Gothic – Morphosyntactic structures, Part 4
Goering, Nelson
Introduction to the clause structure of Gothic. This lecture features the different kinds of clauses in Gothic, including coordinated and relative clauses.
 Hello, I'm Nelson Gehring. Welcome to the fourth and final of our lectures on Gothic syntax. In this lecture, we will look at aspects of clausal syntax in Gothic, including absolute constructions, relative clauses, and infinitive verbs. Our first topic will be clausal coordination. The most general coordinator in Gothic is Jach, which can conjoin phrases and clauses of various types. Clause, but not other kinds of phrase, can be coordinated with the Enclinic Uch, which is reduced to ch after vowels. When coordinating clauses, Jach and Uch seem to be often virtually interchangeable. So in our first example, Achgang Jach at Ogithuk Silvangudian. But go and show yourself to the priest. The coordinator of the two verbs is Jach. In our second example, Achgangeth kvithuduk du siponyam is. But go and say to his disciples, we have the Enclinic Uch, which goes after, enclinically after the second verb, is the coordinator. There are also a number of other coordinators available in Gothic to signal things like contrast. You can find these in the various grammars. Aside from coordinating finite verbs, Gothic allows sequences of coordinated same subject verbs to be expressed using so-called present participles, with only the final verb being finite. So let's look at an example. Jach gassehwandans in a sil-di-li-ki-de-doon, and having seen him, they marveled. Here our first verb is gassehwandans, which is a present participle. And our second verb is the main finite verb, sil-di-li-ki-de-doon, the only finite verb in the clause. This usage often follows the Greek very closely and may often be calc-ed. If it is an acceptable part of Gothic grammar, it's still likely that many specific examples are still chosen in order to emulate the Greek. Gothic also makes use of participles in absolute constructions. These are essentially a way of expressing a non-finite subordinate clause, a particularly one with temporal reference. And they're used when the subject of the absolute clause is not an argument within the main clause. So in Gothic, absolutes are usually in the dative, meaning that both the participle and its subject are expressed in the dative case. Such clauses are very often incorporated prepositionally using at, as in this very typical example, jach at Jesu Uftopidama jach bydjandin usloknoda himmitz. And with Jesus having been baptized and praying, the sky opened. The main clause is just jach usloknoda himmitz and the heavens opened, which is supplemented by the absolute clause introduced by At, and with two verbs both expressed as participles, the past participle Uftopidama and the present participle bydjandin. Since Jesu is not an argument of usloknoda, an absolute is an acceptable way of expressing the subordinate temporal clause. As with sequential participles, absolutes are common in Greek, and most Gothic examples follow the Greek very closely. Many Greek absolutes are also reframed to void an absolute construction in Gothic, suggesting that the absolute is at least less typical or most restricted in Gothic. On the other hand, if it were wholly ungrammatical in Gothic, we might expect Greek absolutes to have been rephrased much more often than they are. Also, the fact that Gothic absolutes are usually dative rather than genitive in Greek, as in Greek, speaks to the structure having some sort of native Gothic basis. Exactly how artificial any given absolute structure is when we find it, we really don't know, and will probably always remain a mystery. While most Gothic absolutes are datives, there are a few curious examples with other cases. Most striking are the handful of supposed nominative absolutes, which are highly unexpected. There are perhaps only three apparently good examples in the corpus, and it's possible that these are all actually mistakes or errors of one sort or another. The existence of a few accusative absolutes is a little bit more secure. They seem to function basically the same as dative absolutes, but are just much less common. So here's one typical example. But when you perform alms, your left hand should not know what your right hand does. Here we have our main clause, niviti hlidumithina, a following relative clause beginning with the indefinite pronoun, hwa. And before this, we have our temporal absolute clause, if thuk toyandan armeon. Here it's unambiguously accusative, so thuk toyandan are both the subject of the of toyandan and toyandan self are both marked as the accusative. Otherwise, this looks like a typical participial absolute. The status of these accusative absolutes is unclear. Are they genuinely a part of Gothic syntax or some sort of extended artificial calc from Greek on some obscure basis? If they are genuine, what is their relationship to dative absolutes? Their rarity makes any really robust analysis very difficult, but they are a pretty intriguing question, if perhaps a minor one, within Gothic grammar. Gothic also makes very extensive uses of relative clauses in subordination. The usual relativizer in Gothic is a form of the demonstrative sa plus the particle or suffix i. The case of sa is normally, though not quite, always determined by its role within the relative clause rather than the matrix clause. A typical example is kabergtida tinnatanamo manam thanziatkaft mis. I revealed your name to the people whom you gave me. Here we have a matrix clause which includes a dative indirect object manam to the men and this is relativized with thanzi. This remains