the body. (Plato, Phaedo 65a)

23. Acc-Gen Type E ‘accuse someone of something’
Three-place predicate with animate object in Acc with genitive expressing the cause
Acc IO (animate) – Gen Cause ( almost the opposite of Type C above)
krino: ‘accuse’ , dio:ko: ‘prosecute’ , epaineo: ‘praise’ , eudaimonizo:, makarizo: ‘deep someone happy/congratulate’ , thaumazo: ‘admire’, ze:loo: ‘be jealous of’.
[Cf. also phthoneo: ‘be jealous of’ that appears also as a monotransitive with a dative object and an optional genitive of cause.
(This genitive can also be a PP)

24. Acc-Gen summary/highlights
Only one class allows gen-nom alternation: Type B ‘cut off’ class (possessor raising);
Genitive is source, possessor, locatum or cause;
Genitive syncretizes the meanings expressed by from, of, with;
Prefix plays a case-assigning role: ‘ Type C ‘judicial class’;
There is genitive – dative syncretism with affected goals (accuse + gen / trial + dat) .

25. Acc-Dat ‘class’ NOT one class Involves 4 classes:
Type A: ‘classic goal verbs’ corresponding to alternating and non-alternating verbs in English
Type B: Advise verbs and verbs expressing command
Type C: ’Entrust verbs’
Type D: Levin’s ‘amalgamate verbs’

26. Acc-Dat Type A ‘give someone something’
DAT/IO & ACC/DO: ‘classic goal verbs’ e.g. Give, bring, send, tell
1. dido:mi tini ti
give someone-dat something-acc
2. pempo: tini ti
send someone-dat something-acc

27. Acc-Dat Type A Superclass: verbs of change of possession including:
Give verbs: dido:mi, antapodido:mi, apodido:mi, paradido:mi, do:reo:/do:roumai ‘give/donate/gift’, perne:mi ‘sell’, po:leo: ‘sell’
[ PLUS: misthoo: ‘let’, daneizo: ‘lend’, diakikhre:mi ‘lend’, tino: ‘repay’, apotino:, ektino:, ple:roo: (late Hellenistic) all allow the dative to alternate in the middle voice ]  
(We still need to study some ‘give’ examples with possible goal passivization)
[metadido:mi ‘give a part / give a share ]– where the theme is actually genitive, so it looks as if it is in the gen-dat class but this is simply the acc-gen partitive alternation that is generalized in any verb taking accusative.]
Future having verbs: parekho:, opheilo: ‘owe’
Contribute verbs (subclass of future having verbs): eisphero: ‘bring in’, thuo: ‘sacrifice’, spendo:, aphieroo:, anatithe:mi ‘attribute/dedicate’, aponemo:, prosnemo:, diadido:mi.

28. Acc-Dat Type A
Verbs of communication of propositions: ‘Say’ verbs: apokalupto:, de:loo:,‘reveal’, lego: ‘say/tell’, angello: ‘announce’, apangello ‘report’, koinoo: ‘notify’
[ Only non-alternating subclass in English]
Verbs of transfer of message: ‘show’: hupagoreuo: ‘dictate’ , se:maino: ‘indicate’, deiknumi ‘show’, apodeiknumi ‘point out’ , epideiknumi ‘display’, katadeiknumi ‘make known’
Send verbs: pempo:, stello: ‘send’ , apostello: ‘dispatch’, ephie:mi ‘send/throw’
Bring and take verbs: phero: ‘bring’, [ PLUS komizo: ‘carry’, prosago: ‘bring’ , prosfero: ‘bring’ where the dative alternates with nominative]

29. Acc-Dat class Type B ‘command/advise someone to do something’
Verbs of communication (in particular advise-verbs and verbs expressing Command/ force)
IO passivizing verbs
All these verbs look like they involve some kind of saying (but note that lego: is NOT part of the passivizing list of verbs
These verbs look as if they are affecting the addressee in some ways): epiballo:“lay on” (or put on / force) , paraineo:“advise”, sumbouleuo:“counsel”, martureo:“bear witness” “testify” epistello:“enjoin” “give orders in written form”, epitasso:“order”, tasso:, prostasso:, diatasso:, parangello:, me:nuo:, prome:nuo:
NB: parallel use of DAT/ ACC with a lot of verb classes (e.g. Command verbs: epitasso:, tasso:, prostasso:, already govern the accusative in ClG either in rare occasions or in some of their other meanings)
chrao: ‘proclaim’ (from the ‘middles’ section but the datives alternates)

