Jerneja Kavčič CDU 811.14'02/'04'367 University of Ljubljana THE GREEK INFINITIVE IN VARIABLE DELIBERATIVE, PRINCIPALLY DEPENDENT QUESTIONS: AN INTERPRETATION IN TERMS OF NATURALNESS THEORY In the present paper I investigate the use of the infinitive in dependent delibera­tive clauses in Greek, a phenomenon occurring in severa! (modem) languages, cf. Slovene Nisem vedel, kaj storiti. 'I didn't know what to do.', English I didn't know what to do., German Was tun? 'What to do?'l. In the first part I present the development of deliberative infinitive clauses in Post-Classical Greek with a special emphasis on the use of this form in two Early Byzantine prose writings (in Pratum Spirituale and in Vita Theodori Syceotae, both belonging to the 6th;7th century AD), where some peculiarities are observed. In the second part an attempt is made to interpret the basic characteristics of the Greek infinitive in dependent deliberative clauses from the perspective of N aturalness Theory. The infinitive in the function of dependent deliberative clauses was absent from Classical Greek, cf. below on Kiihner-Gerth (1904), II, 23. It has been observed, however, that in Post-Classical Greek as well as in Early Byzantine Greek, the infini­tive can be used in such clauses as a substitute for the deliberative subjunctive, cf. Pratum Spirituale 2996 B ...E&/..t~6ti:YJV Otti TtX TExVtX µou, µ~ &.no~civwcrtv, xtXL TL not'l'jcrtX.t oux ~oo:tv. 'I worried that my children would die and I didn't know what to do'. Jannaris (19692), app. VI, § 17c, understands the use of the infinitive in depend­ent deliberative clauses as a sign of the infinitive disappearing from the spoken lan­guage and interprets it as incorrect use of the infinitive, since its proper syntactic functions were no longer clear to some of Greek-speaking authors. Apart from J annaris, the infinitive in dependent deliberative clauses in Greek is referred to in the following sources: -in Mayser (1929), II, 3, 54, who quotes a case from Ptolemaic papyri, from the 3rd century BC. However, in II, 1, 235, he claims that the case is dubious and that an indefinite pronoun is "freilich denkbar" instead of an interrogative one. He does­ n't comment on Jannaris' explanation of the phenomenon, while apparently admitting its occurrence in Post-Classical Greek, cf. loc. cit: "Statt des Konjunk­ 1 cf. BDR, § 368, 6, Radermacher, op. cit., 181. Unfortunately 1 do not possess more specific data. The recent investigation into the use of the infinitive in modem European Janguages (Mayerthaler 1, II) does not investigate this syntactic function of the infinitive. tivs in abhangigen dubitativen Fragesatzen hat das spatere Griechisch nicht selten den Infinitiv." -in Kiihner-Gerth (1904), II, 23, who rejects the possibility that the infinitive could be used in dependent deliberative clauses in Classical Greek, quoting a dubious case from Herodotus (1, 88). But he does claim that the infinitive occurred instead of the subjunctive in dependent deliberative clauses in later Greek, quoting a case from Iosephus (Antiquitates Iudaeorum, 1, 15; 45): ~l;tou [3ou/..e::ue::cr3-tX.~, ·d 7to6jcrtX.~. 'He asked to consult about what to do.' 2 -in Ljungvik (1926), 40, who quotes 3 cases of the infinitive in dependent delib­erative clauses. -in Blass/Debrunner/Rehkopf (197614) (BDR), §368, 6, several such cases from the New Testament are referred to. The infinitive in dependent deliberative claus­es in the New Testament is also discussed by Radermacher (1911), 147: "Die Koine hat merkwiirdigerweise noch einen Schritt dariiber hinaus getan und vereinzelt einen Infinitiv in andersartigen Nebensatzen zugelassen: I Petr. 5,8 o iintS~xoi:; uµwv 7te::pmtX.'t'e::t:, ~'Y)'t'WV, 't'LVtX. XtX.'t'tX.me::t:v." He points out that similar struc­tures occur in German, cf. ibid.: "Auch wir sagen Was tun? Wohin sich wenden?'' 3 -Hult (1990) in the investigation into the prose syntax: of the 5th century AD does­n't mention such clauses from the period, but Mayser (1929), loc. cit., as well as Radermacher (1911), loc. cit., quotes a case from Callinicus, who is characterized by Hult as the most non-literary writer of aH the authors she investigated. It can be argued that Jannaris' explanation of the origin of the construction as quoted above is not the most plausible one for the following reason: Th!