masculine and plural just like manam, but because it is serving as the direct object within the relative clause, that's the object of atkaft, the finite verb there, it is now in the accusative. Normally the accusative plural masculine of sa is thanz, with a final devoicing of the sibilant, but since that sibilant is no longer final, it surfaces here as thanzi. One particularly striking feature of Gothic relatives is that personal pronouns can also become relativizers when suffixed with i as in this example. For I am the least of the apostles, I who am not worthy to be called an apostle, literally that I should be called an apostle. The relativizer here is icky. In the first is a first person singular pronoun agreeing with the ick of the main clause. icky remains nominative because it is serving as the subject of the relative clause and it is suffixed with i to mark it as a relative personal pronoun. In addition to finite relative clauses, Gothic makes heavy use of participles to form non-finite relative clauses. These are different from absolutes because the participle modifies an element already in the matrix clause. Often participle and finite relatives are just stylistic variants of one another, as this pair of examples shows. Sa mik animantz animeth thana sanjandan mik. The one accepting me accepts the one sending me. Here we have only one finite verb on nimeth. The subject sa here is expanded with the participle on nimmance, which retains its verbal status with a direct object mik. This contrasts slightly with our second example. Sa mik animeth animeth thana sanjandan mik. He who accepts me accepts the one sending me. Here the subject of our main verb animeth has been replaced with a relative clause. The subject of this clause is the relativized sai, which is followed by a finite verb again on nimmeth. This of course also has its direct object mik, as we might expect. There's really not much daylight between these two options in Gothic. In addition to finite clauses and participles, infinitives are widely used in a variety of subordinate and sequential constructions in Gothic. A standard use of infinitives is in control sequences. Syntactic control refers to constructions where a lexical verb requires and modifies another closely associated verb. In Gothic, the second verb is often expressed with an infinitive. We can see here one classic type of control verb of hope or expectation. So, thanuk nu wejna sanjan, and I now hope to send him. The control verb is wejna, I hope, which is followed by the infinitive sandjan, which it controls. This the subject of the infinitive is the same as wejna, I hope that I can send. If we look at another example, anabov ahmintama unhreynjen usgangan, he commanded the unclean spirit to depart. We can see that this time the control verb anabov, commanded, itself has an object, ahmintama unhreynjen, the unclean spirit, spirit the unclean. This object is then the subject of the infinitive, in this case usgangan. It is the spirit which is to go out, not Jesus, who is the subject of anabov. Infinitives are also frequently used in purpose clauses, especially after verbs of motion, I came in order to do something, I came with the purpose of doing something. Here is a typical example, nikkvam kateran ak usfulyan, I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill. We have here a verb of motion, kvam, and the subject of kvam, I, which is not overtly expressed here, is also the subject of two purposes of infinitives which follow. First, kateran, and then usfulyan. The examples reviewed so far have tended to involve a continuity of subject from an argument of the main clause, which helps license the use of an infinitive in Gothic. When there is a switch of reference, a subordinate finite clause tends to be used instead. So here's another example with weynja again, weynja i kunnith, I hope that you know. The subject of the control verb, kunnith, is not the same, is not an argument of the controlling verb weynja, but is instead you, the second person plural. This requires us to use the complementizer i, followed by the finite verb. Things are similar with a purpose clause, such as as aafslaham inna i unswerthe thata arbi. Let's kill him so that the inheritance will come to us. The subject of the purpose clause is thata arbi, which did not appear at all as an argument of the main clause. It is not an argument of aafslaham. We accordingly have again a finite subordinate clause, as our finite verb werthe, introduced with i. In both these examples, the subordinate verb is optative, expressing the potentiality of the action. You can see the previous lecture on syntax for more on the optative. For our last topic in this lecture, let's return again to the infinitive. Gothic allows accusative plus infinitive constructions, and these involve an entire clause being predicated to a main clause. Within the predicated clause, the subject is accusative and the verb infinitive. So here's a typical example. hosiveethuth inna siukan. Our main clause consists entirely of the single verb hosiveethuth. You heard, you have heard, which is followed by the accusative inna and an infinitive siukan to be sick. A characteristic feature of accusative plus infinitives is that the accusative need not be an argument of the main verb. Here, inna is not an object of heard. They did not actually physically hear the person being sick. Rather, they heard news or rumors, which told them that he was sick. So the entire clause in a siukan is predicated to hosiveethuth. That concludes this fourth and final lecture on Gothic syntax. I will leave that is with Ineswara at Sehwandaane. Thank you for your attention.