30. Acc-Dat Type C ‘gift someone with something’
Entrust verbs – where the dative IO passivises
charizo: ‘gratify’ , kle:rodoteo: ‘bequeath’
parenguao: ‘hand over/entrust’ , enkheirizo: ‘entrust’, epitrepo: ‘entrust’
They look like give/future having verbs BUT IO alternates with all of them that is why we classify them separately.
[Cf. parakho:reo: ‘give/offer’ ] that looks as if it has a gen-dat frame and coexists also with a dat-acc frame and both objects can alternate.]

31. Acc-Dat Type D. ‘liken someone with something’
Acc-Dat Type D ‘liken someone with something’ ‘mix something with something else’
‘Amalgamate verbs’ (Levin) & Comparison: ACC object + ‘with’ DAT
Comparison verbs: apeikazo:, eikazo:, isoo:, eksisoo: homoioo:
Apeikazein eauton-acc to:i kheiro:ni-dat
‘to liken himself to the worst’
Mixing verbs: meignumi, kerannumi, sunkrouo:, sunallasso:
Levin: verbs of combining and attaching
meignumi ti tini
‘mix something-acc with something else-dat’

32. Acc – Dat summary/highlights
Alternating (passive/middle) datives exist in a lot of these classes:
In type A subclass with bring/take verbs but also some give verbs;
In most of type B (command/advise)
In all of type C entrust verbs (Should this be a different class to Type A or should they be subsumed?)
Dative is a prototypical goal;
Dative is a prototypical addressee of communication;
Dative as ‘with’ with amalgamate verbs.

33. Three-place predicates summary
There are three superclasses based on case morphology only (not four):
ACC – ACC
ACC – DAT
ACC – GEN
There are many subclasses some of which should not be thought of as ditransitives;
There is a broader range of uses with the genitive than with the dative; dative is a more uniform case;
We see many more alternating datives than genitives.
The only real alternating genitives are the possessor constructions.

34. DAT/GEN-NOM alternations
Three environements: (1) passivisation proper
prosphero: “offer” DAT-ACC
Kai eis to stoma prosferetai te:n trophe:n(ACC)
‘And he is offered the food in the mouth; (Aristotle, Historia animalum 492b)
Active structure: prospherei te:n trophe:n (ACC) auto:i (DAT)
enkheirizo “entrust” DAT-ACC
te:n nome:n (ACC) to:n kreo:n enkheiristheis
‘He is entrusted with the distribution of meat’ (Lucian, Prometheus 3, A.D. 2)
active structure: enkheirisas te:n nome:n (ACC) to:n kreo:n auto:i

35. DAT/GEN-NOM alternations
Middle morphology in AG = same as passive except in the future and aorist where there are different forms.
Some of the verbs that exhibit productive use in the middle have an active structure with two arguments, one of which is a dative that can be absorbed in the ‘middle’ structure.
Uses of the Middle in AG (Allan 2002): (among others)
Direct reflexive middle: kopto: ‘beat’ - koptomai ‘beat myself’
Indirect reflexive middle: Louo: ‘Wash’ – Louomai ‘wash myself’
Perspective shifting middle: Daneizo: ‘lend’ – Daneizomai ‘borrow’

36. DAT/GEN-NOM alternations
(2) Reflexives (middles) (absorption of a dative – daneizo: - daneizomai etc.)
daneizo: “lend” DAT-ACC → daneizomai “borrow”
Erato:n (NOM) […] edaneisato para tou emou pappou talanta duo (ACC)
Eraton borrowed from my grandfather two talents (Lysias, On the property of Eraton 2 (4 B.C.)
active structure: ho emos pappos (NOM) edaneisen Erato:ni (DAT) talanta duo (ACC)
Emisthouto par’ouk ekdidontos te:n aule:n (ACC)
‘and tried to rent the courtyard, but the smith did not want to lease it.’
(Herodotus, Historiae
Active structure: misthoo: te:n aule:n (acc) auto:i (dat)