( infinitive is used in the same syntactic function in some modem languages, cf. above. It is therefore not necessary to assume that the infinitive in this syntactic function was a mistake, caused by insufficient knowledge of Greek. Additionally, J annaris couldn't have been acquainted with the fact that, according to Rohlfs (1977), 191, the infinitive is used in dependent deliberative clauses also in modem South-Italian Greek dialects, e.g. den exo pu pai. 'I don't know where to go'. Rohlfs also states, loc. cit., that the deliberative infinitive can be used in South-Itali.an Greek dialects in independent clauses, as in Pou pai? 'Where to go?'. It should be pointed out that South-Italian Greek dialects are believed to be descendants of Ancient Greek Doric dialects. 4 Ifthis is so, the use of the infinitive 2 "Der Gebrauch des Infinitivs in abhiingigen Fragsatzen st. des Konjunktivs gehort erst der spiiteren Griizitiit an." (Joe. cit.) 3 The case from the Bible quoted by Radermacher is not reliable. In some editions the interrogative pronoun tivvna is omitted or interpreted an as indefinite pronoun (tina); cf., however, the standard Slovene trans­lation (SSP, Ljubljana 1996): "Vaš nasprotnik hudič hodi okrog kakor rjoveč lev in išče, koga bi požrl." 4 cf. Browning (1969), 130: "It is now clear ... that the speech of these enclaves is the descendant ... of the Greek colonists of Magna Graecia." in dependent deliberative clauses in South-Italian Greek dialects cannot _be basis for assumptions about Post-Classical spoken Greek, and can be, for the purposes of the present paper, referred to only from a general linguistic viewpoint. The infinitive in dependent deliberative clauses in South-Italian Greek dialects is also discussed by Horrocks (1997), 305, who ascribes it to the influence of Italian. However, he does­n't mention the use of the infinitive in dependent deliberative clauses in Post­Classical Greek, cf. loc. cit. 5 Rohlfs (1962), 113, on the other hand, points out sever­al similarities between the syntax of modem South-Italian Greek dialects and the Greek of the Post-Classical period; he observes that in South-Italian Greek dialects, as well as in Post-Classical Greek, the infinitive is an obligatory complement only to the verb 'can', while after 'want' both infinitive and object clauses occur.6 According to Horrocks (1997), loc. cit., these dialects became detached from the mainland Greek at the end of the 11th century, which is why they "preserved a great many archaic features, some ofwhich go back to Koine spoken in ancient Magna Graecia" (loc. cit.).7 In cases such as those quoted above, the infinitive in dependent deliberative clauses should obviously be interpreted as a construction parallel to the deliberative subjunctive in dependent interrogative clauses (cf. Kiihner-Gerth, op. cit., referred to above). In terms of the main semantic opposition between the dynamic and declarative infinitive, 8 referred to in the majority of modem studies that investigate the syntax of Greek infinitive clauses,9 the infinitive clauses quoted above cannot be interpreted as declarative. Consequently, they pertain to the category of dynamic infinitive clauses, which refer to a non-factual action.10 The infinitive in dependent deliberative clauses in the investigated authors In the two investigated Early Byzantine authors, the following infinitive clauses can be interpreted as dependent deliberative infinitive clauses: 5 What he mentions is the use of deliberative infinitive clauses in medieval Greek literature (in Digenes Akrites) and in Cretan Renaissance literature. 6 South-Italian Greek dialects exhibit traces of other influences apart from the ancient Greek dialects. According to one hypothesis, they were strongly influenced by the inhabitants who settled in South Italy in the Byzantine period, cf. Rohlfs (1962), 115, Joseph (1983), 74, Horrocks (1997), Joe. cit. 7 Horrocks (1997), Joe. cit. 8 The terms 'dynamic' and 'declarative' infinitive go back to Kurzova (1968); the latter corresponds to an infinitive dependent on the verbs of speaking and thinking (semantically referring to a factual action), while the former refers to an infinitive dependent on the verbs of ordering and moda! verbs (referring to a non-factual action). 