 Hello, I'm Nelson Gehring. Welcome to the fourth and final of our lectures on Gothic syntax.  In this lecture, we will look at aspects of clausal syntax in Gothic, including absolute  constructions, relative clauses, and infinitive verbs. Our first topic will be clausal coordination.  The most general coordinator in Gothic is Jach, which can conjoin phrases and clauses of various  types. Clause, but not other kinds of phrase, can be coordinated with the Enclinic Uch, which is  reduced to ch after vowels. When coordinating clauses, Jach and Uch seem to be often virtually  interchangeable. So in our first example, Achgang Jach at Ogithuk Silvangudian. But go and show  yourself to the priest. The coordinator of the two verbs is Jach. In our second example,  Achgangeth kvithuduk du siponyam is. But go and say to his disciples, we have the Enclinic Uch,  which goes after, enclinically after the second verb, is the coordinator. There are also a number  of other coordinators available in Gothic to signal things like contrast. You can find these in the  various grammars. Aside from coordinating finite verbs, Gothic allows sequences of coordinated  same subject verbs to be expressed using so-called present participles, with only the final verb  being finite. So let's look at an example. Jach gassehwandans in a sil-di-li-ki-de-doon,  and having seen him, they marveled. Here our first verb is gassehwandans, which is a present  participle. And our second verb is the main finite verb, sil-di-li-ki-de-doon, the only finite verb  in the clause. This usage often follows the Greek very closely and may often be calc-ed.  If it is an acceptable part of Gothic grammar, it's still likely that many specific examples  are still chosen in order to emulate the Greek. Gothic also makes use of participles in  absolute constructions. These are essentially a way of expressing a non-finite subordinate clause,  a particularly one with temporal reference. And they're used when the subject of the absolute  clause is not an argument within the main clause. So in Gothic, absolutes are usually in the dative,  meaning that both the participle and its subject are expressed in the dative case.  Such clauses are very often incorporated prepositionally using at, as in this very typical  example, jach at Jesu Uftopidama jach bydjandin usloknoda himmitz. And with Jesus having been  baptized and praying, the sky opened. The main clause is just jach usloknoda himmitz and the  heavens opened, which is supplemented by the absolute clause introduced by At, and with two  verbs both expressed as participles, the past participle Uftopidama and the present participle  bydjandin. Since Jesu is not an argument of usloknoda, an absolute is an acceptable way  of expressing the subordinate temporal clause. As with sequential participles, absolutes are  common in Greek, and most Gothic examples follow the Greek very closely. Many Greek absolutes are  also reframed to void an absolute construction in Gothic, suggesting that the absolute is at  least less typical or most restricted in Gothic. On the other hand, if it were wholly ungrammatical  in Gothic, we might expect Greek absolutes to have been rephrased much more often than they are.  Also, the fact that Gothic absolutes are usually dative rather than genitive in Greek,  as in Greek, speaks to the structure having some sort of native Gothic basis.  Exactly how artificial any given absolute structure is when we find it, we really don't know,  and will probably always remain a mystery.  While most Gothic absolutes are datives, there are a few curious examples with other cases. Most  striking are the handful of supposed nominative absolutes, which are highly unexpected. There  are perhaps only three apparently good examples in the corpus, and it's possible that these are all  actually mistakes or errors of one sort or another. The existence of a few accusative absolutes is a  little bit more secure. They seem to function basically the same as dative absolutes, but are  just much less common. So here's one typical example.  But when you perform alms, your left hand should not know what your right hand does.  