37. DAT/GEN-NOM alternations
Rijksbaron (2002: 148; his examples 429 and 430) shows morphologically dative benefactive arguments
1. (…) deipn-a basil-ei paraskeuaz-ein
meals-acc king-dat prepare-act-inf
‘(to command) the preparation of meals for the king’ (Herodotus, Historia 7: 32)
2. Ouk ara turannid-a chr-e: paraskeuaz-esthai outh’
Not then despotic power-acc must-3 sg to use-mid-inf not
heaut-o:i oute te:i pol-ei
yourself-dat not the city-dat
‘Then you don’t need to use despotic power neither for yourself nor for the city’ (Plato, Alcibiades: I 135b)
(1) is a straightforward case where the dative benefactive basilei ‘for the king’appears overtly with the active form of a verb. (2) is an illustration of a middle with an overt benefactive dative reflexive for reason of emphasis.

38. DAT/GEN-NOM alternations
(3) Possessor raising / inalienable possession & passivisation constructions apotemno: “cut off” ACC. THEME - GEN.POSSESSIVE hoi alloi strate:goi (NOM) apotme:thentes tas kephalas (ACC) the other generals having had their heads cut off (Xenophon, Anabasis active structure: apotamontes tas kephalas (ACC) to:n allo:n strate:go:n (GEN)

39. Results, questions and directions
Datives are much more uniform than genitives in qualifying as arguments of ditransitives.
With genitives we can draw clear parallels with corresponding prepositions.
One case where the genitive is already a DP = external posessors.
Less genitives alternating than datives – only the possessor cases.

40. P-incorporation
Following AAS (2014) we have proposed that genitives and datives in CG are contained within PPs, overt, as in the prefixed examples discussed here, or covert with non-prefixal verbs;
Prefixal verbs in CG are formed by P(reposition)-incorporation of the prepositions introducing the dative and genitive objects (see judicial class);
Generally speaking, PPs are phases, and, DPs contained within them are inaccessible to operations triggered by higher heads; i.e. opaque to operations like Agree & Move;
However, there are strategies by which such PPs become transparent (Rezac (2008) for different dialects of Basque);
One major strategy leading to the transparency of dative and genitive objects is P incorporation into a higher head, the complex V-Voice.
We propose that P-incorporation in CG makes the relevant PPs transparent, and the dative and genitive objects are allowed to passivize.

41. Genitives vs. Datives
Internal structure of genitives vs. internal structure of datives must explain why these alternations are more common with datives.
A possibility to explore, suggested to us by Mark Baker p.c., is that when datives alternate in Greek, dative is a structural case inside the PP.
[The PP analysis gives us that the dative is sensitive to thematic information. The structural case part gives us the fact that they alternate. ]
Genitives, on the other hand, are still inside a PP but they are NOT structural– apart from the possessor raising constructions.
Related: The unusual fact that genitive is more marked than dative (e.g. as seen in case attraction phenomena).

42. Questions concerning case alternations
What does the alternation of datives/genitives in some of those classes but not others reveal for the structure of these classes? In the structural case hypothesis this would suggest that the verbs that show the alternations assign structural dative inside the PPs. Alternatively, P-incorporation works differently.
We know that prefixes have case-assigning and argument introducing properties in AG that they inherit to verbs under P-incorporation
But prefixed verbs do not correlate 1-to-1 with alternating verbs => non-prefixed verbs alternate as well (in other words, we cannot rely to the overt presence of these prefixes to be arguments for the existence of P-incorporation)
Why is the behavior of datives or genitives with respect to case alternations not uniform within one subclass (e.g. inside the give class)?

43. Diachronic remarks
Morphological dative is lost from the history of Greek.
IO passivisation is also lost.
Lavidas’s 2007 prediction:
“When Accusative replaces dative as the case of IOs, IOs lose their ability to passivise”
(this is supposed to start during the Hellenistic period)
 Implicit causal link between the two.

44. Diachronic remarks
Our preliminary work has revealed that some verbs like: paraino:, diatasso: and me:nuo: (all of the ACC-DAT class) do not behave in that way and retain IO passivisation even after morphological dative is lost.
The key question in the diachrony is still what, if any, is the relationship between loss of morphological dative case and change in the behaviour of IOs vis a vis passivisation.
Also, we should look into the diachronic development of P-incorporation

45. Thank you Ευχαριστούμε