9 On the use of the two terms in modem literature, cf. Rijksbaron (1984), 101. 10 cf. Jannaris (19682), Joe. cit., who discusses infinitive deliberative clauses in the chapter on the prospective infinitive (which corresponds to the term 'dynamic infinitive'). Vita Theodori Syceoatae 116, 5 ...cruve~'YJ mxp' au-rou rtapopux&~val -ro -rowu-rov ~ouvlov, e:he: OltX CfllAOX.IXAlav ·~~ rtixpax.e:lfl.EV'YJ~ X.IXL Ol!Xcpe:poUcr'YJ~ au-rc'i> y~~' e:he: Ol' &.cpalpe:­O"lV XP'YJfl.&'twv, rtwc: drte:1v oux. olOa 'It happened that he was digging.alongside this hill, either in order to adorn the piece of land that lay there and belonged to him, or in order to take away money, I can't tell how (or: I don't know how to explain)'. 147, 46 „.Mv OE ~v -fiµepa rtpo~ -fiJ..lou oucrµcX.~ x.f..lvacra X.IXL oux. dxov rtou &:rte:f..&e:1v, tOlol~ &:vaf..wµacrl Ol~yov... 'Ifthe day was setting and they didn' t know where to go, they spent the night at their own expense'. 162, 5 x.at rtapax.af..ouµe:voc: rtap' ~µwv •l e:lval •o 'tOU'tou rtepac: drtdv, doeval µE:v ecpacrx.e:v IXU't'O~ ou XP~V!Xl OE Mye:l v 't'OU'tO X.IX'ttX f..e:ic'tOV ... 'When he was asked to tell us what was the end of it, he said that he knew but could­n't tell us exactly'. 165, 38 „.x.at rtapaxwp~cra~ µol rtole:tv 'to rto&ouµe:v6v µol, rtwc: drtdv oux. olOa, tmoeowx.ev µol mxf..lv 'to crxeoo~ o rtav&ylo~... '...giving me per­mission to do what I desired, I can't tell how (or: I don't know how to explain), the holy man put the piece of paper back into my hands'. 167, 22 'Hµwv oE: µa&e:1v &:~wunwv rtolav 'tlXU'tXJV dval 't~V &:rtoOXJµlav, a1.vlyµa•wow~ drte:v... 'When we asked to learn what this absence meant, he said cryptically ... '. There is some caution necessary, since interrogative pronouns in Greek often dif­fer from the corresponding indefinite pronouns only in respect of the word accent. If an interrogative pronoun is taken as indefinite, the dependent infinitive might be understood as object complement to the governing verb if the latter is transitive. In the case of a phenomenon as rare as deliberative infinitive clauses, the possibility of a scribe's error might be considered, cf. Mayser (1929) II, 3, 54, on •l rtm~cral. This category of dubious cases may include Vita 147, 46. The manuscript tradition, however, is certain in these cases, which makes the doubt less well-founded. 11 Concerning clauses 116, 5 and 165, 38, it can be noted that they are not necessari­ly interpreted as infinitive dependent interrogative clauses (oux. oloa: rtw~ drtdv), since the infinitive can also be understood as the dynamic infinitive dependent on olOa; in this case, the dependent interrogative clause consist only of the interroga­tive pronoun rtw~ (oux. oloa drte:1v: rtw~). When the whole passage is read, the lat­ter interpretation seems slightly more probable, since in both cases the emphasis lies on how the action could have happened (in clause 116, 5, on the fact that the farmer was digging alongside the hill, and in 165, 38, on the fact that Theodor allowed Georgios to write his biography); the writer is probably not asking how to express himself, which would be the meaning of rtw~ drtdv oux. olOa, if the infinitive clause is interpreted as dynamic. 11 cf. Rosenquist (1981), 95f Concerning the cases of infinitive dependent interrogative clauses occurring in Vita Theodori Syceotae, a remarkable feature can be observed, namely that in two cases (Vita 162, 5 and 167, 22) the infinitive cannot be interpreted as a substitute for the deliberative subjunctive. Ifa finite verbal form was used in these cases, it would be either the indicative or possibly, in Classical Greek, the optativus obliquus, on which cf. below. Consequently, the two infinitive clauses can hardly be interpreted as dynamic, such as deliberative infinitive clauses (cf. above). Pratum Spirituale 12 2996 B see above 2873 B 'AA//;. -d nmijmxi oux o1Six 'But 1 don't know what to do'. 