Here we have our main clause, niviti hlidumithina, a following relative clause beginning with the  indefinite pronoun, hwa. And before this, we have our temporal absolute clause,  if thuk toyandan armeon. Here it's unambiguously accusative, so thuk toyandan are both the  subject of the of toyandan and toyandan self are both marked as the accusative. Otherwise,  this looks like a typical participial absolute. The status of these accusative absolutes is  unclear. Are they genuinely a part of Gothic syntax or some sort of extended artificial calc  from Greek on some obscure basis? If they are genuine, what is their relationship to dative  absolutes? Their rarity makes any really robust analysis very difficult, but they are a pretty  intriguing question, if perhaps a minor one, within Gothic grammar. Gothic also makes very  extensive uses of relative clauses in subordination. The usual relativizer in Gothic is a form of the  demonstrative sa plus the particle or suffix i. The case of sa is normally, though not quite,  always determined by its role within the relative clause rather than the matrix clause. A typical  example is kabergtida tinnatanamo manam thanziatkaft mis. I revealed your name to the people whom  you gave me. Here we have a matrix clause which includes a dative indirect object manam to the men  and this is relativized with thanzi. This remains masculine and plural just like manam,  but because it is serving as the direct object within the relative clause, that's the object of  atkaft, the finite verb there, it is now in the accusative. Normally the accusative plural masculine  of sa is thanz, with a final devoicing of the sibilant, but since that sibilant is no longer  final, it surfaces here as thanzi. One particularly striking feature of Gothic relatives is that  personal pronouns can also become relativizers when suffixed with i as in this example.  For I am the least of the apostles, I who am not worthy to be called an apostle,  literally that I should be called an apostle. The relativizer here is icky.  In the first is a first person singular pronoun agreeing with the ick of the main clause.  icky remains nominative because it is serving as the subject of the relative clause  and it is suffixed with i to mark it as a relative personal pronoun. In addition to finite relative  clauses, Gothic makes heavy use of participles to form non-finite relative clauses. These are  different from absolutes because the participle modifies an element already in the matrix clause.  Often participle and finite relatives are just stylistic variants of one another,  as this pair of examples shows. Sa mik animantz animeth thana sanjandan mik. The one accepting  me accepts the one sending me. Here we have only one finite verb on nimeth. The subject sa here  is expanded with the participle on nimmance, which retains its verbal status with a direct  object mik. This contrasts slightly with our second example. Sa mik animeth animeth thana sanjandan  mik. He who accepts me accepts the one sending me. Here the subject of our main verb animeth  has been replaced with a relative clause. The subject of this clause is the relativized sai,  which is followed by a finite verb again on nimmeth. This of course also has its direct  object mik, as we might expect. There's really not much daylight between these two options in Gothic.  In addition to finite clauses and participles, infinitives are widely used in a variety of  subordinate and sequential constructions in Gothic. A standard use of infinitives is in control  sequences. Syntactic control refers to constructions where a lexical verb requires and modifies  another closely associated verb. In Gothic, the second verb is often expressed with an infinitive.  We can see here one classic type of control verb of hope or expectation.  So, thanuk nu wejna sanjan, and I now hope to send him. The control verb is wejna, I hope,  which is followed by the infinitive sandjan, which it controls. This the subject of the infinitive  is the same as wejna, I hope that I can send. If we look at another example, anabov ahmintama  unhreynjen usgangan, he commanded the unclean spirit to depart. We can see that this time the  control verb anabov, commanded, itself has an object, ahmintama unhreynjen, the unclean spirit,  spirit the unclean. This object is then the subject of the infinitive, in this case usgangan.  It is the spirit which is to go out, not Jesus, who is the subject of anabov.  Infinitives are also frequently used in purpose clauses, especially after verbs of motion,  I came in order to do something, I came with the purpose of doing something.  Here is a typical example, nikkvam kateran ak usfulyan, I did not come to destroy, but to  fulfill. We have here a verb of motion, kvam, and the subject of kvam, I, which is not overtly  expressed here, is also the subject of two purposes of infinitives which follow. First,  kateran, and then usfulyan. The examples reviewed so far have tended to involve a continuity of  subject from an argument of the main clause, which helps license the use of an infinitive in Gothic.  