2892 B ... Mv nfo-~e; µe't'' eµou, ex,eic nou 'Aix~e'i:v µe xixt 3-pt>jlixi; 'lf you lie down with me, do you know where to take me and feed me?' 2932 A ... xixt &no 'Acppix-lje; en'Atoµev xixt ev 't'0 neM.yei ocp-3-ix'AµicX.crixe; xixt µiJ ex,wv 1tWC 7tepwaeu3-w, 't'ii AWXWfLIX't'IX foxov ev 't'o'i:e; ocp-3-ix'Aµo'i:e; µou ... 'We were sailing from Africa, 1suffered from ophthalmia at sea and not know­ing how to walk around, 1 had white spots in the eyes ... '. 2940 C 'Ev no'A'A'1j oi:iv ii-3-uµL'f ~v o xupwe; 't'ou n'AoLou xixt 3-'AL\j;ei, xixt 't'L nmijcrixi oux eix_ev. 'The captain of the ship was in a s tate of great fear and sor­row and he didn't know what to do'. 3044 C'E'A3-6V't'WV SE: ~µwv ent 't'~V Ep'l)µov, ~cr3-EVlJO'€:V o 'E~pix'i:oe; fLEXPL 3-ixvcX.'t'oU, xixt ev &3-uµL'f ~µev 7tOAA'1j, v.ii dao't'ec 't'L noiijcrixi IXU't'w.'When we came to the desert, the Hebrew fell deadly sick, and we were in a state of great fear, not knowing what to do with him'. In some of the above cases it should be taken into consideration that the pitch accent had disappeared from Greek by the Early Byzantine period. One can there­fore ask what phonetic difference, if any, there was between the stressed and the unstressed pronoun ti and, in clause 2892 B, between the circumflex and the grave accent. Cf. 3028, D 'EnoLlJcrix oi:iv OAlJV 't'~v ~µtpixv iiao'Aecrxwv xixt oux eyLv­wcrx6v n novljcrixi13 'I spent all day prating and 1 didn't have anything to do', where, if the accent changes, the dependent (non-deliberative) infinitive clause becomes a dependent deliberative clause. However, this observation does not refer to cases such as 2956 A nouno't'e iine'A-3-dv ou Mvixµixi 'I can't go anywhere' or 3092 B 't'L7tO't'€: exoµev 7t1Xp1XXIXAEO'IXL cre 'There's something we want to ask you', where the pronoun is doubtlessly an indefinite one. In the ambiguous cases, where 12 cf. Mihevc-Gabrovec (1960), 75 13 In Mihevc-Gabrovec (1960), loc. cit., this case is listed among dependent deliberative clauses. But the pro­noun in this clause is accented as interrogative and not indefinite when one follows Migne' s edition of the text, the same as in Pratum 3057 A xott oox ex11.:; 'n E:pysem (A, B) (or >nat (A, B)) The Slovenian Theory expands the basic scale >sem (A, B) into two additional scales that refer to optional usage of A or B: >sem (A + B, B) >sem (A, A + B) According to the former of the two additional scales, admitting both the more and the less sem natural variant is more natural than admitting only the less sem natural variant. According to the latter, admitting only the more sem natural variant is more natural than admitting the more and the less sem natural variant, cf. Orešnik (2004), 12. An expanded scale (>sem (A+B, B) or >sem (A, A+B)) is true when the corresponding basic scale (>sem (A, B)) is true. Naturalness Theory assumes that the more sem natural variant tends to be used in more sem natural (less complex) circumstances than the less sem natural variant (i. e. that the more sem natura! variant associates in at least one respect with a more sem natural parameter than the less sem natural variant). This assumption is expressed in the form of the following alignment rules: >sem tends to align with >sem sem (+reflex­ive, -reflexive)/personal pronoun as expression of reflexivity. (H) Use v. non-use. The use of a category or process is more natura! than its non­use. This generalization is based on the following consideration. All kinds of categories occur in the most natura! lexical items, paradigms and constructions of the language, and ebb on the way out of that core. An example is a language whose noun phrases distinguish the singular, plural and dual. Although the sin­gular, plural and dual are not equally natura! with respect to one another, each of them is highly natura! in its own field. Por instance, the dual is highly natu­ra! as an expression of duality: >sem(+, -)/dual in expressions of duality. This correlates with the circumstance that the dual (in fact all three numbers) is present in personal pronouns, i.e. in the most natural noun phrases, while it may be present to different degrees in the remaining noun phrases of the lan­. guage. (1) Acceptable v. non-acceptable use. What is acceptable is more natural than what is not acceptable. The very reason for the acceptability of a syntactic unit is its greater naturalness with respect to any corresponding non-acceptable unit. (J) What is more widespread in the languages of the world is more natural (the typological criterion). What is cognitively simpler (for the speaker) is realized in more languages. Injinitive deliberative clauses from the perspective ojNaturalness Theory In terms of Naturalness Theory, infinitive dependent deliberative clauses repre­sent a syntactic variant of subjunctive dependent deliberative clauses. The investi­gated texts themselves contain several cases of the subjunctive used in dependent deliberative clauses, cf. Pratum Spirituale 2932 B Oox ex'"v oi'Jv 7t6&e:v cpcX:y'" /..ot7tov, ex/..e:7t't"O'V 'So, not knowing what to eat, I was stealing'. From the perspective ofNaturalness Theory, an infinitive dependent deliberative clause is the more sem natural variant and a subjunctive dependent deliberative clause the less sem natura! variant: >sem (infinitive, subjunctive)/dependent deliberative clauses Since in this case the opposition between the two syntactic variants (infinitive dependent deliberative clause, subjunctive dependent deliberative clause) is the opposition between an infinitive (non-finite) dependent clause and a finite depend­ent clause, the criteria for determining the naturalness value of the two syntactic variants are basically the same as could be applied to any pair of variants containi.ng an infinitive (non-finite) dependent clause and a finite dependent clause: -criterion (D) of integration into the clause: Greek presents a clear example of how infinitive clauses are more integrated into the clause structure than finite dependent clauses. In Classical Greek the negative particle oox 'not' can be raised from dependent infinitive clauses ( cf. clauses of the type Oox ecp"IJ doE:­vixt 'He said he didn't know'), 18 a feature absent from the syntax of fini te depend­ent clauses. Moreover, infinitive clauses use reflexive pronouns to refer to the subject of the governing verb (as do independent clauses), which is not the case with finite object clauses.19 -criterion (A) of least effort:20 one can argue that infinitive clauses generally demand less effort from the speaker's viewpoint, since one word at most is nec­ 18 cf. Babič (1997)-1, 110 19 This observation refers to the Greek of the investigated period, while in Classical Greek reflexive pronouns referring to the subject of the governing verb, could a!so be used in fini te object clauses, cf. Babič (1997)-1, 77. 20 cf. Orešnik (2004), 14 essary to form an infinitive clause (i. e. the infinitive ), while at most two words are necessary in the case of finite object clauses (i. e. a fini te verbal form and a conjunction); cf. Mayerthaler 1, 153: "lnfinitivbildungen dienen vor allem der Kodierungsokonomie. Sie fiihren zur Reduktion der Anzahl lexikalisierter Ele­mente in der Satzkonstruktion." -criterion (B) of phylogenetic age: it can be observed that in Greek infinitive claus­es (dependent on the verbs of speaking) are attested already on the Mycenian tablets.21 Finite object clauses, on the other hand, are not.22 Although the Mycenian tablets are not an absolute proof that infinitive clauses developed at an earlier stage in Greek than finite dependent clauses, they suggest at least a very early development of infinitive clauses. In the present paper, the following characteristics of infinitive dependent delib­ erative clauses in Greek are interpreted from the perspective ofNaturalness Theory: -The infinitive is used in dependent deliberative clauses only in the case of co-ref­erential subjects. -The Greek of the investigated period reveals only dependent infinitive delibera­tive clauses, while independent ones are not attested. -Historically speaking, the infinitive in deliberative clauses occurred later in the \ history of Greek than the infinitive in non-deliberative clauses. In order to inter­pret this fact from the perspective of Naturalness Theory (which is primarily a synchronic theory), a period has to be assumed in the history of Greek when the infinitive was absent from deliberative clauses and could only be used in non­deliberative clauses.23 The subject-matter will be treated in 'deductions' 1-III. Each deduction indicates the presuppositions which must obtain for the state of affairs considered to be pre­ dictable. Deduction 1: I. Variants: infinitive dependent deliberative clauses, subjunctive dependent deliberative clauses l. Naturalness scales: 1.1. >sem (infinitive, subjunctive)/dependent deliberative clauses -cf. above l. 2. >sem(+, -)/co-referential subjects 21 cf. Babič (1997)-2, 120 22 Due to the nature of the texts, the latter could be coincidental. However, infinitive clauses in Greek obvi­ously go back tci the earliest stages of the language. 