When there is a switch of reference, a subordinate finite clause tends to be used instead.  So here's another example with weynja again, weynja i kunnith, I hope that you know.  The subject of the control verb, kunnith, is not the same, is not an argument of the controlling  verb weynja, but is instead you, the second person plural. This requires us to use the  complementizer i, followed by the finite verb. Things are similar with a purpose clause, such as  as aafslaham inna i unswerthe thata arbi. Let's kill him so that the inheritance will come to us.  The subject of the purpose clause is thata arbi, which did not appear at all as an argument  of the main clause. It is not an argument of aafslaham. We accordingly have again a finite  subordinate clause, as our finite verb werthe, introduced with i. In both these examples,  the subordinate verb is optative, expressing the potentiality of the action. You can see the  previous lecture on syntax for more on the optative. For our last topic in this lecture,  let's return again to the infinitive. Gothic allows accusative plus infinitive constructions,  and these involve an entire clause being predicated to a main clause.  Within the predicated clause, the subject is accusative and the verb infinitive.  So here's a typical example. hosiveethuth inna siukan. Our main clause consists entirely of  the single verb hosiveethuth. You heard, you have heard, which is followed by the accusative inna  and an infinitive siukan to be sick. A characteristic feature of accusative plus infinitives is that  the accusative need not be an argument of the main verb. Here, inna is not an object of heard.  They did not actually physically hear the person being sick. Rather, they heard news or rumors,  which told them that he was sick. So the entire clause in a siukan is predicated to hosiveethuth.  That concludes this fourth and final lecture on Gothic syntax.  I will leave that is with Ineswara at Sehwandaane. Thank you for your attention.
Gothic_4_0_359.png Gothic_4_360_983.png Gothic_4_984_1703.png Gothic_4_1704_2243.png Gothic_4_2244_2291.png Gothic_4_2292_3983.png Gothic_4_3984_5039.png Gothic_4_5040_5111.png Gothic_4_5112_5843.png Gothic_4_5844_6179.png Gothic_4_6180_11723.png Gothic_4_11724_11795.png Gothic_4_11796_12419.png Gothic_4_12420_16523.png Gothic_4_16524_17123.png Gothic_4_17124_17591.png Gothic_4_17592_19007.png Gothic_4_19008_20195.png Gothic_4_20196_20759.png Gothic_4_20760_21731.png Gothic_4_21732_22103.png Gothic_4_22104_22226.png
Hello, I'm Nelson Gehring. Welcome to the fourth and final of our lectures on Gothic syntax. In this lecture, we will look at aspects of clausal syntax in Gothic, including absolute constructions, relative clauses, and infinitive verbs. Our first topic will be clausal coordination. The most general coordinator in Gothic is Jach, which can conjoin phrases and clauses of various types. Clause, but not other kinds of phrase, can be coordinated with the Enclinic Uch, which is reduced to ch after vowels. When coordinating clauses, Jach and Uch seem to be often virtually interchangeable. So in our first example, Achgang Jach at Ogithuk Silvangudian. But go and show yourself to the priest. The coordinator of the two verbs is Jach. In our second example, Achgangeth kvithuduk du siponyam is. But go and say to his disciples, we have the Enclinic Uch, which goes after, enclinically after the second verb, is the coordinator. There are also a number of other coordinators available in Gothic to signal things like contrast. You can find these in the various grammars. Aside from coordinating finite verbs, Gothic allows sequences of coordinated same subject verbs to be expressed using so-called present participles, with only the final verb being finite. So let's look at an example. Jach gassehwandans in a sil-di-li-ki-de-doon, and having seen him, they marveled. Here our first verb is gassehwandans, which is a present participle. And our second verb is the main finite verb, sil-di-li-ki-de-doon, the only finite verb in the clause. This usage often follows the Greek very closely and may often be calc-ed. If it is an acceptable part of Gothic grammar, it's still likely that many specific examples are still chosen in order to emulate the Greek. Gothic also makes use of participles in absolute constructions. These are essentially a way of expressing a non-finite subordinate clause, a particularly one with temporal reference. And they're used when the subject of the absolute clause is not an argument within the main clause. So in Gothic, absolutes are usually in the dative, meaning