23 It has been referred to above that possibly only a certain group of verbs governed deliberative infinitive clauses. This feature, when proved, could easily be interpreted in terms of Natura!ness Theory according to the criterion (F) of small class. -according to the criterion (A) of least effort; in the case of co-reference, the subject is repeated, which is easier for the speaker than to provide a new piece of information 1.2.1 >sem(+, ±)/co-referential subjects -the scale is of the type >sem (A, B) ~>sem (A, A + B) 2. Alignment rules: 2.1. >sem tends to align with >sem 2.2. sem (hypotaktischer, absoluter)/INF The scale is supported by the criterion (J) of typology. From the perspective of the Slovenian Theory, the same scale can be supported by the following criteria: -according to the criterion (B) of phylogenetic age. In Greek, dependent infinitive clauses developed earlier than independent infinitive clauses; Greek infinitive endings go back to dative or locative abstract nouns. 24 Consequently, at least for the earliest periods of Greek, it cannot be expected that the infinitive could have been used at all in independent clauses. -according to the criterion (E) of frequency; in Greek, dependent infinitive clauses are used much more frequently than independent ones, even in Classical Greek, cf. Kurzova (1966), 40: "Gebrauch von Infinitivkonstruktionen in der Funktion eines selbstandigen Satzes ist im Griechischen nur auf die, im klassischen Griechisch iibrigens nur sporadisch belegte, imperativische Verwendung beschrankt." -according to the criterion (C) ofprototypicality, cf. above on the phylogenetic cri­terion and on the criterion of frequency. When it is supposed that in the investigated period the infinitive was not used in independent deliberative clauses, the situation is explained in terms of Naturalness Theory as follows: 24 cf. e.g. Schwyzer (19592), 358 Deduction II: Variants: dependent infinitive deliberative clauses, independent infinitive delib­erative clauses 1. Naturalness scales: 1.1. >sem(+, -)/dependent infinitive deliberative clauses -according to the criterion (E) of frequency -according to the criterion (B) of phylogenetic age -according to the criterion (J) of typology -according to the criterion (C) of prototypicality 1.2. >sem(+, -)/acceptable -see above, criterion (I) 2. Alignment rules: 2.1. >sem tends to align with >sem 2.2. 7t63e:v cpciy6) 'I don't know what to eat'), while non-deliberative ones could be formed finitely (e.g. :Mye:!., O't'!. oox ot8e:v 'He says he doesn't know') or non-finitely (e.g. :Mye:!. oox e:L8evcx.!. 'He says he doesn't know'). Variants: deliberative dependent infinitive clauses, non-deliberative dependent infinitive clauses 1. Naturalness scales: 1.1. >sem (-deliberative, +deliberative)/dependent clauses/in Classical Greek -according to the criterion (A) of least effort; an additional element, namely an interrogative pronoun, is necessary to form a deliberative clause 1.2. >sem(-, +)/finite dependent clause -cf. above, p. 58 1.2.1. >sem(±, +)/finite dependent clause -the scale is of the type >sem (A, B) ~>sem (A+B, B) 2. Alignment rules: 2.1. >sem tends to align with >sem 2.2. sem (dynamic infinitive, declarative infinitive) is supported according to the criterion (J) of typology.25 Consequently, it is consonant with the assumptions of Naturalness Theory that. non-deliberative interrogative infinitive clauses developed in the history of Greek at a later stage than deliberative ones. 26 Another feature of non-deliberative interrogative infinitive clauses, namely that they occur only in