that both the participle and its subject are expressed in the dative case. Such clauses are very often incorporated prepositionally using at, as in this very typical example, jach at Jesu Uftopidama jach bydjandin usloknoda himmitz. And with Jesus having been baptized and praying, the sky opened. The main clause is just jach usloknoda himmitz and the heavens opened, which is supplemented by the absolute clause introduced by At, and with two verbs both expressed as participles, the past participle Uftopidama and the present participle bydjandin. Since Jesu is not an argument of usloknoda, an absolute is an acceptable way of expressing the subordinate temporal clause. As with sequential participles, absolutes are common in Greek, and most Gothic examples follow the Greek very closely. Many Greek absolutes are also reframed to void an absolute construction in Gothic, suggesting that the absolute is at least less typical or most restricted in Gothic. On the other hand, if it were wholly ungrammatical in Gothic, we might expect Greek absolutes to have been rephrased much more often than they are. Also, the fact that Gothic absolutes are usually dative rather than genitive in Greek, as in Greek, speaks to the structure having some sort of native Gothic basis. Exactly how artificial any given absolute structure is when we find it, we really don't know, and will probably always remain a mystery. While most Gothic absolutes are datives, there are a few curious examples with other cases. Most striking are the handful of supposed nominative absolutes, which are highly unexpected. There are perhaps only three apparently good examples in the corpus, and it's possible that these are all actually mistakes or errors of one sort or another. The existence of a few accusative absolutes is a little bit more secure. They seem to function basically the same as dative absolutes, but are just much less common. So here's one typical example. But when you perform alms, your left hand should not know what your right hand does. Here we have our main clause, niviti hlidumithina, a following relative clause beginning with the indefinite pronoun, hwa. And before this, we have our temporal absolute clause, if thuk toyandan armeon. Here it's unambiguously accusative, so thuk toyandan are both the subject of the of toyandan and toyandan self are both marked as the accusative. Otherwise, this looks like a typical participial absolute. The status of these accusative absolutes is unclear. Are they genuinely a part of Gothic syntax or some sort of extended artificial calc from Greek on some obscure basis? If they are genuine, what is their relationship to dative absolutes? Their rarity makes any really robust analysis very difficult, but they are a pretty intriguing question, if perhaps a minor one, within Gothic grammar. Gothic also makes very extensive uses of relative clauses in subordination. The usual relativizer in Gothic is a form of the demonstrative sa plus the particle or suffix i. The case of sa is normally, though not quite, always determined by its role within the relative clause rather than the matrix clause. A typical example is kabergtida tinnatanamo manam thanziatkaft mis. I revealed your name to the people whom you gave me. Here we have a matrix clause which includes a dative indirect object manam to the men and this is relativized with thanzi. This remains masculine and plural just like manam, but because it is serving as the direct object within the relative clause, that's the object of atkaft, the finite verb there, it is now in the accusative. Normally the accusative plural masculine of sa is thanz, with a final devoicing of the sibilant, but since that sibilant is no longer final, it surfaces here as thanzi. One particularly striking feature of Gothic relatives is that personal pronouns can also become relativizers when suffixed with i as in this example. For I am the least of the apostles, I who am not worthy to be called an apostle, literally that I should be called an apostle. The relativizer here is icky. In the first is a first person singular pronoun agreeing with the ick of the main clause. icky remains nominative because it is serving as the subject of the relative clause and it is suffixed with i to mark it as a relative personal pronoun. In addition to finite relative clauses, Gothic makes heavy use of participles to form non-finite relative clauses. These are different from absolutes because the participle modifies an element already in the matrix clause. Often participle and finite relatives are just stylistic variants of one another, as this pair of examples shows. Sa mik animantz animeth thana sanjandan mik. The one accepting me accepts the one sending me. Here we have only one finite verb on nimeth. The subject sa here is expanded with the participle on nimmance, which retains its verbal status with a direct object mik. This contrasts slightly with our second example. Sa mik animeth animeth thana sanjandan mik. He who accepts me accepts the one sending me. Here the subject of our main verb animeth has been replaced with a relative clause. The subject of this clause is the relativized sai, which is followed by a finite verb again on nimmeth. This of course also has its direct object mik, as we might expect. There's really not much daylight between these two options in Gothic. In addition to finite clauses and participles, infinitives are widely used in a variety of subordinate and sequential constructions in Gothic. A standard use of infinitives is in control sequences. Syntactic control refers to constructions where a lexical verb requires and modifies another closely associated verb. In Gothic, the second verb is often expressed with an infinitive. We can see here one classic type of control verb of hope or expectation. So, thanuk nu wejna sanjan, and I now hope to send him. The control verb is wejna, I hope, which is followed by the infinitive sandjan, which it controls. This the subject of the infinitive is the same as wejna, I hope that I can send. If we look at another example, anabov ahmintama unhreynjen usgangan, he commanded the unclean spirit to depart. We can see that this time the control verb anabov, commanded, itself has an object, ahmintama unhreynjen, the unclean spirit, spirit the unclean. This object is then the subject of the infinitive, in this case usgangan. It is the spirit which is to go out, not Jesus, who is the subject of anabov. Infinitives are also frequently used in purpose clauses, especially after verbs of motion, I came in order to do something, I came with the purpose of doing something. Here is a typical example, nikkvam kateran ak usfulyan, I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill. We have here a verb of motion, kvam, and the subject of kvam, I, which is not overtly expressed here, is also the subject of two purposes of infinitives which follow. First, kateran, and then usfulyan. The examples reviewed so far have tended to involve a continuity of subject from an argument of the main clause, which helps license the use of an infinitive in Gothic. When there is a switch of reference, a subordinate finite clause tends to be used instead. So here's another example with weynja again, weynja i kunnith, I hope that you know. The subject of the control verb, kunnith, is not the same, is not an argument of the controlling verb weynja, but is instead you, the second person plural. This requires us to use the complementizer i, followed by the finite verb. Things are similar with a purpose clause, such as as aafslaham inna i unswerthe thata arbi. Let's kill him so that the inheritance will come to us. The subject of the purpose clause is thata arbi, which did not appear at all as an argument of the main clause. It is not an argument of aafslaham. We accordingly have again a finite subordinate clause, as our finite verb werthe, introduced with i. In both these examples, the subordinate verb is optative, expressing the potentiality of the action. You can see the previous lecture on syntax for more on the optative. For our last topic in this lecture, let's return again to the infinitive. Gothic allows accusative plus infinitive constructions, and these involve an entire clause being predicated to a main clause. Within the predicated clause, the subject is accusative and the verb infinitive. So here's a typical example. hosiveethuth inna siukan. Our main clause consists entirely of the single verb hosiveethuth. You heard, you have heard, which is followed by the accusative inna and an infinitive siukan to be sick. A characteristic feature of accusative plus infinitives is that the accusative need not be an argument of the main verb. Here, inna is not an object of heard. They did not actually physically hear the person being sick. Rather, they heard news or rumors, which told them that he was sick. So the entire clause in a siukan is predicated to hosiveethuth. That concludes this fourth and final lecture on Gothic syntax. I will leave that is with Ineswara at Sehwandaane. Thank you for your attention.
syntax in Gothic, including absolute constructions, relative clauses, and infinitive kinds of phrase, can be coordinated with the finite verb in the clause. This usage often