the form of Acl, whereas the subject of deliberative infinitive clauses is regularly omitted, can be interpreted from the perspective of Naturalness Theory as follows. Since Acl is a less sem natural variant than an infinitive clause with sub­ject omission (according to the criterion (A) of least effort), it is expected that Acl associates with the less natura! form of the infinitive clause, in this case, with the non-deliberative interrogative infinitive clause. To sum up, even the use of interrogative infinitive clauses with a non-deliberative meaning, a very rare phenomenon that has not yet been fully investigated in Greek, it is congruous with the expectations ofNaturalness Theory. However, the latter can­not answer the question about the status of such clauses in the contemporary spo­ken language. 25 cf. Orešnik (1999), 56f; Mayerthaler II, 213 26 according to the criterion (B) of phylogenetic age Bibliography BDR: Blass/Debrunner/Rehkopf (197614): Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, Gčittingen BABIČ (1997)-1: Grška slovnica, Ljubljana BABIC (1997)-2: Besedni red in zgradba besedil na mikenskih tablicah, Ljubljana BROWNING (1969): Medieval and Modem Greek, London HESSELING (1931): Jean Moschos, Paris HoRROCKS (1997): Greek, A History of the Language and its Speakers, London and New York HuLT (1990): Syntactic variation in Greek of the 5th century AD, Gčiteborg JOSEPH (1983): The synchrony and diachrony of the Balkan infinitive, Cambridge JANNARIS (19682): An historical Greek Grammar, Hildesheim KuRZovA (1966): Zum Aussterben des lnfinitivs im Griechischen, in: Les etudes balkaniques tchecoslovaques 1, 39-50 KuRZovA (1968): Zur syntaktischen Struktur des Griechischen 'lnfinitiv und Nebensatz', Amsterdam KOHNER-GERTH (1904): Ausflihrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache 1-11, Hannover und Leipzig LJUNGVIK (1926): Studien zur Sprache der apokryphen Apostelgeschichten, Uppsala LSJ: A Greek-English Lexicon, compiled by Henry George Liddel and Robert Scott, Oxford 199611 MAYERTHALER 1: Willi Mayerthaler/Giinther Fliedl/Christian Winkler: lnfinitivprominenz in europiiischen Sprachen, Tei! 1: Die Romania (samt Baskisch), Tiibingen 1993 Mayerthaler II: Willi Mayerthaler/Giinther Fliedl/Christian Winkler: lnfinitivprominenz in europiiischen Sprachen, Tei! II: Der A!pen-Adria Raum als Schnittstelle von Germanisch, Romanisch und· Slawisch, Tiibingen 1995 MAYSER (1929): Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemiierzeit 1-11, Berlin und Leipzig MIHEVC-GABROVEC (1960): Etudes sur la syntaxe de Ioannes Moschos, Ljubljana OREŠNIK (2001): A predictable aspect of (morpho)syntactic variants, Ljubljana OREŠNIK (2004): Naturalness in (morpho)syntax: English examples, Ljubljana OREŠNIK (1999): Krepke in šibke dvojnice v skladnji, Ljubljana RADERMACHER (1911): Neutestamentliche Grammatik, Tiibingen RIJKSBARON (1984): The syntax and semantics ofthe verb in Classical Greek, Amsterdam RosENQUIST (1981): Studien zur Syntax und Bemerkungen zur Text der Vita Theodori Syceotae, Uppsala RoHLFS (1962): Neue Beitriige zur Kenntnis der unteritalischen Griizitiit, Miinchen RoHLFS (1977): Grammatica storica dei dialetti italogreci (Calabria, Salento), Miinchen SCHWYZER (19592): Griechische Grammatik II, Miinchen Text editions Vita Theodori Syceotae: Vie de Theodore de Syceon, 1Text grec, II Traduction, commentaire et appendice, ed. Festugiere, Bruxelles 1970 Pratum Spirituale: PG 87, 2852-3112, ed. Migne, Paris 1860 Povzetek GRŠKI NEDOLOČNIKV VSEBINSKIH DELIBERATIVNIH, ZLASTI ODVISNIH, VPRAŠALNIH STAVKIH: RAZLAGA S STALIŠČATEORIJE NARAVNOSTI V prvem delu članka so predstavljene osnovne značilnosti rabe nedoločnika v vsebinskih odvis­nih deliberativnih vprašalnih stavkih, kot·so se razvile v poklasični in zgodnjebizantinski grščini. Poseben poudarek je namenjen nedoločniku v tej skladenjski vlogi v dveh zgodnjebizantinskih pro­znih delih (v Viti Teodorja iz Sikeona in v Pratum Spirituale), kjer so bile opažene nekatere novosti v primerjavi z rabo nedoločnika v odvisnih vprašalnih stavkih v zgodnejših obdobjih. Drugi del prispevka predstavlja poskus interpretacije odvisnih deliberativnih nedoločniških polstavkov s sta­lišča teorije naravnosti.